Wednesday, May 26, 2010

All wonks to the NOC


Your reading assignment for the day. 112 pages - get to work. You feedback welcome in comments - I'll do another post soon on my specific thoughts.
UNCLASSIFIED//
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N00//
TO NAVADMIN
UNCLAS
NAVADMIN 183/10
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N00/MAY//
SUBJ/NAVAL OPERATIONS CONCEPT 2010//
RMKS/1. TODAY, THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, THE COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD, AND I RELEASED THE NAVAL OPERATIONS CONCEPT 2010 (NOC 10).
2. DEVELOPED WITH THE SAME COOPERATIVE SPIRIT AND UNITY OF EFFORT THAT PRODUCED THE MARITIME STRATEGY, NOC 10 DESCRIBES HOW, WHEN, AND WHERE UNITED STATES NAVAL FORCES WILL CONTRIBUTE TO PREVENTING CONFLICT AND PREVAILING IN WAR, AND EMPHASIZES HOW THE NAVY, MARINE CORPS, AND COAST GUARD WILL WORK TOGETHER IN CONCERT WITH A HOST OF JOINT, INTERAGENCY, AND MULTINATIONAL PARTNERS.
3. NOC 10 DETAILS THE WAYS IN WHICH THE SEA SERVICES WILL ACHIEVE THE ENDS ARTICULATED IN THE MARITIME STRATEGY. NOC 10 IS ORGANIZED AROUND, AND EXPANDS UPON, THE SIX CORE CAPABILITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE MARITIME STRATEGY: FORWARD PRESENCE, DETERRENCE, SEA CONTROL, POWER PROJECTION, MARITIME SECURITY, AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE/DISASTER RESPONSE. IT DESCRIBES HOW WE USE THE SEA AS MANEUVER SPACE AND EMPLOY NAVAL FORCES ACROSS THE FULL RANGE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS.
4. THE CONCEPT IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT
WWW.NAVY.MIL/MARITIME/NOC. ALL HANDS SHOULD READ IT; OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHOULD INCORPORATE IT INTO CURRICULA; AND TRAINING OFFICERS SHOULD TRAIN TO IT, TALK ABOUT IT, AND ENGAGE EACH OTHER AND LEADERSHIP IN DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING ITS CONTENT. AS I VISIT THE FLEET IN THE COMING MONTHS, I LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING IN ONGOING DIALOGUE ABOUT OUR NEW CONCEPT.
5. RELEASED BY ADMIRAL G. ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS.

UPDATE: An epic Navy NCO win! As per ender in comments - on page 31 you see the Sailor as he is. Photo on right. I've saved the original PDF in case they change it. I advise that you do the same.
UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: Via our buddy Phil's TheScoopDeck, if you want your own "NOC Patch" - click here.

18 comments:

ender said...

Outstanding.  Pg 31, EOD2's chest patch...$hit magnet.  No matter how powerful the concepts or flashy the writing, someone always forgets to have a cynical Sailor check the pictures.  I love it, but I am sure someone is gnashing their teeth somewhere...

Curtis said...

All evidence to the contrary it appears that one can get a 4 star to sign anything.  I would be ashamed if something/anything like this appeared with my signature.  Just look at the adaptive force package shite.  I got kind of a kick out of a USMC Col from C7F  telling the senior rep from NECC that nobody in the navy could ever possibly form an adaptive force package since that involved joint level multi service authority and approval.  At that point had been doing it and sending them out the door for almost 6 years.  It boiled down to language.  derka derka

OldCavLt said...

110 pages?

Cliff's, please?

JUUUUUUST kidding.

韋于倫成 said...

Custom makes all things easy~~加油哦........................................

Grumpy Old Ham said...

I would buy one or two of those patches if someone were to make them available for sale.

Not sayin', just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

The modern equivilant of WWII combat aircraft nose art, and reminds me of a great story about a Navy CAPT trying to adopt BOHICA as the ship's battle cry.  GREAT CATCH CDR SALAMANDER!

Spade said...

SKD Tactical and a bunch of others have 'em.

John said...

Is there something wrong with damn 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper?  

Salty Gator said...

as soon as the NOC came out the aviator in my office caught that.  We were laughing our asses off at how many admirals and generals had to approve the DRAFT before it went to press....

Salty Gator said...

I want to know who held a gun to the CMC's head for him to call the USMC "a ___force for good" in the opening paragraph.

Anonymous said...

I remember dealing with this...document...back in the day.  So many people with stars on felt entitled to have to sign off on it, without any of them being in a room to talk about same, that the result was cold oatmeal.  I scanned it; looks like the same flavor of oatmeal, pretty much.

Aside for having 122 pages of "This is the Department of the Navy", what value does this document have that was worth the man-hours of the people involved?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

SECDEF.  And CJCS.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

The submarine force section is commendably brief.  As close to totally silent as possible given that the objective was obviously to stay as shallow as possible while exposing as little as possible. 

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Thinking deep, proceeding silently.  All to the good.

Of course, quantity has a quality of its own. With 10 boomers, in toto, there might be a problem delivering on the implied promise in a couple of paragraphs. 

But a cynic might say something similar about the rest of the force levels of the future and  the prose therein.

But one shouldn't be too harsh. "You've got have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you goin' to have a dream come true"  (verse from"Happy Talk", solo by "Bloody Mary", South Pacific, by Rogers and Hammerstein).

Classic stuff.

Pretty pictures too.

NaCly Dog said...

http://www.skdtac.com/MSM_Patch_Shit_Magnet_p/msm.122.htm

bullnav said...

Any bets as to how long before we see a NAVADMIN specifying the new approval chain for patches on the ACU for Navy personnel?

Grumpy Old Ham said...

Thanks!  Looks like they have many non-PC patches:

http://www.skdtac.com/Morale_Patches_s/269.htm

Ground Sailor said...

Actually, there already is- and it specifies pretty much just the Navy Jack, the Ensign, and a combat patch if you're entitled. But that patch is on his RBAV, which lacks guidance, because it's not a uniform item. And he's wearing three color desert, not ACU's- the crows shoulda told you that!

OnceAMarine said...

Just finished all the light reading - thanks for the assignment CDR.  In comparing the 2010 NOC with those of 2002 and 2006 I found the contrasts startling.  Further, when you read the CNO Guidance of 2002 it begins "Fight and Win" and the entire focus is on warfighting and victory - and it seems to bear little resemblance to what we have seen coming out of the Pentagon for the last two or three years and the "global force for whatever" nonsense.  Talk about being in the hurt locker...