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.