News

2021-01-10

MAN, MIND & MACHINE

Prototype Warfare-Part 2

RAS to Reshape Nature of Warfare

Technology has triggered a massive change in the nature of warfare. The methods and techniques adopted in a battlefield today are incredibly different from what it used to be in the earlier decades.

The introduction of RAS (Robotic and Autonomous Systems) technology has brought into sharp focus varied challenges, including the psychological aspect of teaming humans with machines.

Understanding the behaviour of soldiers in their interactions with robots is critical in developing safe and effective capability.

From physical infrastructure to human skills, the adoption of RAS is bound to have several knock-on effects that must be taken into account while framing future RAS strategy.

Technology without a strong network is like holding a gun sans bullets. Hence a high-capacity, secure and resilient network is an absolute necessity.

Additionally, lack of funds could derail any project and that’s precisely why articulating the advantages of RAS and making the economic case to treasuries is of paramount importance. This will require supporting evidence, amassed through progressive experimentation.

Effective training for teams across the board is also a prerequisite for successful implementation of RAS technologies.

Implications of Developing RAS Strategy

Taking it easy in the present moment may leave the future tense. Creating an effective RAS strategy not only calls for a lucid understanding of what technology is available today, but also the wisdom to anticipate the likely changes in future and initiate appropriate measures accordingly.

Power of Data

Data is supreme. The power of RAS comes from leveraging information shared between multiple systems. Robots with no infrastructure can be likened to mobile phone handsets with no network, no data architecture and no operating system. Without connectivity and the ability to share and process data, they just cannot operate. A vibrant network holds the key.

Digital Backbone

A robotic autonomous system is a collection of hardware and software elements that consume and supply information.

First comes the user interface – the door through which the human accesses the capability. Through this interface, the user tasks platforms and their subsystems (such as payloads, sensors and effectors), and receives information from those systems that inform subsequent tasking decisions.

At the far end are the multiple RAS carrying out their tasks. These systems consist of robotic platforms, navigation sensors, effectors, autonomy software, and the mission execution controller responsible for timing and sequencing. Every action, threat and attack is logged at this end, processed and delivered back up the chain to the commander.
Linking the two ends is the scheduling and tasking engine.

Without this important intermediary, the operator would suffer cognitive burnout trying to task and monitor multiple systems, while interpreting and acting upon the incoming information.

Incremental Steps

RAS architecture has the advantage of being exceptionally scalable, so it is feasible to begin at a modest scale and gradually grow operations. The first step may involve three small UGVs, with a longer-term aspiration to oversee a full-size tank with two UGV wingmen and a heavy UAV for aerial navigation and reconnaissance.

The smaller-scale systems are implementable today – we have seen single-user, multi-platform control exercised in live demonstrations, with a lone operator commanding three to four light UGVs. This is enough to provide a solid foundation on which to build a more adaptable and powerful capability.

The focus should be on data. Who owns it, how is it assured, what is the optimum format, and is it secure? These considerations should form part of the parallel conversations on the safety and interoperability challenges.

The most important activity is experimentation, where information flows are prioritised. The first step is to take existing data platforms and user interfaces proven in live demonstrations, plug in new platforms, develop new use cases and push the boundaries in pursuit of longer-term aspirations.

It is true that this is already happening, but the technology cannot remain on the testing range forever. The next step is to begin deploying the systems into active service, taking incremental steps in terms of complexity and risk. If the right information can be delivered to the right places, at the right times, in the right formats, the power of the capability will certainly grow exponentially.

Brain, Most Sophisticated Computer

The human brain remains the most sophisticated computer on the battlefield. Any decision regarding the use of RAS should therefore focus on how the technology can benefit human soldiers. There is no point in forming concepts of operations without first considering the human need and subsequently assess how RAS could help fulfil it.

While information is unquestionably crucial, an excess of it may prove counter-productive. An excess of information can lead to cognitive fatigue and may even lead to fatal errors.

To prevent human casualties, the focus should be on minimising soldiers’ exposure to dangerous environments.

Determining the different roles best suited for humans and robots are equally important. The optimum outcome is for soldiers to be committed to roles that only they can perform, while robots free up manpower by conducting the missions that do not require the human touch.

Change is the Only Constant

History has shown that any change is resisted initially, but embraced subsequently.

The psychological effect of RAS-equipped battlespace should not be underestimated. A tank commander of 20 years may respond with a tribal mentality, seeing unmanned combat vehicles as a threat to the skills that have come to define them. The unconscious reaction may prompt them to fight back against the perceived threat. Resisting change is not an option. Just as the tank superseded the cavalry during World War I, RAS will soon supersede the tank – and those who have not adapted will find themselves at a severe disadvantage.

While RAS capability will be designed around human requirements, it will displace humans and create new demands concerning training, skills, responsibilities and behaviours which are explained below.

Trust Factor

The trust factor is foremost. While the trust between humans is forged on mutual understanding and a shared sense of duty, a human’s trust in RAS is based on the presumption that the reality of the robot’s performance will match the expectation. Live experimentation provides the conditions to build that trust. The idea is to ensure that users do not inadvertently trust platforms to perform tasks which they are unsuitable for.

There is also a psychological aspect to teaming humans with machines. Human teams are bonded through reliance, respect and camaraderie. Assuming these qualities do not extend to robotic teammates – what effect does that have on decision-making? Also, what if human soldiers do form emotional bonds with robots?

Interestingly, in a 2015 study by researchers at Germany’s Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, brain scans revealed that human participants felt empathy for robotic vacuum cleaners that were kicked or verbally abused. Could subconscious sentimentality cloud judgement on the battlefield? That is too serious an aspect to be taken lightly.

The way in which information is presented to users is also important. It must not become a distraction. A soldier constantly looking at a screen may lack sufficient awareness of physical threats developing around them, like a mobile phone user who walks into a lamppost. Data provision and interfaces must be developed in such a way that they do not demand too much of a user’s attention.

Not only must humans understand and trust their robotic teammates, but the machines too must have some level of ‘understanding’ of human behaviour. For example, if during battle an UGV operating autonomously gets stuck in a ditch, it may sound an alarm to alert the supervisor. However, freeing that specific UGV may not be the supervisor’s priority in the wider context of the battle, and repeatedly sounding an alarm may only add to stress.

New Demands

The introduction of RAS will place other demands upon human skills. RAS brings a new demand for software developers, data scientists, and other expertise not currently prevalent in the military. The training and recruiting implications of this change are discussed below.

Training and Recruiting

Training for operating RAS assets can be accelerated using virtual platforms operated in synthetic environments, reducing reliance on the availability of physical platforms. It will equip operators with the skills to operate multiple platform types.

Training will also be needed to support RAS technologies both in operation, and back at base. It will take many years to foster new skills, build career structures, and train recruits to fill vacancies in the volumes required. In the near term, armies will rely on contractors, who will take up positions within deployed formations to meet requirements. Another possible avenue is to draw on the reserve forces and launching reservist recruitment campaigns.

From Augmentation to Teaming

The transition of RAS platforms from tools to teammates will be incremental, evolving through three horizons: human-controlled; human-supervised; and human-instructed.

Human-controlled robots are already an established feature of Land combat. Human-supervised robots will exercise degrees of autonomy, overseen by an operator.

Human-instructed robots will be tasked by a human, carry out the mission autonomously, and return to base with no intervention. This will require the highest level of trust, acquired through rigorous experimentation and combat experience and training involving human psychological responses to RAS.

Concept to Capability

The extent to which RAS can be effective rests on exploring their incorporation into concepts and culture. This goes beyond finding ways to simply replicate existing concepts using robots instead of manned systems.

To make the progression from concept to capability, the following steps will be necessary:

1. Articulate the Concept

To secure the required funding for RAS development, government defence departments and industry will need to make the operational and economic case and articulate the national security advantages to policy-makers. They should forcefully argue that RAS generates additional combat mass without increasing financial or human capital costs.

2. R&D, Trials and Experimentation:

Presenting the economic case to treasuries about the benefits of RAS will require strong supporting evidence, amassed through progressive experimentation.

3. Cross-DLOD Consultation:

Requirements must be defined in consultation with experts across all defence lines of development (DLOD): concepts and doctrine; equipment; information; infrastructure; logistics; organisation; personnel; training and interoperability.

4. Drafting Requirement Documents:

R&D, trials and experimentation will identify use cases and shape concepts of operations. These will indicate the requirements, enabling governments to make proper procurement decisions and build an acquisition portfolio.

RAS have clear utility for major conflict and for a range of sub-threshold activity, including forward presence, homeland security and assistance to civil authorities. The benefits and limitations of RAS must be well articulated and supported by credible evidence.

Time and Effort

Initial investments of time and effort are essential to reap two significant rewards: first, the effectiveness of the fighting force will improve immediately; and secondly, efficiency will increase over time.

Establishing Interoperability

The widespread introduction of RAS technologies into the battlespace is just beginning. Prohibitive technologies and practices are not yet entrenched, but there is a shrinking window in which to build in interoperability. Below are three recommendations for getting it right first time:

a. RAS capability must be international by design.
From the beginning it must be built using the appropriate common standards and protocols, based on a mutual understanding of allies’ doctrines and cultures.

b. Nations must state their proposed levels of interoperability.

To what extent are they willing to share technology, tactics and intellectual property in order to benefit from the advantages of interoperability.

c. Multinational experimentation is critical in proving concepts and troubleshooting operational challenges.

Collaborative training is vital in exposing and bridging skill gaps, ensuring interoperability of human teams, not just technologies. As interoperability increases, security and assurance can be eroded if steps are not taken to mitigate the effects.

Aligning Ends, Ways, and Means

Ends

Army formations use RAS to maintain overmatch in combined arms operations against capable enemies.

Ways

The Army accomplishes the capability objectives through prioritisation of RAS capabilities through continuous improvisation and adaption.

Prioritisation: To achieve the five capability objectives in this strategy (Increase situational awareness, Lighten the Soldiers’ physical and cognitive workloads, Sustain the force with increased distribution and efficiency, Facilitate movement and manoeuvre and Protect the force), the Army needs to prioritise autonomy, AI, and common control as key efforts.

These technology advancements are pervasive throughout this strategy. Foremost is autonomy for ground vehicles because, as a land force, the Army relies on ground combat vehicles and off-road mobility. It is the most challenging, military-specific requirement.

Innovation: The RAS strategy encourages innovation via new or improved products, processes, organisational methods and internal practices. Innovation emerges from evolutionary problem-solving directed at specific operational and tactical issues.

Means

The means of the RAS Strategy are the resources used to accomplish the objectives. The Army must analyse and apply emerging technologies and new organisational concepts and take advantage of existing material solutions. The RAS strategy outlines this through time, funding and organisations.

Time: The Army acquisition process requires many time-consuming tasks and processes. By working together, the primary Army organisations in the robotic community can expedite how quickly warfighters receive RAS.

Funding: Funding is critical for the development and procurement of RAS and the technology required to make RAS effective. The Strategic Portfolio Analysis Review (SPAR) is well postured to align priorities to achieve the objectives within the RAS Strategy.

Reshaping future wars

The RAS Strategy is a call to commit time, talent, and resources to position the Army for victory in conflicts. In pursuing RAS technologies, the Army addresses three challenges in the future Operational Environment:

Accelerated speed of action on the battlefield, increased use of RAS by adversaries, and Amplified complexity of contested environments.

To overcome these challenges, the Army must seize technological opportunities for RAS development.

The future path is being altered by RAS technology in a mind-blowing way.

RAS will facilitate mission command by collecting, organising, and prioritising immense amounts of data to aid decisions making.

RAS will lead the Army to accomplish its technology advancements: autonomy, artificial intelligence, common control, government-owned architecture, interoperability, common platforms, and modular payloads.

The RAS strategy aims to present enemies and adversaries with multiple dilemmas and to defeat them.

By outlining a clear goal of how the Army intends to exploit breakthroughs in RAS technology, the RAS Strategy helps reshape the vision for how the Army fights in the future.

Reference Text/Photo:www.qinetiq.com,www.army.mil

Comments () Views (17533 ) Print

Send To Friend