...
The ACE program effort comprises four technical areas (TAs). This solicitation is for TA4. It is expected that coordination with the TA1 and TA2 performers as well as the Experimentation Integration Team (EIT) will be required to achieve performance objectives. A description of each relevant technical area and the EIT follows the figure.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the different ACE program Technical Areas. The ACE program is constructed to address four primary technical challenges:
1. Technical Area 1: Build
combat autonomy for local (individual and team tactical) behaviors
2. Technical Area 2: Build and calibrate
trust in air combat local behaviors3. Technical Area 3:
Scale performance/trust to global (heterogeneous multi-aircraft)
behavior4. Technical Area 4:
Build
full-scale air combat experimentation infrastructure...
After a successful Phase 1, the ACE program has entered Phase 2. As such, this solicitation is for
TA4 Phase 2 (Base Period) and
TA4 Phase 3 (Option 1). The solicitation also includes an additional aircraft hardware option (Option 2), and an additional aircraft mission systems software integration option (Option 3). The purpose of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 efforts are to support
autonomous WVR maneuvering and trust research in the ACE program, while the additional aircraft options are designed to support ACE as well as a wider range of autonomy development needs.
...
3. Program Objectives
The
primary objective of TA4 is to develop
full-scale aircraft experimentation platforms capable of implementing the
ACE algorithms and technologies, including human machine interfaces (HMIs), generated by the ACE TA1 and TA2 performers. The TA4 performer will be responsible for full-scale aircraft modification, providing airworthiness documentation, and testing that includes aircraft interface development, ground test, flight test and experimentation, as well as any specialized maintenance. For the Phase 2 Base Period and the Phase 3 Option (Option 1), the performer will modify
two F-16D aircraft making them capable of integrating WVR autonomy algorithms developed in TA1 and TA2 through an interface specified in a Government-controlled ICD. The performer will also modify aircraft to provide appropriate interfaces for the integration of HMIs developed in TA1 and TA2, safety pilot overrides, and a paddle off/on disconnect capability. The performer will facilitate safety and airworthiness reviews to enable supervised, live WVR engagements.
A
secondary objective of TA4 is to establish
human-on-the-loop experimentation infrastructure needed to accelerate development of autonomous systems. The hardware and software solutions proposed under the additional aircraft hardware option (Option 2) and the additional aircraft mission systems software integration option (Option 3) are expected to establish the desired human-on-the-loop experimentation infrastructure. In human-on-the-loop experimentation,
a pilot sits in the seat of the aircraft with access to all the onboard controls and safety overrides, while the autonomy is given aircraft and mission systems control to test new functionality. A pilot is then able to test an autonomy solution in a real-world setting while being able to disengage the autonomy at any time by “paddling” it off and taking over control of the aircraft and mission systems. This allows the pilot to both provide feedback to developers and to act as a safety net or runtime assurance for the autonomy. It is also desirable for the pilot to be able to “paddle” the autonomy back on to seamlessly re-engage after the pilot makes an adjustment or correction. Modifications to government furnished F-16C aircraft in quantities of 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 aircraft are requested for the additional aircraft hardware option (Option 2), while the additional aircraft mission systems software integration option (Option 3) is expected to apply equally across all modified aircraft with connectivity to the specified mission system.
The first two additional aircraft are desired for ACE 2v2 testing.
...
B. Program Structure and Technical Approach
1. Phase 2 (Base Period - 15 Months)
During the Phase 2 base period the performer will provide the design of a technical solution, perform fabrication, installation, and testing of kits to convert two government furnished F-16D aircraft into human-on-the-loop, safety-sandboxed testbed aircraft which meet the desired attributes of the technical approach outlined in Section I.C, Technical Objectives for Phase 2, Phase 3 and the Additional Aircraft Options.
...
...
2. Phase 3 (Option 1 – 15 Months)
The Phase 3 Option period will consist of flight test support of the converted aircraft. At the beginning of Phase 3 the performer will support flight checkout of the two modified F-16D aircraft.
...
3. Additional Aircraft Hardware Option (Option 2 – Notionally 21 months)
The additional aircraft options will convert
USAF F-16C aircraft (GFE) that have been equipped with the
APG-83 radar into human-on-the-loop, safety-sandboxed testbed aircraft to support autonomy development and experimentation. The additional aircraft hardware option will consist of NRE design, kit fabrication, and kit installation. Required reviews/meetings are a kickoff, a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), a Critical Design Review (CDR), and Test Readiness Reviews (TRR) prior to ground or flight test events. Major review descriptions and expectations are included in Section I.F.
At a high-level,
this option will replicate the modifications that were made to the first two F-16D aircraft but on F-16C aircraft, and will add additional hardware connectivity by integrating the mission computer with additional mission systems at the physical layer. This option is only for the physical layer and will not require the performer to modify software to create interfaces at the logical layer. The performer will design and perform physical integration (power and appropriate cabling for data) for the following mission systems in a manner that enables software modifications for paddle-on/paddle-off autonomous control over these systems for human-onthe-loop autonomy experimentation. While software modification is not a part of this option, a high level description of how paddle-on/paddle-off autonomous control could be achieved given the wiring solution is required:
· Northrop Grumman
APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar
· Lockheed Martin
Legion Pod·
ALQ-213·
Angry Kitten Pod·
Link-16·
Targeting pods such as the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod or the Northrup Grumman LITENING pod
Figure 3 shows a notional system architecture for the additional aircraft option.
...
4. Additional Aircraft Mission Systems Software Integration Option (Option 3)
The additional aircraft mission systems software integration option covers software integration of mission systems with the mission computer. Specifically, the
ability to read data from and send commands to the following mission systems (assumes hardware connections are in place from Option 2):
· Northrop Grumman APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar
· Lockheed Martin Legion Pod
· ALQ-213
· Angry Kitten Pod
· Link-16
· Targeting pods such as the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod or the Northrup Grumman LITENING pod
...
...
...