1 1
RETURN BIDS TO: Title - Sujet WESM - RFI/LOI RETOURNER LES SOUMISSIONS À: Weapons Effect System Modernization Bid Receiving - PWGSC / Réception des Solicitation No. - N° de l'invitation Date soumissions TPSGC W8476-216429/A 2021-03-11 11 Laurier St. / 11, rue Laurier Client Reference No. - N° de référence du client GETS Ref. No. - N° de réf. de SEAG Place du Portage, Phase III Core 0B2 / Noyau 0B2 W8476-216429 PW-$$QT-011-28148 Gatineau File No. - N° de dossier CCC No./N° CCC - FMS No./N° VME Quebec 011qt.W8476-216429 K1A 0S5 Bid Fax: (819) 997-9776 Solicitation Closes - L'invitation prend fin at - à 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST on - le 2021-12-31 Heure Normale du l'Est HNE LETTER OF INTEREST F.O.B. - F.A.B. LETTRE D'INTÉRÊT Plant-Usine: Destination: Other-Autre: Address Enquiries to: - Adresser toutes questions à: Buyer Id - Id de l'acheteur Derby(QT Div), Sandra 011qt Telephone No. - N° de téléphone FAX No. - N° de FAX (873) 355-4982 ( ) ( ) - Destination - of Goods, Services, and Construction: Destination - des biens, services et construction:
Specified Herein Précisé dans les présentes
Comments - Commentaires
Instructions: See Herein
Instructions: Voir aux présentes
Vendor/Firm Name and Address Raison sociale et adresse du fournisseur/de l'entrepreneur Delivery Required - Livraison exigée Delivery Offered - Livraison proposée See Herein – Voir ci-inclus Vendor/Firm Name and Address Raison sociale et adresse du fournisseur/de l'entrepreneur
Telephone No. - N°de téléphone Facsimile No. - N° de télécopieur Issuing Office - Bureau de distribution Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of Vendor/Firm Detection, Simulation and Optical Systems Division (type or print) Place du Portage III, 8C2 Nom et titre de la personne autorisée à signer au nom du fournisseur/ 11 rue Laurier Street de l'entrepreneur (taper ou écrire en caractères d'imprimerie) Gatineau Quebec K1A 0S5 Signature Date
Page 1 of - de 1
Weapon Effects Simulation Modernization Request for Information
1. Purpose and Nature of the Request for Information (RFI) Process
1.1 Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is requesting industry feedback regarding the Weapon Effects Simulation Modernization (WESM) procurement on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
Annex A “Questions to Industry” is attached to this RFI. Industry is requested to review these questions and provide answers to the PSPC Contracting Authority identified under Article 5 “Contracting Authority” on or before May 10, 2021.
In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on government operations and those of industry, please inform the Contracting Authority if you intend to submit your responses to the Annex A questions after Canada’s requested response date.
Please note that the published RFI closing date is not the deadline for comments or input.
THIS IS THE FIRST OF MULTIPLE POTENTIAL ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES PLANNED UNDER THIS PROCESS.
1.2 The intent of this RFI is to keep the lines of communication open between GoC and industry throughout the various stages of the engagement process, PSPC intends to release future engagement activities through amendments to this RFI process. Each subsequent amendment will clearly identify the information Canada is requesting and the requested industry response date. The purpose of this RFI is to: a. provide a continuous single point of official program communication with industry; b. collaborate with industry on elements of the requirements as live simulation and training technology evolves along with how the sustainment and business enterprises are developed through the resulting contract terms and conditions; c. answer questions from industry to ensure all interested participants receive the same information; d. provide schedule updates; and e. hold industry meetings and engagement activities as necessary.
1.3 The objective of this RFI process is to:
a. ensure Canada’s expectations for engagement are clear and easy for industry to understand; b. foster innovation and deliver the best solution possible for Canada; c. fully understand potential WESM solutions the market has to offer and leverage industry expertise to develop an efficient and effective procurement strategy that achieves the procurement’s objectives and best value to Canada;
d. proactively communicate the Government’s commitment to support live simulation in both static locations (rural and urban) and deployed training environments through a fair, open, transparent, and competitive procurement process; e. communicate timely, relevant, and easy-to-understand information to ensure suppliers understand what the procurement process aims to achieve and how they can participate; f. foster productive and positive working relationships with the potential WESM supplier community to ensure the procurement’s objectives are achieved; g. seek feedback and validation from industry on various critical aspects to enable the development of the future WES capability; specifically, the two preliminary sets of major operational requirements, one per project option: decentralized (focus on various locations throughout Canada) and centralized (focus on Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alberta); and h. advise industry of potential engagement activities such as Industry Day events, site visits, one-on- one meetings and other potential engagement activities.
1.4 This RFI is neither a call for tender nor an RFP. No agreement or contract will be entered into based on this RFI process. The issuance of this RFI is not to be considered in any way a commitment by the Government of Canada, nor as authority to potential respondents to undertake any work that could be charged to Canada. This RFI process is not to be considered as a commitment to issue a subsequent solicitation or award contract(s) for the work described herein.
Although the information collected may be provided as commercial-in-confidence (and, if identified as such, will be treated accordingly by Canada), Canada may use the information to assist in drafting the technical document (which are subject to change).
Respondents are encouraged to identify, in the information they share with Canada, any information that they feel is proprietary, third party or personal information. Please note that Canada may be obligated by law (e.g. in response to a request under the Access of Information and Privacy Act) to disclose proprietary or commercially-sensitive information concerning a respondent (for more information: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-1/).
Respondents are asked to identify if their response, or any part of their response, is subject to the Controlled Goods Regulations.
Although participation in this RFI process is not mandatory, industry is strongly encouraged to engage early in the process to avoid being at a disadvantage. There will be no short-listing of potential suppliers for the purposes of undertaking any future work as a result of this RFI. Similarly, participation in this RFI is not a condition or prerequisite for the participation in any potential subsequent solicitation.
Respondents will not be reimbursed for any cost incurred by participating in this RFI process.
2. Background Information:
The WESM project will modernize the Canadian Army (CA) WES training system to enable individual and collective training in order to deliver combat effective CA units and formations.
The WES capability was acquired by the CA to address the deficiency in simulating realistic weapon effects during force-on-force field training exercises. The WES system provides soldiers the opportunity to train in the way that they would fight, utilizing actual weapons and vehicle platforms as they would be used in theatre and on deployments. This capability provides data and products for effective after- action reviews to enhance the commanders’ ability to train and evaluate the readiness of their troops in both an urban and rural training environment. There are four (4) instrumented static sites (with fixed exercise control center) located in Wainwright, Alberta, Gagetown, New Brunswick, Petawawa, Ontario and Valcartier, Quebec in addition to a mobile capability which can be used anywhere within Canada, and two (2) non-instrumented sites, one located in Edmonton, Alberta and the other in Shilo, Manitoba. The intent of this project is to modernize the existing WES capability potentially addressing: equipment obsolescence; updated operational requirements; and advancements in technology and international standards (such as those being developed under UCATT). The intent of this RFI is to seek information from industry; thereby allowing the Government of Canada to better define the options for the modernization of the Canadian WES System.
3. Potential Work Scope and Constraints:
3.1 Potential Scope of Work
This RFI is to understand both the acquisition and in-service support requirements to perform the activities necessary to effectively deliver, operate, maintain, and support exercises and logistical activities for Canada’s live simulation equipment after WES enterprise and capability modernization. See Annex A for a more detailed project scope.
The modernized WES enterprise is anticipated to achieve full operational capability in the 2028-2029 timeframe. It is anticipated that there may be several contracts as a result of procurement work. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be contract(s) for in-service support that will be initiated in the same general timeframe as the acquisition contract(s) and extend beyond the delivery of the capability. Expected duration of in-service support contract(s) have not yet been determined.
3.2 National Security Exception
A National Security Exception – Special Contracting Caveat may be invoked for resulting procurement process(es).
3.3 Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy
A final determination on the application of the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy to the WESM project has not been made. Engagement with industry through the Request for Information (RFI) will help determine how Canada could leverage opportunities for economic benefit through this procurement.
3.4 Security
While there is no security clearance requirement as part of this RFI process, a security clearance up to secret level will be required for the WESM contract(s).
4. Schedule:
Canada is finalizing the procurement schedule which will be communicated under a future RFI amendment.
5. Contracting Authority
Interested Respondents may submit their responses to the PSPC Contracting Authority, identified below, preferably via email:
Sandra Derby Supply Team Leader Defence and Marine Procurement Branch Public Services and Procurement Canada / Government of Canada [email protected] Tel: 873-355-4982
A point of contact for the Respondent should be included in each delivery.
Changes to this RFI may occur and will be advertised on the Government Electronic Tendering System. Canada asks Respondents to visit Buyandsell.gc.ca regularly to check for changes, if any.
6. Questions Submitted by Industry
All enquiries and other communications related to this RFI process shall be directed exclusively to the PSPC Contracting Authority identified under Article 5. While Canada intends to respond to industry questions by releasing answers periodically through subsequent RFI amendments, responding to questions will be handled on a best effort basis.
Often Canada may not be in a position to answer certain questions because requirements may not yet be finalized on various aspects of WES Modernization. Unanswered questions are still very valuable
feedback as it allows Canada to see where industry may have concerns, or where a different approach to a requirement may be possible.
As industry feedback is submitted and reviewed for consideration over the course of the RFI process, Canada may periodically release updated versions of the major operational and sustainment requirements. These updated documents often answer questions submitted by industry.
7. Additional Information Requests
Throughout the RFI process, Public Services and Procurement Canada may request additional information, clarifications or site visits from respondents.
8. Fairness Monitor
Canada may engage the services of an organization to act as an independent, third-party Fairness Monitor (FM) for the future solicitation process.
WESM RFI Annex A
ANNEX A
WEAPON EFFECTS SIMULATION MODERNIZATION (WESM)
Questions to Industry (February 2021)
Requisition Number: DND Document # W8476-216429
Date: 02-02-2021
Prepared by:
WESM Program Team National Defence Headquarters Major General George R. Pearkes Building Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2
NOTICE This documentation has been reviewed by the Technical Authority and does not contain controlled goods. AVIS Cette documentation a été révisée par l’Autorité technique et ne contient pas de marchandises contrôlées.
Page 1 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
Table of Contents
1 Abstract ...... 3 2 Background ...... 4 3 WES Modernization ...... 6 3.1 Modernization Mission ...... 6 3.2 Modernization Vision ...... 6 3.3 Modernization Objectives ...... 7 3.4 Concept of Employment (CONEMP) ...... 8 3.5 High Level Mandatory Requirements ...... 10 3.6 WESM System Level Questions ...... 11 4 Sustainment Enterprise (SE) ...... 14 4.1 Context ...... 14 4.2 Questions ...... 15 5 Exercise Control (EXCON) ...... 17 5.1 Questions ...... 17 6 Data Communication Network (DCN) ...... 20 6.1 Questions ...... 20 7 Soldier Systems ...... 22 7.1 Context ...... 22 7.2 Questions ...... 22 8 Vehicle Systems ...... 25 8.1 Context ...... 25 8.2 Questions ...... 25 9 Weapon Systems ...... 29 9.1 Context ...... 29 9.2 Questions ...... 29 10 Urban Capability ...... 34 10.1 Context ...... 34 10.2 Questions ...... 34 Glossary ...... 36 List of Acronyms ...... 38
Page 2 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
1 Abstract 1.1 The Weapon Effects Simulation Modernization (WESM) project is looking forward to the future of Live Simulation for the Canadian Army (CA) and is currently in the Options Analysis (OA) phase, with potential contract(s) award in FY25/26, Initial Operational Capability (IOC) planned in FY27/28, and Final Operational Capability (FOC) planned in FY29/30. Through one or multiple contracts, it is intended that WESM will be responsible for both the acquisition of new equipment and software, and the eventual changes to the required in-service support as a result of the new Canadian Army (CA) operational requirements. 1.2 As part of the OA phase, the WESM Project team is in the process of soliciting industry perspectives and points of view around the modernization and expansion of the Canadian Weapon Effects Simulation (WES) system, including interoperability with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. This feedback, in line with the latest technology and industry’s expectation of where technology is likely to go in the next 10-15 years, will help with the finalization of the CA’s operational requirements and the initialization of the development of the Sustainment Enterprise (SE). 1.3 The aim of the WESM Project initial industry engagement is to better understand and assess the industry options and available technology for a modernized WES system in support of the current and future CA training requirements.
Page 3 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
2 Background 2.1 The aim of the existing WES program was to provide a live simulation training capability for the CA to conduct collective training, and provide effective After- Action Reviews (AARs) to enhance the commanders’ ability to train and evaluate their troops in both urban and rural training environments. 2.2 The WES capability was acquired by the CA to address a deficiency in objectively simulating realistic weapon effects during force-on-force field training exercises. Force-on-force training is based on the traditional military two-sided engagements in which one side plays the role of the opposition force. When used with a variety of communication networks and Exercise Control (EXCON), the laser and radio- based system provides the weapon effects which are nearly identical to real operations. Additionally, replays and reports are provided to the military chain of command (CoC) in order to conduct effective AAR; thereby enhancing a Commander’s ability to train and evaluate their troops. 2.3 The WES system emulates the capabilities, with some limitations, of weapons and vehicle platforms operated by the CA in an integrated live simulation environment. Using lasers, geo-pairing and a variety of communication networks, the WES system permits force-on-force training in a manner that provides realistic simulation engagement effects of direct fire (small arms, tanks, etc.) and area weapons (indirect fire, minefields, etc.), while providing timely and precise feedback to the soldiers and units undergoing training. 2.4 The WES system provides the CA the flexibility to train using live simulation with any permutation or combination of the rural environment, urban environment, with or without dismounted troops, with or without vehicles and instrumented (with an EXCON) or non-instrumented (without an EXCON) exercises. The WES system must be capable of enabling training at both static and deployed sites. 2.5 Data transfer between EXCON and the exercise equipment and participants is currently achieved through a dedicated, Radio Frequency (RF) based, Data Communication Network (DCN) with Microwave relay towers. The DCN Server communicates directly with the EXCON Interface Server, and training information is recorded, monitored, displayed and reviewed at a centralized EXCON facility. 2.6 A mobility capability allows the CA flexibility to train up to Battle Group size (2,800 entities) exercises anywhere across the country with the similar capabilities to the static locations, with the exception of urban-specific components (cameras, High- Fidelity Tracking (HFT) system, etc.). These trailer-mounted components include an EXCON, two radio towers, and trailers for transporting WES equipment for the soldiers undergoing training. 2.7 There are currently four (4) live simulation static locations (Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Wainwright, CFB Petawawa, CFB Valcartier and CFB Gagetown) that either have or will have by 2022 the ability to support training in the rural and/or urban environment. The instrumented urban training capability includes cameras, speakers, high fidelity tracking and urban specific equipment, housed in building simulators. CFB Wainwright is the largest of all the static sites, with towers for
Page 4 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
permanent radio coverage of the rural training area and the support infrastructure to perform warehouse activities, conduct up to 3rd line maintenance, plus the equipment and manpower to support future integration and testing activities. There are also two (2) non-instrumented static urban sites, one at CFB Edmonton and another at CFB Shilo. 2.8 The WES program has evolved significantly since the initial project delivery back in 2006. New Army equipment and vehicles such as the C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL), the Leopard 2A4 tank and the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV), have been integrated into the existing WES environment. Person-worn equipment has been almost completely replaced and the procurement of a mobile trailer-based Exercise Control and remote relay tower now enables instrumented training at any CA training location across Canada. 2.9 Under the current WES in-service support, the Contractor (Cubic Global Defence) is responsible to verify that sufficient equipment is operational, to issue equipment to participants, to install kit on vehicles and to ensure all equipment is calibrated prior to an exercise debut. The Contractor, in conjunction with CA personnel, is responsible to provide training to soldiers on the use and capabilities of their WES equipment. During the exercise, the Contractor supports the equipment in the field to ensure that it is performing in accordance with specifications, conducting repairs, swap outs, and recalibration as required. Software analyst support is also required during an exercise to address issues, supervise system reboots, and provide user-interface training and guidance. At the EXCON, information is collected from which AAR material is prepared, utilizing system data and map screen replays; all is packaged by the Contractor, for presentation by the military leadership. At the end of the exercise, the Contractor removes the WES kit from the vehicles, collects all equipment issued to participants and conducts the maintenance and repairs as required in order to be ready for the next training event. A Sustainment Business Case Analysis (SBCA) is currently ongoing to determine the future requirements for contractor support to the WES Program. 2.10 The WES contract was awarded to Cubic Defense Applications Inc. in 2003, and the equipment obtained FOC in 2006 has evolved throughout the years integrating different CA platforms, additional capability, and updates of systems and equipment by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Some of the original WES equipment has been recently replaced to address obsolescence concerns while other WES equipment will require replacement in the upcoming years.
Page 5 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
3 WES Modernization 3.1 Modernization Mission 3.1.1 The WESM project will provide the technology to support highly realistic and challenging joint and multinational instrumented collective live training up to the Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (CBMG) level (TL7) through the use of live simulation systems within an integrated training environment in order to deliver combat effective CA units and formations. 3.2 Modernization Vision 3.2.1 The CA is modernizing its policy for training and simulation through the publication of the Future Integrated Training Environment (FITE); a vision statement detailing the employment strategy for simulation in support of CA training. The WESM Project will modernize and expand the current Canadian WES system capabilities to improve the live simulation training experience for these individual and collective training requirements. 3.2.2 This modernization aims to enable joint and multinational training with allies and Joint, Interagency, Multinational and Public (JIMP) partners also working towards the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) and Urban Combat Advanced Training Technology (UCATT) interoperability standards. It will also enable simulation support to training at multiple locations, both on and off military bases in Canada as well as outside of Canada. Upon completion of the system modernization, the WES system will be modular and scalable so as to enable continuous evolution and capability advancements as weapons and simulation technologies evolve. 3.2.3 The current WES system, which will be modernized through the WESM project, will adopt UCATTs standards in order to enable training in accordance with the use cases thereby allowing the CA to train with “America Britain Canada Australia New Zealand” (ABCANZ) and NATO nations who have also adopted the UCATT standards. The WES system will also be compatible with the U.S Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) live simulation system in order to enable training with the U.S. Army and with the legacy WES to allow a gradual transition between the legacy and the modernized WES system and the retention of some of the legacy WES capabilities. The WES system will provide the technology to support highly realistic and challenging joint and multinational instrumented tactical field training up to the Brigade level. 3.2.4 The intent is to deliver a modernized live simulation training system capability, in line with the CA FITE vision, that will be able to replicate the complexity, stress and challenges of the full spectrum of operations from domestic aid operations through to high-level warfighting against a peer enemy. An emphasis should be placed on the ability to change and adapt rapidly to meet rapidly changing domestic and foreign fields of engagement and challenges in accordance with Close Engagement and FITE documents.
Page 6 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
3.3 Modernization Objectives 3.3.1 The WESM Project will directly address and contribute to the following objectives: a. Army Readiness Validation Capability Increased: The CA is able to certify the readiness of forces up to brigade level for deployment in a range of scenarios from Peace Enforcement, through to peer-opponent High Intensity Operations. b. Training Capacity Increased: The expanded training system, at multiple CA bases, provides the means and equipment to train CA forces up to the Brigade level including Canadian joint military participants, NATO and other coalition military partners, participants from other government departments and non-governmental agencies and any other essential task-tailored participants. c. System Technology Modernised: The adoption of Open technical standards will increase system flexibility, promote incremental capability development, diversify the supplier base and assist in driving down costs d. Joint Training Enabled: The adoption of NATO and other allied-driven technical standards for live simulation will remove, to the extent possible, vendor-based proprietary simulation equipment solutions that limit, or restrict, training interoperability with Canadian joint partners such as the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). e. Allied Training Interoperability Achieved: The adoption of Open standards will help delivery interoperability with Canadian allies (With an end state of partner nations able to ‘Bring Their Own WES’ (BTOW) to CA WES exercises). f. Future Evolutionary Live Simulation Capability Development Enabled: The adoption of modern, modular and standard-based live simulation technologies, will enable evolutionary and cost effective future capability development as it will be possible to progressively upgrade elements of the system and leverage the investment industries and allied partners are committing to the same technologies. g. Soldiers Away From Home Base Time Reduced: The amount of time soldiers need to be away from home will be reduced by the ability to undergo high quality training at their home garrisons. h. CA Future Integrated Training Environment (FITE): The FITE seeks to create a training framework which blends live simulation field training and the synthetic training environment composed of virtual simulation and constructive simulation. As such, synthetic training and field training will be part of a continuum that mitigates resource constraints and the limitations of field training. The FITE will allow training to take place in complex operational environments where threats and challenges will be diverse and rapidly changing.
Page 7 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
Within this training environment, live simulation training will support the assessment of the Battle Task Standards (BTS) during foundation, high readiness (HR) or continuation training. For individual training, simulated live training will support instructor assessment of planning and technical skills as well as Techniques, Tactics and Procedures (TTP) during qualification courses. 3.4 Concept of Employment (CONEMP) 3.4.1 Training Scenarios: The CA will use the WES system in a wide range of individual and collective training scenarios that will include both the regular and the reserve forces. The WES equipment will be used for extended periods of time (24-hour training days, up to 21 consecutive training days) in the following training scenarios: a. Individual Training Courses. This type of training would involve tactical units of varying sizes using the WESM suite in support of continuation or qualification training. While not mandatory to evaluate training objectives, the suite will provide the tools to instructors to compare task planning with task execution and enable task assessments and debriefings with a focus on movements rather than engagements. The live simulation supported debriefing needs to be conducted in the same locations and the same time constraints as current AARs for individual training. This type of training would occur throughout the year and the respective training courses are to be conducted at the Combat Training Centre (CTC) in Gagetown, New Brunswick and at the Divisional Training Centres and the units which are located at the five main CA bases. (Edmonton, Alberta; Shilo, Manitoba; Petawawa, Ontario; Valcartier, Quebec; Gagetown, New Brunswick) b. Collective Training (Section to Combat Team). This type of training (from level 2 to 5) would include a minimum of 10 soldiers including a driver, gunner and crew commander as well as the vehicle, up to 180 soldiers, 40 armoured combat vehicles and 20 support vehicles, plus an enemy force of platoon size (30-40 soldiers plus 3-4 armoured vehicles) being exercised on or off any of the 5 CA bases as well as on allied bases outside of Canada. The Combat Team level of training requires close integration of combined arms sub-unit leadership and enablers where the synchronization of arms and services becomes critical. In this case, live simulation would be enabled through leveraging the Exercise Control Sites supporting urban environment sites at the main CA bases. Deployable WESM would support training level 2 to 5 collective training anywhere in Canada or potentially deployed outside Canada (OUTCAN) with Allies. This type of training would occur throughout the year for both the regular and primary reserve forces. Units will need to train up to combat team dry training in preparation to conduct live fire exercises. Continuation training is also required to maintain combat capability and tactical skills for units in High Readiness. As the training level and complexity is increased, so too is the number of partners who require the ability to link other virtual or constructive simulation systems to the WESM suite. Page 8 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
c. Collective training (Battle Group and Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group). This type of training would include up to 4800 soldiers, 400 armoured vehicles and 600 support vehicles (plus opposition force) and being exercised at major CA bases, ABCANZ or NATO bases or at off- base Canadian locations up to the unit level and at major CA bases at the Brigade group level. The opposition force is typically comprised of a mechanized Battle Group size (up to 600 soldiers, 120 armoured vehicles and 200 support vehicles). Up to the unit level, those are being exercised at major CA bases or at off-base Canadian locations as well as at ABCANZ or NATO partner-nation training locations. All Level 6 training will generally take place in a joint and combined context and it is likely the EXCON capability could be mobile. Level 7 training may be multinational and may include a requirement to understand higher-level coalition operations. Increased emphasis will be placed on Full Spectrum Operations (FSO) within a JIMP context. Brigade Group training can be part of a multinational exercise that is hosting several units from different CA bases at the Canadian Maneuver Training Centre (CMTC) in Wainwright, Alberta. Due to the large number of participants, it is likely that the EXCON capability would be static. Furthermore, the time and personnel required to set up and takedown the exercise must be minimized. 3.4.2 Training Use Cases: From the collective training scenarios, the CA has identified 4 training use cases that describe different types of joint and multinational training. Interoperability and availability of sufficient quantities of training equipment are both essential requirements to conduct efficient training. Under the CA FITE vision, it is possible that a part of the training audience would be training under virtual and/or constructive simulation systems that is connected and supports the live training event. There are also requirements to incorporate force elements for both friendly and Opposition Forces (OPFOR) who will be operating in virtual or constructive simulation systems. For example, an F-18 pilot may be participating in an exercise whilst in a high-fidelity simulator. The pilot will interact with a Joint Fire Attack Controller (JFAC) deployed into the training area and the effects of delivered simulated munitions replicated in the live environment. Other field effects may be constructive such as a deep fire artillery system firing in support of live field effects. a. Conduct up to Brigade-level training with joint and multinational elements (Wainwright). This case involves the CA hosting a multinational training event involving one or multiple members of ABCANZ or NATO countries where the contingent(s) use their own interoperability-proven Tactical Engagement Simulation System (TESS): consistent with UCATT use case 1. During the exercise, the multinational participant systems must be interoperate directly with each other. b. Conduct up to Battalion Group training with joint and multinational elements at a Canadian Army base. Similar to the previous case, this involves the CA conducting training up to the Battle Group level that may involve joint Page 9 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
participants and one or multiple members of ABCANZ or NATO countries. It must meet the same requirements as in the previous case, but up to level 6 only and at different locations. c. Conduct up to Battalion Group off-base training in Canada. This case involves the CA conducting training off-base in civilian areas. This may or may not be in the vicinity of a CA Base and therefore training support must be deployable, including a mobile EXCON and communication system as well as the ability to instrument weapon systems and mobile platforms on site. d. Conduct up to Battalion Group with joint and multinational elements (Partner nation training locations). This case involves a hosted multinational training at an ABCANZ or NATO partner nation training location that has an installed, interoperable system at an as yet undetermined training location. One or multiple visiting partner forces come to a hosting nation and bring their operational equipment, accompanying TESS and/or their EXCON and communication system. This is consistent with either UCATT use case 2 option 1 or option 2 depending upon whether only the TESS is brought or not.
3.5 High Level Mandatory Requirements
WESM High Level Mandatory Requirements (HLMR) # HLMR Description 1A. Provide the ability for the CA to conduct live simulation supported training with joint and multinational elements at Canadian WES-designated training locations, including, but not limited to, RCAF elements, ABCANZ forces and other NATO partner forces. Training system 1B. Provide the ability to control and monitor all exercise participants and 1 interoperability and mobile weapon platforms that are involved in Canadian, joint and mobility multinational live simulation field training exercises at Canadian WES- designated training locations. 1C. Provide the ability for the CA to conduct live simulation supported training with joint and multinational elements at partner nation operated training locations. 2A. The training environment must provide the ability for exercise participants to use, or interact with, their personal equipment, weapons and mobile Training and platforms as they normally would and for the simulation to produce realistic 2 Simulation battle effects based on this use. environment 2B. Support the conduct of after action reviews and verification of exercise results to enable training reinforcement and confirmation that training objectives were achieved. 3A. Provide the resident ability for the CA to train a Brigade sized training Training audience audience, including joint and JIMP assets and an opposing force, at the sizes and WES- CMTC in Wainwright. 3 designated training 3B. Provide the ability for the CA to train up to a Battle Group sized training locations audience, including joint enablers and an opposing force at the main CA garrison locations (Shilo, Manitoba; Petawawa, Ontario; Valcartier, Quebec; Gagetown, New Brunswick) and other military and non-military sites in Page 10 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
Canada.
3.6 WESM System Level Questions 3.6.1 In order to structure the WES modernization questions to industry, the WESM project considers the following areas of interest: WES Modernization
Interoperability
Page 11 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
3.6.2 The WESM system must support the individual and collective training assessment and validation needs of different training levels. Assessment includes the training plan for individual training and the BTS for collective training up to level 7 according to the training use cases for the system. As such, the WESM system must support the evaluation of a single major training event or a series of smaller simultaneous training events at different training levels, across different locations in Canada and partner nation training locations. These requirements for different sizes of training audience at various training locations raise the following questions: General: 3.6.3 Taking into consideration the WESM Modernization Objectives in section 3.3, how does your live simulation system provide the supporting capabilities, including: a. Describe how your solution supports training that is representative of real- life employment in the context of a coalition led theatres of operations? b. Describe how your solution would support training up to the Brigade level at multiple CA bases, including joint forces and other partners? c. Describe any open standards and architectures your solution has adopted towards removing component obsolescence and increasing supply base? d. Describe any technical standards for live simulation your solution has adopted towards training interoperability with Canadian joint partners and closest allies, and reduce limitations based on vendor-based proprietary simulation equipment? e. Describe the modern, modular and standards-based live simulation technologies adopted by your solution that will enable evolutionary and cost effective future capability development? f. Describe how your solution has been employed with virtual and constructive simulation systems, providing examples of solutions that have been applied for other countries. g. Describe how you have integrated capabilities (jet fighters, ground-based air defence systems…) in the live simulation environment using virtual simulators. h. Describe what procedure and interface you employ to integrate live, virtual and constructive simulation. i. Describe your learning management system for the live simulation environment. Do you employ a training management system that can collect and store data from multiple simulators (live, virtual and constructive) and describe the standards you employ?
Page 12 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
3.6.4 Describe how your live simulation systems would support each of the field training scenarios and training use cases described in Section 3.4 Concept of Employment? Capabilities: 3.6.5 Describe any system health monitoring that is employed; such as Built-in Test (BIT) and/or self-checks to confirm the kit is working correctly? How are the results represented? Are the results “rolled-up” to give an overall status update on the kit? 3.6.6 CA training occurs throughout the year and as such is subjected to the diverse Canadian climate. Describe what environmental testing was conducted, including the verified temperature range thresholds, and other environmental conditioning processes used to validate your capability? Interoperability: 3.6.7 In the area of live simulation, describe how your solution is compatible with the latest standard versions of UCATT? Are you also following other new or existing standards, if so, explain which ones and how they are applicable? 3.6.8 Describe how your live simulation solution would support training with joint and multinational elements; such as ABCANZ and other NATO partner forces, both in Canada and at partner nation operated training locations? 3.6.9 Has your live simulation training system been employed in a multinational or interagency training environment? Describe how you made your system compatible for this environment and what nations/interagency were involved. 3.6.10 Describe how other countries, allied countries, organizations are currently using your live simulation systems, indicating which countries and to what scale? 3.6.11 Describe what your company envisions as the technical options and roadblocks to integration with the current WES systems? In addition to these technical challenges, please provide your thoughts and suggestions on how you might mitigate these? What advantages would be realized with a full system replacement?
Page 13 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
4 Sustainment Enterprise (SE) 4.1 Context 4.1.1 Support to Live Simulation, for the Canadian Army, in both the rural and urban environments, is currently provided by a combination of Canadian Armed Forces personnel, Canadian Public Servants and the WES OEM Contractor. The In-Service Support (ISS) Sustainment Enterprise (SE) for WESM will be defined as this Project evolves but will be based upon the support required to meet the CA Operational Requirements, and the observations and lessons learned from the current ISS contract and the upcoming WES Interim ISS contract. While the who and how have not been confirmed, it is expected that the future SE will remain similar to the current SE which includes all expected support for the CA to conduct instrumented and un-instrumented live simulation exercises at dedicated WES static and deployed locations, including: a. Operational Training Requirements Support – this capability is focused on ensuring the provision of all of the direct support to an actual exercise. It includes support to exercise planning and preparation, EXCON and Data Communication Support (Operator Analysts (OAs), Information Technology (IT) and DCN technical), Field Service Representatives (FSRs) for vehicle kitting, de-kitting and on-range technical support, and issue/receipt support for WES equipment. In addition it includes the equipment and software support provided to Observer, Controller, and Trainers (OCT) by WES in order to support exercises or training activities supported by live simulation. b. Logistics and Maintenance Support – this capability includes the warehousing, maintenance and repair of the WES equipment. c. Engineering Support – this capability includes the Engineering support to the maintenance of the WES equipment (i.e. Obsolescence identification, fault investigation) and to Exercises. d. Program Management Support – this capability includes the contractor provided program management support; such as oversight and management of contractor personnel, on-site direct liaison with the Department of National Defence (DND) personnel for exercise planning and support, deliverable submissions, Risk Management, Proposals, Program Review Meetings, Contractual Reporting, Documentation Updates, etc. 4.1.2 The CA live simulation system currently has 4 instrumented (Wainwright, Gagetown, Petawawa and Valcartier) and 2 un-instrumented (Edmonton and Shilo) static sites. CFB Wainwright is the largest of all these sites with a permanent coverage area of the training area and the support infrastructure to conduct warehouse activities, conduct up to 3rd line maintenance activities, and the equipment and manpower to support integration and testing activities. Gagetown, Petawawa and Valcartier have smaller urban villages and the capability to conduct rural exercises. Whereas Edmonton and Shilo have un- instrumented urban sites that have the potential for live simulation supported Page 14 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
training (rural and urban) using the WES mobile capability. One objective of WESM is to increase the Live Simulation support to training activities at the Force Generating Bases; specifically Gagetown, Edmonton (usually conducted at Wainwright), Shilo, Petawawa and Valcartier. The WESM equipment must be sufficiently robust for all systems to be employed for extended periods of time (24-hour training days, up to 21 consecutive training days). 4.2 Questions 4.2.1 There are a number of ways that in-service support can be provided as part of a business enterprise. Under the current specific construct, a single provider has delivered and maintained the capability over the last 15+ years. In looking towards possible future options, your thoughts, opportunities, constraints and difficulties would like to be understood in regards to several potential models (identified below). a. What if the current provider is no longer involved, but the new provider must work with existing equipment and services as part of the capability? b. What if the current provider is partially involved, but a new provider is introduced within the system? i. As part of the answer to this, it is expected that it includes suggestions as to where the specific demarcation points and aspects should be identified in the partnership. c. What if the current provider remains responsible for the current equipment, but there may be opportunities for a new provider to become involved with respect to portions of renewal as a function of obsolescence? i. As part of this answer it is expected that the Vendor’s response explains how the companies would strive to work together. Canada could contractually provide contractor working relationship guidelines but ultimately multiple vendor working relationship are dependent on continuous cooperative execution of the work. Canada requests your suggestions and ideas to help make these collaborations successful. 4.2.2 Various contracting mechanisms can be utilized for this work. Examples include: a firm fixed price contract, with a baseline level of service; cost reimbursable plus fixed fee contract, paying only for costs incurred with a predetermined fixed fee; or a combination of these two. These types of contracts could also include additional work requests above and beyond the examples. a. Do you have a preferred contracting arrangement suggestion, describing the benefits to Canada for this suggested approach? In addition, what other Customer contracting mechanisms have worked well for your company with a similar work arrangement? b. Which similar Customer work contracting mechanisms have been undesirable or provided you a difficult working relationship? And your thoughts on why these were less successful? c. Which contracting options would you prefer and why? Page 15 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
d. Which would you be completely uninterested in delivering the services described in this RFI and why? 4.2.3 There are many methods used to develop and successfully grow an ongoing contractual relationship. What are your thoughts around the following statements? Again, there is an expectation that this be fully explained from opportunities, issues and challenges perspective. Canada would also like to understand your preferences and why. a. Relational contract where all involved in the enterprise are equal partners in delivering the service and product to the client. b. Prime contractor with subcontractors responsible to them; Canada only deals with the prime. c. Relational contract between Canada and a first supplier with the opportunity to welcome other contractors and subcontractors as the system evolves over a period of approximately 10 years. 4.2.4 Describe your ability to integrate your equipment with legacy systems in the following scenarios: a. Limited Intellectual Property (IP); and b. No IP. 4.2.5 Have you supported Level 3 to 7 training exercises with your training system that occurred outside of a designated static training centre? Describe the largest training exercise you have supported including any system capacity limitations? Describe the differences in support required for each level of training? 4.2.6 Describe the concept(s) of support that have been applied to your system? Within your response consider: support for exercise preparation, training audience, instrumentation, IT support, maintenance and repairs during exercise. Also consider both support at an established static location on Army bases and deployed locations without hard infrastructure.
Page 16 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
5 Exercise Control (EXCON) 5.1 Questions General: 5.1.1 EXCON provides the capability to perform exercise planning and preparation activities prior to a training event and allows operators to plan, prepare, analyze and evaluate training events up to Level 7. a. Describe how your EXCON would support exercise planning and preparation for up to a Brigade sized training audience in rural, urban, and mobile training environments. 5.1.2 EXCON provides the capability to collect, store, and distribute data generated during a training event. a. Describe your server, client (or other) architecture for exercise data collection, processing, and distribution, including system performance capabilities and limitations. b. Describe how data communications to and from the field entities is managed. c. Include any proprietary and Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software/firmware/operating systems. 5.1.3 Describe the capabilities of your mobile EXCON solution including any limitations on capacity and functionality and considering the following: a. Is your EXCON consistent across rural, urban, and mobile training environments? What are the capability and functional differences? b. What is the time and effort required to prepare/install the mobile system before it is operational to support training? c. What is the level of autonomy of your mobile EXCON and what exercise duration can be supported? d. Can the EXCON information be accessed remotely by OCT being employed away from the main EXCON? How do they access the information? Capabilities: 5.1.4 Operator Analyst (OA) workstations and Interface and Database servers allow EXCON personnel to monitor and review progress and engagements during an exercise. a. Describe the displays and interfaces available with your OA workstations including any proprietary and COTS software, firmware, operating systems. b. Describe how you would provide exercise monitoring (including tracking and engagements, data collection, storage and analysis for a Battle Group
Page 17 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
and/or Brigade sized exercise). What resources such as number of workstations, operator analysts and technicians would be required? c. How accurate (to the meter) is your representation of a Dynamic Object (DO) on the EXCON map? How often is it updated? Is the accuracy and/or rate of update obscured by land objects such as infrastructure or hills, bridges, urban structures? d. What map formats and resolutions are supported by your solution? Do you use an international standard format that can be adapted for interaction with allied (European and USA) NATO partners? 5.1.5 Describe how your EXCON solution addresses the following and where you predict technology advances, in the next 10-15 years, to occur within these areas: a. Indirect fire engagements in the field, triggered by vehicle weapons platforms and soldier system weapons such as C-16 AGL. b. Engagement events for weapons systems that do not have any corresponding hardware in the field such as Chemical Biological Radioactive Nuclear (CBRN) events, Minefields, Close Air Support (CAS), others. c. Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) and fly-out (response) times for different weapon systems that use EXCON to initiate engagement events; including latency for data processing. d. Describe how Indirect Fire events such as area weapons are represented (modelled) in your EXCON suite and how are they applied and represented to the players in the training field. e. In events of rapid succession of the use of e.g. direct fire followed by area weapons (or reverse order) how is the sequence of events accurately captured, monitored and controlled? In addition, how are these events represented in real time for AAR? f. When generating a CBRN event within your system (start to finish), including how players are informed of the event, how does the CBRN event progress and is modelled, what actions are the players able to do, and what are the potential results of those actions? How are these events captured for AAR? g. What types of engagements can OCT’s trigger from their remote location in the field? Can OCT’s initiate indirect fire missions on the training audience without having to go through EXCON? What administrative functions, such as reload, replenish, resurrect, etc. can the OCT initiate on the training audience without going through EXCON? 5.1.6 Describe how your EXCON supports urban engagements including: a. What vulnerability models do you use for infrastructure? b. How is partial damage modelled for infrastructure partial hits and misses?
Page 18 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
c. Does your system allow for propagation of engagement within the urban environment? d. What engagement types are supported between entities and EXCON within the urban environment? e. How does it handle the transition area between rural and urban in the surrounding rural environment? 5.1.7 Describe the key elements of your AAR reporting capabilities including: a. Recorded audio and video; b. Graphical replay capabilities; c. Customizable reports; and d. Other. 5.1.8 Describe how your EXCON solution has been employed by other allies to generate and access ARR’s including: a. Static location; b. Remotely in the field; c. What is the delay after a training event has occurred to have AAR products ready for debriefing of Section, Company, Combat Team, Battle Group and Brigade level exercises? d. Are there any differences in your simulation system between rural and urban exercises? Interoperability: 5.1.9 Describe how your EXCON solution would provide interoperability with Allied nations compliant with UCATT standards or UCATT’s Laser Engagement Interface Standard (U-LEIS). a. Include any compliance to UCATT interoperability (or other) standards such as open architectures for exchange of information with other UCATTs compatible EXCON and other simulation platforms. b. Describe how your EXCON solution has been integrated with DCN supplied by other OEMS or other allied countries. 5.1.10 Describe how your solution has demonstrated compatibility with remote Constructive and Virtual Simulation using the latest standard versions of Distributed Interactive Simulator (DIS) and High Level Architecture (HLA). Does your company follow any other standard groups in NATO or otherwise; such as MSaaS?
Page 19 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
6 Data Communication Network (DCN) 6.1 Questions General: 6.1.1 Data transfer between EXCON and the exercise equipment and participants is currently achieved through a dedicated, RF based DCN with Microwave relay towers. The DCN Server communicates directly with the EXCON Interface Server, and training information is recorded, displayed and reviewed at a centralized EXCON facility. 6.1.2 The DCN provides the data communication links between entities in the field and EXCON. a. Describe the DCN technologies that are employed in your design for rural, urban, and mobile WES systems (RF, Microwave, Long-Term Evolution (LTE), Fibre, other). What are the benefits? Describe any limitations to your solution; such as but not limited to, number of participants, latency, line-of-sight, priority of LTE type network availability, etc. b. Reference to the previous question, do you foresee your current technology being employed in the next 10-15 years or are you working on introducing other DCN technologies to your system? c. What alternate or combined DCN technologies have been considered to optimize DCN performance? d. What infrastructure is required for your DCN design (towers, relays, cabling, servers)? e. How could your solution utilize the current DCN infrastructure (Towers (such as 100 ft towers at Wainwright), Antennas, Relay radios, Microwave)? Capabilities: 6.1.3 How do your rural, urban, and mobile solutions address different topographical situations? What ranges of coverage are expected (based on no obstructions)? 6.1.4 What are the bandwidth (max. and min. entities) supported and data latency limitations of your solution? Can these parameters be adjusted to optimize system performance? Is your solution expandable to support greater numbers of entities in the field? 6.1.5 What is the time required to prepare and install the DCN (static and mobile) before it is operational to support training? Interoperability: 6.1.6 How would your DCN solution support RF based data communications to and from existing CA WES equipment?
Page 20 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
6.1.7 Describe how your DCN solution has been integrated with live simulation kit for Field Equipment (soldiers, vehicles and weapons) supplied by other OEMs. 6.1.8 Describe how your DCN solution has been integrated with an EXCON supplied by other OEMS or other allied countries. 6.1.9 How could your DCN solution be integrated with the current EXCON interface server (Windows Server 2012) and CATS Metrics (CUBIC) software? 6.1.10 Describe how your DCN solution provides flexibility for training with existing CA and allied equipment, including the US and UK Armies. RCAF. 6.1.11 Describe what cyber security measures have been integrated into your system.
Page 21 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
7 Soldier Systems 7.1 Context 7.1.1 The soldier system includes all the personal equipment required to participate in an exercise, not including a weapon. The questions in this section aim at understanding what solution your system can provide to create a realistic and high fidelity training environment for the Canadian soldiers. 7.2 Questions General: 7.2.1 The soldier system provides the ability for dismounted soldiers to be engaged by other weapon systems in the field, and EXCON generated virtual engagements. a. Describe the laser detection (or other) technologies used by your soldier system for detecting and processing direct fire engagements from other weapon systems. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? b. What detection laser encoding standards are supported such as U-LEIS, MILES, other? Is multi-code detection supported? c. Describe how your soldier system receives and processes indirect fire engagements from other weapon systems; such as a geo-pairing event and for EXCON generated virtual engagements. d. Describe how your soldier system simulates BDA and first aid on soldiers, including health status modes supported (near miss, injury levels, kill, etc.). Are they compatible with UCATT damage state tables? e. Does your system allow for buddy-aid and medic aid? What is the impact to the injured soldier if first aid is applied? Describe how your system would allow CA soldiers to apply first aid to partner nation soldiers that have a UCATT compliant system. 7.2.2 The soldier system provides the ability for a dismounted soldier to engage other soldiers, vehicles, and weapon systems. a. Describe how your weapon systems are associated with a soldier system including any wireless technology and how different compatible soldier system would establish association with the weapon system in the field. Can a soldier system be simultaneously associated with multiple weapon systems? What, if any, limitations would there be for an allied soldier, using their own soldier system, to associate with the weapon system in the field, i.e. a US Army soldier to use a CA weapon if the CA soldier is injured? b. Do you have a solution to associate a soldier system to a section/platoon weapon like the C6, considering the weapon can be used by multiple soldiers during a training event? If yes, how do you capture the change of association between soldiers?
Page 22 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
c. List the direct and indirect fire weapons that can be associated with your soldier system (small arms, grenades, C-16 AGL, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), other). d. Describe how your soldier systems are associated with a vehicle system including criteria for association, proximity conditions, and how vehicle damage affects associated soldiers. How is the status of the associated soldiers communicated to the EXCON? e. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? 7.2.3 The soldier system communicates a dismounted soldier’s movements and engagements during an exercise, through the DCN to the EXCON, with sufficient detail and in a format that the information can be interpreted and used within an AAR report. a. Describe in detail what data your soldier system sends to EXCON during an exercise, including engagement data, health status updates, location updates. Include any update rates, bandwidth requirements and limitations. b. Describe in detail what data your soldier system receives from EXCON during an exercise, including control data, indirect fire events, other. Include any response processing and how that information is indicated to the soldier. c. Describe in detail how your soldier systems handle interruptions in connectivity with EXCON. How is engagement and location data managed when EXCON connectivity is interrupted? d. Describe the communications technologies used for data transmission between the soldier system and EXCON. e. Describe the technology used to track your soldier system location in the field including accuracy, latency and update rates. What are major factors that impact the level of accuracy, latency and update rates? How is location data transmitted to EXCON? f. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? Capabilities: 7.2.4 The CA wants a soldier system that does not interfere with the soldier function and allow them to manipulate their personal equipment and weapon without being impeded by the WES. Describe your soldier system including the following: a. How is your Soldier System integrated for use with a soldier’s standard individual protective equipment (vests, helmets, etc.)? Is the helmet halo wireless? What is the weight of your Soldier System?
Page 23 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
b. Describe the power source for your Soldier System. How long does it last without requiring battery change or recharge? What are the operational temperature ranges, size and weight of the batteries? 7.2.5 The realistic representation and consideration of ballistics, protection level and positioning of the soldier, damage status of the soldier and human system integration are all key factors for this system. a. Describe the feedback and control interfaces your soldier system provides to the individual soldier. b. Describe what factors your soldier system considers with respect to battle damage assessments and processing. Interoperability: 7.2.6 The adoption of NATO and other allied-driven technical standards; such as UCATT, for live simulation will provide the means to seamlessly achieve training interoperability with Canada’s closest allies. a. Describe what standards your soldier system has adopted and what options exist to permit different allied systems to become interoperable with your soldier system including: i. Interoperability between CA and allied soldier and vehicle systems; ii. Interoperability between CA and allied weapon systems; and iii. Interoperability between CA and allied EXCON/DCN. b. What potential advancements in soldier system technologies would best support standardization and allied interoperability for future live simulation soldier systems?
Page 24 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
8 Vehicle Systems 8.1 Context 8.1.1 The vehicle system includes all the live simulation equipment required for a vehicle to participate in a live simulation exercise, not including a weapon system. 8.1.2 The CA aims to equip tactical aviation platforms that could include unmanned aerial vehicles, tactical helicopters and fighter jets with vehicle systems that would enable these systems to engage and be engaged by other DO. Equipping the fighter jet’s platform also aims at enabling realistic training for Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) within a live simulation environment. In addition, the CA aims at equipping howitzers with WES systems to enable them to engage and be engaged by other DO. 8.1.3 Similar to the current WES system, the CA aims at using CA vehicles to represent OPFOR vehicles in the future. The Decisive Action Training Environment (DATE) is the OPFOR model the CA intends to continue using. As such, the CA wishes to understand how your solution has enabled the representation of an OPFOR that would create a realistic training environment. 8.1.4 The following questions aim at understanding current and future solutions that would enable the CA to equip all the previously mentioned vehicle platforms and enable functionalities in order to create realistic training in a live simulation environment. 8.2 Questions General: 8.2.1 The live simulation vehicle system kit provides the ability for exercise vehicles to be engaged by other weapon systems and EXCON generated virtual engagements. a. Describe the detection technologies used by your vehicle systems for detecting and processing direct fire engagements from other weapon systems in the field (Laser Detection Units (LDUs), multi-code detectors, other). Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? b. When detecting an engagement, what laser encoding standards are supported such as U-LEIS, MILES, other? Is multi-code detection supported simultaneously or do the participants need to pre-select a laser encoding standard to apply for that specific training event? c. From what directions (sides, top attack, below…) can a soldier and a vehicle system detect an engagement? Are there limitations or “blind spots” where detection is currently not possible?
Page 25 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
d. Describe how your vehicle system receives and processes indirect fire (geo-pairing) engagements from other weapon systems. For EXCON generated virtual engagements. e. Describe how vehicle damage is determined from engagements. Include any options for repairs. Can it be done in the field? f. How are soldier systems associated with a vehicle system for appropriate BDAs (Short Range Radio (SRR), other)? How is association done between DOs? I.E. When a soldier mounts or dismounts a vehicle platform to which it is associated. g. Describe how your vehicle system provides the necessary functionalities so that the equivalent OPFOR vehicle platform characteristics (such as firepower, detectability, degrees of protection, etc.) can be simulated, and identified by the WES System (e.g. Possibility of a LAV6 representing an OPFOR tank). 8.2.2 The results of vehicle engagements and vehicle location updates need to be communicated through the Data Communication Network to the EXCON with sufficient detail and in a format that the information can be interpreted and used within AAR reports. a. Describe in detail what data your vehicle systems provides to EXCON during an exercise, including engagement data, health status updates, location updates. Describe any update rates, bandwidth requirements and limitations. b. Describe in detail what data your vehicle systems receive from EXCON during an exercise, including control data, indirect fire events, other. c. Describe in detail how your vehicle systems handle interruptions in connectivity with EXCON. How is engagement and location data managed when EXCON connectivity is interrupted? d. Describe any BIT and/or self-checks that confirm the kit is working correctly. How are the results represented? e. Describe the technology used to track your soldier system location in the field including accuracy, latency and update rates. What are major factors that impact the level of accuracy, latency and update rates? How is location data transmitted to EXCON? f. Describe how your vehicle systems have been integrated for use with an RF based DCN and EXCON provided by another OEM. g. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? Capabilities: 8.2.3 Describe the audio/visual feedback provided to the shooting and target crews when rounds are fired including:
Page 26 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
a. Does your solution include visual and smoke effects when a weapon is fired (such as muzzle flash)? Describe how that is accomplished. b. Does your solution include visual feedback to the gunner including the impact location of the round so he can apply his drills during an engagement? If so, explain how this feedback is given. c. What form of signal do you use to inform the vehicle crew and the other players that can observe the vehicle that it has a damage status (such as Mobility Kill, Firepower Kill)? 8.2.4 Describe how your system simulates compromised vehicle protection levels during the course of a training exercise including: a. What vehicle system health status modes are supported (near miss, mobility kill, firepower kill, catastrophic kill, etc.)? How do you define a vehicle protection level? b. What vulnerability model do you use? Are they compatible with UCATT damage state tables? c. How does your system respond after a vehicle has been damaged; such as a firepower kill? How do you simulate the reparation process? 8.2.5 Does your solution allow tactical aviation, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), and fighter jets to be equipped with WES and what are the limitations? a. Describe how your solution provides two-way engagement between airborne vehicle systems such as tactical helicopters and UAVs, and Soldier/Vehicle systems. b. How are airborne platforms engaged by direct fire weapon platforms such as small arms and vehicle weapons (i.e. do they use a laser solution)? Do you have an airworthiness approved solution? c. How are airborne platforms engaged by indirect fire weapons? 8.2.6 Describe the methods, equipment, and setup times required for a vehicle system to participate in an exercise including: a. Fitting, alignment, and calibration of weapons systems. b. Are alignment or calibration activities required during an exercise? c. How many man hours are required to install the instrumentation on a vehicle fleet the size of a combat team (approximately 40 combat armoured vehicles and 20 support vehicles)? d. Does your system employ the vehicle’s own power source or do you need a secondary power source or power adapter installed on the vehicle? e. Does the flexibility of your vehicle systems support configuration of multiple vehicle types? Are you able to train military personnel to install your solution on a vehicle platform? How many training hours would be required to achieve this capability?
Page 27 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
Interoperability: 8.2.7 The adoption of NATO and other allied-driven technical standards for live simulation will provide the means to seamlessly achieve training interoperability with Canada’s closest allies. a. Describe what standards your vehicle system has adopted and what options exist to permit different allied systems to become interoperable with your vehicle system including: i. Interoperability between CA and allied soldier and vehicle systems. ii. Interoperability between CA and allied weapon systems. iii. Interoperability between CA and allied EXCON/DCN. b. Describe how your vehicle system could detect engagements from an existing CA and allied soldier system equipment and vehicle system’s provided by another OEM (i.e. not necessarily compatible with the UCATT standard). What options have your company applied in order to permit different OEM vehicle systems to become interoperable? c. What potential advancements in engagement and communication technologies do you foresee best supporting standardization and allied interoperability for future live simulation vehicle systems?
Page 28 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
9 Weapon Systems 9.1 Context 9.1.1 The weapon system includes all the live simulation equipment required for a weapon to be used in a live simulation exercise; including but not limited, to small arms, crew-served weapons and vehicle-mounted weapons. 9.1.2 The WES modernization needs to further extend the combinations of current CA weapons, projected opposing force and future simulated weapons made available by EXCON and other associations with generic weapon platforms (soldiers, vehicles, etc.). 9.2 Questions General: 9.2.1 Weapon Systems provide the ability for soldier and vehicle systems to engage other soldier, vehicle, and weapon systems. a. Describe the laser and non-laser technologies and methods used by your weapon systems for direct fire engagements in the field. Consider the following in your response: i. List the direct fire weapon types (small arms, machine gun, AGL, other) currently integrated with your weapon systems live simulation equipment. ii. Indicate applicable platforms (soldier, vehicle, artillery, etc.) that can be associated for each weapon system live simulation solution. iii. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? b. Describe the laser and geo-pairing or other non-laser technologies used by your weapon systems for indirect fire engagements with other soldier, vehicle, and weapon systems. Consider the following in your response: i. List the indirect fire weapon types (grenades, IED’s, AGL, turret orientation modules, other) currently integrated with your weapon systems live simulation equipment. ii. Indicate applicable platforms (soldier, vehicle, artillery, etc.) that can be associated for each weapon system live simulation solution. iii. Explain how your weapon systems address the orientation of the shooter and target. iv. Do you have a solution to simulate a grenade launcher (M203) on a personal assault rifle (C7)? Describe how it works. v. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years?
Page 29 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
9.2.2 Describe how your weapon systems live simulation equipment interfaces with the corresponding weapon platform including: a. Mounting options and setup times required. b. Fitting and calibration of weapons systems. c. Links to fire control systems. d. Feedback to the gunner. e. For vehicles with a main gun and a coaxial gun, does your solution allow the use of only one user interface to fire both weapons? f. Describe how weapon systems are associated with soldier and vehicle systems including any wireless technology. g. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? Capabilities: 9.2.3 Describe how your weapon systems live simulation equipment is representative of the actual weapon including: a. How does your solution accommodate and support the normal operational actions of the crew or soldier when using a weapon system? b. How does your solution determine engagement response times based on weapon type? c. How does your solution allow weapon systems to have minimum and maximum effective ranges? d. Can your weapon systems live simulation solution for different weapon types (small arms, vehicle-mounted, crew-served) be engaged? If so, describe. 9.2.4 Describe any additional functionality supported by your weapon systems live simulation solution including: a. How do you simulate the use of different types of ammunition for indirect fire weapons? b. Do you use surrogate weapons to replace weapons like portable anti-tank weapons? c. Does your solution to equip Howitzers with WES systems include the ability for them to be towed without removing the training systems from them? d. Are you able to provide visual feedback to the gunner employing a tube launched, optically tracked, wire guided (TOW-2) missile when it is fired? Describe how. e. Are you able to simulate a claymore with realistic trigger mechanism and directional effect? If yes, describe how.
Page 30 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
f. Is your system able to simulate a suppression effect from a machine-gun and/or indirect-fire? If yes, how are those effects applied to the training audience? g. Describe how your solution simulates effects from artillery/mortar rounds. (I.E. Smoke, Illuminating, HE) h. Describe your approach for soldier system weapon platforms that utilize both direct and indirect firing techniques in normal operations. (I.e. C-16 Automatic Grenade Launcher System). 9.2.5 Describe how your weapon systems live simulation solution approaches ammunition management including: a. For each of the different weapon types (small arms, vehicle weapons, etc.) that are supported by your system: i. Describe how ammunition is replenished? ii. How are ammunition types changed? iii. For solutions employing blank ammunition, does your solution allow soldiers to replenish ammunition or change the ammunition type without the support of EXCON and/or an OCT? iv. For solutions not employing blank ammunition, does your solution allow soldiers to replenish virtual ammunition or change the virtual ammunition type without the support of EXCON and/or an OCT? b. Is the amount of ammunition available in a vehicle programmable? Do you have a solution that could simulate a replenishment run from an echelon to the fighting vehicles to restore the ammunition available? Describe how that is accomplished. c. Does your training system allow the use of the laser range finders used on combat vehicles or do you replicate this capability with your system? What is the laser eye safety category of your solution? 9.2.6 Describe how your weapon systems live simulation solution supports engagements with airborne platforms including: a. What technologies have you successfully applied to allow airborne platforms to engage Soldier/Vehicle systems on the ground? b. Do you have a solution to equip Ground-Based Air Defense assets to enable simulated fire on air platforms? If yes, describe the system(s), against what aircraft it has been cleared by airworthiness requirements, and by what nations. 9.2.7 Forward Observations Officers (FOO) are employed in support of both weapon systems firings such as artillery and fast air-ground missions. a. Are you able to provide the FOO with visual feedback from artillery fire? Describe how it works.
Page 31 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
b. Have you applied your live simulation solution in the support of FOO for air- to-ground missions? If yes, describe your solution. 9.2.8 Electronic Warfare (EW) and Cyber Warfare (CW) are now major factors in modern battlefield. Their effects include offensive and defensive components. Describe how these effects are integrated in your live simulation environment. a. Describe what type of EW and CW weapons can be represented within your solution. Include a description of how they are simulated, providing examples of solutions that have been applied for other countries.
b. Describe how your solution can represent EW and CW offensive and defensive capabilities within the live simulation environment. Would these capabilities be available at EXCON level only or are there other more realistic effects on the training audience that can be simulated?
c. Describe how the effect of an electronic-attack or cyber-attack is conveyed to the training audience being targeted.
d. Since EW includes intelligence-gathering such as locations of soldiers, weapons and vehicles, is your system capable to replicate these capabilities as target acquisitions and convey them to the CA training audience and/or OPFOR as required? If so, describe the types of target you are able to acquire and the methods employed to convey the information.
e. Does your solution allow a vehicle platform to be equipped with a simulated EW weapon in order to represent a real life capability that would be employed either by the training audience or the OPFOR? If so, what type of vehicle could be equipped this way and with what type of EW weapons?
Interoperability: 9.2.9 Describe how your solution addresses multi-code laser interface. Does the laser code need to be configured prior to the exercise or does the system, during the exercise, recognize the different laser codes being employed and respond appropriately? Describe any limitations to areas such as range, latency and fidelity due to your multi-code laser solution. 9.2.10 Describe how your weapon system’s live simulation solution provides flexibility and ease of use on different platforms including: a. Are laser transmitters and turret orientation modules programmable for different weapon types (small arms and vehicle mounted)? Describe this process. Can it be performed in the field?
Page 32 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A b. Are laser transmitters and turret orientation modules mountable on different weapon types (small arms and vehicle mounted)? Describe this process. Can it be performed in the field? c. Describe how your weapon system live simulation solution has been applied to provide the flexibility to accommodate other allied nations weapon platforms during multi-nation exercises.
Page 33 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
10 Urban Capability 10.1 Context 10.1.1 There are three major requirements for an urban live simulation exercise or training event: a. First, it is necessary to be able to effectively monitor the participants, capturing their activities so that they can be part of the AAR. b. Secondly, there is a requirement to ensure that the training environment is as realistic as possible. c. Thirdly, the capability to provide training effects that will challenge the soldier and again make the training as realistic as possible. 10.1.2 Audio and video monitoring, recording and playback and high fidelity location tracking of participants and equipment, are key urban live simulation requirements. Realistic Urban Training Equipment (UTE) such as programmable popup targets, shoot thru walls, and breachable doors are also key features of a comprehensive urban training environment. 10.2 Questions 10.2.1 It is necessary to be able to effectively monitor the participants of an urban live simulation exercise or training event, capturing their activities so that they can be part of the AAR. Audio and video monitoring, recording and playback and high fidelity location tracking of participants and equipment, are key urban requirements. a. Describe the technology your company has applied to address the high fidelity location tracking requirements for participants inherent in an urban environment. b. Describe how your company has applied video (or other) capabilities and technologies in order to monitor participants in an urban environment. What limitations have been encountered? c. Does your simulation system include capabilities to instrument the urban environment infrastructure to represent vulnerabilities and/or damaged or destroyed walls, posts, buildings etc. with associated reduction in their protective cover to soldiers? If so, describe how. d. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? 10.2.2 The capability to provide training effects will challenge the soldier and again make the training as realistic as possible. Realistic UTE such as programmable popup targets, shoot thru walls, dummy electrical panels and breachable doors are also key features of a comprehensive urban training environment. a. Describe the elements of your urban training solution and UTE solutions. b. What additional training effects are supported? Page 34 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
c. Do you foresee any upcoming major changes in technology in this area in the next 10-15 years? 10.2.3 Describe how your UTE solutions have been integrated with UTE simulators supplied by other OEMs. 10.2.4 What obstacles would you expect when integrating your urban training equipment (such as: speakers, cameras, breachable doors, improvised explosives) with the existing EXCON and DCN?
Page 35 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
Glossary
Term Description Armoured Combat Vehicle that possess a weapon capability able to engage a Vehicle target. Examples include but are not limited to the following vehicle systems: a. Main Battle Tank – Leopard 2 and variants b. Light Armored Vehicle 6 (LAV 6) c. Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Dynamic Object A Dynamic Object (DO) is defined as a live, virtual or constructive element in the training environment that:
a. Has a presence in the environment and either; a DO can be seen, observed or detected in the training environment. For example, a vehicle can be seen by the naked eye, observed in infra-red, detected by radar and be tracked by C4I systems and a CBRN area can be detected with specific sensors. Associated with its presence is its position. During an exercise the position of a DO can be dynamic (e.g. a soldier can move around) or static (e.g. a structure or feature which stays on the same position during an exercise).
b. Has a valid status. Status indicates the (level of) capabilities of a DO. It can be very basic (such as for example dead/ alive for human beings, or operational/destroyed for weapon systems and infrastructure), or it can be more complex, distinguishing between more levels of degraded performance. The status of a DO can be changed during and exercise, either resulting from engagements from other DOs or by (interventions from) the training system for exercise effect or administration. Although it could be required that a certain DO has a fixed status that cannot be changed rendering it “untouchable” or “indestructible” in an exercise. A typical example of such a DO is an O/C, whose status cannot be changed, yet it can engage other DOs.
c. Can influence the status of other DOs. For example, a soldier can fire an antitank weapon at a vehicle or at a building, a wall could be destroyed and with its debris it can engage DOs in its vicinity, and a CBRN area can affect unprotected DOs that enter it. However, examples of DOs that cannot engage are a pop-up target or an unarmed
Page 36 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
UAV, which is just a sensor platform.
High Level Architecture The HLA is an IEEE standard (1516) and a STANAG (4603). It is a general purpose architecture for distributed computer simulation systems. SISO created a standardized process for developing interoperable HLA based federations called Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (IEEE 1730).
JIMP J: involve other military elements I: involve other government departments and agencies (domestic and foreign) like RCMP M: involve one or more international partner P: Involve variety of elements including: domestic and international publics, non-governmental organizations, public volunteer organizations, private sector, media and commercial organizations. Support Vehicle Vehicle that do not possess a weapon system and are employed to conduct support tasks. Examples include but not limited to: a. Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled (HLVW) b. Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS)
Page 37 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
List of Acronyms
Term Abbreviation AAR After Action Review ABCANZ America Britain Canada Australia New Zealand AGL Automatic Grenade Launcher AUS Australia BIT Built-in Test BDA Battle Damage Assessment BTS Battle Task Standards CA Canadian Army CAS Close Air Support CBRN Chemical Biological Radioactive Nuclear CFB Canadian Forces Base CMTC Canadian Manoeuver Training Centre COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf CTC Combat Training Centre DATE Decisive Action Training Environment DCN Data Communication Network DIS Distributed Interactive Simulator DND Department of National Defence DO Dynamic Object EXCON Exercise Control FITE Future Integrated Training Environment FOC Final Operational Capability FOO Forward Observation Officer FSO Full Spectrum Operations FSR Field Service Representative HFT High Fidelity Tracking HLA High Level Architecture
Page 38 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
HLMR High Level Mandatory Requirements HR High Readiness IED Improvised Explosive Device IOC Initial Operational Capability IP Intellectual Property ISS In-Support Service IT Information Technology JFAC Joint Fire Attack Controller JIMP Joint, Interagency, Multinational and Public JTAC Joint Terminal Attack Controller LDU Laser Detector Unit LTE Long-Term Evolution MILES Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System NATO North American Treaty Organization NZ New Zealand OA Operator Analyst OA Options Analysis OCT Observer Controller Trainer OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer OPFOR Opposition Forces RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force RF Radio Frequency RFP Request for Proposal SBCA Sustainment Business Case Analysis SE Sustainment Enterprise SISO Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization SRR Short Range Radio TAPV Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle TESS Tactical Engagement Simulation System TOW Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided
Page 39 of 40
WESM RFI Annex A
TTP Techniques, Tactics and Procedures UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UCATT Urban Combat Advanced Training Technology UK United Kingdom U-LEIS UCATT’s Laser Engagement Interface Standard US United States USAF United States Air Force USMC United States Marine Corps UTE Urban Training Equipment WES Weapon Effects Simulation WESM Weapon Effects Simulation Modernization
Page 40 of 40