Pentagon Joins Tech Startups in Race for Autonomous Vehicles

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
pentagon joins tech startups in race for autonomous vehicles

It’s been a rough road for autonomous vehicles. Despite development progressing significantly over the last decade, tech companies and automakers have been confronted with a myriad of issues. There have been intellectual property lawsuits, public safety concerns, and a recent backlash from government officials who are starting to wonder if the entire concept has been oversold.

However, the government still wants self-driving cars, especially the Pentagon. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been researching autonomous cars since the technology was in its infancy and, with so many firms trying to bring the technology to market, the military sees no reason it shouldn’t be the first.

It’s not like it doesn’t have the money.

Michael Griffin, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that technological innovations would be the key to the United States maintaining its military edge — especially with countries like China and Russia advancing so rapidly.

“In a world where pretty much everyone today has equal access to technology, innovation is important, and it will always be important. But speed becomes the differentiating factor. How quickly we can translate technology into fielded capability is where we can achieve and maintain our technological edge,” he said in April. “It is not about speed of discovery, it is about speed of delivery to the field.”

Griffin later elaborated on which technologies he thought the U.S. should focus on. Self-driving vehicles were among them. “We’re going to have self-driving vehicles in theater for the Army before we’ll have self-driving cars on the streets,” he said. “But the core technologies will be the same.”

According to Bloomberg, over half of all casualties in combat zones stem from military personnel delivering supplies. Griffin believes pursuing autonomous tech aggressively could save the lives of troopers and offer the United States a serious advantage on the battlefield. As a result, the Pentagon wants to accelerate development on the technology.

“You’re in a very vulnerable position when you’re doing that kind of activity,” he continued. “If that can be done by an automated unmanned vehicle with a relatively simple AI driving algorithm where I don’t have to worry about pedestrians and road signs and all of that, why wouldn’t I do that?”

The Pentagon intends to tap existing tech companies to learn from them. While it’s made strides on its own, it sees the merits in collaborating with civilians currently working on autonomous systems. “The military is very eager to learn and build upon what’s been done commercially as opposed to try to reinvent and do it themselves,” said Karlyn Stanley, a researcher and lawyer at the RAND Corporation.

Likewise, Griffin said the Pentagon “absolutely must leverage” the technology of private companies if it’s going to develop its own self-driving cars.

Still, some remain concerned that the development of autonomous military vehicles will create moral gray areas. Will computer-controlled systems be utilized on weaponry? Is it ethical to give a machine the ability to kill? What kind of safety measures would be in place to ensure these units can’t be hacked and taken over by our enemies?

For now, the military is just talking about unarmed autonomous supply and reconnoissance vehicles. But you see where this could head once the ball gets rolling. The Navy has already begun contracting for an unmanned submarine and General Motors established a new defense unit in 2017 in the hopes of growing its business with the military.

Last October, GM Defense LLC said it was already in discussions with Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center about its Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure (SURUS) platform. The unit is an autonomous carriage, running on hydrogen, that can be outfitted for all manner of activities. Still in development, SURUS is believed to provide logistical advantages since it could run at night without headlamps in relative silence.

Not all companies are quite so keen to work with the Pentagon. Thousands of Google employees recently organized to demand the company end deals that gave the military access to its artificial intelligence technology. Their condemnation was in response to a statement in which Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis noted advanced technologies would provide the United States’ armed forces with “increased lethality.”

[Image: General Motors]

Join the conversation
4 of 5 comments
  • ScarecrowRepair ScarecrowRepair on May 01, 2018

    I do not understand this theory that unmanned supply vehicles will be the cat's meow. They still have to be defended from attack. If my country were overrun by foreign devils with autonomous supply vehicles, I'd be all over that -- the only way to prevent that is make them fight back, and that's a far harder problem than mere driving over rough open ground. Do you simply blast away at everything that moves and looks vaguely human or human-made)? No, you try to distinguish between friend and foe, and that means humans again.

    • See 1 previous
    • ScarecrowRepair ScarecrowRepair on May 01, 2018

      @jmo2 And then the supplies don't get through, which was the whole point. Further, they won't cost $10K, not with all that automatic control, and the supplies cost money too. And the attackers don't have to get within bomb range -- they can lob a few RPGs at it with ease because they know there is no one shooting back.

  • Kendahl Kendahl on May 01, 2018

    Figuring out how to get across rough terrain is orders of magnitude more difficult than recognizing marks on an urban road and we have examples where autonomous vehicles have failed to do the latter correctly. I can foresee remotely operated, unmanned, transport vehicles, comparable to drone aircraft, long before level five autonomous ones.

  • Jeanbaptiste Any variant of “pizza” flavored combos. I only eat these on car trips and they are just my special gut wrenching treat.
  • Nrd515 Usually for me it's been Arby's for pretty much forever, except when the one near my house dosed me with food poisoning twice in about a year. Both times were horrible, but the second time was just so terrible it's up near the top of my medical horror stories, and I have a few of those. Obviously, I never went to that one again. I'm still pissed at Arby's for dropping Potato Cakes, and Culver's is truly better anyway. It will be Arby's fish for my "cheat day", when I eat what I want. No tartar sauce and no lettuce on mine, please. And if I get a fish and a French Dip & Swiss? Keep the Swiss, and the dip, too salty. Just the meat and the bread for me, thanks. The odds are about 25% that they will screw one or both of them up and I will have to drive through again to get replacement sandwiches. Culver's seems to get my order right many times in a row, but if I hurry and don't check my order, that's when it's screwed up and garbage to me. My best friend lives on Starbucks coffee. I don't understand coffee's appeal at all. Both my sister and I hate anything it's in. It's like green peppers, they ruin everything they touch. About the only things I hate more than coffee are most condiments, ranked from most hated to..who cares..[list=1][*]Tartar sauce. Just thinking about it makes me smell it in my head. A nod to Ranch here too. Disgusting. [/*][*]Mayo. JEEEEZUS! WTF?[/*][*]Ketchup. Sweet puke tasting sludge. On my fries? Salt. [/*][*]Mustard. Yikes. Brown, yellow, whatever, it's just awful.[/*][*]Pickles. Just ruin it from the pickle juice. No. [/*][*]Horsey, Secret, whatever sauce. Gross. [/*][*]American Cheese. American Sleeze. Any cheese, I don't want it.[/*][*]Shredded lettuce. I don't hate it, but it's warm and what's the point?[/*][*]Raw onion. Totally OK, but not something I really want. Grilled onions is a whole nother thing, I WANT those on a burger.[/*][*]Any of that "juice" that Subway and other sandwich places want to put on. NO, HELL NO! Actually, move this up to #5. [/*][/list=1]
  • SPPPP It seems like a really nice car that's just still trying to find its customer.
  • MRF 95 T-Bird I owned an 87 Thunderbird aka the second generation aero bird. It was a fine driving comfortable and very reliable car. Quite underrated compared to the GM G-body mid sized coupes since unlike them they had rack and pinion steering and struts on all four wheels plus fuel injection which GM was a bit late to the game on their mid and full sized cars. When I sold it I considered a Mark VII LSC which like many had its trouble prone air suspension deleted and replaced with coils and struts. Instead I went for a MN-12 Thunderbird.
  • SCE to AUX Somebody got the bill of material mixed up and never caught it.Maybe the stud was for a different version (like the 4xe) which might use a different fuel tank.