Supplemental Information Annex
General Information
: This annex is intended to provide a general program direction and philosophy discussion and further clarification and additional guidance to certain sections of the PRDA (V2.).This Annex is divided into three sections:
Section I: Overall Program Direction and Philosophy
A. Introduction
The P-LOCAAS program is an Advanced Technology Development (ATD) effort, and as such, the system development, performance testing and analysis on which program decisions are based must emphasize mission level performance, i.e. the contribution of the candidate system component to overall system effectiveness on realistic, mission like scenarios. This is especially the case for the LADAR seeker and the Autonomous Target Acquisition (ATA) algorithm suite, which the government considers the highest risk P-LOCAAS program element. However, an assessment of mission level performance contribution requires that the assessment be conducted in a system context. Thus, an extremely important element of the P-LOCAAS development program is the Phase I concept development and system design task. The following sections are intended to help clarify the government’s expectations and operating philosophy concerning the Concept Definition and System Design tasks, ATA Development and Performance Testing, Modeling and Simulation and some related definitions.
The starting point for the P-LOCAAS program is a concept definition and related preliminary design for a weapon system suitable for attacking the full spectrum of the P-LOCAAS target list, i.e. TMD, SEAD and Armor/Interdiction targets. Contractors qualified to bid the P-LOCAAS ATD are expected to have a significant foundation in this area, and it is the government’s intent to build upon that foundation throughout the course of the program. The key goal of the program is a documented tactical design that is sufficiently detailed to provide an accurate projection of the cost and risk inherent in weaponizing it.
A viable P-LOCAAS mission performance assessment framework requires careful definition of representative scenarios for use in designing tests and analyses for assessing performance in all program phases. Such scenario definitions are an essential product of the Concept Definition activities required in Phase I. It is the government’s intent to participate actively with the contractor(s) on the corresponding contract task, and the anticipated products include mission scenarios for each of the three primary mission areas (i.e. TMD, SEAD and Armor/Interdiction) in each of three regional areas of interest. These areas are Southwest Asia (SWA), North East Asia (NEA) and Eastern Europe. Each mission scenario shall include specification of operationally realistic selections for the following elements.
9. Mission Success – For each mission scenario, a suitable criterion for declaring unambiguously whether or not a successful outcome is obtained, shall be defined. Some specific criteria are listed in the classified portion of the SI annex. As described in the following sections, P-LOCAAS ATA performance assessment will be based upon a carefully defined set of Measures of Performance (MOPs). An essential product of the Phase I concept definition task is a set of benchmark MOP values for each of the three primary mission areas (TMD, SEAD and Armor/Interdiction).
C. P-LOCAAS Autonomous Target Acquisition Development and Performance Testing
As noted above, the LOCAAS program office considers the primary technical risk in the Powered LOCAAS program to be Autonomous Target Acquisition (ATA) performance. All key P-LOCAAS program phase point decisions will be heavily influenced by the government’s assessment of the contractors’ ATA development program, as determined primarily from rigorously conducted ATA performance testing and analysis. The following sections elaborate on the P-LOCAAS ATA development, test and analysis philosophy.
1. Mission Performance Objective
The P-LOCAAS ATA development, performance testing and analysis activities focus on mission level performance requires careful definition of (1) ATA measures of performance (MOPs), (2) required ATA performance (i.e. MOP benchmarks) at the various program phases, (3) simulated mission scenarios and corresponding test matrices, and (4) environmental conditions. Additionally, this goal requires that the seeker test bed be capable of faithfully simulating the behavior of the tactical system it represents. Each of these topics is discussed in the following.
(a) ATA Measures of Performance (MOPs): The measures of performance to be employed in all P-LOCAAS scored ATA performance tests are Probability of Target Report (PTR), False Target Attack Rate (FTAR), Probability of Engagement Success (PES) and Circular Error Probable (CEP). Each of these MOPs is carefully defined in a subsequent section of this annex, along with a collection of foundation definitions. The intent is not to preclude additional working level definitions for use internal to the P-LOCAAS program but to establish the measures to which all internal efforts must be directed and to carefully define the measures to which all externally reported performance results must be reduced.
2. P-LOCAAS ATA Test Design, Conduct, Scoring and Reporting
All ATA performance estimates used for key P-LOCAAS program phase point decisions shall be based on tests and analyses conducted by or closely controlled by representatives of the LOCAAS program office. The degree of government participation in the test and analysis process shall include the following.
(a) A government ATA test and analysis team shall be dedicated to each prime contractor selected to participate in the P-LOCAAS program. The government team’s sole purpose is to acquire and maintain a detailed understanding of the corresponding contractor’s ATA algorithm(s). As such, the government team must have full and timely access to all relevant ATA source code and related development/analysis tools generated by the contractor and used in support of the P-LOCAAS program. Access to and use of these software items shall be strictly limited to the members of the respective government ATA analysis team(s) and the contractor’s intellectual property rights shall be faithfully observed. ATA source code and development/analysis tools in the form they are used by the contractor on the P-LOCAAS program are acceptable.
(b) P-LOCAAS ATA performance tests and analyses conducted for score and reduced to MOPs for program reporting/phase point decision making shall be designed and conducted either by or with the direct participation of the government ATA test and analysis team(s). A combination of tower and captive flight tests will be required to adequately assess ATA performance. In particular, some of the target condition testing (e.g. parts of the countermeasures and articulation performance assessment) will require the controlled test conditions feasible only in a tower testing environment.
(c) A member of the of the government ATA test and analysis team shall directly participate in all tower and captive flight test events which are conducted for score and reduced to MOPs for program reporting/phase point decision making. For captive flight test events, a government team member shall be on board the test aircraft as a working member of the flight test crew. This team member will be responsible for taking possession of data collected during the flight for use by Government analysis after the flight. Data acquired during these tests will be apportioned into sequestered and non-sequestered portions for future ATA analysis and scoring.
All official test scoring (reduced to MOPs for program reporting/phase point decision making) shall be executed by the government ATA test and analysis team.
3. P-LOCAAS ATA Performance Definitions, Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness
The following definitions shall be used in all phases of the P-LOCAAS development and test program. Specifically, the two concluding subsections of this list shall be employed as Measures of Performance (MOPs) and Measures of Effectiveness for establishing performance goals/requirements, designing ATA performance tests/experiments and for all performance analysis and reporting activities in the P-LOCAAS development program.
These definitions are carefully constructed to emphasize mission performance and to accommodate both open loop (Tower and Captive Flight) ATA performance tests and closed loop (Free Flight) submunition effectiveness tests.
(a) Foundation Definitions
P-LOCAAS Target List – The complete P-LOCAAS target Annex (i.e. TMD, SEAD, Armor/Interdiction Targets)
Target Set – The subset of P-LOCAAS Target List whose discrimination is the object of the ATA test or experiment in progress
Target – Any member of Target Set
False Target - Object, man-made or natural, not a member of Target Set, including:
- Non mission targets (military vehicles which may, in some other mission context, be Targets)
- Confuser targets (military or non-military vehicles which might be encountered near a Target)
- Clutter objects (naturally occurring or man-made)
Target Report - Encountered Target correctly declared member of Target Set at P-LOCAAS design attack commit range
False Target Report - Encountered False Target incorrectly declared member of Target Set at P-LOCAAS design attack commit range
Engagement Success – Given a Target Report, the event that all tested tracking, guidance and warhead initiation functions execute successfully and culminate in an actual or hypothetical warhead firing event
Miss Distance – Given Engagement Success, the separation between the designated aim point on the Target and the closest point of approach along the (hypothetical or actual) warhead firing trajectory.
Mission Success – A mission dependent criterion defined as part of the tested P-LOCAAS mission scenario.
(b) Measures of Performance (MOPs)
Probability of Target Report (PTR) - #Target Report events/#Target Report opportunities.
False Target Attack Rate (FTAR) - #False Target Report events/total area searched.
Probability of Engagement Success (PES) - #Engagement Success events/#Target Report Handoffs.
Circular Error Probable (CEP) – Given a Target Report, the 50% probable upper bound on Miss Distance.
(c) Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs)
Probability of Mission Success (PMS) – #Mission Success events/#Mission Success opportunities
Mission Cost (PMS) – The number of P-LOCAAS munitions hypothetically expended during the test in question.
D. Modeling and Simulation
Probability of Engagement Success and Circular Error Probable will be critically evaluated by Government directed independent analyses largely through in-house 6DOF studies and in depth analyses using its KHILS facility. These studies will utilize contractor derived simulations with the contractor to provide ongoing support to the Government in delivering and maintaining these simulations through a rigorous configuration control process. The Contractor(s) are expected to deliver 6DOF simulations during Phase I of the program which will continue to evolve as better data becomes available (i.e. as wind tunnel and other data). Periodically, during the course of the entire contract, the Contractor will be expected to update and release updates of system simulations as mutually agreed to by both Government and Contractor engineers. These simulations will be delivered with appropriate documentation. After downselect, the continuing Contractor will deliver the appropriate hardware-in-the-loop seeker model avionics, IMU, and other key guidance and navigation hardware for closed-loop simulation in the KHILS facility. ,The seeker model for purposes of HWIL simulation will be expected to be at a minimum a mass balanced replicate of the gimbal platform plus all associated control hardware and software. The HWIL is expected to be a cooperative environment to be jointly exploited by both Contractor and Government in characterizing system performance. Hardware upgrades will be required to ensure functional equivalence of HIL and flight systems. The Contractor will also provide the interface for real-time hardware communication with facility simulation computers and will provide the appropriate interface control and support documentation. Simulations tailored both for flight test articles and the tactical design (including HWIL simulations) will be required. An objective of the ATD will be to evaluate the ability of the modeled tactical vehicle to successfully engage a variety of target states, including maneuvering targets in order to verify the system’s probability of engagement success and expected CEP. 6DOF and KHILS simulations will provide the best approach for demonstrating overall system tracking performance short of prohibitive extensive flight testing.
In concert with extensive 6DOF modeling and simulation, the Government envisions a collaborative effort on both the part of the Government and the Contractor to fully explore the concept of operations and the overall effectiveness of the system. The Contractor will be expected to continue mission and engagement level effectiveness simulations to quantify expected mission success. The classified annex identifies probability of mission success goals for all three target sets. Targets representative of these sets have been identified and will be used to evaluate projected system level performance.
It is the intent of the ATD to continue to foster development of the concept of operations through involvement of the operational community in simulations of the system. Through the use of a DIS/HLA simulation, the ATD will strive to exercise the LOCAAS simulation through virtual participation in operational exercises. This effort is intended to continue to explore such issues as optimum search pattern selection, in-flight retargeting issues, the influence of varying terrain
and operational decision timelines on munition deployment.Throughout the course of the ATD, the Contractor is expected to maintain a connectivity throughout all layers of simulation involving the system concept.
The Government and Contractor will jointly prepare preflight assessments and perform post flight data analysis for the three scheduled free flight Guided Test Vehicle (GTV) flights.
Section II: Direct PRDA Reference Clarifications
Applicable sections are directly referenced to the PRDA.
_______________________________________________________________A
. Ref. B (1) (a) "demonstrate P-LOCAAS affordability with design to unit production cost (DTUPC), parts and touch labor, goal of $33K/munition (FY98$, 12,000 unit buy), substantiated by detailed analysis supported to the maximum extent possible by cost experience, vendor quotes, etc. The Offeror shall discuss in detail any performance/cost trades necessary to reach the stated cost goal. "DTUPC is defined to include those elements of recurring cost directly associated with the manufacture of a specific item. The costs include the fabrication, assembly, purchasing, functional and acceptance testing, inspecting (Quality Control), Overhead and G&A costs, and packaging of the unit for delivery or shipment.
B
. "demonstrate a LADAR seeker with sufficient autonomous targeting capabilities to accurately distinguish between target and non-targets in a variety of weather, terrain, and target conditions and scenarios. Develop, with government approval, the non-baseline test conditions as outlined in the SI annex, Section I-B. A classified annex will specify baseline seeker/Autonomous Target Acquisition (ATA) performance and Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) exit criteria for the seeker/ATA system.";See Section I of this annex and the classified appendix (under separate cover).
C
. B (1) (c) "demonstrate onboard inertial navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS) guidance capable of providing navigation data of sufficient quality for ingress, execution of programmable search patterns, and LADAR image coordinate transformation within an allocated error budget. The error budget to be developed by the contractor consistent with the developed Anti-materiel Submunition Warhead Technology (ASWT) multi-mode warhead, system design, and concept definition."The Contractor will throughout the course of the ATD develop and refine an integrated INS/GPS guidance system (based on P-Y code) of sufficient quality to provide GPS navigational accuracy for ingress (waypoint to search IP including search pattern navigation). The contractor in his tactical design should address the potential for degraded GPS signal reception. The navigation algorithms are expected to be a closely coupled INS /GPS solution which will provide filtering of tilt angle error states. The contractor is expected to provide an error budget of all significant error sources relevant to his design and to resolution of LADAR image coordinate transformations.
D
. B (1) (d) "demonstrate, through design and warhead static tests, compatibility with a proven shoot-to-kill multi-mode warhead capable of destroying the attacked targets. Required performance for all modes of warhead operation and targets to be engaged will be specified in a classified annex.";E
. B (1) ( e) "demonstrate guidance integrated fuzing, with an overall targeting error budget, consistent with the previously developed ASWT multi-mode warhead, system design, and concept definition,"The Government anticipates that in the potential use of a multimode warhead, the contractor will require precise positioning of the warhead above the target. This will require a significant evaluation of the accuracy of the guidance law to provide this positioning both in position and attitude of the airframe with precise computation of the time to warhead firing event. Consequently, the contractor will be expected to provide a detailed examination of the integration of guidance to warhead functioning.
F
. B (1) (f) "demonstrate a powered vehicle providing a weapon range and ingress velocity consistent with the system design and concept definition.";The tactical system should be designed to a range greater than 100km with coincident search area of greater than 50 KM2. The airframe should have a minimum endurance of 30 minutes plus a minimum active lasing time of 20 minutes. As an anticipated maximum range (no consideration of search), the airframe should be capable of greater than 100 NM given reasonable flight profile conditions such as a release from a 25000 ft at 0.8 mach, given a constant altitude flight at 20000 ft over the majority of the profile and then descent to a search altitude / velocity. The Contractor should strive for the best possible ingress velocity or flight profile consistent with his concept of operations and with other stated goals of this ATD, including cost and survivability.
G
. B (1) (g)"demonstrate, via guided flight test and analysis, an average search area coverage rate and, via analysis, total searched area consistent with the system design and concept definition.";As noted above, the average minimum area search rate of coverage should be 4 km2/min.
H.
B (1) (i) "demonstrate, via captive flight test results and analysis, an overall mission success probability threshold specified in the SI annex, Section III, Classified Appendix.";I
. B (1) (j) (B) "demonstration of ATD seeker/ATA exit criteria, as defined in the classified annex, against several target sets, under realistic weather conditions, various terrain features consistent with conceptual weapon employment, target obscuration, target articulation, and target employed counter-measures. The determination of the tested scenarios will be specified per the SI annex (see Sections I-B & C and Section III, Classified Appendix."J
. B (1) (j) (C) "demonstration of three successful guided flight tests against targets as outlined in the SI annex. The success criteria are contained in the SI annex, Section II-J.";all with projected warhead impact within a radius defined by the 95% probability (R95) determined for that target aimpoint based on KHILS preflight test studies, and after searching through up to 25 km2 area prior to target intercept assuming nominal navigation system performance
K
. B (1) (j) (D) "demonstration, in the Kinetic Kill Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation (KHILS) facility, of the ability to detect, track and successfully engage a variety of target states, as specified in the SI annex. The Contractor will be expected to support KHILS and AFRL/MN analyses of the tactical design through digital 6DOF / hardware simulation of their tactical design. See SI Annex, Section I-D and Section II-K.";The contractor will be expected to provide a mass balance simulate of his sensor to include gimbal hardware and control software, processors, INS/ GPS system (as appropriate and available) plus all digital models of primary subsystems so as to provide a Hardware-in-the-loop simulation of both flight test and tactical articles. The Contractor will provide for the necessary installation support and maintenance support to maintain this system throughout the duration of the ATD. These simulation tools will support both preflight and postflight analyses of guided test vehicle flight tests and analysis of tactical vehicle performance to include but not limited to some of the following states: at minimum detection range, moving targets at various speeds and headings, targets on the periphery of the acquisition scan footprint, and in a variety of wind conditions; See also Section I of this SI Annex.
L
. B (1) (j) (E) "demonstration that the allocated targeting error budget for the GNC, seeker, and ATA system is consistent with an overall system error allowance as documented in the SI annex;"The Contractor will be expected to show a comparison of cost and allowable error associated with his overall system error budget that is consistent with his proposed subsystems. What the Government is expecting is a realistic assessment of required subsystem performance allocation, associated cost and projected availability of the system at the production decision point.
M
. B (1) (j) (F) "demonstration of Concept of Operations through Distributed Interactive Simulation / Higher Language Architecture (DIS/HLA) simulation. The DIS/HLA simulation environment will complement the tactical design simulation capability by providing a system level simulation (multiple munition, 6 degree-of-freedom models) capable of interacting with exercise simulations. The Contractor will develop and continue to modify and enhance this simulation throughout Phases II-IV, See SI Annex, Section I-D and Section II-M."The Contractor is expected to provide and continue to develop and refine his Concept of Operations and tactical design through use of a DIS / HLA compatible simulation. This process is envisioned to continue through the course of the ATD. The simulation should complement 6DOF and HWIL simulations by providing an interface to evaluate operational functionality. In essence, the simulation should add to these system engineering tools by providing a simulation opportunity where the realities that the user must contend with can be assessed. This tool should provide this capability at a minimum through mission planning emulation and direct operational user input through realistic terrain, command and control, tactics, and timeline considerations. The Government where possible will attempt to sponsor this simulation in military exercises such as Roving Sands and EFX 99. [Participation in exercises will be costed outside of the ATD Contract.]
N.
B (1) (j) (G)"accomplishment of concept definition and system design, and supporting cost and performance trades, consistent with the Government provided ASWT warhead lethality and effectiveness assessment.".
The Contractor shall use in-house models to gather one-on-one performance data that demonstrates munition lethality and system effectiveness against a variety of mobile, SEAD, and TMD targets. Typical target models to be used are defined in the classified appendix. For the ASWT warhead, lethality data documented in the ASWT Lethality Study (discussed elsewhere in this annex) shall be used. If a different warhead is chosen, lethality shall be computed using the Point Damage Assessment Model (PDAM) with the same input parameter conditions used in the ASWT analysis. It is expected the in-house models will include a 6-DOF fly-out simulation of the integrated system design. Aggregate results will be used to determine mission costs.
O
. PROGRAM OUTLINE, Phase II (3) Tactical Seeker Captive Flight Tests Scoring Process
P.
[See also above annotated section B (1) (k) (B) this document]
.
.
Section III: Classified Appendix
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)