Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member 1318658 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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. <br /><br />“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.<br /><br />Combine that with Gen Hyten&#39;s message about Cyber Squadron-Next.<br /><br />Given the lessons learned from NMCI, is this a good idea? 2016-02-21T10:14:37-05:00 Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member 1318658

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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. <br /><br />“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.<br /><br />Combine that with Gen Hyten&#39;s message about Cyber Squadron-Next.<br /><br />Given the lessons learned from NMCI, is this a good idea?

2016-02-21T10:14:37-05:00 2016-02-21T10:14:37-05:00 Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS 1318674

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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 &amp; expeditionary) locations.<br /><br />With the Expanding &amp; 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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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).

2016-02-21T10:26:33-05:00 2016-02-21T10:26:33-05:00 Capt Private RallyPoint Member 1318868

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The fact that AF leadership thinks that 'IT' and 'Cyber' are somehow completely different, unrelated things... Buzzwords, wow.<br /><br />How much cyber <br />could a cyber cyber<br />If a cyber cyber cyber?

2016-02-21T12:02:27-05:00 2016-02-21T12:02:27-05:00 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member 1319340

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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).<br /><br />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...

2016-02-21T15:34:26-05:00 2016-02-21T15:34:26-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 2314286

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Personally, I believe the services should maintain both...Cyber and Operations....In my deployed environments, the focus initially is getting the networks up and running within the training standards...once there up, we immediately go into a defense mode protecting them, usually in cooperation and collaboration with the upper network echelons. For example like Brigade Signal, SPAWAR etc. Cyber Security is very important no matter the environment. In deployed environments...I really don&#39;t want to have to depend on a contractor for anything, but in my experience, I have had very good working relationships with the ones that were in theater with us.....As far as CONUS vs OCONUS...I can almost guarantee that it will be fiscally driven...when there is sufficient funding...you have contractors everywhere...when DoD goes into financial crisis mode...the contractors are let go... and job falls on the Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors/CG and GS civilians...when this happens it could create a sudden technology gap...and that is definately not favorable in any situation, because now you introduce a learning curve (under pressure) that could take significant time, have significant risk and effect mission success.<br /><br />No Bombs without Comms!

2017-02-05T08:17:47-05:00 2017-02-05T08:17:47-05:00 2016-02-21T10:14:37-05:00