NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby COMEVIL » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:10 am

Sum1 wrote:What if we reached further down and asked "Who gets to determine the capabilities a CPT or CMT are supposed to have?"


A complex question that I certainly cannot answer, but easily on par with Fleet size, warship capabilities, aircraft weapons systems, etc.

Sum1 wrote: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.


I think the course correction was the creation of NAVIFOR. Unfortunately, it is taking a long time to work through the issues to ensure NAVIFOR works as a TYCOM while FCC/C10F works as an operational commander. Back in the day, CNSG was very much both. I think we are still seeing some hesitance to shed certainly legacy responsibilities that were inherent in CNSG. At the same time, the C10F role as SCC and our P3 billet sourcing makes these issues all that much more convoluted.

All good questions/discussions for wardroom training and qualification boards.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby Sum1 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:07 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:What if we reached further down and asked "Who gets to determine the capabilities a CPT or CMT are supposed to have?"


A complex question that I certainly cannot answer, but easily on par with Fleet size, warship capabilities, aircraft weapons systems, etc.


I should admit to having an agenda regarding that question. During my time on DDG, I was introduced to the capes and lims document for DDGs. At the time, I thought it was a bit dry, but with hindsight it was a great document because it presented precisely what every DDG should be able to do. It included their missions, strengths, etc. It answered the question "what should a DDG bring to a fight?"

I don't think we do that very well in our community. We need to look at global warfighting requirements (not NSA requirements - convoluted, but I think tracking positively), and we need to do so - and this is MOST CRITICAL - with the combatant commanders we'll be supporting. CYBERCOM doesn't get to be a functional combatant command playing in the backyards of the geographic combatant commands without giving those 4 stars a say. Additionally, the 4-star GCCs need to be able to leverage CYBERCOM to achieve effects, or cyber will always be late to the party or the guy showing up wearing a halloween costume when everyone else is in a tuxedo.

Is there a document that says precisely what a CMT should be able to do? The O-6 LNO I asked wasn't aware of it. If so, was that document informed by actual effects requirements, or was it what cyber-forces thought they should do? Does NAVIFOR get to figure that out? Should FCC both act as the component and dictate to the TYCOM MT&E? Where should C10F come into play?

No simple answers, I think, but great things to mull over when we have a free moment. Our senior leadership is very competent and working hard to shape the future of our community and cyber warfare, but I can't help but think that it'll be those who didn't grow up in NSGA's, where the boundary between Navy and National was virtually nonexistent, who will figure this out.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby 20yearman » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:07 am

You touch on our Communities newest and least mature capability - Cyber and mention the GCC as the only Customer. The IW's main customer (to include Cyber) should be the Strike Group, which is the Navy's most "tactical"-level capability (NSW non-withstanding due to their ties to SOCOM for MT&E). As an individual with OCO experience, for the near future Offensive Cyber will be the least impactful IW Capability in supporting CSG (and GCC) requirements because of the lengthy process in developing the capability, access, etc., not to mention the required growth in training, manning, etc. to reach FOC. I believe FCC/C10F still retains the Cyber MT&E functions with plans to transition these to NAVIFOR in the future. NAVIFOR (and the Community) needs to focus on solving the MT&E issues and maturing current IW capabilities that support CSG operations...but advertising(?) IW's true capabilities to the IW (and URL) community should be a priority; the creation of the IW CDR position is a good start.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: NAVIFOR vs. FCC vs. C10F

Postby bubblehead » Wed May 03, 2017 4:05 am

All you really need to know is to never go to the C10F Reserve unit.
  • 0

bubblehead
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:01 am
Reputation: 3

Previous

Return to Navy Information Warfare

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest