Integrated Air & Missile Defense

Watch the Video

---

Read the Transcript

---

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Good morning, everybody. I’d like to welcome you to our panel, Integrated Air and Missile Defense. I’m Jennifer Reeves, senior resident fellow for space studies at the Mitchell Institute Space Power Advantage Center of Excellence. When it comes to fundamental roles in the US military, protecting the American people is of utmost importance. As part of that fundamental role, air and missile defense is a key mission for the US Air Force and Space Force. This has always been important, but today is further emphasized by the central role Homeland Defense plays in the current administration’s priorities as outlined in the recently released national security and national defense strategies.

This mission is not new. During the Cold War, air and missile defense was a key element in protecting the homeland from the Soviet threat. Today, however, the threat is much more varied and complex. Not only do we need to protect ourselves against the traditional threats of ICBMs and long-range bombers, but we also need to account for new threats, including small UASs and hypersonics.

The administration has responded to this new threat environment with a bold, new initiative, part of which seeks to bolster air and missile defense with the inclusion of new innovative capabilities like space-based interceptors. But while these initiatives are all well and good, making them a reality cannot be done without the hard work of the men and women in America’s defense industry. They’re the ones who are developing and building the innovative systems needed to protect the homeland of the future.

To dive more into the topic of the industry’s role in this critical mission, I’m pleased to introduce our important panelists who represent some of the companies involved in building the nation’s future air and missile defense architecture. Johnathon Caldwell, vice president and general manager, strategic and missile defense systems, Lockheed Martin Space. Hi, Johnathon. Lukas Czinger, co-founder and CEO, Divergent Technologies. Hey, Lukas. Rob Fleming, Dr. Rob Fleming, sector president, Northrop Grumman Space Systems, and Jon Piatt, executive vice president, ISR Aviation and Security, Sierra Nevada Corporation. Gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to have you all with us here today to discuss this fascinating and wildly important topic. Thank you so much for being here.

And so, we begin. The threat environment today is very different from the one we faced during the Cold War. Today, we not only face threats from ICBMs, fighters, and bombers that we faced in the past that can originate continents away, but also new threats ranging from smaller unmanned aerial systems to hypersonics. So the question is how is industry adapting its capabilities that it is developing for air and missile defense to account for these new threats? And why don’t we go to the end, Mr. Caldwell? Let’s start with you, sir.

Johnathon Caldwell:

Thanks, Jen. Thanks to the Mitchell Institute and AFA for hosting a really important discussion. And I probably can’t footstep enough what you said. The world around us has changed. China is a global competitive superpower. They just launched their third aircraft carrier, a new flat top aircraft carrier capable of hosting fifth and sixth gen fighters. They have doubled the size of their nuclear arsenal. They are actively fielding hypersonic weapons. The Russians have gone to using active hypersonic and ballistic missiles, not just on the practice range, but in theater, in conflict, and learning and adapting and growing what those technologies do. And that collective set of countries has used an Iranian proxy to really experiment with the future of missile warfare in the Middle East. So there aren’t just theoretical exercises anymore. They’re practical battlefield experiences.

Now, I think one of the great things that industry’s doing is really digesting, seeking to aggressively understand, characterize the threat and the adaptation of the threat, and what does it imply for the systems that we architect and build and deliver, and how do we understand how the US is going to fight in that regime? What are we doing to defend ourselves? How is it going to change? Learn the lessons of the fight.

I think we’re doing a lot more in taking that understanding, finding the gaps, and then going out and finding creative solutions to fill the gaps, and taking it on ourselves to prototype and put those things into the field and let war fighters get stick time using those capabilities, thinking about how will we change and adapt. In the old days, it might take months or years to adapt and change a capability. I think what we’re finding is we have the ability to adapt in a matter of hours and days, that we can take systems which might have been designed in their own arena as end-to-end systems, and we’re finding how to interconnect them.

The idea of command and control and interoperability and the ability to empower war fighters to make rapid decisions and updates to their systems and see these systems as Lego blocks in an IAMD architecture is a real change of mindset. We took systems in the Middle East that had never been designed to work together and refactored them into a defense and saved soldiers’ lives, war fighters’ lives, civilians’ lives in the Middle East. And I think that’s a testament to the adaptability and the speed at which we can innovate in industry today.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Oh, that’s awesome. Thank you so much. Mr. Piatt, what are your thoughts?

Jon Piatt:

Well, I’d like to pick up on the part about how adaptive we are. If we think about the Cold War environment that you mentioned earlier and how we created an infrastructure, an industrial base, and the technologies that responded to what was perceived and what was known as the Cold War threat. And then, we shifted to Iraq and Afghanistan and we faced an asymmetrical threat. We had to adapt and we had to change. And I think we proved to ourselves that we are rapidly adaptable. We shouldn’t be thinking that just because we’ve modernized ourselves to the war of the past, that we can’t adapt very quickly for the changes that we need to make going forward.

A big part of that is how we change our thinking. It’s the innovative thinking that we’re bringing into the design and development process that not only accelerates, but also creates real open architecture solutions that allows us to modularly and scalably improve those solutions without creating single source or single effector capabilities against that threat. Also recognizing that from the past wars, we were looking at typically a singular domain as driving the greatest amount of the threat that we were evolving to or we were trying to understand. This is actually the real recognition of what a multi-domain threat exists in today’s environment.

And how do we adapt in a multi-domain domain environment? A big part of that is not only creating solutions that work across all those domains and at all those levels, so it’s more than just an aerial stack. This is a seabed to space layer integration of capabilities that are needing to be responsive to adapting to that variable threat. The other piece of it, which was mentioned, is the command and control integration. Be able to do effective network integration, command and control integration. So we have the real time integration of those open architecture solutions so they’re communicating real time. So the response to that threat is not only immediate, but it’s accurate and it’s effective without depleting our reserves or without depleting our capabilities. And so, we have to think again, how are we applying the software, how are we applying the tools? How are we applying the resources, and how are we building that into the construct of our design and development of next generation systems that does not limit us based on what we deliver, but enables us based upon what capability it provides.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Yeah, that sounds great. That sounds great. Mr. Czinger, thoughts?

Lukas Czinger:

Absolutely. I look at this through the lens of manufacturing. So that’s the perspective I’ll add. And when we talk about adaptability of systems, we need to think about the hardware and the primary structure of those systems as well. And Divergent, we work as a subcontractor to great primes, like the individuals and the companies they represent next to me. And we talk about iterating hardware at the pace of software. So how can we very, very quickly get to that first flight unit or test unit? How can we learn from that test and how can we iterate at low to no cost and on a very short timeline? And that’s the system that we’ve enabled, a digital design system, an additive manufacturing system, and a robotic assembly system to ultimately support the rapid development of new capabilities and also the sustainment and the readiness of our legacy fleet.

Can we take a part that might be outdated, that might have a TDP that no longer is accessible? Can we reverse engineer that and supply it at volume? Then, we can help with the readiness of our fleet. But when we think about adaptability and new system architecture, can we get to first flight within six weeks instead of two years? Can we iterate every month thereafter and actually change our hardware to that iteration and work with the supply chain that is the reality of the other suppliers that these primes are using? So can we change our hard points to accommodate a different propulsion type or different seeker type? Can we iterate hardware at the pace of software?

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Awesome. And I think we’re going to ask you about that in just another, in just a minute. We’re going to talk more about that in a minute. So Dr. Fleming, what are your thoughts?

Rob Fleming:

So firstly, call me Rob.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Okay.

Rob Fleming:

Otherwise, I’ll be looking for my dad behind me. Let’s see. So firstly, it’s really important to recognize that several of us here on stage have actually worked together in multiple programs. Some are unclassified like the SIBIS constellation and many are classified and we clearly can’t speak to any of those, but there’s a lot of really important work that has been done across all of industry and with our government partners to secure and defend the nation. But as you mentioned, the threats have changed significantly. And so, there’s been a rapid evolution. And so, think about this in the context of space-based capabilities, air-based capabilities, ground, C2, fire control, cyber, and then of course all the interceptors and those are all kinetic effects, but there are now non-kinetic effects, most of which we won’t get into today. So there’s been a rapid expansion of capability and all of us here on stage and the broader industry are working on elements of that.

So we’ve seen the architectures in space change. So with the space development agency a number of years ago, we saw an evolution from a more bespoke higher end space architecture for overhead persistent infrared, to something that was more proliferated and more resilient across multiple architectures. And you need to have all of them. There’s no one answer at LEO. There’s no one answer at MEO or at GEO. And I’m a space guy, so I’m always going to default to all the space acronyms. So folks can go look them up if you don’t track them all. But a lot of work has been done there. A lot of work has been done on interceptors. And to your point about scale, the challenge for all of industry, and we’re seeing it with munitions, given the threats in Ukraine and the supply to the US, but all flavors of interceptors need to be developed for these hypersonic threats.

So think Glide Phase Interceptor, the Next Gen Interceptor program is another one that my friends at Lockheed are leading. I mean, that is a really important capability for our nation. So all of us in industry, this is a team sport. We work together, we go after these threats, and then of course there’s the C2 and the fire control that goes after all of those. So the takeaway for everyone in the room is rapid development of capability, fielding at speed integration. That is what we need to get after to secure the nation.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Awesome. Well, Rob, let’s stick with you and ask a question that dives a little more deeply. As you already mentioned, that space is critical to integrated air and missile defense, but of course, unlike in the past, space today is a war fighting domain and our adversaries are working diligently to build up capabilities to deny us access to space. So Rob, how is Northrop Grumman working to make sure that the space assets you guys construct and field for air and missile defense are resilient in this contested environment?

Rob Fleming:

That’s a great question. So part of that I addressed through architecture. So it’s the right sensors, the right effectors, the right capabilities, and the right orbits, and physics matter. If you want to protect something that’s over the Northern Hemisphere, there are ways to do it with, for instance, highly elliptical orbits, where you have a higher end satellite that has resilience capabilities on board, but you can support that capability with MEO and LEO type constellations. And so, you’ve got to think about resilience through these multiple elements. There’s a lot of space control capability, and that’s an area where Northrop is a leader, frankly. Unfortunately, it’s classified, but the focus of space control is ensuring that we can defend our assets in space no matter where they are.

And importantly, to Johnathon’s point earlier, our adversaries are moving quickly and they’re putting a lot of capability up there. It’s a cat and mouse game. As they are taking actions, we need to understand their actions, understand the implications on our space architectures and how we need to address said threats, whether they are kinetic or otherwise, and respond with material solutions, C2, artificial intelligence so that we can process the threats and so on.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

That’s great. I appreciate that so much. So let’s go to Johnathon. You have already mentioned this and we are excited to talk about space-based interceptors being a key feature of this new construct, this new initiative. Can you give us some insight into the unique challenges involved in developing space-based interceptors as opposed to more traditional ground-based interceptors that we know about? And how far along are we on the road towards operationalizing the technology?

Johnathon Caldwell:

I bet you there was a hotel 40 years ago where AFA hosted a similar conference and there was a panel talking about IAMD and people wondering about what will IAMD look like at scale? And the discussion then was probably much more attuned to, is the technology ready? Can we really accomplish this mission? We had a certain concept of what raid size would look like and which kind of adversaries would field, what kind of capability. And we designed a number of different systems, sensing systems, connecting systems, effectors, and we went off and we built these systems and we tested them and we modeled them and we fielded them and said they will work.

Fast-forward to today, we have been through combat now. We have seen what not just a small scale raid looks like, but what a mass ballistic missile attack looks like with an adversary who’s willing to adapt the capability in the middle of combat. We’ve witnessed the use of hypersonics in theater and what the implications are for the fight and how you intercept them and neutralize them, how you sense what’s going to go on and anticipate so that you’re able to take action.

I think when it comes to where you base those technologies, I think we have a great deal of flexibility. I don’t think it’s the underlying technologies and where you base them that matters as much anymore. These are all solvable problems. They’re largely technologies that exist. Our challenge in figuring out alternate basing strategies for kinetic effectors and the sensing systems that support them is one of integration. It’s one of how you pull data seamlessly across the platforms. It’s how you design upfront with the open architectures and the ability to plug and play.

For us, I think it’s very much about getting comfortable with prototyping and demonstrating rapidly, not waiting for a requirement from some magical board inside the building to come down and tell us, “The JROC says, thou shalt go do this.” No, we see what’s going on in theater. We have a set of technologies, we know how to plug them together rapidly, get them out in the field and then say, “This can help you solve a problem. And by the way, we’ve done the work. We’ve got the infrastructure to build the product and the capability and get it out there.”

For these future layered homeland defense capabilities, it’s as much about scale of manufacturing as it is about technology. We’ve invested billions of dollars in scale manufacturing, industrial scale manufacturing. We’ve seen how rapidly you can use IMD effects in theater, whether it’s taking care of small drones, whether it’s taking care of mid-sized drones or high-end hypersonic and ballistic missiles. It is the modernized way of warfare, and you have to have the industrial scale to create the right effects for the right threat. And I think that’s something we’re doing really well at is adapting, bringing in capital.

In the old days, we didn’t have to rely on the capital markets necessarily to produce the systems we were fielding. There was a very steady business rhythm in industry between industry and government. We’re getting really comfortable about being a venture capitalist and investing in new technologies, realizing that neither Rob nor I, none of us can create those, all of the things that are needed inherently. We talk about arsenal of freedom for a reason because it’s going to take every company and every creative, free-minded individual to come together to create the kind of capabilities we need in the future, and then realize it through industrial scale production, integration, and fielding.

And I think that’s the future of what we’re talking about much more so than the location of where the effect will happen. It’s how do we all come together as a set of industry partners to take really cool tech that’s been invested in and turn it into reality. We’ve done it in amazing ways. Again, I’ll go back to the Middle East. I don’t think if you had said two years ago that you’re going to have hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles trying to kill our war fighters on our base with intentional malice of forethought and said, “No, we’re going to wipe the slate clean.” It’s a moment we should all be proud of, but it ought to also be a sober reminder that that’s kind of the floor of what’s going to happen in the future and we got to raise our game.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Yes, that’s great. So let’s stick with this operationalizing capabilities topic. Improving the ability to quickly develop and field capabilities is a priority for the defense department. So Lukas, rapid prototyping is something that is central to Divergent’s business model. So we want to hear more about what this is and how it’s improving the efficiency with which you develop in field capabilities.

Lukas Czinger:

Absolutely. And I’ll set a bit of context as well for the audience. Divergent started about a decade ago, 12 years ago, and we actually started in automotive. So our first business was not defense, and we looked at engineering rapidly chassis structures, the metallic frames that go in passenger cars, and how to manufacture those. And the reason I bring it up is because there’s a cost point in automotive that is extremely low and very, very competitive, and there’s scale which is incredibly high. And bringing those first principles into defense about three years ago is what allowed us to move so quickly as well. It was an installed base of capacity, but it was a unit cost of relevance as well, which comes from commercial competition. And when the Secretary Hegseth came in and visited with us, he made that point repeatedly. It was about backing a ecosystem that competes in a healthy way to also drive down cost and increase capability, and yes, adapt and accept those new technologies that have been invested in and make them relevant to our war fighters, to our position as a country.

And some harsh reality in the manufacturing space when we look globally is China’s moving towards 40% share of manufacturing, and the US is moving towards 10, and those positions used to be inverse, but that’s where they’re heading now. We need to change that and reverse that trend, and our focus is on metallic structures. And when we get into system development, we have one process for the digital design, the additive manufacturer, and the robotic assembly. So when we build our prototype, it’s essentially coming off tool off process. So it’s using production-grade design software, manufacturing capability, and assembly, but it’s doing so very rapidly.

And I’ll give an example. I won’t name the prime, but we had a recent case study where we went from a whiteboard set of requirements, which again, were, yes, shaped by a service, but also lean forward in terms of this is what we need to create. And we took that whiteboard design into flight testing within 71 days and we delivered our hardware within 4 weeks. And that was to a critical design review, cleared for flight and then flown, tested. And yes, it wasn’t ready for production right after that initial flight test. It’s going to iterate again, but in six months, I believe that program will transition into production.

And we can be there every step of the way from, yes, that first delivery, four weeks, prototype delivery, that second one maybe four weeks later, that third one maybe four weeks later as we fly and fly again. And then, our system is built for production, which is when we get the thousand unit order over 1 year or 5 years or 10 years, that’s where Divergent can really shine because that’s where we have the rate and the cost point to be able to deliver these airframes at the right cost, at the right performance level, and importantly at scale.

And relating back to the China point and our manufacturing share, our vision at Divergent is to build really a network of factories across the US that produce these metallic structures that can be a manufacturing infrastructure for the primes to tap into. So when you need an extension of your engineering team and a supply of metallic parts or airframes, you have a very good source for those within the US.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

I mean, that sounds amazing. Yes. We wish you all the best in that. We’re hoping for that. And now for the rest of you, let’s talk about how working to improve efficiency and developing capabilities, what are some of the internal structural and organizational changes that might be needed for this for anyone else who would like to chat about it?

Jon Piatt:

Well, I’m going to pick up on the last comments because this is about not picking up from an outdated industrial base. If we think about… I go back, there’s a lot of young airmen and airwomen in the room that in the ’80s, I was working in the defense industry. The defense industrial base that we have today was predominantly built in the ’80s. It was built for what our expectations were. And so, when we’re sitting down with the senior leaders in the Pentagon and they’re asking us, “Why can’t we scale up faster? Why can’t we build faster?” Because we’re still predominantly building the same systems in the same facilities and in the same mindset that we built in the ’80s and that we built our industrial base infrastructure up. And it was scaled up and it performed incredibly well in the ’90s and especially when we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, it performed incredibly well because we were able to meet that current need. That’s all changed.

Again, what Divergent is referring to is our ability to bring in modern techniques, and that’s the reason why China is outpacing us in the manufacturing. They’re not investing in the outdated infrastructure. They’re wholly investing in next generation design, development, production techniques, manufacturing techniques, materials themselves. And so, working with partners like Divergent, we’re finding ways to not vertically integrate so we own that factory itself, but we are working together in partnership constructs, allow us to take advantage of some of the best commercial technology that’s available, that is operating at scale, that drives towards affordability. And then, how do we apply that towards the actual production of our next generation weapons systems, our next generation mission systems capabilities that we need to address the threat. So I just wanted to throw that on there because I think that’s incredibly relevant to what we have to understand as we evolve these systems going forward.

And then, I’m going to go back to the modularity and the open architecture. Open mission systems, government reference architecture, a lot of people look at that as that’s a curse to us when we spend our IRAD that we can’t develop something that we can control for the long term. Government reference architecture is actually a leveling of the development playing field so we can design to the same standard and then we can plug and play into that capability and then we can evolve our systems much faster. Because every time we do things singularly with our own IP wrapped around it, we start to stovepipe those solutions or we create something that’s going to have to be dependent upon us as the OEM to modernize and upgrade improve that. And again, and our attention isn’t always focused on what’s next, especially when we get into production.

Still a revenue-based and a revenue generated industry, we have to be honest with ourselves. We are trying to generate revenue, but from where Sierra Nevada looks, we want to generate revenue so we can invest in that next thing, that next capability, the next Divergent as a partner so we can scale up and we can create solutions more affordably, and then those solutions can then be upgraded, whether it’s by us and we have to earn the right to compete for the future. If you’re talking about true MOSA, open architecture systems, we earn that right to compete and we continue to reinvest in that technology that allows us to provide the solution against the next threat.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Awesome. And we’re going to talk more about interoperability in just a minute. But Jon, I actually have another question for you specifically that one of the key components for effective air and missile defense is domain awareness. Space-based assets are critical for things like early missile warning, but airborne assets also play an important role. So can you explain to us the enduring need for airborne assets for domain awareness, even while we continue to work to bring new space capabilities online? And is there anything that these airborne assets actually provide that the space assets do not?

Jon Piatt:

I’m going to answer this two ways. First and foremost, Sierra Nevada is known historically for airborne ISR assets and capabilities, whether it’s Gorgon Stare U28 or other platforms that we missionize. We continue to missionize and support not only from our legacy systems, but as we’ve evolved those systems to the evolving threat. So absolutely critical for those airborne assets and those airborne ISR missions to provide data, provide situational awareness and understanding in an operational environment. But the other answer to that is, and we talked about it earlier, this is a true multi-domain environment, so we can’t just be relying upon just that airborne asset layer. We can’t exclude it either. We can’t say these are legacy systems, we’re going to sunset them. We need to be present in all domains. As we already heard, there’s definitely a need for that space-based layer, the space-based intercept and see, sense, decide and act, but that needs to go all the way down to the terra layers.

We have to be able to have domain presence for detect and defeat at all layers because we’re not dealing again with one threat, a threat from space or a threat from ground. We have to be able to look up and we have to be able to see from the terra firma what’s going on in space without being reliant upon high altitude sensors. We also have to operate at very, very high altitudes in persistent ways that allow us to increase the resiliency and the redundancy of that ISR capability, of that communications layer, because as we understand, there is domain defeat for every one of those capabilities. And so, we have to have a strong presence in all. Obviously the airborne ISR continues to be an important piece of that. And elevating that airborne ISR to high altitude balloons and high altitude platforms, that allows us to put those same capabilities in I’d say a more resilient location that provides persistence and alternate communications and alternate P&T in the event of degradation of our space layer.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

That’s awesome. Thank you so much. So I think what we’re going to do-

Rob Fleming:

I got one.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Go for it.

Rob Fleming:

So you watched that Netflix movie with the attack on the homeland?

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Yes, I did.

Rob Fleming:

Okay. So I’m sure a lot of folks in the room have watched that. So to your question about the importance of being able to see everywhere, that was an example. It was in Hollywood, so it goes with a giant asterisk, but that is the reality of if we have a gap in our sensing, whether it’s space-based or air-based, where a rogue threat emerges from somewhere that we weren’t expecting, and that’s something we’ve been dealing with when space was the ultimate high ground and we could watch everything all the time, clearly that’s being challenged, but that is what it turns into in reality through Hollywood’s lens.

So it’s really important that we understand those awesome responsibilities we all have to have those staring eyes in whichever architectures, whether they’re space-based in whatever orbit or air-based, because we need to get critical information and it can’t be a demo satellite. It’s got to be critical operational capability provided to key decision makers. So if the president, the StratCom commander has a tough decision to make, they can trust the data that they have. And it’s been provided from sources that are proven and operational. And that is an awesome responsibility that we take very seriously in support of our customers.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

I’m really glad for that. And also, I took major exception that they said we missed something. As a space-based missile warning guy, I said that would never happen. And I know you all are working to make sure it would never happen. So that’s fantastic. Well, we’ve got a few minutes left and what I’d like to do is give each of you the opportunity to free flow some ideas of what you would like this audience to take away from this conversation. It’s been wonderful so far. And Rob, let’s start with you. We’ll just work our way down the line. Couple of minutes, please.

Rob Fleming:

So we mentioned earlier, national security is a team sport. We all need to work together. We all bring different capabilities. We have different backing. Some of us are public, some are private, some are VC-backed, et cetera. We all bring different parts of how to solve that problem. We have to partner together. We have to bring those interesting new ideas. We’ve got to figure out how to demonstrate capability, prototype as fast as we can. Then, we’ve got to figure out how to scale them up. We got to invest ahead of need. My colleagues here have talked about investing ahead of need. We do it, others do it. Billions of dollars of investment because of what we need to do to have those capabilities ready for the nation.

And then lastly, really important, the partnership with our customers as we’re going through acquisition reform, as we’re talking to Deputy Secretary of War Feinberg around different ways to structure business deals that work for the government, that work for industry to accelerate capabilities to the field. So it’s a fantastic time, frankly, to be in the industry when we are faced with significant challenges. I know all of us are up to it and I’m looking forward to seeing those capabilities fielded at scale in support of defending the homeland.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Awesome. Thank you so much. Lukas?

Lukas Czinger:

I’ve talked about manufacturing scale and cost point quite a bit. I also want to share a couple thoughts on performance and especially what we’ve seen in the space programs that we have. And we talk a lot about modularity and open architecture and agree completely with those concepts and those theories. In the hardware space and what Divergent enables, I think really the next step of modularity is actually customization at no cost and making the tailor fit solution for that system, but on a flexible manufacturing system. So in space systems, mass matters a lot, specialization actually matters a ton. Can we make that specialized system that saves 30% of mass for that tailored product, but do so in a way where our factory is now not geared for just that one product? And that is bringing manufacturing customization at no cost because the first principles of your manufacturing system are no longer tooled, no longer fixtured. So I wanted to add that commentary.

Now, I’ll echo your points. This needs to be a collaboration. It falls apart when it’s not. And I encourage all of you just to keep a really practical lens on this. The service, the prime, the sub-suppliers, we all need to think very practically about the solutions we’re solving and lean into them together.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Awesome. Thanks. Jon?

Jon Piatt:

I think none of this really matters if we can’t connect everything. And that really is the key. We can talk about industrial base, we can talk about the solutions that we have within the domains, but in this environment, if we’re not moving data at the speed of need, if we’re not making sure that we’re putting relevant data into a command control communications pipeline that allows us to get that data to where the decisions have to be made or where we can apply the next generation of AI-enabled software to help with the operator on the loop, not necessarily in the loop to reduce those dependencies, we’re not going to be able to address the threat and be able to address, I’d say, the need of those next generation platforms to perform at the level of how the threat is evolving.

More recently, integrating the B2 advanced communication systems 4.0 going into production, we’re providing, working with Northrop Grumman and the SPO, we’re providing an advanced communication systems into that B2 platform that they have been longing for for years, doing the math connectivity and bringing the mobility air fleet into this current generation and being able to connect the tankers with the fighters and the bombers, being able to then take that all the way down to our ground-based systems for counter UAS capabilities so we’ve got real-time situational awareness throughout that pipeline and across all domains, ensures that our forces, when they go into the conflict, they’ve got real-time understanding. They’re not waiting on somebody back somewhere else to tell them what their next move is, which is going to be out of date, out of time with what they need to know. So bringing those things forward, bringing all of our advanced technologies together, but then ensuring that we’re not forgetting the importance of that C3BM and the DAF battle network integration that our airmen need.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Great thoughts. Thank you so much. Johnathon, bring us home with you.

Johnathon Caldwell:

Six years ago, we had an express national need for hypersonic weapons. It took a strong leadership from Vice Admiral Wolfe and General Thurgood. It took strong industrial partnerships with companies like Northrop Grumman and with Draper Labs and Sandia and Leidos to bring conventional prompt strike hypersonic weapon into the field from a clean sheet design to meet a national need on a rapid timeline and to scale up production, to meet a new need, to provide a new deterrent capability for the nation. We stand at another moment where we’ve been asked by General Guetlein to consider what we can all do to provide for a strong integrated layered homeland defense, strong leadership that’s willing to take informed risk-based decision backed up by the demand signal that allows us all to invest and to drive, to prototype, and to deliver capability to the field. We’re going to tell another amazing story if we were sitting here six years from now about what we’ve been able to do and what we’ve been able to provide.

Our job is to provide the tools and the systems and the training that allows our nation to deter an adversary and when necessary to defend our homeland and to give our war fighters the chance to defeat an adversary should they ever be called upon to do that. And it’s incumbent upon us to be a partner, a true, strong, dependable partner in that. And I really believe that we are at the place where we can unleash that and we’re going to be tremendously excited and proud to partner with all of you to do that. So thank you, Jen.

Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.):

Oh, thank you so much. Well, and ladies and gentlemen, we have unfortunately come to the end of this panel. Let’s give a round of applause and thank these wonderful panelists for being here today.