Back to news

May 13, 2022 | International, Aerospace

Thanks To Russia, Canada Mulls Joining The 'American Defense Shield' After Approving F-35 Fighter Jet Deal

The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have forced Canada to take a hard look at its long-held policy of not joining the US ballistic missile defense. “Deadly Trio” – With Typhoon, Rafale & F-15 In Its Armory, Meet The Only Air Force To Operate World’s ‘Best Jets’ In what could be a complete turnover […]

https://eurasiantimes.com/thanks-to-russia-canada-mulls-joining-the-american-defense-shield/

On the same subject

  • How the Army plans to revolutionize tanks with artificial intelligence

    November 2, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR

    How the Army plans to revolutionize tanks with artificial intelligence

    Nathan Strout Even as the U.S. Army attempts to integrate cutting edge technologies into its operations, many of its platforms remain fundamentally in the 20th century. Take tanks, for example. The way tank crews operate their machine has gone essentially unchanged over the last 40 years. At a time when the military is enamored with robotics, artificial intelligence and next generation networks, operating a tank relies entirely on manual inputs from highly trained operators. “Currently, tank crews use a very manual process to detect, identify and engage targets,” explained Abrams Master Gunner Sgt. 1st Class Dustin Harris. “Tank commanders and gunners are manually slewing, trying to detect targets using their sensors. Once they come across a target they have to manually select the ammunition that they're going to use to service that target, lase the target to get an accurate range to it, and a few other factors.” The process has to be repeated for each target. “That can take time,” he added. “Everything is done manually still.” On the 21st century battlefield, it's an anachronism. “Army senior leaders recognize that the way the crews in the tank operate is largely analogous to how these things were done 30, 45 years ago,” said Richard Nabors, acting principal deputy for systems and modeling at the DEVCOM C5ISR Center. “These senior leaders, many of them with extensive technical expertise, recognized that there were opportunities to improve the way that these crews operate,” he added. “So they challenged the Combat Capabilities Development Command, the Armaments Center and the C5ISR Center to look at the problem.” On Oct. 28, the Army invited reporters to Aberdeen Proving Ground to see their solution: the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Aided System, or ATLAS. ATLAS uses advanced sensors, machine learning algorithms and a new touchscreen display to automate the process of finding and firing targets, allowing crews to respond to threats faster than ever before. “The assistance that we're providing to the soldiers will speed up those engagement times [and] allow them to execute multiple targets in the same time that they currently take to execute a single target,” said Dawne Deaver, C5ISR project lead for ATLAS. At first glance, the ATLAS prototype the Army had set up looked like something out of a Star Wars film, albeit with treads and not easily harpooned legs. The system was installed on a mishmash of systems — a sleek black General Dynamics Griffin I chassis with the Army's Advance Lethality and Accuracy System for Medium Calibur (ALAS-MC) auto-loading 50mm turret stacked on top. And mounted on top of the turret was a small round Aided Target Recognition (AiTR) sensor — a mid-wave infrared imaging sensor to be more exact. Constantly rotating to scan the battlefield, the sensor almost had a life of its own, not unlike an R2 unit on the back of an X-Wing. Trailing behind the tank and connected via a series of long black cables was a black M113. For this demonstration, the crew station was located inside the M113, not the tank itself. Cavernous compared to the inside of an Abrams tank, the M113 had three short seats lined up. At the forward-most seat was a touchscreen display and a video game-like controller for operating the tank, while further back computer monitors displayed ATLAS' internal processes. Of course, ATLAS isn't the tank itself, or even the M113 connected to it. The chassis served as a surrogate for either a future tank, fighting vehicle or even a retrofit of current vehicles, while the turret was an available program being developed by the Armaments Center. The M113 is not really meant to be involved at all, but the Army decided to remotely locate the crew station inside of it for safety concerns during a live fire demonstration expected to take place in the coming weeks. ATLAS, Army officials reminded observers again and again, is agnostic to the chassis or turret it's installed on. So if ATLAS isn't the tank, what is it? Roughly speaking, ATLAS is the mounted sensor collecting data, the machine learning algorithm processing that data, and the display/controller that the crew uses to operate the tank. Here's how it works: ATLAS starts with the optical sensor mounted on top of the tank. Once activated, the sensor continuously scans the battlefield, feeding that data into a machine learning algorithm that automatically detects threats. Images of those threats are then sent to a new touchscreen display, the graphical user interface for the tank's intelligent fire control system. The images are lined up vertically on the left side of the screen, with the main part of the display showing what the gun is currently aimed at. Around the edges are a number of different controls for selecting ammunition, fire type, camera settings and more. By simply touching one of the targets on the left with your finger, the tank automatically swivels its gun, training its sights on the dead center of the selected object. As it does that, the fire control system automatically recommends the appropriate ammo and setting — such as burst or single shot — to respond with, though the user can adjust these as needed. So with the target in its sights, weapon selected, the operator has a choice: Approve the AI's recommendations and pull the trigger, adjust the settings before responding, or disengage. The entire process from target detection to the pull of the trigger can take just seconds. Once the target is destroyed, the operator can simply touch the screen to select the next target picked up by ATLAS. In automating what are now manual tasks, the aim of ATLAS is to reduce end-to-end engagement times. Army officials declined to characterize how much faster ATLAS is than a traditional tank crew. However, a demo video shown at Aberdeen Proving Ground claimed ATLAS allows “the operator to engage three targets in the time it now takes to just engage one.” ATLAS is essentially a marriage between technologies developed by the Army's C5ISR Center and the Armaments Center. “We are integrating, experimenting and prototyping with technology from C5ISR center — things like advanced EO/IR targeting sensors, aided target algorithms — we're taking those technology products and integrating them with intelligent fire control systems from the Armaments Center to explore efficiencies between those technologies that can basically buy back time for tank crews,” explained Ground Combat Systems Division Deputy Director Jami Davis. Starting in August, the Army began bringing in small groups of tank operators to test out the new system, mostly using a new virtual reality setup that replicates the ATLAS display and controller. By gathering soldier feedback early, the Army hopes that they can improve the system quickly and make it ready for fielding that much faster. Already, the Army has brought in 40 soldiers. More soldier touchpoints and a live fire demonstration are anticipated to help the Army mature its product. In some ways, ATLAS replicates the AI-capabilities demonstrated at Project Convergence in miniature. Project Convergence is the Army's new campaign of learning, designed to integrate new sensor, AI and network capabilities to transform the battlefield. In September, the Army hauled many of its most advanced cutting edge technologies to the desert at Yuma Proving Ground, then tried to connect them in new ways. In short, at Project Convergence the Army tried to create an environment where it could connect any sensor to the best shooter. The Army demonstrated two types of AI at Project Convergence. First were the automatic target recognition AIs. These machine learning algorithms processed the massive amount of data picked up by the Army's sensors to detect and identify threats on the battlefield, producing targeting data for weapon systems to utilize. The second type of AI was used for fire control, and is represented by FIRES Synchronization to Optimize Responses in Multi-Domain Operations, or FIRESTORM. Taking in the targeting data from the other AI systems, FIRESTORM automatically looks at the weapons at the Army's disposal and recommends the best one to respond to any given threat. While ATLAS does not yet have the networking components that tied Project Convergence together across domains, it essentially performs those two tasks: It's AI automatically detects threats and recommends the best response to the human operators. Although the full ATLAS system wasn't hauled out to Project Convergence this year, the Army was able to bring out the virtual prototyping setup to Yuma Proving Ground, and there is hope that ATLAS itself could be involved next year. To be clear: ATLAS is not meant to replace tank crews. It's meant to make their jobs easier, and in the process, much faster. Even if ATLAS is widely adopted, crews will still need to be trained for manual operations in case the system breaks down. And they'll still need to rely on their training to verify the algorithm's recommendations. “We can assist the soldier and reduce the number of manual tasks that they have to do while still retaining the soldiers' ability to always override the system, to always make the final decision of whether or not the target is a threat, whether or not the firing solution is correct, and that they can make that decision to pull the trigger and engage targets,” explained Deaver. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/10/29/how-the-army-plans-to-revolutionize-tanks-with-artificial-intelligence/

  • US issues declaration on responsible use of AI in the military

    February 17, 2023 | International, Other Defence

    US issues declaration on responsible use of AI in the military

    The U.S. government on Thursday issued a declaration on the responsible use of artficial intelligence (AI) in the military, which would include "human accountability."

  • Navy’s Next Large Surface Combatant Will Draw From DDG-51, DDG-1000 — But Don’t Call it a Destroyer Yet

    August 29, 2018 | International, Naval

    Navy’s Next Large Surface Combatant Will Draw From DDG-51, DDG-1000 — But Don’t Call it a Destroyer Yet

    By: Megan Eckstein THE PENTAGON – The Navy will buy the first of its Future Surface Combatants in 2023 – a large warship that will be built to support the Arleigh Burke Flight III combat system and will pull elements from the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer designs. The combatant – not dubbed a cruiser, and potentially not dubbed a destroyer either – will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room to grow into for decades to come, the director of surface warfare (OPNAV N96) told USNI News today. Future Surface Combatant refers to a family of systems that includes a large combatant akin to a destroyer, a small combatant like the Littoral Combat Ship or the upcoming frigate program, a large unmanned surface vessel and a medium USV, along with an integrated combat system that will be the common thread linking all the platforms. Navy leadership just recently signed an initial capabilities document for the family of systems, after an effort that began in late 2017 to define what the surface force as a whole would be required to do in the future and therefore how each of the four future platforms could contribute to that overall mission requirement. With the ICD now signed and providing the service with an idea of how many of each platform would be needed in a future fleet and how each would contribute as a sensor, a shooter or a command and control asset, Surface Warfare Director Adm. Ron Boxall and his staff are now able to begin diving into the finer details of what each platform would look like. The first to be tackled is the large combatant, Boxall told USNI News today. He noted the effort would be more like the move from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer – where the same combat capability was kept, but housed in a more suitable hull – rather than the move from the Spruance-class destroyer to the cruiser, which maintained the same hull design but added in new combat capability. After the addition of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to the DDGs' Aegis Combat System to create the Flight III design, Boxall said the resulting warfighting capability is one the Navy can use for years to come. “We have a new capability on that hull now, so everything's going good – except for, as we look towards going further, we know we've maxed out that hull footprint,” Boxall said of the Arleigh Burke-class hull design, power-generation capability and more. “So the key elements that we're looking at in this work we're doing on the requirements side is, keep the requirements about the same as DDG Flight III, but now look at what do we need a new hull to do.” USNI News first reported last month that the large combatant would pair a new hull with the Flight III combat system. The Navy will spend about the next six months having that conversation about what the new hull will need, though he suggested to USNI News that it would need sufficient space to carry helicopters and unmanned systems; it would need to support long-range missiles and weapons; it would have to include command and control systems able to support a staff onboard for air defense or offensive surface capability, much like the cruiser does today with the air defense commander role for a carrier strike group; it may incorporate DDG-1000's signature controls and integrated power system; and it will certainly have to be flexible and modular enough to quickly undergo upgrades and modernizations in the future as new systems are developed that the Navy will want to incorporate into the next block buy of large combatants or back fit fielded ones. Though there has been much speculation about whether the large combatant would use an existing design or a new design, Boxall said there really are no designs out there that meet the Navy's needs without significant modifications. Whereas the ongoing frigate design effort was able to mandate that bidders use mature parent designs, Boxall said “a lot of people in the world make frigates. Not many people make large surface combatants of the size and capability that we need. So we've got to kind of look to our portfolio of blueprints that we have as a starting point, and we'll edit and modify the hull and design things as we go forward.” “I think what you're going to see won't be a huge deviation from things we have already, but at the same point, we are going to be making changes to anything we have” already in the fleet, he added. In a nod towards the idea the next large combatant will share the same combat system as DDG Flight III and will perform much the same role in the fleet, Boxall said the Navy is starting with the DDG-51 Flight III capability development document (CDD); will go through a Large Surface Combatant Requirements Evaluation Team effort with requirements, acquisition and engineering personnel from the Navy and industry; and after six months call the finished product a “modified Flight III CDD.” Once that modified CDD is complete, it will be clearer how much the future large surface combatant will resemble its predecessor and how much it will be a new class of ship – which will likely determine its name. “It is the big question: what do you call the future large surface combatant? I don't know. I don't think you call it a cruiser. I don't think you call it a destroyer. Maybe – I don't know what it is,” Boxall said, noting that he has commanded both a cruiser and destroyer and that they get used in much the same fashion, save for the cruiser's role as the air defense commander ship, which the future large surface combatant will have the capability of doing with its command and control suite. Once the first large combatant is designed and purchased in the 2023 “block” – following the current block-buy of Flight III DDGs from Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, which spans from Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 – new blocks will be planned for every five years. As USNI News has reported, this block structure, laid out in a Surface Combatant Capability Evolution Plan, would allow the insertion of new hardware and software in a predictable timeline. This would help researchers and developers in the government and in industry understand when a new capability would have to be matured by to be included in the next block design, and anything not quite ready yet could wait until the next block. This setup is much like the Virginia-class attack submarine's block upgrade approach to adding in new capabilities, and its Acoustic Rapid Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (ARCI) process of adding new capabilities in via new construction and back fitting existing subs. However, Boxall noted the surface community had the added challenge of managing this block buy and upgrade effort across four or more types of surface combatants, compared to just one class of attack submarines. Unlike before, when the surface community would undergo a massive planning effort – like the CG(X) cruiser replacement design that ultimately was too expensive and not accepted by the Navy – and then cease planning for many years before undertaking another massive effort, Boxall said he hoped the block upgrades would create a “heartbeat type of effort, where you always have something going on.” https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer

All news