Royal Signals - Mainstreaming Cyber

#1
Hi all, looking for some advice / feedback on the forums collective think about the Royals Signals role in cyber.

I believe the wider corps has recently taken part in a number of major cyber exercises. Though it’s also still heavily committed to facilitating HQ training.

Therefore should the Signals leave cyber to a specialist units like the CPT/Int Corp etc, or is this something we should mainstream and take the lead on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#2
Depends on what your definition of Cyber is. CSEng get the underpinning knowledge on networks and their components that allows them to be effective. As they’re the ones that deliver the majority of services it’s best sat with them (Army context) over any other Corps. However any chimp can be trained to operate an app so you could argue that the wider Army could have a bite of the cherry.
 
#3
As above, it depends on what you mean by "Cyber";

Cyber - Defending a network from attack? This should be seen as core/Corps business, but that shouldn't be any different to what the signals has done since it's inception.

Cyber - Super secret squirrel hacking of pyongyang nuclear reactors, or even just trying to interfere with battlefield wireless communications? This should be kept as far away from the Corps as possible until it starts to train it's officers in what is legally, tactically, and technically possible. But this will never change, as it turns out generalists with shit degrees from ex polytechnics quite like being able to play soldier without having any impact on the world.
 
#4
As above, it depends on what you mean by "Cyber";

Cyber - Defending a network from attack? This should be seen as core/Corps business, but that shouldn't be any different to what the signals has done since it's inception.

Cyber - Super secret squirrel hacking of pyongyang nuclear reactors, or even just trying to interfere with battlefield wireless communications? This should be kept as far away from the Corps as possible until it starts to train it's officers in what is legally, tactically, and technically possible. But this will never change, as it turns out generalists with shit degrees from ex polytechnics quite like being able to play soldier without having any impact on the world.


Are you suggesting that RSigs officers are basically clueless about the tasks of the operators and should stick to signing leave passes?

Just like in my day?


Jesus.
 
#5
Are you suggesting that RSigs officers are basically clueless about the tasks of the operators and should stick to signing leave passes?

Just like in my day?


Jesus.
With JPA I don't think they're required to sign any leave passes......I have absolutely no idea what this leaves them qualified for now.
 
#6
What? Does not the Royal Signals not have it’s own Cyber sections within the School of Signals as well as 14 SR Cyber sections wither their own , both defending and killing sections?

One for Europe and one for the fuzzzy wuzzy lands.

Harrumph.

In my day....
 
#7
I think Cyber as a term is all but useless. It's like saying "transport". That could be a bicycle or a C-17. Or a truck. Or a limousine. Or a Chinook. Or a horse & cart.

Useless term, and if the Corps wants to hitch itself to that term, it's done for.
 
#8
Agreed, but unfortunately, Cyber sounds cool and is the latest ‘must have’ for the Army - where I work in Andover, it’s constantly being touted as one of the current CGS’ top 3 priorities. :roll:
Trouble is, like many of CGS’s priorities, there is nowhere near sufficient funding to seriously deliver the capability, so, as ever, we’ll cuff it, ‘make do’ and make the best of a bad job.

And what is this capability that needs delivering? And needs delivering by the army more specifically?

If you think we'll make the best of a bad job, you're a million more times optimistic than I am. I think we'll (army, not UK plc) continue to lag way behind all of our allies in delivery of non-kinetic effects.
 
#9
And what is this capability that needs delivering? And needs delivering by the army more specifically?

If you think we'll make the best of a bad job, you're a million more times optimistic than I am. I think we'll (army, not UK plc) continue to lag way behind all of our allies in delivery of non-kinetic effects.
As you can see, deleted because I had second thoughts on posting this publicly! I agree, it’s a Defence wide issue, not restricted to the Army, but I can only speak from an Army perspective and know for a fact we haven’t the funds to make a difference.
I think we are in agreement wrt how far behind we are and will continue to be.
 
#10
As you can see, deleted because I had second thoughts on posting this publicly! I agree, it’s a Defence wide issue, not restricted to the Army, but I can only speak from an Army perspective and know for a fact we haven’t the funds to make a difference.
I think we are in agreement wrt how far behind we are and will continue to be.
Do you have a reference to that CGS priorities please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#11
As you can see, deleted because I had second thoughts on posting this publicly! I agree, it’s a Defence wide issue, not restricted to the Army, but I can only speak from an Army perspective and know for a fact we haven’t the funds to make a difference.
I think we are in agreement wrt how far behind we are and will continue to be.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to discuss cyber (however you define it) online. No one (if they even exist, and I'm not sure they do) who has any real insight isn't going to talk about it on here. I agree it's a defence wide issue, I'd just love to hear someone in green articulate a clear military effect they need delivering, that can only be delivered by the army.

Despite all that, I always like taking any opportunity I can to gob off about how crap the Corps is....
 
#12
Any sS who professes 'Cyber' must be conducted by them, and them only (not the obvious 'them'), has failed to grasp the point. Cyber has it's own battle-space, this can be neither Land, Littoral, Air or, (God forbid), Sea; it is some ethereal dimension consisting 1s and 0s floating around completely unrestricted and undefined in, around, and through other battle-spaces (EME, Land and Sea via cable etc). If only someone could think of a name for this Cyber battle-space, and maybe we need a sS to deliver these Cybery effects?

how crap the Corps is....
As much as it pains me to admit, I can only agree as to how utterly shite the Corps is today. I live in hope that future projects deliver on the promises being made; it is depressing seeing good, seasoned tradesmen and women staying only for the pension, with no interest in staying a second longer than necessary. I have lost count of the number of highly regarded Supervisors with no interest in pursuing second careers as LE Officers; not that long ago people were queuing up to attempt LECB, I stand to be corrected but I believe at least 1 trade group had no volunteers at all for the 2017 LECB. This is not promising for the future of the Corps.
 
#13
Any sS who professes 'Cyber' must be conducted by them, and them only (not the obvious 'them'), has failed to grasp the point. Cyber has it's own battle-space, this can be neither Land, Littoral, Air or, (God forbid), Sea; it is some ethereal dimension consisting 1s and 0s floating around completely unrestricted and undefined in, around, and through other battle-spaces (EME, Land and Sea via cable etc). If only someone could think of a name for this Cyber battle-space, and maybe we need a sS to deliver these Cybery effects?



As much as it pains me to admit, I can only agree as to how utterly shite the Corps is today. I live in hope that future projects deliver on the promises being made; it is depressing seeing good, seasoned tradesmen and women staying only for the pension, with no interest in staying a second longer than necessary. I have lost count of the number of highly regarded Supervisors with no interest in pursuing second careers as LE Officers; not that long ago people were queuing up to attempt LECB, I stand to be corrected but I believe at least 1 trade group had no volunteers at all for the 2017 LECB. This is not promising for the future of the Corps.
The Corps is broken, Commissioning never appealed and I know many who feel the same way. Until we get some proper leadership at the top level with a defined strategy aligned with future opportunities i.e. Cyber we will never be fit for purpose.

I know many ex senior officers who were guffawed by their superiors for suggesting that C4ISR was the next arena we needed to be addressing, and if we had looked longer term and not just protecting DE jobs there would have been the potential to save 7 Sigs. edited to add the Gunners know how to re-invent themselves and damn quick just look at their ownership of Base ISTAR and the UAV programme, not to mention Link 16!
 
#14
My speculation from the sidelines is that the potential impact of offensive cyber is so great that no British government in its right mind is going to give the necessary toys and permissions to the military alone.

Defensive - IT Security in old money - yeah, why not.
 
#15
My speculation from the sidelines is that the potential impact of offensive cyber is so great that no British government in its right mind is going to give the necessary toys and permissions to the military alone.

Defensive - IT Security in old money - yeah, why not.
More to the point, MOD isn’t renowned for purchasing or the development of decent software.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

New Posts