DAF27BZ02-DV019 — Collaborative Autonomous UAS for Distributed Non-Kinetic Effects

Develop, integrate, and demonstrate modular technologies enabling Group 2/3 UAS or similarly expendable autonomous aircraft to collaboratively generate distributed non-kinetic mission effects in contested environments. The objective is to enable multiple low-cost autonomous platforms to coordinate sensing, positioning, task allocation, timing, communications, and payload employment to produce useful mission-level effects without requiring continuous human control or persistent high-bandwidth communications. The desired architecture should employ a human-on-the-loop approach, allowing autonomous systems to conduct distributed mission execution while retaining oversight, positive control, and the ability for human operators to intervene when required. The Government is particularly interested in technologies that distribute mission capability across multiple affordable aircraft rather than concentrating sensing, processing, communications, or effects on a single exquisite platform.

Traditional non-kinetic capabilities can be constrained by platform availability, cost, survivability, operator workload, communications requirements, and centralized mission architectures. Distributed autonomous UAS create the opportunity to separate the mission effect from a single exquisite platform and distribute sensing, decision-making, communications, and payload employment across multiple lower-cost aircraft. The Government seeks modular technologies enabling Group 2/3 UAS and similarly expendable autonomous aircraft to collaboratively carry and employ Government-approved non-kinetic payloads while operating under a human-on-the-loop command architecture. Potential mission functions may include lawful and authorized: Electronic support. Communications relay. Spectrum sensing. Deception and decoy functions. Distributed RF effects. Cooperative sensing. Network extension. Authorized cyber-physical mission effects. Signature generation. Mission-support effects. Other non-destructive effects. This topic is focused on enabling technologies, payload integration, distributed autonomy, mission coordination, and command-and-control architecture, not development of offensive cyber capabilities. Fundamental engineering considerations include: Modular Mission Systems Modular payload integration. Open mechanical, electrical, power, data, RF, and software interfaces. Integration of Government or third-party payloads without fundamental aircraft redesign. Support for multiple payload types and aircraft architectures. Low-SWaP-C implementation suitable for expendable UAS. Collaborative Autonomy Autonomous task allocation. Collaborative mission planning and execution. Distributed decision-making. Dynamic reassignment of tasks following aircraft or payload loss. Cooperative sensing and information sharing. Graceful degradation as individual aircraft become unavailable. Quantifiable collaborative mission performance. Human-on-the-Loop Control Human-on-the-loop mission command and authorization. Positive control over initiation and termination of mission effects. Operator ability to modify objectives, constraints, or mission priorities. Deterministic responses to loss of communications. Abort and safe-state functionality. Appropriate human authorization for mission functions requiring Government approval. Communications and Distributed Operations Operation with intermittent, degraded, or unavailable communications. Distributed decision-making without persistent centralized control. Low-bandwidth coordination methods. Time and spatial synchronization. Network extension and relay capability. Resilient interfaces with Government mission and C2 systems. Mission Assurance Geographical, temporal, frequency, target-set, or mission-based constraints as applicable. Prevention of unintended or unauthorized effects. Defined operating boundaries. Fault detection and graceful degradation. Quantifiable reliability and mission-effect performance.

As this is a Direct-to-Phase II (D2P2) topic, no Phase I awards will be made. To qualify, applicant(s) must provide Feasibility Documentation demonstrating prior completion of Phase I-equivalent efforts outside SBIR funding. Offerors should possess existing technology applicable to autonomous UAS, collaborative autonomy, spectrum operations, modular payloads, resilient communications, electronic support, distributed mission systems, human-machine teaming, or related capabilities. Phase I-equivalent evidence may include: Hardware demonstrations. Flight demonstrations. Collaborative autonomy testing. Multi-aircraft demonstrations. Modular payload integration. Electronic support or spectrum-sensing demonstrations. Communications relay or network-extension demonstrations. Distributed task-allocation demonstrations. Human-on-the-loop mission-control demonstrations. Degraded-communications testing. Hardware-in-the-loop or system-level testing. Relevant modeling supported by physical test data. Operational experimentation. Offerors should identify: Number and type of aircraft previously demonstrated collaboratively. Level and duration of autonomous operation. Human intervention requirements. Communications architecture and bandwidth requirements. Behavior during communications degradation or loss. Payload interfaces. Supported non-kinetic mission functions. Current aircraft and payload SWaP-C. Collaborative autonomy reliability. Current TRL and remaining technical risks. Preferred entry maturity is TRL 5-6, with TRL 4 considered where the core technology has been demonstrated and can credibly mature within approximately three years.

The technical effort shall culminate in the multi-aircraft collaborative flight demonstration described in Task 6 within the period of performance. Task 1 – Open Mission Architecture Define and implement modular interfaces among aircraft, autonomy software, operators, mission-planning systems, communications networks, and Government-approved payloads. Document mechanical, electrical, power, RF, data, software, and command interfaces necessary to support additional aircraft and payloads. Task 2 – Collaborative Autonomy Develop and integrate distributed task allocation, aircraft coordination, synchronization, cooperative behaviors, and degraded-communications mission execution. Demonstrate the ability for the collaborative system to dynamically adapt to changes in aircraft availability, communications, sensor information, mission priorities, and payload availability. Task 3 – Non-Kinetic Payload Integration Integrate one or more representative Government-approved non-kinetic payloads or suitable surrogates. Characterize payload SWaP-C, aircraft interfaces, operator controls, and the ability to integrate additional payloads without fundamental redesign. Task 4 – Human-on-the-Loop Mission Command and Effect Control Demonstrate a human-on-the-loop command architecture supporting autonomous execution while maintaining appropriate Government authorization and oversight. Demonstrate: Positive control. Authorization logic. Effect boundaries. Mission constraints. Abort functionality. Operator intervention. Deterministic lost-link behavior. Prevention of unintended or unauthorized mission effects. Task 5 – Degraded Communications and Distributed Operations Demonstrate useful collaborative mission performance under representative communications degradation, intermittent connectivity, bandwidth constraints, and temporary loss of centralized C2. Quantify communications requirements and the degree to which mission execution can continue without persistent connectivity. Task 6 – Multi-Aircraft Collaborative Demonstration Conduct an operationally relevant demonstration involving multiple autonomous aircraft collaboratively generating a measurable Government-approved non-kinetic mission effect. The demonstration should characterize: Mission completion rate. Task-allocation performance. Coordination latency. Communications requirements. Human intervention rate. Effectiveness following loss of individual aircraft. Autonomy reliability. Mission-effect performance. Task 7 – Raider Platform Integration and Transition Architecture Integrate the collaborative-autonomy capability with the Government-designated Raider platform using Government-furnished or Government-authorized interfaces, data, facilities, and security guidance. Demonstrate end-to-end exchange of the mission-planning, command, status, timing, and payload-control data required for the representative mission. If physical flight aboard the Raider platform is not authorized within the period of performance, complete Government-witnessed hardware-in-the-loop or system-integration-laboratory verification using the authoritative Raider interfaces. Document integration pathways for additional aircraft, payloads, mission-planning systems, C2 systems, and Government networks, including platform-specific modifications, cybersecurity, airworthiness, data/interface requirements, and remaining transition risks. Desired Phase II End State A TRL 7+ collaborative autonomous UAS architecture integrated with the Government-designated Raider platform and demonstrated using multiple Group 2/3 or similarly expendable aircraft and at least one representative Government-approved non-kinetic payload in an operationally relevant environment. The system should demonstrate distributed autonomous mission execution, human-on-the-loop oversight, degraded-communications operation, modular payload integration, graceful degradation following individual-aircraft loss, and measurable mission-level performance.

Successful technology is intended to provide AFSOC, ACC, and operational organizations a rapidly fieldable NKE capability with payload integration ability and employment. This shall include a reusable modular integration pathway for future electronic-warfare, communications, sensing, processing, and self-protection payloads. The transition owner is PAE ISR SOF / Asymmetrical Warfare Division – WISS. The NKE capability is intended to support future adaptation to additional platforms through further integration and minimized cost burden. Follow-on funding is exploratory from AFSOC based on D2P2 results.