7 novembre 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR

The chief of naval research on AI: ‘If we don’t all dogpile on this thing, were going to find ourselves behind’

By:

Most of us are comfortable with Suri, or Alexa, or “Hey, Google.” But many will tell you artificial intelligence and autonomy in the context of military operations is a whole a different animal.

That said, if you ask Rear Admiral David Hahn, one factor remains the same: the need for trust. Understand the algorithm and the consequences, he argues, but then relinquish (some) control.

He shared his vision of AI in the military in an interview following the Defense News Conference in September.

Much of the discussion around artificial intelligence and autonomy involves the proper role of machine versus human. Where do you stand?

We're at an inflection point for what technology will allow us to do. For artificial intelligence that could be brought to bear in the military context, there has been anexpectation that the human is always going to be in control. But as the sophistication of these algorithms and the sophistication of the application of the tools now out there mature, and are brought into the operational space, we need to get at a place of trust. [We need trust] between the algorithm, what's behind that curtain, and our ability as the humans to agree that the decision or the space that it's going to operate in – the context in which its making that decision – is understood by us. And that more and more is going to have to happen at machine speed, because when machines are interacting with machines, we're going to have to comfortably move from a human in the loop to a human on the loop. That doesn't mean it's an unsupervised act; it means we understand it well enough to trust it.

So, there is relinquishing of control?

There is, but there are clearly pieces of our system today where we do that. That happens when you let your car park itself – you relinquish that control and trust that the machine is not going to run into the grocery cart behind you or the car next to you. That's already part of the conversation. And as we get more used to machines performing, and performing accurately over and over and over, our ability to trust these machines [increases], if we understand the algorithm and the consequence. It's not ‘I just ran into a shopping cart' if the consequence we're talking about is the release of weapons, or something along those lines; but we've gotten to the point where we're comfortable [because of our understanding of the technology].

We had similar conversations in recent years on cybersecurity, in terms of confidence in the technology, whether we could be sure networks are properly protected, and accepting a degree of risk. Has progress there helped with progress in AI?

I think it's helping and it will continue to drive us toward this human-machine teaming environment that we all see coming. There are clearly pieces of our system that make us uncomfortable. But we see more and more, that if we don't take the action to allow it to occur, we might as well have not even created the tool.

It's a shift in culture, beyond policy. Is that happening yet? Or is it too soon to expect that?

I don't think we're too early, and I think it's happening. And it's going to be one of those things where we didn't know it was happening, then we find ourselves there. Ten years ago, the App Store opened. Can you imagine a world without the App Store and what that's enabled you to do in your daily life with your smartphone? The young people today are almost at a point where there was never a world without a smartphone, there was never a world without an App Store. If you start at that point, this is not a big leap. It's happening around us, and we just need to find a way to keep up.

Looking ahead, 5 or 10 years, how do you see AI being used in an operational capacity?

The limiting factor is not going to be the tools. To borrow a phrase, the ‘democratization' of the tools that are associated with developing AI capabilities will allow anybody to work on the data. Our challenge will be whether we have harnessed our own data and done it in a way where we can make the connections between relevant data sets to optimize the mission effect we could get by applying those tools available to everybody. That's our challenge. And it's a challenge we'll need to figure out within each service, amongst the services in the joint environment, from that joint environment into the same space with partners and allies, from the DoD or military into the industrial base, all while moving seamlessly across academia, and [keeping in mind how] the commercial industry plays.

If we don't all dogpile on this thing, were going to find ourselves behind in this great power competition in a very important space.

So, establish a playbook so to speak?

And recognize that as soon as we've established that playbook, it will change.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2018/11/06/the-chief-of-naval-research-on-ai-if-we-dont-all-dogpile-on-this-thing-were-going-to-find-ourselves-behind

Sur le même sujet

  • No Shipbuilding Plan, But Navy Works On New Ships To Counter China

    19 mai 2020 | International, Naval

    No Shipbuilding Plan, But Navy Works On New Ships To Counter China

    The Navy and Marine Corps' vision of a future surface fleet is starting to come together, even if they're still waiting for the Defense Secretary and Congress to give their blessings. By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: The Navy might not yet have an overarching plan to design and build its fleet of the future, but it is taking small steps that provide clues as to where service leadership wants to go. Over the past week, the Navy announced two industry days to meet with prospective shipbuilders for a new class of logistics ship that can operate under fire, and an unmanned anti-mine vessel, both new programs that would allow the Navy and Marine Corps to push deeper into contested territory in the Pacific, and keep troops and sailors resupplied once they get there. The Next Generation Medium Logistics Ship is the bigger effort, representing an entirely new class of manned ship designed to operate in a crowded environment while supplying ships at sea and a new, lighter, Marine force on the ground that is currently being designed by Commandant Gen. David Berger. A May 15 post on a government contracting website asked the defense industry for their ideas, explaining that the Navy is looking for ships that are “smaller than existing ships in the Combat Logistics Force, and will operate near contested environments, sustaining afloat (Surface Action Group) and ashore (Expeditionary Advanced Base) requirements.” The expeditionary advanced base idea is part of a wide-ranging overhaul of the Marine Corps to get lighter, faster, and more deadly by employing precision weapons the Corps hopes to integrate into its formations in the coming years. Berger is working to stand up several Marine Littoral Regiments, with the first based in Hawaii and falling under the Japan-based III Marine Expeditionary Force. The first three regiments, designed to move fast and have anti-air and possibly anti-ship weapons, will be based in the Pacific region, pointing to where Berger and the Marines see the pacing threat coming from in the future. Relying on smaller units armed with precision weapons that can operate inside the weapons range of an enemy, moving in tight waterways and using small islands to provide cover for naval air air forces is key to the emerging Marine Corps vision, which has its eye cast squarely on the South China Sea. More broadly, Berger plans to lop off a significant portion of the Corps' traditional strength — artillery, armor, and rotary wing lift — in favor of a leaner, more precise and much faster force. The Navy, conversely, while pledging to move forward with some unmanned ship plans, generally wants to retain its huge nuclear aircraft carriers, dozens of big deck amphibs, and an aging destroyer fleet while introducing a new frigate to the mix. Not all those ships would be able to move as far afield as the new Marine regiments, making support and resupply an issue, though a new class of frigates, which the Navy selected earlier this month, could possibly fit the bill. The small, multi-mission ships will be more maneuverable than Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and will come with the Aegis combat system, 32 vertical launch cells, the new SPY-6 radar system, and more power generation capabilities that will make it capable of sustaining new directed-energy weapons as they become available. “I see it doing multiple things, this is going to be a real workhorse supporting distributed maritime operations in the future,” Vice Adm. James Kilby, deputy chief for warfighting requirements and capabilities, recently said. To supply those Marines ashore, the Navy believes there are several types of commercial vessels which may be able to perform these missions, but is also considering” conversion of existing vessels, new construction, or a combination of conversions and new construction in order to acquire the required number of Next Generation Logistics Ships,” the solicitation said. On May 13, the Navy also announced a virtual industry day for the Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface Vehicle program, one of several unmanned efforts the service is planning to bolster the larger, manned fleet. “The purpose of this industry day is to improve industry's understanding of how the MCM USV program fits into the Navy's plans to expand the use of unmanned vehicles,” according to the notice, which adds the MCM “will be a ship-launched or shore-launched, open architecture (OA), surface vehicle capable of autonomous safe navigation and mission execution.” The plans for both programs — and the frigate, as well — depend on what a study being helmed by Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist finds in his look at the Navy's Integrated Navy Force Structure Assessment, which the Pentagon blocked the Navy from releasing in February, as planned. After being briefed on the plan for building a 355-ship fleet over the next decade, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told the Navy he was taking over the project, and putting Norquist in the lead of relooking the plan. It's not clear what issues Esper had with the plan, but some officials and experts have speculated that the Navy isn't moving fast enough to divest of older, larger ships in favor of smaller, faster and unmanned vessels. Esper has said he expects the study to be complete by July. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/no-shipbuilding-plan-but-navy-works-on-new-ships-to-counter-china/

  • US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    11 mars 2020 | International, Terrestre

    US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to conduct a shoot-off to evaluate the best options for a future indirect fires protection capability to defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missile and drones, according to a report sent to Congress and obtained by Defense News. The shoot-off that will take place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, is fashioned much in the same way the Army recently conducted its “sense-off” to choose a new air and missile defense radar that will replace the sensor in the Army's current Patriot system, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air and missile defense modernization effort, told Defense News in a March 9 interview. The Army has been trying to formulate its enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) system for several years. It purchased two Iron Dome batteries, produced through a partnership between Rafael and Raytheon, to serve as an interim solution for cruise missile defense. The acquisition was congressionally mandated. Those batteries will be delivered by the end of the year, Gibson said. The enduring system will defeat subsonic cruise missiles with an objective requirement to defeat supersonic variants as well as group two and three UAS and RAM threats, according to the report. The Army's Sentinel A3 and future A4 version will serve as the radar for IFPC, and its command-and-control system will be the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, which is also the brains for the Army's future Integrated Air and Missile Defense system that will replace Patriot. The intention for IFPC is to protect critical fixed or semi-fixed assets and is intended to be a more mobile solution than one that would suffice at a forward operating base, Gibson described, and it will fill in gaps between tactical short-range air defense and strategic air and missile defense such as the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System. The Army's analysis, according to the report, included looking at solutions both from the Israel Missile Defense Organization and from U.S. industry. It determined, when considering integration with IBCS and Sentinel as well as the possible schedule, that risks exist for both the U.S. and Israeli solutions. “Given the assessed risks with the potential enduring IFCP Inc 2 solutions, the Army requires additional performance data against IFPC Inc 2 threats,” the report stated. “The Army will use a competitive process consisting of two phases to reduce program risk, while considering cost and schedule parameters.” In the first phase, industry will participate in a shoot-off demonstration using proposed launcher and interceptor solutions integrated into IBCS and Sentinel. IBCS is entering a limited-user test in May after struggling through a previous limited-user test several years ago. The system has been delayed for various reasons and likely won't reach initial operational capability until the third quarter of fiscal 2022. Sentinel A4 is also not operational, so the shoot-off will use the less capable A3 variant. Following the shoot-off, the Army will evaluate proposals and data from the event, analyzing digital simulation data to make a “Best Value determination” to pick one vendor to move forward, according to the report. The shoot-off is planned for the third quarter of FY21. The Army aims to deliver initial capabilities by FY23. To make a determination on the way forward, the Army conducted analysis for an enduring IFPC solution in FY19 to include taking technical data from its Expanded Mission Area Missile program of candidate interceptors. The verification phase evaluated Raytheon's Low-Cost Active Seeker as well as its SkyHunter interceptor (the U.S. variant of Rafael's Tamir missile used in Iron Dome) and Lockheed Martin's Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. All three of the interceptors were characterized as possible candidates for an IFPC interceptor. The Army originally planned to develop and field its own multimission launcher as part of the enduring IFPC solution but canceled that program in favor of finding a more technologically mature launcher. The service evaluated whitepapers for IFPC launchers and determined that those proposed required further development, prototyping and integration work to be used as a dedicated IFPC component, according to the report. The analysis also found the Iron Dome launcher and Tamir interceptor's performance “is highly reliant” on its own battle management system and multimission radar, and the report determined that “for Iron Dome's launcher and Tamir interceptors to be a viable option for Enduring IFPC Inc 2, the [battle management and weapons control] and [multimission radar] functions require transferring into the Army's IBCS.” And current data provided from the Israeli organization has not included component-level models such as the missile seeker, missile guidance and control, and missile fusing needed to verify that the launcher and missile would work with IBCS, the report stated. “The tightly coupled nature of Iron Dome components within the Iron Dome architecture and a lack of sufficient technical data requires further development, prototyping and integration in order to provide a potential Enduring IFPC Inc 2 capability,” the report noted. Through analysis, the service determined that the U.S.-based Expanded Mission Area Missile candidates met range and maneuverability requirements and would be able to tie into Sentinel A3 by FY23 and A4 by FY25. The Tamir interceptor's performance data proves its effectiveness when used within the Iron Dome system, but since data is lacking, it's uncertain how well it might perform when linked through IBCS to the Sentinel radar. Tamir, however, is likely to perform similarly to the LCAS missile, according to the report. While analysis shows that the interceptors are “likely” to meet enduring requirements, the shoot-off demonstration will “increase the Army's confidence in interceptor performance within the AIAMD architecture,” the report states. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/09/army-to-conduct-shoot-off-for-future-indirect-fires-protection-capability/

  • Here are the three companies selected to design hypersonic missile interceptors for MDA

    22 novembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Here are the three companies selected to design hypersonic missile interceptors for MDA

    The Missile Defense Agency has chosen three teams to design a Glide Phase Interceptor to defend against hypersonic threats.

Toutes les nouvelles