MUX_Industry_Day_Q&As.pdf

Request For Information ‐ Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Expeditionary (MUX)

Solicitation Number: N00019‐18‐NORFP‐PMA‐266‐0126

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only; Critical Technology and Administrative/Operational Use, October 2017. Other requests for this document shall be referred to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command (PMA266), 22707 Cedar Point Road, Building 3261, Patuxent River, MD 20670

1. Reference: MUX RFI, page 1.

Discussions regarding payload, sensors, control station, etc. will be addressed by subsequent RFI(s), as necessary.

What is the estimated timeframe when subsequent RFI(s) may be released regarding payload and sensors?

o Response: The Government is developing the requirements and working through the decision on timing the release of future payload and sensors RFI(s).

2. Reference: MUX Technical Requirements Brief dated 04 June 2018.

Summary chart: BAA (studies) RFP release in FY19

Will the Government consider releasing BAAs to suppliers of sensors and payloads independent of BAAs intended for air vehicle manufacturers?

o Response: The Government is considering sending out separate BAA(s) for both payloads and sensors from the air vehicle.

3. Reference: MUX Acquisition Overview briefing.

Chart # 3: MUX acquisition decision FY20 ‐ Commence prototyping and development

Will the Government consider prototyping activities for sensors and payloads to reduce technical and schedule risk?

o Response: The Government is currently evaluating and is willing to consider all options with regards to payloads and sensors early in the air vehicle design phase.

4. Reference: MUX Acquisition Overview briefing.

Chart # 5: MUX Integration Strategy

From the Government’s receipt of RFI responses and Industry Day feedback, is it possible to provide updated information regarding the potential procurement strategy for sensors in terms of sensors provided as GFE, versus sensors solicited separately from the air vehicle, versus sensors selected by the air vehicle manufacturer?

o Response: The Government is looking to Industry’s for their inputs, and experiences with what works best for (GFE), what have been the challenges with being GFE to an OEM/not being GFE to the OEM. The Government is looking to understand what is the best approach.

5. DDG Compatibility

During Industry Day, LtGen Walsh noted an intent to make MUX DDG Compatible in the interest of getting Navy involvement in the program. Please define whether that is going to be a hard requirement or if that is part of the trade space that will be assessed during the AoA and trade studies in FY18/19. Also, please define what is meant by DDG compatibility.

DDG hangers have significant variation in size across the fleet. Is it intended that the smallest DDG constraint will be imposed or if there is trade space to allow for the majority of DDGs compatibility? We note that imposing DDG size constraints will noticeably affect the performance and multi‐mission functionality possible for MUX. We encourage a practical approach to DDG compatibility that doesn’t drive to the smallest constraint and considers specific variants that maintain major system commonality.

o Response: The Government is going to stay with the DDG Requirement (Flight 2A) in order to complete some Land/Sea‐base operational capabilities the Marine Corp requires. However, the Government is willing to evaluate all possibilities during the AoA and BAA Phases.

6. Exclusivity of Mission Systems

In aircraft design, “everything matters” and the multi‐mission intent of MUX means that there are lots of different mission systems desired to be available. Every mission system requires space, weight, power, and cooling. Many antennas require specific locations within the available real estate of the vehicle. If the Corps can determine what, if any, of the mission systems are mutually exclusive, meaning that they will never be on the aircraft at the same time, it offers the designer the option of using the same locations on the aircraft for multiple mission systems. This may allow for a smaller vehicle. Are any of the RFI mission systems, sensors, or weapons mutually exclusive as best can be determined at this time? Is the Corps willing to accept such a constraint for future operations?

o Response: Please refer to the Mission Table Profiles in the RFI, however the Government may through AoA and BAA phase further determine requirements.

7. Common Control System

During Industry Day, PMA‐266 declared the CCS as GFE and expressed a clear intent that it is to be the control interface for MUX. How do we get a detailed, technical description of CCS, including an Interface Control Document that we can design for now? We appreciate access to the NIOPs, but will also need technical descriptions of the hardware, interfaces, protocols, etc. The sooner we can get such information the quicker and cheaper it will be to ensure compatibility.

o Response: The Government is able to and willing to provide on CCS ICD on an

“interested party” to Industry.