-
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
Planned elimination of Cryptologist - 161x
- Thread starter The Chief
- Start date
- Status
The Center for Cryptology in Pensacola has been renamed the Center for Information Dominance. Likewise, the Cryptology section on NKO has been changed to Info Dominance. Guess they're just trying to better match the name to the actual mission. Cryptology, the actual code making and breaking, seems to me to be only a small part of the actual job.
Plus, we know how the Navy likes to rename things. Just when you get used to it, WHAMM-O, name change!
Plus, we know how the Navy likes to rename things. Just when you get used to it, WHAMM-O, name change!
twidget said:
Agree, but there is a bit more than that.
CNO stated intent circa 2002 to make Information Operations a warfare area on par with Air, Subsurface and Merge Intelligence, Cryptology and Information communities into Naval Network Warfare Command as single USN entity for C4I/ISR.
Plans are:
- NSG will be disestablished as a separate command. 1600/1610/1630 officer communities will eventually migrate towards a single 1600 URL Information Warfare officer community, on par with Air, Subsurface and Surface Warfare.
- . IS, CTR/T/I/N and IT enlisted ratings will remain, but /CTA/O/ M ratings disestablished. (Become CTS?
- NSG HQ at FT MEADE would become a subordinate element of NNWC under title Navy Cryptologic Office, as NNWC
- Disestablish NSGA Naples. (Post facto)
- NSGA Rota Spain to be disestablishment this summer as VQ2 transitions.
- Naval Security Group Command (NSG) moved from Echelon II to within FFC under NETWARCOM..
- NSGA Pensacola will be changed to a Det within NAVCIRT.
- NSGA Norfolk and NSGA San Diego integrate with FIWC and become NSGDets.
- NSGA Whidbey Island: Integrates those doing work for VAQ directly into
VAQ. This will be the nucleus of an Electronic Attack (EA) center of
excellence for VAQ and surface and submarine EA in concert with FIWC.
- NSGA Groton becomes a Det.
I see this as very, very positive, creating great new opportunities, while greatly enchancing our war fighting capabilities.
1600/1610/1630 officer communities will eventually migrate towards a single 1600 URL Information Warfare officer community, on par with Air, Subsurface and Surface Warfare.
Is part of the plan to also make them URL like the warfare communities? I think that would be a very bad idea, they don't have the same knowledge about ops that other URL O's have.
Is part of the plan to also make them URL like the warfare communities? I think that would be a very bad idea, they don't have the same knowledge about ops that other URL O's have.
Current Crypies may not be suited for URL designation, but there is no reason that a future 1600 couldn't receive the required training and career duty rotation be be a URL officer. For goodness sakes, the folks that qualified in the old NAVFACs on SOSUS operations were URL Officers. Their focus was equally narrow or restricted. If you go to OCS, gain knowledge of integrated naval operations and have a broad enough career path then you may as well be a URL Officer.
Flash said:
What we have to question in the future is the meaning of URL and warfare communities. In some ways, the status quo is the old way of doing business. In the future, what do we need in the way of URLs? In my career, I would submit that I understand better than the majority of URLs how the enemy command and controls his forces. So when it comes to Information Warfare/Operations and getting into the head of your enemy commander, who is the better person to have leading the warfighting force than someone who has studied them for years. Someone who has been driving a ship, airplane or submarine? Maybe not. What we have to accept is that there is change in how we fight wars, and the old way of doing it is perhaps not the best way in the future.
1610 said:
I usually try and think of myself as relatively open minded but on this I am not. A little bit of background. My first tour I dealt with Cryppies on a daily basis, working alongside them. With their training and background, most were very good at their jobs. Due to the specialization of their work though, they had little time for the broader scope stuff. To put it bluntly, most had little reality when it came to operational matters. Some of the stuff they wanted/advocated doing was not only off the wall and unrealistic.
If you actually broaden the scope of their careers then you can mitigate some of that but I don't think they would ever reach the same level as other 'operators'.
My current tour has only firmed up my beliefs. I cannot go into too much detail but my job specifically entails being a liason between 'support' types and 'operators'. The reason my jobs exists is to act as a screen between support people and operators. Many of the support people have been in their job for a very long time and have seen and done a lot. Many of them done operational tours. They still don't have the level of knowledge or (and I hate using this term, it is Pentagonese) 'ground truth' as an operator. I even work alongside a SOSUS guy (what a cheesy looking badge by the way) and I think he is nowhere near the level of knowledge that a submariner, SEAL, aviator or even a SWO brings to the table. I am comfortable knowing that the only thing he would likely command is a SOSUS detachement.
What is my point? I think that Cryppies do not have the same operational knowledge as the other URL's. To say that the old system is outdated is premature. Information Warfare still has a very long way to go before it becomes more than a supporting player on the battlefield. That is not to say that it is not a critical component of a battleplan now but it is still a supporting player, and that is where its people should be. As we have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, it still comes down to the guys on the ground with the boots and the guns.
1610 said:
Captain, it will take some time for change. Many see proper battle engagements as boots aligned along the treeline, shoulder to shoulder, mustkets at the ready. Ah, for the good old days!
But to be more serious, I understand that the decision has been made, combine 161X and 163X into one community 160X, as URL.
ocstwentyone
ENS, SC, USN
I don't know much about the qualifications of Crypto guys to serve as URLOs, but I do know that Intel guys are pretty much as qualified if not more so than some of the current URLO designations. Many of the junior Intel guys I know play a bigger part in the decision making process than most of the URLOs as advisors to the commanding officers of ship and squads. I know one guy who as a Ltjg had already briefed the Vice President and the NATO strategic commanders. If those aren't qualifications, I don't know what are. Again, I don't know about Crypto, but an Information Warfare designator as URL is called for in some form or another.
ocstwentyone said:
Just because some JG briefs some biwigs doesn't make them qualified to be an Unrestricted Line Officer. In order to have an operational command in hte Navy you need operational experience. When you said that you have known Intel O's who advised CO's, who made the final decision? The CO. Intel and Crypto types are support personnel (most do a damn fine job of it), there to back up the operational guys. When you start letting them run the show, they would lose the main focus of supporting the people who need it most, the operational people.
It is a simple fact of life that many Intel and Crypto types just don't get sometimes. I know it may sound harsh but I was a Prowler guy, our station in life was to support the strikers going in to threat rings. I knew my job and did it damn well along with my fellow Electronic Attack brethren. I am most of my colleagues did not believe for a second that we were the main act, but we were a vital supporting player.
I think I am uniquely qualified on this forum to speak to this subject. I originally flew EP-3's, an intel and crypto aircraft. I had several personal experiences where Intel and Crypto officers suggested/requested things that had little to do with the realm of reality, it was actually common. Sometimes these suggestions came from from people several paygrades higher with a lot of experience, just not in operational matters. It would be very rare for an officer with an operational background to suggest the same thing. In my current job I work with and take tasking from the JCS J2 staff. My colleagues and I often have to add a dose of reality to questions and taskers that come down from high. This is not to say that these people are not smart or have forgotten more than I will ever learn, but sometimes they just don't grasp the operational realities in the military.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Junior Intel guys are by far the greenest, least trained, least experienced officers in the squadron. For the most part, they just regurgitate info they find on the SIPRnet and provide no original analysis or insight. All the real work is done by the guys who work at the three letter agencies. Flash is spot on here. Anyone can deliver a brief to anyone else. That doesn't make the briefer quallified, brilliant or original. I don't know of any CO who would chose to seek the advice of his Intel guy over his more experienced aircrew I.E. weapons school guys.ocstwentyone said:
Keeping it real,
Brett
ocstwentyone
ENS, SC, USN
Thanks for the insight. I was just going by what I had heard, but your experiences speak for themselves. I can make my own judgements once I am actually out in the fleet. Regardless of what anyone thinks, has the decision been made?
- Status