Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)

[buzgo]

c_canuk is correct. We haven't made divisions based on intelligence at all, we've just given the people that were already doing the 'IST' job a career path. Back in the day we in the IS jobs were constantly threatened with moves to the RRB or into some other non-IT job. It typically didn't happen, because they needed people to run the increasingly complex systems (FDNet, then ATS, then LCSS).

You also need to remember that our soldiers don't reach their occupational functional point (OFP) until they are DP2 Cpls, and in reality 2.1 qualified. So the DP1.1 ISS is taught networking and then should go and use that knowledge while gaining new skills and knowledge to prepare them to complete their apprentice level training at the 2.1 level. At this point they are qualified and can function more-or-less across the spectrum of the JBS identified IST roles.

The CST comments are interesting - LCIS227 I understand what you are saying about the legacy LCIS techs moving out of the MCpl positions. Here is the thing though - the technology that we are using has changed significantly and the jobs have also changed - we need to get away from comparing apples and oranges and focus on what the actual validated requirements are for CSTs, not just the gut feel that POET produced a better tech.

So - is the ACISS model really valid anymore? Do we really give the DP1 qualified soldier the exposure needed to select a sub-occupation? Could we use a beefed up DP1.0 course to do the same thing and then allow them to identify their preferences while still on course at the school?

 

[PuckChaser]

We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).

 

[c_canuk]

We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).

This I like

 

[Brasidas]

We tried to remove stovepipes by making stovepipes in stovepipes. If we canned ACISS, and went to SigOp, CST, IST and LST as complete, separate trades (like they are anyways, you need to VOT between), then we could beef up DP1/2 training for all Occs, even if the Branch wanted to ensure commonality in some of the training (modular DP1.0/2.0 for det routine perhaps).

No longer having to train a tech as a sig op and then a sig op det commander would certainly be a step forward.

 

[buzgo]

How about a common DP1 so everyone wearing a Signals capbadge is able to at least operate/troubleshoot tactical radios, understand the fundamentals of TCP/IP networking and be able to provide 1st level IT helpdesk support. From my experience, the Infantry Capt/MWO doesn't care what sub-occ you are, they just know that you're the Sig and you'd better be able to have some baseline ability to fix their immediate comms issue.

After DP1 the occupations would do their own thing, we need a name for core, I'll use CIS Op. So CIS Op, LST, IST, CST will follow their own career path and DP courses up to 3.1.

The next common course would be DP4.0 Signals Common, to train personnel to work as Troop WO, in any environment they are employed in (Army, Purple, whatever). There would be an Army flavour to it, the Sgts/WOs on this course will have to adapt what they've learned to their own circumstances.

This is followed with an occupation based 4.1 course. Finally a revised ASP that will be for those selected for employment as senior advisors / planners. The Wisemen positions should be competitive and there needs to be a selection mechanism for this.

There is likely room for a senior level program (hmm CISTM?) that involves some higher education - University level courses similar to the UK FoS and FoS (IS) perhaps.

 

[c_canuk]

Are you being sarcastic?

Because that was the intent of MES in the first place. In reality these "sub Occs" are completely different unrelated AORs who's only common thread is that they utilize signalers and technology to communicate.

I think that attitude you are seeing is a product of the propaganda of ACISS stating that they do create a functional jack of all trades sig.

The reason it doesn't work is because it's the same idea as creating a common Log Course to cross train Adm Clerks, Fin Clerks, Supply Techs and Traffic Techs to a common functional standard cause Infantry Capt doesn't care what sub occ they are, they wear a Log Cap badge and better be able to solve his logistical problem.

There is too much to cover for a common course to create a functional jack of all trades member. So we get someone with a smattering of everything who is functionally useless until the unit trains them themselves. The point of having different trades is to provide a manageable chunk of AOR that can be taught in a manner to provide functional det members.

MES was the idea that what we do wasn't so hard and we could all cross train to a basic level. Reality met that assumption and smashed it to pieces.

Now we need to accept the lesson learned, adapt, and move on.

You can't expect people to learn how to do basic line, basic comm suite operations, basic hardware maint and basic server/infrastructure config in the time it took to teach people just one of those things.

So we need to pick one of the following COAs:

1) Accept that we're getting people not much more functional than DP 1 grads as "trained" ACISS and fund unit trg to fill the gaps;
2) Separate the trades so that DP 1.1 will actually turn out someone who can start working at a decently functional level; or
3) Make DP1.1 a 4 times longer and accept that 75% of it will be wasted through skills fade once posted to a unit and they fill one of those roles.

In my opinion, MES was an attempt to break this fundamental rule - Good/Fast/Cheap - pick two.

This has worked out about as well as could be expected.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Are you being sarcastic?

Because that was the intent of MES in the first place. In reality these "sub Occs" are completely different unrelated AORs who's only common thread is that they utilize signalers and technology to communicate.

I think that attitude you are seeing is a product of the propaganda of ACISS stating that they do create a functional jack of all trades sig.

The reason it doesn't work is because it's the same idea as creating a common Log Course to cross train Adm Clerks, Fin Clerks, Supply Techs and Traffic Techs to a common functional standard cause Infantry Capt doesn't care what sub occ they are, they wear a Log Cap badge and better be able to solve his logistical problem.

There is too much to cover for a common course to create a functional jack of all trades member. So we get someone with a smattering of everything who is functionally useless until the unit trains them themselves. The point of having different trades is to provide a manageable chunk of AOR that can be taught in a manner to provide functional det members.

MES was the idea that what we do wasn't so hard and we could all cross train to a basic level. Reality met that assumption and smashed it to pieces.

Now we need to accept the lesson learned, adapt, and move on.

You can't expect people to learn how to do basic line, basic comm suite operations, basic hardware maint and basic server/infrastructure config in the time it took to teach people just one of those things.

So we need to pick one of the following COAs:

1) Accept that we're getting people not much more functional than DP 1 grads as "trained" ACISS and fund unit trg to fill the gaps;
2) Separate the trades so that DP 1.1 will actually turn out someone who can start working at a decently functional level; or
3) Make DP1.1 a 4 times longer and accept that 75% of it will be wasted through skills fade once posted to a unit and they fill one of those roles.

In my opinion, MES was an attempt to break this fundamental rule - Good/Fast/Cheap - pick two.

This has worked out about as well as could be expected.

I also think splitting the sub-occs back into trades will salvage the good that came of ACISS while solving some of the bad.

 

[buzgo]

Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.

After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.

MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?

 

[c_canuk]

(I've apparently got my DP numbers out of wack, is BMQ/SQ DP0? I was under the impression the X.1s were trade and the X.0s were common army.)

Based on what you're written, you've defined what a basic ACISS pre specialization should be able to do, sure.

But once you put that person into an entry level CST, LST, or IST position, they are useless. Once you've trained an IST, CST, LST to do the first level of specialization, they've been away from basic ACISS work so long that if you put them back, they would also be useless. So basically, it just slows the process of training functional techs, which is the opposite of what MES is supposed to do.

Functionally we're working as 4 separate trades.

The only difference is that have trades listed as sub occs and have a common intro course. The first is semantics, the second is a waste of resources for those not destined to be ACISS.

Sure pie in the sky we'd be swapping around sub occs at a whim and would need a common core, but in reality, that's not possible. LST, CST and IST do not draw from core principals of ACISS so focusing on ACCIS as the back bone doesn’t make any sense. That time should be used to provide functional skills.


Edit: Spelling

 

[Brasidas]

Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.

After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.

MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?

Explain to me why you would train a tech to be crappy sig op, or a tech sgt to be a crappy sig tp wo? The Infantry MWO or Capt might see the cap badge and make assumptions, but they also don't know a clerk from a driver by cap badge. So what?

When a tech got flown in to set up a piece of kit on a 2 day tasking and someone didn't book his flight home, I ended up with him as a relief operator for a month on ex. Good guy, and he took it well, but he was effectively a well-paid QL2 private for the month. A motivated, hardworking waste of an asset.

I see no more justification here than training clerks as truckers. Set discrete, rational AoRs and be done with it.

MES tried to sell a system that wasn't going to work, period. We still train techs as QL5 Sig Ops, which is ridiculous.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Definitely not being sarcastic. We need to redefine what we expect a Signaller to be able to do as a DP1, and they should all be able to do the same things to a basic level. Operate a radio. Troubleshoot a computer or printer in a TOC. Erect a mast. Load crypto.

After that - it becomes too complex to have any common training. We try to tell ourselves that a det commander/section commander common course makes sense. It doesn't - the common part is delivered on the GS courses, we can put a sub-occupation flavour into the .1 courses.

MES tried to sell a system where you would be able to move back and forth throughout your career, and where everyone (except what we call CORE) would be trained as an ACISS first and a specialst second. Initially there were no x.1 courses for Core, and they have since been added which means that Core is also a sub-occupation, right?

They are functionally seperate trades. Yes all of them should know how to use a radio or load crypto, but that's no different from the infantry communicator's course.

The roles and responsibilties need to be better divided (ie, Switches/Routers need to be assigned (IMO, to the ISTs), Help Desk responsibilties need to be assigned (IMO, to the core) CSTs should, IMO, get back to the fundimentals of being a technician, and should do POET once again, it seems they just decieded the army didn't need that skillset anymore.

Once the arcs of fire are given, make them different trades.

 

[JBP]

They are functionally seperate trades. Yes all of them should know how to use a radio or load crypto, but that's no different from the infantry communicator's course.

The roles and responsibilties need to be better divided (ie, Switches/Routers need to be assigned (IMO, to the ISTs), Help Desk responsibilties need to be assigned (IMO, to the core) CSTs should, IMO, get back to the fundimentals of being a technician, and should do POET once again, it seems they just decieded the army didn't need that skillset anymore.

Once the arcs of fire are given, make them different trades.

I agree 100%

*Stands on soap box*

The trades should all be separated for some of the aforementioned reasons. Especially due to taking switched-on people and making them do a job they don't even want to do. EG> Guy who wants to be IST and is manning an RRB. As a guy who started off a 1 HQ & Sigs when we were all still separate trades... I can relate as I've lived and suffered and grown through the MES transition. I officially became an "IST" 1 Oct 2011 in KAF. While manning the LCSS installation there and preparing to rip it out at the end of the tour. I was already doing that job since Feb 2008 when I showed up at 1 Sigs.

I had almost every IT course from CFSCE offered plus civilian training, and I was a switched on nerd as people have mentioned. Had someone told me I would ever go back to manning a radio, I would have put in my release instantly.

You all know we have a retention problem in general right? Never mind that IST is suffering the most. It's no surprise to all the IST's whom are left why we don't have enough!!! They're stuck! Even all the guys IN my Troop are stuck at the 1.1 level or some other version of training and still labelled as 'Core'. We need to adapt more to the other modern armies around the world and make IT a separate trade altogether. Civilian guy who walks in off the street to college goes in to be a network/server/IT guy... 2 years later, walks out and gets a basic helpdesk job probably or junior system administrator job... He doesn't start applying for jobs like radio dispatcher, 911 operator, call center guy or a plethora of other related comms jobs. If he'd wanted to DO those jobs he would have applied for them, trained for them and gunned for it!

I know several people whom have wanted to transfer from other trades to IST, CST etc... And wouldn't because they know they'll be thrown into the sausage factory of ACISS and know they may not even get the job they want.

It's broken - end it. Adapt and overcome.

CFSCE training BTW seems to be adapting VERY quickly in the past couple years, especially with the restrained budget. I so far have been impressed with IST 2.1 level guys once they've gotten trained. The crappy part is how often they DO NOT run the courses...

All the old war dogs who claim that "Sig Ops" ran the networks before there were ISTs... Open your EYES! Yes, we were Sig Ops... I was one! Do you know the last time I touched a radio? On my QL3... Then QL5 when they booted me OFF the radio as C/S 0 for the ex demanding to know what the hell I did at the Brigade all day! SERVERS AND NETWORKS. Not radios. None of the people who 'ran' the networks back then touched radios either. Sure, ok, maybe a few switched on guys from 2002-2005 were the awesomesauce Sig Op who could do it all if you needed him too. The army has gotten lucky with switched on guys for years... "Strategic" corporals who have kicked ass and ran entire field-deployable networks.

I'd take it a step further and quell all the BS about Core doing the Helpdesk jobs as well. I think it's just Core's way of attempting job protection. WHY would a guy who is going to man a radio need to work in a helpdesk? Ever? Every core guy I know who has worked in a helpdesk hates it. Or, at the very least thinks it's a joke. I had to SHOVE Pte's/Cpls out the door on Op Impact to get them to do physical troubleshooting on a live network! BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IST. They just wanted the 'cushy' spot on tour.

Helpdesk should also be IST. It would be where we'd have the 1.1 and would-be IST doing the hands on, dirty work. Figuring out how to help a user backup their mailbox or make a PST, figuring out why the computer suddenly lost a network connection (Cable was connected - but too dusty!), why a COTS *Classified* computer tower was BSOD (Blue screen of death) continuously (Loose RAM DIMM).... Or, why this Officer can't reach the Sharepoint page (Group policies haven't been applied and a corrupt profile!).... There is so much experience that can be gained at that level. It shouldn't be wasted on anyone who isn't going to BE AN IST!

Everyone used to say, "Oh, you're so smart you figured this out... No wonder you're an IST!"... No... I'm not... I'm an idiot. I'm really good at troubleshooting, emulating success (google) and thinking my way around problems. I'll say I guess I'm slightly higher intelligence than normal. Just way better at troubleshooting than most.

The army will ALWAYS need Core people and core type positions. Some Core pers are worth their weight in gold - especially to a Coy on the move! IST doesn't need core. Two different jobs in two different realms. Do you know who sets up the tents for our use on ex where I work? Our own Troop does. Do you know who fixes the broken drash after an ex? Our Troop. That's at CFJSR. In 1 Sigs before I left there a few years ago, who setup and then manned the mobile server LS? Our Troop (At the time C Tp).... I'm sure they still do. We don't need Core to hold our hand and show us how to setup tents, and we would suck HORRIBLY talking on a radio... So let us be separated and delve into our chosen and/or preordained career paths!

You'll get better people in every trade...

Take that from someone who has been on multiple EX + OP deployments both before (Op Athena) and recently (Op Impact and many others!).

PS> Haters gonna hate - throw cake.
PPS> This is my personal opinion, based on my own experiences since I've been Reg Force. Other salty as f*ck IST may vary!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

*slow clap*  that was beautiful Joe.  :'(  ;D

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I agree 100%

*Stands on soap box*

The trades should all be separated for some of the aforementioned reasons. Especially due to taking switched-on people and making them do a job they don't even want to do. EG> Guy who wants to be IST and is manning an RRB. As a guy who started off a 1 HQ & Sigs when we were all still separate trades... I can relate as I've lived and suffered and grown through the MES transition. I officially became an "IST" 1 Oct 2011 in KAF. While manning the LCSS installation there and preparing to rip it out at the end of the tour. I was already doing that job since Feb 2008 when I showed up at 1 Sigs.

I had almost every IT course from CFSCE offered plus civilian training, and I was a switched on nerd as people have mentioned. Had someone told me I would ever go back to manning a radio, I would have put in my release instantly.

You all know we have a retention problem in general right? Never mind that IST is suffering the most. It's no surprise to all the IST's whom are left why we don't have enough!!! They're stuck! Even all the guys IN my Troop are stuck at the 1.1 level or some other version of training and still labelled as 'Core'. We need to adapt more to the other modern armies around the world and make IT a separate trade altogether. Civilian guy who walks in off the street to college goes in to be a network/server/IT guy... 2 years later, walks out and gets a basic helpdesk job probably or junior system administrator job... He doesn't start applying for jobs like radio dispatcher, 911 operator, call center guy or a plethora of other related comms jobs. If he'd wanted to DO those jobs he would have applied for them, trained for them and gunned for it!

I know several people whom have wanted to transfer from other trades to IST, CST etc... And wouldn't because they know they'll be thrown into the sausage factory of ACISS and know they may not even get the job they want.

It's broken - end it. Adapt and overcome.

CFSCE training BTW seems to be adapting VERY quickly in the past couple years, especially with the restrained budget. I so far have been impressed with IST 2.1 level guys once they've gotten trained. The crappy part is how often they DO NOT run the courses...

All the old war dogs who claim that "Sig Ops" ran the networks before there were ISTs... Open your EYES! Yes, we were Sig Ops... I was one! Do you know the last time I touched a radio? On my QL3... Then QL5 when they booted me OFF the radio as C/S 0 for the ex demanding to know what the hell I did at the Brigade all day! SERVERS AND NETWORKS. Not radios. None of the people who 'ran' the networks back then touched radios either. Sure, ok, maybe a few switched on guys from 2002-2005 were the awesomesauce Sig Op who could do it all if you needed him too. The army has gotten lucky with switched on guys for years... "Strategic" corporals who have kicked *** and ran entire field-deployable networks.

I'd take it a step further and quell all the BS about Core doing the Helpdesk jobs as well. I think it's just Core's way of attempting job protection. WHY would a guy who is going to man a radio need to work in a helpdesk? Ever? Every core guy I know who has worked in a helpdesk hates it. Or, at the very least thinks it's a joke. I had to SHOVE Pte's/Cpls out the door on Op Impact to get them to do physical troubleshooting on a live network! BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IST. They just wanted the 'cushy' spot on tour.

Helpdesk should also be IST. It would be where we'd have the 1.1 and would-be IST doing the hands on, dirty work. Figuring out how to help a user backup their mailbox or make a PST, figuring out why the computer suddenly lost a network connection (Cable was connected - but too dusty!), why a COTS *Classified* computer tower was BSOD (Blue screen of death) continuously (Loose RAM DIMM).... Or, why this Officer can't reach the Sharepoint page (Group policies haven't been applied and a corrupt profile!).... There is so much experience that can be gained at that level. It shouldn't be wasted on anyone who isn't going to BE AN IST!

Everyone used to say, "Oh, you're so smart you figured this out... No wonder you're an IST!"... No... I'm not... I'm an idiot. I'm really good at troubleshooting, emulating success (google) and thinking my way around problems. I'll say I guess I'm slightly higher intelligence than normal. Just way better at troubleshooting than most.

The army will ALWAYS need Core people and core type positions. Some Core pers are worth their weight in gold - especially to a Coy on the move! IST doesn't need core. Two different jobs in two different realms. Do you know who sets up the tents for our use on ex where I work? Our own Troop does. Do you know who fixes the broken drash after an ex? Our Troop. That's at CFJSR. In 1 Sigs before I left there a few years ago, who setup and then manned the mobile server LS? Our Troop (At the time C Tp).... I'm sure they still do. We don't need Core to hold our hand and show us how to setup tents, and we would suck HORRIBLY talking on a radio... So let us be separated and delve into our chosen and/or preordained career paths!

You'll get better people in every trade...

Take that from someone who has been on multiple EX + OP deployments both before (Op Athena) and recently (Op Impact and many others!).

PS> Haters gonna hate - throw cake.
PPS> This is my personal opinion, based on my own experiences since I've been Reg Force. Other salty as **** IST may vary!

I agree 90% of what you said. I still think that Core should be handling the help desk. My issue is the lack of ISTs. I could use 2 more ISTs for every 1 we get. Can IST do help desk roles? Yes. Can a Core do 95% or more of the work in a help desk? Yes. For everything else, there's 2nd line.

Part of the problem is IST have carved out a valuable part of the Army world for themselves, where as Core seems to hold onto the Radio role but are coming to terms with the fact that while Tac Rad is of critical importance, it's not enough to gainfully employ everyone. Unless you want to consider setting up mod, tables, chairs and concertina gainful employment for a 2.0 (or now, a DP2.1) qualified ACISS Core.

But it's no doubt, IST should have been, and still should be its own trade. Just as Linemen and CST (read LCIS) techs should have stayed as separate trades.

It might ruffle a few feathers, but honestly the quality of Line Techs has gone down in my opinion. When they had their own trade and were allowed to run themselves as they wanted they were more professional and competent tradesmen. Since the Sig Ops took it over they've done damage to the line trade (I say this as a former Sig Op).

CST I have less exposure to, but from what I hear and talking to my CST friends, the technicians today aren't up to the same standard that the old LCIS training made them.

Even Core, which is near and dear to my heart as I started off as a Rad Op and still hold an amateur radio operator's license, their knowledge of radio, electrical and antenna theory isn't the same quality as those coming off the QL3 years ago. Even the Rad CP Det skills aren't the same.

 

[PuckChaser]

By trying to make a jack of all trades, we've dumbed down the training so we've getting max supervision soldiers out of CFSCE. Part of this started happening before MES, when we wanted more and more pumped out of the school, so the quality dropped.

With CISTM's demise, it seems like the current Branch leadership is taking issues to heart and sorting some things out. I think a lot more will get changed within the next 5 years, and a lot more will get changed when those MCpl/Sgt/WOs who went through this whole MES gongshow get into leadership positions and have the pull and "ground truth" experience to sort things out.

 

[Untamed Spyder]

Hey!

I was wondering if I could know if there are any currently employed Army Communication and Information Specialists. I have a few questions and would be great if some of you guys could help me out!

Thank you!

 

[Sig_Des]

Hey!

I was wondering if I could know if there are any currently employed Army Communication and Information Specialists. I have a few questions and would be great if some of you guys could help me out!

Thank you!

Quite a few of us in fact. You may want to peruse some of the threads in the C & E forum here, as someone may have asked the same questions before:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/board,46.0.html

 

[lwalters]

I had a quick question about the service term for ACISS what is the regular contract length they offer you?

I tried looking on https://army.ca/wiki/index.php/MOSID_and_MOC  and couldn't see it.(unless i'm missing something)

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[211RadOp]

The list does not show the new trade, but the legacy trades. VIE is 4 years.

 

[lwalters]

Thank you for the fast reply  :nod: