Below is a transcript of the remarks as delivered:

REAR ADM. CHATFIELD: Good morning, everyone. I certainly have a wonderful audience for you of students, and our CNO distinguished international fellows, our faculty members and guests. Thank you, sir, for joining us.

CNO: Yeah, it's an honor to join you. Thank you for the invitation. Can you hear me okay?

CHATFIELD: We have you loud and clear, sir.

CNO: Okay, great. Thanks. We have about 30 minutes together. And so I'll be brief. In my comments, I really want to talk about allies and partners, and the accelerated path that we’re on with share of sharing innovative technologies. But before I do that, I'd like to thank Admiral Chatfield for her service. As a president over the past four years, she's done an outstanding job. And I am very pleased that she's moving on to Brussels as a U.S. military rep to the NATO Military Committee. And I know that she'll be spectacular in that role, as well, and serve not only not only our Navy, but our nation very well in that position.

I'd also like to thank the distinguished international fellows, Admirals Saunes, Admiral Barrera, and Admiral Verma, for their continued good work, and integration up with the War College. And a personal relationship I've had with them over the past four years has been magnificent. So gentlemen, thank you. I'd also like to congratulate Mr. Daniel Holland, for his role as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and the Executive Committee of the Naval War College Foundation. Thank you, sir, for your service as well.

So let's take it all lines and get the ship underway for a few minutes and talk about, as I mentioned, I thought that, in thinking about the theme of your conference, which is “Preserving America's Leadership Role,” I thought that you know, one of the things that, I think, is foundational to America's standing in the world, is our relationship with our partners. And in our case, with our fellow navies, and all the good work we're doing together, every day around the globe. But what I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the latest trend that I've seen over the past number of years, with respect to our sharing technology at a pace, at a scope and scale that we haven't witnessed before. I say that because it's not, it's much more of an integrated approach to getting after key operational problems that are common to many of us. And instead of the United States Navy, developing a capability and then, and then sharing that with others, we are also leveraging many of the high tech companies across the world in many different countries, particularly in the areas of unmanned and AI, that are providing us with capability –with operational insights that we did not have, at least from companies here in the U.S. And so I think that sharing back and forth, is gaining momentum.

I think that the AUKUS agreement among the U.S., Australia and the U.K. is a good example of that. When people think about AUKUS, most think about submarine technology. But there's a second pillar of AUKUS that is allowing us to share technology in the areas of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, unmanned, machine learning at a scale that we have not before. Barriers have been knocked down with respect to information sharing, and the sharing of technical data that's allowed us to progress very rapidly in terms of sharing those kinds of groundbreaking technologies quickly. We're doing the same with other countries on a bilateral basis. And so there are spinoffs to some of the work being done in AUKUS that we're also benefiting our allies and partners, and they are benefiting us. So it's been mutually beneficial.

I know that most of the audience is familiar with the work that we've done with unmanned in the Middle East. And I think a highlight of that effort has been the fact that we've done that with – and through – allies and partners. That has not been a singular U.S. effort by any stretch, not to mention the fact that among the six partners, are all the companies and the technologies that those companies have brought to bear in the areas of unmanned and AI and machine learning. As some of you know, we are now scaling that effort to South America, beginning with the world's long-standing UNITAS exercise next month. It's our oldest, long-standing multilateral exercise that we’ll leverage to introduce those unmanned technologies and concepts that we've refined in the Middle East. And now we're going to move them to Southern Command to get after real operational problems that are common to many of the countries and navies in the AOR. So that would include illicit trafficking, it would also include illegal and unregulated fishing. And so our idea is to provide an unblinking eye over that activity in order to see it, detect it, and then to take the data that we gather with unmanned platforms, and together with human and SIGINT, and other intelligence sources, give us a more predictable understanding of how that illegal activity, what the sources of it are, how it flows through the theater, so that we can be much more predictive and effective in terms of countering it.

There are other applications of cutting technologies that we're applying, particularly in the areas like undersea and space that we are also sharing with our allies – and their sharing with us – across the world. I'd also probably wrap up by talking about just some of the examples of high end technologies – Aegis would be an example. We now have at least a half a dozen countries around the world that use Aegis technology in their ships, Standard Missiles, Tomahawk missiles. So these are high-end missiles that we've broken barriers with respect to trading that kind of high-end technology with other countries finding a way to get to “yes,” instead of “no.” And so I think that we've always valued our close relationships with allies and partners. But I think, in today's day and age, where companies – and not governments – are leading the way, with respect to cutting edge R&D, that our navies are really taking advantage of it. And I think in a collaborative way to get after problems, that we can't solve very easily using techniques and procedures and platforms of the previous century. So setting the table with innovation, and relationships among other navies, that are now, in some respects, leveraging those technologies, I'd like to open it up for any questions you might have about that kind of effort, or any other aspects of the seminar that you have addressed and the past in the past few hours or earlier this week. Thank you.

MR. MIKE SHERLOCK: Thank you, Sir. Questions. You?

AUDIENCE: Steve Frary, a member of the foundation, I'm curious about your focus on sharing technology with our partners and how that relates to our relationship with China, and sharing economic and other technology, and how that fix fits into our strategy?

CNO: Well, I think first and foremost, the sharing of the technology is based on a common vision that we share among allies and partners. And that is to ensure that we sustain the free and open use of the maritime commons under, on, and above the sea. And that's grounded upon prosperity, global prosperity. So, you know, as we've seen since the rules-based international order was really set by Bretton Woods in 1944, that those international norms have been a ride that’s raised all boats. And so I think that's foundational to sharing technologies that allow us to continue to ensure that the maritime commons remain free and open. That's first and fundamental. And I think that anybody that subscribes to the rules-based international order, as it exists now and has existed for the past 70 years, is a welcome partner in terms of not only operating together, but potentially sharing those kinds of technologies. I think that, if I understand your question correctly, I hope, it's really grounded upon a common vision.

AUDENICE: Good morning CNO, Frank Handoff (sp) here, you speak about readiness as your number one priority? How are we innovating in the world of training or applying new technologies to enhance readiness?

CNO: Yeah, thanks, Sir. So there are two ways I think, that we really put our shoulder against. The first is Ready Relevant Learning, which is expanding training for our Sailors well beyond the brick and mortar classrooms to the virtual in a way that is much more effective than we've done in the past. And allow them to train at a rate and a frequency, where they're refreshed at a much faster pace than we'd done previously, where we've sent Sailors to school between duty stations. Now we can keep them refreshed at a relatively lower cost, but much more effectively, while they're in there while they're in their current demands.

The second thing that we're leveraging is Live Virtual Constructive Training. So LVC, much of it is based on technology from the gaming community, is allowing us to train as fleets rather than just as strike groups or amphibious ready groups. So we can transpose ships from around the world, whether they're underway, or they're tied up in port into a battle scenario. And in their combat information centers, give them the sense in the field that they really are in the fight – even if they're pierside. And this is all done, much of it is done, virtually. It allows us to take F/A-18 Super Hornets as an example, and make them look like adversary fighters. It makes the EW signature of those aircraft look like an adversary fighter or bomber, and the weapons that come that come off of those aircraft. Again, they have the characteristics – or we can simulate the characteristics of an adversary. So we can train much more effectively this way, particularly, we with respect to our concept of distributed maritime operations, where fleet commanders are responsible for basically fighting as a fleet and not as just individual surface action groups, or carrier strike groups, but in a much more distributed, connected manner. So LVC has been a game-changer for us in terms of allowing us to train very effectively as fleets. And I'll pause here for any follow-ups on that stuff.

AUDIENCE: Good morning, Admiral. I have a question on the AUKUS deal. So with the AUKUS deal, my understanding is that Australia will have nuclear-powered submarines in future and the U.S. Navy will help them. One idea is to first, as a first step, for Australia to kind of build older Virginia kind of submarines, and then extend to another class of new submarines. With you as the responsible officer in the U.S. Navy, being responsible for having enough submarines for all combatant commands, and there are subject matter experts that argue that the U.S. Navy are not building enough of those Virginia-class submarines, how do you feel about giving away one of your or at least two, three submarines to another nation, whereas you're under pressure to come up with more submarines? Thank you.

CNO: Well, certainly the transferring submarines is part of the agreement. However, it's condition-based. And so there are a large number of steps that have to be in place – an ecosystem that has to be developed to support any submarines that might be transferred. So the decision to actually execute is years away.

And so that's why we have a phased approach with respect to increased port visits of our attack submarines, to ports in Australia, as a first step. As a second step to have forward-deployed submarines, probably up to four out of an Australian port, the ships would be will be co-crewed with Australians, and then we'd be able to work together to learn how these submarines operate, how we sustain them.

And then there has to be an ecosystem, of course, with respect to maintenance, and submarine production, that has to be developed in Australia. As well as, I would say, a culture that is that supports the safe and responsible operation of nuclear-powered vessels. So there's a number of steps that have to happen. And among those, of course, are the sovereign interests of the United States on whether or not we would decrement our own force in numbers to transfer one to the Australians or whether by the end of the decade, the U.S. production lines have increased to the point where it's easier for us – where we actually might have, if you, for lack of better terms, excess capacity, to transfer a submarine or more to the Australians. So I think the bottom line there is that we're going to work together, we are being completely honest and transparent with each other as partners. And this would include the Royal Navy, as well, is an equal partner in this, the three of us have to agree to each step. And so it is a complex agreement, and a complex, I think, path forward.

AUDIENCE: Question about ships, which is, I believe, the core, the Navy, we've had problems. We've had problems with the Ford carrier delayed about five years, the Zumwalt destroyer doesn't seem to be moving forward. And the LCS is being – those that are out there have been decommissioned. We're concerned about design and production of ships. And can you give us some background on these problems? And what's been done about it?

CNO: I think key to the issues that you mentioned, is whether or not our Navy has learned from those problems. I will tell you that we have. Some examples of that: for the Columbia-class submarine that we're building right now, that's actually slightly ahead of schedule of its 84 month build rate, is the fact that that submarine was at the 83% design complete phase, as we started bending steel, if I compare that to Seawolf was maybe a 25%, Ohio class – the previous generation SSBN – was at 4% design. So that's one example of learning from mistakes we've made in the past.

I would tell you another example, which is tied to all three of those hulls that you mentioned, is to do more land-based prototyping, to ensure that new technologies that we introduce to our ships are proven before we actually install them on our on our ships. And so we're doing that with the propulsion plant for the frigates that we're building up in Wisconsin. We've done that for the Columbia-class SSBN. We've done that for our DDG program, which has been very successful and will continue for DDG(X). As we design a new class of destroyer, one of the things we learned previously was that we've had most success when Navy has been in the lead for the design, with our naval architects leading the effort. However, it's a collaborative effort with private shipbuilders. And so for DDG(X), we are working very closely with Bath Iron Works, as well as Huntington Ingalls, two produces of our destroyers.

So in short, Sir, what we're trying to do is learn from those mistakes we made in the past, not repeat them, to drive down technical risk so that we keep ships under cost, or at cost, and on schedule. We are following that to a “T” right now, and I mentioned Columbia, but also the new frigate class. We're very optimistic about the new Flight III DDG and the transition from Flight II to Flight III, with a new radar, with improved EW systems, with all the cooling and power systems that support them, has gone very well. And so that that particular flight of DDG brings a whole new generation and capability to us. So I am very optimistic about the path that we're on right now with respect to shipbuilding.

I say that – I am not overconfident. We are still learning every day. And of course, part of the part of what we want to do here is to learn, is to self-correct, to be honest with ourselves, so that we don't end up with a new class of ship where we have significant problems like we've seen in the past. I hope that was helpful.

AUDIENCE: Sir, Major John Cohen, U.S. Army, I'd like to ask you a question about the maritime implications from the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian navy has demonstrated a surprising capacity to achieve limited sea denial in the Black Sea against a stronger Russian navy, just would like to hear your thoughts on how they were able to do so. And if there are any implications for the U.S. Navy, based on the example demonstrated by the Ukrainians? Thank you.

CNO: Yeah, I think Ukrainians have done a marvelous job in terms of targeting, they've been very effective in putting ordnance on target in a way that has changed the behavior of the Russian navy at sea. I also think their use of mines has also been quite effective. There's a cleanup there that we're going to have to deal with, but it has been effective in terms of pushing the Russian navy back. When you take a look at the numbers of Russian ships that are operating in the Black Sea now, it's at a much lower rate than we've seen in the past. There's a reason for that that you hint at with respect to the effectiveness of the Ukrainians. I think there's a lot to learn there in terms of how they've been able to target so well, how they've been able to leverage commercial technologies and apply that to targeting in ways that is pretty fundamental to their success. And one of the reasons they've been able to do that is because their forces now comprised of citizen soldiers and citizen sailors, many of whom were in private industry, many of whom were in high-tech industry, who bring a level of innovativeness to their navy that they didn't have before, to their army that they didn't have before. And they're leveraging those technologies. They're building apps, they're using those techniques, they're using that micro-processing capability off of their handheld devices very effectively. So a lot to learn there in terms of being very agile and flexible. And being able to take advantage of vulnerabilities very quickly. And staying one step ahead of their adversary in doing so.

AUDIENCE: Morning, Admiral, Mike McRab, U.S. Navy retired. This is not a question. It's more just a comment. And kind of a tip of the hat. I do not work for the Naval War College, but a tip of the hat to them. And their international programs that they run. There's about 100 international students that are about to graduate this week. And along with the 100 every year before that, they go out and establish a good solid foundation for interoperability with their services and our services. And they're coming up with new courses on a regular basis. It's something I don't think a lot of folks in the Navy has a full appreciation for. But they are the leading edge of that – of those [professional military education] initiatives. Postgraduate School has 200 international students going in there. And of course, we had, like you mentioned before, international CNO fellows, and another 7,000 other students, international students going through various training in U.S. Navy courses to help man the same weapons systems that you mentioned earlier. So just wanted to kind of highlight.

CNO: Yeah, thanks for saying that. As I said up front, I do think, as we talk about the theme of preserving America's leadership role, I think this is fundamental to that. There has been an increase in [international maritime education] programs, not only in the Navy, but across the joint force. And we've been challenged with a question, how many more students can you take? And then the next question is, where were they come from? Those have not been hard questions to answer and we've tried to do our level best So, in order to increase those opportunities for our allies and partners, because to your point, Mike, you made more eloquently than I did, how important that is, to the future, and the relationships that we have with those navies, because at the end of the day, the technology is one thing, but it's all grounded upon relationships on a bedrock of trust. And so thanks for your points.

AUDIENCE: Good morning, CNO. Thank you for being with us today. Tom Rowden here of Newport, Rhode Island. Sir, I was wondering you, I want to go back to the training piece that you were talking about, and specifically Live Virtual Constructive. And we heard earlier today that that all our alliances are the secret sauce. And so as we look forward into the future, you’re talking about Live Virtual Constructive, from the joint perspective. Could you give us your thoughts on it? Are we doing enough from the combined perspective? As we look at what the coming conflict might be? Are we doing enough in the Live Virtual Constructive perspective with our allies, and with our partners, to be prepared for that fight? The big exercises we run, Northern Edge, RIMPAC, etc. They're great, but they're very expensive. And is there a way that we can do it much more cost effectively?

CNO: Yep. Thanks, Sir. I think, to your point, LVC is the right answer there. I will tell you to answer your question. Are we comfortable with where we are? The answer to that is no. I would never say that we are sharing widely enough. And so we're doing a better job –I'm optimistic on the track that we’re on. An example of that would be Project Overmatch, which is the Navy's contribution to JADC2 that's underway right now at the [USS Carl] Vinson strike group off the coast of California. So that technology we are sharing with key allies and partners. And so we're already opening the door in JADC2 on a handshake with the French. We initiated Navy fourth and fifth generation integrated training, that's an area that we have proceeded very slowly, with F-35s.

But if we're going to, I think, to the, to the point that you were making, Sir, the first time that we that we train together in an integrated way, at the very highest at the very highest level can't be when we're in combat. LVC gives us the ability to do those things at a level that's affordable, and I think much more effective. And I think it opens the doors for other navies as well. There's definitely possibilities that we need to take advantage of with LVC as we expand it. I think we are the biggest constraint to moving out faster with respect to sharing that technology with allies and partners. So, probably an unsatisfactory answer for you. But I will tell you that we are looking for ways – I think the example with the French is probably among the best – where there's been a hesitation to share F-35 technology with other countries and we got to the point where we said, “look, we're going to have to fly with them, we're going to have to fight with them, we're going to have to find a way to work around some of these constraints so that we can move forward.” And we did that. And so I think that we need to look for ways to open more doors. And we need – I would encourage those that are graduating this week, not to suffer in silence. But to be more vocal, your CNOs certainly are when they when they call upon me to do more. So Sir, thanks for the question. And I think that we need to continue to look for opportunities to share technology and move forward together. Thanks.

CHATFIELD: CNO we want to thank you for your time today. I know that you join me in wishing our students who are headed out into the world the very best as they navigate a very complex environment with social media and hyper connectivity, and prepare to practice the profession of arms and possibly have to operate in very austere communication environments. Sir you've done a great job leading us here at the Naval War College and communicating to us about your priorities.

Sir, our entire community thanks you for your leadership. And thank you for being with us today.

CNO: Thanks, everyone. I appreciate your time today. I know it was too short. But as always, the questions were very good and gave me something to take back and think about as well. So thanks. I wish you all a great conference for the rest of the week. And, of course a spectacular graduation on Friday. Thank you.