Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is a really
Speaker 1: big deal. It was a couple of months ago I
Speaker 1: was out at one of our test ranges, and what
Speaker 1: I heard was that industry on average was having to
Speaker 1: wait between twelve and eighteen months sometimes from the moment
Speaker 1: they wanted to get on our test range until we
Speaker 1: could give them access. And fundamentally, the problem with this
Speaker 1: is if you think of these innovative companies, if you
Speaker 1: think of the primes, everyone needs to be able to
Speaker 1: test their product and they need to be able to
Speaker 1: learn from that, and the innovation loop that comes from
Speaker 1: actually using your thing in the real world is makes
Speaker 1: all the difference. And so when we slow things down
Speaker 1: in the innovation loop by twelve or eighteen months at
Speaker 1: a time, that is just bad for soldiers, it's bad
Speaker 1: for taxpayers, and it's bad for companies. And so what
Speaker 1: we're announcing today is basically a new front door to
Speaker 1: access all of the US Armies or many of the
Speaker 1: US Armies ranges were layering into international partners. We're going
Speaker 1: to give concierge access and we are going to aspire
Speaker 1: to get these companies onto our range within thirty days.
Speaker 1: Every single time.
Speaker 2: So then after they're on that range, I think a
Speaker 2: lot of these companies are probably wondering how quickly can
Speaker 2: they get into business with the US Army? If you
Speaker 2: like what you see, how do those purchases.
Speaker 1: Work from there?
Speaker 2: What sort of timeline are you eyeing for that?
Speaker 1: So under President Trump, what we've been able to do
Speaker 1: is we've been able to reallocate dollars we already had,
Speaker 1: and so we created almost a seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: million dollar venturelike model that has allowed us to get
Speaker 1: industry on contracts sometimes in under thirty days. That is unbelievable.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think if you looked historically, the fastest
Speaker 1: time I had heard anyone ever referenced was like nine months,
Speaker 1: but on average it could be up to two years sometimes.
Speaker 1: And so our commitment to industry is we know that
Speaker 1: they need dollars from the US Army in order to
Speaker 1: continue their innovation. We know that if we're asking them
Speaker 1: to come out and spend time with soldiers, get their
Speaker 1: products in the dirt and the mud, and to innovate,
Speaker 1: we have got to be there for them on the
Speaker 1: other side with actual hard dollars.
Speaker 2: How are current conflicts highlighting the need for initiatives like
Speaker 2: this and for the US Army to scale. Is there
Speaker 2: a new urgency here?
Speaker 1: I think if you look at what's occurring in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: they have this existential risk to their nation that allows
Speaker 1: them to innovate very quickly. You would never want to
Speaker 1: have that risk as a nation. So what we're trying
Speaker 1: to do is synthetically create the conditions for innovation that
Speaker 1: can get as close to matching that environment as possible.
Speaker 1: And so one of the things we're doing here at
Speaker 1: Camp Gradling at September is we're creating an electronic warfare
Speaker 1: in a ew environment that is as close to what
Speaker 1: Ukraine has as we can create. We're inviting in small, medium,
Speaker 1: and large businesses from across our country. We're having soldiers
Speaker 1: come down. We are trying to empower these incredible American
Speaker 1: innovators to do what they do best, which is to
Speaker 1: outinnovate the rest of the world.
Speaker 2: So the Army lives off of annual budgets, right, how
Speaker 2: do you ensure that you're able to scale and grow
Speaker 2: initiatives like this? And what is I think it's fair
Speaker 2: to say pretty unpredictable funding cycle and how much weight
Speaker 2: maybe does that put on the sixty seven billion dollar
Speaker 2: fundamental supplemental package in terms of what the Army needs
Speaker 2: to get done.
Speaker 1: So, the quirk of the design of our democratic form
Speaker 1: of government is our funding is annual. It is oftentimes
Speaker 1: continuing resolutions, which means we can't do new starts on
Speaker 1: our spending and that is full stop bad for soldiers,
Speaker 1: that is bad for our national security, and we must
Speaker 1: as a nation fix it. That being said, what we
Speaker 1: have tried to do is just accept that that has
Speaker 1: been the reality. I think eighteen of the last twenty
Speaker 1: one years we've had continuing resolutions. And so what the
Speaker 1: United States Army has been trying to do under Secretary
Speaker 1: of Hexcess leadership is innovate as fast as humanly possible
Speaker 1: with what we do have. And we feel very good
Speaker 1: that working with Congress and Senate and consolidating down some
Speaker 1: of our budget line items, we are getting more flexibility
Speaker 1: than we have had in the last couple of years,
Speaker 1: not as much as we had a couple of decades ago,
Speaker 1: and we are taking that and earning back the trust
Speaker 1: of Congress to give us even more going forward.
Speaker 2: But is that putting any more weight on the supplemental
Speaker 2: funding request the sixty seven billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I think we need the supplemental, we need the reconciliation,
Speaker 1: and we need the budget to be passed on time
Speaker 1: that will lead to the most secure country that the
Speaker 1: United States Army can possibly give it.
Speaker 2: So today is a lot about these low cost interceptors, drones,
Speaker 2: counter drones. Can you talk to me about how you
Speaker 2: assess what that mix should look like when it comes
Speaker 2: to the higher end interceptors in US stockpiles.
Speaker 1: So one of the big takeaways from Ukraine is the
Speaker 1: very first thing you must do is create a data layer.
Speaker 1: And what you want in your data layer is you
Speaker 1: want as many sensors and radars as humanly possible, and
Speaker 1: you want them to be able to fuse into tracks
Speaker 1: and so practically what that means is you want to
Speaker 1: be able to give yourself and your allies as much
Speaker 1: warning as humanly possible. And so with the United States
Speaker 1: Army has been focused on in the last couple of
Speaker 1: months is what we're calling Operation jail Break, which is
Speaker 1: basically we have said we are no longer going to
Speaker 1: allow any sensor, any rate, or any piece of equipment
Speaker 1: that we own to have data that is siloed. All
Speaker 1: of it is getting broken out, and all of it,
Speaker 1: through APIs and SDKs is going to be able to
Speaker 1: share the data and receive data or actions. That is
Speaker 1: step one. Every new thing we're buying is already open source,
Speaker 1: so we're good. So once we have this data layer,
Speaker 1: and anywhere American soldiers exist, we want that data layer
Speaker 1: to be as robust as humilily possible. The next step
Speaker 1: is to layer in effectors or interceptors, and you want
Speaker 1: as wide of a range of options as possible. On
Speaker 1: the cheapest, lowest side, you want a fifty col round
Speaker 1: that might cost a dollar, and you want to be
Speaker 1: able to shoot that at something that's really close. So
Speaker 1: on the highest end, you might want to pack three
Speaker 1: that's now four point two million dollars or four point
Speaker 1: four million dollars a shot. The key to defense, and
Speaker 1: this layered concept is you want as many options as
Speaker 1: humanly possible, all tied into an agentic solution with a
Speaker 1: human in the loop that can choose between the right
Speaker 1: option at any given moment. And so the answer is
Speaker 1: actually there's no one perfect answer. Variability is the key
Speaker 1: to success for conflict going forward.
Speaker 2: In the final minute, that I have you how much
Speaker 2: will initiatives like today compress timelines. Can you give us
Speaker 2: any context on how many years you're looking at when
Speaker 2: it comes to the army building up the stock piles.
Speaker 1: So I think if you take the math of what
Speaker 1: we believe for a lot of these most exquisite interceptors
Speaker 1: and most exquisite offensive weapons, if it was taking twelve
Speaker 1: to eighteen months each time to come to the range,
Speaker 1: and we're consolidating that down to I am saying guarantee,
Speaker 1: but I don't mean we will pay if we miss.
Speaker 1: But that is what we will hold ourselves publicly accountable.
Speaker 1: If you can get to the range every thirty days,
Speaker 1: what we hope to do is cut out at least
Speaker 1: a third of the R and D time, which will
Speaker 1: make a huge difference for soldiers.