The T2 Tile project is building an indefinitely scalable computational stack. Follow our progress here on T Tuesday updates. So, I'll change the music one of these days. That is displayed in cubic time, so for x amount of seconds that we actually watched, it corresponds to x cubed amount of actual simulation time, so it really makes everything all happen at the end. I should probably, I think, go back to quadratic time, but it's difficult to figure out a good way to see the dynamics, but that was not what I wanted to show you. That is growth and development. What I was hoping to show you was programmable code decoding. Let's find out why we didn't see that and what we saw instead. All right, so almost two weeks ago, I got started on this to code representations and operations. I've been thinking about this for years, one way or another, and I keep assumed that what was going to happen was I was going to go back and eventually I'm going to get to the point where I'm going to implement a regular processing unit with registers and add instructions and ALU, arithmetic logic unit, operations and so on. And now is the time. But then every time I actually sat down to try to do it, something blocked me. I didn't like it. It just didn't make sense. One of the things I was saying, one of the things that's weird when you do artificial life at the artificial chemistry level, you need an initial replicator that you hand code in whatever your underlying physics is that moves things around and to be able to make a copy. And that has to come from nowhere. It comes from the mind of God because whatever billions of years of evolution would take to come up with that thing, we're skipping for purposes of the simulation for purposes of the research. But with the rules that I've adopted for the T2Tile project, where all you do is you click one button and it creates one instance of one atom called S, where is the replicator? The replicator has to be stored in the code space somehow. So I set out trying to say, can I make an array of atoms so that an element is the specific type of something that has properties and can do behavior and so forth, but then atom is just a generic object that can hold any element, one any element. So can I make an array of atoms that would just be preloaded with the sequence that the replicator was going to use? Well, it turned out, no, couldn't quite do it. Ulam wouldn't let you do it. But hey, one of the really nice things about having the lead compiler developer in the same house is that you get responsive stuff going, and it is actually in the developed branch, there is now a constant atoms and constant array of atoms. So you can make constant classes for your specific whatever it happens to be. Here's a dreg. Here's a res. Here's a constructor. Here's a who knows what it is. Processing unit. And then you can make an array of atoms, and then we'd be able to have the seed that would sort of work its way through them and provide them to the outside world. That would be a way to get the replicator into the system. Didn't get that far, but the Ulam marches on. And we still haven't announced, we still haven't released Ulam 5. All of this stuff is becoming Ulam 5. Ulam 5 is a nice release. But at the moment, most everybody who I'm aware of that's actually doing Ulam stuff is doing it from GitHub on the develop branch, and that's where all the action is. All right. So the first thing I was trying to do was let's make a single quote. That's the way I'm taking an arbitrary atom and hiding it inside two atoms so that it can't act. It's quoted. It's data. And then I wanted to move those around, so I make a single quote forwarder that would take a chain of locations and it would move this thing along. And this led again from last time and the time before, I think, now. The idea of having these plates and you can reserve space in them in a corner, usually in the upper left hand corner, the way the layout is working, for an operator, an arbitrary type of atom. Well, it's not completely arbitrary. Inherit from the appropriate operator type, but that it's the one that actually controls what the plate does. And the plate has abilities to move and grow and die and take its subplates with it and so forth, but it doesn't actually do them. And by decoupling that and plopping an operator in there, we get a lot of flexibility in a reasonably natural way. So that's the 01 operator concept, right up in the upper left hand corner. And we could make our SQ forwarders more general. And it's always this fight back and forth. It seems right. And one of the problems with building out an arm, which is then going to carry things behind it, is that the front of the thing is always at nowhere. And this is the standard problem that if you want to have a transporter booth or a teleporter or something in a science fiction book, you need to have a receiver at the other end. It's the same thing here. When you're building out the stuff, you haven't got the receiver at the other end, so you have to keep doing it. So the deployment decisions, what to do next, is all ahead of what's been deployed so far. That's kind of the nature of it. And I went back and forth. Do I want to take you Adam apart? It's like you're shipping a package. You open the package. You say, do you want to go to the next stop and then close it up and move it on? I got in all kinds of trouble trying to make sense of this. I really don't know what I want. And it's this struggle between the generality of traditional central processing unit style programming and what this thing seems to be trying to tell me if I was just clueful enough to listen. And I started wondering, this is a very strange thing, right? So if I'm saying an Adam, an instance of an Adam is a sort of fundamental operator, a fundamental action in this programming language, well then, is the program supposed to be bigger than the code that the program represents? Putting them in single quotes makes the code twice as big as what's being coded for. So actually, I had to go look at DNA and the mass of amino acids and so forth. Actually, that seems like the, as far as I can tell, the triple DNA code on is actually pretty hefty compared to most of the amino acids that end up getting made. So I kept trying, you know, if I had a plate chemistry, then maybe I could have the things like the size of the plate and the position that this guy was supposed to be on the plate, the position that this being was supposed to be on the plate could be registers in this thing.  And it would make one, you know, couldn't get it to work.  And what I need to do, instead of thinking in terms of loops and accumulators and all of that essential assembler stuff of traditional programming, I need to think in terms of what are the processes of the system that you can build more complex processes, more useful processes on top of simpler processes. That's the bottom up way. And one of the things that I've been thinking about for a while is now that we have plates and plate tectonics and subplates and we can move them around, it would be really nice to have some kind of mechanism to position subplates within plates so that you didn't have to say, go to location 16 comma three and be with five and height two and so on but express it in some more functional way. And that was the subplate layout idea. So I went for to be able to, instead of specifying exact numbers of sites to be able to specify fractions, how big I would like to be relative to my container and that would allow the container, at least in principle, to grow and have all the pieces inside it grow with it. And that seemed like a nice thing to have. If we're gonna be building lifelike systems then rather than saying the deck is 16 columns by six rows, say it's 25% of the parent's width and 10% of the height or whatever it is. And so I went for that and I got it kind of going and it all felt so reminiscent of, for me, Tickle TK which was a really early language for doing visual computations. It's still used all kinds of ways today. I know the guy that was his work and it had layout managers. You have a whole bunch of windows and you wanna put a window in a window and put this one up against the left and put this one at the bottom, put this one in the middle, tell us when to take up all the extra space. That's exactly what I wanted to do with plates and subplates. I wanted to lay them out, pack them, say this one should stick to the left, this one should go in the middle and so forth. Tickle TK is where I first learned about it. Of course Java took over eventually and they went completely crazy with all sorts of layout managers and everybody's doing it. Even what we're looking at right here is one of these layout managers is one that I made it myself. But you see these windows really, this guy really wants to stick where it is at the moment. That's the layout that's at work. And so there's a deep, deep analogy here, that the reason that windows have to be laid out in two-dimensional space is so we can look at them, so putting them in relative spatial locations and worrying about their size and worrying about how they fit relative to their parents in some recursively nested way is exactly the same kind of thing we want to do with the plates, but not so that the eyes can lay upon them, but so that the widgets, the plates themselves can lay upon the execution hardware, the two-dimensional hardware underneath that's performing events. So this meant a lot of sense and it would be a next generation plate operator we still do. We're using the plate operator essentially on change, which makes me very happy to do the moving and the growing with the tectons and all of that sort of stuff, the border patrol. That stuff is just riding right on through and we're getting to the point where for more complex cases, we're using two operators, a plate operator in the upper one-one in the upper left-hand corner to do all that stuff, and then at one-two right underneath it a more specific like in the case of the Adam Deck operator in the last episode. So we ended up with sub plate operator that was job was to take relative coordinates and say I want to be 15% of the parent's width and 20% of the parent's height. It's not actually in percent because you want to save on bits, so it actually ends up being divided up into 14ths, 14ths in width, 14ths in height. That's what ended up working out. And it was a strange thing because so now the operator is inside the plate and so it's not enough for the operator just to look at its surrounding plate. It has to look all the way outside the plate that it's in. It has to look at its containers container to figure out what that size is to know what size it wants to be. So it worked out, it got it going. We have a plausible sub plate operator and that's what we were looking at. That's the demo for this update. Why were so we had to make little faces because why not, this is a plate that this is a new thing called color plate. It's just random colors, but it's doing all the same stuff. You saw that it was doing the border patrols and it was growing and moving and all of that. The yellow thing in their right eye, that is the master controller that's sequencing the process of popping out the plate which is gonna be the right eye, the plate that's gonna be the left eye and the plate that's gonna be the mouth in that order because there's not enough room to make all of those plates at once and that was a fundamental challenge. We can't put two plate roots in one event window unless the plates are tiny and doing three of them is pretty much out of the question. So that was the thing to fall back on time, things moving through time and we could have them say, well, so right now orient this way so that the first plate that was popped out goes up to get out of the way to free the space down here and then we can put out the next one and then they go to their final positions. It's pretty nice, it worked out pretty well. Now the problem was was that in order to make it fun, I wanted the whole thing to make more than one face but now the thing that was in control of everything was buried in the right eye. So what was I gonna do? So I made this thing I called a jump seeder or something like that that releases from the right eye but it picks a random direction and just goes shooting out until it finds a complete empty spot and then it seeds a new one. So once again, we don't have real program data distinction programs being copied yet. That's what I failed at for this episode but you can see it here that because we have these jumps seeders shooting out all over the place, this is the original grandparent, grand being of all of them and he shot out his own right eye. Well, he shot out the plate operator, right? So in this case, like this thing here, that blue one is the plate operator and the thing underneath it is the color plate face generator that's doing this, but it all keeps on going and so what happens is now this eye is not dead because the thing still gets events, it still does what it was but it no longer changes size or position because that's what the plate was doing for it and in fact, there are several of them here that have been messed up one way or another. I guess I'm not gonna take positions. This is a where's Waldo. Can you find people that have had their plates shot out and well, we'll leave it be. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure when I took this particular screenshot from anyway. So, all right, the thing that the sub plate operator drove home for me is that it's looking outside its container, it's looking out in the big nasty world and the thing about plate tectonics which really makes a whole lot of sense but one is that when you're working inside in plates and sub plates, it's like you are in control because you put the stuff there and recursively on down but sooner or later because plates can only be so big and the way that I'm typically doing it they can't be more than 100 by 100 or so and even when you get to 100 by 100 they're gonna be incredibly dog slow anyway. So eventually you're gonna have to have plate communications interactions between separate plates, siblings on a larger plate or just loose out in the grid and that becomes much more challenging. You need to be able to deal with the fact that one plate may shift with respect to the other one without telling anybody and we have to accept the possibility of broken paths and this is the thing that I've been seeing this coming for a decade or more but now we've actually built up enough of the stack, enough of the computational stack, the bottom up robust first indefinitely scalable approach that it's affecting how we're gonna make the code. All right, I fell back on site numbers, relative spatial position but then maybe do we need some kind of tag? The thing is if one moves with respect to the other and wasn't notified, now how do you know it's still the same one? How do you know the one that you're talking to? And every time I start thinking about tags I know it's trouble, I shouldn't do it but I started going for it and yes, this all seems so tiring but given the need to interact between siblings, that's where message passing, that's where peer to peer is that's what it means spatially that neither contains the other and yet you need to interact beyond just a geeing back and forth so that is being polite enough to not bump into each other. And then finally again, the pin dropped, I had all of these things, I was trying to make wires that would connect one plate to another and it would be all flexible and stuff like that and then what about an interconnecting plate? If we want two plates, two sibling plates to communicate and because I've got the upper left, the Northwest is being where the roots are and I have not implemented the general symmetries for all of this plate stuff, I'm not sure I'm gonna because it's a tremendous amount of complexity and I sort of think it would be better off to just nail this down and deal with the consequences because there's gonna be consequences no matter what even if you can rotate plates with respect to each other, I don't know, down the road, I feel like we need to understand it all much better first. So if you want two plates to communicate west to west like a mother and a daughter, well then build a connecting plate, stack the two plates, the mother and the daughter up above and below and stack a connecting plate that would go between them and it's like the von Neumann constructor arm which takes us all the way back to the earliest days of computer science and the earliest days of cellular automata which is what this sort of thing is, the von Neumann universal constructor. This is an example of it that was made up that was actually implemented. This whole big blue thing is a machine for constructing copies of whatever is on this tape, the thing that's sticking off it and here's a second generation copy that was produced by the first one and the second one is in the middle of producing a third generation copy and the way it works is it has this constructor arm that essentially rasters over the system and that's kind of what this constructor plate, this transport plate felt like and so this is an example of some circuitry from an implementation of the von Neumann machine but again, so what, this was all done 50 years ago? Well, yes and no as is so much of computer science and so much of robust first and spatial computing. People have dabbled in it but they dabbled in it with determinism and stuff that was inherently brittle and indeed, this is the Wikipedia page, you don't get much dynamics because the machines are too fragile. Yes, that's what we're talking about and so here we are. Gotta save a little time, gonna zip ahead here, right? But instead, and I can't zip ahead, computer science is all about being universal, being super general, don't solve the problem you've got, solve the entire family of problems of which it's an instance of and man, I've got that too, I always wanna do that but maybe I'm wrong again, maybe I shouldn't be looking for general arbitrary communication schemes, I should be looking for something that actually fits together like a jigsaw puzzle with the stuff I wanna do and let the spatial constraints inform the solution and so yes and this idea of using a plate to transport stuff between two other plates started to seem like maybe it was gonna work. I called it transport plate, I've been working on it a lot. Here's an example of it. Let's do a quick demo if we can instead of looking at these pictures. All right, here we are. So what have I got here? I've got S3, right? So plump one of these guys down and we let him go and what happens? Let's turn the event tracking on so we can run time backwards. This is a very useful feature that the simulator has that the T2 tiles themselves do not have. All right, so there it is. We've got the seed S3, that's the seed transport plate V then the TVs are transport plate Vs, transport plate vertical and the idea is that it's a one wide plate. It avoids the whole border stuff because this is too small. It's meant to be fragile. It's meant to be a construction line, a scaffold that's just strong enough to do what the scaffolding needs to do. In this case, it supervises that the transport plate is every third site and in between it are single quoted atoms and so this is the case. These are empty, the green ones are empty, this pair down here is actually got something in it and there it is. So what happened here was the original S3, whatever it was, sent a command to the other end saying deploy a plate deployer. It's so meta and the plate deployer has a bunch of information about it. Like I want to deploy a plate of type whatever, I want to deploy it into site number four which is to my east, I want its size to be this, I want its position to be that and so forth and it got there and it did it and it put out an atom deck plate for us and this is pretty nice. It needs a lot more work, it's got bugs, that's why I wasn't able to have it be our actual demo for today but we got far enough that we actually have a little bit of, whoops, there. Okay, we have a horizontal transport plate as well and the single quote atoms, they don't shift, they're nailed down to be vertical so these are the stations, THTHTH and so forth. Whoops, I overwrote it. All right, so that's just a little quick thing of what I want for the next episode is all of this scaffolding actually being used so that we can take a sequence of atoms that we declare as a program that makes a difference somehow and make a copy of them in a loop in another atom deck using transport plate technology that works better for the process. All right, so that's what this stuff was about. Oh yeah, this was nice. This was during debugging. The first thing, just to have an atom descent it just sent itself. It went up to the end of the transport plate and the transport plate is designed that when it gets to the end, if there's no operator there and the thing that they're transporting is an operator it goes ahead and plops it down, that's it. So that just started up again and it just sort of making a chain of these things until it got through. There's the horizontal one and so on. All right, so, oh yeah, and again, this was another sort of, oh my God, it's so obvious that I gotta do a redesign for this at this point which is why I gave up on showing it this week for real is that the idea would be that the way you use one of these transport plates is you have two instances of the same operator, one at each end. So what you're really doing is you're making a single coupled processor that's sending messages back and forth between copies of itself so that it can accomplish stuff over a bigger area than any single atom could. Makes a lot of sense. Didn't get to it until Monday, June 21. That was yesterday. All right, that's it. All right, I showed, no, actually I didn't. This is going too long. Last time we had the trouble with the T2 tile array. Since then, I did get in and got the trace files that were associated with that particular event and the 439, 5353 from the three tiles that were originally involved in it and I actually sucked them out of each tile from the middle of the grid where you can't get Ethernet in there using the serial port and Z modem. I felt like welcome to the 90s. I also wrote a quick replacement, the cash update traffic maximizer to try to provoke the problem so that what this does, it's like a fork bomb that reproduces as fast as possible but in addition it makes each copy of the fork bomb locally unique so that when it rewrites all of those sites they all have to be transmitted as cash updates which is supposed to be the worst case and I did manage to get it to fail but it took a long time and the failures there, I got it to fail are really rare so I still feel like I don't have a clear understanding of exactly what's going on there collecting more information in the background. In the foundation business we were running out of disk space for backing up all of this video stuff so using some money that I had from before I got one of these new network attached storage things a bigger one than the one that I've been using so the box itself, there it is installed of a Synology the box was bought from money from other stuff but the disks that are inside it are bought by Living Computation Foundation funds thanks folks there it's our dollars, your dollars all of us at work and now the thing is a third fold just copying the stuff from the old thing which is now no longer going to be used for that stuff so there we are the Living Computation Foundation website has been updated but now it has a news button that it didn't have before and it's got a first just a quick summary bam, bam, bam of the stuff that we've been doing T2Tile stuff, videos, talks, foundation, business and so on and that's it so the next update will be in two weeks my goal is to have something that's functionally like a programmed construction arm which is kind of like what I was hoping for this episode didn't make it but I think the prospect is better for making it next time thanks folks for stopping in I hope everybody's doing all right you know we're still not really emerging from our pandemic nature just cause you know you learn the new ways of doing stuff you keep on doing it we'll see how it goes hope everything's good with you hope to see you next time


Hello everybody who's just coming on to join us, I'm just going to give it a minute to allow a few more into the room. So we have quite a lot of attendees today. Lots of people signed up so I'm just giving us a few seconds so we can get everybody in just on Zoom it takes a little while to admit everybody. So I want you to miss out. Okay. We've still got people trickling in, but I'll get started as they continue to arrive. So, as the slide says, my name is Sophie Andrews, I'm a research associate at the Freeman Aaron Space Institute. I'm so, so pleased to see so many people signing up today. I'm not really surprised at such an interesting subject and so topical to be talking about the carrier strike group as as they are sailing having left this country in the spring. So welcome everybody. One thing I should point out to you immediately is we will be recording this session. That's so that we can then post it on our website later. And also to remind you that if you want to tweet about what we're talking about tweet about what's being said are Twitter handle is at Freeman underscore air. Many of you I'm sure follow us already but do do do follow us if you don't do use that. The hashtag CSG 21 being widely used at the moment I see no reason why we shouldn't just jump on that so also hashtag CSG 21. And then the final bit of admin I really have is about the questions, please send us your questions lots of questions for the two two stars who will be introduced shortly. I'm going to use the Q&A button on zoom. I'm sure we're all more than familiar with that now after so long. The chat functions disabled so you will need to use Q&A. And on that note, I am going to hand over to Dr David Jordan, one of our co directors and he will be chairing and hosting the event over to you David. Thank you, Sophie. And thank you everybody for joining us today as Sophie said, it's my very patient duty to introduce you to our two guests this afternoon to talk about carrier strike. And they are rear Admiral, Martin Connell, who is the director of force generation, and advice Marshall, al Marshall, who is the air officer commanding a number one group rule Air Force. And I wonder gentlemen, and thank you for joining us. We're very grateful. I wonder if I could ask you to begin perhaps by just outlining the nature of the two job job titles as I've described so that our audience can all be fully familiar with the roles and tasks and burdens that fall upon me please. Thank you. David, thank you and Sophie. Good afternoon and good afternoon to everybody else. So, Martin Connell. And as David said, my day job is director force generation for the Royal Navy. But we've had an organizational change within the Royal Navy over the last year or so. And prior to that, I was the senior responsible owner for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier program. I also, I'm the scheduling authority for the Navy. I have responsibility for generating ship submarines and tasks groups and aviation for operations. And then between Alan and I, we oversee the governance of carrier strike as a program. And we are still in the relatively early stages of that and perhaps we'll follow up on a bit more of that later. Yeah, thanks. Well done. So, yeah. Again, hello all. Good to see you. It's great to see so many people online. So Air Force commanding number one group, you know, the group of the Royal Air Force. I look after all of our combat air so fast jets be it Typhoon F 35 and Hawk. Also the Air Force is I staff forces both remotely piloted and the crewed platforms. And also the air and space warfare center, which actually has a sort of a supporting role in terms of mission data and programming for F 35. And, and yeah, clearly, as well as chairing the overall governance along alongside with Martin, my specific equity and carrier strike is the F 35 and that wider enterprise. But clearly, I'm also involved in some of the other air supporting elements that play into carrier strike. So yeah, very much look forward to the conversation. David back to you. Thank you. I wonder if I could start the conversation off then by inquiring a rather general question, I suppose, or general option option but because we've seen particularly over the last few weeks speculation on the changing nature of the world in terms of explaining or giving you thoughts on how carrier strike is helping to address the demands of a changing world, please. Perhaps I can, I can start. I think we've, we've got to look at where carry strike sits among all the other capabilities that defense has. We're at a relatively early stage. So we declared an initial operating capability at the beginning of this year, and very soon afterwards we've deployed our own strike group, which includes importantly, a US Marine Corps operational squadron and we've got a Dutch air frigate as well as integrated within the task group. And it would have been, I think, easy for us to set that benchmark relatively low. Let's do something quite close to the UK. Let's have a few milestones that we can try and measure against and then rest on our laurels. But what we collectively did a couple of years ago now was aim for a quite ambitious early operational headmark. And the manifestation of that is this deployment. And it's not just a cruise as it can often be rather crudely described. This is an operation. So we've, we've generated it very deliberately, very carefully so that it can switch to combat operations from the outset. And indeed, early on in this deployment in July, they did exactly that combat strike missions. So the task group is ready for operations, a whole range of operations, but we're cognizant that this is still fairly early days, but we've achieved an enormous amount already. And I think there's much more still to come. And we very much recognize that this is about giving a suite of choices to policymakers. And I think terrorist strike group 21 has already achieved that. But I think there's much more to do. Yeah, I'd sort of agree with that. Just follow up on the question, you know, choices is is is clearly part of it going forward. I think I think the other thing we should realize we've not really been doing this for the last decade. As the UK. So it is us re entering the fray. And I think, you know, probably everybody would see this is a demonstration of, you know, UK ambition and sort of the, I guess the level of our defense capability to be one of the few nations that now is fielding this fifth generation carrier. So there's lots of elements to that. Clearly, there's a reputational benefit overall, but it allows us to another platform to develop our defense engagement international aspirations. And I think, you know, I think we should not underestimate it's there at what is needed to act as a bit of a deterrent with, you know, one of the one of the world's best combat airplanes on board with all the other capabilities of the strike group. So, yeah, I think as it matures and we should we should build on this deployment. And it's ultimately there to offer the politicians political political choice. I think if I may that we've we've deliberately built in within carrier strikers capability, interoperability, and to a certain extent interchangability from the outset. Again, we could have said, let's try and achieve some capabilities as the UK first and then when we're confident enough will reach out to friends, allies, partners to see and get their input and cooperation, but we've deliberately from the outset got interoperability. And I think through this deployment, one it's global scale. So we didn't seek to do a short near field type deployment. We've gone to the literally the other side of the world. And that creates all sorts of logistical challenges which we're learning from. But we've proved we can do that. But we're operating along the way with different navies and air forces. And particularly, we've worked with those nations that have got f 35s. And, you know, I think I think that is, to me, that shows all sorts of opportunity. And when you're looking at military operations, the extent to which you can collaborate the interchangeable and have distributed operations is, I think, significant. Okay, thank you. I wonder if I could just pick up on one of the points that was raised there. Al, you made the quite fine since the last carrier operations were conducted. How is the Royal Air Force and how the fleet air on heavily shaped their outputs over this time to meet what I suppose might be described as a new age of carrier operations. I wonder if I could elicit the thoughts of both of you on that please. Yeah, so I guess I'll perhaps open on that one. Yeah, you know, you're quite right since the demise of joint force Harrier and the class of carriers that the Harriers flew from there has been, you know, quite a long gap. But actually, during that, that's been filled programmatically. And, you know, Martin and I have been involved in the development of carrier strike and clearly lots of people have been developed enough 35 but we've really invested into the intellectual energy and experience in making sure we were prepared for this moment. Ultimately, both services have had pilots, engineers and far more on exchange tours some embarked not embarked to make sure we were here. So that was sustaining. And we use the term seed corn on occasion with some of our other capabilities to try and keep things alive to allow us to quickly grow. So I think we've done that from an F 35 specifics perspective. You know, we've had it in for a few years now, but it is still early days. And, you know, I guess, with all of our combat air we've been trying to see what fifth generation offers and ultimately the threats of others having fifth generation and making our, you know, typhoons and F 35 as ready as we can for that in new environment. So I think I'll be preparing in that way getting ready. And the only other one I would offer and then I'll pass it over to Martin is, you know, in terms of, you know, multi degrade multi domain integration and multi domain operations. Again, that's quite key to carry a strike as many people will get, you know, data being fundamental, being able to share it and spread it around, get the synergy for many platforms and we've been developing that as an Air Force. The Navy have as well and we developing that for defense as well. So I think, you know, we're trying to plug into modernizing warfare in the air and the air maritime time environment with this capability. Using that experience, we've, you know, we've tried to keep simmering. And in some areas we've invested really deep to make sure we're ready for this event in the years to come. Yeah, I think this, this is the largest task group deployment we've embarked upon in about 20 years.  September, August, September 2001, we deployed an Argonaut task group that was actually deploying to go and do an exercise in a man exercise safe Syria. And I was the lead planner for that that task group. So having seen how this is evolved. I think it's, it's really significant moment now. But this has not been a, you know, a seamless linear trajectory from 2001 to 2021. We've had to, as Al said, think very carefully since the decision was made in 2010 to retire Harrier and the old CVS, the old carriers, but invest in the new ones, think carefully how we can credibly get that capability. And we've had to work much closer our two services and also work very closely with in particularly the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps and the French. Because you can't just turn on those skill sets. And there's a reason why it's incredibly complex and and many navies, I think, aspire to this level of capability, but find it really challenging. So without that support, we wouldn't be able to enjoy the sort of success and capability that we have today. And I think that cooperation by embedding people in other navies and air forces is a real, a real boost to us. And so that when we started this deployment, we had expertise at numerous levels. So the person that's overseeing the flight deck has been in the cockpit of F 18 on combat operations and American carrier. And there are countless other examples whereby we can use that experience in order to ensure that we can do maritime aviation safely. But it's not been a cakewalk. It's been it's been really challenging to do that. And that has brought, I think, our services together. And speaking frankly, that hasn't always been the case. And I think right now when you see the race ship to achieve the staff for sea lord between depth tomorrow operations and fleet commander in the navy and indeed, and I who've known each other for some time. Yeah, I think that's been a necessary part of this as well. Yeah, David, I'll just I'll just quickly go on about that because I think, yeah, that that that joint, I guess synergy collaboration is absolutely key. And I know we've probably discussed it in the past, David, I was on that 2001 deployment as a junior pilot that Martin mentions. And yeah, there was, it was more competitive, perhaps the team work, should we say on occasion. It's not like that now, you know, it is really good. We're getting experience from both sides. You know, lots of synergy, a huge amount of experience. And I think the fact that OC617 squadron, you know, one of our most prestigious Royal Air Force squadrons is the Embark Squadron. It's currently commanded by a Navy commander. I think, you know, it's probably just a bit of an example of where we come. So actually, right now, the most senior Royal Air Force officer on board the carrier, I think is a leader. You know, pretty junior given the amount of Royal Air Force investment in that. And that's a tribute to the teamwork of all those, those beneath us. It's going well. And we must make sure that persists to absolutely get the maximum out of the capability. Okay, thank you. Several points, I think, potentially come out of this. I wonder if you just explore a couple of them. Starting with really the obvious point that the sophistication of the both the F 35 and of course the Queen Elizabeth class is very considerable and obviously adapting to and making full use of those platforms potential will require training. And of course, training is really quite expensive. It often gets forgotten about in the wider media narrative, but the cost of training and the time required to deliver effective training can be quite a challenge. Is there is there a particular degree of challenge either economically or in terms of available time that faces both of you or perhaps one service more than the other in delivering the necessary outputs to deliver the train personnel to deliver the effects of the strike group. Yeah. So I'll start from the, you know, the aviation perspective, perhaps, because I guess we're probably further down the synthetic path, maybe then some of the more wider cast group aspects. And I think, you know, you're right, David, to highlight this, it's hugely important. There is a financial aspect to this, you know, life-lying is expensive, especially in fifth generation airplane. So, you know, I think many may have heard of I think defenses, but particularly, you know, the Royal Air Force or, you know, the lightning force as the joint Royal Navy. Man to one sort of a live synthetic balance. Personally, I don't particularly like the term. I'd prefer a live synthetic mix. So, you know, you do as much training as you can in the synthetic environment that's appropriate to that. And I think what's fabulous and probably for the first time on board we've got two, you know, pilot simulators really, we can use those for currency, keep the skills up when we're in the middle of the Indian Ocean, for example, when there's not that much going on in terms of an aviation environment. We can potentially do mission rehearsal more and more in the future as well. So I think that's a real leap. But you do need to do the live-flying as well. We need to exercise the ship as well in terms of live-flying because there are real life risks and skills in doing that.  We need to do as much of each as we feel we need to do. There is a little bit of a trade between the two. But again, they both have their merits. I guess the caution I have on making our training synthetic is I think we should go as far as we can. But there's also the reality that if you do less live-flying, and I'm sure it's live operating overall, the ability of the enterprise, industry and many others to upscale that a number of times in times of conflict becomes that much different. So if you really denude the minimum what we would call sustainment activity, live activity you need to do, if there is a really difficult sort of challenge or all war, our confidence will be able to upscale 10 or 20 times in terms of the number of flying hours is something we need to look at. But that's sort of the life synthetic. I think overall, and I'm sure it's the same, I'll let Martin in a minute. The F-35 is quite early on. We're through IOC. We're not initial operating capability. We're not at full operating capability. So right now we regularly discuss clearly defence wants to get as much as it can as soon as it can out of the carrier enterprise. We understand that. But clearly we need to invest the right proportion of our resource in training and growing the force over the coming year. So that's quite an active debate. We do have choices in there. But you'd imagine that we just got to make sure we started so well on the journey. We now need to carry it through so we get all these capabilities at scale in the future. Yeah, I think just to build on that. There's a real synchronicity challenge with training, particularly when you're generating an integrated high-end fifth generation strike group such as this. And you've got to start it starts with making sure that all the individuals are trained to a certain level. And then you've got to make sure that all the bits are kit, the aircraft, the ships, submarines, the staff. All of that comes together at the right sort of time so that you can get effective collective training. And we've had to gauge very carefully each stage over the last 18 months or so to bring those constituent parts together. Because as you say, David, that training is expensive if it's done inefficiently. So what we can't afford to do is have Type 45 destroyers, carriers and jets all waiting for the slowest mover to catch up. And I think the next part of this is how we can bring new technologies to bear to make sure our training is as realistic and credible as it has to be. And there's more work we need to do in this regard. We are, as Al said, focusing on making sure we get that blend of simulated virtual synthetic training to the right level. And then you've got to bring live assets together as well. We are at every level looking at how we can embrace new technology. So if I just give you an example, I've just this week signed off on some virtual reality capabilities for some of our debt crews on the carrier. So that when they get to the carrier, we've been able to give them as best an idea of immersing themselves on the deck of an aircraft carrier before they actually get there. Before we were using old Harriers and sort of moving them around on the deck and it was fine to a point, but when they got to the carrier, they were a bit disorientated. That's just one very small tactical example. There are plenty of others. But yeah, this is something which we've both our services are investing in. We both both Navy and Air have programs over the next few years for how we can do better on training and there's an overlap there. So we're working together to see how we can maximize that. OK, thank you. One of the things that is further reinforced by your observations there, I think, of course, is that the carrier is at a relatively early stage in its career as indeed is the F 35. And of course, there is something of a almost I suppose an expectation that it's something that's almost come as a ready to go and that what you get is pretty much what you've got throughout the entire capability of the old life. Sorry, of the two platforms, which of course, as you've exposed isn't necessarily the case. And I wonder if I might ask you to outline perhaps some of the challenges that you see for the future for both air and maritime and some of the notable differences. I mean, I'll start off by pitching in one example if I may just to get the discussion going there, which of course is that there is now a space officer who can be embarked upon the carrier. And these days, of course, in days gone by one might get a met brief, but now you can get a space brief to go with that. And I think that sort of emblematic of the developments that are going forward. So I wonder if you would like to comment, please, on how you see the sort of changes, some of them, like, for example, the virtual reality training that you've mentioned, but how you see some of the changes coming to pass in the coming years of the carrier. Of the carrier F 35 combination as we move first to full operating capability and then beyond it, please. Yeah, thanks, David. So yeah, we are just past initial operating capability and we're moving towards a full operating capability in a few years time and but it doesn't stop there. And if you take this decade. So I'm, we're expecting that these aircraft carriers to be in service for decades. But we expect the capabilities that will launch from that those decks to evolve. And if we look at the task group in a few years time will bring into service type 26 frigates. They will be world class anti submarine frigates and we will integrate them will bring in new weapons. We bring we brought in new weapons this year, new weapons in the wildcat helicopter. And, you know, that will carry on over the next couple of years we're going to bring in new surface weapons, air to surface weapons and sensors will evolve as well. I'll leave out to talk about F 35 development. And then, you know, I think, you know, when we look at sustainability as well, we've got RFA Fort Victoria was doing a sterling job sustaining the task group on this deployment and we'll do for the next few years. But we're looking forward to having new fleet solid support ships in service by the end of the decades that will be able to take over that role and enhance it yet further again. So at every level, whether it's capability, sustainability, lethality, and indeed availability so that we can maximize how and where we use these tasks groups, there's a lot to do. But I think for this stage, and I know I've stressed this, but it's probably worth restressing to deploy to the other side of the world the largest fifth generation F 35 air group and sustain it and operate it there. I think we should reflect on that. That is significant. But by no means do we think that's our level of ambition. You know, there's there's a lot more as I've described that we intend to do that will get it a capability that can be truly global, that is persistent capabilities and that is truly interchangeable with our key allies. Yeah, thanks. Well, you sort of agree with that. I guess from a sort of the air, air element of the Keras strike group, you know, F 35 as people would imagine as a whole program and a wish list of capability upgrades for the F 35 B and all the other models and and we're bought into that. There's some key UK weapons to come on board, you know, UK procured weapons in the program such as spear air to ground and meteor air to where we're looking forward to those. I think it's F 35 is working really well now. But to get it the true value of that fifth gen, the synergy with the carrier, the synergy with other assets, true interop real really excellent interoperative allies take some of these upgrades. So I think that that's the obvious bit. I think we're going down that path anyway. I think over time we would be looking to see how air and the raw air force can sort of integrate more with sort of longer range capabilities such as protector, the new remotely piloted air system sort of plays into that in the future again to to real get the synergies of the mix as well as the extra platforms that Martin brings in. And there's some obvious stuff we wish to do. You know, on this particular carrier journey we briefly stepped, stepped to shore or hop to shore with F 35. We did a quick hot refuelling iteration. I think as we mature towards full operating capability and beyond, we would like to get the logistics and all the other aspects in place that, you know, we can very quickly take F 35 deployments on and off the carrier at various various bits of the world to that utility. And then beyond that, again, you know, and I know Martin's got some programs and we're doing more and more experimentation in this area in both of our service. But as we go more to the the remotely piloted or the und uncrewed systems going forward, F 35 is part of the what we call the combat air mix going forward. You know, Typhoon will go out of service sort of around in around about two to three decades time. F 35 numbers will grow. And we've got 10 pairs beyond but actually, you know, unmanned versions of F 35 other unmanned systems or uncrewed systems from the carrier. I think we're all looking at so you know it is really exciting. And we certainly won't stop. So I think, yeah, the carrier strike group of 2040 is something we can take a guess at. I think it will probably be beyond beyond our imagination. You know, there are quite understandably questions which would say how soon are you going to have autonomous and uncrewed systems operated from the carrier. And we certainly got that ambition. I mean, we're not shy about this at all. We definitely have that ambition. But is any anybody who knows aviation from the sea. And a dark night in the North Atlantic, it's quite a challenging environment. And a lot of the quite readily available drones that everybody seems to operate. Don't tend to fail that well in that environment. So, you know, we absolutely have that ambition and the more observant people will see that we have two carries at sea right now. HMS Prince of Wales is around the UK and sure enough, she's got a drone on board. So we've been trying all sorts. We will continue to trial. We'll do that with industry partners. We'll do it elaboratively as I said with new systems as they come online and we'll do it with our key allies. There's definitely a lot more that we'll be doing fairly soon on this. Okay, thank you. I think if I may, because we have a number of questions from our audience, I'll move over rather than how many monopolizing questions I think you've actually answered one of them from Harry like quite comprehensively and Harry asked how you thought the role of US would be in the future of carrier aviation. I think you pretty much covered that but just before I move on to the next question which is also technologically focused. I just wondered if there's anything you wish to add or do you think that you've pretty much said at all that needs to be said at the moment relating to US and the future of carrier aviation. Yeah, I mean it's a fair point Harry and you know I get asked this quite a lot. We have an experimental squadron that is testing all sorts of US systems. We're working with some industry partners to develop capabilities so that we can as I described that demanding environment that we can work with them so that we can see how that can be achieved. And what the real goal here is what autonomous systems give you is persistence. And that I think will be one of the next sort of key game changers over the next decade. And I think the other influence of the air environment again. It's not a lot of people see it as quite digital crude or not. I think we're looking quite a lot of you know crude and uncrewed teaming in order to sort of get the mass up. You know be that crude and uncrewed F 35 or a you know a crude F 35 or a piloted F 35 actually you know doing the command and control of a number of autonomous assets with it so I think there's a blend. You know I expect crude there'll be a level of crude operation crude crude platform operation from the kind of staggering all the way through but yeah this this the opportunity that is given in all environments but particularly sort of the air and the Maritime Interface environment I think you know we'll be exploit as much as the technology allows but but but bearing in mind as Martin said it's a pretty challenging environment you know the the both the air environment around the car is very busy people on take helicopters you know we've seen some of these nasty accidents in the past and you know we just need to be measured so experimentation tightly controlled but you do need to get to a healthy level of assurance perhaps more than you'd have in a land base you know uncrewed system to go forward but yeah we're we're certainly and just to build on that so it might not mean much to many people watching listening in but we are the operating duty holders for the carrier and the jets and other aviation embarked and by that one of our key roles is to ensure that all the risks alive are probably understood and between as we've got that blend of expertise and we've got staffs who are working with us on that because as our rightly said that deck is is busy particularly at night you've got lots of things going on F 35 recovering and taking off you've got rotary wing you've got the ships refuelling you've got other nations operating you've got an air defence zone around the carrier it's a complex bit of airspace and it's a complex environment now that doesn't mean we can't introduce other capabilities absolutely we can but we want to do so in a safe and considered way and and what we're trying to do is have an operational capability at one end but also be doing experimentation as well and I think as I said earlier you know the fact that we've got we've had the F 35 training squadron embarked in Prince of Wales for the last few days while also doing some experimentation with a drone just gives you a sense of that in a very considered way while at the high end we've got HMS Queen Elizabeth on her operations. Okay, thank you. I'll come to two questions which are a little similar one from an anonymous attendee which inquires it appears if our potential adversaries are ahead in the development of hypersonic missiles and are you concerned about this and is it something recognised and being addressed and a similar question from Ian Meek who says that he trusts you consider the dangers of two aircraft carriers being hit by a Russian Chinese Isis and of course other potential adversaries are available an exoset in inverted commas and shipping weapon and he argues that perhaps having many options and decoys as well which is a tried and tested method. I wonder if you care to comment on Ian's possible solution and the the challenges you envisage being presented by advanced anti shipping weapons particularly in the hypersonic speed class please. Yeah, there's no doubt that technologies evolve you know that that history shows that and we take the defence of our strike group very seriously indeed and the fact that it's got multi layered protection with different sorts of sensors different sorts of weapons different sorts of decoys built into that strike group from the outset and you know we're looking very closely at all of our working with our intelligence agencies and partners to understand the situation around that strike group. Yes, we take it seriously we watch and we've got our own develop capability developments as well. And I think you know we shouldn't forget that this airfield tends to move and you know that maritime maneuver is something that we shouldn't forget as well. People are quick to say yes but the world's all transparent these days it's really challenging to target a carrier particularly when it's moving you know 500 miles in 24 hours. So we take it seriously we've thought about it very carefully for this deployment we've got layered integrated air defence around HMS Queen Elizabeth today and it's something that I'm sure will continue to evolve. Yeah that's all just going on you know I think on the hypersonics point you know yes they're being developed at pace around the world you know we're looking at it both from an offensive and a defensive aspect as well. So yes I think we're on to understanding that clearly some of it is in the classified layer and that will develop as it goes but you know that's not just a threat to the carrier group that's threat to our home bases and many other deployments. So you know we're looking for resilience and agility and choice in of our land bases and the carrier and heavenly gives us quite a bit of choice anyway because we can position it and move it. And I think you know the if you zoom out a bit from the threat to the carrier group itself ultimately you know it's about what you want to achieve is it you know with all your indicators and warnings there's a variety of ways. We've got strike capabilities on submarines we can we can launch them at long ranges with air to refueling from the air where you can use the carrier group we can use a combination. So I think if we zoom out a little bit from just the carrier strike group and look at the variety of choices in terms of survivability how close we put ourselves and you know sort of multi axis defence and attack. I think it becomes a slightly different question but I think everybody's alive to the fact that there are some very impressive lethal technologies around the world that has been the same for the last 100 years. And you know our intelligence agencies and others our own research and development look into those for both offensive and survivability aspects. Okay, thank you. He just pointed out in the Q&A that he was specifically referring as well to the notion of SCADs containerised in here. I would have to a question from Andrew Brooks because I'll have recall how short we were of organic AEW during the Falklands campaign. Is Crow's Nest on the same naughty step as Ajax? So Crow's Nest is for those that you are aware is is a sense of its fitted to the Merlin mark to helicopter. And it's well documented that it's it's arrived in service later than we planned for it to be in service. And I've looked at that program really carefully and on the balance I determined that it was better at its developmental stage to embark it and carry on that development while we are on operations. So there are Crow's Nest Merlins on board Queen Elizabeth. We're incrementally improving that capability through the deployment. So there are software drops that we are doing to those aircraft while on deployment and improving the capability. But you're right. I mean the history has told us that we need to have those eyes in the sky. There's new technologies available today as we discussed. So we're an interesting period where we need to get the absolute maximum out of the Crow's Nest system that we've invested in. And we're working hard believe me to do that. But we've also simultaneously got to be looking at how we can get a persistent capability for the future and we're doing exactly that. Okay, thank you. There are several questions which relate to the sort of wider potential future use of carrier strike. I'll start with May with a question from Joe Jonas who asks, is the carrier strike group there to support an expected continuation of low intensity conflicts which have dominated Britain's last two decades? Or is the shift away from this focus towards great power of competition? And then he asks, or is it both or neither? Fairly more encompassing question there, but I'll start off with that for May and then move on to a couple of others. Yeah, thanks. But simply, the carrier strike group can respond to a whole range of different potential scenarios. And we should remember that the strike group is not just the aircraft carrier and the jets, which is often how it gets characterised. The strike group is, and we've actively tested this deployment, we can disaggregate it depending on what the needs are. What do I mean by that? Earlier this year we had operations in the eastern Mediterranean, combat operations against Daesh, you know, Iraq and Syria. Simultaneously we had elements of the Taas group in the Black Sea, so it's hundreds of miles dispersed. Similarly, out in the Indo-Pacific region, we were working with the Carl Vinson strike group and also a US Navy expeditionary strike group, so USS America. And by that you can then disperse and disaggregate your capabilities across a huge area, hundreds and thousands of miles. So, you know, it's important we do that. So you can, for example, if there is an emerging crisis, detach a small element that's got capability to provide humanitarian assistance, disaster relief support, for example. You don't need to divert the entire strike group to do that. So, from the very low-end constabulary-style operations up to, you know, high-intensity warfare is exactly that spectrum that a carrier strike group can respond to. Yeah, and I guess for some of my perspective, I think, you know, F-35 is unmatched in terms of, you know, its lethality, its senses, its ability to access challenging contested airspace, you know, and make a difference. And I think it was reminded to that UK took a choice to be able to achieve the very challenging warfighting. And, you know, we can use it at a variety of scales of conflict beneath that. I guess my sort of personal view is that if there was an enduring low-intensity conflict, probably we would seek to address that on a sustained basis by other means, and the carrier would perhaps be out for some of the other value it was given. So, in terms of that denominator's original point, there's a huge amount of choice in the carrier strike group aggregated, disaggregated how you form it, what air platforms and what balance of air platforms you put on it.  So, I think it is designed for, you know, I think I'm just looking at the term, you know, great power competition if that came to pass, or really challenging scenarios. But it gives us the utility to use it in all sorts of types of, I guess, military endeavor. Okay, thank you. Now, I'll move on to say a question in a similar vein. That's from Aaron Dawson. Aaron says, thanks both for your time this afternoon. How do you respond to the criticisms that this is a token deployment, large enough to get us entangled in regional disputes but itself an insufficient deterrent? And in view of your comments on interoperability, do you see the merits in the argument made by some allies that you are acting as a framework nation within your deployments in the Indo-Pacific? Sorry, the two questions for the price of wall there. Linked to that is a question also from Harry Lai, where he says HMS Queen Elizabeth has embarked US F-35s, no. Do you hope future deployments could see the same occur with Japanese, South Korean, Italian, or other nation F-35 bravos and vice versa? And would you like to see UK F-35s deploy on other nations carriers? So there are series of sort of questions to elicit your comments on the way in which you see the carrier and its embarked assets being used in terms of our relationships with allies and other potential partner nations, please. Yeah, thanks. And thanks to Aaron and Harry for those. So first of all, our carrier strike group is attributed to NATO. So, you know, I don't know of any other NATO Navy that attributes fifth generation strike jets and carrier strike groups to NATO. NATO is the bedrock of our security and will continue to be. So, you know, we will, of course, it's our backyard, so to speak, our strike groups are going to routinely operate in and around the NATO, near-field, European theater. They have done over the last couple of years, as we've generated this, we did the full integration and testing and trials around not just the UK, but using with some of our NATO allies as well. And in subsequent years, we're going to definitely operate closer to the UK. So I don't think it's tokenism by any stretch. And as I've, I think, described that what we've tried to do with this deployment is set that operational bar sufficiently high. And, you know, for the practitioners out there, we've achieved so far in this deployment over three and a half thousand flying hours from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Now, that by any measure is a significant volume of flying. And Alan and I have described the level and the sorts of operations we've been conducting from the deck. And some days achieving regular 90 hours of flying from the deck a day. So we've set the ambition both in terms of scale, operating the other side of the world, different theaters passing through different operational theaters is not an easy sport. You've got to dock into the architectural theater network. As you go into that theater and operate with different allies, that takes a degree of time to integrate. We've done that now through a series of different operational theaters and logistically, particularly with sidechains challenged as they are right now, which sustained the task group so far on the other side of the world and continues. It's not been straightforward. We knew it would be difficult. We didn't quite plan the global pandemic into our thinking, but we've had to respond to that. So I would challenge Aaron this this view, which people say is tokenism. I don't think it is. I think the very fact that other nations are watching what we're doing is interesting. I think very fact that many of our friends, partners, both navies and air forces are very keen to operate with us. We're really grateful for that. There's been a lot that we've achieved. We set out early on, as I said, to operate with different nations, navies and air forces, and we've been really pleased with the response. And that integration is a real force multiplier, both in terms of what we can achieve together, but also the lessons we're learning together. So F-35 operating nations operating together. We're learning together some lessons that go above the classification of this discussion, which are really significant. So we'll draw on that. We'll learn undoubtedly from this year and we'll adapt what we do in our posture into 2022, 23, 24. Yeah, I think, again, it comes back to that choice. They carry a little by intent deliberately, allows us to double down and enhance some of those relationships with other militaries. Therefore, other nations from a foreign policy aspect around the world, as we do it, that was by design. It offers lots of choice in that area. So I noticed the entangled in regional disputes. Well, yes, you can also read that as reinforce some of our links, our relationships, some of our extending commitments, the five powers defence agreement and others in that part of the world. And we do have an intent to have relationships with some of those nations. Going on to sort of Harry's next question in terms of embarked US F-35s.  And I think maybe not once come hours, they didn't just turn up for this deployment, they've been with us for the least over a year. They came over last year, despite all the challenges of COVID, exercise at Royal Air Force Marum, exercise on the carrier. They came in advance of this deployment and trained with us to get the training certification that Martin said. So I think to deploy at that level takes a lot of investment, but I think we would be open to other nations. But I think smaller deployments, I think yes, there are some complexities and operating off different carriers. Some have ramps, some don't. There's different connectivity. F-35 has a backbone of, you know, data, you know, an IT infrastructure that you need to get right. But absolutely, I think going forward, F-35 gives us that ability in the air to interoperate. And I think, you know, there are some things that F-35 program needs to do. They need to make some investments to make the computer speak to each other, to simply allow an Italian, for instance, you know, maintainer to log on the computer and maintenance procedure when the log-ons are usually for UK personnel. So there are, it's not maybe as simple as one might think, but we are going down that path right now. And we hope, you know, maybe later this deployment, certainly for the next one to get maybe the Italians on board. And I think that, and we'll expand that over time. So yes.  We will buy a number of F-35s. We are buying those to support our embarked requirements and also actually to put to be part of our wider combat air mix and for our purposes on land bases around the world. So we'll have to balance the amount of resource we offer to others. So the carrier group with our own needs to do that. But again, there's lots of choice there. And I think, fundamentally, so many, I think, like-minded nations have bought the same airplane, I think gives us, you know, real opportunities for the future. I think that that, so the US Marine Corps now mentioned, you know, we've got close relationships with them and have done for many years. You know, UK F-35 did its basic training, RAF, Royal Navy pilots and engineers at US Marine Corps, Station Buford, Carolina. So before coming back to the UK, so we've got those relationships. And it's one thing to land a jet on, take the picture, looks great. It's something fundamentally different to have an integrated capability. So there are US munitions embarked in HMS Queen Elizabeth. They are properly integrated into that strike group. And that's not something that many Navy's and Air Forces tend to do. And it takes a level of confidence, investment, trust that I think, you know, we enjoy between the UK and US. And hopefully we will do for many years to come. It doesn't mean we're going to be doing that every year. So, you know, we've proven we can achieve that this year, which I think is profound, significant. It shows we can do that at relatively short notice in the future now. And we know what all the various pinch points and issues are. We know how to address them and overcome them. And I think that's for operational plans, that gives a significant opportunity as well. OK, thank you. And I will, if I may sort of link Rob Bond's question to that, because of speaking about cutting edge nature of CSG and F-35M bar. Rob's has given me a strike group is cutting edge and allow it to always comprise units from our allies. Do you feel that the NATO, EU national doctrine has kept pace with this new capability? If it's the Rob Bond who used to work for me and is on staff course is a very good question, Rob. Well done. I wish you all the best on staff course. If it's somebody else, I apologize. So, this is, as I say, we've declared our strike groups in NATO. So, we've got to be able to work with our key NATO allies. We are, we will. The fact that we've invited and the Dutch Navy have been part of this planning for some time and they've integrated with us and part of the strike group deployment is, I think, significant as well. That gives you a sense of how we might work with other like-minded NATO navies in the years ahead. The doctrine clearly will evolve. I mean, there is doctrine in terms of maritime doctrine, clearly about how we integrate strike groups. That's got to evolve to reflect fifth generation capabilities we now have. And we look forward to playing a key part in that. Yeah, and all I'd offer is, you know, I think you could replace carrier strike group with cyber or space or SF or anything.  And it doesn't necessarily knee-jerk to the new toy. So, I think, yes, it does. And I think all nations are sanguine enough to, you know, operate with it or, you know, agree to operate slightly ahead of it where it needs to be. So, yeah, I think it's a question about the institution and its responsiveness just as much as the carrier strike group being a new thing. Okay, thank you. I see that Rob says that it is the same Rob Bond. We suggest it's an idea for a dense defence research paper maybe in the opening there. Okay, we've only got a couple of minutes left and there are a couple of questions that we've not yet tackled. I don't think we'll have time, unfortunately, to take them all. But I'll take one, which has been sitting for a short while, which is from Gabriele Mongeovi, who says the Royal Navy has a history of carrying out all sorts of operations all around the world. Carrier strike forces require escort vessels, but so do other kinds of operations. And are you looking into acquiring more escort vessels to add if you protect Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales? And if I may, I'll just add on to that the sort of the idea that if we are talking about thoughts about rebalancing, of course, there is the fundamental challenge as ever of finance, which would also potentially apply to the size of the embarked air force, be that F-35, be that unmanned platforms, be that helivorn platforms. But to take that question step further, do you see the carrier strike group is offering the potential for a rebalancing in which the way the United Kingdom does business therefore requiring more equipment? Or are we on a pretty steady course now with obvious variations of that course as time goes on? But are we pretty steadily and focused upon where carrier strike group is going without the need for a considerable revisitation of procurement, do you think? Thank you. Yeah, thanks. So Alan and I are looking at the programmatic milestones for how carrier strike with known programs are going to be integrated into the capability. So as I mentioned, the Royal Navy is growing. I'm delighted, that's the case. I'm delighted that we have new classes of ships now in build and it's really exciting to see the first Type 26 come to life on the Clyde. And that will be in service in a few years time. Type 31 is coming into service as well. We've got fleet solid support ships. All of those will play an active part protecting and sustaining the carrier strike group. But we're also going to bring in, as we mentioned earlier, autonomous systems and those will be in every environment. So I'd imagine the carrier strike group of the 2030s will have UUVs. It will have autonomous surface vessels doing elements in closely enforced protection and surveillance. And of course it will have airborne sensors as well, both sensors to enhance our understanding, but also sensors that can carry payloads as well. So, you know, I think that's quite an exciting journey. It's probably going to be for our successors and successors-accessors to manage all of that. We've got a work cut out focus on the next few years to make sure that we, as Alan and I described, hit those key milestones so that we can declare a full-operated capability. Yeah, I'm just going to get as far as ready. I think we've got 18 jets on board at the moment, but the carrier can take more. You know, F-35B provides part of my combat air force mix. It can be embarked or not. So, you know, again, I'd be really keen to increase the number of F-35 as much as the overall defence-fiscal balance can bear, but clearly there's many priorities going forward. But I think the really exciting thing, you know, probably a little bit beyond, you know, the era Martin said, but, you know, getting crewed and uncrewed teaming, you know, get high volume of assets on board, I think it's something we should really aspire to. You know, we're in a really good place.  That is, you know, has lots of room for growth ambition to increase the rate of effort and offer us that choice. So I think that's really, really exciting. And I think either of us could, you know, promise the future procurement path that either of our services, what's going forward and various fiscal changes will affect that. But it does offer us a huge amount of choice over the coming decades. OK, thank you very much. I'm very conscious of the fact that we are less than 60 seconds away from our scheduled end time. And obviously both of our speakers today have very generously given time out of what our fantastically busy schedules to speak to us. So I think if I may, and with apologies for those questions I've not yet been able to ask, I think I'll draw proceedings to close here. I hope, like me, you've found this a most fascinating and insightful discussion, offering a range of insights and analyses of the challenges, the opportunities that are presented by carrier strike, both in terms of equipment, training, relationships and defence diplomacy. And I think we've had a very comprehensive and exceptionally useful discussion, which of course would have been completely impossible without the candid willingness of Rear Admiral Connell and Air Vice Marshal Marshall to speak to us today. So gentlemen, thank you very much for your contributions. Thank you to all participants. And I would just end by saying that there are future events. So those of you who may wish to attend anything in future, please keep an eye on the Freeman website. Most notably, you'll be seeing news about a address that the Chief of the Air Staff will be giving very in the not too distant future. So please follow the website there. And that, I think, is all I need to say, apart from one final very sincere thanks to our two speakers today for their contribution. Thank you very much indeed. Thanks, David. Thanks, David. Take care.