Lieutenant Colonel Vonnie Wright: All right, colleagues. Good morning again. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Vonnie Wright from the Army Public Affairs Office. I'll be moderating today's interview. Today we have Brigadier General Matt Ross, Joint Interagency Task Force 401 commander available for questions during today's media roundtable.
Before we get started, just a quick reminder on the ground rules pertaining to this morning's discussion. This interview is a part of the introduction to JIATF 401 and giving an update on their work as the Department of War's lead organization to counter small, uncrewed aerial systems. Particularly, we will be discussing how they are strengthening cooperation across the U.S. government to counter threats posed by the nefarious use of small, uncrewed aircraft systems as they met with senior leaders at the White House on Thursday or yesterday. I'd ask that you please keep your questions focused accordingly. As always, should you have questions beyond the scope of today's discussion, ACOO, myself, will be able to respond to queries after the interview.
We are on the record today with comments attributable to Brigadier General Ross by name. Feel free to record this discussion, although a transcript will also be made available to you later today. Following Brigadier General Ross' opening remarks, I will be moderating questions and follow-on remarks. You may have one question, and I will ask if you have one follow-up. If time permits, I will circle back for another round of questioning. Please wait to be called upon. I'll just give a reminder when we only have time for one more question, or if something is severely out of the scope. Ensure your phone or device is on mute when you are not communicating.
We have about 40 minutes or so this morning due to follow-on engagements by General Ross, so we have to end at 1015. Pending any questions, I'll go ahead and turn it over to General Ross for his opening statement. Sir, the mic is all yours, sir.
Brigadier General Matt Ross: Okay, thanks, Von. And for everybody, this is General Matt Ross. It's good to talk to you guys this morning. I'm thankful for the opportunity. First, I want to say that I believe that drones are a defining threat for our time. Technology is evolving fast. We see it on the battlefield, and we also see dual use of commercial off-the-shelf capability for nefarious purposes, and that's concerning. So on 27 August, Secretary of War established Joint Interagency Task Force 401, and he did it to synchronize efforts across the department for countering small UAS and then to reach out to our interagency partners to ensure that we have a common understanding of the threat, including exploitation of new and evolving systems. We have a shared view of counter-UAS capabilities, so we're sharing what we learn internal to the department with all of our interagency partners, along with the tactics, techniques, and procedures to conduct counter-UAS operations, and then to ensure that the whole of the U.S. government is prepared for our most complex and contemporary threats.
JIATF 401, since being established, we have achieved full joint manning, and we are empowered to meet the full scope of responsibility that the Sec War has charged us with. We're focused on defending the homeland. JIATF 401 strengthens our warfighters and American citizens both at home and abroad. Defeating small UAS threats requires a layered defense of systems built to detect, disrupt, and destroy enemy drones, and we want to make sure that we have that. We also are focused on supporting warfighter lethality. We're laser-focused on providing warfighters the training and tools that they need to disrupt, disable, and destroy enemy unmanned systems.
To that end, we're investing in training warfighters at the Joint Counter-UAS University and testing technology to disable and disrupt drones before they strike. We're also operationally focused. In some cases, our requirements in the homeland are different from the battlefield, and so we owe installation commanders clear guidance and tools to be successful in their counter-UAS operations. We're focused on low collateral defeat because some of the options that are appropriate for the battlefield are just not well-suited here in the homeland. And last, we're focused on technology innovation and speed--accelerating that innovation. So partnering with JIATF 401 accelerates innovation, contributes to the national defense, and opens new opportunities for nontraditional defense businesses. We're designed to move at the speed of relevance, cutting through red tape, consolidating resources, and engaging venture capitalists, tech startups, and nontraditional defense firms as critical partners. And that concludes my opening comments. I look forward to your questions.
LTCVW: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. And now we will start with our first question from Jeremiah Cushman from Janes.
Jeremiah Cushman: Hi. This is Jeremiah from Janes. Can you talk a little bit about how these C-UAS systems will be acquired? I think I saw something about a marketplace, or is there going to be a contract award? Kind of how does that piece look?
BGMR: Yeah, thanks, Jeremiah. We're going to use all the tools at our disposal to be able to acquire new technology as quickly as possible to get it into the hands of the warfighter. There's multiple different ways that we'll go about that, and we plan on leveraging all of them. As part of that, we are going to establish a UAS and counter-UAS marketplace that will provide authoritative data on how each of these systems performs under varying conditions and allow users or customers to select a tool that's right for them. We've got a wide variety of counter-UAS tools, and I actually think that we need all of them because depending on where you are or what threat you're focused on, your requirements will be slightly different. So we want to ensure that we provide a range of options both to the Department of War and to our interagency partners.
LTCVW: All right, Jeremiah, do you have a follow-up or can we move on?
JC: Yeah, just when might that be up and running or any initial contracts be awarded?
BGMR: So we have vehicles in place now that allow people to order counter-UAS equipment. What we want to do is streamline it and make it easier and broaden the aperture or widen the aperture so that others can use those same vehicles to purchase and integrate counter-UAS capability rapidly.
JC: Okay, thank you.
LTCVW: All right, next question, Carley Welch from Breaking Media. Do you have a question?
Carley Welch: Yes, hello. Thank you for being here, General Ross. So my question is about border-related security. So you talked about defending the homeland, so I'm kind of curious if you could talk about what that looks like, you know, at the southern border and then how you're working with other agencies, you know, in the federal government to kind of complete that mission, if you will. Thank you.
BGMR: Yeah, thanks, Carley. I was actually down at the southern border last week spending time both with the NORTHCOM team and with the Joint Task Force Southern Border to understand the challenges that they're facing. I do that because understanding their challenges very specifically will allow us to focus our effort on closing that next gap. If you look across the 1,954-mile border, I think that we do face a challenge of unmanned systems, and NORTHCOM is focused on addressing those challenges now in conjunction with other lead federal agencies, specifically DHS. What we're working towards is an integrated distributed sensing network that includes both passive and active sensors and then layering in effectors, or counter-UAS effectors, that will allow us to defeat a threat as it crosses the border. We're working closely with DHS, Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Interior, and other agencies that are working along the southern border.
LTCVW: All right, Carley, do you have a follow-up to that?
CW: Yes, I do. So, can you speak to kind of what kind of technology that you're using to take down those drones? I mean, is it like lasers, just, you know, anything that you can speak to that?
BGMR: Yeah, I can, Carley. Okay, so we're using a variety of effectors there on the southern border. We're integrating all of the Department of War Services Program of Record capability, and we're also looking to integrate new technology like low-cost attritable interceptors that will provide additional options and more tools to our service members as they're defending our southern border. So, to your question specifically, RF defeat, absolutely. Low-cost interceptors, a variety of different sensors that would include acoustic active radar, and then we're going to make sure that all of those sensors provide an integrated air awareness or air picture so that we can choose the best effector to counter a UAS depending on its size, its activity, and the location.
CW: Great, thank you.
LTCVW: All right, Mr. Calvin Biesecker from Access Intel. Do you have a question, sir?
Calvin Biesecker: Yeah, hey, thanks for doing this. So, maybe just building on that last answer, this integrated system, can you describe--is there a command and control platform that's going to be tying all of this together? I'm imagining it's not something like IBCS, but that you are still going to have some existing, something you can pull off the shelf to tie this together. That's number one.
BGMR: Yeah, thanks, Calvin. As it sounds like you know--that's a very well-informed question. What's critical in any counter-UAS system is the mission command that allows you to tie together disparate sensors and effectors. And so what we are going to do inside of JIATF 401 is ensure that we standardize the communications protocols on how we send and receive information so that every component of a counter-UAS system is plug and play. For too long, we've struggled with integration. And as people use different mission command systems, they had to specifically integrate a new component. And just like when you buy something to put on your Wi-Fi network at home, you know it's going to work because the communication protocols are already established. We want to do the exact same thing for counter-UAS systems, both internal to the Department of War and for our interagency partners.
CB: Yeah, I don't want this to count against my follow-up, but can you be more specific? It's like we're talking FADC2, the new Anduril win, I think last month or September.
BGMR: Hey, Calvin, I appreciate the question. We evaluated every service's mission command system last month in Operation Clear Horizon. We did that specifically to assess their quantitative performance and then qualitatively how the workflows affected the outcome of those mission command systems. And we're evaluating that now.
CB: Okay. So now here's my follow-up. It gets back to Clear Horizon. You discussed this a little bit at AUSA, but I think at the time you mentioned it identified some gaps and needs for additional capability. Can you get beyond kind of the high-level comments you made at the AUSA panel? Thanks.
BGMR: Yeah, thanks, Calvin. So we're trying to integrate the state-of-the-art capability from the most contested environments into our force and across the entire force. What that means specifically is areas where there are recent developments with low-cost interceptors that provide greater tools, we're going to integrate those capabilities into the services. We have robust capability for countering Group 3 UAS, but we have not spent as much time on countering Group 1 and Group 2 UAS that we see pretty consistently across the homeland. And so we want to put additional tools into the hands of our warfighters and our interagency partners to address those threats.
LTCVW: All right. Thank you, Calvin. Mr. Howard Altman from War Zone, do you have a question, sir?
Howard Altman: I do. Thanks so much for doing this. So I wanted to drill down deeper across the continental United States. How do you integrate the sensors and interceptors and mission command systems into a system that you can respond to? And who gets responses? And what does that look like, if you could give me a little drill down deeper into that? Like how does that work?
BGMR: Howard, can you expand on that question? I want to give you as good an answer as possible.
HA: Yeah, sure. So as you're looking to counter small UASs in the continental United States, can you just walk me through how you're going to integrate the sensors and interceptors and mission command systems across the United States to see if there's any kind of patterns or to be able to engender a response from either individual bases or NORTHCOM?
BGMR: Yeah, I'll take a shot, Howard. I think we have a tendency to overthink the complexity of these mission command networks. And I’ll use the example of the Internet as well. We can share information across the Internet, and we don't even question how it moves between places. Establishing a mission command network should be that simple. And so when we standardize those communications protocols, we could share information from San Francisco to New York. It doesn't mean that we're going to do that all the time, because it may not be information that's relevant to that installation commander or the on-scene commander for a specific event. I see that as a distributed network across the homeland with those standardized protocols for a mission command that would allow us to share information if and when it's needed, and then with appropriate filters so we are giving a decision maker the information they need to make an informed decision but not more information that they need that could overwhelm them.
Specifically with countering small UAS and who's making those decisions, it's important that we remain decentralized. If you look at the speed at which these systems can present a threat, you have to have operators that are empowered, trained, and they understand their authorities to be able to counter those threats, because they just don't have time to go up to a higher level for approval.
HA: And a follow-up is, what lessons are you learning from the recent drone incursions across Europe? How alarming are those, and what are you taking away from that that you think could apply here in the homeland?
BGMR: Hey, Howard, I appreciate the question. I'm actually headed to Europe next week to talk to them about the work they're doing on countering unmanned systems. JIATF 401 works in support of the services and in support of the combatant commands, so we do track their requirements. And in areas where they need assistance, we try to focus all of our effort to be able to support them.
HA: I mean, there's been a number of incursions over bases with U.S. personnel or near U.S. personnel. Is that something that you're taking an active role in?
BGMR: Yeah, I don't want to talk about those operational matters or speak on behalf of the EUCOM commander.
HA: Gotcha. Okay. Thanks.
LTCVW: Thanks Howard. All right. Last but certainly not least before we do another round, Ms. Meghann Myers from Defense One, do you have a question, ma'am?
Meghann Myers: I do. Thanks, Von. General Ross, do you have a rough estimate of how many of these approved, purchasable right now counter-UAS systems could be immediately loaded onto the marketplace when it's online? And are there also parallel efforts to build some systems from scratch with vendors?
BGMR: Meghann, I cannot give you a number of specific systems that could be loaded online. I know that there's a lot of them out there, and every time we reach out to industry, we see innovative small businesses that have new solutions that they want to introduce and evaluate. We're trying to make sure that across the department we have an integrated system that allows them to introduce their capability so that we can test and evaluate it and provide them feedback, and then get them focused on the most recent or current problems for the department. There was a second part of your question, though. Could you remind me on the second part?
MM: Are there parallel efforts to build some of these systems from scratch with vendors, as you would traditionally?
BGMR: Yeah, I'm actually really glad you asked that, Meghann. Yes, there are parallel efforts with vendors. I think it's important to note the role of JIATF 401, though. We will not replace the service's Title 10 responsibility to man, train, and equip, including the development of service programs of record for counter UAS. So large, complex systems that require deep DOTMLPF integration where they have to have a training house, doctrine, facilities, service members to man those systems. If we were to develop those internal to the JIATF without a transition partner into the services, we may not see the results that we want. So those longer-term efforts are still going to reside inside of the services, and JIATF will be focused on small, software-defined, hardware-enabled, low-cost, attritable solutions.
LTCVW: All right, thanks.
MM: I do have a quick follow-up, sorry. You mentioned that some of the systems that are used in Iraq and Syria, for example, are not necessarily what you would want to have here at Fort Bragg, for example. Can you give a rough example of what some of the specifications are that don't work here or something that you need in the homeland that you don't need abroad?
BGMR: Yeah. To be clear, all of our systems could be applicable to the homeland. It just depends on the situation. But today, if we were to field a counter-UAS solution around some critical infrastructure in the U.S., we would likely not include an explosive warhead. So we would want a low collateral interceptor if we're going to use a kinetic interceptor opposed to an explosive solution that might be more appropriate for a combat environment. The area where we have to provide additional tools and resources to those installation commanders is on countering the small drones because, like I said earlier, we just haven't spent as much time, RDT&E, and effort on countering those systems, but we see just how effective they can be on the battlefield.
LTCVW: All right, colleagues. I appreciate it. We're going to go through one more time. We still have some time here. I'll just note a couple key things. This is a joint task force that works with other branches and at the interagency level. So just remember that. I'm going to flow through one more time. And on to Jeremiah Cushman from Janes. Do you have another question as this interview process flows through? Did anything else come to mind for you, sir?
JC: Yes, I do. Sort of pulling on from that last question, are there any laws that might need to be changed to use kinetic effectors for the CUAS mission in the homeland?
BGMR: Hey, good question, Jeremiah. I'm not going to answer that specific for kinetic effectors, but the question that I'll try to answer is are there any laws that need to be changed. First, I think we need to use the full breadth of the authority that we have today, and we're working that internal to the Department of War, and we're working that with our interagency partners. Number two, there are areas where the Department of War has legislative proposals with Congress to affect change and expand authorities in certain areas. One value of being a joint and interagency task force is that we can speak with one voice to ensure that where the Department of War is working adjacent to or hand-in-hand with another lead federal agency, there's no mismatch in what we can do to pass data, share information, and protect the homeland.
JC: Thank you.
LTCVW: Jeremiah, do you have a follow-up at all to that, or are you okay?
JC: No.
LTCVW: All right, awesome. Thank you. Ms. Carley Welch, do you have another question?
CW: Yes, thank you. So I'm a little confused about what's currently going on, I guess, at the border. So, General Ross, you said that you're kind of evaluating what this kind of centralized C2 system would look like. So I guess my question is, I mean, have you guys already started shooting down drones or other threats at the border? And if so, can you kind of--I know it's probably sensitive, but like talk about that at all?
BGMR: Thanks, Carley. I don't want to speak for NORTHCOM, and I don't want to imply that JIATF 401 is conducting operations on the southern border. We're not. We're working in support of NORTHCOM there. Between NORTHCOM and our interagency partners, yes, we are countering drones on the southern border, and we're doing so effectively. My role in that is to deliver additional tools and additional capability in support of General Guillot so he has as many tools at his disposal as possible as the threat continues to evolve.
LTCVW: Carley, do you have a follow-up to that?
CW: Yes. So you just talked about how there are some sort of, like, laws that maybe you are working with Congress to kind of, you know, rearrange or, you know, kind of make them those so they're more applicable to your mission. Can you kind of talk about what those are at all?
BGMR: So, Carley, everything that we're doing as part of legislative proposals is being worked through OSW policy. Specifically where we spend time internal to the department is on 130I, which provides legal protections for the conduct of counter-UAS on military installations and around defense-critical infrastructure in the homeland. We want to make sure that those authorities enable installation commanders with everything they need to be able to protect that critical infrastructure.
That's one part of it. The second part of it is making sure that what's actually in the law is clearly communicated to those installation commanders so there's no ambiguity and they know exactly what they can do both inside the fence line, outside the fence line, and in coordination with local law enforcement around those installations.
CW: Got it. Thank you.
LTCVW: Thanks, Carley. Mr. Calvin from Access Intel, do you have another question brewing?
CB: Yeah, I do. So maybe let's get back to the White House meeting real quick. What was on the agenda, the main pieces to that, and then what was the to-do list coming out of that? Let's start with that.
BGMR: Thanks, Calvin. The purpose of the meeting yesterday was an introduction of JIATF 401 to talk about what we're going to do to get after the counter-UAS challenge in conjunction with our interagency partners. Coming out of that, we are going to hold a counter-UAS summit on 25 November with subject matter experts from each of our interagency partners focused in four areas, focused on intel, focused on policy, focused on science and technology, and then operations. And we want to make sure that we've got enduring partnership with each of those agencies because we know this problem is going to continue to evolve over time, and we want to be able to move at the speed of relevance.
CB: Okay. And then also at the AUSA event, I think you touched on the fact that you will have a budget, or maybe that was in the original August 27th memo. At the time, you said you were working with the comptroller on your FY26 sort of spend plan and what have you. Can you update us, at least on FY26, what you have to spend, what you're going to spend it on? Maybe you have certain categories or buckets or whatever color you can give. Thanks.
BGMR: Yeah. In terms of dollar figures, Calvin, we're still working it. What I do know is that we'll have a combination of O&M, RDT&E, and procurement. I think we'll be able to see some of the greatest gains is going to be with procurement dollars because that will allow us to put counter-UAS capability into the hands of our formations. We really, and you've heard this at AUSA, but I only have one measure of effectiveness, and that's delivering state-of-the-art counter-UAS capability to the warfighter both at home and abroad. And so as we look at those different colors of money, especially in the near term, I think procurement is going to be really important for us.
LTCVW: Thanks, Calvin. Next question, Mr. Howard Altman from War Zone. Do you have another question?
HA: Yeah, I do. Thanks so much. Last year we wrote about a number of drone incursions over U.S. installations, Wright-Patterson, Picatinny, et cetera. What's changed in terms of the ability to respond to those, and what would you like to see changed?
BGMR: I heard you, Howard. I was just thinking a little bit. So I think there's a number of things that have changed. Number one, we are consistently fielding new counter-UAS capability at our installations, and as we do that, we prioritize them based off what we have to protect at each of those installations. One of the things JIATF 401 has taken on for the department is the provision of counter-UAS for our critical infrastructure, so we are actively doing that today. We've also worked with the services that are responsible for each of the installations in NORTHCOM to provide additional options. So what you described is a very complex problem, and as you look at it at scale, there's a lot of work to do.
So we are helping the services with their assessments of critical infrastructure, determining what they need to close gaps, and then we're helping them get it quickly. In areas where the services require assistance inside of the homeland--I think you just saw an article about NORTHCOM's flyaway kit. We have additional capability inside of NORTHCOM that could be provided in support of the services or in support of that installation commander if they still have a remaining gap and they're seeing a repeated incursion.
HA: The flyaway kits are sort of a last gap capability that's provided only if they don't have enough on-site capabilities. Can you say whether installations right now are equipped to handle these kinds of incursions like we saw at Langley, like we saw at Wright-Patt, like we saw at Picatinny, and the list goes on?
BGMR: The question there, Howard, is are they equipped to handle those types of incursions?
HA: Yes. Have they been--walk me through some of the systems that they've gotten to increase their ability to handle these situations locally.
BGMR: Okay. Yes, they are equipped to handle UAS incursions. Now, the specific equipment varies by location, but what we're trying to build at each location where we have critical infrastructure that needs to be protected is a layered defense that includes distributed sensing and layered effectors so that we have the ability to counter any and all threats.
HA: Thanks.
LTCVW: All right. Ms. Meghann Myers from Defense One, do you have another question?
MM: Yes, thank you. I'm going to take another crack at this. So when this marketplace goes online, would you say that there are tens of counter-UAS systems that could immediately go on to it? Is it hundreds? Is it a small handful? Just assuming that there's more than one or two counter-UAS systems that the U.S. military is already using, and that could go on.
BGMR: Meghann, I don't want to give you a number----
MM: I know.
BGMR: ----because I don't want to give you an inaccurate number. What I know is that there are hundreds of components of counter-UAS systems that could go on to the marketplace today, and we need to start thinking about these counter-UAS systems as components that are interchangeable. That's one of the things we're trying to take on is testing and evaluation of specific components opposed to a full-stack system. When you look at a full-stack system, you may settle for a less-than-optimal configuration of your radar, your EOIR camera, and your layered effectors. If I only need to sense 20 kilometers and not 40 kilometers and I could change out that radar, put a lower-cost radar on there, then I could put more systems out into the field. As we look at that marketplace, I really want it to be components, similar to what you would see on any other online marketplace, that are plug-and-play as part of a counter-UAS system.
If we were to approach it differently, you could head down the path to feel the exact same equipment to all of our installations, but kind of to Howard's question there and why it's difficult to answer, each of our installations vary by size, shape, and what they have on those installations, so they require different types of protection. I want to provide as much flexibility as possible to our installation commanders who are overall responsible for protecting those sites.
MM: Thank you.
LTCVW: Do you have a follow-up, Meghann, at all or another question?
MM: No, I'm good.
LTCVW: Okay. We only have time for a couple more questions. I'll swing back through, but very quickly, Jeremiah, do you have any other follow-ups?
JC: Yeah, I've got one more question. Okay. Will there be JIATF demonstrations, or will they kind of just be integrated into existing demonstrations or exercises?
BGMR: Hey, Jeremiah, I lost you for just a second. Could you say that one more time? I think you asked, are there going to be demos and exercises?
JC: Right. Are they going to be specific to within JIATF, or are they going to be kind of just integrated into existing demonstrations or exercises?
BGMR: Yeah, great question, and I'm glad you asked it. We need to have a synchronized approach to how we do testing and evaluation for counter-UAS systems. There are a lot of folks who currently test and evaluate these components and full systems. That's internal to the department, and it's also across the interagency. What we're going to provide is that authoritative data on how these systems perform in specific conditions and configurations. To do that, yes, there's going to continue to be exercises that focus on counter-UAS, but we want to standardize the measurement or the evaluation of capabilities so that if a vendor comes and performs this month in November 2025 and a similar capability is evaluated in March of ‘26 at a different exercise or demonstration, we should be able to do a relative comparison between those two evaluations. Today we can't do that because we do not always measure the same performance attributes, and so we are taking that on across the department to make sure that we've got a more synchronized model. It's good for us because then we don't have multiple agencies testing and evaluating the exact same equipment, multiple services or agencies. It's also good for industry because it will address some of the demo fatigue that they've seen as they try to figure out how to enter into the department.
LTCVW: Okay. Carley, do you have a question? Getting close here, just trying to swing through one more time.
CW: Yes, thank you. So, General Ross, you described how the task force, you know, isn't actually, you know, firing down drones at the border, but they're in support of NORTHCOM in that mission. Can you kind of describe what that support looks like?
BGMR: I can, Carley. So, like I said, I was down at the border last week. I talk routinely with General Guillot and the NORTHCOM counter-UAS team to understand where they have challenges. In some cases they have challenges with those authorities that we were talking about inside of the national defense areas. They are now covered under 130I, and I want to make sure that they can use the full breadth of the authority provided under 130I to be able to counter-UAS in the NDAs. So, in some cases they need help with authorities.
In some cases they need help with unsourced requirements where they're looking for the provision of additional counter-UAS capability that's not resident on the southern border today. That's areas where we want to help. And so we want to understand what their requirement is, and we want to be able to provide them additional tools to be able to counter those systems.
CW: Great. Thank you.
LTCVW: All right, Calvin, you'll be the one to close us out for the last question if you do have one, sir.
CB: Yeah, just maybe getting back to the legislative proposals that are working within OSD or OS--the department’s policy shop. Can you get a little bit more detailed about what you're looking for there in terms of--and is it to like just clarify, and is it to clarify authorities or maybe close some gaps in authorities? Again, as much detail and color as possible. Thanks.
BGMR: Hey, Calvin, we're looking, again, we're working with policy on that. But the expansion of 130I to make sure that all Department of War installations can be covered. We also want to pursue--we want to ensure that we can share data seamlessly between agencies, and that's another reason that a JIADF is really helpful here. But in a lot of areas, you have DHS location--areas where DHS is responsible for security. The provision that they have that allows them to conduct counter-UAS is 124N. Right next to that might be a Department of War installation that's covered under 130I. We should be able to share information back and forth as we identify an unmanned system as a threat. We should also be able to do that with state, local, tribal, and territorial police and the local police. There are a number of different legislative proposals underway right now. Those are the ones where I spend most of my time, but I think there's also work being done across the government.
CB: Yeah, thanks.
LTCVW: All right, team. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We are out of time here. I have to give my boss of bosses, Major, excuse me, Brigadier General Ross, some time to make a final statement here. So, sir, is there any closing comments and statements you want to make on behalf of JIADF and yourself, sir, to the media team?
BGMR: Hey, thanks, Von, and appreciate the time and appreciate everybody's time here this morning. If you haven't met him, I want to make sure that you guys are connected with Adam Scher. If you've got any follow-up questions or you need clarification on something, please reach out to him.
I would just tell you that I'm excited about this opportunity. This is a real problem, and I look forward to making progress on it. I'm proud of the team inside of JIATF 401. I'm thankful for the folks that we have and the way we've been empowered to get after the problem. And we just have that one measure of effectiveness, and that's delivering state-of-the-art counter-UAS capability to our warfighters both at home and abroad. And I look forward to talking to you guys again in the future.
LTCVW: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Again, the PAO for JIATF is Lieutenant Colonel Adam Scher. I can pass that information, but please make sure--a lot of the queries, you tag us in it, drop it through the Pentagon, the ACOO press box, so we can run those accordingly and get them straight to exactly where they belong with JIATF. Also, we will have a full, clean transcript for all of the reporters present as well as JIATF to review and look after. So please look after that--look out for that. That will be at least hopefully sometime this evening or this afternoon, depending on how the transcription service works. But we owe you that, and it will be in all your inboxes. But other than that, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And if you have any other follow-ups, please reach out to us. Thank you so much, and I'll end it here. Have a good day.
Social Sharing