 Good morning everyone and thank you for coming this morning to what I think is going to be a really interesting discussion on the future of naval capabilities. Before we get into the event, let me just give our obligatory safety announcement. It's a very safe and secure facility recently inspected by Jay Johnson himself, so you're in good hands. But if anything were to happen, we have exits the way that you came in to the rear of the room and then there's also an exit in the back here and I will give direction if that event we were to need to leave were to arise. So follow me if that opportunity comes, but it probably will not. And let me begin with just a few remarks about our topic today and then I'll introduce our very illustrious speakers who are going to actually tell you what you need to know and answer your questions when we get to the Q&A portion. And I want to start the discussion by just mentioning that there's an incredible amount of work actually that the Navy and its sister services, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard have done thinking through their future plans. In March of this year here at CSIS actually on this stage, I believe, General Dunaway, General Admiral Greenert and Admiral Zee from the Coast Guard released the newest latest version of the maritime strategy that really and explicitly talked about being a document to guide the design of naval and other maritime forces going forward and talked about the critical missions for those forces that would guide that development access to the littorals combating terrorism and criminal elements addressing maritime territorial disputes and ensuring the flow of maritime commerce, particularly energy. It had a very strong emphasis on international cooperation and also on the maritime contribution to joint operations. Although developed I think very much in parallel with the naval S&T strategy, which supports the maritime strategy and established nine focus areas for Navy science and technology work. When you look out at the Navy's future, you see that the Navy has in place active, robust and fairly successful acquisition programs for every naval platform that you can readily think of across the air, surface and subsurface domains. And simultaneously there's been quite a bit of work done by O&R and others to modernize and develop leap ahead capabilities coming off those platforms. Areas like directed energy, electromagnetic propulsion and launch, UAVs and advanced radars and other sensors. And so hopefully today's discussion will give us a feel for how the organizations in the Navy that primarily manage some of these efforts, the N9 and the O&R, fit these various efforts together into a coherent approach to future naval capabilities. Without further ado, I'll introduce our speakers who will give just actually fairly brief remarks, but they both have a little bit to tell us up front and then we'll get into some discussion leading to questions from the audience. I know this crowd that comes to our maritime security dialogue always has excellent questions to ask. And I should mention too that the dialogue that we're part of, the maritime security dialogue today, has been sponsored by Lockheed Martin and we thank them very much for that support. Vice Admiral Joe O'Coyne is the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Warfare Systems N9 with a strong focus on requirements and future requirements for the Navy. He's also been nominated, but not yet confirmed to be Commander of the Seventh Fleet and congratulations on that sign of the work that you've done throughout your career and the esteem that you're held by the leaders in the Pentagon and by the President. Admiral O'Coyne graduated from North Carolina State University as a Naval Flight Officer. He's had operational billets and command billets throughout the Navy on the airside, including culminating with Command of Carrier Stripe Group 3, the USS John Stannis, near and dear to my heart from my time working out in the Pacific Northwest for the congressman who then represented Bremerton, Washington, Norm Dix, spending a little bit of time aboard the Stannis when she was all torn apart at the shipyard. He also has served in shore assignments throughout the Navy in the Budget and Requirements section, again culminating in his current position as Head of N9. He has an incredibly impressive range of awards that I won't detail because there are too many of them to detail, but truly check out his resume because it's quite impressive. I learned in our pre-discussion that he actually took a course from the current Secretary of Defense at that small liberal arts school on the Charles River of North before getting serious and getting a master's degree from Naval War College. Admiral Matt Winter is a graduate of Notre Dame, also a Naval Flight Officer and a pilot with a range of operational tours throughout, I think, four different carriers, which I don't know, that's probably not a record, but it was definitely impressive to me. He's had a range of impressive shore assignments in the acquisition community, which as an acquisition guy is a good thing to see, including with the Joint Standoff Weapon System, the Joint Strike Fighter Program, TAC-TOM, and Precision Strike Weapons, as well as serving as PEO for tactical aircraft programs in his time. He was Commander of China Lake, Point Magoo, and had Assistant Commander for Test and Evaluation at Nav-Air, and has been the Chief of Naval Research, which is a multi-multi-hatted job since December of 2014. And he also has a very long and impressive list of awards that you should look up as a CV to check out. And so with that introduction, Admiral O'Coyne, if you would kick off with some of your remarks. Okay, thanks, Andrew, and thanks, Admiral Daley, for this invitation, especially to get out of the building for a while. Really looking forward to the questions and comment session there, because I think we need to continue to be innovative. My job as N9 is a future naval capability, a lot in the platforms. But we need to continue to be innovative, to think how we're going to shape the future. I think Secretary Navey kind of put it in the right context. He said recently that the superiority that we have in technology and concepts in our Navy and our Marine Corps on the surface, above the surface, below the surface, from the sea just didn't happen. It was over a period of two centuries of collaboration and experimentation with people in uniform, people not in uniform, government, industry, to redefine what's possible. And so we need to keep doing that, because our threats out there, our adversaries, are doing pretty well adapting to the new technologies, in some cases, faster than we are. I read the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and there was a really good article in the Op-Ed piece about imagination. And it kind of resonated with me that our success in the Cold War was due to harnessing the technology out there, being innovative, and a concerted effort to win in the Cold War. That same type of concerted effort we need to do with the threats today. It's a pretty good article if you haven't read it. The way I view the world as N9, what context that I use is warfighting first, operate for it, and be ready. Most of you already know that from CNO. Those are his key tenants, and that's what drives me every day as the N9. Warfighting first. And some of the things that I'm concerned about are those anti-access aerial denial capabilities. It's always been out there, but there are some pretty good threats out there now that we need to be able to contend with. And so we need to be able to operate your Navy where it needs to be. I think the value of our Navy is to be forward-present. So make sure that things that skirmishes don't escalate into something bigger. And so we really want to be able to operate wherever we need to around the world. And so we spend a good deal of time making sure that we can operate in any region. And that's all in the context of where we are with our budget. With sequestration, with the continued budget shortfalls that we've been facing over the last couple of years, it's making it difficult. But we need to keep on being innovative, keep on thinking. I'm not going to talk too much longer, but there are a couple areas I think as the N9. My number one priority is a replacement, the Ohio Replacement Program. Nuclear deterrence, what we provide to our nation is the cornerstone of our defense. And we need to maintain that. And so the program is doing well and we need to keep it on track. As far as aviation, our air wing in the future, one of our best capabilities just went out in the Roosevelt. It was a naval integrated fire counter air. And it really integrates the sensors, the shooters, the platforms, so that we can leverage that capability to an even greater extent. We went out with increment one. We've got two more increments and it really does enable us to maximize the efficiency between shooters and platforms. And we need to do that because where we are taking risk is not necessarily capability, but we don't have the capacity. And NIFCA enables us to maximize that to the max extent. The E-18G Growler electromagnetic warfare, we are continuing to bring an airplane into the fleet and the next generation jamming pod. I think will serve us well for decades to come, as well as some of our munitions. Small diameter bomb, AIM-9X, AMRAM, the enhancements we're doing to those munitions will serve us well. In other areas, long range precision strike, sometimes a place where it's been a great deal of time, just where we are with our roadmap, with making sure Tomahawk remains a very good weapon. We're going to stand up a recertification line and we're going to leverage new technologies, warhead, command and control, data links that will make sure Tomahawk is a very viable weapon in the future. Along with that next generation strike weapon, what is that next weapon that we need in the 20s to make sure that we can face a threat, that we can go against A2AD, and so it's been a great deal of time on that. Other areas, OASUW, offensive anti-surface weapon, we're leveraging a lot, some of stuff that Matt's doing with Larasm, a long range anti-surface missile, and that's a teaming up with DARPA and with Lockheed Martin to get that out to the fleet, that's Paycom's urgent operational need, it's something we've been working on and we need to make sure that stays on track, and then the follow-on to that, that we will compete broadly and make sure that we have a good offensive anti-surface weapon. So those are just some of the areas, I don't have PowerPoint slides or anything like that, I just want to touch upon them. I'll leave with this segue into Matt's remarks, but we need to continue on with our research, we need to be able to find the right balance, all the money in the world can't solve some of the issues that we need to address, we need innovative thinking, we need to have the right balance between manned and unmanned, we need to have the right balance between kinetic and non-kinetic in that regard, and so we want to make sure that we're taking full advantage of that, one of the things that Secretary of Navy just stood up is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Navy for unmanned systems, and then in my organization, we're standing up, a sister to that is N99, a resource sponsor for unmanned, it's going to take all the stakeholders, all the operators in the unmanned world in all domains, and put them under one hat so that we can develop better synergy, we looked at all the things going on in the unmanned world, there's like over 300 different actions taking place, we want to combine all that so that we're not building ground stations that are unique, but that's only the start, we need to go beyond unmanned, we need to use emerging technology better, and so that N99 want them to go into how can we harness better emerging technology, get demonstrators, and get it out to the fleet, and have a willingness to occasionally fail, and so that, we're standing up now, that office will be in place in September, but that's where we want to take that, and there's a lot more work that needs to be done, and so look forward to your questions after Matt's comments, yeah. Thank you very much, Matt Winter on Admiral Daly, thanks again for the invitation and Andrew, that introduction, as the Chief of Naval Research, and apologize my voice, you're far enough away, they're not, we're okay. The Chief of Naval Research, I arguably have the best job in the Navy, I get to lead the best and brightest of over 4,000 scientists and technical professionals across the entire office of Naval Research Command, focused on that basic applied and advanced research, discovering that new knowledge, not knowledge you haven't read in a book, but knowledge that has never existed before, that then knits together into application and understanding of how we can take that new found knowledge and invention, and knit it to a capability focus that allows us then to come into a maturity domain, to then bring things together for prototyping and demonstration, as Admiral Alcoin mentioned. We do that with a focus on the business of the science, and it's important because in science and technology there's a perception that we're focused only on the future, and that we do cool science and it's mostly omnidirectional and we hope something comes out of that, and in some cases, and in that basic research, that is a domain that we allow that open loop exchange between scientists to scientists, but as Andrew mentioned, from the CS21 strategy that our maritime chiefs put together and have promulgated, we devolved down into an S&T strategy that provides a framework, not only for the Navy and our Marine Corps, but for industry and academia, because the S&T diplomacy and S&T community comes together in that triad. Good ideas in the innovative spirit is not husband in the Department of Defense, and so the chief enable research and our office enable research strategy is to go out and get the best and brightest, the best of breeds, collaborate, communicate, and bring together the innovative ideas so that we can meet those strategic goals of all domain access, so that we can eliminate technological surprise here and around the globe, so that our sailors and marines have unfair fights and away games and maintain that technological superiority in everything they do. Hand in hand in that mission is to ensure that we have the technological superiority in our laboratories, in our industrial base, and in our universities and colleges, so that we can continue to inspire and attract the next generation of innovative thinkers. It's a tall task and a tall mission for the S&T community and specifically the office enable research to pursue, but it's one that we do. We have a very logical investment strategy for the mere dollars that we get. One of the challenges and one of the issues that I've brought forward to senior leadership is very few corporate organizations, Fortune 100 companies, invest only 1% of their budget in their venture capitalism. That's what your department of Navy does. Department of Navy and arguably actually across the entire president's budget, we invest 3% of the president's budget on S&T, outside the department of defense as well as inside. So when we think about the resources, we have to be judicious, we have to be prudent, but we also have to be innovative and take those risks. Failure is measured in knowledge gain, in technologies put on the transition to a shelf for a latent success and a latent transition. That's the business of the science and it's important that we have leadership that understands and scientists that can engage in that. In the office enable research, we pursued that and that strategic, that S&T strategy that I encourage you if you have not had the opportunity to read. So as we do that business of science, what's the science of science? I will tell you that the Naval Research Laboratory and concert with our academic and university professionals around the world, we're in over 50 countries around the world with our O&R and global engagement strategy. Things like algorithmic phenomenologies, plasma, ionized metallic discoveries, the sub-nano material and particle engagements to turn a fiber laser into a 256 lane highway. The advanced material research that then turns things into the Google Glass that you have on your cell phones. These types of discoveries and this type of basic research is the fundamental building block to a JSF, to a Tomahawk, to the capabilities that our war fighters have today. So when I hear the word we need to be innovative, we are innovative, but we can't sit still. Our department, our Navy and Marine Corps is the premier maritime fighting force in the world. And I'll go toe to toe with anybody talking about that. Now we collaborate, but they're equipped with and they're manned with the innovative solutions over the past two centuries. Your Navy and Marine Corps continues to do that phenomenal work. So what was in a Petri dish and a test tube 30 years ago? Our Marines and sailors are using today. So the real question is, are we investing in the appropriate Petri dishes and test tubes today, so that we remain the relevant, dominant, for deployed fighting force, so that we can fight the fight, but also keep the peace. And so the areas of those that were focused on in the office of naval research are along the priorities of the chief of naval research in directed energy, in electric weaponry, kinetic and non kinetic, in electromagnetic maneuver warfare and electromagnetic spectrum discovery. We have not scratched the surface of the EMS. Although my physics professor from high school would tell me we did, we've got a lot to learn. And we're learning it. Undersea dominance, that is an inherently department and Navy domain. And we are just scratching the surface in some of the capabilities to be able to give Admiral Alcoyne and Ford Fleet commanders the emerging capabilities and technologies to build the Eisenhower Highway Network undersea across the entire seabed. Thousands of miles of logistical networks to allowed large scale deployment of UUVs. Allowing them to communicate, engage, resupply, have leave, take leave, do their mission. Those technologies are focused around the same technologies that support our directed energy, our unmanned systems and our electric weapons. Why is that? I look at S&T and science and technology as domain agnostic. The phenomenologies in a hydrodynamic domain are similar to an aerodynamic or similar to a vacuum. And so that precious dollar that we invest and that our scientists utilize in that basic applied advanced research, we make sure that we extract as the three to four times the ROI out of that dollar by applying it across the board. Now to Admiral Alcoyne's comment about making sure that we continue to remain innovative and more importantly, we get these technologies into the hands of our sailors. I couldn't agree with him more. Here's a need and understanding with industry and academia together with our Department of Navy to make sure that as these technologies like electromagnetic railgun is not a technology, it is a tapestry of technologies across all of those domains. But it is now capability. We're now in the phase of engaging in the integration and engineering. That's when the scientists we need to go back and bring the next capability forward. Our research and development establishment, our engineers that support our warfighters are now doing that tough job of ship integration, power integration. And we can't forget about that. Because if we don't have that domain as we bring technologies, they will end up going to the shelf more than will be going to our sailors and Marines. And we can't have that. Right? So what keeps me up at night is inefficiency. And so I don't sleep much. The fact is is that we are the most effective fighting force. But we can definitely be more efficient. And so from a directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and from an undersea domain, those are the areas that we're truly focusing on to ensure that we can give Admiral Alcoine in his next job the tool so he can do his job. With that, I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is really looking forward to this. So let's dive right into the discussion portion. I apologize. I'm going to ask a question that requires a little bit of prelude or build up so that hopefully it becomes a good question by the end. But what I really wanted to ask was about how you think through, how you maybe use a framework of some kind to think through and discriminate between all of the different capabilities that you could pursue, that both of you could pursue from your various lanes. And I'm thinking in terms of a way to analyze your choices and what really makes a difference versus something that would be really interesting and great, but may not be as applicable to today's problems or the problems that you anticipate five and 10 years time. And I'm thinking of things like kill chain analysis or some other way to just think through what makes a difference. What's the biggest payoff among all of the many technologies that ONR generates that you might think about to incorporate into the fleet? Well, I'll start off. Well, so there's a lot of things we need to do and how we we look at war fighting scenarios, the various ones that are applicable. And we look at all those missions that we need to do. And there's about 50 or so mission threats that we look at. And some people refer to kill chains, affect chains about what are those capabilities we need from end to end, fine, fixed, finished, kinetic, non kinetic and so forth. And where are the gaps in anti submarine warfare in mine countermeasures? You name it, but there's about 50 of them that we look at very closely. And then we look at the gaps and then our jobs prioritizing what gaps are there and how we should go about fixing those gaps. And we have some, but we make sure the big ones that a to ad that we can address. And so that's pretty much how we go about our assessment branch does a lot of that workforce. And that starts our process of here's the gaps. How are we going to solve them? And from that, from a science and technology perspective, we do technology push and technology pull. We can talk about the six one basic research prioritization in a different form. But to this point, we look at in O and R, the capability gap inputs from the fleet commanders afford fleet commanders, the tie coms from op nav. And we bring those together in their prioritization. We don't prioritize we take those prioritizations. And we look into the current research as is of what we have, what's on the shelf, what, because we've inherited a shelf inventory. We also look at what's emerging now. And then we offer up technology pushes and technology pulls. The technology pulls are traditionally along our future naval capability process, where you have a a program that's in work, it's in developments in the fit up, or you have a fielded capability that is starting that needs a technology boost. Those those capabilities that technology pull is one of the ways that we have a framework and a standardized way of evaluating and then investing in those are things such as the torpedo advanced propulsion system right now. How can we make our current inventory of torpedoes be able to have a greater reach? Some of that's engineering, but it can be supported and enabled by technology. So that that's an example of what I mean by technology pull. The warfighter came and they and they prioritize that torpedo capability and performance as a higher, higher priority. So we went in and we provided that back and now that's underway. A technology push is a warfighter is not sitting out there boy going I need an electromagnetic railgun, right? However, our advanced materials for the barrel, our ability to bring high power concentrations and bring it into a pulsed environment, and then be able to generate a Loran's force and take a hunk of metal and accelerate to Mach six. When we brought all that together, we brought that forward and said, we believe this has utility. Now, how do we get that guidepost Andrew from CS 21 from the fleet commander's ips and their their priority lists of capability gaps and from the bottoms up of technology capability gaps. So that just gives you a sense of how we bring that together. So there is method behind the the S&T madness. Well, you've unwittingly walked yourself into my next question, which is tied to some work that we did here at the center on this question of innovation. And one of the one of the things that that work identified was the challenge that the Navy, the whole Department of Defense faces any organization faces with with all the incredible technology work that you have going on within the Navy, within other parts of DoD within the university groups that you work with, but also in the commercial sector and outside. There's a tremendous amount of knowledge about all of that work that resides within the Navy and within the Department. But the question that is how does that knowledge that may be in the mind of various experts and individuals become enterprise knowledge that your acquisition community, your requirements community and your budget community can actually leverage because they're aware of it. It's not just in the mind of someone who's in the lab out out far from Washington, who's on the cutting edge. It's it's enterprise knowledge that can be leveraged by the entire organization. So let me throw that out. How do you see that happening or maybe could be happening better? If you like, I could start on that, sir. So from an S and T awareness, we have it's all about communication. It's about knowing, right? And that's the inefficiency problem. Sometimes we have duplication because we're not aware. It starts at the services level, the S and T executives, Army, Air Force and Department of Navy, we get together on a monthly basis. And we share what the work we're looking at. And we look for common cousin and unique, appropriate overlap in medical research, for example, makes sense. But the Army pursuing UUVs may not, right? So we have that conversation. And so there's knowledge spread there up and out. Down and in, we have a network of science advisors that are mapped to our Ford fleet commanders, to our TICOMS and to our OPNAB deputy CNOs that have insight and awareness of the emerging technologies, the progress and the failures in our 61 through 63 domain. And they provide that counsel and advice as the fleet commander identifies concerns, issues and barriers. So there's awareness there. And then we've reinvigorated the O and R awareness days, where we roll out and we bring in senior leadership so that we can give them portfolio information. And we're about to stand up a data repository. And ladies and gentlemen, it's called Crown Jewel. Pardon me. Crown Jewel, right? There's things that we need to share. And there's things that we shouldn't share. And so in the 61 domain, we share openly. And we share with our industry partners in the 62 and 63 domain, where it makes sense. So I feel confident that we have mechanisms to share, but it all takes the people and the engagement. And to my industry partners in academia, leadership out there, make sure you're pulling, asking the questions so that you can understand what is ongoing and so that we can collaborate together. Those are my thoughts, I would just add that's one of the reasons why we're here is to communicate. Just let you know where we are and the things we're looking for and to establish a better network. And that's one of the reasons why, you know, while I don't spend a lot of time out of Pentagon, I do go to industry, you know, the Raytheons to go out to Tucson. What are you guys working on? And you'd be amazed, the type of technologies that are out there. As Matt said, the government DOD doesn't spend enough in R&D. We've come down, industry is spending a whole lot more. And we want to leverage as much as we can from the commercial world and from some of the great companies that are supporting us, the Raytheons of Lockheed, Martins and Northrop Grummans, and take, they're spending a lot of R&D and that's part of the reasons why we want to stand up this new organization to leverage what they're doing and come out with some prototypes that aren't necessarily in the, in our, in our jacids, in our acquisition process and maybe accelerate some of those things and see if we can bring them to fruition. Great. Well, let me open it up to audience questions at this point. We've got a good crowd here. And I've trapped myself because I always start this off by saying I recognize someone on the front first. So now we have some, our reporter friends cluster on the front row. But I'm not going to deviate this time. I may deviate next time. But Andrea, there'll be someone's coming with a microphone. Thank you. Andrea Eshalal with Reuters. Good morning. I wanted to ask you, Admiral, a coin in your, obviously absent was the F-35. And that made me think of the recent comments by Secretary Mavis about the F-35 being the last manned fighter. I wanted to see if you'd both sort of walked down that road a little bit with us in terms of where you see some of these programs like U-Class sort of ultimately going and what, you know, what you're thinking is now on how, how that naval force is going to pull together on the carriers. That's one of the problems with talking about my programs because we have a lot. And so if I exclude something and the air wing in the future, just within our portfolio, we own most of the platforms above, below, and on the surface. But the air wing in the future, the F-35, is integral, both the Bravo and Charlie variant. Their fifth-generation aircraft is absolutely essential on the A2, AD environment. And so, and we think the way we've shaped our air wing with the Super Hornet becoming more of the truck in the F-35B and C being more of the day one of the conflict, being able to go into those integrated air defenses and the Super Hornet working and partnering with them is the way to go. So there's no, absolutely behind, a big proponent at F-35C. You mentioned U-Class and that's under review right now. I'm a firm believer that we need that unmanned aircraft in our fleet and it will make the air wing that much better. And I think the discussion needs to be not just looking at U-Class individually, but what does that do to the air wing in the future? What are those capabilities they can bring? Not just strike, but command and control, refueling, ISR, that there's definitely a need for that aircraft. I hope, you know, the study or the review of that concludes in a good manner that we can continue on with that program. But I think F-35C and B and the U-Class are integral for the air wing in the future. And Andrea, from an S&T perspective, things such as our manufacturing technology programs where we've helped JSF reduce overall manufacturing costs. We also have programs with Virginia-class submarines, P-8, the H-53K for example. So technology helping in the manufacturing domain to reduce costs. Looking across the unmanned systems, sense and avoid technology is needed for our UUVs as much as our UAVs. Remember, the V is just a USB stick. So all domain access and the technologies, the algorithms and the strategies to maneuver an unmanned surface vessel is applicable to our unmanned air vehicle and undersea. And so our science and technologists are working to help that all domain capability. And we've got some very good successes with our LDUV. Next year we'll have an open ocean demonstration of LDUV from San Francisco to San Diego. Using algorithms and sense and avoid research and effort that we utilized on our with DARPA on our surface vehicle demonstration that occurred earlier this year. So again, to Admiral Alcoone's point, that laying out the requirement and seeing what's going to be the future of science and technology is helping enable that. Let me come here in the middle of the row. Thank you. Robbie Harris, a former naval person. Thank you both for speaking today. Ronald Rourke, Eric Klabs and even Tripp Barber over here have written about the problem that nearly every platform we buy is more expensive than the one that it replaces. They're probably the exception, but that's the rule. And they would argue that inevitably that leads to a smaller navy at least out 2030 than the one we have today. So the question is, do you share that concern and if you do what are you doing about it? I'll kick this one off. I share that concern. In fact, I see Tripp over there. Hey, we work closely together and Mishia and the Pentagon there, Tripp, I know you don't miss the Pentagon, but I am very concerned about that. It seems like, well like the F-35, it's a terrific aircraft, but it's expensive. And I think that's one of the reasons C&L Greenert said I need to build an N9 that has the resources to make those trades from within. That not only do we have the investment dollars, but we have the steaming, the readiness and the manpower associated with that so that we can do things more efficiently. But we need to strike the right balance between high end and low end. If we keep on building the way we are, the numbers are going to come down. And so that's why you see things like LCS. That is a very good capability. That doesn't cost as much as a high-end cruiser. And we need it out there. You see what's going on in the South China Sea right now. LCS would do quite well in that environment. And so I want to make sure that we are leveraging, you know, we're putting a great deal in cyber. I think the next airplane beyond F-35, and believe it or not, we're already working on that, some of those capabilities, it doesn't need to be faster than the aircraft we're currently building or more stealthy. It needs to have certain capabilities where we have gaps, where we see gaps in the future. And we look quite a ways out. I do war games or tabletops where I make my people look 15, 20, 30 years out and postulating what that threat is going to be and what kind of capabilities are we going to need. Because that's how long it takes to recapitalize your fleet from the cruisers we have now to the cruisers of the future and aircraft and so forth. And so we spend a great deal of time. What are those capabilities we need and to leverage to say perhaps cyber will take care of some of those things that we're now doing in high-end fighters or some of our other platforms and not necessarily go down, you know, it's got to be faster, sleeker, more expensive. So we wrestle with that every day, but that is a growing concern, Robbie. I would say we're transformational in technology. I can give you an example after example. We need to be transformational and break in the cost curve. And I think a first order effect to not being able to do that is we maintain our legacy systems. I didn't say anything after that, right? We maintain them. We eventually decommission and take them out of inventory. But there is a cost to doing business in the transition. And so looking, even if we brought the cost of new systems down, we still have the the cost of our legacy engagements. We got to get a better way at doing the transition of capability from a cost perspective. I can show you how directed energy will be about a dollar a shot. It will be. I mean right now it is, but we have not integrated a full capability on a DDG or an aircraft carrier. There'll be non-recurring costs that we have to tackle those types of costs to be able to then truly realize a reduction of total ownership costs. Regardless if the actual platform is expensive, looking at that total ownership costs. Thanks. Okay, let's move to the back here on the edge of the row. Middle right here. Admiral Tino Dua from Lockheed Martin. Congratulations on your seventh fleet assignment after 15 years there. You're going to really enjoy it. I have a question. You talk about filling gaps. The patrol craft in the Middle East have been operating and we all know that work out there that they really get beat up pretty hard. Do you see any replacement or plan for replacement of those? The Egyptians built a great craft called the Egyptian fast missile craft that's already designed. It might be a perfect fit. Yeah. The patrol craft are doing good work. We're scheduled to bring those back here in the late teens, early 20s. But LCS, you know, that's one of the things. In addition to in mine countermeasures, ASW, is to take over those roles as well. And so we think it will do good in the Arabian Gulf. It will do good. It's already doing good work in Singapore and other places in the western Pacific. That's our way forward with replacing the PCs. Steve Winters, Independent Researcher. I know that Naval research has such an outstanding record going way back. But Ash Carter made his visit out to Silicon Valley. And I think the theory there was that we have the predominant innovative center in the whole world as is recognized by the whole world. And yet there seems to be still some question of whether there is a smooth transition between the Silicon Valley and then the type of research that's needed for national purposes. And this is particularly strange when you look at perhaps some other countries. I think in Russia it would be fair to say their absolute top young innovators are with the military and you know so forth and so on. So how do you view that outreach and how are you going to try and develop that possibility there? That's a great question. So the DUIX, the effort to, because the secretary came from Silicon Valley, right? So and his thought along the lines were, hey, we we need to be able to go out and coordinate and extract or have a better communication relationship. The Department of the Navy has had a long and enduring and robust relationship with Silicon Valley for over 60 years. I mean from when it wasn't called Silicon Valley. We currently have 36 agreements right now with small and medium businesses in the Silicon Valley doing a basic and applied research collaborating together and in those relationships there's no apprehension to work with the military, work with the office-enabled research and the benefits and the outcomes of those relationships are finding their ways into our technology push and technology pulls as well as those companies are benefiting and being able to grow, attract new innovative thinkers and move forward. When we sat down as the S&T chiefs with the secretary's team there was a recognition that we need to help push that to the next level and the question really came down to well how do you do that and so the charter established, the small team that goes out there is not going out there to establish a Department of Defense presence. It's going out there to help facilitate, engage, mature and offer the opportunity for a single area for emergent Silicon Valley and other small businesses. I think there's value in that and we'll see how that rolls out over the coming months. Thank you. We have Sidney up here. Hi Sidney Friedberg Breaking Defense. You mentioned NIFCA, you mentioned UXVs, unmanned across everything. You mentioned how we haven't fully even scratched the service of what's possible in the electromagnetic spectrum. All these things depend on the spectrum to command the unmanned systems to share the day the targeting data between sentence and shooters in the network just to get orders out to the human beings and of course the spectrum and the network are increasingly vulnerable to attack. So how do you build a network perhaps with some new technologies that can do these things, it can coordinate unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned underwater vehicles and share censorship data. But that is robust and when it does go down goes down gracefully as opposed to just leaving you with blank screens. I would first start off with saying we have to have better discipline. Over the last 15 years we've grown very comfortable with just going wherever we need having all the bandwidth all the pipes because we've been fighting these two wars over land and before that during the Cold War we did practice a lot of discipline that we have gone out of favor and we need to reinstall that that right now we're pretty overweight with demand for those services and so the first thing I think is we need to be much more efficient that we can really come down on our consumption of bandwidth just by operating differently and so we need to bring that down and be able to work in a calm denied environment and some of that command control is just really the commanders giving very good command commanders intent that you may not get a VTC you may not get all the streaming video that you want and at times you may be without comms and you need to know what's required of you and so that's where I would go first of all but there's some pretty good stuff out there in addition you know one of the biggest things that we need to be concerned about is timing precision navigation timing if we lose that then things can really go awry not just with command control but with all our munitions with our weapon systems if we don't have accurate timing and so there's some pretty good capabilities that we're looking at I'm not sure we talk here but what we what can we do if in the case of GPS goes down but that is a primary concern of ours absolutely sir so in that we have several of our technology push activities under the office-enabled research that are focused on the electromagnetic spectrum the electromagnetic maneuver warfare tenants and then into our cyber effects domain and they're all classified as you would hope so right but you need to know the communication element here is is that as the animal mentioned going out loud and proud and and steaming where we want to we need to be more judicious in understanding that so one of the things we are going to be able to do is give our our commanders the capability to truly understand their entire EMW footprint so they have an as is right if you don't know how much you weigh you don't know how much weight you need to lose right so we need to make sure our commanders have tools at their disposal and some of the techno the technology research that we're pushing forward in this domain will provide those capabilities to our commanders and from there then we can pursue more defensive and offensive opportunities and going forward and that research is underway right now let's get someone on the back Wayne Martin RE there's clearly a need for continued innovation in technology but sometimes getting the maximum benefit from technology requires new operational methods how are you going about coordinating the development of technology with the development of operational methods so cno stood up along with the CFFC or command fleet forces command a new series of warfare development centers the traditional ones are N sock out of Fallon's wedge and and mock in those we we're starting to go into all domain warfare development centers and we are we are populating them with science advisors for that connectivity and so that when we do experiments demonstrations and exercises the fleet focuses on exercises but there are demonstrations and experiments of immature technologies as well as application of prototype mature technologies and so we're working with each of those WDs commanders and fleet forces command from an ONR engagement strategy to ensure that the technologies as they come forward these technology pushes as well as the polls are aware and we can get them on the docket so that we can actually do prototype demonstrations during fleet exercises as a repeatable institutionalized way versus right now we do predominantly mostly at not ad hoc but we do it where where certain individuals know each other so that's a new organizational innovative as it is methodology to get into those exercises as well as cno's pushed to us to get things wet sooner I'd say one area that we're really seeing a lot of that is the undersea domain with Mike Connors down in Norfolk really expanding what kind of things we can use under underwater and because I see the other enterprises and by far the ones that really excel at that are undersea with what Mike Connors is doing down there also Emeril Sturney's rapid innovation the Crick cell where he's got a group of lieutenants you know we're we're kind of over the hill old guys you can't think innovatively and so you know these lieutenants that are a lot younger I you know don't don't aren't you know boxed in like we are with a way of thinking and so they've come up with some really neat ideas that they're harnessing down there and throwing them out to the fleet hey can you use this and so I think there's a lot of promise in that as well come over to the left side of the room my left hi Sam McGrone with us and I news quick question sorry to get so specific but is there any movement on looking at the Tomahawk block fours as a anti-ship missile since the the test I believe in February or January Tomahawk block four as what I didn't get anti-ship missile there was a test done and it hit did hit a platform and there there is a capability there you know but block four is done is very well over land and we want to enhance its capability like I talked before and we think what I would like to see happen is take those capabilities that we need and start inserting those into a block four and and see what we have with Lorazum increment one and and have these two compete for the next generation strike weapon we think there's a lot of you know the Tomahawk is doing very well right now I think the research line will not only extend its life but give it additional capability and and incrementally enable us to put in better capability that will not so that the next generation strike weapon isn't such a big jump that way if we can incrementally put in some of these things it will make it easier transition to this new weapon will it be in a Tomahawk airframe or some other airframe don't know but we want to have that competition because we know the threat is increasing out there and we need good capability the mid-20s and beyond with and that's what we're studying in the analysis of alternatives okay let's come over here on the far right hey gentlemen thank you for talking today and that question I've heard an interesting a piece look up at the Capitol for meeting it said guy talking Sydney you two took three years from concept operation the Chinese do it in several seven or eight years and that we're doing it in about 23 years and I think examples roughly the f-35 I was wondering how do you think about and how do you measure concept operations for the Navy and technology coming in and if you thought it needed to be shorter you know what ways do you think about to help cut those layers thank you yeah I'll start off Matt jump in but yeah it takes us a long time we're all kind of impatient that that why you know for a new ship design a new f-35 you know over 10 years but we've got a process that we need to go through and that process was a put in place for the most part because of mistakes we've made in the past and so we've been kind of bounded and there's a lot of oversight that has been put in place but it is made as very I want to say a slower than we'd like to be and so that's one of the reasons why this stand up of a dozen unmanned in 99 to kind of accelerate some of those demonstrations to move us along that we need to tighten up the acquisition process and that's going to take a while but that's one of the first steps but I agree with you that it's taking too long to take to recapitalize a platform as a previous P program manager and a program executive officer and now as the chief of naval research the number one factor to speeding up capability of the fleet is is minimizing and reducing the decision timeline for decision-making I mean it right now there's well-meaning oversight and insight to take an ACAT1 program like an F-35 to get a decision to sign a contract right in CNR land I'm the head of my contracting agency I'm my budgeting office and I'm the echelon one commander for S&T 61 through 63 with that comes a responsibility to keep my bosses informed but we can we can agilely execute the S&T work so when you look at the DOD 5000 and most people have seen the chart all of those elements are on there for a reason and for those naval aviators it's like a NAITOPS manual the very first NAITOPS manual was a piece of paper and then as things happened we populated to ensure that those things didn't happen again and if they did you knew what to do similarly in our acquisition process so along those lines there's there's legislation on the Hill again to engage that I believe there's opportunity in some of the initiatives like an N99 to show that we can expeditiously get capability in our warfighters hands on larger programs because no doubt ladies and gentlemen I can give you hundreds of examples of capability that got in our sailors and Marines hands measured in days weeks and months I can the thing is they weren't F-35s and they weren't Virginia class submarines so where's that knee in the curve where we can get quick and where we have to go through the the rest of the process those are my thoughts thanks for the question all right I think we have actually we are we are past our time now that I look up my watch so we had some great questions thank you very much for this engaged audience and thank you to our speakers please give them a round of a round of applause