Timesdelhi.com

December 12, 2018
Category archive

department of defense

Why the Pentagon’s $10 billion JEDI deal has cloud companies going nuts

in Amazon/Cloud/Delhi/department of defense/Enterprise/Government/India/Microsoft/military/oracle/Pentagon JEDI contract/Politics/TC by

By now you’ve probably heard of the Defense Department’s massive winner-take-all $10 billion cloud contract dubbed the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (or JEDI for short).
Star Wars references aside, this contract is huge, even by government standards.The Pentagon would like a single cloud vendor to build out its enterprise cloud, believing rightly or wrongly that this is the best approach to maintain focus and control of their cloud strategy.

Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson Heather Babb tells TechCrunch the department sees a lot of upside by going this route. “Single award is advantageous because, among other things, it improves security, improves data accessibility and simplifies the Department’s ability to adopt and use cloud services,” she said.

Whatever company they choose to fill this contract, this is about modernizing their computing infrastructure and their combat forces for a world of IoT, artificial intelligence and big data analysis, while consolidating some of their older infrastructure. “The DOD Cloud Initiative is part of a much larger effort to modernize the Department’s information technology enterprise. The foundation of this effort is rationalizing the number of networks, data centers and clouds that currently exist in the Department,” Babb said.

Setting the stage

It’s possible that whoever wins this DOD contract could have a leg up on other similar projects in the government. After all it’s not easy to pass muster around security and reliability with the military and if one company can prove that they are capable in this regard, they could be set up well beyond this one deal.

As Babb explains it though, it’s really about figuring out the cloud long-term. “JEDI Cloud is a pathfinder effort to help DOD learn how to put in place an enterprise cloud solution and a critical first step that enables data-driven decision making and allows DOD to take full advantage of applications and data resources,” she said.

Photo: Mischa Keijser for Getty Images

The single vendor component, however, could explain why the various cloud vendors who are bidding, have lost their minds a bit over it — everyone except Amazon, that is, which has been mostly silent, happy apparently to let the process play out.

The belief amongst the various other players, is that Amazon is in the driver’s seat for this bid, possibly because they delivered a $600 million cloud contract for the government in 2013, standing up a private cloud for the CIA. It was a big deal back in the day on a couple of levels. First of all, it was the first large-scale example of an intelligence agency using a public cloud provider. And of course the amount of money was pretty impressive for the time, not $10 billion impressive, but a nice contract.

For what it’s worth, Babb dismisses such talk, saying that the process is open and no vendor has an advantage. “The JEDI Cloud final RFP reflects the unique and critical needs of DOD, employing the best practices of competitive pricing and security. No vendors have been pre-selected,” she said.

Complaining loudly

As the Pentagon moves toward selecting its primary cloud vendor for the next decade, Oracle in particular has been complaining to anyone who will listen that Amazon has an unfair advantage in the deal, going so far as to file a formal complaint last month, even before bids were in and long before the Pentagon made its choice.

Photo: mrdoomits for Getty Images (cropped)

Somewhat ironically, given their own past business model, Oracle complained among other things that the deal would lock the department into a single platform over the long term. They also questioned whether the bidding process adhered to procurement regulations for this kind of deal, according to a report in the Washington Post. In April, Bloomberg reported that co-CEO Safra Catz complained directly to the president that the deal was tailor made for Amazon.

Microsoft hasn’t been happy about the one-vendor idea either, pointing out that by limiting itself to a single vendor, the Pentagon could be missing out on innovation from the other companies in the back and forth world of the cloud market, especially when we’re talking about a contract that stretches out for so long.

As Microsoft’s Leigh Madden told TechCrunch in April, the company is prepared to compete, but doesn’t necessarily see a single vendor approach as the best way to go. “If the DOD goes with a single award path, we are in it to win, but having said that, it’s counter to what we are seeing across the globe where 80 percent of customers are adopting a multi-cloud solution,” he said at the time.

He has a valid point, but the Pentagon seems hell bent on going forward with the single vendor idea, even though the cloud offers much greater interoperability than proprietary stacks of the 1990s (for which Oracle and Microsoft were prime examples at the time).

Microsoft has its own large DOD contract in place for almost a billion dollars, although this deal from 2016 was for Windows 10 and related hardware for DOD employees, rather than a pure cloud contract like Amazon has with the CIA.

It also recently released Azure Stack for government, a product that lets government customers install a private version of Azure with all the same tools and technologies you find in the public version, and could prove attractive as part of its JEDI bid.

Cloud market dynamics

It’s also possible that the fact that Amazon controls the largest chunk of the cloud infrastructure market, might play here at some level. While Microsoft has been coming fast, it’s still about a third of Amazon in terms of market size, as Synergy Research’s Q42017 data clearly shows.

The market hasn’t shifted dramatically since this data came out. While market share alone wouldn’t be a deciding factor, Amazon came to market first and it is much bigger in terms of market than the next four combined, according to Synergy. That could explain why the other players are lobbying so hard and seeing Amazon as the biggest threat here, because it’s probably the biggest threat in almost every deal where they come up against each other, due to its sheer size.

Consider also that Oracle, which seems to be complaining the loudest, was rather late to the cloud after years of dismissing it. They could see JEDI as a chance to establish a foothold in government that they could use to build out their cloud business in the private sector too.

10 years might not be 10 years

It’s worth pointing out that the actual deal has the complexity and opt-out clauses of a sports contract with just an initial two-year deal guaranteed. A couple of three-year options follow, with a final two-year option closing things out. The idea being, that if this turns out to be a bad idea, the Pentagon has various points where they can back out.

Photo: Henrik Sorensen for Getty Images (cropped)

In spite of the winner-take-all approach of JEDI, Babb indicated that the agency will continue to work with multiple cloud vendors no matter what happens. “DOD has and will continue to operate multiple clouds and the JEDI Cloud will be a key component of the department’s overall cloud strategy. The scale of our missions will require DOD to have multiple clouds from multiple vendors,” she said.

The DOD accepted final bids in August, then extended the deadline for Requests for Proposal to October 9th. Unless the deadline gets extended again, we’re probably going to finally hear who the lucky company is sometime in the coming weeks, and chances are there is going to be lot of whining and continued maneuvering from the losers when that happens.

News Source = techcrunch.com

In Army of None, a field guide to the coming world of autonomous warfare

in Artificial Intelligence/Book Review/Delhi/department of defense/India/Politics/robotics by

The Silicon Valley-military industrial complex is increasingly in the crosshairs of artificial intelligence engineers. A few weeks ago, Google was reported to be backing out of a Pentagon contract around Project Maven, which would use image recognition to automatically evaluate photos. Earlier this year, AI researchers around the world joined petitions calling for a boycott of any research that could be used in autonomous warfare.

For Paul Scharre, though, such petitions barely touch the deep complexity, nuance, and ambiguity that will make evaluating autonomous weapons a major concern for defense planners this century. In Army of None, Scharre argues that the challenges around just the definitions of these machines will take enormous effort to work out between nations, let alone handling their effects. It’s a sobering, thoughtful, if at times protracted look at this critical topic.

Scharre should know. A former Army Ranger, he joined the Pentagon working in the Office of Secretary of Defense, where he developed some of the Defense Department’s first policies around autonomy. Leaving in 2013, he joined the DC-based think tank Center for a New American Security, where he directs a center on technology and national security. In short, he has spent about a decade on this emerging tech, and his expertise clearly shows throughout the book.

The first challenge that belies these petitions on autonomous weapons is that these systems already exist, and are already deployed in the field. Technologies like the Aegis Combat System, High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), and the Harpy already include sophisticated autonomous features. As Scharre writes, “The human launching the Harpy decides to destroy any enemy radars within a general area in space and time, but the Harpy itself chooses the specific radar it destroys.” The weapon can loiter for 2.5 hours while it determines a target with its sensors — is it autonomous?

Scharre repeatedly uses the military’s OODA loop (for observe, orient, decide, and act) as a framework to determine the level of autonomy for a given machine. Humans can be “in the loop,” where they determine the actions of the machine, “on the loop” where they have control but the machine is mostly working independently, and “out of the loop” when machines are entirely independent of human decision-making.

The framework helps clear some of the confusion between different systems, but it is not sufficient. When machines fight machines, for instance, the speed of the battle can become so great that humans may well do more harm then good intervening. Millions of cycles of the OODA loop could be processed by a drone before a human even registers what is happening on the battlefield. A human out of the loop, therefore, could well lead to safer outcomes. It’s exactly these kinds of paradoxes that make the subject so difficult to analyze.

In addition to paradoxes, constraints are a huge theme in the book as well. Speed is one — and the price of military equipment is another. Dumb missiles are cheap, and adding automation has consistently added to the price of hardware. As Scharre notes, “Modern missiles can cost upwards of a million dollars apiece. As a practical matter, militaries will want to know that there is, in fact, a valid enemy target in the area before using an expensive weapon.”

Another constraint is simply culture. The author writes, “There is intense cultural resistance within the U.S. military to handing over jobs to uninhabited systems.” Not unlike automation in the civilian workforce, people in power want to place flesh-and-blood humans in the most complex assignments. These constraints matter, because Scharre foresees a classic arms race around these weapons as dozens of countries pursue these machines.

Humans “in the loop” may be the default today, but for how long?

At a higher level, about a third of the book is devoted to the history of automation, (generalized) AI, and the potential for autonomy, topics which should be familiar to any regular reader of TechCrunch. Another third of the book or so is a meditation on the challenges of the technology from a dual use and strategic perspective, as well as the dubious path toward an international ban.

Yet, what I found most valuable in the book was the chapter on ethics, lodged fairly late in the book’s narrative. Scharre does a superb job covering the ground of the various schools of thought around the ethics of autonomous warfare, and how they intersect and compete. He extensively analyzes and quotes Ron Arkin, a roboticist who has spent significant time thinking about autonomy in warfare. Arkin tells Scharre that “We put way too much faith in human warfighters,” and argues that autonomous weapons could theoretically be programmed never to commit a war crime unlike humans. Other activists, like Jody Williams, believe that only a comprehensive ban can ensure that such weapons are never developed in the first place.

Scharre regrets that more of these conversations don’t take into account the strategic positions of the military. He notes that international discussions on bans are led by NGOs and not by nation states, whereas all examples of successful bans have been the other way around.

Another challenge is simply that antiwar activism and anti-autonomous weapons activism are increasingly being conflated. Scharre writes, “One of the challenges in weighing the ethics of autonomous weapons is untangling which criticisms are about autonomous weapons and which are really about war.” Citing Sherman, who marched through the U.S. South in the Civil War in an aggressive pillage, the author reminds the reader that “war is hell,” and that militaries don’t choose weapons in a vacuum, but relatively against other tools in their and their competitors’ arsenals.

The book is a compendium of the various issues around autonomous weapons, although it suffers a bit from the classic problem of being too lengthy on some subjects (drone swarms) while offering limited information on others (arms control negotiations). The book also is marred at times by errors, such as “news rules of engagement” that otherwise detract from a direct and active text. Tighter editing would have helped in both cases. Given the inchoate nature of the subject, the book works as an overview, although it fails to present an opinionated narrative on where autonomy and the military should go in the future, an unsatisfying gap given the author’s extensive and unique background on the subject.

All that said, Army of None is a one-stop guide book to the debates, the challenges, and yes, the opportunities that can come from autonomous warfare. Scharre ends on exactly the right note, reminding us that ultimately, all of these machines are owned by us, and what we choose to build is within our control. “The world we are creating is one that will have intelligent machines in it, but it is not for them. It is a world for us.” We should continue to engage, and petition, and debate, but always with a vision for the future we want to realize.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Meet Alchemist Accelerator’s latest demo day cohort

in Accelerator/alchemist accelerator/alpha/big data/Broadcom/ceo/chemicals/Cisco/computing/data/Delhi/department of defense/India/Internet of Things/Load Balancing/machine learning/mobile devices/Politics/product search/Qualcomm/stanford/Startups/storm ventures/TC/Technology/walmart.com by

An IoT-enabled lab for cannabis farmers, a system for catching drones mid-flight and the Internet of Cows are a few of the 17 startups exhibiting today at Alchemist Accelerator’s 18th demo day. The event, which will be streamed live here, focuses on big data and AI startups with an enterprise bent.

The startups are showing their stuff at Juniper’s Aspiration Dome in Sunnyvale, California at 3pm today, but you can catch the whole event online if you want to see just what computers and cows have in common. Here are the startups pitching onstage.

Tarsier – Tarsier has built AI computer vision to detect drones. The founders discovered the need while getting their MBAs at Stanford, after one had completed a PhD in aeronautics. Drones are proliferating. And getting into places they shouldn’t — prisons, R&D centers, public spaces. Securing these spaces today requires antiquated military gear that’s clunky and expensive. Tarsier is all software. And cheap, allowing them to serve markets the others can’t touch.

Lightbox – Retail 3D is sexy — think virtual try-ons, VR immersion, ARKit stores. But creating these experiences means creating 3D models of thousands of products. Today, artists slog through this process, outputting a few models per day. Lightbox wants to eliminate the humans. This duo of recent UPenn and Stanford Computer Science grads claim their approach to 3D scanning is pixel perfect without needing artists. They have booked $40,000 to date and want to digitize all of the world’s products.

Vorga – Cannabis is big business — more than $7 billion in revenue today and growing fast. The crop’s quality — and a farmer’s income — is highly sensitive to a few chemicals in it. Farmers today test the chemical composition of their crops through outsourced labs. Vorga’s bringing the lab in-house to the cannabis farmer via their IoT platform. The CEO has a PhD in chemical physics, and formerly helped the Department of Defense keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. She’s now helping cannabis farmers get high… revenue.

Neulogic – Neulogic is founded by a duo of Computer Science PhDs that led key parts of Walmart.com product search. They now want to solve two major problems facing the online apparel industry: the need to provide curated inspiration to shoppers and the need to offset rising customer acquisition costs by selling more per order. Their solution combines AI with a fashion knowledge graph to generate outfits on demand.

Intensivate – Life used to be simple. Enterprises would use servers primarily for function-driven applications like billing. Today, servers are all about big data, analytics and insight. Intensivate thinks servers need a new chip upgrade to reflect that change. They are building a new CPU they claim gets 12x the performance for the same cost. Hardware plays like this are hard to pull off, but this might be the team to do it. It includes the former co-founder and CEO of CPU startup QED, which was acquired for $2.3 billion, and a PhD in parallel computation who was on the design team for the Alpha CPU from DEC.

Integry – SaaS companies put a lot of effort into building out integrations. Integry provides app creators their own integrations marketplace with pre-boarded partners so they can have apps working with theirs from the get go. The vision is to enable app creators to mimic their own Slack app directory without spending the years or the millions. Because these integrations sit inside their app, Integry claims setup rates are significantly better and churn is reduced by as much as 40 percent.

Cattle Care – AI video analytics applied to cows! Cattle Care wants to increase dairy farmers’ revenue by more than $1 million per year and make cows healthier at the same time. The product identifies cows in the barn by their unique black and white patterns. Algorithms collect parameters such as walking distance, interactions with other cows, feeding patterns and other variables to detect diseases early. Then the system sends alerts to farm employees when they need to take action, and confirms the problem has been solved afterwards.

VadR – VR/AR is grappling with a lack of engaging content. VadR thinks the cause is a broken feedback loop of analytics to the creators. This trio of IIT-Delhi engineers has built machine learning algorithms that get smarter over time and deliver actionable insights on how to modify content to increase engagement.

Tika – This duo of ex-Googlers wants to help engineering managers manage their teams better. Managers use Tika as an AI-powered assistant over Slack to facilitate personalized conversations with engineering teams. The goal is to quickly uncover and resolve employee engagement issues, and prevent talent churn.

GridRaster – GridRaster wants to bring AR/VR to mobile devices. The problem? AR/VR is compute-intensive. Latency, bandwidth and poor load balancing kill AR/VR on mobile networks. The solution? For this trio of systems engineers from Broadcom, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments, it’s about starting with enterprise use cases and building edge clouds to offload the work. They have 12 patents.

AitoeLabs – Despite the buzz around AI video analytics for security, AitoeLabs claims solutions today are plagued with hundreds of thousands of false alarms, requiring lots of human involvement. The engineering trio founding team combines a secret sauce of contextual data with their own deep models to solve this problem. They claim a 6x reduction in human monitoring needs with their tech. They’re at $240,000 ARR with $1 million of LOIs.

Ubiquios – Companies building wireless IoT devices waste more than $1.8 billion because of inadequate embedded software options making products late to market and exposing them to security and interoperability issues. The Ubiquios wireless stack wants to simplify the development of wireless IoT devices. The company claims their stack results in up to 90 percent lower cost and up to 50 percent faster time to market. Qualcomm is a partner.

4me, Inc. – 4me helps companies organize and track their IT outsourcing projects. They have 16 employees, 92 customers and generate several million in revenue annually. Storm Ventures led a $1.65 million investment into the company.

TorchFi – You know the pop-up screen you see when you log into a Wi-Fi hotspot? TorchFi thinks it’s a digital gold mine in the waiting. Their goal is to convert that into a sales channel for hotspot owners. Their first product is a digital menu that transforms the login screen into a food ordering screen for hotels and restaurants. Cisco has selected them as one of 20 apps to be distributed on their Meraki hotspots.

Cogitai – This team of 16 PhDs wants to usher in a more powerful type of AI called continual learning. The founders are the fathers of the field — and include professors in computer science from UT Austin and U Michigan. Unlike what we commonly think of as AI, Cogitai’s AI is built to acquire new skills and knowledge from experience, much like a child does. They have closed $2 million in bookings this year, and have $5 million in funding.

LoadTap – On-demand trucking apps are in vogue. LoadTap explicitly calls out that it is not one. This team, which includes an Apple software architect and founder with a family background in trucking, is an enterprise SaaS-only solution for shippers who prefer to work with their pre-vetted trucking companies in a closed loop. LoadTap automates matching between the shippers and trucking companies using AI and predictive analytics. They’re at $90,000 ARR and growing revenue 50 percent month over month.

Ondaka – Ondaka has built a VR-like 3D platform to render industrial information visually, starting with the oil and gas industry. For these industrial customers, the platform provides a better way to understand real-time IoT data, operational and job site safety issues and how reliable their systems are. The product launched two months ago, they have closed three customers already and are projecting ARR in the six figures. They have raised $350,000 in funding.

News Source = techcrunch.com

The United States needs a Department of Cybersecurity

in China/Column/computer security/Congress/cyberattack/cybercrime/Cyberwarfare/Delhi/department of defense/Department of Homeland Security/department of justice/executive/Federal Bureau of Investigation/Government/hacking/India/national security/Politics/Russia/San Francisco/Security/spy/United States/Washington by

This week over 40,000 security professionals will attend RSA in San Francisco to see the latest cyber technologies on display and discuss key issues. No topic will be higher on the agenda than the Russian sponsored hack of the American 2016 election with debate about why the country has done so little to respond and what measures should be taken to deter future attempts at subverting our democracy.

For good reason. There is now clear evidence of Russian interference in the election with Special Counsel Mueller’s 37-page indictment of 13 Russians yet the attack on US sovereignty and stability has gone largely unanswered.  The $120 million set aside by Congress to address the Russian attacks remains unspent. We expelled Russian diplomats but only under international pressure after the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter.

Recent sanctions are unlikely to change the behavior of the Putin administration. To put it bluntly, we have done nothing of substance to address our vulnerability to foreign cyberattacks. Meanwhile, our enemies gain in technological capability, sophistication and impact.

Along with the Russians, the Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and newly derived nation states use cyber techniques on a daily basis to further their efforts to gain advantage on the geopolitical stage. It is a conscious decision by these governments that a proactive cyber program advances their goals while limiting the United States.

Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images

We were once dominant in this realm both technically and with our knowledge and skillsets. That playing field has been leveled and we sit idly by without the will or focus to try and regain the advantage. This is unacceptable, untenable and will ultimately lead to potentially dire consequences.

In March of this year, the US CyberCommand released  a vision paper called “Achieve and Maintain Cyberspace Superiority.” It is a call to action to unleash the country’s cyber warriors to fight  for our national security in concert with all other diplomatic and economic powers available to the United States.

It’s a start but a vision statement is not enough.  Without a proper organizational structure, the United States will never achieve operational excellence in its cyber endeavors.  Today we are organized to fail.  Our capabilities are distributed across so many different parts of the government that they are overwhelmed with bureaucracy, inefficiency and dilution of talent.

The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for national protection including prevention, mitigation and recovery from cyber attacks. The FBI, under the umbrella of the Department of Justice,  has lead responsibility for investigation and enforcement. The Department of Defense, including US CyberCommand, is in charge of national defense.  In addition, each of the various military branches  have their own cyber units. No one who wanted to win would organize a critical  capability in such a distributed and disbursed manner.

How could our law makers know what policy to pass? How do we recruit and train the best of the best in an organization, when it might just be a rotation through a military branch? How can we instantly share knowledge that benefits all when these groups don’t even talk to one another? Our current approach does not and cannot work.

Image courtesy of Colin Anderson

What is needed is a sixteenth branch of the Executive — a Department of Cybersecurity — that  would assemble the country’s best talent and resources to operate under a single umbrella and a single coherent policy.  By uniting our cyber efforts we would make the best use of limited resources and ensure seamless communications across all elements dealing in cyberspace. The department would  act on behalf of the government and the private sector to protect against cyberthreats and, when needed, go on offense.

As with physical defense, sometimes that means diplomacy or sanctions, and sometimes it means executing missions to cripple an enemy’s cyber-operations. We  have the technological capabilities, we have the talent, we know what to do but unless all of this firepower is unified and aimed at the enemy we might as well have nothing.

When a Department of Cybersecurity is discussed in Washington, it is usually rejected because of the number of agencies and departments affected. This is code for loss of budget and personnel. We must rise above turf battles if we are to have a shot at waging an effective cyber war. There are some who have raised concerns about coordination on offensive actions but they can be addressed by a clear chain of command with the Defense Department to avoid the potential of a larger conflict.

We must also not be thrown by comparisons to the Department of Homeland Security and conclude a Cybersecurity department would face the same challenges. DHS was 22 different agencies thrust into one. A Department of Cybersecurity would be built around a common set of skills, people and know-how all working on a common issue and goal. Very different.

Strengthening our cyberdefense is as vital as having a powerful standing army to defend ourselves and our allies. Russia, China and others have invested in their cyberwar capabilities to exploit our systems almost at will.

Counterpunching those efforts requires our own national mandate executed with Cabinet level authority. If we don’t bestow this level of importance to the fight and set ourselves up to win, interference in US elections will not only be repeated …  such acts will seem trivial in comparison to what could and is likely to happen.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Palmer Luckey’s new defense company Anduril looks interested in AR and VR on the battlefield

in anduril/Delhi/department of defense/founders fund/Government/India/Oculus/Palantir/Palmer Luckey/Peter Thiel/Politics/TC/Virtual Reality by

Palmer Luckey’s new defense startup Anduril has aspirations well beyond a high tech border wall. According to new information on the company’s website and its hires, Anduril intends to apply its virtual reality pedigree to “real-time battlefield awareness for soldiers,” among other defense-centric specialties.

As California records show, the company was incorporated in June of this year and is based out of Irvine, the former headquarters of Oculus prior to its move to Facebook’s home in Menlo Park. Following months of controversy, Luckey left the VR company he co-founded in March of this year.

It’s not yet clear what role Luckey will play at Anduril, but now we know more about the team. Linkedin lists former Palantir engineer Matt Grimm, former Oculus producer and product lead Joseph Chen and Founders Fund partner and former Palantir engineer Trae Stephens as Anduril’s co-founders.

Former Oculus engineer Torin Herndon is also listed as an Anduril engineer, joining the company in September. Former Palantir director Brian W. Schimpf was listed as Anduril’s chief executive officer in June.

Anduril’s advantages

Stephens in particular is well-positioned to vie for juicy government contracts: after being tapped by Founders Fund managing partner Peter Thiel, he played a role in the Trump administration, overseeing the Department of Defense transition. According to Politico, Stephens apparently ruffled some feathers at the Pentagon with questions about changing the Defense Department’s competitive procurement process through which it accepts bids and awards contracts.

Beyond Stephens, all of that Palantir talent makes perfect sense. Palantir is a natural model for Anduril’s defense aspirations. Potentially worth north of $20 billion, the often secretive company owns a huge array of data and surveillance-focused government contracts with everyone from the three-letter agencies to the NYPD.

Anduril’s vision

In August, Anduril only had a placeholder website with an info email address listed for inquiries. At the time, Anduril, Luckey and the Founders Fund did not respond to TechCrunch’s requests for comment on the company’s defense plans and work advising lawmakers on high tech border wall proposals.

Now, the site is fleshed out significantly, with a logo and something resembling a mission statement if not a raison d’être. Declaring that defense innovation has lagged since the Cold War, Anduril reveals some of its specific aims:

“Anduril is privately funding and building products that America and her allies desperately need: real-time battlefield awareness for soldiers on the ground and headquarters alike, technology that keeps our men and women on the front line out of harm’s way, and a host of other technologies that will ensure we are staying ahead of our adversaries.”

Anduril’s assertion that it is a “product-focused” company combined with the fledgling team’s collective experience, split between VR and Palantir’s more data and surveillance-oriented products, a picture of what Luckey’s new project is really up to emerges. Playing up that remaining interest in AR and VR, an illustration depicts an individual wearing a headset not unlike Oculus’s own offerings.

As one source who has spoken with the company’s founders told TechCrunch, Luckey’s vision seems focused on applying augmented reality to defense. Given the sophistication of even the mass-produced consumer-grade virtual reality headsets that Luckey pioneered, it’s easy to imagine how affordable AR and VR could be standard issue in a near-future for the U.S. military.

Anduril’s other areas of focus include computer vision, sensor fusion, distributed computing infrastructure, optics and camera systems, LIDAR and RADAR systems, robotics, automation and aeronautical design, according to a job posting that TechCrunch reported in July.

For soldiers in combat, AR could offer vital real-time information — or “battlefield awareness” — with the kind of heads up displays that are ubiquitous in military video games to show ammunition, weapon selection and target information. Off the battlefield, affordable, readily available virtual reality devices could allow for everything from lifelike mission simulation to drone targeting.

Some of this is well underway, of course. Just this summer, U.S. Navy gunnery sailors tested augmented reality headsets for battle purposes. “The headset is wirelessly connected to a tablet, which the officer uses to direct the gunner’s attention toward targets, and to start or stop firing,” Defense One reported. “Cues and other information — infrared imagery, distances to targets — appear in a heads-up display projected on the visor.” The Office of Naval Research has been digging into consumer VR since 2015 in its Battlespace Exploitation of Mixed Reality (BEMR) lab, depicted above in the header image, and similar projects are in development in other wings of the U.S. military.

Near and far future aims

The difference between Anduril and existing military projects is that the company is guided by the man who made it his singular mission to bring virtual reality devices to the mainstream, making them both affordable and consumer-friendly. It’s hard not to think of Luckey’s Oculus efforts when Anduril’s site asserts that the company “funds and builds our own technology” and criticizes the “slow and expensive development of bespoke technology” that slows down defense innovation.

Brain-computer interfaces could be another big opportunity for Anduril and other private tech defense contractors. Luckey shared his own thoughts about devices that could provide a direct link between the human brain and the devices we control earlier this year in an interview with MoguraVR:

“Competition is about to start with this technology. A lot of people will compete to make a BCI [Brain-Computer Interface] that will allow people to move virtual objects with just your brain. BCI devices that currently are available to consumers are not in a usable state. The BCI devices in laboratories are very different. If someone could make a general BCI device they could sell… the world would change.”

When asked about his current projects, Luckey added:

“I can’t say anything at the moment. The only thing I can say is that I am trying to once more change VR.”

Featured Image: Office of Naval Research/Flickr UNDER A CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN MODIFIED)

News Source = techcrunch.com

Go to Top