10 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

A human F-16 pilot will fight against AI in an upcoming contest

WASHINGTON ― An artificial intelligence algorithm will face off against a human F-16 fighter pilot in an aerial combat simulation in late August, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced Aug. 7.

The simulation — the third and final competition in DARPA's AlphaDogfight Trials — will take place Aug. 20. The event will be virtual due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

The AlphaDogfight Trials was created to demonstrate advanced AI systems' ability in air warfare. Eight teams were selected last year to participate in the final competition that runs from Aug. 18-20. The competition is also part of DARPA's Air Combat Evolution, or ACE, program, which was started in 2019, and seeks to automate air-to-air combat as well as improve human trust in AI systems to bolster human-machine teaming.

“We weren't able to host the finals at AFWERX in Las Vegas as we'd originally planned with fighter pilots from the Air Force Weapons School at nearby Nellis Air Force Base,” Col. Dan Javorsek, program manager in DARPA's Strategic Technology Office, said in a statement. “We are still excited to see how the AI algorithms perform against each other as well as a Weapons School-trained human and hope that fighter pilots from across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as military leaders and members of the AI tech community will register and watch online. It's been amazing to see how far the teams have advanced AI for autonomous dogfighting in less than a year.”

The eight teams are Aurora Flight Sciences, EpiSys Science, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Heron Systems, Lockheed Martin, Perspecta Labs, PhysicsAI and SoarTech.

On the first day of the competition, the teams will fly their respective algorithms against five AI systems developed by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab. Teams will face off against each other in a round-robin tournament on the second day, with the third day featuring the top four teams competing in a single-elimination tournament for the championship. The winner will then fly against a human pilot.

“Regardless of whether the human or machine wins the final dogfight, the AlphaDogfight Trials is all about increasing trust in AI,” Javorsek said. “If the champion AI earns the respect of an F-16 pilot, we'll have come one step closer to achieving effective human-machine teaming in air combat, which is the goal of the ACE program.”

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/08/07/a-human-f-16-pilot-will-fight-against-ai-in-an-upcoming-contest/

Sur le même sujet

  • Congressional commission wants more cyberwarriors for the military

    8 janvier 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Congressional commission wants more cyberwarriors for the military

    Mark Pomerleau The U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission, a bipartisan organization created in 2019 to develop a multipronged U.S. cyber strategy, will recommend the Department of Defense add more cyberwarriors to its forces, the group's co-chair said Jan. 7. The cyber mission force was established in 2013 and includes 133 teams and roughly 6,200 individuals from across the services that feed up to U.S. Cyber Command. These forces reached a staffing milestone known as full operational capability in May 2018, however, some on the commission believe the cyber landscape has changed so that the force needs to adapt as well. In a final report that's expected in the coming months, the solarium will recommend adding more cyberwarriors. “It's fair to say that force posture today in cyber is probably not adequate," said Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., co-chair of the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission. Gallagher spoke at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington Jan. 7. Within the last two years, Cyber Command has described a philosophy called persistent engagement, which is a means of constantly contesting adversary behavior in cyberspace before it can be disruptive. Persistent engagement is viewed as a means of meeting the 2018 DoD cyberspace strategy's direction to “defend forward.” That action seeks to position U.S. cyber forces outside of U.S. networks to either take action against observed adversary behavior or warn partners domestically or internationally of impending cyber activity observed in foreign networks. It is under this new approach that Gallagher and other commission members said the Pentagon must ensure its forces are capable of meeting the burgeoning challenges from bad actors. “We need to figure out what's the right size” of the force, Mark Montgomery, executive director of the commission, said at an event in November. “In my mind, the CMF probably needs to be reassessed. It might be that the assessment [says] that the size is the right size. I find that hard to believe with the growth in adversary.” The cyber mission force is made up of about 5,000 service members out of a full staff of about 6,200, Dave Luber, Cyber Command's executive director said in November. According to a defense official, it's normal that staffing will fall below 100 percent but leaders are confident in DoD's cyber forces' readiness and ability to defend the nation. During a February 2019 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cyber Command's leader, Gen. Paul Nakasone, said the force is the right size for the threats they currently face, but as it continues to operate and adversaries improve, it will need to grow beyond the 133 teams. However, Nakasone told a defense conference in California in December that the force has been built to execute the persistent engagement strategy. “Within U.S. Cyber Command, the National Security Agency, it's about persistent engagement; this idea that we will enable our partners with information and intelligence and we will act when authorized,” he said. “This is the way forward for us ... This is the way that we've structured our force. This is the way that we developed our doctrine. This is the way that we engage our adversaries ... this is our method upon which we look at the future and say this is how we have an impact on our adversaries.” Aside from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, Congress now requires the Department of Defense to provide quarterly readiness briefings on the cyber mission force. In the annual defense policy bill, signed into law in December, Pentagon officials must brief members of Congress on the abilities of the force to conduct cyber operations based on capability, capacity of personnel, equipment, training and equipment condition. The secretary of defense must also establish metrics for assessing the readiness of the cyber mission force, under the provision. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2020/01/07/congressional-commission-wants-more-cyberwarriors-for-the-military/

  • With challenges aplenty, Europe’s navies are coming to grips with high-end warfare

    23 juin 2020 | International, Naval

    With challenges aplenty, Europe’s navies are coming to grips with high-end warfare

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The former head of the U.S. Navy said in June testimony that as the service grapples with establishing the right type of force, it must account for the degraded capabilities of its allies, hinting at the once substantial Cold War-era European navies. “In my mind [there's] been an over-fixation on the total number of ships as opposed to the nuance numbers of specific types of ships that support viable operational plans,” retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief of naval operations, said before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. “There's also the need to understand just how small our allied navies have become, and in the past we have always looked to our allies to support us, but those navies are extraordinarily small.” NATO has for years counted on the U.S. Navy as the centerpiece of its maritime forces, with the individual European navies serving as augmenting and supporting forces. And in the post-Cold War era, Europe's navies have focused on low-end missions like counterterrorism and counter-piracy. And that has led to a precipitous decline in naval power available to surge in the event of a high-end conflict. In a 2017 study, the Center for a New American Security found that Europe's combat power at sea was about half of what it was during the height of the Cold War. “Atlantic-facing members of NATO now possess far fewer frigates — the premier class of surface vessels designated to conduct [anti-submarine warfare] ASW operations — than they did 20 years ago,” the study found. Where they collectively had about 100 frigates in 1995, that number hovers at 51 today. “Similarly, these nations had, in 1995, 145 attack submarines — those dedicated to anti-shipping and anti-submarine warfare missions — but that number has plummeted to a present low of 84,” the study found. But with the U.S. increasingly focused on Asia and amid tension within the alliance, Europe is coming to grips with the need to grow its forces and regain high-end capabilities it once had — a realization that also grew out of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. “Throughout the 1990s, the focus was low-end missions: counter-piracy, counterterrorism, migration, search and rescue,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Center for Maritime Strategy and Security in Kiel, Germany. “And they did so with the legacy platforms of the 1980s and 1990s. You know, sending an ASW frigate to fight piracy, well that's not a lot of bang for your buck. “But 2014, that's really the turnaround. I can't think of any European nation that's not on board with modernizing and growing their navies. But the long-lead times and having to replace the legacy units, it just takes a damned long time to turn the ship around.” But an unfortunate side effect of the long-lead times involved in force design — sometimes a decade or more — is that pre-2014 ship designs that are coming into service now are ill-suited for the high-end fight, Bruns said. The prime example of this mission mismatch is Germany's 7,200-ton Baden-Württemberg-class frigate. It began entering service in 2019, but is designed for low-end operations. “They were designed in the 2000s — they even call it a ‘stabilization frigate' — and they're coming online at a time where the German Navy needs them for presence, but they don't have the kind of teeth you'd expect for a 7,000-ton frigate,” Bruns said. “They're really capable for presence and maritime security operations, but of course that's not so much the world we live in anymore.” But new, more advanced frigates are starting to filter into the market. For example, in 2017, France's Naval Group launched a five-hull intermediate air defense frigate program designed to intercept air threats with the Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. And in January, the German Navy announced it had hired Dutch shipbuilder Damen to build at least four new MKS 180 frigates — a 9,000-ton ship designed to operate in waters with ice formations in a nod to the renewed competition in the Arctic. Payloads over platforms It's not just new frigate designs that show Europe gradually upping its game. Similar to the track the U.S. Navy has taken in fielding the Naval Strike Missile on its littoral combat ships and the Marine Corps' approach to fielding it as a shore battery, European navies have begun to upgrade their ships' systems in preparation for a high-end fight, said Jeremy Stöhs, a naval analyst who authored the book “Decline of European Naval Forces.” “What we see now is since 2014 the focus is much more on sea control, lines of communication, territorial defense,” Stöhs said. “But because of the long-lead times, it is not just the ships they're building; it's the sensor suites, midlife upgrades, focusing again on sea-denial capabilities.” Countries like the Black Sea and Scandinavian states are investing in anti-ship missiles and shore-based missile systems, he added, whereas a lot of those weapons were disbanded in the 1990s. In 2016, for example, Sweden announced it was fielding coastal batteries with Saab's RBS-15 anti-ship missile to defend its Baltic coast for the first time since 2000. The Franco-British Sea Venom anti-ship missile is being designed to launch from a helicopter such as the U.K.'s Wildcat. It recently passed its first firing trial. The missile is currently designed for small, fast-moving vessels up to Corvette-sized warships. In the Netherlands, the government announced in 2018 that their De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates would be ditching the venerable Harpoon missile for a new, more advanced surface-to-surface missile by 2024. Evolving threat, evolving politics Europe's evolution toward more high-end naval battles in many ways mirrors the United States' own pivot away from wars in the Middle East and Asia. But it's also informed by changing politics. “I'm seeing European navies pivot back to the basics: How do we handle the GIUK [Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom] gap? How do we patrol the North Atlantic? Anti-submarine warfare, convoy escort, anti-surface warfare: They are starting to come back to that,” said Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with Telemus Group and a retired Navy captain. “And as you are starting to see the new heavy German designs, they're coming back to focusing on a maritime challenger.” But with this evolution has come a realization of Europe's shortcomings and just how dependent those navies have been on the U.S. for some core capabilities. “They're starting to think about a naval force without the US present,” Hendrix said. “[German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has talked about the need for Europe to start thinking about going its own way. And by the way, I don't think that's a bad thing. I do see the interests on the continent and the U.S. going in different directions.” But a European naval construct without the U.S. would prove challenging, as many countries based their investments on the idea of a shared responsibility, with the U.S. as the main high-end capability provider, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at The Hudson Institute. “NATO, in theory, still has the NATO strategic concept where different countries were going to specialize in different capabilities, which led to the Finns and Swedes really embracing amphibious capabilities for small-scale, special operations forces insertion. The Brits and Italians focused on ASW. But without the U.S. acting as the strategic centerpiece, the strategic concept starts to fall apart. “The concept assumes you have someone that has a multimission capability that you can augment, as opposed to: ‘We're going to pull all this together without the U.S. from a bunch of disparate countries with disparate capabilities.' ” That situation means any NATO action with just European nations would need a lot of participation, he said. “Before, if you had just the U.S. and three or four nations participating, you'd have a pretty robust, multimission capability” Clark said. “But without the U.S., you'd need half the alliance to contribute so as to not miss out on key mission areas.” And without the robust U.S. logistics system, countries would have to replace not just the high-end weapons and sensors, but much of the support infrastructure as well. That could mean even more downward pressure on how much capability Europe can bring to bear. “If you have to expend weapons or do extensive resupply or refueling, the whole model starts to break down,” Clark added. “The way the European navies are structured, they don't have this end-to-end capability to deliver on all the support missions as well. “So if they have to invest in a significant combat logistics force, with budgets for defense being limited, that's going to mean their navies will potentially become even smaller.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/transatlantic-partnerships/2020/06/22/with-challenges-aplenty-europes-navies-are-coming-to-grips-with-high-end-warfare/

  • US Air Force’s new trainer jet could become its next light-attack or aggressor aircraft

    12 mars 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    US Air Force’s new trainer jet could become its next light-attack or aggressor aircraft

    By: Valerie Insinna ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force's new T-X jets could be more than just trainers, with aggressor or light-attack missions now on the table for the Boeing-made plane, the head of Air Combat Command said Thursday. Although buying new T-X trainers to replace the more than 50-year-old T-38 fleet still remains a top priority for that program, the service is beginning to explore whether the T-X could be procured for other uses, Gen. Mike Holmes said at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium. “You could imagine a version of the airframe that could be equipped as a light fighter. You can imagine a version that is equipped as an adversary air-training platform,” he told reporters during a roundtable. "At the informal level, I have some guys that work for me that are thinking through what the requirement might be for those different versions. When or if that transitions and becomes something more formal will depend on a lot of things,” he said, adding that one of those variables is the budget. So what T-X variants could the Air Force pursue? A light-attack T-X The Air Force still hasn't made clear its path forward on the light-attack experiment, but leaders have said they want to broaden the effort to include aircraft beyond the turboprop planes, which were the focus of the first experiments. The T-X, or a low-cost jet like it, could have a role, said Holmes, who declined to get into specifics until the fiscal 2020 budget is released with more details. "An airplane like that, like all the airplanes that competed in the T-X category, an airplane like that at that size and cost per flying hour and capability is something I think we should definitely look at as we go forward in the experiment,” he said. In the first round of light-attack experiments in 2017, the Air Force evaluated one light fighter —Textron's Scorpion jet — but ultimately eschewed it in favor of turboprops like the A-29 and AT-6. While the Scorpion brought with it some added capabilities that the turboprops couldn't replicate — like increased speed and maneuverability, and an internal bay that can host a variety of plug-and-play sensors — the AT-6 and A-29 had two major advantages over the Scorpion. Both are cheaper to buy and already have existing production lines, while the Scorpion has not been purchased by any country. Boeing's T-X won't be grappling with those same challenges. For one, the T-X trainer program gives it a built-in customer dedicated to buying at least 350 planes, covering the cost of setting up a production line and pushing down the price per plane. Holmes also noted that Boeing incorporated its Black Diamond production initiative into the T-X design process. Black Diamond aims to drastically cut production costs by pulling in new manufacturing techniques and technologies from the company's commercial side. “Then if you look at the size of the fleet, if you have more airplanes that are based on a common platform, that almost always brings economies of scale that make it cheaper to operate those airplanes and sustain them for a long time,” Holmes added. Still, an upgunned T-X may be more expensive from a cost standpoint, and it will have to be something that international militaries are interested in buying — and can afford. “We don't have any conclusion about whether that would fit for what we're looking for at a cost point,” Holmes acknowledged. “And as [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein] talks about, the primary or at least one of the primary components of anything we're going to look at with light attack is going to be how our partners feel about it.” An ‘aggressor' T-X to play the baddie The Air Force plans to award contracts this year to a number of companies that provide “red air” training that simulates how an adversary fights in air-to-air combat, but the service believes its requirement could grow even larger, necessitating the purchase of a new aggressor plane. When the T-X program was still a competition between multiple companies, the Air Force downplayed the T-X as an option for a future aggressor aircraft. However, now that a contract has been awarded, the service is taking a look at whether the new trainer could fit requirements, Holmes said at the conference. The Air Combat Command head spelled out his idea in more depth in a January article in War on the Rocks. The T-X is slated to replace the T-38 Talon, but because flying the Talon is more like operating a 1950s-era fighter than a modern one, only the most very basic fighter tactics can be learned in the seat of that trainer. A T-X, with its flying and sensor capabilities, is much closer to a modern day fighter, and Holmes hypothesized that much of the training that occurs once a pilot starts flying an F-15, F-16, F-22 or F-35 could actually be done inside the T-X. It could also take over “some of or all of the adversary aircraft training requirements for nearby fighter units,” he wrote. “This accelerated seasoning and increased adversary air sortie generation is possible because the T-X's lower operating cost — presently expected to be less than half the cost per hour of a fourth-generation fighter, and perhaps a fifth the cost of a fifth-generation fighter — allows the pilots to train more for the same, or less, cost.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/afa-air-space/2019/03/06/air-forces-new-trainer-jet-could-become-its-next-light-attack-or-aggressor-aircraft/

Toutes les nouvelles