technology trends and developments approaches and use in defense planning technology trends and...

Technology Trends and Developments

Approaches and Use in Defense Planning

Technology Trends and Developments

Scientific Support for the Decision Making in the Security Sector, NATO Advanced Research Workshop,21-25 October 2006, Velingrad Bulgaria

23 October 2006, Velingrad, BulgariaTechnology Trends and Developments2

Strategic Policy‘Thinking about the future’

Defense Strategy,

National Security&

IntelligenceMethodologies andDomain knowledge

Context analysis

Technology assessment

Defense Strategy

Changing environment, Operations,

Means

Assessment of developments,

Options


Strategic Security Policy Requirements

What?

What?

What?

Ambitions (Foreign & National

Security Policy aims)

Which?T

ransform

ation P

olicy &

processe

s road

ma

ps

What?

How?

How?

How?

Future World prospects

Threat appreciation

Scenario’s

Objective Force or Security

capabilities

Legacy Forcecapabilities

Technology developments


Essential capabilities

+ +++++ = Military or Security capability


Models

Models Models

Models

Tech

nolo

gy a

rea

Knowledge area Functionality Tech

nolo

gy a

rea

Syste

ms

Kn

ow

led

geare

a

Capabilities

Technologie watch assessment and forecast

Military or Security

Implications

Transformation Objective Area’s

System Concepts

Operational concepts

Cou

ntry

ob

jectiv

esConcept development

Strategy

VisieAmbitions

Context


Approaches Technology Watch Assessment and Foresight

• Regular national Research & Development for Defense and Security• Watch and forecast• Assessment of usefulness• Concept Development and Experimentation• Operational testing• In-use evaluation and Lessons Learned

• International collaboration (examples)• Bi-, Tri- and multilateral co-operation• NATO-RTO panels and Task Groups• NATO C3 Agency• European Defence Agency• EU 7th Framework Programme

Bra

in M

achi

ne

Inte

rfac

ing

Wir

eles

s C

om

Directed energy

Weapons

ICT

- A

gent

s

Hybrid m

aterials

Usefulness for Defense and Security

Res

eacr

h pr

ogra

mes

Assessment

Developments

Basics Technology Watch, Assessment & Foresight

New

tech

nolo

gies

Disruptive technology


Which are the Disruptive Technologies?

"A disruptive technology in the realm of defence and security represents :

• a technological development which• significantly changes the rules or conduct of conflict within one or too generations

• and forces the planning process to adapt it and to change the long term goals".

Disruptive Technologies, - widening the scope -,Klaus Ruhlig, Uwe Wiemken, Fraunhofer INT, April 2006


Technical Innovations and Goal Finding Necessary Dialogue between Soldiers and Technicians

TechnologicalPotential Analysis

TechnologicalThreat Analysis

Top-down

Strategic Goals

Research and Technology

Bottom-up

Requirem

ent

Pull

Technology

Push


(Disruptive) Technologies

Clustered in Themes

Doctrines

Idea of Systems Definition

Theme Theme Theme Theme Theme Theme

Technology Integration

Technology Insertion

Disruptive Technology Assessment

Game (DTAG)

TechnologyAssessmentSummary

Conference

Methodology


SAS TG-062 “Assessment of Technologies with a disruptive effect on Defence and Security”

3. Readiness of the technology

TRL: 4 ------>>> ORANGE

This technology has already TRL 9 products but they do not reach the performance required for this capability. One direction allows independency of speaker but limited to a set of words in a controlled environment (for instance call center). Other approaches require speaker training the system to increase the recognition rate. In both cases error rate is high overall when noisy environments and use of different accents and dialects.

• The technology by itself can be easily derived into a system? Yes for example into translator.

• If the technology is mature/ready, does it need further time (integrated into a system of systems for instance) to deliver the promised capability ? It can be part of system of systems as well such as intelligence COMMINT.

• An estimation of time to a system delivering the capability described.

Presently there are systems delivering the capability with very limited performance. To full capability, 5-10 years.

Processing power, linguistics and semantics knowledge, and algorithms need to be improved.

Hazards

• How easy is for an enemy to develop the technology (availability of critical knowledge, know-how, primary sources, industrial base...etc):

It is not easy, but the question is if the enemy will need it.

• How easy (and fast) is for an enemy to develop countermeasures against the technology/capability (availability of critical Knowledge, know-how, primary sources, industrial base...etc).

Easy and fast , many ways such as crypted speech, codes, hand language, distorted language, faking accents, mixed languages.

T - 001

Technology Name: SPEECH RECOGNITIONLand XNavyAir

Urban XAsymmetric X

1. Which capability does the technology enable?

This technology allows to transform speech into text with independency of speaker, noise environment, language and without need of training.

• Does it enable an identified capability gap?

The need for fluent communications in the operational field with the civil population.

For intelligence purposes there is also the need to transform huge amount of Voice communications into text for later analysis.

• Is it also a cross-pollinating technology? Yes, can be applied to Human Machine Interfaces.

2. Operational limits of the enabled capabilityRegional dialects, uncommon accents, extremely noise environment (battlefield fire), concurrency of more than one speaker at the same time.If there is not an specific sound enhancer (directional microphone, sound amplifier...) distance between the source and the receiver should be no more than a meter. • Which characteristics that can be found in the scenario(s) of application can limit the performance of operation? Battlefield fire, strong winds, airport noise.

?



2. Critical Performances of the IoS

• Levels of performance involving an operational state:

Independency of speaker Noise environment Any language Without need of training.

• Limitations:

Regional dialectsUncommon accentsExtremely noise environment (battlefield fire)Concurrency of more than one speaker at the same time.

3. State of Art of the operational capability concerned by the IoS

• Current Systems:Portable dictionaries Portable devices with the most common frases (text to voice)Human translators.

• Programs in progress:

DARPA programs: GALE, BABYLON, TIDES

Civil sector very active in speech recognition (IBM VOICETYPE, DRAGON..) and Text2Text translators including ontology issues.

I - 001

Idea of System: Portable translatorLand XNavyAir

Urban XAsymmetric X

1. Description and Operational Interest

• The Portable Translator is composed by a hand-held device that translates bidirectionally spoken speech from a set of languages to a chosen language (speech and text). It also captures images with written text in any of the languages of the set and translate its meaning. It can storage as text all the translations for a later analysis.

• Operational capability concerned by the IoS: Soldiers in external operations.

• Conditions of use: Portable deviceRobust (sand, water, dust, cold)Autonomy to at least 24 hours of operationFull operative day and nightThe system must be modular so it can upgraded with more languagesReal time systemPlatform/Unit

• Expected effects:Increase the understanding and situational awareness of the soldier.

Improve the relations with civil indigenous population.Improve of the psychological condition of the soldier.Increase operational tempo

• Possible indirect impacts on other operational capabilities or doctrines: No need of language training. Improvement of peace keeping operations performance

PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT

IMAGES WITH WRITTEN TEXT

SPEECH

TEXT

ANY LANGUAGE OF THE SET (INCLUDING NATIVE LANGUAGE OF THE SOLDIER)



4. Technologies

• Technologies, which contributions are determining in the operational performance of the IoS.

- Speech recognition - Tcard number 0001- Text2Text translators- Ontology systems- Optical character recognition- Digital voice signal processing- Linguistics- Computing power- Power supply- Input capture devices

• Compatibility of the technologies:

All technologies in the system are compatible in functionality and within 5-10 years also in readiness.There is not incompatibility with other systems.

8. Studies and references

• DARPA STUDIES, IBM , EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMS

I - 001

Idea of System: Portable translator

6. Affordability

• Great powers to develop the device

• Small powers can acquire the product.

7. Acceptability

Very dual system.

Civil sector will adopt it and eventually drive the development and cost of it.

8. Training requirements

No specific training

5. Critical Points

• Major risks in case of development.

While development:

- Any of the key technologies, such as speech recognition, does not reach the expected performance.- Understanding of speech ontologies in order to make translations reliable.- Cost of development

While fielding:

- Weight- Autonomy- Ease of use- Robustness- Cost

Land XNavyAir

Urban XAsymmetric X

SAS WG-062 “Assessment of Technologies with a disruptive effect on Defence and Security”


T-Cards and IoS-Cards relations

T-Cards IoS-Cards


Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG) setting

Table

Technology group

Table

Analyst group

Table

Military group

Table Table

Ops floor group


Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG)

Table

Technology group

Table

Analyst group

Table

Military group

Table Table

Ops floor group

4 R

equi

rem

ent f

or n

ew Io

S

2 Io

S Car

d Pl

ayed

1 Played an Mil O

rder

3 Playing the Game

5 Results analysed

4a E

xtra

new

IoS

Car

d

• Scenario is used as high level context• Tasks that can be performed or

countered using technology?• Forces are always played by Red and

Blue group


Game scenario

Scenario requirements• Necessary for Context• Micro-scenario’s with disposition of brigade and

batallion equivalents• Different (multiple) parties involved• High tech and Low tech elements• Geography elements (deserts, bush, flat land, water)

Basis for micro-scenario’s:

Zoran Sea Crisis (NATO School Oberammergau)• Warring Factions• Regular/Irregular


Analysis method



• Levels of performance involving an operational st ate:

Independency of speaker Noise environment Any language Without need of traini ng.

• Limit ations:

Regional di alec tsUncommon accentsExtr emel y noise envir onment ( battl efiel d fire)Concurrency of more than one speaker at the same ti me.


• Current Syst ems:Portable dic tionaries Portable devices with the most common frases (text to voice)Human translators .



Civil sector ver y acti ve i n speech recogni tion (IBM VOIC ETYPE, D RAGON ..) and Text2Text transl ators i ncluding ontolog y issues.

I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X


• The Portable Translator is composed by a hand-hel d device that tr ansl ates bi directi onall y spoken speech from a set of l anguages to a chosen l anguage (speech and text) . I t also captur es i mages with written text i n any of the l ang uag es of the set and tr ansl ate its meaning. It can storag e as text all the tr anslations for a l ater anal ysis .

• Operational capabil it y concerned by the IoS: Sol diers i n external oper ati ons.

• Conditions of use: Portable deviceRobus t (sand, water, dus t, col d)Autonomy to at least 24 hours of oper ati onFull operati ve day and nightThe sys tem must be modular so i t can upgraded with more l anguagesReal ti me systemPlatfor m/U nit

• Expected eff ect s:Incr ease the unders tanding and situational awareness of the soldi er.Improve the rel ations with ci vil indigenous population.Improve of the psychological conditi on of the soldi er.Incr ease operati onal tempo

• Possible indirect impacts on other operational capabilities or d octr ines:

No need of l anguage trai ning. Improvement of peace keepi ng operati ons per for mance

PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:



• Current Syst ems:Portable dic tionaries Portable devices with the mos t common frases (text to voice)Human translators .



Civil sector ver y acti ve i n speech recogni tion (IBM VOIC ETYPE, DRAGON ..) and Text2Text transl ators i ncluding ontolog y issues.

I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X




• Conditions of use: Portable deviceRobus t (sand, water, dus t, col d)Autonomy to at leas t 24 hours of oper ati onFull operati ve day and nightThe sys tem must be modular so i t can upgraded with more l anguagesReal ti me systemPlatfor m/U nit




PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:







I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X








PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:







I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X








PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:







I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X








PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:







I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X








PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT







• Limit ations:







I - 001


Urban XAsymmetric X








PORTABLE TRANSLATOR

SPEECH

TEXT


SPEECH

TEXT



Scenario

Vignets/Snapshots

Incident list TasksTasks

TasksTasks

Tasks

Incident listIncident list


Vignets/SnapshotsVignets/Snapshots

Vignets/Snapshots

Strategic Assessment

Scenario

Vignets/Snapshots


TasksTasks

Tasks




Vignets/Snapshots


Scenario

Vignets/Snapshots


TasksTasks

Tasks




Vignets/Snapshots


Scenario

Vignets/Snapshots


TasksTasks

Tasks




Micro-scenarios’


Micro-scenario

Overall scenario


Ops floor groups

• Total of 10 Mil Air, Land and Maritime Experts G2, G3, G4, G9, Spec Ops (LtCol/Maj)

• Red and Blue team• Experts in Tasking, Planning and Execution• NATO or National resources

TableTable

• 3/5 Military experts (Col/LtCol)• Joint services oriented• NATO or National resources• General oversight• Policy: National/NATO• Media: CNN factor• Chair is also Mil Referee

TableMilitary group

• Operations Analysis Experts (Tech & Mil)• 1 person at the table• 2-4 with the both teams

TableAnalyst group

• Technological theme representatives• They will try to estimate the possible

maturity and applicability in time frame 5-10 and 10-20 years

• These people have to be creative• They develop extra IoS cards on

requirements from Ops teams (Wild cards)• Chair is also Tech Referee

TableTechnology group


1 cycle game

Table

Table

1 hr CoA & Card assessment

Micro scenario

+Cards

+RoE+

Orbatas a Start

Input DTAG

TARTAN archives first impressions

Table

Briefing to Milgp, 5 min

Briefing to Milgp, 5 min

Table

TARTAN total archiving

Table

Table Table

Table

Confrontation analysis3 hrs

Moderator

Mil & Techg gp support

Mil & Techg gp support

Table

2,5 hr debrief & extra inputIn TARTAN

Table

Table


Foreseen results

• List of Technologies• Maturity• Timeline

• List of Ideas of Systems• Maturity• Timeline

• List of possible disruptive technologies• Usefulness for tasks• Ranking

• Total is input for Defense planning

What?

What?

What?

Ambitions (Foreign Security

Policy aims)

Which?

Transform

ation Policy

& processes roadm

aps

What?

How?

How?

How?

Future World prospects

Threat appreciation

Scenario’s

Objective Force

capabilities

Legacy Forcecapabilities

Technology developments


J.G.M. (Michel) Rademaker MTL

Email: [email protected] TNO Defence Security and Safety (www.tno.nl)Programme director National Security and IntelligenceSecretary Clingendael Centre for Strategic Studies (www.ccss.nl) Oude Waalsdorperweg 632509 JG The HagueThe Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)703740139Mob: +31 (0)624686023Fax: +31 (0)70 3740642 ?

technology trends and developments approaches and use in defense planning technology trends and...

Documents

optionstechnology trends

assessment of technologies

disruptive technologies

security sector

technological development

disruptive effect

realm of defence

system of sys