USAF Cyber Command (catch all)

[Cliff]

Cliff I agree -- that said, will it take a "Billy Mitchell" figure or a Stuxnet type attack on our critical infrastructure to force such a change?

I see the Cyber Corps as a very different military --- one where "basing" is co-located within high-tech corridors/research parks, reduced PT-Grooming-Uniform standards, and possessing a significant telecommuting capability. In other words, an "extreme" functional service focused upon service to our nation, technical proficiency and adhering to core values required to maintain a security clearance. I also see a significant IG or Internal Affairs type capability given the sensitivies of their operations.

Maybe the Cyber Corps belongs in DHS? Their lone expeditionary forcible entry capability......

Allen-

In short, yes, it probably would take some kind of catastrophic event to get real change in the cyber world. I don't think DHS is the right place - maybe for a domestic cyber agency but for the warfighting cyber functions they need to be in the DoD.


Brett-

The USAF already has doctrine - see AFDD 3-12 for USAF's cyber doctrine. Cyber is a domain according to the USAF doctrine, hence why I think there may end up being a "Cyber corps" - we'll have to see. The alternative is that it remains a core competency of the USAF - much as space has. We can debate the differences based on the different characteristics of the domains ad naseum, but I think for now we won't see a cyber service.

I agree with Selil, there shouldn't be different standards for cyber-warriors than in any other fight - after all, they're still warriors. Additionally, kinetic attacks are still a part of the toolbag in affecting the cyber realm- as in if someone seizes your computer facility, destroys your electrical system, or sets off an EMP device you lose your access to the cyber domain.

I personally think that one of the big problems with cyber is that it has been fenced off due to classification, leading to a similar situation to many of the ISR platforms during the Cold War- if you're always behind the green door, it's hard to work with the other warfighters in the joint fight.

Again, the USAF is trying to fix this by merging the comm (essentially the IT functions of cyber) and cyber career fields into cyber. It will be interesting to see what happens...

V/R,

Cliff

PS - Cyberspace does have a joint definition too.

[Brett Patron]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't need another COCOM....we need another Service focused upon this domain versus it being a sideshow for the other 4 services.

If Cyberspace (for warfighting purposes) is actually a DOMAIN, then, yes, you need a Service. I don't think it is. I don't believe a new Combatant Command is needed either.

I think a "Cyber Corps" is an idea that has much more merit. Or, an existing COCOM (e.g. STRATCOM), properly empowered with some Title 10 Man, Train, Equip authorities, can probably fill the bill.

What is really needed first is cogent DOD wide doctrine, from which either the Services (CyberCorps) or a Combatant Command can organize, train, and execute. Without universal terms of reference, we don't know which organizing option is appropriate.

[selil]

What is really needed first is cogent DOD wide doctrine, from which either the Services (CyberCorps) or a Combatant Command can organize, train, and execute. Without universal terms of reference, we don't know which organizing option is appropriate.

What you need is FM1 for cyber. Those of us who have attempted that feat are still wondering what in the world government is trying to do. I can walk you through the basics but everybody is still stuck with "cyber is different" rather than conflict is similar what are the similarities. How is naval, land, and air warfare the same? When we added space as a domain we didn't have a Marine Corps mission in space so it was different, but there were still similarities. Instead of trying to define how cyber is different how is it similar? We're asking a lot of the wrong questions and worried about the "computer" instead of the warrior. The model is all mixed up and people are chasing their tales like rabid dogs. Look here ->relax<- this is all you need to do to get it done. But, that would break a lot of vendor rice bowls and we can't have that.

If Cyber is a domain we can use standard doctrine to fill in the holes. I did that with FM-3-24 it should be possible with FM1. I've been looking at fleet tactics, but I don't have the experience to understand some of the discussion to find the patterns of conflict necessary.