Defense and industry leaders hold a virtual discussion on using hypersonics in defense strategies, June 17, 2020. The panelists are: Dr. Mark Lewis, director of defense research and engineering for modernization; Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Dr. Tom Karako, senior fellow at the International Security Program and director for the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Dr. Timothy A. Barton, chief technology officer for the Dynetics Group at Leidos. The moderator is Marcus Weisgerber, global business editor at Defense One.
Transcript
all right. Today, everyone and thanks for tuning into the defense. One tech summit on Marcus Weisgerber, the global business editor for defense one where I read about the intersection of business to national security. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. I want to thank my colleague Patrick Tucker for putting on this wonderful event and also for allowing me to put on a jacket and tie for the first time in three months, which I actually missed doing very much delighted to spend the next 30 or so minutes with you for our session. Entitled Technology, it’s Peter Sound Hypersea independent An area of intense focus of the Pentagon right now, and it seems a critical technology at the center of great great power competition that’s discussed about with Russia and China. Before we begin, I want to encourage you to submit your questions for our Panelists by tweeting using the hashtag d one. That’s the number one D one Tech summit, and I will try to get to those as much as many questions as I can toward the end of our session. Since we don’t have much time, I’m gonna make like a hypersonic missile and introduced our Panelists really quick. Uh, first, we had Dr Mark Lewis, the director of research and engineering for modernization at the Pentagon. Dr. Lewis. Thanks for joining us, Rebecca. Higher exceed your senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. And Tom Kericho, senior fellow for international security, senior fellow in the International Security program and director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Time. Thank you. And a special thank you to our underwriter for sponsoring our panel. We’re going to have a discussion now, as I said, and then we’ll get to the questions I want to break our discussion down into four key areas. Hypersonic technology, hyper sonics, the funding or the budget. Ah, hyper Sonics, the competition. Visa view, China and Russia and hyper sonics, the industrial base. The doctor Lewis, we will start with with you. This is, ah, relation to the technology. And see the Pentagon has been spending. Uh, is on the sprint a zit, uh, tests and tries to field a number of different hypersonic weapons right now. Give us a little insight into the some. Some of the projects you’re working on. How many of them are you working on? How stable is this technology? And when might we actually see one of these weapons actually being a part of the regular US military arsenal? Sure. Well, thanks for the opportunity. Talking about hypersonic. So? So I e uh he is a term spirit we actually called ever acceleration on which, of course, leads to the pond that we’re accelerating threes within within the office of Secretary Defence. And it’s one of the areas that I think we’ve had, Frank with most success in the past, uh, passable months, actually past year and 1/2 in building a unified plan. Ah, department. Um, well, when you you have underwater uh, I almost answered local. We have won. We have won many in a murder, which is a unified effort. Includes sister. Nervous is the agency’s army a TV Eric for our, uh, missile Defense Agency’s development agency. All the rooms are involved in what we’re doing, and that’s in part representation. That hyper sonics is really more than just one thing, right? When I think hypersonic started, think of a Hominy of speed, maneuverability and also the other Teoh thes things operate that includes rocket Loosli system, which is a tactical scale boost glide, uh, missile program has several important program and everything. Cruise missile demonstrator, Uh, the Army and Navy. Both of very active programs as well, looking at ways to develop this technology in terms of when, um, we have a herd definite goal of the mid 20 twenties and our he here is we want to deliver hyper sonics at scale. And by that I mean, we want to go beyond the prototypes. Right now, we have a number of prototypes on and in place. We want to go beyond those prototypes and actually delivered, right. I think way might have just dropped Dr Lewis for second. We’ll get him back. Tom. Tom, let’s shoot over to you real quick. Um, and, uh, he walk us through. Perhaps you know the purpose of, uh, hypersonic sonic weapons. And, you know, tell it. Tell us kind of when you would envision, you know, us or even and someone like Russia or China actually using a weapon like this. Okay. Hey, Thanks, Marcus. Appreciate the update to be here. Always good to be with with defense one. I would first of all, like Teoh frankly, commends Mark Lewis for what he just said there. I think that’s the first time I heard anybody put it that way and one effort intensive instead of six or seven or eight. And frankly, I say this all the time. But the you know there’s 67 different service and DARPA defense wide programs, and everybody looks at this and kinds of throws up, throws up their hands and says, Why do we have to do all? And, uh, he said, In terms of the commonality, more commonality meets the That’s a look. What’s the mission here? The mission is, is strength fundamentally to reach out and touch things, but to do so in a manner that combines not just the speed, Which is why calling them hypersonic things allies, the rial, the real utility indifference. But it’s the combination of speed, uh, endgame on bid course maneuverability and, of course, some kind of different trajectory. The combination of those things gives them a different ability to conduct the strike missions on other missions, potentially as well as science by just getting there faster. But doing those better Having said that, could you do it with with really slow cruise missiles. Sure you could, but then you’re gonna Mr Time critical targets. And then could you do with ballistic missiles? Well, possibly. But with less maneuverability, especially terminal accuracy. Perhaps you may you may suffer there. And frankly, we just don’t have that many medium or intermediate range ballistic missiles. That may change. Of course. Ballistic missiles of a certain range are themselves hypersonic and speed when they re enter. So fundamentally is the strike mission. But don’t underestimate. And I think I would just urge you not to fall for the for the siren song that well, just because we could have a tomahawk that reach out some distance that this is somehow redundant. It’s the prospect of using this particular combination of characteristics to create structured and integrated attack against them and against us, Right. Ah, Dr Lewis wanted just shoot back to you real quick. I had I did have a follow up in there. You know how you bought all these research and development programs right now? How do you ensure that they actually become, you know, military service, back programs of record? I you know what talkto Former Deputy Defense Secretary Bob work a number of times that he refers to this quote unquote Valley of Death where, ah, you know, it’s very difficult to transition. Uh, you know, R and D program into an actual, uh, service back of procurement. Thank you. Talk about that. Maybe a little bit about your hypersonic acceleration plan and how that might play it through it. Sure. Well, first, I’ll start by saying not every program will become a program record. All right, some of things that we’re doing experimental their prototypes will kick the proverbial tires and some of our some of our efforts. Um, indeed, I say, if everything we’re working on now became a program of record, we’re probably not taking enough risks. Having said that, you’re exactly right. We need we need to bridge that proverbial valley of death that we need to eliminate the Valley of Death. The way we’re doing is we’re working hand in glove with the services on everything that we’re doing. Um, so, for example, I mentioned the Air Force Arrow program or Arrow bills directly on the work that’s being done at DARPA on the tactical boost fly. That means we’ve got the Air Force folks work an arrow, working directly with the dark folks of dark books, working directly with the Arrow Arrow program, figuring out how we do experiments as part of T B G. That’s affable boost flight of DARPA that will factor directly into the success of Arrow. And that’s just one of many examples. Um, we all have this firm fixed goal of delivering capability, right? These air no longer science projects on a lot of things that are being under the left. And so with that mindset across the range range of activities that were involved in, I think I think we’re making headway and bridging that that valley. What were you in the past year? What do you attribute the slow pace of, ah, transition over the past? Is it just kind of, you know, the the leadership aspect of it, or is it something else? So I have ah, very dear friend. An aviation story by the name of decal, Ian likes to say, and old history is personal. It really comes down to personalities, and it comes down to people driving, driving purchase. Certain goal, I think, frankly, has been one of the issues that we’ve had with hyper sonnets. Um, you know, if I look at some of our past successes, So the one that jumps out at me was the Air Force’s X 51 program. Extra fee. One was incredibly successful program. The last time we flew, it was in 2013 and the reason that we only we haven’t flown since then was that they were, frankly, some decisions that were made at the time not to invest in the technology. And I think now we have leadership at all levels of the Pentagon. But coming from the front office, recognizing the importance of this technology and realizing we need to put our foot on the proverbial Yes, so that’s that. Certainly. What’s driving this, Rebecca. I want a transition to you. I want to talk about hyper Sonics. The funding Last week that Senate Armed Services Committee is mark above the fiscal 21 nd a quote encouraged, Todt allocates to fishing resources and prioritize the supersonic missiles, specifically China. I know that’s that’s basically from counter hypersonic, but how do you see, uh, hypersonic spare in the budget battles that are expected in the months and years ahead? As you know, the defense Pleasure largely is expected to flatten regardless of the election. It’s in November. Be here, Thank you. All of my fellow Panelists. For part of the discussion, I would just say a on the budget piece in Congress. I have been very encouraged that some of the movements here there is, ah, strong bipartisan support for her shifting to great power competition. Specifically looking at some of the the kinds of weapons systems BG to deter Chinese aggression and hypersonic offense and defense were certainly part of that, um, heart, part of the solution there. You just mentioned that the part of the bill that just passed out of the committee But I would just note that Chairman in Half and Breaking Men are remember Senator Reid have been working very closely on the Pacific Deterrence Initiative to try to make sure that there is a way in which Congress and the department in particular can focus on the end up a con, a challenge and making sure that we’re prioritizing that region. And so things like I’m hyper sonics hypersonic depends or certainly part of that. So if I’ve been encouraged, especially on the on the on the best piece you’ve actually seen Congress step in there when the department hasn’t put but specific money into priorities. So there’s been a mismatch, I think, especially on the hypersonic defense side of things, on what is a priority, especially coming from Under Secretary Griffin saying that the defense peace is also very important. And then there’s been a lack of funding there in the budget request. It’s been Congress, in fact, that has gone in and put more money into certain things like HP TSS for that space center layer, which is a necessary part of hypersonic. So, um, I’m just first time just for some comparisons. Uh, over last year, the F y 2120 budget request from D. O. D. With $2.6 billion for the offensive part and 206.8 million for hypersonic defense, you can see the mismatch there, and then this year it was, um, bumped up to $3.2 billion. So significant increase and we have seen Congress really respond positively to that. And in my hope is that a artistic consensus continues. I have so much of this open source, you know, documentation enter that. It’s there’s a grasping for a sort of requirements and what things were necessary to determine how much money should be allocated for this. But Congress did man days in in the f Y 2019 a bill for a lot of this information that would help Congress decide how much money should be allocated for these particular up assistance versus others. And that is, is in classified form. Um, and and since there that is helping to inform Congress, maybe we can actually pivot to the counter. Hyper hyper sonics. Ah, discussion For a moment, Dr Lewis will shoot over to you way here. We here. You know, this is coming up a lot on earnings calls with CEOs, cos they’re talking about the increased effort efforts. Remember, during a number of my discussions with Tom Kennedy, former CEO, right? Right. Right down before its merger with UTC. You know, he was constantly touting this. Well, can you talk to us kind of about maybe the counter hypersonic strategy strategy And you know what? What’s involved in that and in stuff like patriot or are fat or GMD, um can that be modified to actually address the hypersonic read or ah, Is this going to require completely new build types of technology and systems? Sure. So let me let me first address the overall issue The hypersonic spread. So, you know, I think there has been a There’s been a a keen recognition that we are indeed in a race in this technology area and, you know, as I somewhat a Zeiss a with some frustration, we kind of did the homework for the rest of the world hypersonic scenario that we essentially invented. We did the fundamental research. We did the development and then because we kind of took our foot off the gas, um, other people were able to pick up on what we had dio have done build on our success is and and recognize the importance of this technology. And so, uh, defensive part is is absolutely critical as we go forward with the offense apart, I think we’ve got a general recognition. If I’m gonna defend against hypersonic systems, there are a couple of key things that I need to dio. The very first thing I need to do is to be able to detect a hypersonic weapon flying at and respond quickly enough. So we’ve put a significant investment on the tech side that that’s one of the major efforts underway under the Space Development Agency. Right? Be able to detect that. Ah ah, hypersonic lunch. Um, then responding. So you’ve asked about technological solutions. So let me let me not get into specific weapons systems. But I can’t depending on the hypersonic weapon. And there are many different varieties high percentage systems area rocket Who supplies or cruise missiles. Ladies have their own own responses. It is very difficult to stop a hypersonic weapon. That’s why we want to pursue them. That’s why are your competitors air percent? But it’s not impossible. There are. There are ways to do it. Uh, some of existing technologies, some of technologies that that we’re building. Um, so there are answers. There are solutions, but it’s definitely an area that we see a need for increased effort. Tom, you have any thoughts? I’m hot. I know you have props encounter on counter hypersonic defense. Um, with their expertise in a missile defense, you know what? How do you foresee? Ah, you know what? Because we made a large focus on hyper sonics right now. How do you see the counter hypersonic development? Very well. First of all, I think Mark’s right that they think should go hand in hand. Having said that, certainly from a budgetary perspective, there’s a big mismatch. I’m really between the strike of defense. But also between the I would say, the attention and the kind of buying on the defense side Broadway. And so what? I’m you know, if you go back and read, uh, the N s study from 2016 that Mark chaired, there’s the nice comment in there, that kind of lax the department lacks in 2016 the D. O. D. Wide coordination and really motivation. In terms of the defense side, I would be a little bit less sanguine than Rebecca Waas in terms of this overall set, which is, I don’t see the deal, the wide leadership on the defense, that that’s laddie, and that where you’ve seen Congress come in and say to the department, Hey, what’s going on here? You know, how are you gonna even keep going on HB TSS if you cut it, you know, from 10% from last year’s you saw in March of this year, so I’m a little more concerned on the defense side that we’re not proceeding as we are in Congress on a bipartisan, bicameral basis is I think they’re holding the Pentagon’s feet to the fire there as they should. And so I think what you need. There is a little bit of high level shape to actually articulate and more than has been done so far. How the offense and defense or how it all makes sense. And then you go back to your original question. Marcus, you know, today’s four families of of Defense of things. Perhaps they could be adapted. They’re probably not gonna be sufficient off the shelf today. But where’s the standard missile with a fad or or pack three, something like that. So you’re gonna have to have at least adaptation. But back to the institutional thing. You know that HB TSS sensor? We have have to have a department wide vision on who’s going to do this. And what’s the relationship between SDA and M. D. A. And I’m a little concerned about the lack of of one message. There was policy. I want to Rebecca. I want to pivot to you and talk about actually the competition, which we have alluded to, uh, throughout the discussion thus far, Um, where are Russia and China in terms of their of their hypersonic weapon development? Um, you know, it’s it’s been stated for a number of years now that that, uh, that they were head, um And what will it, uh, why’re they head? And what will it take for the U. S. To gain ground back there? Yeah, things. The question. I just if I could just CAG onto the last comment I said about how Congress has been the one that has put money into some of these programs. Even whatever the budget request hasn’t come in from department. I would also ask you just for my conversations with people on the hill that there is a bit of it, even though there is, there is great bipartisan support for moving out on this. There is I wouldn’t call necessarily fatigue. But there is frustration. That does seem Teoh seem to be the case that the department doesn’t have isn’t making the arguments for themselves when it comes to the actual budget numbers. And so this Congress continuing to come back and put more money into these into these pots. Whatever replaces and there is is becoming a problem in a frustration for for for some members of Congress, uh, t to your question, I just ate. I think Mark answered this well, a little bit touched on it, that really the Russians have a taken event, and the Chinese have taken a lot of our own technology. We’ve done a lot of homework for them, and the Russians are the most advanced on. And then it begun point testing some of these things bragging about some of the capabilities that they have. And in the Chinese, Um, hence it looks like they are. They are using a lot of the same kinds of technologies, and I would even argue something that I’ve noticed over the years. The Chinese tend to use some of the same arguments that the Russians use for why they’re developing in per student certain technologies to, regardless of whether or not they’re those His arguments are true. They do going to carry a lot. Wait. And I think this point is is beautiful because I see it in a lot of American literature for explaining why the Russians and the Chinese were pursuing these technologies, and it’s almost kind of taken us just gospel is true, and that is that it’s in response to what the United States is doing. So it’s, you know, the United States is acting provocatively. You’re acting aggressively or it’s in response to American missile defense distance. And so if it wasn’t for American missile defense distance, the Russians and the Chinese wouldn’t have to build these new kinds of systems. I think Tom Tom does a great job of explaining why those diseases where they have different characteristics, they’re not. They’re not so different in some ways a certain as some of the ballistic missiles, especially in terms of seats that are. But they do have unique characteristics that make them challenging to see, um and have some heads up that they’re coming, so that makes them particularly useful. But I think it’s important to push back on this idea that it’s American missile defense systems or what the United States is doing in response. None of America’s missile defense systems that we have deployed and that they’re developing our men’s to Teoh, actually, uh, counter what Russians have in the Chinese have And so these really are, you know, the Russians decent utility in having these advanced capabilities. And so the United States is moving out, shifting towards competing There is this great sense of urgency now, to not only defends lives seem that the section there provided by Congress, that’s what we see is very vulnerable. Um, it regionally, especially with the Chinese because of these weapons distance, but also having an inability to counter into responds. Um And so that’s where our motivation comes from this year, the ones actually that are kind of caught responding to what what these two countries have been. I’m really pursuing with some with a lot of resources and time and energy and focus in a way the United States simply has not. And so I did. You want to kind perspective? Because you see that across all kinds of literature, that that’s why the Russians and the Chinese are you, Um, but it’s simply not true. Now, maybe work can comment on this because of the pasting. What I’ve seen is that I’m not so discouraged that the United States is just so just so behind. Ridge’s just pointless at this time to catch up. You know, it takes some motivation for the United States toe in some political leadership at the top to get to get back to this. But I’ve been very encouraged by what I’ve seen. Um, and we should in the next few years and work and you can correct me get give actual point where we do have a strategic advantage in some of these ways, but it does take political leadership from the top. It does take working hard at making sure that we maintain this bipartisan consensus and there are things that would be useful. I know from industry who are eager to to provide the department what they want and wants to provide what they want at scale, like my Mark said, and some of those things that would be and that that are the most cost effective. And that means that some of these having more granularity on requirements and what it is specifically that we’re going to use before and how we’re going to use them operational. It would be very, very helpful for some people who were trying to get the department what they want. But I very much appreciate and I can’t say this enough, Uh, marks willingness to say that you know some of these programs rocking programs or record because we are being a little risky here. And sometimes the United States can be too risk averse, and we tire hands and explodes down our ability to get something. Field it. And I think it’s really important from set hyper Sonics and competition that we make the point that seed is so important here. We’re trying to get something fielded as quickly as we can because we’re trying to deter. They need to actually use these things. And so we’re making up for a lack that’s there. And that’s why there’s a There’s this great pressure coming down on getting something fielded quickly that’s going to close that deterrent. Yeah, I think that exists, right? Mark, Did you want Did you want toe? I would do what she said. Was that some for me? So I love I love the The correction that that were that that China and Russia are not are not just responding to us, I’d also point out, by the way we would be I think we would be pursuing this technology regardless of whether anyone else were pursuing it. Although obviously we have a sensible, alas, pretty. Because we do see ourselves in a bit of a competition. Um, I do agree. I do believe now we’re on a path to not only field weapons successfully, but to to seize the lead in this technology area. Um, I will say this throughout threat All all the discussions about where we stand versus, uh, potential. You know, potential adversaries, peer competitors. Um, one thing that the United States has never lost lead on is that is the innovation in this area. Frankly, if you look at every concept that we’ve seen in hypersonic every every every weapons system, every application, uh, they all come from the United States. So I’ll come from our research community, and that is our tremendous advantage and continues to here will continue to be. Our banner doesn’t move forward markets fighter jumping on that, too, in terms of you know, why Russian China want these things and forget all the mirror imaging stuff. Um, you know, I think fundamentally what’s at stake here is the fact that we’re differently situated on the United States, puts a lot of emphasis on power projection over there and these sort of things that air again in terms of structuring and a complex attack on our bases and four forces, you know that it’s about the place of the US from the world. And this and other things pose a particular problem to our power projection. Full stop. I want to remind our audience real quick. You can ask a question on Twitter using the hashtag d one tech summit. I want to discuss the industrial base and ah, Dr Lewis, I know A few months ago you launched the study of the industrial base and on, and I created a so called a hypersonic war room. Um, I presume there’s no fighting in there to determine Dr Strangelove, Joe. Yeah, determinative chokepoints and vulnerabilities in the U. S. Supply chain. Can you share any early findings? And last week, the data and analysis firm Savini, they released a report that highlighted that did highlight a number of supply chain vulnerabilities within hypersonic industrial base. How do you mitigate or get rid of some of those vulnerabilities? Right, So as you’re exactly right, So under Secretary Lord Ellen Lord, our undersecretary for acquisition sustainment kicked off the war room in her organization. I’ve been code sharing it with the assistant secretary defense given pay heed and and, um, you know, there are many aspects to it, so so industrial base has has obviously lots of nuances to it. It’s not just the primes, but also the teething, or that you’re to the Tier three, the lower tier spires. And those are the ones that were particularly worried about. And also I will mention that with the response to the covert pandemic, or even a little bit more concerned about the help and and and, uh, and resilience of of some of our suppliers. So I’ll tell you right now it’s still a work in progress. I can’t give you any any final conclusions of where we are, I can tell you we are looking across my chain. Ah, the Tier One suppliers have been extremely helpful in identifying what their vulnerabilities were, um, where they thought we should be focusing our our emphasis. I’ll also point out that that some of the primes have been doing a great job of all strength, their their spy change. So looking down their supply chain and on their own independent government of the government on their own. The the crimes have been making sure that they have shored up the all theirs fires companies that they’re working with. I mentioned What are other aspect is placing that we’re very concerned about that is workforce. So we’ve got a really strong emphasis on workforce and that starts with the university’s. So we’ve got a major effort underway. We’ve got the joint hypersonic technology up, joined hypersonic transition office um, and Wonder one of their activities is to set up a university consortium, which will be, ah, large academic effort that tries to pull in some of our leading universities, including some of the nontraditional players of hyper sonics. You know, the folks that maybe did have worked the high temperature materials but haven’t really played at the hypersonic working systems engineering but have Nestle hypersonic to bring their skills, bring their students to Teoh bearing the problems that we’re pursuing. Tom Perhaps, do you have any insights here in the in the industrial base? I don’t want to read something from the From the Grazzini report from last week, it said. Overall, Chinese suppliers make up a low share of a low share of suppliers in the course sectors that supply the type top hypersonic contractors. And Tom, maybe Rebecca, too. How can, uh, you know, this? This certainly seems like it’s it’s concerning, Um how does you know one. How do you mitigate into how does how maybe Congress are, uh, you know, Pentagon, in your opinion, way in Teoh address this? Yeah, Well, look, I look forward to reading Marx study when it comes out like a rug. First of all, you know what’s different about these thankful front and center. Is there kind of the environment that they’re they’re operating in thermal otherwise. So obviously the China thing is is part of that making you have the folks here in the U. S. They’re capable of material to do that kind of thermal work. The second thing would be, you know, the command control so that whenever it gets over there that you are able to communicate if you need to re target and all that sort of stuff, especially in a denied bar. So that’s a piece that sometimes gets overlooked with long range this that now that and then the third thing would be testing facilities, including windows. You know, we actually used to have a lot more hypersonic wind tunnels then we do today on and having, as it turns out, the ability to recreate the the environment at the pressure and speed on making sure it’s clean, clean, hot air. What have you and doing that on the ground? That’s gonna be important. Having the facilities to have all Wilson defense wide programs come in there. There’s gonna be a line. People taking a number two test there. Uh, they’re gliding, uh, body or what have you? So you know the test facilities. Easy to overlook. You gotta flying too. But it’s a lot cheaper on. It’s important to be able to watch the ground testing too. Mark, can we Can we go back to you for a second on the terms of your testing? Yeah. You know, he clearly need overland. At least you need I would presume a ton of space Teoh to test 11 of these weapons weapons. And, you know, within minutes, I presume just from thinking of, you know, test ranges, be it in Nevada, Florida, Mexico. You didn’t get would very quickly seemly get over Ah, populated areas. So how do you go about you? How is has the duty looking at testing and how wear on and types of Ah, maybe censors and what? Not that you would need to do this, so, you know, you’re exactly right. So what? One of the advantages that some some other nations have is that they have an easier time testing overland. Um, we’re doing most are long are long scale testing over water, especially in the Pacific range. Um, you know, we recently did a test in March over the Pacific. That’s where we tested x 51. That’s where we plan to do most of our upcoming flight tests. Um, we’re looking opening up other Carter’s looking at other solutions for overland testing as well. Um, one of things that we’re really focused on right now is we are ramping up in a major way to do more flight testing so that over the next four years we have a 40 new flight tests plan. Um, that’s one of the things that were that’s that’s part of our acceleration plan. We need to fly early. We need to fly often. We need to get back into the air. And, um so So you’re precisely right highlighting that I want to go back to the point it was made about Brown test facilities, actually, a critical issue. I resonate with that completely. Um, we we did spend many years Decommissioning hypersonic Hess facilities. And I used to point point out that if you if you plot, we were Decommissioning cuddles. And if you plotted the rate at which China was building tunnels, the ones they would tell us about the slopes were the same, but the signs were opposite. So they were building tunnels at about the same rate that we were decommissioned girls. Um, and today we see our various programs Air France, like climbing over each other to try to get time in our window. So that’s something that we’re also addressing looking at new testing, evaluation, investments. We’ve got some investments underway at Arnold Injury Development Center. We’re looking at other facilities around the country. It’s also one of the reasons we’re looking to our universities. So, you know, it’s just one example one of the ways that we would study flow over hypersonic vehicles. Look the state of the boundary layer the flow is right on the surface of the vehicle and are right now our premier state of the art wind tunnel. To do that is located at Purdue University on the, uh, on their campus. So that’s part of our outreach to our university partners. Has coat has Corona virus. And, uh, you know, closure of universities around the country and such Is that is that had any type of major impact yet on testing Is research that ***? So, um, I wouldn’t say major impact. It has had an impact. We’ve already had some other efforts where, because of various aspects related to the pandemic, we’ve had to slow down. I’m in one case, we had a team that, um but they had exposure and had a stand down. Although fortunately turned out that that was a false alarm. Um, as you know, the university so mostly closed up their campuses. Um, most of the universities have, in fact, had shut down all but they’re critical research activities. Um, so, yes, it’s obviously had an impact. But in our major programs, we’ve still been able to maintain over Mitt, just jump in here real quick markets on the rest in peace that I think it is so critical. You get three other reason that flight testing is so important, obviously, just to improve these systems and figure out what works best and, you know, move past mistakes and improve it all that’s crippling form. It’s also important for the adversary to see that we’re doing it. And so this thats the testing is important to actually bolster our credibility for deterrence. Animal Davidson has made this point, I think, very eloquently as he as he talks about trying to make sure that we are bolstering to turns in the in the Pacific, in particular the deterrence by denial. We’re frying to to, you know, complicate the adversaries calculus that that they’re able to get off on active aggression, you know, at a political causalities worth it. But then is the part of that is obviously developing capabilities so that we have been fielded. But it’s showing them that we are competing, that we are contesting your ability to do this, creating multiple dilemmas and so that that the testing pieces just so critical, I think, or for shoring that up even before we get stuff like where we’re making these things. I’m, you know, operational good times. All right, Rebecca, you’re gonna end up having the last word today because we have we have wrong, under the time, very disappointed in our viewers that we did not get any questions on Twitter. Ah, and probably suspect that that’s because ah, ah, lot of our viewers aren’t on Twitter, and, uh, you’re you’re better off, and you’re probably happier. Uh, anyways, I want to thank all of our Panelists for joining us today. I very much enjoyed the conversation, and I want to turn things over right now to my colleague Sam Jacks. Hey, thanks so much, Marcus. And thanks for leading that excellent conversation. And thanks again to the Panelists. Now, I’d like to welcome Dr Timothy Barton from our strategic underwrite Applied owes to the virtual stick Ege. Thanks, Sam. Uh, trying to share my screen here. Can everybody see that