# New Branch?



## burnaby (17 May 2010)

Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch. I know that our traditional branches does do some intelligence/electronic gathering and disruption but should we establish branch committed only to electronic warfare. my version of electronic warfare branch is not intelligence gathering (We have CSIS) but the disruption of enemy electronic systems; civilian and military. As the world progress the use of electronics is huge. Major military establishment around the world heavily relies on electronics from guiding bombs on target to ordering toilet paper. Imagine disabling a country armed forces with a flick of a switch; destroying its ability to fight successfully (example: turning UCAVs to attack its owners) or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters (example: the current Greek economic crisis; vast amount of money or capital was done electronically).

As for Canada should we be paying more attention on virtual enemies instead of enemies that we can see? are we paying attention at all to electronic threats?


----------



## 211RadOp (17 May 2010)

Done by the C&E Branch already.


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters.



That is more in the realm of cyber warfare than what is traditionaly thought of as EW.


----------



## burnaby (17 May 2010)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Done by the C&E Branch already.



Oh thanks got to look into that; don't see them around often.


----------



## burnaby (17 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That is more in the realm of cyber warfare than what is traditionaly thought of as EW.



Got a point there; EW some may think of electronic counter measures on planes and Raven EW birds.


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> Got a point there; EW some may think of electronic counter measures on planes and Raven EW birds.



That is what most people think of. EW is a term that encompases so much that it would be near impossible to creat something called the "EW branch" but judging by your post you are more concerned with CNA and defence from it. That would certainly narrow it down some.


----------



## TimBit (17 May 2010)

As someone pointed out, it is being taken care of. And CSIS does not collect electronic intelligence. Also, in the US, what you are calling cyber warfare falls under the purview of the AF, along with Space, the other "new" domain of war.


----------



## captloadie (18 May 2010)

I also thought it was "ïllegal" for the military to do counter-surveillance and collect electronic data within Canada's borders. A past colleague of mine said they use to track animal radio collars for practice because it was the only legal signals they could collect. Think of it as Hunt for Red October in the great Canadian wilderness.


----------



## TimBit (18 May 2010)

As a general principle it is. For exercises there are derogations. But cyber-defence is another thing altogether  :camo:


----------



## dapaterson (18 May 2010)

It`s illegal until someone with authority permits it (and then there are severe restrictions, and intense oversight ).

And those with authority are well beyond anyone`s pay grade here.

It`s all spelled out in the NDA.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2010)

Speaking from experience, there are significant legal implications of collection electronic signals intelligence in Canada. Operators are very well briefed on what they can and can't do. The easiest way to explain is that everything falls under the "can't do" unless you have a wiretap warrant.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (19 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch.


Not to overly hijack this thread but many modern militaries consider SOF to be the 4th service branch.


----------



## Sig_Des (19 May 2010)

To the OP:

a) CSIS does not have the mandate for foreign Signals Intelligence. This is the purview of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), which, IIRC, falls under the control of DND (unless it's changed).

b) CSE is also responsible for IT and communications security to the Canadian government.

All the open source information on the CSE is available here: http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-eng.html

As far as the military, Cyber-security and warfare would fall under the purview of members of the C&E branch (a personel branch, not an element) and numerous existing military directorates. I will not delve into these, as, let's be honest, it's not open forum kind of stuff, and you should accept that, you just don't need to know the specifics


----------



## SeanNewman (19 May 2010)

I disagree that there should be a separate branch just for this, because it would entitle new regulations for everything from uniforms to changing all official documents to have a 4th option, etc.

I could understand if there was an entirely separate entity that included all Signals and Intelligence people, but even then...those people are typically co-located with a branch anyway so it would seem silly for them to have their own element.

Information Operations (including EW) is now considered a combat function because it is fundamentally different, but I don't think a Rad Op in a unit's Sigs Platoon or a MEWT operator driving along with a Company is different enough from Army troops to suggest a new branch.


----------



## George Wallace (19 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force.



First off; those are not Branches but "Elements" --  Land, Sea and Air.

As has been stated, all this "Electronics stuff" is already covered in organizations already.  Electronic warfare covers a very wide spectrum of fields, with there teing organizations that concentrate on COMINT, others on SIGINT, others on ELINT, and many other forms of information gathering and analysis.  Each of the three Elements of the CF also have different and varying requirements for electronic intelligence, so combining everything under one roof would hinder their efforts more than help.


----------



## McG (19 May 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First off; those are not Branches but "Elements" --  Land, Sea and Air.


In most other countries, those are seperate services.


----------



## Shamrock (20 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch. I know that our traditional branches does do some intelligence/electronic gathering and disruption but should we establish branch committed only to electronic warfare. my version of electronic warfare branch is not intelligence gathering (We have CSIS) but the disruption of enemy electronic systems; civilian and military. As the world progress the use of electronics is huge. Major military establishment around the world heavily relies on electronics from guiding bombs on target to ordering toilet paper. Imagine disabling a country armed forces with a flick of a switch; destroying its ability to fight successfully (example: turning UCAVs to attack its owners) or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters (example: the current Greek economic crisis; vast amount of money or capital was done electronically).
> 
> As for Canada should we be paying more attention on virtual enemies instead of enemies that we can see? are we paying attention at all to electronic threats?



Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2010)

We just answered the first question, but now that you pointed it out, the OP seems like a crackpot.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2010)

Well...depends on what you consider "legitimate targets" in a conflict.  Information Operations covers a wide spectrum of "targets", both ones that could be attacked and ones that must be defended against attack.

Now, I am not saying Canada should be out there doing this stuff...but I think anyone who thinks it doesn't happen/couldn't happen (all aspects of IO) is fooling themselves in this day and age.


----------



## aesop081 (20 May 2010)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?



Some civillian infrastucture that relates to a nation's ability to wage war can, and often is, a legitimate target for attack.


----------



## TimBit (20 May 2010)

Power stations powering military infrastructure, dual-use national comms facilities, railroads... all are legitimate targets according to LOAC which have been and are often targetted legally during conflcts.


----------



## chrisf (20 May 2010)

I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...

It seems to me the original poster is talking about somthing along the lines of China's cyber espionage campaigns (DoS attacks, "cyber-theft", etc), whereas it seems most respondants are talking about SIGINT and ELINT as well as radio jamming....


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I could understand if there was an entirely separate entity that included all Signals and Intelligence people, but even then...those people are typically co-located with a branch anyway so it would seem silly for them to have their own element.


Pedantic mode on, it's "Signal", not "Signals".



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Information Operations (including EW) is now considered a combat function because it is fundamentally different


Source for this?  As I recall, it's a subset of "Command"


> Information operations (Info Ops) are defined as: “coordinated actions to create desired effects on the will, understanding and capability of adversaries, potential adversaries and other approved parties in support of overall objectives by affecting their information, information based processes and systems while exploiting and protecting one’s own"


(Source:B-GL-300-001-FP-001, Land Operations)


----------



## TimBit (20 May 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...
> 
> It seems to me the original poster is talking about somthing along the lines of China's cyber espionage campaigns (DoS attacks, "cyber-theft", etc), whereas it seems most respondants are talking about SIGINT and ELINT as well as radio jamming....



Well cyber espionage falls under SIGINT... But I get your point. Personally I read the OP's post as refering to cyber-warfare vs cyber operations or CNO's, i.e. "taking out" a target vice watching it. The US Cyber Command aims to cover the first while the second still is the domain of NSA/CSS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I think there's some confusion or at least disagreements over the definition of EW and where it fits into the stratagies of/disciplines of Information Operations, and some blurring of lines between tactical EW and strategic EW...



I agree, but added the yellow to expand it some.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2010)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?


No, and it's not tripe.  When a military attacks, it only attacks military objectives.  Military objectives are a sub-set of national objectives.  The nation has more than the military to attack its objectives.  We have laws that state what domain belongs to the military.  These are (almost) all out of Canada, and it takes special orders to "do stuff" in Canada, and it is (almost) always in support of, or aid to, the Civil Power.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2010)

EW is part of Information Operations.  (See my definition above)


----------



## aesop081 (20 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> EW is part of Information Operations.  (See my definition above)



Even that is subject to some vigourous debate.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Even that is subject to some vigourous debate.


I'm just basing on the existing definitions.  If "info is power", and if communications are the way to share info, then EW is indeed a subset of Information Operations (which is a heck of a lot more than glad handing the locals).  But, I know exactly what you mean.


----------



## SeanNewman (23 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Pedantic mode on, it's "Signal", not "Signals".



Hate to do this to you, my friend since we've had this same discussion in person:







*Note* In my search I also found some references to "Signal" sans "S", but since that does not support my argument I have obviously not posted those references and I will pretend I did not see them.


----------



## SeanNewman (23 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Source for this?  As I recall, it's a subset of "Command"



Not many more, my friend:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_2/CAJ_vol8.2_03_e.pdf

Combat Functions
The army defines six combat functions: command, information operations, manoeuvre, firepower, protection and sustainment.

Don't see "Planning" on that list...booyah!


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2010)

From what I've seen in that note, is a proposal to make IO a combat function.  Makes sense.

Re: signals/signal, the corps/branch is "signal corps", and the various squadrons are "xx Headquarters and Signal Squadron".  But, the slip on says "SIGNALS" or "TRANSMISSIONS".  Funny bunch they are, anyway, so lets just agree to call them "geeks"  8)


----------



## Jammer (23 May 2010)

Not all of us are geeks...there are still a few mud rad ops out there


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2010)

:nana:


----------



## Jammer (23 May 2010)

Ohh that's adult...


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 May 2010)

No, that's Technoviking, he has been called many things, "adult" isn't one of them.    ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No, that's Technoviking, he has been called many things, "adult" isn't one of them.    ;D


Damn straight!


----------



## Jammer (23 May 2010)

Amen to that!


----------



## chrisf (25 May 2010)

So wait, are we starting Net Force or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy's_Net_Force


----------



## SeanNewman (25 May 2010)

Net Force?  I think we could use a Marine Corps before that.  Never mind, we can't man what we have now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2010)

Starting NetForce?  I've had my badge and decoder ring (thats OPSEC though) for 2 years now!


break 

prepare to copy

John has a long moustache, John has a long moustache.

The door is colored red.  The door is colored red.

break


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 May 2010)

The rooster flies at midnight.


----------



## chrisf (26 May 2010)

Damn it, my hovercraft is still full of eels.


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 May 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Damn it, my hovercraft is still full of eels.



Couldn't afford snakes?  Or a plane?


----------



## SeanNewman (26 May 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Couldn't afford snakes?  Or a plane?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The rooster flies at midnight.



The eagle flies high in the desert sun!


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Starting NetForce?  I've had my badge and decoder ring (thats OPSEC though) for 2 years now!
> 
> 
> break
> ...



"Blesse mon coeur d'une langueur monotone"


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2010)

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2010)

This reminds  me of the part in Red Dawn where the gang is listening to the broadcast from "radio free america" or whatever it was called in the movie  ;D.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2010)

The violins play at midnight.

The violins play at midnight.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This reminds  me of the part in Red Dawn where the gang is listening to the broadcast from "radio free america" or whatever it was called in the movie  ;D.


Good eye - one of the lines here has been on "Red Dawn":


> Radio Free America Announcer: It's 11:59 on Radio Free America; this is Uncle Sam, with music, and the truth until dawn. Right now I've got a few words for some of our brothers and sisters in the occupied zone: "the chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall", "john has a long mustache, john has a long mustache". It's twelve o'clock, American, another day closer to victory. And for all of you out there, on, or behind the line, this is your song.


as well as "The Longest Day":


> [a coded message to the Resistance, spoken in French]
> Radio Announcer: John has a long mustache.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2010)

Yup, thats the one and thats where I thought of it from   :nod:


----------

