30 juin 2024 | International, Sécurité
Kimsuky Using TRANSLATEXT Chrome Extension to Steal Sensitive Data
North Korean hackers deploy malicious Chrome extension TRANSLATEXT to steal data from South Korean academics studying North Korean affairs.
27 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre
Two Men & A Bot: Can AI Help Command A Tank?
Instead of a traditional three-man crew, Brig. Gen. Coffman told Breaking Defense, “you have two humans with a virtual crew member, [sharing] the functions of gunning, driving, and commanding.”
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 27, 2020 at 7:00 AM
WASHINGTON: Field tests and computer models have convinced the Army that future armored vehicles can fight with just two human crew, assisted by automation, instead of the traditional three or more, the service's armor modernization chief told me.
That confidence drove the Army, in its draft Request For Proposals released on the 17th, to require a two-soldier crew for its future Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. The OMFV is scheduled to enter service in 2028 to replace the Reagan-era M2 Bradley, which has the traditional trio of commander, gunner, and driver. (Both vehicles can also carry infantry as passengers, and the Army envisions the OMFV being operated by remote control in some situations).
The Army has already field-tested Bradleys modified to operate with a two-soldier crew instead of the usual three, said Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, the director of Army Futures Command's Cross Functional Team for Next Generation Combat Vehicles. “As we speak,” he told me in an interview last week, “we've got those Mission-Enabling Technology Demonstrators, or MET-D, actually maneuvering at Fort Carson, Colorado, as part of the Robotic Combat Vehicle test.”
With the benefit of modern automation, Coffman said, those two-soldier crews have proven able to maneuver around obstacles, look out for threats, and engage targets — without being overwhelmed by too many simultaneous demands. “They're doing that both in simulation and real world at Carson right now,” Coffman told me.
“You have two humans with a virtual crewmember that will remove cognitive load from the humans and allow the functions of gunning, and driving, and commanding the vehicle to be shared between humans and machines,” Coffman said. “We think that the technology has matured to the point where ...this third virtual crewmember will provide the situational awareness to allow our soldiers to fight effectively.”
The defense contractors who would have to build the vehicle – even if a government team designs it – aren't so sure. “A two-man crew will be overwhelmed with decision making, no matter how much AI is added,” one industry source told me.
A Persistent Dilemma
For at least eight decades, combat vehicle designers have faced a dilemma. A smaller crew allows a smaller vehicle, one that's cheaper, lighter, and harder to hit – and if it is hit, puts fewer lives at risk. But battlefield experience since 1940 has shown that smaller crews are easily overwhelmed by the chaos of combat. Historically, an effective fighting vehicle required a driver solely focused on the path ahead, a gunner solely focused on hitting the current target, and a commander looking in all directions for the next target to attack, threat to avoid, or path to take. (Many vehicles added a dedicated ammunition handler and/or radio operator as well).
A “virtual crewmember” could solve this dilemma — but will the technology truly be ready by the late 2020s?
The Army actually tackled this question just last year and came to the opposite conclusion. You see, the draft Request For Proposals released last week is the Army's second attempt to launch the OMFV program. In March 2019, the Army issued its original RFP for an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. In most respects, the 2019 RFP was much more demanding than last week's draft: It wanted the vehicle in service two years earlier, in 2026 instead of 2028, and it had such stringent requirements for weight and amor protection that no company managed to meet them, leading the Army to start over. But for all its ambition in other aspects, the 2019 RFP did not mandate a two-person crew; that's a new addition for the 2020 version.
It's worth noting that just one company managed to deliver a prototype by the Army's original deadline in 2019: General Dynamics. They built their vehicle to operate with a crew of three – but with the option to go down to two as automation improved.
At the same time, the Army started experimenting with Robotic Combat Vehicles that had no human crew aboard at all. The long-term goal is to have a single soldier oversee a whole wolfpack of RCVs, but the current proto-prototypes are operated by remote control, with a crew of two: a gunner/sensor operator and a driver. The Army has been impressed by how well these teleoperated RCVs have performed in field trials. If two soldiers can effectively operate a vehicle they're not even in, might two be enough to operate a manned vehicle as well?
The other piece of the experimental RCV unit is the mothership, an M2 Bradley with its passenger cabin converted to hold the teleoperators and their workstations. These modified M2s, called MET-Ds, also operate with just two crewmembers, a gunner and a driver – without a separate commander – and, says Coffman, they've done so successfully in combat scenarios.
The Army is not just adding automation to individual vehicles. It's seeking to create combined units of manned and unmanned war machines that share data on threats and targets over a battlefield network, allowing them to work together as a seamless tactical unit that's far more than the sum of its parts. “This [vehicle] will not fight alone, but as part of a platoon, a company, a battalion,” Coffman said. “The shared situational awareness across that formation will transform the way we fight.”<
What Has Changed?
These ongoing experiments are the latest in a long series. “As far back as 1991, the Army was looking at reducing the number of crew members,” Coffman told me. “Back then, when I was just coming in the Army, the tech had not matured to the point that it would allow a two-person crew.”
But that was then, Coffman said. Three decades later, with the rise of the iPhone, Google Maps, and a booming business in artificial intelligence, the times and the technology have changed.
“Since then, our 360-degree situational awareness has vastly improved,” Coffman said. Instead of peering through periscopes, gunsights, and slit-like bulletproof windows – or just sticking their head out the hatch and hoping there're no snipers around – crews can look at wide-screen displays fed by multiple cameras and other sensors mounted all around their vehicle. Automated target recognition systems can analyze the sensor feeds in real time, identify potential threats and targets, alert the crew to their presence, and even automatically bring the main gun to bear. (The Army still requires a human decision to fire). Waypoint navigation algorithms, obstacle sensors, and automated collision avoidance routines can ease the task of maneuvering 40-plus-tons of metal around the battlefield.
Could all this technology unburden the human crew, allowing just two soldiers to operate a combat vehicle, instead of needing one solely focused on driving, a second solely focused on shooting, and a third giving direction to the other two? The Army now thinks so.
That said, the newly released Request for Proposal is a draft, being circulated specifically to get feedback on what's feasible. If too many companies say the two-person crew won't work, the Army can still change that requirement before the final RFP comes out next April.
“I think they are learning, through their experimentation, that it's a high-risk requirement,” one industry source told me. “However, I think it's like anything else involving technology: Given time — and money — it's achievable.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/two-men-a-bot-can-ai-help-command-a-tank
Sur le même sujet
-
-
6 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial
GA-ASI and L3Harris Technologies Successfully Integrate WESCAM MX-20 onto MQ-9
San Diego – March 4, 2020 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) and L3Harris Technologies completed the successful integration of the WESCAM MX™-20 Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) system onto a GA-ASI MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) to provide an advanced targeting solution. A series of test flights began on February 18th to demonstrate the MX-20-equipped MQ-9's ability to locate and track targets at long stand-off ranges. “The GA-ASI and L3Harris teams have worked closely over the past year to ensure the successful integration of this sophisticated system,” said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI. “This is a significant milestone and we look forward to the enduring relationship and growing opportunities with L3Harris WESCAM.” When integrated onto the MQ-9 Predator® B series of RPAS, the WESCAM MX-20 EO/IR system will support Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) missions. Field-proven through multiple deployments, the WESCAM MX-20 is equipped with high-sensitivity multi-spectral sensors for day, low-light and nighttime missions. The WESCAM MX-20 operates with outstanding detection and recognition capabilities from ultra-high altitudes. “L3Harris is proud to partner with GA-ASI to deliver sophisticated technologies for persistent surveillance missions and evolving battlefields,” said Jacques Comtois, General Manager, WESCAM, L3Harris. “Being a Team SkyGuardian partner allows us to support our technology's modular growth path with unprecedented levels of innovation and business opportunities globally for leading unmanned aircraft system programs.” GA‑ASI is the world's leading designer and manufacturer of RPAS and mission related systems. Team SkyGuardian combines the best of industry with the world's most advanced Medium-altitude Long-endurance (MALE) RPAS, the MQ-9B SkyGuardian, being developed to fulfill the world's future RPAS requirements. About GA-ASI General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), an affiliate of General Atomics, is a leading designer and manufacturer of proven, reliable Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) systems, radars, and electro-optic and related mission systems, including the Predator® RPA series and the Lynx® Multi-mode Radar. With more than six million flight hours, GA-ASI provides long-endurance, mission-capable aircraft with integrated sensor and data link systems required to deliver persistent flight that enables 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 ga-asi.com. SkyGuardian, Predator and Lynx are registered trademarks of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. For more information contact: GA-ASI Media Relations General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. +1 (858) 524-8108 ASI-MediaRelations@ga-asi.com View source version on General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.: http://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-and-l3harris-technologies-successfully-integrate-wescam-mx-20-onto-mq-9
-
21 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Opinion: Defense Budget’s Resilience Rests On Shaky Foundation
Byron Callan Some of the main talking points on the fiscal 2021 defense budget request and the plan that accompanies it through 2025 are that it aligns resources with the National Defense Strategy and that this year's budget theme is about all-domain operations. The Pentagon called out priorities to sustain readiness and prepare for future challenges with investment in hypersonics, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. Given a flat top line, the Defense Department had to make tough choices by making program cuts that have been well-documented and are well-covered by this publication. The outlines of structural changes in how the Pentagon is preparing for the future are indeed visible in the budget request and plan, but it is unrealistic to expect this budget to have completely framed out all that will be done. Increases in research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) spending both in absolute terms and compared to last year's plan for 2021-24 underscore shifts that are underway. It may take at least 2-3 more years to see how some of these RDT&E efforts translate into new programs and will inform how the U.S. will fight in future conflicts. Much as defense contractor management, analysts and planners will focus on the details in the defense budget, it is important also to factor in some of the assumptions that underpin the budget—the foundation upon which it rests. Here there are questions worth considering. The first is the real GDP forecast for 2021-29. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecast depends on stable 3% annual real growth every year, which is well above consensus estimates. The U.S. is now in its longest economic expansion ever. Can this be extended into 2021 or beyond? Possibly. Has the U.S. somehow eliminated the risk of recession from a rapid increase in interest rates, another energy shock, a pandemic or a severe economic crisis in other parts of the world? Very likely not. Another questionable factor is the new budget and plan's interest-rate assumptions, as there was a big change from prior projections. The OMB and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) do not disclose how they expect the composition of federal debt by debt maturity to change over forecast periods. They usually provide projections only on three-month Treasury bill interest rates and on the 10-year Treasury note. The U.S. Treasury shows that as of Jan. 31, of the $17.2 trillion in federal debt held by the public, 14% was in Treasury bills with an average interest rate of 1.7%, and 58% was in notes with maturities of 2-10 years at an average rate of 2.1%. Net interest outlays are a mix of the interest the federal government pays to public holders of that debt and the interest it pays to itself on debt held in federal trust funds. One way to think about the debt burden and the interest expense associated with it is to take the net interest outlay projections and divide them by the total debt the OMB or CBO estimates. One of the changes the OMB made in its budget projections was to lower interest rate estimates. In recent years, these projections were too high compared to prevailing market levels, as the OMB and CBO both projected rates would return to “normal” levels. In the OMB's mid-session review from this past summer, the implied interest rate (net interest outlays divided by total debt) was 2.3% in 2019 and rose to 3.0% by 2022 and 3.3% by 2025. In the latest budget and plan, the implied rate is flat—at 2.1% in 2020, creeping up to 2.3% by 2025. This is another questionable factor that could weigh on the foundation of the defense spending plans. If rates do move to higher levels, then outlays will compete with other forms of federal spending. If rates fall further than projected, it may be due to a far weaker economy, which in turn weighs on federal deficits. A final questionable factor is the deficit projections themselves. The Trump administration again plans reductions in non-defense discretionary spending, which Congress has not supported in the last three budget requests. The share of non-defense discretionary outlays as a percent of total outlays drops to 12% in 2024 from 15% in 2019. For defense contractor management, planners, analysts and investors, foundations on which the budget plans are based imply that the structural and programmatic changes in the 2021 budget could be accelerated if deficits and interest rates are higher than the plan presumes. Like a high-rise building built to code in an earthquake zone, the Pentagon's structural and spending changes may make defense better able to withstand future macroeconomic tremors and shifts. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/opinion-defense-budgets-resilience-rests-shaky-foundation