That is Something Congress is trying to work on once more. Well come back to that a little later in the discussion. Same question, dave over to you. I think there is a real opportunity for us to be able to accelerate. The challenges we need to be more deliberate around the way that we are experimenting with this technology. The dialogues ive 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 cant anticipate how they are going to use it. They have far better ways to see it then we do. Its 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. Its its a co evolution of the solution. To have an example of the kind of things youre 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 thats a retractable problem to try to get all of that information out of every sensor every time and everywhere. Theres this nice sort of positive feedback when were working with the operator. They dont 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 ill give another example that occurred to me and that is armed drones. Armed drones were something that the air force really didnt 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 wont 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 its at least a b or an a. He gave a lot of, obviously hes pushing reform and im not saying hes 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 dont 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. Im 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. Youre also talking about ongoing improvements in propulsion that youve 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 weve heard that are ready with some of the things weve talked about. Where we are though is that we have a acquisition system that is illsuited to deal with that. Why . You can sum it up in one word and thats complexity. All of the things that we talked about this morning introduce complexity. There are other things that introduce complexity. Weve 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 thats 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 doesnt 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 riskaverse approaches and go for offtheshelf 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 thats derivative of all that and it does relate to the ongoing question of acquisition reform as its being considered on capitol hill. This will give anybody a chance to wants to weigh in on this to please do so. As its 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 doesnt 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 doesnt happen. Another way of thinking is no if you do that youre 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. Id like to think on behalf of my own company but other contractors are very mindful of their customers. We take that commitment very seriously. We dont always agree on what our customer wants to do and thats a natural thing thats going to occur in any relationship like in addition to finding 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 weve just heard that technology doesnt respect the way it is adopted the you could have an argument what era our procurement system harkens back to we need a procurement system with adaptability but whether we have enough regulation or are we acquiring the of right weapon systems . With the resources being used to deliver these systems. So with private industry and how this is being used with the department of defense. There much better at taking innovation to bring that in. In some ways it is about programs of Large Capital expenditures. Sova i was to counsel lloyd 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 were losing our lead on that. But one question with those contending teams in our conversation they have the best death in a row. But at the same time to bureaucratize that we dont innovate very well weaken the eve of the glass is half full or halfempty. I would counsel congress to be optimist that is a way of life i ascribe to you cannot have everything all the time and think everything will be well all the time that could be realistic about the potential. We really do have the taxpayer in mind that seems to be a struggle with the current leadership on the hill and their understanding of the Industrial Base teaches secretary mcnamara recognize the need somebody needed to look to those logistics from 50 years ago to see that in a different light in since we have continued to see that as a way to support the mission constantly. That drives the potential solutions with the revolutionary opportunity and trusting in the entrepreneurial spirit is going to be 0k if you learn from those mistakes with the investment of technology is all worth it. With the process and the structure as has been recognized it ties up the process for the people who might have the solution would not participate which challenged congress to be optimistic to have more trust in the private sector. And what way is that congress not trusting the private sector enoughs . Because it pushes dod to use the regulated and added to procurement and needs to encourage to take advantage of commercial acquisitions . What is a specific way . This is so cumbersome the requirements donate the dont meet the needs of what is proposed. If there is a new way of solving them you have to look at it with old acquisition policies and there is the disconnect how you do that. If you dont have all of the answers at the beginning the evaluation process is not educated enough there is the fear of the process it is just the of bureaucracy to characterize it does red tape to prevent these new solutions from being applied we have a halfhour left please identify yourself. Good morning. Thanks for your comments. Women independent consultant i have the background of Life Cycle Management in the air force and i have to do with private manufacturer approval. Where is that with regard with the whole process . Budget constraints is where we looked significantly and i would like to know if you have an update. With the association of american geographers we have been big advocates as we talk about complexity and revolution and evolution how has the Defense Department been thinking about the technologys . That is a very interesting discussion i can figure out how to do in the field but the problem that you run into with Aircraft Systems there are certain characteristics you have to have. Material properties as well as surface finish and a mention maliki. If you dont have them, it fails and that is spectacular but not in a good way if you go through that process the whole idea is you have proven you can produce that part. If you decentralize that manufacturing can challenge that because how you maintain that authority to challenge for us as we stand by the quality of u. S. Parts that we cannot stand by the neb makes it very difficult to stand by our product anymore. So where we are right now it is a bureaucratic process. Talk about competition but you have to be very mindful of quality and as a look at the Additive Manufacturing that becomes even more complex. We work with universities with the research and Development Program and one of the things we have been looking at with Additive Manufacturing is have you provide the technology and the key component is the capabilities of what we need throw the navy out with the bathwater with those engineering aspects physics is not changing it is the same it is the technology for when you produce the part to put it on the airplane or the submarine you have to understand their traditional aspect how you have used that part in the past and use this new technology to create a new part whether it is the same part or three parts that you print the you have to have that background in engineering and that capability to understand how to use that the with the war fighter the question that needs to be answered is what we are working with, if you put Additive Manufacturing in the field at the combat outpost with the infantryman unit that is 30 guys then who has the capability to take the software to print the part as is needed to use the files and the data . The stem piece continues to be an area there is a growing need and there will be in need to have a specialist and a generalists to facilitate the process for the technology to be applied in a foreword or deployed setting. I guess this question is for gm. Gives some examples the way the services are using Additive Manufacturing now and what their plans are to use that technology in the coming years . Georgetown university. Looking at a different angle , through the process of the acquisition with the external factors with fighter planes and Missile Technology is the pressure to produce these products because of the vast advancement of weaponry maybe that is the process of breaking down the red tape. Lets add one more. And the former member of the Intelligence Community and state department. What is the rate of progress of our major adversaries of the Russian Federation and china . With the use of negative manufacturing of the experimentation either by a individuals or units of the inherent interest. So to have concrete examples with manufacturing machines. There is a modification of weapons rather than being massproduced and there is an example of something that was used for a helicopter made in the field. This is not new. A ship is out there in the middle of the ocean. We will come up with a solution but with this technology to talk about solutions that it can execute upon. So you have to have within the services a function of need and frankly immediate need of how to solve a problem that causes you to. A technology for word. With the Industrial Base base, that technology is fluctuating. The machines and the material is crashing. And effectively the modernization is going on that are becoming highly specialized with the competitive advantage so if i say will you tell me how to use this process he would not tell us because that is the competitive advantage but for a limited number using this there truly differentiating themselves. Frankly what is available is not up to snuff so in the commercial industrial sector , it really plays out as a commodity type of capability with materials or to seek competitive of vantage and takes a lot to lock down the process but when you do you have the advantage that is significant that justifies that capital investment. There are two key examples from manufacturing it was printing bridges for people for many years almost 30, with the evolution of Additive Manufacturing there is a great opportunity there and medical Services Continue to provide that lack of infection with a traumatic brain injury but what i mentioned earlier the special operations that was deployed in afghanistan infantry units were given a flashlight and there was the exterior button every time there would watch it would click on and off if you are familiar with night ritual that is rule number one do not turn on your light so they said we need a cover. So they produced a cover and printed them in the field and provided them immediately. That is a key example of the aspect of it. And continuing on at the services theyre pushing the envelope constantly because primarily they are the war fighters they dont want to put up with those impediments to abort the mission so they push the technology so they try to help them see the cost of services to have a comprehensive strategy for this technology. If youre talking, trouble talking about global technology. It is hard to answer directly but i will touch on both. There is a lot of investment of russia and china that has been fairly public a lot of articles about the commercial side to develop the propulsion capability. So clearly that bears watching. If you are watching the remarks we have a 2 Million Investment meanwhile we are struggling in other areas. Why is that . To recognize as say differentiator for the United States. That is why keeping it that way is a good reason for that. Is remarkable historically we can rise to the occasion to have a national imperative going back to world war ii the things going on was from the defensive Industrial Base to punch them off the production line day after day after day for the government and Industrial Base. Fast forward once that was launched, we took off. We were putting people on the moon and that was just one part from the cold war and the Technology Technological of finance from a national imperative so where read today . Reconsider goin