# Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread



## Eye In The Sky

Is there a message out now about the creation of the Cyber Op MOSID?


----------



## Sub_Guy

Yes there is, I read it today.


----------



## Avail

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yes there is, I read it today.



Where would one find that on the dwan?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A CANFORFGEN I believe...


----------



## PuckChaser

There's no 2017 or 2016 CANFORGEN announcing a new trade. Only a single 2016 CANFORGEN referencing soliticing candidates for a Cyber Operations Staff Officer course.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I am on leave but saw something quickly that a friend had sent to me on DWAN email...asking him on civie means what the source was, but it was def about the new Cyber Op MOSID....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

UNCLAS

SUBJ: CYBER OPERATOR (CYBER OP) - MILITARY EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MES IP)

1. THIS MES IP WILL COME INTO EFFECT 31 JAN 17 AND IT WILL ESTABLISH 
A CYBER OPERATOR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CAF

4. EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATIONS. THERE WILL BE THREE RANK QUALS (RQ), 
SIX UNIQUE SPECIALTY QUALS (USQ) AND SIX EXPERIENCE QUALS (EQ) 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CYBER OP OCCUPATION. THE ASSOCIATED TRG 
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEVELOPED OVER THE NEAR TO MEDIUM TERM

5. OCCUPATION GROUPS (OCC GP). THE CYBER OP OCC WILL BELONG TO THE 
00378AA (CYBER OP), 90000AA (ATR), 90010AA (COMM SYS OPS) AND 90052AA 
(CYBER OPS) OCC GPS


----------



## Avail

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> UNCLAS
> 
> SUBJ: CYBER OPERATOR (CYBER OP) - MILITARY EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MES IP)
> 
> 1. THIS MES IP WILL COME INTO EFFECT 31 JAN 17 AND IT WILL ESTABLISH
> A CYBER OPERATOR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CAF
> 
> 4. EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATIONS. THERE WILL BE THREE RANK QUALS (RQ),
> SIX UNIQUE SPECIALTY QUALS (USQ) AND SIX EXPERIENCE QUALS (EQ)
> ASSOCIATED WITH THE CYBER OP OCCUPATION. THE ASSOCIATED TRG
> REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEVELOPED OVER THE NEAR TO MEDIUM TERM
> 
> 5. OCCUPATION GROUPS (OCC GP). THE CYBER OP OCC WILL BELONG TO THE
> 00378AA (CYBER OP), 90000AA (ATR), 90010AA (COMM SYS OPS) AND 90052AA
> (CYBER OPS) OCC GPS




Thanks for that. It would be nice to see this make its way to the Reserve side of the house, but I have my doubts, since we couldn't even get IST for some reason beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Avail

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> UNCLAS
> 
> SUBJ: CYBER OPERATOR (CYBER OP) - MILITARY EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MES IP)
> 
> 1. THIS MES IP WILL COME INTO EFFECT 31 JAN 17 AND IT WILL ESTABLISH
> A CYBER OPERATOR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CAF
> 
> 4. EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATIONS. THERE WILL BE THREE RANK QUALS (RQ),
> SIX UNIQUE SPECIALTY QUALS (USQ) AND SIX EXPERIENCE QUALS (EQ)
> ASSOCIATED WITH THE CYBER OP OCCUPATION. THE ASSOCIATED TRG
> REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DEVELOPED OVER THE NEAR TO MEDIUM TERM
> 
> 5. OCCUPATION GROUPS (OCC GP). THE CYBER OP OCC WILL BELONG TO THE
> 00378AA (CYBER OP), 90000AA (ATR), 90010AA (COMM SYS OPS) AND 90052AA
> (CYBER OPS) OCC GPS



If there are any other interested parties -

The 17-18 Defence Policy has a handful of interesting points regarding the Cyber Operator occupation in Reserve context:

"Assign Reserve Force units and formations new roles that provide full-time capability to the Canadian Armed Forces through part-time service, including: ... Cyber Operators ..."
          - Canada Defence Policy Report, p.69(75)

"Use Reservists with specialized skill-sets to fill elements of the Canadian Armed Forces cyber force."
           - Canada Defence Policy Report, p.73(90)

Looking very forward to this and an OT.


----------



## PuckChaser

If we waste expensive training on making a zero to hero Cyber Operator reservist, it will confirm to me that the CAF has no idea what its doing with the PRes. Cyber Op PRes should be skilled entry or CT from RegF Cyber Op only. I can just imagine us dumping $500K in courses to get a DP1 PRes Cyber Operator who's Cl A, and see them walk swiftly out the door to a nice civilian job with no intention of ever working a real day after OFP.


----------



## Avail

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If we waste expensive training on making a zero to hero Cyber Operator reservist, it will confirm to me that the CAF has no idea what its doing with the PRes. Cyber Op PRes should be skilled entry or CT from RegF Cyber Op only. I can just imagine us dumping $500K in courses to get a DP1 PRes Cyber Operator who's Cl A, and see them walk swiftly out the door to a nice civilian job with no intention of ever working a real day after OFP.



What I'm taking away from the plan is that it's intended to be skilled entry only, but who knows.


----------



## buzgo

The plan is to let people working in INFOSEC already contribute as reserve Cyber Operators. There won't be much if any training, maybe some tool specific stuff. We are looking for people working in industry.


----------



## Avail

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The plan is to let people working in INFOSEC already contribute as reserve Cyber Operators. There won't be much if any training, maybe some tool specific stuff. We are looking for people working in industry.



Any idea if it's too soon to try for an OT?


----------



## PuckChaser

I split out the Cyber Op trade posts into its own thread. Figured with the trade being officially announced, it deserves its own home and discussion place. We can keep it under the C&E Branch header for now, as I'm sure we all believe the trade will fall under the Jimmy umbrella, but I've yet to see an official announcement.

Moderator Achievement Unlocked: Don't screw up a thread split.


----------



## meni0n

I'd hold off on OTing for a few years, they don't have any of the training figured out yet and they got no infrastructure so it will be quiet a while before they can do anything really.


----------



## The Bread Guy

... and according to the G&M, not just universality of service - shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> The Canadian Armed Forces is preparing to bend the rule that says all its members must be fit and ready for deployment as the military looks to hire the best people in an era where cyberspace is a battlefield and where lifestyle choices must sometimes be accommodated.
> 
> General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, has the job of implementing the government’s new plan to boost military spending by more than $30-billion over the next decade.
> 
> The plan calls for the number of military personnel to increase by 5,000, and requires that, by 2026, women hold one of every four jobs in the Forces. And, in a move that was previously unthinkable, it urges measures be adopted to allow some members of the Canadian Armed Forces who no longer meet the universality of service rule – the requirement that all personnel be fit for deployment anywhere at any time – to continue to serve on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> “We need a modern set of working human-resource principles and rule sets that allow for some variance in a career, because everybody is a little bit different,” Gen. Vance said recently during a wide-ranging interview about military recruitment and retention.
> 
> Nearly two years after he became the country’s top soldier, Gen. Vance appears comfortable and relaxed sitting on the couch of his office at defence headquarters and greeting a succession of journalists lined up by his communications team to get details of the multiyear plan. Human-resource issues are a huge part of that – something he said he welcomes. On his desk is a sign that says “The Buck Stops Here.” Cliché perhaps, but also fitting.
> 
> Soldiers can become unsuitable for deployment due to illness or injury. Many have found themselves unhappily discharged after being permanently disabled, either physically or psychologically, and have pleaded with the military for this sort of accommodation.
> 
> But Gen. Vance is thinking beyond those whose wounds have left them unable to do their jobs. He wants to find a way to keep the young female pilot who does not want to be deployed during the years she is raising her children, or the computer expert whose ties to his community make it impossible for him to consider being shipped out.
> 
> “Maybe we need to make units in the Armed Forces that allow for people to say ‘I am going to be cyber, I am not ever going to deploy, my work is in cyberspace,. I can be networked, I can be given direction, as long as it’s in an environment that’s safe,’” said Gen. Vance. “As long as you’re loyal to the Armed Forces, you’ve gone through sufficient training to make you loyal to the Armed Forces, why can’t that be your job?”
> 
> If the rules around military employment are “cut and dried and inflexible, you may not be drawing all the best individuality of people,” the general said. Allowing some variance from the traditional military path “should appeal to a wider range of people,” he said, “diverse men and women with skill sets I can mine to get the very best talent out of Canada and get them into the Forces without any loss of combat capability. In fact, we will be more capable.”
> 
> All of this is in the imagination phase. At the moment, the universality of service rule is in effect. And Gen. Vance does not intend to abandon it completely. To do so, he said, would affect the military’s operational capacity.
> 
> But “imagine a very bright and intelligent infantry soldier who loses a limb,” he said. “Well, we’ve already sunk cost into that person, if you want to take the crass business view. So, if we can, why not retrain them on a case-by-case basis and let them complete their career, at least to a horizon of when they are pensionable or whatever suits them.”
> 
> That might mean creating different classes of full-time members and reservists, he said.
> 
> Those who can be deployed would be unrestricted and would advance through the ranks as soldiers, sailors and aviators traditionally do. Those who cannot be deployed would be restricted from advancement into leadership positions, but could still get pay increases as they develop their skills and experience.


----------



## The Bread Guy

meni0n said:
			
		

> I'd hold off on OTing for a few years, they don't have any of the training figured out yet and they got no infrastructure so it will be quiet a while before they can do anything really.


Not to mention terms of service ...


----------



## McG

> “Maybe we need to make units in the Armed Forces that allow for people to say ‘I am going to be cyber, I am not ever going to deploy, my work is in cyberspace,. I can be networked, I can be given direction, as long as it’s in an environment that’s safe,’”


As I stated in another thread, if these are the job requirements, why are we considering cyber as military and not civilian employment?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The cons of this whole plan I will refer to as •the double standard plan• outweigh the pros.

We will have a very politically correct and even less capable force.  Quotas like this 1 in 4 must be women makes me want to kick someone in the nads.


----------



## Journeyman

Two points come to mind -- both meaningless....



> “Maybe we need to make units in the Armed Forces that allow for people to say ‘I am going to be cyber, I am not ever going to deploy,’” said Gen. Vance.


 A clear priority is going to be developing a new set of bling;  no deployments means no medals for Remembrance Day or Legion gatherings.  :crybaby:   There's one member here (sorry, I cannot recall the 'name' or be bothered searching, as his posts really didn't make him that memorable), but who was desperate to deploy _anywhere_,  in order to be one of the cool kids.

Added bonus: maybe the HQ types who cannot manage to get on a '30-day + 1' Staff Annoyance Visit will qualify for this bling as well.   :nod:




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quotas like this 1 in 4 must be women makes me want to kick someone in the nads.


I believe you meant to say "...want to kick someone in the nads _or_  ovaries."
(or perhaps nads _and_  ovaries, so as not to exclude hermaphrodites)


I now return you to more intelligent comment (hopefully), and me, to my morning coffee.


----------



## GAP

Next step will be to NOT having to deal with those gun thingy's....I am a clerk, etc... I don't need to play soldier......


Ahhh.....snowflakes abound everywhere..... [


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and eventually they'll need a full-size unit where folks DO play with guns and practice deployment stuff........maybe have them jump out of planes, and wear spiffy boots, and post them within a couple of hours of the Nations capital.      Naw,....who'd even think such a thing could exist?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

It's the CAF so first order of business is always dress and deportment.  Clearly we won't be able to fully leverage our cyber capabilities without a new set of Cyber "wings"


----------



## Gunner98

CDS is setting himself up for a utopian but impotent military - once you start ignoring Universality of Service and the 'bona fide' requirements set out after many Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings, then you open yourself to the vast range of ailments that currently prevents someone from serving.  Ailments from mobility, psychological, biological issues or even allergies - you know things that lead to 3B releases now.  CHRT has made it clear that you can't pick and choose, it is one standard for all. 

CDS seems to think he can make up his own rules that ignore the laws of the land.  He will fill his numbers in a hurry because anyone ever released on a 3B will form two lines - one at the recruiting centre and the other at a lawyer's office for a class-action suit if they choose not to re-enroll or are rejected. 

Excerpt from DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service

2.1 The mission of the DND and the CAF is to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security.

2.2 To execute this mission the CAF must be given broad authority and latitude in utilizing CAF members and their skills. The statutory basis for this authority is section 33 of the National Defence Act. The fundamental importance of this authority to the functioning and effectiveness of the CAF is recognized in subsection 15(9) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which provides that the duty to accommodate under subsection 15(2) of that Act is subject to the principle of universality of service. Under this principle, CAF members must at all times and under any circumstances perform any functions that they may be required to perform.

2.3 Effective performance of the broad range of defence and security tasks assigned to the CAF requires that CAF members be capable of performing a similarly broad range of general military, common defence and security duties, in addition to the more particular duties of their military occupation or occupational specification.* This open-ended nature of military service is one of the features that distinguish it from the civilian notion of employment governed by a contract, which obliges employees to perform only those duties specified in their job description or contract.*

Principle of Universality of Service

2.4 The principle of *universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. *This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.


----------



## Loachman

There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.


----------



## medicineman

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.



After some of the PT stuff I was witness to in 2RCR, I'm sort of wondering if either the Minister or PET Jr himself told him "this is how we want our military to LOOK to Canadians...we're not really interested in whether it works or is even capable, just the LCF".

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The cons of this whole plan I will refer to as •the double standard plan• outweigh the pros.
> 
> We will have a very politically correct and even less capable force.  Quotas like this 1 in 4 must be women makes me want to kick someone in the nads.



We already have a double standard when it comes to single and married/common law members when it comes to postings and deployments. Adding a third tier almost ensures that any single fit members will spend their time moving and deploying even more, so that all the people with special requirements are taken care of.

Maybe they'll find the perfect solution that works for everybody, but I doubt it... The current system is broken, adding more complexity sure won't fix it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Excerpt from DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service
> 
> 2.1 The mission of the DND and the CAF is to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security.



You know what is funny here? Make the change I put in yellow and you have the primary statement that should have been the starting point of the allegedly extensive defence policy review that just came out, but does not really include it that clearly anywhere. (I say strike "values" for two reasons: first of all it is not a national defence function to advance "values" by force in other countries. Second I am not willing to give my life to go and fight to advance women's equality issues in say, Bangladesh, or defend multiculturalism in Indonesia, etc. etc., and I don't think any one in the CAF is willing either - those are things that are done softly through diplomacy over long periods.)


----------



## Ostrozac

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> We already have a double standard when it comes to single and married/common law members when it comes to postings and deployments. Adding a third tier almost ensures that any single fit members will spend their time moving and deploying even more, so that all the people with special requirements are taken care of.
> 
> Maybe they'll f ind the perfect solution that works for everybody, but I doubt it... The current system is broken, adding more complexity sure won't fix it.



There are people who enjoy a higher than usual op-tempo -- and allowing them to self-select for more deployments sounds good on the surface, but you are spot on correct that extra layers of complexity will be an absolute beast to manage. In theory, it could be done -- but I think we could do a much better job of using our existing tools. Our Career Managers, Corps/Branch Directors and often even Chains of Command have an uneven approach to knowing their troops and what they actually want. Career Manager interviews were a simple enough thing -- they are largely gone, and have been replaced by... not much in the last few units I've been in.

But then again, if our current system simply isn't retaining people at all, then we need to change something. But I'm not sure that re-arming the injured and re-enrolling our retired on Class B is a long-term solution -- it'll keep the numbers up in the short term, but we need to ask more fundamental questions as to why the Canadian Forces isn't attracting/retaining new members. And maybe talking to the troops is a start.


----------



## meni0n

No deployments and a stable work environment (no postings) is mostly aimed at the cyber trade I guess. Although, the only posting for cyber is currently only Ottawa and will probably remain that way The thinking is, how do you attract someone with a specialised skill set to a standard pay group trade and then keep them after they've had all their training. Imagine investing a lot of money training someone with very specific expensive courses and then a company will come along and offer 20-40k more. That trade will need to have some something at least to offset that. The only thing I guess they can offer now is no deployments, postings and an early pension. The pay will definitely not be competitive. 

I've also heard the idea of running special BMQ or leadership courses just for people in that trade. Making those courses easier and with less or no field time. Not sure if that will pan out but it would make sense with the approach that's being taken.


----------



## Jarnhamar

lol

Now there's no reason not to allow beards!  PCat? Bring it on!


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.


All the more likely given that it seems to be a trend across multiple government departments: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-war-against-merit-marches-on/article35261591/


> *Liberals' reverse discrimination comes at a cost*
> Margaret Wente
> The Globe and Mail
> Published Saturday, Jun. 10, 2017 8:00AM EDT
> Updated Saturday, Jun. 10, 2017 8:15AM EDT
> 
> Kirsty Duncan, Justin Trudeau’s Science Minister, is on the rampage against Canada’s leading universities. She’s told them to improve diversity – or else. Unless they meet their gender quotas for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding. Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canada’s most prestigious researchers are still too non-Indigenous, too white, too abled and, especially, too male. “Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed,” she sermonized.
> 
> At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money – as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the right answers.
> 
> The government’s emphasis on equity and diversity is central to its branding. Its 50-50 cabinet has won universal praise. But now it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence.
> 
> Academia isn’t the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 – or 59 per cent – are women. (Women made up only 42 per cent of the applicants.) It’s clear the Liberals will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost? “In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were Liberals or Tories,” Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told The Globe and Mail. “That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we don’t want to do is replicate that in a different form.”
> 
> The definition of equality has changed dramatically in recent times. Equality used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of equality is equal outcomes. And if outcomes aren’t equal, they must be adjusted until they are.
> 
> No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.
> 
> But what if it isn’t? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome – as they inevitably do? For example, it’s mainly men who like hard sciences – despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in women’s career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the “soft” side. There’s also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.
> 
> On the face of it, the Canada Research Chair numbers don’t look great. Women hold only 30 per cent of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as “dismal,” and at some universities it’s much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35 per cent are for health sciences; and just 20 per cent are for the social sciences and humanities.
> 
> But “fair” is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for Canada Research Chairs are: 31 per cent women, 15 per cent visible minorities, 4 per cent disabled, 1 per cent aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply.
> 
> Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, a document called Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees states, “We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50 per cent female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50 per cent female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years.” Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: Men, don’t bother! The document further states that all search committee members must take training in unconscious bias (an increasingly discredited idea), and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the diversity police to ensure the proper outcomes.
> 
> I’m all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Don’t we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. We’ve got quotas to fill.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MCG said:
			
		

> All the more likely given that it seems to be a trend across multiple government departments: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-war-against-merit-marches-on/article35261591/



This is one thing I don't get. If you look at the average university, engineering is hugely skewed towards men.  Even with all the emphasis on STEM in school, scholarships for women in science etc your average nerd is a guy.  Same thing for most trades.  If the required prerequisite training is predominantly male, why is anyone expecting the CAF to be some kind of social experiment and arbitrarily set quotas that don't reflect reality.  Conversely, something like nurses where most of them are female, I would kind of expect the CAF numbers to be heavily skewed towards females.

One good reason though to hire the cyber warriors as military (vice civilian) is cost.  The specialized skillsets pay way more on the civie side, but some people will stick with it when the recruiters come calling because of the uniform and the team.  They won't have the same commitment as a civilian because there isn't any kind of indoctrination where they sell you the koolaid.  Aside from them, there are lots of other people that I don't think you'd want to ever touch a rifle, but would be excellent at their job.  It'd be nice to have options for the to contribute but maybe not be promotable past a working rank if something like that came up.


----------



## Gunner98

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You know what is funny here? Make the change I put in yellow and you have the primary statement that should have been the starting point of the allegedly extensive defence policy review that just came out, but does not really include it that clearly anywhere. (I say strike "values" for two reasons: first of all it is not a national defence function to advance "values" by force in other countries. Second I am not willing to give my life to go and fight to advance women's equality issues in say, Bangladesh, or defend multiculturalism in Indonesia, etc. etc., and I don't think any one in the CAF is willing either - those are things that are done softly through diplomacy over long periods.)



Oldgateboatdriver,

The statement you wish to modify states "to defend Canada, its interests and its values", not advance or enforce our values on others or other countries.  If we strike - defend our own values, then CAF will only defend Canada and our interests and in doing so are you proposing that we should withdraw from most of our international alliances.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

that is...magical.


----------



## Jarnhamar

While we're at it half the military should be female, up to and including forcing males to get out.  Or maybe 1/3 male female and transgender.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> While we're at it half the military should be female, _up to and including forcing males to get out_.  Or maybe 1/3 male female and transgender.



Seems like a good ol 5d or 5f would be a nice parting gift.   ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax

I honestly think that exceptions to UofS is NOT a bad thing.  We invest sometimes millions of dollars into an individual only to release that individual on the basis that he may not deploy (sometimes even that is ambiguous). There are positions that will never deploy, at least not in the conditions most infantrymen would.  Making exceptions and restrictions on deployments/postings/advancement could work.  In a military where we are chronically short on people, it is at least something we ought to entertain.


----------



## brihard

This thread has taken some odd drifts... Are we all going to suddenly act like we don't know a bunch of cases of people who were really solid soldiers, got injured/ill to the point of some sort of long term disability that would preclude them from deploying in a combat arms capacity, but who nonetheless have a lot of subject matter knowledge that is worth preserving in the training, planning, or administrative worlds? Absolutely we do need to keep an operationally focused military. We need to be able to send task forces out the door to kick ass and take names, but a lot of people are behind that effort at home. We sometimes are ill-served by our haste to remove people from service who breach UoS when they still have a lot to potentially contribute. Perhaps there would be other ways to administer of employees, such as a civilian instructor/civilian administrator category of employee for the medically invalided, if people really insist on getting these folks out of uniform?


----------



## dapaterson

The current system provides for retention of a limited number of personnel for a limited amount of time.  Is that inadequate?  How far can we go before we risk (a) severe impact on operational outputs and (b) losing U of S entirely in a tribunal or court?

Perhaps we need to understand the status quo before we propose any radical change.


----------



## daftandbarmy

It was Clover's voice. She neighed again, and all the animals broke into a gallop and rushed into the yard. Then they saw what Clover had seen. 

It was a pig walking on his hind legs. 

Yes, it was Squealer. A little awkwardly, as though not quite used to supporting his considerable bulk in that position, but with perfect balance, he was strolling across the yard. And a moment later, out from the door of the farmhouse came a long file of pigs, all walking on their hind legs. Some did it better than others, one or two were even a trifle unsteady and looked as though they would have liked the support of a stick, but every one of them made his way right round the yard successfully. And finally there was a tremendous baying of dogs and a shrill crowing from the black cockerel, and out came Napoleon himself, majestically upright, casting haughty glances from side to side, and with his dogs gambolling round him. 

He carried a whip in his trotter. 

There was a deadly silence. Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. It was as though the world had turned upside-down. Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything-in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticising, no matter what happened-they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of- 

"Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!" 

It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse. 

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering. 

"My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?" 

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran: 

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL 
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS 

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters. It did not seem strange to learn that the pigs had bought themselves a wireless set, were arranging to install a telephone, and had taken out subscriptions to John Bull, TitBits, and the Daily Mirror. It did not seem strange when Napoleon was seen strolling in the farmhouse garden with a pipe in his mouth-no, not even when the pigs took Mr. Jones's clothes out of the wardrobes and put them on, Napoleon himself appearing in a black coat, ratcatcher breeches, and leather leggings, while his favourite sow appeared in the watered silk dress which Mrs. Jones had been used to wear on Sundays. 

http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

meni0n said:
			
		

> No deployments and a stable work environment (no postings) is mostly aimed at the cyber trade I guess. Although, the only posting for cyber is currently only Ottawa and will probably remain that way The thinking is, how do you attract someone with a specialised skill set to a standard pay group trade and then keep them after they've had all their training. Imagine investing a lot of money training someone with very specific expensive courses and then a company will come along and offer 20-40k more. That trade will need to have some something at least to offset that. The only thing I guess they can offer now is no deployments, postings and an early pension. The pay will definitely not be competitive.



You've heard of a trade called PILOT before I assume?  Cyber Warriors, despite how they feel, aren't going to be _that_ special...no more special than any other SME in their trade.  I know guys who were CRIPT team members long before the Cyber Op MOSID was announced, and they can't cast spells and make magic potions...they're just good at what they're trained at.  Same as I am, and the next guy/gal/non-binary organism. 



> I've also heard the idea of running special BMQ or leadership courses just for people in that trade. Making those courses easier and with less or no field time. Not sure if that will pan out but it would make sense with the approach that's being taken the way things are going all mamby-pamby in the CAF.



I guess the *final FTX* would be a weekend COD marathon?   >

 ;D


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's the CAF so first order of business is always dress and deportment.  Clearly we won't be able to fully leverage our cyber capabilities without a new set of Cyber "wings"



First, an element-specific "operational dress" t-shirt and cargo shorts, liberally dusted with Cheetos and/or Doritos stains   :nod:


----------



## GAP

Brihard said:
			
		

> This thread has taken some odd drifts... Are we all going to suddenly act like we don't know a bunch of cases of people who were really solid soldiers, got injured/ill to the point of some sort of long term disability that would preclude them from deploying in a combat arms capacity, but who nonetheless have a lot of subject matter knowledge that is worth preserving in the training, planning, or administrative worlds? Absolutely we do need to keep an operationally focused military. We need to be able to send task forces out the door to kick ass and take names, but a lot of people are behind that effort at home. We sometimes are ill-served by our haste to remove people from service who breach UoS when they still have a lot to potentially contribute. Perhaps there would be other ways to administer of employees, such as a civilian instructor/civilian administrator category of employee for the medically invalided, if people really insist on getting these folks out of uniform?



 :goodpost:   excellent actually....


----------



## meni0n

I have heard of Pilots, but then again there won't be any 9 year entry contracts for NCMs. Also, do you really want to tell me that every pilot can get a 80-100k job offered to him after a few years in the CF? Cyber/IT security is a very specialised field and requires specific kind of people. There's a very limited supply and you have to really stand out to attract the people you want. 

It's not the same mentality of taking joe off the street and giving him the training and lo and behold he will be a competent cyber operator. Also, you're not only competing with the private sector out there, there are certain Government agencies that are on a hiring spree for these kind of positions and they're offering really attractive compensation. And even they have problems retaining people and losing them to the private sector. The CF will need every competent body to get this trade off the ground, otherwise it will just fail miserably.


----------



## Good2Golf

...or the CAF just plans for a transitory force of "just smart-enough/experienced-enough" people to feed, as you say, the "very specialized field" with the "specific kind of people."  They get too smart/experienced?  They move one...if it is more money and no longer wearing a uniform that does it for them.  Cycle-of-life.  Was this for other 'special kind(s) of people' and will for ever be thus.  Just one more group of special people in the mix...just as special as the other special people.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Bearpaw

Re: Cyber Ops

I do not think this is a good path for the CAF---Cyber Ops,.... should be delegated to the CSE as he kind of people and disciplines needed are not easily moulded in a military pattern.

Bearpaw


----------



## Furniture

Brihard said:
			
		

> This thread has taken some odd drifts... Are we all going to suddenly act like we don't know a bunch of cases of people who were really solid soldiers, got injured/ill to the point of some sort of long term disability that would preclude them from deploying in a combat arms capacity, but who nonetheless have a lot of subject matter knowledge that is worth preserving in the training, planning, or administrative worlds? Absolutely we do need to keep an operationally focused military. We need to be able to send task forces out the door to kick *** and take names, but a lot of people are behind that effort at home. We sometimes are ill-served by our haste to remove people from service who breach UoS when they still have a lot to potentially contribute. Perhaps there would be other ways to administer of employees, such as a civilian instructor/civilian administrator category of employee for the medically invalided, if people really insist on getting these folks out of uniform?



The suggestion of making a new class of Reg force for injured members who no longer meet UoS due to military related injuries seems like a good idea to me, but that was only one of the possibilities suggested in the article. There had been options for people to remuster into trades that don't have the same physical requirements. When I joined my trade it seemed half were remusters no longer medically fit to be combat arms, but they could sail, work on airfields around the world, etc... 

Each trade has a limited number of people, take a small trade and start making special cases of it's members and soon you're left with an even smaller trade of effective people that you will burn out in short order.


----------



## Sig_Des

via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## Eye In The Sky

meni0n said:
			
		

> I have heard of Pilots, but then again there won't be any 9 year entry contracts for NCMs.



Why not?  My trade has a VIE 7.  They could decide they're not getting a return on investment and change it to 9.  It  used to be 3, then 5 and now its VIE 7.  



> Also, do you really want to tell me that every pilot can get a 80-100k job offered to him after a few years in the CF? Cyber/IT security is a very specialised field and requires specific kind of people. There's a very limited supply and you have to really stand out to attract the people you want.



So is flying one of these:  (if you've never been around/beside an A380...they're bloody massive aircraft)







And yup, I had a Skipper who flew for the CAF for a few years and then went across the pond to fly those metal clouds for 6 figures a year and a LOT of side benefits/pampering. 



> It's not the same mentality of taking joe off the street and giving him the training and lo and behold he will be a competent cyber operator. Also, you're not only competing with the private sector out there, there are certain Government agencies that are on a hiring spree for these kind of positions and they're offering really attractive compensation. And even they have problems retaining people and losing them to the private sector. The CF will need every competent body to get this trade off the ground, otherwise it will just fail miserably.



So, basically what you're saying is that Cyber Ops will be the cream of the crop of any/all MOSIDS and boy oh boy, we had better give them the stuff they ask for or else.  Here's a news flash...EVERY trade is the same.  You can't take Joe off the street in my trade and voila, you have a competent sensor operator.  You're looking at 4 to 5 years to get someone off the street to Advanced Category in my trade and then they still are just starting their first gig as a Crew Lead AES Op.  Infantry...how long to make someone a competent Sect 2 I/C or Sect Comdr??  POINT - don't get on the Cyber Op high-horse before the trade is even in existence in some form of operational capability.

I said before, I knew (and worked with) some CRIPT types long before Cyber Op was even on the table.  I get it, but the same can be said for a lot of trades.  There are opportunities for my trade to go civie, work 6 months a year and make 6 figures doing payload operator type jobs.  Cyber isn't the only battlespace and no more special than the kinetic battlespace operators.

Some of the stuff being discussed in the thread is ridiculous.  *Cyber should be able to get a pension sooner than other people* comes to mind first.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...Some of the stuff being discussed in the thread is ridiculous.  *Cyber should be able to get a pension sooner than other people* comes to mind first.



:nod:

Everything I hear about cool cyber kids is that they're not the "pension prisoner" type.  Seems a bit incongruous for some to put those two concepts together. :dunno:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver,
> 
> The statement you wish to modify states "to defend Canada, its interests and its values", not advance or enforce our values on others or other countries.  If we strike - defend our own values, then CAF will only defend Canada and our interests and in doing so are you proposing that we should withdraw from most of our international alliances.



Simian: It should never be the CAF's job to defend values. Period. Just look at the whole debate that just took place in the Conservative party because Ms. Leitch wanted to test immigrants for "Canadian values". Nobody could come up with what these values are or should be, not even her. The current PM sees "feminism" as a value. that's fine so long as it is his values, but why should it be imposed on ALL Canadians? It shouldn't is the answer. So which values does the CAF "defend"? and how since values are a personal thing?

And striking the defence of "values" from our mission statement does not require us to leave ANY of our international alliances, because I would certainly hope and expect that we joined these alliances because we found that it was in the national interest to do so. 

As for Cyber warfare, IMHO it is appropriate to have a capacity, both defensive (the largest portion) and offensive (a smaller contingent). DND already has an organization within it that does commsec: the Communication Security Establishment. Any further defensive capability should, I believe, come under their umbrella as an extension of mandate. Then, it would be manned by civilians within the defence umbrella, while leaving universality of service intact. On the offensive side, however, which I believe should consist of personnel that can deploy in support of a local operation to disrupt cyberspace locally and deny its use to our opponents wherever we are called upon to fight, I believe it should be a special qualification for some deployable members of the various communication trades organized as units for operational employment.


----------



## Avail

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Re: Cyber Ops
> 
> I do not think this is a good path for the CAF---Cyber Ops,.... should be delegated to the CSE as he kind of people and disciplines needed are not easily moulded in a military pattern.
> 
> Bearpaw



That's nonsense. Take a look at the list of career options in the CAF. It's not all Combat Arms. Doctors, Cooks, Lawyers, Musicians, Clerks, various Scientists and Engineers - how are they any easier to indoctrinate?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Neso said:
			
		

> That's nonsense. Take a look at the list of career options in the CAF. It's not all Combat Arms. Doctors, Cooks, Lawyers, Musicians, Clerks, various Scientists and Engineers - how are they any easier to indoctrinate?



They communicate with other human being _verbally_ from time to time prior to entering military service?    ;D


----------



## OldTanker

Some observations on this subject. I am both disabled (minimally) and retired (totally) and I lack some of the current understanding of staffing issues facing the CF, for example MATA/PATA, etc, that didn't exist when I served. But there are some other observations/questions I would like to make based on 15 years of post-military service in government and business. First, I think the CDS is on track with his concept of cyber-warriors (my term, not his). Why not create a specialized classification/trade for specialists? If this group has no need to deploy and carry weapons and close with the enemy, why make that a requirement? As we are well into the 21st century isn't it time to adapt our forces to the requirement and be flexible where flexibility won't affect the rest of the force? To those who would argue forcefully about universality of service, I would counter that the largest officer classification in the CF (if I am correct) is composed of reserve officers who are commissioned, paid (generally), uniformed, and administered the same as the rest of the CF but only have to meet minimal medical standards (generally be able to breath and walk), are non-deployable and have no requirement to participate in any form of annual physical or war-fighting (again, my term) training or standards. Of course I am referring to the COATS (did I get that right?) classification who are recruited, trained and employed solely to administer the cadet program. From my experience (ex-Deputy Regional Cadet Officer) the majority of them are dedicated, efficient and do a good job at what we want them to do. There are some clangers, and the appearance of some of them sends shivers down my spine, but we have accepted that we need to have this specialized group of people in the CF and accept that there will be differences between them and the regular (and primary reserve) war fighters. Since we have a precedent, why couldn't we apply a similar standard to cyber-warriors (or any other specialized group that realistically would never deploy or directly engage with the enemy and would not have any affect on the war fighter ship-to-shore staffing issue)? On the issue of broken soldiers (and aviators and sailors), why can't we employ them in positions currently held by civilians and contractors? I would argue that any additional administrative burden caused by keeping broken soldiers in the service, and possibly higher rates of pay, would be offset by maintaining the skill sets some of them have and the additional boost to morale that knowing that there is life in the CF after injury or disability. I have seen lots of my disabled colleagues employed both as contractors and civilians in direct support of the CF and see no reason why we couldn't have kept them in uniform. My sense is that the concept of having the public service applying some sort of priority to hiring disable veterans is not particularly successful so lets keep them in uniform. I have no idea what is in the CDS's mind, and to suggest this is all smoke and mirrors to meet the current government's societal objectives is pure conjecture. I think he is facing an issue of how to build an effective CF that can meet current and future requirements and not simply fall back on a philosophy that every CF member has to be an infantryman first (and whatever the Air Force and Navy equivalents are). I will retreat back into my comfortable retiree's box now and let the games begin!


----------



## meni0n

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why not?  My trade has a VIE 7.  They could decide they're not getting a return on investment and change it to 9.  It  used to be 3, then 5 and now its VIE 7.
> 
> So is flying one of these:  (if you've never been around/beside an A380...they're bloody massive aircraft)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yup, I had a Skipper who flew for the CAF for a few years and then went across the pond to fly those metal clouds for 6 figures a year and a LOT of side benefits/pampering.
> 
> So, basically what you're saying is that Cyber Ops will be the cream of the crop of any/all MOSIDS and boy oh boy, we had better give them the stuff they ask for or else.  Here's a news flash...EVERY trade is the same.  You can't take Joe off the street in my trade and voila, you have a competent sensor operator.  You're looking at 4 to 5 years to get someone off the street to Advanced Category in my trade and then they still are just starting their first gig as a Crew Lead AES Op.  Infantry...how long to make someone a competent Sect 2 I/C or Sect Comdr??  POINT - don't get on the Cyber Op high-horse before the trade is even in existence in some form of operational capability.
> 
> I said before, I knew (and worked with) some CRIPT types long before Cyber Op was even on the table.  I get it, but the same can be said for a lot of trades.  There are opportunities for my trade to go civie, work 6 months a year and make 6 figures doing payload operator type jobs.  Cyber isn't the only battlespace and no more special than the kinetic battlespace operators.
> 
> Some of the stuff being discussed in the thread is ridiculous.  *Cyber should be able to get a pension sooner than other people* comes to mind first.



So you knew one guy and I am saying that every competent person would be able to get that kind of job. Now try to sustain a whole trade, taking retention and recruiting into account and it is a monumental challenge. Sorry but comparing AESOPs to Cyber is really not realistic. You guys get trained on specific equipment. I got really good knowledge of what will be required of an operator doing offensive cyber and you simply cannot take anyone off the street and train them to do it. As much as you'd like to believe that it can be just like any trade in the CF, it just cannot.  

I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap.


----------



## McG

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Why not create a specialized classification/trade for specialists? If this group has no need to deploy and carry weapons and close with the enemy, why make that a requirement? … Since we have a precedent, why couldn't we apply a similar standard to cyber-warriors (or any other specialized group that realistically would never deploy or directly engage with the enemy and would not have any effect on the war fighter ship-to-shore staffing issue)?


Are you also proposing we pay Cyber the same as COATS, or that we make them a component separate from the Reg F and PRes?  There are some great people amongst the officer cadre for the cadets, but there is also a lot of animosity and condescension (though it may not be deserved) that I have seen come from some Reg F and Pres.  I think you would find it easier to integrate a team if the “cyber tech” were presented as a civilian professional as opposed to a service member who just does not do that profession of arms thing.  



			
				OldTanker said:
			
		

> On the issue of broken soldiers (and aviators and sailors), why can't we employ them in positions currently held by civilians and contractors? … I have seen lots of my disabled colleagues employed both as contractors and civilians in direct support of the CF and see no reason why we couldn't have kept them in uniform.


There are a finite number of military positions that we are allowed to fill; the corollary is that every broken service member retained is one fewer fit member that we are able to hire.  We have a system in place that looks at what individuals are able to contribute and where vacancies exist, it then allows a temporary retention so that members can continue to serve while getting transition support.  But eventually they have to go or the whole system becomes constipated.  Priority hiring has to be made to work, because we also cannot start firing civilians to re-allocate work to a broken individual in uniform.   



			
				OldTanker said:
			
		

> I have no idea what is in the CDS's mind, and to suggest this is all smoke and mirrors to meet the current government's societal objectives is pure conjecture. I think he is facing an issue of how to build an effective CF that can meet current and future requirements and not simply fall back on a philosophy that every CF member has to be an infantryman first (and whatever the Air Force and Navy equivalents are).


This is certainly a factor.  Recruiting and retention has been a reoccurring (if not enduring) problem for a while now.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Honestly the skillsets for a Cyber trade can be taught. The workforce with the aptitude for this trade are very much out there. Infact in alot of ways I think it will be easier to recruit people with a good aptitude for Cyber Op than it will be for many more conventional trades. 

That said the only (very) questionable piece is the CAF's ability to put together a comprehensive, relevant and practical training plan for new cyber operators. 

I'm afraid that's going to come from within the Sigs trade and I don't think the knowledge needed exists in any meaningful concentration within the C&E branch right now, nor do I have faith that the branch will be able to select the right people to put them into the key roles to form a strong foundation for the new fledgling trade. The complete fluster cuck that is ACISS has made that clear.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Maaaaaaaaaybe a bit more detail from the Minister tomorrow?


> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will highlight Canada’s priorities in the space and cyber domain as part of Canada’s new defence policy at 3 Division Support Base Edmonton, on June 14, 2017.
> 
> Minister Sajjan will hold a media availability following his remarks.
> 
> Event: Media availability with Minister Sajjan
> 
> Time: 9:45 a.m.
> 
> Date: June 14, 2017
> 
> Location: Harvey Building, 3 Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton, 405 Korea Road, Edmonton, Alberta
> 
> -30-​


Meanwhile, the cyber-bits from the recent review attached - let the highlighting continue!


----------



## a_majoor

This seems to be missing the point. Unless Cyber and other "new" trades never deploy at all and exist working 24/7 in an armoured bunker hidden in Resolute Bay, any soldier or service member had better be fit and capable of fighting and defending themselves. The idea there are "safe" rear areas has been debunked for decades (indeed if I were fighting this kind of war, I'd be looking for opportunities to find out where the cyber warriors are in Canada and visit with a large truck bomb and a bunch of guys wielding AK-47's).

The alternative would be a vastly expanded Infantry branch with training approximating CP Operators to escort these specialists 24/7 to prevent just that kind of visitation. Do we want a huge bodyguard force just to ensure we can operate in the new modalities of warfare (and what are we willing to give up in exchange?).


----------



## Gunner98

So if it is OK to have "Specialist Cyber warriors" who will never deploy and therefore do not need to meet the U of S guidelines, why can't we have Lawyers, Supply Techs, Logistics Officers, Padres, Specialists/Medical Officers, Dentists, Physician Assistants, Medical Assistants, Dental Technicians that are not required to be deployable or meet U of S so we could retain them and provide continuity in support roles at Bases.  Oh yes, I forgot - "Soldier First" does not apply on a case by case basis.


----------



## Good2Golf

Dare one consider a civilian CS2/3 with a special skills bonus for the skills they possess that 95% of their peers don't? Solves the UofS issue and they can still be on the Defence TeamTM.

:dunno:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So if it is OK to have "Specialist Cyber warriors" who will never deploy and therefore do not need to meet the U of S guidelines, why can't we have Lawyers, Supply Techs, Logistics Officers, Padres, Specialists/Medical Officers, Dentists, Physician Assistants, Medical Assistants, Dental Technicians that are not required to be deployable or meet U of S so we could retain them and provide continuity in support roles at Bases.  Oh yes, I forgot - "Soldier First" does not apply on a case by case basis.



A decent chunk of Australian military doctors, dentists and the like are "Specialist Reserve" in that they only request to deploy and aren't posted to a base.  They maintain practices or work in civilian hospitals wherever they are.  Granted, these are more for specialists than GPs.


----------



## medicineman

There  going to have to be some sort of medical standard for these creatures, especially if their special hideaway is up in Ungabungaluktutuk or they're expected to go somewhere bad...since they'll still have to (literally) carry their weight over hill or dale if something goes boobies up (and since that Irish drunk Murphy has a big nose that's in everyone's business, it will).  Strangely enough, people that are treated like/act like mushrooms tend to be less healthy than those that get good food, sunlight and exercise regularly - if we're going to employ mushrooms, they'll have to be healthy enough to be sent where they might be needed AND not be able to be looked after as well as they would be in a large urban centre.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, broad strokes only, via the Info-machine - highlights mine ...


> Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s new defence policy, recognizes that the long-term success of Canada’s military depends on the women and men who make up the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Our people are our most important asset and they deserve to be equipped with the resources, capabilities and skills required to meet today’s complex and modern challenges.
> 
> Today Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, on behalf of Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, met with leaders from industry and academia at the University of New Brunswick’s Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity to discuss the cybersecurity environment and the implications to Canada’s defence and security.
> 
> Cyber threats pose an increasing risk to our national security. Under the new policy Canada will implement measures to ensure that the CAF is ready to respond, whenever threats arise and from wherever they come.
> 
> Defence will establish a new Cyber Mission Assurance Program that will incorporate cybersecurity considerations into military procurement; create a new military occupation for Cyber Operators to help focus training initiatives and recruit top talent in the field; and leverage reservists with specialized skillsets to strengthen the military’s capabilities. The CAF will also be provided with the resources necessary to conduct active cyber operations, in support of government-authorized military missions.
> 
> The CAF can no longer wait for an attack before taking concrete action. Strong, Secure, Engaged, will provide the CAF with the tools and resources needed to address these threats and help make Canada strong at home, secure in North America, and engaged in the world.
> 
> Strong, Secure, Engaged is an ambitious yet realistic plan that outlines Canada’s defence priorities over the next 20 years, and provides stable, predictable, and long-term funding.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> _“The global security environment is rapidly evolving and threats are constantly emerging. We know this is not something we can control. But what we can control is ensuring that our women and men are prepared to deal with these challenges. This policy is investing in the resources and capabilities we need to get the job done, and done well.”_
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan
> 
> _“Today’s threats are no longer just on the traditional battlefield – they now live in the cyber and space domains. To be effective, we know we can no longer adopt a purely defensive approach. Strong, Secure, Engaged provides the stable and long-term funding needed to modernize our military so that it can better respond to these threats.”_
> 
> The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> Cyber operations will be subject to the same rigour and oversight as every Canadian Armed Forces operation, including:
> Abiding by Canadian and international laws;
> Conducted only in support of government-authorized military missions; and
> Conducted according to proven checks and balances, such as rules of engagement, targeting, and collateral damage.
> 
> The launch of Strong, Secure, Engaged concludes the most comprehensive review process in Canadian defence and security history - a year-long review process that included open and transparent consultations with Canadians, parliamentarians, defence experts, allies, and partners.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

meni0n said:
			
		

> So you knew one guy and I am saying that every competent person would be able to get that kind of job. Now try to sustain a whole trade, taking retention and recruiting into account and it is a monumental challenge. Sorry but comparing AESOPs to Cyber is really not realistic. You guys get trained on specific equipment. I got really good knowledge of what will be required of an operator doing offensive cyber and you simply cannot take anyone off the street and train them to do it. As much as you'd like to believe that it can be just like any trade in the CF, it just cannot.
> 
> I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap.



I used 1 guy I know who is a Pilot as an example.  

Are you suggesting that Cyber is the most hardcore, hard to train MOSID?  Seriously...you (potential) guys need to get the fuck over yourselves before you even get going.  Do you know what CRIPT was/is?  I know them, I shared office space with them.  They are SMEs in what they so, just like a Med Tech is, or a veh tech is.  The trade will be just as special as any other trade is.  FULL STOP.  If I spent the same amount of time training to be Cyber that I have to be an AES Op, I'd be a SME in that, too.  6 months work as a payload operator can equal XXX,XXX salary a year for UAV type, civie side, with the right experience.

You have no idea what my training or knowledge is, actually.  Don't take the term scope dope literally.  I have a friend who has done Red/Blue team stuff that will tell you anyone can be trained in cyber, just like any other trade, and some will be better at it than others...just like any other trade.

 :  Cyber should be compensated "just like JTF2".  Holy fuckballs, over.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I think the no-deployment thing is just the beginning and if they don't bump the trade to Spec, there will most likely be some kind of allowance just like for JTF2 in order to deal with the monetary gap


There's no shortage of computer guys and girls in school. From what I recall most can't find work in their field because of the saturation level.

While milage varies every member of the CAF should be prepared (and capable of) grabbing a rifle, grenades and bayonet and manning a trench on the other side of the world. 

The "what about injured members" is a slippery emotional slope.  IMO does a 12 year veteran who can't deploy anymore still have a lot to offer the military? Yes. Does someone with 1 year in and unable to deploy? Not as much.


----------



## meni0n

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I used 1 guy I know who is a Pilot as an example.
> 
> Are you suggesting that Cyber is the most hardcore, hard to train MOSID?  Seriously...you (potential) guys need to get the frig over yourselves before you even get going.  Do you know what CRIPT was/is?  I know them, I shared office space with them.  They are SMEs in what they so, just like a Med Tech is, or a veh tech is.  The trade will be just as special as any other trade is.  FULL STOP.  If I spent the same amount of time training to be Cyber that I have to be an AES Op, I'd be a SME in that, too.  6 months work as a payload operator can equal XXX,XXX salary a year for UAV type, civie side, with the right experience.
> 
> You have no idea what my training or knowledge is, actually.  Don't take the term scope dope literally.  I have a friend who has done Red/Blue team stuff that will tell you anyone can be trained in cyber, just like any other trade, and some will be better at it than others...just like any other trade.
> 
> :  Cyber should be compensated "just like JTF2".  Holy fuckballs, over.



Just because you can't really accept that a trade will require really smart and competent people with really specialised training, that's not really my problem. If you want to sit there and tell yourself that anyone can be trained for any trade in the CF, go ahead. Being just ok at this is really not an option because it could mean one mistake away from attribution or even a bigger blunder which will cause major issues. No one really wants that.  

I'll give you an example, I'm part of a trade that's supposed to have very technically minded people. But, in reality, there is really a small amount of really IT smart people. And, even if we choose someone to go to all the technical courses we got, they are still no better than when we started, which is why we are having a hard time filling positions that require really good IT technical skills. 

Another example, I got a buddy that was chosen to go to CFNOC. He wasn't the most technical guy and sure he went to do all the training, at the end all he was doing is opening some alerts and forwarding them. Basic buttonology without any analysis. And even though he was taught everything he needs to know to be a good analyst, if I open up wireshark and throw some pcaps in there, he'll have a very hard time fully analysing it.

Point I am trying to make is that, just because the traditional military training that you're used to has worked for most of the military trades, doesn't mean that it will work in this instance.

Lastly, no I haven't heard of CRIPT, which leads me to believe that they what they were doing had little to nothing to do with Cyber and the fact that you're naming them means that they weren't working at the classification that was of impact, at least in the sense of cyber that the CF wants to do. 

In regards to the JTF2 like allowance, you can patronise me all you want but that's the rumour going around at the moment and like I said if they don't move the trade into a Spec group, will most likely need such an allowance.


----------



## TCM621

I get the impression people think these cyber guys will be hardcore hackers like MR. Robot. More than likely they will be computer literate individuals who will use tools provided to them to do the jobs they need to do. They will be military script kiddies. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent understanding of networks and computers who is willing to invest the time to learn can "hack". 

The guys making the tools will be civilian contractors most likely working for the NSA or another of our allies. They will be making 6 figures and will likely never leave home (possibly literally).


----------



## SupersonicMax

EITS,

The difference between an AES Op and a potential cyber trade is the demand of those skills in the private sectors and the number of people that can complete training, can be very good technically and have a level of critical thinking that allows them to operate with little supervision.

Not to diminish the AES Op trade, but the demand of your technical skills in the civilian sector isn't that great and I bet you that most operators are pretty good at what they do, probably because how you operate your equipment doesn't really deviate from the standard procedures established. I imagine that a cyber operator would require a level of critical thinking and problem solving skills beyond what you would require on a daily basis.  Companies hire people with those skills already and with the training and experience brings, they will be sought after.  So yes, there needs to be some measures from which we will retain those skills, training and experience.  And forcing them to stay by signing for x years won't cut it.  We have to make the CAF an attractive employer.  If we need to change some of our policies then so be it.  We need to adapt to today's realities and care for our people.

Making them public serveants could be an option but it becomes difficult to make them conduct offensive operations (without the unlimited liability portion).  IMO, any trade that conducts offensive operations should be uniformed.

And then there is the argument of every soldier should be able to deploy because of terrorism.  Using that logic, every civilian should meet the standards for deployments.  That is non-sense.  We have people that are trained and paid to take up weapons and start shooting when fhit hit the san and that transfers to most current trades. Nothing says cyber operators could have basic weapons quals (like most non-combat trades.  I shoot 9mm once a year and C-7 never).  If they are actually needed here, things really went wrong and an unfit cyber operator or a NDHQ Admin Loggie would stand on equal foot IMO.


----------



## meni0n

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I get the impression people think these cyber guys will be hardcore hackers like MR. Robot. More than likely they will be computer literate individuals who will use tools provided to them to do the jobs they need to do. They will be military script kiddies. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent understanding of networks and computers who is willing to invest the time to learn can "hack".
> 
> The guys making the tools will be civilian contractors most likely working for the NSA or another of our allies. They will be making 6 figures and will likely never leave home (possibly literally).



Without going too much into specifics but hardcore hackers is more closer to the mark than you think. Having a computer program where you put in a IP address and expect results is not realistic or even possible. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration and each situation is unique as is each large network out there. There would also need to be many things done before you even come to the stage of going after a target which can only be done by very competent and technical people. I don't even want to touch the attribution aspect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

meni0n said:
			
		

> Just because you can't really accept that a trade will require really smart and competent people with really specialised training, that's not really my problem. If you want to sit there and tell yourself that anyone can be trained for any trade in the CF, go ahead. Being just ok at this is really not an option because it could mean one mistake away from attribution or even a bigger blunder which will cause major issues. No one really wants that.



I completely accept a trade will require really smart and competent people.  Not limited to pilots, Cyber, SOF.  I really hope the Flt Srgn knows their stuff, the pharmacist, the dentist.  My 24 years experience instructing in the CAF tells me that anyone can be trained and some people will have more aptitude and proficiency, including any/all things IT.  Before my remuster, I wore a Jimmy cap badge.  I've been (limited) exposed to the Cyber battlespace by the CAF folks who were doing *cyber* before it was talked about in public (also wearing Jimmy capbadges).  I spent X years working in a HQ G6 environment up to Branch 2 I/C, worked with IT, INFOSEC, COMSEC...I am not pulling an opinion out of my arse here.  I decided that stuff wasn't where I was best suited and moved on.    



> Another example, I got a buddy that was chosen to go to CFNOC. He wasn't the most technical guy and sure he went to do all the training, at the end all he was doing is opening some alerts and forwarding them. Basic buttonology without any analysis. And even though he was taught everything he needs to know to be a good analyst, if I open up wireshark and throw some pcaps in there, he'll have a very hard time fully analysing it.



Your example supports what I said above;  not everyone is going to finish top of the class.  Same will be true in Cyber, flying training, or a Combat Team Commanders course.



> Point I am trying to make is that, just because the traditional military training that you're used to has worked for most of the military trades, doesn't mean that it will work in this instance.



Well, that is easy to assume if you make presumptions about my education, experience or knowledge.  I've been in the CAF since 1989, but only an AES Op since 2010.



> Lastly, no I haven't heard of CRIPT, which leads me to believe that they what they were doing had little to nothing to do with Cyber and the fact that you're naming them means that they weren't working at the classification that was of impact, at least in the sense of cyber that the CF wants to do.



Ok.   ;D  IPT = Information Protection Team.  There was more than one, and they were spread out across the country.  PM your name and I'll put you in touch with a former one who then went to Blue/Red teams and is at the Mothership now.   



> In regards to the JTF2 like allowance, you can patronise me all you want but that's the rumour going around at the moment and like I said if they don't move the trade into a Spec group, will most likely need such an allowance.



I'm saying..if you think Cyber is as hardcore (in the IT kind of way) as JTF2..well.  I think that's stretching it.

Will Cyber require good, solid Ops?  You betcha.  Just like my trade does.  Or Sonar Op.  Because in _any_ of those trades, if people fuck up, bad things can happen.


----------



## TCM621

meni0n said:
			
		

> Without going too much into specifics but hardcore hackers is more closer to the mark than you think. Having a computer program where you put in a IP address and expect results is not realistic or even possible. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration and each situation is unique as is each large network out there. There would also need to be many things done before you even come to the stage of going after a target which can only be done by very competent and technical people. I don't even want to touch the attribution aspect.


I think it is unlikely they will be opening up a terminal window and coding on the fly. They will likely be using penetrative tools to attack networks. I don't mean to down play it but these are not going to hackers as people commonly think of them. They will be more akin to pen testers as part of an IT security company. These people are very well trained professionals and they are in high demand but there is no reason we can treat them like any other high demand military professional like NDT techs. There are a lot of military trades that can earn you six figures (especially in the energy sector) and we treat them like any other military member.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> EITS,
> 
> The difference between an AES Op and a potential cyber trade is the demand of those skills in the private sectors and the number of people that can complete training, can be very good technically and have a level of critical thinking that allows them to operate with little supervision.



Aside from the *demand in the private sector* part...honestly, you're also talking about a good A Cat NASO or ASO as well.  Seriously.  I'd even say more so for the ASO side;  I've seen them look like their heads have been hammered after hard box or mission.  Tracking a boomer...well, I'd guess that is pretty challenging too.



> Not to diminish the AES Op trade, but the demand of your technical skills in the civilian sector isn't that great and I bet you that most operators are pretty good at what they do, probably because how you operate your equipment doesn't really deviate from the standard procedures established. I imagine that a cyber operator would require a level of critical thinking and problem solving skills beyond what you would require on a daily basis.  Companies hire people with those skills already and with the training and experience brings, they will be sought after.  So yes, there needs to be some measures from which we will retain those skills, training and experience.  And forcing them to stay by signing for x years won't cut it.  We have to make the CAF an attractive employer.  If we need to change some of our policies then so be it.  We need to adapt to today's realities and care for our people.



I know you, like 99% of the CAF, don't know what my trade really does and to what level we delve into things like tactics.  People think AES Op and they think scope dope, ping monkey, or the guy/gal holding the flag off the end of the hoist cable on a Sea King during a photo op.  That's ok, MH AES Ops who never see the inside of a MPA don't *get* what LRP AES Ops do, and vice versa.  If we don't _really_ get each others jobs between fleets (other than the dual-qual guys), I don't expect the other classifications/trades who don't work with us to understand.  I'll finish the para by simply saying there's more to my job than watching a RADAR turn and button-mashing;  the 2 year upgrade to go from Basic to Advanced Cat isn't centered around crayon drawings and finger painting.  Right?  That's after 1+ year of pre and post Wings training.  Lots of trades take lots of time to train to *OFP and proficiency*.  Like, NET in the Navy, ATIS Techs...the list goes on.

But if you're ever in ZX and doing a RON, let me know and I'll see if we can arrange to get you in a box as a NASO for a ASuW box, or, even better, an ASO for an ASW box.  Get you in the ASO, NASO and Tac seat.   :nod:  Maybe I'll convince you we aren't just self-loading meatbags.   8)

If hiring, and wages are the main concern...do like they have done/are doing with PAs.  Make them all commissioned.  We do this with dental officers (I believe they make a crapload of money compared to even Pilots, who make more than GSOs), legal officers, etc.  Cyber isn't going to be a big trade, right?  

Aside from that, after watching the ACISS melt down from the sidelines...does anyone have faith in the C & E branch to really birth and burp this particular baby the right way??




> Making them public serveants could be an option but it becomes difficult to make them conduct offensive operations (without the unlimited liability portion).  IMO, any trade that conducts offensive operations should be uniformed.
> 
> And then there is the argument of every soldier should be able to deploy because of terrorism.  Using that logic, every civilian should meet the standards for deployments.  That is non-sense.  We have people that are trained and paid to take up weapons and start shooting when fhit hit the san and that transfers to most current trades. Nothing says cyber operators could have basic weapons quals (like most non-combat trades.  I shoot 9mm once a year and C-7 never).  If they are actually needed here, things really went wrong and an unfit cyber operator or a NDHQ Admin Loggie would stand on equal foot IMO.



Offensive operations that could cause loss of life, or just loss of service?  To me, there's a difference.  

Question; how are other NATO militaries setting up their Cyber forces?  Are they non-deployable, *who cares about your fitness?* forces or are they another military trade performing to the same minimum standards as the others in uniform?

Yup, we want the right people BUT we also want them to join us for the right reasons.  IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'll sum up...I've derailed this enough.

- cyber will need good people and be a challenge, in many ways.  I hope it doesn't go off the rails.

- I think we might be going too far with this whole non-deployable people thing.  As CountDC mentioned, what about burnout for those left to do the OUTCAN work?  Having done 3 CJOC type ROTOs in very short time recently (well less than 24 months) for a sustained OP, plus exercises and training in/outside Canada, and another less-known CJOC op a few times, it sucks to be the person going out the door...again..and again.

- I'll wait to see the CDS vision and intended End State with hopes this one is done right, if it is done.


----------



## Zoomie

Self-loading meat bag...


----------



## PuckChaser

CRIPT had/has a defensive cyber security mandate and leveraged reservists with the skillsets required. They got special training, but none of those folks got that training and ran to the civvies sector AFAIK.

Let's keep in mind here that Cyber Op is a trade with a name, and that's it. We barely have the semblance of an employment concept, how many PYs, and where they are going to work. The employment concept is critical to what pay level they will receive, so conjecture about paying them SOF-esque allowances is not really anything other than pissing into the wind at this point.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ya wait till they show up to work and start using 10 year old computers operating windows 98.

Besides, doesn't Ottawa already have a cell of nerds? And I don't mean comms research.


----------



## Sig_Des

So I looked into how the American's are doing it, just to see how it's organized. Most of the US Army's Cyber capabilities (Defensive and Offensive Cyber Ops) are captured under the US Army Cyber Command, and specifically the 780th Military Intelligence Bde, which has 2x subordinate MI Bn's. As of 2015, they stood up the Cyber Operations Specialist (17C) MOSID.

The trade is an entry level-job:

https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/computers-and-technology/cyber-operations-specialist.html

Currently qualifying for a 7K(USD) enlistment bonus, and as of 2015, qualifying for an Assignment Incentive Pay of 250/300/500$.

Job training for a cyber operations specialist requires completing 10 weeks of Basic Combat Training and two phases of Advanced Individual Training (AIT). Phase one is located in Corry Station, FL for 25 weeks and phase two is located in Fort Gordon, GA for 20 weeks.

Trade requirements:



> PHYSICAL DEMAND RATING OF *MEDIUM*.
> 
> PHYSICAL PROFILE OF 222221.
> 
> NORMALCOLOR VISION.
> 
> QUALIFYING SCORES.
> –A MINIMUM SCORE OF 110IN APTITUDE AREA FOR GT AND A MINIMUM SCORE OF 112IN APTITUDE AREA ST ON ASVAB TESTS ADMINISTERED ON AND AFTER 1 APRIL 2014.
> 
> THE SOLDIER MUST MEET TOP SECRET (TS) SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI) ACCESS ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO BE AWARDED AND MAINTAIN MOS.
> 
> SOLDIER IS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE AND PASS A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE SCOPE POLYGRAPH (CSP) PRIOR TO BEING AWARDED THE MOS AND MUST CONTINUE TO PASS SUBSEQUENT CSPSTO HOLD THE MOS. SOLDIERS WHO REFUSE TO TAKE OR FAIL A CSP WILL BE RECLASSIFIED.
> 
> FORMAL TRAINING (SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF 17C CYBER OPERATIONS SPECIALIST COURSE, CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE US ARMY CYBER SCHOOL) IS MANDATORY. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTIVE CREDIT WAIVER FOR FORMAL TRAINING MAY BE GRANTED BY COMMANDANT, US ARMY CYBER SCHOOL, FORT GORDON, GA 30905-5300



So basically, entry-level job, have to complete basic, medium fitness required, and deployable. Potential for some waivers, but must complete their Individual trg (which looking at the curriculum, is quite heavy). They are separated into national mission teams, combat mission teams (which are in direct support of combatant commands), and cyber protection teams. They get some extra money, but not a huge amount in the scheme of things.

As a personal side, considering the information available to a cyber op, and the potential threat, I would hope that our own Cyber Ops would be required to complete Conduct after Capture level C, which you can certainly argue has a requirement for some level of physical fitness.


----------



## Sig_Des

I started replying here with a lot of details I'd found on the US Army's Cyber Op MOSID, but realized it was better suited in the Cyber Op mega Trade:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/125966/post-1492367.html#msg1492367

Key take-away from that post that is relevant to this one is this:

The trade is an *entry level trade*, all trg provided, with some potential for waivers on previous experience/training. They get some incentive allowances, but not a huge amount (max 500$ as of 2015). 7K Enlistment bonus.

Physical demand rating of *MEDIUM*, and they are *deployable*.


----------



## Journeyman

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> ...... realized it was better suited in the Cyber Op mega Trade


Hopefully the posters will take it there, because that was like watching the president of the chess club having a bitch-slap contest with the school's Pokémon champ.  :slapfight:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Brihard said:
			
		

> This thread has taken some odd drifts... Are we all going to suddenly act like we don't know a bunch of cases of people who were really solid soldiers, got injured/ill to the point of some sort of long term disability that would preclude them from deploying in a combat arms capacity, but who nonetheless have a lot of subject matter knowledge that is worth preserving in the training, planning, or administrative worlds? Absolutely we do need to keep an operationally focused military. We need to be able to send task forces out the door to kick *** and take names, but a lot of people are behind that effort at home. We sometimes are ill-served by our haste to remove people from service who breach UoS when they still have a lot to potentially contribute. Perhaps there would be other ways to administer of employees, such as a civilian instructor/civilian administrator category of employee for the medically invalided, if people really insist on getting these folks out of uniform?



 :goodpost:

My personal opinion is that the biggest difficulty the CAF will have in developing highly technical and specialized Offensive/Defensive capabilities in the Cyber Domain will be the "prick measuring contest" that's an ingrained trait in classical military culture.

Small Wars Journal put out a great article a few years ago called "Leadership of Cyber Warriors: Enduring Principles and New Directions".  



> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a545300.pdf



If the military wants to try and steal some of the brain power from these places:












Than the paradigm better be changed because the top IT talent cares far less about PR's on the bench press and completing the Petawawa Ironman than they do about intellectual ability and critical thinking.

I think the article I alluded above provides a very good example of the difference between cyber warriors vice kinetic warriors:



> Differences Between Cyber and Kinetic Warriors
> 
> There are similarities between cyber warriors and kinetic warriors as well as stark
> differences. The ideal cyber warrior will possess high technical aptitude, be a creative problem
> solver, and possess a hacker mindset that enjoys manipulating complex systems and pushing
> technology in ways unintended by its designers. One downside of the hacking ethos is the siren
> 
> song of conducting unethical or illegal activities, particularly as one‟s skills advance. A key
> leadership challenge may be to ensure fundamental values of integrity, loyalty and duty are
> internalized by the cyber warrior and the unit. Where a kinetic warrior may own a Beretta 9mm
> pistol, a cyber warrior may have their own malware analysis lab tucked away in their basement.
> From our experience, cyber warriors are often independent and expect that their leaders are at
> least as bright and technically skilled as they. Many will have college degrees and professional
> certifications and take part in alternative hobbies and lifestyles. Contrast this with the physical
> prowess-centric kinetic warfare environment, where being the biggest caveman in the tribe is
> often enough to earn the respect of the led. Hackers and cyber warriors have a RTFM (Read The
> Manual) culture, which expects individuals to make every effort to answer their own question
> before asking an expert. In the intellect-centric environment of cyber warriors, general
> leadership and management skills alone, without intelligence and technical competence, will not
> carry the day. Because of their independent streak and desire for intellectual peers (or betters)
> for leaders, building teams of cyber warriors is a non-trivial leadership challenge for the
> uninitiated [8]. Different incentive structures may be necessary, for example pinning an
> achievement medal on a cyber warrior may not be valued as much as an opportunity for access to
> a new piece of technology or an advanced malware analysis course.
> 
> The best leaders will adapt to the characteristics and needs of their people. The cyber
> warrior is a different animal than the kinetic warrior. In the next section we've outlined
> leadership principles, both old and new, for taking these differences into account.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> My personal opinion is that the biggest difficulty the CAF will have in developing highly technical and specialized Offensive/Defensive capabilities in the Cyber Domain will be the "prick measuring contest" that's an ingrained trait in classical military culture.
> 
> Small Wars Journal put out a great article a few years ago called "Leadership of Cyber Warriors: Enduring Principles and New Directions".
> 
> If the military wants to try and steal some of the brain power from these places:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than the paradigm better be changed because the top IT talent cares far less about PR's on the bench press and completing the Petawawa Ironman than they do about intellectual ability and critical thinking.
> 
> I think the article I alluded above provides a very good example of the difference between cyber warriors vice kinetic warriors:




Well, that's all fine, but....



			
				meni0n said:
			
		

> ...Imagine investing a lot of money training someone with very specific expensive courses and then a company will come along and offer 20-40k more. That trade will need to have some something at least to offset that. The only thing I guess they can offer now is no deployments, postings and an early pension. The pay will definitely not be competitive.



What about never leaving the office and the early pension? ???

G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well, that's all fine, but....
> 
> What about never leaving the office and the early pension? ???
> 
> G2G



Great point G2G,

I've got a sneaking suspicion that unless we offer as a minimum, Senior Officer pay to some of these folks, we aren't going to get what we want or need. 



> Top Cyber Security Salaries In U.S. Metros Hit $380,000


   
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemorgan/2016/01/09/top-cyber-security-salaries-in-u-s-metros-hit-380000/#46376bbe7ef8


----------



## Good2Golf

:nod:

I get a feeling the type of cyber-operator we'd want is more someone who would rather hang out "after-hours" (if such a beast exists for these folks) in the "Cyber Fight Club" than try to compare with all the other MOSIDs in the CAF.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Gunner98

Why can't CAF use CSIS resources or take secondments from CSIS and have highly trained personnel with no recruiting or training costs?  Why is CAF once again reinventing the wheel?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Why can't CAF use CSIS resources or take secondments from CSIS and have highly trained personnel with no recruiting or training costs?



I think you mean CSEC but we should probably use CSIS as well  ;D


----------



## Gunner98

I meant CSIS:  https://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/ththrtnvrnmnt/nfrmtn/index-en.php

"Because the threat from cyber-espionage, cyber-sabotage and other cyber-operations are part of a broader economic threat to key sectors of Canadian society, CSIS works closely with other government departments and international partners in order to remain abreast of the global threat. As outlined in the Government of Canada’s Cyber Security Strategy, the Service analyzes and investigates domestic and international threats to the security of Canada, responding to the evolution in cyber-security technologies and practices."


----------



## Good2Golf

"remains abreast" does not equal "does the work."  

One could assume, safely one should believe, that CSEC is one of those "OGDs" that CSIS "works closely with" to "stay abreast."

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Blackadder1916

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> . . . secondments from CSIS [_or CSEC_] and have highly trained personnel with no recruiting or training costs? . . .



There are always recruiting and training costs, the only difference is whose budget it is charged against.  Just like the CAF, CSIS/CSEC's establishments are developed by "one job, one man".  They don't have spare pricks laying about, available to be used at will by other government agencies (oh, maybe their establishments are different than the CAF).  Just a WGA, (though I did do a couple of courses at CSE back when the earth was cooling - why would an HCA get loaded on something like that?) but the typical experienced CSIS/CSEC* employee who is maybe working in this field would more likely (based on duties, educational background, and salary) expect to be treated as equivalent to a junior officer rather than the entry level junior NCM "smart fat kid on a computer in his parent's basement" that has come to mind in this discussion.

*https://www.csiscareers.ca/en/jobs/security-assessment-analyst-0
https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/node/1462


----------



## Journeyman

Since this cyber chat isn't going over to the Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread, I'll continue the derail.

Ok, we're talking about the CAF. No one really knows where we're going with this (except apparently one poster who is amazingly prescient, or hooked up to the Matrix).  One thing we _do_  know, is how the Force's tribal elders deal with retention issues, whether SOF or this Sheldon Cooper Command.....


...uniforms & badges.

I predict that we'll see Cyber Commando uniforms combining the 'best' elements of Starship Troopers and Transformers and whatever else the little geek darlings are into these days.... such that they'll be the envy of COMICONs everywhere.

     :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Since this cyber chat isn't going over to the Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread, I'll continue the derail.



Don't worry, some of the staff will be around to tidy this thread up and exercise a bit of topic discipline, Journeyman.  :-\

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Don't worry, some of the staff will be around to tidy this thread up and exercise a bit of topic discipline, Journeyman.  :-\


Well, we saw that the boss _tried_  to add chlorine to the DS pool.... but he's only got so much to work with.     >

Hey, it's Friday.    :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, we saw that the boss _tried_  to add chlorine to the DS pool.... but he's only got so much to work with.     >
> 
> Hey, it's Friday.    :cheers:



Lol tell me how you real feel JM.  

Edit:

Entire topic merged, you're welcome  [Xp


----------



## garb811

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...uniforms & badges.


Apparently user trials are already ongoing...


----------



## Avail

Looks like the SOF analogies weren't too far off the mark

www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4164696



> There is a reference to creating a special forces reserve unit, which Rohozinski said would develop offensive cyber capabilities, particularly in the area of information operations.
> 
> "That was a bit of a surprise, but uniquely Canadian," he said.
> 
> It's important from the point of view of attracting top cyber talent.
> 
> There will be a focus on recruiting cyber reservists, who work in the private sector by day, where they earn top dollar, but then also get to put their skills to use with the cachet of being a part-time special forces operator.
> 
> "Special operations command has a unique incentive structure and unique selection criteria. And because they are mission-oriented — the pointy end of the spear — their ability to motivate people beyond monetary remuneration is pretty significant," said Rohozinski. "Taking that approach to cyber warriors is pretty unique and a pretty clever thing to do."





CANSOFCOM investments

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/news/investments-special-operations-forces-joint-capabilities.asp



> Improve cryptographic, information operations, and cyber capabilities to include:
> Cyber security and situational awareness projects;
> Cyber threat identification and response;
> Development of military-specific information operations; and
> *Development of military-specific offensive cyber operations capabilities able to target, exploit, influence, and attack in support of military operations.*


----------



## Gunner98

"Special operations command has a unique incentive structure and unique selection criteria. And because they are mission-oriented — the pointy end of the spear."

However, these cyber-SOF will not be the pointy-end of the spear or have to pass the unique selection criteria that the rest of the operators do - so how will they be eligible for the unique incentives?  How will they be welcomed by their peers?


----------



## Good2Golf

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> "Special operations command has a unique incentive structure and unique selection criteria. And because they are mission-oriented — the pointy end of the spear."
> 
> However, these cyber-SOF will not be the pointy-end of the spear or have to pass the unique selection criteria that the rest of the operators do - so how will they be eligible for the unique incentives?  How will they be welcomed by their peers?



They'll likely be welcomed after they pass their green course at the training centre and then whatever training and indoctrination CANSOFCOM deems appropriate thereafter, then they will no doubt get out and support the assaulters and operators as a team, in the AO if need be, I'm willing to bet.  Assaulters and operators aren't Neanderthals when it comes to giving dues to those who contribute to the team's overall success -- they appreciate their supporters, physical and soon to be formalized cyber supporters.  It is not unreasonable to imagine that there are some incentives out there that are not dependant on assaulter or operator selection.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> However, these cyber-SOF will not be the pointy-end of the spear or have to pass the unique selection criteria that the rest of the operators do ...


Funny thing about the unique selection criteria: it is unique to the role and unit that one is going into.  Selection for CSOR is not selection for CJIRU, which is not selection for JTF 2 assaulter or coxswain.  So, the precedent is already set for elements not passing the same selection criteria.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Funny thing about the unique selection criteria: it is unique to the role and unit that one is going into.  Selection for CSOR is not selection for CJIRU, which is not selection for JTF 2 assaulter or coxswain.  So, the precedent is already set for elements not passing the same selection criteria.



Nor the precedence of Reservists filling specialist roles......CIMIC and Humint.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Looks like CSE'll be officially in the game as well - this via The Canadian Press:


> Canada is going all-in when it comes to cyberwarfare.
> 
> Weeks after giving the military permission to start developing cyberweapons and other offensive capabilities, the Trudeau government wants to issue a similar directive to Canada's electronic spy agency.
> 
> New national security legislation unveiled by the Liberals on Tuesday would, among other things, let the Communications Security Establishment launch cyberattacks against foreign targets.
> 
> Those would include potential threats ranging from hackers and terrorists to countries and governments.
> 
> The 70-year-old agency's existing mandate includes protecting computer systems that are deemed critical by the federal government, and only allows for the collection of information from foreign targets.
> 
> Those responsibilities would continue under the proposed legislation.
> 
> The changes being introduced by the government are necessary to protect Canada in the 21st century, said Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who is responsible for overseeing the agency.
> 
> "Currently we only have a defensive shield," Sajjan told a news conference. "We have to wait to be hit."
> 
> The spy agency is also being tapped to help the Canadian military when it comes to developing the latter's ability to fight online, which was included as part of the Liberal government's recently released defence policy.
> 
> Taken together, the new measures for CSE and the military mark Canada's late entrance into a realm of warfare already occupied by its Five Eyes intelligence allies and potential foes such as Russia and China — and whose importance is only growing.
> 
> CSE, for example, warned last week that cyberthreats to democratic processes around the world are on the rise, and that Canada will face the risk of cyberattacks during the next federal election in 2019.
> 
> (...)
> 
> the proposed law forbids CSE from hurting or killing anyone through its online actions, or making any intentional effort "to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice or democracy."
> 
> One key question is the degree to which Canadians will be notified about what sort of cybermeasures the spy agency and military are engaged in, including attacks on extremist groups and other countries.
> 
> Sajjan acknowledged that actual details of any attack will likely be extremely scarce for the public.
> 
> "Just like any other type of operation, it goes through a very strict process and obviously for national security reasons, we can't outline a lot of the work that is being done," he said.
> 
> "I think Canadians do understand that." ...


More details on how CSE's mandate will be adjusted via the Info-machine here.

If you want to track Bill C-59 thru the legislative sausage machine, click here.


----------



## Blackadder1916

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Looks like CSE'll be officially in the game as well



Well, at least they didn't give this bill, _"National Security Act, 2017"_, some fancy, public relations title as a demonstration of their concern.  That always cheeses me off.



> the proposed law forbids CSE from . . . "making any intentional effort "to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice or democracy."



While this can be taken as a motherhood statement, the bill does not define "course of justice" or "democracy".  When complaints come in, whose definition is used?  Ours (i.e. Canada's)?  Or a foreign enemy's usual practice of justice and democracy?


----------



## Blackadder1916

In making a quick perusal of Bill C-59, National Security Act 2017 and looking at the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act which will occur due to "The Communications Security Establishment Act" (which is part of this legislation) I noticed an oddity (well, odd at least to me).

The bill proposes two amendments to the NDA in the part that deals with the CSE.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-59/first-reading#enH4100


> National Defence Act
> 
> 83 (1) Paragraph 273.‍64(1)‍(c) of the National Defence Act is replaced by the following:
> 
> (c) to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies, the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.
> 
> (2) Subsection 273.‍64(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
> 
> Limitations imposed by law
> 
> (3) Activities carried out under paragraph (1)‍(c) are subject to any limitations imposed by law on federal law enforcement and security agencies, the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.



And then, immediately following, the bill proposes to repeal that part of the NDA in its entirety.



> Consequential Amendments
> 
> National Defence Act
> 
> 84 Part V.‍1 of the National Defence Act is repealed


.


----------



## PuckChaser

Why modify an act if they're going to repeal the specific portion?

This is the current Act paras if anyone is interested:



> Mandate
> 
> 273.64 (1) The mandate of the Communications Security Establishment is
> 
> (a) to acquire and use information from the global information infrastructure for the purpose of providing foreign intelligence, in accordance with Government of Canada intelligence priorities;
> 
> (b) to provide advice, guidance and services to help ensure the protection of electronic information and of information infrastructures of importance to the Government of Canada; and
> 
> (c) to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their lawful duties.
> Marginal noterotection of Canadians
> 
> (2) Activities carried out under paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)
> 
> (a) shall not be directed at Canadians or any person in Canada; and
> 
> (b) shall be subject to measures to protect the privacy of Canadians in the use and retention of intercepted information.
> Marginal note:Limitations imposed by law
> 
> (3) Activities carried out under paragraph (1)(c) are subject to any limitations imposed by law on federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their duties.


----------



## McG

I noticed the "Canadian military to relax deployment-readiness rule ..."  thread got merged into the cyber operator thread.  That is unfortunate because, while the cyber operator was the preferred whipping boy of the topic, the idea of expanding the catchment population for recruiting will be something that applies to many if not most or all occupations.  The topic is back in the news today, and apparently "In order to be successful in the future, we need to be able to recruit from the entire population."  That statement sounds (to me) uncomfortably like saying we need to remove universality of service as a barrier to hiring.  I'm sure that is not the message that was intended.



> *Military broadens horizons*
> Canada's armed forces widens search for potential soldiers
> Lee Berthiaume
> Kingston Whig-Standard
> 26 Jun 2017
> 
> Canada's military is going all out to erase its reputation for intolerance and misogyny, aiming to recast itself instead as welcoming to Canadians of all races, religions and sexual orientations.
> 
> The effort - driven by several factors, including a need to bolster its dwindling numbers - includes a comprehensive effort to connect with and recruit women, new citizens and even members of the LGBT community.
> 
> The Trudeau government's plan to invest an extra $62 billion in the military over the next 20 years includes hiring 3,500 more fulltime personnel and 1,500 parttime reservists, numbers that would bring the ranks of the Forces to their highest level since the end of the Cold War.
> 
> First, though, comes a significant and persistent challenge: getting more Canadians to join.
> 
> The Forces have struggled for years to hit recruiting numbers, resulting in thousands of unfilled positions such as pilots and technicians.
> 
> That's why fixing the recruiting system is a top priority, said Lt.-Gen. Charles Lamarre, the chief of military personnel, whose role is to oversee all aspects of human resources in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Central to that goal is making the military more inclusive, diverse and attractive to all Canadians, regardless of their backgrounds.
> 
> "Our population doesn't look like all white guys," Lamarre said in an interview with the Canadian Press.
> 
> "If you want to get the very best people - the very smartest, most capable, most committed and most ingenious - then you need to look broadly and not exclude groups that would be very useful to you."
> 
> There is more to the push towards increased diversity and inclusiveness than simply recruiting, though that part of the equation is vitally important. Gen. Jonathan Vance, Canada's chief of the defence staff, recently released a diversity strategy in which he noted that Canada was becoming more diverse - and the military needed to follow suit.
> 
> Doing so would be necessary to attract and retain people, Vance wrote, as well as to ensure the military continued to reflect the society it is sworn to protect, and to increase its effectiveness on missions abroad.
> 
> That's why the Forces appear to be turning a page: Leaders are recognizing the real importance of diversity, said Alan Okros, an expert on diversity in the military at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.
> 
> "This idea that people with different views, different experiences, different skill sets are going to make the military stronger has been kind of coalescing and coming together for about a year and a half," Okros said.
> 
> "This isn't a luxury, this isn't social engineering, this isn't political manoeuvring or political correctness. This is now an operational requirement."
> 
> Vance has since taken the unprecedented step of ordering the military to grow the percentage of female personnel to 25 per cent in the next decade, up from 15 per cent.
> 
> Recruiters are now launching targeted advertising campaigns and reaching out to women who previously expressed an interest in a military career but didn't join.
> 
> Senior commanders, meanwhile, are reviewing everything from uniforms and ceremonies to food and religious accommodations to see whether they meet the requirements of a more diverse force.
> 
> Lamarre plans to speak Monday at a citizenship ceremony in Ottawa in hopes of explaining to new Canadians what he describes as "a tangible way in which they can serve their nation."
> 
> And he hopes to sit down with Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde and other indigenous leaders to talk about ways to reach out and attract people from those communities.
> 
> Others within the military are getting in on the action too, with the head of the navy, Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd, issuing a directive last week encouraging his sailors to attend Pride parades in uniform.
> 
> Vance is expected to issue a similar directive to the rest of the military in the coming days.
> 
> Not everyone agrees with what the military is doing, Lloyd acknowledged, including some of those who are already in uniform. But changing the face of the Forces isn't just some feel-good exercise, he said.
> 
> "In order to be successful in the future, we need to be able to recruit from the entire population."
> 
> There are other challenges to overcome besides convincing some current personnel of the importance of diversity.
> 
> The military is still trying to overcome years of bad headlines about the treatment of women and members of the LGBT community by adopting a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.
> 
> There has also been a historic lack of interest in the Forces by many ethnic communities, particularly those that trace their origins to countries where the military has a bad reputation.
> 
> And then there are the problems identified by auditor general Michael Ferguson last year, namely that the recruiting system is struggling with red tape and the effects of Conservative budget cuts.
> 
> "We're definitely still at the planning stage," Lamarre acknowledged. "We're in the process of actually saying: 'What is it we must do?'"


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Senior commanders, meanwhile, are reviewing everything from uniforms and ceremonies to food and religious accommodations to see whether they meet the requirements of a more diverse force.




Two years ago I was on a change of command parade. A soldier from another unit was telling me how he was on summer leave with family out in New Brunswick. He got a call from his chain of command that they didn't have enough members for the parade and he was ordered to cancel his leave get on a plane and fly back to base, which he did.  He showed up for parade practice and surprise, his unit now had too many people, so he was cut and ordered to watch the parade from the stands. 

All the diversity and accommodations won't make people stay in, once trained, if we keep treating people like shit. They're just going to do their 3 years and quit.


----------



## blacktriangle

Unfortunately the retention of white males (the bulk of CAF members) doesn't score political points nor does it fit with the current social narrative.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Two years ago I was on a change of command parade. A soldier from another unit was telling me how he was on summer leave with family out in New Brunswick. He got a call from his chain of command that they didn't have enough members for the parade and he was ordered to cancel his leave get on a plane and fly back to base, which he did.  He showed up for parade practice and surprise, his unit now had too many people, so he was cut and ordered to watch the parade from the stands.
> 
> All the diversity and accommodations won't make people stay in, once trained, if we keep treating people like crap. They're just going to do their 3 years and quit.



What an effective use of taxpayer money, paying for flight changes and leave cancellation costs, all for a parade.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the retention of white males (the bulk of CAF members) doesn't score political points nor does it fit with the current social narrative.



Forces needs new people more than they need to retain the older ones. 

CAF now is disgustingly top heavy. When you have more MCpls and Sgts than you have Ptes, or more Capts and Majors than you have Lts and 2Lts then it's an issue.

And given the current demographics of Canada, if we want to meet recruiting goals, we need to make inroads in the communities that historically have been joining up in low relative numbers.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good piece by Bill Robinson at his _Lux Ex Umbra_ blog on CSE and offensive cyber ops (role with CAF noted):



> CSE to get foreign cyber operations mandate
> https://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/2017/06/cse-to-get-foreign-cyber-operations.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## blacktriangle

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Forces needs new people more than they need to retain the older ones.
> 
> CAF now is disgustingly top heavy. When you have more MCpls and Sgts than you have Ptes, or more Capts and Majors than you have Lts and 2Lts then it's an issue.
> 
> And given the current demographics of Canada, if we want to meet recruiting goals, we need to make inroads in the communities that historically have been joining up in low relative numbers.



Unfortunately when it's your experienced MCpls and Cpls pulling pin, what do you expect? Who's going to train and supervise that Pte? Yes we are way too top heavy, but that's a failure in the establishment. Bringing in waves of new people without solving the underlying problems will solve nothing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Two years ago I was on a change of command parade. A soldier from another unit was telling me how he was on summer leave with family out in New Brunswick. He got a call from his chain of command that they didn't have enough members for the parade and he was ordered to cancel his leave get on a plane and fly back to base, which he did.  He showed up for parade practice and surprise, his unit now had too many people, so he was cut and ordered to watch the parade from the stands.
> 
> All the diversity and accommodations won't make people stay in, once trained, if we keep treating people like shit. They're just going to do their 3 years and quit.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/leave-policy.page#chap1

1.1.11 Imperative military requirements

Imperative military requirements mean a situation or circumstance that precludes a CF member from taking leave or permits a CO to recall a member from leave.

IMR include, but are not limited to:
•participating in an operational deployment or major military exercise;
•participating in an unforecasted tasking;
•attending a career course;
•attending a court martial; or
•posting or attached posting (including any action related to it, such as HHT, out-clearances, travelling time, Special Leave (Relocation))

*IMR do not include*:
•recalling a member from sick leave to take annual leave;
•recalling a member from LWOP to take annual leave;
•recalling a member from leave for an annual medical/dental exam; or
•recalling a member for performing routine personal administrative issues such as, but not limited to, PER interviews, testing *or parades*.

2 things the CAF is great at:

1.  developing and publishing policy; and

2.  ignoring policy.  

 :nod:


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Unfortunately when it's your experienced MCpls and Cpls pulling pin, what do you expect? Who's going to train and supervise that Pte? Yes we are way too top heavy, but that's a failure in the establishment. Bringing in waves of new people without solving the underlying problems will solve nothing.




There will still be plenty of MCpls/Sgts to train them. When's the last time you been in a unit that had too many Ptes and not enough supervisors?


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> China has signed an agreement saying it will stop conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks aimed at stealing Canadian private-sector trade secrets and proprietary technology.



I guess JTF-Geek will pre-emptively have their budget/ORBAT cut, now that China is no longer a threat.   :nod:


----------



## brihard

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> There will still be plenty of MCpls/Sgts to train them. When's the last time you been in a unit that had too many Ptes and not enough supervisors?



Actually that's a pretty chronic issue in the PRes. My platoon this past year was a Capt, 2x Sgt (one acting Pl WO, and me as a Sect Comd), 1x MCpl as Sect Comd (and pregnant), and a full complement of Pte/Cpl. The PRes, especially in cities, is chronically short of NCOs due to the significant attrition we tend to see in the year or two after guys graduate university/college and get busy with adult life.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Brihard said:
			
		

> Actually that's a pretty chronic issue in the PRes. My platoon this past year was a Capt, 2x Sgt (one acting Pl WO, and me as a Sect Comd), 1x MCpl as Sect Comd (and pregnant), and a full complement of Pte/Cpl. The PRes, especially in cities, is chronically short of NCOs due to the significant attrition we tend to see in the year or two after guys graduate university/college and get busy with adult life.



Honestly that's a problem PRes is always going to have. For about 80% of recruits are only there as a part-time/summer job while they're going to school, so you get them for 4-5 years max, hence they release before getting to MCpl/Sgt, otherwise you'll have something of a crisis of leadership as your JNCOs/SNCMs effectively disappear as things like fulltime jobs obviously become a bigger priority in their lives. Best strategy for PRes is to take in more retiring Reg F or ideally those that release early as these people are likely to be able to devote more time and have more practical experience to offer. 

That said, the Reg F needs to prioritize their org structure and focus on recruiting new recruits rather than what they are doing, which seems to be trying to retain broken Officers and NCOs by relaxing fitness and deployability standards.


----------



## George Wallace

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Honestly that's a problem PRes is always going to have. For about 80% of recruits are only there as a part-time/summer job while they're going to school, so you get them for 4-5 years max, hence they release before getting to MCpl/Sgt, otherwise you'll have something of a crisis of leadership as your JNCOs/SNCMs effectively disappear as things like fulltime jobs obviously become a bigger priority in their lives. Best strategy for PRes is to take in more retiring Reg F or ideally those that release early as these people are likely to be able to devote more time and have more practical experience to offer.
> 
> That said, the Reg F needs to prioritize their org structure and focus on recruiting new recruits rather than what they are doing, which seems to be trying to retain broken Officers and NCOs by relaxing fitness and deployability standards.



You may find that those stats are different in units not in large metropolitan areas and/or near universities.

I think the Government and Army made a very big mistake in the '70s when they folded up/disbanded a large number of Reserve units in rural areas.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=RADOPSIGOPACISSOP] Best strategy for PRes is to take in more retiring Reg F or ideally those that release early as these people are likely to be able to devote more time and have more practical experience to offer. [/quote]

I'm not so sure this is a 100% solution brother.  Reg F has some drastic (at times) different ways of doing things and I'd say 50% of the time I've seen Reg F members get burnt out or so frustrated with the reserve system that they stop caring.  They're two fairly different worlds IMO.  On the other hand the contacts and resources that reg F members bring to the reserve world is priceless



> That said, the Reg F needs to prioritize their org structure and focus on recruiting new recruits rather than what they are doing, which seems to be trying to retain broken Officers and NCOs by relaxing fitness and deploy-ability standards.


I think what would really benefit the regs is to get soldiers moving up through the NCO ranks faster. It's not uncommon for someone to sit at the rank of cpl for years, get PLQ then stay a cpl for years after that, mopping concrete floors and taking out garbage and shit. We have a very experienced  NCO core (and the envy of some allies I think) but we're also old. We could use with getting soldiers promoted sooner and moving through the ranks somewhat faster. We're too clique orientated and need to replace our promotion system with some kind of testing format like the US has. 

As for being broken yea there is a lot of that but personally I find fresh soldiers coming from battles school are the most broken and injured. Soon as they get to battalion it's on to a med chit, t-cat and physio. I've often commented physio should be on their clear-in sheets.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure this is a 100% solution brother.  Reg F has some drastic (at times) different ways of doing things and I'd say 50% of the time I've seen Reg F members get burnt out or so frustrated with the reserve system that they stop caring.  They're two fairly different worlds IMO.  On the other hand the contacts and resources that reg F members bring to the reserve world is priceless
> I think what would really benefit the regs is to get soldiers moving up through the NCO ranks faster. It's not uncommon for someone to sit at the rank of cpl for years, get PLQ then stay a cpl for years after that, mopping concrete floors and taking out garbage and crap. We have a very experienced  NCO core (and the envy of some allies I think) but we're also old. We could use with getting soldiers promoted sooner and moving through the ranks somewhat faster. We're too clique orientated and need to replace our promotion system with some kind of testing format like the US has.
> 
> As for being broken yea there is a lot of that but personally I find fresh soldiers coming from battles school are the most broken and injured. Soon as they get to battalion it's on to a med chit, t-cat and physio. I've often commented physio should be on their clear-in sheets.



Bit of a off topic but I do agree. Part of our issue is we promote too slow, but we also canonize ranks as supervisors too quickly. In most allied military I've worked with right up to Sgt is a working rank, in which case they're sort of leading in a participatory method. In the CAF it seems the Sgt level has a more hands off and seperate style that kind of establishes everything from Sgt and above to be more supervisory/management ranks and less the side by side leadership you see of Sgts elsewhere. 

We do definitely need more young blood at all rank levels. I wouldn't want to see the 4 and 5 year Sgts like in he US but I have been seeing more 23 y/o MCpls and 26 y/o Sgts and by and large it's not a bad thing.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You may find that those stats are different in units not in large metropolitan areas and/or near universities.
> 
> I think the Government and Army made a very big mistake in the '70s when they folded up/disbanded a large number of Reserve units in rural areas.



Honestly I don't put much thought into the reserves. I spent years in the P Res and am not very convinced on value for money. I get that the reserves mean a lot to you but to others they don't matter much.


----------



## a_majoor

The IDF goes a different route, their Cyber-Commandos are actually _real_ commandos. No armchair warriors there:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/20170712.aspx



> *Information Warfare: Israel Plays Rough*
> 
> July 12, 2017: The Israeli domestic intelligence service (Shin Bet, similar to the British MI5) recently confirmed what was already widely known among hackers; trying to hack Israeli networks will often trigger instant counter-hacks that will at least halt the hackers with unexpected error messages or, worse, generate a powerful counter-hack directed against the attackers system. The worst result is that, as several thousand foreign hackers have already discovered, the Israelis will identify who you are and where you are operating from. If the hacker is in a nation that has extradition or similar arrangements with Israel the hacker can start worrying about getting arrested or, at the very least, being placed under investigation and added to a list of the usual suspects.
> 
> Shin Bet could not hide the fact that it was expanding its Cyber War operations and recruiting additional personnel. So announcements like this are considered part PR and part recruiting. Since 2010 various Israeli government and military organizations have been seeking additional staff for new Cyber War efforts that can detect and thwart enemy hackers. This included seeking expert hackers willing to train to operate in the field with Israeli commando units. That new Cyber War unit was actually part of military intelligence and sought recruits from those already in the military as well as civilians.
> 
> Israel had long had troops dedicated to Cyber War activities, but in 2010 they introduced a new twist to this. Israel used the same screening and recruiting techniques they had developed for commando units to find suitable recruits for an elite Cyber War unit. Thus the Israelis were not just seeking men (or women) with the right technical skills, but also with the mental toughness characteristic of the regular commandos. The new Cyber War unit handled the most difficult and dangerous Cyber War situations. An example would be a Cyber War attack using an unknown and seemingly devastating new technique. For that you needed a Cyber War commando unit available to send against the problem. Same with an enemy Cyber War target that has to be disrupted, or simply investigated. You needed a unit to do the job because this unit had already been recruited and trained to be the best of the best. Similarly, if you were sending in regular commandos on a raid, to steal technology (something Israel has already done several times), several of the Cyber War commandos would go along. Already known to be tough minded, but possessing high technical skills, the Cyber War guys could keep up with the regular commandos, and quickly sort out the enemy technology, and take, or destroy, the right items.
> 
> But in the meantime Israeli Cyber War organizations had been ordered to be more aggressive in dealing with hackers and hacking attempts. There was a certain urgency to this because Islamic terrorists were developing better hacking skills, often because many recruits came from Western countries where young Moslem men have more access to computers and college level training in computer science and security. Groups like ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) and al Qaeda found that they could use many of these Western recruits who had skills, but were not willing to carry out suicide attacks or engage in armed combat. Apparently many of these Islamic cyber terrorists were first detected and identified when they tried to hack Israeli systems. Israel now has Cyber War intelligence sharing arrangements (official or unofficial) with most Western nations containing Moslem minorities.
> 
> By going public about some of this counter-hacker activity Shin Bet may also cause some of the less disciplined Islamic cyber terrorists to get angry enough to make an attack and get caught. Whatever works.


----------



## a_majoor

This is a very long and detailed blog post. It technically debunks the claim of Russian hacking (essentially the author proves the "DNS logs" given to the media were fabricated). This is important in two respects, in that this is the sort of thing a CF Cyber unit may have to do in order to protect the integrity of the GoC, and if you can follow this, it shows the true level of detail that Cyber warriors will need to master in order to actually carry out their task. I'll just leave the link:

https://weaponizedautism.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/trump-dns-logs-fabricated/


----------



## mrswoodca

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Since this cyber chat isn't going over to the Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread, I'll continue the derail.
> 
> Ok, we're talking about the CAF. No one really knows where we're going with this (except apparently one poster who is amazingly prescient, or hooked up to the Matrix).  One thing we _do_  know, is how the Force's tribal elders deal with retention issues, whether SOF or this Sheldon Cooper Command.....
> 
> 
> ...uniforms & badges.
> 
> I predict that we'll see Cyber Commando uniforms combining the 'best' elements of Starship Troopers and Transformers and whatever else the little geek darlings are into these days.... such that they'll be the envy of COMICONs everywhere.
> 
> :nod:



Worst Case, they could got the whole Borg route and try adopting a "You are about to be assimilated, Resistance is Futile" type of approach...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very good detailed analysis by Bill Robinson at his essential _Lux Ex Umbra_ blog--note definitions, cyber work with CAF (should MND still be the minister?), covert human
help abroad, exploitation of social media:



> CSE and Bill C-59 overview
> 
> My first two posts on the contents of Bill C-59 covered the proposal to give CSE a new foreign cyber operations mandate [ https://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/2017/06/cse-to-get-foreign-cyber-operations.html ] and the proposal to replace CSE's current watchdog [ https://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/2017/07/bill-c-59-new-dogs-for-new-tricks.html ], the CSE Commissioner, with two new institutions, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the Intelligence Commissioner. These are the most important changes proposed for CSE, but the bill also contains a number of other important measures that deserve comment. I'll try to cover the key remaining points in this post...
> 
> Establishment established
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> https://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/2017/08/cse-and-bill-c-59-overview.html



Well worth the read.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

> CANFORGEN 162/17 CFD 004/17 281416Z SEP 17
> CYBER OPERATOR (CYBER OP) MOSID 00378 - APPLICANT SOLICITATION
> UNCLASSIFIED
> REFS: A. CFD: CYBER FORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, 22 MAY 2014 B. MES IP CYBER OPERATOR OCCUPATION C. NDHQ MIL PERS GEN OTTAWA//DPGR 131617Z JAN 17 CYBER OPERATOR (CYBER OP) MILITARY EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MES IP) D. CBI 204.03 (2) - RATE OF PAY - COMPULSORY OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFER E. CDS ORDER 028/17 DATED 28 AUG 17
> AT REF A, THE DIRECTOR CYBER FORCE DEVELOPMENT (D CYBER FD) WAS TASKED TO ESTABLISH A SPECIALIZED AND DEDICATED DND/CAF WORKFORCE TO COUNTER THE GROWING CYBER THREAT. FOLLOWING A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY AND UPON APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF THE MES IP AT REFS B AND C, A NEW CYBER OPERATOR OCCUPATION (CYBER OP) MOSID 00378 FOR REGULAR FORCE (REG F) NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS (NCMS) WAS ESTABLISHED EFFECTIVE 31 JANUARY 2017.
> THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF A CYBER OP WILL BE TO COLLECT AND ANALYZE DATA FROM DND/CAF COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEMS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A FULL RANGE OF CYBER OPERATIONS. THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MONITOR NETWORKS FOR POTENTIAL INTRUSION AND ABNORMALITIES, EXAMINE NETWORKS FOR VULNERABILITIES IN DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE POSTURES, CONDUCT FORENSIC INVESTIGATION OF CYBER INCIDENTS, MAINTAIN SPECIALIZE CYBER UNIQUE TOOLSETS, AND WHEN REQUIRED AND WHERE FEASIBLE, CONDUCT OFFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS.
> CYBER OP IS A JOINT REG F OCCUPATION FROM PTE/OS TO CWO/CPO1. IT WILL INITIALLY BE OPEN TO SERVING CAF NCMS OF THE REG F THROUGH OCCUPATION TRANSFER AND TO PRIMARY RESERVE NCMS (P RES) THROUGH COMPONENT TRANSFER UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2019. AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, SEMI-SKILLED AND UNSKILLED CIVILIANS WILL BE RECRUITED VIA DIRECT ENTRY. AFTER 31 DECEMBER 2019, THE REG F OCCUPATION WILL SHIFT TO DIRECT ENTRY, VOLUNTARY OCCUPATION TRANSFER, AND COMPONENT TRANSFER. WORK IS ALSO UNDERWAY TO ESTABLISH A P RES COMPONENT TO THE OCCUPATION. DETAILS WILL BE COMMUNICATED ONCE THE P RES OCCUPATION IS APPROVED IN FALL 2017.
> EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, D CYBER FD IS READY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM SERVING CAF NCMS WITH CURRENT OR PREVIOUS MILITARY CYBER-RELATED OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE OR WITH STRONG IM/IT RELATED SKILLS. APPLICATIONS FOR THIS ROUND OF SELECTION WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL 03 NOVEMBER 2017.
> APPLICANTS WILL SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETE A MULTI STEP ASSESSMENT PROCESS. NCMS WHO MEET THE OCCUPATION ENTRY STANDARDS AND HAVE BEEN COMPETITIVELY ASSESSED AS HAVING THE APPROPRIATE APTITUDE AND SKILLS TO WORK IN THE CYBER DOMAIN WILL RECEIVE A COMPULSORY OCCUPATION TRANSFER (COT) OFFER INDICATING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WILL BE ACCEPTED INTO THE OCCUPATION. APPLICANTS NOT SELECTED DURING THIS ROUND OF SELECTION MAY BE ASKED TO RE-APPLY IN SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS.
> INTERESTED PERSONNEL WHO MEET THE OCCUPATION ENTRY STANDARDS AND BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE MUST COMPLETE AND EMAIL A NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) FORM TO THE POSITIONAL MAILBOX AT P- OTG.DCYBERFD(UNDERSCORE)CYBOP(AT SIGN)INTERN.MIL.CA BY 13 OCT 17.
> ONCE THE NOI HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION FORM AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE TO BE SENT VIA ENCRYPTED E-MAIL TO CPO2 WILLIAM R. NORMAN AT WILLIAM.NORMAN(AT SIGN)FORCES.GC.CA, CARBON COPY CWO MICHEL BOISLARD AT MICHEL.BOISLARD(AT SIGN)FORCES.GC.CA. OCCUPATION ENTRY STANDARDS, APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS, FORMS, AND OTHER INFORMATION SUCH AS JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND OCCUPATION STRUCTURE CAN BE FOUND ON THE CYBER OP OCCUPATION SHAREPOINT SITE: HTTP://COLLABORATION- VCDS.FORCES.MIL.CA/SITES/DG(UNDERSCORE)CYBER/D(UNDERSCORE)CYBER (UNDERSCORE)FD/CYBER(UNDERSCORE)OPERATOR/SITEPAGES /HOME.ASPX.
> REF D STIPULATES THE RATE OF PAY FOR NCMS WHO ARE COT TO ANOTHER OCCUPATION. REF E, THE CDS APPROVED TRADE GROUP SPECIALIST 1 PAY FOR SUBSTANTIVE CPL/LS WHO HAVE REACHED THE OCCUPATION FUNCTIONAL POINT, THAT IS ONCE THE ALJQ RANK QUALIFICATION IS OBTAINED OR WHEN A SUBSTANTIVE CPL/LS AND ABOVE IS AWARDED A TRAINING WAIVER FROM THE OCCUPATION AUTHORITY. THIS IS A PROVISIONAL ALLOCATION UNTIL THE OCCUPATION IS EVALUATED USING THE CAF JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM. THIS EVALUATION WILL TAKE PLACE IN DUE COURSE.
> QUESTIONS CAN BE DIRECTED TO THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED POSITIONAL MAILBOX, SEARCHABLE IN THE GLOBAL ADDRESS LIST UNDER QUOTE PLUS D CYBER FD(UNDERSCORE) CYBER OP UNQUOTE.[
> QUOTE 084 104 101 067 065 070 067 121 098 101 114 070 111 114 099 101 119 097 110 116 115 121 111 117 033 UNQUOTE.



The above, if converted from ASCII, translates to TheCAFCyberForcewantsyou!.  :rofl: Pretty slick.


----------



## frokrad

It has been ten years since I almost went into the CF as a Signals Officer, and I just encountered a CF recruiting pitch for Cyber Operators at a conference this last week and decided to look into it through the Reserves. First step was the same as it was ten years ago - check out army.ca to see what you all have to say about it. I thought this thread would benefit from a bit of perspective from the other side of the fence.

Universal standards aside, it would not be realistic for me to join the regular forces because I have a wife and kids now and the pay cut would have a dramatic impact on our standard of living. We have gotten used to my current salary and it would be tough on all of us to make that transition so I have never seriously considered it.

That being said, I really do live and breathe this security stuff (when not doing family stuff/chores). I spend every free minute I have trying to improve my skills through learning or hands-on practice - nothing illegal, purely white hat. I would love to contribute to the CF mission in some capacity and would like to make the Reserves work if possible.

I don't know what it is like for you folks in the military, but in the private sector one of the main reasons these skills are so rare is that most people don't find it very interesting. Many are attracted to the romantic notion of "hacking", but the real work that goes into it takes a considerable amount of patience and practice. For example, in my experience around 2-3 out of every 200 software developers is motivated and interested enough to actually develop an expertise in vulnerabilities. It is these people that tend to excel the most at the "vulnerability research" skill, which is one of the important skills that the CF will need to recruit for if it is going to successfully expand its cyber capabilities.

That being said, vulnerability research is just one of many skills that would be required to develop an effective cyber capability and these skills do not necessarily overlap. For example, "digital forensics" is an essential skill in cyber defence but it has absolutely nothing to do with the skill of vulnerability research. I can only imagine how similarly rare the interest and motivation is to become an expert in that field.

My understanding is that the CF currently has a number of interesting and valuable people with some very potent skills, but is trying to grow that capability.

I can speak with the recent experience of hiring someone with one of the more specialized "cyber operator" type skills in the private sector. The salary was considerably higher than what the CF could offer and we do not have any additional requirements like fitness, drug test and clearance. It took almost half a year and was extremely difficult to find a single person to fill a single role. We had to bend the role a few times to make it work, a few of the offers were rejected because the candidates had been interviewing somewhere else at the same time and had received a better offer. The turnaround from first contact to offer averaged at 2-3 weeks. In the end we got someone good that I think will do well in the role, but it was not easy.


----------



## dapaterson

The Cyber Operator trade, in a single cartoon.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-11-28


----------



## Inspir

CAF Cyber Operator


----------



## Ludoc

Inspir said:
			
		

> CAF Cyber Operator



From the above link: 





> The starting salary for a fully-trained Cyber Operator is $52,584 per year, which quickly rises to $67,392 per year once promoted to the rank of Corporal


$67,392 yearly/12 months = $5,616 monthly

That pay rate is equal to the lowest rate of pay for a Corporal within specialist group one.

So, it looks like spec pay is confirmed.


----------



## Avail

I'm sure I'll take flak for this but it should be Spec 2. 

Both industry and all levels of government pay their new civilians well beyond the Spec 2 range. The CSE pays 74k for a brand new Cybersecurity Analyst plus overtime. That roughly equates to the salary of a Spec 1 IPC 4 MCpl and reaches 87k without a promotion. The entrance requirements are no greater than those of a Cyber Operator. They're both looking for skilled members, regardless of post-secondary. Other sub-specialties of Cyber Operator pay well beyond Spec 2 and certainly Spec 1.


----------



## dapaterson

And to be hired on in those positions as a civilian requires you to already hold qualifications / knowledge / experience.

The military pays you to learn those skills through training & OJT.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And to be hired on in those positions as a civilian requires you to already hold qualifications / knowledge / experience.
> 
> The military pays you to learn those skills through training & OJT.


Bingo. Here's the actual CSEC posting:

https://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/en/node/1462

University degree and a lot of experience. An entry level CAF cyber operator will have a high school diploma and likely no training other than an interest in computers.


----------



## Avail

> University degree and a lot of experience.



Not true, nor does it say in the ad that's required. I know several people in that position without a degree or a diploma for that matter.

If the CAF wants to retain the people whose education they're investing in it would be wise to spend a bit extra on salary rather than lose them to another department or industry.




> And to be hired on in those positions as a civilian requires you to already hold qualifications / knowledge / experience.
> 
> The military pays you to learn those skills through training & OJT.



Very true. It would be nice to keep that trained member in the CAF after the fact.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I've seen this train wreck before with the ACISS-IST Spec Pay debacle.

Train someone to Industry Standard, expect them to perform to industry standard, refuse to pay them remotely close to industry, lose trained person to industry.

Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## PuckChaser

Neso said:
			
		

> Not true, nor does it say in the ad that's required. I know several people in that position without a degree or a diploma for that matter.



Go ahead and apply with a high school diploma and no related work experience.  See who gets hired. Are those several people in those positions because they were ex-Comms Rsch pers with lots of CFNOC job experience or could demonstrate certifications from individual learning like CCNA? The CAFis going to hire people off the street with no experience and make them cyber operators. We should absolutely not be paying those pers what someone with job experience or credentials would get. 

The delta is there until that cyber op is now a MCpl or Sgt making spec 1, pulling in over 80k a year with 5-10 years of experience.  They are not going to have a problem attracting or retaining cyber operators at spec 1.


----------



## Avail

> Go ahead and apply with a high school diploma and no related work experience.



I don't know who you think made that claim.   :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

Neso said:
			
		

> I don't know who you think made that claim.   :facepalm:


The current direct entry program has only college grads in approved programs, but is opening up in 2019. It looks much like the NCM-SEP program LCIS folks who went to st Lawrence before song their trade course. Therefore, they'll be hiring unqualified people and paying for their training, which means their starting wage is going to be lower than industry. Spec 2 would start someone out at the CSEC equivalent but without the CSEC "should have" requirements. 

For background in the debate, are you going into or thinking about going into cyber op?


----------



## Avail

Not worth it. I'm doing similar work in LE.


----------



## Inspir

Interesting to find out that CSE and the CAF have similar overlapping duties regarding cyber and signals intelligence when they are part of the same department, DND. Yet they seem to work arms length from each other (kind of like two-tiered policing). Not really my area of expertise but it seems more like the CAF performs the collection of information and CSE does the analysis? Where do you draw the line of "this is yours, and that is mine"?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Inspir said:
			
		

> Interesting to find out that CSE and the CAF have similar overlapping duties regarding cyber and signals intelligence when they are part of the same department, DND. Yet they seem to work arms length from each other (kind of like two-tiered policing). Not really my area of expertise but it seems more like the CAF performs the collection of information and CSE does the analysis? Where do you draw the line of "this is yours, and that is mine"?



From what I gathered at the C&E Cyber Symposium, the reason we have the separation has to do with international law, especially LOAC and the Geneva Conventions. 

CSE is staffed by civilians, who do not wear uniforms, mainly working in a defensive role to protect our national infrastructure from attack. Although they are part of DND, they are not covered by the Royal Perogative to do anything offensive or anything outside our borders.

CAF Cyber Operators and other SigInt folks are uniformed parties to the conflict if we ever have to get into peer or near peer conflicts. They would be protected under the Geneva Convention and would be cleared to commit essentially Acts of War against other nations while being protected by international law.

Its essentially the reason CR-4 Janice from the BOR will not be manning the C6 any time soon.


----------



## meni0n

Unfortunately both of you are wrong in how CSE and CAF operate. CAF fullfils national priorities that touch upon only the military side while CSE does the rest. They both do SIGINT. There is some overlap on certain priorities but that's about it. If you read their mandate on their website, it specifically says provide foreign intelligence. 

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Neso said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'll take flak for this but it should be Spec 2.



Our Flight Engineers are Spec 2. Come spend a day with them, or hell make it a few weeks on a deployment, and then you'll have an idea of what Spec2 is all about.  



> Both industry and all levels of government pay their new civilians well beyond the Spec 2 range. The CSE pays 74k for a brand new Cybersecurity Analyst plus overtime. That roughly equates to the salary of a Spec 1 IPC 4 MCpl and reaches 87k without a promotion. The entrance requirements are no greater than those of a Cyber Operator. They're both looking for skilled members, regardless of post-secondary. Other sub-specialties of Cyber Operator pay well beyond Spec 2 and certainly Spec 1.



Civilian pilots, and Doctors and nurses and dentists etc also can make more money on the outside than they can in the CAF.  I can look for a 6 figure Payload Op job, etc compared to my 5 digit one now.

I've highlighted the key word in your argument.


----------



## Avail

> Civilian pilots, and Doctors and nurses and dentists etc also can make more money on the outside than they can in the CAF.



Fair point. Just my opinion. Maybe they should be paid more as well. I'm not claiming that the situation is unique.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We could say this for any trade that has a civilian counterpart;  AVN, ATIS, Dental Assistant...

Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.  I am paid well, and I also get to do things in uniform no civie will ever do.  There's also a 'balance' for some folks with the decent pay/unique experiences aspect...I'm hopeful that Cyber will be the same and not everyone is doing what they do in the CAF 'because it is the best paying job they could get their hands on' while they are in uniform.


----------



## Avail

> Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.



I don't see how desiring better compensation for an occupation, or occupations,  is the same as being solely motivated by $. Agree to disagree I suppose.


----------



## Brash

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.  I am paid well, and I also get to do things in uniform no civie will ever do.  There's also a 'balance' for some folks with the decent pay/unique experiences aspect...I'm hopeful that Cyber will be the same and not everyone is doing what they do in the CAF 'because it is the best paying job they could get their hands on' while they are in uniform.



Why do we pay extra for pilots (and Doctors, and Lawyers) then?
It is my understanding, that we do it to pay off the balance that the *CAF coolness factor*_(tm)_ factor leaves as a delta towards hiring the right people.

Will you hire people to fill billets in the CyberOp trade, no matter how much you pay? Likely.
Will they maximize the value as a function of talent/skills/expenditure? Likely not.

Talk to any number of exploited Corporations on their hindsight of being hopeful, with their cyber programs.
For what is at stake, IMO, pay extra, get the right people for our future.


----------



## PuckChaser

I still fail to see why we need uniformed cyber operators doing the same or less of what CSEC is doing. Are we going to forward deploy them? Unless it's forensics or penetration testing of a deployed network, likely not, and we can do that with civilians as public servants. We're too small of a military to continue to have all these micro trades with dubious connections to actual deployed operations.

It also solves all the whining about pay for a trade that barely exists.


----------



## Inspir

That could be said for a lot of trades in the CAF. When an occupation could be filled with public civil servants instead of military personnel. I venture to say at least a third quarter.


----------



## Avail

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Unless it's forensics or penetration testing of a deployed network



Both of which are Cyber Op tasks...


----------



## PuckChaser

Neso said:
			
		

> Both of which are Cyber Op tasks...


 That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.



Russians don't invade our secret locations.  That's what they have CAF Naval Intelligence officers for.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.



Offensive ops should always be conducted by uniformed personnel.  Even if it is cyber, it can cause physical harm.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Offensive ops should always be conducted by uniformed personnel.  Even if it is cyber, it can cause physical harm.



The VCDS touched on this briefly during the Cyber Symposium.

In a Peer to Peer environment:

Offensive Cyber Ops = Act of War.

According the LOAC, Hague Conventions, Geneva etc., Acts of war need to be conducted by uniformed militaries otherwise it is considered espionage/terrorism/criminality.

Even if Civ. Smith is the one writing the script to destroy a Russian network, Cpl Bloggins will have to be the one to pull the trigger to make things legal. 

I assume the JAG cell will have to wargame this extensively.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Why do we pay extra for pilots (and Doctors, and Lawyers) then?
> It is my understanding, that we do it to pay off the balance that the *CAF coolness factor*_(tm)_ factor leaves as a delta towards hiring the right people.
> 
> Will you hire people to fill billets in the CyberOp trade, no matter how much you pay? Likely.
> Will they maximize the value as a function of talent/skills/expenditure? Likely not.



I'm saying that if the people we are hiring, for any trade, are doing it solely based on MONEY..then they are not the right people, regardless of their skill level.



> Talk to any number of exploited Corporations on their hindsight of being hopeful, with their cyber programs.
> For what is at stake, IMO, pay extra, get the right people for our future.



SAR Techs do anywhere/everywhere to save lives while risking their own to do so.  That is Spec2 level pay.  They also don't do it 'just for Spec2'.  We want the folks who are motivated in a similar way for Cyber, or any trade.   :2c:

I am a Spec 1 type.  I have to know lots about my sensors, AC general, different op orders, tactics, and a fairly long list of 'other stuff'; having come from both a Combat Arms and tech trade (226) background before my current trade, my current one is by far more demanding in several ways, compared to 226 which is also Spec 1.  I could also jump ship to civie land and pursue the fairly simple job of being a camera operator (payload op) for a civie company operating UAVs and for more money than I do now;  operating a EO/IR turrent is just a part of my current duties.  Cyber will be no different and the same arguments you guys are making for Cyber to be Spec2 can be made for all the Standard pay trades and why they should be Spec 1, and for why all the Spec 1 trades should be Spec 2, and why we should create Spec3 for current Spec2 trades.

If Army Sigs types want more pay as Cyber types, go Sig O and manage the team at the top.  Same as I can do if I want to make more money for taking up space in the tac tube...I can roll the dice and become an Air Combat Systems Officer and run the show.


----------



## Brash

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm saying that if the people we are hiring, for any trade, are doing it solely based on MONEY..then they are not the right people, regardless of their skill level.


And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If Army Sigs types want more pay as Cyber types, go Sig O and manage the team at the top.  Same as I can do if I want to make more money for taking up space in the tac tube...I can roll the dice and become an Air Combat Systems Officer and run the show.


The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:

The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")

The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.

I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)

How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
Have a rigorous multi-step selection process. 
Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.


----------



## Nuggs

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
> I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.
> The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:
> 
> The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
> The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")
> 
> The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
> You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
> Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.
> 
> I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)
> 
> How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
> Have a rigorous multi-step selection process.
> Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.


Well said

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
> I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.
> The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:
> 
> The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
> The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")
> 
> The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
> You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
> Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.



We've already demonstrated that Spec 1 is acceptable based on a completely related CSEC job posting. No one is arguing that they shouldn't make Spec 1, its more than acceptable based on equivalent public sector jobs. They will be completely paid what they're worth. The job security is a massive factor that you're not going to get in the private sector, so the private sector will pay significantly more.

As for your list, you could apply that rationale to any top-third professional in the CAF regardless of trade. I guarantee there are AESOPs studying the wierd voodoo that they do, Comms Rsch guys getting read up on the latest military communications trends and even infantry/armor types who spend time reading Russian doctrine to get an edge should they ever have to face them in battle. Loving your job and wanting to know everything possible to do it better is not something Cyber or even Sigs have a monopoly on, and should never be used to justify "paying them what they're worth".

I've heard tons of stories of folks in Spec 1 trades who think the grass is greener in the private sector and they're not being paid enough, only to end up re-enrolling a year or 2 down the road after they figured out that A. CAF training/experience isn't comparable to private sector, or B. Downsizing and corporate realities had them laid off as they were now the low guy on the totem pole in seniority.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
> I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.



SO...here's my question.  WHY is this different for Cyber Ops than...any other trade in the CAF?  Why?  Don't we need those same kind of people as Sonar Ops on subs...Superintendent Clerks at HQ...HMCS Captains, XOs and Coxn or a Infantry Battalion Commander?  

What makes Cyber "so much more special" than ANY other trade in the CAF?  IS the cyber battlespace that much more complex than a live kinetic one (or do YOU think it is...and if so, what is your experience in the kinetic "people die" battlespace to compare it to)?



> The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:
> 
> The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
> The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")
> 
> The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
> You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
> Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.
> 
> I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)
> 
> How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
> Have a rigorous multi-step selection process.
> Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.



What you're basically saying is, this is a special trade, the most special of all in the CAF and the people in it will be the ultimate tip of the sword and because of that, they should be treated differently than all other trades.  The CAF has selection processes and a trade called PSO who have the sole job of doing...wow...personnel selection!  How the trade will recruit, select, train and employ...you guys will get the same system most of the CAF does.  

Is the system perfect?  Recruiting...training...employment?  Nope..its not...for ANY trade, Cyber included but guess what?  Cyber isn't as 'special' as you folks are trying to make it.  People are "born" good Cyber Ops?   :  Get fuckin serious.

That thing you're calling 'born with it/live it'...think that Cyber is the only trade in the CAF like that?  How about Patrol Pathfinders...clearance divers...all the SOF door kickers.  They are recruited, selected, and employed thru all the processes you are saying 'are shit' in the CAF.

And all the REAL high speed/low drag trades....and I am talking about ones I've mentioned;  Pathfinders, all the SOF stuff, Clearance Divers...they seem to be able to operate quite well despite all of your professed 'failing in the system' to recruit/select/train/employ.

I think where your worry really lies in not with "the CAF overall".  It is your own branch;  how fucked is ACISS?  Is that the "CAFs" fault, or the C & E branches fault?  PSO, TDOs, etc they are SME advisors to commanders - they didn't fuck up the Army Sigs world.  The Army SIgs world did it well enough on their own.

Ref "we need to recruit the best people we can!" line...yup, Cyber and EVERY OTHER TRADE does.  We have lots of strong Operators in my trade and we have others that straddle the 'minimum standard line'.  Just like...every other trade.  If the balloon goes up, there are Jnr and SNr NCOs in my trade who have the responsibility to "find the SSN/SSGN/SSBN" before it can complete its mission.  THAT is a pretty hefty responsibility, no?  Somewhat severe consequences if they fail...something like an OSCAR II or Yasen or Borei can do a mega shitton of damage.  Those ladies and gents are also Spec 1.  They were also...recruited, selected, trained and employed by the same system Cyber will be given life from.  And, I can assure you, they _are_ capable of finding and killing that SSN/SSGN/SSBN.  I have faith the CAF will figure out the R/S/T/E stuff for Cyber, and if it doesn't, let the blame fall on the C & E Branch leadership.

Ref your comments about "not recite some backgrounder info to a PSO";  SAR Techs have a selection process.  Pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops..all go thru a version of testing at the Aircrew Selection Center.  SOF folks do selection, clearance divers do selection.  They have tangible, quantified and measureable selection processes to 'weed out the non performers out for the juicy pay'.  Those processes have been vetted by folks like PSOs, TDOs, and the command levels within the applic trades.  The C & E Branch should be looking at the processes already being used for the trades mentioned above, and like all those other trades have, get a selection process that is blessed by the applic required authorities to 'weed out the non hackers'.  The RCAF, RCN, Cdn Army and SOF have all figured this out and, although not perfectly, it works.

Last point..if you're saying there is no system in place to weed out the knuckle-draggers now, why would I as a taxpayer even support Spec 1 pay??????


----------



## Brash

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We've already demonstrated that Spec 1 is acceptable based on a completely related CSEC job posting. No one is arguing that they shouldn't make Spec 1, its more than acceptable based on equivalent public sector jobs. They will be completely paid what they're worth. The job security is a massive factor that you're not going to get in the private sector, so the private sector will pay significantly more.
> 
> As for your list, you could apply that rationale to any top-third professional in the CAF regardless of trade. I guarantee there are AESOPs studying the wierd voodoo that they do, Comms Rsch guys getting read up on the latest military communications trends and even infantry/armor types who spend time reading Russian doctrine to get an edge should they ever have to face them in battle. Loving your job and wanting to know everything possible to do it better is not something Cyber or even Sigs have a monopoly on, and should never be used to justify "paying them what they're worth".


I disagree with your point of not scrutinizing talent more carefully (and passing along the savings on "non performers") to those that make the cut in terms of increased pay. This goes for the CyberOp trade and any others.

As a contrived example to put a finer point, I believe that five very high-performing individuals are worth more than ten low-performing individuals. 
If you have had the opportunity to be a part of both a cohesive high-performing section, and one filled with the second-string, you may relate to this.

Would you agree?  
If so, and the selection process can guarantee their quality, how is it NOT worth it to pay them more to retain them?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've heard tons of stories of folks in Spec 1 trades who think the grass is greener in the private sector and they're not being paid enough, only to end up re-enrolling a year or 2 down the road after they figured out that A. CAF training/experience isn't comparable to private sector, or B. Downsizing and corporate realities had them laid off as they were now the low guy on the totem pole in seniority.


I believe you have ascertainment bias. What you don't hear are the stories of the people that never join.

Time will tell, I suppose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> What you don't hear are the stories of the people that never join.



1.  And we're back to the point of "if the money isn't enough for them to join", then they aren't the right people.  After 4 years experience, how much more will they "see themselves worth" and will the pay jump from Cpl to MCpl be enough to satisfy them?

2.  Maybe they aren't interested in being in the military in the first place, like lots of pilots who want to be Air Canada bus drivers.  If the deciding factor was pay...and they went elsewhere...refer to #1 above.


----------



## Nuggs

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 1.  And we're back to the point of "if the money isn't enough for them to join", then they aren't the right people.  After 4 years experience, how much more will they "see themselves worth" and will the pay jump from Cpl to MCpl be enough to satisfy them?
> 
> 2.  Maybe they aren't interested in being in the military in the first place, like lots of pilots who want to be Air Canada bus drivers.  If the deciding factor was pay...and they went elsewhere...refer to #1 above.


Pay jump from Cpl to MCpl? You maintain incentive levels so most guys end up with an extra 2 packs of smokes every 2 weeks [emoji39]

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brash

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> SO...here's my question.  WHY is this different for Cyber Ops than...any other trade in the CAF?  Why?  Don't we need those same kind of people as Sonar Ops on subs...Superintendent Clerks at HQ...HMCS Captains, XOs and Coxn or a Infantry Battalion Commander?
> 
> What makes Cyber "so much more special" than ANY other trade in the CAF?  IS the cyber battlespace that much more complex than a live kinetic one (or do YOU think it is...and if so, what is your experience in the kinetic "people die" battlespace to compare it to)?


Take the civilian equivalent to the trades you have mentioned, how many of them merit a six-figure salary for *starters*?
Yes it is more complex. Evidenced by the point that all technical CSEC, NSA, GCHQ job posting require a minimum of an Undergrad (and many require varying degrees of post grad), *in a very specific field* just to get looked at. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is the system perfect?  Recruiting...training...employment?  Nope..its not...for ANY trade, Cyber included but guess what?  Cyber isn't as 'special' as you folks are trying to make it.  People are "born" good Cyber Ops?   :  Get ****** serious.


The best suited are born with the union of traits {high degree of context management, highly intelligent, auto-didactic, strong desires to possess deep technical knowledge}. 
The same way that some are "born" to be infanteers, "born" to be submariners. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ref "we need to recruit the best people we can!" line...yup, Cyber and EVERY OTHER TRADE does.  We have lots of strong Operators in my trade and we have others that scrap the 'minimum standard line'.  Just like...every other trade.  If the balloon goes up, there are Jnr and SNr NCOs in my trade who have the responsibility to "find the SSN/SSGN/SSBN" before it can complete its mission.  THAT is a pretty hefty responsibility, no?  Somewhat severe consequences if they fail...something like an OSCAR II or Yasen or Borei can do a mega shitton of damage.  Those ladies and gents are also Spec 1.  They were also...recruited, selected, trained and employed by the same system Cyber will be given life from.  And, I can assure you, they _are_ capable of finding and killing that SSN/SSGN/SSBN.  I have faith the CAF will figure out the R/S/T/E stuff for Cyber, and if it doesn't, let the blame fall on the C & E Branch leadership.


And in the future, we will want cyber professionals so that your systems don't start trying to tell you that the Borei is in the middle of the continental US, or turn on at all for that matter.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ref your comments about "not recite some backgrounder info to a PSO";  SAR Techs have a selection process.  Pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops..all go thru a version of testing at the Aircrew Selection Center.  SOF folks do selection, clearance divers do selection.  They have tangible, qualified and measureable selection processes to 'weed out the non performers out for the juicy pay'.  Those processes have been vetted by folks like PSOs, TDOs, and the command levels within the applic trades.  The C & E Branch should be looking at the processes already being used for the trades mentioned above, and like all those other trades have, get a selection process that is blessed by the applic required authorities to 'weed out the non hackers'.  The RCAF, RCN, Cdn Army and SOF have all figured this out and, although not perfectly, it works.


You and I agree on this.
The additional selection processes you mention are exactly what I do infer should be in place for the Cyber Op trade as well.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Last point..if you're saying there is no system in place to weed out the knuckle-draggers now, why would I as a taxpayer even support Spec 1 pay??????


I'm not certain of your point here. Are you inferring that taxpayers should rest-assured that our recruiting program is flawless?
You pay to fill the seats (and keep them filled). You select to make sure you fill them with the right people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nuggs said:
			
		

> Pay jump from Cpl to MCpl? You maintain incentive levels so most guys end up with an extra 2 packs of smokes every 2 weeks [emoji39]
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Exactly my point.  What will keep these Cyber folks in after 4 years...and how more employable are they in the civie world with 4 years experience and trg provided by the CAF, funded via Joe and Jane Taxpayer?  What next, the skip MCpl and Sgt so 'we can pay them enough to keep them' and make them Insta-Warrant Officers?


----------



## Brash

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 1.  And we're back to the point of "if the money isn't enough for them to join", then they aren't the right people.  After 4 years experience, how much more will they "see themselves worth" and will the pay jump from Cpl to MCpl be enough to satisfy them?
> 2.  Maybe they aren't interested in being in the military in the first place, like lots of pilots who want to be Air Canada bus drivers.  If the deciding factor was pay...and they went elsewhere...refer to #1 above.



So you are saying that the only people who are the right fit for CAF are the ones who will do their job for free?
If not, then we agree in principle that there is a value attached to attracting people with money, some more than others, we just disagree on how big the number is on the cheque.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Evidenced by the point that all technical CSEC, NSA, GCHQ job posting require a minimum of an Undergrad (and many require varying degrees of post grad), *in a very specific field* just to get looked at.



Does the C & E branch really think that Cpl Bloggins, Cyber Op is going to do the same work as those job posting?  Or...do we have Snr NCOs, WOs and Officers that work on the 'higher level stuff', like other CAF trades?



> And in the future, we will want cyber professionals so that your systems don't start trying to tell you that the Borei is in the middle of the continental US, or turn on at all for that matter.



Ivan knows how to effect mission kill (soft or hard) on MPAs, I am certain.



> The additional selection processes you mention are exactly what I do infer should be in place for the Cyber Op trade as well.



Then this is the_ MLCOA for success _and one that must be owned and championed by the Branch.  I've no idea if it is, or isn't happening but I can see the need and benefit of doing so.  

Spec2 won't solve the Cyber Op MOSID (possible) retention problem in the near/far future anymore than the elevated salaries the CAF pays pilots, doctors and lawyers have worked to keep all of those MOSIDs at PML over the last decade (or longer).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> So you are saying that the only people who are the right fit for CAF are the ones who will do their job for free?



Of course not.  I am saying the people who really want to be a CAF Cyber Operator will be happy with the pay, because they are more interested in the Cyber OP job than the Cyber Op starting pay at say, Cpl Spec 1.  FWIW...I believe there could be accommodations made for Cyber Ops to start getting Cpl Spec 1 IPC 0 upon completion of 'course X/qual level x', as the CAF does this for MPs, as an example.  Once they are trained to OFP...DAPS them to Cpl (this would be a definite help to recruit people who aren't in the CAF yet).



> If not, then we agree in principle that there is a value attached to attracting people with money, some more than others, we just disagree on how big the number is on the cheque.



This.  And...to look to the future;  if someone was recruited to be Cyber Op but 'not REALLY happy' with the pay...Spec2 isn't going to keep them in for their 25 and pension, is it?  Does a Spec2 WO really make that much more than a Spec2 Cpl, when the comparison to the outside civie jobs you're talking about are starting 6 figure?  I say no, and that person who decides on "more money" was always "more money" and not so much "I love being a Cyber Op in the military".  The Spec 2 won't keep them in.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> I disagree with your point of not scrutinizing talent more carefully (and passing along the savings on "non performers") to those that make the cut in terms of increased pay. This goes for the CyberOp trade and any others.
> 
> As a contrived example to put a finer point, I believe that five very high-performing individuals are worth more than ten low-performing individuals.
> If you have had the opportunity to be a part of both a cohesive high-performing section, and one filled with the second-string, you may relate to this.



That's not how the military works. We pay bottom third and top third the same money. We don't do performance bonuses. The only financial incentive you get for doing well is a promotion. If you want performance bonuses, hit civvie street.

Would you agree?  



			
				Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> If so, and the selection process can guarantee their quality, how is it NOT worth it to pay them more to retain them?
> I believe you have ascertainment bias. What you don't hear are the stories of the people that never join.



Again, those people that don't join because they won't make enough money is not the type of people we want in the CAF. If you joined the CAF solely based on dollar figures, at what point do you shut'er down in a gunfight because you arbitrarily decide you're no longer being paid enough? Civilian cops make a ton more money than a CAF MP, but we have long lines of folks on this forum waiting for a chance to be a MP, and the last I checked the trade was healthy with no retention issues.



			
				Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> The additional selection processes you mention are exactly what I do infer should be in place for the Cyber Op trade as well.



 : Good luck getting that approved. You'll need a bona fide operational requirement to justify any sort of selection standard beyond what the CFRCs do for screening. Your selection process will be like everyone else: you weed out the individuals that aren't achieving the minimum standard on the QL3 course. The only thing Cyber Op will have as an extra check is the requirement to complete a CAF-approved college program.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PC, you don't think there is any chance for the Branch to seek approval for a selection process for the new MOSID?


----------



## SupersonicMax

I can tell you money is not what keeps pilots in...  Employment opportunities (or lack thereof) does.  The airlines are hiring again and there is a mass exodus of highly trained personnel (by that I mean people in whom we invested millions to tens of millions of dollars, individually, in their training alone)


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> PC, you don't think there is any chance for the Branch to seek approval for a selection process for the new MOSID?



Not with the college requirement. That'll be the selection process. There will be nothing uniquely military about the environment they will operate in, which is why I mentioned earlier that it we should just hire civilians (and as indicated due to LoAC concerns, have Sig Os pull the trigger/hit enter).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Copy.  I don't, personally, think the intent is to have Signaller/Corporal Bloggins 'running the show';  the trade will have DPs, and training 'beyond OFP'.  They will have entry-level, min-experience tasks to do, etc at the start and go up in their responsibilities and capabilities as they progress thru DPs...just like every other trade does.   :2c:


----------



## Avail

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> PC, you don't think there is any chance for the Branch to seek approval for a selection process for the new MOSID?



I don't have the specifics but as it stands there is a selection process and cyber testing in place for the next batch of Cyber Op COT's. Whether that will remain once the occupation is fully staffed I have no idea.

What kind of selection process are you referring to?


----------



## PuckChaser

Someone is suggesting Cyber Op have an extra selection process like SAR Tech, Pilot, SF Op, ASCO.


----------



## Nuggs

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.  What will keep these Cyber folks in after 4 years...and how more employable are they in the civie world with 4 years experience and trg provided by the CAF, funded via Joe and Jane Taxpayer?  What next, the skip MCpl and Sgt so 'we can pay them enough to keep them' and make them Insta-Warrant Officers?


Nothing... Which is exactly what has been occurring all along with the sub occs that have been cyber under a different name all along.

Even with off the street hires, sent through a college program they'll have 4 years of compulsory service (indentured servitude) and then leave for greener pastures.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

Nuggs said:
			
		

> Nothing... Which is exactly what has been occurring all along with the sub occs that have been cyber under a different name all along.
> 
> Even with off the street hires, sent through a college program they'll have 4 years of compulsory service (indentured servitude) and then leave for greener pastures.



Hopefully the door won't hit them on the behind on the way out. You could pay people $200K a year and you would still have some believing they could make more on civvie street (the top 0.0001% could for sure). There won't be a shortage of applicants to fill those jobs, and Cyber Op will be no different than any other trade dealing with attrition. Hire more and promote the best faster.


----------



## frokrad

I think there is a nuance in this discussion that is being missed - the CF does not currently have an offensive cyber capability. From the recent defence policy:



> However, a purely defensive cyber posture is no longer sufficient. Accordingly, we will develop the capability to conduct active cyber operations focused on external threats to Canada in the context of government-authorized military missions.



Folks are drawing an analogy between cyber and pilot, SAR, etc, however these are all existing capabilities that are being maintained. These analogies will be more relevant once the CF actually has the capability and is maintaining or growing it.

It is a very different problem to build a capability from scratch which is the problem the CF currently faces with offensive cyber capabilities. While people in the private sector do not engage in cyber warfare, their skills and abilities in many cases will be directly applicable. 

The defence policy is pretty explicit about using reserve Cyber Operators to gain access to the skills _without_ the large lead time that comes with developing them internally:



> Reservists bring a wealth of experience from their primary occupations that has allowed the Canadian Armed Forces to access in-demand skills and trades such as linguists and cyber professionals that would otherwise take years to develop in the Regular Force



My best guess is that they plan on doing both - recruiting skilled private sector individuals into the Reserves as a stop-gap to gain the capability as quickly as possible while developing the long-term Regular force capability the traditional way. On the surface this appears to be the plan and it will require woo-ing existing talent in industry. For these folks money is likely not going to be a factor since Reserves is part-time and they likely have lucrative full-time employment already. The time commitment and physical fitness requirements seem like they will be more important factors but I am honestly not sure how much of a difference they will make.


----------



## Sorcerer-tech

epic bearded man,  why would you go and spoil the fun for all the other potential recruits by giving up the answer?   Not cool


----------



## Sorcerer-tech

The Cyber Operator (Cyber Op) occupation was officially stood up on 31 January 2017. The first Cyber Op's were identified through a competitive selection process that summer with remuster happening in early fall. At a ceremony held on 3 Nov 17, these “CAF First Cyber Op's” were presented with a "Plank Owner's" certificate recognizing that they are "The Firsts" and have all the bragging right to say so.



Happy Birthday to the Cyber Op occupation and its personnel!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Break out the T-shirts, bumper stickers and patches.


----------



## BDTyre

Sorcerer-tech said:
			
		

> . At a ceremony held on 3 Nov 17, these “CAF First Cyber Op's” were presented with a "Plank Owner's" certificate recognizing that they are "The Firsts" and have all the bragging right to say so.



And thus none shall mock them for commenting "First" on any Youtube video, Instagram post or Facebook article!


----------



## cyb2b

So now that they've published a nice video complete with high fives and music, does anyone happen to know when the MES will be published (or if it's out already?)

Also, any RUMINT on if they're looking at programs besides Willis College for trg equivalence?


----------



## Chad.wiseman

Any idea what locations will be hiring for the cyber operator role?  Also, how much trade training will be required as compared with other roles?


----------



## cyb2b

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> Any idea what locations will be hiring for the cyber operator role?  Also, how much trade training will be required as compared with other roles?



AFAIK they're doing 16 weeks in Kingston, plus a college program in network security (~2 years?) And then there's naturally BMQ and (I imagine) element trg. For Reg Force I think it was mentioned that you'd probably get Ottawa or Kingston, not sure how they're planning for reserves


----------



## Sorcerer-tech

cyb2b Where did you get that information from?


----------



## Nuggs

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> Any idea what locations will be hiring for the cyber operator role?  Also, how much trade training will be required as compared with other roles?


The only location employing Cyber Operators for the foreseeable future will be Ottawa. The unitial trading (QL3 / DP1) will be in Kingston, upon successful completion of a 2 year college diploma (or equivalent).

You'll have to clarify what you mean by other roles. Do you mean in relation to other trades? Or specialities within Cyber?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nuggs

Sorcerer-tech said:
			
		

> cyb2b Where did you get that information from?


Recruiting website

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/caf-jobs/career-options/fields-work/other-specialty-occupations/cyber-operator.html#entry


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Journeyman

Sorcerer-tech said:
			
		

> cyb2b Where did you get that information from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuggs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recruiting website
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/caf-jobs/career-options/fields-work/other-specialty-occupations/cyber-operator.html#entry
Click to expand...


They don't get to Google until QL5.  I guess.  ;D



Edit:  I added "I guess" so that I'm not accused under the Security of Information Act.   :nod:


----------



## cyb2b

Journeyman said:
			
		

> They don't get to Google until QL5.  I guess.  ;D
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:  I added "I guess" so that I'm not accused under the Security of Information Act.   :nod:



Pssh, everyone knows the really cool cyber kids will use DuckDuckGo* 8)

*Replace with Bing, if officers present


----------



## Avail

Looks like the Cyber Operator recruiting page was updated yesterday to "Now Hiring: we are now accepting applications for this job through direct entry"

Does anyone know if that's true? I thought it was staying in-house for another year or two.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the length of the recruiting process...


----------



## Nuggs

I don't work in recruiting. However my current understanding (which may be rumint) is that it is currently open for pre-trained civilians with current or equivalent education (ie 2 year college diploma). 

Think partial PLAR and then a delta QL3.


Edit:


actually it's listed on the recruiting site:

Now Hiring: as part of a phased approach to filling Cyber Operator positions within the CAF, we will soon accept applications from individuals who have already completed a CAF-endorsed college program (see the CAF-ACE website for information, or contact your nearest recruiting centre), who are expected to complete such a program by end May 2018, or who are in their first year of such a program.

Future Entry Plan: planning is underway to commence the hiring of candidates who meet the minimum entry standard, no later than summer of 2019. The entry standards will be published by January 2018.


----------



## Avail

Nuggs said:
			
		

> I don't work in recruiting. However my current understanding (which may be rumint) is that it is currently open for pre-trained civilians with current or equivalent education (ie 2 year college diploma).
> 
> Think partial PLAR and then a delta QL3.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> actually it's listed on the recruiting site:
> 
> Now Hiring: as part of a phased approach to filling Cyber Operator positions within the CAF, we will soon accept applications from individuals who have already completed a CAF-endorsed college program (see the CAF-ACE website for information, or contact your nearest recruiting centre), who are expected to complete such a program by end May 2018, or who are in their first year of such a program.
> 
> Future Entry Plan: planning is underway to commence the hiring of candidates who meet the minimum entry standard, no later than summer of 2019. The entry standards will be published by January 2018.



Yeah just asking because it specifically refers to now hiring via Direct Entry at the top of the page but goes on to say "soon" accepting DE like you mentioned. I don't have a horse in the race either way, bit of a mixed message though.


----------



## Vitech

Is it possible for civilians who have not completed an approved college course to apply to cyber yet? If not is there anything I can do now to make the application process easier / quicker when it does open? Any information about additional testing beyond CFAT that I can prepare for? I’ve been studying security for a long time but I’m hoping for something specific about testing.


----------



## Nuggs

I would contact recruitment

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## renemongeau

Is it possible to correct an image in the online video about Cyber Operator? 






The French translation is different. They use the verb to have instead of to be.
La zone est classée secrète. N’entrez pas à moins d’avoir la cote secrète.

Could someone say if my bachelor degree in computer science is enough or I must learn like someone who knows nothing about network protocols and network programming?


​



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nuggs

renemongeau said:
			
		

> Is it possible to correct an image in the online video about Cyber Operator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French translation is different. They use the verb to have instead of to be.
> La zone est classée secrète. N’entrez pas à moins d’avoir la cote secrète.
> 
> Could someone say if my bachelor degree in computer science is enough or I must learn like someone who knows nothing about network protocols and network programming?
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


PM incoming


----------



## Good2Golf

renemongeau said:
			
		

> Is it possible to correct an image in the online video about Cyber Operator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French translation is different. They use the verb to have instead of to be.
> La zone est classée secrète. N’entrez pas à moins d’avoir la cote secrète.
> 
> Could someone say if my bachelor degree in computer science is enough or I must learn like someone who knows nothing about network protocols and network programming?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



The grammar is wrong for BOTH English and French.

English should use the adjective form of to clear, and be "unless you are clear*ed* Secret"  or possessive phrase using to have, ie. "unless you have a Secret security clearance")

French should be similar "vous êtes autorisé(e)s au niveau secret" or "si vous avez/tenez une cote de sécurité secret."

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

In typical Army fashion, they had someone make signs who is terrible at writing in both official languages.


----------



## renemongeau

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In typical Army fashion, they had someone make signs who is terrible at writing in both official languages.


I don’t judge. After, some English courses at Vanier college and nine English courses at the University of Quebec. I have done immersion too. I find some people who don’t understand me. Last year, I did some courses in aircraft mechanic. I used to fix engines for ten years in heavy machinery engine but much more pickup trucks and road trucks in my case, I wanted the English version of this course, I had a big issue with french vocabulary. I have found out that because I searched to read information from your monitors with the images on your eyes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## renemongeau

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The grammar is wrong for BOTH English and French.
> 
> English should use the adjective form of to clear, and be "unless you are clear*ed* Secret"  or possessive phrase using to have, ie. "unless you have a Secret security clearance")
> 
> French should be similar "vous êtes autorisé(e)s au niveau secret" or "si vous avez/tenez une cote de sécurité secret."
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I would use the closest french translation from simplified technical English ASD-STE100.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Good2Golf

renemongeau said:
			
		

> I would use the closest french translation from simplified technical English ASD-STE100.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



TERMIUM Plus(R) is the Government of Canada’s official translation bank.

Regards
G2G


----------



## macarena

Hi, Mates!
May I ask about the Cyber Ops trade ( https://forces.ca/en/career/cyber-operator ), if someone would know in which rank the candidate will be on its BOQT?
I've read somewhere that for some specialized jobs, the candidate is ranked as soldier only in the BMQ.
I would like to confirm it with some veteran, if possible.


----------



## brihard

macarena said:
			
		

> Hi, Mates!
> May I ask about the Cyber Ops trade ( https://forces.ca/en/career/cyber-operator ), if someone would know in which rank the candidate will be on its BOQT?
> I've read somewhere that for some specialized jobs, the candidate is ranked as soldier only in the BMQ.
> I would like to confirm it with some veteran, if possible.



Cyber Operator is a non-commissioned trade. As a candidate on Basic Military Qualification they would be at the rank of PRivate (Recruit), or for the navy, "Orginary Seaman". While there are a few trades that offer quicker promotion to Corporal / Leading Seaman, such as Military Police, I haven't seen anything suggesting that Cyber Operator is one of them. Howeer once you're a corporal and trained in your trade, they do make specialist pay to increase their salary- it's about an extra $8400 a year.

As a cyber op, you'd spend your first couple years going to college, paid for by the CAF. The skillsets learned by Cyber Ops are already in high demand and only getting better, so it's a certification and professional experience that gives a lot of options for a post-CAF career. I see the police and intelligence communities screaming for people with this knowledge, and corporate/public sector information security branches likewise badly need people who can do this.


----------



## macarena

Brihard said:
			
		

> (...)
> As a cyber op, you'd spend your first couple years going to college, paid for by the CAF.
> (...)



Hi, Brihard!
Thanks a lot for your words!
It is really tempting as a trade.
Unfortunatelly, I can't afford 2-3 years being paid as soldier. I am from IT, I have skills and experiences on Information Security, including in a SOC team, but for this while the CAF doesn't seem to be accepting DEO for this trade.


----------



## brihard

macarena said:
			
		

> Hi, Brihard!
> Thanks a lot for your words!
> It is really tempting as a trade.
> Unfortunatelly, I can't afford 2-3 years being paid as soldier. I am from IT, I have skills and experiences on Information Security, including in a SOC team, but for this while the CAF doesn't seem to be accepting DEO for this trade.



If you want to use your skills in protecting Canada, have you considered Communication Security Establishment, or Canadian Security Intelligence Service? Both do some pretty amazing work and have a huge need for skilled and loyal IT professionals.


----------



## macarena

Brihard said:
			
		

> (...) have you considered Communication Security Establishment, or Canadian Security Intelligence Service? Both do some pretty amazing work and have a huge need for skilled and loyal IT professionals.



I've seen some months ago, some job posts from CSIS, but they were asking for more years of experience in Information Security that I have.
But, anyways, thanks for this extra tip also.


----------



## brihard

macarena said:
			
		

> I've seen some months ago, some job posts from CSIS, but they were asking for more years of experience in Information Security that I have.
> But, anyways, thanks for this extra tip also.



Check out CSE. They have hiring for recent IT grads.


----------



## Chad.wiseman

What would be the officer equivalent of this trade?


----------



## Nuggs

Chad.wiseman said:
			
		

> What would be the officer equivalent of this trade?


There isn't one at this point.

It's supervised generally by SigO and CELE.


----------



## PuckChaser

Nuggs said:
			
		

> There isn't one at this point.



Sure as hell hope we don't create another Officer trade to handle it. 

As for pay, Cyber Op is Spec 1, which will outperform most Officer pay scales for quite a few years before promotion to Captain.


----------



## macarena

Brihard said:
			
		

> Check out CSE. They have hiring for recent IT grads.



Hello, Brihard!
I didn't realised that one about CSE. Thanks again for this valuable tip.

Happy New Year for all!  :nod:


----------



## Nuggs

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure as hell hope we don't create another Officer trade to handle it.
> 
> As for pay, Cyber Op is Spec 1, which will outperform most Officer pay scales for quite a few years before promotion to Captain.


There has been lots of talk for the past few years. SigO and CELE both with hats in the ring. Plenty of chatter about SubOccs vs streams vs trade. AERE may be jumping into the mix now as well.


----------



## SnowMacho

Hello:

*Does cyber Operator work with everybody? *Some people spend a lot of effort and they don't want to waste their time with politicians who need a big social life. 

*Is it a problem to test security issues before an interview?* I will call to explain what I am trying to do before. However, I do not want problem with police. I have software projects in my computers and don't want someone who plays with that.  

*Is it possible to work and study for another diploma in math or fundamental science? *I dislike these security certifications.


----------



## cyber_lass

Humphrey Bogart said:


> :goodpost:
> 
> My personal opinion is that the biggest difficulty the CAF will have in developing highly technical and specialized Offensive/Defensive capabilities in the Cyber Domain will be the "prick measuring contest" that's an ingrained trait in classical military culture.
> 
> Small Wars Journal put out a great article a few years ago called "Leadership of Cyber Warriors: Enduring Principles and New Directions".
> 
> 
> 
> If the military wants to try and steal some of the brain power from these places:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than the paradigm better be changed because the top IT talent cares far less about PR's on the bench press and completing the Petawawa Ironman than they do about intellectual ability and critical thinking.
> 
> I think the article I alluded above provides a very good example of the difference between cyber warriors vice kinetic warriors:



I can only speak from the civilian side... But I am one of these folks. I speak at conferences. I have a lab at home. Even run a honeypot. I do malware analysis and break cryptography for fun.  I am a rare breed, even in the cyber world. But we do exist and we are the ones you want. Though... as you/the article out, we also flirt with "grey" areas as it is how we hone our trade. We don't like people who can't appreciate our brains.  We may also be sporty, but the thing that drives us, is our brains. That is all I will say in the open. Best.


----------

