SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[nittany03]

Rank is for authority and responsibility. If you just need pay for incentives, that's what bonuses are for.

Fact. The idea of lateral-entry O-5+ is a flat-out minefield in my humble opinion, unless you're talking about some niche professional field. You could bring, say, a neurosurgeon or a judge in at that high of a rank. But that would just be giving them a place in the hierarchy that befits the professional qualifications and credibility they already possess. I know in WWII that heavy hitters in their fields were sometimes commissioned as O-5s or O-6s for special projects to aid the war effort.

That said, for the URL and the fleet, this would be a minefield. I'm certainly not a fan of "up or out" or the timing system; I think they're dated and long overdue for an overhaul. But how to being in someone as a Chief or O-4 after you've ERBed or FOSed a bunch of other people? How to keep this from being a zero-sum game with the people already in and bucking for promotion? Lateral entry combined with competing for promotions could easily create a ton of resentment, and kill morale and retention.

 

[Spekkio]

The Navy has this already, right? The designator is 184x (RL Officer - Cyber Warfare Engineering Officer)

Also, isn't that kinda what LDOs are for? Enlisted specialists who become such specialized practitioners in their tradecraft that they are granted added responsibilities of leadership and managerial decision-making.

If so, include 681X (Information Warfare LDO) and 682X (Information Professional LDO)

Edit: If the Navy needs stellar cyber warriors who are expert practitioners, it could also consider direct accessions as IWC warrant officers (784X Cyber Warrant, 781X Information Warfare Technician, 782X Information Systems Technician)

A Navy 'engineering officer' and a civilian software engineer are not the same thing.

I don't know how many enlisted guys make a career writing code or using development kits to develop software and web pages for the military. I would wager it borders on 0%. Making them an LDO won't make use of the experience that the Navy needs in this regard.

 

[robav8r]

I know in WWII that heavy hitters in their fields were sometimes commissioned as O-5s or O-6s for special projects to aid the war effort.

Depending on who you talk to in the cyber world, I think this is the environment we find ourselve in now.

 

[Hair Warrior]

A Navy 'engineering officer' and a civilian software engineer are not the same thing.

I don't know how many enlisted guys make a career writing code or using development kits to develop software and web pages for the military. I would wager it borders on 0%. Making them an LDO won't make use of the experience that the Navy needs in this regard.

Okay, granted. So... I guess it still begs the question, what does an O-5 or O-6 lateral entry information warfare officer provide that hiring a DoD contractor does not?

(I'm not suggesting you agree or disagree with the SECDEF's proposal)

Thinking aloud, I am not sure the "need to be protected by Law of War" or Geneva Convention arguments hold water, as a reason for commissioning cyber civilians at O-6. DoD/IC contractors today can perform intel analysis to compile targets for drone strikes. And if you need to send a contractor OCONUS to do cyber stuff, just give them a Dip passport.

It's a money thing?

 

[BigRed389]

A Navy 'engineering officer' and a civilian software engineer are not the same thing.

I don't know how many enlisted guys make a career writing code or using development kits to develop software and web pages for the military. I would wager it borders on 0%. Making them an LDO won't make use of the experience that the Navy needs in this regard.

For the NR Engineers and Space Systems guys, it's pretty damn close. It's not like EDOs/AEDOs where they start at O-3/O-4 and jump straight into management. Those guys start at O-1 and do design work. Not exactly the same kind of design work, but there are definitely comparable roles among civilian engineers. When they're done, they lat transfer or they change into suits and keep working as civilians.

I don't know any 1840's, but I'd imagine 1840 is very similar thing, as it requires relevant work experience, not just a degree, and also caps out at O-3/6 years.

Depending on who you talk to in the cyber world, I think this is the environment we find ourselve in now.

Yeah, but it's one thing to do it as a band aid to fix emergent requirements. Another to make it the way we do business...in a "warfare community"...for active duty.

 

[jtmedli]

But the concept of a first-tour JO not spending time as a DIVO, or even a Branch O if the squadron is packed to the gills with O's, honestly blows my mind.

It happens. More often than you think.

That may sound heartless, but the Navy is goes to war with really expensive planes/ships/subs. Managing their readiness is given a higher priority than counseling PO2 Timmy on why it's bad to spend his entire paycheck at a strip club.

You don't understand what I'm saying and you're taking it out of context. The conversation is a little deeper than the obvious facts you mentioned. Everyone realizes that readiness is a big deal. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about why people are, in general, getting sold a bill of goods about jobs (like going to the boat) that don't actually help them be a better aviator or officer or help them promote in any real way. The DIVO thing was just an example.

Some good points from Spekkio and IKE. @jtmedli - I haven't walked in your shoes, but it's sounding a lot like you're upset because the Navy hasn't designed its personnel management and officer career path around your unique set of circumstances. You've decided that a ship's company tour is suboptimal for you, but I think we've heard a lot of good discussion about why such a tour has a lot of value for VP, RW and others - not to mention the value it holds for the institution.

If the boat isn't right for you, you have some detailing options that will keep you away from it - even keep you in the cockpit and on a traditional (even golden) career track. You claim there's some kind of community brow beating going on for guys that just want to fly, yet you have verbals for a follow on tour that keeps you in the cockpit and on the golden path. So, I guess I'm left scratching my head over what all the fuss is about?

No, not upset. I just like to think critically about why we're doing things the way we're doing them and, so far, the best explanation I've gotten about the questions I've asked is "basically, it's a scam to fill boat jobs nobody really wants to do" which is fine but let's just call a spade a spade if that's what it is. I realize there are jobs other boat jobs. Just because I'm doing well doesn't mean that I should sit on my hands and never actually ask why we do things the way we do them or what is the real benefit to it.

If that's really happening at every squadron on the seawall, and I really want you to be wrong, then yes, everyone is jacked.

It's happening. I know of 4 or 5 #1 EP LTs who didn't manage anything other than MWR and write the flight schedule until they became NATOPS O and rolled out the door. And it's not limited to one squadron.

 

[Brett327]

(like going to the boat) that don't actually help them be a better aviator or officer or help them promote in any real way.

I think if you look at the promotion stats, particularly on the VP side, shooter gigs result in due course officers. Rebuttal?

 

[scoolbubba]

I have a lot of respect for the VFA COs. I mean, it's pretty amazing that they can manage a squadron having never been the V3 divo.

 

[jtmedli]

I think if you look at the promotion stats, particularly on the VP side, shooter gigs result in due course officers. Rebuttal?

https://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/about-that-boat-tour-dont-do-it.42026/

 

[robav8r]

Yeah, but it's one thing to do it as a band aid to fix emergent requirements. Another to make it the way we do business...in a "warfare community"...for active duty.

That was kind my point. I think we are already within that "emergent requirement" envelope and don't have the depth or quantity of expertise needed tomcounter the "current" and growing cyber threat . . .

 

[Flash]

Looking to get this forum's thoughts on the SECDEF proposal to expand lateral accessions for civilians (esp. 181x and 182x designators) up to O6 level: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/

SECNAV seems to be the most on board, of all the military branches. "The Navy, more than any of the other services, has pushed aggressively to expand lateral entry."

It seems desperate. And honestly, when every other community (including some very technical ones) is able to grow its own expertise, it's odd the community seems to feel that it needs to hire people off the street to ensure its future...

Depending on who you talk to in the cyber world, I think this is the environment we find ourselve in now.

I get the urgency and need but bringing folks in as O-4/5/6's isn't going to be the 'fix' that some folks think it will be. Folks at that level or higher don't have to be specialists who know every line of code or how to defeat a virus but manage and lead the folks doing that. We already have similar scenarios like carrier CO's, where we take aviators and send them through nuke school. They aren't experts on the reactor, they have a whole department on the ship for that, but they know what makes it work and are smart enough not to do stupid.

If we want to bring in specialists there are better ways to do it, like civilians.

At the very least, I reckon this kills the notion of ever making the IWC officer designators URL...

Again, I get it to a desire from some to make IWC folks URL's but I don't think the folks pushing for it really 'get it' from many aspects. There is a fundamental difference in what current URL's have responsibility for and experience with and IWC folks.

 

[hscs]

If we want to bring in specialists there are better ways to do it, like civilians.

Never understood why the reserves didn't go whole hog on the IWC stuff - put the biggest NOSCs outside the gate @ Google or Cupertino and make it attractive for those folks to drill.

However, I am guessing that it would take DOD directing Navy Reserve to dump NOSCs in places in the middle of nowhere and upend their billets. I think this would be healthy - especially on the billets - there are reserve AWs that never drill in a squadron and whose NOSC is nowhere near an aviation unit.

 

[nittany03]

However, I am guessing that it would take DOD directing Navy Reserve to dump NOSCs in places in the middle of nowhere and upend their billets. I think this would be healthy - especially on the billets - there are reserve AWs that never drill in a squadron and whose NOSC is nowhere near an aviation unit.

NOSCs "in the middle of nowhere" have nothing to do with the ability of those AWs to contribute to a squadron, if that squadron will have them. The trouble is that the Navy Reserve as a whole doesn't (in my experience) take the cross-assignment program seriously. So the AW making a large contribution will almost always have to fund travel out of his/her own drill pay. He or she will get funded orders at best once a quarter. Less than that if the OSO or unit leadership either don't know what they're doing, or don't care about their cross-assigned Sailors. How many junior enlisted Reservists have a civilian job that will let them make that financial commitment? How many who can are willing to do so? We can't make them. It's one thing for CDR Umptyfratz, senior Program Manager at Microsoft and a unit CO, to commute to Fort Worth out of pocket. It's another thing for AWAN Snuffy, sophomore at Bucknell, to pay his way to drill. That is, if he doesn't find himself arbitrarily slated to a cargo handling battalion after dithering over his billet pushed him over the 90-day IAP limit.

Shutting down NOSC Billings and NOSC White River Junction won't fix that. The purpose of the NOSCs "in the middle of nowhere" is to give Joe Blow Reservist a place to take the PRT or update his Page 2 without buying plane tickets to a fleet concentration area. Some of them also host niche units, or dets from larger units, who drill locally and then augment a unit like a fleet staff somewhere else. They spend their AT doing real work for their gaining command. Shifting them to Norfolk or San Dog won't fix this. The job of the NOSC and OSU leadership in the Prairie Navy is to keep their people current and push them to the Fleet as often as feasible. If the Sailor is not on board for the big win, not doing IDTT, and just hanging around the OSU, they should be getting the corresponding crappy evals that will get them HYTed.

 

[Flash]

Never understood why the reserves didn't go whole hog on the IWC stuff - put the biggest NOSCs outside the gate @ Google or Cupertino and make it attractive for those folks to drill.

I think the IWC leadership wants a more permanent solution than a few DCO's who only do it part time. Would they help? Sure, but it is only a very small part of the solution (not a bad idea though).

Want a short-term solution to getting experienced, mid-level folks into the field? Offer lat-transfers to aviators who are 1xFOS, they have already demonstrated their ability to learn complex systems and have ~10 years experience so why not? There are enough you can be selective about who you chose.

NOSCs "in the middle of nowhere" have nothing to do with the ability of those AWs to contribute to a squadron, if that squadron will have them. The trouble is that the Navy Reserve as a whole doesn't (in my experience) take the cross-assignment program seriously....The purpose of the NOSCs "in the middle of nowhere" is to give Joe Blow Reservist a place to take the PRT or update his Page 2 without buying plane tickets to a fleet concentration area...

The longer I have been in the Navy Reserve and the more I learn about its overall structure and setup the more I am convinced it needs a drastic overhaul. The NOSC I am in now was short over 1000 folks 2 years ago and it hasn't gotten much better while others have hundreds more folks than billets, getting paid to sit in a classroom all weekend learning who the hell knows what.

In two of my three units we have been a fully integrated and functional part of an active duty command doing good work but from my experience being mob'd I think many SELRES outside hardware units were more like my third unit, where we did some good work but wasted a lot more time doing stuff that had little to no impact for the Navy.

 

[Brett327]

https://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/about-that-boat-tour-dont-do-it.42026/

I'd be interested to know what 2-3 lessons you derived from reading that thread. My take-away is that if you're not due course going into your second sea tour, going to the boat probably won't fix your record. This is something that everyone already knows, or should if they're paying attention.

The fact remains that on this year's DH screen, those officers who did a disassociated boat tour screened at 71%.