RFI Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) Increment 1 (Update 9-18-2026).pdf

Request for Information (RFI)

N00019-27-RFI-PMA228-CCA

Title: Navy Collaborative Combat Aircraft Increment 1 Prototype Project

Issued By: Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), on behalf of the Future Advanced Capability Program Management Office (PMA-228)

NAICS Code: 336411- Aircraft Manufacturing

Date of Issuance: August 31, 2026

Response Due Date: September 18, 2026, 5:00 PM ET

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION & DISCLAIMER

THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR INFORMATION

AND PLANNING PURPOSES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SOLICITATION. THE

GOVERNMENT MAY USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO INFORM A POTENTIAL

PROTOTYPE PROJECT UNDER OTHER TRANSACTION AUTHORITY (OTA),

PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 4022. THIS ANNOUNCEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A

COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN

RESPONSE TO THIS RFI IS VOLUNTARY AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT

COMPENSATE ANY RESPONDENT FOR ANY COST INCURRED IN DEVELOPMENT OF

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THIS RFI IS BEING USED AS A MARKET RESEARCH TOOL TO DETERMINE

POTENTIAL FIRMS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE SUPPLIES DESCRIBED HEREIN

PRIOR TO AN ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS (RWP) AND

SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR PROJECT PROPOSAL (RPP). THE GOVERNMENT IS

NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM POTENTIAL

SOURCES AS A RESULT OF THIS RFI. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A

SOLICITATION AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF ANY KIND. RESPONSES IN ANY FORM ARE NOT OFFERS AND

THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT OR NON-

FAR BASED AGREEMENT (E.G. OTHER TRANSACTION) AS A RESULT OF THIS

ANNOUNCEMENT. NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR PREPARATION OF

RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS IN RESPONSE TO THIS RFI IS

STRICTLY VOLUNTARY. FAILURE TO SUBMIT A RESPONSE WILL NOT PREVENT A

COMPANY FROM PARTICIPATION IN ANY FUTURE COMPETITION RELATED TO

THIS REQUIREMENT.

CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONSES: ALL SUBMITTED INFORMATION PROVIDED

MUST BE UNCLASSIFIED. ANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED MUST BE

CLEARLY MARKED AS SUCH AND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED MAY

BE REVIEWED AND USED ACROSS THE GOVERNMENT.

2.0 BACKGROUND & ACQUISITION PHILOSOPHY

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), on behalf of the Future Advanced Capability Program Office (PMA-228), is seeking industry feedback and capability statements for the Increment 1 (Inc 1) Prototype Development and Demonstration of an affordable, highly capable, risk tolerant, carrier-capable, weaponized, extended range, autonomous unmanned air vehicle that can seamlessly deploy from and recover to Gerald R. Ford-class and Nimitz-class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers (CVN).

The Navy Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program was established to provide the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) with lethal, survivable and persistent, versatile platforms capable of operating directly from the sea. As threat networks grow increasingly complex, the Navy must adapt combat strategies by focusing on collaborative manned-unmanned operations, modular open standards, and rapid, cost-effective prototyping. PMA-228, operating under Deputy Portfolio Acquisition Executive (Aviation) Carrier Strike, seeks to execute this carrier-compliant autonomous unmanned air vehicle Inc 1 prototype development and demonstration to significantly reduce technical risk and accelerate capability delivery to the fleet.

This prototyping effort addresses key risk reduction activities to evaluate platforms with extended range and payload capacity, while minimizing deck footprint and integrating with established CVN infrastructure. Additionally, it paves the way to provide a future capability to augment 4th and 5th generation aircraft survivability, lethality, and capacity and developing future warfighting capabilities through collaborative Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) to ensure the Navy maintains a decisive edge against adversaries.

Capability Gap:

A critical capability gap exists within the CVW's ability to independently provide the capacity and organic lethal mass needed to gain sea control, impose sea denial, and project power in Highly Contested Environments (HCE). Manned fighter aircraft face extreme survivability risks in these environments. Furthermore, the high cost and extended timelines required to replace manned platforms and naval surface combatants limit the Joint Force’s capacity to absorb operational losses.

To close this gap, the Navy requires affordable, highly capable, risk-tolerant, weaponized, extended range, autonomous unmanned aircraft that can seamlessly deploy from and recover to CVNs, expanding the operational reach and multiplying the combat capacity of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG).

3. Requirement Capabilities & Technical Baseline

This RFI solicits industry expertise for the development and evaluation of two (2) fully functional, unmanned autonomous prototype air vehicle(s) achieving shore-based carrier certification requirements within three (3) years or less from agreement award. The prototypes must be designed to meet full carrier qualification requirements and employment in HCE aboard CVNs, while also possessing the flexibility to operate from austere locations with minimal infrastructure.

The successful prototype solution must be agile, modular, and scalable, aligning with broader Department of War (DoW) network architectures, to deliver affordable mass, lethality, and operational capacity that can be rapidly reconstituted in theater.

3.1 Technical Requirements Matrix

Solution Attributes

Carrier Compatibility Solution must be capable of safe, repeatable, and reliable catapult takeoffs and arrested landings on Gerald R. Ford-class and Nimitz-class CVNs. Also capable of integrating with shipboard combat systems and achieve carrier compatibility certification. Physical dimensions, height, width, and weight thresholds must meet carrier deck, elevator and hangar bay requirements.

Precision Landing Systems

High-precision landing integration using the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) and Landing Autonomous Navigation Technology for Enhanced Recovery to Navy Ships (LANTERNS).

Support Equipment

(SE)

The solution should rely primarily on existing CVN shipboard logistics capabilities and maximize use of shipboard Common Support Equipment (CSE), while minimizing Peculiar Support Equipment (PSE) and specialized deck-handling tools.

Environmental Conditions

Solution must be able to operate (including full launch, flight, and recovery) up to Sea State 5 (SS5) in environmental conditions encountered in normal shipboard operations, and weather conditions consistent for flight operations.

Marinization Strategy Limited life, lower-TRL, non-marinized components that will meet service life requirements may be utilized provided the vendor provides a clear transition plan to shipboard marinization.

Mission Demonstration

Solution must demonstrate flying single-ship and multi-ship executing a representative strike mission and demonstrate the capability to perform in HCE and possess the flexibility to operate from expeditionary locations with minimal infrastructure.

Command and Control (C2)

While performers may utilize their own Ground Control Station (GCS) systems during prototype development and demonstration, the prototype is expected to demonstrate compatibility for integration with the MD-5, Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control System (UMCS).

Interested parties are also encouraged to provide an approach to integrate a hardware agnostic, GRA-compliant solution into UMCS that provides C2 for CCA and growth for future aircraft but allows MQ-25 to maintain operations without jeopardizing current capabilities or causing modification to the MQ-25 air vehicle.

Weapon Capacity Solution must feature reconfigurable weapon payload carriage to execute strike missions. Both internal and external weapon carriage designs will be considered, with capacity and survivability being driving factors in design evaluation. Solution must have the ability to carry four (4) weapons up to 2,500 lbs each externally throughout the target flight envelope and carrier certification flights.

Communications/ Datalinks/Sensors

Solution must incorporate radios, sensors and secure tactical datalinks for integration with ship and shore systems, C2, landing systems, Air Traffic Control, and to close kill chains.

Architectures & Standards

Solution must be compliant with Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), GRAs (AMS, A-GRA) to ensure interoperability and rapid capability insertion as well as compliance with Universal Armament Interface (UAI) where applicable for weapons. This may involve merging existing and new capabilities with differing tiers of compliance. The platform must utilize Open Mission Systems (OMS)/Universal Control Interface (UCI) standards to manage onboard mission systems, software skills, and datalinks.

Autonomous Operations & Systems

Solution must integrate adaptable levels of Mission Autonomy (MA) and safety-critical Flight Autonomy (FA) in the air vehicle. Autonomy should include collaborative skills satisfying Core and CVN mission use cases described in the A-GRA, along with any additional existing or new behaviors to fully demonstrate all mission phases from launch to recovery. Solution must be able to integrate Level 1 MA solutions and Level 2 autonomous skills, including third-party mission software/skills.

Propose an approach that delineates the boundary between MA and safety-critical behaviors that will reside in FA throughout operations from launch to flight to recovery and include possible COA’s for obtaining a Navy Airworthiness Certification for the safety-critical aspects of the autonomy and any contractor-provided skills deemed safety-critical.

System Safety Solution must not pose a risk to CVN environment above 1E (Catastrophic / Improbable) IAW MIL-STD-882E with Change 1.

Cybersecurity Solution must, at a minimum, be able to obtain an Interim Authority to Test (IATT) through a DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) process while taking Cyber Ready requirements into account.

Digital Engineering Ecosystem

Design the prototype within a comprehensive integrated digital engineering ecosystem utilizing mission effectiveness driven modeling construct to accelerate development, inform decision-making, and reduce the need for extensive flight tests using models and digital twins. Must be capable of being certified to maximum program security threshold with ability to extend contractor network to the Government for real-time access or integrate with existing Government networks at that security classification level.

Solution must include digital test tools including Platform in a Box (PIAB) model of the prototype, and all necessary simulation interfaces, that accurately represent the technical and behavioral elements of all air vehicle performance, systems, stores, and on-board software.

MUM-T Solution must be able to team with manned aircraft platforms. Provide approach and roadmap for MUM-T integration and interoperability.

Supportability Solution must be able to be able to operate and be maintained within the CVN's constrained physical footprint and resilient to supply chain disruptions in contested environments.

Range Based upon the other attributes in Section 3.1, provide the maximum combat radius including weapons loadout, 30 minutes on-station and reserve fuel for safe recovery that the proposed solution can perform. Solution must be able to organically reposition to CVN in HCE, to combat operate from expeditionary locations without significant infrastructure additions to a CVN in the HCE or join a carrier-launched mission.

Speed Solution must be able to operate at standard CVW cruise speeds, at a minimum.

Survivability Provide methodology for assessing, managing, and integrating aircraft survivability within a collaborative or teaming operational construct.

Spot Factor (Size) To maximize deck capacity, the platform's spot factor must not exceed existing 4th generation fighter aircraft.

SWAP-C Optimization Solution must include SWAP-C provisions for future mission enhancements.

Crew, Infrastructure & Readiness

Provide approach for optimizing O-level maintenance crew as well as launch and recovery crew in the proposed solution by streamlining pre-flight, turnaround, and post-flight operations. This must be accomplished using the existing shipboard air wing personnel and their current skills during the CVN's scheduled operational maintenance periods. The proposed solution should be easily accessible by crew both internally and externally, reduce overall workload, shorten maintenance and repair times, and increase system availability.

Areas of Interest

Respondents are encouraged to provide an approach for the Areas of Interest below that may be awarded as part of the prototype effort or as part of future phases.

CVN Ops/CONOPS Propose an approach for integrating unmanned air vehicles with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and demonstrating safe carrier approach deconfliction.

Deck Handling Propose an alternative approach for a deck handling system that can operate all carrier-based unmanned air vehicles through launch, recovery and deck operations during EMCON conditions without increasing support equipment solutions or requiring any additional flight deck personnel.

Maintainability and Repairability

Propose innovative approaches which could be included as part of the solution, such as health monitoring, diagnostics, and prognostics that improve reliability, reduce maintenance and repair costs, and support favorable sustainment metrics such as higher Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), lower Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), and strong operational availability.

Training Propose affordable approaches for aircrew, maintainer, and deck operator training and proficiency that minimize impact on air vehicle service life.

To support development, the Government owns and will make available the TDPs for the following systems during the project’s period of performance:

Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) CVN Communication Systems MD-5 UMCS Interface Control Documents Shipboard Deck Control Device Emulator

3.3 Target Deliverables Portfolio:

The Government anticipates requiring the following deliverables to support evaluation, airworthiness, and eventual carrier integration:

1. Fully functional executable software baselines and final delivery of fully functional autonomy software with adequate documentation and training software.

2. Documentation and artifacts to support Navy certification of Flight Autonomy software for flight/safety critical validation and execution, with sufficient isolation between Flight Autonomy and non-safety critical systems.

3. Digital design models and digital twin including providing access to digital engineering ecosystem within contractor and subcontractor networks or transferring to Government networks.

4. An Interim Manufacturing Plan for scalable manufacturing detailing supply chain resilience and a data driven affordability/producibility analysis for reaching the Navy’s affordability goals of $30M per unit.

5. Comprehensive data from modeling, simulation, LVC, ground and flight telemetry and on-board recorded instrumentation data, recorded video, TSPI data, and software error logs from all test events, using instrumentation and data formats interoperable with government range infrastructure and analytic software on government-owned networks.

6. Documentation and artifacts to support airworthiness determination and Flight Clearance for CVN qualification testing.

7. Platform In A Box (PIAB) digital/simulator models that are separate from C2 and Mission Planning, and severable from Mission Autonomy systems.

8. Government access to contractor’s hardware agnostic C2 and HMI for independent verification.

9. Autonomy CONOPS approach

10. Standard Project Plans and Reports: Artifacts to support IATT/ATO, Software

Development Plan (SDP), Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis (MS&A) Plan, Operational Security (OPSEC) Plan, Systems Engineering Management (SEM) Plan, T&E Strategy, Test Plans, and Test Reports, and Product Support Analysis Plan (PSAP) detailing the contractor's strategy to identify, define and optimize the support requirements throughout the system’s lifecycle.

3.4 Testing Vision & Timeline

Test events and execution will be Performer-led using a team comprised of Performer and Government personnel. The Performer will perform Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC), ground and flight-testing to evaluate the capability of the prototypes to fly autonomous behaviors as identified within the USN provided Design Reference Mission (DRM), and Government ground and flight shore-based carrier certification for catapult and arrested landings. The test verification strategy prioritizes efficiency, minimizing exhaustive traditional physical testing by leveraging modern modeling, simulation, and digital environments.

Testing Locations: Contractor selected ranges and facilities for ground and flight testing. Carrier compatibility testing, virtual integration, and carrier certification will take place at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Lakehurst), Naval Air Station Patuxent River (Pax River), and Navy-designated simulation centers (Virtual Test and Training, JSE).

The intended Period of Performance is three (3) years from Agreement award.

Event Time from Project Award

Project Kick-Off Meeting 2 weeks

Real-time access to Performer’s Digital Ecosystem (including any Subperformers)

Initial Government access to Performer’s Digital Ecosystem NLT 3 months after award

Mission Autonomy (MA) Initial Minimum Viable Product (MVP) @ 6 months with subsequent iterative deliveries every 6 months

PIAB Initial NLT 12 months, then every 6 months aligned with Autonomy

C2 and HMI Delivery in conjunction with MA

First Air Vehicle Flight NLT 24 months after award

Carrier Certification 30 days prior to end of Period of Performance

Product Support Analysis Plan (PSAP) NLT 3 months after award

4.0 INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM INDUSTRY

Interested parties are requested to submit a comprehensive Capability Statement (CS) of no more than 10 pages (on 8.5 X 11-inch paper, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman, 10pt font or larger) and 10 pages of amplifying presentation materials (briefs, pictures, diagrams, data flows, etc). The CS must address the following technical and corporate dimensions:

4.1 Technical Approach:

Detail your proposed design architecture, baseline physical characteristics, aerodynamic capabilities, and flight/mission performance outcomes.

Explain your approach to separating safety-critical Flight Autonomy from mission-critical Mission Autonomy.

Describe how your design meets catapult launch and arrested landings with weapons loadouts, communications, deck handling, CVN physical space constraints (spot factor) and CVN environment outlined in Section 3.1.

Describe your proposed technical solution to address the remaining technical requirement matrix items listed in Section 3.1.

System Maturity (TRL): Provide the pertinent Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for the overall system and critical subsystems utilizing the definitions in the table below:

Level Definition

TRL 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operation.

TRL 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.

TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.

TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment.

TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment.

TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept.

TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated.

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported.

4.2 Cost, Schedule, & Resource Sharing:

Provide a high-level development schedule showing critical milestones, including Design Reviews, Software MVP releases, Test Readiness Reviews, first flight, and the start of shore-based CVN certification.

Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for the development, integration, evaluation and shore-based carrier certification of the two prototype(s) within the 3-year threshold.

Supply Chain Resilience: Describe your Design to Manufacturing approach, supply chain resilience, and logistics plan including software sustainment and modernization approach.

Cost-Sharing Projections: The Navy plans to execute this prototype project through a resource-sharing arrangement where the Performer provides a significant financial investment alongside Government in-kind contributions (e.g. access to DoW ranges, test facilities, engineering labs, operational feedback from end-users). Provide a proposed cost-sharing structure and describe how your business arrangement meets the statutory requirements of 10 USC 4022(d).

4.3 Risks & Mitigations:

Identify the top 3-5 technical, programmatic, and industrial base/supply chain risks to successfully delivering this capability.

Propose practical, actionable risk mitigation strategies for each identified risk.

4.4 Interaction with Non‐Government Entities:

The selected prototype performer(s) will be required to collaborate extensively with non-Government entities, including 3rd party autonomy providers, hardware suppliers, and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) of 4th and 5th generation manned fighters and weapons.

Describe your plan and existing capabilities to establish Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs), coordinate data-sharing networks, and merge differing tiers of open systems compliance.

4.5 Corporate Experience:

Provide a summary of your company's past experience in developing, testing, integrating, and fielding carrier-capable naval aviation, complex autonomous software, or integrated complex C2 systems for unmanned platforms.

5.0 Security, Cybersecurity, & Data Rights

Security Classification:

The majority of the prototype development will be performed at the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) level. However, certain high-threat operational behaviors, sensor capabilities, and survivability technologies will require classification levels up to TOP SECRET / SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI). Performing facilities must be capable of safeguarding and operating at these levels as required.

Cybersecurity Standards

Respondents must self-certify compliance with CMMC Level 2 (at a minimum) and prove compliance with NIST SP 800-171 for all non-DoD information networks hosting CUI.

Data Rights Strategy

The Navy requires sufficient data rights to independently operate, sustain, and execute maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) activities on the CCA platform.

At a minimum, the Government requires:

Operation, Maintenance, Installation, and Training (OMIT) data, Form, Fit, and Function (FFF) data, Critical interface implementation data including interfaces required for mission planning/debriefing, and seamless interoperability with carrier air wing assets. The Government’s objective is to also secure rights sufficient for Government-authorized third-party integration, software/autonomy portability, independent test, and future upgrades—including the software, models/data, dependencies, build/deployment artifacts, and licenses needed to make portability executable

Appropriate continuity or step-in rights in the event a performer is unable or unwilling to continue supporting a critical interface, software capability, or integration function, without unnecessarily demanding ownership of contractor background technology.

The Government will consider negotiating specific license rights or terms on a case-by-case basis balancing the Navy’s requirements for integration and interoperability in a System of Systems (SoS) approach coupled with reduced lifecycle costs and reduced loss-of-service risks with protecting industry’s investment and ingenuity.

6.0 RESPONSE SUBMISSION

6.1 Address and Deadlines

All capability statements and responses must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format to the points of contact below no later than 18 September 2026 at 5:00 PM ET.

Primary: Emily Burgkhardt, Contract Specialist, emily.h.burghardt.civ@us.navy.mil

Secondary: Raymond Cannon, Procuring Contracting Officer / Agreements Officer, raymond.c.cannon2.civ@us.navy.mil

Questions regarding this RFI shall be submitted via email to the primary point and secondary point of contact. The Government is not obligated to respond to questions submitted by industry as part of this RFI.

6.2 Submission Vetting

Submissions must be provided at CUI or below. If a classified response is deemed necessary, the respondent shall contact the POCs listed in this RFI for classified submission instructions.

Submissions must include the RFI reference number, CAGE code, UEI, company address, and POC contact information

Submissions marked with Distribution F (per DoDI 5230.24) will not be reviewed. All proprietary information must be clearly marked and will be handled accordingly.

If an interested person is a foreign concern or if a U.S. interested person has a team member or partner who is a foreign entity, adherence to all International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR) is required.

6.3 Industry Day

RESERVED

7.0 DISCLAIMER

Any information received in response to this request will be properly protected and handled accordingly. To complete its review, NAVAIR must be able to share information within the Government.

The Government is considering utilizing the Naval Air Systems Consortium (NASC) to potentially award one or more OTAs pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4022 “Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects”.