tv U.S.- South Korea Military Relations Part Two CSPAN December 12, 2017 6:17am-7:21am EST
reactor plant and certain survivability. but we do share technologies and capabilities with our allies with regards to underwater weapon systems capabilities and that would be an area of potential cooperation for the future development between the two countries. >> we have a few minutes to take a question if there are any. no one asked questions? okay. that will conclude at the opening session. we will convene here at about 10:30. thank you.
>> joining us after the coffee break i hope everyone had a chance to refresh themselves and maybe chat with a new person you've met today. my name is andrew and i am a senior fellow at the center for strategic and international studies and the international security program and director of the defense industrial initiatives group that focuses on defense acquisition and increasingly on what i call the defense trade or the cooperation in the acquisition of the deal with our allies and partners. i'm going to introduce the panel and maybe kick off the question and answer session with the group. our panel is divided into two folks that are presenting and will speak to the presentations
and other issues. the topic for the panel is finding opportunities to precipitate the u.s. defense r&d cooperation and we have a strong panel to present. on my left recently completed service in the last several months completed surface as the assistant secretary oassistant e research engineering at the u.s. department of defense. he was the chief technology officer of the u.s. department of defense and advisor to the secretary on all matters relating to research engineering until january of 2017. he has responsibility for a range of complex topics involving open systems architecture and he has more
than 28 years of government and industry experience at the defense agency. in january of 2018 he will begin service as executive director and chief operating officer at the institute of electronics engineers. to his left we have the leading expert on the field of defense acquisition defense industry and weapons systems requirements planning. he served in the army for 31 years after graduating from the korea military academy. he was the chief of several important sections including the weapon systems planning section of the headquarters chiefs of staff defense acquisition policy
section and forced policy section of the ministry of national defense. he's participated in advanced research on a number of critical topics as a member of the advisory committee for the joint chiefs of staff the republic of korea and has been awarded the national security married in 2003. he earned hi his masters his mae science in nuclear engineering from the university of washington. she needs the responsible parties with the defense acquisition program and the committees regarding research and development. he joined in 2006 and was
appointed as directo director oe acquisition policy position. he graduated from the national university held a master's degree from the university of wisconsin madison and to his left mr. tommy ross who served the last several years and the last administration of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for security cooperation prior to his time at the department of defense he was a staff member in congress for a number of years including as a defensdefensive advisor to the e majority leader senator harry reid and legislative director for congressman david price and before that, the majority leader tom daschle. he's a graduate at and i am now going to turn to the two presenters.
i believe that you are first in presenting to us. it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss opportunities to facilitate cooperation between the united states and the public of korea. this is a particular opportune time to be discussing security operations. recent ballistic missile tests have increased concern over the threatthreat posed by the northn regime, to our allies in the public of korea, to our friends and partners in the asia-pacific region, to the u.s. and south korean interests and even potentially to the u.s. homeland. the over 23,000 u.s. personnel serving in south korea provides the strongest possible evidence of u.s. commitment to the security of our korean allies in these unsettled times. while much of the focus and
current attention has been on recent provocations, the commitment of the u.s. alliance with the republic of korea is deep and sustained and is focused on addressing today's concerns and the long-term needs of the alliance. one of the strongest ways to continue to strengthen our sustained partnership is through the pursuit of common goals in technology development and through bilateral research and development cooperation. this is shaped by the proliferation of sophisticated military capabilities by the convergence of leading-edge technologies driving new commercial capabilities with those driving emergency defense applications and by the global proliferation of sophisticated
technical expertise and manufacturing capabilities this has introduced significant challenges to traditional defense development approaches because the increasingly competitive technology environment will demand faster technology adoption and increased pace of operational experimentation and prototyping and to avert the frontline and particularly a demonstrated ability to adapt, evolve and enhance occupational capabilities after initial deployment. of the united states has attempted to respond to the challenge strategically through a continuing dialogue regarding what has been referred to as an offset strategy. the development, validation and ultimate fielding of new capabilities intended to
preserve and extend the technological advantage of u.s. forces and our allies. these are likely to include new systems capable of operating at an extended range, novel system concepts to create advantage on land, in the air, on and under the sea and in space and will certainly leverage advances in robotics, machine learning and intelligent systems to provide operational advantage. the united states deputy secretary and under secretary for acquisition technology and logistics have both emphasized the criticality of innovation, experimentation and new technology in recent remarks and both are working to align technology development planning with modernization objectives
and to accelerate these efforts. u.s. military leadership civilian and uniformed have been emphasizing these same things and u.s. industrial leaders have emphasized that they are today working on delivering the capabilities envisioned in the third offset discussion. i see a very similar in size and south korean technical planning where to focus on the creation c.'s to align industrial structures and accelerate new technology initiatives to shape the high-technology systems that will define tomorrow's national security capability and capaci capacity. the united states had a great emphasis on capturing the potential national security from all sources reaching out to the nontraditional suppliers, innovation is commercial enterprises and small business
for new and disruptive ideas. initiatives like the defense of the portfolio initiative is being explored, the open laboratory initiatives of the dod service -left-brace r. engaging new partners and exploring new mechanisms for collaboration. the department has been accelerating its uptake of cutting-edge technology through basic research engagements with top universities across the united states and across the world. in korea, i again see a very similar effect to engage the economy to foster innovation, identify new technical opportunities and create new industrial capacity in the small and medium enterprise. in my visits to the korean universities, i have seen a
growing interest in entrepreneurship, a strong desire to find new ways to bring technical capabilities to the realization and a great interest in the type of technical challenges that are relevant to start strengthening the security. both of the nations are also exploring ways to use the defensdefense of their nation as economic drivers with an intact beyond the sector building skills and capacity industries that will increase competitiveness in the markets as well. as we go forward we see significant opportunities to grow research and development cooperation. there are currently strong areas where the national investment priorities very closely align such as the strong mutual interest in advanced robotics and advanced computing and semi
conductor technologies and advanced human machine interfaces and particular reference to the recent efforts being explored by the ministry of trade and industry and the ministry of science and ict. a very strong interest in exploring common topics associated with the safety and the safety climate of the systems. i believe these areas offer excellent opportunities for collaborative planning of research and development objectives for the researcher to researcher collaboration between the u.s. and korean technologies. it's coordinating the opportunity to collaborate with
required. we will be able to find the common interest in all of these areas for the joint or entity to. but the concerns can be a driving force especially when both have difficulties and in this instance it will be a strong option to consider. the goal should be reinforced or encouraged to take a more active
role we need a system where both sides participate in the spectrum should be diversified in the system development then to realize this prospect we need specific items to consider. when considering the icons for the defense r&d, the top candidates will be the postindustrial evolution technologies and weapon systems. these items conform to one that encourages on the common items were interest.
these technologies can be a good candidate for the joint r&d and respond to north korea and cyber threats. the united states may have an interest in this area as well because it requires cooperation in the international domain. cooperation regarding the defense of the data and technologies can be resource for us while for example they do not have the capability of the effectiveness of. the united states may be able to utilize with joint r&d.
it may also help with the promotion of the joint r&d and to satisfy their relationship and of the need to help create more opportunities. so far, we have this approach in the joint r&d and in this slide i listed some specifics of the technology that can be considered a. of the autonomous situation, cyber technology on machine learning and so on.
i believe these technologies could be on the agenda between the two countries. in conclusion they are recommended to overcome the budget constraints and orchids. there is a potential of growing technological power among the developing countries and in this context a very moment in the opportunities for the usa in the future. this is the end of my presentation. thank you. [applause]
i want to give you an opportunity. we heard a lot about the strategic imperative for the cooperation between the republic of korea and the united states, and we also heard about are somf the opportunities that are there and some of the barriers and complications that maybe half limited this in the past and that what needs to be overcome to significantly deepen the relationship going forward. i would be interested in your thoughts about the opportunities that you see and how they could be integrated under the systems considering to be purchased. >> [inaudible] >> translator: i have an agreement, and however, i have
some differing thoughts that we came from the same copper and i have a different flavor to what we've discussed so far. in the joint operation to common interest is technology and also joint governance those are some of the barriers that he had mentioned. i would like to differ otherwise respectfully and as to the common interest i think this is a rapidly changing area as to the u.s. foreign-policy is when it comes to acquisitions more
about limiting technology even if it were to analyze however we know in this past changing environment and also the programs that the u.s. has i believe there have been changes in the policies with regards to this area. we try to manage all of them in the military installations but it's also changing there have been more of an open platform and more exchanges in collaboration with the private
industry participants and as such research and development systems are not only limited to the people, but now we have more people from the private industry and also with the addition of the industry of international collaboration that is taking place more intensely so as far as the common interest is concerned, that barrier is getting lower and lower into the technical i don't believe there is as much of a technology gap and the two allies with the industrial revolution i think we have to be mindful of many of the challenges that have taken place for example usage of the
big data. who has the data and the ability to analyze, for example the movement of some marines from north korea it's not about technology anymore, it's more of a creative solution to mine the data that we have already and as to the movements that we already have much of the data on into the joint governance we've had good discussions and we've identified 40 plus areas for joint cooperation and collaboration. we had very good bu videos on te
and we have had during april of this year we've had further discussions and talks about the collaboration between the two allies, so as far as the obstacles that are not as big an obstacle as many might be thinking what has been pointed out. it's been somewhat lopsided. i think we need to have a more balanced approach to the alliance. i think it is important that our voices are heard by the americans as well as the voices
in our administration and the need to share the burden when it comes to many of the limitations that we have, and that is how allies and partners t get furthr involved in the relationship and that is the healthy relationship that we look forward to. >> and arinterview focused on sy cooperation in your time in congress and time in the department of defense. this issue of cooperating is on the front end of the leading edge of a lot of these issues come up throughout the process wheand there is a need to share data and then we are getting into training together.
i'm interested in your thoughts on how it fits into the overall approach both as the united states has been doing it and how you think we ought to be doing it. >> i want to pick up on a couple things other panelists said. that ought to be focused on addressing today's concerns and the long-term strength of the alliance into that needs to translate as well and it does. i think that in terms of addressing the long-term
strength of the alliance derisive of a consensus looking at technologies associated it makes sense strategically and also what happen it happens to n industry with the capabilities we bring to the research and development. on the more current set of concerns thinking of how we can compare ourselves to the united states and the republic of korea to work on the battlefield if and when things arise we must respond together and potentially in a coalition including our allies and partners is an important focus for research development and one that doesn't attract as much attention to the
toby are abltoe. i together if we are able and in that situation. one thing i would highlight is the importance of strengthening the feedback loop where we can identify the operational concerns and where we need to focus for research and built research and development programs are found and of the way in my mind of the most important place to focus on that feedback loop isn't thinking about how we conduct bilateral and multilateral exercises together, those kind of exercises need to be able to focus on testing and assessing operational concepts in terms of how we fight together and using them to identify weaknesses and translating those weaknesses into areas then translating those
weaknesses into areas of further research and development areas we fall short in that regard our command and control, areas ignored in exercises, magically wish the way, we just assume our troops will be in communication with each other and able to resupply each other without putting those systems to the test. it turns out in a lot of cases it is not true and not true for policy and planning reasons and technological reasons and there is a lot of work on the technological side to be done in support of command and control systems and logistic systems to ensure that if and when the time comes us and korean forces are able to truly collaborate on the battlefield
without the wrinkles we have seen in previous coalition environments and in particular command and control is an area the united states spent a lot of time and money is in recent years in creating coalition environment, coalition command and control environments and don't think we have a satisfactory answer yet. creating that feedback loop for exercises to research and development activities and development of policies, procedures, plans, training is an important cornerstone of relationship and out to be guiding research and develop into activities in that second area of focusing on current concerns. the second thing i want to pick up on is our mark the professor made, a couple of remarks about advantages the republic of korea brings to the relationship. when is the friendly relations
korea enjoys with many countries in the asia-pacific region and beyond and a second one is focus on being able to translate korean technology into exports with those markets and working for areas where those can advance joint research and development, this really important, to be developed in a strategic complex to think about expending security cooperation beyond us korean relationships, thinking how us korean security cooperation can engage other partners that will be important, in current settings with regard to deterrence and potential settings with regard to carrying out operations, south china sea comes to mind in that regard that we have seen korea and the united
states become more active in working to develop capabilities of partners in that area. the truth is a lot of those partners are not as sophisticated or well resourced and so they can't make good use of the kinds of technologies we are developing for our own military so there is work to be done in terms of developing capabilities tailored to less sophisticated militaries affordable to less sophisticated militaries and can be maintained and sustained by less sophisticated militaries but can create the kind of strategic advantages we need to be developing in relation to activities in south china sea and other contested areas so self sinus the you might think about patrol boats, sensors above water and underwater that are chiefly produced and mass deployed and easy to maintain and might
think about less sophisticated literal defense capabilities in some of the areas we might profitably focus on not so much for development of our own military capabilities but to ensure our partners in that region are able to mount more effective defenses against potential adversary action in that context so those are a couple thoughts about how i think we ought to be operationalizing research and relevant to support strategic, a tremendous amount of promise in the relationship, thank you. >> before i turn to audience questions which i will do shortly, get your questions ready, scribble it down if you want, i want to give our presenters a chance to respond to comments made to the extent -- why don't you, first.
[speaking in native tongue >> translator: he said he is in agreement but not quite for my comments which were quite shocking but stand in agreement with what i stated because the three barriers which were the things i mentioned which up until now and in the past whenever there was a joint project in korea, and my own analysis, as i stated toward the end of my presentation, those barriers that were formally in place were improving dramatically. that is why joint projects are
quite positive which was my summary. i want to restate the same conclusion and in response to the comment about testing and evaluation, how we can expect that area, i'm wholeheartedly in agreement our nations need to tap into that area and have discussion, thank you. >> i would like to quickly mention the main point r&d cooperation obtained mutual benefit. as we look at programs and opportunities we should be identifying those technologies, those opportunities of mutual benefit to both partners. in the past folks have talked about high/low mixes, we should be talking about past and future, ways to get involved
earlier and get involved in areas of the greatest national strengths. in the past, the number of joint development programs were low and joint research programs lower, the united states had significant engagement with other ministries with defense cooperation, us defense department and other ministries not fully counted in joint statistics and that allowed us to engage universities and commercial entities in basic research and technologies that are defense relevant and may not be defense equipment. that is an important area as the timeframe for commercial
realization and defense application. >> a number of questions i want to ask, running short on time so let me see their hands for audience questions. i am going to follow up on a couple comments that have been made. relevant to your recent comments and comments by others on the panel about opportunities for commercial technology integration. it was touched on at least a little bit by every speaker, this id collaboration goes beyond this conversation, and includes civilian university
researchers, civilian aspects of industry and i would be interested in thoughts on the panel about how that can be best understood to tie into the conversation because there is tremendous capacity, tremendous investment as the professor's slide which i really liked which showed the r&d to gdp population, tremendous opportunity on both sides, both these nations are principal leaders in this area and not just on that side but the commercial side so interested in the panel's thoughts on how that cooperation can be increased and also leveraged for national security purposes. >> translator: thank you for
your excellent comment. >> direct cooperation or joint r&d which is very important, we need infrastructure as well, basic sciences and cooperation with private sector is important as well and in my view colleges and private r&d centers in the united states related to military, far greater strength so to activate joint r&d not only those interested are directly related to military system but private entities and colleges need to be more active partners so that
we can extend the base, private entities and colleges in korea and counterparts in the united states need to promote exchange and cooperation so as to check the overall infrastructure so that ultimately military technology can offer more opportunities between our two nations. because we are lacking in that area when it comes to private entities and colleges related to military technology is why many in the art okay government but relevant ministries are emphasizing the need for a military area through other entities, should be keen on
inviting colleges private entities with more investment and budget, that is my point. first of all, with regards to the comment, r&d statistics, the comment you made about statistics i wholeheartedly agree with you. recently i came to know in the asia-pacific command of the united states, japan and korea colleges funded by the us asia-pacific command which is probably missing in statistical analysis and secondly, r&d, can it go beyond the cooperation, we got that question. that should be the overall direction because in particular r&d cooperation between
government agencies should not be the norm continuously. rather military industries between our two nations, military related r&d centers between our two nations should actively be encouraged to cooperate, not only that but joint marketing should be encouraged as well. in that vein offset the system which i am personally responsible for and the military system itself needs to be transformed and improved upon and along the way korea's military industry and particularly private or commercial component needs to be encouraged for more cooperation in the united states and policy support is going to be provided along that line, thank you. >> most exciting advances in us
policy for international research development cooperation occurred over the last few years, and introduction of bilateral multinational research initiatives. these are cases where the us government will go out with a proposal to universities in the united states to conduct a research activity, basic research activity and a partner nation will go out to universities in their own country with identical request to research and develop and activities, we are including in these requests university partners identify peers and collaborators across mutual national interest and therefore without dollars transferring country to country, each country issuing activities
where researchers are working on the same problem, the same goals and collaborating together without the overhead and burden transfer dollars and coordination, coordination is in the planning, we leave freedom to work naturally together, we have done this in a number of nations. i know discussion was going on about opportunities between the united states and the republic of korea, those should be encouraged because it is a lightweight and effective way to encourage these basic cooperations. i have more follow-up but i wanted to get that, we have two minutes left. if there's an audience question if anyone is come up with it might take a quick scan. over here. >> presentations, a need for
channels identifying different projects whether military or through civilian sectors. perhaps one of the most pressing problems or one among many. >> i think the opportunities for coordination have dramatically improved since 2014 and oh you, the direct contacts between atl and d apa and my previous life between myself and my counterparts were very effective in getting generating opportunities, those need to be followed through. >> we are at the end, was there one last and?
one additional -- >> translator: i will do my best to make it as simple as possible. it is related to military r&d. in actuality this could be -- i'm afraid i'm about to ask a politically loaded question. i don't know how honest or for you can be in answering this question but when it comes to the art okay side. is it really something they can really seek genuine cooperation with the united states, because with the new government in seoul there are a lot of voices of concern being raised, political issues, ideological concerns, r&d going to be possible or facilitated with the united states. is the going to be truly
willing to offer possibilities in that area, in are okay, the same context to pursue this r&d, irrelevant of the political inclination of the soul government, focus our effort on alliance between the us and the are okay, such effort can be genuinely made, on the us side, regardless of the ideological inclination is the us willing to pursue or do you believe you can pursue a joint r&d effort between our nations? simple yet fundamental question we may talk about the same things but dream different dreams at the end of the day. >> the question that goes to
the us, we went to us participants but let me say technologies are very technical areas, technological cooperation, those involved in planning this particular area, we need to find areas of common interest where we connect together, and discuss and think -- kick off the projects. if you raised the question, how the us is going to open up that kind of question about technological transfer. when it comes to the joint r&d it doesn't have much relevance in that regard, the industrial
revolution and policy shift given that the joint r&d cooperation between our nations is likely to improve farther and in the past we have good soil and if you can discuss this on a technical level we have something to address. >> we will leave it there because we are short on time come out of time actually and i want to make sure we get our next panel up and start the discussion. please join me in thanking this panel for the discussion. [applause] to the table.