Guidance

Frequently Asked Questions: Autonomous Sensor Management and Sensor Counter Deception Phase 2

Updated 27 January 2026

1. Submitting a proposal

Q: As a non-UK entity can we bid into the competition, or must we sub-contract with a UK organisation?

A: Yes, you can submit a proposal as a non-UK entity.

Q: For collaborative bids, does UKDI-DASA intend to actively support partner matchmaking, or should teams expect to form consortium independently prior to submission?

A: We do have a mechanism to help promote collaboration within proposals; you can find the collaboration survey within the competition document here. You will be asked some basic information which is shared on a weekly basis with everybody who’s submitted into the survey.  We would expect you to have formed that partnership prior to the submission, and we would expect the details of the organisations that are going to be working on the project within the proposal and how they’re going to work together.

Q: This is a phase two project. Is it more likely that phase one companies will be funded or will it be assessed as a new project with equal chance across all proposals?

A: No, allocation of phase 2 funding will be based solely on assessment of the submitted proposal and submission is not restricted to phase 1 participants. Remember, this is different to the first phase. For example, the first phase had the two separate challenges, whereas phase two has linked these. The bar has moved on in terms of technology maturity and the project should look quite different so it will be assessed as a new project.

Q: Can you advise which companies and the areas that were funded in phase one?

A: We aren’t able to share the names of companies funded in Phase 1, however, the following topic areas were covered in Phase 1:

• Hierarchical autonomous sensor path planning
• Monte Carlo tree search for sensor management
• Plugin framework for reinforcement learning (RL) sensor management in Stone Soup
• Multi-agent RL with hierarchical RL for searching for targets
• Machine learning methods to classify deceptive behaviour (baselined with Stone Soup)
• Spectroscopic and photometric detection of camouflage
• Classifying UAS intent using generative adversarial networks
• RL to train sensor management to detect adversary intent

Q: Costs. Are site equipment costs e.g. vessels to be included in costings? Are these provided by UKDI-DASA? Can we attribute the cost of hardware to the project to allow for demonstration? Of our solution, once we reach TRL 6, can we attribute range costs to the project to allow for a demonstration?

A: At the high level yes, these things can be costed for. You’ll have to include detailed information within the application form on the types of resources that you need, be that labour, capital costs, overhead costs, any travel and subsistence associated, material consumables, subcontracting etc. It is really important that you are transparent in what you are spending throughout the project and why you need to spend it in that way. We will pay for costs associated with the delivery of the proposal. UKDI-DASA don’t set any standard costs, it’s up to you to justify those costs in the proposal.

If you need to buy any significant pieces of equipment or machinery, then that will remain property of His Majesty’s Government at the end of the project and that capital cost must not be disproportionate to the total cost of your project.

If you’re not sure, please consult the application form because there’s detailed information on what you can include. We would also recommended that you get in touch with your local innovation partner[TA4]  because they can help advise you in this area.

Q: Will outputs from the Phase 1 be made available to Phase 2 bidders not involved in Phase 1, as GFI? If so, what level of maturity and accessibility?

A: Outputs from Phase 1 are with Dstl as full rights deliverables and DEFCON 705.
Data will be distributable (with permission) under Phase 2 contract, although there will also be limited rights data that can’t be used.

Q: What supports can the programme provide to help with market validation for potential dual use companies to pivot their technology into a sensing application?

A: If you are uncertain of the relevance of your innovation to this competition, it is strongly recommended that you contact your local UKDI-DASA Innovation Partner to discuss your idea.

Your local Innovation Partner will initially explore the suitability of your idea within the context of the requirements of the competition. With specific interest in the aspects covered within the Competition Scope section.

Your local Innovation Partner will, if required, also advise you on the submission of an Innovation Outline (IO), primarily used to further explore the relevance of your idea to the competition. Submission of an IO for this competition will allow socialisation of the idea across the competition team, all elements of the IO will be shared.

If the question is targeted towards post-contract award, the demonstration is key to exploitation in this phase. This will give you access to key stakeholders. Following that, it will depend on the details of the of the innovation and the proposal. Dstl can identify the appropriate stakeholders for follow on exploitation opportunities.

Q: Can I confirm the entry level TRL for Phase 2 has to be TRL 4.

A: Yes. The goal is not to do Phase 1 again. Phase 1 took projects from TRL 2 to TRL 4. We need to get to TRL 6 in Phase 2. That’s mandatory.

Q: How many entries do you typically get for each competition?

A: The number of entries we receive for each competition varies depending on many factors so it’s difficult to state a single number.

Q: Can the projects focus on subsea sensing and detection, or is it specifically for drones and aircrafts?

A: From an Innovation Continuum point of view, there is a maritime component, and we do cover all domains, including underwater vehicles, sensing and detection underwater. This year one of the use cases that we played out was detection of floating mines, using real mines (deactivated) that were really in the environment. We also had a maritime virtual environment where we can play out all sorts of weird, wonderful surface and subsea maritime capabilities.

We are aware as assessors of the contention between making the project sensor agnostic and having a focus on a TRL 6 demonstration, which inevitably must specify something. The proposals will be judged on the merits of the project, not the types of sensors that will be used. It will be the quality of the technology as a counter to deception in ISR that will inform the judgement of the scientific merit (in the feasibility section of the proposal).

Q: When does the sharing of the collaboration survey information start? Data has been submitted but no feedback as yet?

A: That will start from Thursday 18th December.

Q: OK, so with only two projects funded for Phase 2, the risk is high given the rapid pace of technological change. Will you create another call in future?

A: TRL 6 is a stepping stone towards TRL 7, TRL 8 and deployment. So yes, technological change is rapid, but we have to do something. So, we demonstrate in 2027 and we aim for success and scaling up to deployment. If that happens, we won’t need another call.

Q: How will Phase 2 proposals be balanced between technical novelty system integration, delivery credibility and demonstration quality during evaluation?

A: If you can do that, then you’ve probably written a credible proposal. We’re looking for novel solutions and we want them demonstrated at TRL 6, which requires you to demonstrate integration with the system. The delivery credibility is about the exploitation plan. Keep these in mind as priorities when you’re writing your proposal.

Q: Is the £1m funding divided among two companies/entities, or is it a £1m limit for each company that has won?

A: It’s a total of £1m of funding. The aim is to fund two projects with that. There isn’t an upper limit, per contract, so it’s not a hard cut off of £500k per contract, but that does give you an idea of the amount to aim for.

Q: Will there be an opportunity for a 1-on-1 discussion to determine whether there is interest in our proposal?

A: No. We’ve made the decision to use the Innovation Outline process for this competition instead to enable the team to give feedback to a greater number of innovators. Details on how to connect with your local innovation partner and submit and innovation outline are contained with section 3.3 of the competition document.

2. Technical questions

Q: Is this purely about data processing or we do we need to partner with a prime or complete hardware solution?

A: TRL 6 is not necessarily a complete hardware solution. It’s a solution demonstrated in a relevant environment, not an operational environment. Partnership in this competition is beneficial and is encouraged, but it’s up to you who you partner with and to demonstrate the value of the collaboration in your proposal. Your proposal will be judged on how good it is at demonstrating in that relevant environment. It’s not purely about data processing, but it’s also not a complete hardware solution either. It’s TRL 6.

Q: For Phase 2 is collaboration with sensor and hardware OEMs needed to show scalability and realism, or is TRL 6 with surrogate sensors acceptable?

A: The TRL 6 definition can be found here. It is defined as demonstration in a relevant environment. If you’re trying to demonstrate the potential of a sensor that doesn’t yet exist, or an infrastructure for a sensor that doesn’t exist, you would have to use a synthetic sensing environment.

However, if you’re intending to demonstrate using sensors that currently exist then it would be a more impactful demonstration if you worked within the Innovation Continuum with an actual sensor.

These will all be judged against each other in assessment. Nothing is required in terms of hardware OEMs for the proposal but consider what the most impactful demonstration and indeed exploitation beyond that demonstration would require you to do for a culmination of Phase 2. There’s a potential for a lot of different things. TRL 6 is your guide.

Q: How much can we develop our own products within this call? Our platform is geared to this use case. However, typically off the shelf products are precluded.

A: Yes, you can develop your own product, but it has to be in the context of the competition and and show the necessary development required across the specific idea as a whole to reach TRL 6 by the end of the project. If it’s just developing your products in a context that’s not relevant to the competition, then we would advise against submitting a proposal into the competition. We would strongly recommended that you contact your local UKDI-DASA Innovation Partner to discuss your idea in more detail.

We’d also highlight the desirability to work within open standards within the project. We ultimately need to be able to make ideas work with the wider ISR enterprise and if it’s a product that doesn’t allow us to do that, then its unlikely to be desirable to the competition.

Q: With Ukraine on the ground, there was a day plan and day execution. What is the frequency of decision making in this call, real time or batched?

A:  With the assumption that the question is asking “what’s the operational decision-making cycle in the ISR cell?”, NATO operates many layers of decision making. At the tactical level the cycle is going very fast and yet at the strategic and operational levels the cycle goes much slower.

What we’ll try to do in Innovation Continuum is set up activities and scripts that exercise things at the cycle to which it’s reasonable to demonstrate.

The competition asks for solutions to address tactical, operational and strategic tempos NATO subscribes to. As assessors, we’re going to have to judge not just different domains and different multiples of domains, but also different operational tempos when it comes to the final demonstration. So, nothing is excluded, and we don’t have a preference for real time versus batch. It’ll be down to the quality and the exploitability of the solution.

Q: Would DSTL consider a Phase 2 solution valid if it uses autonomous orchestration with SAPIENT compliant interfaces integrating Phase 1 outputs and algorithms?

A: That sounds like it would be valid. Note that we’re not required to use Phase 1 outputs as input to Phase 2. We’re not mandating those that weren’t involved in Phase 1 use Phase 1 outputs.

Q: Would Dstl consider using Dstl owned or open frameworks like Phase 1 GFX or Stone Soup to spark innovation in autonomous sensor management and counter deception?

A: This is what this competition is. Not necessarily the Dstl owned, but the open frameworks are key, such as SAPIENT. Stone Soup has been used previously to spark innovation, although would not be a complete solution to demonstrate TRL 6. It’s good underpinning stuff, but TRL 6 requires a relevant environment, so think real sensors and/or digital twins of sensors sensing and networks.

Q: Do proposals have to integrate with Stone Soup despite having an open architecture philosophy regardless?

A: That was a highly desirable element for Phase 1, but for Phase 2 it’s less linked into that relevant environment requirement. The open architecture element is key.

Q: Will live active data be required?

A: We don’t have any specific requirements for the data used, live or otherwise. The key requirement is to demonstrate at TRL 6. Participation in the Innovation Continuum would enable access to test solutions in live environments and/or simulations.

Q: Is the request for Phase 2 to carry forward the outputs from Phase 1, or should we develop our own for managing sensors and counter deception?

A: Phase 1 participation, partnering or outputs are not required to bid for phase 2. Judgement will be based only on the proposal. The key things are to address the call – sensor management methods for countering ISR deception, integrated demonstration at TRL 6, credible consortium and exploitation plan. Whether you use a phase 1 output as your starting point won’t form part of the assessment.

Q: Assessing autonomous sensor management, what forms of evidence will be most persuasive, quantitative metrics, scenario-based trials, red-teaming, other approaches?

A: These are all very valid approaches.

3. Demonstration and NATO Innovation Continuum

Q: Are there any specific areas of ISR sensors targeted for Phase 2 and NATO Innovation Continuum?

A: What we’re trying to do is to is to show both current sensing solutions that are part of the NATO suite and also innovative sensing and sensor management. What we typically do when modelling the sensing platforms that exist now or are likely to exist in the near future (air platforms, land platforms, even orbital platforms and the kind of sensors they carry) is to use sufficient fidelity to conduct an experiment and draw relevant conclusions. We don’t model them to the nth degree, but well enough to allow us to run simulations to understand what your solution can do for the current ISR portfolio.

However, it may be that you (or other attendees) have an innovative sensing solution and in combination with demonstrating the potential of the sensor, we can also make that part of the next generation ISR experiment.

Q: How many Innovation Continuum events should we support and cost for?

A: This isn’t mandatory. This is offered as a relevant environment to allow you to demonstrate. It’s strongly encouraged and if you choose not to go down that route, then you really need to articulate how you can achieve the same kind of benefits through an alternative demonstration plan, including your plan for demonstrating how your technology fits into the wider war-fighting effort and the benefits to a NATO coalition.

One of the reasons we’re docking into NATO Innovation Continuum is because it lowers the cost. Alternative demonstration options would incur additional cost. If you decide to engage with the Innovation Continuum events, the minimum attendance would be at the final event, SHINE in 2027. You would also be welcome to attend as an observer at SHINE 2026. GLOW 2027 is a plug-up and rehearsal event, which we’d also strongly encourage, but the choice is yours.

Q: Is Stone Stoup a “relevant environment”

A: No, in this instance, Stone Soup doesn’t qualify as demonstration at TRL 6 for a simulation of the sensors that we are interested in. You can certainly use Stone Soup to enact distributed algorithms or counter deception with real sensors, but it doesn’t, on its own, meet the definition of a relevant environment for TRL 6.

For the 2025 SHINE Next Generation ISR experiment, the Unity engine was used which was able to model sensors and platforms and probability of detection, probability of false alarm clutter etc. on the candidate ISR platform. It’s not yet been determined what we’ll use for 2027, but we were able to use that kind of test and simulation environment for the sensors that weren’t actually present.

Q: Can we assume representative maritime surface and subsurface threat platforms at the Innovation Continuum event?

A: There are the real and the virtual. We can do anything in virtual and so absolutely we can make threat platforms in our virtual environment, both allied and adversarial. The real is very much to be decided as we do the planning for the IC event, but there will be live platforms, sensors, targets in multiple domains.

NATO is all about multi domain operations. So, NATO’s priorities are not just maritime approaches. Work across domains are going to be really appealing rather than those with a narrow focus. If we can, let’s think multi domain because everybody else is thinking multi domain.

Q: What can you share around your desires/requirements for physical demonstration? Will suppliers need to source and supply their own hardware/sensors/equipment?

A: You don’t have to but if you choose not to supply your own hardware, sensors and equipment, then you have got to make sure you are able to integrate with other hardware. If you’re  adopting the standards, then it’s much more likely that you can bring a solution that doesn’t require sensors and equipment. If you’re taking a non-standard route, make sure you articulate why in your proposal.

Q: Who is the end user that raised the demand for this call? Do you have a specific end user or is it FLC wide?

A: This competition is run through the Sensor Fusion and Management project and the Sense and Understand programme. So, our principal customer is, DST (Defence Science and Technology), DSTL’s (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) commissioning agency or the NAD (National Armaments Director) Group Options and Commissioning. There’s no specific military customer as we are docked into the entirety of the frontline commands (FLC), it’s FLC wide.

Appropriate stakeholder engagement will be through the project, through our military advisors working with successful bidders to identify suitable stakeholder sets, as well as through the planning for the Innovation Continuum.

Q: Can that simulated environment used to test Phase 1 be made available for us to test and validate our algorithms we’re proposing for Phase 2?

A: There wasn’t a simulated test environment used in Phase 1. If this refers to the simulated environment used in the previous Innovation Continuum – it might be that it is not possible to share this but getting involved in IC would likely mean access to something similar, whatever they decide to use in 2026/27. 

If there was a common test environment used in Phase 1, it was Stone Soup. That can be got from github.com/dstl/Stone-Soup