FA8678-26-AFSAT-R0001 RFI Q_A FINAL.pdf

Q & A Aerial Targets Branch (EBAY) Air Force Aerial Target Solutions Notice ID:

FA8678-26-AFSAT-R0001

1. Is the U.S. Air Force considering targets that are in tow vs fly on their own?

a. Yes, the Government is open to all target opportunities. Please provide supporting information in your response outlining how both towed and free-flying implementations would be executed.

2. For Tier 3 Group 1 and Group 2 expendable targets, does the Government expect the onboard flight termination capabilities described in Section 4.0 to be fully integrated at the time of RFI response, or may respondents identify a planned integration pathway for a currently flight-tested platform?

a. Flight termination capabilities do not need to be fully integrated at the time of the RFI response. Respondents are encouraged to identify a planned integration pathway.

3. For Tier 3 systems that currently utilize an independent C2 architecture, are existing AATTCS compatibility expected, or is it acceptable to describe the current C2 system and a potential pathway for future integration with

Government target-control systems?

a. It is acceptable to describe current C2 capabilities as well as the associated operating and maintenance costs. The Government is also interested in understanding the potential pathway for future integration with AATTCS, to include a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for this transition.

4. For platforms utilizing an alternative C2 architecture, should respondents demonstrate current FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher compliance at the RFI stage, or may respondents identify the modifications or integration pathway necessary to achieve the required encryption standard?

a. Respondents should demonstrate current FIPS compliance and may identify the specific modifications or integration pathways necessary to achieve a higher encryption standard.

5. Section 5.1 describes Tier 3 systems as being optimized for rapid, multi-vehicle swarm launches. Is there a desired or representative number of simultaneously operated targets that respondents should use when describing C2 scalability, production capacity, and swarm capability?

a. While there is currently no limit on the number of targets desired for a demonstration, simultaneously operating greater than ten targets serves as a baseline starting point. If respondents have capabilities to operate targets in scalable batches such as swarms of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or more, please detail these options, as they provide valuable testing data and would help create a threat representative testing environment in line with the United States Code

Title 10 mandate.

6. For Tier 3 systems, is the Government interested in baseline air vehicles that provide modular SWaP-C capacity and interfaces for future RF, IR, RCS, scoring, or other threat-representation payloads, even if those payloads are not currently integrated into the platform?

a. The Government would like respondents to detail which future capabilities can be integrated onto the platform, along with the estimated costs and timelines associated with implementing those future payloads.

7. For respondents proposing specialized vehicle subsystems (such as pitot-static systems, angle-of-attack sensors, or air-data subsystems) under Section 6.1, will the Government consider these subsystem components, or is the Government only seeking full platform-level responses? If subsystem-level responses are accepted, should the respondent focus only on subsystem-level technical, production, integration, cost, and sustainment information, while identifying vehicle-level specifications (e.g., aircraft length, wingspan, propulsion, range) as

"Not Applicable"?

a. Yes, the Government encourages and will consider responses addressing specialized vehicle subsystems, components, or niche capabilities under

Section 6.1. Respondents proposing specialized subsystems should focus on providing all applicable subsystem-level details. Any vehicle-level parameters that do not apply to the proposed subsystem may be identified as "Not Applicable" or excluded from the submission.

8. Given the COCO model, should ROM cost information reflect anticipated target-service pricing, or should respondents provide ROM pricing for unit production, NRE, and lifecycle sustainment?

a. For the ROM, if desired, please provide the Contractor-Owned, Contractor-

Operated (COCO) overall pricing structure in addition to the traditional lifecycle operation (production, NRE, sustainment, etc.).

9. What operating assumptions should respondents use for ROM pricing by tier, including annual sorties, typical sortie duration, operating days per year, sorties per day, deployment/location assumptions, and payload-integration requirements? Highest-priority information is Tier 1 annual sorties and typical sortie duration.

a. Please provide the Government with your tiered pricing model associated with sortie usage.

10. For an AATTCS-compatible target aircraft, what communications interface or standard, waveform(s), and RF frequency band(s) should respondents assume for integration? Can the Government provide interface-control documentation or interface requirements?

a. The Government is interested in any contractor solutions proposed. AATTCS currently operates via RF communication and is open to any RF or SATCOM solution. AATTCS can be modified for new datalinks integration, and each target interface is custom made to support the target platform and its capabilities.

11. Can the AATTCS Interface Control Document be provided to support ROM development?

a. The AATTCS ICD is different for each target platform and dependent upon target capabilities and needs. It is expected there will be a new custom ICD to support new target needs.

12. What interface or protocol connects the aircraft to AATTCS, such as serial, MIL-STD-

1553, or Ethernet?

a. AATTCS is ethernet based for external interfaces.

13. What is the size, weight, and power of AATTCS?

a. AATTCS is the ground control system (PC’s, servers, and datalink). It currently supports 2 different transponders in target platforms with 2 more in work for future expansion. The government is interested in any proposed solutions.

14. For Tier 3 Group 1/2 systems, is direct AATTCS compatibility expected at current maturity, or may industry propose an encrypted alternative C2 architecture with a future integration path to AATTCS?

a. The Government is interested in any proposed solutions.

15. Beyond basic waypoint navigation, is the Government interested in autonomous formation, collaborative routing, coordinated swarm behavior, dynamic retasking, or other autonomous capabilities for Tier 3 systems?

a. The Government is interested in any proposed solutions.

16. What is the size, weight, and power requirements for each internal and external payload?

a. Please provide the limitations of your internal and extrernal payload capabilities. Our payloads are adjustable.

17. Can the Government provide a list of internal and external payloads?

a. Please provide the limitations of your internal and extrernal payload capabilities. Our Payloads are adjustable.

18. Can the Interface Control Document for each internal and external payload be provided to support ROM development?

a. The Government is not able to provide that information at this stage.

19. For Tier 3 targets, does the Government desire specific RCS, IR, visual, acoustic, RF, or other signature characteristics? If so, are there representative threat signatures or ranges industry should use?

a. No, please provide the specifics for your system.

20. What payload classes, weights, power requirements, threat emitters, telemetry packages, or augmentation devices does the Government anticipate integrating on

Tier 3 systems?

a. These characteristics will be developed based on the specifics/limitations of the system.

21. Is the Large Full-Scale Target (LFSAT) intended to be manned or unmanned?

a. The Government is open to both options. Please provide a ROM outlining the costs associated with supporting either capability.

22. Is the Extra-Large Full-Scale Target (ELFSAT) intended to be manned or unmanned?

a. The Government is open to both options. Please provide a ROM outlining the costs associated with supporting either capability.

23. What desired or representative operating-altitude envelope should respondents use for

Tier 3 Group 1/2 targets?

a. Please provide best operational capabilites within the associated cost tiers in your response.

24. What desired minimum or representative endurance, mission radius, or range should respondents use for Tier 3 systems?

a. Please provide best operational capabilites within the associated cost tiers in your response.

25. Is the Government interested in modular RCS, IR, RF, or other signature-augmentation payloads on otherwise low-cost Tier 3 platforms?

a. Yes, please provide all applicable data and the supporting architecture.

26. What desired number of simultaneously controlled Tier 3 aircraft, launch rate, or swarm size should respondents use when describing scalability?

a. The Government does not have a specific desired number, and requests respondents highlight their own swarm capabilities, to include the number of targets simultaneously launched and specific rate tiers.

27. Can the Government provide representative quantities per event and/or anticipated annual quantities for Tier 3 targets so industry can provide more meaningful production and cost ROMs?

a. The Government is not able to provide that information at this stage.

28. Does the Government have a desired unit-cost range or target cost-per-sortie for Tier 3 systems, recognizing that this tier emphasizes ultra-low-cost expendability and mass scalability?

a. No, the emphasis should be on affordability, not simply low cost.