• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread

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
 
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

;D
 
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:
 
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....
 
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.
 
...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
 
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
 
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.

 
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)

635647920926118639-AP-Emirates-A380-DFW-Airport.jpg


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. 
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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

22pax%20(1).jpg
 
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! 
 
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)

635647920926118639-AP-Emirates-A380-DFW-Airport.jpg


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 

Attachments

  • cyber1-canada-defence-policy-report.pdf
    145 KB · Views: 203
  • cyber2-canada-defence-policy-report.pdf
    111.8 KB · Views: 191
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?).
 
Back
Top