Lockheed Martin classified aircraft programme goes over budget

On the same subject

• 

  August 21, 2018 | International, Land

  Army Wants 70 Self-Driving Supply Trucks By 2020

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. The Army is ready for unmanned vehicles but not yet for a completely unmanned convoy. The 2020 iteration is called Expedient Leader-Follower because the Army still wants a human soldier driving the lead vehicle, with up to nine autonomous trucks following in its trail. But Oshkosh and Robotic Research told me they could take the humans out altogether, if the Army wanted. If you find self-driving cars impressive today, think about Army trucks that can drive themselves off-road, in a war zone, less than three years from now. For all the Army's embrace of high technology, the service still wants the lead vehicle in the convoy to have a human driver, at least at first. But the unmanned trucks that follow behind will need to stick to the trail without relying on street signs, lane markings, pavement, or GPS. They might not even have a clear line of sight to the vehicle ahead of them, which may turn a corner in a city or disappear into a cloud of dust driving cross-country. En route, they have to avoid not only pedestrians, animals, and vehicles, like civilian self-driving cars, but also rubble, rocks, trees, and shell holes. And they have to avoid solid obstacles without stopping every time they see tall grass, a low-hanging branch, or a dust cloud in their path — the kind of common-sense distinction that's easy for humans but very hard for computer vision. But the Army is confident it can be done. Army Secretary Mark Esper has publicly enthused about the technology after riding in a prototype, saying it could both free up manpower for the front line — most troops work on logistics and maintenance, not in combat units — and save lives from roadside bombs and ambushes — to which supply convoysare particularly vulnerable. After years of tinkering, the Army has accelerated its Automated Ground Resupply (AGR) program by spinning off something called the Expedient Leader-Follower demonstration. Contractors are currently installing Robotic Research LLC's computer brains and sensors on 10 Oshkosh M1075 PLS (Palletized Loader System) trucks that'll be used for safety certification tests in 2019. They'll convert 60 more to self-driving vehicles in time to equip two Army transportation companies in 2020. While the two units' main job will be to demonstrate the technology works in field conditions, “if they get called to deploy, they will deploy with the vehicles,” said Alberto Lacaze, president of Robotic Research, in an interview with me yesterday. “That could happen fairly quickly.” Exactly when the large-scale demo starts in 2020 is still a moving target, based mainly on how 2019's safety testing goes, said Pat Williams, VP for Army and Marine Corps programs at Oshkosh Defense. It's the Army's call on whether to compress the timeline, he told me, but “there's interest in pulling that left where possible.” Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/army-wants-70-self-driving-supply-trucks-by-2020

• 

  November 21, 2018 | International, C4ISR

  Disruptive technologies show why government needs data security standards now

  By: Justin Lynch Telepathy. Data uploading to the brain. Even humanoid sex robots. These are among the ideas that exist on a periodic table of disruptive technologies, a new visual guide that predicts what will alter human existence in the coming years. Created by Imperial College London, the table identifies what is set to change societies in the short term (smart controls and appliances), as well as fringe ideas that are decades away from existence, if they will exist at all (think force fields.) Yet the disruption could turn disastrous without proper data-security standards, according to one of the chart's creators, Richard Watson, the futurist in residence at Imperial College London. “There is very little here that is not in some way digital and connected, which makes it vulnerable,” Watson said. “Any kind of internet-of-everything device doesn't really work if you haven't got common standards — if Apple isn't sharing with Google and the French aren't sharing with the Germans.” Experts have long expressed concern about the lack of data standards for internet-connected devices. There is no international standard for data security. And U.S. government oversight of internet-connected devices is spread across at least 11 different federal agencies, according to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report. “As new and more ‘things' become connected, they increase not only the opportunities for security and privacy breaches, but also the scale and scope of any resulting consequences,” the report said. And there has been a flurry of cyberattacks using internet-connected devices. Some hackers are exploiting smart devices as an intermediary to attack computer networks, the FBI warned Aug. 2. Ninety-three percent of respondents told Armis, a security platform, in an August survey that they expected governments to exploit connected devices during a cyberattack. The Imperial College London chart offers a further glimpse at how important it may be to create these common regulations by imagining a wealth of potential breach points. Watson listed some of the table's future technologies that could be hacked. “Smart controls and appliances.” Hackable. “Autonomous robotic surgery.” Hackable. “Autonomous ships and submarines.” Hackable. “One of the issues with the stuff on here is that it relies on extremely good data security,” Watson said. The problem with having a developing ecosystem without global standards is that a single vulnerability could allow access to more than one network, and government officials and businesses are currently taking a strategy of letting the private sector debate how, or if, to regulate itself when it comes to internet-connected devices. One piece of bipartisan federal legislation, the 2017 Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act, mandates that “devices purchased by the U.S. government meet certain minimum security requirements," but it has stalled in Congress. As a first step, manufacturers should collaborate to establish device security baselines, Jing de Jong-Chen, general manager for global cybersecurity at Microsoft, said during a June conference hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. One private solution is a set of common guidelines developed by the IEEE Standards Association, an industry trade organization. The trade association's voluntary standards is evidence of a fear of government regulation that the private sector is openly hostile to. During the June event, the idea of government regulation of smart devices was laughed at by private sector officials in the room. But that laughter may have been premature. In September 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown approved a bill that requires companies to install connected devices with “a reasonable security feature” protecting it against unauthorized access. The bill means that the periodic table of disruptive technologies may eventually be impacted by a modicum of public regulation, although it is not clear if that will be effective. Not making it any easier is that no amount of planning can compensate for every technological innovation. For example, when it comes to the most disruptive future technology, the chart is secretive. In position 100, predicted to be the most innovative idea, the chart says it is too dangerous to publish. “We can't talk about this one,” it reads. In this instance, however, a potential security risk is averted. When asked if this technology is the one that will literally “break the internet,” Watson is forced to make a confession: “It's a joke. It's just us dodging the ball because we couldn't think of what to put there.” https://www.fifthdomain.com/industry/2018/11/20/disruptive-technologies-show-why-government-needs-data-security-standards-now/

• 

  July 30, 2020 | International, Naval

  To keep up with our competitors, America must boost shipbuilding

  By: Sen. David Perdue Right now, the world is more dangerous than any time in my lifetime. The United States faces five major threats: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorism. We face those threats across five domains: air, land, sea, cyberspace and space. The U.S. Navy is one of the most effective tools we as a country have to maintain peace and stability around the world. Today, however, the Navy is in danger of being surpassed in capability by our near-peer competitors. On top of that, our competitors are becoming even more brazen in their attempts to challenge our Navy every day. To address this, the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act called for a 355-ship Navy to be built as soon as possible. This effort is extremely expensive: $31 billion per year for 30 years. This can't be funded by new debt. We must reallocate resources to fund this priority. It is unclear at this time whether we will be able to achieve this goal, however, because Washington politicians have failed to provide consistent funding to our shipbuilding enterprise over the years. The last two Democratic presidents reduced military spending by 25 percent. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did it. Also, since 1975, Congress has only funded the government on time on four occasions due to our broken budget process. As a result, Congress forces the military in most years to operate under continuing resolutions, which further restricts the Navy's efforts to rebuild. These shortsighted decisions by Washington have had draconian effects on our military readiness. They have decimated our industrial supplier base and severely damaged critical supply chains. According to a 2018 report from the Pentagon, the entire Department of Defense lost over 20,000 U.S.-based industrial suppliers from 2000 to 2018. This means that, today, many shipbuilding components have just one U.S.-based supplier, and others are entirely outsourced to other countries. This is one of the reasons why it is doubtful that we can reach 355 ships unless major changes are made immediately. If we don't strengthen our industrial supplier base, there is simply no way to scale up ship production and maintenance capabilities to meet the requirements of a 355-ship fleet. The Department of Defense has not yet released this year's 30-year shipbuilding plan as required by law, and time is running out to reach the Navy's most recent projection of a 355-ship fleet by 2034. However, even if the Department of Defense has a solid, achievable plan to only reach 355 ships, I am skeptical that it will be enough. I am skeptical because America's biggest long-term challenge, China, is already running laps around us on shipbuilding. The Chinese Navy has 350 ships today, compared to our 300. By 2034, China is projected to have more than 425 ships. Even if we reached 355 ships, we would still have a 70-ship disadvantage, at the least. On top of that, because of the range restrictions in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which just ended in 2019, China has surpassed, or “out-sticked,” us in some missile capabilities as well. There are several steps we can take to respond to these developments. For starters, we need to place greater emphasis on funding our shipbuilding enterprise. Also, we need to rebuild our industrial supply chains through consistent, robust funding and by eliminating continuing resolutions. This year's NDAA takes critical steps to ensure we can keep up with our near-peer competitors and keep our country safe. It authorizes an increase of more than $1 billion for the construction of new submarines, destroyers and amphibious dock ships. It invests hundreds of millions of dollars to support our industrial supplier base. However, more work remains to be done in the coming years. We need to dramatically build up our Navy beyond 355 ships to ensure that the American-led free world can continue. President Teddy Roosevelt once said that “a good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace.” If we don't continue ramping up our shipbuilding enterprise right now, the world that we will be passing on to our children and grandchildren will only continue to grow more dangerous. Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., is the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/29/to-keep-up-with-our-competitors-america-must-boost-shipbuilding/