Planned elimination of Cryptologist - 161x

[cindy]

I couldn't disagree with you more. ... Brett

Did not the Navy think NFO's could not command (squadron, CV) couple years back. What changed? Did the NFO's change or did the Navy change?

Am I correct that the AF still has that neanderthal view, or has that changed also.

To quote my fav: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Flash]

Did not the Navy think NFO's could not command (squadron, CV) couple years back. What changed? Did the NFO's change or did the Navy change?

Am I correct that the AF still has that neanderthal view, or has that changed also.

To quote my fav: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

NFO's are operators, intel guys are not, period. Put forth a better argument than the one above, then maybe we can debate a little further.

 

[Brett327]

Did not the Navy think NFO's could not command (squadron, CV) couple years back. What changed? Did the NFO's change or did the Navy change?

Am I correct that the AF still has that neanderthal view, or has that changed also.

To quote my fav: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't understand the wording of your question, but NFOs hold some of the highest positions in the Navy. This is not a new phenomenon. Some current Prowler NFOs of note:

ADM Fallon - COMLANTFLT
VADM Nichols - COMNAVCENT
VADM Zortman - COMNAVAIRPAC

Brett

 

[cindy]

I don't understand the wording of your question, but NFOs hold some of the highest positions in the Navy. This is not a new phenomenon. Some current Prowler NFOs of note:ADM Fallon - COMLANTFLT
VADM Nichols - COMNAVCENTVADM Zortman - COMNAVAIRPACBrett

I probably posed the question poorly and I do understand that NFO's are now front and center. Of course I know nothing, except what I read, but have been told that NFO "back in the old days, went nowhere". My point being is they went from "going nowhere" to "best and brightest on the battlefield" could a similar change be in store for the new Information Warfare Officer community.

I use as background the following thread:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7569&highlight

 

[Brett327]

I probably posed the question poorly and I do understand that NFO's are now front and center. Of course I know nothing, except what I read, but have been told that NFO "back in the old days, went nowhere". My point being is they went from "going nowhere" to "best and brightest on the battlefield" could a similar change be in store for the new Information Warfare Officer community.

I use as background the following thread:

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7569&highlight

Like I said before, NFOs in command is not a new phenomenon. NFOs were never "going nowhere" as you've stated. The thread you cited also refutes pretty much every point that you assert in your original post about NFOs, the Air Forces, etc. Apples and oranges, my dear, and I don't think you want me to get going about fruit again

Keeping it real,

Brett

 

[cindy]

... phenomenon ...Brett

It is indeed nice to know a highschooler that knows it all.

Thanks.

 

[A4sForever]

but NFOs hold some of the highest positions in the Navy...Some current Prowler NFOs of note .... VADM Zortman - COMNAVAIRPAC ....

Vice Admiral James M. Zortman
Commander, Naval Air Forces
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

I thought Zortman was a B/N all the way ... as in NOT EA6B ECMO ?? My memory going ?? One "prominent" NFO you might want to add to the list is AirLant RADM "H. Denby Starling II " .... was THAT guy born to be an Admiral, or what -- with a blue-blood east coast name like "H. Denby Starling II "?? (I think "Denby" was a NA and an NFO !! Quite an ambidextrous guy.) It's amazing that a guy with a name like "Zortman" had a chance against that kind of blue-blood born-to-be-an-admiral competition ... Of course, there WAS someone named Zumwalt ...

Rear Admiral H. Denby Starling II
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet

 

[JLH]

I don't entirely agree with what Flash said "NFO's are operators, intel guys are not, period." There are several SIGINT/Intel entities that are blurring the line between the traditional operator/non-operator communities. While not trained as NSW or SpecOps "Operators", they go on patrol, engage in firefights, and "operate" hand in hand with those communities (I was OIC for such operations last year in Iraq). Telling those guys they aren’t “operating” is just not accurate. Since the use and understanding of SIGINT/Intel/Information Warfare(Dominance) is becoming more understood, the line between the use of SIGINT as a research and target development tool, and a real-time targeting and I&W asset has changed. I think the shift to URL is going to have both good and bad repercussions for a time but that in the end the effect will be a positive one. Don't get me wrong, I know alot ... ALOT of SIGINT or Intel types I would not want to go into combat with, but I can equally echo that comment to some SWOs, NFOs, or Aviators I have deployed with over the last 14 years as well. I think Brett was correct in saying that junior guys at a squadron or unit are the most inexperienced, but that is across the board for any junior guy regardless of designator. The test will come after the change is made, since there will be the new "URL Cryppie" serving afloat or at squadrons who will for a time need the cooperation of their peers and seniors in making the transition a smooth one.

 

[Brett327]

It is indeed nice to know a highschooler that knows it all.

Thanks.

Huh???

Brett

 

[Brett327]

Vice Admiral James M. Zortman
Commander, Naval Air Forces
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

I thought Zortman was a B/N all the way ... as in NOT EA6B ECMO ?? My memory going ?? One "prominent" NFO you might want to add to the list is AirLant RADM "H. Denby Starling II " .... was THAT guy born to be an Admiral, or what -- with a blue-blood east coast name like "H. Denby Starling II "?? (I think "Denby" was a NA and an NFO !! Quite an ambidextrous guy.) It's amazing that a guy with a name like "Zortman" had a chance against that kind of blue-blood born-to-be-an-admiral competition ... Of course, there WAS someone named Zumwalt ...

Rear Admiral H. Denby Starling II
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet

I think they took all the senior Intruder guys and tacked them on to the next closest beast We welcome him into our fold.

Brett

 

[Flash]

I don't entirely agree with what Flash said "NFO's are operators, intel guys are not, period." There are several SIGINT/Intel entities that are blurring the line between the traditional operator/non-operator communities. While not trained as NSW or SpecOps "Operators", they go on patrol, engage in firefights, and "operate" hand in hand with those communities (I was OIC for such operations last year in Iraq). Telling those guys they aren’t “operating” is just not accurate. Since the use and understanding of SIGINT/Intel/Information Warfare(Dominance) is becoming more understood, the line between the use of SIGINT as a research and target development tool, and a real-time targeting and I&W asset has changed. I think the shift to URL is going to have both good and bad repercussions for a time but that in the end the effect will be a positive one. Don't get me wrong, I know alot ... ALOT of SIGINT or Intel types I would not want to go into combat with, but I can equally echo that comment to some SWOs, NFOs, or Aviators I have deployed with over the last 14 years as well. I think Brett was correct in saying that junior guys at a squadron or unit are the most inexperienced, but that is across the board for any junior guy regardless of designator. The test will come after the change is made, since there will be the new "URL Cryppie" serving afloat or at squadrons who will for a time need the cooperation of their peers and seniors in making the transition a smooth one.

I would hate to beat a dead horse but I have some pretty strong opinions on this stuff and I couldn't just let this go without a response. Just because you go along some missions with Spec Ops guys doesn't make you an operator. You said it yourself, the intel/cryppie types are not trained to be one of them, they are still support. There have been several specialists who have accompanied combat units into battle since at least WWI and they are still support, medics and corpsman are the first to come to mind. But what about combat photographers, Seabees and combat engineers? Chaplains and RP's? They all make invaluable contributions to those who fight but they are still support.

Your post is a perfect example of why I am apprehensive of Intel/Cryppies becoming URL's. Intelligence, whether it is on the tactical or the strategic level, is suppose to support the decision makers. Whether is be a CAG or a Combatant Commander or the NCA, Intelligence officers provide information to those leaders so that they can make informed decisions. Uness someone has trained to lead combatant forces into battle (pilot, NFO, infantry, sub, armor, etc) I have serious reservations about allowing them to command personnel who fight a war. That is basically what a URL officer is suppose to do, period. There are certainly some a few notable exceptions but most URL officers in the Navy will at some time in their career learn to operate a weapon system. What is a Intel/Crypie/IW officer going to lead? Why is it necessary for them to be URL's if they are not going to command a ship/squadron? My greatest fear is that 10-20 years down the road an Intel officer will take command of a ship or squadron and not have the requisite skills to lead it properly. Are all ships and squadrons led properly by current URL's? No, but they were given the skills to do so. How would you do that with a Intel officer? If they have not learned how to become an operator then how are they going to lead them?

Soemone mentioned the SOSUS guys and how they are URL's. They are but their numbers are not all that big, unlike Intel and Crypies, and they are not everywhere in the Navy. And the only significant units they command are SOSUS units.

What I think many Intel and Crypie types forget is that there main job is to provide info so that others can do their jobs. While almost everyone in hte military is in some kind of support function, I would like to leave the combat commands to those who train to fight. In the end we are all support to the grunt in the ground with a gun. He is the only one who can win a war, even today.

 

[ocstwentyone]

"Just because you go along some missions with Spec Ops guys doesn't make you an operator."

What does qualify you to be an operator? Your training? If so, then why can't Intel/Cryptology get training that makes them qualified to be an operator? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ocstwentyone]

Keep in mind the irony here; the role of aviators is diminishing. In 50 years pilots will be obsolete. We are already flying UAV's all over the place. And the role that Information Warfare plays in real-time operational abilities is ever increasing. Perhaps those opposed to the switch to URL are already aware of this and just trying to delay the future. I don't know.

On a side note: I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't necessarily support the decision to create an URL community made up of intel/crypto people. I just want someone to give me a valid reason of why it shouldn't be done seeing as how the world is moving more and more towards information/computerized warfare. All the reasons against that I have heard have been narrow in mind and scope. I am neither becoming an aviator nor intel/crypto guy. I know lots of pilots that are brilliant and treat people with respect. I also very much respect them and the role that they play in serving our country.

 

[Brett327]

In 50 years pilots will be obsolete.

Sounds like wild speculation to me. Anyone can throw out what they think might happen 50 years from now, but it's doesn't make a terribly sound premise for the argument.

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

..... In 50 years pilots will be obsolete ....

Really?? I don't think so .... and these guys don't agree with you, either ....