DON26BX03-NP002 TITLE: NAVAIR & NAVSEA Open Topic for Counter Unmanned Air Systems (C-UAS)
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy
PROJECTED CMMC LEVEL REQUIREMENT: Level 2 (Self)
The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.
OBJECTIVE: The DON is seeking proposals for enhancing existing prototypes or concepts to improve C-UAS operations and demonstrate a novel, highly effective, and scalable capability to counter the rapidly proliferating threat of hostile UAS. Adversaries are increasingly leveraging low-cost, autonomous, and often numerous UAS to gain an asymmetric advantage, conduct surveillance, and execute kinetic attacks, posing a significant risk to U.S. and allied forces, critical infrastructure, and mission success. This SBIR Open Topic seeks innovative solutions that can detect, track, identify, and neutralize single and multiple UAS threats in complex operational environments, ultimately providing the warfighter with a decisive overmatch capability to ensure freedom of maneuver and protection of assets.
DESCRIPTION: Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) present a complex, multi-dimensional challenge that affects everything from individual ship protection to broad strategic operations in the U.S. Navy. The proliferation of cheap, easily accessible, and increasingly sophisticated unmanned systems by both state adversaries and non-state actors has created an urgent and evolving threat landscape. The nature of the UAS threat for Naval installations, Naval aircraft, and Naval ships is diverse and rapidly changing, creating a significant challenge for Naval defenses. C-UAS is enabled by secure communication and information technology and includes technologies to Detect, Track, Identify, Assess, and Neutralize single and swarms of UAS from Air, Sea, or Ground leveraging Manned or Unmanned platforms. Primary technology areas of interest are listed below; however, solutions outside these areas will be considered. Please indicate the technology area of interest within the Technical Abstract section of the online proposal Cover Sheet Volume, Volume 1.
• AI-Powered Target Recognition for C-UAS: Develop and train machine learning object detection algorithms for the real-time classification and identification of UAS threats from various sensor inputs, including imagery and RF signatures.
• AI/ML-Enhanced Swarm Detection, Tracking, and Anomalies: Develop an AI/ML-enhanced monitoring framework that integrates advanced object detection with behavioral analysis to detect, track, and predict the collective intent of diverse drone swarms in real time. The framework should evaluate potential risks by establishing behavioral baselines and assessing factors such as flight paths, payloads, and proximity to sensitive areas. By identifying real-time anomalies, such as deviations in trajectory or formation, the framework will serve as a primary trigger for risk escalation and the deployment of protective measures, providing a sophisticated solution for managing the complexities of coordinated swarm behavior.
• Non-Kinetic / Low Kinetic Defeat System for Small UAS: Develop a lightweight system with a focus on minimizing size, weight, and power requirements for integration on Naval platforms for the non-kinetic/low kinetic defeat of Group 1 and 2 UAS at tactically relevant ranges. [Note: "low kinetic" is defined here as “no or very low collateral damage from the effector (you get a pass on the 50 lb drone falling out of the sky) for defense of a land-based facility with populated areas nearby. If the effector misses the target and goes into a neighborhood, is it going to injure someone or cause damage. A solid rocket motor propelled interceptor could be ok if it is similar to a model rocket that people use in neighborhoods. If the interceptor is more substantial than that, it may not fit this sub-area, but this is dependent on the use case. If an interceptor is limited to use from a Navy ship at sea, collateral damage is not a concern and in that case, low kinetic would refer to low SWAP and minimal ship modifications required to support the interceptor."]
• AI/ML for Countering Advanced Signature Management: Develop an AI/ML framework to specifically detect threats employing programmable signature management. This framework will overcome the "target novelty" problem by continuously adapting to previously unseen signature patterns during a mission. The core requirement is for the system to increase its detection accuracy against these evolving threats, providing a decisive countermeasure to adversaries attempting to visually cloak their assets to evade traditional sensors.
PHASE I: The DON is planning to issue multiple Phase I awards for this topic but reserves the right to issue no awards. Each Phase I proposal must include a Base and Option period of performance. The Phase I Base must have a period of performance of six (6) months at a cost not to exceed $200,000. The Phase I Option, if exercised, must have a period of performance of six (6) months at a cost not to exceed $115,000.
Phase I feasibility will describe the existing proposed technology, existing DON system(s) to improve, modifications required, anticipated improvements to existing capabilities, and impacts to current C-UAS recognition, detection, tracking, low-cost non kinetic defeat of Group 2 and below UAS. Results of Phase I will be detailed in a final technical report (Final Report).
Phase I Base deliverables include:
Kick-Off Briefing
Progress Report
Final Report
Initial Phase II Proposal
PHASE II: All Phase I awardees may submit an Initial Phase II proposal for evaluation and selection. The evaluation criteria for Phase II are the same as Phase I (as stated in this CSO). The Phase I Final Report and Initial Phase II Proposal will be used to evaluate the small business concern’s potential to develop new products or adapt commercial products to fill a capability gap, improve performance, or modernize an existing capability for DON, and transition the technology to Phase III. Details on the due date, content, and submission requirements of the Initial Phase II Proposal will be provided by the awarding SYSCOM either in the Phase I contract or by subsequent notification.
The scope of the Phase II effort will be specific to each project but is generally expected to harden, ruggedize, and/or marinize the technology for integration into an operational environment. The outcome is to be a demonstration of a working prototype that can be tested and/or certified. The final report should include a fielding approach (including updated logistics and safety considerations) and a plan for further commercialization (non-DoW).
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: C-UAS technologies possess significant dual-use potential for commercial and civil sectors. The same core capabilities for detecting, tracking, identifying, and mitigating drone threats can be adapted to safeguard critical infrastructure such as airports, power grids, and data centers from unauthorized drone incursions. Furthermore, these systems can provide security for large public gatherings at stadiums and arenas, prevent the use of drones for smuggling contraband into correctional facilities, and protect sensitive industrial sites from corporate espionage.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: counter-UXS or C-UXS, counter-UAS or C-UAS; counter-drone; Anti-Drone; Drone Defense; Drone Security; UAS Mitigation & Neutralization; Air Domain Awareness; AI Powered C2 for C-UAS; AI Sensor Fusion; AI/ML Enhanced Detection & Tracking; Swarm Tracking
| 7/8/26 | Q. | For this effort, is a Phase I proposal required? Or, can a small business skip the Phase I proposal and submit a Phase II proposal if we already have a more mature product and a final report deliverable from a previous D2P2 SIBR program for evaluation with our Phase II proposal? |
| A. | A this time, this topic is only a Phase I effort. | |
| 7/8/26 | Q. | In the C-UAS Open Topic - Industry Day QAndA Responses.pdf file from Industry Day, the questions and answers are not complete in some areas of the table. Can you please re-release the file with the full answers and questions shown? |
| A. | You can find the full list here: https://www.navysbir.com/webinars/n26_ot/navair-opten_topic-6-16-26-qa-responses.pdf | |
| 7/7/26 | Q. | For Phase I evaluation, would a documented test plan combining public datasets, controlled non-Navy field data, and synthetic augmentation for rare cases such as swarm behavior, clutter, and visually altered/unknown UAS be considered an acceptable feasibility approach, provided that source provenance, limitations, and validation methods are clearly documented? |
| A. | The Government cannot pre-evaluate or approve your technical approaches or test plans before the formal evaluation phase. Under the DoW SBIR 2026 CSO Phase I criteria, you have the flexibility to propose any technical approach, including using public, non-DoW, or synthetic data. However, it is entirely on you to clearly document and justify how your methodology establishes technical feasibility, addresses C-UAS operational challenges like swarm behavior and clutter, and mitigates data validation risks. | |
| 7/7/26 | Q. | On the Navy SBIR website: https://www.navysbir.com/ot3-02.htm – Supporting Documents indicates a form is required as part of PI submissions (" Content Requirements for Supporting Documentation - To accompany Phase I or II proposals")
Given that this is filled out inside the DSIP portal is the additional form also required for submission? |
| A. | Content Requirements for Supporting Documentation is not required. DON provides this as an option if a proposer would like to include the items for Volume 5 in one single upload instead of the separate uploads offered in DSIP. | |
| 7/6/26 | Q. | Q1: Is TPOC endorsement the standard mechanism for a Phase I performer to obtain sponsor approval for a DSIAC/SENSIAC ATR data-access request under this topic, and is that database access typically available to Phase I performers?
Q2: On expected format - is a validated software algorithm demonstrated on COTS thermal camera hardware considered responsive for Phase I, or does the solicitation expect a hardware-integrated payload prototype at Phase I conclusion? Q3: Does NAVAIR have published or anticipated quantitative performance thresholds (e.g., probability of detection, false alarm rate, track-hold duration under RF link loss) that would be used to assess Phase I to Phase II transition readiness for ATR proposals under this topic? |
| A. | 1. We will not be providing approval to access DSIAC datasets under the Phase I.
2. The Phase I is intended to demonstrate feasibility; the Phase II should deliver a prototype. So, yes, a validated software algorithm demonstrated on a COTS thermal camera hardware would be considered responsive for Phase I. 3. We will not be providing any GFI for the Phase I. |
|
| 7/2/26 | Q. | Are active EO sensors (e.g., LiDAR) responsive for Detect/Track/Identify, same as the passive sensor approaches confirmed in prior Q&As? |
| A. | Proposals for active and/or passive sensors will be considered responsive. | |
| 7/1/26 | Q. | The topic description lists $75,000 for a 4 month Base and $100,000 for the 6 month option, yet the DSIP submission site lists $200,000 for a 6 month base and $115,000 for a 6 month option. Which time and cost figures are correct? |
| A. | Phase I Base cost is NTE $200,000 and the Phase I Option Cost is NTE $115,000 | |
| 6/30/26 | Q. | Regarding TA1: AI-Powered Target Recognition for C-UAS: Develop and train machine learning object detection algorithms for the real-time classification and identification of UAS threats from various sensor inputs, including imagery and RF signatures -- will an AI/ML algorithm that focuses only on improving the ability of acoustic sensor platforms to identify and classify UAS be considered responsive, or is the AI/ML capability referring to fusing multiple sensor modalities (e.g., two or more of imagery, RF, acoustic, etc.)? |
| A. | A proposal that addresses a single modality, acoustic or otherwise, will be considered responsive. | |
| 6/29/26 | Q. | For Subtopic 1, what level of target identification is the Government seeking? Does "identify" mean distinguishing UAS from birds and other clutter, classifying the type of UAS, or something else entirely? |
| A. | Target Identification is distinguishing UAS from birds / other clutter and classifying UAS. We need to accomplish both in order to successfully understand if there is a threat and, if there is a threat, understand what type of system it may be, so we can jam, take control of, or terminate it based on risk / threat level. | |
| 6/29/26 | Q. | The Industry Day briefing states the Government is seeking both mature and developmental solutions. For developmental technologies, how much technical maturation is expected during Phase I, or should the technology already be at the point where Phase I focuses primarily on integration and demonstration? |
| A. | We are not specifying a required TRL at the end of Phase I and all technology proposals will be considered, regardless of maturity. Typically, a Phase I is expected to demonstrate feasibility, with a prototype developed by the end of Phase II. However, the ability to field solutions quickly is an important consideration. | |
| 6/29/26 | Q. | Does this solicitation pertain to infrastructure hardening? I.e. the utilization of lightweight materials with tremendous blast and ballistic resistance to provide a means to counter Group 1 and 2 drones in the case that EW and kinetic options fail. |
| A. | Infrastructure hardening is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 6/29/26 | Q. | Are unique infrastructure hardening options utilizing lightweight materials with tremendous blast and ballistic capabilities applicable to this solicitation? |
| A. | Infrastructure hardening is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 6/26/26 | Q. | 1. Are you looking for advancement based on conventional AI approaches applied to physics-based knowledge of the problem in various sensor modalities, or a novel AI approach that applies to any modality.
2. Do you prefer proposals that focus on a well-defined specific application first and perfecting the AI around that CONOPS before broadening to a more universal solution, or a proposal that starts with a universal solution? 3. Regarding the AI/ML-enhance swarm detection, tracking and anomalies technology area of interest, will the government provide the swarm behaviors and raw data sets that they’re interested in? |
| A. | 1. We do not want to limit the technical innovation, so either approach is acceptable.
2. See answer to #1. However, it may make sense in the Phase I to focus on a specific application to demonstrate feasibility. 3. We will not be providing any GFI under the Phase I. |
|
| A. | A virtual Industry Day for this Open Topic was held on June 16, 2026. Information on the Industry Day, to include a recording of the event, copy of presented material, and listing of questions and answers, can be found on www.navysbir.com/ot3-02.htm. | |
| 6/25/26 | Q. | We have an MMC Level 2 Self and plan to collaborate with professors in a local university on this topic. Is the university also required an CMMC Level 2 Self for a subaward? |
| A. | Yes, if the university will handle material related to the award then they will also have to meet CMMC requirements. | |
| 6/22/26 | Q. | The topic emphasizes passive DTI capabilities during Phase I while preserving interoperability with future defeat systems. For feasibility demonstrations where live kinetic or non-kinetic effectors are unavailable, does the Government have a preferred approach for representing engagement outcomes and kill assessment data? Would a confidence-weighted kill assessment framework utilizing multi-sensor fusion, behavioral analytics, and mission impact assessment be considered an acceptable surrogate for evaluating future engagement effectiveness and operator decision support capabilities? |
| A. | We do not have a preferred approach for representing engagement outcomes and kill assessment data. A kill assessment framework of the type you describe would be a useful addition to a proposal addressing one or more of the subtopics. However, it would not be considered responsive if it was proposed in isolation. | |
| 6/22/26 | Q. | For Phase I feasibility demonstrations, does the Government have a preferred approach for representing engagement outcomes and kill assessment data when live kinetic or non-kinetic effectors are not available? Specifically, would a confidence-weighted kill assessment framework utilizing sensor fusion, behavioral analytics, and mission impact scoring be considered an acceptable surrogate for evaluating future engagement effectiveness and operator decision support capabilities? |
| A. | We do not have a preferred approach for representing engagement outcomes and kill assessment data. A kill assessment framework of the type you describe would be a useful addition to a proposal addressing one or more of the subtopics. However, it would not be considered responsive if it was proposed in isolation. | |
| 6/20/26 | Q. | Regarding Open Standards for Low-Latency Fire Control Outputs You have stated that interoperability is important and that DTI-only proposals are responsive[cite: 3]. If a proposal focuses strictly on a standalone DTI passive sensor subsystem, are there preferred low-latency open standards or data formatting schemas (e.g., Cursor-on-Target, UCI, OpenAPI) that the sensor outputs should map to during Phase I feasibility testing to best prepare the solution for integration with third-party defeat effectors in future Phase II programs? |
| A. | We are not recommending any interoperability requirements or standards in the Phase I. | |
| 6/20/26 | Q. | Regarding Operational Resilience in Disconnected (DIL) and contested Environments Current Q&A highlights the value of passive systems (acoustic, EO/IR) for detection, track, and identify (DTI) functions[cite: 3]. How critical is it that these sensing nodes maintain a complete System Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) and automated track-control functionality locally when completely disconnected from the centralized C2 network, such as during periods of severe communication degradation or localized GPS spoofing/denial? |
| A. | Contested environments are anticipated so maintaining local awareness of the operational picture when no comms are available would be an advantage. | |
| 6/20/26 | Q. | Regarding Edge-Native Compute vs. System-Level Interoperability The government response (06/16/2026) indicates a preference for interoperability in later phases but accepts standalone systems in Phase I[cite: 3]. Given the emphasis on low-SWaP architectures, is there a preference for solutions that execute all algorithmic processing (detection, multi-object tracking, and automated target classification) completely "at the edge" on the sensor node itself, thereby reducing bandwidth load on local naval transport channels when integrating with broader Navy C2 systems later? |
| A. | Drone-edge processing would be advantageous in many situations and is encouraged. | |
| 6/20/26 | Q. | Regarding Passive EO/IR and "Material Signature" Discrimination The topic description and existing Q&A (06/14/2026) mention openness to proposer-specified EO/IR hardware[cite: 3]. To what extent is the DON interested in advanced EO/IR techniques that move beyond visual/thermal intensity analysis to execute target discrimination and clutter rejection based on advanced mathematical properties of light, such as material-specific polarization signatures? |
| A. | We are absolutely open to advanced EO/IR techniques such as those you mention. | |
| 6/18/26 | Q. | Is a kinetic interceptor approach to the defeat of Group 1 and Group 2 UAS responsive to this topic, or is the defeat mechanism of interest strictly limited to non-kinetic and low-kinetic effects? |
| A. | The topic seeks non-kinetic and low-kinetic defeat solutions. The definition of low kinetic we have been providing is “no or very low collateral damage from the effector (you get a pass on the 50 lb drone falling out of the sky). If the effector misses the target and goes into a neighborhood, is it going to injure someone or cause damage. A solid rocket motor propelled interceptor could be ok if it similar to a model rocket that people use in neighborhoods. If the interceptor is more substantial than that, it may not fit this sub-area, but could fit other needs.” However, we are considering broadening the definition. If we do, we will post the expanded definition, so please check back. | |
| 6/22/26 | Q. | Are the Topic Webinar and Q&As available? |
| A. | The topic webinar and associated Q&As are available at navysbir.com/ot3-02.htm | |
| 6/16/26 | Q. |
|
| A. |
|
|
| 6/14/26 | Q. | Does the DON have existing EO/IR camera hardware deployed at naval installations that proposals should plan to integrate with as the sensor front-end, or are proposals free to specify their own hardware platforms as part of the demonstrated architecture? |
| A. | While interoperability is important, we are not specifying any particular systems with which the proposed solutions must integrate. Proposers are free to specify their own hardware platforms. | |
| 6/12/26 | Q. | The topic lists a projected CMMC requirement of "Level 2 (Self)." Can you clarify whether this certification must be in place at the time of proposal submission or only before contract award? |
| A. | As stated in the DON Proposal Submission instructions, CMMC Level requirements are identified within each topic and must be met prior to award. | |
| 6/4/26 | Q. | 1. What does lightweight mean in terms of SWAP?
2. What range would the Navy consider tactically relevant? 3. Are there any specific platforms - or platform families - that should be targeted for this effort? |
| A. | 1. We are not providing specific SWAP requirements, as they will be platform-dependent.
2. The range requirement will depend on the mission/platform/application but an approximate guide is greater than one mile, and the longer the better. 3. Platforms may include air-, sea-, or land-based. |
|
| 6/3//26 | Q. | Q1 - Does this topic permit a Direct-to-Phase-II proposal based on prior Phase I-equivalent work, or is the Phase I Base/Option the only entry point? If Direct-to-Phase-II is allowed, what documentation of prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility is required?
Q2 - Will a proposal covering only the detect, track, and identify functions (a sensor/classification subsystem), with a system-integration narrative for the neutralize/defeat function performed by separate effectors, be considered responsive, or must a proposal address the full detect-to-defeat chain? Q3 -Must CMMC Level 2 (Self) be complete at the time of proposal submission, or is it required only prior to award? |
| A. | A1: No, this topic is open to Phase I proposals only.
A2: A proposal covering only the detect, track, and identify functions will be considered responsive. A3: CMMC Level 2 Self is required at time of award. |
|
| 6/3/26 | Q. | For DON26BX03-NP002, the description lists several primary technology areas of interest and also states that solutions outside these areas will be considered.
Would a passive acoustic sensing approach be considered responsive if it is focused on improving the Detect / Track / Identify / Assess portion of C-UAS operations for Group 1 and Group 2 UAS, rather than providing a defeat or neutralization mechanism? More specifically, would the topic consider a low-SWaP passive acoustic sensor or sensor-fusion approach that provides earlier warning, directional cueing, and compact sensor evidence from mobile or platform-mounted sensing nodes for use with broader Navy C-UAS systems? |
| A. | A passive acoustic sensor approach that focuses on Detect / Track / Identify / Assess would be considered responsive. The solution does not need to address multiple sub-topics. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 3 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoW Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoW issued its Navy FY-26 Release 3 SBIR Topics pre-release on June 3, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on June 24, 2026, and closes July 22, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (June 3, through June 23, 2026) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. The TPOC contact information is listed in each topic description. Once DoW begins accepting proposals on June 24, 2026 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period. DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until July 8, 2026, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoW On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing.
DoW Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoW Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoW Components participating in this BAA.
|