N00019-18-NORFP-PMA-266-0126_MUX_AV_RFI_FINAL_03-08-2018.docx

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

3/8/2018

***THIS RFI IS FOR INFORMATION OR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY***

Contracting Office Point of Contact: Bradley Lysaght (Lead Contract Specialist) Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, AIR 2.4.2.1 Bldg 441 Rm 117 21983 Bundy Rd Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547 Phone Number: (301) 342-7757 Email: bradley.lysaght@navy.mil Program Office Point of Contact: Michael Treglia 22707 Cedar Point RD Building 3261 Floor 1 Room 100 Patuxent River, MD 20670 Phone Number: (301) 757-6635 Email: michael.treglia@navy.mil

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

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

ii

List of Figures

List of Tables Table B - 1 Hardware Technology Readiness Level Definitions 23

RFI - Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Expeditionary (MUX) Solicitation Number: MUX RFI Notice Type: Sources Sought Agency: Department of the Navy Office: Naval Air Systems Command - HQ Location: NAVAIR - HQ

Synopsis:

The Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO(U&W)), Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Air Systems Program (PMA-266) is seeking information, performance capabilities, and technical data on air vehicle (AV) technologies in support of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Expeditionary (MUX) program. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved Initial Capability Document (ICD) for the MUX Capabilities, dated 10 August 2016, established a need for ship-based, extended range, long endurance, and multi-mission UAS(s). An Early Operational Capability (EOC) is desired by 2025 for a Land-Based Vertical Takeoff and Landing (LBVTOL) configuration with limited capability for Military Utility Assessments. An Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is desired by 2028 for a Sea-Based Vertical Takeoff and Landing (SBVTOL) configuration with increased payload capability progressing to a Full Operational Capability (FOC) by 2034 enabling the MAGTF to provide, complement, or expand a Joint force or geographic combatant commander's capabilities and options during the conduct of campaigns, operations (joint forcible entry), and crisis response (as described later in more detail). To support these timeline requirements, viable technologies are expected to be pursued under Rapid Acquisition, leading to rapid fielding of capability.

The purpose of this RFI is for the Government to gain insight into commercial, commercial-modified, military, and/or conceptual Air Vehicle (AV) technologies available and to facilitate market research into the state of technology (e.g. technology maturity levels and availability) and costs for a potential MUX Group 5 UAS material solution(s) in support of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). This RFI also provides industry with an understanding of current thinking about future United States Marine Corps capabilities required to close emergent capability gaps in its mission(s) in support of the National Military Strategy (NMS). Note that in order to meet the totality of capability requirements, a number of UAS configurations or a family of systems may be proposed in order to optimize a specific mission area. However, the Government also desires to understand if a common AV configuration can meet the various mission areas through use of reconfigurable “plug and play” mission modules, if required. This RFI is intended to solicit responses from AV prime contractors. Discussions regarding payload, sensors, control station, etc. will be addressed by subsequent RFI(s), as necessary.

This document is arranged in four (4) sections and three (3) appendices as described below:

· Section 1.0 provides an overview of the as envisioned MUX mission in direct support of the larger Naval and/or Joint Force in open sea, littoral, and land environments.

· Section 2.0 provides a brief overview of AV capabilities desired to meet this future need.

· Section 3.0 includes specific details for the AV.

· Section 4.0 provides a comprehensive set of directions for the responders.

· APPENDIX A: provides USMC mission ground rules and profiles.

· APPENDIX B: provides guidelines for identifying critical technologies required to meet MUX needs.

· APPENDIX C: provides guidelines for cost and schedule expectations.

· APPENDIX D: provides a list of acronyms.

Vendors are asked to document their responses electronically using Microsoft Office 2010 or Adobe Acrobat XI readable formats along with data supporting asserted claims.

NOTE:

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes (FAR 15.201(e)). It does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to award a contract as a result of this announcement. No solicitation documents exist at this time. Thus, the Navy is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. This RFI does not constitute an Invitation for Bids (IFB), a RFP, a Request for Quote (RFQ), or an indication that the Government will contract for any of the items and/or services contained in this notice. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website. It is the responsibility of the potential offerors to monitor this website for additional information pertaining to this request. The Government may request additional information upon review.

Overview of MUX mission As currently envisioned, based on the Marine Operating Concepts (MOC) and the tactical scenarios analyzed, there is a need to close Battlespace Awareness (BA); Electronic Warfare (EW); command, control, communications and computers (C4); logistics; and kinetic lethal fires gaps in aviation capabilities to enable MAGTF support to the National Military Strategy (NMS) and National Defense Strategy (NDS).

Background As the United States emerges from over fifteen years of fighting land campaigns and counter-insurgency operations, United States Marine Corps (USMC) subject matter experts (SMEs) have evaluated the future operating environment and identified capability gaps to support the USMC’s role in the NMS. Assessing the six functions of USMC aviation’s contribution to the joint capability areas (JCAs) the Marine Corps identified seven distinct capability gaps. The assessment concluded that unmanned aircraft system(s) (UAS) would best fit the capability gaps and would more fully complement emerging capabilities of a MV-22, F-35B, and Future Vertical Lift (FVL) equipped force. This evaluation was based on the 2015 MAGTF Aviation Functions Capability Based Assessment (CBA) and the Tactical Distribution and Transportation CBA both of which explored more than twenty years of lessons learned and military gaps statements pointing toward this capability. MUX will enable the MAGTF/Naval Force to expand a Joint force or geographic combatant commander's capabilities and options during the conduct of campaigns, operations (joint forcible entry), and crisis response. Recently, the Marine Corps was directed to develop capable high-end lethal ISR capacity for our forward deployed forces. MUX will provide that capability.

MUX Operational View (OV-1) The MUX capabilities high level OV-1 is shown in Figure 1. MUX will provide the MAGTF commander, with robust, organic, all-weather, sea-based capabilities, to include an expeditionary multi-mission UAS capability with persistence at extensive operational radius (>350 nautical miles), as well as an aerial tactical distribution (ATD) capability for the logistics combat element with improved C4 and situational awareness. MUX’s range and persistence shall complement the long range capabilities of the F-35B/C, CH-53K, MV-22 and FVL. MUX shall provide persistent BA, EW, C4, logistics and fires (Fires is defined as the use of weapon systems to create specific lethal or nonlethal effects on a target.) to all elements of the MAGTF.

Figure 1 MUX Operational View –1 Capability Requirement “Capability Requirements” (CRs) are well-considered statements of what the warfighter has requisitioned and are different from traditional “System” or “Contractual” Requirements. Based on the operational context provided by the MOC, as well as an assessment of the operational scenarios, threats, and the associated CBAs, several capability requirements, attributes, and associated risks were generated. The following capability requirements point to solutions needed to fill capability gaps particularly USMC aviation’s inability to provide organic, persistent multi-role mission coverage to 350 nautical miles and beyond. These are listed in priority:

Tier 1

1. Early Warning. Support over-the-horizon, networked, early warning, identification, cueing and defense against enemy air (fixed wing, rotary wing, and UAS), cruise missile, low radar cross section threats and indirect fires systems at maximum range in support of the MAGTF.

2. Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Conduct long range, wide-area, persistent air reconnaissance and surveillance, capable of providing overlapping and cross-cued data from multiple sensors directly to operations and intelligence functions and networks.

3. Electronic Warfare. Conduct long range, persistent, penetrating, responsive, airborne electro-magnetic spectrum operations against threats in the air, land, maritime and cyberspace domains.

4. Communications Relay. Provide a long range, survivable, airborne digitally-interoperable secure communications Network Bridge between MAGTF elements, joint forces and coalition partners. This capability seamlessly connects multiple air, sea, and ground networks for command and control, communications, target detection, cueing, tracking, and engagement.

Tier 2

5. Offensive Air Support. Conduct long range, day, night and all-weather, persistent, time sensitive targeting and strike, high value target attack, fires coordination, battle damage assessment, and kinetic lethal offensive air support.

Important but may allocate to other systems:

6. Aerial Escort. Provide long range armed aerial escort to assault support missions during infiltration, execution, and exfiltration of ground forces, tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP), maritime interdiction operations, visit board search and seizure, emergency extract, airfield seizure, landing zone / route inspection, amphibious landings and raids, and ground convoy operations. (This may be performed by the Future Vertical Lift program)

7. Cargo. Reduce tactical transportation risk for small unit sustainment. Risk reducing, responsive, logistics transportation system for delivery to (and retrograde from) distributed tactical level units (battalion, squadron and below sized elements) into small, disbursed delivery zones. This includes distribution of ammunition, water, rations, repair parts, fuel, medical supplies, mail, and other commodities. (This may be performed by manned aviation, Joint Precision Air Drop, or cargo specific UAS).

Using these capability gaps, a number of system attributes were identified. Some are unique to each CR, some are common to multiple CRs, while a number of them apply to all CRs. The MUX should be capable of meeting these needs, whether it is an upgraded legacy platform, an existing or modified Technology Demonstrator aircraft, a new-start clean sheet aircraft, a family of systems, or other. Note this is a top-level summary and is not all-inclusive. The following provides a list of the areas that present the greatest gaps in capability:

· Autonomously start up, take off from L-Class (Amphibious Class Ships (LHA/LHD, LPD, LX(R), and ESB) ship, fly enroute and conduct mission requirements, Return To Base (RTB), land on L-Class ship or an unsurveyed austere 150’x150’ landing zone. Both under supervisory control and fully autonomous.

· Capable of cruise speeds between 200-300 kts with full payload.

· Capable of Combat radius between 350-700 nm unrefueled with payload.

· Capability to maintain a minimum time on station (TOS) of 8-12 hours at 350 nm.

· Capability of maneuver agility in high energy, low speed conditions and Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) at 6,000 feet and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (6k/95°F) at mission radius.

· Internal payload capability (primarily for cargo missions) of 3000 lbs. (one Joint Modular Intermodal Container JMIC) with an objective of up to 6000 lbs. (two JMIC).

· External payload capability (primarily for cargo missions) of 3000-9000 lbs. while still carrying a minimum internal payload of 500 lbs.

· Shipboard compatible (lives on the ship; 100% ship suitable) on L-class (amphibious) ships, having spread and folded areas (projected areas on the deck) close to UH-1Y Venom.

· Able to receive aerial refueling via standard North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) probe and drogue refueling systems.

· Capable of operations in all weather (except the most severe weather, e.g. severe thunderstorms, turbulence, icing, hurricane force winds), night and degraded visual environment (DVE), moderate icing, Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). This includes the ability to identify and engage threats in all manner of environmental/weather conditions.

· Able to deploy to and from unimproved austere field sites/tactical assembly areas as well as launch and recovery from L-class ships.

· Able to fly in National Air Space (NAS) and International Air Space in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations with organic Sense and Avoid (SAA) capability.

· Capable of conducting missions specified in Appendix A (Mission Profiles 1 through 7).

NOTE: these 7 profiles (selected out of a total of 13) provide more demanding and higher priority missions.

1.0 Air Vehicle

To further understand how the USMC could satisfy the capability needs identified for MUX missions, PMA-266 is interested in obtaining information on AV performance projections and technical data when the technologies described in Appendix B are incorporated into the proposed AV concept. Responses should also discuss the design life of the AV.

Given that MUX is intended to fulfill multiple roles, PMA-266 is interested in a description of the design approach (e.g. single design versus modular design versus multiple air vehicles) utilized to meet the diverse mission set as outlined in Appendix A, and why it is the right approach. For those technology solutions that are more mature, such as, prior Technology Demonstrators (TD) that can be modified to meet MUX requirements, the more detailed the substantiation response should be.

Vehicle Description

· Provide general description of the current production aircraft, modified/derivative production aircraft, or notional design. Responses should include, but are not limited to, the airframe, propulsion, drivetrain, rotor system, flight controls, landing gear, and major system/sub-systems, and avionics.

· Provide description of the ship suitability attributes, including but not limited to the AV launch and recovery, folding method, folded dimensions, spread and folded areas (projected areas onto the deck) and a comparison to a UH-1Y folded areas, location of tie-down attachment points, ship motion limits (pitch, roll and heave) for AV operation, need for unique support equipment and projected method of traversing flight deck and hangar spaces. In addition, identify any limitations and/or inspections related to shipboard operations and describe how the mitigation of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) will be addressed while on or near the ship.

Mission Systems Description

· Provide description of notional design, the external dimensions and positions of all the sensors on the AV, including acquisition and tracking.

· Provide description of the notional design, dimensions and positions for the internal and external store stations (including pylon, rack and suspension equipment on the AV) and aircraft survivability equipment (passive and/or active).

Weight and Balance Use the following ground rules when providing the information:

· Ensure weight and center of gravity (CG) estimates are consistent with design descriptions and operational usage of the concept described throughout the RFI response.

· Components that are installed for every mission and not removed/installed operationally should be included in Weight Empty or Basic Weight. Operational components that are only required for some missions should be reflected in Mission Weight Buildups as either Operating Weight items or Zero-Fuel Weight items.

Weight and Balance Summary

· Provide a functional weight and balance statement for design concept that is compliant with needed capabilities reflected in this RFI. It is desired that the format and content be consistent with an Estimated Weight Report per Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE) Recommended Practice #7 (http://www.sawe.org/technical/rp).

· Quantify and substantiate the weight and balance impacts due to the following specific capability needs:

a. Shipboard Operations.

b. Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3).

c. Aerial Refueling.

Mission Weight and Balance

· Provide mission weight buildups that substantiate weight and CG estimates for each mission profile contained in Appendix A. Mission buildups should start with weight empty, as found in the estimated weight report, and include weight and CG subtotals for Basic Weight, Operating Weight, Zero-Fuel Weight, and Takeoff Weight conditions. Provide detail accounting for items included in each subsequent subtotal. Clearly identify the item, location, quantity, weight and CG of each item in aircraft coordinates. List expendable and non-expendable items separately. Clearly identify the weight and CG of any mission-specific/variable components (racks, launchers, mounts, etc.) necessary for suspension of weapons on the aircraft.

· Figure A - 8, Figure A - 9 and Figure A - 10 are offered as guidelines for mission weight build-ups in conjunction with the mission profiles outlined in Appendix A for responding to the RFI.

· Identify any mission loading conditions that would result in weight and/or CG limitations, taking into account aircraft component movement, fuel usage, and mission expendables.

Developmental Weight Growth Quantify the portion of Weight Empty for the concept that requires development and the portion, if any, which exists and does not require development. Include an allowance for weight growth anticipated during development and substantiate the value. Derive and substantiate a recommended weight allowance to include at IOC, to ensure that the system delivered has some measure of built-in growth capacity at IOC.

Internal/External Payload Weight Internal The airframe must be able to carry an internal payload (cargo, weapons, etc.) weight of 3000-6000 lbs. The internal payload will be dependent on mission type. See Figure A - 8 and Figure A - 9 for various mission equipment guidelines.

External The airframe must be capable of carrying an external payload (cargo) of 3000-9000 lbs (reference Figure A - 10) while still carrying a minimum internal payload of 500 lbs.

Performance Performance Metrics Using the ground rules, assumptions, and weight allocations provided in Appendix A, estimate the following performance metrics. The estimates should take into account (from weight and performance standpoint) the key desired capabilities outlined above.

Mission Range (For each mission listed in Appendix A)

a. What is the maximum range carrying the required weapons and/or payload? Provide a range, TOS and payload diagram as part of the response.

b. What is the running gross weight of the aircraft throughout the mission to meet or exceed the required range?

c. For substantiation, provide a listing of mission segments including: fuel, power required, time, distance, speed, and weight, where applicable.

Maximum Hover GW and Hover Torque (Power) Margin

a. Provide the maximum HOGE and Hover in Ground Effect (HIGE) Gross Weights using maximum or take-off rated power and limiting factor (engines, transmission, max structural GW) with margins as specified in Appendix A, at the following conditions:

i. Sea Level, 39.4ºC (103ºF)

ii. 6000 feet PA, 35ºC (95ºF) Performance Substantiation:

Total aircraft power required (described for AV with rotor(s), propeller(s), prop rotor(s), etc.) is defined as the sum of rotor(s), drive system, and accessory losses in terms of Engine Shaft Horsepower (ESHP). (Include airspeeds which encompass hover up to VNE. Other parameters should encompass the range of conditions encountered in the mission profiles.)

a. What is the power required based on? (i.e., flight test, model test, analysis, combination, etc.).

b. What is the isolated rotor hover figure of merit as a function of CT/Sigma for the anticipated range of hover tip Mach numbers?

c. What is the total aircraft power required? If in coefficient format, what is power coefficient CP as a function of μ, GW and NrREF? If in referred format, what is HPREF as a function of true airspeed (TAS), referred gross weight (GWREF), and NrREF?

d. For wing-born flight, provide total thrust and drag as well as coefficient of lift (CL) vs Alpha, CL vs coefficient of drag (CD), flaps delta CL, and provide power-to-thrust efficiency.

e. What is the HIGE power required at a 10 ft. wheel height? If in coefficient format, what is CP as a function of GW and NrREF? If in referred format, what is HPREF as a function of GWREF and NrREF?

f. What is the power available, including installation effects and losses based on? (i.e., flight test, model tests, engine manufacturer’s cycle deck, etc.)

g. What is the installed spec power available in horsepower (HP) as a function pressure altitude, outside air temperature and airspeed at the following ratings: Maximum Continuous Rating, Intermediate (30 minute) Rating, Maximum or Takeoff Rating (and duration), and One Engine Inoperative (OEI) or Contingency Rating (and duration)?

h. What additional losses need to be accounted for due to environmental control system (ECS), drive system, or accessories, which are not already accounted for in the power required and power available bookkeeping? Provide a detailed list of all losses.

i. What is the installed fuel flow as a function of power, pressure altitude, outside air temperature and airspeed?

j. What are the All Engines Operating (AEO) and OEI, if applicable, transmission ratings in HP and duration?

k. What is the drag, in square feet (sq. ft.), of the aircraft? Provide a detailed listing, showing drag of each component as it builds up to the overall AV drag. Call out drag variations between missions.

l. What is the vertical drag (download) of the AV as a percentage of rotor thrust? Provide calculations and substantiation to for the build-up to the overall number.

m. What are the following key aircraft dimensional and specification parameters?

i. Engine designation.

ii. Design Rotor Speed (100%), revolution per minute (rpm).

iii. Normal Operating Rotor Speed, % or rpm and the flight condition each are used.

iv. Fuel system useable capacity, gallon (gal.) or pounds (lbs.).

v. Reference indicated torque to horsepower value at 100% torque (Q) at 100% rotor rpm (Nr).

vi. Reference drag (equivalent flat plate area) of the power required data, sq. ft.

vii. Maximum Structural Gross Weight (GW), lbs.

viii. Minimum fuel on deck allowance, gal or lbs., this quantity being separate from mission reserves (reference Appendix A, Performance Ground Rule 2.a).

Survivability

· Describe approach to providing ballistic protection for the fuselage, transmission, engine, fuel system, electrical system and flight controls.

· Describe technical approach to minimize IR signature and acoustic signature

· Describe the single and dual engine (as applicable) power loss capabilities at high and low air speeds and altitudes at various payloads up to MGTOW.

· Describe the ability of the aircraft to operate in adverse conditions including salt, water, rain, sand, dust, and icing. Describe any operational impacts or maintenance actions with respect to downtime for aircraft flown in adverse weather.

Cost and Schedule Provide a top level program synopsis encompassing cost, schedule and technical performance from conceptual status through proposed IOC including development and recurring cost. Indicate where internal funds are applied and how much by year. Identify project milestones including concept refinement, development, fabrications, demonstrations, testing and deployment. Identify any block/spiral development plans for the UAS. Breakout allocation costs for aircraft payloads, weapons and Ground Control Station (GCS) (include estimated software cost for each of these categories and estimates for Software Lines of Code). Use ground rules and assumptions provided in Appendix C for additional guidance.

Supportability Respondents should provide a recommended support concept overview for the system and components to provide details on how their systems will decrease the Governments logistics footprint, while increasing system availability, reliability, sustainability and maintainability. The Respondents should include as much detail as possible on their concept for capitalizing on this opportunity, as well as, much factual data on existing methods, materials, components or systems and how this will reduce overall lifecycle cost.

Please include the following supportability information:

· Data Rights Assertions for proposed system explicitly outlining ownership and Government rights to access/possess/modify source code. The Government intends for the networks to conform to open architecture and to pursue Government purpose technical data rights for artifacts including drawings, documents, interfaces, software etc. The Government desires to function as the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) for the GCS, payloads and weapons (and its associated software). This may be accomplished through second party vendors or organic to the Government -Specifically provide the data rights the Government would need in order to accomplish this function.

· Reliability and Maintainability (RAM) assessment used in the formulation of Operations and Sustainment (O&S) cost or other submissions, with confidence levels and identified formulae, sources & basis for the assessment. The Government does not expect this assessment to be highly mature at this point but, it is important to understand the offeror’s RAM goals and methodology.

· Special tooling, handling, support equipment or maintenance facility requirements

· Hazardous Materials associated with the system or required for sustainment

· Identify all supportability risks including but not limited to:

· Sole source critical components

· New manufacturing processes with immature repair processes and tooling

RFI Respondent Instructions All final responses should be submitted to the address below no later than 1700 EST, 7 May 2018.

· Proprietary information should be clearly marked. No classified documents shall be included in your response. Be advised all information submitted in response to the RFI becomes the property of the US Government (except properly marked proprietary information) and will not be returned.

· Multiple responses from different technology areas within a single respondent’s organization will be acceptable.

· Responses that provide information for AV systems that can meet some but not all mission area requirements will also be acceptable.

· Due to the urgency/timeline involved with the MUX program, responses will be limited to those provided by entities with an existing Secret Facility Clearance.

· US Government support contractors will assist in the review of any data provided by respondents to this RFI. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) has been signed by the support contractors with the US Government that precludes them from disclosing any data outside of the US Government. Accordingly, respondents are asked to provide concurrence in their submissions that the data submitted may be reviewed by US Government Support Contractors. All information will be handled by US Government and Support Contractor personnel as procurement sensitive information subject to the protections, restrictions and requirements set forth in FAR 3.104.

· The US Government requires one (1) electronic copy (compact disc) of the RFI response. The electronic copy of your response must be in Microsoft Office 2010 or Adobe Acrobat XI readable formats. Please provide your firm/company’s name and address, point of contract with telephone number and e-mail address.

· Any questions on this RFI must be directed to Bradley Lysaght, Lead Contract Specialist, via email at bradley.lysaght@navy.mil or to the address below, no later than 15 days after the RFI announcement. No questions will be accepted telephonically nor will any responses to questions be provided telephonically. Questions and answers will be posted within 15 days of final submission. The Government reserves the right to edit and consolidate questions as necessary prior to posting to FBO.

a. The mailing address for questions and responses to the RFI is:

NAVAIR - HQ

Attention: Bradley Lysaght, Contract Specialist Bldg 441 Rm 117, 21983 Bundy Road, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547

b. Hand delivery of the requested RFI responses is acceptable. If hand delivered, please contact the Lead Contract Specialist to make the necessary arrangements as to time and date of delivery. Delivery must be made by the response date/time to the address below:

NAVAIR – HQ

Attention: Bradley Lysaght, Contract Specialist Bldg 441 Rm 117, 21983 Bundy Road, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547

c. In addition, please send an electronic copy of responses to:

Bradley.lysaght@navy.mil Michael.treglia@navy.mil

· Respondents must provide identifying/contact information:

a. Company Name and address

b. Name, title, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of point of contact.

c. CAGE Code and DUNS Number (if applicable).

d. Business type.

e. An inventory list of all response files/elements which allow the Government to determine that the complete response has been received.

f. If your company is not the manufacturer of the component(s) being described, please identify the manufacturer and identify your relationship with the manufacturer.

Additional Information The following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code may be applicable to this notice:

The following Product Support Codes (PSC) Classification codes may also be applicable to this solicitation:

Mission Ground Rules and Profiles Performance Ground Rules:

1. General

1. Standard Day lapse rates; MIL SPEC 3013 Hot Day Atmosphere definition

2. Specified altitudes are Pressure Altitude

3. Zero Wind for all segments

2. Weights

a. Minimum Fuel on Deck (MFOD) quantity defined to be 10% Total Fuel Quantity

i. MFOD is separate from Mission Reserves

b. Include reserve fuel for 20 minutes at speed for best endurance at final ambient conditions

c. Performance Operating Weight Build-up varies with each mission (see Figure A - 8, Figure A - 9, Figure A - 10 and weight allocations below)

3. Propulsion System

a. Fuel Heating Value 18,300 BTU/lbm

b. Jet Fuel Defined as JP-5 with a value of 6.8 lb./gal

c. Fuel Flow increased by 5.0% for unknown/anticipated installation effects (per MIL-SPEC 3013)

d. Allow for accessory losses to cover electrical system power needs, at a minimum, to carry a load for each mission as outlined in Figure A - 10. Also, provide an impact of allowing for additional 70 kW/VA growth allowance.

4. Hover out of Ground Effect (HOGE) Performance

a. Engine and transmission margins are applied to hover power required to takeoff for:

i. Land-based, 5% Margin

ii. Ship-based, 10% Margin

5. Cruise Performance

a. All Engines Operating (AEO)

b. Speed for Long Range Cruise (VLRC) is at 99% maximum specific range

Mission Profiles:

Figure A - 1 MEU/ARG Early Warning- Sys

Figure A - 2 NEO Air Reconnaissance – AV

Figure A - 3 Advance Force Electronic Warfare - Sys

Figure A - 4 Amphibious Assault C4I – Sys

Figure A - 5 Amphibious Raid OAS - AV

Figure A - 6 TRAP/CSAR Scout - AV

Figure A - 7 Recon Resupply - AV

Mission Systems Weight/Power Guidelines Figure A - 8 and Figure A - 9 provide guidelines for prioritized mission equipment and weapons. The future MUX system should plan for maximum modularity and ease of interface to accommodate multiple configurations of antennas/apertures, payloads, and the software associated with the payloads. MUX system architecture should enable non-prime-vendor payloads multiple physical connection alternatives and software interoperability such that new payloads can "plug-and-play". Presently MUX weaponization is limited to integration of only a few systems as shown below for cost mitigation, but systems should consider alternate configurations and weapons capabilities providing future optional weapons loads. It is also desired to have a 1200lb store station capability to accommodate various stores loads as well as external fuel tanks if required.

Figure A - 8 Mission Payload (Equipment) Capability Requirements

Figure A - 9 Mission Payload (Weapons) Capability Requirements

Figure A - 10 provides initial estimates of payload weights and powers associated with each mission. Highlighted cells denote additional capabilities DESIRED for those specific mission.

Figure A - 10 Mission Payload Weight and Power Guidelines

Technology Guidelines Respondents are requested to identify and describe their critical technologies that satisfy the capability needs. Respondents are encouraged to provide a range of possible technology offerings, solutions and/or alternatives which could be used to satisfy the MUX capability needs. For each technology provide:

General Description A general description of the technology and how it could be used or incorporated into existing or conceptual air vehicle platforms to satisfy the capability needs Technology Maturity Level The technology maturity level of the hardware.

a. Based on the ICD capability needs, emerging common capabilities and mission capability requirements described in RFI, paragraph 2.0 (above), describe the technology necessary to provide desired performance at the 6K/95°F environmental condition and define the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and rationale for all critical technologies identified using Table B - 1 for each technology item. Specific areas of interest are:

1) Airframe

2) Engine(s)

3) Drive system

4) Rotor(s)/propeller(s)/prop rotor/fan(s)/jet(s)

5) Flight control systems

6) Fuel Systems

7) Environmental control systems

8) Electrical power supply and distribution systems

9) Auxiliary power systems

10) Launch and Recovery system

11) Support systems

b. Identify recommended sub-system(s) and/or component(s) that would need additional technology maturation or risk reduction as a component level prototype.

c. Respondents are requested to describe the associated risks along with potential risk mitigation strategies in accordance with the Department of Defense (DOD) Risk Management Guide, which can be found at http://bbp.dau.mil/docs/RIO-Guide-Jun2015.pdf

Company IR&D efforts A general description of the company’s Internal Research and Development efforts to further mature the technology or technologies described in paragraph B-1.2a above if the technology is in the conceptual or prototype phases of development. Include IR&D investments (per year) across the developmental phase in the cost section Technology Roadmap Based on the critical technology(ies) and associated risks described above, provide a notional acquisition timeline which incorporates each technology roadmap from contract award through Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).

Commonality Provide an approach to commonality by providing possible major and minor components that could be common between configurations, variants, and/or mission sets.

Future Growth Provide a general description of growth potential in the airframe to increase capability and maintain relevancy of the aircraft over a 30 year useful life based on the increased utilization rate of the MUX UAS.

Technology Development Provide the following details in support of the developmental effort

a. Aircraft nomenclature, if applicable

b. Technology nomenclature

c. Preliminary design completion date

d. Critical design completion date

e. Initial planned and actual completion dates for ground qualification test with explanation on schedule slippage from planned date

f. Initial planned and actual completion dates for first test flight qualification with explanation on schedule slippage from planned date

g. Initial planned and actual completion dates for final flight qualification with explanation on schedule slippage from planned date

Table B - 1 Hardware Technology Readiness Level Definitions

representative

Observed and reported Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development (R&D). Examples might include paper studies of a technologies basic properties.

Cost and Schedule Guidelines

1. Provide all costs, inputs, and outputs in Excel workbook.

2. Where cost values are provided, submit as a value in Constant Year FY18$.

3. Assume a program start with industry (including studies) to commence in FY20 for schedule and cost purposes.

4. If inflation factors are used for cost normalization, use the following inflation table:

Risks and Uncertainties:

1. Provide your self-assessment of percent complete of the requested information

2. Provide your high risk areas in your MUX concept program with uncertainties Acquisition Strategy:

Describe the acquisition strategy associated with your MUX cost estimates. Acquisition strategy and associated assumptions related to tailoring of requirements, design rigor, and requirements verification play a large role in overall cost and schedule for historic efforts. The cost working group would benefit from understanding the acquisition approach associated with your MUX strategy and the impact it would have on the MUX Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) and schedule.

Development Cost:

An independent Government cost working group will rely on historical cost and hours when developing their independent MUX estimates. The Government cost working group would benefit from historical information you could provide for programs, which could be used as analogies for the MUX estimate. When developing the estimate the Government team may utilize the historical program and then adjust for performance, technical maturity, reuse, and acquisition strategy. Describe how the historical analogies you provided would need to be adjusted to align with your MUX strategy.

1. Provide assumptions, acquisition approach, how many assets are in your development ROM estimate, such as (instrumented EMDs, Fatigue Test Article, GTV, Static Test article, Test ACs, etc.)

2. What is the range of development cost? Was the range developed using an analogy? If so provide the analogy. And what adjustments were made to the analogy?

3. Provide your development schedule tied to events such as Contract Award, System Requirements Review (SRR), System Functional Review (SFR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), First Flight, and Contractor Test & evaluation. Compare this schedule to other historic efforts. How does it compare?

4. What areas of development are being leveraged from existing designs/models?

5. Are all SE and PM functions charged as direct cost, or are there any indirect costs that would be picked up in the overhead accounts?

6. Historically the peak burn rate from vendor occurs between PDR/CDR timeframe and then ramps down as the program progresses. Provide any historical burn profiles (hours or dollars) that depict how you have executed over a development program? Under a lean program are there certain timeframes that would see more of the benefit than others?

7. Are there new design or production techniques that could reduce development or production cost?

8. Provide forecast of estimated hours for software development and testing.

9. Assume a baseline version and describe system test & evaluation strategy (contractor testing) with schedule and projected flight hours. Provide hours to build SILs and regression testing cycle on software builds.

10. Identify unique GFE/GFI items required to support development of MUX system concept.

11. Provide cost ROMs and describe a concept for Logistics Support for a system fielded for development/operational test activities of approximately 24 to 48 months in duration.

Procurement Cost:

1. Identify your calculation assumptions for “Number of Procurement Lots”, “Lot Quantity” as well as “Total Aircraft Buy”. However, please use the following limiting criteria: assume between 3 and 5 lots of procurement for a total aircraft buy of between 80 and 111 aircraft. Provide substantiation information (i.e. analogous/actual cost information) to assist with estimate rationale and basis.

2. Describe the Production strategy associated with each conceptual design to include the following:

a. Production line- stand-alone or share with other type/model/series.

b. Production tooling requirements and associated cost (assumptions for number of procurement lots, lot quantity, and total aircraft buy should be consistent with your calculation assumptions for recurring unit fly-away cost above).

c. Production rate that can be achieved with tooling requirements

d. Identify any potential teaming arrangements for major subcontractors showing area of responsibility

e. Identify what items, if any, are to be procured and provided as GFE

f. Identify the projected labor and material mix for end item cost

g. Identify assumed aggregate improvement and quantity curves for identified production quantities through the production cycle, identifying breaks if appropriate Operating & Support Cost:

Provide ROM Operating and Support cost along with list of assumptions, formulae, and factual/theoretical basis relied upon.

Acronym List

image1.emf image2.emf image3.emf image4.emf image5.emf…