DEFENSE 

ACQUISITIONS

DOD Efforts to Adopt 

Open Systems for Its 

Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Have 

Progressed Slowly

Report to the Subcommittee on 

Tactical Air and Land Forces, 

Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives

July 2013

GAO-13-651

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-651, a 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

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 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.

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. 

Benefits of an Open Systems Approach

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.

View GAO-13-651. For more information, 

contact Michael J. Sullivan at (202) 512-4841 

or sullivanm@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

Letter 1

Background 3

Open Systems Provide a Variety of Benefits 6

Navy Leads Other Services in Implementation of an Open Systems 

Approach for UAS Acquisition Programs 11

Policies and Leadership Can Help Drive an Open Systems 

Approach for Weapon Acquisition Programs, but Challenges 

Exist 16

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 29

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 32

Figures

Figure 1: Open System Benefits 7

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

System 8

Figure 3: UAS Adoption of an Open Systems Approach for the Air 

Vehicle, Ground Control Station, and Payloads 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.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.2

 1

GAO, Best Practices: Setting Requirements Differently Could Reduce Weapon Systems’

Total Ownership Costs, 

DOD concurred 

with the recommendation and plans to incorporate the approach in a 

future UAS program.

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, GAO-09-520 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 

2009).
Page 2 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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;3

 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.

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 
Page 3 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.

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.

Background
Page 4 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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,4

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.

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.

5

• 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 B-2 bomber and the C-130 aircraft are two examples:

 4

Android is a trademark of Google Inc.

5

GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected Weapon Programs, 

GAO-12-400SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012).
Page 5 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

• 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.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.”7

 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.

DOD’s 2008 acquisition instruction also provides that “program managers 

shall employ a modular open systems approach to design for affordable 

7

DOD Directive 5000.01, E1.1.27, The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003. 
Page 6 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

change, enable evolutionary acquisition, and rapidly field affordable 

systems that are interoperable.”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.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.

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, 

 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).

Open Systems 

Provide a Variety

of Benefits
Page 7 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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

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 
Page 8 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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

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 
Page 9 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

$90,000; its first personal computer was sold in retail stores for $1,565.10

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 HighDefinition 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.

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.

11

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-theShelf 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 

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.

 10IBM, The PC: Personal Computing Comes of Age, accessed March 6, 2013, http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/ personalcomputer.

11In 2013, the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, 

estimated that there are 2.7 billion worldwide Internet users.
Page 10 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 Virginiaclass 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.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.

 12The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. 

No. 110-417, § 144 (2008).
Page 11 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.

Navy Leads Other 

Services in 

Implementation of

an Open Systems 

Approach for UAS 

Acquisition Programs
Page 12 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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

Control Station, and Payloads

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.

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, 

The Navy Is Incorporating 

an Open Systems 

Approach in Key 

Components of Its UAS
Page 13 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 
Page 14 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 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-theshelf 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 

The Army and Air Force 

Are Incorporating Open 

Systems to a Limited 

Extent on Fielded UAS
Page 15 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 
Page 16 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 2001,13

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 cancelled 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 2011.14

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 

 13The Global Hawk program is based on an advanced concept technology demonstration 

program from 1994.

14Enacted 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.

Policies and 

Leadership Can

Help Drive an Open 

Systems Approach for 

Weapon Acquisition 

Programs, but 

Challenges Exist
Page 17 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.

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.15

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 

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.

 15The 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.

Air Force and Army Are 

Lagging in Open Systems 

Implementation
Page 18 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 cancelled 

upgrade effort and Predator officials stated that the Air Force is not 

investing in upgrades, including UCS.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.

 16The Navy’s STUAS program also is not adopting UCS because the system’s ground 

control station already uses similar software. 
Page 19 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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,17

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 

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.

 17GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

DOD Leadership

Lacks Visibility into

Open Systems 

Implementation and 

Military Service Expertise
Page 20 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 
Page 21 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.
Page 22 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.18

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.

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 selfassessments. Therefore, the Deputy Assistant Secretary cannot be sure 

that program offices have adequate systems engineering resources to 

effectively implement an open systems approach.

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 

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

Conclusions
Page 23 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.

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.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 24 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.

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. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 25 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.
Page 26 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 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.

Michael J. Sullivan

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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 departmentwide, 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 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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.
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 29 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 30 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS
Appendix II: Comments from the

Department of Defense

Page 31 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 32 GAO-13-651 Open Systems for UAS

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

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.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(121075)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (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 http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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, 

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 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 www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.