Q_A Aerial Targets Branch (EBAY) Air Force Aerial Target Solutions.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, we are 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 your current C2 capabilities as well as the associated operating and maintenance costs. Additionally, the Government is 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 launches of 10, 20, 50, or more, please detail these options, as they provide valuable testing data and support Title 10 validation requirements for representative modern threats.

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. Yes, however, we 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 highly encourages and will fully 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.