APPENDIX A System Capability Document (SCD)
0.0 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle System
This document describes the design and capabilities for a notional Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Operational System (UOS) which effectively and affordably prosecutes SEAD/Strike missions as part of an integrated air campaign in the post 2010 timeframe. During the high threat, early phases of a campaign, the UCAV will penetrate enemy air defenses and provide preemptive and reactive SEAD and prosecute non-hardened high value targets within the adversarys infrastructure. Throughout the remainder of the campaign, the UCAV will provide continuous vigilance and an immediate lethal strike capability to effectively prosecute real-time and time critical targets and to maintain suppression of enemy IADs.
The UOS SCD is not intended to specify the design, but to provide government insight on the basic bounds to the solution space. The intent of the SCD is to provide guidance on WHAT the UOS should be, not HOW to achieve those objectives. There is no list of advanced technologies that must be included in your UOS. The offeror is encouraged to fully exploit innovative concepts and advanced technologies for radically reducing the acquisition and total life cycle cost of the UCAV system for all aspects of a UOS. The government envisions a UOS air vehicle with unit cost less then one-third of the Joint Strike Fighter, and reduction in total life cycle of 50-80% compared to a current tactical aircraft squadron.
The specifications in this appendix should serve as bounds for the UOS and are tradable except for the following:
The UOS will be judged on its documented potential to effectively and affordably perform the SEAD/Strike mission. Only through a thorough exploration of the trade space can the offeror define a UOS that will form the basis of an ATD program that provides best value to the government.
The offerors UOS design will focus the UCAV Demonstrator System (UDS) on maturing and demonstrating the critical technologies fundamental to the operational implementation of the UCAV vision. The government acknowledges that the UDS will not demonstrate all aspects and functions of the UOS, and is not meant to be a product prototype or provide a residual operational capability. We believe focusing on the SEAD/Strike mission will allow the UCAV ATD program to answer the fundamental technical questions for any UCAV application. Properly balancing the trade-off between mission specific and generic UCAV technologies will be critical to the success of the UCAV ATD program.
This document follows the format of the Work Outline described in Section 4.1 and provides a minimum framework for describing the offerors Operational System Concept (OSC). In many instances specific sub-levels do not contain a description of desired system capability but are defined as a placeholder for the OSC. The offeror is free to propose a completely different work outline. However, to allow for an equitable comparison of competing concepts the offeror shall ensure their work outline addresses all the program elements in this document.
1.0 Air Vehicle
1.1 Airframe Subsystem. The UOS airframe design is not limited to current strike aircraft flight hour or man-rated constraints. Flight hour lifetimes should be selected consistent with the offerors UCAV CONOPS and supportability concept. Advanced design methodologies that enable low cost manufacturing techniques should be fully explored. The two primary subsystem drivers are mission effectiveness and affordability.
1.1.1 Flight Characteristics. The UOS must have sufficient range and loiter capability to perform the missions described in Appendix B. It is desired that the UOS be capable of performing several missions as a means of achieving cost effectiveness. Due to its unique characteristics, it may be possible to combine roles and missions not normally viewed as complementary or compatible.
1.1.2 Takeoff and Landing Capability. The UOS should not require any unique basing requirements and should be able to operate from NATO standard 8,000 ft runways.
1.1.3 Operating Environment. The UOS must have a weapons delivery and targeting capability to effectively strike targets in adverse weather, day or night. The UOS must be able to operate under the same conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude, etc.) as other combat aircraft. The airframe design should have measures to minimize the effects of static electricity and lightning strikes. In order to operate with manned systems, external lighting must be compatible with Night Vision Devices.
1.1.4 Air Worthiness. Flight safety shall not be sacrificed to meet system capability. System integrity shall be consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other international standards. The UOS should be capable of safe operation in worldwide deployments over populated areas and in controlled air space.
1.1.5 Fuselage. The fuselage design and manufacture should take full advantage of advanced design methodologies and low cost manufacturing techniques to exploit the advantages of non-man rated designs. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals.
1.1.6 Wing. The wing design and manufacture should take full advantage of advanced design methodologies and low cost manufacturing techniques to exploit the advantages of non-man rated designs. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals.
1.1.7 Control Effectors. It is desired that the control effectors provide enhanced survivability characteristics at a lower life cycle cost.
1.1.8 Engine Nacelles, Inlet & Exhaust Ducts. The UOS should represent the optimal combination of inlet(s), low observable materials, and thrust vectoring which meets the mission performance goals and maximizes affordability.
1.1.9 Landing Gear. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals..
1.1.10 Airframe Mounted Systems. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program or other combat capability that is equivalent to the offerors UCAV concept.
1.1.11 Radomes. Radio Frequency surface structures for sensors and communications shall be compatible with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.1.12 Apertures. The UOS shall have low observable apertures consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.2 Propulsion. The propulsion system should be designed to provide overall system performance consistent with mission performance goals. In addition, the propulsion system should be designed consistent with maintainability, long term storage, and deployability requirements. Propulsion subsystem components do not have to be man-rated. Life cycle contingency management issues such as propulsion maintenance and upgrades/changes during dormancy should be addressed.
1.2.1 Engine. The engine shall have performance and affordability features consistent with mission requirements and support concepts. To that end, existing core engines, are acceptable if cost/performance trades prove they are effective and can meet the long-term storage concept requirements.
1.2.2 Nozzle. The UOS shall have a nozzle consistent with mission requirements. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals.
1.2.3 Engine Mounted Accessories. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals.
1.2.4 Power Management & Distribution. It is desired to radically reduce production and support costs relative to the Joint Strike Fighter program goals. The UOS should take full advantage of advances in electric power management and distribution subsystems and maintenance free aircraft batteries.
1.3 Vehicle Management System (VMS). The on-board VMS must be compatible with the offerors CONOPS and supportability concepts. It is desired that the VMS architecture is modular to the point that systems can be tested, replaced and/or changed while in operational status or dormancy without impact to the system. This VMS shall enable the variable control architecture consistent with the UCAV mission description, concept of operations and the combination on-board/off-board targeting architecture. It is desired that the VMS coordinate the activities of all avionics sub-systems and provide appropriate interfaces to the payload and weapons sub-systems. The VMS should allow both autonomous control of vehicle systems and interaction with the mission management system as described in Section 1.4 of this appendix.
1.3.1 Flight Controls. This function performs the actual mechanical operations of the vehicle to accomplish the mission and should be highly automated. This function continually implements the collision avoidance, terrain avoidance, and attack maneuvering to the accuracy required by the MMS (see section 1.4).
1.3.2 Air Data System. The UOS shall have low observable air data system consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.3.3 Navigation. The navigation subsystem shall provide accurate navigation throughout the mission profile and be capable of dynamically responding to course changes during all phases of the mission profile. This subsystem shall be compliant with the Global Air Navigation System (GANS). The navigation subsystem should support the MMS operations described in Section 1.4 of this appendix.
1.3.4 Integrated Operations/Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). The UOS shall have the capability to operate in mixed manned/unmanned force packages. The UOS shall have a highly reliable IFF capability. It is desired that the UOS air vehicle support an on-board/off-board information exchange architecture that allows the mission control team to maintain the knowledge of friendly and hostile forces required to accomplish the mission.
1.3.5 System Status. It is desired that the avionics suite incorporate a system status architecture which allows autonomous on-board analysis, top level mission control station monitoring and in-depth mission control station analysis.
1.4 Mission Management System (MMS). The MMS should take full advantage of the information technology revolution. It is desired to make maximum use of on-board and off-board intelligent decision aids to minimize mission control team workload and enable graceful degradation of system functionality during emergency operations. At a minimum, the avionics suite should have the embedded intelligence to autonomously respond to dynamic real-time events such as pop-up threats and loss of data link. All lethal operations shall require prior human authorization, but given prior consent the UOS should be capable of autonomous self-defense actions and engagement of pop-up threats. The MMS shall be controlled and configured through the mission control station as described in Section 2.0 of this appendix.
The MMS shall provide a primitive survival mode, capable of self-diagnosis and compensation. This will allow the UOS to respond to problems such as temporary data link loss or loss of on-board computer systems. Autonomous return to base routing shall be executed when mission options exceed pre-authorized parameters and self-diagnosed flight termination should be executed for catastrophic system failures. Even though the UOS will be capable of operating in adverse weather conditions, it is desired that the aircraft have the ability to avoid areas of heavy precipitation and thunderstorms.
1.4.1 Targeting. Combinations of on-board and off-board sensors should enable precise location of SEAD/Strike targets. The resultant target acquisition capability should be able to search, detect, track, identify, and prioritize multiple targets at tactically significant ranges to the accuracy required to cue and employ weapons in adverse weather, day or night. Integration of on board and/or off board systems shall provide positive, timely, and reliable identification of hostile, friendly, and neutral forces. The identification process shall provide accurate information in sufficient time to allow employment of associated weapons at ranges that ensure force effectiveness and eliminate fratricide.
1.4.2 Flight Termination. The UOS shall have a flight termination system for destruction of the vehicle from both the ground station and based upon on-board intelligent reasoning. This will prevent the aircraft from becoming a hazard or penetrating prohibited airspace in emergency situations such as non-recoverable losses of flight control. This system shall work in conjunction with autonomous return to base routing and the primitive survival mode.
1.5 Communications. All communications shall be robust and secure. It is desired to minimize bandwidth requirements consistent with mission effectiveness. The UOS must be compatible with the projected global command and control architecture in the post 2010 timeframe. Maximum use should be made of existing communications hardware and software consistent with an integrated system.
1.5.1 Narrowband. Narrowband communications should be consistent with the minimum set of functionality required to maintain mission operations over both LOS and SATCOM. These communications should be two-way with enough connectivity in each direction to assure safe flight and message acknowledgment.
1.5.2 Wide Band Line of Sight. Wideband line of sight (LOS) communications should enable full mission functionality.
1.5.3 Wide Band Beyond Line of Sight Wideband beyond line of sight communications should enable full mission functionality.
1.5.4 Air Traffic Control (ATC). The UOS shall be able to communicate with ATC under FAA, ICAO, and U.S. military control authorities in a manner that is transparent to the ATC authority.
1.5.5 Antennae. The UOS shall have low observable antennas consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.6 Payload. It is desired to minimize payload requirements. Payload integration should be compatible with long term storage, easy upgrades, rapid turn-around, and minimized maintenance concepts. The UOS shall have an on-board recorder capable of recording aircraft system status, payload products, and mission execution
1.7 Weapons. It is desired to fully exploit the capabilities of emerging munitions technologies consistent with accomplishing the SEAD/Strike mission in the post 2010 timeframe. Maximum flexibility for internal and/or external weapons carriage should be considered in order to permit the integration of current and future weapons. The structural integrity of the airframe and suspension equipment should permit carriage and delivery of a wide range of weapons as well internal fuel tanks, practice munitions, and defensive countermeasures. Safe carriage, release, separation, and effects of planned weapons should be a principal concern when investigating payload options. The UOS should be capable of safe recovery with unexpended ordnance.
1.7.1 Guidance. The UOS weapons shall have guidance subsystems consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.72 Targeting. The UOS weapons shall have targeting subsystems consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.7.3 Ordnance/Kill Mechanism. The UOS shall employ ordnance consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.8 Survivability. The UOS shall have survivability characteristics consistent with mission requirements and support concepts. A balanced approach to reduced vehicle signature and employment of on board advanced countermeasures is essential for affordable survivability. Primary consideration must be given to radio frequency (RF) and infra-red (IR) spectra from both surface-to-air and air-to-air threats. Additional guidance is provided under separate cover.
1.8.1 RF Signature. The UOS should fully exploit current and developing technologies, materials, and treatments in RF signature reduction. Low life cycle cost technologies, long term storage, logistics support, and maintenance requirements shall be considered as a driving signature design parameter. Signature reduction features shall be compatible with long term storage without degradation and/or special maintenance requirements.
1.8.2 IR Signature. The UOS should fully exploit current and developing technologies, materials, and treatments in IR signature reduction. Low life cycle cost technologies, long term storage, logistics support, and maintenance requirements shall be considered as a driving signature design parameter. Signature reduction features shall be compatible with long term storage without degradation and/or special maintenance requirements.
1.8.3 Self-Defense Systems. The UOS should be capable of enhancing the survivability of the aircraft against anticipated threats in a balanced approach with signature reduction. This could include electronic support and counter measures, on-board jammers, expendables, towed decoy systems or other innovative methods for surviving enemy actions.
1.8.4 Visual Signature. Efforts should be made to reduce visual signatures to the maximum extent consistent with affordability constraints.
1.8.5 Acoustic Signature. The UOS design shall take into consideration the existence of acoustic tracking systems.
1.8.6 Electronic Emission Control. It is desired that the UOS eliminate, reduce, mask, or diffuse any or all electronic emissions to reduce the probability of detection, tracking, or engagement by a threat.
1.8.7 System Redundancy. The UOS should be designed to minimize the impact of and/or prevent single point failure of flight and mission critical items within the affordability constraints.
1.8.8 Hardening and Protection. It is desired that the UOS reduce vital system vulnerability to combat damage to the maximum extent possible consistent with affordability constraints. It is desired to protect against intrusive information warfare threats.
1.8.9 Speed. The UOS shall have performance consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.8.10 Maneuverability. The UOS shall have instantaneous and sustained maneuverability consistent with mission requirements and support concepts.
1.9 Software. All aircraft segment software shall be developed and integrated using a rigorous formal design and validation process. It is desired that all software be object-orientated, portable, modular, and easy to maintain and modify.
1.9.1 Computer Architecture. Air vehicle computer architecture shall comply with the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAPIM).
1.9.2 Software Architecture
1.10 Integration and test
2.0 Mission Control Station
The mission control station shall serve as the focal point for UCAV integration into the existing C4I architecture. The mission control station should provide air vehicle mission planning and control, a human-system interface, all ground communications, and the infrastructure required to conduct all UCAV operations. The UOS control station shall be transportable and modular to the extent that all or portions of the mission control station can be land, sea, or air-based.
2.1 Mission Planning & Control. Mission planning and control should be a continuous and seamless function that begins with mission assignment and wing planning as a result of the Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC) Air Tasking Order (ATO) and continues through mission execution with mission monitoring, control and replanning. The mission control station should automatically load and translate ATO information into the mission planning system. Mission planning and control shall be flexible and adaptable to react to the dynamics of operations, conflict level, and communications capacity.
2.1.2 Launch & Recovery. As a minimum, the launch and recovery function shall consist of mission upload, necessary ground checks, engine start, taxi, take-off, approach, landing, taxi back and mission download. The UOS shall be able to respond to ATC instructions for terminal coordination and safety. It is an objective to have the UOS routinely operate from airfields with manned aircraft present and operating. The mission control station should be able to redirect and recover the UOS from alternative landing sites.
2.1.3 Flight Planning. The mission control station should have the capability to autonomously calculate an optimal flight plan based on an operator approved constraint set and provide the flexibility to update the current flight plan in real-time.
2.1.4 Systems Management. The mission control station should have the capability to monitor the health of the air vehicles and MCS as well as the status of mission parameters.
2.1.5 Weapon Authorization. Combinations of on-board and off-board sensors shall provide integrated targeting information to the mission control team consistent with weapons authorization for manned platforms. The mission control station should provide the mission control team with authority to dynamically re-target the UCAV weapon system all the way to the point of weapon release/employment.
2.2 Human-System Interface. The effectiveness of the UCAV system will depend in large part on the human-system interface. It should be designed using human factors principles to provide the mission control team the information and control methodology required to efficiently operate multiple UCAVs in a dynamic battlespace.
2.2.1 Situation Awareness. The mission control station should take the information from a combination of on-board and off-board assets to efficiently present the mission control team an understanding of the dynamic battlespace and operational environment to the extent required to effectively conduct the post 2010 SEAD/Strike mission. An objective is to provide the mission control team with a level of situation awareness unavailable by either off-board or on-board assets alone. The control station should provide the appropriate combination of system, tactical, operational, and strategic levels of information. Individual workstations should be reconfigurable for mission segment and/or team member preferences. An extensive amount of information will be available and human factors display design principles should be applied to present the maximum amount of relevant intelligence in an intuitive format which permits accurate and timely team and individual decisions.
2.2.2 Mission Control Station Configuration. The station configuration should allocate mission functions within the team members to maximize the ratio of air vehicles to mission control station personnel. The focus of operator activity should be on executing the mission instead of physically flying the vehicle. Interaction with the mission control elements should be intuitive and re-configurable to minimize recurring actions. Control allocation should be user-friendly with the capability to store customized allocation configurations. Work task execution should be storable in a manner to minimize execution across multiple UCAVs.
2.3 Human-Computer Function Allocation. The mission control station shall support variable levels of autonomy and provide a capability for dynamic human-computer function allocation. It is desired to provide the mission control team with the ability to reallocate control of tasks among the vehicle, control station and one another based on flight conditions and changing mission requirements at any time during the mission
2.4 Decision Aids. The mission control station should incorporate intelligent agents and decision aids executing in parallel with UCAV operations to monitor, assess, and recommend actions for effective mission accomplishment. The objective is to maximize operator productivity and enhance mission effectiveness.
2.5 Communications. The mission control station shall support communications between the mission control segment and the air vehicle, communications within the mission control segment and integration into the evolving C4I infrastructure. Maximum use should be made of standards consistent with a need to integrate into the proposed communications architecture and CONOPs. All communications shall be robust and secure.
2.5.1 Vehicle. The mission control station shall support the vehicle communications architecture discussed in Section 1.5 of this appendix.
2.5.2 Internal. Internal communications networks shall support real-time dissemination and exchange of information as needed among elements internal to the mission control station.
2.5.3 External. The mission control station should have modular interfaces with the emerging C4I infrastructure to exploit archived and real-time data sources. The mission control station shall have an interface with the JFACC via the command and control network for air tasking orders, real-time mission updates, and target folders. The mission control station should provide team members with real-time situation awareness, tasking, targeting, and threat identification through real time intelligence sources or operational links with the projected 2010 C4I infrastructure. In addition, the UCAV or MCS should be capable of real time reporting back to the JFACC and into the intelligence networks. This capability should leverage the existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible.
2.6 Infrastructure. The MCS infrastructure shall be consistent with the offerors CONOPS and supportability concept.
2.7 Software. All mission control segment software shall be developed and integrated using a rigorous formal design and validation process. It is desired that all software be object-orientated, portable, modular, and easy to maintain and modify. It is desired for the mission control station to maximize the use of open system standards for future growth and ease of software augmentation.
2.7.1 Computer Architecture. The MCS computer architecture shall comply with the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAPIM).
2.7.2 Software Architecture
2.8 Integration and test
The UOS shall provide significant reductions in operations and support costs while effectively performing the SEAD/Strike mission. The logistics/support and infrastructure components should be designed in accordance with the flexible basing, availability, rapid turn-around and sortie generation rate required to support the UCAV CONOPS. This sortie generation rate is anticipated to be 3-4 sustained with a surge to 4-5 per day. Operational availability should be greater than 90%.
3.1 Reliability & Maintainability. The UOS shall be reliable, easily maintained in all operational environments and fault tolerant to achieve availability and sortie generation requirements. On-board and off-board diagnostics should be integrated. Particular attention should be placed on high engine reliability. It is desired to avoid the added cost and maintenance burden of removing/replacing misdiagnosed components.
3.2 Maintenance Planning. It is desired to fully exploit commercial and innovative maintenance and support concepts such as prognostics, autonomous inspection, BIT, lean logistics, just in time replenishment, commercial leasing, and system redundancy to minimize life cycle costs. The objective is to enable rapid turnaround and limit manpower requirements using a condition based maintenance concept where components are repaired/sustained based on condition rather than flight hours flown. It is desired to significantly reduce intermediate and depot level maintenance requirements. On-equipment maintenance should be kept at an absolute minimum and would encompass all actions required to launch and recover the air vehicle, maintain operations in the field or repair all mission control system hardware and software.
3.3 Deployability (Pack, Handle, Store & Transport). It is desired that a UCAV force package be globally deployed and operational within 24 hours of tasking utilizing the same air transportation and refueling architecture available to post 2010 force packages. UCAV deployment should be consistent with, but not limited to, the force structure deployment set forth in the SWA MSFD for MTW's.
3.4 Support Equipment. The support equipment should leverage the existing support infrastructure to minimize life cycle cost. Adapters and interface devices should be included in the basic system design to allow use of the common support equipment available at deployed locations rather than developing unique support equipment. Support equipment, when required, should include all software and hardware required to set up, support and maintain the system. Common test and support equipment should be used where feasible.
3.5 Long Term Storage. The UOS should be capable of long-term system storage in excess of 1 year between operational exercises. Contact and hands-on maintenance should be kept at an absolute minimum to reduce manpower requirements. However, some means of monitoring air vehicle status is desirable. Removal, integration, and checkout from storage should be consistent with deployability requirements. Any unique facility and facility support requirements shall be identified.
3.6 Manpower, Personnel, & Training. It is desired to minimize manpower and personnel requirements consistent with the offerors UCAV employment, maintenance and long term storage concepts. The training concept for maintenance and support personnel should be consistent with the requirements for limited manpower during peacetime and full manpower during combat operations. A sufficient set of personnel shall be fully trained and certified at all times. The offeror shall also propose a concept for bringing reserve personnel up to combat proficiency levels.
Training of operators should replicate mission conditions. The operator should not be able to tell the difference between training and combat operations. It is desired to optimize the skill mix and training level for the mission control team.
3.7 Supply Support. Spare and repair parts should meet all original equipment specifications. Pack up kits or Mission Spare Kits (MSKs) should support the system for 30 days of continuous operations and should fit within deployability requirements.
3.8 Safety & Health Hazards. All UCAV operations including maintenance, checkout, storage and flight operations should comply with all applicable safety and health regulations.
4.0 Systems Engineering/Program Management.
5.0 System Test.
Last Updated 3/9/98