New Designator?

This forum is for discussions about cyber warfare

New Designator?

Postby atn » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:11 am

Is it time to "spin off" the cyber portion of the 1810 portfolio?

Any thoughts on blending the cyber-flavored billets from IP, IW and Intel into, say, the recently created 1840 designator and create an O-1 to O-6 pyramid with analogous milestones and leadership opportunities?
  • 0

atn
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:14 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: New Designator?

Postby Sum1 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:54 am

It would make me, as a fleet support/EW type, feel like less of a bastard child :)

The cyber stuff is the "Gucci" part of our jobs that garner headlines and attention, but the other things are just as important. This is perhaps just all in my head, but when I go up for O-4 and don't have any cyber in my resume I hope I'm not disadvantaged.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:45 am

No. Cyber and SIGINT are inexplicably linked, which is why it is in our swim lane in the first place.

The same can be said for the co-location of NSA and USCC.

A lot can be said for specializing, but this would be one step too far, IMHO.

v/r

COMEVIL
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: New Designator?

Postby Sleeper » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:12 am

Just brainstorming here:

We could rename IWO to "Signals Warfare Officer" (breaking yet another vestige of our "IO" fad), and call the new designator "Cyber Warfare Officer." But then, we've broadly defined "cyber" to include signals and EW...

I'm not sure the Navy is ready for an "all-cyber" career path yet. If we created some afloat billets where a CWO (that acronym might not work out so well; CyWO, perhaps?) works for the IWC supporting strike group CND, as well as CNO planning, that might be an easier sell.

I do believe that we get the best return-on-investment by keeping cyber specialists working "in-rate," instead of rotating them to SIGINT and other tours where their skills atrophy. However, as COMEVIL mentioned, there is a common core with SIGINT and the broader intel process that shouldn't be ignored in their training and career development.
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: New Designator?

Postby TylerDurden » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:04 pm

Not a bad idea. However, as a former SWO I can think of at least one problem with calling the new community "Signals Warfare Officer" ;)
  • 0

TylerDurden
Registered Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:15 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Reputation: 0

Re: New Designator?

Postby atn » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:26 pm

COMEVIL wrote:No. Cyber and SIGINT are inexplicably linked, which is why it is in our swim lane in the first place.

The same can be said for the co-location of NSA and USCC.

A lot can be said for specializing, but this would be one step too far, IMHO.

v/r

COMEVIL


While I fully understand the evolving relationship between SIGINT and Cyber, I'm not convinced of the inextricability of SIGINT and Cyber in terms of who does it (especially since the definition of what constitutes "cyber" is nebulous, depending on who you ask) - which partly drove my initial question. There is still plenty of "legacy" SIGINT to be had. Also, just b/c NSA and USCC are co-located now does not necessarily mean they HAVE to be.

Even though there are only 3 main items in our portfolio (Cyber, SIGINT, EW), the breadth of billets still make it challenging for IW's to specialize AND remain competitive. There has been much back and forth over the years about formalizing tracks WITHIN our designator. Instead of sub-dividing, it may be time to further divide. The focus could provide clarity.
  • 0

atn
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:14 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: New Designator?

Postby Sleeper » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:40 pm

TylerDurden wrote:Not a bad idea. However, as a former SWO I can think of at least one problem with calling the new community "Signals Warfare Officer" ;)


Point taken, but don't we already have SIGWOs in the surface fleet? Besides, the SWOs have already doubled-up with "Senior Watch Officer." Call it "acronym fratricide." Maybe we need to start using Greek letters to avoid the inevitable duplication of acronyms. ;)
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: New Designator?

Postby Sum1 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:41 pm

We have SIGWOs... and then we have people like me who made the ship call me IWO because I was both the SIGWO and the EWO. Maybe the name issue is more pressing than splitting the designator? :D
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:22 pm

atn wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:No. Cyber and SIGINT are inexplicably linked, which is why it is in our swim lane in the first place.

The same can be said for the co-location of NSA and USCC.

A lot can be said for specializing, but this would be one step too far, IMHO.

v/r

COMEVIL


While I fully understand the evolving relationship between SIGINT and Cyber, I'm not convinced of the inextricability of SIGINT and Cyber in terms of who does it (especially since the definition of what constitutes "cyber" is nebulous, depending on who you ask) - which partly drove my initial question. There is still plenty of "legacy" SIGINT to be had. Also, just b/c NSA and USCC are co-located now does not necessarily mean they HAVE to be.

Even though there are only 3 main items in our portfolio (Cyber, SIGINT, EW), the breadth of billets still make it challenging for IW's to specialize AND remain competitive. There has been much back and forth over the years about formalizing tracks WITHIN our designator. Instead of sub-dividing, it may be time to further divide. The focus could provide clarity.


Giving this some more thought, it seems to me like further division may be chasing technology, vice adapting to a new set of core competencies. I am not a Cyber expert per se, but I don't see a huge change in core competencies from SIGINT or EW, especially at the Officer level. In fact, I have a handy little pyramid sitting on my desk the intertwines Cyber and EW nicely -- identify, assess, exploit, affect.

Of course, I am open-minded and ready to hear all sides of this discussion. But given what I would consider to be our last community identity crisis (IW), I am hesitant to jump to any conclusions about further change to our community in general.

v/r
COMEVIL aka Navy Cryptologist
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: New Designator?

Postby Wolfpack » Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:16 pm

You also need to consider the practical aspects of trying to manage small, niche communities. They create overhead and in their management and organization,something that is not ver appetizing within the navy right now.

the aviation community uses AQDs to manage helo vs carrier fixed vs land fixed wing. If there was a cyber community (a good idea and one that has been looked at), than the aviation model makes sense. There could be a AQD for the protect, operate, and attack aspects of cyber. It is rare for a f/a_18 driver to fly helos, and the same argument could be made about cyber. The wire lord or top cyber guy would manage the overall community.
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Next

Return to Cyber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron