1. Problem Statement

The U.S. Department of War (DoW) has identified unmanned systems as urgent and enduring threats. Legacy sensor suites lack the sensitivity required to detect and track the low radar cross section and flight profiles of modern small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), creating critical vulnerabilities for forces in garrison, in transit, and at distributed sites. Additionally, the cost, size, and sustainment burden of existing sensor systems prevent the scale necessary to protect geographically dispersed units and infrastructure.

Through this Area of Interest, the DoW seeks to leverage mature and emerging commercial sensing technologies to deliver scalable, survivable, and life‑saving counter‑sUAS (C‑sUAS) sensing capabilities to the warfighter.

2. CSO Phase 2 Pitch and Demonstration (Spring 2026 – Yuma Proving Ground, AZ)

Due to the urgency of the threat and the need to assess capability readiness, the Government plans to request selected solutions for Phase 2 of the CSO process to participate in a live demonstration at the company's expense. The demonstration is planned for Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), Arizona. Additional range coordination details, including security protocols for U.S. and non‑U.S. citizens, will be provided upon selection.

Invited companies may have 30 days or less between notification and execution of the demonstration. Due to this requirement, companies must submit a DD Form 1494 (Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation) with their Phase 1 proposal.

3. Desired Solution Attributes

Proposed solutions are organized into two Lines of Effort (LOE). Offerors may submit proposals for one or both LOEs; however, proposals must address the full set of requirements associated with the selected LOE. Proposal submission must include which LOE you are submitting against in the title of your proposal document.

4. Line of Effort 1 (LOE 1): Homeland Defense Sensing

LOE 1 solutions are intended to establish a persistent, high‑fidelity protective sensing layer over fixed installations within the United States. Systems must operate safely near populated areas, within congested airspace, and across complex electromagnetic environments dominated by lawful emitters. The intended application includes replacement or augmentation of legacy fixed‑site sensing systems.

Solutions may employ single or multi‑modal sensing to enhance the radar solution, however the solution must include a radar sensor as part of the total proposal. LOE 1 solutions are preferred to be production or near-production ready.

Primary Attributes

These attributes will be the focus of the evaluation in CSO Phase 2, and phase 2 selectees will be required to share sensor data with the evaluation team. The team will require data output in human-readable ASCII format (minimal).

Sensing Performance:

A. Ability to consistently detect and track all Group 1 UAS types at ranges of 2 km or greater; increased range and track accuracy is preferred.

B. Autonomous classification of detected tracks, distinguishing small UAS from non‑UAS objects; unresolved tracks may be designated as “unknown air tracks.”

C. Effective discrimination of biological clutter, ground clutter, and false tracks to maintain a clean air picture.

D. Simultaneous detection and tracking of multiple UAS threats.

System Characteristics

E. Compatibility with existing shore power or standard U.S. military generators (5 kW–30 kW).

F. Provision of radar cross section (RCS) data for detected targets.

G. Rapid integration capability with Government‑designated C‑UAS fire control systems.

H. All‑weather engineering sufficient to maintain performance in adverse environmental conditions.

I. Ease of operator usability with a preference toward the ability to reduce sensor calibration times, mean time between failures, and maximize field maintenance efficiency by operators

Secondary Attributes

J. Capability to detect, track, and classify Group 2 and Group 3 UAS with actionable data on threat disposition

K. Provision of a 360‑degree azimuth and 30‑degree elevation search air picture, with up to 90‑degree elevation in track coverage; distributed architectures are acceptable.

L. Ability to steer search and track elevation below 0 degrees relative to sensor emplacement.

M. Desired minimum detection range between 50m and 500m, with preference toward shorter ranges.

N. Ability or path to detect and track hovering UAS exhibiting 0 Hz Doppler characteristics.

O. Capability or planned development path to provide physical target length estimates.

P. Tracking accuracy sufficient to support downstream effector, sensor cueing, and multi-modal sensor fusion, expressed in azimuth and elevation error.

Q. Track update rates between 4 Hz and 10 Hz.

R. Ability to comply with DoD Instruction 8510.01 (Risk Management Framework for DoD Systems), all information technology products and systems that receive, process, store, display, or transmit DoD information must obtain a formal Authorization to Operate (ATO), which signifies that an Authorizing Official (AO) has reviewed the system's security posture and deemed the residual risk acceptable to the Department of Defense ATO).

LOE 1 proposals should include, at a minimum:

Power requirements and operating profiles.
Detection and tracking ranges for Group 1 (small, medium, large) and Group 2 UAS, including test methodology or references to prior Government demonstrations.
Minimum detection range.
Expected performance below 50 m AGL.
Track management limits, including merge and separation constraints.
List of U.S. military C‑UAS command and control systems integrated to date.
Azimuth and elevation search coverage and track elevation limits.
Track update rates and azimuth/elevation error metrics (mrad).
Identification of any cloud compute dependencies.

5. Line of Effort 2 (LOE 2): Mobile (“On‑the‑Move”) Tactical Sensing

LOE 2 solutions are intended to provide small units with resilient, mobile sensing capabilities while stationary and on the move. Systems must function in GNSS‑denied or degraded environments and maintain low physical and spectral signatures to support survivability in contested battlespaces. The solution's ability to deliver early warning, allowing units to take protective action, is critical and depends upon a low physical and spectral signature to prevent targeting by enemy forces. All sensing modalities are welcome, with preference for passive approaches.

Primary Attributes

Operational Resilience

A. Effective operation in GNSS‑denied, degraded, intermittent, and limited environments.

B. Performance in dense, congested, and rapidly changing RF environments.

C. Ability to rapidly adapt to evolving threats

Mobility and Survivability

D. Detection, tracking, and classification while stationary and on the move.

E. Minimal setup and teardown time between operational states. Additionally, the Government prefers solutions with reduced set-up for initial operation including calibration time, reconfiguration time, mean time between failures, and efficient operator level repairs.

F. Low observable physical and spectral characteristics appropriate for tactical employment.

System Architecture

G. Incorporation of redundant sensing elements to prevent single‑point failure.

H. Use of multiple sensors, with preference for passive modalities, to enhance overall performance.

I. Simultaneous detection and tracking of multiple UAS threats.

Sensor Performance and Integration Attributes

J. Operating ranges appropriate to sensor modality, with preference toward greater detection distances.

K. Broad‑spectrum RF sensing (e.g., approximately 400 MHz–8 GHz) for passive solutions, including adaptability to evolving UAS data links.

L. Discrimination of biological and ground clutter to maintain a usable air picture.

M. Provision of target length data; radar‑based solutions should also provide RCS data.

N. Track quality sufficient to support cueing of effectors and complementary sensors.

Platform Integration and Usability

O. Mounting compatibility with Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV), and Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

P. Compact form factor and power solutions suitable for vehicle integration.

Q. Use of Modular Open Systems Architectures (MOSA) to enable rapid integration with Government‑designated C‑UAS command and control systems.

R. The system must reduce operator burden with intuitive controls for detection, tracking, and alert management. It must be configurable and adaptable by tactical operators to the dynamic front-line RF environment without requiring support from engineering personnel.

Cybersecurity

S. Solutions, if selected through prototyping phase, will be required to comply with DoD Instruction 8510.01 (Risk Management Framework for DoD Systems), all information technology products and systems that receive, process, store, display, or transmit DoD information must obtain a formal Authorization to Operate (ATO), which signifies that an Authorizing Official (AO) has reviewed the system's security posture and deemed the residual risk acceptable to the Department of War.

LOE 2 proposals should include, at a minimum:

Power requirements.
Detection ranges for Group 1 (small, medium, large) and Group 2 UAS, including test methodology or references.
Minimum detection range.
Expected performance below 50 m AGL.
Track management limits and separation requirements.
List of U.S. military C‑UAS command and control systems integrated to date.
Azimuth and elevation search coverage and tracking limits.
Track update rates and azimuth/elevation error metrics (mrad).
Cloud compute dependencies, if any.
Setup and teardown time.
Maximum vehicle speed while maintaining effective sensing.
For RF sensors: frequency coverage, emission types detected, and depth of detection (detection, classification, localization).
Methods for reducing false positives from lawful or authorized emitters.
Identification of spectrum emissions for active sensors.
Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF) integrations.

6. Additional Proposal Writing Information

Cost Rough Order of Magnitude: To address the critical cost asymmetry between high-end C-sUAS sensors and low-cost UAS threats, proposals shall provide a ROM using the following structure:
- Unit Pricing Tiers: Provide targeted pricing for the following procurement quantities:
  - Tier 1: 1–5 units
  - Tier 2: 6–25 units
  - Tier 3: 26–100 units

Supporting technology: For company proposals with supporting technologies, such as software-only products: your solution must already be integrated into a physical sensor system and the hardware must be part of the proposal.
Multiple Awards: The Government reserves the right to issue multiple awards for different components or LOEs within this AOI.
Proposal Scope: Proposals must demonstrate a comprehensive ability to address the entirety of at least one LOE and the associated problem statement.

7. Teaming/Partnerships

The Government encourages teaming for responses to this solicitation. The government may seek to team companies with AI/ML solutions with companies that are integrators in the counter uncrewed systems technology space or request collaboration between two or more solutions to deliver a robust solution. Traditional defense contractors are reminded that under 10 USC 4022, if you do not qualify as a non-traditional defense contractor,, the government will require either a one-third cost share in the prototyping effort or that significant work is being performed with a non-traditional partner.

8. Awarding Instrument

This Area of Interest solicitation will be awarded in accordance with the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) process detailed within HQ0845-20-S-C001 (DIU CSO), posted to SAM.gov on 23 March 2020. This document can be found at: https://sam.gov/opp/e74c907a9220429d9ea995a4e9a2ede6/view The Government requires cross functional collaboration/integration of technical outputs to ensure mission success. The Government intends to utilize this AOI in singularity, as well as a component of a more complex program, for which other AOI’s may be issued. Therefore, all solutions submitted in response to this AOI may be used to support other prototyping efforts advertised by DIU. All AOIs will be governed by Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) HQ0845-20-S-C001 dated 23 March 2020.

9. Follow-on Production

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

Appendix

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Categorization Chart

sUAS Category	Gross Takeoff Weight (lbs)	Operating Altitude (ft AGL)	Average Speeds (kts)	Examples
Small Group 1	2 - 6	< 400	25 - 45	DJI Mavic, Teal 2, <10” quadcopters, Talon GT Rebel, Opterra
Medium Group 1	7 - 11	400 - 1,200	45 - 85	Neros Archer, Skyhunter (1.8m), Quadzilla
Large Group 1	12 - 20	< 1,200	50 - 90	Freefly Astro, IF1200A, PDW C100 (Light), Harris H6
Group 2	21 - 55	1,200 - 3,500	100 - 250	ScanEagle, RQ-21 Blackjack, Aerosonde, Puma LE

event

DIU-DAU Innovation Sparks Series Finale: Building Capability with DIU

event

DIU Summit: Deploying & Scaling Autonomy for Strategic Impact

news | 25 Jan 2024

DOD Opens New Innovation OnRamp Hubs Across 5 States