Faraday Programme , CIS & ET(WE)

#1
Greetings Shipmate's - newbee here.

CrabFat jnr has decided to become a Fishead or maybe a WAFU (good for him I say, nearly did it myself but the smell of the Fat was just too tempting)

Anyway, he didn't score enough for Supp 3 trades so has been offered ET(WE)(CIS) or take a retest.

Regarding CIS, my limited knowledge is that Pre-Faraday, CIS was under Warfare but has now moved into Engineering.

So what are the 'old sweats' doing in these trade's - are they cross trading or are they still 2 separate trades ?

How are new CIS recruits trained - do they do the same initial trade training as a ET(WE) and then stream into CIS ? and at what stage does this happen?

I take it that when you get your 'hook' you do more tech training - is that the same with each promotion ? (RAF concentrated on Supervisor/Management training)

How are the trade sponsors handling this - do they intend to amalgamate the 2 trade's & at what stage in their career's ?

And finally, how much fault diagnosis/rects/networking do CIS do ? (sorry, I don't really know much about the trade) - could you fill us in on the sort of work involved

Thanks for your help guy's 'n' gals :)

XCF
 
#3
ATG, thanks for your honesty.

A question to ET(WE) folk, Weapons Tech's in the RAF didn't really do much fault investigation/diagnosis (sorry guys) it was basically bomb on/bomb off and guidance/control system faults were dealt with by Air Electricians / Avionics. Do the ET(WE) do much diagnostics/repairs ?
 
#8
Hello @alfred_the_great - can you expand? My son scored high enough for most branches including ET WE but decided upon CIS. However he is having doubts and is wishing he had gone marine or weapon engineering now. He starts Raleigh in November.
 
#9
Bascially, there was a good idea (and at least some of it was a good idea) and tried to merge WE and CIS together. Only they didn't do their homework, made some massive assumptions and presumed everyone would be cool about it.

But now, instead, you've got a situation where two people can be doing exactly the same job, but on different pay scales, with utterly different chances of promotion etc. As you can imagine, this hasn't gone well, and lots of people are very threaders. But I'd suggest CIS and WEs are the current crisis of the week, which is good (everyone is finally trying to work out how to make it work) and bad (there's a reason they're in crisis).

CIS is great fun, and I have a lot of time for them (no comms, no bombs!), but the transfer hasn't served them well. I'd re-state that my personal option - if I were joining as an AB - would be to go either CT or Aircrewman....
 
#11
It's almost as though nobody remembers the OM debacle...........
OMs would've worked, if only we'd stopped job rotating the poor buggers every 3 months.

The USN (and the RN back in the day) effectively use OMs and it works. You just need to accept that one AB can't do RP, Gunnery, TAS, part of ship and still have time to learn their kit.
 
#12
CIS is in a very strange place. All were thrown in one pot (warfare trained with the CIS engineers) and expected to 'crack on' with differing levels of pay to do almost the same job.

before all of this meddling, CIS not so many years ago were doing well on retaining the numbers to do the job. Not perfect but better than most. After the last couple of years of 'change' it will (apparently) take 10 years to recover the numbers!!

huge change is coming to the CIS world and almost reverting back to how it was.
almost sure whatever you have been sold about CIS, will not be what it turns out to be in the near future. As a starting point, I would separate 'Faraday' from 'CIS'

such a shame really as it was always seen as a crackin branch to join
 
#14
I am an RO on submarines and do NOT join this branch its in chaos and collapsed. Everyone's leaving if you join I guarantee you'll be in a 1 in 3 watch bill before long, have a massive leave balance which you cannot use and be storing ship at 2 in the morning. I should be trying to get my reliefs in but morally I can't do it AVOID at all costs.
 
#16
Thanks FJ, when you say it will be reverting back to the day's of old, are we talking about RO's - with no maintenance ?
would not say reverting back to being an RO.
Numbers are short on board so a bit of hands across the department will have to happen
but a clear gap between the 'engineers' and 'operators' will reappear as opposed to the mish-mash we have at the moment
 
#17
would not say reverting back to being an RO.
Numbers are short on board so a bit of hands across the department will have to happen
but a clear gap between the 'engineers' and 'operators' will reappear as opposed to the mish-mash we have at the moment
The problem is, with modern CIS, there is not a solid or distinct line between "operator" and "maintainer". Network administration - operator or maintainer? Bowman configuration - operator or maintainer? IP over HF goes wrong - operator or maintainer? It's not like a 4.5" where you can pull apart the hydraulic system and find the leak, or watch the GC for the incorrect button-ology. And lets not get into the realms of tactical offensive CIS...

There are some deep problems - recruiting CIS at a lower RT than WEs, putting the CIS on WE courses and then wondering why they're struggling/failing with the technical content. Likewise, the complete inability by MWS (all parties) to design courses fit for purpose (ab initio and conversion), was a problem seen from a mile off, yet we let it take us all by surprise. Some of this is symptomatic of a RN that is operating at capacity, some of it symptomatic of us cutting any kind of reserve ashore, afloat and in NCHQ.
 

BigD1980

Lantern Swinger
#18
I am an RO on submarines and do NOT join this branch its in chaos and collapsed. Everyone's leaving if you join I guarantee you'll be in a 1 in 3 watch bill before long, have a massive leave balance which you cannot use and be storing ship at 2 in the morning. I should be trying to get my reliefs in but morally I can't do it AVOID at all costs.
Only 7 Clicks to Happiness my old bean (Well depending on what you select as your reasons for leaving but all the same)
 
#19
The problem is, with modern CIS, there is not a solid or distinct line between "operator" and "maintainer". Network administration - operator or maintainer? Bowman configuration - operator or maintainer? IP over HF goes wrong - operator or maintainer? It's not like a 4.5" where you can pull apart the hydraulic system and find the leak, or watch the GC for the incorrect button-ology. And lets not get into the realms of tactical offensive CIS...

There are some deep problems - recruiting CIS at a lower RT than WEs, putting the CIS on WE courses and then wondering why they're struggling/failing with the technical content. , the complete inability by MWS (all parties) to design courses fit for purpose (ab initio and conversion), was a problem seen from a mile off, yet we let it take us all by surprise. Some of this is symptomatic of a RN that is operating at capacity, some of it symptomatic of us cutting any kind of reserve ashore, afloat and in NCHQ.
So what is the 'official' solution and the timescale to 'make the fix'
 
#20
The problem is, with modern CIS, there is not a solid or distinct line between "operator" and "maintainer". Network administration - operator or maintainer? Bowman configuration - operator or maintainer? IP over HF goes wrong - operator or maintainer? It's not like a 4.5" where you can pull apart the hydraulic system and find the leak, or watch the GC for the incorrect button-ology. And lets not get into the realms of tactical offensive CIS...

There are some deep problems - recruiting CIS at a lower RT than WEs, putting the CIS on WE courses and then wondering why they're struggling/failing with the technical content. Likewise, the complete inability by MWS (all parties) to design courses fit for purpose (ab initio and conversion), was a problem seen from a mile off, yet we let it take us all by surprise. Some of this is symptomatic of a RN that is operating at capacity, some of it symptomatic of us cutting any kind of reserve ashore, afloat and in NCHQ.
The Army have kept the separate operator and maintainee model. I.e. Royal Signals Comms Sys Operator and Comms Sys Engineer. Different training and qualifications for entry.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J The Quarterdeck 3
B Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 13
D Current Affairs 76

Similar threads


Top