Should Signals Officers hold a Qualification

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by geist, Dec 4, 2005.

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. There has been some bitching on here over the hierarchy not being able to accomplish their job etc etc.

    So do people think that it should be a prerequisite in this day and age and the Professional Organistaion that we are supposed to be that, Officers joining the Signals have a degree or some other qualification. That actually relates to the Signals Role ie in Comms or IT. Rather than having a degree in something obscure and unrelated.

    After all we have all probably come across Officers who do not have the first clue about the technical aspects of the Signals Role :?
  2. Yes but do they need to have any tech knowledge or do they just do HR? You don't need a Beng for that. Thats why you have FofS, YofS, Tfc Offr and ToT's
  3. there biggest role is HR and management, which some are good at one or the other, or both and often none.

    However a basic technical or comms knowledge would be useful so they can understand wtf we are talking about when it all goes t*ts. Although not to much we stil need to be able to blag them when we're completely stumped. :wink:
  4. Didn't the RAF Comms branch require Math, Physics, IT etc Degree for their officiers?

    Seems to be a sensible idea, in civvie street no employer would take on a comms manager if they didn't have the required professional knowledge (and background)
  5. Why do they need a qualification? There are plenty of people out there that have qualifications because they sat an exam, it doesn't mean they still know anything. Conversely, there are plenty out there that know a lot, but have no certificates.

    Are you suggesting they need an education? If so, who are you talking about? I assume you mean troop/squadron commanders? Do you want the Corps to require a qualification to join a la REME? If so, there is a severe danger of under recruiting and only having techie-geeks being recruited. We do not require our soldiers to be qualified prior to joining.

    Signals officers do have an education: their Tp Comd's cse. The question you should be asking is: "are we teaching them enough of the the right thing at the right time?". If that is the question, the answer is probably no. Ultimately, they leave phase 1 training wanting to get hold of their commands and keen to get special-to-arm training out of the way. Unlike many soldier trades, Tp Comds are taught the whole lot, so if they are posted to 3 Div, they still learn Satcom etc etc. The best form of training is sitting in the back of the Wagon, with their lads, learning about everything from BVs to Batteries. Do you really want some weirdo that is an expert on Fresnel Zones and Asynchronous Transfer Mode, but cannot speak to soldiers?

    The reality is, there are not enough good leaders with ready quals. Therefore the Corps aims to recruit those with the potential to learn a demanding subject matter. The willingness of the officer to ingest that matter is a measure of the individual.

    Do you grade the officer against what you know? If so I am sure they all fall short :)
  6. Respect?

    Maybe not a problem at lower levels of the corps but we need people with a serious comms technical background at higher levels, otherwise we'll end up with a load of comms projects that go horribly wrong :twisted: :twisted:
  7. Now then were do you know that from :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
  8. I can see why some projects require managers with technical degrees but do troop commanders? My understanding (limited to a mere fam visit I'm afraid) is that you do get some officers joining with technical degrees and that they then get slotted into technically demanding posts. So you shouldn't have comms projects going horribly wrong for that reason anyway...

  9. Or the projects could get taken over by Jr's and get done properly as they've got the qualifications and know how but don't get the respect! Personally, I think folks upstairs are afraid to ask the help of people from the shop floor!
  10. Having sat on fielding meetings with Signals officers I concur that some technical knowledge of their Corps business would be handy.

    On some meetings nearly every decision was amended by the technical authority (YoS or FoS).

    It’s not professional and slows down business. If meeting/project requires a certain rank they should be technically proficient (no bluffing is not the same).

    Sadly the GJ/4 chain has the same faults both on the Log Sp and ES sides
  11. Guess you've seen both sides :twisted: Myself sitting through a meeting trying hard to prevent the non ICS/CIS officers from putting in their 2p's worth. Then geeks on either side having to translate via project managers to mil officers what we've decided.

    The YofS/FofS/IS Sup system is very good but why not some DE's into the Traffic/TOT path
  12. The TOT path!!!! 8O I'll fix this guys "doosh, doosh........ boom, ops"

  13. Aha, you missed the point - qualifications do not equal 'a serious comms background'.
    What are these 'higher levels'? If you mean Technical Officers within RD, they tend to have tech backgrounds. If you are talking about people within Acquisition, then a general knowledge suffices, as the technical areas are largely civil servant engineers. What is needed in the Acquisition environment is a group of people with knowledge of trade limitations, impact of eqpt on training, military doctrine etc. I agree whole heartedly that comms projects go wrong, and often after input from the people you speak about, but trying to recruit comms engineers simply won't work. Another option is obviously to rely on LE Officers, but that is not a panacea. For those 'higher levels', the Corps does have in-house training (and qualifications) to enable middle ranking officers to go into comms-project type areas with sufficient level of knowledge (a lot of the course is on the same subjects, delivered by the same lecturers and to the same depth as the TOTs course - if it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many TOTs that do it).

    Hell will freeze over before the technical fraternity accept DEs into their midst.
  14. Is that not the same as saying all officers should start at Pte?
  15. This is my point :lol: You are asking 'should signals officers hold a qualification?', when what you mean is 'should we insist that anyone wanting to be a signals officer should be professionally trained, either before or afterwards?.

    By your argument, if you want your officers with serious comms background you only have one choice, either all officers should be LEs, or we should only recruit IT graduates.