CAMP Request For White Papers.pdf

Counter-Air Missile Program (CAMP) Request for White Papers

1. Need: The United States Government has identified a need in the FY25 reconciliation, H.R.1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act for the development, procurement, and integration of a low-cost counter-air capability as a future class of the Affordable Mass Munitions portfolio. It is the Government’s expectation that the initial CAMP system will provide a ground-launched capability that is a viable pathway to a low-cost air-to-air missile. This effort follows the strategic direction of the Department of War to innovate warfighter advantage, accelerate production, and deliver at scale in line with the U.S. Air Force Armament Directorate’s Modular Weapon M-Series approach. The M-Series approach is defined in the M-Series Playbook previously released to industry and provided with the CUI Appendix.

2. Background: The highest priority of this effort is the development and demonstration of an affordable, open system, modular, and highly producible ground-launched capability. Ground-launch efforts will serve as a risk reduction effort expediting missile design maturation and evaluation for future affordable air-to-air missile capabilities. A ground-launch system will also serve as a new weapon class of Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV), providing a lower cost, rapid capability to integrate and demonstrate future sub-systems and components in a relevant environment prior to integration into a Program of Record weapon.

The Government is interested in the procurement of a rapid prototyping effort leveraging integration of existing high TRL technologies to deliver counter-air missiles defined in a Product Level Technical Data Package (TDP). Subsystems and components should be selected and sourced such that the integrated system is configured with the combination that efficiently achieves the desired system attributes while delivering affordable capability that can be produced in mass.

System design and development work is desired to be minimized by using high TRL components to meet a first flight test within 9 months to demonstrate vehicle ground-launch, range and speed capabilities. The Government desires the counter air weapon solution to trade exquisite capabilities for affordability and producibility in support of delivering quantities of 1,000-3,500 per year in full rate production.

3. Approach. The desired approach is to develop, integrate, and demonstrate the system prototype units on a Phase 1 effort structured with incremental product realization (capability) cycles. A subsequent Phase 2 effort would transition the CAMP ground-launched system into Program of Record (PoR) RDT&E and Production. Future Phases are envisioned which will iterate the initial ground-launched variant into an air-to-air variant.

This request focuses on Phase 1 for the realization of a ground-launched configuration and delivery of a Product Level TDP ready for future high-rate production. The desired Phase 1 period of performance is 24 months.

To realize the CAMP vision successfully with limited government resources, the Government seeks innovative commercial solutions verses traditional requirements compliance, and a strong industry partnership. We invite industry to explore non-traditional solutions that assume a more significant role in key activities such as requirements flow down, testing and evaluation. We are committed to a collaborative approach, where clear roles, responsibilities, and risk-sharing mechanisms will be established while empowering industry to apply its expertise effectively. Some concepts include System Design Agent (SDA) Approaches, Lead Integrator, Teaming, etc. Offerors should include their intended approach in their response. No specific approach is favored by the Government at this time.

In collaboration with the Government, the potential vendor/contractor team will initially decompose stakeholder needs into a tiered system of requirements establishing a framework of trade space. This will include generating derived requirements with decomposition flow down to the domain level. The initial capability cycle will implement minimal requirements with additional requirements being added in later cycles in a build-up approach. Design and development work is desired to be minimized by using high TRL/MRL components to meet a first flight within 9 months after award. CAMP will be developed as a system that meets threshold (minimum viable) Tier 1 system attributes while balancing Tier 2 (trade space) and Tier 3 (objective) attributes to produce an effective overall system that also maximizes affordability and enables rapid production.

4. CAMP System Attributes: See CUI Appendix (Instructions for requesting this are in the posting)

5. M-Series Playbook Adherence. The CAMP requirements encompass and stress Performance, Affordability, Modularity, and Producibility.

I. Modular/Open: CAMP embraces modularity and open architecture.

Modularity at the component level must be maximized in both logical architecture and physical design in compliance with the WOSA technical standard and M-Series Playbook. This will allow for competition in key subsystem domains such as propulsion, guidance, and fuze and effects.

Modularity is also integral to the adaptability of solutions to multiple mission roles (i.e. ground and air launch), achieve affordability requirements, and enable mass production of multiple variants of CAMP.

II. Digital: Embracing a digital-first approach, the Government desires for CAMP to leverage tools and methods such as collaborative digital environments, DevSecOps pipelines, Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Government Reference Architectures (GRA), and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) to the extent that achieves maximum reduction in cost, acceleration of schedule, and ease of transition to a production environment.

III. Software: All software modules will be mapped to WOSA Domains.

The contractor/vendor must deliver Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and Software Development Kits (SDKs) to enable third-party software development.

IV. Data Rights: The Government requires technical data ownership from the top system integration level definition down to the domain interfaces (common hardware/software form/fit/function interfaces: “black box” level). Government ownership of proprietary “white box” component details (algorithms, source code, etc.) is not required. However, the size, weight, CG, power draw, thermal load, mounting details, component performance capabilities, and any other data/artifacts needed to facilitate removal or replacement must be provided as component specification data and is considered form/fit/function. Sufficient component definition at the component boundary is needed to support future component replacement efforts if needed to address demand for performance improvements, diminishing sources of supply, and increase production throughput.

V. Affordability: The CAMP system All-Up Round (AUR) cost is desired to be below $500K, at a production quantity of at least 1,000 units. This likely requires maximizing the use of existing components, minimizing NRE, trading requirements, economy of scale in production, etc.

VI. Producibility: The program will prioritize producibility with established production design attributes, documented supply chain vendors, and use of creative production capacity solutions such as additive manufacturing, nontraditional partnerships, etc.

VII. Testing: The program will prioritize a “safety-first”, “learn fast” ground and flight demonstration approach with early and frequent testing throughout the incremental product realization cycles to rapidly identify and resolve issues to mature designs. Innovative test approaches leveraging flexible commercial and/or military testing environments and ranges and contractor/vendor execution of testing are encouraged.

VIII. Exportable: To enable allies and partners to use and enhance U.S.

military capabilities, CAMP systems are expected to be open and modular such that future exportability and potential partner production is not restricted. This potential could be for direct transfer or if necessary, transfer after component changes are made leveraging the open and modular features.

6. Desired White Paper Content – Not to Exceed 15 pages of content (page count does not include title page and table of contents).

The Government is interested in both system concepts as well as system development process concepts. Interested and capable sources should provide their concept with a program structure and execution plan. Collaborative/teaming arrangements are desired for program execution.

The Government prefers responses addressing all stated content. However, even if all content cannot be addressed, the Government still encourages responses that provide a description of strength areas and how beneficial contributions could be provided such as low-cost components, domain expertise, particular process capabilities, and modeling & simulation capabilities. Responding to a subset of the items below is of interest for potential teaming and collaboration opportunities.

1. Provide a description and TRL/MRL of the system concepts including expected iterative capabilities.

a. Include available/expected Performance Characteristics of AUR/Components.

2. Provide a recommended viable program approach and overall period of performance including recommended capability cycles durations considering the Government desired 24-month period of performance to complete CAMP capability delivery. If you cannot meet the desired period of performance, please respond with what would be attainable.

3. Provide Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing for the incremental capability cycles and unit cost for All Up Round Systems at 1000+ units. Please respond even if your ROM exceeds desired target of $500K per AUR.

4. Provide a description of the potential program organization and resourcing plan addressing your non-traditional innovative solutions to support a collaborative government-industry partnership.

5. Provide a description of experience and tools available for Model Based Systems Engineering.

6. In the context of the M-Series Playbook, provide the data rights construct for the technical data that would be delivered.

7. Describe past experience with the following:

a. Engineering and Program Management skillsets, processes, and tools for Model Based development

b. Design for Modularity through Systems Engineering

c. Missile System Integration Experience

d. Airframe Flight Control Expertise

e. Acquiring, tracking, and guiding toward moving airborne targets

f. Warhead and Fuzing Implementation for Counter Air

g. Rapid Engineering and Manufacturing Development

h. Weapon System Test and Evaluation Experience

i. WOSA logical communication and physical interfaces at the domain level

j. Rapid prototyping with examples, to include an agile demonstration approach.

k. Design for Manufacturability to support High-Rate Production

i. Performing Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA).

ii. Conducting competitive sourcing of subsystems and components similar to those needed for CAMP and the approach that would be used for CAMP

iii. Supply Chain Management and Risk Mitigation plan for sourcing components in support of high throughput production. Identify your top 3 supply chain risks to rapid production deliveries and high-quantity production

8. The Government is considering using the Eglin Wide Agile Acquisition Contract (EWAAC) vehicle or the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) contract vehicle.

Please provide preference and reasoning in the response.

9. If desired, explain a pathway to maturation of your technology, affordability, modularity, or manufacturability of your current system.