SUBJ: INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS FITNESS REPORT OFFICER SUMMARY GROUPS

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:06 pm

Sum1 wrote:Why not? That's why we have AQDs. Pilots are all the same designator but assigned to specific swim lanes. They even have opportunities to jump swim lanes and qualify for other things.


I don't think you can compare the diversity of the IDC to the lack of diversity of pilots of different platforms. A better comparison would be the URL community writ large. And yes, they can shift around (lat xfer) but not without significant retraining. I would argue the same holds true for the IDC.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby das » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:42 pm

A single IDC Officer designator is appropriate for the Flag level — at the Flag level, those individuals are executive administrators, not technical leaders. In fact, I'd argue we could have a SWO as the head of FLTCYBERCOM/C10F (which we did), or an Aviator as the head of the IDC (which we do).

But for the IDC communities for ENS through CAPT? Sure, we're all "part of the IDC", but this goes beyond NOBCs or AQDs. Could we have a single designator and just use/specify AQDs for everything? I guess, but why would we? The things the IDC communities do are indeed very different.
  • 0

Visit Information Warfare Community Self Synchronization on Facebook, Twitter, and at IWCsync.org!
User avatar
das
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Reputation: 4

Postby Wolfpack » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:07 pm

das wrote:But for the IDC communities for ENS through CAPT? Sure, we're all "part of the IDC", but this goes beyond NOBCs or AQDs. Could we have a single designator and just use/specify AQDs for everything? I guess, but why would we? The things the IDC communities do are indeed very different.


No one in the fleet, joint world, or anywhere, has defined the need for an Info Dom officer. The demands are specific to Intel, IW, IP or Oceano. For JOs, ships and subs need IW, not some cross trained Oceano or Intel Officer. That is why you do not see any attempts to merge or cross detail at the JO level. I have heard that some commend do mingle at the O4 level,but there has not been any effort from the Pentagon. The plan is and remains to start the process after the O5 command or milestone level (depending on community).
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Postby arvizo » Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:07 pm

COMEVIL wrote:Point is these fields are diverse enough that you can't create an effective IDC Officer capable in all four. Like I said, I think our leadership understands this.


The IW field by itself is so diverse I believe you'd be hard pressed to find one who is an expert in all areas.
  • 0

arvizo
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:59 am
Reputation: 8

Postby Pwlk » Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:21 am

arvizo wrote:The IW field by itself is so diverse I believe you'd be hard pressed to find one who is an expert in all areas.


How in our 1810 community do we define, recognize, or notate experts?

I have my own opinions but curious as to other's thoughts first.
  • 0

User avatar
Pwlk
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:31 pm
Reputation: 2

Postby arvizo » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:10 am

Pwlk wrote:How in our 1810 community do we define, recognize, or notate experts?

I have my own opinions but curious as to other's thoughts first.


In 2009 there was a data call for cyber experience within the 1810 community. I have no idea what was done with that info. It played no role in determining my follow-on orders.
  • 0

arvizo
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:59 am
Reputation: 8

Postby COMEVIL » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:58 am

Pwlk wrote:How in our 1810 community do we define, recognize, or notate experts?

I have my own opinions but curious as to other's thoughts first.


We don't. Not in any effective or official way, anyway.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Postby Schlag » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:42 pm

There's AQDs on the books for the IW specialties (Basic PQS, DSO, CRC, Command) and there's also AQDs on the books for the CNO specialties. I'm unsure of how well utilized the CNO specialties are used/documented. I would argue that without proper documentation the system lacks value and shouldn't be used to leverage experience versus requirements.

There are a handful of AQD out there that also document facets of IO. I think EW and MILDEC is somewhat covered, unsure if there's anything used to document OPSEC or MISO. But even still, I doubt these are properly used.

Bottom line, there exists some sort of system of documenting our skillset, but I can't speak to how well it's used to document previous experience or how what role it plays in consideration for future orders. A detailer or perhaps even the OCM could speak better to that.
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby Sum1 » Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:35 pm

I most definitely agree that just in IW we are too diverse for any one person to realistically call themselves an "expert" in all facets of our job. I also think we do a poor job documenting experiences gained, at least without a significant investment in time and effort on the part of the officer. I understand that it's ultimately up to the individual to ensure their record is complete, but I've looked and failed to find a good accounting of the standards for the attainment of various AQDs. If someone has a link or a document that lays out specific details please pass it along.

As far as JOs aboard ships, I think that's a bad example. I've been told directly that our experience as cryptologists aboard ships is basically to pretend to be SWOs, qualify as such, and gain the "operational experience" that direct support doesn't provide (I have different opinions on this, but I'll leave it at that). This was reiterated to a group of waterfront COs/XOs who recently visited the local NIOC/NSA site. They were told directly to treat their IWOs like baby SWOs because that's why they are sent to ships. We need to get past that idea and empower the IWOs on board to be force multipliers rather than bridge watchstanders (still important, but shouldn't be priority 1).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Schlag » Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:52 pm

Sum1 wrote:I understand that it's ultimately up to the individual to ensure their record is complete, but I've looked and failed to find a good accounting of the standards for the attainment of various AQDs. If someone has a link or a document that lays out specific details please pass it along.


Best source I've been able to find is the NOOCS, Vol 1, Part D (http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/noc/NOOCSVol1/Documents/Manual%20I%2042_PT_D%20(AQD).pdf); but even that isn't the greatest and a lot of the criteria is either broadly defined or depends only on graduating from a certain school.

I would also agree that the vast majority of IWO's are not properly leveraged and are "not here for a long time, just here for a good time". Perhaps part of that is because the Surface Community isn't always assigned a very cryptologic intense mission, perhaps part of it is are misplaced priorities or incorrect expectation management. Not sure of the best way of dealing with the situation besides blooming where you're planted - but that could also turn into being an awesome bridge watchstander (which is what my first SIWO onboard DDG did).
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

PreviousNext

Return to Information Dominance Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron