Notice

Competition Document: “It’s Good for Missiles to Talk” (Phase 2)

Updated 11 January 2024

1. Introduction:

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is run on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) supported by UK missile strategic partners. The aim is to identify and develop novel technologies that could be exploited in the development of a new category of missile – cooperative missiles.

Cooperative missiles can communicate with each other, share situational awareness and organise themselves to ‘work together’ efficiently, during an engagement and within operator-set constraints, to achieve a common objective. The aim of the work is to:

• develop technologies to deliver cooperative missiles.

• demonstrate how the capability could be integrated into future systems.  

The implementation of cooperative missiles will offer UK armed forces’ enhanced capability, providing a significant advantage in comparison to current capability. There are many benefits that can be realised. For example, considering collateral damage during missions or live safety data updates if non-combatants enter the battlefield post-launch. Cooperative missiles can share this vital information to ensure an abort function is carried out live during a mission, under human operator authority.

It is important to note that the operation of UK missile systems will always remain under human control and we are only interested in technologies that could enable cooperation between missiles within this context.

Phase 2 of this DASA competition builds on Phase 1 with more focused challenge areas. Proposals from innovators that seek to expand on their Phase 1 work are welcome, as well as innovators that are new the competition. Successful submissions into phase 2 will identify and increase the maturity of novel technologies to enable exploitation in future cooperative missile programs.

We encourage proposals where the innovation should output over a range of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3-5.

Successful proposals will present credible plans for progressing new, advanced technologies which could underpin a future cooperative missile.

1.1 Cooperative Missile Project

This DASA competition is funded by the MOD. It forms part of the Cooperative Missile Project managed under the MOD’s Science & Technology (S&T) Programme and the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) Complex Weapons Future Capabilities Data Link demonstration programme.

Further information about the Cooperative Missile Project can be found below.

Cooperative Missile Technology Co-operative Strike Weapons Technology Demonstrator.

Throughout this competition the UK missile strategic partners, MBDA and Thales will provide technical support to the MOD competition team. As a result, they are excluded from bidding into the competition.

MBDA and Thales may have access to proposals during the assessment stage of the competition and may provide technical support at the decision conference (DC). They may also provide technical oversight to the MOD through conduction of successful proposals.

Information will be shared in confidence with MBDA and/or Thales (under a non-disclosure agreement), and only for the specific purpose of technical support to this competition, and for no other purpose. This is to help maximise the value and exploitation potential to both MOD and the innovator.

Any correspondence directly relating to this competition between the innovator and either; the MOD competition team, MBDA or Thales should only be done through the DASA helpdesk email at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, or your local Innovation Partner.

2. Competition key information

Submission deadline

Midday on 20 February 2024 GMT.

Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will require an account. Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

Total funding available

The total funding available for “It’s Good for Missiles to Talk” Phase 2 is £1.6 million (ex VAT). This is expected to fund multiple proposals between £100,000 to £300,000 (ex VAT) over a maximum project duration of 12 months.

We encourage proposals at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3-5. Proposals should consider these key aspects:

• high-level design description and design justification of concept/technology established.

• initial interface specification with other missile subsystems established.

• ensure the output will go beyond theoretical principles of the solution and shall demonstrate key components (possibly not in their final form factor) within a lab or battlefield environment relevant to a missile application.  

• technology performance and dependencies based lined against extant solution.

Innovators do not need to have successfully bid into Phase 1 to bid into this phase of the competition.

Further funding may be made available for a third phase to develop higher TRL technologies outside of this DASA competition.

UK missile strategic partner’s role

MBDA and Thales have provided technical support to help frame this competition document. They may also provide technical support to the MOD customer team in the following areas:

• technical assessment of proposals submitted into this competition, as per the DASA assessment process.

• advice to the MOD competition team during the DC.

• technical support to the MOD Technical Partner (TP).

• support to the MOD in identifying any follow on activities.

In addition to this, MBDA and Thales may provide advice to the MOD on any possible exploitation route for technologies within this competition.

3. Supporting events

Dial-in session

Tuesday 12 December 2023 – A dial-in session providing further detail on the problem space from the MOD competition team, with a chance to ask questions in an open forum. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite page.

One-to-one teleconference sessions

Tuesday 19 December 2023 & Tuesday 16 January 2024 – A series of 20 minute one-to-one teleconference sessions, giving you the opportunity to ask specific questions to the MOD competition team. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite pages. Booking is on a first come first served basis.

• 1-2-1 Session Tuesday 19 December 2023 – Eventbrite link

• 1-2-1 Session Tuesday 16 January 2024 – Eventbrite link

4. Competition Scope

4.1 Background: Why are we interested in cooperative missiles?

The development of cooperative missiles for future UK missile systems is a novel and key challenge area that Defence is actively seeking to solve.

Currently, we seek to overmatch the capability of potential adversaries by improving the performance of individual missiles. For example, through use of a more sophisticated seeker or navigation system. With the cooperative approach, performance improvements can be achieved through leveraging networked technologies. This approach has disruptive potential as the sub-systems used may be comparatively less complex but, when they ‘work together’, they are greater than the sum of their parts.

This DASA competition seeks to fund hardware, software and system innovations that could underpin a future cooperative missile system. 

There are details available of the previous competition and proposals we funded.

4.2 Scope: The operating environment

The operating environment for cooperative missiles will be highly complex. Adversaries will be well defended and the threat they pose will push our launch platforms and supporting assets further away from the area of engagement. The target may be partially or fully concealed and is likely to be surrounded by buildings, trees and vegetation which can make identification more challenging.  There will be uncertainty in the scene as well as changing conditions, including metrological variation. Global Navigation Satellite Services (GNSS) will be degraded if not denied. It is this complexity that drives the need for the introduction of cooperation between missile systems.

The complex scenes pictured above depicts an operating environment that may be common to other military capabilities, but its application to missile systems faces unique challenges. These challenges are wide ranging with some of the broader aspects outlined below, these should be viewed as indicative only.

• missile trajectories are typically optimised to balance the needs to:

  • increase stand-off range (the distance between launch point and target)

  • reduce exposure to opposition air defence systems

  • increase probability of target detection and acquisition; and

  • increase the probability of target intercept

• Missile flight durations are relatively short (within a range of 10s to 1000s of seconds) which limits the time to share situational awareness data.

• Missiles can fly faster than aircraft and their high velocity causes frictional heating and significant vibration which can affect sub-system performance.

• Missiles can experience large environmental variations, such as temperature and humidity within their lifetime, including during transport, storage and when in use.

• Missiles must be capable of being used 24 hours a day in all weather conditions.

• Missiles typically, but not always, fly at a low level (10s of meters) - this limits the seeker’s view of the target area and communications between missiles can be degraded by buildings or other objects.

• Missile subsystems are size, weight and power limited.

• Missile to missile communications are typically limited by bandwidth due to size, directionality, power, environment etc.

• Missiles are essentially single use items, hence sub-systems are typically much lower cost (and performance) compared to military aircraft.

5. Competition Challenges

This competition has 5 challenges.

5.1 Challenge 1: Distributed target detection and identification

The seeker is the component of the missile that detects, recognises and identifies the target. It ensures that the missile tracks the target and guides it until impact, and is often the most complex and expensive part of the missile. Performance improvements such as detecting targets at longer range require ever more sophisticated seekers, which drives up costs. Using multiple seekers in a cooperative fashion offers an alternative way to improve performance.

This challenge is looking for novel ways to detect, recognise and identify intended targets using multiple missile sensors distributed over a cooperative group. Static and moving targets should be considered in the operational context of a complex scene, including clutter. For this competition we are interested in visual band, infrared band and radio frequency (RF) band (Active or Passive) seekers, or any other credible sensor installed on a Generation After Next missile. Proposals should consider how they would quantify the benefit of their proposed innovation compared to a single sensor.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• combining sensor data to build a shared image of the target area, with multiple missiles potentially approaching the target from different directions.

• increasing detection and identification range through use of multiple, distributed lower cost sensors.

• Improving the accuracy of target tracking in a complex scene by combining data from multiple sources. By combining sensor data, cooperative missiles could be made more robust against camouflage, concealment and deception.

• approaches to the above with homogenous and/or heterogeneous arrays of sensors including working with non-missile platforms.

5.2 Challenge 2: Data processing on board and between missiles

Many cooperative functions, e.g. sensing or navigation, are likely to be computationally expensive and require inputs from many different systems. This challenge is concerned with the processing of large quantities of data across cooperative missile networks for particular missions.

Ideas that will help solve this challenge area may include:

• Distributed processing in a missile environment. Distributed processing refers to computer systems that use processing spread over different sites, in this cases multiple missiles.

• distributed database systems within a cooperative missile network

• edge processing – this is an alternative and complimentary technique where processing, analysing and storing data is performed at the point of generation to enable rapid, near real-time analysis

• Transmission of data within a limited bandwidth cooperative missile network. Consideration should be given to the need for secure and robust data flows.

• building a shared data picture across all missiles in the group.

5.3 Challenge 3: Enhanced navigation through cooperation

Global Navigation Satellite Services (GNSS) are likely to be unavailable or severely degraded in the operational environment of cooperative missile networks, making navigation more challenging. The distribution of sensors offers a potential solution. For this challenge we are interested in applications of novel alternative navigation (AltNav) technologies and distributed navigation sensors.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• use of multiple low cost sensors across the cooperative missile network to improve group navigation.

• use of multiple GNSS feeds across the cooperative missile network when some are jammed or degraded to improve group navigation.

• geolocation using diverse technologies that are distributed across the cooperative missile network.

• synchronisation of timing information within the cooperative missile network.

• enhanced scene matching over multiple wavelengths (EO, IR, RF) and identification of key signatures.

5.4 Challenge 4: Finding and engaging multiple targets distributed over a wide area

Mobile targets may move significantly during missile flight, and to find these authorised targets without in-flight updates from the launch platform or a third party can be very challenging, primarily due to each missile seekers’ limited field of view. We are interested in techniques that could maximise the combined search area of a group of collaborating missiles in order to improve the likelihood that mobile targets will be acquired. Particular areas of interest include;

• the way the target area is divided up and apportioned to each weapon; reducing the area that each weapon has to search and optimising the time taken to find, fix and track the target to a given accuracy

• guiding the weapons to quickly and efficiently dividing/searching the target area

• simultaneously balancing the following aspects of the cooperative weapons pack, without third party support:

  • coverage of the target area

  • enabling target detection and acquisition

  • ensuring the weapons reach their targets

  • reducing the exposure of the weapons to potential threats

  • reducing the time spent searching the flight area so as to maximise the stand-off range of the weapons

5.5 Challenge 5: Novel Missile Communication Systems

It is common within missile communication systems to use Radio Frequency (RF) data links. However, in the future battlespace this is an area of increasing congestion and contest. There is a need to explore alternative communication media, techniques and technologies for missile-to-missile communications for Generation After Next applications.

The core of this challenge is to investigate novel methods for missile communications, which should also include other forward agents (such as Uncrewed Air Systems (UAS) or platforms providing third-party targeting); primarily focused on physical technologies.

Particular areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• novel technologies or techniques for communications (including non-RF) suitable for missile environments

• technologies which could make missile communications very difficult to detect by an observer

• ideas to enable greater than 50 Mbps over-the-air data rates in a missile environment while maintaining resilience to high Doppler and congested electromagnetic environment

• ideas to enable reliable and high data rate missile communication at very high missile velocities (relative velocities up to Mach 4)

• techniques to infer communication/information from (e.g.) missile behaviour rather than direct transmit/receive of data

5.6 We are interested in…

Novel ideas that ultimately bring benefit to end-users working in UK Defence and Security through potential integration into the Generation After Next of UK missile systems. Your proposal should include evidence of:

• solutions focused on one or more of the challenge areas listed above.

• consideration of how low TRL technology demonstrators might transition to exploitable technologies and contribute to the future of cooperative missiles.

• theoretical development, method of advancement or proof of concept research which demonstrates the potential for translation into practical demonstration in later phases.

• an innovative or a creative approach, with ambition to deliver workable demonstrations of new concepts and/or new technologies.

• clear demonstration of how the proposed work applies to the co-operative missile context.

We are particularly interested in solutions to the 5 challenge areas which utilise:

• application of Artificial Intelligence.

• emerging technologies; for example neuromorphic sensors, photonics integrated circuits, quantum computing and processing can be considered but note the objective for TRL 3-5 output.

5.7 We are not interested in…

• any proposals from MBDA and Thales.

• proposals which are reliant on MBDA & Thales to deliver as part of the costed plan.

• removing human involvement from the operation of missile systems.

• proposals which focus specifically and solely on development of the warhead, payload, propulsion or actuator sub systems within missile systems.

• proposals which focus solely on new missile concepts.

• consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation.

• unsolicited resubmissions of a previous DASA bid.

• demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development (unless applied in a novel way to one of the challenges).

• proposals which offer no real long-term prospect of integration into the Generation After Next of UK missile systems due to e.g. size, use on agile mobile platforms, intolerance to vibration or high acceleration.

• proposals which offer no real prospect of out-competing equivalent technologies.

• proposals that bring background IP with limited rights.

• ideas, concepts or technologies that do not specifically relate to weapon-to-weapon co-operation.

6. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. How long this takes will depend on the nature and starting point of the innovation.

6.1 A clear route for exploitation

For DASA to consider routes for exploitation, ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for the MOD (with support from MBDA and Thales) to identify the innovative elements of your proposal.

Whilst DASA recognises that early identification and engagement with potential end users during the competition and subsequent phases are essential to implementing an exploitation plan, while this competition is open there should be no correspondence, relating to “It’s Good for Missiles to Talk” Phase 2, between innovators, the MOD competition team, MBDA, Thales and DASA other than via the DASA helpdesk email at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, or your local Innovation Partner.

All proposals to DASA should articulate the expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the contract, and how this relates to the challenges within this competition.

6.2 How to outline your exploitation plan

Include the following information to help the assessors understand your exploitation plans to date:

• describe the problem, with reference to the cooperative future missile challenge areas described above, that your innovation is solving;

• expected additional work required beyond the end of the contract to develop the idea further, including detail on the level of maturity you will have achieved at the end of the contract.

• the anticipated benefits (for example, in cost, time, improved capability) that your solution will provide to the Defence Enterprise.

• whether it is likely to be a standalone product or integrated with other technologies or platforms.

• additional future applications and wider markets for commercialisation.

• wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation.

• how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later phases.

• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation.

The suggested structure below may help you build your exploitation plan;

• name the solution concept/technology.

• outline where the solution interfaces and who it benefits

• describe the objective.

• describe how benefits are created and how challenges are resolved.

• compare this approach to the current solution.

6.3 Is your exploitation plan long term?

Long term studies may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should be clear that there is credible advantage to be gained from the technology development.

Include project specific information which will help exploitation. This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We are collaborating with organisations outside of the UK Government and this may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future.

7. How to apply

Submission deadline

Midday on 20 February 2024 GMT

Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will be required to register.
Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

Total funding available

The total funding available for Phase 2 of this competition is £1.6 million (ex VAT).

How many proposals will DASA fund?

This is expected to fund multiple proposals between £100,000 to £300,000 (ex VAT) over a maximum project duration of 12 months.

We encourage proposals where the innovation should output at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3-5. Key aspects that we are looking for include:

• high level design description and design justification of concept/technology established.

• initial interface specification established

• the output shall go beyond theoretical principles of the solution and shall demonstrate key components (possibly not in their final form factor) within a lab or battlefield environment relevant to a missile application.  

• technology performance and dependencies baselined against any extant solutions.

Successful proposals will present credible plans for progressing new, advanced technologies which could underpin a future cooperative missile.

Innovators do not need to have successfully bid into Phase 1 to bid into this phase of the competition.

Further funding may be made available for a third phase to develop higher TRL technologies outside of this DASA competition.

For further guidance

Click here for more information on our competition process and how your proposal is assessed.

Queries should be sent to the DASA Help Centre.

7.1 What your proposal must include

• the proposal should focus on the Phase 2 requirements but must also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required for further exploitation
• when submitting a proposal, you must complete all sections of the online form, including an appropriate level of technical information to allow assessment of the bid and a completed finances section
• completed proposals must comply with the financial rules set for this competition. The upper-limit for this competition is £300,000 (excluding VAT). Proposals will be rejected if the financial cost exceeds this capped level
• you must include a list of other current or recent government funding you may have received in this area if appropriate, making it clear how this proposal differs from this work

• a project plan with clear milestones and deliverables must be provided. Deliverables must be well defined and designed to provide evidence of progress against the project plan and the end-point for this phase; they must include a final report

• working tools or models developed under this work as deliverables 

• you should also plan for attendance at a kick-off meeting at the start of Phase 2, a mid-project event and an end of project event near completion of Phase 2. As well as regular reviews with the appointed MOD Technical Partner (TP) and the MOD Project Manager. All meetings will be in the UK. Meetings may also take place virtually.

• your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities/services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (12 months). Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant

7.2 What your resourcing plan should include

Your resourcing plan must identify, where possible, the nationalities of proposed employees that you intend to work on this phase.

7.3 If your proposal is recommended for funding

In the event of a proposal being recommended for funding, DASA reserves the right to undertake due diligence checks including the clearance of proposed employees. Please note that this process will take as long as necessary and could take up to 8 weeks in some cases for non-UK nationals.

You must identify any ethical / legal / regulatory factors within your proposal and how the associated risks will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received.

MODREC approvals can take up to 5 months therefore you should plan your work programme accordingly. If you are unsure if your proposal will need to apply for MODREC approval, then please refer to the MODREC Guidance for Suppliers or contact your Innovation Partner for further guidance.

Requirements for access to Government Furnished Assets (GFA), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities, may be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available. If you apply for GFA, you should include an alternative plan in case it is not available.

Failure to provide any of the above listed will automatically render your proposal non-compliant.

7.4 Cyber risk assessment

Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ) On receipt of a ‘Fund’ decision, successful suppliers must prove cyber resilience data before the contract is awarded. The start of this process is the submission of a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ allows suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the specified risk level and the corresponding profile in Def Stan 05-138, and the level of control required will depend on this risk level.

To expedite the contracting time of successful suppliers we ask all suppliers to complete the SAQ before they submit their proposal. The SAQ can be completed here using the DASA Risk Assessment RAR-888031329 and answer questions for risk level “Very Low”. In the form, for the contract name please use the competition title and for the contract description please use the title of your proposal.

7.5 Defence Cyber Protection Partnership

The Defence Cyber Protection Partnership (DCPP) will review your SAQ submission and respond with a reference number within 2 working days. The resulting email response from DCPP should be attached (JPG or PNG format) and included within the DASA submission service portal when the proposal is submitted. You will also be asked to enter your SAQ reference number. Please allow enough time to receive the SAQ reference number prior to competition close at midday on 20th February 2024 GMT
If the proposal is being funded, the SAQ will be evaluated against the CRA for the competition, and it will be put it into one of the following categories:

1. compliant – no further action

2. not compliant – if successful in competition and being funded, the innovator will be required to complete a Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP) before the contract is placed, which will need to be reviewed and agreed with the relevant project manager
   Innovators can enter a proposal without all controls in place, but are expected to have all the cyber protection measures necessary to fulfil the requirements of the contract in place at the time of contract award, or have an agreed Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP).
   The CIP provides evidence as to how and when potential innovators will achieve compliance. Provided the measures proposed in the Cyber Implementation Plan do not pose an unacceptable risk to the MOD, a submission with a Cyber Implementation Plan will be considered alongside those who can achieve the controls.A final check will be made to ensure cyber resilience before the contract is placed. Commercial staff cannot progress without it. This process does not replace any contract specific security requirements.

Innovators can enter a proposal without all controls in place, but are expected to have all the cyber protection measures necessary to fulfil the requirements of the contract in place at the time of contract award, or have an agreed Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP).

The CIP provides evidence as to how and when potential innovators will achieve compliance. Provided the measures proposed in the Cyber Implementation Plan do not pose an unacceptable risk to the MOD, a submission with a Cyber Implementation Plan will be considered alongside those who can achieve the controls.

A final check will be made to ensure cyber resilience before the contract is placed. Commercial staff cannot progress without it. This process does not replace any contract specific security requirements.

Additional information about cyber security can be found at: DCPP: Cyber Security Model industry buyer and supplier guide

7.6 Public facing information

When submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a title, short abstract and Proposal Value Proposition Statement (PVPS). The title, abstract and PVPS you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments, to describe your project and its intended outcomes and benefits. They may be included at DASA events in relation to this competition and in documentation such as brochures. The proposal title will be published in the DASA transparency data on GOV.UK, along with your company name, the amount of funding, and the start and end dates of your contract. As this information can be shared, it should not contain information that may compromise Intellectual property.

7.7 How your proposal will be assessed

At Stage 1, all proposals will be checked for compliance with the competition document and may be rejected before full assessment if they do not comply. Only those proposals that demonstrate compliance against the competition scope and DASA mandatory criteria will be taken forward to full assessment.

Mandatory Criteria

The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition	Within scope (Pass)/ Out
The proposal fully explains in all three sections of the DASA submission service how it meets the DASA criteria	Pass / Fail
The proposal indicated which of the Challenge Areas will be its primary focus	Pass / Fail
The proposal clearly details a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan to complete the work proposed in Phase 2	Pass / Fail
The proposal identifies the need (or not) for MODREC approval	Pass / Fail
The proposal identifies any GFA required for Phase 2	Pass / Fail
Maximum value of proposal is £300K	Pass / Fail
The proposal demonstrates how all research and development activities / services (including delivery of the final report) will be completed within 12 months from award of contract (or less)	Pass / Fail
The proposals output will be between TRL 3-5	Pass / Fail
The bidder has obtained the authority to provide unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Contract	Pass / Fail

Proposals that pass Stage 1 will then be assessed against the standard DASA assessment criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl, DE&S and individuals within the front-line military commands) with the support of MBDA and/or Thales. You will not have the opportunity to view or comment on assessors’ recommendations.

DASA reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from innovators during the procurement process, which includes the full proposal, to any third party engaged by DASA for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting DASA in the evaluation of your proposal. In providing such information you consent to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

Further guidance on how your proposal is assessed is available on the DASA website.

After assessment, proposals will be discussed internally at a Decision Conference where, based on the assessments, budget and wider strategic considerations, a decision will be made on the proposals that are recommended for funding.

Innovators are not permitted to attend the Decision Conference.

Proposals that are unsuccessful will receive brief feedback after the Decision Conference.

7.8 Things you should know about DASA contracts: DASA terms and conditions

Please read the DASA terms and conditions which contain important information for innovators. For this competition we will be using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC), links to the contract: TERMS. We will require unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions; if applicable, please ensure your commercial department has provided their acceptance.

More information on DEFCON 705 can be found by registering on the Knowledge in Defence site.

Funded projects will be allocated a MOD Project Manager (to run the project) and a MOD Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). The MOD TP will be supported by MBDA and/ or Thales. In addition, the DASA team will work with you to support delivery and exploitation including, when appropriate, introductions to end-users and business support to help develop their business.

We will use deliverables from DASA contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract terms and conditions.

For this competition, £1.6 million is currently available to fund proposals. Where a proposal meets the fundable requirements for a competition, but is not funded, DASA will continue to seek funding from partners across government and shall consider your proposal fundable for 12 months from the date of the decision release. We will share the abstract, PVPS and title of your proposal with any other UK government departments that may express an interest in funding the proposal through DASA, in accordance with the competition document. If a budget holder within the MOD wishes to read the full proposal to decide if they will fund it, we will share it with them under these circumstances. If it is within 60 days of the original NOT FUNDED decision release date, we will share the full proposal with them without seeking your permission. If it is over 60 days since the original NOT FUNDED decision we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal with them.

For other potential funders, we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal regardless of the number of days since the original NOT FUNDED decision release.

In the event that funding becomes available, DASA may ask whether you would still be prepared to undertake the work outlined in your proposal under the same terms. Your official DASA feedback will indicate if your proposal was deemed fundable, but not awarded funding at the time.

8. Phase 2 key dates

Q&A Launch session	12 December 2023
Pre bookable 1-1 telecom sessions	19 December 2023 & 16 January 2024
Competition closes	Midday on the 20 February 2024
Feedback release	Expected mid May 2024
Contracting	Aim to start June 2024 and end 12 months later in June 2025

9. Help: Contact the DASA Help Centre

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to the DASA Help Centre at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title. If you wish to receive future updates on this competition, please email the DASA Help Centre.

While all reasonable efforts will be made to answer queries, DASA reserves the right to impose management controls if volumes of queries restrict fair access of information to all potential innovators.

10. Launch Webinar Question and Answer session

Q: Can we get view of the MBDA/Thales confidentiality agreement before we submit ideas, as otherwise we will not be able to take part.

A: The Competition Document, and T&C’s, detail how we safeguard your information/IP. The competition document discloses that we may use third parties for the specific purpose of evaluating proposals, and that appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place for this purpose. We do not include an example of a specific confidentially agreement, but be assured we are handling your IP appropriately. It will not be possible to share the actual confidentiality agreements with MBDA/Thales, however the purpose of those agreements is narrowly defined: Information is shared in-confidence solely with named (listed) employees of MBDA/Thales for the limited purposes of (1) assessing Proposals on behalf of DASA, and (2) for providing feedback to DASA/Dstl Technical Partners on the progress or direction of work under Contracts as detailed in any Contractor report or milestone.

Q: Is there any existing missiles simulation software to test our algorithms?

A: No that’s not necessary for this competition. If we wanted to go down that route it would mean raising classification. While it is a good idea to consider this question as an exploration path, it is not necessary to provide it from the start.

Q: Challenge 4, what is the expected size of the area of responsibility to cover a “wide area”?

A: We don’t have a particular area size in mind for Challenge 4, in order to keep it generic across scenarios and missiles. However, we would be interested to see how your approach would change if there was a change in the area size. For example, if you’re looking at a 100sq km vs a 10sq km area, would your approach change? The other aspect to consider is how many missiles you might have.

Q: When you say “No paper studies”, I might do some algo dev, which is only on paper as I am not a hardware company. Please clarify.

A: If you have developed an algorithm, could you demonstrate it? Our interest lies in practical applications, rather than just theoretical studies.

A: Algorithm development, yes we are certainly happy with that sort of thing.

Q: Can we know the current TRL status of projects accepted into Phase 1?

A: We cannot give you any more information on the outcomes of Phase 1, other than the information within our transparency data. Phase 1 was targeting slightly lower TRL ideas, we were interested in TRL 2-3 ending at 4-5. Not every funded project has the expected outcome so there will be a real range of maturities. Remember, Phase 2 is not reliant on being successful in Phase 1. We funded 10 in Phase 1.

Q: Can we have access to the presented slides after today’s meeting please?

A: Yes, and we ask you to pay particular attention to the challenge areas, and the do’s and don’ts. Also, please sign up to GOV.Uk for any competition alerts, if you haven’t already done so.

Q: What’s the minimum TRL you accept for new entrants to the Phase 2 of this challenge?

A: We require the TRL output to be between TRL 3-5.

Further guidance on TRL’s can be found here Technology Readiness Level.

Q: Does the current missiles have black box (recorder) kind of technology to get data for post-crash analysis?

A: Missiles do not have a black box recorder like aircraft do.

A: If it is getting access to flight information, it would be more classified than this activity. If there are questions for the Primes on real world profile, they can help. Government and industry will be able to provide support and advice.

Q: TRL 4+ requires validation to some degree. How do you imagine we can validate cooperative missile systems without flying a cooperative missile system?

A: Correct for the higher TRLs, I think the validation with actual flying demonstrators is in the TRL 5-6 range, but we are also happy with proposals below that. This is how we are interpreting TRL here;

TRL 4 is looking at some kind of bench-top technology demonstration with reasonably representative hardware but not flying around.

TRL 5 is doing some kind of demonstration on a platform which is not necessarily representative, perhaps does not integrate with a missile but you could use a drone which could be less complex but help demonstrate your system in a more realistic environment than in a lab.

Higher than TRL 5 could be too challenging to reach within the time and budget of this activity.

Q: What types of munitions are we targeting for collaboration? Specific missile types available to discuss?

A: We are not targeting any particular type; air defence, maritime is all in scope. Perhaps there might be a particular direction once projects start. But for now, let’s not be too specific, and rather investigate how cooperation can provide benefit in general.

Q: How does ‘not wanting new concepts’ square with Challenge 5; where pre-existing solutions do not exist?

A: We were specifically referring to new missiles concepts rather than different sub systems, we are happy for sub systems to be new and unproven. Our aim is to avoid proposals centered on entirely new missile concepts.

Q: Is the use of simulations acceptable for a demonstration or do you expect some level of real hardware and data?

A: Simulations are acceptable. We are not expecting work on real missile hardware. Data is more interesting, but no need to constrain yourself to demonstration. However, if you can do an outside demonstration and make use of real world data it becomes more interesting.

A: Simulations are definitely a great idea and receive a big thumbs up. However, if you can also showcase hardware demos, that’s even better. If simulations are your only option, that’s still a great way to go.

Q: What is considered the expected range of target detection/identification/strike and more importantly, the expected spread of collaborating missiles/comms?

A: That is what we want to investigate. The range depends on the sensor, typically a few kilometres but this is dependent on the mission. The spread of the missile collaboration will also be explored. For example, is it two missiles collaborating side by side? What benefits do they give you? Or one above another? Understand as a hypothesis that you will be able to do detection and collaboration better and try and quantify those benefits.

Q: How will IP be handled (foreground and background) and the T&Cs around this?

A: In terms of contracting and IP, DEFCON 705 is the condition which governs ownership, and rights of use, of foreground and background IP. Have a look at the competition document to find more information. A link to DEFCON 705 is provided.

Q: Can you give some insight on the IP terms and conditions, foreground and background

A: See answer above.

Q: Is it expected that Thales/MBDA support will be available during the contract to provide guidance during the work or simply as a review process at the end?

A: MBDA and Thales technical support is to be provided for (1) assessing Proposals on behalf of DASA, and (2) for providing feedback to DASA/Dstl Technical Partners on the progress or direction of work under Contracts as detailed in any Contractor report or milestone.

MBDA/Thales shall however not be engaging directly with any party/Contractor as part of the Competition, including discussions concerning Proposals or Contracts, either at the bidding stage, or throughout the period of the Competition/Contract.

Q: Who were the Phase 1 performers who are still part of this activity?

A: You can have a look (at successful applicants) on transparency data as mentioned above. It is up to them to bid in again if they wish too, as long as they are not MBDA and Thales who are specifically excluded from submitting into the competition.

A: Competition is currently open and we do not know who will be submitting proposals. The competition closes 20 February 2023.

Q: There are other Dstl funded projects that are very similar to some of these challenges, are these being read across?

A: There may be overlap with other domains e.g. ISTAR. That is permitted and proposals to this call should focus on the missile specific aspects of the challenge including the operating environment.

Q: Can you give some detail on the deliverables

A: It is up to you as to what you deliver as part of the project. If you get to the application form there is a range of suggested deliverables. You can have a maximum of 6 associated with a milestone payment. All outlined on the application form. Essentially this is your project so it can be flexible as long as you outline what you aim to deliver.

A: We are interested in seeing a demonstration which you can invite us to see. Similarly, a model can be a deliverable too. Please keep in mind that we are looking for more than just a paper report.

Q: Regarding confidentiality agreements, should this not happen prior to submitting novel ideas especially when it comes to communication challenges?

A: If we do share your information with a third party, we will ensure they are under an appropriate confidentiality agreement.

Q: Does this competition go further than missiles talking to missiles, for instance missiles talking to drones, missiles talking to satellites?

A: Yes, this is possible.

Q: What types of comms are allowable for message traffic (RF, laser, behaviour, other) and to which current specific standards do these messages have to conform?

A: In terms of types of comms, to some extent that is what challenge 5 is asking for. For the generation after next we don’t want to be constrained to RF. All examples included in your question would be appropriate solutions.

With regards the standards, we don’t want to constrain systems. We are currently looking at standardisation of missile communication, and not due to finish until mid to late 2024, so we could feed that information into successful tasks as GFX. But please be as unconstrained as you can in finding your solutions, and we will find alignment later on, as current standards might not be appropriate. The standards are being worked up, so don’t be too worried about them.

A: We don’t know what we don’t know. What does that mean in terms of speed, congestion and jamming? Focus on meeting the challenge, not preconceived ideas, or what we are currently doing today. It is all open.

Q: What is the best way to offer underpinning technologies, for example around securing comms links, but don’t actually address the challenges specifically?

A: If you don’t think your idea is applicable to the 5 challenges you can always look at the other funding that DASA offers. Our open call is open to any idea for defence and security for the UK Government. We also have our supply chain strengthening Defence Technology Exploitation Programme (DTEP). You can also approach MBDA and Thales directly but not for an idea on this competition.

If you are interested in DASA funding please contact your local Innovation Partner as we can help navigate you through a number of routes.

Q: How many munitions should we expect to collaborate together?

A: No defined number, as a minimum there needs to be two, but will be interesting to see how that scales. An average plane carries eight missiles, and if there are lots of planes in a formation there could be multiple missiles launched. Could we scale to 100?

A: A maximum hasn’t been defined. We are interested to see how it scales, and looking at it from a networking perspective. Is could be a case of having separate networks with different objectives. No upper limit, probably in the 10s, but really open to suggestions.

Q: Are you interested in machines that are not missiles, which would co-operate with missiles to deliver much better results than from inter-missile co-op only?

A: Possibly, depends in some way on what machines you have in mind in some scenarios we have other assets, like UAV and surveillance platforms which are involved and could provide info into a group of missiles.

A: Yes we are interested in that sort of thing if you can tie to a challenge area that would be the way to go about it. But if you have some ideas very happy to hear it.

Q: Re real data, can you offer us any sample or credible but artificial data with which to work?

A: Hopefully, it depends on the data. But particularly for challenge one, we have real world data for that to help. When you’re writing your proposals, make sure you include a backup if the MOD can’t provide data. And you can ask us for help, i.e. Flight profile data, I’m sure we could help.

Q: Just in case, I repeat, do you welcome OA among potential paper studies or is this kept within Dstl?

A: Not meeting the challenges if you are doing OA

Q: With AI being implemented would it be of interest, to secure the AI during communication protocol always securing the data as well

A: AI as a solution with other new technologies, but this is specific to challenge 5 and security is something we are interested in. And possible how that extrapolates into AI supported systems. Be careful of going down a rabbit hole of how we assure AI (noting that is being looked at elsewhere).

Q: How would human in the loop work at this speed

A: There will always be context appropriate human control.  Human control is being looked at in other research projects. For this challenge focus on the technical solution to the challenges. MOD can advise on how the operator will interact during the project.

11. Supplier 1-2-1 Questions (1/2)

Q: Are there communications protocols or standards the missiles should adhere to?

A: There aren’t any particular standards which we are bound by for these challenges. The reason for this is because we are looking far enough into the future that we don’t want them to be a constraint. If relevant standards need to change to incorporate new technologies then this is something we will look into. There is ongoing work in the MOD with standards for current systems, we wouldn’t expect you to be aware of this but could potentially provide some of this into your project if appropriate.

Q: How will the developed technologies integrate into missiles or defence networks?

A: It depends a lot on the technology solutions. Under Phase 2 we are looking for TRL3-5, which includes seeing a basic representation of what your solution might be, either in hardware or by simulating a mature and tested algorithm. The missile or network integration would happen in future activities, but not in the scope of this competition.

Q: We don’t have any connections to end users and never worked with DASA – is this an issue?

A: That is not important at this stage, the maturity we are expecting to achieve (TRL3-5) will be somewhere between analytical assessment, simulation, proofs of concept and basic validation. We are not worried about innovators who have never working with end users or DASA. One of our strategic aims is to try and connect with people who have never worked with Defence and Security before.

Additionally, the MOD technical partner will be able to support and provide direction on how your outputs could translate to missile applications throughout delivery of the work, with support from MBDA and Thales.

Q: Is it ok to have one application that has multiple challenges covered?

A: Yes, when you are looking at which challenge area your proposals meets, you can choose one or go across multiple challenges – it’s up to you.

Q: We have technology which is already mature and in production for use in another sector but which could be applicable to missile use with some development or re-design. Would that be appropriate for this competition, given the higher technology maturity?

A: We are interested in re-using or adapting existing solutions in a new way. Your technology might be mature in a specific sector, but translating this into the missiles space may need significant rework which would push the TRL down again when used in a new application.

Q: Who can I contact if I have any further questions?

A: Please send any more questions you have to the DASA email and the Innovation Partner for your area will be able to help.