Tag Archive for: forget

Forget the F-35: What Exactly Is a 6th Generation Fighter?

/in


What exactly is a 6th Generation Fighter? Fifth-generation fighters are so advanced – and so expensive – that just three nations have designed and built models:  the United States, Russia, and China. The technology – stealth, supercruise, supermaneuverability, interconnectivity – is still cutting edge. Yet, the great powers are already looking ahead, as great powers tend to do, competing with each other, and contemplating the 6th generation of fighter technology.

Sixth-generation fighters exist only in concept. Several countries are working on 6th generation fighters – some of which have never even created a fifth-generation fighter – including the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, the UK, and France. No one is close yet to debuting a 6th generation fighter; the going expectation is that the next generation won’t debut until the 2030s. 

6th Generation Fighter: Designing Aircraft for Future Conflicts

Although the 6th generation of aircraft is still nascent, a set of distinct features have congealed to form the basis of what a 6th generation fighter is. Namely, all of the fifth-generation-worthy abilities for survivability in contested environments, air superiority, ground attack, etc. will need to be improved commensurate with the times.

The emphasis on close-combat dogfighting, which dominated twentieth-century aerial warfare, is becoming a peripheral concern of aircraft manufacturers. Instead, ground attacks, cyber warfare, and even space warfare are increasingly relevant. Beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile combat is also still important. 

The next generation of jet fighters will likely incorporate the ability to operate in a manned or unmanned configuration. And like the F-35 in the fifth generation of air fighters, sixth-generation fighters will need to integrate with a variety of other jets, drones, soldiers, and sensors – in a saturated network meant to provide warfighters with a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. 

To achieve the performance characteristics expected of a sixth-generation fighter, various design elements will be incorporated. The foundation of sixth-generation technology will be the “brains” of the aircraft: advanced digital…

Source…

Supply chain security goes deep – forget this at your peril

/in


Everyone is talking about supply chain assurance like it is new. This is basically because of recent high-profile cases such as SolarWinds and Log4j. It’s not new.

But, and this is partly evident in the way the question is framed, the focus is still on IT and cyber security in the supply chain, not security. Security has many pillars and it includes places and people, not just technology.

By forgetting the impact of these other areas, we are ignoring their potential to harm us. We also know that the vast majority of security incidents are human behaviour-facilitated, including the way in which the tech is managed.

For instance, consider IT managers who have not been given enough time to take systems or platforms offline in order to patch them. We have been schooled for years in the importance of patching, but does our understanding go far enough to ensure that it is made possible? This is the way that known vulnerabilities get exploited and while we may be hypnotised by zero-day exploits, the depressing truth is that many exploits have been around for years but still get traction.

The IT solution for the patching issue, in my example, exists. It is the human perspective – allowing the IT manager to effect this solution – that is missing. This will only change when organisations understand that people have to be part of the security budget. You can’t expect 100% uptime and security, even in critical systems. This is on a par with refusing to fix fire exits because the corridor is very busy.

Are we expecting supply chain partners and their people to be better at security than we are? But if we are not prepared to invest in these human issues, why are we expecting our supply chain partners to be willing to do that?

A unilateral approach doesn’t work. Multilateral is the way because it isn’t really a supply chain, it’s an ecosystem, with connections in many directions and forward links that we cannot pretend to know. That ecosystem is only as strong as its weakest link, but maybe we’re not being honest that the weakest link potentially might be ourselves.

High expectations are fine, but we need to ensure that this is communicated to them effectively. Complex…

Source…

Forget Cyberwar: We Need Cybersecurity First

/in


Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered many illusions. One of them is the idea that skill in offensive cyber operations can ever be a substitute for reliable computer and information systems.

There are lessons for the United States. Cybersecurity is not about who can do the flashiest hacks but about how to keep our networks safe. This is difficult because it requires powerful interests in the government and the private sector to invest resources and make trade-offs they would rather not make. An offense-based strategy that appears “tough” hides these trade-offs while actually making U.S. cybersecurity worse.

Illusions of deterrence

Cyberwar strategists have described cyber conflict as a kind of asymmetric warfare that puts advanced societies at a strategic disadvantage. Offense is easy, while defense is hard. The United States is in a uniquely tough position. Multiple skilled adversaries—Russia, China, North Korea, Iran— are ready to attack the United States’ modern, internet-dependent society. Meanwhile, U.S. political and economic culture is hostile to the regulation and public spending that are needed to stop data breaches, protect online privacy, and make networks safe.

Enter the siren song of offensive cyber operations. If the United States can make its adversaries fear its cyber warriors, then it can take its time with upgrading government systems, protecting its critical infrastructure with voluntary frameworks instead of mandatory rules, and allowing Big Tech to continue to monetize Americans’ sensitive data. U.S. adversaries will be deterred by their fear of some massive response if they cross U.S. red lines. Defense, the story goes, is simply too hard— perhaps impossible—so why bother?

Offense has dominated the conversation for decades. President Barack Obama launched the Stuxnet attack on Iran and created United States Cyber Command. His plan for legislation to require greater protection for critical infrastructure was blocked by Congress under heavy industry pressure. President Donald Trump’s national cyber strategy sought to “preserve peace through strength” by maintaining “United States overmatch in and through cyberspace.”…

Source…

Forget that Loon’s balloon burst, we just fired 700TB of laser broadband between two cities, says Google • The Register

/in


Engineers at Google’s technology moonshot lab X say they used lasers to beam 700TB of internet traffic between two cities separated by the Congo River.

The capitals of the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Brazzaville and Kinshasa, respectively, are only 4.8 km (about three miles) apart. The denizens of Kinshasa have to pay five times more than their neighbors in Brazzaville for broadband connectivity, though. That’s apparently because the fiber backbone to Kinshasa has to route more than 400 km (250 miles) around the river – no one wanted to put the cable through it.

There’s a shorter route for data to take between the cities. Instead of transmitting the information as light through networks of cables, it can be directly beamed over the river by laser.

In an effort dubbed Project Taara, X built two terminals, one in Brazzaville and another in Kinshasa, to transmit and receive data encoded in beams of laser light.

“In the same way traditional fibre uses light to carry data through cables in the ground, Taara’s wireless optical communication links use very narrow, invisible beams of light to deliver fiber-like speeds,” Baris Erkmen, Director of Engineering for Taara, explained today.

“To create a link, Taara’s terminals search for each other, detect the other’s beam of light, and lock-in like a handshake to create a high-bandwidth connection.”

About 700TB of data was exchanged over 20 days at speeds of up to 20 Gbps, with 99.9 per cent availability, with the help of Econet – the multinational telecoms giant, not the old Acorn networking system. The aim of the setup was to relay broadband internet traffic between the cities more as a test of the equipment than anything else.

A lot of effort went into tracking and pointing the light beam at a sensor a few kilometres away, and mitigating the effects of poor weather, interference from animals, and the like.

Diagram by Google of Project Taara beaming broadband over a river

Google’s…

Source…