MUX_Industry_Q&As.docx

N00019-18-NORFP-PMA-266-0126 12 April 2018

Responses to MUX RFI Questions Question:

An Industry Day is sometimes held in connection with an RFI to allow the government to provide a broader context and emphasis than what may be contained in the written specifications of an RFI. It also allows industry the opportunity to ask real-time clarifying questions. Does the government intend to have a MUX Industry Day during or post the RFI period?

Government Response:

Yes an Industry Day is planned. Please see the Industry Day related attachment.

Question:

Do you see advantage if the UAV was capable of sitting on the seabed until required to surface and then fly?

Government Response:

While some future applications may benefit from this concept, it does not address the Marine Corps capability gaps the MUX program is intended to resolve.

Question:

Do you believe in strategic deployment where multiple separate operational UAV's could autonomously assemble to be an extra heavy lift UAV operating as a single unit?

Government Response:

While some future applications may benefit from this concept, it does not address the Marine Corps capability gaps the MUX program is intended to resolve.

Question:

Similarly, do you see operational advantages where a combined UAV operating under the water, on the surface or flying in the capacity of a single unit can separate into 2 or more autonomous operational UAV's ?

Government Response:

While some future applications may benefit from this concept, it does not address the Marine Corps capability gaps the MUX program is intended to resolve.

Are we planning on one or two aircraft for MUX aircraft?

Government Response:

The intent is for one air vehicle configuration to address multiple mission profiles.

Question:

The RFI says “potential MUX Group 5 UAS material solutions.” Can you explain to me what this means?

Government Response:

The term potential refers to the fact the MUX Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) has yet to be conducted. The AoA will provide the best alternative to satisfy the requirements. The Group 5 Unmanned Aircraft System is a best guess at this time.

Question:

Appendix A, 1.1 identifies “standard day lapse rates; MIL SPEC 3013 Hot Day Atmosphere definition”.

Clarification is requested whether a Standard Day atmosphere (MIL‐STD‐3013A Appendix A, Table A‐I) or Hot Day atmosphere (MIL‐STD‐3013A Appendix A, Table A‐V) should be used. If the Hot Day atmosphere is required, the information provided by MIL‐STD‐3013A only includes temperature data for altitudes up to 15,000 ft pressure altitude when pressure altitudes of up to 25,000 ft are required in the MUX mission profiles in Appendix A of the RFI.

Per MIL-STD-3013A, “Table A-V in appendix A provides these same characteristics for hot conditions near the ground. Unlike the free air atmospheres (tables A-I, A-III, and A-IV), this atmosphere is a boundary of extreme conditions, does not represent a realistic atmosphere, and cannot be used to calculate rate-of-climb. Its primary use is for takeoff calculations.” For altitudes above 15,000 ft use Table A-IV, Tropical day atmosphere.

Figure A‐7 identifies a 1500lb payload, whereas Figure A‐10 identifies a 3000lb payload for the Recon Resupply – AV.

Should a 3000lb payload be assumed for Mission 7, with the size of a JMIC container, or 1500lb with no prescribed size?

Government Response:

The 1500 lb with no prescribed size is applicable for Figure A-7. Table A-10 will be updated to show 1500 (as opposed to 3000) to be consistent. However, the requirement for Internal payload capability of 3000 lbs. (one JMIC) with an objective of up to 6000 lbs. (two JMIC) still remains.

Question:

Figure A‐9, Hellfire column header indicates a quantity of (4 or 8), but the column only has thresholds identified. Figure A‐10 lists the payload weight of (8) Hellfires with the cells not highlighted implying that (8) Hellfires is threshold.

Please clarify the threshold quantity of Hellfires.

Government Response:

Figure A-10 correctly lists the payload weight of (8) Hellfires. Figure A-9 will be corrected to show (8) Hellfires as the Threshold, i.e. remove (4) from the Hellfire column.

Question:

Figure A‐10 provides estimated payload weights and powers, but no space (volume).

If the USMC has specific hardware systems that they would like to be used as surrogate volumes please provide so that we can improve the validity of comparable configuration concepts and associated drag/performance estimates.

The volumes for the weapons/ordnances are as published in Jane’s and other public media. The volumes associated with Air Reconnaissance, EW, Early Warning Radar, and Surv Package are contractor’s best estimate. The volumes associated with Comms are to be based on MANGL components (see attached file). Comment by Barkhimer, Erik CIV Contracts 2.4: Make sure this is clear to FBO attachments and easy to link to Q&Q…may need to number the questions.

Items that may significantly drive the configuration and drag would include:

ES/EA ‐ should the Intrepid Tiger II pod be assumed as a surrogate system volume?

Government Response:

Yes, Intrepid Tiger II pod is a sufficient system volume.

Question:

Early Warning Radar – What class of radar to assume?

Government Response:

The radar payload for Early Warning capability is expected to have performance on par with the F35B APG-81.

Question:

Expendable UAS – Should a common launch tube approach be assumed? Is the Switchblade Expendable UAS a good representative capability to utilize for payload assumptions? How many expendables should be assumed for aircraft volume configuration trades?

Government Response:

The approach is permissible. The expendable UAS chosen and deployment configuration are your choice, and their validity will be measured against cost, technology maturity, and weight versus UAS’s contribution supporting the applicable mission profiles.

Question:

Figure A‐10 indicate power units of “W/VA”.

We assume that W/VA is used to imply that the real and apparent power should be assumed the same (power factor of 1.0), and the values listed in the table are Watts. Please confirm.

The units are watts.

The missions indicate take off and return to ship, with no mention of operating out of a FARP facility where there may be unique UAS handling demands.

Is there a need to land, refuel, rearm and launch from a FARP? If so, does that apply to all missions, or perhaps just the recon resupply mission?

Government Response:

The MUX is expected to have an EOC land based capability and will have the capability to " ...deploy to and from unimproved austere field sites/tactical assembly areas...(para 2.0 page 6)" This was meant to imply operations in a FARP environment. At EOC and for subsequent periods MUX aircraft are expected to have the capability to land, refuel, rearm and launch from ships and land based operations. This is true for all missions, but not necessarily the specific mission profiles listed in this RFI. However, use of a FARP may be an effective method of achieving the 48 hour support required in mission profile #4 (Amphibious Assault C4I). The MUX operations initiated from a FARP are only intended to continue with the aircraft was configured to support, i.e. the aircraft systems payloads it carried from the sea base at mission start, except in the case where aviation operations have phased ashore for long periods of time where aviation support activities are prepared to manage continuous land based operations (e.g. operations in Afghanistan).

Question:

Is there a self‐deploy requirement or is it acceptable to use ground power for starting and checkout? This can determine the need to include an on‐board APU, which will impact weight empty.

Government Response:

The use of ground power for starting and checkout is permissible.

Many of the mission profiles provided in Appendix A include a time element (e.g. Amphibious Assault C4I: “Arrive within 20 minutes”).

Question:

We are assuming that the start time for this metric is the beginning of the cruise leg, and not at the start of segment 1 (warm‐up). Please confirm.

Yes, the 20 minute excludes the start Warm-up period.

Support Contractors:

Is specific Point of Contact information available at this time? Company policy requires additional agreements.

Government Response:

Four companies are participating in the MUX RFI their POCs are :

KBR Wyle, POC is Steve Rauch, Program Manager/Systems Engineer, 301.866.2220, steven.rauch@wyle.com Ausley Associates, POC is Dan Bogan, Program Manager, 301-757-3665, Cell: 301-481-2570, dan.bogan@ausley.us J.F. Taylor Inc, is subcontractor to Ausley Associates, POC is Dan Bogan at Ausley Associates, Program Manager, 301-757-3665, Cell: 301-481-2570, dan.bogan@ausley.us Bowhead Science and Technology, LLC, POC is Malinda Bennett, Program Manager, 301-866-6745, malinda.bennett@bowheadsupport.com