Very Low-Cost Kinetic Defeat for C-sUAS

One new question added: Q1 clarifies that "fire-and-forget" systems can continue receiving target-track updates during flight (not required to operate without ground communication post-launch). All other questions and answers remain unchanged from previous Q&A.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Question Added:** - Q1: Clarifies engagement guidance requirements—whether interceptor completes engagement on initial cue alone or receives midcourse datalink updates; specifies reference frame options (geodetic vs. relative); defines expected track accuracy/uncertainty parameters for cue and updates. **Renumbering:** Previous Q6-Q9 renumbered to Q7-Q10 due to new Q1 insertion. **No answer changes:** All previously answered questions retain identical responses.

**New Q&As Added (5 total):** - **Q1:** Group 1–3 UAS defeat - threshold vs. objective requirement - **Q2:** Phase II prototype quantity expectations for deliverables and testing - **Q3:** Kinetic defeat requirement - alternative/non-kinetic terminal effects acceptable? - **Q4:** C2 interface standards - target cueing/track-data inputs and message format expectations **Q5** (previously incomplete) and **Q6-Q9** are restatements of prior Q&As with answers now included. **Key clarification:** New questions address threat scope, prototype quantities, and C2 interface specifications—critical for proposal planning.

**New Q&A Added:** Q1: Added new question regarding alternative safety-certification approaches (tailored fuze review, non-traditional S&A architectures, lower-voltage COTS) to maintain sub-$6K unit cost target for interceptors including ESAD/fuze/warhead. *Answer pending.* **Numbering Changes:** Previous Q&As renumbered (Q2→Q2, Q2 (multi-part)→Q3, Q3→Q4, Q4→Q5) to accommodate new question.

**Q&A Updates Summary:** Four questions received answers. Key clarifications: (1) Integrated demonstration with Medusa is expected as final deliverable; (2) Teaming arrangements are acceptable for interceptor prototype, guidance/autonomy software, and C2 framework integration; (3) Prior integration experience not required, credible path sufficient; (4) Net capture approved as defeat method; (5) Integration assumes existing government-defined interfaces (Medusa C2 SDK).

**Q&A Changes Summary:** Added 1 new question (Q1) regarding feasibility of proposing an actual Medusa integration demonstration with Government support. Previous questions on teaming arrangements, autonomy-focused proposals, integration paths, net capture methods, and C2 framework integration were renumbered but appear substantively unchanged.

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** Added 3 new questions clarifying key technical approach flexibility: (1) teaming arrangements between guidance/autonomy and interceptor providers vs. single offeror requirement, (2) proposals emphasizing autonomy/guidance software with COTS airframes, and (3) D2P2 feasibility expectations regarding prior C2 framework integration vs. credible integration pathway. Original 2 questions on net capture methods and C-sUAS integration scope retained.

Added Q1 clarifying that net capture is an acceptable C-UAS defeat method for this topic.

This Q&A clarifies that Direct-to-Phase II proposers should plan to integrate with existing government C-sUAS interfaces rather than design custom integration approaches, narrowing the scope and reducing technical variability in proposals.

New opportunity: Very Low-Cost Kinetic Defeat for C-sUAS