2.1.1 Background: United States military operations take place worldwide and in all types of terrains as well as under every environmental condition.  The DVO will provide Soldiers with the ability to detect, recognize, identify, and accurately engage targets at extended ranges.  It will be used throughout the range of military operations, from Humanitarian assistance and Peacekeeping through Military Operations other than war and full scale war.  In all environments the DVO will not only increase Soldier lethality but their selectivity as well.

The DVO will be capable of variable power magnification with minimum magnification of 1.0x and maximum magnification greater than or equal to 6.0 power. Rationale: Variable power magnification optics combine the capabilities of the non-magnified optic’s ability to engage close quarter targets with a fixed-magnification optic’s ability to detect, recognize, identify, and precisely engage targets at extended ranges. This allows the Soldier to have both critical capabilities without the limitations of either non-magnified or fix-magnification optics.

Quoted:
Any word on competitors yet? There are already so many quality LPVOs that fit that bill.

Nightforce NX8/ATACR
Vortex Razor
Sig Tango 6
Leupold Mk6
Trijicon VCOG

There’s plenty more, but these come to mind offhand and are relevant manufacturers and models.

Quoted:

There are several others that aren't publicly revealed yet, as well.

It's a good time to be in the optics world!

Quoted:
1.5-6 would be fine.
1.5-6x50 mostly titanium would be awesome.
I can see some kind of <32 which would be a mistake.

Quoted:

Say, you wouldn't be alluding to the Leopold I've read rumors about and publicly seen only on an HDI Instagram post, would you?

Quoted:
1.5-6 would be fine.
1.5-6x50 mostly titanium would be awesome.
I can see some kind of <32 which would be a mistake.

Quoted:
Focal plane specified?

Quoted:

...and others

Quoted:

Should we be excited by the possibility of being able to buy them ourselves in the not-too-distant future?

Quoted:

I guess it all depends on your definition of "not-too-distant"?

Quoted:

These contracts often do conjure up some neat stuff, but I have to feel like a lot are only going to tweak their existing designs. I think we are going to see mostly existing optics competing with very minor alterations like reticle or color changes. I hope that's wrong.

Ideally for us they'd have written the contract for something that doesn't exist. A minimum length and weight under that currently available, for example. I REALLY want NF to make a 1/4(6, in this case) as small as they can. 32oz with mount weight requirement doesn't really push any boundaries.

Quoted:
SF started solicitation for a 1x6 in 2015
late 2018 SIG won
SF teams have yet to receive them.

So for big Army maybe in 2032 they will get something  

Quoted:
SF started solicitation for a 1x6 in 2015
late 2018 SIG won
SF teams have yet to receive them.

So for big Army maybe in 2032 they will get something  

Quoted:

Now that's the Army I know and love....

What's your take on the solicitation?

Quoted:
SIG must have  compromising naked pics of some Army Generals in procurement …..
Thanks for your $.02..

Quoted:
Well SIG Tango is in with SF now (but guys still waiting to be issued them),
word from SF testers the Sig 1x6 came in 3rd as far as user feedback but
1st in low price so that's why it was chosen.

Quoted:

Interesting.... What were the scopes at #1 and #2 based on user feedback?

Does each individual have the option to buy/use their own scope if they don't like the issued sigs?

Quoted:
5 years, and up to 120,000 optics?  There are only a few companies with that kind of production capacity.

Quoted:
and a total weight of 32oz including battery(ies), mount, and any standard accessories (caps, etc.).

3.2.6 First Focal Plane Reticle Requirement
The DVO is required to have a First Focal Plane reticle. The Government will not consider Second Focal Plane reticle optics.
…

[Criteria listed from MOST important (Factor 1) to LEAST important (Factor 4)]

3.4 OTA Evaluation Factors:
Factor 1: Go/No Go
Factor 2: Price
Factor 3: Magnification
Factor 4: Weight

Question 8: Per 3.1, we understand “one proposal per optic system may be submitted”; could the
Government please confirm that a company can submit multiple optics systems?
Answer: Firms may submit more than one optic. Each optic requires its own proposal submission in
accordance with the PPON.

Question 9: Per 3.2.4, we understand we must complete Attachment 03 – Business Status Certification, we believe per Section 7 and the provided attachments, this should read Attachment 02 – Business Status Certification; could the Government please confirm?
Answer: This is correct and will be corrected.

Question 10: Could the Government please confirm that Attachments 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not required until Follow-on Production Proposals or requested by the Government?
Answer: Attachments 04, 05, 06, and 07 are not required at this time. The Government will request
them if and when necessary.

Question 11: Could the Government please provide an estimated timeline of when Prototype Test
Results will be provided?
Answer: The statement “Does not count towards 10 pages, Prototype Test Results are provided by the
Government” in Section 4.3.2 is not meant to indicate that the Government will provide test results to
any Offeror. The results will be provided to Government evaluators only.

Question 12: Could the Government please provide the Soldier Evaluation Questionnaire?
Answer: This will not be provided to any Offeror.

Question 13: Will the video be played with sound?
Answer: The video will be played with sound.

Question 14: In reference to the Laser Filter Unit (LFU), is it the expectation that the DVO will be supplied with the LFU or will it be Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) once the sight is selected? If the LFU is not GFE, will the specific wavelengths and laser filter requirements be provided to vendors in order to facilitate the appropriate filtering qualities?
Answer: The intent of Go/No Go Criteria #5 is to specify the DVO must be capable of mounting an LFU.
Identification of the source and specific characteristics of the LFU is beyond the scope of this OTA and
will be addressed in an eventual follow-on production agreement.

Question 15: Due to the short notice of this opportunity, it may not be possible to get a new reticle
designed and implemented, will an optic with a reticle not specifically designed for 5.56 be considered
as long as the scope exhibits the capability to be outfitted with a “passive reticle with free floating
windage and range adjustments”?
Answer: Yes, optics with the capability to include a passive reticle design will be considered even if the
current reticle is not specifically designed for 5.56mm ammunition.

Question 16: Is there a preference between First Focal Plane (FFP) and Second Focal Plane (SFP)?
Answer: The Government requires a First Focal Plane (FFP) reticle placement and will not consider Second Focal Plane reticle optics.  See paragraph 3.2.6, "First Focal Plane Reticle Requirement," of the amended PPON OTA.

Quoted:
Amendment 2:
https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=9bddafd4bd1f988c928fb9a9d16d276a

Q&A 8-16:

Quoted:
Well with that seems like theyll likely get a NX8 or VCOG.

Quoted:
This is a really interesting development.

Originally, I thought that VCOG was going to be it, but 10.5" overall length is just under 10.8" of the 1-8x28 VCOG (I bet that was their question).

NX8 is probably the front runner, unless Sig steals it.  I wonder if they have a 1-8x already prepared for it.

Technically, Sig's 1-6x24 SDMR scope is also a touch too long at 10.8 inches.

10.5" requirement rules out a whole bunch of scopes based on the original LOW design.  All of those are 10.8" and unless someone takes a hacksaw to theirs, they are too long.

If March was a little bigger, they could go for it.  Both of their FFP 1-8x24 scopes are short enough.  The Shorty is even smaller than NX8.

ILya

Quoted:

Honestly, if the illumination is bright enough, and the design is good, FFP is just a better way to go.  Less training is required and you can get closer to a reflex sight with FFP.

The only reason we have all these high quality SFP 1-6x scopes is illumination.  It is MUCH easier to have a bright illuminated dot in a SFP scope.  However, Nightforce with the NX8 and ATACR, Minox with ZP8,  Blaser with the 1-7x28 (this is the best implementation I have seen yet) have clearly figured out how to to a bright FFP dot.  We will see the technology get cheaper as we go along.  Some people are developing DFP a little more for the same reasons: bright dot.  S&B with their new 1-8x24 is on esuch, but there are others coming.  MOst notably, Burris announced a reasonably affordable DFP RT-8.

In a FFP low power variable, as you go down in magnification, all the BDC and ranging features of the reticle become less noticeable, so if you have a good bright dot and large enough exit pupil on 1x, it becomes really close to a reflex sight-like experience.  With a SFP scope, the reticle is sill quite prominent on 1x, so aside from user training (to not use holdovers on low powers), it is also distracting.

On 1x, you do not want to see any prominent asymmetric structures in your view and FFP makes that possible.

Of the commercially available designs, the solicitation looks to be written with NX8 or ATACR or Mark 6 in mind.  I am not a huge NX8 fan, but it has a lot going for it in terms of packaging and reticle illumination.

I have been testing a ton of LPVOs over the last several years and there is one metric that does not get enough attention and it should: the size of the exit pupil on 1x.

For speed, I found that I really want to have an exit pupil of around 10mm.  More is better, but it is not a huge difference.  As you go down in exit pupil, for me, the transition seems to be happening somewhere in the 9-10mm range.

NX8 exit pupil on 1x is just under 8mm.  ATACR exit pupil is almost 12mm.  I suspect that they gave up some FOV with the ATACR to get a larger exit pupil.

Mark 6 1-6x20 exit pupil is just a hair over 10mm (and overall length is just under the cutoff).  I am sure Leupold has been working on an updated LPVO that would fit this solicitation.

Vortex has a lot of development behind close doors and I have no idea what they've got cooked up in there, but I would be shocked if they do not have something back there that fits this solicitation.

It will comes down Nightforce, Leupold, Sig and Vortex.  I do not think any of them will just let it go without submitting a product.

ILya
www.darklordofoptics.com

Quoted:
Wow. Why do they even bother putting out a solicitation when they set the bar so low that every LPVO on the planet meets the criteria? Why not just bUy an existing one? I wish they would demand a little innovation that sours some competition for new products. How about a 1-10x 2FP that weighs under 15 oz, has fiber optic illumination and is made of a forged aluminum she'll. I'd buy that

Quoted:
I agree that the 10.5" or less length requirement immediately cuts out a ton of great currently available options. Anything over this will not be considered at all. I'm not sure how many companies besides  Nightforce, Leupold, Sig and Vortex could spin up the 15 required samples that meet the 10.5" measurement without a fair amount of R&D involved. I'm willing to bet one or more of the big companies has a friend on the inside who gave them a heads up and already has something ready to submit.

FFP makes sense as any BDC/Ranging features a reticle has will always be accurate at any magnification level instead of max magnification like SFP optics.  Also as ILya stated, a FFP reticle at 1X can get pretty small and can be used much like a red dot/reflex sight.

I think a company like Primary Arms with the ACSS reticle could really become a player in the future if they made the reticle larger.

Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment.

Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option.

Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled,
with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet.   Even better, the system is multispectral,  covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package.

You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby.

This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who
have to carry and maintain this system too much.

We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens.  The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today.   I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years.  As far as I'm concerned,
we should have it already.

Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment.

Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option.

Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled,
with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet.   Even better, the system is multispectral,  covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package.

You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby.

This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who
have to carry and maintain this system too much.

We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens.  The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today.   I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years.  As far as I'm concerned,
we should have it already.