SSN Questions and Answers.pdf

• Is a drawing/model of the government-designed payload available for review (e.g., form/fit/envelope, mass properties, mounting points, electrical/pinout, thermal/environmental constraints)?

o Additional paperwork will be required before this can be provided.

• If controlled, what is the process to obtain it (NDA, CUI/ITAR, distribution statement)?

o There will be an NDA for all vendors requesting data and an MFR required for vendors who do not have a Facility Clearance.

• Is a drawing/model (or ICD) for the LRPM interface with the Government-designed Launched Effects Dispenser for Ground and Rotorcraft (LEDGR) available for review (mechanical constraints, retention/release, egress envelope, allowable loads, power/comm interfaces, safe/arm constraints)?

o Additional paperwork will be required before this can be provided.

• Is there documentation available that outlines the anticipated safety qualification and material release approach (required test events, standards, required artifacts, governing authorities, and timeline expectations) so we can align our lab/field test plan accordingly?

o Material release process would be completed in accordance with AR 770-3, vendor would be required to support process. Safety will be done in accordance with MIL-STD-882E change 1. The safety program would need to meet the requirements of the various safety board for example fuze, software, and ignition boards.

• Is there additional documentation describing the notional production profile and expectations (ramp schedule, lot structure, configuration control, QA standards, government-furnished items, packaging/handling, acceptance criteria, and any expected production readiness milestones)?

o Vendor to provide recommendations on what a ramp schedule, lot structure, configuration control, QA standards, packaging/handling, acceptance criteria, and production readiness milestones will be.

• Is there any guidance on the notional support concept (fielding locations, training expectations, spares/provisioning, warranty/repair model, depot vs. forward repair, FSR expectations, and reporting requirements)?

o We anticipate fielding to multiple locations (CONUS and OCONUS), please provide us your recommendations for training expectations, spares/provisioning, warranty/repair model, depot vs. forward repair, FSR expectations and reporting requirements.

• Are there any other requirements documents available for interested parties at this time?

Or is the PRD v3.0 currently posted to SAM.gov the only requirements document that will be provided for this RFI?

o There are no other requirements documents available for public release at this time.

• The PRD does not specify whether the Army requires forward air launch or launch of LRPMs at hover. This is an important distinction, is the Army able to provide additional clarification on their desire for this requirement?

o The LEDGR is designed to shoot from the ground or the air, in your response please provide flight envelope restrictions for your system.

• The notional schedule in the PRD notes a target agreement award date of October 2026.

As part of the acquisition process for this capability, does the Army anticipate requiring system demonstrations from interested parties sometime in the Summer of 2026, ahead of an October award?

o No, there is no requirement for system demonstration ahead of award, however, we would be open to observing any vendor executed test event.

• The PRD states that the procurement of all components of the AUR is the responsibility of the contractor and no GFE or GFP will be provided. However, the PRD also notes that one of the three major efforts for the program will be the integration of the Gov’t designed payload section into the commercial air vehicle. Additionally, the PRD LRPM Prototype Definition includes the Gov’t designed payload section, and the project objective is to deliver 200-600 fieldable prototypes. Based on this information, the Army’s vision for execution of the payload section is unclear to our team, can you please provide more information?

• Does the Army intend to provide complete payload sections as Government Furnished Material (GFM), for the LE MR contractor to integrate with the vehicle prior to delivery?

or o Does the Army intend to contract the design/build of the payload section separately, and then the LE MR contractor would engage that third party contractor as a supplier for this LE MR effort and procure the payload sections directly from them?

• The Army will not be providing any GFM/GFE for this effort. A drawing package will be provided and the vendor will be required to acquire the payload section from industry to complete integration and delivery of prototypes.

o Is the Army able to provide any more Size, Weight, and Power (SWAP) details for the payload section at this time?

• Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Should offerors assume the delivery location for prototype systems will be Huntsville, AL?

o No, delivery location is TBD.

• Data specifications and ICD for the USG Seeker package to include size, weight, and volume.

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Data specifications and ICD for the USG Combined Effects Warhead (CEW) with the Electronic Safe and Arm Device (ESAD) and Miniaturized Front End Laser Proximity Sensor (MFELPS) package to include size, weight, and volume.

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Processing requirements on the USG Multiple Simultaneous Engagement Technology

(MSET) software.

o NVIDIA OrinNX processor or similar.

• Can the USG provide the LEDGR ICD/specifications (interface requirements)?

Specifically for SSN response the size, weight, and power requirement for AUR.

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Can the USG provide a target per unit (AUR) price?

o Pricing will not be provided.

• Can the USG provide the interface requirements for the GFE payload? Specifically for SSN response the size, weight and power requirements for the payload?

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Can we expect a single or multiple awards for LE-MR Lethal | LRPM ?

o LE-MR Lethal will have a single award.

• What is the estimated breakdown by FY for the “$100M–$200M” award range?

o 40-120

• Is LEDGR a CLT (common launch tube) or MEL (modular effects launcher)?

o LEDGR uses a common launch tube, MEL provides firing signal.

• What are the technical details for LEDGR? Please provide dimensions, mechanical, power, and comms/data interface details, as well as air vehicle envelope and stowage limitations (e.g. ejection forces), to inform a tailored response?

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Will LE-MR Lethal | LRPM be air and ground launched via LEDGR?

o LRPM will be both air and ground launched via a LEDGR.

• What are the technical details of the payload section (e.g. mass properties, power, and data interface requirements)?

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• What are the events and milestones of the testing phase (e.g. environmental, safety, and launch/flight qualifications)?

o This information will be provided in the future.

• What is the preferred MBSE platform and model exchange standard (e.g. SysML)?

o Cameo or MagicDraw (SysML).

• Is a digital twin required during development?

o Since the vendor is responsible for delevopment this would be the vendor’s decision.

• What are the expectations for post-delivery support (e.g. field service representatives, training support, etc) and are these limited to CONUS or do they include OCONUS?

o We anticipate fielding to multiple locations (CONUS and OCONUS), please provide us your recommendations for training support, ect.

• LEDGR interface — dimensional envelope, mounting interface, electrical/data connections o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Government payload section — mass, CG, and interface requirements o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• MSET software integration requirements o This information is not available for public release currently.

• BMS interface requirements o This information is not available for public release currently.

• SSC specifications o The vendor will be responsible for the SSC; therefore no specifications will be provided.

• Is the Government Payload a fixed size/interface, or can the payload OML and mechanical interface be tailored so that it readily attaches to contractor’s air vehicle and reserves space for other small flight sensors on the front?

o Additional paperwork will have to be completed before this can be provided.

• Is the Army able to provide a CONOPS for the BMS software?

o Not at this time.

• Does the Army expect that the entire launch will be controlled directly from the BMS, or is it expected that the BMS would interface with vendor-provided ground launch software?

o The Army is expecting BMS to control launch.

• Is the Army able to provide a CONOPS for the MSET software?

o Not at this time.

• Is MSET software hosted exclusively on the air vehicle, exclusively on the ground, or are there components of MSET located both in the air and on the ground?

o It is on the air vehicle as well as on the ground.

• Is it expected that MSET will have comms between the air vehicle and the control station for the 100km mission? Will the Army enable these comms via other assets in the area (comms relay nodes, etc.)?

o The Government expects relays to be utilized.

• What is the design reference mission for the LRPM? (team size, controller/human required inputs, contingencies, CONOPs/CONEMPs) o This information is not for public release currently.

• Is there a requirement to provide assets and personnel to support training activities for the LRPM system?

o The vendor will be expected to provide technical and sustainment support to U.S.

Army units who are fielded the LRPM AUR.

• Is the Army able to provide an ICD, Specifications, and CONOPS for the LEDGR so responders can fully assess compatibility and integration requirements?

o The ICD can be provided after additional paperwork is completed.

• Will there be an ICD provided in the future for the individual LWIR, CEW, ESAD, and

MFELPS components, or will the whole Payload assembly have a single ICD?

o Yes.

• What is the weight of the payload, and what is its center of gravity position from the air vehicle interface?

o It is dependent on how the vendor packages the payload.

• What is the power requirement for the payload?

• This information will be provided in the future.

• Is the Army able to provide an ICD for the BMS software?

• These questions will be addressed in a future draft or final solicitation.

• Please describe the information that is exchanged between MSET and the LRPM, and at what rates? Do they communicate per existing standards such as OMS/UCI?

• These questions will be addressed in a future draft or final solicitation.

• Is the Army able to provide a Software ICD for the MSET software?

• These questions will be addressed in a future draft or final solicitation.

• Will MSET and BMS software or software simulators be made available to facilitate testing and verification?

• Yes.

• Is there a software simulation available for the LWIR, CEW, ESAD, and MFELPS components?

• No.

• What types of environmental and qualification testing are required for the integrated system?

• This will be addressed in the SOW upon contract award, however, it will be Basic

Safety and Environmental testing at a minimum.

• If the system will be air launched, will the government facilitate testing with a specific rotary wing platform (if so, which one?), or is the contractor expected to coordinate their own rotary wing test asset to use for air launch integrated testing?

• These questions will be addressed in a future draft or final solicitation.

• What does the term "precise", as used in the PRD, mean in terms of strike accuracy? Is there a CEP objective/threshold?

• We are seeking what vendors are capable of with current/proposed systems.

• Can the Army please provide an estimated schedule of TDP and qualification testing deliverables? Will they be required during prototype development or only for the production units? Is there guidance for what qualification testing & TDP rigor will be required?

• This documentation will be provided upon contract award.

• Will the USG-designed Payload TDP contain mechanical/electrical detail-component drawings that the contractor can build directly from? Or preliminary designs and layout that the contractor will be responsible for drafting/manufacturing?

• They will contain mechanical/electrical detail component drawings.

• For the Combined Effects Warhead is it expected that the prime contractor will team with a company certified to procure/receive/store/assemble/ship explosives in order to manufacture and deliver AUR systems?

• Please provide the solution you think it best as the vendor.

• Is a single LWIR sufficient for engaging a target (does it also provide a target ID?), or is geolocation using multiple LWIR required to generate a WQT?

• These questions will be addressed in a future draft or final solicitation.

• Does the Army anticipate a DPAS rating being assigned to this acquisition, to help avoid production bottlenecks from suppliers?

• LRPM is a DPAS rated program.