Ask The CSE Chief

[Chief Gunner]

  The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue for member's of this forum to ask questions, voice complaints and address issues related to the Combat Systems Engineering Branch of the Canadian Navy. Your questions and concerns will be directed to the person or organization that can provide difinitive, accurate and up-to-date answers.

    As much as possible the answers will be posted here. However, if the response is sensitive or of a highly personal nature the response may be directly communicated by PM to you. If you feel your question or concern is of this nature you can PM it to me.

    This communication venue has been authorized by the CSE Branch Occupation Advisory Group and they have commited to providing accurate and timely responses. There is not a requirement to be a member of the CF/DND or identify yourself in anyway all queries will recieve a response.

~ Chief Gunner

 

[Neill McKay]

Is the CSE Branch a new branch whose trades were split from an existing branch?

Is an image of its cap badge available online?

 

[cjwatts]

Neill:

The CSE (Combat Systems Engineering) Department came into existence in 1984/85 under the MORPS restructuring program in the Navy.  The existing Radar, Sonar, Fire Control, Electronic Warfare and Radio trades were split into 2 groups: Operator (Naval Combat Information Operator (NCIOP), Naval Acoustic Operator (NACOP), Naval Electronic Sensor Operator (NESOP) and Naval Communicator (NAVCOMM) trades ) and Technician (3 Naval Electronic Technician trades -  Tactical (NE Tech T),  Acoustic (NE Tech A) and Communications (NE Tech C)).  As well the Weapons Under and Weapons Surface trades were merged to form the Naval Weapons Tech Trade.

The NE Techs and the NW Techs were grouped together under one Branch or Department to form the Combat Systems Engineering Department under one Engineer - the CSE Officer.  As indicated under a separate thread the Combat Systems trades are undergoing another restructuring in order to bring them into line with new and future requirements currently undergoing in the Fleet.  (eg. HALIFAX Class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension (HCM/FELEX), Joint Support Ships (JSS))

Hope this helps,

 

[Neill McKay]

Neill:

The CSE (Combat Systems Engineering) Department came into existence in 1984/85 under the MORPS restructuring program in the Navy.  The existing Radar, Sonar, Fire Control, Electronic Warfare and Radio trades were split into 2 groups: Operator (Naval Combat Information Operator (NCIOP), Naval Acoustic Operator (NACOP), Naval Electronic Sensor Operator (NESOP) and Naval Communicator (NAVCOMM) trades ) and Technician (3 Naval Electronic Technician trades -  Tactical (NE Tech T),  Acoustic (NE Tech A) and Communications (NE Tech C)).  As well the Weapons Under and Weapons Surface trades were merged to form the Naval Weapons Tech Trade.

The NE Techs and the NW Techs were grouped together under one Branch or Department to form the Combat Systems Engineering Department under one Engineer - the CSE Officer.  As indicated under a separate thread the Combat Systems trades are undergoing another restructuring in order to bring them into line with new and future requirements currently undergoing in the Fleet.  (eg. HALIFAX Class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension (HCM/FELEX), Joint Support Ships (JSS))

Hope this helps,

Thank you; that clears it up.  I was understanding "branch" to refer to a branch of the CF, like the Naval Operations Branch, Logistics Branch, Medical Branch, Band Branch, etc.

 

[RickDevlieger]

The CSE branch is a "Department" on board a Ship. There are no separate cap badges as we all wear the traditional Naval cap badges regardless of trades. There are some differences for ranks and appointments. We do however wear trade badges on our collars and on the sleeves of summer dress shirts for Master Seamen and below. The rest of your questions have already been answered as I was searching for images.

 

[Chief Gunner]

I stand corrected, not a rare occurence. Though we often refer to departments, divisions and branches as if they were the same thing, they do indeed have seperate and distinct meanings. The CSE Occupations are presently part of the Naval Operations Personnel Branch.

See CFAO 2-10 http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/002-10_e.asp.

A personnel branch, in the Canadian Forces (CF), refers to a grouping of related military occupations. Personnel branches were officially established at unification in 1968 to amalgamate the old Canadian Army Corps and similar occupational groupings in the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. "Personnel Branches were created to enable members of the Canadian Forces in related occupations to identify with each other in cohesive professional groups. These groups are based on similarity of military roles, customs and traditions."

Prior to amalgamation the three services each had their own logistic, medical, administration and various other support occupations and their affliation was with the service they were serving in. After amalgamation these occupations or trades were no longer affiliated with a specific service and without the creation of branches would have essentially been orphans.

With some of the organizational initiatives presently being undertaken by the Chief of Military Personnel it will be interesting to see what happens to the branch philosophy.

 

[hugh19]

I have a question for you Chief. Why do the band types wear the hard sea cap badge instead of the band cap badge? I have talked to other members who agree with me that they should wear their own cap badge.

 

[RickDevlieger]

I have a question for you Chief. Why do the band types wear the hard sea cap badge instead of the band cap badge? I have talked to other members who agree with me that they should wear their own cap badge.

OK, so its not a question related to the CSE trades, however I did go to a Bandsman I know for an answer. Here it is:

Members of navy bands wear the Naval Operations cap badge because IAW CFP 265 CF Dress Instructions Chap 6 Sect 2 Para 5, "All navy bands are allocated to the Naval Operations Branch." This is because, "For cultural reasons, special dress practices apply.... Each musical band is allocated both an environmental and branch/regimental identity, and the appropriate DEU is worn by all."  (Chap 2 Section 1 Para 12)

Chap 2 Section 1 contains a heading Group and Individual Identity, and Para 6 begins, "Dress policy recognizes both the military requirement and the individual need to identify. A spectrum of identity exists which includes: country, environment, branch, regiment, unit, and military occupation."

There are likely historical reasons why the country, environment, and military occupation (for NCMs but not officers) are shown by navy bands' DEUs, but the members' personal branch identity (normally shown by a hat badge) is not.

In the broader CF context, members of some land and air environment bands wear Music Branch cap badges, but for dress purposes, many are allocated to other branches or regiments. But if posted to another type of unit other than a band (eg, NDHQ/DHH or CFSAL/Music Trg Coy), members of the Music Branch (regardless of environment) do indeed wear Music Branch cap badges.

Lawrence C. Surges
CPO1
Asst D Mus & Unit CPO
Naden Band

 

[Harley Sailor]

Why do we have to make the CSE department on trade?  Don't each of the trades have enough to learn.  Now we are being asked to learn about more equipment. When will it stop? Why are the operators not being asked to become one trade?  They all do the same job.

 

[Chief Gunner]

Why do we have to make the CSE department on trade?  Don't each of the trades have enough to learn.  Now we are being asked to learn about more equipment. When will it stop? Why are the operators not being asked to become one trade?  They all do the same job.

Harley Sailor

if you read through the 'New Name requred for the CSE Branch'  topic it explains the proposed new trade structure that actually includes 8 trades. One of the goals of the restructuring was a more equitable distribution of work and applications training time.

As for the Naval Combat Operators, they control their own trade structure. It is also under review by the  Naval Occupation Analysis.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Harley Sailor whenever your ready to come and sit in the seats of any of the operators either operationally or in the trainer then you can tell me and every other operator that we do the same job! :

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The operator and tech trades used to be the same, but that didn't work out so well. They were split in the mid-80's under MORPS.

After remustering from 285 to R275, I can definitively say that JAFO and Tech are completely different trades with completely different requirements. I can also say that the lobotomy isn't too bad, but having your sense of humour extracted bit by bit isn't fun at all. Thank God the JAFO's can't wire up their own electro-shock therapy system is all I can say. j/k

There really is a big difference. The Naval Reserve gave me credit for R275 QL1 based on my 285 5D qualification, but I didn't have a clue what they were doing. My AB's carried me while I tried to figure it out. About all I could do in training was tune the radars.

 

[Harley Sailor]

Harley Sailor whenever your ready to come and sit in the seats of any of the operators either operationally or in the trainer then you can tell me and every other operator that we do the same job! :

After being in and around the ops room for the last 30 years I have had my share of watching what operators do.  They sit and watch a sweep go around on a monitor and then analyze the information they recieved.  Yes, one watches underwater, another watches for EW signals and yet a third watches above water; but the difference is just their training.  Why should the Techs that work on all the different systems be one trade?  We also have to learn to operate the systems before learning how to fix them.

 

[Harley Sailor]

Harley Sailor

if you read through the 'New Name requred for the CSE Branch'  topic it explains the proposed new trade structure that actually includes 8 trades. One of the goals of the restructuring was a more equitable distribution of work and applications training time.

As for the Naval Combat Operators, they control their own trade structure. It is also under review by the  Naval Occupation Analysis.

Yes it does explain the porposed re-structure but not the WHY.  As was explained to me, recruits will be brought into the trade at entry level, be given some training, put on a ship for OJTs, and then be assined weather he will be weapons, comms, or where ever they need him.  When I joined it was to turn a wrench not change a CCA.

 

[Civvymedic]

Hi Chief,

Another Navy related question I was hoping you could answer.

I was told that Medics on board ship cant act as members of the Naval Boarding party. Is this true as well for NESOPS?

Thank you.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Why do we have to make the CSE department on trade?  Don't each of the trades have enough to learn.  Now we are being asked to learn about more equipment. When will it stop? Why are the operators not being asked to become one trade?  They all do the same job.

This was looked at, but I am certain it has been placed on hold for now.    Was in the navy long enougth to know that I had to get to the cave early to secure a seat on Movie night, if not they are all occupied by CSE types  ;D.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

After being in and around the ops room for the last 30 years I have had my share of watching what operators do.  They sit and watch a sweep go around on a monitor and then analyze the information they recieved.  Yes, one watches underwater, another watches for EW signals and yet a third watches above water; but the difference is just their training.  Why should the Techs that work on all the different systems be one trade?  We also have to learn to operate the systems before learning how to fix them.

Watching and doing are two different things. I guarantee being an observer does not make you knowledgeable of our trades so I would advise for you to stay in your own lane.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hi Chief,

Another Navy related question I was hoping you could answer.

I was told that Medics on board ship cant act as members of the Naval Boarding party. Is this true as well for NESOPS?

Thank you.

Civvymedic this is for CSE related issues mainly. There is already length discussions on the Boarding party elsewhere.

Milnet.Ca Staff

 

[Harley Sailor]

This was looked at, but I am certain it has been placed on hold for now.    Was in the navy long enougth to know that I had to get to the cave early to secure a seat on Movie night, if not they are all occupied by CSE types  ;D.

I would have to agree with you about movie night.   But then you have to look at why, mostly they can not take their equipment off line to do maintenance while at sea.  ;D All I ask is that you look at who are the first sailors ashore in a forien port.  Not the CSE department,  :crybaby: they are back working on their equipment because they finely have a chance to take it off line.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Hey that's the price you have to pay when you have efficient operators, who are not breaking anything!  That's why you guys get the spec pay, oh hold on, most JAFO's get spec pay too... >  (don't understand why, but hey its money in their pockets!)

CSE Chief, considering the Single Naval Combat Operator was put on hold do you think this project will run into the same problems? (ie more expensive training costs)

It sounds like an exciting project, and a good time to be a Junior CSE type.