The Senate version of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would require modular open systems architectures (MOSA) where beneficial in acquisition programs to ensure interoperability, smooth integration and future growth potential of new technologies.
Not yet law, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) NDAA markup calls for the Defense Department to buy platforms and systems that can be upgraded throughout their life cycles and that work seamlessly with legacy and future systems to the extent possible. It tracks generally with the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill, where establishment of modular open systems architecture as an acquisition standard originated.
The SASC bill would require DoD to “establish modular open systems bodies and processes to support standards for interfaces that are dynamically managed, flexible and extensible in order to enable technological innovation and performance growth over the life cycle of systems following the principles of system architecture, interface characterization and interface publication.”
Neither version of the bill requires MOSA in major acquisition programs, as HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) initially envisioned–a cornerstone of his acquisition reform proposals. The Pentagon’s chief weapon buyer Frank Kendall balked at the MOSA requirement and successfully argued that HASC tone down its language.
The House committee’s final mark requires that “all major defense acquisition programs initiated after January 1, 2019, to be designed and developed with a modular open system approach (MOSA), to the maximum extent practicable.”
“Well-defined interfaces at the shared boundaries between a platform and its components, or between components, would allow components to be added, removed, or replaced throughout the life cycle of a platform system without having to redesign the entire weapon system,” the House version reads.
SASC included the same sentiment in its version of the bill, though in more convoluted language. It prescribes architectures that are “logically and functionally segmented and interfaces between major system elements and external-facing interfaces are identified and exposed.”
Acquisition officials should also ensure “interfaces are characterized clearly in terms of form, function, and the content that flows across in order to enable integration and interoperability, including through automated tools” and secure appropriate rights to share and publish interface characteristics, the SASC bill reads.
Under SASC’s version of the law, all multi-service or joint acquisition programs would have a dedicated official overseeing integration of the platform and its components. The “mission integration managers” would be jointly appointed by the deputy secretary of defense and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to oversee integration of systems in four specific mission areas: close air support; air defense and offensive and defensive counter-air; interdiction; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and any other missions those officials deem worthy.
Mission integration managers will have oversight of all aspects of capability integration for their specific mission area, including communications, command and control, electronic warfare considerations and intelligence. The manager will be in charge of conducting tests and demonstrations of interoperability and performance upgrades.