Brought to you by EarthWeb
IT Library Logo

Click Here!
Click Here!

Search the site:
 
EXPERT SEARCH -----
Programming Languages
Databases
Security
Web Services
Network Services
Middleware
Components
Operating Systems
User Interfaces
Groupware & Collaboration
Content Management
Productivity Applications
Hardware
Fun & Games

EarthWeb Direct EarthWeb Direct Fatbrain Auctions Support Source Answers

EarthWeb sites
Crossnodes
Datamation
Developer.com
DICE
EarthWeb.com
EarthWeb Direct
ERP Hub
Gamelan
GoCertify.com
HTMLGoodies
Intranet Journal
IT Knowledge
IT Library
JavaGoodies
JARS
JavaScripts.com
open source IT
RoadCoders
Y2K Info

Previous Table of Contents Next


2. THE AI PROGRAM IN THE U.S. MILITARY

With respect to introducing AI into large organizations, there is value in reviewing the AI programs among the Navy, Air Force, and Army. Each has organized and staffed its AI effort to suit its needs, and each has been tremendously successful.

The military took notice of AI as it came out of the lab and into the corporate world during the late 1970s. To help foster and manage the introduction of expert systems and other AI technologies, each service established central oversight agencies. In 1982, the Navy established the Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence (NCARAI). The NCARAI provides oversight for both the Navy and the Marines. The Army established the U.S. Army Artificial Intelligence Center (USAAIC) in 1984. The Air Force's Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) established oversight for the Air Force's AI program that same year.

Each of the service's oversight agencies has similar missions -- to serve as a proponent of artificial intelligence for their respective services. All three manage the awarding of external contracts for expert system software. The difference lies in how in-house development of expert systems is managed.

  • The Navy and Air Force programs are somewhat centralized. The Navy's in-house development teams are primarily in the Naval Research Lab facilities and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. The Air Force's program is similarly centralized, operating out of the main Air Force laboratories (Rome, Wright, Armstrong, and Phillips) and the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patternson AFB in Dayton, OH. Most Navy and Air Force AI personnel are civilian, although both send officers to their respective post-graduate schools for AI degrees.
  • The Army's program is more decentralized. In 1988, the USAAIC established the Knowledge Engineering Group (KEG) concept, and has established over 30 KEGs in Department of the Army agencies, schools, and some corps headquarters. The purpose of a KEG is to provide their commander with direct access to expert systems technologies. Most KEGs are composed of two to four AI-trained uniformed officers and civilians. KEGs are located in several Department of the Army agencies, schools, and tactical commands. The Army has established a special career track for AI-trained officers, and these officers are assigned AI-related jobs by the USAAIC.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches:

  • The clear advantage to the Army's decentralized approach is that it makes the technology directly visible to the customer. KEGs are accessible and generally have an easier time gaining access to domain experts. KEGs can also focus on integrating expert system solutions into the overall solution to a problem. The disadvantage is that KEGs are only manned for prototype development and can rarely sustain a system or knowledge base. Also, KEGs can only handle small short-term projects. Larger projects require outside assistance.
  • The Navy and Air Force's centralized approach is better suited for long-term or large projects. As you will see in the applications portion of this chapter, many of the Navy and Air Force technology efforts require a long-term focus -- especially in the areas of robotics and logistics. The two disadvantages are the comparative lack of visibility and the danger of projects becoming lab experiments not suitable for the field.

3. CURRENT AND RECENT APPLICATIONS

Military expert system applications span a wide range. Expert systems have found their way into such functional areas as resource allocation, personnel, operations, logistics, training and education, intelligence, and others. Many applications are local to a specific headquarters, but some have been expanded for use across the U.S. Department of Defense. This section presents successful applications for each of the above functions.

The services' respective oversight agencies and laboratories maintain listings of active and recent projects. The projects described below were selected from these lists. Some project managers have published journal or magazine articles and/or conference papers describing their work. These are cited in the text and listed in the References section of this chapter. The Acknowledgments section provides the location and points of contact for all nonpublished projects or those published in military-only magazines.

3.1. STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING AND PLANNING

The volatile and uncertain nature of the post-Cold War era has shown that major crises can surface anywhere in the world. In some cases, the U.S. military will respond -- either as a deterrent, a peacekeeping or peace enforcement force, a disaster relief force, or, in the worst case, a combat force. Their composition depends on the nature of the crisis, available units, and available transportation to deploy and sustain the units.

Responding to an emergency is an incredibly complex and time-consuming problem. U.S. military units are stationed all over the world. Some units face significant equipment or personnel shortages. Many specialized support units, such as civil affairs groups, are reserve units that would have to be activated. Political considerations often restrict the planners' options. The planners must weigh hundreds of such variables when preparing their plans. Compounding the problem is that much of the process is manual. Consequently, preparing a plan for a response is expensive, averaging 19 people and 9 days. A 9-day delay could mean significant loss of life or property at the crisis location.

This section discusses two related USAAIC projects that help planners study a national emergency and build an operation plan to handle it. They are Blacksmith and SABRE, and together they won the American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA) award at the 1994 ADPA AI Conference.


Previous Table of Contents Next

footer nav
Use of this site is subject certain Terms & Conditions.
Copyright (c) 1996-1999 EarthWeb, Inc.. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of EarthWeb is prohibited. Please read our privacy policy for details.