By Seth Breen

As the U.S. Navy pivots toward preparing for high-end maritime conflict, the SWO community must ask itself a difficult question – Are we allocating our limited time to develop the warfighters we need, or are we clinging to legacy requirements that no longer align with the modern threat environment?

Train for the Fight, Not Just the Float

Currently, officers pursuing command at sea are required to be qualified as both Tactical Action Officer (TAO) and Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW). In the latest SWO Manual (SWOMAN) COMNAVSURFORINST 1412.7B, both are essential for future commanding officers, but this dual requirement deserves critical reexamination in light of today’s warfighting priorities. While being familiar with the engineering plant of the ship is essential, the EOOW qualification not only consumes a significant amount of time and bandwidth during the formative years of a SWO’s career, that time could be better spent developing tactical competencies that directly affect combat effectiveness, such as Surface Warfare Coordinator (SUWC) or Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (AAWC) qualifications.

For EOOW, the rationale is clear: an officer in command should understand the propulsion plant and engineering systems that keep the ship functioning and maneuverable. As a wise TOPSNIPE once told me when I was ELECTRO, “without engineering, a ship is just a well-armed barge,” and I agree entirely. In theory, EOOW promotes holistic leadership, reinforcing the notion that SWOs should be capable of leading in both engineering and warfighting domains, reinforcing the perception of SWOs as “a jack of all trades.” But as the threat of China looms and the Navy continues to fight in real-world combat operations, such as in the Red Sea, is a jack of all trades what we really need when a TAO, often a LT or LCDR, is the only thing standing between the Fire Inhibit Switch rolling green and a salvo of incoming anti-ship missiles?

EOOW demands intensive amounts of preparation, studying, and a significant number of watches under instruction (U/I) if a SWO is to properly deal with everyday operations and any equipment casualties by knowing the engineering operational casualty controls (EOCC). Yet this qualification is one that most SWOs will likely never stand as department heads in the future, even after they are qualified, except for the 30-day requirement outlined in the SWOMAN. Depending on the ship’s operational schedule and an officer’s timeline, EOOW is typically earned at the expense of a warfare coordinator watch. Officers who excel tactically but have not spent hours in CCS may find themselves disadvantaged in milestone screenings, despite being better prepared for the future fight.
This structure sends the wrong message that time spent tracing lube oil paths is as valued as managing an integrated air defense picture. Every hour spent qualifying for EOOW is an hour not spent studying tactics and rehearsing CIC scenarios. I found myself in a similar situation. As an FCO, despite qualifying as AAWC and Force AAWC, and being on track to qualify for TAO, I had to shift my focus and prioritize EOOW over TAO because it was required for future progression.

Tactical Proficiency: The Real Development Gap

The SWO pipeline offers multiple paths for junior officers to take between their first and second tours. This presents a tactical gap that exists between junior officers as they arrive at Surface Warfare Schools Command (SWSC) for department head school. Those who qualify for a coordinator watch during their divo tours have a major advantage in the future over those who do not. Getting that tactical experience early builds a foundational understanding of warfighting early in an officer’s career. These tactical watches train junior officers to interpret sensor data, build air and surface pictures, manage killchains, and coordinate fires—skills that directly translate to TAO and future command responsibilities. The department head TAO pipeline is only growing more complex and demanding as direct feedback from the fleet is received and lessons learned from current combat operations are applied. This evolving curriculum tests students’ understanding and application of the tactics they have learned. Officers with these tactical backgrounds arrive more confident, capable, and better prepared for the TAO curriculum, as the foundation has already been laid.

The SWO community has a solid groundwork for a better approach. To better align the qualification system with operational imperatives, the Navy should decouple the EOOW qualification from the command qualification. Instead, commands should ensure that the SWO-Engineering PQS is a robust qualification that provides SWOs with a strong familiarity with the engineering plant, but not to the level of a qualified senior enlisted EOOW. Instead, we should incentivize early qualifications in tactical watchstations, such as surface or air, during division officer tours. Unless the junior officer wants to be a Battle CHENG in the future, EOOW should not be a requirement. This reform would not compromise readiness, it would enhance it by placing more weight on tactical skill. Officers would still understand the fundamentals of shipboard engineering, but without the time-intensive watchstanding, they would then be able to devote more focus toward gaining deeper tactical insight and readiness for warfare.

When crisis escalates into conflict, can the Navy afford to wait months for department heads to complete lengthy pipelines? They spend six months at SWSC, followed by two to four months learning either AEGIS or SSDS. It could take longer than six months for one department head to arrive on a ship. If they had more tactical experience early in their careers, this would provide more flexibility for senior leadership to buy back risk if a decision needs to be made to truncate some of the DH pipeline during a time of war and surge the fleet. If they have previously qualified on a specific AEGIS baseline, a two or three-week refresher rather than the whole course could accelerate the process of getting warfighters to the fleet faster.

Conclusion

The SWO community has made significant strides in recent years, reforming shiphandling and training, and introducing milestone assessments. However, to truly dominate the high-end fight, we must continue to evolve. That means investing our time, energy, and talent into the watches that matter most – those that prepare our officers not just to lead, but to win at fighting. It is time to prioritize tactical readiness over traditionally engineering-heavy requirements. Let us develop SWOs who are more than shipboard generalists. Let us build lethal warfighters.

Lieutenant Seth C. Breen is currently an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Warfare Tactics Instructor at Surface Warfare Officers School in Newport, Rhode Island. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 2012 with a bachelor’s degree in Criminology and enlisted in the Navy in 2013 as a Cryptologic Technician. He subsequently commissioned as an officer in 2017. LT Breen served aboard USS Monterey (CG-61) from 2017 to 2021. He held successive billets as Electrical Officer and Fire Control Officer, completing two deployments to FIFTH and SIXTH Fleets. During these tours, Monterey executed Tomahawk strike operations into Syria, served as Air and Missile Defense Commander and Ballistic Missile Defense Commander with the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, and conducted operations in the Black Sea in support of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. Ashore, LT Breen has served as an exchange officer with the Royal Navy, teaching Air Warfare Tactics to RN Warfare Officers at HMS Collingwood. While ashore, he earned a Master of Arts in International Relations and Global Security from American Military University. 

Featured Image: GULF OF ALASKA (Aug. 23, 2025) Lt. Alex Celestin, from Randolph, Mass., works on a terminal in the combat information center (CIC) aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121) during exercise Northern Edge 2025 (NE25). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Christian Kibler)