FofS (IS) board

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Roger_Ramjet, Apr 17, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I just heard that two Technicians passed the FofS (IS) selection board, god knows how many re-traders as well. What does that say about the IS Eng trade group? Not enough good tradesman around so you are stealing ours!
     
  2. Not surprising really, anyone in the army that knows his way around a playstation is a candidate for that course. Half the senior IS supervisors didn't even do a supervisor course they were just given it because they had a computer and looked a bit geeky.
     
  3. Who can take the board? Any Sigs trade or is it open to other army trades, even TA
     
  4. This will open the flood gates now all the good techs will see it as a quick way to become a Foreman. Why spend 3 years (including TMA's) becoming a proper FofS when you can do it in 10 Months and get same name and pay. Shit you can be a WO2 before they finish.
     
  5. They only picked up 1 x Sys Eng Tech, although there were two guys who were recent converts to the trade and are not as yet Class 1s. Think of it this way. In a couple of months every single Sys Eng Tech and IS Engr will be a Comms Sys Engr. Same trade ergo same criteria for selection to either supervisory trade (in theory).

    I think what it says about the IS trade is that they took too many guys who were of a ripe age rather than homegrown youngsters and so the pinch has now become apparent where there is a lack of strong SNCOs at the 9 - 12 year point. In my humble opinion the IS trade has some brilliant guys at Cpl level and needs to start picking up some of that quality.

    I think you're right and it's easy to understand the human logic. I would also throw in the additional factors of a 5-year time bar (FofS) versus only 3 years (FofS IS), coupled with the demand and it's a no-brainer. It's easy to understand the argument about how the FofS (Digi) does half the course length of a FofS (****), but you could argue that the IS bloke could potentially qualify from the course, deploy straight to theatre, do a complete tour in the role and therefore deliver exactly what SOinC(A) wants, all while the tech is still sat in Blandford typing up a program in a dead language like Delphi or Python that makes a beeping noise or something just as exciting.

    When one considers the issue over the length of commitment - commit 8 years or commit less than 4, the only real difference on paper is that one gains an honours degree (paid for by the firm) while the other is only 2/3 of an honours degree. I dare say that the buckshee 4 years would be at least enough to catch up in professional terms - for example the Modular Masters Programme and gaining an MSc in IMT or other useful qualification underpinned by Cranfield University, which is enormously respected. The issue over "acceptance" by the wider J6 community is significant although the biggest obstacle in my opinion is purely human attitudes.

    At the end of the day, it's all about demand and supply. Good on the tech who has crossed over - quality will always shine. Good luck to him.

    PD
     
  6. Everyone needs python. Just ask Guido!!!
     
  7. Blasphemy :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

    Can't believe someone would ever say that, I've only just moved full time onto Delphi coding from a language called M.
     
  8. Roadster makes a good point. I was a Tech, trained in the traditional manner, and have now moved into the networking side. Some of the young uns I work with leave me aghast at their lack of theoretical knowledge. They ARE good on the kit, but as soon as there is a problem that involves thinking laterally and using "traditional" skills, they are flummoxed. Makes me look shiny though....
     
  9. Or outside the confines of a single white box
     
  10. Banter aside, roadie, I think there's a lot of truth in what you say and I agree that without in-depth underpinning knowledge, people are limited in their ability to square it all away when things go pear-shaped . Still, too many people dwell on what they perceive to be trade training deficiencies which in actual fact were squared away a long time ago. Blandford have now stopped running Class 3 IS courses, although the legacy courses that are ongoing still cover a lot of ground, including an awful lot of datacomms and networking theory. For that reason, the hypothetical D10 / RJ45 scenario simply isn't conceivable in any way, shape or form. "Programming a computer" (by which I know you mean set up and configure operating systems, applications, security, and so on) is only a tiny part of the modern job. It would probably be more fitting to consider the jobs that Class 3/2 tradesmen from both Sys Engr Tech and Info Sys Engr "legacy" trades are doing on ops. That's the real barometer of how things are in the environment where it counts. Both are working extremely hard without a doubt. But things have moved on and premise any assumption that the former is an architect of all things complex, while the latter is some gloryhunting "nancy boy" :D (good choice of words by the way!) would also be completely at odds with reality. If the IS guys were not able to deliver what big chief SOinC(A) wants then we would know all about it. In actual fact, the sheer demand on ops far outstrips what we the Corps can physically supply, which I think validates the argument and rejects the suggestion that they are just users.

    I like your F1 analogy, but does that mean that Lewis Hamilton's chief engineer should be able to drive faster than Lewis himself since he knows how every droplet of fuel is injected, every stress point is calibrated and the amount of rubber per square millimetre of tyre? Even though our very good young Sys Engr Techs are great at doing maths and they do some good stuff on electrotech princples etc, do they really understand exactly how modern digital information equipment works? I think that most people would accept that there is more to winning the information battle in the deployed battlespace than simply knowing the transmission medium and hardware in isolation. All the stuff you were allowed to do in the past, these young lads ain't allowed to do any more. Open up a piece of COTS kit and repair it? Nope, some rich contractor has it all sewn up and there's nothing you can do about it. (woops - wild sweeping statement!)
     
  11. Or in our case, bluey green and lilac (Extreme really does make the racks look shoddy)
     
  12. Plus lots of nice flashing lights. Hypnotic... :D
     
  13.  
  14. Bang-on commentb from the_Flumps there. Many were either too lazy or failed their initial trade paths. The last 'FofS' IS course had 2 people who's reports said that they required supervising for the next 12 months.

    How in the World can these people be of a supervisory trade? :?
     
  15.