and follow-up with a little good discussion here between him and me and then let your questions. all that by 230. it will be a crisp, boom boom session. mr. mccarthy is a native of chicago. a bachelors degree in history which seems appropriate given what i have around vmi and all of the traditions and history that it holds and sustains our country. then joined in an operational army unit was deployed in afghanistan during his 1997 and two 2002. as a soldier.with combat with rangers in afghanistan. i think secretary mattis was there as well. since that time has done all of the additional things that you want someone to do so as a kind of job he is today. because he is worked on capitol hill. he has worked as a special assistant to both secretary gates and also the under secretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics and 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 that after his confirmation this past summer that he was the acting secretary of the army in addition to being the under secretary of the army while we waited for -- to get through the process. he has got a lot on his plate including some very interesting ideas in army modernization. before we start the conversation please join me in welcoming the under secretary of the army, ryan mccarthy. [applause] >> thank you. i really appreciate this opportunity to come sit here with the brookings institution for this is a world-class organization. i had my first blush with this on capitol hill and then during my job interview with secretary james mattis i was looking at the bookcase and they were to books of doctor hamlin on the bookcase of course i got on amazon, i purchased them and i read them. a history, obviously ugly back help and in general marshall then secretary marshall. it is a real privilege for me to be here, thank you. and thank you for the support your guinea pig is an evolution in the last four months. we have been looking a lot outside of the army to help us go through this major initiative and restructuring the entire department of the army. thank you for having me and thank you. quickly, in august it started in the springtime with my interview with secretary mattis. his inhibitor is national defense strategy that they intend to publish and i think he was, he published it a couple weeks ago about how do we modernize the force, maintain our overmatched position against competitors. the rise of four countries in particular north korea, iran, china and russia. the competition both military economically has definitely garnered a lot of attention. it is clear that the choices that they have made have started to get closer, closing the gap towards our overmatched position. and it is the kind of why now? the army has to continue to modernize itself to maintain his position as number one in the world. so that there is no time like the present. even though when you look at the challenge the army bases. with the troops worldwide. -- even in the midst of all the challenges we face, we know that we had to evolve. we have an industrial age system that was created in 1973. a major command that we have today. the responsibilities of how we do material development design, it is spread across. and the relationships are not as close and is formed and diffusing of information of how we develop a requirement, work to the trade-offs in going through the process. there was really on my first day on the job when i was talking to the generals at the time, it was hard to get better and had to get faster? and look at where the responsibilities lie in the institution. first and foremost, we had to be very specific in what we wanted. what are the priorities that we need to put our management attention, our funding together and through and get increased capability. and they were very simple. the army shoots and moves and communicates. we sat there and looked at the portfolio pair looked at the capabilities and we recognize that -- future vertical lift, networks, integrated air missile defense, and it spans across all fundamentals. and we locked in on these capabilities. then said, hell reinvesting in these capabilities? conducting several reviews. move the funding against these six priorities. in the upwards of 80 percent of our budget. locking it against the six capabilities. we looked at how do we look at the process and conduct material development. and we saw across the enterprise, they were responsibilities against his major commands. and resend rather than just creating a new organization, how do you restructure and put it all under one roof? so the talent is where it is in the country. where reports are and how it works together is what we are really focused on. formalizing relationship between the requirements and the acquisition community. and how do you do that? i give them all the credit to my wing man. he went and hand-picked the officers that we put in across these teams. the qualified officers that lead is cross functional teams that fuses requirements and acquisition, technical testing. one of them is sitting here in the front row. general gallagher. it was amazing went to this process and he talked about the education and the staff experience and the command experience. if you look at history will never we are successful in the department defense it really was about people. when you put in charge, who is accountable and how you generationally changed the outcome. -- they were very successful because they laid in the right people. and over time they worked the career paths and sustained those great outcomes. we have these teams that we stood up immediately i send update acquisition directives last fall. there were authorities granted to us in the national defense opposition act. it put the system in motion. the dr. was confirmed in november and is biggest thing that has brought into this is communication. the four of us have to be constantly interacting and engaging senior leadership and industry. not just a traditional industry but across the country. so much so that when you look at sort for partners as potentially work with them as well. if you want to open up the aperture is what is can be to get the best ideas the industry can bring to bear. and even said what the first days said we are not changing our priorities. we have to communicate and put our money where our mouth is. with this quickly since he came on in november. and when our project hundred 20 day mark that i laid in our task force that is looking at the restructure. and the courses of action that we need to look at and ultimately make a decision on how we move some of these roles and responsibilities into this organization that would call -- ideally looking an end of march timeframe to make an announcement. and have an operating capability by the summer in the calendar year 2018. i thought maybe it will be helpful to leave some context. >> fantastic! thank you. let me know if i could, trial narrative, my understanding what you're doing and ask you to comment. i will together different slant. we know that the us army had a tremendous success story in the reagan. and into the 1990s. great helicopters, great missile defense system that kept getting better. and we did very well and well in operation desert storm. then we start to see it getting more complicated. even a couple of years after that in somalia. wessel started to see the arm have trouble. so we had successfully had been five of problems. that done system, future combat system, comanche crusader. we all know the list. it was the 90s and early 2000. none of the programs quite lived up to what was hoped for. and most were ultimately canceled. the army did a lot of great stuff in that. and i think your predecessors both uniform and civilians workforce, did a lot of innovative things. but the big problems were less successful. on top of that may be more importantly, we have also seen the pace of innovation not only here in the military but also on china and russia, as he said secretary mattis unveiling the strategy two weeks ago and we have this tremendous technological base in our country of rapid innovation that the department of defense is not very well placed to keep pace with. in the kind of time cycles that really modern, silicon valley and others are capable. because of the past problems in the state like the big five legacy issues but maybe even more because of the rise of china and russia and the pace of defense innovation around the world. they decided they need to do this. there are two things you accomplish and with this. for one, two great dysfunctional teams in six major areas of army technology that involve technology, the work writers, the acquisition in real-time. then second you have to go to congress. see how best to make decisions. what kind of authorities you have to reallocate and move quickly. how much of that story did i get right and please spell think to correctly where i am wrong. >> keep going! i absolutely, the nature of the cross functional teams really kind operational concept with the technical concepts. you highlighted some of the catastrophic failures with the defense acquisition programs. we changed the operational concept. midstream. because when you got it right or not or world events altered the thinking of objectives you want to achieve with the system. it is the discipline along with getting it right the first place making it survive first contact. so that aligning the technical requirement in the communities is the foundational element of the cross functional teams. with respect to the governance model he describes. if you look at the cross functional teams and then getting into the secretary and the army staff, we are trying to reduce a number of layers. the by the reduction of layers it also brings accountability to the system. speedy decision-making. and so that is where the challenge and the frustration congress has been in for a long time puree program fails to is accountable enough it really does start with the four people in the hallway. it is a secretary, myself, the chief and -- we are trying to bring that into the fall that we have to provide the access to the good decisions brought faster so we can move money and have the authorities necessary. it is the heart of what we are trying to achieve. >> are six categories if i can summarize, long-range fires so artillery and missile strikes were we realize that we've been sort of falling behind. it's defenses against those same technologies being used by the enemy against us. so it is missile and error defense as a second category. -- and then, command-and-control sensor networks would be the fifth. then the soldier is of course the six. not imperative at six the way i listed. other anyone of the six that you feel is most in need of this reform that will benefit the most above all others from the new concept? >> not to sidestep that but we fight in formation. the choices that we make within those portfolios affect the others. wherever the technology comes forward, we will make those choices. what i have described before, our leaders, you provide us a portfolio of capabilities. like a hedge fund manager. how are you going to be able to help us defeat a variety of threats but then how does this integrate against the other five teammates? so when these choices come through, we can mitigate the threat of technology that is there based off of investments in the other portfolios. when i sit back with those six knobs i have to do them just right. when we are bringing forward recommendations for the program, it will be a very interesting days ahead of us. that is how we are approaching the challenge. because you can't make defense on the technology that is immature for your sake mitigate that for increased capability? we are to look for the other information. >> you described a couple of things were hoping to them accomplish. when his improved speed. but even more he talked about cross functional teams in its combination of talent they bring together. and the link between the visionaries and the doctrine writers with technologists, to make that link real day today. it strikes me as i think for the six technology, that the speed benefit is perhaps going to be most notable in the network area. when you have as we discussed earlier, the pace of modern electronics innovation is so fascinating to be able to react. whereas the benefit of having the cfcs and technologies talk to the visionaries, is that you maybe avoid the probably have with future combat system hopefully. where is concept that sounded great in a brookings seminar that he wasn't quite as readily deployable and it was partly because he had visionaries here in one command, technologists here in another and they did not see themselves as part of the same day-to-day team. is that a fair way to look at some of the potential benefits? >> jump in? quincy of general gallagher here in the front row. one of the leaders. >> major general pete gallagher, >> thank you. for all of you it is an honor to be here today. one of the things that we have learned relatively -- we've got to move with speed and precision. we have to stay ahead for our adversaries. we've not been able to do that because we have very large programs that are taking a sears to fill based on how the money is allocated to fill the programs. as he took a good hard look at the network, we realized we need to cut on some of the programs that might not deliver in the future. fixed the ability to fight tonight by adopting and buying new solutions that are readily available. if the report teammates or joint teammates industry has something that we can pour in immediately, we want to get in the hands of our soldiers and get out there as quickly as we can so we can improve our ability to fight. and then we are pivoting to what is next? what will allow us to explore the art of the possible and be able to insert technology? what we've been trying to do relatively quickly is get associated with the units that are focused on the global response force and the most pressing plan. get capability in the hands of the soldiers as quickly as we can. get the feedback, make adjustments and learn as we go. as a secretary and i talked about we want to fail early. fail cheap. when something is working and is ready want to test it and get out there as quickly as we can in formation. we have to move it a much more rapid pace. especially in it. for every one of those cross functional things, we and the network, we are cross cut. sensor, shooter, target, we have to have a network that enables appeared have to have a network that enables the short range missile defense, integrated air missile defense. the network has to be trusted. we have to make sure that what we are shooting at, we will hit the target we need to hit. the vehicles come our platforms, it has got to be an ecosystem and so the secretary mentioned before all of the teams, horizontal integration day in and day out, make sure we have shared understanding and what we are focused on has really been a think pretty significant. i've had the privilege to do this for the last 75 days. we've taken a hard look at areas that we probably were not looking at before. and that is the science and technology portfolio. what are we investing in in the network that will deliver capability? and what has industry research and development efforts, one of a developing in that we may not need to worry about? what is dod, what are other players in this space that have network implications, where are they investing? the past 75 days as we stood up. we find out what's doing what. where the investments and how do we explore that and exploit that as quickly as we can by getting this in the hands of the soldiers and making sound recommendations on how to move the money to get the best tip -- the best capability. >> maybe it is unfair because it is just too broad of a question. too many different technologies but how much better do you want to get? there is a program that is historically taken as five or 10 years, use whatever example you would like. how much faster can we realistically become in the space of the network? >> i would say in my opinion, there's technology today that we can coordinate pretty quickly. and when we have been hampered is large programs that have taken years to fill. and in many cases, because of the budget where it is, we have a couple of brigade combat teams a year and we are on a path to a 30 year field and schedule of a big box and a solution. we are giving them the day after tomorrow, we are giving them the day before yesterday's technology in many cases. it will not be what we need. there is no doubt in my mind we can go faster. if we are working with industry to identify what are the quick wins and what can we get quickly? make a show where freedom of action to insert the technology and scale as we need. i think we can move pretty fast. i think over the horizon there is and technologies that we don't know about yet. and to really get after the next generation threats more, artificial intelligence knowledge learning in the network so it is much more intuitive and simpler. so we can simplify with the soldier and the leader has to do on the edge so they are not worried about configuration and change management and all that. it is done in sanctuary and the machinery does all of the work. technology is evolving and we just need to keep pace with it. >> the space in particular, utilization of the authority granted to us it is critical. getting this as quickly as possible. both programs are challenging. going through jurisdiction to get the authority to move the money around. that will always be the challenge. we've got to be clear and move quickly. with respect to the other portfolios in the larger hardware development, we've got to get requirements down to two years or less. because in taking five or seven years it is just too long. and it becomes, a mountain that you're fighting. we're going to get better at that. we put a lot of focus there and it is putting teams together, it compresses the time. give the program executive offices much more clarity of what the operators want. because they do it right there in no time. we are encouraged that we are seeing so far but his space in particular is why we want him here today. it will be the biggest challenge. speed of technology. >> only have one more question. which is going to be, what you need from the department of defense and/or the congress to do this? we just mentioned that two years ago, the congress further expanded the ability of the department of defense to use other transactional authority for those of you that do not follow this day in and day out. it basically allows you to circumvent a lot of the traditional requirements on paperwork and on laying out detailed ways of complying with a lot of complex standards and get commercial off-the-shelf technology or otherwise to move faster. if i did not summarize that what you can correct me. but my 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 or the rest of the country to support you in what you are trying to do? >> repeatedly have been hedging in public on what i say. we may need legislation. depended upon the force of action that the secretary and the chief picked here in the early march timeframe. it may require legislation. but we may also want to codify and institutionalize because it will be different and how our relationship with the congress secretary of defense, how do we line up with them and communicate with them and work together? we have consistently said that if we were to move different rules and responsibilities of each command to start a new one, it will be different. it will operate differently, it will be entirely different. we've had a very robust dialogue with congress since the fall. we consistently communicate every week where we are heading and so we will not be surprised when this comes out. we are really not a position as we just said but in particular with governance and we will talk a lot about speed and the challenges associated with talking about the above threshold programming. the challenge goes across all of the jurisdiction. so if that is something you have done much longer discussion on. and there is pure rationale. the oversight is necessary. while you are moving those dollars around. when deliver a budget, there is institutional and traditional challenges with that. and it is important. but we noticed that a lot lately because of the speed and changing technology and threats. we will have those conversations. >> one last on the department of defense part. then we will go to questions. he gave a very good answer on the tongue -- a good answer on the congress part. -- is an army air force collaboration. as we all think about the possibility of conflict in korea, we know that an ability to share information quickly in real time so that whatever shooter is in a position, they have the data as fast as possible is a priority. we are talking about how you linked up and we also know that senator mccain has and the congress have asked the office of secretary of defense that break apart some of the acquisition efforts at the same time you're trying to integrate within the army and i suppose there are ways to make those two simultaneous actions support each other but i am just curious about the whole question of joint and how your concept relates to what you need to do with the other services? >> interoperability is everything. we are trying to get better at just internally with the army. the effort that the generals, really the champion of this, bring all of those pieces together. the work that they are doing is bringing it down. the advantage of the team leaders multiple combat source, there have been times in positions and relationships that they have are bringing us down to how we fight at the street level. it has been an enormous amount of time working on that.i do none of the timing of some of the rollouts of what they will do at making changes but from my lane, the defense management group process with all of the service leadership, the budget process. every investment decision, the generals and they are pressing us on interoperability and how we can be joints of the behaviors they are, the cultural changes are being made. it is very encouraging. six years ago, and i was in the department it was really heads down and were fighting the wars in now there is a very different feel for me this time around. >> thank you. let's go over here first. please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. then a question for the secretary. >> will start on the second row please. after that we'll come over here to the third row. >> colin clark representing sidney freeburg. >> where is he? >> in san diego having a good time. the question is from him. if you had to choose, what with the next dollar added to the budget go and why? strength modernization formal readiness? you have to pick one. >> probably readiness. readiness is number one priority. we have troops deployed worldwide. in every instance it will always be our number one priority. we had this discussion. we knew we had to make a greater emphasis on modernization. there will be a substantial change in the modernization budget but readiness will always be number one for us. [inaudible] >> i will on tuesday. >> in the front row please. >> the army times. >> in the soldier systems portfolio of the futures command, what are some of the ideas coming out of that and what are some of the known needs that you have on the list? >> we are looking at some upgrades in night vision goggles, we are looking at some options to start a conversation with congressional staff a couple of weeks ago. some very -- capability.they can be filtered very quickly. we can even start by the end of this calendar year. i would have to get a specific timeframe on that but general donahue has been a remarkable job. the operational background in special operations and conventional forces has a very great roadmap. he is also looking at a system for the helmets. so it is very encouraging what he has brought forward. >> we will stay along this road. the fifth row in the in the sixth row. we will rotate around a bit. >> ashley with -- >> speak a little louder. we cannot hear you. >> as you are looking at the cft is inputted the other modernization plans, along with looking at current technologies, how are you using organizations such as di -- >> we have investments with diu. they are supporting us in a variety of different portfolios and their outstanding people in both organizations. i should have a financial background. i worked in banking also in my previous life. i am constantly beating on them about the investments. where the dollars are. and not to have pride because there could be a better idea somewhere else. it might be more mature. he is a testament to figure consistently doing that. those are great organizations. there bringing a lot of really good stuff forward. and we are teaming up those options for because i said before we manage these i portfolios. the big five in the 70s and 80s, there really like the big 64. about 59 other programs are selling those major systems. that is really what we have today. we manage those capabilities because we have a variety of threats to deal with. the more help we can get, the better. and they have access to the brightest minds that the country has to offer. >> and he mentioned his background also an mba. also diux is the outreach for high-tech sectors of the economy trying to accelerate the acquisition process. general, please go ahead. kressa talked earlier we are looking at where we are for the last 75 days. one of my first stops was with diux to see what they are doing. what are they doing on behalf of the army. what are they working on behalf of other teammates in the joint community and how can we possibly leverage that to our advantage? and we have already conducted our first cross functional team a series of tech exchanges. we had about 576 industry partners at aberdeen last week you then! we are working with diux to get nontraditional partners that may provide is innovative technology going forward. it was one of my first stops as directed. thank you. >> bill, retired foreign service officer also retired army officer. i would like to raise the issue of the fighting doctrine. he brushed against this one. in the posture statement and also from the russian side, there are shadows of tactical nuclear weapons used on the battlefield. what will that kind of scenario do for your choices -- i am remembering back a long time ago the army had a structure which was very decentralized for operating on the battle. i'm wondering if you are thinking at all about that. >> you talk about tactical -- i have not specifically been working on that in a have not. the six parties we have is where i'm focusing my energy. ... >> we talked about this at lunch secretary mattis in particular has meat this a critical pillar -- one pillar of our national defense strategy. he has a retired vice admiral, former dsca director in his immediate office. we has hod him look at how to conduct arms sales and look at systems to assure we can communicate, train and work with partners. we talk about that consistently in off cft discussions and with a clear recognition we'll go to war with our allies. we have to train alongside each other. being doing it for the last 17 years. when i was in afghanistan in 2001. the marine commanders were right there. the first couple hundred people on the ground. but we will do that in all things. it's part of our national defense strategy and it's really in our dna. we have being fighting like that for a long time. >> i want to build on the question about nuclear weapons, and i was not surprised to hear your answer, that -- even though some people are interpreting the new nuclear posturing to imply much greater american readiness to use nuclear weapons in cop bat. i don't that that walk knock secretary mattis had in mind. >> deterrence was the goal. >> for general gallagher and for you, mr. secretary, how much are you worried about the vulnerability of our systems to these attacks there was a period after the cold war ended we didn't worry so much for their the ward of the 21st century, have not been losing control of our own command and control. how much is that a new concern on your mind. >> sinber attacks. it's -- cyber attacks, every day we are concerned about the thousands of attempted intrusions. it's a national level effort, in the department of defense, the investments are vastment we have some outstanding people, general paul, who is our army cyber command commander. army has made tremendous strides in this over the last six years in particular, but you really -- we look at it as a national issue in the department of defense. >> nuclear effects, are you concerned about them? high altitude nuclear bursts, disabling a large part of the command and control system? >> absolutely. i'm concern below anything -- when we talk multidomain battle, for 16 years of war, we really haven't been contest enveloped any domain except on the land for the most part. we have had some challenges in cyber, but we have been able to isolate and fight through it. we are attacked every day in our data networks, with folks looking and probing and prodding and there's a whole lot of covert, clandestine activity in cyber space, and as the cyberteam has invested heavily and getting better and better but we have i don't believe been contested in a way that -- we have to make sure we continue to harden our posture, same with electronic warfare, spectrum. we have not been contested in space where spectrum. sometimes we're our own worst enemy because we create our congested environment, but if we were truly contested in that space, we have to have solutions that allow to us have optimism optimum. and when you bay it off the cheryl concluder we have to work through what that means. absolutely the electromagnetic pulse impacts on all things. it's significant and concerning, yes, sir. >> go to the back. next to last row. >> i'm with defense news. do you see any specific opportunities for speeding up prototyping timelines within your modernization priorities? >> it's really the -- how fast can we gate decision made and money. the ideas are out there. so we had to look at how to plus them up. those are always ones that get a lot of scrutiny. so it requires a lot of communication to congress and others, but that's really the challenge more so than anyone. teeing up the concepts and making sure general gallagher and others have the funding to go do it. he is gearing up to do a big one here in the spring or summertime, i think, and that's really the biggest challenge, laying in that concept, is it sound, does it make sense? a lot of cases we have to move money around so you have to have the justification. but it's amazing how much time we talk about just laying in the concept correctly for the test. so you want to elaborate, peat? >> 64, that type of funding is absolutely critical for us to do the things we need to do, to experiment to demonstrate to be able to assess and determine whether or not the capability that we're trying to get in the hand of our soldiers is is going to be able to be put to scale. we rely heavily on that. we have not had a lot of that in the network space and one thing that the secretaries report back to congress on the network, went forward, is about moving money around, give us that freedom of action to really define what is in the art of the possible. so it's critical for us to have the resours and be able to experiment, demonstrate and move out. >> a long-winded way for me to get the the money and authority. and i have the sound ideas. >> you gave earlier hope for general concept that if a process for writing and determining so-called requirements has often taken five years or more in the past, you want to get that down to a couple of years. >> or less. >> maybe this is -- >> overcomplicated, it's going to take too long. >> i want to follow up on that. is it possible to maybe not spend an entire year flying future vertical lift protest tote types types and maybe -- prototypes. maybe tinkering too long. where is the cutoff point for the prototyping efforts? can you shrink that? >> a lot of discipline. what are the business rules for your test regime. a lot of the problems with that is you start getting into the test side of the house, and it's a tech and dot and e and you start stacking points and it takes a long time. the relationships that have to be worked. it's all nose have the agencies involved. but you just can't take too much time. because they become irrelevant over time. the general mcconville in particular, taking a tech under his arm. direct reporting to the chief and how we're going to work with the cfts. you have represents from a tech at each one of the cfts. how they package the experiments but start the communication earlier with dot and e and others. make them part of the process. not going a kung fu stance. just get them in there. i need your help. i have to get this thing to the field. it's to all tyler dynamic. have to be open to the scrutiny. >> building on that, let me -- i realize this is least of your concerned but you know, as i do, it's a concern hypothetically. how to avoid overdoing so it we wind up way system that rushes to failure, billing on the point that there while be failures but if you have a new technology that isn't quite ready and earwig try to prove we can be fast and wind up producing it before it's ready, we have con currency issue and production and that whole set of challenges. how do you ensure against that set or problems. >> for all these technical conversations, it's really an art form. you make mistakes. the key is that an experiment, that it's sound enough of the way you're going to test. i and then build something and work on it. i if your her to bill something, and it doesn't work, it's a waste of money. this is your life. you want to add there? >> well, secretary, i think used to be adjustmentmaster as -- a jump master. we want to be careful not to rush to failure. one thing we learned in the network has we have taken a good, hard look at ourselves is the way you write the requirements can be overly prescriptive and it reduces -- it can create a test burden that you may put some metrics in the requirement that just don't matter. the bottom line is, is the capability going to hips fight and win? is it going to be safer? be more lethal, be better connected and better protected and give capabilities to our soldiers that is better than what they had yesterday. may not be what we can get tomorrow if we're willing to bait but if it's good enough to give us an edge, we have to be careful not to rush to failure. the ability to define future requirements is going to help us significantly, and i guess i would say you can do a whole lot of that rapidly but you want to be careful you don't make the big leap when you're not quite ready for prime time. dot that answer your question? >> another question in the back on this side of the room and then move up to the final round maybe not anymore. there hood -- there had been. >> thank you for your time, sir. >> can't see you. there you are. okay. >> i'm -- ibritish brothers there. >> they're very tall. i'm curious how you're thinking about balancing competition and speed to fielding and if they trade off with each other at all, so for mobile protective fire power, the a shootoff or lpps but can you move faster and maintain competition, and if not, there are keys you're willing to sacrifice competition? >> he sacrifice in competition is brutal because then all the leverage goes away in negotiation. if there's an off the shelf technology that really is worth the squeeze, then you go for it, but we consistently try to bring more players in to bear. you're going to get better ideas, but if we're in extremeus, we'll do what we have to do. >> over here to the side of the room and then come up front. >> i'll answer your question, i promise. >> saving you for the grand finale. >> maybe not answer. address it. >> sir, dave parsons, defense daily. i i the future command is supposed to reach operate capability this summer and general murray said foc will follow a year later, what does an ioc futures command need to look like and what does it do and what does the foc computers command then accomplish a year later? >> i can tell you in march. we have courses of action, they're being teed up now. you almost can say your ioc now because we have 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, and a perfect record of predicting incorrect limit. so getting more of us together to get the best ideas possible. make investments against requirements. get the max utility of every dollar to have those kind of horizontal relationships against other weapon systems. that's what we're looking for. the characteristics, the type of command we're looking for, doesn't have flags out front or old tanks in front of it. probably a big city. i tell you a quick story. you'll appreciate that. i went to the university of chicago in november. we restructured the army research labs. the -- the university of chicago has province provinces working the business school -- entrepreneurs working the business school and sat with the teens of many universities and when we walked into the place, we're install dress blues, anytime french cuffs and everybody is in hoodies and wrinkled khaki pants. the culture is just, pow. there was a recognition ex-want to wife, these folks witch need their help. so we need an environment where they're going to want to work with us and help us. it has to be more than just me coming in with a check. we need the cultural -- embrace the cultural dynamics, so, it will probably be in a city where we'll put the futures command. access academia and business. i don't know if they'll wear hoodies and khaki pants but it is coming to find that culture, because i keep hitting on this consistently, it's culture and people. the army is putting the best people we have against us. but we need the rest of the country to help us. >> platform is x number of helicopters in a unit, you. >> use the mic please, you're on c-span right now. >> sorry so usually for a platform it would be x number of tanks or helicopters in a unit, fielded, ioc. there are boxes you need to check? without filling in the books -- >> i get what you're the ioc, foc, was me. probably should shouldn't have dot than. the reason why i said that it is you'll have this capability in place, but you need to get the kinks tout make sure we have it right. and that's why i said that, because there may be alterations, changing configurationover time. it's not like a mechanical check lift with knee boards and stuff. don't tell the general that. but that's how we are progressing through this process. to leave us the flexibility to make an adjustment. >> finally to the most -- >> i of the ask this guy. >> we'll go here, please, and if we have time we'll come back for one more. >> thank you. i can't wait to hear what i have to say after all that. alan, currently with support foundation, taking care of veterans. in a previous life i had a lot of experience as a program -- project manager, program manager, joint program manager and you learn very quickly that the development cycle is four to five times as long as the technology turnover cycle. so the battle is to fielding obsolete, let alone objects lessen equipment. one they that is crickly important when you talk about interoperatability which is important. 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 a what-if exercises without having to go into the field mitchell point is you really need kind of a system architect and engineer, and i wonder if you are thinking about that in your new organization, how do you manage arctic tour and standards so you can have plug-and-play over time. >> okay so you're on to me imhaven't met with world class scientists, and if i were to mention their named you would know where they work and we are looking for key scientist nor futures command and tying with the 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 day-to-day operational field, but i'm absolutely doing that. i'm personally involved with trying recruit this individual, individuals -- have a couple we're talking to. big target is i have to tell emthem what the command looks like and where it will be but beyond those minor details we have some folks very keenly interested in this opportunity. but you hit the nail on the head. the systems architecture has to have deep experience in systems engineering to help us marry up the operational concepts with the technical. >> this person would have immediate access and direct report to the commander. so i'm close. i just have to tell them where they're going to live. >> last question here, sir, please. >> i'm reed from the louisiana tech research institute. so, i want to build off your previous question where you went to the university of chicago and maybe you served with the cluster for your cross-functional dreams. how are you opening up the aperture to allow others whoa might note have done business in the army in the past, such as academic institutions,ing small businesses to be part of your thinking process.? are you open to others coming in to hear what you're working oregon, allow them to nurture these and come back to you for idea. >> we try to set the imines mouthing the dollars there and getting snt folks signed to the team. best for general gallagher to respond how they're interacting but specifically why i wanted to go to chicago, we're trying to set the conditions to have stronger relationships with academia in particular and also industry. >> in the network and in cyber business, we have been doing this for quite a while with the federally funded research and development centers, with lawrence livermore labs, carnegie melon, going to attend our science and technology work shop next week where we're taking a look at where we are investing and what we need to make adjustments to, to make the recommendations. we're trying to on-board some folks to help us check ourselves and make sure we have -- the network especially, industry, the government, and academia, there's partnerships through organizations that have been kind of institutionalizing these relationships over the years. we're trying exploit that to our advantage, if that makes sense. right now we're bringing in a few trusted advisers that's have been doing this for a while. >> i think we'll wrap it up there. i want to thank all of you for coming and please join me in thanking both general gallagher and the undersecretary of the army. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> saturday morning, author nicholas discusses possible diplomatic efforts with north korea at the olympics. then zachary miter of bloomberg talks bit his recent piece in business week looking at the influence of hedge funds on policymaking, and national alliance for caregiverring president and ceo, grace white, discusses the raise family caregivers act recently signed by president trump and what means for the 44 million caregivers in the u.s. be sure watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> saturday, american history tv on c-span3 is live begin agent 919ample eastern with all-day coverage from the new museum of the bible in washington, dc, with a symposium of historians exploring the bible and the found offering america. speakers include baylor university professor thomas kidd, author of benjamin franklin, the relation low of a founding father. american university public affairs professor, author of reading the bible with the founding fathers. and vanderbilt university divinity professor, author of, sacred scriptures, sacred wariments the bible the american revolution. watch line on saturday morning, starting at 9:00 a.m. eon american history tv on c-span3. >> miller cover this white house and public policy for "washington times" enemy u.s. senate we'll see the majority leader saying whoever gets to 60 wins on senate -- a senate immigration debate what in practice tall terms dot that mean? >> well, that means any bill that is put up has a shot at becoming the immigration bill if they can get the 60 votes. they're going to start with a basically a blank bill, a shell bill that they'll put up monday, and then by wednesday, they'll start taking votes on bills that would replace that. substitution amendments they call