4 septembre 2018 | International, Terrestre, C4ISR

New military drone roadmap ambivalent on killer robots

Drones are everywhere in the Pentagon today. While unpeopled vehicles are most closely associated with the Air Force and targeted killing campaigns, remotely controlled robots are in every branch of the military and used across all combatant commands. The fiscal year 2018 defense authorization contained the largest budget for drones and robots across the services ever, a sign of just how much of modern warfare involves these machines.

Which is perhaps why, when the Department of Defense released its latest roadmap for unmanned systems, the map came in at a punchy 60 pages, far shy of the 160-page tome released in 2013. This is a document less about a military imagining a future of flying robots and more about managing a present that includes them.

The normalization of battlefield robots

Promised since at least spring 2017, the new roadmap focuses on interoperability, autonomy, network security and human-machine collaboration.

The future of drones, and of unpeopled ground vehicles or water vehicles, is as tools that anyone can use, that can do most of what is asked of them on their own, that communicate without giving away the information they are sharing, and that will work to make the humans using the machines function as more-than-human.

This is about a normalization of battlefield robots, the same way that mechanized warfare moved from a theoretical approach to the standard style of fighting by nations a few generations ago. Network security isn't as flashy a highlight as “unprecedented battlefield surveillance by flying robot,” but it's part of making sure that those flying cameras don't, say, transmit easily intercepted data over an open channel.

“Future warfare will hinge on critical and efficient interactions between war-fighting systems,” states the roadmap. “This interoperable foundation will transmit timely information between information gatherers, decision makers, planners and war fighters.”

A network is nothing without its nodes, and the nodes that need to be interoperable here are a vast web of sensors and weapons, distributed among people and machines, that will have to work in concert in order to be worth the networking at all. The very nature of war trends toward pulling apart networks, toward isolation. Those nodes each become a point at which a network can be broken, unless they are redundant or autonomous.

Where will the lethal decision lie?

Nestled in the section on autonomy, the other signpost feature of the Pentagon's roadmap, is a small chart about the way forward. In that chart is a little box labeled “weaponization,” and in that box it says the near-term goals are DoD strategy assessment and lethal autonomous weapon systems assessment.

Lethal autonomous weapon systems are of such international concern that there is a meeting of state dignitaries and humanitarian officials in Geneva happening at the exact moment this roadmap was released. That intergovernmental body is hoping to decide whether or not militaries will develop robots that can kill of their own volition, according to however they've been programmed.

The Pentagon, at least in the roadmap, seems content to wait for its own assessment and the verdict of the international community before developing thinking weapons. Hedging on this, the same chart lists “Armed Wingman/Teammate (Human decision to engage)” as the goal for somewhere between 2029 and 2042.

“Unmanned systems with integrated AI, acting as a wingman or teammate with lethal armament could perform the vast majority of the actions associated with target identification,tracking, threat prioritization, and post-attack assessment," reads the report.

"This level of automation will alleviate the human operator of task-level activities associated with the engagement of a target, allowing the operator to focus on the identified threat and the decision to engage.”

The roadmap sketches out a vision of future war that hands off many decisions to autonomous machines, everything from detection to targeting, then loops the lethal decision back to a human responsible for making the call on whether or not the robot should use its weapons on the targets it selected.

Humans as battlefield bot-shepards, guiding autonomous machines into combat and signing off on the exact attacks, is a possible future for robots in war, one that likely skirts within the boundaries of still-unsettled international law.

Like its predecessor, this drone roadmap is plotting a rough path through newly charted territory. While it leans heavily on the lessons of the present, the roadmap doesn't attempt to answer on its own the biggest questions of what robots will be doing on the battlefields of tomorrow. That is, fundamentally, a political question, and one that much of the American public itself doesn't yet have strong feelings about.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2018/08/31/new-military-drone-roadmap-ambivalent-on-killer-robots

Sur le même sujet

19 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

GA-ASI Selected to Provide RPAS to Australian Defence Force
ADELAIDE, Australia--(BUSINESS WIRE)--General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), the world's leading manufacturer of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), has been advised that, following consideration by the Australian Government, it has been selected to provide the Armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft System under Project Air 7003 for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). “We look forward to providing our world-leading RPAS to meet the Air 7003 requirements,” said Linden Blue, CEO of GA-ASI. “We'll work closely with Team Reaper® Australia partners to provide a highly capable and affordable RPAS to the ADF, while creating meaningful and enduring Australian jobs.” The ADF joins other top-tier military forces in choosing a MQ-9 variant because of its proven multi-role combat performance. Known as the “operators” choice, the MQ-9 is part of GA-ASI's Predator® series of RPAS, which is the world's most trusted and capable Armed Medium-Altitude, Long-Endurance (MALE) RPAS, and hails from a family of RPAS which recently surpassed five million flight hours. GA-ASI announced its intention to offer a MALE RPAS to the ADF during AVALON 2017 – the Australian International Aerospace and Defence Exposition – with the launch of Team Reaper Australia, a robust grouping of Australian industry partners. The team currently consists of ten Australian companies providing a range of innovative sensor, communication, manufacturing and life-cycle support capabilities that includes Cobham, CAE, Raytheon, Flight Data Systems, TAE Aerospace, Quickstep, AirSpeed, Rockwell Collins Australia, Ultra, and SentientVision. About GA-ASI General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), an affiliate of General Atomics, is the world's leading designer and manufacturer of proven, reliable Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), radars, and electro-optic and related mission systems, including the Predator®, Reaper® and Gray Eagle UAS programs of record and the Lynx® Multi-mode Radar. With more than five million flight hours, GA-ASI provides long-endurance, multi-mission capable aircraft with integrated sensor and data link systems required to deliver persistent flight, enabling situational awareness and rapid strike. The company also produces a variety of ground control stations and sensor control/image analysis software, offers pilot training and support services, and develops meta-material antennas. For more information, visit www.ga-asi.com. Predator, Reaper, and Lynx are registered trademarks of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181115006098/en/
18 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Number of Foreign Companies Within Defense Supply Chain Grew Over Past Decade, Report Says
Reliance on foreign suppliers in the defense industrial base rose—notably in packaged software and IT services—even as calls for reshoring increase, according to a new report. Reshoring the defense supply chain may reduce national security risks, but a new report detailing a heavy dependency on goods and services from foreign countries like China shows reshoring may be easier said than done. Researchers at Govini, a decision science company supporting the defense industry, analyzed data from over 1,000 Defense Department vendors across 100 industries to show how supply chain reliance on products from foreign countries has increased over the past decade. According to the survey, the number of Chinese suppliers in DOD's base increased by a total of 420% since 2010. For cyber and information technology, two statistics stick out. The share of companies based in foreign nations in the supply chain grew the most in the packaged software and IT services between 2010 and 2019. Companies based in foreign countries made up 3% of the packaged software supplier base in 2010. That number rose to 7% in 2019. The numbers are similar for IT services: Companies based in foreign countries made up 3% of the IT services supplier base in 2010 and 7% in 2019. Tara Murphy Dougherty, CEO of Govini, told Nextgov increasing adoption of IT infrastructure is critical for the Defense Department, particularly as COVID-19 forced the agency's workforce into mass telework. But that means it is imperative DOD addresses supply chain concerns for information and communications technology. Murphy Dougherty said these two investment areas are only going to continue to grow, which means the department needs to act to clearly define its stance on IT supply chain security. “What are you doing, other than responding to some of the legislation that we've seen come out of the Hill mandating investigation of this?” she said. “It would be great to see more options.” A key mandate from Congress related to supply chain was supposed to take effect on an interim basis Thursday. Section 889 (a)(1)(b) of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act bans agencies from contracting with companies that do business with five Chinese firms, including Huawei and ZTE. But according to a Defense News report, the Pentagon received a temporary waiver from the Director of National Intelligence pushing back the compliance date until September 30. Defense Undersecretary for Acquisitions and Sustainment Ellen Lord said at a Professional Services Council webinar Thursday she needs feedback from industry on what's working and what's not when it comes to implementing the rule. “I know we're all aligned in that we do not want adversaries in our supply chain. We don't want further theft of intellectual property. We don't want these nefarious actions going on,” Lord said. “But how do we get the language into the contracts, how do we practice the behaviors of ensuring we understand what we have in our supply chains for telecommunications equipment? What we need to do is continue to hear from you.” It's not yet clear how the brief deadline extension will affect the implementation process. Regardless, visibility down the supply chain remains a key concern. Murphy Dougherty said there needs to be more transparency in supply chains if the industry is going to address security risks. The Govini report focuses on firms in the mid-tier of the supply chain, with less visibility than a large company like Boeing. For companies further down the supply chain, U.S.-based companies make up less than half of the supplier base, according to the report. Chinese companies make up anywhere from 5% to 9% of the supplier base in the middle to lower ranges of the supply chain. Murphy Dougherty said it's going to take time to see changes in the data. How to address the industrial base at a structural level remains an unanswered question, she said, and collaboration between DOD and industry will be critical in coming up with a new system to ensure supply chain security. “It begs the question of do we have the right models in place today and the right framework for the department to get all of the goodness and partnership it possibly can out of the American commercial economy,” Murphy Dougherty said. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/08/number-foreign-companies-within-defense-supply-chain-grew-over-past-decade-report-says/167767/
3 novembre 2020 | International, Naval

BWXT CEO: Navy’s Next-Generation SSN(X) Attack Boat Will Build Off Columbia Class
By: Sam LaGrone November 2, 2020 6:52 PM The Navy's next attack submarine will feature technology in the Columbia-class program and be significantly larger than the current class of the Virginia-class attack submarines, the chief executive of BWX Technologies said on Monday as part of the company's third-quarter earnings call. The head of the company that builds the nuclear reactors for the Navy's aircraft carriers and submarines said the follow-on to the Virginia SSN would be significantly larger than the current crop of attack boats. “We do expect it will be a larger type of submarine, probably in the size class of the Columbia, but there's not much more to tell than that. But we're working with our Navy customer in what that would look like and how we could take that into production,” Rex Geveden said. “It has the moniker SSN(X) until it gets a class name, and there's some thought, discussion and analysis. It would be the follow-on to the Virginia fast-attack submarine, and it would feather in sometime in the late 2030s.” USNI News understands that Geveden was referring to the submarine's diameter rather than its underwater displacement. The Columbia class is planned to displace about 20,000 tons – about 2,000 more than the current Ohio ballistic missile submarines. The current Virginias displace about 8,000 tons. The Columbia-class hulls are about 42-feet in diameter, while the Virginias are 36-feet wide. A wider hull for submarines can improve characteristics like stealth, allowing ship designers to build in more sound-deadening technology and allow room to develop systems to increase a boat's speed, but it is more expansive to build. The comments are in line with remarks from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, who called for the development of a more aggressive attack submarine as a lynchpin of future fleet build-up. “The advantage we have in the undersea is an advantage that we need to not only maintain, but we need to expand. I want to own the undersea for forever because I know that I can be really lethal from the undersea,” he said last month. “When you think attack boat, you're thinking, that can move around the timing and tempo of an operational commander's need to deliver ordinance on target in a timely fashion. And so it's got to be a fast sub as well.” After the Cold War, the U.S. submarine fleet pivoted from the deep-diving, heavily armed Seawolf-class of attack submarines to the Virginia-class, which was optimized to perform signals intelligence and special operations missions in the littorals. “Specifically, the Navy indicates that the next-generation attack submarine should be faster, stealthier, and able to carry more torpedoes than the Virginia class—similar to the Seawolf-class submarine,” the CBO said in late 2018. The return to a more heavily armed, faster submarine is in line with the latest National Security Strategy that places Russia and China at the top of the threat list. Geveden was optimistic on BWXT's outlook for work to build reactors for the Navy's carriers and submarines well into the future. “The nuclear operations groups has really ramped up on the first Columbia, and we are having expectational performance on that program for the Navy customer, and we anticipate another order in the next multi-year pricing agreement,” he said. “We also had an exceptional year of performance on aircraft carriers benefitting from the acceleration of the Ford-class and believe this program will continue for decades as the U.S.'s main force projection asset.” While the company is bullish on the outlook for submarine work, it remains unclear at what rate the Navy will be buying them. Like General Dynamics Electric Boat, which briefed investors last week, BWXT has not received a clear signal from the Navy that it would need to build submarines at the rate of three a year, in line with a call from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper as part of his Battle Force 2045 plan. “In the previous shipbuilding plan, there were 48 fast attack submarines. In the current one, it went to 66. Esper said he was looking at something like 70 to 80 fast attack submarines in the fleet,” Geveden said. “When we last discussed any capital needs around that, what we said was if there was a single year of a third Virginia, we could probably accommodate that without any additional buildout. We haven't evaluated a permanent three-Virginia tempo, and we haven't discussed any capital needs around that, but we would have to invest in that case.” https://news.usni.org/2020/11/02/bwxt-ceo-navys-next-generation-ssnx-attack-boat-will-build-off-columbia-class

Toutes les nouvelles