The Future?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by IS_Op, Oct 5, 2003.

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. The introduction of Bowman, Cormorant and (Maybe in my career) Falcon is going to twist the arm of the Corps and force us to change our trade structures, I believe in the Corps after next we will find:

    1. A generic "Combat trade" formed of Drivers, Stores Accountants, Linemen, Powermen all highly valued in the workplace and the main source of our RD Seniors in the future.

    2. A "Bearer Provider" generally all the radio bods in this one; RTG's, Radio Ops, Relay Ops and some Systems Ops who may have Satcom Exp! these will be the new feeder trades for our time tested expert and friend the YofS! Still a valuable job. Comms/Frequency/crypto management. A Man Amongst men in Comms Ops!

    3. The "Techies" can't live with them, Cant communicate without them! all our Techs and Tele Mechs/Installation Techs all mixed into a valuable Soup of technical excellence! naturally the feeder trades for the second member of our Ops Team, The FofS!

    4. Finally, the Information Communications Systems "(ICS) Operator". All our new Digital/IS Based Communications systems, due to convergence between computer and radio; will utilise this operator, guilded from the Area Systems Ops, Worthy ADP Specs and existing IS Ops, who will form the feeder trades for the IS Supvr. The third valuable member of the Comms Ops Team.

    Due to the vast difference in skills required on the different Systems we will operate in the future, Basic Comms training will be just that! BASIC. Too much time is wasted on our Class 3's (FACT: 50% of all class 3's never attend a Class 1 Course) individuals who are identified for employment utilising one of the Corps main systems will attend modular courses when required! No blanket training means better use of funds and no Skill fade prior to employment! non effective Class 3's & disillusioned Class 2 tradesmen leaving the Corps; have not been unnecessarily invested in! everyone is happy!!

    Note, there is no place in our Corps for elitism, not at trade or unit level. We are members of the same Team and as such should all remember that! we all need each other to function, learn this and inform your peers of this.

    Gentlemen Comments?
  2. Please Ladies too!
  3. IO..There is a body of opinion here at the college of knowledge that thinks you are in the right ball park There. There is also much work going on in the puzzle palace, up on the hill, where the wee fella from Stranraer runs the show, that seems to be pointing in that general direction though there is some considerable way to go yet. :wink:

    Why should we not call Supvr IS YofS(IS) now? Q at SSgt/WO2, Mr at WO1 why not Yeoman at all ranks? :?:
  4. Would it not be achievable if the Bearer Provider and the Information Communications Systems Operator be one and the same man, is there a real need to divide the skill set, other than to provide longevity for the IS Supervisor role?
    Is each of the roles so diverse that there is a requirement to train two men to achieve in, essence one task?
    Am I correct in thinking that the greater majority of newer communications systems are contracted for maintenance, if this is the case is there a need for a Technician?
    Can I suggest therefore a more robust and flexible future would be a Communications Engineer, which envelops the Bearer Provider, Information Communications Systems Operator and the Technician? This Engineer could specialise in certain fields according to his strengths, and the Corps needs.
    One thing I am very sure of, if this comes to fruition its going to be an intense discussion to decide the name of the Supervisory Appointment of the Communications Engineer!
  5. I would hazard a guess that Yeoman will be kept on as the supervisory title as it has historical connections. However the question will be who feeds this trade. My money will be on the Is Ops with a minor feed from the operator trade (as per the old DTG's) after dual trading.
  6. Chalk N Talk,

    We do not not call the IS boys Yeoman because they are not !

    Just like we do not call the Radio Sup Yeoman bacause he is not also !

    (resisted the urge to say none of them are worthy of the title!) :lol:

    We do not simplify the RD world by making all the WO2 RD appointments Sergeant Majors or all WO1 RSM - so I fail to see your point on this one !

    If you are trying to make the point that is there a possibility of the IS Sup and YofS becoming one beast in the future :?: then I suppose this is not beyond the realms of possibility. However I believe there is a long way to go before that happens.

    I don't suppose the current flock of IS Sups would fancy extending their massive 9 week course to over a year for their 10 grand now would they !
  7. I agree entirely with the above comments. At the moment some YofS may cringe at the thought of the IS bod holding this prestigious title, (See Yosser above). It is not surprising and in fact understandable, after reading some threads to see where the wrong perceptions could be acquired.

    The credibility and value of the IS Supvr commodity is on the way up, there is a silent majority of professional individuals who will eventually be more prominent flying the flag.

    It could be that in the future, the appointment of Supervisor IS may well be buried, but the developing skills and the managers possessing these skills will not. It may become difficult to justify the current appointments and I personally believe they will be merged (I give it 6 Years).

    Until such time, the Corps needs all the current appointments to facilitate a smooth transition through the coming years. We must ensure that they all possess and reflect the same high standard no matter what they call themselves. We are in danger of getting entrenched in order to defend each appointment and status. Seeing as though the jobs have continually changed since whenever, are our concerns warranted or just brought about through sentimentality.

    The length of the course continues to be a bit of a "Red Herring". As much as there is always scope to fill the Supvr Cse with extra training, if we are honest, there is probably a lot of unnecessary training on the Yeomans course, if this is not clearly identifiable at the moment it will be in the future.

    Yeomans should'nt use the length of his/her course to measure the value of their appointment (unless they are also saying that they are 2nd to the Foreman). The measure is more likely to be all the other management hurdles they have thrown themselves through in order to "earn" the prestigious title. And it wasn't necessarily the umpteen months in Blandford which gave them those facets.

  8. I would look at the argument from 2 seperate angles; first the commisioning path for Tech, Operators and IS Ops - I think its generally the officer corps that have greatest sway which direction we take (usually starts with comments like "I have a vision...") If the officer corps start to make changes in their structure I would imagine we would follow suite.

    Secondly, not all Yeoman are the same - there is much banter about Radio Yeoman and Systems Yeoman - In theory this isn't the case for IS Supvrs who will in my opinion hold sway im much greater numbers in 2-4 years time.

    We all need to work together on this or it will bite us in the Arrse. IS_Ops comments below make sense to me - the Corps works well when we all pull in the same direction. I enjoy being a yosser but I spend enough time in front of a PC, I don't need to do it all do every day. Good luck to the IS Ops - it makes sense for them to have a full career path into managment - otherwise what incentive would they have to continue.
  9. Mafioso Wrote:

    Good points and well made Mafioso. The incentive to continue is i think improving. Once the goal posts stop changing and the structure of the trade is fully and successfully in place, the future will be much clearer for the IS Op.

    Although i would never rule out the merging of the YofS and the IS Sup, i think we are a very long way from it. With a digital battlefield the differences between the Yeoman and the IS Supervisor will decrease over time, but it is always a slow process.

    I made a personal choice to leave the Pot YofS roster to become an IS Operator, thats what i wanted to be. I believe that to be a good IS Op and progress up to the Supervisor level you need to be dedicated and gain much experience, most of which needs to be done in your own time. I dont like the thought that while i commit myself to this, i will be expected to go back to square one and learn another extremely complex set of skills to take on the responsibilities of the Yeoman. My past service in the Corps would put me at a disadvantage, god knows what an ex AGC who transfered into the IS Roster at SSgt would make of being a Yeoman!

    This idea would have to be something that evolves over a great deal of time.

  10. Until the IS Op trade structure is complete (Cls3 to Cls1 and onto Supvr) there is no point trying to mix them and the YofS into one person. As Boney_m said there are still alot of people in the roster that are from other corps, these people in my opinion do not have what it takes to carry the mantle of Yeoman!
  11. 749

    749 Old-Salt

    as the new equipment rolls out it WILL be under manufacturer contract repair for some time to come and so I guess the techie will become a dying trade
    The operator maintainer will have to come into existence and he/she will be capable of doing the first line repair (take out knackered kit for the contractor to fix)
    The installation techie will have as much work to do but I feel some of his work is not beyond the realms of an IS Op to do.
    A well-rounded multi skilled individual who could do many of these jobs would be a tradesman worth having.
    Techies already have to learn how to use the kit before they are taught how to fix it, why not extend this the other way to give the operator a bit more knowledge, if nothing else it would stop 1045s with the immortal line "INSPECT AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY" !!
  12. Agreed...the Supvr IS course is probably too short. However consider the extensive retraining that Pot YofS do before the course. Contrast that with IS Op SSgts who (in most cases) don't need so much refresher trade training before embarking upon management training. Also consider the current batch of Pot Supvr IS folks @ RSS - they are almost all SSgts and have (I think) more SNCO management experience under their belts than the current YofS guys and girls. I'm not being flippant, just stating a fact - though I think that when they start taking mostly Sgts on the course and int/exval is looked at then it should be longer.

    I don't mean to be deliberately unfair and I'm probably grossly oversimplifying the situation but isn't it the case that a fair part of the YofS course is going back over core skills e.g. weeks and weeks or Radio group for the folks who haven't done it before? Basically operator training isn't it? 8)

  13. While the first phase of the YofS course is a re-trade (e.g all sys ops learn the radio trade and vice versa) the potential YofS do not re-learn any part of the trade they are allready qualified in.
    Once the re-trade is complete and the course starts (Proper) all the information and training is new, with the exception of confirming that they are up to the required high standards in certain subjects, i.e crypto etc.
    So to try and compare the CIS Supervisor and Yeomans course would be stupid.
  14. There isn't that much difference between the two course, yes length, yes some systems. But as prev stated the current Sup IS comes from a varied background and I think he/she would have no problems filling the YofS boots.
  15. Don't think YofS is ready to fill IS(Supvr) boots or vice versa today. Fact remians YofS is learning IS role out there in the field and RSS has taken the first steps in teaching IS(supvr) some of the YofS skills. The latter will be developed further. Stand by to see the IS (Supvr) receiving overview training on the transmission layer on future courses.....yes it is going to get longer. We will directly recruit IS Engrs from April 2004 the first of the class three courses will be delivered in Oct 04 this roster is at last becoming legitimised.
    I find the best way to deal with a train speeding towards you is to flag it down and get on or stay out of the way...... it hurts so much when you ignore it and get run over :!:
    Mafioso rank and file take note and think about inclusivity as opposed to it or not your future is inextricably linked with IS Engineers :roll: