Well, the instance I noted was in a SELRES unit.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
INTEL and Aviation Observers
- Thread starter farsightusf
- Start date
Roger. That’s a bit disappointing. Intelligence is only useful to the fleet if it has credibility behind it (that’s true at the individual level, unit/office level, and agency/IC-wide level). The warfare pin is a uniform device that superficially conveys a certain minimum professional credibility. I am not sure how lax or stringent other naval communities are with giving out warfare pins but my automatic assumption is always “This person (with warfare pin XYZ) absolutely knows what she or he is talking about (on topic XYZ)” until proven otherwise. I would hope that other communities think the same when seeing an officer with an IDWO pin (IWO, whatever we are calling it), but obviously the IWC has to continually earn it by upkeeping certain minimum standards.
I wish that the Intel pin did imply a baseline degree of competence. Unfortunately, as Bubblehead alluded to, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ve seen several less than competent Intel Os get pushed through the pipeline in the name of professional progression without anyone taking the time to assess their actual proficiency. It’s telling to me that all of the Weapons School Intel Os I worked with in my last job were prouder of their weapons school Intel patches than they were of earning their Intel pins. In the words of one (frankly the best Intel O I’ve worked with) “it felt like I actually had to earn this patch.”
It’s been discussed on this board before, but I feel like squadron AIs are done a disservice by being sent out to the fleet immediately post NIOBC. So much of their first tour progression hinges on their ability to learn on the fly and the mentorship that they receive from the squadron training o/tactics shop.
It also doesn’t help that it seems like the community values generalists over specialization. I think it’s a problem when a hard charging weapons school intel o is told he’s affecting his career progression by singing up for a tour in Fallon.
Last edited:
RotorBoy83
Dictating how it is.
I’m a little (7 years to be exact) removesd from the process, but in my admittedly limited experience, I was always surprised by the lack of input from winged aviators in the performance assessment of airwing AIs in air wing events.
I was stuck in my rw corner, but it seemed like they segregated the intel qualification process, and walked a lot of the intel folks through the process without much of a chop from the intel “customers,” so to speak.
LET73
Well-Known Member
Yep. I think a big part of the problem is that the intel pin involves learning a lot of information, but not actually demonstrating any proficiency. Part of that's a function of the different jobs a qualifying intel O might end up in - there's not a set career progression for intel the way there is for URL, and it's harder to come up with a single, testable standard. There's also no mechanism for the customer to evaluate the intel O's. It's understandable in that the IWC doesn't want non-IWC types determining who does or doesn't get the IWO pin, but ultimately we're only as good as the information we provide to the customer, and it's not really up to us to decide whether it was useful.
Another part of the problem is that pushing through a less than competent intel O is pretty low risk. If the OOD runs into the ground, or another ship, there's going to be a hard look at the SWO qualification process at that command. There's not a comparable risk to an N2 who signs off on an incompetent intel O. It's a bigger risk to not have them qualify.
Right, that is what I was thinking, too: is there a mechanism, and if so, has it ever been used? The FNAEB is the mechanism for aviation, and obviously the range of outcomes includes losing one's wings. For NSW, I've heard from reputable sources stories of SEALs being kicked out of the Teams, some keeping their trident and some not.
P.S. Obviously the IC/ Navy can strip clearances.
This. That pin means nothing. I've known two knuckleheads who are no longer Intel (SCI taken from them) and I bet they still have their pin.
I got out of the Navy in 2005, prior to this pin being created. When I heard about it the first time I laughed, envisioning a pin with a MS PowerPoint logo superimposed on a lightning bolt. One of the best things about being Intel back in the day is that we could get almost any warfare device. You used to see intel-rated guys with all sorts of stuff, air/surface warfare, observer wings, dive pin, jump wings, even Tridents (before SEALs had their own rate). Chris Kyle was a class behind me at NMITC. Now everyone has the same damn pin.
That's why the pin is a joke.
It's called a self-licking ice cream cone.
LET73
Well-Known Member
That, and the fact that the first round of people who got it (myself included), got a warfare pin by taking an NKO course.
Sure. However comma that leaves zero room to take corrective action if the person has:
- substandard skills/knowledge to perform their assigned job
- poor attitude/demeanor
- poor work ethic/laziness
- critically slow decision making (such that it puts the mission at risk)
...but otherwise has sufficient suitability to hold a security clearance.
I still think the IWC needs its own FNAEB.
No, it really doesn't. How about leadership that actually holds people accountable for the professional manner in which they do their jobs? Officer Fitness Reports and Enlisted Performance Evaluations can do that just fine. If you convened a (fill in whatever community is apropos at the moment) Field What The Fuck Happened Board (FWTFHB), it's pronounced "Fwhat-Fphub" you'd have the entire God Damn Navy doing nothing but investigations for fucks sake !!!
What is the frequency of occurrence of FNAEBs in the aviation community?