O-6 results

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Mon May 08, 2017 10:16 pm

Sum1 wrote:So, is your question really if we're looking to get to success with an IW Afloat model or a CW Afloat model? It seems less like we're adding titles and more like our equities get a seat at the table with the perennial big boys.


This assumes that we weren't already adding value afloat..which we were...and have been...and will continue to.

Meanwhile, this process is being driven by a community that continues to drive itself away from the water front, into its own commands and "task forces" led by so-called commodores.

If you think I am cynical you are correct. We need to stop rearranging deck chairs and giving ourselves fancy titles. The best way to been seen as valuable is to add value.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: O-6 results

Postby yoshi » Tue May 09, 2017 2:18 am

"reinvest elsewhere" is what would be done if the 1810 is not designated the DIWC. why fill the billet at all? and if we do, why fill with best/brightest, understanding where they are likely to fall out?

and, yeah, I echo your thoughts on driving away from the waterfront - exactly what we are doing. But, that direction is most comfortable for our leadership. ultimately, all will be resolved. either we stumble upon some significant value from the outside and figure out how to get it to and integrate with the Fleet, or the Fleet - eventually - assigns us the proper priority for the value we bring. A third alternative might be adjusting the job jars to allow intel/metoc/ip to handle all the non-NIOC/C10F stuff above division officer level while CW moves their folks to CTFs for cyber of staff. I think CW community is currently enjoying the best position it can hope for. Eventually the piper will come calling and we will pay with value or with pain. We do produce value for the Navy, but does the quality and quantity of that value 1) provide what is needed and 2) warrant the expense? Looking at what we provide, I don't believe it does.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: O-6 results

Postby Sum1 » Tue May 09, 2017 11:42 am

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:So, is your question really if we're looking to get to success with an IW Afloat model or a CW Afloat model? It seems less like we're adding titles and more like our equities get a seat at the table with the perennial big boys.


This assumes that we weren't already adding value afloat..which we were...and have been...and will continue to.

Meanwhile, this process is being driven by a community that continues to drive itself away from the water front, into its own commands and "task forces" led by so-called commodores.

If you think I am cynical you are correct. We need to stop rearranging deck chairs and giving ourselves fancy titles. The best way to been seen as valuable is to add value.


I would never assume we don't add value afloat - 365 days deployed on subs and another 2.5 years doing PCS afloat on a DDG gave me a firsthand view of the contributions CTs/CWs have.

What I think we need to consider (not taking a hard stance either way, but just stating that it requires an introspective look) is what it means to be a CW isn't changing, but rather how that support to the fleet is provided and what capabilities are brought to the fight may be.

We are still operationally focused to provide support to the warfighters, and I hope that doesn't change. We still assign smart, capable JOs and their enlisted counterparts to afloat units to primarily support the CO, but also national missions. With the emergence of cyber, though, and USCYBERCOM's (or entities within) assertion that teams should be viewed as firing batteries (their words, not mine), there is more to consider than before. We aren't just supporting the O-5 or O-6 CO of a single tactical unit. Now there are CWs directly supporting CCDR priority requirements with non-kinetic fires complementing (hopefully) the kinetic fires.

Frankly, if I had ADM Rogers' or VADM Tighe's ear for 60 seconds I would strongly advocate for the creation of true cyber components OPCON to the combatant commands with assigned forces, which opens up the Pandora's Box of a cyber service on par with the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. The Navy CWs can keep the legacy SIGINT/EW mission. I don't need SIGINT -- I need cyber forces capable of and resourced to gain access and placement where I need it to support the achievement my commander's objectives.

I think I went off on a major tangent there ... going back to the original discussion, I think the DIWC / IWC changes (if codified as we're describing in some kind of official instruction) don't represent a regression in our support to the operational commander. Whether we get the title or not, the duties and responsibilities afloat should be the same. We would still be the senior cryptologist on the staff. The concern of O-5 breakouts on the staff is valid, but maybe less so if this new evaluation system announced this weekend goes live.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Tue May 09, 2017 1:26 pm

Sum1 wrote:I would never assume we don't add value afloat - 365 days deployed on subs and another 2.5 years doing PCS afloat on a DDG gave me a firsthand view of the contributions CTs/CWs have.


My comment wasn't in reference to your assumptions. It was in reference to the assumptions of our senior leadership, many of whom haven't been on the water front for years, that adding a single position and title will "fix" our model afloat.

Sum1 wrote:I think I went off on a major tangent there ... going back to the original discussion, I think the DIWC / IWC changes (if codified as we're describing in some kind of official instruction) don't represent a regression in our support to the operational commander. Whether we get the title or not, the duties and responsibilities afloat should be the same. We would still be the senior cryptologist on the staff. The concern of O-5 breakouts on the staff is valid, but maybe less so if this new evaluation system announced this weekend goes live.


Also, this has nothing to do with breakouts or rankings. I simply don't see the addition of a single person, designated as the IWC or not, as adding much value. And now we have a DIWC that floats between other assignments. What is next, making that an actual billet? Seems a lot like designating some of our CO's as commodores. Again, I know I sound like a broken record, but....more capabilities....improved capacity....better TTPs....equals value added.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: O-6 results

Postby Sum1 » Tue May 09, 2017 2:29 pm

Good points. You're saying you can't dress up a turd by painting it in a better light or giving it a fancy name.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: O-6 results

Postby COMEVIL » Tue May 09, 2017 3:12 pm

Sum1 wrote:Good points. You're saying you can't dress up a turd by painting it in a better light or giving it a fancy name.


Mostly. I think we already bring value and will continue to do so. Though we have much work to do.

Meanwhile, leadership seems more focused on titles "seats at the table" than anything else.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Previous

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest