Attachment_3_-_TO__2 _TA_-_13_(16_Apr_14).docx

LASER EFFECTS ASSESSMENT, MODELING, AND RESEARCH (LEAMR)

Technical Area 13: Target Vulnerability Assessments and Data Analysis Task Order #2 “Vulnerability Assessments for Laser Effects Research and Laser System Studies” 16 April 2014

1. SCOPE

To develop and utilize engineering and engagement level models to perform probabilistic target vulnerability assessments that accurately predict the target response during laser irradiation and to quantify susceptibility in the context of confidence and probability. To perform parametric studies for analyzing the laser performance trade space for current and future High Energy Laser (HEL) system. To coordinate with physics based modeling teams to develop and improve engineering and engagement level models. To integrate vulnerability data and effects models with mission level models to ensure proper representation of target susceptibility to laser systems in mission studies. The scope of this Task Order (TO) includes coordination with Department of Defense (DoD) intelligence offices, reverse engineering, developing target geometry models and system level Failure Analysis Logic Trees (FALT), Failure Mode Analysis (FMA), coordination with experimental and physics modeling programs, development of measurement error budgets, data reduction and analysis, engineering and engagement model development and enhancements, uncertainty quantification, documentation, as well as optimizing the use of software, databases, and computer hardware for engineering and engagement simulations.

2. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordinate with the physics-based modeling teams to develop engineering level models and experimental teams to maximize the utility of experimental efforts for the development and validation of engineering and engagement level models. Coordinate with DoD Intelligence agencies to develop target and HEL weapon exploitations, develop engineering level engagement models that predict the target response during laser irradiation, quantify susceptibility requirements and laser effectiveness thresholds, perform verification of models to ensure proper implementation and model validation for the desired use cases, support program office accreditation, perform parametric studies for analyzing the laser performance trade space and uncertainty quantification for tracking solution uncertainties, and maintain engagement level tools and databases, such as shotline codes, flyout codes, and target folders. The contractor should address how they propose to accomplish the following areas for laser/material interaction modeling and simulation research:

2.1. Intelligence Coordination for Target and Threat Characterization (CDRLs A004 and A005):

· Develop Intelligence requests and coordinate with DoD Intelligence agencies to develop target exploitations, geometry models, and system level fault analysis logic trees, as well as HEL weapon exploitations.

· Identify target performance characteristics, design specifications, system redundancies, Concept of Operations (ConOps), design variants, system proliferation, design drawings, material types/alloys, and other target characteristics necessary to perform laser vulnerability studies.

· Develop or improve existing target geometry models based on SolidWorks, Ballistics Research Laboratory Computer Aided Design (BRL-CAD), STereoLithography (STL), Fast Shotline Generator (FASTGEN), Solids Modeling Tool (SMT), as well as other formats common to Computer Aided Design within the DoD community.

· Coordinate with National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), Missile and Space Intelligence Center (MSIC), Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office (JASPO), JTCG, and other agencies to leverage existing target geometry model databases to reduce duplication of effort.

· Perform reverse engineering when target or system characterization data is limited.

· Verify representative material acquisitions (coupon, component, or system level) using internal and external resources.

2.2. Develop and Demonstrate State-of-the-Art Engagement and Engineering Models for Predicting Laser Effects (CDRLs A001, A004, A005, A008, A009, and A013):

· Perform research and development in modeling techniques for the development of engineering level engagement models for laser interaction and target effects.

· Develop the capability to accurately predict the effect of a laser on materials commonly used in ground, air, and space systems.

· Develop engineering level engagement models for simulating the effect of high intensity pulsed kilojoule (kJ class) and continuous wave Megawatt (MW class) laser systems for laser drilling, structural damage, coupled thermal mechanical damage, sensor damage, high explosive ignition, material flammability, and other phenomenology observed in HEL system interactions with air, ground, and space systems. This effort should be driven by the Modeling & Simulation (M&S) material interaction engineering level efforts developed under Technical Area -14/Task Order #3 (Attachment 4).

· The focus should include addressing further development of shotline vulnerability tools, flyout models, seeker models, statistical analysis tools and Vulnerability Modules (VM),including Hitpoint Interrogation using Target Statistics (HITS), LaserFX, (Integrated Thermal Response Algorithm – Endgame Framework (ITRAL-EF) and existing VMs.

· Develop the software necessary to interface the engineering model with engagement or mission level models such as an Application Programming Interface.

· Support the development of Weaponeering tools as necessary.

2.3. Model Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (CDRL A004, A007, and A013):

· Perform internal model verification and validation for engagement models and model components developed for predictive laser/material interaction simulations. Utilize analytical, numerical, methods of manufactured solutions, or similar methods to verify proper implementation and experimental data representative of the intended use case for validation of the engagement model or model component.

· Perform literature review to identify prior analytical, numerical, or experimental results published by AFRL, Government, industry and academia to optimize the use of existing research in the verification and validation process.

· Provide recommendations for validation experiments when existing data is unavailable and utilize resultant test data for validating engagement models for the particular application.

· Support DoD Verification, Validation, and Accreditation process as necessary to accredit predictive engagement models for use by program offices.

2.4. Experimental Coordination and Data Analysis (CDRL A004):

· Provide failure mode analysis, target/material/component recommendations, and test matrix recommendations to maximize applicability to assessment activities.

· Provide diagnostic recommendations and corresponding justification as the measurement applies to laser susceptibility, target vulnerability, engineering model development, and model validation.

· Support test readiness reviews, test planning working groups, hot washes, and data reviews to ensure proper coordination with experimental teams and maximize the utility of test results for target vulnerability assessments.

2.5. Target Vulnerability Assessment (CDRLs A004, A005, A006, and A013):

· Perform target vulnerability assessments utilizing target exploitation to identify components susceptible to laser damage, analyze critical components using engineering and engagement level models to determine susceptibility requirements and corresponding functional system response, quantify accessibility using engagement angle and spot size dependent analysis of the susceptibility requirements, and determine irradiance, spot size, and other laser characteristic thresholds for the desired target effect.

· Perform uncertainty quantification analyses to propagate random and systematic uncertainties to develop probabilistic laser susceptibility requirements at various confidence levels and develop vulnerability modules such that data can be readily integrated into engagement and mission level models.

· Coordinate with mission and campaign level modeling groups to ensure vulnerability data is properly integrated for HEL system studies

· Develop target folders to include all documentation of the data acquired during target characterization and exploitation process, model inputs, run matrix, model assumptions, and data contained in the assessment readiness reviews and assessment data reviews.

2.6. Software, Database, and Hardware Maintenance (CDRLs A004 and A009):

· Address how you would provide software version control and distribution control compliant with DoD standards for existing and newly developed engagement-based models built under this TO. References should include MIL-HDBK-61A(SE) and the AF Software Guidebook (See Attachments to this TO).

· Address how you would maintain engagement models, such as shotline and flyout models, and software subroutines, written in languages such as C++, Fortran, Python, and Matlab, to perform laser vulnerability assessment studies, including bug fixes related to physics algorithms, compliance with latest compilers, and developing users, programming, and analyst manuals to accompany software releases.

· Address how you would optimize and maintain the use of physics and engineering level models including physical hardware, networking, cluster computing resources, and associated software.

3. TRAVEL

Provide a cost estimate for possible travel to support efforts outlined above. For evaluation purposes travel should be for the following trip:

3.1. Trip for two (2) to Huntsville, AL for three (3) days. Include in costing:

· Airfare

· Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877?utm_source=OGP&utm_medium=print-radio&utm_term=perdiem&utm_campaign=shortcuts

· Lodging

· Rental Car

4. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (CLIN 0002)

Provide a list of potential material and equipment requirements with Rough Order of Magnitude (RoM) pricing (fully loaded) not to exceed $50K.

5. SCHEDULE, DATA ITEMS, AND OTHER DELIVERABLES

5.1. Start Work: Date of Approval (DOA)

5.2. End of Technical Effort (ETE): DOA + 12 months

5.3. CDRL A001: Computer Software Product End Items: As required

5.4. CDRL A004: Presentation Material: As required

5.5. CDRL A005: Status Report: As required

5.6. CDRL A006: Technical Report – Study/Services – Scientific and Technical Reports: As required

5.7. CDRL A007: Scientific and Technical Report and Checklist: Draft due 30 days after ETE. Final due 90 days after the ETE.

5.8. CDRL A008: Computer Programming Manual: As required

5.9. CDRL A009: Software User’s Manual: As required

5.10. CDRL A013: Management Plan : As required

6. TASK ORDER OFFICER(S)

· Primary: Darren Luke

· Alternate: Shane Johnson

7. ATTACHMENT(S)

MIL-HDBK-61A(SE)

AF Software Guidebook