Attritable ISR Aircraft - QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8629-26-RFI-4ISR
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing 85 industry inquiries regarding Amendment 01 to the Attritable ISR Aircraft Request for Information (RFI FA8629-26-RFI-4ISR). The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) & Special Operations Forces (SOF) Directorate issued this RFI for market research purposes only, with submission responses due by 4:00 PM EST on May 5, 2026. The Government seeks information on low-cost, attritable unmanned airborne platforms capable of delivering ISR mass rapidly and affordably, and is open to all unmanned platform types including complete aircraft solutions, standalone payload systems, and teamed submissions combining air vehicles with payloads.
The Q&A document clarifies critical submission and technical requirements across multiple categories. Respondents may submit multiple distinct solutions in separate 20-slide presentations but must consolidate minor variations of the same baseline system. The Government welcomes both mature, immediately fieldable solutions (TRL 9) and developmental systems with clear roadmaps for maturation, requiring respondents to clearly indicate current Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL). All submissions must address applicable Key Performance Parameter (KPP) and Key System Attribute (KSA) tables relevant to their proposed solution, using these designated numbering systems. Responses containing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must be transmitted via secure DoD SAFE channels. Cost data should provide complete system cost breakdowns distinguishing between attritable assets and reusable support infrastructure, along with production timelines, sustainment costs, and cost-per-flight-hour estimates where applicable. The Government emphasizes Total Ownership Cost (TOC) analysis rather than single procurement metrics and prioritizes Full-Motion Video (FMV) capabilities alongside Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) and signal detection missions. Key technical considerations include modularity supporting Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) and Scalable, Open, Standards-Based Architecture (SOSA), secure network integration with pathways to Government classified networks, Beyond-Line-of-Sight (BLOS) communications architectures, and sustainable data transmission for ISR products. The Government defines "attritable" based on acceptable mission cost rather than a fixed price ceiling, evaluating platforms holistically based on unit cost, reusability, mission effectiveness, and overall operational value.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attritable ISR Aircraft RFI.pdf | ||
| RFI Instructions.pdf | ||
| Respondent Question Sheet.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Question | Answer | Category | |
| 1 | Will the Government accept responses from payload or mission-system providers that are not proposing a complete aircraft solution? | Yes. The separate KPP tables indicate separate possible solutions, and it is expected that vendors of configurable payloads will respond. Key information to provide will be the performance of the payload and the integration needs of the payload (power, size, vibration, environmental, EMI/EMC, airworthiness or safety concerns, connectors, data format, etc.). Submissions should clearly articulate the operational value your payload provides to the mission, along with specific requirements to integrate it into an airborne platform and utilize the data it produces. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 2 | Should those responses be mapped primarily to Section C and the applicable KPP/KSA tables, such as KPP 5, KPP 6, and KPP 9, or is there another preferred structure? | Yes, please use the KPP tables and associated numbering to clearly indicate which requirement your proposed solution addresses. This structure is essential to help the Government team accurately review and organize the responses. Additionally, respondents must ensure their submission addresses all items within the Respondent Question Sheet. If a specific question or requirement is not applicable to your proposed solution, please explicitly state "Not Applicable" and briefly explain why. This ensures the Government can differentiate between an omitted response and a requirement that genuinely does not apply to your system. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 3 | For KPP 9 “Other Sensor,” is the Government interested in wide-area panoramic detect/track/cue payloads that complement a narrow-field-of-view gimbaled EO/IR sensor, rather than replace it? | Yes. The government is interested in this type of complementary sensing solution, as well as a broad range of other sensor payloads. Under this KPP, the Government is seeking to understand the full spectrum of sensing capabilities that industry can provide within an attritable form factor and price range. Respondents proposing these solutions should clearly explain the operational utility and mission applicability of their sensor, along with any integration needs/requirements. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 4 | For aircraft-level requirements such as BLOS communications, Link-16, navigation, command and control, and ground control station integration, how should respondents address those items when they are provided by the host aircraft or a teaming partner rather than by the payload itself? | Please respond with any integration needs you have for those systems. For example, for BLOS, if you have a sensor, what types of commands would go over BLOS? What data rate and data size are those commands? What data would be coming back over BLOS, size, type, rate? For Link-16, what data would you push? Is your data already formatted for Link-16? For navigation, does your sensor require information from the navigation system? What data, what format, etc.? For command and control and ground station, what commands, what size, what format? Do you have a GUI that would load onto an operating system? If so which ones? Do you have an API that is compatible with a current ground control station? We want to understand what it would take to integrate your system on an airborne platform. If something is not applicable, please clearly state that. That way we know whether you missed a consideration or if it doesn't apply. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 5 | At the RFI stage, is the Government interested in subsystem-level SWaP, interface, and integration assumptions for modular payloads, or only in demonstrated aircraft-integrated performance? | Yes, the Government is interested in all integration details for solutions. The Government wants to understand the trade space for attritable aircraft and for attritable payloads. Since solutions for aircraft and payloads may come from different companies, it is important that the Government understands which solutions may be compatible. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 6 | Would the Government value a non-traditional architecture in which a panoramic sensor provides persistent wide-area search and cueing, while a separate narrow-FOV sensor performs identification and refinement? | Yes. The Government strongly encourages creative, non-traditional solutions that can enhance the operational utility of attritable ISR platforms. Respondents proposing non-traditional architectures must clearly articulate the rationale behind their approach. Please explain why your proposed architecture represents the most effective or cost-efficient solution to meet the mission objectives outlined in this RFI. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 7 | Are there any preferred airborne interface standards, power envelopes, payload-bay constraints, or MOSA reference architectures that respondents should assume for modular mission systems? | In this RFI, the Government is looking at both platforms and payloads, so a single architecture is not chosen. We do have a preference for MOSA, SOSA, and standardized architectures that allow for flexibility between platforms and payloads, and ease in future upgrades. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 8 | Is the Government primarily seeking immediately fieldable threshold solutions, or is it also interested in architectures that offer strong operational value but may require additional maturation to reach full airborne integration? | As stated in the RFI, the Government's primary interest is in mature technologies capable of being fielded in months. However, the Government is also interested in architectures that provide strong operational value but require additional maturation. If a respondent is proposing a solution with a longer fielding timeline, state the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and provide a projected timeline for the remaining Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) required for the product to be considered ready for integration into an airborne platform. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 9 | Would the Government prefer teamed responses that combine an air vehicle provider with a payload provider, rather than standalone subsystem submissions? | The Government welcomes and encourages both teamed and standalone submissions. While teamed responses offering a complete, integrated system are highly valuable, the Government also places significant value on understanding the distinct capabilities of standalone, configurable payloads on their own merits. To help us organize and review the submissions effectively, whole-system or teamed solutions should address both the aircraft-level Key Performance Parameter (KPP) tables and the applicable sensor KPP tables. Standalone payload providers should respond specifically to the KPP table(s) relevant to their individual payload. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 10 | If an industry partner has multiple solutions that meet or exceed the requirements, can the solutions be submitted as separate slide packages? Is there a limit to the number of solutions that a company may submit? | There is no limit to the number of solutions a company may submit, and vendors may submit separate slide packages (up to 20 slides each) for multiple solutions. However, separate slide decks are permitted only for completely distinct and fundamentally different solutions. Vendors must not submit separate decks to present minor options, payload variations, or small block changes of the same baseline component or system. Any minor variations of a single capability must be consolidated within one 20-slide submission. Please ensure each distinct submission is well-organized and clearly indicates which KPP items are being addressed. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 11 | If an industry partner’s solution contains CUI data, how should the slides be submitted? | Responses containing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) must be transmitted securely. The preferred method is via DoD SAFE. Vendors with a CAC/PKI certificate may initiate the DoD SAFE drop-off directly to the Government POC email address listed in section 2 of the RFI Instruction. Vendors without a CAC must email the Government POC's (using section 2 of the RFI Instruction) no later than 24 hours prior to the RFI deadline with the subject line "Request for DoD SAFE Drop-Off LInk - [Company Name]". The Government will then generate a secure link allowing the vendor to upload their CUI response. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 12 | Are firms able to submit multiple submissions across multiple capabilities in response to this RFI? For instance, if we have three capabilities that can meet the designated requirements, are we able to submit 3 separate slide decks? Or are we required to consolidate all the platforms into one submission? | Yes, firms may submit separate slide decks (up to 20 slides each) for distinct capabilities. For example, if a firm has three fundamentally different platforms that meet the requirements, they may submit three separate slide decks. As noted above, this allowance applies only to completely distinct solutions. Different configurations, minor options, or block changes of the same baseline platform or payload must be consolidated into a single 20-slide submission. For each separate submission, please clearly identify which KPP table(s) the solution addresses to allow the Government to efficiently review and compare capabilities. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 13 | Is industry encouraged to respond to an individual subcategory level (i.e., per KPP ID)? | Industry is encouraged to respond to the individual KPP table appropriate to their solution. The Government asks that respondents address all items within their chosen KPP table. If your proposed solution does not meet a specific requirement or if you do not offer a capability for that item, please clearly state that you have 'No Solution' or that item is 'Non Applicable,' and briefly explain why. For example, if a vendor is responding to an Aircraft KPP table but does not provide a communications datalink, they should explicitly state "No Solution" for that line item and provide any relevant integration information or constraints regarding how a third-party communications device would be integrated into their platform. As noted in previous answers, the Government anticipates a variety of responses, including airborne platforms, individual configurable payloads, and complete, teamed solutions. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 14 | Can we give you a brief instead of replying to the RFI? | Not at this time. To be fair to all vendors and to best categorize the trade space, the Government asks for you to reply to the RFI Respondent Question Sheet and format. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 15 | Can we help you analyze the capabilities of the industry? | Not at this time. Feel free to submit a response to the RFI specifying your qualifications in analyzing this sector, and list which KPP IDs you have analyzed. The Government will make an assessment after the response to this RFI on the next steps. That could include other types of analysis and market research. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 16 | Does this represents a new requirement, or whether there is a prior contract(s) or a contract program associated with fulfilling similar requirements in the past? If no prior contracts or similar, is this a continuation of market research previously issued? Is there an RFI / SSN number, if so? | This is a new data call and is not a continuation of a previous data call. The focus of this is on attritable ISR airborne platforms and payloads that could be manufactured within months. The intent is to categorize the trade space and present the possibilities to the Air Force customer. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 17 | Does the Government consider a multi-vehicle system (e.g., a carrier UAS deploying multiple scout UAS) as a single respondent "solution," and if so, should range KPP 1.1 be measured from the launch/recovery point of the carrier, or from the point of scout deployment? | If a solution involves multiple systems, please provide the range and loiter time of the total solution, as well as the range and loiter of the components. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 18 | For a swarm-based ISR architecture, is the loiter time KPP 1.2 evaluated at the system level (i.e., aggregate persistent coverage via rotating scout sorties and/or in-mission recharging capability) or per individual air vehicle? | It is important for the Government to understand your entire solution. If your solution requires multiple platforms, then please indicate the range and loiter capability of those individual platforms and how combining them will achieve the overall objective. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 19 | For KPP 1.2 loiter, would the Government consider in-mission scout recharging — enabled by a carrier-mounted charging system allowing scouts to dock, recharge, and re-deploy during the mission — as a valid method of achieving or progressing toward the 20-hour loiter objective? | The Government is highly interested in understanding all innovative approaches to increasing loiter time and achieving persistent coverage, including in-flight recharging concepts. Respondents proposing such capabilities should clearly detail the system’s performance metrics. Please indicate the platform's unrefueled range and endurance, the time required to complete an in-flight recharge, and a concept of operations explaining how this solution provides sustained, persistent coverage in the mission area. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 20 | Is the Link-16 objective KPP 1.9/2.1 a hard discriminator for down-selection, or would a solution meeting the threshold (mission essential comms) with a clear roadmap to Link-16 integration be considered competitive? | As a reminder, this RFI is issued solely for market research purposes and does not constitute a formal source selection or down select process. The Government's intention is to understand the full spectrum of capabilities that exist today or are currently in development. Responses will be evaluated across multiple dimensions including mission impact, cost, and timeline to field to help the Government understand the available trade space and determine future acquisition strategies. While Link 16 is a highly desired objective capability, the Government understands that integrating it into an attritable platform's cost and form factor may not be feasible in the immediate near term. Respondents are strongly encouraged to describe the capability they can field today to meet the threshold requirements. If a roadmap or path exists to achieve objective requirements (like Link 16), respondents should detail what would be required (e.g., time, cost, integration efforts) to achieve them. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 21 | May the BLOS communications requirement be satisfied by a relay node on the carrier platform rather than on each individual scout air vehicle? | Yes, the BLOS just refers to the need for human operators and data transmission to be beyond line of sight. The Government is interested in LOS nodes and BLOS mothership concepts. Please provide a clear explanation on how your entire solution would meet the mission. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 22 | What UAV Group Type(s) does the Government anticipate the proposed solution would fall under for airworthiness purposes, and is a full airworthiness certification required at RFI stage or only at proposal/contract stage? | Airworthiness requirements are very dependent on the type and size of the airborne platform. This RFI is open to any airborne platform that's price and ease of production would be considered attritable. It is important that companies understand where their airborne platform is classified by USAF, and thus what Airworthiness criteria are applicable. There is not a requirement for an Airworthiness type certificate or other approval at this stage. What's important at this stage is that the design would meet the applicable Airworthiness standards and criteria, and that the company can produce the necessary data to achieve compliance if a future contract is awarded. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 23 | The RFI defines attritable aircraft as existing on a continuum between expendable and maintainable. Is there a notional per-unit cost ceiling the Government considers the upper bound of the attritable category for this effort? | The Government does not have a predefined per-unit cost ceiling for this market research effort. The concept of "attritability" will be evaluated holistically, considering the interplay between unit cost, expected reusability, and the overall mission impact. Because different technical approaches may require varying numbers of platforms to achieve the same mission effect, the Government must evaluate cost within the broader context of the operational solution. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 24 | For ROM cost purposes (Section D), should pricing reflect per-scout unit cost, per-carrier unit cost, or a full system cost (carrier + scout complement + GCS)? | The Government requests that respondents provide both the full system cost and the individual component costs. To accurately evaluate per mission cost of a proposed solution, it is essential to understand the cost breakdown of its constituent parts. Please clearly delineate the ROM costs for all major elements of your proposed architecture in your submission. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 25 | The instructions indicate proprietary information should be marked on a slide-by-slide basis. Is a footer marking on each applicable slide sufficient, or does the Government require a specific marking format? | Yes, a clear footer (or header) marking on each applicable slide is sufficient. The Government does not require a specific marking format or prescribed legend for this RFI. Respondents should ensure that any slide containing proprietary, confidential, or competition-sensitive business information is clearly and prominently marked with standard industry language (e.g., "PROPRIETARY," "COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL," or similar). If only a specific portion of a slide contains proprietary data, respondents are encouraged to highlight or bracket that specific text/graphic to assist the Government in properly protecting the information. | RFI Process & Submission Instructions | |
| 26 | For respondents focused on electric Group 2 systems, should this effort be understood as open to lower-logistics, rapidly deployable attritable aircraft that may trade endurance for austere employment, or is the intended solution space primarily longer-endurance platforms closer to the higher-end objectives in the RFI? | The Government is highly interested in a wide variety of solutions across the entire attritable continuum, including lower-logistics, rapidly deployable systems that trade endurance for austere employment. The RFI is designed to explore the full trade space, from smaller Group 2 systems to longer-endurance platforms. Respondents are encouraged to clearly describe their platform's specific capabilities, operational trade-offs, and integration requirements. This information is critical for the Government to fully map the available industrial base and determine the most effective acquisition strategy moving forward. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 27 | KPP 2.2, KPP 4.2, and KPP 5.2 treat “integrate with secure networks” as an objective, while the Security KSA appears to make secure-network integration a threshold requirement. Can you clarify the minimum required security architecture at initial fielding for a low-cost attritable platform? Specifically, should respondents assume a secure transport / link requirement only, or also on platform protections for storage, processing, and separation of secure and unsecure data? (Since we are currently focused on electric platforms we’re concerned about the energy and weight associated with security devices. We’re familiar with mission processing systems of USAF tactical aircraft and that equipment can become quite expensive, large, power hungry, and have a heavy regulatory burden) | The data collected by the ISR assets must be capable of reaching classified networks for processing. That can be achieved a variety of ways. That may mean a less expensive encryption or processing on the attritable asset and then a CDS solution on the ground or on an airborne support platform. Please provide your suggested solution as part of your design. If you don't have a solution, please provide what security measures are in place and your data paths from the attritable asset to your support platform and to the ground. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 28 | For KPP 2.1 and the related FMV requirements, is the 50 Mbps figure intended to represent sustained end-to-end BLOS throughput for FMV plus metadata, sensor output handling, or another measure? If there are assumed compression, latency, or duty-cycle assumptions behind that figure, that context would be helpful. (The 50Mbps objective seems steep and as far as we are aware this is only possible with Starlink connectivity, but even then it is not usually sustained uplink performance of 50Mbps in our experience). | The 50 Mbps objective represents highly desired, sustained end-to-end BLOS throughput for FMV and metadata. However, because this is an RFI for market research and not a formal solicitation, the Government understands that current attritable BLOS capabilities may not meet this objective. Respondents should provide their platform’s actual, sustainable FMV data rates, compression, and data size, and explain how their proposed throughput delivers effective mission capability. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 29 | For KPP 1.13 and the related GCS / EUD integration requirements, should respondents assume a government-furnished ground control and end-user environment and prioritize interoperability with existing workflows, or is a vendor-provided control environment acceptable? If interoperability is preferred, are there specific interfaces, data standards, or user environments respondents should plan around? | There is no Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) ground control station defined for this RFI. Respondents should propose their current or recommended solution for the ground control of their airborne systems. As for the EUD, assume a secure network repository of ISR data requiring common data formats that can be validated to cross the CDS. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 30 | For the Link-16 objective in KPP 1.9 and KPP 2.1, can you clarify the intended operational purpose? Is Link-16 being requested primarily for integration with manned Air Force platforms or existing C2 networks, or as a more general interoperability objective? Would a gateway or partner-integrated approach be acceptable in place of native onboard implementation? | Link-16 is an objective, not a threshold requirement. Its primary operational purpose would be to pass data to manned platforms that use the existing connection. Respondents should indicate whether Link-16 is part of their proposed design or if it could be incorporated within their system architecture. If you have alternative solutions to pass data to those manned platforms, please include them in your response. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 31 | In KPP 8.1, does “waveform” refer to the signal-detection sensor’s sensing and characterization performance, the reporting format / path for detections, or both? | It refers to both. In your submission for KPP 8.1, please describe both the specific signals your sensor can detect and characterize, as well as the data format and path used to report those detections back to the user. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 32 | We are currently flight testing our platform but we are aware that there is significant work ahead to integrate the sensors and radios. Do you require submissions that are only fully deployable TRL 9 solution sets? | No, the Government is not restricting submissions to fully deployable TRL 9 solution sets. Please clearly state your aircraft's current stage of development and denote what has been integrated to date. Also please provide enough integration details like on board power, available processing/connections, payload weight and size capacity, etc. that could support various payloads. The Government expects a variety of submissions for complete systems, airborne platforms without payloads, and configurable payloads as defined in the payload tables. The intent of this RFI is to understand the entire trade space of both airborne platforms and payloads to know what would be possible to build in the next year. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 33 | One key product support area mentioned in the RFI is “Design Interface considerations that align within Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), 2026 NDAA DCMA Blue List requirements, and enhance Reliability & Maintainability (R&M).” How is the Government looking to ensure that producers of Attritable ISR Aircraft accommodate MOSA via digital integration with the rest of the U.S. drone and defense industrial bases? | This is an emerging area for the Air Force. MOSA and SOSA approaches using common standard connectors and data formats will ease interoperability. At this time, a single Government Reference Architecture is not defined. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 34 | One key product support area mentioned in the RFI is “Design Interface considerations that align within Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), 2026 NDAA DCMA Blue List requirements, and enhance Reliability & Maintainability (R&M).” Is the Government looking for software capabilities and/or systems that enable system integrators and module/payload producers to collaborate across organizational boundaries while securely performing system engineering design, development, and simulation at speed? | That is a possible approach. The Government is currently conducting a trade space analysis to understand what attritable capabilities exist. A complete system will most likely be composed of components from multiple companies. However, before receiving submissions to this RFI, it is unknown if the most promising submissions will already include systems integration by one company, or if the Government will need to facilitate integration between multiple vendors to achieve a solution. In the event the Government needs to facilitate that integration, an approach like the one you described is one of severable possibilities that could be considered. If you are proposing this type of collaboration capability, please include in your approach, a ROM cost, and a timeline to onboard multiple vendors across multiple networks. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 35 | Is the Government looking for software capabilities to help accelerate the vehicle design, manufacturing, and modification processes for Attritable ISR Aircraft across prime and sub-contractor teams? How important is this capability to the Government? | Potentially. It's difficult to define this need ahead of submissions to this RFI. Please include your approach a ROM cost, and a timeline to onboard multiple vendors across multiple networks. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 36 | How interested in the Government in solutions that support digital certification strategies for Attritable ISR Aircraft; e.g. solutions that enable an accelerated time to deployment via a digital thread? How important is this capability to the Government? | The Government is moving towards more digital integration and certification. It's difficult to define the need for this effort ahead of submissions to this RFI. Please include your approach, a ROM cost, and a timeline to implement this on Government networks. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 37 | With respect to the ability to integrate the aircraft and mission systems with one another (KPP’s 1.8, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.3, 7.8, 9.2, 10.2), how much value does the Government place on the ability to accelerate, document, and digitally test this integration across multiple vendors? Is the Government interested in software solutions that enables companies to collaborate on these sorts of integrations without jeopardizing their intellectual property, while aligning with Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) principles, and in a manner that reduces program technical risk? | The Government is interested in understanding the trade space and what's possible in the next year. It's difficult to define the integration remaining to achieve a solution ahead of submissions to this RFI. Please include your approach, a ROM cost, and a timeline to onboard multiple vendors across multiple networks. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 38 | The Government asks respondents to “Identify any specific interfaces, standards, or reference architectures implemented within your design.” Is the government similarly interested in respondents’ ability to streamline integration with modules and mission systems produced by other firms in the domestic drone industrial base and U.S. defense industrial base? | Potentially. It's difficult to define this need ahead of submissions to this RFI. Please include your approach, a ROM cost, and a timeline to onboard multiple vendors on multiple networks. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 39 | The respondent question sheet asks respondents to, “describe your company's strategy to support a robust domestic industrial base. Your response should detail how your approach to design, manufacturing, and supply chain management minimizes or eliminates reliance on components sourced from foreign adversaries.” What is the level of the Government’s interest in solutions that incorporate digital engineering practices across U.S. companies in a manner that ensures auditability and traceability of the system design at all stages? What about software solutions that enable this and a digital thread of the engineering and manufacturing process as it unfolds in near real-time? | The Government must comply with all current laws and executive-level policies regarding supply chain security in order to field solutions. At this stage of market research, the Government is primarily seeking to understand the existing methods and processes that companies currently utilize to trace their supply chains and ensure compliance. It is currently unknown if the industrial base already possesses adequate tracing capabilities or if additional, Government-facilitated software solutions (such as the digital engineering practices you described) will be required. If you are proposing a standalone software solution or digital thread capability to meet these supply chain requirements, please describe your approach, provide a ROM cost, and include an estimated timeline for implementation across multiple vendors. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 40 | KPP 1.2 specifies loiter time in the collection area. Can the government confirm whether loiter time KPPs would be evaluated against the platform's in-collection-area endurance rather than total from-ground flight time? | Yes. For the purposes of this RFI, "Loiter time" is defined as the amount of time the airborne platform can remain on station and actively collect data within the designated mission area. It does not include total from-ground flight or transit time. As stated previously, the Government anticipates a variety of solutions and deployment concepts for transporting the platform to the mission area. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 41 | KPP 1.7 specifies rapid deployment capability to austere locations. Can the government clarify whether solutions that eliminate the need for ground-based launch and recovery infrastructure entirely — such as air-launched systems towed and released from existing transport aircraft already present in theater — would be evaluated favorably on this parameter, even if they differ from conventional ground-launched UAS architectures? | Yes. The Government is open to creative solutions to arrive in the mission area. Please describe those solutions and any costs associated with that delivery system. If a GFE system is used for delivery into the mission area, please describe what integration or testing has been done with that system. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 42 | Section 3 states that while the RFI outlines specific performance parameters, "the Government's primary interest is in acquiring meaningful combat capability." Can the government provide any guidance on which KPP thresholds — particularly range, loiter, and communications — represent genuine operational minimums versus aspirational targets that respondents may address through alternative mission architectures? This would help respondents proposing fundamentally different CONOPS (e.g., air-launched vs. ground-launched, externalized climb vs. fully self-powered) to better frame their trade-off rationale. | The Government is seeking platforms capable of providing sustained ISR collection within a designated mission area located at least 200km from any US ground support. Additionally, the Government is interested in platforms that can penetrate into threat areas to collect battle damage assessment (BDA) information. The Government is open to any launch concepts that would allow the airborne platform to penetrate to conduct BDA or to allow a sustained ISR collection in a mission area. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 43 | What price point or price range is considered “attritable”? | The Government defines "attritable" based on acceptable mission cost rather than a strict, predefined price point per unit. Solutions will be evaluated holistically based on the cost of the individual platforms, the number of platforms required to successfully conduct the mission, the platforms placed at risk, their likelihood of survival or recovery, and their overall capability. Therefore, attritable platforms may range in price from single-digit thousands to single-digit millions, depending entirely on the system's reusability and capability. As requested in the RFI, respondents should provide their most accurate Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing to help the Government understand this cost-capability trade space. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 44 | What maximum maintenance costs are anticipated for an attritable aircraft? | The Government has not set a maximum maintenance cost for this effort. Because attritable assets are expected to have a limited lifespan and a finite number of reuses, maintenance costs will be evaluated alongside the initial purchase price and overall mission value. Please describe your proposed maintenance approach (e.g., field support, repairs) and provide your estimated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs per mission or per flight hour. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 45 | Is there an objective cost per flight hour? | The Government has not established an objective Cost Per Flight Hour (CPFH) at this stage of market research. However, understanding CPFH and overall lifecycle sustainment costs is critical for the Government to accurately assess the Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and affordability of the capabilities currently available in the market. If respondents have an estimated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for their system's CPFH, they are highly encouraged to include it in their submission, along with any key assumptions used to calculate that figure. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 46 | Is there an objective for payload flexibility to carry cargo in addition to ISR payloads? | Not for this RFI, unless that cargo is deployable ISR assets. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 47 | How does the program define “limited reusability” in practical terms (e.g., expected flight hours per airframe, number of deployments, risk tolerance for loss)? | The Government has not established a rigid definition (e.g., a specific number of flights) for "limited reusability" at this stage. Acceptable reusability and risk tolerance will vary based on the platform's cost and the specific mission it performs. Please clearly describe your system’s anticipated lifespan, expected number of deployments, and the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs associated with operating and maintaining it. This information will help the Government evaluate the overall cost-capability trade space. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 48 | Is the Government prioritizing lower procurement cost, lower sustainment cost, or overall cost-per effect? | At this stage, the Government is focused on overall Total Ownership Cost (TOC) relative to the mission effect achieved, rather than prioritizing just procurement or just sustainment. To help us evaluate this trade space, please provide a ROM cost breakdown that separates initial procurement from operations and maintenance. Please clearly state the key assumptions (e.g., flight hours, number of deployments) used to calculate your costs. | Cost & Pricing | |
| 49 | Of the three core ISR mission areas—FMV, BDA, and signal detection/characterization—which mission set carries the highest weighting in evaluation? | Because this is a Request for Information (RFI) for market research, the Government has not established formal evaluation weightings. However, all three mission areas are considered high priorities for this effort. Among them, the Government currently places a slightly higher emphasis on Full-Motion Video (FMV) capabilities. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 50 | Can the Government specify sensors and/or CONEMP requirements for the BDA mission set? | The BDA mission set is expected to use the EO/IR camera. In this instance, FMV would not be required. This would allow for an aircraft to collect the BDA information and fly back to a recovery point to download the data. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 51 | Should industry prioritize loiter time over range when forced to make a design trade? | The ideal trade-off between range and loiter time is highly mission-dependent, and the Government anticipates these platforms will support a variety of operational scenarios. Therefore, respondents should not assume a single prioritization. If a proposed system offers configurable performance options (e.g., a "max range" profile versus a "max loiter" profile), please detail the performance metrics for both configurations in your submission. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 52 | Are there acceptable trade-offs for payload flexibility vs. endurance (e.g., multi‑sensor vs. single-sensor optimized aircraft)? | The ideal trade-off between payload flexibility (capacity) and endurance is highly mission-dependent, and the Government anticipates these platforms will support a variety of operational scenarios. Therefore, respondents should not assume a single prioritization. If a proposed system offers configurable payload/performance options (e.g., a "max payload" profile versus a "max endurance" profile), please detail the performance metrics for both configurations in your submission. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 53 | For KPP 1.1 (Range), does the Government expect vendors to use a standard payload configuration when calculating the 1500 km objective? If so, what payload mass and power profile should be assumed? | The Government expects a wide variety of solutions and payload options. Please provide the range of options in your design. For instance, a minimal powered payload with max range vs range cost for power consumption by additional payloads. Payload flexibility and mission configurable platforms are highly desired. These platforms may be used for a variety of missions, and the ease of configuring them to best preform a mission is of great value to the government. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 54 | For KPP 1.6 (Environmental Performance), does the Government require compliance with military environmental standards (e.g., MIL‑STD‑810) or a subset? | The Government’s objective is for the final, fielded system to be compliant with relevant military environmental standards. However, for the purposes of this market research, the threshold requirement is a demonstrated capability to operate effectively in the environments specified in KPP 1.6 (e.g., rain, dust, temperature limits). Respondents should clearly state their platform's known environmental operating limits. If not formally certified, please describe how the system was designed to meet the principles of relevant military standards and provide any available commercial testing data or analysis that supports your environmental claims. | System Performance & CONOPS | |
| 55 | For KPP 1.9 (Communications), does the program require native Link‑16 or is integration via a third‑party terminal acceptable? | The Government is open to a variety of solutions for connectivity. The ISR data collected needs to be available on Government secure networks to be used by analysts and operators. There are a variety of ways to accomplish that. Please include your proposed method of achieving that connectivity in your submission. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 56 | For KPP 1.12 (On‑board Processing), are there preferred Government reference architectures for ATR or multi‑INT fusion? | Not at this time. Please provide any information on your ATR or multi-INT fusion solution or if you have integrated with past GFE systems. If that information is classified, please request contact information on the appropriate network for a classified submission. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 57 | Does the program have preferred sensor vendors or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for EO/IR or SIGINT payloads? | Not at this time. This RFI is collecting information on the trade space for both platforms and payloads that could be attritable. Integration information for both the platform and for the payloads is key to understand what might be compatible. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 58 | Will the Government provide OMS/UCI profiles, ICDs, or message standards for required interoperability? | Not at this time. ISR data collected should be transmitted in common data formats in line with MOSA and SOSA, not in proprietary formats. Please list the formats used for data that is collected. If the vendor has integrated previously with GFE networks or systems, please include that in the submission. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 59 | Are vendors expected to support wide-area persistent surveillance (WAPS) in Increment 1, or is this an objective for later spirals? | The Government has not formally defined acquisition increments or "spirals" at this stage of market research. While WAPS is a capability of interest, the Government is currently conducting a broad trade space analysis of available platforms and payloads. Any future procurement strategy, including the specific capabilities required for initial fielding, will depend heavily on the market maturity identified through this RFI. | ||
| The intent is to deliver maximum mission capability to the field as fast as possible, integrating additional or more complex capabilities (such as WAPS) as they become technically mature and affordable. In your submission, please clearly differentiate between your system’s current, immediately fieldable capabilities and your planned future growth capabilities (including estimated timelines for maturation and integration). | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |||
| 60 | For secure BLOS communications, does the Government plan to provide crypto or SATCOM ground infrastructure as GFE? | The Government expects a wide variety of communications solutions in response to this RFI. In your submission, please detail your proposed communications architecture. Specifically, identify any reliance on and/or previous integration with GFE crypto or SATCOM ground infrastructure. The ISR data collected must be transferable to secure Government networks to be used by analysts and operators. The airborne platform and payloads must be able to execute their collection mission and flight plan without manned operators within line of sight of the platform. There are a variety of ways that can be achieved through automation, autopilot pre-programming, BLOS, and more. Please provide your solution in your response to conduct the mission. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 61 | Please provide details regarding the 50Mbps BLOS datalink requirement. Is that the Upload requirement from the Aircraft panel to the satellite, or the Download requirement to the aircraft. Is there a minimum throughput required for payload traffic? | Because this is a RFI for market research, the performance requirements are not yet firm. Please provide your system’s actual FMV performance specifications, including sustainable data rates and data size. Additionally, your BLOS communication strategy is a critical component of this market research, so please ensure your proposed BLOS solution is clearly described in your submission. | Payload & Sensors | |
| 62 | Is a specific cyber accreditation pathway envisioned (e.g., RMF for DoD IT, FedRAMP High for ground systems), and what is the desired ATO timeline? | The specific cyber accreditation pathway will depend on the proposed solution. In your submission, please identify any previous cyber authorizations or ATOs granted to your system or to its components, as well as any GFE networks you have successfully connected to in the past. Respondents should be aware that any future acquisition will require the selected vendor to provide the necessary technical data and documentation to achieve cyber authorization to connect their system or transmit data to secure Government networks. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 63 | For Alt‑PNT capabilities, is the Government planning to evaluate TRL of PNT alternatives, or will proof-of-integration be sufficient? | Proof-of-integration is sufficient. In your submission, please describe your integrated Alternative PNT (A-PNT) solution and provide any available performance data (such as measured drift rate) for operations in GPS-denied environments. | Subsystem & Technical Requirements | |
| 64 | Please help guide the focus for platform architecture regarding Capability, Reliability, or Cost of material/operations. | At this stage of market research, the Government considers Capability, Reliability, and Cost to be equally important. The Government is seeking high value solutions that deliver the greatest operational impact to the warfighter relative to their total cost. Please explain how your proposed architecture balances these three factors to maximize mission effectiveness. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 65 | What production ramp timeline does the Government consider acceptable for “months to scale” (e.g., 3, 6, 9 months)? | The Government has not set a strict definition for an acceptable production ramp timeline. Instead, responses will be categorized by capability, cost, and timeline to field to understand the capacity of the industrial base. Please detail your production plan, including your current Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) and your estimated timeline to scale to quantity production. If you have a tiered production scale, please clearly describe it (e.g., "5 units within 3 months of award, scaling to 30 units per month within 9 months"). Please also identify any key factors or supply chain constraints that would influence your ability to scale production. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 66 | Will the program require a minimum economic order quantity (EOQ) to meet surge demand? | At this stage of market research, the Government has not defined a minimum Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) or firm surge demand requirements. The Government is using this RFI to explore the available trade space for attritable aircraft platforms, payloads, and the current capacity of the industrial base. Any future acquisition strategy, including specific purchase quantities and EOQs, will be heavily informed by the diversity, maturity, and availability of capabilities across the market. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 67 | Is the Government anticipating multi-year procurement if the capability transitions to an acquisition program? | The formal acquisition strategy, including contract type and duration (such as a multi-year procurement), is currently in development and will be heavily informed by the results of this market research. At this time, the Government is using this RFI to explore the available trade space for attritable aircraft platforms and payloads. Future purchase quantities and the selection of any single solution will depend on the diversity, maturity, and availability of capabilities across the industrial base. Respondents should note that the Government may utilize non-traditional acquisition methods (e.g., Other Transaction Authorities) to facilitate rapid, near-term procurement or prototyping efforts. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 68 | Will the Government allow contractor logistics support (CLS) in early increments, or is an organic sustainment model required from program start? | The Government is requesting contractor CLS in early increments to allow for early fielding and immediate operations. Please include CLS support costs and plans in your slide submission. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule | |
| 69 | How much field-level maintenance is expected to be performed by military personnel vs. vendor FSRs? | The Government is requesting contractor FSR support for all initially delivered systems. While the Government intends to eventually transition these duties to military personnel, that transition will be a phased approach over time. For the purposes of this RFI, respondents should assume full FSR support is required for initial fielding. Please ensure your ROM cost estimate includes this FSR support, and briefly address your concept of operations within your slide submission. | Acquisition Strategy & Schedule |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .