I sincerely hope the IWRON initiative addresses the ongoing cryptologic afloat issues, because what I recently heard is deeply concerning. I had a very serious 90-minute conversation with an 1810 currently serving on a DDG, and the situation described was unacceptable. While I won’t go into full detail, this officer—and the entire division—has been marginalized by the ship’s leadership. Even more troubling, there are eight other officers across the waterfront experiencing the same treatment, and all eight are planning to separate at their first opportunity.
This is a systemic problem that cannot be ignored. VADM Mike Vernazza needs to sit down directly with these junior officers, confront the issue head-on, and fix it—immediately. If that’s not possible, then leadership needs to make a hard decision: stop the bleeding and pull 1800s and CTRs off these ships altogether.
BT
From Navy Information Forces:
Day 2 of the NAVIFOR Commanders’ Summit is complete!
The energy and focus continue today as our Information Warfare leaders are diving deeper into the key topics that will define our future success: technology and talent.
Breakout sessions are in full swing, with commanders and subject matter experts discussing how we can best integrate cutting-edge tools like Artificial Intelligence and, most importantly, how we recruit, train, and retain the brilliant sailors who operate them.
It’s all about making sure our people have the advantage. We’re proud of the collaborative work being done here to build a more lethal and ready Navy!
Station HYPO 
31 March 2026 at 18:35
It is always interesting that the crypto guys get brushed aside and not respected.
Being a CT5 1961 – 1967 Kamiseya, Japan there was always scuttle butt about how we were special and looked down upon We busted our rear ends to do the best we could to defend our Navy on the seas in the Pacific area +++ Europe +++ and rarely get an attaboy
It was the best time of my life and would do it over again even though I am 86 year old
God bless the US Navy CT group
Tom Luyster
LikeLike
31 March 2026 at 18:52
Pulling 1810s and CTs off ships would be detrimental to afloat cryptology. IWOs and CT Chiefs afloat WHO BECOME AN ACTIVE PART OF THE SHIP can build massive respect and trust in SSES, the EW Mod, and the IWC as a whole. Unfortunately, to many want to hide behind the SSES door and not be active in the wardroom or mess. It crushes our community. Instead of shying away from afloat cryptology being pcs afloat we need to embrace it. Become part of the ship and part of the crew. Stand watch in Combat, learn to fight the ship, and be an active voice in tactics, planning, and daily briefs.
Removing IWOs and CTs from ships just gives the perception of our community thinking we’re special and grows the divide between us and the other communities. Missions will become more difficult to accomplish and our intel/I&W less trusted.
LikeLike
31 March 2026 at 19:42
agree with anon above at 1852. It’s on the sses leadership to get out and make it known what they can bring to the fight and how they contribute to the running of the ship. When I was a CRC I heard this a lot … in most cases the sses leadership was self-marginalizing and needed some guidance on how to ingrate. LT, CTRC, and CTR1 standing tactical watches go a long way in this regard
LikeLike
31 March 2026 at 20:25
A marginalized attitude toward CT’S wasn’t only afloat, 1976-79 site Seminole., Homestead. I returned from Gelata Island Canal Zone 30 day TAD back to Homestead, next day was a pick and choose who of us received awards for the deployment. 3 marines, 3 sailors went, guess who didn’t receive an award. Needless to say our leadership was lacking. Never got any better, 4 months later I rotated into a civilian, can you believe they wanted me back in? Maybe it was cause I was a good R brancher. No thanks.
LikeLike
31 March 2026 at 22:42
Not surprised I made it just shy of 10 years and gave up just got tired of being marginalized and at times worse. This is not new been going on for a long time, at one command I spent almost my entire tour working with a CPO CT in the supply office.
LikeLike
1 April 2026 at 09:55
As much as I hate to say it, this has been the issue at least since 2008 when I came in. Part of the problem is lack of resources, lack of understanding of our capabilities and limitations by the SWO community, and the lack of tangible effects. It’s really easy to see the effect of a gun or missile system. But in our world, if we do our job right, you’ll never see anything. That is a hard concept to grasp even for the most understanding of the Surface Warfare community. To add insult to injury, we are increasingly reliant on bandwidth heavy tools, or systems that we cannot access afloat, and you’ve got a recipe for stagnation and dissatisfaction. If we want alfoat cryptology to continue to be relevant, we need to find ways to adapt. We need to train our Sailors better, we need to ensure that our most senior CTRs afloat have ample afloat experience. It is unacceptable that we force First Classes and Chiefs into CRUDES or CVN billets that don’t have experience in those realms. Allow those members to remain expeditionary, subsurface, or in aviation. There are so many ways that we can be better, the decision makers just have to ask the right people.
LikeLike
1 April 2026 at 11:25
A couple of comments here amount to “get good.” If you’d rather blame an O2 or O3 who was put in charge of a few civilians at NSA then squeezed through an IWO pin before getting sent to a ship for the first time than address structural, training, and integration problems that are being reported up, then sure that’s traditional O4 thinking, but it’s not exactly effective. I can guarantee you that none of the commenters saying that sort of thing in this thread have ever dealt with the current conditions on the ground. Pull the CTRs and 1810s if you care about effective SIGINT at sea. Let them be riders and focus on training and application at the COEs instead of getting tied up with nonsense that a BM could do. IWOs have a choice. Focus on SWO quals to have a glimmer of a chance at being integrated with the Wardroom and maybe after 1.5 years convince the XO that what youre doing is kinda important while never actually doing that job, or focus on getting good at the job you were sent there to do, but be ostracized. The only IWOs who get integrated are warrants who already have ship experience. There is no middle ground here. The choice is clear, in a conflict, you need competent Sailors. IWOs will never be integrated anyway, so stop trying to force a round peg into a square hole.
LikeLike
1 April 2026 at 12:39
Being a CT officer seems a tough slog. Keep grinding through as best you can, shipmates. I don’t pretend to understand the officer experience. Honestly, it may seem strange, but I rarely dealt with officers. They were always kind of “other.” The enlisted world is a bit simpler, but it does have its own shifty mechanics. The officer world adds another layer within itself. I was never a chief, so I can’t speak to that part of the enlisted experience. When it came to dealing with khaki, it was the goat locker that was front-and-center for me.
My experience as a cryptologist at sea was 30 years ago at NSGA Rota, Spain, during 1996-1998. I served as a CTI direct support operator to COMSIXFLT (which was officer top-heavy, of course) and multiple ships in the Persian Gulf including USS BENFOLD’s maiden deployment when Commander D. Michael Abrashoff was her captain. He was an amazing captain, who even made us riders feel like part of the crew. I can’t say the same for the other ships I was on, but the CICs did rely on our information. We were the quiet, squirrely professionals in the little closet in the back corner. Easily forgotten, which was fine for us enlisted chaps. Just voices on a comlink. We CTIs working DIRSUP out of Bahrain did stand out by walking around in desert cammies. Damn, they were comfy. Well, those two years were the best time of my life. I’d definitely do it all over again.
Fair winds and following seas to all you active duty cryptologic warriors!
David G. Dvorak
CTI1(SW), USN Veteran
LikeLike
1 April 2026 at 13:48
I’m an old Chief, at that. My experience with officers was limited – because officers in the Naval Security Group Command were not cryptologic analysts and reporters. Officers were managers of divisions, departments, and commands.
Enlisted personnel performed cryptologic acquisition, analysis, processing, and reporting and, depending on their rate, were appointed by officers to serve as section supervisors, LPOs/LCPOs, etc.
I never worked for or directly with Navy Intelligence Command staff, either officer or enlisted. In my days, NIC and NSG were separate. The rare times when I was associated with NIC, the association was not amicable and taught me that NIC officers seldom believed cryptologic data provided by CNSG elements, deployed or not.
Donald White, CTIC(SS), veteran of 15 DIRSUP deployments
LikeLike
1 April 2026 at 17:44
@anon 1125 above — I disagree. Many of us who are not Warrants (or LDOs) have integrated and done both aspects of the job well. Im curious if you’d make the same argument for Sonar? I always thought Sonar was sses just in a different domain and there are many similarities between the two afloat (highly specialized skills, a lot of schools not a ton to do inport, have a relatively secure division space in which to hide out in …). What about OSs?
LikeLike
2 April 2026 at 02:57
I was “encouraged” to choose Cryptologic Technician. I was an 18 year old CTR Honor Graduate “Selected” and “offered” At Sea. Only the 4th OUTBOARD TEAM Navy Wide. Proudest moments of my 6 years.
WE, At Sea, should be embraced. Not put on a pedestal, but certainly respected by ANY CO and thwir Leadership.
I dare them to do what We do.
Chris Cuberos CTR2 SW
LikeLike
2 April 2026 at 13:23
Pull them from PCS afloat, fully commit to DIRSUP or fully remote. Surface cryptology is a joke at this point. CTTs and CTRs are ill-prepared for working SIGINT 40 hrs/week, 52 wks/yr when they rotate to shore duty as their duties on the ship often include prolonged periods of shipyard/pierside/etc. Even when underway, many of the tasks that they perform could be easily automated. Their evals are padded with SOIs from auto-detectors. A halfway decent national shop creates a far better operator than an SSES or CIC. There’s no way we compete with PRC if we continue to staff afloat CTTs, CTRs, and 1810s in a way that aligns with what SWOs have grown accustomed to, as it’s a model based on cold war tech and capabilities. We NEED to leverage the developments of the past 10-15 that serve as force-multipliers for the CT community as it relates to surface warfare.
LikeLike