NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby 20yearman » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:48 pm

Just curious if anyone else is unsure about the specific roles & responsibilities of NAVIFOR/C10F/FCC and how the Fleet utilizes each for IW/CW support. I recently met someone with orders to NAVIFOR who was asking different officers how these organizations fit together and none of them had a confident answer. Is this lack of understanding about the IW/CW community leading organizations a community wide problem? If so, then these organizations and the Community leadership need to start an IO campaign to inform the masses.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby Sum1 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:35 pm

My understanding (functional, not doctrinal):
- C10F - similar to other Fleets, force provider to operational components in support of combatant commander requirements (this sentence is wrought with Farragut-style torpedoes... could spawn 234234 other posts just on this topic alone)
- NAVIFOR / FCC - no idea on specifics ... MTE functions, I'm sure.

I'm now sensing that this post was less than helpful. Sorry, man.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby O-4's hate me » Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:03 am

I definitely don't understand the differences between the two.

Our Fleet augmentation process doesn't make it any simpler. Approval for DIRSUP Sailors is from C10F, but approval for CCOP gear is IFOR. Who does MT&E? Technically the TYCOM, but as this example shows, it's still a little of both.

It seems like in the TYCOM construct, FLTCYBER (but not C10F) should be subordinate to IFOR. Does anyone else see it that way?
  • 0

O-4's hate me
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:19 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby yoshi » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:04 pm

The roles and responsibilities of C10F (FCC) and IFOR are well defined for those personnel inside each organization. For the rest of the Navy, however, it's not just confusing, but frustrating. IFOR is supposed to equal admin chain, like the other TYCOMs, except this is only true on a function by function basis. Some items which are clearly administrative are at FCC/C10F. I offer the following from recent experiences in my current billet: 1) command climate surveys for FCC/C10F units are administered via C10F(clearly administrative); believe the rest of the Nay handles them through the TYCOMs. 2) security clearance matters for FCC/C10F units are also still handled at FCC/C10F; not sure why an operational command does this, as I don't see other numbered fleets handling clearance matters for surface, air, or sub forces (again, believe it's likely done at the TYCOMs). 3) Personnel matters typically are handled at IFOR. In fact, not sure personnel matters ever made their way up to C10F/FCC. I remember from my time at NCF when decisions would be made at FCC/C10F and passed to NCF to actually execute. DIRSUP, of course, is different, in that it continues to be handled at FCC/C10F, unless we're talking about DIRSUP for the IWC as a whole. In that regard, each community seems to handle DIRSUP however they like. 4) Equipping is handled by everyone - could be a cool box from NCWDG via FCC/C10F decision, could be a well established program/process which IFOR executes, could be a command doing the right thing on its own. 5) Training is all over the place as well - CT F schools and CCOP are pretty well handled by IFOR, but other training could have you going a different route (think METOC).

What we have today is very difficult to understand and even more difficult to work. There is not a cohesive approach to MTE at IFOR which is fully recognizable to anyone, and a few operations at FCC/C10F are not operations, but left over functions which people have done for several years. Similarly, I'm not convinced IFOR is completely administrative in focus (FEWC, for example, could just as easily be part of NIOC Norfolk). The spasms of change incurred between 2005 (end NSGA) and 2014 (enter IFOR) were damaging on a number of levels. Everyone makes the best decisions they can at the time, but that doesn't mean all the best decisions were good ones. I do think the fractured and incomplete IWC functions and roles at IFOR and FCC/C0F inhibit the IWC, and its ability to work with other Navy staffs. Some of it is because they don't understand how "we" work, most of it is because not enough of us understand how "we", and/or they work. Personally, I think the overall impact is greater to the CWO/CT community than to the other three communities, as we drew stronger community identity with FCC/C10F than did the other IWC communities. That stands to reason given we have had two Commanders in that organization. Imagine a world with no CWO officers in charge of C10F, IFOR, or OPNAV N2/N6. Our situation is incredibly taxing to both staffs and to their customers and subordinates (more time required to find solvency/discover process, relative to and through the rest of the Navy's staffs). This tax becomes larger over time, too, as we add mission and continue double, triple hatting, etc. So, yes, it's a problem, and it's a wicked hard problem to solve. Untangling those two staffs - IFOR and the remaining administrative functions at FCC/C10F - requires very tough decisions which affect a wide range of jobs, money, and control. And, who in the IWC is smart enough in all the four communities to do so without doing harm to one or more in one or more areas (assuming complete control of all four)? Most of the time, the easier option on any given issue is to figure out how it works, grin, and bear it, or find a work around. While it's ugly now, at some point I am confident it will get resolved and we will have clarity. In the interim and on the brightside, we do have tremendous people at each of these organizations who will do everything they can to enable the success of others even though it may be a bit confused and clunky. Just have to work the phones and find them.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby yoshi » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:19 pm

@O-4s hate me:
FCC shouldn't be subordinate to IFOR. FCC is Navy's component to CYBERCOM - operational with the mission of serving as the "central operational authority for networks, cryptologic/signals intelligence, information operations, cyber, electronic warfare, and space capabilities in support of forces afloat and ashore... ... ... ...". FCC is also the Navy's cryptologic commander which involves a relationship with CSS. Either of these make subordination to IFOR a complete non-starter.

C10F is that piece which provides operational support for Navy Commanders implementing/desiring to implement some of the above "stuff". (and also, for some reason, a potpourri of hit and miss administrative functions, as discussed earlier in this thread).
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby 20yearman » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:52 am

Your description of each organization is very helpful but you highlight the major issue with these organizations - you have to work there to understand what it does for the Fleet. I understand that NAVIFOR is a young organization but the Community needs to transition all MT&E functions from C10F to 1) align IFOR with the other TYCOM responsibilities and 2) decrease the non-operational responsibilities of C10F. This will not only help the Fleet but also ensure C10F is focused on growing (at least in the Cyber realm) operational requirements.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby yoshi » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:35 am

Yeah, absolutely - working there is helpful, especially to understand what that organization thinks it does for the Fleet. I don't think administrative functions will ever fully transition to IFOR. Don't believe any of the four communities desire this. Primarily has to do with money, control, and fear of harm from subordination to/with other communities' interests. It's not always easy putting the team first, especially when the team is a new one started by someone you don't know or understand very well. While the plentiful "all in" statements in 2014 showed one thing, the war councils and emails showed something different. This is not a criticism - each involved human being did what they thought was best from their perspective. We're human after all - no matter the service, the community, or the rank. So, for now, the IWC remains a concept vice a beneficial reality. At some point, some leader(s) will come along at some point and gain sufficient consensus/respect to truly get all the communities on the same page and find a way to subordinate their equities to the "greater" IWC good (if it is to ever work). Meanwhile, we do have some developments which assist the communities in gaining trust in each other (cross detailing is suppose is one, for whatever it's worth), and that could be helpful long term.

Don't think C10F needs to focus on growing. It can't handle what is on its plate, now (albeit some that is self-imposed administrative functioning). Even without those admin functions, it would need to focus on improvement, not growth. Let's take what they do and help them do it well before we require more from them.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:20 pm

20yearman wrote:Just curious if anyone else is unsure about the specific roles & responsibilities of NAVIFOR/C10F/FCC and how the Fleet utilizes each for IW/CW support. I recently met someone with orders to NAVIFOR who was asking different officers how these organizations fit together and none of them had a confident answer. Is this lack of understanding about the IW/CW community leading organizations a community wide problem? If so, then these organizations and the Community leadership need to start an IO campaign to inform the masses.


In a perfect world...

NAVIFOR: TYCOM for all Information Forces, to include NIOCs and CMTs

C10F: VADM Gilday's title and forces under CNO that execute those mission assigned by the Navy

FCC: VADM Gilday's title and forces under CYBERCOM that execute those missions assigned by CYBERCOM

Where this breaks down is in the agreement between NAVIFOR and FCC/C10F on exactly what TYCOM duties each element will execute. With current leadership, I am hopeful many of those gray areas will be eliminated soon.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 34

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby 20yearman » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:20 am

I agree in a perfect world, those functions would align with the correct organization, so hopefully you're right - new leadership will make the necessary changes to match the IW TYCOM with the others and ensure we're viewed as a mature, capable warfare area.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby Sum1 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:28 pm

I think the breakdowns over the last few posts have been fantastic, so thank you to 20yearman, COMEVIL, and Yoshi.

A piece of this we're not really addressing because maybe because it's beyond the scope is how all of this translates to warfighting effects to the geographic combatant commanders. Does the current construct represent a force multiplier to those planning and directing military operations? What are we doing to support Combatant Commander requirements? When USCYBERCOM requirements and Geographic Combatant Commander requirements find themselves in conflict, who has primacy? Who gets to set the expectations on what a C10F unit/JFHQ should be able to do? What if we reached further down and asked "Who gets to determine the capabilities a CPT or CMT are supposed to have?" I'm not certain the answer to those questions should be "CYBERCOM."

But getting back to the Navy... can NAVIFOR adequately achieve the MT&E and requirements functions it should be chartered with doing across the breadth and depth of all IWC communities? Do we need to perhaps course correct or even chart a new course to get us where we need to be? I don't think it's beyond the scope of NAVIFOR to do the MT&E, although the MT in this case would likely be easier than the E, if you ask me.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Next

Return to Navy Information Warfare

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron