The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Next Generation Logistics Ship Industry Questions & Answers July 20, 2020
| 1 |
| What is the expected Dynamic Positioning (DP) Level required for NGLS? |
| DPS-2 is the minimum requirement for the PSV. It is desired to have DPS-2 on the FSV. More information will be provided in the ship specification. |
| 2 |
| What are the expected classification society (ABS, DNV-GL, etc) requirements for NGLS? |
| American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Marine Vessel Rules; specific notations will be included in the ship specification. |
| 3 |
| Does the Navy intend to evaluate both acquisition costs and sustainment costs in this program? If so, is there an anticipated weighting factor for each? |
| The evaluation factors and the associated weighting of those factors for upcoming procurements will be provided in the solicitations. |
| 4 |
| As commercial vessels are mentioned, is there an expectation that all Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E) equipment will meet commercial standards in lieu of military standards? |
| In general, HM&E equipment will need to meet commercial standards, regulatory body requirements, and classification society requirements. Military standards and requirements may be required for certain equipment (e.g. the crane will require OP-4 compliance), but in general, military standards and requirements will not be required. |
| 5 |
| As possible conversion of existing vessels is mentioned, will acquisition costs be weighed against remaining service life? If so, what are the weighting factors assigned to this consideration? |
| The Navy will consider conversion of existing vessels based on industry responses on the vessels available for sale that can meet the NGLS requirements and the upcoming industry studies. The Navy will assess acquisition cost against several factors, including age and condition of the vessels, in determining whether conversions will be part of the overall NGLS program. |
| 6 |
| With respect to converting existing vessels, for example OSV’s, PSV’s MPSV’s etc., will their existing Propulsion and Power plants be utilized or converted/upgraded to meet the vessels operational profiles and service speed requirements? If so what is the NGLS expected Service Speeds and operational profile? |
| This will depend on the speed of the candidate vessel. The Navy would minimize changes to existing vessels as much as possible. However, the maximum speed of commercial OSVs is close to the minimum effective speed for underway replenishment, so the Navy would be interested in the marginal cost and impact to increase speed to meet the minimum effective speed for underway replenishment. The Navy anticipates that this will not be feasible or cost-effective for some lower speed OSVs. |
| 7 |
| Does the Navy require the utilization of Energy Storage Systems (ESS) integrated into the power plant for extended range, reliability and fuel savings? If so what Service life is required for the ESS? |
| The Navy does not plan to require an energy storage solution, but the Navy will consider the advantages of an energy storage solution as part of the electrical plant design. The Navy has not yet determined a minimum service life for an energy storage solution; in general, larger form factor solutions should be longer life than more-easily replaced smaller form factor solutions. |
| 8 |
| If ESS is required, is Commercially (COTS) approved systems acceptable and if so, what classification and/or Navy regulations/standards will be invoked? |
| This will depend on the technology or chemistry of the energy storage solution. The Navy has additional system safety requirements for Lithium-based battery solutions. The Navy will require additional safety assessments for flywheel systems. It is recommended that companies should provide the Navy with information about any proposed energy storage solutions well in advance of any solicitation in order to get a specific answer. |
| 9 |
| What weighting criteria will be used when comparing a vessels conversion vs. new construction with respect to Capital Expense and Maintenance/Service Life costs? |
| The Navy will make decisions on conversions of existing vessels vs. new construction based on multiple factors. The appropriate mix of new construction and conversion of existing vessels will be an internal Navy decision and new construction vs. conversions will not be competed against each other. |
| 10 |
| What is the expected Vessel Service Life for a vessel conversion vs. a new build |
| The Navy will assess several factors, including age and condition of the vessels, in determining whether conversions will be part of the overall NGLS program. As mentioned in the previous response, conversions of existing vessels will not be directly competed against new construction. |
| 11 |
| What will the requirements be for: range, endurance and payload capacity? |
| These characteristics are listed in the Requirements slides in the presentation and will be listed in the ship specification. |
| 12 |
| What sea state will this vessel need to operate in? |
| Sea States for operations are listed in the Requirements slides in the presentation. |
| 13 |
| Unmanned operations? |
| Space/Weight/Power/Cooling reservations are required for additional equipment and systems necessary for unmanned operations. More information will be provided in the ship specification. |
| 14 |
| What accuracy for an INS or gyrocompass will be required? |
| Any requirements regarding navigation will be included in the ship specification. |
| 15 |
| What GFE will be provided and what components will be slated as COTS? |
| A Government-furnished C4I suite is planned. Other Government-furnished equipment is possible, but would be limited. |
| 16 |
| Will there be RMF (Cyber/IA) requirements implemented? |
| Yes. The Information systems onboard the ship will need to comply with Defense and Navy Cybersecurity requirements, and will need to be accredited under the Risk Management Framework. |
| 17 |
| What is the anticipated service life? |
| There are no specific service life requirements at this time. |
| 18 |
| Have they identified crew size? |
| Manning estimates are in development. |
| 19 |
| Has a CONOPS been developed? |
| Concepts of Operation are being refined, but will not be publicly distributed. |
| 20 |
| Is there an estimate on the potential number of platforms the Navy anticipates acquiring under this program over what time period? |
| As stated in the brief, the mix and quantities will be developed by the Navy in FY21. |
| 21 |
| What do you anticipate your Training Solution Acquisition Strategy will be? |
| There are no special training requirements at this time; we will conduct crew familiarization consistent with other MSC ship acquisition programs. |
| 22 |
| Will you rely on any certain warfare center such as NAWC TSD to perform the duties of a Training Systems Executive Agent (TSEA) to acquire training products or will the Program Office rely on the OEM to deliver the training products or a combination of both? |
| Crew familiarization is planned to be Contractor-furnished from the OEMs and the shipyard. |
| 23 |
| Where will the training be delivered ? Ashore, aboard ship or a combination of both? |
| A combination of both. This is consistent with other MSC ship acquisition programs with crew familiarization conducted in both the classroom and onboard ship. |
| 24 |
| Will Training be part of the Industry Studies Requirement? |
| No. |
| 25 |
| Can you tell me if a list of participants will be sent out? The virtual events don’t allow for the vendor interaction we generally see in a physical event. It would be very appreciated. |
| The list of companies and non-governmental organizations from the Industry Day event will be posted on the beta.SAM website. |
| 26 |
| Will any parts of the vessel or any of the equipment be expected to be shock qualified? |
| A decision has not yet been made on shock qualifications for certain equipment. |
| 27 |
| It was stated that quantities of vessels would be determined next year but is there any idea on range? Is it in the under 10 or above 10 range for example? |
| It will be determined in FY21 because the Navy needs to assess the ability to charter, as well as convert or construct, to reach the number of ships needed. |
| 28 |
| For the 1-on-1 will there be any restrictions on the number of people from our organization allowed to attend. |
| Companies should keep the attendance to no more than 10 people. |
| 29 |
| Will the slides presented today be put on SAMS noting they are Distro A? |
| Yes. |
| 30 |
| Some Naval regulations or specifications are old and out of date compared to where industry, and other Navies around the world have progressed. Sometimes this makes for a more expensive, less capable design that isn’t supported by worldwide supply chains. Is there a proper method to engage with the Navy to change these specifications? This does not necessarily need to be focusing on an exception for a particular ship project but more of changing the specification that most projects look to. |
| The military specifications contain a feedback form at the end of each specification. If you have particular specifications in mind, we can try to put you in contact with the appropriate people if you provide us the specification. |
| 31 |
| What is the station-keeping and transiting requirements for the GNLS during replenishment missions? |
| Those specific requirements will be included in the ship specification. |
| 32 |
| Will relative positioning and tension input from the winch systems both on the solid cargo and fuel delivery systems be fed to\and or monitored in the DP system? |
| The UNREP systems can provide the line position data and tension data. Integration of this data with the DP system is an interesting idea that we would like to hear more about. |
| 33 |
| The Brief indicated that Optionally Unmanned capability is to be addressed as space/weight/power reservation in the vessel design. Key Performance Parameters definition for unmanned modes of operation would be helpful to USG and Industry for planning the necessary reservations. Of key interest is requirement for duration of operation without human intervention for planned preventive maintenance. Fuel/lube management (such as filtration, etc) planning and the required hardware, sensors, layout will all impact a forward-looking design that will minimize re-work of the HME and resultant acquisition cost. Can USG please provide KPP’s to better inform planning for unmanned modes of operation? |
| The Navy is developing more specific requirements for the unmanned operations on NGLS and plans to explore these trade-offs and design consideration during Industry Studies. At this time, the NGLS will use similar requirements as being demonstrated on the Medium and Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV) programs, and there is no plan to exceed the requirements being demonstrated on those programs. |
| 34 |
| HME equipment selections made in the early stages of design will either significantly help or significantly hinder the cost-effectiveness (including re-design, re-work) of later addition of unmanned capability. USN has developed significant requirements specific to the design of these elements for unmanned vessels including the Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA) requirements as well as Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) specific considerations for Machinery Control Systems. Will NGLS contractors be required to comply with these USV specific requirements or portions thereof? Will this be included in a DRAFT P-Spec for early review by interested Industry entities? |
| The NGLS program is working with the USV programs to leverage their lessons learned and will incorporate some applicable portions into the NGLS ship specification. A firm decision on UMAA requirements has not yet been made, but it is likely to be required for the control systems. |
| 35 |
| Since this vessel may at some point be required to operate as an unmanned platform in some modes of mission execution, can the USG please advise what command, control, comms and computing requirements will be imposed and what related cybersecurity requirements will be imposed for both manned and unmanned modes of operation? Will elements of these aspects be GFE from other Programs of Record? Will these requirements be communicated to industry in a DRAFT P-spec so that interested industry entities can plan accordingly? |
| Yes, some elements may be GFE. Yes, these will be communicated to industry in the ship specification. |
| 36 |
| Can the USG please advise what unmanned modes of operation will entail? Transit Only? Will UNREP be performed exclusively in manned modes of operation or both manned and unmanned? |
| At this time, only transit modes are expected to be potentially unmanned or lightly-manned. UNREP operations are not planned to be unmanned. |
| 37 |
| Can the Government clarify the total number of accommodations? |
| This will be included in the ship specification because manning estimates are still in development. |
| 38 |
| Can the Government clarify the accommodation design standards? Will MSC habitability standards be required or only commercial SOLAS/USCG standards? |
| Ideally, the goal would be to meet MSC habitability standards, but it will also depend on the extent of changes that would required to an existing ship or an existing ship design. |
| 39 |
| The slides indicated a USCG COI requirement. Can the Government clarify to what 46 CFR Subchapter letter the vessels are to be certificated? |
| This will be specified in the ship specification after final discussions with the US Coast Guard, but it will likely be Subchapter I. |
| 40 |
| To what extent will U.S. Navy design standards be applied in the requirements.? For example, will U.S. Navy standards be applied in computing maximum speed and endurance range? |
| We will specify that in Industry Studies. |
| 41 |
| Will the communications onboard the NGLS require both NIPR and SIPR access and/or will the vessels be outfitted with CANES/ADNS? |
| Yes, NGLS will have NIPR and SIPR access. The ship specification will identify the interface requirements, including space/weight/power/cooling requirements, and the requirements that the shipyard will need to provide to support the installation. |
| 42 |
| Does rearming include VLS weapons? |
| This is under consideration. |
| 43 |
| Would all ammunition storage be in containers or in fixed magazines? |
| This will be explored during Industry Studies. |
| 44 |
| Would the PSV only receive stores from CLF ships in protected waters? |
| No, the requirement is to conduct replenishment underway, as well as in protected waters. |
| 45 |
| Do you intend to put Heavy E-Stream on the PSV (as shown in video)? |
| No. The Heavy version of the Electric Standard Tensioned Replenishment Alongside Method (E-STREAM) will not be required. |
| 46 |
| As NGLS of both variants will have low freeboard, will there be a higher king post to keep the rigs out of the water when interfacing with CLF ships? |
| Yes, very likely. |
| 47 |
| Is the OTS fuel system a system that is in development/developed or is this developmental? |
| The OTS system is in development. |
| 48 |
| Do you anticipate that the PSV/FSV will interface with other platforms than current T-AKE/T-AO, to include commercial ships, CONSUL tankers, other sealift like crane ships, Prepo ships, or E-class ships like EPF, or the ESB? |
| Yes, to the extent practicable, the PSV will have the ability to interface with other ships. The FSV will be more limited in interfacing with other ships. |
| 49 |
| Is the passenger requirement in airline style seats or fixed berths? |
| This is still being defined, and different levels of accommodations will be assessed as a cost tradeoff study as part of Industry Studies. |
| 50 |
| What is the expected service life for new construction vessels and the conversion vessels? |
| See previous questions on service life. |
| 51 |
| Are refrigerated stores going to be handled in containers or fixed reefer capability? |
| This will be explored during Industry Studies. |
| 52 |
| How many of the PSV/FSV will be acquired and how many per year? |
| As stated in the brief, the mix and quantities will be developed by the Navy in FY21. |
| 53 |
| What will the onboard power requirement be? |
| The power requirements for Government-furnished systems, additional mission loads, and margins will be listed in the ship specification. The contractor will need to define the power requirements for all other systems. |
| 54 |
| Will the RAS station and the FAS station be in the same side? Which side? |
| Yes, they will be on the same side. It will likely be on the starboard side. |
| 55 |
| What kind of military applications are you planning to include in the requirements (Combat system, Survivability, Comms., etc.)? |
| As previously stated, a Government-furnished C4I suite is planned. Other military features will be listed in the ship specification. |
| 56 |
| Is the FSV expected to have beaching capability? |
| No. |
| 57 |
| Is there any preferred type of propulsion for each variant? |
| There is no preferred propulsion configuration for the FSV. The Navy will evaluate the trade-offs between diesel-electric and diesel-mechanical configurations for the PSV during Industry Studies. |
| 58 |
| Is the program looking for one proposal (one supplier) for the two variants or it can be proposed just one design variant? |
| Contents of the proposal will listed in each solicitation. |
| 59 |
| Can the speed requirement of 11-13 knots for the PSV be reduced for the higher sea states? |
| No, not at this time because the current minimum speed to conduct underway replenishment is 11 knots in up to Sea State 5. The current requirement for sustained speed of the PSV variant is an objective of greater than 13 knots; sustained speed is defined as the ship at full load displacement in calm water (no current, wind or waves), and with a clean hull and propellers. As stated during the presentation, speed of the PSV variant is particularly important because sustained speeds higher than 13 knots would provide additional margin to conduct underway replenishment at a minimum speed of 11 knots in Sea State 5. |
| 60 |
| Can solid cargo be stored on an open deck or does it need to be protected from the elements? |
| The majority of the solid cargo will be stored on open deck, but will be stored in different forms of containers. |
| 61 |
| Is the gear required for transfer of cargo supplied by the Government or will the contract be required to supply all cargo handling equipment? |
| No final decisions have been made on what equipment will be Government-furnished, but respondents should assume that the contractor will supply all the cargo handling equipment. |
| 62 |
| Will the Government provide a waiver or exemption to allow transfer of fuel from a PSV or FSV? This is currently not allowed under OPA 90. |
| The Government will extend the exemption currently applicable to the US Navy's oilers for transfer of oil at sea. |
| 63 |
| What is the flash point of JP-5? |
| The specification for JP-5 (MIL-DTL-5624W) lists the minimum flash point for JP-5 as 60.0 degrees C |
| 64 |
| Will the ammo be provided as packaged goods so that it may be carried under the ship's dangerous goods approval? |
| All ammunition will be stored and transported in containers or portable magazines. |
| 65 |
| How many industry studies are planned to be awarded? |
| The Navy will award multiple contracts. The number of contracts will depend on the proposed prices and the ability of the Navy to effectively administer multiple contracts simultaneously. |
| 66 |
| Will studies only be awarded to shipyards? |
| No. But a shipyard will be required to be part of any team for the Industry Studies. |
| 67 |
| Can the Navy indicated the expected award value for the industry study? |
| The Navy expects award amounts of industry studies contracts will be $1M or greater. |
| 68 |
| What is the intended scope of the study? |
| The scope of work will be specified in the solicitation, but in general terms, the scope will be identification of candidate ships and ship designs, preliminary design work to modify the designs to meet NGLS requirements, evaluation of performance, and tradeoff studies on certain characteristics and capabilities (e.g. speed, accommodations) |
| 69 |
| Does the Navy intend to limit proposals to parent craft designs only? |
| No, not at this time. |
| 70 |
| Are nominal deadweight, length, and cargo capacities (tankage and containers) available at this time? |
| No. General quantities of the cargos that NGLS needs to carry were specified in the presentation. These, along with the crane, replenishment stations, and the other requirements should drive deadweight and length. |
| 71 |
| How many vessels does the Navy intend to award? |
| The number of ships will be determined in FY21 because the Navy needs to assess the ability to charter, as well as convert or construct, to reach the number of ships needed. |
| 72 |
| Would you consider purchasing an existing foreign flagged/built vessel for retrofit? |
| The Navy would prefer to covert US-built ships, but will not rule out foreign-built ships at this time. |
| 73 |
| What are the maximum days at sea for any given mission? |
| Mission durations will not be publicized. The required endurance for the PSV and FSV variants between replenishment was included in the presentation. |
| 74 |
| What percentage of commercial/merchant marine vessels, if any, are currently used for resupply? |
| The NGLS project is focused on the specific re-supply missions stated in the presentation and is one piece in the Navy's broader overall re-supply mission which uses a combination of Government and commercial vessels. These other pieces are outside the scope of the NGLS project. |
| 75 |
| Are there FSV with the specifications outlined in your presentation currently being used? |
| The Navy is not currently using FSVs with these specific requirements, but the Navy believes the requirements generally align with the capabilities of several commercial FSVs. |
| 76 |
| How many PSV and/or FSV vessels are you considering building/retrofitting? |
| The number of ships will be determined in FY21 because the Navy needs to assess the ability to charter, as well as convert or construct, to reach the number of ships needed. |
| 77 |
| To better understand the requirements and potential tradeoffs regarding cost and capability, it would be useful that an OV-1 Diagram be provided that would visualize the CONOPS for use of PSVs and FSVs. Can one be provided? |
| Concepts of Operation are being refined, but the Concept of Operations and the OV-1 diagram will not be publicly distributed. |
| 78 |
| While ship-to-shore delivery of cargoes from afloat bases to EABs is a necessary capability, what capabilities are these platforms are to have that differ from what will be incorporated into the next generation medium amphibious ship? |
| As stated during the presentation, the difference is that NGLS mainly provides support to afloat forces whereas the Light Amphibious Warship mainly provides support to ashore forces. The NGLS has the required equipment to transfer to other ships via underway replenishment, but will not have the beach and undeveloped port access that Light Amphibious Warship will have. |
| 79 |
| How are these ships to be employed in peacetime? Given that DMO/EABO are wartime concepts and that the current CLF and overseas base infrastructure is more than adequate to support the current fleet over the next decade or two, it would seem that most of these assets (except those needed for training and exercises) would have to be maintained in Reduced Operating Status in peacetime. If so, then the ability to reliably reactivate and crew them needs to be included, as well as a determination whether the endurance needs to adjusted to account for expected ROS basing locations. For example, if basing is in Hawaii, then the endurance to reach SAGs or EABs in WESTPAC would have to be accounted for, especially for the FSV. Also, with a speed for 10 knots, it would take almost two weeks to transit 3000NM for PSV—is that timely enough if the ships are in ROS in peacetime to support wartime logistics in a timely manner? |
| These questions relate to the internal Navy studies discussed during the presentation that are ongoing. By their nature, these are internal studies and the results will not be published. |
| 80 |
| Since the PSV is supposed to augment the CLF for forces afloat, what requirement isn’t being met adequately by the programmed CLF? The slide says these ships are to be smaller and less vulnerable? How is reduced vulnerability to be generated? Since these are supposed to be commercial variants, would not expect stealthy capabilities would be required so that opposition sensors should have no difficulty targeting such vessels? Shallow draft wouldn’t be necessary for RAS? Again, this suggests a need for a OV-1/CONOPS to help explain requirement drivers. |
| The questions implies that the existing CLF is somehow not adequate; this is not the case. As stated in the presentation, NGLS will augment the existing CLF ships, not replace the existing CLF ships. Specific requirements related to vulnerability will not be publicized. Draft will be a function of the candidate designs. Concepts of Operations and Operational Views will not be publicly distributed. |
| 81 |
| What does “Optionally unmanned equipment” mean? That these ships could operate without a crew? If so, then please explain CONOPS for cargo handling and passenger support. If this means unmanned engine rooms, then please specify as such. |
| The current requirement is reservations for equipment to support unmanned operations in machinery control and navigation. Cargo handling and underway replenishment would require manning and is not planned to be conducted unmanned. The unmanned requirements will exceed those currently required by ABS and USCG for unattended engine room and ACCU. |
| 82 |
| What capabilities are these vessels supposed to have to support LUSVs and MUSVs? |
| NGLS will be capable of replenishing Surface Action Group forces, including LUSVs and MUSVs. |
| 83 |
| Regarding the cranes, except for LVI-LO/LO, has there been demonstrated capability to transfer heavy loads between ships at ship? Are the vessels supposed to be moored to each other—at anchor, underway? |
| The Navy has, and is continuing, to experiment and demonstrate these capabilities. But we are still exploring these requirements and their applicability to NGLS. |
| 84 |
| There was no mention of Modular Fuel Delivery or Modular Cargo Delivery Systems that had been installed on form RRF dry cargo vessels and T-5 tankers. Is there any reason why such systems should not be considered? |
| While the Modular Fuel Delivery or Modular Cargo Delivery Systems are another set of re-fuel and re-supply solutions, the NGLS will have permanent fuel and cargo delivery stations rather than the modular temporary solution that the MCDS and MFDS systems provide. |
| 85 |
| PSV – Slide stated Passenger Area for 60. Is this space for 60 people seated, or berthing for 60? |
| Ideally, berthing for the 60 on the PSV would be provided, but this may not be feasible/affordable for all 60. A mix of accommodations for the persons other than crew is one area to be looked at during Industry Studies. |
| 86 |
| FSV -- Slide stated Passenger Area for 43. Is this space for 43 people seated, or berthing for 43? |
| Berthing for the 43 FSV will likely be seating based on the FSV size, but some berths beyond those for the crew is preferred. |
| 87 |
| Do you intend a flight deck or hover capability for the PSV? Will there be an MV-22 interface for EABO support? |
| There is currently no requirement for a flight deck or vertical replenishment capability. |
| 88 |
| What is your envisioned price point for these vessels – new construction and conversion? |
| Many of the requirements to be studied during Industry Studies are direct drivers of the cost of the ships, so it is not possible to provide specific price points. |
| 89 |
| Is it anticipated that the PSV and FSV variants will be procured under a single contract? |
| This is unlikely. |
| 90 |
| How many of each platform (PSVs and FSVs) is the Government anticipating procuring? |
| The number of ships will be determined in FY21 because the Navy needs to assess the ability to charter, as well as convert or construct, to reach the number of ships needed. |
| 91 |
| Is the Government considering a dual approach, conversion of a certain number of existing vessels and new construction of a certain number of vessels? If this decision has not been made when do you envision a decision? |
| This is a possibility. This decision will be made after completion of the Industry Studies and completion of the internal Navy studies in FY21. |
| 92 |
| How many (container handling) cranes are you considering? |
| One. A separate smaller crane for handling stores would be preferred. |
| 93 |
| Is there a history of cranes that are currently being used for this application? |
| The Navy does not currently have a crane and ship with all the NGLS capabilities. The Navy has used cranes on other vessels to perform similar functions, but not to a great extent. We are still exploring these requirements and their applicability to NGLS. |
| 94 |
| It appears that we may have to develop some features specific to this application and it may not be feasible if the quantity is low. Would the government consider purchasing the cranes as a developmental item rather than a commercial item? |
| The Navy recognizes that the crane is likely a customized design, and some of the design work in the Industry Studies is planned to modify and incorporate the crane into the overall ship design. The crane will likely be procured by the prime contractor, not furnished by the Government. Crane OEMs can provide the Navy with information on their designs and alternatives to get a more specific answer. |
| 95 |
| When doing UNREPs it was noted to keep approximately 150 feet between vessels. Is it necessary for the NGLS vessel to have track keeping capability? |
| It is not necessary, but highly desired. |
| 96 |
| If so, what level of accuracy is required? |
| There is no specific requirement. |
| 97 |
| In the slide for Replenishment Requirements it is noted that the PSV should be capable of receiving fuel and cargo from Combat Logistics Force and commercial vessels outfitted with specialized UNREP capability. In order to do this is it required that additional UNREP transfer equipment be installed on the PSV, or is this handled by the equipment for fuel/cargo transfers from the PSV to the Navy ship? |
| The equipment to receive from another ship will need to be permanently installed on the PSV, but this is a relatively small set of equipment, padeyes, and fuel double-probe receive stations. |
| 98 |
| PSV is shown to have a passenger area for 60 passengers. Is seating acceptable or do the passengers need staterooms/bunks? |
| Ideally, berthing for the 60 on the PSV would be provided, but this may not be feasible/affordable for all 60. A mix of accommodations for the persons other than crew is one area to be looked at during Industry Studies. |
| 99 |
| I was wondering if there are any requirements for ballistic protection for any areas of these vessels. |
| No decisions have been made on ballistic protection requirements. The NGLS team would be interested in information on ballistic protection measures. |
| 100 |
| I was unable to attend. Do you have a method to share the UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT (UNREP) videos on slides 13 and 14? |
| No, the videos will not be posted. The videos were intended to provide a brief overview of an underway replenishment, and the videos are not necessary for any future solicitations. |
| 101 |
| Is there any potential antenna or radome work that needs to be done for this next gen naval sea systems industry day? |
| No, the program will use existing off-the-shelf radomes and antennas, so no developmental work is required. |
