New Branch?

[burnaby]

Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch. I know that our traditional branches does do some intelligence/electronic gathering and disruption but should we establish branch committed only to electronic warfare. my version of electronic warfare branch is not intelligence gathering (We have CSIS) but the disruption of enemy electronic systems; civilian and military. As the world progress the use of electronics is huge. Major military establishment around the world heavily relies on electronics from guiding bombs on target to ordering toilet paper. Imagine disabling a country armed forces with a flick of a switch; destroying its ability to fight successfully (example: turning UCAVs to attack its owners) or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters (example: the current Greek economic crisis; vast amount of money or capital was done electronically).

As for Canada should we be paying more attention on virtual enemies instead of enemies that we can see? are we paying attention at all to electronic threats?

 

[211RadOp]

Done by the C&E Branch already.

 

[aesop081]

or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters.

That is more in the realm of cyber warfare than what is traditionaly thought of as EW.

 

[burnaby]

Done by the C&E Branch already.

Oh thanks got to look into that; don't see them around often.

 

[burnaby]

That is more in the realm of cyber warfare than what is traditionaly thought of as EW.

Got a point there; EW some may think of electronic counter measures on planes and Raven EW birds.

 

[aesop081]

Got a point there; EW some may think of electronic counter measures on planes and Raven EW birds.

That is what most people think of. EW is a term that encompases so much that it would be near impossible to creat something called the "EW branch" but judging by your post you are more concerned with CNA and defence from it. That would certainly narrow it down some.

 

[TimBit]

As someone pointed out, it is being taken care of. And CSIS does not collect electronic intelligence. Also, in the US, what you are calling cyber warfare falls under the purview of the AF, along with Space, the other "new" domain of war.

 

[captloadie]

I also thought it was "ïllegal" for the military to do counter-surveillance and collect electronic data within Canada's borders. A past colleague of mine said they use to track animal radio collars for practice because it was the only legal signals they could collect. Think of it as Hunt for Red October in the great Canadian wilderness.

 

[TimBit]

As a general principle it is. For exercises there are derogations. But cyber-defence is another thing altogether  :camo:

 

[dapaterson]

It`s illegal until someone with authority permits it (and then there are severe restrictions, and intense oversight ).

And those with authority are well beyond anyone`s pay grade here.

It`s all spelled out in the NDA.

 

[PuckChaser]

Speaking from experience, there are significant legal implications of collection electronic signals intelligence in Canada. Operators are very well briefed on what they can and can't do. The easiest way to explain is that everything falls under the "can't do" unless you have a wiretap warrant.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch.

Not to overly hijack this thread but many modern militaries consider SOF to be the 4th service branch.

 

[Sig_Des]

To the OP:

a) CSIS does not have the mandate for foreign Signals Intelligence. This is the purview of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), which, IIRC, falls under the control of DND (unless it's changed).

b) CSE is also responsible for IT and communications security to the Canadian government.

All the open source information on the CSE is available here: http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-eng.html

As far as the military, Cyber-security and warfare would fall under the purview of members of the C&E branch (a personel branch, not an element) and numerous existing military directorates. I will not delve into these, as, let's be honest, it's not open forum kind of stuff, and you should accept that, you just don't need to know the specifics

 

[SeanNewman]

I disagree that there should be a separate branch just for this, because it would entitle new regulations for everything from uniforms to changing all official documents to have a 4th option, etc.

I could understand if there was an entirely separate entity that included all Signals and Intelligence people, but even then...those people are typically co-located with a branch anyway so it would seem silly for them to have their own element.

Information Operations (including EW) is now considered a combat function because it is fundamentally different, but I don't think a Rad Op in a unit's Sigs Platoon or a MEWT operator driving along with a Company is different enough from Army troops to suggest a new branch.

 

[George Wallace]

Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force.

First off; those are not Branches but "Elements" --  Land, Sea and Air.

As has been stated, all this "Electronics stuff" is already covered in organizations already.  Electronic warfare covers a very wide spectrum of fields, with there teing organizations that concentrate on COMINT, others on SIGINT, others on ELINT, and many other forms of information gathering and analysis.  Each of the three Elements of the CF also have different and varying requirements for electronic intelligence, so combining everything under one roof would hinder their efforts more than help.

 

[McG]

First off; those are not Branches but "Elements" --  Land, Sea and Air.

In most other countries, those are seperate services.

 

[Shamrock]

Traditionally a country's armed forces have three branches army, navy and air force. My question is should we have a fourth branch: electronic warfare branch. I know that our traditional branches does do some intelligence/electronic gathering and disruption but should we establish branch committed only to electronic warfare. my version of electronic warfare branch is not intelligence gathering (We have CSIS) but the disruption of enemy electronic systems; civilian and military. As the world progress the use of electronics is huge. Major military establishment around the world heavily relies on electronics from guiding bombs on target to ordering toilet paper. Imagine disabling a country armed forces with a flick of a switch; destroying its ability to fight successfully (example: turning UCAVs to attack its owners) or bankrupting a nation electronically to ferment a national crisis to divert its attention from other matters (example: the current Greek economic crisis; vast amount of money or capital was done electronically).

As for Canada should we be paying more attention on virtual enemies instead of enemies that we can see? are we paying attention at all to electronic threats?

Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?

 

[PuckChaser]

We just answered the first question, but now that you pointed it out, the OP seems like a crackpot.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well...depends on what you consider "legitimate targets" in a conflict.  Information Operations covers a wide spectrum of "targets", both ones that could be attacked and ones that must be defended against attack.

Now, I am not saying Canada should be out there doing this stuff...but I think anyone who thinks it doesn't happen/couldn't happen (all aspects of IO) is fooling themselves in this day and age.

 

[aesop081]

Am I the only person to notice this tripe is advocating attacking non-military objectives?

Some civillian infrastucture that relates to a nation's ability to wage war can, and often is, a legitimate target for attack.