Guidance

AUKUS Electronic Warfare Challenge: Frequently Asked Questions

Updated 7 May 2024

Q1: Does the £1.92M budget relate to ideas submitted and funded through UK only? Do other countries have their own budgets?

A: Yes, this budget is for UK projects only. We are in a very fortunate position that we have been able to identify funding early on for full contracts. At the moment, both in Australia and in the US, they have got to the point of that first milestone fund and are looking at onward steps so there will be news further down the line as to their onward intentions.

Q2: Is the funding new or taken from existing research projects?

A: This is a new fund that has been set up just for the AUKUS challenge.

Q3: Do you have a rough idea of the funding levels you expect for each project? (or conversely how many projects you expect to fund)

A: As the challenge for this competition is so broad, we would expect there to be a range of project costs coming in. We do not have an upper limit for the project cost within the total funding available and we are quite open to the number that we would expect to fund. However, please note that we are keen to fund multiple projects for this competition to make sure that we have a portfolio of projects.

Q4: When you say DASA will fund 100% of the project costs - what does that mean if the costs exceed the competition budget?

A: We are not able to fund projects that exceed the competition budget. If your project is close to 100% of the competition budget, it would need to be outstanding in order to be awarded funding. The intent is to fund a number of projects to maximise the possibilities of returns and to minimise the risks.

Q5: The website refers to £150k being shared between successful suppliers. How much is expected to be allocated to each supplier in order to get to TRL7?

A: This funding part is for the first milestone report only. I would advise costing for this as you would for any other report that you are submitting whilst on contract, so do not think too much about that funding pot for this milestone. Just approach this as you would ordinarily for a report cost.

Linking to the previous answer, it is difficult to anticipate how many projects we are likely to fund, so allocating an appropriate share of that is difficult to define.

Q6: Is the first milestone a go/no go review point or will the full contract have been issued up front?

A: This milestone will be treated in the same way as any other milestone within a DASA contract. It is not a contract break point, but if it is not delivered then delivery (and associated payment) of any further milestones would be paused until the report had been received.

Q7: When is the first milestone report expected to deliver? Is it any time within the year project or is there a specific delivery date?

A: We encourage you to plan that in early on within the project, ideally by the first month if possible. The intent of the report is to help with any course correction that may be needed or help to identify any exploitation routes, so it is really good to get that in early on.

Q8: What is the scope of the first milestone report? Is the first report to cover ideas on the exploitation routes (i.e. to be done prior to any development)?

A: Please refer to section 9 of the competition document. The first bullet point gives a more detailed description of what we would expect to see in the first milestone report, but the intent of this is to give an opportunity for the technical partner to provide feedback that could help direct the project. It is also an opportunity for us to assist in the identification of potential exploitation routes, so if there are any existing ideas on exploitation routes it is really useful to cover that in the report.

Q9: If you have a multi-national partner, how can we include then or do they need to separately in the United States or Australia

A: International collaborators are welcome in this competition as long as there is a UK lead for the project (submitting the proposal) and the project work is carried out in the UK. If you have a collaborative partner in the United States or Australia, make sure you have established who is best placed to be the lead on the proposal and project.

Q10: Will you consider amendments to Intellectual Property terms to protect suppliers existing work already completed on the product prior to this contract starting?

A: We will not amend the IPR terms. The Authority’s rights to use Technical Information under the contract are as defined in Defcon 705, which rights require Technical Information to be treated and used in confidence.

Please refer to section 15 of the competition document.

Q11: Has there been any consideration regarding a Challenge roadmap, to give industry more time to plan i.e. allocate resource?

A: The AUKUS Pillar 2 ambition is to have a programmed series of challenges with industry involved from the outset. Having a defence requirement that is articulated with industry and then a progression of challenges launched. It is in itself a challenge between the three nations to align and cohere the three delivery organisations, all of which have their own other priorities and AUKUS is just one part of what they do. So there is a plan to try to develop more of a road map, but it is very much a work in progress.

Q12: AUKUS is submarine based; do we need to submit proposals that are focused on this?

A: Any domain is welcome as long as it is EW related and is in scope for this challenge. Pillar 1 is the submarine based activities. This challenge falls under Pillar 2 advanced capabilities which is looking across the whole range of capabilities across all domains. If you are not familiar with Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, it is worth familiarising yourself.

Q13: From the competition document, are technology ideas only at TRL 5 or 6 likely to be considered to pull forward to TRL 7?

A: We have stated in the document for projects to start at TRL 4/5/6 and complete at TRL 7.

Q14: Would TRL 7 technologies proven in other areas, however, at lower TRL within EW domain (due to not being applied to it) be in scope?

A: Yes

Q15: What involvement do the Dstl programmes have in the programme?

A: As with most other DASA competitions, Dstl colleagues will be involved in assessment. Dstl assessors will then most likely become technical partners for successful projects. Additionally, some of Dstl’s key technical people are members of the UK EW working group supporting the EW activity as well, so there is involvement throughout the challenge.

Q16: Will the assessors be the regular DASA assessors for this competition?

A: We will have a mix of Dstl and MOD assessors primarily assessing this competition, but we are also hoping to be able to bring in representatives from Australia and the US to assess as well. This will be achieved through an appropriate non-disclosure agreement and the use of a memorandum of understanding, as noted in the competition document.

Q17: How much information sharing is there between DASA, DIU & ASCA in terms of this challenge?

A: We have detailed in the competition document that we are looking to share at the point of assessment to review and assess proposals trilaterally. We also intend to share outputs of successful projects whilst on contract (to include the first milestone report, any other reports received and there is also the ambition to demonstrate trilaterally if there is a suitable opportunity). Any sharing will be with the appropriate memorandum of understanding and where relevant, a non-disclosure agreement.

Q18: Please elaborate on the ‘Evaluation Process’? I.e. triaged by DASA first, then discussed at AUKUS level, or all received (AU, UK and US) evaluated at AUKUS level?

A: We will be following the usual DASA process for assessment with the addition of Australian and US assessors where possible. It will not be a combined assessment of all projects in Australia, UK and US although we will cross-check proposals received once all three competitions have closed. However, linked to the previous answer, we are keen to identify where any projects have application beyond the UK to Australia and US.

We will have a representative from Australia and US sitting in on the Decision conference, but the final funding decision will sit with the Chair of the Decision Conference, who will be in the UK representative.

Q19: Can suppliers put forward multiple entries for different innovation areas, but under the same capability bucket?

A: It is possible for innovators to put in as many proposals as they wish, provided two factors are considered. Firstly, that each proposal has a unique piece of innovation that can be considered by itself and there are no interdependencies between submitted proposals. Secondly, if you are in the lucky situation of having all your projects funded and put under contract, you must have the capacity to fulfil all the contracts.

Q20: When is the contract expected to be awarded?

A:  We are aiming to be ready to award contracts in August 2024 running for a maximum of 12 months.

Q21: Can we partner with academics in this competition?

A: Yes, that is possible. Find the best team to achieve the project and go with that. However, there is no requirement to partner up with academics or to have any other partnership. We want the best team to work wherever that may be.

Q22: Can previous unsuccessful DASA applications be resubmitted to this themed competition?

A: Yes, it is possible, but if they have been unsuccessful we would suggest you consider why they have been unsuccessful. We would suggest talking to your innovation partner to go through the feedback received and work out whether this is going to be a fundamental problem with your proposal or whether this is something that is worth taking forward.

Please remember that the competition document states: ‘We are not interested in an unsolicited resubmission of a previous DASA bid’.

Q23: Does the submitter need to be able to work at Secret?

A: Not necessarily. It is obviously going to make things more complicated. If for example it’s a software based solution, potentially having to do that demo without the company being involved in terms of demo on unclassified data, taking that tool and run it against real world data without the company involved. It would clearly make things a lot more complicated but not impossible.

Q24: Will other MoD projects and programmes have the opportunity to fund ideas submitted if AUKUS doesn’t?

A: As with other DASA competitions, if a proposal is considered “fundable” but does not receive funding in the competition, it is possible for other government departments to pick this up and fund without further assessment for up to a year after the decision conference, provided they are funding aligned to the same challenge that has been stated within the competition document.

Q25: Is a trial of realistic environment TRL 7 innovation required within a 12 month project?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q26: Is there any more information on the platforms that the technologies will be integrated into?

A: The playing field is wide open at this stage. It may be that we are looking to integrate new technologies onto existing platforms and if that is the case then depending on what that application is, that could be any of the domains.

We would be interested in ground based maritime. Some capabilities offered as part of this challenge may not be physically or digitally integrated onto a specific platform. It may be more at the enterprise level. Some of the EM support operations problems may be focused on a planning application that’s going to be integrated onto an existing network or planning system. So I think there is a whole range and there may also be a requirement for new platforms. Consider more broadly than just the UK: how can you potentially marry up technologies?

Q27: What information can you share on demo requirements for projects? Will software-based innovation require hardware partners for demo/integration purposes?

A: This would be on a case by case basis depending on what type of technology we are talking about.

I think some kind of demonstration would be required, but it does not necessarily have to be a set piece demo e.g. it could be a lab based assessment or a demonstration of software, or any of the other ways of demonstrating capability.

Regarding the software, it depends on the type of software and if there is existing MOD hardware that we may be able to demo on 3G effects which may be how we do this initial stage. But if it is a software based solution that does not marry up with existing capabilities, there may be a requirement to find suitable hardware to demo it on. I think in most cases it would be able to find a way of assessing that software, potentially without having to go to that stage as part of this first round.

Q28: What specifically do you mean by the TRL level and demonstrated in an operational environment?

A: TRL is the Technology Readiness Level. It is number that relates how far a technical idea is to being used in the real environment. It’s been developed by NASA. If you look on the website for the DASA website, you’ll find out exactly what each level relates to, but TRL 7 is a demonstration in an operational environment. TRL 6 is a demonstration in a realistic environment.

What each means in practice can vary depending on your idea, technology or concept. Please do take a look at the definitions found here and if you need any further guidance, please contact your innovation partner.

Q29: TRL6 requires demonstration in a relevant environment and 7 in an operational environment - what support can we assume will provided to achieve this?

A: It would depend on which area of defence the successful proposals sit in. A senior responsible officer (SRO) would be nominated in the relevant area.

If the operational environment is about access to real world data for example, then that is a fairly well trodden path and can be facilitated. If the requirement is a physical demonstration then again the SRO would work to find an appropriate environment.

This will be on a case by case basis, but we would expect support and assistance from the SRO to make the demonstration happen.

Q30: Solutions have to be at TRL 4 but for AI/ML what does that actually mean when TRL 7 demo has been said to be showcasing on real world data?

A: The transitions between different TRL levels can happen incredibly quickly when talking about an AI tool or machine learning model. It is very different to traditional platform development or other applications you are trying to make to it. There is an element of subjectivity there until you can test it in the conditions it is applicable for, so for AI and ML the biggest transition points between the CR LS is OK. If you have got a tool that looks like it can do something against, for example, abstract data or lab environment data the transition to TRL 7 may be instant. If you run it across real world data and it performs the same then it essentially instantly becomes TRL7. However, if it then runs into problems as you shift between different types of data or different environments, then that transition might require extra development.

TRL levels are always going to be debatable to some extent and there will be differing perspectives. Make the case for the TRL convincing in your proposal.

Q31: What is the MOD demonstration environment and how much fidelity does it require?

A: If it is a physical platform or that type of capability, then it would be the sort of demonstration environments that suppliers may already have witnessed. So is that bolting this on to innovation type demonstrations or is it a bespoke demonstration? Or is it finding a suitable exercise or other event that you could tag on to? E.g. if it is a software based solution, then I think the demonstration environment would be driven by the type of software solution and what the most realistic environment is that we can provide.

For example, an AI tool that is designed to be operated at the edge is probably unrealistic for an early demo, so we will look to do that in a more closed environment. However wherever possible we would look to use real world data and provide the environment for that to happen so we get a true assessment of how that that capability might perform.

On data and data release, it would be specific to the technology being offered and where that best sits in defence, but that is the way we have approached that within Air. We would probably not release data if it is a high classification, but we might provide access to data and then do that in a GFX environment, this would allow us to control the data. What is produced on that data becomes foreground IP for the Ministry of Defence,  so that we can manage how the data is being used or interpreted, but everything that goes into it from the supplier is their intellectual property.

We can pair up new software solutions with real world data to get the best assessment that we possibly can, but this would depend on what is on offer and if that kind of environment exist.

Q32: Does the demo have to be performed at a DSTL site or it can be done at the company’s own facility?

A: It would not necessarily be a Dstl site. We are keen to explore any trilateral opportunities for demonstration. We would recommend when you are costing for the demonstration to consider overseas travel in that cost. The demonstration will very much be determined by what technology is received and any suitable opportunities that we can identify to demonstrate appropriately.

Q33: What does the technology insertion roadmap look like after completion of the competition?

A: This will very much depend on the projects funded in the competition. There are a whole range of outcomes here; it could be a bespoke capability for AUKUS that is either developed by a single nation or co-developed or matrix-managed and needs different nations contribute to different aspects. It could be coming up with a new process or modifying a process and using software to enable that might have much broader applicability for AUKUS. Likewise with platforms, it could be either inserting something into a capability then to development, or modifying existing capability, and that might have an outlet within the UK for general operations but then also have an AUKUS application as well. There are quite a lot of potential road maps that could fall out of this; it will very much depend on what we end up funding.

Q34: Exploitability: when will the authority be able to provide proposed exploitation routes and funding? Are there outline proposals for each capability area?

A: By running this competition we are providing you with an exploitation route of actually moving your idea forward to TRL 7 in front of people who are interested in taking it onward. However, we do normally ask you to produce an exploitation route where you are showing how you get it from TRL 7 to potentially a finished product. We are not necessarily asking you to commit to that.

Innovation partners will be more than happy to discuss some broad generic areas about how you can move things forward. We would expect you as part of your exploitation route to identify where you expect funding to come from and if you’ve got a credible exploitation pathway that is probably all we would expect you to have at the moment.

Q35: Will exploitation routes be affirmed during (or before) the project start, in order to avoid the “valley of death”?

A: The exploitation route is something that needs to be part a part of the proposal. You should prove that you have a credible way forward in that respect.

There are going to be risks associated with this and you have to state the risks. So for example, another widget manufacturer might not assist you going forwards, but we would expect you to have a credible route of how to move yourself forward before the project start.

Q36: For AI or ML, there is no need, but for an end to end capability, how would you envisage the demonstration to look other than performance on real world data?

A: For an early assessment that would be the focus, so we would be keen to apply whatever type of tool or model it is to our data so that we can get an understanding of performance.

For clarity on the end to end capability statement, it does not mean that we would not want to see an end to end capability, rather that we may only wish to pursue a tool rather than the full package. If for demonstration purposes it was easier for you to run your tool with your platform and your assurance module we could potentially do that, but we may only be interested in the tool rather than the whole system. We might not want to take an entire system forwards.

If you have only got a tool and not everything else that you would need to demonstrate, we can look at GFX or potentially link with others to make that happen. Likewise, it might be easier to demonstrate your full capability on our data. We would evaluate on a case by case basis depending on the technology and application of the selected projects.

Q37: “Not looking for full end to end capability” does this apply to all 5 areas of competition?

A: If you are only solving parts of the puzzle, then we would still encourage you to submit a proposal. If you do have something that solves find or something that does cross F2T2 EA then we will certainly be interested in those proposals too.

There is maximum flexibility with whether you are solving a small part of the puzzle or the whole puzzle. All domains are valid and sit within the remit of this innovation challenge.

Q38: Would there be any Electronic Warfare Modelling and Simulation tools available as GFX?

A: If the particular technology that was being put forward has been run through an existing modelling and simulation tool that was already available, then yes, I think that would be considered as GFX for that particular proposal. It would be very much tied to what was being offered i.e. it would either help develop the capability or help MOD understands the maturity of the technology.

Q39: Will real world data be provided as GFX?

A: Yes, although it would depend on the particular kind of application or the type of data required. If the data exists and we have got sufficient quantity and quality and it is releasable, at a suitable classification, then I think the answer is yes. But if it is a very specific kind of application that requires very specific data that we either cannot release or declare or we have insufficient quantities then that would maybe make it a bit more complicated, but not necessarily impossible. For example, if it is data that we do not routinely hold, but we know it is accessible, then we will just have to factor that into the timelines to make sure that we collected enough data that was the right type to then be exploited by the technology. Overall where it is available or feasible then then the answer would be yes.

Q40: Would access to Defence Digital DDAP environment be provided for ML modules development and test purposes?

A: Potentially. It would depend on what type of machine and a model we are talking about. If it is something that is going to have applicability across UK defence, then that is naturally going to be potentially more of a StratCom led programme rather than going out to one of the individual services and therefore that might lend itself to Defence Digital involvement in terms of what environment would be provided for.

For development and test, again, that would very much depend on what type of capability was proposed. The most applicable or appropriate SRO within the UK will take it forward for this initial stage along with whatever they need to be able to provide GFX to ensure a successful project.

Q41: For EW and Autonomy, would a platform enhancement project specific to EW payloads be in scope?

A: Yes, if you have something that you think can enhance something that already exists, we would be very interested in seeing that proposal. It does not have to be a whole new system. Enhancing something that already exists would definitely fall in scope and under this challenge.

Q42: What is spectral range of the EMS in competition context? Are autonomous, AI sensors in EO / NIR of interest or are sensors to cover full EMS RF, Radar etc.

A: We would be interested in any of these. You do not have to have capability that covers the entire EMS. And if your capabilities are focused in a particular part of the MSI, it does not matter what that is if you think there is an application.

There is probably a natural focus on RF, but I think we would be willing to consider everything that is related to EMS. If it is related to EMS it ultimately falls within scope of the challenge statement and certainly at this first stage we wouldn’t want to constrain the submissions if you think there is an application of your technology.

Q43: Would test and evaluation of AltPNT be in scope of as a component of EW test and evaluation?

A: I think it would. It certainly falls under UK MOD’s definition of cyber and EMA and it is definitely an enabler to be able to do F2T2 EA.

Q44: Would multi-vendor integration and interoperability work for existing in-service UK capabilities be in scope for this project?

A: Potentially. There’s no definitive definition of what an AUKUS capability is. I think the key bit is it is an innovation challenge, so it would have to be something new. So either a new application of an existing capability or something new that could be added to that, that fits within the remit of the innovation challenge.

Q45: Would non EMS sensors be in scope if they support decision making in the EMS? It reads out of scope but limits novel solutions?

A: Yes, if there is or could be a novel application, of other solutions, then that would make it in scope, but it would be innovative and might and might drive down the TRL of what’s being offered.

Q46: Could an enemy impersonate an operator and in effect gain control of an EW system? Is more secure operator authentication useful?

A: Yes, that’s not an unrealistic scenario and could fall into scope of this challenge in terms secured access to the EMS. If there is if there’s a way of improving that then yes, we would see that potentially applying to this challenge statement.

Q47: Would you have interest in supporting an online innovation ecosystem platform that can help to identify solutions for your challenges?

A: Any system for assisting us in innovation selection is definitely out of scope of this. It is something that we would not be interested in the moment because there is a lot of debate about how this could risk IPR.

Q48: What is the abbreviation FT TTA referred to during the Q&A?

A: It is find fix, track target, engage, assess which is often abbreviated to F2T2 EA. It is sometimes just referred to as “find, fix, finish” to simplify, but that’s in that’s all broken out within the within the competition document (see section 2.2)

Q49: Are there connections between this DASA call and current UK Land domain EW competitions?

A: There are not any direct connections but we do keep an awareness of other competitions that are running concurrently.