 job as commander of the space and naval warfare systems command, which I believe he took over Thursday, Thursday, where he leads a global workforce of 10,500 civilian and military who designed, developed, and deployed advanced communication and information capabilities. Finally, we have Mr. William S. Williford. The third, Bill Williford, is a member of the senior executive service and is the executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command. A truly joint individual, Mr. Williford is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. He was a civilian at the Naval Sea Systems Command. He has two sons there in the Air Force, and he currently is the executive director at Marquardt-Syscom. In his current capacity, he is the senior civilian responsible for leading and directing the daily business operations of the Systems Command responsible for Marine Corps Ground Weapon and Information Technology Systems Program in order to equip and sustain Marine Corps forces with full spectrum current and future expeditionary and crisis response capabilities. Admiral Stoes, would you care to get us started either from where you sit or from here? Your choice. Sure. Thank you very much, Brian. I'm very proud to be part of this distinguished panel and very honored to be first. I tell you, 12 minutes is not much time, but there's a lot to talk about, which I think is the good thing. I'm sure everyone's going to have a great presentation. With the Coast Guard being one of the five armed services, we actually do distributed operations as part of our DNA, and I'm really happy to see in our audience so many of our international partners, our joint and interagency partners, that's what the Coast Guard does best. I think to do distributed operations and interoperability, it really requires four things, technology, authorities, on-scene initiative, and the support that goes behind all that, and I think that's the panel we have here today is the support part of that panel. So the Coast Guard's motto is Semper Paratus, Always Ready, and I think we've been doing interoperability and distributed ops for back as far as 1790 when Alexander Hamilton first stood up our service, and we are effective both in military and non-military missions, so you'll see that I go over some of both of those today. Could we have Admiral Stose's slides? Yeah, that first one I'm not really, I can take that anytime. Not quite there yet, but sure, bring that slide up while I'm just finishing up a couple intros here. So when you look at the Coast Guard's Semper Paratus culture, you see that we do centralized support for distributed operations, and we do that worldwide. So I was just over in Guam fairly recently, and it's amazing what's going on over there for all the armed forces. At that base is we look to stand up support, mission support for our operations in that theater, and on the other side of the world, I'm heading over relatively soon to Patrol Forces Southwest Asia over in Bahrain, and we actually have patrol boats operating there in the Persian Gulf, and supporting those missions on halfway around the world from each other. That's just an indicator of how distributed Coast Guard operations are with a lot of that authority pushed down to the very smallest units. And thank you for bringing the slides up, because I'm going to go through just a few slides to show just a little bit. I like to use pictures because sometimes people don't know quite as much about the Coast Guard as the other services. So one of the things I'll talk about is how we do distributed operations interoperability in our missions outside of the Defense Department, and that would be in our Katrina response, which actually did have a lot of engagement with the reserves in the Guard. But I was really interested to see, just as I was going on my elliptical machine yesterday reading a proceedings article from March, I saw an article on distributed lethality requires distributing authority by Lieutenant J. G. Bieler. So I'm going to give him a shout out wherever he might be in the world. The U.S. Coast Guard has those unique authorities under Title 14. It's something that DOD doesn't have. It's what we bring to the table while a lot of people want to partner with us. And the Coast Guard, we push those authorities down to the unit commander level. And I think that we leverage distributed authority and on scene initiative to deliver unity of effort. And I think that's really the power of the Coast Guard right there. We leverage distributed authority and on scene initiative to deliver unity of effort. And that's the perfect example is the Hurricane Katrina response. Our air stations, especially Air Station New Orleans, responded immediately using SAR authorities to go into New Orleans and start to help the people there, whereas the Guard and the Reserve couldn't get in for days waiting for their proper authorities to come down. And as our aircraft got exhausted on the pointy end of the spear down there, air stations just self deployed back filled from all over the country in a unity of effort with distributed authorities and operations. And our Katrina response demanded the best of interoperability between state and local federal and military response elements. So we were down there eventually working with almost, it seems, everybody in the world. I know I was down there myself and my role at the time as director of Coast Guard Reserve. And the Coast Guard mission support structure is tailored to provide flexibility to support that on scene commander. So we had the reserves supporting the activity forces down there. We had pushed mission support down. We had, believe it or not, even sent an exchange, Coast Guard exchange system trailer down. So we'd have goods for people to serve our people downrange. So almost everything that we had that's normal mission support service delivery we deployed down range, whether it was training on the spot for different courses, people needed to be engaged in the fight, the recovery fight down there. So I think that's a great example. And next slide please. Another is recently we had the Caribbean fantasy cruise ship disaster down off the north coast of Puerto Rico there. And that's a great example of interoperability in another non-mission area of search and rescue. 511 people were rescued and it's one of the largest mass rescue ops in U.S. waters in the past 60 years. And in this case our interoperability in the communications area was crucial to Coast Guard on scene commander roles. And the Coast Guard sector there in San Juan initiated the critical incident communications conference call and that deployed Coast Guard cutters, San Juan pilot boats, CBP and ICE, local fire and police vessels from Puerto Rico all coming together to assist in that joint operation down there. All at once without any planning, just as a result of interoperable communications. Next slide please. And just wanted to throw out and just trying to kind of cover a lot of different points. The Arctic, we just heard about that in the most recent panel there with Abermachel talking about how the Coast Guard is now having to operate in the Arctic. How do you support operations up there? Everything's different. Even to the point of, you know, flying your aircraft, what kind of support can you deliver? We have borrowed a National Guard hangar up at Kotsabu for the summer months. It's hard to build infrastructure because the permafrost is sinking and melting. So it is huge, hugely challenging to support the Arctic operations. Some of the other ways we do support though is through exercises. We have an annual exercise called Arctic Shield where we integrate, interoperate with Northern Command on that. And those training and exercises are very, very important to integrating and distributed ops up in that far reaches of the North. Next slide please. And just a general joint and integrated operations slide that kind of shows you a little bit of the Coast Guard capabilities and in conjunction with our partners there. The Coast Guard bakes cyber into these new assets that you see here. I love the way we're doing that. It's a necessary way to interoperate and to protect against to keep our systems secure. We have a couple of different interoperable systems on those ships you see there. We work closely with NAV-C, thanks Admiral Grossklag is there for our Minotaur Mission System architecture in our fixed wing aircraft that enables interoperability with our DOD partners. And our new ships have the Sea Commander which is the Coast Guard version of Aegis done up in Morristown. And that networked communication system and other capabilities integrate with the U.S. Navy Battle Group's international partners and broader U.S. government intelligence community. And these systems are on display a lot of times in the Joint Task Force, JADF South and JADF West. And there's a lot of interoperability with targeting to interdict in those AORs, especially JADF South. And next slide please. And one of the ways we do that interoperability and joint engagement distributed operations is with the unclassified COP. And I love the way the CNO finished up the breakfast this morning talking about how one of the challenges will be bringing together the international navies, all of our partners. How do you find a common operating picture, a common way to talk and communicate? How do you do that so that you can get the business done in a distributed fashion? I think we still have a long way to go on that but there's some good work being done. And next slide please. That one didn't come out it's just another COP please next slide. And just to finish up I think that every time I have a chance to talk in front of an audience I finish up on the importance of the Coast Guard's people and our assets and especially talent management is what I want to end on here. And I'm glad to hear also once again the CNO and the last panel next door, the vice chiefs all talked about talent management and the criticality of that above and beyond everything else. We all worry about our systems, our interoperability, our distributed operations but I kind of started that way talking about how you need to have on scene initiative. That all comes from your people and that comes from the young commanders you're going to empower if you're going to do distributed operations and interoperability. So talent management the question we should all ask ourselves is are we developing our next generation of officers and enlisted with the skills to process volumes of data to counter threats and take advantage of opportunities? And second how do we create how do we cultivate a culture of innovation in our workforce to develop new solutions and challenge traditional paradigms? So I'll leave it on that as the mission support person for the Coast Guard responsible for the CIO, the chief engineer, the chief human capital officer, the chief medical officer, the chief engineer, the chief security officer, all those functions. My biggest concern is the talent management. That's front and center on my list and it's perishable talent that we need to assess, bring in and train and retain. But I believe the future is bright. We have great young people out there and great partners in this room and around the world. Thank you very much. Thank you, Admiral Stose, Vice Admiral Coast Guard and the under naval air systems. So audience participation, how many industry folks here? Raise your hand industry, come on. Okay, now how many engineers? Government or military? Okay, great. So on the somewhat safe ground here if I start talking engineering speak, keep at least 50%. So interoperability distributed ops, a little bit nebulous topic from my perspective for a panel and when our public affairs folks ask me, so what do you want to talk about? I said I have no idea. Usually when we talk about distributed ops, we talk about things that Vice Admiral Stose just talked about, distributed lethality, network-enabled weapons, submarines talking to F-35s, chickens talking to goats, that kind of stuff. But if you look at this panel up here and most of the people in the room, we're really a large portion of the acquisition community. We've got CISCOM commanders, we've got many folks from industry here. So what does it mean to us? Because we're the ones who get that stuff there in the first place that's supposed to be interoperable and it shows up in the hands of the sailors and Marines. Historically, we've handled that this whole topic is kind of a coalition of the willing, things like NIFCA, Enable Integrated Fire Control Counter Air, really a coalition of the willing. Or we just handed it over to the fleet and let them figure out how to make things, put the two pieces together and make things work. You'd ask why? Well, why haven't we done this better in the past? Structurally, organizationally, financially, we're not set up to do it that way. We are resourced and organized in vertical program of record silos that are based on platforms, program of record platforms. Across the services, we rarely, if ever, fund capabilities. We fund platforms that may bring a capability to the game, but we very rarely fund those horizontals. In a vertical program of record, I can tell you interoperability is usually a second thing that gets kind of shed as the program gets tight on money and schedule. The first thing is sustainment. Second thing is interoperability. So how do we fix this? What do we do differently? More coalitions? We could, but I'm having seen NIFCA up close. It's really, really hard and it still has major challenges. It's not bringing us everything it could if we had, I'll say, resourced it differently. We could change the resourcing model, but now we're talking about big A acquisition. We're talking about from the hill on down, everybody likes and understands those vertical platform programs. So I am skeptical that we will ever get around to changing the resourcing model. Fundamentally, and the reason I asked the question earlier, this is a systems engineering problem for all of us. We need to start from day one with the end in mind, with the requirement in mind. What's that desired end state? I don't mean a requirement in terms of how fast, how far, how many times. I'm really talking about the desired end state that we should all have of when we put a new thing, a new capability, a new platform, a new system, a new weapon in the hands of our sailors and Marines. On day one, they should know that it's been fully tested. They should be able to immediately train with it to 100 percent of its capability. So they should be able to fully train on day one that that new thing shows up in their hands. And they should be able to do that in a fully integrated environment. And the only way to do that is to start from day one in the acquisition program. So let me walk you through one slide if you could bring up my slide please and show you what I'm talking about. And I'm going to start in the lower right hand corner of the slide. I'm going to start at the end. The end in mind. We know today that for us to train our operators for the high-end fight that we need to do that in a live virtual constructive training environment. We simply do not have the range extent. We don't have the ability to lay down the threat environment sufficiently to fully train our operators in any way other than live virtual constructive. There's also the, oh by the way, OPSEC issue. We really don't want everybody else watching when we're doing full up training for our high-end capabilities. So we need to get to that bottom right hand corner. Fully integrated, fully trained in a live virtual constructive environment with everybody that's going to play. So that means fully integrated. So let me take you up to the top left corner and I'm actually going to take you off the slide so you don't need to look at the slide right now. We actually should start this with the analysis of alternatives. We're doing that right now for our next generation air dominance family of systems. And during that analysis of alternatives process, what are we doing? We're taking digital models of the threat. We're taking digital models of the environment that we're going to operate in. We have digital models of our friendly forces and we're determining at what some point in time, 2025, 2030, whatever the AOA is focused on, what capability gaps exist that we have to fill. And if you didn't catch it, I said digital about three or four times during that analysis of alternatives discussion. That is critical to this entire thread that you see played out on this slide. Is doing this in a digital environment where we're sharing that data and that information from beginning to end. We don't do that very well today. So once we completed that analysis of alternatives, what do we do? We start immediately in the integrated warfare analysis. We're sitting down with the fleet. We're trying to figure out what concept of employment do we need to do. What kill chains or effects chains are going to address those capability gaps? And again, we're having this discussion in the digital environment because we don't have any real any of that real new stuff yet. It's all modeled. It's all model-based. So once we've had this discussion with the fleet, we've maybe identified some initial attributes of that stuff that we're going to go build. We're now going into that lower left-hand corner. We're going to start playing this in a system of systems model. And we're now going to put this in some engineering discipline behind it. Functional flows. Information exchange requirements. What are the actual attributes that things need to bring to the game in order to solve those capability gaps? And then typically what we would do today is we kind of throw it over the fence and request for proposals to industry and go, okay build us some of those. We can't do that anymore. We need to take all that digital information that we've already generated. All those models, all those government-owned models, and we need to give it to our industry partners and say, now you build these things in a model-based systems engineering environment starting with a baseline that we're giving you. The threat environment, the friendly environment, the operating environment. And they're going to start with their own models because at least our large OEMs are going to have their own relational object-oriented databases that they are now going to start playing their components in to see how they play in this digital environment. And as they mature the development process they're going to go from those relational object-oriented models right on down to physics-based component models. So that whole center pillar there is going to become more and more mature. It's going to be more and more granular. And immediately when we start getting those models from industry we can start playing those in a capabilities-based testing evaluation environment which is in that upper right-hand corner. That forms the constructive foundation of our CBT&E and our LVC environment. Coming right out of that center pillar. And as they continue to actually now build stuff for us we've got hardware in the loop, we've got operator in the loop. Again, we're doing this in a digital environment, but that forms that virtual backbone that we need. So now we've got the constructive, we've got the virtual and finally they're going to build us a thing and now we've got the entire LVC environment we need to fully test that piece of equipment in that digital environment that we started on day one. So we've got a digital representation of the system or systems that they're building and we've got a digital environment that we can operate it in. That's the foundation of our capabilities-based testing evaluation. And if you think about it, that goes straight down to the bottom right-hand corner which is exactly what our sailors and Marines need on day one. I've got a digital model of the system. I can play it in a live environment, I can play it in a virtual environment, I can play it in constructive or all of those above. And as I've built that system in a model-based systems engineering environment it's been interoperable the entire time from day one. It's not an afterthought, it's not something we tack on at the end of the discussion. And if you're playing really close attention to that slide you can see there's one more little arrow in the right hand corner that actually goes to the back of the slide. Well, there is no second slide. That's the second half of the program. That's sustainment. And that same digital model of the system that started with the analysis of alternatives and runs through the entire development cycle has now turned into a digital thread that I can use to sustain that same system for our sailors and Marines for the life of that program. That's where we're going to go at Nav Air. That's where we're starting today. We need all of you in the industry to come with us in that model-based systems engineering environment. Thanks, look forward to your questions. Next, Vice Admiral Tom Moore from the Naval Sea Systems Command. Do you have any slides Admiral? Yeah, let me, I got a scratch relational object-oriented model from my talking points here. So we're in the, thanks Brian, we're in the little holding room over there and this is kind of how the initial conversation grows, I said Brian. So how long do I have to talk? He says you get 12 minutes and I'll be start coughing if you go over. And I said, Brian, so how am I going to tell the audience everything I know about interoperability and digital operability in 12 minutes? Brian, thanks for a second. He goes, my advice to you would be to speak very slowly. So having said that, I do agree, first of all, I agree with everything that the panelists to my left have already said and I know when we get to Boris here who's probably in terms of Navy ships is the master of interoperability and distributive ops. I'm going to take a little bit different tack today as, as the head of the naval sea systems command. And I'm going to talk to you about the fact that in order to have an interoperability fleet and distributive ops you've got to have ships. And that's a challenge for us today. Right now we're at 278 ships and if anybody remembers there was an article back in January that came out that mentioned that the Navy for the first time since World War I did not have an aircraft carrier at sea. And that's a pretty startling statement when you think about it. And that's a direct result of two things. One, we're at 278 ships, which is, you know, the smallest size of the fleet we've had in a long, long time. And the second piece of that is we're challenged to get our ships and submarines out of these, out of our maintenance availabilities on time. So if you could go to the next slide. I won't talk to a lot of the slides here. So just if you look at the mission priority, so NAVSEE's mission is pretty straightforward, design, build, maintain ships and weapons systems on cost and on schedule for the fleet. And the mission priorities there under those, the number one mission priority right now for NAVSEE is the on time delivery of ships and submarines and for the very reason that I just mentioned to you at the beginning. Today, we only deliver about 40% of our ships and submarines out of maintenance availabilities on time. And that's causing great stress for the fleet. And is the reason that we had a gap in carrier presence, frankly, back in January. And so we've got to put a concerted effort on our side of the house and the maintenance side of the house and both our public and private shipyards in order to start getting these ships delivered on time. If we don't get them on time, we're not going to have the size of the fleet we need and you can have all the interoperability and distributive option need, but the size of force is not what you need. You're going to have some problems. So the second part thing I want to talk about is getting from 278 to 355. And if I could go to the next slide, please. I'll get to just a second. So everybody says to me, hey, you know, you 278 to 355, hey, this isn't nearly as challenging as it was. Hey, you remember the Reagan buildup? We went up to 586 ships. And that's that's true, except if you go back and look at history, we actually started the Delta to get to 600 ship Navy in the Reagan era was smaller than the Delta we face today in going from 278 ships to 355. So we are going to have some challenges in getting 355 and it's something that we're going to have to go work on pretty pretty seriously going forward. I believe the Reagan era started around 524 before they ended about 586. And then about 1990. And in 1990, we started because of the peace dividend started to downsize the size of the fleet. And by 2005, we were down to about 290 ships. You'll also notice between about 1990 and 2005, we cut the size of the Nazi workforce, the headquarters workforce in NAVSEO 5, the technical arm that provides oversight. We cut that from about 1,300 people down to about 275 folks. So you might say yourself, okay, but I cut the size of the fleet after in that time so, you know, why did I need all these people? Well, something else happened in that timeframe between 1995 and 2005. We also brought a couple of new platforms on the line. You may remember these LCS, DDG-1000, CVN-78, and the Virginia class submarine program. We kind of did this in an era where, you know, we really kind of got to the point where we said, hey, let's go with a set of performance-based specs. We just kind of tell this industry knows best. We just kind of hand the designs over to them and say, kind of build me something that looks like this and off we go. And the role of government oversight was, you know, basically at that time said, hey, you know, the value that's probably negligible. And let's just get going. There is a spectrum of that from left to right with LCS kind of being the poster child of performance-based specs, if you will. And then on the right, you have the Virginia class submarine, because of the nuclear pedigree and submarines, we build submarines where the government really did maintain significant control over the design of the ship. So, where we are today, I mean, with mixed results. I mean, I think at the end of the day, LCS is going to be a great platform. We're ironing out the bugs in that today. And we're building those ships on hot production lines. DDG1-1000's in San Diego and we're working through some of the mechanical challenges we had today. She's had a couple of successful underway periods. And we're going to get her back in port and start working on our combat system. I expect the CVN-78 to be at sea sometime this week, which is for someone that spent the most of his career over the last 10 years, seems like longer, but working on the Ford class, it's going to be a fantastic ship force. And then, I think you all know that Virginia class has been an exceptional program since she got going. So, there are some lessons learned going forward. And some of those are in the interoperability and distributed ops here. If you heard the C&O talk this morning, you know, the question is how do we get to 355? So, right off the bat, we're going to continue with the hot production lines we have right now, which we've been very successful with. LPD-17's come along well, Virginia class submarine will continue the Ford class cares. DDG51 will get into building the flight 3. But if you also heard the C&O this morning talk, he said, hey, but remember, the hot production lines will get us started, but they are not going to be, you know, they are not going to be the only solution to 355. And as we go into the future and we get into an era where distributed ops and our operability becomes even more important, we're going to have to think very clearly about that as we go to our next generation ships. So, as we build Columbia and in particular, as we go to the next, to the future service combatant, it's something that I'm keenly interested in as we focusing on, as we build the next future service combatant. Now, we don't know what that looks like right now, but we really have some work to do over the next two or three years to really define what we think this is going to look like and then get to work because the surface fleet's going to need a next generation service combatant that's going to be around for the next 50 years. So, there's a lot of challenges in front of us. I'm excited about the future ahead of the Navy and in front of NAVC and I look forward to your questions. Admiral Becker from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Good morning. Thank you, Brian. Thanks to the Navy League for putting this together and thanks to my fellow panelists for allowing me to be part of this August in this team group I'll talk to you about interoperability and distributed operations. The good news is I'm going to talk for five minutes or fewer. The not so good news is that I'm going to go a little bit more of the deep geek on yet because I think we can cover the waterfront a little bit that way. We saw earlier a poll who's an industry and who's in the government and who's an engineer who here delivers any capability that runs on software. All right, there are more of yet. Go ahead, admit it. Who here delivers a pump? It runs on software and if we want to be interoperable if we want to be able to distribute our operations it's got to get down into the DNA of everything. I think someone mentioned it earlier the DNA everything that we deliver. Well, how do we get there from here because we're not there now. Those of you from the Boston area understand what it means to go through North Boston in the old days before the big dig. All right, that's where we are today. The CALPAS turned into systems turned into capabilities that don't work together. It starts with standards and at Spaywar we're working through the information technology and technical authority standards. So that is we want to go through our systems and understand how to build them and then how to check them. We're talking the same language. We're adapting the NIST standards to adapt to our military needs but they're pretty much the same systems and the same standards. And we're going pretty forward those. We've got 26 out of the 39 complete should have the rest of those complete by the end of the year. Why is it important to you? Well, for those of you that are building your capabilities on software we're going to have standards that you can build to so that when it comes time to accrediting those systems it should go more smoothly. But before we even get there before we can get to the part where our standards are allowing us to to deliver capabilities across Syscoms that are interoperable from the software DNA up we've got to get to the architecture. And we heard earlier about the the left a boom if you will for designing in requirements. That's got to start with an overall architecture. And again in Spaywar we're trying to deliver the information architecture a layout if you will for folks to build towards. Relying very heavily on model-based system engineering and relational object oriented databases. That's two. There you go. But we have to add that because that's what's tied to the integrated in interoperable operations. If you don't have a design if you don't have some sort of model if you don't understand where your stuff is then how do you conduct damage control? How do you go back and help to heal those networks? Help to heal those capabilities back together if you don't know what talks to what and when and how. And I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the goat in this scenario but they do need to talk to each other. Lastly to get there in our Navy I think we need to move towards implementing the advantages that cloud technology bring to us. Both the shore and the expeditionary world and a float. And of course the challenge for a float units to be in the cloud is that we're often not connected at cloud speeds if at all especially in a distributed way. So how do we deliver fractal clouds? How do you deliver those tactical clouds at the edge that can harmonize and synchronize when able but operate independently as necessary? And lastly again for those of you delivering software applications. Applications are as the admiral talked about earlier like any program of record are going to optimize for their capabilities in a vertical manner. That means traditionally the applications are going to build themselves to optimize down as far into the system down to the hardware it's running on to work for that application's benefit. But what happens when we have to recapitalize that hardware? What happens when we have to recapitalize that operating system? What happens when we have to recapitalize the connective tissue? If those applications are tied right down to the bedrock, well now our test integration problem is now of an end to end minus one integration test which takes us way too long to move inside the speed of the shelf of industry and never mind the speed of the adversary. So for all of you out there delivering applications disaggregate, disaggregate, disaggregate become agnostic to the operating system in the hardware underneath you so that those of us who have to deliver that baseline can do so without moving at the pace of change that will let us fall further and further behind the enemy because ultimately that's what will allow us to get to the integration interoperability at the speed we need speeds that are operationally relevant because that's the end state interoperability from the seabed to space and through cyberspace because those areas today are contested. We are contested in space. We are contested on the sea. We are contested in the air and we are contested in cyberspace. Our interoperability will be our strength. The only way we will get there is to be worked together on it. Thanks very much. And now Mr. Bill Wilford from the Marine Corps Systems Command. All right, so good morning. I'm really excited about being here. Excited to be here on this panel. I've either worked with or for the majority of the officers to the left of me and I can tell you they're the best of the best and so I'm happy to be here. I've been in my job for three months. It's really been exciting but when Brian read my background one of the things that I think that I've found out through my career is that the CISCOMs here have to really work together to get the job done. And so we leverage from more Corps CISCOM we leverage on a lot of the other CISCOMs to do our work and Boris on Spay War we leverage heavily on the work that he does to do a lot of our work in the in more Corps CISCOM. We also rely heavily on the Navy to get us to the fight to make sure that they protect us while we're out and then come pick us up again. You know I call it Uber at Sea is the way I look at it right. So Marine Corps has to have that. But we're currently doing a four-structure realignment at Bar Corps CISCOM and what we're doing is we're aligning our products to the MAGTAP in that kind of a flash of the obvious we're aligning to the Marine Airground Task Force those capabilities that we produce so that the product that we produce is provided out to the to the Marines. So in this chart I'm going to talk about three things and I wanted to leave you with those three. One is a fifth generation Marine Corps. You know we have fifth generation fighters and and so we're we're looking at common odds looking at how we can develop that fifth generation Marine Corps. Again he's also looking at the Marine Airground Task Force. How do we use that as the primary unit in the Marine Corps to get capability out there and then finally there's a Marine Corps operating concept. You can Google it and get it but it talks about Marine Corps 2025 and where we're going in the future. So the boss will tell you up there as did General Crulac both the son and the elder up there that we're here to win and there is no prize for second place. Next slide. Again I had to put a plug in for Marine Corps system command. I'm proud to be there. It is the acquisition professionals in the Marine Corps. I say it's the best CISCOM in the Marine Corps. Well it's the it's the only CISCOM in the Marine Corps right. So but General Schrader when he took command three years ago and he's not here today because his son Logan is on a Coast Guard cutter down in Florida coming in from a tour and so he and his wife Kelly went down there to visit so see how we're tied together along with the Coast Guard. But his focus was our work environment making sure that we provided the ability for our members to have innovation and that they looked and learned and acted with cultural norms out there but innovation is our focus. We wanted to execute our plan we wanted to have a realistic plan. We wanted to have professional credibility and then finally we're preparing for the future and our change to a MAGTF aligned organization is changing for the future. Next slide. But we have a challenge. We're still at war out there. For 16 years we've been at war. There's been no interwar period in order to reset our equipment. Our ground equipment we're resetting very well but our aviation equipment we're having a challenge today and resetting that equipment. But our competitors have really they've caught up and in some areas they surpassed us in capability. And what we want to do is with all the research at Russia the Chinese footprint that is coming across in the Pacific. You know I call the little islands out there the immobile carriers in the South Pacific. I mean that's what they're doing to get ready and protect that second island chain. But a nuclear North Korea we've got in Iran threatening our ships in the in the Gulf and then we've got ships being attacked in Bob Almandad Straits in the Gulf of Aden and then engagements with ISIS across the Middle East. So a lot of things going on out there that we need to look at you know the global security environment is one of violence conflict and instability. And so we've got to in that dangerous world we've got to reset our equipment maintain our force and we're maintaining readiness today without being able to modernize based on funding that we have shortfalls today. So I just wanted to set that stage. Next slide. Again the the fifth generation in Marine Corps must dominate in all domains right. Air land sea space and cyberspace. Fifth generation Marine Corps demands integration of a specifically trained cyber and information warfare marines with our infantry to provide our mag tafts to capability to operate in all those domains means the Marine Corps must be man modernized and ready to demand our future operations. And it also means we have to have a premier infantry force that's unmatched in the world to be able to have that modern capability. Next slides. So we're focusing on that fifth generation Marine Corps with our infantry squad and what we're doing with that infantry squad is we have to have lighter equipment. So you'll you'll hear things called polymer magazines and polymer rounds and so with a 50 cal pallet today 50 caliber pallet we think we can save a thousand pounds per pallet by going to a polymer type round and storage equipment on that pallet. But the king of battle was called Phil artillery before. We think the king of battle today is going to be information and that and that information environment we've got to be able to have handheld devices for voice chat streaming video. There's a capability we're working on called network on the move and that network on the move capability will be initially in a C 130 and then an mv 22 but that capability on the move will allow us to do that. It'll allow those Marines in the air that are planning those missions to get fragos and changes on that mission and understand what's going on with that mission with streaming video and chat in route to that mission. A lot of good capability there and we're going to focus that on our ground combat equipment as well. So those are just two areas where we're focused on a fifth generation Marine Corps and how we can increase our mobility and enhance our firepower and leak power. Next slide. So on the magtaf it's really the primary building block of the Marine Corps deployed around the world and tailored to specific missions. So it's a combat arms tailored force. We've got special magtafs over in the Gulf today and we're looking at how we design those for 21st century and conducting maneuver warfare in the physical and cognitive domains. But the magtaf avoids linear and sequential and phased approaches to operations so that it can fight at at sea from the sea and ashore. The magtaf is really the versatile versatile combat power that's available. When you're looking at establishing sea control you may have to take the land pieces of the landward part of the latorals so that your forces will be able to operate efficiently and interoperability with our naval forces at sea from the sea to shore and then ashore so that we can synchronize firepower and bring that firepower to bear in a mass environment is what we need to do. Our ISR must also be integrated. We're conducting an experimentation environment out at camp Pendleton coming up in the end of April and what we're trying to do there is look at all new technologies but having that UUV capability and airborne platforms and UADs in order to look at that forced entry operation and make sure that we can get Marines inland our big capabilities that we're looking forward to bringing in the future. Next slide. And then finally on the Marine Corps operating concept basically to integrate that naval force and fight at sea you'll hear a term called a composite warfare constructor alternate C2 so we're looking at how we need to do that in order to promote unity of effort in the latoral warfare parts of our business. We also are going to be working in a contested environment we've got to figure out how we harden our networks and establish low signature operations from NavSea we're working with real time spectrum operations in order to manage our spectrum and then to passively understand the adversary spectrum at the same time. We've got to shorten that kill chain to the tactical edge linking our distributed forces and sensors so we can provide again precision and mass effects but we also want to develop our sea fires or sea base fires with expeditionary sea bases and the Marine Corps on the MagTAP side we also can participate in the strike missions as well so we're working on those pieces and again we've got to have machine aided relational visualization and display of battlefield threats so we've got to have that intel out here in order to to conduct our business and then next chart which I think is our final chart again I've kind of defined in broad terms how the Marine Corps will operate and fight in 2025 beyond this is only a starting point it's integration with the Navy Marine Corps and Coast Guard capabilities that allow us to collaboratively work together to advance to contact fight and win there is no alternative to winning that's all I have thank you wonderful okay before we go to questions and answers from the audience a few thoughts occurred to me that I'd like to dig a little deeper on almost those I have something to dig on a little bit when people think about Navy force structure they tend to look at other navies in the world compare what they do and how they're sized and say why do we have to be so big the PLA Coast Guard is is doing a lot around the world these days or in its near abroad to what extent should the PLA Coast Guard's size and capabilities drive our Coast Guard's size and capabilities I'm supposed to be the support commander here not the operator but luckily I sit in on those briefs so the Coast Guard if you go to the Sea Services Symposium up in Newport that happens every two years our Commandant's Admiral Zucumbus Fonda saying that it soon turns into a meeting of Coast Guards because most of the international navies look a lot like the U.S. Coast Guard so I do think there's an interesting observation to make there and we certainly interoperate with those Coast Guard with those navies as international navies all around the world so they'll have they'll have a navy and in fact many of the international folks in the audience here might have a navy that works with our U.S. Coast Guard we do a lot of training and interoperating with those partners so as far as the bigger Coast Guards that are being used for different purposes certainly that's a whole another strategic discussion if you're talking about the PLA and they have the refleets they have the navy they have the Coast Guard which if you've seen their new big white cutters they look remarkably like a national security cutter or a big Coast Guard cutter with the same stripe same colors even on the side then they've got the fishing armadas right so they've got three elements that they employ depending on the purpose so we have a much different purpose and I wouldn't ever link the function the mission of the United States Coast Guard with that that model over there and I think that certainly the way that our navy and our Coast Guard link up interoperably in the South China Sea is a lot different of a model than what you see them using over there and I think ours is a much more healthy one and certainly the Coast Guard is eager to be in those spaces when we can be of value and I think that's that's playing out as we speak there's a lot of activity around the world there and the Coast Guard is simple practice always ready and relevant to go where we're in need of most and support our navy brethren thank you Excellent thank you Admiral Mr. Williford there is a perception that the Marine Corps has gotten a little overweight compared to what it used to be number one is that a fair perception number two if it's a fair perception does it need to change number three what are you doing about it so good question thank you for that question so I think the Marine Corps is looking at how we grow in the future I think that again we're seeing the resurgence of forces around the world that I think require a a strong Marine Corps and I think we're working towards that process the New SecDef gave us three areas to focus on one is to look at readiness in 17 look at a balanced force in 18 and then in 19 look at modernization that's really the focus and where we're going but I think that growing the Marine Corps in order to do the missions and the type of missions that we need to in the future is where we're going to go at now I disagree that we're overweight at this point we may the equipment may be getting overweight in some parts and and so we are looking at how we streamline our ground vehicles and but when you look at survivability the problem is if you want your systems to be survivable it adds weight when you look at active protection systems on vehicles that again adds weight and so we are going to add weight for survivability but we've got to we've got to make sure that we measure that with getting that capability to the fight thank you sir and finally Admiral Moore it seems to me almost uniquely among panel members your workforce issues are defined and difficult especially the sort of lunch pail industries what can be done does government have a role in helping to to create a larger workforce does the navy have a role what can be done well I think if you're talking about the shipbuilding repair industry or you're talking about the shipbuilding construction industry I think we we do have a role on the repair side of the house I think it's important we maintain the organic capability that we do have by by law there's a reason that we have the four naval shipyards that we have and I can give you countless examples of where they that pays dividends for us around the world so it's from the size of that workforce I think you know we're going to have to grow the size of that workforce in order to one maintain the fleet that we have today and it's two if we're going to grow the size of the fleet certainly we we're going to need a bigger civilian workforce and federal workforce on the private sector side of the house the same thing would apply we work we're keenly aware of the challenges that the industrial base has on both the repair side and on the new construction side and it does it is important that we balance the needs of the industry to ensure that we keep those capabilities there as we head into the future you can't build a Columbia or a Ford class at any just any shipyard and so as we go forward and we we grow the size of the fleet I think we need to be cognizant of the needs of the industry I think if you listen to the new the current administration rightly so there's a there is an expectation however if we're going to grow the size of the fleet and there's going to be more opportunity to go build ships and make some money that there's there's got to be a shared responsibility between industry and us and if you want we're going to build more ships we're going to there's an expectation that we're going to work pretty closely to get the cost of those ships and aircraft come down as we go forward it's time for questions and answers from the audience we have two microphones here a couple of ground rules number one state your question in the form of a question number two make it brief we just lost the great creative genius of the gong show Chuck Ferris last week but we have a gong back here that'll ring if your question goes on too long sir thank you Kurt Hamill from Esri certainly appreciate your time that you're spending here to help us understand the challenges you have Admiral Stose you specifically address the unclassified common operational picture and I'd like to extend that discussion about a cop a common operational picture and ask a question essentially about how you three who have cops the ones that the coast guard is building the ones the navy's building the ones the marine corps have and Tom yours on board ships as well but the common operational picture how are you guys coordinating each other and adopting each other's solutions building things that work interoperably on the amphib ships together you know in the for what C3 sends building and what what space wars building so could you talk about interoperability initiatives that you three are putting together for a common operational picture I'll just take I'll fill the empty space while these guys are gonna tell the real story but the coast guard we leverage off the navy system so there's navy type navy owned systems that come our way we're working together to install compatible systems up in Morristown with our sea commander system which is companion to the Aegis so the cops that I just showed you on my slide there is not coast guard proprietary system that's another service I said I believe that I believe it's navy I can't remember exactly on that but we use a lot of the same systems so that we can be interoperable but I'll leave it to my peers to discuss more information is a war fighting domain I don't think there's anybody that doesn't get that today and if information has the war fighting domain the commander's weapon system is the material between their ears that's their weapon system and how do they feed that weapon system how do they target that weapon system and how do they create fires from that weapon system it's with command and control today we've got a system that is built on legacy platform legacy code and we have are in the midst of recapitalizing it the future though for our command and control has to go right back to what I talked about earlier which is the disaggregation of those applications the disaggregation of those weapon systems and payloads of command and control from the rest of the architecture so that we can move quickly with applications that are mission planning that are rehearsal that are aided by artificial intelligence to allow us to consider what the potential codes are that the the world could throw at us and what our option spaces are to shape that with our own actions we've got I think in the room is the program manager from pw150 captain walters he is in charge of recapitalizing the maritime tactical command and control system that's not the navy's tactical control system that is the maritime tactical command and control system as we to see services look forward to interoperating as well as with our coalition partners that has got to be our path forward so from the marine core side so I'll I'll put a plug in for our booths so go downstairs and see marine core system command booth downstairs and what you will see there is a Samsung handheld tablet I was thinking about this because back in the Gulf War 1990 I had a AM radio and a grease pencil and a map and that's what I was drawn on you can take this handheld tablet and you can link it up to artillery you can link it up to aviation and you can do call for fire right off of this tablet right and you can link it to your laser designator and so to me that's the interoperability piece that we're getting so that we can put steel on target so my view is go down there and see that tablet you'll you'll be amazed I was sir again at thank you I've Scott Massione with federal news radio this is for Admiral Moore you noted that your workforce is going to need to grow as the the ships are going to grow do you have any idea of what kind of number they might need what kind of burden they face at the size there are now and then any what the hiring freeze might do or a limited employment might do for the federal government to hear workforce thanks okay so couple questions there let me so one the hiring freezes had no impact on the shipyards okay we we have broad authorities to exempt people in the national offense and the the people working our naval shipyards today other than having to fill out some paperwork we've been able to hire the people that we need to hire so secondly as I testified on the hill last week we think we're about 2,000 people short of where we need to be today in the naval shipyards in order to to stop the growth in the backlog of the work that we have today and stabilize that work and then eventually eventually start to work that backlog off and so as we work our way through the budget process I'm hopeful we'll get the authority to hire about another 2,000 people in the shipyards that'll get us just north of 36,000 people and I believe that's sufficient for us to manage the size of the of the force that we have today and get back to our history of delivering ships and submarines on time okay thanks sir hello my name's Matt Cole I'm with Naval Service Warfare Center Port Wynimi Division from my perspective one of the hottest new emerging technologies is the rise of autonomous systems we may have autonomous cars on the road soon economists warn autonomous systems may put you know destroy a lot of traditional jobs from the panelist's perspective what do you believe is going to be the impact to interoperability of the rise of autonomous systems just to bound expectations I'm not going to hit retirement age until 2051 let's see your 2018 2019 I don't want to say anybody up but I think I'd like to hear Admiral Gross-Clogs on this one yeah so let's see when we talk about autonomy I think it means different things to where to go I lost I lost the various okay different things to different people I mean it's all the way from autonomy and helping make decisions so sorting through information autonomously or data to provide information to to the brain as Boris said all the way to that that may that high-end ship or air vehicle that is quote autonomous or unmanned or non-pilot or whatever terminology you want to use so there's a lot of different definitions and lexicons in there I think the in the end the interoperability and the autonomy are almost intrinsically related I don't think you can really separate them when we talk about interoperability of our unmanned aircraft that that folks in the avarine industry are providing one of the key things is we have to be able to control from multiple places and they need to pass their information to multiple users I mean that's a that's a baseline requirement it goes back to starting with the end in mind so what do we need autonomy for well one to not be able not to have a pilot in a loop so to speak so they're they're flying by themselves but just as importantly is the distribution of the information or the data that they're gathering as they're flying wherever it happens to be in the world they're the ability to download that data to the Coast Guard which we do today to the Navy obviously to the Marine Corps in the dirt which we also do today to the Army to the Air Force in some cases to other national assets that interoperability is almost inherent in the autonomy of some of those platforms and it gets back to the data and the information I think that's the thing we need to key on and although distributed ops aren't really autonomous they are units that are not part of a pack a task force and right now the Coast Guard is able to on our new cutters get information to go back to that important word that or even our shore base partners don't have so we're out there with information that we can't so transmit back to shore right now to enable those operations in a more centralized manner so that distributed operations can happen with a centralized control or received with the information I think that you really hit on something very important there I agree with the they had well about the effective autonomous systems and interoperability are closely linked but as exciting as this field is today and some of the changes and the technologies that are new for us today we I'd like to point out though that within the space war world we've been flying UAVs for a very very long time they're very high altitude UAVs we call them satellites and they've been operating autonomously for quite some time within certain regions the challenge for us going forward will be how to take that and integrate that across the war fighting domains and to take those systems from communication systems to precision navigation and timing systems to systems that conduct ISR missions to systems that are conducting kinetic or non-kinetic effects in an environment where the command to control is fractal with commanders intent moving down to smaller units particularly in areas where those units will be distributed and the communication systems will not be ubiquitous there's a lot of operational concepts that have to be developed first in order to employ that which may lag the actual development of the technology but at the systems command level we look forward to taking that from the research and development all the way through to delivering capabilities by Sydney Friedberg from Breaking Defense touching on distributed operations with pieces offering on the initiative all over the place also the concept of multi-domain which I think you just touched on Admiral about integrating the services more across all domains what do we actually need on a ship on an aircraft in the hands of a marine you know company commander to make that happen what kind of communications C4 I do we need to actually enable these concepts and how far away are we from actually being able to do that I think the answer is as much as we can get and that I don't mean to be cheeky with that but rather really is what kind of communications can we provide across the board whether it's low bandwidth UHF comms that could in certain environments provide us all the voice video data that we need to wideband comp pipes putting down tens or hundreds of megabits or in the future gigabits to units that are are mobile whatever those systems are whether they're from they're space-based or directionally based we should find a resilient architecture for delivering communications from low bandwidth to high bandwidth based on what it is that that particular end unit whether it's a fire team or a fleet operating across thousands of square miles requires in order to exercise unity of command and unity of effort and that as we deliver that we have to build it from the ground up with hardening in mind because while weak today could go out and create a very exquisite capability with technologies right out of the Verizon store or for many other mobile provider if we're going to have a custody chain that leads to a decision to put a kinetic a kinetic effect on opposing forces we're going to have to have assurance for the commander that the effect is the effect we intend to achieve and that only the effect we're trying to achieve not somebody else's I'll just add to that I think we have to have effective communication across all the services in a secure manner and that's going to be a challenge Marine Corps has been trying to get rapid capability out there as fast as we can to the warfighter I heard somebody the other day say but as soon as you hit the PPVE system that puts you right back in the box right so trying to bring things rapidly forward is I think a challenge I think the technology is there I think securing that technology and bringing it out to to the warfighter is going to be the challenge I'm going to come back over here just because that line's a little longer but I'll get to you next go ahead sir Hi Adam Barker from Naval Service Warfare Center Crane my question is kind of aimed towards what Vice Admiral Grosslag said about the moving forward with the analysis of alternative alternatives using model based system engineering information digital models I really like what you said about that but my question is more how do we how do we do that for the systems that we have and we have systems that are in the fleet right now that are going to be there for the next 10 20 even 30 years how do we how do we retroactively make those systems more interoperable basically we own a lot of goats and chickens how do we make them talk right now thank you I don't know where the goats and chickens came from okay just let it go that's a great question I mean if you look at this stuff that Admiral Moore has been working on for the last 10 years those aircraft carriers are going to last this for 50 years but I think you also know that we tend to modify and upgrade our platforms on a very regular basis and there are continuing opportunities for us to implement that type of thought process in those upgrades as ECPs in fact we will gain more traction in those modification programs and upgrades in the near term that we will in the long-term program of record because what I showed you up there we think could save I'll tell you my subject matter expert at home will tell you 50% of the development process and he says that with a straight face I'll buy maybe 30 to 40 based on what I've seen but that's still a long time from the start of that the next generation Air Dominance AOA that I talked about to the time we deliver something but in the interim we're doing mid-life upgrades to Hornets we're doing follow on modernization for F-35 already and we haven't even introduced the airplane in the Navy yet so there's tons of opportunities out there we need to inculcated into the system so it's not just the exception for new starts but it's everything we do I got to go back to I think they're related to the question the gentleman before you asked about what kind of comms do we need seamless we have a lot of this stuff is Emerald Becker alluded to a lot of this stuff is already out there but when we go back and do those mod programs we got to make sure they talk to each other just because you have link 16 doesn't mean you can talk to another platform with link 16 many people assume that's kind of a done deal you've got the same radio you've got the same waveforms why can't you talk to each other it's much more complicated than that as most of you know those are the types of things we can do real almost real time with modifications and upgrades to the platforms to get after your question thanks I'd like to follow up there Admiral Gross-Clogs in your presentation you talked about this virtual virtual environment engineering digital representations of systems and those sorts of things presumably there is a a low latency way of mixing them all up so that you could then also do in addition to engineering you could do TTP and con ops mapping at a fleet level who's who is charged with creating that architecture that system and that capability yeah it's a interesting question the navy has recently stood up a digital warfare office headed by our folks in the op nav and in two and six and they're setting up that framework that overarching architecture but quite honestly it's the folks that at nav air nav sea and spay war and marine core systems command that are going to be putting in the foundational elements of that and actually making it work doing the engineering but you're absolutely right this is not just to solve a systems this is to ensure that the end in mind we can not only do the training but we can do the assessment of our con ops and our con amps in that digital environment and understand that hey if the threat changed tomorrow what impact would that actually have on our war fighting capability and it's not a guess now it's based on digital representations of the stuff that we have in the fleet thank you yes sir hi uh tim jarra from peo c4i if you look around the room and out in the hallways we have a lot of national partners are here are we building in the ability to operate with him in this just distributed ops or are we going to have to make it up as we get there yes I can add from my my previous job with nafc so there's a group called maritime theater missile defense right and we just did a sm3 engagement the first ballistic missile defense engagement on the european continent with our coalition partners 10 10 countries that were part of this capability that we put out there we have with NATO that network that we can link together with our partners and past data so that they can help us on cruise missile defense at the same time we're doing ballistic missile defense so in my mind that is a great view of how we work with our coalition partners it's in as a no three I worked at at a c-fac combined forces air component commander as no five I've worked at the multinational core Iraq across friends and partners as no seven we ran about three billion dollars of farm military sales for c4i equipment to share with our friends and partners to make sure we can be interoperable the answer to the question is yes we've got to bake it in and continue to do so because that is how we operate as a maritime force and not not to be a pitch pass for anybody in industry here but we have the best success in doing what you describe quite honestly through many of our fms or partnership cooperative partnership programs with our international partners f-35 is a great example ph a great example our relationship with Australia on f-18 e and f and growlers a great example where those fleets of aircraft are inherently interoperable from day one e twos is another great example so when we are able to do things like nifca it will only greater fire control counter air highly integrated exercise with a ship from another nation that's a huge step forward but we have the same challenges with our foreign partners or international partners that we do with our own platforms I just described again use link 16 is a simple example it's not just giving them the box you got to make sure the rest of the software and message sets are there as well though yes mercy doble syncron apple growth likes you in your slide had everything that everyone was looking for except one thing I found wasn't included was the new domain based the new domain based overlay that's being done and and push down from up now Bob way through this comes in doing domain based capabilities domain based requirements trying to get out about stove fight and the platform subject world how do you feel about that and also for you at the more as difficult as it is for up now with all there and high nines it's going to be most difficult I think for NAPC because you're stove piped as we are and I'd like to know your views I'm I'm honest I'm sorry but it's true okay so I'd like to know your views on on how my navy might overcome that I'll be brief I think what we're doing with looking at our budget build on a domain basis is absolutely the right approach we need to take it quite honestly to the next step I alluded to earlier which is we really need to make it capabilities or mission based even in the domains they're so broad that it makes it very difficult to fund a horizontal thread across that domain so we still fall back to funding but what do I need to do on an F-18 what do I need to do on a DDG 1000 we really need to um I guess take the next step from the domain down to the mission capabilities yeah I agree with that I mean I think that having been around Washington DC now for 18 years I'm sorry to admit that but um yeah I think the domain-based way of looking at it makes a lot of sense we're going to look at you know we're going to look at the air domain we're going to look at the cyber domain and under see domain and we're going to look at the capabilities that we need and then we're going to tie those back into the capabilities you have and then where are the gaps and I think actually the domain way of looking at is meant to do exactly what you're what you're talking about the challenge though which is get out of the stove pipe way of looking at things today where if you're at 97 you're just worried about submarines if you're at 98 you're just worried about planes and aircraft carriers so I think you know this was uh this is the first time we've tried this as we've gone through this budget build process for an IT and and we've learned a lot and as we get into bomb 20 I think you'll see going forward that's a it's a much better way for us to to build a budget from the from the bottom up yeah let me give you one simple example of why we need to take it to the next step today we've got our cyber domain brief this afternoon getting compasses EW electronic warfare there are there are capabilities that are listed in the in that domain that are required to make um missions work in the air domain which is being briefed tomorrow afternoon and right now there's not the logical connection to between those two we need to connect them from a mission perspective here for us from NGA more on the safety and navigation department for nautical charting and my question is more to the infrastructure of our current fleet and our future fleet how long would it take for them to get fitted with the right software to be able to read the information that we're providing to them and move away from as the Navy had requested or planned to move away from paper charting okay I'm not sure I understood what you're asking there what is the what is the timeframe that you see in terms of modernization and safety of navigation of fitting the the fleets that we have our ships with the right capability to view the digital data that's being provided that's being created for them yeah I think that effort's underway we haven't completely gotten rid of charts I think for a good reason if you look in the cyber domain today in particular there's probably given us some pause to go completely digital with all of our navigation in fact if you go look at the naval academy today I told the Emma Carter I put a plug in for the naval academy at some point during the presentation so here it is you know they've taken when I was Mitch Hitton and back in a long time ago in 1981 I graduated we all learned how to use the sex that we learned how to shoot stars and do celestial navigation and kind of moved away from that in fact I was kidding my aid in the way over here today because we can't drive between the Navy Yard and here without him pulling Google map out to drive over here and I said day what happens on the satellite goes down you're gonna be able to find your way around so I think we certainly want to get as paperless as we can and I think we're headed in that direction with the technologies that we have have out there today but I I think there's you know recent events that probably prove it out to us that having that capability to go back to some of the old ways of paper is probably something we don't want to get rid of completely good morning thanks very much Howard Watson from Centel Corporation the the underlying premise for this whole panel is on distributed ops and then and in order to do that is the reliance on accessibility to the to the domain that she kind of hinted at which is the electromagnetic domain spectrum domain Mike I'm curious as to how your organizations are with the impending sale the recent sale of federal spectrum the impending sales and spectrum sharing efforts what are your organizations doing to you know specifically plan for the reduction in access to spectrum both here you know in in legal you know regulatory reduction in in spectrum and then obviously in the the contested environments in which you're going to deal with in the future what are your organizations doing to address the future spectrum sell-offs that are that are going to be coming all eyes are on you is there a CIO in the house for us it's a we talked earlier about resiliency and having the ability to constitute our communications needs to support operations across a variety of media as well as within the spectrum some of those decisions are outside our control some of them we try to influence but then that goes up as you're I'm sure well aware to the level beyond the service beyond the department and then it becomes a national level concern what we where we do take specific action or in response to selling off certain parts of the spectrum where we're supporting our shift to shore maneuver and making sure that we've got the capacity to support the Marines as they move ashore and stay connected between the storm forces and the beach but it's it's as you are aware of moving target at times as to where that next requirement will come for or come from for support to the commercial sector as opposed to the somewhat broader usage that we have had the other part of this making more efficient use of the bandwidth that we do have and how could we compress more capability into a smaller part of the RF spectrum and be more effective with the bandwidth that we maintain different kinds of modulation can help us with that and certainly in the research and development world we're constantly looking for ways to use our existing bandwidth and modems more effectively these will be the last two questions thank you guys my name is Benjamin Iqbalan from naval surface warfare center crane division my question kind of relates to Admiral Groslag's comments earlier you got you talked about back in the historical the vertical silos analogy that sustainment takes takes priority and an interoperability takes a back seat to that when the funding is allowed and you then talked about how funding from Capitol Hill isn't going to change anytime soon and so I kind of want to take a third deviant with that if you don't mind the acquisition lifecycle takes 25 some years I'm going to be around for that as one of the new guys but truth of the matter is how do we know the the the doctrines how do we know what interoperability and communication all that all that ability to it how do we know what that's going to look like so that we can plan for what's coming down the pipeline from there we don't that's why we have to that's why we have to build the flexibility into our systems you know we it's been overused for decades but open architectures the disaggregation that Admiral Becker was talking about earlier that's exactly how we have to approach that because we don't know so we have to make our systems open enough to and flexible enough to be able to do that and the same thing applied to the ships you know I kind of you've heard me I've talked about the age of the electric ship as we head into the future and if you look at Ford indeed as you went thousand and you know to the extent to Columbia we've got to make our and talk about the future subscribe we've got to be able to make our ships flexible enough to be able to handle the communications the weapon systems of the future and that means that the ships themselves have to to be open and be able to grow because we don't know Tamarosa's point we don't know what the threat is going to look like 20 to 25 or 30 years ago we have pretty got a year five years from now about 10 years we start starts to get a little fuzzy when you and the other Warford Center guys are still working here 50 years from now it'll look a lot different than it does today I guarantee you that thank you very much bless question hi Sam LaGrone with USNI News questions for the panel as the fleet's looking to be more interoperable and and there is indication from the administration that the fleet needs to increase in size I was wondering if any of y'all had concerns about the industrial base particularly second tier folks down the chain due to industry consolidation for competition and potentially for foreign acquisition of essential components so I mean I'll take it first yeah we do have concerns going forward I think you know we have a relatively small industrial base tier one who's going to build who are building the ships today and that well that might change slightly it's it's not going to be dramatic change and is who's building the complex ships that we're building today going forward however the second tier guys that's really kind of sometimes people forget when we when we go up or go down they tend to forget about the suppliers and the small you know mom pause shops out there develop some really eye-watering technology today and we have to protect that going forward so to the extent that we can keep them in business and we can keep them out there innovating and providing competition is all good so that's something that we need to continue to focus on in particular as we start to grow the size of the fleet yeah I'll just add the same things during the aviation industry and our weapons base it's the second and third tier vendors that were really concerned about the the OEMs if you will have largely become I hope nobody takes this the wrong way but somebody will they've largely become assembly factories they don't make most of the stuff that they put together and then provide to us so it's a second and third tier vendors and those are the ones that are less able to adapt to the vagaries of changing budgets and changing directions and when we add we add platforms one year and then we take them out the next year it's the second and third tier vendors without the the financial base that suffer the most and have the hardest time adapting and I take it back to the talent management if you look at young people in America today there's not an emphasis on vocational tech anymore on going out and getting skilled labor we need in the shipyards there's not young people surging in to take stem courses we just had a stem program here yesterday as part of sear space in fact so I think that's the talent management and growing the right talent to work in those shipyards whether they're a big shipyard a private shipyard or in our case the Coast Guard shipyard or a small business supplying those shipyards the talent management is really going to be the crux this might might be my last opportunity but I have to put a plug in for new amphibious ships right with Emma Moore because we we need more but I think we're working I'm your Uber guy right? but I I think we're working toward that with LPD 29 and LXR and the new amphibs that we've got coming out so that's going to be you know when you building the 355 ship Navy we're looking for more amphibs to get us around thank you all Admiral gentlemen thank you for being here today you have courtesy of the Navy League of speakers gift in front of you please take it with you and I would like to ask all of you and joining me in a round of applause for these distinguished guests thank you