TA RSigs Supervisory Appointments, are they needed?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by polar, Jun 12, 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. Well are they? Is problems with manning leading people to think they aren't needed?

    Is the current structure of of date, should 2 (NC) Sig Bde adopt 12 Sig Grp structure and only have 2 TA Supervisors per regiment (after all we've got 1 YofS per 2 dets at the mo). Maybe we should have 1 training YofS and 1 operational YofS, possibly Sqns without a BCS role should loose YofS from their ORBAT.
    Maybe the current structure is all wrong, we don't need TA FofS or YofS, we need someone technical understanding IT issues and managing them, Signals is so last year?

    Or should we take the bullet, the regular YofS, FofS and SPSI's can all cover the TA Supervisors jobs and so they should be binned.

    I've a feeling a mixture of the above is true and truth be known its down to Bde ORBAT, several Bdes need TA Supervisors - just 12 Sig Grp and 2 (NC) Sig Bde don't
     
  2. You'll be lucky to have any kit soon, let alone worry about numbers of 'advisors'
     
  3. Found a Bde with the kit, I believe one officer asked for a transfer last night.

    Maybe I should have quoted 'something' directly

     
  4. IMHO,
    The binning of TA Supervisory Posts would be a very, very bad thing for several reasons.

    The Supervisory Appointments are the Communications Engineering Advisors to the Head Shed - many of whom are not often technically up to speed. Most TA Supervisory Appointments are held by guys who have similar posts (often very highly qualified and experienced) in their Civvy jobs and bring a superb amount of their civvy skills to the party - for free.


    For folk in 2 (NC) Sig Bde I think this is really important for UK Ops and with the amount of COTS kit (OSCA, SYNERGY etc) floating about on modern Expedionary Ops, it is another area where civvy skills come in very useful to our regular colleagues.

    It also gives a retention positive pull for guys who want to achive these important posts within their TA career.

    I guess I'm lucky in working with a superbly capable TA YofS (well, he makes me look good), who has the trust and respect of the Regular YofS. It makes a huge difference to the efficiency of the regiment.

    Is cost driving this? Or is this kite flying?

    (edited for idle gramar)
     
  5. COS 1 SB

    can you explain a little more what you mean
    you can PM me with it if you require

    cheers watto
     
  6. I hope its kite flying. Your correct, supervisory posts are something to aim for, truth be known I still have sights set on the FofS slot (wrong technical background - I'm IT not networks/electrical).

    Yes many may rely on civvy skills but their is a fair number that don't, quite a few are stuck in the TG/COMMCEN age. They lack the grounding in modern ICS that prevents them managing modern ICS.

    That I believe is the problem, no effort has been made to keep supervisors updated. Look at the introduction of BOWMAN, I've not seen any plan to train a supervisor to the required standard- The attitude seems to be Am I bothered
     
  7. watto, 3 Signal Regiments are too loose all their comms kit. It will be replaced by nothing, the cost to give them FALCON is currently too high.

    Guess it was cheaper to form new regular signal regiments
     
  8. Firstly once gone probably very hard to recover so keep them.

    Secondly, what would happen in an all out war and all TA (including Yoemanry) were called up. Who would then do this. Certainly the bulk of the regular Supervisors would be recalled to regular units or to new units.

    If the TA are to deploy as regiments they need to be able to stand alone, Regulars are their on secondment to teach and advise not to deploy with in wartime.