Pres Trump nominates the new DOT&E

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Sep 2017, 19:41

Robert Behler of Pennsylvania to be Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense. Mr. Behler most recently served as Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Director for Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, where he worked to advance software engineering and cybersecurity to solve national cyber challenges through focused research, development, and transition to the broader software engineering community. Previously he served as President and Chief Operation Officer of SRC, Inc. and as Senior Vice President and General Manager at MITRE Corporation and the Business Area Executive of Precision Engagement at John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Mr. Behler was formerly Commanding General at the Air Force Command and Control & Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center as well as the Deputy Commander at Joint Headquarters North, NATO. He is a U.S. Air Force retired Major General, and the recipient of various Distinguished Service Medals. He is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, a National Security Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and holds an M.B.A. from Marymount University, and an M.S. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Oklahoma.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... sonnel-key

USAF Profile: (Graduate of Test Pilot School, Flight hours: More than 5,000, Aircraft flown: A-37, C-9A, KC-135, SR-71, T-33, T-38, U-2 and UV-18)
http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/ ... -f-behler/

Only link that I found with the F-35 was a presentation he did on "Cyber-Vulnerabilities in Aviation Today" which mentioned the F-35.
https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_fil ... 447930.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post05 Sep 2017, 20:05

kinda unknown but seems qualified?
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post05 Sep 2017, 20:15

sunstersun wrote:kinda unknown but seems qualified?


Well, Gilmore has a pretty good biography as well.

Time will tell if the new guy is cut from different cloth.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Sep 2017, 20:33

He had no military background, no leadership experience to speak of, and no testing background.


Prior to his current appointment, Dr. Gilmore was the Assistant Director for National Security at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In this position, he was responsible for CBO’s National Security Division, which performs analyses of major policy and program issues in national defense, international affairs, and veterans’ affairs. Specific areas of investigation included the long-term implications of current defense policies and programs, the implications of
transformation for equipping and operating U.S. military forces, the effectiveness and costs of alternative approaches to modernizing U.S. military forces, and the resource demands associated with operating and supporting U.S. military forces.

Dr. Gilmore is a former Deputy Director of General Purpose Programs within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation (OSD(PA&E)). As the Deputy Director, he was responsible for developing, formulating, and implementing Secretary of Defense policies on all aspects of Department of Defense general purpose programs, including analyzing the operational effectiveness and costs of U.S. conventional military forces and supporting programs. Before serving as a Deputy Director, Dr. Gilmore served as the Division Director of Operations Analysis and Procurement Planning, within the Office of the Deputy Director, Resource Analysis and prior to that as an Analyst for Strategic Defensive and Space Programs Division, Office of the Deputy Director, Strategic and Space Programs. Dr. Gilmore’s service with Program Analysis and Evaluation covered 11 years.

Early in his career, Dr. Gilmore worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California performing research in their magnetic fusion energy program. He has also worked as an Analyst with the Falcon Associates, McLean, VA, and the McDonnell Douglas Washington Studies and Analysis Group, where he became Manager, Electronic Systems Company Analysis.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23331
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Sep 2017, 02:39

Did not know where to put this DRIVEl artickle but wot the hey - it had to go somewhere DOT&E is mentioned so....
Let’s Talk About The USAF's Claim Of 'Fully Combat Capable' F-35s
06 Sep 2017 Joseph Trevithick

"Of all the issues surrounding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps the most hotly contested is the criteria the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are using to judge when the jets will be ready for combat and whether certain milestones accurately reflect the stealth fighter’s capabilities. The Air Force has now reignited this debate by stating that it will have "fully combat capable" F-35As by the end of September 2017 even though the jet hasn't even started independent operational test and evaluation trials.... [It is up to the services to decide I thought]

...Still, it’s not entirely clear how the Air Force is defining “fully combat capable” in this case. None of the three F-35 variants have even begun the mandatory testing process run by the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), which is independent of the individual services.

What is clear is that this is not the same, nor is the service claiming it is, as a formal declaration of “full operational capability,” or FOC. The Pentagon-standard definition for FOC is when every unit that is supposed to receive a certain weapon system has gotten that piece of equipment and can both operate and maintain it. This announcement is generally only supposed to come after the system passes DOT&E's rigorous independent testing regime.

The Air Force had already added confusion to this process by declaring initial operational capability (IOC), which is supposed to reflect a basic operational capability, for the F-35A before the end of developmental testing and without any operational evaluations. The service seems to be again obfuscating the situation, intentionally or unintentionally, by using a term that sounds similar to FOC, but isn't, [OMG s h I t sounds like shite but - ARE THEY THE SAME?] which has already led to confusion in the media about what this new announcement realistically means....

...Of the three services purchasing F-35 variants, the U.S. Navy is the only one that has not declared IOC with its jets, continuing to link that milestone to the successful completion of operational testing. The U.S. Marine Corps and the Air Force say they have achieved this with their F-35s and now the Air Force curiously says it plans to declare IOC for the Block 3F software itself once the code begins reaching operational and training units....

...there’s no guarantee that the Block 3F software will allow F-35A pilots to effectively employ some or all of these weapons. We don’t even know for sure what specific version of it the Air Force will distribute for its software "IOC."...

[Lots of LaDeDah about different Block 3F versions/faults with their guesswork] ...thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we do know that the service already deliberately watered down its capability criteria to meet its own, self-imposed schedule for declaring IOC with the F-35A in August 2016. This was mainly out of fear that delaying the milestone any further would become a political and public relations nightmare that could've potentially impacted Congressional support and foreign sales.... [evidence for this claim?]

...None of this is to say that the ultimate version of the Block 3F software won't perform as required and provide the services with an F-35 that is highly capable, one that is even ready for combat in an emergency. The concern is that the rush to get the jets into service could put pilots in the seat of a jet that just isn't ready yet, exposing them to unnecessary risks, which is why the operational test and evaluation process exists in the first place.

This does means the F-35 program isn’t necessarily progressing forward and meeting its goals, either.... [PHEW!]

...One has to wonder whether the Air Force and the Marines Corps are now making the same mistake by trying to drum up support for the aircraft with this largely undefined claim, which is undoubtedly technically accurate based on the services’ internal criteria, of fielding fully combat capable F-35s before the independent operational test and evaluation process has even begun."


Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... able-f-35s
Attachments
F-35weaponsCleared.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2173
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Sep 2017, 14:46

The diagram above lacks the GBU-49 :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Sep 2017, 15:49

General Bogdan would've made a fine choice.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Sep 2017, 19:57

ricnunes wrote:The diagram above lacks the GBU-49 :wink:


Most of the time they only show the GBU-12 of the PavewayII family but other recent charts have shown more ("GBU-12/49/51").
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2173
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Sep 2017, 00:04

SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The diagram above lacks the GBU-49 :wink:


Most of the time they only show the GBU-12 of the PavewayII family but other recent charts have shown more ("GBU-12/49/51").


Yes, I've also seen that other recent chart.
By the way, that other recent chat also indicates that the Block 3F will carry AMRAAM -D (AIM-120D) something that the chart above is also missing.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Sep 2017, 01:22

The only way I see that happening is if the -D has a C5/7 emulation mode.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests