Establishing a Navy Information Dominance Type Command
By: Captain Joe Gradisher, OPNAV N2/N6 PAO
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert has directed Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CUSFFC) to establish an Information Dominance Type Command (TYCOM).
In his March 4, 2014 memorandum to CUSFFC, Greenert wrote, "I approve the establishment of Navy Information Dominance Forces as an echelon III command under your administrative control. As the immediate superior in command, oversee the command's implementation...with an initial operating capability of 1 October 2014."
The TYCOM will report directly to CUSFFC and have supporting relationships with the rest of the Navy, focusing primarily on the Navy's information environment.
Commander, Navy Cyber Forces, Rear Adm. Diane Webber will have her command re-designated as Commander, Navy Information Dominance Forces (NAVIDFOR) and will provide the initial infrastructure, resources and assets for the TYCOM.
Webber noted that the new TYCOM's mission will be to "support Combatant Commanders and Navy Commanders ashore and afloat by providing forward deployable, sustainable, combat-ready Information Dominance forces."
Full operational capability for NAVIDFOR is expected by the end of the calendar year.
A Navy Type Command or TYCOM, coordinates the Man, Train and Equip (MT&E) functions for specific communities within the Navy. For example, Commander, Naval Air Forces exercises administrative control over aviation forces and Commander, Navy Surface Forces does the same for the surface warfare community.The IDC was formed in 2009 and built on the deep expertise and strengths of the officers/enlisted, active/reserve, and civilian workforce from the oceanography/meteorology, information professional, information warfare, naval intelligence and space cadre.
The IDC is an inter-disciplinary corps that possesses a deep understanding of potential adversaries and the battlespace, is able to accurately identify targets and brings an array of non-kinetic, offensive and defensive capabilities to the fight in the Information Age.
According to Vice Adm. Ted N. "Twig" Branch, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance (N2/N6) and the lead for the Navy's IDC, "The continuing evolution of Information Dominance as a Navy warfighting discipline demands a single, integrated TYCOM to provide relevant and effective capabilities, including a highly trained and motivated workforce. I'm confident the new NAVIDFOR will provide the Fleet and the entire Navy the ID capabilities needed to deter, fight and win within this information domain."
Previously, those MT&E functions for the various communities within the IDC were executed by OPNAV N2/N6, Fleet Cyber Command/Commander Tenth Fleet, Navy Cyber Forces, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command.
Commander, Navy Information Dominance Forces will be based in Suffolk, Va.
We witness the rebirth of another self licking ice cream cone. Yes, I know, I missed out on the MNS, ORD but those are so passé .
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think? An ID TYCOM on each coast just to start or maybe one for each continent?
Multiplying staff jobs at the cost of doing anything. Well, we all plowed that bit of sea before and the navy is rich so it can well afford to embrace another 54 "diversity staff" billets.
It's not like the info dominators did anything at all worthy dealing with the foe we now know to refer to as the Islamic state.
HMS Defiant - I quote: “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
ReplyDelete― Martin Luther King Jr.
HMS Defiant - What are you hoping to achieve? It's clear from your comments that you are not a part of the IW/IDC community - and that you think those of us that are lack the capacity to adequately do our jobs. I (for one) am very confused about why you continue to visit CAPT (RET) Lambert's site. His posts on leadership and news from the IW community are meant to inform his readers, but yet you seem to gain pleasure in posting negative comments about our community/integrity/aptitude on most of the stories to elicit a reaction from us. Why? It seems you've served your country for 30 years and for that we wholeheartedly thank you, but what are you doing to "pay it forward" to the next generation? How are you acting like any of the "great" leaders you've repeatedly highlighted over the last few months? What nuggets are you passing on? The young officers and junior Sailors that are just starting their careers have a lot to learn from CAPT (RET) Lambert and others like him who are willing to share their experiences and their advice to the next generation - and we appreciate it - but all we are getting from you is bitterness and anger toward a service you devoted most of your adult life to serving in. I apologize for the rant, but (like many) I visit this site once a day to get a leadership/IW nugget - and almost always have to scroll through some angry rant - and I don't know why you put yourself through the misery. Why not just enjoy retirement and stop visiting our IW/IDC blogs? Or better yet, why not provide helpful anecdotes and/or comments that push the conversation forward? Thanks for your time.
ReplyDeleteHMS Defiant - What are you hoping to achieve? It's clear from your comments that you are not a part of the IW/IDC community - and that you think those of us that are lack the capacity to adequately do our jobs. I (for one) am very confused about why you continue to visit CAPT (RET) Lambert's site. His posts on leadership and news from the IW community are meant to inform his readers, but yet you seem to gain pleasure in posting negative comments about our community/integrity/aptitude on most of the stories to elicit a reaction from us. Why? It seems you've served your country for 30 years and for that we wholeheartedly thank you, but what are you doing to "pay it forward" to the next generation? How are you acting like any of the "great" leaders you've repeatedly highlighted over the last few months? What nuggets are you passing on? The young officers and junior Sailors that are just starting their careers have a lot to learn from CAPT (RET) Lambert and others like him who are willing to share their experiences and their advice to the next generation - and we appreciate it - but all we are getting from you is bitterness and anger toward a service you devoted most of your adult life to serving in. I apologize for the rant, but (like many) I visit this site once a day to get a leadership/IW nugget - and almost always have to scroll through some angry rant - and I don't know why you put yourself through the misery. Why not just enjoy retirement and stop visiting our IW/IDC blogs? Or better yet, why not provide helpful anecdotes and/or comments that push the conversation forward? Thanks for your time.
ReplyDeleteSomeone please tell me that this will (and how it will) deconflict and better define authorities & responsibilities. This community has been a confusing mess IMHO since the CNSG/NNWC switch.
ReplyDeleteFor both anon and Lcdrldo,
ReplyDeleteIf I did not love it, I would leave it. Is that so very hard to understand? You both wonder why I 'bother.' Many months ago I asked the good captain if he minded my comments here and he said, not at all. He has only to breath the idea that he would like me to leave, and leave I will.
Every comment I make comes from, that long experience you allude to. For instance, I was a staff officer at naval surface forces Pacific when the CNO directed the Navy to end the practice of having two separate TYCOMS, one for each coast. That was over 15 years ago and yet we still have both at every branch with lead follow TYCOMS on each coast for subs air and ships. NECC barely escaped such an idiotic fate.
When I wonder if a closed loop self approving elect is going to concentrate on the essentials or devolve into a self aggrandizing bunch most focused not on the mission but on multiplying billets and flag opportunities within the community, you'd have to show me where history fails to serve as a guide. That's exactly how it always works out.
It might be too, that both our host and I come from a common era. I worked with the intel community for 18 years. I remember when only fools closed their minds, circles and decisions to those 'who hewed to group think'. My major concern with this community is that it has entirely closed its mind to input from those who don't, on the surface, appear to possess the proper credentials.
As a little take away, consider the warfighter, such as me, long ago. When you and people like you go off on what the Airedales used to call disassociated tours, don't you think it would be handy to understand where your reporting senior's thoughts are focused?
I honestly don't know your community. Over the long years, my community boiled down to the navy and to all the people who worked for me. Over the years an awful lot of Intel and ID people worked for and supported me.
I am convinced I am right to comment here because it appears to me, quite often, that very very few of the readers ever acknowledge any responsibility to the rest of the navy, so focused are they on growing the community and self aggrandizement.
Anon, I decided a couple of months ago to do what you suggest. Being a shy and retiring kind of guy, I carefully hid it online where nobody will ever find it. And, by the way, it isn't all negative. Consider the history of intel assessments. The wise commander forms both a red team and a separate blue team. Only complete idiots pull both team members from the same source. Regrettably, whoever you all are, always do that.
It is clear that HMS is not afraid if giving his opinion. We are 180 out on what command is and what command responsibility means (aka COWPENs), but there are some things in his original post worth considering. For example:
ReplyDeleteTwo TYCOMs is stupid, but so far I have only seen a plan for one, with a smaller presence on the west coast (after all presence matters). An example on how not to do it is Surface warfare or Aviation.
Also, his "diversity" comment cuts to what we all want, actual leadership and action. If ONI, N2N6, NAVO and C10F do not give up some responsibility and authorities to the new TYCOM, it will be a waste of time and will be as useful as having a diversity staff of 54.
His closing statement, only shows that he does not know what the IDC contributes to the fight, and how integrated the communities have been ashore and afloat. Look at it this way, there is value in having an instigator in the panel - he makes you think and understand your decisions. Don;t think you can or even need to change him, all he does is really provides a POV your probably did not consider, and sometimes, there will be some wheat in all the chaff.
Cynicism aside, HMS started with a valid point. We’ve seen the data on the growing ratio of Admirals to Fleet Sailors since WWII. While the establishment of NAVIDFOR appears to be a lateral conversion from Navy Cyber Forces, we need to continue taking a hard look at ways to cut administrative overhead across the entire Navy.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone would agree in principle that we have too many flag officers, but no one is willing to cut their own special projects. I have to wonder, when the bean-counters come calling, how is this (under either title) not at the top of their list?
IDFOR TYCOM is NCF renamed, with the mission better defined. This will separate the MTE aspects from the operator, as is done with other constructs. Not saying it will be a resounding success, but it is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAnno, interesting comment regarding flag officer. But is the the right comparison? Does the number of ships to flag matter. I do not know. Just asking. Today's navy is nothing like the one in WWII. So, not sure if the comparison is valid.
ReplyDelete