Yes, There Will Be Two European Sixth-Generation Stealth Fighters

On the same subject

• 

  April 24, 2018 | International, Land, C4ISR

  How the Army plans to improve its friendly force tracking

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is upgrading how it tracks friendly forces to increase readiness. During the fiscal 2019 budget roll out in February, Army officials at the Pentagon indicated that the service would be accelerating its Joint Battle Command-Platform, which provides friendly forces awareness information known as blue force tracking, as well as encrypted data and faster satellite network connectivity. The change is intended to solve mounted mission command problems across all formations. The new budget request shows the service is serious about the issue. The Army asked for $431 million for the program in FY2019. That's up from a total of $283 million during the FY2018 budget. Moreover, the Army plans to procure 26,355 systems as opposed to 16,552 from the FY2018 budget. However, officials in the program office were careful to note this was not a “plus-up, so to speak,” but an effort to accelerate the fielding of the tracking systems. C4ISRNET's Mark Pomerleau recently spoke about the program's modernization efforts with Col. Troy Crosby, project manager for Mission Command, alongside Lt. Col. Shane Sims, product manager for JBC-P, assigned to Project Mission Command. C4ISRNET: How should we interpret the FY2019 budget request for this program? COL. TROY CROSBY: It's important to understand that there wasn't necessarily a plus-up. Really what happened is we shifted already approved authorizations to the left. We're just expediting sooner. The Army asked us what we could do to modernize faster ... essentially, we went back to them and said give us the funding and the resources to move a lot of those units to the left because every year the G-3/5/7 comes out with this priority list and we weren't able to get down to that priority list because of funding. That's really what you're seeing with that movement of money from the out years closer in to the left. C4ISRNET: What led to the decision to baseline the program across formations? CROSBY: The Army's looking to standardize their baselines not only on the platforms like JBC-P, but also a similar effort in the command post with software baseline reduction. Moving to the standard baseline on the platform-side helps with training, readiness and the physical constraints as we can depreciate the older versions of FBCB2/BFT [Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracking] out of sustainment. C4ISRNET: How does standardization help the Army? CROSBY: Any time you're greatly standardized in a organization the size of the Army, you're going to get easier interoperability down at the tactical level. If Lt. Col. Sims is Sgt. Sims and he is in a unit at Fort Stewart and we were trained on the current systems in the force and then he gets [a permanent change of station] out to Fort Riley, he already has a base of knowledge when he hits the ground on what those systems are because they're the same across the force. So, the training burden for his new units greatly reduced. I think it also helps in readiness as units and soldiers move around the battlespace. The other reason the Army really wants to standardize on JBC-P is, like with all systems in the tactical network, we're always looking to improve cyber posture, and there were multiple improvements in our cyber posturing that the department felt were relevant to try to accelerate so we could get that capability to the entire force as quickly as possible. C4ISRNET: In terms of cyber, what are some modernization efforts you're undertaking to help this platform perform in the more dynamic environments? CROSBY: I think the best way that we can characterize it is looking to ... achieve a cyber posture that allows us to operate both in a counter-insurgency/counterterrorism role and a near-peer adversary role. We're looking to answer both sides of that coin. Yes, current fight, but we're also looking to make sure we're cyber postured for a near-peer. LT. COL. SHANE SIMS: You can probably draw some conclusions from what you know on the commercial side. Imagine having a computer that's over 20 years old — that's where some of our platforms are right now when you're talking about the FBCB2 that was fielded almost two decades ago. C4ISRNET: In terms of your FY19 funding, could it be characterized as investing in standards to help increase readiness and lethality? CROSBY: Very much so. The plus-up kind of touched a couple of areas. On the research and development side, the plus-up helps us in looking at ways to modernize and bring new capability for the blue force tracking network side. We're really looking to expedite that fielding for better cyber posture. C4ISRNET: It sounds like standardization is very important from an Army readiness and lethality perspective. SIMS: When talking JBC-P, there are really three components: the software, the hardware and then the network. Really, what we're doing on a couple fronts [is] we're expediting the fielding to get the hardware out there but that's going to set the conditions for what we're doing in the command post with the infrastructure. That same infrastructure is going to reside on our hardware that's in the platform. The commanders are in environments where they experience something completely different in the command post than you experience on the platforms. You hear repeatedly from the commanders, “Can I have the same type of user experience?” Data's really what we're addressing with the modernization of the command post and the mounted computing environment. That user experience is going to be one and the same for the commander when he or she is in the command post and then when they get in the vehicle. That is really what we're doing with modernization for JBC-P. C4ISRNET: The National Defense Strategy has stressed prioritization on great power competition. How does JBC-P modernization and standardization fit into that strategy? CROSBY: The first one is looking to modernize JBC-P mission command on the move at the platform level. How we continue to modernize and field as fast as we can so that we can maintain both that counter-insurgency/counterterrorism fight and near-peer adversaries is one piece of this. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/04/13/how-the-army-plans-to-improve-its-friendly-force-tracking/

• 

  October 16, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Geopolitical Instability and the Need to Refresh Obsolete Fleets will Drive Recovery of Military and Public Services Helicopters Market

  NEWS PROVIDED BY Frost & Sullivan Commercial off-the-shelf solutions and modernisation strategies will ignite fresh growth opportunities, finds Frost & Sullivan LONDON, Oct. 16, 2018 /CNW/ -- After almost 10 years of stagnation and delayed programmes in key regions, the global market for military and public services helicopters is facing recovery. Growth is primarily driven by geopolitical tensions, replacing and upgrading obsolete helicopters, new development programs such as rotary unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) of operations to strengthen battlefield readiness. "Ongoing deployment overseas and rising threats will drive market recovery and fuel demand for additional helicopters," said Alix Leboulanger, Senior Industry Analyst, Defence at Frost & Sullivan. "There will be a focus on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions to minimise training, sustain costs and improve adoption timeframes with modernisation plans preferred due to budget sensitivity and operational readiness requirements." For further information on this analysis, please visit: http://frost.ly/2uq Leboulanger recommends helicopter original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) look towards recent developments in the rise of UAS and their increasing operational usage on front lines. The development of rotary UAS has generated new opportunities for helicopter OEMs in terms of new platform developments and designs and is one of the most promising growth areas within this market. Five key trends creating growth opportunities in the market include: North America remains the biggest market for military helicopters; Operators are increasingly looking at optimising their fleets with fewer types and more operational capabilities; Global renewal cycles hold billions of dollars' worth of planned and forecasted opportunities in new procurements and modernisation programmes; Significant investment in MUM-T as joint deployments of manned and unmanned assets become the new standard; and Collaboration with non-traditional military players and start-ups involved in robotic fields to refine and improve UAS. "Despite stringent replacement requirements and operational readiness objectives pushing forward military helicopter replacement plans, financial recovery remains very fragile," noted Leboulanger. "Political uncertainty over international trade agreements and the reissuing of trade barriers could impact helicopter production lines and exports. Original equipment manufacturers need to consider new strategies for international competition and to retain traditional export customers." Frost & Sullivan's recent analysis, Global Military and Public Services Helicopters Market, Forecast to 2026, assesses disruptive trends, drivers and restraints, market share and the competitive environment for players such as Boeing, Sikorsky Aircraft, Airbus Helicopters, Bell Helicopters, Leonardo Helicopters, Hindustan Aeronautics, Russian Helicopters, MD Helicopters, and AVICOPTER, L-3 Technologies, and Lockheed Martin. Spending forecasts, key findings, and engineering measurements for segments such as attack, maritime, utility, transport, and public services helicopters are provided. Regional analysis includes Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and South America, Europe, Central and South Asia, Middle East, and North America. About Frost & Sullivan For over five decades, Frost & Sullivan has become world-renowned for its role in helping investors, corporate leaders and governments navigate economic changes and identify disruptive technologies, Mega Trends, new business models and companies to action, resulting in a continuous flow of growth opportunities to drive future success. Contact us: Start the discussion. Global Military and Public Services Helicopters Market, Forecast to 2026 MD6A_16 Contact: Jacqui Holmes Corporate Communications Consultant E: jacqui.holmes@frost.com Twitter: @FrostADS LinkedIn: Frost & Sullivan's Aerospace, Defence and Security Forum http://ww2.frost.com SOURCE Frost & Sullivan https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/geopolitical-instability-and-the-need-to-refresh-obsolete-fleets-will-drive-recovery-of-military-and-public-services-helicopters-market-697658971.html

• 

  January 21, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Trustworthy AI: A Conversation with NIST's Chuck Romine

  By: Charles Romine Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to grow the economy and improve our lives, but with these benefits, it also brings new risks that society is grappling with. How can we be sure this new technology is not just innovative and helpful, but also trustworthy, unbiased, and resilient in the face of attack? We sat down with NIST Information Technology Lab Director Chuck Romine to learn how measurement science can help provide answers. How would you define artificial intelligence? How is it different from regular computing? One of the challenges with defining artificial intelligence is that if you put 10 people in a room, you get 11 different definitions. It's a moving target. We haven't converged yet on exactly what the definition is, but I think NIST can play an important role here. What we can't do, and what we never do, is go off in a room and think deep thoughts and say we have the definition. We engage the community. That said, we're using a narrow working definition specifically for the satisfaction of the Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, which makes us responsible for providing guidance to the federal government on how it should engage in the standards arena for AI. We acknowledge that there are multiple definitions out there, but from our perspective, an AI system is one that exhibits reasoning and performs some sort of automated decision-making without the interference of a human. There's a lot of talk at NIST about “trustworthy” AI. What is trustworthy AI? Why do we need AI systems to be trustworthy? AI systems will need to exhibit characteristics like resilience, security and privacy if they're going to be useful and people can adopt them without fear. That's what we mean by trustworthy. Our aim is to help ensure these desirable characteristics. We want systems that are capable of either combating cybersecurity attacks, or, perhaps more importantly, at least recognizing when they are being attacked. We need to protect people's privacy. If systems are going to operate in life-or-death type of environments, whether it's in medicine or transportation, people need to be able to trust AI will make the right decisions and not jeopardize their health or well-being. Resilience is important. An artificial intelligence system needs to be able to fail gracefully. For example, let's say you train an artificial intelligence system to operate in a certain environment. Well, what if the system is taken out of its comfort zone, so to speak? One very real possibility is catastrophic failure. That's clearly not desirable, especially if you have the AI deployed in systems that operate critical infrastructure or our transportation systems. So, if the AI is outside of the boundaries of its nominal operating environment, can it fail in such a way that it doesn't cause a disaster, and can it recover from that in a way that allows it to continue to operate? These are the characteristics that we're looking for in a trustworthy artificial intelligence system. NIST is supposed to be helping industry before they even know they needed us to. What are we thinking about in this area that is beyond the present state of development of AI? Industry has a remarkable ability to innovate and to provide new capabilities that people don't even realize that they need or want. And they're doing that now in the AI consumer space. What they don't often do is to combine that push to market with deep thought about how to measure characteristics that are going to be important in the future. And we're talking about, again, privacy, security and resilience ... trustworthiness. Those things are critically important, but many companies that are developing and marketing new AI capabilities and products may not have taken those characteristics into consideration. Ultimately, I think there's a risk of a consumer backlash where people may start saying these things are too easy to compromise and they're betraying too much of my personal information, so get them out of my house. What we can do to help, and the reason that we've prioritized trustworthy AI, is we can provide that foundational work that people in the consumer space need to manage those risks overall. And I think that the drumbeat for that will get increasingly louder as AI systems begin to be marketed for more than entertainment. Especially at the point when they start to operate critical infrastructure, we're going to need a little more assurance. That's where NIST can come together with industry to think about those things, and we've already had some conversations with industry about what trustworthy AI means and how we can get there. I'm often asked, how is it even possible to influence a trillion-dollar, multitrillion-dollar industry on a budget of $150 million? And the answer is, if we were sitting in our offices doing our own work independent of industry, we would never be able to. But that's not what we do. We can work in partnership with industry, and we do that routinely. And they trust us, they're thrilled when we show up, and they're eager to work with us. AI is a scary idea for some people. They've seen “I, Robot,” or “The Matrix,” or “The Terminator.” What would you say to help them allay these fears? I think some of this has been overhyped. At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that risks are there, and that they can be pretty high if they're not managed ahead of time. For the foreseeable future, however, these systems are going to be too fragile and too dependent on us to worry about them taking over. I think the biggest revolution is not AI taking over, but AI augmenting human intelligence. We're seeing examples of that now, for instance, in the area of face recognition. The algorithms for face recognition have improved at an astonishing rate over the last seven years. We're now at the point where, under controlled circumstances, the best artificial intelligence algorithms perform on par with the best human face recognizers. A fascinating thing we learned recently, and published in a report, is that if you take two trained human face recognizers and put them together, the dual system doesn't perform appreciably better than either one of them alone. If you take two top-performing algorithms, the combination of the two doesn't really perform much better than either one of them alone. But if you put the best algorithm together with a trained recognizer, that system performs substantially better than either one of them alone. So, I think, human augmentation by AI is going to be the revolution. What's next? I think one of the things that is going to be necessary for us is pulling out the desirable characteristics like usability, interoperability, resilience, security, privacy and all the things that will require a certain amount of care to build into the systems, and get innovators to start incorporating them. Guidance and standards can help to do that. Last year, we published our plan for how the federal government should engage in the AI standards development process. I think there's general agreement that guidance will be needed for interoperability, security, reliability, robustness, these characteristics that we want AI systems to exhibit if they're going to be trusted. https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/trustworthy-ai-conversation-nists-chuck-romine