Foreman of Signals

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by thegeezer, Feb 19, 2007.

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. As I am unfortunate enough to find myself one of their number I hope that I am wrong BUT I think that the writing is on the wall for the FofS as a roster. I think some points of view from this forum may ease my concern.

    I think that their role will get marginalised by the burgening Supr IS roster until they become an anachronism, in the way that has happened to Supr Radio. The only thing that may keep them 'alive' is the fact that TOTs are still required and there must be a route for these somehow.

    All that is but my humble opinion and is probably coloured by my narrow perspective and current location in this dire backwater swamp.

    Comments please.
  2. No way. The FofS is too highly prized by the R SIGNALS to be lost so easily, so if there is ever a single supervisory trade, it will be based on the FofS. My humble view is that we should let the REME do the equipment repair side of things and let the corps concentrate on systems engineering. That way perhaps a single supervisor MIGHT be able to handle the comms, but I dunno.
  3. Yep I think your correct but I think the original post also has points, the FofS as it is will take on more IS side effectively becoming the IS Sup, which of course will get binned.
    I'm not even sure loosing equipment care to REME is a problem, hasn't this tech side of things already been lost to Civvie street.

    The weakness in the current plan is that the corps does not follow civilian practice, at FofS levels they should split into two areas - applications/DBA and networks/hardware (with one feeder trade allowing 'techs' to find what they like). The YofS should be an equivalent of ICS Support Manager (loosing planning to the FofS). Actually I think the biggest fish out of water is the YofS, unable to see the bigger picture, unable to use experience of technology, weak technical knowledge, etc (thats not aimed at any YofS or Tfc, just an observation from prior experience).

  4. Please enlighten me! Don't see the bigger picture!!?? Ever worked in a digitized brigade? YofS are integral to the Bde Comd's intent right from the word go, just ask the BG RSWO's!! :threaten:
  5. Thats where the remark stemmed from, are you talking BOWMAN or modern technology (sic). I guess, I'm just a traitor.
  6. You said that like you make some form of distinction between the two.....

    Guess you're not looking for a job with GD then? ;)
  7. Hey it's alright, timebandit, we still love you. :blowkiss: Don't listen to the nasty man.
  8. I must disagree - at many units the FofS is simply the Eqpt Manager - a job a shaved monkey could do (no offence to monkeys, primates or other simians is intended).

    In fact here's a quote from one of my OCs

    "What course have you done to show your commitment to the Corps?"

    Nice one.

    The way I see it, at least at HQ units, there will soon be little that the IS Sup & YofS can't sort out between themselves leaving just the really difficult, sometimes insoluble, problems to the FofS.

    It is, of course, up to current FofS (and TOTs) to show the continued worth of the roster.
  9. Timebandit the only thing you have been integral too is the local pie shop.

    Hello pot, this is kettle over. :thumright:
  10. Rather cheeky of an OC to question the loyalty and value of a SNCO - particularly one who has spent a cumulative few years training at Blandford training. I wonder what your OC has done to show his commitment to the Corps?

    So if we got rid of the Eqpt Manager role, do you think we could get away with a single supervisory appointment? Perhaps eqpt management means expanding the RQMS (T) scope, or a job for a Tech Sup Spec SNCO? Maybe a reason for the RQ Tech to be a storeman by trade?
  11. I beg to differ from the flow of this post but I have had first hand experience of numerous occasions where the IS Sup has not had a clue how to provide comms and highlighted that they only provide comms from Server down.

    When confronted with providing to diffucult locations (from server to user) again came running to the FofS who suggested tunneling the IP over an SHF shot - got nothing but a blank look from the IS Sup !! - FofS got it in and working in the end!

    The IS Sup are very good at what they do but this is only a very narrow field of expertise in the whole comms field (enter the FofS for the rest of the field)
  12. As a survivor of FofS 50 - I would have a serious chat with any OC who said that - or has the course become so easy it has lost all credibility now ??
  13. The post-comment chat is irrelevant, it is the comment itself and the fact it was uttered that is ominous for FofS

    I can only comment on the course I attended; which was not difficult, just long. I don't think that there is any evidence to show that the course has gotten any easier (or difficult) over the (many) years and even if it had, how would any non-attendees know that this was the case?

    Hopefully, it is an isolated opinion.
  14. IS Ski Geek

    IS Ski Geek War Hero Moderator

    Smoking Sigs - so none of the Supvr IS were op trades before hand and had no experience. Bit blinkered dont you think.
  15. Not saying they don't have experience in comms but they are a young trade still and do not have the long term specialist skills with the TECHNICAL experience!

    Being familiar with using a piece of kit does not mean you can fix it or figure out different ways of connecting them up - i.e. understand the protocols (outside of the IP world) - hell I have had IS ops that did not know about or understand simple RS232 !!

    The IS Sups should wait till they have been around for a while and gained some experience before trying to take over the world!