Keynote Address by Permanent Secretary (Defence Development), Mr Ng Chee Khern, at the Singapore Aerospace Technology and Engineering Conference 2016

Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good Morning.

Introduction

It is my pleasure to be here with you today. First of all, I would like to thank Military Expert 8 Francis Cheong (Head Air Engineering and Logistics, Republic of Singapore Air Force) and Mr. Lim Yeow Khee (President Singapore Institute of Aerospace Engineers) for organising this conference. I would also like to thank everybody for attending the conference, without which, success of such a conference would not be possible.

The theme for today's conference is "Innovation in Aerospace". As you probably know, aerospace and aviation sector is a very important part of our economy and when I was thinking of what to say for today's speech, I did wonder whether I should talk about the aviation industry in Singapore in general. I decided I should stick to what I am good at and what I am responsible for, which is known as the defence and security sector. I will stick to the defence side, but of course whatever we are doing on the defence side has similarities and implications for the civilian sector too. Innovation has always been a critical enabler for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). Today, the SAF is widely recognised as a technologically advanced and professional military. However, the way we innovatively apply technology to bring the SAF forward in the future must take into consideration the future operating environment and our challenges. In this regard, allow me to share my thoughts on how the SAF approaches the use of technology moving ahead. Even though the context of my sharing is from the military domain, you will see that, as I said, the approaches that I am going to share with you can also offer useful insights for the local aerospace sector. 

Designing for Flexibility

Firstly, the SAF, like other armed forces today, is faced with great uncertainty in the security landscape. Given this uncertainty, the SAF is likely to be called upon to carry out missions that we may not have envisaged them to be carried out today. Thus, there is a need for us to look towards technology to help us build capabilities and platforms that allow for maximum flexibility. This translates into having platforms that can be configurable for different mission sets. One such platform for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) is the new Multi-Role Transport Tanker that provides the SAF with both medium lift and air-to-air refuelling capabilities in a single platform.

However, designing for flexibility is easier said than done. As you can imagine, in order to design and develop a capability to meet different mission sets, trade-offs are inevitable. Therefore, in order to achieve the optimal design, the involvement of both operators and technologists in the development cycle is critical. In this regard, we will need to find ways for operators and technologists to better collaborate and understand the implications of the trade-offs before the design is finalised. One way of doing this is through the use of simulation and modelling.

For example, the Republic of Singapore Navy's new Littoral Mission Vessels (LMVs), which were designed and built locally, has state-of-the-art Command and Control systems and customisable mission modules to deal with various types of circumstances and roles. One of the key features of the LMV is the Integrated Command Centre, which is the nerve centre of the ship. Unlike those found in earlier warships, this new command centre, equipped with numerous sense-making and decision support systems, integrates and synergises the management of navigation, engineering, and combat functions to achieve greater operational effectiveness and efficiency. To develop the new integrated command centre, a simulator was built to allow both operators and technologists to work closely together in the design and development process.

Likewise, for the commercial aerospace sector, designing for flexibility through the tight coupling between your customers and technologists will ensure that the products that you design are able to keep up with dynamic changes in market demands. For military customers, there is indeed a desire for commercial aircraft manufacturers to incorporate military specific requirements upstream in the aircraft design process, instead of having the military modify commercial variants for military applications. Such upstream collaboration can result in a win-win outcome for both parties. In the case of military customers, commercial platforms will be seen as viable options without the high developmental costs that typically come from adapting commercial platforms for military use. As for the commercial aircraft manufacturers, there will be opportunities to gain greater market share in the defence sector.

Developing Complex System-of-Systems

Let me move on to the next point. In recent years, the SAF has made significant investment in building capabilities that are increasingly networked. Similar trends exist in the commercial aerospace sector. We see networked systems proliferating in areas such as airport management and airfreight services.

For the SAF, this approach in the application of technology allows us to maximise the potential of our weapon systems and to overcome many of our operational challenges. One such example is the lack of strategic depth. To overcome the physical space and time constraints of a small island state, the SAF has developed integrated and networked systems to allow us to see further and to act faster.

For example, the RSAF's 3rd Generation Networked Air Defence system comprises a suite of advanced sensors and weapons that is networked through Command and Control systems. This integrated suite of sensors provides a common real-time air picture that enhances our situational awareness for better decision-making. By having the weapon systems networked through advanced Command and Control systems, the RSAF is able to respond faster to a wider spectrum of aerial threats.

With the proliferation of technologies related to the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence, the SAF will also seek to incorporate these technologies into our next spiral development of our networked systems. This will allow us to achieve a quantum leap in our capabilities, in which our networked systems will be able to self-monitor, self-diagnose, self-correct and even self–learn. However, what we have recognised is that when we grow the number of systems that are incorporated in this way, the resultant system-of-systems (SoS) will introduce new complexities. For example, the inter-connectivity of the constituent systems can give rise to unexpected hazards when part of the system fails. In the language of the SoS, these are known as emergent hazards. As such, testing and certifying SoS capabilities will be exponentially more demanding as the number and complexity of each constituent system increases. Thus, the operationalisation of these SoS capabilities will require longer lead time. The SAF and the larger Defence Technology Ecosystem of DSTA, DSO and ST Engineering will explore new and novel ways to compress the developmental cycle as we continue to introduce more complex SoS.

More importantly, apart from exploring ways to reduce development time, there is a need to grow new expertise beyond the core competencies in networking and system integration. Examples of such competencies would include the ability to certify SoS in order to manage the operational risk associated with the new emergent hazards as well as the ability to exploit Big Data from SoS to uncover hidden patterns and unknown correlations that can be used for better decision-making. We are not the only ones faced with such demands. Take the automotive industry for example. The cars that we now have are increasingly software-driven. In addition, customers are demanding for their cars to be more integrated with a wide array of lifestyle devices. In this regard, the centre of gravity for car manufacturing would shift towards software development and integration, from the traditional expertise of the car industry today, which is heavily hardware-based. The build-up of this new set of expertise will be critical for car manufacturers if they are to stay relevant, else they run the risk of losing out to potential new entrants like Apple or Google who have shown interest in entering the automotive industry.

Designing for Support

Lastly, Singapore does not have the history of a large population base. Hence, both the SAF and the local (aerospace) industry have always been exploiting technology to overcome our manpower constraints. In the case of the SAF, considerable efforts have gone into reducing the number of operators for our weapon systems. For example, our first locally-produced Field Howitzer FH-88 for the Army in 1987 required eight men to operate. When the second generation Field Howitzer FH-2000 was fielded in 1993, it only required six men.

In recent years, the advancement in unmanned technology and the increased exploitation of such systems have helped both the military and commercial sectors to reduce manpower requirements. Similarly, these efforts largely focused on reducing the number of operators.

But we should look beyond reducing the number of operators required, to also reducing the logistics crew supporting our systems. This shift will require the incorporation of supportability requirements in the upstream design of the platforms and systems. This is different from the past where design considerations for capabilities took higher precedence than supportability. This new approach of "Design for Support" can be applied at two levels.

At the platforms and systems level, "Design for Support" entails incorporating technologies and intelligence to reduce the maintenance demands of the platform. One good example is the application of sensors and prognostics capabilities to allow for condition-based maintenance. The second level involves the application of automation and robotics, such as unmanned aircraft towing systems, to reduce the maintenance workload. The implementation of "Design for Support" may appear to not make economic sense due to the increase in the initial capital cost. However, we must realise that the benefits in terms of reduction in manpower demands and maintenance cost will pan out in the long run. To reduce the upfront investment, there is scope for both military and commercial sectors to work closely together to implement some of these features especially in aircraft that are common in both military and commercial aviation.

Conclusion

In closing, I have shared my thoughts on the approaches that the SAF adopts in the use of technology moving ahead, namely: designing for flexibility, developing complex SoS and designing for support.

The participation of so many defence officials, engineers, researchers, industry and academic leaders at this conference provides an excellent platform to engage in further discussion on the approaches that I have outlined. In this regard, I am confident that the discussions during this conference will generate new ideas and insights on the use of technology in both military and commercial aviation.

On this note, I wish everyone a fruitful and enjoyable day ahead. Thank you.