ORACQuote:
I also don't know anything about the cancelled (or otherwise) Cyber Testing you refer to
Panic in the Pentagon: Can't Pass Weapons Testing? Army Chief Says to Get Rid of It
........Tom Christie, one of the best directors of DOT&E, served as the director from 2001 to early 2005. As required by law, he produce 32 operational weapons test reports from his office that were sent to the secretary of defense and the Congress. Half of the reports showed enough severe failures to warrant a stop in proceeding to full production of the weapon, but not one of these flawed weapons were stopped and were actually approved for full production. The flaws found in these weapons will show up later in the acquisition cycle or even in the battlefield where there will be very costly modifications or much higher maintenance costs, let alone subjecting our troops to weapons that don't work. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could save large sums of money if he would be willing to seriously look at the reports of failures coming out of DOT&E and fix problems before just rubber stamping flawed weapons for full production. If he won't do it, the Congress also gets these reports and should hold up the money for full production of the weapons until the flaws found in the report are fixed. General Odierno spent many years overseeing the war in Iraq, so he should be much more sensitive and appreciative of operational testing that can prevent a bad weapon being sent to his troops........... 29th Dec 2015 10:48
ORAC, I am not sure referencing a 4 year old article from a progressive website is the best source for discussing operational weapons testing.
I do agree that operational testing needs to be conducted, and preferrably before orders are placed. It does seem we are forever in the "testing" phase with some programs- likely a product of gold plated requirements, under-bidding, over-selling and under-appreciated risk...
Some programs should have been cancelled, but where do we draw the line if something underperforms during testing? We can cancel the entire program (rare), go back for modifications (costly), dumb down the requirements and declare the requirements are now met, quietly ignore the failure and live with it and perhaps fix a later date.
Personally I would like to see a few more cancellations and really holding manufactures to task a bit more.