In a natural relationship. But that being said, you dont want to create the government has a responsibility to the taxpayer to be fair and to be transparent. You have to do that. The question becomes how can you do that but at the same time give industry the flexibility to do what they need to do . I dont know there is a good answer which is why acquisition reform has been a buzzword for decades and continues to be something we continue to strive for and continue to struggle with. But i would say that is probably the hard problem of the century. But nevertheless it is something we have to continue to strive to get better because there is a balance between letting industry innovate and letting industry take responsibility and put goods into the hands of the war fighter that meet the war fighters needs and making sure that the responsibility to the taxpayer is upheld. So before i go, let me follow up with a specific question. Is there one word, based on your current understanding of where congress has left this debate, leaving town now, july 31st, 2015, would you push this to a realistic level, knowing we dont have a Silver Bullet and solve it all, one thing you would like to see people do and one word of advice you would provide. The one thing i would suggest is understand the difference between business and government. And in understanding the difference between business and government and understand you cant run government like a business and you cant run business like a government. And if you understand the differences between the two, that helps to settle the relationship. Thank you. Dave, any thoughts on acquisition reform policy and where we should be doing . We take our responsibility here quite seriously as most of our peers do. I think it is about balance. In either extreme you get the kind of behaviors that none of us want, right. So in addition to finding the right balance, we need to step back and reflect a little bit on the kind of acquisition objectives that we want to have as we see the cycle times an the kind of technologies coming in, all right. Being able to ainquire things that incrementally add capability over time, this is a different kind of acquisition that you do there. So in addition to kind of getting that set point right, and we have a joint responsibility with our customers to help make that happen, it is also reflecting more on how these increment allen hansments help us with the budget pressures, help us get capabilities into the hands of war fighters more quickly, but there are challenges with those kind of acquisitions. And where does that have to happen, where is the number one road block now . Is it in existing law, in the culture of the military service and in the acquisition of the service and i im sure youll say it is all but if there is one most in need of fixing today or inovation, what would that be in your mind . I think it is a little bit of all of those areas there. I think that the technology and the future capabilities dont necessarily respect the organizational constructs that we have right now so increasingly technology is forcing us to think about acquiring things that involve varied stakeholders in ways that we havent had to bring them together in the past. It is just the way it is, right. And so part of it is just the communication across folks, both in industry and government, that form that stakeholder community, that have not regularly been working to acquire those kind of systems. Jim, you called for more revolutionary change, do you see a way to make that happen in the context of this conversation . Yeah. I think we just heard a Million Dollar comment here which is technology doesnt respect the current kind of organizational structures and the way it was adapted. So i dont know when i you could have a good argument about what era our procurement system harkens back to and some people would say it is a civil war model and it is about mass and resources. Well, we need a procurement system which isnt about mass, we need one that is about the adaptability and and knowledge effectiveness of what were procuring. And to do that, i think what we need to do is look at the procurement system not so much in terms of whether we have enough regulation to protect the taxpayer, or not, or are we acquiring the right weapon systems. We should look at it in terms of how do we widen the base of the sources and the resources being used for the developing and delivering these systems. So when i talk to some of the leading folks and in private industry about their technology and how it is being used by the department of defense, they repeatedly say to me, you know, there are a lot of folks out there, folks like the chinese, that are much better taking innovation, wherever it is, and effectively militaryizing it. And so we have an archaic procurement and Large Capital expenditure and not driven by innovation or adaptability. So if i were to council the folks going home on vacation, i might tell them not to come back, but i would also [ laughter ] but i would say the game has changed here. It is not about massing resource and allocating budget, it is about accessing the full continuum of innovation and effectively militarizing it as required. Ultimately the responsibility is not around protecting taxpayer money or executing big programs, it is about winning. And a lot of folks in private industry will say a transition to civilian technology or technology wherever it is into military use, were losing our lead on that. Just because of the sheer weight and the wrong model. The model doesnt respect the technology. So brennan over to you for any questions you have, but the question is, is the Glass Half Full or half ending because we have different themes, not debates or one person against another but themes saying were making the best stuff in the world, we have the best stuff in the world and were doing interest things across the domains you are discussing this morning and yet at the same time we have bureaucracy, and innovate or not do well in peace time and do you have a view of whether it is a Glass Half Full or half empty. And that is a good questionment and i was thinking about what words to use and i would counsel congress on being real estatisticly optimistic. Which is a way of life. You cant have everything all of the time and think everything will go well all of the time but you can be realistic about the potential. And i think that all of the organizations that we represent we really do have the taxpayer in mind. And there seems to be a struggle between those of the current leadership on the hill and their understanding of what the Industrial Base is trying to do and whether or not they have actually the war fighters best need in mind. Lmi was founded because secretary mcnamara realized that somebody outside of the military needs to see what is facing the military 50 years ago and see it in a different light and solve the complex problems and weve continued to support that mission and one of the things we continue to try to do is hook at innovation as a way to support the mission constantly. And there is a great spirit, not to get philosophical, but i will, in this country of entrepreneurialship and innovations and that will drive the opportunities that there is and i think that trusting that those that entrepreneurial innovative spirit is going to be okay and if you fail and fail forward and learn from those mistakes, it is an accurate and efficient investment in the technology, then this is all worth it. But the process and the structure, as the gentlemen to my right have recognized, it does not facilitate that process. It ties up that process. To the people that might have the solutions dont even want to participate. So i would counsel congress to be optimistically realistic about the future and to have a little bit more trust in the private sector and in bringing these technologies to bear on the Public Sector problems. One follow up. In what way is the congress not trusting the private sector enough right now. Because it pushing d. O. D. To use the traditional bureaucracy regulated methods of procurement and take advantage of the federal code and the options of commercial acquisition style of procurement . What is a specific way that Congress Gets in the way. I think the acquisition process is so cumbersome and the requirements dont meet the needs of what is being proposed. So the questions that come out and the problems trying to be solved, if there is a new way of solving them, there isnt a recognition that you have to look at it and evaluate it in a new light. You are applying old regulations and old Acquisition Policy to new solutions and there isnt there is a disconnect between how you do it. And i also think there is a fear of the unknown. If you dont have the answers at the beginning or if the evaluation process isnt educated enough for the individual evaluators that are part of the acquisition process dont understand it, instead of asking questions again and again to better educate the Acquisition Policy process, there is a fear and just a shut down of the process. So i think it is just the general bureaucracy. And jimmy said it complexity, i would characterize it more as red tape and the amount of complexity in the actual acquisition process that prevents the new solutions from being applied. Great. Well lets go to all of you. We have about half an hour left. Im going to take two questions at a time. Please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. And if you can pose a question specifically to one person, that is a help. It is not obligatory but it helps. The woman here in the fourth row and the gentleman on the seventh row, both in the aisle. Good morning. Thank you for your comments. My name is margaret cope, im an independent consultant. I have a background in Life Cycle Management in the air force. My question has to do with pma, product manufacture approval. Where is that with regard to this whole process . I know when you talk budget constraints, that was an area that we were looking significantly at and i would just like to know if you have an update, probably, jimmy, youre the one that would note most about that. And before we do, well get two on the table that way we can pick and choose. Go ahead. Im john workman with the associati association of fliets. As we talk about agile systems, complexity, evolution, revolution. What are the implications for the 21st ssht war fighter and how has the Defense Department be thinking about what the war fighter can do with the new technologies in mind. And steven well start with you and go to brennan. I can take a part and i can figure out how to do it in the field and there you go. But the problem you run into, particularly with aircraft systems, is that there are certain characteristics of those parts that you have to have. It is material properties, as well as qualities such as surface finish and dimensionality and things like that. If you dont have them, that part can fail and when it fails, it will be spectacular not in a good way. And so one of the things you worry about, when you go through the pma process, the whole idea is that youve proven that you can produce that part to have the right quality so that you have the quality part that can do what it has to do. If you descent rallize that and take away that authority your given, things like added manufacturing can challenge that because then how do you maintain that authority. The challenge for us as manufacturers is we stand by the quality of our products. And if you start flying around products that have parts that we cant stand by, then it makes it very difficult for us to stand by our products any more. So i think right now, where we are on pma, it is a bureaucratic authoritative process. Where you can successfully do it, it can drive competition and cost improvements but you have to be very, very mindful of the quality issues and i think looking ahead as we look at added manufacturing, that may become yet even more complex. Brennan . Sure. So with regard to some education, we work very closely with universities in our research and development program. We do internal r d and academically funded r d projects and one thing were looking at is how do you provide the work force that can use the technology and a key component of that are what are the skills and capabilities that they need. There is a miscon semgs that when you use a new stuff and you throw the old baby out with the bath water but physics is not changing. The technology that is going to have with stand the physics when you produce a part and put it on a plane or a Aircraft Carrier or a submarine you have to understand the engineering aspect because you have to know how to produce the part in the past and how to use the new technology to create a if you part, or whether it is the same part or print as a singular part but you have to have the background in engineering and the capability to understand how to use it. With regard to how that applies to the war fighter, it is a question that continues to be answered and that is what were working with the d. O. D. On a training and work force perspective. If you put added manufacturing in the field and at a federal operating base or a combat out post and you have an infantry that is 30 guys, who within the team has the capability to take the software to print the part and create a part as it is needed to use cad files and 3d data to print the part and what are those skill sets and i think the stem space of it continues to be a growing need and i think there is a need for having specialists and generalists who can facilitate the process so that the technology can be applied in a forward or deployed setting. Thank you. Lets take two more. These two gentlemen here. Thank you. John harper with National Defense magazine. I guess this question is probably for brennan and jim. Can you give some examples of the ways in which the services are using Additive Manufacturing now and what some of the plans are for utilizing that technology in the coming years. Sure. Im Randall Doyle from george washington, university, i would like to look at this from a different angle. Listening to the process and the quick and everything, i want to talk about external factors with the fansment of fighter planes and Missile Technology and in china and how much pressure is on to produce the products for the military and so forth and maybe because of chinese advancement in weapons, maybe that is the process of breaking down the red tape you talked about and maybe make you happier with congress. And ill add one more and potentially have a question for everybody. Well see here. That is what im hoping. Thank you. Im elliott horowitz, a former member of the Intelligence Community and the state department and the world bank. For mr. Kenyan, i have a question, what is the rate of progress of our major adversaries with the peoples republic of china and the federation in terms of rapid propulsion. Well begin with jim and work across the panel. Well i characterize the use of Additive Manufacturing among the services as islands of experimentation. And in many ways driven by either individuals or units that i have an inherent interest in innovation. Though some concrete examples of how it is being used in the field would be the deployment of Additive Manufacturing machines with socom. I mentioned the dog bone for the antennas and there has been modification of weapons so that they are rather than being mass produced, they are more custom fit to individuals. And there is some an example of something used for a sling underneath the helicopter that was made in the field. Again, i would say, that this is not in any way new. And in fact, when you Start Talking about the navy, it is in the navys dna to do this kind of stuff. The ship is out there in the middle of the ocean and it will keep going an the machine shop will come up with a solution and what this particular technology does is it widened the envelope of possible solutions that that machine shop can execute on. So the adoption path within the services is really a function of need and frankly immediate need. There is nothing like having to solve a problem that causes you to propel a Technology Forward. Now in the Industrial Base, the adoption of the technology is really kind of bifluctuating. The machines and the material, the Price Performance envelope on them is crashing and effectively within that class of machines their commodity is going on of both the material and the machine. There is also a group of machines and materials that are becoming highly specialized and regarded as a competitive advantage. So if i returned to jimmy and said would you tell me how youve locked down your processes and limited variability, well how do you guarantee youll find an element analysis, he wouldnt tell us because that is the competitive advantage. So there is a limited number of folks, usually with a lot of capital, that are truly differentiating themselves in Additive Manufacturing and frankly they are having to build the machines themselves. The machines that are available just arent up to snuff. So in the commercial, industrial sector, it really is playing out as is this a commodity type of capability with commodity or is there an opportunity for a distinct advantage and were seeing it takes a lot of money to lockdown the processes on the metal side and create parts but when do you, you have an advantage over other companies that is significant and justifies that capital investment. Brennan, do you want to add an example or two before we go to jimmy and dave. There are two things helping. The navy has been using Additive Manufacturing. The navy of dental skill has been printing bridges for people in their mouths for many years, probably almost 30 years. With the evolution of Additive Manufacturing the customization to an individual persons physiology, there is a great opportunity there. And the medical Services Continue to provide that. There is a lack of infection, when you have customized prosthetics or skull caps when you have traumatic brain injuries and that is a growing area. The other example i like to use often i