Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Capability Set #3

Request for Information (RFI) #2

24 Oct 2016

Synopsis
This Request for Information (RFI), issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.201(e), is
issued for the preliminary planning for a potential acquisition and is not a Request for Proposals (RFP). A
response to this notice is not an offer, and no offer can or will be accepted by the US Government to form a
binding contract. If respondents submitted information under the previous solicitation, number W58RGZ-16-R-
0170, please indicate this in your response and reference where the information was provided in your previous
submittal. Should a formal RFP be issued in the future, any and all respondents and non-respondents will be
eligible to compete for the acquisition. Submission of a response to this RFI is not required to submit a proposal
in response to any RFP which may be released in the future or to be awarded any contract pursuant to the same.

1.0 Introduction
The Initial Capability Document (ICD) for the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Family of Systems (FoS), dated 8 April
2013, established a need for a vertical lift capability to support the US Army (USA) and the US Marine Corps
(USMC), recapitalizing their existing fleet of H-60 and H-1 aircraft (A/C). This new capability should have an
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in the 2030-2032 timeframe and support Army Assault missions and Marine
Corps Attack and Assault/Utility missions with a common solution (or as common a solution as practical).

2.0 RFI Intent

The purpose of this RFI is to facilitate market research on the state of technology (e.g, technology maturity
levels and availability) and related costs which could be incorporated into a potential Future Vertical Lift
Capability Set 3 (CS 3) Utility and Attack material solution(s) in support of the FVL Analysis of Alternatives (AoA).
Since the February 2016 RFI release, The USA and USMC have continued to refine the FVL concept in terms of
requirements, acquisition strategy, and cost estimates leading to the 28 October 2016 Material Development
Decision briefing (MDD). As part of the MDD process, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Office has released official AoA guidance. To improve the quality of
the data input to the AoA, respondents are encouraged to address specific RFI questions by either updating
existing submittals from the February 2016 RFI or submitting new responses.
The requested information is for internal planning purposes only and will not be publicly released outside the
Government RFI Assessment Group. It is the intent of the US Government that industry responses to this RFI
will be considered with respect to the development of a future RFP, should a decision be made to proceed with
any particular acquisition phase.

The US Government intends to engage industry on their RFI submittals, via industry day(s) or other face-to-face
engagements as determined by the US Government. The intent of these engagements is to conduct market
research and specifically for respondents to discuss select technologies described in their RFI response, provide
insights as to the challenges they face in developing rotary wing aircraft to meet USA & USMC requirements,
provide results of capability or operational effectiveness analysis, and the risks associated with developing an
executable moderate risk FVL acquisition program.

1
3.0 Capabilities
The aircraft should be capable of meeting the following needs, whether it is an upgraded legacy platform, an
existing or modified commercial off-the-shelf/government off-the-shelf (COTS/GOTS) aircraft, a new-start
aircraft, or other. Note this is a top-level summary and is not all-inclusive.

3.1.1. Shipboard compatible (lives on the ship; 100% ship suitable) for USMC variants and shipboard
capable (lands, refuels/reloads, and takes-off; able to handle electromagnetic interference (EMI)
and has manual folding) for USA variants on L-class (amphibious) ships, with the USMC variant
having a folded spot factor equivalent/close to an Utility Helicopter(UH)-1Y.
3.1.2. Aerial refueling via standard North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) probe and drogue
refueling systems.
3.1.3. In all phases of flight, the aircraft shall exhibit Level I Cooper-Harper Rating Scale handling
qualities within the operational flight envelope (Level I definition shall be in accordance with (IAW)
a tailored Aeronautical Design Standard Performance Specification, ADS-33E-PRF for rotor-borne
flight, meeting the requirements for an attack helicopter including Target Acquisition and Tracking.
Level I definition shall also be IAW tailored Military Standard, MIL-STD-1797B handling qualities
standards for other flight modes, as delineated by Air Vehicle Class IV).
3.1.4. Assault/Utility variants offer eight (USMC) to twelve (USA) crashworthy troop seats whose seat
back height, seat pan depth and seat pan width are compatible with both unequipped and heavily
equipped troops donned with body-borne mission equipment such as the Modular Lightweight
Load-carrying Equipment (MOLLE) pack. Minimum seat width to provide the required
accommodation is twenty-three (23) inches wide with a sitting platform that is eighteen (18)
inches deep. Accommodation of mission equipment on the seat must also be compatible with
maintaining aisle space for both general movement about the cabin and for emergency egress.
Alternative cabin configuration should be compatible with accommodating six (6) litter patients or
six (6) ambulatory patients with medical equipment.
3.1.5. The aircraft must be capable of operations in all weather (except the most severe weather, e.g.
severe thunderstorms, turbulence, icing, hurricane force winds), night and degraded visual
environment (DVE), moderate icing, Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR). This includes the ability to identify and engage threats in all manner of
environmental/weather conditions.
3.1.6. Aircraft must be able to deploy to and from unimproved austere field sites/tactical assembly
areas as well as rolling take-offs from L-class ships.
3.1.7. Conduct missions with the describe ground rules and payloads as specified in Appendices A and B.
3.1.8. Aircraft must be capable of the following limit g-loads: 1) During mission MT-2, Segment 7 –
Positive 4.5 G to negative 1.5G (if wing-borne), Positive 3.5G to negative 1.0G (if rotor-borne) and
2) During missions A-1, A-2, A-3, Segment 6 – Positive 3.5G to negative 0.5G in applicable flight
mode for segment.
3.1.9. Assault/utility variants will offer weapons with a near 360 degree coverage.
3.1.10. Aircraft must have ballistic protection for the pilots, crew, and troops, including transparences.
3.1.11. Aircraft shall exploit capabilities of Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM T) as well as being
optionally manned. MUM-T Level 4 Control of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) (Level 5 Control
for UAS Group 2 and smaller except for Medical Evacuation.

2
 3.1.12. A data rights strategy.

4.0 Air Vehicle

4.1. Design Philosophy:
4.1.1. Given that the FVL CS 3 aircraft is intended to fulfill multiple roles related to utility and attack
mission areas, describe the design approach utilized to meet the diverse mission set for the
proposed aircraft and substantiate why it is the right approach.
A. Is there a single design for both utility and attack variants? If so, what is the level of
complexity, timeframe to reconfigure, and specialized support equipment needed to reconfigure
between variants?
B. Is there a dual design approach, one for utility and one for attack? If so, are there common
components (engine, rotor, etc.) utilized in the different fuselages (i.e. H-1 approach)?
4.1.2 Regardless of the approach chosen, what would be the implications and impacts if the chosen
design approach could not be used and the other had to be used? Provide data to substantiate the
differences between the two options, including but not limited to groups weights, mission
performance (using the information in Appendices A and B), and vehicle geometry and aero
properties (including drag). Document the pros/cons of each approach across all aspects of the
design.

4.1.3 Given there is the potential for multi-service use of the FVL CS 3 aircraft, describe the design
approach to address both land and sea-based use of the aircraft (USA vs. USMC usage). What will
be different between the aircraft used by the two services?

4.1.4 Describe the science and technology (S&T) needs for the design. Describe what specific
systems/components need to mature in order to be utilized on the FVL aircraft. Provide current
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), plan/roadmap/timeline for maturing each, and the plan for
integrating all technologies into the overall aircraft.

4.2 Aircraft Modifications (if proposed solution is a derivative of an existing A/C):

4.2.1 If modifications are required to a baseline model, what are they and what are the impacts to
weight and drag?

4.2.2 If modifications are required, what test and qualification efforts must be carried out?

4.3 Performance:

4.3.1 Using the mission profiles, ground rules, assumptions, and weight allocations provided in Figures
1-4 and Appendices A and B, estimate the following. The estimates should take into account (from a
weight and performance standpoint) the key desired capabilities outlined above.

4.3.1.1 Mission Range (For each mission listed in Appendices A and B)

A. What is the maximum range carrying the required weapons, payload or passenger load?
Provide a range-payload diagram as part of the response.

3
 B. What is the running gross weight of the aircraft throughout the mission to meet or
exceed the required range?
C. For substantiation, provide a listing of mission segments including: fuel, power required,
time, distance, speed, and weight, where applicable.

4.3.1.2 Minimum One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Speed

A. If wing-born flight, provide 1.2Vstall.

4.3.1.3 Maximum Hover GW and Hover Torque Margin:

A. What are the maximum Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) and Hover In Ground
Effect (HIGE) Gross Weights using Maximum or Takeoff Rated Power and limiting factor
(engines, transmission, max structural GW) at the following conditions?
1) Sea Level, 39.4ºC (103ºF)
2) 3000 feet PA, 33.1ºC (91.5ºF)
3) 4000 feet PA, 35ºC (95ºF)
4) 6000 feet PA, 35ºC (95ºF)

4.3.1.4 Performance Substantiation: Total aircraft power required is defined as the sum of
main rotor(s), tail rotor, drive system, and accessory losses in terms of Engine Shaft
Horsepower (ESHP). (Include airspeeds which encompass hover up to VNever Exceed. Other
parameters should encompass the range of conditions encountered in the mission profiles.)
A. Upon what is the power required based? (i.e., flight test, model test, analysis, combination,
etc.).
B. What is the isolated rotor hover figure of merit as a function of continuous time (CT)/Sigma
for the anticipated range of hover tip Mach numbers?
C. What is the total aircraft power required? If in coefficient format, what is power coefficient
(CP) as a function of μ, CW and Nr REF? If in referred format, what is HPREF as a function of true
airspeed (TAS), reference gross weight (GWREF), and Nr REF?
D. For wing-born flight, provide total thrust and drag as well as coefficient of lift (CL) vs Alpha,
CL vs coefficient of drag (CD), flaps delta CL, and provide power-to-thrust efficiency.
E. What is the hover in ground effect (HIGE) power required at a 10 ft. wheel height? If in
coefficient format, what is CP as a function of CW and Nr REF? If in referred format, what is HPREF
as a function of GWREF and NrREF?
F. What is the power available, including installation effects and losses based on? (i.e., flight
test, model tests, engine manufacturer’s cycle deck, etc.)
G. What is the installed spec power available in horsepower (HP) as a function pressure
altitude, outside air temperature and airspeed at the following ratings: Maximum Continuous
Rating, Intermediate (30 minute) Rating, Maximum or Takeoff Rating (and duration), and OEI or
Contingency Rating (and duration)?
H. What additional losses need to be accounted for due to environmental control system
(ECS), drive system, or accessories, which are not already accounted for in the power required
and power available bookkeeping? Provide a detailed list of all losses.

4
 I. What is the installed fuel flow as a function of power, pressure altitude, outside air
temperature and airspeed?
J. What are the All Engines Operating (AEO) and OEI transmission ratings in HP and duration?
K. What is the drag, in square feet (sq. ft.), of the aircraft? Provide a detailed listing, showing
drag of each component as it builds up to the overall A/C drag. Call out drag variations between
missions.
L. What is the vertical drag (download) of the A/C as a percentage of rotor thrust? Provide
calculations and substantiation to for the build-up to the overall number.
M. What are the following key aircraft dimensional and specification parameters?
1) Engine designation.
2) Design Rotor Speed (100%), rate per minute (rpm).
3) Normal Operating Rotor Speed, % or rpm and the flight condition each are used.
4) Fuel system useable capacity, gallon (gal) or pounds (lbs).
5) Reference indicated torque to horsepower value at 100% torque (Q) at 100%
rotor rpm (Nr).
6) Reference drag (equivalent flat plate area) of the power required data, sq. ft.
7) Maximum Structural Gross Weight (GW), lbs.
8) Minimum fuel on deck allowance, gal or lbs., this quantity being separate from
mission reserves.

4.4 Aircraft Configuration:

4.4.1 For the FVL aircraft the following detailed information, if applicable, is requested:

4.4.1.1 Vehicle Description

4.4.1.1.1 Provide a precise description of the current production aircraft, modified/derivative

production aircraft, or notional design. (Responses should include, but not be limited to these
areas of interest: rotor system, number of engines, provisions for crew compartment
environmental control, avionics overview and architecture description, minimum and maximum
number of occupants, and landing gear configuration).

4.4.1.1.2 Document the external dimensions and spread attributes of the aircraft in the form of
detailed three-view drawings. Specifically include (where applicable):
A. Diameter of main rotor(s)
B. Diameter of tail rotor/thruster
C. Span and chord of wing
D. Span and chord of horizontal and vertical tail
E. Length overall, rotors turning.
F. Minimum height of main rotor(s) at low RPM
G. Minimum height of turning tail rotor
H. Length of fuselage
I. Width of fuselage
J. Height to top of rotor hub
K. Height overall
L. Minimum ground taxi turn radius measured by arc of rotor system

5
 M. Wheel track
N. Wheelbase
O. Ground clearance (dry and fully loaded)
P. Distance from rotor to landing gear (in hover)
Q. Distance from center of lift to nose of aircraft
R. Distance from ground to pilot’s eye
S. Center of gravity (both vertical and longitudinal) at Design Gross Weight and Maximum
Take-off Weight (for missions listed in Appendices A and B)
T. Sail area (unfolded)

4.4.1.1.3 Document the internal layout and attributes of the aircraft in the form of detailed
drawings and supporting data. Specifically include (where applicable):
A. Cockpit configuration
B. Cabin configuration(s)
C. Internal layout/location of systems (avionics, fuel tanks, engines, transmissions, drive
shafts, ECS, flight controls, etc.)
D. Describe the crashworthy troop seats to be used that offer the necessary protection

4.4.1.1.4 Describe the ship suitability attributes, including the folding method, for the proposed
A/C. Utilize drawings and supporting data to capture the necessary attributes:
A. Folding methods and folded dimensions
B. Folded area (as a projection of area onto the deck) and compare it to a UH-1Y spot factor
C. Sail area (folded)
D. Location of tie-down attachment points.
E. Needs for any unique support equipment
F. Provide the time it takes for the rotor brake to stop the rotor during landing operations
G. Identify any limitations and/or inspections related to shipboard operations.

4.4.1.2 Mission Systems Description

4.4.1.2.1 Sensors - Provide a precise description of the notional design, the external dimensions and
positions of all the sensors on the air vehicle, including acquisition and tracking. Specifically include
(where applicable):
A. Size, weight, dimension
B. Detailed three-view drawings
C. Range for acquisition and tracking
D. Designation capability (type, error/TLE)
E. Field of view and field of regard

4.4.1.2.2 Stores - Provide a precise description of the notional design, dimensions and positions for
the internal and external store stations (including pylon, rack and suspension equipment on the air
vehicle. Specifically include (where applicable):
A. Size, weight, dimension
B. Detailed three-view drawings
C. Rack, Pylon deployment/retraction (internal)
1) Will the weapons bays have separate bulkhead when weapons are deployed at
altitude?

6
 2) Method and timing for extension/retraction (hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical).
What is the reaction time and time to secure?
3) What is the release mechanism for the racks? (pneumatic, etc.)?
4) Will there be methodology for manual retraction in case of failure? Identify
potential failure modes for internal suspension equipment.
D. Clearance between weapon station/bay doors and aircraft aspects (nacelle/rotor,
fuselage).
1) Rocket motor plume/gun blast overpressure
2) Safe separation clearances to airframe (MIL-STD-1289) for employment? For
jettison?
3) Separation clearance for store-to-store contact
4) Need to understand/identify if there will be limitations to weapons employment
throughout the air vehicle flight envelope
E. Clearance between weapon station/bay doors and ground/ship deck.
1) Launch and recovery (skids/flat tire/compressed strut)
2) Aircraft Weapons Support Equipment (AWSE) to weapons bay for
loading/downloading

4.4.1.3 Isolated Rotor Performance:

4.4.1.3.1 Provide the radial distribution of blade properties at sufficient resolution (number of blade
stations) to adequately define piecewise linear or nonlinear distribution of:

A. Chord
B. Twist
C. Airfoil
D. Quarter chord locus with respect to blade pitch axis (chordwise and vertical offsets
define local sweep and anhedral, respectively)
E. Mass (alternatively supply blade mass outboard of, and first and second mass moments
of flapping inertia about actual or equivalent flapping hinge)

4.4.1.3.2 Rotor airfoil section 2D aerodynamic lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficient data at full-
scale Reynolds Numbers as a function of angle of attack and Mach Number over the full range of
operation to be experienced by each airfoil. Tabular data in C81 airfoil deck format preferred.

4.4.1.4 Weight and Balance:

4.4.1.4.1 Use the following ground rules when providing the information:

4.4.1.4.1.1 Ensure weight and CG estimates are consistent with design descriptions and
operational usage of the concept described throughout the RFI response.

4.4.1.4.1.2 Components that are installed for every mission and not removed/installed
operationally should be included in Weight Empty or Basic Weight. Operational components that are
only required for some missions should be reflected in Mission Weight Buildups as either Operating
Weight items or Zero-Fuel Weight items.

4.4.1.4.2 For the FVL aircraft, the following detailed information, if applicable, is requested:

7
 4.4.1.4.2.1 Provide a functional weight and balance report for the design concept that is
compliant with needed capabilities reflected in this RFI. It is desired that the format and content be
consistent with an Estimated Weight Report per SAWE Recommended Practice #7
(http://www.sawe.org/technical/rp). At a minimum, provide weight and longitudinal balance data
for each functional weight group and provide as many other elements of the report as possible. If not
already provided, provide graphic and narrative design descriptions of the concept by functional
groups that correspond with the Estimated Weight Report.

4.4.1.4.2.2 In addition to the material weight breakdown for structural weight in the Group
Weight Statement, provide subtotals of the material weight breakdown for each of the functional
weight groups that make up Structure; Wing, Rotor, Empennage, Fuselage, Gear, Engine Section and
Air Induction.
A. List or group primary structural components and identify metal alloys used for each type of
component.
B. If composite materials are used for any primary structural components, identify the
components and the materials used. Identify the mechanical properties for each composite
material to include; fiber/resin constituents, resin content, fiber grade, mechanical properties of
the composite (E1, E2, G12, nu, t0 and density), honeycomb (if applicable) and allowable strains
for compression and tension and any environmental factors that apply.

4.4.1.4.2.3 Substantiate all weight and balance data to explain the methods, analysis and
rationale for the values, which are expected to be accurate, complete, realistic and objective.

4.4.1.4.2.4 Quantify the portion of Weight Empty for the concept that requires development and
the portion, if any, which exists and does not require development. Include an allowance for weight
growth anticipated during development and substantiate the value. Recent NAVAIR experience is
that derivative programs experience weight growth from Contract Award to Initial Operating
Capability (IOC) that is, on average, 23.4% of the initial development portion. All-new development
programs experience average weight growth of 12.6% over the same development period.

4.4.1.4.2.5 Derive and substantiate a recommended weight allowance to include at IOC, to ensure
that the system delivered has some measure of built-in growth capacity at IOC.

4.4.1.4.2.6 Clearly identify the weight of each crashworthy seat and the center-of-gravity (CG) of
each one in aircraft coordinates with a corresponding diagram of the seating arrangements in the
aircraft.

4.4.1.4.2.7 Describe the design solution and capabilities that would “fit” within the armor weight
allocation given in Appendices A and B. The armor solution should address, at a minimum, passive
ballistic protection needs including seat armor, floor armor, and transparency armor. Discuss the
weight and CG impacts of ballistic protection to include assumptions made and graphic depiction(s)
of areas covered as well as the threat level of protection enabled by the solution.

4.4.1.4.2.8 Describe the design solution and capabilities that would “fit” within the Avionics and
Instruments weight allocation given in Appendices A and B. The Avionics and Instruments solution
should address, at a minimum, Communications, Navigation, Identification, Chaff/Flare dispensers,
Radar detector, Missile Detector, Helmet-mounted display, Diagnostics, Wiring System, Thermal
Imaging/Sight, and Digital Display System. Identify all avionics subsystems included to meet needed

8
capabilities. Include substantiated weight and balance data for all B-kit components and for A-kit
integration components, separately, according to each subsystem.

4.4.1.4.2.9 Clearly identify and substantiate the weight and balance impacts due to aerial
refueling. Identify the weight and CG for operationally-removable components, if applicable.

4.4.1.4.2.10 Identify the following frequencies, if applicable and as warranted:

A. Flap Natural Frequency of rotor blades
B. Wing beam-bending mode frequency
C. Wing chord-bending mode frequency
D. Wing torsion bending mode frequency

4.4.1.4.2.11 If applicable, explain the anticipated operational conversion steps necessary to change
the aircraft from one mission scenario to another mission scenario, and include the weight and
balance impacts of such conversions.

4.4.1.4.2.12 Quantify the weight penalties reflected in Weight Empty or Basic Weight for the
following specific capability needs, at a minimum. Additional penalties should be identified as
determined by the RFI respondent:
A. Optionally Manned or Unmanned (MUM) – quantify and substantiate the system weight
penalty for compliance with this capability need. Also quantify and substantiate any
weight impact of possibly changing the needed capability to either Manned or Unmanned
instead of Optionally-MUM.
B. Shipboard Operations – quantify and substantiate the system weight penalty for
compliance with this capability need.
C. Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) – quantify and substantiate the system weight
penalty for compliance with this capability need.
D. Aerial Refueling – quantify and substantiate the system weight penalty for compliance
with this capability need.
E. Weapons – quantify and substantiate the system weight penalty in order to meet
weapons carriage capabilities; internal, external or both. Explain how capabilities drive the
design solution recommended and, if possible, quantify the impacts of alternate design
solutions or capabilities studied.
F. High-altitude – quantify and substantiate the system weight penalty for compliance with
this potential capability need. Also quantify and substantiate any weight impact of
possibly changing the needed capability to either supplemental oxygen or pressurized
cabin, as applicable.

4.4.1.4.2.13 Provide weight and balance impacts due to in-flight motion of system components
including, but not limited to: extension/retraction/rotation of landing gear, refueling probe, doors, or
other components, as applicable. Provide weight, center-of-gravity, and moment of moving
components in the “before” state as well as in the “after” state, and the axis of rotation/translation,
in order to substantiate the derivation of the moment-impact of each motion.

4.4.1.4.2.14 Provide weight and balance impacts due to “folding” of system components for
shipboard handling. Provide weight, center-of-gravity, and moment of folding components in the
“before” state as well as in the “after” state, and the axis of rotation/translation, in order to
substantiate the derivation of the moment-impact of each fold operation.

9
 4.4.1.4.2.15 Provide estimates and substantiation of weight, 3-axis center-of-gravity, 3-axis
moment of inertia and 3-axis product of inertia for the Basic Weight configuration.

4.4.1.4.2.16 Provide estimates and substantiation of weight, 3-axis center-of-gravity, 3-axis

moment of inertia and 3-axis product of inertia for the shipboard/folded configuration.

4.4.1.4.2.17 Provide mission loading, weight and CG estimates and substantiation for static tip-
back and/or roll-over conditions to quantify limitations in loaded and unloaded conditions during
shipboard.

4.4.1.4.2.18 Provide hoisting and jacking capabilities and limitations at each load introduction
point.

4.4.1.4.2.19 Provide a complete accounting of weight, CG, volumes and any other data/analysis
that substantiates buoyance/flotation capability.

4.4.1.4.2.20 Clearly identify the weight and CG of raft storage in the aircraft with accompanying
diagram.

4.4.1.4.2.21 Identify weight, CG and moment data for unusable fuel and specify it in the functional
weight report as a Weight Empty item or as a Basic Weight item in Mission Weight Buildups.

4.4.1.4.2.22 Provide weight, CG and moment data for usable fuel in each of the fuel tanks in the
aircraft. Identify the geometric dimensions and CG of each empty fuel tank that corresponds with
data reflected in the functional weight report. Provide usable fuel weight, CG and moment data
tables for each of the tanks at a minimum of ten graduated conditions between empty and full.

4.4.1.4.2.23 Provide mission weight buildups that substantiate weight and CG estimates for each
mission profile. Mission buildups should start with Weight Empty, as found in the Estimated Weight
Report, and include weight and longitudinal CG subtotals for Basic Weight, Operating Weight, Zero-
Fuel Weight, and Takeoff Weight conditions. Provide detail accounting for items included in each
subsequent subtotal. For missions that include troops, weapons or ordinance, clearly identify the
item, location, quantity, weight and CG of each item in aircraft coordinates. List expendable and non-
expendable items separately. Clearly identify the weight and CG of any mission-specific/variable
components (racks, launchers, mounts, etc.) necessary for suspension of weapons on the aircraft.
A. Figures 1-4 are offered as Mission Weight Build-ups for use with the missions in
Appendices A and B for responding to the RFI.

4.4.1.4.2.24 Provide diagrams for each mission profile that depict the Mission Weight Buildup
graphically along with operational weight and CG limitations to verify that limits are maintained for
the loading conditions.

4.4.1.4.2.25 Identify any mission loading conditions that would result in weight and/or CG
limitations, taking into account aircraft component movement, fuel usage, mission expendables and
passenger/crew movement conditions. Expendables may or may not be expended in every
operational mission so worst-case scenarios need to be investigated in order to determine if there
would be any operational restrictions.

10
 4.4.1.4.2.26 If the solution being proposed is based on modifications to an existing production
or demonstration aircraft, then submission of the following detailed information is also requested:
A. Provide a functional weight and balance report for the baseline aircraft. It is desired that the
format and content be consistent with an Actual Weight Report per SAWE Recommended
Practice #7 (http://www.sawe.org/technical/rp). At a minimum, provide weight and
longitudinal balance data and actual weighing record. Provide as many other elements of
the report as possible. If not already provided, provide graphic and narrative design
descriptions of the baseline aircraft by functional groups that correspond with the Actual
Weight Report.

B. For each of the modifications, provide weight, longitudinal CG, and graphic/narrative
description of components anticipated to be removed from the baseline aircraft to
accommodate the modification. For items removed, the Actual Weight Report will clearly
show that those items are reflected in the report.

C. For each of the modifications, provide a separate list of components to be added to the
aircraft to accommodate the modification and include weight, longitudinal center-of-gravity,
and graphic/narrative description of the components to be added.

D. Provide analysis data, rationale, and methods that substantiate the basis and accuracy of
weight estimates of the added components. Identify whether each item added is an existing
item, a non-developmental item (NDI) or if it would require development.

MT-1 MT-2 MT-3

Unit
Mission Payload Weight Close Air Support Deep Air Support Armed Escort
Qty Objective Qty Objective Qty Objective
lbs - lbs - lbs - lbs
Pilot (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Gunner (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Operating Weight Items 400 400 400
Gun Installation
Gun (TBD) 154 1 154 1 154 1 154
Ammunition 0.57 1,200 684 1,200 684 1,200 684
Linkless Feed System (MAU-211)
Ammunition Can 206 1 206 1 206 1 206
Flex Chute 30 1 30 1 30 1 30
Feeder 22 1 22 1 22 1 22
Precision-guided Munitions
Small-diameter Bomb
SDB II (GBU-53/B) 209 - - 4 836 - -
Joint Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit (JMMBRU) 372 - - 1 372 - -
Air-Ground Missile
JAGM/Hellfire (AGM-114K) 115 8 920 8 920 4 460
Hellfire Launcher (M299, 4-Rail) 146 2 292 2 292 1 146
Rockets
2.75 inch Rockets (APKWS II w/M282 warhead) 36.9 38 1,402 - - 19 701
Rocket Launchers (LAU-61 G/A) 201 2 402 - - 1 201
Air-to-Air Weapons
Air-to-Air Weapons (AIM-9X) 193 2 386 - - 2 386
Air-to-Air Launchers 90 2 180 - - 2 180
Defensive Countermeasures
Chaff/Flare Cartridges 0.955 60 57 60 57 60 57
Zero-Fuel Weight Items 4735 3573 3227
Total Mission Payload Weight 5135 3973 3627

Figure 1 - Mission Payload Weights for MT-1, MT-2, and MT-3

11
 MT-5 MT-6 MT-7
Unit
Mission Payload Weight
Utility Troop Insertion Self-Deployment (HADR)
Qty Objective Qty Objective Qty Objective
lbs - lbs - lbs - lbs
Pilot (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Copilot (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Crew Chief (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Gunner (if applicable) 200 1 200 1 200 1 200
Fast Ropes 100 2 200 2 200 2 200
Fast Rope Stanchions 24 2 48 2 48 2 48
Operating Weight Items 1048 1048 1048
Troops 335 - - 8 2,680 - -
Gun Installations -
Gun (TBD) 154 1 154 1 154 1 154
Ammunition (Linkless) 0.57 1,200 684 400 228 - -
Linkless Feed System (MAU-211)
Ammunition Can 206 1 206 1 206 - -
Flex Chute 30 1 30 1 30 - -
Feeder 22 1 22 1 22 - -
Crew-served Weapons
GAU-17 Machine Gun 119 1 119 1 119 -
GAU-17 Ammo Can (Empty) 88 1 88 1 88 -
GAU-17 Ammo Belts (100 Rnds, linked) 6.5 30 195 15 98 -
0.50-cal Machine Gun (TBD) 140 1 140 1 140 -
0.50-cal Ammo Can (Empty) 61 1 61 1 61 -
0.50-cal Ammo Belts (100 Rnds, linked) 29.5 6 177 3 89 -
Gun Mounts (removable components) 67 2 134 2 134 -
Precision-guided Munitions
2.75 inch Rockets (APKWS II w/M282 warhead) 36.9 38 1,402 - - - -
Rocket Launchers (LAU-61 G/A) 201 2 402 - - - -
Auxiliary Fuel System (if applicable)
Auxiliary Fuel Tanks (TBD capacity) TBD - - TBD TBD
Auxiliary Fuel Kit TBD - - TBD TBD
Ejector Rack (if applicable) TBD - - TBD TBD
Mounts TBD - - TBD TBD
Defensive Countermeasures
Chaff/Flare Cartridges 0.955 60 57 60 57 - -
Zero-Fuel Weight Items 3,871 4,106 TBD
Total Mission Payload Weight 4,919 5,154 TBD

Note: RFI Respondent to fill-in "TBDs".

Figure 2 - Mission Payload Weights for MT-5, MT-6, and MT-7

12
 A-1
Unit
Mission Payload Weight Attack/Recon
Qty Objective
lbs - lbs
Pilot (if applicable) 250 1 250
Gunner (if applicable) 250 1 250
Operating Weight Items 500
Gun Installation
Gun (TBD) 85 1 85
Ammunition 0.57 1,000 570
Linkless Feed System (MAU-211)
Ammunition Can 206 1 206
Flex Chute 30 1 30
Feeder 22 1 22
Precision-guided Munitions
Small-diameter Bomb
SDB II (GBU-53/B) 209 - -
Joint Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit (JMMBRU) 372 - -
Air-Ground Missile
JAGM/Hellfire (AGM-114K) 115 6 690
Hellfire Launcher (Individual rail) 36 6 216
Rockets
2.75 inch Rockets (APKWS II w/M282 warhead) 36.9 38 1,402
Rocket Launchers (LAU-61 G/A) 201 2 402
Air-to-Air Weapons
Air-to-Air Weapons (AIM-9X) 193 - -
Air-to-Air Launchers 90 - -
Defensive Countermeasures
Chaff/Flare Cartridges 1 30 30
Survival Kits 15 2 30
Zero-Fuel Weight Items 3,653
Total Mission Payload Weight 4,153

Figure 3 - Mission Payload Weights for A-1

13
 A-2 A-3 A-4
Unit
Mission Payload Weight
Air Assault Assault Security Strategic Self-Deployment
Qty Objective Qty Objective Qty Objective
lbs - lbs - lbs - lbs
Pilot (if applicable) 250 1 250 1 250 1 250
Copilot (if applicable) 250 1 250 1 250 1 250
Crew Chief (if applicable) 250 1 250 1 250 1 250
Gunner (if applicable) 250 1 250 1 250 1 250
Operating Weight Items 1000 1000 1000
Troops 335 10 3,350 Fallout Fallout - -
Gun Installations -
Gun (TBD) 85 1 85 1 85 1 85
Ammunition (Linkless) 0.57 300 171 500 285 - -
Linkless Feed System (MAU-211)
Ammunition Can 206 1 206 1 206 1 206
Flex Chute 30 1 30 1 30 1 30
Feeder 22 1 22 1 22 1 22
Crew-served Weapons
M240 Machine Gun 51 2 102 2 102 - -
M240 Ammo 0.065 1,000 65 1,000 65 - -
Pintle Gun Mounts (removable components) 5 2 10 2 10 - -
Precision-guided Munitions
Air-Ground Missile
JAGM/Hellfire (AGM-114K) 115 - - 2 230 - -
Hellfire Launcher (Individual rail) 36 - - 2 72 - -
Rockets
2.75 inch Rockets (APKWS II w/M282 warhead) 36.9 - - 14 517 - -
Rocket Launchers (LAU-68 D/A w/fairing) 91 - - 2 182 - -
Munitions mounts 67 - - 2 134
Auxiliary Fuel System (if applicable)
Auxiliary Fuel Tanks (TBD capacity) TBD - - TBD TBD
Auxiliary Fuel Kit TBD - - TBD TBD
Defensive Countermeasures
Chaff/Flare 1 30 30 30 30 - -
Survival Kits 15 4 60 4 60 4 60
Zero-Fuel Weight Items 4,071 1,970 TBD
Total Mission Payload Weight 5,071 2,970 TBD

Note: RFI Respondent to fill-in "TBDs".

Figure 2 - Mission Payload Weights for A-2, A-3, and A-4

4.4.1.5 Structures:

4.4.1.5.1 Provide views of the rotor hub and hinge, clearly indicating the type of hub, overall arrangement
and number of blades, direction of rotation, hinge and bearing configuration, the method of rotor blade
attachment, span wise cross sections, balance weights and tip areas for main and tail rotor systems.

4.4.1.5.2 Provide a structural description report that includes perspectives of the primary and secondary
fuselage structure, including bulkheads, frames, longerons etc., major cutouts, fittings and splices, critical
temperature areas with design temperatures indicated. Include major cutouts, weapons bays, store
provisions, engine and drive system structural interfaces, rotor systems, control systems and landing gear
supports.

4.4.1.5.3 Provide landing gear arrangement, structure, materials, design sink rate, attachment fittings, stroke
length, tire sizes, tire types, pressures and footprint and skid dimensions (if applicable).

4.4.1.5.4 Identify the materials usage (e.g. Al, Ti, Composites) and applicable material conditions (heat
treatment for metals) for primary and secondary structures and rotor components.

14
 4.4.1.5.5 Identify the capability to carry internal and external payloads or weapons. Ensure payload/weapon
capability is clearly defined and structural provisions to integrate are identified. Identify and describe
functionality of systems for deploying internally carried stores. If internal carriage requires reconfigurable
mission equipment, describe installation and removal methods.

4.4.1.5.6 Provide the basic structural design criteria (requirements (specifications, regulations, etc.) and
verification methods) addressing, loads, crashworthiness, strength, fatigue and dynamics. Include the
structural design weights, maneuvering and landing capabilities, design and landing speeds, design
envelopes.

4.4.1.5.7 Provide the design fatigue life for the airframe and dynamic components as well as any technical
basis (analysis, test, methodology).

4.4.1.5.8 Provide available dynamics analyses demonstrating the aircraft's structural dynamics behavior
including forcing frequencies, modal behavior as well as flutter and mechanical and aeromechanical stability
assessments.

4.4.1.5.9 If available, provide the operating limitations clearly defining the basis for each identified limitation.

4.4.1.5.10 What is the proposed structural certification methodology for the air vehicle?

4.4.1.6 Propulsion Systems:

4.4.1.6.1 Engine Description

4.4.1.6.1.1 Engine/Propulsion system description should include:

A. Manufacturer (OEM provider)

B. Major component (e.g. Starting systems/APU, Compressor, Combustor, Turbine) details
C. Dimensions
D. Weights (as a minimum): engine dry flange to flange, nozzle separate
E. Stage count
F. A description of the cooling scheme (i.e. modulated, cooled cooling air)
G. Engine limitations
1) Redline/max temperature limits (e.g. Max T3, Max T4, Max T41, Max T45)
2) Durability (Component) Design Point and Aero Design Point (Flt Mach, throttle setting
and Altitude)
3) Physical/Mechanical/Other engine limits (e.g. Max Ng, Max Ngc, Max P3, Min P3, Max
torque)
H. Component maps (compressor, burners, turbine) from actual component tests and also the
maps that are used in the submitted computer engine program if they differ from those
submitted from component tests.
I. If applicable, propeller maps in the following format:

15
 1) For fixed-pitch propeller, give Coefficient of Power (Cp) vs Advance Ratio (J) and
Coefficient of Thrust (Ct) vs Advance Ratio (J).
2) For variable pitch propeller, give Coefficient of Power (Cp) vs Blade Pitch Angle at a
family of Advance Ratio (J) and Coefficient of Thrust (Ct) vs Blade Pitch Angle at a family
of Advance Ratio (J).

4.4.1.6.1.2 Describe overall engine control methodology, including steady state and transient operating
envelope limitations.

4.4.1.6.1.3 Describe the engine power setting structure (e.g. idle, max-continuous, and maximum
power), its time limitations, and the associated limits.

4.4.1.6.1.4 Describe any advanced engine technologies and variable cycle features that will enable the
engine to meet desired performance levels.

4.4.1.6.1.5 Describe the position of the engine intake as compared to the weapons rocket motor
exhaust and gun gas path and any mitigation planned to prevent rocket motor ingestion/debris/spent casing
damage.

4.4.1.6.2 Engine Performance:

4.4.1.6.2.1 Engine Cycle Model: Provide either source code or a customer thermodynamic engine cycle
model (preferably in NPSS) that allows complete generation of uninstalled/installed performance data
throughout the full mission envelope. The source code or customer model output should show all relevant
component data (e.g. Flow station properties; Pt, Ps, Tt, W, Wc, 3rd stream flow; Performance parameters
such as component pressure ratios, component adiabatic efficiencies, etc.). The model shall be capable of
handling the following effects:
A. Air Vehicle Inlet performance (Recovery vs. Corrected Airflow and Mach number)
B. Engine bleed air usage
C. Mechanical horsepower extraction (requirements)
D. Exhaust/IR suppression losses (pressure-based measurements)
E. If applicable: Inlet spill drag and afterbody drag uniquely defined from reference conditions
between propulsion and aero, which are totally independent of any particular propulsion
system.
F. If applicable: Propeller Performance Model/Interface
G. If applicable: Nacelle Air Management Model/Interface.

4.4.1.6.2.2 A detailed user manual shall be provided that describes all the inputs, outputs, Numerical Status
Indicators, and engine model limits.
Where applicable, the digital data shall be incorporated into the engine model or
instructions shall be provided as to how to integrate the digitized data into the engine
model (e.g. component, propeller maps, installation tables, etc.).

16
 4.4.1.6.2.3 Propulsion Model Verification: Provide detailed substantiation for how the
uninstalled/installed power or thrust available was established and verified. (i.e., flight test, model tests,
engine manufacturer’s cycle deck, etc.)

4.4.1.7 Drive System:

4.4.1.7.1 Describe the overall Drive System and all its subsystems.

4.4.1.7.2 What is the Gearbox Power Rating?

4.4.1.7.3 What are the power requirements placed on the drive system?

4.4.1.7.4 What are the life limits for Gears and Bearings?

4.4.1.7.5 Describe the required Lubrication System.

4.4.1.7.6 Will the system have a loss of lubrication capability? If so, describe it.

4.4.1.7.7 What are the Vibration limits and how will they be maintained?

4.4.1.7.8 What are the Torsional Stability needs?

4.4.1.7.9 What are the Environmental Conditions the drive system will need to handle?

4.4.1.7.10 What are the Torque Measurement requirements?

4.4.1.7.11 What are the Transmission and Gearbox Ratings?

4.4.1.7.12 Will component standardization and standard parts be a capability?

4.4.1.7.13 What materials will be used for castings, forgings, shafts, coating, and finishes?

4.4.1.7.14 How is the Rotor Brake/Gust Lock implemented?

4.4.1.7.15 What type of sensors will be used (debris monitoring, pressure, temperature, vibration)?

4.4.1.7.16 What are the design needs for Drive Shafting (couplings, bearings, disconnect)?

4.4.1.7.17 Provide all documented analysis/substantiation for the drive system design (drive system
description analysis, torsional stability, lubrication, load/life, etc.).

4.4.1.7.18 What testing will be needed for development (oil flow, jet targeting, attitude, gear
development, gear load distribution, etc.)?

4.4.1.7.19 What Qualification and Acceptance tests will be needed (component, filters, heat exchangers,
blowers, etc.)?

4.4.1.7.20 What is needed for Bench Tests, Tie-Down Systems Tests, and Ground/Flight Testing related to
the drive system?

17
4.4.1.8 Handling Qualities:

4.4.1.8.1 Describe the ground operations envelope (takeoff, landing, etc.); describe the low/high speed
design flight envelope, operational/service flight envelope (if applicable) as defined by aircraft parameters
and environmental conditions that shape the envelope. Describe air vehicle configuration changes required
in order to transition between envelopes. Describe reasons for any restrictions or limitations to the ground
or flight envelopes due to handling qualities issues.

4.4.1.8.2 Provide the tailored ADS-33E-PRF and MIL-STD-1797B specifications used for the design of the
proposed aircraft, with rationale for tailoring choices. Provide a comprehensive description of the simulation
models and/or analyses utilized to generate handling qualities data, including all assumptions and
simplifications. Provide the predicted handling qualities performance for all tailored ADS-33E-PRF and MIL-
STD-1797B specifications.

4.4.1.8.3 Describe the air vehicle characteristics for OEI and AEI conditions.

4.4.1.8.4 Describe how the air vehicle will operate in the maritime environment. Discussion should
include (but not be limited to): launch/recovery (within ship deck motion of +/-3 degrees of pitch and +/-8
degrees of roll), holding, HIFR, VERTREP, and required transitions into and out of those conditions. Describe
compliance to Level 1 Handling Qualities Standards (DIPES 1 or 2) within a Wind Over Deck (WOD) envelope
which extends to +/-45 degrees off the nose out to 45 kts in Useable Cueing Environment 3 (UCE 3) as
defined in ADS-33E.

4.4.1.8.5 Describe the mechanical and electronic flight control system from pilot input to rotor blade
response. Describe flight control laws including control modes, inner loop, outer loop, autopilot, and flight
director. Identify how the system will handle (respond to) GPS-denied scenarios. All flight control system
documentation is to be presented in paragraph form as well as Simulink block diagrams (as appropriate).

4.4.1.8.6 CONOPS-level description of how automation will be utilized to reduce pilot workload
especially in Degraded Visual Environments (DVEs).

4.4.1.8.7 Describe any handling issues/concerns with off balance loading of external store stations.
Describe impact to handling qualities with deployment of internal store stations (sides or belly).

4.4.1.8.8 Describe the nacelle/rotor position and weapon engagement flight profiles including how the
platform would execute combat maneuvers during 30 min combat segment, 100 ft. AGL to 6000 ft. AGL to
support hover, 40-80 kts, 80-150 kts and 150+ kts airspeed. Provide time to conversion (if needed) and
conceptual flight profiles to support guided/unguided weapons delivery and dynamic/evasive maneuvers
(high pitch angle, diving/running fire (15-30deg), pullouts(700'-150'AGL), pop-ups, elevation gain). How
would the rotor/nacelle downwash potential affect weapon deployment/trajectory (aerial ballistics of
fin/spin stabilized projectiles)? What, if any, offset would be needed to employ forward quadrant munitions
to prevent damage to airframe and loss of sensor coverage?

18
 4.4.1.8.9 Are there any concepts for turreted or multi-directional launcher racks for employing
munitions?

4.4.1.9 Flight Controls:

4.4.1.9.1 What is the design-to Probability Loss Of Control (PLOC)? What is the basis for establishing PLOC?
How is PLOC substantiated?

4.4.1.9.2 Describe the flight control system architecture. Flight Control System (FCS) should include all
components from command inputs to aerodynamic surface response, and all required sensors for piloted,
autopilot, and autonomous control laws.

4.4.1.9.3 Describe the flight control law concept for piloted flight and autonomous operation. Include a
description/figure of the flight control law architecture. Include a description of the top level modes, autopilot
modes, flight director modes, and navigation and guidance modes. Provide the approach for inner loop control
law design and analysis including expected basis for Plant models.

4.4.1.9.4 Quantify the anticipated performance characteristics of the FCS in a hover condition including, but
not limited to, response to step commands, maximum roll rate, maximum pitch rate. Describe methodology for
arriving at these values.

4.4.1.9.5 Describe any artificial rate limitations imposed by any FCS subsystems.

4.4.1.9.6 Describe the general approach for handling system faults through input signal management and
system reconfiguration. Include your standard mitigation techniques or philosophies, redundancy management
schemes, etc. as necessary.

4.4.1.9.7 Describe the contingency mode concepts for autonomous operations including onboard failures
and loss of critical sensors or data links.

4.4.1.9.8 What sensors, displays, and automation will be available to support a DVE capability in zero
visibility?

4.4.1.9.9 What FCS items are COTS/NDI, what items are new developments? For non-COTS/NDI, what is the
basis for the cost and weight estimate provided?

4.4.1.9.10 For any existing or COTS/NDI components or systems, what qualification testing has been
completed?

4.4.1.9.11 What physical architecture and software functionality is included in the cost and weight
provided? If applicable, what modifications to the existing system are included in the cost and weight provided?

19
 4.4.1.9.12 Have other system configurations been considered to improve PLOC, reduce maintenance, or
provide other benefits? Have trade-studies been completed or planned to substantiate system architecture
choices, subsystem/component choices, etc.?

4.4.1.10 Fuel Containment:

4.4.1.10.1 What type of fuel cells does the aircraft use (i.e. bladder or structural) and where are they
located? If bladder, is there a secondary barrier around the fuel cell?

4.4.1.10.2 Does the aircraft provide features for crashworthy and self-sealing fuel systems including fuel
bladders?
A. To what standards do these features comply (ex: MIL-DTL-27422F, MIL-STD-1290A, MIL-
T-18847C)?
B. Will all fuel cells be completely ballistic tolerant or just the lower third?

4.4.1.10.3 What is the total fuel capacity including usable and unusable fuel?

4.4.1.10.4 How many fuel tanks (permanent and auxiliary) will be required to meet the needed range?

4.4.1.10.5 What new technologies are you employing, if any, for fuel bladders?

4.4.1.10.6 Is your aircraft employing an automated fuel balancing system for efficiencies?

4.4.1.10.7 Provide a fuel system diagram.

4.4.1.11 Aerial Refueling:

4.4.1.11.1 What experience does your company have with aerial refueling equipment and integration of fuel
management during aerial refueling?

4.4.1.11.2 Is the aircraft aerial refueling capable?

A. Has the aerial refueling system been qualified in accordance with MIL-A-19736A, MIL-HDBK-
516, JSSG-2009?
B. Provide a description of the aerial refueling probe. Include location, material, length,
weight, etc.
C. What tankers are certified to refuel the aircraft?
D. What fuel delivery pressures and flow rates can the aircraft accept from the tanker?
E. Provide a schematic of the aerial refueling fuel system.

4.4.1.11.3 Have you ever designed a retractable probe? If so, provide examples.
A. Is the probe hydraulically or electrically driven?
B. Does the probe installation meet the clearance requirements of STANAG 3447?
C. Can the probe, its attachment to the airframe structure, and the structure surrounding the
interface withstand the loads experienced during the aerial refueling process (engagement,
disengagement, and fuel transfer) with the tanker without being damaged or creating FOD?

20
 4.4.1.11.4 Is your company familiar with surge pressures encountered during aerial refueling and the
requirements to keep surge pressures below the proof pressure of the fuel system?

4.4.1.11.5 How do you intend to meet the “MUM T/optionally manned” for the Aerial Refueling capability?

4.4.1.12 Electrical Power:

4.4.1.12.1 The following detailed information, if applicable, is requested:

4.4.1.12.1.1 Describe the Primary Electrical Power sources of the aircraft:

A. Main Generators
1) AC or DC output
2) Rating
3) Overload capabilities
4) Mounting locations (Engine, gearbox, etc.)
5) Number of units
6) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL-STD-810/461/464)
7) Other aircraft applications where used
8) Cooling method
9) Weight of the component
B. Main Generator Control Unit
1) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL- STD-810/461/464)
2) Protective functions
3) Other aircraft applications where used
4) Weight of the component

4.4.1.12.1.2 Describe the Secondary Electrical Power and Backup or Emergency Power sources of the
aircraft:
A. Converters or Inverters
1) AC or DC output
2) Rating
3) Overload capabilities
4) Number of units
5) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL-STD-810/461/464)
6) Other aircraft applications where used
7) Cooling method
8) Weight of the component
B. Batteries
1) Chemistry
2) Rating

21
 3) Number of units
4) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL-STD-810/461/464)
5) Other aircraft applications used on
6) Weight of the component

4.4.1.12.1.3 Describe the Engine Starting capabilities of the aircraft:

A. If APU Engine/Generator, describe the Generator and GCU system:
1) AC or DC output
2) Rating
3) Overload capabilities
4) Mounting locations (Engine, gearbox, etc.)
5) Number of units
6) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL-STD-810/461/464)
7) Other aircraft applications where used
8) Cooling method
9) Weight of the component
B. If Hydraulic or Pneumatic, describe the role of the Electrical Power System
1) Is battery required
2) Is External Electrical Power required

4.4.1.12.1.4 Describe the External Electrical Power capabilities of the aircraft:

A. Compatibilities
1) Connection type
2) Power rating
B. External Power Monitor
1) MIL qualified or COTS – for component performance, environmental and EMI/EMC (i.e.
MIL-STD-810/461/464)
2) Other aircraft applications where used
3) Weight of the component

4.4.1.12.1.5 Describe the Electrical Power Distribution System of the aircraft:

A. Is the Electrical Power Distribution System designed to provide MIL-STD-704F quality power
to all utilization equipment?
B. Explain how Electrical Power is distributed throughout the aircraft Electrical Power bus
architecture with any and all combinations of provided Electrical Power sources
1) Battery Power
2) External Power
3) APU Power
4) Main Generator Power

22
 C. Explain the capabilities of the Electrical Power Distribution System in case of loss of power
source
1) Reconfiguration of Primary and Secondary Power bus architecture
a) Is it automatic or is crew action required?
b) Does reconfiguration retain as many electrical buses as safely possible?
2) Protection against power source and/or bus “door-belling”
D. Does the wiring system all meet the requirements of SAE AS50881
1) Is the wiring sized appropriately to safely handle the electrical loading demand?
2) What is the expected weight of the electrical power distribution system including relays,
connectors, wiring, terminal boards, associated hardware, etc.?

4.4.1.12.1.6 Describe the aircraft’s electrical loading

A. What is the baseline electrical power demand of the aircraft?
1) Is there an Electrical Loads Analysis (ELA) per MIL-E-7016?
2) Does ELA cover all operation conditions including power source failures?
3) Provide an itemized list of power usage by system (flight controls, weapons, comms, nav,
ASE, anti-ice, etc.).
B. Do both the primary and secondary systems have the capability to provide the required
power with additional power to supply added weapons systems?
1) Are you considering MIL-STD-1760 interface for the weapons stations? If so, what type of
interface class?
C. How much growth margin is factored into primary and secondary systems?

4.4.1.12.17 Does the electrical power system have prognostic and diagnostic capabilities?

4.4.1.12.18 What is the power type/capacity provided to the internal/external stations? How is it
controlled/regulated? What is the planned electrical interface to the stations?

4.4.1.13 E3:

4.4.1.13.1 The following detailed information, if applicable, is requested:

4.4.1.13.1.1 Air Vehicle

A. What is the aircraft made of? (aluminum, composite, mixture?)
B. Has any shielding been added to the aircraft for EMI protection? If so, what are the
specifications of the shielding?
C. Have any considerations been made for lightning protection for the aircraft? What are they?
What testing has been performed? What testing is planned?
D. What antennas will be installed on the baseline configuration? Where will they be located?
Has a location analysis been performed?
E. What other equipment will be mounted externally on the baseline configuration?
F. In regard to Air Vehicle, what E3 (EMI, EMC, EME, ESD, Lightning, P-Static, Bonding,
TEMPEST, EMCON, HERP) has already been performed? To what pedigree has the

23
 equipment been tested (MIL-STD-461, DO-160, MIL-STD-464, etc.)? Is there any planned
testing?

4.4.1.13.1.2 Avionics
A. What transmitters will be installed on the baseline configuration of the aircraft?
B. What Comm/Nav equipment will be installed on the baseline configuration of the aircraft?
C. What other avionic equipment will be installed on the baseline configuration of the aircraft?
D. In regard to Avionics, what E3 (EMI, EMC, EME, ESD, Lightning, P-Static, Bonding, TEMPEST)
has already been performed? To what pedigree has the equipment been tested (MIL-STD-
461, DO-160, MIL-STD-464, etc.)? Is there any planned testing?

4.4.1.13.1.3 Mission Systems

A. What Electrically Initiated Devices will be installed on the baseline configuration of the
aircraft? Has a HERO analysis been performed? What consideration has been made to the
event of an unintentional firing WRT the Cargo Hook System as well as other EID based
systems that could cause harm to the aircraft or personnel?
B. In regard to Mission Systems, what E3 (EMI, EMC, EME, ESD, Lightning, P-Static, Bonding,
TEMPEST, HERF, HERO) has already been performed? To what pedigree has the equipment
been tested (MIL-STD-461, DO-160, MIL-STD-464, etc.)? Is there any planned testing?

4.4.1.13.1.4 Flight Controls

A. Does the aircraft use a (fully or partially) fly-by-wire system? If so, in what areas of the
aircraft is the system implemented?
B. Is there a FADEC installed on the aircraft?
C. In regard to Flight Controls, what E3 (EMI, EMC, EME, ESD, Lightning, P-Static, Bonding,
TEMPEST) has already been performed? To what pedigree has the equipment been tested
(MIL-STD-461, DO-160, MIL-STD-464, etc.)? Is there any planned testing?

4.4.1.13.1.5 T&E
A. What Instrumentation equipment has been identified for use during testing? To what level
has the equipment been qualified?

4.4.1.14 Survivability:

4.4.1.14.1 From a survivability standpoint, what future threat capabilities have been considered in the
development of this concept aircraft?

4.4.1.14.2 From a survivability standpoint, what unique capabilities and performance does this aircraft
concept offer in terms of mission effectiveness?

A. Was mission effectiveness modeled?

B. What M&S tools were utilized?

24
4.4.1.14.3 What susceptibility reduction features are envisioned for the aircraft?
A. Will the Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) be fully integrated into this platform and
interoperable with other platforms? How will threat information be displayed, shared and
acted on by an ASE (ASE–aircraft systems interface), associated countermeasures and on/off-
board weapon systems?
A. Will the aircraft incorporate any threat avoidance automated flight control capability?
B. Will ASE systems be constrained in sensor and countermeasure coverage and
performance due to airframe design obstructions or exhaust flow?
B. Is open architecture a consideration in the design of this ASE system? Will the architecture
be compliant to any standards e.g. FACE? What are the benefits?
C. Will threat (guided/unguided) response (active/passive) involve or be coordinated with other
aircraft (e.g. wingmen, drones, other platforms) and will there be cooperative detection,
engagement and defeat of threats?
D. On the battlefield, to what effect is multispectral sensor information collected and fused?
1) What is the expectation for improved operator situational awareness? What capabilities
can be brought to the platform in terms of operating in degraded visual environments?
2) What networking capability is envisioned? What data products can be moved to and from
this aircraft and shared amongst wingmen and other platforms? How can such data
sharing capabilities be used to increase survivability?
E. What levels of aircraft signature (acoustic, visual, IR, RF, others) suppression are envisioned?
1) What signature reduction technologies can be incorporated and what are their respective
Technology Readiness Levels?

4.4.1.14.3 What Vulnerability Reduction features are envisioned for the aircraft?
A. For critical flight systems and components, what technologies and materials can be
incorporated into the design to decrease vulnerability?
1) Describe redundancy and separation of critical flight systems included in the aircraft
concept design.
2) Describe the ability of the flight control system to adapt/optimize to mitigate the effects
of ballistic damage.
3) Describe the use of other features such as self-sealing fuel system, dry-bay fire
suppression, fuel tank explosion protection, leak mitigation, hydrodynamic ram
mitigation, etc.
4) Are there technologies and materials capable of improving survivability (reduce
vulnerability) of dynamic rotating components such as drive shafts, drive couplings,
bearings, swashplates and rotor blade control components?
5) Are gear boxes designed for ballistic impact, can they continue to operate with fly-home
capability?
6) Describe gearbox design features for maintaining fly-home capability when a loss of
primary lubrication occurs.
7) What technologies and design features will be used to protect the flight crew and
passengers from small arms and other threats to the aircraft? Can ballistic protection (e.g.
armor) be integral to the airframe?
8) Due to aircraft speed needs, are there unique challenges associated with weapons
carrying capability and are there integration concerns?
9) Does a weapons-carrying capability pose any vulnerability concerns?

25
 10) Describe any specific design features (e.g. health monitoring system) that aide pilots in
identifying real time threat induced damage to flight critical components and/or
structure.
B. Based on existing designs, previous testing of existing airframes and new technologies
envisioned for FVL, what Live Fire Testing should be conducted in compliance with Title 10 US
Code 2366 requirements?

5.0 Mission Systems

5.1 Avionics Suite:

5.1.1 Describe the avionics architecture

A. Are the avionics components connected via a digital data bus?
B. Does the architecture utilize any Wave Division Multiplexing technology? If so, describe.
C. Describe your use of fiber optics cabling and switching technology for increased mux
signal speed and bandwidth and deceased weight.
D. Describe the redundancy of the architecture.
E. Is any portion of the avionics system architecture FACE conformant?
5.1.2 Communications System
A. Describe the aircrafts communications suite. List installed radios and current
functionalities.
B. Is Beyond Line-of-Sight communications possible. If so describe the system in detail.
C. List and describe associated antennas and interconnects.
5.1.3 Navigation System
A. Describe the aircrafts navigations system
B. Describe any aircraft unique capabilities for navigation in a GPS denied environment.
5.1.4 Identification Friend or Foe
A. Describe the aircrafts IFF transponder and available modes.
5.1.5 Mission Computer or Equivalent
A. Describe the mission computer system in detail.
5.1.6 Displays
A. Describe the planned aircrafts’ display systems, architecture should a display fail, and any
use of advanced technology in this area.
5.2 Sensors:

5.2.1 What portion of available size, weight, and power (SWAP) is estimated to be allocated to RF,
multispectral (EO/IR), or other sensors?
5.2.2 Describe the general concept for RF sensor antenna/aperture placement(s) on the platform to
achieve the need for 360 degree air to surface and air-air target detection, tracking, and
identification.
5.2.3 Describe the positioning of the installed sensors. Describe the targeting capability for the
sensors. Describe the concept for geo/spatial location by the sensor to support targeting.
5.2.4 Describe how aircraft sensors will provide targeting/tracking information to weapons (i.e. fused
tracking, laser designation, RF targeting, etc.).
A. How many active/passive tracks will the platform be capable of?
B. What is the field of view (FOV) of the sensor?
C. What is the field of regard (FOR) of the sensor?
D. What is the planned resolution/range for each type of sensor? At various altitudes?

26
 E. What is the TRL of the sensor suite?
F. What types of technology are being planned/investigated to support the platform?
G. How many targets can be designated simultaneously?
H. Is the sensor slew rate/tracking capability capable of handling air-to-air engagements?
I. How will the sensor address battlefield obscurence? (smoke, defilade, low visibility)
J. How will the EO/IR suite address day/night and thermal crossover?
5.2.5 Describe how off-board targeting/track files will be transmitted/relayed to sensors/weapons.
5.2.6 Describe the structure for mounting. Describe plans for mitigating operational/flight
environment conditions (specifically aircraft vibration, high altitude freezing, moisture intrusion).
5.2.7 What types of helmet mounted display/heads-up display systems are being proposed for
interfacing with the sensor suite?

5.3 Weapons/Stores:

5.3.1 What portion of available size, weight, and power (SWAP) is estimated to be allocated to
Weapons and Store Stations? Does the SWAP include gun/sensor turret or is that allocated to air
vehicle?

5.3.2 Describe the general concept for weapons/stores placement(s) on the platform to achieve the
need for 360 degree air to surface and air-air target engagement.
A. Describe the weapon types planned for integration (lethal and non-lethal). Show a
diagram of the Weapon Engagement Zones (WEZ) and effective range for the weapon
loadout for each mission with respect to the aircraft for various altitudes. Describe
additional store types that would supported by the platform (i.e. auxiliary tanks, training
pods, electronic warfare (EW), etc. Trade study analysis for weapon/store types that
demonstrate combination effects (range coverage, capability, effectiveness, lethality, etc.
as applicable)
B. Identify any areas of Seeker blinding that could prevent Lock-on Before Launch (LOBL) or
area coverage/suppression type engagements in the weapons/sensor field of regard. For
example if the pylon is too close to the airframe, the effective radiation/seeker aperture
may be blocked for various weapons/EW/sensor pods. Nacelle position may inhibit
port/starboard field of fire for crew-served weapons.
C. Describe weapon/store station position that would support the combat/weapons
engagement profiles identified in Appendices A and B. Identify how internal/external
stations could be loaded and deployed to support the mission profiles.
D. What are the pitch/roll/yaw angles of the pylons relative to the aircraft? How does the
aircraft pitch angle change at various airspeeds? Do the pylons articulate to enable long
range and/or off-axis engagement or are they fixed?
E. Estimates for Weapon Delivery Accuracy and Target Location Error based on employment
scenarios depicted in Appendices A and B.
F. Several of the current Rotary Wing weapon variants have airspeed employment
limitations at 150kts (APKWS, Hellfire, JAGM) and gun system accuracy is affected by the
delivery profile. How does this affect the weapons implementation on the proposed
aircraft design? Would the FVL need to consider fixed wing variants as well as rotary wing
variants IOT accomplish the mission sets described in Appendices A and B? Does the
nacelle/rotor transition mode support the lower speed employment and still provide
combat maneuverability? Several weapons have min/max elevation limitations (i.e.

27
 SOPGM, CSW). How are these limitations being considered with respect to flight
envelope?
G. Describe how/which weapons will be capable of employment on the ground? Perimeter
defense during load/unload troops/cargo? (Yankee/V-22 RMWS) How will CSW be
stowed in-flight to perform high elevation flight profiles and HAAR?

5.3.3 Describe the weapon/store station interfaces to the platform

A. Describe in detail the wiring/connectors/umbilicals and interface for each station and how
wiring harnesses will be secured/protected inflight during weapons employment and
jettison. (i.e. 1760/UAI, Ethernet, 28VDC rocket umbilicals)
B. Describe in detail any additional interface features for the internal/external stations to
support future weapons integration (optics, cooling, NET enabled, data link, directed
energy weapons)

5.3.4 Describe the general concept for weapons/stores handling, loading/downloading,

arming/dearming on the platform. (include where applicable)
A. Support/test equipment/tooling/carts/hoists
B. Ground/operator clearance for maneuvering to load/download including shipboard and
FARP environments
C. Emergency/non-routine procedures for hung stores/suspension equipment
D. Need to understand the level of effort required to reconfigure the aircraft for different
mission types (i.e. CAS/Attack, Escort, Troop deployment)

5.3.5 Describe the general concept for configuring the aircraft for mission conversion and periodic
maintenance including pylon, rack, suspension equipment, gun mounts/turrets on the platform.
A. Reliability predictions/Maintenance concept/Manpower Supportability
B. Support/test equipment/tooling/lifts/hoists
C. Ground/operator clearance for maneuvering to install /remove
D. Level of maintainer/manpower/time
E. Need to understand the level of effort required to reconfigure the aircraft for different
mission types (i.e. CAS/Attack, Escort, Troop deployment)

5.3.6 Describe the structure/load that the internal/external pylons and suspension equipment will be
designed to support (Mil-Std-8591). Normal flight profiles? Fatigue? Crash loads?

5.3.7 Provide Concept of Operations recommendations and description for weapons loadout/inventory
to support the mission described in Appendices A and B to include number of engagements, range,
suppression vs precision attack, min/max altitude for engagement (based on weapons type).

5.3.8 Describe the design/block diagram for the fire control system/stores management system.
Provide a functional description if applicable including:
A. Architecture (centralized or distributed, digital/analog interface, DI, sensors, avionics, link
interface)
B. Subsystem hardware (store management computer, station control units, power control
modules, etc.)
C. Inventory management
D. Built-in Test
E. Suspension/release equipment control

28
 F. Fusing/Arming/safety interlocks
G. Release consent
H. Operator interface/controls/displays
I. Off-board command and fire control

6.0 Cost

6.0.1 This portion of the RFI will focus on, by appropriation, general cost ground rules, assumptions and
historical basis for the elements of cost for the various concepts available. In addition to cost-specific
information, this portion of the RFI also focuses on soliciting ideas and inputs regarding affordability
initiatives and cost reduction/mitigation techniques which can be applied to the 2032 and beyond associated
capabilities. Areas of interest include changes to Concept of Operations (CONOPS)/tactics of current and
future systems; identification of cost drivers for system design, testing, production and sustainment;
recommendations on training, maintenance, support activities, Department of Defense (DoD) business policy
(how requirements and oversight potentially drive cost and schedule), with the goal of reducing or mitigating
those costs. Fundamentally, the government is looking to plan affordability potential into integrated warfare
capability while filling capability gaps associated with the sundown and retirement of the H-60 and H-1
airframes to become better informed of future alternatives.

6.02 Cost and Schedule:

6.0.2.1 Ground Rules and Assumptions

A. Provide any/all updates since the original February RFI responses
B. Provide all inputs in an Excel workbook
C. Where cost values are provided, submit as a value in Constant Year FY18$.
D. If inflation factors are used for cost normalization, use 2016 OSD inflation indices.
6.0.2.2 Schedule
A. Formulate a theoretical program schedule that considers development and qualification
timelines to achieve certification, and is consistent with recent acquisition reform and
guidance contained within the most recent DoD5000.02 (Technical Demonstration and
EMD phases, Milestone A or B insertion, etc.). Include engineering and design reviews
(SETR events) such as SRR, SFR, PDR and CDR. At a minimum, the notional schedule
should contain the following phases and associated timelines:
1) TMRR Phase, if applicable
a) Preliminary Design Timeline
b) Timeline to first prototype delivery
2) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase
a) Critical Design Timeline
b) Timeline to First Flight
3) Production and Deployment Phase
a) Lot delivery timelines
b) Full Rate production Decision

6.0.2.3 Cost
A. Provide cost projections for the following areas, in accordance with your schedule, and
document the assumptions; specifically identify the cost methodology used in
determining costs and identify specific items where cost is based on actual costs incurred.

29
 Provide your cost information, to a level 4 indenture, in a Mil-STD-881C WBS format. The
WBS should also be accompanied by a WBS Dictionary for mapping purposes. The
following is included as an EXAMPLE of an acceptable WBS format:

1.0 FVL CAPABILITY #3 EFFORT

1.1 AIR VEHICLE (AV)
1.1.1 AIRFRAME
1.1.1.1 FUSELAGE
1.1.1.2 TAILBOOM AND EMPENNAGE
1.1.1.3 ROTOR SYSTEM
1.1.1.4 DRIVE SYSTEM
1.1.1.5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
1.1.1.6 ANCILLARY PROPULSION
1.1.1.7 OTHER AIRFRAME (Specify)
INTEGRATION, ASSMBLY, TEST,
1.1.1.8 AND CHECKOUT
1.1.2 PROPULSION
1.1.3 AV APPLICATIONS SOFTWARE
1.1.4 AV SYSTEM SOFTWARE

1.1.5 COMMUNICATIONS/IDENTIFICATION
1.1.5.1 ****
1.1.6 NAVIGATION/GUIDANCE
1.1.6.1 ****
1.1.7 CENTRAL COMPUTER
1.1.7.1 MISSION COMPUTER
1.1.7.2 AIR DATA COMPUTER
1.1.8 FIRE CONTROL
1.1.9 DATA DISPLAY AND CONTROLS
1.1.9.1 ****
1.1.10 SURVIVABILITY
1.1.10.1 ****
1.1.11 RECONNAISSANCE
1.1.12 AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL
CENTRAL INTEGRATED
1.1.13 CHECKOUT
1.1.14 ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE
1.1.15 ARMAMENT
1.1.16 WEAPONS DELIVERY
1.1.17 AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
1.1.17.1 ****
1.1.18 CREW STATION
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING/PROGRAM
1.2 MANAGEMENT
1.2.1 NON-ILS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
1.2.2 ILS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

30
 NON-ILS PROGRAM
1.2.3 MANAGEMENT
1.2.4 ILS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
1.3 SYSTEM TEST & EVALUATION
DEVELOPMENT TEST &
1.3.1 EVALUATION
OPERATIONAL TEST &
1.3.2 EVALUATION
1.3.3 MOCKUPS
1.3.4 TEST & EVALUATION SUPPORT
1.3.5 TEST FACILITIES
1.4 TRAINING
1.4.1 EQUIPMENT
1.4.2 SERVICES
1.4.3 FACILITIES
1.5 DATA
1.5.1 TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
1.5.2 ENGINEERING DATA
1.5.3 MANAGEMENT DATA
1.5.4 SUPPORT DATA
1.5.5 DATA DEPOSITORY
1.6 PECULIAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
TEST AND MEASUREMENT
1.6.1 EQUIPMENT
SUPPORT AND HANDLING
1.6.2 EQUIPMENT
INITIAL SPARES AND REPAIR
1.7 PARTS
1.8 COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
1.9 OPERATIONAL/SITE ACTIVATION
1.10 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

6.0.2.4 RDT&E, Total Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Costs (BY18$) - Broken into
Recurring & Non-Recurring (Assume two prototypes for Technology Demonstration Phase and four
production representative articles for Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase) Note:
provide rationale if you believe the program can be executed with moderate risk by entering at
Milestone (MS) B or with fewer prototypes per phase.
A. Provide staffing profiles (average “Full Time Equivalents” or FTEs per year) by fiscal year to
support your development schedule and group into the following: Air Vehicle, Avionics &
Mission Systems, SE/PM, Logistics, Test & Evaluation, and Security.
B. Describe software of existing system and how it potentially will be modified to meet FVL
system concept. Provide the Source Lines of Code (SLOC) values and software language
for each existing system and estimate the projected new, modified, and reuse SLOC
values for the FVL system concept. Provide information (i.e. analogous/actual
information) and a brief description of your strategic approach to system software
development to assist with understanding estimate basis.

31
 C. Provide drawing counts and associated productivity metrics for existing system and
projected drawing count of FVL system concept.
D. Identify unique GFE/GFI items required to support development of FVL system concept.
E. Describe a concept for Contract Logistics Support (CLS) for a system fielded for
development/operational test activities of approximately thirty months in duration.
Provide cost ROMs associated with CLS concept.
F. Provide a brief description of your concept’s anticipated test program to be employed.
G. Provide the current TRL levels associated with the technologies included in each WBS
element of your concept
H. Describe the Information Security capabilities of your products and what standards they
meet. What implications to overall system cost do you anticipate as a result of these
Information Security Capabilities?
I. What is the anticipated cost associated with the data rights strategy previously listed in
the summary capability needs section above under bullet #12?

6.0.2.5 Procurement
A. Identify your calculation assumptions for “Number of Procurement Lots,” “Lot Quantity,”
as well as “Total Aircraft Buy.”
B. Identify the single shift minimum sustaining yearly production quantity.
C. For each system being described, provide the following cost information with the
associated limitations:
1) Total Procurement Costs (BY18$) - Broken into Recurring & Non-Recurring (Based on
349 air vehicles at the minimum sustaining yearly qty stated above)
2) Fly away cost (BY18 $) (Based on 349 air vehicles at the minimum sustaining yearly qty
stated above)
3) Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (BY18$) - Expand recurring unit fly-away cost value into
typical Navy Budget Exhibit P-5 sheet elements: Air Vehicle, Propulsion, Avionics,
IAT&CO, SEPM, and ECOs. Provide detailed substantiation information (i.e.
analogous/actual cost information) to assist with estimate rationale and basis.
D. Describe the Production strategy associated with each conceptual design to include the
following:
1) Production line- stand-alone or share with other TMS’s
2) Production tooling requirements and associated cost (assumptions for number of
procurement lots, lot quantity, and total aircraft buy should be consistent with your
calculation assumptions for recurring unit fly-away cost above.
3) Production rate that can be achieved with tooling requirements
4) Identify any potential teaming arrangements for major subcontractors
5) Identify what items, if any, are to be procured and provided as GFE
6) Identify the projected labor and material mix for end item cost
7) Identify assumed aggregate improvement and quantity curves for identified
production quantities through the production cycle, identifying breaks if appropriate
E. Describe and identify typical (or average) annual costs in a production environment for:
tooling, support equipment, publication updates, and initial sparing.

6.0.2.6 Operating and Support Cost

32
 A. Describe the maintenance and support approach for your concept.
B. Provide total O&S cost estimates of the FVL concept to support your production buy
assumptions and include the following assumptions:
1) 25 year service life
2) ~255 average yearly flight hours (Operational aircraft must fly 22 hours per month)
3) Assume 255 hours per year with 1.5 hour mission time per sortie
4) Provide total costs as total O&S, cost per aircraft per year, and cost per flight hour.
5) Categorize into the structure provided below. Provide substantiation information
(i.e. analogous/actual cost information) to assist with estimate rationale and basis.
6) Provide targeted system reliability

C. Identify proposed personnel requirements for operating and maintaining system concept.
D. Identify repair capability of overall and/or specific dynamic systems (OEM, Gov’t depot,
other).
E. Identify proposed publications philosophy (paper, electronic, combination), page counts
and maintenance level for each type of technical manual.

33
 F. For each system concept, what are the projected annual software maintenance costs?
Provide information (i.e. analogous/actual information) to assist with understanding
estimate basis.
G. Describe sparing levels of existing system (for engines, PSE, training equipment) and how
levels would adjust for FVL system concept.
H. For each Aircraft system/subsystem being described that is currently in the DoD supply
chain, provide NIIN, P/N, and CAGE of the top 25% highest cost parts. (i.e. GE engine,
ARC-210 Radio).
I. Describe unique PHS&T considerations for the system.
J. What is the Support Equipment required to operate and maintain existing systems, and
what is the percentage of CSE?
K. Describe your DMSMS and obsolescence management program.
L. Describe concepts, materials, and equipment (courseware, simulators, training aids,
mock-ups) required to adequately train operators and maintainers to operate the FVL
system concept.
M. Describe special facilities required for the development, production, testing, training,
storage and maintenance of the FVL system concept.

6.0.2.7 Affordability
6.0.2.7.1 Affordability 1 has always been a priority; however its emphasis considering the US Governments
options is paramount given the fiscal outlook from which upfront investment would be required. Given that
some candidate concepts are at early technology readiness levels (TRL) levels of maturity, the US Government
team is interested in understanding the risk areas that your organization predicts will challenge cost and
schedule predictions/assumptions and realization of those estimates. We ask you to provide background on
past program experiences, including the major obstacles, risks, issues and variables associated with design and
development of systems that may provide insight into cost and schedule drivers to allow planned avoidance of
such pitfalls while introducing new ways to affordably acquire capability.

6.0.2.7.2 Responses are encouraged from industry and should provide data regarding affordability and
cost reduction/mitigation techniques. When providing details of the cost reduction techniques, provide cost
data and relative complexity that shows both the costs associated with and without the technique applied.

6.0.2.7.3 The following is a list of specific areas of interest (in no specific order or priority) for each
respondent concept. If there are additional costs saving measures not identified below, provide adequate
background, data and applied methodology in your response.

A. Cost-saving modifications/adaptations to CONOPS/tactics of current and future systems.

1) Additional information:
a) Baseline systems should be considered to include current operational systems.
b) CONOPS/tactics changes should consider not only rotary wing assets but the enabling
systems as well. These systems may include weapon improvements (both on and off
board), space assets, networks, sensors, etc.
2) Specific question(s):

1
Achieving affordable programs (affordability): Conducting a program at a cost constrained by the maximum resources the
Department can allocate for a capability. These resources include funding, schedule and manpower. What is better buying
power? http://bbp.dau.mil/, 26 November 2013.

34
 a) Can these changes increase/maintain system effectiveness while reducing cost or what
degradations in effectiveness would be realized versus the cost savings?
b) Is there a way to modify CONOPS/tactics to save fuel cost?
B. Cost drivers of system design, testing, production, sustainment and how to reduce or
mitigate those costs.
1) Additional information:
a) Historically, system procurement prices have increased resulting in reduced
procurement quantities.
2) Specific questions(s):
a) From an Industry perspective, what drives increases in system design, testing,
production, sustainment, etc.?
b) What changes would be recommended in the early system design process that
would lead to decreased cost in all program phases?
c) How would your organization leverage such a change to realize cost savings?
d) Are there any revolutionary production techniques (i.e. 3D printing of parts) that
could reduce production cost? To what portions of the aircraft could this
production technique be applied (i.e. non-structural only)?
e) Are there commercial or military maintenance, information technology and
supply chain management techniques and technology that could reduce the life
cycle cost of future platforms?
f) What are cost saving drivers/strategies for the Government to affordably access
or own technical data associated with operational and maintenance
functionality?
g) Identify any cost savings/drivers associated with the ability to upgrade and
maintain software for the Government, to include but not limited to Government
ownership of the software, ease of upgrade and sustainment, ability to
change/enhance software while keeping firmware/hardware in place, and how
the software’s ability to interoperate with other platforms could be leveraged.
h) How can open system architecture be achieved while incentivizing contractors?
Where should open architecture boundaries be planned for the greatest effect?
i) How can we design systems to bring down the life cycle cost after fielding, i.e.,
manpower, flying hours, sustainment, infrastructure, disposal, etc.?
j) What are the total cost implications of designing to a longer or shorter service
life than the requested 25 years?
C. Cost drivers associated with Training, Maintenance and Support and how to mitigate these
costs.
1) Additional information:
a) Lifecycle costs far exceed procurement costs. Weapon system operating and
support (O&S) costs including costs for repair, parts, maintenance and personnel
have historically accounted for a significant portion of a weapon system’s total
costs.
2) Specific questions(s):

35
 a) What changes could be made based on commercial aircraft training,
maintenance and support practices, advances in training systems, health
monitoring and design to reduce cost and extend the life of aircraft and
subsystems?
b) Can we modify training techniques to still maintain superiority but also save on
fuel cost? What does that investment look like?
D. Cost drivers for capabilities and how changes can greatly influence overall cost.
1) Specific question(s):
a) From an Industry perspective is there a “knee-in-the-curve” where small
increases in performance would come at rapidly increasing costs? Where are
those “knees” given your understanding of system capabilities required to meet
the 2030 and beyond threat?
E. Cost and schedule drivers regarding DoD business policy, requirements, and oversight.
1) Specific question(s):
a) How do government-imposed factors (DoD Policy, Navy Policy and Public Law)
drive increases in both cost and schedule?
b) How can changes to government factors (DoD Policy, Navy Policy and Public
Law) streamline schedules and reduce costs create a better end product?
c) What causes DoD to realize increased cost and schedule relative to similarly
developed commercial products?
d) How can we write contracts that incentivize Industry to achieve the lowest
development and production costs?
F. Cost savings by use of upgrades to existing and currently funded rotary wing systems.
1) Specific question(s):
a) How could upgrades to any and all other currently deployed platforms realize
cost savings that could benefit a FVL replacement capability (estimates of the
amount of savings are encouraged)?
b) What distributed operations, open architecture, or other contributions can be
made to the FVL capability and/or capacity to provide for better future
affordability?
G. Cost saving strategies to incorporate a new system aboard aircraft carriers
1) Specific questions(s):
a) What considerations/strategies may be applicable for a new system to be
operational, maintainable, and logistically supportable aboard aircraft
carriers?
H. Cost reduction options for aerial refueling.
1) Specific question(s):
a) What options may reduce costs associated with force structure or
infrastructure while maintaining warfighting effectiveness for FVL Capability?
b) How would the aforementioned options realize cost savings (estimates of the
amount of savings are encouraged)?
I. Cost savings by use of Joint systems.

36
 1) Specific question(s):
a) How could commonality between technologies and/or subcomponents with
other Services’ unique systems provide science and technology (S&T)
development efficiencies, economics of scale, logistics efficiencies, etc.,
realize cost savings (estimates and the amount of savings are encouraged)?

7.0 RFI Respondent Instructions

7.0.1 All final responses should be submitted to the address below no later than 1600 (4:00) CST, 04 January
2017.

7.0.2 Proprietary information should be clearly marked. No classified documents shall be included in your
response. Please be advised all information submitted in response to the RFI becomes the property of the US
Government and will not be returned.

7.0.3 US Government support contractors will assist in the review of any data provided by respondents to
this RFI. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) has been signed by the support contractors with the US
Government that precludes them from disclosing any data outside of the US Government. Accordingly,
respondents are asked to provide concurrence in their submissions that the data submitted may be reviewed US
Government Support Contractors. All information will be handled by US Government and Support Contractor
personnel as procurement sensitive information subject to the protections, restrictions and requirements set
forth in FAR 3.104.

7.0.4 The US Government requires one (1) electronic copy (compact disc) of the RFI response. There is no
page limit for the RFI responses. The electronic copy of your response must be in Microsoft Office 2010 or
Adobe Acrobat XI readable formats. Please provide your firm/company’s name and address, point of contract
with telephone number and e-mail address.

7.0.5 Any questions on this RFI must be directed to the Lead Contract Specialist, Billy Gravitt via email at
[email protected] or the Contracting Officer, Janine Cowling, via email at [email protected],
no later than 15 days after the RFI announcement. No question will be accepted telephonically nor will any
responses to questions be provided telephonically.

The mailing address for questions and responses to the RFI is:
Army Contracting Command - Redstone
Attention: CCAM-BH-C, Janine Cowling, Contracting Officer
5304 Martin Rd., Second Floor (Room 4249)
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35758

A. Hand delivery of the requested RFI responses is acceptable. If hand delivered, please contact the
Lead Contract Specialist to make the necessary arrangements as to time and date of delivery.
Delivery must be made by the response date/time to the address below:

Army Contracting Command - Redstone

Attention: CCAM-BH-C, Janine Cowling, Contracting Officer
5304 Martin Rd., Second Floor (Room 4249)

37
 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35758

8.0 RFI Discussions:

8.0.1 Respondents are requested to identify their interest in participating in technical discussions
between US Government representatives from multiple government organizations to include NAVAIR; PEO
Aviation; Aviation Development Directorate; Army Material Systems Analysis Activity; TRADOC Analysis
Center – Fort Leavenworth; TRADOC Capabilities Manager; and USMC Capabilities Development and
Integration Directorate. The purpose of these discussions would be to incorporate industry inputs into
addressing specific AoA study question listed below:

A. How much do next generation or otherwise increased capabilities affect operational

outcomes compared to the baseline? What are the impacts of accepting capabilities above
the current baseline but below the identified capability requirements?
B. Which key attributes (range, speed, high/hot, reliability/availability/maintainability)
contribute the most to effectiveness? Which key attributes contribute the most to cost?
C. What are the implications of self-deployable and/or aerial refueling capability?
D. What are the implications and tradeoffs of optionally manned capabilities of FVL CS3?
E. What are the tradeoffs of fielding one CS3 alternative for each Service as opposed to fielding
one CS3 alternative for the Army, Marine Corps, and SOCOM? For cases where two CS3
alternatives are fielded (e.g., Army and SOCOM with one, Marine Corps with another)?
F. If one or more new development alternatives are chosen, what are the operational,
sustainment, and cost implications considering commonality of maintenance, supply chain
management, operator and maintainer training, sustaining engineering and other FVL
logistics elements?
G. What are the affordability impacts of developing a high-speed, long-range rotorcraft that has
sufficient reliability and low enough operating costs to have commercial applications?

8.0.2 In addition to discussing specific data elements in support of the AoA, the US Government would
like to engage in discussions to obtain data concerning the challenges of developing rotary wing aircraft to
meet US Government requirements, and the risks and challenges associated with developing an executable
moderate risk AAS acquisition program. Specific areas of interests identified to date include examination of
technology, design, development and manufacturing risks associated with the following:

A. Airframe
B. Engines
C. Powertrain systems (transmission, drive shafts, power/accessory gear boxes, etc.)
D. Rotor(s)/propeller(s)/prop rotor
E. Flight control systems
F. Software
G. Fuel systems
H. Environmental control systems
I. Electrical power supply and distribution systems
J. Auxiliary power systems
K. Hydraulic and pneumatic systems
L. Aircraft and mission systems

38
M. Open System Architecture/backbone to enable common mission systems (e.g., sensors
effectors, communications, navigation, etc.).
N. Mission equipment (avionics, sensors, armament, etc.).

39
 Appendix A: USMC Mission Ground Rules and Profiles
Performance Ground Rules:

A. General
1) Standard Day lapse rates; MIL SPEC 3013 Hot Day Atmosphere definition
2) Specified altitudes are Pressure Altitude
3) Zero Wind for all segments
B. Weights
1) Minimum Fuel on Deck (MFOD) quantity defined to be 10% Total Fuel Quantity
a. MFOD is separate from Mission Reserves
2) Performance Operating Weight Build-up varies with each mission (see Figure 1,
Figure 2, and weight allocations below)
C. Propulsion System
1) Fuel Heating Value 18,300 BTU/lbm
2) Jet Fuel Defined as JP-5 with a value of 6.8 lb/gal
3) Fuel Flow increased by 5.0% for unknown/anticipated installation effects (per
MIL-SPEC 3013)
4) Allow for accessory loses to cover electrical system power needs, at a minimum
to carry a load of 80kW AC and 500-600A DC, plus allowances for growth.
D. Hover Performance
1) Torque margins are applied to hover power required to takeoff for:
a. Land-based, 5% Margin
b. Ship-based, 10% Margin
E. Cruise Performance
1) All Engines Operating (AEO)
2) Speed for Long Range Cruise (VLRC) is at 99% maximum specific range

Mission Profile Acronyms and Abbreviations:

CAS Close Air Support

DAS Deep Air Support
HADR Humanitarian Aid Disaster Relief
HIGE Hover In Ground Effect
HOGE Hover Out of Ground Effect
IRP Intermediate Rated Power
KCAS Knots Calibrated Air Speed
KTAS Knots True Air Speed
MCP Maximum Continuous Power
MRP Maximum Rated Power
NM Nautical Mile
PA Pressure Altitude

40
SL Sea Level pressure altitude
STO Short Takeoff
VBE Speed for Best Endurance
VBROC Speed for best rate of climb
VLRC Speed for Long Range Cruise (= speed for 99% of maximum specific range)
VMCP Speed at Maximum Continuous Power
V90%MCP Speed at 90% of Maximum Continuous Power
VTO Vertical Takeoff

USMC V-22 Armed Escort Mission Profile (MT-3):

*Use weights from Figure 1 and weights allocations below

41
USMC Attack Mission Profile (CAS MT-1, DAS MT-2):

*Use weights from Figure 1 and weights allocations below

USMC Utility Mission Profile (MT-5):

*Use weights from Figure 2 and weights allocations below

42
USMC Troop Insertion Mission Profile (MT-6):

*Use weights from Figure 2 and weights allocations below

USMC Self-Deployment (HADR) Mission Profile (MT-7; can use 1 refueling via tanker, no more than 2):

*Use weights from Figure 2 and weights allocations below

Weight allocations for each mission (to be used in all missions):

In lieu of calculating weights for the aircraft’s Avionics and Instruments Weight Groups as well as for the
structural/transparency armor, use these for all missions when calculating performance: 1) Avionics Weight
Group – 1,190 lbs., Instruments Weight Group – 164 lbs., and Armor Weight – 1,186 lbs.

NOTE: Weigh allocations need to be provided to cover Store Provisions (such as structural hard points, jettison
systems, release or launch, mounts and supports, electrical and controls), turret/gun drive/fairing/gun sight &
control/mounts/supports/electrical provisions (everything needed for the gun called out in Figure 1 and Figure
2), and any additional pylon supports or installation provisions.

43
 Appendix B: Army Mission Ground Rules and Profiles
Performance Ground Rules:

A. General
1) Standard Day lapse rates
2) Specified altitudes are Pressure Altitude
3) Zero Wind for all segments unless specified
B. Weights
1) Performance Operating Weight Build-up varies with each mission (see Figure 3,
Figure 4, and weight allocations below)
C. Propulsion System
1) Jet Fuel Defined as JP-8 with a value of 6.7 lb/gal
2) Fuel Flow increased by 5.0% for unknown/anticipated installation effects (per
MIL-SPEC 3013)
D. Hover Performance
1) Torque margins are applied to hover power required to takeoff for:
a. Land-based, 5% Margin
b. Ship-based, 10% Margin
E. Cruise Performance
1) All Engines Operating (AEO)
2) Speed for Long Range Cruise (VLRC) is at 99% maximum specific range (high side)

Mission Profile Acronyms and Abbreviations:

HIGE Hover In Ground Effect

HOGE Hover Out of Ground Effect
IRP Intermediate Rated Power
KCAS Knots Calibrated Air Speed
KTAS Knots True Air Speed
MCP Maximum Continuous Power
MRP Maximum Rated Power
NM Nautical Mile
PA Pressure Altitude
SL Sea Level pressure altitude
VBE Speed for Best Endurance
VBROC Speed for best rate of climb
VLRC Speed for Long Range Cruise (= speed for 99% of maximum specific range, on the high side)
VMCP Speed at Maximum Continuous Power

44
VTO Vertical Takeoff
US Army Attack/Recon Mission Profile (A-1):

*Use weights from Figure 3 and weights allocations below

US Army Air Assault Mission Profile (A-2):

*Use weights from Figure 4 and weights allocations below

45
US Army Assault Security Mission Profile (A-3):

*Use weights from Figure 4 and weights allocations below

US Army Strategic Self-Deployment Mission Profile (A-4):

*Use weights from Figure 4 and weights allocations below

Weight allocations for each mission (to be used in all missions):

In lieu of calculating weights for the aircraft’s Avionics and Instruments Weight Groups as well as for the
structural/transparency armor, use these for all missions when calculating performance: 1) Avionics Weight
Group – 1,190 lbs., Instruments Weight Group – 164 lbs., and Armor Weight – 1,186 lbs.

NOTE: Weigh allocations need to be provided to cover Store Provisions (such as structural hard points, jettison
systems, release or launch, mounts and supports, electrical and controls), turret/gun drive/fairing/gun sight &
control/mounts/supports/electrical provisions (everything needed for the gun called out in Figure 3 and Figure
4), and any additional pylon supports or installation provisions.

46