From the Crows' Nest

Ken Miller (00:10):
Welcome to From the Crow's Nest, a podcast on electromagnetic spectrum operations or EMSO. I'm your host, Ken Miller, Director of Advocacy and Outreach for the Association of Old Crows. Thanks for listening.

Ken Miller (00:21):
In today's episode, I sit down with Mr. Jim Conroy of Northrop Grumman Corporation for an industry perspective on joint all domain command and control, or JADC2. I also welcome Mr. Pat Flood Senior National Security Policy Advisor for Congressman Don Bacon. Before we begin, I'd like to thank our episode sponsor, Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman provides full spectrum superiority, they're innovative, multifunction, interoperable solutions ensure war fighters have full spectrum dominance to make real-time decisions no matter the environment or domain. Learn more at ngc.com/ew.

Ken Miller (00:55):
Over the past several episodes here on From the Crow's Nest, we were taking a closer look at the role of electromagnetic spectrum operations on joint all domain command and control, or JADC2. This means that we'll be looking at the issue from the military, industry, government, and congressional perspectives. Today, we are focusing on an industry perspective and I am pleased to be here with Mr. Jim Conroy. He is the Vice President of Electronic Warfare and Targeting Business Unit in the navigation targeting and survivability division at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems sector. Thank you, Jim, for joining me on From the Crow's Nest today, it's great to have you on.

Jim Conroy (01:29):
Thank you very much. I look forward to the conversation today.

Ken Miller (01:32):
As we've discussed previously on From the Crow's Nest, JADC2 is basically a concept of connecting sensors from all military services into a single network. And for this vision to come to fruition, we need superiority in the electromagnetic spectrum. And specifically we need to view electromagnetic spectrum operations as the backbone of JADC2. We have to make sure that we are investing in electromagnetic spectrum operations to make this effort work. So, Jim, I wanted to just dive right into the questions here, generally from an industry perspective, how is Northrop Grumman focused on delivering these capabilities to meet our requirements for the speed compatibility and commonality that's needed under JADC2?

Jim Conroy (02:11):
Well, as you know, the changing threat environment is really driving the need for affordability as well as for speed. Northrop Grumman has a long distinguished history for providing RF electronic warfare systems, both domestically and internationally. In the past electronic warfare was something where the systems were really designed to address a single threat system that were at fixed locations, and the data that was generated, or created, or received on those systems never left the platform. It was all contained within there.

Jim Conroy (02:42):
That time has passed. Today we're in a different world with a different environment. We don't know where those threats or systems will be at, or when they're around pop up. As a result, we had to develop a technology and a product line that really can be able to address those electronic warfare threat systems. And what we need to be able to do is to have those systems already be able to be able to off board the data that they're receiving onto the network. So I would say that today's systems are already designed to be able to interface with the network.

Jim Conroy (03:15):
And in the future where I'm expecting is that it's not going to be a single ship set trying to go alone and unafraid, what they're going to be doing is you're going to be networking these ship sets together so that you can really take and use the best information from the best node and be able to really prosecute the mission as efficiently and as effectively as possible with the electronic warfare that's on each of the different platforms. So it's interesting where we at we're in the past, where we are today, and what we envision the future be. And JADC2 is going to be the key enabler for that future vision.

Ken Miller (03:50):
You mentioned having to start a new product line, and when you're looking at new technologies and new systems coming out, that's one aspect of the issue, but then you also have a lot of legacy systems still in the field. How do you solve that problem of compatibility between the newer systems that you need in the field to respond to emerging threats, but also having to interface and be compatible with legacy systems that we're going to be holding on to it in some cases for many more years?

Jim Conroy (04:15):
So the way we try to look at it is we look at systems being hardware defined and software enabled. So the hardware has certain inherent capabilities, but then how do we add the additional performance, how do we add the additional functionality through the software and the firmware capabilities? And it's collecting the data they have and allowing it to pass that data off board to the JADC2 type networks that allows us to not be at this single ship set perspective, but in the multi ship perspective.

Ken Miller (04:45):
And you mentioned that in future conflict, that threat is rapidly changing and it's requiring exponentially faster decision-making at all levels, from commander down to the soldier on the field. And a lot of this decision make is going to be driven by artificial intelligence and machine learning. Could you discuss the importance that AI and ML is going to have on the future of JADC2?

Jim Conroy (05:07):
You're absolutely correct. Things are only going to get faster and there's going to be so much data that you're going to need at artificial intelligence and machine learning to really help the operators take and make sense of all this data so they have information and not just data that's being presented to them. So AI will be critical to the future of JADC2, and as all of the military domains are becoming increasingly tightly meshed together. AI will be essential in this environment that supports the connectivity of the operators to the data. Because if you don't have that connectivity and you don't have AI as the backbone doing the connectivity, it'll just be too basically processing intensive for the human to actually make sense of all the data that's coming across. So we believe that it's not only going to be the AI, but it's going to be the secure, ethical implementation of AI that's going to be needed.

Ken Miller (05:59):
That's a very good point about the secure and ethical implementation of it because this is actually, at least from electronic warfare perspectives, something that's relatively new when you're talking about the role that AI is playing in this. And when you're pulling in data from many different systems threats, you're not just talking signals, you're talking a lot of other congestion in the spectrum, and that system, through AI, has to make that decision, or help you make that decision. And that does open up a lot of questions on the ethical implementation front.

Jim Conroy (06:27):
Absolutely. So AI/ML is going to be critical to JADC2, as well as with EW. And it's going to be in slightly different perspectives. And AI/ML is an enabler. It's not something unto itself, enables mission speed performed more effectively. And you can think about in the EW battle space where you're going to need that same type of enabling capability because we know what we know right now, but the threat environments changing so fast, and we know that our systems are upgradable and software definable, and we have to presume that our adversary's systems are as well. So what are we going to encounter in the battlespace that we don't know about right now, and [inaudible 00:07:05] to rapidly adjust to that change in the battle space as we proceed forward. And I believe AI/ML is going to be that enabler to allow us to do that.

Ken Miller (07:15):
With all the uncertainty about how the threat is evolving both from a technical standpoint, but also a speed standpoint, the job of industry obviously is to respond to its customer and DOD and what they need. From your perspective, what keeps industry leaders up at night when thinking about the threat and where industry needs to go to respond to that for their customer and DOD in relation to JADC2?

Jim Conroy (07:36):
So I'd say what keeps me up at night is the changing threat environment. In the 21st century great powers competition, the rapid advance and proliferation of technology is driving today's threat. I would say Northrop Grumman is focused on delivering capabilities that maintain our strategic advantage across all of the domains and against all of the adversaries.

Jim Conroy (07:57):
And I would say that I believe we're ideally positioned to support our customer community and the JADC2 strategy as it goes forward. To do this, we really need enabling technologies. Northrop Grumman has technologies in advanced networking, and artificial intelligence, and space, and command and control, as well as in autonomous systems. And those technologies are really going to take and have to work together collaboratively to support JADC2, as well to the support other products like EW.

Jim Conroy (08:27):
We understand the criticality of this so what we've really done is we focused on, and we've actually put this underneath our corporate CTO to ensure that all of our products are really going to be able to support the JADC2 and are going to have that at the heart of their decision-making process.

Ken Miller (08:43):
When talking about electronic warfare, the conversation that usually drifts to electronic attack efforts and capabilities, but one of the areas of electronic warfare that from AOC is electronic protection and the need for our systems to have resiliency in the future fight. Key to this is going to be the integration of multi-spectral capabilities for network resiliency. Could you talk a little bit about how Northrop Grumman is addressing this challenge?

Jim Conroy (09:08):
I absolutely agree with you. Quite often when we talk about electronic warfare it goes right to electronic attack. And there's much more to electronic warfare than just electronic attack. There's electronic self-protection, there's electronic situational awareness. So you have to look at it comprehensively and wholistically to really take and get the best out of electronic warfare.

Jim Conroy (09:27):
I also agree with your comment that multi-spectral is a key component to this. It almost goes back to the whole JADC2, when you have so much data and you want to take and pull that data together to make informed decisions. So I look at multi-spectral as being just that, where in multi-spectral you have to understand what the different spectrums that you're dealing with are, you have to understand the different phenomenologies with that. And once you understand those, you know how to pull that data out and to really merge it together to have better information that is going to enable humans to make real-time decisions.

Jim Conroy (10:03):
Northrop Grumman is quite fortunate where we have a number of products that are covering the different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. And as a result, we have a lot of experience with that phenomenology and thus, we understand how to pull the data together to make better informed decisions. And we're going to need to do that because the threats are already going there. I mean, threats are already becoming multi-spectral so if we're not thinking about electronic warfare in a multi-spectral perspective, then we're going to be behind the eight ball.

Ken Miller (10:31):
You mentioned making better decisions, and that's certainly true in the field, but it's also relevant for industry and government, we have to continue making smarter decisions when it comes to investing limited resources. And I'm thinking, especially of the FY 2022 budget that was just released a couple of weeks ago, there's a lot of uncertainty about funding moving forward. I would like to get your perspective, from industry, what are some of the priorities that we need to be investing in at DOD in the future years to make sure that we maintain the level of readiness we need to face future threats?

Jim Conroy (11:06):
First, I'd like to start off by saying, it's a partnership. We are interacting with our customers and it's a true partnership where we are there to support as well as to inform our customer community. So we need to make sure, in that partnership, we're well aligned with the customers, and understanding where their needs are and what missions that they need to be prepared for.

Jim Conroy (11:26):
When doing that, then we really try to make sure we're informing the customers as far as where are we see business trends, where we see technology trends, where we see threat trends, and how those trends can result in opportunities for the customer communities. Now, that's all interacting with the customer side. And then internally, as when you started off I said that the changing threat environment is driving the need for affordability and for speed. And those aren't mutually exclusive, there are places you can achieve both of those. So things like digital transformation, where Northrop Grumman is heavily investing in that, and how we can be more affordable as a result of that digital transformation. Embracing agile development processes, how we can be working that so we can have incremental capabilities that are available when there's the need.

Jim Conroy (12:14):
As well as product lines, making sure that we're not reinventing the same wheel over and over again. So having a product line that's at the lowest modular component so that we can reuse that modular component in multiple applications so we're not having to reinvent those things. Those are all key aspects to ensuring that we're meeting our customers' visions in an affordable way that will allow us to meet the ultimate mission needs.

Ken Miller (12:42):
Basically make sure that you are adaptable across everything that you do as a business so that you can respond to whatever changing requirement comes up?

Jim Conroy (12:51):
Absolutely. And our processes are as adaptable as our products need to be because it's not a one size fit all. And you see this with the government in different contracting methodologists and OTAs and other things. We have to be that same agile adaptable process as well.

Ken Miller (13:09):
You're also seeing this even just outside of DOD, there are other agencies involved in this. As we think about the future fight it's not just about what DOD and the military services are doing, it's about the role of other agencies, whether it's state department, Homeland Security, the role that they play in this effort.

Jim Conroy (13:23):
And they're all data collectors. So how do you take all the data that we have as a nation and pull it together and form decisions as a result of that in real time? Because if we take and have to spend a month collecting the data and then processing the data, well, it may not be relevant any longer. So you need to be able to do this in a real time, tactical fashion.

Ken Miller (13:45):
Within days, or sometimes, maybe even hours in the future?

Jim Conroy (13:48):
Maybe even faster than that. You can imagine if some one is entering [inaudible 00:13:53] airspace and then something pops up, they want to be able to address what pops up right then and there, but they also want to be able to off-board it to their wing man who may be just behind them, how do they make sure they're informed so that they don't have to learn the same thing that the first platform had to learn?

Ken Miller (14:09):
Well, thank you for your time, Mr. Conroy. It was great talking to you. And I look forward to working with you and Northrop Grumman in the future here as we discuss these issues from an industry perspective, and I greatly appreciate your time.

Jim Conroy (14:20):
Thank you very much, I really appreciate the conversation, and I look forward to talking in the future.

Ken Miller (14:24):
Sounds great. Thank you so much. Have a good day.

Jim Conroy (14:27):
Cheers.

Speaker 3 (14:30):
Providing full spectrum superiority across all domains. That's defining possible. Getting war fighters the freedom to act across the spectrum, especially in highly contested battle spaces can seem impossible. At Northrop Grumman we've pushed the boundaries of possible across the spectrum for decades. Today our cutting edge, interoperable, multi-function technologies are a revolutionary leap in spectrum dominance. How revolutionary? Imagine detecting the precise location of an adversary long before they ever detect you. Or better yet, denying or degrading an adversary's system without them being able to do a thing about it. Your freedom to shape the spectrum is an overwhelming advantage in every domain, an advantage made possible by Northrop Grumman's unique software defined, open, safe, secure architecture solutions. It's all part of our commitment to ensure our war fighters have full spectrum dominance to make real-time decisions, no matter the environment, that's defining possible. Learn more at ngc.com/ew.

Ken Miller (15:32):
All right, welcome back. I am pleased to introduce my next guest. He is Mr. Patrick Flood, retired Colonel US Air Force, is the Senior National Security Policy Advisor for Congressman Don Bacon of the second district of Nebraska. Pat, it's great to have you on From the Crow's Nest, welcome.

Patrick Flood (15:47):
Hey Ken. Thank you.

Ken Miller (15:49):
So it's been good to work with you over the last couple of years with one of your key initiatives, that your boss is a co-chair of the Electromagnetic Warfare Working Group, also known as the EWWG. Could you tell us a little bit about the EW Working Group, how it functions, and what role does it play in terms of raising awareness about EW on Capitol Hill?

Patrick Flood (16:09):
Yeah, thanks Ken. And it has been great to work with you and AOC over the last four or so years that my boss has been an office. When people ask like, "What is the EWWG?" Obviously it's not a name that just rolls off the tongue, but I basically describe it as a group of concerned citizens who care about America's ability to succeed in the electromagnetic spectrum. But with two key caveats, one is these concerned citizens also happened to be members of Congress, and in most cases they are also members of the Armed Services Committee. So their opinions actually do carry some weight, and they do have some jurisdictional influence from a legislative and a non legislative perspective in terms of guiding and shaping the conversation. The origin of the EWWG, and of course you were there at the outset, was all about finding a way to raise the level of knowledge and awareness of these issues that really matter.

Ken Miller (17:07):
And it's been around for almost 22 years I think now.

Patrick Flood (17:09):
Yeah.

Ken Miller (17:10):
It's got a little bit of a legacy to it.

Patrick Flood (17:12):
Yeah. And you are that legacy, right Ken? So I'm sure it's ebbed and flowed over the years, but when Don Bacon was elected, he's one of the... Well, he may be the only member of Congress now that actually served as an electronic warfare officer in the military. I know he's not the only one in the history of the EWWG, but I believe he has that honor right now of being somebody who actually came from the community. And so, we talked about this early on after he took office and that this was going to be a focus area for us. And so, in EWWG has been a primary mechanism for him to have a voice.

Ken Miller (17:48):
And the experience that brings to the table is essential because it's very difficult, as you mentioned earlier, it's really kind of difficult to explain it to many members of Congress and staff. It's not an easy issue to grasp, but having that career experience that he's had, that he brings to the table, it really makes it that much easier to communicate where the EW Working Group is focusing or needs to focus.

Patrick Flood (18:08):
You're absolutely right. As you know, in this area, it's, by its very nature, technical. And if you haven't grown up doing it, or aren't familiar with the concepts and the terminology and the impact on military operations and strategy and readiness, it takes a little bit time to get up to speed on this. And I think that's actually been a barrier and a challenge in that there's a lot of folks that are just not comfortable being part of the conversation because they just don't necessarily know, or aren't familiar with some of the aspects of it. It's not that difficult, as you know, you can come up to speed pretty quickly. But like a lot of things on the Hill, it's all about time and bandwidth and prioritization. But my boss was a very, very logical match for this, and it's something he's very, very passionate about.

Ken Miller (18:50):
We do appreciate your support and he is joined as co-chairs by Congressman Jim Landgevin, whom we had on the show a couple of weeks ago, Congressman Rick Larson from Washington state and Congressmen Austin Scott from Georgia who represents Middle Georgia. Now you mentioned kind of the legacy, the ebbs and flows, but the EW Working Group has actually had a pretty substantive impact, at least since your boss has come on board in the last few years. About three years ago, four years ago, your boss introduced the Joint EMSO Readiness Act, which through negotiations in the NDAA and working with the Senate, came up with some language that ultimately ended up creating the senior designated official, the EMSO CFT, influenced the strategy, a lot of reporting requirements to Congress. And then also you've been involved in conversations that are leading to last year's provisions that work on fixing EMSO under STRATCOM. So I was wondering if you could kind of talk about these last few years, what is the plan for the EW Working Group based on some of the activities they've been involved in?

Patrick Flood (19:49):
Great question. I think the value of the EWWG stems from three facts. Anything related to the spectrum is, by its nature on the Hill, cross jurisdictional. And that is multiple committees have some say in this, additional armed services from a national defense perspective, there's always energy and commerce and other committees that have interest in this, and some of those are very significant. But even within the defense committees it's kind of a gray area, it touches literally everything.

Patrick Flood (20:18):
So there's not a clean subcommittee, jurisdictional breakout, and anything that falls in that category is by its very nature, sort of a gray area, a no man's land. If everybody owns it, then nobody really does. So one of the key things the EWWG has been able to do is to provide that focus and that voice on something that can easily get drowned out in the thousands of issues that have to be considered every year from a national defense perspective. And so that speaks to the bandwidth factor as well.

Patrick Flood (20:44):
As you indicated a few minutes ago, one of the early things that my boss made a priority was crafting some legislation to kind of jumpstart this dialogue because his focus was coming into the job that we had lost ground, we had been inattentive as a nation, and certainly within the Department of Defense, of what does it need to succeed in the spectrum. So that was sort of the origin, it helped pressurize the conversation within the house.

Patrick Flood (21:10):
Now within the house, I'll say, in the Senate it operates a little bit differently and it's focus on this is also a bit different, but in the house, it was a little bit of an organic movement. It wasn't something that was necessarily front and center on the committees shortlist of things to get after in that particular year so we're talking about the '19 NDA. But because of the bill and then the role of the members, and you mentioned the four members of the EWWG, those are fairly senior members of the committee, very experienced and care about this. And so they were able to ensure that this was going to give some airtime, if you will, in terms of consideration of the committee.

Patrick Flood (21:47):
The focus in '19, so I'm talking specifically 1053, section 1053, was to jumpstart or reinitiate the conversation within the department and get some emotion elevated, if you will, above the noise, and put out some markers, and some homework, if you will, to drive action in that. That's where we've been for the last couple of years, now it's often called the kitchen sink provision because there was a lot in there and that was sort of by design was flood the zone to signal intent, but also then to stimulate action in these areas.

Patrick Flood (22:19):
So we've now been in a little bit of a receive mode. So we wait for those things to come back. The strategy itself was a pretty significant result of this because that forced a process within the department to rethink. And the strategy's pretty good, as far as a strategy goes, it sets the right tone, talks about important issues that do matter. Now we're trying to move in an implementation. So part and parcel of the tasking on the strategy was also an implementation plan that goes with it. And so the committees are still waiting for that to come back. But I think what the EWWG is trying to do, and I think the committee itself is trying to do, is now move into oversight of the implementation.

Patrick Flood (22:55):
So that's going to be a big focus area for us in the EWWG but also for the committee is getting the details on how the department now proposes to move forward so that then resources and authorities can be provided where needed, and then also, we're managing the progress and prodding where we have to, and commending and encouraging where appropriate and where needed.

Patrick Flood (23:15):
Ultimately we want outcomes and we know the department wants that too, and so we would really like to be able to have this conversation pivot to now, "Okay, what are we doing that's actually raising the readiness of the joint force to be able to operate and succeed in a contested or denied spectrum environment?" So that's the hope, is that we can stop talking about the preliminaries and the process and start talking about capabilities. We'll see how that goes. The jury's still kind of out.

Ken Miller (23:44):
[inaudible 00:23:44] trying to pursue results is extremely important because as you mentioned we have been talking about this for a long time. And when you are looking into the future, now I know that the military is planning and already looking at 2030, and there is no luxury for continuing talking, we do have to see results coming up here very shortly. And Congress's role, it has an important role of oversight. There was a hearing in the [inaudible 00:24:05] a couple of months ago talking about some of the challenges that DOD has had at implementing strategies. What do you believe the role of Congress will be in helping DOD implement the strategy successfully unlike some of the previous strategies that they've been a part of?

Patrick Flood (24:21):
That's a great question and that kind of gets to the heart of the issue. I think, in conversations I've had with my colleagues around the Hill on this particular topic, oftentimes one of the best roles of Congress is to help enable those parts of the department's enterprise, and I think in specifically the role of the defense committees, is in their dealings with the department is to help elevate and empower parts of the department that really know what needs to be done. And you know, much like Congress in terms of the thousands of issues you're hit with every day or every cycle, the Department of Defense is certainly no different, and I think you know that, it's nearly an infinite list of things that need attention and it's always changing. But within that, there's a committed group of professionals here who have understood the need to transform or to modernize and to regain our ability and they spend every minute of their day worrying about it and working towards it.

Patrick Flood (25:16):
So part of this is to help elevate them, and like I said, raise it above the noise level. I think what the committee is going to try to do, I would expect, and then also the Working Group, is to help ensure that this conversation on spectrum, the EMS doesn't get lost. We are in a bit of a region of risk, with any change in administration, and continuity is always a challenge. Now, sometimes you'll have a new administration that actually does want to put in a rudder change because that's the mandate that they got. But in a lot of cases, especially things like this, this is not necessarily a partisan issue, in fact, it's not a partisan issue at all. It's a question of focus. The main challenge is, is to ensure that that focus remains at the right level.

Patrick Flood (25:58):
Just a short while ago there's been some outreach from the members of the EWWG to the secretary, kind of introducing themselves and reminding them that, "Hey, this is this group. This is the issue, we like to think." In this space, that it is unique and special and important in a very powerful way because the spectrum is the one physical domain, if you will, that literally touches and enables every other domain from a maneuver perspective and from an operational capabilities perspective, from a strategy perspective. And so if we fail in that area, there will be cascading effects in every other part of the joint force and what it's trying to do. So I think the challenge this year is to keep that focus positioned on this and not have it get lost in the noise. Because the budget, as you say, just came over a couple of days ago, folks like me have been pouring over it, what is it like 10,000 pages of stuff, and it's hard.

Ken Miller (26:51):
I do want to talk about the FY 2022 budget. It recently came out, which of course is later than usual, and there's been some signals that the House Armed Services and the Senate Armed Services obviously may go into September with some markups. So you're now beginning this usual process that typically happens much earlier in the year. What are some of your initial thoughts on the budget that was submitted, obviously more information's going to be coming out over the next few weeks, but what are some of your immediate takeaways?

Patrick Flood (27:19):
This has been dominating my life and others like me for the last 72, 96 hours. We have deadlines and members that want to have an influence or an input to the committees, as you know, they put us on deadlines and so we've got to get stuff in. And that requires you to actually know what has been requested. And that is a massive challenge on a very tight timeline. So I'd say, to answer your question, I think there's a lot of mixed feelings right now on the budget. Clearly it's late, and it always is in a new administration, but this one, I think is a little bit later than even the outliers on that. And that has had an effect on the work of the committees and the function of the legislative branch in terms of timelines. I think it's somewhat historic that there's been signaling that we're going to do markup after the August research, which certainly hasn't happened in my time on the Hill and I'm not [crosstalk 00:28:10].

Jim Conroy (28:10):
And this research, it hasn't happened at least in the last 25 years. I stopped going back that far, but it's been a while. But kind of going on the timeline though if you look over the last number of years, the NDAA conference report, the final agreement between the House and Senate has typically been signed in December. So it may or may not influence the final bill, the timeline for that, but do you think that maybe by moving it to September this year it throws off the schedule, but hopefully it doesn't cause any further delay into the fiscal year for the actual final bill?

Patrick Flood (28:44):
Yeah, that's a good point. Historically, or at least recent history has shown that it does take a while to get an agreement, and often I guess it's happened beyond the start of the fiscal year more often than not. The authorization is only one piece though, oftentimes for a lot of things what's even, at least as important, if not more so, is the appropriation and that is tied to other matters of public interest and that process has been far from timely.

Patrick Flood (29:11):
So yeah, will it have a an overall effect? I'm not certain, I think there's a chance that this really... We can get our work done. It has certainly opened up the oversight opportunity in terms of timeline which can be good or bad, depending on your perspective and where you are in the process. [inaudible 00:29:27] say a couple of other things, just in terms of reactions to the budget itself is that it is a cut in real terms, perhaps not an immense one, but still, it's forcing the department to make some really, really difficult choices. And then there are some members, meeting members of the committee in both chambers who have expressed some frustration and look, we are in a different strategic era right now in terms of our competition with China. And so is this the best time to be imposing cuts when you consider overall defense spending is still at historic lows as a proportion of the national economy. A lot of members are expressing frustration about that.

Patrick Flood (30:04):
I guess some good news is that the nuclear deterrence portfolios were not, I guess, victims to some pretty... What some had feared would be some attempt to roll those back or change the course. So that was great news for some members, I know my boss was very, very happy to see that and commends the administration for staying the course, all eyes are really going to be on the '23 budget though because that'll be the administration's first budget that they've truly owned the process end to end, and so we'll have to look and see what changes may be part of that submission here.

Jim Conroy (30:34):
I know you mentioned some other priorities that your boss is looking at. Obviously as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he looks at it a lot more than just electromagnetic warfare. So just wanted to give you a chance to talk about some of the other priorities that your boss has on the Armed Services Committee, looking both in terms of this year's defense budget, but also just on an issue level.

Patrick Flood (30:54):
Well, I think fundamentally, and this is shared, I know, by many members of the committee of both parties is there's a desire to want to maintain deterrence. And if you look at the 75 years since the end of World War II and what that has done and enabled for peace and prosperity across the arc of human history, that was in some part, depending on your views, was enabled by the American military [inaudible 00:31:18] strategy and the resources we deployed to execute that strategy. So what we're seeing now are other actors down on the world stage who are enabled by either the success of their respective economies or the proliferation of technology where the gaps, if you will, or the advantage of the edge that the United States had has been significantly eroded. And some would say that some countries are now starting to pull even with the United States.

Patrick Flood (31:41):
So that has consequences in terms of relations between nations and to some degree non-state actors. So deterrence is first and foremost on its mind and how to maintain that, and that's a function of readiness as well as modernization. I mentioned he's very concerned about recapitalization of our nuclear deterrent, it's time. I liken it to the one check you never want to have to write is the check that you write to replace the roof on your house when it's time, nobody wants to do it, and the only thing worse than doing it is not doing it and dealing with the consequences of that. So we got to replace the roof, it's time. And this process started several administrations ago. So again, he doesn't like to view it through a partisan lens, this is about what the nation needs and how do we keep our deterrent strong in the nuclear side.

Patrick Flood (32:24):
But what is now starting to move to the forefront is the discussion on conventional deterrence, what does that require? And I think all of us recognize that we have to transition from this legacy for structure and these operating concepts into some mode of operation that is appropriate for the environment, for the threat environment that we're going to face, and the strategic context behind that. And really, I think you're going to see a lot of attention and debate on what's the best way to do that. But fundamentally, it's for structure, it's things like [inaudible 00:32:56] space in cyber and the right balance and the right capabilities. And how do we manage the divestment of what we have today into something different tomorrow. And what does that look like?

Patrick Flood (33:07):
The other things that with that, as a context then, he still tries to provide a voice for some critical, what often have been called enablers. I think some of us may have different views on what that really means, but things like electronic warfare dominance and the spectrum, intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance, command and control, space, those things that really provide the glue and the connective tissue that allows the joint force to operate and be successful so he tries to be a voice on those. And then obviously from his subcommittee assignment, air and land forces are a priority for him. And what does that [inaudible 00:33:41] for structure balance and how do we manage this transition to something new and better?

Jim Conroy (33:46):
Well, thank you, Pat. Great thoughts as always, really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule with the budget coming out to take a few minutes to join me on From the Crow's Nest and I look forward to having you back as a guest real soon.

Patrick Flood (33:57):
Look forward to it, Ken. Thank you.

Jim Conroy (34:00):
Great. Thank you. That will conclude this episode of From the Crow's Nest. I'd like to thank Mr. Jim Conroy of Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Mr. Patrick Flood, Senior National Security Policy Advisor for Congressman Don Bacon. I'd also like to thank our episode sponsor, Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman's multifunction, interoperable solutions create full spectrum superiority for our war fighters across all domains. Learn more at ngc.com/ew. I also want to mention that our new sister podcast, The History of Crows is now available, you can subscribe or download on all major podcast platforms or visit crows.org/podcast for more information. Thanks for listening.