{"id":33745,"date":"2018-05-29T17:51:58","date_gmt":"2018-05-29T17:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/uncategorized\/2018\/05\/29\/heres-how-to-ensure-readiness-of-cyber-forces\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T18:43:02","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T18:43:02","slug":"heres-how-to-ensure-readiness-of-cyber-forces","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/cyber\/2018\/05\/29\/heres-how-to-ensure-readiness-of-cyber-forces\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s how to ensure readiness of cyber forces"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Earlier this month, U.S. Cyber Command announced a critical milestone for its cyber mission force<\/a>. Its roughly 6,200-person cyber warrior cadre reached what is known as full operational capability, meaning all 133 teams are manned and passed their qualifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, the command is shifting from building out the teams to bolstering its readiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs the build of the cyber mission force wraps up, we\u2019re quickly shifting gears from force generation to sustainable readiness,\u201d Gen. Paul Nakasone, commander of Cyber Command, said in a release marking the milestone<\/a>. \u201cWe must ensure we have the platforms, capabilities and authorities ready and available to generate cyberspace outcomes when needed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brett Barraclough, executive director of cyber and IT solutions at ManTech Mission Solutions and Services Group, equated the designation to a mile post on a race course. In this case, DoD is not stopping as it is not the finish line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStrategically, this was supposed to be a build-assess-build process. I kind of look at the FOC as the completion of the first build and now we\u2019re getting into more readiness or the assessment phase,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As forces continue to cycle in and out, the services are going to have to sustain their teams from a manning and training perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe readiness is a rolling process because a lot of the teams have been FOC in terms of the build for a while now,\u201d Katherine Charlet, director of Carnegie\u2019s Technology and International Affairs Program, told Fifth Domain, referencing how some services certified all their teams a year early<\/a>. \u201cYou have hit FOC \u2026 but it\u2019s not like you can now just stop thinking about pipelines of people and training, getting them basic training and equipping because it\u2019s still going to be a constant flux.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charlet, who previously served as the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, said from a broad level, readiness is about working as a team, being creative, solving problems, knowing the mission and being fully equipped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the individual services are still responsible to \u201cman, train and equip\u201d forces and the commands are responsible for fighting, Cyber Command has been granted service-like authorities from Congress. Officials have testified<\/a> this will \u201callow it to acquire cyber-unique equipment and technology rapidly and to train its people to meet the latest threats.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe service like authorities that Cyber Command has been given, are they being employed and are they being used in a way to really expedite the questions about readiness,\u201d Michael Sulmeyer, director of Harvard\u2019s Belfer Center\u2019s Cyber Security Project, told Fifth Domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sulmeyer, who previously served as the director for plans and operations for cyber policy in the office of the secretary of defense, said he is curious how much slack Congress will give on the question of readiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, with the staffing designation, he wants to know what are Congress\u2019s expectations going forward and what is the payoff they\u2019re looking for given the authorities and funds it\u2019s bestowed on the command, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One path Congress could take, Sulmeyer posited, is to provide tweaks and flexibility to the personnel system allowing commanders to perform tasks that aren\u2019t in the traditional service personnel model. This includes allowing service members on the cyber missions force to embed with a private company or allowing defensive-oriented team members to venture off and gain more familiarity with concepts such as artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Training<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Increased training and an increase in training resources is an obvious necessity for maintaining readiness. However, Cyber Command does not currently have a high-end training environment akin to what traditional warfighters use to prepare for combat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many cases, the first time cyber warriors will engage with an adversary is in the real world and not in simulations in a training environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like a fighter pilot going up and the first time he\u2019s flown actual combat is against a real adversary,\u201d Jim Keffer, director of cyber at Lockheed Martin, said. \u201cThat\u2019s not a good way to fight wars. That\u2019s not a good way to train your troops. That\u2019s not a good way to decrease the risk to your forces.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Army is currently serving as the executive agent for Cyber Command in developing what is called the persistent training environment, or PCTE<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PCTE will serve as a dedicated training platform for cyber teams of all flavors allowing for individual and collective training as well as mission rehearsal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior leaders have called PCTE critical as Cyber Command only holds a few capstone training events a year, which they contend, are not enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis training environment is absolutely necessary from a military standpoint,\u201d Keffer, who previously served as chief of staff at Cyber Command, told Fifth Domain. \u201cWith this persistent training environment, Cyber Command cyber teams will be able to better assess their level of training, which goes into the complete readiness factor, complete readiness rating of that team. They can do it at the speed of heat because this will all be connected and tracked to the individual level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Cyber Command has typically set the training standards for the services and their CMF contributions to meet, Sulmeyer said the challenge will come down to how the training schedules are executed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAre people falling behind? Are people who passed that training able to execute the missions they\u2019ve been asked to execute? Does it need to be revamped,\u201d he said. \u201cThose are the kind of questions that I hope Cyber Command at their new status as a unified command is even more empowered to address.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluating the teams\u2019 setup<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nakasone\u2019s predecessor indicated a need to \u201cretool\u201d the cyber mission force as its construct was designed several years ago. However, promises were made to not made substantial changes until FOC as to not drastically interrupt the build process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was an assessment Charlet largely agreed with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think for CYBERCOM and [the office of the secretary of defense] and the Joint Staff, it\u2019s a great opportunity to take stock of the CMF to relook the assumptions of how it\u2019s structured and make changes where they need to,\u201d she said. \u201cHypothetically, do you need five teams of 40 network defenders or would it be better to have 40 teams of five. Or do you pool certain skillsets so multiple teams can tap into them and so forth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other suggestions have surrounded around more intelligence personnel or even teams that do offense and defense as opposed to the current construct in which teams do one or the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\t