Always a way to keep learning even in a job you have done a long time. That is incredibly important advice i am just in all of my colleagues they have little the court for a law of years but they still think hard about every case i think everybody on the court does that even those of them there long time. I am a huge fan of my colleagues for that reason. There is nobody there on autopilot. It could be the 23rd time i have seen the issue by will think there is hard as i did the first time. I said she talked about her parents to remind her everyday of the impact of Public Service to pray every day she will live up to that example i think we can all agree she has exceeded that example with those expectations to have a huge impact on public education. Thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] good morning to the third offset conference here holding today to talk about what the third offset is the progress and the challenges Going Forward and what baby in storer for that third offset so i am pleased to have with us for three of the architects of the implementation that you may not have heard of. Some capability as the third offset. Now we will have each panel speak about the third offset then we will have a conversation how to think about that to shape government activity. And the vicechairman joint chiefs of staff and to my immediate laugh to the principal director intelligence. So the main architect can you talk a little bit about when you first conceived the issues . What is what you were seeking higher dues see that as a frame to implement the departments activities greg. First of all, i cannot rarely take credit i trace that thinking back at 2012 with the deputy secretary of defense it was motivated of what i will talk about followed by a very important presentation given to the National Security council of the growing threats to the space constellation. So the job of the deputy secretary the primary job and as the action group tries to make a cohesive program. So but it is focused on conventional deterrence. It is designed to strengthen u. S. Terence to avoid any major confrontation. It is focused at the operational level of four. The theater leveller campaign level. To have some from that operational wobble because the Historical Perspective that is the surest way to underwrite the offset is that to you start to is your competitors. Did danske abilities you have the conventional. Not adversaries but competitors because they develop advanced capabilities. And the where we are projecting power a car if he still might but those that are outside the land mass the when the potential competitors and bev and shoot mondesi have reached parity of the theater wide battle that works. Of silicon see what is happening to control communications and computers to have a sense of what is happening and what they would like to achieve and then you have logistic san support that keeps though holding running. And that is approaching parity with us. In conventional terms we want to make shirt we can extend our and vintage and third to put a law of money in the Counter Network operations. So they spend a law of money on cybercapability in Electronic Warfare capabilities because the space constellations is a very important part of the ability to put these together. So those three things they might be expected to fight that is a law of Counter Network operations. What we refer to. It is the in here trying to improve congressional deterrence with the best way to go about it. The third offset does not have a destination. It is a journey. And to exploit those entrances into their Battle Networks that we believe will strengthen congressional deterrence. To get to your questions but again its not a unified field theory it is focused on one thing strengthening the deterrence to make sure the board doesnt happen. I want to get your perspective from the combat si side. I will make a couple points to expand. Third the offset isnt an answer, its a question. It questions our ability to offset the advantages we see emerging in the potential competitors for this and i always describe it if it were a fixed point in space i would navigate those into the joint Requirements Oversight Council and mandate them in every program that exists and impose them through the chair man on all of the Services Except its not an answer, its a question. By asking the question repeatedly, what are the advantages that our adversaries are accruing overtime, what threats do they pose and can addressing those threats strengthen conventional deterrence, i think we are asking the right question. The wii to take technologies and ideas and turn them into procedures is through operational experimentation that begins with designing concepts, testing them and ultimately testing them in exercises. From an operational perspective, the journey that we are on has the potential to vastly increase the effectiveness of the conventional forces. But we have to ask the right questions and experiment with the right techniques and procedures and disseminate those in doctrine to the forces and partners and allies and friends and figure out how to offset the capability that all of our competitors are bringing to the battle space which is in simple terms longrange precision strike at volume. In space, cyberspace, in the air, on land and on sea. We can step back and say that we invented it and that would be true that everyone who wishes to compete with us has read our doctrine. Theyve watched us and theyve analyzed our strengths and they are reflecting what we are good at back on us yet figured out how to offset that in the operational battle space and i will stop there because im really interested in your questions. If one thing is not like the other, that presents the Intelligence Community and i would love your perspective about how you all have come to be partnered in the Defense Department and how you think about the process. From th from the moment the department started talking about the third offset, its deeply iy resonated in the Intelligence Community. We share a world in which the threats are changing and which countermeasures are always at hand and. The routing the National Security advances. By that tim the time that we dea new capability and increasingly with cyber from the way we could see the capability, but competitors are working to counter that new capability. So in my view, if we are not driving our own offset, we are receiving ground and losing our ability from the oval office to the war fighters and so i just dont believe it not changing is an option that we have. Thanks very much. Let me if i can hope to revoke a conversation on the topic. You all see each other in various venues but we dont always get to hear the dialogue so we hope to get a little piece of that today. If i could start with you, one of the things people would say is that is all well and good to look at russia and china but theres other issues going on. There are many other operational challenges out there. What is your response in the water Defense Strategy . I knew the question was going to come. This is the kind of question that weve received throughout the department. Its always good to be the straight man. So, i would like you to look at the top first when i say we are injecting and autonomy into the grid we are looking at five different things, a thomas learning systems that can crunch the big data and see patterns humans simply cannot see and they can reveal those to the humans and they affect the icy. Im sure stephanie can talk about that but they were impacted. Remember the collaborative decisionmaking is providing information for the advanced visualization. A couple with machine to communications and allows humans to make more timely relevant decisions and we refer to that as human being machine. Its machines using humans to allow them to make better decisions. Assisted human operations, this is providing us much information to the individual so it cannot allow them to make better decisions at every level and its also wearable electronics, disposable sensors. Thats what we mean by human operations. Advanced human machine combat teaming you see this all over the place with those working together. Finally, the network labeled as autonomous weapons and highspeed weapons like directed energy and hypersonics. All of those things will be injected into the center grid and the affecting the sticks and support allowing the performance impact, and again its not about the kurds technology per se. But he goes through saying here is the requiremenheres the reqo doctrine developers to say this is how we will use this to exercise safe for that is what we are talking about in the third offset. Why wouldnt you focus. This is a white board. He stepped up his special operators on a particular target and he said i need to bring the entire power of the Battle Network to me. At this point in time to accomplish this effect on the battlefield and he sketched out. I need at all connected. The five areas of the way up to the operational level of war this is completely much like railroads and telegraph being driven in the commercial sector. Autonomy is changing all of our lives like the vice chair said at an astounding rate sometimes we dont even notice it. This will be a world of fast followers. If it isnt so much autonomy it is in invested in the battleground terms to work better than the potential competitors and we believe we do have an advantage on the operational level at this time and we might be able to have an advantage if we move to the operational organizational constructs that we may only have an advantage for five years or so you start thinking about what you want to create the next five years. Its like a competitive business where the market is constantly changing and you have to adapt. We know that it will improve. We know that competitors will conclude at the same thing in the world of fast followers as long as you are a fast eater you have an advantage but you have to think about what is the next step when we achieve parity. To pick up on the plates of cars that can drive themselves, thats interesting but it barely scratches the surface of what could happen if every car was perfect the network, if everybody subscribed to a network that optimized sarcast sarcastic, my guys wouldnt have to go through whit delights t me here on time. Having spent time with people who think about Artificial Intelligence and autonomous automation, every one of them would tell you we are barely scratching the surface. We are only beginning to learn the promise of peace for the future and its a question and answer if we walk into systems that continue to bring new information tended networks, we are doomed to singular autonomous things and we wont be able to adapt. The heart of the question is yes and we have to evolve with it. Its born of technologies that are 40yearsold. We are not going to be able to sustain in the environment where Software Applications allow them to adapt quickly so we have to sort out how deeply we are going to look into the problem and predict what the capabilities are going to be and how we can make the infrastructure. While you subscribe to an open architecture the answer is always of course. We have to have open architectures so i would say wonderful here is the application i would like for you to make it work useful to the service that ordered it. We cant do that. It is an open architecture that the only way we can do that is to find a resilient architecture to which all can describe. Asking that question is like we are at the beginning and we cant see all the possible places that could take us but we need to allow it to be explored. See what this could mean and then move it if it is the brush that should have burned. Theres anothethere is another e coming hopefully. My question is the first benefited from the act of 47. Both will help realize all the advantages . The offsets were not just the product of changing the policy apparatus in fact the changes have been a result of whats happening around us so i would suggest a big part of the first was the fact that we found. That posed some questions for the security leadership. In the mid70s we have realized precision would get us to a different e. Creation and by the way some of our competitors say we create Nuclear Effects with conventional weapons. There is a huge difference in what it means. That means we dont have to deploy all the power in the battle space and by the way you wasnt just precision in the network that gave indications to make it useful and we reorganized around it. We had these services but we didnt have a construct to encourage back. So gold water. Last week i found myself describing the Defense Department as a diner and that has already been cut and if you polish it all you will make it do is make it brighter. Thanks for arranging this discussion. Where do allies and partners fit into this an handheld will and e without giving away how do we solve longterm interoperability without giving goodies to potential competitors . I will free advertise and say we have a panel, thank you for bringing your guidance to the panel. Many close allies in norway, united kingdom, japan and many others, this is what we would say. In addition to first advantage we have competitive advantage going back to the ai question because we believe our people in the framework of what we are trying to accomplish provide an enormous competitive advantage, second thing was talk to buy paul, joined this takes all the western armies to a greater or lesser degree going towards joint solutions because your Battle Network, if you have street functional networks, will never operate as well as a cohesive joint network, 30 years since Goldwater Nichols, we have our competitors are trying to copy us, the third you thing you hit on his our allies, our National Security strategy, alliances are central not only to our security and partners security but global security. If you compare us with our potential competitors they dont have a lot of allies. We do from the very beginning we have been talking with our partners and allies about how we work this together. The third offset is very coalition friendly. The point of the realm was mechanized Infantry Battalion or Armored Division or heavy artillery battalion. Now anybody can come up with an application in any one of the domains, cyberspace, air, under the sea and improve the power of the network. Very coalition friendly, we are thinking of it as interoperable. So far all our discussions have been very fruitful. We are in the midst of integration. I would argue that is the current situation, integrating the pieces we have and deepening the partners is foundational to an advantage that we can pull together what we already know. As far as the risks involved, sure. It just requires what we are thinking of. It is thoughtfully engaging, how we can best leverage and help each other. We are doing structural work to make it possible but largely the way you structure the id system. Other questions . There is a young lady. Thank you to the panel. The office of naval intelligence. There are a lot of pieces regarding innovation and advances in the Defense Department. In a resource constrained environment, how you articulate return on investment to doing faster or increase level of fidelity with the data points you have. How do you articulate return on investment . How do you keep the wind in your back when the pentagon doesnt have a competitor where the war fighter goes for a different level of service . You will hear from secretary carter on how he has tackled this problem as far as the innovation agenda but let me say the way term and return on investment is through the operator. The second offset when the army and air force got together which employed the technology and in a very short time, by 1984 the soviet general staff said this is completely unhinged the way we were thinking about the fight. What we will do, paul talked about an Incentive Fund where we incentivize to look at new concepts that bring in technologically enabled operational construct and they will say looks like a big operational return on investment if we do this, then we incentivize the Concept Developers to develop further and then we do exercises and it will be the feedback this loop on how it informs the force that tells us return on investment, to say we really should go this way. We are making modest investment, a lot of tests. I stole pauls line. It is a journey, not a destination. The return on investment for us is going to be when the army, marines, navy, air force and our allies and special operators come back and say this is the real deal and that is where we start to for our money. This is about taking ownership of the question. I am very suspect of hard, objective criteria that we can advertise and i will make up an example, you can push back if you want. Adg 1000 is an incredible ship, stealthy, smart, networked, resilient, 10 times more lethal than any competitors ship of the same class. Someone who crunches numbers for living would say youd wanted 20 so two will do. We have a history in the department. Taking the subject of outcomes of wargames before the services, taken ownership of the tactics and advertise them as success and it hasnt been fruitful. My view is the same as the secretaries. I have airmen and marines echoing back to me that in their workspaces, in their unit, maneuver elements, they are seeing the benefit of this kind of thinking, that is where the return on investment comes in because we can experiment and knit things together in different ways. It will be viewed as a bright idea that makes a difference and that is where we have to go. So i would use the same measure when we have articles in our professional journals, commanders responding, and the wargame centers putting together exercises in bringing us the ideas of young men and women in uniform, that is the return on investment. Best example of this is we would not have gps today had bill perry and harold brown listen to p and e, the return on investment is hard for us to calculate and therefore you articulate. It just so happened to