As you know, ComNavOps is not yet an enthusiastic supporter
of SecDef Hegseth. He says the right
things but his actions, thus far, have been lacking and only sporadically
beneficial. He hasn’t done anything
horribly wrong but he’s also not implemented the kind of wholesale changes
needed. Changes around the periphery are
not going to improve the Department of Defense.
We now get notice of what is possibly his first blatant
mistake: cutting the Director, Operation
Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). If
you’ve followed the blog for any length of time, you know that ComNavOps has
been a big fan of DOT&E’s work, believing that they are the only force
keeping the Navy (and military, in general) from committing wholesale, blatant
fraud when it comes to weapon system testing.
Indeed, the Navy (and military, in general) has been highly critical of
DOT&E which tells me that DOT&E is on the right path.
Now, SecDef Hegseth is proposing cuts to DOT&E.
Is saving $300M per year – and almost free sum of money by Pentagon standards – really worth possibly impeding the only Pentagon related organization that seems to function well?
A memo from Hegseth stated,
This sounds suspiciously like buzzword bingo, the affliction of the Pentagon. I hope this is not happening to SecDef Hegseth.
In a fairly major change included with the manning cuts
announcement, SecDef is also assigning a new acting Director.
I have no problem with this as the last few Directors were significant steps back from Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, who set the standard for DOT&E. Recent Directors have virtually eliminated public oversight and information under the excuse of secrecy. While truly classified information should not be made public, if you expect public support – in the form of taxes – you must provide some degree of feedback and information to the public.
To be fair, I have no knowledge about the inner workings of
DOT&E. Perhaps the group had become
bureaucratically bloated and needs trimming.
However, note that the group only has 94 people (82 civilians, 12 military
members). SecDef proposes reducing that
staffing to 30 civilians, 15 military personnel, and one senior leader. Given that the group is responsible for
testing every US military weapon, sensor, and system, this seems like a
foolhardy reduction.
I fear that SecDef Hegseth is in over his head and is making
changes almost randomly. Time will tell.
_______________________________
In a bid to save what he estimated as $300 million per year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has laid out a plan to reshape the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation by eliminating positions and layoff contractors supporting the team.[1]
Is saving $300M per year – and almost free sum of money by Pentagon standards – really worth possibly impeding the only Pentagon related organization that seems to function well?
“A comprehensive internal review has identified redundant, non-essential, non-statutory functions within ODOT&E that do not support operational agility or resource efficiency, affecting our ability to rapidly and effectively deploy the best systems to the warfighter.”[1]
This sounds suspiciously like buzzword bingo, the affliction of the Pentagon. I hope this is not happening to SecDef Hegseth.
Hegseth said he has appointed Carroll Quade to perform the duties of the Director of DOT&E. Quade is currently serving as the Navy’s deputy for Test and Evaluation for the Navy.[1]
I have no problem with this as the last few Directors were significant steps back from Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, who set the standard for DOT&E. Recent Directors have virtually eliminated public oversight and information under the excuse of secrecy. While truly classified information should not be made public, if you expect public support – in the form of taxes – you must provide some degree of feedback and information to the public.
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/hegseth-reshaping-pentagons-weapons-testing-oversight-office-cutting-staff-positions/
An insider told me 20 years ago that unit had been corrupted by defense contractors. They provide some clues, but rarely tell the full truth because they want big money promised to them in a few years. DoD refuses to provide them with requested data anyway when it's bad, like with the Ford program.
ReplyDeleteWill someone tell Congress the Navy's greatest and most expensive warship is non-deployable as it needs yet another year for repairs, this time electrical? The Persian Gulf is ultra hot and our Navy struggles to keep two carriers on station.
The Ford is my Canary of Reform, when somebody
Deletegoes on record to say we need stop building a ship
that is not fit for purpose, then I'll believe something
other than virtue signaling is in progress.
I think you have a misunderstanding of DOT&E's function and purpose.
Delete"Given that the group is responsible for testing every US military weapon, sensor, and system, this seems like a foolhardy reduction."
This is not the case. DOT&E is not responsible for testing anything. OPTEVFOR for the Navy, AFOTEC for the Air Force, and ATEC for the Army are responsible for testing each service's weapon systems. DOT&E was created only to monitor the activities of those organizations and write an annual report to Congress about their observations.
"However, note that the group only has 94 people (82 civilians, 12 military members). SecDef proposes reducing that staffing to 30 civilians, 15 military personnel, and one senior leader."
The government staff of DOT&E is relatively small, but they employ(ed) a very large number of contractors. It's believed one of the primary purposes of SecDef Hegseth's reorganization is to cancel this contract and save several billions of dollars per year.
I've worked T&E directly and indirectly for 25 years and seen the service organizations do by far the bulk of the heavy lifting to establish Operational Test requirements, conduct the events, and document the results. The DOT&E participants always seemed like they were along the ride with little purpose and even less influence. While I liked many of them on a personal level, I can't say I've ever seen a DOT&E rep have any impact on or make any meaningful contribution to a defense program.
"I think you have a misunderstanding of DOT&E's function and purpose."
DeleteNo, I understand exactly. For the sake of general discussion, I sometimes simplify statements and, inevitably, someone with detailed knowledge jumps in to try to "correct" me. Such is the case, here.
DOT&E designs statistically based test programs, approves service test proposals and methodologies, monitors tests, and analyzes the collected data using statistical evaluations. They then make recommendations for additional tests or modifications. That should about sum it up.
As a simplified statement, that makes them the test organization for the services even though they don't perform the actual hands-on testing.
Their influence has been the only factor keeping the services honest. As one example, the Navy has attempted to bypass shock testing of new ship classes and DOT&E managed to "force" them to carry out the tests. Without DOT&E, the Navy wouldn't perform ANY tests beyond a cursory functional test.
DOT&E has done more to ensure valid testing and expose failures than any of the services. Their value is beyond measure.
You're welcome to your opinion but it is completely misguided.
As to the appropriateness of the DOT&E size and organization, I can't really comment, as noted in the post, beyond stating that the scope of their work is immense (look at any of the annual reports) and they seem like a very small organization relative to the scope of work. What their contractor situation is, I have no idea.
"DOT&E designs statistically based test programs"
ReplyDeleteI have never seen this happen. The test programs are designed by OPTEVFOR. DOT&E simply concurs.
"approves service test proposals and methodologies"
I would say DOT&E provides feedback and input on the test plans. To "approve" them implies that their lack of agreement would cause the plan to be rejected and redone, but I've never witnessed DOT&E to have that kind of authority. They seem to be more in a position of grudging acceptance of whatever the service OT commands have negotiated.
"monitors tests"
This I would agree with. DOT&E reps attend meetings and request test data. In general, we try to comply in delivering it to them but there is no requirement to do so. Most of the time it hasn't been delivered because DOT&E admitted they couldn't do anything with it and would rely on OPTEVFOR's analysis.
"analyzes the collected data using statistical evaluations"
Partially true. The major DOT&E contractor is (or was?) IDA, which is a stats organization. But I've never seen them produce anything other than a report saying "we wish there were more tests because there aren't enough to calculate statistics."
"They then make recommendations for additional tests or modifications."
Definitely yes to this. That's the majority of what they do--suggest tests be more plentiful and realistic. But they have little to no ability to cause that to happen. OPTEVFOR does the same thing but is much noisier about it and tends to have greater influence in getting what they want. In the end, it comes down to the budget a program is able to acquire to conduct testing. That comes down through the Pentagon. No one can afford the ideal tests DOT&E (or OPTEVFOR) asks for, and the tests are always a compromise to accomplish the most with the resources available. Someone from DOT&E recently said "Our job is to request test data and not care about what it costs. The programs have to negotiate what they can afford."
For reference, see the DOD policy defining the responsibilities of DOT&E:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500098p.PDF?ver=InJ_BDOOVcUHyurlNv_FAg%3d%3d
a. Designates select DoD systems for OT&E and LFT&E oversight and publishes and
manages the joint T&E Oversight List.
b. Monitors, reviews, and independently reports on all OT&E and LFT&E activities and
resources for DoD systems on the T&E Oversight List.
c. Serves as an advisor to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on matters within
DOT&E authority and expertise to inform and influence requirements, concepts, capabilities-
based assessments, and concept of operations.
d. Reviews and makes recommendations on all budgetary and financial matters relating to
OT&E and LFT&E, including OT&E and LFT&E resources.
Lots of statements about monitoring, reviewing, advising, recommending, and reporting but nothing about designing, approving, conducting, or analyzing.
You seem to have some sort of vendetta against DOT&E. Regardless, read any of their older annual reports and you'll see, quite clearly, that they do, indeed, design and approve experimental test procedures.
DeleteWhile they have no statutory authority to compel actions by the services, they do wield a great deal of influence with Congress and have managed to exert their will in many cases where the services would have skipped testing altogether.
You're welcome to your negative opinion of DOT&E but it is not a universally shared opinion, by any means.
There is no personal animosity here. As I said earlier, I have personally liked the DOT&E personnel I've worked with and found them interesting to talk to. I simply disagree with the gnashing of teeth that this reorg changes the status quo. DOT&E's job since it was founded 40 years ago has always been to write a report to Congress about the work other organizations do, not to conduct that work themselves. That will be no different with or without Hegseth's changes.
DeleteBut when I did hear about the reorg announcement, that's when I started thinking about have I ever seen DOT&E actually do anything? Other than showing up at meetings and asking questions, I couldn't come up with a time that they forced a test program to be done differently or performed analysis that exposed a major defect. I've seen reports they've written with recommendations for gaps to be addressed or how to make tests more realistic, but they've been ignored for the most part. This implies they have no teeth. So what do these guys do? An average O3 pilot in an OT squadron seems to have far more sway over test requirements and design than an O6 at DOT&E.
I feel bad for the DOT&E reps who've lost their jobs, and I would love to hire some into my team as they seem like smart people with useful skills if they had a better environment in which to apply them. At the end of the day, this just looks like a cost cutting measure to go after a bloated support contract, and I doubt we will see any appreciable change in DOT&E accomplishing it's statutory purpose.
You just pretty much confirmed my suspicion regarding a personal bias against DOT&E. You've clearly never read an annual report or at least not with an unbiased perspective. As one tiny, representative example of some of the responsibilities of DOT&E, consider this excerpt from the introduction of the 2015 report by Mr. Gilmore:
Delete"In my tenure as the DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, I have made it my top priority to ensure that operational tests are adequate, particularly regarding the realism of the conditions under which the testing is conducted. ...
I have also prioritized the objectivity and scientific rigor of operational tests. By leveraging scientific methodologies
including Design of Experiments (DOE), survey design, and statistical analyses, DOT&E ensures defensible and
efficient tests are conducted providing the critical information decision makers and warfighters require. Rigorous, scientifically‑defensible analyses of the data ensure my reports tell the unvarnished truth. This introduction summarizes my office’s continuing efforts to institutionalize these methods in the DOD test and evaluation (T&E) community.
...
The recently released updated DOT&E Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Guidebook, which provides new
guidance in my primary focus areas on what substance and level of detail, should be included in TEMPs."
Clearly, DOT&E is designing, overseeing, approving, monitoring, and analyzing testing, as appropriate. Refusal to recognize this simple fact can only be due to bias or animosity towards DOT&E.
As I said, you're welcome to your opinion and I'm happy to have provided you the opportunity to express your opinion even if I don't agree. Readers can decide for themselves.