18 novembre 2019 | International, C4ISR
By: Mark Pomerleau
Department of Defense officials routinely talk about the need to more fully embrace machine learning and artificial intelligence, but one leader in the Marine Corps said those efforts are falling short.
“We're not serious about AI. If we were serious about AI we would put all of our stuff into one location,” Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, commander of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, said at an AFCEA Northern Virginia chapter lunch Nov. 15.
Smith was broadly discussing the ability to provide technologies and data that's collected in large quantities and pushed to the battlefield and tactical edge. Smith said leaders want the ability to send data to a 50-60 Marine cell in the Philippines that might be surrounded by the Chinese. That means being able to manage the bandwidth and signature so that those forces aren't digitally targeted. That ability doesn't currently doesn't exist, he said.
He pointed to IBM's Watson computer, noting that the system is able to conduct machine learning and artificial intelligence because it connects to the internet, which allows it to draw from a much wider data pool to learn from. Military systems aren't traditionally connected to the broader commercial internet, and thus are limited from a machine learning sense.
“We have stovepipes of excellence everywhere from interagency, CIA, NSA. The Navy's got theirs, Marine Corps' got theirs, everybody's got theirs. You can't do AI when the machine can't learn from one pool of data,” he said.
Brown noted that he was not speaking on behalf of the entire department.
Pentagon leadership has come to similar conclusions. Top officials have noted that one of the critical roles the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud program will do is provide a central location for data.
“The warfighter needed enterprise cloud yesterday. Dominance in A.I. is not a question of software engineering. But instead, it's the result of combining capabilities at multiple levels: code, data, compute and continuous integration and continuous delivery. All of these require the provisioning of hyper-scale commercial cloud,” Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, director of the Joint AI Center, said in August. “For A.I. across DOD, enterprise cloud is existential. Without enterprise cloud, there is no A.I. at scale. A.I. will remain a series of small-scale stovepipe projects with little to no means to make A.I. available or useful to warfighters. That is, it will be too hard to develop, secure, update and use in the field. JEDI will provide on-demand, elastic compute at scale, data at scale, substantial network and transport advantages, DevOps and a secure operating environment at all classification levels.”
Overall, Smith said that industry should start calling out DoD when policies or technical requirements hinder what it can offer.
“If we're asking for something that is unobtanium or if our policies are keeping you from producing something we can buy, you've got to tell us,” he said
13 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
A group of panelists discusses what the rest of 2021 is looking like for the Department of Defense and future decisions the organization will need to make. Among the topics discussed: the United States' presence in Afghanistan, the defense budget and the winner of this year's Army/Navy college football game.
5 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Without top-line growth in the U.S. Army's future budgets, the service is headed toward a “collision course,” Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said March 4 at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference. The Army has already gone through two-and-a-half years of deep budget scrubs through its “night court” process, which seeks to find funding areas in the budget that don't align with the National Defense Strategy and the service's modernization efforts, and moves those dollars into accounts that meet its priorities. In the Army's first night court, the chief, secretary, vice chief and undersecretary presided over decisions — big and small, easy and tough — for roughly 600 programs, shifting $33 billion from programs across the fiscal 2020 through FY24 five-year plan. In FY20, the Army is investing $8.6 billion in modernization efforts and, across the next five years, investing a total of $57 billion, a 137 percent increase from the previous year's five-year plan. The Army found another roughly 80 programs to scale back or cancel in order to free up funding in FY21, but Army leadership has admitted it's getting harder and harder to find low-hanging fruit in the process. The Army is now in the process of conducting its night court for FY22 in order to try to find more money to align with its modernization goals. Officials will have to start making choices in terms of restructuring procurement accounts to begin the divestiture of current capabilities in the force to make room for future programs that will enter Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) in the comings years. But that may not be enough if the Army doesn't get an increased top line of 3 to 5 percent in future budget years, McCarthy said. “What is going to be a challenge for us in ‘22 and ‘23 when [modernization programs] start to mature, we have to make choices in this milestone process, you start buying LRIP tranches,” he said. At the same time the Army has to grow the force because its current ratio of dwell time to deployment time is 1:1 worldwide, McCarthy said. “If we don't get 3 to 5 percent growth in the out-years, there is a collision course if you keep growing the force and starting bringing in all these capabilities,” he said. “Choices will have to be made if we can't increase the top line in ‘22 and ‘23, so will that mean will we have to flatten end-strength? Do we tier the weapon systems that we bring into the formations,” McCarthy asked. “These are the choices that we are talking about, we are looking at and we are going to be prepared to make.” McCarthy referenced recent comments from Defense Secretary Mark Esper regarding the need to review combatant command demands and asked, “Can we reduce demand worldwide? ... Are we being efficient with every soldier, sailor, airman and marine that we send forward? Can the allies do better? Can we increase their capabilities that do more of the burden that is everything from investing as well as putting more boots forward in the form of deterrence?” McCarthy told reporters following his speech that if the demand doesn't come down there, "there is no trade space left even if you are going to kill weapon systems that we've had for 40 to 50 years and if you are successful with Congress in getting that done.” The Army is discussing the numbers it needs with the White House, McCarthy added, but noted that “this is an election year. This is tough. This is going to be a march for the next couple of months.” But McCarthy stressed, the Army will “continue to grow until we are forced with a really difficult, really another inflection point, if you will, downstream.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/04/mccarthy-without-budget-growth-army-heads-toward-collision-course/
7 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By: Nathan Strout Military leaders are reluctant to treat the electromagnetic spectrum as a separate domain of warfare as they do with air, land, sea, space and cyber, even as the service increasingly recognize the importance of superiority in this area. At the Association of Old Crows conference Oct. 30, representatives from the Army, Navy and Air Force weighed in on a lingering debate: whether the electromagnetic spectrum should be considered its own domain. In short, while the spectrum can legitimately be described as a physically distinct domain, it does not make sense logistically for the Department of Defense to declare it a separate domain of warfare, they said. “It's something that we've had a lot of discussion about ... In one way, you can argue that the physical nature of the electromagnetic spectrum, the physical nature of it being a domain. However, I understand the implications and those are different challenges for a large organization like the Department of Defense. So I think that there's a little bit of a different discussion when you talk about domain and what that implies for the Department of Defense and each of the departments in a different way,” said Brig. Gen. David Gaedecke, director of electromagnetic spectrum superiority for the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements. Regardless of whether it's an independent domain, military leaders made clear that leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is a priority for every department and every platform. “We're going to operate from strategic down to tactical, and EMS ... is going to enable all of our forces to communicate and maneuver effectively, so we'll have a layered approach across all the domains that we operate in,” said Laurence Mixon from the Army's Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. “EMS is definitely an aspect of the operational environment that every tactician has to be aware of, understand and leverage. And on the acquisition side we have to consider EMS when we are developing every one of our systems. I think since EMS crosses all of the domains that we currently have today that we identify and use in the joint parlance--I don't think the Army is ready to call it a domain." Similarly, while the Navy is working to understand how EMS works best within the maritime domain, Rear Adm. Steve Parode, director of the Navy's Warfare Integration Directorate, N2/N6F, indicated that there was no rush to declare EMS a separate domain. “For the Navy, we're pretty comfortable with the way we are into the maritime domain as our principal operational sphere. We are working through understanding the EMS and the way it relates to physical properties in that domain. We know where we're strong and we know where we're weak. And we understand principally why we're weak. We're making decisions about how to get better,” said Parode. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2019/11/06/should-the-military-treat-the-electromagnetic-spectrum-as-its-own-domain/