Posted on Apr 11, 2016
AF Cyber/IT question: Who will do the IT work post Comm Squadron Next?
13.1K
8
10
3
3
0
Comm Squadron Next aims to change the Comm Squadron from a service provider to a mission assurer/enclave defender. With that change, who do you think will take on the service provider role? Some say JIE and others say it will be contracted out. What exactly do you think that means?
Do you think AFIMSC detachment at the base level can be the answer? The AFIMSC has taken virtually all of the base support programs from the MAJCOMs (FOIA, Privacy act, COMSEC, transmission, long Haul, C&I maintenance, and PWCS, etc). Wouldn't it make sense for the AFIMSC to take that on at the local level?
Like to know everyone's thoughts
Do you think AFIMSC detachment at the base level can be the answer? The AFIMSC has taken virtually all of the base support programs from the MAJCOMs (FOIA, Privacy act, COMSEC, transmission, long Haul, C&I maintenance, and PWCS, etc). Wouldn't it make sense for the AFIMSC to take that on at the local level?
Like to know everyone's thoughts
17DX: Cyberspace Operations
Computer Science / Information Technology
Computer Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
First, you've likely seen my opinion in Cyber Squadron of the future being an overkill. I personally think there are going to be some very bored units out there. That said, in order to move us into operation squadrons, the base communications support stink must be removed from those units. I spent too many years leading operational capabilities while still being considered the comm support guy.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I saw it. I've been on both side of the fence. it's terrible. The Cyber squadron should be more like an element and they will be scope doping quite a bit...but that's the same as security forces on the airfield.
Have you seen the mission defense team CONOPS? the goal is the provide a CVA like capability at the base but focus on defending the weapons system (F-16,F-22, etc) and the ICS.
Have you seen the mission defense team CONOPS? the goal is the provide a CVA like capability at the base but focus on defending the weapons system (F-16,F-22, etc) and the ICS.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Lt Col (Join to see) - I'm not even a fan of an element, specifically if it's part of the traditional comm units. Support needs to be segregated from ops. Several of the older comm squadrons used to have their own network security offices at one time, which were used to monitor the base activity and anomalies. My security office when I was a Deputy Squadron Commander was actually a lot better than some I encountered when I conducted Red Teams. In fact, they actually caught and reported the traffic generated by a Red Team assessment (my former unit) while I was there. When they reported it to me, I had to keep a straight face, knowing who and what it was (I knew the TTPs), and let them see it through for the response actions. They performed very well. Still this is an effort which could be done at the MAJCOM level for each of it's subordinate bases and/or respective critical systems.
No, I have not seen the mission defense team CONOPS. Let me know where I can find it and I'll try to take a look when I have some time. Running constant CVAs on a reoccurring basis is not going to be a fun or exciting job. I recently attended part of the WSR for the MIP in which they alluded to the upcoming tools, but I saw no decision on what CVA product they will ultimately push out as Nessus has been significantly pulled from most of our toolsets (due to licensing issues). On the CONOPS I would love to see what powers they will grant the cyber squadrons. Will they be able to push fix actions with he appropriate levels of privileged access? Will they receive more training in malware analysis. Will they receive the appropriate levels of intel and insight to the TTPs of our known enemies? This is all important to be effective.
No, I have not seen the mission defense team CONOPS. Let me know where I can find it and I'll try to take a look when I have some time. Running constant CVAs on a reoccurring basis is not going to be a fun or exciting job. I recently attended part of the WSR for the MIP in which they alluded to the upcoming tools, but I saw no decision on what CVA product they will ultimately push out as Nessus has been significantly pulled from most of our toolsets (due to licensing issues). On the CONOPS I would love to see what powers they will grant the cyber squadrons. Will they be able to push fix actions with he appropriate levels of privileged access? Will they receive more training in malware analysis. Will they receive the appropriate levels of intel and insight to the TTPs of our known enemies? This is all important to be effective.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Under the Multi-Domain Operating Concept (MDOC), the idea is to transition blue-suiters to warfighting functions as CSTs, some supporting the JFC under CYBERCOM, while the AF retains some for direct support to the COMAFFOR. The concept includes contracted base comms support, although no PE or funds have been identified (the long-haul comms PE won't support). SAF/CIO HAF/A6 is lead.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
sir you hit the nail on the head. I think since the AFIMSC has taken over most of those tasks at the MAJCOM level, it only makes sense to do a similar transition at the base level. In addition to taking on IT program tasks, the AFIMSC has taken the SFS and CE IT enterprise task as well. There is potential for good synergy. However. this does pose the question....are we going back to the Old wing/base construct before Gen McPeak?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google