10 juin 2019 | International, Autre défense

How industry can build better AI for the military


As AI becomes more prominent in the national security community, officials are grappling with where to use it most effectively.

During a panel discussion at the C4ISRNET conference June 6, leaders discussed the role of industry building AI that will be used by the military.

After studying small and big companies creating AI technology, Col. Stoney Trent, the chief of operations at the Pentagon’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, said he found commercial groups do not have the same motivations that exist in the government.

“Commercial groups are poorly incentivized for rigorous testing. For them that represents a business risk,” Trent said. Because of this, he the government needs to work with the commercial sector to create these technologies.

“What the Defense Department has to offer in this space is encouragement, an incentive structure for better testing tools and methods that allows us to understand how a product is going to perform when we are under conditions of national consequence because I can’t wait,” Trent said. “Hopefully, the nation will be at peace long enough to not have a high bandwidth of experiences with weapons implementations, but when that happens, we need them to absolutely work. That’s a quality of commercial technology development.”

For this to take place, the Department of Defense needs to help create the right environment.

“All of this is predicated on the Pentagon doing things as well,” said Kara Frederick, associate fellow for the technology and national security program at the Center for a New American Security. “Making an environment conducive to the behaviors that you are seeking to encourage. That environment can be the IT environment, common standards for data processing, common standards for interactions with industry, I think would help.”

Panelists said national security leaders also need to weigh the risks of relying more on AI technology, one of which is non-state actors using AI for nefarious purposes.

Trent said he sees AI as the new arms race but noted that in this arena, destruction may be easier than creation.

“AI is the modern-day armor anti-armor arms race,” Trent said. “The Joint AI Center, one of the important features of it is that it does offer convergence for best practices, data sources, data standards, etc. The flip side is we fully understand there are a variety of ways you can undermine artificial intelligence and most of those are actually easier than developing good resilient AI.”

Frederick said part of this problem stems from the structure of the AI community.

“I think what’s so singular about the AI community, especially the AI research community, is that its so open,” Frederick said. “Even at Facebook, we open source some of these algorithms and we put it our there for people to manipulate. [There is this] idea that non-state actors, especially those without strategic intent or ones that we can’t pin strategic intent to, could get a hold of some of these ways to code in certain malicious inputs [and] we need to start being serious about it.”

However, before tackling any of these problems, leaders need to first decide when it is appropriate to use AI

Rob Monto, lead of the Army’s Advanced Concepts and Experimentation office, described this process as an evolution that takes place between AI and its users.

“AI is like electricity,” he said. “It can be anywhere and everywhere. You can either get electrocuted by it or you target specific applications for it. You need to know what you want the AI to do, and then you spend months and years building out. If you don’t have your data set available, you do that upfront architecture and collection of information. Then you train your algorithms and build that specifically to support that specific use case…AI is for targeted applications to aid decisions, at least in the military space, to aid the user.”

Once the decision is made how and where to use AI, there are other technologies that must make advances to meet AI. One the biggest challenges, said Chad Hutchinson, director of engineering at the Crystal Group., is the question of hardware and characteristics such as thermal performance.

“AI itself is pushing the boundaries of what the hardware can do,” Hutchinson said.

Hardware technology is not the only obstacle in AI’s path. These issues could stem from policy or human resource shortfalls.

“What we find is the non-technology barriers are far more significant than the technology barriers,” Trent said.


Sur le même sujet

  • With Columbia revving up, General Dynamics expects submarines to be a cash cow

    28 janvier 2021 | International, Naval

    With Columbia revving up, General Dynamics expects submarines to be a cash cow

    By: David B. Larter  WASHINGTON — General Dynamics’ marine business expects its work in building submarines to drive hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue growth over the coming years, company head Phebe Novakovic told investors in a call Wednesday. The company is expecting a $300 million increase in revenue in 2021, with a rough estimate of between $400-500 million of growth a year, Novakovic said, citing submarines as a significant driver. The next-generation ballistic missile submarine Columbia will account for much of that growth, she said. General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News shipyard are the nation’s only two submarine builders. With China now operating the world’s largest naval force, the U.S. is likely to look to submarines as its ace in the hole against an increasingly sophisticated competitor. “If you look at the U.S. Navy, submarines are its top priority and the Columbia in particular,” Novakovic said. “And why is that? It’s because submarines remain a singular competitive advantage, a critical competitive advantage for the United States with near-peer competitors and peer competitors. “I am quite confident that given my belief that the defense budget is driven by the threats that are key elements of our marine group, growth will be nicely supported.” The company last year inked more than $10 billion in contracts for the first two Columbia-class boats. The Navy has consistently said fielding Columbia is its top acquisition priority. Electric Boat is also building the Virginia-class Block V submarine, along with HII Newport News. The Navy is expected to buy the Virginia class at a rate of two subs per year. General Dynamics, which also owns Arleigh Burke-class destroyer-builder Bath Iron Works, believes that platform will continue to be important to the Navy, Novakovic said. The Navy has been waffling about how many of its new Flight III Burkes it intends to buy. The service’s 2021 budget proposal cut four destroyers from its five-year plan, proposing eight down from 2020′s proposal of 12. But General Dynamics continues to be bullish on submarines and is investing in its infrastructure at Electric Boat. The company spent nearly $1 billion on its facilities there in 2020, including $345 million in the fourth quarter alone. The investments are “in support of the unprecedented growth on the horizon,” Novakovic said. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/01/27/with-columbia-revving-up-general-dynamics-expects-submarines-to-be-a-cash-cow

  • Fincantieri to build two new German-design submarines for the Italian navy

    3 mars 2021 | International, Naval

    Fincantieri to build two new German-design submarines for the Italian navy

    The new subs are expected to mix German technology with more Italian content than a previous batch of four U212 boats.

  • Opinion: How New ‘Predators’ Are Reshaping Aerospace Landscape

    16 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Opinion: How New ‘Predators’ Are Reshaping Aerospace Landscape

    By Antoine Gelain Behind the big aerospace and defense (A&D) primes like Boeing and Airbus and the “Super Tier-1s” such as United Technologies (UTC) and GE, a very different type of company is shaping the global A&D industrial landscape in a way that may be even more impactful than high-profile UTC-Raytheon-type mergers. Companies such as Teledyne, TransDigm and Heico are the spearheads of a breed of A&D players dedicated to “components and subsystems,” with explicit and perfectly executed “horizontal” external growth strategies. Their track records are impressive: These three companies—with combined revenues of more than $10 billion—have collectively made close to 200 acquisitions and delivered more than 20% average annual growth rate in either profitability or share value over the last 20 years. Thanks to such returns and skyrocketing market valuations, they are able to outbid most other contenders when going after an acquisition target by leveraging the so-called “accretive effect.”  This effect boosts the acquiring company’s earnings per share, as long as the price paid for the target as a ratio of the enterprise value (EV) over its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is lower than that of the acquiring firm. As it happens, the current EV/EBITDA ratio of the three above-mentioned companies stands at more than 18 (see graph). By comparison, most other A&D companies have an EV/EBITDA ratio in the 9-13 range.    Such “buying power” is enhanced by operational synergies (for instance, in corporate overheads, sales and marketing), which immediately boost the profitability of the acquired company and can therefore be factored in the offer price. This gives them an additional edge against pure financial investors like private equity (PE) funds, which have historically been strong buyers of such component and subsystem businesses. Two recent deals in Europe (one still ongoing) illustrate this new balance of power. The first concerns Souriau-Sunbank, a $360 million-revenue specialist in interconnection technology for harsh environments. After being owned successively by two PE funds and bought by Esterline (now TransDigm) in 2011, it was again put up for sale last year. While expectations were that a PE fund would grab it, another industrial buyer, Eaton Corp., won the contest, paying the hefty price of $920 million (an EV/EBITDA multiple of 12). The second deal relates to a French company called Photonis, a world leader in night-vision technology for defense and space applications, for which Teledyne is apparently bidding—and offering a price 30% higher than the highest PE bid!  These deals highlight the limits of the traditional private equity model (too short-term and too short-sighted) and why the “new predators”—all publicly listed companies—are in a much better position to continue to thrive. In fact, by combining “private equity-like growth in value with liquidity of a public market,” as TransDigm puts it, they are not only beating PE players at their own game, but they are also capturing a significant share of the A&D capital market by offering investors an attractive alternative to the traditional vertically integrated groups such as UTC, Thales or Safran. These groups are typically too busy focusing on large systems and equipment to realize that they would actually benefit from articulating a proper “component and subsystem” strategy. They would benefit not only because their portfolios are still full of such businesses, but also because their long-term competitiveness largely depends on their ability to nurture a strong network of strategic suppliers, in terms of both criticality for their own systems and national sovereignty. As it happens, Photonis seems to be such a strategic supplier, since the current French government just announced it would veto the Teledyne deal, hoping to give other French or European companies or investors time to make a competitive offer for the business. But because PE funds, at least in Europe, are somewhat faint-hearted when it comes to ambitious sector-specific “horizontal” portfolio strategies, and because Europe has no industrial player able to compete with the likes of Teledyne, the outcome of the process is still highly uncertain. In any case, Teledyne, Heico, Transdigm and similar companies are surreptitiously reshaping the A&D industrial landscape by buying technological nuggets and component businesses left and right, on both sides of the Atlantic. In the process, they are boosting their shareholders’ returns and changing the balance of power with both traditional private equity investors and large vertically integrated A&D groups. As the saying goes: One man’s meat is another man’s poison. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/opinion-how-new-predators-are-reshaping-aerospace-landscape

Toutes les nouvelles