30 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, C4ISR, Sécurité
WASHINGTON: The Air Force has awarded ATAC, Textron Systems' military airborne training unit, a contract to provide adversary air combat training to F-22 and F-35 pilots at Eglin AFB, Florida — making it the biggest winner in the initial round of the service's overarching effort to outsource pilot training that eventually could be worth billions.
“When you add up the number of either sorties or flight hours — which of course the money goes with because you get paid by how much you fly — then you're at more than 50 percent of the total,” Richard Zins, ATAC vice president of business operations, told me today.
Under the new award, worth $94 million, ATAC will use its fleet of upgraded and refurbished Dassault Aviation Mirage F1 fighters to play the ‘bad guys' in mock combat against Air Force pilots in more than 1,100 sorties per year for up to four-and-a-half years, ATAC explained in a press release today. The training is expected to begin in January 2021.
The award is the last of six Red Air training ‘tasking orders' solicited this year under the the Air Force's Combat Air Forces (CAF)/Contracted Air Support (CAS) program. The Air Force last October chose seven contractors to compete under an overarching indefinite delivery, indefinitely quantity (ID/IQ) contract, worth up to $6.4 billion, for both adversary air combat training and close air support training. As colleague Rachel Cohen explained in March, the ID/IQ originally envisioned 40,000 hours of adversary air combat training at 12 locations.
The ID/IQ also envisioned close air support training at up to 10 facilities, of which three were have been awarded this year.
ATAC in July nabbed the awards for CAF training at Holloman AFB, New Mexico and Luke AFB in Arizona. Together they are worth up to $240 million. ATAC's flight operations at Holloman AFB are starting up, and will commence at Luke AFB by next month, Zins said.
The company also is providing close air support training, playing as surrogate ‘Blue Forces,' for Air Force Special Operations Command Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) on the ground under the CAF/CAS program under an Aug. 10 tasking order worth $19.9 million, an Air Force spokeperson told me in an email today.
Alongside ATAC's July award, two other companies — Draken International and Tactical Aircraft Support Inc (TACAIR) — also were awarded adversary air training tasking orders under the CAF/CAS program.
Draken International is providing training at two sites: for F-15E pilots at Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina, under an award worth up to $74.5 million; and for Air National Guard F-16 pilots at Kelly Field in Texas, under an award worth up to $28.2 million. Draken has a mixed fleet of aircraft for use in training, including the upgraded Mirage F1M, the Aero Vodochody L-159E Honey Badger, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and the Cheetah produced by South African firm Denel Aviation. The company further won a contract in 2018 to fly as aggressors at the Air Force Weapons School and Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB in Nevada.
TACAIR won a contract up to $90.4 million over four and a half years for training of F-15C/D pilots at Kingsley Field Air National Guard Base in Oregon. TACAIR is providing the training using its fleet of F-5ATs Advanced Tigers, which it also uses to train Navy pilots including at the Naval Fighter Weapons School (NFWS), i.e. TOPGUN.
Industry officials are expecting the service to award another tranche of tasking orders next year. However, so far, the service has released no information about the scope or timing of a second round of training awards (and Air Force PAO is still working on my inquiry.)
Zin explained that the market is booming for commercially provided airborne training because of the Air Force's enormous needs, driven in large part by its continued pilot shortage. In addition, Zin explained, training for pilots of fifth generation aircraft — especially the F-35, but also the F-22 — requires many more flying hour than older fighters. Another driver is the fact that when the Air Force dedicates an aircraft to pilot training, it takes a toll on combat readiness. Lastly, Zin said, it is more cost-effective to use outside contractors for adversary air training — and given that many of the pilots employed in the industry are retired military pilots.
The CAF/CAS program awards for adversary training have “more than doubled” ATAC's business alone, he said. “”It's a massive increase to the industrial base of the companies providing this service.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/atac-nabs-final-contract-for-initial-red-air-training-sites/
16 août 2022 | International, C4ISR
The Pentagon will use the software as part of its System for Insider Threat Hindrance, or 'SITH,' in another apparent military reference to Star Wars.
24 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité
Getting it right doesn't just mean staying within the bounds of the law. It means making sure that the AI delivers reports that accurate and useful to policymakers. By KELSEY ATHERTON ALBUQUERQUE — Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released what the first take on an evolving set of principles for the ethical use of artificial intelligence. The six principles, ranging from privacy to transparency to cybersecurity, are described as Version 1.0, approved by DNI John Ratcliffe last month. The six principles are pitched as a guide for the nation's many intelligence especially, especially to help them work with the private companies that will build AI for the government. As such, they provide an explicit complement to the Pentagon's AI principles put forth by Defense Secretary Mark Esper back in February. “These AI ethics principles don't diminish our ability to achieve our national security mission,” said Ben Huebner, who heads the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency at ODNI. “To the contrary, they help us ensure that our AI or use of AI provides unbiased, objective and actionable intelligence policymakers require that is fundamentally our mission.” The Pentagon's AI ethics principles came at the tail end of a long process set in motion by workers at Google. These workers called upon the tech giant to withdraw from a contract to build image-processing AI for Project Maven, which sought to identify objects in video recorded by the military. While ODNI's principles come with an accompanying six-page ethics framework, there is no extensive 80-page supporting annex, like that put forth by the Department of Defense. “We need to spend our time under framework and the guidelines that we're putting out to make sure that we're staying within the guidelines,” said Dean Souleles, Chief Technology Advisor at ODNI. “This is a fast-moving train with this technology. Within our working groups, we are actively working on many, many different standards and procedures for practitioners to use and begin to adopt these technologies.” Governing AI as it is developed is a lot like laying out the tracks ahead while the train is in motion. It's a tricky proposition for all involved — but the technology is evolving too fast and unpredictable to try to carve commandments in stone for all time. Here are the six principles, in the document's own words: Respect the Law and Act with Integrity. We will employ AI in a manner that respects human dignity, rights, and freedoms. Our use of AI will fully comply with applicable legal authorities and with policies and procedures that protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Transparent and Accountable. We will provide appropriate transparency to the public and our customers regarding our AI methods, applications, and uses within the bounds of security, technology, and releasability by law and policy, and consistent with the Principles of Intelligence Transparency for the IC. We will develop and employ mechanisms to identify responsibilities and provide accountability for the use of AI and its outcomes. Objective and Equitable. Consistent with our commitment to providing objective intelligence, we will take affirmative steps to identify and mitigate bias. Human-Centered Development and Use. We will develop and use AI to augment our national security and enhance our trusted partnerships by tempering technological guidance with the application of human judgment, especially when an action has the potential to deprive individuals of constitutional rights or interfere with their free exercise of civil liberties. Secure and Resilient. We will develop and employ best practices for maximizing reliability, security, and accuracy of AI design, development, and use. We will employ security best practices to build resilience and minimize potential for adversarial influence. Informed by Science and Technology. We will apply rigor in our development and use of AI by actively engaging both across the IC and with the broader scientific and technology communities to utilize advances in research and best practices from the public and private sector. The accompanying framework offers further questions for people to ask when programming, evaluating, sourcing, using, and interpreting information informed by AI. While bulk processing of data by algorithm is not a new phenomenon for the intelligence agencies, having a learning algorithm try to parse that data and summarize it for a human is a relatively recent feature. Getting it right doesn't just mean staying within the bounds of the law, it means making sure that the data produced by the inquiry is accurate and useful when handed off to the people who use intelligence products to make policy. “We are absolutely welcoming public comment and feedback on this,” said Huebner, noting that there will be a way for public feedback at Intel.gov. “No question at all that there's going to be aspects of what we do that are and remain classified. I think though, what we can do is talk in general terms about some of the things that we are doing.” Internal legal review, as well as classified assessments from the Inspectors General, will likely be what makes the classified data processing AI accountable to policymakers. For the general public, as it offers comment on intelligence service use of AI, examples will have to come from outside classification, and will likely center on examples of AI in the private sector. “We think there's a big overlap between what the intelligence community needs and frankly, what the private sector needs that we can and should be working on, collectively together,” said Souleles. He specifically pointed to the task of threat identification, using AI to spot malicious actors that seek to cause harm to networks, be they e-commerce giants or three-letter agencies. Depending on one's feelings towards the collection and processing of information by private companies vis-à-vis the government, it is either reassuring or ominous that when it comes to performing public accountability for spy AI, the intelligence community will have business examples to turn to. “There's many areas that I think we're going to be able to talk about going forward, where there's overlap that does not expose our classified sources and methods,” said Souleles, “because many, many, many of these things are really really common problems.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/intelligence-agencies-release-ai-ethics-principles/
14 mai 2020 | International, C4ISR
Andrew Eversden The Army recently conducted a critical design review for technologies it plans to deploy for Capability Set '21, one of the first pieces of its battlefield network modernization. In the review, the Army tested various elements of Cap Set '21, such as tactical radios and satellite terminals. Now, the service is making a series of capability trade offs — assessing affordability, technical maturity and density across formation. For example, the Army is weighing trade-offs between how many of its two-channel Leader radios and more affordable single channel radios will ultimately end up in an infantry brigade. Col. Garth Winterle, project manager for tactical radios at the Army's Program Executive Officer for Command Control Communication - Tactical, and Lt. Col. Brandon Baer, program manager for helicopter and multi-mission radios (HAMMR), talked with C4ISRNET about the decisions made during the critical design review and what these choices mean for the next batch of equipment known as Capability Set '23. This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. C4ISRNET: What decisions were made during the critical design review (CDR)? COL. GARTH WINTERLE: We went from a 100 percent classified network, hard to get people security clearances, very expensive, NSA-certification required for everything as part of the network architecture, to 75 percent secure but [with an] unclassified architecture at battalion and below. That really adds a lot of flexibility — not only in the addition of affordable commercial technologies that really add capability rapidly because that shaves about 24 months off potential fielding timeline if you don't have to go to NSA — but it keeps a very strong encryption using some of the same algorithms you use for NSA certified radios. It's secure. It's not unsafe. While it's unclassified, it's still very well encrypted. It's just a different way of doing business. So it really opens the door for a lot of different things. Plus, it really improves the ability to share data with coalition and multinational partners, who are also operating at that security level. C4ISRNET: Can you explain the Terrestrial Transmission Line of Sight (TRILOS) radio and the capability trade off you made? WINTERLE: The quantities were adjusted in order to afford more flexible, more expedient and pretty much more affordable options at the brigade level and below. There's a system called TRILOS. Think of a big dish on a portable tower. If you can line it up with another big dish on a portable tower over pretty long distances, you can get very high data throughput very quickly ... It's purpose is to connect large command nodes together and enable them to share data much, much better. So one of the things we looked at as part of the CDR, and we experimented with, is a new smaller expeditionary version. I talked about a giant dish on a portable tower. We went to the company we worked with called Silvus. They have a smaller, little four antenna radio, it's about the size of your home WiFi router [and] does the same thing in slightly less bandwidth. It's not as capable, but it performs that same function. And it's much, much lighter, much easier to pack out and we're actually putting those under quadcopters, like a drone, that are tethered [so] they operate off a line. So you can raise that up in the air and hold that radio up in the air and get really good range to connect two of those radios together to share data. By trading out one system of those large dishes on the tower, we're able to buy a significant quantity of the smaller systems. TRILOS, those dishes on towers, still remain in the architecture. But just by reducing the quantity marginally, we're able to really add a much more expeditionary much, much lighter, easier to set up. And we can buy it in larger quantities to increase the quantity out in the architecture to increase that capability. C4ISRNET: Can you describe how the Army intends to procure some of the Integrated Tactical Network components? WINTERLE: The intent is to compete everything. Single channel radios are a prime example. We're getting ready to invite vendors that have conforming radios to an industry day to basically have a radio run off. [We want them to] provide us enough radios so we can get them integrated and start assessing them against each other and against the current offering from the vendor that actually went through the experiment. It's going to be a fully competitive action. It is important to note though that I can't just go out and buy a new radio and, boom, I can field it. There is an amount of time where we are going to have to procure a limited quantity of the systems that went through the experiment until I can get those other radios through enough lab-based experimentation and integration, so that I know they work on the network. So even though they might be very similar [to] what we experimented with, there will be a delay so I can actually start fielding those to operational units. But [our] intent is to start that as soon as possible as part of the procurement fielding next year — this competitive run off of single channel radios. Anywhere else where there was a stand-in capability where we know from market research that there's other vendors, we'll perform the same sort of competitive actions. C4ISRNET: What are some of the lessons learned from Capability Set '21 that can be applied to Capability Set '23? WINTERLE: We're going to have a design review every year. The year prior to the preliminary design review, which is the year we're in right now for Cap Set '23, focuses on small-scale experimentation and a kind of assessment of ‘what are those technologies that going to compete to be added to the architecture as part of the preliminary design review' in April of next year. So we picked April. We just did this CDR in April. So the preliminary design review for Cap Set '23 is next April. We've partnered with the network cross functional team to help conduct research and development funded activities of certain key technology that they want to see added to the architecture in Cap Set '23. C4ISRNET: How has the Army's capability set testing structure been suited for COVID-19? LT. COL. BRANDON BAER: Traditionally, we do a large operational type test, where our approach has been lab-based testing, [cyber]-based testing, and then doing what we're calling soldier touchpoints. They're smaller experiments, but we're doing more of them. It gives us an opportunity to capture data, soldier feedback at different points of time. We call it developmental operations or DevOps. We can go back and tweak the stuff, fix any problems, get it back out there and continue to collect feedback. But I think it's extremely important due to current conditions with COVID-19, and everything else. Because everything has kind of gone into a large pause. And if we would have had a large pause during operational tests, it could be six months or a year before we have another opportunity to do that, where when you're doing multiple events ... we're capturing data at different times and different soldier feedback, you're not reliant upon one event. As we move forward, I see continuous benefits through that. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2020/05/13/the-army-network-plan-to-compete-everything/