Engineer (Information Systems) Officer

With the advent of Network Enabled Capability and the explosion of computers and IS networks onboard ships, the E(IS) branch is going to grow massively in importance over the next couple of decades. Good branch to join. You will also have the option of taking the WE Charge Board so that you'll be able to be a WEO should you wish.

Most bigger ships, and some submariens, have WEO, DWEO and CISO (the IS officer) in their WE Dept. AS CISO you will have a genuine and improtant sea going role.

Go for it :!:
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
Fighting_Sailor said:
With the advent of Network Enabled Capability and the explosion of computers and IS networks onboard ships, the E(IS) branch is going to grow massively in importance over the next couple of decades. Good branch to join. You will also have the option of taking the WE Charge Board so that you'll be able to be a WEO should you wish.

Most bigger ships, and some submariens, have WEO, DWEO and CISO (the IS officer) in their WE Dept. AS CISO you will have a genuine and improtant sea going role.

Go for it :!:

But, surely, on board ship, all the E(IS) branch is going to be are glorified System Admins / Hardware Maintainers. The "interesting" elements of NEC and IS networking relate to the design and implementation of the wider IS networks rather than the maintenance of a ship's own networks; this, I think, will be beyond the remit of individual platforms.
 
FlagWagger said:
Fighting_Sailor said:
With the advent of Network Enabled Capability and the explosion of computers and IS networks onboard ships, the E(IS) branch is going to grow massively in importance over the next couple of decades. Good branch to join. You will also have the option of taking the WE Charge Board so that you'll be able to be a WEO should you wish.

Most bigger ships, and some submariens, have WEO, DWEO and CISO (the IS officer) in their WE Dept. AS CISO you will have a genuine and improtant sea going role.

Go for it :!:

But, surely, on board ship, all the E(IS) branch is going to be are glorified System Admins / Hardware Maintainers. The "interesting" elements of NEC and IS networking relate to the design and implementation of the wider IS networks rather than the maintenance of a ship's own networks; this, I think, will be beyond the remit of individual platforms.

thats the way I see it happening. Note "see it happening" I am not stating anything here about percieved policy or percieved roles.

The CIS branch has been started initially to help with the problem of what to do with Comms ratings who did not go seamanship or ET (WE).
Ultimatelt I think the branch will develop into a 'geek' branch who will be the one stop IT gurus, but at the moment there is an uneasy line of demarkation between systems administrators and maintainers and guys who just set up accounts and give out passwords. Remember these are very early days of PCP and the battle lines really are fluid as TORs are established
 
The Navy has missed a gloden opportunity to clear up the confusion in this area. Why not give the CIS ratings to the CIS officers to manage? Why is the SCO a Dabber and not E(IS)? It makes no sense, other than the Warfaries arguing that the Comms is a warfare function. They are correct in a sense, but in the MCO-less world of T45, etc signals are delivered directly to inboxes; no more signal reading logs, so its really just a question of connectivity ie network engineering!

The division between Operators and Maintainers in this environment makes no sense. Is creating accounts 'maintenance'? Is backing up the server 'operation'? There shoud be one CIS department delivering the function to Command. The E(WE)/E(IS) departments are quite capable of delivering this capability and of understanding the 'warfare' implictions, just as we do with other systems.
 

Latest Threads

Top