orca,
I'm sure we've all considered this, but is there a chance that Dr Gilmore's memo is a stout defence (or defense) of his own empire.
To clarify some things for you on your points regarding Dr. Gilmore, his organization isn't that big, he sits in an "empire", but doesn't have an "empire" per-se. He and his organization are the check and balance guys that observe what the armed services are doing on testing and evaluations on all military programs and that includes the F-35 Program. The job sometimes includes separation of the wheat from the chaff or in plain American English, "Everything is Okey-Dokey" from "Everything isn't Okey-Dokey" and points in between. That is what he did on the F-35B May USS Wasp test, much to the chagrin of the USMC upper level brass. From the Department of Defense own published organization structure:
“There is a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
“Operational test and evaluation means --
the field test, under realistic combat conditions, of any item of (or key component of) weapons, equipment, or munitions for use in combat by typical military users; and the evaluation of the results of such test
“The Director shall --
prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense;
provide guidance to and consult with the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Secretaries of the military departments in general and with respect to specific operational test and evaluation...;
coordinate operational testing conducted jointly by more than one military department or defense agency;
monitor and review all operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense;
review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on all budgetary and financial matters...;
monitor and review the live fire testing activities of the Department….
So, as
glad rag aptly pointed out:
IMO the deployment [Wasp] report firmly points towards a poorly conceived and planned exercise/deployment where the term "ad hoc" was the primary motivator......
There would not have been such a furor, had the USMC top brass
not linked this ocean demo to the previously established, hewn in stone, IOC date claiming it was IOC. Then when the facts emerged, claimed it wasn't ICO at all. IMHO, the whole IOC connotation was a "Rush to Judgement" and did not meet the requirements of IOC defined in agreement with the US Congress.
BTW, the word "deployment" is interesting, depending on the connotation attached. Deployment can be bad (deployed to the Arizona graveyard), good (deployed to the front line of hostilities, fully operational), or meaningless (neither good or bad), not defined as to the reasons for deployment. In the case of the F-35B, deployment to Japan will to take place in 2017 (land-based only) and 2018 (ship board deployment). There is time to figure out what needs to be accomplished between now and then, e.g., more operational test and evaluations…
TD