11 juin 2019 | International, Terrestre, Sécurité

Active protection systems demo hits dead end for Stryker, Army evaluating next steps

WASHINGTON — After evaluating two active protection systems in a demonstration late last fall and determining neither were the right fit for the Stryker, the Army is now evaluating how to protect one of its critical combat vehicle.

“Unfortunately for Stryker, we have not found a system that is suitable for the platform,” Col. Glenn Dean, Stryker project manager told Defense News in a June 7 interview.

The Army has found interim APS for both its Abrams tank and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle but has struggled to find one for Stryker. The service has moved quickly to field combat vehicle protection against rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles while it develops a future system.

The service originally considered Herndon,Virginia-based Artis Corporation's Iron Curtain APS for Stryker, but decided in August 2018not to move forward in fielding it to Stryker units.

In an effort to expand its search for an appropriate system, the Army then decided to host a demonstration in late fall last year of two additional systems: Rafael's Trophy VPS and Rheinmetall's Active Defense Systems.

Signs the demonstration wasn't proving fruitful cropped up in March, when the service said they'd need extra time — an entire year — to evaluate options for Stryker. Dean said the Army was hoping they'd see promise in one of the systems at the end of the demonstration and be able to carry it through more complex characterization for better evaluation in order to make a decision.

But as the demonstration wrapped up, the Army decided neither would work.

“Both Rheinmetall and the medium-weight Trophy, both have maturity challenges, but the bottom line is that they turned out to not be a suitable fit for Stryker,” Dean said.

“We did see some potential in systems,” Dean said, adding, “it is our desire to continue to evaluate them further so we can understand them at a greater level of detail.”

Neither system received the same level of testing as Rafael's Trophy on Abrams, IMI's Iron Fist on Bradley or Iron Curtain, Dean said, and the systems could end up being the right fit for some future effort to outfit other vehicles such as the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, Mobile Protected Firepower and the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, “none of which we have identified APS solutions for yet,” Dean said.

Through continued evaluation “maybe we will eventually learn something that brings us back to Stryker,” he added.

Unlike Bradley and Abrams, Stryker is a relatively light-weight platform, Dean said. “It has challenges in its space, weight and power integration. It has proven difficult for us to find a system that is entirely suitable for integration.”

And while no operational APS system evaluated so far seems to work for Stryker, the Army is still looking into ways to protect it as its value on the battlefield only increases with the addition of bigger guns and more expensive weapon systems.

Under the Vehicle Protection System (VPS) program office, the Army is working on reactive armor improvements focused on Bradley and AMPV, but that could be of particular value for Stryker, Dean said.

The Army's laser warning program that is tied to the Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) program could also contribute to Stryker protection.

MAPS is a system under development with the Army featuring a common controller into which hard-kill and soft-kill protection can be plugged.

And the Army will be conducting a demonstration with layered hard-kill and soft-kill protection capability later this year as part of culminating exercise for its MAPS program, according to Dean.

“The soft-kill may ultimately prove to be particularly well suited for Stryker,” Dean said.

Those soft-kill systems are jammers and smoke systems that help obscure and tend to take up relatively little space and are less expensive then hard-kill APS that require the reloading of countermeasures.

The service is also studying what it may need for a future APS and plans to initiate a program in the late part of the next fiscal year, which could also be an opportunity to develop something more suitable for Stryker, according to Dean.

While the Army does have plans to protect its combat vehicles from rockets and missiles, in a June 6 letter sent to Army Secretary Mark Esper, a group of 13 House lawmakers expressed concern the service isn't doing enough to outfit its current fleet with APS and asked the Army to explain why it hadn't requested any further funding for APS upgrades in the budget

According to Dean, for Abrams and Bradley, “we are resourced to meet the requirements that we have on an urgent basis to outfit a limited number of brigades. We are doing analysis right now to support development programs of record in active protection.”

He added, “What we are buying is not the end of APS activity, but it is the urgent requirements we have been given.”

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/10/active-protection-systems-demo-hits-dead-end-for-stryker-army-evaluating-next-steps/

Sur le même sujet

22 janvier 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/
19 décembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

DoD IG: Military networks are exposed to ‘unnecessary’ cyber risks
By: Mark Pomerleau The military services are exposing networks to “unnecessary cybersecurity risks” thanks in part to a lack of visibility over software application inventories, according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report. The IG investigated whether DoD components rationalized their software applications by identifying and eliminating any duplicative or obsolete applications. Rationalizing software applications seeks to improve enterprise IT by identifying all software applications on the network; determining if existing applications are needed, duplicative or obsolete; and determining if applications already existing within the network prior to purchasing new ones. The audit — which focused on Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force commands and divisions — found that the groups examined did not consistently perform this rationalization process. By not having visibility into software application inventories, these organizations were unable to identify the extent of existing vulnerabilities within their applications, the report found. Moreover, such a process could lead to cost savings associated with eliminating duplicative and obsolete applications. Fleet Forces Command was the only command the IG reviewed that had a process in place for eliminating duplicative or obsolete applications. The Air Force did not have a process in place to prevent duplication when purchasing new applications. The report placed blame on the DoD chief information officer for not implementing a solution for software rationalization in response to Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act requirements. The IG made three recommendations for the CIO, who did not provide a response to draft recommendations: Develop an enterprisewide process for conduction software application rationalization throughout DoD; Establish guidance requiring DoD components to conduct rationalization and require DoD component CIOs to develop implementation guidance outlining responsibilities for rationalization. Such a policy should also require components on at least an annual basis to validate the accuracy of their owned and in use software applications inventory; and Conduct periodic review to ensure components are regularly validating the accuracy of their inventory and they are eliminating duplicative and obsolete applications. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/12/18/dod-ig-military-networks-are-exposed-to-unnecessary-cyber-risks
11 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

What do we know about CATS, India’s new fighter jet drone program?
Unveiled with pomp at Aero India 2021, the largest airshow since the start of the pandemic, the HAL Combat Air Teaming System (CATS) looks a bit derivative, with its centerpiece – the CATS Warrior – looking almost identical to the Kratos Valkyrie, a drone that captured the imagination of aviation community several years ago. The resemblance is not coincidental. Drones of this kind are informally called “loyal wingmen”, and they are often compared to unmanned fighter jets. Currently under development with most leading military powers, they are set to be controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) instead of ground-based operators, and accompany manned fighter jets into battle. In the United States, the Skyborg program is aimed at developing loyal wingmen for the US Air Force. In Europe, the Mosquito will soon be flying with the Royal Air Force (RAF), while the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has at least several designs in the works. Russia has been working with the concept too, as did China and some other countries. An ambitious project On paper, theCATS looks very similar to all of those developments. According to the Indian press, it is going to be comprised of several interconnected systems: First off, the whole idea revolves around “Mothership for Air teaming eXploitation” (MAX), a modified two-seater variant of the HAL Tejas Mk-1A fighter jet designed to control a number of drones in flight. It would carry the CATS Hunter, which is described as a fighter-launched cruise missile that would have a range of 700 kilometers (435 miles) with a regular warhead. In a different configuration, the Hunter would have a range of 350 kilometers (217 miles) and could return to base for reuse. Its payload, then, would consist of Air Launched Flexible Assets (ALFAs), swarming munitions each carrying 5 to 8 kilograms of explosives and likely similar in its concept to loitering munitions used by many modern armies. A mockup displayed at Aero India 2021 showed four ALFAs in an internal cargo bay of one Hunter. The last component of the CATS program would be the Warrior drone, a loyal wingman with stealth features, powered by the domestically-produced PTAE-7 turbofan engine and carrying a pair of air-to-air missiles, ALFAs or laser-guided bombs in its two internal bays. With an active electronically scanned array (EASA) radar, Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) imaging system and electronic warfare suite, it could be used both as a forward-deployed scout for regular aircraft as well as for directly engaging enemy targets. It is important to understand that so far these projects are in a development stage. HAL claims that it has been working on the concept since early 2018, but the development really started only in late 2019 and early 2020. The deadline is scheduled for 2024-2025, which could seem optimistic for regular aircraft, but falls in line with similar projects: both the Skyborg and the Mosquito aim at initial operational capability by 2023. Crucial differences There are several key differences between the CATS and other similar programs though. First off, the CATS Warrior is the first loyal wingman showcased, at least in mockup form, with air-to-air missiles. Many manufacturers of prospective loyal wingmen have hinted at such a capability, yet they tend to be careful with their claims. The reason for that is clear: while it is relatively easy to make a drone capable of launching infrared-guided missiles, the participation in actual aerial combat, especially if such a drone is partially or primarily AI-controlled, is a whole other level of complexity. It is very likely that the first “generation” of loyal wingmen will have only rudimentary air-to-air capability and the option to engage in a pitched aerial combat will come later, with upgrades, refinements or subsequent programs (such as the DARPA's LongShot). Both Kratos and Boeing, two companies that already developed and tested their loyal wingmen, talk quite assertively about reconnaissance and ground attack capabilities of their aircraft, but hint at air-to-air capabilities with far less certainty. The two aforementioned drones are supposed to be modular though, their components, such as detection or payload delivery systems, being mission-adaptable. The modularity of the CATS Warrior was not mentioned by HAL at the airshow, and the existence of the multi-purpose Hunter is partially compensating for its lack. Yet another large difference between the CATS and rival Western programs is an emphasis on AI control. It is quite clear that although ALFAs will likely use some form of artificial intelligence, the existence of dedicated two-seater control aircraft hints at Warrior being, at least in some part, piloted. According to HAL, its loyal wingman will be capable of autonomous take-off and landing, yet the capability of autonomous combat was not revealed – an element which, if planned, would likely become its main selling point. In this regard, India is not alone, as the Russian Grom is intended to be human-controlled too, at least according to the current plan. But both American and European programs dedicate a lot of effort and investments into the development of AI capable not only of controlling swarms of combat drones, but of taking over part of the pilot's workload too. Human-AI teaming proved to be a difficult concept, necessitating the development of special algorithms and interfaces with features not explored before. Reacting to circumstances That might be the reason HAL keeps conservative with the control possibilities of its loyal wingman. The ground has not been proven for autonomous fighter jets, and being a pioneer in this field requires colossal research and development funding – money that would be better spent on more pressing issues. Such as the lack of fighter jets. India has been struggling with that for some time now, introducing a hotchpotch of models – from brand new Dassault Rafales to refurbished 80s-vintage MiG-29s – just to close the air defense gap. The ramping up of the production of the HAL Tejas was not enough for that too. The latest MRCA (multi-role combat aircraft) competition has been dragging for some time now, and even if India finally selects its new fighter jet, it will take quite some time to reach operational capability. The CATS Warrior can be interpreted as a direct response to that. If the whole project will enter mass production by the mid-20s, as expected, it may become an ultimate way to solve IAF's long-running problem without greatly increasing the production of the Tejas. With an advertised cost of $5 million per unit – more than most Western loyal wingmen, but still negligible in comparison with manned jets – it could be a saving grace for the country. https://www.aerotime.aero/27216-What-do-we-know-about-Indias-fighter-jet-drone-program

Toutes les nouvelles