Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

13

ACCELERATING THE 4TH INDUSTRIAL

REVOLUTION IN THE SAF

By ME4 Albany Loh & CPT Lee Zi Yang

ABSTRACT

Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Advanced Robotics and Internet of Things—these are merely the tip of the iceberg called the Fourth Industrial Revolution that is happening today. Not only does the Fourth Industrial Revolution hold the potential to transform the global economy and our way of living, it also promises to bring about a profound impact on the militaries around the world. Faced with tighter resource constraints in an increasingly complex security environment, it has become a key imperative for the SAF to adapt to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and be an early adopter of these technologies in the contemporary context. This essay suggests three key thrusts that the SAF can focus on in the immediate term to accelerate the Fourth Industrial Revolution within the organisation and achieve tangible progress.

Keywords: Industrial Revolution; Information Security; Technological Literacy; Technologies; Innovation

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, Advanced Robotics and Internet of Things (IoT)—these are merely the tip of the iceberg called the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) that is happening today. Not only does it hold the potential to transform the global economy and our way of living, the 4IR also promises to bring about a profound impact on the militaries around the world that are facing tighter resource constraints in an increasingly complex security environment. In this regard, the SAF is certainly no exception—the ability to adapt to the 4IR and be an early adopter of these technologies is a key imperative in the contemporary context. However, in light of these disruptive changes, what more can the SAF do to seize the opportunity and quickly achieve tangible progress in the 4IR?

This essay begins by providing an overview of how the previous Industrial Revolutions (IRs) in history have affected the military and warfare around the world. Next, it explains how the 4IR can potentially transform the military and why the SAF should be keenly interested in it. Lastly, the essay ends by suggesting three thrusts that the SAF can focus on to accelerate the 4IR within the organisation and achieve tangible progress.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS AND WARFARE

The reading of history has shown that the militaries which could best seize the opportunities that arose in the wake of each industrial revolution were also the ones that

achieved game-changing advantages in warfare.1 As the First Industrial Revolution (1IR) began in 1859, the Austro-Sardinian War was the first to capitalise on the new industrial technologies of railways, telegraph, and rifled weapons across the strategic and tactical levels of warfare.2 While the steam-powered ships were gradually introduced into the military in the 1810s, the incorporation of metallurgy on the Ironclads deployed during the American Civil War in 1862 proved to be a game-changer for the maritime forces.3 Notably, the 1IR technologies of cables and electric telegraphs helped to actualise the experience of Total Warfare when governments found themselves able to maintain constant communication with its field commanders and war correspondents.4

In the Second Industrial Revolution (2IR) that happened from the 1870s onwards, the series of technological developments that ensued was driven by electricity. This included the invention of the internal combustion engine, the aeroplane as well as the development of moving pictures. Hence, between 1911 and 1912, the world witnessed the first use of aeroplanes in combat during the Italo-Turkish War that sparked the change in perception of military offence and defence. In 1914, the first large-scale motorised infantry was deployed during the First Battle of the Marne by the French and this marked another milestone in the mobility of troops in war.

When the Third Industrial Revolution (3IR) began in earnest from 1969 onwards, this period of disruption was mainly defined and characterised by advancements in electronics, digitalisation for production automation, the increasing ubiquity of personal computing and the

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

14

development of the internet. Besides enhancing operational effectiveness and efficiency in the military organisation, these technological developments also formed the bedrock of an important milestone in the trajectory of the military—the emergence of the Revolution of Military Affairs (RMA) that was played out in Operation Desert Storm, as well as the rise of Information Warfare (IW) that was prominent in the recent Ukrainian conflict.5

As we move forward to the current moment, the world now finds itself at the cusp of the 4IR. Just like its predecessors, the 4IR promises the same kind of disruption to the global economy and the military. However, the 4IR is uniquely different from its predecessors as it also promises to fuse and blur the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres. The 4IR will thus be shaped by a fresh wave of innovation in sunrise areas of the present and the future—Autonomous Vehicles (AV), Smart Robotics, Materials Engineering, Big Data, IoT, and 3D Printing.6 Although some may argue that the 4IR is simply a prolongation of the 3IR, there are sufficient reasons to believe that they are distinctly different given that the 4IR is currently expanding at an exponential rate and disrupting

almost every industry world-wide.7 From the observation of the previous IRs, it is also likely that these 4IR technologies will equally require some time to mature before they could be effectively employed in military applications. Nevertheless, it remains pertinent for militaries around the world to start preparing themselves in anticipation of the 4IR rising.

4IR IN THE SAF

While the 4IR will be an important development for many industries and militaries around the world, the impact of this transformation will be particularly critical to the SAF due to three unique factors. Firstly, given the challenging manpower landscape that Singapore is facing, the pressure for the nation to be more productive and labour-efficient will only continue to intensify. With conscription as the basis of its fighting model, there is a compelling need for the SAF to actively explore how the 4IR could offset its demand for soldiers with more adoption of technology.8 Secondly, as a relatively and disproportionately small nation in the region, the SAF has always adopted the philosophy of using technology as a force multiplier that will help it to achieve quality and mitigate its lack of quantity.9 To this end, the 4IR presents a valuable opportunity for the SAF to explore new cutting-edge capabilities for the next bound and identify its own Maxim Gun-equivalent in the 4IR.10 Third, the fast pace of disruptions brought about by the 4IR means that it is necessary for any organisation to be nimble in adapting to the changes. In this regard, the relatively small size of the SAF, coupled with the highly educated population in Singapore, places it in an advantageous position to tap on these 4IR technologies and effectively incorporate them into the organisation.11 Therefore, with the importance of the 4IR to the SAF in mind, this essay suggests three areas where the SAF can focus on in the immediate term to catalyse the acceleration of the 4IR in the organisation and quickly achieve tangible progress in this area.

A combined picture of: The Gulf WAR, starting clockwise from top: USAF F-15Es, F-16s, and a F-15C flying over burning Kuwaiti oil wells; British troops from the Staffordshire Regiment in Operation Granby; camera view from a Lockheed AC-130; Highway of Death; M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle.

Wikipedia

A picture of a 3D printed case that serves to protect a missile from damage.

MINDEF

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

15

ACCELERATING 4IR WITHIN THE SAF

Thrust One: Dedicated Nurseries In The Innovation Ecosystem

Although the 4IR has been marked by its unique breadth and depth in theory, the development has not been uniform because the level of maturity in each technology differs in reality.12 Consequently, there are multiple tracks of progress within the 4IR, and the opportunities that are ready for harvest differ. For instance, while it is harder to conceptualise how AI and 3D Printing can be incorporated into the next bound of capabilities in the SAF, it might be easier to imagine how Big Data and IoT can be more immediately applied to enhance its operational processes. Although the former is a venture that has the potential to transform the military in the long term, it is the latter where the SAF should focus on to accelerate the 4IR as there are low-hanging fruits within reach. Therefore, there remains a prerequisite for a separate safe space in the organisation with the mandate and resources to focus its efforts on the first stage of innovation—akin to dedicated nurseries.13

The reading of history has shown that

the militaries which could best seize the

opportunities that arose in the wake of

each industrial revolution were also the

ones that achieved game-changing

advantages in warfare. Thus, the SAF will need to be cognisant of these

differences and the correct assessment of the myriad possibilities in the 4IR is essential to quickly achieving tangible progress in this endeavour. The Future Systems Technology Directorate (FSTD) can continue to co-operate with its partners in the Defence Technology Community (DTC) to push the technological frontier in the 4IR for the SAF. It must be noted that the trajectory of defence innovation has typically proceeded in two distinct phases and the 4IR is expected to be no different: First, the potential application of current technology is brainstormed and conceived to a prototype.14 Second, the prototype is further tested in operational conditions and refined to the actual capability that would be fielded. In other words, the first stage emphasises ‘quantity’, where it is important for ideation to happen and creativity be applied to conceptualise how the existing technologies on the horizon can be harnessed while the second stage emphasises ‘quality’, where the focus is on the refinement of the

capability after its utility has been proven and the aim is to bring it to maturity. For areas where the technology in the 4IR has sufficiently matured, the SAF needs to focus on the first stage of innovation by creating the necessary structure and resources to engage its people on ideation.

Furthermore, the SAF has traditionally taken a long-term view about its operational capabilities. In fact, it has gained the reputation as a ‘reference buyer’ for many other foreign militaries in this regard.15 For instance, the acquisition of the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s (RSAF) F-15SG took seven years of careful evaluation, going through many rounds of deliberation and comparison with other alternatives before the SAF decided on its option.16 As a trusted public institution in a small country, this prudent manner is essential to ensure that the SAF optimises its limited resources and allow it to enhance deterrence through its meticulous approach. This approach has allowed innovation to hitherto progress at a characteristically steady pace, with a keen eye on the strategic environment and operational requirements to ensure that its needs commensurate with its endowments.

However, this philosophy that has served the SAF well thus far might be counter productive to its efforts in the 4IR. If the SAF were to reap the low-hanging fruits in the 4IR, it needs to fundamentally accept that this venture will inherently be more risky and haphazard as compared to its traditional capability acquisition and development efforts. Although this certainly does not mean that it should be reckless, it does call for a bolder and more responsive approach in defence innovation that marks a departure from the past. Hence, this reinforces the importance of creating dedicated nurseries in the organisation.

In creating these dedicated nurseries in the innovation ecosystem, there are two important design features that need to be kept in mind. First, they need to be invested with the necessary funding such that it is able to respond quickly to their innovation ideas and be absolved of the need to worry about resources to a certain extent.17 In fact, it is beneficial to create multiple ‘sandboxes’ that allow the organisation and the people to ‘fail fast, fail safe, and fail cheap.’18 Second, they should be structured to facilitate open participation by all personnel from diverse background in the organisation and encourage ‘bottom-up’ ideas. While technological knowledge is important to give these suggestions a sense of reality and ensure that the process is productive, it must be emphasised that ideation rate is ultimately the key driving factor behind the innovation of an organisation.19 The people in the organisation should not be deterred from partaking in this brainstorming process by their lack of technical knowledge in the 4IR—in fact, this endeavour must strive to be ‘human-centric’ if it were to succeed.20

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

16

The Defence Technology Community comprises several entities within MINDEF—Future Systems & Technology Directorate (FSTD), Technology Strategy & Policy Office (TSPO), Industry & Resources Policy Office (IRPO) and Defence Technology Collaboration Office (DTCO)—as well as Defence Science and Technology Agency and DSO National Laboratories. The DTC continually evolves to better exploit advancements in technology, respond to changing threats, and support the needs of the SAF.

MINDEF

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

17

Therefore, the SAF will need to assess the myriad technologies within the 4IR and identify those that are already sufficiently mature for application. Thereafter, it will be beneficial to create dedicated nurseries in the innovation ecosystem that are equipped with the necessary resources to encourage ideation from the people in the organisation and allow the SAF to ‘think big, start small and act fast.’21

The 4IR will thus be shaped by a fresh

wave of innovation in sunrise areas of

the present and the future—

Autonomous Vehicles, Smart Robotics,

Materials Engineering, Big Data, IoT,

and 3D Printing.

Suggestion Two: Harnessing Human Capital

Since its independence, Singapore has strived to invest in her most valuable resource—the people—and this strategy will remain apposite for the nation as it enters the age of the 4IR.22 After all, the technological capabilities that the SAF will induct can only be as good as the soldiers who will be operating them.23 Thus, it will be critical to ensure that the people in the SAF are adequately equipped with the ‘know-how’—in other words, they will need to possess sufficient technological literacy so as to harness the full benefits that will be brought about by the 4IR.

Broadly, the Information and Technology Literacy (ITL) of a person is the ‘ability of an individual, working independently or with others, to use tools, resources, processes, and systems responsibly to access and evaluate information in any medium, and to use that information to solve problems, communicate clearly, make informed decisions, and construct new knowledge, products, or systems.’24 Given that the technological enablers will change and improve over time, the consequent process of understanding the technology should also be ongoing so that the people in the organisation can continue to effectively employ the instruments and digest the requisite information to meet specific objectives. However, this understanding must be sufficiently general yet not necessarily comprehensive, such that it will enable the individual to meet the organisation’s needs in a disruptive environment with rapid technological developments.25 In the context of the 4IR, the general understanding of the variety of technologies is paramount, as the revolution is made possible through the fusion and confluence of these different strands. Subsequently, repetitive practice to hone

the skill sets learnt should be carried out across a continuum for learners in the organisations.26 Therefore, the effort to ensure that the people in the SAF achieve sufficient technology literacy has to be continual throughout the ranks and course of every individual’s term of service. Likened to achieving fluency in a language, members of the SAF must ultimately master unrestricted utilisation of technology.

However, in the bid to educate the people within the SAF, it is important that the effort does not just revolve around the instillation of knowledge and application. Crucially, the people must also learn to be cognisant and aware of the threats so that the organisation is able to maintain resilient at all levels.27 At the individual level, the SAF has to continue preaching that security is the responsibility of everyone in the organisation. This would mitigate the shortcoming of the operator being the weakest link in security, and eliminate the germ of his or her complacency in a seemingly highly secure environment within the SAF.28 At the organisational level, the SAF must be able to assess the individual’s technological literacy in the three aspects of factual and conceptual knowledge; critical thinking and decision making in managing contingencies, risks and benefits; as well as the capabilities and processes for effective tactical usage to take advantage of 4IR information and technology.29

For the nation, the 3rd Gen SAF offers a different value proposition in the digital age as before.30 In 2017, the SAF has announced a slew of initiatives that will both be central and complementary to the raising of technological literacy amongst its people, such as the establishment of the new SAF C4 (Command, Control, Communications and Computers) and the deployment of its National Service (NS) corps to the new Cyber Defence vocation.31 The newly-announced co-operation among the SAF Signals and Command Systems, ST Information Systems and Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) to customise a unique Cyber Defence curriculum to suit the organisation’s needs is also another notable initiative that will serve to develop the human capital.32 In addition, then 2nd Minister for Defence, Mr Ong Ye Kung, announced during the 5th Cyber Defenders Discovery Camp (CDDC) that the winners and outstanding performers of the CDDC would be invited to go through the selection process to join the SAF’s new cyber defence vocation in MINDEF’s Defence Cyber Organisation (DCO).33

All in all, the SAF will increasingly be presented with opportunities to look beyond its current workforce and identify the critical pool of elite warfighters in the non-kinetic domain.34 While the SAF exists to defend its people, it can only depend on its people for its existence. Therefore, even as the 4IR introduces much disruptions, therein lies a

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

18

role for the SAF to (1) lend constant emphasis on leveraging its human capital to harness technologies and seize opportunities in the 4IR to overcome its constraints; (2) educate its people from within the organisation to achieve technology literacy, freedom and resilience, and; (3) constantly lead, engage and involve the nation’s populace for defence and security.

Suggestion Three: Rethinking Information Security

Since the emergence of IW as one of the warfighting paradigms in the digitised world, it has become paramount for militaries to focus on the importance of securing information in the organisation given the legitimate threat that it poses.35 Consequently, the issue of keeping the operational systems and the information within tightly guarded has traditionally been an important principal consideration in the military.36 Placing Information Security (InfoSec) at the forefront of capability development thus helps to prevent any inadvertent leak that will compromise any operation. However, the same focus on InfoSec is not tenable as it may similarly inhibit the exploitation of the 4IR technologies in the SAF to some extent. Therefore, our approach has to be one that facilitates 4IR adoption without compromising InfoSec. This could be achieved by rethinking the traditional security envelopes within the SAF, and defending against new attack surfaces inherently introduced by 4IR technologies.

Given that the 4IR is characterised by the fusion of the physical, biological and digital spheres, this naturally

means that the adoption of these technologies will introduce a new dimension of threat. For instance, while Big Data can analyse large troves of operational data to yield useful insights and improve operational effectiveness, the need for the SAF to release these information for mining constitutes a formidable obstacle that carries significant security implications.37 In order to benefit from the 4IR, this might inevitably mean opening up data sources that have been hitherto considered sensitive to these technologies and thus introducing a new source of vulnerability. Consequently, this might make the organisation think twice and carefully about the rapid adoption of data analytics.

All in all, the SAF will increasingly be

presented with opportunities to look

beyond its current workforce and

identify the critical pool of elite

warfighters in the non-kinetic

domain. Furthermore, this risk will be a pertinent obstacle for

the adoption of many other promising technologies in the 4IR as they are similarly underpinned by digitisation of information. Even as the military increasingly seeks to incorporate advanced robotics into their operations, it has already been demonstrated that there has been inadequate thought placed into the current state of security measures

A graph that shows the different units under HQ SAF C4 Command.

MINDEF

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

19

in this area.38 While 3D printing promises the transformation of logistics readiness in the military, there are also inherent risks in the infiltration of the system to access and manipulate the information within.39 Therefore, although there may be other ethical risks and dilemma in the adoption of these 4IR technologies, it is the risk to InfoSec that the SAF can focus on addressing in the immediate term.

Correspondingly, there is a need to revisit and rethink the issue of InfoSec in the face of the 4IR, even at the current juncture. Since the prevailing attitude towards security can be an obstacle, there are two possible areas that the SAF can focus on to allay such worries. First, the security boundaries and envelopes on information within the SAF should be further pushed to identify the areas where the 4IR technologies can be adopted quickly without significantly compromising military operations. For instance, there might be a need to introduce a finer categorisation of security classification that can enable the release of more information for data analytics. Second, the central role played by cyber attacks in the contemporary security landscape only serve to reinforce the vulnerabilities that the adoption of 4IR technologies will introduce to the information realm. Hence, it is imperative for the SAF to ensure that its developmental efforts in the 4IR is supported by sufficient expertise in cyber defence right from the start.

Therefore, these measures will help to illuminate potential developmental areas and bring about better clarity on the security blind spots in this endeavour. While treating InfoSec with a broad brush might be effective in

ensuring that military secrets are not compromised, it may also be detrimental to the rapid adoption of the 4IR technologies. By rethinking our assumptions and approach towards InfoSec, it is hoped that a better balance can be achieved so that the SAF can move faster to harness the low-hanging fruits in the 4IR.

CONCLUSION

All in all, the 4IR promises to be a seismic moment for the global economy and its many technologies will have the same transformative potential to change the nature of tomorrow’s military. In this regard, the 4IR can be seen as a continuation of the industrial revolutions that have taken place previously. While there will still exist inherent difficulties in incorporating them into the organisation, the

SAF can seek to harness the low-hanging fruits that are already within reach and quickly achieve tangible progress by creating dedicated nurseries in its innovation ecosystem, harnessing its own human capital, and rethinking InfoSec in the face of 4IR. Ultimately, this will lay the groundwork for further innovation in the SAF and complement the wider push for a Smart Nation in Singapore.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Murray, Williamson. "Wars That Won the World." Military History 25, no. 2 (March 2008): 50 - 55.

History Net. “Austro-Sardinian War.” December 6, 2006. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://www.historynet.com/austro-sardinian-war.htm

Deogracias II, Alan J. “Battle Of Hampton Roads: A Revolution In Military Affairs.” U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. June 6, 2003. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416374.pdf

Baskerville, Richard. “Third-degree Conflicts: Information Warfare.” European Journal of Information Systems 19, no. 1 (February 2010): 1–4.

Elliott, Larry. “Fourth Industrial Revolution Brings Promise And Peril For Humanity.” The Guardian. January 24, 2016. Accessed February 16, 2018.

Rifkin, Jeremy. “The 2016 World Economic Forum Misfires With Its Fourth Industrial Revolution Theme.” Huffington Post. Accessed February 20, 2018.

Jian Yue, Xue. “ Defence Technology Community is Singapore’s ‘Secret Edge Weapon’.” Today Singapore. May 7, 2015.

Peng Yam, Tan. “Harnessing Defense Technology - Singapore's Perspective.” COMDEF’99 Symposium Melbourne, Australia. February 15, 1999. Accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/v.21_3/Yam.pdf

Anja Kaspersen, Espen Barth Eide, and Philip Shetler-Jones. “10 Trends For The Future of Warfare.” World Economic Forum. November 3, 2016. Accessed February 10, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/the-4th-industrial-revolution-and-international-security/

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

20

Yan Min, Chia. “Singapore Well Positioned to Gain from Industry 4.0.” The Straits Times. January 13, 2018.

Schwab, Klaus. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. USA: Crown Business, 2017.

Doughert, George M. "Promoting Disruptive Military Innovation: Best Practices for DoD Experimentation and Prototyping Programs." Defense Acquisition Research Journal: A Publication Of The Defense Acquisition University 25, no. 1 (January 2018): 2 - 29.

Aboulafia, Richard. “Fighter Makers Reassess Options.” Aviation Weekly. January 19, 2004.

MINDEF. “Defence Procurement.” Last Updated December 27, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/defence-matters/mindef-policies/mindef-policies-detail/defence-procurement

Insinna, Valerie. “New $64M Fund Will Give US Air Force Squadrons Chance to Spearhead Tech Projects.” Defense News. February 23, 2018.

MINDEF. “Keynote Address by Second Minister for Defence Ong Ye Kung at the MINDEF PRIDE Day Awards Ceremony.” November 4, 2016.

Dylan Minor, Paul Brook, and Josh Bernoff. “Data from 3.5 million Employees Show How Innovation Really Works.” Harvard Business Review. October 9, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. https://hbr.org/2017/10/data-from-3-5-million-employees-shows-how-innovation-really-works

Sanabs, Richard and Davis, Nicholas. “Advancing Human-Centred Economic Progress in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” World Economic Forum. May 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Advancing_Human_Centred_Economic_Progress_WP_2017.pdf

Yong, Charissa. “‘Think Big, Start Small, Act Fast’ to Drive Innovation in Civil Service.” The Straits Times. April 6, 2017.

Swee Say, Lim. “Speech at Launch of Human Capital Movement in SMEs.” Ministry of Manpower. July 30, 2015.

Bajic, Natasa. “A Tool is Only as Good as its User.” Four Dots. June 7, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. https://fourdots.com/blog/tool-is-good-as-its-user-3391

John D. Fortier, Calvin J. Potter, Susan M. Grady, Neah J. Lohr, and Jim Klein. “Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Information and Technology Literacy.” Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 1998.

Christon I. Archer, John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers. World History of Warfare. USA: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.

Garmire, Elsa and Pearson, Greg. Approaches to Assessing Technological Literacy. Washington: National Academies Press, 2016.

Eisenberg, Michael B. “Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 28. No. 2 (March 2008): 39 - 47.

Kennedy, Sarah Elizabeth. "The Pathway to Security – Mitigating User Negligence." Information & Computer Security 24, no. 3 (2016): 255 - 264.

Gregory L. Orgill, Gordon W. Romney, Michael G. Bailey, and Paul M. Orgill. “The Urgency For Effective User Privacy-Education To Counter Social Engineering Attacks On Secure Computer Systems.” Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Information Technology Education. October 28 - 30, 2004. 177 - 181.

Hutchinson, Bob. “The Future of Systematic Information Protection.” Keynote Address at 2005 Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Symposium on Applied Computing/ March 13 - 17, 2005.

Jia Yong, Goh. “Shaping Human Capital in the SAF.” Pointer Vol.40. No. 2 (June 2014): 11 - 20.

Cheng, Kenneth. “New SAF Unit to Battle Cyber Threats.” Today Online. March 3, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mindef-introduces-cyber-defence-as-ns-vocation

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

21

Nanyang Polytechnic. “Strengthening Cyber Defence.” March 17, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. http://www.nyp.edu.sg/about-nyp/nyp-overview/media-room/campus-news/2017/march/strengthening_cyber_defence.html

Teo, Benita. “Young Cybersecurity Talents to the Test.” MINDEF. June 8, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2018. https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/imindef/resourcelibrary/cyberpioneer/topics/articles/news/2017/jun/08jun17_news.html

Yan Min, Chia. “Singapore's Human Capital Most Developed in Asia - Report from World Economic Forum.” The Straits Times. September 13, 2017.

Stupples, David. “What is Information Warfare?” World Economic Forum. December 3, 2015. Accessed February 5, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-is-information-warfare/

Gilliam, Mary M. “Information Warfare: Combating the Threat in the 21st Century.” Air Command and Staff College. March 1997. Accessed February 5, 2018. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a397986.pdf

Jose Martins, Henrique Santos, Antonio Rosinha, and Agostinho Valente. “Information Security – Military Standards Versus ISO 27001: A Case Study in a Portuguese Military Organization.” 12th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security. July 2013.

Youssef Gahi, Mouhcine Guennoun, and Hussein T. Mouftah. “Big Data Analytics: Security and Privacy Challenges.” IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication 2016. August 18, 2016.

Peter Simon Sapaty. “Military Robotics: Latest Trends and Spatial Grasp Solutions.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence 4, no. 4 (2015): 9 - 18.

George W. Clark Jr, Michael V. Doran and Todd R. Andel. “Cybersecurity Issues in Robotics.” IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situational Management 2017. May 18, 2017.

Matthew J. Louis, Tom Seymour, and Jim Joyce. “3D Opportunity in the Department of Defense: Additive Manufacturing Fires Up.” Deloitte. USA: Deloitte University Press, 2014.

Steven Eric Zeltmann, Nikhil Gupta, Nektarios Georgios Tsoutsos, Michail Maniatakos, Jeyavijayan Rajendran, and Ramesh Karri. “Manufacturing and Security Challenges in 3D Printing.”Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 68, no. 7 (May 2016): 1 - 10.

ENDNOTES

1. Williamson Murray, "Wars That Won the World," Military History 25, no. 2 (March 2008): 50 - 55.

2. “Austro-Sardinian War,” History Net, December 6, 2006, accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.historynet.com/austro-sardinian-war.htm

3. Alan J. Deogracias II, “Battle Of Hampton Roads: A Revolution In Military Affairs,” U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, June 6, 2003, accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416374.pdf

4. Christon I. Archer, John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers, World History of Warfare, (USA: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 410

5. Richard Baskerville, “Third-degree conflicts: Information Warfare,” European Journal of Information Systems 19, no. 1 (February 2010): 1–4.

6. Larry Elliott, “Fourth Industrial Revolution Brings Promise And Peril For Humanity,” The Guardian, January 24, 2016, accessed Febru ary 16, 2018.

7. Jeremy Rifkin, “The 2016 World Economic Forum Misfires With Its Fourth Industrial Revolution Theme,” Huffington Post, accessed February 20, 2018.

8. Xue Jian Yue, “ Defence Technology Community is Singapore’s ‘Secret Edge Weapon’,” Today Singapore, May 7, 2015.

9. Tan Peng Yam, “Harnessing Defense Technology - Singapore's Perspective,” COMDEF’99 Symposium Melbourne, Australia, February 15, 1999, accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/v.21_3/Yam.pdf

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

22

10. Anja Kaspersen, Espen Barth Eide, and Philip Shetler-Jones, “10 Trends For The Future of Warfare,” World Economic Forum, November 3, 2016, accessed February 10, 2018, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/the-4th-industrial-revolution-and-international-security/

11. Chia Yan Min, “Singapore Well Positioned to Gain from Industry 4.0,” The Straits Times, January 13, 2018.

12. Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (USA: Crown Business, 2017), pp. 3

13. George M. Doughert, "Promoting Disruptive Military Innovation: Best Practices for DoD Experimentation and Prototyping Programs," Defense Acquisition Research Journal: A Publication Of The Defense Acquisition University 25, no. 1 (January 2018): 2 - 29.

14. Ibid.

15. Richard Aboulafia, “Fighter Makers Reassess Options,” Aviation Weekly, January 19, 2004.

16. “Defence Procurement,” MINDEF, last updated December 27, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, https://www.mindef.gov.sg/web/portal/mindef/defence-matters/mindef-policies/mindef-policies-detail/defence-procurement

17. Valerie Insinna, “New $64M Fund Will Give US Air Force Squadrons Chance to Spearhead Tech Projects,” Defense News, February 23, 2018.

18. “Keynote Address by Second Minister for Defence Ong Ye Kung at the MINDEF PRIDE Day Awards Ceremony,” MINDEF, November 4, 2016

19. Dylan Minor, Paul Brook, and Josh Bernoff, “Data From 3.5 million Employees Show How Innovation Really Works,’ Harvard Business Review, October 9, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, https://hbr.org/2017/10/data-from-3-5-million-employees-shows-how-innovation-really-works

20. Richard Sanabs and Nicholas Davis, “Advancing Human-Centred Economic Progress in the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” World Economic Forum, May 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Advancing_Human_Centred_Economic_Progress_WP_2017.pdf

21. Charissa Yong, “‘Think Big, Start Small, Act Fast’ to Drive Innovation in Civil Service,” The Straits Times, April 6, 2017.

22. Lim Swee Say, “Speech at Launch of Human Capital Movement in SMEs,” Ministry of Manpower, July 30, 2015.

23. Natasa Bajic, “A Tool is Only as Good as its User,” Four Dots, June 7, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, https://fourdots.com/blog/tool-is-good-as-its-user-3391

24. John D. Fortier et al, “Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Information and Technology Literacy,” Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1998.

25. Elsa Garmire and Greg Pearson, Approaches to Assessing Technological Literacy (Washington: National Academies Press, 2016), 32.

26. Michael B. Eisenberg, “Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age,” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 28, no. 2 (March 2008): 39 - 47.

27. Sarah Elizabeth Kennedy, "The Pathway to Security – Mitigating User Negligence", Information & Computer Security 24, no. 3 (2016): 255 - 264.

28. Gregory L. Orgill et al, “The Urgency For Effective User Privacy-Education To Counter Social Engineering Attacks On Secure Computer Systems,” Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Information Technology Education, October 28 - 30, 2004, 177 - 181.

29. Bob Hutchinson, “The Future of Systematic Information Protection,” Keynote Address at 2005 Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Symposium on Applied Computing, March 13 - 17, 2005.

30. Goh Jia Yong, “Shaping Human Capital in the SAF,” Pioneer 40. no. 2 (June 2014): 11 - 20

Accelerating the 4th Industrial Revolution in the SAF

23

ME4 Albany Loh is an Air Operations and Systems Expert (AOSX) by vocation. He is currently a Staff Officer in Air Operations Department (AOD), HQ RSAF. Previously, he had served as a Deputy Officer Commanding (OC) in 200 SQN and 202 SQN. ME4 Loh holds a Bachelors of Engineering in Information Engineering and Media from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and is currently pursuing a Masters of Applied Information Systems in Cyber Security at the Singapore Management University (SMU).

CPT Lee Zi Yang is an Air Warfare Officer (Air Battle Management) by vocation. He is now serving his staff tour in C4 Group, AOD. Prior to this, he had served his operational tour in 200 SQN and 202 SQN, where he attained his professional control qualifications. CPT Lee holds a Bachelors of Science in Economics (First Class Honours) from University College London (UCL) and also spent a year abroad in Columbia University during that period.

31. Kenneth Cheng, “New SAF Unit to Battle Cyber Threats,” Today Online, March 3, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mindef-introduces-cyber-defence-as-ns-vocation

32. Nanyang Polytechnic,“ Strengthening Cyber Defence,” March 17, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.nyp.edu.sg/about-nyp/nyp-overview/media-room/campus-news/2017/march/strengthening_cyber_defence.html

33. Benita Teo, “Young Cybersecurity Talents to the Test,” MINDEF, June 8, 2017, accessed February 5, 2018, https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/imindef/resourcelibrary/cyberpioneer/topics/articles/news/2017/jun/08jun17_news.html

34. Chia Yan Min, “Singapore's Human Capital Most Developed in Asia - Report from World Economic Forum,” The Straits Times, September 13, 2017.

35. David Stupples, “What is Information Warfare?” World Economic Forum, December 3, 2015, accessed February 5, 2018, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/what-is-information-warfare/

36. Jose Martins et al, “InfoSec – Military Standards Versus ISO 27001: A Case Study in a Portuguese Military Organization,” 12th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security, July 2013.

37. Youssef Gahi, Mouhcine Guennoun, and Hussein T. Mouftah, “Big Data Analytics: Security and Privacy Challenges,” IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication 2016, August 18, 2016.

38. Peter Simon Sapaty, “Military Robotics: Latest Trends and Spatial Grasp Solutions”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence 4, no. 4 (2015): 9 - 18

39. Steven Eric Zeltmann et al, “Manufacturing and Security Challenges in 3D Printing,” Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 68, no. 7 (May 2016): 1 - 10.