Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Page: 157

AN/BYG-1 Development Program

(Question No. 1494)


Mr Feeney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 September 2015:

(1) Will the Minister provide a copy of Defence's plan to increase, by early 2013, Australian industry competitiveness in the AN/BYG-1 development program, as referred to in the answer to Senate question on notice Q14: SEA 1439 Phase 4A (Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Supplementary Budget estimates 2012-2013, 17 October 2012).

(2) Further to the answer to Senate question on notice Q39: Collins Combat System—Advanced Processor Build Program (Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Additional estimates 2012-2013, 13 February 2013):

(a) what sum of:

   (i) Capability Technology Demonstrator and Rapid Prototyping, Development and Evaluation funding,

   (ii) AN/BYG-1 (Armaments Cooperation Program) joint funding, and

   (iii) Priority Industry Capability funding, has been used as a mechanism for assisting Australian industry to achieve success in the Advance Process Build (APB) program.

(3) Prior to the plan in part (1), for each APB program round:

(a) what companies, including the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO):

   (i) provided a program proposal, and

   (ii) were accepted to progress their proposal,

(b) how far did each proposal progress through the program, and

(c) what sum of funding was provided to progress each proposal.

(4) Post the plan in part (1), for each APB program round:

(a) what companies:

   (i) provided a program proposal, and

   (ii) were accepted to progress their proposal.

(b) how far did each proposal progress through the program, and

(c) what sum of funding was provided to progress each proposal.

(5) How many Australian companies have been invited to participate in the APB program peer reviews.

(6) Noting an answer to Senate question on notice W47: Collins Combat Systems (Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Additional estimates 2010-2011—February 2011, 23 February 2011), has the DSTO participated in any APB program peer reviews; if so, which ones.


Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:

(1) The plan referred to in this question is known as The Australian Technology Maturation Program. The program description is attached.

(2) (a) (i) Nil.

(2) (a) (ii) Approximately $580,000 has been applied since February 2013. (2) (a) (iii) Nil to date. The $580,000 of shared funding from the joint Australia -

United States program has been sufficient to support the 2014-15 round of activities undertaken by Cirrus Real Time Processing and Thales Australia.

(3) (a) (i) APB Round Proposals

Proposer

Advanced Processing Build

09

13

15

Acacia Research

3

3

 

Cirrus Real Time Processing

1

 

 

Defence Science and Technology Group

3

1

 

Operational Solutions Management

2

 

 

Thales Australia

 

 

1

Qinetiq

 

 

1

(3) (a) (ii) Proposals from the Defence Science and Technology Group and Cirrus Real Time Processing for APB-09 progressed into Step 1 of the APB cycle.

(3) (b) The Defence Science and Technology Group APB-09 proposal was merged with a similar United States proposal at Step 2 and was then progressed through the full program into the production baseline. The Cirrus Real Time Processing APB-09 proposal did not progress beyond Step 1.

(3) (c) A contract with Cirrus Real Time Processing for $150,000 was awarded in November 2009 for activities in support of Step 1. For the Defence Science and Technology Group to progress their proposal through to the completion of Step 4, salaries were in the order of $250,000 with travel costs of approximately $165,000 over the period 2009-2012.

(4) Since the Australian Technology Maturation Plan was initiated, Australian industry has participated in an Australia/US initiated activity to improve the AN/BYG-1 Operator-Machine Interface. In 2014-15 two Australian companies worked with Royal Australian Navy submariners, Defence Science and Technology Group, and the United States Navy to produce prototype displays to support new operating concepts.

(4) (a) (i) Responses to the request for tender for the 2014-15 activity were received from four companies: Thales Australia, Cirrus Real Time Processing, Saab Australia and Lockheed Martin Australia.

(4) (a) (ii) Thales Australia and Cirrus Real Time Processing were the successful tenderers for the Operator-Machine interface work.

(4) (b) Implementations based on the prototypes produced by Thales and Cirrus have both progressed into Step 3 of the process.

(4) (c) Approximately $580,000 has been provided to fund the 2014-15 activity.

(5) None to date.

(6) Defence Science and Technology Group participated in the Operator-Machine Interface working group and Automation working group review activities for APB-15, held in 2013.

Copies of attachment A can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office.