US Navy to unveil open architecture blueprint for future naval modular missile family.

The U.S. Navy announced plans to adopt an open-architecture approach for its Naval Modular Missile program during an upcoming Industry Day in Maryland. The move signals a shift toward competition and faster innovation in next-generation weapons systems.

The U.S. Navy confirmed it will host a two-day Naval Modular Missile Industry Day at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, on October 21–22, 2025. According to a presolicitation notice posted on September 25, the Navy plans to use a government-owned reference architecture and pursue multiple competitive awards in Fiscal Year 2026, a rare level of acquisition detail for a program still in early development.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

The USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), an Arleigh Burke-class fires a RIM-66 Standard missile in 2014  (Picture source: US DoD)

The Naval Modular Missile, often shortened to NMM, is framed as a family rather than a single round. The concept reaches from a long range hypersonic option at the top end to smaller effectors intended to cover short, medium, and extended ranges. The Navy underscores magazine depth. If engineers can safely package more than one weapon in a single vertical launch system cell for certain mission sets, surface combatants gain staying power without a redesign of the launcher. That is the promise. It will live or die by careful integration, canister design, and plume management.

The technical backbone is an open architecture built with the U.S. Air Force. In practical terms, the government intends to publish and own the interfaces that matter, from message sets to physical and electrical boundaries. Vendors can compete for seekers, propulsion modules, guidance and control, datalinks, and even full all up rounds. The approach is aligned to the Department of Defense’s modular open systems policy and to model-based systems engineering. It is dry language, yet it drives who gets paid and how fast upgrades arrive in the fleet. If the interfaces are tight and the digital models are maintained, the Navy can buy improvements at the subassembly level instead of waiting years for a wholesale redesign.

The notice is explicit about what will happen in October. Day one runs at the SECRET level and sets out the top level requirements for the family of missiles, the acquisition approach under PEO Integrated Warfare Systems, and the schedule. Day two moves to a higher classification and will be limited to cleared attendees. Registration flows through APL and security preregistration is due by the evening of October 20. The Navy invites primes and as non-traditional firms and small businesses. That is consistent with the architecture story. If interfaces are government controlled, smaller suppliers can credibly offer a sensor, a processor card, or a software element without owning the entire weapon.

The idea of modularity has been around for years, and the Navy has referenced open architectures before. The difference here is the move from concept language to an acquisition plan with dates. A formal RFP in FY26, multiple award pathways, and a government reference architecture as the rulebook. Those items turn an idea into a program that industry can staff, fund, and schedule. The message to contractors is fairly direct. Show conformance to the published interfaces. Bring digital artifacts that support model-based reviews. Expect the government to protect data rights needed to maintain competition over time.

There are hard problems ahead. A hypersonic variant raises thermal protection and materials challenges, along with guidance and navigation that must hold up in high dynamic pressure. Multi-pack options in a VLS cell demand new work on safe separation and exhaust flow, and they must meet ship survivability standards. A competition down at the component level only works if interface control documents are testable and if certification pipelines are predictable. None of that is glamorous, but it determines whether the open architecture becomes a reality or a slogan.

Operationally, a modular family gives commanders more options when building magazines for specific theaters. A destroyer headed for the Western Pacific may carry a higher proportion of long range anti ship and land attack missiles. A cruiser covering air defense in the Mediterranean might privilege layered interceptors and long-range counter-UAS effectors. If two or more small effectors can share a cell in some roles, ships gain volume fire against raids without sacrificing offensive reach. The ability to drop in a new seeker or datalink across parts of the family without requalifying an entire weapon can matter more than raw range on a spec sheet.

The broader context explains why the Navy is pushing this now. In the Indo Pacific, Chinese surveillance and strike networks stress surface forces at a distance, and they adapt quickly. In Europe, Russia continues to invest in stand off missiles and electronic warfare. Both environments punish slow upgrade cycles and single-source supply chains. A government owned architecture with multiple vendors reduces single points of failure and lets the Navy refresh components at the pace of threat change, not just budget cycles. It is also a way to grow industrial capacity by giving second-source suppliers a path to qualify without starting from scratch.