Technology demonstrators (TDs) play a critical role in bridging the gap between theoretical ideas and practical application, providing a real-world proof of concept that reduces risk in complex and costly programmes before full-scale production and operational development begins.
This is according to Kevin Jamison, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Head Engineer for Aerospace Systems. Jamison, who has over 30 years of experience across the public and private aerospace, avionics, and nuclear sectors, was speaking during a recent talk at the Aeronautical Society of South Africa’s (a division of the Royal Aeronautical Society) annual general meeting.
Explaining the core concept of a TD, Jamison described it as a “physical model of a system, or a component of a system,” which is “operated in a representative environment.” Unlike laboratory experiments, a demonstrator is intended to operate in real-world conditions, serving as “a proof of concept to bridge the gap between theoretical ideas and practical implementation.” He noted that many real-world challenges are “so difficult to model and to evaluate in a theoretical way,” making TDs critical in complex engineering projects.
For Jamison, TDs offer a unique opportunity to provide clarity and reduce uncertainty during the development process. According to him, their primary objectives are to “demonstrate feasibility” and “to de-risk future development.” Importantly, the process also enables stakeholder engagement. “The funders need to know just how viable and feasible this is. Technology demonstrators make it very clear to them,” he said. Similarly, regulators also need reassurance through evidence. “If the regulators are not convinced of the feasibility of the technology, you’re going to have a very difficult time.”
Jamison emphasised that TDs are not, and should not, be considered to be finished products. Describing them as “usually an incomplete or simplified model of the technology for a product,” emphasising the fact that “technology demonstrators are not intended for commercial use.” TDs only need “as much performance as you need to demonstrate your technology,” so that you can learn as much as possible, as fast as possible, he explained.
While Jamison used a range of examples to illustrate the importance of TDs, one of the most significant local examples discussed was the Denel Rooivalk. In the 1980s, “South Africa had never developed a helicopter, never mind an attack helicopter,” Jamison explained. Denel, then the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, built a range of TDs to prove both the concept and their capabilities. The first TD was the Alpha XH-1, built on an existing aircraft and modified to resemble an attack helicopter. “They put tandem cockpits on it, they put a gun on it… and they proved that they could build this aircraft and they could fly it safely.” While it looks very different from the final design, “as a concept demonstrator the Alpha XH-1 achieved its purpose,” securing stakeholder confidence in the project’s viability.
However, complex projects such as this rarely rely on just one TD, with subsequent phases of the project requiring additional TDs to be built. These included the XTP-1 Beta, a modified SA 330 Puma, which was used to test many of the Rooivalk’s systems, including “the targeting system, the fire control systems, the munition integration, among others,” as well as the Rooivalk XDM, a more advanced late-stage prototype. Despite significant differences between these demonstrators and the final operational Rooivalk (including weapons, avionics and suppressor designs), Jamison argued that each step provided crucial learning opportunities, enabling the successful completion of the project.
Jamison also shared an example of an ongoing radar jamming project that he is involved in. The project involved rapidly adapting a laboratory-developed technology for airborne use. To reduce integration costs, he designed the pod to match the size of the “BL-755 cluster bomb”, allowing the team to “integrate by analogy”. After initial challenges, including developing independent power solutions, the pod was first flown on a privately owned Hawker Hunter and later integrated onto a Denel Cheetah in just three months. As a result, “now the pod is being funded by technology innovation agencies and a private investor and they are developing the product based on it.”
In stark contrast to these successful projects, Jamison pointed to South Africa’s ill-fated Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project as an example of what can happen when TDs are excluded from projects. He noted that, despite the fact that South Africa had never developed a nuclear reactor, the project attempted to proceed directly to a full-scale 400 MW plant. Explaining that at that time the National Nuclear Regulator “didn’t have a clue how to regulate the development of a new nuclear reactor,” resulting in “no flexibility” and “no negotiation.” Additionally, critical design decisions, such as using helium gas directly through the turbine, also led to concerns over contamination and related maintenance challenges that ultimately helped bring the project to a halt.
In evaluating what went wrong with the project, he stated: “My unpopular opinion is that the primary reason why the PBMR failed is that they did not build a technology demonstrator.” He contrasted South Africa’s approach with that of China which started with a small-scale demonstration plant (TD) and later scaled up successfully. “Where is China now? They have a 400-megawatt nuclear plant in operation. Where is South Africa? We have got nothing,” he said.
Concluding, Jamison warned against underestimating both the strategic value and the limits of TDs. While he cautioned against expecting too much from them, stating that they can and often do fail, he noted the significant expense associated with them, and reiterated that “skipping them can be catastrophic for the overall programme.”
