“Information Warfare Is a Second-Class Commissioning Community”

[Flash]

You're crossing a lot of different streams here to the point of incoherence.

Example: Every time the USAF threatens to retire the A-10, the Army says “Great, now chop all those pilots and maintainers over to us, and we’ll take over that mission.” USAF then balks and keeps the status quo because they don’t want to lose the mission, money, or people. But they’ve tried to divest that platform more than once.

That's not really how it goes or why the A-10 is still around, there was a lot of political and emotional pull for it to keep flying and it didn't help the F-35 was/is years behind schedule. But hey.....brrrrrrrrrt.

With regard to Fire Scout, I know of at least one 1830 who is getting the qual for it...And more billets afloat w/ Fire Scouts would become open to non-1310s with the right qual.

I'm not sure what 'getting a qual for' the MQ-8 means but cryppies or intel folks likely shouldn't be running air assets, qual or not, it is best left in the hands of the professionals who get input from those who want the information (Intel, cryppies, whoever) off the platforms.

 

[Hair Warrior]

it is best left in the hands of the professionals who can get input from those who want the information off the platforms.

I agree. Does the HSC community fly the MQ-8 the most? And, do they like doing it? (genuine question)

Also, who flies the MQ-4?

 

[Hair Warrior]

For the record, I am not advocating for IWC to become URL. We have a perfectly fine and well-defined role in the Navy already. If Big Navy tells us to become URL, we’ll rise to the challenge as best we can. If I had to bet $1 on it, I’d bet the IWC stays Restricted Line.

 

[Flash]

Also, who flies the MQ-4?

VP flies them. VUP-19 was established to fly them, along with the planned (still?) VUP-11, and it is staffed by VP types.

 

[Pags]

I'd be curious as to what sort of MQ-8 qual an 1830 would be getting.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I'd be curious as to what sort of MQ-8 qual an 1830 would be getting.

NFI. It was a short conversation 4-5 years ago. My guess is the DZ8 AQD or DY8 AQD. The DY8 AQD is listed as being eligible to 13XX only, though.

 

[Pags]

NFI. It was a short conversation 4-5 years ago. My guess is the DZ8 AQD or DY8 AQD. The DY8 AQD is listed as being eligible to 13XX only, though.

Might be a different world these days. 4-5yrs ago MQ-8s were doing some non-traditional stuff with reservists. Now they're all aligned to HSC.

 

[HH-60H]

In the CNO's last visit to Hawaii, he said that was still the intent. But he also said he was shooting for the switch to URL to happen by the end of the year, so I grow considerably less hopeful with each passing day.

It's not going to happen this year. It's got a solid chance next year. There is a statutory change that has to happen before any changes in the Navy can occur.

 

[HH-60H]

Oh jeez, I didn't realize that it had gotten traction that high up. Making themselves URL's won't 'fix' or help anything, it will just make some of them more insufferable than they already are and point the community as a whole in the wrong direction. Why can't they be content with just doing their damn jobs and be proud of that?

Yes, it has traction at the highest levels. However, the proposed changes aren't as simple as URL vs RL. It's really about command at sea and being able to create an IW commander that is a true peer to the other warfare commanders. When I say peer, I don't mean so that everyone can feel good, I mean peer in the sense of authorities and being able to create a warfighting culture.

Honestly, I am so far removed from the Fleet, I can't tell if these are good or even sound arguments.

As I type this post, I'm really starting to think that this is about the culture. IW does not have a warfighting culture; it's a staff culture by and large. Since this CNO is convinced that IW is the future it only makes sense that he wants to change the culture of the community.

 

[Renegade One]

For the record, I am not advocating for IWC to become URL. We have a perfectly fine and well-defined role in the Navy already. If Big Navy tells us to become URL, we’ll rise to the challenge as best we can. If I had to bet $1 on it, I’d bet the IWC stays Restricted Line.

AHA! So you DON'T want to stand boat officer watches. I knew it!

"With great power comes great responsibility." ~Voltaire (or Spiderman for all you IWC-types)

 

[Flash]

Yes, it has traction at the highest levels. However, the proposed changes aren't as simple as URL vs RL. It's really about command at sea and being able to create an IW commander that is a true peer to the other warfare commanders. When I say peer, I don't mean so that everyone can feel good, I mean peer in the sense of authorities and being able to create a warfighting culture.

Honestly, I am so far removed from the Fleet, I can't tell if these are good or even sound arguments.

As I type this post, I'm really starting to think that this is about the culture. IW does not have a warfighting culture; it's a staff culture by and large. Since this CNO is convinced that IW is the future it only makes sense that he wants to change the culture of the community.

My cynicism and concern are products of over two decades of dealing with cryppies. A point of pride, often to an arrogant degree, is that they are 'collectors' and even 'operators' opposed to their Intel brethren, and many make sure that they and everyone else who bothers to listen knows that. What they often lose sight of though is why they are getting that info and for who it is for, I saw that many times in my first squadron when the MC would default to fleet support to the bafflement and sometimes even annoyance of many of the backenders. How dare we utilize 'their' platform to do something other than what their priority was?! Coupled with the fact few have full knowledge of what the do, though in my first squadron we did, this attitude can fester for a long time. To this day I see these attitudes among a significant minority of IW/CW/cryppie officers.

I know that 10th Fleet and their work is at times significantly different than what cryppies have traditionally done, crossing into the 'operational' realm at times, but I am not sure that justifies changing the community so they become 'peers' and have 'command at sea'. I fear the same myopic view towards the 'battlespace' will remain and their target fixation, for a lack of better terms right now, will remain and color their view of things and a lack of knowledges on the part of warfare commanders will help perpetuate that.

 

[Hair Warrior]

IW does not have a warfighting culture; it's a staff culture by and large.

Yes, if by “staff” you also mean watchstanding on intel watchfloors, giving daily opintel briefs to the N3 or J3, nominating/vetting targets as part of the joint targeting cycle, and weaponeering for strike.

Intel culture is very much ingrained in providing the intelligence picture but not cherry picking options or making operator recommendations. It would be a BIG culture/mindset shift to start making operational decisions as intel. Both Es and Os are taught strictly to never tell operators how to do their job. We brief the battlespace. Operators apply intelligence to then employ platforms - or do nothing; it’s their call not ours.

To this day I see these attitudes among a significant minority of IW/CW/cryppie officers.

Agree. Maybe I’ve been too broad in my terminology. When I’m saying IWC, I do not mean IW/CW/cryppie primarily. Intel is over 50% of the IWC by manpower. I believe we’ll see mainly intel Os as Quebec actual in the CWC/ IW commander afloat role.

 

[cfam]

Yes, if by “staff” you also mean watchstanding on intel watchfloors, giving daily opintel briefs to the N3 or J3, nominating/vetting targets as part of the joint targeting cycle, and weaponeering for strike.

Intel culture is very much ingrained in providing the intelligence picture but not cherry picking options or making operator recommendations. It would be a BIG culture/mindset shift to start making operational decisions as intel. Both Es and Os are taught strictly to never tell operators how to do their job. We brief the battlespace. Operators apply intelligence to then employ platforms - or do nothing; it’s their call not ours.

Agree. Maybe I have been too broad in my terminology. When I am saying IWC, I do not mean IW/CW/cryppie primarily. Intel is over 50% of the IWC by manpower. I believe we’ll see mainly intel Os as Quebec actual in the CWC/ IW commander afloat role.

I’d be curious to see the breakdown of who fills that billet. The first Quebec from the IWC was actually a cryppie. Smart guy, but he was definitely more focused on the cryppie side of the equation than the rest of the Quebec responsibilities.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I know that 10th Fleet and their work is at times significantly different than what cryppies have traditionally done, crossing into the 'operational' realm at times, but I am not sure that justifies changing the community so they become 'peers' and have 'command at sea'.

I have seen this mission in action, and I do not believe it warrants being URL. Heck, there are [really talented] civilians who are using Title 10 authorities to create effects in the battlespace.

 

[HH-60H]

My cynicism and concern are products of over two decades of dealing with cryppies. A point of pride, often to an arrogant degree, is that they are 'collectors' and even 'operators' opposed to their Intel brethren, and many make sure that they and everyone else who bothers to listen knows that.

It's funny you say that. One guy I know calls the 1820s "ABC"... Always Be Condescending. Now that I know a number of them, I think it is very funny.

I agree with the rest of what you said. I could write endlessly about the culture problems that keep the IW community, and its tribes, from really stepping up to the plate.

As for the rationale to proceed with changing the status of IW, those are my thoughts. I have never heard it articulated from anyone higher outside the community. Though to be fair, I try to avoid the events where I would have the opportunity to hear it from higher.