rturcic72 wrote:A tour at NCDOC will help as well.
rturcic72 wrote:SIGINT and EW are still important, but Cyber is considered at the forefront, although I believe SIGINT and EW are parts of Cyber anyway.
rturcic72 wrote:This is a great topic because technically we can help shape a lot of this. Cyber, SIGINT, and EW are moving targets just like IO was a few years ago, but IO in my opinion, is an umbrella term for anything other than the top core competencies since we do not specialize in PSYOP, MILDEC, etc. This is another phase of change for the IDC and we're not sure how far VADM Tighe wants to go to. This is where we can collaborate on an end-state in a forum like this. There is a lot of talent and experience available in this portal to create movers and shakers.
LIVINGIW wrote:COMEVIL brought up a great point that the O5 promotion board is made up of a majority URL with 2 IDC, while the Command board is all IDC. They will view records and jobs through different lenses. The advocacy and education by the IDC on a promotion board is significant, as is the influence of the chair on a Command board. I have seen the adherence and emphasis put on the precept at a promotion board first hand, but do not know about adherence at a Command screen board.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rturcic72 wrote:COMEVIL, you bring up very valid points. The CNO visited us a few months ago and his Top Three Priorities were CYBER, SIGINT, and EW. As I sat through the recent and new IDOMDC (formerly the IDC Mid-Career Course) Pilot as an observer, VADM Branch brought this up as well and VADM Tighe restated too. Before the focus on Cyber, EW and SIGINT were the priorities, but the argument then became that since EW relies on the spectrum, and the spectrum included the bandwidth for Cyber space where the Internet also resides on, for SIGINT to be properly executed, you needed a source for this bandwidth, so many folks considered SIGINT as EW. Fast forward to today and now Cyber is the household name and requires bandwidth on the spectrum. In my opinion being a former EW DH and Blue Team Director, these three core competencies we discuss reside on the spectrum and require bandwidth to execute for sure. However, without Cyberspace, the invisible battlefield where the spectrum resides, then we, in my opinion, would not be able to execute SIGINT and EW. In 2009-2010, POTUS sent out a message dividing up the spectrum bandwidth between military, commercial, Internet, etc. His goal was to allow access to Internet to folks that had minimal access. So, Cyber is likely the new umbrella term for Internet, OCO, DCO, GCO, SIGINT, EW, etc. This is why I believe SIGINT and EW is a part of Cyber because they both require an environment that can allow frequencies and radio transmissions to travel through. Perhaps there could be an argument made that Cyberspace and Cyber could be defined as two separate entities.
rturcic72 wrote:So, for the purposes of Cyber documentation for consideration on a board, even though specific command missions in Cyber like an NCU, USCC, and NCDOC are good, I do not believe Cyber AQDs need to be earned only in these locations, but could be recognized better by reviewers. We have IWOs with Space AQDs from NPS and have not stepped foot in a true Space Command, however; we have billets at NAVIDFOR that allow for IDC Officers with these AQDs to represent the Space Cadre and maintain some form of collaboration with actual Cadre.
rturcic72 wrote:Finally onto the shape and enabling piece you mentioned. You are correct that we are enablers. We need to be; however, I believe that we become pigeon-holed into being enablers that we do not spend enough time outside of the box to innovate and shape, particularly at the JO level. There are JOs that are afraid to share ideas with senior leadership. Some senior leadership either project a "my way or the highway" way of doing things, while other senior leadership encourage innovation, out of the box ideas no matter how crazy they might sound empowering their personnel to elicit this type of climate. There is no doubt that our mission will be tailored to the demand signal, but at the same time maintaining constant foresight as to the possibility other things could change the mission landscape unexpectedly, I think enhances our chances of not becoming irrelevant. Sure our Flags can dictate their vision, goals, end-states, etc. but we can push those ideas up to not only shape their goals, but also help shape our own command missions.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest