This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-651 
entitled 'Defense Acquisitions: DOD Efforts to Adopt Open Systems for 
Its Unmanned Aircraft Systems Have Progressed Slowly' which was 
released on July 31, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Committee 
on Armed Services, House of Representatives: 

July 2013: 

Defense Acquisitions: 

DOD Efforts to Adopt Open Systems for Its Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
Have Progressed Slowly: 

GAO-13-651: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-651, a report to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

For fiscal year 2014, DOD requested over $11 billion to modify 
existing weapon systems—more than 10 percent of its total procurement 
budget. Traditionally, DOD has acquired proprietary systems, which are 
costly to upgrade and limit opportunities for competition. Through its 
Better Buying Power initiatives, DOD has re-emphasized the use of an 
open systems approach as a way to reduce costs through effective 
competition. 

GAO was asked to examine DOD’s progress in implementing an open 
systems approach for UAS acquisitions. This report addresses (1) the 
characteristics and benefits of an open systems approach, (2) DOD’s 
efforts in implementing an open systems approach for its UAS 
portfolio, and (3) challenges, if any, DOD is encountering in 
implementing this approach. GAO analyzed relevant literature and DOD 
policies on open systems and interviewed agency and private industry 
officials to understand how open systems have been implemented and 
their benefits. In addition, GAO assessed acquisition documents and 
questionnaire responses from 10 current and planned UAS programs to 
determine their open system strategies. 

What GAO Found: 

An open systems approach, which includes a modular design and standard 
interfaces, allows components of a product (like a computer) to be 
replaced easily. This allows the product to be refreshed with new, 
improved components made by a variety of suppliers. Designing weapons 
as open systems offers significant repair, upgrade, and competition 
benefits that could translate to millions of dollars in savings as the 
weapons age. Other benefits are shown in the figure below. 

Figure: Benefits of an Open Systems Approach: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Open system benefits: 
* Increased competition; 
* Reduced life-cycle cost; 
* Enhanced interoperability; 
* Faster and less costly repairs and upgrades; 
* Increased innovation; 
* Reduced schedule. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and industry data. 

[End of figure] 

The services vary in their use of open systems on the Department of 
Defense’s (DOD) 10 largest unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The Navy 
used an open systems approach at the start of development for the air 
vehicle, ground control station, and payloads (i.e., cameras and radar 
sensors) for three of its four current and planned UAS and anticipates 
significant efficiencies. For example, Navy and contractor officials 
expect the Small Tactical UAS to be able to integrate at least 32 
payloads developed by 24 manufacturers, some in a matter of days or 
months rather than years as previous programs experienced. Conversely, 
none of the Army or Air Force UAS programs initially implemented an 
open systems approach, relying instead on prime contractors to upgrade 
and modernize the UAS. The Army is now developing an open ground 
control station for each of its three legacy UAS programs. Only one of 
the Air Force’s three UAS programs plans to implement an open systems 
approach on fielded aircraft. 

Policies and leadership can help drive DOD’s acquisition community to 
use an open systems approach, but challenges exist. Although DOD and 
the services have policies that direct programs to use an open systems 
approach, the Navy is the only service that largely followed the 
policy when developing its UAS. In addition, while new open systems 
guidance, tools, and training are being developed, DOD is not tracking 
the extent to which programs are implementing this approach or if 
programs have the requisite expertise to implement the approach. Navy 
UAS program officials told us they relied on technical experts within 
Naval Air Systems Command to help develop an open systems approach for 
their programs. Until DOD ensures that the services are incorporating 
an open systems approach from the start of development and programs 
have the requisite open systems expertise, it will continue to miss 
opportunities to increase the affordability of its acquisition 
programs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Air Force and Army implement their open 
systems policies, DOD develop metrics to track open systems 
implementation, and the services report on these metrics and address 
any gaps in expertise. DOD partially concurred and stated that its 
current policies and processes are sufficient. GAO maintains 
additional action is needed. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-651]. For more 
information, contact Michael J. Sullivan at (202) 512-4841 or 
sullivanm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Open Systems Provide a Variety of Benefits: 

Navy Leads Other Services in Implementation of an Open Systems 
Approach for UAS Acquisition Programs: 

Policies and Leadership Can Help Drive an Open Systems Approach for 
Weapon Acquisition Programs, but Challenges Exist: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Open System Benefits: 

Figure 2: The Personal Computer as an Example of an Open System: 

Figure 3: UAS Adoption of an Open Systems Approach for the Air 
Vehicle, Ground Control Station, and Payloads: 

Abbreviations: 

DAU: Defense Acquisition University: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

IBM: International Business Machines Corporation: 

OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

SE: Systems Engineering: 

STUAS: Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System: 

UAS: unmanned aircraft system: 

UCLASS: Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike: 

UCS: UAS Control Segment: 

USB: Universal Serial Bus: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 31, 2013: 

The Honorable Michael R. Turner: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) intends to spend over $11 billion in 
fiscal year 2014 to modify and modernize its existing weapon systems--
more than 10 percent of its total weapon system procurement budget. 
Given the current fiscal environment, budgetary constraints are adding 
pressure on DOD to look for ways to reduce life-cycle costs for its 
capabilities. Traditionally, DOD has acquired proprietary systems that 
limit opportunities for competition and cannot readily be upgraded 
because the government is locked into the original suppliers. 
Acquisition of proprietary systems is costly and can impede 
interoperability and the reuse of components among systems. 
Conversely, an open system, such as a personal computer, that 
incorporates modular design and open standards for key interfaces, can 
readily accept upgrades from a variety of suppliers without redesign 
of the entire system, providing numerous cost, schedule, and 
performance benefits. We previously reported, in 2003, that DOD was 
not giving due consideration to acquiring open systems, known as an 
open systems approach, for its weapon acquisition programs and that 
implementation was limited.[Footnote 1] In addition, in July 2009, we 
recommended that the Secretary of Defense require new unmanned 
aircraft system (UAS) programs to take an open systems approach. 
[Footnote 2] DOD concurred with the recommendation and plans to 
incorporate the approach in a future UAS program. 

Given the potential for open systems benefits, you requested that we 
assess DOD's progress in implementing an open systems approach for UAS 
acquisitions. Since an open systems approach can facilitate 
competition and ease upgrades for any type of weapon system 
acquisition, and because DOD directs its open system initiatives 
department-wide, we also evaluated the benefits and challenges of 
implementing an open systems approach broadly. Therefore, this report 
examines (1) the characteristics and benefits of an open systems 
approach, (2) DOD's efforts in applying an open systems approach to 
its UAS portfolio, and (3) challenges, if any, DOD is encountering in 
implementing this approach. 

To determine the characteristics and benefits of an open systems 
approach, we reviewed relevant DOD policies, guidance, and handbooks 
and conducted a literature search to identify open systems-related 
examples from private companies and standards development 
organizations. We interviewed officials from selected standards 
organizations, DOD contractors, and academia to identify their leading 
practices in developing open standards and implementing an open 
systems approach. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials from the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and from Army and Navy 
acquisition offices. To determine DOD efforts in applying an open 
systems approach to its UAS portfolio and the challenges it is 
encountering implementing this approach, we interviewed and collected 
documentation on open systems efforts from OSD's UAS Task Force and 
UAS program offices. In addition, we collected and analyzed 
information from the 10 largest current and planned UAS programs--
Group 2-5 UAS programs--on their open systems strategies using an 
electronic questionnaire distributed to the programs in October 
2012;[Footnote 3] all 10 program offices responded that month. We 
synthesized information received from the questionnaires; additional 
documentation collected from the program offices; and interviews with 
officials from OSD, the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), 
acquisition offices within the Air Force, Army, and Navy, UAS program 
offices, and UAS contractor personnel to assess Air Force, Army, and 
Navy progress in implementing an open systems approach and to identify 
related benefits and challenges. See appendix I for additional 
information on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 through July 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

One way for DOD to minimize the cost and time needed to modify weapon 
systems is by using an open systems approach for system design and 
development. An open system allows system components to be added, 
removed, modified, replaced, or sustained by consumers or different 
manufacturers in addition to the manufacturer that developed the 
system. It also allows independent suppliers to build components that 
can plug into the existing system through the open connections. 
Fundamental elements of an open systems approach include: 

* designing a system with modular components that isolate 
functionality. This makes the system easier to develop, maintain, and 
modify because components can be changed without majorly impacting the 
remainder of the system. 

* developing and using open, publicly-available standards for the key 
interfaces, or connections, between the components. Interface 
standards specify the physical, power, data, and/or other connections 
between components. All interfaces in a system do not need to use open 
standards for a system to be considered "open," and it can be costly 
and impractical to manage hundreds or thousands of interfaces within a 
system. Rather, open standards should be identified at key interfaces 
between the modules that are likely to change, may frequently fail or 
need to be replaced, or are needed for interoperability. 

* obtaining data rights to interfaces when open standards are not 
available. DOD describes the acquisition of technical data, such as 
design drawings, specifications, and standards, as critical to 
enabling the department opportunities for competition for modification 
and sustainment of weapon systems throughout their life cycles. 

Many consumer products, including U.S. appliances and smartphones, are 
considered to be open systems because they use widely-available 
hardware and software standards at key interfaces. For example, U.S. 
appliances are designed to use a particular wall socket standard, so 
that they can plug into any power outlet without consumers needing to 
worry about which brand product is compatible in their homes. 
Similarly, headphone jacks use a common, open standard, which enables 
consumers to purchase headphones made by different manufacturers, and 
plug them into many types of devices, including their MP3 players, 
cell phones, and stereos, which may be built by other manufacturers. 
In addition, the AndroidTM operating system,[Footnote 4] used on 
smartphones, allows individual software applications introduced by 
third-party developers to connect to the Android operating system 
through an open software interface. This allows customers to have a 
lot of choices and helps keep prices low. 

Incorporating an open systems approach prior to the start of 
development increases the likelihood that open systems considerations 
are included in program requirements and inform a program's future 
competitive strategy, which can significantly reduce upgrade and 
maintenance costs later. Introducing this approach later in a 
program's life cycle, such as a planned modification or upgrade, is 
more difficult, complex, and costly to do as it may require 
significant modifications to an already-developed system. Legacy DOD 
programs that we have reported on in the past did not implement an 
open systems approach early and are now facing difficult and costly 
system modifications later in their respective service lives.[Footnote 
5] The B-2 bomber and the C-130 aircraft are two examples: 

* The Air Force is spending over $2 billion to upgrade the B-2 
bomber's communications, networking, and defensive management 
capabilities. Because the B-2 program's prime contractor is the sole 
system integrator in possession of proprietary technical data and 
software, there is no opportunity for competition--a critical tool for 
achieving the best return on investment and driving down costs. 

* The Air Force planned to replace the aging avionics systems on its C-
130 aircraft with open architecture avionics systems. However, the 
individual cockpits had been modified throughout years of maintenance 
and differed from one another to such an extent that the upgrades 
required custom-built hardware and software; less expensive commercial 
off-the-shelf hardware and software could not be used. Because of the 
various configurations, C-130 modernization cost estimates increased 
from $4 billion to over $6 billion and the Air Force significantly 
reduced the number of planes it planned to modernize from 519 to 221 
between fiscal years 2001 and 2011. The Air Force terminated the 
program in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission because of its 
escalating costs.[Footnote 6] 

DOD understands the efficiencies of open systems and has taken steps 
to incorporate an open systems approach into its policy over the past 
two decades. As far back as 1994, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology directed the use of an open systems 
approach in the acquisition of weapon system electronics. That same 
year, DOD established an Open Systems Joint Task Force to oversee the 
military services' transition to open systems and coordinate open 
systems-related efforts, such as training and standards development. 
The task force developed several tools to aid program managers with 
this approach, but was later disbanded. In 1998, the Defense Science 
Board cited pockets of success in leveraging open systems, but noted 
that DOD lacked a unifying concept and required a reconfiguration of 
management processes and aggressive leadership to facilitate open 
systems implementation. This concern was addressed in DOD's 2000 
acquisition directive and in its most recent update in 2003, which 
states that "a modular, open systems approach shall be employed, where 
feasible."[Footnote 7] DOD's 2008 acquisition instruction also 
provides that "program managers shall employ a modular open systems 
approach to design for affordable change, enable evolutionary 
acquisition, and rapidly field affordable systems that are 
interoperable."[Footnote 8] 

Recently, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics has placed renewed emphasis on an open systems approach 
as part of the 2010 and 2012 Better Buying Power initiatives to 
increase efficiency in defense spending through effective competition. 
[Footnote 9] Specifically, the initiatives aim to improve the 
department's early planning for open architectures, including making 
open systems considerations part of the design process. 

Open Systems Provide a Variety of Benefits: 

An open systems approach has great potential to generate efficiencies 
for product manufacturers, lower total ownership costs for consumers, 
and transform industries because it spurs industry growth, 
competition, and innovation. To get the most from open systems, the 
approach is best implemented at the start of product design because 
this is where initial modularity, key interface, and data ownership 
decisions are made and would result in costly redesign if implemented 
later. Open systems have been successfully used by commercial 
companies, such as those in the personal computer and software 
markets, and has helped customers avoid sole source prices and 
manufacturers address obsolescence and diminishing resource issues. 
DOD has also used open systems to some extent and reports that open 
systems have resulted in cost and schedule efficiencies in the 
development and upgrade of some of its acquisition programs. 

As shown in figure 1, there are numerous benefits to using an open 
systems approach for products. For example, because standards are 
publicly available, many suppliers can compete in the marketplace and 
consumers no longer have to be dependent on any single supplier for 
parts or upgrades. Competition can also result in lower costs and new, 
technologically advanced products. In addition, the capability to 
accept plug-in components results in reduced development time and 
costs for manufacturers because parts are easier to integrate. 
Furthermore, upgrades and repairs take less time and are less costly 
for consumers. Finally, when different products adhere to the same 
standards, an open system design enhances interoperability among 
products. 

Figure 1: Open System Benefits: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Open system benefits: 
* Increased competition; 
* Reduced life-cycle cost; 
* Enhanced interoperability; 
* Faster and less costly repairs and upgrades; 
* Increased innovation; 
* Reduced schedule. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and industry data. 

[End of figure] 

An open systems approach can also spur industry growth and 
entrepreneurial creativity, transforming an industry and offering 
benefits to manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers. A prime example 
where this has occurred is in the personal computer industry. In 1981, 
International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation introduced its 
personal computer, which was designed as an open system. IBM used 
already existing components, including the monitor from another IBM 
computer, and commercially-available off-the-shelf parts such as 
software, floppy drives, and an Intel processor. Upon releasing the 
personal computer, IBM openly published its hardware and software 
specifications, allowing other manufacturers to develop compatible 
software and peripheral hardware, such as the monitor, keyboard, and 
mouse. Figure 2 illustrates the personal computer as an open system, 
made up of compatible components that can be produced and integrated 
by different manufacturers. 

Figure 2: The Personal Computer as an Example of an Open System: 

Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and industry data. 

[End of figure] 

Since the time IBM publicly released the specifications of its 
personal computer, the market has grown exponentially in terms of 
manufacturers developing computers and related devices such as 
printers and scanners, third-party suppliers developing software 
applications that can be used on the computers, and consumers 
purchasing computers, software, and peripherals. Increased competition 
and technological innovation brought on by the use of an open systems 
approach, among other things, has helped make computers affordable to 
consumers. For example, according to IBM, one of its predecessors to 
the personal computer sold for $90,000; its first personal computer 
was sold in retail stores for $1,565.[Footnote 10] In the present 
marketplace, multiple computer manufacturers are developing computers 
that have 500 times the processing power of IBM's early personal 
computer and sell for as little as $400. 

The personal computer industry has evolved over the past three decades 
to meet consumer demand and to leverage new technologies developed by 
the large number of manufacturers and suppliers competing in the 
marketplace. For example, in the mid-1990s, a group of companies, 
including Intel, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard, developed the 
Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface standard to reduce the number of 
different connectors, such as parallel and serial ports, that were 
required to allow various components to work together. The USB 
standard is now widely used in various devices beyond computer 
peripherals, including cell phone chargers and music players. Other 
standards, such as the High-Definition Multimedia Interface have been 
developed to address the need for standards for high-definition 
televisions and computer monitors. Perhaps the biggest transformation 
in the computer industry has been the Internet, with an estimated 2.7 
billion users worldwide.[Footnote 11] This communications technology 
is supported by open, non-proprietary standards which allow consumers 
to have easy access to information on a wide variety of topics, music, 
shopping opportunities, online banking, friends, their workplace, and 
more. 

DOD has also increased efficiencies by using an open systems approach 
for some of its past acquisition programs, as well as its largest UAS 
programs. For example, the Navy's Acoustic-Rapid Commercial Off-the-
Shelf Insertion program, which was approved for development in 1996, 
consolidated six separate submarine sonar systems into one modular, 
interoperable system with open interfaces that enabled rapid 
technology upgrades and the use of commercial off-the-shelf hardware. 
This enabled the Navy to conduct business in a competitive environment 
with multiple and diverse contractors, including small businesses, 
thus providing increased options for component selection. It also 
enabled quick improvements and provided improved sonar performance to 
an increased number of modernized submarines. In 2009, the Navy 
reported reductions of: 

* 17 percent in program development and production costs, 

* 13 percent in operating and support costs, and: 

* 80 percent in development time--developing and installing the sonar 
on the first ship 2 years after the program started, as opposed to a 
decade or more. 

The Navy also used an open system architecture to upgrade its Virginia-
class submarine program to counteract the effects of obsolescence and 
ensure the submarines have the capability to respond quickly to 
changing missions and threats. In 2010 the Navy reported $96 million 
in cost avoidance since the upgrade program's inception in 2001. 

In addition, in 2008, Congress directed DOD to develop a strategy for 
commonality and standardization in UAS ground control station 
architecture.[Footnote 12] As part of a joint service/industry effort, 
the UAS Task Force developed a common, open ground control station 
architecture, called the UAS Control Segment (UCS), which can be 
integrated into any UAS program's ground control station. The UCS 
architecture enables the reuse of individual software applications 
across different types of ground control stations, such as those for 
weather or vehicle status, thus eliminating the need to redevelop the 
applications for each new ground control station. The first version of 
the UCS architecture was released in 2010, and the ability to share 
software applications was first made available to UAS programs in 
January 2013. OSD and service officials point to several benefits from 
using UCS software. For example, one task force official stated that a 
demonstration of the UCS architecture in 2010 showed that the average 
time to integrate 10 applications was less than 2 weeks; significantly 
shorter than the traditional integration time for a new ground control 
station capability, which can be about 1 year. DOD also estimates that 
competition for software applications can eliminate up to 90 percent 
of their cost. In addition, the architecture will enable rapid 
integration of new aircraft sensors, weapons, and other payloads. 

Navy Leads Other Services in Implementation of an Open Systems 
Approach for UAS Acquisition Programs: 

The services vary in the extent to which they have adopted open 
systems for DOD's 10 largest UAS, with the Navy leading the other 
services. Three of the Navy's four current and planned UAS programs 
incorporated, or are planning to incorporate, an open systems approach 
from the start of development in key components of their UAS--the air 
vehicle, ground control station, and payloads (i.e., cameras and radar 
sensors). Conversely, none of the Army or Air Force UAS programs 
incorporated the approach from the start of development because, 
according to Army and Air Force officials, legacy UAS programs tried 
to take advantage of commercial off-the-shelf technology or began as 
technology demonstration programs. Several of these programs (4 of 6) 
are starting to incorporate the approach, primarily for the ground 
control station of fielded aircraft during planned upgrades. For 
example, the Army did not initially include an open systems approach 
for its three UAS programs, but has since developed a universal ground 
control station with open interfaces that each of its programs will 
use. None of the Air Force's three UAS programs were initially 
developed as an open system, and only one is being upgraded to include 
an open systems approach. Each of the programs that have adopted an 
open systems approach expects to achieve cost and schedule benefits, 
such as reduced upgrade costs and quicker upgrade times. Figure 3 
identifies the UAS programs that introduced an open systems approach 
at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground control 
station, and payloads. 

Figure 3: UAS Adoption of an Open Systems Approach for the Air 
Vehicle, Ground Control Station, and Payloads: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Service: Navy; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft 
System; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Navy; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Triton; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Navy; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne 
Surveillance and Strike; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads[A]. 

Service: Navy; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Fire Scout; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Army; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Gray Eagle; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Army; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Hunter; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Army; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Shadow; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Air Force; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Reaper; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Air Force; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Global Hawk; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Service: Air Force; 
Unmanned aircraft system program: Predator; 
Adopted approach at the start of development: Open systems approach 
not adopted at the start of development for the air vehicle, ground 
control station, and payloads. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[A] UCLASS is a planned acquisition program that has not yet begun 
engineering and manufacturing development--the point at which a 
program is considered to be formally initiated. 

[End of figure] 

The Navy Is Incorporating an Open Systems Approach in Key Components 
of Its UAS: 

Three of the Navy's four current and planned UAS programs--the Small 
Tactical UAS (STUAS), Triton, and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne 
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS)--which are less than 5 years old, 
included or are planning to include an open systems approach from the 
start of development for the key components of their systems. The Fire 
Scout program, which began in 2000, initially incorporated an open 
systems approach for its ground control station and later included 
open system elements in its air vehicle and payloads during an upgrade 
effort. The Navy expects significant benefits in return, such as 
reduced development and integration time and costs, as well as 
increased future competition for new system payloads. Since these 
systems, for the most part, either have not been fielded or have not 
begun development, program officials were only able to provide us with 
estimates of potential savings. 

The STUAS program, which started in 2010, made modularity a key 
requirement for the system, as documented in its acquisition strategy 
and systems engineering plan, and required the contractor to provide 
the program office with rights to key interfaces in the development 
contract. For example, the STUAS program owns the specifications for 
the data link between the air vehicle and ground control station, as 
well as the specifications for the payload interfaces. Officials noted 
that these elements allow the program to compete contracts for both 
the air vehicle and ground control station in the future for upgrades 
or to meet changing requirements. In addition, program and contractor 
officials noted that by having the rights and specifications to the 
payload interfaces, the program will be able to integrate and test 
third-party designed payloads within a matter of days or months, as 
opposed to years typically required to test new system payloads. 
Program officials also anticipate that they will be able to 
independently integrate at least 32 different payloads developed by 24 
different manufacturers. 

The Triton program, which started in 2008, developed an open systems 
management plan and described in detail the steps it plans to take to 
achieve an open system in its acquisition strategy and systems 
engineering plan. The Triton includes both hardware and software 
modularity, which gives the program the ability to integrate new 
payloads and introduce software upgrades without affecting the rest of 
the system. For example, officials noted that the system's camera is a 
separate subsystem, which makes it easier to upgrade the capability 
individually, and the flight control software is separated from the 
rest of the system's software, resulting in less required testing when 
new capabilities are added. Program officials estimated that software 
testing could be reduced by as much as 66 percent compared to systems 
that do not have an open system design, in part because the program 
does not have to test the entire system when introducing new software 
or upgrades. In addition, the program anticipates that the open system 
design will facilitate increased competition among payload suppliers, 
which could result in lower prices and better payload capabilities. 

The Navy is planning to use an open systems approach for its future 
UCLASS program. The program has identified and designated key system 
interfaces and according to program officials, it plans to require 
contractors to use particular open standards, such as an open payload 
interface for electro-optical/infrared sensors, which is expected to 
reduce acquisition costs and simplify integration, as well as an open 
avionics architecture. The Navy developed the architectures and 
provided them to industry beginning in 2012. Officials developing the 
avionics architecture estimated that development and integration costs 
for multiple platforms using the avionics could be reduced 
significantly, as compared to using a closed avionics architecture. 

The Fire Scout program included an open systems design for its 
original ground control station when it began development in 2000, but 
the rest of the system remained proprietary. However, when the program 
upgraded from the MQ-8A to the MQ-8B air vehicle in 2004, it secured 
the data rights to key system interfaces and introduced modularity 
into the air vehicle and payloads. As a result of a new modular 
software design, officials noted that payload data links are separated 
from the flight control software and other mission systems, which is 
expected to cut the time needed to test software and integrate a 
payload by about half. For example, program officials said they were 
able to integrate a new radar in only 18 months; officials estimated 
this integration previously would have taken 3 years. 

The Army and Air Force Are Incorporating Open Systems to a Limited 
Extent on Fielded UAS: 

The Army and Air Force did not originally plan to make the air 
vehicle, ground control station, or payloads of their UAS programs 
open systems. Instead, program officials stated that they relied on 
commercial off-the-shelf systems and technology demonstration programs 
that prime contractors developed and then modified and upgraded over 
time, without the benefit of competition that could help keep costs 
low. Over the past several years, the Army has taken steps to make the 
ground control stations open systems for all three of its fielded UAS 
and the payload interfaces open in two of those systems, while the Air 
Force plans to make the ground control station an open system for one 
of its three UAS. 

The Army's three UAS programs--Hunter, Shadow, and Gray Eagle--were 
all initially developed as proprietary systems and did not include an 
open systems approach for all three key components--the air vehicle, 
ground control station, and payloads. Moreover, the Army's UAS ground 
control stations limited interoperability and resulted in the Army 
paying for ground control stations that provided similar capabilities. 
The Army eventually developed a common ground control station for the 
three UAS; however, the new station was still proprietary. All three 
of the Army's UAS programs are now upgrading to a universal ground 
control station that incorporates an open architecture to address 
obsolescence issues and increase interoperability. According to Army 
program officials, ground control stations require continuous hardware 
and software upgrades as the technology becomes obsolete. Even though 
an open systems approach is being incorporated later in the programs' 
life cycles, officials believe the benefits--reduced obsolescence 
issues, reduced upgrade costs, and increased interoperability--
outweigh the costs. For example, the Army's new universal ground 
control station will give Army operators in the field the ability to 
fly Hunter, Shadow, and Gray Eagle from one ground control station. 
This was not possible with the Army's legacy ground control stations 
that did not use open architectures. 

The Army's Gray Eagle and Shadow programs are also incorporating open 
system elements for the systems' payloads to save integration time and 
cost. For example, the Shadow program modified its air vehicle in 2008 
to include a universal payload pod that allows any vendor that can 
meet the standard power and data connections to design a payload to be 
integrated onto the system. Program officials noted that, to date, 
four third-party vendors have used the universal pod for their 
products. Similarly, Gray Eagle program officials stated that the 
program owns the data rights to all payload interface specifications, 
which allows third-party vendors to develop a payload using these 
specifications. However, officials noted that the program has to rely 
on the prime contractor to integrate new payloads because the Army 
does not have the expertise to do so. 

The Air Force has had limited success in modernizing its UAS to 
include open systems. For example, the Reaper plans to upgrade to an 
open ground control station, but the remainder of the system remains 
proprietary. The other two programs--the Predator and Global Hawk--
included language in their planning documents stating their intention 
to introduce open system elements later in their respective life 
cycles. However, Predator's age and Global Hawk's fiscal constraints 
prevented them from adopting an open systems approach. As a result, 
the two systems remain largely proprietary and are now facing 
challenges sustaining and upgrading their systems. 

The Predator program began in 1994 as an advanced concept technology 
demonstration program and is one of the oldest systems in DOD's UAS 
portfolio. Program officials stated that the Predator's software is 
not modular and the program has no intention of modifying the software 
because the Air Force is planning to divest itself of Predator 
aircraft once more Reapers are fielded. Predator officials also noted 
that sustainment and obsolescence challenges remain a risk area for 
the program. Officials from the Global Hawk program, which started 
development in 2001,[Footnote 13] also stated that obsolescence is a 
major problem for that program, particularly for the ground control 
station. The program recently had planned to develop a new ground 
control station that utilized an open systems architecture. However, 
the Air Force canceled the upgrade effort in 2013 due to what program 
officials described as fiscal constraints, even though it plans to use 
the aircraft through at least 2032. The Air Force is now planning to 
continue to maintain the legacy Global Hawk ground control station and 
communications system, although contractor obsolescence and other 
sustainment challenges contributed to a critical Nunn-McCurdy cost 
breach in 2011.[Footnote 14] 

Policies and Leadership Can Help Drive an Open Systems Approach for 
Weapon Acquisition Programs, but Challenges Exist: 

Policies and leadership support are two fundamental ways of getting 
DOD's weapon acquisition community to shift from a culture of relying 
on contractors to provide proprietary systems to one where systems are 
designed to be open. In general, policies are needed to establish the 
overall plan and acceptable procedures that guide acquisition 
strategies, and leadership is needed to champion policies and new 
initiatives, as well as ensure that technical expertise is available 
to implement them. DOD has cited a preference for acquiring open 
systems in its policies since 1994 and most recently in its Better 
Buying Power initiative, which requires programs to outline an 
approach for using open systems architectures at milestone B--the 
start of development. The Navy developed an open systems policy in 
2005 and its UAS programs largely followed that policy from the start 
of development. The Air Force and Army also have open systems 
policies, but their UAS programs did not implement them from the start 
of development and, because of this, some programs are now having 
difficulties upgrading their systems. Further, while DOD leadership is 
placing a renewed emphasis on an open systems approach through its 
Better Buying Power initiatives, it is not currently tracking the 
extent to which weapon acquisition programs are adopting open systems 
across the department or whether program offices have enough technical 
expertise to effectively implement an open systems approach. The Naval 
Air Systems Command has taken steps to ensure that its UAS program 
offices have the expertise to implement open systems by establishing a 
small group of experts that can assist program offices with developing 
their technology development and acquisition strategies with open 
systems in mind, but other program offices may lack their own 
expertise or access to similar expertise. 

Air Force and Army Are Lagging in Open Systems Implementation: 

Although DOD acquisition policy directs program managers to employ a 
modular, open systems approach for acquisition programs to minimize 
life-cycle costs, the Navy is the only service that did so while 
developing its UAS programs. Based on our review of UAS programs, the 
Navy leads the other services in adopting an open systems approach for 
its acquisition programs, and Navy program officials cited their 
service's open systems policy as the driver for adoption. The Navy's 
policy required its programs to incorporate open architecture 
principles into program requirements beginning in 2005, which means 
that UAS programs would include an open systems approach as part of 
their acquisition strategies prior to the start of program 
development. The Navy also established an oversight and reporting 
structure to provide reasonable assurance that its programs are 
following this policy. For example, the Navy assigns overall 
responsibility and authority for directing the effort to one office, 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation.[Footnote 15] This office is tasked with defining 
an overarching strategy, providing systems engineering leadership to 
other Navy acquisition offices, and overseeing and reporting on 
implementation efforts. 

The Air Force and Army also have policies that require open systems to 
be included in a program's acquisition strategy, which would occur 
prior to the start of program development. However, none of their UAS 
programs incorporated an open systems approach at the start of 
development, including a program that began after the policies were 
issued. Instead, these services favored off-the-shelf systems or those 
that could be quickly fielded. In addition to not including open 
systems during the initial design of a program, these service 
officials stated that they are having some difficulties acquiring the 
necessary funding to make their legacy systems open as they are being 
upgraded and we found they are not consistently implementing the new 
UCS architecture developed for all ground control stations. For 
example, the Global Hawk program planned to use an open systems 
approach for its ground control station to address obsolescence 
issues. However, as mentioned earlier, the Air Force terminated the 
effort because of funding constraints, even though it plans to use the 
aircraft through at least 2032 and the ground control station will 
require upgrades and costly support during this time span. In 
addition, the Air Force's Global Hawk and Predator and the Navy's 
STUAS do not plan to adopt the recently developed UCS architecture at 
this time. The Global Hawk had planned to incorporate UCS as part of 
its now canceled upgrade effort and Predator officials stated that the 
Air Force is not investing in upgrades, including UCS.[Footnote 16] 

Further complicating the UCS architecture effort is the Air Force, 
which developed a "complementary" ground control station architecture 
without the involvement of the other services or OSD. The Air Force 
plans to use both architectures on the Reaper system. Officials 
explained that they developed the complementary architecture because 
the Air Force wanted to be able to attain the capability faster. 
However, both architectures will be fielded simultaneously on the 
Reaper and contractors developing UAS ground control station software 
stated that adopting both architectures will be more costly for DOD. 

To improve implementation of an open systems approach, DOD's 2010 
Better Buying Power initiative now requires programs, at milestone B, 
to outline an approach for using open systems architectures and 
acquiring technical data rights to ensure sustained consideration of 
competition in the acquisition of the weapon systems. The approach is 
to be based on a business case analysis and engineering trade analysis. 

DOD Leadership Lacks Visibility into Open Systems Implementation and 
Military Service Expertise: 

DOD recognizes that it needs to increase its leadership efforts to 
implement open systems for its weapon acquisition programs, but does 
not know the extent to which programs are implementing this approach 
or if the services have the requisite technical expertise. According 
to federal internal control standards,[Footnote 17] agencies should 
monitor programs to ensure that policies are being implemented, such 
as by establishing and tracking program metrics, and also ensure that 
their workforce has the required skills to implement policies. Thus, 
DOD should monitor open systems implementation and also assess whether 
program offices have the expertise to carry out the open systems 
policies. Various independent standards experts, DOD contractors, and 
DOD systems engineering officials identified DOD leadership as key to 
effective adoption of an open systems approach. Several of these 
officials cautioned that prime contractors may be resistant to 
providing open systems because they are able to achieve greater 
financial benefits by selling DOD proprietary products, which they 
alone can integrate, upgrade, and maintain. Specifically, these 
officials believe that successful implementation of an open systems 
approach requires that DOD provide clear and consistent direction for 
its approach and that programs plan for an open systems approach prior 
to the start of development. This includes defining the open systems 
approach in a program's technology development and acquisition 
strategies prior to initiating the technology development phase at 
milestone A and the start of engineering and manufacturing development 
at milestone B in DOD's acquisition process, respectively. Further, 
they believe that contracts and requests for proposal should include 
appropriate language that describes the open systems architecture, 
defines open standards, and establishes requirements for control 
documents to ensure the government retains rights for the identified 
key interfaces. 

Acquiring a new weapon system using an open systems approach could be 
more expensive at the beginning, particularly regarding ownership of 
data rights. Yet, the potential benefits of obtaining the data rights, 
in terms of greater competition and reduced upgrade and repair costs, 
are widely believed to significantly outweigh the costs, especially if 
done from the start of development. DOD could avoid purchasing data 
rights if it works with industry to develop standards. However, in 
these cases, standards organizations' officials we spoke with said 
that DOD would have to work with standards organizations several years 
in advance to ensure that the standards are available at the start of 
development. 

The Better Buying Power initiative for open systems is one of DOD's 
efforts to increase competition and drive efficiency in acquisitions. 
While competition is difficult to do at the system level because there 
are a limited number of prime contractors that develop DOD weapon 
systems, an open systems approach can boost opportunities for 
competition at the subsystem level. As part of the Better Buying Power 
initiatives, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics formed an Open Systems Architecture Data 
Rights Team co-led by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Systems Engineering (SE) and the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. 

The team is developing guidance, tools, and training in an effort to 
gain more momentum for the use of an open systems approach and the 
acquisition of appropriate data rights across DOD. This includes a 
contract guidebook to be issued in the summer of 2013 intended to 
assist program managers in incorporating open systems principles into 
their acquisition programs. Officials from two of the UAS programs we 
reviewed, UCLASS and Triton, told us they had used a draft version of 
this guidebook to help inform their contracting strategies. The team 
also updated the systems engineering guidance in the Defense 
Acquisition Guidebook to recommend that program managers update their 
technology development strategy, acquisition strategy, and systems 
engineering plan throughout their program's life cycle to reflect 
their respective open systems strategies. Finally, the team is 
leveraging other resources previously developed by the Open Systems 
Joint Task Force, such as an analytical tool for programs to monitor 
and evaluate their open systems implementation and a program manager's 
guide intended to assist program offices in integrating an open 
systems approach into their acquisition strategies for new and legacy 
systems. According to officials from the Open Systems Architecture 
Data Rights Team, the team is required to report to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics on its 
progress in meeting initiatives related to Better Buying Power by 
October 2013, but that reporting has not yet begun. 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering 
indicated that several new programs are incorporating an open systems 
approach during early planning. For example, the Navy's Next 
Generation Jammer included open systems language in its 2012 request 
for proposal. Additionally, the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program 
and the Air Force's Space Fence program both considered open systems 
as part of their future design prior to or during technology 
development. However, it is unclear the extent to which programs are 
adopting an open systems approach across the department because this 
information is not being tracked. 

In addition, it is unclear whether the services have sufficient 
technical expertise to implement an open systems approach and enable 
DOD to be a savvy buyer of weapon systems. Program offices need open 
systems expertise to conduct systems engineering activities, even 
before a contract is awarded, to be able to determine how an open 
systems strategy fits into program requirements; identify which system 
interfaces are key to maintaining competitive opportunities; ensure 
sufficient data rights are obtained to support the competitive 
strategy; translate open system requirements into contracts; address 
any risks associated with the open systems approach; and finally, 
validate that the contractor is providing the open system that the 
program required. However, officials from 11 offices/companies we 
spoke with, including a DOD contractor; the UAS Task Force; 6 of 10 
Air Force, Army, and Navy UAS programs; the Naval Air Systems Command 
technical experts; the DOD Open Systems Architecture Data Rights Team; 
and an open systems expert who consulted with DOD on an open systems 
approach, stressed that DOD does not have adequate expertise across 
the department to effectively implement an open systems approach. 

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU), the organization responsible 
for training the acquisition workforce DOD-wide, offers training on 
open systems as part of its core acquisition curriculum required for 
both engineers and program managers. However, officials from every 
program we talked to who had taken this training told us that the 
training is only sufficient to familiarize participants with the 
concept of open systems, but not in-depth enough to allow participants 
to implement the approach. DAU is developing additional training 
resources in support of open systems to be rolled out beginning fall 
2013. This new training, according to a DAU official, will be geared 
toward providing program managers and data management personnel 
information on data rights. Open systems will be discussed, but 
primarily to give the participants awareness of the approach. There 
are currently no plans for new in-depth training focused on an open 
systems approach. Some of the material may be added to the core 
acquisition curriculum, but officials said this transition can take 
years. 

As required by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering is 
responsible for reviewing the systems engineering capabilities of the 
military departments and identifying areas that require changes or 
improvements.[Footnote 18] To meet this statutory requirement, SE 
requests that the Air Force, Army, and Navy submit a self-assessment 
of their systems engineering capabilities, which SE reviews to 
identify needed changes or improvements to the services' capabilities. 
SE conducts this review annually and publishes its findings in annual 
reports to Congress, most recently in March 2013. However, the 
services have not provided an analysis of their open systems 
capabilities as part of their self-assessments. Therefore, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary cannot be sure that program offices have adequate 
systems engineering resources to effectively implement an open systems 
approach. 

The Naval Air Systems Command has a small group of open systems 
technical experts that its acquisition programs can use when 
developing their open systems approach. Officials from the UCLASS, 
STUAS, and Triton programs said they relied on experts from this team 
to assist them in planning and executing their open systems approach, 
including developing a request for proposal, selecting open standards, 
and responding to contractor bids. UCLASS program officials also said 
they received assistance from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation--the Navy's lead 
office for open systems--when developing its request for proposal. 

Conclusions: 

The adoption of an open systems approach in DOD acquisition can 
provide significant cost and schedule savings for DOD. Based on 
projections from several Navy UAS programs, for example, the Navy 
could avoid considerable repair and upgrade costs on individual 
programs, as well as improve performance, by incorporating an open 
systems approach on programs prior to the start of development. This 
is because multiple suppliers can compete to quickly replace key 
components on the UAS with more capable components. Traditionally, DOD 
has acquired proprietary weapon systems that limit these opportunities 
and make these systems more costly to develop, procure, upgrade, and 
support. DOD has cited a preference for acquiring open systems in its 
policy since 1994 and each of the services have since issued open 
systems policies. Yet, we found the Army and Air Force have been slow 
to make their UAS open systems, particularly from the start of 
development. The Navy, on the other hand, has generally designed its 
UAS to be open from the start of development where it can reap the 
most benefits. 

To successfully change the services' inclination toward buying 
proprietary systems and shift towards the acquisition of open systems, 
DOD needs to address policy and leadership challenges. Moving to open 
systems requires strong leadership to overcome preferences for 
acquiring proprietary systems. While DOD's Better Buying Power 
initiative requires programs to outline an approach for using open 
systems architectures at milestone B, OSD does not have adequate 
insight of the extent to which an open systems approach is being used 
by individual weapon acquisition programs. Further, OSD does not know 
if program offices have the systems engineering expertise required for 
effective implementation of an open systems approach or if additional 
expertise is needed. Without adequate knowledge of policy 
implementation and program office expertise, DOD cannot have 
reasonable assurance that an open systems approach is being 
implemented effectively by the services. Until DOD takes action to 
overcome these challenges, the department will likely continue to 
invest in costly proprietary systems. These steps should increase 
DOD's ability to promote more competition, save taxpayer dollars, and 
more quickly field new capabilities to the warfighter, particularly if 
an open systems approach is incorporated into program strategies prior 
to the start of development at milestone B. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We are making four recommendations to improve the department's 
implementation of an open systems approach for UAS and other weapon 
acquisition programs, as well as its visibility of open systems 
implementation and program office expertise. 

* We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of 
the Air Force and Army to implement their open systems policies by 
including an open systems approach in their acquisition strategies. 

* We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to 
define appropriate metrics to track programs' implementation of an 
open systems approach. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries 
of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to take the following actions: 

* require their acquisition programs to include open systems metrics 
developed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics in their systems engineering plans, track 
progress in meeting these metrics, and report their progress to the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
at key acquisition milestones; and: 

* assess their respective service-level and program office 
capabilities relating to an open systems approach and work with the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering to 
develop short-term and long-term strategies to address any capability 
gaps identified. Strategies could include the Navy's cross-cutting 
approach where a team of a few technical experts within the Naval Air 
Systems Command could be available to work with program offices, as 
necessary, to help develop open systems plans. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

DOD provided us with written comments on a draft of this report. DOD 
partially concurred with all four recommendations. DOD's comments are 
reprinted in appendix II. 

DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation, agreeing on the 
value of implementing an open systems approach, but citing existing 
department policies and guidance which it believes are sufficient for 
the military departments to implement open systems architecture in 
acquisition programs. DOD also noted in its comments that the decision 
to implement an open systems approach in a particular program's 
acquisition strategy is made on a case-by-case basis based on a number 
of considerations to include mission, threat, vulnerability 
assessment, operating environment, and business case. We agree that an 
open systems approach should be informed by these considerations, and 
we also cited both OSD and service-level policies and guidance 
governing an open systems approach in our report. However, a number of 
Air Force and Army unmanned aircraft programs missed opportunities to 
adopt an open systems approach early in their life cycles, but did try 
to do so later on when it becomes more costly and complex. Navy 
programs fared better partly because they augmented policy by 
addressing the open systems approach in individual acquisition 
strategies. We maintain that the Air Force and Army would benefit by 
including an open systems approach in their acquisition strategies 
before the start of system development. 

DOD partially concurred with our second and third recommendations. DOD 
noted that program implementation of an open systems approach should 
be assessed through its existing milestone decision process. DOD 
further noted that acquisition strategies and systems engineering 
plans, which document a program's open systems strategy, are assessed 
at multiple decision reviews and are considered by the milestone 
decision authority in the overall context of the program. We agree 
that the milestone decision process is the appropriate venue to review 
programs' open systems strategies. However, as discussed in our 
report, we found that OSD does not have adequate insight of the extent 
to which an open systems approach is being used by weapon acquisition 
programs and thus cannot have reasonable assurance of the widespread 
use of an open systems approach across the department. Based on our 
review of unmanned aircraft programs, we found that the Navy had 
generally embraced an open systems approach for its acquisition 
programs before the start of development, whereas the Air Force and 
Army had not. Further, it is unclear the extent to which the Air Force 
and Army will adopt the approach for its programs as DOD's recent 
Better Buying Power initiative requires. To provide clearer insight 
into whether the services are planning for and implementing an open 
systems approach, we maintain that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should establish metrics and 
track weapon acquisition programs' progress in meeting them at key 
milestones. For example, this could include tracking whether programs 
are including open systems in their acquisition strategy documents 
prior to milestone B and are following through on those plans at 
subsequent acquisition milestones. 

DOD partially concurred with our fourth recommendation but did not 
explain its position or what, if anything, it would do in response. 
DOD did not comment on whether the military services and their program 
offices have sufficient capabilities with respect to open systems. As 
we discussed in our report, we found that OSD does not know if program 
offices have the systems engineering expertise required for effective 
implementation of an open systems approach or if additional expertise 
is needed. To address this possible gap, we continue to believe that 
the Air Force, Army, and Navy should assess their respective service-
level and program office capabilities relating to an open systems 
approach and work with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Systems Engineering to develop short-term and long-term strategies to 
address any capability gaps identified. As we suggested, one such 
strategy could be the Naval Air Systems Command's cross-cutting 
approach where a team of a few technical experts could be available to 
work with program offices, as necessary. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary 
of the Navy, and interested congressional committees. In addition, the 
report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report or need additional 
information, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors 
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Michael J. Sullivan: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
requested that we assess the Department of Defense's (DOD) progress in 
implementing open systems in unmanned aircraft system (UAS) 
acquisitions. Since an open systems approach can facilitate 
competition and upgrades for any type of weapon system acquisition, 
and because DOD is directing its current open system initiatives 
department-wide, we evaluated the benefits of an open systems approach 
and challenges DOD is facing in adopting the approach broadly. 
Therefore, this report examines (1) the characteristics and benefits 
of an open systems approach, (2) DOD's efforts in applying an open 
systems approach to its UAS portfolio, and (3) challenges, if any, DOD 
is encountering in implementing this approach. 

To determine the characteristics and benefits of an open systems 
approach, we reviewed relevant DOD policies, guidance, and handbooks 
and conducted a literature search to identify open systems-related 
examples from private companies and standards development 
organizations. We interviewed officials from four standards 
organizations that we selected based on our literature search: the 
Aerospace Industries Association, the Peripheral Component 
Interconnect Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group, SAE 
International, and the Universal Serial Bus Implementers Forum. These 
organizations have responsibility for developing open standards for 
their respective industries, and their experience is commensurate with 
the age of their industries. For example, the Universal Serial Bus 
Implementers Forum has existed for almost 20 years, and SAE 
International has existed for over 100 years. We also interviewed 
personnel from DOD contractors, including AAI, Dreamhammer, General 
Atomics-Aeronautical Systems Group, Insitu, Northrop Grumman, and 
Raytheon/Solipsys to identify their leading practices in developing 
open standards and implementing an open systems approach. In addition, 
we interviewed an expert from Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering 
Institute about experiences working with DOD on an open systems 
approach. We also interviewed DOD officials knowledgeable about open 
systems and open standards development from the Army, Navy, and the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). We analyzed interviews with 
the open systems expert, DOD officials, standards organizations, and 
all four of the contractors who we asked questions related to open 
systems best practices (General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon/ 
Solipsys, and Dreamhammer) to identify key practices for successfully 
adopting an open systems approach. 

To determine the extent to which DOD is applying an open systems 
approach to its UAS portfolio, we interviewed and collected 
documentation, including briefings, acquisition strategies, and 
systems engineering plans, from the UAS Task Force and UAS program 
offices on open systems efforts. In addition, we developed a 
questionnaire to collect information on which elements of an open 
systems approach UAS programs incorporated, their use of guidance and 
tools, and their contracting strategies. After we drafted the 
questionnaire, we asked our Chief Technologist as well as a member of 
DOD's Open Systems Architecture Data Rights Team to review and 
validate our questions. We revised the questionnaire to reflect 
comments from these reviews, then distributed the electronic Microsoft 
Word questionnaire by e-mail to 10 current and planned UAS acquisition 
programs from Groups 2-5--the larger UAS programs--in October 2012; 
all 10 responded that month. We excluded Group 1 UAS from our analysis 
because these are the smallest UAS systems and recent DOD open systems 
efforts focus on Group 2-5 UAS. Using each program's questionnaire 
response and follow-up interviews conducted with each program office 
to corroborate the responses, we evaluated the key areas where UAS 
programs implemented an open systems approach--the air vehicle, the 
ground control station, and the system payloads--and determined at 
what point in the acquisition life cycle that UAS programs introduced 
their approach. 

To determine challenges acquisition programs face in implementing an 
open systems approach, we synthesized information from DOD policies 
and guidance, program questionnaires, and interviews with officials 
from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Systems Engineering; the Office of the Secretary of Defense's UAS Task 
Force; the Defense Acquisition University; the Office of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation; acquisition offices within the Air Force, Army, and Navy; 
UAS program offices; and UAS contractor personnel. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 through July 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Assistant Secretary of Defense: 
Acquisitions: 
3600 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3600: 

July 26, 2013: 

Mr. Michael J. Sullivan: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Sullivan: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-13-651, "Defense Acquisitions: DoD Efforts to Adopt Open 
Systems for its Unmanned Aircraft Systems Have Progressed Slowly," 
dated June 27, 2013 (GAO Code 121075). Detailed comments on the report 
recommendations are enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Katrina McFarland: 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated June 27, 2013: 
GAO-13-651 (GAO Code 121075): 

"Defense Acquisitions: DOD Efforts To Adopt Open Systems For Its
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Have Progressed Slowly" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Air Force and Army to implement their 
open systems policies by including an open systems approach in their 
acquisition strategies. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department agrees on the value of 
implementing a robust open systems approach, where warranted, and 
guidance has already been issued from the highest levels of the 
Department directing that programs implement an open systems approach 
where feasible. However, the decision to implement an open systems 
approach in a particular program's acquisition strategy is made on a 
case-by-case basis based on a number of considerations to include 
mission, threat, vulnerability assessment, operating environment, and 
business case. The Department feels that sufficient OSD-level 
direction and supporting guidance has been provided to the Military 
Departments regarding implementation of Open Systems Architecture 
(OSA) in acquisition programs. DoD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of 
the Defense Acquisition System, mandates consideration of open systems 
for all programs. The planned update to the DoDI 5000.02, currently in 
staffing, adds emphasis to the use of OSA and it addresses the 
additional supporting element of intellectual property (IP) rights 
acquisition for a program's life cycle. Finally, OSA has been 
identified as a key tenet of Better Buying Power 2.0, which 
specifically calls out enforcement of open systems architecture as 
essential to "Promote Effective Competition." 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics to define appropriate metrics to track programs' 
implementation of an open systems approach. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The Department believes the 
appropriate venue to assess program implementation of OSA is through 
the existing Milestone Decision Process. During this process, programs 
are assessed against their mission needs, operating environment, 
threats, vulnerabilities, and business case. OSA is a means of 
implementation that is addressed in a program's Acquisition Strategy 
and Systems Engineering Plan documents which are assessed at multiple 
decision reviews and used throughout the life cycle of the program. 
Issues and mitigation strategies, which may include OSA, are 
considered by the Milestone Decision Authority and approved for 
implementation in the overall context of program affordability, 
execution, and risk. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army and Navy to require 
their acquisition programs to include
open systems metrics developed by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in their systems engineering 
plans, track progress in meeting these metrics, and report their 
progress to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics at key acquisition milestones. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. See response to Recommendation 2. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army and Navy to assess their 
respective service-level and program office capabilities relating to 
an open systems approach and work with the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Systems Engineering to develop short-term and long-term 
strategies to address any capability gaps identified. Strategies could 
include the Navy's cross-cutting approach where a team of a few 
technical experts within the Naval Air System Command could be 
available to work with program offices, as necessary, to help develop 
open systems plans. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. See response to Recommendation 2. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Michael J. Sullivan, (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report were Cheryl Andrew, Assistant Director; Richard Burkard; Lisa 
Fisher; Danielle Greene; Laura Jezewski; Deanna Laufer; Brian Lepore; 
Jean McSween; Paige Muegenburg; Brian Mullins; and Roxanna Sun. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Best Practices: Setting Requirements Differently Could Reduce 
Weapon Systems' Total Ownership Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-57] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 
2003). 

[2] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Achieve Greater 
Commonality and Efficiencies among Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-520] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 30, 2009). 

[3] DOD's UAS portfolio is divided into five general groups based upon 
aircraft weight, speed, and operating altitude. Group 1 UAS are the 
smallest systems, generally weighing up to 20 pounds and operating 
below 1,200 feet. Group 5 UAS are the largest systems, weighing over 
1,320 pounds at operating higher than 18,000 feet. For the purposes of 
our review, we selected all UAS programs in Groups 2-5. 

[4] Android is a trademark of Google Inc. 

[5] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected Weapon Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-400SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012). 

[6] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. 
L. No. 112-239, § 143, prohibited the Air Force from taking any action 
to cancel or modify the avionics modernization program until it 
provided an independent cost benefit analysis to Congress comparing 
the C-130 avionics modernization program to a reduced scope program 
for avionics and mission systems. 

[7] DOD Directive 5000.01, E1.1.27, The Defense Acquisition System, 
May 12, 2003. 

[8] DOD Instruction 5000.02, Encl. 12, paragraph 8, Operation of the 
Defense Acquisition System, Dec. 8, 2008. 

[9] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics Memorandum: "Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining 
Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending" (Sept. 14, 
2010). Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics Memorandum: "Better Buying Power 2.0: 
Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in 
Defense Spending" (Nov. 13, 2012). 

[10] IBM, The PC: Personal Computing Comes of Age, accessed March 6, 
2013, [hyperlink, http://www-
03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/personalcomputer]. 

[11] In 2013, the International Telecommunication Union, a United 
Nations agency, estimated that there are 2.7 billion worldwide 
Internet users. 

[12] The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 144 (2008). 

[13] The Global Hawk program is based on an advanced concept 
technology demonstration program from 1994. 

[14] Enacted in 1982, the Nunn-McCurdy statutory provision requires 
DOD to notify Congress whenever a major defense acquisition program's 
unit cost experiences cost growth that exceeds certain thresholds. 
This is commonly referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy breach. 10 U.S.C. § 
2433. 

[15] The Navy's Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare 
Systems was originally designated as the lead for the Navy's open 
architecture effort. This responsibility has since been transferred to 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation. 

[16] The Navy's STUAS program also is not adopting UCS because the 
system's ground control station already uses similar software. 

[17] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 1999). 

[18] Pub. L. No. 111-23, § 102, (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 
139b(b)(5)). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]