Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by polar, Jan 25, 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. Seen this on the Staff Officers forum and I thought it be good here.

    I understand this idea has been considered but was rejected, Sigs would have had to transfer a number of soldiers to the RLC to offset the burden this would added them.

    I've worked in a Bde HQ where the admin/support was done by RLC and it appeared to work very well.
  2. I agree Polar, i have worked in Div HQ, RLC would be far better suited to doing the job of support.

    Let the Sigs do the communications. I expect a load of incoming on this like soldier first and the rest of it, just my thoughts on the subject.

    Cheers MB :highfive:
  3. Remind me...

    Who used to provide staff clerks :shakefist:

    Oh yes RAOC!

    Funny thing that eh!

    I have to say that I am appalled at the state of UK HQs these days. Admin is a complete cluster...! Bring back the old superintendant clerks :threaten:

    Do you know, I once found a spelling mistake in an MS document! - the effect on the superclerk was like someone doing a dump on the square in front of the RSM!

    The last time I was working in an HQ, the branch filing tray was over a foot tall and stayed that way for a month. Nobody seemed to give a to**. Apparantly we were not to upset the all-girly clerk as she was "stressed" as she had to cover two branches! WTF... :pissedoff:

    As far as the scalies were concerned they spent all their time locked up in the commcen bleating that it wasn't their fault the system was down...


    IMHO Transferring the running of HQs to the RLC makes a lot of sense...

    a. Chunks are brill at guarding stuff - I am also sure we can get a two for one deal for a scaley.
    b. The staff clerks have been having a lovely time with the All Girls Corps, but they need to be brought back to reality - come back to daddy :omfg:
    c. Scaleys never did understand computers. Give em back to the corps who actually does know what they are for. :thumleft:
  4. Remember that we have lots of non-CIS trades in our Corps. I think it's a bit of a numbers battle - a smaller Corps equals less influence in the bigger "my cock is bigger than yours" debate. And it leaves lots of guys who have no option but to switch to RD.

    We have REME to fix wagons, RLC to heat scran, AGC(SPS) to square the pay away, so why not RLC drivers in the MT, RLC Sup Specs / Sup Cons running the stores. Perhaps it is compounded by the fact that we appoint our logistics managers (RQMS/QM) pretty much automatically on reaching certain rank to develop their careers and we don't appoint people to the job because they have the specific skillset. If a private sector organisation tried a similar strategy it would go down the plug-hole pretty sharpish.

    Look at drivers in the RLC - they can progress up the chain, get promoted up to Master Driver and develop a whole life career. What do we have? "Sorry LCpl Bloggs, I know you joined as a Driver Lineman, however you need to start preparing for life in the RD roster now". Same for stores-wallahs. It's completely insane.

    I know one OC at the moment who normally deploys with a few pioneers to provide a defence troop/section but is trying his damnedest to get rid of them and replace them with more of his operators - trying to hide the fact that there isn't a comms job for them to do. All the important work supporting the actual requirements of the staff is all done by other trades in today's electronic age!

    Royal Logistics Corps, Royal Signals - the clue's normally in the title. Let's use the best trade for the job, not simply appoint our own Corps to dominate the ground and feel important.
  5. CS...Here, here. However, like you said, it's a numbers thing. SOIC would NEVER go for it as our influence as a Corps would drop off.
  6. [Pedant] Royal Logistic Corps [/pedant]
    Sorry. Bored and hungover!
  7. Is it? I worked in 8 FEB last year and they had no standing Sigs support, the RLC ran the life support, Sigs (Reg & TA) manned the commcen's, IS and 353 net. The other Bde on the exercise (2 Med Bde) just had RLC supporting them (and my commcen via a runner).

    Maybe we are looking too much towards fighting Bde's and letting other corps make in roads into ICS into these newer formations
  8. CardinalSin –
    I tried getting people to accept this idea as valid and then take it to it's natural and (to some) extreme conclusion...
    For example - EDs are needed in a close support role to ensure power to the CIS/ICS eqpt and for the staff working environment, however RE trg pers to do the a very similar job but trg to a higher level across more eqpt (and other roles associated with power provision and distr) thereby getting wider employability. Therefore if R SIGNALS has x amount of EDs transfer the liability to RE (and re-trg to RE levels) and MCM Div RE is responsible to man R SIGNALS units at whatever the RE held strength of RE pers in this trade. Take the argument further and you get R SIGNALS RS Op SNCO/WO doing the Inf RSWO job (retain the Inf RSO to provide Inf STA guidance and the R SIGNALS to provide the CIS/ICS STA guidance). Transfer liability for manning across the various MCM Divs and what you have is 1 skill set being taught at 1 location, by one Arm/Service. You also get wider experiences across the Corps (by working in units fm all Arms/Services). Bring them experiences and skills back to the Corps and then we can improve (or refuse ideas that are crap – not by ill informed opinions or guess work but by first hand experience of seeing the idea fail in other Arms/Services). Other Arms/Services may even learn the odd thing from us (don’t push me on what ‘cause none springs to mind).
    Back whether we will loose the life support role in close support to fmn HQs – I doubt it the relationship between close support R SIGNALS unit and fmn HQ is too closely tied, perhaps the only way we may lose it would be a small augmentation of RLC soldiers as part of the R SIGNALS unit but to be honest does anyone expect that to happen?
  9. RSWO is more of weak YofS than a SSM
  10. But how many "tent" specialists do you want in the field. Life support is generic, pretty much any soldier can do it as it contains soldiering tasks.
    The theory that manpower moves across doesnt equate for me and it gives the impression we have these tent/portaloo builders come guardforce on standby ready to go with no other purpose.

    So much of this is secondary duties which means the job isnt so much 9 to 5 but thats not really what soldiering is about.

    So many times I hear this argument and it is rare that the main point is other than "I hate putting up tents or making an SO3 a brew". How can the "focus more on communicating" hold any weight, I think we focus pretty well and I dont think I can actually recall a modern mission failure due to Bde/Regt Sigs being unable to focus on comms becuase secondary duties got in the way.

    Also the continual sniping by Supervisory trades from the sidelines about removing RQMS/SQMS and other RD roles is getting tiring. The Mafiosa must think the only credibal Warrant in the Corps is a supervisory one. These slots are essential to the growth of our Corps and help make sure our interests are met first. For example your Det is outbound and you need some kit, who would you prefer the SQMS you were in basic with, the RQ you did your Sgts course with or some RLC bloke ? Not to say the RLC specialist is a tube but its an unknown quantity.

    Even if it all changed to a Communications Troop within an RLC Squadron or a Sig Sqn in an RLC Regt you would still be expected to provide manpower for secondary duties.

    Hence the argument falls over completely.

  11. I agree with most of that. Tent erection and guard duties are tasks that Sigs do when they’re not doing their main job. They can’t provide a HQ with it’s full facilities until the tents are up and then the location needs to be protected. They finish a shift manning whatever bit of comms kit they are there to do and then get dicked for a guard duty. If you had a specialised force to put up tents and guard/defend the location – you would make it bigger and surely less efficient.

    I did an ex with the ARRC and pulled up to the location and the ARRC Spt Bn (pioneers) told us to come back in 3 hours when they’d finished building it. At Bde levels this would be the operators who worked in the complex who would be doing this, I’m sure it would be an attractive proposition to those ops for the pioneers to come and do this for them. But you couldn’t take any manpower away from the sigs and transfer it to the RLC – who would man the comms kit?

    As far as Disco’s argument about the SQMS/RQMS being Corps – that doesn’t wash. What if he isn’t your mate? There were plenty of people who made these appointments that I didn’t get on with – I’m sure everyone has been there. I'm not into the notion that because someone is from a different capbadge that they are less committed to the cause. The idea of keeping a route for people within the Corps who “don’t/can’t/never in a million years” make it into supervisory rosters is a different argument. You might as well ask why do the corps not have RCWO’s or ASM’s? You’re talking about, mostly, an op or tech who has not made the grade and going down a route that they have no background in. I only remember two storemen who made it to RQMS in my time.
  12. Whistler thats not really fair but I understand the sentiment. Supervisory isnt for everyone and we should be grateful we dont have good tradesmen turn into bad managers. I dont want to spin into an RD debate, lets leave that for next Friday :thumright: :thumright: :shakefist: :numberone: :pissedoff: :highfive:
  13. :thumleft:

    I'll check my diary to make sure I'm not washing my hair :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
  14. The point of not having what is effectively the same trade being delivered at differing standards across the Army is not to dilute any Corps, least of all ours! Nor, as some would have, is it to remove or pass some negative judgement on the RD roster (or say that the Supervisory SNCO/WOs have it all sorted or god given right to pass comment on others). But neither am I so daft as to not bring up other ideas in which we can improve (not only our lot but those that follow us).
    The SQMS/RQMS argument has been around for years and for what it is worth I believe that it should stay with the Corps but the comment raised by Whistler about recalling only 2 storeman making RQ raises questions about what is happening to the storeman trade. Where is it failing to train and bring on soldiers into the better jobs.
    We can all name people who started their time in one trade and may have had to change trade to achieve what they wanted, and have made it though to SNCO/WO and beyond (it is not a trade argument nor is it a RD/Supervisor roster argument) but some trades seem to have a higher % of pers who do not progress on as well as others. Perhaps we have something fundamentally wrong?

    Edited to add"This seems to have taken a different route fm what it started off as…so sorry, but it ain’t just me!”
  15. OK, you got me (you sharp-eyed git) :crying: Sorry!