Retour aux nouvelles

28 septembre 2020 | International, Terrestre, C4ISR

Inside the Army’s futuristic test of its battlefield artificial intelligence in the desert

YUMA PROVING GROUND, Ariz. — After weeks of work in the oppressive Arizona desert heat, the U.S. Army carried out a series of live fire engagements Sept. 23 at Yuma Proving Ground to show how artificial intelligence systems can work together to automatically detect threats, deliver targeting data and recommend weapons responses at blazing speeds.

Set in the year 2035, the engagements were the culmination of Project Convergence 2020, the first in a series of annual demonstrations utilizing next generation AI, network and software capabilities to show how the Army wants to fight in the future.

The Army was able to use a chain of artificial intelligence, software platforms and autonomous systems to take sensor data from all domains, transform it into targeting information, and select the best weapon system to respond to any given threat in just seconds.

Army officials claimed that these AI and autonomous capabilities have shorted the sensor to shooter timeline — the time it takes from when sensor data is collected to when a weapon system is ordered to engaged — from 20 minutes to 20 seconds, depending on the quality of the network and the number of hops between where it's collected and its destination.

“We use artificial intelligence and machine learning in several ways out here,” Brigadier General Ross Coffman, director of the Army Futures Command's Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team, told visiting media.

“We used artificial intelligence to autonomously conduct ground reconnaissance, employ sensors and then passed that information back. We used artificial intelligence and aided target recognition and machine learning to train algorithms on identification of various types of enemy forces. So, it was prevalent throughout the last six weeks.”

The first exercise featured is informative of how the Army stacked together AI capabilities to automate the sensor to shooter pipeline. In that example, the Army used space-based sensors operating in low Earth orbit to take images of the battleground. Those images were downlinked to a TITAN ground station surrogate located at Joint Base Lewis McCord in Washington, where they were processed and fused by a new system called Prometheus.

Currently under development, Prometheus is an AI system that takes the sensor data ingested by TITAN, fuses it, and identifies targets. The Army received its first Prometheus capability in 2019, although it's targeting accuracy is still improving, according to one Army official at Project Convergence. In some engagements, operators were able to send in a drone to confirm potential threats identified by Prometheus.

From there, the targeting data was delivered to a Tactical Assault Kit — a software program that gives operators an overhead view of the battlefield populated with both blue and red forces. As new threats are identified by Prometheus or other systems, that data is automatically entered into the program to show users their location. Specific images and live feeds can be pulled up in the environment as needed.

All of that takes place in just seconds.

Once the Army has its target, it needs to determine the best response. Enter the real star of the show: the FIRES Synchronization to Optimize Responses in Multi-Domain Operations, or FIRESTORM.

“What is FIRESTORM? Simply put it's a computer brain that recommends the best shooter, updates the common operating picture with the current enemy situation, and friendly situation, admissions the effectors that we want to eradicate the enemy on the battlefield,” said Coffman.

Army leaders were effusive in praising FIRESTORM throughout Project Convergence. The AI system works within the Tactical Assault Kit. Once new threats are entered into the program, FIRESTORM processes the terrain, available weapons, proximity, number of other threats and more to determine what the best firing system to respond to that given threat. Operators can assess and follow through with the system's recommendations with just a few clicks of the mouse, sending orders to soldiers or weapons systems within seconds of identifying a threat.

Just as important, FIRESTORM provides critical target deconfliction, ensuring that multiple weapons systems aren't redundantly firing on the same threat. Right now, that sort of deconfliction would have to take place over a phone call between operators. FIRESTORM speeds up that process and eliminates any potential misunderstandings.

In that first engagement, FIRESTORM recommended the use of an Extended-Range Cannon Artillery. Operators approved the algorithm's choice, and promptly the cannon fired a projectile at the target located 40 kilometers away. The process from identifying the target to sending those orders happened faster than it took the projectile to reach the target.

Perhaps most surprising is how quickly FIRESTORM was integrated into Project Convergence.

“This computer program has been worked on in New Jersey for a couple years. It's not a program of record. This is something that they brought to my attention in July of last year, but it needed a little bit of work. So we put effort, we put scientists and we put some money against it,” said Coffman. “The way we used it is as enemy targets were identified on the battlefield — FIRESTORM quickly paired those targets with the best shooter in position to put effects on it. This is happening faster than any human could execute. It is absolutely an amazing technology.”

Dead Center

Prometheus and FIRESTORM weren't the only AI capabilities on display at Project Convergence.

In other scenarios, a MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone was able to identify and target a threat using the on-board Dead Center payload. With Dead Center, the Gray Eagle was able to process the sensor data it was collecting, identifying a threat on its own without having to send the raw data back to a command post for processing and target identification. The drone was also equipped with the Maven Smart System and Algorithmic Inference Platform, a product created by Project Maven, a major Department of Defense effort to use AI for processing full motion video

According to one Army officer, the capabilities of the Maven Smart System and Dead Center overlap, but placing both on the modified Gray Eagle at Project Convergence helped them to see how they compared.

With all of the AI engagements, the Army ensured there was a human in the loop to provide oversight of the algorithms' recommendations. When asked how the Army was implementing the Department of Defense's principles of ethical AI use adopted earlier this year, Coffman pointed to the human barrier between AI systems and lethal decisions.

“So obviously the technology exists, to remove the human right the technology exists, but the United States Army, an ethical based organization — that's not going to remove a human from the loop to make decisions of life or death on the battlefield, right? We understand that,” explained Coffman. “The artificial intelligence identified geo-located enemy targets. A human then said, Yes, we want to shoot at that target.”

https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/09/25/the-army-just-conducted-a-massive-test-of-its-battlefield-artificial-intelligence-in-the-desert/

Sur le même sujet

  • How the Army will plan cyber and electronic warfare operations

    21 juin 2018 | International, C4ISR

    How the Army will plan cyber and electronic warfare operations

    Mark Pomerleau   With cyber playing a critical role in conflict going forward, the Army has begun to recognize the need to have organic cyber planners within a brigade's staff to offer commanders options related to cyber as well as electronic warfare. Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities, or CEMA cells, have been stood up in each brigade acting as planners to provide targeting options and capabilities to get at commander objectives just as an artillery planner would offer the commander choices related to their field for a pending operation. At the tactical level, these two disciplines – cyber and electronic warfare – have become intertwined. “When I talk to Army commanders and staffs, I try to make the point that I want you to worry less about whether it's a cyber or EW effect,” Lt. Col. Christopher Walls, deputy director for strategy and policy, at the Army's Cyber Directorate within the G-3/5/7, said at the C4ISRNET Conference in May. For example, Walls said for a river crossing mission, a commander might say he needs to buy a few hours to get a battalion across. The CEMA cell, in turn, would look across the capability sets in its portfolio and come up with a course of action. These cells potentially have the ability to allow the commander to target local internet service providers or local routers and prevent opposing forces from using them. The teams may also have an electronic warfare capability that can jam local area network protocols. Finally, these teams might know where mobile switching centers are by digitally geolocating them allowing physical strikes to take them out, Walls said. “I don't want the commander to worry about which of those three things, I just want him to talk to me in terms of desired objective and effects and then us, along with the staff, will determine which capability makes sense,” Walls said. “That's kind of the way we're thinking about the tactical fight.” The best choice comes down to understanding the commander's objectives and intent in order to offer the best solution. “What I would do is understand his intent, what effect he wants and what I'll do is submit that in a formal request and I'll let the higher echelons determine if they can provide that effect,” Capt. Daniel Oconer, brigade CEMA officer, told C4ISRNET during a recent visit to the National Training Center. “In general, all I really need to know for my planning processes is understand what the maneuver force wants to do,” he added. “How do tanks and Bradleys [move], how are the troops on the ground moving. Then, what is their mission? What is their objective? What is the commander's intent? Once I understand that I throw some CEMA flavor, so to say, onto it and then enable them to accomplish their mission.” Oconer is currently billeted as a 29 series electronic warfare officer. The Army will begin to transition these individuals into the cyber branch, or 17 series, so they will all eventually be cyber planners in the CEMA cell. “The way that we're transforming our electronic warfare professionals is they will become cyber operators. They will be the face inside our brigade combat teams and our maneuver formations for cyber operational planning,” Maj. Gen. John Morrison, commander of the Cyber Center of Excellence, said during a May speech. “They're complimentary. You cannot look at electronic warfare professionals and cyber operators in isolation.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2018/06/20/how-the-army-will-plan-cyber-and-electronic-warfare-operations/

  • Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved

    27 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved

    By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has put in place stopgap fixes for five key technical flaws plaguing America's top-end fighter jet, but the problems have not been completely eliminated. Last June, Defense News reported exclusive details about 13 major technical issues, known as category 1 deficiencies, impacting the F-35. The JPO has since quietly downgraded five of those issues to the lesser category 2. A category 1 deficiency is defined as a shortfall that could cause death, severe injury or illness; could cause loss or damage to the aircraft or its equipment; critically restricts the operator's ability to be ready for combat; prevents the jet from performing well enough to accomplish primary or secondary missions; results in a work stoppage at the production line; or blocks mission-critical test points. In comparison, a category 2 deficiency is of lesser concern — something that requires monitoring, but not something that should impact operations. But downgrading the category doesn't mean the problems are solved, said Dan Grazier, who tracks military issues for the Project on Government Oversight. CAT 2 programs are still "definitely cause for concern. They are going to have an impact on how the aircraft performs,” Grazier said. "It really depends on what the issue is, but every design flaw has a potential issue on the mission. ... You want to not have flaws, you want these things can be fixed so pilots can get out and do what they need to do.” Aside from a few basic statements on which projects were downgraded to CAT 2, a JPO spokesperson said the office “cannot disclose any information about how these deficiencies were resolved or downgraded due to their security classification.” The ALIS sovereign data transfer solution does not meet information assurance requirements. The Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, provides the backbone of the F-35, used by the aircraft's operators in virtually all stages of flying and sustaining the Joint Strike Fighter. The system is used to plan and debrief missions, order spare parts, walk maintainers through repairs, and view technical data and work orders. (A potential replacement, named ODIN, is in the works.) But some international partners on the F-35 program have expressed concerns that data flowing through ALIS to the United States government — and to Lockheed Martin — could give both the U.S. military and the American defense contractor a window into that country's flight operations, including when and where its F-35s are flying. Those concerns were so high that two countries threatened to leave the program entirely if a fix was not quickly applied, according to the original documents viewed by Defense News. That fix is now in, according to the JPO, which said that on April 29, 2019, an update to ALIS included an initial version of a new Sovereign Data Management tool. “The SDM tool permits F-35 operators more control over the types of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) data that are transferred to the F-35 Operations Center,” the JPO said. Incorrect inventory data for complex assemblies continues to result in grounding conditions. This particular deficiency involves supplies or components that, upon installation, are not actually listed and tracked in ALIS as designed. Those require specific, almost daily requests to software engineers to have data corrected in the system. While those requests can catch some problems, the issue is not always detected by the user. These “holes,” as the JPO calls them, do not collect data on how parts are used after installation, which means a part might be breaking down from heavy use. Yet, that part won't be flagged by ALIS as an at-risk piece. As a result, it's less likely that issues developing from wear and tear or a lack of replacement parts will be discovered until such an issue has become an acute problem, possibly leading to a grounding of the aircraft. The issue was downgraded to a CAT 2 deficiency on Jan. 13, 2020, “due to ALIS data quality improvements that have been made in the two years since this DR [deficiency report] was written,” according to the JPO. “The quality improvements have reduced the frequency and magnitude of issues that have impacted operational units' abilities to quickly release aircraft for flight following maintenance.” The F-35B and F-35C experienced incongruous lateral and longitudinal control response above a 20-degree angle of attack. One of the most eye-opening issues identified in the initial report was that the F-35B and F-35C models used by the Marine Corps and Navy become difficult to control when operating above a 20-degree angle of attack — which would be seen in the extreme maneuvers a pilot might use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile. Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions when coming in at that angle of attack.. “It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," a longtime naval aviator told Defense News last year. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.” The issue was important enough that it accounted for two CAT 1 issues, one each for the two variants impacted by the design issue. However, the JPO downgraded this issue to a CAT 2 on May 28, 2019, for the F-35C and on July 8, 2019, for the F-35B. The solution involves “improvements in flying qualities that were implemented in software. The improvements provide pilots with an intuitive reference indication for AOA [angle of attack], which allows pilots to more quickly optimize lateral maneuvering during air-to-air maneuvering. These software improvements have been released to all F-35 operators.” There were unanticipated thrust limits in jetborne flight on hot days. This particular issue only occurred once, but was so significant that it was identified in the original document as the “No. 1 priority” for the Marine Corps. The issue was identified aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex, where a Marine pilot performed what is known as a “mode four” operation. That is where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to a target area and then vertically lands onto the ship. It's a key capability for the "B" model, which was designed for its short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing abilities. The engine — working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base — wouldn't generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing. The pilot managed to land, but the issue set off alarm bells in the Marine aviation community. The JPO initially expected a fix for this issue to be out sometime in 2019, but it wasn't until March 2020 that a mix of nondescript “software updates and procedural adjustments” brought the “propulsion system performance back to original specified performance levels.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/04/24/five-f-35-issues-have-been-downgraded-but-they-remain-unsolved/

  • Anduril hires Pentagon vet Zachary Mears as head of strategy

    10 mars 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Anduril hires Pentagon vet Zachary Mears as head of strategy

    Mears served as chief of staff to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work.

Toutes les nouvelles