Mechs

Zorro

Old-Salt
#4
There are plans to move the majority of Mechs to 10 Sigs to work with the CPO team on Op installs. Sounds like a winner to me, jobs for the boys rather than sweeping leaves :)
 
#5
I think the drama comes from the ilk to retrade these guys to instl tech and in some units especially mine they are employed as instl techs.
No more trade related woprk just sat around fixing phones and moving telephone lines.
Hopefully if deploy somewhere they might get the oppurtunity to do what they trained to do.
Trying to get as many guys away as poss to south at/Bos etc.
 
#6
Zorro said:
There are plans to move the majority of Mechs to 10 Sigs to work with the CPO team on Op installs. Sounds like a winner to me, jobs for the boys rather than sweeping leaves :)
There has been the idea of creating 3 deployment troops for a few years now but this is subject to the wider CIS picture mostly the way DCSA& DEII (AKA THE Borg) influence Op taskings etc.

The Tp at Henlow continues to grow and as they are DCSA they are tackling some major Op taskings which eases the burden on Lima Tp as they still have the Balklands to contend with (as well as others)

A fairly new development is the possability of duplicating the 10 Sigs model in Germany specifically 16 SR. Again wider CIS issues will be the deciding factor. I will believe it when I see it. As with all Inst Tech gossip it is just that ! A lot of people are talking but nothing is actually been decided, probably worried they may get it wrong a 2nd time!

The misemployement is largely due to the poor transition from Telemech to Inst Tech but we have already cried a river over that score and it is no longer worth getting into.

If you cannot effectivily employ your Inst Techs then get them attached to either Lima Troop or Henlow and get them on some Op tours/ Op taskings. They will relish the challenge and stay interested as well. If they dont want to deploy then they are not really playing the game but at least you have tried.

I would ask that they are not left to stagnate in the MT or QM`s. They can effectivly shadow Techs in the TM Tp workshop or greatly enhance the IS cell.

You reap what you sow.
 
#7
get them a posting to 2 or 30 to work on Cormorant. They are looking are doing more cross-trg now, so not only will they be able to set out HQs infrastructure etc, they will also be able to expand into other arenas such as tech and IS roles to some extent.
 
#8
PoisonDwarf said:
get them a posting to 2 or 30 to work on Cormorant. They are looking are doing more cross-trg now, so not only will they be able to set out HQs infrastructure etc, they will also be able to expand into other arenas such as tech and IS roles to some extent.
These 3 trades are key to future CIS works, cross trg to an extent has been happening for about 2 years now (more fibre and Cat5 course going to IS Eng and Sys Eng trades) and this is what will give the Corps a big plus in capability.

The Inst Techs need to start looking away from the traditional static fixed comms world especially as more and more sites are commercialised and look at enhancing their skills with more IT based engineering. The IS world needs to step back a little and bring more Inst Techs into there responsabilities. The result in what we can provide and support will be more dynamic.

This is one of the more exciting "rumours" about the future of Inst Techs/ Is Engr
 
#9
The fact that the first thread was so dire made me chuckle, no wonder they are signing off if you are so defeatist about it all.

Have you tried to improve their lot? From your post I assume you are a full screw? What you need to do is instill a good working ethos and make the best of free time for sport, activities and training. If they are bored and unchallenged they will sit about bemoaning their life and will eventually leave.

Speak to your SNCOs and get things going, find out why the troops are leaving and ring the changes!
 
#10
It depends on the "Mechs" in your unit. I had 6 at a previous unit, of whom 5 (yes 5) signed off. The change to Installation Tech has upset a few, especially those surgicaly attached to the airfields!

All we ever heard was mech this and mech that. They pretty much point blankly refused to cross train (all but 2 were "proper" mechs) and had no interest in anything that didn't have a krone strip in it. And believe me, we all tried to interest them including the Foreman.

I'd say one or two mechs out there have had a few difficulties altering their outlook on life when changing from the mech trade and a cosy life on the airfield and the Inst Tech life and the mainstream Corps'.
 
#11
Varied ammount of responce, the 10 sigs thing is all well, but that will create the old ethos of the Henlow Fitting Party as with the RAF - works well if you have enough fresh meat!!! I think the problem they are going to have is to find the fine line of work and play - personally my guys have to much work - makes a change!!
 
#14
Quote from Hellfyyr

"Have you tried to improve their lot? From your post I assume you are a full screw? What you need to do is instill a good working ethos and make the best of free time for sport, activities and training. If they are bored and unchallenged they will sit about bemoaning their life and will eventually leave."

Sorry Helldcik, is this a wind up post or do you really have no idea about what telemechs have to offer the world?

DISCO, I fully (almost) agree with all of your posts

Quote

"The IS world needs to step back a little and bring more Inst Techs into their responsabilities. The result in what we can provide and support will be more dynamic."

Damn right fella: WTF is DII doing charging the earth for providing half cut unworkable structured wired ??solutions?? with no surviveabiltiy for future user requirement.

I think Inst Techs have lots to offer the Corps and ARMY not just in terms of skills but also in terms of value for money, however politics have removed this option for the moment. Don't get me wrong DII is moving in the right direction, however powers that be are too quick to sub contract to ex-tradesmen at more cost to the taxpayer.

Looking to the immediate future and Bowman, lets be optomistic and say Bowman is operational in half of the deployable Army by 2015; Lets be honest and look at what tradegroups can support the battlegropus.

Mechs/Techs - Fit soldiers (some techs too) who are able to deploy anywhere in the world and have the trade skills to provide immediate first line connectivity and LRU assistance to the customer in an operational theatre thus providing a medium capable of passing useful(less) information.

Operators - Obvious, people who break generators, worship RTG's,
whinge about doing hard work and bite to pathetics threads looking for a bite.

IS Op - Some bloke sat by Lord Melchards drinks cabinet remotely installing a printer, remotely unlocking a password or remotely understanding the requirement of the Staff in a deployed HQ.

Dvr Ln - Someone who ensures all of our green taxis are roadworthy, and has lots of strange habits!

Not having a dig at IS Ops but the way technology is advancing why do you/they need a green uniform? Providing you are connected and your equipment is serviceable why do you need to eat rations.(deploy).

Actually, that is a dig, but no apologies.

Civilianise the Mech at the cost of the taxpayer, but until WIFI and similar technologies are accepted as secure by the MOD then there will/should always be a job out there.

Hope this unbiased(joke) post stimulates discussion

Rgds Dave
 
#15
You obviously do not have a clue what Bowman actually is. Let me try and enlighted you a little.

Bowman is a system that works Voice over IP. It is one large computer network used for carrying voice and data. If something goes wrong then quite regularly its the networking side of it.

So hence you can see its IS Engrs that are needed to fix it, not telemechs, not techs, not operators. With Bowman the IS Engr is a lot more trained to sort out any problems than any of the other trades.

I am not saying there is no need for any other trade, far from it. Unlike your tiny little mind that thinks you are in Gods trade and the rest of the trades are useless (joke), I do believe there is space for all trades. And I agree with your comments about why are contractors being employed to do DII cabling when your trade can. This is in the same way why can't IS Engrs do the work of supporting the network rather than contractors. Its swings and roundabouts for all trades. We need every trade (Except techs maybe LOL) and with Bowman its the IS Engrs who are going to be most needed to work alongside the operators.
 
#16
Supertramp said:
You obviously do not have a clue what Bowman actually is. Let me try and enlighted you a little.

Bowman is a system that works Voice over IP.
Supertramp you may wish to do some research on this particular statement. As far as I am aware Bowman does not work voice over IP. If it did that would allow users (providing that they had the right permissions) to speak to anyone over the network regardless of range in voice. This simply is not true. The voice networks are configured in the same way as Clansman networks and if you are not in range you don't speak. As I understand it Bowman is definately not VOIP. It is digital voice transmitted in the same way that analogue voice is ustilising a digital signal.
 
#17
Bow_Man said:
....As I understand it Bowman is definately not VOIP. It is digital voice transmitted in the same way that analogue voice is ustilising a digital signal.
Bowman - you're quite correct - there is absolutely no use of VoIP anywhere within BOWMAN, and the only way you could import it from elsewhere within the wide area network would be through a BGI. The system as it stands could not support VoIP at all.
 
#18
Sorry I didn't explain clearly. What I meant to say is the Bowman network is largely IP based, yes you are correct and I shouldn't have said it the way I did.

What I meant was every item in Bowman has an IP address practically. This is not for routing the voice side of things like I said, but the data side of things. However the IP scheme is very important unlike in Clansman. Without an IP scheme Bowman would not work to its full capability. No more just typing in a frequency and talking, its a lot more complicated than that now.

Sorry for not making it clear, I had just done a very long shift with no sleep for the previous 36 hours.
 
#19
SuperT, good comeback I liked your lesson on Bowman (he he).

As a matter of interest does anybody know how many IS Ops are employed 'in support of Bowman' at 12 MBSS and 7 ABSS? I'm lead to believe that there aren't very many and the civilian FSR's currently provided for Bowman support aren't of the same skillset as the IS Op, they're more akin to techs (many of them being ex techs).

Also who is the person who generates the plan? I thought that was the YofS, hence the recent deployment of the'Bowman Yoeman' to the Bdes.

What current involvement does the IS fraternity have in Bowman? (genuine question (apart from apspecs)). SuperT prehaps you could 'enlighten my tiny little mind' (lol), and explain what input IS geeks have on the 'Yoemans' plan?

It is a pitty that IS geeks aren't allowed to support in barracks DII, it will be interesting to see the level support to DII in the field on real ops (hmm). If HCDR ever takes off (works) and we see the next stage of digitization then things may be different of course. Until that day, I see IS geeks and gifted amatures continuing to provide support to Ataccs and any other deployed LAN in the field Army. This is NOT Bowman!
 
#20
Squarepants, some good points but you are a little narrow minded towards the role of the IS Engr.

Bowman in regards to skillsets and numbers is very much up in the air and will be for some considerable time. Remember its subsytems (FALCON, CORMORANT) will also have an effect on the trades involved.

You will find however that CIS support will be from the Is Engr the Inst Tech and the Systems Engr,all at different levels. All 3 will have to combine in certain areas and mix responsabilities. This will happen and those that are big enough to rise above empire building and focus on capability will drive this forward.

In some units you may find no Inst Tech support at all and vice versa. Local training will have to take place with FO, CAT5 and IT systems. Looking ahead you may find a lot more intergration of the IS Engr and the Inst Tech and the Sys Engr.

Main Factors

Commercialisation - Crazy support contracts - Crazy demarkation of responsabilities.

Unit Scaling - Trades and numbers

Training - Getting the right skillsets into the field without being 5 years behind the curve.


As for DII - well things are not set in stone, you will find Province IS Engrs doing a lot of IT maint that is supposedly contracted and centralised (hey but the system isnt working or cant afford it!!)

Same old contractor blag, get system in place hire 1 person to do the work then he goes off sick = hundreds of PC`s stacked up waiting to be fixed... HAR HAR! Penalty to Contractor... NIL!

MOD user moves his PC next door after waiting too long for support, **** Contractor arrives and adopts usual inflexable attitude, Penalty to the system 9k.

What a great way to do buisness.!!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top