Supervisory Role amalgamation

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Goodfella, Jul 3, 2004.

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. I've no doubt that this will spark some topical debate. Does anybody have any points or issues to raise concerning this very real threat? What is the future of Yeoman, Foreman, Supvr Radio, Supvr IS???


  2. There have been other threads in this forum where people have claimed that REME want to snaffle the FofS from the Sigs. I s'pose there could be some teensy weensy chance that the REME could take on pure eqpt management responsibility. This could, in theory, let the RSigs supervisory trades (except the DI(SI) chaps) merge into a big superduper technical wizard roster (entitled to wear the Ring of Power, leap tall buildings in a single bound and wear pants outside of trousers a la PT Corps), but it's pretty unlikely.

    Methinks that the IS chaps could possibly become subsumed into one of t'other two. Which one? Me not know - let's wait till Cormorant works and Falcon roles and responsibilities are squared away.
  3. The official line in Blandford from those training the Supvr (IS), FofS and YofS (and yes, they do agree with each other) is that there has to be a certain amount of overlap in the training of the above 3 supervisory employments.

    This wouldo allow 1 of the 3 supervisory trades to be deployed in a supervisory capacity where they have command of other trade groups (FofS with IS Eng or YofS with Tech etc)

    This is how the thinking is going at the moment and talk of the REME taking over certain roles is exactly that.................TALK.

    However, now that the Supvr (IS) are rolling out of Blandford let's see them take over the IS jobs and see how the Supervisor Trades fall into place in the future.
  4. Just get rid of IS as they have been feedin of the scraps left by the Yeoman and Foreman anyway :twisted:

    Who left that claymore there!
  5. Who cares? :roll:
  6. Hear hear. Get rid of all of them, especially me. Just think...6 years gardening leave...
  7. I agree that there has to be some 'overlap' of the supervisory trades in order to provide some continuity across the board, but can anybody see the future of the Yeoman being transferred into the Supvr IS role? Could the Supvr IS take on the frequency management as well as IP management?
  8. In the digital age, with a massive expansion in the number of radios operating in a set area, frequency management becomes a significantly bigger 'thing' than of old. The spectrum is no bigger than it used to be and, while we are using higher and higher segments of it, the trade-off between frequency, bandwidth and range/propagation characteristics is one that can only be managed by people who understand it.

    Your second question is easier to answer: Unless your new radio is going to drive itself to where it's needed, provide itself with power, put up a mast and antenna, generate distribute and fill itself with the right crypto keymat, find itself a selection of frequencies that won't interfere with adjacent radios, connect itself to a local area network, configure audio and data terminals (including allocation of IP addresses across the whole of the network), reconfigure itself to talk on a different net as required, explain (several times) to a staff officer what he has to press to speak to someone then tear everything down when it's time to move, then you're still going to need a radio operator. You're also going to need managers for what ends up as a far more complex system than it used to be. That isn't going to be a major problem within Royal Signals - there are a lot of people (including Yeomen, Foremen, Supervisors IS and Radio) who understand these things. Other arms still have a very substantial learning curve in front of them. Who will help them up it? Well, Royal Signals supervisors and operators will probably be at the front of the queue.....

  9. But are you describing an AS, RS or IS Op?

    My point is radio skills will not be such an important factor in systems coming in. Many of the skills are being built into the systems e.g. selecting the best frequencies, working out the baud rate, etc.
    Like you mention it will be the IT skills that will be needed across all operator trades.
  10. The differences between AS, RS and IS still work for the moment, particularly since we are pretty flexible about the blurring between RS and IS as BOWMAN is introduced to service. In the longer term (say 3+ years), as Cormorant is mature, and we see Falcon entering service and tactical (COMBAT) and operational (JOCS et cetera) IS being integrated in a common IP environment, I can see trade changes being needed. Merging of AS and RS may well be appropriate which, for the older element, takes us back to the Combat Radioman of the 70s and 80s (yes, I remember them). I see no reason for the role of the Yeoman to be in question in the foreseeable future. I suspect we will still need IS specialists, though whether they will be focussed on applications, infrastructure or database management is unclear yet.

    I suggest the key issue is blurring between FofS and Supervisor IS. Much guff is being talked about the role of techs in the BOWMAN era, with all sorts of forecasts that REME will take this over. It's not that simple: surprisingly few members of the Corps are actually involved in repairing Clansman as their core task, and by the time they get to Class 1 virtually no techs are limited to this function, with a range of network skills being required of our techs, with no read across to REME. We expect our FofS to be familiar with information systems in considerable detail, and the end of FofS course project presentations provide evidence of how things have changed - they invariably have a substantial IS component. We need, within the Corps, to think through the implications of this as the environment develops in the next 2 or 3 years.

    Another key question, which I haven't seen raised (though I may have just glossed over it), is where we go with Supervisors Radio. These individuals have enormous potential which we are not exploiting, in part because so few people in the Corps understand what they do. We can use them better and modify their training to make them more widely employable.

    Anyway, there's a few thoughts - interesting thread.

  11. Since they're so good at writing shift rosters, maybe we can transfer them into an RD role as SNCO guard commanders? :wink:

    In some of the DISI units they have roles like heading the Ops Rm, which in other units would be YofS or similar. Clearly we're not exploiting them properly. Maybe it would be useful if the speculation could be cleared up whether they'll eventually move into Int circles like the Tele Op (Ling) did a couple of yrs back - or whether they'll become better integrated into our digitization projects.
  12. Donny...........Supervisor Radio. How are we going to get them out of the DISI click mentality?
  13. Good question, and there are several threads that could be followed. I'll pick up a couple below; others are not for this means. And this is a personal view - I'm not claiming it will happen, nor that I'm sufficiently senior to influence what happens. If you want to disagree then crack on - it doesn't bother me

    I should say from the start that I don't believe you can separate Supvrs Radio from DISI - it's always going to be their prime employment through the bulk of their careers. But some change is already in hand, other changes are being talked about, and some others will come about in the mid to long term, just because we're going through structural developments which you probably already know about.

    Firstly, the story on Spec Ops/Supvrs Radio being moved to the Int Corps is complete tosh. There is absolutely no comparison with linguists, who existed in both Corps before the change, and the only people I've heard proposing it are seniors and LEs from the Int Corps. You're being wound up, guys. I've heard 3 one stars, including our own top man, describing it as a non-starter and a second's thought exposes the reasons for this. If it were ever to reach the point of a serious proposal it would be strongly resisted by the Corps which, I have no doubt whatever, would succeed. So put that one to bed.

    Next, Spec Ops are going to change over the next few years. Soothsayer (open source - and elsewhere) means that our operators are going to develop skills closer to their counterparts in the other 2 services, and this is going to impact on the content of the Supvr Radio Course. Leaving aside the obvious changes in skill sets, Supvrs will have to be a lot more familiar with networks, local and wide area, because this is the basis of Soothsayer. That much is clearly going to happen. Going into the realms of speculation this will lead to a need for the Supvrs course to get longer and include modules currently confined to FofS and YofS course. Deduction? Supvrs Radio will converge to an extent with the other supervisors, which opens opportunities for wider employment at warrant officer and officer level. DPA has been employing a Supvr R warrant officer in what is essentially a grade 3 staff job for the last 4 years - smell the coffee.

    Next, while CBM(L) may be no more than the latest buzzword, aspects of it are going to impact on the balance of skills between YofS, FofS and Sup IS. I believe that the developments in our Supvrs R, including those I've highlighted above, will bring them closer to the mix of skills of the others. That won't produce massive change in postings - most Supvrs R will continue to be employed in the traditional environment - but it opens a door to wider employment for a few, similar to what the Int Corps has done with dark siders. And, most significantly, it means that Tfc Radio officers will be closer to their peers in Tfc, TOT and Tfc(IS) specialisations. I think this is a key point: I don't think a Tfc Radio is going to be an ops officer outside DISI units and 14 anytime soon, but I do think that they will have a claim on a range of staff jobs, operational and in DPA/MOD/DCSA, that they can do just as well as the others.

    Finally, part of the problem has been that the employment of Spec Op/Supvr Radio/Tfc Radio has always been off-limits to most of the Corps. That will change to some extent because of Soothsayer and the developments taking place now in 14 - the wider Corps will see more of what you do. But you've also got to advertise yourselves a little better - part of the press you get is your own fault. So don't find reasons for telling the Corps zilch about what you do, which has certainly happened in the past. Be as open as you can and the rest of the Corps will see that some of you are outstanding, some of you are arrse, and most of you are on a par with the other supervisory rosters.

    That'll do for now. It's what I think - what do you think?

  14. The RSIGNALS core business is CIS, so I reckon that's reason enough for all our DISI buddies to come onboard asap. We, as a Corps, are aiming to go along the information collection > information management > information exploitation > information superiority flow, so perhaps they should get their teeth into hacking. It's a great way of collecting info or even carrying out offensive action against enemy info systems.

    Imagine telling some young spec op that he's going to be trained up as a hacker. Awesome or what? Let's face it, most of them are pale, spotty individuals already, so they're halfway there! :wink:

    Supvr(Radio) gets to re-role as Supvr(Hacking) and spend all day reviewing dodgy websites. Sign me up!

    Before I go off on one... On a different note, for years there have been black economy spec ops in a certain civvy-run establishment who have been in IS jobs. Very 'jobs for the boys' with many of them getting MCSE quals as a result (all paid for by the firm). I must admit to being a wee bit jealous to see all that going on, while I and my team of IS Ops could only dream on. Bugger!