> We must have open systems architecture, where the government decides how things interoperate, and acquired systems don't dictate down but provide upwards to the defenders.
>> They would be working with a common architecture on existing platforms
>> Taiclet added that in this “big tent” approach to Pentagon buying services for a specified time means the commercial side needs to move away from “vendor lock”
>> He added Lockheed Martin is working with Northrop Grumman to merge their data.
Sounds like they are advocating for something like what you are talking about, not sure how you are reading it as the opposite
This article reads like Lockheed Martin has realized they have created enormous enmity against themselves & want to sound like they are singing a new tune.
But still expect to forever keep control by licensing out subscriptions to the technology they are paid to develop.
It's unclear to me what control they really intend to give up. They can give up ("merge") some data with Northrop Grumman, but are they actually allowing outside powers control over the systems? This feels like an operation to try to maintain some status quo by having nice koombaya words while not changing the actual sharing of power.
>> They would be working with a common architecture on existing platforms
>> Taiclet added that in this “big tent” approach to Pentagon buying services for a specified time means the commercial side needs to move away from “vendor lock”
>> He added Lockheed Martin is working with Northrop Grumman to merge their data.
Sounds like they are advocating for something like what you are talking about, not sure how you are reading it as the opposite