Talk:Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional)

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

CYBER SPACE?[edit]

what is that?--64.121.58.43 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the wiki article by the same name. You can think of it as the information environment. 132.62.88.94 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old SAC Logo[edit]

I uploaded the AFCYBER logo as displayed on the USAF Portal - anyone else miffed by the swiping of the old Strategic Air Command logo? TDRSS (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be @#$!ing me. Did they really steal the old SAC logo? Hopefully it's some joke that somehow got uploaded into the portal. If it is the new logo, then I know quite a few old SAC Guys that will probably be heading up to DC with pitchforks and torches. --Brownings (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new logo is a swirly lit-from-within thing. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the design of that image, the "logo" is ambiguious, showing Cyber Command's reach into all arenas. If you were correct, that would be a difficult patch to produce for a flight suit pocket. TDRSS (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first logo that ran with the new command's announcement, and as far as I can tell just a news graphic. I've seen the story and logo that Tdrss found, and the SAC logo is being used for now. However, expect it to change when Cyber Comm moves from a provisional status (the reason for the P in the logo) to an actual active status. No clue on when that'll actually happen though. --Brownings (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently attended a few briefings on the subject. The Air Mobility Commander Director of Communications (AMC/A6) informed us that AFCYBER will assume the SAC lineage, to include the patch (though I've also heard some conjecture that it's simply a promotion for 8th Air Force). Additionally, Lt Gen Peterson, the Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer (AF/XC and AF CIO) briefed that AFCYBER will be fully activated in the summer or fall of '08. Until then Maj Gen William Lord [1] is running the show (Lt Gen Elder will take over after it's a full MAJCOM).Ndunruh (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, very interesting. In a way it's kinda nice that the old SAC heritage will be reborn as AFCYBER. I wonder how all the old timers from SAC will take the news when the new command actually stands up? Your comments interest me Ndunruh. So, if 8th AF becomes AFCYBER, does that mean the 8th goes away, in as you said a promotion of sorts? Or, will a new 8th stand up to take the place of the old 8th? As you can see, I'm a little foggy on the whole subject. Of course the fact the numbered AFs confuse the heck out of me doesn't help. --Brownings (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one who's confused. I've got a buddy at 8 AF working the Air Force Network Operations (AFNetOps) side of AFCYBER and he doesn't have a clear picture of what everything is going to look like. One thing I've heard that I'm pretty sure will help comfort the old SAC crowd a little is that AFCYBER is more than computers. The cyberspace domain, as defined by the USAF, includes everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, so ISR assets, such as the 9 RW at Beale and the 55 WG at Offutt will be part of it as well (not just computer geeks from the 67 NWW). Regarding NAFs, the most practical way to look at them is simply a place to put 2- and 3-star generals as they march up the chain. They could be eliminated in the name of efficiency, but how would the AF 'grow' a 4-star general?

My best guess is that the 8 AF will become the AFCYBER NAF and they’ll realign the bomber wings between the 9AF and 12 AF in ACC, but that is just a guess. -- Ndunruh (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would suck, since SAC was best known for their ability to blow many nations off the face of the Earth. I guess the ability to shut down TV stations, cell phones and your kid's annoying cyber pets holds about the same weight, right? 68.254.29.247 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting that the new AFISRA will be aligned under Cyber Command? The whole thing looks like a big cluster... Also, have they decided where it will be headquartered? I heard that Barksdale, Lackland, Offutt, Beale, and Nellis were all gunning for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.106.36 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's been stated very heavily that ISR will never be a part of AFCYBER. While they do overlap in a lot of areas, their missions are suppose to be completely different, thus the reason ISR is a DRU to HQ AF and completely outside of any other chain-of-command. I've heard rumors that ISR will eventually transition to a full MAJCOM, but as of right now those are rumors at best. You're right though, it does seem like a total cluster, which would explain the lack of information coming out of the AF about AFCYBER. As for where AFCYBER will be headquartered, your guesses are the best out there. I know there was a story recently on how several state governors and city mayors were jocking for position. Barksdale has been named the HQ while it's in provisional status, but be permanent home is still up in the air[2]. --Brownings (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your first sentence to a point - pieces of ISR agency will belong to AFCYBER. The memo was signed Tuesday/Wednesday?, and while floating around O-6s desks, minor lackeys like myself get peeks every so often. 68.254.29.247 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a validation that the above AFCYBER patch is the real deal. I have one since I work with the actual AFCYBER (P) HQ staff. 74.193.224.178 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit]

For what it's worth, I currently work in the CSS at HQ AFCA which is apparently a big part of the AFCYBER transformation process. I don't have much more than second-hand information at this time, but I'll be on the look-out for anything I can use appropriately here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot Q&A[edit]

This is trivia but interesting: Air Force Cyber Command General Answers Slashdot Questions, Posted by Roblimo on Wednesday March 12, @11:41AM.

“

Here are the answers to your questions for Major General William T. Lord, who runs the just-getting-off-the ground Air Force Cyber Command. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people. Also, please note that this interview is a "first," in that Generals don't typically take questions from random people on forums like Slashdot, and that it is being watched all the way up the chain of command into the Pentagon. Many big-wigs will read what you post here -- and a lot of them are interested in what you say and may even use your suggestions to help set future recruiting and operational policies. A special "thank you" goes to Maj. Gen. Lord for participating in this experiment, along with kudos to the (necessarily anonymous) people who helped us arrange this interview.

”

I wouldn't suggest adding this trivia to the article unless and until the Q&A session has an significant impact on the AFCC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Article Quality[edit]

There is enough information out there about AFCYBER, its units (proposed), and its operating domain - I think this article needs to ditch the political "where's the base going to be?" and get to the heart of AFCYBER's mission. This article should not be used by politicos trying to sell Louisiana to the Air Force TDRSS (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Correction[edit]

Section "4 Lineage". Second paragraph should use "has" instead of "was":

 The "recycling" of the SAC emblem has been...

66.230.80.39 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Career Field Info[edit]

New info on the career fields involved in AFCYBER has been posted to here: Cyberspace career fields, training paths, badge proposed. I'm not sure if it fits here or in an article about Air Force Specialty Codes. Ndunruh (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future in doubt[edit]

The resignation of Michael Wynne as Secretary of the Air Force puts the future of the Cyber Command in doubt: Air Force Suspends Controversial Cyber Command 2008-08-12; Air Force's Cyber Command in holding pattern 2008-08-14. It was his baby, but the other services object and want in on the action. Meanwhile: Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia in 2007; Georgia accuses Russia of coordinated cyberattack 2008-08-11. Pawyilee (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is a mess. The new Chief has put a hold on everything till the next Corona Conference, where I'm sure the idea will probably get killed off completely, or watered down so badly that it'll never work. --Brownings (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commander??[edit]

If it was provisional, why does it have a current commander?74.180.79.68 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

I went through the article and replaced some of the dead references, but I could not find anything for the following links:

<ref name=ShreveportTimes1>http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20090515/NEWS01/305150001 Wire services say San Antonio chosen for new cyber unit</ref>
* [http://www.afcyber.af.mil/ Now defunct Air Force Cyber Command]
* [http://www.afcyber.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080303-054.pdf AFCYBER's Strategic Vision]

Khaotika 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]