CSPAN - Bipartisan Lawmakers Judge Army-Navy Debate

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Dec. 13, 2024 12:00-13:46 - CSPAN

01:45:52

Bipartisan Lawmakers Judge Army-Navy Debate

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo Source

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's no wall in between us and Canada.
	And why is Trump saying immigration is a problem?
	He's a product of immigration.
	You're a product of immigration.
	I'm a product of immigration.
	Clint is a problem in immigration.
	Thanks, John.
	Mr. Johnson.
	Yeah, to be clear, I don't think immigration or immigrants are a problem.
	It is true that we are facing problems in the way that we manage immigration.
	It's not properly funded.
	There's too much political infighting and partisanship and figuring out how do we build a system that will work.
	So our immigration system is the problem.
	I think immigrants are caught up in that.
	And look, here's the basic reality.
	When you pit the world's largest economy against an immigration system, the economy is going to win every time.
	There is a demand for workers.
	There is a demand for the unification of families of people that are living and working in the United States.
	And for 30-plus years, we have ignored the economic reality and the community reality.
	And we have not updated our system to meet the needs that we have.
	We're going to leave Washington Journal to take you live to Capitol Hill for the yearly Army-Navy debate on whether the Army or Navy should receive more funding with commentary from lawmakers live here on C-SPAN.
	Admiral Mullen, Major General Ahern, Brigadier General Reeves, Dr. Firebaugh, Ms. Culbertson, Mr. Brannon, and Mr. Modi, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Friends and family, and especially debaters, please will you give each other a round of applause for coming out to support these students today.
	First, I'd like to extend our deepest gratitude to the most esteemed panel this debate has ever seen.
	So appreciate you very much.
	I know it's a very busy time and your time is valuable.
	And we have unlimited gratitude for your time today.
	So thank you very much.
	I'll start by introducing the debaters.
	By agreement, Army will be speaking first today, followed by Navy.
	Each team will take alternating speeches.
	When I call your name, please stand and be recognized.
	From Army, first, Knox Watson.
	Second, Speaker, Randy Story.
	Third, Valentin Shatalenko.
	Fourth, James Song.
	And fifth, Bennett Schmidt.
	From Navy, speaking first, Aubrey Klain.
	Second, Army Ray.
	Griffin Satterfield.
	Jake Lawrence.
	And Truman Connor.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the views expressed during this debate are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States, the United States Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the departments of the Army or the Navy, or the Department of Defense.
	This debate is conducted in the spirit of academic inquiry and is intended solely for educational and professional development purposes.
	Any references to specific policies, strategies, or operations are illustrative and should not be construed as official endorsements or statements of fact.
	I'd next like to introduce my colleague from Navy, Ms. Danielle Verniel-Gorman, to open the debate.
	Hello, everyone.
	I just want to echo the thanks that has been given already.
	We are so incredibly grateful for everyone who is here.
	The panel is amazing, and it is so wonderful to see so many excited faces here.
	And a big thanks to everyone watching us via C-SPAN right now as well.
	Today's debate is going to be broken into two parts.
	The first part, the constructive speeches, will be where both sides introduce the concepts that they will be arguing throughout the debate and will allow them to elaborate at a little bit more length on why they believe those to be a good idea.
	They'll also begin to answer the other side's arguments, and then there will be cross-examination periods in between where the teams can ask each other questions about their competing proposals.
	After that, we'll move into the rebuttal section of the debate, where the teams get to really consolidate their argumentation and make a compelling argument to the judging panel as to why you should vote for them, not the other team.
	And I will be back before the rebuttals to introduce that concept at a little bit more length, but for now, I'll be brief.
	Thank you all so much and enjoy.
	Before we begin, I just want to say a hearty thanks on behalf of the Army debate team.
	Thanks to our opponents, the Navy debate team.
	It's a proud honor to serve with you all, if not tomorrow.
	And we're hoping you enjoy the debate.
	This year, after the deaths of American airmen at the hands of explosive drone attacks in Jordan, we learned that airmen and soldiers had resorted to turning off the lights at their base in Jordan to escape from explosive drone attacks.
	This threat, which represents similar to IEDs, is something that the Department of Defense cannot currently counter.
	Cheap munitions, akin to those which took thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, represent a source of thousands of losses in Ukraine and in the Middle East.
	America's sons and daughters need capabilities to counter cheap munitions and survive distributed warfare, and they need those capabilities now.
	We are here with an answer.
	While we proudly serve alongside the Navy, they have no answer which, for $500 million specifically, would realistically fight.
	Why is that?
	Our adversaries are fielding drone technology at a per-unit cost of several hundred or a few thousand dollars.
	Our most effective counters in the waters, such as the SM-2, cost $2.2 million per unit, and the Eisenhower Strike Group used 155 of them in just several days against terror groups in the Red Sea.
	A drone swarm consisting of thousands of off-the-shelf models would give our enemies the capability to launch devastating attacks anywhere.
	A remote garrison in Altanf, an aircraft carrier stationed at Subic Bay, or 10,000 drones barreling down on this building itself.
	This has significant implications in the Pacific, where China controls 80% of the global drone market and is building drone launching carriers, or just last night when drones were spotted over Ramstein Air Base and we could do nothing about it.
	The emergence of mass drone warfare in a combined arms context has radically changed large-scale combat operations.
	Today's wars leave units much more isolated and make large formations and centralized assets simply anachronistic.
	The next major conflict will be fought at low echelons and away from supply lines.
	To prepare for the next war and not the last one, the Department of Defense must solve two major issues, an asymmetric cost curve and an increasingly lethal and distributed battlefield.
	To address these challenges, we propose two connected solutions using a new authority which was just granted in October to the Office of Strategic Capital.
	First, rapidly procuring a competitive modular drone platform which can do surveillance, kinetic strike, and counter-drone activities.
	And second, investing in distributed and forward manufacturing logistic systems, such as blood-on-demand, additive manufacturing, and predictive maintenance using AI.
	These distributed, decisive, war-winning capabilities are vital to saving the DOD and the American service member.
	The proof of concept is at your local Walmart.
	Commercial drones and 3D printing are mature technologies in the private sector, and it's through leveraging our greatest assets, capital and innovation, that we can gain a competitive edge.
	Admiral Mullen, you said yourself that if we want to keep innovation within the DoD, our incentives need to change.
	With technology already in the field, this strategy is essentially fly-before-buy, naturally occurring with dual-use technologies.
	We propose that $500 million go to federally backed loans through private investors to private defense firms, investing in projects aligned with our stated criteria.
	This will enable the injection of up to $5 billion into drone and forward manufacturing technology while jump-starting the domestic industrial base.
	Without this unique funding approach, we may be doomed to repeat past acquisitions failures, such as the Navy's disastrous Zumwalt program, which burned $25 billion, or on a smaller scale, the Army's Raven or Shadow Drone programs, which the Army's chief technology officer described as unfit for service.
	You should evaluate our proposal with three criteria.
	Value, time, and scope.
	Our project first provides the greatest value to the American warfighter, addressing a deadly asymmetric threat, saving billions by eliminating the cost curve, and finally, providing jobs and manufacturing to the American people with dual-use applications on time.
	These capabilities can be fielded within the next one to two years.
	The technology is on the battlefield now.
	And finally, with regards to scope, while this progress, while this program is first and foremost an Army program, it is one that can be applied across the joint force, whether it's at an airbase, a naval installation in a foreign port, and across marine operations around the world.
	Whether it's Europe, Africa, the Middle East, this has a joint application, and it's why this $500 million would be better spent here.
	Most importantly, the new IED is in the sky, and American lives are at stake.
	Talk is cheap, ammunition is expensive, but America's sons and daughters are priceless.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Thank you for your speech.
	Has anyone other than the four Army debaters and yourself quantified the price of the state-of-the-art anti-drone platform?
	So that would be up to private manufacturing firms.
	Often when we contract to companies, we put out a request for a proposal and look to see what bids they may offer.
	Now, those are up to the individual firms, which would provide those values for you.
	So you have no idea if $500 million will be sufficient to create a state-of-the-art drone platform?
	I see what you mean.
	So we invest $250 million in that drone platform and $250 million in that forward manufacturing.
	Now, drones cost from several hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars, depending on which platform you're looking for, a wide variety of costs.
	But that is around the ballpark of what you're looking for.
	Exactly, what is the drone platform that costs $500 million?
	It's not $500 million.
	At a per unit cost, it's several hundred to a few thousand dollars.
	But if you're looking for a total program cost, we're looking to inject $250 million.
	You've quantified the price of an individual drone.
	Our question is, you have said that you create a state-of-the-art drone platform that will be providing these cheap munitions.
	Who has quantified the price of that platform?
	I see what you mean.
	So if you take current firms like Andreil or Palantir, which are putting out drones, they would invest if they took that $250 million, expanded to potentially $5 billion in those loans, a large quantity, whatever they would be looking for for your specific numbers.
	But $250 million is what you're investing for the American taxpayer.
	I'll move on.
	In the most recent budget for the Army, the Army Acquisition Chief has allocated $447 million to acquiring drone defense.
	Why do we need to spend $500 million more?
	Well, the Army's drone program specifically is allocated for $35 million for offensive drone programs.
	Now, the total drone program, yes, costs that much, but what we're talking about is that capability as well.
	And this upgrade comes through a new acquisitions pathway, and that is the federally backed loans that we're talking about.
	Doug Bush, in the 2025 fiscal year Army budget, has allocated $447 million for LIDS, which is a counter-drone program.
	Why do you need $500 million more?
	Well, again, so you're referring to a counter-drone program.
	What we're talking about is a modular platform that exists across the joint force for not just counter-drone, but offensive surveillance ISR.
	What is the difference between countering a drone and a defensive drone program?
	I was referring to the offensive capability as well.
	That's what we're talking about here, something that's modular and can be applied defensively and offensively.
	Before we begin, we would like to thank Dr. Frank Luntz for his assistance in setting this up, our judges for giving their time and attention to this important discourse, and our audience, both in person and watching VSE span, for their support.
	The United States Naval Academy stands resolved that Congress should allocate an additional $500 million to the United States Navy, earmarked for additive forward manufacturing, most commonly done by 3D printing, of parts necessary to repair deployed ships and submarines.
	Now, it's crucial to understand that in a world without a strong U.S. naval power is a world riddled with the very conflicts that West Point has described.
	A capable U.S. naval presence dampens conflict because our adversaries perceive U.S. presence offshore and then regulate their behaviors accordingly.
	While the job of our surface fleet is to be a visual reminder that we are physically near an adversary, our silent forces' job is to be always hidden, always lurking, always providing the world with nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction.
	This combination assures our allies, and more importantly our adversaries, of a robust U.S. naval presence.
	In a world where that deterrent power deteriorates, small hotspots erupt without a way to safely bring escalation down.
	We bring the fight to them so they don't bring the fight to us.
	With naval deterrence, the conflict would necessitate the Army that the Army never happens.
	If provided that $500 million would bolster that deterrence, we win this debate.
	The United States Navy is the best warfighting, excuse me, the best warfighting organization the world has ever known.
	It is also the only part of the Department of Defense dedicated to deterrence.
	Our forward-deployed capabilities mean that we can project U.S. hegemonic power in every corner of the globe.
	Colin Gray, strategic defense scholar, points out that naval power provides the ultimate flexible strategy instrument capable of threatening, compelling, and deterring without necessarily firing a shot.
	Absent a way to bring this power projection to foreign coasts, adversarial powers will bring their power and illiberal values to us.
	But this deterrence is slowly being chipped away.
	Physical deterioration of existing fleet compromises our powerful lead.
	For example, ships are needing to return to port for broken parts of a reverse osmosis system, sometimes for days or even weeks.
	Or damaged control men aboard the USS Stockdale are losing access to parts needed for repairs after engagements with Houthi rebels.
	Or unrepairable oxygen generators on submarines are requiring them to surface, revealing their location.
	And for these subs and ships to return to sea faster, they might engage in cannibalization, where they take parts from a vessel in a yard, causing logistical and developmental problems for docked boats.
	To sum it up, the list is long and each incident is visible to our adversaries.
	That time away, that visible absence, matters.
	When our enemies believe we are in decline, it encourages them to take advantage of our weaknesses.
	Retired Captain Richard Rohan, the former dean of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies, noted, exercising command of the sea is intimately connected with maintaining it.
	Virtual presence is actual absence, so the U.S. Navy must continue to deploy forward in numbers to support the global order.
	Rightly understood, the defense of Taiwan is connected to the regional exercise of command, whether or not the U.S. decides to intervene against China.
	Further, we are not trying to build new ships, but make our current ships usable.
	By utilizing additive manufacturing, we seek to restore U.S. command of the sea and make us better able to check the rise of adverse powers, particularly China.
	Mark Massey, program manager for the Naval Sea System's Command Additive Manufacturing Integration, noted that the Navy is pressing to put more printers on board and onshore close to operational theaters.
	Additive manufacturing is a cheap and also critical tool for meeting maintenance schedules and improving supply chain resiliency.
	We understand we're not going to additively manufacture everything on our own, but there are certainly some problems we could go solve on our own if we had another viable manufacturing process.
	Our installation of 3D printers provides that viable process that he's referring to.
	According to Captain Rohan cited above, the necessity of command of the sea concept is resurfacing because of the rise of China, its global political ambitions, and its attendant construction of a powerful Navy.
	China's strategic initiatives are global, and it is developing a global naval infrastructure to back those initiatives in the future.
	This presents the United States with a new global naval challenge.
	During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy never presented a realistic challenge to the U.S. command of the sea, but today, indicators are that the potential for the United States to lose command of the sea is growing.
	Herein lies the strategic problem that the U.S. Navy must solve, one that may provide purchase for the development of a compelling strategy.
	Our position is that this compelling strategy, the most proximate way to resolve command of the sea, is to shore up our existing fleet to maintain a credible deterrent via additive manufacturing.
	We now stand ready for cross-examination.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for your speech.
	First, 3D printing is nascent technology.
	What is your planned procurement strategy to get this from manufacturing to ships in the near term?
	Well, this has actually already been done with the example of the USS Bataan.
	And basically, what they did is they got the 3D printing company right, and they installed the 3D printer on the ship so that it could be 3D printing parts that it needs instead of having to go back to port.
	So I understand this was a prototype model.
	At what point do you think you could expand this across the entire fleet?
	And I'm sorry, it was not a prototype model.
	It was a model that was installed in the ship.
	At what point do you think you could mass produce this model?
	Well, while we've already done it on one ship, it would be very simple to do the same thing on other ships in the future.
	Sure, but in how much time?
	We don't have an exact timeframe.
	However, the process for putting on the USS Baton in 2022 was fairly simple and straightforward, and that could be replicated on other ships in a very short amount of time.
	So, estimates place a Chinese potentially invasion of Taiwan in 2027.
	Would the entire U.S. Navy be prepared with additive manufacturing by that time?
	Well, we wouldn't need to give it to the entire U.S. Navy, just the carrier strike groups, and you would have one 3D printer per carrier strike group, and that could print parts for other ships in the group.
	So, one ship can prepare the entire U.S. fleet?
	I'm not saying one ship can prepare the fleet.
	I'm saying one ship can prepare a carrier strike group.
	A question.
	So, what's the size of something you can print with these 3D printers in regards to your ships and vessels?
	Well, the USS Baton has been shown to print all sorts of parts that need repair because it can print both polymers and metal with different proportions.
	So, what are the maximum proportions specifically for printing?
	Well, that would depend on the 3D printer model, and we have various ones that we can refer to.
	So, we have smaller ones that range from $5,000 to $10,000, including the Strayus U-Print SE-Plus type, the Luxbot TAS 6 and Mini 2, and the TorMatch.
	But for bigger printers printing larger parts, you can turn to the MAC-forged X7 system or the Haas TM1, which is what was used.
	So, how much would this cost if you were to equip each carrier strike group with an entire 3D printing outfit?
	Well, it depends on the 3D printer.
	So, the larger printers cost $60,000 to $50,000, and the smaller ones, $5,000.
	Which 3D printer would provide deterrence for the U.S. Navy if it were equipped on carrier strike groups?
	How much would that one cost?
	The one that we have the example of, the Haas, was $50,000 to put on the USS Baton.
	Okay, and then you're equipping across the U.S. Navy for $500.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Miro, we're going to start prep time.
	Each team has a total of eight minutes of prep time that they can dip into throughout the debate.
	Army has determined to begin their prep time now.
	And judges, I'll take this time to remind you that your ballot is in front of you on the back side of the handout that you have there.
	Part of what we'll ask is that you'll rank the top three speakers in order of effectiveness based on how they persuade you, and then we will recognize the number one ranked speaker at the end of the debate.
	Sir, I'll get to one for you.
	I'm going
	to stop prep.
	Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
	In light of the two biggest challenges facing the DoD, both the rising cost curve and the shift towards distributed warfare, remaining competitive in the drone space is a top national security priority.
	The Ukraine conflict serves as a dire wake-up call when we look at how American-supplied drones failed miserably in basic tasks such as communication and target identification.
	Meanwhile, our adversaries excel not only in these capacities, but also in adaptability and reliability.
	Investing in this forward manufacturing is for drone components will further enable distributed units.
	These low-cost, commercial-grade drones are innovations that are attracting companies such as MarkForged and the Velo 3D, who are seeking funding to scale their technologies.
	As a former 10th Mountain Motor Transport Operator myself, I have personally witnessed how logistical challenges have stalled both military equipment and military vehicles, impacting overall division readiness.
	Ford manufacturing, however, would effectively resolve these issues.
	Note that when we leverage these private sector investments, we are guaranteeing federally backed loans to drone manufacturers, which allows us to unlock significant capital.
	This approach enables the rapid deployment of various platforms that address the cost curve, empower small units, and counter enemy UAS systems.
	Under our plan, the federal government, really through the U.S. Army, agrees to repay investors if this project fails.
	Ergo, there is no risk to private investment in drone and forward manufacturing technology.
	This encourages a surge in private capital.
	Investors will indeed perform their due diligence, but this approach empowers firms to pursue innovation projects that otherwise would have just gone unfunded.
	Now, Judges, Knox briefly mentioned our framework in his first speech, but I would like to expand on this.
	And it's really to vote for the team that delivers the strongest return on investment.
	And we can evaluate this through three simple tenets.
	Our first is value.
	We eliminate the cost curve, strengthening domestic industry and positioning the U.S. as the leader in innovation.
	Time.
	We look at our adversaries, Russia, China, Iran, they are rapidly advancing their drone technology, posing an immediate threat to global security.
	America must act now, staying in the race with a critical milestone geared towards 2027.
	Our plan is the only one ensuring this success.
	Scope.
	The Army confronts global threats when we look at the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, to name a few.
	And affordable tactical drones are vital for adapting to the diverse terrains, missions, and ensuring readiness in every combat domain.
	Now, let's address the Navy's ineffective plan.
	As mentioned, the biggest challenges facing the DoD is the rising cost curve and distributed warfare.
	But the Navy is only going to exacerbate both these issues with their plan.
	When we look at their Advantage 1, deterrence, right, the Navy has already allocated $25.7 billion to ship maintenance and monetization over the next three fiscal years.
	So this $500 million, which is only a 2% increase, is not only redundant, but minuscule and insignificant.
	Their plan will inevitably fail because the Navy's system maintenance issues can't be solved with $500 million.
	The 2023 Government Accountability Office has deduced that 50% of amphibious ships are in poor condition, and these delays have only amplified since 2011, slashing any type of military readiness.
	Additionally, the director, Diana Moore, who testified before Congress this past May, articulated that less than 40% of ships have completed repairs on time.
	Growing up, my very wise mother used to say to me all the time, when people show you who they are, believe them.
	This statement could not be more prevalent than today.
	Furthermore, sweeping investments in ships guarantees the likelihood of a Chinese invasion because they will strike before we can even finish this monetization.
	Moving on to the additive manufacturing, it's imperative to note that additive manufacturing is limited in its ability to scale large naval components and its reliance or naval material capabilities.
	Additionally, they have failed to actually provide, they say there's a prototype in place, but there's actually no substantive one in the status quo.
	They've mentioned that there's some used on ships, but unless they can quantify an exact example, then you just simply ignore it.
	Additionally, you can't use 3D printing on an aircraft carrier.
	The issues we are talking about are major here.
	Shipwide issues, whether it's major hole rusting, contamination of the aircraft carriers, or water systems.
	The FX-20 is a large composite of the 3D printer, and the March Forge is a portfolio product.
	It has built the volume of 50 by 50 each day.
	So applying the framework above, it is imperative to realize that the Navy's plan slaps a band-aid on a bullet loom, failing to address the systemic issues at hand.
	Now, judges, would you rather vote for a team who wastes taxpayer dollars and leaves critical vulnerabilities unaddressed, or vote for a team who is actually going to surge in capital and maintain global stability?
	And with that, I'm ready for CrossSex.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	So, to begin with.
	Yes.
	In what conflict scenario do you think that these drones and these manufacturing techniques would be used in, and how would you deliver these techniques to the front lines?
	So you were talking about like our adversaries, so I outlined a few, right?
	We have Russia, we have China, we have Iran, but as I mentioned, when you look in Ukraine and what we're getting...
	Do you envision the United States Army going to war with Russia?
	Just to start with.
	I mean, it's definitely a possibility.
	Okay.
	But kind of going back to answer your question, right, like how we actually use this, it's the modular platforms, which allows you to really encompass a variety of different needs, whether it's reconnaissance, whether it's defense, as Knox mentioned, whether it's offense.
	There's a variety of platforms, and that's really what we're trying to do here.
	Hypothetically, let's say that this sure happens.
	How are you going to get your drones to the front lines?
	Well, that's kind of the benefit here of Ford Manufacturing.
	One, we look at the two tenants we're doing.
	Okay, is there a ship involved?
	Is there a what?
	Is there a ship involved in the process of delivering your drones to the front lines?
	I mean, there's a variety of ways we can deliver things.
	I don't think we should get it.
	Is there anything besides ships?
	There's planes?
	Okay.
	I mean, there's donkeys.
	Sure.
	There's other options, I guess.
	I prefer using planes because they're more efficient, you know.
	Ships.
	And as I've denied in them.
	So you will fly a plane from the United States to Russia to drop a bunch of drones there.
	Well, based off the 2023 GAL report, since 50% of your ships are not even, you know, not in readiness status quo.
	Yeah, I looked at the more intuitive question.
	Yeah, I'm just going to drop a bunch of drones in Russia.
	Is this your plan?
	You mean from the sky?
	So yes, you were just going to drop a bunch of drones from a plane and then the plane will fly back to the United States?
	That's a possibility.
	Okay.
	I'm confused on the question, but yes.
	It's the most efficient solution.
	The Navy, the Marine Corps, the Army, all these services have different needs.
	How would this joint program provide for all of them?
	Right.
	So the benefit of the modular technology is this is something that could be utilized on ships and it literally costs nothing.
	Just sailors may need some training, right?
	But training is something we do across all the forces.
	So there's no net disadvantage per se.
	And it's something that all the forces could use.
	The Aegis weapon system cost $1.7 billion to develop.
	What is the price of the system that you're trying to develop and why does it cost $250 million?
	So which component, right?
	There's two here.
	Any of them.
	How have you quantified the problems?
	Well, Notz kind of elaborated beautifully in his first speech.
	There's some that range from just $100 and there's some that range upwards of $1,000.
	So the technology that we're investing in is going to enable this modular technology.
	we will be taking forever.
	The Navy's position here is that Congress should allocate an additional $500 million in funding for the United States Navy aimed at providing an onboard additive manufacturing capability to ships around the world.
	The benefits of additive manufacturing are that it boosts operational readiness, it increases the deployability of ships, it keeps them out of the shipyards longer, which means morale is higher and sailors are more effectively trained.
	It increases the survivability of ships dealing with small parts casualties, and it ends the practice of ship cannibalization.
	To cite specific case studies, the USS Bataan permanently installed a Haas TM1 additive manufacturing unit on board in 2022.
	The addition of this unit was a massive success, as immediately after it was installed, it was utilized to fabricate an intricate part for a de-ballast air compressor, a crippling casualty.
	Upon this smashing success, Rear Admiral Joseph Cahill, commander of the Naval Service Forces Atlantic, stated, the impact technology like this can have on operational readiness, particularly in combat environments, where logistic capabilities will be challenged, is critically important.
	In another instance, just this summer, the USS Somerset installed a similar system on board, where again, it too was utilized to effectively manufacture a fix for an intricate part, this time for the reverse osmosis system on board, a system that provides clean drinking water for sailors.
	In cases such as these, where there are debilitating failures of equipment, a part can be manufactured on the spot before an order for one is even placed.
	To further prove the feasibility of this technology and implementation, I will cite already existing command structures.
	The Naval Sea Systems Command, also known as NAVSEA, is an already functioning systems command, one that oversaw the two above case studies.
	The NAV-C Apollo lab is responsible for testing additive manufacturing and building a parts database, which they have done and continue to do.
	The only barrier to this is widespread, like the widespread use is funding.
	In short, like the technology already exists, the labs already exist, testing is already done, compatibility is proven, the only thing missing is your vote and the incentive to do so.
	Now moving on to like responding to my opponent's case.
	On the concept of deterrence, West Point has confused the idea of having a capability with that capability carrying a deterrent capacity.
	The Army exists at the back of a very long line of other deterrent forces that we would use first, forces already spoken of that would bear the brunt of drone warfare.
	In this, I ask a larger question.
	In any conflict in which the Army is used, how would they transport themselves?
	If a conflict breaks out over Taiwan or another spurs up in the Middle East and the Army were to be eventually used, they would rely on other branches to transport them and their equipment.
	Primarily, as history has shown the Navy, the naval ships that we plan on outfitting with multi-dimensional additive manufacturing capabilities to keep them in working order for longer.
	If the Navy ships are dilapidated or non-functional, the Army loses a massive component of the transport capability and the nation loses its largest deterrent capacity.
	I could list you the multitude of studies outlining the sole importance of the U.S. Navy in providing deterrence for the country, or I could just provide to you an example.
	You must ask yourself, does China not seek to invade Taiwan because they learned the Army has begun developing drone warfare capabilities?
	Or because the U.S. is further strengthening the Carl Vinson, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups currently patrolling the Pacific?
	Moving on to some more arguments that our opponents brought up.
	You should have massive doubt that West Point has sufficient funds to make all of their drone platforms.
	They said that they put $250 million towards development of the state-of-the-art device.
	However, empirically, it costs way more than that to do so.
	For example, as we brought up, the Aegis weapon system cost the Navy $1.7 billion to develop using private investors.
	The risk with the Army is that their return on investment is zero because we are unable to sufficiently fund this platform and they have been unable to quantify a price.
	This is a massive sunk cost.
	They can be right that a single drone is cheap, just as a bullet fired from a SeaWise system is cheap, but the system itself is expensive.
	The $25 billion they brought up in the Navy's plan for revitalization, that was specifically for shipyard improvements, which we agree with the Army is a wrong investment.
	Ours is for additive manufacturing so we can keep ships out of shipyards.
	Our plan is sufficient.
	If we divide $500 million by the $50,000 average per unit that we have cited, you're left with 10,000 units.
	That means we can apply 10,000 units of these additive manufacturing capabilities to ships around the fleet.
	The USS Baton and the USS Summerton are the two case studies we cited.
	We have given specific empirical examples of this happening and shown that it's feasible.
	NAV Sea Command is also another command that we have shown is working to further prove that this works, build a database for this to actually be compatible.
	And the USS Bataan, the trial run that they took, which they cited was way too long, took three months and it reduced their time in shipyard by 95%.
	So this is a massive boost to the US's deterrent capability.
	On this other argument that the oh, I'm out of time.
	Again, I'm gonna stop watching.
	I'll be ready for press.
	Wait, actually, Dan, let me start the time.
	Sorry.
	Alright, go ahead.
	Thanks for your speech.
	So which service is legally in charge of logistics for the Department of Defense?
	Logistics?
	Which under U.S. code is in charge of setting theater logistics?
	It's the U.S. Army.
	And is it true that the U.S. Army uses logistics and setting theater logistics, so organizing, command and control, organizing the assets, so on and so forth?
	Isn't it also true that the U.S. Army uses aircraft, ships, army ships, and other assets to move these technologies in this way in the Gulf War, for example?
	Actually, all of the equipment that the Army used in any of their processes there were delivered by the Navy under the Naval Sea Command.
	So, we'll get to that in our speech.
	It's incorrect.
	It was also used by the Air Force in global transport.
	How long does it take to get from the West Coast to the South China Sea, Navy fleet of ships?
	A couple days.
	It's not two to three weeks?
	Okay.
	Well, fact-check.
	So, what's your source on it takes a few days to get from the West Coast?
	You go from the West Coast to the South China Sea from two to three days.
	That's right.
	You're not going from San Diego all the way to the South China Sea.
	You're going to bases from Pearl Harbor or forward-positioned Guam, which only takes a couple days, and we have naval bases there.
	So, your reliance on forward naval bases, right?
	How are these protected?
	Pearl Harbor.
	Yes, Pearl Harbor.
	It's in a U.S. state that is littered with U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and naval bases.
	Subic Bay or any of the other stations.
	How are they physically protected?
	You would first have to prove that somehow U.S. defense capabilities on bases at home are somehow insufficient and vulnerable to mass Chinese attacks.
	That would be saying that we're going to allow another December 7th happen again.
	But it is true that whether it's in the Philippines or anywhere else in Southeast Asia, it is the U.S. Army which provides protection for Navy ports that call from air defense and so on and so forth.
	For Guam.
	Is that correct?
	It's not correct that Patriot missiles are not Guam providing defense.
	What I'm saying is, if it is a Patriot missile system, it's run by the Navy, so it doesn't matter who creates the system.
	Thank you.
	So, two quick questions.
	Just for my clarification.
	On survivability, can you explain how this enhances the survivability of your ships that you mentioned?
	So, if like your reverse osmosis water generator breaks on a submarine, now you have no water and you're stuck in the middle of the ocean, your sub is just a sitting.
	So, can you just elaborate on the claims where you said this directly produces the operational readiness?
	Is that kind of the same point that you're tiny into?
	If you have a small parts failure that is like critical to the function of the ship itself, if you can fix that on the spot, you increase operational readiness for the ship.
	Because if not, you have to return to port or sit and wait for a ship to come up and give you another part.
	Thank you.
	It'll take forever.
	Mira, how much time have we used this one?
	Thank you.
	Both teams have now begun to prepare for the rebuttals.
	In the constructives, you saw them develop their arguments, bring their arguments out, and explain them to the judging panel and to our wonderful visitors.
	Now, what they're going to be doing is comparing and contrasting the arguments in much more depth, but much more quickly.
	So, each side only has three minutes in these two rebuttal speeches and then three minutes at the very end to close.
	So, they're going to have to condense their arguments down, make them very concisely, refer to the things that they have already said in the constructives in order to persuade our judges that they should be the team that wins.
	So that's what you're about to see next, and it should be very fun.
	And judges, as a reminder, following the rebuttal speeches, each of you may ask each team one question, just one, not after each speech, for the sake of time.
	to clarify a point or to get additional information about one of the arguments that you've seen.
	So each team will have 30 seconds to respond to your question.
	Once again, we solved the asymmetric cost curve and an increasingly distributed battlefield by fielding cheap modular drone platforms, investing in drone manufacturing infrastructure, and forward manufacturing technologies.
	$500 million in federally backed loans is less risky than any individual project and multiplies the effect of our funding to $5 billion.
	While solving legacy acquisitions failures, we win across value, time, and scope.
	Give capabilities to small teams like those you're seeing fighting in Ukraine right now.
	We have global and joint scope in scenarios ranging from Eastern Europe to conflict currently ongoing in the Middle East.
	The Taiwan scenario is uncertain.
	However, if you buy the Taiwan scenario, the senior naval officer in the Pacific, Admiral Paparo, has explained that the U.S. military's best plan for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is flooding the Taiwan Strait with thousands of drones to delay Chinese attack enough for the U.S. and its allies to muster additional military assets in the region.
	He wants to, quote, turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned hellscape which buys more time for the rest of everything.
	In short, Admiral Paparo thinks the Navy is too slow.
	A 2020 RAND Corporation report concludes that hundreds of networked low-cost drones are a key capability to prevent China from gaining air superiority.
	And war games conducted by the U.S. Air Force emphasize the critical role that a drone swarm would play in thwarting an invasion of Taiwan.
	In short, every branch agrees.
	Only drones solve Taiwan.
	On the Navy's plan, the biggest marked forge printers today have a build volume of 50 by 50 centimetres.
	They can't fix many naval components based on size and build material.
	Not yet.
	Their effort is a 2% increase in existing modernization efforts.
	This is a drop in the bucket.
	And they're doubling down on capital platforms, which are simply not survivable in face of the drone threat.
	You can't 3D print an aircraft carrier.
	These are major shipwright issues we're talking about.
	Additive forward manufacturing is important, but it's not yet ready.
	We need the RD investment.
	They also only focus on the Pacific, disregarding other theaters.
	They ask how the Army will transport itself.
	One, we have our own ships.
	Two, deploy-by-air fight on ground in Europe and the Middle East.
	On not having enough funds, the Navy ignores that our 500 million guarantees federally backed loans up to 5 billion.
	If Ukrainians in a garage can build lethal technology on a shoestring budget, U.S. industry can do the same.
	On existing fund allocations, again, that's for acquisition.
	The key differentiation here is that we change the legacy acquisitions process.
	On RRI risk, the Navy's plan is limited to just a few contracts.
	However, having many firms working in Tandem on this project distributes the risk.
	In short, if just 10% of these projects succeed, we will have a viable platform.
	Again, you're seeing footage out of Ukraine.
	Drone on drone warfare, drones carrying other drones, drones targeting infantry, destroying American armor, including the Bradley and the Arams tank systems.
	China has absolute dominance in this area.
	And if we allow this to continue, we will not catch up after a war breaks out.
	Sir, after any of the remaining speeches, you may ask your question.
	One against Navy and one to, sorry, one to Navy and one to Army.
	Yes, sir.
	At the same time, or one question for each separate questions.
	Yes, sir.
	We get two questions for our first time.
	sir.
	The fundamental defense of the United States and the ability to project power forward will always be the burden of the United States Navy.
	This is a quote from a person that I'm sure the cadets are familiar with, General Mark A. Milley, and his words continue to ring true today.
	Whether it is through nuclear deterrence from the Ohio-class submarines or conventional deterrence via our aircraft carriers, we are the only branch that holds this capacity to deter war.
	Dangerously, this is at risk.
	When ships are missing parts, they are forced out of the operational area to travel long distances to be repaired.
	Or maybe a submarine is forced to return to port since they are missing hardware necessary for their mission.
	Or in the worst case, the part that they need is critical to ship function, and then they make the dreaded Mayday call.
	These are not hypothetical, but real examples experienced by the USS Boxer and the USS Thresher.
	3D printing technology is an innovative and cheap method to resolve these issues.
	It offers ships the ability to be self-sufficient and maintain their deployment capacity while actively on patrol.
	This has been tested on the USS Bataan and has resolved major maintenance issues in regard to part shortages.
	We have proven that we can purchase 10,000 3D printers with the funds, while you should have questions about the price of their plan.
	Now, onto my opponent's case.
	First, they are utilizing useless government spending.
	The Army already budgeted $447 million for drone defenses.
	Their argument boils down to, well, let's give them some more.
	Second, there are problems beyond funding.
	Red tape surrounding who is liable for drone destruction makes it so no soldier will want to use the technology, even if West Point allocates the funds.
	Last, the Army can do nothing if the Navy is at risk.
	They cannot transport their technology to a foreign adversary.
	The last speech mentioned that you need drones in the South China Sea.
	Is the Army just swimming there?
	No, they need our ships in order to get their drones in the first place.
	How would you transport drones if the ship is in the yard?
	Blake Herzinger, a foreign policy expert, stated that approximately 90% of the Army's required equipment to battle would be carried by the United States Navy, not planes.
	This plan relies on efficient naval ships.
	Finally, the Army makes the claim that the Navy has no solution to drones, but we do.
	Direct energy weapons, also known as high-powered lasers.
	The flight to a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in late 22, this destroyer was equipped with a 60-kilowatt helio system.
	This system is already operational and not in development like the Army's plan and cost around $20 to $30 million per unit.
	It is clear the Army is dependent on the Navy's functionality to perform.
	We should ensure that these naval vessels will be able to reach the battlefield.
	$500 million for the Navy is not just an investment in the physical infrastructure of naval vessels, it's an investment for peace.
	Thank you. We can ask now, right?
	Is that right?
	So, by your math that you also confirmed, 10,000 3D printers, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Where are they all going?
	That's a lot of 3D printers.
	Where are they actually all going to go?
	I think what we were trying to say with that was the actual price per unit, like fitting all the ships, is we would have a lot of money left over to support them logistically.
	So it's not like we throw a bunch of units at the fleet.
	It's like we would only man what is necessary, which is much under the 10,000.
	And the rest of the money can be used to supply them with materials and ensure that NAVSI, the command for the structuring of these, will have enough funding to continue their training, continue their development of ship part catalogs such.
	Our goal is not to have them manufacture missiles while they're on the front lines.
	It's just to fix parts, fix critical problems and issues that they might have with like water generating systems or oxygen generating systems on submarines.
	I think that manufacturing missiles might actually be more dangerous if we're doing it on the front lines within our ships.
	To clarify additionally, if a new system were to be implemented, I think that additive manufacturing would make that safer and easier.
	Let's say you put a new system of trials because if a break's critical to its mission, you can just print a new one.
	Ships have limited space.
	Is there adequate space on ships right now that you can retrofit, or are you designing ships with this in mind?
	Yes, sir, they are.
	They're pretty small, relatively small, so it's pretty easy to fit these additive manufacturing 3D printers.
	Are we talking about one printer can handle all the different intricacies of the large to the small parts that are needed?
	Yes, sir.
	Sir, the USS Baton has is like an empirical example of how we've put a 3D printer on a U.S. ship.
	Also, you can put a larger 3D printer on a supply ship and that can retrofit larger or more adventures.
	And there's space available on ships now to do that.
	Yes, they can.
	You don't have to redesign the ship, right?
	Is what you're saying?
	No, sir.
	Do you have a specific number of the days of operational availability that you think this would increase for the fleet?
	The USS Baton decreased its yard visits by 95% after they put a 3D printer on board.
	So 95% less days in the yard, 95% more time deployed.
	The Marines have been using 3D printers in the field.
	You might know that's the men's department of the Navy, I understand.
	That's as well.
	Pretty much in Squada Canal.
	I've watched them make Humvee parts and so on.
	They've been doing it for a lot of years.
	One of the things they found was that it doesn't save money, but it does, in fact, allow them to resupply quickly.
	But it's not a crutch.
	It's a crutch.
	It's not a replacement limb.
	Are you proposing that the additional cost of making in the field is offset many times fold if it's 95% reduction in visits to port?
	Are you saying that this thing pays for itself that dramatically by uptime?
	And if so, why is this incremental money rather than it's already proven to save and it should have been in the NDAA years ago?
	In other words, why are you asking for it today if you've already proved that it saves money on an ongoing basis?
	It pays for itself, right?
	Sure, I think there are a couple parts to your question.
	Our first answer will be that there are massive shipyard lobbies that actually want to keep ships in the yard so they can do more repairs to them and make more frequent visits, which creates a structural disadvantage for the Navy when they want their ships to be on standby and deployable in whatever geostrategic realm that we are in.
	So that provides, again, a reason why it might not be in the NDAA because shipyard lobbies.
	The second part is that it will save the money for the Navy in the long run.
	Can you hear me?
	We're a little in awe of your answer, I guess, the Senator and myself.
	The NDAA is the request of the Department of Defense.
	The Admiral was very, very integral to that for years.
	Defense people do get involved, but the reality is that it comes from the joint staff.
	So I'll narrow my question.
	Are you aware of the Navy ever asking for this in the NDAA before?
	And if not, why not?
	The Navy requested $1.1 million to build the Apollo lab in Norfolk, Virginia, which is an additive manufacturing plant.
	Thank you.
	Honorable judges and audience members, you should remember that this debate is fundamentally a question of three key values.
	Value, time, and scope.
	The first question is who has the best returns for value on $500 million?
	We argue that's the Navy or the Army.
	Navy's plan fails on this front.
	First, you must question why the $500 million is uniquely necessary for deterrence.
	We have already spent $26 billion on fleet modernization to try and fix our substance ships.
	Their $500 million proposal is just 2% of this.
	2%.
	$500 million is not even sufficient to repair a single ship.
	You should be very skeptical of their claims that they can actually get ships out of our shipyards right now.
	Meanwhile, look to our plan.
	An allocation of $250 million will nearly double our current investment in drones, which will allow for a meaningful boom in innovation.
	This is fast, cheap, and the key to winning the war in Taiwan, as my partner Valentin has alluded to.
	Next is time.
	We are clearly ahead on this question as well.
	Our unique funding approach, one that has already been authorized by Congress to fund critical innovation projects, avoids the failure of the legacy acquisition process.
	Instead, we leverage the newly created Office of Strategic Capital alongside the power of private investment to incentivize companies to deliver.
	Meanwhile, Navy has not provided a specific mechanism to get forward manufacturing onto the market.
	They have no timeline for when they can deliver the product, no mechanism to leverage private market investment, and no specific proposal to improve our naval deterrence.
	As a result, as I will reiterate, the Navy's plan will just turn into another decades-long billion-dollar project, which will never deliver.
	The Navy argues that our proposal will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
	However, as I will mention, the U.S. already has all the technology on the market to make drones possible.
	It's just a question of putting it all together to make a viable product.
	This guarantees implementation of the plan within one to two years.
	If war-torn Ukrainians working in backyard laboratories can figure out how to avoid adopting cheap drones throughout their forces, then surely American industry can as well.
	Finally, is scope.
	This is a crucial difference between our plan and their plan.
	They have fundamentally misunderstood the Navy and its role in Taiwan.
	The Navy does not carry Army assets.
	Air Force C-17s, land transport, pre-positioned stocks, and commercial sea lifts do.
	Air transport is the most realistic solution as Navy ships are too slow to carry supplies in an urgent conflict.
	In contrast, our plan will set the theater throughout the Pacific Ocean, not just for the Army, but for the joint force.
	That's what we can guarantee for just $500 million, utilizing both cost-effective drones and forward manufacturing.
	The U.S. Army is playing a crucial supporting role in defending and enabling the continued use of our naval and Air Force assets against the new threat of drones, which is comparable to things like IEDs.
	The modular drone and foreign manufacturing technology that we developed through private industry is key to solve all our supply issues and stop crucial threats around the world, which are threatening the joint force right now.
	This is why you must adopt the Army's proposal to adopt $250 million into this forward manufacturing and $250 million into our drones.
	Thank you.
	You all talked about kind of leveraging federal dollars for private capital.
	I think in any conversation I've ever had with defense tech companies, the last thing they're looking for is federally backed loans.
	They don't want loans.
	Capital is not the problem right now.
	So how have you addressed and incorporated that consideration?
	So the primary issue with some of the legacy drone programs we have, right, whether it's the Shadow or the Raven, is exactly those existing established defense contractors who, yes, don't need capital, but frankly, they're not innovating.
	They're not bringing the new technologies to the market.
	The past two major drone programs we've had, Shadow and Raven, have been described by the Army's chief technology officer as abject failures.
	What we need is more players in the market.
	It's to open the door to firms that right now don't have the capital, don't have the confidence to enter the drone market.
	But by leveraging, again, these federally backed loans, unlocking private capital to these firms, we're able to actually get more players in the market.
	Congressman, I'll also add that the program managers in our solution would be working alongside these private industry, hoping to develop that technology.
	So it's much different than just private investment firms and private defense contractors, but rather a joint effort throughout the entire process, if that makes sense.
	Have you given any thought?
	You talked early in your presentation about the multi-capability of your drone platform, drones for various capabilities.
	I happen to have a little history with a multi-capable ship called LCS.
	It didn't go very well.
	So can you talk a little bit about how you think you would deliver this capability from a modularity standpoint, given these very challenging missions?
	Yes, sir.
	I can talk a little bit about that.
	So what you're seeing right now in the war in Ukraine is that the Ukrainians are taking our drone assets and adopting them in different ways, in ways that they might not necessarily have been used.
	So for things like reconnaissance, offensive capabilities, and counter-drone operations.
	We argue that the Army can create a modular drone platform that can encompass all of these different mission sets, and that will allow it to be used across the force, not just in the Army, but also to protect, for example, Air Force and naval bases.
	It could potentially be used by the Navy to counter drone threats and, for example, the Red Sea as a more cost-effective way to resolve the cost asymmetry.
	And that's what we argue is the best solution to resolving the drone threat and getting our own capabilities on the market.
	I just ask you to think, and maybe you have a view on the magic of technology, because given all the magic of drone capability in Ukraine, in many ways we're still fighting like it was 1917.
	All that's to say is that it's a real challenge to bring this stuff together and have a real impact as you look at it.
	For sure, sir.
	I just need one clarification.
	One clarification from Army, and then I have a question, but you someone, I think someone said, I don't know which one of you, it might have been our second speaker, about the 100% reimbursement back to private sector, if the project didn't, I was, okay.
	So yes, sir.
	A good analogy is, for example, the VA loan, which has helped millions of veterans acquire home ownership status.
	So the federal-backed guarantee is invoked in the case where a product...
	A federal-backed guarantee?
	I've never heard of 100%.
	We've ever given a guarantee of 100% because it gives no incentive to do the job or get involved and do it right because you'd be throwing anything at us.
	So there is still a significant incentive, especially from the basis of a lot of this technology has dual-use applications.
	Companies want to go out and make significant returns on this capital.
	They don't just want to lose it, right?
	There are also elements of due diligence from the part of the investors and the part of the army.
	So if I go out and basically spend $100 million or $10 million basically trying to develop the program and for some reason it doesn't work, you're going to reimburse me on $10 million?
	We will set certain parameters for the projects.
	And if that project was in line with the parameters we've set and the project fails, yes, up to that $250, we will reimburse that project.
	Can I ask my question?
	My question is truly this.
	How did you choose your subject matter based on cost or based on time, need, need of time?
	How did you all come up with the drone?
	I mean, with the drones?
	Sir, it was a bit of a mix.
	The fact that just in October, this new capability was given to OSC to do this program allowed us a new funding approach, but then costs for the taxpayer was the most important thing.
	To use a solution that is out right now and currently working, that the Ukrainians are doing this job of integration for us, allowed us to do this at a high value.
	Thank you.
	Any other questions?
	What sort of changes do you believe would be necessary to the Army force structure itself to properly employ the drone that you're proposing, as nothing similar exists in inventory today?
	Or do you see it falling in on existing force structure?
	Yep.
	So, sir, I've actually already seen proposals for a drone use at the lowest echelon.
	The DEVCOM commander was actually talking to West Point a few months ago about having drones integrated at the platoon level.
	However, that might require additional units.
	For example, in air defense, the Army is legally tasked with providing air defense to all installations across the DOD, and that may involve drones now more so than just Patriot missiles as we've done currently.
	So there may be changes, but they're already being integrated.
	The technology just needs additional funding.
	I guess this is my second question, Army side.
	Both Army and Navy have proposed $500 million on items that have already proven to have value.
	3D printers, obviously Marines and others have used them, shown that they can increase uptime.
	You have a particular ship that did the same thing.
	So they're asking for $500 million for something that has a somewhat proven track record.
	Is it fair to say that your request is based on the proven track record or observations primarily of the Ukrainian war and the example you gave of Jordan and our inability to protect them?
	If that's the case, then please contrast why yours is more timely or more effective than the Navy's proposal, if they're both timely in the sense that we have proven examples.
	Yes, sir.
	I can talk about it a little bit.
	So I think the biggest difference between our proposal and Navy's proposal is, well, one, the funding mechanism, which, as we mentioned again and again, the use of private investment and these sort of cost incentives through this loan guarantee program, that's going to be really effective for delivering these drones at a quality and at pace that we need.
	I think that Navy has a noticeable lack of a specific mechanism for ensuring that companies don't just blow past their deadlines, for example, whereas the Army has a specific incentive structure which has already been proven through the Office of Strategic Capital to be able to deliver that product on time.
	And we need it on time considering the conflicts that are potentially occurring throughout the world.
	Just add one more thing.
	So the Navy's talking about 3D printers for ships.
	The Army is talking about through the Army Advanced Center Manufacturing for the entire force.
	It doesn't work for the Marines.
	Ladies and gentlemen, 2027 is a date that has been hanging over my head.
	Not just because it's the year that I will graduate from the Naval Academy, but because it's the date that the Chinese have set to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan.
	In the words of the professors Halbrands and Michael Beckley, China's risk indicators are blinking red.
	However, this does not mean that war is inevitable.
	As my shipmates have identified, the U.S. Navy exists as a deterrent force to prevent war.
	But by 2027, we need to be strong enough that when the People's Liberation Army looks across the Taiwan Strait, they think twice.
	This, at a minimum, means having ships that are in working order.
	I'm sure you've all heard this story before, but the importance of this date to military spending cannot be overstated.
	Army has outlined a plan that might be employed in a hypothetical conflict.
	They say a war might spiral in Russia, but the best army to combat Russia is the Ukrainian Army, not the United States Army.
	They say a war might spiral in the Middle East, but we all know that American taxpayers would not tolerate another forever war.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we are not living in 2010 anymore.
	The Department of the Army cannot be allowed to prepare for an imaginary war while we have a very real threat in front of us.
	We need a plan for the world of 2027.
	That means we need to look at the Pacific.
	Between the vast open oceans and the many island chains, the Army is out of its depth.
	Recent history proves that the Navy and the Marine Corps are the only seaworthy services in the DoD.
	The Army has deprioritized its maritime capabilities, and they cannot do anything without us.
	Look at the failure of the floating Gaza Pier, a project meant to showcase the Army's joint logistics over-the-shore capabilities but ended in embarrassment.
	In a future conflict, failure is not an option.
	An M1 Abrams main battle tank weighs 74 tons.
	A Bradley weighs 27.6 tons.
	Don't let the Army paper over these realities.
	There's no way to efficiently carry hardware overseas without using a ship.
	If you are planning for a conflict in the heart of the world's largest ocean, the needs of the Navy should come first.
	Our plan will keep our ships at sea for longer, which increases their visibility as a deterrent threat.
	It also keeps ships out of shipyards, which means that morale is higher, which is good for retention and recruitment.
	Moreover, Army severely underestimates the potential cost of their plan.
	Look to the Aegis system or the infamous F-35 joint strike fighter.
	Because of the competing interests of all of the different forces, the development timeframes stretch from months to years.
	Moreover, the capabilities of the Department of the Navy are not limited to ships and submarines.
	The United States Marine Corps provides a unique deterrent force, which, in accordance with the Commandant's Force Design 2030, is specially tailored to combat aggression in the Pacific.
	If you think that Army has any good ideas about drones or manufacturing, you should give the money to Navy in order to implement these ideas in the Marine Corps.
	The Marine Corps cannot wait for the Army to produce a product that it must adapt to its own specific uses.
	In any conflict, the Marine Corps will be on the ground before the Army.
	The Marine Corps' organizational ethos is innovate or die, making them a perfect candidate for integrating a new technology.
	The American people are exhausted with forever wars that necessitate long-term deployments of soldiers overseas, but the United States may be required to rapidly and effectively destroy an invading near-peer threat.
	For that job, you do not need scores of soldiers.
	You just need a Marine.
	Thank you.
	So we've entered the last portion of this debate, where Cadet Schmidt and Midshipman Connor will explain to the panel why you should vote for one particular team over the other.
	They are going to put together the most compelling case over the course of the entire debate, integrating all of the arguments that have come before into one packaged reason for why you should vote for either the Army or for the Navy.
	Look for that coming up soon.
	To conclude
	our plan, I would like to reintroduce three talking points on which you should judge us.
	Talk is cheap, ammunition is expensive, and America's sons and daughters are priceless.
	First, talk is cheap.
	Ladies and gentlemen, you have two plans to judge before you today.
	What I would ask is which team has presented a plan that means more than the words on paper.
	Admiral Paparo, the top-ranked naval admiral in the Indo-Pacific, has stated we need more drones in this region.
	Across history, we are very good at building technology that wins the past war.
	We want to win the future one.
	The United States is lacking a key war-winning capability in drones.
	Our plan wants to turn this disadvantage into an advantage.
	A singular modular drone platform or Ford logistics system developed by the smartest minds in America and backed by the competitive American economy instead of a few major prime contractors is not a plan of talk, but one of action.
	Second, ammunition is expensive.
	Half a billion dollars of the people's money is not something to be thrown into the wind.
	A key evaluator for either plan is which one invests the money in a fiscally responsible way.
	Our plan is one which shifts from legacy acquisition failures that have plagued all the DOD in the past and present to a modern, fiscally responsible solution.
	Rather than investing in one over-budget, overworked system, we plan to diversify our investments using the federally backed loans and find the best solution by using the innovation that the free market provides.
	Additionally, the duly used application of modular drones, industrial 3D printers, or blood on demand is fantastic.
	Companies like Walmart, Microsoft, and Amazon have already been investing in these technologies for years.
	Why not provide a way to bring it to the market as a whole?
	The last and most important piece is that our sons and daughters are priceless.
	The key discriminator between our plan and Navy's plan is benefit to each and every service member.
	Navy's plan is one that can only be launched and utilized by naval assets.
	Our system is joint capable.
	This system can be used to defend the most remote airstrip in the Indo-Pacific and the crushing waves of a marine amphibious assault.
	When judging these plans, I am reminded of the phrase: let no soldier's soul cry from the grave if only I had been properly trained.
	Which plan provides your soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardian, and Marines the best chance of survival in the next war?
	Which plan puts the needs of the warfighter first?
	Which system can win in multiple distributed battle spaces?
	Which system makes the DoD a more lethal fighting force?
	Which system would our adversaries not want us to have?
	Thank you.
	We'll run the rest of our paper.
	What's your word here?
	If you've been too busy assigned up for your military, it's also quite our thing.
	And the work is not so you can see the plans are very convenient to license insurance agents.
	Don't be already Everyone,
	good?
	First, I just want to thank the panel and those in attendance for coming to watch Navy beat Army in today's debate.
	Don't miss the forest for the trees.
	$500 million for the Navy encapsulates all the goals for why West Point believes the money should go to the Army, but funding the Army alone cannot capture any of the benefits that we would have if you fund the Navy.
	The Navy is our nation's backbone for deterring conflict, something undisputed without this debate.
	And that's what we should aim to do.
	Deter.
	As hit on all of the teammates, my speeches that my teammates have given, we want to keep great power competition, not get involved in a great power war.
	You have the Navy to stop conflict before it has even occurred.
	Not explaining why the Navy is not the preferable tool means that you cannot possibly vote for the Army.
	You use the Army when it's your last option, when you have no other options, when naval deterrence has failed in the first place.
	The situation in which we might lose America's sons and daughters is the one in which we have a weak Navy and we are embatted with conflict.
	Alpha Ther Mahan noted that a nation that controls the sea can project its power across the globe.
	$500 million for 3D printers on ships will allow them to stay out for longer while remaining rapidly deployable, highly capable, and fully operational, which also boosts morale.
	We could decrease broader ship visits by over 95%, like the USS Baton did.
	If that's the Navy within our grasp, no country would risk escalation.
	But if we remain idly by, if we sit back and watch deterrence erode as hidden costs of cannibalization or force submarines to reveal their location because missing parts make them minor damages catastrophic, forcing them to surface, if we require ships to travel all the way back to the yard in order for a small repair, preventing them from being deployed, this is a list of a thousand cuts that will eventually be the death knell of deterrence.
	If this process continues, maybe we'll actually might need to use the Army in a future conflict.
	On value, there's a massive risk that their plan is unquantifiable.
	They have not explained the price of the system that they are talking about.
	They foregoed answering that the F-35 weapon system cost $2 trillion to develop and was delayed by two decades.
	There's just no reason why their platform, which is not just the individual drones, but the way they use the drones together, will not be equally expensive and delayed into the future.
	Our price is empirically proven via the USS Baton and the USS Summerton, which each spent $50,000 on a 3D printer and it took 12 weeks to get there.
	This is all reasons why our plan is quantifiable while you should be unsure of what they're saying.
	They've also said that they have a 100% backed loan, which provides no incentives for companies to actually do a good job.
	They just work on it, and if they don't do a good job, they get all their money back, which means there's no reason to work on a drone system.
	This isn't a comedic Army versus Navy rivalry moment.
	There are strategic reasons why we should fund the Navy over the Army.
	They need us before them.
	Fund Navy beat China.
	Thank you.
	Good job.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the judges will now make their votes.
	Judges, please remember to rank the top three speakers.
	The list of speakers in order is in your program if you need to refer to their names.
	If you have any final questions about the ballots, please let me know.
	When you've completed your ballot, please ensure that you have circled the winner and folded in half to indicate that it's complete, and I will come and collect it.
	Ladies and
	gentlemen, the decision is in.
	First, I'll announce the top speaker with four number ones was Cadet Knox Watson.
	Please stand up.
	And the decision in a 4-3 split vote, Army.
	We're going to hear from the judges.
	And now we'll hear any decision from the judges that you'd like to share, any feedback.
	And that'll conclude our time here today.
	So I'll open it up to the judges, Representative Issa.
	Army won.
	Congratulations.
	There were some missed opportunities, and I just want to kind of close.
	I think Army had one thing going for it, which was You did a good job of explaining that you were joint capable, that the asset you were involved in would be beneficial to the rest of the military services.
	I was disappointed that you didn't mention the private sector.
	You didn't mention police, fire, homeland security, all the other areas that have very, very similar observation and even defense.
	I thought that was a missed opportunity to define an audience.
	You also didn't mention the CHIPS Act, which Congress is very proud of, which is still not known, but it has the same goal, which is the underpinning of the greatest risk that we are at today is that we cannot make the part most needed for the defense of our nation, which is drones for various uses, at an affordable price.
	That's a clear and present danger.
	Navy, I thought you did a great job of defending the specific benefit incredibly well of 3D printing.
	The Admiral and I were lamenting that the Marines do shit and they never brag about it, so he didn't know how much they were using 3D printings at all levels, even though he knows a lot about the technology.
	I think you probably only made one faux pas, which was when in debate you throw an adversary under the bus without a good backup.
	So to say that there was industries that were keeping your ships in port, I thought that was a tactical mistake because it distracted from the basic view that no matter how good they are while they're in port, the day after they leave, shit happens.
	And so in future debate, I would say, you know, if you're going to punch at somebody, punch at the one that benefits you in the debate.
	Don't get distracted.
	But I think other than that, you did a superb job on the debate.
	I just think in some ways you didn't make the case to overcome why wasn't it in the NDAA, why isn't it an ongoing part of maintenance, which I think Army did a good job of sort of saying you've got this large budget.
	If you need it, it should already be there.
	But look, these were the two best debates I've ever gotten to see, and I've been honored to see a whole bunch of them.
	So thank you.
	Thank you, sir.
	Any other judges like to speak?
	Sir.
	Just to lighten the mood, I would like to note for the record that Admiral Mullen is wearing a beat army pin and just note my concern about the impartiality of his with all with great respect for Admiral Mullen.
	In all seriousness, super proud of you all and a really thought-provoking discussion.
	And I'll just say, serving on the House Armed Services Committee, we would be much better served were this the dialogue and the level of preparation and patriotism that you all brought to this.
	So we're really proud of you.
	And I'll note my bias and say, tomorrow, be Navy.
	Let me just say that, first of all, what Congressman Issa identified, and we were talking back and forth, just the brilliance of all of you.
	But I want you all to know that as I cycle out of the Senate now, the proudest thing that I'm able to do, the honor I have, is nominating people like you to attend.
	We take that extremely serious in West Virginia.
	We have some talented, talented young men and women, and we have a selection committee that goes through this in great detail and trying to help each one who has that desire to serve.
	But also, you give us the hope that basically the separation between the purpose of our military might and the direction our military might takes is separated.
	And without your training that you have and how it's ingrained into you, that we will take our order to defend this country, but it'll be done by the private sector.
	It's something to behold for the whole world.
	So I thank you.
	I just thank you for participating.
	I thank you for taking this direction in your life to make all of ours more secure.
	And my hats are off to your parents and your family who supported you for this endeavor.
	God bless.
	Congratulations for the entire effort.
	I'm trying to reflect back when I was your age roughly and what I knew or what I thought I knew versus what was going on in the world.
	I mean, you really are in touch with major issues that actually you're going to confront very quickly, faster than you know once you graduate.
	So and then secondly, thanks for doing what you're doing.
	And I know at least I'm guessing, is there at least one mom in the audience back here?
	But I try to take every opportunity to thank parents, and you should do this when you go home, for raising young men and women to do what you're doing.
	It makes a huge difference.
	And we are, as a country, grateful to the families that support us and our country as you do as well.
	So I have for some time taken comfort in a very difficult time for us as a country.
	I take comfort that there are young people like you that are going to make a difference and somehow solve all these tough issues that many of us are leaving on the table.
	So thanks and congrats.
	I mean, it was really hard to choose.
	Both of you did incredible jobs.
	Just, you know, feedback from my vantage point, I think on the 3D printing, a good anchor would have been how fast the Chinese Navy builds their ships versus how fast we build our ships or maintain them.
	It could be a good anchor reference and maybe cost.
	And then on the drone supply chain, you had me, but one thing I really fear is backing these loans.
	That is like, as a startup founder, that's the antithesis of risk.
	Like we all take these big bets.
	And having Uncle Sam say, I'm going to back it no matter what, I think that messes up the marketplace dynamic.
	So my two cents for what it's worth.
	So thank you both, though.
	Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance today.
	I'd like to thank Dr. Frank Luntz for setting up the venue and for bringing together this incredible panel, along with help from other friends and family of Army and Navy debates.
	So thank you both very much.
	And thank you one more time for our exceptional panel for volunteering your priceless time for us today.
	Thank you all for your attendance.
	Go Army B Navy.
	American History
	TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
	This weekend, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern, the St. Charles County Historical Society in Missouri hosts a conference of the American Revolution in the West.
	Historians discuss the weapons of the American Revolution, the role of Spain and Native Americans, and the 1779 Mississippi River Campaign.
	Then, at 8 p.m. Eastern, on Lectures in History, the second of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
	The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
	And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, we'll revisit the Ford presidency with scholars reflecting on events from a half century ago, including secret White House tapes and oral history interviews with Ford administration officials.
	Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
	Attention middle and high school students across America.
	It's time to make your voice heard.
	C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
	This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
	Your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president.
	What issue is most important to you or your community?
	Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
	With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
	Enter your submissions today.
	Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
	The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
	For over 45 years, C-SPAN has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of Congress, open forum call-in programs, and unfiltered access to the decision makers who shape our nation.
	And we've done it all without a cent of government funding.
	C-SPAN exists for you, viewers who value transparent, no-spin political coverage, and your support helps keep our mission alive.
	And as we close out the year, we're asking you to stand with us.
	Your gift, no matter the size, goes 100% towards supporting C-SPAN's vital work, helping ensure that long-form, in-depth, and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era where it's needed more than ever.
	Visit c-span.org slash donate or scan the code on your screen to make your tax-deductible contribution today.
	Together, we can ensure that C-SPAN remains a trusted read for you and for future generations.
	C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.

▲