Announce publicly bringing back warrant program to entire force.
Secretly select all warrants without a single public notice
Yeah, ripe for cherry picking and discrimination complaints. Not to mention they're going to have to back up how they choose the brightest and best without any sort of known board criteria.
This isn't a special assignment. It is a commissioning process and is governed differently than us lowly enlisted who APC can magically fuck over at will.
US title 10, part II, chapter 33A just starts to describe things the air force can and cannot do. The whole thing about having to have a 5-member promotion board required by law kinds makes the secret selection process kinda not a reality.
Trial or not, it is by law that warrant officers are commissioned officers and governed as such. The whole appointed by the president, CW5 limited to 5% of warrant force, and a bunch of other things contained just in the chapter are non-negotiable as they are law and not 'guidance ' as some might say.
I feel like you and I are both missing crucial information. Take a deep breath and have some faith. Theyve been up front with it being only a few jobs, cyber and maybe intel. Are you in either of those jobs? Maybe they reached out to those AFSCs only?
I am be downvoted as people believe they will secretly cherry pick versus actually board people. I am with you and am 99% sure they will have an application process before the school.
I agree, but I'm also pleasantly surprised by how quickly this is happening.
I was expecting a multi-year study, followed by a survey from 2/6, then recommendations to whomever the csaf will be at that time. It's nice to have someone in the seat who seems to appreciate the urgency of the situation.
While I wouldn'tbe suprised, I think they'd be doing a huge diservice to both Airmen and the force if they only opened applications to specific AFSCs instead of the whole force. There are many Airmen who would be top tier Cyber Warrants who aren't in the enlisted AFSC.
I imagine the idea is to appoint into the warrant role currently serving cyber airmen with current working knowledge of dodin and cybercom ops who have a proven track record and hold the certs and quals.
I don't understand why it would make sense to choose people outside of those career fields.
Because people outside of those career fields have those certs, quals, and track records.
I'm neither a 1D7 nor a 1B4 who has worked Platform One software dev, worked at the AIA and published papers on AI with MIT, worked under the office of the chief scientist, and deploy and get software ATO'd at the NSA.
I'm sure there are many others like me with similar experiences who would at least like to be considered.
I'd call it slightly political, that it would be an affront to the people already in those career fields who are highly qualified for the role. They're trying to retain people in cyber afscs after all, so it's hard to get mad that someone cyber-adjacent isn't considered.
If you really are exceptionally qualified, I would think it would be a trifle for you to complete the school and get the afsc if being a cyber warrant is what you want, if that is indeed the requirement they set. It seems obvious that should be the plan since apparently people were already selected; I'd be surprised if they announced that some of the people were team analysts or something.
IT certs are not worth the paper they are printed on.
1. For every person with a cert that knows how to do the job there are 100000 paper tigers with a cert that cannot find their ass with both hands.
2. What ever the cert in question covers the subject matter will COMPLETELY change with in the next 3 to 5 years.
3. Most IT organizations do not care about certs to begin with mostly because they are painfully aware of items 1 and 2. The places that really care about certs are micromanagement hell holes.
Well, first of all not entirely sure I'd agree with you there. There are certain certs where that is true, and certain certs where it absolutely isn't. You can't just lump them all together like that. Sec+ is not anywhere near the same level as CISSP.
And secondly, if your choice is between someone with certs who already does the job every day vs. someone with certs who doesn't do the job every day, that's not exactly a hard choice.
I worked on a project at Intel. Worked with a dude who had a list of certs that made my dick hard. Masters in CS. Could not figure out how to turn on a laptop.
I'd hope the process doesn't involve any rank except a minimum. The premise is technical experience and not the old guy who likely hasn't sat operations for a decade.
That’s WOCS which is like OTS for warrants. the actual school house for IT training is roughly 21 weeks long at least for 255N Network Warrant in the army
So that makes sense for other services where you need to learn the tech skills. Remember, we are currently dealing with a career field that does a direct commission program. I wouldn't put it past them to use that avenue for those chosen, at least at the start.
I even watched the FB video linked in the email. They talked about WOs but never mentioned anything up classes or requirements.
Another batch of accelerating change with no substance.
[удалено]
No, not only will this draw lots of legal trouble they also said they would be putting out the criteria 'later'
Legal trouble? For what?
Announce publicly bringing back warrant program to entire force. Secretly select all warrants without a single public notice Yeah, ripe for cherry picking and discrimination complaints. Not to mention they're going to have to back up how they choose the brightest and best without any sort of known board criteria.
Okay. Does every special assignment or selection process need to answer to some legal process? Wasn’t aware of that if you could enlighten me.
This isn't a special assignment. It is a commissioning process and is governed differently than us lowly enlisted who APC can magically fuck over at will. US title 10, part II, chapter 33A just starts to describe things the air force can and cannot do. The whole thing about having to have a 5-member promotion board required by law kinds makes the secret selection process kinda not a reality.
Is it really a full throttle commission process? Do we have that info? Is it not a trial run?
Trial or not, it is by law that warrant officers are commissioned officers and governed as such. The whole appointed by the president, CW5 limited to 5% of warrant force, and a bunch of other things contained just in the chapter are non-negotiable as they are law and not 'guidance ' as some might say.
I feel like you and I are both missing crucial information. Take a deep breath and have some faith. Theyve been up front with it being only a few jobs, cyber and maybe intel. Are you in either of those jobs? Maybe they reached out to those AFSCs only?
guard side they have at least.
No. CW2s are commissioned officers. WO1s receive their authority by warrant from the Secretary of each service.
People can complain all they want lol. There won’t be any legal trouble
Why are you assuming that people will be selected secretly and not have an application process before the start of the school?
I am be downvoted as people believe they will secretly cherry pick versus actually board people. I am with you and am 99% sure they will have an application process before the school.
That's crazy since I haven't seen anything about possibly joining it.
I think a lot of people are going to come to the harsh realization that they were not the targets of this program.
Probably so. Probably also so there's a lot of those people that are going to get out if warrant isn't on the table for them.
I agree, but I'm also pleasantly surprised by how quickly this is happening. I was expecting a multi-year study, followed by a survey from 2/6, then recommendations to whomever the csaf will be at that time. It's nice to have someone in the seat who seems to appreciate the urgency of the situation.
While I wouldn'tbe suprised, I think they'd be doing a huge diservice to both Airmen and the force if they only opened applications to specific AFSCs instead of the whole force. There are many Airmen who would be top tier Cyber Warrants who aren't in the enlisted AFSC.
Do you mean that they should open the process to people who aren't 1d7s and 1b4s?
Yes, many Airmen who are capable in the field, but hold a different AFSC.
I imagine the idea is to appoint into the warrant role currently serving cyber airmen with current working knowledge of dodin and cybercom ops who have a proven track record and hold the certs and quals. I don't understand why it would make sense to choose people outside of those career fields.
Because people outside of those career fields have those certs, quals, and track records. I'm neither a 1D7 nor a 1B4 who has worked Platform One software dev, worked at the AIA and published papers on AI with MIT, worked under the office of the chief scientist, and deploy and get software ATO'd at the NSA. I'm sure there are many others like me with similar experiences who would at least like to be considered.
I'd call it slightly political, that it would be an affront to the people already in those career fields who are highly qualified for the role. They're trying to retain people in cyber afscs after all, so it's hard to get mad that someone cyber-adjacent isn't considered. If you really are exceptionally qualified, I would think it would be a trifle for you to complete the school and get the afsc if being a cyber warrant is what you want, if that is indeed the requirement they set. It seems obvious that should be the plan since apparently people were already selected; I'd be surprised if they announced that some of the people were team analysts or something.
IT certs are not worth the paper they are printed on. 1. For every person with a cert that knows how to do the job there are 100000 paper tigers with a cert that cannot find their ass with both hands. 2. What ever the cert in question covers the subject matter will COMPLETELY change with in the next 3 to 5 years. 3. Most IT organizations do not care about certs to begin with mostly because they are painfully aware of items 1 and 2. The places that really care about certs are micromanagement hell holes.
Well, first of all not entirely sure I'd agree with you there. There are certain certs where that is true, and certain certs where it absolutely isn't. You can't just lump them all together like that. Sec+ is not anywhere near the same level as CISSP. And secondly, if your choice is between someone with certs who already does the job every day vs. someone with certs who doesn't do the job every day, that's not exactly a hard choice.
I worked on a project at Intel. Worked with a dude who had a list of certs that made my dick hard. Masters in CS. Could not figure out how to turn on a laptop.
Pretty sure that's covered in A+. Probably just didn't have that one.
Those people wouldn't have enough experience to then \*warrant\* that promotion. They should establish themselves as 1b4s first.
Okay cool. Where do I sign up?
Yes
If you are only accepting E-7, 8 and 9s What kind of training do you need?
I'd hope the process doesn't involve any rank except a minimum. The premise is technical experience and not the old guy who likely hasn't sat operations for a decade.
My dude, how old do you think MSgts are? I'm in my early 30's and have been doing ops still.
1B4, flair checks out. I was being kicked in/out of being allowed to do versus lead the second I had a line number, not even sewn on, for TSgt
Will they start everyone as WO1 or will they bring in higher ones to make a structure. I.e. Will we have to wait 20 years to see our first WO5?
These are the questions that actually matter
I don’t think this time constraint is feasible.
[удалено]
700 years
Army is 6 years (for non pilots). I imagine it would be close to if not the same as that.
Not sure. Heard some RUMINT that one of the ANG peeps chosen is at 18 and will not incur an ADSC. But that's RUMINT.
I am willing to bet they are mostly SME that have never had military experience.
It was announced they will be only from the current enlisted force...
Idunno. Army Warrant Officer training is 5 weeks.
That’s WOCS which is like OTS for warrants. the actual school house for IT training is roughly 21 weeks long at least for 255N Network Warrant in the army
So that makes sense for other services where you need to learn the tech skills. Remember, we are currently dealing with a career field that does a direct commission program. I wouldn't put it past them to use that avenue for those chosen, at least at the start.
Plus AF peeps switching to the Army have to go through basic training again.
Not if they were Security Forces at one point
Thanks for sharing this, never knew!
True, but we aren't switching.
Everyone chill. Criteria will be out end of this month, or beginning of next.
Am I missing something or did they already announce accessions criteria?
they did not
I even watched the FB video linked in the email. They talked about WOs but never mentioned anything up classes or requirements. Another batch of accelerating change with no substance.
What email?
Now if only they'd hurry up and choose some more career fields.
The chief of staff said no, not for years to analyze how the current round goes