NGAM RFP SOO FINAL 092710.pdf

HQ0147-10-R-0027

Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) Concept Definition and Program Planning

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

27 September 2010

1.0 Background

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will acquire the next generation interceptor for fielding in 2020 as an element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) will be designed to provide early intercept capability against some Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), all Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM), all Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) and non-advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) launched from the region where Aegis Weapon Systems (AWS) (including the Aegis BMD 5.1 and MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)) are located. The first phase of this acquisition is the Concept Definition and Program Planning Phase beginning in 2011, to be followed by competitive product development phase in FY13. The purpose of the Concept Definition and Program Planning contracts are to: 1) define design objectives, 2) present trades to meet that capability, and 3) optimize trades to minimize cost, schedule, and technical risks.

2.0 Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) Concept Definition and Program Planning

2.1 Objectives

2.1.1 The contractor shall develop a missile design concept within the Government provided system context and constraints.

2.1.2 The contractor shall ensure the Next Generation Aegis Missile concept interfaces are compatible with the Aegis BMD 5.1 weapon system and configuration MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), and can be qualified for shipboard use. The missile canister can be larger than the current canister, but shall be contained within the size envelope of a MK 41 launcher module. No MK 41 module-to-ship interface modifications are allowed. The contractor shall provide missile characteristics, such as missile weight, length, diameter, outside structural characteristics, estimated 1st stage booster parameters [burn time, average mass flow rate, and gas temperature profiles] to support the Government’s separate development of MK 41 VLS modifications. The contractor shall be constrained to MK 41 VLS launcher module size and safety and missile canister safety requirements, VLS module weight and dimensions to allowable limits of the Aegis CG/DDG Class Ships, and packaging, handling, shipping, and transportation (PHS&T) requirements such that any canister modifications shall not preclude the use of the canister as a missile shipping container. The contractor shall assess impacts to existing handling equipment to include cost impacts. The Government will provide existing interface information as well as any additional constraints on the missile.

2.2 Systems Engineering

2.2.1 Systems Engineering (SE) Process: The contractor shall implement a structured systems engineering process to develop, evaluate, and recommend interceptor concepts. The contractor shall conduct technology assessments;

characterize the performance of applicable technologies; develop alternative interceptor and interceptor component concepts; systematically allocate interceptor functions and performance capability to the interceptor components;

apply simulation tools with the appropriate fidelity to evaluate performance against the threats provided in the Threat Data Package; balance performance against the assessed risks and estimated costs to select a recommended interceptor concept; and develop draft missile specifications for the recommended concept.

The contractor shall discuss the flexibility of their SE process to incorporate changes in the overall BMDS architecture, including performance margin management.

2.2.2 System Engineering Trades: The contractor shall conduct interceptor system engineering trades and analyses to ensure the feasibility of the developed concepts within the BMDS and AWS operational constraints provided in the Reference Mission, External Sensor Track Data Package, and Operational Guidelines documents. The contractor shall identify a logical flow of interceptor and interceptor component trade studies starting from the system level interface constraints, performance characteristics, and operational guidelines. These technical trade studies are the basis for the development of alternative interceptor concepts, which shall be traded with system performance, technology development and integration risks, and costs.

2.2.2.1 System/Weapon System Attributes Trade Space shall include but is not limited to:

• System performance (defended area/launch area denied/probability of engagement success (Pes), battle space) versus missile velocity, divert capability, and seeker capabilities at varying levels of engagement support quality (sensor track quality, covariance, latencies, timeline, probability of single shot engagement kill, and discrimination of state-of-the-threat objects);

• Maximum potential performance against the ICBM threat of the NGAM while retaining capability for the IRBM and MRBM. A solid propulsion system is the Government preferred solution to ensure maximum compatibility for future shipboard integration. The contractor shall thoroughly document the rationale for any alternative propulsion concepts and assess the logistics and life cycle cost implications of any alternative concepts, and include as part of the trades;

• The performance impact and mitigation concepts for intercept debris and spent booster keep-out zones;

• The ability to accomplish early post-boost intercepts, if the interceptor is launched during the boost phase of the threat missile;

• The missile performance sensitivities to threat characteristics including signature, separation rate, acceleration, trajectory type, debris, and countermeasures.

2.2.2.2 Missile Attributes Trade Space: The contractor shall trade missile attributes to achieve maximum missile performance against the threat cases provided by the Government. The contractor shall recommend concepts based on a balance of achieved performance versus development and integration risks, and cost, including:

• Missile communication concepts to ensure, low latency communication capabilities in the raid scenarios as outlined in the Reference Missions document. This includes the ability to mitigate communication link countermeasures and takes into account the impact of worldwide operational frequencies on guidance and communication concepts. The benefits and costs of a communications capability in different frequency bands (e.g., L, S, X) are to be traded versus alternative surface and air communications terminal locations provided in the Reference Mission document;

• Impact of missile communication beyond AWS planned capabilities;

• Missile structures, propulsion architectures, and light weight components to maximize Vbo (velocity at burnout);

• Estimate of lethality against the threat payloads defined in the Threat

Data Package versus kill vehicle (KV) concept;

• Impact of countermeasures versus KV concept, fire control concept, and off board discrimination capabilities described in the External Sensor Track Data Package;

• Weapon system ability to support hit/kill assessment and video downlink;

• Ability of KV seeker to perform on-board discrimination versus off-board discrimination capability assumptions provided in the External Sensor Data Package;

• Anticipated structural loads and applied safety factors;

• Control concepts versus weight, and control authority and responsiveness;

• Guidance and navigation concepts;

• Seeker concepts;

• Nosecone shape, deployment, and thermal protection;

• Open architecture concepts to minimize parts obsolescence;

• Concepts for HEMP/HAENS level II (High Altitude Electromagnetic

Pulse/ High Altitude Exo-atmospheric Nuclear Survivability) core standard compliance;

• Concepts for anti tamper core standard compliance;

• Concepts for tactical flight termination/command destruct, to include plug-in Flight Termination Systems in time to meet Pacific Missile Range Facility safety requirements for Aegis Ashore;

• Concepts for tactical telemetry;

• Missile reliability and producibility, including production tolerances and minimizing single point failure;

• Concepts for reliable cables and connectors, including wireless options;

• Concepts for light weight, reliable batteries;

• Inertial Measurement Unit concepts;

• Supply chain concepts;

• Impacts to logistical baseline (maintenance, supply, transport, and storage);

• Safety, including but not limited to insensitive munitions and use of liquid propellants to include shipboard use and transportation;

• Assessments of concepts that enable missile insensitive munitions requirements including shipboard, storage and transportation configurations;

• Development costs, life cycle costs, and Average Unit Production costs.

2.2.3 Performance Analysis: The contractor shall develop and use simulations at varying levels of fidelity with scenario cases defined in the Reference Missions document plus any additional threat cases from the Threat Data Package to assess both the feasibility and performance of their missile concepts. These simulations include, but are not limited to, those needed to evaluate kinematic fly-out, defended area, fire control loop guidance performance; end-game performance;

high fidelity specialized simulations for guidance, navigation, and control design;

aerodynamics prediction; thermal and mechanical design; propulsion design;

seeker design; and performance prediction. The contractor shall provide missile parameters for the Government to use to assess the performance of the missile within the 2020 BMDS architecture.

2.3 Concept Definition Models and Simulations

2.3.1 The contractor shall develop and deliver models and simulations for the interceptor with the Simulink model-based simulation and software development environment and compliant with the Open Architecture Simulation Interface Specification (OASIS) Simitar simulation framework in accordance with the Advanced Technology Algorithm, Software and Simulation Directive and Standard. OASIS Simitar will be integrated with MDA’s Digital Simulation Architecture (DSA) and Single Stimulation Framework (SSF).

2.4 Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

2.4.1 The contractor shall assess the technical maturity and manufacturing readiness of proposed missile concepts in accordance with the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Engineering Manufacturing Readiness Level (EMRL) definitions contained in MDA 5010.24-INS. The contractor shall provide the data justifying the assessed TRL and EMRL.

2.5 Risk Assessment

2.5.1 The contractor shall establish a cost, schedule, and performance risk identification and management program, and report risks to the Government in accordance with the MDA Risk Management Instruction 3058.01-INS. The contractor shall identify the risks associated with developing the proposed missile concepts. The contractor shall also assess manufacturability risks of proposed concepts.

2.5.2 The contractor shall assess the potential risk reduction or performance improvements to their concepts from MDA technology investments.

2.6 Technology Risk Reduction

2.6.1 The contractor shall identify technology investments that would mitigate risks, lower production costs, and raise the maturity level of key technologies to TRL 6 or higher, prior to entering product development in FY13. The contractor is encouraged to leverage existing Government investments provided in the NGAM Technology Investments Summary. The contractor shall assess the impact of Government technology investments as part of their technology investment plans and recommendations. Areas of Government investment in component technology include, but are not limited to, lightweight, high performance solid Divert and Attitude Control Systems (DACS), sensor, lightweight structures, and third stage rocket motor technologies including steering control components.

2.6.2 The contractor shall propose and execute component development and testing to increase maturity and reduce risk for key technologies unique to their NGAM concepts. Technology areas that may be considered include, but are not limited to, seeker, guidance and navigation components, HAENS survivability, missile controllability, propulsion, structures, avionics, cabling, and power.

3.0 Product Development Planning and Definition

3.1 The contractor shall define a qualification, hardware in the loop (HWIL), and flight test program to verify capability and validate the models and simulations which describe missile performance. The contractor shall define test objectives for key verification events, and identify the key parameters for verification that will be the basis for defining Critical Engagement Conditions (CEC) and Empirical Measurement Events (EME) that supports the anchoring of the models and simulations.

3.2 The contractor shall define a modeling and simulation approach for tools to support all MDA element and system level modeling and simulation use cases including: Performance Assessment (PA), Ground Test (GT), Element Integration (EI), Exercises (EX), Training (TR), Wargames (WG), and Concept Analysis (CA). Simulation tools for Performance Assessment, Exercises, Training, and Element Integration use cases shall be integrated with the DSA framework, using the Optimistic Modeling Framework (OMF) interface. Hardware-in-the-loop drivers for GT shall be integrated with the Single Stimulation Framework through the Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) protocol interface. The plan shall identify tools, their supported use cases, and development schedules. The plan shall provide for consistent representation across use cases and modeling and simulation verification and validation including metrics, performance levels of each use case and planned anchoring or benchmarking data sources. The approach shall describe how modeling and simulation tools developed for this Statement of Objectives shall be transitioned to Product Development.

3.3 The contractor shall develop an event-based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) for the Product Development Phase with clearly defined knowledge points that include risk mitigation activities and critical path(s).

3.4 The contractor shall develop estimates of development, production, and life cycle costs for the concept, consistent with the assumptions the Government provided in the Operational Guidelines document.

3.5 The contractor shall develop a concept of operations for the tactical employment of the NGAM for land-based and sea-based operations.

3.6 The contractor shall develop a life-cycle logistics concept for the selected missile concept.

4.0 Mission Assurance and Safety

4.1 For the concept definition the contractor shall consider mission assurance and safety requirements in concept trade studies and assessments.

• Concept descriptions shall include an explanation of how missile concepts facilitate meeting mission assurance and safety requirements during product development;

• The contractor shall perform a Failure Modes Effect Criticality Analysis (FMECA) on recommended concepts. Safety and Reliability Critical Items (RCIs) shall be identified by the FMECA.

4.2 For the technology risk reduction in Section 2.6, the contractor shall implement the MDA-QS-001-MAP MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP) Rev. A, MDA-QS-003-PMAP-REV A MDA Parts, Materials and Processes Mission Assurance Plan (PMAP), and US Navy standards and instructions (noted in the GFI list), on the program, consistent with the Requirements Applicability Matrix (RAM) submitted by the contractor and approved by the Government.

4.3 For the product development planning and definition in section 3.0, the contractor shall plan a mission assurance (MA) and safety program that integrates these requirements into missile design, manufacture, and test. Plans shall include implementation of the MDA-QS-001-MAP MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP) Rev. A, MDA-QS-003-PMAP-REV A MDA Parts, Materials and Processes Mission Assurance Plan (PMAP) and US Navy standards and instructions (noted in the GFI list), on the program, consistent with the Requirements Applicability Matrix (RAM) proposed by the contractor for product development and approved by the Government.

4.4 For the product development planning and definition in section 3.0, the contractor shall develop a list of technical design standards for implementation in the product development phase assuring a robust system design for Reliability Availability and Maintainability (RAM). The contractor shall recommend concepts based on a balance of achieved RAM and high performance versus development and integration risks, and cost, including, though not limited to:

• Design Simplification including modular design and standard designs and parts;

• Strategy to mitigate parts obsolescence;

• Failure modes reduction, such as use of proven parts, and reduction of numbers of parts, cables or interconnects;

• Fault tolerant and fail safe designs;

• Stress tested software and firmware;

• Design margins assessment and margins management;

• Reliability and environments accelerated test strategies;

• Serviceable design for life limited parts and materials and risk of failure line replaceable units;

• Upgradeable design for software loads and common interface replaceable units;

• Built in test, access points and health monitoring for fault tolerance and/or condition awareness during manufacturing through end of serviceable life;

• Design for high manufacturing process capability and verified product characteristics.

5.0 Program Management

5.1 The contractor shall establish a program office and shall implement the policies, methodologies, processes, and provide the range and depth of personnel, systems and resources to ensure successful integrated cost, schedule, and technical performance management. The contractor shall manage and track data and related correspondence and support interface/integration activities.

5.2 The contractor shall conduct six major reviews with the Government during concept development. These six major reviews include:

• A Technology Assessment Review shall be held at no later than 4 months after contract award to, evaluate candidate missile technologies for readiness level and technical risk. The contractor shall propose activities to reduce risk, mature readiness, and lower production costs;

• An Alternative Missile Concepts Review shall be held no later than 8 months after contract award, to describe and justify the missile concepts that are being analyzed for a final concept selection;

• A Modeling and Simulation Review shall be held no later than 12 months after contract award, to present plans for high fidelity simulation development, simulation verification and validation, and ensuring the proper interfaces to MDA BMDS 2020 simulations for evaluation of contractor concepts;

• A Missile Concept and Program Planning Review shall be held no later than 15 months after contract award, to present the baseline missile concept for specification development and initial program planning;

• A Lifecycle Logistics and Stockpile Reliability Program Review shall be held no later than 18 months after contract award, to present concepts for production, transportation, safety, maintenance and refurbishment flows.

The contractor shall describe the compatibilities with existing facilities and any limitations which will require corrective actions. This review shall also provide the strategy for the procurement, storage, delivery, and use of spare and repair parts;

• A final Interceptor Requirements Review shall be held no later than 3 months prior to contract completion to present the draft missile specification and recommended program plan. It is anticipated that interim meetings shall be held as warranted by specific analysis and test milestones.

5.3 The contractor shall implement, document, and use an earned value based management system compliant with the contractor’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS) for integrated cost, schedule, and technical performance management in accordance with DFARS 252.234-7001, DFARS 252.234-7002 and the Industry Guidelines for EVMS contained in ANSI/EIA Standard 748.

5.3.1 The contractor shall engage jointly with the Government’s program manager in annual Government led Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) to evaluate the risks inherent in the contract’s planned performance measurement baseline.

Initially, this shall occur as soon as feasible but not later than four (4) months after contract award.

5.3.2 The contractor shall develop, maintain, and provide to the Government an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) by logically networking detailed program activities. The contractor shall submit Schedule Risk Assessments (SRA) at the initial IBR and quarterly after that.