tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 1, 2015 4:00am-6:01am EDT
brutalized and traumatized by the conflict and western ideas even if they are not part of the terrorist network ideologically and then there are the so-called dangerous. those are the people who are coming back established with military training equipped with military training international networks and perhaps the motivation to carry out attacks in the west and depending what you believe the percentage for that are perhaps 10 to 25%. the third group are the so-called disillusioned hand here it is important to keep in mind what i said at the beginning that a lot of people thought they were joining a different kind. a lot of people have become disillusioned because of how the conflict has turned out. a lot of people also went there long before the islamic state
was established and these people right now are probably dominating among the people who have returned to european countries. for these people there need to be options other than going to prison for 20, 30, 40 or so i have always been in my colleagues and i have always been very forthright in pushing european countries to establish reintegration programs for people who are generally disillusioned to believe they made a mistake who have not committed major crimes. it's something that can be very tough but allows for the reintegration of people back into their societies. you have these three different groups, disillusioned, disturbed and dangerous. i think right now by far the largest group isn't that the fourth group which i call the undecideds. a lot of people have returned
and is not clear at all what kinds of things they would do in the long term. this shouldn't surprise us. this thread and this is my final remark, this threat will play out over long period of time. if afghanistan in the 1980s is the correct analogy then you have to accept that this will be a threat as president obama said that will be with us for probably the generation to come. it can be traced back to the 1980s in afghanistan have happened over a decade after the end of the conflict. i think there will be stuff happening in a decades time it goes back to what is happening right now in iraq. osama bin ladin started his career as a foreign fighter that at the end of the afghanistan conflict he had not decided if
it will become an international terrorists. it took him a few years to figure out a pretty tried to with the saudi government. he offered his services in 1990. he is not exactly figured out the game plan for the next 10 or 20 years in 1989. so i think it is the same for a lot of the foreign fighters who have returned to their home countries. they haven't decided what they are going to do but they are keeping their options open. the final remark is a huge problem for a lot of european countries given all of what i have said now is precisely what lorenzo pointed out namely capacity. a lot of these smaller european countries are completely overwhelmed by the numbers of people who have gone, by the numbers of people who have come back and they need the reintegration programs and they are the strongest advocates because they say it's not going
to do the trick because they cannot go but the necessary capacity to deal with this so cve is not about being nice to terrorists. it's actually essential in order to enable security authorities to do their job and to do it right. >> thank you. a lot of food for thought there and a lot of items you raise that i think worked some good discussion among the panel. i will save my questions because i have quite a few along those lines were afterwards but hernando maybe you can take us in a case study look at spain a little bit and what those implications may or may not mean more broadly for europe in for europe and for united states and other so thank you. >> thank you very much indeed frank. i will provide -- but also a few comments, complementing those
who have already made -- first of all thank you very much for having me here today. on behalf of myself and also on behalf of of the institution. today i appreciate the opportunity to congratulate the george washington university for having you and you for leading this new program on extremism here. the year before the war started in syria, that is the year 2010 the number of muslims in the
world was estimated at 1,600,000,000 or you would say 1.6 billion you say here in the u.s.. around 20 million were living in western europe. that means 1.25%. and yet i'm using the data provided by the previous institute earlier this year so they can be outdated but for you to get a reference, now there are 40,000 individuals, nationals in western europe who
jihadist. now if we have this in mind with the mobilization and second generation and at the same time, we pay attention to the remarkable diversity of socio-economic backgrounds among those who had been arrested in the european countries over the past year. with all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds. what difference is it to
show the place that the muslim communities have. denmark is the same as the netherlands or belgium. even in the case of spain. we have university college. those who are businessmen or small business. it is and does if marginal people were excluded it is not as simple as that. and certainly the evolution of this phenomenon as we can
see is an important transformation taking place in the european union where this second generation is now emerging. between the united states we had no single woman but now as the 2015, 1345% of all of those are women. in the previous period, the vast majority arrested at the age between 25 and 39. now it is 20 and 34 more interesting perhaps with the
process in the company of others. and completed the process throughout a series of stages with face-to-face interaction often it is part of that process so now something very important that has been pointed out to six out of 10 cases they became involved in a network they were already jihadist. but the judges thought there was no evidence to be
trained by al qaeda in my country. butted my country it is now the offense and not its are all equally aggressive in some places like italy for that matter the forces are more aggressive than in other countries for them to consider that had a huge problem are just looking at the figures in the most recent report. and rivera last point is
equally serious. >> thank you very much for not only a sobering picture in terms of the statistics when you left with an important point. while we have a number of statistics and numbers don't tell the full story but contextual the in terms to describe the problem to prescribing solutions is one that i think all countries are still grappling with. i thank you heard from all three speakers that it is not a simple to find a single profile. i would argue however this single common denominator is we have to start addressing those underpinnings where i may be a little more hawkish
to go to dash political campaigning and necessarily propagating our own, i would like to get to ohio what we think some of these solutions sets are providing a lead to disagree with your point as to do phenomenal research but the west numbers are hitting the tempo that we have not seen any other time since then 11. 60 this year alone 60 individuals plotting attacks are attempting to travel overseas to join with isis or other jihadi organizations endorsing a cochlear conflagration i think sometimes we over complicate in terms to figure out from group to group to group but at the end of the day it is the narrative.
that may be small numbers but it is pretty big the highest we have seen in quite some time. i would be curious what our group thinks of prescribing solutions. how to retake this from understanding the challenge challenge, of the u.k. has done an about-face of 180 degrees of they were addressing these issues in terms of what we refer to as extremism or however you refer to it so what do we clean right here? there is a big difference from enabling law enforcement to ensure they have the tools to get the job done, and they do need those tools but that is always reactive so what are the steps we can take to get ahead of the curve?
we will start with lorenzo. but i do want to discuss the south to open that up at the end of the day ebitda of a group does not a spouse violence the story is the same. we will start with you. >> of very complex issue from that more logistical ideological approach obviously the solutions come equally diverse and complex. there is the big picture that you touch upon it the not so certain the veiled criticism of turkey but to the point that is the enabling factor looking back at 2012 / 2013 people wanted to go wherever it was
there's still debating somalia, syria, so easy. there is a lot of symbolism symbolism, with the muslim world but that is the geopolitical peace there. and to do touched upon the second aspect of the capacity building and obviously as peter was saying it is an issue in belgium and the netherlands with a small law enforcement agencies bet even in larger countries win the french government introduced us series of solutions, some of
those were politically motivated i think one was to the point to hire them to strengthen that law enforcement intelligence but one of the largest counterterrorism forces which is france but to see every single attack in all western countries where the perpetrators are known to law enforcement london 2004 or 2005 that the person was known with legal issues and they shouldn't in this society but you have to make a judgment call with a tier
one or two years to four two-year three that was not a priority anymore. to put resources and therefore obviously a judgment calls are more difficult to make. but that is unfair to put the burden on law-enforcement as the resources are stretched too thin. to discuss the importance of those measures there is the variety of reasons to talk about rehabilitation or though one on one interventions are that targeted intervention so
what if you do with a 18 year-old to raise radicalizing? sure you can monitor the four traditional law-enforcement tactics but to to try to sway that person as they embark on but to be very complex set everybody gives it the meaning that is different from the next person but there is the counter narrative whether creating a positive narrative what we stand for or to undermine the narrative i don't think it is either/or proposition but both messages together in the positive and negative way. but to touch upon the argument with no violence
and extremism and in the u.k. there is the major shift as the most part of the solution with the of muslim brotherhood groups these days are seen as a larger part of the problem. that is largely adopted. >> and if i can ask the panel to be as brief as they cannot want to make sure we have time for the audience to ask questions as well. >> i think a lot of the measures that i needed are outlined in the security council resolution 2178 that i had the privilege to work on. those are mostly punitive
measures it is also bad information exchange. perhaps what i want to expand on a little bit is there is a couple of things. we need to have projects and smaller things with three integration programs and exit programs that are often underfunded and reintegration programs. in every european country and every country, there should be a hot line that parents can call that is not answered by the police. 99 percent cannot want their kids to go to syria to die but they are not calling the police because as much as they don't want their kids to die they don't want their kids to go to prison so they do crazy things to prevent their kids from going sometimes wrong or things that prompt them to go.
it would be useful to have a place for people can call to get the best professional advice to handle this without necessarily immediately causing a security issue. that is one concrete thing to be done. not to create a government led top down there is on the internet is a drop in the bucket if we do four times that it is for drops in the bucket. think of it differently how we can galvanize the movement that actually confronts the movement of the islamic state. also coming getting me to the final two points there are things as important as a counter narrative it is the are, there are some stanches issues that underlie the phenomenon for the first is
the islamic state for a long time seemed to be winning and one of my colleagues once told me the secret to their success is their success. as long as the islamic state seems to have momentum and representing a new caliphate people will be excited about it. for the past few months the islamic state has not been able to expand the territory as much as last summer has had an effect on recruitment that is with the perception of those and the other aspect is that in europe europe, the unfortunate truth is we have not been successful to establish national identities in a way that it is possible to be a
hyphenated american to be perfectly content and happy to be a part of this nation but yet at the same time to be deprived of their identity and we have not succeeded and much more needs to happen as a willingness to enter greet but also the majority population as an offer to be accepted into european society as part of european society that is most always the case and that precise lacked a feeling or belonging that facilitates inclusion in the jihadist movement also to travel abroad.
>> >> that must me one of the most difficult dilemmas to go through but i want to have time for q&a i have a lot of hands please be quick with your questions and identify yourself we will do them into relating rounds of three-year for questions. here and there. please start and identify yourself. >> retired naval
hamas to be secure -- concerned with border security or self-defense. i have not heard any mention of the cooperation. >> that is a great question. we talked a lot about that in terms understanding beyond that but honestly up and tell the obligations until recently that is the great question never like to hear what others think. we will do this quickly please wait for the microphone. >>. >> american institute of -- studies.
but in the strange case of germany that only had one attack at the airport several years ago but is that indicative of anything of that is a fluke? >> and we have a question over here. >> my question is not withstanding your predicament of the government initiative there is still less huge role for government but looking at the u.s. government in particular, have a to the deal with the community uprising? >> one more then we have to wrap it up.
>> thank you and the senior fellow here. nothing exist in isolation it was the great presentation among all of you. but it is hard with so many good solutions but from my point of view it is tough you talk about grass roots what you suggested is good will but with the situation and increased can muster that will to take on something like this? or the money? how is the situation with muslims migrating from the
different countries across of mediterranean coastal states in great numbers the last couple years in particular? >> with the tyranny of time we're starting with a lightning round. i promised to get us out of your in three minutes. [laughter] >> because of that i will do turkey. ideally that is what needs to have been but in reality however it is very clear that i don't want to exaggerate but has ambiguous to incorporate with western allies. if you put yourself into the
president's shoes, you understand why. is very obvious. the country that is on his mind is the fact that the infrastructure is inside of his to irritate -- territory. there are refugees inside of turkey if he starts to crack down there will be consequences for turkey and he wants to protect his country understandably but it has led to a situation and we have witnessed it, they have turned a blind eye within the territory. if they are closing the border more effectively that makes a big difference. the second consideration consideration, for him the islamic state is not the only enemy he has the second enemy which are the kurds. from his perspective, that is a more urgent threat than
the islamic state because they are one-third of his country's territory so now if he is bombing within syria the best possible outcome would be from both sides because he balms the kurds as well as the islamic state equally putting him back to square number one and the worst possible outcome, that indirectly means that the islamic state is going to be strengthened. >> history may not repeat itself but it sounds very similar to the saudi miscalculation and tella started to hit their own kingdom and pakistan. >> with the role of u.s. government with the emigration issue what can be done? it is a debate one of the
authors of the report that was put out which advocated a cold war strategy the u.s. government had to build of voices against communism to have that narrative coming. so with the state department or the west government with mixed results there is no enthusiasm with the same focus that existed. it could be more complicated shameless to appoint - - point to the reports that we put out there is a lot of
engagement taking place but little followthrough of resources but immigration is an issue with all these countries almost 2,000 people on a daily basis coming mostly from libya where problems are from a financial point of view to check the background of his people recently to have the supporters was arrested in is in a. so it is a major issue. and there is a gap in the european border countries.
>> you have the of last word >> obviously it has been affected from the assad regime and the syrian army is no longer there we have this from a the jihadi san the group's they change their mind a little bit. but turkey since the 90's have given up to the middle east from the '90s. to join the al qaeda camp then go through sudan so yes to fly into turkey then go
to syria then to iraq. so tore that movement is worth remembering. it was an important point when they had facilities and afghanistan. i can tell you about to a report from the spanish authorities a long time before on march 10, 2004. the day before the bombings in this was who was a part of those bombing network who
our national working group from america's greatest companies thinking about technology innovation from the non-defense sectors and will introduce the panel to represent companies that have been apart for a number of years but a lot of expertise for gore will say a brief word of introduction but i will do the first. what we are trying to do this and get a few specific areas of defense technology that is ongoing today but you have heard is the 3-d printing or additive manufacturing but also propulsion technology which is a longstanding interest of the u.s. military that is old fashioned by yet of rapid and ongoing innovation central to the forces of our military and also software
the way the countermeasures systems that have heavy electronic components have to be improved this relates clearly to defense budgeting and strategy to the extent that technology is changing so fast we have to emphasize the pursuits of revolution and of military affairs more than we have been to what extent do we have to get on top of the wave of innovation that adversaries don't do with first and the lot of exciting things are happening but we don't need to get overly excited or disruptive with our approach and as this relates to the debates of sequestration and what will happen to the innovation that we try to facilitate or promote when congress returns if they
cannot figure out a way to stave off this budgetary showdown to be sequestered or shut down which perhaps in a cosmic sense it typically involves 80% of the defense budget but do disrupt the program is much greater than that. all the topics are not in the opening but in the discussion period. so i will ask each panelist a general question one area of technology then we will talk before going to your questions. but now sitting to the left of me is brian hogan and she will lead off our discussion of 3d printing. and to explain that area of
technology if you don't know it is touted as a remarkable and important area of innovation that could change everything we could produce technologies manufactured technology in ways that are entirely different relying less on traditional factories to what that is real or hype, she will help us understand as well jim who will speak after her. talking about helping the department of defense how to take advantage of opportunities from additives manufacturing in a realistic way. not future top but also what can they do in the short-term to take advantage of these areas?
then we have dave logan from another outstanding defense company who will talk about software and information and technology and countermeasures. and will look to him to explain how to define this area of innovation and what he recommends how we pursue policy. and finally, to my far right, jimmy will talk about injun and propulsion technology and what else needs to be done and to be ready for your questions as we've tried to do preserves of lead that america still enjoys we know either of these are complacent. thank you for your indulgence but now i would
like to begin and gas not only to help us understand what 3d printed or additive manufacturing is but the realistic aspect of short to mid -- medium term with the department of defense. >> thanks for having me it is great to be here a beautiful day outside appreciate all of these we can keep them going. additive manufacturing is not a new technology that has been around over 30 years and numerous organizations have been using it but if you're not familiar, how many of you to have gone to the beach? you can build a sandcastle to fill the bucket with sand and put it down the other
way is to venusian and water into a bucket with a drip castle defect so now they're similar in structure with the different makeup and that is what additives manufacturing is. so with dash to understand the logistics just because a new technology can provide a service that doesn't mean necessarily should. so with the department of defense at the policy level what are the implications? it is not just making sure to print the actual parts or to have material that is
2020. we all know the procurement budget ends today and it is about a hundred billion dollars a year then parts of the operation that are involved purchases of hardware. we are talking about roughly a 30 billion-dollar enterprise. we are going to start to see tens of billions of dollars of acquisition produced throughout the impact in the next few years or is it a more modest number?
>> i am not comfortable with mentioning a number quite yet. the most specific technology would be in a modest way. they apply all of the parts to all of the services. some of those are high in span and some of them are low in span. you made to may need to replace them every 15 years. there is a need for use for added manufacturing but were trying to figure out where it would be most effectively applied. it can be produced with more manufacturing and will have the same functionality they had.
is that appropriate and then again, do you have the data? can you print it? do you have the type of material and machine and 3-d process to get the parts you need at the end question and i think our recommendation is that it is a modest, incremental and more of a 10, 15, 20 year timeframe. there are significant amount of parts in the hundred thousand dollar range you could print if you go through this whole process in evaluating the application of it. >> excellent. i'll turn things over to you to pick up where we are in this conversation with that one ongoing question in my mind, how big of a deal is this and what's going to happen over the ten or or 20 years as we see 3d printing continue? >> i think it's an incremental deal right now. i would qualify my qualification
with a couple things to bear in mind. the first is, the, the next hot toy at christmas in the next two or three years will be additive manufacturing. the ability to manufacture things, the breaking of the tyranny of scale of capital machinery and people will be the basis of the profound revolution. a woman so much a technical revolution. cheaper robotics which leads to technologies are going to break this tyranny of scale. what's the third hurdle we have to get over before we can unlock this revolution? it's really part certification. if i make a part on my machine can i replicate that process in all its detail and result on another machine and be sure that i did it? i predict what the finite
attributes and functional characteristics of that part are. before i make it and then when i expected to be made somewhere else. once you crack that code and it has cracked for some materials but not a lot of other ones, then you really unleash the technology. wyatt will be propelled is that it's a cost saver number one. number two it transfers resources from the tail to the chief. as an analog i would say the industrial revolution essentially tethered newer units there were pretty significant supply chains and roads, et cetera. if you go preindustrial revolution then you look at the way a ship on the line operated in the navy. it essentially,
once it was at sea, if it had a good carpenter and metalworker, modifying the ship and transforming its abilities. when a new captain took over a ship they talk to the carpenter. they would try to get more speed out of it. what additive manufacturing starts to do is it breaks that tethered to an industrial base support. how does does it do that? well if you look at a machine shop aboard a ship, they have a certain envelope of capabilities they currently have to manufacture and repair things
that greatly increases that because you're working more from raw material then you are from already fabricated parts that you have to predict the consumption the revolution comes when you can certify the result of manufacturing. it comes and it also comes in an environment of constrained resources. with additive manufacturing, many of the sale called units will come up with a number of the innovations that include things like field hospitals to treat wounds are printing
specialized clamps and surgical guides. i think it's really tremendous there are derivatives of both of those. there there is this notion of hacker i've been around for a while and i can remember cutting down grenade launchers and putting pistol grippers on them so they could use in a side arm. that sort of innovation will have a wider type of manufacturing options and communication can spread more quickly.
they will bubble up that way and we'll see more of it. >> let me follow up with one more question before i go onto the next subject. you have described in a very helpful way the benefit of additive manufacturing. is that the primary benefit or are we also going to see traditional manufactures here at home move in this direction there could be less tooling in their factory or is that whole set of changes going to be more gradual and less dramatic? >> the changes are going to be more gradual simply because manufacturing companies work against additive manufacturing. they need to take a broader perspective to it.
what i think will happen though is you will see the rise of individuals and companies that are producing obsolete parts and then going into mainstream parts as we go and sort out what is protected and what is unprotected legally. they don't use much money and can set up a very capable machine shop. they can manufacture things that are traditionally done by very large companies i see that coming based on pressures within the industry based on an evolutionary revolution. >> thank you i know you are going to bring a little different area of technology to
the discussion. they have been talking about additive manufacturing being part of a broader set of changes can you help connect what you are going to talk about to what we've been discussing? i know you have the whole ip software and adaptive software world and subject matter to address. please help us understand that with a little bit of introduction and the opportunities you see. >> many of the motivations for these adaptive, sometimes called cognitive software systems share in fruit inspiration here. we want to reduce cycle times and provide capability much more quickly than in the past. in the past we were able to analyze threats that were out there and design systems that give us a competitive advantage and work through the acquisition cycle. our adversaries are increasingly migrating to commercial technologies like us they are
moving away from intensive hardware solutions. they are driving more of the content into software. that makes them inherently more agile. we are doing similar kinds of things, right. if you look at radio systems, electronic warfare systems, we are getting digital and closer and closer to the front end of those systems. we are also investing in all the buzzwords you hear about spiral development, marginal architecture and that's only going to get us so far. we will still get to the point where we are fielding capabilities where we run up against environment threats that are ill characterized at the time of design. the thought here is that the architect systems that draw from
the cognitive type of analogy. they have an ability to sense the environment and maybe on motivate those with a communications type example. if you were to take a radio 15 or 20 years ago in cracked the lid, what lid, what you would find in there is a circuit, transistors, if you were to look at a state-of-the-art radio today, most of the functionality they provide actually lives in the software. we have the ability to upgrade them overtime very quickly. maybe we get some interference we didn't anticipate. the desiring cognitive learning is to figure out mitigation strategies and explore options within the trade space of the design system and configure it in different ways. we need need to be able to mitigate that interference whether it's from an adversary or interference.
you need to learn over time which approaches are going to work. we do that in mission time rather than acquisition time. this probably falls broadly under the m rela of autonomy and the key ideas that they are pursuing. we are applying that across many products in our portfolio and the radio example is one example that's real. the idea here is that we can come to the field with systems that are adaptable. most of that adaptation, we see occurring in the software base. you you can build a system that characterize the environment and understand how they can operate in different configurations and then opera optimize their configuration in real-time. you can think about taking that same kind of design pattern and ask if the limiting or might it be
the in ten of that we are using that was designed much earlier if it is a limiting factor, then we can look at other things. there might be an alternative that we can integrate into the system and figure out how to better exploit that antenna. >> this sounds like around him of activity that could influence a large fraction of dod systems that are in the field today. even though it may not, i'm trying to as you know, simplified know, simplified by using the amount of dollars at stake. you are talking about the wide array of systems that companies manufacture. the software and electronic guts
of most of our weapons are the realm of discussion here today. >> yes it's driving toward the software content. there's no magic bullet here. with that adaptation you inherit other kinds of challenges you have to address and how you make sure they are adapting in the field. they have to continue to provide the kind of behavior you want. there are some issues that need to be resolved. we are in an environment where our adversaries are able to increase their cycle times or decrease their cycle times very quickly and we need to be able to respond as well. the difficulty of writing
software is the complexity and the partial response or solution to that in the sense that, maybe i'm getting this wrong, but you're talking about an ability to continue to modify and adopt and not be locked into your system that you started with and that can be beneficial if you made mistakes. i mean in general, if there were some software problems or other problems that we could fix them more easily in the field. is that fair fair? >> i think many of the software challenges that we find are very complex systems that need to be implemented. i don't think that will be much different than our coding differences. there is an issue on how well we have characterized the
variables. i think this is an opportunity to have a broader ability to adapt to environments that we couldn't perfectly anticipate. you folks know as much about engines as anybody and you are kindly offering to help us understand some trends in engines and propulsion. i'd like to turn that over to you. thank you. >> i think it tilts on what we heard already because as an engine manufacturer, that's what we do, we make jet engines, as an engine manufacturer we use things like software and we work on how we improve our software and make it more adaptive. we looked at techniques like additive manufacturing and how we can make our jet engines faster and better and less expensive. at the end of the day, we also
see that adaptability rollup at a higher level. i think you can really understand it and put it in context i want to talk about the same strategy. what were looking at is in 2012, the dod released what was at the time, very new and different strategy that called for, among other things, a smaller more smaller more agile, more flexible, more technologically advanced force. now even as we are transitioning for the third strategy we see consistent themes there as the department tries to get more and more out of the system that buys and fields. we we are seeing the same thing in propulsion and jet engine for aviation. that's important. if you follow along, of course, i do course, i do jet engines because i love the thrill of the little war when the jet engine goes but it is a bedrock of our national military strategy and really part of how we do power projection around the world.
aviation has advanced tremendously over the years the breakthrough we have had in military aviation has been built upon an advancement in propulsion technology. right now, as a result of investment in strategy we are on the cusp of another breakthrough with the introduction of adaptive engines. what i mean by an adaptive engine? let me give you an analogy. it's a timely analogy. most of you watch the tour de france. you watch cyclists from around the world trying to negotiate a 3300-kilometer course across france. the train is widely variable. all of these guys have the same goal which is to get there first and if you get there first they have to be efficient. they have to sustain themselves and their bike for
3300 kilometers that's a long way. how do they do that? they manage, if you will, the gears on the bike. they change the gears and optimize the performance of the bicycle. the performance of themselves adapt of the bicycle. the performance themselves adapt to whatever the train offers wherever they are on the course. that's how they make it work. they do it at a level that we can't. that's a different discussion though. we are trying to do effectively, the same thing and jet engines. engines. we are partnered with the air force on a major program for adaptive engine development. there is a core stream of air which goes through the center of the engine and the primary purpose is to give a little bit of thrust and power the rest of the engine. then you have bypass and that really is what produces thrust. when you design an engine it's a single-point design. what is the most pressing requirement i have to meet to make sure your engine
will meet that and everywhere else you take a penalty, usually in terms of efficiency. that means range, payload, fuel burn and all those things. what we are doing in the adaptive engine program is introducing a third stream introducing a third stream of air that we can modulate. by modulating it we can adapter optimize our performance no matter what the flight conditions are. then i get tremendous improvement in mission flexibility, range, payload capability overall. it's a big deal to be able to do that. that doesn't come without talent as you can imagine. adaptive engines aren't engines are new. we've been doing that long time. we created the j58 in the 1950s. the reason we did that was so the airplane could start out at mach zero and propel up to incredible flight speeds. recently we are getting ready to field the f135 and if you're
watching that, you know the marine corps version, the f35b is able to operate a conventional flight as well as transition into a short takeoff and vertical landing mode. what happens when you make that transition is you introduce some profound changes in how the engine operates. the engine adapts about and by adapting to that they are able to seamlessly accommodate those changes in what it's doing. today, what's different about what were doing is where you look at those two programs or those two engines, they were meant to adapt a specific part of flight whereas the new program adapts everywhere. it adapts across the flight envelope and really gives you the full benefit of efficiency throughout and you can maximize the capabilities of your airplane. it has a lot of technical challenges.
it has some design and architecture challenge. we have a very constraint configuration. we have a requirement that must be prescreened and fit in a certain size. by doing that it forces some trade-offs you might have to make. we are pushing the envelope on amateur so we have technical issues on how we work on the materials in coding and things we do to withstand those temperatures. we have challenges in software, much more complex control systems that we have to work on the software. challenges in manufacturing, some parts are very complex and require new ways to make components and we evaluate those. in the bigger scheme we evaluate bigger manufacturing techniques including additive manufacturing. of course on top
of all the technical challenges we are trying to do this in a time where we have tight budgets and a lot of things going on in terms of acquisition and policy and procedures. we are being very successful. we are being very successful. the program is proceeding well our design is proceeding well and we are projected to meet all of our performance goals. we are projected to meet cross target and all of those things. on top of that, we are working with the air force right now to plan the next program, the adaptive engine transition program. that's a $2 billion dollar investment by the air force and with ge. i think the reason we mention that is that it underscores the importance of this technology going forward. it's a a recognition of the importance of adaptive technology on how to i make things work all the way to the system level as part of the overall strategy. it's really exciting. there are a lot of great things going on. the additive manufacturing and software and how these play into the systems we field. i think we are on the cusp of some big
break through's from strategies that emerge just a few years ago. >> i have one more broad questions and may be smaller derivatives of that before we go to all of you. i'd like to now broaden the scope. you've all done a great job explaining a certain number of specific technology and innovation areas. i like to now ask you to reflect on what it all means in terms of the overall character of defense innovation today. are we in a period of revolution will change where there are a lot of exciting things that add up to rapid evolution? that will have implications to think about the defense budget, whether we should be fundamentally rethinking how we allocate resources, whether we should be, you mention the third offset and just to explain this is the idea that now in this day and age we need to think about how to take advantage of our technology and areas of excellent just as we did with nuclear weapons in the early cold where.
the third offset would ask what extent can we do the same type of thing now with the rise of china and iran and missiles and other threats to our security? [inaudible] viewed in a broad historical sweep, is this a revolutionary revolutionary change or a period of important, evolutionary change that is more or less continuous of what we've seen in the past? new things are constantly happening but the pace of change is similar to what's been the case in the past? i'm not sure if that's an overly philosophical question but i think it has real meaning so
that's why i'm putting it on the table and turning it over to you, my friend. >> i think if we think about this, generally the way technology has evolved in the last ten years, you think of the invention of the telephone and how we've gotten to smart phones with the invention of the cell phone and what we've gotten today with handheld computers in our pocket, essentially. things are moving in a quicker pace than they did since the industrial revolution. the other part of it is that i think there is a recognition that with all of the problems that the defense department is facing with constrained resources, transitioning workforce and a great deal of people who are retiring and a knowledge transfer issue, issue, there are also new threats abroad. national security, isys, rogue foreign states and all of that. you can't just throw technology at the problem. that's not the solution. you can't just throw
money at the problem and you can't just throw money at the problem and you can't just throw technology at the problem. i think there is the potential for revolutionary change but in order for it to be most effective it should be a thoughtful evolution and should take into consideration the philosophical or strategic implications about how you support the work in the mission. how these new technologies whether it's new jet engines or adaptive software or nanotechnology, or different ways of securing our cyber system, and how you use those in a way that is considerate to the mission that you are trying to support and the new threats. there is definitely a possibility for change.
accelerate. the challenges we need to be more deliberate around the way that we are experimenting with this technology. the dialogues i've been having with some leadership is a renewed enthusiasm around taking emerging technology and the war fighters getting together we were trying to figure out what is the potential of the technology but in many ways, like my house, i can't anticipate how they are going to use it. they have far better ways to see it then we do. it's the sitter of brain storming process that allow you to adapt the
procedures that you are going to use to employ the capability and feed that back into the acquisition process. then you can tighten up the cycle time. it's it's a co- evolution of the solution. >> to have an example of the kind of things you're talking about? at least a practical practical way to think about it? >> yes a good example of that, so one of the other areas in technology that we work on is multi- sensor data out where you take scenes of data from radars imaging and all sorts of centers and bring them together. typically the technologist will want to wring every single ounce of information out of every bit of data that comes to those
sensors. what we find when we engage the operators is, first of all that's a retractable problem to try to get all of that information out of every sensor every time and everywhere. there's this nice, sort of positive feedback when were working with the operator. they don't think of problems that way. they think about areas they need more information or less information, tips and cues from one area to another and it really drives a different.process around how you architect things when your customers visualize and conceptualize an environment differently than just where the technologist would go which is to maximize everything in the system capability.
>> listening to the two of you, i'll give another example that occurred to me and that is armed drones. armed drones were something that the air force really didn't want to do a lot within the traditional period of the 1990s and it took a war environment, which was sort of the real world version of experimentation and evaluating war fighter needs, to push first the cia and then really the air force and the services to finally overcome that bureaucratic resistance to think creatively and combine the technologist with war fighters. hopefully we won't have as much fighting to do, god willing, in the next five, ten or 15 years. we have to figure out a way to way to figure out the innovation without the wartime push. is that a fair example? same question overdue. >> there was an event here in april with frank hendel. he is the under secretary and he
went first. i asked him, how did you evaluate the strength of the american acquisition system today? he said it was pretty good, we make the best weapons of the world. i say it's at least a b+ or an a-. he gave a lot of, obviously he's pushing reform and i'm not saying he's complacent, but he thought we were doing pretty well. then same question later and he said i agree with secretary for major platforms but i don't think that we do very well with electronics wherever morris law is relevant and adaptive software is relevant. in that kind of thing we need the reform that jim was talking about earlier. i'm blending here and paraphrasing but to put the question to you, it is it fair, were hearing a couple different things, this is a period of rapid innovation in some sectors
and should be even faster. you're also talking about ongoing improvements in propulsion that you've been doing for decades. that strikes me as impressive but maybe no rapid today than it was many years ago. is the pace of innovation rapid in some areas and not others? how we think about this holistically? >> i would argue that the potential for revolutionary advancement is absolutely there. i think we've heard that are ready with some of the things we've talked about. where we are though is that we have a acquisition system that is ill-suited to deal with that. why? you can sum it up in one word and that's complexity. all of the things that we talked about this morning introduce complexity. there are other things that introduce complexity. we've heard about the various things that you can do with additive manufacturing. how do you manage that strategically that adds
complexity to it. the more software you have the more complexity. the engineers are more complex. when you you look at all of these things together and all the other things we are doing, and that's complexity. now add to that globalization of the industrial base and the supply base, globalization of the customer base and all of these things. all of that adds complexity. add. add to that many of the new threats in things that are moving at different paces around the world. that all adds complexity. when you put all of this together and then, by the way, add the budget environment where in, that all adds complexity. what happens happens there is the begin to add complexity and you have a system that doesn't really handle complexity very well.
these things cost money and cost taxpayer money what that does is it adds risk of a version into the acquisition process and makes it very hard to introduce some of these more complex, but much more revolutionary capabilities very rapidly. we. we have no tolerance for failure. we have a system that is more willing to tolerate a budget increase than a performance shortfall. we just keep adding this and adding it until it takes longer and cost more and as a consequence is that of getting revolutionary things out there we take more risk-averse approaches and go for off-the-shelf technology because they are less risky theoretically and we take more incremental approaches because i have more confidence that i will get that.
even then i take longer and cost more because of the complexity of what were dealing with. >> thank you. i have one question that's derivative of all that and it does relate to the ongoing question of acquisition reform as it's being considered on capitol hill. this will give anybody a chance to wants to weigh in on this to please do so. as it's been explained to me, one way to think about the debate on capitol hill on why this problem is hard to fall there and for the broader defense community is that there are at least two competing ways to think about the number one priority of acquisition policy. one is to make sure the taxpayer doesn't get ripped off and we minimize any kind of potential for the $600 hammers of the 1980s. we want to have as much oversight to make sure that doesn't happen. another way of thinking is no, if you do that you're going to have so much regulation and deadweight sitting over corporate america that a lot of companies are going to want to
work for dod. i think i just heard you say that you would concur with the school of thought that we better be careful about over regulating and over monitoring, not that were trying to encourage a lax environment but if we put too much restriction on companies there going to fail to innovate. i want to make sure i heard you write and give you a chance to say anything else you want to say about acquisition reform and then worked on the panel for other common. >> i think the truth is somewhere in between. i think if you deregulate too much you run the risk of the taxpayer. i'd like to think on behalf of my own company but other contractors are very mindful of
their right balance we need to step back and reflect on the kind of acquisition objectives we want to have with the technology to acquire things over time. it is the different kind of acquisition. to have a joint responsibility to have those have been with how these enhancements help us with budget pressures more quickly that challenges associated with how you acquire those. >> is it an existing law or
the culture or the nature? i am sure you say a little bit all of the above but what would that be in your mind? >> said the technology in future capabilities with those constructs that we have right now, increasingly in technology then fall stakeholders with industry and government the reworking to acquire those systems. >> i think we've just heard
tell them to come back but the game has changed. it is about accessing the full continue on and effectively militarizing as required. but to protect taxpayer money it is about winning. a lot of folks in private industry will say with civilian technology that we're losing our lead on that. but one question with those