UK Counter UAS Technologies Grant (Innovate UK): 2026 Historical Reference

UK Counter UAS Technologies Grant (Innovate UK): 2026 Historical Reference

Status and key details

This is a historical reference, not an open application listing. Innovate UK’s official Innovation Funding Service record says that the Counter UAS Technologies competition is now closed. The UK Research and Innovation opportunity page also shows the status as Closed. Neither official page reviewed for this update announces a replacement or next application round.

The date in the front matter remains the genuine closing date of the archived round. historicalReference = true is intentional: it tells the site that the passed date describes a completed competition rather than a broken live listing. Do not use this page to infer that Innovate UK is still accepting applications, and do not treat the 2026 project dates as a new opportunity window.

What the competition funded

Innovate UK offered a share of up to £5 million for UK-registered organisations developing counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) technologies with both civil and military applications. The programme focused on new solutions for illegal UAS activity around airports, prisons, critical national infrastructure, schools, public events, and defence sites. It was framed around national security, protection of critical infrastructure, wider government priorities, sovereign capability, economic growth, and a resilient UK supply chain.

The official brief was broader than a single detection product. It welcomed technologies that could detect, track, identify, decide, and defeat current or emerging threats while minimising collateral damage and interference with communications and electronics. Proposals needed to explain how the solution would work with existing infrastructure, regulations, and laws. They also had to address risks to property, members of the public, and other air users.

The competition had two stated solution paths:

1. Protection for UK defence sites, airports, schools, public events, and sites of critical national infrastructure. These solutions were expected to be cost-effective and scalable for the location, already at technology readiness level 5 or above, and aimed at introduction and deployment by 2028.
2. Affordable protection for the UK prison estate. This path allowed early-stage development and laboratory validation of systems that could adapt to a changing threat environment, typically up to technology readiness level 4, and aimed at introduction and deployment by 2030.

The brief also recognised fixed and mobile systems, standalone systems, and components of layered approaches. For prison applications it highlighted the pressures on frontline staff, low-collateral defeat methods, and detection of UAS controlled by radio frequency, cellular, or other means. Any proposed kinetic method had to be safely operable in public spaces and minimise collateral damage.

Who was eligible

The competition was collaborative only. The lead organisation had to be a UK-registered business of any size or a UK public sector organisation. Academic institutions and research and technology organisations could participate but could not lead. The consortium had to contain at least one UK-registered micro, small, or medium-sized enterprise claiming grant funding on the application.

Eligible collaborating organisations included UK-registered businesses, academic institutions, charities, not-for-profit organisations, public sector organisations, and research and technology organisations. Each partner had to be invited into the Innovation Funding Service by the lead. After accepting the invitation, each partner was responsible for entering its own project costs and completing its Project Impact questions.

The project-level constraints were specific:

• The total eligible grant request had to be between £300,000 and £1.25 million.
• The project had to last between 8 and 12 months.
• It had to start from 1 September 2026 and end by 31 August 2027.
• It had to contain no more than five funded partners.
• Funded organisations had to carry out project work in the UK and intend to exploit the results from or in the UK.
• At least the lead and one other organisation had to apply for funding, explain the collaboration structure, and include a rationale for working together.
• No single partner could account for more than 70% of the total eligible grant.

Project work outside the UK required justification by email before the competition closed and approval from Innovate UK. The same applied to proposed overseas subcontracted work, with an additional requirement to explain why a UK contractor could not be used; a lower price alone was not sufficient. Non-funded international partners could be included only under the conditions in the official guidance, including any required export-control licences. The competition also required applicants to consider sanctions and export-control issues for dual-use technologies.

What a compliant proposal needed to show

The official scope required a defined end user or use case. A general statement that drone misuse is a problem was not enough. The proposal needed to identify the operational setting, the users, the threat or service problem, and the way the proposed system would be tested, validated, or demonstrated. The technology also needed a credible route to economic growth for the businesses involved.

Innovate UK said it would not fund proposals that relied on technology already in commercial counter-UAS use, used only off-the-shelf products without experimental development, or demanded significant infrastructure or integration before they could operate. It also excluded proposals that were not scalable or adaptable to real-world operations, breached current regulations or laws, used high-collateral kinetic approaches, or depended on approvals that were not already granted and could not be obtained within the project timeframe.

Testing and demonstrations had to be legally compliant and safely carried out within existing regulatory frameworks. Applicants had to identify relevant regulations and any permits, aviation approvals, licences, or other dependencies. The official guidance stated that required approvals either had to be in place or have a clear, supported route to approval within the project duration. That requirement was particularly important for proposals involving flight trials, radio-frequency activity, defeat mechanisms, or integration with operational sites.

The competition was offered under the Research, Development and Innovation Streamlined Subsidy Scheme. For commercial or economic work, the official funding limits were up to 70% of eligible costs for industrial research by a micro or small organisation, 60% for a medium-sized organisation, and 50% for a large organisation. For experimental development, the corresponding limits were up to 45%, 35%, and 25%. Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could share up to 70% of total eligible project costs, subject to the detailed rules in the competition guidance.

How applications were submitted

Applications were made through the Innovation Funding Service during the window that opened on 5 May 2026 and closed on 3 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time. Because the competition is closed, these steps are preserved as an accurate record of the 2026 process rather than instructions for a live submission.

The lead applicant first had to decide which organisations would work on the project and invite the relevant people into the IFS application. The application was divided into four sections: Project details, Application questions, Finances, and Project Impact. All sections had to be marked complete, and every partner had to finish its assigned sections and accept the terms and conditions before submission.

In Project details, the lead entered the project title, start date, duration, research category, project summary, public description, and explanation of fit with the competition scope. The summary, public description, and scope answers each had a limit of 400 words. The application questions were also subject to 400-word limits, and applicants were told not to include website addresses or links in their answers because those URLs would not be viewed or opened.

The initial questions covered applicant locations, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export licences, and Trusted Research and Innovation. Applicants had to identify organisations, partners, subcontractors, countries, aviation approvals, and any export-control or national-security considerations relevant to the work. The scored questions then covered the need or challenge, approach and innovation, team and resources, market awareness, outcomes and route to market, wider impacts, project management, risks, added value, and costs and value for money.

Supporting appendices were permitted for selected answers. The official instructions allowed short PDF appendices for items such as approach diagrams, team summaries, a project plan or Gantt chart, and a risk register. Each relevant appendix had to be no larger than 10MB and no more than two A4 pages, legible at 100% zoom. The project plan needed to show work packages, lead partners, costs, dependencies, and milestones. The risk register needed to cover technical, commercial, managerial, environmental, regulatory, ethical, and certification risks where relevant.

Every organisation had to complete its own project costs, organisation details, and funding details in the Finances section. Academic institutions had to use the Transparent Approach to Costing method and upload the required support in IFS. Each partner also had to complete Project Impact questions before the application could be submitted.

Assessment and archive guidance

The official record says applications were reviewed by five independent assessors. Reviewers considered the application content and relevant expertise, and the competition used a portfolio approach that could balance technologies, markets, maturity, research categories, locations, use cases, growth potential, and technical capability against end-user requirements. A high-scoring application was not automatically guaranteed funding because the competition had a funding limit.

The timeline recorded on the official page was: competition opening on 5 May 2026, a live briefing on 11 May 2026, closing on 3 June 2026 at 11:00am, applicant notification on 8 July 2026 at 3:55pm, and project start from 1 September 2026. The official project window ended by 31 August 2027. These dates describe the completed 2026 competition and should not be presented as upcoming dates.

If an applicant received a grant offer, the next step was project setup in IFS. Innovate UK required mandatory checks on the organisation and the eligibility of costs, along with project documentation. The successful applicant had to follow the unique link in the notification email to the dedicated IFS Set Up portal and provide the requested information, such as bank details. An unsuccessful applicant could view assessor feedback in the IFS portal after notification.

Official source

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/counter-uas-technologies/
• Innovation Funding Service competition overview: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2468/overview/6be7375d-717c-49b4-9411-f7709bb9e6ea

This page should remain available as an archive entry for the 2026 Counter UAS Technologies competition. The official pages reviewed for this update confirm the closed status, the real 3 June 2026 deadline, the funding range, the collaboration rules, and the application process. They do not announce a later Counter UAS Technologies round, so no new deadline has been added.