Poll: cyber becomes it's own thing, cryppies become 1830(s)

[COMEVIL]

I find it hard to believe that when the (then) IDC was formed all we needed to do was combine a few communities, put a fancy name on it, and call it a day.

We haven't done any sort of community rework since the standup some xx (can't remember) years ago -- s-ame Officer designators, same enlisted rates, same stovepiped commands.

Meanwhile, we keep experimenting with cross-detailing -- first Flag billets, then O-5 command, then major command, now O-4 XO. Meh...

We wouldn't need to worry about trying to build exposure if we were optimally organized.

As far as SIGINT under Intel goes, all of the other services do this. Are we the only service doing it right? Or are we the only service doing it wrong?

[yoshi]

It's hard to believe because it isn't true - we needed much more for it to mean anything. That change was less about doing anything different and more about money and control. But, since it happened, kind of makes sense to do something with it, and that's what we've been trying to do for 7+ years. There have been some changes, but the "all in" communities haven't yet discovered enough enlightened self interest to really make impact improvements. It will come, though, just a matter of time and a matter of whether it is the IWC or the URLs. Until then it's cross detail (which could actually be helpful, i think), longer basic courses, a warfare pin, and screwed up ADCON for the cryppies from two commands (C10F and IFOR). I'd like to see them tear apart any particular command's METL, and make it something new, a command which would show what IWC could be, what it is. Wouldn't that be optimal organization?!

About the SIGINT under INTEL. When we do SIGINT, we are the one service doing it right. SIGINT for the Navy, however, hasn't been the focus for a long time. The SIGINT we do focus on is distributed, remoted, or otherwise in support of someone on shore, not afloat. We don't trust our Sailors afloat can do it - for whatever reason - so we've dumbed down the job and what is expected, put in systems which make the Sailor more of a maintainer than operator, and I&W from shore as if we'll always have shared SA, perfect comms, and incredible responsiveness. It's this specific piece I think realignment under the Intel community might improve since that community routes its future leaders through the Fleet and right now has a far better handle on what is required to support a commander. When we are interested in building the prowess and capability on platforms, we clearly do it right. DCO is an example of how we can do it for the Navy, and that's how we used to be with SIGINT (although - i am curious about what motivated the community to suddenly field the effort when the opportunity was there for several years and also why it isn't more broadly applied throughout the fleet). Anyway, the point is, we know how to do SIGINT right technically, but we don't understand the why. The other services are the complete opposite - they understand the why, don't quite understand the how. The other services' approaches are reflections of our own Intel community.

[Arkad]

My thoughts from January 2016 on this subject...

More Than a Name Change

That post evolved into the opportunity to help write the Cryptologic Community Vision. Has anyone seen the IWC Vision? IP Vision? Intel Vision? Oceano Vision?

[Sum1]

My thoughts from January 2016 on this subject...

More Than a Name Change

That post evolved into the opportunity to help write the Cryptologic Community Vision. Has anyone seen the IWC Vision? IP Vision? Intel Vision? Oceano Vision?

I remember reading that post and being unsure how to react to it, but a year and a half in a cyber job completely changed my perspective. I think an evolution like the one you describe would be beneficial to the service and also let us refocus on our specialized mission-sets. Ironically, the cyber ops model you described almost 18 months ago is one of the primary COAs being explored within the Joint Cyber Center at my command. The other is more of your traditional 3/5 ops/plans concept with intel support to both and representatives from the various cyber-related disciplines doing the current ops or planning as a functional, multi-faceted team rather than the stovepipes of excellence we seem to be so comfortable working within.

[COMEVIL]

My thoughts from January 2016 on this subject...

More Than a Name Change

That post evolved into the opportunity to help write the Cryptologic Community Vision. Has anyone seen the IWC Vision? IP Vision? Intel Vision? Oceano Vision?

There is a Naval Oceanography strategy, signed in January 2017 by RADM Gaulladet. It is excellent!

[Sleeper]

Consolidating cyber into one designator would also help focus personnel utilization on the Reserve side. Right now, all of the 1815 mobilizations are basically either SIGINT or IO planning (and I thought we didn't do IO anymore..?). We haven't had any luck trying to get cyber-focused 1815 officers into 1825-coded "cyber" mobilizations.

It's also a step closer to my dream of shifting the Reserve cyber cadre into a flex-drill model, where we save up those monthly drill weekends and instead send people to the Fort (or a regional site) for a couple of weeks of focused training/ops twice per year.

Are you with me, das?

[Sum1]

Consolidating cyber into one designator would also help focus personnel utilization on the Reserve side. Right now, all of the 1815 mobilizations are basically either SIGINT or IO planning (and I thought we didn't do IO anymore..?). We haven't had any luck trying to get cyber-focused 1815 officers into 1825-coded "cyber" mobilizations.

It's also a step closer to my dream of shifting the Reserve cyber cadre into a flex-drill model, where we save up those monthly drill weekends and instead send people to the Fort (or a regional site) for a couple of weeks of focused training/ops twice per year.

Are you with me, das?

Not exactly what you're talking about, but I just hooked my boss up with the CDR of a Ohio National Guard unit to look into providing our command with some cyber ops/planning support on a rotational basis. Goal is to codify it and make it an enduring relationship so we can rotate people through (9-12 month rotations), get them the planning experience on top of whatever operational/technical experience they already have, and then push them to components who are REALLY hard up for cyber planning/ops expertise.

Not sure why the mobilizations you see are written that way. Seems like something that could be changed with the right buy-in from the right orgs.