• 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

DCO Intel Eligibility & Process

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I had a few CVN CO's and XO's that had SWO pins, on the CVN's I was on it was required for the surface designator LDO's to earn their SWO pin and some weren't too happy about it.
They must have earned them before SWO's limited eligibility to earn them ~20-25 years ago. I figure if you did the work you rate the pin, but this decision came from the same community that got rid of their schoolhouse so I'm not surprised they took their shiny toy away from those unworthy aviators that happen to command the largest ships in the Navy.
 

bluemarlin04

Well-Known Member
I think they've gotten away with it because the URL folks in charge have largely ignored or have been unaware of their internal contortions and changes the community has undergone since they became IDC/IWC.
That’s exactly it.

Problem is when they start this push it creates problems because some URLs (understandably) start to resent the IWO for the stupidity of senior leadership.
 

NavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
They must have earned them before SWO's limited eligibility to earn them ~20-25 years ago. I figure if you did the work you rate the pin, but this decision came from the same community that got rid of their schoolhouse so I'm not surprised they took their shiny toy away from those unworthy aviators that happen to command the largest ships in the Navy.
you made me do math to figure this out! :D

but yes I would say your time frame is accurate.
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
We’ve strayed way off topic, and I don’t believe IWC should be URL, but that said, there are certain niche IWC jobs/skills/certs that I would call an “operator” (and others call them “operators” too).

And I’m not talking about dialing 0 on a telephone.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We’ve strayed way off topic, and I don’t believe IWC should be URL, but that said, there are certain niche IWC jobs/skills/certs that I would call an “operator” (and others call them “operators” too).
The same could be said for Intel and a few others too, but they definitely don't apply to the communities as a whole or be pointed to as some sort of justification for applying labels to every 1810/30 etc. That unfortunately is a mistake some senior IWC leadership and a few others have.
 

egiv

Well-Known Member
Oh god here we go again...

To be fair, an O-3, 1310, USN asked me the same question about earning an IDWO pin for himself.
Sorry, but I agree this is complete horseshit. Most SWOs and aviators do not understand IW in the way an IW-qualified officer does, yet for some reason think they would be entitled to earning our pin without lateral transferring. I know it feels cathartic to bash the community because big (URL) Navy has decided that maybe IW is kind of important and we all hate the fact that someone else is being given a seat at the table. Personally, I have more criticism than praise for the way we're doing it, but until we remove the IWC as a principle WARFARE commander, we're all gonna have to suck it up and figure out how to do this well.

But I've qualified OOD UW, which is 95% of a SWO pin, and it took me less time than my IW pin. If some commands are giving them away, well, they're part of the problem. But to quote @Flash - you ain't that special.
 

bluemarlin04

Well-Known Member
We’ve strayed way off topic, and I don’t believe IWC should be URL, but that said, there are certain niche IWC jobs/skills/certs that I would call an “operator” (and others call them “operators” too).

And I’m not talking about dialing 0 on a telephone.
Disagree.

Even in the most demanding IW positions- TAC EW where they’re on patrols with teams or collectors where they’re also on patrols with teams ultimate job remains to provide support to maneuver forces- in a tactical or operational unit.

No part of IW will ever control a physical space- air, sea, undersea, land. And that is why we will never be the same as a URL.
 

bluemarlin04

Well-Known Member
Oh god here we go again...

Sorry, but I agree this is complete horseshit. Most SWOs and aviators do not understand IW in the way an IW-qualified officer does, yet for some reason think they would be entitled to earning our pin without lateral transferring. I know it feels cathartic to bash the community because big (URL) Navy has decided that maybe IW is kind of important and we all hate the fact that someone else is being given a seat at the table. Personally, I have more criticism than praise for the way we're doing it, but until we remove the IWC as a principle WARFARE commander, we're all gonna have to suck it up and figure out how to do this well.
I agree. I dont think anyone can truly understand IW the way a IW officer does and i d

That being said, I think the pin is a joke and should have never came to fruition.

This article only fuels the divide
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/navy-information-warfare-needs-more-resources—and-command-sea

There is ZERO reason a IW officer should ever be CSG or in command at sea.
 

bubblehead

Registered Member
Contributor
I agree. I dont think anyone can truly understand IW the way a IW officer does and i d

That being said, I think the pin is a joke and should have never came to fruition.

This article only fuels the divide
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/navy-information-warfare-needs-more-resources—and-command-sea

There is ZERO reason a IW officer should ever be CSG or in command at sea.
Yet another move for senior IW leaders to legitimize themselves. This is about as bad an idea as the IDWO pin.
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
Disagree.

Even in the most demanding IW positions- TAC EW where they’re on patrols with teams or collectors where they’re also on patrols with teams ultimate job remains to provide support to maneuver forces- in a tactical or operational unit.

No part of IW will ever control a physical space- air, sea, undersea, land. And that is why we will never be the same as a URL.
I’m not talking about TAC EW.
 

Hair Warrior

New Member
The same could be said for Intel and a few others too, but they definitely don't apply to the communities as a whole or be pointed to as some sort of justification for applying labels to every 1810/30 etc. That unfortunately is a mistake some senior IWC leadership and a few others have.
Concur. Which is why I don’t think they (we) need to be URL in order to be relevant.
 

egiv

Well-Known Member
I agree. I dont think anyone can truly understand IW the way a IW officer does and i d

That being said, I think the pin is a joke and should have never came to fruition.

This article only fuels the divide
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/navy-information-warfare-needs-more-resources—and-command-sea

There is ZERO reason a IW officer should ever be CSG or in command at sea.
Why is the IW pin a joke? Is the EDO pin is a joke? The FMF pin? Seabees have one, but I'd be interested to hear which warfare domain they control. And yet there's no hostility towards any of them (and many, many others) having pins.

I agree an IW officer shouldn't command a CSG, but similarly don't understand why that would preclude certain IW designators from being URLs (nor why aviators should command a CSG, for that matter). We don't put EOD officers in charge of CSGs, but they're URLs. The logic isn't adding up.

Aside from 'this isn't the way we've always done it,' I'm not seeing a rational argument.

PS that article had a response (from within the IW community): https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/navy-information-warfare-decade-indulging-false-analogy
 
Top