DoD SBIR 22.1

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Networked C3

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop Civilian Pattern of Life models, sufficient to withstand review board scrutiny to support model verification, validation, and accreditation, as required. Focus on developing and implementing the models referenced herein, not on the underlying mechanics of the Program Manager Wargaming Capability (PM WGC) materiel solution simulation framework.

 

DESCRIPTION: This SBIR topic addresses two parametrics of interest for future inclusion in the Marine Corps Wargaming and Analysis Center (MCWAC), both related to modeling civilian populations. In the table below, the two major parametrics considered are “Civilian Pattern of Life” and “Civilian Populations.” The specific conceptual model requirements are listed for each parametric.

 

ID	Parametric	Parametric Description	Conceptual Model Requirements
Info1	Civilian pattern of life (traffic patterns on the air, land, and sea)	Basic needs (food, water, shelter); basic economic behaviors (work locations, work activities); basic religious behaviors (worship times, locations, behaviors); basic reactions to military activities (bombs, blue forces presence, red forces presence); etc.	Identify geographic locations of homes, places of business, schools, religious activities, and social activities.
Info2			Represent opening hours for places of business, schools, religious activities, and social activities.
Info3			Represent statistical demographics based on age, gender, and social role.
Info4			Represent aggregate daily civilian location based on geographic locations, opening hours, and statistical demographics.
Info5			Identify recurring, large-scale activities impacting civilian activities.
Info6			Simulate changes to daily civilian location based on recurring, large-scale activities.
Info7			Identify anomalous circumstances impacting daily civilian activities.
Info8			Simulate changes to daily civilian location based on anomalous circumstances.
Info9			Identify aggregate daily land vehicle traffic.
Info10			Identify aggregate daily foot traffic.
Info13			Identify aggregate daily civilian resource requirements
Info16			Simulate daily civilian movements between locations based on LOCE CoD requirements.
Info17			Identify minimum daily civilian resource requirements.
Info18			Simulate individual civilian daily traffic based on geographic locations, opening hours, statistical demographics, and all forms of daily traffic.
Info19			Simulate changes to individual daily traffic based on recurring, large-scale activities.
Info20			Simulate changes to individual daily traffic based on anomalous circumstances impacting daily civilian activities.
Info22	Civil populations have atmospherics (culture, society, economic, technology, and density); personal intent and perceptions; and human dynamics for both domestic and foreign groups.  The collection affects the political and military environments based upon the knowledge and perceptions of the collection.	This is just the representation of civilian representations.  There is a parallel effort to look at the data and validity of the data.	Identify political parties, religions (sects), families, social / cultural organizations, professional organizations, and prominent figures with which individuals may have affiliations.
Info23			Identify sentiments, positions / beliefs, and goals associated with all affiliations.
Info24			Represent civilian affiliations in the aggregate based on age, gender, and social role.
Info25			Simulate changes in sentiments, positions / beliefs, and goals associated with all affiliations based on changes in the physical environment.
Info26			Simulate changes in sentiments, positions / beliefs, and goals associated with all affiliations based on changes in the social, political, economic, and cultural environment.

 

Some examples under the above headings include, but are not limited to:

• Model civil infrastructure networks for Food, Water, Sewage, Power, Fuel, Communications.
• Model key civil infrastructure facilities to include religious centers, medical treatment, civil supply, law enforcement.
• Model displacement of civilians due to military activity (or disasters) that causes them to require shelter, medical attention, and food.
• Model the relationship between various civil factions including level of violence.
• Model incidents of violence (fully automated). Military action (or lack of) can suppress these incidents.
• Model the positive or negative "influence" of one faction versus another, a key metric for Stability and Support Operations (SASO).

 

Full satisfaction of each conceptual model requirement is the end goal; however, partial solutions will be considered. This topic specifically focuses on developing the mathematical, algorithmic, and data aspects of the conceptual models. The mechanism by which these conceptual models would be implemented within the MCWAC is not the focus. Documentation of the conceptual models with Cameo/SysML is desirable, but not necessarily a strict requirement, if another representation is more suitable [Ref 2].

 

PHASE I: Develop concepts for an improved representation of civilian populations in wargaming Modeling and Simulation (M&S) that meets the requirements described above. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concepts in meeting Marine Corps needs and establish that the concepts can be developed into a useful product for the Marine Corps. Feasibility will be established by evaluation of the plan of attack for the development effort including data availability. Provide a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones, and that will address technical risk reduction.

 

PHASE II: Develop prototype conceptual models to be evaluated to determine its capability in meeting the performance goals defined in the Phase II development plan and the Marine Corps requirements for civilian populations M&S. System performance will be demonstrated through prototype evaluation over the required range of parameters. Evaluation results will be used to refine the prototype into an initial design that will meet Marine Corps requirements. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Marine Corps use.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Marine Corps in transitioning the technology for Marine Corps use. Develop civilian population conceptual model implementations for evaluation to determine their effectiveness in an operationally relevant environment within the MCWAC. Support the Marine Corps for M&S Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) to certify and qualify the system for Marine Corps use.

 

The conceptual models described herein are not only a high priority within the Marine Corps [Ref 1], but are equally applicable across the Services, to support not only wargaming, but also analysis, training, and experimentation. Successfully developed conceptual models would likely be of great interest across these communities. Outside DoD, marketing firms would be a natural customer, looking to understand patterns of civilian behavior from which to develop market segmentation strategies and ultimately advertisement campaigns.

 

REFERENCES:

1. “Commandant’s Planning Guidance, 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps, 2019.” https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/Commandant's%20Planning%20Guidance_2019.pdf?ver=2019-07-17-090732-937.
2. “Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process.” IEEE 1730-2010, January 2011. https://www.sisostds.org/StandardsActivities/SupportGroups/DSEEPDMAOPSG-DistributedSimulationEngineerin.aspx.

 

KEYWORDS: Wargaming; Modeling and Simulation; M&S; Civilian Pattern of Life; Conceptual Model; Marine Corps Wargaming and Analysis Center; MCWAC; Program Manager Wargaming Capability; PM WGC; Information modeling

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a compact, lightweight, and engine driven power generation system for energy export power with high specific power (kilowatts per kilogram) that fits within the confines of the chassis of recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs) to meet expected power and energy demands and allow for future mission growth.

 

DESCRIPTION: Currently available vehicles capable of being internally transported in rotary wing aircraft have insufficient export power capabilities to meet power and energy demands of current Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UASs) and allow for future mission growth. The current Light Marine Air Defense Integrated System (LMADIS) uses a 5 kilowatts (kW) diesel generator weighing 300 lbs. that results in the vehicle weighing 15 lbs. over the maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) of the current Ultra Lightweight Tactical Vehicle (ULTV). Future mission growth to add additional communications equipment to LMADIS is expected to increase the power demands to 10 kW. Currently available diesel generators that meet the higher power requirements weigh close to 500 lbs. and would result in the vehicle weighing 100 to 150 lbs. over maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). Compact and lightweight power generation systems are needed to power C-UAS and C2 systems and keep the vehicle safely within its allowable GVW. System requirements are:

• Integrated system using the existing Polaris MRZR-ALPHA 118hp 1.5L Ford diesel engine
• Export power output of 10 kW at idle Threshold (T); 15 kW at idle Objective (O) at 28 volts direct current (VDC)
• Reduced physical size of export power system (same approximate size as an alternator, 8 inches wide x 10 inches long x 8 inches high)
• Physical weight of export power system less than 125 lbs.
• Compatible with typical 28VDC tactical electrical systems and 14VDC vehicle electrical systems while conforming to the necessary requirements within MIL-STD-1275E, MIL-STD-1332B, and MIL-STD-705D
• Electrical component and connections with an ingress protection rating of Ingress Protection (IP67) or higher in accordance with (IAW) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60529-2004
• Modular design that can be inspected, serviced, and repaired in the field
• Full power output across the range of engine speeds, ~750-4,500 Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)
• Operate at temperatures between 0°F to 125°F (T); -25°F to 125°F (O)

 

PHASE I: Develop concept(s) for a generator technology and its supporting control equipment that can meet the requirements described above. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept(s) in meeting the Marine Corps needs and establish that the concepts can be developed into a useful product for the Marine Corps. Feasibility will be established by material testing and/or analytical modeling, as appropriate. Provide a Phase II development plan with performance goals, key technical milestones, and address technical risk reduction.

 

PHASE II: Develop a full-scale prototype for evaluation. The prototype shall be evaluated through bench or lab testing to determine its capability in meeting the performance goals defined in the Phase II development plan and the Marine Corps requirement for the integrated power generation system. System performance shall be demonstrated through prototype evaluation and modeling or analytical methods over the required range of parameters including numerous deployment cycles. Evaluate the results and refine the design as necessary. Conduct on-vehicle testing in a relevant environment. Evaluate and compare the results to Marine Corps requirements. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology for Marine Corps and commercial use.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Provide support to the Marine Corps in transitioning the technology for Marine Corps use. Refine a power generation system for further evaluation and determine its effectiveness in an operationally relevant environment. Support the Marine Corps test and evaluation program to qualify the system for the Marine Corps use.

 

Commercial applications include law enforcement vehicles, search and rescue vehicles, tractor trailers, and general automotive platforms to provide integrated power capability reducing both weight and space claim supporting a more demanding future mobile power environment.

 

REFERENCES:

1. “MIL-STD-1275E Characteristics of 28 Volt DC Input Power to Utilization Equipment in Military Vehicles.” U.S. Army Tank automotive and Armaments Command, March 22, 2013. https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=36186. 
2. “MIL-STD-1332B Tactical, Prime. Precise, and Utility Terminologies For Classification of the DoD Mobile Electric Power Engine Generator Set Family.” Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Naval Construction Battalion Center, March 13, 1973. https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=36687.
3. “MIL-STD-705D Mobile Electric Power Systems.” Communications Electronics Research Development Engineering Center (CERDEC) Product Realization Directorate (PRD), November 22, 2016. https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35902.
4. “ANSI/IEC 60529-2004 Degrees of Protection Provided by Enclosures (IP Code).” https://www.nema.org/Standards/ComplimentaryDocuments/ANSI-IEC-60529.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Tactical vehicle; power generation; weight reduction; size reduction; ultra lightweight tactical vehicle; ULTV; Light Marine Air Defense Integrated System; LMADIS; Exportable power; Power

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Autonomy;General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an expeditionary system that integrates a multiplicity of capabilities currently provided by several separate and distinct systems that provide material handling, construction, path/trail clearance, explosive hazard defeat capabilities, and refueling into a single system; and would utilize separate “attachments” or end-effectors to perform the various missions.

 

DESCRIPTION: The intent of this SBIR topic is to develop a system that integrates material handling, construction, path/trail clearance, and explosive hazard defeat capabilities into a single system. The system may be configured as a “base” and incorporate various attachments for each specific application. It is desired that the system require a minimum amount of operational input from personnel, including the changing of attachments. The system must be transportable by Marine Corps ground and air assets. Proposals should specifically describe the technology that will be applied to solve the problem, how it will be developed, what estimated benefits will be, and how it might be transitioned to the Marine Corps.

 

Definitions:

• Systems must meet Threshold requirements = (T)
• It is highly desirable for the system meets Objective requirements = (O)

 

1. Ability to meet the requirements of the Marine Corps in all of its operating environments (MIL-STD-810) (T=O)
2. Capable of repair in the field with plug-and-play line replaceable units or parts produced by expeditionary advanced manufacturing (additive manufactured 3D printed/subtractive manufactured Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling or lathing parts) (T=O)
3. Able to be deployed and operational by 1 person within 30 minutes (T), less than 5 minutes (O), starting from its transport configuration
4. Retrievable and ready for transport within 30 minutes (T), less than 5 minutes (O)
5. Operated with little or no human intervention. Single-person wireless remote operation (T); Fully Autonomous operation (O)
6. Base system weight: 5,000 lbs (T), 4,000 lbs (O)
7. Transportability:
   1. Aircraft: CH-53 (T), MV-22 (O)
   2. Ground: MTVR (T), JLTV Trailer (O)
8. Propulsion: diesel, electric, or hybrid
9. Run Time: 4 hours (T), 8 hours (O)
10. Operable in rivers or streams with a depth of 1 m (T=O)
11. Capable of operation in fresh and brackish water (T=O)
12. Mission Attachments
    1. The base system will connect to attachments with limited human intervention (T), or no human intervention (O). A universal skid steer adapter is an example of a tool that may facilitate this function.
    2. The time to connect/disconnect attachments will be 30 min (T), or 5 min (O).
13. Examples of desired Mission Capabilities that may require separate, distinct attachments to perform each task identified below:
    1. The base system may use commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) attachments. As an example, the Airfield Damage Repair Kit with the following attachments:

1. Compactor, Vibratory (NSN 3805-01-553-7850, PN 231-8601, CAGE 11083)
2. Hydraulic Hammer (PN 435-5318 CAGE 11083)
3. Angle Broom Attachment (PN 448-5670 CAGE 11083)
4. Fork Attachment (NSN 3930-01-561-7981, PN 353-1697, CAGE 11083)
5. Bucket Attachment (PN 426-6947 CAGE 11083)

2. Material Handling

1. Payload: 11,200 lbs (T=O)
2. Lift Capacity: 5,000 lbs (T), 11,200 lbs (O)
3. Lift Height: 60” (T), 72” (O)
4. Adjustable forks and mast

3. Explosive Hazard Defeat

1. Flail
2. Mine Roller
3. Breaching
4. Marking

4. Counter Mobility

1. Create man-made obstacles
2. Emplacement of lethal area denial capabilities

5. Fueling

1. Remote/Autonomous refueling of ground vehicles; e.g, JLTV, MTVR, LVSR (T)
2. Remote/Autonomous refueling of aviation assets (O)

6. Fire Suppression
7. Auxiliary Power Generation: 1,500W (T), 5,000W (O)

14. The system software will employ an open architecture; e.g., Robotic and Operating Systems – Modular (ROS-M) or Robotic Operating System (ROS) (T=O)
15. Cost, Base System: cost < $50,000 (O)

 

PHASE I: Develop concepts for a REAPr that meets the requirements described above. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concepts in meeting the Marine Corps requirements. Establish that the concepts can be developed into a useful product for the Marine Corps. Feasibility will be established by material testing and analytical modeling, as appropriate. Provide a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones, and that will address technical risk reduction.

 

PHASE II: Develop a scaled prototype for evaluation to determine its capability in meeting the performance goals defined in the Phase II development plan and the Marine Corps requirements for REAPr. Demonstrate system performance through prototype evaluation and modeling or analytical methods over the required range of parameters including numerous deployment cycles. Evaluation results will be used to refine the prototype into an initial design that will meet Marine Corps and REAPr requirements; and for evaluation to determine its effectiveness in an operationally relevant environment approved by the Government. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Marine Corps use.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Marine Corps in transitioning the technology for Marine Corps use. Support the Marine Corps for test and validation to certify and qualify the system for Marine Corps use.

 

Commercial applications may include, but not be limited to: material handling in finished and austere environments; forestry and logging; public safety; demining and clearance; construction and earth movement; aviation (material handling and fueling). Additionally, the system lends itself to operations in remote locations that may not be accessible by traditional construction equipment.

 

REFERENCES:

1. ROS-M ROS Military Public Website. US Army CCDC Ground Vehicle Systems Center. www.rosmilitary.org. 
2. “Remote Controlled Tracked Carriers, PT-300 D:MINE.” FAE Group S.p.A., 2020. https://www.fae-group.com/en_US/products/demining/demining-tracked-carriers/remote-controlled-tracked-carriers/pt-300-d-mine.
3. Built Robotics. Built Robotics Inc. https://www.builtrobotics.com/.

 

KEYWORDS: autonomous; robot; material handling; expeditionary; maneuver; construction; explosive hazard; mine; mobility; Remote Expeditionary Autonomous Pioneer System; REAPr

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Hypersonics

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate a conceptual design geometry tool capable of embedding in fixed- and rotary-wing multidisciplinary optimization frameworks to enable improved estimates of cost and technical feasibility during requirements development and concept refinement of new manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and weapons.

 

DESCRIPTION: Early in the acquisition lifecycle of a new air vehicle—Pre-milestone A—the Department of Defense (DoD) conducts aircraft conceptual design studies to determine the technical feasibility of potential requirements sets. The DoD uses these conceptual designs to estimate the development, production, and operating cost of the aircraft program. They also use the designs as inputs to virtual and constructive modeling and simulation (M & S) tools. The DoD uses M & S to quantify the military effectiveness of the aircraft design. Finally, the DoD uses this combination of cost vs. effectiveness data as the basis for decisions setting the requirements for the new aircraft development program.

 

This process can be used for all sizes and types of air vehicles, from manned tactical aircraft like strike fighters, to rotary-wing vehicles like helicopters and tilt-rotors, to small unmanned aircraft and weapons. This forms the start of the Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) process. At Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), this process is conducted by the Mission Engineering and Analysis Department (MEAD). MEAD engineers use multidisciplinary analysis and optimization (MDAO) software frameworks to find the best possible design for each potential requirement set under evaluation.

 

This current process is significantly hampered by the lack of a 3D aircraft geometry modeling tool that can be embedded within MDAO frameworks. MEAD engineers need an ability to visualize the geometry they are entering into the MDAO framework in order to support program offices as they look at new and innovative air vehicles, from hypersonic weapons to manned rotary-wing platforms to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) designed specifically for manned-unmanned-teaming. They also need the ability to generate 3D models of the aircraft results produced by the MDAO framework. Currently, commercial CAD packages are not flexible enough to handle the large variations in geometry produced during an MDAO run. Some open source parametric geometry tools are flexible enough, but do not allow the Application Programming Interface (API) to be used while the Graphical User Interface (GUI) is open.

 

This geometry modeling tool must allow parametric modeling of a wide variety of classes of aircraft and nonconventional arrangements. It should include an aircraft conceptual design specific geometry parametrization, and provide a fully documented, fully unit tested API that allows communication with MDAO software while the geometry tool GUI is open. It must include a GUI that enables MEAD and program office engineers to visualize geometry as they input it to MDAO software, and as the MDAO software returns results. The geometry tool should provide the flexibility to easily generate new aircraft configurations, with the capability for an engineer to start from a blank file and create all major aircraft components in less than one hour. All features available in the API should be available in the GUI, and all features available in the GUI should be available in the API. It must be capable of generating multiple geometry models for analysis from a single authoritative model, including the ability to generate geometry input data for Vortex Lattice aerodynamic analysis. It should be capable of modeling both fixed-and rotary-wing vehicle geometries. It must be capable of exporting 3D watertight trimmed geometry models in both IGES and STEP formats. It must be capable of modeling internal component layouts and outer mold line geometry shapes. It should be capable of providing geometry measurements including surface areas, volumes, cross sectional areas, and projected areas. It should be capable of running on both Windows and Linux operating systems.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of an aircraft geometry modeling tool that can be embedded in an MDAO framework. This demonstration will test integration with both the Aircraft Design, Analysis, Performance, and Tradespace (ADAPT) framework produced by the DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP), and with An Integrated Design Environment for NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft (AIDEN/NDARC). The government will provide access to both ADAPT and AIDEN for development and demonstration. The demonstration of at least one feature in the API working while the GUI is open, providing two-way communication between the geometry tool and ADAPT is a critical goal of Phase I. The demonstration of two-way communication between the geometry tool and both AIDEN is also a critical goal of Phase I. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop a prototype fully featured geometry tool, with all capabilities available within the API while the GUI is running. Direct integration with both ADAPT and AIDEN frameworks should be completed. Several classes of military aircraft should be demonstrated (fighters, helicopters, hypersonic weapons, small unmanned aircraft, etc.). GUI updates to support integration with MDAO frameworks must be completed. Documentation and unit testing of the full API will be completed.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Final integration tests with MDAO frameworks will be completed, and the geometry tool will transition into use with NAWCAD MEAD engineers, and other design groups in government and industry.

 

Geometry modeling for aircraft conceptual design is needed across industry for both defense and commercial applications. A geometry tool capable of direct integration with MDAO frameworks could be valuable to many private sector design groups.

 

REFERENCES:

1. McDonald, R. (2016). Advanced Modeling in OpenVSP. 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3282.
2. Gary, A. & McDonald, R. (2015). Parametric Identification of Surface Regions in OpenVSP for Improved Engineering Analysis. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1016.

 

KEYWORDS: Aircraft Design; Geometry; Optimization; MDAO; Software; Open Vehicle Sketch Pad; OpenVSP

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Networked C3

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms;Electronics;Information Systems

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop photonic plug-in module technology and a modeling approach for designing and packaging air platform digital and analog optical communication avionics.

 

DESCRIPTION: Current airborne military (mil-aero) core avionics, electro-optic (EO), communications and electronic warfare systems require ever-increasing bandwidths while simultaneously demanding reductions in space, weight, and power. The replacement of shielded twisted pair wire and coaxial cable with earlier generation length-bandwidth product, multimode optical fiber has given increased immunity to electromagnetic interference, bandwidth, throughput, and a reduction in size and weight on aircraft. The effectiveness of these systems hinges on optical communication components that realize large link budget, high dynamic range, and are compatible with the harsh avionic environment [Refs 1, 5-7].

 

Future avionics digital and analog/radio-frequency (RF) signal transmission rates and frequencies are expected to increase to the point where fiber optics is the only medium with the capacity and low loss for maintaining communications signal integrity. Substantial work has been done in the digital domain to realize 100 Gbps data rates based on shortwave wavelength division multiplexing (SWDM) and coarse wavelength division multiplexing (CWDM) technologies [Refs 8-9]. Generally, SWDM utilizes 50 micrometer core multimode optical fiber and CWDM utilizes single-mode optical fiber for optical interconnection. Optical Multimode 4 (OM4) and Optical Multimode 5 (OM5) optical fiber has been optimized for 100 Gbps and higher SWDM links. Digital links generally use physical contact and non-contact connectors, with no angle polish. In the analog/RF domain there is interest in realizing higher performance intensity modulation with direct detection photonic links based on improvements in fiber pigtailed laser and photodetector, and electro-optic modulator performance [Ref 12]. Phase modulation with interferometric detection type links continues to be of interest for avionics as well [Ref 13]. Analog/RF photonic links generally utilize single-mode fiber (both polarization maintaining and single-core) and physical contact connectors [Refs 14-15]. Dual-core fiber connector and analog/RF photonic link technology is in the early stage of development for balanced photonic links [Refs 16-17].

 

The ANSI/VITA 46 base standard defines physical features that enable high-speed communication in 3U or 6U backplane-based critical and intelligent embedded computing systems [Ref 18]. The ANSI/VITA 65 OpenVPX System standard uses module mechanical, connectors, thermal, communications protocols, utility, and power definitions provided by specific VPX standards and then describes a series of standard profiles that define slots, backplanes, modules, and standard development chassis [Ref 19]. The ANSI/VITA 66.0 Optical Interconnect on VPX base standard defines a family of blind mate fiber optic interconnects for use with VITA 46 backplanes and plug-in modules [Ref 20]. The ANSI/VITA 67 Coaxial Interconnect on VPXbase standard establishes a structure for implementing blind mate analog coaxial interconnects with VPX backplanes and plug-in module, and to define a specific family of interconnects and configurations within that structure [Ref 21].

 

Photonics integration on plug-in module innovation is needed to implement 100 Gbps and higher digital fiber optic technology. 100 Gbps fiber optic transceivers generally transmit and receive multi-wavelength optical signals with four wavelengths of light, each operating at 25 Gbps to achieve an aggregate bandwidth of =100 Gbps. Typically, the transceivers are interfaced with differential current mode logic signaling and either single-mode or OM4/OM5 multimode fiber. Analog/RF photonics integration on plug-in module innovation is also needed. Analog/RF photonic links generally include a laser with power supply and electro-optic modulator with bias control circuitry and RF connection transmitter, and a high-speed fiber pigtailed photodetector receiver. The proposed digital and analog/RF photonic plug-in modules must operate over a -40 °C to +95 °C temperature range, and maintain performance upon exposure to typical naval air platform vibration, humidity, temperature, altitude, thermal shock, mechanical shock, and temperature cycling environments [Refs 22-27].

 

Integrating the disparate interfaces associated with digital and analog/RF photonic components on 3U or 6U plug-in modules will require significant digital engineering research and innovation. Not all of the required connections and interfaces are specified in the ANSI/VITA specifications. Field programmable gate array integration and electro-optic modulator RF and optical signal connections for moving digital and analog signals onto and off of plug-in modules between chassis and through chassis backplanes is required. The developed models should include digital and analog/RF loss budget calculations and the ability to perform analysis of system designs up to 100 Gbps and 100 GHz, respectively. Approaches to fill identified digital and analog/RF photonics technology gaps including packaging and connectors is also needed. Digital engineering research is required to understand how to best utilize the existing CAMEO Systems Modeler tool [Ref 28] and Systems Modeling Language (SysML) [Ref 29] for avionics hardware integration.

 

PHASE I: Using SysML, create the handoff between development board level electrical layouts and photonic component packaging concepts for digital and analog/RF photonic components mounted on the plug-in module level, and the module to backplane and external backplane levels. Identify key risk areas for tracing lower level module design to higher level module level design to realize desired performance and packaging for chassis integration, and mitigate these risks using digital engineering research concepts and modeling tools. Demonstrate computer aided designs of 3U and 6U photonic plug-in modules. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Collect research data on plug-in module photonics integration concepts including plug-in module to backplane digital and RF connections. Using digital engineering-based software, model photonic plug-in module and chassis backplane integration of digital and analog/RF components. Optimize the plug-in module designs. Build and test photonic module prototypes to meet avionics digital and analog/RF link performance requirements. Characterize the photonic module prototypes over temperature, and perform highly accelerated life testing. If necessary, perform root cause analysis and remediate circuit and/or packaged transmitter failures. Deliver two 100 Gbps digital modules, one intensity modulated with direct detection analog/RF module, and one phase modulated with interferometric detection module. Deliver the SysML model and the CAD model.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Finalize the prototype. Verify and validate that the plug-in module operates from -40 °C to +95 °C. Transition to applicable naval platforms.

 

Commercial avionics and general network Infrastructure sectors could benefit from high-speed fiber optic plug-in modules.

 

REFERENCES:

1. 1. 1. Binh, L.N. (2017, July 26) Advanced digital optical communications (2nd ed.). CRC Press. ISBN 1482226537. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18128 https://www.worldcat.org/title/advanced-digital-optical-communications/oclc/1053852857?referer=br&ht=edition.
      2. AS-3 Fiber Optics and Applied Photonics Committee. (2018, January 23). AS5603A Digital Fiber Optic Link Loss Budget Methodology for Aerospace Platforms. Warrendale: SAE.
      3. AS-3 Fiber Optics and Applied Photonics Committee. (2018, January 23). AS5750A Loss Budget Specification for Fiber Optic Links. Warrendale: SAE. https://seamobilus.sae.org/content/as5750A.
      4. AS-3 Fiber Optics and Applied Photonics Committee. (2018, August 20). ARP6318 Verification of Discrete and Packaged Photonics Technology Readiness. Warrendale: SAE. https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/arp6318.
      5. Department of Defense. (2019, January 31). MIL-STD-810H: Department of Defense test method standard: Environmental engineering considerations and laboratory tests. http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-810H_55998/.
      6. Department of Defense. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883L: Department of Defense test method standard: Microcircuits. Department of Defense. http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883L_56323/.
      7. Department of Defense. (2019, December 03). MIL-PRF-38534L: Performance specification: Hybrid microcircuits, general specification for. Department of Defense. http://everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF-030000-79999/MIL-PRF-38534L_57123/.
      8. Cole, C., Petrilla, J., Lewis, D., Hiramoto, K., & Tsumura, E. (2015, November 23). 100G CWDM4 MSA technical specifications: 2km optical specifications (D. Lewis, Ed.). CWDM4-MSA. http://www.cwdm4-msa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CWDM4-MSA-Technical-Spec-1p1-1.pdf.
      9. Kolesar, P., King, J., Peng, W., Zhang, H., Maki, J., Lewis, D., Lingle, R., & Adrian, A. (2017, November 6). 100G SWDM4 MSA technical specifications: optical specifications (D. Lewis, Ed.). SWDM. https://pdf4pro.com/view/100g-swdm4-msa-technical-specifications-18af22.html.
      10. Telecommunications Industry Association. (2009). TIA-492AAAD: Detail Specification for 850-nm laser-optimized, 50 µm core diameter/125-µm cladding diameter class Ia graded-index multimode optical fibers suitable for manufacturing OM4 cabled optical fiber. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1194330/TIA-492AAAD.
      11. Telecommunications Industry Association. (2016, June). TIA-492AAAE: Detail specification for 50-µm core diameter/125-µm cladding diameter class 1a graded-index multimode optical fibers with laser-optimized bandwidth characteristics specified for wavelength division multiplexing. Telecommunications Industry Association. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?&csf=TIA&item_s_key=00689098&item_key_date=970301&input_doc%20number=TIA%2D492AAAE&input_doc_title=&org_code=TIA.
      12. Urick, V. J., Williams, K. J., & McKinney, J. D. (2015). Fundamentals of microwave photonics. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119029816.
      13. Urick, V. J., Bucholtz, F., Devgan, P. S., McKinney, J. D., & Williams, K. J. (2007). Phase modulation with interferometric detection as an alternative to intensity modulation with direct detection for analog-photonic links. IEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques, 55(9), 1978-1985. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2007.904087.
      14. Noda, J., Okamoto, K., & Sasaki, Y. (1986). Polarization-maintaining fibers and their applications. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 4(8), 1071-1089. https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.1986.1074847.
      15. Nagase, R., Abe, Y., & Kihara, M. (2017, August). History of fiber optic physical contact connector for low insertion and high return losses. In 2017 IEEE HISTory of ELectrotechnology CONference (HISTELCON) (pp. 113-116). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HISTELCON.2017.8535630.
      16. Abe, Y., Shikama, K., & Asakawa, S. (2017). Multi-core fiber connector technology for low-loss physical-contact connection. NTT Tech. Rev., 15(6), 1-6. https://www.ntt-review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr201706fa6.pdf&mode=show. 
      17. Diehl, J., Nickel, D., Hastings, A., Singley, J., McKinney, J., & Beranek, M. (2019, November). Measurements and discussion of a balanced photonic link utilizing dual-core optical fiber. In 2019 IEEE Avionic and Vehicle Fiber-Optics and Photonics Conference (pp.1–2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AVFOP.2019.8908161.
      18. Standards Organization. (2019). ANSI/VITA 46.0-2019: VPX: Baseline. VMEBUS International Trade Association (VITA). https://www.vita.com/Standards.
      19. VITA Standards Organization. (2019). ANSI/VITA 65.0-2019: OpenVPX system. VMEBUS International Trade Association (VITA). https://www.vita.com/Standards.
      20. VITA Standards Organization. (2019). ANSI/VITA 66.0-2019: VPX: Optical interconnect on VPX - base standard. VMEBUS International Trade Association (VITA). https://www.vita.com/Standards.
      21. VITA Standards Organization. (2019). ANSI/VITA 67.0-2019: VPX: Coaxial interconnect - base standard. VMEBUS International Trade Association (VITA). https://www.vita.com/Standards.
      22. Department of Defense. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883-1: Department of Defense test method standard: Environmental test methods for microcircuits: Part 1: Test methods 1000-1999 (Method 1010.9 Temperature Cycling). http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883-1_56324/.
      23. Department of Defense. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883-2: Department of Defense test method standard: Mechanical test methods for microcircuits: Part 2: Test methods 2000-2999 (Method 2001.4 Constant acceleration). http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883-2_56325/.
      24. Department of Defense. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883-1: Department of Defense test method standard: Environmental test methods for microcircuits: Part 1: Test methods 1000-1999 (Method 1001 Barometric pressure, reduced (altitude operation)). http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883-1_56324/.
      25. Department of Defense. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883-1: Department of Defense test method standard: Environmental test methods for microcircuits: Part 1: Test methods 1000-1999 (Method 1014.17 Seal). http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883-1_56324/.
      26. Engineering Department. (1997, April). EIA/JESD22-A101-B: EIA/JEDEC standard: Test method A101-B: Steady state temperature-humidity bias life test. Electronic Industries Association. https://studyres.com/doc/22624089/jesd22-a101b.
      27. DLA Land and Maritime. (2019, September 16). MIL-STD-883-1: Department of Defense test method standard: Environmental test methods for microcircuits: Part 1: Test methods 1000-1999 (Method 1005.11 Steady-state life). http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-883-1_56324/.
      28. The Object Management Group. (n. d.). What is SYSML? OMG Systems Modeling Language. Retrieved March 17, 2021, from https://www.omgsysml.org/what-is-sysml.htm.
      29. Bassinan, O., & Boyden, W. (2020). High Speed Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL).” Navy SBIR Program, Navy STTR 20.B - Topic N20B-T027. https://www.navysbir.com/n20_B/N20B-T027.htm.

 

KEYWORDS: Digital Engineering; Fiber Optics; Photonics; Modular Open Systems Approach; Plug-in Module; 100 Gigabits per second

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms;Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate a lightweight honeycomb core filler for repairs with a short, room room-temperature cure.

 

DESCRIPTION: Current composite honeycomb repairs rely on either epoxy fill, higher temperature cure (150-160° F; 65.56–71.11 °C) syntactic foams, or 7-day room-temperature cures of syntactic foam. These options have drawbacks, including long times to complete the repair, additional required equipment for controlling/monitoring the cure, and increased resultant weight for epoxy fill repairs. In addition, syntactic foams were designed for battlefield or non-aviation applications and lack the target room-temperature cure duration and required mechanical performance. Composite honeycomb repairs need to be simplified and streamlined to reduce repair turnaround time and necessary support equipment. Reducing the time to cure can drastically improve the rate at which repairs are completed, increasing fleet readiness. As an added benefit, development and qualification of a new repair material will offer an additional solution for repairs.

 

A new lightweight, streamlined composite honeycomb repair material and process using a novel lightweight, structural filler formulation is sought to reduce the time required for honeycomb repairs. The proposed material can take advantage of various matrix chemistries and fillers [Ref 1]. The repair material would be expected to meet threshold requirements, threshold mechanical properties, and target requirements.

 

Threshold requirements include, but are not limited to:

• Maximum of 24 hour cure at room temperature 70 °F (27 °C)
• Compatibility with aluminum, Nomex, and polyurethane foam cores
• Maximum exothermic temperature during cure not to exceed 200 °F (93.3 °C)
• Minimum 15 minute pot life
• Maximum density of 0.8 g/cc
• Shelf life of 12 months at 77 °F (25 °C)

 

Threshold mechanical properties include, but are not limited to:

• Compressive strength of 8 ksi at 77 °F (25 °C) by ASTM D695 [Ref 2]
• Lap shear of 700 psi at 77 °F (25 °C) by ASTM D1002 [Ref 3]
• Retention of 50 % of compressive strength at 180 °F (83 °C)

 

Target requirements include, but are not limited to:

• 1 hr cure before sanding at room temperature 70 °F (27 °C)
• Retention of greater than 15% compressive strength at 350 °F (177 °C)
• Ability to cure at temperatures down to 32 °F (0 °C) without added heat
• Greater than 15 min pot life
• Density 0.5 g/cc or lower

 

PHASE I: Develop novel composite honeycomb filler formulations and screen candidate formulations for feasibility. This assessment can include cure kinetics (maximum exothermic temperature, cure time, pot life) and density to identify the most promising candidate formulations. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and provide a prototype repair process (suitable for a Depot or I Level repair) using the developed repair material in Phase I. Complete a repair with a minimum size of 3 inches in diameter and 1.5 inches in thickness on a representative part with the developed honeycomb filler. Conduct, in coordination with the Government, mechanical and physical testing that includes a limited set of screening tests sufficient to ensure acceptable properties. Demonstrate reduction in overall cure time and compatibility with common naval aviation honeycomb materials.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Generate data for full qualification and validate the repair filler material and the repair technique. Repair instructions for Depot or I Level honeycomb repairs will be developed and provided. Transition the technology to applicable Navy Depot.

 

Honeycomb repair is applicable to composites outside of the aerospace industry. The automotive, as well as the marine industry, use honeycomb or filled-composite structures. A repair material that is effective across multiple industries is possible.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Afolabi, L. O., Ariff, Z. M., Hashim, S. F. S., Alomayri, T., Mahzan, S., Kamarudin, K. A., & Muhammad, I. D. (2020). Syntactic foams formulations, production techniques, and industry applications: a review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9(5), 10698-10718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.07.074.
2. Subcommittee D20.10 on Mechanical Properties. (2015). ASTM D695-15: Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid plastics. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0695-15.
3. Subcommittee D14.80 on Metal Bonding Adhesives. (2019). ASTM D1002-10: Standard test method for apparent shear strength of single-lap-joint adhesively bonded metal specimens by tension loading (metal-to-metal). ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D1002-10R19.

 

KEYWORDS: Composites; Honeycomb; Repair; Lightweight; Room temperature; Filler

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms;Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a software toolkit to automate the generation of nonlinear, anisotropic mechanical properties for as-built composite structures, including the effects of defects, to accelerate finite element (FE) analysis for fleet repairs and aircraft production non-conformal dispositions.

 

DESCRIPTION: Advanced rotors for vertical lift aircraft and wings on many U.S. Navy fixed-wing aircraft are complex assemblies made primarily from thermoset composites (e.g., IM7/977-3). Full-scale fatigue tests are frequently required to qualify and certify these critical safety items for a calculated number of flight hours. The selected part chosen for testing may have deliberate seeded flaws and/or severe manufacturing defects to capture the worst damage/condition expected in service. After these weakened parts survive the full-scale fatigue tests, applied knockdown factors further reduce the risk of fatigue failure. Even though the strength safety margin for a given part could be sufficiently high, when service damage occurs, engineers have very tight repair limits, and few options, due to the fatigue life constraint. Local stress distributions, and in-situ mechanical properties of the composite parts, have a significant influence on fatigue life and residual strength, and are very complex to predict, especially for the thick (0.5 in./1.27 cm or greater) laminate composites.

 

A potential remedy to establish additional cost-effective repair options is to implement a data-driven, physics-based, modeling approach by analyzing the parts in the as-built condition with their own unique configuration, including manufacturing defects and in-service damages. Examples of manufacturing defects are wrinkles, marcels, foreign object debris, porosities/voids, and delamination. In-service damages could include impact, maintenance induced, and heat or ballistic damage.

 

In addition to an accurate FE mesh representation of the as-built component, the other crucial analysis requirement is the assignment of accurate in-situ (nonlinear) mechanical properties to the FEs. Typical mechanical properties for laminate composite FE analyses (FEAs) use linear orthotropic values based on coupon testing (versus as-built structures). As a result, strain gauge values monitored during full-scale tests can differ substantially from FEA results. These differences between strain gauge results and strain/stress analysis predictions deserve scrutiny when considering repair options. Innovative advancements in computerized tomography (CT) scan image processing coupled with advanced micro-meso-macro mechanics modeling can be utilized to yield not only more representative anisotropic mechanical properties, but also a more accurate stress/residual strength analysis of the real structures.

 

The Navy seeks to develop a software toolkit that can automate the process to generate in-situ, nonlinear, anisotropic effective mechanical properties using CT scans of as-built composite parts. The critical size and boundary conditions of the representative volume element (RVE) must be consistent with the material system’s inhomogeneity, scan resolution, and fidelity of the intended FE mesh. The scan resolution should be sufficiently high enough to capture the appropriate length scale(s) associated with material system components (e.g., ply thickness/orientation, fiber path/bundle/volume, fiber/resin, and adhesive interfaces) and manufacturing defects (e.g., porosities/voids, wrinkles, delamination, and fiber waviness). The most critical defects include combinations of wrinkles, porosities/voids, and resin-rich or adhesive-rich zones, which should be captured by the model with an effective relationship to the FE mesh and intended analysis. The proposed toolkit must also account for material degradation due to repeated loadings and Hot/Wet (H/W) operating environments. The generated quasi-static and dynamic-effective mechanical properties (stiffness, strength, and strain energy release rate) must be compatible with different 2-D and 3-D FE types including shell/plate and tetra-/hexahedral elements. Since the data volume of the CT scans could be very huge (larger than one terabyte) for a full-scale component, speed and accuracy issues relating to data acquisition, image processing, and data storage and retrieval must also be addressed, including the use of machine learning (ML) and computer vision techniques.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate technical feasibility of the proposed concept to develop a computationally efficient, multiscale, physics-based, modeling toolkit coupled with CT-scanned data, ML, and computer vision techniques to generate in-situ, quasi-static, and dynamic effective mechanical properties (stiffness, strength, and strain energy release rate) for as-built, thick laminate composite structures, including effects of defects, repeated loadings, and expected H/W operating environments. Demonstrate the proposed workflow to auto-populate the input data for different 2-D and 3-D FE meshes, including various element sizes and types to support progressive damage analysis of thick laminate composite structures. Develop a verification and validation (V & V) test plan for the proposed concept, including, at a minimum, the use of Digital Image Correlation (DIC).

 

PHASE II: Perform CT scan of test coupons/components representative of a structural component with manufacturing defects (e.g., L-shape). Develop algorithms for fast CT image processing, automated feature extraction, and identification/classification with ML techniques, and data storage and retrieval. Demonstrate the generation of a localized FE mesh from CT scan data capturing ply orientations and manufacturing defects. Demonstrate the integrated process utilizing the developed multiscale, physics-based, modeling toolkit and CT-scanned data to predict the in-situ, quasi-static, and dynamic effective mechanical properties (stiffness, strength, and strain energy release rate) for a structural representative thick laminate composite test component including effects of defects and operating environments. Demonstrate the auto-populated input data functionality for different 2-D and 3-D meshes. Conduct testing in accordance with the V & V test plan developed in Phase I to correlate with the predicted results.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Finalize the prototype modeling-toolkit and ensure usability for the end user. Perform final testing to demonstrate the toolkit’s ability to support analysis of a fleet repair or solve a production issue on a large-scale and relevant platform part.

 

Commercial aviation uses similar structures and has a similar need for more capable analysis toolkits to analyze repairs and production issues. This capability might also find use in the wind turbine industry, as the blades are large composite structures.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Avril, S., Bonnet, M., Bretelle, A. S., Grédiac, M., Hild, F., Ienny, P., Latourte, F., Lemosse, D., Pagano, S., Pagnacco, E., & Pierron, F. (2008, July 25). Overview of identification methods of mechanical parameters based on full-field measurements. Experimental Mechanics, 48(4), 381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-008-9148-y.
2. Rahmani, B., Villemure, I., & Levesque, M. (2014). Regularized virtual fields method for mechanical properties identification of composite materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 278, 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2014.05.010.
3. Straumit. I., Lomov, S., & Wevers, M. (2015). Quantification of the internal structure and automatic generation of voxel models of textile composites from X-ray computed tomography data. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 69, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.11.016.
4. Makeev, A., Seon, G., Nikishkov, Y., Nguyen. D., Mathews, P., & Robeson, M. (2016, May 17-19). Analysis methods improving confidence in material qualification for laminated composites [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 72nd Annual Forum, West Palm Beach, FL, United States. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303562174_Analysis_Methods_Improving_Confidence_in_Material_Qualification_for_Laminated_Composites.
5. Nikishkov, Y., Seon, G., Makeev, A., & Shonkwiler, B. (2016, March 15). In-situ measurements of fracture toughness properties in composite laminates. Materials and Design, 94, 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.008.
6. Seon, G., Makeev, A., Cline, J., & Shonkwiler, B. (2015, September 29). Assessing 3D shear stress-strain properties of composites using Digital Image Correlation and finite element analysis based optimization. Composites Science and Technology, 117, 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.07.011.
7. Lambert, J., Chambers, A. R., Sinclair, I., & Spearing, S. M. (2012, January 18). 3D damage characterisation and the role of voids in the fatigue of wind turbine blade materials. Composites Science and Technology, 72(2), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.11.023.
8. Kim, H. J., & Swan, C. C. (2003). Algorithms for automated meshing and unit cell analysis of periodic composites with hierarchical tri-quadratic tetrahedral elements. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 58(11), 1683-1711. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.828.
9. Raju, B., Hiremath, S. R., & Mahapatra, D. R. (2018). A review of micromechanics based models for effective elastic properties of reinforced polymer matrix composites. Composite Structures, 204, 607-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.125.
10. Bargmann, S., Klusemann, B., Markmann, J., Schnabel, J. E., Schneider, K., Soyarslan, C., & Wilmers, J. (2018). Generation of 3D representative volume elements for heterogeneous materials: A review. Progress in Materials Science, 96, 322-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2018.02.003.
11. Naresh, K., Khan, K. A., Umer, R., & Cantwell, W. J. (2020). The use of X-ray computed tomography for design and process modeling of aerospace composites: a review. Materials & Design, 190, 108553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108553.
12. Dutra, T. A., Ferreira, R. T. L., Resende, H. B., Guimarães, A., & Guedes, J. M. (2020). A complete implementation methodology for Asymptotic Homogenization using a finite element commercial software: preprocessing and postprocessing. Composite Structures, 245, 112305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112305.
13. Nsengiyumva, W., Zhong, S., Lin, J., Zhang, Q., Zhong, J., & Huang, Y. (2021). Advances, limitations and prospects of nondestructive testing and evaluation of thick composites and sandwich structures: A state-of-the-art review. Composite Structures, 256, 112951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112951.
14. Thor, M., Sause, M. G., & Hinterhölzl, R. M. (2020). Mechanisms of origin and classification of out-of-plane fiber waviness in composite materials—A review. Journal of Composites Science, 4(3), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4030130.
15. Zambal, S., Eitzinger, C., Clarke, M., Klintworth, J., & Mechin, P. Y. (2018, July). A digital twin for composite parts manufacturing: Effects of defects analysis based on manufacturing data. In 2018 IEEE 16th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) (pp. 803-808). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2018.8472014.
16. Badran, A., Marshall, D., Legault, Z., Makovetsky, R., Provencher, B., Piché, N., & Marsh, M. (2020, September 8). Automated segmentation of computed tomography images of fiber-reinforced composites by deep learning. Journal of Materials Science 55, 16273–16289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-05148-7.
17. Fritz, N. K., Kopp, R., Nason, A. K., Ni, X., Lee, J., Stein, I. Y., Kalfon-Cohen, E., Sinclair, I., Spearing, S. M., Camanho, P. P., & Wardle, B. L. (2020). New interlaminar features and void distributions in advanced aerospace-grade composites revealed via automated algorithms using micro-computed tomography. Composites Science and Technology, 193, 108132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108132.

 

KEYWORDS: Composites; Finite Element Analysis; Damage Progression; Material Characterization; Manufacturing Defects; Composite Repairs; Computed Tomography

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

 

OBJECTIVE: Identify and demonstrate system innovative approaches to the Linkless Ammunition Loading System III (LALS III) to increase the system’s reliability and availability.

 

DESCRIPTION: The M61A1 and M61A2 gun systems installed on the legacy and super Hornet F/A-18 are loaded using the LALS III, consisting of a system of gears and conveyors that are complicated to utilize and maintain. There have been several attempts to increase the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF). However, with the incorporated changes the system still has a high-failure rate for several components (e.g., the conveyor assembly, aircraft interchange unit, and chain ladder assembly) as identified by Conventional Ordnance Discrepancy Reports (CODR). This high-failure rate causes mission delays and an increase to the maintenance workload for the fleet. These components are all complex parts of the overall conveyor system that moves ammunition throughout the LALS III. When connected to the aircraft or the ammunition transfer system to load or download ammunition in and out of the LALS III, there are several sequential steps necessary for the system to function properly. Severe damage and timing issues occur to these components if one step is missed or done out of order. Potential improvements include: (a) an internal timing and tension function to remove human error from the equation, and (b) improvements to the conveyor assembly, aircraft interchange unit, and chain ladder assembly to make them more robust to handle the rigors of the aircraft carrier environment, Forward Operating Bases, and decrease maintenance complexity. Any materials considered should be all-weather, corrosion resistant, suffer no adverse effects from contact with solvents, lubricants, or oils, and be compatible in a Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO) environment. The overall goal is to increase the overall availability, sustainability, and readiness.

 

PHASE I: Define, develop, and demonstrate the feasibility of innovative concepts and procedures increasing the reliability of failed components of the LALS III. Use CODR data to analyze high-failure areas and evaluate failed components of the LALS III. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Refine the conceptual design and develop a prototype. Perform testing of prototype to demonstrate their effectiveness.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Integrate solutions in a LALS III. Support operational assessment of the prototype design solutions by a squadron prior to full-scale fielding.

 

The improvements to the LALS III could potentially be modified to fit other ammunition conveyor units or commercial conveyor assemblies. The improved solutions could be sold to manufacturing processes to increase their reliability and decrease maintenance requirements.

 

REFERENCES:

1. United States Government Accountability Office. (2020, January). Defense acquisitions: Senior leaders should emphasize key practices to improve weapon system reliability (GAO-20-151). United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706781.pdf.
2. Glowacki, B. (2001). Ammunition loading. NAVEDTRA 14313: Aviation ordnanceman (Ch. 7, pp. 7-1–7-24). Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch7.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Linkless Ammunition Loading System III (LALS III); 20mm Ammunition; Weapons Unloading; Weapons Loading; Weapons Handling; Linkless System

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML);Autonomy TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes OBJECTIVE: Design and develop an automated system to assist in the gauge block calibration process. DESCRIPTION: The Navy Primary Standards Laboratory (NPSL) and the Navy Calibration Laboratory Lakehurst (LAL) provide specialized calibration support throughout the Navy. One of the primary calibration procedures they perform is gauge block calibration. This process involves calibrating a precise length measurement machine using calibrated gauge blocks. The block, or blocks, being used must be placed on a precise position on the measuring machine. Measuring machines currently in use at the facilities include the Labmaster Universal Measuring System Model 175, and the Precimar Models 130B-24 and 130B-16. As the task is currently performed by hand, the operators regularly run into an issue where the heat from their hands causes the blocks to expand, and affects the blocks’ dimensions. The operators handle the gauge blocks with gloves in order to mitigate this effect, but enough heat is still transferred to affect the measurements. When this occurs, blocks have to be left sitting untouched for up to a few hours to return to normal dimensions. This can introduce delays and increased costs. This SBIR topic seeks to develop an automated system that can perform some or all of this calibration process. This would greatly reduce required operator time, freeing up resources for alternate tasks. This would also reduce any delays, as tasks using the system could be run consecutively. In particular, the system must meet the following block and measurement device specifications: - Block sizes range from < 1 in. (< 2.54 cm) to approximately 24 in. (60.96 cm) in length. - Blocks are stored in several standard containers near the measurement device. - Blocks must be placed on a planar surface in a designated position with a minimum accuracy of 0.03125 in. (0.07937 cm) and an ideal accuracy of 0.01 in. (0.0254 cm). - The measurement device has a free working dimension of 1.5 in. by 3 in. (3.81 cm by 7.62 cm). The solution must not make contact with the measurement device outside of this area. - The system should capture the output from the measurement device. - Total thermal output of the system should prevent raising the temperature of the room more than 0.2 °F (-17.66 °C) to maintain repeatable calibrations. While there are precision robotic systems in other domains such as medical robotics [Ref 4], none have been evaluated for use in this type of situation, including the accuracy requirements and the ability to handle the wide range of gauge block sizes. This calibration procedure requires precise manipulation and placement of these blocks within the test stand. The key barrier is ensuring that the process is repeatable and reliable to operate without user supervision while still meeting all calibration process requirements. If successful, this solution could be adapted to additional calibration labs or other similar processes. PHASE I: Design and develop an initial concept that can meet the stated requirements for the calibration system. Demonstrate feasibility of the system concept to perform the calibration procedure subject to those requirements. The system concept does not have to perform all steps in the procedure, it must only demonstrate that the steps are likely to work and meet the acceptance criteria through benchtop tests. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II. PHASE II: Develop a working prototype. Integrate the functions demonstrated in Phase I into a working system that meets all performance requirements. Demonstrate the prototype in a lab or live environment. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Perform final testing for verification of requirements by the calibration stakeholders. Following success in final tests, the system will be transitioned into use at naval calibration facilities. Companies that develop complex mechanical systems, such as defense contractors, and university research laboratories utilize metrology facilities to accurately measure mechanical components. As gauge blocks are a commonly utilized method of calibrating measurement equipment, an automated system that can perform the calibration task would be a valuable acquisition for any of those companies and groups. In addition, though the goal of this topic is to develop a system targeted at the requirements of the described calibration task, the precise manipulation and repeatability requirements would have potential use in many applications where an automated system needs to precisely manipulate small objects, such as pick-and-place operations and assembly portions of manufacturing processes. REFERENCES: 1. Doiron, T. & Beers, J. (n.d.). The gauge block handbook. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Publications/NISTMonograph180.pdf. 2. Pratt & Whitney. (2012). Labmaster universal measuring system. Pratt & Whitney. https://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/pratt-whitney/labmaster-universal-model-175/25150-463581.html. 3. Mahr. (n.d.). Precimar 130B-24: Gage block comparator 130B-24. Mahr. https://metrology.mahr.com/en-int/products/article/2150076-endmasspruefstand-precimar-130b-24. 4. Beasley, R. A. (2012, August 12). Medical robots: Current systems and research directions (F. Janabi-Sharifi, Ed.). Journal of Robotics. Hindawi. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/401613. KEYWORDS: Automation; Metrology; Robotics; Calibration; Robotic Manipulation; Robotic Grasping

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Design and develop a system using existing sensors and real-time signal-processing algorithms for classification of underwater objects.

 

DESCRIPTION: Modern frontline submarines pose a threat to maritime strategy and naval operations. The proliferation of acoustic quieting techniques has severely decreased the detection range of passive acoustic sensors. Active acoustic sensors can provide longer range, however they do not provide classification of the target.

 

New compact sensors provide an opportunity to develop improved real-time detection, target parameter extraction, target localization, prosecution/tracking, and classification of underwater objects. Advanced signal processing techniques may generate classification from a variety of sources, including magnetometers; magnetic dipoles; and extremely low frequency (ELF), ultralow frequency (ULF), electric fields (E-Fields); or other sources of opportunity, such as magnetotelluric or very low frequency radio wave sources. The desired end-product is a system for classification of underwater objects consisting of the magnetometers (< 4) and an open architecture, software module with the necessary algorithms to process sensor data and conduct data fusion for classification. It will be requested for the software to process the data in real time, that is, capable of providing a result analysis and display of the data while data is being taken. The magnetometer will be an onboard system vice a towed magnetometer. Developed software must be compatible with platform architecture, i.e., Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS).

 

Examples of features the system should account for include, but are not limited to:

• geo-location coordinates
• date and time stamp
• platform altitude
• graphical user interface
• probability of detection
• false alarm rate
• geologic, geo-atmospheric, oceanic, and platform noise characteristics
• data fusion

 

If the target is identified as a mobile submerged target, the following features should be identified:

• target course, speed, and depth parameters
• target length
• target diameter
• target screw turn rate
• target screw configuration (i.e., 5-bladed screw)

 

If the target is determined to be a submarine, the following features should be identified:

• submarine sail length and location
• submarine type

 

Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) sensor metrics include, but are not limited to:

• noise floor: < 0.35 pT/rt Hz from 0.01–100 Hz
• magnetometer: able to operate in all of Earth's field orientations and magnitudes
• magnetometer: not sensitive to motion-induced measurement errors or the MAD system must be able to compensate for motion-induced measurement errors
• cost per system: Objective < $2,000, Threshold < $10,000
• volume: < 100 cc (sensor Head), < 500 cc (electronic module)
• power: Objective < 1 W, Threshold < 5 W

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances. This will allow contractor personnel to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advanced phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate a conceptual design of real-time, open architecture software signal processing algorithms to achieve classification of underwater objects using commercial off-the-shelf magnetometer sensors onboard rotorcraft. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II. Awardees should provide NAVAIR a white paper of the developed or implemented theory.

 

PHASE II: Develop a candidate prototype for real-time magnetometer sensor and signal processing for classification of underwater objects using an open architecture software. Perform algorithm testing and performance validation using simulated processed signals and actual data. Refine the software, integrate it with the proposed sensors and a commercial magnetometer in the laboratory (or other location), and demonstrate the system classification performance. Use of fictitious classification data is acceptable.) Conduct a flight test to demonstrate the prototype magnetometer sensor and signal processing for classification of underwater objects against a target of opportunity (surface ship if the target of opportunity is not available). Demonstration parameters should be approved by the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC). Deliver the classification of underwater objects prototype to the Government for use as a laboratory demonstration model.

 

Work in Phase II may become classified. Please see note in Description paragraph.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Final transition of this project will involve implementation of the software to JMPS or other hardware architecture specific to the platform. In addition, noise models tailored to the requested platform should be developed. Final testing will involve compilation of real data in the platform, processing of the data in the software, analysis of software results with those simulated with probability models created by software, and measurement of software effectiveness. End results should provide detection, localization, and classification of a target with a signal of around 100 to 101 pT/rt Hz.

 

Development of a magnetic detection capability that can be implemented and, potentially, sold to different airborne platforms for the detection of unknown magnetic targets hidden underground or at sea. Possible industries include military, security, atmospheric, and surveillance.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Ben-Kish, A., & Romalis, M. V. (2010). Dead-zone-free atomic magnetometry with simultaneous excitation of orientation and alignment resonances. Physical review letters, 105(19), 193601. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.193601.
2. Bickel, S. H. (1979). Small signal compensation of magnetic fields resulting from aircraft manuvers. IEEE Transactions on aerospace and electronic systems, (4), 518-525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.1979.308736.
3. Shah, V., Knappe, S., Schwindt, P. D., & Kitching, J. (2007). Subpicotesla atomic magnetometry with a microfabricated vapour cell. Nature Photonics, 1(11), 649-652. https://www.nist.gov/publications/subpicotesla-atomic-magnetometry-microfabricated-vapour-cell.
4. Department of Defense. (2006, February 28). DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (Incorporating Change 2, May 18, 2016). Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodm/522022m.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Electromagnetic Detection; Underwater Object Classification; Signal Processing; Rotorcraft; Magnetometer; Object Vector Characterization

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop large, multidimensional, high-sensor-density, collapsible arrays compatible with A-size sonobuoy dimensions and applications.

 

DESCRIPTION: The Navy requires high-gain arrays for both passive and active sonar due to continued submarine quieting. Technically, this implies designs with increased apertures, dimensionality, and numbers of elements. However, the fundamental constraint of an A-size sonobuoy will remain in place for the foreseeable future. Traditional sonobuoys have evolved from single-line, multi-element arrays to more complex two-dimensional planar arrays (e.g., the Air-Deployable Acoustic Receiver (ADAR)). Rather than seeking an incremental path of increasing the efficiency of discrete element foldable structures, this SBIR topic seeks radical new solutions for achieving high-gain, three-dimensional, multi-element array structures capable of fitting within an 18 in. length and 4.75 in diameter section of an A-size sonobuoy. Of interest, but not required, is the use of collapsible, water-inflatable structures or novel material methods to create a structural framework. The solution should then enlist techniques to maximize use of the array’s structure to support stable sensing elements of high density. The over-sampled volumetric array should increase array gain, increase flexibility in controlling sidelobes, and increase adaptivity across operating bands. Efficiency in electrical connectivity (if needed), power use, stability of the structure when deployed, sensitivity of the elements, and overall weight are important design factors to consider as well. The overall goal of this topic is to identify and implement technology that incorporates novel mechanical and sensor designs to exploit as much of the array’s structure as possible to greatly increase sonobuoy sensing capability.

 

The performance objectives:

• Packaged size: < 18 in. (45.72 cm) of the A-size canister
• Numbers of elements: > 100
• Element frequency response: up to 7.5 kHz
• Sensitivity—Noise: limited sea -state zero (SS0) noise
• Weight: < 20 lb (9.07 kg)

 

PHASE I: Develop a conceptual design for a volumetric array. Since there is no physical aperture requirement, demonstrate the feasibility of the design relative to an existing A-size sonobuoy aperture and expected performance estimated from open sources. Identify technological and reliability challenges of the design and propose viable risk mitigation strategies. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop a specific set of sonobuoy array requirements satisfying critical mission(s) needs. Adapt the Phase I conceptual design to satisfy those requirements. Then design, fabricate, and deliver an array subsystem prototype capable of meeting the requirements. Test and fully characterize the system prototype.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Adapt the Phase II design into existing A-size sonobuoy architecture(s); designing, fabricating, and delivering a sonobuoy prototype capable of meeting the requirements; test and fully characterize the system prototype.

 

The development of this technology will have application to the oceanographic community and oil exploration industry.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Suhey, J. D., Kim, N. H., & Niezrecki, C. (2005). Numerical modeling and design of inflatable structures—application to open-ocean-aquaculture cages. Aquacultural Engineering, 33(4), 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.03.001.
2. Budynas, R. G., & Nisbett, J. K. (2015). Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Shigleys-Mechanical-Engineering-Richard-Budynas/dp/933922163X.
3. Holler, R.A., Horbach, A.W., & McEachern, J.F. (2008). The Ears of Air ASW – A History of U.S. Navy Sonobuoys. Navmar Applied Sciences Corporation. https://www.worldcat.org/title/ears-of-air-asw-a-history-of-us-navy-sonobuoys/oclc/720627294.

 

KEYWORDS: Sonobuoy; Array; ASW; Collapsible; A-size; Structure

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop radar waveform design approaches that are robust in the presence of barrage noise and deceptive jamming techniques.

 

DESCRIPTION: Radar electronic protection systems employing traditional static, table-based threat recognition have increasingly limited efficacy against modern electronic warfare systems. However, the software control of many modern radar systems enables dynamic waveform generation and scheduling that significantly expands the available signal use and processing domain. Here we seek to take advantage of that flexibility to design a class of jam-resistant waveforms suitable for surface and air target detection, tracking, and imaging from an airborne radar system. The selection of a particular waveform would be determined by a cognitive, engine-based, radar resource manager and counter electronic attack system using knowledge gained from its perception-action, real-time feedback loop. Among the candidate approaches to be considered are coded waveforms, chaotic waveforms, and noise waveforms. Other techniques optimizing the waveform for target, clutter, and jamming conditions should be considered.

 

The cognitive control element in this approach should assess the efficacy of waveform choices and capture this information as part of a data record agent that leverages that information to support a jammer technique recognition and inference process. This also should serve as the means of accumulating new knowledge for future model aggregation. The streaming record is envisioned as an object database/ontology that maintains a signal record and linkage-based affiliation of signals and their inferred emitter attributes. The layers should leverage a common data structure to define and maintain a model of each unique jammer response as an evolving knowledge base, support relational assessment of them and their behaviors, support model extensions to accommodate new and anomalous signals, and support constrained collection and dissemination of this information.

 

Work produced in Phase II may be classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advanced phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop approaches and demonstrate feasibility of multiple jam-resistant radar waveforms for maritime surveillance and imaging modes, and/or airborne all-aspect search or airborne early warning horizon search. Assess performance impacts of use of these waveforms relative to traditional waveforms in both quiescent and jamming environments. Identify the critical cognitive control elements including the nature of efficacy metrics to be collected and models generated. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop prototype modes for demonstration on a Navy test asset. Based on these results, select and further mature the most promising approaches. Significantly increase the fidelity of the cognitive control element by fully identifying end-to-end functions, and develop a prototype implementation.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete development, perform final testing, integrate, and transition the final solution to naval airborne radar system.

 

Civilian uses for both radar and communication system in the presence of unintentional and intentional jamming is possible with this technology. Those potential applications include law enforcement and emergency services communication systems as well as civil aviation communication and radar systems.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Akbarpour, A., & Mirzahosseini, D. (2011, September). The anti-jamming capability of phase coded waveform with limited side-lobe level in correlation function. In 2011 12th International Radar Symposium (IRS) (pp. 835-840). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6042205.
2. Lukin, K., Vyplavin, P., Yarovoy, S., Kudriashov, V., Palamarchuk, V., Lee, J.-M., Kang, Y.-S., Cho, K.-G., Ha, J.-S., Sun, S.-G., & Cho, B.-L. (2011, September). 2D and 3D imaging using S-band noise waveform SAR. In 2011 3rd International Asia-Pacific Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (APSAR) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6087063.
3. Akbarpour, A., & Mirzahosseini, D. (2011, October). Improving range resolution in jammed environment by phase coded waveform. In Proceedings of 2011 IEEE CIE International Conference on Radar (Vol. 1, pp. 226-229). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6159517.
4. Lukin, K., Vyplavin, P., Palamarchuk, V., Zemlyaniy, O., Kudriashov, V., & Lukin, S. (2012, September). Capabilities of noise radar in remote sensing applications. In 2012 Tyrrhenian Workshop on Advances in Radar and Remote Sensing (TyWRRS) (pp. 10-17). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6381095.
5. Picciolo, M. L., Goldstein, J. S., Settle, T. F., Tinston, M. A., & Schoenig, G. N. (2006, January). Ambiguity function analysis of adaptive colored-noise radar waveforms. In 2006 International Waveform Diversity & Design Conference (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8321423.
6. Lukin, K. A. (2006, January). Radar design using chaotic and noise waveforms. In 2006 International Waveform Diversity & Design Conference (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8321486.

 

KEYWORDS: Radar; Waveforms; Anti-Jam; Adaptive; Coding; Interference

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop high-viscosity pre-penetrant etchant materials for aluminum alloys.

 

DESCRIPTION: Fluorescent penetrant nondestructive inspection (NDI) processes are utilized to detect surface-breaking cracks and corrosion in aircraft structures. Most military aircraft structures are made of 7000 series aluminum alloys (with 7075/7050/7085 being most common). The parts are primed and painted to provide protection from corrosion. Removal of paint schemes or corrosion is often performed through mechanically abrasive processes such as sanding, grinding, or machining, which smear small amounts of material over fine cracks and corrosion, making them less detectable with the penetrant inspection method. Chemical etching is used throughout the NDI industry as a method to remove approximately 0.0002 in. (0.00508 mm) of smeared metal prior to penetrant inspections [Refs 1 & 2]. The etching process typically requires multiple steps, which include precleaning the area, applying an etchant, applying a neutralizer, and applying a desmutting agent [Refs 1–3]. The etchant, neutralizer, and desmutting agents are typically acidic or alkaline and pose some safety hazards, as well as hazards to the aircraft when used in the field. The low-viscosity chemicals (similar to water) are prone to spilling and migrating into crevices in the structures (faying surfaces and fastener holes) near the inspection zone.

 

This SBIR topic seeks to develop paste forms of viable etchant materials with viscosities similar to toothpaste (70,000 to 100,000 cP) to reduce the hazards of using these chemicals during inspections of parts while they are still installed in the aircraft.

 

Various chemicals are currently used for these tasks and may be suitable for viscosity tailoring. The most common chemical mixtures used by NAVAIR are:

• Etchant: 0.705 oz (20 g) sodium hydroxide in 3.38 oz (100 ml) water
• De-smutting agent: 1.69 oz (50 ml) nitric acid added to 1.69 oz (50 ml) water
• Neutralizer: 0.353 oz (10mg) sodium bicarbonate in 3.38 oz (100 ml) water

 

Alternate combinations of chemicals, or other nonchemical processes that can evenly remove 0.0002 in. (0.00508 mm) of aluminum without smearing, are viable alternate approaches.

 

Etchant, neutralizer, and de-smut materials should have:

• Viscosity of 70,000 to 100,000 cP
• Shelf life of 6 months minimum (single-use needs for areas up to 16 in.² (40.64cm²))
• Useable temperature range of 50F (10C) to 120F (49C)
• Etch rates of 0.00002–0.0001 in. (0.00508–0.00254 mm)/min (removes 0.0002 in. (0.00508 mm) in 2–10 min)
• Etch rate should be uniform
• Chemicals should not require the user to mix components.

 

PHASE I: Develop, design, and demonstrate feasibility of etchant, neutralizer, and de-smut materials as described in the Description.

 

Phase I should include laboratory measurements of the viscosities of the chemicals and tests to demonstrate etch rates. Etch rates and uniformity of etching should be substantiated by laboratory testing and microscopy.

 

If a nonchemical approach is proposed, Phase I tasking should focus on demonstrating the proper etch rates and uniformity requirements are achieved. If the process poses safety hazards or other potential hazards to the aircraft, those hazards should be assessed and mitigated. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Phase II should focus on refining the proposed solution, demonstrating minimum shelf-life requirements, and optimizing packaging/storage concepts for single-use needs for areas up to 16 in.² (40.64 cm²).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Verify, validate, and finalize the prototype. Transition to applicable naval platforms and depots.

 

Pre-penetrant etch is required before penetrant inspection processes when any mechanical working (sanding, grinding, blasting, machining, etc.) of the part’s metal surface during manufacturing or reworking is done. Penetrant inspections cannot be performed on painted parts, so mechanical paint stripping in-service parts requires etching before penetrant inspection can be performed. Penetrant nondestructive testing (NDT) is commonly used in a multitude of industries including infrastructure (buildings/bridges), transportation (auto/rail/ship), energy (oil and gas/hydrodynamic/wind), and space (rockets/payloads). Users of the penetrant NDT process could benefit from a safer etching process.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Center for Nondestructive Evaluation. (n.d.). Material smear and its removal. Iowa State University. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from https://www.nde-ed.org/NDETechniques/PenetrantTest/MethodsTech/materialsmear.xhtml.
2. Moore, P. O., & Moore, D. G. (2016). Nondestructive testing handbook: Liquid penetrant testing (Vol. 1). American Society for Nondestructive Testing. https://www.worldcat.org/title/nondestructive-testing-handbook-volume-1-liquid-penetrant-testing/oclc/1039286877&referer=brief_results.
3. Rainone, B., & Statham, A. (2011, October). Pre-penetrant etch. NADCAP NDIT Non-Destructive Testing Newsletter. https://cdn.p-r-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/11094218/P111548NDTNewsletter.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Penetrant; etchant; metal; smear; nondestructive; non-destructive

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR);Networked C3

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms;Battlespace Environments;Information Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image formation/detections techniques for aerial vehicles performing Coherent Change Detection (CCD) that permits randomized radar orbits.

 

DESCRIPTION: Modern synthetic aperture radar signal processing algorithms retrieve accurate and subtle information regarding a scene that is being interrogated by an airborne radar. An important application of “continuous-stare” SAR systems involves detecting changes in an imaged scene. Current CCD radar techniques require flying the same orbit path repeatedly in order to look for changes in the scene. While this is acceptable in a benign threat environment, this predictable flight profile will be lethal to the air vehicle in a high-threat environment.

 

Achieving the alignment necessary between images (especially for CCD) is often difficult due to many factors beyond the control of the platform and sensor, including imaging geometry issues, air vehicle motion, errors in motion compensation, difficult clutter environments, clutter motion, and meteorological issues. Even when good alignment is obtained, weaker stationary target signature may be overcome by the surrounding clutter or masked by false alarms, requiring more sophisticated alignment algorithms and change metrics to extract the relevant image change information. Also, the steep depression angles required for urban imagery aggravate the effects of mismatched imaging geometry on change detection. These effects can be considerable, especially for CCD. Noncoherent change detection (NCCD) is often difficult in urban areas, for example, because large cultural object scatterers and their side lobes may be difficult to align (especially when imaging geometries are different) and may overwhelm weaker stationary target signatures. High-frequency CCD is potentially capable of detecting extremely subtle terrain disturbances, but is even more sensitive to alignment issues, typically producing an overwhelming number of naturally occurring false alarms, even in relatively benign cases. Inability to perform change detection (CD) may result in missed opportunities for extraction of significant information.

 

This SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate techniques and transforms enabling CCD to be conducted with orbits that are randomized and nonrepeating. These techniques and transforms will be applicable to any aerial vehicle that is conducting SAR CCD missions under degraded conditions and various deployment environments. These techniques and transforms will be able to compare the coherent and/or noncoherent reference and test SAR images: (a) to detect image changes in randomized CCD radar orbits; (b) to extract automatic features such as stationary-vehicle Doppler “smears” embedded in urban clutter and other alternative change detection metrics; (c) sensitivity to various image formation techniques, including wavefront reconstruction (WR) and the polar format algorithm (PFA); and (d) sensitivity to phase history processing and conditioning methods.

 

Developed algorithms, techniques, transforms, and a simulation tool to estimate the SAR performance producing high-resolution radar imagery of stationary objects being performed by various aerial vehicles performing randomized CCD radar orbits will be tested during one, or possibly two, Government Rapid Prototype Experimentation Demonstration (RPED).

 

The offeror’s proposal must clearly explain how an aerial vehicle flight path variation SAR imagery collection will be accounted for with respect to:

1. Spatial registration of the reference SAR image with respect to the test SAR image using the available air vehicle platform motion data (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS), Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), etc.).
2. Spatially varying motion compensation (on points on ground plane and elevation) in a three-dimensional spatial domain using GPS denied navigation filtering software and simulation to assess SAR randomized and nonrepeating orbits imagery quality when the GPS is available or denied.
3. Spectral registration of both the test SAR image and the georegistered reference SAR image to extract the common Doppler data in the two images using the available air vehicle platform motion data.
4. Blind calibration of variations of the Image Point Responses (IPR) of the resultant (spatially and spectrally registered) reference and test SAR images using applicable adaptive filtering methods.

 

Air vehicles equipped with multichannel along-track monopulse/displaced phase center antenna-SAR (ATM-SAR) and high-Pulse Repetition Frequency AzScan-SAR Doppler Beam Sharpening-SAR (DBS-SAR) may be included in but are not required to be part of this SBIR topic.

 

Air vehicles performing Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) using SAR imagery are not to be considered and are not part of this topic.

 

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate techniques and transforms that exploit fundamental mathematical and physical properties of SAR signals to detect changes in imagery of a scene that are acquired via randomized CCD radar orbits of a SAR aerial platform using a single channel radio frequency (RF) sensor. Develop and provide techniques and transforms to retrieve the common spatial spectral information in randomized and nonrepeating orbits SAR imagery for coherent and noncoherent change detection (NCD). Develop and provide signal models for the effects of measured randomized and nonrepeating orbits SAR data calibration errors as related to radar electronics phase errors, and unknown motion errors. Deliver an analytical study of the randomized and nonrepeating orbits SAR signal, and identify its information contents in the spatial and spectral domains. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Further study, develop, and improve analytical principles developed in Phase I. Validate and mature the mathematical modeling and processing trade-analysis using an Integrated Fly-out Simulation (IFS) testbed to exploit randomized and nonrepeating orbits SAR imagery. Demonstrate, with minimal additional data processing in the image formation process, in a relevant flight environment the developed signal processing techniques and transforms that exploit randomized and nonrepeating single-channel SAR data acquired at different time points for high-resolution imagery of stationary objects during a Government sponsored RPED. Furthermore, real-time simultaneous imaging, as well as CCD/NCD, are to be demonstrated while the SAR data is being collected over a full aperture (slow-time).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Further research and development will be directed toward refining final Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image formation/detections techniques. Incorporate these techniques based on results from tests conducted during Phase II.

 

Deploy Synthetic Aperture Radar Image (SAR) formation/detections techniques, in relevant environment aerial test environments, to validate techniques. Document lessons learned (what worked, what did not, areas of improvement). Identify gaps in SAR image formation/detections techniques and propose a solution to the identified gap to the Government working groups.

 

The completion of this phase would result in a mature capability, which would undergo an appropriate operational demonstration, such as surveillance and reconnaissance. These SAR image formation/detections techniques should prove the ability to provide high-resolution imagery of stationary objects by various aerial vehicles performing randomized CCD radar orbits.

 

Continue relationships with radar manufacturers with the objective of placing these Synthetic Aperture Radar Image (SAR) formation/detections techniques in major defense and commercial radars.

 

From a military application, these Synthetic Aperture Radar I (SAR) image formation/detections techniques would enable hypersonic air vehicles to have high-speed radar target detection, identification, and discrimination capability of stationary objects. From a commercial application, homeland security and commercial applications include guidance and control for robotic systems used in hazardous environments, and materials handling applications involving cranes; and loading equipment, and industrial equipment used in assembly, welding, inspection, and other similar operations. These algorithms could be used to support commercial ground mapping applications and current radar system performance for border patrol, drug traffic monitoring, perimeter surveillance, and air traffic control applications.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Ranney, K. I., & Soumekh, M. (2005). Signal subspace change detection in averaged multilook SAR imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44(1), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2005.859956.
2. Ranney, K., & Soumekh, M. (2005, May). Adaptive change detection in coherent and noncoherent SAR imagery. In IEEE International Radar Conference, 2005. (pp. 195-200). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2005.1435818.
3. Burns, B., Clark, W., Alexander, J., Soumekh, M., Dorff G., Plaskyc, B., & Moussally, G. (2008, June). Change detection with delta-heading dual-pass UWB wide-beamwidth airborne SAR. Proceedings of Tri-Service Radar Symposium. https://www.mssconferences.org.
4. Himed, B., & Soumekh, M. (2006). Synthetic aperture radar–moving target indicator processing of multi-channel airborne radar measurement data. IEE Proceedings-Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 153(6), 532-543. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-rsn:20050128.
5. Melvin, W. L., Wicks, M. C., & Brown, R. D. (1996, May). Assessment of multichannel airborne radar measurements for analysis and design of space-time processing architectures and algorithms. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE National Radar Conference (pp. 130-135). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/NRC.1996.510669.
6. Melvin, W. L., & Wicks, M. C. (1997, May). Improving practical space-time adaptive radar. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE National Radar Conference (pp. 48-53). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/NRC.1997.588124.
7. Himed, B., Salama, Y., & Michels, J. H. (2000, May). Improved detection of close proximity targets using two-step NHD. In Record of the IEEE 2000 International Radar Conference [Cat. No. 00CH37037] (pp. 781-786). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2000.851934.
8. Soumekh, M. (1999). Synthetic aperture radar signal processing with matlab algorithms (Vol. 7). New York: Wiley. https://www.worldcat.org/title/synthetic-aperture-radar-signal-processing-with-matlab-algorithms/oclc/39458891&referer=brief_results.
9. Melvin, W. L. (1996). RL-TM-96-5: Sample Selection for Covariance Estimation in Practical Airborne Environments. Rome Lab Rome NY. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA316361.pdf.
10. Sanyal, P. K., Melvin, W. L., & Wicks, M. C. (1997, June). SENSIAC-SENS-TSRS-1997-25: Space-time adaptive processing for advanced airborne surveillance (AAS) bistatic radar (U). Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Tri-Service Radar Symposium, 1997 (Vol. 1). https://www.mssconferences.org.
11. Melvin, W. L. (2002, September 16–17). ADP014046: Application of STAP in advanced sensor systems [Conference paper]. RTO SET Lecture Series, Istanbul, Turkey. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADP014046.
12. Himed, B., & Soumekh, M. (2005, December). AFRL-SN-RS-TR-2005-388: Synthetic Aperture Radar-Moving Target Indication (SAR-MTI) Processing of Multi-Channel Airborne Radar Measurement (MCARM) Data. Rome Lab Rome NY. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA443155.
13. Melvin, W. L., Callahan, M. J., & Wicks, M. C. (2002, April). Bistatic STAP: application to airborne radar. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Radar Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 02CH37322) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/NRC.2002.999683.

 

KEYWORDS: Radar; SAR; imagery; detection; orbit; target

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Networked C3

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a multifidelity simulation tool for analyzing electromagnetic interactions between cables, antennas, and their environments for Navy aircraft.

 

DESCRIPTION: Modern Navy aircraft are replete with cable harnesses that carry sensitive information and provide power to avionics, weapons, sensors, control surfaces, and landing gear. The internal arrangement and layout of cable bundles in aircraft is a critical part of the design of new and existing platforms. Rules of thumb for cable harness separation, shielding, and layout exist, but they often result in over-engineering the solution and are not always effective.

 

A need exists for a multifidelity cable harness tool that can be used during all phases of an aircraft’s life cycle to assess potential for self-interference, as well as disruption due to external sources such as EMP, HIRF, and lightning. NAVAIR analysts often need to provide rapid feedback regarding a design trade study or changes to a piece of avionics and its associated cables on an existing aircraft. As aircraft designs mature and more information about the structure of the platform, avionics, and cable harnesses becomes available, analysts want to work in the same tool leveraging the investment made in the previous analyses, all the way through to the simulation of the full aircraft for certification purposes.

 

The design process needs to consider cross-talk between cables within a harness or between cables in different harnesses. It must also include coupling to and from antennas located on the aircraft. There must be consideration for the electromagnetic compatibility of systems connected to the power bus, which becomes complicated as the number of systems on the same bus increases. Finally, a cable harness design should account for the impact of coupling from the external electromagnetic environment, including Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) and lightning. All these interactions must be considered for cable harnesses in aircraft to understand the impact on the devices attached to the cables.

 

Multifidelity analysis tools exist that predict electromagnetic interference (EMI) between RF systems where the dominant coupling path is from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna. Such tools are extremely powerful for NAVAIR analysts because the same software tool can be used for quick, as well as rigorous analyses, and the models developed for a platform can be maintained throughout the lifecycle of that platform. However, a similar multifidelity solution for the cable harness analysis problem does not exist in a single software package. There are existing spreadsheet-based approaches for analyzing power buses. There are existing high-fidelity, full-wave solvers for analyzing the various modes of aircraft cable harness coupling. However, there are several limitations with existing approaches and tools. Spreadsheet-based solutions do not scale well with problem size, they are prone to errors, and make configuration control a challenge. Hybrid solvers, that include full-wave simulations of structures with transmission line modeling of cable harnesses, work well when all the necessary details are available to the analyst and there is enough time to build up the complex models of the platform with all the details of the various cable harnesses. However, this level of detail is usually not available until the design of the aircraft is almost complete. Medium-fidelity cable harness simulation tools based on modified transmission line theory are available. However, there is not a common platform to allow the medium-fidelity simulations to evolve as the design changes, and eventually incorporate the aircraft structure in a hybrid simulation. The compatibility problem must be set up for each environment individually, and they have, thus far, not been automated to consider multiple self-interference and external environments automatically.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate solutions for low-, medium-, and high-fidelity approaches to the cable harness analysis problem considering both self-interference and external interference scenarios, such as those addressed in MIL-STD-461 and 464. Review approaches with NAVAIR technical staff to ensure that they fit the current and future workflow for NAVAIR programs. Develop a detailed software architecture plan for Phase II implementation that includes a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) and configuration control that allows for sharing of projects between groups working on different problems for the same platform (e.g., cross talk analysis, power bus analysis, and external field analyses). The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a robust, multifidelity software solution that allows NAVAIR analysts to consider very simple problems when there is limited information, all the way through full aircraft models with all the geometric, material, and cable harness details. Provide interfaces for reading common CAD formats. Demonstrate the accuracy, robustness, and speed of the tool. Develop a Phase III commercialization plan.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete development, and perform final testing and validation of a commercial grade application.

 

The tool is suitable for electromagnetic compatibility evaluation of any civilian or military electronic system, including within the commercial aviation and automobile industries.

 

REFERENCES:

1. German, F., Annamalai, K., Young, M., & Miller, M. C. (2010, July). Simulation and data management for cosite interference prediction. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (pp. 869-874). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5711394.
2. Baum, C. E., Liu, T. K., & Tesche, F. M. (1978, November). On the analysis of general multiconductor transmission-line networks. Interaction Note, 350(6), 467-547. http://ece-research.unm.edu/summa/notes/In/0350.pdf.
3. Plumer, J. A. (1980). Protection of aircraft avionics from lightning indirect effects. In AGARD Atmospheric Elec.-Aircraft Interaction 26 p (SEE N80-31743 22-33. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA087976.pdf#page=131.

 

KEYWORDS: Cable harness; cross talk; lightning; Electromagnetic Pulse; EMP; electronic vulnerability; electromagnetic interference

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR);Microelectronics

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics;Materials / Processes;Weapons

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop and deliver chip-scale multifunction midwave infrared (MWIR) metasurface optics sensor system for detecting and geolocating hostile fire to be mounted on, or installed within, small battery operated Group 1 unmanned air vehicles (UAV) and self-guiding target munitions.

 

DESCRIPTION: Especially when first engaged, it is often difficult for a soldier, UAV operator, or autonomous self-guiding target munitions to quickly ascertain from where hostile fire has originated. This confusion prevents a quick geolocation and effective auto target coordinates handoff to counter and eliminate hostile fire.

 

Traditional uncooled microbolometer technologies for small arms bullet detection do not have the potential performance on small battery operated Group 1 UAVs and self-guiding target munitions mainly due to the bullet’s large thermal time constants. Fast detector response times are required to detect fast moving objects at peak energy.

 

This SBIR topic seeks to improve upon the detection and geolocation capabilities of standard broadband optics sensors such as uncooled microbolometer heat detectors by distinguishing between a hostile fire signal and self-emitting blackbody radiation.

 

To this end, a chip-scale multifunction MWIR metasurface optics hostile fire sensor system for hostile fire detection and geolocation is needed. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the computational targeting cue algorithms embedded with optics models that minimize calibration and computational processing of spectra needed to make the chip-scale multifunction MWIR metasurface optics hostile fire sensor system successful. As part of the effort, a sensor system design concept should be developed using available existing chip-scale optical components.

 

Because this topic sensor system is meant to be carried/installed on battery operated Group 1 UAVs (e.g., UVision Hero-20, Teledyne FLIR R80D SkyRaider) and self-guiding target munitions, it must be extremely light weight, low power, and possess an appropriate form factor: this is of primary importance in not degrading other Group 1 UAV and self-guiding target munitions’ performance. Additionally, it should be compatible and not interfere with other sensing systems such as acoustic, electro-optical and infrared sensors.

 

The sensor system need not be imaging, but must provide at least angular direction to the origin of the hostile fire event. In order to provide the user with the best chance of quickly identifying and engaging the threat, the sensor system should minimally be capable of identifying the angle to the threat with < 30° resolution and < ±15° error, but ideally < 5° resolution with < ±2.5° error. This must be balanced against Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWAP-C); horizontal angular (azimuth) resolution is more important than vertical (zenith).

 

The time lag between the shot and geolocating origin data to the user/or other UAV/self-guiding target munitions system components should be minimal, ideally < 50 ms. Of course, probability of detection at tactically relevant ranges for small arms (500–600 m), such as common assault rifles and carbines, and medium arms (1–1.5 km), such as large rifles and machine guns, should be maximized (> 90% minimum, ideally > 95%) and false alarms close to zero. Other features, such as weapons identification, the ability to squelch alerts generated from friendly fire, and range to target, are desirable. The system must minimally operate within the entire UAV and self-guiding target munitions flight/performance envelope.

 

Appropriate algorithms to be incorporated into the design are to provide, at a minimum: (a) angular direction to the origin of hostile fire event in all-weather day/night conditions; (b) a least probability of detection versus range; (c) angular resolution and error; (d) time to detect; (e) geo-location; and (f) sources of false alarms and potential mediation.

 

Testing during later stages of development must include valuation of brass board system using live fire and controlled motion studies over a wide range of relevant background environments.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of a complete chip-scale multifunction MWIR metasurface optics hostile fire sensor system design using only components which are commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or those that could reasonably be designed and fabricated within the time and budget constraints. The sensor design need not be optimized for SWAP-C at this stage, but it must show extensibility to small battery operated UAVs and self-guiding target munitions systems. A complete and thorough understanding of the algorithms necessary to make the sensor system successful must be demonstrated. Rigorous modeling should be performed to estimate sensor system performance, including at least probability of detection versus range, angular resolution and error, time to detect, geolocation, and any other features. Sources of false alarms and potential mediation should be well thought out and incorporated into the design. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Using the results of Phase I, fabricate and deliver a prototype chip scale multifunction MWIR metasurface optics hostile fire sensor system. Prototype should minimally meet requirements for a minimum of TRL 4: component and/or breadboard validation operating in a laboratory environment. All required sensors must be carried or installed small battery operated UAVs, but processing and power may be external at this stage, so long as a detailed design path is provided to show that it can all be integrated into the small battery operated UAVs and self-guiding target munitions (full integration is preferred). Probability of detection, angular resolution and error, and time to detect shall be measured through live-fire testing at close-to-moderate distance, at least 50–1000 m. False alarm mitigation techniques should also be laboratory or field tested when possible.

 

Perform data collection for the purposes of evaluating sensor and system performance at appropriate program intervals, to include live fire testing. Cameras and sensors must be appropriately calibrated and characterized including sensor pose. Live fire testing shall occur at relevant system ranges and locations relative to system or sensor. Testing during later stages of development must include valuation of brass board system using live fire and controlled motion studies over a wide range of relevant background environments.

 

Algorithms must minimally include detection, tracking, spatiotemporal registration, motion stabilization. Algorithms shall be capable of running in real time in SWAP-C appropriate hardware as in a postprocessing mode (e.g., on a desktop computer for analysis and precollected data).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Transition applicable techniques and processes to a production environment with the support of an industry partner. Finalize a sensor design with appropriate SWAP-C and form factor based on human factors testing. Determine the best integration path as a capability upgrade to existing or future systems, including firmware and interfaces required to meet sensor interoperability protocols for integration into candidate systems as identified by the Navy.
 

From a military application, this system gives small battery operated UAVs and self-guiding target munitions the capability to provide accurate azimuth, elevation, and range information about hostile fire shot line as well as the geolocation of the hostile file origin to blue forces and if equipped encounter and eliminate hostile fire sources.

 

From the commercial application, this systems capability will be able to detect smoke and fire at speeds comparable to or faster than conventional detection systems. This makes them a good choice in settings like laboratories, chemical plants, refineries, and boiler rooms where it is critical to detect smallest temperature changes or hidden pockets of embers at an early stage.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Tidhar, G. (2013). Hostile fire detection using dual-band optics. SPIE Newsroom. https://www.spie.org/news/4851-hostile-fire-detection-using-dual-band-optics?SSO=1.
2. Li, X., Greenberg, J. A., & Gehm, M. E. (2019). Single-shot multispectral imaging through a thin scatterer. Optica, 6(7), 864-871. https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-6-7-864&id=415033.
3. Stancic, I., Bugaric, M., & Perkovic, T. (2017). Active IR system for projectile detection and tracking. Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering, 217(4) 125–130. https://doi.org/10.4316/AECE.2017.04015.
4. Dereniak, E. L., & Boreman, G. D. (1996, April). Infrared Detectors and Systems. Wiley & Sons. NY, USA. ISBN: 978-0-0471-12209-8. https://www.worldcat.org/title/infrared-detectors-and-systems/oclc/1023904718&referer=brief_results.
5. Blake, T. A., Kelly, J. F., Gallagher, N. B., Gassman, P. L., & Johnson, T. J. (2009). Passive standoff detection of RDX residues on metal surfaces via infrared hyperspectral imaging. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 395(2), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-009-2907-5.
6. Pauli, M., Seisler, W., Price, J., Williams, A., Maraviglia, C., Evans, R., Moroz, S., Ertem, M. C., Heidhausen, E., & Burchick, D. A. (2004). Infrared detection and geolocation of gunfire and ordnance events from ground and air platforms. Naval Research Lab Washington DC Tactical Electronic Warfare Division. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA460225.pdf.
7. Snarski, S., Menozzi, A., Sherrill, T., Volpe, C., & Wille, M. (2010, May). Results of field testing with the FightSight infrared-based projectile tracking and weapon-fire characterization technology. In Sensors, and Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) Technologies for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense IX (Vol. 7666, p. 76662C). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7666/76662C/Results-of-field-testing-with-the-FightSight-infrared-based-projectile/10.1117/12.850523.full.
8. Department of Defense. (2013, September 16). Defense Acquisition Guidebook (pp. 848–849). Department of Defense. https://at.dod.mil/sites/default/files/documents/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Hostile Fire; chip-scale; metasurface; unmanned air vehicle; UAV; optics; munitions

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML);Autonomy;General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Battlespace Environments;Electronics;Information Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate an innovative, mission effective Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) capability to assist manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) to challenge and/or negate radars and radar networks by enabling UAVs to automatically sense and communicate weaknesses in a radar and/or radar networks.

 

DESCRIPTION: Current airborne electronic warfare (EW) systems must first identify a threat radar to determine the appropriate preprogrammed electronic countermeasure (ECM) technique. This approach loses effectiveness as radars evolve from fixed analog systems to programmable digital variants with unknown behaviors and agile waveforms. Future radars will likely present an even greater challenge as they will be capable of sensing the environment and adapting transmissions and signal processing to maximize performance and mitigate interference effects.

 

A growing concept in the field of MUM-T is the idea of using a team of cooperating unmanned and manned air vehicles to significantly challenge and/or negate existing and/or new, unknown, and adaptive radar networks in real time. Some MUM-T strategies to challenge radar networks may include using either jamming techniques, deception techniques, or a combination of the two, to assist in completing MUM-T mission objectives. A UAV may be tasked to engage a radar or radar network using noise jamming to mask its radar return or that of another vehicle. Similarly, a UAV may be assigned to deceive a radar by directing a delayed signal toward the victim radar, which has the effect of producing a radar phantom perceived by the radar as an object at a false range and/or bearing. Depending on the number of UAVs in the MUM-T and the number of radars in the radar network, the UAVs may be able to employ different strategies simultaneously.

 

A characteristic of these MUM-T strategies is that they require the UAVs to follow time-critical, directionally dependent trajectories with tight constraints in order to be successful, from the start of the defensive task to the very end. It is absolutely necessary that UAVs are able to control their own movements during defensive tasks, as well as navigate in a coordinated fashion enroute to the subsequent tasking. A valid configuration for a UAV is a position in the three-dimensional space environment, which is collision free. At any given trajectory, the algorithm generates a random node and, subsequently, inspects the trajectory path from the generated node to closest previously expanded node for collisions. If collisions exist along the trajectory path, the generated node is discarded and a new random node is generated; otherwise, the generated node is added to the set of expanded nodes. The goal state is reached and ultimately a collision-free path from start to goal state in the three-dimensional environment. UAVs participating in MUM-T missions will need to have local analysis and action capabilities, as well as the ability to speak with and update each other.

 

The successful completion of this SBIR effort will culminate in demonstrations of the MUM-T challenge and/or negate capabilities being able to:

• Isolate unknown radar signals in the presence of other hostile, friendly, and neutral signals.
• Deduce the threat posed by a radar and/or a radar network.
• Synthesize and transmit signals to achieve a desired effect on the radar and/or a radar network.
• Assess the effectiveness of strategies based on radar and radar network behaviors.

 

Simulation-based demonstrations of the effectiveness of small UAV sensor suites in performing various challenging and/or negating missions will help planners and decision makers determine the appropriate mix of UAVs and sensors that will be required to support MUM-T missions, and will show performance as a function of system cost. The flexibility of distributing the sensors across several Group 1-5 UAV platforms enables customized sensor suite solutions that both meet various mission needs and minimize cost. Therefore, a MUM-T member will not have to pay for sensing capabilities that they do not want or require.

 

This SBIR topic seeks to develop a MUM-T challenging and/or negating product(s), which includes the following features and functions:

• High-Level Decision Maker—adaptive allocation to each payload manager
• Director—multifunction optimization and conflict resolution
• Multiobjective Optimization and Learning Engine—dynamic, context-based learning
• Weight Adjuster—autonomously adapt to multiple UAV trajectories
• Compliant interfaces—seamless connection to external subsystems
• Multiobjective reasoning in dynamically changing environments
• Context-based consideration of long-term benefits and tradeoffs in effect option set selection
• Efficient resource allocations
• Reinforcement learning framework that overcomes uncertainty and avoids reliance on static models
• Adaptation across multiple timescales to accommodate dynamic contested environment
• Robust to different environments through contextual processing
• Integration with nonstandard platforms via translation with platform agnostic reasoning
• Vendor-agnostic integration with various Group 1-5 UAV platforms and their respective systems and subsystems
• Hybrid decentralized approach for local decisions to support multiplatform collaboration
• Near real-time mission feedback with reduced processing times
• Lightweight signaling in a hierarchical command and control (C2) structure supporting battlefield applications with multiple distributed platforms
• Negating radio frequency (RF), cyber takeover of unmanned air vehicles

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances. This will allow contractor personnel to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advanced phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Research, develop, and propose a design concept with the potential of realizing the goals in the Description above. Describe and quantify how the proposed solution offers enhancement(s) over current technology approaches and/or how it augments other strategies/technologies. Conduct necessary investigation and simulation on the design and performance of the components to demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of the proposed system design, minimizing user input. Identify any technical challenges that may cause a performance parameter(s) not to be met, results of any modeling, safety issues, and estimated costs. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop, optimize, demonstrate, and deliver the technology identified in Phase I. The technology derived designs will then be modified as necessary to produce final prototypes. Work with the Government team to test the algorithms against data collected from candidate sensors relevant to the Navy with Government furnished MUM-T air vehicles. The prototypes must be capable of demonstrating the performance goals stated in the Description above in a rapid prototype experiment demonstration (RPED) environment. Phase II will include MUM-T field testing against a radar of interest with at least 10 UAVs and one manned aircraft to validate performance claims. Document the design specifications, performance characterization, and any recommendations for future development.

 

Work in Phase II may become classified. Please see note in Description paragraph.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Incorporate the lessons learned from Phase II into the detailed design. Further, refine detailed design to address any unique requirements and to improve performance robustness and capability for manned-unmanned team operational scenarios. Develop preproduction and production components and subsystems for integration into manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles. Further miniaturization and low-cost manufacturability of the capability may be required. Develop relevant environment test methods and evaluate the final designed system performance in field or at sea demonstrations.

 

Integrate the technology using engineering model of proposed product/platform or software, along with full report of development, capabilities, and measurements (showing specific improvement metrics).

 

Military Application: Integration of the products and resulting capabilities with current and future manned and unmanned aircraft teams will enhance team survivability during electronic warfare engagements against layered defense systems.

 

Commercial Application: Potential low-cost development program for unmanned systems to autonomously, interoperate with other unmanned and manned systems in uncontrolled, unsupervised, underwater, ground, and airspace environments or operations safely, e.g., package delivery and photography.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Pachter, M., Chandler, P. R., Purvis, K. B., Waun, S. D., & Larson, R. A. (2004). Multiple radar phantom tracks from cooperating vehicles using range-delay deception. In Theory and Algorithms for Cooperative Systems (pp. 367-390). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812796592.
2. Vakin, S. A., Shustov, L. N., & Dunwell, R. H. (2001). Fundamentals of electronic warfare. Artech. https://www.worldhistory.biz/download567/FundamentalsofElectronicWarfare_worldhistory.biz.pdf.
3. Dubins, L. E. (1957). On curves of minimal length with a constraint on average curvature, and with prescribed initial and terminal positions and tangents. American Journal of Mathematics, 79(3), 497-516. https://doi.org/10.2307/2372560.
4. Dennis Jr, J. E., & Schnabel, R. B. (1996). Numerical methods for unconstrained optimization and nonlinear equations. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ksvJTtJCx9cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=BKjNEK9Jxx&sig=D_WgyKYkpZY8Xv_mEs4qGe-RSbA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
5. Grabbe, M. T., & Hamschin, B. M. (2013). Geo-location using direction finding angles. John Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 31(3), 254-262. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V31-N03/31-03-Grabbe.pdf.
6. Hughes, E. (2018, October). Detecting drones with Doppler-based radar. Aerospace & Defense Technology. Retrieved June 28, 2021, from https://www.aerodefensetech.com/component/content/article/adt/features/articles/33023.
7. de Quevedo, Á. D., Urzaiz, F. I., Menoyo, J. G., & López, A. A. (2019). Drone detection and rcs measurements with ubiquitous radar. Information Processing and Telecommunications Center. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2019. https://radar2018.org/abstracts/pdf/abstract_74.pdf.
8. Department of Defense. (2006, February 28). DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (Incorporating Change 2, May 18, 2016). Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodm/522022m.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Unmanned Air Vehicle; UAV; Manned-Unmanned Team; MUM T; electronic warfare; EW; reinforcement learning; simulation; radar

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Identify, characterize, and standardize the use of smart avionics systems’ data-driven capabilities. Leverage Units Under Test (UUTs) health, environment, and performance data collection capabilities of these systems. Develop innovative technologies to streamline adoption of condition-based and predictive maintenance techniques in Test Program Sets (TPSs).

 

DESCRIPTION: Naval aviation maintenance is shifting course from reactive maintenance (after component failure) and is preparing to adopt new maintenance strategies that rely upon Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) and Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) techniques. Recently, new technologies have allowed for avionics systems to collect “Smart” data related to system health, performance, and environmental factors. This will allow for advanced automated analyses to better diagnose avionics systems, and even help predict failures, and provide preventative maintenance actions before the system actually fails. These maintenance strategies require monitoring, managing, and predicting the condition of avionics systems to enable informed action by maintenance staff. Efficient diagnostics and repairs serve to avoid disruptions in flight operations due to equipment downtime.

 

The primary impacts of the implementation of the proposed technology would be reduced cost of avionics maintenance and increased availability of aircraft platforms. Transitioning to CBM/PHM strategies requires the integration and application of smart avionics systems health, environment, and performance data into the naval enterprise sustainment operations, spanning Automated Logistics Environment (ALE), Automatic Test Equipment (ATE), and TPS usage. Characterizing the data collection capability of smart aircraft systems (components with embedded computer systems to collect and interpret system data) will facilitate this integration and application, but no standard format currently exists for the compilation of all available data.

 

Further technology development must enable the use of such a standardized data set to inform diagnostics and repair of avionics modules and components. Current maintenance methodologies (as defined in the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 [Ref 4]) and environments do not provide the flexibility and interoperability to implement new techniques and industry standards for characterizing design-time and run-time data specification and information exchange. Therefore, in order to address these shortfalls, the Navy is seeking innovative technologies and application development methodologies through this topic.

 

The advanced technologies and techniques implementing the smart avionics systems environment should be based on open standards and support both legacy and new naval aviation weapon systems and Automatic Test Systems (ATS). In addition, through the use of open system standards that have been developed and are currently being developed, the resulting environment and tools should be more easily transported to the electronics maintenance environments of other Military Services.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of developing innovative software technologies, methodologies, and tools for health, environment, and performance data sharing between weapon system UUTs and ATS systems to enable improvements in weapon system availability, and advance the application of smart systems capabilities and open standards. Develop a plan for integrating the advanced technologies, tools, and methodologies required to achieve the stated objective. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Build and integrate a prototype environment to validate the technology and characterization methodology. Work with Navy to produce, test, and demonstrate a new capability that satisfies the objectives of this topic.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Build, certify, and deploy a production toolset at a Navy organization. Commercialize the resulting technology.

 

There is significant potential for commercialization of the technology. For example, the technology can be applied in other Defense and commercial industries where failures in critical assets have a great economic or safety impact (e.g., automotive, aviation, or power). Similar to naval aviation, the health, environment, and performance data for the assets in these other areas are being integrated and are moving more toward CBM and PHM concepts.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. (2020, August 14). DoD Instruction 4151.22 Condition-based maintenance plus for materiel maintenance. Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/415122p.pdf?ver=2020-08-14-152511-117.
2. Automatic Test Systems Executive Directorate. (2017). DOD Automatic Test Systems Master Plan 2017. Department of Defense. https://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mpp/ATS/.ats_library.html/2017_DoD_ATS_Master_Plan.pdf.
3. Prognostics and Health Management Working Group. (2017, December 13). IEEE Std 1856™-2017: IEEE Standard Framework for Prognostics and Health Management of Electronic Systems. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8227036.
4. NAVAIR. (2021, February 01). Naval Aviation Maintenance Program COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2D. https://www.navair.navy.mil/Naval-Aviation-Maintenance-Program.

 

KEYWORDS: Automatic Test Equipment; Condition-Based Maintenance; Prognostics; Avionics Maintenance; Health Management; Diagnostics

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop passive surveillance techniques that utilize the wideband signal processing and direction of arrival measurement capabilities of modern signals intelligence/electronic intelligence (SIGINT/ELINT) systems to act as a passive radar system leveraging opportunistic emitters in the operational area to develop and maintain the tactical surface picture in Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD) environments.

 

DESCRIPTION: Operations in high-threat environments drive both our own forces, as well as our adversaries, to effectively go dark by limiting detectable emissions. In such situations, long-range situational awareness provided by radar and SIGINT/ELINT systems is lost. However, in most of these environments, particularly those in littoral regions, many other electromagnetic emissions are present from other sources, including commercial ships, land-based emitters, and even satellites. In principle, an airborne platform’s mission radar could use these emissions to maintain situational awareness by processing the reflections of these emissions from surrounding ships. However, this requires that not only the opportunistic emission is in the operating band of the mission radar (typically x-band), but also be suitable for the particular radar function (detection/tracking or imaging). This requirement is highly restrictive. On the other hand, modern SIGINT/ELINT collection systems operate over a very wide-frequency range and have wide-instantaneous bandwidth processing capabilities, making them an excellent passive radar system in A2/AD environments where opportunistic emissions may be the only means to develop and maintain a long-range surface picture. The nature of the available emissions should be considered and their suitability for use in vessel detection, tracking, and inverse synthetic aperture imaging over frequency ranges typical of modern SIGINT/ELINT systems.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances. This will allow contractor personnel to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advanced phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop passive radar concepts suitable for opportunistic emission exploitation by conceptual modern airborne SIGINT/ELINT systems. Supporting analyses should include the presence of potential opportunistic emissions in littoral and blue water oceanic regions. Hypothetical coverage maps should be developed for operations in peace time, heightened tensions, and during conflicts. The concepts should consider the relatively modest antenna gain (0-3 dBi)of typical SIGINT/ELINT systems. The feasibility of coherent signal processing approaches of these opportunistic emissions should be considered. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on Phase I results, candidate concept(s) will be matured through more detailed high-fidelity analyses with a focus on a particular SIGINT/ELINT system identified by the Navy sponsor. Examine integration concepts. Working with the Navy sponsor, assess software and possible firmware impacts to accommodate the candidate techniques. Identify critical technical challenges and perform necessary analysis and as required experimentation to understand the associated risk. The Phase II deliverable should provide a detailed conceptual approach with supporting analyses of sufficient detail to support follow-on design and integration in the candidate airborne platform system. A prototype system should be developed and demonstrated to assess feasibility of the proposed approach.

 

Work in Phase II may become classified. Please see note in Description paragraph.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete development, perform final testing, integrate, and transition the final solution to naval airborne SIGINT/ELINT systems.

 

The technology can support a variety of passive RF surveillance system for air surveillance, facility monitoring, or coastal navigation.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Pavlikov, V. V., Volosyuk, V. K., & Zhyla, S. S. (2018, July). Ultra-wideband passive radars fundamental theory and applications. In 2018 IEEE 17th International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Electromagnetic Theory (MMET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMET.2018.8460251.
2. Matthes, D. (2005, May). Convergence of ESM sensors and passive covert radar. In IEEE International Radar Conference, 2005. (pp. 430-44). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2005.1435863.
3. Clark, B., & Gunzinger, M. (2015). Winning the airwaves: Regaining America's dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6292-EW_Reprint_WEB.pdf.
4. Department of Defense. (2006, February 28). DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (Incorporating Change 2, May 18, 2016). Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodm/522022m.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Passive radar; anti access/area denial; A2/AD; signal processing; parasitic radar; wideband

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms;Battlespace Environments;Electronics

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an advanced heat tolerant towline for towed decoy with an operating temperature limit of at least 700 °C with a goal operating temperature limit of 1000 °C.

 

DESCRIPTION: The current Navy towed decoy deployment system location places the trailing towline in a position where hot engine exhaust encroaches on it during high Angle of Attack (AOA) maneuvers that use engine afterburners. The hot engine exhaust encroachment causes material failure of the towline that can cause towline separation or prevent operation of the decoy. A towline typically contains from two to five high-voltage wires and a single-mode optical fiber. Zylon fibers provide towline tensile strength in excess of 200 lb (90.72 kg). The towline diameter is restricted by available spool volume to about 0.062 in. (1.57 mm), and a bend radius of approximately 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) is required to meet unspooling functionality. The towline must remain flexible over a storage temperature range between -60 °C to +85 °C. The current decoy insulated wire consists of the polyimide EKJ (DuPont) that is tape-wrapped around a fine-gauge conductor. Studies and material analysis have shown that the EKJ insulation tends to electrically break down on exposure to temperatures above 550 °C for more than 30 seconds (s) at the high voltages (> 2,500 V) necessary to properly energize the decoy electronics. The electrical breakdown of the insulation leads to arcing and current leakage between conductors, which causes the decoy power supply to shut down due to overcurrent. The Zylon fibers that provide tensile strength also fail rapidly above 650 °C, resulting in parting of the towline and loss of the decoy. Ideally, as a near-term goal, a towline operating temperature of 700 °C for six towline exposures of > 30 s each is sought, and as a longer term goal, an operating temperature as high as 1000 °C with the same or greater exposure times is desired. This can possibly be achieved by perfecting the existing science in the towline systems, and/or devising novel towline systems, e.g., the conducting and strength members may ultimately be a single entity. Such advanced tow cables may also require materials that are not entirely organic in nature as they will most likely not survive extreme conditions up to 1000 °C. In this regard, innovative research involving inorganic/ceramic and other hybrid material systems may be useful and such innovative ideas are sought in this SBIR topic.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of an advanced heat tolerant tow cable concept, including addressing in detail how each component of the proposed tow cable will meet the material and structural demand with regard to the sought requirements. Preliminary component level testing results supporting the design, i.e., proof-of-concept results are highly desirable although not a must. Propose Phase II cable fabrication and test effort that will fully demonstrate the sought requirements. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop a prototype tow cable. Perform component level testing supporting the design to demonstrate the sought parameters of both near-term and long-term goals. Fabricate and test multiple lengths, i.e., from 10–100 ft (3.05–30.48 m) of tow cables.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Once an effective, affordable, and improved temperature towed decoy cable design has been demonstrated, the Navy can reflect the new capability in performance specifications. The Navy and the small business can negotiate to provide that improved performance to the Navy.

 

Improved high temperature cables would be useful for commercial aircraft wiring around hot engines and for cables for sensors in deep earth drilling operations.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Kolel-Veetil, M. K., & Keller, T. M. (2007). Polymeric protection of Navy fighter jet towlines. Naval Research Laboratory. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a516758.pdf.
2. Texas A&M. (n. d.). Materials for extreme environments. Engineering Magazine. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from https://engineeringmagazine.tamu.edu/materials-for-extreme-environments/.
3. The Grainger College of Engineering. (n. d.). Mechanical properties and materials for extreme conditions. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from https://matse.illinois.edu/research/mechanical-properties-and-materials-extreme-conditions.
4. Glenn Research Center. (n. d.). Materials & structures for extreme environments. NASA. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/research-and-engineering/materials-structures-extreme-environments/.

 

KEYWORDS: Towline; high temperature; HT; HT wire insulation; HT fibers with tensile strength; decoy; HT fibers

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a modeling and process planning tool for hybrid metal additive manufacturing processes to predict and minimize the residual stress and distortion of a part.

 

DESCRIPTION: Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies have become increasingly important for the rapid production of industrial products. However, AM processes also pose challenges with associated features such as residual stress. Many AM process parameters and post-processes may affect the final residual stress of the part. Laser scanning patterns during AM processing can significantly affect distortion and residual stress distribution in an AM process [Ref 1]. Residual stress caused by the thermal cycles in AM processing is a critical issue for the fabricated metal parts since the steep residual stress gradients generate part distortion which dramatically deteriorates the functionality of the end-use parts. Thus, the residual stress can degrade the AM part’s quality, service life, precision, and fatigue performance. For example, after AM processing, a considerable amount of chip curl out of the cutting plane was observed, which was not observed when cutting wrought parts of the same material. This out-of-plane curl was attributed to the residual stress distribution in the part from an AM process, and indicated that residual stresses from the AM process can impact chip formation during machining [Ref 2].

 

Hybrid additive/subtractive manufacturing is a process that combines both AM and subtractive manufacturing, such as machining, to create parts with high complexity, tight tolerances, and good surface finish. The hybrid process integrates the AM capability of fabricating almost any complex geometry and the machining capability of offering high part quality and short processing times. Properly chosen tooling and cutting conditions may induce stresses along the outer surface to counteract those imposed from the preceding AM process [Ref 3]. Thus, if well planned, a hybrid process can potentially be used to produce a part with controlled stresses and minimum distortion.

 

Due to the complexity of the residual stresses, some researchers have investigated the modeling of dual processes or hybrid processes. For example, finite element modeling was used to predict the residual stresses developed during heat treatment processes and the distortion during machining operations [Ref 4]. Another finite element method, utilizing the level set method to define the cutting tool path, was able to predict results such as residual stresses and part distortion [Ref 5]. The results show that machining can partially eliminate the residual stresses and distortion caused by laser cladding. However, the entire part needs to be modelled to predict residual stress, making the analysis computationally very expensive. The challenge increases when using a modeling tool to plan and benchmark between different tool paths and deposition strategies. Thus, an efficient and effective modeling and planning tool for AM processes is needed.

 

The Navy requires a modeling and process planning system for a hybrid metal additive manufacturing process. The tool will integrate the effects of additive and subtractive processes. These results will be the basis for hybrid process planning in order to control the residual stress and minimize the distortion of the resulting parts. This modeling and planning system should also be computationally efficient.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of a modeling and planning tool to predict the residual stress and distortion of an AM part based on key hybrid process parameters for both the additive and subtractive steps. This tool should be capable of predicting the residual stress in a Ti-6Al-4 coupon, which is repaired using a hybrid process. This coupon should be developed independently. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop a full-scale modeling and process planning tool prototype to efficiently predict the residual stress and distortion of hybrid additive/subtractive parts based on various process parameters, including, but not limited to, energy density, build orientation, build tool path, material properties, scan speed, layer thickness, part geometry, machining conditions, sequence between additive (conventional AM, cold spray, and welding) and subtractive processes, and post processing (stress relieving, normalization, etc.). Compare the predicted residual stress of the test cases by printing and machining Ti-6Al-4V samples to show the effectiveness of the model’s prediction capability and the computational efficiency of the planning capability. Demonstrate the solution(s) in a real-world AM processing scenario and its possible transition into both military and commercial applications. Note: No Government test facility should be needed.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Validate and demonstrate an aircraft ready AM part using a hybrid process. This part should conform to all design tolerances and strength requirements predicted by the physics-based modeling solution created in Phase II.

 

Metal AM component studies are being conducted in both the private and public sector for parts that might benefit from a hybrid additive/subtractive construction using AM. AM components can reduce weight, tooling costs, and material waste. By understanding the distortions and internal stresses of as-built and post-processed parts, a manufacturer can reduce material waste and time required to redesign components to meet requirements.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Ren, K., Chew, Y., Fuh, J. Y. H., Zhang, Y. F., & Bi, G. J. (2019). Thermo-mechanical analyses for optimized path planning in laser aided additive manufacturing processes. Materials & Design, 162, 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.11.014.
2. Lane, B. M., Moylan, S. P., & Whitenton, E. P. (2015, April). Post-process machining of additive manufactured stainless steel. In Proceedings of the 2015 ASPE Spring Topical Meeting: Achieving Precision Tolerances in Additive Manufacturing (pp. 27-29). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandon-Lane-2/publication/280598788_Post-Process_Machining_of_Additive_Manufactured_Stainless_Steel/links/55bcd59908ae092e96638084/Post-Process-Machining-of-Additive-Manufactured-Stainless-Steel.pdf.
3. Heigel, J. C., Phan, T. Q., Fox, J. C., & Gnaupel-Herold, T. H. (2018). Experimental investigation of residual stress and its impact on machining in hybrid additive/subtractive manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing, 26, 929-940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.120.
4. Ma, K., Goetz, R., & Srivatsa, S. K. (2010). Modeling of residual stress and machining distortion in aerospace components (preprint). Air Force Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB OH Materials and Manufacturing Directorate. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA523921.pdf.
5. Salonitis, K., D’Alvise, L., Schoinochoritis, B., & Chantzis, D. (2016). Additive manufacturing and post-processing simulation: laser cladding followed by high speed machining. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85(9), 2401-2411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7989-y.

 

KEYWORDS: Additive Manufacturing; Design; Distortion; Hybrid Process; Residual Stress; Subtractive Manufacturing

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR);Hypersonics

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a compact thermal energy storage device.

 

DESCRIPTION: The latest version of the Department of Defense’s Anti-Radiation Homing Missile (AARGM-ER) must store the thermal energy generated by its electronics on board during its mission. The current energy storage device concept utilizes wax in an aluminum container. This concept consumes a lot of space within the guidance section and the control section of the missile. The current Thermal Protection System in the Guidance Section requires 267 in.³ (678.18 cm³) and in the Control Section requires 119 in.³ (302.26 cm³). The Navy requires that the space consumed by these devices be reduced by no less than one half. These devices are configured to surround the electronics packages and may require an asymmetric shape. The devices together must be able to absorb 156 Btu/min and maintain an electronic package’s surface temperature at no more than 85 °C for a duration of 5 minutes or more. The combined weight of the devices cannot exceed 21.75 lb. (9.86 kg). The devices must be reusable and rapidly regenerated if they absorb energy during captive carriage of the missile. It is desired that the devices require no consumables and do not require preventative maintenance. The Navy seeks a unique and innovative approach to reduce the size of the current energy storage device in the guidance and control sections while maintaining the identified temperature and weight parameters. Analysis and/or modeling are approaches that may be used to validate the ability of this unique/innovative approach to achieve the size reduction while maintaining the temperature and weight parameters.

 

PHASE I: Develop, design, and demonstrate the feasibility, through analysis and/or modeling, of a device to absorb the required thermal energy within the required size. For additional information please refer to MIL-STD-810 for fighter aircraft environments. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Design, test and demonstrate a device that will work within a missile guidance and control type structure, environment, and mission profile.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Design and demonstrate a device that will work within a missile guidance and control type structure, environment, mission profile and different asymmetric designs while adapting and accommodating different electronic packages. Transition the technology to applicable naval platforms.

 

The technology could be used within any electronic enclosure exposed or generating high temperatures to reduce its thermal footprint.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Greene, E. E. (2013, July 29). Thermal protection and control [Internship Final Report, University of Nebraska-Lincoln]. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140002341/downloads/20140002341.pdf.
2. Marongiu, M. (2019, March 6). Thermal management of electronic equipment using phase change materials (PCMs). Electronics COOLING. https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2019/03/thermal-management-of-electronic-equipment-using-phase-change-materials-pcms/.
3. Wang, Y., Gao, X., Chen, P., Huang, Z., Xu, T., Fang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2016, March). Preparation and thermal performance of paraffin/Nano-SiO2 nanocomposite for passive thermal protection of electronic devices, 96, 699-707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.106.

 

KEYWORDS: Thermal management; Reduced Footprint; No preventative maintenance; Missile; Thermal Energy; Thermal Protection

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Autonomy

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative miniaturized data tether deployment modules for use in a variety of sonobuoys for antisubmarine warfare (ASW).

 

DESCRIPTION: NATO A-size buoys have been produced in large quantities over many decades. The standardization of the A-size bare buoy form factor has supported a tremendous economy of scale to reduce unit production costs and has driven designs of compatible platform launchers and stores management, as well as logistics support. The advent of new sonobuoys requiring improved sensors requires miniaturization of components in the sonobuoys to allow for more space for sensor arrays. Additionally, deep and long-life sonobuoys have unique size and capacity constraints due to additional tether length and/or larger power supplies. With advances in miniaturization technologies, the Navy seeks new and innovative data tether deployment modules for use in multiple sonobuoys.

 

This SBIR topic addresses the need for new data tether modules to provide a strengthened, full-duplex communications datalink between the surface unit and the suspended payload. Following air launch and water entry, the data tether deploys the payload to a programmed depth and then suspends the payload for the duration of operations. The data tether module functionality includes: (a) the upper and lower mechanical, data, and power interfaces with the sonobuoy surface and payload units; (b) tether deployment; (c) full-duplex communications; (d) suspension of payload unit static and dynamic loads while providing for requisite acoustic isolation; and (e) packaging as an extractable sonobuoy module. Power for any interface electronics would come from either or both the surface and payload units.

 

The performance objectives address two miniaturized data tether deployment modules.

 

Module #1 Performance Objectives:

• deployed tether length threshold: a fixed, to-be-specified length ranging from 1,000 ft–12,000 ft (304.8 m–3,687.6 m); objective: command selectable with up to four to-be-specified lengths ranging from 1,000 ft–16,000 ft (304.8- m–4,876.8 m)
• static tensile load threshold: 5 lb (2. 27 kg); objective: 10 lb (4. 54 kg)
• full-duplex data rate threshold: up to 100 kb/s; objective: up to 1. 5 Gb/s
• diameter: threshold < 4.5 in. (11.43 cm)
• cylindrical stack height: threshold 8 in. (20.32 cm); objective 6 in. (15.24 cm)
• power consumption threshold: < 1. 5 W; objective: < 0. 5 W
• operational life threshold: 14 days; objective 180 days
• ability to be ruggedized and packaged to withstand the shock, vibration, pressure, temperature, humidity, electrical power conditions, etc., encountered in a system built for long-term, nonclimate- controlled storage, and for airborne use
• reliably deployed in sea-state conditions 0 through 5 (international scale) with 90% two-dimensional current profile meantime between equipment failure threshold: 90 days; objective: 180 days
• full-rate production cost: threshold < $1,000; objective < $500 (based on 1000 units)

 

Module #2 Performance Objectives:

• deployed tether length threshold: a fixed, to-be-specified length ranging from 90 ft–1,500 ft (27.43 m–457.2 m); objective: command selectable with up to four to-be-specified lengths ranging from 90 ft–1,500 ft (27.43 m–457.2 m)
• static tensile load threshold: 4 lb (1.81 kg); objective: 8 lb (3.63 kg)
• full-duplex data rate threshold: up to 100 kb/s; objective: up to 1. 5 Gb/s
• diameter: threshold < 3.5 in. (8.89 cm); objective: < 4.5 in. (11.43 cm)
• cylindrical stack height: threshold < 2 in. (5.08 cm); objective < 1.5 in. (3.81 cm)
• power consumption threshold: < 1.5 W; objective: < 0.5 W
• operational life threshold: 6 hr; objective 8 hr
• ability to be ruggedized and packaged to withstand the shock, vibration, pressure, temperature, humidity, electrical power conditions, etc., encountered in a system built for long-term nonclimate- controlled storage, and for airborne use
• reliably deployed in sea-state conditions 0 through 5 (international scale) with 90% two-dimensional current profile meantime between equipment failure threshold: 4 hr; objective: 8 hr
• full-rate production cost: threshold < $500; objective < $250 (based on 1,000 units)

 

Technology Innovation will include a sonobuoy high-data-rate tether deployment module that meets the performance objects and metrics below. Currently, there does not exist a small diameter fiber optic tether capable of supporting a deep sonobuoy deployment. Fiber optics have reduced volume per foot compared to existing sonobuoy tethers that will enable the development of a deep sonobuoy high-data-rate deployment module. In addition, fiber optics support a significantly higher data rate from the deep sensor to the surface. Successful sonobuoy high-data-tether deployment module development will result in a deep sonobuoy capability. Specific technology innovation is a small high-data-rate fiber deployment module with a high-strength member supporting deep depth. Details of this innovation include, but are not limited to:

1. High strength tether that is > 3 mi long and has the ability to support the weight of sensors at the bottom of the tether for up to six months.
2. High-strength tether diameter must be small enough to fit into the fiber-optic deployment module with a size of 4.5 in. (11.43 cm) in diameter and 6 in. (15.24 cm) in height. This further complicates the ability of the tether meeting the high strength necessary for a deep-deployed sonobuoy.
3. The tether needs to double as the communication link from depth to the surface. The use of fiber optics as the tether results in transmission of acoustic detection using a high-digital-data rate from depth to the surface that is required by this topic. Copper wire is not capable of providing the high-data rates required.
4. Module #2 requires a much smaller high-data-rate fiber-optic deployment module. This is due to the limited space in future tactical sonobuoys as a result of increased sensor space requirements, and for use in miniature sonobuoys (mBuoys). Miniature sonobuoys provide aircraft the capability to carry twice as many sonobuoys. Module #2 has the same innovations and challenges described in 1-3 above, but with a greatly reduced depth. The remaining innovations ? (a) small module, (b) high strength tether, and (c) small-diameter fiber optic ? are the same as above.

 

PHASE I: Develop, design, and demonstrate the feasibility of a viable and robust miniaturized data tether deployment module solutions consisting of a tether deployment canister packaged with the requisite length of tether and interface electronics, as required to pass uplink and downlink communications, to receive power from the upper and lower sonobuoy components, and with a compliant suspension, to isolate a notional acoustic payload from surface dynamics. Identify technological and reliability challenges of the design approach and propose viable risk mitigation strategies. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Design, fabricate, and deliver miniaturized data tether deployment module prototypes based on the design from Phase I. Test and fully characterize the system prototype. The interface electronics to the sonobuoy upper and lower units need not meet the miniature packaging requirements to allow use of discrete assemblies, in anticipation of tight integration of these interfaces with the sonobuoy’s upper and lower units during Phase III.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Integrate the technologies into a logistically supportable sonobuoy package that is compatible with air carriage and air drop for existing and future Navy launch platforms.

 

The small size, low cost, and standardized form factor of mBuoys will expand market potential enabling new applications and greater use of sensors for ocean and climate research, marine mammal surveys, economic exclusion zone monitoring, and customs and border protection.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Holler, R. A., Horbach, A. W., & McEachern, J. F. (2008). The ears of air ASW: a history of US Navy sonobuoys. Navmar Applied Sciences Corporation. Warminster, PA, 2008. https://www.worldcat.org/title/ears-of-air-asw-a-history-of-us-navy-sonobuoys/oclc/720627294.
2. Military Analysis Network. (1998, December 12). AN/SSQ-53 directional frequency analysis and recording sonobuoy. Federation of American Scientists. https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-ssq-53.htm.
3. Military Analysis Network. (2000, April 23). AN/SSQ-62B/C/D/e directional command activated sonobuoy system (DICASS) Sonobuoy. Federation of American Scientists. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-ssq-62.htm.

 

KEYWORDS: Miniaturized; Tether; Sensors; Antisubmarine Warfare; ASW; Acoustics; Airborne

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML);Autonomy;General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Human Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Provide an intelligent, realistic, and autonomous communications software tool intended to provide relevant radio and chat information exchanges within training systems and feedback to improve the fidelity and quality of communication-based training.

 

DESCRIPTION: The current Air Traffic Control (ATC) operational environment requires an operator to listen and filter through a large number of communications (voice and/or text) in order to complete their objectives. During training, the quality of the “non-target” communications, or “noise” is lacking, or does not exist, due to technological or instructor workload limitations. Calls that are replayed on a loop can alert the student to the normal pattern and allow them to pick out the target communications more easily than they would in an operational environment. This limitation decreases the training fidelity of the environment and can cause a lack of trainee skill.

 

This SBIR topic seeks to provide a software solution for enhancing communications-based training systems for the ATC community and others through development of a capability to deliver intelligent, autonomous, and realistic background calls and text chat (i.e., not scripted) to increase training fidelity. This communication-based training solution must allow students to interact with relevant entities (e.g., aircraft, personnel within tower, personnel of adjacent airspace towers, command and control agencies) via voice and text, and be provided responses (for target communication responses, as well as nontarget). The system should also provide diagnostic feedback to the student after the exercise—specifically targeted at whether or not the student is communicating with the correct entities or “target” communications—and whether or not the content of their messages is appropriate for the situation. Instructors must be able to modify the environment of the scenarios, to include certain amounts and types of aircraft (and other calls) in order to simulate different mission sets, and difficulty levels.

 

As part of this SBIR effort, development and demonstration of hardware and/or software technology prototype is desired that provides this capability stated above. The hardware and software must meet the DoD system accreditation and certification requirements to support processing approvals for use through the policy cited in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT) [Ref 1], and comply with appropriate DoDI 8500.01, Cybersecurity [Ref 2]. This solution should require minimal operator guidance to modify and maintain.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances. This will allow contractor personnel to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advanced phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Demonstrate feasibility of an autonomous voice- and text-based communications capability to support signal-to-noise ratio in training scenarios. The early system should demonstrate an initial autonomous capability to provide audio and text during training, with some type of performance feedback to users, such as text or graphics-based information on user performance. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and prototype the proposed solution to integrate into a sample training environment. The prototype capability should be able to provide realistic, autonomous voice- and text-based communications from various types of aircraft for the appropriate set of training scenarios, and provide feedback to students.

 

Work in Phase II may become classified. Please see note in Description paragraph.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Obtain management framework certification for an authority to operate within operational/training systems. Finalize, refine, and integrate the solution within the training system environment. Transition the technology to a Naval Air Station via a Program Office. This solution can be used in the defense industry as a framework to provide higher fidelity settings for communications-based training.

 

Commercial industries that could benefit from this type of training system include commercial aviation and air traffic control, in similar ways to how the technology would benefit the listed platforms. Outside of air traffic control, 911 operators and first responder training could benefit from this type of communications-based training system. Any job that filters through a large amount of voice and text communications (e.g., 911 dispatcher) could be trained using such a solution.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Department of Defense. (2020, December 29). DoDI 8510.01: Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), Incorporating Change 3. Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/851001p.pdf?ver=qEE2HGN_HE4Blu7161t1TQ%3D%3D.
2. Department of Defense. (2019, October 7). DoDI 8500.01, Incorporating Change 1: Cybersecurity. Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/850001_2014.pdf.
3. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. (n.d.). https://www.dcsa.mil/.
4. Department of Defense. (2006, February 28). DoD 5220.22-M National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (Incorporating Change 2, May 18, 2016). Department of Defense. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodm/522022m.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Air Traffic Control; Training System; Communications-based Training; Training Fidelity; Diagnostic Feedback; Instructor Workload

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop the capability to automate multi-platform Theater Undersea Warfare (TUSW) mission data collection and use for time-periods of up to 180 days.

 

DESCRIPTION: Current processes and tools to reconstruct TUSW mission data information are manually cumbersome, labor-intensive, and time-consuming. The existing state-of-practice is to (a) bring together data recordings from different tactical systems across multiple platforms, and (b) filter and edit the data files to get some level of synchronization and fidelity across time and space. The resulting collated data set is used for replay to provide a wide-area Theater view of events. The TUSW mission is sufficiently complex and unique that there is no analogous commercial state of the art from which to draw.

 

The Navy desires a TUSW mission capability to be fielded within the AN/UYQ-100 Undersea Warfare Decision Support System (USW-DSS) to provide rapid data recording and replay, and event reconstruction through automation, which provides minimal user pre-processing. The rapid replay solution must use a robust automated data recording and automated replay, storage, archival, and retrieval procedure that is built into the overall system architecture, along with a logically formulated user methodology supported by reliable software toolsets.

 

To enable in-depth operational analysis and assessment by subject matter experts, the ability to comprehensively reconstruct long-term TUSW events is essential. Additionally, reconstruction is expected to support system engineers in improving the usability of the system from a human-factors perspective. These require the capability to (a) capture user interactions with the system (like menu selections, mouse clicks, etc.), and (b) collect Theater team member interactions (for example, between watchfloor personnel, command site and subordinate tactical units).

 

Since TUSW events can extend over several weeks and possibly months, the solution will collect mission data over a 180-day time-period and manage the data without burdensome Information Technology (IT) administration and intervention. It is often that high-interest events cross over from one Theater to another requiring the solution to have a multi-Theater system synchronization capability. The solution will be analyzed by the Government to ensure it effectively provides the rapid replay and comprehensive reconstruction required to conduct operational analysis and assessment, and perform usability improvements. Once the prospective contractor(s) demonstrates that their technology is beneficial on data they provide, the Navy will evaluate the solution with relevant tactical data to assess how well the capability meets performance goals, with an eye to the feasibility of having the capability meet Navy information assurance specifications for classification security. Once the technology is deemed acceptable to integrate into USW-DSS, the capability will be integrated into a future USW-DSS build for metrics-based Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) tests during the normal USW-DSS System Integration Test events to qualify and certify the updated USW-DSS system for Fleet use.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for automated replay and reconstruction of TUSW Mission Data over extended time-periods of up to 180 days. Demonstrate the concept meets the parameters in the Description. Establish feasibility in meeting Navy needs by sample testing, modeling, simulation, and analysis. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and a capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II. State of the practice standards such as Google Protocol Buffers (protobuf) and Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) are to be supported. Cybersecurity is to be in accordance with Navy Authorizing Official (NAO) policies and procedures. This information will be provided during Phase I.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of the research in Phase I, develop and deliver the prototype solution architecture, methodology and toolsets for incorporating automated replay and reconstruction into the USW-DSS. Demonstrate the prototype meets the required range of desired performance attributes given in the Description. System performance will be demonstrated through installation and prototype testing on a testbed with the lead system integrator.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use as a software configuration item in the production USW-DSS. The performer will be expected to follow the Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) cycle as mandated by the Navy’s DevSecOps processes and the transition Program Office (IWS 5). The Navy will conduct metrics-based Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) tests during the normal USW-DSS System Integration Test events to qualify and certify the component for Fleet use.

 

Data replay and reconstruction are key components of engineering systems that support a variety of military applications involving aircraft and ground vehicles in tactical operations. Commercial applications where the technology could be used include the aircraft industry, land-based shipping operations, and maritime shipping, travel, and rescue operations.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Pollock Jr, James and Cembrola, Joan. “Method for the collection and replay of submarine operational data”. US Patent 6,016,453, awarded 18 January 2000. https://patents.justia.com/patent/6016453.
2. Aldinger, Tye and Kao, Jimmy. “Data Fusion and Theater undersea warfare – an oceanographer’s perspective.” IEEE Oceans ’04 MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean ’04. 9-12 November 2004, Kobe, Japan. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1406451 (Locate a local library with a copy of these proceedings at https://www.worldcat.org/title/oceans-04-mtsieee-techno-ocean04-bridges-across-the-oceans-conference-proceedings-november-9-12-2004-kobe-japan/oclc/1109187758#borrow).
3. “AN/UYQ-100 Undersea Warfare Decision Support System (USW-DSS).” Navy Fact File, at https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166791/anuyq-100-undersea-warfare-decision-support-system-usw-dss/.

 

KEYWORDS: Theater Undersea Warfare; TUSW; TUSW Mission Data; Automated data recording; Multi-Theater; Automated Replay; Event Reconstruction

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Networked C3

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an algorithm that automatically identifies clusters of nodes that should participate in specific information flows based on a combination of geographic location information type needs.

 

DESCRIPTION: Navy command and control networks currently implement “mass delivery”, meaning data from each node is sent to all nodes. This method of delivery makes sense given the networks’ initial purpose of providing a common track picture on each node. Having all sensor data available on each node allows each node to generate the same track picture as all other nodes. Future Navy requirements will add additional data to existing networks, using the Communications as a Service (CaaS) concept, and will require existing command and control networks be expanded to a larger number of nodes. At some network size, the concept of mass delivery will drive the network to its throughput limit for a given point-to-point communication. A concept to separate network size from throughput is to prioritize sending specific data to certain clusters of nodes that need that specific data. The data need can be characterized by a combination of geographic proximity and data type. Currently no known solutions exist that can accomplish this task. The Navy seeks an algorithm that automatically identifies clusters of nodes that will participate in specific information flows based on a combination of geographic location information type needs.

 

The solution should automatically assign network nodes to clusters. The cluster generator will be implemented in a high-level language (such as Python, MATLAB, and so forth) to facilitate its evaluation in simulation. Metrics available in the reference by J. Yang can be used to assess the quality of the clusters [Ref 1]. The default metric will be a comparison of the network size achievable using the clusters to the network size achievable using mass delivery, assuming a constant maximum throughput. The clusters may be generated upon the node entering the network or discovered during network execution. The net entry approach is intended to avoid chokepoints (i.e., communications that exceed the point-to-point throughput limit). The discovery method is an ad-hoc method and is intended to detect and mitigate chokepoints. Both methods will be simulated. Each approach optimizes the use of the network throughput. The solution(s) will be tested in a testbed provided by the Government. Based on the cluster definitions, the scheduling concept will be demonstrated in a simulation showing increased fidelity.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for an automated network cluster generator that automatically assigns network nodes to clusters. Demonstrate the concept meets the parameters of the Description. Show feasibility through analysis, modelling, simulation, and testing. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and a capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and deliver the prototype automated network cluster generator based on the results of Phase I. Demonstrate the prototype meets the required range of desired performance attributes given in the Description. System performance will be demonstrated through installation and prototype testing in a testbed. The scheduling concept, based on the cluster definitions, will be demonstrated in simulation with increased fidelity.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. The automated clustering concept will be merged with existing command and control software to assist in generating the Time-Division Multiple Access (TDMA) transmit/receive schedule. Working prototype scheduling algorithms will be delivered to the Navy Program of Record for integration into the scheduling algorithm to be deployed. Assist the Government in integrating the suite of scheduling concepts that best support the requirements of the network capability to be deployed.

 

This technology will benefit the commercial industry for companies or universities that use large amounts of computers to control aspects or communications within their industry.

 

REFERENCES:

1. J. Yang, J. McAuley and J. Leskovec, "Community Detection in Networks with Node Attributes," 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining, Dallas, TX, USA, 2013, pp. 1151-1156, doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2013.167. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6729613; https://www-cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/cesna-icdm13.pdf.
2. Emmons S, Kobourov S, Gallant M, Börner K (2016) Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159161; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159161.

 

KEYWORDS: Large networks; clusters of nodes; cluster generator; optimized throughput; information flows; ad-hoc network.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a capability that embeds prompts for system usage within the Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) system to support proficiency and mission success.

 

DESCRIPTION: The AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 Surface Ship Undersea Warfare system is used to conduct operations across the entire detect to engage spectrum, including active sonar, passive sonar, sonobuoy operations, and weapons targeting and firing. Mission success relies on operator proficiency during tactical operations.

 

ASW operations require a highly-perishable, complex skill set. While operator proficiency can be developed and maintained using training, the ultimate purpose of improved proficiency is effective use of the mission system during tactical operations. Providing individualized support in the midst of tactical operations will reduce the time to correctly perform the complex functions from target detection to target engagement, improving mission effectiveness.

 

The Navy seeks a technology that provide embedded individualized support as operators perform each ASW function. It should be able to extend across the range of support that might be needed, from the apprentice level to those who are masters of employment. The proposed technology will also extend to the full range of functions operators are required to perform. The Navy believes the technology associated with this SBIR topic will provide opportunities to implement artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) techniques.

 

The solution should demonstrate an improvement in operator performance for apprentice operators without degrading performance of journeyman and master operators, translating to latency reduction of 25% in end-to-end metrics relative to unassisted employment of the system. Testing of the solution will occur using the IWS 5.0 Advanced Capability Build (ACB) step testing process.

 

Initial testing of the proposed technology may be demonstrated at the contractor facility, but a more robust evaluation of a fully developed toolset will eventually be conducted using representative data gathered from a fleet test event, at a developer site such as the Lockheed Martin Anti-Submarine Warfare Laboratory in Manassas, VA, or from an appropriate Navy training facility such as Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center San Diego, CA (FASW-TC). In order to properly evaluate the technology, the technology will be used with a range of sonar operators across the full functionality of the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 tactical system. These interactions would include real-world or synthetic scenarios that span the detect-to-engage timeline. During Phase I we ask the offeror to propose a representative data set they feel will demonstrate the unclassified capability. During Phase II, the Navy will provide classified data sets to fully exercise the toolset during the detect-to-engage timeline.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for a tactical advantage support kit (TASK) that provides individualized tactical support prompts across a range of proficiency levels and different tasks within a larger system of systems. Demonstrate the concept meets the parameters of the Description. Show feasibility through analysis, modelling, simulation, and testing. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and a capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of the research in Phase I, develop and deliver the prototype solution with architecture and methodology for incorporating the TASK. Demonstrate the prototype meets the required range of desired performance attributes given in the Description. System performance will be demonstrated through installation and prototype testing on a testbed with the lead system integrator.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use as an embedded capability within a future build of AN/SQQ-89A(V)15. Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use in ASW. Demonstrate and report on performance during laboratory testing. The prototype will be integrated into the IWS 5.0 surface ship ASW combat system Advanced Capability Build (ACB) program, which is being used to update the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 Program of Record.

 

This technology can be used in a wide range of complex systems of systems where AI/ML is used to characterize operator proficiency and just-in-time performance assistance is crucial to mission performance. The technology would be of greatest use in complex safety-critical systems where mistakes carry disproportionate risk of mission failure.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Richardson, John ADM. “A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0,” 2018.
2. Kezunovic, Mladen, et al. “The role of big data in improving power system operation and protection.” 2013 IREP Symposium Bulk Power System Dynamics and Control - IX Optimization, Security and Control of the Emerging Power Grid; 1-9; IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6629368.
3. "AN/SQQ-89(V) Undersea Warfare / Anti-Submarine Warfare Combat System." United States Navy Fact File, 15 January 2019. https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166784/ansqq-89v-undersea-warfare-anti-submarine-warfare-combat-system/.

 

KEYWORDS: Operator proficiency; embedded individualized support; Anti-Submarine Warfare; ASW function; detect-to-engage timeline; tactical operations

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Autonomy

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an autonomous precision harbor piloting system that allows unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to navigate safely within a channel, harbor, or strait without human intervention.

 

DESCRIPTION: Harbor piloting requires precise understanding of a vessel’s current and projected position to avoid running aground. Additionally, areas such as channels, harbors, and straits are typically congested with other vessels. The current state-of-the-art in harbor piloting uses a human to integrate numerous inputs including his or her own senses of sight and hearing. Some work is currently ongoing to allow a pilot to perform this function from an off-vessel site. Innovations in process and methods by which the Navy conducts harbor piloting are required to ensure USVs are capable of safe transit in congested, confined, and constrained waterways without human intervention. These innovations will enable autonomous operations for future USVs.

 

The Navy seeks to develop an autonomous harbor piloting system (HPS) that will enable a USV to transit a channel, harbor, or strait without human intervention while consistently operating within the established navigational rules such as U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook (COLREGS) Rules 9 and 10 [Ref 1]. This includes sensing harbor hazards and features (bridges, marine traffic, buoys, etc.) and planning a recommended route containing, at a minimum, waypoints, leg speeds, leg cross track error, and leg-to-leg turn radii. Outputs from the HPS will inform the Maneuvering Operations autonomy segment that guides the vessel’s movements. The Maneuvering Operations Autonomy segment is not being developed under this SBIR topic. Harbors may include traffic schemes, restricted areas, and congested, confined, cluttered or unimproved environments with limited water depth. The HPS shall follow the preferred traffic schemes and comply with the established navigational rules based on the USV’s relative position to harbor features and obstacles.

 

HPS concepts shall be scalable for Medium and Large USVs (MUSV and LUSV respectively) and capable of sensing harbor hazards and features (bridges, marine traffic, buoys, etc.) with a precision of 6 m (~6.5 yds.) or less, at distances from 15-100m (~16-109 yds.) from the USV, and operating at speeds less than or equal to ~ 60 kts and testing to applicable military standards (IAW MIL-STD-810H. The sensing system may use a priori information such as charts to enhance the localization and classification of harbor hazards, but it cannot solely rely on charts for obstacle and hazard avoidance. MUSV Block I has a Length Overall of about 190 feet, a beam of about 33 feet, and a displacement of about 500 LT. LUSV is still in preliminary design, but it will be larger than MUSV.

 

It should be assumed that current USV platforms can determine their position to within 6 meters (~6.5 yds.) and have the capability to navigate in a forward direction at 5 m/s (~10 kts) or less with a track error of 6 meters (~6.5 yds.) or less. Additionally, the USV has a dynamic positioning system (DPS), capable of holding position within 10m (~11 yds.) and heading within 5°.

 

This SBIR topic seeks development of a solution that is Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) compliant to allow for compatibility with future USVs. To ensure interoperability with planned and future USVs, solutions must also comply with the PMS 406’s Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA). UMAA establishes a standard for common interfaces and software reuse among the mission autonomy and the various vehicle controllers, payloads, and Command and Control (C2) services in the PMS 406 portfolio of Unmanned Systems (UxS) vehicles. The UMAA common standard for Interface Control Documents (ICDs) mitigates the risk of unique autonomy solutions applicable to just a few vehicles allowing flexibility to incorporate vendor improvements as they are identified; affect cross-domain interoperability of UxS vehicles; and allow for open architecture (OA) modularity of autonomy solutions, control systems, C2, and payloads. UMAA standards and required ICDs will be provided during the Phase I effort.

 

Testing and certification of the route planning capability of the system will consist of autonomy simulation with a vessel of opportunity. The testing and certification of the overall performance of the system will consist of hardware-in-the-loop testing on a vessel of opportunity provided by the Government.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been be implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept design for an automated harbor transit system that meets the requirements in the Description. The concept design must define a system that can consistently operate within the established navigational rules, and include any modeling and simulation, studies, or prototypes in support of concept risk reduction. Demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed concept through modeling, analysis, and concept demonstrations.

 

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will deliver a preliminary design of the concept, identifying the baseline design (hardware, software, support systems) and underlying architectures to ensure that the concept has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements.

 

PHASE II: Based on the Phase I results and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop and deliver a prototype harbor piloting system based on the requirements in the Description. Identify the necessary interfaces, dependencies, and risks. After a successful Critical Design Review (CDR), develop a prototype system. Testing and certification of the route planning capability of the system will consist of autonomy simulation with a vessel of opportunity. The testing and certification of the overall performance of the system will consist of hardware-in-the-loop testing on a vessel of opportunity provided by the government.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use through system integration and qualification testing for the Navy USV harbor piloting system. UMAA-compliant precise navigation, planning, and execution systems for Navy USVs would have applicability to the commercial unmanned surface vehicles already widely in use further expanding their ability to adapt to their operational environment and conduct autonomous operations.

 

REFERENCES:

1. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “United States Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook.” Rule 9 - Narrow Channels and Rule 10 Traffic Separation Schemes, 2014: 18-21. https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/Handbook/CG_NAV_Rules_29Apr2020.pdf. 
2. Caccia, Massimo, Bibuli, Marco, Bono, Riccardo et al. “Basic navigation, guidance and control of an Unmanned Surface Vehicle.” Autonomous Robots 25, 2008: 349–365. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10514-008-9100-0.
3. Liu, Zhixiang, Zhang, Youmin, Yu, Xiang, et al. “Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges.” Annual Reviews in Control 41, 2016: 71-93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300219. 
4. Kolar, Parsana, Benavidez, Patrick, and Jamshidi, Mo. “Survey of Datafusion Techniques for Laser and Vision Based Sensor Integration for Autonomous Navigation.” Sensors 20(8), 2020: 2180. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/8/2180/pdf. 
5. Military Standard – Test Method Standard MIL-STD-810H “Environmental Engineering Consideration and Laboratory Tests”, Part Two – Laboratory Test Methods, 2021: 80, https://quicksearch.dla.mil/Transient/8DC1B3C1130A4692B95448E54EF16687.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: UxV; Unmanned systems; Harbor pilot navigation; autonomous navigation; UMAA; perception sensors; datafusion; COLREGS; MOSA

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Apply Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) techniques to develop a decision aide that automates and modernizes STANDARD Missile (SM) maintenance processes and procedures with the goal of reducing life cycle costs and manpower while maintaining readiness.

 

DESCRIPTION: AI/ML has seen steady growth in the commercial market. Consumers see daily benefit in many areas; greater computing power as Intel, Apple, and other manufactures incorporate AI into computer processors; predictive analytics used for targeted marketing on Google and other platforms. A survey conducted by McKinsey Analytics in 2020 indicates, since 2018 greater adoption of AI principles in the manufacturing (e.g., yield, optimization, predictive maintenance) and supply chain management industries while simultaneously demonstrating 10-20% cost savings. PEO IWS and Naval Supply System Command (NAVSUP) are specifically interested in AI/ML applications in these areas, applied to the SM family.

 

The SM family are solid propellant, tail-controlled surface to air missiles. Variants of SM have been in production for over 20 years. For maintenance and recertification, missiles cycle through an Intermediate Level Maintenance Facility (ILMF) at NMC Seal Beach and a Depot Level Maintenance Facility (DLMF) at the Missile manufacturer, Raytheon Missiles and Defense. NSWC Corona collects missile and section level data through all maintenance and recertification periods on a Surface Missile Systems Maintenance Data System (SMSMDS) database. The SMSMDS collects, stores, and distributes missile life cycle data, including (for current and previous variants) All Up Round manufacturing and production baseline performance data, test data, re-certification reports, Trouble Reports, and Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS). The technology sought will enable the SM program office to optimize maintenance concepts and strategies. This in turn will allow for increased capability to the warfighter and has the potential to reduce life cycle costs by prioritizing maintenance activities at the ILMF and DLMF.

 

Due to the amount of SM maintenance data available, the amount of missile maintenance work required, and current fiscal constraints, the SM program office has a strong desire to use AI/ML to modernize and automate maintenance planning as well as procedures while reducing extensive man hours required to analyze SM readiness and prioritize sustainment activities. The output will serve as a decision aide for the SM program office and will assist in understanding any section level or piece part’s failure’s influence on the overall mission effectiveness of the system.

 

Currently efficiencies are dependent on personnel experience and reporting. This point of view of efficiency is very narrow and does not factor in other pieces of the entire process. Overarching aggregated views of the entire process is at its infancy. The tool needs to be compatible with SQL server to analyze the current logistical state and an optimized state.

 

The Navy needs a tool to optimize SM maintenance strategies. The preferred solution will be a tool that uses AI/ML concepts such as linear regression, Decision Tree, best suited to existing SM data, which allows the user to make quicker decisions, predict reliability related failures, and identify future maintenance issues. It should also provide recommended repair processes and procedures. The tool will serve to reduce planning requirements and actions and improve procurement of spares and depot level preparation required to maintain the Fleet required load out requirements and inventory posture. Operation of the tool must be extensible to UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Navy network infrastructure. System required to comply with NIST SP 800-37 standards to include ACAS vulnerability scans and system hardening utilizing relevant DISA STIG’s (i.e., Application & Security STIG and applicable OS STIG). Awardees will be required to coordinate with Government representative for specific cyber requirements.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for a SM maintenance decision aide that meets the parameters of the Description. Demonstrate the concept feasibility through analysis, modelling, and simulation. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and a capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and deliver a prototype SM maintenance decision aide based on the results of Phase I. Demonstrate the prototype meets the required range of desired performance attributes given in the Description. System performance will be demonstrated through installation and prototype testing on a testbed with the lead system integrator. The system will be checked for data accuracy of recorded values versus stored/calculated values. The algorithm results of the training data set will be evaluated against new data. The system optimizing capabilities metrics will be used in practice to check for concurrence.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the AI/ML tools to Navy use in the SM maintenance program to improve repair processes, procurement of spares, and depot level preparation required to maintain the Fleet required load out requirements and inventory posture. Support employing the technology developed under this SBIR topic to the Navy SM field activities. Assist in the transition of the data analytics into actionable maintenance plans and strategies for the SM program. Explore the potential to transfer the optimizing algorithm to other military and commercial systems such as automotive, aerospace, shipping, and manufacturing where logistical planning is needed.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Matthew Montoya. “Standard Missile: A Cornerstone of Navy Theater Air Missile Defense”; Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol 22 Number 3. 2001 P. 234-247. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V22-N03/22-03-Montoya.pdf.
2. Diogo Cardoso, Luís Ferreira. “Application of Predictive Maintenance Concepts using Artificial Intelligence Tools”; Applied Sciences, 2021-01-01, Vol.11 (1), p.18, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347857580_Application_of_Predictive_Maintenance_Concepts_Using_Artificial_Intelligence_Tools.
3. Zeki Murat Cinar, Abubakar Abdussalam Nuhu, Qasim Zeeshan, Orhan Korhan, Mohammed Asmael, Babak Safaei. “Machine Learning in Predictive Maintenance towards Sustainable Smart Manufacturing in Industry 4.0”; Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 2020-10-01, Vol.12 (19), p.8211, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/8211.
4. Michael Chui, Tara Balakrishnan, Bryce Hall, Nicolaus Henke, (n.d.). “The State of AI in 2020” McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/global-survey-the-state-of-ai-in-2020.

 

KEYWORDS: Intermediate Level Maintenance Facility; Artificial Intelligence; Machine learning; STANDARD Missile; STANDARD Missile Maintenance; Decision Aide

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) toolset that will enable additive manufacturing (AM)-specific design and manufacturing-driven risk analysis within a single user interface.

 

DESCRIPTION: Existing DfAM tools, both for generative design and modeling and simulation, are generally employed in separate software packages. Similarly, certain aspects unique to AM are not included in many of the existing software tools currently available. Additionally, the calculation of risk due to changing the manufacturing method and materials, or utilizing a lower maturity manufacturing process, does not currently exist within many of the available design optimization software packages. Meanwhile, the AM Technical Warrant Holder (TWH) is establishing the specification and standards development for AM technology to promote process qualification and quality assurance of AM parts. This modeling toolset is needed in conjunction with these technical publications to minimize engineering risk of using AM as a replacement manufacturing method of a traditionally manufactured part.

 

This SBIR topic seeks a combined toolset accessible through a single user interface able to simulate the performance expectations and failure modes for various physics scenarios (e.g., static loading, thermal transfer, mass transfer, etc.) expected for a part when fabricated using AM. The desired DfAM toolset should be comprised of three modules: 1. Part specific performance modeling and simulation (M&S) as a result of manufacturing process constraints (i.e., anisotropic behavior) (henceforth “Part Performance M&S Module”), 2. Producibility, manufacturability, and manufacturing-driven generative design analysis to improve design for manufacturing, (henceforth “Optimization Module) and 3. Manufacturing process-driven risk analysis (henceforth “Risk Analysis Module”). These three modules should provide feedback to perform calculations across each module; however, each module should be able to stand independently and perform with only the minimum amount of provided inputs.

 

Within the Part Performance M&S Module, the orientation of the build, anisotropy of the part, and any additives/reinforcements within the build must be considered to provide an accurate expectation of part performance. The Part Performance M&S and Optimization Modules shall be able to inform the following, given the AM process, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and material being used: optimized geometry, optimized reinforcement locations and parameters, optimized infill geometry and fill percentage, and alternate additive materials/manufacturing processes.

 

Finally, the Risk Analysis Module shall calculate a risk analysis for using AM when compared to the original part manufacturing method, lower the risk of engineering change proposals, and inform Fleet AM designs in the deployed environment. The analysis and resulting capabilities will be used to inform technical authority and program offices on the expectation of performance comparisons between the traditional part and the AM version. In addition, part performance trade-off analyses should be able to be completed based on potential lead time and cost reduction of a design that may not achieve the same longevity or durability. The following attributes should be considered in the Risk Analysis Module (This is not an all-inclusive list. Additional attributes will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the awarded contractors):

• Part complexity
• Traditional manufacturing method(s) if applicable
• Material performance requirements
• Manufacturing Process maturity
• Existing material and process data available
• Part performance requirements
• Part criticality (probability and severity)
• Part performance trade-off analyses (for example, reduced longevity of a part for shorter lead time and lower cost)

 

This toolset must provide a summary report that outlines expected key performance parameters for the part(s) under analysis and establishes a level of risk as a result of using AM to fabricate the part when compared to traditional manufacturing. A demonstration of this output report must be provided, as well as attached to the AM Technical Data Packages (in accordance with MIL-STD 31000B [Ref 1]), as appropriate. The resultant parts shall be tested for performance in accordance with the part requirements provided by the Navy to demonstrate DfAM toolset part performance prediction accuracy.

 

If all modules are not included in the prototype, but the contractor expects to be able to develop them, an implementation plan to include the various elements of the capabilities must be provided. User manuals instructing toolset usage, troubleshooting, and any other required information/training material to sufficiently operate the toolset must also be developed. 25 licenses of the developed product will be provided for testing and evaluation to the Navy stakeholders — 10 for NAVSEA, 10 for NAVAIR, 5 for NAVSUP.

 

The solution must use a model-based systems engineering approach to establish a single User Interface (UI) that can communicate with the entirety of the solution set. Government Furnished Information (GFI) in the form of a standard or guidance document will be provided to performers to ensure Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) compliance for unclassified Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDTE) networked machines. The developed solution must comply with the DISA guidance and operate in the Windows 10 or newer operating systems with an approved Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) with configurable controls to meet DISA compliance requirements [Ref 7]. The toolset should be able to provide a summary report of the results in a concise format (Text, Comma separated value (CSV), Microsoft Word, Excel, other and/or Portable Document Format (PDF)) that can be included for the technical authority reviews. Finally, as the Navy works towards migration into Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) platforms, data produced within this toolset should be able to communicate with the PLM platforms. These platforms will be based on Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) PLM programs.

 

A toolset to optimize various parameters within the AM process, as well as provide accurate, AM-specific, part simulations, will reduce risk of adoption of the AM technology across the NAVSEA enterprise. AM has the potential to reduce the lead time on many parts within the supply system, as well as provide an alternate manufacturing source for other parts. This flexibility, coupled with the added engineering confidence that the part will perform to the technical requirements, could result in more AM parts within the supply chain, ultimately reducing lead time for parts and increasing readiness of the warfighter.

 

PHASE I: Develop a conceptual program architecture and description of supporting software required to meet DfAM modules described in the Description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept to address the three modules. Include a description of each of the proposed models and their expected inputs and outputs. If a solution cannot support all of the modules a detailed justification to meet the described parameters listed in the Description must be provided along with a roadmap projecting how the contractor would overcome the technological gaps prohibiting completion of all three modules.

 

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications, capabilities description to build a prototype solution, and hardware requirements in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and deliver a prototype of the DfAM Risk-based toolset that demonstrates the usability of the three-module DfAM toolset. The prototype should demonstrate the intuitive user interface that supports all of the Phase I development, as well as all of the major elements listed in the Description section. The Navy will provide 1-3 use-cases to walk through the prototype solution.

 

The software should meet all the requirements of the Description and be able to interface with the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tools used by the Navy. In addition, the solution must consider hosting platforms to sustain the solution, such as enterprise software environments including the Agile Warfighter Analytics Readiness Environment (AWARE) and the Enterprise Risk Analysis & Management Tool (ERAMT) Integrated Development Environment (IDE).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop the final application package to include any road-mapped capabilities from Phase II. Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. Develop a full user manual and training package. Additionally, connections to the NAVSEA method for storing and tracking material data should be possible. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) should be able to be established to make additional connections to Navy-specific databases in an effort to streamline data processing and minimize multiple sources of truth. The final transition and hosting platform, either standalone or Navy platform, will be finalized and software modified accordingly.

 

Additional considerations for the manufacturing location environmental variability (whether shipboard, land-based, expeditionary, or other) of the manufacturer should be able to be applied to inform a factor of safety adjustment to the simulation and design considerations. This could be used to improve robustness of AM parts manufactured in the shipboard environment, improve shipboard part certification confidence, and be leveraged by the Fleet community to inform designs of parts at-sea, as well as formalize the risk analysis procedures.

 

This software would be applicable to other manufacturing processes and could be leveraged by various program offices and engineering support sites. The risk analysis module could be used to inform engineering-related risk assessments that could be integrated into the Enterprise Risk Analysis & Management Tool (ERAMT).

 

REFERENCES:

1. “MIL-STD-31000B, MILITARY STANDARD: TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE (TDP) (31-OCT-2018).” http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-10000-and-Up/MIL-STD-31000B_55788/.
2. United States Department of Navy: Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA05). (17August 2018). Letter 4870 Ser 05T/2018-024, Guidance on the Use of Additive Manufacturing.
3. American Bureau of Shipping, Guidance Notes on Additive Manufacturing, Technical Report, Houston, TX, 2018.
4. American Bureau of Shipping, Advisory on Additive Manufacturing, Technical Report Houston, TX, 2018.
5. Bendsoe, Martin Philip. author. (2013). Topology Optimization Theory, Methods, and Applications, Edition 2. Berlin, Heidelberg :Sprinter Science & Business Media
6. Bendsoe, Martin Philip. author. (2006). Solid Mechanics and its Applications: IUTAM Symposium on Topological Design Optimization of Structures, Machines, and Materials. Berlin, Heidelberg :Sprinter Science & Business Media
7. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) process for Vendors. https://public.cyber.mil/stigs/vendor-process/.

 

KEYWORDS: Additive manufacturing; AM; 3D printing; modeling and simulation; geometry optimization; risk analysis; failure modes; DfAM

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a distributed mission effectiveness and readiness management system data analytics tool to integrate FFG 62 Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Model Based Product Support (MBPS) artifacts and/or data to present a mission effectiveness viewpoint of a single FFG 62 ship based on system readiness data.

 

DESCRIPTION: Within the framework of MBSE, models are developed to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification, and validation activities throughout the lifecycle. MBPS uses the same information along with information on support providers to optimize a platform’s product support footprint, including supply chain, training, and maintenance strategy. MBSE can be leveraged to model fleet-wide effectiveness for performing missions based on technical performance characteristics, and MBPS can be leveraged to model the effectiveness of the product support footprint in supporting these missions, but the two are not often linked to optimize the decision space for the fleet. The Navy is modernizing its MBSE and MBPS toolkits, but current MBSE models do not accurately correlate product suitability data, system architecture, and Condition Based Maintenance (CBM+) data with overall mission effectiveness.

 

PEO USC platforms are built as an integrated System of Systems (SoS), usually comprising both Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) systems to deliver a complete platform architecture. PEO USC seeks to develop a methodology and a data analytics tool for analyzing, modeling, and optimizing our mission support capabilities in a proactive and predictive manner that could extend to unmanned integration or strike group operations. The solutions will facilitate performance predictions against platform mission needs of this diverse SoS architecture from an end-to-end perspective. The solution would result in a data-driven decision-making tool for FFG 62 sustainment and readiness planning, linking reliability, maintainability, and availability data with overall platform mission effectiveness and informing program Sustainment Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The data analytics tool will aggregate MBSE data from disparate models and ontological structures to provide a platform-level view of the FFG 62’s ability to meet its required missions in context of both own-ship and strike group ops.

 

Proposed concepts should address the ability to perform multi-platform-level and multi-mission analysis based on operational data, platform design, architecture, reliability, maintainability, and supply chain inputs. The tool should be able to handle complex functional redundancies at the platform and strike group level and provide outputs that support Program Office sustainment decisions for product support footprint, including maintenance and supply across multiple programs. Effective solutions would analyze data associated with individual systems and generate a model to predict overall performance. This would inform Program Offices early in the acquisition cycle regarding potential performance of the platform design, and also support the decision-making process to evaluate proposed system changes. Approaches could be based on commercial SoS and Quality of Service algorithms to predict system performance, human factors analysis for usability, and dynamic systems modeling techniques. Additionally, the tool should provide information on algorithms to analyze resource decisions across multiple platforms. The tool should also interface with existing Navy CBM+ suites to perform real-time tracking and analysis of platform effectiveness. The algorithms and tools would be verified and tested at the end of each phase of the project by Government Subject Matter Experts for adequate SoS modeling through failure modeling, probability of successful mission estimation, and Monte Carlo simulation.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

All DoD Information Systems (IS) and Platform Information Technology (PIT) systems will be categorized in accordance with Committee on National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253, implemented using a corresponding set of security controls from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53, and evaluated using assessment procedures from NIST SP 800-53A and DoD-specific (KS) at https://rmfks.osd.mil (Information Assurance Technical Authority (IATA) Standards and Tools at https://software.forge.mil/sf/projects/navy-iata).

 

The Contractor shall support the Assessment and Authorization (A&A) of the system. The Contractor shall support the government’s efforts to obtain an Authorization to Operate (ATO) in accordance with DoDI 8500.01 Cybersecurity, DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), NIST SP 800-53, NAVSEA 9400.2-M (October 2016), and business rules set by the NAVSEA Echelon II and the Functional Authorizing Official (FAO). The Contractor shall design the tool to their proposed RMF Security Controls necessary to obtain A&A. The Contractor shall provide technical support and design material for RMF assessment and authorization in accordance with NAVSEA Instruction 9400.2-M by delivering OQE and documentation to support assessment and authorization package development.

 

Contractor Information Systems Security Requirements. The Contractor shall implement the security requirements set forth in the clause entitled DFARS 252.204-7012, “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting,” and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept that can meet the design constraints listed in the Description section. Establish feasibility by developing models that show the system architecture and operational concept of the tool. Feasibility will also be established by computer-based simulations that show the tool’s capabilities are suitable for the project needs. Example inputs for Phase I include system-of-systems diagrams in XML, reliability, maintainability, and cost information associated with the systems, and notional mission profiles as they apply to the systems. The output concept should link the inputs in an architecture that displays platform systems design characteristics and information on required functionality for mission effectiveness. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), the company will develop, demonstrate, and deliver a comprehensive modeling tool prototype that can perform platform-level mission analysis based on system design, system architecture, and mission engineering concepts linking reliability, maintainability, and supply chain inputs. The tool should provide outputs that support program acquisition and sustainment decisions for product support logistics footprint, including maintenance and supply. The prototype solution shall be based on a data architecture that establishes relationships between individual systems, associated design characteristics, acquisition cost, and sustainment footprint. Evaluate the tool’s effectiveness in linking disjointed and disparate data sources into a cohesive model for evaluation and its ability of the model to support decision-making and ‘what-if’ analysis to determine whether the models meet performance goals as defined. Demonstrate the tool’s performance through prototype testing and detailed analysis, including mission thread analysis and failure mode analysis with verification through Monte Carlo simulations. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Navy use.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy to transition the multi-platform, multi-mission modeling capability tool from stand-alone application to application integrated with Department of Navy and PMS 515 MBSE and MBPS efforts, including CBM+ systems. Assist with integration aboard fielded platforms for real time analysis of mission effectiveness to support decision makers in the fleet. Program offices and Navy Type Commanders (TYCOMs) can use the tool to better understand impacts of lack of resources or to support reallocation of resources, or resources or assess to probability of mission success in a highly complex environment. Commercial applications of the tool would include other multi-use and/or multi-nodal systems, including air, ground, and maritime vehicles, computing infrastructure, and other uses where optimizing operational time across a wide array of assets is beneficial.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Madni, A.M., Madni, C.C., and Lucero, S.D. “Leveraging Digital Twin Technology in Model-Based Systems Engineering.” Systems 2019, 7, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010007.
2. Bickford, Jason, et al. "Operationalizing digital twins through model-based systems engineering methods." Systems Engineering 23.6 (2020): 724-750. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sys.21559.
3. Crane, Jeremiah, et al. "MBSE for sustainment: A case study of the air force launch and test range system (LTRS)." AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition. 2017. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2017-5302.
4. Beery, Paul, and Eugene Paulo. "Application of model-based systems engineering concepts to support mission engineering." Systems 7.3 (2019): 44. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/7/3/44.

 

KEYWORDS: Model Based Systems Engineering; Model Based Product Support; Mission Engineering; Operational Availability; Readiness, Sustainment; Product Support; Distributed; Mission Effectiveness; System Optimization

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an automated operator decision aide capability for ship control systems that improves situational understanding through the use of a single 3D visualization system to reduce cognitive burden; enable and provide an aggregate viewpoint of system and platform health; and enable data-driven decision making.

 

DESCRIPTION: As the Navy continues to reduce manpower requirements associated with operating ever-increasing technologically complex systems, new methods that enable natural and intuitive 3D interaction with ship control systems’ data are desired to aid in reducing the overall operator burden and enhance watch stander situational awareness. Developing an optimized capability to engage and process a ship’s information from multiple systems in a high-stress environment will allow the operators to increase task accuracy, reduce response time, and increase overall situational awareness.

 

This SBIR topic seeks an automated operator decision aide capability for ship control system logic that improves bridge watch stander situational understanding through the integration of data from multiple ship systems and use of 3D visualization techniques. New approaches are needed to reduce operator burden through the application of enhanced visualization methods and dynamic real-time, temporally accurate visualizations of ship systems. By presenting complex data in a user-friendly, yet informative, manner, the cognitive load on the operator can be decreased and the ability to make data-driven decisions based on complicated information is improved. Approaches are encouraged to apply Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) as practicable.

 

Automated operator decision aides will convert various ship systems’ data and sensor outputs into a human-readable and intuitive User Experience (UX) to provide an aggregate viewpoint of the overall ship system and platform health. This will enable operators to visualize the mission impact of ship control system status (e.g., up/down, failure mode, performance). The automated operator decision aides should categorize and prioritize information display with the goal of compiling, automating, and reducing burdens on the decision makers to assist them in understanding a component failure’s influence on the overall mission effectiveness of the system. The automated operator decision aides will also display the integrated logic functions associated with the systems’ permissive and alarms and inform operators of these failures to enable a data driven decision making process and allow for immediate corrective actions.

 

The automated operator decision aide system must be capable of collecting all ship control systems’ data and must include an interface to support data export. This will enable data analysis by the Program Office, In-Service Engineering Agents (ISEAs), and subject matter experts. The data can be used to track failures, help find mitigation plans to avoid future failures, and inform maintenance and logistical requirements. Proposers should develop a solution that is Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)-compliant to allow for cross-platform compatibility and future capability improvements. Because of the unique and specific nature of the multiple FFG 62 subsystems, of which data will be collected, no commercial solutions to allow for subsystem data integration and/or data exportation currently exist. Testing will be iterative throughout the phases in order to test accurate data consolidation, user experience, and secure cyber footprint. Specifically, this solution must have the ability to achieve Navy accreditation and certification in order to be installed on an operational vessel in accordance with the latest guidance including, but not limited to, Authorization to Operate and Risk Management Framework policies.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

All DoD Information Systems (IS) and Platform Information Technology (PIT) systems will be categorized in accordance with Committee on National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253, implemented using a corresponding set of security controls from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53, and evaluated using assessment procedures from NIST SP 800-53A and DoD-specific (KS) at https://rmfks.osd.mil (Information Assurance Technical Authority (IATA) Standards and Tools at https://software.forge.mil/sf/projects/navy-iata).

 

The Contractor shall support the Assessment and Authorization (A&A) of the system. The Contractor shall support the government’s efforts to obtain an Authorization to Operate (ATO) in accordance with DoDI 8500.01 Cybersecurity, DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), NIST SP 800-53, NAVSEA 9400.2-M (October 2016), and business rules set by the NAVSEA Echelon II and the Functional Authorizing Official (FAO). The Contractor shall design the tool to their proposed RMF Security Controls necessary to obtain A&A. The Contractor shall provide technical support and design material for RMF assessment and authorization in accordance with NAVSEA Instruction 9400.2-M by delivering OQE and documentation to support assessment and authorization package development.

 

Contractor Information Systems Security Requirements. The Contractor shall implement the security requirements set forth in the clause entitled DFARS 252.204-7012, “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting,” and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for an automated operator decision aide that integrates data from multiple ship systems with a 3D visualization and export capability. The concept must show that it can feasibly meet the requirements of the Description. Establish feasibility through modeling and simulation of the concept.

 

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Fabricate a comprehensive automated decision aide prototype that is capable of demonstrating the implementation and integration into the ship system environment for testing and evaluation. Demonstrate accuracy, repeatability, and functionality, adhering to the requirements outlined in the Description. Perform a system demonstration in a simulated environment.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use and support further refinement and testing of the automated operator decision aide’s functionality following successful prototype development and demonstration. Testing will be accomplished by real-time demonstration of the developed capability with operational users in order to gauge successful metrics for accuracy, readability, and implementation of data feeds into a singular user interface. Upon capability demonstration and quantifiable test results, direct the focus toward the transition and integration of the technology into Bridge and Machinery Control Systems.

 

This solution has applicability across the Navy on other platforms with complex/automated ship control systems such as Unmanned Vehicles (UxVs) and could help to increase both mission effectiveness and readiness. This capability can be applied to commercial applications with diverse and complex human-in-the-loop interfaces, including aviation and commercial maritime operations.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Scherer, Timothy and Cohen, Jeffrey. “The Evolution of Machinery Control Systems Support at the Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station”. Naval Engineers Journal. 18 May 2011. Volume 2: 85-109.
2. Wright, R. Glenn. “Virtual Aids to Navigation”. World Maritime University. 2017. https://commons.wmu.se/phd_dissertations/14/.
3. Balogh, P., Kovacs, P. T., and Barsi, A. “Holovizio 3D Display System.” 2007 3DTV Conference. 07-09 May 2007. DOI: 4379386

 

KEYWORDS: Ship control system; virtual environment; 3D visualization; interactive shipboard; system logic functions; virtual watchstander.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Autonomy

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a sense and avoid perception system for unmanned underwater vessels (UUVs) to support the safe maneuvering and navigation in both the surface and the undersea domains.

 

DESCRIPTION: A UUV needs to surface periodically to get GPS fixes, charge batteries, or communicate with other vessels and buoys. Before surfacing a UUV must identify potential surface or near-surface contacts, obstacles or features to ascertain if the environment is safe for the vehicle to ascend and conduct operations.

 

The Navy is seeking to develop and demonstrate a sense and avoid perception processing system for small-class UUVs as categorized in the Navy’s report to Congress on Autonomous Undersea Vehicle Requirement for 2025 [Ref 1]. The system will enable the UUV to detect, classify, track, and estimate risk of contact with surface and undersea vessels operating in proximity. The solution must be scalable for future adaptation on larger unmanned system platforms including medium-class and larger UUVs. No current commercial technologies exist that have the military applications that the Navy seeks.

 

The perception processing system will utilize onboard sensors to provide the UUV 360 degree situational awareness both on and near the water’s surface to enable the vehicle to safely surface or avoid a collision. The system must be able to process the raw data and provide the contact attributes as an output to an onboard autonomous control system to support obstacle/collision avoidance.

 

Contacts may include all sizes of power and sailing vessels, buoys and other navigation markers, and structures. Attributes may include but are not limited to contact size, height to length ratio, range, bearing, and speed/direction. The perception processing system should be capable of measuring a contact’s relative position information, rate of change of relative position, and/or the trajectory information to decide whether a risk of collision exists and if an avoidance maneuver is required. These measurements and projections of future movements include varying degrees of uncertainty. An estimate of the uncertainty is valuable in assessing when sufficient information is available to make a maneuver decision. The decision timeline is time-constrained but the reaction time to successfully evade. Maneuver decisions must be made early enough to ensure safe separation. Additionally the system should be capable of tracking surface or near-surface objects and their attributes to maintain awareness of potential surface contacts within 10 nautical miles of UUV objective areas that are closing on the location of UUV(s). Concepts proposing additional external sensors as a portion of their solution must do so without adversely impacting trim, balance, or hydrodynamic performance of the target host platform and should offer solutions requiring 50w or less power.

 

The solution may be software or a combination of software, hardware processors, and sensors necessary to support operation of the developed perception algorithms. For the initial phase of this SBIR topic, prefer solutions suitable for with small-class (7.5” diameter) expeditionary UUVs, which are two-person carry in size and weight in accordance with MIL-STD 1472 section 5.8 [Ref 2]. Application of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) and other digital engineering techniques are desired. As an element of the seminal transition event in Phase II, testing of the key performance parameters and key system attributes will be conducted in a relevant environment to verify that the capabilities of the system were satisfied.

 

To ensure interoperability with planned and future unmanned systems, solutions must also comply with DoN’s Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA) [Ref 3]. UMAA establishes a standard for common interfaces and software reuse among the mission autonomy and the various vehicle controllers, payloads, and Command and Control (C2) services for unmanned systems (UxS) vehicles. The UMAA common standard for Interface Control Documents (ICDs) mitigates the risk of unique autonomy solutions applicable to just a few vehicles allowing flexibility to incorporate vendor improvements as they are identified; effects cross-domain interoperability of UxS vehicles; and allows for open architecture (OA) modularity of autonomy solutions, control systems, C2, and payloads. UMAA standards and required ICDs will be provided during the Phase I effort.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept design for the automated perception processing system that meets the requirements in the Description. The concept design must define a system that can consistently sense, perceive, and report surface objects and vessels and include any modeling and simulation, studies in support of concept risk reduction. Demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed concept through modeling, analysis, and concept demonstrations. Feasibility studies in Phase I will be oriented at solutions for small class UUVs, but should assess scalability for future medium-class UUVs and other expeditionary unmanned systems.

 

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I efforts and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop, deliver, and integrate perception processing prototype system capabilities for demonstration and characterization of key performance parameters, key system attributes, and objectives. Based on lessons learned in Phase II through the prototype demonstration, integrate the perception processing system into unmanned surface vessel of opportunity, deliver the prototype solution, and demonstrate feasibility of the concept and functionality of the autonomy.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Incorporate design improvements from the Phase II demonstration efforts and assist the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. Fabricate and deliver prototype software with integrated Navy provided UUV and USV. Independent testing and evaluation will be conducted by the Navy in cooperation with Fleet end user community to validate effectiveness and suitability for transition and fielding. Autonomy and products developed and demonstrated under this initiative provide potential solutions for other unmanned surface and undersea systems across the Navy portfolio and throughout commercial activities in including offshore oil and gas pipeline inspection and undersea survey, search, salvage and recovery, and port security companies; and in other Government agencies employing unmanned systems.

 

REFERENCES:

1. “Secretary of the Navy Report to Congress: Autonomous Undersea Vehicle Requirement for 2025.” dated 18 February 2016. https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/18Feb16-Report-to-Congress-Autonomous-Undersea-Vehicle-Requirement-for-2025.pdf.
2. “Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard, Human Engineering (MIL-STD 1472F), 23 Aug 1999.” http://chassis-plans.com/PDF/MIL-STD-1472F.pdf.
3. PEO Unmanned and Small Combatants (PEO USC); Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA), Architecture Design Description (ADD); 29 Dec 2019.
4. DON Innovation. “The Expeditionary MCM (ExMCM) Company: The Newest Capability in U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Community.” July 2017. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/innovation/Documents/2017/07/ExMCM.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: Underwater Unmanned Vehicle (UUV); Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV); Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle (AUV); Perception; Autonomy

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a sensor, perception, and Command and Control (C2) suite suitable and sufficient for enabling combatant craft mission-specific autonomous behaviors.

 

DESCRIPTION: The Navy’s Maritime Expeditionary Security Force (MESF) provides port and harbor security, and high value asset security inland, on coastal waterways and ashore. Advanced unmanned autonomous patrol craft would help reduce risks to boat crews and enable unique new operational capabilities. The operating environments and mission requirements for these craft differ significantly from open ocean missions, which are the focus of many current Navy autonomous vessel development efforts. Specifically, the Navy needs a small form factor sensor, perception, and C2 suite to enable autonomy for combatant craft addressing the unique challenges of their mission sets. New proposed system must meet Size, Weight, Power and Cost (SWaP-C) of existing systems if applicable.

 

Current sensors and perception software for Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) lack the ability to conduct precision close-in tracking of small vessels for fine-tune and/or high relative speed maneuvering. They are also unable to sufficiently sense and characterize a potential threat vessel or individuals on it, or make a determination of a potential threat’s intent, either for reporting to a human operator or triggering autonomous vessel responses.

 

Many potential sensor/perception technologies exist that may be suitable for these particular challenges. For the sake of example, but not to limit the scope of potential proposed solutions, a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system or radar system may be appropriate for close-in tracking to enable autonomous maneuvering near or in contact with another vessel, or an Electro Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) camera with advanced image recognition capabilities may be appropriate for characterizing contact vessels and establishing probable intent. Many candidate LIDAR and EO/IR camera systems are already commercially available for other applications (e.g., LIDAR for agricultural surveying, radars in use for car traffic detection and lane assist systems, or EO/IR cameras for fixed site security).

 

Analysis and development is also required to optimize a system to allow high level C2 of multiple varied types of combatant craft, both manned and unmanned, when equipped with autonomy software and controllers. This includes a mesh networking (or other suitable) communications system, a Common Operating Picture (COP), and C2 interface. The C2 interface must provide clear indications to human operators of the current threats perceived and high-level behaviors being executed by autonomous craft and allow dynamic tasking/re-tasking of high-level behaviors from human operators to the autonomous craft.

 

These capabilities should be suitable for integration on a variety of small combatant craft. Size and weight should be minimized, notionally not to exceed one half a standard electronics rack, with smaller electronics solutions preferred. Similarly, deck space for integration of sensors is at a premium, so smaller and/or less-invasive options are preferred. Power consumption should also be minimized to the extent possible.

 

Target platforms for transition include the 40 PB (40 foot patrol boat), Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs), MK VI Patrol Boat, etc., and/or existing small autonomous vessels, e.g., the Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV).

 

A variety of autonomous vehicles and autonomy software frameworks already exist, in various states of development and employment. Many of these are commercial proprietary and tied to specific autonomous vehicles, such as the Leidos autonomy developed for the SeaHunter program. While not prescriptive of any particular vessel or framework, it is the hope for this effort to leverage one or more existing capabilities to the maximum extent practical. This reduces the scope to focus specifically on the immature components of sensing, perception, and C2 as applied to combatant craft operations. One potential system is the Control Architecture for Robotic Agent Command and Sensing (CARACaS), originally developed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the Office of Naval Research (https://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/tasks/showTask.cfm?FuseAction=ShowTask&TaskID=271&tdaID=700075).

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for an advanced sensor, perception, and C2 suite suitable for integration on a variety of existing or future combatant craft and integration with an existing vessel autonomy framework. Demonstrate the viability of the concept in meeting Navy requirements, as described above, and will establish that the system can be feasibly developed into a useful product for the Navy. Feasibility will be established by engineering analysis, component and system level modeling and simulation, and component technology maturity assessments. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop and deliver a prototype to the Navy for evaluation in meeting the performance goals defined in the Phase II SOW and the Navy requirements for a combatant craft sensor, perception, and C2 suite. Conduct on-water testing as well as modeling or analysis to demonstrate system performance over the required range of parameters. This will allow the government team to evaluate the system’s ability to meet the performance goals defined in the Phase II SOW and the Navy requirements for the system. On-water testing location(s) will be negotiated between the small business and government team for reasons of proximity to both parties, weather/current conditions, availability of instrumented ranges, etc. Evaluation results will be used in collaboration with the Navy design team to refine the prototype into a design that will meet Navy needs. Conduct performance integration and risk assessments, and develop a cost benefit analysis and cost estimate for a naval shipboard system. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Navy and potential commercial use.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use and determine appropriate system components/variants for shore-side operation and installation on various craft. Support required modifications for integration, performance and environmental testing, and required certifications (e.g., electronic interference mitigation, battery safety, etc., as applicable). This includes providing component manufacturer information and specifications and/or testing components to verify regulations compliance. Target platforms for transition include the 40 PB (40 foot patrol boat), Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs), MK VI Patrol Boat, etc., and/or existing small autonomous vessels, e.g., the CUSV.

 

Other potential targets for transition include U.S. Coast Guard patrol craft, which have similar mission sets, and commercial vendors for related applications, for example, pleasure or fishing boats. Additional potential transition targets include universities or research institutions studying and/or employing small autonomous craft.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Ansary, Jamal, et al. “Swarms of Aquatic Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV), a Review From Simulation to Field Implementation.” Proceedings of the ASME 2020 International Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information Engineering Conference. Volume 2: 16th International Conference on Multibody Systems, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Control (MSNDC). Virtual, Online. August 17-19, 2020. V002T02A029. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22702.
2. Halterman, Ryan and Bruch, Michael "Velodyne HDL-64E lidar for unmanned surface vehicle obstacle detection", Proc. SPIE 7692, Unmanned Systems Technology XII, 76920D. 7 May 2010; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.850611.  
3. Schaus, Brian M. Improving maritime domain awareness using neural networks for target of interest classification. Naval Postgraduate School Thesis. Monterrey, CA. 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/45252.  
4. See, Hongze Alex. Coordinated guidance strategy for multiple USVs during maritime interdiction operations. Naval Postgraduate School Thesis. Monterrey, CA. 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/56175.

 

KEYWORDS: Autonomy; image recognition; threat detection; Command and Control; Manned Unmanned Teaming; high value unit escort.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop an algorithmic approach to optimally schedule transmit/receive communications in a command-and-control network using multi-beam antennas.

 

DESCRIPTION: Existing Navy command and control networks create a force-level track picture by fusing sensor measurements from all members of the deployed group. The measurements are sent from the sensing unit to all other units by a series of pairwise exchanges using directional, single-beam antennas. Command and control networks use time-division multiple access (TDMA) to create the pairwise, transmit/receive schedule to send measurements from each sensor to all other sensors in the network for fusion. Command and control networks also support the flow of sensor data to directly support Engage on Remote (EOR), which requires more dedicated information exchange to achieve required latencies.

 

New antenna technologies are being developed that permit multiple beams to be formed by the antenna array, providing the possibility to transmit or receive simultaneously in multiple beams. Creating such an antenna, compatible with the existing command and control networks, is a significant technological development. The development of a new transmit/receive scheduling method is required to derive operational benefit from this technological development. There are no known current solutions that addresses this developed technology need. A solution is needed to develop an algorithmic approach to optimally schedule transmit/receive communications in a command-and-control network using multi-beam antennas.

 

Several possible configurations are of interest. Configuration 1 contains one unit with a multi-beam antenna while the remaining units have single beam antennas. Configuration 2 contains a random mix single-beam and multi-beam antennas. Configuration 3 is composed entirely of multi-beam antennas. These configurations are representative of the evolution from an initial operational capability to a final operational capability of the new antenna technology. It is required that a single scheduling approach be able to support all configurations.

 

The term multi-beam can be interpreted to mean 2 beams, but the ability to scale the scheduling concept to a larger number of beams must be addressed. The intent is to demonstrate, in modeling and simulation, improved network performance using the multi-beam scheduling versus single-beam scheduling. Network performance metrics must be defined to quantify the performance improvement of the various multi-beam configurations relative to the single beam configuration.

 

Media Access Control (MAC) protocols for multi-beam antennas are discussed in the Wang and Kuperman references. These approaches may be relevant for the exchange of track measurements among units to produce the fused track picture. The Raviv reference discusses the inclusion of priorities and deadlines in the schedule creation, which may be relevant to scheduling transmission of EOR support data. A single scheduling approach that supports both track measurements and EOR data is required. The solution will be validated by testing in a laboratory environment which will be provided by the performer. The prototype solution will be delivered to the Navy for further testing and development assisted by the performer.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for an algorithmic approach to optimally schedule transmit/receive communications and demonstrate the concept meets the parameters in the Description. Concept feasibility will be demonstrated through analysis, modelling, and simulation. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop, demonstrate, and deliver a prototype algorithmic approach to optimally schedule transmit/receive communications based on the results of Phase I. Demonstrate the prototype meets the parameters described in the Description through testing in a laboratory environment. The laboratory environment will be provided by the performer.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. The scheduling concept will be merged with existing command and control software to assist in generating the TDMA transmit/receive schedule. Working prototype scheduling algorithms, will be delivered to the Navy for testing and further development. Work with the program of record prime contractor for integration into the scheduling algorithm to be deployed. The prime contractor will be responsible for integrating the suite of scheduling concepts that best support the requirements of the network capability to be deployed in conjunction with the company assisting in the integration processes.

 

This technology will also benefit commercial radio industries that have a need to handle many transmissions at the same time over networks.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Wang, Gang, Yanyuan, Qin. “MAC Protocols for Wireless Mesh Networks with Multi-beam Antennas: A Survey,” Future of Information and Communication Conference 2019/02/02, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12388-8.    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337774271_MAC_Protocols_for_Wireless_Mesh_Networks_with_Multi-beam_Antennas_A_Survey.
2. G. Kuperman, R. Margolies, N. M. Jones, B. Proulx and A. Narula-Tam, "Uncoordinated MAC for Adaptive Multi-Beam Directional Networks: Analysis and Evaluation," 2016 25th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2016, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1109/ICCCN.2016.7568593. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7568593.
3. Raviv, Li-on, Leshem, Amir. “Scheduling for Multi-User Multi-Input Multi-Output Wireless Networks with Priorities and Deadlines,” 2019/08/05, doi: 10.3390/fi11080172. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334979274_Scheduling_for_Multi-User_Multi-Input_Multi-Output_Wireless_Networks_with_Priorities_and_Deadlines.

 

KEYWORDS: Multi-beam antenna; transmit/receive scheduling; fused track picture; pairwise exchange; time-division multiple access (TDMA); media access control

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop automated classification techniques that improve performance with ephemeral features in active and passive sonar systems.

 

DESCRIPTION: In active and passive sonar systems, automated processing can include classification algorithms to reject false alarms (that is, clutter) while retaining true target detections.

 

State of the art classification algorithms are, in general, multiple hypothesis tests that can be implemented by extracting features from the acoustic measurement associated with each detected "contact". The features distill different characteristics of the measured sound such as aural features or descriptive features, similar to how arches, loops, and whorls help classify fingerprints. In automated sonar systems, the features extracted from a sonar contact are typically combined using non-linear algorithms to identify the class to which the contact belongs. In most cases, these algorithms have parameters that must be learned (that is, the classifier is trained) through analysis of existing data that has already been labeled as to its class.

 

The availability of off-the-shelf classifiers such as multiple hypothesis testing and machine learning tools, has enabled the development and testing of numerous features. A limitation of most off-the-shelf algorithms is that they typically assume every feature is available all the time. However, not all features are viable in every contact. Some are missing only occasionally and some only occur rarely (that is, ephemeral features). An example of such an ephemeral feature in facial recognition would be the shape of the nose, mouth, and chin during time when some are wearing masks. Sonar similarly has such recognition features that may be missing, either because the environment masks the feature or because submarines, trying to be stealthy by design, try to hide such “features.” The standard approaches for handling this missing-data problem deal with it indirectly (such as, by replacing the missing feature with its mean over the training data). They may also incorrectly assume missing features occur in a uniformly random manner throughout the data. As such, the standard approaches to missing data do not fully exploit the information contained in ephemeral features when they exist. Expanding sonar classification to include ephemeral features (features that are not always present) will give Navy systems increased capacity 1) to detect stealthy submarines or torpedoes that may not otherwise be detected or 2) to accelerate detection of targets in cases where time to react is limited and the consequences of delayed detection are potentially fatal.

 

One system where ephemeral features exist is the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15, which contains functions for pulsed active sonar, continuous active sonar, towed array passive sonar, and hull array passive sonar. Technology developed under this topic should be extensible to each of these functions, with initial adoption most likely to occur within the pulsed active sonar function.

 

The ideal solution will exploit off-the-shelf classifier technology, have practical implementation and training procedures, and handle features that occur rarely or frequently. As real-world data sets associated with the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 are classified, companies are encouraged to plan to obtain or generate unclassified data sets that demonstrate their solution.

 

While proposers are encouraged to demonstrate the power of their approach on unclassified data they have obtained, created, or simulated, the Phase II effort will involve tests of the technology developed under this topic with recorded data provided by the Navy both to assess stand-alone performance, as well as provide for the technology to be assessed within the overall sonar processing string. Details of exactly how this is to occur will be dependent on the nature of the proposed technology. Once the technology is independently deemed to provide value, the Navy will commit to incorporating the technology into a future sonar system build, which will go through certification as an integrated system.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for improved sonar classification algorithms with ephemeral features that meet the parameters of the Description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept through modelling, analysis, and simulation. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and deliver a prototype improved sonar classification algorithm with ephemeral features based on the results of the research in Phase I. Demonstrate the prototype meets the required range of desired performance attributes given in the Description. System performance will be demonstrated through installation and prototype testing on a testbed with the lead system integrator.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Assist the Navy in transitioning the technology for Navy use in an operationally relevant environment to allow for further experimentation and refinement. The prototype algorithm will be integrated into the PEO-IWS 5 surface ship ASW combat system Advanced Capability Build (ACB) program used to update the AN/SQQ-89 Program of Record.

 

Commercial applications that could benefit from ephemeral features of sonar classification algorithms include both active and passive remote-sensing systems where the data includes ephemeral features. Examples outside of sonar include most applications of radar, lidar, satellite remote sensing, ultrasound, and thermal imaging.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Young, V. W. and Hines, P. C., "Perception-based automatic classification of impulsive-source active sonar echoes," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122:3, pp. 1502-1517, September 2007. For libraries local to you holding this article, see https://www.worldcat.org/title/perception-based-automatic-classification-of-impulsive-source-active-sonar-echoes/oclc/211513436&referer=brief_results, accessed 3/31/2021.
2. Murphy, S. M. and Hines, P. C., "Examining the robustness of automated aural classification of active sonar echoes," The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135:2, pp. 626-636, February 2014. For libraries local to you holding this article, see https://www.worldcat.org/title/examining-the-robustness-of-automated-aural-classification-of-active-sonar-echoes/oclc/5537024626&referer=brief_results, accessed 3/31/2021.
3. Buss, M., Benen, S., Stiller, D., Kraus, D. , and Kummert, A. , "Feature selection and classification for false alarm reduction on active diver detection sonar data," in Proceedings of 4th Underwater Acoustics Conference and Exhibition (UACE2017), pp. 569-576, 2017. At https://www.uaconferences.org/docs/Past_proceedings/UACE2017_Proceedings.pdf, accessed 3/31/2021.
4. Hastie, T. , Tibshirami, R. , and Friedman, J. , The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer, 2009. For libraries local to you holding this article, see https://www.worldcat.org/title/elements-of-statistical-learning-data-mining-inference-and-prediction/oclc/1080370824&referer=brief_results, accessed 3/31/2021.
5. Eibe Frank, Mark A. Hall, and Ian H. Witten (2016). The WEKA Workbench. Online Appendix for "Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques", Morgan Kaufmann, Fourth Edition, 2016. For libraries local to you holding this book, see https://www.worldcat.org/title/data-mining-practical-machine-learning-tools-and-techniques-ed-4/oclc/1242613909&referer=brief_results, accessed 6/3/2021 Weka 3: Machine Learning Software in Java is available at https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/, accessed 3/31/2021.

 

KEYWORDS: Classifier; sonar contact; ephemeral features of sonar; classification algorithms; machine learning, multiple hypothesis testing

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Directed Energy (DE)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a low-voltage, high-current, round-beam electron gun that significantly reduces the size and weight of high-power W-band traveling-wave tube amplifiers.

 

DESCRIPTION: Traveling Wave Tubes (TWTs) are the primary radiofrequency (RF) power amplifiers used in applications that require both high output power and wide bandwidth (large power-bandwidth product). However, systems that employ these critical components at high millimeter-wave (mmW) frequencies, up to and including W-band (75-110 GHz), are especially difficult to realize in low size, weight, and power (SWaP) form factors. They are also extremely costly. This is due to the extremely small size of the high-frequency RF components which impose electrical and thermal limits on device operation and result in demanding manufacturing tolerances. The state of the art for such devices at mid W-band frequencies (near 94 GHz) is approximately 100 W output power with an electron beam current of 100-250 mA and a beam voltage of 20-25 kV. In comparison, for practical applications in W-band, the Navy desires TWTs producing much greater power (5X nominally) and wide bandwidth. Such TWTs do not currently exist in acceptable form factors.

 

The fundamental enabling technology for such a TWT is the electron beam generation, focusing, and transport system. The formation of the electron beam, in terms of focusing, transport, and current density, ultimately determines the output power and instantaneous bandwidth of a TWT. While higher beam current allows more RF power to be generated in the amplifier circuit, a high magnetic field is required to confine and transport such a beam through the small beam tunnel transiting the circuit. In the present state of the art, the magnet required to generate the high quality and very intense magnetic field needed to confine such a beam is large and heavy. For example, at W-band a conventional magnet (either electromagnet or permanent magnet) used for high-current beams (> 500 mA) of appropriately tight focus typically weighs 50-100 pounds. Lower-current beams can be focused by more compact configurations, such as conventional periodic permanent magnets (PPM), but these TWTs produce significantly less RF power than required. Spatially-distributed beams, such as sheet beams, are effective at producing high device power density (electron beam power per device weight). However, at high frequencies, these devices are prone to beam-defocusing instabilities and parasitic RF oscillations due to limited fabrication precision that causes non-uniformities in the magnetic field and RF circuit. Therefore, compact electron beam generation, focusing, and transport systems suitable for high power W-band TWTs are a critical enabling technology for future millimeter wave systems.

 

The Navy needs a novel electron beam focusing system for generation and transport of high-power (10 kW peak) electron beams of round cross-section. Ultimately, the electron beam focusing system will be integrated with a broadband beam-wave interaction circuit and an electron beam collector to form a complete W-band TWT. Development of the complete TWT is beyond the scope of this effort and details of the intended interaction circuit need not be specified as multiple device concepts require this technology.

 

To achieve the required beam current while minimizing the overall volume and weight (including the size and weight of any power supplies necessary to operate the device), a solution utilizing PPM based focusing and precision fabrication methods is anticipated. The design (including the integral electron gun), the fabrication techniques for the magnet structure, the magnetic materials, and the methods for integration of the magnets with appropriate RF circuits should result in designs that produce higher transport magnetic fields for a given magnet volume than is possible with conventional PPM based focusing. Magnetic materials should be capable of stable operation at temperatures up to 200ºC. The magnetic focusing system should maintain the transverse dimensions of the electron beam over the entire beam transport distance of 5 cm for 100% beam transport (no RF applied) and consistent with efficient beam-wave interaction at W-band. However, no RF circuit is required of this effort and the technology shall be demonstrated as a beam-stick (i.e., with a copper “blank” containing only the beam tunnel in place of the circuit). The beam-stick shall have a uniform 4 mm by 4 mm square cross-section extending along the entire 5 cm tunnel length, consistent with the expected size and shape of the envisioned W-band amplifier interaction circuit.

 

The electron gun shall operate at a voltage of 25 kV or less with a minimum peak beam current of 0.4 amperes and be capable of pulse repetition rates of 10-50 kHz with a minimum duty factor of no less than 3%. The round electron beam should be transported through a tunnel no larger than 0.5 mm in diameter, with a maximum average beam diameter of 0.3 mm. The pulse voltage required to turn the beam on and off is another key design consideration, as it affects the size and weight of the power supply and pulser circuit required to operate the device. Consequently, the electron gun should be designed to require the lowest possible voltage swing necessary for device operation. The electron gun should also be designed for maximum operational life.

 

Vacuum device performance is determined by mechanical dimensions and precision alignment of the electron beam, magnetic field, and RF circuit. Consequently, manufacturing, including yield, is the overwhelming cost driver for any vacuum device. For W-band devices, the small feature sizes and tight machining and assembly tolerances required for stable operation are extremely challenging. Therefore, advances in fabrication, machining, alignment, fixturing, and joining techniques are required to reduce the cost of manufacturing the electron beam focusing system. Consequently, designing critical components, such as the electron gun and magnet assembly, to take advantage of advanced fabrication techniques is also an important part of this effort.

 

Acceptable solutions must meet the mechanical and electrical requirements described above. The key goal is then to optimize the power density of the device where power density is defined as the peak beam power divided by the combined weight of the gun, beam transport system (including magnets), beam tunnel “blank”, and collector. A minimum power density of 500 W/lb is the goal of this effort. The solution should have some degree of scalability to accommodate different RF circuit lengths and widths (with proportional increases in beam focusing system size and weight).

 

Demonstration of a beam-stick prototype at the company facility is required to verify performance and assess power density. In order to confirm beam transmission, the collector should be isolated, though collector depression is not required. The physical interface of the electron gun should avail itself to integration with a W-band beam-wave interaction structure (circuit) according to standard industry manufacturing practice without compromise of performance or reduction in power density. Therefore, a technical data package (TDP) sufficient to facilitate replacement of the beam-stick “blank” with a future circuit, including modelling, simulation, assembly, processing, quality conformance, and test instructions, shall be delivered with the prototype to the Naval Research Laboratory at completion of the effort.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for a compact electron beam focusing system that meets the objectives stated in the Description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach by some combination of analysis, modelling, and simulation. The feasibility analysis should confirm the compatibility of the solution for integration with an appropriate W-band traveling-wave interaction structure (circuit) and beam collector through prediction of the expected performance from a complete device. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications, initial interface description, test specification, and capabilities description to build and test a prototype beam focusing system (with beam-stick and collector) in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop, demonstrate, and deliver a prototype compact electron beam focusing system (with collector and beam-stick) that meets the requirements in the Description. Note that this effort is iterative by nature and more than one prototype (or partial prototype) may be developed. At the conclusion of the effort, test, seal, package for vacuum integrity, and deliver to the Naval Research Laboratory the best performing prototype. Test data shall also be delivered with the prototype as well as operating instructions and the TDP as noted in the Description.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology for Government use. Transition will include assisting with integration of beam-wave interaction circuits and scale the beam focusing system to produce specific device designs (for example, W-band TWTs). The technology will be validated by providing fabrication, process, and test support in manufacturing and demonstrating specific devices incorporating the electron beam focusing system.

 

The technology resulting from this effort is anticipated to have commercial application in the telecommunications industry; for example, as amplifiers in 5G backhaul transmitters.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Zhang, X., Feng, J., Cai, J., Wu, X., Du, Y., Chen, J., Li, S., and Meng, W. “Design and Experimental Study of 250-W W-band Pulsed TWT With 8-GHz Bandwidth.” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 64 December 2017: 5151-5156. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8093750.
2. Theiss, A. J., Meadows, C. J., True, R. B. “Experimental Investigation of a Novel Circuit for Millimeter-Wave TWTs.” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 54 May 2007: 1054-1060. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4160141.
3. Leupold, H. A. and Potenziani, E. A Permanent Magnet Circuit Design Primer. Army Research Laboratory Technical Report ARL-TR-946, July 1996, DTIC accession number ADA311457; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA311457.
4. Borchard, P., Appert, S., and Hoh, J. “Fabrication of Split-Section X-band Structure Using Elastic Averaging.” Journal of Physics, Conf. Series 1067, 2018: 082002. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1067/8/082002.

 

 

KEYWORDS: Traveling Wave Tube; periodic permanent magnets; PPM; PPM focusing; W-Band; Electron Beam Focusing; Power Amplifiers; Electron Gun

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

 

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a new threshold velocity detector that identifies two or more distinct velocities, uses little to no power, and reduces corrosion potential compared to the legacy device.

 

DESCRIPTION: The current threshold velocity detector system is manufactured primarily from aluminum and a custom rubber to allow for operation. This system experiences corrosion due to the direct interface with a sea-water environment and the mechanical design. This incurs a significant rework and life cycle cost. Some areas for improvement for the current system that could increase the performance and maintainability include:

1. Increase corrosion mitigation: The current system experiences corrosion of the mechanical parts as well as breakdown of the rubber compound over time due to interface with the seawater environment. This could be improved upon by integration of new non-interfacing technologies or new streamlined designs that reduced the parts that interface with the environment.
2. Integration of new technologies: The current system is a mechanical switch and due to the force/velocity being measured it can act temperamentally and the direct interface with the environment has led to issues with corrosion as previously mentioned.
3. Reduction in life cycle costs: This could be achieved by installing a Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) item with some modification or at least making the repair of the system easily performed. The current system requires an intensive rework and repair if malfunctioning that costs significant time and money to accomplish.
4. Ease of testing outside environment: This system has trouble with consistent testing and the new design would require a more reliable and repeatable testing mechanism to ensure proper function out of the environment before the use of the system.

 

Prototypes will be tested by the contractor and the Navy to meet the requirements of the detector and the program safety requirements.

 

Replacement of the current inventory of the legacy detectors will also be considered as the program is expected to remain in-service for at least 30 more years. This system could also be used to increase the information in future systems fed into the program and allow for better understanding of the current designs. This will provide opportunities for a lower cost design/simpler design that will relate to a smaller failure pool at the maintenance facilities and reduced downtime for current assets. Preventing corrosion will reduce the costs associated with rework and repairs during these maintenance actions.

 

The current leading technologies in the velocity detector industry include Coriolis, Differential Pressure, Magnetic, Multiphase, Turbine, Ultrasonic, and Flow velocity detectors. As this situation would support sea-water applications, gas measuring devices such as Vortex and differential pressure meters would likely not fit the application. There are other options in the industry and while these are the leaders in technology, other velocity detectors will be considered. Even using the backbone of a COTS unit, it will require significant R&D effort in order to successfully fulfill this application.

 

Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. Owned and Operated with no Foreign Influence as defined by DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances, in order to perform on advanced phases of this contract as set forth by DCSA and NAVSEA in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material IAW DoD 5220.22-M during the advance phases of this contract.

 

PHASE I: Develop a concept for a threshold velocity detector, which will be considered for feasibility of manufacturing and ease of installation into the current operation. Design approaches will be developed that will allow all requirements to be met and discussed with the Government. Technology improvements and risk reduction of the aluminum mechanical components to indirect or more corrosive inhibitive materials interfaces will be another focal area of this phase. Upon selecting an approach, a concept will be defined and developed into a buildable design. Analysis will be performed on the concept to determine the feasibility of the concept to meet requirements. Manufacturing processes required to manufacture a threshold velocity detector will be investigated and defined. A cost analysis will be performed to document the total life cycle cost of a new threshold velocity detector in comparison to the legacy design. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Manufacture several prototype detectors utilizing the design and manufacturing processed defined in Phase I. These prototypes will be tested to meet the requirements of the detector and the program safety requirements. The testing will be conducted by the contractor and the Navy. When Navy specific assets are required for testing, the Navy will provide the assets or conduct the test for the contractor. In the event of any test failures, conduct root cause investigations and implement corrective actions as needed. Upon successful validation of the prototypes, the prototypes will be delivered to the Government for the completion of program integration testing and in-water testing.

 

It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see Description section for details).

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the threshold velocity detector to Navy use through system integration and qualification testing. Upon completion of a successful Phase II and program integration testing, finalize the design and manufacturing processes into final production drawings that are representative of the end item as tested. Production drawings will be provided to the Government. Document and provide to the Government assembly & disassembly procedures, inspection procedures, maintenance procedures, and repair procedures that will be used to support threshold velocity detectors for the duration of their service life. Once this new detector design is qualified and determined to have cost benefits, and/or performance improvement the new detector will be cut into production. Replacement of the current inventory of the legacy detectors will also be considered as the program is expected to remain in-service for at least 30 more years. Commercial application of this technology can be in any system where a threshold velocity is required to initiate a safety intervention or sequential operation.

 

REFERENCES:

1. “C-8\N-IND\CH-5-1 Flow.” IDC-Online.com. 2021-02-09, https://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/instrumentation/Industrial_Instrumentation%20-%20Flow.pdf.
2. Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed Conduits. NBS Special Publication. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1981-10-01. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-c0f8a094b9fcc5c32be685edbd48f942/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-c0f8a094b9fcc5c32be685edbd48f942.pdf.
3. Nisancioglu, Kemal. Corrosion and Protection of Aluminum Alloys in Seawater. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Trondheim, Norway. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20671863.

 

KEYWORDS: Threshold velocity detector; corrosion mitigation; environment; seawater corrosion inhibition; repeatable; underwater body; life cycle cost

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Autonomy

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground / Sea Vehicles

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a flexible, common stowage system for Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) onboard surface ships.

 

DESCRIPTION: Current UUVs are provided with their own stowage and handling cradles, which require unique stowage space, material handling equipment and slings, and tie downs for securing to decks and bulkheads. There is no dedicated, common handling and stowage system for small or medium UUVs. A common, flexible handling and stowage system, that can accommodate different UUV configurations, can optimize the use of shipboard space, minimize development costs, and standardize operations. In Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: In “Navy Seeking New Technology For Unmanned Boats, Subs,” an article in in the October 18, 2019 National Defense Magazine [Ref 2], it was stated that Navy and DOD leaders believe that shifting to a more distributed fleet, to include Unmanned Systems, is operationally necessary, technically feasible, and affordable. No known commercial solution exists.

 

Unmanned vehicles of interest will generally be smaller than 20 feet in length, less than 2 feet in diameter and less than 2500 pounds. Available space reservations where the UUV stowage system might reside on LPD 17 Class should be constrained to upper vehicle deck areas and other locations accessible by ships elevator transport.

 

Stowage system must be capable of being prototyped for use with small and medium UUVs. System must be capable of meeting shipboard stowage requirements (sea state, tie downs, etc.) and interface with existing auxiliary systems which perform launch, recovery, refueling, recharging, rearming, and limited maintenance and repair.

 

The prototype will first be evaluated on land at the company’s facility to determine the system’s capability to meet performance goals defined in the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW). If Phase II testing is deemed successful, the project will move to at-sea testing on-board an LPD 17 Class ship. The at-sea testing will consist of maneuvering a UxV from the well deck area into stowage, securing for sea, and then unloading and maneuvering back to the well deck area.

 

PHASE I: Define and develop a concept for flexible stowage for Unmanned Systems that can be utilized on an LPD 17 Class of ship. Demonstrate feasibility of design through modelling and draft concept of operations. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I efforts and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop and deliver a prototype flexible handling and stowage system for UUVs for use on LPD 17 Class of ship. The prototype will first be evaluated on land at the company’s facility to determine the system’s capability to meet performance goals defined in the Phase II SOW. If Phase II testing is deemed successful, the project will move to at-sea testing on-board an LPD 17 Class of ship. The at-sea testing will consist of maneuvering a UUV from the well deck area into stowage, securing for sea, and then unloading and maneuvering back to the well deck area.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Upon successful completion of Phase II, support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use to include test and validation in accordance with Navy regulations and requirements. Following testing and validation, the end design is expected to first be deployed on the LPD 17 Class of ship, and capable of being utilized across all Navy amphibious platforms. Larger scale commercial operations utilizing UUVs of this scale may benefit from the system.

 

REFERENCES:

1. O’Rourke, Ronald. “Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress.” Congressional Research Service. March 30, 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45757.pdf. 
2. Mayfield, Mandy. “Navy Seeking New Technology For Unmanned Boats, Subs.” National Defense Magazine. October 18, 2019 https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/18/navy-seeking-new-technology-for-unmanned-boats-subs.

 

KEYWORDS: Unmanned Maritime Vehicle Systems; Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV); Unmanned Vehicle Stowage; Common UxV Stowage; Modular Stowage; Flexible Stowage.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements (GWR)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials / Processes

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a shipboard, advanced metal manufacturing system for Navy expeditionary environments with a closed-loop feedback system adaptable to operational conditions.

 

DESCRIPTION: Currently, Additive Manufacturing (AM) equipment suitable for afloat use is limited. The current capabilities were installed to support the development integration requirements for AM equipment, but is currently only limited to polymer machines. Current metal AM technologies are designed for the lab or machinery spaces shoreside, and have not been configured for the harsh shipboard environment. The inclusion of a metal AM capability shipboard would drastically improve ship self-sufficiency and increase readiness. There are increased needs for AM afloat as it is explicitly identified in the COMNAVSEA Campaign Plan 3.0 as a technology focus area. This SBIR topic directly supports efforts to integrate AM into the Fleet and support a more self-sufficient ship. In addition, the Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0 requires that the Navy maximize its use of AM to fabricate “hard to source” or obsolete parts, reduce cost, field more effective systems, and reduce reliance on vulnerable supply chains through production at the point of need. Current metal AM technology can be classified under powder bed fusion (PBF), direction energy deposition, material extrusion, sheet lamination, or hybrid processes. These processes all have their benefits and limitations from a part production standpoint. At this time, these metal AM system installations are typically expected to be on the shop floor in industrial or lab settings. There is an interest to integrate these metal AM systems in more expeditionary settings to increase warfighter readiness and increase the Navy's distributed manufacturing capabilities and self-sufficiency. The operational conditions within these expeditionary settings include ship motion, ship vibration, shock, ventilation, and electromagnetic interference (EMI). In order to successfully install metal AM equipment and enable adequate operation of the equipment, the machine must not experience severe degraded performance under these conditions. Testing of these conditions in the lab environment should occur to determine system performance under shipboard environmental conditions. These tests should be comparable to the MIL-STDs mentioned below. The Navy is seeking a system that has optimized tool pathing and programming built-in, is able to additively build parts, and is capable of subtractive finishing said parts, all within the same unit. The machine must be able to be disassembled, to become a hatch able unit, and be able to additively manufacture as well as subtractive cut hard alloys, such as high carbon and stainless steels. The system must have a built-in sensor package to be able to monitor aforementioned operational conditions, perform in-situ monitoring of each build to inform part certification, and establish a report for each build capturing all the processed sensor data, print parameter information, and AM equipment health data. In addition, part removal is generally a post-printing machining event that uses specialized equipment, generally not available shipboard. This unit must demonstrate ease of part removal from the build plate. The solution should also have modular and scalable configurations to enable manufacturing of large parts, on the order of 5ft x 5ft x 5ft, and small parts, around 5 in x 5 in x 5 in. The design must address effects the expeditionary environment may have on the machine so that it can operate while deployed. The design must be able to perform at the same performance standard as current hybrid AM equipment on the market as it pertains to geometric complexity for laser DED manufacturing processes.

 

This SBIR topic will address the current shipboard mitigation requirements associated with shipboard integration and performance of metal AM. The product developed from this topic could result in the establishment of a Navy vendor for shipboard AM equipment. In addition, the current modifications, costs, and qualification to Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) equipment would no longer be required if the system was designed around the shipboard environment. Additive manufacturing has the potential for major readiness impacts for the Fleet, improving self-sufficiency and reducing the reliance on the supply chain.

 

The product will be assessed against the MIL-STDs listed below:

1. MIL-S-901D, Amended with Interim Change #2, Shock Test, H.I. (High Impact); Shipboard Machinery, Equipment and Systems, Requirements for
2. MIL-STD-167-1, Mechanical Vibration for Shipboard Equipment (Type I - Environmental and Type II - Internally Excited)
3. MIL-STD-461F, Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment
4. MIL-STD-740-2, Structure-borne Vibration Acceleration Measurements and Acceptance Criteria of Shipboard Equipment

 

PHASE I: Develop a conceptual design of a modular, advanced metal manufacturing unit that can additively fabricate and subtractive machine different alloys, including, but not limited to high/low carbon steels, stainless steels, titanium, and various aluminum series as described in the Description. Show feasibility through analysis, modelling, simulation, and testing. Additionally, consideration to the on-board sensor packages should be identified to support in-situ monitoring of the build process, responsive feedback loops based on print conditions and monitoring, as well as operational envelope awareness to provide corrective action during a build when necessary. Finally, the logistics support trail required to sustain the technology should be identified as part of the conceptual design. Special considerations to consumables, HAMZMAT concerns, maintenance processes, and ancillary equipment requirements should be provided. Provide concepts for safety and equipment environmental (noise, structural vibration, heat output, habitability, etc.) management protocols to ensure safe operation of the sailors during general quarters and equipment operation.

The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Build and deliver a prototype advanced metal manufacturing system optimized for Navy expeditionary environments. The prototype should be characterized using environmental shipboard testing standards as a guide such as vibration (MIL-STD 167), shock (MIL-STD 901), and EMI (MIL-STD 461), and static angle testing. The prototype should demonstrate the ability to additively build the part and subtractive finish the part all within the same unit. The included sensor package should perform in-situ monitoring of each build to inform part certification and establish a report for each build capturing all the processed sensor data, print parameter information, and AM equipment machinery health data. Logistics support requirements, operations and maintenance manual, training, and installation/facility requirements must be provided. The equipment will be installed at a stateside Navy research and development location to be determined.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop production ready advanced metal manufacturing system optimized for Navy expeditionary environments in at least the smallest and largest configurations as mentioned in the Description. The equipment must be able to operate in the shipboard environment (machine shop or welding spaces) and be able to additively build the part and subtractive finish the part all within the same unit. The unit must meet all requirements stated within the Description. Shipboard installation guide, operations manual, maintenance manual, training, and logistics supply support packages must be included with the unit(s). This machine should have operational conditions established and tracking of the operational conditions to facilitate at-sea printing part certification. A sensor suite must be included to perform in-situ monitoring of the builds, environmental assessment of the ship space conditions (motion/vibration) to inform operation envelope fabrication restrictions, and a "health assessment" of the printed part. Considerations should be given for reducing the logistics footprint required to support the unit and minimize the reliance on the supply chain.

 

The results of this SBIR topic will transition to the NAVSEA AM program and will be installed in a shipboard advanced manufacturing lab. It will develop technical authority guidance for qualification and certification in the afloat environment. A Phase III will focus on additional capabilities and acquisition of the system for installation on additional ships under the afloat AM program of record. Commercial applicability of this system could be found in the offshore drilling industry and commercial shipping industry.

 

REFERENCES:

1. Zi-jue, Tang et. Al, A Review on in situ monitoring technology for directed energy deposition of metals, “The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2020)”, Vol 108, 3437-3463, 2020
2. Everton, Sarah K. et al, Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing, “Materials and Design”, Vol 95, 431-445, 2016
3. DebRoy, T et al, Additive manufacturing of metallic components—Process, structure and properties, “Progress in Materials Science”, Vol 92, 112-224, 2018
4. Donghong, Ding et al, Wire-feed additive manufacturing of metal components: technologies, developments and future interests, “International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies”, Vol 81, 465-481, 2015

 

KEYWORDS: Additive metal manufacturing; 3D printing; shipboard Additive Manufacturing; optimized tool-pathing and programming; self-sufficient metal manufacture.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Directed Energy (DE)

 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors

 

OBJECTIVE: Develop a compact high power laser system that provides broad spectral coverage across both atmospheric transmission windows in the mid-wave infrared band.

 

DESCRIPTION: Infrared (IR) passive sensors, essentially IR cameras, have been widely used for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and tracking (ISRT) and are increasingly being deployed for targeting. For both purposes, the mid-wave infrared (MWIR) band is particularly attractive for conditions of poor visibility and for nighttime use. These sensors vary in sophistication but use arrays of photodetectors that are generally sensitive to IR radiation across a wide wavelength band. For high resolution ISRT applications, the detectors are large two-dimensional focal plane arrays (FPAs) with pixel counts in the millions. Driven by energetic research in the area, IR FPA format, efficiency, noise performance, and spectral sensitivity are steadily improving. Targeting sensors may not require such large format detectors but nonetheless benefit from the drive to produce ever larger, more sensitive, and more efficient IR FPAs at lower costs. In either case, the result is the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated, completely passive imaging sensors that can cover the entire MWIR band with high resolution, yet require little electrical power and are, overall, increasingly compact, and affordable.

 

Comparable active IR systems, whether active imaging sensors, range finders, illuminators, beacons, or robust countermeasures, are not so fortunate. Active IR systems – at least those exhibiting the most basic level of sophistication, require IR lasers as sources. Lasers, whether gas lasers, chemical dye lasers, or solid state lasers, emit radiation at very specific and stable wavelengths. This is one of their chief strengths. For some applications however, this is their chief drawback. Building an active IR laser source that emits across a wide band (a set of multiple discrete wavelengths) is difficult, typically requiring a separate laser for every wavelength desired within the band. True wavelength agility – that is, selecting individual wavelengths “on the fly” or by system presets is expensive because it typically requires complex tuning mechanisms or includes multiple individual lasers that are simply turned off when not needed. For example, a laser illuminator in which individual systems are programmed to emit at certain sub-bands so as to be distinguished from (or not interfere with) other such systems is inherently complex, heavy, and costly, especially if the emitted power is significant. Semiconductor lasers offer some relief since they are inherently compact. However, to achieve appreciable power levels and broad spectral coverage, multiple semiconductor laser diodes must be combined.

 

Complicating matters, the MWIR spectrum is divided into two main sub-bands separated by a region of virtually complete atmospheric absorption. Even within the sub-bands, atmospheric transmission is still highly variable with changes in absorption occurring with both season and latitude. Passive imaging sensors are not greatly handicapped by this fragmented spectrum of usable wavelengths because they still “see” across all the wavelengths that are transmitted and benefit from time integration of the received IR power. However, MWIR lasers, if unfortunate enough to be chosen at the wrong wavelength, simply waste their power trying to burn through atmosphere that is largely opaque to them. Consequently, active MWIR systems must be carefully designed at properly chosen wavelengths spanning the MWIR spectrum (or at least the portions of the spectrum of interest) in order to assure availability of operation. Multiple individual lasers are therefore an unavoidable consequence of agile active MWIR systems.

 

Multi-laser systems suffer from one additional constraint. To be tactically useful, they should emit a high-quality beam from a single aperture. Good beam quality (near diffraction limited) also provides for optimal system optics and beam propagation and therefore makes maximum use of the available system power. A single, well-formed beam at the output aperture simplifies the beam director, both mechanically and optically, reducing overall system size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C). System SWaP-C is often the overriding consideration in how widely a tactical system will be deployed.

 

The Navy needs a compact, high quality, broad-spectral laser source in the MWIR band. In this context, “laser source” is understood to mean an integrated assembly of individual lasers and beam combining optics. The laser source should cover both MWIR atmospheric sub-bands, nominally 3.5-4.1 microns and 4.6-4.9 microns, with a combined output optical power of 100 W minimum in continuous wave (CW) operation. Alternately, quasi-CW operation is allowable where the laser source is pulsed at a minimum of 100 kHz and a sufficiently high duty factor to achieve 100 W of average power output. The output power may be weighted toward either sub-band but each sub-band must include at least 30% of the total emitted power. Coverage of the sub-band is defined as at least three (more is preferred) discrete spectral lines across each sub-band (while taking into account the objective of maximizing atmospheric propagation). More lines may be chosen so as to spread the power more evenly across the sub-bands or to decrease the power required from each individual laser.

 

It should be noted that a scalable solution in which spectral lines can be added to future versions of the laser source is highly desirable. Spectral lines should be chosen for maximum atmospheric transmission in a tropical maritime environment as defined by MODTRAN® or an equivalent atmospheric propagation code evaluated for 10 km range at sea-level.

 

The laser source should have a single output aperture and emit a near-diffraction limited beam with a minimum M2 factor of 2.0 and a goal of 1.5 (M2 is herein defined according to ISO Standard 11146). In order to facilitate the safe testing of prototypes at low average power, the laser source shall include an interface for pulse operation at continuously variable pulse widths (starting from a 5 µs minimum pulse width) and arbitrary duty factor. Note that, in pulse operation, the entire source (even if a quasi-CW solution is pursued) is intended for pulse operation as a unit, not individual laser lines separately. The laser source may be liquid cooled but note that the volume of cooling hardware (connectors, manifolds, cold plates) present in the source is included in the size goal for the unit. Chillers, heat exchangers, pumps and other cooling hardware required to supply the liquid coolant is considered external to the laser source and does not factor into the size and power budget calculations. Likewise, power supplies and power conditioning units are considered external to the laser source. The laser source has a desired minimum wall plug efficiency (WPE) of 10% where WPE is defined as the total CW (or quasi-CW) optical output power divided by the total electrical power provided to the source from the external power supplies. The laser source should not exceed three cubic feet in volume and gimbals, beam steering, and stabilization systems are not included as part of this effort. Testing will be done by the company in a laboratory environment.

 

Life-cycle cost is always a fundamental concern and the laser source should therefore be designed with affordable manufacturing, long-term reliability, and ease of use (including maintenance) in mind. Acceptable solutions are therefore assumed to incorporate solid state or semiconductor lasers and multiple-laser solutions should take into account the manufacturing cost associated with the beam combiner and the cost implications associated with a scalable architecture (scalable in spectral content and by extension, total power). However, any solution that meets the requirements (including solutions that employ single lasers as sources) is acceptable and, while the goal of this effort is not to produce manufacturing technology, the production cost of the laser source should be estimated and the key manufacturing steps and processes that are identified as cost drivers should be analyzed and prioritized for remediation under a follow-on effort with a goal of $200K as the per-unit production price.

 

PHASE I: Propose a concept for a compact high power MWIR laser source that meets the objectives stated in the Description. Define the laser source architecture and demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting the Navy need. Feasibility shall be demonstrated by a combination of analysis, modelling, and simulation. Identify key manufacturing steps and processes and estimate the cost of the laser source in low-rate production (10 units per month). The cost estimate for the concept shall be based on an analysis of key manufacturing steps and processes, their maturity and availability within the industry, the cost and availability of key components, and by comparison to the manufacture of similar items. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the laser source specification, test specifications, interface requirements, and capabilities description necessary to build and evaluate a prototype in Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop, demonstrate, and deliver a prototype compact high power MWIR laser source (the laser source plus chiller and the required power supply, pulse drive, and control electronics) based on the concept, analysis, architecture, and specifications resulting from Phase I. Demonstration of the laser source shall be accomplished through production and test of a prototype (or multiple prototypes) in a laboratory environment. The analysis of key manufacturing steps and processes identified in Phase I shall be refined and updated to reflect lessons learned in fabrication and test of the final prototype. The cost estimate for low rate production shall likewise be updated. Multiple prototypes (or partial prototypes) may be produced during execution of this Phase II as the design process is assumed to be necessarily iterative in nature. However, at the conclusion of Phase II, the final (best performing) prototype laser source system demonstrator shall be delivered to the Naval Research Laboratory along with complete test data, the final manufacturing analysis, and final low-rate production cost estimate.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology for Government use. Identify specific manufacturing steps and processes that require maturation, mature those steps and processes, establish a hardware configuration baseline, produce production level documentation, and transition the laser source into production. Assist the Government in integration of the laser source into next higher assemblies and deployable systems.

 

The technology resulting from this effort is anticipated to have broad military application. Law enforcement, commercial, and scientific applications include use as sources for laser spectroscopy for chemical detection and identification (detection of explosive compounds, for example).

 

REFERENCES:

1. Mecherle, G. Stephen. “Laser Diode Combining for Free Space Optical Communication.” Proceedings of the SPIE 0616 15 May 1986: 281-291. http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1241781.
2. Fan, T. Y. “Laser Beam Combining for High-Power, High-Radiance Sources.” IEEE Journal of Selective Topics in Quantum Electronics 11 May-June 2005: 567-577. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1516122/.
3. Pauli, M. et al, “Power Scaling and System Improvements to Increase Practicality of QCL-Based Laser Systems”, Proceedings of the SPIE 10926 27 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2508710.
4. Sanchez-Rubio, A. et al. “Wavelength Beam Combining for Power and Brightness Scaling of Laser Systems.” Lincoln Laboratory Journal 20 2 2014; 52-66. https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/page/doc/2018-05/20_2_3_Sanchez.pdf.

 

KEYWORDS: mid-wave infrared; MWIR Lasers; Laser Source; Semiconductor Lasers; Beam Combining; Wavelength Agility; Atmospheric Transmission