B08 LASSO - Company Response Template V2.0_22MAY2025 (renamed).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Call for Solutions - Low Altitude Stalking and Striking Ordnance (LASSO) Rapid Prototyping
- Solicitation number
- SOLDIER_25-01
About this file
This file is a comprehensive response template for the Low Altitude Stalking and Striking Ordnance (LASSO) Rapid Prototyping solicitation issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command. The document outlines detailed screening criteria and performance objectives for a loitering munition system designed to provide Infantry Brigade Combat Teams enhanced capabilities against peer adversary armor vehicles and hardened targets. Key performance requirements include launch in strong wind conditions, human-in-the-loop functionality, NSA-approved encryption, soldier mobility, transportability, range capabilities, target recognition, and reliability metrics.
The template prioritizes critical performance objectives in descending order, with the highest priorities being maximize effectiveness against tanks, adhere to Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) design principles, maximize soldier portability and mobility, and extend range capabilities. Specific technical requirements cover areas such as system weight, flight range, target engagement probability, system reliability, cyber resilience, audio signature minimization, and soldier training time. The solicitation seeks a prototype loitering munition system that can operate in complex terrains and environments, with an emphasis on precision fires, minimal collateral damage, and advanced targeting capabilities for Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Screening Criteria
| No | Requirement Catagory | Sub-Catagory | Requirement Paragraph | Performance Specification Requirement Paragraph | Proposal Response* | Proposal Refernece Data Location (Pg/Section/Para) |
| 1 | Screening Criteria | Launch Wind Limiations | Screen Criteria 1 | The system shall be capable of launch within a variety of strong head and cross wind conditions. | ||
| 2 | Screening Criteria | Hand-off Capability | Screen Criteria 2 | The system shall have the ability to launch from rear location and pass control of munition to a forward soldier with a Fire Control System (FCS). | ||
| 3 | Screening Criteria | Human-in-the-loop (HITL) Functionality | Screen Criteria 3 | The system shall have the ability to communicate to the HITL during engagement in order to abort mission, arm/disarm payload and detonate munition. | ||
| 4 | Screening Criteria | NSA Approved Encryption | Screen Criteria 4 | The system shall have NSA data encryption for the data link at using a wireless connection to enable confidential communication. | ||
| 5 | Screening Criteria | Handling Hazard | Screen Criteria 5 | The system shall not have any personnel hazards. No sharp edges or pinch points that can cause lacerations or bruising while setting up or operating the system. | ||
| 6 | Screening Criteria | Soldier Mobility | Screen Criteria 6 | The size and shape of the LASSO system in it's field handling configuration shall not interfere or impede movement during urban operations where Soldiers must pass through windows, doors, and other constricted spaces while carrying LASSO. | ||
| 7 | Screening Criteria | Service Ceiling | Screen Criteria 7 | The system shall be able to transit and use payloads at varying altitudes above mean sea level in support of maneuver formations. | ||
| *NO MORE THAN ONE (1) PARAGRAPH PER CELL |
Performance Objectives
| No | Sub-Catagory | Performance Objective | Requirement Traceability | Description | Proposal Response* | Proposal Refernece Data Location (Pg/Section/Para) |
| 1 | Transportability | Performance Objective 1 | P3.1 | Provide information on system packaging dimmensions via the following transportation methods: individual parachutist during airborne operation, air droppable by cargo parachute, cargo military aircraft, utility military aircraft, sling loaded, transport ship, low velocity airdrop. | ||
| 2 | Soldier Portability (Total Weight) | Performance Objective 2.1 | P1.2 | Total weight of the All-Up Round (AUR) and Fire Control System (FCS) in pounds | ||
| 3 | Soldier Portability (Total Weight) | Performance Objective 2.2 | P1.2 | Weight of the heaviest singular component within the All-Up Round (AUR) and Fire Control System (FCS) | ||
| 4 | Soldier Mobility | Performance Objective 3 | P1.3 | Total volume of LASSO system in its field handling configuration, including empty/negative space. | ||
| 5 | Range Capability | Performance Objective 4 | P1.4 | Total flight ground range (in kilometers) from launch to where the system still has the capability of 5 minutes of loitering time | ||
| 6 | System Endurance | Performance Objective 5 | P1.4 | Maximum loitering time of system after a one-way distance range of 20 kilometers | ||
| 7 | Ability to Correctly Recognize Target(s) | Performance Objective 6 | P2.1 | Largest straight-line targeting range to positively recognize targets. System must be able to search an area for targets and present those targets to the operator. The targets are ¾ view NATO tank and at the spec range the operator shall recognize them with 70% probability. | ||
| 8 | All-up Round (AUR) Reliability | Performance Objective 7 | P1.5 | Probability the LASSO All-up Round (AUR) must successfully engage (launch, flight, and strike) at least 4 out of 6 targets in reference to Objective 4 and targets referenced in Objective 6. | ||
| 9 | Fire Control System (FCS) Reliability | Performance Objective 8 | P1.6 | Fire Control System (FCS) Reliability for each individual wartime mission without incurring a system abort failure event. Mean time between system abort. | ||
| 10 | Fire Control System (FCS) Time to Repair | Performance Objective 9 | P1.7 | Time required (minutes) to repair fire control system for 90% of Soldier level maintenance tasks. Provide task list and time required (minutes) to repair fire control system for each Soldier level maintenance task. | ||
| 11 | Employment Time | Performance Objective 10 | P3.2 | Time required (minutes) required for assembly of the base system with a single operator and require no tools | ||
| 12 | Effectiveness Against Tanks (Guidance) | Performance Objective 11.1 | P1.1 | Lethality data shall be provided for the munition function against a target not less than 200 millimeters of Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) constructed in accordance with MIL-DTL-12560 at a 0° obliquity angle. This data shall include the depth of penetration, measurement method, stand-off, and images of the effect if possible. The goal of this testing is to supply a baseline for comparative analysis and not representative of the performance required covered in the classified portions of the performance specification. Specific test results expected to be based on an all-up representative system to include any electronics or structure in front of the warhead in the final configuration. | ||
| 13 | Effectiveness Against Tanks (Guidance) | Performance Objective 11.2 | P1.1 | Provide information on whether the system has the following automated capabilities: programable waypoint navigation, fuze setting, and fire to coordinate (target) terminal guidance incorporating future auto target recognition, human-in-the-loop conformation during terminal phase of the engagement. |
Weapon systems ability to accurately guide to the aimpoint in Circular Error Probability 90 (CEP90) [90% of rounds land within the radius of the circle]. Report the CEP 90% with reference test reports. The system accuracy shall be evaluated as the ability to hit a circular target within the target area along the shot line. Calculations for this probability shall be conducted consistent with Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) Pamphlet, 706-101, "Engineering Design Handbook - Weapon Systems Analysis, Part One", Department of the Army, November 1977, chapters 13 and 14. Calculations will be based on where the lethal effect would strike the target based on warhead function relative to the aim point. Methodology for assessing aim point and impact point are required as part of the presentation of results.
14 Effectiveness Against Tanks (Lethal Mechanism) Performance Objective 11.3 P1.1 Provide a description of the lethal mechanism, including how it is integrated into all up round. For each warhead of the projectile, the vendor shall provide:
Shape Charge Jet (SCJ): Liner Material Type, Explosive Material, Jet Mass, Tip Velocity, Jet Diameter, Penetration-Standoff Curve, Net Explosive Weight, Jet Breakup Time, Liner Type (i.e. trumpet, Norman helmet, hemi)
Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP): Liner Material Type, Liner Mass, Velocity, Diameter, Formed Length, Formed Density, Net Explosive Weight, Penetration-Standoff Curve
Pre-formed Fragmentation (PFF): frag size, frag velocity, number of fragments, materials types, explosive type, and explosive head height
Other: Penetration Depth, Kill Mechanism, other information that would allow for lethality assessment against tanks
| 15 | Ability to Operate in Denied Environments | Performance Objective 12 | P1.8.1, P1.8.2 | Does the system have the following: EMI Mitigation for communication and navigation, EMI Spectrum Analysis, Comm Message Recovery strategy, Radio Upgradability, Threat Compliance, Degraded Alerts, GNSS free navigation, Navigation Autonomy? |
| 16 | Operations in Cyber-Contested Environments | Performance Objective 13 | P1.8.3 | Provide information on the system's adherence to NSA’s Top 10 Cybersecurity Mitigations to ensure System Surivability. |
| 17 | Minimize Launch Signature -Audio | Performance Objective 14 | P2.2 | The audible signature of weapon system at launch in decibels |
| 18 | Minimize Flight Signature - Audio | Performance Objective 15 | P2.4 | The audible signature of weapon system during flight in decibels |
| 19 | Integration Burden to Unit | Performance Objective 16 | P2.5 | Number of hours it takes to proficiently train a soldier on operating the system |
| 20 | Soldier Safety at Launch | Performance Objective 17 | P2.8 | Auditory steady state and impulse noise at launch in decibles |
| 21 | Modularity, Open Standards, and common control | Performance Objective 18 | P1.9 | Maximize utilization of common, widely accepted interface and communication standards between major hardware and software components and subcomponents. |
Provide a development path towards common control capability.
*NO MORE THAN ONE (1) PARAGRAPH PER CELL
Priorty of Performance Obj
| LASSO Objectives (In Descending level of Priorities) |
| Maximize Effectiveness Against Tanks |
| Maximize MOSA design principles |
| Maximize Solider Portability |
| Maximize Soldier Mobility |
| Maximize Range Capability |
| Maximize ability to Correctly Indicate target(s) |
| Maximize AUR Reliability |
| Maximize FCS Reliability |
| Maximize Ability to Operate in Denied Environments |
| Maximize Operations in Cyber-Contested Environments |
| Maximize System Endurance |
| Minimize Employment Time |
| Maximize Soldier Safety at Launch |
| Minimize Launch Signature – Audio |
| Minimize FCS Time to Repair |
| Minimize Flight Signature - Audio |
| Minimize Integration Burden to Unit |
| Maximize Transportability |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .