“A bumpy ride” for cybersecurity as AI poses new threats – GlobalData report - Army Technology

Sur le même sujet

• 

  8 juin 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  U.S.A.F. Research Lab Plans to Use Reusable Rockets as Intercontinental Cargo Carriers

  U.S.A.F. Research Lab Plans to Use Reusable Rockets as Intercontinental Cargo Carriers

• 

  20 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Augmented reality: Seeing the benefits is believing

  Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg and Jan Kallberg There is always something taken away when there are added functionalities. Does the concept of wearing augmented reality that digitally provides situational awareness create an upside that outweighs what it takes away for rifleman skills? The supercharged hearing, six senses for those equipped, broader view of sight, picking up smells, changes in lights and shadows, slightest change in the near environment: With all these close-action skills, will augmented reality create more distraction than enhancement? Is it too early to push digital situational awareness all the way down to the soldier in maneuver units? Is the upside present? Naturally, all new defense technology takes time to find its place in the fight. The helicopter was invented in the 1930s, and it found a limited military role in the Korean War, not meeting the military expectation of higher impact. But 15 years later, it played a pivotal role in the war in Vietnam. New technology is not only technology — the human component to properly implement it is likely slower than the technological advancements. It is always easier to question than explain, and we understand that many thoughts and thousands of work hours have gone into designing the early augmented reality systems. However, still we find our questions worth discussing because once fielded, utilized and put into action in a conflict, it is too late to raise any concerns. This is the time to discuss. How reliable are the sensors? Can the sensors be easily spoofed? Is it too early to push it all the way down to the individual soldier? A technologically advanced adversary will likely devote research already in peacetime to develop one-time use, tossable, simple, low-cost devices that can — in close combat — create spurious sensor data and derail augmented reality. If the integrity of the sensor data is in question, it will likely force commanders to refrain from using augmented reality. A similar, relevant issue is the extent of the augmented reality technology's electromagnetic signature. Will the interconnectivity of the squad's augmented reality compromise the unit and deliver information to the enemy? What we do not want to face is a situation where adversaries can pinpoint the location or proximity to U.S. forces by simple detection measures. So, worst-case scenario, inexpensive devices can nullify a significant U.S. investment in technology, training and tactics. Added to the loss of usable augmented reality equipment, the soldiers could be “HUD-crippled.” Navy aviators use the term “HUD-cripple” to visualize a complete dependency of heads-up displays in the cockpit. The “HUD-cripple” is the loss of traditional Navy aviator skills such as landing on an aircraft carrier without the heads-up display. Will soldiers have retained the skills to fight effectively without augmented reality if it goes down? Technical advancements bring us new options and abilities, and they increase mission success. But as with all uncharted territory, they also bring surprises and unanticipated outfalls. During the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, military aviation instruments took a significant leap forward, going from World War II-styled gauges in fixed-winged Douglas A-1 Skyraider planes to an earlier version of today's instrumentation in McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter jets rolled out as the war in Vietnam came to an end. Parallel with the military advancements, these avionic upgrades were transposed into civilian cockpits with increased complexity and variations, as jetliners are multi-engine airframes, where the number of information points and alarms became numerous in the jetliner cockpit. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, civilian aviation faced several accidents that were hard to explain with standard aviation physics and crash evidence. Instead, the conversations recorded in the black boxes revealed these fatal air crashes. Several of the deadly crashes could have had another outcome if the pilots had not become overwhelmed by all the blinking lights, alarms, buzzers and avionics grabbing their attention, so the pilots lost situational awareness and focus. The warnings, avionics and buzzers had the correct information, but the presentation was a tsunami of red blinkers and alarming sounds, lacking any hints on how to prioritize what needs to be done to recover from a dangerous in-flight emergency. In our view, the key to effective augmented reality is to structure and segment what matters and when. Units — and it varies from soldier to soldier — have different experience levels, so information has a variation in value down to the soldier level. In research design, you seek to explain as much as you can with as little as you can without losing rigor. The same challenge goes for augmented reality, where rigor could be said to be the integrity of the information. Transferred to the ground-fighting world, are we, as an engineering-driven nation, so technology-happy that instead of creating tools for increased survivability and mission success, we initially increase the risks for the war fighter and only correct these after we suffered a surprise in combat? We understand that implementing augmented reality is a long process that is just now at the stage of proving the concept; with setbacks and successes, where are we on the learning curve? In our view, synthetic learning environments have already matured and provide an ample opportunity to use the augmented reality technology with a high return on investment. The opportunities reside in knowledge transfer, sharing experiences, preparing for an ever-changing operational environment, and by doing so, increasing soldiers' survivability and ensuring mission success. The question is: Are we ready to rely on augmented reality in combat? Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point and a simulation operations officer. Jan Kallberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, and an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/17/augmented-reality-seeing-the-benefits-is-believing/

• 

  23 janvier 2019 | International, Terrestre

  DARPA: Teams Will Test Concepts for Exploring Underground in SubT Integration Exercise

  In early April, nine qualified teams will attempt to remotely navigate the dark and dirty corridors of Edgar Experimental Mine in Idaho Springs, Colorado, in preparation for the Circuits Stage of the DARPA Subterranean (SubT) Challenge later this year. The SubT Integration Exercise, known as STIX, offers teams an opportunity to try out their technologies, including robotics, sensors, and communications solutions, in a representative environment. The locations for the Circuits Stage events have not been announced. The Subterranean Challenge seeks to revolutionize how first responders and warfighters operate in human-made tunnel systems, urban underground settings, and natural cave networks that are too dangerous, dark, deep, and unknown to risk human lives. Teams are competing to develop breakthrough technologies that rapidly and remotely map, navigate, and search subterranean environments. To qualify for STIX, teams were required to demonstrate baseline performance capabilities and appropriate safety measures. The participating teams and members are as follows: CERBERUS: CollaborativE walking & flying RoBots for autonomous ExploRation in Underground Settings University of Nevada, Reno ETH Zurich, Switzerland Sierra Nevada Corporation University of California, Berkeley Flyability, Switzerland CoSTAR: Collaborative SubTerranean Autonomous Resilient Robots Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology KAIST, South Korea CRAS: Center for Robotics and Autonomous Systems Czech Technological University, Czech Republic Université Laval, Canada CRETISE: Collaborative Robot Exploration and Teaming In Subterranean Environments Endeavor Robotics Neya Systems CSIRO Data61 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia Emesent, Australia Georgia Institute of Technology Explorer Carnegie Mellon University Oregon State University MARBLE: Multi-agent Autonomy with Radar-Based Localization for Exploration University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, Denver Scientific Systems Company, Inc. PLUTO: Pennsylvania Laboratory for Underground Tunnel Operations University of Pennsylvania Exyn Technologies Ghost Robotics Robotika.cz Robotika.cz, Czech Republic Czech University of Life Science, Czech Republic The SubT Challenge comprises two competitions – the Systems Competition, where teams will develop novel hardware solutions to compete in physical underground environments, and the Virtual Competition, where teams will develop software-based solutions to test in simulated scenarios. Teams will compete in three preliminary Circuit events and a Final event pursuing high-risk and high-reward approaches. The Final event, planned for 2021, will put teams to the test with courses that incorporate diverse challenges from all three environments. Teams in the Systems track will compete for up to $2 million in the Systems Final event, with up to $200,000 in additional prizes available for self-funded teams in each of the Systems Circuit events. Teams in the Virtual track will compete for up to $1.5 million in the Virtual Final event, with additional prizes of up to $500,000 for self-funded teams in each of the Virtual Circuit events. Other teams interested in participating in the SubT Challenge may submit their qualification materials to be eligible for future events. The next qualification deadline is April 22, 2019, to establish eligibility for the Tunnel Circuit in August. Requirements can be found in the SubT Qualification Guide available on the Resources Page. Interested teams are also encouraged to join the SubT Community Forum, where they can engage with other participants and ask any questions. For additional information on the DARPA Subterranean Challenge, please visit www.subtchallenge.com. Please email questions to SubTChallenge@darpa.mil. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-01-22