Maritime cryptology stands at a crossroads, and for it to succeed in the Indo-Pacific region, it will have to adapt and change. The Navy is making investments in new technology and systems, but will also need to reinvigorate its training and development of sailors and officers. The Navy’s unique access to the littoral provides the intelligence community and warfighters with capabilities that may not be available from other national systems during times of crisis. The Navy has recognized some of the shortfalls and critical needs facing the cryptologic/information-operations community, but more must be done.You can read the article HERE. For the full article, you may need to join the United States Naval Institute and support the professional journal of the United States Navy.
If that is entirely too much to ask, you cheapskates can read it here for free on FACEBOOK but keep in mind that Zuckerburg is collecting all your info.
6 comments:
Great article kid! Spot on assessment. Only problem - your leadership doesn't care. Its cyber, cyber, cyber, and chest thumping about how great they are. Haven't done an operational cryptologic thing in years and not likely to start now. Lets hope the next gen of 1810s gets out of this jet lag soon.
Why the hate? Some of us would rather share information freely (with the understanding that we are being tracked) rather than paying for the 'privilege' (and pretending that Proceedings isn't doing the same thing).
- just a pseudo ANON 'cheapskate'
no hate.
Anon @ 0927: "Haven't done an operational cryptologic thing in years" Really? Where have you been?
It's a reasonable notion that seniors will admire some bright shiny new things, strategy-wise, now and again, within the context of moving the "community" forward in ways that provide best value to the maritime warfighter. That's among the ways a healthy community stays relevant in a fast-moving Navy, very much tied to increasingly fast-moving technologies. So we should be balanced and fair in assessing whether there is too much genuflecting at the altar of cyber going on, and whether it is at the expense of other critically important traditional disciplines we've long had in our kit bag. How to shape strategic emphasis between carrying legacy capacity versus retooling and realigning for the "next thing," is tricky business in almost any field, but particularly challenging when you have myriad diverse adversaries all doing clever things with technology, communications, cryptography, computer science, electronic warfare systems, space systems, etc. Where I'm inclined to "break ranks" just a bit is on the matter of where our top priorities are shaped in recent years. From the evidence, I'm not entirely convinced that "supporting" the maritime warfighter is quite sexy enough anymore for some of our more self-styled, nationally-focused cyber-sophisticates involved in shaping a new brand for IWs and CTs. It's regrettable, and I would recommend some stepping back and evaluating whether we're putting our eggs in the right baskets, or whether we are positioned to serve the right masters. I'll give LT Bebber's piece a read, and I suspect I know, or have probably even thought, most of what is in it. A "return to our fleet cryptology roots" renaissance is an idea that has some merit in my view - and should get some robust dialogue. And there are still some officers around that could influence a few course corrections more aligned to the nation's maritime strategy, the Navy's sailing directions, and things akin. We should remember we always had Navy Cryptology because we had a Navy. We have a Navy Information Dominance Corps because we have a Navy, first and foremost. As prime directives go, I think this one should be framed and posted on the bulkheads of every IW O-5 and above across the Navy. With regards and respect, Dave McDonald
LT Bebber is a bright young officer.
Post a Comment