LASSO Industry Day Questionnaire 29-31 October 2024.pdf

Industry Day Questionnaire

1. Company Background

a. Company Name

b. Company Address

c. Company Point of Contact (POC)- (no nicknames), phone number, and e-mail address.

d. Company Cage Code- (if applicable), business unit, and address. (This will be used to validate Controlled Unclassified Information (CU)I access and participation eligibility)

e. Full names of all attendees- Include memo from the Facility Security Officer (FSO) stating they are US citizens.

f. Does your company have authorization to serve as a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor (Y/N)

g. Provide a short description of your company’s services.

h. Business Type (Large, Small, other classifications of status)

i. Does your business qualify as a Non-Traditional Defense Contractor?

j. Do you intend to be prime contractor or subcontractor? Please see description in announcement.

k. Do you have any International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or other similar restrictions?

l. There is an Operational Security (OPSEC) requirement to assure all company attendees meet access requirements IAW 32 CFR 117, NISPOM and DoDM 5200.48, CUI. CUI information is not releasable to the public, therefore please coordinate with your Security Managers and:

i. Respond if your company and individuals attending both the open presentation and 1on1 discussions DO or DO NOT meet the requirements stated above. There is a private room set up second half of 29-31Oct24 for subcontractors to meet with prime vendors.

ii. Company responses should include a statement as shown: “attendees meet the access requirements IAW 32 CFR 117, NISPOM and DoDM

5200.48, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).”

2. All Up Round (AUR) System Specific Information

a. Name of the System

b. System Description including picture showing major components.

c. What is the AUR Weight?

d. What are the dimensions of the AUR?

e. What is the Fire Control Station Weight (includes all ancillary equipment needed to operate out to 20km or 30km)?

f. Is the controller handheld in size? Provide Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) of the fire control device

g. What is system total shipping weight?

h. What are system shipping dimensions?

i. Is the system Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) compliant? If so, what components?

j. Do you manufacture an inert (no energetics) version of your system?

3. System Performance

a. What is the munition/fuse type and manufacturer used in the system? Is this lethal payload capable of defeating a tank? Please provide evidence collected via modeling simulation and testing. Warhead/fuze must be internal to airframe.

b. What products, if any, are Army Safety Fuze board certified? What products, if any, are certified by other US Department of Defense Services?

c. What type of propulsion is being used for the AUR?

d. What type of batteries are used for the AUR? What energy density rating do the batteries have (W*Hr/Kg)?

e. Are there arming and safety mechanisms on the AUR?

f. Does the AUR have a data port and charging port?

g. What is the system's endurance (in min) under favorable conditions?

h. What is the system's range under favorable conditions (<=10mph head wind)?

i. What is the system's max loitering time (at 20km)?

j. What is the cruise and dash speed of the AUR?

k. Is the launch mechanism either gas generated, compressed air, or battery?

l. What is the system's setup time?

m. What radio does the system use? Is the radio unit modular and swappable?

What is the radio’s max range?

n. Is the Fire Control System (FCS) data encrypted using National Security

Agency (NSA) approved encryption standard?

o. Can the FCS perform handoff, abort, arm/disarm (to include status), retarget, and waypoints functionality?

p. Can the system sustain lock to the target in the terminal phase of engagement?

q. Is the flight control on the FCS semi-autonomous with continuous flight when loss of communication is experienced?

r. What type of navigation does the AUR utilize (Global Positioning System (GPS), Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), Visual navigation or other)?

s. Is the GPS Select Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M-Code capable?

t. Has any environmental performance testing been conducted on the system?

If so, please list all the government monitored/conducted environmental testing.

u. What are the specific maintenance requirements for your product?

v. What is the Technology Readiness Level of the system?

w. What is current reliability of the system? What is the reliability of the air vehicle? What is the reliability of the FCS?

x. What is the Gimbal and payload performance characteristics (angle of look, pan, tilt, zoom, image quality (in pixels for Electro-Optical / Infrared (EO/IR)), ability to pixel lock from what range in EO/IRl? What type of EO/IR Sensor is mounted/integrated into the AUR?

y. What onboard capabilities are in the AUR to ensure survivability of flight, given an EW cluttered and contested operating environment (SAASM, M- CODE, Vision Based Navigation (VBN), etc.)? Has the system tested under realistic EW threat conditions? If yes, what was the event or location?

4. Pricing and Production

a. What is the estimated AUR Unit Price for 15 systems? (prime vendors only)

b. What is the estimated FCS price for 15 systems? (prime vendors only)

c. What is the production lead time of the system?

d. What is the monthly production rate?

5. System Architecture and Common Controller Integration

The system architecture effort will iteratively enable command and control of Loitering Munitions (LMs) in support of Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) across the Army Command and Control infrastructure. Beginning with integration in PEO Soldier managed products or programs, and progressing to integration in the Integrated Tactical Network, the Fires Network and eventually with other manned or unattended systems.

The system architecture will use MOSA compliant command and control networks, radios, software, architecture and products to create a software back-bone that can manage and integrate LMs. The initial effort will focus on integration with existing systems or hardware to greatly reduce sensor to shooter timeline and putting anti-tank lethality into the hands of the IBCT to engage targets out to 20-35 km from the Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT), with numerous mission scenarios. The integration will enable an iterative approach to conduct P3Is to increase capability over time. These would include, but not limited to; aided target recognition algorithms, autonomy, vision-based navigation, improved munitions, electronic warfare threat mitigation, Alternative - Position, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) enhancements, etc.

For the common controller the initial effort is envisioned as a Tactical Communications (TAC) based plug in. The application would reside on NettWarrior based devices to view, track, task, pass targets and call multiple LMs. This approach leverages hardware that soldiers already carry to reduce the weight burden. It is possible a variety of LMs will be procured from multiple vendors. Future integration efforts will span different ground and aerial based products managed across many Army Acquisition groups. The common control effort will rapidly advance to controlling multiple variants of LMs and to understand, develop, produce and deliver an interface-controlled design of a common controller application. Upon effective integration with multiple other products and programs (e.g. NettWarrior, Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), APP controlling proprietary LMs via a TAC based Plug-in, tactical radios, etc.) and Government approval, deliver the software application.

LASSO system architecture will have a phased implementation in Program system development. The goal of the architecture framework is to minimize system Size, Weight, Power and Cost (SWaP-C while maximizing system lethality (by improving precision and reducing the kill-chain timing), interoperability, and survivability (by improving resilience). The LASSO architecture will be developed to accommodate the following:

a. LASSO’s ability to integrate with the larger Army ecosystem (Integrated Tactical Network (ITN), UxVs, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems etc.)

b. LASSO's ability to adapt to evolving threats by iterating software and hardware of the lethality and survivability systems

LASSO will leverage MOSA compliant interfaces between key system components and will be interoperable with ITN, NettWarrior, and common controller framework and will incorporate features that enable autonomy, multiple effects on targets, and rapid technology insertion. Given this background:

a. Describe your prior implementations of Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) and Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) conformant architectures.

b. Some potential MOSA modules for LASSO can be warhead, gimbal, batteries, radios, common control, flight control etc. Describe potential modularity to LASSO architecture and your expertise in one or more of these modules. Describe your experience developing the interface control documents between similar modules.

c. Describe your experience integrating and executing complex software efforts for military programs along with any applications of FACE.

d. Describe your experience leveraging MOSA/FACE to provide capability refresh within short timelines.