26 novembre 2020 | International, C4ISR

Could soldiers silently communicate using brain signals in the future?

WASHINGTON — A breakthrough in decoding brain signals could be the first step toward a future where soldiers silently communicate during operations.

New research funded by the U.S. Army Research Office successfully separated brain signals that influence action or behavior from signals that do not. Using an algorithm and complex mathematics, the team was able to identify which brain signals were directing motion, or behavior-relevant signals, and then remove those signals from the other brain signals — behavior-irrelevant ones.

“Here we're not only measuring signals, but we're interpreting them,” said Hamid Krim, a program manager for the Army Research Office.

The service wants to get to the point where the machine can provide feedback to soldier's brains to allow them to take corrective action before something takes place, a capability that could protect the health of a war fighter.

Krim pointed to stress and fatigue signals that the brain gives out before someone actually realizes they are stressed or tired, thus letting troops know when they should take a break. The only limit to the possibilities is the imagination, he said.

Another potential future use is silent communication, Krim said. Researchers could build on the research to allow the brain and computers to communicate so soldiers can silently talk via a computer in the field.

“In a theater, you can have two people talking to each other without ... even whispering a word,” Krim said. “So you and I are out there in the theater and we have to ... talk about something that we're confronting. I basically talked to my computer — your computer can be in your pocket, it can be your mobile phone or whatever — and that computer talks to ... your teammate's computer. And then his or her computer is going to talk to your teammate.”

In the experiment, the researchers monitored the brain signals from a monkey reaching for a ball over and over again in order to separate brain signals.

But more work is to be done, as any sort of battle-ready machine-human interface using brain signals is likely decades away, Krim said.

What's next? Researchers will now try to identify other signals outside of motion signals.

“You can read anything you want; doesn't mean that you understand it,” Krim said. “The next step after that is to be able to understand it. The next step after that is to break it down into into words so that ... you can synthesize in a sense, like you learn your vocabulary and your alphabet, then you are able to compose.

“At the end of the day, that is the original intent mainly: to have the computer actually being in a full duplex communication mode with the brain.”

The Army Research Office-backed program was led by researchers at the University of Southern California, with additional U.S. partners at the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; Duke University; and New York University. The program also involved several universities in the United Kingdom, including Essex, Oxford and Imperial College. The Army is providing up to $6.25 million in funding over five years.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/11/25/could-soldiers-silently-communicate-using-brain-signals-in-the-future/

Sur le même sujet

  • Bulgaria overhauls Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters

    7 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Bulgaria overhauls Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters

    Igor Bozinovski On 30 July, the Bulgarian Ministry of Defence published a tender for the general overhaul of two Mi-17 transport and four Mi-24V combat helicopters of the Bulgarian Air Force (BuAF). The deadline for submission of bids is 3 September, with a framework agreement covering a period of 48 months to be signed with the successful bidder. The procurement is valued at BGN37.3 million (USD22 billion): BGN11.3 million for the Mi-17s and BGN26 million for the Mi-24Vs. Full Article: https://www.janes.com/article/82199/bulgaria-overhauls-mi-17-and-mi-24-helicopters

  • The calculus of cheaper military comms satellites

    31 juillet 2018 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

    The calculus of cheaper military comms satellites

    By: Kelsey Atherton Space is not so much hard as it is expensive. Satellites today are expensive machines, expensively built and expensive to launch, with the understanding that, once on orbit, they can work for years. That calculus assumes several eggs in every pricey basket, and as space moves from a home for military satellites to a domain where nations prepare for actual combat, building resilience in orbit means rethinking how satellites are done. It means rethinking costs in the billions and imagining them instead in the millions. And to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Paul “Rusty” Thomas it means creating a whole new ecosystem for payloads and launches. Thomas is the program manager for Blackjack, a DARPA initiative that wants to pilot a constellation of cheaper satellites for military communication, with the costs low, uplinks up and the resilience of the whole constellation baked-in. C4ISRNET's Kelsey Atherton spoke with Thomas about the program. C4ISRNET: There's a lot of interest in both low Earth orbit [LEO] and constellations of satellites. What is DARPA's specific goal with Blackjack? PAUL “RUSTY” THOMAS: Blackjack, as an architecture demonstration, will build a portion of a constellation, looking at about 20 percent of a fully proliferated LEO constellation. That's a range of 20 satellites, 20 percent of the 90 to 100 satellite constellation, which would give a ground user three to four hours per day or more of theater-level operations so that we could actually demonstrate what we're going to do with a full, fully proliferated 24/7 constellation that covers the entire Earth and gives global constant coverage and global constant custody. C4ISRNET: What was the logic behind accepting separate proposals for busses and payloads? THOMAS: Most exquisite spacecraft we built have been married to the bus and payload from Day 1. That's a wonderful model for exquisite spacecraft. But we're trying to build a proliferated LEO payload ecosystem — like the commercial commoditized bus ecosystem — that can match the numerous types of payloads. To do that you don't want to just show that one payload matches great and then move forward. That just gives you a great payload. To try and build that ecosystem out, you want to go to at least Program Design Review with the payload developers working to a generalized initial design covering numerous types of commoditized busses. Once you get deeper into the design phase, match that payload to a bus, which allows a large range of payloads to be developed. C4ISRNET: There's a lot of commercial interest in this space; does that pose any risk to deploying a new constellation? THOMAS: The goal of Blackjack is to prove you can leverage commercial approaches with potentially lower costs, lower cycle times, lower times for design and build. It also comes with the issue that we're not directing the approach to building the bus, we're not directing how the constellation is put together for these folks; therefore, the rest is getting the government itself to do that match and to put our systems into play in a way that marches in lockstep with them without directing their commercial elements will play. That brings risk. We have to learn how to do business a little different than it's been done in the past, and to move a little quicker than the government has in the past. C4ISRNET: So, there's no risk of LEO being too crowded to accommodate more constellations? THOMAS: No. Well, I wouldn't say no risk, there's always risk, the mega constellations that you're starting to see FCC filings for look like they're going to put hundreds, and some of them into the 10,000-plus range, and that's certainly going to be a challenge and it's going to be a risk. Fortunately, we have air traffic control systems on the ground that cover large numbers of aircraft in the air at any given time. We haven't actually taken that step into how to manage large numbers of spacecraft in space yet, but we believe that all the technology is there and it's just a matter of implementing an area where the government is going to be tracking what the commercial folks are doing. There's a risk — it's not major, space is big — but you absolutely need to track the spacecraft and make sure they can deorbit. But in terms of putting thousands or even tens of thousands of satellites into low Earth orbit, all of that seems very feasible and is not in the high-risk bucket. C4ISRNET: What's the rough timeline you're expecting for demonstrations? THOMAS: For the 20-satellite constellation, we plan to have the first two spacecraft that we have integrated to the commercial busses and the payload together ready by the end of 2020, with launch by early 2021. We will follow that in 2021 with the rest of the 18, once we've confirmed the first two are fine. We will have the full demonstration capability running late in 2021 with an expectation of theater-level autonomous operations from low Earth orbit in 2022. C4ISRNET: One argument for satellite constellations and against exquisite satellites is resiliency. How does that work here? THOMAS: You get a lower cost, the individual node becomes a bit expendable, you don't build your resiliency around the individual node, you don't try to protect that spacecraft to the nth degree like in exquisite billion-dollar-plus craft. If the Blackjack model works, spacecraft will be in the $3 million to $4 million range, $2 million to $3 million to put it into orbit. We're talking about a $6 million node, including the cost of getting it into space. Therefore, it's less than the cost of a high-end munition. The constellation itself becomes your resilient element. You can put your high-level availability, reliability and mission assurance at the constellation level instead of at the node, because of the numbers you're putting up. If one satellite has fallen, its replacement is coming over the horizon 10 to 15 minutes later. You have a different approach to resiliency, large numbers of spacecraft in play, which totally turns some of the counterspace elements on its ear. C4ISRNET: What counter-space elements might this be especially resilient against? THOMAS: You now have low-cost nodes, so a lot of the direct ascent type of methods out there no longer makes a lot of sense. Of course, you still have varied threats from non-kinetic and cyber. We still need to protect the constellation against all the other types of threats out there, so it probably helps the most on the kinetic side, but it certainly gives you lot of resilience in all the areas. C4ISRNET: What kind of communications presence will this enable? THOMAS: Blackjack is aimed at leveraging the new mesh networks being set up by these commercial companies. A user currently in the DoD might need to look up at two or three different options in space to actually talk and do communications in this space segment. Once we link up and do encryption, the user on the ground will look up and see hundreds or more potential network nodes overhead at any given point on the planet, North Pole to South Pole; it's going to drastically change how the DoD does communication. That is a bit independent of what Blackjack is going to do. If the commercial companies succeed and come out, that capability, call it raw gigabit-per-second class, not all of them it. But they all have many megabit data links from one point of the planet to another, at very low latency, 100-200 milliseconds, so you do really change the game for how any user, DoD included, does global communication. C4ISRNET: Is a desired end goal of Blackjack specifically a redundant spaceborne network that can function independently if access to internet on the ground is cut off? THOMAS: If you have a problem with your terrestrial network — whether it's a ground network system or point-to-point comms, fiber optics or others being interfered with — the space mesh network provides the ability to move the data up, move it through the space mesh, and move it back to the ground, without any other system being involved in that data transition. The switch network that Iridium has up right now, it's low bandwidth but a wonderful system in terms of moving data from one point to another on the planet through the Iridium gateways that DoD and its users have worldwide. Move that up to high broadband access, and not just two or three satellites overhead but dozens or hundreds, and it really does move us into a new realm. C4ISRNET: At what point in the program do bus and payload link? Is there a point where they're demoed together? THOMAS: In the [broad agency announcement] out right now, you can see we're looking for multiple payloads to go at least through phase one, potentially multiple buses to go through phase one. As we progress the programs through the preliminary design review into phase two and get critical design review, first two spacecraft built, we'll be selecting the ones to continue deeper and deeper into the program to match up and do the demo. We'll start with a wide range and narrow down to a smaller set to actually do the demonstration with a secondary objective of showing why a huge payload will work, why different types of payloads will be successful in this type of architecture, even though we've only got one or two of them. C4ISRNET: What does the future of Blackjack look like? THOMAS: We are looking at large numbers of types of payloads. We very much want to get into a rapid tech refresh cycle ... putting up payloads every two or three years that are newer version of the ones that have gone previously, have an open architecture standard so we can update over the air with better algorithms. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/07/30/the-calculus-of-cheaper-military-comms-satellites/

  • In a COVID-19 world, system integration is the best approach

    30 octobre 2020 | International, C4ISR

    In a COVID-19 world, system integration is the best approach

    Lt. Gen. David Mann (ret.) and Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon (ret.) As COVID-19 is adding “social distancing” and “PPE” to our everyday lexicon and making handshakes a thing of the past, Project Convergence's experimentation with artificial intelligence and integration is moving the U.S. Army closer to the realization that “any sensor, any shooter — or any sensor, best shooter” applies to more than solely the air and missile defense community. Project Convergence is validating the path to success in future combat operations by integrating capabilities of many systems and not solely hanging our hopes on a new, best artillery or aviation or maneuver system. Concurrently, it is validating the need for the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, or AIAMD. “See first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively” was the mantra of Army transformation in the early 2000s, and here we are, 20 years into the 21st century, with AIAMD modernization efforts on the cusp of achieving the first two elements of that axiom — which enables the last two. AIAMD's development has not been easy, but it is essential, as our adversaries have not taken a tactical pause. North Korea is now a nuclear state with intercontinental ballistic missiles and, as recently noted on Oct. 10, other missile initiatives underway. China is creating barrier islands, improving its air and missile forces, and building a carrier fleet. Russia has optimized Syria and Crimea as proving grounds for its capabilities and forces while regularly probing NATO and North American airspace. Iran has fired ballistic missiles against undefended U.S. bases, demonstrated technical and tactical prowess by executing an integrated and complex armed unmanned aerial system and cruise missile attack against Saudi Arabia, and provided nonstate actors an expanded poor man's air force. Cyber, too, is becoming “mainstream” among our adversaries, and two of our near peers are developing hypersonic weapons, as witnessed in Russia's recent Zircon cruise missile test. As the U.S. Army, and the military at large, look to the future, all acknowledge integrating systems achieves a synergistic effect from our limited number of sensors, weapon systems and munitions. Integration closes gaps and seams, and enables the timely application of fires while reducing the cost-per-intercept dilemma. Closed architectures are a thing of the past, as are stovepiped systems. We must leverage each other's data and information and apply the best available weapon to counter threat activities or inflict maximum damage upon an adversary. If the Army's Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor can provide an accurate launch point for a ballistic missile, shouldn't the Army's Precision Strike Munition or other long-range fires capability leverage this data in real time for an offensive strike? If an F-35 fighter jet detects aerial threats it cannot counter, shouldn't it pass this data via a joint architecture so the joint family of systems can defeat those threats? Project Convergence is endeavoring to expand integration and advance operating concepts to leverage all possible capabilities. It is a logical extension of a key AIAMD modernization effort — the Army's IAMD Battle Command System, or IBCS — which demonstrated impressive capabilities during a recent limited-user test. Patriot batteries executed near-simultaneous engagements against ballistic missiles and low-altitude cruise missiles, while using only Sentinel targeting data provided to IBCS. Multiple capabilities operating as an integrated system — leveraging one element's information and another's lethality to defeat a complex and integrated attack — represents true integration. The Missile Defense Agency's integration efforts with the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems, and its recent successful flight test, also demonstrate the power of an integrated approach. Specifically, this capability enables earlier engagements, expanded battlespace, an increase in defended area, flexible firing doctrines, interceptor optimization and the tightening of operational seams. We cannot afford to slow these efforts or take our eye off the objectives and capabilities these programs will deliver. IBCS is approaching a key milestone decision, which will enable low-rate production to begin, execute additional development and operational tests, and field an initial operational capability in 2022. Further integrating IBCS with other Army systems must be a future priority: It is the standard bearer for air and missile defense integrated operations and a key enabler for dealing with complex and integrated attacks. This investment requires sustained support from the Department of Defense and Congress as well as priority funding as we wrestle with flat budgets and COVID-19's fiscal challenges and potential bills. The Army is expected to add IBCS to Project Convergence — a good plan, but this action cannot become a distraction or diversion of resources that slows its development and fielding. IBCS, as well as the integration of Patriot and THAAD, are critical to success in today's tactically and technically challenging operations, which are stressing the force. Our integration efforts must expand to all joint air and missile defense systems and to our allies and partners, who remain essential to our success. AIAMD will also be a major contributor to the Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept and the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System — two key programs focused on integration at the theater level. COVID-19 has changed our lives in many ways and will levy a bill on our defense budgets. We cannot allow integration programs or initiatives to become COVID-19 casualties because seeing first and understanding first are the most critical elements in managing a crisis and keeping it from becoming a catastrophe. Retired Lt. Gen. David Mann led U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. He has also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Iraq, Southwest Asia and the United States. Retired Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon served as the director for strategy, policy and plans at North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. He also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Southwest Asia, South Korea and the United States. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2020/10/29/in-a-covid-19-world-system-integration-is-the-best-approach/

Toutes les nouvelles