CMF #3: Future Vertical Lift

ok ladies and gentlemen if you would it was said nice to have an opportunity to take a little bit of break I was I don't know about you but after the soldier athletes were introduced and listening to all that they did I was tired just listening to all their all of their activities so we're very pleased now to move on to the first panel of day two and in a vitally important one you heard a gentle gentle Poorna singing the praises of the vice chief of staff of the army and so you if you're if you're if your ears were ringing gentle McConville that was the AMC commander sucking up to you he did a masterful job of that but we're ready for our next panel future vertical lift and unsurprisingly the senior mentor mentor for this activity is the vice chief of staff of the Army General James McConville and moderating today's panel is Lieutenant General Bill Phillips United States Army retired vice president for special operating forces and Huntsville operations for the Boeing Company Jim McConville general Philips off to you sir thank you very very much warm welcome for our aviation Pam first of all gentle ham thanks to you and to a USA and the army leadership for bringing this forum together and on behalf of our senior men arjun mentor general McConville and as the panel moderator I first want to really thank the team for coming together all our panel members for being here today because this is a critically important important topic and if you think about our theme modernizing and equipping America's Army for today and tomorrow we clearly have the a-team that's up here ready to share and discuss future vertical lift for just some admin comments as far as the panel will be executed each panel member will have about 5 to 7 minutes at the end we should have at least 30 minutes so I want everyone out there to please think about questions for the panel and we'll gather those and have the panel members address each and everyone it's my honor to introduce our senior mentor for future vertical lift general McConville James McConville assumed duties as a 36 vice chief of staff of the Army on June 16th 2017 he is a graduate of West Point and holds a Master of Science in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech he has commanded to every level within the army most notably commanding general 101st Airborne Division Air Assault where he also served as the commander of combined joint task force 101 operation during freedom also commanded 4th Brigade 1st Cav division ooi F his key staff assignments include deputy chief of staff g1 chief as legislative liaison in the Pentagon g3 of the 101st airborne division Air Assault general McConville is the senior army aviator qualified in a longbow Apache Kiowa Warrior at age six and others he is a master army aviator he has three children as we were talking yesterday all three of them are deployed today in support of our nation overseas general wali rügen is a deputy commanding general support 7th Infantry Division and director cross-functional team future vertical lift he is a graduate of West Point in his career he has served in Korea fort camel with 101st airborne battalion Air Assault 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment airborne where he deployed to both f & OE F he also served in SOCOM he commanded third Battalion hundred and sixtieth sorr he is he also command his second Combat Aviation Brigade in Korea and most recently served as the chief of aviation force development division and director of materiel army g8 he's a master aviator general Brigadier General Thomas Todd assumed duties as program executive officer aviation on 12 January 2017 he previously served as the RDECOM deputy commanding general Natick systems he is a graduate of Citadel he is a ouais 58 and uh-60 maintenance test pilot and holds a master's degree of Science in contracting management from fi t he has numerous operational assignments including Fort Hood in Korea he joined the army acquisition Corps in 1996 is certified in contracting and program management he has served as the assistant product manager for air warrior product manager for ch-47f chinook and project manager for utility helicopters project office general Todd also served on the army staff and they salt he is a senior army aviator Jeff Dresner is a senior policy researcher at RAND Corporation he has over 30 years of professional experience conducting policy analysis on a wide range of issues including aerospace industrial policy and defense acquisition policy and reform his recent projects include rapid acquisition approaches Jeff formerly served as the associate director of R and project Air Forces acquisition program and has been a participant in the Pentagon sponsored program in support of OSD atl he has a PhD in political science from Claremont University Mike Hirschberg assumed duties as the American helicopter society executive director On June 1st 2011 after 20 years of serving in the aerospace industry he represents the vertical flight technical community and advocates for Viet and advocates for the advancement of the vertical flight research and technology he previously served as a principal aerospace engineer with Sentra technology in support of DARPA x' advanced aircraft rotorcraft systems he has authored a co-authored over 100 publications in three books he holds a BS in aerospace engineering from Virginia and a mechanical engineering degree from Catholic University he also speaks fluent German dr. Jerry graves is imagining managing director of the vertical lift consortium the VLC mission is to work collaboratively with the US government to develop and transition innovative vertical lift technologies to leverage over 110 member organizations including defense and academia dr. graves has more than 30 years experience in forming and leading collaborative R&D programs while working with advanced technology international dr. graves taught graduate level systems engineering and program management courses at the Citadel he has served for over five years ever as a f-14 flight officer and ladies and gentlemen is my honor to turn it over to our senior mentor general McConville our vice chief of staff of the army [Applause] well well thanks thanks bill and what we'd like to do is just kind of set the stage as we talk about the future of vertical lift and now I think you know there's a couple of ways of doing it and you know as we look to the future there's a couple of ways to get to the future one is this start we're at right now and move from where we are the other way is to go into the future look at 20-30 years get an idea of what we think we need to have and then move move back from that that position and really that's the strategy what we're taking in the army right now is you know we would argue and if the chief Lee was here he would tell you that we have the world's greatest aviation force with the world's greatest helicopters today the Apache helicopter is the biggest killer in the battlefield and what are ch-47 in in Blackhawks are doing along whether our gray eagles are supporting the ground force throughout the world in a way that we are very happy with however we shouldn't be satisfied with where we sit we were using helicopters to do really primarily three things in the army we're using the fine things we're using the kill things and we're using to move things and as we go to the future and we look out 20 30 years from now what we see is we still think that we're going to be finding things we still think that we're gonna need help vertical lift to kill things and we still think that we're gonna need to be moving both troops and cargo throughout the battlefield that the difference is is how we'll do that the difference is is the conditions that we're going to operate under and so you know we kind of have a strategy and we're doing it right now we're incremental e improving the great helicopters we have you know they all start off as alpha models and pretty soon you work your way through some are echoes some of foxtrots some are blocks and we've kind of incrementally improved the aircraft we have but we talk about future vertical lift what we're talking about is where is the leap ahead technology where is the technology that's going to give us overmatch on the battlefield where's the technology that 10 20 30 years from now is going to make us the most lethal force on the battlefield where we have tremendous overmatch or adversaries we can operate in contested domain warfare as we go forward and and that's what we're trying to work right now and that's what we're going to discuss as we go go forward and so I've seen some incredible things happen I was a bit very very impressed with some of the PowerPoint briefs I've seen but I would tell you our soldiers can't fly PowerPoint our soldiers can't fight with PowerPoint and so we're going to challenge all of industries to work closely with us and develop the future vertical lift that we need for our soldiers in the future and while he will kind of lay that out as we go forward thank you thanks sir Jerell Ham AUSA thanks for a great venue to discuss our passion in vertical lift so really appreciate it the CFT started last November again just like every other CFT I have folks from across the enterprise to have a laser focus on S&T laser focused on requirements Contracting testing costing and all those things that go into making large programs like a cat Wendy's successful and so we're looking at forming this team to do things in parallel or in the past we've done things sequentially we're looking at being innovative and agile but we're also looking at the mundane things that we have to do in every program and making sure that we just boil the efficiency into that as hard as we can and having a team that's labor laser focused across those specialties has been powerful to watch so what are we going to do no device already alluded to it but we really want to build an aviation force that's optimized and lethal for large-scale combat operations it's going to be dominant in that lethality and overmatch that we enjoy today but we need for tomorrow reach protection and then also the ability to be adaptable so we've got to be able to rapidly upgrade these machines and these aircraft so aviation has been an asymmetric advantage for our army and the joint force really since Vietnam and LZ x-ray and we're not given that up just because the air domain is tough we're going to compete in the air domain and we're not yielding it to anyone you know truly the ground force and the fires team they need us in the air to bring that air ground integration that is a powerful asymmetric advantage for our army and the joint force and so as we look to the future we see a number of challenges for army aviation that we have to contest with we have to be able to operate in contested airspace we have to be able to be lethal at extended ranges and maintain our vertical lift overmatch and dominance we have to improve the human machine interface and and offload the cockpit loading with these with the holistic situational awareness where we can see a lot of autonomous things done for the crew so they can focus on dominating an area or corridor for the joint force we want to demonstrate mature autonomous decision-making and lastly but probably one of the most important things is we want to support ultra reliable designs that give us maintenance free operating periods but also address our lifecycle costs so so cost is is one of the kings in what we're looking at doing so task and purpose our task is to accelerate the selected disruptive technologies that are going to address those challenges and and the challenges are going to keep us viable in the air domain so we have four lines of effort associated with that task and purpose first advanced UAS so we review UAS as a purpose-built area not a multi-purpose one size fits all we think we're going to have multiple form factors but predominantly we're looking for key attributes that can allow us to dominate in contested airspace and ayats so lower observable survivable or if they're inexpensive throw away swarming runway independent and the ability to deliver targeting for long-range precision fires at operational and tactical distances and also non-lethal effects so think electronic attack we want to be able to stimulate allow the enemy in a contested airspace to turn on their radars we want to be able to spoof those radars jam those radars hump those radars and kill those radars the next line of effort is our future armed our attack reconnaissance aircraft so again we want to want its eyes to hide and radar clutter also size to operate in the canyons of urban canyons of megacities needs to be a clean sheet design optionally manned so a lot of autonomy baked into this future aircraft with improved reach and survivability and these to inform our advance team and this advance team needs to deepen the interoperability between our ground force and fires team to be able to detect and deliver lethal effects assess those effects Andrea TAC if need be next line of effort would be our future long-range assault helicopter again this helicopter is going to have this speed and reach and reach is defined as our exec the reach which is the speed range and endurance to once we do dominate and area or corridor that this will be agile and have the speed to flow through that window of opportunity needs to have significant increased protection operate from sanctuary and just again be something that exploits our windows of opportunity and the last is an open system approach amongst all these clean sheet design so when we think open system architecture we want an architecture that is both open and resilient government designed and defined specs that you as industry teammates plug into so we can shorten our typical five to seven years upgrade into something much shorter and and I think lastly just you know when it comes to aviation in our portfolio we take pride in pay in our own way and so affordability and being good stewards of every taxpayer dollar is forefront on our mind so with that I'll stop 30 seconds a yield can you hear me Thomas Todd don't know me certainly looking forward to being part of really what is I think groundbreaking goals by the Army that senior army leadership has set forth for us and the third priority within the CFTs specifically peoria Gatien has largely been involved in as the vice mentioned earlier in largely upgrade programs over the past i would say 10 years those programs have been necessary and i would say we have a work force really that's attuned to that where we will seek to grow our work force and where we will seek to become really key partners in the process is how do we transition technologies out of science and technology out of demonstrations and experimentation once the CFT deems it necessary and the army makes a decision to move forward the the work forces is obviously ready to do so we have done it on small scales I'll give you a few examples rather quickly we've done that on certainly the improved turbine engine program which came out of the the eight advanced affordable turbine engine science project and so we have that as well as the composite rotor blade transitions and a few other things that we've done but as you largely know there is great difficulty in transitioning programs from science and technology I think that's the beauty of the army futures command it'll give the horsepower to really decisions that need to be made resourcing that needs to be provided leadership from Wally and the CFT on integrating all that across all domains in the process that's required and then we'll actually have I think a really high chance of success at bridging that gap which has become so difficult in our business I will say this as we pursue new technologies we have talked significantly about and the Vice mentioned PowerPoint briefs soldiers can't fight them neither can we develop them if they're not worth the weight that they're printed on so what I would say to this is in industry we are looking for your candor we are looking for your feedback we are looking for your participation but we also need to know what you actually can't accomplish we don't necessarily need to hear what you may want to bake a little bit longer in S&T because we're after getting and while he mentioned this earlier we're after getting technologies really transitioned into tests where we can finalize affordability produce ability of reliability and survivability which is really what you would hand me at the end of the day so that we can deliver it to the soldier in a really you know in a relatively short order that has been difficult that is tremendously difficult commercial aviation the fixed-wing business is largely driven by the commercial sector fixed-wing technology helicopter technology however is driven by us the military sector in large part there are some civilian applications and civil applications that we do take advantage of but advancing technology and vertical lift is dependent on us those of us in this room today so I would ask for your continued commitment and realism and whatever we decide to make decisions on going forward there are a few principles that we should apply that I would say are characteristics of successful development programs that we've seen whether it be the Foxx model the mic model clean sheet purchases off the in the commercial marketplace in the way of Lakotas fixed wings or even independently invested in development efforts like grey eagle and that is as follows integrity is is paramount in all that we really present and discuss there is no way that we can do this if there's not integrity and each of the really goals set forth and decisions we make really humans keep the human and the soldier at the centerpiece of everything that you proposed it is certainly paramount as we achieved the objectives that Wally laid out that we understand that it is always and always will be about the soldier in our business do you never never lose sight of the objective in other words don't get distracted ultimately by a lot of stray voltage or shiny objects stay focused keep the team really on track only those people who can say yes have the authority to say no in our business we have a lot of opinions we have a lot of people that write articles we have a lot of people that really quite frankly feel like they have decision Authority but the decision Authority resides here and it resides within the army leadership and so while we are interested we're gonna try and keep our team obviously focused and only only deal with those that actually have authority ownership everybody on the team ultimately what we need is when you do say something they want to put your name on the line we need a commitment and this gets a little bit too integrity but more ownership take ownership of what kind of claims you're making because we are going to rely on them and we may call you on them make sure that you produce and field when good enough not when it's as good as it possibly could be we absolutely have to make sure that we get this capability to the soldier and then we do not spend double the amount of time achieving the last necessarily 10% of capability when quite frankly 90% was good enough you've heard this echoed by what you fly I think you're gonna see that in some of the strategies laid forth and I already have that in into some of our strategies as we pursue jmr and then no one to quit if necessary so we will be making decisions we always want necessarily transition everything that you propose but we look forward to hearing from you we encourage you to engage the CFT specifically as Wally integrates and we look forward to making sure that whatever we decide to put in the hands of the soldier is a success every time he has to pull that trigger thank you thank you good morning it's a honor to be here part of this panel Rand was asked two years ago by the to look at management constructs for future vertical lift by management constructs I mean sort of the organizational structure roles responsibilities within that structure internal and external reporting lines that kind of thing that the emphasis was if I could turn turn our objective a little on the side the objective was does a joint program structure make sense for fel so we looked at the history of joint programs which is decidedly mixed in in terms of Costco's performance outcomes and then we looked at various structure so a couple of key findings one thing that I thought was interesting is that joint and commonality are not the same kind of thing usually we think about the benefits of joint as a reduction in duplication across the services or some some form of cost savings by that reduce duplication duplication actually a lot of the savings comes and from the commonality itself the commonality is sort of more organic and there are sort of natural incentives to for certain kinds of things to be common across the services part of that is as from historical experience you're not actually forcing services to do something jointly doesn't usually succeed so it should be voluntary the joint management structure itself adds a lot of complexity to what's already a very complex management challenge and and so that's that's a high cost and in fact there's a from from our data there's a pretty significant joint cost growth premium if you will in general joint programs tend to have higher cost growth and single service programs a lot of challenges in managing a joint program and again these are on top of the challenge managing the complex weapon systems have begin with and in particular aligning the requirement schedule budget and keeping that alignment over time FPL isn't a we're gonna be done in five years this is a multi-decade initiative that's a lot of time to maintain that level of alignment the the single most important aspect i think of this comes down to requirements so that i think the lessons from history is that if your requirement isn't the same and i said the same not similar a joint structure probably doesn't make sense a purely joint structure doesn't make sense the model for that would be the f-35 there isn't a single best management construct that's applicable to fvl i think there's there's a lot of different the different capability sets that are being talked about have different characteristics those programs as they unfold may need slightly different management constructs that are tailored to the needs of each particular program but also and i think i hinted this we looked we couldn't find any evidence of actual savings from joint programs and it it's partly because the data isn't collected that way and and partly because most of the time those savings don't actually materialize unfortunately we couldn't we could also not find evidence of savings from commonality those savings probably do exist but again the data isn't collected and put in one place where we can actually see that which is I think something that the fvl community has an opportunity early in the planning stages as part of the AOA for instance to look at historical savings from commonality in programs b22 uh-60 for instance in the end what we did we recommended a lead service management structure for for fel for each program but if you really do want to take advantage of the potential for commonality across the services and also across the different fil programs you probably need some kind of umbrella higher level organization both within the army and within the DoD enterprise to coordinate those kinds of common elements so that that's our our basic findings there is a published report that around website or you can let me know and I can send it to you and with that I'm giving you extra time great thanks let me also say it's real honor and pleasure to be here today and with this distinguished panel of speakers again my name is Mike Hirschberg I'm the director of HS the vertical flight society we were actually formed 75 years ago in 1943 just as the army was ordering its first lot of production helicopters of course the XR 4 so Sikorsky the army got together with other industry members from Piasecki and and Bell the scientific community the other other services academia and said this is a new technology we need to come together and help advance vertical flight and so that's what we've been doing for 75 years our first honorees were Igor Sikorsky and Colonel Frank Gregory from the army one of the early army leaders in developing the helicopter so we bring together industry academia and government to try and tackle the toughest challenges in vertical flight so it's a pleasure for me to represent the operate the scientific community the the developers across industry academia and government today so there's been probably two decades of studies and analysis going into F what's now fel and and basically I think that combined the a the scientific community says we can do this we can provide this extended operational reach we can we can provide incredible capabilities you know action had the X in support of the soldier and there's a mentioned before there's technology flowing from military and to civil and there's also the other way and you look at things like the Blackhawk going into the the s 92 Superhawk now being fielded you know decades later as the bh 92 presidential but the US military has the the best vertical flight aircraft in the world bar none no one else in the world can developed the technologies that we have and things like the Apache in the Black Hawk and the Chinook lifts that are fielded today and industry academia government scientific community we're leaning forward for a future vertical lift the the government expenditure for jmr is is a couple hundred million dollars in total about it's been publicized that there's about a hundred million dollars going to each of the two main competitors main SMT developers Bell and the Sikorsky Boeing team as well as some funding to to carom aircraft and a VX aircraft but industry is putting in hundreds of millions of dollars more to be able to prove that that this can be that this can be done you look at three hundred million dollars it's of course is investing in the radar probably more than that each for bail and the Sikorsky Boeing teens for valor and defiant and you're looking at across industry probably close to a billion and a half of dollars that's going into the the current demonstrations to try and convert those PowerPoint flock slides into something that can actually be can be seen not taken to the fight but demonstrating what the state of the art is what can industry do today and provide capabilities for the soldier for for the future we talked about cost and affordability so one of the big things is yes we can do these really super long ranges and lots being talked about speed the speed of future vertical lift and I think probably more so important more important than speed is probably that range but but those things also drive size so in order to keep you know Ford ability there are there does need to be an appetite suppressant as stated in order to keep the sizes down and make them affordable and then once those requirements are set to lock them in over the decades so that industry can produce those products without chasing shiny objects or other things to make them to make them better but maybe unaffordable and and and not converge so it's really a constancy of purpose and achieving those transitions that have been so elusive in the past from the S&T community or the acquisition community to actually get into the field Comanche was it was an incredible program that that it was an incredible aircraft but not delivered so we're those technologies are being used in and things like future vertical lift but we need to work together and order in order to be able to deliver these capabilities and that is one thing I just really want to state is that industry and government can work together and it's really that collaborative that that collaboration that will do the best to bring these products together and and venues such as this bringing the warfighter and industry together our key events like like we have HS we have an annual technical forum and to be able to get the the scientific community the folks from RDECOM to to come to attend the world's largest technology event for a vertical flight and see what the rest of the world is doing see what is is out there is really important and something that I'd really encourage the army and and leadership to encourage is that interaction with industry and government working with our brethren as part of the the the vertical lift consortium that's one of the key takeaways is industry and government working together can really achieve tremendous results Jerry good morning my message for you today is that collaboration is crucial but it's not easy it is going to be crucial for success in the future vertical lift initiative and that was recognized in the memorandum from undersecretary Carter when when he launched the future vertical lift initiative he recognized the importance of the role that industry would play in the success of the future vertical lift initiative responding to that industry got together and formed the vertical lift consortium in 2010 the mission of the VLC is to work with the government collaboratively to develop and transition technologies for vertical lift rapidly and affordably to get them to the warfighter that's a mission that's constant for us and it gives us an objective that certainly lines up with the FEL CFT and and with the army we're organized as a company with over 110 member organizations arranged in categories based on the sector they're in so we have the OEM OMS our members the large defense contractors the engine companies the small vertical takeoff and landing companies the suppliers and other initiatives we're organized that way to give each of those sectors a voice they all have representation on our board of directors and that's essential to we can't just be run by the larger companies there the importance of what we do is one of the important things we do is is to bring in these innovative companies that will bring new technology and help them in doing business and bringing their value to the future vertical lift initiative the Army's looking for a better way of doing business so is industry in one of the tools that's been provided to us is called the other transaction agreement I'm sure many of you are familiar with OTAs it is something that was developed to give flexibility and to decrease cycle time in providing new capabilities to the warfighter it does give us some opportunities to collaborate in ways that have not been so easy to do in the past so for example the VLC is collaborated with the government in information sharing we've had workshops with the FEL requirements IPT Colonel Bentley came and met with this number of times and and honestly it was one of the most exciting things I've seen in my career to see industry coming together with the government hearing what the capabilities they're considering are in providing feedback so they're being informed but they're also letting the government know what the art of the possible is and suggesting some new things that are out there we can do that under the authority of the other transaction agreement we've also collaborated with the government with the Joint Council of Colonels and looking at such areas we worked with Jeff on commonality we gathered an opinion from industry on what it is when it might work what are some of the issues and we also not only did we give a majority view but we also prevented presented the view of those that didn't necessarily agree but we provided that back to the government as valuable information another way we collaborate we've collaborated with the future vertical if S&T IPT they presented to the VLC over 10 of their technology roadmaps and then collectively the VLC prepared a report with a variety of views on those roadmaps recommendations back to the government this type of collaboration I think is essential to being successful with the future vertical lift initiative as Mike mentioned we collaborate with AHS in in education and promotion of the future vertical lift as an initiative the other transaction Authority also provides us with some other ways to collaborate for example we can with some support from the government bring together subject matter experts to meet with the Army in talking about and developing specifications for things such as the joint common architecture the general rule didn't I referred to we've got a project going on now that's looking at attempting to define that interface between the platform and the mission system a real challenge but we're doing it as an industry group it's not an individual company and universities they play a key role in these as well lastly we are able to execute research and development projects that are focused on prototypes this is a key piece of doing business in a new way it enables the government to more quickly get projects underway we've seen with norm nominally we see three to six months from presentation of the requirement to the VLC to own contract and underway so we're able to do things more quickly because of some of the latitude that we get from working under an other transaction agreement and having our members sign up to a base agreement in advance it does reduce the cycle time and that's very important very important it's not easy if you think about the VLC we've got companies that are fierce competitors we've got companies that have the the the prime OEM relationship I mean prime supplier relationship got to be sensitive to those things but we can undertake work together as an industry providing back to the government and executing these projects in a new and different way that allows us to achieve the rapidity and affordability that we need to see with the VLC I see that my time is run over but I think that this is our members are all in with future vertical lift and we look forward to working with the CFT as it moves forward thank you I'd like to thank all the panel members for your comments they did a great job because we have sir we have quite a few minutes left for questions and I'll get to the first one the first one really centers on cost and sir you mentioned it and many of our panel members address cost as well and in your role as the vice chief you spend considerable time I know trying to make sure that our army and our soldiers are equipped with the best equipment trained ready to go and fight and win on the field of battle when it comes to future Bertil vertical lift and given the priority of that program what are the some of the challenges you see today and and future challenges associated with keeping feo on track and funding going forward yeah I think you know you've had a chance to see that that we have six priorities and we want to modernize when within all these priorities as we go forward and so cost is is key and not only the cost for development but the costs for procurement and the costs to actually maintain the aircraft as we go forward and you know we're we're into mass as far as the amount of aircraft that we have so we are not looking at quite frankly procuring expensive aircraft and you know as we have this discussion we want the aircraft priced at the same range that they are right now we want them to operate at the same price per hour that they're operating right now and I guess the philosophy we have you know we used to pay maybe $1,000 for a black-and-white TV but technology has increased and now we get a color TV with a lot more capability and that's kind of how we're approaching the cost equation all these programs are competing against each other and they're competing you know we have a top line we have so much for modernization in procurement and you know as people ask one of the big decisions the the under section talk about decisions that we made this is going to be made on future vertical lift and some of the other programs is when do we shift when do we get to the point where the technologies as such we've developed the program and it provides such overmatch that we're gonna switch from what we would call the legacy program and move into the new program go forward what we're not gonna be able to do is afford everything and so and what we're not we have to do is spend large amounts of money developing things that are not going to get into the hands to the soldiers so that's that's the challenge we face and we look forward to working with you on this challenge sir I'd ask any of the other panel members if you want to discuss anything on cost or challenges you see ahead yeah I saw I'd like to say that I think you know with manufacturing technology improvements that industry can definitely improve on cost per pound as in the past and serve for looking at aircraft that are cheaper than today certainly with improvements in engine technology with iTap and and fate and just designing with with designing maintainability and and sustainability in the aircraft think they can be more supportable I think the real challenge is is what you're comparing you for comparing you know twenty thousand pound black off to a thirty or thirty-five thousand pounds replacement and it's probably not the right thing but if you're comparing it to an aircraft at similar size I think that does toss those costs targets for affordability could also be men thank you next question is the intent of fvl to replace current platforms or add to them and general Tod this was to you but we'd also open that to others Thomas ultimately in 1970 we procured aircraft called Blackhawk and it was there to replace the Huey and we kept you he's an awfully long time so I would say that what we envision is a set of new real leap ahead capabilities in this regard with these technologies that are going to really provide us some some have said 10x it's really about that overreach and that overmatch that we require what we still maintain some of the current platforms into the future and beyond absolutely so there will be a mix undoubtedly Wally I don't know if you want to yeah I just I just highlight I think general Gaylor and his team are working hard you know everything's on the table as far as the organizational structure taking a hard look at modularity and it's certainly in at for truckers wheelhouse but we have our laser focus on that as well and that's through general dealers team yeah it's just kind of smiling because when I Drive past the hundred first combat aviation brigade headquarters there's pedestals and there's no age 58 sitting on that pedestal there's uh-1 sitting on that pedestal there's a Cobra sitting on that pad still and now there's a no age 58 deltas sitting on that pedestal so you know those are all the aircraft that many of us grew up with as we go forward and really when when does that happen those are the type decisions that are gonna be made and it really be based on when the technology's ready and as we look at the threat we look at the environment what's going to give us that over mats that we're going to put in our hands and soldiers and as soon as we get it and as soon as we can afford it that's what we're gonna do is it going to happen tomorrow no it's gonna happen you know hopefully we're not sitting around and someone else is sitting up here is the Vice maybe a lieutenant that's 20 50 and hopefully some of these aircraft is sitting on the pedestals of his headquarters as we go forward in the future Thank You panel next question and sir I would ask you to maybe address this first but I open that up to all the panel because this is something that many of us have lived through there's several questions that relate directly to this but looking looking at DoD 5,000 and a list of the multitude of studies and documents designed to keep programs on track the requirements are significant going forward probably safe to say programs such as Comanche Crusader FCS JC ARH etc did a wonderful job submitting all required documents yet they all fail to get to the soldier how does the army and industry meet statutory requirements to keep fvl on track and yet deliver on time to the performance that our soldiers desire or need well I think you know one of the reasons that we've stepped across functional teams one of the reasons we're standing up futures command one of the reasons that the secretary and and and specifically the chief general Milley have been so adamant about trying to align the organization's so we're ready for combat or ready for development is precisely because of that is when you trace that a the the requirement process and you look at how many people get a vote on requirements and how long that takes to develop and then as it gets into the acquisition world and and the ability to refine those requirements and continue the develop as we go forward it just takes way too long and things change and we do not have the agility in the system to allow senior leaders to come in and and work with industry and collaborate in history as things have changed to get it to what we need and as we move forward we're hoping and we believe that the structure we're going to in place is going to allow us to overcome some of the obstacles that we've seen in the past sure let me take a shot too so I think I'll just point to the GM RTD again that's a tech demonstrator so that's kind of where it starts I think we're going to well I know we're going to work with maturing technologies in S&T where our authorities are a bit more agile and a bit more innovative and we can move with the more speed I think also that the requirements process is for the six priorities laid out by the secretary and the chief you know the bureaucracy is really flattened when we talk about those requirements and so the requirements the process is just not going to take the years that that the Comanche or FCS requirements process took the senior leaders are committed to to giving us time I will just tell you I met seven times with device last week and that's a good thing and it's you know it's a good thing but but what I'll tell you is this is we are getting access to our senior leaders for decisions on these priorities because the focus is laser laser focus competitive prototyping we got to do more of that I think the success of Jim RTD and the wisdom of our leaders back when that kicked off is what we want to leverage and and so it is different is it still hard certainly but we have a different focus and and certainly a different a few different methods a few different tools in the toolkit now I'll just echo what Wally was saying you know and it gets back to a point I made about successful acquisition programs you know if you can't say yes then you can't tell me no if you're not a decision authority you're just an advisor and so while we've had rightly intended initiatives that have achieved ultimately through what was intended to be really good system engineering they've achieved ultimately unintended consequences and slowed programs created drag and not allowed things to get in the hands of the soldiers in the past I think what is ultimately a revolutionary approach by the army to stand up a very coordinated unity of command effort obviously with a lot of supporting organizations is going to push through and a lot of the issues we've had in the past and I'll leave it at that I'll just say watch and see how we do I don't want to learn anything I don't I don't want to be too skeptical or cynical but I would caution about overreach yeah especially in terms of the requirements and all the different things that we would like to hang on the first program or programs that come out of the FEL initiatives it's not that you can't have all of that eventually you just can't have it all at once so we are very informed of that and we you know we want the Alpha model we don't want the mic model so well that's great that's great wisdom so you figure out what's important you do that one first do sort of a parallel development of all the things that you want and then figure out how to feed them into the program I think that gets you what you want eventually and it also accelerates getting capabilities into the field couldn't agree more Mike yeah this so if I could also add to that as well I think probably Comanche was that overreach and then the technologies and and lightweight and getting in there and then you know kind of death by a thousand cuts other things like air rage and and and those failed acquisition programs aren't unique to the army certainly the Air Force and Navy have had quite a number of helicopter procurements that have been tied up in shifting requirements and on a lack of Understanding between the government and and and the industry of soirees what what's what actually really needs to be developed so it's really is focus collaboration you know one one one service it actually has a pretty good record as far as procurement is the Marine Corps you look at the you know v-22 the f-35b the 53k they've got some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and that's why focusing and and and collaborating and and seeing it through the the decades and decades to deliver a product for the warfighter those are quite expensive now yes we want to be a little different so they don't have a lot of funding but they're able to get have a lot of fun cuz he bought real expensive stuff but anyway yes I would add that the importance of time to market cannot be underestimated the risk goes up dramatically the longer it takes to get the program out there the risk of losing support with Congress or changes in army leadership and losing part of your industrial base if they're not getting a reasonable level of work to undertake so I think there needs to be a lot of attention paid at the time to market that's a great point to make also in the industrial base and the importance of that mr. Dresner you talked a little bit about join us and commonality under what conditions does joint program management makes sense so I think the basic condition is that the requirements are the same right and the f-35 would be the model of how not to do joint because it turns out that there are three different airplanes there for different missions they have different requirements so that's the fundamental success factor if if you will the second one I think is that it should be participation should be voluntary meaning that the services that want to participate in a joint program are doing it because they see a benefit to participating there so they're sort of self-motivated self-organizing and and they're willing to commit to the program one of the historically one of the problems with joint programs is that there isn't any penalty for pulling out and and that's a problem so voluntary participation at least you know that they want to be there and as part of that I mentioned sort of the the technology overreach and sort of incremental development or parallel development I think helps a lot as well I think the most successful version of a joint program historically has been a lead service structure with where you have participation in the program office and even in the approval chains from the other services say in deputy positions so they're still in senior positions and and they're they're participating that way so I think those are the basic elements it's not when you say it that way it's not too complex but when you think about it it turns out we really haven't done that before in any of the services there are some successes JLTV jdam for instance come to mind those are both somewhat less complex systems than a future rotorcraft Thank You mr. Hurst Berg his industry really leaning forward on fvl or would they just rather bill Black Hawks and Apaches forever what do you think industry is absolutely lean forward and recognizes the the tremendous leap ahead and capability for next generation and you know this isn't just I guess I'll say one reason for that is you know we we sell things when the internet sorry industry sells products and international market there are advances around the world of other other rotorcraft and even though we currently have the best aircraft in the world military aircraft certainly in the commercial sector that's not necessarily that's necessarily the same so industry is absolutely investing in in the next-generation technology for the warfighter and also for us first commercial and and international sales and so I think everybody sees the the long-range benefit of of next-generation technology and dr. gray is one question for you we talked a lot about this the importance of industry and collaboration every panel member has addressed it in some kind of way but giving you the consortium that you support how best should members seek engagements with the government or how can we as a team better collaborate we have some pretty good mechanisms in place to support and enable that collaboration we've collaborated with general Todd's group and PEO aviation and you know in looking at the education that was necessary about other transaction agreements and and supporting their educational efforts but also we have others from government come to the VLC maybe they call me directly and they've got something a message they would like to get out to industry or they are interested in industry knowing about a program they're offering so it does serve as a focal point for that kind of communication and then we're also supported the VLC is supported by a consortium administrative organization and that makes it a lot easier to to work on some of these projects because the CIO manages the administrative and financial aspects of the consortium and in a way that's acceptable to the government and that makes it a lot easier particularly for small companies non-traditional companies to collaborate and work with the government because they're getting assistance in how to do that and in helping in preparing their responses at least the form of their responses if it's a competitive program and our prototyping projects are competitive Thanks I would just add for general hem and AUSA the army leadership forums like this I think are incredibly important for us to be able to come together and better collaborate not just in where we are now but on the floor visiting industry etc very positive anyone else yes sir if I could add to that so so I absolutely concur with that and urge the army and the service is to do more outreach we're an international organization so we have international members from around the world we have international attendees that are at our events and as mentioned where the where the vertical flight technical meeting the annual forum and especially in this upcoming event having a such as a small lemon on the vertical flight researchers and developers in already I think as a is detrimental to the to the workforce and the the warfighter and past events we've had more with some of the travel and attendance limitations we've had more attendees from Turkey than the US Army we've had more attendees from from Germany so it's it's a very competitive world out there and so I would really encourage the the armies and the service is to look at opportunities like this for for industry and and and the services to to work together and collaborate and talk next question and this I think is important because many of us have have lived this also but our other services including SOCOM interested in your light attack aircraft efforts and how are they participating within the CFT maybe general rügen first and Seraph you'd like that yeah and I think you know it's it's larger than that but yes certainly SOCOM is participating in the requirements integrated team that is headed up by Colonel Ramsey Bentley on a routine basis but all the services are participating and we even have international participation with the UK Canada and Australia as is a few notable participants but you know this all predates the CFT again I think the future vertical lift effort has been ongoing for quite a lot of time long time and you know Fort Rucker and the TRADOC capabilities manager have been working these these integrated teams for quite some time so the communication is pretty strong across all the services and internationally and that's important I would I would I would like to touch on the special ops kind of perspective and there's a reason why we selected general Reuben to be the CFT director because he's got a special operations background and those that know what the 160th is done both operationally and also developing systems for the for the nation there's a reason why we're doing that there's a reason why general Donohue was selected to be the cross rustle team leader for the soldier without he because of his background and our Special Operations Forces have a different system it's much quicker than ours and we are certainly looking at what they're doing and then collaborating them as we go forward they have many of the same needs they need to find things they need to kill things and they need to move things so we share the same interest in what we want vertical lift the do and as we move in the future we certainly want to move with them and and I personally met with the senior leadership of the Marine Corps to make sure that we share a vision and what we're doing what they're doing as we go forward on this endeavor another key and critical question first a general Todd and then others on the panel is successful transitioning programs from science and technology to prototyping and then production just a matter of drill where do you see the challenges second part of that question who should decide when something is not when 90% of something is good enough is that the PM the PEO or who within the Army leadership should actually make that decision so first one of the reasons they call it the valley of death is because nobody and nothing is in it there is largely an absence of resources or focus when we come to the point of transition of things from experimentation and demonstration to actually production izing and building and so I think one that one of the benefits of the futures command well it will put people intentionally right in the middle of the event that are decision makers for the army and it'll put the appropriate resources in there so it is not just a matter of the process it's a matter of leadership and leading through it and making key decisions and the right folks in the army making those decisions which gets straight to the second point PM's and POS don't make decisions regarding whether or not something is acceptable to the army or not we execute programs on behalf of army leadership but PMS and PEOs largely are there to execute that disciplined skillset that's required however leaders in the Army well above me well above my PM's ultimately and I'm sure Wally will tell you a lot of those decisions up for those senior leaders will make those decisions I think the other thing I just add too is we want to do more experimental prototyping competitive prototyping and tech demonstration to get the sign in of the science and technology efforts far more mature before we hand them off we feel like that's going to be a way to really shave off significant time and what any typical aircraft or the average is a 15 year process well that's a non-starter we cannot take 15 years for these these future aircraft so we're looking very much at at a far more agile process in S&T but again we got to put the resources so that the handoff is clean and decisions yeah we have we had this discussion and you know we're certainly from the leadership side and we want to get we know that there's always going to be things we want to improve on a type assist when we bring on and people say is 80% good enough and what we would say is maybe it just depends what the 88 the 80% is and you know 99 percent may not be good enough if it's a life health or safety type issue and so as we move forward you know we want to get the system into the hands of our soldiers or our pilots you know as soon as we can do it safely understanding that's going to be the VA model and it's going to be room and as we build these systems we really want to do is look into the future say this is what we need we know it may not be there yet but we can see a path to there whether it's it's it's it's a version it's a block it's a it's a different model but get it into the hands of the troops as soon as we can and then incrementally improve from that known point which is much further which than we are right now and that's kind of the path you want to take as we go forward that's why it's really important for the leadership to be involved because we can make those type decisions at our level yeah yeah so I think that would be I think that would be great industry has shown as I mentioned with advanced manufacturing capabilities the ability to do rapid prototyping to deliver things even very large systems you saw that with valor and you see that with Rader and you see that a lot now with the electric VTOL community where we're private capital is going and developing you know there's 50 different electric VTOL companies out there developing innovative technologies I think with one of the issues with with aviation procurement in the past hasn't been is 90% good enough for us 80% good enough it's when the requirements become 105 percent or 110 percent of what was originally expect so it's a requirements creep that's in my opinion is is one of the biggest roadblocks in developing and delivering capability to the warfighter good point sir I think this is one of those areas that obviously needs a new way of doing business and and I certainly hope that the CFT can help to implement some of those tools that are out there I mean the valley of death has been around for several decades and we're still struggling with it one one tool that's been suggested I haven't seen it used yet but in Congress extended the other transaction Authority this past year to allow the transition from prototyping into production without another competition now it's it's easy to say that and I'm not yeah it hasn't been done yet and certainly there going to be some an industry that will have to change the way they do business as well yeah we're looking at those more agile con contract avenues as well the OTAs and the Tia's very hard I mean it you know one we often talk about prototyping systems you know what we're doing right now is kind of prototype of process if you think about that and we don't have it perfectly right in you know and just like anytime you design something new we don't have it perfectly right but we're going into this knowing that we don't have this exactly right and we're spending a lot of time at the senior leadership meeting with with senior members of Industry we're meeting with you know Congress we're meeting with you know all they and helping us work our way through this because we know what we have is not working the way we want to work we know we have to do something different we have some ideas we can you know certainly look at the process and go hey the way we're lined up right now it's a linear process that is not designed to get things you know quickly and timely and costly and it doesn't work for anyone so that's what we're trying to do right now and in and that's what really futures command is going to bring to the table and we don't have that exactly right yet so we got to kind of work our way through that and we're we're open to constructive feedback thank you great great dialogue Jeff question and open this up for the panel but Jeff if you could respond first based upon your background I believe vertical lift is not purely a US only domain does exploration and dialogue with non US military allies and partners to include non-us defense industry figure into fel plant approaches based upon what you know what you've done with brand well so I have to admit that I'm at least a year out of date with what fel is doing so I'm going to put that part of the question aside there's nothing inherently wrong with international participation or non-defense industry participation in fact there's innovative ideas those are both sources of innovative ideas that could be useful for the army the same kinds of lessons though apply right I mean you don't want your international partner partners to have different requirements than you do the non-defense industry isn't really used to dealing with the military or government in general and and that actually is a significant issue sometimes but there are also mechanisms to to address that OTA is one of those mechanisms that that can be successful in bringing in non-defense so so yeah I think it's possible and and there's no reason not to encourage it it's the when you when you get to that first formal program howhow are you structuring management and the participation there at that point one of the lessons from history is for any joint program or even a lead service kind of program you need to codify what the rules and the processes are so that all the participants actually know okay this is how we're going to do it if there are disputes this is how we're going to resolve those an MOA and any other comments from yeah so so I worked in the JSF program office from 93 to to 2001 we did some different reports and analyses and histories of the procurement process but one of the things that struck me was linea when the Admiral who is the in-charge of the program said because they had so many international partners that helped the program go that have helped that kept keep going because they had international agreements and that that helped keep this keep I'll say keep the the us in in the program even to the dark years when not only was the acquisition process but the technology wasn't quite there as well support exactly so and I so I definitely see there's a it there's I mean when fel is like the difference between uh you know an old flip phone and a smart phone it's a it's a whole new generation of technology and it's not just the medium class it's it's the entire you notice it's replacing all of the DoD's current aircraft from small medium large and so it's it's gonna be revolutionary in nature and absolutely industry wants to compete for sales and just like we've got our industries got their aircraft worldwide we think that the the revolutionary capabilities of a future vertical future vertical lift will be really helped the American industry and I think encouragement of international participation and even international industry I think it's going to be very beneficial for for the defense industry and for the warfighter ultimately and the taxpayer great comments I would just add that foreign military sales and what we do what General Todd does to sell many of those aircraft to our dozens of allies and partners becomes key and critical next question general rügen I think this would be to you in your assertion that the US Army leads tech and veto have you looked at racing drones for example the 1 million dollar prize offered by Dubai won by a fifteen-year-old augmented and mixed reality HUD Nvidia research that's from dr. Tom Hughes who's out there so we have we have looked at that with DI UX and they have a VTOL a program there and we signed a letter of interest just to watch it we've looked hard at companies that are doing augmented reality again we want that cognitive offloading for our on cockpit so when we talk about optionally manned optimum and/or fully manned cockpits we're certainly in that space as well the one thing I want to challenge and again on our UAS is we're all in there to for the key attributes I already listed the swarming and and such but but batteries you know today are problematic as I've gone to school on this and the best Tesla car out there is as a battery that has a hundred and seventy watts per hour per kilogram and that's the best one a gallon at jp8 is twelve thousand watts per hour per kilogram and so we really got to close that gap if battery technology is going to be something that fuels our our vertical lift of the future we're certainly watching it it's it's compelling to watch and we're learning from it but there there's certainly some big challenges out there the last thing I'd say too is that batteries are kind of again I've gone to school on the stuff specific energy so specific energy think cruise control that can keep you going but we need specific power when we jerk the guts out of a helicopter to to be agile on an objective and batteries aren't good at delivering that that that collected thrust that we might need in a higher high power setting so we have to close that gap with batteries as well sir if I may add to that so as mentioned there is about a billion dollars going into electric VTOL technology there are aircraft to fly in today for passenger that can base a electric tilt rotor or a second that can transport and one of the great things about it is as a reduction of noise but yes they have about one twentieth of the specific energy as fuel but by converting to a wing and flying as an aircraft they can-they it's not there today but five years ten years certainly for smaller aircraft so maybe having a silent a VTOL infiltrator could be a tremendous asset for Special Ops unfortunately it may also be an asset for our adversaries to be able to take an urban air taxi aircraft and fly it where we don't hear it and infiltrate or insert people so it's definitely an incredible capability for potential for electric VTOL it's certainly not there today but I think in the next you know five 10 years as they become operating commercially that there's tremendous opportunity and considerations or challenges we need to consider general Tod comforting to hear lifecycle costs mentioned first in presentations on new programs how are you changing the culture to keep the top metrics of cheapest and fastest delivery from once again forcing very high sustainment cost as a warfighter and sustainment community how do you grade your progress and the results and how does the rest of the panel grade the same measures so quickly all our programs go undergo a lifecycle cost estimate we certainly have to address that I talked before about well-intended initiatives have unintended consequences one of the benefits of assessing lifecycle costs at all key gates in any program livestock lifecycle is essentially that we make an affordability assessment across the army and that is not taken lightly as the BI said we cannot afford given that we go at scale where no really other service goes in the way of quantities that we procure we cannot afford a premium solution it might only need a fleet of 100 to 200 we're gonna buy significant amounts of vertical if assets on the battlefield both and both optionally piloted and autonomous as well as man in the future and so arguably lifecycle cost is most important to army of any of the services when it comes to vertical lift we will continue to assess and advise accordingly but I would encourage you as you work through some of the S&T transitions as you work through some of the prototyping is that you're working through take that into account remember I mentioned four things that when wall-e hands me a prototype it says okay I need you to really make this thing doable ultimately what my team will get after is reliability affordability for usability and survivability and those four things are paramount in our mind so we'll continue to keep them there and that's on the forefront of what we're doing and then CFT as well so the parametric's are kind of dated that dasa c e and k pews are irrigated with what we've seen coming out of the automotive industry and spiraling into what is now the defense industry and what you guys are doing out there to just make your productions go from you know nineteen days to a nineteen minutes we need to understand that bake that into our parametric's and so one of the first things we did was get a bunch of horses from johns hopkins to really look at that what you guys are doing in your space is how you're innovating and then how that can feed back into our parametric's so they're accurate and so the affordability analysis that we're doing is is far more precise next also important question and gentlemen Conville I'll refer to you first and maybe general rügen do you believe the army can afford the advanced F CLC s1 and cs3 in parallel while modernizing the existing legacy fleet that's the big question yeah depends on which it costs depends but not seriously it really it really really you know and that's that's the the trades that we're making at the the senior level as we go forward we're looking across the portfolio and and really it's trying to find we're watching what industry is doing and we applaud industry for really going after you know I've got an engineering degree I don't get myself an engineer but I I do remember you know when you looked at helicopters you can only go so far and so fast for the configurations we have and now industries actually trying to break that paradigm by going to different configurations that allow us to have greater reach and greater speed and and we have to bring that together and take a look at how that technologies can develop how much we're going to have to invest in science and technology and research development to bring that along at the same time we're gonna be looking at the threat and looking how we're again modernizing the platform so we have which are the best in the world right now and we want to continue that progression but there's a time out there and again with that's the decision we're gonna have to make is when we can't afford everything and we got to figure out when that is and that's the decision that we'll be making over the next couple years sorry yes sir it's conditions-based so so it depends on how good our development is how quick it is and and what it meets the mission and meets the capability goals that we set there'll be you know decisions I would think and again we don't see our top-line growing through the the 20s so what budget we have is what we have to live with we'll have to live within our means and so those will be important decisions so it's important that we develop our capabilities and get a solid product out that can compete with the current fleet current fleet is pretty good so this better be a lot better I open this next question up to the entire panel because I think it's important for for much of what we do today vulnerability of systems and networks to cyberattacks is increasing who is responsible for software and hardware assurance and current the future platforms weapons and networks I'll tackle that upfront so information assurance cyber security obviously we have ever-growing set of requirements on us but that's one of the things our programs have to be agile about that keep face with a threat ultimately when we take a system that you may develop through what is ultimately developmental testing seeking fielding release at a minimum so that we can put it in the hands of the operational user for tests we owe it to that soldier to make sure that we run the traps develop the systems that are essentially segregated where necessary and and and have the necessary protections in them that are required to operate on the modern battlefield the difficulty becomes predicting the future and so that's why when we talked earlier about get the initial platform out and then upgraded over time that will be one of the continuous upgrades that we have to perform both on the current fleet and the future for you I just want to touch you know as we look to the future and and we talk about multi domain battle and really what we're looking for and as we build our systems is we're assuming that will be contested in every domain so it's almost contested domain warfare so we're building the system we're gonna lay requirements on that can operate in an environment where you contested in cyber we're going to put a requirement on that you're gonna have to be able to operate where we're contested in a space and we're doing certain things to get after those challenges that we see and again you're certainly gonna get tested on land as we go forward so you know as we look to the future that's the leap ahead type technology that we need and that's going to be evident the requirements that we put out one final question for the panel and then we'll go to closing comments we have many more questions here so Thank You audience but we're not going to get to be able to get to every one of them for the entire panel anybody who wants to respond considering the aircraft modernization programs for the reserve components or most of those are in the out-years if those programs are terminated in favor of fel what is the plan for RC Reserve Component modernization well fel be filled it in the reserve components near simultaneously with the Regular Army so sure I'll take it first you take a shot now I think again as we look at it I don't think we're terminating any programs the fleet is large it's it's it's a 4,000 near 4,000 helicopter fleet so we we will always maintain or not always but we will maintain the current fleet for quite some time now and so I think that modernization will continue Albion at a slower pace yeah well run force and so there is going to be a plan to modernize the RC with fvl capabilities we're one force that's that's been clear from the chief I just want to make sure that there'll be no decisions made and right now as we talk about the future future of vertical lift general dan dan Hawkinson who's the senior Army National Guard aviator and reservist is on the team and he's providing that insight to make sure that as we move forward we're moving forward in unison the innocence and the Guard and Reserve for aviation play a critical part of that and and they will have a voice and and and and we will make sure they are resourced as we go forward sir sorry to jump into but they're on my team so both both all couples are represented on the team for closing comments about one minute or less for each panel member and I'll turn to dr. graves okay again I would emphasize the importance of collaboration I would say that industry fully supports the future vertical lift and believes that it is going to bring that leap ahead and Kate ability that our warfighters need and industry is excited to be a part of it secondly I would say that the collaboration needs to include all of those that can say yes general Todd says and that means the government side and the industry side as well collaboration has got to be pervasive and my third comment is that the VLC is is on the ground and up and running and and ready to help out and look forward to working with the CFT and whatever way makes sense right great so just to echo some of those things industry is absolutely leaning forward and this is a long game so fvl is looking at you know the transition plans over the next 50 years in fact this is something that the S&T community has been working on for 20 years already we held a joint future rotorcraft conference in 1998 my predecessor testified to Congress and in 2003 and 2005 expressing the need for a next generation River program that led to the congressional direction in 2008 10 years ago to start the fil program so working with the VLC and our industry partners we've been able to keep the attention on the hill we've been briefing about 50 congressional offices every year and over the last four years that's broad initial an additional 50 million dollars to the S&T line to support FEL so industry academia government all leaning forward on on fvl we're very happy that the army made it it's number number three priority and we all want to work together to deliver next generation capabilities to the warfighter Jeff so I think I would just again say that when you're making decisions about how to structure programs how to structure the initiatives what the requirements for the first that should be what technologies to use use the information that you have available remember the lessons from history about sort of overcomplicating both the decision processes as well as the system and the management structure that you're giving so that you actually set yourself up for success which is not something that a lot of major programs have done if my understanding of fel which predates the cross-functional teams so I don't know exactly how that that fits in the the FEL initiative was already doing a lot of things that we ended up seeing as sort of a best practice early engagement with with with industry some early prototyping trying to get the you know a joint Council of Colonels and their IP tees that worked on sort of collaborating across the community I think if you want to want some commonality and the benefits of commonality those kinds of activities need to also continue yes so I'll say first and foremost POA VA ssin is committed to this teaming effort and certainly making sure that we do our part whatever we're asked to do by the Army I will say to industry industry partners as general Rogan alluded to the fact that we're going to do things further in S&T than we've done them before I will tell you that that requires a commitment on both our parts not just decisions but commitments and really where we need to be is we need to have more than 2-hundred our demonstrators in our hands to be able to make decisions to go fast so I think towards the future is you think towards things that Wally talks to you about and my p.m. Colonel Steve Clark as well as my us p.m. Courtney Cody talk to you about you know really think about taking it just to the next level help us to get it to a point where we can actually take it into test if they do decide that it is something we want to pursue that we can go forward with it it really is difficult on us when we look at items that are really shelled after a demonstration and it's really lacet so it's it's a change in the model I would encourage you to invest appropriately and we look forward to soon seeing what we can do to get together thanks sir so you know the aviation enterprise the six-pack diverted called really feel like we're at an inflection point you know similar to 2003 where we terminated Comanche and redirected all that funding into the current fleet that is getting us through the current conflict we feel currently again we're at an inflection point for this peer near peer competitors we see on the horizon so the time is now develop these disruptive technologies critical capability to fight win in the future I would just add one comment from being a panel monitor moderator one of the takeaways I have from this is how tight the aviation community really is and it's so important that they remain tight moving forward as we execute fel it's been an honor to be the panel moderator thanks to general Hamm general Swann AUSA the army leadership for allowing me in this great panel to be here sir closing comments yeah yeah one thing I was thinking about which we didn't talk a lot about but as we look at the future if you look at across the spectrum of how we operate aircraft you know aircraft have store eclis been manned and that's been where I focus our and we've had pilots and and we're in white scarfs and doing all those great things that pilots do and now we started moving to where we have pilots remotely operating you know aerial vehicles and and in some places they're sitting in a container somewhere actually trying to fly that unmanned aerial so they still the scarfs on and then I don't know whether you don't but anyways anyway so then we go to the future and we start talking about autonomous systems and with artificial intelligence and machine learning and really from from where we said a lot of things are going that way we see that happen in industry we see you know autonomous cars coming on board there's there's a lot of Technology out there so we're certainly gonna be looking at that but that's not a panacea for everything and you know if you look behind us you see a screen of me but you can't see you know you don't you know if you were just watching that screen you just get a sense of you know me talking you can't see that the person is seventh row sleeping knob just kidding it's back over down yeah you don't get us you don't get that sense you don't get that feel as we go forward so we're gonna be a balanced approach but on the spectrum we're gonna be moving that way we're gonna see things coming out where we want optionally manned or optimally unmanned type systems and we'd be looking at unmanned systems that you know we talked about man unmanned teaming you know there'll be some you know unmanned unmanned teaming as we go forward and we're gonna change because you know if we're gonna put someone into a breach if we're gonna put someone into an integrated air defense a situation and we got to kind of open that up we're certainly going to be looking at situations where we're not going to put pilots in that but there'll always be a person in the loop they just may not be in the lead aircraft they may not be in the formation but as we go forward we certainly want to think that way and as we go forward again we applaud industry for kind of try to break that the view that the paradigm we have for helicopters today because the future may not be helicopters we may need to go further and faster than we need to do you know we're going to see just as we extend our long-range precision fires we expect their adversaries to do the same thing so that puts our forward Amin and refueling points at risk and so will will need to go further and faster as we look in the future and I'll just close again with a again I've seen some very impressive briefings over the last day on future vertical lift and we we just look forward to flying those PowerPoint slides that we all saw so thank you please join me in a round of applause what a great panel Jill Mocambo gentle Phillips and all thank you very very much timely informative certainly relevant I think however white scarves with pinks and greens will look pretty good so ladies and gentlemen please be back at 1301 o'clock please [Music]

Channel: U.S. Army Professional Forum

Views: 3,554

Rating: 4.8688526 out of 5

Keywords: AUSA, Global Force Symposium, Future Vertical Lift

Id: KMxj8UzOJ6c

Length: 101min 25sec (6085 seconds)

Published: Tue Mar 27 2018