Exclusive: HavocAI adds Seahound to its drone-boat roster
Why it matters: There's a military hunger, at home and abroad, for all things unmanned.
The intrigue: Havoc is one of the youngest on the scene. It was co-founded last year by Paul Lwin, a Myanmar refugee and former EA-6B weapons system officer. (Lwin also flight tested the EA-18G.)
Zoom in: The vessel, Seahound, is expected to have a 1,000-nautical-mile range and a 1,000-pound payload capacity.
It can run on the same software as Havoc's existing 14-foot craft, Rampage.
What they're saying: "While revitalizing traditional shipbuilding remains critically important, equally urgent is the parallel development of smaller, faster, attritable unmanned maritime vessels," Lwin told Axios.
"The extraordinary success of unmanned maritime operations in Ukraine's Black Sea demonstrates their pivotal role in the future of naval combat."
Yes, but: Seeing is believing. At-sea trials will prove or disprove Seahound's utility.
Other players in the increasingly competitive unmanned surface vessel space include Leidos, Textron Systems, Saildrone and Saronic.
Follow the money: Havoc last year raised $11 million. The early investors included Scout Ventures, Trousdale Ventures and Outlander VC.
What we're watching: How Havoc stands out from the crowd — and how its work with the Navy and Army proceeds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
US Defense Fuels Expanding $613 Billion Global Space Economy
The Pentagon's spending on space grew faster than space-related military outlays by other nations in 2024, with the American total likely to soar as President Donald Trump's administration moves ahead with his proposed Golden Dome missile shield. The US defense space expenditure increased 7.7% from a year earlier to $49.5 billion, more than the 2.3% growth by all other nations, which spent a combined $11.3 billion for defense space programs, according to a report from the Space Foundation.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Musk's xAI was a late addition to the Pentagon's set of $200 million AI contracts, former Defense employee says
The Pentagon last week announced multimillion-dollar contracts with four artificial intelligence companies intended to 'address critical national security challenges,' including Anthropic, Google and OpenAI. But the fourth raised questions among artificial intelligence experts: Elon Musk's xAI. Now, a former Pentagon employee who worked on the early stages of the AI initiative told NBC News that including xAI was a late-in-the-game addition under the Trump administration. The contracts had been in the works for months, with planning dating to the Biden administration. 'There had not been a single discussion with anyone from X or xAI, up until the time I left,' said Glenn Parham, who took a government buyout in March. 'It kind of came out of nowhere.' Parham was a generative artificial intelligence technical lead at the Pentagon's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office and helped negotiate deals and integrate AI into Defense Department initiatives. Up until his departure, he said, planning for the contracts hadn't included xAI. Each awarded contract has a floor of $2 million and a ceiling of $200 million, with the amount of the payout depending on how each partnership goes. (The OpenAI contract was initially announced last month.) Days before the announcement, Grok, xAI's chatbot, had gone on an antisemitic tirade that the company struggled to control. The company was also launching controversial animated AI 'companions' that can be sexually suggestive and violent. Musk said he merged X and xAI in March. In short, xAI didn't have the kind of reputation or track record that typically leads to lucrative government contracts, even as Musk had a long history of working with the government. Critics wondered whether xAI's models were reliable enough for government work. Last Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the contract 'wrong' and 'dangerous' on the Senate floor, bringing up Grok's antisemitic incident, in which it called itself 'MechaHitler.' He insisted that 'the Trump administration must explain how this happened, the parameters of the deal and why they think our national security isn't worth meeting a higher standard.' Parham said the program, which is billed as a partnership between the Defense Department and the U.S. tech companies that are on the frontier of artificial intelligence development, originally focused on more established AI firms, including OpenAI and Anthropic, which, in addition to being older than xAI, also have long-term deals with major cloud computing firms and established relationships with the military. It's not clear what prompted Pentagon officials to add xAI to the mix of contractors since March. The department's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office, which announced the contracts, didn't answer written questions about why it chose xAI, but the Pentagon said in a statement that the antisemitism episode wasn't enough to disqualify it. 'Several frontier AI models have produced questionable outputs over the course of their ongoing development and the Department will manage risks associated with this emerging technology area throughout the prototype process,' the Defense Department told NBC News in a statement Friday. 'These risks did not warrant excluding use of these capabilities as part of DoD's prototyping efforts,' it said. The department said 'frontier AI models,' by their nature, are at the cutting edge and so offer both opportunity and risk. xAI didn't respond to requests for comment Friday and Monday. Including xAI adds a wrinkle to Musk's complicated relationship with the federal government. Even before Musk's time as a White House adviser this year to President Donald Trump, his business empire already had deep ties inside the government, including contracts for Musk's rocket company, SpaceX. Musk and Trump are now locked in an on-again, off-again feud, and Musk has vowed to launch a third political party focused on reducing the federal debt. He repeated the vow as recently as July 6, though he doesn't appear to have taken concrete public steps to set it up. Trump has threatened Musk's government contracts during the dispute. Some experts said they could see why the Defense Department might want to include xAI as a partner, despite its flaws. 'I think the department benefits when it's engaged with as many organizations as possible,' said Morgan Plummer, the policy director for Americans for Responsible Innovation, an advocacy group that generally favors a middle ground on regulating AI. Parham said that the idea for the $800 million program predates the Trump administration and that work on it began in October after President Joe Biden issued an executive order on AI and national security. He said that he worked on it for about five months before he left and that, in all, he spent nearly three years at the Defense Department working on AI. The contracts with the four AI companies also significantly deepen the military's relationship with the buzziest of emerging technologies. In exchange for the millions of dollars, the military will get use of each company's large language model (LLM), which for many users often takes the form of a chatbot. Experts said they expect the military to use the LLMs for a variety of purposes, from more mundane tasks like summarizing emails to more complicated uses like translating languages or analyzing intelligence. Other AI projects spearheaded by the Defense Department include Project Maven, a system that integrates a large amount of data and data sources with machine learning, for display and use during conflict. Within the AI industry, xAI's capabilities are hotly debated. Grok scores highly on some benchmarks of artificial intelligence, such as one named 'Humanity's Last Exam,' which consists of questions submitted by subject matter experts. But its recent dalliance with neo-Nazism — and, before that, with race relations in Musk's native South Africa — made the chatbot an object of derision in the industry and among the broader public. 'Grok is probably the least safe of these systems. It's doing some really weird stuff,' said AI critic Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor of psychology at New York University. Marcus pointed out Grok's ideological diatribes and xAI's decision not to release safety reports that have become industry standards for leading AI models. Parham said he believes xAI may need more time than the three other Pentagon contractors to have its technology fully available to the military. He said other companies, including Anthropic and OpenAI, have already gone through a lengthy government review and compliance process to have their software — including their application programming interfaces, which coders use to build on top of LLMs — authorized for use. He said that, up through March when he left, xAI hadn't done the same. 'It's going to take them much longer, I think, to actually [get] their models rolled out in government environments,' he said. 'It's not impossible. It's just they're far, far, far, far behind from everybody else.' Parham said the approval process for Anthropic and OpenAI took over a year from paperwork submitted to authorization granted. The Pentagon's use of commercial LLMs has drawn some criticism, in part because AI models are generally trained on enormous sets of data that may include personal information on the open web. Mixing that information with military applications is too risky, said Sarah Myers West, a co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, a research organization. 'It introduces security and privacy vulnerabilities into our critical infrastructure,' she said. xAI is a relatively young startup. Musk started it in 2023 after having co-founded OpenAI years earlier and then had a falling-out with its CEO, Sam Altman. Some experts in AI and defense systems said they were shocked by Grok's recent antisemitic meltdown and wondered whether something similar might recur as part of government use. 'I would have some safety-associated concerns based on the release of their most recent model,' said Josh Wallin, who researches the intersection of AI and the military at the Center for a New American Security, a Democratic-leaning think tank. Wallin said Grok's antisemitism tirades demonstrate a potential for unpredictable or risky behavior, such as presenting false or misleading information as fact, known as hallucinations. 'Let's say you're automatically generating reports from different intelligence sources or you're producing a daily report for a commander. There'd be concern about whether what you're getting is a hallucination,' he said. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Billions for weapons, rather than troops, won't make us safer
The Pentagon got a whopping $150-billion increase in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president July 4. That will push next year's proposed Pentagon budget to more than $1 trillion. Most of that enormous amount will go to weapons manufacturers. A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%. The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidizing overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China. While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet. The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding. The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril. The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in. Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralize improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of could not be cleared. Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars. But to be truly safe, we need to fight fewer wars by adopting a more realistic strategy that emphasizes diplomacy and close cooperation with allies, and that resorts to force only when there is a major, direct threat to U.S. security. A more balanced strategy would be much less likely to put U.S. troops in high-risk situations like the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of letting corporate special interests distort our foreign and military policies, we need to press for an approach that puts strategic considerations first. That will mean taking steps to reduce the power of the arms makers, new and old, through steps such as stronger measures to limit the revolving door between government and industry. And we need to bring more independent voices into the Pentagon's budget discussions. Lockheed Martin, Palantir, SpaceX and other companies shouldn't have undue influence over decisions on how much to spend on our military, and what to spend it on. That's no way to make a military budget, and no way to defend a country. William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the co-author, with Stephen Semler, of the report 'Profits of War: Top Beneficiaries of Pentagon Spending, 2020 to 2024.'
