UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTATION
SELECTION PROCESS DOCUMENT
March 9, 1998
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
3701 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203-1714
Table of Contents
Appendix A System Capability Document
Appendix B Mission Description Document (SECRET)
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in conjunction with the United States Air Force (USAF), is pleased to offer you the opportunity to respond to the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) solicitation. As you explore this solicitation we believe you will appreciate this unique opportunity to work in partnership with the US Government to demonstrate the technical feasibility of a UCAV system which can effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)/Strike missions within the emerging global command and control architecture.
The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle vision is an affordable weapon system that expands tactical mission options for revolutionary new air power as an integrated part of a system of systems solution. The UCAV weapon system will exploit the design and operational freedoms of relocating the pilot outside of the vehicle to enable a new paradigm in aircraft affordability while maintaining the rationale, judgment, and moral qualities of the human operator. In our vision, this weapon system will require minimal maintenance, can be stored for extended periods of time, and is capable of dynamic mission control while engaging multiple targets in a single mission under minimal human supervision. We believe such a UCAV weapon system has the potential to fully exploit the emerging information revolution and provide advanced airpower with increased tactical deterrence at a fraction of the total Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of current manned systems.
Our vision of the post 2010 battlespace includes UCAV weapon systems as an integral part of the force structure. UCAV systems will augment the force on high risk, high priority missions where mission accomplishment is key. These force enablers will be operationally effective for the whole spectrum of operations encompassing transnational threats, small-scale contingencies, and major theater wars. UCAVs will be globally deployable and safely operate over populated areas and in controlled air space. The UCAV will conduct missions from ordinary airfields as part of an integrated force package complementary to manned tactical and support assets. UCAV controllers will observe rules of engagement and make the critical decisions to use or refrain from using force. Operating across the full spectrum of conflicts, the UCAV can perform new combat missions that do not currently exist; high-risk missions where the risk to human life is unwarranted; or current missions where the UCAV is more cost effective than current platforms.
The initial operational role for the UCAV is a "first day of the war" force enabler which complements a strike package by performing the SEAD mission. In this role, UCAVs accomplish preemptive destruction of sophisticated enemy integrated air defenses (IADs) in advance of the strike package, and enable the attacking forces by providing reactive suppression against the remaining IADs. Throughout the remainder of the campaign, UCAVs provide continuous vigilance with an immediate lethal strike capability to prosecute high value and time critical targets. By effectively and affordably performing those missions the UCAV system provides "no win" tactical deterrence against which an enemy's defenses would be ineffective, thereby ensuring air superiority. This SEAD/Strike mission will be the first instantiation of an UCAV vision that will evolve into a broader range of combat missions as the concept and technologies mature, and the UCAV affordability potential is realized.
As a member of a tightly coupled system of systems, the UCAV will work cooperatively with manned systems and exploit the emerging command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) architecture to enable successful achievement of campaign and mission level objectives. Intelligence preparation of the battlefield will provide an initial mission/threat database for mission controllers. Controllers will exploit real-time data sources from the theater information architecture to plan for, and respond to, the dynamically changing battlefield. The UCAV will penetrate enemy IADs and external systems such as the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) will stimulate potential targets. Sensor cueing and off-board targeting can be provided by national systems or airborne assets in real time and/or UCAVs may be part of multi-ship Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) targeting architectures. The system will create superior situation awareness by leveraging the many sources of information available at both the tactical and theater levels.
To facilitate operations in a combat environment, a flexible and agile control and communications architecture will be employed to ensure robust connectivity among large numbers of vehicles. The mission control station will be transportable and modular to the extent that all or portions of its functions can be land, sea, or air-based. A single control station using variable levels of autonomy will control multiple UCAVs. The controller will provide executive level mission management to remain in the decision process. Intelligent function allocation will allow autonomous control of appropriate tasking. Communications will be seamless with data passed through a variety of paths. Wide area and local airborne networks will allow redundancy among the force package and bandwidth sharing to ensure robust connectivity with the control station via line-of-sight, relay extension and/or satellite communications.
The UCAV weapon system will enable a new affordability paradigm by reducing both acquisition, and operation and support (O&S) costs. We envision a UCAV air vehicle unit cost which is less than one-third that of a Joint Strike Fighter. Removing the pilot from the vehicle eliminates man-rating requirements, pilot systems, and interfaces. New design philosophies can be used to optimize the design for aerodynamics, signature, reduced maintenance and low cost manufacturing processes. The UCAV offers new design freedoms that can be exploited to produce a smaller, simpler aircraft. Advances in small smart munitions will allow these smaller vehicles to attack multiple targets during a single mission and reduce the cost per target killed.
Cost of ownership for UCAV weapon system will be fundamentally different than those of the manned aircraft fleet. These systems will break the linkage between total force size and cost of ownership of the force. A reduced maintenance design with condition based maintenance, minimized on-board sensors, reduced fluid systems, maintainable signature, and a modular avionics architecture will reduce touch labor in the fashion of commercial aircraft. Without the requirement to fly sorties to retain pilot proficiency, UCAVs will fly infrequently. Designed for reduced maintenance, UCAVs can be maintained in flight ready storage with controllers training at actual control stations through transparent simulation. These concepts will result in significant reduction in consumables, maintenance, and personnel enabling O&S cost reductions of 50-80% when compared to a current tactical aircraft squadron.
This UCAV vision looks towards a revolutionary new set of options with enormous long-term payoffs to US air power in terms of expanded mission options, tactical deterrence and most importantly, affordability.
1.2 Program Philosophy
The UCAV ATD will develop new paradigms in aircraft design and manufacturing, human system interaction, command and control, supportability, and battlespace management. Developing a new demonstrator system will allow us to fully exploit the synergistic combination of these technical advances. We look forward to working with you as members of a select government/industry team that integrates and validates the critical technologies in each of these key areas.
In this solicitation you are being asked to "think out of the box" and propose your own unique collaborative design methodologies, modeling and simulation tools, processes, capabilities, concepts, and innovative teaming arrangements to reduce the cost of product development, manufacturing, and operations and support. We will not provide traditional specifications and a statement of work. Instead, we will describe our objectives in this solicitation and provide guidance on preparing your response. We will set the bounds of the problem and you, the offeror, will perform system analyses, trade studies and risk reduction activities throughout the program to refine your Operational System Concept (OSC) into a UCAV Operational System (UOS) and ultimately a UCAV Demonstration System (UDS) which provides a best value solution to our objectives. This program will culminate with a UDS flight demonstration of human-in-the-loop, target detection, identification, location, targeting, weapons authorization, weapons delivery, and target damage assessment.
The products of the UCAV ATD must enable decision-makers to determine whether it is technically feasible and fiscally prudent to continue development of a UCAV system which prosecutes post 2010 missions. ACC/DR divides the spectrum of potential UCAV missions into three categories: special application, force enabler, and alternative strike aircraft. Special application UCAVs perform punitive strike missions where we are unwilling to risk a pilot. Force enablers conduct SEAD and deep strike missions in support of manned strike packages. Alternative strike aircraft are a major element of the force for a wide variety of missions competitive with the Joint Strike Fighter. We believe focusing on the force enabler will allow the UCAV ATD program to answer the fundamental technical questions for all three potential UCAV mission categories. Properly balancing the trade-offs between mission specific and overarching UCAV technologies will be critical to the success of the program.
We are not interested in an ATD program that follows an evolutionary path from manned aircraft to a UCAV weapon system. Removing the pilot from the vehicle opens up the design space and provides the catalyst for exploring "clean sheet of paper" system design philosophies and CONOPS. Creative integration of the latest advances across a broad suite of component technologies, lean and agile manufacturing methods, supportability concepts, innovative tactics and CONOPS will enable a revolutionary advance in affordable airpower. The offeror is expected to judiciously exploit this design freedom while incorporating the best practices from the space and missile industries and the commercial sector along with lessons learned from past manned and unmanned aircraft systems.
The offeror shall treat life cycle cost as a technical requirement and make intelligent choices so that the ultimate UOS and UDS design requirements reflect a balance between capability and affordability. There are no unit fly away price requirements. For the UOS this ratio of effectiveness to affordability should be optimized against the scenarios and mission benchmarks representative of operations in the post 2010 timeframe. For the UDS, the emphasis switches to providing the maximum benefit to the Government for a fixed Phase II level of funding.
The Phase II solicitation will challenge the offeror to put affordability up-front and tell the Government what can be delivered for an "affordable" price. This is the essence of Price as an Independent Variable (PAIV). For Phase II the Government level of funding for the entire program (Phase I and II) is the independent variable. The dependent variable is how far the results of Phase II will propel us toward the goal of entering a formal acquisition program at the EMD phase.
1.3 Solicitation Package Overview
In response to this solicitation you are asked to submit your own Operational System Concept (OSC), Task Description Document (TDD), Integrated Master Plan (IMP), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and Cost Responses. Your solicitation response will be integrated into a Section 845 Agreement that will govern the relationship between you and the government during this program. An outline of the material contained in each section of the solicitation follows.
1.3.1 Section 2: Program Description
Section 2 provides an overview of the motivation, goal, and objectives of the entire program and provides information on the scope of your work effort. This section also provides the offeror with an overview of the contracting mechanism and financial resources available to the program.
1.3.2 Section 3: Phase I Statement of Objectives
Section 3 provides a detailed description of the Government's objectives for Phase I of the program. This section contains the information on: milestones, system design trades and CONOPS analysis, life cycle cost analysis, figures of merit, transition plans, and system test needed to prepare a Phase I proposal.
1.3.3 Section 4: Proposal Guidance
Section 4 provides the offeror guidance for the development of a unique: work outline, executive summary, TDD, IMP, IMS, OSC, and cost response. The guidance contained in this section applies to Phase I of the UCAV ATD program. It is anticipated that these instructions will evolve as the UCAV ATD program matures and will be updated for the Phase II solicitation. The instructions are not intended to be all-inclusive, but should be considered as each offeror develops their proposed Agreement.
1.3.4 Section 5: Evaluation Criteria
Section 5 is intended to give the offeror a clear picture of how the government will evaluate offerings throughout the solicitation/award process.
1.3.5 Section 6: Model Agreement
This section provides a model agreement for assistance in preparing your proposal.
1.3.6 Section 7: General Information
This section provides general information and statutes required to make this solicitation complete.
1.3.7 Appendix A: System Capability Document
This appendix describes the design and performance trade space boundaries for the offeror's OSC and Phase I development of their UOS. Additional guidance on the desired UDS capabilities will be developed based on the system analyses, design trades, and CONOPS analyses conducted during Phase I. The government will finalize this guidance within one month after Phase 1 Milestone 2.
1.3.8 Appendix B: Mission Description Document
This classified appendix describes the SEAD/Strike mission envisioned for the UCAV in the post 2010 timeframe. The specific scenarios and mission benchmarks the UOS will be evaluated against are also presented. The offeror's OSC and UOS should be designed to effectively and affordably accomplish these mission objectives.
OFFERORS ARE EXPRESSLY CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE ENTIRE SOLICITATION.
2.0 Program Description
Joint Vision 2010 calls for the Armed Forces to achieve full spectrum dominance in the 21st century. The Air Force core competency of Air and Space Superiority delivers a fundamental benefit to the Joint Force. It prevents adversaries from interfering with our battlespace operations and is the precursor for the Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts of Dominant Maneuver and Full Dimensional Protection. With Air and Space Superiority, Joint Forces can achieve full spectrum dominance of the enemy. Without it, everything on the battlefield is at risk.
The recent trend among our adversaries has been to invest in integrated air defense systems (IADs) rather than aircraft to ensure their own air superiority. DIA and service intelligence branches, project those IADS will apply the lessons learned from Desert Storm by becoming more sophisticated, mobile and integrated. With the U.S. and her allies continuing to field new surface based air defenses, proliferation will force the Joint Force to face a Red, Blue, and Gray threat array. Large portions of these arrays are mobile and possess improved multi-targeting capability. To counter this asymmetric threat and maintain their core competency, the Air Force must maintain an effective and affordable Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) and precision strike capability. These requirements are documented in Mission Need Statements (MNS) entitled; Lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (MNS 329-92); Updated EF-111 Tactical Jamming System (SON 319-88); and Counter C3I in Support of Defense Suppression (SON 318-88).
The USAF is committed to an aggressive program of exploiting UAV technology for SEAD in the mid-term and movement into a broader range of combat missions depending on technology maturation, affordability, and migration to other forms of warfare. The joint DARPA/USAF UCAV ATD will provide the information necessary to enable decision-makers to determine whether it is technically and fiscally prudent to continue development of a UCAV system to perform the post 2010 SEAD/Strike mission. Ongoing studies are addressing the mix of manned versus unmanned systems. Those studies will further refine the numbers, cost effectiveness and optimum timeline to meet the future needs of the USAF in the complete range of mission areas. Viable UCAV system candidates will compete with other potential solutions based on cost, capability, reliability, and suitability. The knowledge gained from the ATD will be a key input to on-going efforts to define the "best" force mix for the post 2010 timeframe.
The goal of the joint DARPA/USAF UCAV ATD program is to demonstrate the technical feasibility for a UCAV system to effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century SEAD/Strike missions within the emerging global command and control architecture.
The primary objective of the UCAV ATD is to design, develop, integrate, and demonstrate the critical technologies pertaining to an operational UCAV system. The critical technology areas are command, control, and communications, human-systems interaction, targeting/weapons delivery, and air vehicle design. The specific objectives of the UCAV ATD include:
Another key objective is to validate a UCAV weapon system's potential to affordability perform SEAD/Strike missions in the post 2010 timeframe. Life cycle cost models will be developed which include verifiable estimates of acquisition and O&S costs. The critical affordability assumptions and technologies will be validated through concept and process demonstrations.
It is the Government's intent to execute this program as a model for future ATDs. Your ability to define future operational system effectiveness and affordability requirements, and then use them as a filter to select the critical technologies matured and validated during the ATD, is vital to the success of this program. Defining the critical cost drivers and associated critical processes early in system development is a key component of this program. This ATD will serve as a focal point for national efforts to quickly and affordably transition advanced technologies and reduce the acquisition cycle for new weapon systems.
Figure 2.1: UCAV Acquisition Strategy
2.4 Program Plan
The UCAV ATD program plan directly supports the UCAV acquisition strategy shown in Figure 2.1. The goal of this proposed strategy is to provide the information necessary to enable decision-makers to determine whether it is technically and fiscally prudent to develop a UCAV weapon system to perform the post 2010 SEAD/Strike mission. In keeping with the DARPA and the USAF's legacy of technical and operational innovation we are pushing to determine the technical feasibility, operational utility, and affordability of a performing the SEAD/Strike mission with a UCAV system by FY05. Entering an acquisition program at the EMD phase in FY05 would enable an initial operational capability before 2015.
The UCAV ATD program is divided into two distinct phases. During Phase I, DARPA will award multiple, 10 month, Section 845 agreements for the design of a UCAV Operational System (UOS), risk reduction activities, and the preliminary design of a UCAV Demonstrator System (UDS). The UDS will be designed to mature and validate the integrated set of critical technologies required to implement the contractor's UOS. At the conclusion of Phase I, DARPA, in consultation with the USAF, will determine whether to enter Phase II or terminate the program. The decision will be based on a thorough assessment of the results of Phase I as well as the extent to which the contractor's proposed Phase II program will provide significant value added to the government. If the government decides to proceed, one Phase I contractor will be selected to complete the UDS design, fabricate the UDS (two vehicles and a reconfigurable mission control station), develop and integrate the critical technologies, continue risk reduction activities, and conduct flight tests. Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY02.
The program plan calls for the development of both a System Test Plan (STP) and UCAV Transition Plan (UTP) during Phase I. Together these plans will provide an integrated roadmap for all activities necessary to meet the acquisition strategy goal. The STP will detail all the Phase II risk reduction efforts, subsystem and component verification, vehicle check-out and flight safety, critical technology evaluation and assessment, and flight demonstration of the UDS. The UTP will address all the operational evaluations, and technology and manufacturing process: development, maturation, transition, risk reduction activities which are outside the scope of the ATD, but necessary to continue development of a UCAV system up to the point of a decision to enter into an acquisition program at the EMD phase. Both plans will be coordinated with industry and the DoD to ensure maximum advantage is taken of any leverage opportunities, and scarce research and development dollars are focused on supporting the acquisition strategy. Both plans will also be continually updated during the entire ATD.
The UTP will provide the basis for constructing the Risk Reduction and Operational Evaluation (RR&OE) program that is schedule to follow the ATD. The RR&OE phase will provide an opportunity to validate and demonstrate technologies matured in parallel with the ATD while performing a series of operational evaluations. The up-front focus on the overall acquisition strategy will allow the UDS to be designed and built so that the ATD residual hardware systems will support the RR&OE activities without a wholesale redesign of any major subsystems. A successful RR&OE program will address all the remaining questions that must be answered before entering into the EMD phase.
The RR&OE phase is where our up front emphasis on the 2010 mission description will pay high dividends. By considering all the mission performance requirements up front, we will be able to validate and demonstrate the critical survivability features of the air vehicle by exercising an option, and not a complete redesign. One of the existing ATD vehicles could be modified, or as Figure 2.1 suggests, a third vehicle with full survivability feature could be acquired. The flexibility to seamlessly transition from ATD to EMD will play a key role in compressing the time required to transition new technologies into effective and affordable weapon systems for the warfighters.
2.5 Management Approach
DARPA is responsible for overall management of the UCAV ATD, including technical direction, acquisition, and security. DARPA will provide the Program Manager (PM) and the Air Force will provide the Deputy Program Manger (DPM). The PM and DPM are responsible for implementing a streamlined approach to program management. Major tenets of that approach include: close cooperation between government and contractor teams, small staffs, abbreviated oversight, face-to-face communication, real-time decision making, emphasis on solving problems instead of assigning blame, and short direct lines of authority.
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is responsible for providing expert technical advice to the UCAV ATD program as requested by the PM and DPM. AFRL/CC has chartered the UCAV ATD Technical Support Team (TST) to meet that responsibility. The TST has a mandate to draw upon the full spectrum of AFRL technical expertise and reach out to other USAF, Navy, and NASA organizations. The TST includes a team lead and individual focal points for: air vehicles, command and control, human systems interface, and weapons. These five individuals are the AFRL representatives to the small government team.
ACC/DR and AF/XOR have agreed to provide operational expertise and insight throughout the program. These organizations have participated in the definition of the UCAV ATD and are incorporating the program into their long-range plans.
ASC/XR and ASC/RA will assist the Government team by verifying the contractors mission effectiveness and affordability analysis.
2.6 Other Agreements
The joint DARPA/USAF UCAV ATD program will utilize DARPA's Other Agreements Authority (Other Transactions for Prototypes Section 845/804) which allows the offeror to be creative in designing the system and in the selection of the management framework which best suits the proposed technical and management approach. The government will share information and data throughout the program. However, the data will always be advisory, not directive in nature, and offered as a way to foster better communications on the program. Our intent is to provide the best possible insight into what the government thinks while minimizing oversight. To this end, the government will focus on accurately defining WHAT they want and letting the offeror determine HOW best to provide it. Government oversight will be provided through the same management framework proposed by the offeror.
The government will allow the offeror to use either commercial or DoD streamlined processes, reporting and management practices. The use of Other Agreement Authority requires compliance with applicable laws but allows the latitude to depart from acquisition specific laws, FARs, and DoD practices where it makes sense. The offeror should take full advantage of this latitude to propose innovative/revolutionary approaches to team building. The resulting offeror proposal must clearly demonstrate a robust method to assure and control costs, quality, reliability, system engineering, program schedule, system design, and test planning and execution.
Commercial, industrial, and corporate specifications and standards should be used in lieu of military specifications and standards where appropriate. Military specifications and standards, if needed, should be used as guides, with any modifications, tailoring or partial application described. A rigorous formal process should be employed to design and implement software. Information system architectures must comply with the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAPIM).
All agreement awards will be based on evaluations and decisions made by a government source selection evaluation board (SSEB) established to review all responses to the solicitations. The government reserves the right to conduct a rolling downselect from the end of Phase I until the Phase II critical design review (CDR). Rules and criteria for the rolling downselect process will be included in the Phase II Solicitation provided to the Phase I contractors approximately seven months after the start of Phase I
The government anticipates having $120M available to fund the Phase I and II agreements. It is anticipated that up to four competitive agreements will be awarded for the Phase I effort with a total value per contract of $4.0M. It is anticipated that DARPA will use agreements as authorized for DARPA procurements in Section 845 of the 1995 Defense Authorization Act for both phases. Offerors are encouraged to propose innovative, value added use of this acquisition mechanism. We expect the offeror to provide a realistic proposal for best achieving the program objectives within the outlined budget and schedule. If for any reason during Phase II there is a total program cost overrun, it is anticipated that the offeror will be responsible for sharing at least 50% of all program costs exceeding the $120M baseline.
3.0 Phase I Statement of Objectives
This section outlines the Government's objectives for Phase I, Studies, Analyses and Preliminary Design, for the UCAV ATD program. The primary objective of Phase I is to conduct the requirements and CONOPS analysis, trade studies, risk reduction, and preliminary design activities necessary to demonstrate that the development and flight testing of a UCAV Demonstrator System (UDS) provides sufficient value to the government to justify investing in Phase II. The results from a successful Phase I program will convince the Government that: (1) UCAV weapon systems are an effective and affordable option for conducting post 2010 SEAD/Strike missions, (2) the Phase II proposals can accomplish the ATD objectives within the funding constraints, and (3) the ATD will provide a residual test system with the ability to answer all the remaining questions necessary to make an informed decision to enter into a major weapon system acquisition program at the EMD phase.
The contractor will implement a complete systems engineering process to complete the objectives of the UCAV ATD. The contractor shall formulate and perform system requirement analyses, design trades, CONOPS analysis, risk reduction activities, system life cycle cost assessments, system test and technology transition planning, and maintain visibility of the UCAV Operational System (UOS) and UCAV Demonstrator System (UDS) designs as shown in Figure 3.1. The major Phase I activities represent a progressive refinement of the contractor's UCAV Operational System Concept (OSC), to a UOS design, to identification of critical technologies, to development of the UDS preliminary design. The contractor will implement their proposed Risk Mitigation Plan (RMP) and develop a System Test Plan (STP) which identifies Phase II risk reduction efforts, critical technology evaluation and assessment, subsystem and component verification, vehicle check-out and flight safety, and flight demonstration of the UDS. The contractor will also develop a UCAV Transition Plan (UTP) which identifies all the technology maturation, demonstration, and development activities and operational evaluations which are outside the scope of the ATD, but are critical to making an informed decision to enter into a formal acquisition program at the EMD phase as shown in Figure 2.1. The UTP will also identify emerging technologies and leverage opportunities that have high payoff for future UCAV applications.
System requirements and CONOPS analyses, trade studies, and the UOS engineering design shall be conducted in accordance with the Government System Capability Document (SCD), the Mission Description Document (MDD), and the Phase I objectives described in this section. All studies and analyses performed during this phase shall be documented and accomplished in accordance with the Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The contractor will be responsible for considering all systems and subsystems associated with a UCAV weapon system, including the air vehicle, mission control segment, and supportability to a level of detail necessary to justify their UOS, life cycle cost analyses, ATD program plan, and system test and transition plans. The offeror is encouraged to define Phase I risk reduction activities that are generic to any UCAV concept independent of their specific UOS configuration. All Phase I analyses, trade studies, and risk reduction activities will be documented and accomplished in accordance with the IMP.
We do not anticipate a UOS defined to the design level of a traditional acquisition program. However, sufficient detail must be provided to enable the Government and contractor to use the UOS as the primary filter in selecting the integrated set of critical technologies which will undergo initial risk reduction during Phase I and further development and demonstration during Phase II as part of the STP. The UOS design must also be sufficiently detailed to allow identification of the full set of technology maturation or risk/cost reduction activities identified in the contractor's UTP.
A comprehensive analysis of aircraft survivability is a critical aspect of the UOS design, however the Government does not consider the demonstration of low observable and self defense technologies as a primary objective of the UCAV ATD. Therefore, the demonstrator air vehicle should not incorporate reduced signature materials and treatments, but should be built in a manner that is fully compatible with the low observable design details prescribed in the UOS. As an example, the demonstrator air vehicle wing leading edge should not incorporate any RF materials or treatments but must maintain the appropriate internal and external design compatible with the UOS design. This includes maintaining the appropriate external signature-driven surface characteristics and internal structural layout consistent with the UOS requirements for RF bulk absorbers, termination, graded resistance or other advanced signature reduction techniques. The degree to which the UDS air vehicle incorporates other low observable features, such as antennas and apertures, will depend on the trades done in Phase I.
Phase I results will serve as the foundation and roadmap for achieving the UCAV ATD vision and objectives during Phase II. The UOS and UDS designs, UTP, and other results of the Phase I efforts will serve, in part, as evaluation factors for award of Phase II efforts. Phase II proposals should include an option that would permit the addition of reduced signature materials and treatments, and self-defense measures to the demonstrator aircraft should the Government choose to restructure the program at a later date.
Figure 3.1: Phase I Milestones
The government envisions five Phase I milestones. The fourth milestone review shall be conducted no later then one month before the end of Phase I to allow the government time to review the Phase II proposals and thereby minimize the time between completion of Phase I and start of Phase II. At a minimum, at each milestone the contractor must provide the following information and meet the listed minimum exit criteria:
All milestone reviews will be conducted at the contractor's location. The purpose of the milestone reviews is to demonstrate accomplishment of milestone exist criteria as a basis for payment. The objective is to convey information and discuss issues, not to generate formal documentation. Instead of written milestone reports, a complete copy of the annotated milestone review briefings shall be provided to the meeting attendees. The contractor will forward an electronic copy of the meeting minutes and briefing slides to the DP and DPM within a week of the review. All meeting minutes and briefings should be in Office 97 compatible format. The government anticipates sending 10-20 people to each milestone review.
The ATD milestones call for three levels of informal design review. To assist the offeror in determining the anticipated level of effort for each design review, we offer the following definitions.
Phase I will include one formal design review. A UDS preliminary design review (PDR) will be conducted at milestone 4. This review shall provide a level of detail consistent with the MIL-STD 499B requirements for a system level prototype PDR. The contractor will use their approach and format for the PDR.
The government anticipates a kick-off meeting and up to two technical interchange meetings (TIMs) prior to milestone 1, and at least one TIM between each remaining milestone. The objective of a TIM is to allow coordination of government objectives and contractor activities. TIMs are small working level meetings without formal documentation. Attendance at each TIM will be tailored based on the agenda, but the maximum government attendance should be ten people. The TIMs provide an opportunity for the government to view the trades in progress and provide additional insight or information as required. The value of the meetings will be in the breadth of material and level of detail and interaction with the team. These meetings do not have to be face-to-face - they could be conducted via telephone or video teleconference if the appropriate facilities can be made available and the information can be communicated adequately.
3.3 System Analyses, Design Trades and CONOPS Analysis
The contractor shall concurrently conduct a series of system requirements and CONOPS analyses and system design trades that progressively refine their OSC into a final UOS design. The specifications in the SCD should serve as bounds for the UOS and are tradable except for the following:
Within this design space, the contractor shall conduct comprehensive trades and analyses to identify the system performance required to accomplish the SEAD/Strike missions described in the mission description (Appendix B) and identify the corresponding suite of critical technologies for achieving that performance. All trades shall consider the UCAV supportability segment including the concepts of reduced maintenance, long term storage, logistics, and deployability. The trades shall fully explore innovative approaches to the operational concept and evaluate the battlespace management and logistical requirements for employing multiple formations of UCAVs in a realistic operational environment. During these studies the contractor should exploit the freedom to incorporate design philosophies from the space and missile industries and the commercial sector.
All mission level simulations will be conducted using the 1996 Southwest Asia (SWA) Multi-Service Force Deployment (MSFD). The government will provide the contractors with all the necessary pedigreed data to run SUPPRESSOR and ESAMS for the legacy force mission benchmarks described in Appendix B. The government will establish a mission effectiveness review process to assess the contractor's results and review their key assumptions in conjunction with each milestone review. The government reserves the right to modify the pedigreed databases and require the use of additional simulation programs to ensure a fair and equitable environment for comparing competing CONOPS and UOS designs. We anticipate the mission benchmarks described in Appendix B will be refined during the first two months of Phase I and then finalized before Milestone 1.
Mission effectiveness is not the only driver in the trade studies. While the contractor must determine the specifications required to conduct the SEAD/Strike missions, the real challenge is to determine, the niche or "sweet spot" in the post 2010 force structure that produces the optimum blend of mission effectiveness and affordability. To facilitate that challenge, the government will work with the contractors to develop a consistent and realistic set of assumptions regarding post 2010 force structure and infrastructure.
The contractor shall perform the trades, analyses, and modeling and simulation to define the UOS CONOPS. These activities shall consider all segments of the SEAD/Strike mission timeline: mission planning, detection/location/identification, decision, execution, and target damage assessment feedback for the target set defined in the appendices. At a minimum, the trades should be conducted in terms of mission effectiveness and affordability on:
ACC/DR will work closely with the contractors to provide insight on how alternative UCAV system CONOPS impact the overall CONOPS for air operations in the post 2010 battlespace.
3.3.2 Air Vehicle
The contractor shall perform the trades, analyses, modeling and simulation, and risk reduction tasks necessary to define the configuration, attributes, performance, and life cycle cost of the UOS air vehicle and its subsystems. At a minimum, trades should be conducted in terms of mission effectiveness and affordability on:
These trades will be conducted iteratively with the CONOPS trades to define an optimized solution. The government anticipates these trades will lead to a UOS air vehicle design with a projected unit cost that is less than one-third of the cost of a Joint Strike Fighter.
3.3.3 Mission Control Station
The contractor shall perform the trades, analysis, modeling and simulation, and risk reduction tasks necessary to define the configuration, attributes, performance, and life cycle cost of the UOS mission control station. The mission control station will include: (1) command and control of the air vehicle, (2) communications, (3) mission planning, management and execution, (4) near-real-time targeting using onboard and off-board data, (5) mission reporting and other data dissemination capabilities. The mission control segment should leverage existing capabilities to the maximum extent possible and be compatible with the projected C2 and mission planning architecture. At a minimum, trades should be conducted in terms of mission effectiveness and affordability on:
The contractor shall evaluate logistics issues such as reduced maintenance, reduced personnel, deployment, and long term storage in all trade studies in the development of the UOS design and alternative CONOPS. The objective is to design a UOS whose operations and support costs are a 50-80% less than a current tactical aircraft squadron. At a minimum, trades and analyses should be conducted in terms of mission effectiveness and affordability on:
3.4 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Life cycle cost analyses shall center on supporting two Major Theater Wars (MTWs) within a 20-year life cycle, but the contractor shall also demonstrate their UOS is effective and affordable in support of transnational threats and small-scale contingencies. The contractor's CONOPS and trade studies will determine the unit fly away costs and the required number of UCAV systems. The analyses shall include the cost of development, acquisition, ownership, and disposal. Particular attention will be paid to a thorough and accurate estimate of all the support costs associated with the contractors preferred CONOPS.
The contractor will provide a process for analyzing system life cycle cost that allows visibility into, and sensitivity determination of, all key parameters. The contractor should also identify all key assumptions and the rationale for their use. All life cycle cost analyses shall clearly demonstrate the cost sensitivity to variations in key parameters and assumptions. The government will conduct a series of "truth boards" in conjunction with the Phase I milestones to validate/verify key cost assumptions and estimates.
To ensure a consistent basis of comparison and an official benchmark to evaluate potential reductions in operational and support (O&S) costs, the government will provide a set of baseline O&S costs to the contractors at agreement award. At the same time, the government will also provide the contractor with the exact number of transnational threats and small-scale contingencies to include in their life cycle analysis. The government and contractor will work together throughout the program to ensure all aspects of the contractor's UOS and CONOPS are properly reflected in their LCC results. Ground rules and methodologies for estimating the cost of using elements of a 2010 system of systems architecture will be established as part of this interaction.
3.5 Figures of Merit
In order to facilitate all the previously defined trade studies and analyses, and provide a fair basis for comparison, the mission effectiveness and affordability of the UOS should be measured against an identical set of defined criteria, or figures of merit. At a minimum, the contractor should use the following figures of merit during Phase I:
The offeror may suggest alternative figures of merit in their Phase I proposal. We anticipate the figures of merit will be refined during the first two months of Phase I and finalized before Milestone 2. The government will provide the contractor with baseline mission effectiveness figures of merit for all legacy force mission benchmarks.
3.6 UCAV Transition Plan (UTP)
The contractor shall develop their initial UTP to provide the government with the fiscal and technical information necessary to develop an acquisition strategy that supports the USAF Long-Range Plan. The UTP should describe all the additional risk reduction, technology and process development and maturation, and operational evaluation activities which are outside the scope of the ATD program, but must be conducted prior to entering into an acquisition program at the EMD phase. All critical technologies must "buy" their way onto the ATD program. All UOS technologies and functionality not incorporated in the UDS shall be addressed in the UTP. The UTP will also identify emerging technologies and leverage opportunities that have high payoff for future UCAV applications. The UTP should capture all acknowledged on-going and planned government and industry programs and include appropriate cost and schedule information. The UTP will be a living document that is updated and refined throughout Phase II.
3.7 System Test Plan (STP)
The contractor shall develop a system test plan to demonstrate and validate the integrated set of critical technologies required to validate the potential for their UOS to perform the post 2010 SEAD/Strike mission. The STP should build on the Phase I results of the contractor's Risk Mitigation Plan (RMP). This test plan shall include (but is not limited to) Phase II risk reduction efforts, subsystem and component verification, vehicle check-out and flight safety, critical technology evaluation and assessment, and flight demonstration of the UDS. The STP will address the role of modeling and simulation in both the planning and conduct of the risk reduction, verification, and testing. Particular attention should be paid to areas that are difficult to evaluate in a "traditional" ATD (technical maturity/risk of virtual production facilities, supportability, training, etc.). Innovative methods for their test and evaluation should be discussed. This overall demonstration effort should explicitly address all ATD program technical objectives including; mission effectiveness, logistics functionality, command, control, and communications, and affordability.
The proposed test locations, methods and major test parameters are to be identified and shall include any proposed requirements for government test facilities or resources. The PM and DPM shall endorse those needs and permit the contractor to make arrangement for their use/availability. The cost for the use of those facilities/resources shall be included in the contractor's Phase II proposal.
4.0 Proposal Guidance
This section of the solicitation provides the offeror guidance for the development of a unique Operational System Concept (OSC), Task Description Document (TDD), Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). These documents will be inserted into the Model Agreement (Section 6) and form the basis for the offeror's proposal in response to the UCAV ATD Phase I solicitation.
The guidance contained in this section applies to Phase I of the UCAV ATD program. It is anticipated that these instructions will evolve as the UCAV ATD program matures and will be updated with the Phase II solicitation. The instructions are not intended to be all-inclusive, but should be considered as each offeror develops their proposal.
4.1 Work Outline
The work outline provides a common numbering system that ties all program elements together. This numbering system integrates the OSC, TDD, IMP and IMS and must be used throughout all program documentation. The OSC, TDD, IMP, and IMS shall be consistent down through level 3 of the work outline. As the program progresses, this same numbering system shall be used to define the UCAV Operational System (UOS) and the UCAV Demonstrator System (UDS).
This section describes the work outline as viewed by the Government and was used to organize the System Capability Document found in Appendix A. The government work outline is provided only for reference and represents the minimal set of program elements. 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 shown below:
Code 1 2 3 4
00000 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) System
10000 Air Vehicle
Vehicle Management System
Mission Management System
Integration and test
20000 Mission Control Station
Mission Planning & Control
Human System Interface
Human Computer Function Allocation
Integration and test
Reliability & Maintainability
Long Term Storage
Manpower, Personnel & Training
Safety & Health Hazards
40000 Systems Engineering/Program Management
Systems Engineering Management
System Software Development Process
System Life Cycle Cost
Manufacturing and Production Planning
50000 System Test
Systems Integration Laboratory
Check-out & Flight Safety
Command & Control
The offeror shall use the following outline in response to this solicitation.
4.3 Executive Summary
This document is meant to be an executive level description of key elements and
unique features of each offeror's proposed UCAV ATD Phase I program. The Executive Summary should at least address the offeror's:
4.4 Technical Approach and Substantiation
This section of the proposal provides the offeror with the opportunity to explain and substantiate the significant features of their OSC, trade study and analysis plan, RMP, IMP, IMS, and overall technical approach and management plan. The offeror should provide significant details to address all the relevant evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.
4.5 Proposed Agreement with Attachments
The offeror's agreement shall follow the outline described in Section 6 (Model Agreement). This section provides specific guidance for preparing Article III and attachments 1 and 2 of that agreement.
4.5.1 Article III: Task Description Document (TDD)
The TDD describes the work effort necessary to meet the milestones and Statement of Objectives for Phase I of the UCAV ATD program. The TDD will include the offeror's plans for: trade studies and analyses, risk mitigation, UDS design, and systems engineering/program management. This solicitation identifies work effort to Level 3 of the Work Outline. The offeror may choose to define work at lower levels to better explain their approach toward meeting program and system objectives.
22.214.171.124 Trade Study and Analysis Plan
The trade study and analysis plan shall describe the offeror's approach to progressively refining their OSC into a final UOS design. Those refinements will be based on a series of concurrent system requirements analyses, alternative CONOPS explorations, and system design trades as discussed in section 3.3. The specifications in the System Capability Document (appendix A) should serve as bounds for the UOS.
126.96.36.199 Risk Mitigation Plan
The RMP will identify the key technical risk areas in the OSC and provide a roadmap of critical Phase I risk reduction activities. The plan shall include a process for quantifying the maturity, risk, system performance enhancement/value, and life cycle cost reduction benefits of candidate technologies. At a minimum, the RMP should identify:
188.8.131.52 UDS Design Plan
The UDS design plan will identify the top level metrics, processes, and system level performance and affordability trades the offeror intends to use to select the critical technologies validated by their UDS. The offeror is encouraged to take full advantage of emerging collaborative design methodologies and advanced modeling and simulation tools. The UDS shall be designed to validate the critical technologies and satisfy the ATD objectives in a system with direct legacy to the UOS. At a minimum, the UDS air vehicle design should incorporate the same aero/propulsion integration and outer mold line as the UOS. The UDS air vehicle should be capable of supporting the exploration of the full range of UCAV ATD objectives but in the interest of affordability will not incorporate signature treatments, materials, or defensive countermeasures. The mission control station should be capable of supporting the exploration of the full range of UCAV ATD objectives. The plan will also consider the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). Additional guidance will be provided after Milestone 2 to help the offerors refine their UDS preliminary design.
184.108.40.206 Systems Engineering/Program Management
The offeror shall describe a complete systems engineering process for conducting Phase I and II of this program. This description shall describe how the offeror will execute the systems engineering process activities of requirements analysis, functional analysis and allocation, synthesis, and systems analysis and control commensurate with the statement of objectives. The offeror shall describe the organizational responsibilities and authority for the systems engineering effort, including control of team member engineering. Similarly a program management process based on the concepts of Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD), shall be established.
The offeror shall integrate their systems engineering and program management processes to ensure the program progresses successfully through the Phase I milestones. This process should establish a series of tracking tools which should be updated monthly and shall include:
4.5.2 Attachment 1: Integrated Master Plan (IMP)
The offeror shall develop a comprehensive IMP that describes Phase I of the UCAV ATD program. The IMP is divided into the Product IMP and the Process IMP.
220.127.116.11 Product IMP
The Product IMP shall address specification, verification, and significant management accomplishments necessary to complete the requirements analyses, design trade studies, and risk reduction activities for Phase I. The Product IMP should contain, accomplishments/criteria sections tied to the Work Outline (section 4.1) and program milestones (section 3.2). Each task will be accompanied by specific criteria that will be used to judge the completion of the task for a given milestone. Definitions and characteristics of the key elements of the IMP are given below:
Phase I milestone criteria were provided in section 3.2.
18.104.22.168 Process IMP
The Process IMP is used to describe the technical, management, systems engineering, and business processes the offeror plans to apply to the UCAV ATD program. The Process IMP will fulfill the role of functional plans (QA, Configuration, etc.) and will be an essential part of the Agreement. The format should be limited to 5 pages and address:
4.5.3 Attachment 2: UCAV Operational System Concept (OSC)
The offeror's OSC will serve as a point of departure for all subsequent Phase I design and CONOPS trade studies. For the development of the OSC the offeror shall use the System Capability, Mission Description, Mission Scenario and Threat Description documents, provided in Appendixes A and B as guidance to bound the design space. The offeror's OSC description shall conform to the single, common program numbering system outlined in their TDD.
4.6 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
The IMS should outline the detailed tasks and the amount of time expressed in calendar schedules necessary to achieve the milestones and significant functional accomplishments in Phase I. It is a tiered scheduling system corresponding to the UCAV ATD work outline. The first iteration of the IMS should be to level 3 of the offeror's TDD or lower as determined by the offeror. Definitions and characteristics of the key elements of the IMS are given below.
Detailed Tasks: Detailed work effort to be completed in support of a specific significant milestone or functional accomplishment.
Calendar Schedule: Detailed schedule (dates) of the period of performance for each work effort.
An initial IMS shall be delivered with the Phase I proposal.
4.7 Cost Response
The cost response should be in the offeror's format. Certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, in order for the Government to determine the reasonableness, realism and completeness of your cost proposal, the following data must be provided for each team member and in a cumulative summary:
Labor: Total labor includes direct labor and all indirect expenses associated with labor, to be used in the UCAV ATD Phase I period of performance. Provide a breakdown of labor and rates for each category of personnel to be used on this project.
Direct Materials: Total direct material that will be acquired and/or consumed in the UCAV ATD Phase I period of performance. Limit this information to only major items of material and how the estimated expense was derived. For this agreement a major item exceeds $250,000.
Subcontracts: Describe major efforts to be subcontracted, the source, estimated cost and the basis for this estimate. For this agreement a major effort exceeds $500,000.
Travel: Total proposed travel expenditures relating to the UCAV ATD Phase I period of performance. Limit this information to the number of trips, and purpose of each cost.
Other Costs: Any direct costs not included above. List the item, the estimated cost, and basis for the estimate.
Remember the cost proposal should tell the story of how and why you are planning to complete your proposed TDD. Activities such as demonstrations required to reduce the various technical risks should be identified in the TDD and reflected in the cost proposal.
The offeror should provide a total estimated price for the major IR&D activities associated with the program. The offeror should state whether each program is a dedicated IR&D or if it is being pursued to benefit other programs as well.
4.8 Classified Annex
The UCAV ATD has a SECRET collateral level mission description and an acknowledged SAR component. The classified annex provides the offeror with an opportunity to describe the details of their proposal that require collateral and SAR control. While the government anticipates Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) information will be required during Phase I, that level of information is not required in the proposal. Teams are required to contact the DARPA Deputy Director of Security and Intelligence for complete instructions prior to submitting any classified information.
4.9 Administrative Instructions
4.9.1 Page and Print Information
The Solicitation Response should be submitted in standard three-ring, loose leaf
binders with individual pages unbound and printed single sided to facilitate page
changes. The response shall not exceed 150 pages total, including attachments and the classified annex. Indexes, cross reference tables, and tabs will not be included in the page count. Page count will be based on the offeror's hardcopy submission. Six copies shall be provided. The suggested page limits for each section are as follows:
Authorized representatives of the offeror must sign proposal volumes.
Each page should be printed on an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet using Times New Roman 12-point font. Graphics should not include text in smaller than 8-point font. Fold out pages will be counted as multiple pages. Pages should be marked SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE.
Teams are required to submit their proposal in Microsoft Office 97 compatible electronic format. Documents containing imported graphics (drawings, charts, photos, etc.) should be accompanied by the originally imported graphics files. Acceptable media includes 3.5" diskettes, 100MB ZIP cartridges or CD-ROM. Electronic copies of the SAR annex shall be submitted separately in accordance with instructions in Section 4.8.
4.9.2 Response Delivery Information
All responses must be received on or before 31 March 98 at 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Late responses will not be accepted.
22.214.171.124 Unclassified Information
The unclassified portion of the offeror's proposal shall be mailed or hand carried to:
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Program
3701 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203-1714
Attn: Contracts Management Office
Solicitation Number: MDA972-98-R-0003
Responses and response modifications (which will only be accepted prior to the deadline for receipt of response) shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages to the address shown above and marked with the following information on the outer wrapping:
Offeror's name and return address
The response receipt address above
Solicitation Number: MDA972-98-R-0003
Hour and due date:
The proposal's classified annex should be submitted through the DARPA Deputy Director of Security and Intelligence using the appropriate procedures.
4.9.3 Changes to the Model Agreement
The offeror can propose any changes, additions, or deletions to the Model Agreement that should be considered during Agreement negotiations. Fully explain the rationale for the changes made in an addendum to the Agreement. Rationale located in other areas of the solicitation response may be cross-referenced. It is the governments' intent to begin negotiating the Phase I agreements as soon as the final solicitation package is released.
4.9.4 Regulations Governing Objections to Solicitation and Award
Any objections to the terms of this solicitation or to the conduct of receipt, evaluation or award of agreements must be presented in writing within ten calendar days of (1) the release of this solicitation, or (2) the date the objector knows or should have known the basis for its objection. Objections should be provided in letter format, clearly stating that it is an objection to this solicitation or to the conduct of evaluation or award of an agreement, and providing a clearly detailed factual statement of the basis for objection. Failure to comply with these directions is a basis for summary dismissal of the objection. Mail objections to the address listed in the proposal delivery information.
Last Updated 3/10/98