FJS_Draft_PWS_QAs.pdf

1 of 4 FJS Draft PWS QAs for Posting.xlsm

PWS Reference Draft PWS Questions Response

1 3.2

PBWS states “Accelerate to and maintain Mach 0.90M (objective) or 0.80M (threshold) at optimum altitude level with AST-9, TCTS or LATR pod and Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below.” Discussions during Industry Day stated the CATM requirement would be removed. Do these statements mean the Type III requirements are aircraft must be able to fly at the listed airspeeds and endurance carrying the following?: AST-9 and (LATR or TCTS)

Matrix I, Type III Performance Requirements for Speed and Altitude will be changed to read, "Accelerate to and maintain Mach 0.80 (threshold) or Mach

0.90 (objective) at optimum altitude level with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below.

2 3.2

PBWS lists a minimum Indicated Mach Number for Type III airspeed but no minimum indicated airspeed. However, Mach Number alone is an insufficient reference to speed capability especially at low altitude where indicated airspeed (KIAS) may be the limiting condition of aerodynamic performance. Is there a minimum Indicated Airspeed (KIAS) requirement for Type III aircraft? Does the Mach Number requirement apply to all altitudes or is compliance met simply by identifying one medium or high altitude flight condition where an aircraft can meet the Mach Number specification?

There is no minimum Indicated Airspeed requirement for any of aircraft Types proposed for this solicitation. The Mach speed requirement applies only to operation at the aircraft's optimum altitude.

3 3.2

PBWS states “Threshold: 2.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9, TCTS or LATR and CATM. Objective: 3.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9, TCTS or LATR pod and CATM. Where available, external tanks may be used to meet the requirement.”

Does this loiter calculation require Start, taxi, takeoff and a climb to altitude and a descent to land and recovery with VFR fuel reserves or is it simply a calculation of total time at altitude at maximum endurance with no accounting for takeoff and landing?

Matrix 1, Type III Performance requirements for Minimum Take-off to landing duration time will be changed to read, "Threshold: 2.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod. Objective: 3.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod. Where available, external tanks may be used to meet the requirement. Fuel calculations shall include fuel required for start, taxi, takeoff, climb to altitude and a descent to land and recovery with VFR fuel reserves.

4 3.2

Objective requirements state “Link-16/RedNet equivalent system, tied into TCTS Inc. II/LVC, (GFP)”. Could the government clarify this requirement statement? Link-16 and Rednet provide different tactical functions and are not equivalent systems so we are uncertain what type of system is being solicited. Additionally, the Navy has not finalized an architecture for the complete LVC integration for the future and what has been finalized is not yet fielded – it would not be feasible for offerors to provide technical solutions in advance of future LVC fielded systems whose interfaces have not been developed. Recommend that Rednet, which is a currently fielded system, be moved into the threshold category for the reasons previously discussed. Link 16 introduces a host of additional questions – such as a requirement for the government to provide crypto to the contractor, which have not been addressed elsewhere in the PBWS. Recommend that Link 16 be removed as an objective, as Rednet is a better system for the purpose of providing training presentations and adversary simulation.

Matrix 1, Type III Performance requirements for Configuration and Special Equipment, paragraph 2.f. has been changed to a Threshold requirement and will be changed to read, "Aircraft shall be Red Net or RedNet equivalent system compatible, tied into TCTS Inc. II/LVC, (Government Furnished Property (GFP))."

Matrix 3, Type IV Performance requirements for Configuration and Special Equipment, paragraph 2.f. will be changed to read, "Aircraft shall be RedNet or RedNet equivalent system compatible, tied into TCTS Inc. II/LVC, (Government Furnished Property (GFP))." Matrix 5, Type J (Aircraft with Radar) Performance Requirements for Configuration and Special Equipment, paragraphs 2.f. and 2.g. have been changed to Thresholds and the paragraphs will be changed to read, "f. Radar – Capable of Track or Track While Scan modes. Minimum detection requirement for radar is a 1-meter square target at 25 NM with 90% detection probability. g. Aircraft shall be Red Net or RedNet equivalent system compatible, tied into TCTS Inc. II/LVC, (GFP)."

Paragraph 2.h. will be added as an Objective and read as follows: "Link-16 capability"

2 of 4 FJS Draft PWS QAs for Posting.xlsm

5 3.2

Objective requirements state “Infrared (IR) detection capability. IR search and track (IRST) system and/or IR CATM with helmet and/or radar cuing”. The variability in this list of systems does not clearly indicate the effects the Government intends to receive via these objective requirements.

There are different forms of IRST that achieve different objectives (long wave and medium wave) and IR CATMs do operate in the IR spectrum but their purpose is different than an IRST. Will the Government clarify this requirement and explain in more detail the tactical presentation effects required? Is the reference to “IR CATM” meant to reflect contractor furnished equipment (CFE) or is this intended to reflect GFE that is integrated with contractor equipment? It would also be helpful if the Government delineated the ‘and/or’ options in another way to better illustrate system capability options. Discussions during Industry Day seemed to indicate these requirements may be removed is this accurate?

Matrix 1, Type III Performance requirements for Configuration and Special Equipment (Objectives), paragraph g. will be changed to read, "IR (Infrared) Search and Track (IRST) system." and "IR Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) with helmet and/or radar cuing."

6 3.4

PBWS states “Threshold: Mach 1.1 at optimum altitude with AST-9, TCTS or LATR and CATM and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below. Objective: Mach 1.5 at optimum altitude with AST-9, TCTS or LATR and CATM and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below.”

Is this requirement for level acceleration and then maintaining the airspeed in a level attitude in a similar fashion as stated for Type III in paragraph 3.2? As currently written it could be interpreted that the aircraft could be established in a dive in order to reach those airspeeds but that is has no capability to maintain those speed while in level flight while maintaining energy.

Recommend using similar language as indicated for the Type III airspeed requirement, “Accelerate to and maintain….at optimum altitude level with….”

Does this statement mean aircraft must be able to fly at the listed airspeeds carrying any of the listed stores, or do aircraft only need to meet the airspeed carrying any one of the listed stores (at the choice of the offeror)? That is, must aircraft meet the speed requirement regardless of what type pod it is tasked to carry? Please provide specific configurations that need to be carried while meeting performance requirements. A chart showing threshold and objective carriage requirements would be helpful for clarity. CATM is introduced although it is not a threshold

Matrix 3, Type IV Performance Requirements for Speed and Altitude will be changed to read, "Threshold: Accelerate to and maintain Mach 1.1 at optimum altitude with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below.

Objective: Accelerate to and maintain Mach 1.5 at optimum altitude with AST-9 or equivalent drag and either TCTS or LATR pod and in a configuration that meets the "Minimum Take-off to landing duration time" requirement below."

7 3.4

PBWS states “Threshold: 2.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9, TCTS or LATR and CATM. Objective: 3.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9, TCTS or LATR pod and CATM. Where available, external tanks may be used to meet the requirement.”

Does this loiter calculation require Start, taxi, takeoff and a climb to altitude and a descent to land with VFR fuel reserves or is it simply a calculation of total time at altitude at maximum endurance with no accounting for takeoff and landing?

Matrix 3, Type IV Performance requirements for Minimum Take-off to landing duration time will be changed to read, "Threshold: 2.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod. Objective: 3.0 hours at optimum loiter with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod. Where available, external tanks may be used to meet the requirement. Fuel calculations shall include fuel required for start, taxi, takeoff, climb to altitude and a descent to land and recovery with VFR fuel reserves."

3 of 4 FJS Draft PWS QAs for Posting.xlsm

8 3.2 & 3.4

For both the Type III and Type IV “additional performance criteria” The PBWS states that the aircraft will “…RTB with IFR fuel reserves”. OPNAVINST 3710 and the PBWS defines IFR fuel reserves as “fuel to fly from takeoff to the approach fix serving destination and thence to an alternate airfield, plus a reserve of 10 percent of planned fuel requirements”. This fuel requirement will vary depending on operating location, is open to interpretation for contract compliance and does not give a standard yardstick to measure aircraft performance. For example, to properly answer this question, the government would need to specify individual weather and runway in use at both primary and divert airfield in order to calculate this.

Would the government consider changing this language to “VFR fuel reserves”? We understand that the aircraft will need to frequently operate with IFR reserves during the contract, but using VFR fuel reserves for the specification calculation simplifies and standardizes the evaluation of aircraft performance and reduces the variability of scenarios (and potential offeror errors or “creative writing”) that the IFR fuel reserves mandate. The government will still be able to judge the best value of the aircraft being submitted – IFR conditions will affect offeror's aircraft approximately the same. Specifying VFR fuel reserves (or even no fuel reserves) simplifies this calculation for both offeror and evaluator, yet the results will still lend themselves to a value judgment. Recommend all fuel calculations that require fuel reserves use “VFR reserves” vice “IFR

Matrix 1, Type III Additional Performance Criteria, will be changed to read, "a) The Type III aircraft must be able to routinely execute the following flight profile: Launch from operating base with AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod, fly 100 Nautical Mile (NM) transit to Operations Area (OPAREA), loiter for 15 minutes, provide a 3-minute ingress presentation at max power at 22,000 MSL, loiter again for 15 minutes, provide a 3-minute off-target presentation at maximum power at 22,000 MSL, and 100 NM Return to Base (RTB) with VFR fuel reserves."

Matrix 3, Type IV Additional Performance Requirements, will be changed to read, "a) The Type IV aircraft must be able to routinely execute the following flight profile: Launch from operating base with an AST-9 and either TCTS or LATR pod, fly 100-NM transit to OPAREA, perform Mach 1.1 run for 75 NM at 30,000 ft. MSL, transit back to cap and repeat, 100 NM RTB with VFR fuel reserves."

9 3.3 & 3.5

PWS states minimum number of aircraft for simultaneous presentations for East Coast and West Coast separately.

What are the total number of simultaneous presentations the government desires to execute the given hours for both Type III and Type IV?

PWS Matrix 2 and Matrix 4 provide the requirements for simultaneous presentations. It is anticipated that there will be situations where both East and West coast requirements will be executed simultaneously for a total (T) of 12 Type III aircraft (6 East and 6 West) flying simultaneously INCONUS.

Achieving Objective level of performance (8 aircraft on the East coast) would raise that number to 14. Hawaii and Japan requirements could also happen simultaneously, raising the total to 16 (T) or 18 (O). Similarly, up to five Type IV aircraft may be required simultaneously.

10 3.6

The draft PWS does not list the total hours of the contract to be provided. During Industry day discussions the government provided some details of expected hours and simultaneous scheduling lines.

Could the government give a breakdown of hours anticipated by aircraft type?

The estimated hours PER YEAR for each aircraft type are:

Type III: 9,500; Type IV: 3,850; Type J (Aircraft w/radar): 2,000

11 3.6

The draft language in the PWS does not list simulated Close Air Support for a mission. Previously, FJ services executed this mission set. Although it is understood that future contracted Close Air Support may be delivered under a different contract (i.e. TACT), this mission should be also kept under FJ services to provide flexibility to meet demand. This will also allow provision of services at OCONUS locations where FJ services are provided but TACT services are not.

The PBWS has been updated to include simulated Close Air Support. The following will be added to Paragraph 3.7.1.4: 4) Dry Close Air Support, not including the use of live or inert ordnance

4 of 4 FJS Draft PWS QAs for Posting.xlsm

12 N/A We understand that NAVAIR’s Plan A is to procure the follow-on USN CAS services (Fighter Jet Services) via the USAF IDIQ contracting vehicles. If that’s the case who will run the competition, NAVAIR or AMIC? How will the day-to-day execution of the service work?

The Navy intends to use this follow-on (Fighter Jet Services) for its Fleet exercise and training requirements as well as its test and evaluation requirements. The Navy also plans to execute Task Orders against AMIC's CAF CAS contract to support its adversary air training requirements. An Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is being development between NAVAIR and AMIC.

Q&As for FBO