29 avril 2020 | International, Sécurité
Kyle Rempfer
Researchers made adjustments to the digital thermal sensors on their Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS goggles, so the devices can now detect a fever, service officials said this week.
A version of the IVAS goggles are now being used at Fort Benning, Georgia, on hundreds of soldiers arriving each day to train at the post, which hosts basic combat training, Airborne School and Ranger School.
Five seconds was all it took for the goggles to detect the forehead and inner eye temperature of troops as they filed in through a processing center. The temperature of a soldier is registered through the goggle-wearer's heads-up display. Those who registered a fever were moved to a medical station for further evaluation.
The goggle screening system cleared a group of about 300 soldiers in roughly 30 minutes, according to the Army. The process could also be more sanitary than traditional screening measures, which require closer contact between medical personnel and patients.
“We've always planned for an agile software system and a digital platform that can be upgraded and adapted to use against emerging threats in the future. No one anticipated the next threat to emerge would be a virus, but that's the enemy we face today,” said Tom Bowman, director of the IVAS Science and Technology Special Project Office, who helped orchestrate the thermal tweaks to the devices.
However, even though fevers are a known symptom of coronavirus, it's far from an absolute predictor. Up to 25 percent of people with the virus may never show symptoms, Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Robert Redfield has previously warned publicly, meaning symptoms could be a less effective gauge of troop health than originally hoped.
IVAS goggles — which combine night vision, a rifle-linked targeting scope and navigational markers within a soldier's field of view — are still undergoing field tests, including one at Fort Pickett, in Virginia, in late October and early November.
The version of the goggles used to screen troops at Fort Benning are an earlier iteration of “non-ruggedized” goggles. They can't be used outdoors, instead requiring a stable room temperature so the goggles can be accurately calibrated. Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, an instructional unit for the Army Infantry School, were trained to use the devices to scan others.
“That's the genius of this system; we can use this technology today to fight the virus, even as we shape it into the combat system our soldiers need tomorrow. This shows the extensibility of the IVAS technology and the system,” said Brig. Gen. Tony Potts, who directs the modernization of infantry equipment.
IVAS goggles are the signature technology coming out of the Army's Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team. The devices are designed in partnership with Microsoft using the company's HoloLens.
Brig. Gen. Dave Hodne, the Army's chief of infantry who has a major role in testing the new technology, told reporters on April 17 that the Army still plans to field the devices in the final quarter of fiscal year 2021, even if a second wave of coronavirus hits during the fall testing period.
“It would come at a cost of a two-week isolation period in advance of beginning the test,” said Hodne, adding that students trying to vie for a Ranger tab at the moment are already doing two-week isolation periods.
“We've got 8,000 infantry trainees on Sand Hill who are executing a 22-week one-station unit training, you got an Airborne class that just graduated on Wednesday jumping out of airplanes,” Honde said. “The Army has frameworks for operating in biological hazards. It just requires us to make adjustments.”
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/04/28/army-tweaks-new-goggles-to-scan-for-fevers/
22 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense
No matter who is sitting in the Oval Office Jan. 21, whether it is Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the overall Pentagon budget drafted by the White House will probably look about the same. Fate of the U.S... https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/us-presidential-candidates-will-face-stagnant-defense-budget
22 décembre 2024 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité
CISA lists CVE-2024-12356, a critical BeyondTrust flaw, as actively exploited. Update on-prem systems to patch vulnerabilities.
16 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By: Leo Shane III The next few months could decide whether the Defense Department gets another base closing round in the next decade, according to a new analysis from a conservative think tankwarning military officials not to dismiss the potential looming impact on budgets and readiness. Officials from the Heritage Foundation, whose policy priorities have helped influence President Donald Trump's administration, have in the past supported a new base closing round to cut back on excess military infrastructure and more efficiently spend annual defense funding. In the analysis released this week, author Frederico Bartels — policy analyst for defense budgeting at the foundation — said a Pentagon report on the issue being compiled now represents “the best chance for the Department of Defense to make the case for a new round of BRAC” in years, and perhaps the last realistic chance to advance the idea for the near future. “I think it's the last chance of the Trump administration to make an argument for this,” he said in an interview with Military Times. “Even if he gets re-elected next year, I think it will be hard to go back and make the case if they're unsuccessful this time.” The military convened six base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commissions between 1988 and 2005, shutting down dozens of military installations and turning over that land to state and local municipalities. The process has always been fraught with political turmoil, as lawmakers protest any loss of jobs, military personnel and resulting economic benefits in their districts. But the 2005 BRAC round was particularly controversial, as defense officials consolidated numerous service locations into joint bases and massively rearranged force structure in an attempt to modernize the military. As a result, cost saving projections from that process were significantly below past rounds, and members of Congress have strongly opposed any attempts at another round since then. In the fiscal 2019 national defense authorization act, lawmakers did include language for a new military infrastructure capacity report — due next February — where defense officials can make the case for the need for additional closures. Similar Pentagon reports in the last few years have shown excess capacity of between 19 and 22 percent. Bartels said Pentagon leaders have repeatedly supported the idea of another round in recent years, but have done a poor job selling lawmakers on the idea. “The department needs to make the case for a new round of BRAC based on two key tenets: potential savings and the National Defense Strategy,” he wrote. “A new BRAC round could save $2 billion by reducing unneeded infrastructure. Additionally, a new round of BRAC would permit the department to assess its infrastructure against the threats outlined by the National Defense Strategy, providing a holistic look at all of the infrastructure.” He warns that naming specific locations will only exacerbate political tensions on the issue, and said defense officials also need to publicly acknowledge problems with the 2005 base realignment round to win back congressional support. And Bartels argues that the Trump administration must do more to push the issue. Defense officials requested a base closing round as part of their annual budget for six consecutive years before the Trump White House dropped the idea in their fiscal 2019 and 2020 budget plans. If officials fail to request one next spring, or if the planned infrastructure report is delayed by several months, the department risks pushing the idea back at minimum an entire extra budget cycle and likely several more years down the road. Even if approved, the new BRAC round is likely to take several years of research and debate before any recommendations are made. “I think there is still support for this in Congress,” Bartels said. “I think there are enough people that are about good stewardship of government funds that this can move ahead, if (defense officials) make the right argument. At least, I hope those lawmakers still exist.” The full analysis is available on the Heritage Foundation's website. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/