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.