By B.C. Kessner
Industry executives last week said the Department of Defense and specifically the Navy are in a position to do more and save more by modifying acquisition practices for open architecture weapon systems.
“Here is where the Navy needs to help, and I think it can help a lot,” Carlo Zaffanella, vice president, General Dynamics [GD] Open Combat Solutions, said last week at Defense Daily‘s Open Architecture Summit in Washington, D.C. “There is a big hang up in the area of intellectual property in open architecture. There can be nothing proprietary about the interface…the Navy [needs] to make sure the interfaces are really good, and open, and let everyone know what they are and where they are going in the future,” he added.
Zaffanella and executives from other firms on a panel at the summit said that what the Navy and all customers genuinely seek from open architecture is lower cost. “Delivered capability, for certain, but lowered cost [and] we cannot do that simply by opening a system,” he said.
The Pentagon must foster an environment where there is a business model that wants innovation, is genuinely non-proprietary, and seeks third party involvement, Zaffanella said.
Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, the Chief of Naval Research, acknowledged at the summit that the Navy and industry must design open architecture systems in a way that will smooth out mid-life modernization expenses and decrease TOC, or total ownership costs (Defense Daily, Nov.19).
Zaffanella said this required two things: the re-use and scaling of newly developed integrated systems; and constant upgrading on a sustainable 18-month or two-year interval to keep systems in front of technology. “One massive upgrade of a ship is an extremely expensive thing to do, it has to be constant, and if you can continue to compete small applications and small hardware elements you will always stay fresh in technology.”
Small leading edge firms are the key to innovation, yet when they want to provide a piece of software or component, they are usually forced to give up ownership, Zaffanella said. “Don’t tell them once they give it to you it’s yours. It’s not yours, it’s theirs,” he added.
“If they provide [for example] this wonderful tracking algorithm and now they want crank up the price–you know what? Let them. Somebody else will come along and you will get a better one…you’ve got the interface developed,” Zaffanella said.
Most of the research and development money is not coming from the Pentagon, but from industry, including niche firms and spinoffs; the primes must be able to compete the upgrade applications that will be integrated into the open systems, he said.
Zaffanella pointed to platforms like Google and the iPhone, where people do not have to ask permission to create applications then hand them over for others to use. “That’s the forum we need to create, and then all of the innovation will continue, but you’ve got to let the intellectual property stay with the developer, it’s extremely important,” he added.
While the cost of refreshing every 18-24 months continues over time, there has to be an R&D funding line that makes that possible, Zaffanella said. “Especially for something as large as a surface combatant, because if not, it’s not going to happen, it needs to be thought out in advance and that’s some stress on the acquisition community.”
Mike Twyman, vice president of Northrop Grumman‘s [NOC] Integrated Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence Systems, agreed that some changes in the acquisition system are necessary, including more rigorous techniques for evaluating open architecture systems.
“All of the defense services talk about TOC, that’s their number one thing in every [Request For Proposals] and every draft RFP,” Twyman said. “Some even try to attach an incentive fee to it, which is great, and I encourage that, but I ask them, where is your TOC model? That’s another thing that needs to be done.”
Zaffanella said there is perhaps a misconception that the development of products in an open architecture environment is cheaper than development in one that is not open. “Factually, that is not correct. It is in the re-use and the upgrades, and the standardization making things that can be broken down into pieces so you can advance the technology in smaller parts,” he said.
Zaffanella illustrated his points with several examples from GD’s experience with the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and several COTS-based systems such as the company’s multi-function console and Total Ship Computing (TSC) environment, which can be scaled and inexpensively reproduced for other types of vessels.
A common track manager suitable for use on multiple combat systems need not be necessarily restricted to the Navy, or DoD, and ultimately, even its own functionality might hinge upon development done completely outside the defense establishment, he said.
“Isn’t it more likely that some little company somewhere, some high tech college perhaps is developing facial recognition tracking algorithms for a completely different application? We as an industry, with the Navy at the forefront can develop the architectures so that that tracking algorithm, having nothing to do with ballistic missiles or any tracking that could appear on LCS–couldn’t we re-use that? Then you’re not just counting on folks like GD, or Lockheed [Martin], or Northrop Grumman…it’s down to the little guy, and I think that’s really the spirit of open architecture and where we can take this.”