Any Room for the IS supervisor in the OPs room YofS

Seems that the new supervisory trade is meeting with some resistance from many parts of the Corps. So is there really a requirement for a Supervisor IS or should we just make the YofS course 11 weeks longer.
Is there room for the Supvr IS in the Ops room????

My mate reckons theres plenty of space between the sink and the kettle.

it will save his bad knees a bit whilst he's making the coffees for the Yeoman. :lol:
Theres more to being an IS Supervisor than doing the course, just as theres more to being a YofS than the course. Its about experience. I'm sure some Yeoman would make fine IS Sups, but i know several who cringe and find something else more important to do at the very mention of IP addressing and network topologies.

If the IS Op didnt exist, and the primary feeder trades for YofS all gained the necessary IT experience, then it would probably work fine. Untill that day, yes theres room for an IS Sup in the Ops room. How close to the kettle they go is a matter for further arguement. :)
Not really, the IS Op could well lack the years of prior experience as an RTG/RS OP or Sys Op etc. The IS Operator could well come from one of the "combat" trades or be a transferee. The point i was trying to make is that the jobs of YofS and IS Sup are quite different and at the moment i think there is a need for both.
I can't see where the two overlap, up til now, we have used what was avail, if it was a YOS or FOS. If the knowledge was there we used it, But the Sup IS has to stand up and be counted. There is a new seat in the Ops room and it has a real role to play.
The convergence between all the trades becomes more apparent when you look at the CONOPS as well as technology and theory behind Cormorant, Falcon and even Bowman.

These area and radio systems are totally IS based. They have TCP/IP networking, DNS and DHCP hierarchies, firewalls, unix and intel based architecture, RAID servers and Oracle databases with all the component parts working over ATM, DPABX trunks etc. Phew....

Those skills aren't in the RS or AS Op skillset at present but that's why we need to promote interoperability between the trades.

Bickering between the trades and the constant "....that's an operators job..." tosh will see all the above systems fail unless the Corps does something drastic.

('re going to criticise me cos I haven't suggested how I think it should rectify it aren't you....I'll do it another time, cos my wife is about to slit my throat if I don't come off the computer ;)
Are we then falling very short of what we expect from IS Operators, shouldn’t they train in Radio and Area Systems as well as Information Systems, if they don’t, will there be anyone to operate these new systems you mention?

Perhaps if he/she did have experience in Radio and Area Systems he/she might be the ideal candidate to go forward to YofS?
With the huge developments in Comms, maybe the trade of the YofS and FofS should be disbanded and let the IS Sup get on with his trade!
Light blue touch paper and stand well back.
Well, it might seem a backward step but there's a lot of talk about producing a "generic operator" from Blandford who will then trained in the various regimental kit, e.g. Ptarmigan, ATTACS, CNR, JOCS, Cormorant, satcom, or the civvy kit in various units ;-)

Let's face it, the ops we get now are told to forget what they were told - e.g. we don't have Ptarmigan - learn this instead. So perhaps to teach people those systems they might never use is pointless. Instead point the resources into continuation training at Regiments. The only problem is that the army will use it as a cost cutting measure, put the onus on units but not allow sufficient funding or manpower resources.

I think if we did produce a generic operator then we could give them a couple of years in trade (special-to-role) in order for their flair for e.g. IS to develop. Pound-to-a-penny that you would still get girls in the handbag jobs, big lads as radio relays and I'll reserve my judgement for the IS Ops to protect the innocent.

BTW - anyone on the Supvr IS Selection next week good luck!!
There will a time soon when a YofS(IT) will be formed (my opinion) There won't be space for a 'board swapping' chief or a Yoman of outdated comms. However the word YOEMAN and what it means to the corps is very important. The idea of an arm other than the signals dealing with a Supvr (IS) won't happen. The rest of the Army recon the role of a Y of S and as such they will take on the role of IS Supvr or rather the IS Supvr will become the YofS. 8O

STAND CLEAR!!!!!!!! :D
Are we avoiding the point, by arguing over which will become what, I can imagine the same sort of argument between a Heliograph Operator and the new fangled Telegraph Operator back in 1828, (best analogy I could come up with sorry to all you Corps History buffs who will doubtless criticise) should we not look to what is perceived to be the future of communications and train Operators to best cope with that future. If a Communications Manager is required in this future, what do we want him to be able to do, head up a small team of experts, or be the font of all knowledge, if he is to be the latter then the interim solution of the Supervisor IS must surely be that. Or am I way off the mark??
there has to be some more rationallisation of the Signals trades we will not need to have all these different trade groups. Perhapes we could have one trade for Dvr, Lineman,Store,ED and one for Tech, Tels and one for operators of all kinds. Maybe we could call this last trade ARSE - Area,Radio Systems Experts. And finially we could have the IS Op :) :D The pick of the bunch.....
Storemen and drivers should be consigned to the RLC where they belong. We got rid of clerks a few years back and now it's time to jettison the logistics trades. Anyone who argues that we need people with specialist stores knowledge is off their rocker. Let's face it - the QM Depts are full of civvies and expectant mothers already - no reason why they need to wear a Jimmy on their 'ead.

The Drivers aren't even linemen anymore. They just drive cars and DAFs. The RLC should take that on and leave the Corps with just our communications people - RS, AS, IS Op, Sys Eng Tech and Inst Tech.

Dunno what to do with RD guys though!
May as well disband the Corps then PD. All the techs can go to the REME, the AS and RS Ops can join the infantry radio platoons (and take ptarmigan with them), all the IS Ops can join the AGC or Dental Corps (to make up the short fall since their Warrant Officers started coming over), and all the RD's can go to the bar. Happy days. Elmpt would be empty and we could sell it, problem solved :wink:
PoisonDwarf said:
Well, it might seem a backward step but there's a lot of talk about producing a "generic operator" from Blandford who will then trained in the various regimental kit, e.g. Ptarmigan, ATTACS, CNR, JOCS, Cormorant, satcom, or the civvy kit in various units ;-)

Generic Operators would fail! The REME has, for years, attempted to solve its manning problems by amalgamating trades, it does not work. The tradesmen end up with a job that is too diverse/big to allow for true specialisation and you end up with 'trades within trades'. This creates a massive training bill for operators who arrive at your unit without skills in a vital field. You end up in a vicious circle, needing the specialist but once he/she arrives you have to train them. Hopefully those in the 'Ivory Towers' will have the good sense to check out L2........
Well if it has been proven not to work, looks like its the only way to go.

Look at that lovley light said the moth!!!

Hoorar the Corp
I did wonder if anyone would have any thing constructive to say on the subject, but I suppose all those trying diligently to change the opinion of other supervisory appointments are too busy doing just that, and sadly I have just realized that would only leave the embittered comments from the chaff. So while I thank those of you who made a worth-while comment, I’m afraid I would at the moment have to agree with the very first comment, “ My mate says there is some room between the sink and the kettle” wasn’t too far off the mark.

Similar threads

Latest Threads