Enabling the Long-Range Kill Chain

Watch the Video

---

Read the Transcript

---

This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI. Please report inconsistencies to comms@afa.org.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

All right, good morning ladies and gentlemen to the best panel of the day. And welcome to the last day of AFA as well. I am Major General “Solo” Kunkel. I’m the Director of Force Design for the Air Force. I’m responsible for articulating, validating, and then implementing the future vision of the Air Force. The title of this panel is Enabling the Long Range Kill Chain. And this is an important topic with broad implications in the Air Force’s one force design. To ensure our policy makers can always negotiate from a position of strength, the nation requires the Department of the Air Force to be able to conduct decisive strikes anywhere in the world. An example of that recently was Operation Midnight Hammer. Let’s give it up for our Air Force. Increasingly, those strikes will come from long range or more specifically, over the horizon where the organic sensors of launch platforms are unable to see the target because frankly, the earth gets in the way. And therefore, we’re gonna have to execute long range kill chains or non-organic kill chains where the network of sensors and communications that must be established to enable those kill chains is a key challenge. So we’re gonna address that challenge today with a panel of experts. Today we have Mike Dupasquier, Vice President of Airborne Systems, General Dynamics, Mission Systems. Retired General “Cobra” Harrigian, Vice President of Skunk Works Business Development for Lockheed Martin. Erich Hernandez-Baquero, Vice President of Space ISR for Raytheon and RTX Business. And finally, John “Big Dog” Rohn, Command and Control Strategist for SAIC. This is gonna be fun. So gentlemen, thank you for being here and let’s get right to it. We got a group of space and Air Force experts and we’ll start with General Harrigian. General Harrigian, long range kill chains will obviously include a mix of air and space capabilities. What do you view as the optimal future mix of or roles for air and space platforms supporting long range kill chains?

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

Thanks. So we have been taking a look at this for a long time. And as you pointed out, the resiliency required to leverage both air and space are gonna be critically important to these kill chains. I think that the important part rolling forward here is understanding the capabilities with respect to number one, the threat that’s out there and how we’re gonna respond to that. Arguably, as General Raymond started talking about and General Saltzman continues to talk about is how the threat has continued to evolve and the counter space capabilities from a myriad of different threats that the Chinese in particular have generated is something that we’ve gotta be prepared to respond with. I think the other part that, and I’ll remind everybody I’m just a fighter pilot, so I am not an expert in space, but I do know there is physics. And physics says when you have something in orbit, Leo, it’s going around. Only has so much coverage, right, Abe? You know that’s true. And then you’ve got only so much that it’s looking at. And so as you look at the physics and we can get to particular areas of the world that we can actually do really good operational analysis on and understand what that flight path looks like, the amount of coverage and space that you have, and then overlap that with what I would argue is an appropriate survivable persistence capability that is then leveraging what space is providing at those particular times because that synchronization will be incredibly important to our capability to sense and find and fix those targets that are gonna be important to the combatant commander or whatever specific objective is trying to be attained. And so as we work through that and finding that right balance, I would argue, and we were just talking, there are real world opportunities out there to go work through that process and figure out how the data moves and how we’re gonna leverage those different capabilities to be able to ultimately execute the find and fix. And I’m not gonna say it’s easy, but we can talk about the closing the kill chain at the backside with respect to effects and what’s most appropriate there. But if you’re not able to find and fix and then maintain custody through the flight of that particular weapon, it’s all for naught. And so I think working through that with the experts that are out there that actually look at it from the lens of, hey, this is not one or the other, this is all of the above. And how we do that in a way that facilitates that communication and practice it in a way that helps us learn as we move forward to execute this.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

You’re talking a lot about the complexity of the long range kill chains and then how do we build them resiliently and then so they have persistence. So we may come back to that. So Erich, this is also an important one and speaks to that complexity. How do you see — and we’ve got Lieutenant General Pearson in the front row as well who might have an opinion on this. How do you see the Department of Defense and the intelligence community tasking in C2 authorities and then the concepts of operations evolving and what will be needed to make space-enabled kill chains successful?

Erich Hernandez-Baquero:

Yeah, thank you, General. And I appreciate AFA’s opportunity to raise this topic up because there’s a lot of things that have to come together to really address what General Harrigian was just talking about. Fortunately, there’s a lot of good changes that are already underway to have the space ISR capabilities be available to support the sensor to shooter timelines. We’ve been consistently increasing capacity and resiliency in our space capabilities. We’ve been accelerating the speed of data delivery through automation. And what we really need to do is now orient all the command and control associated with those assets around that target custody problem. And that is what’s underway now is to figure out what are the things that we need to do in our ground command and control with target custody at scale because it’s not only, you know, the first bottleneck that we’re going to run into in that fine fixed track is going to be prosecuting, you know, multiple targets over large areas and holding them at risk throughout the engagement scenario, right? And that’s going to be a very complex activity. And then the next thing that we need to work through is as General Harrigan was saying is not only space, and by the way, it won’t be just LEO satellites because LEO, as General was pointing out, does have certain physics limitations in terms of coverage. We’re going to need a hybrid architecture with different orbits. And then we’re going to need to synchronize those with organic capabilities, right, that are available to the commander. And so how we do that is going to be important. Now the good news is I think the technology is pretty much there to go do that. It’s really more about how do we connect these command control systems and then how do we rehearse using them in a different way.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Yeah, excellent answer. And kind of a follow-up to John. So we’ve talked about how dynamic and complex this environment is going to be, especially with fusion and correlation between multiple sensors, multiple domains, multiple phenomenologies. Can you expand on the difference between correlation and fusion and why it’s important to get both those things right?

John Rhone:

Yes, sir. Thanks for the opportunity. So this is coming from a non-doctrinal definition. Fusion to me is getting a single track from multiple sensors, multiple pieces of data. You display that to the decision maker in a format that he or she can easily digest and make a decision on. The correlation piece is, is the information that is in that track that’s amplifying that track, is that actually accurate? One. Number two, do we actually trust that enough to make a decision? I’ve used an example before when General Harrigian was captain Harrigian and I was Lieutenant AWACS and I say, “This person, this group right there is hostile. Is he going to turn around and shoot that without validating that hostile?” The answer is no and probably rightfully so. But the importance I think for a long-range kill chain piece is a lot of this, a lot of the weapons that we have, a lot of the decisions for long-range kill chain are rightfully at this moment held very centrally. I think that using the great philosopher Mike Tyson, everybody has a plan to get punched in the face. The first time that we get punched in the face trying to execute or implement a long-range kill chain, we will have to consider if the construct that we have to centrally control those decisions is accurate. If it’s not and we have to decentralize that and maybe we de-emphasize the role of the AOC, maybe emphasize the role of whomever is running this fight or battle managing this fight at the edge, then you have to make that decision. Is the correlation going to continue to be done by the human on the loop, the human in the loop, are we going to trust because of the speed of the fight, are we going to trust it to be the correlation be done automatically? A hostile declaration. Thresher is a good example. Can they spoof Thresher? Are we going to use that? Eric mentioned the bottleneck. I think the first bottleneck that we’re probably going to have in this is the amount of intelligence data that is out there and how we have to fuse and correlate that data to something that we can now take action against, whether it’s kinetic or non-kinetic. I think the theater air control system that we have right now, the people that normally correlate that information at the edge, talking to people who are manning the effectors, I think that construct is going to change in future fights. I think as that construct changes, then maybe the way that we think about and view long-range kill chain, long-range kill chains are going to change as well. But we have to figure out a way to quickly correlate with a lot of data and to quickly correlate with a lot of data against the right targets.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Can you just in real simple terms, none of this is simple, but can you talk through what could happen if we don’t get that correlation and fuse and correct?

John Rhone:

Absolutely. I think the worst case scenario is you hit the wrong target. Probably maybe just as bad. You missed a target that you’re trying to hit. General Harigian talked about the earth getting in the way and General Solo talked about the reason we have a long-range kill chain. It takes time to get from decision to execute to hitting the pickle button to waiting for that target to actually impact the, waiting for that missile, that effector to actually impact the target. Between that time, the threat situation is going to change. The support assets that may be required to support that actual effector or those assets that are in country or near theater in harm’s way, that scenario is going to change. As soon as we figure out how to make that determination and to protect those assets, that’s going to have to happen very quickly. We have to train to it. If we don’t, then the worst case is we lose Americans or coalition partners waiting for this effector to hit its target. I think another portion of that is we’re going to have probably limited numbers of the long-range weapons and what we can’t afford to do is start sending long-range weapons down track against something that’s not the right target.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Excellent answer. Mike, clearly there are huge data requirements for long-range kill chains. How do you view data protection, multi-domain, multilateral security, and cross-encryption requirements for long-range kill chains and what’s being done about it?

Mike Dupasquier:

As we talked about or was highlighted, really it’s after we get punched in the face that some of the data processing is going to be moving to the edge and making those decisions need to be done there, which really is about getting the right data to the right place at the right time so that right decision can be made. And a lot of that starts with security when you don’t have the centralized data decision making that’s being there. So we’re seeing a lot of developments that are going on in terms of encryption so that when the data arrives at that platform, it can be trusted. Because if that data can’t be trusted, the right decision can’t be made. And as you highlighted, that could end up putting an expensive asset that we have limited of in the wrong place. The other piece is for it to be long-range, as was highlighted, the earth’s going to get in the way for that. So we’re going to be aggregating data from multiple different platforms that are across multiple different security levels that historically may have not had shared data organically. So it’s going to be about the speed that this data gets processed across multiple caveats, whether that’s from joint partners in the multi-domain operation or with coalition partners, so that that data can get to that right platform. So maintaining data separation so the data is secure but can be shared, but also having cross-domain solutions that pushes the data down to the right level so that that information can go to the right person so that decision can be made. We can’t just rely on the sensors on board those platforms to give the operator the information that’s needed. It’s going to come from ISR assets. And then as it gets into the contested environment, the other piece will be how do we store that data securely so that when comms links go down, the operator has the latest information and can still use that information to persecute the target.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

What I think you’re talking about is we eventually want to get ourselves to a point where we have this common operational picture where we have a really solid understanding of what RED is doing, where RED’s at, where all their capabilities are, but also with BLU and then every warfighter at each echelon sees exactly what they have. I think that becomes a really, really critical advantage in combat. GPS has been a game changer. And when America fielded GPS, it brought all kinds of partners to us. I think when we field this common operational picture with the data right, that becomes another game changer just like GPS and an absolute game changer in combat. I think we’re getting warmed up here and I think we start opening up the questions for all. From each of your different perspectives, we have a ton of experience with organic kill chains and we know the operations, challenges and opportunities there. So we’re in the early stages of long range kill chains. I think the benefits of long range kill chains are clear, but what challenges do you see in the future to supporting kill chains of growing length, particularly in terms of delivering adequate accuracy, volume, confidence in those kill chains, persistence, and then finally resiliency.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

Can I take a quick second here? And I think it’s important we take this on because I live this at AFSCENT and USAFE. There’s a policy piece here and I’ll use the term asking versus tasking. And while I have great respect for Intel space community, there was a lot of asking but I couldn’t ask. And if we’re going to try to do this, we’re going to have to work our way through that. And it’s got to be more than a handshake. Because if you can’t get this whole discussion on data, it’s a PowerPoint slide. And as we work our way through what those agreements are that are happening at ECHELON, it’s got to make its way into the trenches. If they’re not seeing it, you’re going to be working really hard to execute any of this fine and fix on the front end because you couldn’t get the data you needed for timely information, either to get to the shooter or in Big Dog’s case to the battle manager to make a decision on who the shooter should be. So we got to work through that. And there’s people in the building, and I know you’re nodding your head, but that’s going to be hard. Because it can’t be personality based. It can’t be, bro, hey, we’re going to take care of you because that’s not going to work when the big deal happens. So we got to find a way to ensure over time across the globe we’re able to do that. And I think part of that then will be how you take this mix of, you know, high orbits, low orbits, mix those, and then I think you said it exactly right. What is the actual data that we need to have moving? And, you know, I’m going to look at General Cropsey and the ABMS team and go, hey, it’s time for you to deliver on this because this is going to be hard. And if we don’t repeatedly try it in the Pacific, in Europe, you’re not going to have the muscle memory to do it day one of the fight. Because this is inevitably probably going to happen early as part of any operational activity. And so if you have not done this repeatedly, it’s going to be really challenging to do it, you know, day one, day two of the war.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

That’s right. I think one of the big problems is this, you know, if you want to do this at capacity and persistence and speed, it can’t be an ask not task. Do you have any thoughts on, like, specific changes that we need to address between, you know, perhaps the intel community and

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

Well, we got experts in here that are working on it. You know, if I were still a safety commander, I’d be looking and going, this is what I want. And when I want it, this isn’t, you know, an ask. It’s I need to have it right now. And, you know, we saw this in the beginning of Ukraine. Everybody who was with me when the Russians invaded, we were working really hard to get spaced out and to move at the speed that we needed to, you know, share it with, I’ll just say the right people. We did a much better job, but I’m here to tell you, it would not have supported this. So, you know, working through, I think, real world activities today that are happening, whether they be in the Straits or, you know, even in Europe right now, are opportunities to test this system and find out where the friction points are to take those speed bumps, get rid of them, so that we can actually be able to have confidence in our ability to do this early. Does that make

Erich Hernandez-Baquero:

General, if I may, I want to just piggyback on that, because I 100% agree with what General Harrigian said, and I think we need to really attack that problem with urgency. One of the concerns I have is typically we tend to look at that, well, that’s a future problem. We’re going to wait until we get the new sensors in, or we’re going to wait until we get the new effectors in. But we can start operating that way today with the sensors that we have and the weapons that we have. And I think we need to really get, after rehearsing, how we operate differently. Now, I don’t think — I think sometimes we — I mean, you know, this is something we got to work, because the alternative is we don’t figure out how to do it, and everybody goes their separate ways, and we’ll never get the scale that we really need to do to do this. So to get after that, I do think that there are some enablers, right, that are going to allow us to do something different than we haven’t done before. First off, there’s going to be increased amount of capacity in our overhead systems that’s going to give us flexibility for how we allocate that and apportion that to both intel purposes and for commander’s authority in order to prosecute these kill chains. And so — and there are tools that are currently in development to help make that decision. Second, I think there’s already been a paradigm shift when we openly and acknowledged that space is a warfighting domain, right? There are activities that we need to do in space that sometimes are going to be driven by intel authorities, and there are times where we’re going to have to operate under DOD authority in order to just simply do a protect and defend action. So there’s already a precedent for figuring out how do we take these assets that are multi-mission, multi-role, and operate them under different authorities. And I think what we need to do is just really take how we’ve done that and scale it now and then practice it with these long-range kill chains.

John Rhone:

So if I could add one, I’ll shift a little bit. A lot of times when we talk long-range kill chains, we use the singular. And I think that when we kick off this fight, just like any other fight, there are multiple targets, there are probably multiple long-range kill chains, there are probably multiple long-range weapons going after targets in an environment that is going to change. So how do you orchestrate the sensors? How do you orchestrate the multiple kill chains? And how are you going to ensure that there’s resilience? Erich talked about space. Space you hear is the most highly contested domain. It can’t be the most highly contested domain, and we also ensure that we’re going to have it the entire time. So if it’s the most highly contested domain, we can assume that we’re not going to have those assets for a while. So what is a layered approach to orchestrate those, orchestrate the kill chains and to battle manage those? And we always talk about access to data, ubiquitous access to data. Too much data is too much data sometimes. If you take me on a date to a cheesecake factory, it’s going to take me about 45 minutes to figure out the menu, right, versus trying to give me one or two. I want a steak, I want a salad, and I want maybe some carbs and a bourbon option. So those are the things I think as we start to think about long-range kill chains is how do we manage the intelligence data that we’re going to have to have? How do we manage the surveillance data that we’re going to have to have? And how do we manage the actual deconfliction and orchestration from whether it’s battle managers at the edge, the AOC, it doesn’t matter, but we have to figure out how we do that, and I think we have to consider that as we talk long-range kill chains.

Mike Dupasquier:

And I think the other piece, the changing subjects a little or topics a little bit of is, you know, making sure that when we implement the solution for this, we’re not facing a static threat. The threat’s going to continue to evolve, and they’re going to adapt to whatever we put out there. So the solutions need to be adaptable, and we need to be able to adapt them with speed. So the architectures that we put in place need to be flexible so that we can quickly introduce new weapon systems from an integration standpoint to make sure that when we put that solution in place, we aren’t solving the problem of two years ago, but we’re solving the problem of today. This isn’t going to be something that we just set something up once and then forget about it. We need all the hardware, software, and architectures to be able to support the continuous evolution of that long-range kill chain so that it can really evolve as fast as the threat is evolving.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

Well, the other challenge I think we’ve got to face, and this is not new, you’ve lived this, is beyond line of sight comms. I think we asked for beyond line of sight comms when I was in the Raptor in, like, 2010. How are we doing? I mean, there’s some issues here. If we’re going to get to the kind of situational awareness we’re going to need, because arguably you pointed out, there’s going to be long-range kill chains, and there’s probably going to be some penetrating work to be done at the same time. It’s got to be synchronized. You’re going to have this pulse that’s going to include probably all the above here, and how you ensure when everybody shows up to the line of scrimmage, they have the same situational awareness is going to be hard. And so, you know, as we — and I know, you know, the collective team has been working this for a while. How we get those particular capabilities to those folks that are out front, you all, sons and daughters, that’s going to be critically important, I think, to being able to actually execute the mission to the level of expertise that we know is available to them, but we got to give them the tools.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Just real quick, we’ve been working on this a long time. We’ve taken many first steps. What do you guys think is the first step or the next step that is critical for us to start realizing long-range kill chains and realizing them in the capacity that’s required? Any thoughts on that? Just real quick.

John Rhone:

Unlock data. Find a way to get the right data to the right people for their appropriate level of decision and their level of authority and their level of risk, and then have assets that are integrated into the system of systems that can reach into this data pool, data lake, history major, I don’t know what to call it, reach into that, get the right data, and present that in a format where people can make decisions rapidly.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

I don’t want to hijack this. So I know there were people that were with me when we started to do this, and we were just talking about it. We started doing F2T2 events in Europe. Do it. Once you go out there and actually try this, you are not going to uncover all the gaps that we have in this. And I have absolutely no doubt there are people in this crowd that will figure it out. But if it can — and you can do it at Bamboo Eagle. There’s places that you can go and try to execute this. But until you map out — and Joe Croft is part of this — when we decomposed kill chains and you look at, hey, it’s not a lightning bolt anymore. What is that? And then we go out and do it. I think that will be the first big step to say, okay, here’s really where we’re at. We can look ourselves in the mirror and then prioritize what we need to go fix.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

I’m sorry. Go ahead.

John Rhone:

Can I add to that, sir? And I point the finger at myself. We’ve all, I think, gone through the weapons school, mission deployment phases, or integration phase, or red flag, where we don’t train to failure. Maybe it’s changed now, and if so, then peace. But we white card things that, oh, that didn’t work today, but this is the white card input, so let’s go and execute this thing. And we all win at the very end of this thing. And I recognize the training value. I understand there’s a lot of money spent. But to General Harrigian’s point, if the first time that we fail at this is when blood’s flowing, then I think we’ve probably done some — the country a disservice.

Erich Hernandez-Baquero:

I would add that, I mean, I think in those exercises, it gives us an opportunity to — you know, as we talk about synchronizing across these, you know, space and air domains and different command control systems, we ought to just all be on the same cadence in terms of which targets, which weapons, which sensors, and start working those in priority, right, so that we’re pulling the entire kill chain through in the way that we exercise and test. And then we add capacity, right? So we wire everything now with the sensors and the effectors that we have now, because the fight could break out tonight, right? And so we need to be ready with the capabilities that we have now. And I would do that first. And then as new sensors, new effectors come in, then that just improves our resiliency and improves our capacity.

Mike Dupasquier:

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. I mean, I think it’s about getting the technology we have out there now, trying it out, learning from it so that we know how to adjust, and then, as we were talking about, make those adjustments in our technologies, in our data flows, so that we can learn from these tests and then move forward.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Yeah. I think, like, an experimentation unit, we’ve got an experimental operations unit for CCA. We’ve got one for MA-1 capabilities. What we haven’t done is stood up this experimental unit that can just go out and exercise these things. It’s something that we need to do in Air Force. I heard it here first. Question for all. What technologies do you see as the most promising to advancing long-range kill chains, and how can government partner with industry more closely to deliver them?

Erich Hernandez-Baquero:

Yeah, let me take the first cut at that. One of the things that I’m excited about is one of the offsprings from the operational imperatives for moving target engagement at scale was developing a custody engine, right? So we’ve been working very hard with partners across industry and the government on figuring out what that is, how to do that. One approach that we’ve taken is, into the comment earlier about correlation and data fusion, how to make that work to discriminate targets. We’ve done that before with organic assets that have fire control systems with radar, ESM capabilities, and then have that multi-modal detection and tracking be able to help discriminate. Then you add the multi-ship configurations that bring another element of discrimination to that. Now we’re– so we still enjoy all that, but we’re going to scale that to leverage the space. So we’re tuning these tracking systems to work with space sensors. We’re leveraging AI to infuse– how do we adapt these trackers to new targets and to optimize and tune them appropriately. So I’m really excited about those elements. We haven’t talked about the effectors much. And being from Raytheon, I have to say a few things about effectors. The advancements that we’re making– of course, near term, it’s all about ramping up our rates to meet the demand of our munition needs for the arsenal. But in development, I’ll just put a plug in for our hypersonic advanced cruise missiles technology. We’re excited about the partnership with the Air Force on that and accelerating those. And really, it’s about accelerating production. We’re looking at additive manufacturing, alternate supply chains, leveraging low cost or even COTS elements. We just announced this morning the use of COTS motors for our Stormbreaker missile system. So a lot of exciting things that are going on there. And then, of course, we’ve got a brand new set of space-based communication systems that are coming on that are going to increase capacity, scale, and lower latency. And I’m really excited about what LaserComm brings, both in terms of bandwidth, low latency, and resiliency against jamming and detection.

Mike Dupasquier:

I think from my perspective, the technology that we’re excited about is some of that beyond line of sight communications technology that we’re working and developing, putting in our multifunction processors with General Cropsey’s team to be flexible. And really, I think the partnership with government and really what your question is, is how do we move as fast as possible on that and put that onto platforms so that we can learn, but then also making sure that it aligns from an open standards perspective so it is upgradable, so that as that technology evolves, we’re continuously upgrading those systems to the latest communications that are available, as well as the latest security standards that it needs to meet so that data can be passed securely. I think in terms of what we can do from a partnership standpoint with the government is kind of twofold. First, really understanding some of the government’s roadmaps of where we need to go and the government’s looking to go so that, generally speaking, industry is willing to invest in this. But understanding the roadmaps and having those roadmaps be clear and consistent is what helps enable that industry investment so that we can build the case within our organizations to be making those investments and we can kind of show that clear payoff and where it’s going to lead to in the future. Without being able to articulate what that clear benefit is, it’s going to be hard to justify some of the investments that are needed there. And then I think the second piece of it is as we work through some of the contracts to put these things in place, just having that agile mentality when it comes to requirements to implement what is needed today and not be working to design and test to the corner cases so that we get things out to the field rapidly and learn. Let’s find those corner cases in the field to decide if we really need to fix them in test ranges, opposed to spending time and delaying the design efforts today.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

You don’t have anything, Big Dog? Come on, man.

John Rhone:

I do, sir, but General Cropsey, I don’t want his head to get too big. It’s the speed. It’s what he said. What I think is interesting, it’s not so much the technology, but it’s more of when we have an idea, we can approach people like General Cropsey and say, “Here’s an idea,” and the acquisition process happens. I know there’s discussion about the JSAIDs going away, but when I was or when we were in uniform, coming up with an idea and then getting it to the warfighters, three to five years. Now we can do that in months or single-digit months.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

I think there’s two things here. One is your idea on collaboration here, which we can use the word all the time, but at the end of the day, I think in my short time in industry, it’s been, what are the warfighters’ priorities? What are those key things that need to be fixed and that anybody up here can help you with? The more those priorities are laid out and are crystal clear, I think the faster we can go together. And I know that — and again, not again, keep going back to General Cropsey, but it’s hard work. It’s not easy because it turns into world hunger. And if you don’t go after it from very specific pieces of that problem set, it’s going to take 20 years, and we can’t wait. The second piece I would — and it’s a trendy term. You’ve heard it all. Everybody said it today, data. And I was like, okay, what are we talking about here? Is this weapons quality data? Are we talking about targeting data? What are we talking about? And I think the more specificity that collectively all you ask the hard questions, whether it be of industry or internal to yourselves, that’s something that we’ve got to demand of ourselves going forward here, or else it becomes too ubiquitous. It’s like this big idea, but you’ve got to get specific because that’s how you’re going to close the kill chain.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

I think what each of you are talking about is generally our engagements with industry includes an acquirer, talking to industry, and we send out a requirement and we provide a generational capability, and it tends to be slow twitch. And you guys are often left wondering, what does a warfighter need? That engagement needs to be fast twitch on this rapidly regenerated capabilities. I think that’s a task that we can take from here as well. We’re getting close to closing this time out. No, by the way, we did have an over-under on how many times we were going to say, Lieutenant, or sorry, Major General Cropsey. And the over-under was five and a half. So unfortunately, we’re coming to a close. I’d like to give us just a couple minutes of thoughts. As we get long-range kill chains into the hands of warfighters, can you guys give some thoughts on perspectives on how we can test and/or train just very quickly some of the opportunities and challenges, things we need to think about as we train for long-range kill chains?

John Rhone:

So I think from testing, I’ll go but one left of test in this experimentation. Because I think if we experiment the right way and we deliver a capability, maybe it’s a prototype, maybe it’s a program of record, and then we can start testing, we can execute some combined testing, get all of the bugs fixed that we possibly can simultaneously if possible or very close to that, get the TTPs developed, and then execute those tests in an operationally representative environment versus executing those tests in isolation. I understand that’s expensive. I understand that I’m the guy in the suit, not the uniform who has to figure that out. But until we do that, we’re still going to have bugs in the systems when we try to execute that in operations.

Erich Hernandez-Baquero:

I’ll just add, you know, we’ve taken something — when we think of the long-range kill chain, you know, it’s simple — it’s always hard, but it’s simpler to think about it as kind of this organic thing that I have control over everything. We’ve now spread it over long ranges, lots of different domains, lots of different agencies and services. Just by doing that, we’ve made it extra complex. So we got to do a lot of testing. And the way to — I think we’re going to have to certainly — we got to do real-life experimentation. But it’s really hard to pull off these big experiments. So we need more modeling and simulation to help with this. You know, typically we do a lot of modeling and sim for operational analysis kind of work, or we will do modeling and sim for a very detailed kind of engineering thing. We need the right scale of modeling and sim in order to get these scenarios for the long-range kill chain developed and then test our systems against those. And we should have a scenario or a set of scenarios that we start with and we drive that kill chain through the systems. And we need to do that now.

Gen. Jeff “Cobra” Harrigian, USAF (Ret.):

So completely agree on the modeling and SIM experimentation. But I would argue, hey, we do bomber task force. Do them in the Pacific. Do them in Europe. Giddy up. Let’s try it. I mean, you can simulate this. At least go through the kill chain and figure out where the gaps are and then feed that back into exactly what you’re talking about, Eric, into the — those that are testing and experimenting and trying to sort out what the solution set might look like. Because we’ve all been in the sim. They’re good. But they’re not exactly right. And so I think that’s a way to force ourselves to go, okay, here’s the reality check of what we’re trying to do to get the, you know, target custody, all those things we just talked about, the tasking, asking, and then come back, debrief it, and feed it back into the system.

Mike Dupasquier:

I would just add, again, modeling from a perspective, you know, as all these systems are coming together, pulling together the models to make sure that they’re interoperable and that we can solve these integration issues ahead of trying to solve it to the field. I know we’ve caught numerous integration challenges before fielding that, you know, will allow those experiments to be more successful.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel:

Great. John, anything to add? I know we’re quickly closing. Right? Bottom line is we’ve got to get the capabilities in the hands of warfighters as soon as possible and let them experiment with it before we can get to the capacity we need. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve reached our time. The joint force is developing and delivering long-range kill chains. They’re essential to our force design. Our partnership with industry and the joint force will be key to closing them so we can bring decisive options to our policymakers. Please help me thank this great panel for their insights.