Is the Corps past it's sell by date?

#1
With our operators not doing much operating and our techs not doing much teching should we become the Royal Corps of Network Managers and Infrastructure Fitters?
 
#4
It is my opinion that the Corps has been on a downward spiral ever since we let the so-called ex-Corps Yeoman Dave K$$g, take over the re-org of the trade training. He took away the need for the 2-1 crammer, stopping us from filtering out all the shite from even getting to Blandford. He took away about 75 percent of the upgrade course, as well as removing the Pass/Fail aspect of the 2-1. Another reason why Yeomans of today can't do HF, let alone know anything about it.
I think that 75 percent of a communications procedures lesson is down to operational experience, and how that equipment or procedure is used in that environment. It changes the students response to "What the **** is he on about?" to "Oh right, I get it now". So how the **** would a junior soldier or indeed a Cpl Upgrader get the full benefit of a comms lesson, enabling them in turn to go out to an operational theatre and put those lessons into practice and then go back to their unit to teach those same procedures to class 3's, if that initial lesson is given by someone or indeed manufactured by someone who's last great communications experience (and has ZERO operational experience) was on ******* Larkspur!!
Yes by all means let them teach subjects that won't change, or change slightly. But don't for **** sake put the cnuts in charge of Course Planning!
 
#5
With our operators not doing much operating and our techs not doing much teching should we become the Royal Corps of Network Managers and Infrastructure Fitters?
Not really. Royal Corps of Signals and, of course, our motto 'Reliable Information Quickly' seems to fit the bill still.
 
#7
The grownups need to realise we do tactical and strategic communications. Treating everything the same doesn't work!

Then they need to keep people in post long enough to learn how to use systems, base skills are ok but without the ability to manage them without assistance from outside agencies it won't work long term.
 
#9
Do we really do tactical comms? I think once Sigs Platoons are all over TacSat the need for RSIST will fold. Unless they have complete mongs in the Pl. they pick it up. RSO is different at the moment but D Inf won't want his blokes to be pushed out by Scalies forever.
 
#10
The grownups need to realise we do tactical and strategic communications. Treating everything the same doesn't work!

Then they need to keep people in post long enough to learn how to use systems, base skills are ok but without the ability to manage them without assistance from outside agencies it won't work long term.
YES! EXACTLY! The concept of One Operator, from the very beginning was destined to fail! I told Dave the very same on my Class 1 Systems course (the last) that one trade wouldn't work. You neeeeeeeed time in a job to be able to reliably pass on accurate operational experience and the ins and outs of a system for an operator to be able to use effectively. Now all we're left with is a bunch of operators who are familiar with lots of systems but there are no experts, per se. Unless of course its in tentage! His response was "Well its up to the units to train these people up" and I told him then that it just wouldn't work because of op tempo, posting rotation, etc. Response was "Well, we'll look into it"
He's retired to the golf course, and whats the Corps left with?
 
#11
Do we really do tactical comms? I think once Sigs Platoons are all over TacSat the need for RSIST will fold. Unless they have complete mongs in the Pl. they pick it up. RSO is different at the moment but D Inf won't want his blokes to be pushed out by Scalies forever.
What is the reason for RSISTs existance?
 
#12
Do we really do tactical comms? I think once Sigs Platoons are all over TacSat the need for RSIST will fold. Unless they have complete mongs in the Pl. they pick it up. RSO is different at the moment but D Inf won't want his blokes to be pushed out by Scalies forever.
Tacsat is a very expensive, quick and easy alternative to mobile comms. Yes it gets fast air and MERT in fast, but I don't think it will be long before the bean counters turn round and say "Look, the Tacsat bill is far too high. We're cutting your channels down and reducing your talk time. Use it wisely ie. SF comms (Who used it exclusively first). HF is free, use your operators to establish Theatre wide HF network. It worked in the mountainous regions of the Balkans, make it work here"
 
#15
Where do RD's fit in? People who gave up on being professional communicators a long time ago have a big say in our Corps today. RD's are vital but outside of RQMS do they need to be on high payband?
 
#17
I wonder. can do TCP/IP over HF?
Wouldn't recommend it. There are far better protocol stacks for that sort of low speed and unreliable transmission medium.

Personally, the Corps needed to change its trade structure.

I still think combining Tech and IS Eng wasn't too clever an idea though.
 
#18
From what I saw, teaching TacSat prior to deployment, and helping the CQMS once deployed. Either way, how long before Inf are all over it?
Well, they've had long enough.

PTN Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | Tactical radio teams train for speedier battlefield extractions you'll note that the training and working of tacsat isn't the primary functioon of the team. They are there as the Signals SMEs.

the guru said:
Personally, the Corps needed to change its trade structure.
Yep, but merging everything in one may not be the 'vision'.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top