NGP Industry Day 2 Questions_Answers.pdf

NGP Industry Day #2 questions:

1) Any changes to overall approach? Are GNC and warhead still separate efforts?

A) Original acquisition strategy has been evaluated and based on mission partner discoveries and market research; efforts will be developed under a single contract award to assure system integration is achievable.

2) Is schedule still king?

A) Yes, effort is still being held to a 24-month timeline to design, model and validate through test.

Timing heavily relies on vendors’ ability to meet proposal response deadlines.

3) Is the Gov’t performing integration activities? Which activities specifically? (ex: SILs, integration of support equipment, aircraft integration)

A) Aside from inclusion of a 1760 connector, additional platform integration is beyond the scope of this effort. No guarantee of any follow-on activities currently. Integration elements for proper storage and release have been identified and will be provided by the Government to include in tailkit design.

4) Should cost and schedule implications of integration activities reside with Government? (ex: cost and schedule of SIL testing for aircraft / tailkit / fuze)

A) Aside from inclusion of a 1760 connector additional platform integration is beyond the scope of this effort. No guarantee of any follow-on activities currently.

5) If efforts are separate, how does the Government plan to reconcile potential differences / conflicts between GNC and warhead designs?

A) Original acquisition strategy has been evaluated and based on mission partner discoveries and market research; efforts will be developed under a single contract award to assure system integration is achievable.

6) How does the Government envision the working relationship between the GNC and warhead efforts.

(Ex: how will the two work together to set warhead / GNC diameter? Based on total available length in the bay, how long can the warhead be vs tail kit? How will strake mounting solution impact warhead survivability? How will warhead shape effect AUR flight performance?)

A) Vendor is responsible for any necessary teaming arrangements to meet government requirements for overall effort. AUR dimensional system specifications have been determined and will meet platform bay requirements. Government will rely on vendor ability to determine strake and mounting design to meet survivability and flight performance requirements.

7) How will the Government evaluate innovative design vs low risk design?

A) Vendors must provide sufficient technology maturity details within submitted proposal for Government to determine benefit vs risk for any proposed innovative designs. Highlight demonstrated experience and/or ability to meet cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

8) Has the Government defined their key evaluation areas and their criteria?

A) Government is currently refining key evaluation areas.

9) Will there be a level of effort / support needed from contractors for integration, test activities and/or LAP activities?

A) Platform integration is outside the scope of this effort. There will be a government run test effort to evaluate warhead performance with expected contractor support. Support to include but not limited to pre & posttest modeling as well as data analysis. Government will be responsible for prototype warhead LAP activities.

10) Does the Government have design constraints that will be defined for warhead design effort (fuze, fill, steel, etc)

A) Yes, Government has defined design constraints.

11) Will the Government define the target(s) of interest and kill criteria? (ex: single or multiple TTSs)

A) Addressed in classified appendix to SRD as well as discussions during industry day classified briefing.

12) Is the Government interested in including options for future smart fuzing capability?

A) Design space is available for entertaining future fuzing capabilities, but this is outside the scope of the current effort.

13) What’s the Government’s plan / strategy for support equipment? Use legacy MACE/CARE? New

MACE/ CARE?

A) Design will incorporate utilization of proven hardware with integration constraints defined.

14) Per the RFI, can we get a copy of the referenced HTM AoA (2012 and 2019) and relevant NGP appendices and relevant target models?

A) Necessary appendices and target models will be made available post contract award, currently HTM AoA’s can be provided to interested parties.

15) How will the Government view an AUR solution / teaming arrangement vs individual warhead and individual GNC solution? Is there any benefit to team prior to the RFP?

A) Government will evaluate vendor capabilities and teaming arrangements presented in proposals to determine ability to meet cost, schedule and performance requirements of overall effort.

16) What type of testing does the Government plan to do after receiving prototypes?

A) Government run tests will be executed to evaluate warhead survivability and lethality performance against modeling and simulation data. AUR will be evaluated in M&S domain only at this time.

17) Will a specific MBSE format / program be required? (ex: cameo)

A) Contractor is encouraged to use MBSE during developmental effort but no mandatory requirement to use these tools currently.

18) Will RFP submission be done through cameo (or like)?

A) Contractor is encouraged to use MBSE during developmental effort but no mandatory requirement to use these tools currently. If vendor elects to submit digital RFP, any version of GRA and Cameo is acceptable.

19) What version of GRA will be used?

A) Attack Division is currently using GRA 4.3 and Cameo 2022 for MBSE.

20) Can we get the measurements emailed?

A) Currently we can provide:

• 25,695lbs incl’d CARE for weight

• 250 inches for bay clearance

21) What about diameter?

A) Diameter is largely going to be driven by gov’t design which will be provided to the vendor upon RFP release.

22) Transition to from release to track?

A) I think this is asking about timing for guidance kit to gain track post release. We did not address this during industry day, nor do we currently know. Will be based on guidance system design and performance.

23) Use MOP CARE system for release?

A) That is the current assumption and plan. Will interface with the BRU-72/B

24) Is there a chance to talk to SPO at a later date?

A) Not at this time. The Government will need to abide by strike competitive source selection processes which will limit or restrict conversations with any interested party to eliminate any image of impropriety.

25) Assumption of TLE in Base Line targets?

A) Assume a TLE of zero for base line targets analysis.

26) Time requirement for GPS denied?

A) Currently not fully defined. Assume no GPS from takeoff to delivery as the worst denied scenario.

27) Specific tests allotted for timeline?

A) We plan to provide a notional test schedule with the RFP.

28) Is there expectation of target expansion?

A) Not currently beyond the target set of the legacy weapon.

29) Anticipating any weapon-to-weapon comms? Will be a threshold/ situation.

A) Unknown at this time.

30) Release scenarios for laser guidance from platforms?

A) Laser terminal guidance is not preferred. If it were a proposed solution it would need to be a buddy laze tactic and specific release conditions have not been considered at this time.

31) Can we receive the classified slides?

A) No slides will be released (classified or unclassified) due to their sensitive nature.

32) What are the expenditures to get to the demo?

A) There is limited technical baseline and limited production. Get warhead design from the Government’s “90%” to CDR. Get guidance TDP through to PDR. Produce subscale & fullscale prototype assets for testing.

33) What is the TRL level expected?

A) Government expects TRL/MRL level of 5/6, not 8/9.

34) Fuzing system expectations?

A) With the LLNL effort we are assuming embedded fuzing currently. However, no physical fuze integration is expected in this initial effort. Just design elements allowing for future integration.