Lateral Transfer from SWO to Intelligence

[exNavyOffRec]

My point to the OP is that IntelO is a fairly misunderstood job. I'm not saying it's 20 straight years of .ppts and briefing, but there's a lot more of that than riding shotgun with a SEAL team.

I was lucking enough to have 2 Intel officers and an IP officer at my NRD, when I had a person that wanted to go Intel I would often schedule a meeting so they could talk about what they would be doing, most thought they would be boots on the ground, doing interrogations, along with other things. The majority after having that meeting looked at things like SWO or aviation since they were looking at doing something different and exciting.

 

[Chud]

NickWT, bottom line, do you want to be a Naval Officer, or just an Naval Intel officer? Nothing is "easy", and to ask so is missing the point. Last time I looked at the IDC Pers brief the entire community has set a goal (I will not quote a percentage since I can not remember it exactly) that heavily favors URL transition after warfare designation, that is why it is so much harder to get an Intel spot now (NROTC gets ~1 a year, more get a SWO to IDC guarantee) than is the past. IDC wants previous experience.
The SWO career path is the quickest to get you to a point where you can apply to the redesignation board, but any line officer can do so. I know many a former aviator (Pilot and NFO) and Submariner who are now IDC of all flavors.
What will count, if you choose to go SWO first, is how well you do as a JO. Performance gets you places in the Navy, hence the not "easy" part. Get you commission, do your best (who knows, you may actually find it rewarding) and apply to the transition board when your time comes.
What really counts is that you will find things that you like, and things that completely suck in ANY career path you take in the Navy. Make of it what you will.

 

[NickWT]

Thank you everyone for your input. I have a couple weeks still before I have to decide, but I'm leaning towards taking SWO if I'm accepted there. If so, I will definitely try to lat transfer into intel if possible, but if it doesn't work out, then I'll do my best to help the Navy as a SWO and make the most of my experience.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Thank you everyone for your input. I have a couple weeks still before I have to decide, but I'm leaning towards taking SWO if I'm accepted there. If so, I will definitely try to lat transfer into intel if possible, but if it doesn't work out, then I'll do my best to help the Navy as a SWO and make the most of my experience.

you have good stats, and even though non tech I think you have a shot at Intel, if they say no then take SWO and go from there, life isn't easy.

 

[egiv]

Not really, I would never call an IDC pin a 'warfare' pin. Much to many IW folks disappointment they are still not URL's.

I agree that IWs are over-anxious to take the title of "warfighters" but disagree with your statement. Specifically, the implication that wearing an IDC pin makes you a non-warfighter but wearing a URL pin does. Whether or not your job is considered "warfare" is entirely dependent on your assignment, not your designator. The number of CTs and IWs with CARs should speak to that fact.

Personally I think the whole debate is unnecessary. We all signed up to defend our country and we all support war in one way or another. Stating this fact doesn't take anything away from people on the tip of the spear or mean that those in support roles are the same as door-kickers.

 

[azguy]

Whether or not your job is considered "warfare" is entirely dependent on your assignment, not your designator. The number of CTs and IWs with CARs should speak to that fact.

I disagree, but it's a very interesting point. The question really is: what is a "warfighter?"

Who is more of a "warfighter?" Is it the support guy that does an IA or sandbox deployment and gets a CAR? Or is it the guy that's spent 5, 10, 15+ years honing his craft, learning to win a high-end, kinetic war but has never seen combat?

I'm biased, I don't have a CAR...

 

[Flash]

...Specifically, the implication that wearing an IDC pin makes you a non-warfighter but wearing a URL pin does. Whether or not your job is considered "warfare" is entirely dependent on your assignment, not your designator....

Well the Navy certainly seems to disagree with you since only URL's can command operational units. Unless you count Bronze Stars in the definition, then desk jockeys from every service other than the Marines certainly are more 'combat' then the rest of the unwashed.

 

[egiv]

I disagree, but it's a very interesting point. The question really is: what is a "warfighter?"

Who is more of a "warfighter?" Is it the support guy that does an IA or sandbox deployment and gets a CAR? Or is it the guy that's spent 5, 10, 15+ years honing his craft, learning to win a high-end, kinetic war but has never seen combat?

I'm biased, I don't have a CAR...

I would argue that IWs do spend our careers honing our craft in order to win wars, whether or not we see combat.

We are not URLs and shouldnt pretend to be, but here's food for thought: on intel collection missions, are we to believe the IDC crew doing the mission are not warfighters, but the pilot/nfo/sub nuke/etc. steering the platform are? It's worth mentioning that IW is a principle warfare area in the CWC and the IWC can be the supported commander.

All I'm saying is that RL or not, the IDC pin represents a specialty, just like the others, and we do our jobs very well, like the others, regardless of who gets called a warfighter.

 

[BigRed389]

I would argue that IWs do spend our careers honing our craft in order to win wars, whether or not we see combat.

We are not URLs and shouldnt pretend to be, but here's food for thought: on intel collection missions, are we to believe the IDC crew doing the mission are not warfighters, but the pilot/nfo/sub nuke/etc. steering the platform are? It's worth mentioning that IW is a principle warfare area in the CWC and the IWC can be the supported commander.

All I'm saying is that RL or not, the IDC pin represents a specialty, just like the others, and we do our jobs very well, like the others, regardless of who gets called a warfighter.

Again, depends on how hung up you want to get on being a "warfighter" and what it means.

My book, warfighter means you're in charge of operational combat assets.
The EP-3, sub, or SEAL team that puts your IDC mission package on site are warfighters. They figure out how to insert you safely, how they'll fight if they encounter trouble, and how to extract.

This doesn't make what the IDC brings unimportant. Hell, some support guys in WW2 (Manhattan Project, MAGIC) were probably indirectly responsible for killing more of the enemy than most URL/combat arms guys ever were. However, shooting stuff as your primary job (in war - let's set aside administrivia reality for a second) is different from being support.

 

[azguy]

However, shooting stuff as your primary job (in war - let's set aside administrivia reality for a second) is different from being support.

To play devil's advocate... How many URL communities "shoot stuff as their primary job in war?"

Most (all?) NFOs don't; that's a big community. As a pilot: jets sure do, everyone else... may have a couple of Hellfire or Harpoons, or nothing (E-2, E-6B, EP-3, C-2). Amphib SWOs have nada.

Maybe there's more to being a tactical "warfighter" than literally having your finger on a trigger...

 

[Flash]

...We are not URLs and shouldnt pretend to be, but here's food for thought: on intel collection missions, are we to believe the IDC crew doing the mission are not warfighters, but the pilot/nfo/sub nuke/etc. steering the platform are? It's worth mentioning that IW is a principle warfare area in the CWC and the IWC can be the supported commander......

If it is an intel collection mission it isn't exactly 'combat', so neither. Of note the submarine and ship CO's or the mission/aircraft commanders are still the folks in charge, no matter what the intel/cryppies think.

I have dealt with this my whole career, starting with EP-3's where the 'back-end' folks were the reason for the mission but not in charge of it. There was often an undercurrent of resentment from some of the folks who didn't quite know their place in the grand scheme of things with some even openly saying that they shouldn't have to listen to some aviators who didn't know squat about their jobs. That and 25cents got them a cup o' joe from the galley and a shrug from the crew.

Support has always been my mission in aviation, both in EP-3's and Prowlers, been glad to do it too. But I have consistently run into Intel/cryppie/IDC/IWC folks though that can't seem to accept they are support, period. That is why the whole 'warfighter' label is a little annoying, just for getting hit with an IED or shot at while riding in a convoy. If that was the case the gal I worked with a few years ago who never served in the military or never even carried a gun would have been one in spades by now. Simply put, if you have to debate about the definition of what a warfighter is you probably aren't.

 

[azguy]

I would argue that IWs do spend our careers honing our craft in order to win wars, whether or not we see combat.

We are not URLs and shouldnt pretend to be, but here's food for thought: on intel collection missions, are we to believe the IDC crew doing the mission are not warfighters, but the pilot/nfo/sub nuke/etc. steering the platform are? It's worth mentioning that IW is a principle warfare area in the CWC and the IWC can be the supported commander.

All I'm saying is that RL or not, the IDC pin represents a specialty, just like the others, and we do our jobs very well, like the others, regardless of who gets called a warfighter.

I don't totally disagree with you, but you originally used the CAR red herring. Virtually every E and O community can point to members that did an IA and earned a CAR or "V" after 15+ years of IAs.

IW is definitely the most tactical IDC crowd. Spitting trons (and managing them) is surely a growth industry. Still, the point has been made; the way the Navy is structured, only URLs get that Command at Sea pin. The IWC that you mentioned above is a URL and wears the Sheriff's Badge. The RL get a seat at that table, but they aren't decision makers in today's Navy.

 

[Brett327]

Maybe there's more to being a tactical "warfighter" than literally having your finger on a trigger...

There's also a lot more to employing modern weapons systems than pulling a trigger or pressing a pickle switch - whether or not the desired effects are lethal vs. non-lethal, and whether or not they're achieved through kinetic or non-kinetic means. I don't get too wrapped up in who is or isn't a warfighter. What do you bring to the fight and what impact does it have on the outcome. Those are more important questions to ask of yourself and your peers.

 

[azguy]

What do you bring to the fight and what impact does it have on the outcome. Those are more important questions to ask of yourself and your peers.

That's what I was getting at. Not a fan of the "warfighter" term. I'm pretty sure that the URLs who will actually be raining down hell on the bad guys in WW3 are in the minority. But those shooters will probably be more reliant on the supporting cast than ever before. They will need the right data links, non-organic tracking, cyber and non-kinetic effects, oiler/tanker hits, supply chain, etc. Being a SUPPO, Intel, METOC, or [insert RL job here] bubba may not be very tactical, but they are pretty critical roles.

 

[egiv]

Support has always been my mission in aviation, both in EP-3's and Prowlers, been glad to do it too. But I have consistently run into Intel/cryppie/IDC/IWC folks though that can't seem to accept they are support, period. That is why the whole 'warfighter' label is a little annoying, just for getting hit with an IED or shot at while riding in a convoy. If that was the case the gal I worked with a few years ago who never served in the military or never even carried a gun would have been one in spades by now. Simply put, if you have to debate about the definition of what a warfighter is you probably aren't.

I completely agree and I think we're all ultimately saying the same thing. My original point was only that the same way it's unproductive when IWs try to overstep their role, it's equally unproductive to act like they have no role just because they're not URLs.