March 23, 2020 | International, Land

The trouble when military robots go underground

By: Kelsey D. Atherton

Picture the scene: A rural compound in northwest Syria. An underground tunnel beneath the compound, where a cornered man with a suicide vest and two children hides from a raid by the U.S. Army's Delta Force.

Outside the compound on Oct. 26, waiting and at the ready, was a robot.

The vested man was later identified as Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant.

“We had a robot just in case because we were afraid he had a suicide vest and if you get close to him and he blows it up, you're going to die. You're going to die. He had a very powerful suicide vest,” President Donald Trump said in a press conference about the raid in the following days.

“The robot was set, too, but we didn't hook it up because we were too — they were moving too fast. We were moving fast,” the president continued. “We weren't 100 percent sure about the tunnel being dead ended. It's possible that there could have been an escape hatch somewhere along that we didn't know about.”

In this case, the robot never went in the tunnels.

Picture the scene, four months later, in the damp subterranean levels of the never-finished Satsop nuclear power plant outside Elma, Washington. There, engineers and scientists are testing the machines and algorithms that may guide missions for a time, preparing for a time when the robots won't remain on the sidelines.

None of the robots fielded at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Subterranean Challenge urban circuit in Elma in February are particularly battle-ready, though a few could likely work in a pinch.

Apart from a single human commander able to take remote control, the robots navigate, mostly autonomously. As captured on hours of video, the robots crawled, floated, rolled and stumbled their way through the course. They mapped their environment and searched for up to 20 special artifacts in the special urban circuit courses, built in the underground levels around a never-used cooling tower.

The artifacts included cellphones emitting bluetooth, Wi-Fi and occasionally video. They included red backpacks and thermal manikins warmed to the temperature of humans playing an audio recording, and they included carbon dioxide gas and warm blowing vents.

This urban circuit is the second of three underground environments that DARPA is using to test robots. Phones, manikins and backpacks are common across the tunnel, urban and cave settings that constitute the full range of subterranean challenges. The straightforward mission of the contest is to create machines that are better at rescue in environments that are dangerous and difficult for first responders, who are humans. If robots can find people trapped underground, then humans can use their energy getting to those same people, rather than expend that energy searching themselves.

A subtext of the Subterranean Challenge is that the same technologies that lead robots to rescue people underground could also lead infantry to find enemies hiding in tunnel complexes. While Delta Force was able to corner al-Baghdadi in Syria, much of the military's modern interest in tunnel warfare can be traced back to Osama bin Laden evading capture for years by escaping through the tunnels at Tora Bora.

Underground at Satsop, the future of warfare was far less a concern than simply making sure the robots could navigate the courses before them. That meant, most importantly, maintaining contact with the other robots on the team, and with a human supervisor.

Thick concrete walls, feet of dirt, heavy cave walls and the metals embedded in the structure all make underground sites that the military describes as passively denied environments, where the greatest obstacle to communication through the electromagnetic spectrum is the terrain itself. It's a problem military leaders, particularly in the Army, are hoping to solve for future iterations of their networks.

Team NUS SEDS, the undergrad roboticists representing the National University of Singapore Students for Exploration and Development of Space, arrived in Washington with one of the smallest budgets of any competitor, spending roughly $12,000 on everything from robot parts to travel and lodging. One of their robots, a larger tracked vehicle, was held up by U.S. Customs, and unable to take part in the competition.

Not to be deterred, at the team's preparation area, members showed off a version of the most striking design innovation at the competition: droppable Wi-Fi repeaters. As designed, the robots would release a repeater the moment they lost contact with the human operator. To lighten the data load, the onboard computers would compress the data to one-hundredth of its size, and then send it through the repeater.

“It's like dropping bread crumbs,” said Ramu Vairavan, the team's president.

Unfortunately for NUS SEDS, the bread crumbs were not enough, and the team only found one artifact in its four runs between the two courses. But the bread-crumb concept was shared across various teams.

Besides the physical competition taking place underground at Satsop, the urban circuit held a parallel virtual challenge, where teams selected robots and sensors from a defined budget and then programmed algorithms to tackle a challenge fully autonomously. The repeaters, such a popular innovation in the physical space, will likely be programmed into the next round of the virtual challenge.

The first DARPA Grand Challenge, launched in 2004, focused on getting roboticists together to provide a technological answer to a military problem. Convoys, needed for sustaining logistics in occupied countries, are vulnerable to attack, and tasking humans to drive the vehicles and escort the cargo only increasing the fixed costs of resupply. What if, instead, the robots could drive themselves over long stretches of desert?

After much attention and even more design, the March 2004 challenge ended with no vehicle having gone even a tenth the distance of the 142-mile track. A second Grand Challenge, held 18 months later, delivered far more successful results, and is largely credited with sparking the modern wave of autonomous driving features in cars.

Open desert is a permissive space, and navigation across it is aided by existing maps and the ever-present GPS data. This is the same architecture that undergirds much of autonomous navigation today, where surface robots and flying drones can all plug into communication networks offering useful location data.

Underground offers a fundamentally unknowable environment. Robots can explore parts of it, but even the most successful team on its most successful run found fewer than half of the artifacts hidden in the space. That team, CoSTAR (an acronym for “Collaborative SubTerranean Autonomous Resilient robots) included participants from Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech, MIT, KAIST in South Korea and Lulea University of Technology in Sweden. CoSTAR used a mixture of wheeled and legged machines, and in the off-hours would practice everywhere from a local high school to a hotel staircase.

Yet, for all the constraints on signal that impeded navigation, it was the human-built environment that provided the greatest hurdle.

On a tour of the courses, it was easy to see how an environment intuitive to humans is difficult for machines. Backpacks and cellphones were not just placed on corners of roofs, but on internal ledges, impossible to spot without some aerial navigation.

Whereas the tunnel course held relatively flat, the urban circuit features levels upon levels to explore. Stairs and shafts, wide-open rooms with the jangly mess of a mezzanine catwalk, all require teams and robots to explore space in three dimensions. Between runs, the humans running the competition would adjust some features, so that completing the course once does not automatically translate into perfect information for a second attempt.

“How do we design equally hard for air and ground?” Viktor

Orekhov, a DARPA contractor who designed the course, said. “There's an art to it, not a science. But there's also a lot of science.”

Part of that art was building ramps into and out of an early room that would otherwise serve as a run-ending chokepoint. Another component was making sure that the course “leveled up” in difficulty the further teams got, requiring more senses and more tools to find artifacts hidden deeper and deeper in the space.

“Using all senses is helpful for humans. It's helpful for robots, too,” said Orekhov.

Teams competing in the Subterranean Challenge have six months to incorporate lessons learned into their designs and plans. The cave circuit, the next chapter of the Challenge scheduled for August 2020, will inevitably feature greater strain on communications and navigation, and will not even share the at least familiarity of a human-designed spaces seen in the urban circuit. After that, teams will have a year to prepare for the final circuit, set to incorporate aspects of tunnel, urban and cave circuits, and scheduled for August 2021.

DARPA prides itself on spurring technological development, rather than iterating it in a final form. Like the Grand Challenges before it, the goal is at least as much to spark industry interest and collaboration in a useful but unexplored space.

Programming a quadcopter or a tracked robot to find a manikin in a safety-yellow vest is a distant task from tracking and capturing armed people in the battlefields of the future, but the tools workshopped in late nights at a high school cafeteria between urban circuit runs may lead to the actual sensors on the robots brought along by Delta Force on future raids.

The robots of the underground wars of tomorrow are gestating, in competitions and workshops and github pages. Someday, they won't just be brought along on the raid against a military leader.

Wordlessly — with spinning LiDAR, whirring engines, and millimeter-wave radar — the robots might lead the charge themselves.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/03/20/the-trouble-when-military-robots-go-underground/

On the same subject

February 3, 2020 | International, Naval

The carrier Ford is trying to shake years of controversy and find its groove
By: David B. Larter ABOARD THE CARRIER GERALD R. FORD IN THE VIRGINIA CAPES — Capt. J.J. Cummings is literally jumping up and down with excitement. “Ahhhhhh I love that s---!” he shouts as the roar of an F/A-18 Super Hornet's twin engines fades into the distance. The fighter jet's low flyby a few hundred yards off the port side of the U.S. Navy's most expensive-ever warship is a loud reminder that the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford isn't a construction project anymore. For Cummings, the ship's Massachusetts-born commanding officer, and for the ship's crew, Ford is now a living, breathing warship with jets operating from its $13 billion flight deck. “I could watch flybys all day,” the career fighter pilot said Jan. 27 during a visit by Defense News aboard the vessel. Standing on the deck of the first-in-class Ford, Cummings is showing off the major redesign of the flight deck, which expanded the available space to maneuver and refit fighters to get back in the air. “This spot right here is what defines the Ford class,” he said, stopping in front of the in-deck refueling stations. “On the Nimitz class, if you want to refuel an aircraft you have to pull a hose across the flight deck and you can't drive over it so you can't maneuver aircraft the way you might like. “Now you just open this hatch, pull the aircraft up and hook up right here.” The redesigned flight deck, which was developed in consultation with NASCAR pit engineers, gives the Ford an extra half acre of real estate over its predecessors. The extra space is key to the Navy's newest platform, built from the keel up to maximize how efficiently the ship can generate sorties, as well as be adaptable to new aircraft and weapons systems over time. But the 23 new technologies incorporated into the Ford, while making the ship a technological marvel, have also been the cause of ongoing controversy as delays and cost overruns marred the program. Over the coming year, Ford will be underway 11 times over 220 days, working out the kinks, training sailors and writing the book on how the new class of carriers will operate. In the mind of the Cummings, that puts his crew in the history books. “What the American people should know is that this ship is absolutely amazing, and our crew is even more amazing than that,” Cummings said. “What people should know is that we are, no kidding, pioneers in naval aviation. Every [major] system on this ship is different from Nimitz class, so these people are pioneers. We're writing the book for the Ford class for the rest of history.” One of the enabling technologies to help them increase sortie generation is the advanced weapons elevators. The system is designed to cut the time it takes to move bombs from lower decks — where they are assembled and tested — to the flight deck for arming the Super Hornets. Delays with that technology contributed to the downfall of former Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer and have been the latest in a long line of headaches caused by new technologies the Navy packed into the Ford. To date, four of the planned 11 advanced weapons elevators work as advertised. As secretary, Spencer made a public pledge to have the weapons elevators ready by last summer, but now they may not all work until 2021, delays he blamed on shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries. Ensuring the Ford's readiness has been a major focus of the acting Navy secretary, Thomas Modly. For Modly, the continued troubles with the Ford are hurting the organization. "There is nothing worse than having a ship like that, our most expensive asset, being out there as a metaphor for why the Navy can't do anything right,” Modly said at a December U.S. Naval Institute forum. 'Managing the complexity' The high-level attention on Ford, which has become a favorite topic of President Donald Trump when he talks about major defense programs, has made the Navy eager to highlight efforts dedicated to preparing the ship for theater operations. For the crew and officers, many of the headaches come from managing the sheer number of new technologies on the ship, said Cmdr. Mehdi Akacem, the air boss on Ford. “The biggest challenge is managing the complexity,” Akacem said. “I think there is more technical complexity packed into this ship than the Apollo program. I learn so much every day, I have to constantly refocus on what's in my lane. “There are so many new systems. ... The challenge is sustaining that focus on one new thing after another. I don't think there are any five people who understand all the complexity on this ship, all these technical challenges happening in parallel.” That has made it difficult to develop maintenance and qualification procedures for the crew. However, slowly but surely the crew is figuring it out, Akacem said. “One of the parts of the overall system that's still maturing is the maintenance documentation, the technical manuals, parts lists, periodicity of preventive maintenance,” Akacem said. “One of the neat modifications on the Advanced Arresting Gear, very simple to look at but a huge time saver: We used to have to take the system offline, climb into the Advanced Arresting Gear, climb all around it with a grease gun to go grease the bearings," he added. “Now there is a manifold so the sailor can just walk up with a gun — pump, pump, pump and done. And it saves about 45 minutes out of the grease process. Those are the kinds of things we've learned through the post-shakedown availability.” That's what the officers and crew of Ford hope to figure out this year: How does this ship work, and what is the best way to man and maintain it? And for sailors, the only way to figure that out is to get the ship underway. “All good things come from ships at sea,” Akacem said. “We've sat around and philosophized about, ‘Well, can we get by with less?' or ‘Do we need more here?' Now we're proving that out." “With the Advanced Arresting Gear — that's probably where the steepest learning curve exists for our sailors — we were feeling overwhelmed the first couple days with preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and a bunch of the technical preparations. But our level of uncertainty has gone down so much in just a couple of weeks,” he added. “Just the confidence growth has been tremendous.” The learning process has even led to some firsts for the Navy, said Cummings. “We have aviation boatswains mates — typically some our roughest, toughest people up here — and we're making them be electricians and fiber-optics experts, which is a different theme," the ship's commanding officer explained. “So now we're putting [interior communications specialists] into the air department, which is a first. So now you have your ICs, who are your techie fiber-optics people, with your hardcore, hydraulic fluid-drinking, grease-wearing hard-chargers. It's a very interesting mix in the air department," he added. “So is the manning right? Absolutely not. We're still figuring it out. Some of these systems are a little immature, and we're figuring it out, but it's going to take time.” A training challenge A major hurdles for the crew has been getting sailors trained and qualified to operate, maintain and fix their own gear, Cummings said. “Self-repair: That's a challenge” he said. “The ability to get underway, operate and fix our gear ourselves without having to pull in and bring in tech reps out from all over.” In the absence of new schoolhouses, which are on the way, sailors have relied on shore-based testing sites and simulators from vendors for training, Cummings said. “It's a challenge. The infrastructure to train up our sailors — well, it's coming and we're working toward that end,” he said. “[There's] a lot of on-the-job training." As far as schools, General Atomics will host sailors at Rancho Bernardo, a neighborhood in San Diego, California. From there, the sailors will have access to a simulator to practice catapult launches. The Navy will also send sailors to the test site for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear in Lakehurst, New Jersey. “The schoolhouses are coming, but it's a challenge. We're a first-in-class, we get a lot of Nimitz-class stock projected on to our ship, but it doesn't work for our ship,” Cummings explained. Another challenge has been rack space. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the Navy is 100 racks short of what it would need to house a full crew and air wing. And while that isn't an immediate issue for this event, it could prove a problem closer to its first deployment. But Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement that the ship has what it needs for its first deployment already. “The ship's bunks will be sufficient to meet ship's crew, air wing, and embarked staff requirements for first deployment, based on overall berthing numbers identified in the manpower estimates for the Gerald R. Ford class,” NAVSEA said in a statement. “For ship's crew, specifically, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is designed to operate with hundreds fewer Sailors than required on the Nimitz class.” ‘Off and running' But for all the myriad issues that come from fielding a radically different first-in-class ship, Cummings and his crew are jazzed about how it's performing. Many of the key technologies, such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and the Advanced Arresting Gear have performed remarkably well — a significant improvement over some of the bugs the ship faced when aircraft started landing on and launching from the carrier in 2017. “I just spoke to some of the first ones to use the flight deck back in 2017 and 2018: exponential improvement in performance,” Cummings said. “For the catapult, we smoothed out many of the software issues and tolerances. We reduced those tolerances to a right number and we've had very few issues with the catapults. “Our Advanced Arresting Gear is performing spectacularly. A couple hiccups here and there, a quick reset: off and running.” Ford has been using its time at sea to develop wind envelopes for all the aircraft currently flying in the fleet. The process included generating a series of wind conditions, launching and landing an aircraft, and downloading the technical data; then rinse and repeat. “By the time we pull in at the end of January, every fleet aircraft — C-2, E-2D, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Growler and T-45 (our jet trainer) — will be validated to be given their full envelopes for these aircraft to go on deployment or to train our young aviators,” Cummings said. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will ultimately be integrated into the ship, which is a matter of reconfiguring some spaces to handle classified materials and storing parts, among other things, but the ship will not deploy with the jet at first. As the ship keeps to a breakneck schedule over the next year, Cummings hopes to rack up a significant number of “cats and traps” (meaning individual catapult launches and recoveries) to get a stronger idea of how the ship will stand up to the crushing operations tempo of a carrier on deployment. “Our goal is to get about 7,000-8,000 cats and traps to figure out: ‘Hey, what's going to break?' ” he said. “What parts do we need on order?' Let's refine our procedures. So through post-delivery test and trial period, that's our goal. And with an embarked air wing in the April time frame, we're going to be able to start getting after that. We've got a big year ahead of us." The Ford is doing about 10-15 traps per day as it works through the data set, and ultimately it should have about 1,000 by the time it pulls back in at the end of January, Cummings said. To get to that 7,000-8,000 goal, the Navy must get its student pilots lots of traps on Ford. “For the Next year, the only carrier on the East Coast able to provide carrier qualification capability is the Gerald R. Ford,” Cummings said. “When we get our flight deck certified in March, after that we're going straight into carrier qualifications. So all year, any chance we can: ‘Hey, bring 'em out because we need some time in the batting cage. Hit off the tee and see where we have holes in our swing.' ” The post-delivery test and trial period is supposed to last 18 months. After PDT&T, the ship is headed to full-ship shock trials, where live explosives are set off next to the ship to see how the class stands up to shock damage. Navy officials previously testified the entire process could delay the Ford's deployment by up to a year. So taking a year to conduct the trials, then fix all the broken crockery: That would allow Ford to enter the 7.5-month carrier predeployment workup cycle in the second half of 2022, and then it would likely be able to deploy by mid-2023. So, after years of delays, cost overruns and controversy, the ship is finally getting into its groove. And that's the message Cummings wants to send over the next year of operations. “This ship is kick-ass,” Cummings said. “I came here a year and a half ago, I heard all the stories, heard from the critics, came here, and they were all wrong in their assumption about our ship. What people should know is that this ship is amazing.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/30/the-carrier-ford-is-trying-to-shake-years-of-controversy-and-find-its-groove/
August 1, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security

CISA Names First Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer | CISA
July 3, 2019 | International, Aerospace

These 4 technologies are big problems for US military space
By: Nathan Strout A recent report highlights the fact that the commercial space sector is an increasingly important part of the military's efforts in space, but there are places where industry falls short. The national security space arena is a niche market, characterized by low production runs paired with a need for high-quality products. That combination makes it a difficult area for the commercial sector. While national security space increasingly relies on industry to provide components for space vehicles, the fact remains that in some key areas there are no domestic suppliers for critical technologies, leaving the United States dependent on foreign suppliers. Here are four such technologies singled out in a recent report on the United States military's industrial base: Solar cells According to the report, the commercial sector is not investing in the research and development needed to improve solar cells, which are used to power satellites. Businesses have maxed out the capacity for triple-junction solar cells, but do not appear capable of pushing forward to four- or five-junction solar cell technology. The Pentagon also wants solar cells that are able to withstand more radiation for longer than current products on the market. Improving solar cells to get the same or more power out of even slightly smaller panels could have a major impact when it comes to launching a satellite into space, meaning that reducing solar panel size is highly valuable. Tube amplifiers Starting in the 1990s, the domestic supplier market share for traveling-wave tube amplifiers — electronic devices used to amplify radio frequency signals to high power — dropped from 50 percent to just 12 percent. While that market has shown a slight recovery, the presence of heavily subsidized companies like Thales in France make it difficult for American companies to compete. Gyroscopes Precision gyroscopes are used in spacecraft to determine altitude and are essential to providing inertial navigation systems. According to the Department of Defense, there is only one domestic supplier of hemispherical resonating gyroscopes, resulting in long lead times — the report claims that the company can only produce one to two units per month. Fiber optic gyroscopes fair better with three domestic suppliers currently manufacturing them, but those companies are themselves vulnerable to overseas supply issues with their subcomponents. Infrared detectors Just one foreign manufacturer produces the substrates necessary for space infrared detectors, and the Pentagon warns that a disruption of any more than a few months of production of the substrates could negatively impact the quality and completion of American satellites. Because of this, the U.S. government has used a Defense Production Act of 1950 provision that allows it to offer economic incentives to either develop, sustain or expand domestic production of technology critical to national defense, and an Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program is in the works to support the remaining two American foundries for one type of substrate. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2019/07/02/these-4-technologies-are-big-problems-for-us-military-space/

All news

The trouble when military robots go underground

On the same subject

CISA Names First Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer | CISA