REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) - Aerial Targets FINAL.pdf

RFI Number:

FA8678-26-AFSAT-R0001

Request for Information (RFI) for

Aerial Targets Branch (EBAY) Air Force Aerial Target Solutions

RFI Number: FA8678-26-AFSAT-R0001

Agency: Department of the Air Force: Air Force Materiel Command Location: AFLCMC/EBA - Eglin

Notice Type: Request for Information

Posted Date: 14 AUGUST 2026

Response Date: 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

Archiving Policy: Manual Archive

Archive Date: N/A

Original Set Aside: N/A

Set Aside: N/A

NAICS Code: 336413, Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

PSC/FSC: 1550 – Drones: Targets, Training, Missile Evaluation

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION for Aerial Targets Branch (EBAY) Air Force Aerial Target Solutions

1. Purpose and Authority

Issued pursuant to Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) FAR 15.101(c) and RFO FAR Part 10 solely for information, market research, and planning purposes. This market survey is conducted by the Aerial Targets Program Office (AFLCMC/EBAY) under the Air Force Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Weapons (AFPAE/WP) to obtain industry capabilities, rough order of magnitude (ROM) information, and data needed to support commercial product/service, non-developmental item (NDI), and small business determinations under RFO FAR 10.001(f), and to inform acquisition planning.

1.1 Mission Context

Per Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) §4172, major munitions and missile programs must demonstrate lethality against appropriate, threat-representative targets prior to full-rate production.

The Aerial Targets mission is to provide target aircraft that replicate threat systems, including performance, signatures, and countermeasures of adversary aircraft.

The objective of this RFI is to identify a range of solutions to populate a family of systems needed throughout the spectrum of missions in Defensive and Offensive Counter Air capabilities. These solutions may represent the full range of airborne threats, spanning from inexpensive “hobby drones” to the most advance adversary fighter and large-scale aircraft.

This RFI is intended to:

● Identify commercially available or near-term solutions

● Understand industry capabilities and innovative approaches

● Inform future acquisition strategies and budgetary requirements and assist the agency in making commerciality, NDI, and small business set-aside determinations

1.2 Multi-Category Submission Flexibility

To maximize industry participation and discover specialized technology, the Government invites respondents to submit separate, independent responses for each of tiers outlined in Section 5.1 Family of Targets Tiered Framework Vendors are not required to propose a single platform that covers the entire spectrum; instead, they may target their responses specifically to their areas of core capabilities.

1.3 THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY

This RFI is issued pursuant to RFO FAR 15.101(c) and RFO FAR Part 10 solely for information, market research, and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), a promise to issue an RFP, or a commitment to contract for any supply or service. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or otherwise pay for the information requested. Responses will be treated as information only and not as proposals, and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. The Air Force is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals.

Submission is voluntary. The U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding are solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if one is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on SAM.gov; potential offerors are responsible for monitoring that site for additional information pertaining to this requirement. Responses will not be returned.

Respondents are solely responsible for properly marking and clearly identifying any intellectual property or other proprietary information contained within their response. Commercial technical data and computer software submitted will be protected in accordance with R-DFARS 227.7102 and R-DFARS 227.7202.

Intellectual property and other proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with applicable Government regulations. The Government will not be liable for any consequential damages for any intellectual property or other proprietary information not properly marked. Furthermore, submission of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), modified commercial, or dual-use data in response to this RFI does not grant the Government unlimited rights nor a license to transfer proprietary design concepts to third-party competitors or future contractors.

The Government will not accept unsolicited proposals in accordance with RFO 15.5 nor be obligated to pursue any particular alternative as a result of this RFI or as a result of any responses received, questions asked or answers posted to SAM.gov. Responses will not be returned. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, should one be issued.

2.0 Background Information

This is a market survey conducted by the Aerial Targets Program Office (AFLCMC/EBAY) under the Air Force Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Weapons (AFPAE/WP). Per Title 10, U.S.C. §4172, major munitions and missile programs must demonstrate lethality against appropriate, threat-representative targets prior to full-rate production.

The Aerial Targets mission is to provide target aircraft that replicate threat systems, including performance, signatures, and countermeasures of adversary aircraft.

Historically, this mission has been supported by:

● BQM-167A (since 2007):

A subscale, remotely controlled, subsonic aerial target launched via rocket-assisted takeoff from a rail system and controlled through the Advanced Airborne Threat Target Control System (AATTCS), a government owned and operated ground-based command and control system.

○ Recoverable via parachute (land or water)

○ Reusable after repair and testing

○ Capable of carrying payloads:

■ Internal payloads such as chaff/flare dispensers

■ External payloads including scoring systems, infrared/radar enhancements, and electronic attack pods

○ Supports regular operational test missions with an established attrition and recovery cycle. ~100 missions annually with ~26 losses

● QF-16 (in service since 2017):

A full-scale aerial target providing a threat representation and supports internal and external payloads.

As operational environments evolve, there is increasing demand for:

• Lower-cost, scalable target systems

• Flexible and rapidly deployable solutions

• Platforms that can be treated as attritable or expendable when required

• Increased complexity, number, and SWaP-C of electronic payloads (GFE & Industry)

The Government is interested in evaluating the full spectrum of market capabilities, including commercial, modified commercial, dual-use, and non-developmental solutions. The Government is particularly interested in non-traditional, commercially derived, or dual-use solutions that offer advantages in cost, scalability, and simplicity over legacy systems.

3.0 Priority Areas of Emphasis

The Government seeks information across the following priority areas. Respondents are not required to address all areas and should focus on areas where they have relevant capabilities.

3.1 Affordability

Solutions should minimize total lifecycle costs, including broad order-of-magnitude unit cost bands, unit cost and/or one-time use cost, and operating cost. Low-cost, scalable production approaches are of particular interest to the Government.

3.2 Attritability

Solutions may be designed with the expectation that systems may be lost or destroyed during operations.

The Government is interested in systems that are cost-effective enough to be expendable. Specifically, solutions may target a minimum service life. An example of this lifecycle is 10 flights and an approximately 30 flight-hour lifetime before loss or destruction. Designs should actively avoid reliance on high-cost components.

3.3 Recoverability (Launch and Recovery)

Where practical, systems should support safe and efficient launch and recovery operations. Launch options may include standard runway operations as well as ground-based assisted or rail launch systems.

Recovery options should encompass runway landings and/or parachute recovery (over land or water).

Recovery processes must minimize damage and reconstitution time; however, recoverability should not come at the expense of affordability or systemic simplicity.

3.4 Repairability

Recoverable solutions should be easily repairable in field or austere environments. Systems must be designed with modular or replaceable components and utilize commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts where practical. Furthermore, the system must be maintainable with minimal tools, training, or specialized equipment.

4.0 Capability Areas of High Interest

To maximize technological discovery, the Government encourages submissions that span the full spectrum of aerial platform architectures. The Government is receptive to a wide variety of approaches, including low-cost commercial derivatives, purpose-built attritable systems, and highly specialized tactical sub-scale targets. The objective is to identify a diverse range of methodologies capable of satisfying the specified performance requirements, as these target solutions will be tested in live fire settings. Respondents may propose single-platform solutions, modular system families, or hybrid architectures.

Proposed solutions should demonstrate threat-representative aerial target capabilities and flexible performance characteristics. Submissions should detail compatibility with existing or adaptable control systems, such as the Air Force’s Advanced Airborne Threat Target Control System (AATTCS) or Satellite Communications (SATCOM) capable. If the proposed system is not compatible with AATTCS, respondents are asked to provide the capabilities and associated costs of maintaining their alternative control system and update cycle.

Physical platforms should have on-board aerial target flight termination resources that ensure required range safety (i.e., aircraft destruct, thrust control neutralization and parachute deploy).

Respondents should describe (at a summary level) the maturity of their system's design and any existing modeling, simulation, or flight test data that validates performance claims. The Government is not requesting submission of six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) flight models, computational electromagnetic (EM) simulations, or formal Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE/SysML) artifacts at this stage.

Payload & Architecture Ideal solutions will feature a modular (government and/or industry), open architecture designed for rapid payload integration, with an airframe design that accommodates necessary antenna placement and frequency coverage.

Internal Payloads: Systems should possess sufficient internal volume, power generation, and active cooling to support simultaneous operations. Respondents should detail their system’s Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C) allocation, explaining the margins available to control independent payload systems simultaneously (i.e. EA suites, countermeasures, scoring systems, expendable munitions). Additionally, identify availability, dimensions, locations, and support for various antenna apertures.

External Payloads: We also welcome details on optional external payload capabilities, including how they maintain independent control and power while integrating with internal systems, along with an acknowledgment of their impact on the system's RCS.

AATTCS Subsystem - Command and Control (C2)

Respondent’s Command and Control (C2) system availability should be described but not limited to the utilization of the AATTCS government system as described below. If respondents C2 utilizes a different system, describe the system capabilities, characteristics, and overall cost of full deployment of the system if it is a separate cost from the proposed target. A SATCOM Capability that allows target deployment to various to be determined locations is a desired capability.

The AATTCS subsystem is a hardware (HW)/software (SW) resource comprised of control consoles (display monitors, control sticks, and push button controls), primary servers, and backup servers. The subsystem enables aerial target track and control, to include remote, manual operator target control and autonomous takeoff/ landing, maneuvers, and waypoint navigation. Target Control is achieved through Radio Frequency (RF) uplink/downlink data messages between the AATTCS subsystem and mission aerial targets via datalink connected to RF antennas placed on range sites (i.e., towers and/or buildings) in and around designated Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) ranges. Current efforts to modernize target control using SATCOM for command and control are underway.

The existing AATTCS HW/SW (source and executable code) are owned and maintained by the Government. The SW is continuously developed following agile practices with multiple version releases per year. The Government has both unlimited rights and Government purpose rights to the technical data packages (TDP) associated with the system.

In accordance with Department of War Instruction, command and control systems shall be encrypted by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 level 1 or higher encrypted method.

Production Readiness

While the Government is highly interested in mature solutions that have achieved a Technology (TRL) of 7+ and a Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 6+, these levels are not mandatory to respond to this

RFI.

We invite respondents to explain how these capabilities integrate into the broader system architecture, including power requirements, effective ranges, and concepts of employment.

Respondents are also invited to share insights into any modularity within their design that allows the system to transition effectively between these target groups, as well as the hardware or software reconfigurations involved.

4.1 Large Full-Scale Target (LFSAT) and Extra-Large Full-Scale Target (ELFSAT) Attributes

The LFSAT represents a critical class of targets designed to address the physical size, signature representation, and varying operational envelopes of adversary assets. Proposing platforms are evaluated against broad profiles to meet distinct testing needs:

• Tactical Fighter Replication Profile: For missions replicating advanced 4th-and 5th-generation threat fighters, platforms must demonstrate high-fidelity performance envelopes. This includes supersonic capabilities (up to and exceeding Mach 1.6 at 40,000 ft), high-agility/high-G combat maneuvers, precise low-observable Radar Cross-section (RCS) profiles, multi-spectral Infrared (IR) signatures, active RF emissions, and integrated Electronic Attack (EA) capabilities.

• Heavy Transport and Bomber Scale Profile: Not all LFSAT missions require high-performance, fighter-like agility. To replicate threats in the heavy transport/bomber similar to a C-130H or logistics class, the target is not required to fly supersonic or execute high-G maneuvers. Instead, the focus is on matching the physical scale, slow subsonic flight envelopes, and propeller or turbofan propulsion characteristics of larger multi-engine aircraft. These platforms must prioritize representative physical volume, basic RF/IR emissions, and realistic radar returns to verify missile seeker guidance, and warhead lethality against large-frame targets.

The ELFSAT category focuses on the high-fidelity representation of extra-large adversary strategic asses, such as heavy bomber and Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft. These targets do not require supersonic speed or tactical maneuvering. It concentrates on replicating the massive physical dimensions, multi-spectral thermal signatures, and heavy-aircraft radar strategic threats.

4.2 Subscale to Smaller Target Performance Attributes

Target solution(s) should accurately represent a range of threat systems including advanced 5th generation aircraft and/or inexpensive, low-cost expendable drones.

Target Performance & Payload Attributes:

Target solution(s) should accurately represent a range of threat systems including advanced fifth-generation aircraft or low-cost expendable drones. Physical platforms should possess robust flight performance, operating across a wide envelope with operational altitudes ranging from approximately 500

ft. to 50,000 ft. while maintaining maneuverability representative of threat systems. Physical platforms should allocate sufficient Size, Weight, Power, and Cooling (SWaP-C) to support modular testing payloads, multi-spectral signature emitters (RF/IR), real-time scoring systems, and onboard flight termination resources for range safety. Physical platforms should allocate sufficient Size, Weight, power, and Cooling (SWaP-C) to support modular testing payloads, multi-spectral signature emitters (RF/IR) and real-time scoring systems. Submissions should account for representative Radio Frequency (RF) and Electronic Attack (EA) emissions, appropriate Radar Cross-Section (RCS) signatures, and realistic Infrared (IR) signatures.

5.0 Desired Solution Characteristics

While not strictly required, ideal solutions will exhibit several desired characteristics that enhance operational flexibility and cost-effectiveness. The Government is highly interested in systems that leverage low-cost, scalable manufacturing techniques, including commercial integration or advanced additive manufacturing methods.

5.1 Family of Targets (FoT) Tiered Framework

To balance the competing demands of high-fidelity threat emulation, operational affordability, and attritability, respondents are encouraged to indicate where their proposed solutions align within a modular Family of Targets framework:

Target Threat Opportunity 1 (Tier 1): High-End Reusable Subscale Target to Full-Scale Target (UAS Group 5, LFSAT, ELFSAT)

• Operational Intent: Serves as the primary emulator for both advanced, low-observable 5th-generation adversary fighters and large/extra-large full scale strategic assets in high-end testing, training and evaluation environments.

• Primary Focus: High-Fidelity Representation & Survivability. These systems are intended to be highly reusable, incorporating sophisticated recovery systems (e.g., runway, parachute, or net recovery) to preserve expensive onboard payloads.

• Performance & Scaling Trade space: This tier accommodates a high flexible performance trade space split across threat profiles:

o Heavy/Strategic Scale Profile: Does not require supersonic speed or tactical maneuvering. Focuses on matching the physical scale, slower subsonic flight envelopes, multi-spectral thermal signatures, and heavy aircraft radar returns of multi engine propeller or turbofan platforms.

o Tactical Fighter Replication Profile: Requires high-fidelity performance envelopes including supersonic capabilities, high-agility/high-G combat maneuvers, precise low-observable Radar Cross-Section (RCS), and integrated Electronic Attack (EA) payloads.

o Subscale Profile: The performance parameters listed below represent desired system capabilities to support high-fidelity threat replication. The Government is seeking to understand the current state of market capabilities and potential design trades.

Respondents are strongly encouraged to submit their solutions even if their platforms only satisfy one or two of the components described below. These parameters are intended as guiding objectives and do not serve as strict, mandatory Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) or barriers to entry.

o Speed (Desired): High subsonic to supersonic flight envelopes (ranging from Mach 0.9 to supersonic regimes) to replicate the intercept and run-down profiles of modern threat systems.

o Maneuverability (Desired): Capability to execute representative defensive maneuvers and evasion tactics, with target thresholds of up to 5G sustained and 9G instantaneous load factors.

o Signature Representation (Desired): Integration of active or passive Radar Cross-Section (RCS) signature reduction technologies, alongside multi-spectral Infrared (IR) signatures, to realistically emulate advanced 5th-generation adversary aircraft.

o Payload & Active Mission System Integration (Desired): Generous internal payload capacity and power routing designed to support the carriage and simultaneous operation of active Electronic Warfare (EW) suites, Digital Radio

Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers, active RF emissions simulators, and standard countermeasures dispensers (e.g., ALE-47).

Target Threat Opportunity 2 (Tier 2): Attritable Mid-Tier Target (UAS Groups 3 & 4): Bridges high-end emulation and expendable mass for live-fire missile testing. Focuses on a balanced cost-to-performance ratio, transonic speed, and modular open architecture.

• Operational Intent: Bridges the gap between high-end emulation and expendable mass. These targets are utilized for live-fire missile testing, fleet-defense exercises, and weapon system validation where target loss is an acceptable operational outcome.

• Primary Focus: Balanced Cost-to-Performance Ratio. Designed with a modular, open-architecture framework allowing rapid payload swaps using Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components.

• These parameters are intended as guiding objectives and do not serve as strict, mandatory Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) or barriers to entry.

o Speed: Transonic (Mach 0.5 to 0.8) o Maneuverability: Moderate maneuvering capabilities (3G sustained, 6G instantaneous).

o Attritability: Low-cost construction permitting a designed service life of 10 flights if not destroyd.

o Launch/Recovery: Flexible launch options (e.g., pneumatic catapult, zero-length rocket assist) and minimal footprint recovery.

Target Threat Opportunity 3 (Tier 3): Low-Cost Expendable Target (UAS Groups 1 & 2): Emulates low-slow-small (LSS) threats and commercially derived drones. Focuses on ultra-low unit cost, non-developmental items (NDI), and mass scalability.

• Operational Intent: Emulates low-slow-small (LSS) threats, commercially derived suicide drones, and mass swarming tactics. These targets are strictly expendable and designed to be shot down in high volumes during air defense and close-in weapon system (CIWS) training.

• Primary Focus: Ultra-Low Cost & Mass Scalability. Maximizes the use of non-developmental items (NDI) and standard commercial components to drive unit costs down to the absolute minimum.

• These parameters are intended as guiding objectives and do not serve as strict, mandatory Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) or barriers to entry.

• Speed: Low to moderate (<150 knots).

• Maneuverability: Basic flight paths and simple waypoint navigation.

• Operational Concept: Optimized for rapid, multi-vehicle swarm launches to test automated threat-allocation and multi-target engagement systems.

Overview of Tier 1, 2, and 3

Target Threat Opportunity 1 (Tier 1) Target Threat Opportunity 2 (Tier 2)

Target Threat Opportunity 3 (Tier 3)

Classification

Group 5 & Full-Scale (Advanced Fighter, LFSAT and ELFSAT)

Group 3 & 4 UAS (Operations / Cruise)

Group 1 & 2 UAS (Tactical)

Primary Focus

Performance and Signature

Cost and Performance

Unit Cost, Scalability, and Swarm Capability

Note: Respondents may align their systems based primarily on operating altitude and mission envelope capabilities rather than strict weight thresholds.

DoD UAS Group Classification Alignment The Government welcomes companies to provide information on their capabilities or solutions for any or all the DoD UAS Group Classification (Group 1 through 5). Wherever your technology offers specialized, niche solutions for any or all the DoD UAS Group Classifications (Groups 1 through 5). Whether your technology offers specialized, niche solution for a single tier or a scalable approach across multiple groups, we encourage you to share how your system aligns with these categories.

For the purpose of this RFI, respondents should align their systems based primarily on operating altitude capabilities, rather than strict Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight (MGTW) or speed limitations. While operating altitude is the primary classification criterion, speed and maneuverability figures are descriptive of Government interest, not entry barriers or KPPs.

Platforms that fit a tier by altitude (or mission role) but differ on speed/maneuver should still submit under that tier and explain the trade space.:

• Groups 1-4: Submissions should focus on how the system’s operating altitude profiles align with these respective groups, noting that traditional weight and speed constraints will not be the primary limiting factors for this evaluation.

• Group 5: Proposed solutions should demonstrate high-altitude performance capabilities reaching up to 50,000 ft or higher. It is important to note that Group 5 submissions are not limited by the physical size or heavy weight thresholds typically associated with this group, provided they can meet the altitude and operational performance metrics.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12797/IF12797.2.pdf and DoD Joint Publication 3-30, Command and Control for Joint Air Operations.

5.3 Model Based System Engineering (MBSE)

Respondents are requested to provide a statement regarding the availability of Modeling and Simulation (M&S). If M&S is available, respondents are encouraged to share, at a summary level, their capability to produce MBSE artifacts, including Systems Modeling Language (SysML) of each system or target, and the fidelity and capability of M&S environments. Do not submit formal MBSE/SysML source packages, 6-DOF flight models, or computational EM simulations with the RFI response.

6. Requested Information

AFLCMC/EBAY is requesting written responses and capability briefings from industry. The Government reserves the right to conduct follow-up discussions with respondents within 30 days of receipt to clarify capability details.

6.1 Submission Scope & Flexibilities

Targeted Capabilities: Responses are not required to address every mission area or requirement in full detail. Targeted feedback on specific sections, partial solutions, specialized components, or https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12797/IF12797.2.pdf niche capabilities is highly encouraged. We encourage submissions spanning the entire spectrum of aerial designs, ranging from small-to-medium UAS to traditional, high-performance, sub-scale aerial targets.

Alternative Acquisition Models: Industry is encouraged to propose alternative business and acquisition models. This includes, but is not limited to, Contractor-Owned and Contractor- Operated (COCO) service arrangements utilizing a base fee combined with a target replacement structure.

Voluntary Demonstrations: The Government welcomes voluntary technology or capability demonstrations that highlight proposed solutions. Respondents are expressly advised that any such demonstrations should be conducted strictly at no cost to the Government. The Government assumes no financial liability for any costs incurred in the preparation or execution of these demonstrations, nor does participation or observation constitute a contractual obligation, agreement, or an implied commitment to future procurement.

6.2 Requested Information Categories

Respondents are asked to address the following functional areas and characteristics in their submissions:

Company Information: Submissions must include the Name of the Company, CAGE code, SAM Unique Entity ID (EID), mailing address, phone number, and email. Please designate a Point of Contact (POC) for further clarification or questions, and provide details on business size, relevant experience, and past performance.

Solution Overview: Provide a general system description, Concept of Operations (CONOPS), and current maturity level (e.g., concept, prototype, fielded). Define the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the proposed system. Submissions must also include an operational view (OV-1) that provides a high-level graphical and textual description of your design and/or operational concept.

Alignment to Priority Areas & Technical Characteristics: Respondents should provide a detailed description of how the solution addresses affordability, attritability, recoverability, and repairability. Detail the high-level system size and class, the performance envelope (approximate ranges are acceptable), and any payload or modular capabilities.

Production, Scalability, and Sustainment: Describe the proposed manufacturing approach, estimated baseline production capacity, and the ability to scale production.

Additionally, outline the lifecycle considerations, including the maintenance concept, repair approach, and overall reuse versus replacement strategy.

Cost Information: Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimated unit cost range for the proposed solution and identify the system’s primary cost drivers.

Submissions should outline estimated Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs for development and projected Operations and Sustainment (O&S) costs over the system’s lifecycle. Additionally, respondents must include an estimated development schedule and standard production lead times to field the proposed technology.

Commerciality and Non-developmental Item (NDI) Status (RFO FAR 10.001(f)):

For each proposed solution, respondents should state whether the solution is: (1) a commercial product or commercial service available on an existing governmentwide contract; (2) a commercial product or commercial service that could be modified to meet the agency’s requirements; (3) a commercial product or commercial service available from another source; (4) a non-developmental item; or (5) a non-commercial, developmental item. If commercial, modified commercial, or NDI, briefly describe the basis (e.g., sold in substantial quantities to the general public, type of commercial marketplace, used by multiple government agencies, developed at private expense). This information is requested solely to support the Government’s market research determinations under RFO FAR 10.001(f) and is limited to the minimum information necessary for that purpose.

7. 0 Responses

Small Business Participation: Respondents should identify any anticipated subcontracting opportunities, including portions of the effort intended for small business, small-disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned, or service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. This information supports the Government’s small business strategy determination under RFO FAR Part 19. Respondents are also requested to disclose their status as a Foreign-owned/Foreign-controlled firm and any contemplated use of foreign national employees in this effort.

7.1 White Paper Format

Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI with a white paper. White papers in Microsoft Word for Office 365 compatible format shall be submitted via e-mail only to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Keith Clift, at keith.clift@us.af.mil, and to Contracting Specialists (CS), Nicholas Ardito, at nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil and Amanda Hensley, at amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil. Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information.

Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned, subject to proprietary marking and safeguarding requirements stated herein.

7.2 Section 1 — Administrative Information

Section 1 of the white paper shall provide administrative information and shall include the following as a minimum. Section 1 is excluded from the page limitation in Section 7.3 / Section 8.0.

7.2.1 Name, mailing address, overnight delivery address (if different from mailing address), phone number, fax number, and e-mail of designated point of contact.

7.2.2 Recommended contracting strategy.

7.2.3 The Government may use advisory and assistance (A&AS) / support contractors to assist in technical review of RFI responses. Those contractors are bound by existing non-disclosure and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation arrangements with the Government and may use respondent information solely to furnish independent technical assistance on this market research.

mailto:keith.clift@us.af.mil mailto:nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil mailto:amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil

If a support contractor will gain access to a respondent’s proprietary information, that contractor must agree with the respondent to protect the information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and to refrain from using it for any purpose other than assisting the Government on this RFI. The Contracting Officer will obtain copies of those agreements and ensure they are properly executed.

Therefore respondents must elect one of the following:

(a) Consent via Respondent-Provided NDA. The respondent authorizes the Government to provide its submission to AFLCMC/EBAY support contractors assisting on this RFI, conditioned on execution of the respondent’s non-disclosure / proprietary-protection agreement by the applicable support contractor (or its authorized representative). To select (a), the respondent shall include in its submission a clean, executable copy of its standard NDA or equivalent protective terms. The Government will route the instrument to the applicable support contractor for signature. Upon full execution, the Contracting Officer will retain a copy in the file, and only then may the submission be released to that support contractor.

(b) Government-Only Review. The respondent does not authorize release to support contractors. Review will be limited to designated Government personnel.

Default. If the respondent does not make an affirmative election under (a), elects (a) but fails to include an executable NDA/protective terms, or the support contractor declines to execute (or the Government determines the terms are unacceptable), the Government will treat the submission as electing (b). No submission will be provided to a support contractor without an executed agreement satisfying RFO 9.505-4(b).

Recommended content of respondent NDAs under election (a) includes: protection against unauthorized use or disclosure; duration for as long as the information remains proprietary; use limited solely to assisting the Government’s review of this RFI;

identification of the signing support contractor at execution; and signature by an authorized representative of the respondent. Terms that impose indemnity, non-federal choice-of-law/venue, liquidated damages, broad audit rights, or other conditions the Government or support contractor cannot accept may result in treatment under election (b).

7.2.4 Business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) based upon North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413. “Small business concern” means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR part 121. A small business concern for the purposes of this market research is generally defined as a business, including its affiliates, averaging no more than 1,250 employees (for NAICS 336413, as of date of this posting). Annual receipts of a concern that has been in business for 3 or more complete fiscal years means the annual average gross revenue of the concern taken for the last 3 fiscal years. Annual receipts of a concern that has been in business for less than 3 complete fiscal years means its total receipts for the period it has been in business, divided by the number of weeks including fractions of a week that it has been in business, and multiplied by 52. Respondents are cautioned, however, that this is a general description only. Additional standards and conditions apply. Please refer to RFO FAR Part 19 for additional detailed information on Small Business Size Standards. The RFO (FAR Overhaul) is available at Acquisition.gov.

7.2.5 The facility security clearance of the respondent (if any).

7.2.6 Commerciality & NDI Statement: Provide a brief statement indicating whether the proposed solution is a commercial product, a modified commercial product, a nondevelopmental item (NDI), or other, consistent with Section 6.2, and identify any existing governmentwide contract vehicles currently carrying the item or similar commercial derivatives, if known.

7.2.7 C2 and Security Compliance: State whether the platform interfaces with AATTCS or utilizes an alternative C2 architecture, and confirm compliance or compatibility pathways with NIST FIPS 140-2 level 1 (or higher) encryption standards for command and telemetry links.

7.3 Section 2 — Technical Response

Section 2 of the white paper shall address the issues in Sections 3 through 6 of this RFI and shall be limited as stated in Section 8.0 (10 pages per tier package for the core written narrative).

8. 0 Submission Details All submissions must be provided in Microsoft Word format and adhere to the following guidelines, deadline, and page limitations:

Submission Deadline: To allow sufficient time to submit responses this RFI will be open for exactly 45 calendar days from time of posting. This means that: Tier 3 Low-Cost Expendable Target (UAS Groups 1 & 2), Tier 2 Attritable Mid-Tier Target (UAS Groups 3 & 4), and Tier 1 High-End Reusable Subscale Target to Full-Scale Target (UAS Group 5, LFSAT, ELFSAT) are all due no later than 28 SEPTEMBER 2026, 1600 CENTRAL TIME. Any and all submissions received after this deadline will not be reviewed.

Tier-Specific Responses: Respondents may submit separate packages for one or more of the Target Tiers (Tiers 1, 2, or 3) outlined in Section 5.1. Respondents are limited to submitting one response package per target tier. The target tier being addressed must be clearly identified on the first page of each submission.

• Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Statement: Every response package should include information regarding availability, fidelity, and capability of your platform’s modeling and simulation environments, software integration, or digital twins (summary level only).

• Command and Control (C2) System Information: Each individual tier submission must prioritize and detail the platform’s Command and Control (C2) architecture to include procurement/sustainment cost and capability for connectivity with current Government C2.

• Page Limit (Per Tier): The core written narrative for each tier submission is strictly limited to a maximum of 10 pages. This limit applies independently to each tier package.

• Document Formatting: Single-spaced text, 12-point font, with standard 1-inch margins, and provided exclusively in Microsoft Word format.

• Excluded Appendices: The following appendices are excluded from the 10-page limit but must be clearly labeled and referenced within the core narrative:

• One-Page Technical Summary: A mandatory one-page datasheet summarizing key vehicle metrics (i.e., length, wingspan, thrust, payload capacity, maximum speed, operational altitude ceiling, maneuver limits, fuel capacity, range, and endurance).

Multiple one-page technical summaries are permitted for each proposed target/group of targets.

• Illustrative Matter: Supporting technical drawings, schematics, charts, OV-1 graphics, and digital modeling images. Do NOT submit 6-DOF flight models, computational EM simulations, formal MBSE/SysML source packages, or certified cost or pricing data.

High-level maturity and cost ROM summaries are sufficient.

Single Submission Channel: Final respondent white papers and related graphical/textual descriptive data shall be submitted via e-mail only to Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Keith Clift, at keith.clift@us.af.mil, and to Contracting Specialists (CS), Nicholas Ardito, at nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil and Amanda Hensley, at amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil. Do not use alternate physical mail or multi-channel submission unless the Government later amends this notice on SAM.gov.

9.0 Industry Discussions

AFLCMC/EBAY representatives may or may not meet with respondents. Any discussions are only to clarify potential capability, including development and certification risks. The Government may conduct follow-up exchanges with respondents within 30 days after receipt of a response. The Government is not required to meet with all respondents and will not disclose one firm’s proprietary information to another.³

10.0 Questions

Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted by 28 AUGUST 2026, 1600 CENTRAL TIME in writing, via e-mail only to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Keith Clift, at keith.clift@us.af.mil, and to Contracting Specialists (CS), Nicholas Ardito, at nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil and Amanda Hensley, at amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil. The Government will respond with answers to questions by 11 SEPTEMBER 2026, 1600 CENTRAL TIME. Verbal questions will NOT be accepted.

Questions shall not contain proprietary or classified information. Answers will be posted to SAM.gov.

The Government does NOT guarantee that questions received after 28 AUGUST 2026, 1600 CENTRAL will be answered.

11.0 Data Protection, NAICS Code, Data Rights, and Support Contractor Access All respondents are requested to provide their status as a U.S. company, large business, small business, small-disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone, or service-disabled veteran-owned small business, per NAICS code 336413. Respondents should also indicate the type and percentage of work that would be subcontracted, including portions intended for socio-economic concerns of interest to the Government. Respondents are requested to disclose their status as a Foreign-owned/Foreign-controlled firm and any contemplated use of foreign national employees in this effort.

Respondents must be registered in the Government’s System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov to do business with the Air Force. Active registration in SAM is not required to submit a response to this RFI but will be required prior to award of any future contract pursuant to RFO 4.203-1(b). Respondents are requested to provide their Unique Entity ID (UEI) and CAGE code if they are currently registered.

Commercial Technical Data and Computer Software Rights Protection: Pursuant to R-DFARS

227.7102 and R-DFARS 227.7202, commercial technical data and commercial computer software mailto:keith.clift@us.af.mil mailto:nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil mailto:amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil mailto:keith.clift@us.af.mil mailto:nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil https://www.sam.gov/ submitted in response to this RFI are protected under customary commercial practices and standard commercial license terms. The Government will not use, reproduce, or disclose commercial technical data or software for any purpose other than market research evaluation without express written consent.

Submission of COTS, modified commercial, or dual-use data does not grant the Government unlimited rights or authorize transfer of proprietary concepts to third parties.

Data Rights Assertion Mechanism: Respondents may assert specific data rights restrictions on their submissions by clearly marking restricted data with appropriate assertions (i.e., “Limited Rights,” “Government Purpose Rights,” “Restricted Rights”) consistent with DFARS 227.7103 and DFARS

227.7203. Respondents are encouraged to identify proprietary algorithms, signature models, or system architectures subject to restriction.

Information Safeguarding: In accordance with RFO FAR 15.101(c)(4), information received in response to this RFI will be safeguarded adequately from unauthorized disclosure. The Contracting Officer will mark all received information with the date and time of receipt and provide it only to designated Government officials. Information will be provided to Government support contractors assisting in the evaluation of this RFI only if the respondent made an affirmative election under section 7.2.3(a) of this RFI, included executable NDA/protective terms, and an agreement satisfying RFO FAR 9.505-4(b) has been fully executed by the applicable support contractor, a copy of which will be retained by the Contracting Officer. Government support contractors assisting on this RFI are also bound by non-disclosure and OCI mitigation frameworks pursuant to RFO FAR 9.504 and RFO FAR 9.505, and will access data solely to furnish independent and impartial technical assistance to the Government. Support-contractor access is controlled exclusively by the respondent’s election under section 7.2.3 and completion of that execution/retention step. In the absence of an affirmative section 7.2.3(a) election and an executed RFO FAR 9.505-4(b) agreement on file, review will be limited to designated Government personnel. Respondents are responsible for proper proprietary legends. Unmarked information may be more difficult to protect as proprietary. Submission of commercial, modified commercial, or dual-use data does not grant the Government unlimited rights or authorize transfer of proprietary concepts to third parties. Respondents may assert specific data-rights restrictions by clearly marking restricted data with appropriate assertions (e.g., “Limited Rights,” “Government Purpose Rights,” “Restricted Rights”) consistent with R-DFARS 227.7103 and R-DFARS 227.7203.

Unclassified responses to the information requested are due in accordance with the submission deadline discussed in Section 8.0 and should be submitted via e-mail only to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Keith Clift, at keith.clift@us.af.mil, and to Contracting Specialists (CS), Nicholas Ardito, at nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil and Amanda Hensley, at amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil. Proprietary information must be clearly marked. The Government shall not be liable for any consequential damages due to release of any proprietary information not properly identified.

All information received in response to this RFI will become Government property and will not be returned. Should there be objections to the envisioned disclosure of technical and cost/price data submitted to the Government, please contact the PCO immediately in writing with the basis of the objection. The Government may release technical and cost/price data submitted in response to this RFI to Government support contractors only when the respondent has provided executed NDAs under Section

7.2.3 or has otherwise affirmatively consented in writing. Support contractors will access the information solely for the purpose of furnishing independent and impartial advice or technical assistance to the Government and will take reasonable steps to protect the sensitive data from unauthorized release or disclosure.

mailto:keith.clift@us.af.mil mailto:nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil

12.0 Summary

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY to identify sources and capabilities relevant to Air Force Aerial Target Solutions. Information in this RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. The Air Force has not committed to procure any items or services discussed; release of this RFI is not authorization to incur costs for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned, subject to proprietary marking and safeguarding requirements stated herein.

13.0 Handling of Information / Safeguarding

Responses will be treated as information only. The Government will safeguard information received in response to this RFI from unauthorized disclosure consistent with RFO FAR 15.101(c)(4) and applicable FOIA-exempt protections for proprietary information. Respondents are responsible for proper proprietary legends. Unmarked information may be more difficult to protect as proprietary. Support-contractor access is controlled exclusively by the respondent’s election under Section 7.2.3.

Type: Sources Sought/Other (Draft RFPs/RFIs, Responses to Questions, etc.)

Posted Date: 14 AUGUST 2026

Contracting Office Address:

AFLCMC/EBAY, 207 West D Avenue, Bldg. 349, Eglin AFB, Florida 32542, United States

Place of Performance:

207 West D Avenue, Bldg. 349, Eglin AFB, Florida 32542, United States

Primary Point of Contact: Secondary Point of Contact: Tertiary Point of Contact:

Mr. Keith Clift Nicholas Ardito Amanda Hensley

Contracting Officer Contract Specialist Contract Specialist keith.clift@us.af.mil nicholas.ardito@us.af.mil amanda.hensley.2@us.af.mil

Phone: (850) 883-0356 Phone: (850) 883-3386 Phone: 850-882-1159