Ok, so I went ahead and reread the brief again, and I think we have a different understanding of what is happening. The title of the brief is: "Migration of the Information Dominance Corps to a Single Community". I take this to meane we will all be members of one community. Therefore, there wil be no IW/IP/Intel METOC billets. Rather they will all be ID billets, and JDTA will be the same for everyone. Sure, there will be AQDs and P-codes for some, but all folks will be able to fill most all billets. "Cross-detailing" is irrelevant, as it will no longer exist. If someone has better gouge than what is written on the brief given to the CNO, please let me know.
Breaking out billets by AQD/P-code does nothing to ensure the appropriate skills are possessed by the individual serving in that billet. AQD and Pcodes are currently only useful in that they tell us what school someone went to; it doesn't tell us level of experience or quality. And - quality is the bottom line. Competence should be our watchword, and I wish we would/could detail accordingly. But, we can't/don't.
As for URL discussion:
It would be more helpful for me to understand how the Navy would benefit from certain EW/CISO/ASW billets, currently filled by URLs, being filled by ID officers. What says they can't be filled by RL ID officers now? They could be. Also, what is the value added versus the value lost? Sure, maybe we can be more specific to a/the capability area, but what is the tradeoff. I, for one, don't have the confidence in the fleet experience of our wardroom to be able to say we would be successful in most cases. I base this on the level of fleet experience of those around me (all officer grades), most of whom possess 2 or maybe 3 deployments. I think we provide one hell of an effective informational force, complete with non-kinetic options. But, I don't believe we have the breadth of understanding and experience necessary to command/control a deployed capability in support of COCOM, Fleet requirements. Sure, we provide the capability, but understanding where and how it should be used, how it fits at all levels, and how it affects the rest is a whole different dimension.
The fact is we don't know enough about how the Navy operates (let alone a joint construct) to ensure success relative to an alternative URL choice. Before I get hammered for this statement, look at how many billets we have invested at our fleet TYCOMs, UFF, and CPF and then compare them to how many are at Ft/ Meade/C10F. Looking at that will tell you exactly what we feel is important. We are shore-centric, and becoming more-so every day, and it seems to me we are somewhat confused in our understanding of what uniform we wear. This shore-centricity widens the gap in understanding and commonality between our community efforts and fleet efforts. I'm not sure I would embrace ID as URL if I were the CNO, at least not until the ID community could find a way to resolve the long standing problems the post deployment reports continue to repeat.
Finally, there are indeed solutions to be had, and many are underway. I will say, however, that the level of acceptance is inherently dependent upon one's organization. While thinking outside the box may be encouraged at OPNAV or elsewhere, it isn't necessarily the case in other locations. There are far more aspects for the O6s at CPF/FFC to consider, and consequently far more constraints under which the JOs (far fewer in number than the JOs at the mothership) must work. These organizations and their personalities are not modern. Additionally, the efforts at CPF/FFC and other fleet staffs have far greater implications for the Navy's opinion, credibility, and use of IO/CYBER than does the best idea cooked up in MD or elsewhere. While we will always believe in and continue to produce ideas for possible solutions, we are realists and understand what is possible and what is intractable. We will continue to bide our time and wait for the correct set of cross-organizational personalities and opportunity to present solutions to the problems we continue to experience. It isn't risk aversion or institutional cowardice which prevents solutions from being advanced, its the desire/necessity to save time and streamline efforts in support of what must be done. If you are one person in 3 or 4 billets, this only makes sense (meanwhile, we're double stuffing billets at other other locations). So, the likelihood of seeing ROI on time spent in support of an idea for solution depends on the idea's quality and feasability (as determined by the chain). Hence, personalities have to marry up across a number of organizations - they all have to agree, get along, and be inclusive. Presently, that ain't happening. Organizational priorities are different and their conflict leads to a situation in which solutions will best (most likely) be produced by those organizations with adequate resources and control. Those elsewhere have to figure out who to convince, when, and how to pacify the interests of all necessary players (staff work).