I would like to know what happened to the two CTD's that MST had...

I would like to know what happened to the two CTD's that MST had with the DSTO re the AICW ?


A Profifile of the Australian Defence Industry

November 2004


http://www.aigroup.com.au/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/LIVE_CONTENT/Industry%2520Sectors/Defence/Defence_Council_Overview_v3.pdf




The company-led R&D model
The Metal Storm (MS) weapon technology is one of the few military
technology innovations identified during the study which Australian private
interests took from Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 2/3 to TRLs 5/6.
The technology, which was first demonstrated in the early 1990s, involves
electronic ignition and sequential firing of multiple stacked bullets in a single
barrel. In theory, the technology enables accurately controlled firing of
millions of rounds per second.

Metal Storm has concluded research and development agreements with the US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

Of prime interest for defence industry profile purposes is DSTO?s use of the
Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) program to develop the
Metal Storm technology.

The Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) program
A CTD is a project that demonstrates how well established technology may be
operationally exploited to enhance defence capability in a previously
unexplored manner. The CTD Program was established in 1997 and is
managed by DSTO on behalf of Defence as a whole. The CTD Program:
? focuses on technology-driven capability;
? aims to provide opportunities to demonstrate how advanced technology
can enhance defence capability in priority areas;
? allows Defence and industry to share risks and rewards in exploring useful
technology developments.
Because resources are limited, CTDs must be sponsored by a Defence element
with a defence capability development function and compete for funding in the
financial year in which they are nominated. They should be able to
demonstrate capability within about three years of acceptance and CTDs
typically cost less than $4million all up.
Responses to the Defence Industry Survey suggest, however, that to date the
CTD program has made little impact on commercial decision making. Only
nine companies considered the CTD program either moderately or highly
important. This is probably because of the modest size of the program.

The Government-led R&D model
The risk inherent in development of new solutions to Defence requirements
has in the past led DSTO to extend initial research (TRLs 1-3 in Figure 4)
through to the product development (TRLs 6/7). DSTO then licensed the
developmental technology to a company which assumed responsibility for
taking the technology to production and marketing it (TRLs 8-9 in Figure 4).????????????????


The above government-led R&D model has shielded Australian companies
from much ? but by no means all ? of the risk inherent in military-specific
technology development. Its disadvantage, however, is that opportunities for
harnessing commercial resources for technology development come late,
thereby increasing the cost to Defence.

DSTO now places less emphasis than previously on its role as technology
developer and places greater emphasis on provision of technology advice in
support of the defence capability development process. Hence, in future,
DSTO?s role in technology development is likely to be confined increasingly to
concept definition/demonstration with limited involvement in full scale
engineering development (TRLs1-5 in Figure 4).
In these circumstances, the nature and scale of locally developed solutions to
defence capability requirements will depend heavily on how effectively DSTO
and industry collaborate in moving from component validation in laboratory
and operational environments through to trialling a system prototype in an
operational environment (TRLs 5-7 in Figure 4). The study therefore
investigated scope for concurrent, public-private R&D in the defence area.
The shared public-private R&D model
Defence technology is changing rapidly in areas like information capability. In
these circumstances, DSTO and companies are tending to share costs and risks
from the outset by forming project-specific alliances and technology specific
research agreements across the interface between the public and private
sectors.
DSTO advises that these arrangements for public/private risk sharing are likely
to become increasingly prevalent in the concept demonstration stage (TRLs 2-
3 in Figure 4). In principle, the seed money and the augmented CTD program
announced by the HON Mal Brough and the Chief Defence Scientist on 22
June 2004 will help companies participate in these arrangements.
Clearly, however, such funding will remain modest relative to the resources
required to take a defence technology from concept (TRLs 2-3) to prototype
(TRLs 8-9). Such funding is most unlikely to ever be a viable substitute for the
prospect of earning substantial profit as an incentive for companies to invest in
defence-oriented R&D. The proper basis for seed funding and augmentation
of the CTD program is therefore not generalised subsidies but risk
identification and risk management.
At issue is the appropriate commercial arrangements between DSTO and
companies to do business on this basis.
Economic theory suggests that each party to a commercial joint venture
contributes to a shared development up to the point at which the marginal
costs they incur equal the benefits they expect to gain in terms of shared risks
and commercial rewards. These principles might usefully inform
development of the mechanisms foreshadowed by the Chief Defence Scientist
to facilitate early involvement of industry in Defence R&D.