gas capacity among our alliance and we need to pool that effort in ways that has fighting capability not only in our navy. >> and what has been your experience in working in the u.s. with american companies, the exchange of ideas. with can you tell us, what we just mentioned we have to figure out the opportunity and so, start to have that and with the technology we can share and we can co-develop for the future market. that's the area that we are taking the opportunity for the future program, but in the meantime, we also have good

conversation for the-- just for the combatant program for korean navy as well, like the-- we have the good cooperation drs for the next generation korean destroyer and the-- and we time to time talk to lockheed martin to develop the new market for the foreign navy export like the-- so some military vessels on there. and there are a couple of -- it's happened. also, we engage with the american ship builder and we open our ship yard to invite them to show the-- our facility and how we're working on our ship building again, and that's the start that we can have -- which area we can have cooperation. >> and are you face-- do you face opposition that hyundai is taking american jobs

or how do you look at those issues? >> we're not replacing any american jobs, actually, so we think the analyzed ship costs, 70% of the costs comes from the ship yard, it's the procurement and do only 20% and then -- so if we can translate to u.s. ship building industry, it can create, expand the maritime industry inside the u.s. which means we can create more jobs in the u.s. and not replacing any american jobs. that's our thoughts, so, we think that we can help the u.s. ship building industry to have-- to strengthen its capability and we may have more jobs in america which will be mainly for the maritime industry. >> thank you. jim, let's go to the subject of innovation and the experiences

thinking about what's happening in ukraine and the pressure to innovate quickly, which the ukrainians have met quite well. how are you thinking about that? how is the company thinking about that and does our system make it easy to do that? you can see the opportunities, but sometimes it's actually difficult to act on them. certainly, so, i think one thing that we're working on and really the primary credit goes to the u.s. army and the way they've structured this, the program xm30, combat vehicle, intended to replace the bradley. it's one of the erm a army's pioneer programs and enforcing pretty strict modular open systems approach standards so they've kind of defined the architecture they want to use. and the goal there is to make it significantly easier to integrate a new component. so if a better jammer is developed, a better sensor is

developed. it can be frp much more easily and quickly put on the platform because the platform itself, the steel box, engine and transmission, that technology will continue to evolve. it evolves very slowly, but the technology that's in the electronics, in the sensors, in the warheads, the software, na changes very rapidly. so the ability to swap those components out, i think, gives the army a lot of flexibility to make changes as they see things evolving on the battlefield. >> so, that's a positive story. the army has been able to do that pretty quickly and in response to events as they unfold? >> right now i'd say that the promise is there. we haven't actually delivered the platform and so i -- we're kind of pioneering in the space and when you're a pioneer that ends one of two ways, either you're lewis and clark and you get parks and statues and that sort of thing or you're a

downer party and everyone freezes in a cave. [laughter] >> i'm hoping the first one. >> be positive. >> i know. but we're going to have to deliver the platform and then the proof is in the pudding as to whether that approach really works. i believe in it, i really do and it's just going to be aage cha challenge to get there. >> and i'll ask a question, when you say allied cooperation, where should we be in a few years. >> i say that because when i started out at the pentagon many years ago, i went in as a young grad student and i thought, gee, i'm going to learn about international defense cooperation, and i got to the pentagon and quickly realized, like, well, one, everyone sort of wanted to build their own tank. everyone wanted to do things their way and i figured out over time that probably wasn't a match for me, that was it really?

and today we're here some 30 years later knowing that it's really a necessity, right? that we need to pool our resources because of the threat that we face. what can we hope to achieve the next five years or what would make it possible in your mind? obviously, this is a hugely complex issue. steve, what do you hope for in this domain? >> the first thing that i hope for is that ship builders and ship buyers take advantage of some programs that are -- that are new and ever present and yet to be tapped. and that they last get behind some initiatives, following initiatives that would make things better. so i would explain. the first thing is, everybody knows that there's been about 1.1 trillion dollars putting into the money and also the ira money, and in discussions over

the last couple of years with department of energy, we now have the ability to make the-- some of those funds available to the ministries that were primarily focused on ev's and light trucks. and the advanced manufacturing program is about $45 billion, and we're talking, i think, ford, general motors got 9 and 8 billion dollars respectively to build ev plants and now shipyards, greenfield, modernizing something that already exists in operation, that there's not been a single ship builder yet to apply for a loan, but that many is there and that's underwritten by goe and that's treasury rates. and the second, title 17 clean air financing program, that's treasury loans for the ship buyer, 70 billion dollars there. and when the secretary went to

meet with the ceo of maersk, said if you could finance ships through goe, would you do it? of course, you in america can't build the kind of ships we want it buy. if we could build the ships that you want in america, would you prefer to buy in america, especially in times of conflict? he said yes. not only are we trying to do on the supply side, meet with ship builders and tell them about the new possibilities to invest in american shipyards, but on the demand side to speak to the world's biggest ship buyers and tell them that they also have some great incentives to take advantage of and then all the efforts ongoing, you know, you've heard of probably the kelly legislation and the legislation, the ships act, in various things related to that. in title 46, we went and saw pete buttigieg and secretary buttigieg and del toro have

authorities in law to build ships, what they cost overseas except that account hasn't been funded since 1983. if money can be built into that account we could build ships in america for the same price built overseas and that's how we had 7,000 flag ships and the world's biggest ship builders in 1960's and 1970's, still in law and then also a lot of collaboration that we need to do on work force development. in fact, you know, i'll give a shout out to hyundai and we signed an agreement between mit, versus of michigan-- university ever of michigan and hyundai and to tap into the expertise that the koreans have in their shipyards and also at the national university is assigning to this to get after a major weakness we have in the u.s., there's only one university left in america, one

ro1 university in america, to post doc in ship building. we don't have any of the engineers, office managers, and if you were to open a ship yard in the u.s., there would also need to be a lot of things done to bring your white collar work force and management over because we in america don't have that skill set anymore. there are a whole bunch of things going on right now to try to tackle the problem what i said in the beginning, in order to make the business case, we need to create a conducive set of incentives for commercial ship building in america that then sort of allows competition and great advantage to naval ship building there after. >> thank you so much. mr. lee, allied defense cooperation, obstacles and opportunities in the broad sense from your perspective. >> definitely adhering to the

u.s. law and regulation. so, i think that that is the main hurdle. but the opportunities -- we think we have to make them more broad terms like maritime industry. ... we can have cooperation between two countries. we can build up the great ecosystem for the maritime industry. we could have used shipbuilding industry also have -- [inaudible] so that is a win-win strategy. >> thank you. >> i guess two points. one, back to the workforce topic, sort of pivot off of

that. some of our immigration laws are really challenging not necessarily permanent come immigration talk about here but with a difficulty getting the necessary paperwork to bring some for engineers over from europe to help train our engineers and some of the workers will be building the sickles in the plants here in the u.s. we have had to bring them over temporary time and then send the back for a couple of weeks and then bring the back over, and it wastes of money to put them on a plane that often but that is unfortunately what the rules require because the paperwork is fairly onerous. low ranked some of those barriers particularly i think you are working defense programs for national security of the united states i think that would be beneficial. the second thing across the allied nations, it's very difficult to agree on how to harmonize requirements. to build a jet, to build a ship, to build a tank all of our needs are so different that is a

pretty unrealistic and we have seen programs that fell apart because ultimately one or more countries backed up and change their mind. but i do think it's achievable for us to agree on some standards and some boring things like interfaces for components. imagine a missile with a seeker if we reached an agreement on the interfaces between that seeker and the missile we might develop a seeker that were not willing to export to other countries even to our allies but it would be much easier for allied nation to put their own seeker on that same missile, and now we've achieved some synergies between countries and across allied nations. standards like that and a positive example, u.s. and nato agreed on standards for artillery ammunition along e ago so we're all able to fire one another's ammunition through our canids, and the ukrainians are benefiting from that

foresight, back in the '60s '60d '70s. more efforts like that, really boring engineer level would be beneficial. >> i love all those edges because their concrete and implementable. now to my friend in the front row and can introduce yourself and stager affiliation. >> i will. great panel, thanks, everybody. defense and aerospace report. my question is to you, steve. almost everybody would welcome an notion of increasing american capacity, getting ships built out faster but we understand somethings are exquisite like submarines that will take longer but everything else we can move faster. the frustration some people in the u.s. existing and social base have is we are where we are in part because of the united states navy. naval sea systems command has a way of doing that. secretary spencer reached out brought in prime for the consolation frigates and almost as one of their innovations has

not been adopted for whole variety of reasons. i'm not trying to make a case in this ultimately but it was designed to indicate and change the system and it said the system complete change the ship. it's them were expensive, it would be deliberately late. what are the things the navy can do to accelerate this process? whether it's for existing yards because they feel remarkably straitjacketed the navy has a certain way of doing think, some of them predicated for good reasons that date back to 1940s but there's plenty of stuff you can do completely differently. even if you brought hyundai and is highly automated systems to the united states there might be an '05 who ago that's just not how we do things. he just had to go back and do it ask why ncua. what does make have to do to change this dynamic fundamental? >> first of all, what the current secretary has stated clearly since he's been in a position is standardization and

no changes. in fact, we have granted flexibility instead of putting more changes in working constraints on them, or just keeping things as they are, we have given the more flexibility. to try to get that ship back on schedule and out on time. he is looking at internally, and as you mentioned, the things that have been put in place over the years. each one with good intentions but they accumulate and make things, make things more competent. a good example of doing things quickly and on budget on time and the federal government, and this is one of the recent secretary set up the ship of builders council so we have a new council that includes format departments and has dhs, coast guard. it is commerce, noaa, transportation and dod, army and

navy come five federal shipbuilders and ship containers come together to ship perspectives, partly he stated that because he was impressed with the national security vessel that was built up the second one was just rolled out and delivered. the ships building for the first time in 40 years for the state maritime, that program is on time and on budget. part of the reason is of course marad does not have to meet a lot of super onerous requirements that really makes things harder to build and make the price go up. there is a differentiation in types of ships. right? some of the requirements need to be more stringent for combatants have to do things the russians don't have to do. be survivable but there's of the ships of course that might not have to meet those requirements.

has also called for innovation in the manufacturing process. we really focus on innovation of like weapon systems. the u.s. gizmo gadget out there and what we could benefit a lot more from his actual innovation and how we build things. if we could build things that are not super innovative but we need but we build them in an innovative way, where there on time and much less expensive and much higher quality, so we call all these other entities on how can we get more innovation in production manufacturing? that doesn't have to occur overseas. that can also be homegrown here, the innovative here and u.s. because that's what we are known for. so that's what i would say. >> thank you. the gentleman behind and then we have time for one more, sure. >> two quick questions. what i'm hearing about the ship

capacity, what would be the new concept for the liberty ships for supply chains for world war ii? would supply chain ships be able to be outsourced? but more i'm curious with korea having a green city. are we closer to a green fleet? do you have ships that are much more green? with being able to put batteries in boats and computers. you should be able to run less on nuclear, even use motion of the ship for hydra. are you it modern compulsion that's more green? >> we do the system for the commercial ships. we develop the maximal field and -- [inaudible] but for the military ship we still rely on the conventional oil for propulsion system. we are applying some of the

hybrid propulsion. it is for, to have a more i find operational profile, we can have small electric motor during low-speed which will eventually have a more efficiency propulsion system. >> last question. the woman -- yes. >> thank you very much. i worked as a researcher at georgetown university. i have a question regarding the newly published actually just been published this year defense industrial strategy at the european commission put forward with the message of allowing and

like promoting the defense procurement within the european union as being primarily from european defense companies. and i am wondering what do you see opportunity for something that could be seen in transatlantic cooperation, given the fact that we will have this primacy for the european union, thank you. >> jim, if you want to comment? i'm happy to also. >> i apologize, i have not that study so i don't know what all the implications are. but i presume from your question it would limit the export of materials from european and other countries. i think that's going to make it challenging and, frankly, i don't think the european defense companies will appreciate that because they want to keep working and exporting to keep their lines running.

so i think, i suspect that a shortsighted but i the city sydor would want to comment more than that. >> i haven't read it either it will just say that the outgoing nato secretary general stoltenberg had remarked on the board's of keeping the focus on data as opposed to a separate european defense capability, and i'm agreeing, i very much agree with them. i would read that study with that in mind. thank you so much, everyone. [applause] good morning and welcome to the has is a too. i'm tim walton senior fellow at hutchinson for defense concept that technology and a delighted

all of you have made the time to join what should be i think an illuminating conversation with some illustrious leaders in the field. to reduce them i will start up with michael kuenzli is a deputy, deputy assistant secretary of the army for exports and cooperation, distinguished career in army aviation and to serve as an acquisition civilian in aviation but also army space and missile roles and is now focus on export controls, or export controls and et cetera exports to allies apart is our second panelist is rob smith who would servef innovation officer at saab and corporate. he prayed to serve as a british, professor and helps stand up nato defense innovation exxon et cetera for the north atlantic and the nato innovation fund in his role as nato's first and inaugural head of innovation. lastly, we have mr. mike smith who after starting his group in the u.s. navy served as in

various roles in uap systems, lockheed martin, as president hii nuclear power business and in our conversation he helped establish joint venture in india. he is now defensive usa president and ceo. in terms of her plan for today i plan to kick off the conversation with a few questions for panels and opening it up to questions and comments all of you may have. my first question asked before each of you please of the topic of the unique contribution allies can bring. mosier conversation today's focus on what can allies bring in terms of defense and social capacity? driven by the war in ukraine and the prospect of a potential conflict with china we're looking to allies contributions to either excellent defense and doesn't capacity here or across the broader defense industrial space. i think it's fair to say allies

have unique perspectives, either their geographic situation, security circumstances, technology basis can differ and that tends to bring different ideas regarding operational concepts what's promising of works. wanda asked did you what are your observations been regarding promising areas each allies come up with us role of the circumstances. the commission with the trend or should be shared more broadly. >> i'll start. certainly what we've seen here recently is just an unprecedented demand on, it is really driven by ukraine, on innovation, on the sharing of technology and just international agreements in general. that's been one of those things that we've had to adapt to but the real benefit we have is, is we have more folks, more partners and allies with shared values that are contributing to

our ability to take our weapons systems forward, to build resilient supply chains, to go distribute production facilities. so all of that is beneficial. >> thank you, michael. >> let me pick up on that and take it further perhaps. when we think about allies and how will put my old hat on now, ten years on the secretary-general staff and lived and breathed this through the of brussels at least. there is very much a political element when we think about this. whilst perhaps the logical approach is to have areas of specialization among countries, try to make things as sufficient as one might wish to see, the politics of that makes that incredibly difficult, and a credibly hard because of motions of summer did sort of a

nationstate, how we operate, de lafayette fonz. i think how allies bring some of these -- via phone. i think actually we have to recognize it's really unlikely to have some super efficient model for nations all are contributing their part, some beautiful picture. that's not likely to occur. i think rather than look for efficiency what we should be looking for is effectiveness. does that mean is going to be the most efficient way of doing it? certainly not. it's going to be sticky and spent be difficult and fraught with some of the political elements that we were on our last panel. but the other point to this, sort of -- i think allies writ large and mike answer this two ukraine, recognize that the cost of conflict is such that we

perhaps collectively forgot over the last 25 years or so. one example of that and i think jim talked about 1.5 on the last panel, artillery shells. you look at the cost of the 155 artillery shell and before the russian invasion of ukraine, approximate $2000 roughly. today, it's near to around $8000. so the point being that inflation associated to armaments when they are in quite a challenge and supply level, supply days the same broadly thinking but does one thing, price up. what can allies bring is not just parliament the production of traditional things how he thought about this. i think there's entire world where we start to bring in capital markets, of the thinks come areas we haven't really considered at a proper detailed

level in the context of defense and defense production. allied nations have a fast wealth of experience there, pun intended, which could really be brought today. >> a follow up on that but mike first over deeply. >> first of all good morning and thank you for having me. i think michael and rob are onto something but it also think we're all suffering from a field of creativity. let me be very simple. i think we have to demolish and explode what it means to be part of the use defense industrial base. it doesn't need to be in conus in the continental united states. when we would think about we need to expand that did the westward where the threat is. we will not be able to shrink or vaporize the pacific ocean but we can diminish its influence on our ability to wage war to protect national security far to the west. what i mean is we talked about

the rsf and that's great, an important part of all this. we need a people to work with partners to maintain, repair, overhaul forward. we didn't army pre-position stock. >> we done things like that, reposition the gear were going to need we also need to create production capacity. one thing we've done at hanwha is built of factories that produce for word and we're look finding ways to help the army produce in australia the things that it will need when it's time to face china head on. so i think we need to kind of re-create and rebuild capacity. it's great we have incentives to get shipyard. i was chief operating officer so i know shipbuilding is great to have incentives to build commercial and naval in the single yard, but we don't to build the ships were trying to build no.