DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE KATHLEEN HICKS: Sure.
So the -- much as we talked about yesterday, the goal to -- we hit many of the things we talked about yesterday, bottom line, which is, how do you look at these ecosystems that intersect to defense requirements and the capabilities we need? And those come from labs, as we saw at SLAC, combined with major research institutions, so SLAC has Stanford and then the DOE funds focused on high-priority areas. And then, you know, where does that succeed? Where does it fall down? So we can learn from that.
Also understanding in that SLAC engagement the value of high-quality lab and test infrastructure, and hearing concretely what I have heard sort of from far away, which is the ability to attract talent is directly -- research talent -- is directly related to the quality of that infrastructure that scientists and engineers can use, so kind of understanding how those pieces interplay in a concrete way.
Let's see -- at Gordian Knot, I think we all heard very, very clearly sort of the -- how you build out over time and dedication sort of a community of interest that directly contributes either because they join V.C.’s, because they join DOD, they join -- if you -- they're already in uniform, you know, and they're bringing it back into the force. You know, they're doing start-ups or they're going to major contractors and they're taking with them this sense of mission and focus in our space, things they care about, the things we care about. They're motivated by it, and they're coming up with innovative solutions, and once again, hearing a lot about the ways in which we make that hard; that we've had a lot of focus, you know, in theory in this space over time, and what converts and what hasn't really converted, and how you change those incentives.
And then at Microsoft, with the -- well, Microsoft itself, I think we saw a number of technology demonstrators that -- you could -- it just shows you, I think, you can take something as simplistic as, you know, their little balance thing, and I can think of a lot of utility for that in the DOD space, or the, you know, kind of their version of the glasses, where I have seen out in, whether it's the submarine industrial base or aerospace, where folks are using that kind of technology today to do faster maintenance, training -- you know, be able to share information remotely, obviously, secure comms. So that was interesting in and of itself.
And then going into the Software Alliance, a revalidation of the microchip challenge that we face, and the degree to which the commercial sector is really counting on DOD, alongside the intelligence community, to make the national security case around secure microelectronics, and that that's beyond just the fabrication piece, but the whole lifecycle of microelectronics.
And we heard, you may recall, at Gordian Knot, about less attention on hardware. We heard that again with the Software Alliance, that a lot -- there's a lot of focus on software.
(UNKNOWN): Right.
DR. HICKS: But on the hardware piece, there's just a real concern around workforce. And workforce overall was the key theme of the day, I think, all the way through, and the Software Alliance definitely continued on in terms of, how do we get trained talent into this space? And this space wasn't even DOD; it was sort of you know, all of us are so dependent on rapidly-advancing software capability, and how do we make sure we have the talent in this country, including through our immigration policy, through our training initiatives, through K-12 education? You know, what are all those retraining for adult education, what are all those factors that go into the talent that we need?
I'll stop there and see what interested you.
STAFF: Who do we want to start with? Mack, you had the majority of the interest here, so…
MACK DeGEURIN, GIZMODO: Okay. Thank you, first off, for speaking to us. I appreciate it.
DR. HICKS: Yeah, of course.
DeGEURIN: Yeah, and one part of that run view there that was kind of in the middle of it was you all met with a autonomous vehicle company.
DR. HICKS: Yes, yeah.
DeGEURIN: I'm curious how that went just in general.
DR. HICKS: Sure.
DeGEURIN: Because we didn't get a lot of information on it.
DR. HICKS: Yeah.
DeGEURIN: But then two, you know, if you can just kind of give -- I've heard a lot of use cases for autonomous vehicle technology in defense. I kind of wanted to see what you think is the most realistic, and what is sort of the most far off. And then also, what are, like, the biggest challenges still? Because I know people have made, you know, concerns about hacking still, and security vulnerabilities. So what are the biggest use cases, and what do you think is still the toughest challenges in the industry right now for Department of Defense's purposes?
DR. HICKS: Sure. So the easiest use cases are the cases that are in the least complex environments, and then where we have a lot of data to create a trusted autonomous -- you know, set of data and an environment in which to operate that. And so what we saw today was an example of an autonomous vehicle that they were teeing up for use on their facility.
DeGEURIN: Okay.
DR. HICKS: And that resonated in terms of how we think about our installations and the potential for really limited-use, early-use cases -- this is just for the terrestrial piece -- where, you know, you can start to build out the data over time by training it in a relatively-safe environment.
The places where we are seeing it used early is, of course, first of all, the -- I'll just say the A.I. piece, or the back-office pieces. So we talked a bit -- more than a bit about that today in terms of -- you know, forget -- forget autonomy and think in terms of A.I. first.
DeGEURIN: Okay.
DR. HICKS: So the data and A.I. piece, we're thinking -- you know, we're seeing it first on the fiscal side, not surprisingly, back-office operations where you can -- you know, human resources, things like that. And as you move more into autonomy you sort of pull forward into these, again, limited either terrestrial, undersea, very complicated, and aerial uses. And as I mentioned yesterday, all within the context of the values, the responsible A.I. values, and our principles around human-in-the-loop.
So that's kind of the piece we saw today. I think it just shows you how long a path this is even in the commercial sector to get all the trained information, the data that you need, the information you need, the security of the environment, and then the security, the cybersecurity, which was also a discussion we had with them.
DeGEURIN: Which -- so it's -- you said it's kind of a long tail on that. How much progress have you seen on your side of things? Because I think that on the consumer side of it, we've had the deadlines kind of been pushed back, and back, and back on, like, when we're going to see real use of this autonomous technology. Are you guys seeing anything different, or does it still seem like kind of a reach for actually practically using, like, an autonomous vehicle in -- in the DOD or, like an autonomous aerial vehicle, or something like that?
DR. HICKS: Yeah, I don't think it's -- I have two answers. The first answer is longer than I ever imagined.
DeGEURIN: Okay.
DR. HICKS: And the second answer is I don't think some key use -- some use cases are out of reach.
DeGEURIN: Okay.
DR. HICKS: But you have to -- you know, trying to figure out why it keeps pushing, I think is a key question that I think many senior leaders in the department have without knowing yet, meaning not knowing yet diagnostically whether that -- how much of that is the technology, how much of that is the way in which we've focused our efforts. And it's more elusive than I think it should have been.
STAFF: Okay --
DeGEURIN: Thank you, ma'am.
DR. HICKS: Yeah.
STAFF: We're starting to run short on time, unfortunately. Valerie, why don't we get you up next, and then we'll get to Patrick? I know, this is like speed dating.
VALERIE INSINNA, BREAKING DEFENSE: Yeah, I actually -- I kind of want to broaden out and talk a little bit about Ukraine and specifically about the industrial piece of that.
DR. HICKS: Okay.
INSINNA: Like, there's been a lot of discussion about ammunition stockpile.
DR. HICKS: Yeah.
INSINNA: I know LaPlante, Dr. LaPlante, you know, his nomination moved forward today, and he has talked about wanting to make -- increasing production of key munitions a goal of his. So can you kind of like lay out where -- what are the concerns that you're seeing right now? What's on the table in terms of a potential ramp-up, and what are the barriers facing that?
DR. HICKS: I will come back to workforce. I think one of the big challenges that we face is it's a relatively narrow slice of the advanced manufacturing community in munitions, and it requires really a skilled workforce and trained workforce. And we have focused our U.S. workforce on the munitions that we need, which is the right way to do it. On transitioning that workforce over to the munitions that are appropriate for the Ukraine fight, just for -- you know, that requires some shift of priority and training issues. That's thing one.
Thing two is there are some very specific issues with regard to Stinger and some obsolescence issues that we have to overcome, that will slow that down. That's not -- that's because we in the U.S. were focusing ourselves forward on new capability, right? So now we want to make sure we can produce, or see what it takes to produce, what we need for this crisis. So that's that one.
And then on Javelin, you know, there is ongoing production there. And again, it's just a matter -- it's more of a throughput issue. So it -- I've -- we've had a lot of opportunity between the A&S community that if confirmed, Mr. LaPlante will oversee, and the policy community to start thinking about how we work with other armaments directors in Europe and elsewhere to understand what they have, start to understand supply-chain interrelationships and see if we can speed some of that up.
PATRICK TUCKER, DEFENSE ONE: Can I just have a quick follow-up on --
DR. HICKS: Yeah.
TUCKER: -- on that question? Because you know, we -- today, we went and we saw a X-ray; was the longest-ever in a particle accelerator, and all of this is great, and you look at the modernization priorities -- quantum, hypersonics – it’s all amazing.
And right now, the technology most relevant to the crisis that we're all seeing are Stinger missiles and Javelins. And it sort of emphasizes that a lot of the things that are being phased out -- there are things that are being phased out that are less useful, or just aren't part of that R&E budget are the things that are going to be most impactful for the world that we see right now, and as someone who really likes emerging technology, it's hard for me to square that. Can you talk a little bit to that challenge of, on the one hand, you have to -- you have the largest R&E budget ever, but at the same time, there's a need for Stinger missiles and Javelins and things that we thought were outdated?
DR. HICKS: Sure.
TUCKER: And yeah. Does that force -- are we thinking at all in terms of the relevance of platforms that we've decided are obsolete? And how do you deal with that?
DR. HICKS: So let me answer in the specific that you raise. The Stinger and Javelin are both weapons that are easy to train on and use, and they are performing well against the -- to date -- against the Russian tactics that we've seen. These are not the -- this is not our expectation for what, for example, China, as the NDS clearly states is the pacing challenge in almost all areas. This is not the degree of difficulty that we are looking at in terms of what we need to have to fight in the future. And so, you know, you even see the Ukrainians asking for more and more advanced systems themselves. But the U.S., we're very focused on how to make sure we have a really combat-credible capability.
I am very proud of the work both that the Javelin and Stinger, for example, have done, and the Ukrainians' ability to employ them so effectively. But that's been really enabled by very advanced capabilities like U.S. intelligence and Allied intelligence capabilities that are state-of-the-art, you know, years of training, Special Operations training, and other training, that the Ukrainians have done with the U.S. and other key Allies.
So I think this is a good solution set for them right now. They can put it to effect right away. But I wouldn't try to equate what we're seeing in the Ukraine crisis to the kind of challenge sets that we have to be prepared for in the U.S.
Q: Okay.
INSINNA: Can I follow up really quickly on that?
STAFF: We have time for, like, one more-ish.
Q: Okay. We'll split one. You go first, and then I'll go (inaudible).
STAFF: (inaudible).
Q: Okay. So like, you talked a little bit about, the Ukrainians are asking for more and more advanced systems, like, they've asked for F-16s, F-15s, Patriot at this point. And you say Stinger and Javelin are good right now for them. Is there thinking happening that it might be time to start giving them more advanced systems? Or is -- are these questions? Are they sort of stifling the process and making it harder for you guys to get them what they immediately need more quickly? I guess I'm trying to understand those requests, are they helpful for you guys, or like, what's sort of the gauge there?
DR. HICKS: Yeah, I'm not going to answer it that way. What I would say is that the premium has been on, what can they employ to greatest effect in the most immediate timeframe? We have been helping on the S-300, you know, so there are examples where we can find ways to help beyond these two examples. There's plenty of other examples -- Switchblade, other things that we're doing. There has been a lot of focus on these munitions because of the munitions inventory issue, and also I think because it's really captured the world's attention that the Ukrainians are so dedicated and focused on defending their country that they're using, you know, this equipment that's coming from all over the world, including the United States.
But the degree of support that Ukraine is getting -- $2 billion just in the last year from this administration, let alone the training, as I've referenced, and other support since the Crimea annexation. It, you know, all of that pays off in terms of their capability today.
STAFF: Patrick’s got the last one.
TUCKER: Yeah. On this year's budget request – the largest R&E request ever, and I wonder if you could briefly touch on how that translates into a deterrence capability? Which of the first deterrence capabilities does that translate into first? When do you start to see that R&E budget turn into, in terms of an actual thing to change calculus in an adversary?
DR. HICKS: I wouldn't want to end that at all. I think in every major R&D area there are opportunities for faster movement. So we certainly have, on the data and A.I. side, you know, some pretty mature approaches, and then same on 5G. But again, there'll be areas across the spectrum.
I do want to highlight, because there's been a lot of focus on our R&D budget, that we also have a very large increase in our procurement budget. And one of the things we've really tried to frame up in this NDS, and then the way it links to the budget is that we're not picking, for instance, the future over the present or the present over the future; we're picking a very focused look at China, and then also Russia as an acute threat to make sure we have that credibility to deter and fight and win in the near term of this 2027 problem set folks talk a lot about, in the midterm, and in the long term.
So we really took kind of a three-step, three-fit-up, if you will, three five-year increment look with a lot of near-term investment going in in alignment with what the INDOPACOM commander says he needs, in alignment with what General Wolters says he needs in Europe, and an expectation that of course, we're going to keep adjusting as we go.
STAFF: Yeah. So we're over time, but you guys both asked me the same question earlier: What does innovation success look like for the department? Like, what is the end goal? You know, Valerie brought this up last night.
DR. HICKS: Yeah.
STAFF: We've sent multiple senior leaders out, and what does it look like for us? If you guys don't mind if we finished on that? Would that be okay?
Q: Yeah.
DR. HICKS: I don't think it's a -- there isn't an object or a end state. I think the goal is to make sure we are ahead of any competitor in terms of the kind of capability that we can credibly put forward. And so innovation is a way of tactics, techniques and procedure changes alongside technology sometimes to make sure that we're ahead of that game. So that's really our goal, is to make sure we're putting that edge forward, and innovation is one of the ways, obviously, historically, that any military has been able to get a step ahead of what we should assume are smart adversaries who are also looking for ways to find our vulnerabilities and, you know, come after our strengths.
