Strategic and International Studies and the International Security program and director of the Defense Industrial initiatives group that focuses on defense acquisition and increasingly on what i call the defense trade or the cooperation in the acquisition of the deal with our allies and partners. Im going to introduce the panel and maybe kick off the question and answer session with the group. Our panel is divided into two folks that are presenting and will speak to the presentations and other issues. The topic for the panel is finding opportunities to precipitate the u. S. Defense r d cooperation and we have a strong panel to present. On my left recently completed service in the last several months completed surface as the assistant secretary oassistant e Research Engineering at the u. S. Department of defense. He was the chief Technology Officer of the u. S. Department of defense and advisor to the secretary on all matters relating to Research Engineering until january of 2017. He has responsibility for a range of complex topics involving open systems architecture and he has more than 28 years of government and industry experience at the defense agency. In january of 2018 he will Begin Service as executive director and chief operating officer at the institute of electronics engineers. To his left we have the leading expert on the field of defense acquisition Defense Industry and Weapons Systems requirements planning. He served in the army for 31 years after graduating from the korea military academy. He was the chief of several important sections including the Weapon Systems Planning Section of the headquarters chiefs of staff defense Acquisition Policy section and forced policy section of the ministry of national defense. Hes participated in advanced research on a number of critical topics as a member of the Advisory Committee for the joint chiefs of staff the republic of korea and has been awarded the National Security married in 2003. He earned hi his masters his mae science in Nuclear Engineering from the university of washington. She needs the responsible parties with the Defense Acquisition Program and the committees regarding research and development. He joined in 2006 and was appointed as directo director oe Acquisition Policy position. He graduated from the National University held a masters degree from the university of wisconsin madison and to his left mr. Tommy ross who served the last several years and the last administration of the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for Security Cooperation prior to his time at the department of defense he was a staff member in congress for a number of years including as a defensdefensive advisor to the e majority leader senator harry reid and legislative director for congressman david price and before that, the majority leader tom daschle. Hes a graduate at and i am now going to turn to the two presenters. I believe that you are first in presenting to us. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss opportunities to facilitate cooperation between the United States and the public of korea. This is a particular opportune time to be discussing security operations. Recent Ballistic Missile tests have increased concern over the threatthreat posed by the northn regime, to our allies in the public of korea, to our friends and partners in the asiapacific region, to the u. S. And south korean interests and even potentially to the u. S. Homeland. The over 23,000 u. S. Personnel serving in south korea provides the strongest possible evidence of u. S. Commitment to the security of our korean allies in these unsettled times. While much of the focus and current attention has been on recent provocations, the commitment of the u. S. Alliance with the republic of korea is deep and sustained and is focused on addressing todays concerns and the longterm needs of the alliance. One of the strongest ways to continue to strengthen our sustained partnership is through the pursuit of common goals in Technology Development and through Bilateral Research and development cooperation. This is shaped by the proliferation of sophisticated military capabilities by the convergence of leadingedge technologies driving new commercial capabilities with those driving emergency Defense Applications and by the global proliferation of sophisticated Technical Expertise and Manufacturing Capabilities this has introduced significant challenges to traditional Defense Development approaches because the increasingly Competitive Technology environment will demand Faster Technology adoption and increased pace of operational experimentation and prototyping and to avert the frontline and particularly a demonstrated ability to adapt, evolve and enhance occupational capabilities after initial deployment. Of the United States has attempted to respond to the challenge strategically through a continuing dialogue regarding what has been referred to as an offset strategy. The development, validation and ultimate fielding of new capabilities intended to preserve and extend the technological advantage of u. S. Forces and our allies. These are likely to include new systems capable of operating at an extended range, novel system concepts to create advantage on land, in the air, on and under the sea and in space and will certainly leverage advances in robotics, Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems to provide operational advantage. The United States deputy secretary and under secretary for Acquisition Technology and logistics have both emphasized the criticality of innovation, experimentation and new technology in recent remarks and both are working to align Technology Development planning with modernization objectives and to accelerate these efforts. U. S. Military leadership civilian and uniformed have been emphasizing these same things and u. S. Industrial leaders have emphasized that they are today working on delivering the capabilities envisioned in the third offset discussion. I see a very similar in size and south korean technical planning where to focus on the creation c. s to align industrial structures and accelerate new Technology Initiatives to shape the hightechnology systems that will define tomorrows National Security capability and capaci capacity. The United States had a great emphasis on capturing the potential National Security from all sources reaching out to the nontraditional suppliers, innovation is commercial enterprises and Small Business for new and disruptive ideas. Initiatives like the defense of the portfolio initiative is being explored, the open laboratory initiatives of the dod service leftbrace r. Engaging new partners and exploring new mechanisms for collaboration. The department has been accelerating its uptake of cuttingedge technology through basic research engagements with top universities across the United States and across the world. In korea, i again see a very similar effect to engage the economy to foster innovation, identify new technical opportunities and create new industrial capacity in the small and medium enterprise. In my visits to the korean universities, i have seen a growing interest in entrepreneurship, a strong desire to find new ways to bring technical capabilities to the realization and a great interest in the type of technical challenges that are relevant to start strengthening the security. Both of the nations are also exploring ways to use the defensdefense of their nation as economic drivers with an intact beyond the sector building skills and capacity industries that will increase competitiveness in the markets as well. As we go forward we see significant opportunities to Grow Research and development cooperation. There are currently strong areas where the National Investment priorities very closely align such as the strong mutual interest in advanced robotics and advanced computing and Semi Conductor technologies and advanced human machine interfaces and particular reference to the recent efforts being explored by the ministry of trade and industry and the ministry of science and ict. A very strong interest in exploring common topics associated with the safety and the Safety Climate of the systems. I believe these areas offer excellent opportunities for collaborative planning of research and Development Objectives for the researcher to researcher collaboration between the u. S. And korean technologies. Its coordinating the opportunity to collaborate with existing resources. The organization an is resulting rule of the undersecretary of Defense Research and engineering may provide an engine to drive the International Science and technology cooperation. Into growing the mutual capabilities. Its for preserving peace. Thank you. Is my great honor and privilege for me to speak on the defense. [inaudible] for giving me this opportunity i will begin with a brief outline and join antiwar speak the prospects. The History Center again in the 1960s all of these can be categorized as learning to advance the countries. This is more than 30 behind a. Japan and china are forming the second group and germany. It is in classified in two ways they implementation of the project, implementation belonging to this. The second part is the foundation built up a. The fiscal reduction overcoming. Lets take a look at this history there are only a few cases of the Development Program in the 1980s and 90s and in 20003 at a number began to be implemented in every year. Its for the Information Exchange conducted together. Its around 3 of the total investment for the economic development. There is an increasing trend. The. They are doing most of the work regarding the infrastructure, theres more cooperation between the two countries [inaudible] it should be extended to include cooperation in the developed. Other cooperative parties are the defense, but their focus is on more Information Exchange. There have been no cases and most applied research both been driven by the governments. The infrastructure is still weak and has room for improvement. The key point here is the reality of the case. There are three reasons i can think of that contribute. The United States may be more interested in the development of the market and the cost of the savings. Also the Technological Capabilities between the two countries and they will propose and discuss the joint r d. This is more so for the Weapon System development. There are good reasons to believe in our bright future. First, the capability is improving and they are making an investment in r d. This chart shows the Global Status in the last year and shows a member of scientists. The size indicates the amount of the expenditure for each count country. You can see it is located at the top of and the amount of expenditure. Also theres a lot of experien experience. It may act as a positive when developing the markets. All of these factors are in the joint or are rnd. One other reason as mentioned in a previous presentation there are defense technologies that the countries want to develop. They include the Technology Basis that are not different from those in the strategy they are almost the same. In addition, the defense technologies are having difficulty in developing and can be a target of the joint r d such as Technology Sectors of International Cooperation required. We will be able to find the common interest in all of these areas for the joint or entity to. But the concerns can be a driving force especially when both have difficulties and in this instance it will be a strong option to consider. The goal should be reinforced or encouraged to take a more active role we need a system where both sides participate in the spectrum should be diversified in the System Development then to realize this prospect we need specific items to consider. When considering the icons for the defense r d, the top candidates will be the postindustrial evolution technologies and Weapon Systems. These items conform to one that encourages on the common items were interest. These technologies can be a good candidate for the joint r d and respond to north korea and cyber threats. The United States may have an interest in this area as well because it requires cooperation in the international domain. Cooperation regarding the defense of the data and technologies can be resource for us while for example they do not have the capability of the effectiveness of. The United States may be able to utilize with joint r d. It may also help with the promotion of the joint r d and to satisfy their relationship and of the need to help create more opportunities. So far, we have this approach in the joint r d and in this slide i listed some specifics of the technology that can be considered a. Of the autonomous situation, Cyber Technology on Machine Learning and so on. I believe these technologies could be on the agenda between the two countries. In conclusion they are recommended to overcome the Budget Constraints and orchids. There is a potential of growing technological power among the developing countries and in this context a very moment in the opportunities for the usa in the future. This is the end of my presentation. Thank you. [applause] i want to give you an opportunity. We heard a lot about the strategic imperative for the cooperation between the republic of korea and the United States, and we also heard about are somf the opportunities that are there and some of the barriers and complications that maybe half limited this in the past and that what needs to be overcome to significantly deepen the relationship going forward. I would be interested in your thoughts about the opportunities that you see and how they could be integrated under the systems considering to be purchased. [inaudible] translator i have an agreement, and however, i have some differing thoughts that we came from the same copper and i have a different flavor to what weve discussed so far. In the joint operation to common interest is technology and also joint governance those are some of the barriers that he had mentioned. I would like to differ otherwise respectfully and as to the common interest i think this is a rapidly changing area as to the u. S. Foreignpolicy is when it comes to acquisitions more about limiting Technology Even if it were to analyze however we know in this past changing environment and also the programs that the u. S. Has i believe there have been changes in the policies with regards to this area. We try to manage all of them in the military installations but its also changing there have been more of an open platform and more exchanges in collaboration with the private industry participants and as such research and Development Systems are not only limited to the people, but now we have more people from the private industry and also with the addition of the industry of International Collaboration that is taking place more intensely so as far as the common interest is concerned, that barrier is getting lower and lower into the technical i dont believe there is as much of a Technology Gap and the two allies with the Industrial Revolution i think we have to be mindful of many of the challenges that have taken place for example usage of the big data. Who has the data and the ability to analyze, for example the movement of some marines from north korea its not about technology anymore, its more of a creative solution to mine the data that we have already and as to the movements that we already have much of the data on into the joint governance weve had good discussions and weve identified 40 plus areas for joint cooperation and collaboration. We had very good bu videos on te and we have had during april of this year weve had further discussions and talks about the collaboration between the two allies, so as far as the obstacles that are not as big an obstacle as many might be thinking what has been pointed out. Its been somewhat lopsided. I think we need to have a more balanced approach to the alliance. I think it is important that our voices are heard by the americans as well as the voices in our administration and the need to share the burden when it comes to many of the limitations that we have, and that is how allies and partners t get furthr involved in the relationship and that is the healthy relationship that we look forward to. And arinterview focused on sy cooperation in your time in congress and time in the department of defense. This issue of cooperating is on the front end of the leading edge of a lot of these issues come up throughout the process wheand there is a need to share data and then we are getting into training together. Im interested in your thoughts on how it fits into the overall approach both as the United States has been doing it and how you think we ought to be doing it. I want to pick up on a couple things other panelists said. That ought to be focused on addressing todays concerns and the longterm strength of the alliance into that needs to translate as well and it does. I think that in terms of addressing the longterm strength of the alliance derisive of a consensus looking at Technologies Associated it makes sense strategically and also what happen it happens to n industry with the capabilities we bring to the research and development. On the more current set of concerns thinking of how we can compare ourselves to the United States and the republic of korea to work on the battlefield if and when things arise we must respond together and potentially in a Coalition Including our allies and partners is an important focus for Research Development and one that doesnt attract as much attention to the toby are abltoe. I together if we are able and in that situation. One thing i would highlight is the importance of strengthening the feedback loop where we can identify the operational concerns and where we need to focus for research and built research and Development Programs are found and of the way in my mind of the most important place to focus on that feedback loop isnt thinking about how we conduct bilateral and multilateral exercises together, those kind of exercises need to be able to focus on testing and assessing operational concepts in terms of how we fight together and using them to identify weaknesses and translating those weaknesses into areas for further research and development. I think some of the areas we fall short in that regard now are the command and control logistics. Those are areas often ignored and max did the exercises were magically wished away. We assume that our troops will be able to be in communication with each other and jointly deploy and resupply each other without sort of putting those systems to the test. It turns out in a lot of cases those assumptions are not true both for policy and planning reasons and for technological reasons and so, i think there is a lot of work on the technological side to be done in support of our commanding control systems and Logistics Systems to ensure if and when the time comes for forces were able to truly collaborate on the battlefield without wrinkles we have seen. A command and control is a place to united statethe united statet of time and money on creating the Coalition Environments and i dont think we have a satisfactory answer yet. So, creating a feedback loop to the research and Development Activities and development of policies, procedures, plants and training on those concepts is a very important cornerstone of the relationship that ought to be guided in Research Development activities and not for the seconthe second area ofn the current concern. A remark the professor made about a couple of remarks about the advantages it brings to the relationship. One is the friendly relations with korea enjoys with many of the developing countries in the asiapacific region and beyond and the second one is a focus on being able to translate the technology into exports in those kinandthose kind of markets and looking for areas where those can advance the joint research and development. I think that is really important to be developed in a strategic context to think about extending Security Cooperation beyond just the korean relationship and thinking about how the Security Cooperation can engage their partners that will be important in current settings with regards to deterrence and carrying out contingency operations. We have seen korea and the united hates become much more active in working to develop the capabilities in that area. The truth is a lot of them are not as sophisticated or well resourced so they cannot make good use of the kind of technologies we are developing for our own military service work to be done in developing the capabilities that are tailored to the sophisticated militaries and that are affordable to those. They can be maintained at a less sophisticated military but create the kind of strategic advantages we need to be developing in relation to our activities in the South China Sea and other contested areas so in the South China Sea you might think about patrol boats or sensors booth above water and underwater that are cheaply produced in mass deployed and easy to maintain and you might think of less sophisticated defense capabilities in the areas we might focus on not so much for the development of our own military capability but to ensure that the partners in the region are able to bounce more effective defenses against potential adversary action in that context so those are just a couple thoughts about how we ought to be operationalizing research and development to support and i think theres a tremendous amount of promise in the relationship to do just th that. Before i turned to the audience questions i want to give the presenters a chance to respond to the comments made. Why dont you go first. [inaudible] translator completely in agreement but not quite for my comments which were shocking but after all, i think he basically stands in agreement with what i stated because as i said, the three barriers which were those things that i mentioned those until now and in the past whenever there was a joint project that was my own analysis about why it was in the past but as i stated towards the end of my presentation, the barriers that were in place are improving quite dramatically and that is why the project possibility is quite positive with my summary i want to restate my same conclusion again and how we can extend that area, the two nations neebut twonations need t area and have some substantial discussions. Thank you. I would like to mention the main point is to obtain a Mutual Benefit so as we look at the programs and opportunities, we should be identifying those places, those technologies, those opportunities where there is a benefit to both partners. I think in the past, folks have talked about high and low mixes. I think that we should be talking about the past and future as the mix today and thinking about ways to get involved in areas where there is the greatest national strikes that can come together. While in the past, the number of joint Development Programs may have been low and Research Programs they have been lower than we like, the United States has had significant engagement with other ministries between the defense cooperation with the u. S. Defense department and other ministries i dont think are counted in some of the joint statistics here and if its allowed us to engage commercial universities directly in basic research into technologies that are defense relevant but may not need defense equipment and that is an important area for thinking about especially the timeframe between the commercial realization and Defense Applications shrinks. I want to get the opportunity to be audience. I have a number of questions i want to ask, but we are running short on time so let me see hands for the audience questions. Going to ask to follow up on a couple comments that have been made about opportunities for commercial technology integration. I think it was touched on a little bit by every speaker that this collaboration goes beyond the conversation and includes the civilian researchers and includes civilian aspects of the industry. I would be interested in the thoughts on the panel and how that can be best understood to tie into the conversation because theres tremendous capacity in both nations and investment as both the professors show slides. Theres tremendous opportunity on both sides. Both have an investment in this area i would be interested in the panels thoughts on how that cooperation can be increased and also leverage for the National Security purposes. [inaudible] translator direct cooperation or joint r d which is important tha but we need infrastructure as well and cooperation with our colleges and private sector is important as well and in my view, colleges and private centers in the United States related to military i think has a greater strength to activate the joint r d, not only those that are directly related to the military system or weaponry they think that those need to be more active partners so that we can extend the base. So private entities and counterparts in the United States needs to promote exchange and cooperation so as to strengthen the overall infrastructure in the basis that ultimately the military technology can offer more opportunities between the two nations so because we are lacking in that area when it comes to the private entities and colleges this is why many ministries are emphasizing the need in the Military Area for colleges and others. We should be marked on inviting more. Thats my point. Thank you. First of all, with regards to the comment made, the statistics into the comment you made about the statistics i agree with your view the colleges were being funded by the command which is probably missing in the Statistical Analysis and can it go beyond that cooperation regarding a question i think that should be the overall direction because in particular it shouldnt be the norm continuously and they should be encouraged to cooperate and join the production and marketing and upset the system i am personally responsible for the. Of political multiuniversity research institute. To conduct a research activity. We identify peers and collaborators across the mutual National Interest and therefore without dollars transferring from country to country each country is a shooting activities where researchers in both nations are working on the same problem with the same goals collaborating together naturally as researchers do without the overhead and burden of transfers of dollars. We have now done this in a number of nations and i know the discussion was going on about opportunities between the United States and the public of korea. Those should be encouraged because it is a very effective way to encourage these basic and hightechnology corporations. I have a followup that we have about two minutes left. I want to take a quick scan. Be it military or civilian i think that the opportunities have dramatically improved the. I think we are very effective at generating opportunities to be followed through and executed. Is there one last hand . If its a quick question i think we can fit in one additional. I will do my best to make it as simple as possible. Its related to military r d. Im afraid im asking a politically loaded question and i dont know how i missed you can be in answering this question but is it something they can seek genuine cooperation from the United States because with the new government is a lot of voices of concern being raised and ideological concerns are being raised and under that context is it going to be possible or easily facilitated is the u. S. Going to truly be willing to open possibilities in that area and is it irrelevant o irrelevae political inclination in the government so that we can focus our efforts on strengthening the alliance is there an assurance that such effort can be genuinely made this my first question and when it comes to the u. S. Side because the interest of the ideological inclination is the u. S. Willing to pursue or do you believe you can pursue between the two nations because unless and until we address this we may talk about the same things but dreamed Different Things at the end of the day. I think this simple question needs to be addressed. Its a very Technical Area and those who are involved in planning in this particular area we need to find areas of joint common interest in designated areas of implementation and think of how we can find it and kick off the projects. How willing the u. S. Is going to open up i think that kind of question is about the technological transfer but i dont think there is much relevance in that regard before the policy shift given the cooperation between the two nations i think we have a Good Environment and that is how i would address the question. We will leave it there because we are out of time actually and i want to make sure we get the next panel of industry for discussion. Please join me in thanking the panel further discussion. Plus on this weeks communicators, a discussion on the fccs upcoming debate and vote on r