Description:
TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials
OBJECTIVE: Develop an innovative domestic capability to produce fully functioning facsimiles of foreign made weapons that are equal to or better than what is currently being produced internationally.
DESCRIPTION: For decades surrogate forces and allies have depended on foreign made weapons which are used in conflicts around the world. USSOCOM intermittently supplies surrogate forces and allies with foreign made weapons from international intermediaries. These foreign made weapons lack interchangeability and standardization which hinders field and depot level part replacement. Developing a domestic production capability for foreign like weapons addresses these issues while being cost effective as well as strengthens the nations military-industrial complex, ensures a reliable and secure supply chain, and reduces acquisition lead times.
PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled Description. As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable system design options with respective specifications to reverse engineer or reengineer and domestically produce the following foreign like weapons: 7.62×54R belt fed light machine gun that resembles a PKM (Pulemyot Kalashnikova Modernizirovany), and a 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun that resembles a Russian designed NSV (Nikitin, Sokolov, Volkov). Hereafter, foreign like weapons is defined as a 7.62×54R belt fed machine gun and a 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun. Offerors must describe their approach to replicate foreign made weapons and mass produce foreign like weapons with the same form, fit and function as the foreign made weapon counterpart. The approach must describe all facets of design to production to include the actions, activities and processes necessary to: 1) develop drawings and specifications to replicate foreign weapons, 2) acquire and manufacture materials and parts, 3) bring together a production capability, and 4) develop methods for testing and evaluating the manufactured weapon to drawings and specifications. The approach shall also address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons. The approach shall describe how the offeror will employ only domestic labor, acquire domestically produced material and parts, and ensure weapon manufacture and assembly in domestic facilities. Domestic is defined as the fifty United States (US), Washington, DC, US territories and US possessions. Offers will not be considered if the offeror includes one or more of the following that are not acquired, hired, produced, manufactured, assembled or utilized domestically: labor, materials, parts, weapons, and manufacturing facilities. The Government will not supply or make available for review any drawings, such as Technical Development Drawings (TDP) or Technical Production Drawings (TPD). Such drawings will be produced as part of Phase II. The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all known options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments, laboratory studies, and manufacturing processes as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.
PHASE II: Demonstrate a production readiness, capability, and capacity to achieve precision manufacturing of foreign like weapons to Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 7. The demonstration involves providing conclusive substantiation of the proposers ability to maintain production cost, schedule, and performance. Proposers will be required to demonstrate their capability and capacity to produce foreign like weapons by describing how they cost out production weapons, develop and deliver TPD and TDP for each weapon, bring together effective production processes, acquire and maintain necessary tooling, reconfigure or assemble a production line to accommodate the production of the various foreign like weapon types, disassemble the production line and restart the program (if necessary), and scale production to account for varying order sizes. Proof of concept will be demonstrated by building to TDP specifications and delivery of five fully functional prototypes, to include firing of live ammunition, of a foreign like weapon that resembles the form, fit, and function of a Russian designed NSV 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun.
PHASE III: Assemble a production capability to supply the US Government with foreign like weapons for use by surrogate and allied forces.
REFERENCES:
1: MIL-STD-810G titled Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests “ Thermal Shock Chambers, Revision G, dated 31 October 2008. http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-810G_12306/
2: AECTP-100 (ED 3) titled Environmental Guidelines for Defense Materiel, Edition 3, dated January 2006; http://everyspec.com/NATO/NATO-AECTP/AECTP-100-3_3977/
3: Test Operation Procedure (TOP)-3-2-045 titled Test Operations Procedure: Small Arms - Hand and Shoulder Weapons and Machineguns; dated 17 September 2007; http://everyspec.com/ARMY/Test-Operations-Procedure/TOP-3-2-045_32068/
4: MIL-STD-1474E titled Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard: Noise Limits, Version E, dated 15 April 2015; http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1400-1499/MIL-STD-1474E_52224/
5: Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 03-2-504A titled Safety Evaluation of Small Arms and Medium Caliber Weapons, dated 29 May 2013: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA587409
6: The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, Volume 111, Number 7, May 2002, by Pamela Samuelson and Suzanne Scotchmer: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-law-and-economics-of-reverse-engineering
7: MIL-HDBK-115C titled Department of Defense Handbook: US Army Reverse Engineering Handbook (Guidelines and Procedures), Revision C, dated 21 March 2016: http://everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-0099-0199/MIL-HDBK-115C_54170/
KEYWORDS: Fire Arms, Weapons, Engineering Manufacturing, Production, Foreign Weapons
