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.