RFIs 4 Aug 26.pdf

FA2823-26-Q-0062 – Drone Targets Consolidated Requests for Information As of 04 Aug 2026

Question 1): Are the end users planning to utilize these drones for pilot training or Counter-UAS training?

Response 1): We are planning on using the targets for counter-UAS testing.

Question 2): Aircraft Configuration (Section 2.b.ii): The Technical Requirements Document states that a Shahed-type flying wing airframe is preferred, although a conventional airframe may be suitable. Could the Government clarify how this preference will be evaluated? Specifically, is the preference based primarily on aerodynamic performance, visual representation, or another operational consideration?

Response 2): A delta wing is preferred for its visual representation.

Question 3): Orange Cube Autopilot (Section 2.b.iii): Will the Government consider an equivalent commercial autopilot that provides the required functionality and is fully compatible with Mission Planner, or is the Orange Cube autopilot a mandatory requirement?

Response 3): The Orange Cube is preferred due to its ease of use and Mission Planner compatibility. A similar, NDAA compliant autopilot may be acceptable.

Question 4): RFD-900 Radio (Sections 2.b.iv and 2.c.ii): Will the Government consider an equivalent telemetry radio that provides the required range and is fully compatible with Mission Planner in lieu of the specified

RFD-900?

Response 4): A similarly capable radio that is compatible with Mission Planner may be acceptable.

Question 5): Flight Testing (Section 2.b.vii): The Technical Requirements Document requires contractor flight testing prior to delivery. Could the Government clarify the expected scope of this testing? Specifically, is Contractor acceptance testing with documented results sufficient, or does the Government expect a formal flight acceptance demonstration or witness testing prior to delivery?

Response 5): Contractor acceptance with documented results are sufficient.

Question 6): Launch Interface (CLIN 0004): Please clarify the "Launch Interface" requirement. Is the Government seeking compatibility with an existing launch system, or is the Contractor expected to provide a complete launch solution as part of this procurement?

Response 6): If the aircraft requires a physical launch mechanism, the Contractor is expected to provide a complete launch solution.

Question 7): Regarding CLIN 0004 (LAUNCH INTERFACE): Is a launcher required even if the aircraft has landing gear? The manufacturer is not sure if the end user has access to a runway or a large open field for takeoff with conventional landing gear?

Response 7): If the aircraft is Conventional or Vertical Takeoff and Landing, a launcher is not required.

Question 8): Is gasoline propulsion a requirement for award? If an all-electric configuration would be considered under the stated option for electrical, what is the minimum required aircraft endurance per sortie? The TRD specifies two hours of flight time in the context of flight batteries, which on a gasoline aircraft would describe avionics power rather than propulsion endurance.

Response 8): Gasoline is preferred for its thermal and acoustic signals. Electric configurations may be acceptable depending on use case. The two hours of flight time would be all inclusive for electric propulsion, and would be just avionics power for gasoline.

Question 8): Regarding CLIN 0004, Launch Interface: Does the Government require a specific launch method, or is the launch interface expected to be whatever the offered aircraft's launch system requires?

Response 8): Please see responses # 6 and 7.

Question 9): Are the aircraft expected to be recoverable and reusable across multiple test events, or single-use expendable?

Response 9): The aircraft are not expected to be recoverable.