ON 1.1 _ Industry Day Qestions and Response_25 APR 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-22-R-0012
About this file
This Broad Agency Announcement solicits proposals for the Test and Evaluation Science and Technology Program. The Program seeks technologies at Technology Readiness Levels 3 through 6 to improve the quality, cost effectiveness, and timeliness of Department of Defense test and evaluation. Proposals should address test technology needs across acquisition, including developmental testing, operational testing, and live-fire testing. Specific areas of interest include high-altitude electromagnetic pulse simulation, target swarm tracking, unmanned aircraft system instrumentation for high-power microwave attacks, vacuum-related anechoic chambers, and hypersonic optical hardware-in-the-loop simulation. Proposals will be accepted through the period of performance ending February 2023.
View the file
Other files
Show all 43
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
Sheet1
| TOPIC: NON-TECHNICAL/ORGANIZATIONAL/ADMINISTRATIVE | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | General Question: In terms of the relationship between the developer and the customer/Pax River, what level of interaction and support do you seek? Is it enduring support for the capability, or is it something different? | For this S&T acquisition, we are focused on investigating newer technologies to have a more-reliable horizontal pulser technology. It's also applicable to the WSTC pulser. We will interact with Patuxent River Naval Air Station (Pax) personnel as part of our Government Integrated Product Team, so that, similar to other Government investments, we have an IPT that's typically involved in reviewing Monthly Status Reports and interacting with the development team in the early part of the effort, and then participating in the final demonstration at one of their facilities for the end of the S&T program. If the S&T effort is successful, the technology will be considered in a CTEIP effort, which would be the complete test capability investment into both EMP simulators, at Pax and WSTC. It is possible that PEO STRI would be selected to be the Executing Agent and the Project Director for that test capability development project at the CTEIP level. This topic was identified in the Nuclear Modernization Issue Paper for POM 2022, and it's envisioned that this S&T development will impact the capability developments that need to be invested in at both Pax and WSTC in the next few years. |
| TOPIC: TARGET SWARM TRACKING | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Target Swarm Tracking: The only real specifications that that are provided in the solicitation--and, this is the Target Swarm Tracking topics that we’re discussing—and you have engagement ranges up to 10km—Is there a minimum range that we need to be able to track a target at | The Government has not specified a requirement for minimum range. |
| 2 | Target Swarm Tracking: We don’t know whether you wanted to come in to a couple of hundred meters, or even closer than that. | The Government has not specified a requirement for minimum range. |
| 3 | Target Swarm Tracking: Is it is assumed that the targets in the swarm will be roughly at the same range, or will you [inaudible] track targets at where some are at 1km and some are at 10km? Do you anticipate that you will have to track it at multiple different ranges? | Assume that you would have to track targets at multiple different ranges |
| 4 | Target Swarm Tracking: So [should] we assume that, as a worst case, [you would have one target at 1km and one target at 10km] | The Government has not specified a requirement in this manner. |
| 5 | Can you provide what the swarm Area of Regard would be? It isn’t defined in the solicitation. | The Government has not specified a requirement for Area of Regard. |
| 6 | Target Swarm Tracking: There’s a statement in here that tracking data format must be compatible with range infrastructure and formats currently used by ranges. What is the format that we would need to provide, for the system we plan to propose? | The Government envisions that this prototype will be used at the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). |
| 7 | Is the intent to have a hardened system that could sit out in the field? Or is this just to [provide] [garbled] a proof of concept, at least initially, for trying to determine if we need to include issued regarding hardened systems? | This is an S&T project, so this should be focused on Proof of Concept. A more-rigorous range system would be beyond the S&T program. |
| 8 | Will this system need to provide range information to the target, or is it just a tracking system? | As stated in the topic description, this system is to provide target tracking information to the HEL Weapon System, as well as supporting range situational awareness displays. |
| 9 | [Is the intent to] get angular information [from] the range to the target, but not a range to the target? | The system is to provide the range to each target, not just angular information. |
| 10 | For each individual target in the swarm, [do you want to know] the distance to each of those targets? | Assume that you would have to track targets at multiple different ranges |
| 11 | Is the intent of these projects, if awarded, 12-month type of programs, or is there any expectation of that? | Typically, our only constraint is that if we award it as a FAR-based C-type contract, we have a limit of 5 years or 60 months, but there are avenues for extending beyond that. However, generally in S&T, we want to do a phased approach, or incrementally reducing risk, for addressing the S&T challenge in a deliberate and controlled way. So, we typically see projects in the 2-to-4 year range, and it provides a little bit of a cushion if we run into technical issues throughout that phased approach progressing from TRL 3 to TRL 6. |
| 12 | Should we include steps for hardening in the proposal that we submit? Like say, [phase] one would be the proof of concept that shows that we can provide all of the information necessary; phase two would be hardening that design and delivering it to HELSTF? | Building to a sustainable capability is typically outside of the S&T charter. So, really, we want the effort to culminate in a demonstration of a prototype in a relevant environment that addresses the S&T challenge. Then we can officially say, from the Government perspective, that the technology is TRL 6. Beyond that would be in excess of what the S&T funding is intended for. |
| 13 | Target Swarm Tracking: Are you looking for a specific new sensor to be built in addition to what the ranges already have, like radar, or if it’s more of a software-type system that can resolve tracks, that takes the radars and their input? Can you clarify? | The solution is up to the offerer. |
| 14 | Target Swarm Tracking: Could we submit something more along the lines of an [electro-optic] solution that could ultimately come up with additional questions, like “Could you have a laser? Would there be eye safety requirements?” –Things like that? | The solution is up to the offerer. |
| 15 | Target Swarm Tracking: You mentioned in the document that you need it to be compatible with the range data formats and their situational awareness displays [sic], and we're just wondering if we could reach out to someone at the range that could give us a little more detail about their data formats and their displays so that we could explore whether or not we could accommodate that? Is there a Point of Contact? | The Government envisions that this prototype will be used at the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). |
| 16 | Target Swarm Tracking: Do you have in mind any requirements for range resolution, besides the accuracy requirement you have? | The Government has not specified a requirement for range resolution. |
| 17 | Target Swarm Tracking: Are you thinking a hemispherical, or a point solution? Will the swarm targets all be in a similar region of direction, for requiring and resolving their locations [sic]? Typically, radar picks up 360-degree kinds of points, but then you don’t know what you actually have out there—you just have a blip; so I was just curious if it was a larger space you were looking for to acquire those targets and resolve them? | The solution is up to the offeror. |
| 18 | Target Swarm Tracking: Are you expecting a solution that does, or does not, instrument the targets in any way? Or does it matter? | The solution is up to the offerer. |
| 19 | Target Swarm Tracking: Do you guys have any constraints on active versus passive? You guys already have radar, so is passive presumably acceptable? | The solution is up to the offerer. |
| 20 | Target Swarm Tracking: Are you looking for [target] acquisition as well as tracking? You just say “tracking” in the solicitation. | Specifically, it’s for tracking. |
| 21 | Target Swarm Tracking: So we should assume that acquisition at the level of accuracy that you require is going to come from a separate system? | The Government has not specified this as a requirement. |
| 22 | Target Swarm Tracking: So acquisition is not to the accuracy specs you [published] [garbled]? | The Government has not specified this as a requirement. |
| 23 | Target Swarm Tracking: Do you have any knowledge of the minimum separation for these targets, in terms of refining the requirements of the system? [The published specs] don’t tell us anything about the resolution requirements. When the swarm is close together, it becomes difficult to resolve individual targets. | The Government has not specified this as a requirement. |
| 24 | Target Swarm Tracking: Are there other test venues [other than HELSFT] that might be [issuing] requirements from this system? | The Government IPT will include other Services with unique testing challenges. However, the Government IPT will not levy any additional requirements other than what is listed in the topic. |
| 25 | Target Swarm Tracking: Can you provide any more detail into the backgrounds besides what you’ve already provided [in the solicitation]? | The Government will not levy any additional requiements other than what is listed in the topic. |
| TOPIC: HPM, GENERAL | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | [For a High Power Microwave Detector for instrumented UAS,] How much do you need it to weigh? | The topic identifies the goal weight for the instrumentation package. However the total weight of the instrumentation package and UAS is dependent on the solution provided by the offeror. |
| TOPIC: Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: [From what we read in the solicitation,] how is this type of test and evaluation currently done on UASs, and what are the actual [garbled] current approaches that [motivate] you to look for different solutions? | We have several efforts to identify the HPM theme. Our current topic is to instrument the actual target. All of our current projects are hardened sensors that fly in the air, and, by and large, report down along fibers, because they're going to survive the HPM. The target, however, does not survive the HPM, or at least we hope it doesn't, and we would like to instrument that. Now, for years, we've had a BAA topic that's down around 1 lb for the lower, Tier 1 UASs, which weigh less than 20 lbs, doesn't have a lot of power, flies 100 meters. We haven't had any proposals or white papers to address the light-weight one. So we decided we would first and try to get something that would try to instrument a Tier 2, or maybe a top-end Tier 1, and we set a limit on the instrument, and its antenna, or probe, or some way of sensing the HPM onto the actual target, down around 3 lbs. Those are probably doable with the increase in technology. The one on the various drones we fly now that are sensing the antenna weigh about 4 to 5 lbs. Improving that technology is probably easy. The hard part is that the test director, when he's attacking a swarm, would like to know how he's doing faster than having to go and collect [the data] on the ground and sort out all the different targets. So, we're asking for telemetry here, and that's really hard, since telemetry electronics are our normal HPM target. We have to figure out some way to get around the HPM, and, if we're lucky, as the target's going to the ground, telemeter the HPM observed to the ground. |
| 2 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: Are you interested in measuring the instant HPM at the exterior of a UAS, or are you interested in measuring the HPM that penetrates to the interior of the UAS? | Inside the UAS is probably a bridge too far. We're interested in knowing what the field is at the actual target. Envelope detection is adequate. We don't need a time domain, for this particular estimate. |
| 3 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: What is the distance that the wireless telemetry needs to cover between the target and the base station? | That is your proposal. |
| 4 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: Are there any restrictions or recommendations in terms of the protocol or format of telemetry? | For format of telemetry, the information we'd like at the ground can be in your format as HPM pulse envelope and distance from target UAS to the telemetry receiver is kind of your choice, because the receiver (of the telemetry) could be under the attacked UAS or somewhere else. In the beam is probably not a good idea, but actual telemetry receiver location is for your proposal. For the HPM attack, we're testing at 1 to 5 km, and we have no information in there about the base station. That's what you would propose, and we need in the telemetry would be envelope detection for each pulse. We maybe get 5 to 10 pulses into the target before it comes down, [or] maybe less. One pulse, hopefully. We'd like to know what that pulse was at the target. If you have a base station under where we're attacking the UAS, that's quite different than having a base station at the HPM device. That's [for] your proposal. |
| 5 | For the range of the altitude for the UAS, [garbled] when it is posed with the HPM, I guess the lowest altitude is [equivalent to] running across the ground, but [what is] the highest altitude limited to? | We're looking at upper-end Tier 1 and Tier 2 UASs. How high they fly, how fast they fly, how long they stay up, etc. can be found on the Internet. That's what the "tier" means; sometimes called "class” or “group,” if you’re looking it up on the Internet. |
| 6 | So Tier 1/Tier 2 is about the target platform? | Yes, Tier 1 probably can't get higher than about 150 meters, and it flies for a shorter period of time. |
| 7 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: For a lot of the SBIRs we see these days, they are kind of “out there” in their specs. You might see 10 Hz to terahertz or something like that, and that’s barely exaggerating, when in reality they expect to get something that’s a lot more limited. Should we take [the 3lb throw weight you discussed earlier for Medium UAS HPM instrumentation] as a hard limit, or as a target? | Unfortunately, for the upper-end Tier 1, it's a hard limit. You can get bigger ones on Tier 2 [targets]. We've got a Tier 2 tethered version now that carries a 5 lb sensor with its probes, and drags what must be a 40 lb tether. Wires and power goes up to it. We're not powering it onboard. That's another issue you need to address: How are you going to power this thing? Normally, an upper-end Tier 1 doesn't have power to spare to drive your system in addition to flying. For the frequencies to be observed: 300MHz to 12GHz (UHF through X-Band), although 100GHz would be nice it is not really needed yet. This is S&T so if as you progress you can only do a subset of these frequencies, that is okay, too. |
| 8 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: Is there a size goal [for medium UAS HPM instrumentation] as well as the weight goal [from the previous question]? | Some of these Tier 1's are reasonably large. They're made out of styrofoam. They're really hard to see. If you have a little spider hexapod, it's got to fit on board, but I don't think that's part of our current requirement. It has to be light enough to be lifted. And shielded. That's the issue. This would be no problem at all if it didn't need to be shielded, also. |
| 9 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: For this effort, would hardening of the targets be a part of it? | No. That's counter-productive. We would want to be able to shoot down the targets. |
| 10 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: Would you want any sort of positioning information, or is that not required? | It's not required by the task. We're assuming that they've got a radar or something else that keeps track of all those targets in a swarm. But if you want to provide that information, sure. It’s not part of the requirement, though |
| 11 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: What is the minimum pulse width? It looks like [the solicitation] stated a maximum pulse width, but what about a minimum? | I am not familiar with a wide-band counter-UAS system. But with a typical wide-band system, you probably wouldn't get any smaller than 5 nano-seconds for this application. Typical narrowband is probably greater than 15ns |
| 12 | Medium UAS HPM Attack Instrumentation: [We talked about] peak power, pulse length... Are there any other key measurements or IDs that you would also like us to go for? | No, this is for testing our HPM systems, so we would already know things like frequency and that kind of stuff. It wouldn’t hurt if it had an accelerometer on it, so we knew when it started to go down. Like, it was pulse 6 that did the [garbled], but that was an addition—it wasn’t part of our requirement. |
| TOPIC: VACUUM-RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: Looking at the Anechoic Chamber topic--the Vacuum Related atomic oxygen, Starting off: Just some basic parameterization: Are there any peak average power requirements that we're targeting? | Some things that aren't in here is that the customer is interested in doing not only high-powered microwaves, which is what we do for a living, but they're interested in doing [Electronic Warfare], too. As you know, this is to test a satellite, and while we use the term "high-power microwaves," it would be very, very difficult to get a truly-high-power signal onto a satellite. Nor do we think it will take a very-high signal strength to disrupt a satellite. So, no, the powers that are put on board the target inside this thing are not really high. However, this is a high-power microwave system, so rise time is fast, and even at the lower peak power on target the average power is even lower. |
| 2 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: Are there any rough orders of magnitude that we will be injecting for thermal management atomic oxygen? | Yes, it will probably be in the range of volts per meter; 10's, 100's, than (??) into kilovolts. Like I said: This is a satellite. |
| 3 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: Are there any GFE or Government facilities that we can leverage for anechoic atomic oxygen materials testing? | Yes, they sit in Tullahoma. They are readily available from Boeing and these big guys who build these satellites, because they need to test that too, but that sounds like something you'd look up online. They had no trouble doing the stat chamber [sic] in 2008, 2009, which is another CTEIP program. Again, you can find all of that information on the Internet. |
| 4 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: [In terms of size dimensions], obviously there are some serious constraints with the existing chamber, are there any limitations on absorber size that we’re targeting? | Yes. We don't know exactly what they are. [In] the original chamber, they looked into cones. But they were too restrictive. They restricted the amount of usable volume too much. This task was not viable in 2009, 2010 because of the nature of the anechoic materials then. There's been a lot of anechoic materials offered online now. Some of it looks like cardboard. But none of those have been tested. |
| 5 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: Is there a size constraint on the absorber height? | For the system that Tullahoma would like to get, probably not. But [for] the system we would be able to test in, the system is about 1.25m and the volume of the target they would like to test is .75m^3. URL is provided above. |
| 6 | VACUUM RELATED ANECHOIC CHAMBER: Is there a cadence (??) for testing? –Number of up/down cycles, or hours or operation per week? … I guess what I’m trying to get down to is the degradation of atomic oxygen on materials, and…the exposure rates for time? | It's more like events. As I recall, those people in Tullahoma two or three years ago when I was involved... [sic] and I just told you how small this volume is. So, we're talking about cube sats without their solar panels. I think, in general, it takes them about three hours to get down there, and then the atomic oxygen is not injected until they’re down, and then the tests take an hour, or two hours. Now, the original stat--and I admit I don't know if they can still do this--they used to make changes because they have a great big volume area attaching to this thing, and they'll do modifications inside in a much-larger area, and then separate it off again with the new satellite in place. Let's call it a "waiting room" that's also under vacuum. I don't know if they still use that anymore. It was with the original CTEIP program. |
| TOPIC: SPECIAL INTEREST AREA – HIGH-ALTITUDE ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Back to the HEMP topic: I’m looking for a priority in terms of whether you’re seeking a new solution, or [if there’s] an existing technical capability but lower cost, higher reliability. What’s the trade-off for you | Higher reliability? Absolutely. At Pax River now, when they get up to around 4 megavolts for charging (this is for charging up the thing), they start to get unstable. So, yes, reliability is important. PS: I asked the experts at Arnold AFB. The answer is for the STAT chamber they have 4 events a year and the chamber is at vacuum for 2-3 weeks per event. The large chamber they hope to build has fewer events for longer periods for the same time under vacuum. Atomic Oxygen reacts with the walls and system under test (SUT) and is not injected until chamber and SUT outgassing is done so exposure to O is considerably shorter. |
| 2 | SIA-HEMP: Dr. Jeff Schleher had previously mentioned that the total program, included the upgraded deliverable PULSRs, as the end result here, at some point could be under an S&T program. Is that the case, or would it have to transition to CTEIP funding at some point? | WHITNEY WINCHESTER: The intent of the topic is that we're looking for a demonstration of a prototype in a relevant environment. I think we indicate testing in a final demonstration, ideally in a Government facility, whether that is Patuxent River Naval Air Station (Pax) or White Sands Test Center (WSTC). That's up to the offeror and the solution. But, ultimately, big picture, this topic fell out of a need that was issued in the Nuclear Modernization POM FY22 issue paper, and since there were many S&T challenges identified, the T&E S&T program was chosen to execute this investment. It's envisioned that after a successful final demonstration, the technology would transition to a test capability development program funded by CTEIP. CTEIP is the other program management office within the Test Resource Management Center. Once the pulser technology is deemed reliable and at TRL 6, CTEIP would be outfitting both Pax and WSTC with the new pulser technology as a capability development project as sustainable capabilities at both ranges. |
JEFF SCHLEHER: To extend Whitney’s discussion a little bit: Last week we received a potential customer at Pax River, and with his solution, for what he thought should go forward, there were a number of S&T activities, and so it was thought that maybe we'd better address them first before we try a more-risky acquisition program. Now, your solution may be different than what was proposed in the Government White Paper.
3 When we had previously talked to the folks in the community, there was a desire at that time to over-test to the 2169 Beta spec. That becomes a little more difficult with 2169 Delta. Is there still an interest in the community to over-test? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "overtest." But there is a desire to be able to hand in our topic, larger aircraft. As you know, the E4B was quite a challenge. And so there should be a capability to handle a larger item that has been conveniently or stably done in the past. And so, yes, for a fighter, if you lowered it down, you would be overtesting. But I'm not sure that's actually the goal of this.
| TOPIC: QUESTION FOR EWT TEAM | ||
| Question # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | When you’re talking about hypersonic optical and sensor Hardware-In-The-Loop, we have infrared modeling capabilities, we do have infrared/”Log-G” (??) sensor capabilities. We have data. We have modeling of the full atmospheric layers and conditions, and such. Do you have any hardware or Hardware-In-The-Loop in mind where we can provide the [back-end] modeling and simulation piece into the system? I think [during the Industry/Academia Day Forum Session] you were talking about having a mixture of hardware and software [for] building optical signature inputs. | New capabilities developed by this BAA topic will be integrated into existing HWIL test systems including the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) and the Army’s Aviation Missile Center (AvMC). A modular approach to adding a hypersonic defense test capability to these, and potentially other, facilities is desired. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .