I think it is important to point out we won't have an interim TYCOM until 01 October, FOC on 01Dec. I suspect the effort to resolve, or at least address, shortcomings might not be seen for a year, probably two. The money for those efforts does exist (MTE dollars), of course, but not at the TYCOM (yet). Also, it is important to keep in mind: although there is money assigned to address training, equipping, and personnel related issues, that money is programmed for existing requirements. So, you have to step through the process of articulating the requirement and then get it approved. Secondly, the resource sponsor (OPNAV) has to find the money for it by looking in the bag of money they are given (they have to approve it) in a given FY. If it doesn't line up with the priorities, it ain't happening. I will let you ponder how well training stacks up against programs, at least where OPNAV priorities are concerned:-) To be fair, the list of training required for cyber operations (NCUs) is quite expansive and does have priority. However, building out IDC synthetic training for FST events doesn't. Want to build something positive? Learn and use the unfunded requirements (UFRs) process and all the documentation needed by your RM folks. Go from nothing to teaching whatever course you want in 12-18 months (assuming you can convince the seniors who control the money).
TYCOMs manage what is programmed to make immediate positive impact for the Fleet, and those discretionary decisions are almost always going to address larger, more immediate problems emerging in the Fleet, such as ensuring compliance with FCC/C10F directives, paying for more METOC collection gear/survey teams, or sending ISs through an NEC producing school to satisfy an emergent demand for deployment. The point is, the type of training our community needs so much (professional development) is unlikely. Even if the TYCOM did ask for it, get it programmed across the FYDP -- what about the other 3 communities? This is one of things I don't understand about IDC vs its communities. OPNAV N2/N6 is in charge of the IDC and there is a flag in charge of ID FOR, which is eventually supposed to provide representation for "the community". The question is - for which community? VADM Branch refers to the IDC as the community, but the 1860s refer to their former designator as the community, and the IDC as the Corps. This is inconsistent and will be until the IDC community leader is doing man, train, and equip - executing the shepherding functions necessary for his/her IDC to provide FFC, CPF, and C10F full up, operational rounds. Any other arrangement is needless confusion at best, destructive and wasteful at worst. Training for other communities is generated by their TYCOMs, through their WDCs (former COEs), and it makes sense. IDC should follow, as we will eventually have to stop defining Navy information dominance and start providing it in a manner the rest of the Navy understands.
PS - What about the idea of combining the IDC basic course with the IDMCC? This would serve to make wider the officer's knowledge base (of other IDC communities/functions) as they approach those career points where they need it. The way we do IDC basic now is as an intro (inefficient as those officers are going to a community specific job and some will get out). I'm not sure it is needed as a separate course at the beginning of one's career. There exists a model for this in other services.