O-6 results

[COMEVIL]

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.

[yoshi]

"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.

[Sum1]

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.

[COMEVIL]

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.

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.

[Sum1]

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.

[COMEVIL]

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.

[COMEVIL]

So, where is the value added? We have created/shifted an O-6 IW Commander (IWC) billet, added a designated DIWC (senior CDR), but done literally nothing else. Is this how we get to success as an IW Afloat model by adding more titles?

I think it's clear that snatching IWC away from the carrier CO and assigning actual IWC members to that position afloat is a huge win. The greater IWC needs to figure out how to smash this opportunity out of the park with our best and brightest as soon as possible to make sure we get to stay at the table as equals. I can't imagine anything more frustrating than finally getting this opportunity and then squandering a chance to set a great precedent. Fortunately, I'd be surprised to hear that our leadership wasn't thinking the exact same thing and making decisions appropriately.

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.

Following up, and now assigned to a CSG staff. My position has been carved out as the N9, so I am an ACOS. At the same time, I am not the DIWC. As stated before, that title (whatever it means) goes to the senior IW CDR on the staff. Meanwhile, my job really doesn't change. Not one bit.

At the CSG next door the CW CDR is now the N62 (???) but is also the DIWC. Whatever all of that means I don't really know either. Color me confused.

BL: The IWC afloat concept is very much a work in progress and differs from CSG to CSG. So be careful what you ask for if you are considering orders as a "DIWC."

[yoshi]

I wonder if the IWC is going to take ownership of its functions, solidify, and standardize them. Sure, the CSG one star decides all, i get it. But, aren't we 'supporting' these functions, rather than leading them as 'operator's? I'm pretty sure senior IW leadership could take ownership, engage the Fleet, and articulate how it should be in a sufficiently eloquent manner to gain approval/acceptance. I don't think the Fleet would tell us to pound sand. They may even have that as an expectation, based on the fleet putting cryppies in those billets in the first place; otherwise, what was the point?

Some say it's NIWDC, as an organization, to fix this kind of thing. I think it's the entire IWC. Expecting a new command with a CAPT CO to be able to solve what decades of IWC Admirals couldn't or wouldn't is unrealistic. How can NIWDC be of adequate value when every strike group does Info Warfare differently, unless it's measured by TACMEMOs produced and # of DTEs observed.

Guess i shouldn't sweat it. TTGL will straighten it out at the beginning of everyone's integrated phase.

[COMEVIL]

I wonder if the IWC is going to take ownership of its functions, solidify, and standardize them. Sure, the CSG one star decides all, i get it. But, aren't we 'supporting' these functions, rather than leading them as 'operator's? I'm pretty sure senior IW leadership could take ownership, engage the Fleet, and articulate how it should be in a sufficiently eloquent manner to gain approval/acceptance. I don't think the Fleet would tell us to pound sand.

Honest question, which IW Flag Officers have the clout to make the point? Most CW Officers don't have any direct Fleet experience beyond a LCDR CRC tour. METOC is the same. Intel and the IP community may be better poised given their billet structure on afloat staffs. Still, the numbers are really small.

Anyway, there are currently two camps. What we think we want and what the Fleet thinks they want. The two camps are significantly different.

BTW, remember how many IW Captains screened for IWC? Look at the list again and see how many have actually been assigned. The majority of those selected have not gone, and will probably never go, to a CSG staff.

[yoshi]

Concur. I fear the CW community risks irrelevance in the Fleet, which influences overall relevance to the Navy. From a fleet perspective, we're increasingly a boutique community on the fringe of topical Fleet efforts with excess resources relative to value generated. Previous value promised sees Navy doing cryptology/IW today the same way it did in 2009/2010 and before. We've got bigger budgets, a numbered Fleet, more Flags, new things, etc. Objective reality is blurred by preferred reality. With perhaps a DCO exception (which existed before FCC/C10F), not sure CW/IW is better in the Fleet than in 2010.

We have personnel working their butts off at FCC/C10F and subordinates. We increasingly whip the ponies to go farther, faster as (most of) the CAPTs ride along cheering. The trail is at least as important. There could be a blockbuster development just around the corner making it all worthwhile. I sincerely hope so and know many others desperately hoping. Many of my friends are completely invested, and I wish the best for each. More importantly, I want to see the value our personnel have the potential to create realized in the Fleet (as taxpayer, friend, fellow Sailor, etc).

However, if I were FFC and not getting what i think i need, when do I cut my losses and reassign the P2 CW/IW functions and billets to a different community until I got it? Arguably, in the context of future Navy conflicts with equal adversaries, the Navy needs real title 10 IW readiness, understanding, and applicability at the waterfront ahead of title 50 capability ashore, especially if IW will be more of a factor in coming conflicts. It doesn't matter which community is the most qualified to provide such readiness/understanding. It matters 1) which is available and 2) which is willing.