Posted on Feb 21, 2016
Should Military get out of the IT business to focus on Cyber?
6.36K
7
8
3
3
0
Proposed Senate language (which was removed) in the 2016 NDAA contained a provision (sec. 591) limiting the use of uniformed military personnel in the provision of network services for military installations in the continental United States.
“The Senate is concern that the Air Force is devoting more resources and uniformed military personnel for the provision of network services than are necessary, considering the commercial network services capabilities that may be available at lower costs. While we believe the use of uniformed military personnel for network services is necessary in some cases, for example aboard ships or at expeditionary bases, there is less rationale for this use of uniform military personnel at permanent military installations within the continental United States.
Combine that with Gen Hyten's message about Cyber Squadron-Next.
Given the lessons learned from NMCI, is this a good idea?
“The Senate is concern that the Air Force is devoting more resources and uniformed military personnel for the provision of network services than are necessary, considering the commercial network services capabilities that may be available at lower costs. While we believe the use of uniformed military personnel for network services is necessary in some cases, for example aboard ships or at expeditionary bases, there is less rationale for this use of uniform military personnel at permanent military installations within the continental United States.
Combine that with Gen Hyten's message about Cyber Squadron-Next.
Given the lessons learned from NMCI, is this a good idea?
17DX: Cyberspace Operations
Computer Science / Information Technology
Signal Corps
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Need to define IT and Cyber in relation to the mission... For example, network perimeter defense, hacking, and intrusion potection versus IT Operations (email, collaborative suite, end user computing, etc.) versus customer facing (mission required applications and services).
Until you define the scope of the terms used at the highest level, there will still be confusion on whether the terms are related or not. At its core, they're related of course (they fall under the broader IT career fields) but they can without a doubt be separated out and unless your civilian leaders understand and recognize that, it's challenging budgeting any improvements or modernizations to any of those systems...
Until you define the scope of the terms used at the highest level, there will still be confusion on whether the terms are related or not. At its core, they're related of course (they fall under the broader IT career fields) but they can without a doubt be separated out and unless your civilian leaders understand and recognize that, it's challenging budgeting any improvements or modernizations to any of those systems...
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Great answer LT. So I pose this question to you. Should we defined cyber and IT for the greater US government or should we wait for the President / Congress to define it for us?
If you think we should, how would you define it?
If you think we should, how would you define it?
(0)
(0)
1st Lt (Join to see)
The AF had lead the IT space for some time supporting the Intel Community and beyond the DoD. I would say that the AF leaders take this with the secretary and help define the scope as an action to SECDEF to present to congress. Having congress do it for us would be riddled with too many assumptions and may introduce unnecessary risks and constraints.
By definition, I'd structure the career field into segments like my example above. Most corporations do the same thing and do so under the IT umbrella (to include cyber or information security).
With a unified definition it poises the organization to better explain affected areas when briefing those civilian leaders.
By definition, I'd structure the career field into segments like my example above. Most corporations do the same thing and do so under the IT umbrella (to include cyber or information security).
With a unified definition it poises the organization to better explain affected areas when briefing those civilian leaders.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Christopher Foss
I believe that one of the problems with this sort of issue is that contracting for services has historically been approached strictly through a financial lens. In an attempt to save money, a contract that is not properly defined has resulted in project creep, services that do not cover the mission, etc.
With service members in place as the work force, those issues are normally limited to infrastructure, as the chain of command can change the objectives to cover the initial short comings. Contracting, on the other hand, requires a modification or rewrite of the contract to address the same issues.
That said, I believe that there are places, such as infrastructure and initial implementation, where contracting makes a lot of sense. For instance, supplying hardware in the modern model, where thin clients and blade computing are resurging, is sensible. It can help to keep the technology current and reduce the potential for security incidents by removing storage from workstations.
A Service IT workforce would be more desirable for routine operations because of the immediate response, the "Other duties as assigned" aspect, OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE a contractor cannot be reasonably expected to have, and, much as I despise this argument, a lack of over time and other fees for outside of business actions.
tl;dr - Contracting for supply and implementation, service members for IT support.
With service members in place as the work force, those issues are normally limited to infrastructure, as the chain of command can change the objectives to cover the initial short comings. Contracting, on the other hand, requires a modification or rewrite of the contract to address the same issues.
That said, I believe that there are places, such as infrastructure and initial implementation, where contracting makes a lot of sense. For instance, supplying hardware in the modern model, where thin clients and blade computing are resurging, is sensible. It can help to keep the technology current and reduce the potential for security incidents by removing storage from workstations.
A Service IT workforce would be more desirable for routine operations because of the immediate response, the "Other duties as assigned" aspect, OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE a contractor cannot be reasonably expected to have, and, much as I despise this argument, a lack of over time and other fees for outside of business actions.
tl;dr - Contracting for supply and implementation, service members for IT support.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The fact that AF leadership thinks that 'IT' and 'Cyber' are somehow completely different, unrelated things... Buzzwords, wow.
How much cyber
could a cyber cyber
If a cyber cyber cyber?
How much cyber
could a cyber cyber
If a cyber cyber cyber?
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Words matter a lot at the highest levels. In this case, they are trying to wrestle with the programmatic differences between Ops (cyber) and IT (support). Any program labeled cyber is growing. Any program labeled IT is getting cut. That is the reason why IT systems like the AOC and DCGS are considered weapons systems
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The military should lead the way in developing the infrastructure necessary to maintain essential services. However once the infrastructure is developed, and policies are in place, we "can" trim back our presence on PERMANENT (as opposed to mobile & expeditionary) locations.
With the Expanding & Shrinking Force concept, we cannot dedicate troops to Installation Services (fully). We have to instead use them a combination of Government Employees and Contractors. Yes, there are minimum requirements for Operational levels, but... does the BASE (as opposed to Div/Wing) Network shop need to be manned by Military Personnel? Can it not instead be "headed" by military and ran by civilians?
Look at other forms of Base Maintenance (of which Network is). Should we use Troops (et al) to mow lawns, serve chow, etc, unless there is a specific pressing need to do so?
Note: I was involved in the NMCI changeover (back in 2000-2003). It was a "good concept, bad execution." Mainly due to the fact that those in position of Authority did not understand the Expeditionary nature of the USMC. If they "only" wanted to deal with Base infrastructure, it would have been fine. The problem was that it was an "oversold solution" to a problem that really didn't exist (USMC only had 13 nominal locations at that point).
With the Expanding & Shrinking Force concept, we cannot dedicate troops to Installation Services (fully). We have to instead use them a combination of Government Employees and Contractors. Yes, there are minimum requirements for Operational levels, but... does the BASE (as opposed to Div/Wing) Network shop need to be manned by Military Personnel? Can it not instead be "headed" by military and ran by civilians?
Look at other forms of Base Maintenance (of which Network is). Should we use Troops (et al) to mow lawns, serve chow, etc, unless there is a specific pressing need to do so?
Note: I was involved in the NMCI changeover (back in 2000-2003). It was a "good concept, bad execution." Mainly due to the fact that those in position of Authority did not understand the Expeditionary nature of the USMC. If they "only" wanted to deal with Base infrastructure, it would have been fine. The problem was that it was an "oversold solution" to a problem that really didn't exist (USMC only had 13 nominal locations at that point).
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google