Senior Army leadership is concerned that the defense industry is less than willing to offer up intellectual property and access to its widgets as the service invests in future technology.
Army program managers have been writing requirements for modular, open-systems architectures (MOSA) into acquisition documents to ensure that future weapons, platforms and systems are easily upgraded as technology emerges.
Industry is less receptive to that message than the Army would like, Gen. David Perkins, chief of Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), told reporters during a press conference in Williamsburg, Va., on Aug. 16.
“Not always,” Perkins said when asked whether contractors are receptive to the service’s need for open systems. “They want their proprietary aspect of it because it presents them with a long-term market. I haven’t always found open minds with regards to open architecture.
The need for incremental upgrades is not unique to software-dependent systems. When the Army first ordered the M1 Abrams it was armed with a 105mm cannon. The tank’s turret was then upgraded to a 120mm once the technology was sound. That expanded potency was designed into the tank from the “beginning “because we knew we wanted to get there,” Perkins said.
Gen. Dennis Via, chief of Army Materiel Command, said guidance has been passed down from as high as Pentagon chief weapon buyer Frank Kendall, to not enter contracts that keep data proprietary.
“Where we get locked into a sole-source environment, there is less competition and so we’re fixed with a system,” Via said. “If it’s open architecture, if the Army owns that tech data, then we can make those changes. As technology becomes available, we can modify the systems, incremental modernization, spiraling in new technology.”
“That’s why it is also important that we strike a balance of our investments in our organic prototyping capabilities, so we have some alternatives that we can offer to the senior leadership, to the secretary, to the chief of staff of the Army, of organic prototyping so we’re not into one answer to fit all requirements,” Via added.
Perkins briefly alluded to a current Army weapon the capabilities of which have room to grow, but would not specify.
“We’re working with another thing in the Army right now that we would like it to be out here, but the technology is only out to here now,” he said. “We can get this now and we know what it is going to take to get there, so just make sure that when we buy this the ability to do that is like a bolt-on, bolt-off thing; that I can get it to that level.”
Open architectures make the most sense in software-defined systems and the Army is doggedly pursuing access to the internal workings of the systems it is buying, from radios to vehicles.
“Take a look at the network,” Perkins said. “You know your demand for bandwidth is going to increase. It’s not going to go down. It’s going to increase. Power generation and distribution – you know that in the future we are going to need more power, not less power.”
Physical technologies like tire rubber and metal armor likely will not advance enough to change warfare or warrant significant investment, Perkins said. Power generation and distribution, weapon potency and soldier protection are areas where open architectures will pay dividends, Perkins said.
“You’ve got to start designing vehicles, networks and all that to increase the bandwidth and generate and distribute more power. It can’t be a whole rewrite of stuff. Everyone thinks about lethality, I can kill things many more ways than I can protect myself,” Perkins said. “You make sure that those things do not become the limiting factor, that they don’t have a real short half-life.”
Defense Daily hosts the annual Open Architecture Summit, scheduled for Oct. 18 at the Capital Hilton. Information is available at www.openarchitecturesummit.com.