When investors assess startup pitches, they rely on company directories and databases to understand what’s emerging and how fast it’s maturing, and to decide where to focus their attention. Defence lacks an equivalent.

For decades, Janes has been the authoritative reference for defence intelligence. It catalogues platforms, payloads and capabilities already in service and remains indispensable for understanding today’s order of battle.

But Defence still lacks a way to see what’s coming—to map technologies, partnerships and research pipelines before they reach the parade ground. That includes federally funded programs as well as state-level investments in quantum, AI, advanced manufacturing and space. These efforts shape the early pipeline of dual-use capabilities and rarely intersect with Defence’s strategic view. Innovation is faster and more distributed than Defence processes can account for. The result is a widening gap between research and readiness that is dangerous to ignore.

Bridging that gap requires better situational awareness. Defence needs visibility not only of who is pitching into the system, but also of who is operating outside it. That includes researchers in adjacent disciplines and countries beyond traditional partnerships. A biochemist developing a plant-based therapy might, deliberately or not, be unlocking 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. 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 help policymakers map strategic risk across institutions and domains. They show where research is flowing and where adversarial interest is growing. But 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 as they can shift over time and mission. When a TRL 2 concept surges toward TRL 5, the system needs to detect and respond.

Tracking momentum shows direction. When subsystems accelerate or suppliers fall behind, it shapes posture, planning and coordination.

This is recognised 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. A shared view of emerging capability, grounded in TRL movement and mission fit, supports faster decisions and smarter prioritisation. That also reduces duplication, avoid hype and sustain momentum when projects face structural friction.

We still rely too much on lagging indicators—grants, papers, patents—that reflect past effort. Defence needs forward indicators. Tools that track TRL velocity, map dependencies and flag systems nearing field readiness. Without them, we fall 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 needs to reach into research pipelines, incubators and experimental platforms. Scientific research often produces unexpected breakthroughs. Radio astronomy, developed to study black holes, also advanced signal processing and wireless communications. Connecting science to engineering helps secure advantage.

In a contested region, the edge often goes to those who recognise potential early. Many key systems are already being built. The question is whether we see them in time and act fast enough to turn insight into capability.

That applies both ways. Understanding adversaries is only useful if we understand ourselves.