In the fast-evolving world of defence technology, investors and policymakers are increasingly challenged by a critical gap in situational awareness. While sectors like finance and venture capital rely on sophisticated tools to track emerging trends and investment opportunities, defence lacks a comparable mechanism to map the trajectory of cutting-edge technologies before they reach operational readiness. This gap is not just an oversight—it’s a strategic vulnerability.
For decades, Janes has been the go-to reference for defence intelligence, cataloguing platforms, payloads, and capabilities already in service. But the defence sector still lacks a way to see what’s coming—technologies, partnerships, and research pipelines that could shape the future of military readiness. This blind spot extends beyond federally funded programs to include state-level investments in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and space. These efforts often operate outside the traditional defence framework, creating a widening chasm between research and operational deployment.
“Innovation is faster and more distributed than Defence processes can account for,” says one expert. “The result is a dangerous gap between research and readiness.”
Bridging this gap requires a new level of visibility. Defence needs to track not only who is pitching into the system but also who is operating outside it. A biochemist developing a plant-based therapy might inadvertently unlock a precursor to a novel chemical weapon. A wildlife sensor researcher could be laying the foundations for next-generation intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies. The line between breakthrough and threat is dissolving, and dual-use no longer means military versus civilian—it depends on who uses it and how.
ASPI’s China Defence Universities Tracker and Critical Technology Tracker offer valuable insights into strategic risk across institutions and domains. They reveal where research is flowing and where adversarial interest is growing. However, they don’t yet show how quickly ideas are moving from lab bench to live mission. Tracking publication volume alone won’t reveal how close a technology is to becoming operational.
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) help, but only if treated as dynamic. A TRL 2 concept can surge toward TRL 5 in a matter of months, and the system needs to detect and respond. “Tracking momentum shows direction,” says one strategist. “When subsystems accelerate or suppliers fall behind, it shapes posture, planning, and coordination.”
This recognition is already taking hold across AUKUS. Pillar Two and other trilateral efforts depend on shared awareness and faster transitions from prototype to platform. The United States’ Defense Innovation Unit and Britain’s Defence Innovation Directorate are building sensing and scouting capabilities to accelerate adoption. Australia’s Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA) points in the same direction. But real coordination across the AUKUS partners is still emerging. Each effort needs shared frameworks and interoperable tools to allow real-time insight into maturity, momentum, and relevance.
Australia’s research funding remains strong across quantum, AI, hypersonics, and autonomy. But without a consistent way to assess progress, ideas stall. Some never leave the lab, others miss their moment because nobody linked them to operational need. That leads to lost time and lost capability.
“This isn’t about redesigning acquisition; it’s about improving domain awareness,” says one defence analyst. “A shared view of emerging capability, grounded in TRL movement and mission fit, supports faster decisions and smarter prioritisation. That also reduces duplication, avoids hype, and sustains momentum when projects face structural friction.”
Defence still relies too much on lagging indicators—grants, papers, patents—that reflect past effort. What it needs are forward indicators. Tools that track TRL velocity, map dependencies, and flag systems nearing field readiness. Without them, the defence sector falls behind.
Other sectors already operate this way. Venture investors act on momentum. Finance goes further. The Bloomberg Terminal isn’t just a data source; it’s a live decision tool that surfaces signals and shifting risk. Traders move when the signal shifts, not the quarter. Silicon Valley Defense Group’s NatSec100 tracks defence technology investment trends and highlights rising demand. But investment data alone doesn’t give national security agencies insight into their own or adversaries’ readiness.
Capital markets have tools for signalling and adjustment. Defence still lacks comparable mechanisms to coordinate capability development and sustain advantage.
Defence needs a comparative capability. A TRL dashboard with Bloomberg-like utility would let planners monitor maturity, flag bottlenecks, and compare readiness curves. It could also give early warning when a competitor is accelerating or when a domestic prototype needs support to bridge the final stage. That level of visibility shapes more than procurement. It shapes posture, deterrence, and industrial mobilisation.
Decision-makers shouldn’t have to choose between acting blindly or moving too late. The goal isn’t speed for its own sake; it’s alignment with the real tempo of innovation, which can be slow, fast, or unpredictable.
Situational awareness now