Precision Grenadier System Industry - Questions and Answers.pdf

Precision Grenadier System (PGS): Industry’s Questions & Comments

Q1: What is the path forward plan for the PGS program?

A: The Government’s plan is to make PGS a formal program of record in FY24, unless it becomes a Cross-Functional Team (CFT) priority prior to FY24.

Q2: Will the Government execute separate contracts for the weapon, fire control, and ammunition? If so, will interface control documentation be available to the vendors?

A: The PGS (weapon, fire control, and ammunition) will be developed as a system under one contract.

Upon transition into production, there may be opportunity to do a separate contract for ammunition.

Q3: Does the Army expect PGS development to incorporate an open architecture concept for future upgrades and technology insertion?

A: Yes, the Government expects the application of open architecture concept for future upgrades and technology insertion wherever possible.

Q4: Will the PGS development pick up where the XM25 CDTE development left off or will it start from scratch?

A: PGS development will start from scratch but will incorporate lessons learned from the XM25 CDTE program wherever possible.

Q5: Will the Government provide the technical data package (TDP) for XM25 CDTE to vendors?

A: No. The Government does not own the XM25 TDP.

Q6: Will the Army require bid samples to be included in any contract action?

A: Yes, bid samples will be part of the procurement action for the PGS.

Q7: What industry segment (weapon, fire control, ammunition) does the Government consider to be the most critical element for the development of the PGS?

A: The PGS will be developed as a system to optimize schedule, cost and performance. The Government recognizes that technologies in certain areas may be more mature than other areas. Therefore, more focus will be on development of those technologies that are not as mature.

Q8: Were there any lessons learned from XM25 and will those lessons learned be shared?

A: Yes, there were many lessons learned from the XM25 program and the Government will share those lessons wherever possible.

Q9: Will the Government be able to provide top level feedback on the PGS Request For Information conducted in 2020?

A: The purpose of the RFI was to gain an understanding of the technology that is currently available and to provide Industry with the Government’s capability needs. This Industry Day and any following Industry Days will be used to get the most up to date information from Industry in order to shape the acquisition strategy.

Q10: Has a budget line for the PGS been identified?

A: The plan is for the funding to be available in FY24 for a program of record.

Q11: In the Industry Day briefing package, it was mentioned that an OTA was a possible contracting mechanism. There was also a draft proposal request at the start of FY1. Can you clarify that?

A: The notional strategy was not identified with a starting date. The Government’s plan is to conduct additional industry days in order to prepare a draft proposal and acquisition strategy. The PGS program proposal is not planned to be at the end of this year. The Government’s plan is to make PGS a formal program of record in FY24, unless it becomes a Cross-Functional Team (CFT) priority prior to FY24. Until then, the USG plans to do small RDTE projects of certain technologies to feed into the overall program when it begins.

Q12: Will the Government specify the fire control to weapon interface or will that be dictated by system design?

A: The interface will be determined by the contractor. Currently, the Government asks for an intelligent rail, but is not hard-fast to any specific way, as long as it uses the standard interface identified (intelligent rail).

Q13: In the notational strategy, what does FY1-FY5 correlate to?

A: FY1 relates to the year that the PGS becomes a Program of Record.

Q14: What is the projected total procurement quantity of the PGS?

A: The total procurement of the PGS has yet to be determined (TBD) at this time. The PGS will be fielded to the Close Combat Force but the density of the fielding has not been determined.

Q15: Is the PGS intended to be fielded at squad level?

A: Yes, the PGS is intended to be fielded at the Squad level.

Q16: Does the PGS need to be operated by a single soldier?

A: Yes, the PGS is to be operated by one Soldier.

Q17: Will the PGS replace a weapon in the squad?

A: It is intended for the PGS to replace one counter defilade weapon in the BCT squads within the CCF.

Whether or not the PGS replaces a weapon in other organizations within the CCF is undetermined at this time.

Q18: Will the PGS replace only the M320 or both the M4/M4A1 and M320 carried by the Soldier?

A: Fielding considerations are not finalized; however, the PGS is intended to replace the M320 or the M4A1/M320 in CCF organizations depending on unit composition.

Q19: Is the PGS considered a specialty weapon system (i.e. arms room concept) or a primary weapon system?

A: The PGS is intended to be a primary individual weapon. Some organizations may use an arms room concept but that is undetermined at this time.

Q20: What are the prioritized PGS requirements?

A: The tiered capability matrix, provided to industry, provides the prioritized requirements. Tier 1 is more important than tier 2, and tier 2 is more important than tier 3, etc. There is some flexibility to provide trade space. Ultimately we would like all the desired requirements. They are in a prioritized list.

Q21: Will the USG have standardized wireless protocols for sensors and network?

A: Yes.

Q22: Has the basic carry load of the ammunition been established?

A: The basic load is envisioned as 45 rounds, subject to METT-TC considerations, and risk that commanders weigh while considering threat, terrain and other considerations. For example, certain missions in certain places may require a higher number of C-UAS rounds to be carried, as an example, while other mission may require more breaching rounds. These decisions are made by commanders. 45 rounds is a planning guide. Doctrinally there is no such thing as a basic load.

Q23: Would PGS need its own resident sensors for the C-UAS capability or could it use networked sensors?

A: Initially, PGS would use its own fire control to engage hovering UAS targets, as stated in the RFI. The trend is for networked sensors and lethality and at a later date networking of sensors would be considered as technology matures.

Q24: Capabilities identified ability to counter hovering UAS’s. Would the Army anticipate a future capability to counter moving UAS’s?

A: Currently, the USG is looking for what is in the Request for Information (RFI). There may be a need to expand the requirements to engage moving UAS in the future but for now, the USG is looking for what is in the RFI.

Q25: Would a shoulder launched material solution be considered?

A: All counter defilade capabilities will be considered as long as they meet the requirements annotated in the PGS TCM.

Q26: Would rocket-assist ammunition material solutions be considered?

A: All counter defilade capabilities will be considered as long as they meet the requirements annotated in the PGS TCM.

Q27: What would be the Army’s concerns for shoulder launched, rocket assist material solution?

A: One concern would be the Soldier’s ability to engage targets in a semi –automatic firing mode, a second concern might be the ability of a Soldier to carry enough rockets. The USG is not telling a vendor how to approach the system form factor.

Q28: Would tripod or vehicle mounted PGS solutions be considered?

A: PGS is a squad counter defilade solution. While PGS could be mounted on a tripod or vehicle, it must be capable of being operated and fired by a single Soldier without those devices. There are mobility and weight requirements in the TCM; however, all counter defilade solutions will be considered

Q29: How have your requirements for counter defilade capabilities changed?

A: The requirements have not changed. The intent is to have a capability that will displace or incapacitate targets in defilade.

Q30: What type of body armor will the PGS be up against and what type of protected cover positions such as bunkers/adobe building will conceal the targets?

A: The exact target details are classified; however, it may include representative targets in different positions, including standing, kneeling, prone, and using body armor.

Q31: Will the PGS ability to suppress the enemy in combat be considered?

A: All aspects of capabilities specified in the PGS TCM will be considered.

Q32: What is the USG position on tradeoff between 1-8X magnification, weight and size?

A: The USG will not specify/dictate trades between magnification, weight, and size. There is trade space available across the requirements listed in the PGS TCM.

Q33: Is the higher magnification addressing a specific need in the capability gap?

A: The higher magnification is intended to enable engagements of the longer range targets, as well as sufficient Identification of the details of closer targets. The variable magnification is a Tier 2 requirement and is tradable across the TCM.

Q34: What is the USG position/preference on integrated vs. federated solutions for thermal and other capabilities on Fire Control?

A: The USG did not establish a preference, the Soldier requires a day/night/thermal capability as specified the PGS TCM.

Q35: Is the USG mandating an integrated approach to fire control with the tier 2 requirement that the magnification changes shouldn’t degrade integrated thermal?

A: The USG is not mandating or directing an integrated approach to the fire control. As specified in the PGS TCM: Magnification changes shall not degrade integrated thermal image quality (O).

Q36: Would the USG clarify the tier 1 requirements for probability of recognition given a detection at 500m vs. tier 2 requirement to allow Soldier to distinguish a weapon from a shovel at 600m?

A: The PGS shall provide the Soldier sufficient angular resolution to allow the Soldier to distinguish a weapon from a shovel, rake, or other similar objects during daytime, clear air conditions from 0-500 meters. Additionally, the Soldier should be able to acquire targets ≥ 0.70 Probability of Recognition Given a Detection P(r/d) out to a range of 600 meters in clear air during day and nighttime conditions.

Q37: Would an army-issued Family of Weapon Sights – Individual be sufficient to meet thermal requirements?

A: The USG will not dictate what thermal enabler/capability the vendor chooses to use.

Q38: Is the Army looking for Single Field of View capability?

A: Yes

Q39: For the weight requirement, does the USG have a breakout of what is expected for the weapon and Fire Control to weight?

A: 14.5Lbs is the threshold weight for weapon, fire control, and batteries combined. There is no further breakout.

Q40: Can the USG confirm the thermal capability is required during daytime operation?

A: The PGS will provide the Soldier the ability to engage targets in as many potential light environments as possible. The PGS shall provide the Soldier with a day, night, and thermal spectrum sight.

Q41: Can the USG confirm the day capable laser pointer is required only for bore sighting purpose?

A: The PGS TCM indicates the PGS shall have a day capable laser in order to boresight the system out to 100 meters. The intent is to allow the Soldier to boresight and zero the system quickly and accurately.

Q42: What specifically is the USG looking for in the coded laser pointing?

A: The PGS TCM specifies a coded laser pointer capability to ranges of 600 meters low power and 2,000 meters when using high power. The system will allow Soldiers to employ and see coded pointers within their fire control’s FoV and the PGS will provide a covert capable laser pointer. These requirements are all in the objective space at this time.

Q43: When would a decision be made by the CFT to pick up the PGS? If so, will the PGS become a POR before FY24?

A: It is currently to be determined exactly when the PGS will become a CFT program. Once an existing program is approved for transition out of the SL-CFT, the Army Senior Leaders (ASL) will determine if the SL CFT may add another Signature Modernization Effort (SME) to its portfolio.

Q44: Does the Army required Fuze setting capability to be through I-rail?

A: The USG will not dictate the fuze setting method or capability, which is for the vendor to determine.