Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems Rapid Maturation

Inexpensive, highly maneuverable, commercially available unmanned aerial systems (UAS) threaten tactical forces, critical infrastructure, and installations. Current defenses are limited by cost, by the operator attention they require, and by their vulnerability to countermeasures. A capability gap against Group 1 and Group 2 UAS remains.

This topic seeks mature or maturing technology at any point in the counter-UAS kill chain. The three areas below are where capability is most needed. They are examples. A proposal may address one area, more than one, or a gap not listed here.

Detection and Tracking. Detect and hold track on highly agile targets in cluttered low-altitude airspace. The proposer selects the sensing modality. Approaches that hold track when the target is not emitting are preferred. Solutions that require permanent site infrastructure or mains power, including fixed perimeter sensor installations, are out of scope for this area. The system must move with the force.

Identification and Decision Support. Classify and identify unauthorized platforms and support an engagement decision. Processing must run on tactical computing hardware carried or emplaced with the force. Proposals should describe a pathway to interoperate with existing command and control. Conformance to a named standard is not required at this stage and will not be scored.

Mitigation and Defeat. Kinetic, non-kinetic, or cyber approaches that defeat hostile UAS in remote tactical theaters and in densely populated areas. Proposals must address collateral effects.

Operating preferences. The operating environment is denied, contested, and unattended. The four conditions below are preferences, not eligibility requirements.

Every proposal must state where it stands against each one.

(a) The system does not require the target to emit radio frequency (RF) energy. Passive RF may be part of a solution; the preference is that track holds when the target is silent.

(b) The system does not radiate. The Government favors kinetic and cyber defeat over approaches that require the friendly system to emit. Jamming, active illumination, and transmission into a target's control or navigation link are in scope. A proposal that uses any of them must say so and describe the operational effect.

(c) The system does not require cloud services or reachback. Training and analytics may occur off-platform. The processing that produces the operational output should run on the platform, and the system should continue to function with all external network interfaces disabled.

(d) The system does not require a dedicated operator, meaning no person whose only task is attending it. Human judgment over the use of force is expected and is not addressed by this preference.

Out of scope: work requiring classified access or a facility clearance at the time of award, and approaches that depend on cooperative identification, including Remote ID broadcast.

Objective

Mature commercial and dual-use technologies that detect, track, identify, or defeat small low-flying drones (Group 1 and Group 2 unmanned aerial systems) in hostile or contested areas.

Phase I

This topic solicits Direct-to-Phase-II (DP2) proposals only. Direct to Phase II proposers shall submit documentation showing that Phase I-equivalent feasibility has already been achieved outside the SBIR/STTR program. Adequate documentation is a written record of at least one test of the proposed approach stating the conditions under which the test was conducted, the dates, the target, threat, or surrogate used, the measured result, and how it was measured.Test data, technical reports, and third-party evaluation metrics are acceptable. A system design alone is not sufficient. A self-declared technology readiness level unsupported by a documented test is not sufficient.

As required by the DoW solicitation, the feasibility documented may not rest solely upon, or logically extend from, prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work; the proposing firm and/or the principal investigator must have substantially performed the work relied upon; and the firm must demonstrate ownership or licensure of the associated intellectual property prior to proposal submission.

Phase II

Phase II is a major research and development effort. Performers refine the Phase I concept into an operational prototype that demonstrates real-world functionality. The primary deliverable is a functional system, software package, or physical prototype ready for test and evaluation in a militarily relevant or simulated field environment. The technology shall reach TRL 6 by the end of Phase II.

The period of performance is twelve months rather than the twenty-four the announcement allows. The intent is to move a demonstrated capability to a transition decision within one year. Proposals should be scoped to that schedule.

The Government may host a showcase about six months after award. Attendance is by invitation and is based on end user interest in the capability. It is not required of every performer. Performers shall provide operational evidence supporting a follow-on funding decision whether or not they are invited.

Phase III

Commercial applications are those in which the equipment deploys with a team rather than being installed at a site: temporary airspace security for outdoor events, venues, and construction or energy sites; convoy, executive, and site-survey protection; wildfire, disaster, and critical infrastructure response; and mobile detection kits for law enforcement and allied partners. Detection, tracking, and identification technologies have a direct commercial market in these roles. Authority to mitigate or defeat unmanned aircraft in the United States is limited by statute to covered federal entities. A defeat-focused proposal is not expected to show a near-term domestic commercial market for that function.

Military applications include integration into point-defense systems for tactical units, forward operating bases, and naval vessel protection platforms, which may be funded via non-SBIR/STTR acquisition budgets.

Keywords: Counter-UAS; C-sUAS; Group 1 UAS; Group 2 UAS; autonomous threat detection; edge artificial intelligence; multi-sensor fusion; denied environment

Technology areas: Battlespace, Electronics, Sensors

Focus areas: Advanced Infrastructure & Advanced Manufacturing, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems, Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Trusted AI and Autonomy

ITAR: Applies

CMMC level: Level 2 (Self)