Without efficient communications the present day naval commander lacks the means of exercising positive command and control of his forces. Without an efficient, worldwide, military communication system the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces similarly lacks positive command and control of the fighting potential of the United States. Decisions affecting the world’s future depend on a real time, reliable, and instantaneous system of communications—from the highest national level to the most distant military unit in the field, at sea or in the air.
There have always been communications officers in the Navy. As the relative importance of a commander’s communications increases, however, and more is demanded of today’s communications officers, the important question recurs: “Should these officers be specialists or can they remain line officers with communications as a subspecialty?”
It is extremely difficult to isolate naval communications as a separate part of the Navy. The Director of Naval Communications, who also serves as Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Communications, directly commands, operates, and administers two worldwide organizations—the Naval Communication System and the Naval Security Group. But these two organizations form a relatively small portion of the Naval Communication Community. Within every unit afloat and ashore is a communication department, division, or section responsible directly to the commanding officer. The Naval Communication System provides the means of linking these units into a global system, to provide speed and reliability for communications. The Naval Security Group, as one of its principal functions, provides the third vital ingredient, security. Thus, we can see that this Naval Communication Community reaches throughout the Navy.
At present, the more than 2,000 officers involved in this communication community can be categorized as follows:
Unrestricted Line officers (designation 1100/1300). By far the greater number are in the ranks of ensign through lieutenant on their first or second tour of duty. Another group is officially designated as communication subspecialists either because of postgraduate training in communications, or by virtue of frequent tours in communication billets. This group presently includes five flag officers serving in communication billets as well as the majority of relatively senior naval communicators who are serving in joint, combined, and Department of Defense communication billets.
Special Duty Officers (designation 1610). Formerly designated as communication specialists, these officers are now designated as crypto specialists, and form the backbone of the Naval Security Group.
Limited Duty and Warrant Officers. This large group furnishes a major portion of the technical know-how in the Naval Communication Community, in a manner similar to other parts of the Navy where the LDO/Warrant, technically trained as an enlisted man, has proved to be indispensable. In units that are too small to rate an LDO/Warrant billet in communications/electronics, the technical know-how is furnished by rated electronic technicians.
Electronic engineering special duty officers (designation 1400). These officers serve as electronic material officers in support of naval communications both ashore and afloat.
It is with the unrestricted line officers that our discussion will deal. Should these officers, as they become more senior, give up their unrestricted line status—and, thus, their right to succeed to command at sea—and serve as communications specialists? Or can these officers be both unrestricted line officers and communicators?
The accompanying chart shows typical career patterns of officers in hypothetical subspecialty and specialty careers in communications. If we total the communications experience of the two officers we see that the subspecialist can expect to spend up to 14 years in communications billets whereas the specialist will spend all but two years of his career in these billets. Undoubtedly, our specialist will have far greater technical communications knowledge and background. His actual billet assignments will determine his ability to keep a broad view of naval and joint operations. We have billeted the specialist as the communications officer on fleet commander or area staffs, such as Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, or Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO). One can question whether an officer who has essentially served only in communications assignments is fully qualified as the assistant chief of staff, communications for such a command.
Rank |
Tear |
Subspecialist |
Specialist |
Ensign |
1 |
DD—JO (Comm) |
DD—Comm Officer |
Lieutenant (j.g.) |
2 |
DD-JO |
DD—Comm Officer |
3 |
DD—Department Head |
DD—Eng/Gunnery, etc. |
|
|
4 |
CA/CL—Division Officer |
PG School |
Lieutenant |
5 |
PG School Communications |
PG School |
|
6 |
PG School Communications |
PG School |
|
7 |
DDG Ops |
TF Staff Communications |
|
8 |
DDG Ops |
TF Staff Communications |
|
9 |
NavCommSta (DCA) (DNC) |
NavCommSta |
Lieutenant Commander |
10 |
NavCommSta (DCA) (DNC) |
NavCommSta |
|
11 |
XO DD Type, (afloat Staff) |
OPNAV (Comm) |
|
12 |
XO DD Type, (afloat Staff") |
OPNAV (Comm) |
|
13 |
XO DD Type, (afloat Staff) |
OPNAV (Comm) |
|
14 |
Overseas Staff, etc. |
OPNAV (Comm) |
Commander |
15 |
Overseas Staff, etc. |
DCA (Overseas) |
|
16 |
CO DD, (XO Large Combatant) * |
DCA (Overseas) |
|
17 |
CO DD, (XO Large Combatant) |
DCA (Overseas) |
|
18 |
CO DD, (XO Large Conbatant) |
Naval War College |
|
19 |
OPNAV (DNC) |
XO NavCommSta |
|
20 |
OPNAV (DNC) * |
XO NavCommSta |
Captain |
21 |
Deep Draft Command |
CO NavCommSta |
|
22 |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
|
23 |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
|
24 |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
Joint Staff (Comm) |
|
25 |
Major Command |
Fleet or Area Commander Staff (Comm) |
|
26 |
OPNAV (Plans) |
Area Staff (Comm) |
|
27 |
OPNAV (Plans), etc. |
OPNAV (Comm), etc. |
* One year Service College near 17th or 21st year of service.
When radio first came to the Navy, and for some years thereafter, the radio officer of large ships had to be a proficient radio operator. It soon became apparent that actual operation of a radio must be performed by a specialist who has devoted his career to such work. The officer to supervise properly did not have to be a “speed key” artist. He needed to know how to use the communications in operational situations. The flag lieutenant did not handle the flags, but he had to know what the signal conveyed to the other ships. In the same manner, we can say that the naval communications officer today does not have to be a communications technical expert at the expense of a balanced career in operations and command billets afloat. It is true that there must be a balance and that maximum communications education and experience in keeping with command ability and operations experience is the goal.
An argument for specialization that has merit concerns the ability of the naval communicator to hold his own in competition with the other services. The “Joint Arena” is an ever expanding one for communicators, as our communications within the Department of Defense become more integrated with the other services in the Defense Communications System. Here the naval communicator is competing with Army and Air Force “specialists” in adequately representing his service’s viewpoint. The Army has a signal corps. The Air Force has a communications- electronics specialty designation. Each organization is primarily composed of officers who spend their careers in communications except for normal service schooling. Initially, it is true that the naval communicator may be at a disadvantage in completely technical communications problems. However, with a broader operational background inherent in the naval communicator, this disadvantage should be only temporary. The communications “specialists” of the other services gain command experience by commanding tactical and administrative communication units. There would be no comparable command experience for a naval communications “specialist,” where experience in “command at sea” is the goal.
The amount of postgraduate education available to either a specialist or subspecialist can be the same. It is in operational experience that these officers differ. At present, communication training is conducted in very short courses, at fleet training centers, and in the Schools Command at Newport for ensigns and lieutenants (junior grade). At the Postgraduate School at Monterey, two or three year communication engineering curricula provide postgraduate education in communications engineering. The difference between training and education is important to note. Quite rightly, our present Postgraduate School curricula provide advanced education and not advanced training. The three-year communication course at Monterey ends with a master’s degree in Communication Engineering, one of the few courses to produce such a degree. The career pattern of a subspecialist permits him to take this three-year course and still gives him a chance to go to sea. Admittedly, so that the Navy can also benefit from his longer education, he will have most shore duty tours in communications billets. The actual curricula involved in these courses are being constantly reviewed, and it may be possible to shorten the course for those who do not take a baccalaureate to a one- year practical course with greater emphasis on operational communications, thus permitting a greater output of subspecialists each year. For a greater depth of communication knowledge, education for either subspecialist or specialist is most desirable. In looking ahead, it is doubtful that we will ever have a sufficient number of naval communicators who have had postgraduate education.
Communications of the future will become more technical, and a higher degree of technical skill will be required in the design and production of the advanced equipment. On the other hand, packaging techniques and miniaturization will permit simplified maintenance. The officer in charge of basic communication system operations and applications will require a broad background rather than detailed engineering knowledge. The naval communicator aspiring to command-at-sea, as the goal of every line officer, must know how to utilize best his communications system, not the inner workings of the equipment/components. The Navy of the next decade will require:
• A large number of junior officers serving in operating communication billets afloat and ashore—about the same number as we now have, but all of whom should have a short introductory course in naval communications, such as that now given in the schools command at Newport or at the Fleet Training Center, San Diego.
• A technical group of officers built around the LDO/Warrant group who are the electronic material officers. These are supplemented by a small number of engineering duty officers in design and production billets.
• A group of communication subspecialists who are unrestricted line officers of lieutenant rank and above, whose postgraduate education or training and experience fits them for senior communication billets afloat and ashore.
• A smaller group of communications engineers, holding baccalaureate degrees but who are also subspecialists, to fill designated billets afloat and ashore requiring the best possible experience level in communications coupled with command-at-sea operational experience.
It should be noted that this article is dealing with the average officer who might qualify as a specialist or subspecialist—not individuals. There are always exceptions to every rule, particularly when one attempts to plan the careers of officers and detail them to billets. No two humans are exactly alike, and any discussion of personnel must address the average and not specific cases. Previously it was noted that the communications specialist was not normally qualified to be the assistant chief of staff for communications on a fleet commander’s staff. This pertained to an average, for there have been exceptions to such a case in point quite recently and there will undoubtedly be in the future. The same would be true of almost any naval communication billet that could be manned.
In conclusion, let us remember that communications is the voice of command. Such a voice of command must be able to get through to all levels of our national organization, both civilian and military.
Those who plan for this voice of command must have a level of technical competence coupled with a full knowledge of the operational requirements to be satisfied. To obtain the latter they must be operationally competent themselves, and for us in the Navy this must include experience in command-at-sea. Only by having communicators who can aspire to command experience at sea, can we have a naval communications organization fully responsive to the ever-changing needs of the fleet commanders.