New Designator?

This forum is for discussions about cyber warfare

Re: New Designator?

Postby atn » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:32 pm

Wolfpack wrote: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.


The "type, model, series" construct that you allude to might be another way to get at the issue (which is: "How do we build and sustain cyberspace operations expertise in our workforce?"). There are a couple other key components: (1) The need to properly code the billet base with the AQD's and Subspec codes in order to ensure the right Fit/Fill, and (2) Building the right training/certification continuum to ensure sufficient levels of proficiency (like flight hours). Accession-level training might need to evolve in order to break folks into their respective role after an initial IDC-related pipeline.

Perhaps a revised IDC Human Performance Requirements Review and Job, Duty, Task Analysis is in order...
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby Wolfpack » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:16 am

atn wrote:
The "type, model, series" construct that you allude to might be another way to get at the issue (which is: "How do we build and sustain cyberspace operations expertise in our workforce?"). There are a couple other key components: (1) The need to properly code the billet base with the AQD's and Subspec codes in order to ensure the right Fit/Fill, and (2) Building the right training/certification continuum to ensure sufficient levels of proficiency (like flight hours). Accession-level training might need to evolve in order to break folks into their respective role after an initial IDC-related pipeline.

Perhaps a revised IDC Human Performance Requirements Review and Job, Duty, Task Analysis is in order...


I would not confuse IDC with Cyber. They are not the same, nor should they be thought of as the same. There is not a requirement for an IDC officer, but there is or could be for a cyber officer. If the IDC were to create a Cyber community within it, then that would be great and actually give a logical progression into the URL (did I just say that). But, just the cyber community.

I do agree with the PRR and JDTA approach. Form must follow function, and any changes should not be made based on the data on a powerpoint slide or simple rearrangement of boxes on a org chart. Additionally, we need to learn form the steps and mistakes from the other services as they try to grasp w/ cyber and the best way to organize to it.
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby arvizo » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:35 pm

Here are just a few items to consider:

We have a series of Computer Network Operations (AQDs): BO1-BO4
Are these being used anywhere?

We have a Cyber Warfare Engineer Designator: 1840
As far as I know, this tops out at the O3 level, but there's always the possibility for expansion.

There's also the "Cadre" option. We have a Space Cadre that crosses many designators. The Space Cadre may not have been well utilized in the past, but there are several aspects currently under revision: PQS, billets, etc.

I don't know what the best avenue is, but clearly some thought has already been put into Navy cyber.
  • 0

arvizo
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:59 am
Reputation: 8

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:02 am

This reminds me of the career path thread we had going a year or two ago. The idea being that we specialize within the IW community. Specialization could be based on core competency, region, or warfare area. In this case, we are talking core competency, which I support. The idea here would be to create swim lanes for SIGINT, EW, and Cyber, up through the O-4 level. After that, all lanes converge. Each lane would culminate with a milestone tour, i.e. CRC afloat for the SIGINT swim lane. Disassociated tours, outside your core competency, could be used to build breadth of experience, and simply fill the void where specific tour opportunities are lacking. I think we have the billet structure to support this for SIGINT and Cyber. Not sure if the same can be said for EW, where there seems to be room for growth (i.e. CSG EWO tour) but at the expense of other communities.

ATN: Would a plan like this meet your intent for Cyber?

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 yoshi » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:41 pm

If the overall goal/mission/function common to all of us is - in some form - identify, exploit, assess, and affect (as pointed out earlier), do we need a separate/another community of officers and enlisted personnel working toward the same goal? Certainly, the work performed by our enlisted personnel is sometimes drastically different rom rate to rate, but all of our rates share the common ground listed above.

The bigger question I have about cyber (using the "computer operations" definition) is how it is going to fit into the Navy, or how the Navy is going to fit into it. Our units' NMETLs surprise me quite a bit, in that cyber is hardly represented, with CND resident at just a few sites. We have built a cyber workforce, and they are employed and engaged, but almost exclusively working a national mission. I'm still looking for a codified connection between cyber and a Navy/fleet mission. I can find offhand requirements, but nothing in our NIOC NMETs (potential to affect resources needed) indicating we do anything other than CND, and even that is done only at a few sites. I know there is absolutely a robust national effort, but I am confused with the fleet side of the cyber mission (other than CND). Anybody know how the cyber work performed by our "Navy" bodies (non-national) answers the PIR/CIRs of our fleet commanders and below? Admittedly, this question may be demonstrating my ignorance of how our non-CND CTNs get their work directly to the fleet commander who is charged with executing a fleet mission and in demand of their work. I know there is an answer, but I don't know what it is and I therefore don't understand the Navy's ROI on non-national cyber billets sourced through Navy, vice a 3 letter agency. If we are in a situation where we can't determine the ROI on those billets, I don't think we can be assured breaking cyber into a separate community is the right move. Great topic here, especially given the plans on the horizon!
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:45 pm

Outstanding point, Yoshi.

Care to elaborate on this?

yoshi wrote:... plans on the horizon!
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby JMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:30 pm

yoshi wrote:Anybody know how the cyber work performed by our "Navy" bodies (non-national) answers the PIR/CIRs of our fleet commanders and below? Admittedly, this question may be demonstrating my ignorance of how our non-CND CTNs get their work directly to the fleet commander who is charged with executing a fleet mission and in demand of their work. I know there is an answer,...


There is a very good plan in work but nothing that can be discussed in this forum.

----------------

ref: a cyber designation; Very good and interesting topic however, I do not believe this would be productive and it is not in line with the Navy Information Dominance Road Map. "Cyber" is a critical part in all the communities that make up the IDC. Every officer of the IDC must be as knowledgeable about 'cyber' as they are about any other topic in their profession. To pawn this off as another designator would imply that it is not your responsibility (I mean 'your' in the plural sense).

Instead, we, as leaders, should start thinking how to combine our designators into one. The CTs, ITs, ISs, and AGs can specialize but we (IW, IP, Intel, Metoc, space) need to learn and understand ALL the pillars of the IDC in order to function more effectively as a community and fight as a force. If we work as a technological singularity then we will be that much closer to becoming a URL and we will not have Aviators chosen to lead our community.
  • 0

JMG
Registered Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:27 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: New Designator?

Postby yoshi » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:07 pm

I have seen several briefs about a plan which would significantly change the scope, operation and size of our cyber efforts, but I didn't see any specific Navy mission (although the plan I saw did seem to imply sevice specific efforts). Perhaps 10th Fleet/FCC could take the reins determining what the fleet needs, but I didn't see this implied in any of the briefs I saw, and I didn't see a process by which the CSG/ARG Commanders through Fleet Commanders submit their information needs and requirements. I saw bodies moving from fleet and national billets, but couldn't discern the fleet demand signal (requirement) producing the churn to send the billets. I guess what i don't understand is: who determines what the fleet needs to know from cyber and, as mentioend previously, how does that cyber stuff answer the questions of the operatoinal Navy commanders (what are the linkages compelling the operator to report in support of or answer to, say, CTFXX's mission/PIR). I really look forward to seeing this plan (assuming its the same one you reference) executed, as it should answer a lot of my questions and really fuel the operational build out of cyber efforts allowing the URLs and operational leaders to experience the value of cyber efforts. I remember working for a CAPT in 2005-2007 whose command had their own reporting designation, product line, etc, specific to that unit's assigned Navy mission (vice national), inside of which cyber and more traditional efforts were reporting. It was really a pretty impressive concept which appears to have been well ahead of its time.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:13 pm

JMG wrote:Instead, we, as leaders, should start thinking how to combine our designators into one. The CTs, ITs, ISs, and AGs can specialize but we (IW, IP, Intel, Metoc, space) need to learn and understand ALL the pillars of the IDC in order to function more effectively as a community and fight as a force. If we work as a technological singularity then we will be that much closer to becoming a URL and we will not have Aviators chosen to lead our community.


I couldn't disagree with you more. I have said it on this forum before, and will say it again, any effort to combine the four diverse communities that make up the IDC would mark the end of our collective effectiveness, and be at the detriment of our mission. There is simply no way you could train one officer to be effective in all four communities. And why would you want to or need to? Our diversity is what makes us strong. Attempting to combine that diversity into a single officer would make us weak and ultimately fail. The IDWO program brings us all together and helps us learn how to work together more effectively. But we do not need to become one single community.
  • 1

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby arvizo » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:26 pm

COMEVIL wrote:Outstanding point, Yoshi.

Care to elaborate on this?

yoshi wrote:... plans on the horizon!


There's the cyber teams plan, which General Alexander has discussed publicly:
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2013/03/pentagon-plans-deploy-more-100-cyber-teams-late-2015/61948/

The IDC (Civilian/Enlisted/Officer) is playing a large role in this plan. The latest IP slate shows 23 officer billets at various locations.
  • 0

arvizo
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:59 am
Reputation: 8

PreviousNext

Return to Cyber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron