Future offshore wind technologies: industrial research (research organisations)

Future offshore wind technologies: industrial research (research organisations)

This is a historical reference for an Innovate UK competition that has ended. The official UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) opportunity page marks the competition as Closed. It gives a publication date of 28 May 2026, an opening date of 29 May 2026 at 9:30am UK time, and a closing date of 3 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time. The Innovation Funding Service (IFS) brief also says that the competition is now closed. No next round is announced on either official competition page checked for this update, so this entry does not present the call as available to new applicants.

The funder was Innovate UK, part of UKRI. The competition offered a share of up to £10 million across two offshore-wind strands, subject to receiving enough high-quality applications. This page covers the industrial research strand for research organisations, not the separate feasibility-studies strand. The distinction mattered during the original submission window: the official brief said that an application could not be transferred to the other strand and would not be sent for assessment if it was out of scope.

Archived key details

The original opportunity was aimed at mid-stage innovation in offshore wind, aligned with the Offshore Wind Industrial Growth Plan. Its stated purpose was to build a pipeline of UK businesses and technologies that could move towards scale-up, follow-on support, and commercial deployment. The call was therefore about industrial research with a credible route beyond the funded project, rather than a general study of offshore energy or an early academic investigation without a defined industrial path.

What the industrial research strand covered

The official brief listed three priority areas. The first was advanced turbine technology for offshore wind turbine blades and towers. Examples included work that could improve manufacturing quality, consistency, or output; increase manufacturing rates; reduce whole-life costs; or improve blade energy yield, reliability, or durability in operation.

The second was industrialised foundations and substructures for deepwater solutions greater than 50 metres. The scope included technologies intended to decrease costs or improve reliability, including moorings and anchors, installation methods, major-component exchange methods, scalable fabrication and assembly methods, and novel designs.

The third was future electrical systems and cables. Relevant work included solutions that could improve offshore-wind transmission reliability for export and array cables, reduce cable failures during manufacture, installation, or operation, and improve joint repair, cable protection, or monitoring systems.

The proposal had to be an industrial research project as defined by the funding rules. The official brief describes this category as planned research or critical investigation aimed at acquiring new knowledge and skills for new or significantly improved products, processes, or services. It can include component parts of complex systems, laboratory prototypes, simulated interfaces, and pilot lines where those activities support industrial research and generic technology validation.

Several boundaries were explicit. The electrical theme did not fund onshore transmission systems, onshore or offshore substations, energy storage development, or energy-storage integration with the grid. Foundation and substructure projects focused on operations and maintenance services or vessels were outside the stated scope. The brief also excluded innovations at an academic state of maturity, such as technology readiness level 4 and below, and proposals dependent on export performance or domestic-input usage conditions. These exclusions remain useful for interpreting the archived call, but they are not evidence that a future competition would use identical rules.

Eligibility and funding rules from the closed cycle

The competition was open to collaborations only. The lead organisation had to be a UK registered business of any size, and an academic institution could not lead. The consortium also had to contain at least one UK registered micro, small, or medium-sized enterprise claiming grant funding on the application.

Funded collaborators could be UK registered businesses, academic institutions, or research and technology organisations. Each partner had to be invited into IFS by the lead. After accepting the invitation, the partner had to sign in or create an IFS account, enter its own project costs, and complete its Project Impact questions. To count as an eligible collaboration, the lead and at least one other organisation had to apply for funding, include a rationale for the collaboration, explain the structure, and ensure that no single partner accounted for more than 70% of total eligible costs.

Non-funded partners could also participate. The official rules allowed UK, European Union, and other non-UK organisations to contribute from their own resources. Where a non-funded partner was invited into IFS, its costs counted towards total eligible project costs. Subcontractors were allowed, but they had to be selected through the organisation’s usual procurement process. Overseas subcontracting required a case explaining why a UK subcontractor could not be used, supported by evidence of UK contractors approached; a cheaper price alone was not enough.

The total eligible project cost had to be between £150,000 and £1.5 million, with a project duration of 12 to 18 months. The work had to start by 1 October 2026 and end by 31 March 2028. Project starts had to fall on the first day of a month, and no project could start before Innovate UK’s Grant Offer Letter had been approved. A team outside the cost or duration rules needed to request approval by email at least 10 working days before the closing date, and the official brief warned that unapproved exceptions would make an application ineligible.

For industrial research, the published grant rates were up to 70% of eligible project costs for a micro or small organisation, up to 60% for a medium-sized organisation, and up to 50% for a large organisation. Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could share up to 30% of total eligible project costs. Within that research-organisation share, the brief stated that an RTO or research organisation could receive up to 100% of eligible costs, while an academic institution could receive up to 80% of full economic costs using the Transparent Approach to Costing method. These rates described the closed competition and should not be carried forward to a future round without checking a new brief.

How applicants had to apply

There is no open application route through this archived page. For the closed cycle, Innovate UK directed applicants to read its general guidance on applying for an IFS competition before starting. The lead was responsible for ensuring that the information was correct, the proposal met the eligibility and scope rules, every section was marked complete, and all partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions.

The application was divided into four sections:

1. Project details. Applicants entered the project title, start date, duration, research category, project summary, public description, and scope statement. The brief set a limit of up to 400 words for the project summary, public description, and scope answer. It also required applicants not to include website addresses in answers.
2. Application questions. The scored questions covered the need or challenge, the innovation and technical approach, the team and resources, market awareness, outcomes and route to market, project management, risks, added value, and costs and value for money. The questions required evidence about the problem, the proposed improvement, freedom to operate, partners, facilities, target customers, commercial route, risks, public-funding effect, and partner contributions. The brief allowed specific PDF appendices for some answers, including diagrams, team information, project plans, and risk registers, subject to the stated size and legibility limits.
3. Finances. Every organisation completed its own project costs, organisation details, and funding details. Academic institutions had to use TRAC and upload supporting information to IFS. Costs had to match the narrative, partner roles, and requested grant.
4. Project Impact. This section was not scored, but each partner still had to complete its Project Impact questions before the application could be submitted.

Partners were invited through IFS by the lead, and the lead could reopen a submitted application up to the deadline. Any reopened application had to be resubmitted before the closing time. The official guidance recommended contacting Innovate UK at least 15 working days before the closing date when accessibility support or other guidance was needed. It listed [email protected] and 0300 321 4357 as contact routes for the competition.

Assessment and post-submission process

The application was to be reviewed by three independent assessors with relevant expertise. The brief said that all awarded scores would count towards the total score unless applicants were told otherwise. Innovate UK also described a portfolio approach: it wanted variety across technologies, markets, strands, themes, technological maturities, and locations. As a result, a strong score did not guarantee an award when the competition fund was limited.

Applicants were scheduled to be notified on 8 July 2026. A successful applicant would then use a dedicated IFS project-setup portal accessed through the unique link in the grant-offer email. Innovate UK would use that process to perform mandatory organisational checks, review the eligibility of costs, and collect project documentation. An unsuccessful applicant could view assessor feedback in the IFS portal after notification. The official guidance noted that positive feedback could still accompany an unsuccessful result when the average score was below the threshold or the project was not selected under the portfolio approach.

What this archive entry is useful for

This closed call can still help a team understand the type of evidence Innovate UK expected for offshore-wind industrial research. A future applicant can use it as a comparison point when checking whether a new brief separates industrial research from feasibility work, whether collaboration remains mandatory, and whether the same technology themes return. It can also help a consortium audit its structure: a business lead, a funded SME, clear division of work, balanced costs, UK delivery, and a route to exploitation are all central features of this archived brief.

It should not be used as a live application checklist without a new official notice. The deadline has passed, the official status is Closed, and this page records no announced next cycle. Before relying on any threshold, rate, theme, date, or application question for a later opportunity, applicants should open the new UKRI and IFS source pages and confirm the current rules.

Archived source note

The facts in this entry were checked against the official UKRI opportunity page and the linked Innovation Funding Service competition overview. The UKRI page identifies Innovate UK as the funder and reports the closed status, 28 May 2026 publication date, 29 May 2026 opening date, and 3 June 2026 closing date. The IFS brief supplies the detailed scope, eligibility, funding, application, assessment, and project-setup rules summarized here. The official page remains the source link in the front matter so readers can inspect the archived notice and any future status changes themselves.