Campaign Signal Regiments etc

#1
Everybody is probably aware of the Corps' plan to reorganise to meet the need of our enduring ops, do a bit of future-proofing and so on. However, given the fact that no one ever canvasses opinion down at grass roots level, perhaps we could have a (not entirely serious) discussion via these highly classified means instead.

So....if given the chance to re-organise the Corps, what would YOU do? Do we need more of some trades and less of others, more of some ranks and less of others? Hey you never know, if somebody makes an inspired suggestion HQ SOinC(A) might even nick it and pass it off as their own idea! :p
 
#2
It seems with the amount of FP requirement going about, we are returning to the old Combat Signaller role?

Seemingly we need more IS based tradespersons, and less RSE's and Operators?

Any thoughts? or am on the wobbly to early :? :wink:
 
#5
heidtheba said:
Any thoughts? or am on the wobbly to early :? :wink:
It's NEVER too early for some wobbly.
 
#8
Speaking as a geek, I would like to see the Corps identify a structure at supervisory (and officer) level for the IS mob. At the moment they have some Sqns with a handful of both, but other Regts (who will have DII-FD, Falcon and Cormorant next year) have a single WO2. Hopefully this big CSR plan will bring a degree of structure.
 
#10
timebandit said:
heidtheba said:
PoisonDwarf said:
heidtheba said:
Any thoughts? or am on the wobbly to early :? :wink:
It's NEVER too early for some wobbly.
or late it seems :wink:
There has been a reccommendation made that each RSIST gets a CL1 ED to support them. Don't know who made that!!! 8O 8)
Wasn't me honest!

Its probably to employ them, as they don't have much to do with all these new contracts knocking about.
 
#11
We had an ED in RSSST, he hated hanging out with all the techs. We used to let him clean the springs on our SCS.
 
#13
In my not so humble opinion the Corps is going in the right direction. Combine FofS/IS stream, SET/IS Engr to CS Engr etc.

I am sure the hexidecimal crowd will be upset when I say there is no future in an IS Engr trade group! Note I have not said not required or failed just no future. It is under-staffed, under-recruited and never taken seriously.

Campaign Regts are the way ahead mainly cause they will be formed years in advance of a tour with the correct establishment, PDT time etc prior to tour as opposed to recieving both training and manpower too late to make a difference.
 
#14
Underworld_Guitar_Hero said:
I am sure the hexidecimal crowd will be upset when I say there is no future in an IS Engr trade group! Note I have not said not required or failed just no future. It is under-staffed, under-recruited and never taken seriously.
I'm fairly sure we wont get upset. I fully agree the merged trade is the way ahead - it makes our Engineers more flexible and employable across the broad spectrum of jobs and equipment around the Corps.

Whilst the single IS trade group had to end, what doesnt go away is the requirement for the skill set. Within the CSR the equipment and support we provide to our formation HQ's must mirror the campaign as closely as possible to give us what we require on the Op. The skillset most definately has a future - just look at the current training burden for a CS Engr or IS Assistant going to Herrick. If we dont get CSR's right, we'll gain nothing from them.
 
#15
Underworld_Guitar_Hero said:
I am sure the hexidecimal crowd will be upset when I say there is no future in an IS Engr trade group!
Have you got a GCSE in stating the obvious? The trade was killed off months ago.
 
#16
**Cough** Morse code **Cough** RTG's **Cough, cough**

What? Don't you all go looking at me like that. You must have all seen the film Independence day! Well how does America tell the rest of the world to attack at 8 o'clock in the morning? Yup.... morse code!

All you techno-girlies will be stuffed when the bomb goes off or the aliens attack blah, blah, blah.... yeah i know.... sod off Doogonk! lol

It's not my fault.... the voices made me do it! 8O
 
#17
[quote="Have you got a GCSE in stating the obvious? The trade was killed off months ago.[/quote]

Poison Dwarf - I was half replying to your post on a Supervisory stream for IS geeks. If it is obvious to me that the SET/IS Engr have combined and it was. Why do you now want to re-create the IS Supr stream WO2/Offr? The experiement I am afraid has failed!!!
Although there are some truly gifted IS geeks out there the trade unfortunately became a haven for non-deployable 40 year old hackers.
As for managing deployed networks well the YofS/FofS do fine as it is now.

If the trade had been recruited correctly from the start it may have worked. The IS mob as a bespoke trade stream is dead! Either not enough people wanted to do it or the Corps limited recruitment they couldnt even fill the last FofS IS course!! I say again,I do not to detract from the the efforts of the genuinely gifted IS Engr.
 
#18
Underworld_Guitar_Hero said:
As for managing deployed networks well the YofS/FofS do fine as it is now.
And they do that without any help from the Foreman IS then??

A quarter of the Supervisors force generated for Op Herrick are Foreman IS so to my mind there is a very definate need for them. The Yeoman and Foreman are not doing fine as it is now, the Supervisory trades are doing it fine as a whole as members of integrated Ops teams.
 
#19
Underworld_Guitar_Hero said:
Poison Dwarf - I was half replying to your post on a Supervisory stream for IS geeks. If it is obvious to me that the SET/IS Engr have combined and it was. Why do you now want to re-create the IS Supr stream WO2/Offr?.....As for managing deployed networks well the YofS/FofS do fine as it is now.

.....The IS mob as a bespoke trade stream is dead! Either not enough people wanted to do it or the Corps limited recruitment they couldnt even fill the last FofS IS course!!
I'm not sure if you've been away from the Corps for a while, since some of your comments seem a bit at odds with reality. You didn't say anything about the supervisory trades in your earlier post, you said that "there is no future in an IS Engr trade group". If that was a typo / error then fair enough, but the fact is that the Corps have combined engineers but have retained separate supervisory streams - and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future. So I think it's a little bit naive to say that the FofS (IS) - or at least the skillset - is dead. No one is recreating any supervisory stream, as it hasn't gone away. As for the officers, the Corps commissioned 4 x FofS (IS) last year - proportionally higher than any other trade, indicating that there is definitely a demand there. Or alternatively there were a few jammy sods (which might well be the case).

I agree that there is a "recruitment" issue with FofS (IS) and you're right that the last few courses weren't filled, but you also need to look at the other supervisory courses too. I reckon pro rata the geeks do pretty well. They run a course of 12 per year, compared to the YofS course of 20 per year - a comparatively small number for the largest (by far) CEQ in the Corps. The YofS (EW) course has a tiny handful of attendees and FofS registrations this year are absolutely shocking.

Regarding "...managing deployed networks well the YofS/FofS do fine as it is now...", you might be right but I don't know any deployments where there isn't a supergeek involved. Can you give an example of where this happens?
 
#20
In answer to your last question "Only in my mind"! They are needed on deployments!
I have not been away from the corps in fact I currently work as part of an ops team in a Bde HQ. The fact that we have differing opinions is good. Not tongue in cheek.
Iam intuitive in my opinions. Not neccessarily fact based. I think that the high porportion of FofS IS on tour does reflect a specific requirement and certainly as an operator Supervisor (guess) I dont particularly want to focus my time and effort on that bespoke specialist arena unless I have to. And I have!!

Agreed "dead" is harsh maybe restructured and refocused is more correct. As for commissioning I like to think those that deserve do regardless of trade background. Lets not forget that most senior IS Engr are at least dual traded. They must be motivated to reach WO1 and then commission in any trade regardless of preferences. Hats off if they are good then...they are good!!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MoD_RSS Afghanistan 19
topgun2010 Royal Signals 32
The_Tara The Intelligence Cell 20

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads