Vanguard Magazine

16 OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2020 www.vanguardcanada.com innovation design to lead in the market place at the time. Lockheed fell off the pace before re- emerging in the 1970s owing to firm-spe- cific knowledge. It is this interplay between system-specific and firm-specific knowledge that makes or breaks a company, during long periods without much R&D. Once the decision is made, with only Boeing and Lockheed Martin really in the North Amer- ican marketplace offering competition in the fighter aircraft sphere, one is expected to drop off, leaving only one in place. When options decline and competition withers, innovation suffers. From a socio-cultural perspective, what capabilities may be offered by the new fight- er, in terms of resilience, adaptability, and flexibility, may matter a great deal. Analysis of the three contenders should include con- sideration of society today. What is it about the younger generations, their interests, their motivations, and their skills that, when connected to the option selected, will prove beneficial to the country's own security and defence interests and needs? Recently retired Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn refers to the Lightning II "for all you gamers and techies [as] the best game on the planet!" He refers to the F-35s super- cockpit-like displays, coupled with a "To- ny-Stark"-like helmet (from "Iron Man") together presenting real-time information fused from multiple and various sensors some native to your own aircraft and others from both within your formation and out- side thereof. Contending aircraft are them- selves investing in comparable technolo- gies. For example, the Gripen "NG" (next generation) like the Super Hornet will fea- ture an Active Electronically-scanned Ar- ray (AESA) radar, but the incorporation of other sensors like infra-red, seem currently limited to the F-35 Lightning II. A Fighter, Bomber and an iSR Platform The inherent potential of an aircraft to serve as a fighter, a bomber, and an infor- mation-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) platform raises interesting questions about future force structure and individual train- ing. The impact of such technology on the foot-soldier is documented in stories about the "strategic corporal" in Afghanistan, in the months following the 9/11 attacks in North America. Conceivably, individuals operating such-equipped fighter aircraft, along with those operating participating and partnering remotely-piloted vehicles will be very effective if they are given the latitude to act accordingly. It seems, though, that we simply should not ignore the fact we are faced with an option very reminiscent of deliberations over aircraft development faced by leaders in the open- ing months of the First World War. If we leverage Jon Guttman's "political status and circumstances" methodology, it is difficult to ignore the attributes of what author Klaus Schwab labels the "fourth revolution." In The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab, too, says we have yet to grasp fully the circumstances that today demand innovation. A number of tech- nologies are "creating an inflection point in our human experience," says Schwab, suggesting they deserve to be considered in the context of large-scale decisions like the one facing Canada. Artificial intel- ligence; robotics; the internet of things; autonomous vehicles; nanotechnology; and quantum computing should not be excluded from foresight projections that should form part of the evaluation. Now is the time to think about the mean- ing and potential impact of such things on our collective future. As John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt show, in their book In Athena's Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age (1997), "the informa- tion age is facilitating two major organi- zational trends; one is the rising power of small groups, the other is the rise of net- work forms of organization." These trends seem to be accelerating, in response to the circumstances of the emerging security and defence environment. The capabilities offered by each of the contenders for Canada's next fighter air- craft procurement to varying degrees and in different ways, offer us the potential for success. Not all of them can claim yet to be innovations. That depends a lot on the foresight, strategy crafting, and envi- ronmental analysis we choose to put into the decision-making this time around. Ian MacMillan, a PhD student in strategic stud- ies with the University of Calgary wrote of the (Joint Strike Fighter) F-35 program in 2017, "…many close to the [project] agree that something special will emerge." I agree, wholeheartedly; the marshaling of system-specific and firm-specific competen- cies from the three firms competing for the contract has led to the threshold of what may be a new era in combat in the 3rd di- mension. What I have attempted to do here is show the extent to which MacMillan is correct depends to a large extent on the quality of analysis Canada's leaders apply to the procurement decision now facing the evaluation of the three contenders. Lieutenant-Colonel Dean C. Black retired from the air force in 2006. He amassed 3,800 hours flying light observation and utility helicopters in support of the land forces. Dean also completed the Aerospace Systems Engineer Course (pasc), the Land Forces Command and Staff Course (plsc), and the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College (pcsc). He has served as Ex- ecutive Director | publisher-Designer-Editor (Airforce Magazine) of the RCAF Associa- tion since 2006. Dean has a B.Sc. (Applied Science, 1981) and an MA (War Studies, 2001) from RMC, an MA (Leading, Innova- tion & Change, 2016) from York St. John University (UK), and is nearing completion of an M.Sc. (Strategic planning) with the Edinburgh Business School of Heriot-Watt University, Scotland. He is a certified as- sociation executive (CAE, 2010) with the Canadian Society of Association Executives (CSAE) and a certified strategic manage- ment professional (SMp, 2017) with the As- sociation for Strategic planning. F-35 Lightning II Photo: Lockheed Martin

• Cover