Air Force Suspends Cyber Command Program

AFCyber writes "The Air Force on Monday suspended all efforts related to development of a program to become the dominant service in cyberspace, according to knowledgeable sources. Top Air Force officials put a halt to all activities related to the establishment of the Cyber Command, a provisional unit that is currently part of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, sources told Nextgov. An internal Air Force e-mail obtained by Nextgov said, 'Transfers of manpower and resources, including activation and re-assignment of units, shall be halted.' Establishment of the Cyber Command will be delayed until new senior Air Force leaders, including Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, sworn in today, have time to make a final decision on the scope and mission of the command."

Comments

Coincidence?

[longacre]

Perhaps just coincidence that they shut it down the day after this look inside Cyber Commandwas published online:

"The black boxes are ClearCube computer terminals, and the fact that there are two of them at each station points to perhaps the most important defensive strategy of the Pentagon's Global Information Gridâ"known to its operators as the GIG. The box on top is plugged into the Nonclassified Internet Protocol Router Network, or NIPRNet, which is linked to the public Internet. The other black box connects to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, which contains the military's classified information. There are no physical connections between the two anywhere in the Defense Department's 5 millionâ"computer network, yet in the AFNOC, the Ethernet jacks are only 1 1/2 in. apart. That proximity got me wondering. 'What if someone connected them?' I asked information officer 2nd Lt. Mike Forostoski. He laughed in disbelief, as though I had asked him what would happen if a flaming nuclear blimp headed for the building. Then he answered with cautious understatement: 'That would be bad.'

Re:Coincidence?

[drspliff]

What a load of rubbish, the black boxen are ClearCube "Digital Fiber C/Port" thin terminals connected to a workstation somewhere in a cabinet, if you were to swap them around you'd have the computer connected to the top-secret network on the other side of your desk.

It's not like if you did that packets would magically leak out and allow Chinese hackers to read their e-mails...

This is quite a neat setup because everything can be stored away, centrally managed and physically secured from a single location.

Re:Coincidence?

[Lt_Kernal]

What a load of crap. There are many multilevel systems that hook to multiple classification networks at the same time. One box, connected to both SIPR, and NIPR, for example.

Here's one of them, Radiant Mercury: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/radiant_mercury.htm

Here's another. DTW, the DoDIIS Trusted Workstation. It has the capabilty to hook up to many networks at the same time, from NIPR to SCI: http://www.sun.com/solutions/documents/business-cases/go_DTW_cc.pdf

But, hey. Truth doesn't sell magazines, does it? Ironically, the technology that allows more than one classified network to hook to another is pretty freaking awesome. PopMech should take a look at that, instead.

Re:Coincidence?

[TubeSteak]

What a load of rubbish, the black boxen are ClearCube "Digital Fiber C/Port" thin terminals connected to a workstation somewhere in a cabinet, if you were to swap them around you'd have the computer connected to the top-secret network on the other side of your desk.

The question wasn't "what would happen if you swap them around" it was "what would happen if you plugged them into each other with an ethernet cable"

Why would the SIPRNet box/terminal even have an empty ethernet port?

Re:Coincidence?

[afabbro]

"Airwalls" are very common in classified setups. Go figure - the best and brightest still trust physical separation more than promises of unbreakable firewalls.

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Airman Snuffy, where did you put that extra crossover cable we had lying around?

Re:Coincidence?

[Gilmoure]

Where I work (contract company to gov't), our standards are a bit more strict. No standard network/classified network wiring/ports/equipment to be closer than 4'. The only thing they allow that bridges this are specified KVM switches, so one monitor/keyboard/mouse can be used. Not sure why the military is so lax

Re:Coincidence?

[pdxp]

This is quite a neat setup because everything can be stored away, centrally managed and physically secured from a single point of failure .

Fixed.

Re:Coincidence?

[Bugs42]

What worries me far more is that in the picture accompanying that article, the computers are quite obviously running Windows.

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

All access points to the secured networks/computers are placed in locked secured rooms. No unsecured networks/computers are allowed in these rooms. Once a secured network wire is visible outside the locked room, it has already been heavily encrypted.

Re:Coincidence?

[Fallon]

I have a SIPR machine sitting a foot or 2 away from me right now as I type this on a NIPR machine... SIPR is a completely separate network that never touches the Internet. They both are monitored very heavily and if traffic from one showed up on the other, it would get noticed very quickly and fixed. It would be bad and heads would roll, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

The U.S. military world wide has setups not unlike this, it's nothing new in the slightest, along with appropriate systems and procedures to protect them.

Re:Coincidence?

[Fallon]

if you were to swap them around you'd have the computer connected to the top-secret network on the other side of your desk.

Actually Top Secret is yet another completely different network than SIPR with a heck of a lot more security measures in place.

Re:Coincidence?

[drspliff]

They're dumb terminals and have no switching capability...

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Ironically, the technology that allows more than one classified network to hook to another is pretty freaking awesome.
Actually, the technology used in the referenced "multilevel" systems is generally weak. In the old "Orange Book" terms, their assurance is about Class B1. Until recently, that was always called "low assurance". Stuff like SELinux and Trusted Solaris is fine for many uses, but don't bet too much on it. Actual high assurance requires that the OS be designed for high assurance from scratch. Those low assurance OS's are retrofits.

Re:Coincidence?

[stickystyle]

Nothing would happen. It's not ethernet, its just a real long KVM cable back to the blade that happens to use CAT5 cable and RJ45 connectors.

Both PM and the officer have no idea how the technology works - maybe its for the better that they shut down, this is not our sharpest group.

Re:Coincidence?

[Erie Ed]

This is the usual air force way of doing things, trust me it will be a long time before AF cybercommand ever gets up and running. Also if they are running Thin clients those have been proven to be pretty secure on SIPRnet, also screw TACLANE's those things are expensive at $16k a pop and then not to mention the pain in the ass that it is to get the system keyed...shrug what do i know i'm just an airman

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does have a lot to do with timing, but not the timing you're thinking about. This is happening because a new Chief of Staff is taking over--specifically, because he is taking over as a direct result of the mismanagement of his predecessor. He's walking in the door asking a lot of hard questions along the lines of, "What, exactly, would we say we do here?" I'm betting that he took a good look at the situation and realized that the Air Force was screwing up its core missions (air superiority, air support, air transport, air- and space-based ISR, strategic deterrence, etc) because it was diverting attention and resources to carving out new territory in places like cyberspace. He's going to put the focus back on doing well at the jobs they already have before pursuing new jobs. I'm also willing to bet that he's smart enough to realize that any U.S. Military cyber-command needs to be fully joint to be effective, possibly as another major command (ala SOCOM).

Re:Coincidence?

[gilxa1226]

Most of the SIPR machines I have seen/used are connected to the SIPRNet via fiber nics, as opposed to standard ethernet. That could also pose a problem in connecting the two together with the ports right next to each other.

Re:Coincidence?

[Bensam123]

If a desk is infront of them, all it would take is a switch with a battery for power.

The whole idea of being very minimal about it while you're physically there and someone else being able to snoop around at their leisure offsite and out of harm is what gets me.

Even if they find out, the damage will be done and will be a lot less obvious then seeing a janitor sitting at a top secret computer terminal. It completely defeats the purpose of having an entirely different network.

Oh shit!

[Subm]

Skynet's become active!

The Air Force is doomed

[realmolo]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

The only thing we need actualy piloted aircraft for are close-in ground support, where things are too crowded/messy for computers to do a good job. And even then, remotely-piloted drones are taking over.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Red Flayer]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

Reminds me of an old short story I read in the 80s...

The premise was that two superpowers, in a state of constant war, launch programmed missiles at eachother, since it was decided that manned craft were not necessary, and it was not worth risking pilot lives. However, the defenses for the superpowers were able to adapt quickly, and therefore very few missiles ever got through the defense systems.

Eventually, one of the superpowers decided to make the missiles human pilotable, in order to defeat the defenses; they lost many pilots on their suicide missiosn, but obliterated their opponent and won the war.

The point is, human action is less predictable, and harder to defend against.

Of course, remote piloting and drones provide the capability of human piloting without all the mess of needing to carry meat, but the air force as a separate command is a different issue.

The Air Force will, IMO, always be needed, if only as a balance to the other two major forces. An additional chain of command leadin to the top means that a different insititionally biased way of thinking comes into play, and it is more likely that a dissenting (but not necessarily wrong) opinion will be heard at the highest level.

Reducing the number of branches in the command structure will lead to even more institutionalized thinking, which, IMO, would hamper the ability of the military to come to the best solutions to problems it faces.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

Reminds me of an old short story I read in the 80s...

"The Feeling of Power" by Isaac Asimov.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Ethanol-fueled]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

No, the traditional manned Air Force may be scaled back, but it will continue to adapt its missions toward exploitation of whatever spaces(outer, cyber) that the other branches can't touch. Their toying around with this "cyber-command" is a good example of this idea(though cyber-command is not necessary as there are plenty of civillian proxies who would love to hack for the US). Right after I graduated AF basic training, they even started to have new airmen chant "Space Power" along with "Air Power".

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[gnick]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

Reminds me of an old short story I read in the 80s...

"The Feeling of Power" by Isaac Asimov.

The text: http://downlode.org/Etext/power.html

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[iamweezman]

We do have better missiles, and better drones...all flown and developed by the Air Force.

The AF also controls and commands the AFSCN - the Air Force Satellite Control Network, GPS, and much of the ISR satellites. Flying planes is actually very little of what they do.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[JeanCroix]

Maybe you're forgetting a few things? Materiel and personnel transport, for starters. Nobody's working on a drone to replace the C-130 yet. Nor are they quite willing to allow drones to shuttle around high-ranking officers.

I won't even get into the air superiority debate...

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

You know where the best pilots in the US armed forces are?

The Navy, launching from carriers. (Remember Top Gun? That was about Navy pilots.)

The Air Force has never been needed.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[encoderer]

What is this "80s" you speak of?

Some sort of code?

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Minwee]

The Air Force has never been needed.

I believe that the United States Air Force may disagree with you.

They may also disagree that the USAF needs its own planes, cars, missiles, submarines, space program, paper clip assembly plants, and surprisingly profitable second hand ballpoint business.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fun thing about remotely operated units is that, if you take out the remote operators, not usually known for their provess in the Art of War, you have disabled the drone as well.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[ClientNine]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

The only thing we need actualy piloted aircraft for are close-in ground support, where things are too crowded/messy for computers to do a good job. And even then, remotely-piloted drones are taking over.

That's a credible argument against the need for combat pilots, but not so much against the need for military air power. Someone has to maintain and operate the drones and whatnot.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[protodevilin]

The human factor can never be replaced in warfare. While using drones and programmed systems does reduce casualties and the likelihood of human error, it also fundamentally reduces the chances of success. There is no computer on earth that can obtain, process, and act creatively upon the maelstrom of information typical to airborne warfare quite as well as the mind of a trained American pilot. The USAF's roots have always been in advanced technology (starting with balloons in the early 20th Century and onward to today's newest toys), so it's expected that they'd handle the frontier of cyber warfare. Also, cracking the SIPRNET takes a hell of a lot more effort than simply switching around an ethernet cable. There are many layers of security in place--both digital and physical--which would require many hours and a rather conspicuous pile of gear to penetrate.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, youngster, when you're dancing on our graves: we were bangin' your mom before you were ever born.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Dun Malg]

Reducing the number of branches in the command structure will lead to even more institutionalized thinking

More or fewer branches has little effect on the amount of institutionalized thinking, it just varies the amount of parochialism. The Air Force was formed in 1948 on the premise that the US Army shouldn't be in the business of strategic bombing and air superiority. Unfortunately, the agreement that split the AF off from the Army also forbade the Army to operate aircraft. As a result the Army still has trouble getting the AF to provide adequate close air support. Under consideration at the same time was a proposal to attach the Marine Corps to the Army (where it more logically belongs) and transfer naval aviation assets to Air Force control; but Navy Secretary Forrestal had spent WW2 building up the Navy into his own little self-sufficient kingdom with its own air and ground assets. It's a completely asinine duplication of effort, but he had enough pull to kill the consolidation proposal. As a result of this sort of bureaucratic feudalism, we have:
4 1/2 air forces
Air Force, Naval aviation, USMC aviation, Coast Guard aviation, and Army helicopter aviation

1 1/2 armies
the real Army, and the Navy's light infantry, the USMC

2 1/2 navies
the Navy, the Coast Guard, and all the small watercraft operated by the AF and Army to fill the gaps the Navy won't cover.

So you see, while splitting up the services seems like it should promote efficiency by allowing each service to specialize, what you end up with is services narrowing their focus to the stuff that's completely "theirs", while neglecting the "overlap" areas where other services need their support. As it turns out, the Army is inevitably the biggest loser in all of this. They are the backbone of any sizable conflict, but can't get decent close air support or timely theater airlift support from the Air Force, and are forbidden by law to provide it for themselves. Likewise they can't get theater level waterborne transport from the Navy. Meanwhile, naval aviators whine about the Air Force getting to drop all the bombs in Iraq, when the justification for having them flying over Iraq is already weak at best. Then there's the USMC lobbying to be given sole operational responsibility over Afghanistan because they want to get out of Iraq, as their tactics there have only resulted in a greater casualty rate, rather than "upstaging" the Army as is their normal goal.

The root of the problem is that all the branches are run by politicians. They may wear uniforms full of ribbons and stars, but they're no different than your typical pork-barrel politician. They're always looking for some way to expand their power base so they can justify a bigger bite of the defense "pie". This silly Air Force "Cyber Command" is just more of the same. The Air Force hasn't a single justification in its charter for claiming "cyberspace" as their own, but they hope to get it by virtue of being the only service with applicable combat assets in-theater when the time comes to decide whose responsibility it is. Frankly, I think the military is ill suited to the job. I reckon the NSA is the better tool for the job. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the Air Force was told "your Cyber Command is a needless duplication of assets already fielded by the NSA--- kill it". Heck, they may have been told that already...

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think FLIES the drones, guy?

Glad a lot of people died for you to make that statement, obnoxiously inaccurate though it be.

Drones have their place, but don't go waxing Rumsfeldian and try to do away with entire fleets of things you obviously do not understand.

You won't replace pilots completely for a while yet.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

and we were bangin' your daughter just the other...er, never mind.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[weetabeex]

Glad a lot of people died for you to make that statement, obnoxiously inaccurate though it be.

People die.

People in war time die often. Usually, with the purpose of avoiding their enemy's dominance.

"People died for you to X", being X any of "make that statement", "being able to speak your mind" or "do whatever is you want to do", is simply pure crap.

Few were the times when people really died willingly "for a greater purpose". Most of them died because they were dumped in the middle of an on going war and had to survive (if they died, obviously, they didn't made it).

Honestly, I don't really understand how those statements hold nowadays.

Besides fighting for your independence, on your civil war or the world wars, those people died with less purpose that everybody likes to remember.

Dieing while serving your military forces, in other situation than those when your countryman's lives or freedom may be at stake, isn't something a country should be proud.

But, hey, this is just my point of view. I wouldn't be proud if my country's government decided to invade a foreign country, let my countryman die, just because they beat us on a singing contest.

(And, please, replace the singing contest with something you fancy, may it be different politics, religion, skin color or shoe size)

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[user-hostile]

The human factor can never be replaced in warfare. While using drones and programmed systems does reduce casualties and the likelihood of human error, it also fundamentally reduces the chances of success.

You could say the same thing about hand-to-hand combat (bayonets, etc.) VS. guns. A bullet fired from a rifle is simply a "drone", albeit a really fast moving one. Sometimes they miss, and sometimes they don't.

Pilots are on their way out. The only reason they're not essentially a thing-of-the-past right now is their own self-preservation efforts. I think at one point, the AF was measuring toward pilot obsolescence by 2020...that was before Sept. 11 though.

The whole "cyberspace command" idea was the stupidest thing I heard come out of the Pentagon in a long time (I'm an AF veteran). If the AF is smart they'll leverage a whole bunch toward unmanned weapons.


U-H

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Dun Malg]

You know where the best pilots in the US armed forces are?

The Navy, launching from carriers. (Remember Top Gun? That was about Navy pilots.)

The Air Force has never been needed.

Wow. Excellent argument. How can anyone counter the proof that "nAvy R00lz! woo!", the unequivocal evidence of a fucking Tom Cruise movie?

Genius. Absolute genius.

Re:The Air Force is doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, I rue the day the firearm was invented. Took all the effort/responsibility/bravery/strategy out of warfare and turned it into an irreverent thing all the more easily propagated by politicians who know nothing of what it means to take life. But the arms race has been going on since the dawn of time, and it'll keep going on long after I'm dust. Adapt and overcome, right?

I'm an AF "veteran" too (CCT, "First There"). And I'd trust a real life, breathing, thinking pilot in the cockpit over a drone (remote-piloted or otherwise) any day of the week. It's unfortunate, but yes, the Air Force is leaning heavily in the direction of unmanned weapons.

As for Cyberspace Command, well, we'll just see, won't we?

Missing out

[perffectworld]

A lot to be learned right now on cyberwar from Russia.

profit!

[n3tcat]

Step 1) Release public statement regarding creation of cyber command to all nerd websites
Step 2) Recruit all the nerds that got interested in step 1
Step 3) Publicly announce the cancellation of the project
Step 4) Continu.......

(Connection Terminated)

Re:profit!

[volxdragon]

Step 5) Reassign all those nerds recruited in step 2 to the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan now that the cyber command is gone...

Re:profit!

[JustOK]

Step 6) Wonder why all those nerds suddenly got promoted to Air Marshall based on their marks stored in the computer

Re:profit!

[Thelasko]

Your scope is too narrow. Think of the big picture.
Step 1) Get FISA bill through Congress.
Step 2) Recruit massive amount of computer nerds through phony cyber command.
Step 3) ??? (this is the scary part)

My head hurts. I think I better loosen my tinfoil hat.

Re:profit!

[kick6]

Step 5) Reassign all those nerds recruited in step 2 to the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan now that the cyber command is gone...

Step 6) Wonder why troop casualties have incresed 20 fold in a weeks time even though no one has set foot off base.

I wondered about this

[R2.0]

Why the Air Force? It seems like such a reach outside their normal scope. I would think that the Army would be the proper place for such a command.

Of course, the Air Force should never have been split off from the Army to begin with; they should have told Curtiss LeMay to go get bent when they still had the chance.

Re:I wondered about this

[JCSoRocks]

I thought it was obvious... All of the cushy jobs are in the Air Force... why change that now?

Re:I wondered about this

[jellomizer]

Ummm... Wi-Fi and Satellite. Yea it kinda vague. I think the air force had more command experience with high end technology. I much rather be in the air force in a nice chair doing my code then in the army in a tent with a laptop, trying to setup a network connection with the chances there are people who want to shoot me.

Re:I wondered about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Nerds all watched Stargate SG-1, and they know the Air Force is the place to go if you want to travel through wormholes.

Re:I wondered about this

[AP31R0N]

The AF run in an Army mindset? Egad, that would be terrible! The Army and Air Force use very different skills and for lack of a better term, types of people. The Army needs automatons that are essentially brainless, if they get smart they might start making their own decisions. The USAF needs technicians who can figure out things on their own. Autonamoustons? Retention of VERY expensive pilots and techies would be a nightmare. You can turn a kid into a tank driver or infantry goon in a few weeks. USAF training is typically months, sometimes up to a year.

The army *should* have all the helicopters.

Having the USAF run the cyber show is a natural progression, since they already run the satellites and are tech oriented. Or we could establish a cyber corp. Folks would join that just because it would sound cool.

Re:I wondered about this

[Gilmoure]

In basic training ('87): We are the button pushers, we have the bomb!

-welcoming speech by TI

Re:I wondered about this

[afabbro]

The AF run in an Army mindset? Egad, that would be terrible!

You're right, they're very different:

• Army: Officers stay at base, enlisted go to fight.
• Air Force: Enlisted stay at base, officers go to fight.

Re:I wondered about this

[JWSmythe]

    The disinformation strategy has worked!

    Because you've seen wormholes and aliens visiting earth on Stargate, you believe anyone to leak any intelligence on said items are just crackpots who have watched too much television.

Re:I wondered about this

[bradorsomething]

Why the Air Force?

Because it's cyber-*space*. The army can operate on the LAN(d).

Re:I wondered about this

[db32]

Clear evidence that the Air Force enlisted force is much smarter than the Army.

Re:I wondered about this

[Anonymous Coward]

The AF run in an Army mindset? Egad, that would be terrible! The Army and Air Force use very different skills and for lack of a better term, types of people. The Army needs automatons that are essentially brainless, if they get smart they might start making their own decisions. The USAF needs technicians who can figure out things on their own. Autonamoustons? Retention of VERY expensive pilots and techies would be a nightmare. You can turn a kid into a tank driver or infantry goon in a few weeks. USAF training is typically months, sometimes up to a year.

My Army MOS was component level electronic intelligence systems repair, and it was two weeks shy of a year. We taught a few advanced computing maintenance courses, and later in my career I became an instructor on RISC hardware and UNIX administration. The cardswappers (Air Force personnel) would regularly flunk. We had a couple from Elmendorf who were so bad that they were sent home without so much as a certificate of completion (as opposed to the diploma which mean you passed). The Navy and Army technicians generally did well.

So, back to your flawed premise: not once in my twelve years in the military and DOD side of the house did I meet a wing nut that was worth a shit. I did meet quite a few who were uneducated, undisciplined, and didn't meet uniforms standards or PT standards though.

Which, if you know anything about the US Air Force physical fitness standard, is pretty pathetic.

Re:I wondered about this

[AP31R0N]

Mr. Coward,

The plural of anecdote is "anecdotes", not "evidence".

Re:I wondered about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside their normal scope?
 
As if Stargate Command at Cheyenne Mountain is within their "normal scope". Pu-leeze. ;-)

Seriously though, the Air Force is perfect for this, if only because they're used to playing with expensive toys and not having to get their hands dirty.

Re:I wondered about this

[ahabswhale]

Wow, given your description, it's a miracle the AF hasn't nuked the our own country into oblivion yet since it's clearly all filled with dumbasses while the army is loaded with geniuses. I never would have guessed it given that the AF has a higher standard for ASVAB scores and education than the Army. Not that you're biased or anything...

Re:I wondered about this

[Anonymous Coward]

The Air Force already has control over much of the cyber defense world as it is. They fund, and I think run, the DoD Cyber Crime Center, with it's lab and training academy, and many other cyber initiatives. They have experience in this field and run with it...

Re:I wondered about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, given your description, it's a miracle the AF hasn't nuked the our own country into oblivion yet since it's clearly all filled with dumbasses while the army is loaded with geniuses. I never would have guessed it given that the AF has a higher standard for ASVAB scores and education than the Army. Not that you're biased or anything...

Yea Army has a lot of people dumb as rocks. But if you compare similar technical jobs between AF and Army, then the Army tends to have higher requirements. If you go to any joint-service mission thats a cushy assignment, you'll see the Army and Marines excelling. There's a good reason for that, they have more to lose if they get reassigned, because there's much worse jobs they can be placed in. They know there's others competing with them to keep that cush job. The AF has marketed themselves as the flashy cool service, and they got people more interested in partying.

Re:I wondered about this

[wasted]

...The USAF needs technicians who can figure out things on their own...

I think the services that have folks out in the middle of the jungle/desert/ocean need those types of techicians more than the service that can make a phone call and get parts/support.

Re:I wondered about this

[Dun Malg]

The Army and Air Force use very different skills and for lack of a better term, types of people. The Army needs automatons that are essentially brainless, if they get smart they might start making their own decisions.

See, it's fucking dumbshit parochial 'tards like you that have turned the various branches of the military into little feuding fiefdoms. The Army has a fairly good collection of "meatballs", but none of us were trained to be "automatons".

The USAF needs technicians who can figure out things on their own.

Technicians are largely flowchart-following card swappers, and they're present in all the branches. You think an AF APG-66 (F-16 radar) tech is working on something more complicated than a Navy APG-73 (F-18 radar) tech, or an Army APG-78 (AH-64 radar) tech? It's all the same shit, man. It all comes from the same manufacturers, and it's all built to the same specs.

Autonamoustons?

What word is that supposed to be?

Retention of VERY expensive pilots and techies would be a nightmare. You can turn a kid into a tank driver or infantry goon in a few weeks.

You can turn a kid into an Air Force SP or a POL handler in SIX WEEKS. It takes 14 weeks to become an Army infantryman, and 16 weeks to become an armor crewman.

USAF training is typically months, sometimes up to a year.

Idiotic generalization. My training in the Army took 18 months*. I was trained as a Signal Intelligence Analyst/Linguist. Military Intelligence. Perhaps you've heard of it. The Air Force and Navy have it as well. I trained alongside airmen, sailors, and marines that whole time. Do you know who runs most of the military's intelligence training? The Army and the Air Force do--- together. And we all went to the same classes, because there's no real difference between the basic intelligence requirements of each service's mission that justifies completely separate training.

So quit jerking off to pictures of F-22's and take a moment to understand that the real members of the armed forces, the ones tasked with the hard work of getting the job of warfare done, we don't think like you do. My company in Afghanistan had Air Force FACs with us, eating the same dirt, ducking the same bullets. We had a mutual respect for one another than a pissant little shitbag like you could never understand. If you are, were, or in the future will be a member of the US Air Force, then you're a disgrace to the uniform. Why don't you go get a job at the meat packing plant and follow professional football instead, where you can trash talk other cities' teams in the bar after work, where it (like your life) doesn't fucking matter.


*(not counting my later additional HUMINT/Interrogator training, nor the tactical training required for me to do my job as an organic part of the infantry)

Re:I wondered about this

[AP31R0N]

hoough.

Re:I wondered about this

[stephanruby]

Why the Air Force? It seems like such a reach outside their normal scope. I would think that the Army would be the proper place for such a command.

And what about the NSA? Isn't that their job already? Or is the NSA limited only to spying/defending against Americans?

Re:I wondered about this

[Dun Malg]

Wow, given your description, it's a miracle the AF hasn't nuked the our own country into oblivion yet since it's clearly all filled with dumbasses while the army is loaded with geniuses. I never would have guessed it given that the AF has a higher standard for ASVAB scores and education than the Army. Not that you're biased or anything...

His post is a bit extreme--- and undoubtedly hyperbole--- but having been in the Army myself, I know exactly what he's talking about. The Air Force is, in a way, a sort of "Bizarro World" armed service. The vast majority of AF personnel are non-combat, pure support staff. Subsequently, AF basic training is largely devoid of purpose. Army and Marine Corps training are both based on (to varying degrees) the "infantryman/rifleman first" theory, and even Navy personnel have to learn the basics of the rather serious business of surviving shipboard combat. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps enlistees need to possess a certain degree of drive, discipline, and maturity to get through such training. This tends to weed out the lazy, slack, and childish ones early on. Air Force basic training consists mostly of learning to make your bed and march in a straight line. The road marches, bayonet fighting, shipboard rescue, and the like just aren't there. It does require something to get through Air Force basic, getting up early 6 days a week and exercising regularly; but it just doesn't require as much of it as the other services training does.

The practical upshot of all of this is that by the time enlistees get to their advanced training, you're going to see a lot more wrinkled shirts and immaturity among the Air Force folks. This isn't just anecdotal, it's universally recognized. Lots of Air Force guys won't admit it or might not even realize it, for that matter; but ask any member of the Army, Navy, or USMC who's served in a multiservice environment which service has the most goofballs, dingbats, and "ragbags", and you'll nearly always get the same answer: the Air Force. It's just the nature of the training. I served with plenty of sharp, squared away Air Force personnel, but there were a lot of exasperating dweebs too. It's nothing inherently wrong with the Air Force per se, it's more of a lack of purpose to the initial training.

Re:I wondered about this

[sgt.greywar]

Because the Army already has a command like this. The Navy also has one. There is another smaller version at the Pentagon. DHS is also setting up a mirror to the Army command. See the issue yet? The problem here ends up being manpower and budgetting. with all these cybersecurity organizations being set-up there simply aren't enough people with the right skills and *the right clearances* who are willing to move where the Army/Air Force/DHS/Navy need them to be at the rate that these orgs can afford to pay. How much does a senior security guy make? Now how much does he make after being cleared for TS/SCI with a lifestyle polygraph? (hint: it ain't cheap and there are few who even *want* to take the lifestyle poly)

Re:I wondered about this

[danielobvt]

Wow... put down the ganja there zoomie.... I would definitely put the best of my 25-Series (Signal Series) Soldiers against the best that the AF has. Army Signal Soldiers have to deploy into conditions that boggle your mind (yes, there are military bases out there without golf courses.. shocking I know to the AF mindset) and have to get the comms up, and keep them them under high pressure environments (no comms means that people are dieing, need help, etc) with almost zero recognition from the combat arms (we, like IT departments around the world, only get noticed when there is a problem). My Soldiers have to think on their feet, deal with complex problems and often come up with novel solutions because there is no supply depot right around the corner (it probably takes days or weeks to get replacements). I don't expect my Soldiers to just follow orders, I expect them to provide me with solutions as they tell me what is wrong.

Our training takes Months, as an Officer I just completed my 13 week basic course and most of my Soldiers train for far longer than that.

and psst... Your Airmen take their satellite training from the Army. That is why I tend to see formations (ragged mostly) of Airmen (and Sailors and Marines (definitely not ragged)) at Fort Gordon (home of the Army Signal Corp) going to and fro from classes.

disaster

[Peter La Casse]

This is a potential disaster. Millions, or even billions, of cyber warfare dollars are at stake that cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of the Army or Navy.

Re:disaster

[drspliff]

Yes, leave some of those monies for poor little phishers and hacking groups like us :)

Translation

[religious freak]

Some old fuck that doesn't understand tech probably got wind of the idea and shut it down because he doesn't understand it.

So much for optimism in this arena.

Re:Translation

[Opportunist]

That's what the Russians use! Can't learn from them blasted Commies, sonny! :)

Re:Translation

[sholsinger]

Negative. Their mission must be clearly defined before they can proceed with that mission. If the mission isn't clearly defined, well... then they have no real bounds to what they can do. And the ClearCube boxen are part of a military-wide shift to thin client computing.

Not to mention without a clearly defined mission they could possibly step on toes of other similar divisions within other military branches. Even though they may not actually exist yet. This would be a large concern.

I agree with other posters that this should be a consolidated effort. Perhaps a new branch even.

Additionally the issues raised about SIPRNET and NIPRNET being physically close to each other has absolutely no merit. The SIPRNET network hardware is likely to be located in an entirely different building/room than the NIPRNET hardware. Which would be further physically secured than the NIPRNET hardware even. Although both would be physically secured. Not to mention that the users would probably have a separate smart card to authenticate themselves to each network.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, just the Chinese and the Russians are so way much better than any American hacker would be even if-he-lives-a-hacker-life-for-thousand-contiguous-lives, the DoD ended up deciding to close down the program and instead of computers we should use the old nukes to defend ourselves...

Re:Translation

[gnick]

Additionally the issues raised about SIPRNET and NIPRNET being physically close to each other has absolutely no merit. The SIPRNET network hardware is likely to be located in an entirely different building/room than the NIPRNET hardware. Which would be further physically secured than the NIPRNET hardware even. Although both would be physically secured. Not to mention that the users would probably have a separate smart card to authenticate themselves to each network.

I don't work for the Air Force, but we do have NIPRnet and SIPRnet access here. Having access to classified & unclassified connections in the same room isn't at all uncommon (although never on the same computer). There are physical protections to restrict access to the building and some offices, but authenticating on the networks is typically just a login/password.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

A series of interconnecting tubes ain't gonna win you a war, son. Plumbers don't have a place in the battlefield.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with other posters that this should be a consolidated effort. Perhaps a new branch even.

The United States Tech Geek Corps. Semper Wi-Fi!

Re:Translation

[Minwee]

Hey, be careful how you talk about the Commander in Chief.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't use DoD PKI to authenticate?

Re:Translation

[religious freak]

Ok, if the reasons you outlined are truly WHY we're shutting this program down, I agree with you. However, I think something should be said for good PR. Regardless of the reason why, this looks bad.

Now, there is a certain tactical advantage to disinformation, but I think it's important that the citizenry understand that there is some concerted effort being put into this area. Citizens at large are not aware of the potential threat but the citizens on /. are. Bringing to light a new initiative on cyber defense, putting the proper PR in place, reaching out to the "geek community" are all good things; but to follow it up with a loud slam and a presumed kick in the ass of the people who started this is a bad move.

Because this action can be easily interpreted as a lack of understanding, that's how I'm interpreting it. I am unaware of anyone preparing our "cyber defense". Yeah, the NSA is out there, but they're the shadow folks - there should be a group you can point to and say "these are the people preparing our cyber defenses". I think a new branch of service is a very interesting idea - might address the boot camp concerns of a few people on here for service, and enable better quality recruiting.

(This is all with the caveat that it should be done fairly quietly in non geek circles (if possible), because Joe six-pack won't really understand and will think it's a waste of money - until his cable TV, streetlights, bank accounts stop working, that is)

Re:Translation

[timesucker]

You should learn about cross-domain solutions, typically 'trusted gateways" which to one extent or another allow (very carefully) data to flow between the networks.

There are probably about a half dozen accredited solutions, depending on how high you want to connect. DoD & NSA are very active in seeking/implementing better solutions to give access to data across between the different security levels.

Re:Translation

[gnick]

Not everyone on SIPRnet is DoD.

What a waste!

[sm62704]

We're going to have a new Commander in Chief next January. Did they ask any of the five people running for President what their opinion on it was?

Re:What a waste!

[ColdWetDog]

Did they ask any of the five people running for President what their opinion on it was?

Five people? Did your reality filter break again or do you just need new glasses?

Re:What a waste!

[MightyYar]

any of the five people running for President

I really don't think that it's fair that you single out the top 5 people running for president. There are at least 13 people running - at least according to Wikipedia.

I mean, last time 'round 3rd party candidates scored huge wins. Few people are aware that the Prohibition Party scored almost 2000 votes in the last presidential election!

</sarcasm>

Re:What a waste!

[gnick]

Hey - we've had four 3rd party presidents! Of course, we only elected two... And one was ejected from the party after just a few months in office because his politics sharply conflicted with the party's views... And it's been more than 150 years since any 3rd party presidential candidate has been taken seriously on a national level...

But that doesn't mean it can't happen again! Prohibition Party unite!

Re:What a waste!

[Caboosian]

The Whigs weren't a third party. They were the Democrats only opposition - the "Republican" party hadn't even formed yet. The Whigs were in a way the successors to the Federalists, who weren't even a real party. It sort of worked like this:

Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans
Whigs vs. Democrats (they dropped the hyphen)
Republicans vs. Democrats

Keep in mind, despite the Republican vs. Democrat situation existing for more than 150 years, each party has vastly changed its stances and constituencies.

If you want to talk third parties, you should talk about the Know-Nothings, the Bull-Moose, etc. Keep in mind that when it comes to American politics, in general, American third parties that have any success fracture from the majority parties because they disagree with one, or a few, issues, and are then rolled back in once a majority party endorses their view.

Re:What a waste!

[sm62704]

Actually, "Mighty Yar" is right when (s)he says "There are at least 13 people running - at least according to Wikipedia".

I found a large list that is broken into the two major parties - the Democrats and Republicans; the three major "third parties" - the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution Party. There are a long list of other paties running.

The corporate media tells you that a vote for anyone but a Republican or Democrat is wasted because the others have no chance of winning. Well, since I think Obama has no chance of winning I should go ahead and vote for McCain? That's just retarded!

The Democrats and Republicans are all solidly for the Bono Act (AKA the "steamboat willie preservation act"), DMCA, PATRIOT act, FISA; are for outlawing drugs, prostitution, and gambling, while I am against all of these things.

Why should I waste my vote on a candidate whose views are diametrically opposed to my own?

I know the Libertarians are on the ballot in 49 states, and IINM the other two "third parties" are on the ballot in enough states to win should they carry them.

Right now the only major party candidate in any race I can in good conscience vote for is Dick Durbin.

Re:What a waste!

[AlHunt]

Did they ask any of the five people running for President what their opinion on it was?

Five?! Did you forget me?
Al For President!

Re:What a waste!

[Anonymous Coward]

See Translation above.

Air Force losing relevance?

[BitterOldGUy]

Philip Coyle, senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information, a security policy research group in Washington, said he believes the Navyâ(TM)s Network Warfare Command and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center have led the way in cyberspace. The Army engages in cyberspace operations daily in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Coyle, who served as assistant secretary of Defense and director of its operational test and evaluation office from 1994 to 2001.

I've never understood why the Air Force had to be split from the Army. It just ads more bureaucracy and as a result more overhead and costs to the taxpayer. I don't see any reason to keep the Air Force as a separate branch anymore. It should be folded back into the Army.

I think it would also improve its effectiveness. I'm greatly impressed with the air and ground integration of the Marines which, from what I've read, is lacking with the Air Force and Army. Reading some military history, many battlefield problems were the direct result of the lack of communication between ground and air: Has to go up one chain of command (Army), then over and down the other chain of command.

And now with "Cyber warfare", the other branches are currently doing the job; whereas, the Air Force is just getting started. WTF were they doing the last decade?

At least this is the way I perceive it.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[Red Flayer]

It just ads more bureaucracy and as a result more overhead and costs to the taxpayer. I don't see any reason to keep the Air Force as a separate branch anymore. It should be folded back into the Army.

Well, I stated my reasoning in another post in this thread, but did not explain it well or clearly, so apologies for some repeated material...

The military, as an institution, is pretty resistant to divergent thinking. People complain about the groupthink here at slashdot, but I imagine anyone with military experience would snigger at what gets called groupthink here.

The one thing that the Air Force provides that cannot be done by another branch of the military is an external thoughtline. The extra branch of the military creates more opportunity for different opinions, different strategies, and different analyses of strategies. It allows the high command an extra input for decision-making.

The downside of having the Air Force conatained within other branches is that it risks being a bastard stepchild, neglected for surface vessels and ground units. The Air Force has been a deciding factor in a lot of engagements, and I question whether the Navy's air capability would be anywhere close to what it is now without the Air Force looking over its shoulder. Having the Air Force as a separate branch has allowed, and will continue to allow, lots of focus on ensuring we use our air capability effectively, and continue to develop new capability.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[afabbro]

I'm greatly impressed with the air and ground integration of the Marines which, from what I've read, is lacking with the Air Force and Army.

Well, yes, if you have a narrowly defined mission, a small force custom built for it consisting only of elite troops, and design your own stuff from start to finish, it's a lot easier to get tight integration with the components. The Marines exist for short duty assault and offensive operations. The army and air force have to handle everything else.

Comparing the two is like saying "boy, those Rangers sure fight better than the National Guard.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[jimbolauski]

Why not role everything up into one branch, that way we eliminate the bureaucracy because making things bigger eliminates bureaucracy.

Tactically the Air Force plays a different role then the other 3 branches, they may be used to support the other branches but emphasis on certain practices will be lost if the army were to take over. Right now the US can dominate the sky providing close support for the troops on the ground. If the army took over their emphasis would be in supporting the ground troops (drones) and the development of new technologies to maintain air superiority would be lost against countries like Russia.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Army and Air Force are very integrated, down even to the company level. When I was airborne infantry in Italy, we had Air Force Liaisons working with each company commander for calling in air strikes, coordinating close air support, etc. The approvals, if required for missions, were retained in the Air Force because they need operational control and have a better perspective on friendly and hostile locations in the immediate vicinity. Ditto the same for Air Force needing an artillery strike. Much of the time a joint tactical operations center would be created comprising all branches for a particular campaign for a single location and approval on missions. The Marines can operate somewhat independently thanks to their Navy support, marines organic close air support and aviation units.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least this is the way I perceive it without researching any facts.

Fixed that for you.

The Air Force has been doing this for an incredibly long amount of time.

Air Force Information Warfare Center

The Air Force Information Warfare Center (AFIWC) was activated on Sept. 10, 1993. Formerly the Air Force Electronic Warfare Center, AFIWC was established by combining the securities functions of the Air Force Cryptologic Support Center with the functions performed by AFEWC. The center is the focal point for development and application of information dominance in future warfare. It provides commanders with products and services to wage command and control warfare.

They are seperate from the Army because they have seperate missions, which is in fact the reason they broke apart in the first place; this is also the reason why the average grunt doesn't have the phrase "strategic air dominance" tripping off of his tongue.

Why The Air Force? (to answer another post) Within the services, the Air Force is known for being the technology guys. The Navy and NRL are known for having some nifty stuff, but when you think of satellites, networks, global communications infrastructure, and the like...the Air Force is usually the pointy end of that stick.

The AOC and CAOC concept? Air Force driven and managed. If you aren't familiar with these concepts, go use "the google".

in the interest of full disclosure, I'm an Air Force guy, and I've been deployed twice. Both times, I've been sent to be in charge of other services' communications units. And I wasn't the only one in those shoes...

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[DesScorp]

"The one thing that the Air Force provides that cannot be done by another branch of the military is an external thoughtline. The extra branch of the military creates more opportunity for different opinions, different strategies, and different analyses of strategies."

So your justification for an independent Air Force is essentially an Apple Computer slogan? "Think Different"?

Do you honestly think the other services are incapable of "thinking different", especially when it comes to airpower? I have to call BS on that, especially since it's so often that USAF's different thinking involves the idea that airpower can win wars all by itself. That kind of "think different" we can do without.

"The Air Force has been a deciding factor in a lot of engagements"

Airpower has been the deciding factor in a lot of engagements. Airpower is an absolutely vital part of warfare. But that in itself doesn't justify an independent military branch. Any service could wield airpower, and in fact, all do. The Army is just crippled by regulations regarding what kinds of aircraft they can and can't use.

"and I question whether the Navy's air capability would be anywhere close to what it is now without the Air Force looking over its shoulder."

That's silly. When the Air Force builds an aircraft carrier, get back to us on that argument. In the history of jet aircraft, when a service needs to adopt another services jets, the Air Force usually adopts a Naval design, not the other way around. The F-4 and A-7 were Navy planes, and both were used extensively by the USAF, especially the Phantom, after TAC found that the F-4 could easily best any of their showcase century series fighters. The F-86 sabre was a Navy FJ Fury with swept wings. The only operational case of an air force based jet being adapted to a carrier was an abject failure... the horrid F-111B that was so bad, the Navy had Grumman design the F-14 as an alternative. By the time McDonnell Douglas finished turning the Northrorp YF-17 into the F/A-18, it was a completely different airplane. Even now there are rumbles that the Navy version of the F-35 "joint strike fighter" may never see operational service out of Navy concerns for its initial land-based design.

So I'd say the Navy has done just fine in the aerial arena without the Air Force "looking over their shoulder".

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[Red Flayer]

Do you honestly think the other services are incapable of "thinking different", especially when it comes to airpower? I have to call BS on that, especially since it's so often that USAF's different thinking involves the idea that airpower can win wars all by itself. That kind of "think different" we can do without.

You make the case for me right there. You dismiss an external logical path from your own... even if that path is problematic, there are valid points to consider. You seem to be a willing participant in groupthink, which is exactly the problem that having the AF as a separate branch helps solve.

That's silly. When the Air Force builds an aircraft carrier, get back to us on that argument.

That has nothing to do with my point, so I'm not going to address it.

In the history of jet aircraft, when a service needs to adopt another services jets, the Air Force usually adopts a Naval design, not the other way around.

That also has nothing to do with my point, but I'll address why it isn't relevant. Regardless of where the designs are coming from, the intended use of the craft varies from branch to branch. There is nothing wrong with saving design costs by reusing designs from another branch. The Navy has long been determined to ensure that they have control of the support for their ships, including aircraft. They have long worked to increase their responsibility by having long-range airstrike capability from their carriers, so they can both attack and provide support far inland, as well as on the seas. I think it's quite valid to argue that the Navy's capability in this area is driven in part by the Air Force's capability to do the same. The last thing Navy brass wants is budget reductions (or lack of growth) due to Air Force dominance in providing these things.

The Navy has expanded its scope in the past thirty years, especially in air capability. Whether you feel that this means the Air Force should be subsumed into the Army and Navy because of this example has little to do with the fact that a separate chain of command for the Air Force does, in fact, lead to increased input into the decision-making chain. Seems to me that you're a Navy homer when discussing the military turf/budget war, but I could be wrong.

Re:Air Force losing relevance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... The Air Force was separated from the Army because Army generals used the airpower as a form of artillery (aka close air support (CAS) or air-interdiction). Separating the Air Force allowed their leadership to focus on its own doctrine... Air superiority first, then strategic attack as primary duties. Read AFDD-1 (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd1.pdf) on why airpower's core competencies best lend themselves to these functions. The Air Force still support CAS missions, but they are not forced by leadership that doesn't understand looking at a bigger air picture. Do you think Air Force leadership would fully comprehend land- or water-based warfare? Why would it be any different for vice-versus?

The chain of command problems have been vastly improved... look at the modern kill chain and try to say that its too long. There is one Combined/Joint Forces Air Component Commander (C/JFACC) that controls all air assests regardless of service/nation. He works directly for the Combatant Commander that everyone in that theater works for. Even if the Air Force were rolled back up into the Army, I have a hard time seeing a simpler chain unless you get field commanders having direct control of air assets (hence you get back to the problem of airpower supporting primarily CAS missions).

The Air Force isn't just starting BTW... They've been in it for a long time, but all cyber assets are being rolled into the same MAJCOM. A good portion of what will be in the Cyber Command already exists under different organizations.

oblig

[owlnation]

All your base are belong to them.

One China

[Anonymous Coward]

Why step down our efforts just as China is ramping up theirs?

Re:One China

[JustOK]

because they have more money than US?

Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[molo]

I think this is more likely a response to the Georgia-Russia "cyberwar". Having a public cyberwar program invites others to do so and provides a way to study and attack your program.

I think now this will be a black program to avoid drawing attention. They are probably doing this to prevent others from learning from our public information.

-molo

WTF Air Force has to do with Cyber Security

[D3]

Look at the background of some of the prominent folks in the IT Security field. People like Ron Gula (Dragon IDS, Tenable) came from an AF background. The AF has some very smart people (smart enough to join the AF and not get shot at) with lots of strong ties to NSA. That is why they should be heading up military presence in cyberspace.

they disbanded due to laughter

[Ralph Spoilsport]

They would walk around the halls with their fist at their waists, and heads looking upward and off to the side and periodically bark nonsense like:

I'm Captain John Doe of... (then look off in the other direction) THE CYBER COMMAND!!!!

When people from other parts of the building would ask them - "hey where do you guys work?" They would, in unison, put their fist at their waists, look up to the left and say "We work for..." and then look in the other direction and shout "CYBER COMMAND!!!!"

And then promptly burst into fits of giggling...

The whole idea was so stupid they couldn't stand themselves - it was like Buck Rogers without the cool costumes. They all knew the Real Heavy Lifting was being done at the NSA, and this was just an offshoot of the White House being a bunch of paranoid dicks who didn't trust the Pentagon brass, especially after they consistently scolded the WH upon retiring - combined with forces within the Air Force looking for relevance when clearly the future belongs to drones.

Other than mobile airbases (ACC's) I don't even understand why you need people on boats, for the most part... The only military than can't be replaced with machines and "at a distance" command is infantry.

CYBER COMMAND!!!!

BWAHAHAAAAAA...

RS

Re:they disbanded due to laughter

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the wide-wide world of sports is the parent talking about?

Re:they disbanded due to laughter

[kaos07]

Seriously the funniest post on Slashdot I have ever read.

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[s4ck]

mod parent up.

just a hunch..

Momumentallty stupid

[Enderandrew]

I say that without fear of hyperbole. Perhaps senior command missed how Al Qaeda is running circles around us online, how China bats around like a cat toy in cyber-space, and how even Georgia and Russia are firmly entrenched in cyber-war right now.

The US has more to lose in a cyber-war than our enemies, we're more vulnerable, and we're not even going to try and focus on that battlefield.

Monumentally stupid.

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[fnj]

Bwahaha. And you really believe there isn't some black op center set up for which this Air Force thing wasn't a shield/misdirection?

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe we're so good we're able to do it without getting in the news. The best hackers are the ones you'll never hear about.

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

CYBER COMMAND!!!!

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[capologist]

The US has more to lose in a cyber-war than our enemies, we're more vulnerable, and we're not even going to try and focus on that battlefield.

Don't worry, John McClaine will save us.

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[Enderandrew]

Don't leave out Mac-boy. He can hack an entire nation with a cell phone.

Re:Momumentallty stupid

[cavePrisoner]

This doesn't mean the US won't have a cyber-warfare program. It just means that the Air Force has given up on its bid to be the one running it. It will be the Navy, Army, or NSA in charge in that event.

Outsourcing

[robmv]

they will announce tomorrow the outsourcing of the Cyber Command operations to India

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't laugh, we've given critical surveillance/security jobs to h1b visas who haven't been in the country more than two weeks.

Re:Outsourcing

[rpillala]

Don't laugh, 70% of the CIA's budget goes to private contractors. To whom are they accountable? Not you and me. If someone in charge determines that this type of warfare is not "inherently governmental", look for the USAF to find a private company to do the job at 3x the cost of keeping it in house.

Read Spies for Hire by Tim Shorrock.

Amateurs

[0racle]

Air Force Suspends Cyber Command Program

It's THEM. This is just what they WANT you to believe.

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[auric_dude]

Another view of things http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/air-force-suspe.html but if things turn black will we ever know?

I knew it

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you John Connor

Immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

Having interest, skill, and experience at computer security, I thought about applying to this program. Then I *really* thought about it.

What would the military do with an offensive computer network?

A likely scenario is disruption of the civilian infrastructure to "soften up" a target before sending in ground troops.

So, turning off water, electricity, traffic lights, television and radio broadcast stations, deleting all books on everybody's Kindle, etc.

I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea that my work would be used to destroy civilian infrastructure as part of a larger military objective. In fact, I'd call that "Terrorism".

Except the Kindle part; that's just doing everybody a favor and showing the public that DRM really sucks.

Re:Immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to bomb the water treatment plans, power plants, television and radio stations? At least Cyber Command (god I hate that name) isn't armed with anything but your poorly-secured network.

Re:Immoral

[CorporateSuit]

The command structure of war is based on intelligence and the ability to transfer said intelligence from command to the troop level, and then send status reports back up the chain. If you can disrupt that line of communication, the enemy loses coordination. You have soldiers awaiting orders, armor in traffic jams, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

Or better yet, if you're able to intercept the intelligence/command and replace it with something else, you can set up an entire enemy regiment as target practice.

On the civilian level, you would expect to see media/communications shutdown (so the leader can't console his people or prod them on to fight) but actually targeting the civ population is still considered a warcrime (and whether we would participate in one of those is left up as an argument of the reader)

A job for Homeland Security?

[Mizchief]

Not that I agree in the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, now that it is created shouldn't a "Cyber Command" be under it's jurisdiction for protecting the US military and commertial IT infrastructure? Offensive cyberwarfare should be an integrated tool in all of the millitary branches.

phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well with Cyber Command terminated at least we won't have to worry about it evolving into skynet......... .....or will we?

Canceled? I'm sure...

[moniker127]

Im not that guy who claims conspiracy on every single millitary related news item, but what if they just got rid of the public command, and made it classified?
I mean, you wouldnt say "Hey, everyone, we are going to hack you! Check out our awesome center! This is where it all goes down! Our ip address is 166.128.72.0! So if you get hacked by 166.128.72.0, you know its us! Oh, and make sure to not reject the connection from 166.128.72.0, because remember, thats us.... the guys about to hack you!"

As the saying goes...

[WDancer]

We are always prepared to fight the previous war. If the US ever goes against any country with a significant tech base, we will not be prepared. To be fair, though, the US is prepared to fight without the internet, it will just be an inconvenience. The Future Warrior program was supposed to rely heavily on digital information systems, but it is now mostly canceled. The military is still using the same methods they did in the 80's and 90's (dedicated sat-links and voice channels)before the net got so integrated into daily life. The real problem would be on the civilian front where massive cyber-attacks could blackout good-sized chunks of infrastructure. But, the civilian sector already has to deal with that from botnets attacking a company's online presence to coerce money out of them. Therefore, there is already defenses being designed to combat this. Maybe the military is just going to keep things totally separated from the net to make it hard for any attack to even start to cause problems.

Re:As the saying goes...

[Stray7Xi]

To be fair, though, the US is prepared to fight without the internet, it will just be an inconvenience. The Future Warrior program was supposed to rely heavily on digital information systems, but it is now mostly canceled. The military is still using the same methods they did in the 80's and 90's (dedicated sat-links and voice channels)before the net got so integrated into daily life. The real problem would be on the civilian front where massive cyber-attacks could blackout good-sized chunks of infrastructure.

It's worse then that, you're thinking only of warfighting elements of military life. How do you think the military would fare if its pay system was shut down? Do you think they have a backup system ready that isn't computerized? Okay they're military, you can compel them to work until the pay issues get sorted... but what about all the elements that moved to contractors, such as gate guards?

And I'm still assuming they're only targeting military. Our whole economy is completely dependent on computers and telecommunications. If a true all out cyber-war was conducted I have no doubt many people will die. Perhaps simply because they were unable to call 911 because the cell system was out of service.

Complete Waste of Time

[Doc Ruby]

In six months, Obama will be president, and this program will get changed yet again by yet another chief.

Since every Bush "Cybersecurity Czar" has resigned in disgust since Bush created the office, that entire program will also have to be ripped out, too.

America's Internet defense system also has to protect us from nonmilitary lawbreakers like phishers, crackers and leakers. Plus those somewhere between, like the Russian mob crackers who joined Russia's government to attack Georgia this week, but spend most of their time just breaking banks and extorting corporations and individuals.

I'm really glad that we're going to get a new president who's actually smart for a change. We're really dodging a bullet with the Internet-illiterate WcCain offering a third term of Bush's catastrophic failures to protect anything except his own ass. Heckuva job, brownnose!

Re:Complete Waste of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really glad that we're going to get a new president who's actually smart for a change. We're really dodging a bullet with the Internet-illiterate WcCain offering a third term of Bush's catastrophic failures to protect anything except his own ass. Heckuva job, brownnose!

Who do you think we'll be getting? It can't be the pro-Telecom immunity, pro-offshore drilling, pro-special interest, pro-PATRIOT act, presumptive Democrat nominee.

Cyber Command Meets Fate at Hands of 2nd Lt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again the fortunes of thousands of men are held in the hands of a lowly butter bar...

Can you say.... blackbagged

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be a bit of tin foil hat moment but here it goes. Like any constitutionally illegal Operation (you know, that pesky 4th amendment, which the government seems desperate to circumvent) I would bet this is merely a fake out. A publicly known unit was created, advertised and then "shutdown". I think its has been made abundantly clear by the likes of CARNIVORE, TIA and others that there is a tendency to go through public channels and risk public scrutiny to get initial funding/approval, then "kill" the program, ending its public version and transferring the funds, equipment, maybe personnel to classified operations that do the same thing (or worse), just without the "obtrusive" (see: moral, legal, constitutional) oversight.

Sadness for Shreveport/Bossier

[dragonxtc]

This is sad for the North-Western part of Louisiana, which is where I live and where Cyber Space Command was supposed to be put into place at Barksdale. I know many of the local universities have been pushing hard to put toghether cyber security circulums etc to give those in the local community a chance to work at this place once it was constructed. While I am sure it is not all for naught I do imagine a lot of time and money will have been wasted in the community by people other than the air force that were counting on this as a new job market especially with the layoffs we are having at our local GM plant and many other factories ( Not that the same people would work at these places )

Re:Sadness for Shreveport/Bossier

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because laid off GM workers are a great source of high-tech cyberwarriors. The only reason to put a base there is because the land is cheap.

Meanwhile, the USAF is closing its intelligence HQ in Silicon Valley (Onizuka)

Re:Sadness for Shreveport/Bossier

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, who'd have thought the pit of ignorant despair and woeful mediocrity otherwise known as Shreveport/Bossier would be behind the curve and in a sad state? Go figure.

 

Doomed? Yes and No

[DesScorp]

We just don't need them anymore. We have better missiles, and better drones.

The only thing we need actually piloted aircraft for are close-in ground support, where things are too crowded/messy for computers to do a good job. And even then, remotely-piloted drones are taking over.

First, we're a long way off from being able to turn airpower completely over to robotic drones.

Second, I think you touched on the real question while missing the larger point... we're always going to need airpower... the military projection of power via aerial weapons. The question is, why do we need an Air Force? Why do we need an individual military branch with an identity based on airpower, when airpower is simply one facet of warfare that all branches need? The Navy has their own aircraft because oceans have skies over them too.

  To me, splitting the Air Force from the Army was like establishing a separate military branch just for armor, or establishing an independent infantry branch. Why? What makes it imperitive to seperate airpower from ground power over the land? We did just fine with the Army Air Corps being a part of a larger Army. Ask any soldier, especially career soldier, and they'll likely complain about how USAF puts such a low priority on boring ground support missions... they aren't sexy enough to sell on recruiting posters.

Just as the Marines are tied at the hip to the Navy, the Air Force should more or less be a part of the Army. We don't live in castles in the sky. We live here on the ground, and ultimately, any air force's job is to support objectives on the ground when things are said and done. We have air superiority fighters because we don't want the enemy's aircraft hurting our guys on the ground.

I think our previous model of splitting defense responsibilities via geography between the Army and the Navy was a better model than our current one, with the Air Corps (or Army Air Forces, if you will) and the Marine Corps subordinate to their larger sister services. USAF went independent because of the argument that airpower in and of itself should fight separately, which was an outgrowth of Billy Mitchell's ideas. The problem is that Mitchell was wrong about a lot of things. He thought armies and navies were largely obsolete, and history has proven him wrong on that.

Airpower is just a tool, one that can be used by any branch. It doesn't justify a separate service, with all its associated costs duplication. Should we establish a separate service for submarines just because they're under the water? Of course not. Why establish a separate service just for airplanes?

Re:Doomed? Yes and No

[Molochi]

I don't see any reason to try to remerge the army and the airforce. You would just wind up with SAC, ACC, material cmd and space cmd with a new service flag and wearing brown instead of blue. Air power is every bit as important as ground and sea power. It's not like our armed forces don't already share real estate. So, what do you gain?

That being said, I would like to see a wider expansion of dedicated air tools for the army (tactical attack craft like predators, ac130s, fighters, etc...) instead of trying to make a helecopter act like a jet.

Re:Doomed? Yes and No

[Dun Malg]

I don't see any reason to try to remerge the army and the airforce. You would just wind up with SAC, ACC, material cmd and space cmd with a new service flag and wearing brown instead of blue.

Army wears green.

Air power is every bit as important as ground and sea power.

Not really. Control of the air and the seas is a contributory goal towards the real goal of military action, which is control of real estate. We live on land. The land is where the vast majority of our resources and industrial capacity reside. No one ever defeated an enemy by sinking his navy with battleships, or by blowing up his cities with bombs. It takes grunts on the ground to conquer territory. This is Warfare 101.

So, what do you gain?

An aviation command that's under the direction of a commander that is also responsible for ground combat units and therefore gives a TREMENDOUS crap about how much close air support they get and how effective the aviation command is at supplying it? The current Air Force "management" has a tremendous woody for strategic bombing (thanks LeMay, you ass) and for air-to-air combat (thanks Boyd, you swaggering fighter jock) and now for "cyber warfare", and badly neglects what should be about HALF of their job, which is close air support.

That being said, I would like to see a wider expansion of dedicated air tools for the army (tactical attack craft like predators, ac130s, fighters, etc...) instead of trying to make a helecopter act like a jet.

Damn straight! I've long said that if the Air Force really doesn't want to do CAS and theater airlift, it should just turn those A-10's, C-130's, and AC-130's over to the Army and let us do it ourselves. That'd leave the fighter jocks and bomber guys free to have their tickle-fights or whatever, waiting for another USSR-sized superpower to reappear and give their air superiority fighters and stealth bomber a reason to exist.

Personally, I have no argument with the actual working members of the Air Force. For the most part they're on the ball and want to help us poor "legs" out. The source of the problem is pentagon asshats in blue uniforms structuring the force and shaping aircraft procurement such that they sometimes can't help. Most of my complaints about the Air Force leadership were originally voiced to me by an Air Force Forward Air Controller--- himself an A-10 pilot-- moving with my company in Afghanistan. I'm actually quite charitable towards the AF, compared to him!

The point was made earlier but

[xclr8r]

The advantage of having AF do this is their access to air and space communications.

Hypothetically however, if I wanted to have my Cyber command be as 'flexible' as possible then I would make it its own agency. This allows Cyber Command to avoid doing things by the 'book'.

Make an order that AF will (hate) need to support on a com level the new cyber command and you bypass a lot of hoops.

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[janrinok]

I don't agree. It is far too soon for lessons 'learned' from the current war between Georgia and Russia to be implemented into changes of military structure. Perhaps in 12-18 months when we have collected as much intelligence as we can on what happened, what we think each side thought was happening, what problems they each encountered and how they solved them etc. We are nowhere near that stage now. We know there is/was a war but we haven't analysed all the relevant int to decide how it affected decision making. And, until we have done that, there is no point in trying to devise the appropriate strategy to combat their current thought processes.

Home of the "Cybercommand"?

[DesScorp]

Why the Air Force? It seems like such a reach outside their normal scope. I would think that the Army would be the proper place for such a command.

The whole "Cybercommand" thing was yet another attempt by USAF to dominate an emerging military technology. It was a power grab. After WW II, they argued against other services having airplanes. They managed to get missiles and fixed wing aircraft taken away from the Army. They got the Army's Cheyenne gunship helicopter killed because it looked too much like a fighter plane. In Vietnam, they got SecDef McNamera to issue an order stating that Marine F-4's were to be limited to ground attack only... the fighter mission inland was for USAF alone. They could defend themselves if attacked by MiGs, but could not go MiG hunting on their own. Last year they tried to monopolize robotic aerial drones. And Cybercommand tried to monopolize military computer ops. USAF has a long history of not only protecting their turf, but moving in on others if it benefitted them. They have a reputation for arrogance. The Air Force Association's description of the branch was "first among equals"... as if any such thing could really exist.

Just like any other military tactic or technology... intelligence, airpower, any single military technology... each service should have their own "cybercommand", with a unifying leadership and authority over all branches at DOD. And I think we're heading in that direction, with SecDef Gates sacking the USAF leadership recently. There was a lot of resentment in the other branches at the Blues' attempt to hog the cyber mission, and I think this stand down is at least partly attributable to Gates trying to bring USAF leadership back on the reservation and play nice with the other kids.

Re:Home of the "Cybercommand"?

[iivel]

Theoretically, that unifying command is DISA. http://www.disa.mil/

It just doesn't work as well as we'd like.

Difficult to test airmen for promotions

[chiph]

The USAF promotes on time-in-grade at the junior enlisted ranks, but as soon as you get into E-4/E-5 and up, it's a meritocracy, based on standardized tests for your job & skill classification.

These tests take a long time to develop and get approved (the military is a bureaucracy, after all). In a subject such as digital security, any promotion tests would be quickly out of date and irrelevant. Which would be like having your next promotion & raise at work depending on your knowlege of programming for the TRS-80.

So I don't think this is a result of any big conspiracy or power struggle, but simply an inability to fairly reward their people for their service.

Chip H.

On Hold Because...

[Gallenod]

I think AFCyber may just be on hold because a new Chief of Staff of the Air Force started work yesterday and he want to see what this is before it goes any further. It's likely this may be part of a larger review of all the services cyber-warfare programs to make sure they don't overlap or compete in the same space.

Also, this new CoS isn't a fighter pilot like the last 20 years of AF leadership, he's a special ops guy who flew cargo aircraft. He's probably more interested in business management than flash and, with a special ops background, may belive that if you're going to build a secret ninja hacker cyberforce, you might want to do it with a somewhat lower public profile.

Re:On Hold Because...

[lennier]

"He's probably more interested in business management than flash and, with a special ops background, may belive that if you're going to build a secret ninja hacker cyberforce, you might want to do it with a somewhat lower public profile."

It surprises me how few people are putting forward this, the obvious explanation.

"Cancel" the program, heh, yes of course, Sir. Very good thinking Sir. Wink wink. Say no more.

I think the reason is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/13/1436224.shtml

Coincidence?

Rename Time

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now that the Air Force is into space, networks, and pure research, due to the reasons you cite, perhaps it's time to just rename it "Smart Force" and make "Airplanes" a sub-division.

The F-4 needs no gun

[toddhisattva]

'nuff said.

lies, damn lies.

[DragonTHC]

This is a full-on lie.

The air force in not suspending anything.

They need them to help with the Stargate program

[Joe The Dragon]

and this is a cover

It's about time!

[icyslush]

There should never have been a Cyber command in the first place! It's a disgusting waste of tax payers money to have Air Force personnel sitting in chat rooms cybering all day! um... did they keep any transcripts? any good?

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you think it's bad for the tax payer but this taxpayer says it will be great for the economies of Shreveport and Bossier City.

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the correct interpretation.

Re:They need them to help with the Stargate progra

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I'm with stargate, the Goa'uld died out 4000 years ago. All the planets we've explored so far are pretty boring, nothing but vegitation and a few with minor sea life. We did turn one into a giant golf course though.

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do mean THIS will be a black program? Everything associated with the Gov. is a black program, latrine cleaning schedules are secret, they might disclose troop strength and locations.

No, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that any self-respecting geek will do anything to keep from having to live in Shreveport - Bossier City. I used to live there and it really isn't a good place to live. Although things are quite a bit better since the casino boats arrived.

Of course they did

[stanjam]

They don't have ME yet!

Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think this wasn't already an ongoing black program? With the minute bits we know about the NSA's capabilities, and some of what can be observed, it is obvious we are already hard at it. Did you see the /. article about the penetration testing games with the NSA and a few choice universities?