COMEVIL wrote:Thanks, Schlag. You are the first to really get to the heart of my question, ...
That makes it sound like you had an answer you were searching for (or expecting). If that's the case, asking better questions would save all of us time.
COMEVIL wrote:Thanks, Schlag. You are the first to really get to the heart of my question, ...
Sum1 wrote:COMEVIL wrote:Thanks, Schlag. You are the first to really get to the heart of my question, ...
That makes it sound like you had an answer you were searching for (or expecting). If that's the case, asking better questions would save all of us time.
Does this say something about our own community, the initial tours we offer, and the experience you garner in those tours? If it doesn't, why in the world would we want to send a future IW Officer to a community that admittedly eats its young -- brings in ~4 potential SWOs to make ~1 -- for their initial introduction to the Navy?!?!?
COMEVIL wrote:Sum1 wrote:COMEVIL wrote:Thanks, Schlag. You are the first to really get to the heart of my question, ...
That makes it sound like you had an answer you were searching for (or expecting). If that's the case, asking better questions would save all of us time.
Here is my original question:Does this say something about our own community, the initial tours we offer, and the experience you garner in those tours? If it doesn't, why in the world would we want to send a future IW Officer to a community that admittedly eats its young -- brings in ~4 potential SWOs to make ~1 -- for their initial introduction to the Navy?!?!?
Schlag was the first to answer it, in my opinion.
And no, I don't have the answers, nor was I looking for any specific answers.
If you think open discussion is a waste of time then why are you here?
Sum1 wrote:Point taken, but just to clarify, Schlag quoted a different question from you when he gave his answer. Not the question you just quoted to me above.
You'll never find me asserting that open discussion isn't valuable. That's actually a leadership style I gravitate towards in my own professional dealings. I think the worst thing a leader can do stop asking questions or asking for help because they think they know everything. (that's probably a different discussion)
And just to open the aperture a little further, the enlisted side of the house isn't immune from the same things we're talking about right now with JOs. Having worked with different enlisted Sailors at Big 4 sites, at sea (DIRSUP), and then on the ship (PCS afloat), I feel like I can say rather confidently that Sailors who haven't been to sea in the majority of cases are disadvantaged compared to peers who HAVE been to sea and have that experience to draw from.
Didn't mean to imply that you weren't technically correct - rather wanted to highlight that we "make our numbers" by alternative means. I've been told the ensign plus up (required to fill follow on tours) is costing us (USN) a butt ton (official unit of measure). What sucks is that we are making it even worse - we have ensigns doing full tours with no real divo (or watch standing) experience... that's not satisfying or productive, so they either punch out, or stick around as future DH's with no/not enough meaningful experience (outside of the good schools that have been coming on line).
yoshi wrote:Our community must decide whether it should be generating Navy officers first or cyber/SIGINT officers first.
yoshi wrote:Do we want solid Naval officers who happen to have a skill set or do we want a people with a specific skill set who wear a Navy uniform.
yoshi wrote:Considering the locations in which a majority of our people work and the relevance of those efforts to CSG/ARGs, there is no reason I see why the value provided by FCC/C10F personnel (other than perhaps DIRSUP) couldn't be delivered just as easily from the Army, Air Force, or a civilian.
yoshi wrote:What are our people doing at NIOCs, what do they know, what do they understand, which requires them to be Navy or makes them invaluable to the Navy? Is the at sea experience more important for our community/Navy than whatever is gained at the NIOCs, or is the Navy a simple funding vehicle to support national and cyber efforts which desperately require attention?
VADM John Bulkeley, USN(Ret) wrote:For in my mind there is but one honourable profession. It requires the daily attention of all faculties, the persistence of a bulldog, the compassion of the man of the cloth, foresight entrenched in previously learned lessons, the willingness to sacrifice for the good of the service all that has been personally gained or earned, and unyielding belief that it is better to preserve peace than to wage war, the self force-feeding of knowledge and new technology, the ability to blend confidence and humility, and the unyielding conviction that it is far greater to serve one’s country rather than oneself. These requirements demand a foundation, and that foundation is inescapably, experience.
The naval officer is truly unique, for he must have the capacity to simultaneously love his country, his service, his family, his shipmates, and the sea. He needs each of them unquestionably as each of them needs him. And the demands which each place on him never diminish, they only grow.
Beyond all the words and phrases of a naval officer’s dedicated service, honour and professionalism must remain his past, present and future. That, Sir, is why it is the “HONOURABLE PROFESSION”.
yoshi wrote:It is not an oversimplification to say Fleet relevance is based upon value to a CSG/ARG. That (CSGs/ARGs) is how we deploy in today's world, save for the sub or independent deployer. In fact, you underscore their importance by mentioning the CSG being 15 miles off a coast as an example of how we operate just 2 sentences later. CSGs and ARGs are the nexus of the operational Navy. Those commanders generally have bright, starry futures. If you aren't relevant there, the discussion is hardly serious.
yoshi wrote:The community difference you mention - the only service with a specific SIGINT community - used to be significant. Indeed, it is why I commissioned coming from another service. We used to be a dedicated SIGINT community; it made sense we were the best. However, after we added IO (5 pillars), trimmed those 5 to 3 topics (although we still have billets which are not just EW, Cyber, and SIGINT), and walked away from Navy SIGINT, well, it doesn't really mean anything anymore. We are no longer any better at SIGINT than the others, as we don't just focus on SIGINT, but also have other focus areas (cyber, EW, and IO - even if it isn't viewed by community leaders as part of the kit - we still have the billets). We now do SIGINT in the same way the other services do and are no better. In fact, after 10 years of war, the ground combat services may have caught and passed us, where I&W tactical level SIGINT is concerned. I just spent a few weeks with some Marine SIGINTer, EW, and Cyber types and they were good. It is true we used to be better at SIGINT than the other services and the expeditionary nature of our service was the reason (as you correctly pointed out), but take a walk down a few piers , then go visit a couple CEWCCs/RadBns and I think your mind might change.
Return to Stupid Questions about Information Warfare
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests