Rifleman-Assisted Instructional Device (RAID)

Navy SBIR 25.1- Topic N251-054
Office of Naval Research (ONR)
Pre-release 12/4/24   Opens to accept proposals 1/8/25   Closes 2/5/25 12:00pm ET    [ View Q&A ]

N251-054 TITLE: Rifleman-Assisted Instructional Device (RAID)

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sustainment

OBJECTIVE: Develop a fieldable, small arms/weapon mounted device (e.g., M27, M4, M18) and associated software application that detects and provides individual and group level feedback regarding marksmanship performance during dry- and live-fire training.

DESCRIPTION: Dry-fire weapon simulators provide safe mechanisms in which service members can practice weapon handling and marksmanship fundamentals [Refs 1-2]. However, these systems are large, obtrusive, require maintenance, and support personnel to operate. A simplified, more scalable platform is needed to provide the capability to conduct weapons training in resource constrained environments or at larger scale. The development and employment of a modular and scalable weapon mounted sensor/device that can track and provide feedback about weapon handling and marksmanship fundamentals would greatly enhance training time dedicated to small arms proficiency. Anecdotal reports from Marine Corps commands indicate that using a commercial product designed for individual shooters may reduce training resources (e.g., time and ammunition) required to make Marine recruits into proficient shooters [Ref 3]. Dry-fire training is a fundamental component of the Marine Corps revamped marksmanship training programs, such as Infantry Marksmanship Training Program (IMTP), and supporting these programs will lead to a more lethal force. However, the current devices used are missing key components to support training doctrine, such as: military focused design, group level training, and after-action review at aggregate level.

The objective of this SBIR topic is to develop a device for use with Marine Corps issued small-arms (i.e., M4, M27, M18) that can capture data during dry-fire marksmanship training (and live-fire) at the individual and aggregate level. The software product should provide group reporting and accountability, create powerful data dashboards for training cadre to review, and provide immediate, comprehensive, and specific answers regarding marksmanship capability – based on the data captured by the device. The device should allow for group monitoring by an individual instructor or cadre for up to 20 shooters at the same time, where the instructor can also create specific drills, and user-defined performance parameters associated with those drills. The device and associated software should maintain historical records, provide comparisons, and add group-level features that drive competition, competency, and capability improvement.

The weapon mounted device sensor (WMDS) prototypes should be developed to be employed via picatinny attachment, modified magazine/bolt, or other novel means so as to not encumber upon normal and safe weapon handling. The prototypes should not significantly add or reduce the felt weight of the weapon, nor should they interfere with normal weapon functions, such as holstering. The WMDS should be rated to IPX7 water resistance and store at least 150 minutes of training data. The WMDS should connect wirelessly in real-time, or post-hoc in event of transmission loss, to a smartphone or tablet device, that houses the associated software, which provides the analysis, data aggregation, data display, and controls the training sessions. The software application should have a readily understandable user-interface (UI) which allows users to navigate to the training or analyses dashboards with ease and maintains a search function to find historical data.

PHASE I: Define and develop a plan for the design, development, and fabrication of a small arms weapon (i.e., M27, M4, M18) mounted device with integrated sensors, and a corresponding software application, that can capture weapon handling fundamentals and small arms dry-fire training performance. The device should be capable of transmitting data wirelessly to a tablet that contains software application that interprets real-time dry-fire and weapons handling performance at both the individual and group level. The WMDS should be ruggedized to handle regular training use in military settings and should be rated to IPX7 water resistance. The proof-of-concept hardware device should be able to transmit data wirelessly, in real-time and store up to 150 minutes of training data when out of range of transmission. Multiple devices (n=20) should be able to connect wirelessly to a single tablet with the program’s software application so that an instructor can view multiple users simultaneously. Phase I will result in a proof-of-concept for testing and refinement in Phase II. The deliverables for the Phase I are to include, but are not limited to, conceptual development of the WMDS and detailed plans for the software application to perform the data capture, aggregation, analyses, display, and storage. In addition, the Phase I will deliver a defined plan to improve any existing capabilities to support disconnected military relevant environments.

PHASE II: Focus on prototype development and refinement of at least 150 devices of the proof-of-concept small arms WMDS conceptualized in Phase I; along with a software prototype. The prototypes will be demonstrated in a military relevant environment in Phase II. Additionally, the WMDS should be capable of storing at least 150 minutes of training data onboard the device should wireless signals be interrupted or unable to be established during a training session. During normal use, the WMDS should transmit data wirelessly to a smartphone or tablet with a preloaded software application that will store the data locally on the smartphone or tablet and can also analyze and interpret the data for user and instructor feedback. The WMDS should use accelerometry or other means to determine actions taken by the user such as, but not limited to: reloading, accuracy, and trigger press. A detailed definition of the device requirements will be provided to the firm(s) selected for Phase II award. The Phase II awardee should also provide a detailed plan that will occur for testing and evaluation (to include data type, frequency, and structure).

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Further refine the products developed in Phase II to include adding more automated processes for data analyses for Marine Corps end-users. Phase III will focus on integrating the finalized products into current and future training programs, such as IMTP, under USMC TECOM, as well as expand out to active-duty operational units to maintain small arms weapon handling and performance during time in the fleet. The Phase III effort should lay out a plan for longitudinal evaluation of their Phase II product in a real-world training environment. This evaluation will consist of a comparison of the performance and skill retention in Marines provided the training tool and those not. In Phase III performers shall outline the ability to mass produce, support, and service the developed wearable devices. The small business should also aim to leverage the products developed under this SBIR effort for commercialization to federal and local law-enforcement agencies, as well as the civilian market.

REFERENCES:

1. Jensen, T., & Kennedy, Q. (2012). A naval marksmanship training transfer study the use of indoor simulated marksmanship trainers to train for live fire. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School. (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36700447.pdf)

2. Tate, D. A. (2019). SUFFICIENCY OF NAVY HANDGUN TRAINING FOR FORCE PROTECTION WATCHSTANDERS (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School). (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/SUFFICIENCY_OF_NAVY_HANDGUN_TRAINING_FOR_FORCE_PROTECTION_WATCHSTANDERS_%28IA_sufficiencyofnav1094563510%29.pdf)

3. Fuentes, G. (2024, Mar 13). Marines Want More Expert Riflemen as Part of Marksmanship Revamp. USNI News. (https://news.usni.org/2024/03/13/marines-want-more-expert-rifleman-as-part-of-marksmanship-revamp)

KEYWORDS: Lethality, Dry-Fire, Live-Fire, Marksmanship, Human Performance, Shooting, Small-arms

** TOPIC NOTICE **

The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoD 25.1 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoD Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates.

The DoD issued its Navy 25.1 SBIR Topics pre-release on December 4, 2024 which opens to receive proposals on January 8, 2025, and closes February 5, 2025 (12:00pm ET).

Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (December 4, 2024, through January 7, 2025) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on January 8, 2025 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period.

DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until January 22, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoD On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing.

DoD Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoD Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoD Components participating in this BAA.

Help: If you have general questions about the DoD SBIR program, please contact the DoD SBIR Help Desk via email at [email protected]

Topic Q & A

1/13/25  Q. 1. What is preferred for the sensor: replaceable disposable batteries (e.g., 123) or rechargeable batteries with a cable and wall plug?
2. What is the lowest general temperature at which these sensors will be used?
3. What is the proposed or expected maximum distance from the users training with their rifles to the terminal/cadre controlling the tablet?
4. What are the most important metrics or data you want collected (e.g., time between shots, rifle positioning, accuracy, shot alignment, transition speed, ammunition count, safety status)?
5. What is the approximate ideal size and weight range for the sensor attachment?
6. Can the sensors be calibrated by individual service members, or should this function be locked?
7. Device Attachment: Can you clarify if there are any restrictions or preferences regarding the method of attachment (e.g., picatinny rail, magazine replacement, etc.) beyond safety and weight considerations?
8. Wireless Connectivity: Are there specific wireless protocols (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi) that are preferred or required for the device to communicate with the software application?
9. Battery Life: Is the 150-minute training data storage a minimum standard for the device's operational time, or is it expected to support longer sessions with consistent wireless connectivity?
10. Is gamification or behavioral reinforcement feedback desirable, or should the sensor focus entirely on transmitting information to the instructor?
   A. 1. There is no requirement or limitation. The proposer should keep in mind that these devices may be used in any environment a Marine may be exposed to and as such, charging or battery replacement should be conducive to use there.
2. There is no requirement. However, it would be expected that devices could be used in a Marines normal operating or training environment.
3. No maximum requirement. Minimum threshold should meet lowest bluetooth range of 10m.
4. The topic call provides examples of metrics that can be captured. The proposer should justify why other measures are included or excluded. Evaluations based on merit and justification of metrics to be captured.
5. There is no requirement or limitation in this topic call. Any weapon mounted device should not interfere with normal weapon functioning or handling, including perceived weight.
6. Sensors should be capable of being calibrated to individual service members.
7. There is no requirement or limitation in this topic call. Any weapon mounted device should not interfere with normal weapon functioning or handling.
8. There is no requirement or limitation. It would be prudent to suggest that novel wireless protocols that are more intensive should be avoided at this time.
9. The requirement is 150min of storage; the device should last at least that amount of time if not more.
10. There is no requirement or limitation on gamification for behavioral reinforcement; however, the main focus should be on developing and maintaining fundamental marksmanship skills/behaviors.
1/5/25  Q.
  1. Are there specific weight, size, or attachment requirements (e.g., Picatinny rail compatibility) beyond “not significantly adding or reducing the felt weight” or interfering with weapon functions?
  2. What specific metrics (e.g., trigger press, reload speed, shot accuracy) should the device track, and are there any additional actions beyond those listed in the RFP?
  3. Should the software provide real-time feedback to individual users during training sessions, or is post-session reporting sufficient? What level of granularity is expected in group-level performance dashboards?
  4. For group monitoring, are there specific latency requirements or limitations for the wireless connection of up to 20 devices? Should the solution operate seamlessly in environments with intermittent connectivity?
  5. Beyond the IPX7 water resistance rating, are there other environmental standards (e.g., temperature, impact resistance) the device must meet for military use?
  6. For commercialization to law enforcement and civilian markets, are there features or functionalities (e.g., integration with existing civilian marksmanship apps) that should be considered during design?
  7. What criteria will be used to evaluate the prototype’s effectiveness during Phase II demonstrations in military-relevant environments?
   A.
  1. No. The device should not noticeably affect normal weapon functions or perceived feeling/weight.
  2. These are examples of metrics that can be captured. The proposer should justify why other measures are included or excluded. Evaluations based on merit and justification of metrics to be captured. In subsequent Phases the proposer/vendor may receive additional guidance from Marine Corps or Navy personnel
  3. The requirement is for real-time data to the tablet or monitoring device, as such, immediate post-training or activity is sufficient. Group-level performance dashboards, at minimum, should indicate group level trends in performance, deficiencies, and progress.
  4. The devices should be able to sync in parallel as opposed to sequentially; justification and details for why the device cannot sync in parallel is advised if opting for sequential sync. The solution should be expected to encounter intermittent connectivity so solutions for how to manage that are highly encouraged.
  5. The device must work in any environment a Marine may find themselves, e.g., shipboard/maritime, heat, cold, dust, etc.
  6. For commercialization, it would behoove the proposer to think of realistic ways to scale, integrate, and commercialize their product.
  7. The devices will be evaluated by Marine Corps training cadre and SME’s for objective and subjective ability to monitor training and improve performance.


[ Return ]