• 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

“Information Warfare Is a Second-Class Commissioning Community”

HH-60H

Manager
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
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.
That's close to what I mean.... IW culture, as a whole, is to be the "supporting" versus the "supported." If they hope to make IW commander truly successful they need to change that. To be clear, I know that IW is supporting right, but I think the CNO has a vision for something more in the future (see Design 2.0).

I believe we’ll see mainly intel Os as Quebec actual in the CWC/ IW commander afloat role.
The tribe that will claim the most IW commander roles is the one develops a career path to fill it. Right now there is very little incentive to adjust career paths to fill IW commander, because it's not a flag maker (all other things being equal) and it is oddly positioned at the absolute end of a career (i.e. 28-30 years).
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
The tribe that will claim the most IW commander roles is the one develops a career path to fill it. Right now there is very little incentive to adjust career paths to fill IW commander, because it's not a flag maker (all other things being equal) and it is oddly positioned at the absolute end of a career (i.e. 28-30 years).
Interesting thought. I would think that it would absolutely be a stepping stone for flag, or at least a good consolation prize. The job is literally being the top guy/gal for N2/N6 to the CSG, we only have a handful of CSGs at sea at any given time, and they’re all tasked with some of the Navy’s most significant missions when underway.

There are not a ton of 186X flag billets (intel, cryppie, IP, metoc converge at RDML) so there is no shame in not making flag. Heck, in the reserves, there are not a lot of paid O-6 billets. I can’t see why a CAPT wouldn’t want the job, if they’ve already jumped through all the hurdles required to get to CAPT. (It’s like saying an aviator doesn’t want to be CAG?)
 
Last edited:

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
USNA puts up a $100+M building, partners with NSA to send mids to regular internships, and creates a new Cyber OPERATIONS major. CNO all in. Yes, not only is the direction but the destination pretty apparent. I am not fully familiar with the new Information Warfare Community. Would there be a way to bifurcate this URL movement? I don't see a good fit for Intel guys in a URL command track. I do agree with @Brett327 that URL officers are essentially platform oriented operators. But the purpose of the platforms and said URL offices is to deliver effects. Once it was simply kinetic. Warheads on foreheads. Then others including Brett's own community brought non kinetic effects to he battle field. It is perfectly clear that Cyber can deliver devastating effects of both a strategic and tactical nature. This is the 21st century. Cyber operations WILL be a part of future combat operations. Whomever are the naval officers responsible for delivering those blows to the enemy, crypies or whatever, should be URL officers and brought into a multi-community/warfare command track. Their contribution is no less "support" than VAW, VRM. VUP, or VQ let alone a Diving and Salvage bubba.
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
That’s an interesting take, and I respect it.

The only naval officers with hands on the toolkits would be 1840s, who - by program authorization - are automatically offramped to 1810 at 5 years after commissioning (LT).

I know a lot about the cyber offense mission and the people who conduct it. I don’t think it should be URL. Unlike VAQ, they don’t always see how their support fits within broader battlespace effects/maneuvers. I’ve actually had some good convos with them about it, and I think they valued the added perspective. They are so far down in the weeds (given the nuances and demands of cyber specialization) they can lose sight of the other warfare domains. You wouldn’t want cyber troops writing an OPORD that gives tasks to surface, subsurface, or aviation units.

Also, to be blunt, they aren’t at personal risk in the same way URL are at personal risk.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
We had a senior O-5 Intell Officer on the TR during Desert Storm. He was the 5th senior guy in the ship's company after the CO, XO, Reactor Officer and Air Boss. If the Iraqis had managed to attack and damage the ship killing the 4 above him, we would have been in a world of hurt if he was a URL and took command. He didn't know shit about anything to do with the ship. As far as he knew, his spaces on the ship were rooms in a building. And while he knew all the threats, targets, analysis, etc. he was completely clueless on any tactics or weapon employment to include the ships self defense.

He knew it too. We were anchored in Halifax when the weather kicked up and I was the OOD Underway on call and he was the senior officer on board. The anchor watch called me that we were dragging the anchor and I called away the bridge watch and engineering watch to steam to the anchor. He called me on the bridge and basically said "you know you're in command don't ask me for advise because I know nothing about this stuff:
 
Last edited:

Hair Warrior

New Member
We were anchored in Halifax when the weather kicked up and I was the OOD Underway on call and he was the senior officer on board. The anchor watch called me that we were dragging the anchor and I called away the bridge watch and engineering watch to steam to the anchor.
Out of curiosity, aside from CVN CO/XO, do naval aviators receive training or qualifications in ship’s maneuvers or ship operations?
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Ships company URLs receive a lot more training about the actual ship than RLs via there watch keeping assignments. Plus they already have a grasp on tactics, etc. There are many SWOs too.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Out of curiosity, aside from CVN CO/XO, do naval aviators receive training or qualifications in ship’s maneuvers or ship operations?
A handful of ships company guys do - ANAV, GATOR, sometimes the Ops O. The squadron O4s get a SWO appreciation CDO/UW “qual” but you really don’t know enough to be of use on the bridge.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
A handful of ships company guys do - ANAV, GATOR, sometimes the Ops O. The squadron O4s get a SWO appreciation CDO/UW “qual” but you really don’t know enough to be of use on the bridge.
Except for being able to actually look out the window and say "You know, that guy's going to hit us if you don't do something.", all without ever making a mark on a sheet of MOBOARD paper. Spatial orientation has a quality all its own. Which is nice...
 

CWO_change

New Member
That’s an interesting take, and I respect it.

The only naval officers with hands on the toolkits would be 1840s, who - by program authorization - are automatically offramped to 1810 at 5 years after commissioning (LT).

I know a lot about the cyber offense mission and the people who conduct it. I don’t think it should be URL. Unlike VAQ, they don’t always see how their support fits within broader battlespace effects/maneuvers. I’ve actually had some good convos with them about it, and I think they valued the added perspective. They are so far down in the weeds (given the nuances and demands of cyber specialization) they can lose sight of the other warfare domains. You wouldn’t want cyber troops writing an OPORD that gives tasks to surface, subsurface, or aviation units.

Also, to be blunt, they aren’t at personal risk in the same way URL are at personal risk.
Having recently gone through the IWO qualification process, I was told that 1840s are no longer required to off ramp; I have't seen documentation to support, but have no reason to doubt especially as Hawaii recently had an 1810 get selected to lat transfer to 1840 an an LTJG.
 

CWO_change

New Member
Having recently gone through the IWO qualification process, I was told that 1840s are no longer required to off ramp; I have't seen documentation to support, but have no reason to doubt especially as Hawaii recently had an 1810 get selected to lat transfer to 1840 an an LTJG.
To update this post, it seems like the 1840/CWE community just got its first O-6:

https://stationhypo.com/2019/08/22/honoring-capt-brian-l-luke-usn-commanding-officer-navy-cyber-warfare-development-group/?fbclid=IwAR3hG7mzmapLv2S8bK28m3VSdCL22pqyQKl9rLxhkXnymFgPLti5_vqgSUw

Captain Brian Luke is a native of Bend, Oregon and was commissioned as an Ensign in 1992. Originally a Naval Flight Officer in the P-3 Orion community, he re-designated to Cryptologic Warfare Officer in 1998. In 2019 he redesignated to Cyber Warfare Engineer (CWE) and currently serves as the Navy’s senior ranking CWE. In August 2016, he assumed his present duties as Commanding Officer, Navy Cyber Warfare Development Group and Commander, Task Force 1090.
 

HH-60H

Manager
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Top