Annex D - Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (CUAS)

1. CHALLENGE STATEMENT

    1.1.         How might we detect and/or defeat (kinetically or non-kinetically) Micro and Mini Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)?

2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

    2.1.         While UAS come in many sizes, those of concern in this particular Sandbox are of the Class 1 Micro and Mini UAS under the NATO classification system:

    2.1.1               Micro UAS with typical characteristics of: <2kg, up to 200ft Above Ground Level (AGL), normal mission radius of 5km Line of Sight (LOS);and

    2.1.2               Mini UAS with typical characteristics of: 2-20kg, up to 3000ft AGL, normal mission radius of 25km LOS.

    2.2.         The increase of the availability, complexity and capabilities of such mini and micro UAS is posing increasing threats to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) elements including observation of such CAF elements and what they are doing, delivery of weapons against them, as well as swarming attacks by multiple UAS concurrently.

    2.3.         As the lead sponsor for the CUAS Sandbox, the Canadian Army is looking to use the Sandbox to understand what CUAS solutions are in development and if there are any aspects that could be applicable for three potential future procurement projects:

    2.3.1               Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) – GBAD is investigating CUAS systems that are capable of providing local defence to critical equipment (i.e. radars and launchers) and personnel from micro and mini UAS.  This project is mandated under Strong, Secure and Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy – Initiative #34 and is funded.  A potential Request For Proposals including some CUAS requirements is currently being planned for 2021-22.

    2.3.2               Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Modernization (ISR Mod) – ISR Mod is investigating CUAS systems that are capable of providing direction finding and location of UAS and Ground Control Stations for the purposes of targeting. This projects is mandated under SSE: Canada’s Defence Policy – Initiative #42 and is funded.  This project is still undergoing initial planning; however, a potential Request For Proposals including some CUAS requirements may come to fruition in 2022-23.

    2.3.3               Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (CUAS) – A specific CUAS initiative is investigating CUAS systems capable of defending critical infrastructure, vehicles and personnel from micro and mini UAS.  This project is not funded at this time, and consequently an intended date for any future procurement cannot yet be stated.

    2.4.         Canadian Special Operations Forces Command also has an ongoing interest in CUAS technologies in order to understand and potentially acquire novel technologies and techniques that enable operators to protect critical equipment, infrastructure and personnel against UAS.  Doing so at long ranges is of particular interest.

    2.5.         Operational Scenarios.  The UAS threats occur in a variety of operational scenarios, four of which are of specific interest to defend against:

    2.5.1               Forward Operating Base (FOB).  Defending a Forward Operating Base (FOB) or airfield, in which a counter-UAS system can be in a static location once deployed, and where equipment size and power consumption is not a major issue;

    2.5.2               Mobile Vehicle.  Defending a mobile vehicle force element such as a reconnaissance patrol, in which the counter-UAS system must be vehicle mounted and powered for mobility;

    2.5.3               Dismounted Soldier.  Defending a small element of dismounted soldiers, in which case the counter UAS system and its power source must be “Soldier Portable”; and

    2.5.4               Urban Environment.  Functional in urban scenarios such as complex and cluttered infrastructure, obstacles, and electromagnetic environment.

    2.6.         While each operational scenario can have different parameters and priorities at any one time, the common counter-UAS effects sought are to:

    2.6.1               Detect and track the UAS before the UAS detects/observes CAF units.  This range and bearing based aspect varies with the type and capability of sensors that the UAS is using.

    2.6.2               In addition to basic detection, the associated and more precise aspects of recognition and identification also of interest, with the following definitions for this Sandbox:

    ·       Detection means that the solution is able to distinguish an object from the background clutter.

    ·       Recognition means that the solution is able to recognize the broad class of an object’s type (is it a mini/micro UAS, or a larger UAS, or an aircraft, etc.?), and by consequence reduce the likelihood of nuisance alarms.

    ·       Identify means that the solution is able to specifically determine details about the object detected, and differentiate between types of mini/micro UAS.

    2.6.3               Prevent/limit the UAS’s ability to transmit any data it collects.

    2.6.4               Prevent/limit the UAS’s ability to close within its sensor or weapon range of our forces, noting that this range varies with the type and capability of sensors and weapons that the UAS is using.

    2.6.5               Concurrently overlaid with the above, countering swarms of such UAS.

    2.7.         The general methodology for achieving such countering effects can be characterized as:

    2.7.1               Active detection, in which the system is transmitting a signal in order to detect the UAS (such as radar), which has the disadvantage of potentially revealing the location of the transmitter, depending on the technology used.

    2.7.2               Passive detection, which conceals our own position and relies on detecting the UAS from effects it generates (such as visual detection, electronic signatures, audible noise, etc.).

    2.7.3               Non-kinetic neutralization as a soft-kill, using means such as radiofrequency effects or other methods to deter, disable, take over, or otherwise mitigate the UAS.

    2.7.4               Kinetic neutralization as a hard-kill, using ammunition, nets, entanglers, missiles, or other means to physically disable the UAS.

3. OUTCOMES AND CONSIDERATIONS

    3.              OUTCOMES AND CONSIDERATIONS

    3.1.         This Sandbox is focusing on what prototypes at SRL 5 or higher are currently available for demonstration to DND/CAF.

    3.2.         Solution Categories.  For the purposes of this Sandbox, proposed solutions will be categorized as follows:

    3.2.1               Detect.  These are solutions that have the capability to provide the detection that a UAS threat has appeared, but do not include a capability to defeat the UAS in any way.  After detecting a threat, such solutions would typically cue a separate Defeat system to take on that part of the challenge.  Detect solutions may also include the additional and more precise aspects of target recognition and identification.  Within the Detect category, the Canadian Army is specifically interested in the following characteristics:

    • Effective area covered (range and arc)
    • Passive detection
    • Target recognition
    • Target identification
    • Location of the target’s Ground Control Station
    • Detection and tracking of swarms of UAS
    • Minimizing the operator burden to use the system
    • Applicability to the operational scenarios

    3.2.2               Defeat.  These are solutions that do not have the capability to do the initial detection that a UAS threat has appeared, but once cued to that threat by a separate Detect system do have the capability to target and defeat those detected threats.  Within the Defeat category, the Canadian Army is specifically interested in the following characteristics:

    • Effective range
    • Defeating the target’s Ground Control Station
    • Defeating swarms of UAS
    • Exploiting the data from the target UAS
    • Functional without operator line of sight
    • Minimizing the operator burden to use the system.
    • Applicability to the operational scenarios

    3.2.3               Detect and Defeat.  These are integrated solutions that can both detect the appearance of a UAS threat and defeat it, as described above.

4. CUAS SANDBOX ENTRY CRITERIA

    4.1.         The Sandbox entry criteria are a mix of mandatory and rated criteria as specified in Appendix 1, which includes how each criteria will be evaluated.  The evaluation and selection of the Sandbox Participants will use these results as detailed in the Call For Application document.

    4.2.         It is emphasized that the Sandbox criteria are designed to permit a range of worthwhile innovative solutions into the Sandbox and to enable the prioritization and selection of Applications.  They do not represent final operational requirements for any current or future DND/CAF procurement program. 

    4.3.         Applicant Selection – CUAS Specific

    4.3.1               The Army is most interested in the full integrated solution category of “Detect and Defeat” as such solutions would address both parts of the challenge in a single system which is advantageous for a variety of reasons.  However; solutions in the individual Detect or Defeat categories may also be of interest.

    4.3.2               Subject to the number of qualified applications received for each solution category, selections can be expected to be proportionally distributed as follows:

    Category of Solution

    Category of Solution

    Intended Proportion

    of Total Selections

    Detect Only solutions

    20 %

    Defeat Only solutions

    20 %

    Integrated Detect and Defeat solutions

    60 % as integrated solutions are of most interest

5. CONDUCT OF THE SANDBOX - GENERAL

    5.              CONDUCT OF THE SANDBOX - GENERAL

    5.1.         Selected Participants will be invited to demonstrate their solutions to this challenge at the CUAS Sandbox in September 2019 at the Defence Research and Development Canada Experimental Proving Ground (EPG) at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, Alberta, 50 km west of Medicine Hat.

    5.2.         Each selected Participant will be given a set calendar period of five days or less within the period of 9 September to 4 October for their specific participation.  While Applicants can indicate their preferred dates to attend, the precise dates given to each Participant are at DND’s sole discretion and are non-negotiable.  While the Sandbox lasts for four weeks in total, Participants need only be present for their scheduled period.

    5.3.         The EPG is a wide open prairie landscape suitable for a variety of test scenarios.  A temporary facility such as a trailer or sea container including light and electricity will be made available to each Participant for the purpose of storage and minor maintenance during the Sandbox.

    5.4.         DND/CAF will provide a variety of target UASs (the Red Team) for Participants to detect and/or defeat during their tests.  The scenarios and flight profiles that will be flown by the Red Team are described in Appendix 2.

    5.5.         DND/CAF experts will provide verbal and written feedback to each Participant on how successful their solution was at detecting and/or defeating the UAS.  Participants will also receive feedback on the projected functionality of their solution if it were in an actual theatre of operations.

    5.6.         Sandbox Duration and Capacity.  DND/CAF will make a best effort to schedule as many Participants as possible during the four weeks the Sandbox will be active noting the following:

    5.6.1               The maximum range time that will be scheduled for any one Participant is five days, which includes the setup, tests, tear-down, and contingency time for weather or serviceability issues.

    5.6.2               Weekends and evenings will not be used as active range time as that period is required to reset and transition from one group to the next.

    5.6.3               Two Participants can likely be accommodated concurrently in the range, subject to confirmation after responses to the CFA are reviewed.

    5.6.4               Notionally this indicates that the Sandbox capacity is two Participants per week for four weeks; however, if the test plans for selected applicants require less range time than expected additional Participants may be invited if the Sandbox capacity permits.

6. TEST PLAN

    6.1.         As detailed in Appendix 2, each respondent must propose their desired test plan using the provided template and including the completed template with their application.

    6.2.         In preparing the desired test plan, the following is to be noted:

    6.2.1               The test plan and Sandbox duration for each Participant may vary as not all scenarios are applicable to all solutions. 

    6.2.2               The CUAS Sandbox is offering participants a variety of pre-set test scenarios to demonstrate their CUAS systems. The available test scenarios are detailed in Appendix 2 to this document.

    6.2.3               The submitted Test Plan will be evaluated as indicated in the Evaluation Criteria in Appendix 1, and in particular section 4 of those criteria.

    • Some scenarios may be mandatory to perform.
    • The inclusion of test scenarios conducted on a vehicle mobile platform are of particular interest to the Canadian Army and is a rated item within the evaluation process.

    6.3.         Test Plan Approval.  DND/CAF will be the sole authority for approval of the test plans:

    6.3.1               If a Participant is selected to attend the Sandbox but portions of their proposed test plan are not acceptable to DND/CAF, the offer of acceptance to attend the Sandbox may impose changes to the test plan that the Innovator will need to accept if they agree to attend the Sandbox. 

    6.3.2               After an Innovator is selected for and accepts the invitation to attend the Sandbox, additional refinement and detailed scheduling of the proposed test plan may occur in order to obtain the optimal use of the Sandbox for each Participant and DND/CAF.  Such changes will:

    • Remain within the overall intent and broad structure of the test plan as submitted for the CFA.
    • Be achieved with consultation between DND/CAF and the Participant prior to the commencement of the Sandbox.
    • Final approval will be at the sole discretion of DND/CAF.
7. SANDBOX SCHEDULE FOR A SPECIFIC PARTICIPANT

    Subject to the duration of their DND/CAF approved Test Plan, and the detailed schedule that will be developed with each selected Participant prior to the Sandbox itself, Participants can expect the following general schedule:

    7.1.         Arrive in the Medicine Hat region prior to the first day of activity for their specific scheduled period in the Sandbox.

    7.2.         Work days will be 0800 – 1600.

    7.3.         Day 1 will entail suitable in-briefs, as well as a period for unpacking shipped materials and initial setup and testing of any equipment.  The morning of Day 1 will be set aside for this as a minimum.

    7.4.         Demonstrations may commence on Day 1 if time permits.

    7.5.         Lunch will be provided at the test site for all participants due to its remoteness.

    7.6.         Demonstrations and securing of all equipment will completed by 1600 each day.

    7.7.         If included in a Participant’s schedule, Days 2-4 can be utilized as full test days, including a morning briefing, tests, and a securing of all personnel and equipment by 1600.

    7.8.         On the final day:

    7.8.1               All tests will be concluded by 1200.

    7.8.2               A verbal out-brief will be conducted with the Participant.  Provision of test data and written information may follow at a later date.

    7.8.3               A full pack up and departure of the Participant’s materiel and personnel must be completed by 1600 of that day.

    7.9.         Departure date/time from the Medicine Hat region after the Sandbox is at the Participant’s discretion.

8. DEMONSTRATION RESOURCES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE

    DND/CAF will provide the following:

    8.1.         A test area of suitable boundaries and airspace control for the planned activities including the operation of drones, limited electronic signals, and weapons.  Precise details and sizes will depend on the proposed solutions that are selected for the Sandbox, commensurate with safety, environmental, and other considerations.

    8.2.         Various UAS targets operated by DND/CAF as a “Red Team” intended to be representative of those encountered on operations. The scenarios and flight profiles that will be flown by the Red Team are described in Appendix 2.

    8.3.         A limited variety of small portable antennae mounting masts are available, approximately 5-10 feet high.  These could be used for temporarily mounting small sensors for example.  The Participant would be responsible for any required mounting hardware and tools.

    8.4.         For any solutions choosing to demonstrate a mobile capability, DND/CAF will provide a rough gravel road in the test range for such tests.  The Participant will be responsible for providing an appropriate vehicle on which their system is safely mounted for such mobile tests. 

    8.5.         Data collection equipment, to include but may be limited to tracking systems, visual recordings, and damage assessments.

    8.6.         Limited photography services to record appropriate visual aspects of the solutions and the Sandbox will be provided.

    8.7.         High speed video footage of appropriate launches, and if practicable any impacts, will be provided.

    8.8.         DND/CAF will provide Observers for each test.  Participants will receive all test data related to their systems, as well as any pertinent feedback, subject to any security classifications and approvals that may arise.  This includes pertinent photographic and video imagery.

9. SUPPORT CONCEPT

    9.              SUPPORT CONCEPT

    9.1.         The Experimental Proving Ground is an isolated location approximately 50 km west of Medicine Hat / Redcliff which is the most likely location for accommodations.  Lunches will be provided by DND at the EPG to minimize daily travel.

    9.2.         Participants are responsible for arranging all transportation, shipping, food (except lunch at the Sandbox site), and lodging of all of their equipment and personnel to, from, and during the Sandbox.

    9.3.         DND/CAF will provide appropriate gathering and preparation areas including protection from inclement weather, limited business facilities such as meeting spaces, and briefing areas.

    9.4.         Each Participant will be given access to a private working area to secure and maintain their equipment during their period in the Sandbox.  This will be a construction site trailer, sea container, or other comparable facility.  Electricity will be provided in the facility if possible.

    9.5.         Participants are responsible for all maintenance, tools, parts, and technical support required for their solution during the Sandbox.

10. COST SHARING

    10.1.      To mitigate participation costs, the cost sharing arrangement described in detail in the Call For Applications is extended to each Participant.

    10.2.      All costs claimed must be directly attributable to attending the Sandbox itself and are inclusive of delivered duty paid and applicable taxes.  The types of claimable expenses under this cost-sharing arrangement are limited to:

    10.2.1           Travel expenses. The National Joint Council Travel Directive will apply for any travel, accommodation and living expenses. https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/d10/en

    10.2.2           Shipping and transportation expenses of equipment to/from the Sandbox environment.

    10.3.      The applicable cost ceiling for this CUAS Sandbox is $24,000 per Participant, emphasizing that:

    10.3.1           This is for the organization, regardless of how many personnel they send to the actual Sandbox.

    10.3.2           The maximum amount DND will compensate the Participant with is 50% of the eligible expenses up to a maximum of $12,000 for DND (50% of the ceiling of $24,000)

Appendix 1: Criteria for the Evaluation of CUAS Sandbox Applications

    1.              Criteria General Points:  The general process for the evaluation and selection of Applications to an IDEaS Sandbox is described in the Call For Applications (CFA) document.  The table below presents the evaluation criteria that will be used for assessing the received Applications for the CUAS Sandbox.  The ordering and reference number of the criteria in the table is aligned with the section numbers in the Application form.  In some case, the Application form may have multiple discrete sub-questions to build the total response for that criteria.

    2.              Criteria Types:

    2.1.         Mandatory.  Applications must PASS all mandatory criteria.  Applications that FAIL to meet any mandatory criteria will not be selected to attend the Sandbox. 

    2.2.         Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark.  Applications must meet or exceed all Minimum Pass Marks.   Applications that FAIL to meet any Minimum Pass Mark criteria will not be selected to attend the Sandbox.

    2.3.         Point Rated.  Applications will receive a score, but there is no minimum mandatory score.   

    3.              Sub-Criteria.  Some of the criteria are quite broad and are sub-divided into subordinate layers to enable evaluation of specific items within the parent criteria.  This results in a hierarchical parent-child criteria structure.  It is only the end-point children that are specifically evaluated, as the evaluation of any parent higher level is simply a rollup of the individual subordinate child evaluations and scores.

    4.              For the evaluation of any specific criteria.   

    4.1.         The Applicant must articulate at the corresponding Application Form Section how their solution meets that criterion.

    4.2.         If there is insufficient and/or no information provided to substantiate the reasonableness of the Applicant’s statements and how and why it meets the criteria:

    4.2.1.             a FAIL may be assessed for any such PASS/FAIL criteria, or

    4.2.2.             0 points may be awarded for any rated criteria, which may include a FAIL if there is a minimum pass mark indicated.

    5.              Assignment of Scores for Point Rated criteria (with or without a minimum pass mark):

    5.1.         Raw Score.  Each point rated criteria receives a Raw Score on a scale of 0-10 points, as described in the criteria’s evaluation schema.

    5.2.         Weighted Score.  As some criteria are more important than others, and some criteria have sub-criteria while others do not, the raw score is multiplied by the percentage weight factor for that specific criteria in order to maintain its intended level of relevance and to determine its resultant weighted score.  Weighted Score = (Raw Score / 10) x Percentage Weight Factor

    5.3.        Total Score.  The total score for an Application is the sum of all Weighted Scores.  By consequence, the maximum total score is 100 percent.  (Total Score = Sum of all Weighted Scores)

    Form Section

    Type

    Title and Description

    Evaluation Schema
    (Raw score out of 10 available points)

    % weight factor, relative to Total Score of 100%

    (see Note 1)

    1

    Mandatory

    Solution Readiness Level (SRL). The proposed solution must have already successfully completed the work and testing associated with Solution Readiness Level 4 (SRL 4 - Proof of Concept—basic integration of applications and/or concepts to demonstrate viability) or higher at the time of application. This ensures that solutions are ready for the integrated SRL 5 or higher testing that DND/CAF expects in a Sandbox. See Annex A of the Call For Applications document for the definitions of all SRLs.

    PASS / FAIL

    Not Applicable

    2

    Challenge Alignment and Performance. This criteria is subdivided into the two solution categories for this Challenge:

    (1) Detect; and (2) Defeat. Integrated solutions that do both Detect and Defeat will be evaluated in both sections. 

    This section is worth 30% of the total 100% score available, as determined by the scoring of its sub-criteria.

    2-1

    Detect Characteristics.

    This section is only applicable to solutions that include a "Detect" capability. 

    The Detect sub-section is worth 50% of the Challenge Alignment and Performance score, and 15% of the total 100% score available.

    2-1-1

    Mandatory

    Alignment with the Detect Challenge. The solution must address and align with the Detect category of the CUAS S&T Challenge and must include the capability to:

    1. automatically detect UAS threats of NATO Class 1 Micro UAS of similar characteristics to a DJI Phantom 4; and

    2. indicate the direction to or the location of the detected UAS to the user.

    Note: "Detect" means that the solution will be able to “see” the target, however it will be little more than a speck. There is a good chance that the target is actually something of suspicion.

    PASS/FAIL

    Not Applicable

    2-1-2

    Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark

    Detection Range. The solution has an effective horizontal detection range of at least 100 metres for a given target of NATO Class 1 Micro UAS of similar characteristics to a DJI Phantom 4.

    The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 1 point.

    0 pts 0 - 99 m Mandatory FAIL

    1 pts 100 - 199 m

    2 pts 200 - 499 m

    3 pts 500 - 999 m

    5 pts 1,000 - 1,999 m

    7 pts 2,000 - 3,999 m

    10 pts > 4,000 m

    1.5%

    2-1-3

    Point Rated

    Arc of Coverage. Without operator actions, the solution can independently and continuously scan a horizontal arc of sensing coverage. For example, a fully rotating radar would scan 360 degrees.

    0 pts <45 deg

    4 pts 45-89

    6 pts 90-180

    10 pts >180

    1.5%

    2-1-4

    Point Rated

    Recognize and Identity UAS. In addition to the basic detection of a UAS threat, the solution can also (i) recognize; or (ii) identify UAS threats.

    Detection means that the solution is able to distinguish an object from the background clutter.

    Recognition means that the solution is able to recognize an object’s class (is it a mini/micro UAS, or a larger UAS, or an aircraft, etc.?)

    Identify means that the solution is able to differentiate between types of min/micro UAS.

    0 pts A solution that can only detect

    5 pts A solution that can Identify or Recognize

    10 pts A solution that can Identify and Recognize: 10 points

    1.5%

    2-1-5

    Point Rated

    Locate the UAS's Ground Control Station (GCS). The solution includes the capability to locate the enemy UAS ground control station.

    0 pts The GCS cannot be located

    5 pts Located as a bearing or range only, not both.

    10 pts Located as a geographical position (such as latitude & longitude) or as a bearing and distance.

    3.0%

    2-1-6

    Point Rated

    Counter Swarm Detect capability. The solution includes the capability to Detect swarms (3 or more UAS) and track each individual UAS within the swarm.

    0 pts Can only detect one or two UAS

    5 pts Detect a swarm, but cannot discriminate UAS within the swarm.

    10 pts Track each individual UAS

    2.25%

    2-1-7

    Point Rated

    Minimizing Operator Burden. The solution is simple to unpack, setup, and activate, and uses automated features to reduce the burden on the user to operate, monitor, and control the solution, ideally to a virtual "hands-off" level once activated.

    2 pts Setup and Activation is simple, taking less than one hour

    plus up to 8 additional points:

    3 pts basic automated features included

    5 pts many automated features included but user monitoring or input still required

    8 pts Hands-off level of automation: 8 points: 

    3.0%

    2-1-8

    Point Rated

    Solution Detectability. The solution uses techniques to locate the UAS threat such that the use of its systems is not detectable by the enemy, and consequently our use of the solution does not reveal our location to the enemy.

    0 pts The solution’s method would be detectable by an enemy sensor.

    5 pts The solution provides a reduced level of detectability by the enemy.

    10 pts Detection of the solution by the enemy would be unlikely.

    0.75%

    2-1-9

    Point Rated

    Additional Innovative Detect Characteristics. While the preceding criteria describe Detect effects known and of interest to CAF, additional Detect features that are already incorporated into the solution can be described here at the Applicant’s discretion. Such features must be distinct in topic from the preceding criteria, and not simply an increase in the description of a previous or similar criteria.

    0 pts There are no additional features of interest to CAF.

    5 pts There are one or more additional features of some interest to CAF.

    10 pts There are one or more additional features of significant interest to CAF.

    0.75%

    2-1-10

    Point Rated

    Applicability to the Operational Scenarios. The solution's Detect capabilities are applicable to and aligned with one or more of the operational scenarios included in the challenge description.

    Does the solution's description create a reasonable operational application for each scenario?

    2.5 pts Fixed Operating Base (FOB)

    2.5 pts Dismounted Soldier

    2.5 pts Mobility (vehicle mounted)

    2.5 pts Urban ops

    0.75%

    2-2

    Defeat Characteristics. This section is only applicable to solutions that include a "Defeat" capability. 

    The Defeat sub-section is worth 50% of the Challenge Alignment and Performance score, and 15% of the total 100% score available.

    2-2-1

    Mandatory

    Alignment with the Defeat Challenge. The solution must address and align with the Defeat category of the CUAS S&T Challenge by having a capability to target and defeat micro and mini UAS.

    PASS/FAIL

    Not Applicable

    2-2-2

    Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark

    Defeat Effective Range. The solution has an effective horizontal range of at least 100 metres for targeting and defeating a UAS of NATO Class 1 Micro UAS of similar characteristics to a DJI Phantom 4.

    The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 1 point.

    0 pts 0 - 99 m Mandatory FAIL

    1 pts 100 - 199 m

    2 pts 200 - 499 m

    3 pts 500 - 999 m

    5 pts 1,000 - 1,999 m

    7 pts 2,000 - 3,999 m

    10 pts > 4,000 m

    3.75%

    2-2-3

    Point Rated

    Defeat the Ground Control Station (GCS). The solution includes the capability to target and defeat the enemy UAS’s GCS.

    5 pts Included, but not clear or reasonable on how this is done

    10 pts Included, clear, and reasonable on how this is done

    0.75%

    2-2-4

    Point Rated

    Counter Swarm Defeat Capability. The capability to defeat swarms of UAS in a short amount of time (either simultaneously or sequentially).

    2 pts 2-5 UAS in one minute: 2 points

    5 pts 6-10 UAS in one minute: 4 points

    10 pts >10 UAS in one minute: 5 points

    2.25%

    2-2-5

    Point Rated

    Capturing the Data from the Target UAS. The solution can capture the data from the target UAS (such as its position logs, sensor data, its video imagery, etc) through either

    (i) a cyber means; or

    (ii) by enabling the physical recovery of the target UAS itself.

    5 pts A solution that can do one of the sub-criteria

    10 pts A solution that can do both of the sub-criteria

    2.25%

    2-2-6

    Point Rated

    Minimizing Operator Burden. The solution is simple to unpack, setup, and activate, and uses automated features to reduce the burden on the user to operate, monitor, and control the solution, ideally to a virtual "hands-off" level once activated, aside from user input to fire any weapon.

    2 pts Setup and Activation is simple, taking less than one hour

    plus up to 8 additional points:

    3 pts basic automated features included

    5 pts many automated features included but user monitoring or input still required

    8 pts Hands-off level of automation, aside from user input to fire any weapon

    3.0%

    2-2-7

    Point Rated

    Functional without Operator Line Of Sight. Once “fired”, the solution can continue and complete the defeat of the targeted UAS without requiring the operator to maintain their line of sight to either the solution or the target.

    0 pts The operator must maintain a continuous line of sight during the target engagement event.

    5 pts The operator must maintain some level of visibility during the target engagement event, but not continuously.

    10 pts The operator need not maintain any level of visibility during the target engagement event.

    1.5%

    2-2-8

    Point Rated

    Additional Innovative Defeat Characteristics. While the preceding criteria describe Defeat effects known and of interest to CAF, additional Defeat features that are already incorporated into the solution can be described here at the Applicant’s discretion. Such features must be distinct in topic from the preceding criteria, and not simply an increase in the description of a previous or similar criteria.

    0 pts There are no additional features of interest to CAF.

    5 pts There are one or more additional features of some interest.

    10 pts There are one or more additional features of significant interest that would alter our current intentions in this field.

    0.75%

    2-2-9

    Point Rated

    Applicability to the Operational Scenarios. The solution's Defeat capabilities are applicable to and aligned with one or more of the operational scenarios included in the challenge description.

    Does the solution's description in section 2-1-1, and the explanation of how it would be used for each scenario, create a reasonable operational application for that scenario?

    2.5 pts Fixed Operating Base (FOB)

    2.5 pts Dismounted Soldier

    2.5 pts Mobility (vehicle mounted)

    2.5 pts Urban ops

    0.75%

    3

    Test Hazards and Limitations.



    It must be feasible for the solution to be safely demonstrated and observed within the provided Sandbox test environment with due consideration to all safety, environmental, and any other applicable characteristics of the solution or limitations of the test environment. 

    As the Experimental Proving Ground (EPG) is a large open prairie landscape with several kilometres of range distance available with a high vertical ceiling it is anticipated that most solutions will readily fit within the limitations of the test environment; however, as the type and extent of such characteristics will vary from one solution to another and may not be known to Canada until the applications are submitted, pre-set limitations cannot be fully established in advance. Instead, Canada will:

    1. evaluate each potential hazardous characteristic; and

    2. make a reasonable effort to accommodate all characteristics if possible, or limit the tests to mitigate the hazardous condition. 

    Each sub-criteria in this section will be evaluated as follows, each being a mandatory PASS/FAIL evaluation:

    PASS

    (i) The identified characteristic can be safely accommodated in the Sandbox and the test can be conducted as proposed; and

    (ii) Any required accommodations, or any limitations on what can be demonstrated, still result in a test plan of a reasonable value.

    FAIL

    (i) It is not reasonably possible to accommodate the characteristics of the solution and the proposed tests within the limitations of the test environment due to safety, environmental, risk, or other such condition; or

    (ii) Any required accommodations, or any limitations on what can be demonstrated, result in a test plan that has no reasonable value, and is not worthwhile to conduct. 

    3-1

    Mandatory

    GPS Jamming. Solutions must not activate any GPS jamming equipment during their test as this specific test environment prohibits that activity.

    If the test can be conducted without the actual activation of the GPS jamming signal occurring, the test can still be conducted if the Innovator can substantiate the validity of still doing such a partial test.

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    3-2

    Mandatory

    Radio Frequencies. Any solution that emits radio frequency energy must do so within the limitations of the test environment. In general, solutions that transmit in the following bands, at a power no greater than 4W Radiated Power (EIRP) will be acceptable.

    433.5MHz - 434.5MHz

    902MHz - 928MHz

    2.4GHz - 2.4835 GHz

    5.725GHz - 5.875GHz

    All solutions that do emit RF energy must submit an “Application for Spectrum Supportability” DND Form 552, as part of their application in order for DND to determine if the RF usage is supportable in the Sandbox. The form is available from the IDEaS CUAS website.

    For technical assistance on completing Form 552, direct contact with the following Subject Matter Expert is permitted: 

    Mario Lavoie, DND Frequency Spectrum Management,

    Mario.lavoie2@forces.gc.ca

    343-883-5061

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    3-3

    Mandatory

    Maximum Altitude and Range. Regardless of accuracy or intent, the maximum potential altitude and range by any physical component of the solution must fit within the test environment.

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    3-4

    Mandatory

    Explosives. The use of any explosives must be acceptable within the limitations of the test environment. Subject to their characteristics, limited explosives can be permitted.

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    3-5

    Mandatory

    Lasers. Subject to their characteristics, lasers can be permitted. Lasers of power Class 3B or lower IAW ANSI Z136.1-2014 are generally permissible. 

    Note: If Class 3B lasers are used, Applicants must submit their Laser Power characteristics;

    i. Laser Wavelength;

    ii. Beam Divergence;

    iii. Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF);

    iv. Pulse Length; and

    v. Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (if available).

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    3-6

    Mandatory

    Other Hazards. All other hazards not specifically mentioned above must be declared by the Applicant and must be acceptable for use within the test environment.

    PASS / FAIL as described above.

    Not Applicable

    4

    Test Plan. The Test Plan must be achievable within the provided test environment.

    This section is worth 5% of the total 100% score available, as determined by the scoring of its sub-criteria.

    4-1

    Mandatory

    Test Serials and Schedule. The proposed Test Plan must be achievable within the constraints, restraints, and requirements as described in the CUAS Test Plan Template and must include:

    · 0800-0900 is reserved for the Daily Briefing and setup and is to be included each day.

    · a minimum of a ½ day initial preparation period at the start of the Sandbox (morning of Day 1)

    · a minimum of a ½ day pack-up period at the end of the Sandbox.

    · A one hour lunch period is to be included each day.

    · The basic time planned for each flight must remain as shown in the Red Team flight profiles.

    · The last flight must be completed by 1530 each day to allow for daily site cleanup.

    Total duration of the plan must be no longer than 5 days, and can be shorter.

    PASS/FAIL

    Not Applicable

    4-2

    Point Rated

    Optional inclusion of a Mobile Demonstration. The Applicant includes a firm commitment in their test plan to demonstrate their solution while moving on a mobile vehicle platform for at least one flight profile. The Participant is responsible for providing an appropriate vehicle on which their system is safely mounted for such mobile tests.

    0 pts The solution does not have a mobile capability; or the solution has a mobile capability but the Applicant is not including such a test.

    10 pts if the Applicant commits to doing one mobile test profile.

    5%

    5

    Point Rated

    Novel and Innovative

    . The proposed solution is novel and innovative over existing solutions as determined by examining the following:

    1. There is new knowledge, science and/or technology improvements integrated into the solution. These include novel concepts, approaches or methodologies, tools, or technologies.

    2. There will be enhanced capabilities and/or improved efficiencies created over the current state‐of‐the‐art and existing solutions. 

    3. The solution has projected potential to lead in creating new knowledge and/or technology enhancement over existing solutions.

    0 pts If either of the following is true:

    a. Insufficient and/or no information to permit analysis of any of the three sub-criteria. 0 points;

    b. The solution has already been demonstrated to, or evaluated by, DND/CAF, unless significant performance modifications have been made since then. 0 points



    5 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets one of the three sub-criteria. 5 points



    8 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets two of the three sub-criteria. 10 points

    10 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets all three sub-criteria. 15 points

    10.0%

    6

    Point Rated

    S&T Feasibility and Approach. The approach and feasibility of the solution to address the identified S&T Challenge.

    1. The proposed solution is feasible, defined as being applicable and could be accomplished in practice in Canada. This determination is at the sole discretion of the evaluation team.

    2. The approach is adequately developed, well‐reasoned and appropriate.

    3. Proposed system clearly defines a solution.

    0 pts Insufficient and/or no information to permit analysis of any of the three sub-criteria.

    5 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets one of the three sub-criteria.

    8 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets two of the three sub-criteria.

    10 pts Sufficient and clear information is provided and permits concrete analysis that the solution meets all three sub-criteria.

    10.0%

    7

    Point Rated

    Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)*. GBA+ and its factors were considered and incorporated into the proposed solution, as characterized by one of the following scenarios:

    1. No GBA+ analysis was undertaken; however, the Applicant has set out a plan to undertake such analysis in the continued development of the solution after the Sandbox; or

    2. GBA+ analysis was already undertaken and no GBA+ considerations were relevant at this time; or

    3. GBA+* considerations have already been identified and incorporated into the solution.

    * Information regarding GBA+ can be found at:

    https://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/course-cours-2017/eng/mod03/mod03_03_02.html

    0 pts No GBA+ analysis was undertaken and the Applicant does not intend to do so.

    5 pts Scenario #1 was substantiated.

    10 pts Scenario #2 was substantiated.

    10 pts Scenario #3 was substantiated. .

    5.0%

    8

    See

    Note 2

    Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark

    Alignment with the CAF Future Force.



    The proposed solution meets current and emerging operational requirements and force development intentions of the Canadian Armed Forces including but not limited to being aligned with envisioned military systems, doctrine, and standard operational practice.

    Note 2: The Applicant does not provide any specific information for this criteria. Evaluators consider the full application against the internal DND current and future force outlook to assess this criteria.

    The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 5 points.

    0 pts Insufficient and/or no information to permit analysis OR the criterion is not met. 0 points. FAIL

    5 pts The solution partially meets the criterion.

    10 pts The solution fully meets the criterion.

    15.0%

    9

    See

    Note 3

    Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark

    CAF Implementation Resource Capacity. The potential DND/CAF resource investment that would be required to procure and operationally implement this solution is reasonable and likely to be available.

    Note 3: The Applicant does not provide any specific information for this criteria. Evaluators consider the full application against the internal DND force development outlook to assess this criteria.

    The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 5 points.

    0 pts The potential resource investment that would be required is not reasonable, or is not likely to be available. 0 points. FAIL

    5 pts The potential resource investment that would be required is reasonable and may be available.

    10 pts The potential resource investment that would be required is reasonable and is likely to be available.

    15.0%

    10

    Point Rated

    Canadian Content.

    Describe the level of Canadian Content directly associated with your solution. What proportion of the solution consists of Canadian goods and/or services? 

    For example, was the research and development conducted in Canada, was the prototype built in Canada, are you using materials from Canadian suppliers, are you partnering with any Canadian companies on this solution, etc.

    0 pts No Canadian Content is evident.

    2.5 pts The proportion of Canadian goods and services is 1-25%

    5 pts The proportion of Canadian goods and services is 26-50%

    7.5 pts The proportion of Canadian goods and services is 51-74% or less

    9 pts The proportion of Canadian goods and services is 75-99%

    10 pts The proportion of Canadian goods and services is 100%

    10%

    11

    Information only

    Supplemental Information. This section of the Application collects additional information that unless otherwise specified will not be evaluated to determine acceptance into the Sandbox, but will be used by DND/CAF to better prepare for each Participant’s attendance at the Sandbox.

    Not applicable

    Not applicable

    12

    Mandatory

    Terms and Conditions of Participation. All terms and conditions of participation as identified in the Application Form are accepted and agreed to.

    PASS / FAIL

    Not applicablels

Appendix 2: CUAS Test Plan and Available Flight Profiless

    The IDEaS CUAS Sandbox offers participants a variety of test scenarios in order to demonstrate their CUAS systems.  These test scenarios indicate what flight profiles and target UAS will be flown by the Red Team, and have been designed to be representative of UAS threats while also offering an increasing scale of difficulty.  As not all profiles are applicable to all solutions, and some Innovators may wish to focus their test time towards certain profiles or repeat certain ones, each Innovator can propose a different test plan by selecting from the available scenarios to build their total plan.  Test Plans will be finalized with each Participant prior to the Sandbox commencing.

    Points to note in building and submitting a test plan:

    • The plan is to be built and submitted via the provided template.
    • The submitted plan will be evaluated as described in the evaluation criteria for the CFA (see Appendix 1 above, Form Section #4).
    • The plan must include:
      • 0800-0830 is reserved for the Daily Briefing and is to be included each day.
      • a minimum of a ½ day initial preparation period at the start of the Sandbox (morning of Day 1)
      • a minimum of a ½ day pack-up period at the end of the Sandbox.
      • A one hour lunch period is to be included each day.
      • The last flight must be completed by 1530 each day to allow for daily site cleanup.
      • Total duration of the plan must be no longer than 5 days, and can be shorter.
    • The actual target UAS for any one flight may be subject to change based on availability at the time of the actual flight.
    • Altitudes in the scenarios will likely remain unchanged.
    • Horizontal distance in the scenarios will likely be tailored to each solution’s capabilities.  For example, a missile with a known 1 km maximum range does not need a 5 km target.

    Explanation of columns in the Scenario Table:

    • Planned Time Consumed.  This varies by scenario and includes the anticipated time for the setup, conduct, and completion of the scenario, even though the actual flight time of the target will be less.  Back-to-back scenarios can thus be planned with no time between scenarios as that is already included.  For planning purposes the range times are fixed for each scenario.  During the actual conduct of the scenario, planned schedules will be adjusted to accommodate the reality of the day. 
    • Mandatory or Optional.  Some scenarios are mandatory for all solutions and must be included in the plan.
    • Mobile Test.  Optional.  If the specific scenario is being done as a vehicle mounted test an additional 30 minutes of planned time is added due to the additional setup/conduct/cleanup complexity.
    • Target Destruction.  While target destruction is the overall aim of Defeat solutions it need not be part of each test flight.  For example, it may be sufficient to detect, track, and target the UAS multiple times, and then complete the destruction of it once, as opposed to destroying it each time.  To control the consumption of targets:
      • Innovators are expected to include target destruction as part of the scenario only when relevant and necessary, and categorized as:
        • Hard Kill – Innovators will defeat the UAS using ammunition, nets, entanglers, missiles, or other means to physically disable the UAS.
        • Soft Kill – Innovators will use other means such as radiofrequency means to deter, disable, take over, or otherwise mitigate the UAS.
    • DND/CAF retains the terminal kill go/no go decision on each flight in order to control the consumption of targets.

    Ser

    Title

    Description / Flight Pattern

    Possible Target UAS Types

    Planned Time consumed

    Mandatory or Optional?

    Mobile Demonstration

    (add 30 mins to planned time)

    Target Destruction included?

    (add 30 mins to planned time)

    1

    Basic Scenarios. The basic scenarios are intended to provide the least challenging target to CUAS systems, and will be appropriate for the lowest through highest TRL technologies. It is expected that these flights will be used to gather basic information about the performance of the system, including range and accuracy.

         

    1.1

    Static hover

    The Red Team UAS will be presented at an appropriate range in a hover at 100m altitude.

    · DJI Matric

    · DJI Phantom

    · DJI Mavic

    · 30 minutes

    · Mandatory

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    1.2

    Straight Approach

    The UAS will approach the CUAS system directly at an altitude of 100m, at slow and moderate speeds (5 to 20m/s) using

    · Skywalker X8

    · XUAV Mini-Talon

    · DJI Matric

    · DJI Phantom

    · DJI Mavic

    · 30 minutes

    · Mandatory

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    1.3

    Diamond Pattern

    The UAS will execute a diamond pattern at an appropriate range at an altitude of approximately 100m, at moderate speeds (8 to 20m/s).

    · XUAV Mini-Talon

    · DJI Phantom

    · 60 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    2

    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Scenarios. The ISR scenarios are intended to emulate flight patterns that enemy UAS might execute in an attempt to gather information about a friendly force.

         

    2.1

    High Altitude Overwatch

    The UAS will fly straight toward the target at as high a feasible altitude as possible (approx. 500m), at moderate speeds (10-20 m/s)

    · Skywalker X8

    · DJI Matrice

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    2.2

    Popup and Stare

    The rotorcraft UAS will approach the CUAS system as discretely as possible, and then popup and hover at a low altitude, at a range appropriate for gathering ISR information about a target

    · Mavic 2 Zoom

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    2.3

    Circular Observation

    The fixed-wing UAS will execute a circular pattern around the CUAS system at an altitude of 250m at moderate speeds (10-15m/s), at a range appropriate for gathering ISR information about the target:

    · XUAV Mini-Talon

    · 60 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    3

    Direct Attack Scenarios The Direct Attack scenarios are intended to emulate flight patterns that enemy UAS might execute in an attempt to either drop munitions on a target, or perhaps execute a kamikaze attack. 

         

    3.1

    High and Fast Attack

    A fixed wing UAS will fly straight toward the target at as high a feasible altitude as possible (several hundred meters), at the highest speeds possible (estimated at 30m/s), and then potentially execute a dive towards the target simulating a kamikaze attack.

    · Class 1 Mini fixed wing UAS to be determined

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    3.2

    Low and Fast Attack

    A fixed wing UAS will fly straight toward the target at as low a feasible altitude as possible (approx. 10-20m), at the highest speeds possible (estimated at 30m/s), simulating a kamikaze attack.

    · Class 1 Mini fixed wing UAS to be determined

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    3.3

    Drop from Altitude 

    A rotorcraft UAS will fly straight toward the target at as high a feasible altitude as possible (several hundred meters), at the highest speeds possible (approx. 20m/s), and then hover over the target and drop a simulated munition (bean bag or other):

    · DJI Phantom 4

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    3.4

    Manoeuvering Approach

    Rotorcraft UAS approach the target while manoeuvering and using obstacles to the greatest extent possible, simulating a kamikaze attack

    · Class 1 Mini rotorcraft UAS to be determined

    · 60 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    4

    Diverse Communications Scenarios. Some CUAS systems make use of the target UAS’s communication system as part of their CUAS solution. Consequently the test is not focused on flight patterns but rather how well the solution deals with different communication systems. This is done with a simple flight profile with different communication systems that may be in use on Class 1 Mini and Micro UAS.

         

    4.1

    Communication Straight-In

    All flights will be conducted using a straight-in approach to the target at a fixed altitude from an appropriate range.

    · DJI Lightbridge (DJI Phantom 2.4GHz)

    · DJI Occusync (DJI Mavic 2.4/5.8GHz)

    · Parrot Wifi (2.4GHz)

    · Mavlink (FRSKY or other, 433MHz, 968MHz, 915MHz)

    · RMILEC (433MHz)

    · Dragonlink (433MHz)

    · Crossfire (868MHz, 915MHz)

    · 30 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    5

    Swarm UAS Scenarios. The Swarm UAS scenarios will challenge the CUAS systems with multiple simultaneous targets.

         

    5.1

    Straight Approach

    (Horizontal or Vertical Spacing)– Rotorcraft UAS will approach the target at moderate speeds at an altitude of 100m, with distances of 10 to 50 meters of separation.

    · Two UAS (DJI Phantom or Mavic)

    · Five UAS (DJI Phantom or Mavic)

    · 90 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

    5.2

    Undefined Approach

    Rotorcraft UAS will approach the target with varying speeds, altitudes, and separations to challenge the CUAS system.

    · Non-manoeuvering (5 UAS, DJI Phantom or Mavic)

    · Manoeuvering (5 UAS, DJI Phantom or Mavic)

    · 90 minutes

    · Optional

    · Optional

    · No / Soft / Hard

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: