Low Cost Air-to-Air Questions and Answers (23 May 25).pdf

Question USG Response

The RFI states that the “…for the missile with a form factor similar to the AIM-120 AMRAAM…..” Can the Government please advise what they mean by “similar to”?

AMRAAM is 7 inch in diameter and 144 inches in length.

a. What range of sizes would be considered similar to (e.g., from 6 to 8 inches in diameter, 140-156 inches in length, etc.)?

Intent is a design that can integrate both internally and externally, therefore platform weapon bay sizes and existing launchers are the limiting factors.

2 Does the Government have a weight target or limit for the proposed solutions? In order to integrate on existing weapon stations, weight is limited to 370 lbs.

3 Does the Government have a desired range objective for each concept? Seeking state of the industry at this time , min/max range has not been defined at this time.

Does the Government expect the weapons to utilize existing AMRAAM or other Air to Air Missile launchers? If so, please specify which ones?

Yes; trade space is open for industry to propose desired launcher.

Does the Government have preferred launch mode for the weapons (e.g., eject launch versus rail launch, or both)?

Both.

The RFI identifies Statement of Capabilities (SoC) and refers to “section a-e”. However, there doesn’t appear to be an “e” section listed in the RFI. Can the Government please provide Section ‘e’ if there is one?

This was a type-o, this should state sections a-d.

Regarding SoC Section b, does the Government intend that the F-15EX variant will be included in F-15E as a targeted platform?

Yes.

8 Regarding SoC Section b, what block number or variant of F-16 is required for integration? Block 40 and later, but USG intent is weapon must use common flexible weapon ICD.

9 Does the Government have a desire for this weapon to be integrated onto 5th and 6th generation fighter as objectives?

Undetermined at this time.

Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) is listed as a targeted platform. Will the Government provide the ICDs for the multiple CCA aircraft currently under evaluation (YFQ-42A and the

YFQ-44A)?

If a solicitation is released, ICDs required for integration will be provided.

11 Will the ICDs for the manned aircraft listed be provided as well? If a solicitation is released, ICDs required for integration will be provided.

Regarding SoC Section C “Production Capacity”, does the Government desire to have all 1,000 units delivered within 24 months or the first lot of 1,000 units delivered within 24 months?

All 1,000 units within 24 months ACA.

What is the anticipated total production run for such a weapon over how many years (to support ROM costing efforts)?

For ROM costing efforts assume 1,000 AURs per year for 5 years.

14 Is this weapon intended to be exportable to allied nations?

The USG understands the importance of partnership with allied nations, however, at this time we are conducting market research and there has been no determination made for a need for FMS.

The Government has indicated a desire to maximize reuse of high TRL/MRL subsystems and components. Will the Government provide data on high TRL components or subsystems from existing AMRAAM component suppliers and/or AIM-9X component suppliers, or at least a list of supplier names for such components (e.g., if such components as power supply, CAS, fins, CCAs, data link, etc., could be reused within a proposed concept) to allow proposers to assess ability to reuse such components?

Government desire is to maximize use of mature, existing subsystems. The Government cannot provide data on all currently fielded subsystems. RFI responses will aid the Government in determination of next steps to achieve desire for high TRL/MRL or existing components.

Regarding SoC Section D “Target Cost for All-Up-Round ”, should the ROM costs to be provided by the proposer in Then Year $ or Constant Year $, and if latter, which GFY to assume that cost?

This is an RFI and there is no funding associated with this at this time, for the purpose of the ROM, responses can use CP26$.

For ROM cost estimates, what type of contract(s) (CPFF, FFP, etc.) are anticipated to be used for each phase of the project?

The USG is using this RFI to inform the acquisition strategy, a contract type has not been determined at this time.

18 Has funding already been identified for this effort and if so, in what Program Element? No funding has been identified at this time.

19 In what GFY does the Government anticipate this program starting?

This is an RFI and there is no funding associated with this effort at this time, for the purpose of the ROM potential offerors can assume starting FY26.

20 Does the Government have a desired Time of Flight for each concept? Seeking state of the industry at this time, time of flight requirement has not been defined at this time.

Can the Government specify what Fighter Data Links are currently used on the specified aircraft to be integrated on?

Data link requirement is not defined and is in the trade space for industry to recommend.

Can the Government provide the Common Flexible Weapons Interface ICD/Specification if there are any differences from standard UAI interface document?

This is an RFI for market research, should an RFP be released this will be appropriately made available to potential bidders.

For the platforms to be integrated on, what fighter data link (or other data link(s)) are employed, other than Link 16?

Data link requirement is not defined and is in the trade space for industry to recommend.

Do the CCA candidates have any data links to communicate with the proposed weapons?

a. If not, what is the assumed method for passing off targeting information to the AAMs and what platforms will provide IFTU information to the missiles post launch from CCAs?

Data link requirement is not defined and is in the trade space for industry to recommend, IFTU and weapon C2 mechanism can be recommended by industry.

What environmental conditions shall the missiles be design to (operating temperature, storage temperature, shell life, platform carriage shock, vibration, EMC/EMI, etc.)?

Specifications cannot be provided at this time, however it will be expected that design meets aircraft integration standards for threshold platforms.

26 Can the Government identify which GRA requirement version shall be utilized? The latest available. Current version is Weapons GRA 5.0/WOSA 3.6.

Is the USG receptive to responses from component suppliers with intent to partner with a Prime? Or is USG only accepting responses with complete AUR solutions?

Yes, Government is open to responses from component / subsystem suppliers. If possible, identify information that may be shared with other industry partners to enable teaming.

28 Is this intended to be an all weather weapon?

The Government is open to what you can provide. For example, if what you are able to provide is an IR seeker that isn't all-weather we may accept that and look into upgrade paths. The modularity aspects of the design may be able to lead us to known insertions if we need that capability. The main focus is affordability. We are expecting trades on performance, weather constraints, and other factors as listed in the trade space.

Range is mentioned as trade space. Does the USG have a min range requirement for a viable solution?

Seeking state of the industry at this time , min/max range has not been defined at this time.

Does the US Govt have trade space for SRM propellant type? Is smokeless propellant a requirement?

SRM design is in trade space, there is no requirement for smokeless propellant.

Is this a new requirement? Or is there an incumbent contract/contractor currently performing the services? Would you be able to share the contract details for reference?

This RFI is for a new requirement, there is not an incumbent contractor or contract number or details to share.

Sections a-d below illustrate the capability as the USG understands the requirement and responses should address each of the sections, however the USG is interested in any solution that offers value to the USG even if it does not address all of the factors. Failure to meet these specifications in their entirety does not preclude an interested party from submitting a response that meets the overall intent of this RFI. Please confirm intent is still all-up-round and not interested in subsystem level capabilities (e.g. just a propulsion system response).

Government is seeking AUR but is also open to teaming within industry so sub-system component vendors are also viable for this effort.

The SOC section lists factors a-d. Please clarify that the Submission Details section, which mentions factors a-e, should be a-d.

This was a type-o, this should states sections a-d.

Our understanding is that funding has not yet been planned for the design cycles or production phases, and the intent of this RFI is to seek options to inform a future requirement. Can you please confirm or provide clarification?

This is an RFI to determine what the industrial base can provide that might meet the needs of the USG and help to inform an acquisition strategy should a requirement be formalized. There is no funding associated with this and there is no formal requirement at this time. The USG is using this RFI to conduct market research.

35 Is there an inventory quantity being targeting beyond the initial 1,000 rounds? Nothing defined at this moment but future purchases are a consideration.

In the Ask me Anything call, it appeared CCAs were prioritized as the launch platform that has primary interest. Are CCAs the most-likely use-case for this low-cost weapon?

The CCA is a possible use case but not the only use case. The Government is also looking to integrate on the F-16 and F-15E. Emphasis was placed on CCA due to potential for internal carriage being a limiting factor to weapon physical size.

Is there an anticipated phase in which multiple offerors will be carried forward before a final down-selection is made?

The RFI responses will inform the Government Acquisition Strategy. It is anticipated that there will be multiple capable vendors and that multiple vendors would be carried as long as the proposed solution was proving sufficient to meet Government requirements and funding could support the strategy.

38 What type of contracting strategy is envisioned for the design cycle and production phase?

The USG is using this RFI to help inform the contracting strategy, no specific contracting strategy has been determined for any phase at this time.

39 Is collaboration with international partners acceptable?

The Government would consider collaboration with international industry partners, many factors could impact final determination.

40 What are the expected reliability requirements? Seeking state of the industry so no reliability requirements have been define at this time.

41 What are the expected shelf-life requirements? Seeking state of the industry so no shelf-life requirements has been defined at this time.

42 Will the USG consider early procurement funding for long-lead hardware?

Funding for this program is not currently authorized or appropriated hence acquisition strategy and decisions on procuring long-lead material have not been made.

43 What level security classification is the program anticipated to be?

The RFI responses and final Government requirements will determine program classification level. It is desired to execute at the lowest classification level possible due to cost and schedule impacts of increased security posture.

In the Ask me Anything, it was noted that cost, schedule, and producibility are prioritized over performance, and requirements are tradable to meet these priorities. What are the driving performance requirements that you would be looking to prioritize?

Final weighting of factors will be determined in the acquisition strategy which will be informed by RFI responses. The Government wants to understand the levels of performance industry can deliver at this point in time. What performance does industry believe it can actually deliver using mature/existing components?

45 Can propose just a single subsystem and/or how we should address other subsystems?

As this RFI is supporting market research, the USG is willing to accept submissions that address subsystems. Ideally such a response would include details on the company’s relationship with system integrators if any as ultimately the Air Force will want an AUR. Next steps, such as potential ‘collider events’ or other forums for integrator/supplier meet ups will be informed by RFI responses.

46 May we submit multiple RFI submissions - as a teammate, and as a subsystem?

Yes, multiple submissions are acceptable, one as a subsystem and one as a teammate, this should be notated in both submissions.

The RFI specifies a no more than ten-page limit for responses. Is a cover page included within the ten-page limit?

No, the cover page is not included within the 10-page limit.

48 Does the USG have a funding profile for the Phases 1 & 2 portion of this work? No, funding profile has been identified at this time.

49 What type of contracting vehicles is the USG considering using?

The USG is using this RFI to inform the acquisition strategy, all contract vehicles are being considered at this time.

Does the USG have a preference for FFP Phase 1& 2 development work, or will a traditional cost-plus approach be considered?

Th USG is using this RFI to inform the acquisition strategy, a contract type has not been determined at this time.

51 Are there a carriage/LAU systems we need to be compatible with?

Trade space is open for industry to propose desired launcher that is currently in the Air Force inventory.

52 Are cruise missiles part of the desired target set?

The RFI lists the currently envisioned target sets. If industry believes their concept has capability against a broader set, that may be included in the RFI response if desired.

53 Are helicopters part of the desired target set?

The RFI lists the currently envisioned target sets. If industry believes their concept has capability against a broader set, that may be included in the RFI response if desired.

54 What security level do you want submissions at? Is CUI acceptable?

CUI is the preferred level of submission, please request a DoDSAFE link from the POCs in the RFI if needed. Should you need to submit at a higher level please coordinate with the POCs in the RFI.

55 Do you have a “shelf life” requirement? Seeking state of the industry so no shelf life requirement has been defined at this time.

56 Do the missiles need to have counter electronic attack measures? Seeking state of the industry so environmental requirements have not been defined at this time.

57 Does the missile need to be compatible with F-35 external carriage? 4th gen fighters are the current Threshold requirement.

58 Are there weight limits we need to design to? Weapon must be able to integrate on weapon stations of platforms listed in RFI.

Pairing down the target list may be helpful - Not all 4th Gen fighters are created equal (RCS managed J-10C with an AESA shooting PL-15Es)

The Government is seeking the state of industry at this time, industry in encouraged to describe the bounds of performance in their response. Which 4th Gen fighter targets can be prosecuted and under what conditions?

Given the aggressive timeline, will the USG expedite or give higher priority with Seek Eagle or Safety/Fuze Boards (ERM)

The Government will assist in coordinating with other Government agencies if vendor opts to use Government test ranges but priority cannot be guaranteed.

Is there a priority order for the listed capabilities? Targets vs. Platform Integration vs.

Production Capacity vs. Cost

Final weighting of factors will be determined in the acquisition strategy which will be informed by RFI responses. The Government wants to understand the levels of performance industry can deliver at this point in time. What performance does industry believe it can actually deliver using mature/existing components?

62 Are there priorities or weights for trade space criteria? Like ToF vs Range vs Pkill

Final weighting of factors will be determined in the acquisition strategy which will be informed by RFI responses. The Government wants to understand the levels of performance industry can deliver at this point in time. What performance does industry believe it can actually deliver using mature/existing components?

63 Are you open to a solution that uses multiple rounds per intercept? Seeking state of the industry so multiple rounds are viable for consideration.

Is there a minimum TRL that will be considered for weapon assemblies, subassemblies, and components

No minimum is specified, however, this is not an R&D program and any approach should adhere as much as possible to the timelines presented in the RFI.

65 Is there interest in 4.5th Gen fighters 4th gen fighters are the current Threshold requirement.

Is there a specific lifetime associated with carriage (x hours carriage time above Mach 1.2) Similar to AIM-120 vs F-22 bay doors open rqmt. (ERM)

Details have not been defined at this time.

67 Is there a specific shock / vibe profile available that we should be considering (ERM) Specifications cannot be provided at this time, however it will be expected that design meets aircraft integration standards for threshold platforms.

68 Mentioned eject launcher - what about rail launch off something like a LAU-128? Both rails and eject launchers are under consideration.

69 Any preference for Test Ranges?

No test range has been identified at this time. The USG would consider commercial test ranges as part of a solution.

Will AFLCMC/EB include full missile (warhead + airframe) debris performance against targets? Or….will lethality assessments only include warhead performance?

Only warhead performance will be used in lethality assessments.

Do you envision or anticipate that with the future systems (such as air to air missile) the need or desire for a multi-role or dual range role capability? Are you looking for a replacement for r are you really looking for a cheaper replacement for AMRAAM compliment to JATM potentially?

We are not looking to replace anything currently in the inventory. The requirements in the RFI are very broad intentionally due to the requirement being geared towards producibility, affordability, and what kind of capability the contractor can provide to the Government. The Government specifically called out Air-to-Air but, in the build up to doing test shots we would assume there would be ground launch and rail launch activities. If that shows to also be a valuable capability, the Government may pursue alternative launch mechanisms. The Government sees this requirement as a complement to AMRAAM and JATM, not a replacement. This is filling a different need as we know we have limitations in weapons to load on existing platform weapon stations.

Do you foresee a desire to be able to engage more than aircraft targets, potentially surface targets, UAVS's, low cost missiles, and other threats?

In respect to this specific RFI, not surface targets. We are focused on air targets with this system.

This is meant to be a compliment to AMRAAM and JATM, not a replacement. This is intended to fill a separate need to have weapons to load onto rails and affordability for CCA type platforms.

Is there a way the nontraditional companies can identify whether they are going to respond or not to open up the opportunity? This will give component manufacturers options to reach out to and see what type of affordable capabilities we could do to be disruptive in the space. Have you thought of that option?

If you would like the Government to share your information, please make that clear in your response to the RFI.

Would you be open to a rail launch versus an eject launch. For flight testing if we're going to be given preference for flight test ranges?

The USG would be open to rail launches. The primary driver there is existing launch systems. With CCA's some of them may have bays, some of them may not. Eject launch was a consideration in that regard. In regards to tests, the Government does not have a presupposed test range or agreement with any test organization at this point. At this time, we can not speak to having a priority on a test range if it is a government range.

Have you communicated with the NAVY about this particular RFI and are they aware of it? Have you tied off with the PMA as far as the nature of this requirement?

Yes we have coordinated with the Navy. They are aware of this RFI and they were able to see it before it was published. We are specifically going after different missions.

76 Can classified submissions or addendums be provided?

If you believe that you have a response that would be classified, please reach out to the POC's on this RFI and we can provide you with the appropriate submittal process for that.

77 What is the desired timeline for delivery of the 1,000 all up rounds? The RFI states 24 months/2 years which is a target or as fast as possible.

What are the end deliverables expected for each phase, i.e.. Design one, design two and follow on production?

That details concerning each design cycle is not yet defined. It would essentially be dependent on what responses we receive from the RFI's and then in proposals for any actual solicitation.

79 When can we anticipate a response to the formally submitted questions?

We plan to have responses to formally submitted questions within about a week from the cutoff day of June 2nd.

With a unit quantity of 1,000 identified in the RFI, it this quantity an initial target number with more to follow on? Is there potential for export of this weapon system?

The purpose of the 1,000 units is to be able to gauge a production ROM. Whether there will be follow-on lots is to be determined as we solidify requirements. Likewise, with exportability the Government is not going into this with the view of it as a FMS case but understanding coalition partners are important in future flights.

81 Is the requirement for an all-weather weapon?

The Government is open to what you can provide. For example, if what you are able to provide an IR seeker that isn't all-weather we may accept that and look into upgrade paths. The modularity aspects of the design may be able to lead us to know insertions if we need that capability. The main focus is affordability. We are more than expecting trades on performance, weather constraints and other anomalies as listed in the trade space.

82 Do you have a min range?

We do not (Seeking state of the industry at this time, min/max range has not been defined at this time.)

83 Are you interested in a system design agent approach?

The Government would be willing to accept system design agent approach and teaming arrangements.

The RFI defines within the 24 months there's two design cycles for follow on production and as part of that we are providing prototype delivery within the 24 months. What verification would be required for that delivery? For example, are we looking fora demonstration of a CTV like event or beyond or to fold in any of the Seek Eagle certifications during that time frame?

Yes, the Government is looking to have a representative system integrated and work through the Seek Eagle or equivalent/certification process. Probably not by them specifically. Of course they will be following along closely with us. They're also very interested in trying to get something speed to field. There still is a minimum bar that we need to meet with the Seek Eagle Office.

Is there a level of guidance towards to essentially plan that first two years again, what would be the goal to reach?

It would be a fully functioning weapon that has some amount of demonstration behind it. We will scope through what the baseline objectives and performance specs would be as we start drafting the actual proposal.

The RFI mentioned maximizing reuse. Do you have any thoughts or recommendations on what to reference such as fighter data links, subsystem components from existing class weapons, etc.?

We do not have a presupposed of targeted reuse. The intent is that these need to be mature systems that are very mature and high TRL. We would look for in your responses, for you to have made those matches and have the agreements in place to reuse a developed system if it is owned by a different company/contractor.

Is there a specific desire by the government for a certain level of government purpose rights on the activity if it's funded? Is there any interest in providing information on government owned components/data rights that could help us make the determination to maximize reuse of the existing components, if its NRE is already paid for?

In regards to data rights, these are kind of standard that you've seen out of the Armament Directorate at the last couple years, where we are looking for form, fit, function rights to all of the interfaces in the system. If it's within the bound of the of the subsystem (WOSA domain) and it's that form, fit, function data necessary to do a replacement. If the Government has the rights to all of that data for existing systems we would love to potentially provide it however at this time we are unsure if we have that information in a collective space to provide.

Are there any constraints or restraints that should be of concern such as having link 16 on the system, has to have a flight target update, wave forms or frequency ranges?

We do not have anything specifically to stay away from. The trade space is on data links is pretty open right now. The constraints or restraints would somewhat depend on the system design on your end. For example, if you say the performance requires an in-flight target update, how would you get that update? Then we can work closely with battle management and command control enterprise to make sure that those targets make sense. Also, if you can in your response clearly list out your assumptions that you need from a launch condition or an in-flight then that will be very helpful to understand.

If we stick to the AAMRAM form factor, are you interested in an extended version of the same thing that you can then put on another platform externally or on a larger platform?

No, we're really trying to kind of bound it right now to that upper limit of being that AAMRAM size. If your designs come in larger than that, then we're limited just to the externals as well. We know that there are limitations from the aircraft themselves on stations for the ejectors, not necessarily just because of the launch mechanisms, so expand as much as you are able.

Will we be provided expected platform queuing errors #1 and then #2? Do we have any GFE that would go into RCS and target motion models from the government that we could use in our analysis?

At this time, we are not planning to provide queueing data. For this RFI phase we are not planning to provide any GFP. We understand as we go through and develop an actual program, there would be scenarios and vignettes, but those are not available at this time.

Is the AMRAAM size limit strict with looking at length and diameter or with having done research on the F-35 or F-22 and understanding what may be able to fit into those bays and expanding to that?

No strict limits were provided, designs must be compatible with threshold aircraft listed.

There are two different phase one CCA platforms with more potentially different ones to follow. Is there any way to provide the limitation, or ICD limits of the size for those two different CCA aircraft?

We do not have the CCA ICD data available.

The RFI referenced both the full size AMRAAM size weapon and then the half size one. Is there a priority for one over the other?

The emphasis is on the full size round at this point. The overall intent is to have enough weapons to fill all the rails that are out there, with a focus on affordable scalability and producibility.

Is it a good rule of thumb to assume that the ambiguity is intentional and for contractors when responding to list out their assumptions based on the logic of what they are providing in the RFI?

That was the government knows the assumptions you have made, where there are ambiguities and then can understand the context of the data in the response.

That is a great rule of thumb. This RFI is very intentionally made broad and are limited on the constraints. We don't want to assume that we know everything. We want the creativity and to unleash the power of industry to help us solve problems. If you may not hit all the marks from A-D, don't allow that to preclude you from responding but list your assumptions. We will also accept responses from sub-providers.