Robots could fight on the front line for Navy and RAF
The Royal Navy and RAF will soon be ready to put robots 'on the front line' after a successful battlefield test of the technology, the Government has said.
The Ministry of Defence has spoken of 'rapid progress' in developing combat uses for artificial intelligence-powered assistance for pilots and sailors following a five-day trial, the largest of its kind ever conducted.
One of the main uses of AI in the field will be automatic detection of targets and assistance commanding military vehicles.
The MoD has also said that using AI on the battlefield will also reduce 'cognitive load' for service men and women. Cognitive load refers to the multiple systems that, for example, a pilot needs to pay attention.
A pilot in control of a plane is expected to fly, analyse potential threats and manage communication systems. The Government claims the AI-powered battlefield tech that was successfully tested will be able to do much of this, reducing the pilot's 'cognitive load'.
The trial, which took place in early March in Portland Harbour, Dorset, involved relying on AI in several 'mission-based scenarios' and testing its effectiveness compared to human combatants.
It raises the prospect of robotic combatants eventually replacing human roles in parts of the Armed Forces, though sources said the possibility was still 'a little way away'.
The trial came under the remit of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership between Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
American and Australian military experts were also present during the practice missions, though no representatives from Canada or New Zealand attended.
'Operational advantage of AI'
Maria Eagle, the defence minister, suggested that after the successful trial the new technology could soon be deployed 'on the front line'.
Defence experts in government have also said the rollout of AI on the battlefield will give British forces 'operational advantage' and improve 'mission success'.
AI and drone technology are expected to feature prominently in this year's Strategic Defence Review, which will set out equipment and manpower priorities for the Armed Forces.
In November the Government warned that Britain was in an 'AI arms race' with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
In a speech on defence Cabinet minister Pat McFadden said of AI 'as we develop this technology there's a danger it could be weaponised against us. Because our adversaries are also looking at how to use AI on the physical and cyber battlefield'.
The Government recently announced that a fleet of AI-powered battlefield robots would be built in a new plant in south-west England.
Ms Eagle said: 'We can all see how AI has the potential to impact our lives and enhance our war-fighting ability, and UK defence is embracing this leap forward in technology to better support our personnel on the front line.
'Significant trials like this, working with international and industry partners, demonstrate the rapid progress we're making to utilise new technology for keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad.'
Dr Paul Hollinshead, the head of the MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), said: 'This innovative trial represents a significant advancement in how we develop and test defence technologies. By bringing together multiple domains and partners, we're not just collecting data – we're creating the foundation for mission success and operational advantage that will protect our forces for decades to come.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Drones, doubts as US allies look to NATO summit
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - As Estonia's defence minister opened a tech conference this week focused heavily on cutting-edge military equipment, he said his nation's strategy in the face of mounting Russian pressure was to turn itself into a 'fly that can paralyse an elephant'. Estonia and its fellow nearby Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania are among the first of America's allies to make good on U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that they devote at least 5% of their gross domestic product on defence. That means a combination of conscription, drones, long-range rockets and 'whole-of-society' efforts to prepare for war. It's an approach increasingly being advocated for what might be termed a whole new generation of 'frontline' governments and states from Finland and Romania to Taiwan and the Philippines. It's also being talked of in more established Western militaries such as those of the U.S. and Britain, with speculation that upcoming reforms will put much lower emphasis on heavy equipment such as tanks and more on unmanned systems, such as drones. But it's also an approach leaving some worried that excessive talk of technology is being used as an excuse to fail to provide the forces that may still be needed to win or deter a war. Earlier this month, the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, confirmed what had been rumoured for months - that the U.S. intends to cut back troops stationed on the continent, although he said discussions on this were unlikely to start until after the NATO summit in the Dutch capital, The Hague. "President Trump just is going to happen and it's going to happen now," Whitaker told a conference in Estonia earlier this month. "This is going to be orderly, but we are not to have any more patience for foot-dragging in this just need to work through the practical consequences." U.S. officials have made it clear they intend to use that meeting to push every NATO member to spend at least 5% of their GDP on defence, more than twice what many of them commit to at present. How that discussion goes may shape how many U.S. troops stay. In multiple European nations, then, there are growing worries about what that really means. Under former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration, the NATO alliance and U.S. European Command drew up plans to defend eastern, central and northern Europe from potential Russian incursion. But those plans relied heavily on large commitments of tanks and troops led by the United States. Now, despite increasing U.S. defence spending overall, there is mounting speculation that some of those U.S. heavy tank brigades that might fight in Europe may simply be abolished. At the end of April, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the U.S. Army to become "leaner", with Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll telling reporters what the Pentagon called the "old way of doing war" was no longer sufficient. "These are hard decisions," said Driscoll, saying that "legacy systems that have been around a long time" were likely to be cut to make the force "the most lethal they can be." While neither mentioned any particular systems likely to be axed, they said the U.S. Army would be putting more effort into long-range strike missiles to hit both sea and shore targets particularly in the Pacific. They cited the example of recent fighting in Ukraine as showing how effective such weaponry could be. That offers little comfort to nervous European governments. This week, Hegseth met with Polish Deputy Prime Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz – who is also defence minister – at the Pentagon, calling Poland a 'model ally' for spending almost 5 percent of GDP on defence and building the largest army in Europe, a force that will include hundreds of U.S.- and South Korean-built tanks. According to the Pentagon, Poland currently hosts some 8,000-plus U.S. personnel, most of them rotating through from other bases in the U.S. or Europe. Some U.S. forces are also forward-located in the Baltic states including HIMARS batteries in Estonia and Apache attack helicopters in Latvia. Others including airborne forces and armour pass through during the exercise season or have been deployed fast during crises. Exactly how much of that is under question is hard to predict. Outside the high-profile U.S. embrace of Poland, some European officials complain that their U.S. counterparts – particularly in Washington – have shown less interest in discussing such specifics. Senior U.S. European Command personnel have continued to assert U.S. support, but are seen to be much less in the loop. Some current administration officials are rumoured to believe that such U.S. forces in the former Baltic states are antagonising Russia and making matters worse. But others, particularly in the U.S. military, view them as providing much-needed deterrence by making it clear any attack would drag in the United States. What is clear is that the focus of U.S. defence spending is shifting fast, including to homeland defence. The Trump administration's plans to do so include America's first trillion-dollar defence budget. But it is increasingly clear that significant amounts of that will be focused on the U.S. homeland, including $175 billion for a new 'Golden Dome' missile defence shield the administration says it wants ready and operational by 2029. This week, the Pentagon announced more than 1,000 further U.S. military personnel to help secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico, joining more than 8,000 already there. Beyond homeland defence, officials have made it clear the priority is confronting China – but that still leaves a huge amount unclear. At worst, some worry that lack of clarity means more allied effort is now going into posturing than sensible military planning. In the short term, that means working to ensure that next month's NATO summit avoids too much open disagreement. That is one reason why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is expected to at least largely stay away, while other major decisions including getting alliance-wide agreement on the spending target might wait until later in the year Meanwhile, Western diplomats say discussions are underway among European governments – likely including at the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels this week – to find mathematical formulas to reclassify spending to reach the Trump administration's 5% target through reclassifying existing spending rather than finding all new money. Suggested examples include the spending definition to include infrastructure such as bridges that can transport heavy weapons or spending on civil preparedness and cyber resilience. Those discussions will also be watched in Asia, where the Trump administration is putting similar pressure on partners including Japan and Taiwan to hit the same 5% target. Some have suggested that Taiwan – widely believed to be under particular threat of Chinese invasion – should be spending as much as twice that to deserve U.S. protection. That is probably politically untenable, particularly given the challenges the Taiwan government is finding in pushing existing spending through its parliament. Speaking to a U.S. House of Representatives committee earlier this month, retired U.S. Admiral Mark Montgomery said he believed 5% was the maximum peacetime democracies could manage. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that they believe Chinese President Xi Jinping has ordered his military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. The United States has long maintained 'strategic ambiguity' over whether it would respond militarily should that happen. Montgomery grabbed headlines in Taiwan and beyond by telling the committee the U.S. already had some 500 military trainers on the island, several times the number previously acknowledged or reported – but he said it needed to be at least a thousand. "We absolutely have to grow the joint training team on Taiwan," he said. Montgomery did not describe the make-up of the U.S. training, though it likely comprises a mixture of regular force personnel, contractors and potentially reservists. Much of their focus is reportedly on ensuring Taiwan's military – including its historically ineffective conscript force – is much more prepared for high-intensity, high-tech warfare. At the same Committee hearing, retired U.S. Army Pacific commanding General Charles Flynn warned that the decision of a previous administration to sell 100 harpoon ship missile launchers to Taiwan was largely useless if the island did not have sufficient missile crews with the proper training. The example of Ukraine has shown that conscripted troops can fight hard for years even with only limited support but using cutting-edge technology, particularly drones. But many in both Taiwan and the Baltic states have long believed that U.S. support remains vital to sustaining a successful fight. In this month's 'Hedgehog' drills in Estonia – named for a creature that famously defeats many larger predators, Baltic troops including conscripts and NATO soldiers worked with new drones and dug trenches intended for the current exercise but deliberately positioned to be used if Russia attacks for real. The concept of 'peace through strength' remains as valid as ever, but the current version still needs work, and it remains unclear whether next month's NATO summit will help or hinder that.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Chinese tech companies prepare for AI future without Nvidia, FT reports
May 29 (Reuters) - China's biggest technology companies have begun the process of switching to homegrown chips as they contend with a dwindling stockpile of Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab processors and tightening United States export controls, the Financial Times reported on Thursday. Alibaba ( opens new tab, Tencent ( opens new tab and Baidu ( opens new tab are among those starting to test alternative semiconductors to meet growing domestic demand for AI, the report said, citing industry executives. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How to catch a fare dodger: TfL's war on ticket evaders as workers launch sting operations in pursuit of brazen passengers who owe thousands
A quick skip through the gate behind someone else; forcing the barriers open with a brutal shove; skipping through open gangways at the end of the day without tapping your card; or even buying a cheeky ticket that covers only a fraction of your journey. Fare evasion is a nigh-on endless occurrence on London 's transport network, costing Transport for London some £130million each year - or more than £4 every single second. But with the help of technology, a growing team of professional investigators and sheer determination, the transport body is fighting back - and putting fare evaders firmly in their place. TfL has some 500 uniformed 'revenue control officers' - alongside an unspecified number of plainclothes inspectors - across the entire network, covering Underground, Overground, buses, DLR, Trams and the Elizabeth Line. They all have the power to demand proof from passengers that they have a valid ticket, Oyster card or bank card. But in the background, TfL also employs a squadron of professional investigators who work in the background to identify those who slip through the net. They build up comprehensive pictures of where fare dodgers travel and when - even down to how many times a week - and feed the intelligence to officers on the ground who can be ready to catch them in the act. A new Channel 5 series has been lifting the lid on how the capital catches fare dodgers - with ticket inspectors granting rare access to all of the tricks they use to not only identify non-paying passengers, but how they catch them in the act. Are YOU a fare dodger? Email anonymously: TfL has an army of 500 revenue officers and a team of crack investigators tackling fare evasion (pictured: a plainclothes inspector watches fare-paying passengers pass through at Forest Green station) Fare Dodgers: At War with the Law has followed investigators working for both TfL and South Western Railway (SWR) as they crack down on those unwilling to pay their way for transport. And where there are fare evasions on a massive scale - as identified by CCTV, human intelligence and ITAP, TfL's all-seeing fare evasion detection system - there are fare inspectors ready to take them to ask. Across episodes shown to date - with more to come - ticket dodgers have been tracked as owing anywhere up to five figures in unpaid fares dating back months or even years. What happens to fare dodgers on TfL? Anyone who fails to tap in and out using contactless, an Oyster card or a valid pass such as a Freedom Pass they are entitled to faces a fine. The standard fine for travelling without a valid ticket or pass is £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days. However, repeat offenders can expect far harsher punishments. TfL identifies repeat offenders using a mixture of intelligence reports, CCTV and its own fare evasion detection tool known as ITAP. Once identified, fare evaders can expect to be confronted by revenue protection officers and interviewed. They may also face court proceedings through the Single Justice Procedure process or via postal requisition. If the evasion leads to prosecution, offenders can face a fine of £1,000 as well as having to pay compensation for the fares evaded. The series has even exposed some of the lesser known tricks that fraudulent travellers have used in order to pay either nothing, or as little as possible. Some were using bank cards with tiny balances to tap in, knowing they couldn't pay the fare, or even buying tickets covering the last stop on their journeys despite travelling from further out. But little gets past the capital's elite teams of revenue officers, who have brought fare evasion down from 3.8 per cent to 3.4 in the space of a single year - a fraction of the 13 per cent rate on New York's subways. Sometimes the stings don't pay off - as in one episode set to be broadcast Monday June 2, where TfL revenue officers, on good intelligence, wait at Forest Green station on the Elizabeth Line to catch a man who regularly passes through without paying. Identified in CCTV by his black and white letterman jacket, the plainclothes inspectors watch and wait, confident he will appear - but find themselves plagued by false alarms. 'You've just got to look for the little nuances about someone,' one of the inspectors says. 'You get a passion for it and you just want to catch them. I think they think it's a victimless crime, to be fair.' They ultimately leave empty handed - but remain upbeat he will appear. The other inspector says: 'You can't let that he's not turning up, when he usually turns up, get to you. 'The habits in which people feel like they can get away with it over and over again is almost their demise because they're going to do it again and again and again and think they can get away with it.' As they leave the station, he chirps: 'There's always next time.' For TfL's army of enforcement officers, that 'next time' arrives an average of once a day across the city, with 360 evaders prosecuted last year. And the Channel 5 series has shown in satisfying detail what happens when they finally get their comeuppance. At Surrey Quays - an Overground station on the Windrush line - TfL investigators stopped a man who had been using a bank card with no balance to tap in and out. TfL systems will log that a bank card is valid when it is used to tap in, but cannot verify whether it has any balance until the end of the business day when total fares are calculated and payment is taken. So while the card had no balance, the gates would recognise the card as valid and open - but couldn't take any money. In the first episode of the series, plainclothes inspectors identifiable only by their body-worn cameras as being on official business stop the man as he taps out at Surrey Quays with the dodgy card. He tries to tell inspectors: 'It's not mine - I found it.' The inspectors, using data from their systems, determined that he had been using the card almost daily for a year. After an interview, he signs a document admitting he had evaded fares on more than 500 journeys, totalling £3,573, or around £7 at a time. Fare evaders will use every trick in the book to avoid paying their way - even exploiting their relatives' benefits for their own personal gain. An earlier episode of the series shows a trio of TfL investigators called Tracey, Sarah and Dan cornering a man who had abused his female relative's Freedom Pass more than 200 times. The pass grants free travel across the network to to Londoners over the age of 66, and to those with certain disabilities or who are told by the DVLA they cannot drive. But the fare dodger was neither of those - and was brought down with the ITAP system, which linked the card to the journeys he was taking on a regular basis to build up a clear picture of his movements. Tracey, Sarah and Dan were then primed to catch him in the act at Preston Road station on the Metropolitan Line - even as he tried to shove past one of the inspectors and denied he had the pass as he tucked it into his pocket. The man, who said he had travelled from Moorgate, told the investigators: 'Which pass? I don't have any pass? Only my card.' An investigator then told him: 'Come on, stop messing around, we've had this already.' The man says: 'I'm not messing.' Another added: 'We know you have it because when you came up, I stopped you and I approached you, and you had a yellow wallet on it.' The third investigator then says: 'OK, game's up, show the pass, we know who it belongs to. We've done an investigation on you, we know you've got the pass on you.' TfL officers then tell him his failure to cooperate would lead to the case being passed to the British Transport Police as fraud. The case was ultimately passed to prosecutors to claw back more than £1,000 of unpaid fares. On the Transport for London network, the ITAP (Irregular Travel Analysis Platform) system sits at the heart of all fare evasion probes. Exactly how it works is a secret, kept under wraps by TfL on the basis that revealing its workings could encourage fare evasion. But what we do know is that it analyses the patterns of fare dodging to build up comprehensive pictures of where and when suspects are travelling. It tracks Oyster and contactless payment cards - processed as anonymous tokens to safeguard financial information - as well as 'gateline data', a phrase that suggests it can detect when people are tailgating through larger gates that stay open longer. Alongside other events such as gates being forced open, ITAP can help investigators build a comprehensive picture of when fraudsters travel - so they can be ready to pounce at the right time. The system is working: as well as bringing down total fare evasion, TfL has clawed back £400,000 of unpaid fares in the last year alone after taking 360 persistent offenders to court. And there are more advancements to come. Last year, MailOnline reported on how TfL ran a 'smart station' trial at Willesden Green that saw its CCTV feeds examined by artificial intelligence (AI) software to spot fare evaders. The system was trained to spot fare dodgers who pushed or tailgated through ticket barriers - and would flag them to a human operator who could then build up a picture of their movements to pass to enforcement officers. It could also spot other signs of trouble faster than a human being, trained to spot knives, people on the tracks, or even passengers who were sitting at the platform for an inordinate amount of time. These safety checks were being trialled at Custom House station in January this year. TfL has not said whether AI is yet being used to spot fare evasion on a wider basis following the Willesden Green trial. Channel 5's Fare Dodgers, now in its second series, has also been following inspectors tackling fare evasion on the South Western Railway (SWR) network, which operates from the London Waterloo terminus. Like TfL, it appears to be using data to spot when passengers aren't paying - but its work is complicated by the fact that passengers will use a combination of paper tickets, e-tickets, season passes and Oyster and contactless tap-ons to travel. Nevertheless, the series shows how investigators always get their man (or woman) - sometimes netting huge wins. One tricky customer at London Waterloo was snared engaging in 'short faring' - after travelling from far outside the capital but only buying tickets at Vauxhall, the last stop before the end of the line. He had also been buying 'doughnut tickets' - short tickets covering the first and last stations of his journey, leaving a 'hole' in the middle for which he hadn't paid. Nevertheless, he was able to pass through the barriers. As if his evasion wasn't brazen enough, he had been using a 16-17 Saver Railcard to take 50 per cent off the price. SWR launched an eight-week probe to establish his movements and apprehended him exactly where they expected him to be, slapping him with £19,500 of unpaid fares - even as he tried to explain away his crime. Asked where he travelled from the man said in remarks censored by the broadcaster: 'Er, from (redacted) today, well (redacted) this morning, sorry.' The investigator then said: 'Why do you have a Vauxhall to Waterloo ticket?' The man responded: 'Er, just because I didn't manage to get one in time, so just one to get through the barrier.' Around 4.5 per cent of SWR journeys are made without a valid ticket, and unpaid fares cost the operator around £40million a year. Investigators recovered £3.4million in 2024. TfL station staff are told under no circumstances to put themselves at risk when they see fare evasion, instead advised to build up a log of incidents to pass to professional enforcers. But some, including shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, have tried taking the law into their own hands, as he filmed a video showing him confronting fare dodgers. One of the alleged fare dodgers told him to 'f*** off'. Mr Jenrick was criticised for the 'vigilante' stunt, which transport union the TSSA labelled 'inappropriate' and 'potentially dangerous for passengers, staff and the individual involved'. 'Fare evasion is a serious issue, but it must be tackled with professional, trained enforcement, not MPs trying to score points or social media clout on their daily commute,' it said. TfL has also confirmed Mr Jenrick did not have permission to film the video, which was shot at Stratford Station. Public opinion suggests that those who dodge rail fares aren't currying favour with their fellow travellers. A recent YouGov poll found that 76 per cent of Brits say fare dodgers are 'exploiting the system, and it's not fair to paying passengers'. Thinking of slinking under a ticket barrier? With enforcement teams, reams of data and even the public against you, it would be best to think again.
