Modernization efforts aimed at improving military readiness. Good afternoon everyone and thank you for coming. I am with the Foreign Policy program and it is my distinct honor to have the secretary of the army, ryan mccarthy, here with us. Of the armys id on modernization of its future force, but first, a brief introduction and i ask you to give him a big welcome. That a few thoughts by him to frame our topic. We will follow up with a little discussion between him and me and then go to your questions. It will be a crisp, quick session. Mister mccarthy is a proud native of chicago, has a bachelors degree in history which seems appropriate given the aura i have around all of the traditions and histories in the country. Then he joined an Operational Army unit, was deployed to afghanistan during his period as a soldier. He saw combat with the rangers. Since that time, he has done all kinds of additional things you would want somebody to do that has the kind of job he has today. He has worked on capitol hill, he has worked as a special assistant to both gates and the undersecretary of defense as well. He has been in the Defense Industry, most recently prior to coming to the pentagon when he was with lockheed martin. Many of you know after his confirmation this past summer, he was the acting secretary of the army in addition to being the undersecretary of the army while we waited for the nomination and confirmation process. He has a lot on his plate, including some very interesting ideas in Army Modernization as i mentioned earlier. Before we start the conversation, please join me in welcoming the undersecretary. [ applause ]over to you my friend. Thank you, doctor hamlin. I really appreciate this opportunity to come sit with your institution. It is a worldclass organization. I had my first brush with this and capitol hill and that the department of defense. That in my job interview, i was looking at his case and there were two butchersamobutu books of to books of the doctors there. A storied history, obviously. Its a real privilege for me to be here, thank you. And thank you for the support you give me. This is our third evolution in the last four months. We have been looking a lot outside of the army to help us sink through this Major Initiative that we have and restructuring the entire department of the army. Thank you for having me, thank you for all of the support at this point. Very quickly, i came into the job back in august, but really it started in the springtime during my interview. Secretary mattis said he would be working on this National Defense strategy and he was published a couple weeks ago i think. About how do we modernize the force to maintain our overmatched position against competitors . The rise of for countries in particular, north korea, iran, china, and russia. The competition most most militarily and economically has received a lot of attention. It is clear the choices they made starting to get closer, closing the gap to our overmatched position. Its kind of like why now . The army has to continue to modernize itself to maintain its position. There is no time like the present. Even though when you look at the challenges that the army faces, over 185,000 troops deployed worldwide. We have challenges with our fiscal position affecting budgets over the last several years. Even with all the challenges, we know we have to evolve. We have an Industrial Age system that was created in 1973. The Major Commands today and the responsibility of how we do Material Development and design, is spread across these demands. The relationships are not as close and this fusing of information of how we develop a requirement, work through the tradeoffs, and go through the process. It was really a my first him a job that i was talking to the general at the time. It was how do we get better . And how do we get faster . We look at where the responsibilities lie in the institution. First and foremost, we had to be specific about what we wanted. What are the priorities we need to put our management and funding against . To get increased capability . It was very simple. And army shoots, moves, and communicates. We looked at the portfolio, the capabilities, and recognize several items span across all fundamentals. Specially communication and protection. If we lock in on these capabilities, then, how are we investing against these capabilities . Move the funding against these six priorities. Upwards of 80 of the budget, lock it in against those six capabilities. We looked at how we look at the process and conduct Material Development. We saw across the enterprise the responsibilities laid against these Major Commands. Rather than just creating a new organization, how do you restructure and put everything under one roof . The talent is where it is in the country. How it works together is what we really focus on. Formalizing relationships between the communitya community. How you do that . It is entirely about people. I give them all the credit. He handpicked the officers we used on his Cross Functional Teams. Officers that lead these teams, that views requirements, acquisitions, testing, one of them is sitting here in the front row. General elliott. What is amazing about this process as they talk about their experiences, if you look at history, whatever we are successful in the department of defense, it really was about people. Who was in charge, who was accountable, and how you generationally change the outcome. They were very successful because they had the right people. Overtime, they worked their career paths to sustain those great algorithms. We have his Cross Functional Teams, i signed out acquisition directives last fall. Authorities granted to us in the authorization act. It put the system in motion. The doctor was confirmed in november, his biggest thing is communication. The four of us in the marshall corridor have to be constantly interacting and engaging in leadership and industry. Matches the traditional Defense Industry across the country. So much so that foreign partners are potential to work with as well. Okay we said were going to sit down and we are not changing our priorities. [ laughter ]you have to communicate and put your money where your mouth is. So, we hit our stride very quickly since he came on in november. We are now approaching the 120 day mark that i laid in less fall for task force which is looking at restructuring. Its heating up the courses of action we need to look at and hopefully make a decision on how we move some of these rules and responsibilities into this organization that we call the Army Committee ideally looking at an end of march time for him to make an announcement. And have operating capability by the summer of this calendar year about some context. Fantastic. How about some context . Fantastic. I will take a different slant and start back further in history. We know the u. S. Army had a tremendous Success Story in the Ronald Reagan period with the socalled big five abrams tank and great helicopters, a good Missile System that kept Getting Better. Did well in operation desert storm, too. Then we saw war getting more complicated. Even a couple years after that in somalia. We also started to see the army having trouble. It had success in problems. The gun systems, future combat systems, we all know the list. It was all sort of 1990s and early 2000s. Those programs lived up to what was hoped for. The army has done a lot of great stuff, even during that period. I think the present sensors predecessors did a lot of an event of things. But the big programs were less successful. On top of that, and maybe more importantly, we have also seen the pace of innovation pick up, not only here, not only in the United States military, but in foreign militaries as the National Defense strategy has been underscored, unveiling a strategy two weeks ago. And we have this tremendous Technological Base in our country, a rapid innovation. The department of defense is not well placed to keep pace with. To benefit from the type of time cycles that really modern Silicon Valley and other parts of our Technology Base are capable of generating new capability. If i understand right, both because of past and past problems and mistakes like legacy issues, but even more because of the rise of china and russia and the pace of innovation around the world. You decided you needed to do things differently. If i understand, there are at least two big things you are, pushing, aspiring to accomplish. You said to create Cross Functional Teams in six major areas of Army Technology that involves technology, fighters, acquisition experts all talking as a team in real time. Then secondly, you may have to go to congress and you may have to change within the department of defense itself, how fast you make certain kinds of decisions, what kinds of authorities you have two reallocate funds to move quickly. How much of that story did i get right . And please feel free to correct me when i am wrong. Keep going. I think it is great. Absolutely. The nature of the Cross Functional Teams is to really type that operation, past operational concept with the acquisition program. We did not, we, we change the concept midstream. Whether you got it right or not or if the events altered the thinking of the objectives you wanted to achieve with the system. Its that discipline, along with getting it right in the first place making it survive in the first place, the first contact. Those technical requirements communities is the foundational element of the Cross Functional Teams. Which we describe, if you look at these Cross Functional Teams , and the army command and getting it to the secretary and staff, we are trying to reduce the number of layers. By the reduction of layers it brings accountability into the system. Speedy decisionmaking. That is where the challenge and frustration of congress has been for a long time. Program fails, who is accountable . It really does start with the people in the hallway of the marshall corridor in the pentagon. Secretary, myself, and the chief advisor. We are trying to bring that into the fold that we have to sit on top and provide access and get decisions brought faster so we can move money and provide the authority necessary. It is the heart of what we are trying to achieve. So your six categories, if i can summarize, longrange fires, so artillery and missile strikes where we realize we have been falling behind, its defenses against those same technologies being used by the enemy against us, so missile and air defense. Ground vehicles is third, future lift is fourth, and then the networks, would be the fifth, and then the soldier is of course the sixth, not sixth in priority, just the way i listed. Is there any one of those that you feel is most in need of this reform . That will benefit the most above all others from a new concept. Not to sidestep, but we fight is a formation. The choices we make within those portfolios effect the others. So, wherever the Technology Comes forward, we make those choices. When i have described this before two leaders, you provide us a portfolio capability. Like a hedge fund manager. How are you going to be able to help us deal with a variety of threats, but how does it literally integrate against your teammates . When these choices come through, we can mitigate if the technology is there based off an investment of one of the other portfolios. So we kind of sit back with the six knobs and have to turn them just right. The teams have been in place for about three months and are bringing recommendations to the program. An interesting 75 days ahead of us, right pete . That is how we are approaching the challenge. How can you mitigate or increase capability . You have to look at the other weapon system. Is it fair, you described a couple of things you are hoping to a compass. One is improved speed. May be more to the point, you talked about these cross functional themes and the accommodation of talent. To make the distance between the visionaries and the doctrine writers, make that really day today. It strikes me that the speed benefit is perhaps the most notable in the network area where you got as we were discussing earlier, you know, pace of modern Electronics Innovation is so fast. We need to be able to react. Whereas, the benefit of having the technologists talk to the visionaries, is that you maybe avoid the problem we have with future combat systems hopefully. Where he concept sounded great, you know, in a seminar, maybe was not as readily deployable. Partly because you had visionaries here in one command, technologist and another, and they did not see themselves as part of a day today team. Is that way to look at potential benefits . Let me jump in. We have general gallagher here in the front row. He was the director for the network. Thank you mister secretary. It is an honor to be here today. One of the things we have learned, we have to move with speed and precision. We have to stay ahead of our adversaries. We have not been able to do that because we have a very Large Program that has taken us years to build. Based on how the money is allocated to actually field those programs. We took a good hard look at the network, we really realized we need to cut bait on a few programs that might not deliver in the future. Fix the ability to fight by adapting and buying new solutions readily available at four record teammates that we could use with our soldiers immediately to improve our ability to fight tonight. Then we are pivoting to whats next . What will allow us to explore the art of the possible . And insert technology. What we have been trying to do, relatively quickly, is get associated with units focused on the Global Response force in our most pressing plan. Get capability in the hands of soldiers as quickly as we can. Get feedback, make adjustments, and learn as we go. As the secretary and i have talked about how we want to fail early, fail cheap, but when something is working and ready we want to test the scalability and get it out there as quickly as we can. We need to move at a much more rapid page especially in it. We and the network, we are crosscutting, okay . Longrange precision fires, we need a networked a network enabled. Integrated missile and air defense, it needs to be trustworthy. We need to make sure what we are shooting at, were going to hit the target we need to hit. Our vehicles, our platforms, everything needs to be an ecosystem. The secretary mentioned it before, all of the Cross Functional Teams, the horizontal integration day in and day out, make sure we have shared understanding of what the priorities are and what we are focused on has really been, i think pretty significant. I have had the privilege to do this for the last 75 days. We have taken a good hard look at some areas we probably were not looking up for. That is our silence and technology portfolio. What are we investing in in the network that is going to deliver capability . And what is Industry Research and development, what are they investing in that we may not need to worry about . What are other Companies Investing in . Darpa, others, where are they investing . Since the past 75 days, we found out who was doing what, where are the investments going to deliver capability, and how do we explore that and exploit that as quickly as we can by getting it in the hands of the soldiers and making sound recommendations to Senior Leaders on how to move the money to get the best possible capability we can so we can fight and win. That is really what this is all about. Fighting and winning. Maybe it is unfair because it is too broad of a question, too many technologies you are trying to buy, but how much faster do you want to get them . There was a program that historically takes us 510 years, you know, use whatever example youd like, how much faster can we realistically become in the network . I would say in the network, in my opinion, there is Technology Today we can put in pretty quickly. Where we have been hampered is Large Programs that have taken years to fill. Many cases, you know, because of budgets, we have filled a couple brigade combat the year, we have a fielding schedule, a big box and a solution said. The day after tomorrow, the day before yesterday in many cases, its not what we will need to fight an adversary. There are things where we are working with industry to identify, what are the quick wins and how can we get in there quickly . It is about moving money. Making sure we have freedom of action with certain technology and scale as we need to. But i think we can move pretty fast. I think there are some long come over the horizon technologies we do not know about yet. Really good after the next generation, you know, artificial intelligence, so things are much more intuitive and simpler so we can simplify what the soldier and leader has to on the edge so they are not worried about Configuration Management and all that stuff. That is done in the sanctuary and then machinery does all the work. There is technology evolving, we just need to keep pace. In the space in particular, utilization of authority granted its critical. Getting things out there as quickly as possible. These programs are challenging. We the jurisdiction to get the authority to move the money around. That will always be a challenge. We have to move quickly and articulate. We need requirements down to two years or less for hardware and equipment. Taking 57 years, its just too long. And it becomes, it is just a mountain you are climbing. We are going to get better at that. We put a lot of focus and emphasis there. By putting teams together it compresses the timing. Gives those Program Executive officers much work 30 of what the operators want. Because they do it right there in real time. So, we are encouraged by what we have seen so far, but the space in particular, thats why we are here today. Its going to be the biggest challenge. The speed of technology. Ill have one more question. Which is going to be what you need from the department of defense and or the congress to do this . You just mentioned two years ago congress further expanded the ability of the department of defense to use other transactional authority which basically allows you to circumvent a lot of traditional requirements on paperwork and on laying out, you know, detailed ways of complying with a lot of complex standards and to get commercial offtheshelf technology or otherwise move fast. If i did not summarize that well you can correct me in a second. Question really is, again, what you need from the department of defense or the congress that you have not yet received . That will allow the rest of washington and the rest of the country to support you and what you are trying to do. I have been repeatedly hedging in public with what i say that we may need legislation. Dependent upon the course of action the secretary in the chief tech here, in the early march timeframe, it may require legislation. We may also want to. To codify and institutionalize the changes. Because it will be different. How our relationship with congress, the office of the secretary of defense, how do we line up with them and communicate with them and Work Together . We have consistently said that. We were to move different roles and responsibilities out of each command to start a new one, it would be different. We will operate differently, it would be entirely different. We have had a very robust dialogue with Congress Since the fall. We consistently communicate every week where we are heading. So we wont be surprised when this comes out. We really are not in a position as we said, it is still on the table. In particular, we have to talk about speed and the challenges associated with it. The challenge of that goes across everything. That is something we would have to have much longer to discuss. The oversight is necessary, why are you moving dollars around . When you deliver a budget, you have to pass it with congress. Its an institutional traditional challenge and it is important. We noticed a lotathat we noticed it a lot lately because of the speed of technology and threats. So we are going to have those conversations. We will go to questions in the crowd, you gave a very good answer on the congress part, but, as we mentioned a few weeks ago, we have ahead of combat command here speaking about doctrine command, and Army Air Force collaboration. As we all think about, heaven forbid, conflict in korea, we know the ability to share information quickly in real time so whatever shooter is in a position to silence north korean artillery has the date as fast as possible. That is a priority. My question is about efforts and how you link up to that. We also know that senator mccain in the congress have asked the office of the secretary of defense to break apart some of their acquisition efforts at the same time you are trying to integrate within the army. I suppose there are ways to make those two simultaneous actions support each other. Im just curious about the question of joynes. Joints this jointness. We are trying to get better with the army. The effort of the generals, they have really been champions. Bringing all those micro pieces together. The work theyre dealing with is bringing it down and how to fight with the echelon. The advantage of our leaders, multiple combat sources. Pete spent a lot of time in special operations command. The value of our folks in these positions, the relationships and the experiences they have are changing how we fight at street level. It has been an enormous typea make an enormous amount of time spent, i dont know some of the rollouts, what changes will be made, the Defense Management group process, all the service leadership, and the budget process, every investment decision, theyre pressing us on operability. The behavior is there the cultural changes are being made. Six years ago, it is very encouraging, we were fighting the wars and now there is a different feel this time around. Thank you. Lets go over here first. Please wait for a microphone, identify yourself, and then a question for the secretary. Will start here in the second row, please. That after that we will come over here to the third row. Colin clark representing sydney, of course. Where is he . Exactly. He is in san diego having a good time. The question is from him, if you had to choose, mister secretary, where would the next dollar added to the army budget go and why . Modernization or more readiness . You have to pick one. The only thing, probably readiness. Readiness is our normal priority. If, if you have troops deployed worldwide, in every instance, they will always be the number one priority. We had this discussion, we knew we had to make a greater emphasis on modernization. We are doing that. There will be a substantial change in the modernization budget. They will always be number one for us. Readiness will always be number one for us. Here in the third row, please. Megan myers, army times. In the portfolio of future command, what are some of the ideas coming out of that and what are some of the known needs you are to have on the list . We are looking at some upgrades in night vision goggles , we are looking at some options there. Starting conversations with Congressional Staff couple weeks ago. Some very new things ahead with capabilities that can be fielded quickly. The thing is if we were to move out this spring, by the end of this calendar year, i would have to get the specific time for you on that. But general donahue has done a remarkable job there. A deep operational background in special forces, he has a very great roadmap with that. He is also looking at a mounting system for the helmets. It is very encouraging what he has brought forward. We will stay in this row, i guess. The fifth row than the sixth row , then we will rotate around a bit. Hi secretary and you speak a little louder, we cannot hear you. Sorry. The question is for you or the general. Is you are putting together modernization plans, along with looking at current technologies, how are you using organizations to get Industry Input of what you can field in the near term . You want me to take that . Thanks, [ laughter ]we have investments with companies that are supporting us in a variety of different portfolios. Outstanding people in both organizations. The point pete made before, i actually have a financial background. I worked in banking in my previous life. I am constantly beating on them about investments. Where the dollars are in the department. You can have any pride because there might be a better idea somewhere else. May be more mature. So, he is a testament here. We are consistently doing that. Those are great organizations. They are bringing a lot of really good stuff forward. And we are teaming up those options. Like i said, we manage these portfolios. The big five, back in the 1970s and 1980s, there really like the big 64. About 59 other programs are selling underneath the major systems. That is really what we have today. We manage those capabilities because we have a variety of threats that we have to deal with. The more help we can get, the better. They have access to, you know, the brightest minds that our country has to offer. I should have mentioned his background is also an mba in addition to other things. Were discussing the outreach to the Silicon Valley and the other hightech sector dealing with the acquisition process. General, please, go ahead. As i spoke earlier, we are looking where we are and for the last 75 days, one of my first stops would be to see what areawhat is this company doing the joint community and how can we possibly leverage that to our advantage . We have already conducted a Cross Functional Team with 576 partners in aberdeen, and the next one, we are actually working to get nontraditional partners and they may provide us with Innovative Technology going forward. That was absolutely one of my first stops. Thank you. A retired army officer. I wanted to raise the issue i am a retired army officer. I want to raise the issue, also from the russian side, there are foreshadowings of technical weapons use on the battlefield. Low yield. Well that kind of scenario do for your Material Choices in the things you do. I am remembering back a long time ago, the army had a different structure which was very decentralized, operating on a neutral battlefield. Im just wondering if you are thinking at all about that. You mean tactical nukes . I have not specifically been working on that. The six parties we have is where i focus my energy at this point. Okay, lets see. Lets go to the next to last row. The gentleman at the end. Camouflage. Im from the british army. Im stepping behind my french brother here, on the far side over there. You talked about improbability and eight joint contacts. Perhaps will take away the national context. How do you visualize multinational futures command . We talked about this at lunch. Secretary madison in particular has made this a critical pillar, one of the pillars of our National Defense strategy. He is a retired admiral, a director in his immediate office. We helped him look at how to we conduct arms sales faster and more effectively and how to we look at our systems to ensure we can communicate and work with our partners. We talk about that consistently in our discussions. With the clear recognition that we will go to war with our allies. We have to train along side each other alongside each other. It reminds me of when i was in afghanistan in 2001. Our commanders were right there. We were the first couple hundred people on the ground. It will always be that way. Tickly our special relationship. Particularly our special relationship. It is really in our dna. We have been fighting like that for a long time. I want to build on the question about nuclear weapons. I was not surprised to hear your answer that even though some people are interpreting the Nuclear Posture to imply a much greater american readiness to use weapons and Congress Come i dont think that was what was on secretary madisons mind when he authorized that document. He saw deterrence. But there is a question of mobility of other countries using nuclear affect or cyber attacks. How much are you worried about the vulnerability of our systems to these kind of attacks. I think, there was a period after the cold war ended that we did not worry so much. But the wars of the 21st century, as tough as they have been, they have not been tough in the sense of losing control. How much is that a new concern on your mind . Cyber attacks. Every day. Were concerned about the thousands of attempted intrusions. It is a National Level effort in the department of defense. Investments are vast. We have outstanding people, the army has made tremendous strides in this over the last six years in particular. But, really, we look at it as a National Issue in the department. Nuclear affect what are you concerned about that . Or something disabling a large fraction of your command control systems . Absolutely. And concerned about absolutely. Im concerned about all of those things. We have not tested it except on land. We have had some challenges in cyber, we have been able to isolate and fight through it. As the secretary mentioned, we are attacked every day and are data networks. Folks looking and probing and prodding. A whole lot of covert, clandestine activity going on in cyberspace. As the secretary mentioned, we have invested heavily and we are constantly Getting Better and better. I dont believe we have been contested in a way, and we have to work your way through that and make sure we continue to harden our postures. The same with Electronic Warfare. Spectrum, we have not been tested in space or spectrum. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. We create a congested environment. If we were truly contested and that we need solutions that allow us to have optimum capability to fight through the Electronic Warfare thread. On the nuclear side, when you buy offtheshelf capabilities and put in the hands of your shoulders, there is a hardening aspect that just is not there. There is some trade space. We need to work through what that means. Absolutely, and electromagnetic pulse impacts all things. It is significant and concerning. Yes or. Yes sir. In your efforts recently, do you see any specific opportunities for speeding up prototyping timelines within your six modernization priorities . It is really how fast can we get a decision made and money. The ideas are out there. So, these accounts in particular, we need to look at how to fill them up. Those are ones that get a lot of scrutiny. So it requires a lot of communication, with congress and others, but that is really the challenge. More so than anything. Making sure general gallagher knows we have the funding to go do it. He is gearing up to do a big one here in the spring sometime i think. That is really the biggest challenge. Laying in that concept, is it sound, does it make sense . The cases we need to move money around so you need that justification. Is amazing how much time we talk about, just laying in the concept correctly for the test. You want to elaborate . This type of funding is apsley critical for us to do the things we need to do to experiment, demonstrate, to assess and determine whether or not this type of funding is absolutely critical. We rely heavily on that. We have not had a lot of that in that workspace unfortunately. One of the things that the secretary has reported back to congress on the network, its about moving money around. To give us freedom of action. To define what is possible. It is critical for us to be able to have those resources and to be able to experiment demonstrated kind of move out. Thats a long way away from me to say we have the authority to move about. They have the sound ideas, how we flush them out, and how they fit. And you have hope, a general concept, if a process for determining socalled requirements has often taken five years or more the past, you would like to get that down to a couple years if you could . Spoke to her last. If you overcome to or less or less. Where is the cut off for some of these efforts and can you shrink it . What are the business rules for your test regime. There is problems, you start getting into the test side of the house and then you start stacking points and it takes a long time. Relationships need to be worked. It is all necessary to have these agencies involved. You just cannot take too much time. Because it becomes irrelevant over time. So, we take some underarm reporting to the chief and how we are going to work with representatives, how they package these experiments. To start the communication earlier with others. Make them a part of the process. Not waiting until we have to go down the hall to work with you. Just get them in there. I need your help, i need to get this thing into the field. It is a cultural dynamic. We need to be open to scrutiny. Building on that, let me ask him i realize this is the least of your concerns at the moment, perhaps. But you know as i do, it is a concern hypothetically. How do you avoid overdoing it . So you wind up so we do not wind up with a system that rushes to failure. There will be failures, but if you have a new technology that is not quite ready, we are all trying to prove we can be fast. But if we wind up certifying it or producing it before it is ready, you have concurrency issues . How do you ensure against that set of problems . Even though it may not be the most common thing in the Army Acquisition process. For all of these technical conversations, it is really and artform. You make mistakes. The key is that it is sound enough, the way you are going to tested, and you can learn something and build upon it. If you hurry to do the experiment and it does not fit the key variable you need to in combat, then it is a waste of money. This is your life. I think the secretary used to be a jump master as well. Slow is smooth and smooth as fast. We want to be careful not to rush to failure. One of the things we have learned in the network as we have taken a good, hard look at ourselves of the last 10 months or so, the way you write the requirements can be overly prescriptive. They can create a test burden it can create a test burden. The bottom line is the capability to help us fight and win, is it safe . Will it make us move faster . Be more lethal . Better connected and protected . And to give capabilities to the soldiers and then they had yesterday. It may not be what we are able to get tomorrow if we are willing to wait, but it will improve and give us an edge. Thats what we want to get in their hands. We do not want to rush to failure. The ability to define future requirements is going to help us significantly. I guess i would say, you can do a whole lot of that rapidly, but you want to be careful you do not make the big leap when you are not quite ready for prime time. Does that answer your russian . There was another question in the back on the side of the room and that i will move up for the final round. Or maybe not anymore. Okay. Yes, thank you. Hello thank you for your time, sir. Im curious about how you are thinking about balancing competition and speak to fielding. And if they trade off with each other at all. For firepower, will be issued off, but you think you can move faster and maintain competition . And if not, are there cases in which you are willing to sacrifice competition . Sacrificing competition is brutal. That all the leverage goes away. The negotiations. If there is an offtheshelf technology that really is worth the squeeze, then you go for it. We consistently try to bring more players into play. You are going to get better ideas. If we are extremist, we will do what we have to do. Lets go over here please and then i will go up front. Im going to answer your question, i promise. [ laughter ] im saving you for the grand finale. David parsons, defense daily. To reach initial operating capability this summer, i think general murray testified yesterday things will follow your later. What is a futures command need to look like and then what does it do . What is it that accomplish year later . But i can tell you in march. [ laughter ]we have courses of action now. You almost can say now because we have Cross Functional Teams in place. But to make it sustainable over time, there are other capabilities that they need. The army has a lot of different voices about the future. I have a perfect record of predicting incorrectly. So how do you get more of us together, the best ideas possible. Make investments against requirements, you have to max the utility of every dollar. To have those kind of horizontal relationships against other weapon systems. That is what we are looking for. The characteristics. The type of command we are looking for, it does not have flags out front or old tanks in front of it. It is probably going to be a big city. I will tell you a quick story you will appreciate. I went to the university of chicago in november. We restructured the Army Research labs. They have entrepreneurs that are working in the Business School there. They also have a tie to the engineering school. I sat there with the deans of about a dozen universities in the midwest and when we walked into the place, we are all in dress blues, i am in french cuffs, and everyone is in hoodies and wrinkled pants. [ laughter ]we will work with these folks, we needed their help. We need an environment where theyre going to want to work with us and help us. It has to be more than me coming with the check. We need that cultural, embrace the cultural dynamics. So, you know, it will probably be in a city where we are going to put the futures command. I do not know if these guys are going to wear hoodies and khaki pants, but it is coming to find that culture. I keep hitting on this consistently. It is culture and people. You know, the army is putting the best people we have against us. But we need the rest of the country to help us. If there are x number of helicopters and it unit in a unit, usually for a platform there be a certain number of tanks or helicopters. Other boxes you need to check . Without filling in any of the boxes, is it a leadership thing . I probably should not have done it. The reason why i said that was, you will have the capability in place, but you needed to get the kinks out to make sure we have it right. And that is why i said that. There may be alterations. Changing configuration of her time. Its not like a mechanical checklist, dont tell the general that. [ laughter ]. But that is how we are progressing through the process. We need the flexibility to make adjustments. We will go here, please. And if we have time we will come back for one more. Thank you. I cannot wait to hear what i have to say after all that. I am currently with a support foundation taking care of veterans. In a previous life i had a lot of experience as a project manager. You learn very quickly that the Development Cycle is 4 5 times longer than the technology overturn cycle. The battle is in every field. Things are obsolete much less obsolescent equipment one thing i think is critically important , especially when you talk about in our ability, but at the joint level, it can be a problem, too. Its the importance of architecture and standards, which can transcend many things over time for a long time as well. Simulation and modeling can build on that to do a lot of your what if exercises without having to go out into the field. I guess my point is, you really need a system architect and engineer. Im wondering if you are thinking about that in your new organization. How do you manage architecture and standard so you can have plug and play over time . You are on to me. I have actually met with some worldclass scientists. The power to mention their names, you would know right away where they are working. We are looking for cheap scientists for the futures command and how that would tie our Acquisition Executive who has oversight responsibility, for the department of the army, we want to put a chief scientist in the futures command itself. For the daytoday operational field. Im absolutely doing that. I am personally involved with trying to recruit individuals. I have a couple we are talking to. A big part is i have to tell them what the command looks like and where hes going to work. Beyond those details, we have folks were very keenly interested in this opportunity. But you hit the nail on the head. The systems architecture. You need deep experience in Systems Engineering to help us marry up these operational concepts this person would have an immediate and direct support to the director. I just need to tell them where theyre going to live. Last question here, please im from the Louisiana Tech research institute. I want to build up your previous question about the university of chicago. And maybe you sir with the cluster of your Cross Functional Teams. How are you opening up the aperture to allow others to might not have done business with the army in the past like institutions and small businesses, to be part of your thinking process as you go forward . Are you open to others to hear what you are working on . To allow them to nurture these and come up with ideas . But we try to set the conditions by moving the dollars there and getting folks to sign the team. I think would be best to general for general gallagher to respond on how they are reacting. I wanted to go to chicago, doctor engaged with us as well, we are trying to set the conditions to have stronger relationships with academia in particular. But also industry. Insider business, we have been doing this for quite a while, with federally funded research and development centers, with labs, mit, folks like Carnegie Mellon emma they will actually attend our science and Technology Workshop next week, where we are really taking a look at what we are investing in, where we need to make adjustments we can make recommendations. We are trying to on board folks that have been in the business for a while to help us check ourselves and make sure, again, we have come in the network especially, industry, the government and academia, there are partnerships through organizations that have been institutionalizing these relationships over the years. We are trying to exploit that to our advantage of that make sense. We are doing it, right now. We are bringing in a few trusted advisors that have been doing this for a while. I think we will wrap it up after this one. I want to thank all of you for coming and please join me in thanking both general gallagher and the under secretary of the army. [ applause ] check this weekend on American History tv, sunday at 10 a clock eastern, from the west point center of oral history. 10 00 eastern. We got to this bunker, it had an actual viewpoint where you could see what was going on over the combat base. We were watching the rockets come in. Mister jerseys on the other side, these women are scared to death, bombs are going off, miss arkansas said that kind of looks like the fourth of july. I said no it doesnt. She said what you mean . I said people are dying with those land. That does not happen on the fourth of july. That she started crying. Reporter to other films will be featured, one dealing with the olympics. The United States team is causing plenty of unexpected excitement here. They were pregame underdogs, now, you have upset all predictions by winning this game with the russians. Their player and in the first gold medal everyone by a u. S. Team in hockey. Reporter thats at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. When you look back at 1989, when push comes in, and then you look at bush and gorbachev in 90 and 91, from gorbachevs point of view, bush is not measuring up to what reagan had been. To watch American History tv every weekend on cspan 3. A black lives matter memoir. The author is interviewed. As we created black lives matter, we knew we have to get people on board. We have to also interrupt when people tried to run black lives matter. We spent the first year challenging people in our own movement sometimes, people that we love to not use other