Link to OPM website: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/344086200

The vacancy announcement has been posted on USAJOBS for the Director, Electronic and Cyber Warfare Division.  The announcement opens Wednesday, 05/22/2013 and closes on Friday, 06/21/2013.

JOB SUMMARY:

This position is in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service (DISES), a small elite group of top government leaders.  DISES members possess a diverse portfolio of experiences including strong skills to lead across organizations.  As an executive, you will influence the direction of innovation and transformation of the federal government and lead the next generation of public servants.

The incumbent serves as the Director, Electronic and Cyber Warfare Division (N2/N6F3) for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Information Dominance.  N2/N6F3 exercises resource sponsorship for electronic and cyber warfare (ECW) systems, to include the supporting Manpower, Training, Readiness and Operations for Warfare wholeness.  In addition, the incumbent is responsible for the development, management, and execution of Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA), Anti-ship Missile Defense (ASMD), Counter Command Control Communications, Computers, Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance (C-C4ISR), Electromagnetic Spectrum Maneuver Warfare, Offensive Cyber Operations (OCO) and Joint Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (IED) EW (JCREW) for surface, air, submarine and expeditionary forces.

Also, I am extremely pleased to report the Senate’s confirmation of the appointments of Captains Nancy Norton, Bob Sharp and Tim White to Rear Admiral (Lower Half). On behalf of the entire Information Dominance Corps, I very proud to welcome you into the flag ranks!  Congratulations!

Please take a moment to reflect on our deployed forces and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Have a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend!
VR, Kendall

Ms. Kimberly Powell, winner of CAPT (S) Kurt W. Juengling, USN Scholarship Award

Kimberlee Powell has been named as the recipient of the prestigious CAPT Kurt Juengling Scholarship award, based on her academic and athletic achievements, extracurricular activities and community service.

The scholarship is named for Kurt Juengling, who was a rising star in Naval Intelligence. His record of achievement earned his selection to Captain on the FY-12 promotion list. While in Iraq for a second tour, he was presented with the Bronze Star by then-Commanding General , General Ray Odierno, USA.

Kurt later died died of complications associated with wounds received in an improvised explosives device during his second tour in Iraq.

The award of this scholarship is highly significant, since it is awarded to college-bound dependent children of Naval Intelligence Reservists. It was endowed in honor of the sacrifice made by the Naval Intelligence Reserve cadre, of which Kurt Juengling was a proud member.

The $2,000 scholarship will help Kimberlee Powell on her educational journey, which is in keeping with her aspiration to follow the highest traditions of the Naval Service.

The Kurt Juengling is part of the Rear Admiral Sumner Shapiro Scholarship Program, and was awarded in conjunction with the four other annual scholarships administered by the Foundation Committee of the Naval Intelligence Professionals. They are named in honor of Vice Admiral Donald E. Engen; Captain Anthony D. Sesow; Captain Richard Ward Bates; and Commander Dan F. Shanower.

All of these scholarships have comparable competition requirements and financial award levels.

Founded by NIP in 1988, NIF is a tax exempt, charitable and educational organization created for the sole purpose of soliciting, receiving, and administering funds and property in order to advance knowledge in the art of Naval and Maritime Intelligence, and to recognize and reward academic excellence and professional achievement in the field of Intelligence.
NIF draws its support from the NIP membership and from other individual and corporate sponsors and supporters of Naval Intelligence.

If you wish to contribute to the Admiral Sumner Shapiro Scholarship Program, please make checks payable to the Naval intelligence Foundation and send them to:

Naval Intelligence Professional Foundation Committee
P.O. Box 2383
Springfield, VA 22152-2383

Front Row (L-R): CDR Joseph Dupre, CDR Chistopher Slattery, CDR Julia Slattery, CAPT Kathy Creighton, CAPT Joseph Spegele, RADM Samual Cox, CAPT David McAllister
Back Row (L-R): ISCS Michael Medina, CDR Bertram Jennings, CDR James Hammond, CDR Brent Marquand, CDR Paul Schirmer, Mr. Dale Wright, Mr Marty Adams, Mr. Tom Kirby

RADM Cox held an IDC All Hands call and visited with many of the commands at NSA Bahrain. Represented in the photo are senior IDC leaders from NAVCENT, NTCS Bahrain, NIOC Bahrain and NCIS.

To the Naval Intelligence Community,

I’m running behind because I just got back from a trip to NAVCENT Bahrain, but I wanted to express my congratulations to those great naval intelligence officers selected for promotion to commander on the most recent board. Well done, and well deserved by all those selected!

Special Duty Officer (Intelligence)
Billingsley Bernard 0021                                         Brown Bradley Davis Jr 0010
Buschmann Jeffrey Patr 0023                               Castleberry James Lest 0006
Crowe David Manning 0011                                   Foss Brian M 0004
Fraser Joseph Daniel 0007                                    Goad Tyler Lowen 0026
Horning Jamie Linn 0018                                      Koenig Grant Matthew 0014
Lehmkuhler Kristi A 0013                                      Lowe George Michael 0015
Merchant James Thomas 0017                             Molett Marcelle Louise 0024
Moore Stephany Lyn 0016                                     Pulgar Krishna Carlota 0009
Rice Darren E 0022                                                 Riley Kyle Patrick 0003
Sampa Charleese Ruth 0019                                  Samuel Lensworth Ander 0008
Simon Risa Beth 0012                                             Simpson Chad Eric 0020
Smaha John Michael Jr 0001                                Smith Christopher Haro 0002
Storey Bradley John 0025                                      Teague Robert James 0005

Like the most recent captain’s board, this board was one of the toughest in memory to make 0-5 because of the smaller than usual promotion percentage and small zone size. The board members had a very difficult challenge in selecting from the very talented and accomplished pool of officers in contention, so I commend the board for their work.

There were a number of great officers who were not selected on this board, simply because there are not enough promotion opportunities, and their performance was judged to be only slightly less great than those who were selected. In a number of cases, the difference was probably razor thin.  Every officer that was in contention for selection on this board, is a dedicated professional, who had made a commitment to a career of service to our nation and the United States Navy, and whose families have made great sacrifice for them to do so. For that, we should all be grateful for their service. Each officer who was not selected will have to determine what is the best course for them and their families; and any that so choose are welcome to contact me directly to discuss your options. I would strongly encourage these officers to stay in the fight; they have talent and experience that is still extremely valuable to our business.

For those who were fortunate enough to be selected, I would just remind that you were selected not as a reward for what you have accomplished, but in expectation of what you will accomplish by virture of your leadership potential. And for those who were selected, you have reached a level where it is no longer about you. It is about what you give back to the nation, our navy, and in particular to those junior officers and enlisted who are looking to you to lead and to set the example. It may not have sunk in to you yet, but you are now the “old man” (and I guess I should say “old woman”) and our junior personnel will imprint on you like baby ducklings, and your effect on the future generations of naval intelligence intelligence now becomes truly significant…and your effect on the accomplishment of Navy missions just as significant.

The next hurdle for those who were selected is the 0-5 milestone board in late summer, which over the course of two boards will cut this list of new 0-5′s roughly in half. The milestone board is the toughest of all boards I have been a member of, because it is really hard to make that cut. Those who have made 0-5 need to carefully weigh your family’s needs and tolerance for sacrifice. Making 0-6 is not worth loosing your family. But, URLs do not quibble over what command they get, nor should you. Negotiate hard with the detailer for what you want, but you should be prepared to go to any 0-5 milestone billet that is offered. If you screen for milestone, and then choose not to go, you have just deprived another great officer of the opportunity – only the gravest of family emergencies should keep an officer from executing milestone orders once selected.

Again, my congratulations for those who were selected, and my gratitude for the service and sacrifice of those who were not.

Samuel J. Cox
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy
- Director, National Maritime Intelligence Integration Office
- Commander, Office of Naval Intelligence
- Naval Intelligence Community Leader

ForeignPolicy.com
May 16, 2013
Breaking The Kill Chain
How to keep America in the game when our enemies are trying to shut us out.
By Adm. Jonathan Greenert and Gen. Mark Welsh

Our military services and national security leaders are consumed right now with reductions to defense budgets. Whether from years of continuing resolutions, sequestration, or just less funding in general, our military will have to adjust to getting fewer dollars to protect our nation’s security interests. At the same time, the world continues to present challenges to U.S. interests, including instability in North Africa and the Middle East, regular provocations from Iran and North Korea, and territorial disputes between China and its neighbors. Our military will need an affordable and effective approach to counter coercion and assure access to places where conflict is most likely and consequential.

The caps established in 2011 by the Budget Control Act place defense spending at the same level as the early 2000s. This level of funding was sufficient to organize, train, and equip a force able to defeat Saddam Hussein’s military, deter Chinese aggression against Taiwan, and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. But our fiscal situation is different today. Personnel and infrastructure maintenance costs have risen by double-digit percentages since 2003 as our services took on new missions, such as defending allies from ballistic missiles and countering piracy and illicit trafficking. Meanwhile, our competitors are more capable than a decade ago thanks to proliferation of weapons and other military technology. Less funding will compel us to reprioritize our efforts and make some hard choices with respect to the size and shape of our forces. This does not mean we will be unable to address our nation’s security needs, but we will need to focus our investments and operations on our most important interests.

The Defense Strategic Guidance issued in January 2012 assessed our security environment and fiscal circumstances following the first set of BCA-imposed budget reductions. Although we are reevaluating that strategy in light of potential additional cuts imposed by sequestration, one of the most significant challenges the strategy identified remains a concern: the dedicated effort by some nations and groups to prevent access to parts of the “global commons” — those areas of the air, sea, cyberspace, and space that no one “owns,” but upon which we all depend. These “anti-access” strategies employ military capabilities, geography, diplomatic pressure, and international law to impede the free use of ungoverned spaces. The Air-Sea Battle concept — which disrupts the so-called “kill chains” of our potential adversaries — is our services’ approach to negate these efforts.

A new form of coercion
Nations seeking to intimidate their neighbors are turning to anti-access strategies because they are cost-effective. Merely threatening to close key maritime crossroads such as the Strait of Hormuz or demonstrating the ability to cut off a country from cyberspace or international airspace can be an effective tool for regional and international coercion. Similarly, these capabilities can be applied to prevent or slow U.S. or allied assistance from arriving in time to stop or repel an attack — providing an aggressor much greater leverage over neighbors who depend on allies for security.

Three well-known developments made this shift in our competitors’ strategy possible. One, the world economy has become more interconnected, so impediments at air or maritime chokepoints have a much faster global impact. Two, technological advances in sensing and precision have spurred the development of more lethal air defenses and anti-ship cruise missiles; cheaper, more integrated surveillance systems; and new weapons, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles. Improvements in automation have made these systems easier to use while proliferation has put them in the hands of a range of potential new adversaries. And three, the American way of projecting force changed from placing bases and garrisons close to potential battlefields to a more expeditionary strategy whereby a smaller overseas presence is supported by forces that can surge into the area from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

In history there are numerous examples of anti-access capabilities and strategies. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” used aircraft, gun emplacements, and mines during World War II to disrupt access to France during the D-Day landings at Normandy. Mines were used in the Arabian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq “tanker war” of the 1980s to hinder the passage of both countries’ oil. Serbian forces and Saddam Hussein each employed Cold War-era air defenses in an attempt to deter intervention by NATO and a U.S.-led coalition respectively. Anti-access strategies have always been employed to increase the cost of intervention beyond an acceptable level and show potential victims of aggression that help is not likely to come. Today, however, anti-access capabilities have much greater range and lethality. And they are typically employed as part of an overall strategy in peacetime alongside legal, diplomatic, and geographic means to deny access even before a conflict occurs.

Anti-access strategies also undermine our ability to stabilize crises. Suppose an aggressor threatens to attack a country within range of its anti-access military capabilities. If we cannot reliably defeat the aggressor’s array of cruise and ballistic missiles, submarines, aircraft, etc. and project power, U.S. forces will be less able to move into the area to interdict attacks, reassure our allies, and defuse potential hostilities.

The Air-Sea Battle concept
The Air-Sea Battle concept, approved by the secretary of defense in 2011, is designed to assure access, defeat anti-access capabilities, and provide more options to national leaders and military commanders. Air-Sea Battle is one of the operational concepts nested within the overarching Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC) — the Joint Force’s approach to defeating threats to access. Air-Sea Battle is not focused on one specific adversary, since the anti-access capabilities it is intended to defeat are proliferating and, with automation, becoming easier to use. U.S. forces need a credible means to assure access when needed to help deter aggression by a range of potential adversaries, to assure allies, and to provide escalation control and crisis stability.
Some examples of where Air-Sea Battle may apply include the Arabian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, where a favorable location provides Iran the ability to threaten the production and passage of almost 20 percent of the world’s oil. If Iran can demonstrate or credibly assert that it can prevent or slow a U.S. response to its aggression, it is more able to coerce its neighbors or the international community. In the eastern Mediterranean, the government of Syria has deployed an array of modern anti-air missile systems to raise the costs of outside intervention in its ongoing civil war. And in the Pacific, North Korea has already demonstrated its willingness to employ anti-access capabilities with the sinking in 2010 of the South Korean ship, Cheonan.

Air-Sea Battle is not a military strategy; it isn’t about countering an invasion; it isn’t a plan for U.S. forces to conduct an assault. Air-Sea Battle is a concept for defeating threats to access and enabling follow-on operations, which could include military activities as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster response. For example, in the last several years, improved integration between naval and air forces helped us respond to floods in Pakistan and to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Normally, operational concepts are developed by commanders to carry out a specific set of actions in their area of responsibility. In contrast, the military services are using JOAC and Air-Sea Battle to guide their efforts to organize, train, and equip forces provided to operational commanders. Further, we are integrating these concepts into the tactics and procedures we develop to operate with our allies. This is similar to the effort in the 1980s to implement the “Air-Land” Battle concept and associated NATO concepts to defeat Soviet aggression in Central Europe. That effort resulted in programs such as the JSTARS radar aircraft that we still use to track targets on land. And while Air-Land Battle was focused on a singular threat and region, the idea of using a specific operational concept to guide investment is the same approach we are taking with Air-Sea Battle.

Breaking the ‘kill chain’
Air-Sea Battle defeats threats to access by, first, disrupting an adversary’s command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; second, destroying adversary weapons launchers (including aircraft, ships, and missile sites); and finally, defeating the weapons an adversary launches.

This approach exploits the fact that, to attack our forces, an adversary must complete a sequence of actions, commonly referred to as a “kill chain.” For example, surveillance systems locate U.S. forces, communications networks relay targeting information to weapons launchers, weapons are launched, and then they must hone in on U.S. forces. Each of these steps is vulnerable to interdiction or disruption, and because each step must work, our forces can focus on the weakest links in the chain, not each and every one. For example, strikes against installations deep inland are not necessarily required in Air-Sea Battle because adversary C4ISR may be vulnerable to disruption, weapons can be deceived or interdicted, and adversary ships and aircraft can be destroyed.

U.S. forces need not employ “symmetrical” approaches to counter each threat — shooting missiles down with missiles, sinking submarines with other submarines, etc. Instead, as described in the JOAC and Air-Sea Battle, we will operate across domains. For example, we will defeat missiles with electronic warfare, disrupt surveillance systems with electromagnetic or cyberattacks, and defeat air threats with submarines. This is “networked, integrated attack” and it will require a force that is designed for — and that regularly practices — these kinds of operations.

Building a truly ‘joint’ force
Conducting operations across domains requires rapid and tight coordination between air, ground, and naval forces — a level of integration well beyond today’s efforts to merely pre-plan and deconflict actions between services. This integration can’t be achieved effectively and efficiently on an ad hoc basis. Forces must be “pre-integrated” — before the fight begins. This compels us to work more closely as we develop and prepare our forces.

Today, for example, instructors from the Navy’s “Top Gun” school routinely train with their counterparts at the Air Force Weapons School. As part of Air-Sea Battle we are pursuing this type of inter-service cooperation between all the services, as well as within each branch of each service. Just as in tactical aviation, we are expanding our doctrine integration to include additional areas of collaboration — such as Army air-defense forces and Marine reconnaissance units. With the doctrine, procedures, investment, and training included in Air-Sea Battle’s initiatives, we are moving from cooperation toward integration across domains. To foster integration we are directing an intensified approach to building common procedures, complementary budgets, combined exercises, and joint war games.

An essential prerequisite for cross-domain operations is communication and data links that connect sensors, decision-makers, and shooters armed with kinetic, electromagnetic, and cyber weapons. Our investments, guided by the Air-Sea Battle concept, are building increasingly robust networks able to communicate between each service’s platforms, even in a contested electromagnetic environment. Part of this effort is focused on the systems and procedures for Joint Tactical Networking to connect today’s aircraft and ships with new 5th generation aircraft, such as the F-35 and F-22.

Two recent tests advanced our efforts to promote Joint Tactical Networking. In the first, an Air Force F-22 provided updated targeting information to a Navy submarine-launched Tomahawk missile. Similarly, in September 2012 an Army Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) ashore successfully guided a U.S. Navy SM-6 surface-to-air missile to intercept an incoming cruise missile, demonstrating the ability to extend the range of an Aegis-equipped ship to well beyond the horizon and over land. These examples show how integrating capabilities from multiple services and domains combine to provide greater range and more options for commanders.

We cannot forget, however, that the enemy gets a vote. Electromagnetic jammers and decoys are becoming less expensive and easier to obtain, and they can emit more complex signals. Our communication networks will need to be resilient and redundant. We are investing together in new waveforms that are resistant to jamming while also building systems that can back up traditional satellite communications. Through the FY 2013 Air-Sea Battle Implementation Master Plan, our services will continue to pursue communication network improvements through technology development, war games, and the operational alignment of our Air and Maritime Operations Centers around the world.

By improving our integration, we improve our combined capability to assure access without expensive new investments. A more efficient and effective force will provide a starting point for evaluating how and where we should address potential reductions in future defense budgets.

Keeping up the momentum
We continue to implement the Air-Sea Battle concept in three main ways: compelling institutional change, fostering conceptual alignment, and promoting programmatic collaboration.

Compelling institutional change. The Air-Sea Battle concept establishes a “new normal” for integration between services so they are able to conduct successful cross-domain operations. This approach will require breaking down traditional service and community paradigms. Each of our services and each of the communities (e.g., fighters, bombers, submarines, surface ships, satellites, cyber operators, patrol aircraft, etc.) within our services have decades of established tactics, procedures, and traditions that may not align with each other. We will have to eliminate some of these differences to become a more integrated force able to operate across domains. For example, fighter aircraft may be used as surveillance platforms to support submarines attacking air defenses, or submarines may operate remotely-piloted aircraft to support Marine special forces attacking a radar.

This change will take sustained effort. We established a joint Air-Sea Battle Office (ASBO) with representatives from each service to lead day-to-day implementation of the concept. The ASBO sponsors war games and simulations, assists with service-level doctrinal changes, and advises on budget decisions. Most recently, in December, the ASBO hosted 150 personnel from all four services for the 2012 Air-Sea Battle Implementation Working Group. Representatives from U.S. Central and Pacific Commands, as well as their supporting components, played prominent roles during the discussions. The working group made significant progress in solidifying the habitual relationships Air-Sea Battle will require between the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Fostering conceptual alignment. The ASBO promotes incorporation of Air-Sea Battle concept elements in service concepts and assures the Air-Sea Battle effort stays consistent with and supports the overarching Joint Operational Access Concept. For example, Air-Sea Battle was incorporated into each of the services’ war games during 2012. The Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warrior (March), Army’s Unified Quest (June), Navy’s Global (August), and Air Force’s Unified Engagement (December) included objectives that explored Air-Sea Battle as a way to meet anti-access challenges. The Air-Sea Battle focus increased with each successive game, culminating with Unified Engagement 12, a “table-top” wargame including about 300 participants from a dozen nations. This was the first Air-Sea Battle war game to include participation by our treaty allies. Allied participation will remain a priority going forward, with the intent of influencing multinational military concepts, tactics, and doctrine.

Promoting programmatic collaboration. The ASBO assesses service programs and budgets and recommends specific solutions to address Joint Force shortfalls against anti-access challenges. To most efficiently deliver solutions, the ASBO’s specific programmatic recommendations are coordinated between the services. Starting with the FY 2010 budget, application of the Air-Sea Battle concept has resulted in tangible investments to deliver the integrated, cross-domain capabilities required to defeat modern threats to access. Over the past two years these investments included the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile; Navy electronic warfare systems, such as Ship Signals Exploitation Equipment; and new data links for our fighters.

As part of its assessments, the ASBO is identifying redundancies across the services that can be eliminated. These efforts will be important as our resources become more constrained. For example, in the FY 2013 budget our services proposed reductions in Global Hawk unmanned vehicles, Air Force strike fighters, and Navy surface combatants. We will use the Air-Sea Battle concept to help integrate our force further and maintain our capability in the face of smaller budgets.

A challenge we can’t ignore
Some will argue the United States can afford to retrench and “reset” following more than a decade of war, with decreasing resources and without an existential threat such as the Soviet Union. We don’t have that luxury. Anti-access threats erode confidence in the freedom of the global commons that underpins our global economy. Nations are fielding and directly threatening their neighbors with anti-access systems. And potential aggressors are using these capabilities to assert that they can slow or prevent a U.S. response in order to undermine confidence in U.S. security guarantees.

The United States must sustain its capability to assure access when needed to counter these trends. Our services will continue to increase the integration of our training and improve our coordination in developing doctrine, operating concepts, new capabilities, and investment plans. We will need, however, the support of our partners in Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure this integration is implemented in our budgets and strategies. Through our combined efforts, Air-Sea Battle will assure continued U.S. freedom of action and with it our ability to deter aggression, maintain regional stability, dampen crisis, and assure our allies and partners.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert is the chief of naval operations, and General Mark Welsh is the chief of staff of the Air Force.

The Naval Intelligence Professionals Foundation Committee is pleased to announce the winners of the Rear Admiral Sumner Shapiro scholarship awards for the 2013-2014 academic year. This year five scholarships of $3000 each were awarded to five exceptionally strong candidates. Three of this year’s selectees have been awarded a NIP scholarship in the past, illustrating their continued excellence in scholastic achievement.

The five selectees for the 2013-2014 academic year are as follows:

Melissa K. Dullum of Virginia Beach, Virginia is the 2012 Captain George J. O’Donnell, Jr. Scholarship selectee. Melissa’s sponsor is her father, CAPT John M. Dullum, USN, currently assigned to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, N8 Directorate, Washington D.C. She will be continuing her education at a yet undetermined university to pursue a career in medicine.

Jacob W. Peabody of Honolulu, Hawaii is the 2013 VADM Donald D. Engen Scholarship selectee. Peabody’s sponsor is his father, CAPT Douglas A. Peabody, USN, currently assigned to the Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Operations Center, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. This is the fourth consecutive year Jacob has been awarded the VADM Engen Scholarship, and he will be starting his senior year at Vanderbilt University with a double major in Mathematics and Economics.

Kelsey M. Turner of Gainesville, Virginia is the 2013 Captain Richard W. Bates Scholarship selectee. Kelsey’s sponsor is her father, CAPT Alfred R. Turner V, USN, currently assigned to U.S. Fleet Cyber Command/U.S. Tenth Fleet, in Ft. Meade, Maryland. This is the third consecutive year she has been awarded the CAPT Bates scholarship, and she will be starting her junior year at University of Vermont with a double major in English and Art History.

Isaiah C. Gibson of Chula Vista, California is the 2013 Captain George J. O’Donnell, Jr., Scholarship selectee. Isaiah’s sponsor is his mother, LT Adriana M. Gibson, USN, currently assigned to HSC Weapons School Pacific in San Diego, California. He will be attending either California State University in Sacramento or Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, pursuing a degree in Business.

Laura E. Elliott of Chesapeake, Virginia is the 2013 Commander Dan F. Shanower Scholarship selectee. Laura’s sponsor is her father, CAPT Mark R. Elliott, USN, currently assigned to the Joint Staff J2 in Washington, D.C. This is the third consecutive year Laura has been awarded a NIP scholarship; she will be starting her junior year at University of Virginia with a double major in Economics and Drama.

Kimberlee P. Powell of Frederick, Maryland, is the 2013 Captain (Select) Kurt W. Juengling Scholarship selectee. Kimberlee’s sponsor is her father CTN1 Jimmie Lee Powell, USN, currently assigned to NR Commander Tenth Fleet at Fort Meade, Maryland. She will be attending Mercyhurst University in Erie, Pennsylvania, with a major in Intelligence Studies.

The Navy is most fortunate that such a talented naval officer and impressive leader has been nominated for this assignment. He is a highly decorated naval aviator with significant combat and leadership experience.  His complete biography is located at: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=426.

RADM Branch’s extensive operational background will most certainly sharpen and refine the capabilities and quality of information we provide to naval, joint and coalition warfighters. I am extremely confident he will lead you on to ever greater accomplishments.

I also need to remind you that, until he is confirmed by the Senate, any engagement or conversation with Ted about his new position must, by necessity, be highly limited. However, if you desire, you CAN call him to say congratulations on his nomination.

As we await his confirmation and arrival onboard, keep charging and keep smiling!

VR, Kendall

Over the last year, the Executive Board of the Naval Intelligence Professionals (NIP) has undertaken a review of our current communication and membership strategy with a view toward developing a program that reduces fixed costs, increases outreach to new members and generally improves our value preposition to the expanding members of the Information Dominance Corps.

Part of that review has been an assessment of the processes required to issue the NIP Quarterly. The hardcopy Quarterly has been centerpiece of our communications with the NIP membership for many years, however, we had to reconsider our continuation of that format for three reason: the amount of time required to produce each issue, the cost of hardcopy production and dissemination and the availability of alternative means of electronic dissemination.

• JR Reddig has been the sole editor, layout artist, and advertising salesman for the Quarterly for many years. It has been a labor of love, but for a variety of reasons it is time for him to do something different.

This year, Newsweek Magazine, an icon of the time when newsmagazines such as Time and US News & World report determined the political issues of the week, abandoned their print issue. Publisher Tina Brown described the process by which she arrived at her painful decision: “Currently, 39 percent of Americans say they get their news from an online source, In our judgment, we have reached a tipping point at which we can most efficiently and effectively reach our readers in all-digital format. This was not the case just two years ago. It will increasingly be the case in the years ahead.”

• We need to be straight about cost, just as Newsweek had to address it. For those in industry, you know how belts have been tightened to the small community which has supported the Quarterly down through the years. Each hard-copy issue costs $10,000 for printing and postage. Sponsorships help to defray the costs, but do not cover them in their entirety.
• The Executive Board, under the leadership of Jake Jacoby and Terry Roberts, has moved NIP to a firm financial foundation over the last few years. This firm foundation is allowing NIP and the Naval Intelligence Foundation to focus its financial resources on services to the membership, NIP Chapters, and the Information Dominance Corps and the important education scholarship opportunities. Freeing up the costs of two to three Quarterly issues per year can be rolled into those programs as well as improving our on line presence.
• The capabilities of the NIP web site (http://navintpro.net) have been steadily improving over the last several years due to the efforts of Dan Lawrence and Bob Gourley. It has, however, been very much a shoestring operation. With a modest additional investment, we intend to make the web site our primary outreach platform. This will allow us to speed the dissemination of NIP Chapter news, professional articles and announcements to the membership.

Our vision is to take the web site to the next level, with dynamic content and links to other sites of interest to the community. Already we have two definitive mailing lists and discussion vehicles- one of them is our own NIPMail, and it has dozens of participants and is a source for all manner of current and active maritime and geopolitical issues. Another timely and extremely useful resource is our own CAPT Jim Fanell’s “Red Star Rising” board on which any topic about the PRC is fair game, and the commentary is lively and leading edge.

Get with the discussions!

Bob Gourley and Dan Lawrence will have a tutorial coming to you on how best to access the portal, and make it a dynamic part of your on-line experience. I will continue to write for the Quarterly- but now you will see it the same day! http://www.navintpro.net. Our archives- including every Quarterly published- are at http://navintpro.org/

The future of the NIP Quarterly is not in doubt. It provides an opportunity for our professional membership to explore ideas, discuss lessons learned, and interact with their peers across the community. The on line dissemination will strengthen and improve that interaction and support the overall NIP program to build a truly integrated Information Dominance Corps.

We welcome your comments and suggestions on this new direction for the NIP Quarterly. Please send email comments to NAVINTPRO@aol.com, snail mail to:
PO Box 11579
Burke, Virginia 22009-1579

Very Respectfully,

J.R. Reddig
Arlington

The Scholarship Program was initiated by RADM (Ret.) Sumner Shapiro (Director of Naval Intelligence, 1978-1982) to recognize Naval Intelligence Professionals by providing financial assistance to college-bound children of active duty personnel. The program has grown to the 2013 level of six scholarships for $3,000 each. Eligibility has also expanded to reflect the realities of the “total force” concept to include children of sponsors in the Naval Intelligence Reserve Program and to enlisted personnel pursuing higher education.

This year marks the continuance of a renewed tradition for the Naval Intelligence family in and around the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. To maximize participation, we’ll leverage the geographic convenience of Andrews AFB to the Office of Naval Intelligence, and hope for sunny afternoon weather on the Friday following Labor Day.

The field limit is 144 players, and is expected to fill fast. Pre-registration is a must and can be accomplished either online, or through regular mail prior to August 28th at 11 PM with the following pricing options:

• Single Entry Fee: $95
• Foursome Entry: $340
• Awards Dinner Only: $50
• Corporate Sponsor: $600 (Includes Foursome Entry Fee and Hole Sponsorship/Tee ID)
• Sponsor an ONI Sailor: $75 (*)

(*) NIF members wishing to sponsor tournament greens fees for an ONI member (Enlisted only) can do so for the price of 75 dollars each. You can do this online or through regular mail, but you must forward your intentions to NIFGolfTournament@gmail.com PRIOR TO 2 August to allow sufficient time to gain the required approval.

On-Line pre-registration can be done at Eventbrite using the following link: http://www.nifgolf2013.eventbrite.com

Online pre-registration closes at 11 PM on August 28th. Following completion, E-mail NIFGolfTournament@gmail.com with your desired foursome for cart / team assignments.

Alternatively, Regular Mail pre-registration must be completed prior to August 28th. Make checks payable to the Naval Intelligence Foundation or NIF, and mail to the attention of:

J. Todd Ross
PO Box 151442
Alexandria, VA 22315.

On-site registration will be available starting at Noon on 6 September, but must be completed by 1:30 PM to support a prompt shotgun start at 2 PM. The format will be a speed-of-play-conscious Florida Scramble (modified) with a maximum score of Bogey. Your registration fee includes Green Fee, Power Cart, Unlimited Range Balls, on-course beverages, Pasta Buffet Dinner and Door Prizes, as well as appropriate awards and recognition for Team Low Gross, Team Low Net, Closest-to-the-Pin and Longest Drive. Mulligans will be sold on site for 10 dollars each, a maximum of three per individual for 25 dollars, or a total of 13 per foursome for 100 dollars.

Additional information will be posted on the Naval Intelligence Professionals Website and the NIP Discussion Group on LinkedIn.

http://www.navintpro.org

See you on the 6th of September…bring a friend. Bring three friends. Make donations to a worthy cause.

The NIF Golf Tournament Point of Contact is J. Todd Ross, NIFGolfTournament@gmail.com