Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Instant E7 or O6?

  1. #11
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    1. ALL potential recruits would have to be screened for work and supervisory/managerial experience, and ALL ratings would have to be eligible. For example... if someone was shift manager at Applebee's, they should be able to come in as a CS1. If someone owned a corner store, barber shop, or dry cleaning/laundry facility, they should be able to come in as an SHC.
    Problem is, we don't need more CS1's or mechanics ... we need the Cyber Warfare people right now (which is a huge part of the Navy's support for the idea).

    From an HR perspective, we can train a mechanic in 3-6 months, a basic (non-SPECOPS) infantryman in 2 - 3 months, those occupational fields necessitate a pyramid shaped rank structure that is fat at the bottom and gets progressively thinner as we go up. The Navy has more of a diamond shaped rank structure, fatter in the middle (E5, E6 & E7) than at the most junior or senior ranks. In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.

    My support behind a non-NCO or PO type of thing is sort of based on how civilian employees can be supervisory or non-supervisory. My first Division in the Navy had zero E1-3, 1x E4, 1x E5, about a dozen E6's, and 4x E7's (all CT's). Granted, most of my E6's were at their terminal grade for one reason or another, and most frankly would have made poor CPO's ... they were technically astute but lacked leadership. Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoot ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    2. This program would have to be phased in by paygrade over a 15 to 20 year period. For example, for the first few years, the highest you can come in as is an E4. After awhile, they extend it to E5, and so forth. This would prevent that sudden shock that would throw the military into a big upheaval but putting in E7's right away. It also allows the people who are under what will become the "old school" mindset to retire before they're affected by it.
    I think the vast majority of people would be coming in as E5's and O3's. But, non-supervisory positions would alleviate the "old school" folks from really being impacted.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Then going in as enlisted isn't for them. They need to finish their degrees and go officer.
    I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  2. #12
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Total Bullshit. DoD already outsources for the Technical SMEs it supposedly "needs" thru service contracts with Private Industry to the tune of $150+ Billion a year.
    Specific to Cyber, there are certain things we can't have an outsourced contractor do ... has to be uniformed military. Title 10 authorities can be exercised by a civilian operator.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoo t ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.



    So, Why wouldn't we continue to contract for these shortfalls or hire GS employees as we do now?
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-22-2016 at 02:18 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Problem is, we don't need more CS1's or mechanics ... we need the Cyber Warfare people right now (which is a huge part of the Navy's support for the idea).

    From an HR perspective, we can train a mechanic in 3-6 months, a basic (non-SPECOPS) infantryman in 2 - 3 months, those occupational fields necessitate a pyramid shaped rank structure that is fat at the bottom and gets progressively thinner as we go up. The Navy has more of a diamond shaped rank structure, fatter in the middle (E5, E6 & E7) than at the most junior or senior ranks. In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.

    My support behind a non-NCO or PO type of thing is sort of based on how civilian employees can be supervisory or non-supervisory. My first Division in the Navy had zero E1-3, 1x E4, 1x E5, about a dozen E6's, and 4x E7's (all CT's). Granted, most of my E6's were at their terminal grade for one reason or another, and most frankly would have made poor CPO's ... they were technically astute but lacked leadership. Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoot ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.



    I think the vast majority of people would be coming in as E5's and O3's. But, non-supervisory positions would alleviate the "old school" folks from really being impacted.





    I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.
    Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19....cardiac.army/

    It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.

  5. #15
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    So, Why wouldn't we continue to contract for these shortfalls or hire GS employees as we do now?
    For some of the jobs, we are not / can not by law contract or hire GS's. The billets are gapped.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #16
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19....cardiac.army/

    It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.
    The medical program is the model, but under law it only works for certain job fields (medical, law, dental) ... cannot be extended to other fields without a change in the law.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #17
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    699
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Specific to Cyber, there are certain things we can't have an outsourced contractor do ... has to be uniformed military.
    Such as?? Why would someone sitting in front of a computer need to be uniformed military?

    I'll be more specific,... why would a cyber warfare specialist need to be uniformed military?
    Last edited by USN - Retired; 06-22-2016 at 04:24 PM.
    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others

  8. #18
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    The billets are gapped.

    BS.

    The same argument (inherently governmental function) was made & for all intents ignored when we outsourced a huge number of our IC core positions to private industry. For instance at one point the forward deployed billets of IC in Afghanistan were probably running 80% contracted. Legally pretty much everything but a Contracting Officer and the very senior decision maker positions can be outsourced.

    However, if that's the concern than the vast majority of these positions can be filled with Federal employees can perform these functions at an equivalent salary to an E-7 or an 0-6.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-22-2016 at 08:14 PM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member DarkHeart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Great Lakes, IL
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19....cardiac.army/

    It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.
    This is the only way I see this working without too much foaming at the mouth from the Mess, though I don't think they could stand someone coming out of Great Lakes as a CPO no matter their skill set.

    Maybe bring on just enough personnel for a period of 3-5 years to build a Cyber Warfare community akin to Navy Medicine while training existing CTs and the like to take over with little to no direct accessions from the civilian sector after that period. Excepting the few individuals with skill and experience the Navy can't easily get from the inside.
    HM2


  10. #20
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Here's another possibility: why not make Cyber Warfare jobs a warrant officer program, where people can join as a warrant officer? SECDEF would have to force the Air Force's hand to bring back warrant officers to make this happen, but I don't think anyone but Air Force Generals would be bitching.

    Many, if not most, warrant officers are not in charge of anyone away. They exist mostly, and many cases solely, for their technical expertise. Stuff like this is specifically what warrant officers were designed for.

    So again... why not make them warrant officers?
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •