18 septembre 2023 | International, Naval

As both the No. 1 and No. 2 Marine, his schedule is ‘not sustainable’

“I don’t mind breaking my own back,” said Gen. Eric Smith, who is both the acting and assistant commandant. “It’s just, I have to make good decisions.”

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-marine-corps/2023/09/18/as-both-the-no-1-and-no-2-marine-his-schedule-is-not-sustainable/

Sur le même sujet

  • DARPA: Training AI to Win a Dogfight

    9 mai 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Autre défense

    DARPA: Training AI to Win a Dogfight

    Artificial intelligence has defeated chess grandmasters, Go champions, professional poker players, and, now, world-class human experts in the online strategy games Dota 2 and StarCraft II. No AI currently exists, however, that can outduel a human strapped into a fighter jet in a high-speed, high-G dogfight. As modern warfare evolves to incorporate more human-machine teaming, DARPA seeks to automate air-to-air combat, enabling reaction times at machine speeds and freeing pilots to concentrate on the larger air battle. Turning aerial dogfighting over to AI is less about dogfighting, which should be rare in the future, and more about giving pilots the confidence that AI and automation can handle a high-end fight. As soon as new human fighter pilots learn to take-off, navigate, and land, they are taught aerial combat maneuvers. Contrary to popular belief, new fighter pilots learn to dogfight because it represents a crucible where pilot performance and trust can be refined. To accelerate the transformation of pilots from aircraft operators to mission battle commanders — who can entrust dynamic air combat tasks to unmanned, semi-autonomous airborne assets from the cockpit — the AI must first prove it can handle the basics. To pursue this vision, DARPA created the Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program. ACE aims to increase warfighter trust in autonomous combat technology by using human-machine collaborative dogfighting as its initial challenge scenario. DARPA will hold a Proposers Day for interested researchers on May 17, 2019, in Arlington, Virginia. “Being able to trust autonomy is critical as we move toward a future of warfare involving manned platforms fighting alongside unmanned systems,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Dan Javorsek (Ph.D.), ACE program manager in DARPA's Strategic Technology Office (STO). “We envision a future in which AI handles the split-second maneuvering during within-visual-range dogfights, keeping pilots safer and more effective as they orchestrate large numbers of unmanned systems into a web of overwhelming combat effects.” ACE is one of several STO programs designed to enable DARPA's “mosaic warfare” vision. Mosaic warfare shifts warfighting concepts away from a primary emphasis on highly capable manned systems — with their high costs and lengthy development timelines — to a mix of manned and less-expensive unmanned systems that can be rapidly developed, fielded, and upgraded with the latest technology to address changing threats. Linking together manned aircraft with significantly cheaper unmanned systems creates a “mosaic” where the individual “pieces” can easily be recomposed to create different effects or quickly replaced if destroyed, resulting in a more resilient warfighting capability. The ACE program will train AI in the rules of aerial dogfighting similar to how new fighter pilots are taught, starting with basic fighter maneuvers in simple, one-on-one scenarios. While highly nonlinear in behavior, dogfights have a clearly defined objective, measureable outcome, and the inherent physical limitations of aircraft dynamics, making them a good test case for advanced tactical automation. Like human pilot combat training, the AI performance expansion will be closely monitored by fighter instructor pilots in the autonomous aircraft, which will help co-evolve tactics with the technology. These subject matter experts will play a key role throughout the program. “Only after human pilots are confident that the AI algorithms are trustworthy in handling bounded, transparent and predictable behaviors will the aerial engagement scenarios increase in difficulty and realism,” Javorsek said. “Following virtual testing, we plan to demonstrate the dogfighting algorithms on sub-scale aircraft leading ultimately to live, full-scale manned-unmanned team dogfighting with operationally representative aircraft.” DARPA seeks a broad spectrum of potential proposers for each area of study, including small companies and academics with little previous experience with the Defense Department. To that end, before Phase 1 of the program begins, DARPA will sponsor a stand-alone, limited-scope effort focused on the first technical area: automating individual tactical behavior for one-on-one dogfights. Called the “AlphaDogfight Trials,” this initial solicitation will be issued by AFWERX, an Air Force innovation catalyst with the mission of finding novel solutions to Air Force challenges at startup speed. The AFWERX trials will pit AI dogfighting algorithms against each other in a tournament-style competition. “Through the AFWERX trials, we intend to tap the top algorithm developers in the air combat simulation and gaming communities,” Javorsek said. “We want them to help lay the foundational AI elements for dogfights, on which we can build as the program progresses.” AFWERX will announce the trials in the near future on its website: https://www.afwerx.af.mil/. For ACE Proposers Day registration details, please visit: https://go.usa.gov/xmnMn https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-08

  • How the Air Force data strategy is evolving

    31 août 2018 | International, C4ISR

    How the Air Force data strategy is evolving

    By: Valerie Insinna The Air Force's ambitious new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance strategy calls for a sensing grid that fuses together data from legacy platforms (such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk), emerging technologies (like swarming drones), other services' platforms and publicly available information. Artificial intelligence will decipher that data. Such a system may sound like science fiction, but the service believes it could be up by 2028. Lt. Gen. VeraLinn “Dash” Jamieson, the deputy chief of staff for ISR, explained the genesis for the Air Force's new “Next Generation ISR Dominance Flight Plan,” which lays out the service's goals for the next 10 years. She spoke recently with Valerie Insinna of sister publication Defense News. C4ISRNET: First, why does the Air Force need a new ISR plan? LT. GEN. “DASH” JAMIESON: This Flight Plan really does go out for 10 years. We did it because, primarily, we have a National Defense Strategy that was written, and crafted, and came out in January. It looks at a changing complex world with a great power competition. We see that the character of war is potentially changing based off of technologies that are being fielded and that are under development today. So that is one reason. The other reason really predates the NDS. When I took over the A2, the chief of staff, Gen. [David] Goldfein, really looked at me and said, “Dash, your ISR Enterprise is very airman intensive.” So I took an evaluation with my team, and it is extremely airman intensive. The airmen are applying new things to old tools. How we share the outcomes of our sensing capability is via PowerPoint that our airmen construct using Excel spreadsheets to look at the data, identify what is the data, and try to then manually layer the data in this construct. To get at some fused data, to get at what are the trends, that approach is not going to give us the ability to actually conduct our operations at the speed of relevance across the entire spectrum of conflict. More importantly, it drags out our decision cycle for our war fighter. When you drag out your own decision cycle, the adversary has the ability to get inside of your decisions and to disrupt those decisions. C4ISRNET: What can you do? JAMIESON: Our intent is to actually get inside the adversaries' decision cycle and create chaos. Once you do that, that really is a tough, tough problem to get out of. We established a framework and we have two major efforts. One was how we integrate and balance our ISR portfolio. We take a look at what we have today, what we see are our seams and our capability gaps, and we determine how we make investments on that. But our other major effort is, “What is my future pathway, what are those lines of effort that are going to give us an advantage?” We came up with three macro categories. First, it's disrupt the technologies, and see what capabilities and options that brings you. The second is how we bolster lethality and readiness with what we're going to do to the enterprise. Then, third, it's how we establish foundational capabilities that transcend this entire framework. C4ISRNET: How does that manifest itself? JAMIESON: You have to have a data strategy because you actually have to have standards on how you are going to condition your data. How are you going the access your data? How is your data gonna move for your infrastructure? How are you gonna secure your data? How do you ensure your data is not up for malicious attack? We did talk to industry. Then, we also worked with our acquisition professionals and said we really need to have an agile capability development concept annex. That really gets at how we prototype, how we do DevOps, what is the environment and how we get at acquisition of software in a very different paradigm. C4ISRNET: What does that mean for the force? JAMIESON: In 10 years, our digital airmen will be the preponderance of the force. Our airmen right now, a majority of the ones 24 and under, come in already knowing how to code. So what skill sets do we know come up for ISR where coding is fundamental? How does that affect our retention capability? Because we want to empower and unleash them to develop new skill sets that will complement where we're going with the ISR enterprise. Finally, we want to partner much deeper with our think tanks, our academia, our labs so that we are sharing right up front. C4ISRNET: You've talked about a collaborative sensing grid that uses advanced technology. What does that look like? JAMIESON: No longer are we going to invest primarily in just the air domain. We're gonna look at capabilities in and from space. We're also working with our joint partners to integrate in surface and subsurface capabilities, so that our sensing grid of tomorrow is no longer a sensor looking in a specific domain with a specific in. If we initially look at the first Predator, we had motion video that was EOIR, electro optical infrared. Then, maybe we need to have SAR. Then when we went to hyperspectral, we went to EO/IR and [synthetic aperture radar], because we're getting multiple ins in a domain. C4ISRNET: Is this a place to use AI? JAMIESON: We want to have algorithms to get at ensuring that the data is pure and not malicious or false. But we are going to take that, and we're going to use that with our exquisite capability to really flesh out that sensing grid. We're going to do it so now that we now have resiliency, it's not just in one domain or one capability. If we look at high altitude, what can I do from a manned and an unmanned capability? From a persistent, standoff and stand-in capability? We're going to look at swarming, we're going to look at even hypersonic capability — that give us a multitude of new capabilities to form this fencing grid. The beauty of the sensing grid is it doesn't forget what we have already fielded. Our airmen are looking at why is something happening, what are the trends. In other words, we fielded a sensor to answer a question. What we're trying to develop is how I get the data so that I can fuse it, look at it, then ask the right questions. C4ISRNET: What goals do you have over the next 10 years to really bring that into the ISR infrastructure? JAMIESON: The real importance of cloud computing ... and when I talk about cloud computing, I'm really talking about it as a service. The service that we're trying to get is really a platform, infrastructure and software. I'm not just looking for a data-storage hub. I'm looking for a partnership with industry. I'm not necessarily looking for just one industry partner; I'm looking for multiple industry partners in a multi-cloud concept, because each one of the big five, if we just were to use that, has their expertise. We want to be able to take that expertise and use it. When I say platform, infrastructure, software, I'm really talking about the capability that they give me to field at scale. Every time you turn on your Tesla updates are instantaneous, and I want my ISR enterprise to have those type of instantaneous updates on the infrastructure so that I can continue to prototype my applications. The data is what we're going to use to develop those applications. We've told industry, “You can make applications and we're going to buy applications from you. The data is ours. But we want to partner with you on the ability to create algorithms, applications, different software packages.” C4ISRNET: You talked about private sector partnerships, but how do you overcome or address the fallout from Project Maven? JAMIESON: We have been talking a lot about this. I don't see this as a problem for the ISR enterprise, I don't really see this as a problem for DoD. I see this as a U.S. public issue that needs to be debated and discussed. Because when we look at artificial intelligence and you look at how you develop algorithms, there's always a bias when we put the math together. The bias is formed by the humans that are putting that math together. What I mean by that is, the bias right now is whether we are going to use Western values. We value privacy, we value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our competitors, as we've seen, do not value privacy. Nor do they value life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. They have a completely different construct. I think the American public needs to have a discussion on where do we want to go. How do we want to approach this? What does it mean to us as a society? How are we going to protect our privacy? How are we going to protect our values? In lieu of that, then how does that apply to our national defense? We absolutely welcome that debate. We want to have that dialogue. C4ISRNET: Do you envision capability upgrades for the Global Hawk or Reaper? Are we going to see certain platforms phase out, or new platforms built into the budget? JAMIESON: As we look at where we are with our [remotely piloted aircraft, or RPA], U-2, our Rivet Joint capability now, it was pretty airmen intensive. What we are doing is developing algorithms to take the data off those platforms in a much faster cycle. I don't want to do processing, exploitation and dissemination in a reach-back mode in the future. I want to process, to exploit right on the aircraft or right on the sensor so that I can actually take that data, condition it, and then use it with other data so that I can get out better quality of information into the joint war fighter. Think of the Reaper. Today, we take the data off. If it's full-motion video, my airmen are actually identifying the object and looking at patterns of life after staring at that video for hours on end. What we're gonna do is automate that entire process and that is what Maven is doing. But we are developing algorithms much faster. In the next two to four years, it will be processed at the sensor. So that allows the airmen to no longer take the hours to do the processing. It takes a lot of bandwidth, it takes a lot of time. We want to do all that onboard the sensor so that I can fuse the data from the sensing grid. The reason I want to fuse the data from the sensing grid is because I want to identify certain characteristics. C4ISRNET: Did the Flight Plan address capabilities at the platform level, such as whether new systems were needed? Or were you purely focused on exploiting data? JAMIESON: We have to go back and identify first where are our big gaps, because we are in a cost-effective modernization way forward. Do I look at what I need from a space capability? Do I look at what I need from a swarming RPA? Do I look at autonomous remotely piloted aircraft, whether they are high altitude or minis that go for a specific length? We want to have a balanced portfolio of standoff, penetrating and persistent capabilities. C4ISRNET: Are you going to invest in swarming capabilities? Or some sort of hypersonic vehicle that can do ISR? JAMIESON: It is in the mode of being thought about. But you have to look at what technologies are real today and what technologies are really going to be there for tomorrow. You don't want to commit early to something that isn't gonna give you the best payoff. C4ISRNET: Are there any concrete goals that you guys are looking at to make sure the department is staying on track? JAMIESON: I'm pretty direct, and I'm pretty blunt. In our classified ISR Flight Plan, I've got an implementer for every single annex with milestones, goals, objectives and pathways so that, starting in 2018, we have the deliverables to ensure that we do stay on path. We don't know what's going to happen with the internet of things. That could be just as disruptive as the internet was. https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/isr/2018/08/30/how-the-air-force-data-strategy-is-evolving/

  • US Navy asks Congress to shift millions of dollars to fix high-tech supercarrier

    19 juillet 2018 | International, Naval

    US Navy asks Congress to shift millions of dollars to fix high-tech supercarrier

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy needs to get the permission of lawmakers to move $62.7 million to fix a number of hiccups in its high-tech new carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, during its post-shakedown availability that kicked off July 15. The money, part of a larger DoD reprogramming request from June, will go toward fixing a number of issues that arose during its recently concluded post-delivery trials, according to a copy of the request obtained by Defense News. According to the document, the Navy needs to move: $12.7 million to fix “continuing technical deficiencies” with the Advanced Weapon Elevators. $30 million for “tooling and repair” of the main thrust bearings, issues that the Navy has blamed on the manufacturer. $20 million for additional repairs, a prolonged post-shakedown availabilty, and parts and labor. By: David Larter The Navy told Congress in May that it was going to exceed the Ford's $12.9 billion cost cap because of needed repairs and alterations. The $62.7 million was part of that total repair bill. The repairs and technology setbacks extended the Ford's PSA at Huntington Ingalls' Newport News Shipbuilding from eight months to 12 months, according to a statement from Naval Sea Systems Command, and significantly added to the cost. The ship will then proceed to full-ship shock trials ahead of its first deployment, a priority pushed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., according to the document. Since its delivery, the Ford has spent 81 days at sea during the eight times it was underway, a July 15 NAVSEA release said. “The ship has completed 747 shipboard aircraft launches and recoveries against a plan of approximately 400,” the release said. “CVN 78 successfully completed fixed-wing aircraft/helicopter integration and compatibility testing, air traffic control center certification, JP-5 fuel system certification, daytime underway replenishment capability demonstration, ship's defensive system demonstration, Dual Band Radar testing, and propulsion plant operations.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/18/us-navy-asks-congress-to-shift-millions-to-fix-its-new-high-tech-supercarrier/

Toutes les nouvelles