Blab Tech
Defense Startups Sue U.S. Navy Over Exclusion From Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel Program
Blue Water Autonomy and Saildrone filed separate complaints in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on July 17, 2026, challenging the Navy’s decision to exclude them from the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) Family of Systems program. Both companies argue that the Navy failed to follow its own solicitation requirements and that the evaluation process was overly restrictive and inconsistent with the Request for Prototype Proposals.
The MUSV solicitation was announced on March 26, 2026, after the Navy cancelled the Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) program that had been announced on July 28, 2025. The MASC program had focused on a single mission profile—transporting large containerized payloads comparable to the Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System. In contrast, the MUSV program is intended to cover a broader set of missions and requirements. The solicitation closed on April 17, 2026, and evaluated each submission’s business plan, manufacturing plan, test plan, and technical design.
Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston‑based startup, had been selected to participate in the MASC program and had already begun developing its Liberty vessel. The company claims that the Navy’s abrupt transition to the MUSV program and subsequent exclusion of Blue Water from the prototype proposal process were “capricious” and not in accordance with statutory or regulatory guidance. The complaint requests that the Navy halt further testing and funding for the MUSV program until the alleged errors are corrected and Blue Water is allowed to reenter the competition.
Saildrone, headquartered in Alameda, California, operates a fleet of contractor‑owned USVs that have completed more than 2.5 million nautical miles since 2012. The company’s complaint states that its MUSV submission was fully compliant with the solicitation and should have advanced to the next round, which would have included sea trials and prototype development at Saildrone’s own cost. Saildrone says it learned of its exclusion from a news article and received no explanation from the Navy. The complaint characterizes the Navy’s evaluation as “fundamentally flawed” and argues that reinstating Saildrone would serve the public interest at no material cost.
On June 1, 2026, the Navy announced that seven companies had been selected for at‑sea testing: Sea Machines, Leidos, Saronic Technologies, Galliano Marine Services, PacMar Technologies, Birdon, and Huntington Ingalls Industries. Blue Water Autonomy and Saildrone were not on the list. The Navy has not commented on the pending litigation.
The fiscal 2027 Navy budget includes a line item for the procurement of 63 unmanned vessels, and the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act earmarks $2.1 billion for medium unmanned surface vessels. The lawsuits raise questions about the Navy’s acquisition process and the fairness of the MUSV marketplace. The parties have requested that the Navy pause further testing and funding until the alleged procedural errors are addressed.
At present, the court has not issued a ruling. The lawsuits remain pending, and the Navy has not provided a response. The outcome will determine whether the MUSV program can proceed with the current set of contractors or if additional reviews and potential re‑openings of the solicitation are required.
The case illustrates the growing tension between defense contractors and the Navy’s evolving procurement strategies for unmanned maritime systems. The resolution of these complaints will have implications for future funding, testing schedules, and the broader defense industry’s engagement with the Navy’s unmanned vessel initiatives.
The MUSV solicitation was announced on March 26, 2026, after the Navy cancelled the Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) program that had been announced on July 28, 2025. The MASC program had focused on a single mission profile—transporting large containerized payloads comparable to the Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System. In contrast, the MUSV program is intended to cover a broader set of missions and requirements. The solicitation closed on April 17, 2026, and evaluated each submission’s business plan, manufacturing plan, test plan, and technical design.
Blue Water Autonomy, a Boston‑based startup, had been selected to participate in the MASC program and had already begun developing its Liberty vessel. The company claims that the Navy’s abrupt transition to the MUSV program and subsequent exclusion of Blue Water from the prototype proposal process were “capricious” and not in accordance with statutory or regulatory guidance. The complaint requests that the Navy halt further testing and funding for the MUSV program until the alleged errors are corrected and Blue Water is allowed to reenter the competition.
Saildrone, headquartered in Alameda, California, operates a fleet of contractor‑owned USVs that have completed more than 2.5 million nautical miles since 2012. The company’s complaint states that its MUSV submission was fully compliant with the solicitation and should have advanced to the next round, which would have included sea trials and prototype development at Saildrone’s own cost. Saildrone says it learned of its exclusion from a news article and received no explanation from the Navy. The complaint characterizes the Navy’s evaluation as “fundamentally flawed” and argues that reinstating Saildrone would serve the public interest at no material cost.
On June 1, 2026, the Navy announced that seven companies had been selected for at‑sea testing: Sea Machines, Leidos, Saronic Technologies, Galliano Marine Services, PacMar Technologies, Birdon, and Huntington Ingalls Industries. Blue Water Autonomy and Saildrone were not on the list. The Navy has not commented on the pending litigation.
The fiscal 2027 Navy budget includes a line item for the procurement of 63 unmanned vessels, and the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act earmarks $2.1 billion for medium unmanned surface vessels. The lawsuits raise questions about the Navy’s acquisition process and the fairness of the MUSV marketplace. The parties have requested that the Navy pause further testing and funding until the alleged procedural errors are addressed.
At present, the court has not issued a ruling. The lawsuits remain pending, and the Navy has not provided a response. The outcome will determine whether the MUSV program can proceed with the current set of contractors or if additional reviews and potential re‑openings of the solicitation are required.
The case illustrates the growing tension between defense contractors and the Navy’s evolving procurement strategies for unmanned maritime systems. The resolution of these complaints will have implications for future funding, testing schedules, and the broader defense industry’s engagement with the Navy’s unmanned vessel initiatives.
