Communicator Research

[George Wallace]

Would you be able to expand on the highlighted statement? I was under the impression that 291 was signals intelligence. Are you saying due to it being SIGINT as oppose to HUMINT that is why they are more associated with C&E? Or did you mean something entirely different?

Everyone is a "collector".  That does not make them INT.

 

[Goose15]

Everyone is a "collector".  That does not make them INT.

Thanks George that is much clearer.

 

[PuckChaser]

And not everything a 291er is going to do is SIGINT either. Plenty of other -INTs, as well as tactical EW.

George: Everyone might be a "collector", but that would imply the Comm Rsch folks do not process the information into products or actionable items, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Goose15]

And not everything a 291er is going to do is SIGINT either. Plenty of other -INTs, as well as tactical EW.

Oh I did not realize the tactical EW was a different type of Int. Is that a Combat Int classification?

Everyone might be a "collector", but that would imply the Comm Rsch folks do not process the information into products or actionable items, which couldn't be further from the truth.

That is very cool to hear.

 

[PuckChaser]

Oh I did not realize the tactical EW was a different type of Int.

Its a giant rabbit-hole to chase down whether tactical land EW is SIGINT, or to find the line to differentiate both. Traditional definitions don't cut it anymore, and you'll find people on both sides of the fence arguing until they're blue in the face. Inside the 291 community they try to split SIGINT and EW, but I believe the Int community considers them one and the same.

 

[Goose15]

Ah I see, that is very interesting. Thank you for the information. :salut:

 

[George Wallace]

Its a giant rabbit-hole to chase down whether tactical land EW is SIGINT, or to find the line to differentiate both. Traditional definitions don't cut it anymore, and you'll find people on both sides of the fence arguing until they're blue in the face. Inside the 291 community they try to split SIGINT and EW, but I believe the Int community considers them one and the same.

Again; they are "Collectors".  Both SIGINT and EW are two separate types of collectors of different electronic emissions.  There are dozens of forms of collecting 'information'; SIGINT and EW are only two of them.  Collectors of information do not necessarily have to be INT, and the majority of cases they are not. 

 

[George Wallace]

And not everything a 291er is going to do is SIGINT either. Plenty of other -INTs, as well as tactical EW.

George: Everyone might be a "collector", but that would imply the Comm Rsch folks do not process the information into products or actionable items, which couldn't be further from the truth.

True.  Comm Rsch and other Sigs do collect, process, redact, and provide information for INT pers to analyse and produce INT products.  What they do pass on to INT pers is usually a minute piece of what they have found, most of it having been redacted before dissemination.  The ACE at the EW Sqn will filter out most of the very sensitive information before passing on the tiny bit that is relevant to the INT Ops.  The SIGINT and ELINT people operate the same.  The only information that is passed on is that which is "needed to know".

 

[Drag]

Its a giant rabbit-hole to chase down whether tactical land EW is SIGINT, or to find the line to differentiate both. Traditional definitions don't cut it anymore, and you'll find people on both sides of the fence arguing until they're blue in the face. Inside the 291 community they try to split SIGINT and EW, but I believe the Int community considers them one and the same.

Tactical EW a d SIGINT are definitely not the same thing.  Tactical EW is an ACT function while SIGINT is a SENSE function.  Tactical EX involves things like ECM (jamming) and ECCM (counters to jamming) which are definitely not intelligence functions.

I know that some in the Int Branch consider them  but that is due to the long standing ambitions in the Int Branch to take over SIGINT, something they have not been successful at.

 

[George Wallace]

Tactical EW a d SIGINT are definitely not the same thing.  Tactical EW is an ACT function while SIGINT is a SENSE function.  Tactical EX involves things like ECM (jamming) and ECCM (counters to jamming) which are definitely not intelligence functions.

I know that some in the Int Branch consider them  but that is due to the long standing ambitions in the Int Branch to take over SIGINT, something they have not been successful at.

EW also does detection and DF.  I think your impression of ambitions of the INT Branch to absorb EW is a little on the paranoid side.   

 

[Drag]

EW also does detection and DF.  I think your impression of ambitions of the INT Branch to absorb EW is a little on the paranoid side.   

I would classify detection and DF as surveillance and reconnaissance.  The Int Branch tried to take over the 291 trade with a brain child called "Defence Intelligence Career Fields" or word to that effect back in 2007/2008 and failed after resistance from the C&E Branch,

 

[George Wallace]

There are a lot of "Good Idea Faeries" in the CAF.  Thankfully, not all their ideas are followed through on after some deliberation.  ;D

Of course, don't tell that to the Met Techs.    >