Unmanned Systems

DARPA demos sense-and-avoid system

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 11, 2016

One of the keys for unmanned aircraft operation – especially within the context of greater integration in U.S. national airspace – is reliable sense-and-avoid technology, but manned aircraft also could use a collision avoidance system that helps spot and evade oncoming traffic. 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently successfully tested a system that can work for both — a shoebox-sized, drop-in system for automatically detecting and avoiding mid-air collisions. The Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System, or ALIAS, was demonstrated in a UAS, which detected and tracked in real time a Cessna 172G aircraft that approached from several angles.

DARPA’s idea behind the ALIAS program was to overcome challenges associated with complicated interfaces and preparedness during unexpected mid-air emergencies. 

The sense-and avoid, or SAA, package includes an optical camera to provide imagery for detection and tracking, and incorporates passive ranging features for assessing incoming aircraft flight paths to successfully interdict and steer clear of. 

“This successful flight test is a step toward adding external perception to ALIAS’ toolkit for advancing in-flight automation,” said Dr. Daniel Patt, a Program Manager in the Tactical Technology Office. “What pilot wouldn’t want to set a box on their dashboard that would provide an additional pair of eyes to alert of potential collisions? This SAA system has the potential to enable a wide range of manned and unmanned systems to safely integrate into an increasingly populated and complex airspace.”

Contracts for the first phase of the ALIAS program was awarded last year focusing on three technology areas: 1) development of minimally invasive interfaces between new automation systems and existing aircraft; 2) knowledge acquisition on aircraft operations, to support rapid adaptation of the ALIAS toolkit across different aircraft; and 3) human-machine interfaces that would enable high-level human supervision instead of requiring pilots’ constant vigilance over lower-level flight maintenance tasks.

Additional focus areas included conducting system architecture analyses, system requirements development, trade studies and operational capability definition for an optimized vision. 

Future contacts for Phases II and III will be limited to those in prior phases and must meet the standards outlined in a broad agency announcement from DARPA, which expects the entire program to run for 43 months. 

Eventually ALIAS envisions a tailorable, drop-in, removable kit to enable high levels of automation in existing aircraft, reducing the need for crews onboard. 

The next steps involve another phase of testing to build upon the two-plus years of ALIAS research (as well as 50 years of aircraft automation, DARPA notes), which will include joint funding from the Air Force Research Laboratory. Follow-on research will shrink the size of the system, mature capabilities such as detecting aircraft below the horizon and in poor light, and improve calculations for optimal aircraft trajectories to avert collisions. 

In a move that has been floated by many in the UAS world as a potential mandate for all UAS flying in the national airspace, ALIAS research could serve as a line of defense in future layered air traffic management systems with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast transponders in line with the FAA’s NextGen effort, DARPA said. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmanned Systems

Milley: Robots won’t take over the future battlefield soon

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 08, 2016

Robots and other unmanned systems are undoubtedly part of the military’s future plans, but despite science fiction-esque notions of the power of machines, they won’t be taking over the battlefield in the near future, the Army’s top officer said this week. 

“I think revolution might be too strong a word,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said when asked if there will be a revolution of unmanned systems on the battlefield in the next 10 years. But that’s not to say that robotics, automation and unmanned systems won’t play an important role going forward.

“I do see a very, very significant increased use of robotic – both manually controlled and autonomous – in ground warfare over the coming years. Specifically, I don’t see some sort of revolution like we’re going to go from the horse to the tank or the musket to the rifle, but I do see the introduction at about the 10-year mark or so, really widespread use of robotics in ground warfare,” Milley said in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee April 7. “We’re already seeing it in air platforms and we’re seeing it in naval platforms. The ground warfare is a much more complex environment, dirty environment, but I do anticipate that we’re going to refine the use of robots significantly and there’ll be a large use of them in ground combat by, call it 2030.”

Milley added that the next decade or so will bring significant changes in the character of ground war, though not the nature of it, to include commercial solutions such as robotics, cyber capabilities, lasers, railguns, advanced information technology, miniaturization and 3D printing. 

Many of these initiatives are associated with the Third Offset Strategy, which takes aim harnessing technological advances in machine learning and man-machine teaming, to name a couple of them, as a means of offsetting adversarial advancements in by the likes of Russia and China.

Milley spoke about the capability gaps peer competitors have begun to close on the battlefield, asserting that the Army is at “high military risk” and is outranged and outgunned by Russia in terms of some of these new technologies.

“My high military risk refers specifically to what I see as emerging threats and potential for great power conflict and I’m specifically talking about the time it takes to execute the tasks – the high risk would say we would not be able to accomplish all the tasks in the time necessary – and the cost in terms of casualties,” he said.

“When you talk about the leap-ahead technology of the third offset, I do think it’s robotics…cyber, electronic warfare – the gains that we need to make there are because…our peer competitors are investing in those things too,” acting Army Secretary Patrick Murphy told the congressional committee. “And we can’t be outmanned and outgunned. We need to make sure that we have the technical and tactical advantage.”  

Continued investment in research and development as well as modernization efforts are seen as areas that need to be addressed immediately to help maintain technological superiority. “I think we the Army, going back to risking the future, need to invest in the R&D and the modernization of that or we’re going to find the qualitative overmatch gap between the United States and adversaries closed. And we’re already seeing that gap closing today,” Milley said.

The Army recently released a forward-looking strategy for network modernization from 2025-2040 to serve “as a guiding document to provoke thought and a means to inform and shape research, development and experimentation by both government and industry entities to ensure that the Army maintains a technology edge in future conflict,” it said. 

A report published by a workshop sponsored by the Army Research Lab last year tried to predict what the future battlefield might look like in 2050. It posited new capabilities in robot-human interaction, machine-to-machine communication, and lasers and force fields, among others.

The Army has looked at equipping soldiers with micro-tactical drones, though given the complexity of ground operations, this concept could be a still be a ways from full integration.

The Army, as well as the other services, has also sought to make greater use of 3D printing, or additive manufacturing. “We can use AM now in the short term,” Scot Seitz of the Army Logistics Innovation Agency said at an event Feb. 29 hosted by Deloitte. “I don’t need any metals production capability…I can produce using plastics and I can impact the operational maneuver space by swarming technologies…so that’s a simple example for near-term operational impact,” he said, noting the Army Research Lab’s work in 3D printing small drones for forward deployed soldiers.  

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Battlefield Tech

Army's latest challenge: cyber awareness on the battlefield

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 08, 2016

In the latest of its Cyber Innovation Challenges, the Army is focusing on industry solutions for a software-based prototype model that can deliver a complete cyber situational awareness picture on the battlefield.    

According to a notice issued this week, the challenge intends to “evaluate the technical feasibility of a risk-based Cyber Situational Awareness (SA) capability tool at echelon.” The goal is a software-based cyber SA prototype that provides commanders at the brigade level with “tailorable and time-relevant SA data, which facilitate risk-based decision-making.”

As such, the solution would have to give commanders an understanding of cyber elements with an area of responsibility—friendly and unfriendly—while also supporting Defense Department Information Network offensive and defensive operations.

“This Cyber Innovation Challenge effort is focused specifically on the commander's ability to visualize the cyber risk posture associated with the networks and assets supporting the mission space,” the notice states. “The visualization capability includes, but is not limited to, various types of data sources such as network topology, friendly asset and open-source information, key-user and threat activity information, and overlays of cyber assets on terrain, while supporting interoperability with external mission-command systems.”

Army cyber officials discussed what the force is looking for in terms of cyber situational awareness during a recent industry event. “There are two discrete components that this [program executive office] is specifically engaged in; one is a situation understanding of our spectrum,” Mark Kitz, acting director of System of Systems Engineering, PEO for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, said at an AFCEA NOVA event in April. “Where are we communicating, when are we jamming, when are we operating in spectrum so that we can operate effectively, how do we coordinate those operations so that whatever effect we’re trying to deliver has a higher probability of success?” 

Kitz also discussed the need for data and information. “Support to the commander is dependent upon data and information. And you could imagine it’s relatively common sense that cyber is another source of information for our intelligence professionals to provide a better picture of the situation of the environment that we’re faced with…So those two aspects of cyber situation understanding/situation awareness are really where we’re focusing our efforts on,” he added.

The Army is pushing forward with a this new concept of cyber situational understanding, “a shift away from cyber situational awareness, which puts more emphasis on applying analysis and judgement on operational and mission variables to facilitate decision making,” Portia Crowe, director of Cyber ops/CIO for PEO Command Control Communications Tactical, said at the same event. 

Last week, the Army hosted an industry day as part of another innovation challenge at the newly established DOD Silicon Valley hub – Defense Innovation Unit Experimental – for managing micro cloud solutions. Previous challenges have sought to close cyber awareness gaps, and awarded contracts for next-generation prototypes to inform specifications prior to fielding decisions. 

An industry day is planned for mid-November for the cyber situational awareness challenge, with additional details forthcoming. 

Responses for the notice issued this week are due April 16.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmannned Systems

Army wants drones to act as scouts for ground vehicles

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 08, 2016

The Army is looking to develop an autonomous unmanned aerial system that can act as a kind of scout for ground vehicles, following the road in front of the vehicle at a fairly low altitude while matching the vehicle’s speed, with the ability for ground crew to manually override the UAS controls when necessary.

It’s still in the early stages, but in a sources sought notice issued this month, the Army said it is seeking white papers as well as capability demonstrations for an autonomous UAS navigation requirement. Such a system should be capable of demonstrating some or all six capabilities listed in the notice:   

• Fly a UAS ranging from stationary up to a ground speed of 7 miles per hour in advance of vehicle.
• Fly at an altitude of nine to 98 feet and maintain a variable distance of zero to 196 feet in advance of a supporting ground vehicle. 
• Match the speed of a ground vehicle once positioned in advance of it. 
• Allow for manual override for investigating targets of interest whether the ground vehicles if moving or stationary. 
• Enable adjustments in speed, altitude and distance of the UAS in advance of a moving or stationary vehicle. 
• Be capable of following a road in advance of a vehicle moving over complex routes. 

Interested responders must be prepared to demonstrate aforementioned capabilities and issue a final report describing technical approaches used during demonstration. The demonstration will either take place at a vendor’s location or Quantico Marine Base between May 2016 and through September 2016. 

The Army has invested significantly in UAS technologies in the past few years. A report issued by Govini recently discovered the Army, at its peak in 2012, represented 42 percent of the market procurement, with 200 RQ-7 Shadow purchases. Additionally, Army UAS contracts were the most lucrative among the service branches, with $2.1 million being the average deal size. 

The Army has also examined UAS operation in so-called GPS-degraded environments. “As GPS degraded environments become realized, the Gemini lab is on the forefront of understanding these threats and developing strategies to mitigate them,” Virginia Overstreet, Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Navigation Technology Function chief, said, referring to a laboratory established to “test, evaluate and overcome vulnerabilities of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle system.” In addition to the internal research being done, the Army in October of 2015 issued a sources sought notice seeking the insight of industry to address this very issue. Ultimately, the program wants to expand the capabilities of GPS sensing and collaborating architectures in degraded environments. The service, however, has declined to offer additional details regarding this effort when prodded given the sensitive nature of the material. 

Responses for the autonomous UAS navigation requirement notice is due May 19, 2016.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defense IT

DOD, Silicon Valley team up on 'lean startup' approach

• By George Leopold
• Apr 07, 2016

A Defense Department-sponsored lean startup initiative is examining new ways of developing technologies and deploying them faster in response to realities of asymmetrical warfare, in which agile terror groups can mount quick-strike attacks against superior but hidebound forces.

Organizers said the "Hacking 4 Defense" effort being run out of Stanford University's School of Engineering kicked off this week with eight teams. In the mold of lean startups, the teams were required to talk to 86 military and intelligence agency stakeholders before the class began. The idea was to ensure that team members gleaned insights about service technical requirements at the outset.

While similar DOD efforts involving Silicon Valley companies focus solely on technology development, organizers stressed the parallel requirement for streamlining acquisition and technology deployment as terrorist groups become more sophisticated. A goal is integrating lean startup practices into the current cumbersome national security procurement process.

"Terrorists today live on the net and they are all early adopters," stressed course founder and lean startup guru Steve Blank. "They are experts in leveraging Web 2.0 and 3.0," he said. "They can crowd-source designs, find components through eBay, fund through PayPal, train using virtual worlds and refine tactics, techniques and procedures using massive online gaming."

All this can be done "while we’re still writing a request for a proposal from within the U.S. government procurement and acquisition channels," Blank asserted.

Large Silicon Valley companies like Facebook, Google and data analysis software specialist Palantir Technologies are providing mentors for eight Hacking 4 Defense teams. More than 70 students applied for the course; 32 were selected.

Blank's approach emphasizes the need for entrepreneurs to get out of the conference room and interact directly with potential customers. In the case of Hacking 4 Defense, those "customers" include the military services and U.S. intelligence agencies.

In a blog post, Blank said course instructors worked with DOD and intelligence experts to come up with 20 problems the class could tackle. Among them is an exercise sponsored by the National Security Agency called "detecting catfishing." Catfishing involves assuming an online persona that conceals a person's true identity. The challenge for the Hacking 4 Defense teams is developing "a technique to score how likely it is that a given online persona is who they claim to be, and how that conclusion was reached."

Other technical challenges include developing techniques for gaining situational awareness inside a natural or manmade enemy sanctuary. The Army's 75^th Ranger Regiment, the service's special operations branch, is sponsoring that effort.

Another challenge hewing closely to the lean startup model seeks to develop acquisition strategies for buying and deploying cheap, disposable and secure sensors for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. The effort is sponsored by the Navy's Seventh Fleet, which includes up to 70 ships and 140 aircraft responsible for patrolling 48 million square miles of the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Several retired military officers are helping Blank and Tom Byers, a Stanford engineering professor, teach the course. Former Defense Secretary William Perry is serving as an advisor.

Other sponsors include the National Defense University's Center for Technology and National Security Policy and the Energy Department's Office of Advanced Manufacturing.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Cyber Defense

Rogers’ nightmare: weaponization of cyber by terrorists

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 07, 2016

While non-state actors today are not on par with nation states as far as cyber capabilities are concerned, terrorist groups, criminals, hackers and the like could possess destructive capabilities enjoyed by a small circle of nations in the not-so-distant future.

According to Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, non-state groups using cyber as a weapon system to inflict harm is one of the things that keeps him up at night. “The challenge I look for or that concerns me when I look at the future is what happens if the non-state actor – [ISIS] being one example – starts to view cyber as a weapon system? That would really be a troubling development,” he told lawmakers April 5.    

Rogers said ISIS, which one of, if not the most adept, non-state terrorist organizations online, uses the Internet to expose its ideology, recruit on a global scale, generate revenue and coordinate activity. However, despite the minimal threat posed by non-state actors in cyberspace compared with formidable nations like Russia or China, Rogers called cyber “the great equalizer.”

“Today what I would tell you is I have not seen groups yet make huge investments in [weaponizing cyber], but I worry that it’s a matter of time because it wouldn’t take long,” he said. “One of the challenges of cyber—and in addition we previously talked today about how it doesn’t recognize boundaries—it doesn’t take billions of dollars of investment, it doesn’t take decades of time, and it doesn’t take a dedicated workforce of tens of thousands of people like you see most nation states deal with.”

Rogers added that destructive cyber capabilities are not beyond the ability of groups such as ISIS or al-Qaeda if they made that decision. 

DOD CIO Terry Halvorsen has also hit on the disparity cyberspace affords to non-state actors.  “From a standpoint of cybersecurity, right now we’re on the wrong side of the financial spectrum here. We’re losing,” he said at a conference. “The truth is, you can spend a little bit of money and a little bit of time and exploit some our weaknesses, and cause us to have to spend a lot of money, a lot of time.”

Up to this point, non-state and terrorist organizations have only been capable of defacing webpages and distributed denial-of-service attacks. U.S. officials have warned that these groups are continually looking to refine their capabilities.  “You need to prepare because it’s going to come here,” Assistant Attorney General John Carlin said at a conference recently, regarding “cyber jihad.”  “We’re watching as they actively try to acquire the capability to match their intent.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has already ordered the U.S. Cyber Command to engage ISIS and disrupt its efforts. “I have given Cyber Command in the counter-ISIL fight really its first wartime assignment. And we’re seeing how that works out,” Carter said, using the administration’s preferred acronym for ISIS,  in an appearance at CSIS April 5. “It means interrupting their ability to command and control their forces, interrupting their ability to plot, including against us here, and anywhere else against our friends and allies around the world. Interrupting their finances—their ability to pay people—their ability to dominate the population on whose territories they have tried to establish this nasty ideology.”

While DOD is not viewing this first foray into cyber war as a test case for future cyber war operations against other targets per say, the department is using it to make improvements to its current capabilities. Cyber is one of many capabilities in a larger bag to choose from that did not exist years ago, a DOD spokesperson told Defense Systems. As a planning organization, DOD is always looking to make improvements and apply lessons learned, whether saving money or in an operational context, the spokesman said.

Cyber has also become so important that military brass and members of Congress have talked about raising Cyber Command, now a sub-unified command under the Strategic Command (which is tasked with maintaining the nuclear infrastructure), to a full unified combatant command. 

“[W]e should consider changes to cyber’s role in DOD’s Unified Command Plan,” Carter said inprepared remarks at CSIS, citing the cross-domain aspect cyber has on operations.   

Carter elaborated on this train of thought as it applies to Cyber Command’s efforts in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, and how it relates to the U.S. Central Command, as well as the European and African commands. “[S]o we're increasingly finding the problem not just of interregional integration, but of regional functional integration. The lines as clean as we could make them. That's perfectly reasonable. You've got to divide up the pie somehow. But once you've done that, you may need to make sure the slices are able to work together and you haven't artificially created barriers.”

Rogers also hit on this point in his testimony this week, noting that elevating Cyber Command to a combatant command would “allow us to be faster, generate better mission outcomes,” adding that “the department’s processes of budget, prioritization, strategy, policy, are all generally structured to enable direct combatant commander input into those processes. And I believe cyber needs to be part of the direct process.”   

Rogers, however, has dismissed the notion for the need to create a new cyber “branch,” vis-à-vis the Air Force growing out of the Army Air Corps following World War II. “You have some advocating, ‘Is cyber so different, so specialized, so unique, so not well understood that it requires a very centralized, focused, unique construct to how we generate capacity and knowledge?’ There are some who make that argument. I am not one of those,” Rogers said at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council in January. “Cyber doesn’t exist in a vacuum…Cyber exists in a broader context.”    

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defense IT

Army unveils far-reaching network strategy

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 07, 2016

With an eye toward integrating new technologies, the Army has released its new Network Strategy to provide a long-term strategic direction for enterprise network modernization. The document was announced by the Army’s CIO, Lt. Gen. Robert Ferrell, at an AFCEA NOVA hosted event last week. 

Titled “Shaping the Army Network: 2025-2040,” the strategy seeks to serve “as a guiding document to provoke thought and a means to inform and shape research, development and experimentation by both government and industry entities to ensure that the Army maintains a technology edge in future conflict,” exemplified by a fictionalized, yet realistic war scenario in 2040 that prefaced the body of the piece. 

“What I challenged my team to do is to, OK, assume that all of this [Joint Regional Security Stacks], [multiprotocol label switching] and all this effort of modernization is done, what’s next,” he told the audience of mostly defense contractors. “If you remember back the first time I chatted with this group I asked you all to help us figure that out. Well we’ve got the S&T community together, some think tanks together, in a room and we asked them to – I posed that question to them, and we put together a document that I put online for the community today.”

The document focuses on five main focus areas, including dynamic transport, computing and edge sensors, data to decisive action, human cognitive enhancement, robotics and autonomous operations and cybersecurity and resiliency. These focus areas dial in on specific concepts within two broader ideas: Operational Environment and Required Capabilities 2025-2040 and Network 2025-2040. 

With the force growing smaller and adversaries proliferating and becoming more diverse, the Army’s “ability to remain the most lethal land force in the world will depend upon how well it responds to this operational environment and whether it can sustain both operational and technological advantages over its adversaries,” the strategy says.

Additionally, the network will continue to consolidate with the eventual vision of a single network that “enables soldier, civilian and mission partner connectivity through a global, secure environment.” Deployed units, the plan states, will use global Regional Hub Nodes to connect to the Department of Defense Information Network’s core optical fiber network and enable enterprise services such as email, collaboration, portal and voice over Internet Protocol.

The network strategy falls in line with the Army Strategy and the Army Campaign Plan while simultaneously building on the Army Operating Concept. “Given that predicting the long-range future for IT and how the Army will employ it can be difficult, this vision is based upon and extrapolates existing Army vision, strategy, doctrine, requirements and operating concepts, including the 2015 Army Network Campaign Plan and the supporting 2015-2016 Near-Term and 2017-2021 Mid-Term Implementation Guidance,” it reads. “The vision addresses Network 2040, from the dismounted soldier at the farthest tactical edge to supporting forces at home station.”

The document and five focus areas “really gets at the capability of Internet of Things, software-defined networks, advanced analytics, diverse sensors and actuators and self-healing networks,” Ferrell said.

Ferrell also talked about untethering soldiers, describing what he called a unified capability. “If you think about our state of where we are in technology, you’ve got your iPhone and it has everything in one spot. For the soldiers, we’re locking into our data that’s on our desktop, our phones in our office, you talk about the [video teleconferencing] quality and things of that nature, we’re moving or untethering the soldier from that office,” he said. Having briefed the Army’s acquisition officers, Ferrell said this plan is on path to issue an RFP in 2017.   

“The battlefield and Army of 2025-240 will be shaped by so-called leap-forward technologies. We have made great progress toward the current vision of a secure, integrated, standards-based environment that ensures uninterrupted global access to the network, and enables collaboration and decisive action throughout all operational phases regardless of location,” Ferrell wrote in the preface to the document. “However, the Army must continue to seek and evaluate emerging technologies in order to constantly modernize our network and maintain our technological edge.” 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Cyber Defense

Air Force adds to deal for cyber weapon system

• By Kevin McCaney
• Apr 06, 2016

The Air Force is continuing to shore up its cybersecurity posture while making its networks interoperable with the Defense Department-wide Joint Regional Security Stacks.

The service has awarded Cyber Defense Information Assurance an $11.5 million contract modification for work on the Air Force Intranet Control, which the Air Force described as its first cyberspace weapon system when it awarded the initial, $8 million contract to the company in January.

The Air Force Intranet Control (AFINC), a defensive boundary for all traffic coming into the network, merges more than more than 100 entry points on regional Air Force networks into 16 centrally managed access points that cover all traffic on the Air Force Information Network. That’s similar to what JRSS does for the Joint Information Environment, which is designed to accommodate all of the military services, other DOD components and coalition partners in an interoperable network that shrinks more than 1,000 network access points to 50 global ingress locations.

AFINC, which serves more than 1 million users at 237 sites around the world, controls both external traffic and inter-base traffic through its 16 gateways, encrypting traffic as it moves through the service’s infrastructure. It went to full operational capability in January.

The Air Force, like the other services, has been putting a lot of effort into building its cyber workforce and capabilities. Recent advances by the Army and Marines are just two examples. In February, the Air Force launched its second cyberspace weapon system, the Cyberspace Vulnerability Assessment/Hunter, which, like AFINC, is a defensive weapon, in this case designed to detect threats and measure compliance on the Air Force Information Network. It achieved full operational capability on Feb. 12.

Under the Air Force’s contract modification, Cyber Defense Information Assurance will provide enterprise-level network management, optimized communications and defensive measures at the network’s gateways, according to the contract announcement.

Work under the contract will be performed at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, Ala., and is expected to be complete by July 8, 2017.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Cyber Defense

Army making 'tremendous' progress in cyber

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 06, 2016

The Army is making progress toward filling out its cyber force, which will contribute to the Defense Department-wide joint force of 133 cyber teams totaling roughly 6,200 personnel.

“The Army is on track to meet its goal to 41 [cyber mission force] teams by this October,” Andrew “A.J.” Forysiak, director of the Capabilities, Implementation, and Modernization Directorate for Army Cyber Command, told an audience at an AFCEA-hosted panel March 31. Forysiak added that 36 teams are at initial operating capability and 10 are at full operational capability, with all expected to reach FOC by October 2016.

The idea is that “by the end of 2016, all the teams will be in place and at initial operating capability. And by the end of 2018, we expect all those teams to be at full operational capability,” Air Force Lt. Gen. James McLaughlin, deputy commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in October.

The overall chief of the cyber force provided a more realistic assessment at RSA this winter, based on the most recent data presented to him. “We’re about half way through that build process right now. We have got to get it finished by September the 30^th of 2018, is our goal,” Cyber Command Commander Adm. Michael Rogers said. “When I look at the data—and I review this every quarter, I just looked at the data about two weeks ago—we’re right now postulating that if nothing changes, 93 percent of the force will be delivered on time. So I’ve got to figure out in the next two years how we’re going to get that remaining 7 percent on time. Because the goal is 100 percent of those 6,200 individuals and 133 teams on station, fully trained, ready to operate in a very demanding environment, and to do that by 30 September 2018.”  

All things considered, the Cyber Command has grown quickly, officials said. “We have a new cyber branch. This is the first new Army branch in 30 years and they did it in one year,” Forysiak said. “We just commissioned our first set of Army cyber officers and we’re really encouraged on what they’re bringing … we have new incentives for recruitment, retention, development and new initiatives for training with industry.”

Forysiak described other initiatives and organizations within the Army designed to better posture the force in cyberspace. They include the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, Ga., which leads the Army’s institutional efforts in cyberspace by developing training, doctrine, integration of cyberspace forces and the Army Cyber Institute at West Point – described by Forysiak as the Army’s think tank for cyber, providing insight, advice, and subject matter expertise and performing outreach into the greater academic, industrial, and governmental cyber communities.

The Army also recently issued a sources sought notice for a non-personnel services contract to provide contract support services to the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence, and the Army Training and Doctrine Command Capability Manager for cyber.

Various capabilities the Army outlined under the notice include, “operational, system, and technical Analysts support to TCM Cyber for Cyberspace Operations, Cyber Situational Understanding and EW integration pertaining to critical portions of programmed work within several key capability developments, training and proponent functional areas.” 

The notice also provided a laundry list of personnel to support these efforts, such as program manager, principle/lead cyberspace operations analyst, senior cyberspace operations analyst, cyber persistent training environment analysts, senior cyber security analysts, senior electronic warfare integrator and IT specialist.

Responses for the notice are due April 8.

The Army has been encouraged with its cyber progress in building the brand new force.  Forysiak said “the Army has made tremendous progress in improving its capability in cyberspace over the last two years.” In fact, the force only had two CMF teams in 2013. “That is a tremendous achievement for the Army to move forward with that,” Forysiak said of the 41 teams reaching FOC by October.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Cyber Defense

Marines put new cyber unit into play

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 05, 2016

The Marine Corps is stepping up its cyber game, with the creation of a new cyber unit as part of the U.S. military’s overall cyber force. The Marine Corps Cyberspace Warfare Group, activated during a March 25 ceremony, will execute a mission focused on manning, training and equipping Marine Cyberspace mission teams performing both defensive and offensive cyber operations in support of Cyber Command and Marine Forces Cyberspace Command.

The new unit is described as a firewall to prevent hackers from successfully targeting email, information storage, banking and other related activities. 

The MCCYWG Command Element – a measure of unit organization within the Marine Corps that provides operations, intelligence, logistics, communications, and administrative support – is responsible for the organization, training and equipping the 13 cyber mission force teams the Marines will contribute to the overall 133 across the joint Cyber Command Force. 

“The CMF teams conduct full spectrum cyberspace operations as directed by the Commander they are operationally responsible to (OPCON),” a Marines Corps spokesperson told Defense Systems by email. “The previously identified OPCON relationships are those relationships that have remained unchanged. The teams are geographically and functionally aligned to support both Service and Joint mission sets.”

“We’ve always had the means to communicate and the means to protect that communication, but today we’re in an environment where those methods are more and more reliant on a system of transmissions, routers and networks,” said Col. Ossen J. D’Haiti, the commanding officer of MCCYWG. “So, the ability to protect that, the ability to control that and deny an adversary to interdict that, is crucial to command and control.”

“[Cyberspace operations] ensure that our systems are secure to stop hackers from getting into our systems where our personal identifiable information and everything else is stored,” said Sgt. Brian Mueller, a digital network exploitation analyst with MCCYWG. “While the offensive side is, what can we do to hinder an enemy.”

“We’re still evolving, but I think five years from now, as the Marine Corps comes online and understands more and more what is happening in this space, the Cyberspace Warfare Group will look much different than it does today,” said D’Haiti.

To that point, Maj Gen Daniel O’Donohue, commanding general of the marine corps Forces Cyberspace,  in congressional testimony last March described the progress his force has made noting that Cyber Command certified the first Marines’ Cyber Mission team as fully operational along with the first Cyber Protection Team and the second Cyber Mission Team reaching initial operational capability. 

“MARFORCYBER is on track to have over 75 percent of its CMT, CPT, and CST teams resourced by the end of fiscal year 2015,” he said in prepared remarks. “In order to fulfill the requirements of USCYBERCOM, we have been actively engaged in building and sourcing our national and combat mission, protection, and support teams (CMT, CPT, CST). With one CMT currently certified, the plan going forward is to have MARFORCYBER’s second CMT certified early in calendar year 2015.”

He added “In addition, we stood up our Joint Forces Headquarters-Cyber, now at Full Operational Capability, which directs and coordinates the actions of cyber forces in support of directed missions. The current glide slope for team build-out is to have two CMTs, three CPTs, and one CST at either IOC or FOC by the end of fiscal year 2015. No later than the end of FY17 all teams will be FOC, meaning the Marine Corps will furnish one NMT, three CMTs with one CST in support, and eight CPTs. Three of those CPTs will be dedicated to Marine Corps’ specific needs. All other teams will function in support of joint requirements from unified and sub-unified combatant commands.”

In terms of the overall force, Cyber Command Commander Adm. Michael Rogers told Congress on March 5 that “we have 123 teams of a target total of 133; those teams comprise 4,990 people and will build to 6,187 when we finish. In terms of progress, we have 27 teams that are fully operational capable today, and 68 that have attained initial operating capability.”

“Our Combat Mission Teams (CMTs) operate with the combatant commands to support their missions, while National Mission Teams (NMTs) help defend the nation’s critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity of significant consequence. We have Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs) to defend DoD Information Networks alongside local Computer Network Defense Service Providers (CNDSPs). Each of them complements the efforts of the others,” Rogers said in his prepared testimony regarding the structure of the force.  “I should emphasize that Cyber Mission Force teams can and do contribute to our nation’s cyberspace efforts even before they reach full operational capability. Elements of teams that are still “under construction” are already assisting the combatant commands and our partner departments and agencies. Cyber Protection Teams, for instance, played important roles in defending the Joint Staff’s unclassified systems after an intrusion last summer, and in remediating the vulnerabilities that the intruders had utilized.”

As to the scope, O’Donohue said “MARFORCYBER is in its sixth year of operation. Our focus remains developing ready cyberspace capability for the naval, joint and coalition force. Consistent with our Commandant’s guidance, we are developing tactical cyber capacity as an organic aspect of how we fight.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmanned Systems

Despite cuts elsewhere, US drone market is growing

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 05, 2016

It’s no secret that unmanned aerial systems such as the Predator and Reaper have become a favored tool of the U.S. national security architecture for the counterterrorism fight, and a new report backs that up, showing that, despite cost-cutting in other areas, the military is continuing to invest in drones.

The United States is continuing to modernize and adapt to emerging threats, through initiatives such as the Third Offset Strategy, which involves smaller, expendable, tactical UASs developed for various capabilities, including swarming. A recent report published by government market analyst Govini expounds on this phenomena, discovering that, despite sequestration, the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) market saw a 6 percent compound annual growth rate over the last five years. 

The report, titled “Market View: Unmanned Aerial Systems in Defense,” found that defense spending on UASs was nearly $14 billion over the last five years, peaking in fiscal 2012. The breakdown of services is: 

• Army: represents 42 percent of the market procurement, with 200 RQ-7 Shadow purchases from Textron Systems.
• Air Force: represents 37 percent of market, awarding over $1 billion in fiscal year 2015 alone to General Atomics and Northrop Grumman for the MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk, respectively.
• Navy: represents 14 percent of the market, with peak contract sale award totals in fiscal year 2012 with an ISR-as-a-service contract to Boeing.

The Defense Department last summer announced that daily combat air patrols – which typically consist of four aircraft and enable the force to rotate aircraft into the sky for constant 24/7 monitoring of a particular area – will increase from the current 60 to 90 by 2019. The Air Force will maintain its current 60 CAPs, the Army will contribute up to 16, Special Operations will provide up to four, and contractors will provide an additional 10 ISR-only – not lethal – CAPs.

The report also discovered that while the Navy contracts were most competitive, the Army contracts were most lucrative. The Air Force’s contracts were least competitive, due to the specificity of mission requirements. 

The Navy had until recently been testing and demonstrating for a potential surveillance and/or strike capability using a Boeing design called the X-47B Salty Dog for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike, known as UCLASS. Issues such as dithering on a platform focused on strike versus surveillance beset the program, though the program did achieve major milestones with the first successful unmanned system landing on an aircraft carrier and the first unmanned system to achieve aerial refueling. Recently, however, the Navy surprised most by announcing the program would be scrapped and restricted to the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System program described by GAO as “an unmanned system designed to conduct automated aerial refueling of other carrier-based aircraft, as well as provide some intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability.”

“This program increases air wing capability by freeing strike aircraft in a combat mission via its refueling missions, preserving strike fighter fatigue life while enhancing the long endurance capability of the air wing,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget Rear Adm. William Lescher told reporters in February about CBARS, or as he referred to the new design, RAQ-25. 

Four contractors make up 66 percent of the awards for UAS in the defense sector, totaling $9 billion. General Atomics was the top with over $4 billion, Northrop came in at second with less than half of that, Textron came in third with 10 percent of the market and Boeing with 7 percent.  Northrop and General Atomics make up 50 percent of the Defense UAS market.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Mobile

New software opens the door to real-time data sharing for Marines

• By Kevin McCaney
• Apr 04, 2016

The Marine Corps is getting closer to fielding a software-based system that will allow Marines to get mission-critical information via a mobile device, without having to resort to independent, sometimes incompatible, tactical data systems.

The Tactical Service Orientated Architecture, or TSOA, is an open-architecture collection of software for command and control applications Marine Air-Ground Task Force Command, Control and Communications, according to an announcement by the Marine Corps System Command.

TSOA, which is nearing the completion of its first phase of fielding, will eventually be fielded to combat operations centers to provide service throughout the Corps.

“It’s not just any information, it’s the information they need and subscribe to,” said project officer Maj. Austin Bonner. “This means a Marine on patrol can subscribe to critical information, pertinent to his location and have that information exchanged seamlessly across the enterprise to a future handheld device.”

With an open architecture, ground and command users of TSO will have better interoperability not only with Marine units but with other naval partners and other Defense Department users, the systems command said. And the customizable software in TSOA—available through the Marine Corps Software Resource Center app store—eliminates the need for any specialized hardware.

“The app store will enable us to deploy software faster to the field,” said TSOA lead engineer Vivian Pecus. “In the past we have had fast, agile software development efforts, but we were unable to deploy it as quickly as we will be able to via the MCSRC.”

The Marines most recently tested TSOA in October during Agile Bloodhound, an annual exercise in Hawaii for testing the integration of new technologies. One other app TSOA was tested with is the SUDA, or the Small Unit Decision Aids, which puts tactical data from multiple sources into an interactive map that allows Marines to track their routes and share information with the operations center and other Marines.

TSOA grew out of 2004 DOD directive, Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense, that instructed all of the military services to develop and implement a service-oriented architecture. After deploying TSOA to ground and command elements, the Marines expect next to incorporate it in to air and logistics elements.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmanned Systems

Plan for cheap, reusable 'Gremlin' drones moves forward

• By Kevin McCaney
• Apr 04, 2016

Pentagon researchers are moving ahead with a project to create relative cheap, reusable drones than can be launched from other aircraft and retrieved in-flight after performing their missions.  

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has awarded contracts to four teams that have made proposals covering varying aspects of the program, called Gremlins. The teams are led by Composite Engineering, Dynetics, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Lockheed Martin.

The general idea behind Gremlins is that low-cost unmanned aircraft would be launched from bombers, transport aircraft or fighters while out of the reach of enemy defenses, perform their tasks—whether strike or surveillance—and then be retrieved mid-air by a C-130 transport plane. The Gremlins would then be returned to an air base, where crews would prepare them for their next missions within 24 hours, DARPA said in an announcement.

DARPA expects that the Gremlins would last for about 20 missions, which would save money over expendable, one-time-only munitions. As well as over considerably more expensive, sophisticated UAS such as the Predator or Global Hawk, which must be maintained for decades.

“We’ve assembled a motivated group of researchers and developers that we believe could make significant progress toward Gremlins’ vision of delivering distributed airborne capabilities in a robust, responsive and affordable manner,” said Dan Patt, DARPA program manager. “These teams are exploring different, innovative approaches toward achieving this goal and are rolling up their sleeves for the hard work ahead.”

Phase 1 of the project is expected to set the stage for a proof-of-concept flight demonstration of in-air recovery, as well as explore several technical areas, DARPA said, including:

• Launch and recovery techniques, equipment and aircraft integration concepts.
• Low-cost, limited-life airframe designs that leverage existing technology and require only modest modifications to current aircraft.
• High-fidelity analysis, precision digital flight control, relative navigation and station keeping.

DARPA first announced the program in November 2014, issuing a solicitation asking industry for ideas on how to use large planes such as the C-130 or B-52 bomber as “aircraft carriers” for small, inexpensive drones that otherwise couldn’t handle long-range missions. Last August, it announced the program, dubbed Gremlins after the imaginary creatures British World War II pilots invoked for motivation, as a way to increase efficiency and cut costs.

The program mirror some other cost-cutting efforts in the military, such as the Air Force’s plans to use inexpensive, expendable drones in some cases in place of more costly options such as the MQ-9 Reaper.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defense IT

Pentagon names 8 companies to support $7.2B electronics program

• By Kevin McCaney
• Apr 01, 2016

The Pentagon plans to spend up to $7.2 billion over the next dozen years to upgrade old and/or unreliable electronics through the Defense Department.

The Defense Microelectronics Activity has awarded contracts to eight companies for the work under the Advanced Technology Support Program IV (ATSP4) program. Under the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award contract, the companies will compete for work in solving problems with “obsolete, unreliable, unmaintainable, underperforming, or incapable electronics hardware and software,” according to a DOD announcement. 

The goal is to apply advanced technology insertions and applications to raise the performance levels of those electronics components to DOD’s needs for quick reaction capability.

ATSP4 is designed to give DOD components quick access to technical expertise on microelectronics engineering, expertise on government contracting and targeted technical solutions. Its customers include all of the military services, other DOD components, the Intelligence Community and non-military agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The eight companies awarded contract are:

• Lockheed Martin
• BAE Systems Information & Electronic Systems Integration
• General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems
• Northrop Grumman Systems
• Aeroflex Colorado Springs
• Raytheon
• Boeing
• Honeywell International

All work on the contract’s task orders is expected to be completed by the end of March 2028.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defense IT

Who in DOD made the Fed 100 list?

• By Defense Systems Staff
• Apr 01, 2016

FCW this week announced the 2016 Federal 100, a list of leaders with distinguished accomplishments in government IT.

The annual list compiled by FCW, a sister publication of Defense Systems, recognizes difference-makers in defense and civilian federal agencies, state and local agencies, and industry. The winners will be honor April 7 at the Fed 100 Gala in Washington.

For the full list of winners, check out FCW’s post here (click on each name for a profile).

This year’s DOD winners:

Raymond Bauer, Innovation Lead, Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Lt. Gen. Mark S. Bowman, Director of Command, Control, Communications and Computers/Cyber Joint Staff

Heather B. Burke, Chief Engineer, Program Executive Office for Defense Healthcare Management Systems

Brig. Gen. Welton Chase Jr., Director of C4/Cyber, U.S. European Command, Army

Donald R. Davidson Jr., Chief of the Lifecycle Risk Management and Cybersecurity/Acquisition Integration Division, DOD

Scott Dunlap, Principal Assistant Program Manager for Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education, Department of the Navy Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems

Edwin "Bruce" Farnham, Program Officer, Aeronautical Mobile Application Architecture, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Brig. Gen. Peter A. Gallagher, Director of Command and Control, Communications and Computer Systems, U.S. Central Command, Army

Sue Gordon, Deputy Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Christian O. Grijalva, Division Director of Physical Security, Intelligence and Law Enforcement, Defense Manpower Data Center

Richard Hale, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Cybersecurity, DOD

Harry Hallock, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement, Department of the Army

Terry Halvorsen, Chief Information Officer, Defense Department

Col. Robert G. McVay, Program Manager, Afghan Personnel and Pay System, Army

Danielle Metz, Project Director, Joint Regional Security Stacks, DOD

Maj. Gen. John B. Morrison Jr., Commanding General, Network Enterprise Technology Command, Army

R. Carl "Shof" Shofner, Program Executive Officer for Business and Enterprise Systems, Department of the Air Force

Mitch Smoot, Deputy Chief, Cyber Assessment Division, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Morley O. Stone, Chief Technology Officer, Air Force Research Laboratory

Robert W. Vietmeyer, Cloud Computing Portfolio Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer, DOD

Fumie N. Wingo, International Spectrum Policy Lead, Department of the Navy

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Electronic Warfare

DOD working on a more agile approach to EW

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Apr 01, 2016

After some time on the back burner, electronic warfare has recently come to the fore. The capabilities demonstrated by Russia in the Ukraine and elsewhere have grabbed the attention of key leaders in the U.S. military, who want to bolster electromagnetic spectrum operations such as EW. 

“In EW, we’ve sort of atrophied a little bit in terms of our core EW competency, in terms of delivering ground-based jamming capability,” Mark Kitz, acting director of System of Systems Engineering for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence Electronic Warfare & Sensors office (PEO IEW&S), said at a March 31 event hosted by AFCEA NOVA.

His comments reflect a sentiment that is shared among the joint force. “We did not put enough emphasis on it [EW] for a period of time because it really was, in the air domain, it was less of a factor in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, commander of Air Force Air Combat Command, said in September. Air Force Maj. Gen. Linda R. Urrutia-Varhall, assistant deputy chief of staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, also noted that the U.S. military had “stepped away" from EW.

“We can’t shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us. We are very unprotected from their attacks on our network,” the former commander of the Army’s electronic-warfare division has said previously.

Kitz mentioned that the Army is approaching EW from an agility perspective. “Getting to a more, for want of a better term, generic or a more threat-agile EW platform is the focus of the team within IEW&S,” he said. “And that is really the focus of the multi-function electronic warfare program.  And that will be based on the multiple different platforms that we want to deliver in EW capability.  So I don’t think it’s directly, a specially near-peer or a peer-state [threat], it’s more geared towards, how do I deliver an EW platform that can be threat-agile?”

Agility in EW means being able to adapt to a changing threat landscape. He said that EW capabilities are only built toward known threats, despite reports that the Army won’t field an offensive jammer until 2023. “My comments in terms of agility are on the base capability. Today we build EW capabilities against threat,” he told Defense Systems. “They’re not platforms for future threats. So it takes time for us to come up with load sets and build against the threat … Our future capabilities need to be able to go after different threats more readily.” 

Kitz’s point parallels the issue many have struggled with in the cybersecurity world. Threat detection platforms were designed to catalog and combat known threats that had previously came across the network, eschewing any predictive capability. “It’s a challenge but it’s also opportunity.  So I think a lot of the software-defined capabilities that have been coming out from industry offer opportunity for us to build more, be more agile,” he said. “So if you don’t have to pull an antenna out and put a new antenna on you can build it via software, kind of how we do today with crew devices in a more agile way. That’s really what we’re going after.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmanned Systems

Work shifts down on driverless military convoys

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Mar 31, 2016

The prospect of driverless cars on the nation’s roadways may be creating a lot of excitement—and fear—but this technology that could revolutionize the way passengers travel might have to wait some time before it sees the battlefield. 

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work expressed skepticism regarding the integration of driverless cars into the military. Driverless cars, he said in a March 30 appearance at the Washington Post, drive repeatedly on paved roads while the battlefield is much more unpredictable. “In military…not only will we stay on roads, but when the roads become more dangerous we’ll go off road. That type of navigation is extremely difficult,” Work said.   

As a result he said he’d expect to see unmanned wingmen in the air before unmanned convoys, something that has been tested and discussed for some time. The concept of unmanned “wingmen,” is described by a 2010 Army Research Lab paper as an effort to “incubate the technology necessary to safely and effectively coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft systems into an efficient team.”

“In fact, the Air Force has a concept called ‘loyal wingmen’ where you take an F-16, make it totally unmanned – F-16 is a fourth generation fighter – and pair it with an F-35 – a fifth generation, what I would call battle network node – and those two operating together,” he said. The military first tested these unmanned fighter aircraft – dubbed “QF” in 2013.

Boeing’s QF-16, or any QF for that matter, could serve as a “missile truck” for the fifth-generation fighters Work referred to, according to Paul Scharre, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. The weapons payload capacity of fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35 and F-22 Raptor are limited. In a scenario in which operating bases will be far away because of adversaries’ anti-access area denial capabilities – something Work’s brainchild, the Third Offset Strategy is seeking to address through this manned-unmanned teaming concept – QF aircraft could help carry and deliver these payloads, Scharre told Defense Systems in an email. While this concept is nearly available today there’s still more work and investment to be done in the stealth arena to increase A2/AD capability, Scharre added.    

Work’s skepticism about near-term driverless ground vehicles has been shared by others as well.  Jonathan Bornstein, chief of the Autonomous System Division in the Army Research Laboratory’s  Vehicle Technology Directorate, told members of Congress in November that Google’s driverless cars operate on the structured highway systems, while the military deals with dynamic environments, “where we don’t know things in advance. We have to have organic sensing and reasoning powers on board the vehicle…there’s a distinct difference there.” 

Army researchers had said much the same thing during a panel discussion in April, describing the move to full autonomy as a three-phase process that would require five to 10 years to get to what they called the mid-term.

Work also expounded on the oft-feared term “autonomy,” with regard to what some people envision as the killer robots of the future. “The word autonomy to us is very simple; it is nothing more than delegating decision authority to an entity in your, what I’ll call a battle network,” he said. “And a battle network is nothing more than a sensor grid and a command and control and communications and information grid, and an effects grid and they’re all kind of stacked together.”

“Over the next five to 10 years, I would guess would be more narrow [artificial intelligence] – things like pushing a button and doing a parallel park with your car. You push the ‘I believe’ button and you believe the car is going to autonomously do that for you.”  Work added that while DOD will integrate basic autonomous capabilities that respond to commands—such as pushing a button to get a car to parallel park for you—“we will not delegate lethal authority for a machine to make a decision. The only time we’ll do something [such as] give a machine delegate authority, is in things that go faster than human reaction time, like cyber or electronic warfare.” 

The concept of machines making decisions has been described by some, such as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Paul Selva, as the “terminator conundrum.”  

As for the foreseeable future, Work said, “I would expect to see unmanned wingmen in the air first. I would expect to see unmanned systems undersea all over the place. I would expect to see unmanned systems on the surface of the sea. I’d expect to see unmanned systems delivering things to soldiers around the battlefield from the air—we’ve already demonstrated that in Afghanistan—and this is something that is inexorable, it is going to happen.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Battlespace Tech

Dell delivers a rugged server for the battlefield

• By George Leopold
• Mar 31, 2016

Ruggedized computers are a common sight in armored vehicles on network battlefields. Now server vendors are pitching servers that can withstand the rigors of the battlefield as troops attempt to process and disseminate intelligence in real time.

Among them is Dell, which is promoting its ruggedize PowerEdge server for deployment in military vehicles, ships and aircraft. The server maker said the platform is shock and vibration resistant and comes with optional advanced dust filtration and the ability to operate at high temperatures and altitudes.

That's a far cry from pristine data centers with cooling and ventilation. But server-makers like Dell are looking for new markets as the convergence of data center infrastructure has reduced the number of servers on a rack for many IT applications to a single machine.

Dell said this week it is working with Treadwell Systems, an Ohio equipment manufacturer, to develop ruggedized servers based on its PowerEdge architecture and Treadwell's ability to pack computing and storage into smaller form factors. Hence, the partners say the can wedge ruggedize servers into vehicles and other military platforms.

Previously, Defense Department agencies designed solutions for their back-office mission needs and then cobbled together costly custom computing products for the field, Dell noted in a blog post this week. The combination of the Dell server architecture and Treadwell's compact form factor means the military could leverage server technology "within any sort of space—constrained, harsh or unusual environment."

The partners also note that the rugged server platform has already been certified against several military and industrial standards.

Meanwhile, on the client side, Dell is pushing a fan-less, ruggedized "Embedded Box PC" that could be deployed everywhere from the battlefield to the shop floor.

The trend toward converged IT infrastructure in data centers and in the cloud is also playing out in the military and aerospace sectors. Dell noted that the ability to integrate multiple IT components into a single, customized and ruggedized server would allow these platforms to be used in military operations that increasingly rely on real-time data and intelligence.

IT vendors have frequently noted that the shift toward converged infrastructure is helping data center operators cope with widening "workload" demands. Dell is hoping to expand those workloads to include real-time intelligence processing and surveying terrain to tell soldiers what's over the next hill.  

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Unmanned Systems

Marines successfully fly Blackjack UAS in controlled airspace

• By Mark Pomerleau
• Mar 30, 2016

In what’s being described as a positive step forward, the Marines recently conducted successful flights of the RQ-21A Blackjack in Class D airspace over Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C. last week. 

The Federal Aviation Administration defines Class D airspace as one of five controlled airspaces. It’s generally measured from surface to 2,500 feet above the elevation of surrounding airports with an operational control tower. Configurations for Class D airspace, the FAA further says, are individually tailored. 

For the Marines’ purposes, Cherry Point’s Class D airspace was defined “by a circle around the air station with a 5-mile radius, from the ground up to 2,500 feet above the air station. This is airspace that is constantly under the control of Cherry Point air traffic control, and is frequently busy with military air traffic, as well as contracted commercial flights landing and departing the air station,” the service stated in a release.

The Blackjack flight is a breakthrough because it typically is only permitted to fly in restricted airspace. The Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 2, known as VMU-2, now has expanded abilities to integrate Blackjack flight operations with manned aircraft over this particular air station. 

“Unmanned aerial systems like the Blackjack are commonly flown from forward sites that sometimes restrict our integration with other air players and events,” 1st Lt. Orlando J. Benedict, an UAS officer with VMU-2, said. “Having the RQ-21A at MCAS Cherry Point fosters connections with the rest of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing and allows for procedures that integrate manned and unmanned aviation to be solidified for the future.”

The Blackjack, a maritime ISR unit used by the Navy and Marines, is capable of 16-hour flights – with a surging capability of 24 hours if needed – and a ceiling of over 19,000 feet. It’s used to support ground forces and can safeguard military bases, identifying activities in the area as well as detect explosive devices. 

“The Blackjack’s main purpose is to support aerial reconnaissance missions,” said Sgt. James E. Burch. “With the new system, we will now be able to launch and land the UAV on a ship, where with other systems, more space would be required for recovery.” The successful Blackjack flight reduces unnecessary travel to other bases across the country to conduct UAS training. 

“Marine UAS are flown and treated like any other aircraft, the only exception is that the pilot at the controls is not physically located in the plane, but they are very much still in control,” said 1st Lt. Jeremy Eshleman, a UAS officer and weapons and tactics instructor with VMU-2. “Our UAS flies a standard and predictable route under control of the tower while here at Cherry Point, and the pilot will perform any additional instructions as issued by the tower. In the rare event the pilot loses connection with the UAS and can no longer control it, it will only fly a predetermined route to a known location before landing at our site,” Eshleman added.    
 
The Marines have refined UAS concept of operations allowing rapidly emerging technology integration. However, the service received poor marks on certain aspects of the Blackjack program from an annual report issued by the DOD office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The report concluded that the Blackjack was not operationally effective or and had exploitable cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Even more startling, the report found that communications relay payloads are constrained by a single frequency, limiting commanders’ tactical flexibility with operators incapable of changing frequencies once the aircraft is airborne.  

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defense IT

DISA moves back deadline for $17.5B Encore III contract

• By Defense Systems Staff
• Mar 30, 2016

The deadline for submitting bids to the Defense Department’s $17.5 billion Encore III enterprise IT contract has been extended by two weeks, following some changes made by the Defense Information Systems Agency to the solicitation, which was released earlier this month.

As a result of the changes, the deadline for bids has been moved from April 4 to April 18.

The multiple-award Encore III will provide customers with a host of products and services covering enterprise IT, application development, cloud computing, managed services and others under a five-year contract with five one-year options. It will replace Encore 2, a $12 billion deal with 26 prime contractors and is set to run for 10 years, ending in 2018.

Pentagon officials are looking for Encore III to help usher in the Joint Information Environment, which is intended to provide a secure environment capable of hosting all of the military services, other DOD components and coalition partners.

Let's block ads! (Why?)