Editorial: Simulation is not a panacea | ADM May 2010

The temptation to put all simulation efforts into a single one size fits all box marked ‘computer geeks' is not nearly as compelling as it once was.

Simulation has become a valuable tool in the training arsenal of the Australian Defence Organisation, used across numerous domains for a range of training outcomes for both platforms and tactics in all services.

The Joint Combined Training Centre (JCTC) is a great example of this.

The last Talisman Sabre exercise gathers together roughly 20,000 people in real life, another 60,000 join the battle digitally from around the globe.

There would be no way Defence, either in Australia or with an ally such as the US, would be able to summon this vast array of assets and people in real life to one theatre for training.

But there is much more to simulation than the training element.

Simulation used to be synonymous with training but now it is being used more frequently when speaking of modelling or experimentation.

How long will a new composite material last under pressure?

What happens when you mix two communications systems together in one vehicle?

These, and many more, are questions that simulation, modelling and experimentation are answering for Defence and Industry.

These are not issues that require fancy high end graphics and a full motion simulator, as pointed out this month in our From the Source interview with Calytrix Technologies managing director Shawn Parr.

They require planning and processes from project teams willing to look outside their normal thinking when brainstorming solutions.

Simulation is not a panacea to all issues within Defence when it comes to decision-making in timely well-informed way.

A simulation or model is only as good as the information supplied to it.

But it can support the decision-making process in numerous forums if given the chance early on.

It's much cheaper to fail in a simulation than in real life.

The risk management gains alone are persuasive.

The Australian Defence Simulation Office (ADSO) in conjunction with the new Synthetic Environmental Working Group is seeking a coherent approach in how Defence deals with simulation in all its forms.

ADM wishes them the best in their endeavours.

EW - the industry challenge

Gregor Ferguson | Sydney

The Association of Old Crows convention (AOC) last month in Adelaide was followed soon after by the announcement that a team led by ITT will provide the Electronic Warfare (EW) system for the Navy's new Air Warfare Destroyers.

Between them, these events provided a glimpse of the future of Australia's EW industry.

Vice Chief of the Defence Force, LTGEN David Hurley, told the AOC that Defence expects to acquire the majority of its new EW equipment on a MOTS or FMS basis.

He said that the amount of EW work available for Australia's defence industry is likely to fall over time.

He also said that DMO had determined that knowledge and skilling in Australia's EW industry sector were deteriorating - which is why EW is now a Priority Industry Capability (PIC).

Interestingly, two Australian SMEs, Jenkins Engineering Defence Systems and Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems will play key roles in the AWD EW system.

Specialist EW technology developed under a CTD program, or with the support of DSTO, will be commercialised by the two firms and employed in the AWD's EW system.

Is this the way ahead for indigenous EW (and other) ‘smarts' - working for foreign primes who are selling into Australia, and then to other customers overseas? It would appear so.

It has also emerged that three separate foreign manufacturers will incorporate world-class DSTO intellectual property (IP) into their EW products.

This underlines the quality of DSTO's EW work, and its benefits will flow eventually to the ADF as it fields the equipment concerned.

But this convoluted path is an uncertain route to market for Australian technology: it seems to depend upon the ADF actually buying equipment from these manufacturers and using its leverage to promote Australian industry or DSTO involvement.

Put bluntly, it appears Defence prefers to buy foreign-made equipment that may or may not incorporate Australian technology and IP.

It believes this will be cheaper and less risky than buying locally designed equipment direct from an Australian manufacturer.

But EW is still a PIC and if DSTO's IP goes straight into a foreign EW system, where is the benefit for Australian industry?

There are inherent contradictions in Defence's stance that leave the local EW industry in an uncertain position.

But that's nothing new, unfortunately.