Royal Signals - Mainstreaming Cyber

#22
Lots of insourcing, away with the old massive contracts of the past, no vendor lock in etc. will be the way we defence do things in the future, DaaP(D) etc.
You quote DaaP like its a good thing as opposed to a disaster. All I can see is waffle about owning our networks then an utter reliance on the same service providers who are now providing a worse service for more cost.
 
#23
Nuts to what CGS thinks. He's an arrse.

Within the last 72hrs I have personally heard CDS admit to a changed position on a Cyber Division. He implied that he's repeatedly resisted one and now holds a different view.

If that's the case - I'd suggest some form of cyber construct is on the cards. In which case, why on earth should the CofG for such a thing be a Corps intent on slagging off its officers and whinging about the loss of the White Helmets?
 
#24
Nuts to what CGS thinks. He's an arrse.

Within the last 72hrs I have personally heard CDS admit to a changed position on a Cyber Division. He implied that he's repeatedly resisted one and now holds a different view.

If that's the case - I'd suggest some form of cyber construct is on the cards. In which case, why on earth should the CofG for such a thing be a Corps intent on slagging off its officers and whinging about the loss of the White Helmets?
As opposed to the cyber constructs we have at the moment? The real issue here is that there will be a huge bunfight on who gets the capability and the supervisory community (should R Sigs play a part) won't get a lookin until everything is signed sealed and delivered...and it won't work or be able to made to work.
 
#27
They have a load of people essentially doing nothing in the name of cyber, the same as us.
Commanded by subject matter experts and already tooled up and engaged in the bar room brawl at Defence level. By comparison, the Royal Corps has just walked into the bar, brandishing a stick of wet celery and is looking, confused, at the folk with guns.

Sorry, all, I know it's hard, but does anyone seriously see the Royal Corps magically changing itself into a romping stomping force of ninja cyber warriors, with skills and accomplishments such that HMG and the grownups will trust it with anything much, other than routine force protection (IT Security, in old money)?

Any incidental CEMA stuff is going to happen under different auspices and the Royal Corps involvement is going to be provision of some manpower which the Corps will lose sight of, professionally, after Phase One - and ensuring there are sufficient ruler-writers and big-hat wearers available to screw that manpower around and give them promotion courses and the like.

Don't see any particular DE roles there, which is probably just as well, given the technical and professional contrast between RAF and RN DE officers in this space and the Royal Corps'.
 
#28
Why does the Army have to be involved in offensive cyber ops?
Under what circumstances would cyber personnel require military skills?
It's not as if they are going to have to fight their way into a data center and hold the ground.
Seriously, why would you need a military capacity?
 
#29
Why does the Army have to be involved in offensive cyber ops?
Under what circumstances would cyber personnel require military skills?
It's not as if they are going to have to fight their way into a data center and hold the ground.
Seriously, why would you need a military capacity?
It's to do with full-spectrum dominance. Now that we have five realms (i.e. environments within which conflict with real-world consequences can take place) - Air, Land, Sea, Space, Cyber - there's an aspiration to have military means available to operate and manoeuvre in each.
 
#30
It's to do with full-spectrum dominance. Now that we have five realms (i.e. environments within which conflict with real-world consequences can take place) - Air, Land, Sea, Space, Cyber - there's an aspiration to have military means available to operate and manoeuvre in each.
Which is a load of bollocks. Cyber is a cash cow of nothingness. Cyber defence, which we are OK at is going well, but understandable, far less sexy and attracts less funding. It seems that there are still multiple luddites in MB that think of cyber as an effect that they can wield in a "cyber that anti aircraft battery SAC Watson". All bollocks and best left to the experts.
 
#31
It's to do with full-spectrum dominance. Now that we have five realms (i.e. environments within which conflict with real-world consequences can take place) - Air, Land, Sea, Space, Cyber - there's an aspiration to have military means available to operate and manoeuvre in each.
We currently have some of the best people in the world dealing in cyber. None of who wear a uniform.
What additional skills or capabilities would the Army bring?
It's all well and good having aspirations to do it but why spend the money on it unless to provide something that you can't already get being done better elsewhere?
I'm genuinely not seeing a benefit
 
#32
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!
The Signals should follow NATOs lead. Anything that was , is or has anything to do with Crypto. Say Crypto Custodian in it job roll or title is now Cyber Crypto Custodian . Those at the top who know nothing about either now think NATO is a world leader in Cyber or more so Cyber defence . Make I larff.

Mind the RAF do have some such things passive and active .
 
#33
We currently have some of the best people in the world dealing in cyber. None of who wear a uniform.
What additional skills or capabilities would the Army bring?
It's all well and good having aspirations to do it but why spend the money on it unless to provide something that you can't already get being done better elsewhere?
I'm genuinely not seeing a benefit
I completely agree. The state of the 'cyber' (loathsome term, incidentally) art in the military is way, way, way behind the big wide world.
 
#34
We currently have some of the best people in the world dealing in cyber. None of who wear a uniform.
What additional skills or capabilities would the Army bring?
It's all well and good having aspirations to do it but why spend the money on it unless to provide something that you can't already get being done better elsewhere?
I'm genuinely not seeing a benefit
Army/RAF/Navy bring an understanding of how other militaries work, pretty useful when you are looking for an 'in'. Also, military individuals can be called upon to perform some more questionable tasks eg shooting people.
 
#35
Commanded by subject matter experts and already tooled up and engaged in the bar room brawl at Defence level. By comparison, the Royal Corps has just walked into the bar, brandishing a stick of wet celery and is looking, confused, at the folk with guns.

Sorry, all, I know it's hard, but does anyone seriously see the Royal Corps magically changing itself into a romping stomping force of ninja cyber warriors, with skills and accomplishments such that HMG and the grownups will trust it with anything much, other than routine force protection (IT Security, in old money)?

Any incidental CEMA stuff is going to happen under different auspices and the Royal Corps involvement is going to be provision of some manpower which the Corps will lose sight of, professionally, after Phase One - and ensuring there are sufficient ruler-writers and big-hat wearers available to screw that manpower around and give them promotion courses and the like.

Don't see any particular DE roles there, which is probably just as well, given the technical and professional contrast between RAF and RN DE officers in this space and the Royal Corps'.
That's pretty much how it would be.
 
#36
You quote DaaP like its a good thing as opposed to a disaster. All I can see is waffle about owning our networks then an utter reliance on the same service providers who are now providing a worse service for more cost.
Not true, it will take time to take back ownership and when it happens it can only be a very good thing, the old days of ATLAS are going to take some recovering from. The vast amounts of money they demanded for delivering nothing are a scandal.
 
#37
As opposed to the cyber constructs we have at the moment? The real issue here is that there will be a huge bunfight on who gets the capability and the supervisory community (should R Sigs play a part) won't get a lookin until everything is signed sealed and delivered...and it won't work or be able to made to work.
Well in my current guise I have daily dealings across all 3 services and the Corps is absolutely appalling at wanting to take anything additional or new on. They immediately ask for resource and whinge, the RAF just get it done!

I'm afraid that the Corps has a hierarchy that is not doing it any favours regarding future doctrine and concepts and again will be behind the power curve.
 
#38
Not true, it will take time to take back ownership and when it happens it can only be a very good thing, the old days of ATLAS are going to take some recovering from. The vast amounts of money they demanded for delivering nothing are a scandal.
...until we officially realise that FJ have taken us for a complete ride, go full circle and BT take over again. We can't do anything in house because everyone else pays more for less hassle.
 
#39
Well in my current guise I have daily dealings across all 3 services and the Corps is absolutely appalling at wanting to take anything additional or new on. They immediately ask for resource and whinge, the RAF just get it done!

I'm afraid that the Corps has a hierarchy that is not doing it any favours regarding future doctrine and concepts and again will be behind the power curve.
Agreed, you should have heard the DE whining when Army HQ asked 11SR to take on thgecyber aptitude test (another load of shit that we bought into). 14SR are making a decent stab for a piece of the emperor's new pie.
 
#40
...until we officially realise that FJ have taken us for a complete ride, go full circle and BT take over again. We can't do anything in house because everyone else pays more for less hassle.
It's not entirely the consortium's fault. It will do what's rational in its own interests. If the contractual construct and payment schedule are such that behaving 'badly' generates more shareholder value, then that's what the service provider is obliged to do.

Piss-poor contract drafting, piss-poor appreciation of commercial realities and piss-poor service management by the customer organisation all combine to produce a truly toxic outsourced service.

Where outsourcing fails, it's usually (largely) the customer's fault.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top