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). 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. Program officials also anticipate that they will be  able to independently integrate at least 32 different payloads developed  by 24 different manufacturers. 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. 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. The Navy  developed an open systems policy in 2005 and its UAS programs largely  followed that policy from the start of development. 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. 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. 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. 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. Traditionally,  DOD has acquired proprietary weapon systems that limit these  opportunities and make these systems more costly to develop, procure,  upgrade, and support. 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. DOD  partially concurred with all four recommendations. 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. 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.
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.
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.