Risk Assessment

1. SCOPE

This Task Description Document (TDD) defines the contractor efforts to conduct an objective review of the MRE UAV Draft Mission Needs Statement (MNS) by performing a credible Risk Assessment. The Draft MNS is a collection of requirements outlined in Appendix A. (The collection of requirements may make references to many ‘KPPs’, ‘thresholds’, and ‘objectives’. These should all be considered as objectives only.) The intent of this study is to find appropriate, cost-effective naval solutions to a large body of the requirements. This analysis will lead to a final revision of the MNS and approval by the Naval UAV Executive Steering Group (ESG). The analysis shall commence immediately after contract award. The Government reserves the right to cancel any or all efforts specified in this TDD at any time.

1.1 Background

The Program Executive Office for Cruise Missiles and Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (PEO(CU)) is entering the Determination of Mission Needs phase for the next priority UAV system of the Naval UAV Executive Steering Group: Naval MAE. For the purposes of this analysis, the terms MAE (Medium Altitude Endurance) and MRE (Multi-Role Endurance) are interchangeable. This analysis is one of the SECNAV and DoD required elements for a Milestone 0 on a possible acquisition program.

2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

All documents listed shall form part of this TDD to the extent specified herein. In case of inconsistency between these documents and the TDD, the TDD shall take precedence.

1. Draft Mission Needs Statement
2. 2010 Naval Force Structure
3. 2010 Threat

3. MRE UAV RA PROGRAM

1. Mission Area Assessment (MAA)

The contractor shall examine the requirements defined in the Draft MNS (Appendix A), and identify which group is readily or best satisfied by an MRE system. Within this contractor-identified set of requirements, the contractor shall identify mission areas that can be performed concurrently by one MRE UAV. Contractor analysis will be conducted with a standard set of scenarios, OPSITS, threat definition and laydown, agreed upon by the broad IPT after contract award. The basis for these will be formed by the 2010 force structure and threat, provided by the Government.

2. System Design and Definition (SDD)

3.2.1 Payload Analysis

The contractor shall examine the contractor-identified set of requirements from the Draft MNS, and evaluate the subsequent implications for specific payloads and overall capacity. At a minimum, the contractor shall evaluate, but is not restricted to, the need for specific sensors, multiple sensors, various payloads (EW, comm relay, etc.), multiple bays/turrets, external carriage, release/launch of smaller/expendable items (weapons, probes, recoverable drones, etc.), and the interchange of sensors, fuel and weapons. The interchange of payloads is critical to the long-term viability of a multi-role platform, performing a variety of missions in a variety of threats. For example, the Program Office anticipates expeditionary forces will employ the MRE in operations ranging from MOOTW (humanitarian relief, monitoring refugees, etc.) to high-threat battle management (processing targets in deep strike or BAI/CAS environments). The impact of payloads on the total system survivability and affordability must be examined.

3.2.2 C4I Analysis

The contractor shall examine the requirements defined in the Draft MNS, and evaluate the subsequent implications for robust, survivable C4I:

• data links
• data dissemination
• mission planning
• flight control

This examination shall start with TCDL and TCS as a baseline legacy, but is not restricted to it. The contractor may determine that simplistic connectivity is adequate (i.e. less than TCS), or may define a far more robust requirement for effective C4I (i.e. multiple, simultaneous fully autonomous operations without human intervention until targets are acquired and distributed over numerous specific networks - ground, sea, air or space based). The contractor shall examine mission planning, airborne and ship/ground control aspects, with attention to minimizing required manpower and training (TOC impacts), as well as real combat utility.

3.2.3 Air Vehicle Analysis

The contractor shall define conceptual designs of survivable and affordable air vehicles that meet the following Program Office precepts:

• 2010 Legacies
• Naval force structure and threat, as defined by the naval long range plans.
• Littoral Endurance
• 24 hour operations off naval vessels, in support of CVBG/MEU operations inland approximately 200nm.
• CVBG Strike Support
• Short duration operations at the limit of CVBG strike range, satisfactory to perform precision targeting / terminal guidance for CVBG strike assets then post-strike BDA.
• All Naval Basing
• A matrix of designs for CV, LHD/LHA, CG/DDG/FFG basing that will highlight preferred airframe/engine configuration(s).
• Exchangeable Payloads
• Sensors, fuel and weapons (if any) that can be swapped for a given mission on a given day. Consideration may be given to affecting the outer mold line of the aircraft and its signature, as MRE will not always operate in a high-threat environment.

1. System Analysis and Risk Assessment (SARA)

The contractor shall integrate the results of the study (payload, C4I, aircraft) into coherent system designs using sound systems engineering principles. System-level performance trades should be examined, with particular attention to survivability, affordability, ship compatibility, risk assessment and mitigation.

4. Deliverables

Via interim briefings, interim deliverables and a final report for the MRE RA Program, the contractor shall document and provide the results of the analysis. The contractor should prepare reports that document the major items: MAA (input to final MNS), SDD (payloads, C4I, air vehicle) and the SARA.

3.4.1 Mission Area Assessment

1. Identify which group is readily or best satisfied by an MRE system.

2. Within this contractor-identified set of requirements, the contractor shall identify mission areas that can be performed concurrently by one MRE UAV system.

3.4.2 System Design and Definition

1. Payload Specifics

Using the contractor-identified set of requirements, conduct and document trade studies to validate the basic payload requirements.

1. Notional sizing, including: weight, volume, power required.
2. Number and type of payload bays: internal, external (turret, wing stores, etc.), internal carriage of releasable/launchable items.
3. Specific sensors: types and performance.
4. Specific weapons types and performance (if any; must be currently planned for 2010 inventory).
5. Utility of supplemental fuel carriage (e.g. fuel pallets or drop tanks)
6. Interchange of payloads: sensors, fuel, weapons (if any).
7. Consider the impact of 24 hour operations on payload mix (day-night-day).
8. Synthesize and define a baseline set of configurations to perform the contractor-identified set of requirements.
9. Conduct an evaluation of the configurations/combinations as they would interact with CVBG/MEU assets (i.e. What capabilities do they add?).
10. Examine shipboard compatibility issues for notional payloads: ESH, EMI, naval environment, shipboard limitations, etc.

3.4.2.2 C4I Specifics

Using the contractor-identified set of requirements, conduct and document trade studies to validate basic C4I requirements.

Data-Links:

1. Define notional set of data-links (using existing or planned data-links) in the ship/ground and airborne subsystems, necessary to perform the requirements including: number, type, bandwidth, range, antennas, etc.
2. Describe need/impact of LPD/LPI communications.

Data Dissemination:

1. Define notional set of dissemination systems (using existing or planned systems, i.e. ATHS, JSIPS-N, JDISS), necessary to perform the requirements including: number, type, bandwidth, range, antennas, etc. Attention should be given to joint interoperability – the ability for the naval system to pass targeting to other JFACC assets.

Mission Planning & Flight Control:

1. Examine potential impacts of a variety of methods for mission planning and flight control: fully autonomous, ship/ground control, and airborne control. This will include discussion of minimum data-link requirements, level of interaction, operator workload, and training.
3. Notional strategy for operation/control, to include joint interoperability, OMFTS, strike warfare and littoral endurance missions.
3. Conduct an evaluation of potential configurations to perform selected requirements interacting with CVBG/MEU assets.

3.4.2.3 Air Vehicle Specifics

Using the given Program Office precepts, conduct and document conceptual design efforts, including:

1. Notional mission/basing requirements for sizing, including range/endurance, loiter altitude, speed, signature, and ship-imposed physical limits.

2. Synthesize and define an initial configuration for each combination of mission and launch/recovery scheme. For VTOL or STOVL designs, conduct a screening of propulsive-lift candidates and select a preferred technique for each mission/basing set.
3. Conduct a cursory evaluation of the configurations matched to each mission/basing combination. Screen the matrix for configuration outliers, where the mission and basing requirement conflict, deleting mission/basing combinations as required.
4. Define common multi-mission airframe/engine/avionics components for each vehicle design. Define the missionized variants and non-common systems/subsystems within each vehicle class. Investigate feasibility of payload modularity (i.e. quick shipboard reconfiguration) and effects on system/subsystem sizing and integration.
5. Develop 3-view arrangement drawings; estimate aerodynamic, installed propulsion, weight & c.g. characteristics.
6. Conduct vehicle sizing tradeoff studies to compare configurations optimized for each mission versus the single compromised configuration, and show sensitivities to mission/basing specifics and performance parameters.

3.4.3 System Analysis and Risk Assessment

Using the contractor-identified set of requirements, and the contractor analysis of payloads, C4I and air vehicles, conduct and document trade studies of the total system concept definitions.

1. System-level performance trades: survivability, affordability, etc. An example would be an evaluation of endurance altitude considering sensor characteristics, airframe/engine sizing, and susceptibility/vulnerability.
2. Examine various ship compatibility issues, such as coordination with manned aircraft cycles, deck operations, automatic landing systems, command & control, support and storage of vehicles, modular payloads and weapons, if any.
3. Estimate the airwing inventory makeup for the MRE system corresponding to each system naval basing mode, based on cursory analyses of force structure, sortie rate, etc., to the level required. Conduct trade studies to identify an optimal approach for achieving around-the-clock littoral coverage.
4. Conduct technology sensitivity analyses for the systems and aircraft corresponding to each system class/basing combination. The critical technologies should be assessed in light of a nominal 2010 IOC. Requirements for accelerated S&T investment should be identified, if needed.
5. System-level risk assessment and mitigation strategies.
6. The contractor shall develop and document a survivability plan for the MRE UAV.

• Detail the survivability goals for each mission.
• Show how, using all aspects of survivability (tactics, signature control, countermeasures, vulnerability hardening, etc.), the MRE UAV will survive and carry out the mission in the appropriate hazard environment for each selected mission.
• Outline planned design features for air vehicle, payload, C⁴I equipment, etc. to accomplish the stated survivability goals.
• Quantify the specific capabilities necessary to accomplish the stated survivability goals, i.e. signature levels in which aspect, performance of countermeasure devices, tactics required, vulnerability hardening measures, etc.
• Indicate technical/cost/schedule risk in achieving survivability goals. Identify areas for S&T investment.

3.5 Detailed Plan

The contractor shall maintain a Detailed Plan (DP) of all Government funded efforts, and prior to each Review provide status against the plan with deviations, recommended changes and closure plans (as needed) at program reviews or other times if appropriate.

3.6 Integrated Product Team (IPT) Meetings

Formal IPT meetings will occur at a government site (NAS Patuxent River, MD), four times in the program; Contract Award, as a Final Review, and twice between. The Program Office will work closely with the contractors for scheduling, and coordinate through informal and formal meetings.

3.7 Program Reviews and Reports

Contractor(s) will make recommendations for individual program reviews. Contractor(s) will have wide latitude to determine the format and substance as well as frequency and location of program reviews and reports. Contractor(s) must provide a copy of all presentation materials and reports to the MRE RA Program office using Microsoft applications described in Section 5.2.2.2 by CD-ROM.

8. Government Furnished Information

At contract award, the Program Office will provide:

1. MRE UAV Draft Mission Needs Statement, Rev 1
2. 2010 Naval Force Structure (long range plans)
3. 2010 Threat database (classified SECRET)

During the course of the contract period, the Program Office will provide updates of requirement prioritization from fleet users, via IPT meetings.

1. Government Furnished Equipment & Facilities

There will be no government equipment or facilities made available.

 

2. Security

The contractor will establish the OPSEC program specified under this item pursuant to the following requirements:

(1) The contractor is required to provide OPSEC protection for all classified information (as defined in FAR 4.401) and sensitive information (as defined in Title 15, United States Code, Section 278g-3(d)(4)). Security policy, procedures, and requirements for classified information are provided in DoD Manual 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). Use OPNAVINST 3432.1 and National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 298 for the concept of OPSEC, and apply the framework for telecommunications security in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Clause 252.239-7016, as appropriate. The contractor will apply and use Distribution Statements following the provisions of Exhibit 8A, OPNAVINST 5510.36. In order to meet this requirement, the contractor shall develop, implement and maintain a facility level OPSEC program to protect classified and sensitive information to be held, provided, used, handled, discussed, processed, stored, transmitted, or delivered at a contractor’s or subcontractor’s facilities during performance of this contract. The data called for hereunder will be provided following Exhibit A, Item 005 (If appropriate, insert: "The contractor’s OPSEC program will be described in an revised edition of the existing OPSEC plan, dated ___________, and approved on __________). The contractor will submit the document in MS Word 6.0 (or later) format on floppy or compact disk and in hard copy to the government (AIR-7.4.4) for approval.

(2) The contractor is responsible for subcontractor implementation of OPSEC requirements for this contract."