Questions and Answers

Yes there will be a copy of the presentation made available. For a list of attendees, please see the sidebar. For Yuma dust range and helicopter test platform information, please contact Mike Jonez (Yuma Test Director) at mike.jonez@yuma.army.mil, (928) 328-4033; for MRI dust tunnel information, please contact Dr. Chatten Cowherd at ccowherd@mriresearch.org, (816) 753-7600 ext 1586.

The concern should not be to define the DARPA "challenge" per se. The concern should be to provide a complete affordable system solution that meets the criteria defined in the BAA.

The answers to questions a. and c. should be part of your proposal to DARPA. The JUH-60A RASCAL demonstrator is a resource to validate your approach. The timing and duration will be dependent on your particular program plan. The answer to question b. will be decided in the future, based on DARPA's evaluation of the BAA responses.

The potential GFE flight test assets discussed in the BAA are the Yuma UH-1 fleet, and the Army AFDD JUH-60A Rascal. Proposers should contact Mike Jonez at mike.jonez@yuma.army.mil, (928) 328-4033 for Yuma UH-1 details, and Barry Lakinsmith at blakinsmith@mail.arc.nasa.gov, for Rascal details. Other POCs are:

The affordability criteria is based on production units at fleet quantities.

I conferred with my army counterparts, and both services have addressed the issue through training in a process that began during Operation DESERT SHIELD in 1990 and continued through Operations DESERT STORM, SOUTHERN WATCH, DESERT FOX, etc. They evaluated training techniques, approaches to training, periods between training and the use of simulations. We feel that the improvements to brownout performance through improved aircrew training have essentially been maximized. They have met the full situational readiness improvement available via training, through an extensive training process. Techniques used to maximize aircrew preparedness for brown out operations include:

• Ground training
• Simulators and weapons systems training
• Aircraft training (on the runway)
• Build to dust out training procedures
• Theater training
• Periodic refresher training

It is our belief - and hence our support of SANDBLASTER - that further progress will require materiel improvements.

Sandblaster requires a system solution, not just a sensor solution. FOV/FOR are part of the bidder's system design, to enable adequate situational awareness and control for safe brownout landings and take-offs.

a. The LWIR experiment was conducted by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL).

b. Camera specifications are included in their draft final report. As with the draft LADAR report mentioned below. The report has not been released. We will attempt to expedite that release and make it available to Sandblaster potential offerers.

c. There were two MWIR experiments, one conducted by the Navy Research Laboratory, and one conducted by CRREL.

d. We will attempt to expedite the release of the report.

The draft No/Low Visibility ICD is in coordination internal to HQ AFSOC, and will not be released to industry at this time.

The CSAR-X Program Office has determined that CSAR-X requirements documents will not be made available to proposers for use in responding to the Sandblaster BAA.

Sandblaster requires a complete system solution including sensor, display and flight control aspects. Successful proposals will need to consider all these aspects.

All Sandblaster flight tests will be conducted with full regard to all aspects of flight safety. Airworthiness certification processes will be coordinated by the appropriate aircraft and test facility authorities (e.g. Yuma Test Center, or US Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate), with technical support from the Sandblaster contractor.

a. Sandblaster addresses a current operational need and time is of the essence. However, DARPA has not set specific schedule targets for Sandblaster.

b. Early calendar year 2007 contract awards are anticipated.

The UH-60A/L are configured with two AN/ARC 201D (FM) they both have amplifiers with Frequency hoping, plain and cipher capability. The number one 201D has FM Homing capability. One AN/ARC- 220 (HF). One AN/ARC186V (VHF). One AN/ARC-164V (UHF) with have quick capability. Three TSEC/KY58, with the Remote Control Unit to control the KY58. For spatial Navigation 128B/C/D (GPS). The 128D is an IFR certified GPS. One ARN 89 or AN/ARN 149 (ADF). One AN/ARN 123V (VOR) with Localizer and Glide slope. Those are the standard issue items for an UH-60A/L. You may see some variations like dual VOR, TACAN, etc. The UH-60M will have the same set up with two FMs, one VHF, one UHF, one KY58, one ADF. The only difference is all of those radios will be managed through a multiband radio ARC 231. The navigation system will be a dual Embedded GPS Inertial Nav System (EGI). I don't know the nomenclature for the SATCOM radio but it will be a DAMA SATCOM non line of sight radio. The HF will not go on the new aircraft.

Future UH and CH aircraft are using the Common Aviation Architecture System (CAAS) which has the approved symbology sets incorporated. Baseline UH-60M will not incorporate this system until 2009-2010 production models. Rockwell Collins and Sikorsky developed CAAS.

The LADAR "return plots" are included in Bill's draft report on the dust tunnel testing. Bill's report will be compiled into a complete report covering dust tunnel setup, each of the sensor phenomenology tests, and summary analyses. The release of this report will be expedited for release to Sandblaster prospective offerers.

Warning of all dangerous and threatening obstacles in the immediate landing zone is a firm requirement. This includes cables.