CDS wants to establish Cyber Command
Thread Starter
CDS wants to establish Cyber Command
The new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, has said, in an interview, that he thinks we should establish a new Cyber Command which can attack as well as defend against enemy geek forces. He also believes cyber wars will come to dominate the military field in years to come. Personally I doubt it. But anyway, he apparently took the three service chiefs on a packed lunch day out to Cheltenham to see what goes on!
FB
FB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that a Command in a new British Armed Forces or one within an existing Service?
I see a wedge with a very thin edge being carved. I hope our brown clad boss wallah has thought it through.
I see a wedge with a very thin edge being carved. I hope our brown clad boss wallah has thought it through.
Thread Starter
The way he's talking, sounds like he believes it could well become the principal defence concern. But personally, I think he's too much one of these characters who spots a new development and gets the idea in his head that we're all witnessing a major turning point in history. Having said that, the German's are working on a cyber defence network which will concentrate on combating Chinese Hackers.
FB
FB
Sounds like a job for the security services. They already have a half decent infrastructure, or are we seriously suggesting we launch SAC Bloggs from C4I and a couple of RLC guys at the problem?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As someone who works in defence with tons of data and the comms to move that data I can see where he is coming from. In 1944 our Typhoons where firing rockets at German road and rail choke points in northern France; the Panzer boys didn't like it. Nowadays we could be firing digi-rockets at a server and router choke point. Or someone could be having a go at our choke points and given the nature of todays world (hey, here we all are from all over the world on this very bulletin board!) and we wouldn't like it either. The world changes. Faster and faster and it makes me brain hurt, but the world changes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are we seriously suggesting we launch SAC Bloggs from C4I and a couple of RLC guys at the problem?
I guess what they're looking at is a better way for us to liaise with "Q". I would expect this "Cyber Command" to do this liaison function both ways - that would make perfect sense. As already stated "Q" have this sewn up already.
While we're at it we could stop the idiot 'Coppers' doing our computer security and either hand it to this "Command" or to our A6/J6 IT professionals where it should have been in the first place. That way the 'Coppers' can do their real job of CI, checking passes and stroking their Alsatians (plus apprehending those of us that transgress the rules and regs).
I believe CDS is spot on with this requirement. I wonder if he'll follow the US example where the USAF have the lead on all things Cyber for their Forces?
iRaven
While we're at it we could stop the idiot 'Coppers' doing our computer security and either hand it to this "Command" or to our A6/J6 IT professionals where it should have been in the first place. That way the 'Coppers' can do their real job of CI, checking passes and stroking their Alsatians (plus apprehending those of us that transgress the rules and regs).
I believe CDS is spot on with this requirement. I wonder if he'll follow the US example where the USAF have the lead on all things Cyber for their Forces?
iRaven
I mention the RLC not because they are involved in logistics [in fact, if I wanted to disable our supply chain, I'd employ more loggies] but because they seem to have an involvement in most things.
Thanks for your feedback.
Thanks for your feedback.
Thread Starter
There's something about this which I find utterly depressing. Is this what the future holds for the Human Race? Automaton machines, in the air and on the ground, where do people fit in? Where is the esprise de corps? While I certainly don't wish conflict upon anyone, I kind of like the idea of proper air forces, armies and navies! None of this "Which Computer" cobblers.
All a load of tosh anyway.
FB
All a load of tosh anyway.
FB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Attacking (or defending) logistic assets is merely one iron the fire.
The command and control systems of the enemy are the real prize. Disrupt those, and it doesn't matter how much ammo and fuel you have, if it can't be controlled.
A role 14 Signal Regiment (EW) has been carrying out for years. I'd simply say expand the EW component of the Royal Corps of Signals. Job jobbed, no need to reinvent the wheel.
The command and control systems of the enemy are the real prize. Disrupt those, and it doesn't matter how much ammo and fuel you have, if it can't be controlled.
A role 14 Signal Regiment (EW) has been carrying out for years. I'd simply say expand the EW component of the Royal Corps of Signals. Job jobbed, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
computer security and either hand it to this "Command" or to our A6/J6 IT professionals where it should have been in the first place.
Our use of IT reflects the over-simplistic 'create a Trade from the Sigs world - that'll do' approach. We have hampered ourselves by not getting the users properly involved in every aspect from the start.
I think those flying their CYBER COMMAND mega-death desktop PC's should have to wear flying suits (gloves optional) to show some sort of unity with the remote control boys.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong - we went about IT in totally the wrong way from the start in the Forces. We NEED people from each specialisation involved in IT rather than give it to a single Trade. It is easier to find people from each Branch and Trade with an IT ability than train IT geeks to understand the nuances of each individual role. Then you get to understand the importance of the IT rather than a J6 perspective, which is usually not the correct one. It isn't the IT that is important, but how it is applied and the effect it generates in each area. A Techie won't understand the Mission Planning IT the way a Pilot will etc.
Our use of IT reflects the over-simplistic 'create a Trade from the Sigs world - that'll do' approach. We have hampered ourselves by not getting the users properly involved in every aspect from the start.
Our use of IT reflects the over-simplistic 'create a Trade from the Sigs world - that'll do' approach. We have hampered ourselves by not getting the users properly involved in every aspect from the start.
One only has to look at successful intelligence services around the world with an all-arms recruitment policy to see how a well-managed team can draw on the various and differing strengths of its component parts and people, and be all the more effective for it.
The critical point is of course the 'well-managed' bit, which is where many fall down, but I think that CDS has seen which way the wind is blowing and understands the benefit of such an agency being a military-run one, rather than a civvy / intelligence services lash up, which is why he's 'offering' to run it.
To be honest I can't see it happening but good luck to him for trying
CS
Mr Chinecap
Whilst I agree with your idea to use persons from trade/branches to improve and instigate IT software/hardware, if you had read my post properly you would have seen I said "computer security and either hand it to this "Command" or to our A6/J6 IT professionals where it should have been in the first place".
Computer security is for professionals; that means A6/J6 personnel - not coppers, stackers, blunties, growbags, rock-apes, mirror-technicians, ginger-beers (of the spanner wielding variety), etc...
So I contest that I am "wrong".
iRaven
Whilst I agree with your idea to use persons from trade/branches to improve and instigate IT software/hardware, if you had read my post properly you would have seen I said "computer security and either hand it to this "Command" or to our A6/J6 IT professionals where it should have been in the first place".
Computer security is for professionals; that means A6/J6 personnel - not coppers, stackers, blunties, growbags, rock-apes, mirror-technicians, ginger-beers (of the spanner wielding variety), etc...
So I contest that I am "wrong".
iRaven
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then - computer security should involve RAF Police at least as much as any technical person. One of those words is 'security' so it needs those trained in security to ensure those trained in 'computer' know what they are looking at, what is wrong with it, what is the legal and appropriate course of action to take.
Where do you draw the line for 'computer security' then? Finding a personal laptop with unsuitable images of minors - is that a job for an A6 techie to follow up? No - RAFP should do that - computer security issue. Everything we do is now IT-based, so everyone has to adapt. You can't expect the techie to understand the nuances of security requirements enough to police cyber space. Computers are the least important part of this equation - the information processed is what is important.
Where do you draw the line for 'computer security' then? Finding a personal laptop with unsuitable images of minors - is that a job for an A6 techie to follow up? No - RAFP should do that - computer security issue. Everything we do is now IT-based, so everyone has to adapt. You can't expect the techie to understand the nuances of security requirements enough to police cyber space. Computers are the least important part of this equation - the information processed is what is important.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to interrogate a nuclear physicist, you wouldn't waste months genning up an interrogator on physics; you'd spend a few days cramming a physicist with insight into questioning. We can assume he'd get the hang of things pretty quickly. Having said that, I watched The Men who Stare at Goats last night, so I now have visions of gone native, curiously dressed Techies who were encouraged just a bit too hard to get inside the enemy's mind.
But isn't it worrying and sad, that an area that IS going to be vital to our commercial future is driven first and foremost by hand rubbing, myopic.. partisan 'Ok, who's going to get the job then?' thinking. On past performance, do any of the three Services deserve it? Does the MoD??
But isn't it worrying and sad, that an area that IS going to be vital to our commercial future is driven first and foremost by hand rubbing, myopic.. partisan 'Ok, who's going to get the job then?' thinking. On past performance, do any of the three Services deserve it? Does the MoD??
Thread Starter
I imagine a Joint Command of some description would be the best way forward. However, I'd be concerned at any idea of removing resources from the hardware peter side to pay the nerd paul?!
FB
FB