Department of the navy (don) 18. 1 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions introduction

PHASE I: Develop concepts for an interactive graphics-oriented training game meeting the technical objectives and consistent with the application requirements stated in the topic description. Demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs and establish that the concept can be feasibly produced. Feasibility will be established by some combination of initial analysis or modeling that shows the description requirements can be met. The Phase I Option, if awarded, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype in Phase II. Develop a Phase II plan.

PHASE II: Based on the Phase I results and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop, demonstrate, and deliver a prototype interactive, graphics-oriented conceptual training game for evaluation. Evaluate the prototype game to determine its capability in meeting Navy requirements stated in the description. Demonstrate the ability to install the prototype on standalone or networked laptop and desktop computer systems. The demonstration will take place at a Government-provided facility. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology for Navy and potential commercial 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 in transitioning the technology to Navy use and in the qualification testing for the software technology developed in Phase II. This will be accomplished through test events managed by PEO IWS.

This conceptual network-learning environment will include a flexible, configurable framework that is capable of instantiating entities (such as ships, aircraft, and land-mobile units, equipping them with system capabilities, moving the entities around the environment in accordance with scripts, and capturing interactions between entities based on their capabilities and intentions. This product could have application in exploring concepts for interactions between dynamic entities in fields such as avionics, transportation, and communications. It could be marketed as a new game or its unique control features could potentially find a market with major gaming companies.

REFERENCES:

1. Korteling, J.E., Helsdingen, A.S., Sluimer, R.R., van Emmerik, M.L., and Kappe, B. “Transfer of Gaming: Transfer of training in serious gaming.” TNO Report, TNO-DV 2011 B142, August 2011. http://files.goc.nl/files/pdf/Gaming/2011%20Gaming%20transfer_gaming.pdf

2. Landers, Richard N., Bauer, Kristina N., Callan, Rachel C. and Armstrong, Michael B. “Psychological Theory and the Gamification of Learning.” Gamification in Education and Business, 2015, pp 165-186.

KEYWORDS: Netted sensor programs; gamification of learning; Gaming for sailors; Multi-Player war games; Modular gaming; Netted Force Concepts; Air Defense in gaming.

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMS 420, LCS Mission Package Program Office

OBJECTIVE: Develop a launch and recovery system that can accommodate a variety of sizes of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) when installed aboard LCS ships.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy is looking for a common solution to launch and recover a variety of UUVs from large to small, and that can operate from near the waterline (Freedom variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)) to high above the waterline (Independence variant LCS). The Navy needs a system for launching and recovering UUVs that are of a variety of sizes, weights, and shapes from a variety of ship platforms and waterline heights.

UUVs are off-board vehicles that are typically cylindrical or semi-cylindrical in cross section and can range in size from a small, hand-launched system such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) REMUS 100 to large systems such as the HUGIN 3000 and REMUS 6000. UUVs can be designed to be free-flooding or hermetically sealed, but often their shells are not adequate for lifting or grappling purposes. They often have easily damaged external features such as fins, propulsors, propellers, and antennas. Different manufacturers design different features for lifting including nose lift, tail lift, single-point body lift, and two-point body lift. Many UUVs are not designed to be driven or piloted through the water; they operate on a point-to-point system, diving underwater to transit via Inertial Navigation System (INS)/Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU) to a location where they surface to acquire the Global Positioning System (GPS) for a location fix. Many UUVs are equipped with forward looking or bottom mapping sonars that make interfacing with these areas difficult.

Current commercial launch and recovery systems are often ship specific and UUV/AUV specific. Institutions such as WHOI and private industries supporting the petroleum industry all use UUVs/Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and conduct numerous launch and recovery operations every year.

Pier-side launch and recovery of UUVs is relatively simple as large cranes or davits can be used to lower or recover UUVs in sheltered bays, inlets, waterways. There is often unlimited overhead and the launch/recovery system is not in motion. With underway launch and recovery aboard a ship, the ship may be transiting to maintain heading and minimize ship motions. The ship may be hovering to allow the UUV to be lowered or lifted from a fixed location. The ship may be stationary but not hovering, in which case the ship will be driven by wind and waves, often causing the ship to heave, roll, sway, and yaw. The launch and recovery system will likewise be in motion at the same time the UUV will be in motion, often with a different frequency, phase, and magnitude. The UUV will not necessarily be aligned to the same heading as the ship, or be able to be commanded to do so. Many UUVs do not have tow points allowing them to be put undertow by the ship for launch or recovery. The goal of this design is to provide flexibility of capability and interfaces that will support a variety of UUVs (in various sea states). This should take into consideration the design constraints associated with UUVs such as easily damaged components (e.g., fins, propellers/propulsors, external antennas), hull/shell strength, hard points/lift points, and UUVs that cannot be driven/piloted like a boat (i.e., they only operate by underwater movement from GPS coordinate to GPS coordinate).

The Navy has an objective to launch and recover UUVs in sea states through sea state 3 in accordance with STANAG 4194:1983. Supported platforms potentially could have a freeboard anywhere from near the waterline to as high as 15’ above the waterline.

Both variants of the LCS as well as the Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ship utilize stern launch and recovery of watercraft, versus using a moon pool or side mounted launch and recovery system. A common approach to stern launch a UUV from a ship is to bring the ship to a standstill, deploy the handling system and lower the UUV to the water’s edge before releasing it. Depending upon whether the UUV is suspended or captive, a towline can be rigged to ensure the UUV maintains a suitable orientation relative to the ship and to the horizon. Once the UUV is clear of the ship, it can begin its functional mission. Other methods include slowing the ship to a minimal speed at which steerage can be maintained, and towing the UUV as it enters the water.

The current process to recover a UUV depends upon the approach. Web page searches will show multiple approaches from underbelly lift for small UUVs (REMUS 100), nose tow up a ramp (HUGIN 3000), and vertical recovery (REMUS 6000) using an A-frame stern launch and recovery system.

WHOI developed a Launch and Recovery System (LARS) specific to the REMUS 6000. From information available on the WHOI website:

“The REMUS Launch and Recovery System has made over 1,000 successful launch and recoveries to date. Due to the vehicle's larger size, this self-contained system has been engineered here at WHOI in the OSL. It enables the L & R of the vehicle in sea states up to those created by the Beaufort Scale 5 winds.

It requires only one operator and, therefore, does away with the need to use tag lines eliminating extra people on deck and creating a safer working environment.

LARS is installed on the stern of a ship. For launch, the LARS has a built-in A-frame, which tilts the cradle up and over, while leaving the vehicle hanging by its nose well clear of the fantail. The cradle supports the vehicle during A-frame rotation, stabilizing the vehicle until it is a safe distance from the stern. The docking head provides damping to reduce swing in heavy seas. The vehicle is then lowered into the water, tail first, while the ship is making approximately 1-2 knots forward way (this allows the vehicle to stay well clear of the ships screws). All systems are given one final checkout before release. When ready, the vehicle is commanded to release its tow-line and begin its mission.”

Likewise, from the same website, the LARS for the REMUS 3000 is described as follows:

“The REMUS 3000 Launch and Recovery system, similar to the proven system of our REMUS-6000 which has completed over 1,000 successful launch and recoveries to date, has a footprint of 5.5' x 10'. The control consists of a tilt A-frame, tilt docking head, pay in/out winch and rotate vehicle. This system enables the launch and recovery system of the AUV to be simple, reliable, easy to operate and time-saving with the hydraulics operating at 10-15 HP with a built-in joystick controls in a waterproof operator console.

The system is vessel dependent and is mounted on the stern of a ship. It allows the vehicle to be operated from a vessel in sea states up to those generated by the Beaufort Scale 5 winds.”

The HUGIN 1000 can be installed in a 20-foot ISO container, which is used for storage, maintenance, launch, and recovery. According to the Kongsberg website, the HUGIN 1000 and launch device (stern ramp) can be deployed from the 20-foot ISO container from the stern of a ship.

Typically, the largest challenge is to align the ship to a stationary UUV, secure a suitable lifting or towing apparatus to the UUV, and then lifting or towing the UUV from the water. Since UUVs can roll, approaches such as a v-shaped ramp or underbelly netting are generally not going to be acceptable approaches to lifting a wide range of UUVs because so many cannot afford to roll over or have fins/propellers take strain from lifting systems.

Lifecycle costs will be reduced by having a single ship that can perform multiple functions/missions with UUVs, all while using a single LARS. Likewise, savings can be realized in the use of a common LARS across various ship and shore platforms. Cost savings can be realized through reduced need for spares/use of common spares; standardized technical support services and manuals; savings through larger purchase quantities; commonality of materials and fluids. Additionally, a common handling system can be used as design criteria for future UUVs allowing them to integrate to a single system, versus developing a unique approach for every new UUV before the Navy or other users have an opportunity to influence interfaces and design. Proposers need to mindful that, if applicable, the development of supporting software must be done in an open architecture environment to facilitate maximum compatibility with future system iterations.

PHASE I: Define and develop a concept for both launch and recovery of UUVs of various sizes as defined in the description. Investigate innovative solutions to meet shipboard operational environments, interface with a variety of UUVs, and establish that the solutions can be feasibly developed into useful products for the Navy. Establish feasibility by analytical modeling and simulation to provide an initial assessment of their concept performance. Provide a final report as a deliverable documenting their design and design constraints and describing both the envisioned approach for installing the proposed system on both a ship with low deck (near the waterline) and one with a high deck (at least 15 feet above the waterline) and the essential characteristics of the system supported by feasibility simulations of launch and recovery. The Phase I Option would include the initial layout and capabilities description to build the unit in Phase II. Provide a Phase II Initial Proposal as a deliverable.

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop a prototype for evaluation and delivery. Test the key software and hardware components of the prototype initially in a lab and then pier-side. After the integration of any refinements required, the Navy will evaluate the prototype to determine its capability to meet the performance goals defined in the Phase II SOW and the Navy requirements for the launch and recovery of UUVs in various sea states. Support Navy demonstration and evaluation of the system performance through prototype testing and evaluation on a representative ship or ships (to meet both waterline requirements) with UUVs or UUV simulators (i.e., floating shapes intended to represent actual UUVs) over the required range of parameters. Testing will include numerous deployment cycles to demonstrate repeatability. Use the evaluation results to refine the prototype into a design for a first-order production unit that will meet Navy requirements. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology to Navy use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology for Navy use. Produce a developmental model, and integration plan for the launch and recovery of UUVs as a modular system that can be installed on a variety of LCS ship platforms. Support the Navy for test and validation to certify and qualify the system for Navy use.

A lucrative market currently exists for at-sea launch and recovery of Autonomous/Underwater Unmanned Vehicles. Current commercial launch and recovery systems are often ship-specific and UUV/AUV-specific. Institutions such as WHOI and private industries supporting the petroleum industry all use UUVs/AUVs and conduct numerous launch and recovery operations every year. The ability to operate multiple systems from a common platform is seen as an advantage since it affords the operators flexibility of both ship design and AUV/UUV capability.

REFERENCES:

1. "REMUS 100." Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution website, http://www.whoi.edu/main/remus100

2. “HUGIN AUV Launch & Recovery System.” YouTube. KONGSBERG Gruppen, 16 November 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H5uZWv22Ws

3. "REMUS 6000." Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution website. http://www.whoi.edu/main/remus6000

4. “STANAG 4194:1983 Standardized Wave and Wind Environments And Shipboard Reporting Of Sea Conditions.” SAI Global, 2017. http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/details.aspx?ProductID=456675

KEYWORDS: Shipboard Launch and Recovery of UUVs; Unmanned Underwater Vehicles; Off-board Vehicles; Autonomous Underwater Vehicles; Handling System; REMUS

N181-040

TITLE: Submarine Shallow Water Rescue Capability

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMS391, Submarine Escape and Rescue Program Office

OBJECTIVE: Develop a solution to enhance the current submarine rescue capability to support shallow-water pressurized rescue.

DESCRIPTION: The Submarine Rescue and Diving Recompression System (SRDRS) provides quick response, worldwide capability to rescue the crews of Disabled Submarines (DISSUBs). The design of the SRDRS system supports submarine rescue from a bottomed submarine with an intact personnel compartment, to depths up to 2,000 feet seawater (fsw), up to an internal pressure of 5 atmospheres absolute (ata), and up to 45-degree list or trim. The Navy currently has no capability to rescue survivors from a DISSUB with an internal pressure of 5 ata at a depth less than approximately 400 fsw. A solution to allow for pressurized rescue in waters less than 400 fsw is sought. There currently exist no known commercial technological solutions for shallow water mating under pressure, which is why the research and development is needed.

When the Pressurized Rescue Module (PRM) mates to a DISSUB, the hydrostatic compressive force from the difference between the exterior sea pressure and the interior air pressure holds it in place. To maintain the PRM’s transfer skirt contiguous to the DISSUB rescue seat, this force must be greater than the external forces (umbilical load, hydrodynamic drag from ocean currents, sea state effects, etc.) that are acting to slide, lift, twist, and topple the PRM from the DISSUB. As a result, shallow water operations are limited by environmental conditions.

The PRM Safe Mating Envelopes (SME) identify the minimum mating depth, such as the shallowest depth measured to the DISSUB hatch/mating seat, necessary to provide a sufficient hydrostatic compressive force. This is determined based upon the magnitude of the prevailing water current, and the PRM yaw angle relative to that current. A 0-degree yaw corresponds to a head current, while a 90-degree yaw angle corresponds to a beam current. The SME’s address mating scenarios where the DISSUB has a list – port or starboard – of 0, 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The SMEs are based upon a DISSUB internal pressure of 1 ata, which requires adjustment by adding 33 feet for every additional 1 ata that the internal pressure increases, and are applicable up to sea state 4 (wave heights of 4.1 to 8.2 feet) or below.

At this time, based upon the current SMEs the shallow water-mating limit of the PRM is 264 fsw at 1 ata with a 0-degree yaw angle, a 0 degree list, and a 0 knot current. When internal DISSUB pressure is increased to 5 ata, this results in the shallow water-mating limit being adjusted to 396 fsw. Consequently, the Navy has no capability to rescue survivors from a DISSUB with an internal pressure of 5 ata at a depth less than approximately 400 fsw. This results in a gap to the Submarine Rescue mission such that the Navy cannot safely conduct rescues of DISSUBs in more than 40% of rescuable waters.

PHASE I: Research and provide a conceptual solution such that the SMEs allow for pressurized rescue in waters less than 400 fsw. This concept must use modeling and simulation to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed solution. The objective would be conducting safely a pressurized rescue of a DISSUB up to 5 ata at a depth of 100 fsw, with a threshold of 200 fsw, and 0-45 degrees list. The Phase I Option, if awarded, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities description to build a prototype solution for controlled testing in Phase II. Develop a Phase II plan.

PHASE II: Based on the Phase I results and the Phase II Statement of Work (SOW), develop, build, and deliver a small-scale prototype of the proposed design solution to conduct controlled proof of concept testing. The prototype must be capable of being pressurized up to 5 ata to simulate DISSUB internal pressure rescue requirements. Evaluation and testing will provide empirical data verifying mating capabilities in shallow water at increased internal pressures at 0 and 45 degrees list. Prepare a Phase III development plan to transition the technology for Navy production and potential commercial use.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Pending successful prototype testing, assist the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use and deliver the full-scale design solution for installation onboard the PRM. Upon installation, conduct testing and evaluation to support certification that will operationally prove the ability of the PRM to safely provide pressurized rescue in shallow waters at 0- and 45-degree list.

Due to the lack of a clear solution to address the increase of mating capabilities, dual-use applications of the potential technology are unknown at this time. Upon determination of viable concepts, this determination will be revisited.

REFERENCES:

1. Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS391, Concept of Operation for the Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System (SRDRS) Revision 7; 14 October 2009

2. Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS391, 0A-SRS-OVERVIEW&CL-PM-2-5; Submarine Rescue System Mission Scenarios; Operating Checklists & System Overviews 0A Procedures Manual

3.Gibson, Jim and English, Jim. “Pressurized Rescue Module System (PRMS); U.S. Navy’s Future Submarine Rescue Vehicle.” OceanWorks International Corporation, January 2002. http://oceanworks.com/admin/sitefile/1/files/OW2002_Pressurized%20Rescue%20Module.pdf

KEYWORDS: Submarine Rescue Diving and Recompression System (SRDRS); Shallow Water Submarine Rescue; Pressurized Rescue Module (PRM); Safe Mating Envelopes (SME); Atmospheres Absolute (ata); Remotely Operated Vehicle

N181-041

TITLE: Improved Capacity, High Efficiency Cryogenic Cooling System

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Ground/Sea Vehicles

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: LX(R) Amphibious Ship Program– PMS317

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 cryogenic cooling equipment for high temperature superconducting systems with novel enhancements that increase cryocooler capacity, effective system cooling capacity, and system efficiency while minimizing system cost.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy is interested in High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) cable technology for High Temperature Superconducting Degaussing (HTS DG) and future shipboard high temperature superconducting power cable applications. These applications require affordable and robust cryogenic cooling solutions that meet the unique requirements for surface ship applications. Navy objectives to reduce manning and maintenance costs demand cryogenic cooling solutions that have minimal maintenance requirements over a 30- or 40-year ship service life. Additionally, overall system level affordability is a key requirement for implementation of superconducting system that leads to objectives of low acquisition costs, higher system level efficiencies, and reduced requirements for ship electrical power and chilled water.

For Navy HTS cable applications, gaseous helium is cooled by a cryocooler and cryogenic heat exchanger and circulated using a helium circulation fan through a superconducting cable which consists of HTS conductor housed in a flexible cryostat. These cables can range from 10m-300m with operational temperature requirements of 30 K-70 K at pressures of 10-20 bar. The temperature of the cryogen increases in the flow direction due to heat leakage in the order of 1-3 watts per meter which can be minimized by increasing mass flow rate. However, simply increasing mass flow rate tends to reduce the effectiveness of the cryogenic heat exchanger. Additionally, higher volumetric flow rates lead to higher friction flow losses that contribute additional heat load to the cryogenic system. Improvements in overall cryo-cooling effectiveness can be realized through heat exchanger improvements that couple the cryogen flow to the cryocooler in a novel way. Likewise, novel approaches to cryogen circulation can minimize cryogen heat load associated with higher-pressure drops. Increased effective cryogenic cooling capacity will enable multiple HTS cables to be cooled by a single cooling unit with sufficient thermal budget. Improving capacity of the cryocooler so that multiple loops can be cooled from a single cryogenic system will reduce the number of required cryocoolers in procurement. The Navy desires to eliminate the dependence on chilled water and use salt water cooling with water inlet temperatures in the range of 4ºC to 50ºC, thereby reducing the demand on the chiller system by freeing up 25-40 refrigeration tons of cooling plant margin. Complete cryocooler and circulation system cost target of $200/watt cooling at 50 K or cryocooler only costs target of $100/watt cooling at 50 K with integrated system weight target of 1.5 watts/kg cooling at 50 K.