New Designator?

This forum is for discussions about cyber warfare

Re: New Designator?

Postby JMG » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:39 pm

COMEVIL wrote:...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...


Interesting view but very negative. We can still be diverse and operate under one designator. Subs, surface, and aviators do it and do it well. There is a way to train individuals to be an effective IDC officer which encompasses four communities. As an IW, I am consistently learning and utilizing skills from the IP, intel, and space communities. I challenge you, or any IDC member, to sincerely and honestly study their respective work environment and conclude they ONLY utilize one of the five (I am including space) skill sets.
As for Metoc, they come into play for many IW billets but not my current one.

I have a hypothesis that the majority of IDC members are utilizing skill sets from at least 3 of the 5 on any given day.

COMEVIL wrote:But we do not need to become one single community.

We already are one single community.
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby yoshi » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:40 pm

Yeah, that's the one I've seen. That's a lot of NSA requirement, so much so, we don't appear to have the bodies on either the national or the Fleet side to execute it. Maybe we have enough if we put them all together. So, if we can't find a Navy specific, non-national cyber mission (just the NSA requirements and missions), maybe our cyber billets should all be national (other than the CND related ones working Fleet missions). That would seem to save money for a near bankrupt Fleet (relative to national resources), be more accurate, and streamline the effort. Plus, the national side would have all non-CND cyber bodies (pretty much there already, I guess). Not sure if this makes a separate community a desireable option or not. I've admitted my ignorance of the cyber side of things before. I've somehow "missed" the informational briefs put out which detail how our cyber folks are used and in support of what misions, both Fleet and National. It was nice to come across the brief outlining how the Navy wants to attack GEN Alexander's "proposal". But, the plan for execution leaves me a little confused with regard to how those teams get staffed from a billet perspective and wondering what N1 process changes may become necessary to accomodate cyber.
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby JMG » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:51 pm

yoshi wrote: ....But, the plan for execution leaves me a little confused with regard to how those teams get staffed from a billet perspective and wondering what N1 process changes may become necessary to accommodate cyber.


You may have seen this. If not, it may be of interest.
http://prescientedge.com/news/137/for-n ... nal-aspect
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:51 pm

JMG wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:But we do not need to become one single community.

We already are one single community.


Actually, we are a Corps made up of four diverse communities. Semantics aside, I still disagree that we could all simply be ID Officers and effectively roll from an IW tour to a METOC tour to an IP tour throughout our career. It isn't a negative view. It is simply reality.
  • 2

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby Schlag » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:59 am

I think that further division of cyber within the IDC will only hurt us in the long run. It's been said by several high power brains that cyber and SIGINT are linked and it's not just a subtle similarity that links them. It might not be easy, but I think the right thing to do is to keep them unified under the IW Community and to continue the tangential relation with the IP community.

COMEVIL wrote:
JMG wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:But we do not need to become one single community.

We already are one single community.


Actually, we are a Corps made up of four diverse communities. Semantics aside, I still disagree that we could all simply be ID Officers and effectively roll from an IW tour to a METOC tour to an IP tour throughout our career. It isn't a negative view. It is simply reality.


I almost think that you have to view the IDC as a separate line (URL, RL, etc.). Then the comparisons work a little better. Because just as you wouldn't detail a SWO to flying aviation billet, or an aviator to a nuclear Sub billet, or any other combination of those; you are still able to swap them in and out at the staff level and even some shore duty billets. I think much is the same with the IDC and the concept of cross-detailing.

To put it back in the URL analogy, when you look at cyber and SIGINT in the IW community, I think it's very much akin to describing a CRUDES SWO against an Amphib SWO. They could be used interchangeably, but they do develop expertise when you keep them in their respective swim lane. There are similar skillsets, but each does have it's own that it thrives on.
  • 1

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Re: New Designator?

Postby yoshi » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:05 pm

Read this article (thanks to the good, hard-working folks at IDC Self Synchronization) which makes things slightly clearer regarding the future of cyber operations. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120397

It cleared things up for me, from a cyber perspective, at least. But, it did raise many other questions (C2 structure, BSOs to be used, who should do the detailing/requirements, etc) in my mind. It will be really interesting to see what comes along.
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby Wolfpack » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:49 pm

Schlag wrote:To put it back in the URL analogy, when you look at cyber and SIGINT in the IW community, I think it's very much akin to describing a CRUDES SWO against an Amphib SWO. They could be used interchangeably, but they do develop expertise when you keep them in their respective swim lane. There are similar skillsets, but each does have it's own that it thrives on.


The problem with your analogy is that you have forgotten about the IP aspect of Cyber (CND, GIGOPs, etc). Until Cyber is looked at from the whole, the edges will be eaten away, whatever is sexy or needed (IRT a cyber emergency) will get funded at the cost of the other parts. A holistic strategy will allow the IDC to defend it from others. IP and IW merging in a Cyber community makes great sense from a management point of view.
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby SandSailor86 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:52 am

You could always take the TORIS Mission Area label and apply it to a designator CRY(O)
  • 0

SandSailor86
Registered Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:37 am
Location: Hawaii
Reputation: 0

Re: New Designator?

Postby JMG » Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:30 pm

yoshi wrote:It cleared things up for me, from a cyber perspective, at least. But, it did raise many other questions (C2 structure, BSOs to be used, who should do the detailing/requirements, etc) in my mind. It will be really interesting to see what comes along.


...to get back to the original question. After reading the article do you believe cyber should be another designator or covered within the existing IDC?
  • 0

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

Re: New Designator?

Postby yoshi » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:16 pm

I'm not sure there is enough certainty in the cyber realm for a new designator to be a good idea. I think we need to wait and see how the larger DoD handles cyber. Specifically, the CJCS referenced the possibility of CYBERCOM potentially becoming something other than sub-unified. The scale of these types of changes would seem to me to certainly impact best organizational efforts, even though we could probably do a good job of anticipating the best Navy posture for potential change. Moving to a different/new designator might be premature until they figure it out at the very top.
  • 0

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

Previous

Return to Cyber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron