DON26BZ05-NV073 TITLE: Portable Digital Metrology System for Measurement of Defects on Optically Transparent Canopies and Windscreens
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Contested Logistics Technologies (LOG)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Sustainment
PROJECTED CMMC LEVEL REQUIREMENT: Level 2 (Self)
OBJECTIVE: Develop a portable digital metrology system to measure aircraft transparency damage (such as coating damage, scratches, cracks, or pits) that can be used on aircraft by squadron level maintenance personnel to characterize damage.
DESCRIPTION: Scratches and pits to the acrylic outer ply of canopies and windscreens cause optical distortion as well as structural vulnerability, and these types of damage cause significant readiness degradation. Repair methods for these defects are dependent on the severity of the damage which is determined by the dimensions of the defect. Currently available repair methods are limited and repair limitations are stringent and highly dependent on the severity of the defect. Inaccurate measurements could be the difference between a repairable asset and a scrapped transparency. Currently the only portable method for characterizing defects on aircraft transparencies is an optical micrometer. This tool is user-dependent, not ergonomic, and requires extensive training to be performed accurately. Due to the transparent material, it is also difficult to perform measurements with an optical micrometer on-aircraft or in outdoor environments and requires the removal of the canopy or windshield.
Candidate measurement concepts shall be executable on aircraft and capable of performing defect measurements (e.g., scratch defect with length 1", width << 0.125", and approx. depth of 0.100") on optically transparent materials.
PHASE I: Define and develop a measurement concept and portable tool that can meet the requirements listed in the description. Perform analysis or testing to demonstrate measurement concept and portable tool performance.
The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.
PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a prototype tool and/or process that meets the requirements listed in the Description. Prototype testing and demonstration shall be performed at the canopy shop at Fleet Readiness Center Southwest – North Island.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Perform final testing at organizational and intermediate level repair locations and transition for use on naval aircraft. Final testing shall include (at a minimum): total time and training required for full competency by a new user, precision/accuracy of measurement results in comparison to existing measurement tools, clarity and completion of documentation or measurement display provided to the end user, and applicability of tooling across multiple aircraft platforms/transparency materials.
This technology has significant dual-use potential for commercial airline Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) and automotive glass inspection.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Transparency; Acrylic Outer Ply; Canopy; Window; Windscreen; NDI; Optical Zone; Scratch and Pit Measurement
| 8/17/26 | Q. | 1. Crack-depth range and accuracy
For cracks, you stated that the system should determine visible surface geometry and crack depth at a minimum. What crack-depth range should Phase I demonstrate, and what maximum error or measurement accuracy is required for crack depth? 2. Larger defect coverage You stated that the target defect size ranges from approximately 0.125 square inches to about the size of a dollar bill. Does the complete defect need to be measured in one placement, or may a portable tool measure larger defects using multiple overlapping placements that are combined into one result? 3. Meaning of the minimum area Is the approximately 0.125-square-inch value intended to be the minimum defect size the system must detect and measure, or the minimum surface area that the system should inspect around a defect? 4. Phase I defect set Since the intended material is bare, uncoated stretch acrylic qualified to MIL-PRF-25690, should Phase I focus on scratches, pits, abrasions, and cracks and exclude coating damage from the required Phase I test set? 5. Repeatability target You stated that the current optical-micrometer method has no repeatability requirement and that repeatability is open to discussion during Phase I. Should Phase I simply measure and establish ClearGauge repeatability, or does the Government have a preferred repeatability target for the proposed system? 6. Reliability target Does the Government have a preferred Phase I target for the percentage of measurements that should produce a usable result and for correctly identifying measurements that should be repeated, or should Phase I establish those reliability baselines? |
| A. | 1. The range of depths we hope to be able to measure with this topic’s solution is on the order of 1 mils to 100 mils (depth) and a depth/size accuracy: ± 0.001" (maximum). For Phase I, we do not expect the solution to measure this entire range or meet this accuracy metric and are open to solutions that can be further developed in later phases.
2. The maximum defect does not need to be measured in one placement. Multiple overlapping placements are acceptable. 3. For Phase I, this value is intended to be the minimum defect size the system must measure. 4. Yes, Phase I should focus on scratches, pits, abrasions, and cracks and exclude coating damage for now. 5. We do not have a preferred repeatability target for Phase I. Simply measuring and providing statistics on the repeatability at the current state is acceptable. 6. Phase I can be used to establish reliability baselines. We do not have a preferred target for Phase I. |
|
| 7/1/26 | Q. | 1. Is the example depth of approximately 0.100 inch intentional, and what threshold and objective ranges should the system cover for defect length, width, and depth?
2. What maximum permissible error, repeatability, or expanded measurement uncertainty is required for each dimension, particularly near a repair-versus-replacement decision threshold? Do the requirements differ among coating damage, scratches, cracks, and pits? 3. Which incumbent instrument, model, and measurement procedure should serve as the comparison baseline, and what reference method will the Government use to establish ground-truth dimensions? 4. Must the system locate previously unidentified damage, measure defects that an inspector has already identified, or perform both functions? Is defect classification or a repair/replace recommendation part of the desired output? 5. For cracks, is the required dimension limited to the visible surface geometry, or must the system determine crack depth, through-thickness extent, or other subsurface damage? 6. Is one-sided access required? Are contact, controlled probe force, removable couplant, suction or other temporary fixturing, structured illumination, or temporary registration marks permissible on the relevant transparency and coating systems? 7. Which transparency materials, coating or laminate systems, curvature ranges, aircraft families, and environmental conditions should be represented in Phase I and used for Phase II acceptance? Could the Government provide or identify representative coupons, retired transparencies, or applicable maintenance limits? 8. Would a hybrid optical-ultrasonic instrument be responsive if the optical channel provides surface dimensions and the ultrasonic channel provides crack or subsurface discrimination? Must all functions be contained in a single handheld sensor head? 9. Are there target limits for instrument size and weight, battery operation, measurement time, operator training, surface preparation, and data retention? What CUI or other data-handling restrictions are expected for Phase I test specimens and measurement data?/td> |
| A. | 1. The range of depths we hope to be able to measure with this topic’s solution is on the order of 1 mils to 100 mils (depth). The size we are targeting is within an area of 0.125 square inches (min) and a dollar bill (max).
2. While we are interested in solutions that may include additional functionality, our primary objective with this particular topic is to characterize surface defects (e.g. scratches, pits, abrasions). We are currently looking for a solution that can meet or exceed the measurement capabilities of our current method - an optical micrometer operated by a user with minimal experience. Measurement Resolution: ±0.001" (maximum), Field of View: 0.060" diameter (minimum), Depth/size accuracy: ± 0.001" (maximum), Repeatability: No requirement with current method, open to discussion during Phase I. 3. We are currently looking for a solution that can meet or exceed the measurement capabilities of our current method - an optical micrometer operated by a user with minimal experience. For coupon-level testing, we will be using a benchtop microscope for comparison measurements. For on-aircraft or component level testing, we will be using the optical micrometer. Firms are free to propose their own reference measurement methods for testing and we will review and accommodate on our side. 4. It would ideally perform both functions but for Phase I, we are open to solutions that can be developed in later phases to accomplish both. For Phase I, we do not have a requirement for the solution to classify the defect or provide a repair recommendation but it would be part of the discussions in later phases. 5. The system should determine visible surface geometry and crack depth at a minimum. 6. You can assume both sides of the transparency will be accessible for measurement. The instrument can make contact with the transparency and you can assume that we can accommodate any temporary fixtures or markings. 7. This particular topic is intended for use directly on bare/uncoated stretch acrylic qualified to military specification MIL-PRF-25690. We cannot provide details on the specific aircraft platforms that would be utilizing this tool but we can say that it will be used on transparencies with complex curvatures similar to F-16 and F/A-18 and on vertical lift aircraft platforms similar to H-53 and V-22. We intend to provide a scrapped transparency or representative coupons to the firms selected for this topic. A curvature is difficult to define but for this topic, you can assume the surface slopes approx. 15 - 17° from the normal plane 8. During the pre-release period we cannot review or provide feedback on specific solutions but there is no requirement to have all functionality in a single sensor head. Please feel free to reach out to us directly if we have misunderstood your question and we will answer as best as we can. 9. For Phase I, we are open to solutions that can be utilized in any setup (handheld, benchtop, etc.). We are currently looking for a solution that can meet or exceed the measurement time of our current method - an optical micrometer operated by a user with minimal experience. This user can complete 3 - 5 measurements of 1 defect in approx. 1 hour. With the current state of the art, this solution would be operating as a standalone inspection tool. Surface preparation prior to measurement would ideally be our typical cleaning procedures (liquid dish soap and water or Plastic Cleaner qualified to military specification P-P-560), but this is not a major concern for Phase I. You can assume that we can accomodate whatever cleaning requirements your solution requires. We do not have a specific skillset or standardized training established for maintainers using this tool. You can assume someone with minimal to no experience with aircraft transparency maintenance. The Phase I test specimens and measurement data are expected to be strictly unclassified and non-CUI, no CUI-specific handling, storage, or distribution restrictions apply. We will manage the data using standard unclassified DoW security protocols. |
|
| 8/10/26 | Q. | What is the desired form-factor for the inspection tool? Would a handheld device be acceptable? |
| A. | For Phase I, we are open to solutions that can be utilized in any setup (handheld, benchtop, etc.) with the expectation that the solution could be further developed as a portable tool for use on-aircraft by squadron maintenance personnel. | |
| 8/10/26 | Q. | My company is working on developing a new non destructive technique for measuring residual stress for additive manufacturing and basically any fabrication process that involves heat. I have not tested my technique on non metals material to see if that works or not but wanted to see if I can submit a proposal for this topic. Thank you |
| A. | During the pre-release period we cannot review or provide feedback on specific solutions. If you have technical questions on the requirements for this topic to assist in your proposal submission, feel free to email those over to us and we will answer as best as we can. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 5 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoW Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoW issued its Navy FY-26 Release 5 SBIR Topics pre-release on August 5, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on August 26, 2026, and closes September 23, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (August 5, through August 25, 2026) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. The TPOC contact information is listed in each topic description. Once DoW begins accepting proposals on August 26, 2026 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 September 9, 2026, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoW 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.
DoW Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoW Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoW Components participating in this BAA.
|