U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

97–823 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–67] 

ADVANCING THE SCIENCE AND 

ACCEPTANCE OF AUTONOMY FOR 

FUTURE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS 

AND CAPABILITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member 

LINDSAY KAVANAUGH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ..................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ............................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Bornstein, Dr. Jonathan, Chief, Autonomous Systems Division, Vehicle Technology Directorate, Army Research Laboratory ................................................ 7 

Kelley, Frank, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Zacharias, Dr. Greg L., Chief Scientist of the United States Air Force .............. 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bornstein, Dr. Jonathan .................................................................................. 52 

Kelley, Frank .................................................................................................... 38 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 21 

Zacharias, Dr. Greg L. ..................................................................................... 22 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 65 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 61 

(1) 

ADVANCING THE SCIENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF 

AUTONOMY FOR FUTURE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, Washington, DC, Thursday, November 19, 2015. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this hearing of Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed 

Services Committee to order. 

I am pleased to welcome everyone here today for today’s hearing 

on advancing the science and acceptance of autonomy for future defense systems. The military necessity for autonomous systems is 

obvious. Many of us recognize that our military is not large 

enough, and it is not likely to grow sufficiently over the next few 

years to handle all the threats we face. 

On top of this, shrinking budgets will shrink our military, stretch 

our military men and women and platforms even further to be able 

to accomplish their ever-changing and challenging missions. The 

promise of autonomous systems is becoming more evident every 

day. From self-driving cars to smart buildings to increasing presence of robotics, the full potential of autonomous systems is nearly 

endless. What is less understood are the technical and policy challenges that must be identified and solved to make those visions a 

reality. 

Most of us are more likely to understand what is possible with 

examples provided from television and movies. So I am looking forward to having real experts shed light on what the actual stateof-the-art technology is, and what the path to acceptance looks like 

for the military services. And with this backdrop, we look forward 

to hearing from today’s panel of witnesses who will educate members on many of the issues related to autonomy research and the 

development of increasingly autonomous systems. 

And we do have a challenge. Votes have just been called, and we 

will be introducing everyone, and then we will recess and then 

come back. 

And so our witnesses today, Dr. Greg L. Zacharias, Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force; Mr. Frank Kelley, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems; Dr. Jonathan Born-
2 

stein, Chief, Autonomous Systems Division, Vehicle Technology Directorate, Army Research Laboratory. 

And before we recess, I would like to turn to my friend, the ranking member, James Langevin from Rhode Island, for any comments 

he’d like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 21.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank you for convening this hearing. I will welcome our witnesses. 

It is certainly always a pleasure diving into these issues with you. 

And I appreciate you and your convening this hearing this morning. So again, thank you to our witnesses for appearing before the 

subcommittee to provide your insights regarding advancing the 

science of autonomy as well as the challenges with its acceptance. 

Increasingly, autonomous systems and capabilities have provided 

a significant advantage to our warfighters by augmenting the skills 

while also decreasing the risk to their lives. Some of those systems, 

such as the human supervised Aegis Combat System, point defense 

systems such as Phalanx, and ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance] systems, have been such game changers that they 

have fundamentally altered our strategies and doctrine. 

For just one example, as members of the ETC [Emerging Threats 

and Capabilities] Subcommittee, we are extraordinarily familiar 

with how remotely piloted aircraft and identifying, tracking, and 

killing capabilities they carry have not only changed tactic, techniques, and procedures, but also shaped our counterterrorism strategy. 

Although we have begun to realize the potential of unmanned 

systems for military applications, we have yet to grasp the full potential of autonomous systems. Incorporation of unmanned platforms has been driven by demands in current areas of operations, 

and those same demands will drive us towards usage of increasingly sophisticated autonomy in all domains: air, ground, sea, 

space, and cyberspace. 

Bearing that in mind, it is troubling that the 2012 Defense 

Science Board [DSB] report entitled ‘‘The Report of Autonomy in 

DOD [Department of Defense] Systems’’ concluded that there are 

several hurdles precluding broad acceptance of autonomous systems in the Department, thereby hindering advances in science and 

technology. 

I do recognize that there have been changes and progress on the 

subject and science of autonomy in the Department since the DSB 

report was issued. In the fall of 2014, Under Secretary Kendall announced the commissioning of a new study focused on the science, 

engineering, and policy problems that must be solved to permit 

greater operational use of autonomy across all warfighting domains. Most recently, the Secretary of the Navy established a new 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for autonomous systems, 

and a new office to coordinate all aspects of unmanned systems. 
3 

And Deputy Secretary Work has indicated autonomous systems 

will play a significant role in the Third Offset Strategy. 

Today, I hope to have a robust dialogue on how we can advance 

the science, utility, and acceptance of autonomous systems. I hope 

that we can discuss the following. 

First of all, definition. How should we define autonomy? How 

should we distinguish between the degrees of complexity of autonomous systems? And how should we distinguish future autonomous 

capabilities? 

Next, command and control. Who is ultimately responsible in the 

chain of command as systems become more independent from operators? Should certain lethal capabilities remain with a human in 

the loop or become autonomous, akin to point defense systems? 

When and how should we revisit these determinations? 

Next, integration. How will we integrate autonomous systems 

and capabilities with manned and other unmanned systems across 

all domains? 

Next, science and technology. How do we better transition advancements in capabilities? How will the Department create a cohesive testing and training strategy that provides confidence at the 

strategic, tactical, and operational levels for maximum employment 

of the capability? And what hurdles must be overcome to formulate 

those strategies? 

Given that such autonomy research is being undertaken in the 

private sector, and in our labs and academic institutions, how, and 

to what degree, do we leverage that work? 

And, finally, security and risk. How do we ensure software and 

hardware systems are secure and verified? How will we understand 

and measure the risks associated with employment of autonomous 

systems? 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our conversation 

and our witnesses’ testimony. And with that I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Langevin. 

And as indicated, we are having votes on the floor at this time. 

There are four votes. There will be, sadly, a significant delay. But 

we are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome everybody back to a meeting of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee 

on the House Armed Services Committee. We have recessed for 

votes, and the votes are concluded. And we can proceed. And I 

would like to remind every one of our witnesses that your written 

statements will be submitted for the record. So that we ask that 

you summarize your comments in 5 minutes or less. Thank you for 

being here today. We will begin with Dr. Zacharias. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GREG L. ZACHARIAS, CHIEF SCIENTIST OF 

THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony on how the Air Force is advancing science in autonomy and the acceptance of the autonomy for future defense systems. I deeply appreciate your devoting time to this topic. 
4 

Just as a little addition to my background, I have been working 

in the manned machine area for over 40 years, first helping to design the space shuttle autopilot, later working with flight simulation, and most recently, with systems providing computational intelligence to help humans make better decisions. 

The current focus on autonomous systems calls on many of these 

technology areas, and I am delighted to be in the middle of it right 

now in my current role as chief scientist. I hope I can help explain 

today some of the issues involved in development of these systems. 

In the Air Force’s vision for autonomy in future systems, we seek 

the right balance of human and machine teaming to meet future 

operational challenges by combining increasingly capable hardware 

and software systems with unique human abilities in perception, 

judgment, and innovation. The goal is to have human autonomy 

teams operate effectively in high tempo, uncertain, and complex decision environments where humans and machines can work together effectively, efficiently, predictably, and robustly. Boiled 

down to its essentials, the Air Force’s autonomy, science, and technology vision is intelligent machines seamlessly integrated with 

humans maximizing mission performance in complex and contested 

environments. 

So as machine capabilities advance, the Air Force’s technology 

development approach is to keep the airmen at the center of the 

system design. Likewise, the Air Force’s operational vision is to 

keep the airmen at the center of the critical decisions that occur 

throughout a mission and engagement. The ultimate goal is to ensure effective teaming of the airmen with the autonomous system 

for better agility, effectiveness, and mission success. 

Embedded in this vision are three strategic objectives, if you will. 

First, the development of sensors and data-gathering technology 

that can provide the needed information for a system to better understand its operating environment and mission goals. Basically, 

the context. Second, the development of reasoning systems and 

software environments to assess situations to make recommendations or decisions. The computational intelligence part of it, if you 

will. And then finally, the refinement of different ways for carrying 

out those recommendations and decisions, whether through direct 

action, such as guiding an unmanned platform, or through recommendations to another human or a machine teammate. The 

overall goal here is to enable systems to react appropriately to 

their environment and perform situationally appropriate tasks, 

synchronized and integrated with other autonomous human or machine systems. 

The payoffs include a greater ability to prevail in increasingly 

tested environments over greater ranges and time spans; protection 

of airmen from dangerous and harsh environments while increasing their mission effectiveness; reducing the time to conduct timecritical operations, such as in defending our air, space, and cyberspace assets against high tempo threats; providing increased levels 

of reliability, persistence, and resilience; and then, finally, reducing 

manning costs, as was mentioned earlier. 

In your invitation to me to testify, you asked me to comment on 

how the Air Force has implemented the recommendations of the 

2012 Defense Science Board Autonomy Report. And I hope that be-
5 

tween my written statement provided earlier and my comments 

here today, I will have demonstrated that the Air Force has been 

very responsive to the DSB recommendations, and is leading the 

way in terms of autonomy research and use of autonomous systems. 

Thanks for letting me speak on this exciting topic and for your 

interest in this game-changing technology. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zacharias can be found in the 

Appendix on page 22.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Zacharias. And, indeed, 

it is game changing. And I appreciate your enthusiasm and recognition of how important what you are doing. Thank you very 

much. 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Kelley. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK KELLEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR UNMANNED SYSTEMS 

Mr. KELLEY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. It is my pleasure to testify this 

morning beside my Army and Air Force counterparts as the Navy’s 

first Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems. 

I would also like to thank Mr. Gates for coming down and seeing 

us at the Pentagon. Really appreciate that. And it is not lost on 

me, gentlemen, that in my past life, I would find comfort being 

flanked by two Ph.D.s, and have grown accustomed to the safety 

of such intellectual supervision. So thank you, gentlemen, for doing 

that for me. 

Unmanned and autonomous systems are going to transform the 

future of how we operate as a Navy and as a military. However, 

unmanned technology will not diminish the importance of our most 

fundamental asset, our people. Instead, unmanned and autonomous systems which allow us to exceed human limitations will be 

used as powerful force multipliers across our fleet. Using autonomous systems in roles for which machines are best suited allows 

us to strategically employ sailors and marines for roles in which 

people are best suited. 

The research and development work the Navy and Marine Corps 

is conducting to improve our autonomous capabilities for future 

military systems is impressive, from the early research in cooperative behavior to autonomous takeoffs and landings of our unmanned aircraft. These innovations in autonomy, however, need to 

be nurtured and introduced in a manner which will gain the trust 

of our sailors and marines, and the public we are here to protect. 

I hope the committee will come to appreciate the deliberate and 

disciplined nature in which the Navy and Marine Corps are investing time and resources in the development and experimentation 

with this technology. 

It is also important to understand that realizing the vision of a 

fully integrated unmanned and manned naval force will depend as 

much on significant military cultural evolution as on the tech-
6 

nology innovation. We have to change the way we think to evolve 

the way we fight. 

The strong leadership within the Navy today is laying down the 

foundation that will allow us to realize the vision of a fully integrated future force. 

This past April, the Secretary of the Navy announced that he 

was creating a new organization to focus and guide the Navy’s efforts on unmanned systems under the strong leadership of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in order to create the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems, and to bring together 

all the many stakeholders and operators who are currently working 

on this technology in order to streamline their efforts. 

Additionally, a new resource sponsor was established under the 

Chief of Naval Operations. OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations] N–99, or unmanned warfare systems, was created so 

that all aspects of unmanned in all domains will be coordinated 

and championed. As of the 2nd of November, both organizations 

have been officially stood up and populated with highly qualified 

individuals from across our Navy and Marine Corps. Prior to our 

official establishment, the groundwork commenced over the summer, and the two organizations have collaborated with the DASN 

[Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy] for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation [RDT&E] to develop a cross-Department prototyping and experimentation approach that embraces innovation. 

To work rapidly to harness the potential of unmanned technology 

into deployable systems is built upon the incredible foundation laid 

by our Office of Naval Research [ONR] and the Naval Research 

Laboratory. These two organizations have a rich history of basic 

and fundamental research in autonomous and unmanned systems 

conducted by world-class personnel in world-class facilities. 

However, despite the ample research that has been done, and despite the claims of some, autonomy is not a solved problem. There 

is much work to be done before we can realize our vision of a fully 

integrated manned and unmanned force. Autonomy still provides a 

host of unique challenges. Furthermore, autonomy alone will not 

ensure a secure America. We must understand the limits of autonomy, and, in so doing, come to more fully appreciate the advantages of being human. 

In this way we will be able to build an effective teaming relationship between people and autonomous systems. The development of 

trust within this team will be critical to the success of all of our 

missions. We have a moral imperative to equip our sailors and marines with the best capabilities to do their missions. However, we 

also have a moral imperative to ensure that in addition to the technology innovation we develop an ethical, legal, and policy framework for how we will employ unmanned and autonomous systems. 

Even as we carefully and deliberately build this framework, we 

also recognize that we have to be able to robustly defend against 

adversaries who do not play by our rules. Unmanned and autonomous technology will transform the way we operate. Your Navy 

and Marine Corps are committed to understanding and forging an 
7 

effective relationship between man and machine that will unlock 

our full potential of both. 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity 

to speak with you today. And I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. And we appreciate your 

prior Marine service, too. 

We now proceed to Dr. Bornstein. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN BORNSTEIN, CHIEF, AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS DIVISION, VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, 

and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak with you about the research and development work currently being pursued by the Army to improve autonomy capabilities for future military systems. The recently published Army Operating Concept notes that the application of 

emerging autonomy technology creates the potential for affordable, 

interoperable systems that improve the effectiveness of soldiers and 

units. That document provides vision that, quote, ‘‘Autonomous and 

semiautonomous operational capabilities may increase lethality, 

improve protection and extend soldiers’ and units’ reach,’’ unquote. 

The Army Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC], together 

with the Army’s science and technology, acquisition, and test and 

evaluation communities, is developing the robotics and autonomous 

systems strategy to implement this vision, creating a road map for 

autonomy technology development, materiel acquisition, and training for the next 30 years. 

In his recent presentation at the Reagan Presidential Library, 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted that the autonomy—I am 

sorry—that autonomy technology has reached an ‘‘inflection point.’’ 

The technology is now being pursued widely. It is being pursued 

globally and by the commercial sector. There are differences, however, between the commercial and military application of this technology. Commercial usage generally focuses on benign, permissive, 

and structured environments. The military must design for adversarial, highly dynamic, and structured environments. 

In the near term, the Army community has undertaken efforts 

to gain experience with these complex software systems. TRADOC 

Centers of Excellence have utilized the ongoing Network Integration Evaluation and beginning this fiscal year the Robotics Enhancement Program to place surrogate experimental autonomous 

systems in the hands of soldiers. Such experimentation will inform 

and aid development of future requirements, doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures required to effectively employ this new capability. 

For the mid and far term, the science and technology enterprise’s 

efforts are focused on seven main thrusts. It is focused on the maturation and demonstration of advanced unmanned—I am sorry— 

advanced manned/unmanned teaming for both air vehicles and 
8 

ground vehicles to permit unmanned assets to serve as wingmen to 

manned elements of the force. It is exploring the effective teaming 

of unmanned air and ground vehicles. It is developing robotic technologies and capabilities that will enable unit resupply and 

sustainment operations using optionally manned and unmanned 

vehicles, and it is developing the cognitive decision tools for effectively commanding teams of advanced unmanned systems. 

In addition, it is conducting research focused on creating the 

technology to seamlessly integrate unmanned elements, both air 

and ground, into small unit teams, and research to enable the development of swarms of unmanned systems capable of effectively 

conducting military missions at range. Taken as a whole, these efforts will provide the underpinnings for autonomous systems that 

can operate side by side with our soldiers on the battlefield in applications ranging from resupply to reconnaissance. 

Although the autonomy technologies available today work well 

for the sets of conditions for which they were designed and tested, 

they lack the flexibility and adaptability that would enable them 

to work well for other situations. Systems using today’s technologies must be teamed with humans to supply the cognitive capability required for complex missions, while the unmanned components of the force performs repetitive or persistent tasks. Significantly advancing autonomy technology, taking machines from tool 

to teammate, will require technology advancement beyond what is 

available today. 

In conclusion, once again, I would like to thank Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and the other distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Army’s role 

in pursuing autonomous capabilities for future military systems. 

The Army is committed to developing autonomous systems that 

can, one day, work side by side with our soldiers. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bornstein can be found in the 

Appendix on page 52.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Bornstein. And with three sons 

serving in the Army, I want you to be very successful. 

And we now will proceed to 5 minutes of questioning by each 

member of the panel. And fortunately we have Kevin Gates as our 

staff person who is very strict on maintaining the 5-minute rule, 

beginning with me. 

And so we will begin with Dr. Zacharias. You mentioned in your 

testimony the concept of autonomy at rest. Could you explain that 

in more detail for the members so we can better understand what 

is important? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I should give credit to Dr. 

Craig Fields, the past director of DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], for—that is where I heard the phrases 

originally, but the notion is that we tend to think of autonomy in 

motion because of the RPAs [remotely piloted aircraft] and the 

UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] that we recognize, or Google’s 

cars, or the Navy’s unmanned underwater vehicles. And so all 

these systems, these autonomy in motion systems, have sensors or 

databases that tell them what is going on in the environment, like 

a GPS sensor, a global positioning sensor for an RPA position. They 
9 

also have onboard some kind of smarts, autonomous smarts that— 

embedded in an onboard computer that tells it how to act based on, 

say, an objective to fly from one way point to another. 

And then they also have some sort of motor or locomotion subsystem that allows it to move around in its environment. And this 

could be for an RPA, a remotely piloted aircraft, the throttle or the 

ailerons or the control system. So while the sensors are very important to these systems and the motor parts are very important, the 

real advances in autonomy are happening in the middle part, the 

brain part, the onboard smarts. So if you think about removing 

those onboard smarts to a ground-based system, and putting them, 

say, in a command and control center or a planning center, then 

you have got autonomy at rest. So many of the advances that we 

are going to see in this area are—may come from data feeds or 

other sensors or satellite imagery, but they are going to be in these 

ground-base situations. And they will have a sense part and a 

think part and an output part. It might be a natural language generator like a SIRI [Speech Interpretation and Recognition Interface] interface or a visualization. But once you have done this, you 

have converted an autonomy in motion system to an autonomy at 

rest system. 

So our community right now is beginning to realize that autonomy is not limited to systems that move about or locomote, but 

they are also very useful in decision-aiding systems, visualization 

systems, and so forth. And we can multiply the effectiveness of a 

lot of—if we could go to a modular approach, we could use one module in other areas, and we may also gain some efficiencies in test 

and validation as well. I hope that helps explain. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much. 

And, Dr. Bornstein, in your testimony you mentioned commercial 

usage for some autonomy technologies. Where do you see the military driving technology development? And where do you see you 

will be to draw from the commercial sector for needed technologies? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. Sir, in my testimony I also mentioned that commercial applications tend to work in structured environments 

where there is less dynamicism. So despite what you might think 

about driving on the highways today, there is structure in the highway system. The Google cars, the Uber taxis, those are applications 

which are dealing with structure. 

The military, however, is dealing with the dynamic environment, 

one that where we don’t know things in advance. We have to have 

organic sensing and reasoning powers onboard the vehicle. So there 

is a distinct difference there. Where the military can leverage heavily is for those applications that are in more structured environments. Think in terms of logistics, many aspects of convoy operations, forward operating bases. Those are all items where there is 

structure, where there are commercial entities that are involved 

with development of systems, and the Army can leverage those capabilities. Or I should say the services can leverage those capabilities. I apologize. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Kelley, the Navy has a unique challenge, and that is 

air, land, or sea operation. Would you describe some of the tech-
10 

nical challenges specific to autonomous systems for each of the domains? 

Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, sir. And that is true, that we do note 

that we operate in all domains and simultaneously in many cases. 

I was reminded today by Dr. Schuette, who is the director of research at ONR, that one of the ways to overcome some of the challenges is to start our S&T [science and technology] and make most 

of our S&T investments in domain agnostic and also platform agnostic. So that is one way that we are going to approach that. 

If I can just real quick, I spent a lot of my time as a young guy 

doing electronic warfare, and I was told it was one of the toughest 

missions that you would ever participate in. Complex, dense, can 

be very confusing. It requires quite a bit of training. Not until I got 

exposed to what it was like in the mine and undersea warfare of 

how cluttered that environment is did I come to appreciate that my 

electronic warfare environment might be the number two most 

complex combat environment. 

The way that that is also compounded is that the things we take 

advantage of in—when you operate above the surface, ability to 

communicate in the clear, taking advantage of things like the GPS, 

are not available to you. So these are going to be really big challenges for the Navy, particularly communication underwater and 

our precision navigation solutions that will provide to those solutions. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Gates is again 

very precise. My time is up. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

our witnesses for your testimony today. 

So to all of our witnesses, what policy and operational concept 

issues at the tactical and strategic level are most pressing and 

must be addressed before deployment of more capable autonomous 

systems? For instance, the unmanned aerial systems concepts of 

operations requires an operator for takeoff and landing, and airspace restrictions of the U.S. impede testing and training. Integration into the airspace is still an issue, and systems must be able 

to detect, sense, and avoid. But this is not unique to air, of course. 

So, Secretary Kelley, do you want to start from the Navy’s perspective? 

Mr. KELLEY. Certainly, sir. Thank you. You have listed off quite 

an array of challenges. One thing that I would like to mention. 

When I had a chance to get a hint that the Secretary was going 

to stand up a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems, one of the first places that I went to was an association called AUVSI, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. They had tagged on the ‘‘I’’ on that point. I had 

a chance to talk to the president and CEO [chief executive officer] 

of AUVSI, a gentleman by the name of Brian Wynne, who did not 

spend any time in the military. And one of the things that we 

quickly found out in our dialogue was that we have many of the 

same problems. And so here is an organization not necessarily associated with DOD that is willing to team with us within the defense sector to solve some of these issues that you mentioned, sir, 
11 

like the airspace issues, the sense and avoid issue. So there is a 

great opportunity, I think, to team with the commercial sector. 

I think one of the other areas that, if I can think back in my own 

time. Back in the day as a young guy in flight school, sometimes 

systems were not as reliable as we see our systems today. And so 

sometimes you would be in the cockpit and you would just pray to 

God that a piece of gear was actually going to function. I think 

some of the young people today take that for granted. The reliability of our equipment today is unprecedented. They don’t question the fact that it is going to work. I think what I am finding 

today that is remarkable is, that our young people are really concerned about the ethical and moral implications of how these unmanned systems are going to be used. 

This will also help us in getting the trust that I spoke about in 

my oral statement of our sailors and marines. The trust issue is 

sort of an implied task. We do have DOD directives that talk about 

certainly weaponizing platforms, but I think the biggest issue is 

sort of an intangible, and it is this ethical and moral element of 

what it means to put unmanned systems in combat. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. Other panelists? Anybody else want to 

comment? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. I will make one off-the-cuff statement if—and 

one of the things that I see in the commercial sector is the issue 

of responsibility. We talk about an unmanned system. So if there 

is an accident in the national airspace or an accident on the road, 

who is liable for the action? As was just mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Kelley, we talked about—he talked about the ethical 

responsibility that many people see in the use of unmanned systems. 

Will the liability for their use, will the responsibility of their use, 

who will that fall upon? That is a personal opinion that it will be 

a major issue in the future going forward both for the commercial 

sector and for the military sector. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. That actually kind of touches on my next question. You kind of beat me to it there. But, again, I will pose it to 

the other members of the panel. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, command and control becomes 

more challenging as systems become more autonomous. So how will 

you address chain of command as systems become more autonomous, particularly when you are talking about lethality in systems? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Maybe I can start on that. This is a little out of 

my scope since I am on the S&T side. But I think, as Mr. Kelley 

said, I think much of it has to do with trust and proficiency. So one 

of the things is to try and design trust into these systems, including engineering the system so it performs well within its scope of 

operations, knowing when it is exceeding its scope of operations or 

the human operator knowing that, making sure they are knowledgeable of mutual understanding of their goals if they are working 

as a team or their sub tasks, and providing for natural interfaces. 

Transparency and explainability of their systems. It may be better 

to not have them be optimum, but rather be adequate and be able 

to explain what they are doing. 

And, finally, training and practicing together just like any team 

would win. And, finally, I think the notion is that if you can get 
12 

these systems to codevelop concepts of operations and organizational design. I think the basic issue we are not going to just throw 

things over the transom and expect them to be perfectly integrated 

into the organization. And I think concepts will be codeveloped 

with the technology. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Kelley, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. Thank you. I really—one of the great 

things about coming to hearings like this is you learn so much. And 

I love the phrase of ‘‘codevelop.’’ I just had a chance to sit down 

with the PEO [Program Executive Officer] for C4I [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence] for the Navy, 

Admiral Chris Becker, and we were talking yesterday about the organizations that provide the infrastructure, so the C2 [command 

and control junction] nodes, the network, the com pipes. How important it is to get with those organizations quickly. Because that 

can bring a concept of operations down to its knees even though 

that you have the, you know, the finest autonomous system, the 

autonomous platform that, you know, that the, you know, greatest 

engineers in the world could have designed. 

I also think when we start coming up with what are those essential elements of information that a commander, and at the end of 

the day, it is going to be a commander who is going to be held accountable for how these systems are used, what are those elements 

of information that they are going to need in order to exercise judgment. We have got to come up with these priority schemes, a way 

to make sure that that kind of information and data gets to the 

commander on the scene. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

We will now proceed on a second round. We really appreciate you 

being here today, each of you. 

For each of you, beginning with Dr. Zacharias, how are you 

drawing on or integrating technology efforts being funded by industry through their internal research and development process or 

from international S&T efforts being funded through foreign governments’ science funding agencies? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Thank you, sir. Well, let me start with the international efforts first. So we are exploring agreements with international partners, collaborative technical exchanges. The Air Force 

Research Lab has agreements out with—a multilateral agreement 

under—there is a technical cooperation effort with the U.K. [United 

Kingdom], Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and working on the 

grand challenge in autonomy research. And we are also participating heavily in the V&V [verification and validation] issues because eventually if we are having coalition operations, we will have 

these systems working with one another, and they will have to be 

cooperating, clearly. 

So on the commercial side, we are working with the DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit Experimental] out in the—I apologize. I can’t 

remember what it stands for, but the DOD initiative out in the 

West Coast, Silicon Valley, to try and work with some of the folks 

that are doing some of the advance technologies in machine learning, pattern recognition, robotics, and so forth. And we will be 
13 

reaching out additionally with more Air Force Research Lab personnel in that direction. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And Mr. Kelley. 

Mr. KELLEY. So I think one of the responsibilities of our office is 

also to work across the entire enterprise and provide opportunities 

for industry to participate in demonstrations and exercises. Even 

though we have been in combat in Afghanistan, I think that the 

Marine Corps and the Office of Naval Research can be very, very 

proud of a program that was started a while back. 

I can’t exactly remember when it was. But it was in terms of an 

unmanned logistics UAV that would deliver, you know, cargo out 

on the battlefield. And to date, the cargo UAV was able to deliver, 

you know, over—could have the potential to deliver over 6,000 

pounds of cargo a day. Transitioning that into, you know, more formalized programs like AACUS, the autonomous aerial cargo utility 

system, a K–MAX bird [helicopter]. I think that that is an important opportunity for industry to be able to demonstrate their understanding of what the environment is like. 

I already described our association with AUVSI. We did have a 

chance in October to speak. It was the first time we could speak 

as an organization at their AUVSI defense. And I see many people 

sitting behind me that were actually there as well, both Army and 

Air Force. And it was a great opportunity for folks to actually show 

what was going on, in not only commercially, but in each of the 

services. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And Dr. Bornstein. 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. Like the other services, the Army maintains bilateral arrangements with many countries through the TTCP [The 

Technical Cooperation Program], the Five Eyes, through countries 

such as France, Germany, Israel, where we try to develop programs 

of common interest. In addition, my own organization, the Army 

Research Lab, has embarked upon a new initiative over the course 

of the past 2 years that we call Open Campus, which is focused not 

on giving contracts to companies but rather developing cooperative 

research and development agreements where there is a mutual interest on the part of both parties. 

Letting small business who are usually the furnaces of innovation and technology come to our site to utilize DOD facilities to further what they are doing together with researchers from the laboratory. We do similar activities with other organizations throughout the Army, and we invite the other services to participate as 

well. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And for anyone who would 

like to answer, what defenses exist to protect autonomy technologies from being hacked, resulting in losing control? 

Mr. KELLEY. I will take a stab at it, sir. And I think one of the 

most important things here is a new testing paradigm for autonomous systems that would lean heavy on the cyber side of the house 

I think is the most critical piece. 

Now, one of the challenges, I think, with autonomous systems is 

that it becomes very challenging to try to test all of the possible 

scenarios that you could possibly encounter. And so we will have 
14 

to work through that. But the VV&A, the verification, validation, 

and accreditation of these systems and, of course the accreditation 

will also will have a cyber element to it means that, you know, that 

we have been able to test and make sure that, you know, that it 

can’t be hacked into and taken over. 

Mr. WILSON. We just wish you the best addressing, sadly, people 

who have such ill intent, as we see every day in the world. 

We will now proceed to Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as usual, the 

chairman and I are very much on the same page on asking these 

kinds of questions. And I wanted to get to the cyber question or the 

security question as well. Just to build on that, if you could elaborate, what role do trusted foundries and third party manufacturer 

agreements play in the security? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. I will take a stab at that one, too. So my understanding is, what role will trusted foundries and supply chains? 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Yes. 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. Clearly it will be, I think—we are planning an 

upcoming study on looking at issues that Mr. Kelley raised both in 

terms of embedded systems, reliability, and authority authenticity, 

if you will. Coms links, vulnerabilities. Because in terms of over 

and above—vulnerabilities over and above our normal embedded 

systems, which we also have those issues of coms links and cyber 

vulnerabilities, and there are efforts ongoing. I am not intimately 

familiar with them, but in terms of establishing trusted foundries 

now, and certainly many more regulations, say, going out to industry in terms of protecting government IP [intellectual property] and 

making sure that outsiders don’t exfiltrate our designs and compromise our embedded systems. 

In fact, there was a large summer study, excuse me, by the 

Science Advisory Board for the Air Force this summer looking specifically at embedded systems’ vulnerability. And clearly that will 

have an impact on autonomous systems. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

To all of our witnesses, the Defense Science Board identified 

transition or lack thereof as an obstacle for utilization of autonomous capabilities. What steps are you taking to improve transition 

of technologies? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. I will start. In my opening remarks, I mentioned 

ongoing activity looking at near-term applications of the technology. Those are key and critical to transition and adoption by the 

force. As I have said many times, it is very difficult to write requirements for a revolutionary technology in which you have no experience. The use of those activities is to try to build that experience base on the operational, the training and doctrine community, 

so they can begin to build the requirements, the techniques, tactics, 

and procedures that will ultimately be used and facilitate the transition of technology in that way. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. Mr. Kelley. 

Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, sir. So also within the DSB 2012 study 

they also talked about the autonomous reference framework, which 

in my discussions with folks at ONR, they are very receptive to 

that concept. And actually, when I think about it, it makes a lot 

of sense. 
15 

It is the three level—a cognitive level, a mission level, and a 

complex—complex systems trade space level. So that goes right to 

the heart that I think that Dr. Bornstein was talking about in 

terms of the design of these systems. 

In the Navy right now we—with the stand-up of DASN Unmanned Systems and the renewed emphasis of DASN RDT&E to 

energize a naval research development enterprise, and with the 

stand-up of OP 99, our resource sponsor, we are taking a really rigorous stab at prototyping and experimentation. And this is to better inform the requirements at the front end of our acquisition 

framework. And so the most important thing here is to get the requirements right. 

So what we envision is that this will be an iterative cycle constantly going back to the warfighter in terms of making sure that 

we got those requirements right. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. And if I could follow up, my colleagues covered 

most of the points, I think. I think this is—again, I think the Air 

Force has learned a lot with its RPA experience being the lead 

service in establishing so many thousands of hours of operation in 

that area. And it has led to a change in operations and how they 

are used and issues to do with manning and manpower. 

And it has also raised other issues going from how do you pilot 

these things to actually how you process the information, the thousands of hours of video that you get off of them. And so they raise 

other areas and opportunities for autonomy. 

And one last thing I would say, these will be again codeveloped 

and embraced more fully with good human systems integration 

technologies. Again, I think something Mr. Work mentioned a couple weeks ago, how you get these systems to work closely with humans and make them more understandable and reliable and trustworthy, appropriately trustworthy. You don’t want to encourage 

trust where it isn’t deserved. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. Very good. And I guess to all of you, you’ve 

touched on it a little bit already, but how well are you coordinating 

your autonomous systems investment strategies in lessons learned 

across the services? 

Mr. KELLEY. I’ll try. So I think that is the reason—I don’t think, 

I know—that is the reason why our office was stood up, to be quite 

honest. And one of the things that is different about the DASN for 

unmanned shop is I have counterparts within the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, 

other DASNs. And if you could sort of picture them as being 

vertically oriented within a domain. Say DASN air, guy by the 

name of Gary Kessler is DASN air. Gloria Valdez, DASN ships. 

They have the whole portfolio of those particular platforms, air and 

ships. 

In our shop we will be cutting across. We will be cutting across, 

essentially generating and now supervising, providing oversight, 

managing a portfolio of just unmanned systems and how that fits 

into the broader naval operational concepts. 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. I would be remiss if I didn’t try to answer that 

question since I am currently acting as the lead for the Autonomy 

Community of Interest [COI] within OSD [Office of the Secretary 
16 

of Defense]. And Larry Schuette is my deputy sitting behind me 

there. OSD basically recognizes that there needs to be coordination 

among all the services. It is part of Reliance 21. And ideally the 

community of interest should be a forum where subject matter experts can get together and really begin to understand not only 

what each other are doing, but have the opportunity to cross-fertilize thoughts and concepts concerning the technology. 

Next Wednesday the Autonomy COI will hold a workshop at 

ONR, really bringing together a large number of people to discuss 

three topics: modeling and simulation; test and evaluation, 

verification, validation; and trust in automation. And those will be 

three topics. Community members will be there talking about it. I 

can’t tell you what will come out of it, but I almost guarantee that 

there will be some cross-fertilization, and it will be agnostic, service 

agnostic, in that regard. So there is that definite thrust towards 

cross-fertilization among all the services, at least at the S&T level. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. That is encouraging. Thank you. 

Well, if nothing else on that, I will thank our witnesses and I 

will yield back. I have additional questions I will submit for the 

record, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. And thank each of you 

for being here today and in the future. I am very, very grateful, 

Kevin Gates has been a lead on this. He has actually been working 

in this field for many years. And I am really grateful for his professionalism, and we look forward to hearing and working with you 

in the future. 

And with that in mind, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

(21) 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

(61) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. In your testimony, you discuss the 4-year study you are doing to understand pilot trust in the Auto Ground Collision Avoidance Systems. How will the 

lessons of this study be applied to other platforms or domains? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The AFRL Auto Ground Collision Avoidance Systems (AGCAS) acceptance study seeks to gauge pilot trust of the AGCAS system and to identify and 

validate the antecedents of trust for this highly-automated Air Force system. The 

lessons learned from this study will benefit the existing AGCAS system in the F– 

16 and will feed into the F–35 AGCAS implementation. 

The study also investigates pilot attitudes toward a broad range of future automated technologies such as the Automatic Air Collision Avoidance System (AACAS), 

automated missile avoidance technologies, automated station keeping and refueling 

capabilities, and future concepts for autonomy such as autonomous Wingmen. These 

results garner insight into the factors that make a pilot more or less trusting of future automated technologies. Such information will be instrumental in avoiding 

pilot distrust of near-term capabilities such as the Integrated Collision Avoidance 

System, which integrates AGCAS and AACAS, as well as long-term capabilities 

such as autonomous Wingmen. 

While the focus of the study is heavily focused on the air domain, I can easily 

see the lessons learned being folded into building space operator trust towards more 

automated station keeping algorithms and mission allocation. While this domain 

does not have the same risk to operator life that the air domain has, the long-term 

and financial consequences of mistakes are high. We will also examine the lessons 

learned for applicability to the cyber domain. 

Mr. WILSON. In your testimony, you discuss the Low Cost Attritable Strike Unmanned Aerial System. What is the timeline for this program? What are some of 

the policy challenges that you think you will encounter as you demonstrate the technology? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The currently open Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the 

Low Cost Attritable Strike Unmanned Aerial System seeks to provide a benchmark 

vehicle concept that we will build upon and use for future demonstration activities 

in an experimentation campaign plan. Contract award is targeted at January 2016 

with the program challenging its participants to achieve first flight 24 months after 

contract award. 

There are a number of policy challenges that will likely be encountered as we 

demonstrate this technology. The acquisition and ownership model of an attritable 

aircraft is a significant departure from traditional processes and policies, and is 

akin to treating the aircraft as a consumable or commodity product that can be procured with a short development cycle and significantly less emphasis on support and 

maintenance requirements. 

With a short development and ownership timeline, life cycle operators will be able 

to acquire assets tailored for requirements as they evolve instead of lengthy modification of existing systems, which will enable quick tech refresh—common to the 

automotive industry. At the same time, these platforms will require an agile acquisition system, novel training systems that are more reliant on simulation, new roles 

and responsibilities for operators and maintainers, storage, and disposal. In addition, highly tailored air worthiness and certification considerations will pose challenges to the current acceptance practices and could change how and where we approach the use of unmanned systems. 

Mr. WILSON. In dealing with test, evaluation, validation and verification, how are 

you working with the Test Resource Management Center to better understand 

where investments are needed for testing infrastructure, as well as where changes 

to the test ‘‘process’’ might be needed? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The Air Force is working with the Test Resource Management 

Center (TRMC) primarily through the Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation 

(TEVV) Working Group of the DOD Autonomy Community of Interest (COI), of 

which both are active participants. 

The Air Force is also supporting the TRMC Unmanned Autonomous Systems Test 

(UAST) Group—through the Autonomy COI TEVV working group—on a study de-
62 

signed specifically to answer the question ‘‘How do we change our T&E infrastructure to accommodate future autonomous systems’’. This study, led by Georgia Institute of Technology, was a 20 month effort whose final report is scheduled to be delivered to TRMC by Jan 2016. 

Finally, an example of collaboration between the Air Force, TRMC, and many others in identifying changes to the test process is a joint TRMC, AF Institute of Technology, and AFTC sponsored study on ‘‘How to conduct test and evaluation of autonomous systems and what specific testing methodologies and capabilities need to be 

addressed?’’ The study is led by the Scientific Test and Analysis Techniques Test 

and Evaluation Center of Excellence at AFIT in direct response to an inquiry by 

Dr. Brown (ASD/DT&E). 

Mr. WILSON. What opportunities exist to conduct testing or experimentation with 

our international partners, including international non-governmental organizations? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The U.S. engages in a wide range of T&E activities with partner 

nations. These opportunities include Reciprocal Use of Test Facilities, test range 

usage, weapons testing, and research. Collaborative work is codified in various 

forms. Government-to-Government agreements include provisions for information 

sharing legal liabilities, and shared funding. Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs) are written agreements between private companies and government agencies to work together on projects. The Research Grants and Contracts 

program directly funds University and Foreign Laboratory basic research overseas 

through the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). 

The Air Force continues to explore with those international partners, via collaborative technical exchanges, opportunities to advance autonomous research. The Air 

Force Research Laboratory has International agreements that facilitate collaborative autonomy research with our key partners. One example of effective collaboration is a multi-lateral under The Technical Cooperation Program (US/UK/CA/AU/ 

NZ) agreement which is facilitating a Grand Challenge in autonomy research. AFRL 

is participating heavily in this effort focused on how best to approach Testing, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation internationally. 

Mr. WILSON. The Navy and Marine Corps both have long histories of fleet experimentation, independently and as a naval team, as a way to test new technologies, 

new concepts and new ways of doing business. What resources do you expect to have 

to conduct experimentation? How will you integrate these activities into broader 

fleet exercises? 

Mr. KELLEY. To accelerate the development and Fleet introduction of unmanned 

systems, the Department of the Navy recently established the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems (DASN (UxS)), the Director, Unmanned 

Warfare Systems Division (OPNAV N99), and the Naval Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation, and Demonstration Office, within Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (DASN(RDT&E)). Working 

together, these new organizations will accelerate the practice of experimenting with 

developmental and operational prototypes to address Navy and Marine Corps operational needs. DASN (RDT&E) will leverage the Naval Research and Development 

Establishment’s (NR&DE) vast technical capabilities, laboratories, major ranges, 

and test facilities to develop, integrate and experiment with advanced naval prototypes. DASN (RDT&E) provides the avenue to focus and integrate resources from 

across the DON and the DOD programs working closely with Fleet Forces, 

Warfighting Development Centers, and the Marine Corps Combat Development 

Command. Prototypes will be incorporated into Fleet experiments, such as: 

RIMPAC, Trident Warrior, Bold Alligator, Unmanned Warrior, etc., enabling technical and operational assessments of emerging operational concepts, technologies, 

and/or engineering innovations. 

Mr. WILSON. The subcommittee is familiar with the DARPA investments in AntiSubmarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel, or ACTUV, program. What 

plans does the Navy have to experiment with that platform? 

Mr. KELLEY. The Office of Naval Research will integrate ONR-developed payloads 

and autonomous control components and perform at-sea testing of the DARPA 

ACTUV vessel, in its ‘‘Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel (MDUSV)’’ 

program. The payloads are for mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare and 

electronic warfare missions. The at-sea testing will be focused on these payloads, the 

mission capability they provide, as well as extensive testing of ACTUV’s autonomous control system. 

Mr. WILSON. In dealing with test, evaluation, validation and verification, how are 

you working with the Test Resource Management Center to better understand 

where investments are needed for testing infrastructure, as well as where changes 

to the test ‘‘process’’ might be needed? 
63 

Mr. KELLEY. DASN UxS will leverage the existing construct within DON that is 

responsible for ensuring the test community is ready to support required testing. 

This construct, led by DON T&E, is responsible for collaborating across the ranges/ 

labs/warfare centers, programs/PEOs and the rest of the test community to determine requirements for future autonomous systems, gaps in current T&E Infrastructure, and identification of future investments and/or changes to the test process. 

a. DON T&E will continue to be the primary interface with TRMC who is sponsoring an Autonomy T&E Study with an objective of assessing the adequacy of the 

test resources and infrastructure required to test autonomous systems. The study, 

which is being conducted by Georgia Tech, will also develop a time-phased investment strategy to address potential shortfalls in T&E capabilities. 

b. The study team is coordinating closely with the Autonomy Community of Interest (COI), Test & Evaluation and Verification & Validation (ATEVV) Working 

Group. 

c. The Navy is actively engaged in the study with participation from OPNAV, 

ONR, NRL, NAVAIR and NAVSEA. 

i. Several Naval programs are being considered in the study such as the Autonomous Aerial Cargo Utility System (AACUS), Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne 

Surveillance and Strike system (UCLASS), and Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV). In addition, DARPA’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vehicle (ACTUV) is also a key consideration. 

ii. NAWC–AD, NAWC–WD, NSWC Keyport, and NSWC Newport T&E personnel 

are working with the study team to examine the future state of autonomous systems, and identify the required T&E/experimentation/assessment/certification infrastructure, technology, capabilities and workforce required to address future autonomous systems. 

Mr. WILSON. What opportunities exist to conduct testing or experimentation with 

our international partners, including international non-governmental organizations? 

Mr. KELLEY. Joint Warrior is a United Kingdom led bi-annual (spring and autumn) multi-national exercise which takes place in Scottish Exercise Areas. In October 2016 an additional exercise will be conducted in coordination with the Joint 

Warrior Exercise, referred to as Unmanned Warrior. The objective of this exercise 

is to experiment with the tactical employment of unmanned and autonomous systems in the maritime and littoral environments. Significant UK defense industry 

and NATO participation is anticipated, and this will be an opportunity for the Navy 

to conduct testing with our international partners. 

Mr. WILSON. You mentioned in your testimony that the Army will be continuing 

work to increase the capabilities offered as part of the Autonomous Mobility Applique Systems (AMAS) Joint Concept Technology Demonstration and addressing some 

of the technology gaps in autonomous convoy resupply. What are some of those gaps 

as you see them? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. The AMAS JCTD, and subsequent demonstrations, focused upon 

an incremental approach for the creation of a ‘‘fail-safe architecture’’ that would permit the reduction of crew size from two Soldiers to a single individual. In effect, this 

program was utilizing technology to create driver’s aids analogous to the safety features that are now beginning to appear in both private and commercial vehicles. 

While having direct benefits, especially under tactical situations, significant technology gaps exist that prevent immediate deployment of autonomous vehicles. These 

gaps include the development of an appropriate software architecture, algorithms 

for perception and vehicle behaviors, and the integration of those algorithms into 

the software architecture so that they can operate in real time, i.e., permitting vehicles to operate at appropriate tactical speeds. Some of the required technology will 

benefit from research and development activities currently being conducted in the 

private sector, e.g., Google and others. However, Google and others are depending 

on robust wireless networks to support their applications. Unfortunately, these networks may not be available in the dynamic and complex tactical environments the 

Army may be working which creates additional challenges. 

Mr. WILSON. In dealing with test, evaluation, validation and verification, how are 

you working with the Test Resource Management Center to better understand 

where investments are needed for testing infrastructure, as well as where changes 

to the test ‘‘process’’ might be needed? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. The OSD Autonomy Community of Interest (COI) has recognized 

that the test and evaluation/validation and verification (T&E/V&V) of future intelligent systems that incorporate learning leading to emergent behaviors is critical to 

future employment of systems incorporating this technology. It therefore created the 

T&E/V&V working group. Since the COI is a ‘‘grass roots’’ organization that incorporates all individuals with common interests, it has worked hand-in-hand with the 

Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) Unmanned and Autonomous System 
64 

Test (UAST) program in furthering common goals. Members of the T&E/V&V working group are part of the UAST working group, while members of the UAST, including the executing agent, participate in the Autonomy COI T&E/V&V effort. 

The functions that the T&E/V&V working group set for itself are to foster community collaboration; develop an S&T strategic roadmap, including an assessment of 

current autonomy T&E and V&V standards, procedures, infrastructure, and capabilities; identify gaps where those capabilities, infrastructure, and policy are misaligned or deficient; coordinate with Major Range Test and Facility Base (MRTFB) 

to produce a database baseline of T&E infrastructure; and support standards development unique to the V&V of autonomous systems. 

The working group has established five goals: (1) creation of methods and tools 

assisting in T&E/V&V requirements development and analysis, (2) further adoption 

of evidence-based design and implementation, (3) employment of cumulative evidence through the research and development, test and evaluation, developmental 

testing, and operational testing phases of system life cycle, (4) adoption of methods 

for run-time behavior prediction and recovery, and (5) development of assurance arguments for autonomous systems. The working group has established a charter, 

published an investment strategy, and developed a strategic roadmap. The working 

group has presented its investment strategy to the UAST and each group has presented its projects to the other group. The Autonomy COI is directly supporting the 

ongoing TRMC sponsored T&E study administered by the Georgia Tech Research 

Institute. The study’s objective is to evaluate the adoption of a pedigree-based licensure paradigm, vice certification, for future autonomous systems. 

Mr. WILSON. What opportunities exist to conduct testing or experimentation with 

our international partners, including international non-governmental organizations? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. The Department of Defense (DOD), through the Services or jointly 

through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), maintains a robust set of relations with international partners under established cooperative research, development, testing and evaluation bilateral or multilateral agreements. On the topic of 

robotics, the Army maintains agreements with Australia, Canada, France, Germany, 

Israel, Japan, Korea, and the United Kingdom. In past years, the Army conducted 

a joint competition with the Australian Defense Science and Technology Office specifically focused on small autonomous ground robotic vehicles conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions in complex environments; 

the final competition was held in Adelaide, Australia. Over the course of the next 

few months, Army personnel are scheduled to visit their government counterparts 

in France and Israel to discuss specific collaborative research opportunities in robotics, autonomy and unmanned vehicles. The Army is also conducting exploratory discussions in the area of robotics with potential new partners, such as India and 

Singapore. Over the past 18 months, two projects have been under discussion between DOD and India’s Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) focusing on ‘‘Improving Cognitive and Artificial Cognition Models’’ and ‘‘Small Intelligent 

Autonomous System for Situational Awareness.’’ 

DOD researchers are actively involved in The Technical Cooperation Program 

(TTCP), a joint research collaboration among the defense establishments of the US, 

UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Autonomy Strategic Challenge 

Group within the TTCP envisions manned and unmanned assets working in concert, 

employing autonomy technologies to efficiently and cost-effectively support joint coalition force structures. To this end, the group is developing a set of challenge problems to collectively advance autonomy technology. 

In addition, initiatives such as the Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program 

(ESEP) and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) offer 

DOD researchers the opportunity to conduct joint projects addressing technology 

gaps and interoperability solutions with foreign partners, either in government, academia or the commercial sector. Under the ESEP, U.S. Defense personnel are temporarily assigned to work in allied and friendly country defense establishments on 

topics of shared strategic interest. CRADAs are formal agreements between one or 

more Federal laboratories and one or more non-Federal parties under which the 

parties provide personnel, funds, facilities, equipment or other resources to conduct 

specific research or development efforts. 

Lastly, The Army uses two OSD programs in order to collaborate with foreign 

partners—Coalition Warfare Program (CWP) and Foreign Comparative Test (FCT). 

CWP supplements Army funding for specific cooperative development projects with 

our allies and foreign partners. The projects accomplish mutual research, development, and interoperability goals through equitable contributions from all partnering 

nations. The FCT program typically involves U.S. purchase of foreign materials/ 

products in order to test and evaluate novel technologies. 
65 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, how are you leveraging the Department’s laboratory 

enterprise and academic relations for advances in autonomous capabilities, in addition to industry? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The Air Force is leveraging the Department’s laboratory enterprise and academic relations extensively for advances in autonomous capabilities. As 

mentioned in my written statement, the Air Force’s primary agent for autonomy research, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), commissioned the development 

of the AFRL Science and Technology (S&T) Autonomy Vision and Strategy in 2013. 

This document identifies the major goals, technical challenges, and investment 

strategies needed to discover, develop, and demonstrate warfighter-relevant autonomy S&T to maintain and enhance air, space, and cyberspace dominance. This 

strategy has been coordinated with the other services and with OSD through the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering’s (ASD(R&E)) Autonomy Community of Interest (COI). My written statement also went into detail on 

AFRL’s autonomous systems research and development efforts, on-going or planned. 

Some examples of how the Air Force is leveraging the laboratory include: 

• AFRL’s Human Effectiveness Directorate has an ISR Analyst Test Bed which 

provides a research-representative Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination 

(PED) cell for developing interfaces and technologies. Outputs of this research, the 

Internet Relay Chat Coordinate Extractor (ICE) and Enhanced Reporting Narrative 

Event Streaming Tool (ERNEST), not only improve manpower efficiencies and reduce airman workload, but also lay the groundwork for integrated multi-INT autonomous processing and advance analyst cuing via autonomous decision-aiding. 

• The current integration of an Auto Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto 

GCAS) into the Air Force’s operational F–16 fleet is an example of how the focus 

on human-machine teaming and the need to develop trust across the team can build 

acceptance of autonomous systems within the Air Force. The system was developed 

jointly by five organizations working closely together: AFRL; Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs (ADP), also known as the Skunk Works®; the Office 

of the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness; NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center; and the Air Force Test Center. 

• AFRL is currently collecting proposals for a Low Cost Attritable Strike Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Demonstration that will design, develop, assemble, 

and test a technical baseline for a high speed, long range, low cost, limited-life 

strike Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The program will also identify key enabling 

technologies for future low cost attritable aircraft demonstrations, and provide a vehicle for future capability and technology demonstrations. AFRL’s primary agent for 

interfacing with academia is the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) 

which has two primary portfolios supporting the advancement of autonomous capabilities: Computational Cognition and Machine Intelligence and Trust and Influence. 

The Computational Cognition and Machine Intelligence portfolio supports experimental studies and computational modeling to allow autonomous systems and mixed 

human-agent teams to achieve human-level performance with minimal interaction 

and provide warfighters with decision-making support in C4ISR environments. Examples of projects funded by this portfolio include ‘‘Neurocognitive Information Processing’’ with Columbia University, ‘‘Circuit Models for Robust, Adaptive Neural Control’’ with Tulsa University, and ‘‘Making and Keeping Informed Commitments in 

Human-Machine Systems’’ with the University of Michigan. 

The Trust and Influence portfolio explores the sciences of reliance (how do humans establish, maintain, and repair trust, in others and in autonomous systems) 

and influence (how to shape the behavior, attitudes, or beliefs of others). Examples 

of projects funded by this portfolio include ‘‘Stochastic Logical Reasoning for Autonomous Mission Planning’’ with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and ‘‘Findings 

on Universal, Cross-Cultural Linguistic Features Associated with Veracity and Deception’’ with San Francisco State University. 

Additionally, AFOSR has several portfolios with grants that are directly applicable to autonomy. The Human Performance and Biosystems portfolio has several 

grants on autonomy-related topics to include a Center of Excellence named the Nature Inspired Sciences Flight Technologies and Ideas (NIFTI). A Center of Excellence is a 5-year program where an AFRL Technical Directorate partners with 

AFOSR to co-fund a university or group of universities to develop a particular area 

of science that the lab wants to eventually internalize. This particular Center is at 

the University of Washington, but also includes Maryland, Case Western Reserve, 

and Johns Hopkins Universities. There is also a Partnership Agreement with the 

United Kingdom entitled ‘‘Biologically Inspired Technologies for Unmanned Autonomous Systems.’’ 
66 

1 ‘‘Reagan Defense Forum: The Third Offset Strategy,’’ As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of 

Defense Bob Work, Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, CA, November 7, 2015 

The Computational Mathematics and Optimization portfolios have funded several 

tasks with the key-words of ‘‘autonomous decision’’, ‘‘automated routing’’, ‘‘autonomous navigation’’, ‘‘automatic task assignment’’, and ‘‘flocking’’. From 2010 on, 

AFOSR has made between $4M and $5M investment towards these topics. This includes a $500K/year ‘‘lab-task’’ (a 5-year award) to AFRL’s Munitions Directorate 

which operates as a Center of Excellence with multiple tasks performed by the University of Florida and collaborators. The scope of work of the Mathematical Modeling and Optimization Institute (MMOI) is varied and was recently reviewed by the 

Air Force’s Scientific Advisory Board with positive feedback. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, have you received guidance or direction on advancing autonomous capabilities as part of the Third Offset Strategy? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. The Air Force has not as of yet received official guidance or direction on advancing autonomous capabilities as part of the Third Offset Strategy but 

is posturing itself to be responsive to any provided guidance and/or direction from 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

In a recent speech at the Reagan Defense Forum, Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Bob Work stated that the ‘‘big idea’’ behind the Third Offset Strategy was ‘‘humanmachine collaboration and combat teaming.’’ 1 He then said that this realization 

came from two major efforts: the Long Range Research and Development Planning 

Program (LRRDPP) and the 2015 Defense Science Board summer study on autonomy. 

The AF was involved in LRRDPP over the last calendar year and is currently 

awaiting guidance on what portions of the program to implement. In his FY18 Air 

Force Science and Technology (S&T) Programming Guidance (dated 27 Oct 2015), 

the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Dr. William LaPlante, directed AFRL to place emphasis on the LRRDPP as detailed in the FY17–21 Defense 

Planning Guidance as it builds its FY18 budget input for its S&T Program. 

Based on AFRL’s extensive portfolio for advancing autonomous capabilities, as 

discussed in my written statement, I do not expect that supporting LRRDPP recommendations will require significant changes to existing programs. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, to what extent are you exploring autonomy in cyber 

capabilities? 

Dr. ZACHARIAS. AFRL is exploring autonomy primarily for defensive cyber capabilities. The two main efforts are the Autonomous Defensive Cyber Operations program and the Cyber Grand Challenge (in collaboration with DARPA), both of which 

are described below. Additionally, we are beginning to apply machine learning capabilities to the Command and Control (C2) cycle, allowing for multi-domain C2 to 

occur across air, space, and cyberspace operations by having systems make recommendations based off prior experience throughout the planning, targeting, 

weaponeering, tasking, and assessment process. 

We are moving from ‘‘man in-the-loop’’ to ‘‘man on-the-loop’’ and allowing computers to carry out more of the workload, which provides the potential to increase 

current decision-loop speed and quality. Currently, effective cyber operations require 

that human operators make complex decisions from massive amounts of data in 

near real time. Incorrect decisions can arise from an operator missing a piece of information. Correct conclusions may be reached manually, but if they are not acted 

on in a certain timeframe (milliseconds or less), they may not deliver the intended 

effect. Simply put, outpacing the decision cycle of an adversary requires machine 

speeds. The Autonomous Defensive Cyber Operations (ADCO) program’s goal is to 

research approaches and technologies to create force multipliers for cyber operations 

through the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence. The team is developing and demonstrating proofs of concept that integrate machine leaning and artificial intelligence into defensive cyber operations processes for the purposes of reducing the manual burden on Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs). These proofs of concept 

will be used to assess the effectiveness in these approaches, to understand the level 

of confidence in autonomous defensive systems, and to identify legal and policy challenges that must be overcome for the successful integration of autonomy into defensive cyber operations. The Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) program requires teams 

to build fully automated systems that can find vulnerabilities in software, prove 

that they have found the vulnerability by synthesizing an input that will trigger the 

vulnerability, patch and nullify the vulnerability with acceptable performance 

overheads, and incorporate game theory to win a competition where these machines 

are competing against each other. 

The CGC’s Qualification Event took place in June of 2015 with the following highlights: 
67 

1. Machines can find, prove, and fix almost all of the vulnerable programs in the 

test space. 

2. Most vulnerabilities were patched within the first two hours of the 24-hour 

competition. The machines found unintended vulnerabilities that evaded even 

the software’s authors without the need for source code or debug symbols. 

AFRL was involved in all aspects of the Qualification Event, but specifically led 

the infrastructure design and post mortem analysis of submissions. The machine 

versus machine competition will take place in August of 2016. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, how are you leveraging the Department’s laboratory 

enterprise and academic relations for advances in autonomous capabilities, in addition to industry? 

Mr. KELLEY. The Navy has a long history of advancing autonomous Naval 

warfighting capabilities across all domains: air, ground, sea, space, and cyber space. 

However, as the rate of change in the global environment accelerates and the landscape of potential threats shifts more rapidly than ever before, the DON recognizes 

that we must accelerate the adoption of technological advances, to include autonomous capabilities. To accelerate the development and Fleet introduction of unmanned systems, the Department of the Navy recently established the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems (DASN (UxS)) and the Director, Unmanned Warfare Systems Division (OPNAV N99). OPNAV N99, working 

closely with DASN (UxS), are the Navy’s innovation leaders to get emerging unmanned systems and related capabilities to the Fleet quickly. Additionally, the Department of the Navy (DON) has recently established the Naval Rapid Prototyping, 

Experimentation, and Demonstration Office, within Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (DASN (RDT&E)). In this 

role, DASN (RDT&E) has been given authority to leverage the Naval Science and 

Technology (S&T) community, the Naval Research and Development Establishment 

(NR&DE), and our talented Sailors and Marines. 

The Navy also plans on leveraging its established business processes and contracting vehicles to reach out to industry and academia (including University-Affiliated Research Centers and Federally Funded Research Centers). These processes 

are in place through a variety of organizations such SYSCOMs, PEOs, and Warfare 

Centers among others. 

OPNAV N99, in coordination with DASN (UxS), is developing an unmanned system autonomy strategy focused on a common, multi-domain autonomy architecture 

which will leverage many of the autonomy developments to date. The goal is to capitalize on these individual system developments to form a more complete, modular 

system that is capable of operating on not just a single system, but rather across 

systems and across domains. With the increasing numbers of expected unmanned 

systems coming in the future years, this is a sustainable method for autonomy development. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, have you received guidance or direction on advancing autonomous capabilities as part of the Third Offset Strategy? 

Mr. KELLEY. The Navy is aware of the key role of autonomous capabilities as part 

of the Third Offset Strategy. The Navy has been advancing autonomous capabilities 

for several years through science and technology investments and our unmanned 

system programs. The Navy will continue to identify how we can further advance 

these capabilities and rapidly introduce them to the Fleet in order to achieve the 

Third Offset Strategy. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, to what extent are you exploring autonomy in cyber 

capabilities? 

Mr. KELLEY. Adversarial cyber interaction occurs at a speed beyond what human 

can comprehend. The complexity and internal operating speed of cyber systems are 

many orders of magnitude beyond what human operator can timely observe, comprehend and response, resulting in the defender total reliance to forensic (after the 

fact) process, which may result in significant damage and expensive recovery. 

Full autonomy in cyber space is a long term goal of the Navy’s cyber security research at ONR for both the computing devices and the networking infrastructure. 

By full autonomy, we mean a system that closes the loop of sensing, analyzing, 

planning and taking action at cyber speed. Autonomic cyber systems employ machine-situational awareness and advanced machine reasoning to understand their 

operating status and environment, plan for actions, mitigate and inoculate against 

cyber exploits. 

For near and mid-term, we are developing technologies for automating sensing, 

analysis and recommending plans for actions to human operator. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, how are you leveraging the Department’s laboratory 

enterprise and academic relations for advances in autonomous capabilities, in addition to industry? 
68 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. The U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command’s (RDECOM) Army Research Lab’s (ARL) Open Campus is a collaborative 

business model, with the goal of building a science and technology ecosystem that 

will support groundbreaking advances in basic and applied research areas of relevance to the Army. The global academic community, industry, small businesses, 

and other government laboratories benefit from this collaboration with ARL’s specialized research staff and unique technical facilities. These collaborations will build 

research networks, explore complex and singular problems, enable self-forming expertise-driven team building that will be well-positioned for competitive research opportunities, and expose scientists, engineers, including professors and students, to 

realistic research applications and perspectives. Specific to autonomous capabilities 

research, ARL’s campus features a 9,800 square foot Urban Experimental Facility 

for autonomous systems and sensing. 

The tools available to aid the laboratory in its collaborative business model 

through Open Campus include Educational Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). 

EPAs are used to encourage and enhance education and research opportunities 

with academia in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines relevant to ARL science and technology programs. Under EPAs, visiting students have 

access to world-class research facilities and are able to work side-by-side with subject-matter experts in their fields of interest. In turn, ARL is able to increase the 

awareness and visibility of technologies developed by the military and to encourage 

and enhance study in scientific disciplines at all levels of education. 

CRADAs provide an easy way to collaborate with ARL. A CRADA is a formal 

agreement between one or more Federal laboratories and one or more non-Federal 

parties under which the Government, through its laboratories, provides personnel, 

facilities, equipment or other resources with or without reimbursement (but not 

funds to non-Federal parties). The non-Federal parties provide personnel, funds, 

services, facilities, equipment or other resources to conduct specific research or development efforts that are consistent with the mission of the laboratory. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, have you received guidance or direction on advancing autonomous capabilities as part of the Third Offset Strategy? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. At this time, there has not been any specific guidance nor direction on advancing autonomous capabilities specifically as part of the Third Offset 

Strategy. However, the Army is leading the DOD’s revolutionary approach to aviation development with Future Vertical Lift (FVL), an initiative to develop the next 

generation of vertical lift aircraft for the Joint Warfighter, with the goal of getting 

to low-rate production by 2030. The Army Science and Technology Joint Multi-Role 

Technology Demonstrator (JMR TD) effort will inform technology options and reduce 

risk for the FVL program of record. The JMR TD effort will demonstrate optionally 

piloted or autonomous flight capabilities. The Army is also involved in manned-unmanned teaming efforts such as flying AH–64 Apache helicopters together with 

Gray Eagle and Shadow UAVs as, effectively, remotely controlled extensions of the 

manned Apache’s onboard sensors. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All witnesses, to what extent are you exploring autonomy in cyber 

capabilities? 

Dr. BORNSTEIN. The Army is conducting R&D efforts on a number of topics that 

will help enhance autonomous capabilities of cyber technologies, such as autonomous agents operating on the network to detect, mitigate, and prevent cyber 

threats. These efforts include the following: 

• Research on unsupervised learning for detection of cyber compromises, particularly relevant to autonomous systems that operate for a relatively prolonged 

time under cyber threats and possibly with limited opportunities for human 

intervention. 

• Research on ‘‘light-weight’’ cyber intrusion detection agents, which can be deployed on platforms with constrained computational power. 

• Research on autonomous self-patching of cyber vulnerabilities as they are uncovered, especially on mobile tactical devices. 

• Research on agile (and largely autonomous) reconfiguration of networks and entities on the networks, to minimize exposure to cyber threats or contain an already inflicted cyber damage. 

• Development of algorithms that can map cyber threat to mission impact to provide traceability between intruder actions and Brigade Combat Team (BCT) 

networks and autonomy enabled platforms. 

• Development of correlation algorithms to fuse defensive cyber, spectrum awareness, offensive cyber, and network awareness information to enable BCT analysts to perform internal hunt activities in an incident friendly environment. 
69 

The Army is also assessing the impact of the cyber threat to future autonomous 

systems; developing cyber behavior monitoring models/techniques for tactical radio 

waveforms to enable anomalous behavior detection; developing trusted authentication techniques that do not rely on reach-back to centralized authorities; conducting 

research to track data flows, monitor data modification, and ensure trusted pedigree 

of information across the tactical network; and researching cyber containerization 

techniques to block and restrict the spread of malware on tactical mission platforms. 

Æ