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

3. Adhikari, P. “Understanding Millimeter Wave Wireless Communication.” Loea Corporation, 2008. http://www.loeacom.com/pdf%20files/L1104-WP_Understanding%20MMWCom.pdf

4. Schlosser, T. “Potentials for Navy Use of Microwave and Millimeter Line-of-Sight Communications.” Technical Report 1719, September 1996. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA318338

KEYWORDS: Antenna; Network; Wireless; Communication; Airborne; Relay

N181-008

TITLE: Maritime Lethality Analysis Toolset

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA 242 Direct and Time-Sensitive Strike

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 an innovative physics-based lethality toolset useful to analyze the effects of multiple weapons against maritime targets.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy currently does not have a unified/comprehensive set of tools useful in assessing weapon lethality effects against maritime targets. Weapon effects of interest include those associated with air blast (internal or external), fragmentation, inert/reactive particles, shaped charge/explosively formed projectiles, and kinetic energy penetrators. These effects would couple with the different internal/external components and structures promoting different types of defeat mechanisms.

A lethality toolset implementing multiple physics-based and user-defined modules is needed in order to properly assess weapon effects on maritime targets. The proposed solution must be thought of as an advanced, in-depth, and higher resolution/fidelity analysis tool capable of providing the Navy with engineering-level solutions in support of developmental/fielded maritime warhead lethality studies analogous to existing building/land target weaponeering analysis toolsets such as Integrated Munitions Effects Analysis (IMEA), Fast Integrated Structural Target (FIST), and AJEM (Advanced Joint Endgame Manager).

The analysis toolset must allow the capability for end users to develop/implement new models/modules through a common physics-based approach, as well as allow leveraging of existing Government off-the-Shelf (GOTS), Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) and/or Open Source data/algorithms by integrating them onto a unified tool.

The computational engine/paradigm included in the analysis toolset must take into account combined synergies stemming from the different modules enabled (e.g., blast, frag, particles, etc.), allowing for modification of prevalent target/component loading and the ability to predict structural response/collapse useful in a single- or multiple-weapon lethality analysis.

In addition, the proposed solution must allow the capability for end users to develop/implement vulnerability descriptions (similar but not limited to “fault/logic trees”) and associate these with the target geometry model.

The analysis toolset must implement a Monte Carlo simulation feature ensuring that all of the parameters inside any of the physics modules could be varied using standard statistical probability distributions along with user-defined curves and including a weapon’s terminal impact conditions (speed, orientation) as input variables. The analysis toolset must allow importing of existing Tri-Service-approved geometrical models or Computer Aided Design (CAD) files such as Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) CAD’s “.g” or similar, and permit the importing of other developmental CAD models (e.g., file formats compatible with existing GOTS/COTS CAD software packages) by the Analyst/Engineer.

A Graphical User Interface (GUI) whereby visual depiction of the maritime target and weapon implemented along with the analysis results that includes the different weapon effects is needed.

Stochastic, Monte Carlo, and deterministic output of the different weapon effects data must be organized visually through graphs and output data saved through corresponding image/text files. All of the development must leverage open source computational packages as much as possible. The toolset must be cross-compatible with Microsoft Windows and Linux Operating Systems (OS) to include future implementation onto clusters and other High Performance Computers (HPC) systems such as those owned and maintained by the DoD. The analysis toolset and the physics–based or empirical models must be compatible and take advantage of parallelism available in modern desktop computer systems such as multiple cores, Central Processing Units (CPUs), and Graphical Processing Units (GPUs).

In addition to the development work, a robust Installation, User’s, and Analyst’s manuals must be documented.

PHASE I: Identify and evaluate suitability of existing algorithms for leveraging into the development of the toolset. Provide a proposed GUI design, analysis logic flow, and computational development plan. Outline the different physics packages to be included into the analysis toolset with a focus on identifying parallel, HPC and GPU suitability. In addition, an assessment of how user-defined and/or other analysis toolbox capabilities are envisioned should be included in the proposed solution. The Phase I effort will include developing prototype plans for Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a prototype analysis toolset design and computational modules. Refine and integrate through active and interactive demonstration of integrated capabilities. Conduct additional development and inclusion of the different physics-based modules and compare against available Government test/model data. Incorporate lessons learned onto the design and implement into sprint versions of the analysis toolset. Demonstrate Stochastic, Monte Carlo, and deterministic modes of computation and corresponding output data for selected scenarios using the design GUI. Demonstrate computational performance of the different modules against selected scenarios and single core/CPU, parallel, multi-core/CPU, GPU, and HPC hardware capabilities. Demonstrate and validate the import of multiple types of general-purpose and Government-developed CAD files, along with cross-OS compatibility of the analysis toolset. Deliver alpha and beta versions along with draft versions of the associated documentation to the Government during this phase.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Transition analysis toolset to the U.S. Navy for use in daily lethality studies. Receive feedback from users and release updates addressing feature requests and bug fixes. Document enhanced visual and graphical capabilities useful in future analysis and incorporate enhancements into new versions of the toolset to be released at regularly scheduled intervals. Complete a Verification and Validation report for the entire product along with its associated modules/packages. Deliver updated compiled binaries and associated source code along with final User’s and Analyst’s manuals during this phase.

Commercial applications could include the support of the Tri-Service community, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and maritime insurance companies supporting anti-piracy and maritime terrorism studies. Commercial shipping could also utilize this analysis toolset as a validation tool for their designs.

REFERENCES:

1. Cooper, P. "Explosive Engineering." Wiley-VCH, 1996. https://www.amazon.com/Explosives-Engineering-Paul-Cooper/dp/0471186368 (link updated on 12/13/17).

2. Carleone, Joseph. “Tactical Missile Warheads (Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics). AIAA Tactical Missile Series, Volume 155. https://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Warheads-Progress-Astronautics-Aeronautics/dp/1563470675

3. Rowden, Vice Adm. Thomas, Gumataotao, Rear Adm. Peter, and Fanta, Rear Adm. Peter. Distributed Lethality, Proceedings Magazine of the U.S. Naval Institute, January 2015, Vol.141/1/1, p. 343. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/distributed-lethality

4. Driels, M. “Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness.” Second Edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2004. http://www.weaponeering.com/TOC.pdf

KEYWORDS: Model Development; Maritime Lethality; Weaponeering; Warhead Effects; Ships; Analysis Toolbox

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Information Systems

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA 260 Aviation Support Equipment

OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative methods and associated tools to support the definition of Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) capabilities and their individual instruments using an Open Architecture (OA) approach, to allow for precise understanding of the ATE, interoperability across Navy and DoD electronics maintenance, and improved utilization of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) tools to support ATE operations.

DESCRIPTION: The Navy needs to define ATE stimulus and measurement test capabilities using an Open Architecture (OA) approach, based on industry standards. Currently, each ATE family in the Navy and across the DoD has its own proprietary means for describing these capabilities. This leads to difficulty for engineers in understanding the ATE capabilities; little opportunity to utilize generic and COTS automated tools to access, analyze, and utilize the capabilities; and reduced possibility for interoperability of tools and test programs across the Navy and DoD ATE. Industry standards are being developed to provide an OA approach for defining ATE and instrument capabilities. However, there has been little analysis in terms of the completeness of these standards to describe actual DoD and commercial ATE, and the instruments contained within them. Further, there has been little development of tools that can assist electronic test engineers to build databases containing the ATE and instrument capabilities, nor to provide automated means for inputting and analyzing the capabilities using the standards. Finally, at this time, the standards do not address all areas of ATE capabilities (e.g., radio and radar).

The methods and tools developed under this topic will aid in the support of Navy and DoD ATE by determining the applicability and potential shortfalls of current industry standards; providing automated tools to reduce the human effort of defining ATE capabilities and updating these definitions as instruments are removed and replaced; and automating the analysis of ATE and instrument capabilities. This topic is intended to address the set of ATE capabilities as a whole, but also the capabilities of the individual instruments that are contained in the ATE. Of particular interest are synthetic instruments, which can provide a wide range of disparate capability using Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) technology. Synthetic instruments provide great flexibility to the ATE designer, but issues with configuration management and control have been recently identified. Using an OA approach for defining these instruments, along with automated tools for storing, updating, and analyzing their capabilities, will greatly improve the management of ATE instruments, both synthetic and traditional.

The DoD Automatic Test System (ATS) Framework Integrated Product Team (IPT), led by the Navy, has identified the use of industry standards for instrument and ATE capabilities as key to supporting an OA approach in Navy and DoD ATE. In particular, the Standard for Signal and Test Definition (IEEE-1641) and the Automatic Test Markup Language (IEEE-1671, ATML) have been identified as enablers to OA for ATS. However, the IPT recognizes that the standards have not been proven for effectiveness in DoD ATS, industry (especially instrument developers) has been slow to utilize the standards, and few tools that could leverage such industry standards have been developed. It is expected that the execution of this topic will go far in proving the effectiveness of the standards, including making recommendations for future standards development, while also leading industry to utilize the standards to describe instruments and develop tools that can capitalize on them. This will lead to more efficient operations for Navy and DoD ATE. However, there will be challenges in attempting to integrate these new tools and models into existing ATE and Test Programs. These challenges are primarily a result of legacy ATE and Test Program Sets (TPS) not following industry standards, due to a lack of understanding of the benefits of an OA approach, and the lack of tools available that can utilize the standards. These challenges must be addressed. A primary first step toward this will be the development and demonstration of standards-based information related to ATE and TPSs, and tools that can use this information. A successful completion of this proposal will encourage the DoD Services to integrate the OA approach in their ATE and TPSs, and simplify the effort to do so.

To achieve the generic objectives of OA (such as increased use of industry standards, reduced lifecycle cost, and improved understanding of data elements), and the more specific DoD ATS objectives (such as improved quality of test, improved joint interoperability, and use of COTS solutions) a set of tools are required that employ standardized technologies associated with defining instrument capabilities in existing, as well as future ATE. These tools should create and manage industry standard signal libraries (such as IEEE-1641), utilizing input from both human test engineers and instrument capability files. The tools should accept capability information, allow for updating the information, and report on individual instrument and ATE-wide capabilities, without requiring the human to understand the details of the signal models being used. The effort should also include a survey of existing COTS tools (especially those conforming to an OA approach) related to ATE and Test Programs, and how they might be integrated with the tools produced for this topic to achieve even greater benefit to automatic test efficiency and utilization. Finally, an analysis of how to incorporate this new approach in existing ATE and Test Programs must be performed.

PHASE I: Design and demonstrate a proof-of-concept signal model library necessary to support described technologies. Define a set of tools that can be utilized together to support the development and management of an ATE signal library, based on the individual instruments contained in an ATE. Show how capabilities can be extracted and analyzed from the ATE signal library in a human readable format that would not require detailed knowledge of how the library and signals are defined. Identify the issues involved in integrating the signal library in current ATE, and the impacts to existing ATE and Test Program software. Survey the market for ATE and Test Program tools that might be leveraged to expand the scope and effectiveness of the tools developed in this proposal. The Phase I effort will include the development of prototype plans for Phase II.

PHASE II: Further develop the Phase I products into a prototype usable set of tools to support the creation of an individual ATE library from both human input and analysis of instrument-supplied data files (where available). Evaluate and demonstrate the prototype tools using one of the members of the DoD family of testers, such as Navy Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS), Air Force Versatile Depot Automatic Test System (VDATS), and Army Next Generation ATS (NGATS). Access to capability information for these testers will be provided by the DoD at no cost to the small business. Perform analysis of the models and tools to determine their ability to support the description of the ATE capabilities and the benefits of using OA standards in DoD ATE. Ensure the models and tools are consistent with industry standards, such as those defined by IEEE. If noticed during development, make note of applicability of existing industry standards and the possible need to enhance these standards. Describe features of the tools developed for this project to allow for interfacing with other COTS tools, either existing or conceptual, to provide even greater overall benefit to ATE operations.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Finalize and deliver models and tools suitable for use on ATS across the DoD. Transition the technology to appropriate test platforms. Signal modeling is a generic technology that may be used across DoD and industry. Further, the need to define ATE and instrument capabilities using an OA approach can benefit both the DoD and industry by providing more efficient analysis of ATE and instrument capabilities, and allowing for generic tools to work across ATE from disparate organizations. Therefore, successful technology development has direct impact to all DoD Services, and could be transitioned to commercial industries, including the commercial aviation and automotive sectors.

REFERENCES:

1. IEEE STD 1671-2010, IEEE Standard for Automatic Test Markup Language (ATML for Exchanging Automatic Test Equipment and Test Information via XML (2011). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5706290&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Ftp%3D%26arnumber%3D5706290

2. IEEE STD 1641, IEEE Standard for Signal and Test Definition. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5953414/

3. DoD ATS Executive Directorate website. http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mpp/ats_about.html

KEYWORDS: Automatic Test Equipment; Signal Model; Open Architecture; Electronics Maintenance; Instrument Capability Description; Diagnostics

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform

ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PMA 261 H-53 Heavy Lift Helicopters

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: Investigate and develop a robust, Electro-Optic/Infrared (EO/IR) signature modeling capability that integrates rotorcraft full-body, asymmetric plume, downwash, and laser radar signature effects based on existing, widely-used, and validated air vehicle signature model(s).

DESCRIPTION: While several existing, widely-used EO/IR signature models address air vehicles, none address rotorcraft downwash, plume, or laser radar effects with sufficient fidelity to allow accurate analyses of IR or laser system detection and ranging. Such analyses are critical to support rotorcraft survivability assessments and mission and test planning efforts. Innovative approaches are sought to integrate new computational methods and tools with an existing base model (such as, but not limited to, those models listed in references [2], [3], [4], and [5]) to generate a single rotorcraft EO/IR signature modeling solution that incorporates body, engine, environmental, and asymmetric plume effects. Responsive proposals will integrate the desired rotorcraft signature prediction and modeling capability into an existing base signature model chosen by the proposer based on that model’s accuracy, applicability, prior validation, and breadth of the existing User community. Respondents should consider impacts to these factors when selecting a base model to which they will add innovations under this effort.

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 Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor and/or subcontractor 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 DSS 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 advance phases of this contract.

PHASE I: Design and determine the feasibility of incorporating accurate, robust rotorcraft plume/downwash modeling into the validated, widely-used, EO/IR signature model identified and selected in the respondent’s proposal. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

PHASE II: Develop, demonstrate, and verify a prototype modeling capability that incorporates accurate, robust Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and rotorcraft plume/downwash effects into the validated, widely-used, EO/IR signature model advanced in Phase I.

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: Perform validation of the new LIDAR and rotorcraft downwash EO/IR signature prediction capability against existing Government-furnished test data for a military rotorcraft. Coordinate with the Process Owner/Configuration Control Authority (CCA) for the validated, widely-used, EO/IR signature model advanced in Phase II (the base model). Transition the rotorcraft-unique IR and LIDAR signature modeling tools, training materials, and/or signature prediction services to the base model User community and/or the original base model CCA. The model capability could be used for thermal analysis and design of commercial aircraft and remote aerial sensing.

REFERENCES:

1. Conant, J. & LeCompte, M. “Chapter 6: Signature Prediction and Modeling.” The Infrared & Electro-Optical Systems Handbook, 1993, Vol. 4 - Electro-Optical Systems Design, Analysis, and Testing, ed. by Michael C. Dudzik, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham WA. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a364024.pdf

2. Crow, D. Coker, C. & Keen, W. “Fast line-of-sight imagery for target and exhaust-plume signatures (FLITES) scene generation program.” Technologies for Synthetic Environments: Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing XI. Edited by Murrer, Robert Lee, Jr. Proceedings of the SPIE, 2006, Volume 6208-18, pp. 62080J. https://www.tib.eu/en/search/id/BLCP%3ACN060748638/Fast-line-of-sight-imagery-for-target-and-exhaust/