Page 4 of 4

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 am
by 20yearman
Can't access the link to see the billet details but I assume these are the longer term IA-type billets; the Navy has shifted almost all of these requirements over to the Reserves.

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:55 pm
by Sum1
I can't see the link, either, so take the rest of what I say with a grain of salt.

These reserve billets could also be the stop gap put in place to provide some kind of OCO capability while we figure out our own longer term manning issues. I've personally started looking at reserve and WIAS solutions to bring some cyber expertise to my components while we unscrew our JMD. Frankly, there's a good core of people doing the team-level tactical planning, and the JFHQ-C's are getting better. Unfortunately, we find our geographically-aligned service components and JTFs completely lacking reasonable cyber expertise, which impacts planning and synchronized execution.

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:26 pm
by Sum1
Bumping this because as my time at the CCMD doing IO and Cyber draws to a close, the thought that we're missing an incredible opportunity keeps growing.

IO seems like a dirty word in our community, but it's incredibly important to the joint warfighter. The 4-star routinely wants to know what IO/non-kinetics (terms used interchangeably) is doing to get after his objectives. Cyber is now in those discussions, as well, despite limited successes and complete lack of any sort of assessment framework.

Well, we need to take another look at IO as an 1810 and IWC community, but not from the perspective of the joint warfighter, but rather from the perspective of fleet support.

During the mid-career course, it seemed as if every single speaker took time to talk about the Information Warfare Commander concept. Each speaker emphasized how critical it was to put someone who could effectively integrate the various information-related capabilities, both organic to the strike group and available for request/tasking from the IC, national assets, and elsewhere, to act as a force multiplier and improve overall combat operations. I couldn't help but take note that J39/N39/IO shops all over the globe are literally doing this day in and day out, albeit against different target sets and with different goals.

So the answer to the question of "how do we grow JOs into senior officers capable of assuming duties and responsibilities of an afloat IWC?" needs to not only include significant afloat operational experience at the strike group staff and fleet levels, but I would argue vehemently that it should ALSO include work in IO shops practicing the integration of information related capabilities in ways that create constructive, beneficial effects for the warfighter.

I'm fleshing this idea how further on my own time (it's an eerie feeling to be "between jobs"). I'd like to hear other people's take on the subject.

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:14 pm
Sum1 wrote:To the answer to the question of "how do we grow JOs into senior officers capable of assuming duties and responsibilities of an afloat IWC?"

I think N39/J39 tours at Fleet Staff/COCOMs is one answer. I also think we need to value and desire more afloat tours. If you look at the rest of the bubbas sitting "at the table" they all have tons of operational experience prior to taking their place. The same can't always be said for the current crowd of IWC's and his/her staff. We tend to look at afloat as -- one and done -- or -- if you served afloat as a LCDR, no need to go as CDR -- etc. The result is a team of IW personnel who simply can't keep up, or perform at the level necessary to make out contribution valid.

So yes, more tours like you just completed would be valuable to this position. As would more afloat time in general.