Introduction
Quantum technologies are a suite of emerging technologies that exploit the fundamental laws of nature to offer unprecedented capabilities in sensing, imaging, communications and computing. They are diverse, complex, generally early in technical readiness, and they demand new ways of thinking about the employment and exploitation of technology.[1]
Quantum technologies take advantage of the way matter and light behave at atomic and subatomic scales. ‘Quantum mechanical properties (like entanglement, superposition and tunnelling) can be used to build advanced technologies that would otherwise be impossible.’[2]
Quantum technology promises to deliver many capability benefits to the Australian Army. These may include improvised explosive ordnance disposal, low probability of detection electronic support measures, navigation and timing systems that do not depend upon the global positioning system (GPS), faster mission rehearsal, and improved scenario analysis. The types of quantum technologies that promise to deliver the most significant improvements in these applications include quantum computing, quantum clocks, optically pumped magnetometers, gravity sensors, Rydberg radio frequency (RF) sensors and atom interferometry based accelerometers and gyroscopes.
Each of these technologies is described in the following sections. They have been selected for analysis in order to provide a cross-section of use cases, costs and development timelines to demonstrate how technologies with different characteristics are represented differently in the analysis. This is by no means an exhaustive list of quantum technologies that could deliver capability benefits to Army, or even the only quantum technology option available for each use case. For example, this article assesses the utility of optically pumped magnetometers; there are various other competing quantum magnetometry technologies that could also have been considered. The technologies assessed nevertheless demonstrate how the multi-criteria analysis (MCA) tool is applied and how it could be used to inform investment decisions involving a much broader range of quantum technology options. A more comprehensive set of technologies is assessed in a forthcoming Australian Army Research Centre Occasional Paper.
Developing quantum technologies to the point where they can deliver meaningful capability to Army will require both private and public investment. Defence will need to prioritise which technologies offer the greatest capability gain in the shortest time for the least investment. This assessment will guide both public and private investment in the development of quantum technology.
This article contends that traditional methods of evaluating and prioritising investment options such as net present value and cost–benefit analysis have limitations when attempting to determine priorities in quantum capabilities. These limitations are due to the difficulty in assigning financial values to some aspects of military capability. This article contends that an MCA approach provides the most appropriate analytical tool because it can incorporate variables such as development timeline and performance benefits that are more subjective in nature than financial data. This article explores the benefits and challenges of applying different assessment options and illustrates the benefits of an MCA framework developed specifically to assess the suitability of quantum technology for military applications.
Quantum Computing
Quantum computers[3] have the potential to perform some calculations exponentially more quickly than conventional computers and even perform some tasks (such as breaking public key encryption protocols) that are beyond the practical limits of current computing technology.
In an Australian defence context, quantum computing has the potential to supplement or replace the existing ‘super computers’ that are permanently installed in static locations in Australian research or government facilities. Quantum computers could be used for enhanced operational simulation and geophysical modelling, enhanced signal and image processing, enhanced searching and extraction of intelligence from large unstructured databases, and enhanced optimisation of plans and logistics.
Before assessing the potential benefits of quantum computing, it is important to outline the characteristics of this type of technology. A quantum computer exploits quantum mechanical phenomena by leveraging the quantum behaviour of light and/or matter using specialised hardware. Quantum computers use ‘qubits’ as the basic unit of information rather than the conventional bit. Unlike conventional bits used in current computers, which can either be 0 or 1, qubits can be both 0 and 1 at the same time, and in different proportions. This results in a large number of possible qubit states, and means that it is possible for a quantum computer to address an exponentially larger state space (a representation of all possible configurations or states of a system) than a conventional computer with an equivalent number of bits. In the future, this technology is expected to allow quantum computers to efficiently analyse problems that are too large for conventional computers to handle.
Currently quantum computers are large and unwieldly and cannot yet solve computing challenges more quickly than existing supercomputers. The main impediment to higher performance is that current quantum computer hardware is limited to around 1,000 relatively noisy qubits per device. Qubits are inherently sensitive to electronic noise like electromagnetic interference from other electrical devices and electrical supplies. When noise thresholds are reached, they ‘decohere’, leading to corrupted results. This stage of quantum technology is referred to as the noisy intermediate scale quantum (NISQ) era.
The main development challenge is to move from NISQ to large-scale fault-tolerant computing. Achieving this will involve scaling up computer hardware so that the number of independent, individually addressable qubits in each computer is increased from hundreds to many thousands. Further, error-correction programs will be needed to make the computer fault-tolerant to the inevitable quantum decoherence. From a practical perspective the rest of the quantum computing system will need to be developed to the point where software engineers can program it.
An assessment of quantum computing is that it will be at least 10 years before it is readily available in a form able to meet the needs of this use case.
Quantum Clocks
Quantum clocks, also known as atomic clocks, are a type of quantum sensor used to measure the passage of time and are one of the more mature quantum technologies. Quantum clocks are based on vapour cells and are more precise than conventional clocks because they use atomic oscillations which have a much higher frequency and are much more stable than other phenomena.
A small range of quantum clocks are already commercially available. They are typically designed to be mounted in 19 inch (482 centimetre) rack units and are around 30 to 40 litres in size. One example is the commercially available Infleqtion unit pictured in Image 1. A potential military use for quantum clocks is in tactical vehicles to provide timing signals for navigation in a GPS-denied environment, or to provide highly coherent and low-drift timing to synchronise spread spectrum communications systems.
Source: Author supplied image.
In order for quantum clocks to be used more broadly in the military, they need to be made more rugged and reduced in size, weight and power demand. These are largely engineering challenges rather than being related to the underlying quantum technology and could be achieved within a couple of years.
Optically Pumped Magnetometers
Optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) are one type of the quantum magnetometers currently under development worldwide that are used to measure magnetic fields. OPMs have similar sensitivity but are smaller and lighter compared to conventional magnetometers.
OPMs are one of the more advanced quantum technologies and are available commercially from a number of suppliers. They come in a variety of types designed to operate in different ranges of magnetic field strength. They can be found in packages with a volume of less than one litre, weigh less than 50 grams and draw less than 5 watts[4] of electrical power.
Exploiting their small size and weight, OPMs have potential to be mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles or unmanned ground vehicles to detect unexploded ordnance. The key to maturing OPMs as a military capability is to make them more robust and to integrate them with conventional military technologies. Systems are already in use in very similar applications but there may be some additional integration required for military applications.
Atom Interferometry Based Gravity and Gravity Gradient Sensors
Gravity gradiometers (or gravimeters), allow for the accurate mapping of local variations in gravity. Atom interferometry based gravity sensors are among the more complicated quantum systems currently under development. They use the fundamental properties of atoms such as polarisabilities, van der Waals forces and tune-out wavelengths. Unlike springs or other macroscopic components used in non-quantum sensors, atoms do not change over time, resulting in devices with inherently low drift. Using two atom interferometers spaced a distance apart makes it possible to construct a sensor which is largely immune to vibrations. [6]
Most of the portable sensors in operation are university prototypes. Some are also used in the domains of geophysics and civil engineering. In these sectors, they support tunnel detection in urban environments,[7] and mapping and navigation on moving platforms such as ships[8] and aircraft.[9]
To date, gravimeters tend to be too large for most military platforms, with the possible exception of ships. For example, one available gravimeter has a sensor head with a height of 70 centimetres, a diameter of 38 centimetres and a control unit of 100 x 50 x 70 centimetres. The sensor head is 25 kilograms and the control unit is 75 kilograms. The power consumption for both of these units is 250 watts.[10] These demands are at the top end of what could be supported by an Australian Army military vehicle. Also, quantum gravity sensors typically require long measurement times and are relatively fragile. If these limitations are overcome, quantum gravity sensors could be used effectively in tactical scenarios, mounted in specialist reconnaissance vehicles for bunker and tunnel detection. While the technology is mature enough to be integrated into a vehicle, particularly as a technology demonstrator, it would need to be reduced in size, weight and power draw for an operational capability. The development time is estimated to be more than 10 years.
Rydberg Based Radio Frequency Sensors
Electromagnetic radiation is incredibly important to modern societies for telecommunications, GPS navigation and radar. To detect the various EM waves requires a range of antennae and electronic receivers. A new type of receiver is presently under development which uses atoms in ‘highly excited’ states, termed Rydberg atoms.
While the use of Rydberg atoms as quantum electric field sensors is still a relatively new concept, it has demonstrated some impressive benefits over existing technologies. For example, Rydberg atom sensors have been observed to detect electromagnetic radiation over a very large range of frequencies (from DC to THz). In laboratory experiments, Rydberg receivers have been able to determine the direction of incoming electromagnetic waves.[11]
There are several potential military applications for these RF sensors. For example, vehicle-mounted staring RF detectors that can sense a broad band of frequencies simultaneously could be used in an electronic warfare support role to increase the sensitivity and bandwidth of the detector. This would significantly reduce the visual signature of the vehicle by reducing the number and size of antennae. Before widespread military use is possible, however, more portable systems need to be developed. Further, more experimentation and development is required before a stable military-use capability will be small enough, be light enough and have a small enough power draw to make it suitable for deployment. It is anticipated that while the development of systems such as the Infleqtion SqyWire is maturing quickly, it may still take more than five years before they offer an operational capability.
Atom Interferometry Based Accelerometers and Gyroscopes
Cold atom interferometers (CAI) are the atomic version of traditional optical interferometers. CAI inertial sensors promise sensitivity and stability orders of magnitude greater than their non-quantum counterparts by harnessing quantum effects. CAI replace three axis gyroscopes in a conventional inertial navigation unit and have the advantage of being resistant to GPS jamming. Further, they do not drift like conventional systems, meaning the performance benefit improves over time. CAI use ultra-cold atoms to detect changes in quantum phase (phases of matter at zero temperature) due to accelerations and rotations. Optical methods are used to observe the atoms, and these measurements can be used to infer the accelerations and rotations experienced by the sensor body (relative to the inertial frame of the atoms). These outputs can then be fed into an inertial navigation system to calculate position via dead-reckoning, providing the most accurate location marker possible. Recent demonstrations of continuous CAI by the US Army Research Laboratory[12] promise to revolutionise the technology by enabling unbounded data rates.
CAI accelerometers and gyroscopes have demonstrated phenomenal performance in laboratory environments but this performance has not yet been achieved in real world conditions. There have been only a handful of CAI inertial sensing trials, including flight trials by the Observatoire de Paris,[13] and Colorado-based private research firm Infleqtion[14] and Imperial University (London) have trialled their CAI accelerometer in maritime[15] and rail[16] environments. Current CAI sensors are large and require significant amounts of power. The lasers and control electronics typically span multiple rack units, resulting in a total system size comparable to a large fridge. Significant work will be required to achieve a full six-degree-of-freedom sensor (iXAtom has recently demonstrated a 3D accelerometer but this has a data rate of only 0.1 Hz).[17]
In a military context, CAI have considerable potential for use in tactical vehicles for navigation in the absence of GPS. There are, however, many challenges to tackle before this technology can be fully exploited by military users. These include significantly reducing systems size, weight and power draw, extending the dynamic range and developing six-degree-of-freedom systems. At current development rates, the industry is at least 10 years from having operational units available for battlefield use. While this is some time away, Army should nevertheless remain abreast of major developments to gauge their emerging application in the military domain.
Prioritising Quantum Development
To deliver useful capability to Army, a new technology must be safe to operate and must fill a capability gap. The capability gain needs to be sufficient to justify the investment required to develop the new capability for military application. The challenge for Army in applying quantum technology is to balance the trade-offs between technical maturity, cost and benefit, and the practicality of deploying different technologies into military environments.
The AUKUS Quantum Arrangement under AUKUS Pillar II[18] aims to accelerate military investments that integrate emerging quantum technologies into trials and experimentation over the next three years. Australia’s involvement in this arrangement is underscored by the Defence Strategic Review,[19] which states: ‘The development of selected critical technology areas as part of AUKUS Pillar II Advanced Capabilities should be prioritised in the shortest possible time.’ To be effective, any such prioritisation will need to be underpinned by a transparent and repeatable decision-making process.
There are a number of accounting methods that are typically used to assess options for investment in new technologies. These include net present value and cost–benefit analysis. These are well-established methodologies with numerous sources of reference material to explain their application. One reference that is particularly useful in providing an easy to understand explanation in an Australian context is The Valuation of Businesses, Shares and Other Equity.[20]
Net present value is based on the principal that people place greater value in money they receive today than money they will receive at some point in the future. So a discount rate is applied to values in the future in order to calculate their present value. Net present value discounts all future cash flows whether they are positive (income) or negative (costs). The discount rate is applied each year, meaning that income that occurs further in the future is discounted more than shorter term income. The sum of these present values is known as the net present value and is used to evaluate the value of an investment. The inevitable outcome of the discount rate is that investments that have significant upfront costs but do not accrue benefits for a long time need to accrue significantly more benefits than investments with shorter term returns. Applying a net present value approach works well for projects in which all costs and benefits are financial.
In the case of investment in quantum technology, the capability benefits are predominantly non-financial. In this case, a cost–benefit analysis method is more appropriate. This approach is similar to net present value but it considers intangible costs such as customer churn or loss of user confidence, and indirect benefits like social benefits and environmental benefits. Values can be assigned to these benefits using a range of established accounting methods. Where it is not practical to derive a financial value, other approaches like key performance indicators can be used. For example, in a commercial context, customer satisfaction can be measured by tracking the rate at which customers stop using a particular service.[21] Using the same key performance indicators for both costs and benefits enables different investment options to be compared.
In the case of military capability, it is particularly challenging to assign financial values to the intended military benefits. What needs to be assessed is how the investment improves capability compared to a potential adversary’s. Comparing capabilities requires an understanding of complex and often conflicting information, which may change over time. There are many factors involved that will impact the valuation of both the adversary’s and Army’s capabilities. These may include questions regarding the credibility of knowledge held about an adversary’s actual capability. The operational context also affects the comparison—i.e., where will the equipment be employed? These factors raise the potential for a very broad range of values that could be attributed to the capability improvement. In this context, there is a risk that the range becomes so large that any confidence in the result is lost.
An alternative approach is to use an MCA method that ranks or scores the performance of options against multiple objectives or criteria. Each option is rated against each criterion using performance measures. The criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance. The weights are combined with the performance measures to calculate an overall rank or score for each option.[22]
MCA approaches are used by numerous governments in Australia and internationally to guide investment and policy decisions. A web search will highlight numerous case studies; examples are:
- the UK Government[23]
- the Victorian Government by the Department of Treasury and Finance[24]
- the Australian Government by Infrastructure Australia[25]
- the ACT Government.[26]
There is no single definitive method for MCA; instead, MCA is an umbrella term for a number of different techniques and tools that use multiple objectives and decision criteria (or attributes) to analyse a problem.[27] References that will be useful to readers who want to investigate MCA further include:
- ‘Methods of Multi-Criteria Analysis in Technology Selection and Technology Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review’[28]
- Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis: Technical Guide of the Assessment Framework[29]
- Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual.[30]
The approach described in this article scores how well each option meets the needs and objectives of the stakeholders. The needs and objectives are financial, operational performance, risk, suitability, urgency etc. Financial performance includes how much it will cost to develop the technology into a mature product and what it will cost per unit to purchase and operate the new product. Operational performance includes how much smaller and lighter the equipment will be, how much more sensitive a detector will be or what increase in processing power can be expected from a new type of computer. Suitability is measured based on how appropriate the technology will be for the environment it is expected to operate in and how soon it is needed. These factors in combination become the evaluation criteria for the MCA.
MCA develops scores against measurable criteria to represent how well the objectives have been met. Those scores are then normalised (scaled to fit between 0 and 1) to remove any unintended bias. For example, if the scores for development cost are $1 million for one technology and $1 billion for a second technology, it makes no sense to try to combine these with a score related to the equipment’s power (e.g. the capacity for the technology to reduce the power requirements of a device from 100 watts to 10 watts). The reason is that the power reduction score would be so swamped by the cost score as to make it meaningless. To avoid this situation, both scores are scaled (normalised) to a range of between 0 and 1.
While normalising the scores allows variables to be compared, it may tend to imply that all are equally important, which is very unlikely to be the case. MCA addresses this by allocating a weight to each criterion that reflects how important it is to the stakeholders. For example, a user may prioritise reductions in size as more important than development cost; so it is given a higher weighting. To avoid every criterion becoming a high priority, the sum of all weights is set to 100 per cent. The normalised scores are then multiplied by their weights. The sum of the weighted scores indicates which option best meets the needs of the stakeholders.
An important feature of MCA is that different stakeholders will bring different perspectives to the assessment of each option. As a decision-making tool, MCA therefore relies on the judgement and decisions of the evaluation team to determine the objectives of the assessment, the assessment criteria, and their relative weighting. While this can lead to concerns about subjectivity, MCA has the advantage of making decision-makers’ subjectivity transparent, and the means by which different criteria are taken into account is explicitly communicated. In addition, considerable ‘objective’ data (such as expected costs and capability benefits) can be included.
Different stakeholder groups can come up with their own set of weights to reflect the preferences of different organisations. In the above example, Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group may give the development cost a weight of 80 per cent and the power reduction score a weight of 20 per cent. By contrast, military operators represented by Army Headquarters may consider that the additional performance gained by the reduction in power consumption is more important. Accordingly, headquarters representatives may give this factor a weight of 60 per cent while giving the cost criterion a weight of 40 per cent.
MCA models can be used for complex one-off decisions, or they can be used to inform investment decisions about a portfolio of technologies to be tracked over time.
While MCA is well adapted to the task of evaluating quantum technology development opportunities, it remains an aid to inform decisions rather than the absolute determiner of the best decision. In addition to providing decision-making guidance, MCA can help officials improve their understanding of the issues involved, including why their preferred options are not the highest scored. Alternative scores and weights can be adjusted in real time in a workshop setting to tease out subtleties in the trade-offs.
Applying MCA to Prioritise Quantum Technology Development
Having described the benefits and approach of conventional MCA, the remainder of this article shows how the MCA assessment tool could be used to help prioritise investment decisions in the development of quantum technology for application within Army. To demonstrate its utility, MCA will be applied to the technologies of quantum computing and OPMs.
The approach described here differs from a conventional MCA in two ways. Firstly, it groups the evaluation criteria into capability benefit, financial benefit, and suitability. Secondly, the evaluation criteria in the suitability group are based on the specific operational setting in which the technology will be used. This could include, for example, an Australian research facility, a deployed strategic headquarters or a tactical environment in the hands of soldiers.
The purpose is to describe an assessment tool that could be used to inform iterative investment decisions. Because MCA can be conducted regularly as technology develops and capability priorities change, it is far more useful to inform investment decisions in quantum technology than other methods that involve long time periods between assessments.
The process used to develop and apply this MCA framework is shown in Figure 1.
It is evident from the Defence Strategic Review[31] and the Army Quantum Technology Roadmap[32] that Army is expected to deliver the greatest increase in capability for the least cost and in the shortest possible time. In view of these strategic priorities, this article generates a set of evaluation criteria grouped into the categories ‘suitability and readiness’, ‘financial benefit’ and ‘capability benefit’. These evaluation criteria represent the characteristics of the technology that are deemed most important to Army stakeholders. Grouping the criteria in this way enables a nuanced presentation of the results as the three perspectives can be presented separately.
Scoring methods are suggested to demonstrate how MCA can be applied. In reality these scoring methods would be developed and validated in collaboration with stakeholders.
Suitability and Readiness
These evaluation criteria are used to assess how suitable and ready a technology is for use in a particular deployment scenario. Scoring is based on several factors. These include its power demand and whether it can withstand the expected environmental conditions (such as temperature and humidity, shock and vibration, dust and water). In this regard, technology is scored at 1 if it meets the limits for the relevant scenario and 0 if it doesn’t.
The evaluation criteria also consider how long it is expected to take to mature the technology to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8, where it can be deployed operationally. The development timeline is scored by estimating which of the following three time periods apply:
- 1—short term: less than five years
- 5—medium term: five to 10 years
- 1—long term: more than 10 years.
The technology is also assessed for usability—i.e., whether the personnel deployed in the scenario are likely to have the necessary skills and expertise to operate and maintain the equipment. Finally, suitability is also assessed as to whether it will be able to achieve electromagnetic compliance (EMC) while withstanding electromagnetic interference (EMI).
The suitability and readiness criteria are driven by the operational context in which the technology is expected to be used. For example, a quantum computer is best suited to a static environment with stable infrastructure and resident expertise to use it. Creating the conditions in which a quantum computer could be made ready to deploy and used in a tactical setting would require significantly greater investment and a longer development time. By comparison, OPM-based devices designed for explosive ordnance disposal need to be both suitable and ready to be used in a fluid tactical environment. Based on this realisation, the authors identified three distinct deployment scenarios: ‘strategic’, ‘operational’ and ‘tactical’—with the latter divided into three sub-categories (a set of deployment scenarios) that enable each technology to be evaluated against the demands of the environment in which it might be used. The nature of each sub-category can be described as follows.
Strategic. This could include a government building or a research organisation where there are no size, weight or power restrictions, people with specialist skills are readily available to operate and maintain the equipment, and there are no shock or vibration risks once the equipment is installed. This would be an environment well suited to quantum computers.
Operational. This could be an environment in which equipment is deployed from Australia to the highest echelon and/or the least mobile force elements within an area of operations. Such an environment might include a joint task force headquarters or a point of entry such as an airfield or port. In this scenario, the equipment would be transported on civilian or military low loaders and potentially installed in 20-foot shipping containers. During transit, the equipment would be subjected to the shock and vibration. Assuming that the equipment would be installed in a shipping container or some other similar enclosure, it would require ingress protection (IP) 65,[33] which is dust tight and protected against water jets. In this scenario, the electrical, technical and information technology skills available to operate and maintain the equipment would be restricted to that which would normally be available among the deployed military, defence civilian or contracted personnel. Three-phase power would also need to be made available from a deployable power system. The power output of such systems would likely be limited to a maximum of several hundred kilowatts.
Tactical. This scenario includes the increasingly demanding conditions imposed by a forward operating base, when troops are mounted in vehicles, or when carried by a dismounted soldier.
- A forward operating base is unlikely to be accessible by heavy-lift capabilities which would impose size and weight restrictions on the technology. For example, Army’s HX77 tactical trucks have a 13.1 tonne limit which puts an upper limit on the size and weight of equipment that can be deployed. Assuming that the equipment is deployed on formed but unsealed class B roads establishes the shock and vibration limits for equipment. The IP limit would be 66,[34] which is dust tight and protected against powerful water jets. This assessment is based on the assumption that, while the equipment would be installed in a protective enclosure, it may nevertheless be exposed to environmental elements, either during transport or while in operation. In this scenario, the technical skills available to operate and maintain the equipment would be limited to those which were available among the deployed Army personnel at the forward operating base, most likely signals staff or electrical and mechanical engineers. It is assumed that single-phase power would be available from a deployable power system. This would limit the power available to a maximum of several tens of kilowatts.
- For mounted troops, the technology would be carried in (or operated from) a military vehicle such as a Bushmaster protected mobility vehicle (PMV), shown in Image 2,[35] or a Hawkei PMV-Light (PMV-L), in a tactical situation.
Source: Defence Image Gallery
In this scenario, the technology would need to be deployed on an HM40 truck or fixed to a Hawkei or Bushmaster (shown in Image 2) because of size and weight requirements. In either case, the weight could not exceed 100 kilograms. Further, the equipment would need to be able to withstand the shock and vibration associated with being deployed in an off-road vehicle. In this situation, the IP limit is 66[36] (which is dust tight and protected against powerful water jets) based on the assumption that, while the equipment would be installed in a protective enclosure, it would nevertheless be exposed to environmental elements both during its initial transportation into theatre and then regularly on operations.
It is assumed that no specialist tradespeople such as electricians, technicians and IT specialists would be available to maintain the equipment. The power source would be the vehicle’s direct current (DC) supply, which would be limited to several hundred watts depending on what other equipment is installed in the vehicle.
Source: Defence Image Gallery
- The most demanding tactical environment is for dismounted troops when equipment is carried by a soldier in the field either in their pack or on their person (see Image 3)[37]. The size and weight restrictions of the technology would be based on what a soldier could reasonably carry in addition to their other equipment. The limit in this scenario is assumed to be up to 10 kilograms. This limit could be increased if the technology were allocated to a section and some of the equipment of the soldier carrying it were distributed among the other soldiers. But this is assumed to be a reasonable limit for this assessment. In this case it is assumed that the soldier and their equipment is deployed in a vehicle off-road before they start dismounted operations. The more demanding shock and vibration conditions will be used to assess the equipment’s suitability, which in this case will be while the equipment is being deployed to the area of operations. In this situation, the IP limit would be 67 (which is dust tight and protected against the effect of temporary immersion in water).[38] It is assumed that while the soldier is on patrol, no specialist tradespeople such as electricians, technicians and IT specialists will be available. The equipment will be powered from an internal battery supply, which will limit the power available to several tens of watts.
Financial Benefit
This evaluation criterion scores the financial costs to develop, procure and operate the technology. The cost to develop the technology is an estimate of the investment required to take the technology from its current TRL to TRL 8, where it can deliver operational capability. The costs are scored by estimating expenditure within three broad groupings. The best score, 1, is allocated when the costs are less than $10 million; a score of 0.5 is used for costs of between $10 million and $100 million; and the lowest score, 0.1, is used when the costs exceed $100 million. Within the financial benefit criterion, there are two sub-categories:
- The procurement cost criterion compares the expected procurement of a mature quantum product to the cost of a non-quantum technology that offers a similar operational capability. This is scored as a percentage of the purchase cost of non-quantum technology, where 100 per cent is the same price, less than 100 per cent is cheaper, and greater than 100 per cent is more expensive.
- The operating cost criterion is scored in a similar way to procurement costs and takes into consideration the factors power, consumables and labour. The financial benefit criterion scores the increase or decrease in the technology’s operating costs compared to non-quantum technology that offers a similar operational capability. The method used applies 100 per cent for the same cost, less than 100 per cent for a lower cost and more than 100 per cent for a higher cost.
Capability Benefits
The capability benefits of technology are quantified by comparing it to the performance, size and weight of a non-quantum technology in a similar use case and deployment scenario. These three criteria can be described as follows.
- The performance benefit criterion compares the performance of the mature quantum technology to non-quantum technology in the same use case. There may be some technologies that have the same or even worse performance compared to non-quantum technology but may be considerably smaller or lighter.
- The size benefit criterion compares the size of the technology, when it is part of a mature capability, compared to a non-quantum solution for the same use case.
- The weight benefit criterion compares the weight of the technology, when it is part of a mature capability, compared to a non-quantum solution for the same use case.
For each criterion, a 100 per cent score is allocated if the new technology achieves the same outcome as the non-quantum technology, greater than 100 per cent is assigned if there is a comparative increase, and less than 100 per cent is allocated if there is a comparative reduction. For example, a quantum technology that has twice the sensitivity but is half the weight of the comparable non-quantum technology would score 50 per cent for the weight benefit and 200 per cent for the performance benefit. It may be apparent from this assessment that a higher score represents a better result for the performance score, while a lower score represents a better result for the size and weight benefits. This means that the size and weight scores need to be reversed before they are normalised so that higher scores represent a better result.
A weighting is then applied to each normalised score, adjusting them to reflect the preferences of the stakeholders.
The weights are applied to each set of criteria individually. An example set of weights is provided in Table 1; this represents what could reasonably be expected from Army stakeholders. The sum of each set of weights is 100 per cent. This method forces stakeholders to decide the relative importance of each criterion and to avoid allocating a high priority to all. Different sets of weights can be used to represent the preferences of different stakeholder groups. These weights can be adjusted regularly as priorities and other circumstances change. In practice, they are often developed in a workshop environment where the impact of different decisions can be seen in real time. This can lead to an iterative process of adjustment before the final weights are decided.
Results and Interpretation
Based on the MCA method of evaluating and prioritising investment options in quantum computers and OPMs, Table 2 presents the respective weighted scores for each technology. These scores are based on an assessment by a group of subject matter experts in QinetiQ in Australia and the UK with relevant quantum expertise and military experience. The assessment includes what level of capability could be delivered by a mature system given the development timelines and available Defence budgets. If this MCA approach were adopted by the Army the QinetiQ expert panel would be expanded to include capability experts from the Army.
What is immediately noticeable from the raw scores is that the first seven ‘suitability and readiness’ criteria have the same score for both technologies. Therefore, in this assessment these scores do not contribute materially to the relative prioritisation of technology. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the candidate technologies were selected with a use case in mind, so these criteria were already considered in the choice of the technology. The same result would not necessarily arise in a more comprehensive technology assessment. Secondly, in most cases systems can be designed to address these criteria, with the underlying technology integrated into a case or enclosure for use. Occasionally, however, there will be technical challenges that cannot be overcome by a protective case, shock mounting or other engineering solution. In these instances, application of the deployment scenarios can help identify the existing deployment limits of the technology and provide guidance to technology developers to help mitigate the issues.
Table 2 shows how the scores are distributed between 0 and 1, where 1 is the greatest benefit and 0 is the least. The remaining scores are distributed linearly between the maximum and minimum. This removes any unintended bias that can result from the scale of the raw scores. For example, if the results of an analysis resulted in a development cost of several million dollars and a weight saving of several kilograms, then in a direct comparison the development cost would swamp the weight saving. Adjusting scaling all score to a range of between 0 and 1 removes this bias and means that criteria can be deliberately prioritised by applying weights that represent the relative importance of each criterion. In some cases (such as the ‘size benefit’ and ‘weight benefit’), a higher raw score represents poorer performance. In these cases, it was necessary to reverse the score so that the lowest score represented the greatest benefit.
Bubble graphs were chosen to display the three results for this study. Spider graphs or three-axis graphs could also be used but bubble graphs were chosen because they are an easier format for most casual readers to interpret. The ‘performance benefit’ criterion is represented on the x axis and the ‘financial benefit’ is on the y axis. The ‘suitability and readiness’ of the technology is represented by the size of each bubble.
The graph in Figure 2 is particularly informative. It illustrates the relative scores for each group of criteria and also shows the trade-off between the ‘financial benefits’, the ‘performance benefits’ and the ‘suitability and readiness’ of each technology.
OPMs score higher in terms of readiness but have a lower score for performance benefit. By contrast, quantum computing has the highest score for performance benefit because it enables a significant increase in processing speed, but it scores poorly in terms of financial benefits and readiness because of the relatively long development timeframe and higher cost of development. The results from the MCA analysis therefore highlight the comparative advantages and disadvantages between different technologies in a way that would not be possible using other methods of financial evaluation.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Prioritising the development of military capability requires complex trade-offs between often conflicting requirements. These include balancing considerations such as how long and how much it will cost to mature the technology, how critical is the capability gap that it will fill, and what performance gains the new technology offers. Traditional financial evaluation tools like net present value and cost–benefit analysis are not well suited to evaluating these intangible costs and benefits. By comparison, an MCA is more appropriate because it uses scoring methods for a set of evaluation criteria that represent the objectives of the stakeholders. Weights are applied to each score to increase the significance of criteria that are considered more important by stakeholders.
This article has presented a modified MCA tool by splitting the financial, capability and suitability criteria into different groups and analysing them separately. This new variation on MCA reveals valuable trade-offs that would be hidden in a traditional MCA. The three-dimensional aspect of the framework shows separate results for ‘suitability and readiness’, ‘financial benefit’ and ‘capability benefit’. This is well suited to the Defence context, which inevitably involves investment decisions that trade off cost versus capability. The MCA developed for this article represents an impartial and pragmatic way to assess the value of quantum technologies for Army.
Due to the editorial limitations of the Australian Army Journal, the example assessments provided in this article only assessed two technologies. While these two candidate technologies demonstrate how the modified MCA can be applied to the prioritisation of Defence investment decisions, this article is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of quantum technology or even to provide recommendations concerning the technologies assessed here. The benefits of the MCA approach become increasingly apparent as a portfolio of development priorities is assembled from a greater selection of technologies and use cases. To illustrate this point, an upcoming Australian Army Research Centre Occasional Paper will extend the analysis to include all of the quantum technologies identified in this article. Based on further consultation with stakeholders, this paper will:
- further refine and validate the deployment scenarios
- increase the fidelity of the scoring methods through additional criteria or higher resolution in the chosen criteria
- refine the weight sets through stakeholder workshops
- reduce the uncertainty in scoring different technologies through additional research, testing and experimentation.
In the meantime, this article has shown that the MCA assessment framework has the potential to deliver ongoing benefits to Army. It does this by providing an assessment tool that can inform the iterative update and maintenance of technology road maps and the generation of ongoing development priorities in response to changes in technology and capability demands. It can also inform development thresholds that emerging technologies need to pass before they can be considered operationally viable.
While the benefits of the MCA tool are clear, there are limitations on how this assessment framework can be applied. Specifically, the tool evaluates the capability benefit of quantum technology over current technology in a similar use case, but it does not compare the higher level benefits of different use cases. For example, it does not measure whether a quantum computing capability will deliver a greater contribution to military capability when compared to an unmanned aerial vehicle based magnetometer. It does, however, provide context and information to guide that analysis. For the results to be of most value, the inputs need to remain simple so that analysis can be conducted relatively quickly by experts able to describe the use case for each technology and to tailor appropriate sets of weights that reflect the needs of the relevant stakeholders. In view of the Defence Strategic Review’s directive to develop selected critical technology in the shortest time possible, the MCA tool described in this article and the forthcoming Occasional Paper will assist Army decision-makers to move quickly and competently in their efforts to explore, capitalise on and bring into service quantum capabilities that can enhance the land domain’s contribution to the integrated force.
Endnotes
[1] Australian Army, Army Quantum Technology Roadmap (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2021).
[2] ‘Quantum’, Department of Industry, Science and Resources (website), at: https://www.industry.gov.au/science-technology-and-innovation/technology/quantum (accessed 21 September 2024).
[3] A Steane, ‘Quantum Computing’, Reports on Progress in Physics 61, no. 2 (1998): 117.
[4] ‘QTFM Gen-2’, QuSpin (website), at: https://quspin.com/qtfm-gen-2/ (accessed 14 June 2024).
[5] Original citation deleted.
[6] J Vovrosh, A Dragomir, B Stray and D Boddice, ‘Advances in Portable Atom Interferometry-Based Gravity Sensing’, Sensors 23 (2023): 7651, at: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177651.
[7] B Stray, A Lamb, A Kaushik, J Vovrosh, A Rodgers, J Winch, F Hayati, D Boddice, A Stabrawa, A Niggebaum et al., ‘Quantum Sensing for Gravity Cartography’, Nature 602 (2022): 590–594.
[8] Y Bidel, N Zahzam, C Blanchard, A Bonnin, M Cadoret, A Bresson, D Rouxel and MF Lequentrec-Lalancette, ‘Absolute Marine Gravimetry with Matter-Wave Interferometry, Nature Communications 9, no. 1 (2018): 627.
[9] Y Bidel, N Zahzam, A Bresson, C Blanchard, M Cadoret, AV Olesen and R Forsberg, ‘Absolute Airborne Gravimetry with a Cold Atom Sensor’, Journal of Geodesy 94 (2020): 20.
[10] V Ménoret, P Vermeulen, N Le Moigne, S Bonvalot, P Bouyer, A Landragin and B Desruelle, ‘Gravity Measurements Below 10−9 g with a Transportable Absolute Quantum Gravimeter’, Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 12300.
[11] Amy Robinson, Nikunjkumar Prajapati, Damir Senic, Matt Simons, Josh Gordon and Christopher Holloway, ‘Determining the Angle-of-Arrival of a Radio-Frequency Source with a Rydberg Atom-Based Sensor’, Applied Physics Letters 118, no. 11 (2021).
[12] J Kwolek and A Black, ‘Continuous Sub-Doppler-Cooled Atomic Beam Interferometer for Inertial Sensing’, Physical Review Applied 17, no. 2 (2022).
[13] R Geiger, V Ménoret, G Stern, N Zahzam, P Cheinet, B Battelier, A Villing, F Moron, M Lours, Y Bidel, A Bresson, A Landragin and P Bouyer, ‘Detecting Inertial Effects with Airborne Matter-Wave Interferometry’, Nature Communications 2 (2011): 474, at: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1479.
[14] ‘Quantum Sensing Breakthrough: Infleqtion Unveils the Future of Resilient Navigation’, Infleqtion (website), 7 June 2024, at: https://info.infleqtion.com/news/quantum-sensing-breakthrough-infleqtion-unveils-the-future-of-resilient-navigation.
[15] Hayley Dunning, ‘Quantum Sensor for a Future Navigation System Tested Aboard Royal Navy Ship’, Imperial (website), 26 May 2023, at: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/245114/quantum-sensor-future-navigation-system-tested/.
[16] ‘Railway Quantum Inertial Navigation System for Condition Based Monitoring’, UK Research and Innovation (website), at: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10086257#/tabOverview (accessed 22 May 2024).
[17] Simon Templier, Pierrick Cheiney, Quentin d’Armagnac de Castanet, Baptiste Gouraud, Henri Porte, Fabien Napolitano, Philippe Bouyer, Baptiste Battelier and Brynle Barrett, ‘Tracking the Vector Acceleration with a Hybrid Quantum Accelerometer Triad’, Sciences Advances 8, no. 45 (2022).
[18] ‘Fact Sheet: Implementation of the Australia – United Kingdom – United States Partnership (AUKUS)’, White House (website), 5 April 2022, at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/05/fact-sheet-implementation-of-the-australia-united-kingdom-united-states-partnership-aukus/.
[19] Australian Government, National Defence: Defence Strategic Review (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2023).
[20] Wayne Lonergan, The Valuation of Businesses, Shares and Other Equity (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
[21] Caeleigh MacNeil, ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: 5 Steps to Make Better Choices’, Asana (website), 11 January 2025, at: https://asana.com/resources/cost-benefit-analysis .
[22] Tom Kompas and Shuang Liu, Comparing Multi-Criteria Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis for Biosecurity: Procedures, Applications and the Measurement of Consequences, Final Report of ACERA Project 1002 (Melbourne: Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, 2013).
[23] Office for National Statistics, ‘An Introductory Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)’, Government Analysis Function (website), 1 May 2024, at: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/.
[24] ‘Impact Assessment Guidance’, Government of Victoria (website), at: www.vic.gov.au/impact-assessments (accessed 25 February 2025).
[25] Infrastructure Australia, Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis: Technical Guide of the Assessment Framework (2021), at: www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/guide-multi-criteria-analysis .
[26] ‘Capital Framework: Objectives of Multi-Criteria Analysis’, ACT Government (website), at: www.treasury.act.gov.au/capital-framework/prove/detailed-technical-guidance/multi-criteria-analysis (accessed January 2025).
[27] Kompas and Liu, Comparing Multi-Criteria Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis for Biosecurity.
[28] Justyna Kozlowska, ‘Methods of Multi-Criteria Analysis in Technology Selection and Technology Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review’, Engineering Management in Production and Services 14, no. 2 (2022), at: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/emj-2022-0021.
[29] Infrastructure Australia, Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis.
[30] Department for Communities and Local Government, Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual (London: UK Government, 2009), at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-criteria-analysis-manual-for-making-government-policy.
[31] Defence Strategic Review.
[32] Army Quantum Technology Roadmap.
[33] IP 65 is dust tight and watertight against light-pressure water spray.
[34] IP 66 is totally dust tight and waterproof against direct high-pressure jets.
[35] ‘Exercise Diamond Run’, Defence Imagery, Department of Defence (website), 11 August 2024, at: http://images.defence.gov.au/20240811army8629169_0373.jpg (accessed 23 September 2024).
[36] IP 66 is totally dust tight and waterproof against direct high-pressure jets.
[37] ‘Exercise Talisman Sabre 2023’, Defence Imagery, Department of Defence (website), 11 August 2024, at: http://images.defence.gov.au/20230731army8551856_0298.jpg (accessed 23 September 2024).
[38] IP 67 is totally dust tight and waterproof against full immersion for up to 30 minutes at depths between 15 centimetres and 1 metre.