Today marks the one year anniversary of VADM Jan E. Tighe's assumption of command of U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and TENTH Fleet. There's no arguing that she has covered a lot of ground in that time and has advanced our capability to meet the mission requirements outlined for the command by the Chief of Naval Operations. Congratulations on a successful and significant first year in command.
3 March Supplement
You can learn much more about what's happening in the IDC by attending the IDC Industry Day here. It's F R E E to the military. Go to this LINK.
13 comments:
Not by any means a VADM Tighe hater, but what makes the last year in the life of FCC/C10F significant? From the outside looking in, they seem to be trudging along instead of paving new ways forward with drastic or far reaching impacts.
Perhaps us onlookers are simply uninformed.
Again, not trying to be a hater at all, really looking to understand.
Mike, you are always appropriately generous in your blog.
Also, not by any means a VADM T hater, but I'll echo the question on significance. In an era when our community believes any officer can be shuffled to any rank-appropriate job, this is a case in point. Nothing ran aground, nothing changed the world. Successful, yes by common standard. But significant? Increasingly uncommon.
There are and will always be those who are uniformed. Not much else to it.
LCDRLDO/6440
I think you meant UNINFORMED vs uniformed.
Look to the Navy Program Guide, CNO's Navigation Plan and new Navy strategy, READ THEM and then tell me FCC/C10F hasn't made significant progress in actions, influence and funding.
... Navy Program Guide, CNO's Navigation Plan and new Navy strategy... Ughh, derivative drivel. These are fairly much re-hashed versions of similar points of view spanning Navy IO/IW/Cyber leadership from C2W theory (circa 1993) to Admiral Cebrowski's Netcentricity. There have not been many game-changing advancements in U.S. Naval cyber doctrine since the big hoo-haa over whether or not offensive cyber was a "naval" mission in the early 2000's. After the establishment of the CTN rating, progress has simply been a matter of funding, recruiting, and training. Certainly this is important work upon which to build a "successful" tour, but not "significant" in the sense that it changes history in a Rickoverial or Cebrowskian manner.
Correct - should be uninformed. Tks
Love it! "There are and will always be those who are uniformed." They are just there, insignificant.
FCC/C10F Action Officer,
Words in a document do not equate to significance any more than a PPT slide. Yes the staff managed to publish what they believed was important and managed to get the OPNAV staff to echo it, but what they DID and what impacts they had is what makes it significant, thus the question from earlier stands. For example, how much moeney was realigned from existing programs of record toward FCC/C10F programs, what new programs of record were established, etc...this is still an unknown as the read I did was nothing more than taking programs that were previously tied to other communities and stating they were now Cyber. This is not action, it is the age old bait and switch that is sold as action to the lesser informed.
LCDRLDO,
Yes there are those who are uninformed, but part of leadership's job is to market what they can do, what they have done, and what they are going to do to the audience outside their immediate sphere of influence - this is most often done through active communication and first and foremost down echelon to those who will be charged with executing. No one here is saying that FCC/C10F isn't doing something and that it is insignificant, we are simply saying if what they are doing is significant then someone needs to share it more broadly and explain WHY it is significant.
For all those above …
If you have a SIPR account, ask to get placed on distro for FCC's weekly note to the CNO, it will provide you insight into what FCC/C10F and their subordinate forces (CTFs, CTGs, CTUs) are doing ISO our Navy, Nation and Allies.
If you have higher account access, get in contact with one of their many subordinate CTFs and/or CTGs in order to get on their weekly reports, they will give you a greater level of detail than what is listed in the FCC/C10F weekly SIPR to CNO.
If you need help in either of the above, send me an e-mail. Further, I'm more than willing to share our CTG 1070.2 report with you, and hear feedback to make our report better.
NIPR= michael.c.elliot@fe.navy.mil
ATB, CDR Mike Elliot
Just because you don't know what's happening doesn't mean nothing is happening.
As much as many wish to be spoon fed everything, sometimes you have to go out and search for information.
The work of a 10,000 + Sailor community is SIGNIFICANT, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Anonymous @ 6:51
Achievements can't and shouldn't be measured by funding alignment and POR establishment. It's like saying a unit sent X number of reports in a single day. There's no value to it. The important part is what is being done with the resources and capabilities that are available which, in the end, justify requirements for additional resources and capabilities.
Having recently left FCC/10FLT, tell you with confidence that the staff is carrying the water. Much of the work is everyday stuff supporting the Fleet and other parts of it are things that won't be seen by the public. There's a lot to do and there's more to be done that, at times, can't be accommodated.
My recommendation is that OPNAV, USFF, PACFLT and FCC/10FLT continue to review the MF&Ts now that the establishment of NAVIDFOR and the associated realignment has started. From NETWARCOM, to NAVCYBERFOR, to FCC/10FLT, the MF&Ts have included the statement that the command is the "central operational authority" for Navy networks, cryptology, SIGINT, IO, cyber, EW and space. I don't know what "central operational authority" means. It isn't define in JP 1-02.
What is defined is "operational command" which is the organizational hierarchy through which operational authorities are exercised. I see 10FLT having operational command over some of the mission areas listed but not all of them. For examples, I don't see 10FLT tasking or having direct control of cryptology, IO and EW in the Fleet. My opinion is that overall operational control of these missions should be formally aligned to the other fleet commands and the remaining MT&E functions continue to align to NAVIDFOR.
Maybe this will happen as the alignment continues to evolve and mature. The result will contribute to an original vision of FCC/10FLT to be "lean and mean", not hampered / hamstrung by mission responsibilities that rightfully are the responsibility of other commands and organizations in the Navy.
I find it instructive that the discussion about a warfighting (numbered Fleet) staff is largely programmatic. Understand that the ability to influence current and future PoRs and budgets is important, but I doubt we would be having the same style discussion over any of the other numbered Fleets.
Post a Comment