CAPABILITY AND
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATOR (CTD)
PROGRAM
20/11/2015
DISC 2015 Syndicate 4 Report
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Has the ADF and Australian Industry
benefitted from the ongoing
Capability and Technology
Demonstrator (CTD) Program?
The views in this publication are those of the paper's authors and not necessarily those of the
Commonwealth of Australia. This work is Copyright and may not be reproduced without the
written permission of the Manager of the Defence and Industry Study Course.
Page 1
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Executive Summary
Syndicate 4’s 2015 Defence Industry Study Course (DISC) project examines the
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program and its benefits for Defence
and Australian Industry.
Our research drew information from the public domain and DISC attendees with CTD
experience. Interviews with stakeholders and participants afforded grass-roots insight
into CTD, balanced with views from industry, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and
Defence Science and Technology (DST) Group.
Our project unpicks how CTD currently operates relative to other Defence technology
innovation programs. This research and the syndicate’s collective experience have
enabled us to suggest improvements to the CTD Program, including program
management and project selection.
The CTD Program is currently funded and managed by DST Group, with Defence as a
key stakeholder. Its purpose is to demonstrate through collaboration between Defence
and industry how leading-edge technology can be integrated quickly into high-priority
military capabilities. To date, 90% of projects have successfully met and demonstrated
CTD objectives, with 12% being commercialised. Surprisingly, 80% of successful
projects do not result in ADF capability or commercialisation, for reasons including
technology immaturity, high risk, or no clear Defence capability need or priority.
CTD projects focus on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 2 and 3 early in the
technology continuum. Other programs, such as CTD Extension and Rapid
Prototyping, Development and Evaluation (RPDE), continue this development at higher
TRLs to benefit Defence more widely. However, these programs are separately funded
and not coherently connected with the CTD Program.
Our research and case studies clearly indicate that the CTD Program is a success story
benefitting Defence. An example includes the successful Electronic Support Measure
(ESM) demonstrator from 2006 that is being miniaturised and integrated with the Joint
Strike Missile (JSM) to create a clear discriminator for the ADF. Further, the Kestrel
Video Motion System demonstrates how the CTD and Extension Programs help industry
transition CTD outcomes to ADF capability.
Page 2
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
However, CTD can be improved. Our research reveals that unexpected CTD funding
cuts, as occurred in 2012, reduce industry confidence in Defence’s commitment to the
Program. Funding surety allows industry to invest in R&D initiatives, benefitting the
entire Defence enterprise. CTD contract terms and conditions (T&C) must be
appropriate for research projects where delivery and outcomes are inherently
uncertain. CTD must become more connected with other innovation programs, such as
RPDE, Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC) and Diggerworks to span the
broader technology spectrum. This would benefit Defence through full data
transparency, knowledge and connectivity across the technology continuum, and
facilitate continual review of CTD projects for further development and
commercialisation.
In line with First Principles Review Creating One Defence, the CTD Program should be
led by Vice Chief of Defence Force (VCDF) who now oversees capability development.
By aligning the range of technology programs within VCDF Group, appropriate CTD
priorities can be set for DST Group to coordinate with industry and academia. This may
improve the commercialisation of successful projects while ensuring capabilities
needed by the war fighter are pursued. In concert, these initiatives are likely to yield
greater technology innovation results for the ADF.
Page 3
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................6 CTD Program Summary ................................................................................... 6 Technical Maturity – Technology Readiness Levels........................................... 6 ASSESSMENT OF CTD PROGRAM BENEFITS .........................................................7 Definitions of Benefits/Success ....................................................................... 7 CTD Case Studies ............................................................................................ 9 CTD Benefits for Defence .............................................................................. 10 CTD Benefits for Industry .............................................................................. 10 Broader CTD Reviews .................................................................................... 11 Broader Defence Innovation Programs ........................................................... 11 WHAT DOES THE CTD PROGRAM LOOK LIKE MOVING FORWARD? .....................12 Technology Innovation Continuum ................................................................ 12 Capability Manager Engagement.................................................................... 13 Funding Certainty.......................................................................................... 13 Feedback Loop .............................................................................................. 14 Simplified Contracting Mechanisms ............................................................... 15 CTD Program Management and Governance .................................................. 15 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................16 ANNEX A – REFERENCES..................................................................................18 ANNEX B – CASE STUDIES/INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED........................................20 ANNEX C – NASA TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRL) DEFINITION ..............28 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Innovation Continuum – CTD Operates at TRL 3-4 and aims to progress
technologies to TRL 5-6.............................................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Technology Readiness Level corresponding to DEFENCE Innovation and
Development programs ............................................................................................. 12 Figure 3: Technology Innovation Contimuum Proposed ............................................. 16 Page 4
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Defintion of CTD Success ............................................................................... 8 Table 2: Benefits of CTD Success outcomes to Defence and Industry ........................... 8 Page 5
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
INTRODUCTION
Aim
The aim of this paper is to review the CTD Program, identify the benefits delivered to
the ADF and Australian Industry and make recommendations to ensure this Program
supports the ADF innovation program into the 21st Century.
CTD Program Summary
The CTD Program, which is managed by the DST Group, was established in 1997. It
aims to show ADF users how leading edge technology can be quickly integrated into
existing, new, enhanced or replacement high-priority capabilities. Since then, Defence
has invested $270m in 118 CTD projects, of which 104 have successfully
demonstrated the feasibility of their technologies.
Technical Maturity – Technology Readiness Levels
The Defence Capability and Development Handbook [Reference K] assesses the
maturity of technology against a system based on NASA TRLs. Figure 1 depicts TRLs
within the innovation continuum. CTD projects focus on TRL 3-4 early in the
continuum and aim to take technologies to TRL 5-6. The full definition for each TRL is
Page 6
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
found in Annex C.
FIGURE 1: INNOVATION CONTINUUM – CTD OPERATES AT TRL 3-4 AND AIMS TO PROGRESS TECHNOLOGIES TO TRL 5-6
ASSESSMENT OF CTD PROGRAM BENEFITS
To date, 90% of projects have successfully met CTD Program objectives. Surprisingly
though, only 12% of successful projects reach full commercialisation [References A and
D]. These statistics alone do not necessarily convey the true benefits or potential of
CTD and other Defence innovation programs. By analysing a number of case studies,
this paper presents a number of recommendations that capitalise on investments made
in innovation programs to ensure a larger return can be gained, regardless of whether
the CTD project was deemed successful or otherwise.
Definitions of Benefits/Success
To accurately assess return on investment, you must first assess the success of a
program. Any such assessment of the CTD Program must be done through the lens of
Page 7
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
both Industry/Academia and Defence. The definition of success we have chosen is
described below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: DEFINTION OF CTD SUCCESS
Definition
Failed CTD
CTD project was not completed and milestones were not met.
Completed/
CTD project was completed, milestones were met and the
Successful CTD
Capability
technology was demonstrated.
CTD resulted in the technology being further developed and
Success
deployed as an ADF capability.
Table 2 outlines benefits to both Defence and Industry of CTD projects and desired
outcomes.
TABLE 2: BENEFITS OF CTD SUCCESS OUTCOMES TO DEFENCE AND INDUSTRY
Definition
Benefits to Defence
Benefits to Industry
Failed CTD
Technology is not mature enough
Technology is not mature or is
for consideration. Clear guidance
still unproven and additional R&D
to Defence that no additional
or investment may be required to
investment should be made at this
progress further. Industry does
stage.
not invest further knowing
Defence will not progress this
technology.
Completed/ Technology demonstrated and
Successful
CTD
either:
ƒ
The technology was found to
be suitable for application to
ADF capability and should be
considered for future capability
Page 8
Industry funded to progress
technology from TRL 3-4 to 5-6.
Clear understanding of maturity
of technology and applicability to
ADF, either:
ƒ
Clear idea of additional R&D or
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Definition
Benefits to Defence
Benefits to Industry
development; or
ƒ
development required before
acceptable to ADF; or
The technology demonstrated
was too immature or not
ƒ
Technology too immature or
suitable for the ADF and no
not applicable to ADF needs.
further investment should be
Industry aware of no path to
made. Benefit to Defence is
future funding of the
ability to reprioritise CTD
technology.
funding to other areas.
Capability
Success
The technology demonstrated was
Industry has been funded for part
able to be deployed, enhancing
of the R&D process and
ADF capability.
technology has moved to use in
ADF and commercialisation for
other markets.
CTD Case Studies
As a way of providing examples of the benefits, and some limitations of the CTD
Program, a number of case studies from the full list in Annex B were selected for
review and assessment.
The salient point in two case studies is that while the identified Defence need did not
use the technology demonstrated, it could be adapted to satisfy other Defence needs.
This clearly indicates the unexpected and welcome surprises that CTD projects tend to
exhibit.
ƒ
Case Study 1: ESM (BAE Systems): The initial CTD was to develop a fully digital ESM
receiver in both the microwave and millimetre wave bands that was able to detect,
identify, extract parameters and direction find emitter in band. While the ESM was
not selected for its initial purpose, the ESM demonstrator developed in 2006 is now
being miniaturised and integrated with (JSM to create a clear technology
discriminator for the ADF.
ƒ
Case Study 2: SATCOM on the Move (EMS/JP2072-2B): EM Solutions with BAE
Systems Australia as a major subcontractor successfully demonstrated a
Bushmaster PMV-mounted Ka-band SATCOM OTM terminal and antenna solution
Page 9
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
that interacted with the Optus-C1 satellite. While subsequently unsuccessful in
JP2072 Phase 2B (for which Boeing was the successful tenderer), EM Solutions has
been re-engaged by the Navy to apply this technology to patrol boat SATCOM.
ƒ
Case Study 3: Sentient Vision Systems CTD for the Kestrel Video Motion System:
CTD conducted in 2006-2008 to provide concept and a CTD extension from 20092011. Now a fielded capability with the ADF and is exported to other nations. This
demonstrates how the CTD Extension Program is valuable in bringing the gap from
CTD completion to ADF capability acquisition processes.
CTD Benefits for Defence
An analysis of these case studies, research and material presented by guest speakers
during modules of the 2015 Defence Industry Study Course (DISC) show some
recurring themes. The research and case studies clearly indicate the CTD Program is a
success story benefitting Defence.
Defence has also benefitted through not proceeding with additional R&D where
technology is immature or the risk to achieve a successful outcome is too high. In
these cases, CTD projects can be “parked” until the technology matures to achieve
introduction to service. This flexibility has allowed Defence to redirect limited funding
to programs that demonstrate a greater capability return.
CTD Benefits for Industry
The CTD Program enables organisations who would not normally interact with the ADF,
be they academic or Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs), providing a vehicle for
demonstrating innovation. As described by Steen in his review [Reference L], the CTD
Program provides an important connection between the national science and
technology base and Defence for fostering innovation.
The CTD Program has sponsored a number of CTD projects from academia and SMEs.
It provides funding to facilitate the demonstration of capability which would not have
been commercially possible for those organisations without CTD support. The Kestrel
Page 10
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Video Motion System Ltd CTD is an example [Reference L]. The Program has also
stimulated Australian Industry growth, including enabling several “start-up” companies
to grow to self-sustaining entities. Outcomes have benefitted both Defence and other
sectors.
Broader CTD Reviews
A number of Defence, media and industry/academics have analysed and reviewed the
CTD Program and commented on its benefits and limitations. Those of note for this
report included Steen/Ford [Reference L] and Boxer and Partridge [Reference D]. Key
limitations identified in these reviews, which were backed up through interviews and
case studies include:
ƒ
Lack of a defined roadmap of funding from CTD completion to acquisition causes
uncertainty and difficulty for industry; and
ƒ
Frequent changes in Defence budgets has also directly impacted CTD funding, and
supports the case for ensuring continuity of funding for programs such as CTD.
Broader Defence Innovation Programs
The CTD Program is not the only innovation program within Defence that assesses
technologies at a low TRL and supports development to higher TRL and maturity
towards a producible outcome. Other programs include:
ƒ
CTD Extension Program [Reference A].
ƒ
Rapid Prototyping, Development and Evaluation (RPDE) [Reference H].
ƒ
Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC) [Reference B].
ƒ
Defence Innovation Realisation Fund (DIRF) [Reference F].
Figure 2 maps these programs across the TRL spectrum to compare them from a
technology readiness perspective.
Page 11
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
FIGURE 2: TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVEL CORRESPONDING TO DEFENCE INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
WHAT DOES THE CTD PROGRAM LOOK LIKE MOVING
FORWARD?
It is important to note the CTD Program is fundamentally not broken. Approximately
12% of successful projects are progressed through to commercialisation and
introduction to service (this number is likely to be far higher as CTD only tracks the
projects through the formal CTD Program. If CTD proponents progress the technology
outside of CTD, these are not recorded. This is a solid investment of Defence funds.
However, changes are required to make a good program great.
Technology Innovation Continuum
As mentioned, the ADF CTD Program focuses on demonstrating technologies between
TRL 2-6. Unlike the technology innovation programs of our international allies, such as
the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), that consider the full
technology spectrum from concept creation to introduction to service, there is no
complementary program that looks to develop CTD initiatives beyond TRL 6.
Page 12
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Companies interviewed as part of this research felt frustrated that when the CTD (and
CTD Extension) projects ended, even if successful and useful to the end user, there
was no path or plan for progression to introduction to service.
Further exacerbating the problem, the multiple technology innovation streams (e.g.
CTD, RPDE, etc.) are not aligned and do not provide a seamless path for innovation
progression. We have been unable to verify whether information about the projects run
within each disparate program is categorized and shared across programs. There is a
risk that multiple programs could be conducting overlapping technology development
programs, potentially wasting limited R&D funding.
Steen argues the CTD and other innovation programs within the ADF are
complementary and not a substitute for each other (Reference L). Rather than compete
for funding, these programs should align. Having a synchronised innovation and
technology maturity plan that maps ADF capability requirements along the technology
continuum provides the ADF and Industry with a clear path to technology maturity and
production.
Capability Manager Engagement
The CTD Program is Defence’s flagship technology innovation program. Proposals
must reflect Defence capability priorities across the short, medium and long term.
Many of the technologies demonstrated are Defence-specific and, in some cases, CTD
participants require security clearances. To maximise industry and academic
investment in the Program, they must be confident their work addresses a capability
requirement. Many companies we interviewed struggled to find a sponsor or champion
of their technology. They needed someone within Defence to assist progression of the
demonstrated technology to higher TRLs through other Defence innovation programs
and eventual introduction into ADF service.
Early involvement of the potential ADF end user and sponsorship by the appropriate
Capability Manager is essential to provide confidence to Industry of Defence’s
commitment to a program and ensure it actually addresses a Defence need.
Funding Certainty
Page 13
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
A presenter during DISC module 3 stated that Industry and Academia felt investment in
R&D to support Defence innovation was a risky business venture. Defence’s
unwillingness to invest financially and in Capability Manager’s time leads industry to
invest elsewhere. Over recent years, the contraction, uncertainty and frequent changes
in Defence budgets has directly impacted CTD funding. This included the cancellation
of Round 16. In his paper, Steen [Reference L] argues the case for ensuring continuity
of funding for programs such as CTD as essential enablers of research and innovation
within Australia.
The DISC presenter stated that companies and Defence need to take a long term view
of R&D. Coupled with this long term view is a requirement for funding certainty. This
will allow industry to plan and invest accordingly and also support the broader
Government intent of making Australia a smarter and technologically advanced
country.
Feedback Loop
The BAE Systems ESM CTD case study demonstrated the importance of understanding
all historic CTD and other innovation programs. Our research has not identified if there
is a system in place to review historic innovation programs to determine applicability
to future requirements.
An analysis of the case studies, research and material presented by guest speakers
during modules of the 2015 DISC presents some recurring themes of why CTD projects
did not proceed. The most prevalent reasons for a successful CTD not to proceed
include:
ƒ
the technology is too immature to warrant additional investment (i.e. CTD
extension funding),
ƒ
taking the technology forward may present too high a risk to either ADF or
Industry,
ƒ
there is no clearly identified capability need or priority for the technology, or
ƒ
there is no acquisition program to take it forward.
Defence has already invested significant funding in CTD projects. With advancement in
technologies and changing Defence capability requirements, having a process that
revisits previous CTD projects for potential applicability for a future need is essential.
Page 14
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
This feedback system would need to consider all innovation programs, not just the
CTD Program.
Simplified Contracting Mechanisms
Current CTD Program contract T&C are kept simple to ensure minimal overhead to
Defence and Industry. CTD should avoid ASDEFCON-like contracts which are seen to
be counter-productive to CTD aims and not appropriate for research projects where
delivery and outcome is inherently uncertain. The time from CTD proposal submission
to contract award should minimised.
CTD Program Management and Governance
DST Group should remain responsible for managing CTD execution. Reflecting the
recommendations of the First Principles Review, the control of all programs that
support the technology continuum must be centralised. To align with the new
organisational structure, VCDF Group should own the technology continuum. VCDF, as
the Joint Capability Coordinator could be informed by a newly formed Capability
Innovation Steering Group. This steering group includes representatives from VCDF
Group, CASG, DSTG and Capability Managers to review applications, recommendations
and innovation program outcomes. Specific management responsibilities for areas
within the continuum can then be delegated to relevant organisations, such as DST
Group for CTD and RPDE.
This report recommends development of a plan for the alignment of Defence
technology innovation programs along the recommended technology innovation
continuum, as shown in Figure 3. Development of this plan is beyond the scope of this
paper.
Page 15
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
FIGURE 3: TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CONTIMUUM PROPOSED
CONCLUSION
The review of the CTD, RPDE and DMTC Programs revealed that each program has a
clear objective and have delivered a number of successes for the ADF, Industry and
Academia. While each innovation program is successful in its own right, the stovepipe
nature of each program mitigates any potential synergies. The recommendations made
within this report support not only the improvement of the CTD Program but would see
collaboration between innovation programs. This would exponentially increase the
effectiveness of innovation in Defence.
The collaborative ventures across the technology continuum presents opportunities for
enhanced outcomes, accelerated development, avoidance of duplication, greater
financial efficiencies and perhaps a more defined focus on potential deliverables that
benefit the ADF war fighter well into the 21st Century.
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the CTD Program has generated a number of notable capability enhancements
for the ADF, a few changes are needed to ensure both Industry and Defence can
Page 16
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
receive maximum benefit from this Program and other capability innovation programs
into the future.
This analysis of the CTD Program makes the following recommendations:
1. The development of a shared 'pipeline' model of development tasks to manage
TRL progress, maturity and maintain focus on potential ADF deliverables across
the technology continuum.
2. Commitment by Defence to fund R&D programs irrespective of strategic
financial pressures to ensure Industry and Academia can invest with a level of
certainty.
3. Where appropriate, the ability to search and 'reach back' to previously
completed developmental tasks or 'parked' projects.
4. Increased visibility of completed tasks for Capability Managers which may foster
and fund further development to a manufacturable level (say, TRL 7-8) for
inclusion into an ADF deliverable and likely requirements from the Defence
Integrated Investment Plan.
5. Defence should remain as the organisation running the CTD Program due to the
specific nature of the requirements to ADF and potential security requirements.
6. The Governance, management and oversight of the CTD Program should be
re-aligned to the new organisational structure, with one organisation being
responsible for governance and oversight of all ADF innovations programs,
including CTD, CTD Extension, DIRF, DMTC and RPDE. We recommend that this
is VCDF Group.
Page 17
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
ANNEX A – REFERENCES
A. DSTO Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) website:
www.dsto.defence.gov.au
B. Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC) website: www.dmtc.com.au
C. Building Defence Capability - 2010 Defence Industry Policy Statement
D. Australia’s Capability and Technology Demonstrator Program Review (Dr Paul
Boxer and Mr Miles Partridge)
E. Review and Recommendations for the CTD Program (Associate Professor John
Steen and Jerad Ford)
F. Defence Innovation Realisation Fund
G. Rapid Prototyping, Evaluation and Development Program (RPDE) website:
www.rpde.org.au
H. The RPDE Strategic Plan 2014-16
I.
Army Research and Development Plan 2014
J. Defence White Paper 2013, Department of Defence 2013
K. Defence Capability and Development Handbook 2014, Department of Defence
2014
L. Review and Recommendations for the CTD Program, Associate Professor John
Steen, UQ Business School, University of Queensland, 2013
M. CTD Round 20 Guidelines for Proposers, Capability and Technology
Demonstrator Program Office, DSTO,
N. CTD Program Brochure, Capability and Technology Demonstrator Program
Office, DSTO, 2014
O. DSTO Annual Review 2013 - 2014, Defence Science and Technology
Organisation, 2014
P. Building Defence Capability: A Policy for a smarter and more agile Defence
Industry Base, Department of Defence, 2010
Q. Round 15 CTD projects (FY 2011/2012), DSTO Collaboration Further
information Previously Funded projects, DSTO 2013.
Page 18
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
R. Capability Through Collaboration 2012 Annual Report, Defence Materials
Technology Centre, 2012
S. Creating Future Capability 2013 DMTC Company Overview, Defence Materials
Technology Centre, 2014.
T. Creating Future Capability 2014 DMTC Annual Report, Defence Materials
Technology Centre, 2014
U. “So what has the CTD program ever done for us?” Article by Gregor Ferguson,
published in Australian Defence Magazine, December 2011/January 2012.
V. EM Solutions White Paper “Field Trials of Mounted Battle Command Ka-band
SATCOM on the Move” dated September 2010
W. Definition of Technology Readiness Levels, Technology Readiness - Attachment
A - Technical Readiness Levels of products and services, NASA Website:
esto.nasa.gov/technologists_trl.html
X. ADM Directory of Defence Suppliers, 01 Aug 2015,
http://www.defencesuppliers.com.au/news/defence-business-sme-spotlighttectonica.
Page 19
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
ANNEX B – CASE STUDIES/INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED
BAE SYSTEMS:
Interview: David Dunmall – Senior EW Engineer and CTD lead.
1. When did the CTD take place?
2. Highlighted below is the genesis and lifecycle of the Passive RF sensor (the ESM
missile example also in the table) we also use the Open architecture CTD
output that was also a further CTD. The dates for the other CTDs are
approximate but this highlights the importance of continuing CTD to higher
TRLs without interruption due to funding uncertainty or time lags.
Product
Origin
1
GPS Anti Jam
CTD
2
Personal Radar
CTD
Age (approximate)
Warning Receiver
3
IRCM laser
CTD
technology
4
5
MM wave Digital
CTD and Extension
Started 2008 EP 2010
Receiver
Program
Passive RFSensor
Spawned from discussions
Development started with
Dec 2009 using R&D
funded feasibility study in
undertaken for
2010. Full scale
ALR2002/Prism/ECMTB
development started in June
2013
6
Electronic Warfare
Spawned from OA
Developed within OA
Displays
Extension Program and
Extension Program 2010
prior experience from UK
7
Page 20
Electronic Warfare
Spawned from OA
Developed within OA
System Control
Extension Program and
Extension Program 2010
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Processor (EWSCP)
prior experience from
Wedgetail and Echidna
8
Cuttlefish
CTD and Extension
Started 2006 EP 2010
Program
9
Open Architecture
CTD and Extension
Started 2007 EP 2010
Program
10
Low Cost On Store
CTD
Started 2008
Telemetry
2. What was the scope of the CTD?
MM wave Digital Receiver scope was to develop a fully digital receiver in both the
microwave and the millimetre wave bands. That was able to detect, identify, extract
parameters and direction find emitter (including LPI) in band.
3. Which companies and other agencies were involved?
MM wave Digital Receiver just BAE Systems
OA (CTD & EP Programs) included BAE Systems, Tenix, Daronmont, Ultra Electronics
and Saab
4. Who in Defence sponsored the CTD?
4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above were sponsored by DGMD, some of the others were sponsored
by ASPSPO
5. What was the outcome of the CTD, i.e. Deliverables?
Deliverable from a CTD is usually the demonstration, H/W is sometimes delivered
sometimes it is retained, sometimes it is used in EP/DIRF programme
6. Did the CTD activity impact any future programs
The OA is a candidate for future Navy EW programs
The MM Wave CTD & EP was part of the genesis of the Passive RF Sensor which is a
subsystem on the missile that is a candidate for JP3023 which supplies the ASuW
missile to JSF.
Cuttlefish is a candidate for SEA4000 and SEA5000
Page 21
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
Passive radar is informing Defence as to the art of the possible, and will probably be
included in future DCP/DIP projects.
7. In your opinion, did the CTD provide good "bang for the buck"?
CTDs advance a capability quicker than any other contractual vehicle, or internal R&D,
so yes they provide excellent bang for buck in my opinion. With exit gates at the end
of the CTD and EP/DIRF programmes
8. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the CTD Program? Any
criticisms?
CTD contract T&C are fine now but appear to morphing closer to ASDEFCON that adds
no value and potentially drives cost into non value add activities. This trend is a risk to
CTD as projects are inherently uncertain.
Restore funding to the CTD Program or at least increase allocation each year.
Timeline from submission to contract award could be shortened
9. Are you happy to be contacted again if there are any issues requiring clarification?
Yes
Additional observations/comments from David:
CTD is not broken so don’t fix it – execution of CTD projects is efficient and works
well. CTD is designed to move a technology from one TRL to the next and it does this
exceptionally well. Biggest issue is that successful projects often are shelved at end of
CTD as there is no R&D funding within Industry to progress – Australia is too small a
market and does not have the scale of larger economies to warrant the continued R&D
without significant government or PFI.
CTD is driven by DST Group and Industry ideas whereas RPDE is driven by an urgent
capability need so both Programs have their place but closer collaboration could
generate improved outcomes – for example:
An improved outcome would see data matching and greater sharing of CTD and RPDE
project information whereby the library of successful CTD projects could be continually
probed and reviewed over time as new capabilities are identified through RPDE. As
technology and capability needs emerge, the answer may actually lie within a
completed successful CTD project that is effectively “sitting on the shelf” awaiting
further development/exploitation.
Page 22
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
CDG – SATCOM OTM CTD - 2008-2011
On 22 September 2008, EM Solutions was awarded a CTD contract for a Satellite
Communications on the Move (SATCOM OTM) capability. During this CTD, EM Solutions
with BAE Systems Australia as a major subcontractor successfully demonstrated a
Bushmaster PMV-mounted Ka-band SATCOM OTM terminal and antenna solution that
interacted with the Optus-C1 satellite. Their final CTD report was submitted on
8 February 2011. EM Solutions sought CTD extension funding to continue development
of this capability, including Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) certification, however, this
request was unsuccessful. Despite this, the CTD did inform the Capability Manager and
the Capability Development Group CTD sponsor as to “the art of the possible” for landbased SATCOM OTM and provided a fall-back option for the Project JP2072 Phase 2B
HQ OTM requirement. While subsequently unsuccessful in JP2072 Phase 2B (for which
Boeing was the successful tenderer), EM Solutions has been re-engaged by the Navy to
apply the same technology to patrol boat SATCOM.
Interview: Major Bradley Junk-Gibson, PM L200 T2
1. When did the CTD take place?
The Contract between EM Solutions and the Commonwealth of Australia was signed as
Contract 2008-1 V4.0 on the 22 Sept 08. The CTD concluded with the final report
submitted on the 8 Feb 11.
2. What was the scope of the CTD?
I have attached a copy of the EMS SOTM White Paper that outlines a lot of what
occurred and why. This should assist.
At a high level, BAE Systems was responsible for:
a) Systems design;
b) Baseband hardware solution;
c) Tracking antenna design;
d) Vehicle integration; and
e) Verification and validation.
EM Solutions was responsible for:
Page 23
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
a) Ka-band RF equipment design;
b) Pedestal and control system design; and
c) Tracking receiver design.
3. Which companies and other agencies were involved?
EM Solutions, BAE Systems Australia, DSTO, CDG
4. Who in Defence sponsored the SOTM CTD?
Capability Development Group sponsored with DSTO CTD Project Office managing.
5. What was the outcome of the CTD, i.e. Deliverables?
The final deliverable was three terminals for Defence to continue to use for test and
evaluation and then report on outcomes. A follow-on CTD was proposed to assist the
terminal achieving WGS certification, however, this never eventuated due to funding
limitations and priorities within the CTD Program. The issue of being able to conduct a
follow-on for CTDs has always been an issue.
6. Did the CTD activity impact JP (now Land) 2072 Phase 2B? For example, did it
confirm the "art of the possible" and help you refine the capability documentation for
that project?
Did not necessarily help refine the capability documents but did inform the Capability
Manager in the art of the possible. Therefore, it assisted in their understanding of how
the BTN/TCN would be deployed with one of these like terminals being a point of
presence in the battle space for range extension and/or interface to the strategic
network. If after tendering the Commonwealth did not have a solution presented, this
CTD was the fall back option for L2072-2B.
7. In your opinion, did the SOTM CTD provide good "bang for the buck"? i.e. Was it a
worthwhile precursor to 2072-2B project progression?
Yes, this level of technology and not been seen before, either in Australia or overseas
and therefore demonstrated a technology that is capable of being designed in Australia
and what to expect from a larger supplier. Therefore, the Commonwealth was a wellinformed customer when it came time for tendering and understanding the
requirement. As an aside, the Navy have re-engaged EMS to assist in the same
technology for their Patrol boat solution.
8. Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the CTD Program? Any criticisms?
Page 24
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
The Commonwealth engages these small companies without a plan for follow on if the
CTD is a success (noting a CTD does not necessarily have to be successful. A failed
CTD can be just as informative). There should be a program to assist in bringing a CTD
from what is typically at TRL 5 at completion to a TRL 8-9 for production or into
operations. This would encourage more companies to seek this option as they would
have an opportunity to have a product that is exportable. Another incentive to succeed.
9. Are you happy to be contacted again if there are any issues requiring clarification?
Yes.
DEFENCE BUSINESS: SME SPOTLIGHT – TECTONICA
In 2004 Melbourne systems integration firm Tectonica started a CTD project to develop
a small engine-driven diesel generator to provide soldiers or sections with portable
power.
As the Company’s first foray into dealing with Defence, Managing Director David Levy
now believes the experience gained through that project was just as valuable as the
direct revenue it added to the Company’s bottom line. It was an education in both how
Defence does business and the realities of technology use by soldiers.
“The CTD Program offered a very good pathway to understanding how Defence
operates, in addition to providing financial support to develop technology in that area,”
Levy explained to ADM . “So really that’s what got us started. And I think when we
started out we didn’t really have a good grip on how Defence does business. I think
once we delivered the program we were transformed as an organisation.”
Tectonica’s niche was in understanding the electro-mechanical side of manufacturing,
the cables, connectors, power sources and other paraphernalia around smart
electronics.
Defence came back for more, first with “build to print” orders, then with electronic
countermeasures. Tectonica was soon building jamming equipment and installation
kits for the ASLAV and Bushmaster armoured vehicles.
So by the time Joint Project 5408 Phase 2B was created to provide Australia’s fleet of
M113 tracked vehicles with a GPS navigation system, Tectonica had the experience and
confidence to bid. Teaming with Honeywell, it was the Company’s first experience of
working with a major partner, and also the precursor to its first product.
Page 25
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
“The system included a Honeywell Talon500 inertial navigation unit, with two displays,
which are ours, as well as a keypad for entering waypoints,” Levy said. “And our
responsibility was to integrate it all, develop the system architecture so that it all
communicated and then present that information to the driver and the commander.
“What became apparent was there was no commercially available display which was
certified for military tracked vehicles, and that was small enough and cost effective
enough to be introduced into the M113.
“And so that was our opportunity to say we think we can design and manufacture one.
We were able to demonstrate that we could and we manufactured about 1,000 control
and display units under the program.”
The contract gave Tectonica continuity of work and the ability to branch out in to other
areas, which have included crew survivability, explosive ordnance disposal, and soldier
worn power management.
And in only the past two years, Tectonica’s main focus has changed from being an
integrator to a manufacturer of an export product, with 80 per cent of the Company’s
activities now directed at the export market.
And it all came out of that first CTD for a generator, which then led Tectonica’s
engineers to think, well now you have all this power, how do you distribute it to your
plethora of devices?
The result is the BANTAM soldier worn power management and distribution system,
again developed under a CTD, which helps soldiers reap the best from the electronic
systems now dominating the battlefield, sensing each attached device and charging or
powering it based on user preferences.
This leaves the soldier free to concentrate on their mission, confident that their
equipment will last the distance. Its uses are diverse – in May this year Tectonica
announced that Rockwell Collins had selected the BANTAM soldier worn power and
data hub to be integrated in to its FireStorm integrated targeting system worldwide.
The research goes on. In 2011, Tectonica partnered with The Australian National
University and the CSIRO on yet another CTD to see how conductive textiles may
replace cables and wires to provide power and data for soldier electronic equipment,
with new flexible solar cells providing power.
Page 26
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
As a manufacturer, Levy has no doubts about the value of such businesses to Australia,
and believes manufacturing needs to be properly supported and valued by both
government and everyday Australians.
“We’re converting ideas to products,” he said. “And we’re creating value from nothing,
converting those ideas into products and then we’re selling those products around the
world. And that has a huge multiplier effect.”
Page 27
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
ANNEX C – NASA TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRL)
DEFINITION
Definition Of Technology Readiness Levels
Definition Of Technology Readiness Levels
TRL 1
Basic principles observed and reported: Transition from scientific research
to applied research. Essential characteristics and behaviours of systems
and architectures. Descriptive tools are mathematical formulations or
algorithms.
TRL 2
Technology concept and/or application formulated: Applied research.
Theory and scientific principles are focused on specific application area to
define the concept. Characteristics of the application are described.
Analytical tools are developed for simulation or analysis of the application.
TRL 3
Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of
concept: Proof of concept validation. Active Research and Development
(R&D) is initiated with analytical and laboratory studies. Demonstration of
technical feasibility using breadboard or brass board implementations that
are exercised with representative data.
TRL 4
Component/subsystem validation in laboratory environment: Standalone
prototyping implementation and test. Integration of technology elements.
Experiments with full-scale problems or data sets.
TRL 5
System/subsystem/component validation in relevant environment:
Thorough testing of prototyping in representative environment. Basic
technology elements integrated with reasonably realistic supporting
elements. Prototyping implementations conform to target environment and
interfaces.
TRL 6
System/subsystem model or prototyping demonstration in a relevant endto-end environment (ground or space): Prototyping implementations on
full-scale realistic problems. Partially integrated with existing systems.
Limited documentation available. Engineering feasibility fully demonstrated
Page 28
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) Program
in actual system application.
TRL 7
System prototyping demonstration in an operational environment (ground
or space): System prototyping demonstration in operational environment.
System is at or near scale of the operational system, with most functions
available for demonstration and test. Well integrated with collateral and
ancillary systems. Limited documentation available.
TRL 8
Actual system completed and "mission qualified" through test and
demonstration in an operational environment (ground or space): End of
system development. Fully integrated with operational hardware and
software systems. Most user documentation, training documentation, and
maintenance documentation completed. All functionality tested in
simulated and operational scenarios. Verification and Validation (V&V)
completed.
TRL 9
Actual system "mission proven" through successful mission operations
(ground or space): Fully integrated with operational hardware/software
systems. Actual system has been thoroughly demonstrated and tested in its
operational environment. All documentation completed. Successful
operational experience. Sustaining engineering support in place.
Page 29