Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

a new SPG was as simple a procurement decision as you could make, but they screwed the pooch.

its not hard....
what’s the best OTS SPG?
well, flip a coin, the American or Korean one
but it’s the Army, so first they have to start a design process for a coin to flip
That knighthood doesn't earn itself you know...
 

CREATURE5334

Old-Salt
Nope, NCF has been formed, has significant investment and support, a very well thought out training pipeline and TCOS that should make people feel all warm and fuzzy.

Reserves have a role, but there will be a substantial regular operator footprint.
Nope, NCF has been formed, has significant investment and support, a very well thought out training pipeline and TCOS that should make people feel all warm and fuzzy.

Reserves have a role, but there will be a substantial regular operator footprint.

I am sure it will work out fine, my opinion is because I worked for a short time for a company that's business was satcom encyption, conditional access, type stuff, both mils and civvy. The guys that wrote the code did uni and had all sorts of letters in their name and were on serious money.

The guys the used to test and validate the code were all ex haker types. Never went to uni, and many of them had never done a cyber a course in their life. They said it was they go offered a choice between prosecution, and getting ridiculous money to do what they did, legitimately.

Best conversations I ever heard from the guys that wrote the stuff was things like 'yeah but no one would really do that anyway'.

There can be a lovely big budget, and super training, with a rad TRF, but you can't train someone to be unorthodox. you either are, or you are not.

And then if you can, at some point they figure out there is more money and less BS on civvy street.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
I am sure it will work out fine, my opinion is because I worked for a short time for a company that's business was satcom encyption, conditional access, type stuff, both mils and civvy. The guys that wrote the code did uni and had all sorts of letters in their name and were on serious money.

The guys the used to test and validate the code were all ex haker types. Never went to uni, and many of them had never done a cyber a course in their life. They said it was they go offered a choice between prosecution, and getting ridiculous money to do what they did, legitimately.

Best conversations I ever heard from the guys that wrote the stuff was things like 'yeah but no one would really do that anyway'.

There can be a lovely big budget, and super training, with a rad TRF, but you can't train someone to be unorthodox. you either are, or you are not.

And then if you can, at some point they figure out there is more money and less BS on civvy street.
Being unorthodox isn't the only attribute needed and it's not as though we've not been training people to act as operators before, now it's a far better training pipeline, with access to equipments and capabilities way beyond the comprehension of most people and a chance to take part in operations that are way more than "hacking". There are levels of tradecraft and developments infinitely more in-depth than developing zero day exploits and its operating at a whole range of levels, it's not what people imagine or see in movies, there's a lot more to it, a lot more.

I've met a lot of people in the operation and I don't believe the operators get any of the BS you refer to. It's a large organisation and it has its own share of politic but when it comes to operations its pretty straight, and when you add that to new TCOS and discrete manning regimes, for many it will be a very realistic proposition.
 
Being unorthodox isn't the only attribute needed and it's not as though we've not been training people to act as operators before, now it's a far better training pipeline, with access to equipments and capabilities way beyond the comprehension of most people and a chance to take part in operations that are way more than "hacking". There are levels of tradecraft and developments infinitely more in-depth than developing zero day exploits and its operating at a whole range of levels, it's not what people imagine or see in movies, there's a lot more to it, a lot more.

I've met a lot of people in the operation and I don't believe the operators get any of the BS you refer to. It's a large organisation and it has its own share of politic but when it comes to operations its pretty straight, and when you add that to new TCOS and discrete manning regimes, for many it will be a very realistic proposition.
Meanwhile we struggle to keep Defence Connect up and can't provide reservists with sensible access to anything above OFFICIAL.

The whining from the regulars about how they can't access JPA from home is a fact that has been pointed out for well over a decade by their part time chums...
 
Meanwhile we struggle to keep Defence Connect up and can't provide reservists with sensible access to anything above OFFICIAL.

The whining from the regulars about how they can't access JPA from home is a fact that has been pointed out for well over a decade by their part time chums...
True, but you're looking at apples and oranges. Maintaining the connectivity of CIS Infrastructure networks is very different fro conducting cyberspace operations. The 'common ground' is simply the fact that both are (generally) working on the same networks.
 
Meanwhile we struggle to keep Defence Connect up and can't provide reservists with sensible access to anything above OFFICIAL.

The whining from the regulars about how they can't access JPA from home is a fact that has been pointed out for well over a decade by their part time chums...
Thus proving why the Army shouldn't be allowed anywhere near "cyber"...
 
Or cut out the middleman for most of the capability required. The other side of the coin is having technically highly-trained personnel who can't make the mental leap from service provision to actual conduct of operations in or through cyberspace.

There's an argument that any company supplying such services to the mod will not be up to scratch. Or if they are, their employees will not meet clearance standards.

Without going into things too deeply, you may well end up with the cyber equivalent of Dii and it's successor. With 'agile' being the most abused word in the contract.
 
True, but you're looking at apples and oranges. Maintaining the connectivity of CIS Infrastructure networks is very different fro conducting cyberspace operations. The 'common ground' is simply the fact that both are (generally) working on the same networks.
It is, but it hardly gives you confidence in the army's IT abilities.
 
Maybe, but that's both stoopid and inhumane.

Perhaps more relevant to grasp the simple fact that the Kenneth More sort of muscular chap, well adjusted to middle-class society and tweeds to whom we are accustomed to look for our heroes is likely to be as comfortable in this new field of ops as is a fresh-caught haddock in a Rick Stein restaurant.

There is a threat.

To deal with said threat demands that we employ folk whose hard-wired behavioural characteristics, fitting as they do in a certain span on one or more behavioural spectra. might mark them as 'Not To Be Touched With A Barge-Pole"

But from the skillset PoV they are Unicorns.
Unicorns in the UK gov/mil sphere barring the GCHQ weirdy beardy types.
 
undoubtedly, but some of the explosions have been very ‘convenient‘....and the Israelis keep sniggering up their sleeve
The RSPs would be sniggering up their sleeve if we had done it. It feeds the myth making.
 

Bob65

War Hero
True, but you're looking at apples and oranges. Maintaining the connectivity of CIS Infrastructure networks is very different fro conducting cyberspace operations. The 'common ground' is simply the fact that both are (generally) working on the same networks.
I'm not sure you can skip straight to "defend CNI against a determined peer-level actor" without being able to manage "setup IPSec over a WAN". The latter is bread-and-butter that any competent operator should be able to do with their eyes closed.
 
It is, but it hardly gives you confidence in the army's IT abilities.
The Army (nor any of the uniformed services for that matter) do not run or maintain any of the MOD's network fixed infrastructure.

ETA: they are considered to be 'users' of the system.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you can skip straight to "defend CNI against a determined peer-level actor" without being able to manage "setup IPSec over a WAN". The latter is bread-and-butter that any competent operator should be able to do with their eyes closed.
I never meant to suggest you could. Secure, available CIS Infra is the bedrock on which the operational capability sits. If you can't even get that right, you might as well pack up and go home. As you say, any competent technician should be able to do that, otherwise they're obviously not competent. However, being a competent CIS network technician does not make you a competent cyberspace operator.

 
The Army (nor any of the uniformed services for that matter) do not run or maintain any of the the MOD's network fixed infrastructure.

ETA: they are considered to be 'users' of the system.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
But they do specify it, pay for it, and depend on it.
 
But they do specify it, pay for it, and depend on it.
Agreed, but they don't deploy, administer or maintain it. That is down to Atlas Consortium, I believe: out of that particular loop since 2018.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Agreed, but they don't deploy, administer or maintain it. That is down to Atlas Consortium, I believe: out of that particular loop since 2018.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
It's still 'Army IT'.
 
It's still 'Army IT'.
Only in that they use the system, in the same way that you access the WWW via the Internet.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Or anything else if we’re honest. Jointery has generally led to dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Other than maintaining messes that are like a 19th century theme park what are they any good at?
'Tradition', or . . . err . . . something!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top