 It's a real honor and a pleasure to sit across from an admiral. It always is but particularly you and you had Mike Rogers yesterday So I know you mean that I didn't just you know We were a trending topic on Twitter yesterday. So if you want to compete, you know, I need to talk about cyber Or just make some news, you know cameras are rolling but the admals biography proceeds here, but but among the numerous accolades is being the first Woman promoted promoted to four-star admiral, but also the first African African American woman to attain four-star rank in the history of the DoD Currently vice chair of naval ice chief vice chief of naval apps As Peter mentioned I spent some time in China, but China is also Very much in the news but also very much At the center of this question of the future of war and how the Navy sees the future of war So I wanted to start there During my time in China a great deal of focus Which continues today is on China's military efforts to neutralize America's naval advantage in the region specific weapons systems being developed for that very task I Wonder if you can in an unclassified way Describe the state of those efforts how far is China long? And what is the US doing about it? so every every nation Has their own perspective of what it is required to defend their nation or to Be able to Sustain the territories of other nations. I think what we're seeing with China is Sort of an expansive view of what that territory is and you look at the air defense zone that they Established last year you look at their behavior in the South China Seas and they're clearly trying to articulate a vision of a Territory that goes well out into the maritime domain And under international law those high seas are common to everybody and they're meant to be Common to everybody the way the history of the world evolved. That's where the trade of the world passes through Those lines of communications between major countries. So the entire Economic health of the world Depends on those high seas staying free and that concept goes back to Queen Elizabeth the first who said it's for the public good That these seas are free. So now you have a country who's Matureing and they often refer to themselves as maturing and then starting to stretch their muscles in terms of who they are and How they see themselves as a world power. So The question I think every country asks for itself is can you be a global power without military strength? And I would say China is going down the path where they're saying in order to be a global power We need to have military strength The world is three-quarters water. We have to be able to Defend our maritime domain or maritime nation And so they're going down that path the way many other countries before them have gone Whether it's the United Kingdom or the United States When we sailed the Great White Fleet and did our first power projection. So then we as armed forces have always leaned on innovation in America and technological advantage And that is one of our strengths as a nation and then as militaries And so then for other countries to come along and go wow, that's how I have a strong military is to Look at innovation and technological advantage and to get some of that for myself. That is incredibly understandable So in that case They're copying what's been successful makes a lot of sense to me now Do I as a military person want to maintain that military advantage? Oh, you betcha and so we continue to acquire and adapt and try and maintain You know more laps around the track than China or Russia or anyone else are you able to stay ahead of them considering the enormous Resources, they're throwing at this Yes, and we have to stay ahead of them. We do are there particular weapons systems that keep you up at night You know, it's not weapons systems that keep me up at night. It's If you were saying what what would cause you to lose sleep it's Individuals so I you know, I think about North Korea and the capriciousness of the leader that when you have governments or leaderships where they have a certain amount of power or strength underneath them and then The leadership Does not seem to operate in a framework that is Logical or understandable then that that creates a challenge understood I do want to get into North Korea on China The personal factor is important as well and a great deal of effort and progress frankly in the last couple of years It's been devoted to military to military contact In large part to prevent myth misunderstandings which can snowball and lead to lead to bad things But there are you know concerns about if not particular Individuals as well as groups and power centers in the Chinese government particularly the the PLA the military how that relates to Beijing Xi Jinping no one questions his military credentials, but still it's a big country with a lot of power centers Do you still have concerns that there were some in the Chinese military power structure who are more forward-leaning about challenging? The U.S. Well, we've made some tremendous progress when you talk about military to military relations relationship The chief of naval operations has had several engagements with his counterpart CNO who and then last year At the Western Pacific Naval Symposium All the like-minded nations from that area and then the United States all agreed to adopt a code of For unexpected encounters at sea so that we have a way at the tactical level for our ships to communicate with each other to alleviate that misunderstanding that you talked about so there's been great dialogue and great movement I think between our navies and It takes the leadership of someone like seanna who to make sure that within his navy that when he says yes This is something we're going to do that the down to the ship seal that they actually adopt those activities and then are willing to Communicate at sea with the other nations that are out there You know when you speak of the future of war I mean one of the threats that it transcends China certainly because it goes to what's happening in the Ukraine now with Russia But but many draw a line between the two and that you have Countries that challenge not just the order but but the rule of law and and settling disputes by Peaceful means and taking territory. That's not theirs in the simplest terms whether in Ukraine or in the Spratlys What if you're talking about China when you look at that? I mean because you know the two sides are and this is the Chinese phrase But a new kind of superpower relationship right that China can rise without knocking heads with the US Which is a nice thought and maybe possible But there were areas where you see where China in the US will knock heads and right now as China is building for instance You know landing strips, you know in the middle of that area you describe which is open ocean Do you see I mean it's one thing to be able to talk ship to ship and talk military to military So you don't actually shoot it shoot at each other in a small scale thing, but how about big picture? I mean are those Tensions are those differences so great between? China's strategic goals in the region and US interests in maintaining its very influential role in the region I mean do you see that that's Those can be settled or if over time invariably they so the world is always a magical place I mean there's always a number of alternative futures that can unfold And you can look at it from potential conflict. That's one alternate future. You can look at it On the strength of the the trade partnership we have with China. That's one future and it's not just for the China It's with the entire Pacific region when you look at Japan and you look at India and then you look at South Korea So then that says okay. There's a managed future based on shared economic health That's a future so it's Not just within the militaries or Department of Defense its entire governments that have to go There's alternative futures here, and what are we doing to walk down a path that walks away from conflict or it creates the Stepping stones to conflict when you meet your Chinese counterparts. Do you look? across the table at them Across the cups of tea Where you meet and say this is someone I can work with or this is someone I'm worried about Well when we're meeting normally it's in in a in a in a forum where we're meant to be try to work together, so it's What we have been focusing on is what we have in common as naval officers And there is a heritage of the sea that makes it a pretty great starting point for a conversation and understanding between us as professional officers that Okay, if if not friends then mutual respect and that could be just as great an instinct If we could talk about weapons systems that factor into the question of the future of war and this sort of follows on to this effort by China to neutralize for instance Or weaken the advantage of aircraft carriers, you know ICBMs target aircraft carriers Sure to ship, you know missile systems is the age of the carrier waning As it peaked is it over time is the sub the 21st century weapon? Well, so we fight in an integrated way and it's interesting because through the different wars As the different technology was created all of those were used. I mean and it's easy to focus on okay Well, we're too and you think and you go. Oh gosh carry was the centerpiece, but then we forget about the wolf packs in the Atlantic so the The domains exist the air the surface the subsurface space now and then cyber and we have to be able to Operate and integrate in all of those domains So air power from sea to land is asymmetrical and I for one would not want to give up that that great option So carriers still and this is something China's pursuing obviously as well So they must think that that there's a future to the carrier Yes, and the British are coming back. Are they do they have aircrafts for the aircraft for Jsf with the Bravo variant. Yes, they are On North Korea, so this is a different you know talking about future of war. This is a different kind. It's a rogue state You know it has old school or it's attempting to get old school weapons ICBMs, etc In the cyber dimension the attack on Sony pictures From the officials I talked to demonstrated greater capability than folks realize they had before they did it I wonder if When you look at for instance their missile technology their ability to strike us naval assets Has that moved on faster than you expected if so who's helping them? I mean, where do the North Korean stand in terms of their threat To so they've been very open and have been admonished by the UN that they you know continue to pursue nuclear weapons and they continue to develop Short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. They have not stopped that and they continue to test They have conventional forces that they exercise regularly so they For the last decades they have made that a sort of lockstep or continuing to go down this path And that is probably when you look at if there is a potential area where we might be could be aligned with our Pacific partners it be China Russia everybody we would want North Korea to come off this path that they're coming off Now that is an area where for my just experience and understanding where China has come around a good deal in the last couple of Years just purely from our perspective in terms of well running out of patience with North Korea, right? Do has that changed though has it gotten to the degree though where it changes their calculus because on the flip side You know, do they really want to unify Korea? Do they want American forces on their doorstep all this kind of stuff? Has the threat of a rogue state nuclear-armed with missiles Do that isn't that interesting so you're saying there you're saying that a Rogue state on your doorstep may be less of a threat to your way of life than a westernized nation Well, that's not that has a bad bath and beyond well, yeah, exactly. Maybe right. I mean from their perspective, right? Do you think that's changed so culturally that could be More more of a vulnerability You know when you think about China and you think about 1.3 billion people and you think about an emerging sort of middle-class And then you think about how the country is changing and the demographics of one child And then as they get to see more and more of the world through the wonder of the Internet You wonder how long they can politically sustained Power structure that's a committee Over all of these folks and then so the the for them I think the struggle will be the continuing satisfaction of the majority of the people and Then there's support of the government now when you start when Chinese officials hear American officials talk in that Vane they get nervous because they're thinking that's exactly what we imagine you want to bring us down You want to bring us down? You want to jasmine revolution? You know that kind of thing, you know? Wow, no, I'm with the Navy. I Want to see him Be responsible citizens of the world and you know there be in compliance with law of the sea and and and Be a responsible nation. I think they want to see that for themselves, too A lot of challenges of the law of the sea right now though in Asia aren't there when you see these Landing strips and structures going up and the nine-dash line Extending their territory well down into the so I don't know that's so much law of the sea But just plain old territorial struggle, but it's between China and Vietnam and the Philippines and Malaysia So they need to continue to work at sorting that through I don't want to focus all on the negative. Oh at some point we're going to get to the tyranny of distance. I know They're vaguely under that umbrella because when you're talking about weapons and now they know I agree when you talk about Particularly ballistic missiles. So yeah, the when you look at This is great book Freedmen's the world is flat, you know, and it's focused on the connectivity of the digital age But in reality all those trons represent something that needs to flow whether it's energy You know financial data, but there's a physical component when you step outside of cyber When you talk about economies and so in the physical world, it's still round And then for us and for the merchants of the world those great circle routes Those are important because they shorten your your point-to-point and they make trade even more possible because Because of the distance of the world you want to use those great circle routes, but with the invention of physics and technology It's the same routes That ballistic missiles use yeah, and so that reach that comes with a combination of technology and the understanding of the curvature of the earth That's what's changed. I think and that almost has shortened that tyranny of distance In you know talking about what I want to I hope this is related I think it's related and it's in the news in the good news category And it's something you were particularly involved with which is anti piracy efforts off of Africa because this is That's a long way from the US, right? But this goes to trade through a key Cree transit point along the you know the Red Sea Into the Indian Ocean it also gets at this issue of China participated in this This was this was an interesting Russia, Russia, Malaysia, Singapore and all of them far away from home Right, you know that yes showing that you can be Several thousand miles from your home shore and still have something that has a direct effect on your home So just as the US as an Asia that you know, that's an area That's important to us keep trade flowing even though it's a million miles away same there Maybe is there a hopeful sign in the way that worked out the international first of all it worked You know the not a ship has been I don't think it's been taken for a couple years There's no ships under hostage control right now. There are still some folks from different countries underneath hostage control But with the focus of the Navy's and then with changing of Countermeasures the business model for the pirates just finally broke apart, but what we are seeing is And so like any any business model that is even temporarily successful it tends to get franchised So we're starting to see piracy In the Gulf of Guinea on the western side of Africa And then tracking a little bit of piracy straight to Malacca had this problem years ago I'm starting to see a little bit of that come back up But something worked there in that international coalition naval forces from around working together What do you think worked? Well, one of the beauties of Navy's is Because of the domain we're very similar ships how we operate at ships how we navigate how we protect ourselves And so then when we get together at sea It's pretty seamless for us to join up together and then sometimes it's it's literally nothing more than Translation, but just as around the world. There's more and more English speaking people At sea you're generally bound to find folks who who speak English, so It's it's pretty easy for us to get together and say, okay Let's let's divide the domain up into sectors and I've got this part and you've got that part I want to ask about asymmetric warfare because that Very much relates to US maritime security and we're seeing Several instances of I mean you see in land wars not your territory, but you see Insurgent groups in Iraq certainly taking on the world but asymmetric is from the sea to land. Oh, okay, it works But you were seeing it in Ukraine right now. I mean this sort of you know under supposedly undercover invasion But I wonder a bigger picture message from these things or at least raises the question the world's most formidable military And we certainly have the world's most formidable Navy, but You've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. You've seen in I mean the Ukraine's not really our fight, but still, you know, it's a challenge to NATO power there, you know arguably the world's most powerful military alliance And then so you see major nations learning from that and I'm sure China is watching as well Is the US? Military deterrent particularly in Navy terms all you know 12 carriers, you know all this less powerful than it seems because we've seen the Potential success and power of asymmetric warfare on a number of fronts and that certainly goes into the cyber area as well Right, you can have small actors not even nation states, right? Who can who can inflict great damage on very powerful nation states is our deterrent less than people imagine So what's in the air is interesting because we've we've been used as a deterrent force quite frequently in the last couple years just as We play shouldn't pay stationed a couple of ships off as Syria after the chemical warfare discussion, so If anybody was going to reach out and touch Syria was going to be missiles from those two ships and then When you look at presence in our ability to respond and be there then Just as this will came up last year about the time I became VCNO It was the George Herbert Walker Bush that was on the station in the Gulf and provided first the eyes and ears non-traditional ISR for the combatant commander and then The first strikes came off off the carrier so the deterrence that credible combat power very visible is still there and is Still employed today, but you see why I'm going with this. I know I don't We've seen the power of Asymmetric tools that have taken on while the US in Iraq for instance and arguably I mean, it's not getting to that territory, but arguably lost that war right with it with a deployment of 150,000 troops and all these weapons and so on You see right now Russia with it was it was is not a you know a flagged invasion But really is an invasion you can put that in the category of asymmetric, which is gaining territory in Europe You're seeing somewhat asymmetric steps in the South China Sea China taking territory But not necessarily marching the PLA, you know on to onto the Spratlys And I just wonder if that calls into bigger questions about the invincibility of the American military the American Navy in the 21st century because big actors and small actors using a word asymmetric, but Taking it out of maybe the warfare context you're referring to in some cases governmental decisions and then steps before you actually make the decision to go to war so if that is Indeed you're talking about unless the m part of dime and more of the diplomatic Informational with what we do and then they're doing it from an asymmetrical perspective That's something I think I'd like to think about in terms of once once we make a decision to employ military forces US military forces We're in for the fight and we're in for the win and we have no problems using asymmetric capabilities ourselves from special forces to unmanned vehicles aerial vehicles to Going from sea sea to shore so that so the context is In what framework are you using the word asymmetrical and if you're talking about true war fighting conflict? We employ it ourselves where I think the bigger challenge is are getting our arms around the newer Asymmetrical pieces that are coming up you mentioned Sony and then you look at what? happened with Estonia in 2007 and 2008 with the cyber attacks on their government you look at Georgia Networks being brought down before before the invasion and so then at some point when we when we say whatever has happened In this domain that has caused that we clearly say that is clearly an attack Will we have the wherewithal is are we going to confine ourselves to a cyber response or we will allow ourselves to do an asymmetric response? and so I Get it you can take out cyber with cyber, but you can also take out servers with a small diameter bomb Was that on the table in response to North Korea? Listen, I know it's a big issue, but even in your answer you it just gets at that asymmetric has so many so many different Permutations right to whether you're talking cyber or actual so you have to have the creativity and you have to look at What's the what's the best way to get at the end state I want to get at? This is great. I want to I want to give the audience a chance to ask questions why we still have a number of minutes So I don't entirely hog you and I think if we do it like we did last time Are there gonna be questions from the web too or no not in this case fair enough? Okay, so it's all the audience's territory today. Do we have a microphone again today great, okay So why don't we start in the middle here? Hi, my name is Algombus. I'm from the State Department. There's been some literature lately about Russia and China in particular maybe some other stations nations as well Challenging the whole concept of the Treaty of West Valley and the relationships between states And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether or not our desire that they be Good citizens of the world as you put it is Being challenged by the very idea of what defines a good citizen within the world and whether they want to challenge the The whole paradigm under which we just we call somebody a good citizen of the world Actually, I think I think that was first postulated. I'm trying to remember the author Kagan the end of dreams and that he very Carefully articulated that when you look at the structure of the UN and you look at the permanent members and then you look at The way Western governments respond that the way we often respond to crisis will As China and Russia extrapolate what that could mean to them in the future when they do things that the way we respond to crisis From their perspective would look like that We're threatening their their sovereign governments. So I think we just have to be Recognize that Not not every government in the world is a democracy and so that when we think about our activities There's got to be a dialogue with our with our partners around the Permanent committee in order to help them understand. This is very specific to this to this framework or this set of circumstances And sometimes it works I I when you talk about have you ever been surprised I I think I was surprised That we got to a UN resolution in Libya And we're able to get to a resolution that everybody agreed to that we could protect citizens on the ground So sometimes the dialogue does work. How did Libya work out though? That's another one. It was asymmetrical from the sea in terms of our ability to complete the mission Does raise it raises an issue that I was touching on earlier, which is when you when you have Major adversaries who don't Abide by agreements, you know, whether it's the two Minsk agreements Who have been signed regarding Ukraine or the Budapest memorandum, you know going back to Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons And then you worry about how other nation states react to that if for instance China says well if Russia can do it Then why don't what we do it? That's a that's a dicey environment for you to have to deal with It's a dicey department of our environment for state for state But you got the bigger ships Maybe well this gentleman right here Nicholas Berry a foreign policy forum It's not been discussed today, but what worries the White House more than anything else is the probability Which is very low, but still there of war with Iran If a deal has not been made now the Navy will be intimately involved in that and I know you've wargamed it if my memory serves me correctly starting in 2002 and Done it periodically since then Can you tell me? It's going to be dicey I guess but what that kind of war would look like So the last few years the focus I think has been less on a full blown war With the ranner and then any neighboring states or the US, but if you remember it was just a few years ago that Iran Openly threatened to close the streets of our moves So the focus for us with other navies in the last few years is okay What if that happened and then how do we respond to that and then how do we get the streets open? So we've been going through a series of exercises of how we would with many other nations And that exercise has become really international I think the last one had over 30 different nations from around the world where we get together and then we look at okay The streets are closed. How would we open them and then how would we help our GCC partners protect themselves? You didn't describe what the war would look like though Is it doable? What can you can the US and partners if I take out the nuclear facilities? I'm good a lot of questions about that well different different questions So if you're if you're already leaped ahead to they have nuclear they have nuclear weapons and it's that kind of war That's a different question. So this is this is about the streets of formers and reopening them Well, let's say that they do get nuclear weapons of an agree. Oh, yes. Well. Wow. That'll be that's too many ifs That's a lot of so think about it who has nuclear weapons now and what's our relationships? I mean when we look at where we are with strategic deterrence in Russia We grew up lockstep in a relationship in this deterrence Partnership and so we have Rule sets we have agreements We have communications with each other in case something happens And then strategic deterrence as a concept seems to have worked because we have not fought a nuclear war So then you look at someone like china who's Developing a strategic deterrence capability, but we have not grown up lockstep with china So that's another area. I think where there has to be a conversation with china What does that mean and then how do we develop these rule sets of conversation and understanding? Once you become a nuclear power. So there's there's there's There's a whole lot of steps and everything in between. I think before you leap to Oh my gosh We're at nuclear war. We have we have managed with strategic deterrence to avoid that state With uh with russia and so obviously I think everybody would say that's a state we need to continue in For the health of the entire planet. Yeah, let's hope so maybe uh If we go just another end of the room back in here in the pack most most good center for american progress You spoke about ensuring all sorts of different maritime spaces including subsurface and you went through the whole list One area, but you didn't talk about was the arctic and is the navy at all concerned about Securing arctic spaces as the coast guards icebreaker the polar star ages and gets very close to kind of not the u.s Not having an icebreaker at all So, uh, those are one of that's one of those also interesting questions. So that's some point And it's not immediate in the decades. We think there'll be more ice flow free free flow up there um And if if it eventually gets to the point where there's most ice flow then at some point you don't need the icebreakers and so You know jokingly sometimes I go if we build these icebreakers, how long are they good for 10 15 years? And then it's open ocean In terms of the security environment up there right now There is the arctic nations It is it is unfolding along peaceful lines along normalized lines for energy exploration It's pretty well understood who has whose territorial waters there are up there So the and the arctic council is is meeting and having reasonable dialogue. So right now the arctic isn't is Uh, not at the forefront of potential Burgeoning security concerns for for the armed forces I think was was it admiral laklier who said that global warming is the greatest threat to us national security And he's not the only u.s official. I think it was him Uh, being a fellow navy Person do you share that? Well, there's if is as we look at the world and as it warms it It will create instability Just from different just from different aspects. So if you if you look Uh at increased hurricane or typhoon cycles and then you look at the response of the world for something like super Uh typhoon high non that that's not those type of major disasters like the tsunami In uh indonesia those require a global response So then you could you could almost foresee a future where more and more the resources resources of the world are trying to respond to Natural disasters weather shifting weather patterns if the waters of the world actually start to rise Most of the population of the world lives within a couple hundred miles of the coastline and then you look at infrastructure and and Where major cities are that that's going to be a challenge for each and every nation that's got a maritime shore And then you look in the pacific If you look at Potential rising waters you're talking about for some island nations. They will completely disappear And so then you're looking at the potential of mass Migrations large displaced populations. So that is a Future probably decades from now, but a future that we could potentially see unfolding That's I that's not just a A u.s. Government issue that is going to be a world issue A country's already preparing for it right and all these yes. They've been yes A curing boss an exit plan how about over on this side maybe at the table here and then I'm Sharon Burke with new america I wanted to come back to the asymmetric threat Issue and specifically the the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz So maritime mines, um, there's a lot of them in the world There's they range from they're cheap and dumb to sophisticated and smart Patrol boats even criminal organizations have submersibles And so, you know, the navy's capability. You've put a lot of eggs in the lcs basket It's not clear if it's going to deliver on time You know, how's the navy approaching delivering on time so the the counter mine module Um, and then also It's kind of along the same lines. I think the cno has talked, um, and you know, definitely correct me if i'm stating it About the difficulty of continuing to invest in very large expensive platforms And that looking forward an interesting challenge for the navy is how to use the big expensive platforms It already has or is building to be a launching point for, uh, cheaper technologies, you know uuvs and things like that Um, that'll give us a different way of fighting and of using those big expensive platforms We can't keep building so that whole picture could you talk a little bit about that kind of asymmetric threat And whether or not the navy really has the capability is it partners? You know, what's the answer and then looking forward where the investment stream goes So we've always had a wide variants of functionality at sea and um so Whenever you're looking at Everything that has to happen at sea to be successful in operation. You you got to have logistics capability You have to have mine clearance capability You and today what's come to the forefront is probably ballistic missile defense uh, and then you have to be able to self-defense the And r mu or the strike group and then we often use aviation capability off our platforms to do that as well as missile defense So along that spectrum of operations and things we have to do at sea which is everything from a humanitarian assistance to disaster relief to the high-end war fight Uh, we build multi-mission ships and then we build ships that have a very focused capability So generally we will build ships that are just Logistic ships they could be big ships, but that's their their primary purpose And then when we look at if you have to go into the high end Then it then you then you think about how do you do the fight? Traditionally how we've done the fight is for the ships that have less offensive capability self-defense capability The ships with offensive capability go in and make sure we have maritime Superiority both under seeing on the surface and in the air before we bring in the other ships And so then the question becomes okay if that is not going to be how we fight in the future How much defensive capability do these ships need offensive capability? Or do we really start to think about different attributes and change? What becomes important in the next fight? And for me speed is going to be one of those that becomes important in the next fight speed and ability to Uh move around in the latorals and sort of hide and hide in plain sight So I think where we're going with the number of ships we have destroyers Uh large scale combatants and uh Small surface combatants the lcs And then with the modified one in the frigate We've got the right mix of capability to be able to dominate in the maritime domain And that means you got to have submarines you got to have carriers with air power And then that gives uh whoever's going to be the operational commander um as The geographic laydown is different in each theater a lot of different options in how to prosecute a fight You as well I sorry, uh, it's probably bad taste for the mic holder to ask a question But I hope you'll forgive me for this one. Um, you've been talking a little bit about agreements adhering to international agreements And so my question is regarding the un convention on the law of the sea Which correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the u.s. Has not ratified although that is correct Use it agrees often in terms of international customary law But so I'm not asking for a policy recommendation from you But in terms of your day-to-day job and practical aspects of the job How does you know not having ratified? Unclose effect or maybe have no effect on on what you do so for us we Particularly for us because there's the part of the code that is the Rules of the road so to speak of the sea we we stay in compliance with that in order to have safe Navigation at sea and to be able to operate in the international maritime domain So we're generally operating compliance with law of the sea Because it's to our health and safety to do so How about here in the middle? Thank you Dn divas with inside gnss Up to now the united states has had Broadly speaking control over satellite navigation the russians have a system But it's had a few hiccups the europeans are building a system and the chinese are building a system So our our allies will have a system that Documentation suggests they would like to have incorporated into their weapons systems And of course the chinese will have one of their own how will that change? Your operations If our allies want their signals involved and of course the chinese have an independent capability I'm not sure that it would change our operations I mean if we have our our system so i'm trying i don't think i understand your question Well if our weapon systems have to be compatible Across a wide range of countries Then would we not have compatibility issues nato's already working through some of those? Yeah, I in you mean is in terms of precision navigation and timing. I yeah, I would say When we're when we look at We'll continue to rely on our systems I'm not sure we're quite ready to go and be compatible with the chinese Yep, and so We have had the ability to As I understand it if if we want to We used to have selective availability where you could mess with the signal if you are in a difficult spot So the chinese will have a completely independent system And that capability will not be there anymore So we won't be able to affect the ability to use our signal We can but it won't matter does that make any difference in terms of your operational planning Okay, so this gets back to the question jim asked earlier So as other countries become more technologically advanced that it's incumbent upon us To understand exactly what that means and then figure out how we Either Creator get to our own innovation and technological advancement to to counter that capability if we ever had a need to counter that capability Or undermine that capability We we got four minutes ago. So I think we probably have time for one more question unless we're really quick I'm gonna see gentlemen in the back Great. Thanks. Patrick Tucker with defense one the error craft carrier based drone Oh, the u-class. Yeah. Yeah, so it uh big topic of Debate among a lot of defense tech watchers this year. It got sort of sent back to the drawing board You got one camp that says it should be very heavily armed should be the first step towards a more Robotic air force and that's going to increase the relevance of the aircraft carrier. You've got another group that says no We wanted to do most of the isr Lightly armed when you are asked about your opinion of what you want in an aircraft carrier based drone What do you tell people? What is the future of aircraft based carrier drones? So To start with I would like to have maritime isr from the sea So then when you look at what is it you believe you need I'd like to at least start there and then once you have this platform as someone else pointed out Then obviously you could You don't look at expanding the missions of that platform and then adding on other capabilities like strike How so this gets back to When you operate from the sea that gives you a certain level of impunity because the international waters Are open to everybody and when you look at the george herber walker bush Last year the first mission those aircraft had manned aircraft was nontraditional isr And so that I sit there and go by golly. That's exactly what we would have wanted to use the u-class for Have have that overseeing i 24 hours a day if possible to instead of manned aircraft So I I believe there is a need for just as someone assure is going to say I need isr at the tactical level We I think anybody who operates In a domain where there's conflict would like wants to have isr at the tactical level. That's underneath the commander's control That still leaves us time for one I want to go Way way back And you should know you're in the light. So you have a halo That would be the first time This is Andrea shillall with Reuters I wanted to ask you about the comments that have been made by the cno and others about the limits of stealth And that has triggered a pretty deep You know discussion about whether the navy really intends to go forward with its purchases of the f 35 program Um, particularly, oh my goodness. Yes So Well, particularly a couple of tactical air guys in the audience going no Yes, we do intend to pursue Lightning too. Absolutely. I'll see an 18 So you're not lukewarm on this program No This gets back to You know, how do you fight from the carrier? It's uh use of tactical air. It's use of strike. So There's going to be a platform on that carrier and we're going down the path of Lightning dude or replace the super hornets Final thoughts Uh, so tyranny of distance. So we talked about just go through that topic now The physical domain that we ended up so Getting back to thomas friedman's book the the world the world is completely connected And, uh, you know, it's only been about 22 years since the worldwide web was born So that is the other place where There is no tyranny of distance And things move at the speed of light in the cyber domain And so the challenge I think for all of the militaries Is we still fight in the physical domain? But we're going to have to fight at the speed of light at the same time And then that gets back to her question on satellites So when you look at the speed of light and signals The answer might be disruption And we have to think about these things both in that interconnected cyber domain Signals going up to satellites signals coming information coming over fiber And then how do we fight at the speed of light at the same time we fight in knots 20 to 200 depending on whether you're a surface ship or aircraft at the same time and that will be our challenge But that is also asymmetrical opportunity No question Admiral, thanks very much