Frankenstein, JADC2, and the future of warfighting acquisition: An industry perspective

Without disciplined architecture and unified standards, the future of command‑and‑control risks becoming a Frankenstein of mismatched systems rather than a coherent warfighting capability.

As a new adaptation of Frankenstein returns to theaters, we are reminded once again of Mary Shelley’s enduring lesson: even the most ambitious creations can become monsters when assembled from mismatched parts without a coherent design. Victor Frankenstein’s tragic mistake was not ambition itself, it was believing that disparate components, stitched together without a unifying architecture, would somehow animate into a stable, trustworthy whole.

This metaphor feels especially relevant today as the Department of Defense (DOD) accelerates its efforts to deliver Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). From the Army’s Next Generation C2 (NGC2) to the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) and the Marine Corps’ Project Dynamis, DOD is pursuing a bold vision: connect sensors, shooters, and decision-makers across all domains and all services, at machine speed, under contested conditions.

It is the right vision. But vision alone cannot overcome architectural fragmentation.

With the arrival of the new Warfighting Acquisition System (WAS), a sweeping transformation that elevates acquisition to a warfighting function and empowers Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs) with unprecedented authority, the stakes and opportunities have shifted. Industry is optimistic about this new structure, but we also see risks that must be addressed if JADC2 and NGC2 are to avoid becoming an overly complex, brittle ecosystem instead of a coherent operational capability.

The patchwork risk and why WAS is the turning point

For years, industry has observed the same pattern across command-and-control modernisation. Ambitious concepts are announced, multiple pilots are launched, parallel data fabrics are developed, interface standards remain uneven, and integration layers grow thicker with each new program. In the absence of a single architectural backbone, C2 systems have tended to evolve like Frankenstein’s creation, technically impressive in isolation, but unstable when forced to operate as a unified organism.

The WAS reforms, particularly the shift from Program Executive Officers (PEOs) to PAEs and the mandate for machine-readable interface standards, represent a potentially decisive break from that pattern.

PAEs now have the authority to:

In short, DOD has created the governance and authority structure necessary to prevent Frankenstein architectures, but only if those authorities are applied consistently and rigorously across CJADC2 and NGC2.

What industry sees as the persistent risks

Fragmented data standards remain the number one threat to success. Even with WAS, multiple data fabrics are emerging across the Services. Without a single, authoritative, machine-readable CJADC2 data standard, and automated validation against it, integrators will continue to build translation layers rather than interoperable components.

Interfaces labeled “open” also tend to drift without automated compliance. MOSA can easily become a box-checking exercise unless DOD invests in persistent conformance testing. Under WAS, this is now possible, but it has not yet been implemented at scale.

Accreditation pipelines remain inconsistent and slow. The WAS memo’s call for “persistent accredited test pipelines” is critical, because today vendors still face divergent cross-domain and coalition accreditation pathways that slow fielding and disincentivise modular design.

Service-led implementations risk drifting apart without joint enforcement. PAEs are empowered, which is good, but empowered Service-level authorities also risk diverging architectural choices unless a joint body ensures alignment across mission threads.

Finally, commercial-first contracting needs consistency across portfolios. WAS makes commercial products the default and elevates Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs). Yet evaluations of what counts as “commercial” still vary widely across programs, causing friction and uncertainty for industry.

Industry recommendations for the government

Below is a list of specific recommendations that reflect both industry consensus and the new acquisition landscape.

Frankenstein’s warning and the path forward

The modernisation of the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System gives DOD the tools, authorities, and governance structure needed to avoid the Frankenstein outcome. PAEs now have the authority to enforce interoperability, data standards, modularity, and competition. What is still needed is consistent, disciplined application of that authority across CJADC2 and NGC2.

Industry is aligned with DOD'S objectives. We want to build components that integrate cleanly, iterate rapidly, and scale globally. To do that, we need coherence—not conformity—and standards—not stovepipes. Frankenstein’s lesson is not that innovation is dangerous. It is that innovation without architecture, governance and intentional design can become unmanageable. The Warfighting Acquisition System gives DOD the chance to avoid that fate. Industry stands ready to meet it, if the Department enforces the coherence required to make JADC2 and NGC2 truly joint, truly modular, and truly warfighter-ready.