• 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

Nuggs

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
280
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,045
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
PC, you don't think there is any chance for the Branch to seek approval for a selection process for the new MOSID?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,490
Points
1,140
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,045
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,458
Points
1,060
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,045
Points
1,060
Someone is suggesting Cyber Op have an extra selection process like SAR Tech, Pilot, SF Op, ASCO.
 

Nuggs

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
280
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,045
Points
1,060
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

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
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.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
epic bearded man,  why would you go and spoil the fun for all the other potential recruits by giving up the answer?  Not cool
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
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!!
 

BDTyre

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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!
 
Top