OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Materials OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate a low-cost warhead for low-cost weapon, demonstrating effective performance against UAS targets in a rapid-launched or simultaneous-launched swarming scenario. DESCRIPTION: Low cost UAS weapons are being put to effective use by US adversaries. US weapons to defeat these threats are effective, but not feasible at scale due to limited quantities and high cost. Commonly, multi-$M munitions are used to defeat targets that cost <$10K. A kinetic option is needed to defeat C-UAS and other threats at the same order of magnitude cost of the threat. Furthermore, an option is needed that can be produced, deployed, and launched at scale. This new capability must be delivered to the battlefield quickly, on a relevant timeframe. Therefore, it is necessary to consider low-cost options that are already in high rate of production and fielded on many platforms, have a reasonable cost, and can be readily modified to achieve the desired launch rate. The scope of this topic includes any lethality technology to enable the improved probability of kill of UAS from a low-cost C-UAS kinetic weapon and enables improved lethality versus cruise missiles. In particular, the government is interested to review modern warhead designs which include CL-20, advanced fragmentation designs, or other unique design principles that demonstrate improvement over legacy warheads. Additionally, it includes any other associated technologies in this defeat mission, to include fuzes, data links, or any innovative approach the government may not have considered that improves the C-UAS defeat capability of a low-cost C-UAS kinetic effector. Proposals may focus on one specific portion of the need, or aim to achieve a total minimum viable product as quickly as possible. The topic will show preference to those who produce evidence of a viable path to achieve hardware that can be integrated into a kinetic effector and flight-tested (live) to show kinetic defeat against a UAS within the cost/schedule of the SBIR program. If necessary for cost purposes, non-warhead costs (rocket, UAS, test range) can be excluded from the cost of the program. However, projects will be competitively evaluated on their cost-efficiency. Proposers should be familiar with the C-UAS mission, and show that their lethality enhancement can produce the requisite capability to defeat both large and small aerial objects at relevant range and across the ranges of relevant closing velocities which can produce a variety of guidance and/or fuzing errors.. Assumptions of other system-level capabilities may be included to support the approach, though preference will be given to those who (in order of precedence) assume already fielded capabilities, already existing capabilities, capabilities currently in development, and finally: reasonable-to-develop capabilities. At the least, proposers should assume a guidance capability and proximity sensing capability consistent with currently-fielded C-UAS kinetic effectors and produce a design improves the probability of kill when compared with currently fielded solutions. Warhead designs may be focused around 1) a nose mounted design, 2) a mid-body design. Proposers should consider associated system-level considerations such as communication between necessary components and all-up-round performance when determining which approach to focus on. Concepts which are compatible with the modular Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rocket system (a guidance conversion to the Hydra-70 unguided rocket) are of particular interest to the government. The associated performance of the warhead against a variety of targets, to include cruise missiles, is of very high interest. Ground targets are also of interest, but this capability must be considered at the system-level with the types of fuzes available. IE, the limitations of a ground attack with a proximity fuze must be considered or cleverly addressed. Ultimately, proposers should consider the system-level costs/benefits and associated trades of their design with the final capability of the weapon.Of equal interest is any unknown component of such a system that ought to be designed, or optimized, in participation with a system-level Prime contractor to achieve the above objectives/mission. The topic authors do not wish to overly prescribe a specific solution, and other solutions even beyond warhead design, are appropriate for this topic insofar as they achieve a meaningful capability for this requirement on the battlefield. PHASE I: As this is a Direct-to-Phase-II (D2P2) topic, no Phase I awards will be made as a result of this topic. To qualify for this D2P2 topic, the Government expects the applicant to demonstrate feasibility by means of a prior Phase I-type effort that does not constitute work undertaken as part of a prior SBIR/STTR funding agreement. Prior work expected to be completed in a "Phase-I type" effort, in order to qualify for this D2P2, requires demonstrated feasibility which should include work and results in the following areas: Phase I efforts should include modeling and simulation to show lethality versus UAS targets and/or other faster aerial threats. Manufacturing, cost, timeline factors should all be established to build confidence that the final product can be tested in a short-term, relevant, timeframe, and rapidly fielded with additional funding if results are favorable. Early laboratory or field tests showcasing hardware are expected. PHASE II: Phase II efforts should aim to achieve live (explosive) guided free flight testing of the weapon versus C-UAS targets at a TRL 6. Prior to this point, significant integration work is expected to result in a manufacturable and fieldable design. The hardware should be plug-and-play with the fieldable interceptor solution. Weapon metrics mentioned previously will be evaluated competitively against other solutions to assess useability for a Phase III. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III will include both smaller quantities <100 of prototypes for experimentation, and quantities of >1000 if selected for inclusion within a program of record. It is expected that rapid fielding/production will begin in large quantities of multiple thousands if specification goals and met and proven in flight testing. REFERENCES: 1. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-downs-41-russian-drones-major-overnight-attack-2023-12-06/ 2. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/09/politics/us-navy-houthi-missiles-drones-red-sea/index.html KEYWORDS: Base defense; low-cost interceptor; counter-cruise missile, counter-UAS kinetic kill, CL-20, blast fragmentation warhead, lethality modeling
