RFI QA rev1.pdf

Q1. Antenna Placement and Pod Feasibility. The RFI identifies five candidate antenna locations but does not indicate whether the aircraft has usable hardpoints. If hardpoints are available, a podded antenna/sensor solution may oƯer packaging and maintenance advantages over the fuselage-mounted locations described. Before proposing a pod-based configuration, we would like to understand:

a. Does the aircraft have hardpoints suitable for a pod installation?

A1.The aircraft does have hardpoints, but we are not approved to use them at this time. We are interested to hear about podded options, but they have a low probability of being approved.

Q2. Airframe Model. The RFI's figures suggest a C-130-family aircraft, but the specific variant is not stated. Antenna placement, structural attachment, weight and balance, and EMI/cosite analysis all depend on the exact airframe model. Please confirm the specific aircraft make and model (and variant) for which this DF system is being sourced.

A2. MC-130J and AC-130J.

Q3. Onboard Systems and Integration Scope. Direction Finding is a broad term. To scope our proposed architecture appropriately, we request:

a. What other mission systems are currently installed? (e.g., EO/IR, signals jamming, other SIGINT or ISR systems)?

b. What situational awareness or mission management software is onboard?

c. Once a signal of interest is geolocated, what is the intended downstream action?

A3.

a) We are not at liberty to list the other systems on the aircraft. There is a suite of other systems, including those in your question.

b) Are you asking about our suite or any suite of SW on the aircraft. We are currently using TAKX (a TAK variant)

c) It depends on the signal. We may direct the aircraft toward or away from the location, depending on the type of signal detected. We may pass oƯ the location to another crew member on the aircraft for follow-on processing.

Q4. Installation Locations, Timing, and Airworthiness Requirements. To plan our integration approach, logistics and schedule, we request:

a. Where would installation/integration take place (Government facility, contractor facility, or vendor's choice), and what is the anticipated timing to do so?

b. What airworthiness certification path applies to these aircraft/ Who holds airworthiness authority for these aircraft?

A4.

a) The initial integration work (for testing and acceptance) will be done on a test aircraft at a government location. Once the systems go into production and are going to be installed en masse, the integration and installation will most likely be at the primary aircraft integration contractor facility. Currently that contractor is Sierra Nevada Corporation.

b) Wright Patterson AFB and Warner Robbins AFB are the current airworthiness adjudicators.

Q5. ESM Receiver Antennas / Frequency Bands Section 2 states that the existing ESM receive antennas provide coverage in three bands within the 500 MHz–18 GHz frequency range.

Could you please identify the frequency range of each of the three existing ESM antenna bands?

A5. No. We cannot provide the specific frequency ranges of these antennas because they are part of another program’s classified system and they have asked us to maintain control of the specific frequency capabilities.

Q6. Direction Finding Frequency Coverage Is DF capability required across all three of the existing ESM frequency bands?

A6. DF capability is DESIRED across all frequencies in HF, VHF, UHF, and SHF. As this is an RFI, capability in any of these would be responsive.

Q7. Alternatively, is there a specific frequency band or range within 500 MHz–18 GHz where DF performance is considered the Government's primary or desired area of interest?

A7. VHF and UHF are primary ranges of interest.

Q8. Submission Requirements – DF Coverage Must an industry response propose DF capability covering all three frequency bands to be considered responsive to the RFI, or will the Government consider solutions that provide DF capability over a subset of the overall frequency range?

A8. This is an RFI. Performance in any of the frequency ranges would be considered responsive to our call for information.

Q9. Current RFI Response Date We have seen several submission dates associated with this RFI and subsequent information. Could you please confirm the current deadline for industry responses?

A9. The response date is extended to 8 September 2026.

Q10. Desired End-State / Delivery Schedule Section 2 indicates that the Government is interested in mature, reliable, easily integrated technologies that can be rapidly fielded to the operator.

Assuming the eƯort proceeds to an OTA, CSO, prototype, or subsequent award, does the Government have a desired timeframe for delivery of the initial integrated solution or prototype following award?

A10. It will depend on the assessed technology readiness level and integration readiness on the aircraft. If the system is deemed ready to be integrated, we would like to have five systems within six months of the award. There would then follow an integration period (to be determined in collaboration with the vendor). We would expect the integration period to span at least a year.

Q11. Centerline Location / Integrated Radome Concept We are evaluating a potential "drop-in" architecture in which the DF antenna and receiver electronics could be integrated into a single radome assembly utilizing the existing centerline location.

For such an approach, would the Government consider a modest increase in the portion of the radome that protrudes externally below the aircraft—approximately 2–3 additional inches—provided that the general shape, curvature, aerodynamic profile, and centerline footprint are maintained?

A11. We can contemplate an extension of 2-3 inches but the final approval of such a design is the aircraft program management oƯice. They have previously stated that a slightly larger radome is within the realm of possibility, but have not provided blanket approval. Because this is only an RFI, all soutions will be reviewed.