Should we have a separate CMF for Cyber?

2014-08-01T02:08:40-04:00

As a current signal Soldier, I have been tracking the growth of the cyber-related jobs in the military and wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to have them in their own CMF.

Right now, the cyber-warriors are spread across CMF 29, CMF 25 and CMF 35. This works so far but I only see the need for cyber-warriors growing as the need for traditional, non-IP based communications dropping (which has already been affecting CMF 25).

So the question is, should we split these jobs off into their own CMF so we can start setting different standards and give them a chance to grow as a group rather than by MOS? Will this help prevent the missions of the MOS clashing as they develop?

I have even seen some talk of how Cyber may be helped by being a joint-command that would incorporate warriors of each branch in a larger national-level mission.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 2:25 PM

2014-08-15T14:25:21-04:00

There is supposedly a seperate CMF opening for Cyber 17 Series I believe for, 25D,35Q, 255S and a few others.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 5:25 PM

2014-08-15T17:25:41-04:00

Right now the Army is looking for Soldiers to reclass to MOS 25D Cyber Network Defender, check it out!

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Aug 16 at 2014 8:08 PM

2014-08-16T20:08:25-04:00

It's coming...CMF 17.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2014 1:27 PM

2014-10-17T13:27:57-04:00

The way it is shaping up right now is that there will be a new CMF, the 17 series, but the current cyber MOSs, 25D and 35Q will supposedly still be around but in much smaller numbers (which is really saying something) doing specialized duties.

Bear in mind this is only high confidence RUMINT, so nothing official from big Army yet.

Response by SGT William B. made Oct 30 at 2014 5:57 PM

2014-10-30T17:57:13-04:00

It needs to happen. We needed this capability like, ten years ago, at least.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 11:22 PM

2014-10-31T23:22:33-04:00

Here's a point where the Signal Corps really annoys me. Not only should cyber have been integrated long ago, SigCen should have stood up and claimed the mission. Crypto Warfare and EWO should be our missions.

Now they are going whole hog, even changing "Signal" to "Cyber" on the letterhead and everything else.

I'm also a proponent of collapsing Signal and Military Intelligence into a single Information branch.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 6:55 PM

2014-11-01T18:55:46-04:00

Na. Keep it the same. It all goes hand in hand

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 12:53 PM

2014-11-08T12:53:12-05:00

It's coming. I will be attending the 17 series SME panel in early December. Some of you questions will be answered then. Until the we all just have to wait and see.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2014 4:09 PM

2014-11-08T16:09:21-05:00

I just came from my WOAC and got briefed on a lot of this.

Just like Armor and Infantry Branches/Schools are at the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Signal and Cyber will be at the Cyber Center of Excellence. They should really have come up with a separate word for it, but there's a lot of money attached to the word 'cyber'. It's the new sexy.

Signal's mission is install, operate, maintain, and defend
Cyber's mission is defensive AND offensive cyber operations.

Personally, I don't think we need an entirely different branch for it, I think it can be its own CMF within the Signal Corps...... but then again, no one asked me.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 3:15 PM

2015-02-18T15:15:46-05:00

Signal soldiers install, operate, maintain, and defend. From what I understand, the mission of the Cyber Corps will be to defend and attack. There's still a need for both.....