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.