Netherlands to supply Ukraine with a thousand chargers for remote demining | Reuters

On the same subject

• 

  September 14, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Le budget défense atteindra près de 41 milliards d'euros en 2022

  L'enveloppe budgétaire allouée à la défense en 2022 sera de nouveau en hausse pour atteindre près de 41 milliards d'euros, comme prévu par la Loi de programmation militaire (LPM), contre 39,2 milliards d'euros en 2021, a indiqué lundi la ministre des Armées, Florence Parly, lors de son discours de rentrée devant les personnels du ministère. « Depuis 2017, ce sont 26 milliards d'euros de plus qui auront été investis dans notre défense et nos armées. C'est considérable. C'est même historique. Et c'était nécessaire », a-t-elle souligné. D'une enveloppe globale de 295 milliards d'euros sur sept ans, la LPM 2019-2025 prévoit une nette hausse du budget défense après des années de déflation. Les hausses les plus importantes (+3 milliards par an) sont prévues à partir de 2023. « Il faudra continuer à se battre jusqu'au bout de cette Loi de programmation militaire qui doit nous emmener jusqu'en 2025 », a insisté Florence Parly. Le Figaro et Ensemble de la presse du 14 septembre

• 

  July 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  U.S. Army Upgrades Vision For Future Vertical Lift Programs

  Steve Trimble In piecing together a delicate plan to field two advanced rotorcraft simultaneously within a decade, the U.S. Army chose its priorities carefully. The Army could load the first Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) with advanced new systems and weapons needed for operations in the 2030s or keep to existing or highly mature technologies and field both aircraft years earlier. Ultimately, the Army selected an acquisition strategy based on the latter. Increment 1 versions of the FLRAA and FARA are now scheduled to enter service together in the third quarter of fiscal 2030. More advanced Increment 2 versions of both should enter service in 2034 and 2035, respectively. U.S. Army FVL Vision: Competition, open systems and incremental upgrades Empty weight and costs emerge as early concerns But the key to fielding both increments for each new type on time may depend less on rotor systems and drivetrains than on software architecture and resolving industry concerns about government demands for data rights. In a series of briefings to defense contractors the week of July 13, Army leaders laid out a vision for using the FLRAA and FARA contracts to change the aviation branch's relationship with suppliers. The Army is seeking to make the aircraft and mission systems installed on both as common as possible, with a modular open-systems architecture (MOSA) allowing the service to rapidly upgrade payloads, subsystems and design rights, thereby enabling a perpetual cycle of competitive bidding. Although the Army's commitment to the new industrial model was clear, the service's acquisition leaders acknowledged that such a strategy will force companies at all levels of the supply chain to adopt a new, unproven business model. “Most of you are thinking, ‘OK, a modular systems approach is a nice buzz term, but how do I sell that to a board of directors; how do I sell it to the [company] leadership?' Because I can potentially give up all of the future revenue streams,” says Pat Mason, the program executive officer for Army aviation. “So we owe you greater answers on that, because it's the question that you're asking, and we have to understand your perspective. From that, we then have to develop a clear business case that allows you to move forward.” In purely aircraft performance terms, the FLRAA and FARA requirements do not compromise on performance. Any of the four candidates selected by the Army in March to compete for both contracts—Bell's V-280 and Boeing/Sikorsky's SB-1 for the FLRAA; Bell's 360 Invictus and Sikorsky's Raider X for the FARA—would enter service in 2030 exceeding the 170-kt. speed limit for most conventional helicopters. But despite appearances, speed is not everything in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program that spawned the FLRAA and FARA contract competitions. The FVL initiative is seeking to introduce a revolutionary leap in how the Army acquires the evolving array of software, electronics, sensors and weapons that come with an aircraft and represent an increasingly important share of its overall capability. With schedule and cost driving the acquisition strategy, the Army will seek to deliver the FARA and FLRAA with as many common electronic systems and payloads as possible, along with a MOSA for software. To minimize schedule and cost risk, FARA and FLRAA aircraft entering service in 2030 will be designed with electronics and systems already available or due to reach a high level of maturity by 2024. More advanced systems capabilities still at the laboratory stage mid-decade will be considered for Increment 2 versions of both types. The Increment 2 version of the FLRAA is scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2034. A year later, the FARA program plans to field an Increment 2 version. Limiting development activity during Increment 1 to the airframe is the Army's goal. “One of the key things we're trying to do with Increment 1 is get the ‘truck' right—the vehicle,” says Jason Lucas, the Army's FLRAA technical division chief. “We need to get us an air vehicle platform that can take us into the future. The other thing that we absolutely have to get right is our architecture, and our modular open-system approach to enable us to integrate advanced technologies [and] keep up with the pace of threats. “One of the things you didn't hear me say is that we need to develop a lot of advanced mission system equipment, a lot of new development” in Increment 1, Lucas adds. “We are going to take existing mission equipment.” The Army's risk-averse approach comes after decades of frustration over new aircraft development. Three failed attempts to field a scout helicopter to perform a mission similar to FARA's weigh on current program leaders. Col. Gregory Fortier, FARA project manager, notes that as a younger officer he had been told to expect an assignment in a Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 squadron, a Bell ARH-70 squadron and an Armed Aerial Scout test squadron. “As we know, those three did not come to fruition,” Fortier says, adding that avoiding a fourth program failure requires having “critical and difficult conversations” with industry up front. Such discussions came up during the industry day event. As a possible consequence of relying on existing maturing systems and payloads for the Increment 1 versions of the FARA and FLRAA, Army program managers are growing concerned about aircraft weight estimates. “I'm still seeing very heavy empty weights across our air vehicles, which I don't enjoy,” says Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, director of the Army's FVL cross-functional team. FLRAA and FARA technology “should be lighter and lower-cost,” he says. “You all may say I'm asking for the impossible, but I think it's nuanced. At the end of the day, we're in a hypercompetitive environment with budgets, and if we don't bring things in that are leap-ahead and fully capture the deflationary nature of the technology and get lighter and cheaper, I think we may find ourselves on the outside looking in.” Another difficult conversation inside the programs concerns the Army's plan to demand ownership of more of the intellectual property and data rights for technologies installed in the aircraft. As each of the armed services seeks a greater share of the ownership rights on future weapon systems, the defense industry is being forced to adapt to a new paradigm in the government-industry relationship. “We realize this runs contrary to some of the legacy business models, such as, ‘Here's a box. We want to integrate it and then we want to sustain it for 30 years,' ” says Michael “Ski” Horrocks, integration project manager for FLRAA and FARA mission systems. “So we do have teams working right now brainstorming how to create new collaborative and sustainable business models.” The in-service date for the FLRAA and FARA may be a decade away, but the Army is already facing critical decision points by year-end. The most important is creation of the FVL Architecture Framework (FAF) to define the interfaces and standards for the common mission systems architecture of both. Last year, the Army stood up a body composed of military, industry and academic experts called the Architecture Control Working Group to deliver the FAF by November 2020 for scheduled approval the following month. “We see Increment 2 as an opportunity to provide advanced mission system solutions to help tackle some of the most significant threats and integrate some innovation,” Lucas says. The Army's schedule calls for selecting the FLRAA developer in fiscal 2023 and the FARA prime contractor in fiscal 2024, with limited user tests of production aircraft beginning for each program four years later. But a lesson from the Army's painful experience with new aircraft development suggests little tolerance for costly technology, even if the contractors can deliver better performance. “We can develop and design and deliver this tremendous capability at the end of this fiscal 2028 timeframe,” Fortier says. “But if it's not affordable, they're walking away from it.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-army-upgrades-vision-future-vertical-lift-programs

• 

  January 22, 2019 | International, C4ISR

  Googlers headline new commission on AI and national security

  By: Kelsey D. Atherton Is $10 million and 22 months enough to shape the future of artificial intelligence? Probably not, but inside the fiscal 2019 national defense policy bill is a modest sum set aside for the creation and operations of a new National Security Commission for Artificial Intelligence. And in a small way, that group will try. The commission's full membership, announced Jan. 18, includes 15 people across the technology and defense sectors. Led by Eric Schmidt, formerly of Google and now a technical adviser to Google parent company Alphabet, the commission is co-chaired by Robert Work. former undersecretary of defense who is presently at the Center for New American Security. The group is situated as independent within the executive branch, and its scope is broad. The commission is to look at the competitiveness of the United States in artificial intelligence, how the US can maintain a technological advantage in AI, keep an eye on foreign developments and investments in AI, especially as related to national security. In addition, the authorization for the commission tasks it with considering means to stimulate investment in AI research and AI workforce development. The commission is expected to consider the risks of military uses of AI by the United States or others, and the ethics related to AI and machine learning as applied to defense. Finally, it is to look at how to establish data standards across the national security space, and to consider how the evolving technology can be managed. All of this has been discussed in some form in the national security community for months, or years, but now, a formal commission will help lay out a blue print. That is several tall orders, all of which will lead to at least three reports. The first report is set by law to be delivered no later than February 2019, with annual reports to follow in August of 2019 and 2020. The commission is set to wrap up its work by October 2020. Inside the authorization is a definition of artificial intelligence to for the commission to work from. Or, well, five definitions: Any artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets. An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action. An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive architectures and neural networks. A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate a cognitive task. An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting. Who will be the people tasked with navigating AI and the national security space? Mostly the people already developing and buying the technologies that make up the modern AI sector. Besides Schmidt, the list includes several prominent players from the software and AI industries including Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz, Director of Microsoft Research Eric Horvitz, CEO of Amazon Web Services Andy Jassy, and Head of Google Cloud AI Andrew Moore. After 2018's internal protests in Google, Microsoft, and Amazon over the tech sector's involvement in Pentagon contracts, especially at Google, one might expect to see some skepticism of AI use in national security from Silicon Valley leadership. Instead, Google, which responded to employee pressure by declining to renew its Project Maven contract, is functionally represented twice, by Moore and functionally by Schmidt. Academia is also present on the commission, with a seat held by Dakota State University president. Jose-Marie Griffiths. CEO Ken Ford will represent Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition, which is tied to Florida's State University program. Caltech and NASA will be represented on the commission by the supervisor of Jet Propulsion Lab's AI group, Steve Chien. Intelligence sector will be present at the table in the form of In-Q-Tel CEO Christ Darby and former Director of Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity Jason Matheny. Rounding out the commission is William Mark, the director of the information and computing sciences division at SRI, a pair of consultants: Katrina McFarland of Cypress International and Gilman Louie of Alsop Louie Partners. Finally, Civil society groups are represented by Open Society Foundation fellow Mignon Clyburn. Balancing the security risks, military potential, ethical considerations, and workforce demands of the new and growing sector of machine cognition is a daunting task. Finding a way to bend the federal government to its conclusions will be tricky in any political climate, though perhaps especially so in the present moment, when workers in the technological sector are vocal about fears of the abuse of AI and the government struggles to clearly articulate technology strategies. The composition of the commission suggests that whatever conclusions are reached by the commission will be agreeable to the existing technology sector, amenable to the intelligence services, and at least workable by academia. Still, the proof is in the doing, and anyone interested in how the AI sector thinks the federal government should think about AI for national security should look forward to the commission's initial report. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2019/01/18/googlers-dominate-new-comission-on-ai-and-national-security/