Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems - NEXT (Counter NEXT)

Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems - NEXT (Counter NEXT)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The growing threat of adversarial unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) poses significant risks to U.S., allied and partner forces, naval vessels, and commercial vessels transiting key maritime routes across the globe. Within the last eight months, these adversarial UAS actions threat have directly resulted in the death of three innocent seafarers1, the complete loss of one commercial vessel, significant damage to more than a dozen vessels, a 900% increase in war-risk shipping insurance premiums2, and  a 50% reduction in year-over-year trade volume for one of these key waterways3, which have all resulted in a 9% reduction in effective global shipping capacity and a significant increase in global shipping costs4.  The U.S. is committed to protecting commercial maritime trade and, more importantly, service members conducting maritime operations in contested environments.

To support this goal, the U.S. Department of the Navy seeks a kinetic defeat solution for group 3+ UAS. The proposed solution must demonstrate a high probability of kinetic defeat on adversarial group 3+ UAS and be more cost effective than the current  traditional air defense solutions being used against UAS and available to Naval  operational commanders.  

PROPOSED SOLUTION

The U.S. Navy intends to rapidly prototype and conduct a phased operational test and evaluation plan to validate the performance of one or more proposed shipborne kinetic defeat Counter UAS solutions. It is expected that solutions will be capable of expeditious worldwide deployment, integrated with a variety of naval platforms and must display the ability to be easily integrated into the existing sensors onboard a naval vessel.

Solution briefs will only be accepted for complete Counter UxS (Uncrewed Systems) solutions that include a kinetic defeat effector and launcher that is focused on group 3+ UAS. Solutions may assume they will receive a track from the naval vessel’s combat systems to facilitate find and fix. The solution must be able to integrate with the naval vessel’s existing combat systems, but may also utilize an adjunct passive system (e.g., Electro-Optical / Infrared) that does not interfere with the ship’s organic sensors. 

A vendor that submits a solution brief that only provides a partial solution (i.e., a radar or find, fix, and track only capability) will not be considered. Proposed solutions may include capabilities that enhance find, fix, track, and identification portions of the kill chain, but must also address the kinetic  defeat capability, and must not interfere with the vessel’s existing combat system. High-powered microwave and directed energy solutions will not be considered kinetic defeat solutions for this solicitation.  

A solution brief’s Technical Merit and Relevance will be based on the ability to meet the primary attributes and the cumulative evaluation of the secondary solution attributes/capabilities:

Primary Attributes:

• The solution must be able to support the full kill chain (find, fix, track, target, engage, assess) with both “human in/on-the-loop” control modes. Solutions may assume they will receive a radar track from the naval vessel’s combat systems to facilitate find and fix.  
• The solution must exist in a technically mature state of development in order for the government to host a baseline assessment of the solution’s capabilities planned to occur at a West Coast naval test location, subject to range availability, within 90 days after prototype award. 
• The offeror must demonstrate the ability to deliver up to 5 production representative prototypes within 12 months of prototype award. 
• Solution effector must be reloadable at sea and must not require heavy lift equipment to reload.

Secondary Attributes:

• Solutions that can demonstrate a high probability of kinetic defeat for group 3+ UASs (ideally greater than 90%) for self defense to protect the ship within a radius of approximately 15 km and a high probability of kill (ideally greater than 70%) for area defense to protect nearby commercial shipping lanes and vessels within a greater than 15 km radius are preferred.
• The solution must minimize the cost per defeat to reduce the asymmetry of the current cost of traditional air defense defeat solutions compared to the threat. 
• Solutions that have a terminal guidance capability integrated into the effector are preferred.  A system requiring terminal illumination, terminal shipboard guidance and/or dwelling are less preferred. 
• Accelerating the kill chain by enabling a faster decision loop  from initial detection until the launch of the effector is preferred and must be characterized. Minimization of “time to defeat” (the time from decision to launch to defeat in flight) is also desirable and must be characterized.
• The solution should minimize installation size, weight, power, and any restrictions imposed on other systems onboard a naval vessel.  Solutions weighing less than 5,300 lbs in an operational status and 2,300 lbs without the launcher and effector are preferred.  Solutions that are less than 220 cubic ft with any one dimension no greater than 90 inches are preferred.  
• Solution briefs should also specify proposed installation and integration locations to include but not limited to a) forward CIWS platform, b) missile deck c) aft vertical launch system deck, and d) aft superstructure O2 deck platforms  if installing onboard a DDG 51-class guided missile destroyer. 
• The solution should integrate into a naval vessel’s existing combat systems and ancillary support systems (water, electrical power, and air).  Ability to integrate into the combat systems that have the following characteristics are preferred:  MIL-STD-1760 and MIL-STD-1553 interface along with the ability to operate on  208 - 220 VAC. 
• The production solution should be capable of achieving compliance for shipboard installation onboard a naval vessel and able to operate in a harsh maritime environment (e.g. exposure to salt water, shock, etc) including but not limited to MIL-STD-810 and MIL-DTL-901E.   
• The solution should be able to support obtaining or complying with safety and shipboard installation military specifications during the prototype period. 
• The solution should be able to support obtaining Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel (HERF), Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel (HERP), Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO), Weapons System Explosive Safety Review Board (WSESRB), etc. while also incorporating the appropriate arms, ammunition, and explosives safeguards throughout throughout the prototype phase and prior to final production. 
• The solution should be able to comply with DODINST 8500.E1 Change 1 - CyberSecurity Information Assurance dated 14 Mar 2014, DODINST 8510.01 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (RMF) FOR DOD SYSTEMS dated 19 July 2022, and SECNAVINST 5239.3C Dept of the Navy CyberSecurity Policy dated 2 May 2016 to meet shipboard cybersecurity requirements throughout the prototype phase and prior to final production.
• A solution developed using a modular, open source architecture leveraging open and extensible software design principles that enable integration with third-party modular components, where applicable, standardized or common interfaces, and software containerization will be preferred. 
• The solution should be able to demonstrate adaptability to evolving operational threats including the ability to leverage real-time, or near real-time,  operational deployment data, logs, and user feedback to assess, correct, and/or improve system behaviors and performance including safely, securely, and promptly deploying software updates to fielded systems. Companies may assume the U.S. government will share data on evolving threats. A DD254 (Contract Security Classification Specification) and DD2345 (Military Critical Technical Agreement) will be required in order to share this data at the  appropriate classification level. Additionally, successful solutions will be required to provide personnel with appropriate security clearances and eventually the ability to obtain a Facility Clearance to store classified information.
• Preference may be given to solutions that can provide evidence demonstrating a Counter UAS capability in relevant and/or representative environments.   

Counter-UxS (Other Domains)

• Solutions that provide evidence of adaptability for applications against uncrewed systems in other domains (e.g. uncrewed surface vehicles) may be given preference, but still must address all primary attributes.   

SUBMISSION GUIDANCE

An individual vendor or team of vendors should not submit multiple solution briefs to the AOI, unless each individual solution is substantively unique. If submitting as a team, the first page of the solution brief should list each company on the team and a primary point of contact for each company on the team as well as the lead vendor and point of contact for the overall team.   

NOTE: In accordance with DIU CSO HQ0845-20-S-C001: The government reserves the right and ability to facilitate introductions of vendors with complementary capabilities. If teaming introductions by the government are provided, a vendor is not obligated to act on the recommendation. If a vendor elects to move forward in accordance with a government-recommended teaming arrangement, a Phase II pitch deck will be requested by DIU in order to facilitate a complete evaluation of the jointly proposed solution.

FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION

Companies are advised that any prototype Other Transactions (OT) agreement awarded in response to this Area of Interest may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of further competitive procedures. The follow-on production contract or transaction will be available for use by one or more organizations in the Department of Defense and, as a result, the magnitude of the follow-on production contract or transaction could be significantly larger than that of the prototype OT. As such, any prototype OT will include the following statement relative to the potential for follow-on production: “In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype OT may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.”

1Reuters, Three killed in first fatal Houthi attack on Red Sea Shipping, CENTCOM says, 6 March 2024

2The Load Star, Attacks Drive Up Red Sea War Risk Insurance Premiums 900%, 27 February 2024

3IMF Blog, Red Sea Attacks Disrupt Global Trade, 7 March 2024

4JP Morgan, What are the Impacts of the Red Sea Shipping Crisis?, 8 February 2024