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

[technophile]

thanks for posting the letter.

My intent above was to say the "delay" wasn't with the release of the letter, it was the review of the pay.

This has been a long and very frustrating road, with every update giving hope a solution is within reach.

It reminds me of the long range forecast.  13 days of -20 but the 14th day +1.
That 14th day is always 2 weeks away !

 

[PuckChaser]

I guess comm rsch is happy, they'll keep spec until 16/17. [emoji2]

With the demise of CISTM, it appears that 50% of MES was a failure. I'm not completely sold on the utility of IST, but it seems like we're slowly heading back to what we had before, just with a new trade.

 

[meni0n]

What is the Comm Rsch MES IP? First time I hear of this..

 

[PuckChaser]

Same process that created ACISS. I believe every trade may have to go through it in the future. Stands for military employment structure implementation plan.

 

[meni0n]

But since it's already been done and just has to be implemented, you would think the CoC would inform the members of what is happening. I think the only mention we heard about this is when the ssm in 2014 came out and said no more promotions for the next few years because we're cutting positions.

 

[PuckChaser]

You would think that, but my experience is that the signals world has a tough time communicating, comm rsch within that is even worse.

 

[Jom]

Overall, do you think the new Sigs Amalgamation will end up good or bad in 5 years time from Jan 2011? (Implementation timeframe)
Great

14 (6.7%)Good

39 (18.7%)Won't make much of a TRUE difference to the Sigs world, just different names!

77 (36.8%)Bad

37 (17.7%)Horribad!

42 (20.1%)
Total Members Voted: 205

so i just noticed that it has been 5 years now, does everyone stand by their vote? how do you think the trades are doing now after 5 years? and what's going on with the blue berets?

 

[c_canuk]

You would think that, but my experience is that the signals world has a tough time communicating, comm rsch within that is even worse.

Some business management metrics view a lack of communication as a grave indicator of toxic leadership...

 

[c_canuk]

this comic made me think of ACISS for some reason

 

[PuckChaser]

Almost perfectly relates to the Branch today.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I guess comm rsch is happy, they'll keep spec until 16/17. [emoji2]

With the demise of CISTM, it appears that 50% of MES was a failure. I'm not completely sold on the utility of IST, but it seems like we're slowly heading back to what we had before, just with a new trade.

Not sold on the utility of IST?

IST is the one good thing that came out of the whole trade smauzzle. Having one concentrated trade to do all the server and networking is a great thing, and frankly, is where the focus for signals is gravitating to. This whole "IT" thing seems to be more than a fad. Regardless of how "sold" you are on it.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm not sold on needing IST when those networking and IP addressing skills are going to be required by your standard Core "RadOp" in the next 5-10 years. Tactical radios are increasingly just expensive VOIP systems. You're not going to have an IST pushed down to the Coy level, and I'm willing to bet they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the skills from the old Data Comm course only in the IST fold. There's already a massive deficit in the Cpl level of the IST trade, how many people want to sign up to work in a non-spec subocc, with next to no possibility of promotion because it's so top heavy? Those that pick IST are doing it because they want computer work, not field work. You start putting them in rad dets, they start putting VOTs into ATIS.

 

[buzgo]

Interesting.

You are correct, knowledge of TCP/IP and some networking will be required by the ACISS core (the entire ACISS occupation really), much sooner than 5 - 10 years. They will also have to pick us some system management skills because they will likely be responsible for managing the LCSS mobile systems fielding next year. This training is about 5 years late in coming but it is coming and it is a good thing.

IST is a different beast altogether - the level of knowledge and proficiency is not easily transferred to the ACISS core and the level of complexity of the systems ISTs are responsible for is increasing exponentially. You are correct that you won't see an IST normally working at the Coy level but I wouldn't be surprised to see an MRT composed of CST and IST pers working to maintain systems in A fleet vehicles. You will definitely see ISTs working at the BG HQ and of course Bde HQ as well as the 50%+ of the jobs that actually lie outside of the 3 brigades.

Data comms - there is no 'old' data comms course. It is still alive and still kicking. There is no requirement for ACISS core to go on the course - if you want to do that then OT to ATIS or switch to CST. Current generation ISTs are getting the content split between the 1.1 and 2.1 course.

Ref IST being top heavy. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. The IST positions were not created properly in the lead up to 2011 and there is a process underway to redistribute positions from CST and Core to IST.

 

[PuckChaser]

Top heavy in the sense that MCpl+ is almost 100% PML, while Cpl/Pte is ~50%. Not specifically about the structure, but that's a whole lot of people a new Cpl is going to have to wait in line behind to get promoted.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Top heavy in the sense that MCpl+ is almost 100% PML, while Cpl/Pte is ~50%. Not specifically about the structure, but that's a whole lot of people a new Cpl is going to have to wait in line behind to get promoted.

There's alot of promotions happening in IST this year. With CISTM being canned, IST has no solution other than promoting since it's the only trade that didn't have SNCOs before (CST having LCIS, LST having line and Core having Sig Op). The next few years there will continue to be alot of promotions and short time in rank until they can establish the senior ranks of the sub occ.

And there's alot more to the IST trade than basic level networking. All the national level systems and servers, Data storage/backup and archiving, C2 Gateways, core networking, and LCSS server/workstation management. 

Less than 25% of what the trade does is actually covered in the training, and what the training does cover seems to lag behind what the job requires, though the training has come leaps and bounds from where it started.

The trade itself has alot of fleshing out of responsibilities to do. From my perspective, Core has alot of ground to take that is being covered by mostly IST and CST now. Since the trade implementation the Core has been treated like they went from a Signals expert back to a radio operator. There's alot of the IS/IT world that the Core should be doing, from help desks to 1st line administration to the layer 2 networking.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Branch is the one that created that gap between IST/CST and Core. The prevailing "wisdom" is that everyone can be Core, but Core isn't smart enough to figure everyone else's jobs out, despite the fact that we survived for a full 10 year war with only SigOp and LCIS to cover our IS/IT backhaul links and networks.

I could see covering off helpdesk and "1st line" IS/IT support with Core, but that's going to require PYs from IST to make it happen. I'd like to see IST shoot off of Core later on in the experience chain, at the Snr Cpl/MCpl level. In the civilian world, you'd not going to get a couple months training and get dumped into managing servers and network administration. Use the Cpl/Pte level to build competencies, and then pick your network admins out of that group who have both the aptitude and the desire to work "the farm" that supports every we're going to be doing for NetOps.

Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.

 

[LCIS227]

Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.

I agree with this statement 100%. CFNOC is a good example of how you to weave commercial courses into the fold. Cyber security moves much to quickly for the military training system to keep up. I don't know how many job reviews, TP reviews and whatever else they do to get CST / IST where it needs to be (how many has there been already?!). What I do know is that we're reaching the point where the legacy LCIS techs are no longer in the Cpl/MCpl positions which served as a buffer with regards to the lack of knowledge the incoming CST & IST have. CFIOG (SIGINT) is another good example of how the military training system doesn't serve the purpose and external courses are required in order to employ techs efficiently due to the speed at which technology evolves.

So many of the techs I worked with over the years which I would consider "switched on" and "highly effective" were only so due to I.T. being a passion/hobby of theirs. These were the guys that built server farms in their houses, wired their house like a comms closet, used linux at home, actively worked on their whitehat hacking skills, etc. I don't think any other Army tech trades relies so heavily on these types of people.

 

[c_canuk]

Puckchaser, I get where you are coming from, but we survived it because those members who were covering those duties were being sent on expensive civy courses to bring them up to speed and immersed themselves in the subject on their own time. Also surviving is not always thriving either.

The Cpl/MCpl ranks tend to be the field installers after they apprentice on the setting up of the configs. I don't see ACCISS Core needing the same level of skill/knowledge as they will primarily be setting up end point nodes, not high traffic centers. Nor will they be supporting file and print servers, SCCM, etc. So I don't agree that IST should split off at the Sgt Level.

IST merely formalizes what was already in place, it's not meant to seperate by intellegence, it's supposed to provide a training package for the people who will end up in those orbits. I feel the everyone is core idea is mainly optics. You can't expect someone who hasn't been in the field for years to drop in and man a CP effectively, any more than you can expect someone who's done nothing but CP work to configure exchange server effectively.

Sure we can always throw our energies googling to get it done, but it's not efficient nor effective to constantly throw people into sink or swim situations.

It's not about intellegence, it's about specialization vs jack of all trades master of none.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

The Branch is the one that created that gap between IST/CST and Core. The prevailing "wisdom" is that everyone can be Core, but Core isn't smart enough to figure everyone else's jobs out, despite the fact that we survived for a full 10 year war with only SigOp and LCIS to cover our IS/IT backhaul links and networks.

I could see covering off helpdesk and "1st line" IS/IT support with Core, but that's going to require PYs from IST to make it happen. I'd like to see IST shoot off of Core later on in the experience chain, at the Snr Cpl/MCpl level. In the civilian world, you'd not going to get a couple months training and get dumped into managing servers and network administration. Use the Cpl/Pte level to build competencies, and then pick your network admins out of that group who have both the aptitude and the desire to work "the farm" that supports every we're going to be doing for NetOps.

Unfortunately, I don't see the training system adapting at anywhere close to fast enough to support IST, let alone ACISS in the future. We're going to have to redefine how we train, and that doesn't mean "dump it onto the units" packages that are starting to be pushed from CFSCE/Branch.

Yes, I agree with basically everything you've said. The second the trade change hit everyone started pretending that Core pers were retarded and should be relegated to doing radio checks and setting up mod, which is BS. They're some of the same people that designed and built the networks overseas (that said, most of the nerdy Sig Ops became ISTs). I can see a much more expanded IS role for the Core in the future.

The IST being a shoot off for Cpls/MCpls is kind of how the system is intended to work (but doesn't in practice). All these guys should be posted to a brigade after their DP1.0 course and do Core roles, while getting exposure to the sub-occs. After that posting they should have the chance to be directed to a sub-occ when they reach the Cpl level (for logistical reasons it ought to be junior Cpl level rather than senior Cpl level).

As far as the training system for ISTs, I think they are improving the system, but they ought to stick to the basics which don't change as often (ie Networking for the most part is a slower moving field in IS, now taught on the DP1.1) while farming out the quicker moving aspects (Server and software, now taught on the DP2.1) to contract companies that can teach the current industry best practices and the currently used software.

 

[PuckChaser]

The IST being a shoot off for Cpls/MCpls is kind of how the system is intended to work (but doesn't in practice). All these guys should be posted to a brigade after their DP1.0 course and do Core roles, while getting exposure to the sub-occs. After that posting they should have the chance to be directed to a sub-occ when they reach the Cpl level (for logistical reasons it ought to be junior Cpl level rather than senior Cpl level).

I think the exposure issue is the problem. If we ramp up a similar effort to Afghanistan again (commitment levels and tempo, not necessarily shooting match), at what point does that young Pte get to make a choice? Pte Bloggins finishes DP1, hits 2 CMBG just as R2HR is ramping up. S/He's pushed into a RRB Det (s/he likes computers and wants IST), and spends 6-8 months doing IBTS and learning the ins/outs of the det. Deploys for 7 months, goes on leave, and its now 2 years after DP1 and s/he's promoted to Cpl without having ever seen the suboccs for more than a cursory look. At this point his CoC is looking to load him/her on DP2, because R2HR is ramping up again in 6 months and they want him/her as RRB 2iC because s/he was a switched on det member.

By luck (or unluck) of the draw, this guy who originally wanted to be an IST, stays in the Core stream because he's moving quick and doesn't want to rock the boat because of the Op Tempo. If we ever kick off on a big mission again, I feel this will happen more and more. That Pte could have spoken up, but maybe s/he loses the tour and sits with rear party learning IST skills, but all of his/her coursemates are deployed.

We either lose the member because they're not doing what they wanted to do, or have someone doing something they don't want, and being a morale drag because they hate their job.