Notice

Protecting Physical Assets from UAS Attacks: Webinar Clarifications

Updated 31 May 2024

1. Scope

For questions about the scope of your proposal we recommend that you contact your Innovation Partner to discuss. They will be able to go into more detail about your specific technology. You may be asked to submit a very brief summary of your innovation for the Competition Team to review and provide feedback

Q) Would drone detection be in scope?

A) By itself this would fall out of scope as it does not protect an asset by developing a physical countermeasure. We accept that detection may be part of a system.

Q) Would Uncrewed Ground Vehicles designed for operation on the front line that inherently resist anti -tank missile and direct fire threats be of interest.

A) Protecting Uncrewed Ground vehicles would be in scope. Simple up-armouring of vehicles is not in scope, but a reactive physical protective system would be.

Q) What about new technologies which could disrupt the flight of the drone, which have not yet been seen elsewhere? Would that be out of scope?

A) This would depend on precisely what the solution is. It is the balance between “what is protecting the asset” (in scope) and “what is going after the drone?” (out of scope).  Speaking to your innovation Partner would be the best first point of contact.

Q) Are software innovations in scope or does it have to be a hardware solution?

A)  Simply, it has to be hardware based. But it doesn’t mean that software shouldn’t be developed to work alongside the hardware solution. A software solution on its own would fall out of scope as offering no protection. However, we are keen to avoid overlooking things that are particularly unique. In the first instance you should reach out to your Innovation Partner and have an initial conversation to discuss ideas. You could also e-mail a very brief outline of what you have in mind via your Innovation Partner to competition team for a more considered view.

Q Are you interested in looking at protective structures on naval ships or just land?

A) An asset on the move would apply to ships, not just military Royal Navy type ships. So, if you’ve got something we would like to see it.

Q) Can you be specific or more specific about the assets you’re looking to protect on the land domain?

A) I think really it’s to describe what assets you think your solution can protect. We don’t want to offer solutions or limit the scope. All kinds of things are in scope really from to the individual people, small vehicles and large buildings.

Q) Will you accept a solution that requires a sensor, or only dumb solutions?

A) It doesn’t need to be fed by other sensors to be able to deploy. Your proposal should describe whether it needs sensor capability or not. If it offers the protection needed then it is not an issue. Other sensors giving information to a person who then manually deploys is also within scope, but if you can build a sensor in, so that deployment is automatic, that is also of interest.

Q Are you interested in countering autonomous drones? For example, AI counter measures?

A) Drones can be flown in multiple different ways. If your solution protects the asset it will be in scope regardless of how the drone is being flown.

2. Technology Readiness Levels

Q) Must proposals already be at TRL4/5 in order to be submitted? To what TRL will the product be developed under the DASA funding?

A) To clarify what we’re seeking is to fund a journey to get to the target technology level mentioned in the competition document. The document says deliver at about TRL4/5

So you don’t have to be at 4/5 to enter the competition.

If you’re starting at TRL 2/3, but you think you can deliver it for five, that is fine.

Q) As this call requires quite high TRL, is it more encouraged for industry instead of academic?

A) We encourage academic participation, even if that means potentially partnering with local industry or whatever it might be to get a proposition together, we certainly wouldn’t discourage academic bids

Q A technical solution development or the deployment?

A) The expectation is not to actually get it a working system at the end of the project. We want to see something you can demonstrate. We are not looking for just an idea that this would work if you had a chance to build it. We want to see something tangible to actually test and demonstrate, basically got something like working concept by the end of it.

Where we mention TRL 9 in other industries this would be at a lower level when applied to a UAS attack situation. For example you might require a quicker deployment than the current product.

We will be looking at the full spectrum of TRLs as part of this competition.

3. Technology

Q Are you looking for structure to be undetectable to radar? (Infra-red RF detection)

A) Our view on covert is not detectable by aerial visual surveillance. Radar detectability or Infra-Red is not a requirement that we’ve stipulated in the Competition Document. If your technology has additional covert or stealth technology describe it and we will take a look. But we would not want to have an obvious radar signature; that would simply attract attention.

Reducing the RF signature of the asset would be considered in scope.

Q Can you describe a protective system which is working well?

A) This is really the first of its kind of innovative challenge in this particular area. We’ve seen physical security deployed where it’s not covert or discrete. We are seeing that all over Ukraine, one of the pictures during my presentation was with the Russian netting deployed across a road where they want to prevent First person View (FPV) drones. So they’ve deployed this netting. But nothing we see is covertly and discreetly deployed and being used as a last ditch defence. Press the button and something appears.

Q) Are there any other features you feel necessary, such as non-toxic, bullet resistance, stealth or acoustic insulation?

A) The specified challenge is to offer protection of an asset from aerial attack. The covert requirement is more aimed at withstanding aerial surveillance, so that basically it can’t be detected from either a drone camera or somebody using binoculars. But, if there are additional benefits that people can put on their proposal and set out for technical requirements then great.

Anything you feel feels adds value to your proposal. Add it in there.

Q What are the key performance indicators you’ll be looking for in evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions?

A) It is around the key constraints that we’ve put on the project, Protection afforded, the covert or discrete nature of the protective security measure and the speed of deployment. Maximising value for money is always of interest but not necessarily a key performance indicator.

Q) What assumptions can be made about layers of defence? For example, is a vehicle armoured?

A) We have made no assumptions because it is such a big end user base.

From a military perspective, you might be able to assume some degree of defence is already in place but from a civilian perspective, we’re talking everything from, really soft targets to crowded places all the way through to, critical national infrastructure sensitive We are really talking a whole spectrum of end user cases. Describe in your proposal what level of protection you can offer and its application and it will be evaluated on that on that basis.

Q) How reusable should the protection be? Single, multi UAV or successive threats?

A) Describe what the limitations or potential of your solution is and if you if it can be used successively. If it offers a good level of protection but is single use that is of interest.

Q) What assumptions are made about real time knowledge of drone threat? Does that information come from the system itself or from already deployed systems?

A) This is really proposal specific, we’re not dictating that it that it has to have any real time knowledge of the drones. It can be integrated as a solution. It can be remotely operated by somebody on the ground or seeing from a control room. We are looking at last line of defence so all other countermeasures have failed. Your proposal you should describe which information you might need or what would be necessary to allow your system to work most effectively.

Q)  If there is a credible threat inbound, what is the likely time window of the active solution would have to be deployed?

A) The key thing for us is it’s going to be so end user specific. We haven’t specified timing necessarily, but because this is a last line of defence, we are not talking about something that people can go out and physically install. We are probably talking seconds, quick rapid deployment.  We would ask as part of your proposal that you specify if it is a reactive solution or is remotely deployed, and what is the expectation of timing for deployment for us to consider as part of the evaluation of proposals

4. DASA Process

Q) Who is the current international partner?

A)  We are reaching out to multiple partners across the civilian and military spaces at this time. We haven’t yet been able to secure that sort of announcement of who those partners are, but we’ve definitely got international partner interest.

Q) Does the technology have to be suitable for all three challenges, or can the focus be on just one?

A) You can cover more than one then it’s got that flexibility. That’s great.

Q) Obviously it’s an urgent problem when ideally would you like to see the first physical protective structures in place?

A) We will be looking to get solutions into service as soon as possible. This is very much a here and now threat, especially more so for our military partners.

As part of your narrative within your proposal, it would be worth explaining your vision for commercialization and scaling et cetera. That is always a good thing to include in your proposal, so that the reviewer has an idea of the potential.

Q Will there be any issue with MODREC approvals required for final testing, assuming the process is started early enough?

A) It depends on the Proposal. We would be surprised if MODREC was required.

But should it be required then what you do need to do is build in the approval timeline into your proposal.

There is some really, really good guidance including a digest of the various Joint service Publications (JSP) on our website which will guide you through. If you follow the flow chart, it will give you a Yes/No at the end. If there’s any doubt chat with your Innovation Partner.

Q If I have a good project which will exceed the maximum cost cap, Can I submit and use Company money to fund the difference?

A) The answer provided in the webinar was that we felt that we could not stop suppliers part funding their proposal. However, the official response is that this is not permitted. The submitted proposal should describe all activities to be undertaken and must fall within the cost cap for the competition. If the submitted proposal feeds into a larger activity to be funded by the supplier after completion this should be explained in the further exploitation plans part of your submission.

Q) What is the limit of liability and can this be reduced for smaller SME’s?

A) The liability limit of £5 million is to protect the MOD by providing a £5m ceiling on project values of up to £1m.

If we set the supplier liability too low, MOD will have to cover any excess costs that may arise. The Treasury does not allow us to take that liability on board so the liability must remain with the supplier due to government regulations. This applies to all organisations – including primes, SMEs, micros and academia

This is the value we must apply to all contracts less than £1M. Total liability clause is £5M.

In reality, DASA proposals are highly unlikely to be of a nature that would breach those limits. However, suppliers should undertake their own risk assessment to assess the likelihood of potential financial risks and take steps to mitigate it.

The £5m limit is set at what is considered the normal amount for most corporate liability policies.

Q) Is it better to apply as a single applicant or as part of a joint collaboration?

A) There is no inherent advantage in submitting a proposal as part of a collaboration or as a single applicant. It depends on the size of the company and what your company’s skills, resources and capabilities are.

If you’re a sole trader and you’re trying to come up with a complex solution, your proposal might be more persuasive it if it was done in partnership with people who have the where with all to do the bits you can’t.

Q) Where do you find out what solutions are already available?

A) We have completed market research on what’s currently around in the counter drone space and we haven’t found anything ourselves, hence the competition.

There are ideas we’ve seen from other industries, but they’ve not been specifically designed for the counter drone industry. You should do some research using your own resources to find out what is available and then compare your technology against that. Explain in your proposal where your proposal offers advantage over existing technology.

Q) If we receive funding does DASA take over the intellectual rights to the system?

A) The contracts will be under DEFCON 705. Details are available through the links on our website.

Basically you keep the intellectual property yourself, but there is inherent right for you to make it available for the MOD and the UK Government to use.

Q) Will these slides be circulated?

A) Yes, the slides are available here.