Draft Industry Engagement Request

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of the Industry Engagement Request (IER) is to support the completion of one key element of the Government’s Seven-Point Plan: that the Department of National Defence continue to evaluate options to sustain a Canadian Armed Forces fighter capability well into the 21^st century. The evaluation of options will review and assess all available fighter aircraft and will result in a comprehensive report with the best available information on the capabilities, costs and risks of each option, including bridging and fleet options.

As part of the evaluation of options, a market analysis will be informed by way of this IER, which will be anchored in the principles of openness, due diligence and third party oversight. The market analysis will be led by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS) in collaboration with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF), Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Industry Canada (IC). The purpose of the IER is to provide companies with a full and fair opportunity to present information on their fighter aircraft to support the Government of Canada in making its decision on a replacement aircraft for Canada’s fleet of CF-18’s.

The IER will be conducted through two separate but related questionnaires. The first questionnaire will seek detailed information from identified companies on the technical capabilities associated with fighter aircraft currently in production or scheduled to be in production. The second questionnaire will request estimates of the full life-cycle cost of the aircraft, including development, acquisition, sustainment, operating and disposal costs over the expected life of the asset. Cost estimates for each fighter aircraft should be developed to the fullest extent possible, while respecting commercial sensitivities, and should be informed by KPMG’s Life Cycle Cost Framework that was commissioned by Treasury Board Secretariat. In addition, the second questionnaire will request information on the potential benefits to Canadian industry of each available fighter aircraft.

To ensure that the Government of Canada receives comprehensive and appropriate information required to conduct the market analysis, the NFPS will send both questionnaires in draft form to identified companies for comments. Companies are encouraged to indicate whether the information requested in these questionnaires allows them to present their responses in a fair and appropriate manner. The NFPS will then review the comments and revise the questionnaires as appropriate before they are sent to companies for completion within a given timeframe. The first draft Questionnaire entitled Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire is attached at Section B and we would encourage companies to take advantage of this opportunity to provide us with feedback on the information requested in Section B. Once the capability questionnaire is finalized from this feedback and sent to companies for completion, the NFPS will send a draft cost and industrial benefits questionnaire to identified companies for comment as well.

An analysis of the current marketplace for fighter aircraft currently in production or scheduled to be in production has identified five (5) companies with fighter aircraft: Boeing, Saab, Dassault, Eurofighter, and Lockheed Martin. These five companies will each be provided with a copy of this questionnaire.

Respondents should note that information received in response to this IER may also be supplemented with information already in the public domain or in Government repositories.

2.0 Background

The multi-role CF-18  entered service in 1982 with an original Estimated Life Expectancy (ELE) of 2003. Aggressive fatigue management and structural repair programmes have extended the current ELE to the 2017-2020 timeframe. Concurrently, a comprehensive CF-18  modernization programme has ensured the aircraft will remain survivable and operationally relevant in both the Counter-Air and Counter-Surface roles throughout this extended lifetime. No other platform within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) inventory is capable of fulfilling all CF-18 mandated roles. With the retirement of the CF-18, the CAF will lose its capability to contribute to aerospace/land/maritime effects in the domestic, continental and international domains unless a suitable capability replacement is introduced into service.

Canada has an operational requirement to replace the existing fleet of CF-18s with a fighter aircraft capable of delivering aerospace capabilities in support of CAF operations. Canada’s mission needs were captured in the Canada First Defence Strategy announced on May 12, 2008 (CFDS), which specifies three roles and six missions for the Canadian Armed Forces. The CFDS is the Government of Canada’s policy foundation for the evaluation of options.

On December 12, 2012, the Government of Canada released several key documents further to its Seven-Point Plan on the replacement of Canada’s fighter jets. The Government of Canada announced that it is hitting “reset” and ensuring a thorough evaluation of options to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18’s. One of the documents released on December 12, 2012 was the Terms of Reference (TOR) that will govern the evaluation of options work. The TOR’s are currently available on the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS) website.

The objective of the evaluation of options work is to perform an analysis of options to replace the CF-18. The assessments of Canadian Armed Forces mission needs and fighter-specific mission needs will be collated and the information integrated into a framework that details and assesses potential courses of action for the sustainment of a Canadian Armed Forces fighter capability derived from a valid threat analysis, mission needs, and available fighter capabilities. This evaluation will be made against each Canadian Armed Forces mission and result in an in-depth analysis of potential courses of action for acquiring and sustaining a fighter capability over a specific time horizon. Considering the estimated life expectancy of the CF-18, the risk associated with various courses of action will be assessed using key assessment criteria such as aircraft acquisition, affordability, supportability, interoperability and long term growth potential. In addition, the risk of potential courses of action as they relate to the Canada First Defence Strategy will also be assessed. The assessment of each fighter aircraft against the mission needs will not remove any aircraft from the options evaluation process. A key component of this undertaking is a market analysis of fighter aircraft currently in production or scheduled to be in production.

Based on aerospace doctrine and using the Canadian Armed Forces Capability Based Planning, the CAF has identified seven Aerospace Capabilities which CF-18 fighter’s replacement will need to execute in order to accomplish the six core CFDS missions. Aerospace capabilities are derived from the roles and missions outlined in CFDS but are not mandatory or rated requirements, as found in a Statement of Operational Requirement. Each Aerospace Capability is broken down into Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs provide qualitative tools to assess how the performance of many independent subsystems can combine to produce system-independent effects. When combined, MOEs can be used to determine a rating for each Aerospace Capability. The performance of underlying aircraft systems will be assessed using Measures of Performance (MOPs). These MOPs are a measure of individual system capability and provide the basis for the assessment of effects delivered by those systems, measured by MOEs.

Canada requires a replacement fighter capability for a period of at least 30 years. In order to analyze potential fighter options to meet the Government of Canada’s needs for the future, the questionnaire timeframe is divided into two time horizons: 2020-2030 and 2030+. These time horizons capture the operating environment for the estimated introduction of a new fighter (2020-2030) and the future environment (2030+). The two time horizons are characterized by representative threats predicated on current and emerging technologies as well as threat proliferation. By requesting industry information on fighter capabilities within two distinct time horizons, there is an added benefit of allowing industry to describe capability roadmaps or spiral upgrades. This information will prove useful in describing fighter capabilities across the entire intended period of employment.

3.0 Tentative Schedule for Questionnaires

The tentative schedule below outlines the key dates for the IER and is subject to change. Please note that the schedule for the second questionnaire on cost and potential benefits to Canadian industry will be confirmed at a later date.

Action Item	Deadline
IER Questionnaire on capabilities
Send Draft IER and first questionnaire on capabilities to companies for comments	Week of January 21, 2013
Receive comments from companies	February 7, 2013
Send revised IER and first questionnaire for companies to complete	February 15, 2013 (TBC, depending on nature and scope of comments)
Responses to IER and first questionnaire received from companies	Allow 3 weeks for companies to provide responses (subject to feedback from companies)
IER Questionnaire on cost and potential benefits to Canadian industry
Send Draft IER and second questionnaire on cost and potential benefits to Canadian industry to companies for comment	TBC
Receive comments from companies	TBC
Send revised IER and second questionnaire to companies to complete	TBC, depending on nature and scope of comments
Responses to IER and second questionnaire received from companies	Allow 3 weeks for companies to provide responses (subject to feedback from companies)
Industry Engagement Meetings	TBC

4.0 Requested Information

Interested Parties are requested to provide input or comments on the Capability, Production and Supportability Information questionnaire attached as Section B, and provide them to the NFPS Executive Director identified herein. Please note that no costing/pricing information is to be included in any of the identified sections at the present time. Information on the cost and potential benefits to Canadian industry will be sought during the second phase of the IER.

Government of Canada officials are prepared to meet with identified companies, at a mutually convenient location and time to respond to questions and/or provide clarification.

If companies believe that the information requested is not immediately releasable or is sensitive, you are requested to proceed with the necessary release processes that would allow the information to be shared with the Government of Canada. Companies should identify sensitive information at the earliest possible opportunity in the IER process. In addition, any obstacles to releasing information should be brought up as early as possible during the proposed communication period and one-on-one meetings.

5.0 Note to Industry

There will be no short listing or pre-qualification of suppliers for the purposes of undertaking any future work as a result of the IER. The IER is neither a call for Tenders nor a Request for Proposal (RFP). No agreement or contract will be entered into with any person or entity based on the IER. The issuance of the IER is not to be considered in any way a commitment by the Government of Canada or as authority to undertake any work, which could be charged to Canada. The Government of Canada has not committed to any specific procurement process or strategy at the present time. The procurement strategy will be finalized upon completion of the Government’s Seven-Point Plan.

6.0 Response Costs

Respondents will not be reimbursed for any cost incurred to provide a response to the draft or final IER. Any and all expenses incurred by industry in responding to this request are at its sole risk and expense.

7.0 Treatment of Responses

Use of Responses: Canada will review all Responses received by the IER closing date. Canada may, in its sole discretion, also review Responses received after the IER closing date.

Review Teams: Public Works and Government Services Canada will oversee the review process and will participate as appropriate. Review teams composed of representatives of DND/CAF will review the Responses. Canada reserves the right to engage any independent consultant or third party, or use any Government resources that it considers necessary to review any Response while respecting the limitations applicable to non-disclosure and other agreements. Not all members of the review team will necessarily review all Responses. A review team composed of representatives of Industry Canada will review Responses related to industrial benefits.

Independent Review Panel: Independent Reviewers will assess the methodology used and the analysis performed at key milestones in the work. The involvement of independent reviewers will ensure that the work performed is both rigorous and impartial, and that the results are comprehensive and understandable.

Confidentiality: Written Responses will become the property of Canada and will not be returned. Respondents should clearly mark any portions of their response that they consider proprietary or confidential or if the response contains controlled goods or information that could be considered classified information.
Canada will handle Responses in accordance with the provisions of the Access to Information Act (R.S. 1985, c. A-1) and the Privacy Act (R.S., 1985, c. P-21).

Responses will be assessed through client references if available and expressly permitted by the companies.

Follow-up Activity: Canada will seek the approval of the companies to contact their representatives and organize meetings to obtain clarifications and/or obtain further information, as well as client references that will have been provided.

Canada will be conducting the analysis with the most detailed information available to the Government and is not limited to that which is provided in a Response.

Full and precise information is sought in order for Canada to perform a complete market analysis. In the event that companies choose not to provide the information requested or do not provide sufficient level of detail, Canada reserves the right to supplement the Response with information that is available to the Government in order to complete the analysis.

8.0 Format of Responses

In each Response, companies are requested to:

• Provide the name, title, address, telephone number and email address of your designated company point of contact.
• Stipulate the official language in which you wish to exchange correspondence with Canada. Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.
• Provide the name and any other identifier of the fighter aircraft weapon system(s) you are the original equipment manufacturer of and for which you are providing information.
• Provide input or comments using track changes on the Questionnaire 1 - Section B as it is presented and not to make any modifications to it. Respondents are permitted to add additional space for lengthier comments.

9.0 Closing Date

Responses to this IER will be accepted at any time until the time indicated on the cover page of this IER. The NFPS reserves the right to accept late responses at its sole discretion.

As indicated on the draft IER cover page, responses are to be submitted to the Executive Director of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat:

Rachel Wernick
Executive Director
National Fighter Procurement Secretariat
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Place du Portage, Phase 3, 9C2
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
K1A 0S5

10.0 Point of Contact for Enquiries

Questions regarding this IER should be directed to the NFPS Executive Director.

Companies are to assume all responsibility for the successful delivery of all questions to the NFPS Executive Director named herein.

Questions submitted to any other person but the NFPS Authority specified herein, or in any other form, will not be answered. Responses submitted in any other manner than that which is outlined above will not be binding upon any party.

Canada is prepared to meet with companies at a mutually convenient location and time for the purpose of responding to questions and/or providing clarification. As a result, Canada reserves the right to postpone responding to questions until such time.

Questionnaire 1 Section A: Capability, Production and Supportability Background Information

The information and definitions contained in this section are to be used to inform the Responses to the questions in the Capability, Production and Supportability Information Questionnaire.

Government of Canada Policy

The Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) provides Government policy guidance and sets a detailed road map for the modernization of the Canadian Armed Forces. It puts forward clear roles and core missions for the Canadian Armed Forces that will maintain the ability to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to operations overseas.

The CFDS provides the Canadian Armed Forces with clear direction concerning their three roles:

1. Defending Canada;
2. Defending North America; and
3. Contributing to international peace and security.

Through the CFDS, the Government has accordingly established a level of ambition that will see the Canadian Armed Forces carry out the following missions, potentially all at the same time:

1. Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD);
2. Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;
3. Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics;
4. Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period;
5. Respond to a major terrorist attack; and
6. Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods.

Canada will be assessing the capability of each fighter aircraft against the ability to complete each of the missions outlined in CFDS, noting that missions abroad are conducted in partnership with allies and coalition partners.

Canadian Armed Forces Mission Needs

Development of the Canadian Armed Forces mission needs focuses on operational level military requirements in a joint context – specifically, the applicability of a fighter capability to the CFDS missions. The mission needs analysis is informed by Canadian Armed Forces’ Capability Based Planning documents and threat analyses emphasizing technological trends as well as geo-political and proliferation intents. The development of mission needs applies the assessment of fighter capabilities to the CFDS mission roles, each mission in turn, and the contribution in a joint context. The mission needs assessment is put into an operational context while using operational-level weighting reflecting a “system of systems” approach to analyzing Canadian Armed Forces capabilities. Operational weighting considers the fighter’s contribution to a capability and the criticality of that capability in context of the mission. The results of the mission needs outlines the tactical value of each fighter and the applicability of fighter capability depending on the CFDS mission.

Fighter-Specific Mission Needs

Based on the CFDS and informed by the threat analysis, the Canadian Armed Forces mission needs have been established using existing Capability-Based Planning methodology. This methodology focuses on the operational-level military requirements in a joint context while considering Canadian Armed Forces aerospace doctrine. Mission needs analysis concentrates on the requirements of the whole system rather than those of the individual fighter platforms, and emphasizes the capability integration requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces within a joint force construct in consideration of national, bi-national and international commitments including NORAD and NATO. The output of this analysis provides a defined need for a sustained Canadian Armed Forces fighter capability well into the future. Fighter-specific mission needs derived from this construct, and in the Canadian airpower context, are listed below as the aerospace capabilities. These capabilities are considered core for any fighter replacement weapon system.

Aerospace Capabilities

Based on aerospace doctrine and using the Canadian Armed Forces Capability Based Planning, the CAF has identified seven Aerospace Capabilities which CF-18 fighter’s replacement will need to execute in order to accomplish the six core CFDS missions. Aerospace capabilities are a set of functions to be carried out by a particular aircraft and are not mandatory or rated requirements such as those prepared for a Statement of Operational Requirement. The Aerospace Capabilities have been defined as follows:

Defensive Counter Air (DCA)

Airborne measures taken to defend friendly airborne and surface-based forces against threats/attacks by opposing aerospace/airborne forces;

Offensive Counter Air (OCA)

Airborne measures taken to destroy, disrupt, or neutralize the source of an adversary's aerospace force, including warning and control facilities, aerospace bases, launch facilities, and adversary aircraft or targets of opportunity;

Strategic Attack

Missions against the adversary’s centre of gravity or against selected vital targets to progressively destroy and disintegrate an adversary’s capacity or will to wage war;

Close Air Support (CAS)

Missions to produce brief, but focused effects on adversary land forces in order to halt attacks, help create breakthroughs, cover and guard flank of friendly forces. Effects may be necessary to ensure the mission success or survival;

Land Strike

Missions aimed to destroy, neutralize, or delay an adversary’s military potential by reducing their capability to mount an offensive, restrict an adversary’s freedom of action, prevent an adversary from countering an increase in friendly strength, or reduce battlefield reserves;

Tactical Support to Maritime Operations (TASMO)

The conduct of Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) missions in support of Maritime assets;

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)

The ability to detect, locate, track, identify and display relevant information that enhances situational awareness. This also includes the transfer of information which may be used for decision making and planning purposes.

Fighter Measures Of Effectiveness

Each Aerospace Capability is broken down into Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs provide qualitative tools to assess how the performance of many independent subsystems can combine to produce system-independent effects. When combined, MOEs can be used to assign a weighting for each Aerospace Capability.

Awareness

The ability to gather, assimilate and display real-time information from on-board sensors. Awareness is largely dependant on the fidelity and capability of all on-board sensors. In addition, the capability of the entire system to display comprehensive information derived from inputs produced from multiple sensors is beneficial.

Survivability

The ability to operate within the operational battle space by denying or countering the enemy’s application of force. Survivability can be increased by detecting, classifying, and locating threats and subsequently evading them or negating their effectiveness. Once alerted to a threat (via radar warning receiver, missile approach warning system, etc.), a variety of active (electronic attack, decoy use, etc.) or passive (signature reduction, manoeuvre, chaff/flares, etc.) means can deny an engagement by that threat.

Reach and Persistence

The distance and duration across which a fighter aircraft can successfully employ airpower. Factors such as speed, endurance, range, and internal and external fuel loads should contribute when determining Reach and Persistence.

Responsiveness

The timely application of airpower, including the ability to re-target while prosecuting multiple tracks, and potentially even re-role from one Aerospace Capability to another, within a Core Mission. Responsiveness should also include the potential for the weapons system to conduct more than one function simultaneously. For example, while conducting defensive counter-air missions, can a given aircraft also continue to contribute to the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) picture? Also, the speed at which an aircraft can re-target, re-role, and reposition within the area of operations should be considered.

Lethality

The combined ability to obtain an advantageous position and negate/prosecute a target or threat. Obtaining an advantageous position speaks to the performance of an aircraft. Once there, it is desirable that a weapon system be able to negate or prosecute the target via a variety of kinetic and non-kinetic means. This process of employing kinetic and non-kinetic means may require supporting sensors and other avionics sub-systems to support weapons.

Interoperability

The ability to operate and exchange information with a variety of friendly forces in order to contribute to joint and coalition operations. Interoperability with other coalition and organic ground, sea, and air assets is critical. This interaction can include, but is in no way limited to, the use of data link and communications.

Measures of Performance

In order to provide more detailed analysis of the fighter MOEs, each set of contributing systems will be assessed according to their performance. The performance of these underlying aircraft systems will be assessed using Measures of Performance (MOPs). Capability descriptions provided by industry should clearly describe the performance of the fighter systems in terms of the MOPs below:

Radio Frequency (RF) Sensors

Any sensor, or collection of sensors, that emits and/or receives in the RF spectrum. RF Sensors include, but are not limited to: Radar, Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT), and Radar Warning Receiver (RWR).

Electro-Optical (EO)/ Infrared (IR) Sensors

Any sensor, or collection of sensors, that emits and/or receives in the EO/IR spectrum. EO/IR Sensors include, but are not limited to: Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), Infrared Search and Track (IRST), and Distributed Aperture System (DAS).

Air to Air (A/A) Weapons

Weapons employed against airborne targets. This encompasses weapons that are employed beyond and within visual range. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Air to Ground (A/G) Weapons

Weapons employed against land-based targets. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Air to Surface (A/Su) Weapons

Weapons employed against sea-based targets. Note that some aircraft do not have dedicated A/Su weapons, but it may be possible to employ traditional A/G weapons to some degree. Weapon capacity in the intended configuration should also be considered.

Non-Kinetic Weapons

Offensive weapons that do not rely on kinetic engagements.

RF Self-Protection

Non-deployable self-protection that exploits the RF spectrum and protects against threats in the RF spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: RWR and Electronic Protection (EP).

IR Self-Protection

Non-deployable self-protection that exploits the IR spectrum and protects against threats in the IR spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) and Distributed Aperture System (DAS).

Counter-Measures

Any devices deployed by the aircraft to negate or disrupt and attack. These devices can work in any spectrum. Examples include, but are not limited to: Chaff, Flares, BOL Infrared (BOL IR), towed decoys and expendable decoys.

Data Link

The means of connecting the aircraft to another or other assets in order to send or receive information. Data link can be used to share stored or real-time sensor and track information, to pass non-verbal orders, to pass full-motion video, or any other transmissions. Consideration should be given to the ability to send this information in a secure manner.

Communications

The means of sending and receiving voice communications between the platform and other aircraft or assets, both within and beyond line of sight. Consideration should be given to the ability to send and receive secure and jam-resistant voice communications. In addition, the number and type of devices on-board should be considered.

Sensor Integration

The ability to use all available sensors to build a more complete picture of the situation. Combining data from multiple sensors to achieve improved accuracies when compared to those achieved from the use of individual sensors should also be considered.

Pilot Workload

This includes any means of transferring information between the pilot and the platform, and vice versa, and any means of reducing pilot workload. Examples include, but are not limited to, Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS).

RF Signature

The relative amount of RF energy reflected and emitted by the platform.

IR Signature

The amount of IR energy emitted by the platform.

Engine/Airframe

A measure of the aircrafts kinematic and aerodynamic performance. Items such as thrust to weight, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and radii, ‘g’ available and sustainable, and other general performance measures would fall in this category. In addition, new enabling technologies such as thrust-vectoring control would also be included here.

Combat Radius, Range and Endurance

The distance over which an aircraft can be employed, and/or the time that it is able to remain airborne.

Operational and Strategic Suitability

An assessment of the operational and strategic risk related to potential courses of action will address the ability of each course of action to meet specific Key Assessment Criteria related to the operational sustainment of a fighter capability as well as the ability of each course of action to meet the Canada First Defence Strategy missions.

Operational suitability

The ability to introduce, sustain and operate a suitable weapon system that is capable of meeting mission needs when and where required. Performance indicators include the long-term sustainability of the aircraft and logistics supportability, management of the fleet and the associated personnel, aircraft reliability and operational capability within a range of operational battle spaces and environments.

The Key Assessment Criteria (KAC) are as follows:

Aircraft Acquisition

This KAC is an assessment of factors that would affect acquisition of aircraft types. This includes:

• planned production periods of the aircraft types to establish the viable courses of action,
• an assessment of risk related to the manufacturer’s successful completion of any required developmental work required before the aircraft are ready for acquisition, and
• an assessment of the ability of each aircraft type to be certified for airworthiness under Canadian Armed Forces regulations.

Interoperability

This KAC assesses broad interoperability within the Canadian Armed Forces and with allied forces for each course of action. This includes interoperability with air-to-air refuelling assets, common ground/spares support with allies and their supply lines, and the ability to feed data into Canadian Armed Forces and Government of Canada networks taking into consideration national security requirements

Growth Potential

This KAC assesses the growth potential and technological flexibility of each course of action to respond to unforeseen future advances in threat capabilities, to implement required enhancements to fighter technology, and to evolve as needed to meet the Canadian Armed Forces’ needs. This includes analysis of the architecture of aircraft types, power and cooling capability for new systems.

Supportability and Force Management

An assessment of the long-term supportability and aspects related to management of the fighter force of each course of action. Also related is the ability to introduce, sustain and operate the weapon system when and where required.

Time Horizons

Canada requires a replacement fighter capability well into the 21^st century, for a period of at least 30 years. In order to analyze potential fighter options to meet the Government of Canada’s needs for the future, the service life of Canada’s replacement fighter aircraft is divided into two time horizons: 2020-2030 and 2030+. The selected time horizons capture the operating environment for the estimated introduction of a new fighter (2020-2030) and the future environment (2030+). The new fighter will be required to operate in the presence of any combination of representative threats as characterized below.

By requesting industry information on fighter capabilities within two distinct time horizons, there is an added benefit of allowing industry to describe capability roadmaps or spiral upgrades. This information will prove useful in describing fighter capabilities across the entire intended period of employment.

Threat Characterization

The 2020-2030 time horizon is characterized by proliferation of current threat technologies as well as digital upgrades and increased integration of systems including:

• Fighter Aircraft such as SU-27 armed with a mix of weapons such as AA-12 and AA-11;
• Bomber Aircraft such as Tu-160 employing sub-sonic to low supersonic guided cruise missiles;
• Civilian Aircraft including airliners and low/slow civilian aircraft;
• Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as ZSU-23/4;
• Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-15 or SA-20:
• Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the SA-18; and
• Early Warning Radar Systems such as digital Spoon Rest and/or airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) integrated into a defence network.

The 2030+ time horizon is characterized by the proliferation of emerging technologies including:

• Fighter Aircraft such as PAK-FA armed with a mix of advanced multi-spectral high off-boresight weapons.
• Bomber Aircraft Such as next-generation strategic bombers with a reduced RCS and employing supersonic, low RCS, guided cruise missiles;
• Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) ground or ship based systems such as upgraded 2K22 or SA-19;
• Surface-to-air missile (SAM) ground or ship based systems such as SA-22 or upgraded SA-20;
• Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) such as the  SA-24;
• Early Warning Radar Systems such as phased arrays integrated into a defence network.

Questionnaire 1 Section B – Capability, Production and Supportability Questionnaire

Please ensure that all responses to the questions are as complete and detailed as possible.

Mission Configuration Weapon System Definition

1. For both time horizons described in Section A to this Industry Engagement Request (under “Time Horizons”), please describe your company-defined mission configured aircraft. These configurations should take into account any capability upgrade plans for the weapon system and be described. These configurations are to be used for the capability descriptions in the questions that follow.

1. Air-to-Air Mission Configuration (Defensive Counter Air (DCA), Offensive Counter Air (OCA))

   A typical loadout of Radio Frequency (RF), Infrared (IR), beyond visual range and within visual range missiles, cannon, sensors, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-protection systems (flares, decoys, etc).

2. Air-to-Ground Mission Configuration (Strategic Attack (SA), Close Air Support (CAS), Land Strike)

   A typical loadout of munitions, sensors, self-protection systems, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-escort air-to-air weapons.

3. Anti-Surface Warfare Configuration (Tactical Air Support to Maritime Operations (TASMO))

   A typical loadout of maritime weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, external fuel tanks (if applicable) and self-escort air-to-air weapons.

Capabilities

For all questions below, please provide a description of your weapon system capability in the two time horizons defined in Section A to this Industry Engagement Request (under “Time Horizons”) and in the presence of the indicative threats included in that horizon. Capabilities should be restricted to those provided by your mission-configured weapon system as described in response to Question 1 above.

2. RF Sensor Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF sensor capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What is the primary onboard RF sensor?
2. Approximate Radar detection range for a 0.1m², 1m², 5m², 10m² target?
3. What is the Radar operating frequency range?

3. EO/IR Sensor Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft electro-optical (EO) and/or infrared (IR) sensor capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, spectrum coverage, probabilities of detection, resolution, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. Approximate EO/IR detection range of a fighter size target in dry thrust Military Power (MIL Power) in the frontal aspect?
2. Approximate EO/IR detection range of a cruise missile size target (based on the AS-15 and AS-101/102 cruise missiles) in the frontal aspect?
3. What is the EO/IR sensor spectrum coverage?

4. Kinetic Weapon Capabilities. Describe the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare weapon capabilities intended for operational use on the aircraft and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What is a typical air-to-air combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?
2. What is a typical air-to-ground combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?
3. What is a typical anti-surface warfare combat load, including external fuel tanks and sensors?

5. Non-Kinetic Weapon Capabilities. Describe the non-kinetic weapon capabilities (e.g.:  Electronic Attack) intended for operational use on the aircraft and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, output power, frequency coverage, weapon effects, etc).

6. RF Self-Protection Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF self-protection capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What RF self protection systems does the aircraft employ?
2. Describe the Radar’s electronic protection capabilities.
3. Are jammers incorporated internally or carried externally?
4. What is the output power and frequency coverage?

7. IR Self-Protection Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft IR self-protection capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, output power, sensitivities, frequency coverage, protection effects, etc).

8. Self-Protection Counter Measures Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft self-protection countermeasures capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description. Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What number and types of countermeasures does the aircraft employ?
2. What is the frequency coverage and output power, if applicable?

9. Data Link Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft data link capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, frequencies, data/video bandwidth, reception/transmission ranges, output power, frequency agility, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What is the datalink the aircraft employs?
2. What is the compatibility with other existing datalink systems?
3. What is the reception/transmit range?
4. Is the link secure/encrypted?
5. Is the link a low probability of intercept/detection waveform?

10. Voice Communication Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft voice communication capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, frequencies, radio bands, reception/transmission ranges, output power, frequency agility, encryption/decryption, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. Does the aircraft employ Beyond Line Of Sight communications? If so, by what method?

11. Pilot Vehicle Interface Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft pilot-vehicle interface capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, display size/type, Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) functions, voice command, helmet mounted cueing, night vision devices/compatibility, etc).

12. Sensor Fusion Capabilities. Describe the mission configuration aircraft sensor fusion capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, sensor contributors, display integration, data resolution, fusion process, duty cycle automation, etc).

13. Aircraft RF Signature. Describe the mission configuration aircraft RF signatures and how these signatures will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the signature description (including, but not limited to, front/beam/rear aspect radar cross-section measures, emission direction, frequencies and output power, etc).

14. Aircraft IR Signature. Describe the mission configuration aircraft IR signatures and how these signatures will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the signature description (including, but not limited to, front/beam/rear aspect IR measures in dry thrust (MIL power), front/beam/rear aspect IR measures in reheat/afterburner (MAX power), etc).

15. Emissions Control (EM). Describe how the aircraft’s mission configuration emissions control features (EM spectrum) will contribute to the covert completion of a mission (covert is to be interpreted as ‘concealed’, not ‘disguised’). Include responses to:

1. How can the aircraft conceal its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions?
2. How can the aircraft reduce its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions to reduce its detectability by opposing units?
3. By how much and in what in-flight regimes can the aircraft reduce its electromagnetic or other environmental emissions?
4. This reduction or concealment comes at what impact to aircraft systems payload, operational efficiency or effectiveness?

16. Aircraft Engine and Airframe Capability. Describe the mission configuration aircraft engine and airframe capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, max speed at 30K feel Mean Sea Level (MSL), thrust in dry thrust (MIL power), thrust in reheat/afterburner (MAX power), angle of attack limitations, max G, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What is the aircraft thrust to weight ratio in the following configurations:
   1. Take off weight in the typical air-to-air load described in response to Question 1 above.
   2. During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
   3. Take off weight in the typical air-to-ground load described in response to Question 1 above.
   4. During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
2. What is the aircraft wing loading in the following configurations:
   1. Take off weight in the typical air-to-air load described in response to Question 1 above.
   2. During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
   3. Take off weight in the typical air-to-ground load described in response to Question 1 above.
   4. During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and no weapons remaining (pylons installed).
3. What is the aircraft instantaneous and sustained turn rate at Mean Sea Level, 15kft, 30kft and operational ceiling in the following configurations:
   1. During typical air-to-air mission with 50% fuel and weapons.
   2. During typical air-to-ground mission with 50% fuel and weapons.

17. Aircraft Combat Radius, Range and Endurance. Describe the mission configuration aircraft combat radius, range and endurance capabilities and how these capabilities will contribute to the Measures of Effectiveness described in Section A. Please include metrics to substantiate the capability description (including, but not limited to, fuel flow at MIL power, fuel flow at MAX power, endurance speed at 30K feet Mean Sea Level, etc). Additionally, please respond to the following:

1. What is the maximum range of the mission configuration aircraft in the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare loadouts described in response to Question 1 above?
2. What is the maximum endurance of the mission configuration aircraft in the air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-surface warfare loadouts described in response to Question 1 above?

18. Any other capability that may be part of your mission-configured weapon system and that you deem would contribute to the overall effectiveness of the mission.

Production and Supportability

19. Procurement. The following questions are oriented towards understanding when Canada will be able to procure aircraft, possible buy profiles (aircraft/year), and any risks to on-time delivery of aircraft with the needed capabilities:

1. Provide the date at which the production line for your aircraft is expected to shut down, based on current confirmed customer orders.
2. Provide the aircraft’s planned production capacity (minimum annual) from 2017 to 2030, the associated currently known production orders as well as the planned closure of the production line. Provide the lead time for delivery from placement of order. Describe important assumptions related to production capacity and flexibility in production planning and delivery.
3. Provide a list of current customers operating your aircraft type, and the status of current customer deliveries.
4. Describe which developmental work – if any – remains to be performed on your aircraft to achieve the capabilities provided by the mission-configured weapon system as described in response to Question 1, and the planned date at which those capabilities will be achieved. If delivery of capability is to be staggered in stages or blocks, please provide information about which capabilities will be available at which time.

20. Supportability and Connectivity. The following questions are oriented towards understanding the potential issues that Canada may need to assess regarding the long-term sustainability of the aircraft, management of the fleet and the associated personnel (especially pilots and maintainers), assurance of continued operational capability, and interoperability within the Canadian Forces and with allies:

1. Provide the aircraft’s designed structural life, in terms of number of years, maximum number or flying hours, maximum number of take off-offs and landings, or other structural life constraints/limitations, as applicable. Provide appropriate assumptions that form the basis for these estimates (e.g. basis for usage spectrum)
2. Indicate forecast (or demonstrated, if available) weapon system reliability in terms of average monthly flying rate per aircraft. In the context of the anticipated maintenance and support program for the proposed aircraft, provide an assessment of its ability to generate 15 hrs per aircraft per month. Describe important assumptions, as applicable.
3. Describe your concept of operations for reprogramming of the electronic warfare system and software upgrades for the aircraft’s mission systems and defensive electronic warfare systems for a period of at least thirty years following delivery of the last aircraft. Describe any features that provide flexibility to adapt the systems’ software configuration.
4. Describe any security-related infrastructure requirements to support the aircraft’s operations. If there is a special-access program requirements, list the requirements of the program.
5. Describe the aircraft’s depot maintenance support concept and weapon system support network, in particular as it relates to long-term availability of replacement/spare parts for the aircraft, for a period of at least thirty years following delivery of the last aircraft. Provide an estimate of until when spares lines are expected to remain open for the aircraft’s components, based on current and expected future operators of the aircraft type.
6. Provide the date (firm or estimated) beyond which your company is not expecting to provide any additional support for the aircraft, if applicable.
7. Describe the available simulators for your aircraft, and provide in particular a description of their fidelity and their capability for performing distributed simulations/learning. Describe also the available maintenance task simulators/trainers. Describe the courseware capabilities and the pilot training concept.
8. Provide a list of cleared and integrated air-to-air, air-to-ground, and anti-surface weapons.
9. Describe requirements for self-sufficient operations in deployed locations.
10. List the aircraft’s standards compliance for weapons, stores and consumables (e.g.: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Universal Armament Interface (NUAI)).
11. Describe the aircraft and weapon systems’ suitability to perform operations in a range of environments, including the Arctic.

    Regarding aircraft sensor, communications or weapons systems or components:

12. What connectivity architectures are required in order to provide connectivity outside of the aircraft? What connectivity equipment would be provided as part of the acquisition?
13. What bandwidth, data rate, data format, standardization agreement, security requirements and modes/means of transmission are needed/used?
14. Identify connectivity, releasability or security limitations that exclude or limit flexibility in equipment choice or use.

21. Growth Potential. The following questions are oriented towards understanding the growth potential of the aircraft to accommodate future un-forecasted technological developments and/or capability enhancements:

1. Describe your company’s capability upgrade approach for this aircraft, and any planned upgrade programs to include software and hardware upgrade and plans to avoid parts obsolescence.
2. Describe features of the aircraft’s systems and design that enable future growth (e.g.: available space, cooling/power capacity, “open architecture”). Provide an overview of mission/avionics system architecture and description of how it can accommodate future unplanned improvements.
3. List any additional features or capabilities that the weapon system could provide beyond those already described in response to previous questions in this questionnaire.

22. Interoperability. Describe details of your weapon system fuel type and its air-to-air refuelling capability/configuration.

Controlled Goods Requirements and Procurement Approach

23. Does the fighter aircraft weapon system include any equipment, software or other information that may be subject to foreign export controls or restrictions, including US International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controls, and if so, what is the anticipated process including timelines to address those controls or restrictions, such as initiation of an export license, Government to Government transfer arrangement or others.

24. Is the fighter aircraft weapon system and its associated In Service Support available through Foreign Military Sales or Direct Commercial sales or through other means?