This is Knight’s Armament’s new machine gun suppressor

On the same subject

• 

  July 15, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Japan Self-Defense Force Accepts Delivery of First V-22 Osprey

  By: Megan Eckstein July 14, 2020 3:45 PM A V-22 Osprey aircraft bound for the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force based at Camp Kisarazu prepares to depart Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, Japan, July 6, 2020. The ferry flight from MCAS Iwakuni marked the delivery of the first V-22 to the Japan Self-Defense Force. US Marine Corps photo. Japan accepted delivery of its first Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey on Friday, making it the first nation outside the U.S. to own and operate the tiltrotor aircraft. The Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF) took delivery of the aircraft at Camp Kisarazu, across the Tokyo Bay from Yokosuka, according to news releases from Bell and Boeing, who collaborate on the aircraft program. “Congratulations to Japan on becoming the first international operator of the Osprey,” Kurt Fuller, Bell Boeing program director, said in a release. “The delivery of the Japanese V-22 represents a milestone for revolutionary aircraft capabilities for the Government of Japan and is a testament to our enduring friendship. The Osprey will provide Japan a tremendous advantage, unlike ever before, to respond to a broad range of challenges throughout the Asia Pacific region.” The Japanese V-22 variant has a unique configuration with a Japanese-specific communication system, according to the news releases. Despite the different communication system, JGSDF personnel have been working with U.S. Marines since May to learn how to operate the aircraft ahead of accepting delivery of their own Osprey. “This is an exciting moment in our partnership with the JGSDF; we have had the pleasure of working with them state-side to produce, develop, train and maintain their initial fleet of aircraft,” Marine Corps Col. Matthew Kelly, program manager for the V-22 Joint Program Office (PMA-275), said in the news release. “This arrival marks a key step in standing up its V-22 fleet, and more importantly, the continued collaboration between our nations.” The start of Japan's V-22 fleet comes shortly after the U.S. Navy also accepted its first V-22 – called the CMV-22 – to carry out the carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission once the aging C-2A Greyhound propeller planes retire. Bell Boeing delivered the first aircraft to the “Black Jacks” of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21 in February, and the first operational aircraft arrived at Naval Air Station North Island in California last month to begin building up the inventory of the “Titans” of Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission Squadron (VRM) 30. Marine Corps pilots and maintainers have also helped train their Navy counterparts on the aircraft, much like they have been doing in Japan. The Navy variant has extended range due to additional fuel tanks, a beyond-line-of-sight high-frequency radio, a public address system for passengers and an improved lighting system for cargo loading, all to assist in the COD mission ferrying people, supplies and mail across a carrier strike group at sea. Unlike the C-2, which could only fly from shore to the aircraft carrier, the V-22 will be able to reach the surface combatants in the CSG directly, thanks to its ability to land and take off vertically like a helicopter. Prior to Japan deciding to buy the V-22 in 2015, Japanese citizens long had concerns about American V-22s operating out of Japanese bases, particularly Okinawa, due to the aircraft's early safety record. Even as recently as 2018, after the V-22 had established itself as a safe and reliable aircraft, Defense News reported that safety concerns from residents near Camp Kisarazu delayed the delivery of Bell Boeing's first aircraft to Japan. https://news.usni.org/2020/07/14/japan-self-defense-force-accepts-delivery-of-first-v-22-osprey

• 

  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/

• 

  October 21, 2020 | International, Land

  MPF: Light Tank Competitors BAE & GD Head For Soldier Tests

  BAE and General Dynamics are vying to build 504 Mobile Protected Firepower vehicles to support light infantry units, especially in places the massive M1 Abrams cannot go. SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: After 24 years without a light tank in Army service, soldiers will climb aboard brand-new Mobile Protected Firepower prototypes this January. “It's not just PowerPoint” anymore, Maj. Gen. Bryan Cummings, the Army's Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS), told me in an interview. “On Jan. 4th, we will have ... vehicles arriving at Fort Bragg.” Army experts have already started safety testing on prototype MPF vehicles, officials told me. Actual combat soldiers will start training on two platoons of prototypes in January – four MPFs from BAE, four from rival General Dynamics – with field tests scheduled to begin in April. A formal Limited User Test will start in August or September, with the Army choosing the winning design in 2022 and the first operational unit of MPF entering active service in 2025. A General Dynamics spokesperson told me they've already delivered five MPF prototypes to the Army, with two more in final checkouts and another five being built for delivery by the end of the year. BAE Systems is also building 12 prototypes, but they declined to say whether they'd delivered vehicles yet or not. While the Army can't comment on either contractor while the competition is ongoing, Cummings said, “both are on track to meet the major milestones” – despite the disruptions of COVID-19. After three months of training, the troops will start what's being called the Soldier Vehicle Assessment (SVA): four to five months of intensive field testing, including force-on-force wargames. It's all part of the Army's new emphasis on getting real soldiers' feedback on new weapons early and often. “The soldiers actually get to drive the vehicles around, shoot them, train with them,” BAE business developer James Miller told me. “Their feedback [is] likely to be the most critical factor ... in the decision the Army's going to make about who wins this contract.” The soldier assessment isn't just testing out the vehicles, however, Cummings told me: It's also a test of the Army. Specifically, how can light infantry brigades, which today have few vehicles or mechanics, sustain and operate a 20-plus-ton tank? The crucial distinction: MPF is not going to the Army's heavy brigades, which have lots of support troops and specialized equipment to take care of tracked armored vehicles. Instead, 14 MPFs per brigade will go to airborne and other light infantry units, which haven't had tracked armor since the M551 Sheridan was retired and its replacement cancelled in 1990s. Now, MPF won't be as fuel-hungry or maintenance-intensive as the massive M1 Abrams, America's mainstay main battle tank. Even with add-on armor kits for high-threat deployments, it'll be less than half as heavy as the M1. That's because MPF isn't meant to take on enemy tanks, at least not modern ones. Instead, it's designed to be light enough to deploy rapidly by air, simple enough to sustain at the end of a long and tenuous supply line, but potent enough to take on enemy light armored vehicles, bunkers, dug-in machineguns, and the like. That's a tricky balance to strike. In fact, the Army has never found a light tank it really liked despite decades of trying. Only six M22 Locusts actually fought in World War II, the M41 Walker Bulldog was too heavy for airborne units, the M551 Sheridan was plagued by technical problems throughout its service from Vietnam to Panama, the M8 Armored Gun System and the Future Combat System were both cancelled. So how do BAE and General Dynamics plan to square this circle? General Dynamics emphasized lethality in their interview with me. Their Lima tank plant builds the M1 Abrams, and while the MPF is smaller – though the company didn't divulge details, GD's version reportedly has a 105mm cannon, compared to the Abrams' 120mm – it will have the same fire controls and electronics as the latest model of its big brother. “If you sat in a Mobile Protected Firepower turret, you would think you were sitting in a [M1] SEPV3 turret,” a GD spokesperson told me. “It's all the same displays, architectures, power distribution, etc.” GD's design evolved from their Griffin demonstrators, prominently displayed for several years at AUSA annual meetings. It's got automotive components derived from the ASCOD/Ajax family widely used in Europe and an 800 horsepower engine. GD didn't tell me how much their vehicle weighed, but, depending on the armor package installed, the demonstrators ranged from 28 tons to 50 tons. Those figures would give horsepower/weight ratios ranging from 28 hp/ton, better than any model of the Abrams, to 16, which would make MPF much more sluggish. BAE, by contrast, emphasized their design's compactness and ease of maintenance – considerations as critical as firepower for a light infantry unit. BAE actually built the M8 AGS cancelled in the '90s drawdown, and while they've thoroughly overhauled that design for MPS with a new engine, new electronics, and underbody blast-proofing against roadside bombs, they've tried to preserve its airborne-friendly qualities. “The old M8 fit inside a C-130; in fact, it was air droppable,” Miller told me. “There's no requirement for that in the current MPF program, but we decided to stick with that as a design constraint: [Our MPF can] fit inside a C-130; we can do three on a C-17.” BAE's engine is less potent than GD's, with only 550 horsepower. With the base configuration coming in at under 30 tons, that equates to over 18 hp/ton, with heavier armor packages reducing performance from there. But the big selling point of the engine is ease of access, Miller argued. Engine maintenance on a tank requires a crane and partially disassembling the armor, but a mechanic can slide the BAE MPF's engine in and out of the chassis with a hand crank. If the MPF breaks down or gets stuck, it can be towed away by a truck, without requiring a special heavy recovery vehicle as an M1 does. “The infantry brigades are light. They don't have long logistics tails. They don't have a ton of mechanics and recovery vehicles,” Miller emphasized. “The vehicle has to be as mobile as them and fit inside their organization.” The Army estimates the life-cycle cost of MPF, from development to procurement to maintenance and retirement, at $16 billion. Whichever vehicle wins the Army contract will have an edge in sales worldwide – including, potentially, to the Marine Corps, which is retiring its M1s as too heavy for modern amphibious warfare. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/mpf-light-tank-competitors-bae-gd-head-for-soldier-tests/