Target Indication from Space

Watch the Video

---

Read the Transcript

---

Col. Ryan Frazier:

That bright light. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for joining us on day three. I hope everybody’s having a great conference. It’s great to see the turnout. I’m Colonel Ryan Frazier. I’m the new acting portfolio acquisition executive for space-based sensing and targeting. Really excited to talk to you all today about a very important topic. This is a topic that’s been weaved through several panels throughout the last couple of days. We’ll try to plow some new ground, hit on some of the issues that keep coming up and provide some different perspectives.

First, we know that adversary anti-access area denial capabilities are pushing our high value airborne assets farther from the fight and it’s forcing the joint force to close kill chains from increasingly longer distances. And as these kill chains get pushed farther out and the joint force relies on these long-range precision fires, space-based sensing, target indication, which is something we’ve been doing as a country for decades, is becoming more and more critical, like a critical node in these kill chains.

I’m really excited about the panel that we have three leading members of industry with diverse backgrounds. They have complimentary perspectives across space systems, ops integration and battle management. And it is my pleasure to be joined on stage by Mr. Daniel, goes by call sign, Sphinx, Dant. He’s vice president of Strategic Initiatives, Mission Technology Solutions at KBR. He’s a retired Air Force space operations officer. In the middle, we have Mr. Brandon White, vice president, general manager of Multi-Domain Operations Portfolio at Northrop Grumman Corporation. And on the far end of the stage, we have Mr. Jon, call sign, BigDogg, Rhone, senior program director from SEIC. He’s also retired Air Force air battle manager. So really excited about the three complimentary perspectives and backgrounds that they have.

And, gentlemen, what I’d like to explore today is not just what is technically feasible, but what is operationally credible, scalable, and trusted by warfighters. That word trust will come up a few times. So, BigDogg, as a former battle manager and someone who’s helped deliver these capabilities from industry, hoping you could set the stage for us. How does target indication from space fundamentally change or contribute to long range kill chains?

Jon Rhone:

Hey, thanks, sir and thanks for the opportunity to share some ideas you said would be complimentary. Sphinx and I may be contradictory, so just if everybody is ready for that, that’ll be good. How does it change? I think the obvious answer is persistence. Space as an opportunity provides us with the opportunity to persistently track, maybe persistently orchestrate targets. So putting sensors on the target, maybe putting weapons on the target.

So I think that that’s the obvious answer. The not so obvious answer when you talk about long range kill chain is what is long range? What is a kill chain? What is decision superiority, decision advantage? So all of the things that go into one of the most complex things we do, which is decision making and command and control. It’s like asking somebody, “How do you think to solve a problem?” Well, it really depends. There are a lot of variables.

So to keep it at the high level, the first one is persistence. That persistence allows us to increase the amount of data that people have to make decisions two or three times at the very least. That also presents another problem, which is there’s a lot of data. And so how do you now look through and think through that data in order to make a decision to put an effect whether it’s kinetic, non-kinetic, untargeted at a time and place of your choosing?

So you have to have some sort of autonomy, some sort of AI, some sort of algorithm that helps feed the right data to the right person, whether at the operational or the tactical level, whether you’re at the edge, whether you’re back at a node. So I think enabling the persistence with some artificial intelligence. And then the last thing I think that allows us to do is allows us to use other layers that may or may not be part of a pace plan, airborne layer, ground layer, of course, space layer.

All of these are going to be combined to allow people to make decisions and to target, to maintain situational awareness of targets and to maintain track custody. So I think that layered approach is something that we have to remember when we start to talk about space and space in and of itself, which is now obviously a contested domain. And so having a hundred percent persistent coverage from space, reliant on that only, I think is a mistake. And then the very last one I’ll say is you have to have people who are trained to use these different domains.

Air battle manager, I can tell you that the thing we never did in the 1970s version of AWACS is has space data input there. If we did, we probably wouldn’t know what to do with it because the system itself would have a hard time differentiating and presenting data in a way that’s easily digestible and allow us to make decisions. So a lot of factors go into space or target indications from space, but also yield.

Daniel Dant:

I’ll just chime in. I don’t disagree with you.

Brandon White:

Perfect. Yet.

Daniel Dant:

Yet. No, a persistence was at the top of my list. Just a different spin on it is. As an ABM’er, I’m sure the idea of being in a big, fat target in the South China Sea, drilling holes in the sky is not something you want to do. And that’s the angle I look at it from persistence with space, nobody is in danger. But the other two things I was thinking of on how this space targeting indications makes a difference is speed and resilience as well. You can debate these things, of course, and happy to do that, but with space target indications, unlike some traditional airborne, we have an opportunity to see things quicker than you see with traditional ISR. And so that then enables additional queuing and the opportunity to revisit.

So I think there is some speed there. We’ll probably talk later about what that data looks like when it gets down. And then resilience, and that one is probably even more debatable, but you get an opportunity with what industry is doing with proliferated LEO constellations to have a more graceful degradation instead of you lose a big fat PADA in the sky and it’s not easy to replace that. So you lose a satellite or two with proliferated capabilities on orbit. They’re not these billion dollar exquisite satellites like they used to be in many cases. And so you can replenish those or readjust the constellation and still get coverage. And so I think there’s a bit more resilience.

Brandon White:

Yeah. I mean, I think maybe just one piece I would add to that too is, and you touched on it a little, is unprecedented scale and the fact that it is absolutely possible to have our warfighters have an advantage of awareness of millions of square kilometers at a single time, right? That’s unprecedented knowledge of what’s happening. It will give them advantage and time and it will give them scale to be able to think differently about how we escalate in a conflict scenario, because you will have way more knowledge in any one given integrated view than we’ve had operationally before.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thanks, gentlemen. Scale, persistence, timeliness, resilience, all critical attributes are key issues we should talk about. Brandon, I’d like to stay with you a little bit more because I think one of the things that I hear talking about this missionary is maybe… I don’t want to say a gap, but disconnects between kind of expectations of what space can provide and what is technically or operationally achievable. So with your experience in industry, is there a requirement or an expectation that is commonly referred to that maybe it sounds reasonable at first, but then breaks down either operationally or technically in terms of delivery?

Brandon White:

Yeah. So maybe first to be very direct, I’d say from my view, this is a technically solvable problem. Absolutely. And in the near term, I build from General Gagnon’s comments on Monday and then even yesterday, there will be a time when this is just as ubiquitous as missile warning or as GPS, that is where we are heading. I think we need to recognize we will build to that capability and it’ll be incremental. When I think about the two fundamentals that we will evaluate as we’re building out the technological layers to achieve this, the first one will be describing the scenarios where we’re initially going to perform and being clear with the operators on how that’s going to be deployed and scaled out.

And so it may not start on day one solving every problem and every scenario for every long range kill chain, but it will solve some of them. And then ultimately building that capability over time, just like we’ve done many times before. I think the second piece that technologically we will build out incrementally will be the control of the kill chain, the situational awareness, and the layered application of effects that our warfighters will use over time.

So I don’t think any of those will be a big bang on day one. I think we will see a very logical buildup of that capability over time. And again, whether it’s one phenomenology or multiple phenomenologies, and then ultimately which weapons we can employ off of which locations in which scenarios, I think that will incrementally change over time. My view is the communication and conversation with our warfighters around how that’s going to build and evolve is the primary way that we need to make sure we’re all on the same page with how we will build to that place that we expect will be here very shortly.

Jon Rhone:

Not to change us away from the space conversation, but one of the things that we struggle with, I think, and I finished my career as an operational tester, is a system of systems approach to testing and integrating this. All the things you talked about, and we scaled this, but we can’t wait until it’s a program of record or until it’s hits IOC to start scaling. So that type of discussion happens way back. And so how do you do system of system testing? Well, you got to find some way to automate it because these things are so complex that if you don’t want to be in test for the next decade.

So I think that’s one of it. And the operator’s involvement in that system of system testing, whether it’s dynamic testing, operational testing, as long as it is something that has at least close to operationally representative environment, which probably requires some sort of LVC, some sort of lab, all the things that I can’t think through right now.

But I think that that system of system testing, an automated way to handle the deficiencies and handle the fixes with the operators and the acquirers and the technical minds is going to be key.

Daniel Dant:

As a space guy here, you’d probably think I’m going to say, well, space can do it all, but it’s the opposite is what I would like to say about realities versus expectations is we can’t go into this assuming that space is the answer to all of our problems. This is still going to be a multi-domain problem set and needs a multi-domain solution. And the other thing I would say is that the laws of physics are not laws of convenience.

They do exist, they will continue to exist, and that’s a reality as we try to work in the TCPED part of this equation on when our space sensors have collected and derived targeted quality data and how does that get disseminated? How do we make sure that that fits into the existing C2 structure and we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel just to say that space is contributing. We need to be backwards reliable in terms of fitting into the current C2 structure.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

These are excellent points. I do want to pick at one thing, not that it’s not technically achievable, so I’m not going to quibble with Brandon. I think one of the stressing, call it physics, is just timelines and latency and the tyranny of distance to be able to do these closed loop, sensitive shooter, like the tasking and the interaction between the space layer and really a weapon. And I was just curious if there’s any thoughts on how we overcome or how do we address that challenge, I guess, communications and timelines. Any thoughts?

Brandon White:

Yeah. I mean, I would start by saying that that’s got to be as central to the overall mission architecture as the sensing itself. I mean, fundamentally, the sensing doesn’t matter if it’s five or 10 minutes late, or five or 10 seconds late. The sensing doesn’t matter if you can’t guide an existing weapon out of the inventory to a location against a threat. So those all are as important as the actual space layer in the space sensing will be to knit together the ability to get that information at the right quality with the right timeliness to the right place so that a weapon can get to the threat.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Did I see BigDogg wanting to speak?

Jon Rhone:

Sorry, 30 more seconds. You mentioned something, weapons and then Sphinx talked about TCPED and C2, and I’m not sure if you did it intentionally or not, but there is still a line between TCPED, the two, and command and control battle management, the three. And then when we’re talking about space target indications, a lot of that happens on the two side, sometimes the national side of the two side. And there’s still a very difficult hurdle to get over to connect that TCPED, that petted information to something that battle managers, decision makers in an AOC, command and control of people over the side of the three can actually use to speed the decision.

Anecdotally, but I’ll go back to when I was in an AOC, we are still walking, doing the swivel chair ops, sometimes you’re walking to different rooms and the footmobile to go get information from somewhere that’s space to come back and write on a sticky note for somebody to make a decision.

I’m not sure if that’s changed now. I’m willing to bet that probably hasn’t or is not fixed, but I think that delineation between the TCPED and the C2 or the sensor to the weapons is still a challenge.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thank you for that. I appreciate that little, I guess, little side conversation, which was good I wanted to hit on. Sphinx, let’s come back to you. This is good. We’re talking operations expectations versus reality. We’ve talked timelines. I think it comes into… And now just the TCPED and how we tasks, right? So there’s a question of operational employment and assured tasking. This is the other thing users are demanding is assured tasking. What needs to be in place like architecturally or operationally to ensure space-based target indication can be tasked reliably and provide actionable feedback to combat commanders?

Daniel Dant:

One word, trust. As a space guy, I was weird. I deployed six or seven times and had been in AOCs and mission planning, sales down range and trust is a big factor. And so I would say we have to build that trust and that’s doing it the right way. And so when you talk about tasking, there’s two sides to that coin. One, from the space side of the business, it can’t be a pickup game. And we have to design the tasking from the start with the long range kill chain end to end in mind so that that tasking is predictable, transparent, flexible. And so it can’t be that traditional collection management that we’ve always known.

And then the other side of the coin is that the commanders in the field need to realize, once again, we can’t suspend physics. Things are different in space and you’re not necessarily going to get everything that you want the moment that you want it. But that said, both sides of that coin, I think, need to be addressed in order to build that trust.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Brandon, any thoughts on automation, artificial intelligence, ways to help the workflows here?

Brandon White:

Yeah. I mean, I think to the point of trust, step one, building out either the space sensing or the rest of the infrastructure needed to provide timely information. The second layer is the trust of that knowledge and the trust of that information that a warfighter is going to take action on. And so as we think through that entire chain of the information flow, not just the sensing itself, but how we get it to decision makers, how they make decisions and then monitor the outcome of that, I think we have to connect the dots of all of those pieces of information have to have that level of pedigree.

And particularly at the time you’re going to employ effects against a potential threat, a recognition that we have done the appropriate work to confirm that that is indeed a threat, that we have an understanding of what it is as we’re taking actions. And so from the technology standpoint, we have to understand that that flow has to exist through all of the pieces that come together to close the ultimate kill chain.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thank you. BigDogg, I’m going to throw an audible at you. I think you can handle it. As a capability provider, I’ll be doing it from the government, we got colleagues here that’ll be doing it from industry. You’re an air battle manager. What can we do for you? Your workflows are going to change. The way you battle manage an air fight or a long range fires is going to change. What do you think today’s battle managers need from us?

Jon Rhone:

Modernized equipment. So one of the things that we’re trying to do, so indications, target indications from space, I’d put in probably the late fifth, early sixth gen area, we’re still working on fourth gen command and control capabilities. So the sixth gen C2 asset is not out there, right? To get into the conversation about the assets, but the challenge is you have legacy equipment that have literally been around in the ’60s or ’70s, very new ones since the ’80s, and you have brand new capabilities that you’re trying to take that sensor data, very advanced data to put into a system that has less compute and store power than our iPhones.

And then you’re asking men and women to look through that who may or may not have been trained to look at that data and to figure out what that means and try to implement that. So from the acquisition perspective, I’ll footstomp that six gen fighters are great. Advanced space capabilities are great. If we’re really talking about a layered approach and what I think is missing are the rest of those layers from a command and control perspective to get them to a sixth gen C2 type of capability that allows them to integrate these new capabilities and make decisions, otherwise, I think that these new capabilities may actually decrease the amount of time… I’m sorry, increased amount of time it takes to close that kill chain because they have to now sit next to two or three people to make a decision because of the equipment that’s in front of them.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thanks for that. Thanks for that.

Daniel Dant:

Can I riff for a second?

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Yeah, please.

Daniel Dant:

All right, cool.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Go for it.

Daniel Dant:

Thanks.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

It’s your panel.

Daniel Dant:

Hey, thanks. We keep saying target indications from space or space targeting indications. The word indications to me means to me maybe something’s there, maybe something’s not. It seems a little soft. And General Gagnon said something about this the other day, yesterday, or maybe it was the day before, but he used the term, he thought we ought to be calling it space target engagement, which I think is an interesting idea. Or I would throw out there that space-based targeting sounds a bit more like it’s a direct contribution to the fight instead of the indications gives me the feel that we’re thinking about a separate layer that’s not integrated into the overall kill chain. So just something to think about as you head back to the Pentagon.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

No, I think that’s a good point. I try to hit that at the beginning. I think there’s an evolution about space-based target indication. We’ve been doing this literally for decades. We did it for situational awareness. We’ve done it to do a priority planning of an engagement. Now I think it’s more time dominant in the target weapon pairing and the JADC2 kind of kill chain is definitely… So it’s an evolution.

Gentlemen, I love all the kind of issues we’re talking through. I just would like to kind of highlight, unlike yesterday’s panel where you had three government people talking about moving target indicator, I have the luxury here of three industry partners, so I really want to make sure we hit industry. How is industry poised to solve the challenges of delivering target indications from space at the speed, scale, and reliability that our warfighter demands? And I’ll just open it up to…

Jon Rhone:

Sure. I’ll go.

Daniel Dant:

Go ahead. Go for it. I’ll follow.

Jon Rhone:

I think we’re well positioned. As Brandon said, it’s not a technology issue. The technology is there. You can go to most industry partners and get a pretty solid answer as to how we’re going to solve these type of problems. I think industry’s challenge is, number one, we are still often incentivized to develop in silos. There is very little incentive for us to pick up the phone with each other and say, “Hey, we got a great idea. Let’s put this together and plan.”

We’re all in the business of making business, right? We all have shareholders, so there’s one way to answer, but incentivizing us to pick this up and figure it out together. We, SAIC as a mission integrator, we’re not going to go build satellites. We’re not going to bend metal and make an aircraft or make a radar. But if we get access to data, I feel very comfortable in saying that from multi-secure cloud perspective, we can figure out how to get that data to people. So I think incentivizing us to work together.

Daniel Dant:

Go ahead.

Brandon White:

I would start with step one is we have to move differently, and if we’re not, then you’re not listening. So certainly at Northrop, we have that message clearly. We’re poised for speed, but I think your industry will respond to the demands of that. But I think one of the most important things will be moving extremely quickly and providing incremental capability. I do not believe that we need to over, I’ll say, index on the end state upfront. We need to understand where we’re going, but we need to understand the steps we’re taking in the near term are going to close immediate value to the mission.

And to your point, we’ve been doing sensing from space for a very long time. And so we know how to do that. How do we ramp up that to a place where we’re ready to use it in a kill chain? And in a very short timeline, use it in a kill chain. I think those are the places where we need to focus on the technology advancement and make sure that we’re ready to move as quickly and plug in.

And then to your point, this is not going to be a single standalone system. All of industry will contribute to the capacity to do this and our ability to quickly integrate across those interfaces and make it work is going to be an important aspect that you need to demand from industry and we need to provide for you.

Daniel Dant:

Yeah, I’ll just build on that. I think we already are. Industries already responding. I mentioned pLEO, constellations. I remember in 2010 in the Pentagon and OSD writing the first national security space strategy, and it was like pushing a noodle uphill to get people to acknowledge that hosted payloads were a real thing and that good enough capabilities proliferated could make a difference for the warfighter. But now look at us. And so I think that’s a great improvement.

Automation I think is already being pursued a great deal. And I think key to this, I’ll say space-based targeting is onboard processing. We’ve skirted around the data concerns and we chatted about BigDogg and I about TCPED, but that’s a concern for me in this architecture that we’re building on ensuring that the data… Raw data ain’t going to cut it. Sending raw data to you in a JSTARS or an AWACS ain’t going to cut it. It’s got to be processed. And so I think onboard processing is important.

Frankly, one of the hindrances to industry helping more is there just seems of late to have been this cultural shift in dealing with the Department of War on IRAD. It seems like when I meet with Space Force or government customers, one of the questions I always get is, “Well, what have you spent on IRAD to help us?” And that’s fine. And a lot of companies, especially the OEMs and the prime, spend millions and millions of dollars.

But there used to be a time where it felt like more of a partnership where we could discuss what the needs were ahead of time and then agree on some kind of joint funding to do the research and development on those things. But that seems to have shifted, at least from my perspective. I’m willing to be told I’m wrong.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

I want to build on it. Truth in lending here, I wrote down two notes before the meeting and one I said, “How does the government incentivize the outcomes we need? ” BigDogg, I really appreciate that. Brandon talked about iterative delivery, 100% agree. And then the other question I wrote down was, where is industry waiting on clear Department of War signals before investing? And so you just hit on that. And, Brandon, I’d like to put you in the hot seat about… And just in general, you don’t have to talk about Northrop, but how could the DOW signal the industry better to help you with investment?

Brandon White:

Yeah, that’s an excellent question, and I would say that first off, just very enthusiastic about the progress and acquisition reform, right? I mean, I’ve been in the industry for a long time. I think that what we’re doing is different. I am excited about the construct of PAEs who are empowered to make decisions much more quickly with a reduction in the amount of stakeholders they have to get buy-in from.

I will say one of the best things that our customers could do to accelerate industry is to accelerate decision-making and moving much quicker. Example after example after example of prime capability ready to go and factories that are 10, 15, 30% full. So our factories today are not at capacity for many of the warfighting capabilities that we know are urgent national needs. And so I am very excited about the changes that are being made to enable those PAEs to understand the landscape, to make decisions, to trade when it’s necessary and to move quickly.

And then as much freedom as we can give those PAEs to utilize the resources, the dollars that they have the most effectively real time, that is empowerment of a knowledgeable team and it will accelerate the whole machine. So the last ask I would have is to get to the goal line there and to then allow those PAEs to move very quickly and to make the decisions they need to make.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Here, here. I’m with you.

Brandon White:

And then send a check and we’ll start building.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

I’m a little bit scared. Hey, we’ll bring it back to you guys, not me. How can industry… I want to get back to trust. This is the last formal question and we’ll spend a few minutes at the end wrapping up, but I want to get back to trust because I think this is fundamental. Our success depends on trust and the partnership between industry and government. And what can we collectively, industry and government do better by working together to ensure the warfighters trust and are able to confidently act on target indications from space?

Brandon White:

Go ahead.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

I open it up. We’re going to free will.

Daniel Dant:

Jump in there, Brandon.

Brandon White:

All right. So we’ll start with, we all like to dismiss, for example, cyber requirements, right? Because they add time, they add things that have to be done, but the reality is when we depend on these government infrastructure systems, they have to be there. Security classification, I would say, has to be there. And I understand we want to go fast and we want to demonstrate things and that’s good. But when it comes to building out the operational capability, step one is we have to have that trust in the system that it’s going to work not on a blue sky day, but it’s going to work on the day that we’re all trying to avoid, right? And it has to work.

And so from my view, that trust has to be built in from day one and it has to be architected from day one. It doesn’t have to be there from day one, but it has to be designed in and built in from day one. So from my point of view, I want to make sure we’re clear that this is a war fighting capability that we will depend on, and it will be in our best interest to make sure that the day we need it, that it’s ready to perform at the levels that it’s needed, and that that is built in across every component of the system that is going to be part of that kill chain before that person in uniform has to choose that decision.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thank you. Sphinx.

Daniel Dant:

Yeah, you said something earlier too on a different question, Brandon, about realistic scenarios. I think that’s a way we build trust in this entire enterprise, is realistic, aggressive, challenging scenarios when we do war fighting together. Someday we’ll be doing… BigDogg and I have been to a bunch of them. We’ll be doing this at Nellis, at Red Flag. And this will, like you said, it’ll be integrated just like everything else. So those scenarios are important.

I think in acknowledging across the entire ops and acquisition community too, that as we try to integrate space-based targeting or indications, there’s as much art as there is science in the war fighting part of this. When you think about sense-making, act, that middle part there, that sense-making part, there’s some art involved in that and it’s not all just science. And I think most operators get that. And so I think acknowledging that is another way to… And working on that is another way to build trust.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thank you. BigDogg, I know this is an important topic to you. You’ve already hit on the importance of testing and iterative delivery, et cetera. If you have anything else to add.

Jon Rhone:

Yeah, it’s reps and sets, right? Everybody’s hit on it. There’s not a single operator out there who when they walk in to pick a place to fight the war on night one, when something new is presented to them, that they’re going to trust it. I don’t care what we in industry say. I don’t care what the acquirers say. I don’t care what the developers say. Nobody is going to trust that unless you’ve had an opportunity to work with it, train with it, develop your own art to that.

One of the great examples I use is somebody says, “Here’s a UI and everybody loves this UI.” That’s a lie. There’s not everybody loves a UI. If we get four of us up here and have one UI, there’s going to be six different opinions on whether that’s good or not. So it all depends on the scenario, it depends on what you like, it depends on the level of task, no matter how good you are at multitasking.

So I think the reps and sets are going to build the trust. The other one is we as an industry continue, and I think this is one of the things that has happened. It’s advanced since I got out four or five years ago, and it’s continuing the dialogue between the operators, the acquisition professionals, and then industry of the people who are developing that. Very few times are you not able to pick up the phone and we can call you or you can call us or we can call an operator and ask questions about how we want to develop. There’s a difference between the requirements and then what people need. And so how we mesh that together is going to be key.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

These are all good points. I really appreciate. Reason we wanted to hit on trust is we know this is changed. This change is pretty disruptive in how we do business today and we’ll work together to provide that confidence. Gentlemen, we got about a little less than eight minutes left here. We got a clock going down here. You guys can’t see it. It’s pretty helpful. So why don’t we give you each kind of two minutes or so to just… What is something we haven’t hit on yet today that you want the audience to know or some parting thoughts you want them to remember about this topic? Just we’ll start with BigDogg.

Jon Rhone:

Oh, sure. I think what we have to recognize is we always focus on technology and industry, but there are men and women who are going to use this to make decisions. And those men and women have different levels of capability. And we don’t have to build to the lowest common denominator, but we do have to build and understand that people are going to use these capabilities in an agile combat employment environment, sitting in some austere conditions, working with coalition that may or may not have the same capabilities that we have.

So everything that we talk about up here from a technology perspective, from layering, when we build and buy these things, we have to recognize that there are different variables that are going to impact the ability to max perform that technology. And as long as we continue to remember that, and when we do test and when we do think through, we do try to build trust, recognize that it’s not going to be in a pristine environment in which people are going to have to use this.

I mean, my classmates snuck in the door there. Hi, Luke. And one of the things that I know he fully understands and we truly appreciate is the fact that this whole JSOS thing is gone and we don’t have to run through this process of building something that’s done without the ability to talk to the people who are going to be using that and continue talking to them. So I think that’s a thing we have to remember is technology is one thing, but men and women are going to be asked to use this in crazy environments.

Daniel Dant:

I’ll just chime in and say aside from being a big fan of this, this is a national imperative that we have these capabilities. We talked about China. I’m sorry to say having air superiority over mainland China or in the South China Sea or over Taiwan is not going to be an easy thing to accomplish. And big fat targets, drilling holes in the sky is not going to be the way you want to go. And so we absolutely have to have these capabilities for these A2D2 type environments.

And to me, the big points are, we have to, as a space guy, as space guys, we have got to make this fit into the current workflows, the current construct of C2 and battle management, and not ask that all the rest of the warfighters adapt what’s currently working in order to let space be a part of that kill chain. And so I think we need to, just from the start, as we’re building in these capabilities, make sure that we have that in mind.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Thank you.

Brandon White:

Maybe I’ll just touch on two things. We’ve talked about it a little, but I want to build it from there. I love the comment that physics doesn’t care what your opinion is or what you want to be. So physics matters here and specifically delivering mission outcomes, we will have to bow to the physics and make sure that what we’re doing is achievable and possible. I think it is technically possible and doing that in the right incremental way is an important aspect of the partnership between our customers and the industry that we need to make sure we’re starting from.

And then the second thing I’ll remind us is that the enemy gets a vote here. And so we need to recognize that the blue sky day is not the same scenario as tensions may escalate that this is going to be operating. So back into TTPs, our processes, the expectations of our users to make sure that they understand how the system will gracefully handle those scenarios and respond and still give them a level of trust that they can take action on.

So from my point of view, that’s another very important layer in this, is ensuring that as we are walking and building up this capability, that we understand how this is going to perform in an increasingly threatened environment and how we’re going to use it to our advantage and make sure that it can be trusted to provide that outcome when it’s most necessary.

Col. Ryan Frazier:

Well, that’s about our time. So I just want to say thank you for the outstanding discussion. Thank you for your time, gentlemen, and all your perspectives. Super valuable. I’ll just leave the audience that it’s with the partnership between the operators, the acquirers, the industry partners. Our success depends on that. So this is a great discussion in that regard. Just want to say thanks again for all spending a few moments with us this morning. Thanks to AFA for giving us this opportunity. Hope everybody has a great day. Thanks.