Naval Senior Leadership Comms Q and A (9 Jun 25).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2541-25-008
- Issued by
-
Department of the Air Force
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) for a Navy Senior Leadership Communication – Aircraft (NSLC-A) SATCOM System, seeking commercial satellite communication solutions for four C-37 aircraft (one G500 and three G550s). The Naval Information Warfare Command is investigating airborne COMSATCOM systems and integration services for aircraft located in CONUS and Pacific regions. Key requirements include global coverage, a target data rate of 100 Mbps, tail-mounted antenna, minimum service level agreement of 98.5%, and polar coverage above 65 degrees North/South.
The RFI specifies technical requirements such as transmission security (FIP 140-3 Level 2 with AES-256 encryption), Military Control Office (MCO) FAA certification for C-37A/B aircraft, and operational expectations including 24/7/365 operation center support. Vendors are expected to provide standalone solutions compatible with Gulfstream aircraft, with all equipment needed to be available within 6 months of contract award. The RFI response deadline is 27 June 2025, with funding anticipated post-FY25. Potential solutions should include capabilities for routing aircraft traffic to government sites and supporting in-flight troubleshooting with network operations center connectivity.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Question # | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Is there an SLA the Government is targeting for these services? | Threshold: 98.5%. Objective: 99.9% |
| 2 | Is there a requirement for committed information rate (CIR) versus best effort/maximum information rate (MIR)? | We are requesting what your committed rates are, or what your best effor/maximum information rates could be. |
| 3 | With a target data rate of 100 Mbps, what is the split of upload/download assuming this is an asymmetric link? | Ideally 20-30Mbps upload (off aircraft) and 70-80Mbps download (to aircraft) |
| 4 | Is the desired coverage area truly global coverage or multi regional and are there definitive regions that will not need coverage? | Truly global coverage is desired, with the understanding of HNA limitations. |
| 5 | Could the Government provide the SWaP limitations of the antenna, radome, antenna control system, and satellite modem? | No. If the Government is able to provide this information they will do so before the closing date of the RFI. |
| 6 | What are the mounting limitations/locations for the antenna/radome on the aircraft (i.e. fuselage or tail mount) ? | Tail Mount. |
| 7 | While single-band, single-orbit COMSATCOM offerings have met many communications needs to date, the advent of multi-band, multi-orbit SATCOM solutions represents a significant leap forward in both reliability and operational flexibility. These capabilities promise to deliver unprecedented resilience, global coverage, and adaptability across a range of mission requirements and operating conditions – especially in congested and contested environments. | If applicable, multiband solutions would be considered. |
| 8 | This page intentionally left blank | This page intentionally left blank |
| 9 | Given the transformative potential of these technologies, what are the government’s primary concerns or challenges with adopting and integrating multi-band, multi-orbit SATCOM into their infrastructure for this requirement? | Approved STC for both G5 and G550. Handover times between bands or orbits. Ability to maintain communications in adverse conditions (storms, severe turbulence, etc.) |
| 10 | The RFI references “minimum data rate” of 10x5Mbps, is this to be interpreted as a CIR |
anywhere within the network’s coverage area?
| 1. It is assumed that the “target data rate” (100Mbps) is an MIR; is that correct? | Yes. | |
| 11 | The RFI reference “global flight operations”. As such, will polar coverage >65°N/S be | |
| required? | Yes. | |
| 12 | The RFI references “satellites with inclination up to 12°”. Is this just a capabilities check, | |
| or are there specific satellites expected to be used with this heavy inclination? | There are no specific satellites expected. | |
| 13 | Provide additional clarification on the referenced TRANSEC capabilities/compliance | |
| sought. | FIP 140-3 level 2 with an encryption standard of AES-256 of transmission security over the RF spectrum. | |
| 14 | Provide additional clarification on expected integration timeline, which will influence | |
| proposed capabilities based on market availability of solutions. | This RFI is intended to provide us with a comprehensive overview of existing capabilities in the market. We are focused on collecting information about readily available solutions, and detailed specifications or customized responses are not required at this time | |
| 15 | The RFI mentions “ the area predesigned to support SATCOM systems on the aircraft |
and that the system will not change the airframe integrity or airworthiness” please
| advise which area is being referred to. | Current system is tail mounted. However, with an approved STC changes can be proposed and if approved location can be changed. | ||
| 16 | Confirm the intended aircraft integrator. | Gulfstream | |
| 17 | Confirm the intent is for COTS systems installed per existing STC’s. |
1. For existing STC’s, will commercial FAA STC’s for GV/550 suffice, or must there be
| an MCO approved STC already completed for C-37A/B? | Has to be MCO for C-37A/B. | |
| 18 | Not specifically mentioned in the RFI, but interested to know if private backhaul to USG | |
| networks is required (e.g. NCTAMS LANT/PAC, etc.). | Potentially required. | |
| 19 | The RFI Requirements changed from “STC” to “MIL-STC” in multiple places. It is our |
understanding that there are separate Military Airworthiness Certifications issuing an Airworthiness Release (AWR) and FAA Certifications (STC). While the FAA Military Certification Office (MCO) supports FAA certification of commercial derivative aircraft, there is no specific MIL-STC issued by the FAA that is different than an STC.
Question: Can you please explain the intent of the change and what the definition of MILSTC
| is? Is there a requirement for an existing FAA STC that has also previously received Military AWR? | MCO FAA certification for C-37A/B. | |
| 20 | 1(a) Vendor capability questions states “…demonstrating that the proposed system is |
constrained to the area predesigned to support SATCOM systems on the aircraft…”.
Question: Is it acceptable to offer a solution that is installed in an area that was NOT predesigned by the aircraft OEM to support SATCOM systems, but has airworthiness approval via FAA STC? Example would be a fuselage mounted Electronically Steered
| Antenna (ESA). | For compliance reasons, all equipment must meet existing STC requirements and be formally approved for installation on Gulfstream C-37A/B aircraft. Consequently, we are not in a position to answer questions pertaining to airworthiness certification, engineering modifications, or similar matters at this stage | |
| 21 | 1(c) Vendor capability questions. Airborne commercial SATCOM systems are designed to |
provide inflight connectivity similar to residential or business internet services.
Question: Is there specific land based or onboard support elements the Government is
| concerned about? | The intent of this RFI is to gain a general understanding of the current solution landscape. We encourage vendors to provide information about their standard offerings, as we are not seeking tailored solutions at this preliminary stage. | |
| 22 | 2(s) Certification information | |
| Question: Is WGS a requirement? | No | |
| 23 | 2(s) Certification information. It does not appear that there is a certification standard listed for |
a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) solution such as SpaceX Starshield or Gogo Galileo.
Question: Is the Government interested in a LEO solution? If so, is an additional WGS
| certified system also required? | LEO solutions will be considered, with no WGS certification identified at this time. | |
| 24 | 2(s) Certification information |
Question: Is it required that all data is approved via FAA STC certification? Or is it acceptable to use an existing FAA STC and deviate using FAA DER approved data (8110-3) for the Navy’s specific configuration? Examples would be relocating existing UHF and/or VHF
| antennas or interface to a specific ethernet router not listed in the existing STC. | For compliance reasons, all equipment must meet existing STC requirements and be formally approved for installation on Gulfstream C-37A/B aircraft. Consequently, we are not in a position to answer questions pertaining to airworthiness certification, engineering modifications, or similar matters at this stage | ||
| 25 | Who are the POCs responsible for executing modifications contract? | CSCO | |
| 26 | What is your timeline to have all aircraft modified? | All equipment needs to be available within 6 months of contract award. | |
| 27 | What is the timeline of your funding (i.e.. FY25 or FY26)? | Post FY25 | |
| 28 | Will USN provide all relevant tech pubs and access to data required to perform the | ||
| mod? | USG does not provide tech pubs and access to data that is controlled by Gulfstream. | ||
| 29 | Will USN be responsible for updating the maintenance, flight manuals, etc. or the | ||
| Contractor? | Responsibility for maintance will have to be agreed during contract negotiations. | ||
| 30 | Will USN utilize their own personnel to perform the Quality in-process and signing |
off FAA modification paperwork or delegate this responsibility to the Contractor’s
| Quality? | Quality assurance checks will be a combined responsibility of Gulfstream, USN and the vendor. | ||
| 31 | Will USN allow interested parties to complete an aircraft site survey prior to | ||
| submitting the RFI response? | No, vendors should have general knowledge of the Gulfstream 5 & 550 variants. | ||
| 32 | Who is the airworthiness authority, and can they issue a Military Flight Release | ||
| (MFR)? | The Military Control Office (MCO) is the authority. | ||
| 33 | Will USN be willing to issue an MFR to receive the aircraft prior to FAA paperwork | ||
| closure? | No | ||
| 34 | Will a single STC be required or are MRAs acceptable? | Single STC for Navy C-37A & B | |
| 35 | What communication modification(s) or requirements are you trying to meet that | ||
| are not met? | There are no specific requirements currently not met. This RFI is to provide USN a look at existing/emerging technologies to better equip the C37A/B. | ||
| 36 | What level of integration is required with the existing mission system? |
a. Stand-alone solution
| b. Integrated solution | Vendors should offer their own solution that is able to stand alone and meet the requirements of the RFI. | ||
| 37 | How would Starlink services be managed? | ||
| a. Through the contractor or Space Force | Unknown at this time. | ||
| 38 | How does the USN want to control the antenna? | Antenna should be able to track and lock onto satellite constellation with minimal user interface (i.e. turn on the system). | |
| 39 | Are there any existing communication systems? If so, will they be retained or will | ||
| the contractor be responsible to remove? | The intent of this RFI is to gain a general understanding of the current solution landscape. We encourage vendors to provide information about their standard offerings, as we are not seeking tailored solutions at this preliminary stage. At this time, current solutions are looking at being replaced as they are end of life. | ||
| 40 | Will USN provide a LOPA? (interior cabin layout) | No. | |
| 41 | Will USN provide picture of the exterior showing antennas on the crown skin? | No | |
| 42 | What other vendors or subcontractors have done modifications on the aircraft in | ||
| the past? | All installations have been completed or coordinated through CLS contracts. | ||
| 43 | Will USN provide Electrical Load Supplements for completion center modifications | ||
| to the basic aircraft? | USG does not have the information pertinent to this question. | ||
| 44 | Are there any unallocated outfitter provisions for 115VAC 60Hz power? | Need more detailed information to answer this question. | |
| 45 | Is there an existing VHF antenna with a dual element VHF/TACAN? | This is out of the scope of the RFI. | |
| 46 | Where is the diplexer for the UHF Satcom? | This is out of the scope of the RFI. | |
| 47 | Is there any requirement to route aircraft traffic to government sites? | Yes. | |
| 48 | Are Operation Center Support expectations 24/7/365? | Yes. | |
| 49 | Is there an operator on board that would benefit with an interactive portal? This | ||
| portal would allow for more situational awareness for the user. | Yes. | ||
| 50 | Please define "Lightweight SATCOM solution", is this literally weight? Is there a specific weight Threshold and Objective? Or is lightweight intended to imply low complexity? | Lightweight is intended to imply low complexity. Actual weight determinations will be made with Gulfstream during evaluations. | |
| 51 | Please provide a diagram for the "area predesigned to support SATCOM systems." | Unable to provide this information. | |
| 52 | Please clarify the desired data for min EIRP. | Please provide any information you have on EIRP as requested in the RFI section 2.C. | |
| 53 | Please define "commercially available networks." Are there commercially available networks beyond the Internet that are desired? | Yes, for example a COCO MPLS network. | |
| 54 | Please clarify "Troubleshooting Communications: The capability to communicate with the aircraft crew chief or communications operator on the aircraft during flight and the Network Operation Center (NOC)." | While troubleshooting in flight, the communicator onboard the aircraft as well as engineering support team should have the ability to contact a NOC direct and troubleshoot. | |
| 55 | Please define supporting documentation in the RFI instructions: "the Government is seeking well defined responses with supporting documentation to assist with developing the acquisition strategy." | This is fairly clear. Vendors should provide their solutions with supporting documents showing how that solution meets the RFI requirements. | |
| 56 | Please clarify if the response page limit excludes non-responsive pages such as a cover letter, document cover page, table of contents, etc. | Page limit includes cover letter, document cover page, table of contents, etc. | |
| 57 | Could you provide clarification on the G500 aircraft listed? Does this refer to the C-37A GV airframe? | The USN currently has one G5 (C-37/A) and three G550's(C-37/B), all of which fall under the requirements of this RFI. The G500 listed is a G5 C-37A GV. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .