 down while she does the introduction. Let me welcome everybody here this afternoon. Thank you so much for coming down. And we are really looking forward to a great session today with Admiral Ruffhead. And then hopefully members of the media already got this information. But if you didn't, there will be a special press availability in the back of the room after this session from 5 to 545. So members of the press are welcome to join Admiral Dorsette for further discussion at the conclusion of our talks today. We turn now to introducing our keynote speaker, Admiral Gary Ruffhead, who is now, I believe, three days into his third year as the 29th Chief of Naval Operations. I recently learned that he grew up in all kinds of bad places, or interesting places, I should say, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, among others. And so perhaps we should get a full list of everywhere you've been and keep a close eye on them. But in any case, he decided to embrace that international life by joining the Navy, graduated from the Naval Academy in 1973 as a surface warfare officer. He then went on to six operational commands to include a NATO command. And he is one of only two officers to serve to command fleets in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. He's received numerous commendations and medals throughout his career, and we're deeply honored to have him here to talk about the changes the Navy is making to better position itself for the Information Age. So thanks very much. Go over to your top. Thanks, Mark. Appreciate it. Thank you. Well, I think, as Martin alluded to, the places where I grew up properly prepared me for life in Washington. So I'm in good company there. But it really is a pleasure to be here with you. And of course, as Martin mentioned, I have Vice Admiral Jack Dorsett, who is our director of Naval Intelligence and who figures very prominently into the moves that we are making within the Navy, within my headquarters, but within the Navy structure writ large, and our approach into the wonderful world of cyber. As Martin also mentioned, in embracing the international life, next week we will be hosting, as we do every two years, the International Sea Power Symposium in Newport Road Island. Four years ago, we had 76 countries there. Next week, 106 countries will assemble in Newport Road Island with, what we believe right now, 100 chiefs of service, of maritime service, to be there. So that's a pretty significant event for us. But the reason I mention it is because in preparation for it, I was looking back at a speech that was written for one of my predecessors for the first International Sea Power Symposium in 1969, a speech written for Admiral Arleigh Burke. And I was really struck that I could take that text and deliver that speech next week, and it would be dead on target. And so I think it makes a lot of sense to me to come here to talk about the future in a place that is so tied to Admiral Arleigh Burke, because he was one of the co-founders. So it's just kind of a connection that I've enjoyed. But I would like to take this opportunity, as I said, to talk about what I think are some rather significant moves that we're making within the Navy to better man-train and equip the United States Navy for the fight that we're in and for the challenges that we're likely to face in the future. I came into my current position having spent the past few years with the operational forces of the United States Navy in the Atlantic and in the Pacific in joint positions and in Navy positions. And it was in that period of time that I had a wonderful vantage point on the uses of information, particularly in an operational sense, how we gathered it, how we processed it, how we managed it, how we exchanged it, and most importantly, how we then tried to use it. I also have had the insight recently of being able to make several trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see how, particularly in the area of special operations, that we have been able to fuse information and intelligence into operations in ways that we have never been able to do before and in ways that have made our forces there extraordinarily more effective, where we can use the power of the networks to get the information, the right information, to the right person at the right time to be able to do the right thing. And even though we have been moving along over these last couple of years, I don't think that we and the Navy had gone far enough. And it became clear to me, and this idea really has been germinating now for about three years, that we really needed to transform our strategic concepts, the institutions, the organizations, the capabilities and the processes, and I think possibly most importantly, our culture, if we as a Navy are to remain dominant in this information age or cyber age or whatever moniker you choose to put on it, I think that we have to take advantage of the new opportunities that exist, such as the vast stores of collected data, information and intelligence that often lie at rest, unrecoverable, unavailable, and untapped, to take advantage of the ability to filter, to analyze, and then disseminate that information and to link that information, that appropriate information, to either kinetic or other decisive effects in real time. To take the opportunity to communicate more broadly with people and with more people, and also in that exchange of information to better understand the cultures in which we will operate. To take the opportunity to share that information in ways that we can foster relationships and build the capacity of other militaries, and particularly in our case, other navies, that may not be at the same place where we are. And to be able to do that in a way that we're not constrained by the barriers that often fall into the path, either because of security issues or policy issues. And I think that it has been reflected that there's great power in that latter piece with the work that we have been able to do in a very short period of time in areas such as maritime domain awareness and how we exchange that information with other partners, with other navies, with other countries that can contribute and foster increases in defense capabilities and security capabilities. There's no question that as we move off into this area that there are vulnerabilities associated with it. I think one of the vulnerabilities is our dependency, that the navy does require unfettered access, uninhibited access, to assure communication capabilities in cyberspace. We need that to operate. The vulnerability, too, that cyber in and of itself is a battle space. First we learned how to fight on land, and then we went to the seas and then the skies. And now we're going to be fighting in this newer domain, and we are fighting in this newer domain. In the business of ships and aircraft submarines, I think that there exists between the United States and other navies around the world. I'm quite comfortable with the capability gaps that we have in those areas of ships, submarines, and airplanes. But in cyberspace, that is a much more contested space. And the question for me has been, do we enjoy that same capability gap there? And we must be prepared to operate in cyberspace when it's denied, and then we must be able to also be able to deny space when it's required or when it's appropriate. And the other vulnerability, I think, is the speed of action and response. We can make pretty quick decisions in combat today. But I believe the pace is only going to get faster and faster and faster. And as I looked at this, it also was apparent to me that cyber is going to be particularly challenging for us because the nature of the cyber domain is pretty unique in many ways. I'd say the first is what I'll call the low bar of entry. You don't have to travel or pay to have great technology to enter into this battle space. So it's a pretty low entry fee to get into it. The second is that speed, I touched on speed earlier, but speed in cyberspace takes on a new meaning. We used to be able to think in terms of speed of weapons and how fast they were. And we could talk in minutes, and then it became seconds. But as someone pointed out to me in cyberspace when you can do a Google search that can scour the web and come back with 309 million results for the word Google in a tenth of a second, that speed that is almost incomprehensible, if not incomprehensible. And that also that we're going to be in a domain that, in a way, is self-governing. The internet grew on its own out of a need to share information among US government labs. And it's been growing and morphing ever since. And then the fourth being that cyber is going to be a pervasive, a persistent, and an adaptive domain. People are always in it. They are never absent from it. So there is someone in that space all the time. And it affects our lives in some pretty extraordinary ways. And it is going to constantly be adapting. And because of that adaptation, there's a reason, I think, why Microsoft has had to go to patch Tuesdays instead of patch a month. So these are some of the challenges that I think are with us in what has shaped my thinking as we move forward. But I would also say that the United States Navy has been no stranger to the world of networks and information and clearly as a service that relies heavily on technology. We have always had the challenge of communicating over long distances. From the first time, we started going to sea. And to show that I'm not exactly that far forward a thinker when it comes to cyber. One of my favorite quotes, I'll also go back to Admiral Harley Burke when he said going to sea used to be fun, and then they gave us radios. So some things haven't changed, as I said. But in a way, the Navy was the first to move to network operations. In fact, the first course that I attended as an ensign in the United States Navy, on my way to my first ship, was a course in the Naval Tactical Data System and TDS. So even from my earliest days, we have been involved in networks and the sharing of information in an electronic medium. And we've been operating with integrated sensors and networks that bridge information and operations between our ships, our airplanes, our submarines, and now our unmanned systems, guided missiles, satellites, facilities, the shore, and our computer networks. In the time that we have done business in these domains, we've developed important relationships with other institutions, organizations like DISA and NSA. And that, too, has kind of shaped who we are, how we think, and how we do business. And we, as a Navy, have also had some pretty proficient operators. And we have instituted some fairly top-notch schools in the area of cyber operations and cryptology. Admiral Grace Hopper, one of our earliest luminaries, is someone who is somewhat of a giant in this. We, in the Navy, were designated the executive agent for Joint Cyber Warfare in 1999. And we established the Joint Schoolhouse in 2001. And then in 2004, we stood up the Cryptologic Technician Network rating, specifically focused on cyber operations. And outside of cyber, but very important, information dominance, Navy has, what I would say, in elite intelligence, communication, information operations, and oceanography professionals within our cadre, officer and enlisted. And I believe that all of these efforts over the last decade have positioned us to lead in cyber in a way that the nation would expect. So while we are well positioned and we have experience and we have talent, I'm not sure we have taken enough of a bold or comprehensive approach, and one that can really leverage the world of cyber in our operations to ensure that we have the access and to enable better decision making on the part of our operators. And this is why I directed the reorganization of my staff and made three what I consider to be important moves for the Navy. The first is on my staff to combine the director of intelligence and the director for C4I into one entity, into now instead of an N2 and an N6. It will become an N26 or the director for information dominance. The legacy platform-centric approach that has been part of our Navy for so many years, the ships, the submarines, the airplanes, I believe is the way of the past. Those artificial divisions, and in some cases they have been not too artificial, particularly as you get into budgetary issues, have really caused us to suboptimize our ability to aggregate combat capability and the movement of information in ways that can maximize the effectiveness of a fleet of a unit or of an individual. So we're bringing together the resource sponsorship for all of our information-related capabilities into one entity, and that will include intelligence, networks, electronic warfare, cyber, meteorology, and oceanography, space, and unmanned systems. They will all be resourced in one organization, and we will manage those capabilities collectively and holistically to achieve information dominance for the Navy and for the Joint and Interagency partners. The reorganization is moving quickly, as it should, and will be complete by the end of this year. An N26 or the director of information dominance will be the one making the major investment decisions as we prepare our 2012 budgets. And if someone asked me this morning, where are you along this timeline? And I think the quote from Hernando Cortez applies. We've burned the boats. There's no going back. So Jack, you're the helmsman. We are also establishing the Fleet Cyber Command. It will be the service component to the US Cyber Command at Fort Neat. He will be dual-hatted as the Commander Fleet Cyber Command and Commander 10th Fleet. It's a similar model organizationally and functionally as we have with NAVSENT and Fifth Fleet. So one entity, but basically two functions that will enable Fleet Cyber Command to execute the operational missions required by US Cyber Command and by the Navy and often ask why 10th Fleet? It has some historical roots. There was a 10th Fleet in the United States Navy at one time. In World War II, there was a new threat that came on to the scene that was strangling Great Britain and seriously affecting our ability to control the seas. And that threat was called a submarine. And we couldn't get our head around how to get after these submarines. We had some information, some intelligence, but we couldn't synchronize the intelligence and the operations. So Admiral Ernest King stood up 10th Fleet and we were able to overcome the submarine threat that existed at that time. So 10th Fleet will be reactivated as Cyber Fleet. While N26 will focus on the investments that will ensure our dominance, Fleet Cyber Command will focus on the operations. Fleet Cyber Command will be the cyber operator for the Navy. And I think, as in all things for me, the most important element of any organization is the people. And that, I think, is the most important change that we're going to make. The technology, I believe, is going to be available to us. But people who will operate in this domain will be in a premium because there will be great competition for their intellect, for their experience, and for their competence. So people are going to be the key. So what we have done is to take our already very proficient and experienced operators and create with them and with others an information dominance core. Right now we have a lot of ratings, a lot of specialties within the Navy, that in and of themselves are a bunch of different communities, different structures, if you will. And we will combine them into an information dominance core. It will include our information professionals, information warfare, intelligence, cryptology, the aerographers, mates, IT professionals. They will all be combined into an information dominance core. And when you add that together, it will constitute about 44,000 sailors in the United States Navy. They will retain their individual identities, but they will be managed as a core. They will develop as a core, and they will fight as a core. So the goal in doing this is to ensure that the commander gets the right information to the right place at the right time so that they can effectively perceive, understand, reason, decide, and is the culture of the Navy command. That's what all of this is about. These are important changes that I believe we needed to make, that we now have made to realize a more effective operational environment for the Navy. So I'm pleased that we're underway. And as I said, this is where we're headed. And with that, I'll take any questions you may have. Yes, sir? I'm sorry. And it's restricted line officers. And I'm wondering how you see these changes, this convergence of intelligence and operations affecting that structural and cultural, I don't want to call it divide, but bifurcation in the Navy. I think what we will see as a result of this and as a result of the creation of the core and the identity of the core is a warfighting community that will be viewed and seen and considered as clearly a warfighting dimension of the United States Navy and not a supporting branch of the Navy. And we are also going to be moving in the direction of, at least initially, limited direct accessions into the information dominance core, which was something we have not done, excuse me, as you know, in the past. Stan? The terms and your initial memo for the new N00X capability on regarding capabilities assessment read very like what N81 does now. And in the Navy planning part of the PPP process, what is the line as you begin to implement this between the traditional warfighting capability assessments and functions of N81 and the new, maybe overarching capability assessments of the N00X? Yeah, thanks for the question. And I didn't talk about that, but in addition to the cyber adjustments on the staff, we're also creating a director of warfare integration. The designator is N00X is what we've put on it. And the reason it's N00X is because that director will be a direct report to me. And the intent of N00X is not to do detailed analysis, but rather to take into account the analysis that is available to us, to look across the portfolio, many portfolios within the Navy, not just the platform portfolios, and to be able to look at those areas where we want to accept or reduce risk and advise me on where the investments need to be made. So it won't be as much detailed analysis, but rather stepping back, looking across the entire Navy, the activities that we have going on, the investments that we're making to provide direction as to where we can move, where we should throttle back a little bit and paint a more complete picture of what I refer to as the entire kill chain. From that first tickle of intelligence that you need, all the way through the options that you have, all the way to potentially a final kill. And so that's what I'm looking at N00X to look at, clearly. I would also see them providing certain looks at particular warfare areas, dimensions of warfare, and being able to provide top-level assessments that I can use in developing my decisions. Yes, ma'am? About the international partner aspect to this. And as you guys are restructuring yourselves internally, how are you going to also work with your international partners that maybe aren't up to speed in making all the changes that you are to address this cyber problem? Yeah. Well, I think actually by consolidating these activities into one entity, I think that we can have a more coherent view for our partners as we work on things like maritime domain awareness, data links. I mean, we in the Navy now have to go to a variety of different organizations within the Navy to address these various things. N26 or the Director of Information Dominance, all of that will be resident in the one organization. And I would say that initially the most active area is probably going to be the portfolios that have the maritime domain awareness activity associated with it because that's where much of our international effort is right now on reaching out pretty much regionally with other navies and other maritime services to get some interoperability going there. So I think it's going to work much better in that regard. Sir? Admiral, you mentioned speed of action and response. And currently the Trident Warrior series generally takes one or two years at a minimum to field new systems. And also we have a lot of times the accreditation where people don't necessarily assess things to be in risk adverse, but rather risk intolerant. And so it's Stymie's innovation sometimes within the Navy. So how do you see these changes so that we can field new systems to the fleet faster? Right. I think that is a great frustration of mine, how long it takes. As an operator, you want it yesterday when you see something that's promising. And quite frankly, that is a significant driver in how I got to where I am, being able to get the complete look at what we're dealing with. For example, in the area of sensors, and I know Jack will talk in greater detail about how we're going to be put together. But in the area of sensors right now, I can go to multiple leads, whether it's a underwater sensor, above water sensor, on the water sensor. All of that now will be in one place. And I think we can make a better decision about where the right investment will be. And are we being redundant, or are we leaving some gaps? And then the double OX organization is who I will rely on to be able to talk about those. And in fact, I just came from our Office of Naval Research. And we're going to be putting someone from the Office of Naval Research into double OX so that we can look at what might be out there. We'll have the common view from info dominance and then make decisions based on that and work to drive to earlier realization. I'm not naive in thinking that there will not be impediments and that there will not be inertia, especially when you're displacing one program for another. But I believe that this will give us a more common view and a more synchronized view as to where we will get the best return on that money. Yes, sir? As you all know, this generation of sailors have fairly high expectations to remain connected to family and friends while they're deployed and underway through social networking and sites like Facebook. And also, as you all know, a lot of bad things happen on the internet. Will the N2O6 organization and Cyber Command be involved both in the war fighting and as well as the social or morale end of cyber in terms of shaping policy? If it's a network, if it's moving information in some way, it will be the director of information dominance that will have that. And you touched on a very good point. There is no question that that is going to become more and more important to us as we go forward, not simply from the standpoint of the expectations of young people who are coming into the military today and the security issues associated with it, the costs associated with it, but the value that comes from it. I'm intrigued by it, and I get the risk, and I see the value today in a pretty good way. But I go back to several years ago when some of us first started to hear of something called chat. And chat was just something that was out there. Go in any command center, in any service today. That is how we command and control. And I would venture to say that the person that heard about chat when it first popped into the lexicon never envisioned where it was going to go. And I think that some of the power that we see in the social networks, I think we're on the front edge of something that potentially will change the way that we communicate and exchange information and awareness in the future. I don't know what it's going to look like, but I can guarantee you it ain't going to look like what it is today. And the young people that we have today, especially these folks that we're talking about being in the Infodominance Corps, are going to teach us things that we never thought possible. And so that's where I think this is going to take us. And by the way, you can find me on Facebook if you want to. Mitzi, for you. I'm Mitzi Wertheim with the Sbrowski Institute. I want to take off on that, which is foreign languages. And a lot of information gets through language. So my question is, what are you doing about expanding the population that can be able to speak the languages? I mean, I look back on World War II, where one of our advantages was Navajo, because nobody else can understand it. And it seems to me we're on the other side of that stick right now. Well, we have in our enlisted ranks, we've incentivized the learning of languages. In our commissioning programs, we've done the same thing. I think the challenge for us is to be able to get the right balance between when do you teach the language, what degree of proficiency do you want, and what's the return on that investment. Is it better that you expose a lot of young officers as ensigns to a particular language with the intent that one of them as a captain is going to become the attaché to that particular country? Or that they will be conducting maritime security operations with that country? Or do you seek ways, as you neck down on those assignments, to have effective ways of teaching that language? So I think what we've done is we've started to immerse more of our sailors into second languages. But I also believe that we need to think about when, where, how much, and to what end. And I'm very interested in that because you're absolutely right. I think there's a language component, but then there's also the cultural awareness component. And I'm not sure you have to have both all the time. But I would submit that when you go somewhere, you have to have the cultural awareness. And then the language is something that I think is additive to that. In the back, yes, sir? I'm Harry Inland. I'm a lawyer. Just curious how you protect your communications. In other words, if you're sending something out, can somebody hack into it? Is there, there's a security aspect to the whole thing? Yes, sir, without question. The security aspect is huge. And that's why I believe that having an organization and a fleet that is looking globally, that is, that has the right skills and folks who are trained and experienced in it is the best defense there. I do not think you're ever going to get to the point where the attacks are going to stop. And it's just a question of how you prepare yourself and present yourself to be able to counter the attacks, recover from the attacks, and the policies that you put in place to make sure that you don't become so overly protected that you're not passing any information either. So I don't know if that hit on the question or not. Yes, sir, in the back. Yes, Admiral. Gildewald from the High College at National Defense University. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on how you think these initiatives will affect JPME. Thank you. How they'll affect JPME? I think it really is probably a, what I'd be more interested in is how is JPME teaching our people about this environment and by developing a cadre of experts. And experts may be too bold to word because I think this is going to be a constantly evolving field of knowledge. But I do believe that this Information Dominance Corps can become the pool from which the JPME programs can bring in the pros who are current, who are practiced in being able to impart the knowledge that they've leaned over their experiences to the commanders and to the practitioners that are coming along. So I think it will create a pretty robust group of folks well-grounded, well-versed, and well-practiced in information operations. Yes, sir. Good diamond from Raytheon. If I were one of those 100 service heads up in Newport next week that hear about this, I might be tempted to think, oh, brother, there they go again. They're gonna leave us further behind in my service and the US Navy tends to do the great things first and maybe think of us as an afterthought. Are there components of your changes that will keep our partner capacity sort of a pace with us from the get-go or is that something that's gonna come later? No, I think that this will help us put the initiatives that we have underway with our foreign partners in a better context with what we're doing than what we currently do now. Right now, a lot of the command and control activities either has its foundation in the N6 or in the N8. As you get into some of the higher-end war-fighting paths or data paths that we use. The Maritime Domain Awareness Organization and the activities that take place there are in my N35 organization. So I now have three directors who are making decisions that affect that balance and that access and the consideration for our foreign friends and partners. This will all be in one entity and in the decisions that we make with regard to Maritime Domain Awareness, data links, our Maritime Ops Centers will all be done within one organization as opposed to spread out across several areas within the organization. So I think it's gonna be a positive and if there's one area that we have worked extraordinarily hard and where it's been my pleasure in the past couple of years to see some terrific progress made by our Navy Component Commanders at regional levels. It's been an MDA and the way that we have pulled regions together and now are in the process of connecting regions but it's not a U.S. only show. Today I have my Italian counterpart here and he is the spark plug on many of the coalition activities that we have going on and we intend to keep it that way but this is actually gonna help us do that. I think we have two up front when we get there. There's one over here in the shirt and tie and then if somebody popped here I'll take that one as well. In your speech you mentioned technology gaps. Can you elaborate a little bit and specifically state what some of the technology capability challenges that you face are? Well my comment there really was gaps that I think favor us. As I've often said in talking about the Navy today capability is not what I worry about most. Capacity is what I worry about most. So as you look at in the individual warfare areas we enjoy some pretty incredible systems and capabilities and so I do believe that there is a little bit of a buffer that we enjoy. That's not that we rest on our laurels but for me it's capacity that has my attention today. Admiral, question on the acquisition process of moving these technology faster. You made the comment early about Microsoft doing patches a week versus patches a month. What's gonna be the view, vision now of moving acquisition processes faster so that you can move things to the tactical float and to the desktop faster so that technology's available to the sailors as was brought up earlier by getting more social networking but clearly there's a counterpoint to that where you also have to secure that if you're gonna release it faster. You have any comment on that process of moving that alone? What I would say is I think that's a process that needs to be attacked because the speed with which this is moving and the speed with which the acquisition pace moves, it's not there. I'll be working with Sean Stackley as we go forward to see how we can accelerate that but it's not just a Navy issue and we're gonna have to get into it but there's no question that we often get involved in some pretty cumbersome processes and programs that by the time we get it out there, it is extraordinarily expensive in its technology of years past. I'll take one more and then I'm gonna turn it over to Jack Dorsett who can just mail every detail that you guys have. Thank you Admiral. Your remarks have been wonderfully enlightening. In the area of pointing out that the Navy is truly positioned to take this, the context seemed to be within Department of Defense, clearly cyber affairs affect society in general, every agency, every department. Where does the Navy, where do you envision the Navy being in the interagency as well as the international? Well, where I envision is the organization that I've put in place clearly will be vested within the Department of Defense and then Fleet Cyber Command will be the Naval component of US Cyber Command and so it's not that we become the figurehead or the leader, that's not my intent, but it's the intellectual effort that we can put behind this. The way that we can take the school houses for which Navy has responsibility and really advance the programs there to truly make them world class. For us to be able to put our intellectual effort and our energy into seeking out and determining good investment decisions and then to go back to the acquisition question, what can we do to contribute to the evolution? Indeed, one might say the needed revolution in acquisition as it applies to cyber entities. So I think that that is a role because of where we have been, the talent that we have, the duties that have already been passed to us in terms of training and education and to simply accelerate that and become a driver for change and relevance as we move into the future. But I thank you for your time, your great questions and your interest in this topic. It will become increasingly important. There's no question that it is not the easiest of areas in which to operate. It's going to continue to challenge us, but this in my opinion puts the Navy in a position to be organized so that we can man train and equip our Navy and contribute to the joint force in a way that's relevant for the future. So thanks CSIS for this opportunity. Thank you so much.