Department of the navy (don) 17. 1 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions introduction

There are multiple projection technologies available that range from liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) to laser beam steering (LBS) systems. Refractive optics is used for both the collimating lens and the hogel optic. The integration complexity and manufacturing cost of these optical elements are high. High numerical aperture (NA), large area collimating lenses are difficult to manufacture, especially in large, greater than 1” diameter. High NA (high FoV), micro-lenses are also difficult to mold due to the tight tolerances of each optical element.

For a large area (~1m²), wide FoV (greater than or equal to 90°) hogel optic arrays are complex and expensive multi-element solutions. The Navy seeks diffractive optical element solutions that replace or augment current refractive micro-lens (0.5mm² – 1mm²) hogel optics in order to reduce the cost and complexity of light field display projection systems. The optical requirements for the diffractive hogel optical system will mirror that of a traditional camera lens. Like most camera lenses, the image quality is less than diffraction limited. While Strehl ratios of 1 are desired, they are not necessary; especially in the case of hogel optics as the 3 dimensional circle of confusion is eye limited. This means that the eye’s ability to resolve objects in free space is the limiting factor for any Light field display (LFD) display.

With current manufacturing technologies, the die to mold precision optical elements cost around $20,000 to $40,000 for small molds - less than 2” in diameter - and up to $250,000 for large optical lenslet arrays. For 1m2 arrays, tiling multiple lenslet arrays may be the only option. This will add to the chassis complexity and additional labor during production to align and calibrate. The typical anticipated costs for an optical system will range from $2,000 to $4,000 for a 1m2 array.

The Navy seeks an equivalent optics system with diffractive technology to significantly reduce production cost. Such a system might be based on refractive optical technology, allowing the use of etched diffraction grating patterns on a glass substrate, rather than a tiled array of individually crafted lenses. While the development of an initial print/etch master might be relatively expensive, subsequent use of the master during production runs would result in significant cost reduction on a per unit basis. The proposed solution should reduce the eventual production cost per unit below $1,000. The amortized cost (over 1000 units) of a traditional optical platform is approximately $5,000-$7,000 and thus the anticipated cost reduction of this technology is 5X to 7X. The LFD hogel optic’s performance should yield a pixel spot size of no greater than 2X the pixel extent. For instance, if the pixel yields an angular extent of one degree, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the pixel should not exceed two degrees. The associated range of performance of an LFD optic should range from 1 pixel to 2 pixels.

PHASE I: Develop a concept for a diffractive optical element for light field displays to replace traditional micro-lens arrays for large, wide FoV light field display projection systems. The company will demonstrate that its concept is feasible in meeting Navy needs and demonstrate that the concept can be implemented. Feasibility will be demonstrated by some combination of modeling and analysis by exploring concepts of diffractive optics to reduce manufacturing cost. The company will show the solution can be feasibly integrated in place of the current optical elements.

The optical requirements for the diffractive hogel optical system will mirror that of a traditional camera lens. Like most camera lenses, the image quality is less than diffraction limited. While Strehl ratios of 1 are desired, they are not necessary. Especially in the case of hogel optics as the 3 dimensional circle of confusion is eye limited. This means that the eye’s ability to resolve objects in free space is the limiting factor for an LFD display.

The prediction is a Strehl ratio of 0.3 to 0.5 with distortion of less than 1% out to 0.7 FoV will yield a good light field display. The FoV for the system shall be 90 degrees minimum. The Phase I Option, if awarded, should provide the initial layout and product specifications to build the prototype in Phase II.

PHASE II: Based on the Phase I results and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), the company will produce and deliver a prototype diffractive optical element for light field displays. Evaluation will be accomplished by laboratory testing of the prototype, accompanied by appropriate data analysis, and modeling. The company will perform the actual testing in consultation with Government subject matter experts to refine parameters and goals. The affordability analysis performed in Phase I will be refined to reflect the knowledge gained during Phase II execution. The company will prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology for Navy and potential commercial use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The company will be expected to support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. The company will further refine a diffractive optical element for light field displays according to the Phase III development plan for evaluation on AEGIS platforms in order to determine their effectiveness and reliability in an operationally relevant environment. The company will perform test and validation to certify and qualify initial production units for Navy use. The final product will be produced by the company (or under license) and transition to the Government. The final product will be a diffractive lens array for a light field display. Private Sector Commercial Potential: There are many applications for micro-lenses. This technology allows for using diffractive optical elements as a micro-lens element instead of traditional refractive technologies. One such example is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) array used in the telecommunication industry.

REFERENCES:

1. Bjelkhagen, Hans and Brotherton-Ratcliffe, David. Ultra-Realistic Imaging: Advanced Techniques in Analogue and Digital Colour Holography. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2013.

2. Klug, Michael and Burnett, Thomas A Scalable, Collaborative, Interactive Light-field Display System. Austin, SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 2013.

3. Halle, Michael W. Halle and Kropp, A. B. Fast Computer Graphics Rendering for Full Parallax Spatial Displays. Boston, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1997.

4. Jeong, Young Ju, Chang, H. S. et al. Efficient Direct Light-Field Rendering for Autosteroscoptic 3D Displays, 2015.-

KEYWORDS: Diffractive optical element; hogel optic; micro lens array; light field display; holographic film; radiance image.

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

N171-039

TITLE: SUBSAFE Hull Penetrator for Submarine High Energy Laser (HEL)

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMS405, Surface Navy Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office

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 5.4.c.(8) of 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 Subsafe hull penetrator technology to connect HEL weapon system subcomponents through a submarine pressure hull to facilitate the inboard/outboard integration of a HEL weapon system on VIRGINIA Class submarines.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy seeks an innovative solution for integrating High-Energy Laser (HEL) weapon system subcomponents through a submarine pressure hull. Enhanced self-defense and offensive capabilities that could be provided by a HEL weapon system are of interest to the Submarine community. Potential integration approaches that are being investigated to install such a system on a VIRGINIA Class submarine include placing the HEL subcomponents outboard, within the sail enclosure, in which case high levels of supply power would need to be transmitted through the ship’s pressure hull. In this case the total electrical supply power of about 100kW (threshold) to 300kW (goal) would need to be transmitted through the hull to enable integration of an introductory HEL weapon system capable 30kW output power with a goal to be able to support a future system having 100kW of output power.

Alternately, the HEL subcomponents might be split between inboard and outboard (sail) locations with the laser device located inboard and the beam control and beam director being located in the VIRGINIA Class sail, a distance of approximately 30 feet or greater apart. In this case, alternative hull penetrator technologies would include the penetration of either high power fiber optic cables or high power free space beam coupling from the inboard source to an outboard beam director.

A single mode fiber optic hull penetrator would need to address fiber optic cables and connectors that can carry very high optical powers (> 3kW per fiber of total 30-100 kW total optical power) over distances of 30 feet or greater while overcoming Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) effects. Likewise, a free space optical penetrator would need to support similar power levels and transmission distances.

The innovation required to achieve these options is significant. Current SUBSAFE hull penetrations are generally used with outboard sensors that use significantly less power. The feasibility of a hull penetrator for an HEL application has not been determined.

PHASE I: The small business will design and develop a concept for research and development opportunities that will transmit electrical or optical power from the inboard to outboard HEL subsystems via a SUBSAFE hull penetrator. The company will demonstrate feasibility of a recommended concept using modeling and simulation and/or limited demonstrations in a laboratory environment. The company must determine that the selected technology can feasibly meet Navy SUBSAFE requirements.

Such as Hull penetrator can handle multi kW optical or electrical power per connector and also must meet the Navy Subsafe requirements. The hull penetrator can also be easily maintainable at doc site. A single mode fiber optic hull penetrator would need to address fiber optic cables and connectors that can carry very high optical powers (> 3kW per fiber of total 30-100 kW total optical power) over distances of 30 feet or greater while overcoming Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) effects. Likewise, a free space optical penetrator would need to support similar power levels and transmission distances. The Phase I Option, if awarded, would include the initial layout and capabilities description to build the unit in Phase II.

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II development plan, the small business will develop a SUBSAFE Hull Penetrator for Submarine High Energy Laser prototype for evaluation in a representative submarine environment. The prototype should include a complete concept that incorporates directed energy power transmission from inboard to outboard. A demonstration of the design and verification test in a laboratory environment will be used to verify that key system performance specifications have been met (see requirements in description and Phase I; Optical and Electrical power handling). The company will prepare a Phase III development plan to transition to Navy use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The Company will be expected to support the Navy in transitioning the technology for Navy use. The Company will further refine a full-scale prototype that can be integrated and tested on a submarine platform. Under Virginia class sub acquisition this program will be use to replace the current hull penetrator to support future HEL system. Private Sector Commercial Potential: The innovations developed under this SBIR would be useful in a number of industries such as telecommunication and offshore oil/gas exploration. There are many examples where optical and electrical power transmission is not currently viable undersea for sensors where high power is required. This technology supports submarines, surface ships, unmanned undersea vehicles, petroleum wells and the associated drilling and monitoring processes, undersea cable systems, and high pressure pipeline monitoring.

REFERENCES:

1. Military Specification for Connectors, Electrical, Deep Submergence, Submarine (MIL-C-24217); http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-24217A_49807.

2. Military Specification for Connectors, Plugs, Receptacles, Adapters, Hull Inserts, & Hull Insert Plugs, Pressure-Proof, General Specification For (MIL-C-24231); http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-24231D_8423.

3. Undersea Enterprise (USE) Science & Technology (S&T) Strategic Plan, dtd Jan 20, 2010; http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/UnderseaWarfare/Documents/USW%20-%202013%20USW%20STOs.pdf.

4. General Atomic: Third-Gen Electric Laser Weapon Now Ready by Graham Warwick; http://aviationweek.com/technology/general-atomics-third-gen-electric-laser-weapon-now-ready.-

KEYWORDS: Hull Penetrator; Fiber Optics; Free Space; Directed Energy; High Energy Laser; Subsafe.

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMS425-Submarine Combat & Weapons Control

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 5.4.c.(8) of 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 affordable, seamless two-factor authentication for the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System (SWFTS).

DESCRIPTION: The Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System (SWFTS) is a special purpose, integrated tactical network that supports submarine tactical operations in the conduct of multiple warfare missions. SWFTS consists of Combat Control, Acoustics, Navigation, Imaging, Radar and Electronic Surveillance Measures (ESM). The Navy requires that all Information Systems employ Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) in order to facilitate the secure electronic transfer of information for a range of network activities, however, due to the sensitivity of information processed and the software/hardware architecture inherent to SWFTS, PKI is not practical to employ using conventional PKI technology and implementation methodologies.

PKI is a set of roles, policies, and procedures needed to create, manage, distribute, use, store, and revoke digital certificates and manage public-key encryption within and across information systems. SWFTS is not capable of seamlessly and affordably implementing PKI for a number of reasons including the fact that the system does not process any personally identifiable information nor does it perform any business system functions. In addition, SWFTS is not directly connected to Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Networks (NIPRNet), Secret Internet Protocol Router Networks (SIPRNet), or the Global Information Grid (GIG) for communications external to the hosting platform. Weapon/Mission control subsystems are Interconnected Platform IT subsystems and are not "domain joined" in the PKI/PKE compliance sense. There is no Certificate Authority resource to authenticate a PKI/PKE Token combination against because platforms do not maintain PKI databases, readers, tokens or other authentication hardware. This lack of connectivity to an authentication authority prevents group log in or changing watch standers without login/logout. There is no current path for PKI implementation since SWFTS architecture under Submarine Local Area Network (SUBLAN) policy is PKI-exempt. The waiver granted to SWFTS is primarily because PKI is impractical and costly to implement; so new technology and processes are required to meet the PKI intent of two-factor or dual authentication for the SWFTS environment.

A number of factors need to be considered in developing a dual-factor authentication solution for SWFTS. The system and its associated authentication hardware/technology must account for or support Group User Accounts for systems that require the use of multiple operators such as sonar or combat control. It cannot be cumbersome to employ like tokens or card readers. The authentication system needs to be more secure in port and less secure or capable of being disabled at sea. It needs to allow warfighting and system reboot, recovery and casualty modes to be unimpeded. The solution must be affordable. Affordability factors include non-recurring engineering (NRE) to integrate the software into SWFTS configurations; and the recurring cost for licensing, hardware and installation. NRE should not exceed $50K per SWFTS configuration and recurring cost should not exceed $10K per platform. Most importantly, the technology developed needs to work in a submarine environment. For example, previous biometric facial recognition implementation was a failure because it did not work in no-light or low level lighting conditions; nor did it work with breathing apparatus or while wearing a flash hood. Also of interest would be if and how the development of authentication technology could meet partial requirements of the dual factor authentication requirement. More specifically, technology development that allows SWFTS operator to conduct all required operations but does not allow them to perform System Administrator or Maintenance functions would be considered responsive to this topic. This type of implementation as a “tactical appliance/technology” could support Group Account access.

The Phase II effort will likely require secure access, and NAVSEA will process the DD254 to support the contractor for personnel and facility certification for secure access. The Phase I effort will not require access to classified information. If need be, data of the same level of complexity as secured data will be provided to support Phase I work.

PHASE I: During Phase I, the company will develop an approach to implement dual authentication software/hardware technology into the submarine environment to support the SWFTS. Using the references provided the company would prove the feasibility of the proposed technology/approaches to meet the intent of dual authentication. The company will define a plan of action for technology development, testing, and integration into the SWFTS cross-domain environment and develop preliminary cost estimates for authentication technology. The Phase I Option, if awarded, will include the initial layout and capabilities to build the prototype in Phase II.

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), a prototype software/hardware dual authentication capability with the ability to integrate and function with the SWFTS will be developed and delivered. The prototype must be capable of demonstrating authentication of group user accounts and function in degraded authentication modes without impeding warfighting and system reboot, recovery and casualty modes of the system. The offeror shall provide a detailed test plan to demonstrate the deliverable meets the intent of dual authentication in a SWFTS environment. A Phase III qualification and transition plan will also be provided at the end of Phase II.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: During Phase III, the company will support the Navy in the system integration and qualification testing for the software/hardware technology system(s) developed in Phase II. This will be accomplished through land-based and ship integration and test events managed by PMS425 to transition the dual authentication technology into the SWFTS. Private Sector Commercial Potential: Many DoD protocols and interface requirements for PKI are based on commercially accepted standards which facilitates a viable technology transition of this topic’s technology to commercial markets with similar attributes to the SWFTS. This would include things like finger or thumb print biometrics or proximity biometrics.

REFERENCES:

1. Takai, Teri. “DODINST 8520.2 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Public Key Enabling (PKE)”. DTIC, 2011. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI). 09 Mar2016, www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/852002p.pdf.

2. Mauck, James. “DON Current and Future PKI and PKE Activities”. Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer, 2008. 09 Mar 2016, http://www.doncio.navy.mil/ContentView.aspx?ID=1748.

3. Cothron, T.L. “OPNAVINST 5239.3A Navy Implementation of DODIS Public Key Infrastructure”. 2008, 09 Mar 2016, www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/opnavinst/5239_3a.pdf.-

KEYWORDS: Two-way user authentication; Federated Tactical System Submarine Warfare (SWFTS) network protection; information assurance; Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) waivered systems; Submarine Local Area Network protection; secure electronic information transmission on tactical networks.

Questions may also be submitted through DoD SBIR/STTR SITIS website.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS 1.0) – AEGIS Combat System

OBJECTIVE: Develop a common Field of Light Display (FoLD) interface that allows for the integration of multi-view displays into AEGIS Display Systems.

DESCRIPTION: As the Navy continues reducing the manpower requirements associated with operating and maintaining ever-increasing technologically complex systems, material solutions are sought that will allow an operator to effectively and efficiently use various systems. One approach to reducing operator workload and training requirements is presenting various data formats, generated from disparate sources, in a cost-efficient manner through innovative information displays, applying common data structures, and using consistent symbology. The Navy seeks data visualization techniques that consider human capabilities and limitations in product design to capitalize upon human sensory and perceptual attributes.

The Navy currently utilizes two dimension (2D) display technology for conveying data and information to sailors performing both non-tactical and tactical operations on AEGIS Destroyers and Cruisers. All Navy 2D display technologies adhere to a common video standard that allows the integration of those displays into an application interface (API) regardless of the size, make, or implementation of the 2D display. The Navy is free to select, replace, and upgrade 2D displays that best fit the application need. Advancements in tactical technology and sensors in addition to the promulgation of equipment sensors on shipboard equipment are exponentially increasing the data streams that sailors are required to process and manage in order to perform planning and operational functions. The proliferation of this data plus the Navy’s desire to reduce manning and increase sailor efficiency require optimization in data visualization and comprehension to allow present day sailors to perform their duties. Three dimension (3D) visualization technologies provide the opportunity to promote improved operator task accuracy, faster operator response time, and reduce cognitive overload, but there is no common standard similar to the 2D API that allows for the cost-effective integration of 3D display technologies.