# Could use some advice - Signal Operator vs Infantry



## NinjaRider (8 Apr 2010)

Hi,

I could sure use some advice on the signal operator and infantry trades. I thought I had it figured out with signals but then found myself hesitating, reading everything I could on it on the web. I would appreciate any input as I try to find my direction.

A few years back this would have been easier. The infantry. However nearing 33 and having struggled in my field for years I've learned to appreciate education and acquired skills. And this is in mind as I try to pick a trade in the CF trying to find out what it could potentially lead to within and out of the military. I don't want to be in the same position come 40. At heart I would like to be a soldier. I like physical and mental challenges, working outdoors and in a variety of roles, at the forefront of the action. I've traveled the world, am single and would prefer trades that involve more overseas deployments. But what these can eventually lead to and the gained skills and so on.. That's now the big question. I'm not just trying to pick a trade but trying to find a path.

Signal Operator: seems to offer a mix of tech skills and an exposure to the combat arms. I have an interest in IT, like working with computers and would find the field interesting. It's very diverse and the type of work involved would depend on the unit. It seems to be a hit or miss though, a love or hate kinda thing. My concerns are static postings relegated to mostly radio/call work or repetitive indoor work involving menial tasks, making me wish I'd join the combat arms. I see some interesting opportunities on this trade but also a risk of getting cornered into a static boring role. If that does happen is it simply a question of doing your time to move on to better and more interesting things? As it seems once you're sent a certain route it's tough to change afterwards. Am I seeing it wrong? 

Infantry: I'm tempted to just going infantry and see where it leads. Intelligence would be something I would strive for. What can this trade lead to within and out of the CF? I'd like to go this route but with the concerns above would it be best to pick a more technical trade, something of a compromise?

I've also looked into combat engineer and comm research but find the two above more interesting. Intelligence would be something I would really like to get a shot at. Am I seeing these trades wrong or missing something? Any suggestions or opinions? I would appreciate any input. Thank you in advance.  :-\


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Apr 2010)

Very briefly, even in the infantry you will still get many chances to work a radio.

Even in non-deployed units, there is always at least one primary radio per platoon and I am sure if you made it known that you have an interest in carrying the radio that it would be yours for the taking.

You're also "in the know" a lot mroe than the other soldiers in the platoon as you are the one listing to comms with higher, and you are also the fireteam partner of the platoon commander (which could also be considered a negative depending on your perspective).

I can't speak for Sigs as a trade because I am Infantry, but there is all sorts of cross polination.  Riflemen carry radios, and the OC's signaller is Sigs by trade and right at the front of the action.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You're also "in the know" a lot mroe than the other soldiers in the platoon as you are the one listing to comms with higher, and you are also the fireteam partner of the platoon commander (which could also be considered a negative depending on your perspective).



Very much depends on the personality and leadership practices of the commander...

Ref being 'in the know', depends on how much being 'in-the-know vs extra-weight-carried' during foot patrols matters to you...


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2010)

Infantry would be a good start for you if you want to move to Intelligence later. I know a few IntOps who spent time at the pointy end, and it helps shape their idea of what actionable intelligence is required by those guys, because they've been there.

As for SigOp, we're involved in everything from OC's Signaller to helpdesk support and everything inbetween. I have the same concerns as you, not wanting a static posting, and if you make it clear you want a Brigade, you will mostly get it. Keep in mind our field time is less about sleeping in a hooch, and more about tactical command posts where you have at least a recce tent or something to stay in. It'll all depend on how much you want to "rough-it" in the field.

Comm Research won't spend the time in the field at the front like you've described you wanted. Their bread and butter work is in a desk in Letrim. In the chance you do get to their only field unit, its not as hard field as it used to be.


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Apr 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...'in-the-know vs extra-weight-carried' during foot patrols matters to you...



But of course!  Which is why I mentioned that if he made it known that he wanted to carry the radio that nobody would put up too much of a fuss.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Apr 2010)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89880.0.html

Here's some background from an earlier thread for the original poster.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Infantry would be a good start for you if you want to move to Intelligence later. I know a few IntOps who spent time at the pointy end, and it helps shape their idea of what actionable intelligence is required by those guys, because they've been there.



This is unfortunately only half of the picture, rather a two-edged sword.  Some Int Ops from the combat arms also brought along their prejudices, biases, and disdain of support trades with them.  Many of them had/have problems adapting to different work cultures and would often impose work standards the same as 'where they came from', even if it was detrimental to the work they were supposed to be doing or the unit they were supporting.  And while staying in good physical shape and weapons skills are important, many of them stayed so focused on maintaining their former skills and fitting in with their former trade that they failed to properly develop their new intelligence skills at the same pace as their peers.

And before you ask, I speak as a former Infantryman who moved to Int and not only saw these problems first hand but heard of them from other former Infantry Int Ops. 

I would also point out that we've had more than a few Int Ops at the pointy over the last 20 years.  Its not as if we suddenly learned about actionable intelligence only after 2005...


----------



## Apollo55 (10 Apr 2010)

I'm in the same boat as you OP, pretty much exactly the same one actually...for exactly the same reasons you provided.

It seems like you're leaning toward inf if you ask me, however, ultimately, the best advice I can offer you is that in life you should never strive for the ends, you should enjoy and live for the means.

So my advice given what you have stated would be to go for infantry, since it seems like you would enjoy that much more regardless of not necessarily gaining the technical skills in the end. And hey, you could always do inf, then do sig later...theres no need to rush anything in life, we don't get to be here very long.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (10 Apr 2010)

Go signals.

If one of your primary concerns is being able to sell your military trade  on a civilian resume within a time frame of less than 10 years, it will be easier than should you join the infantry IMO.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Apr 2010)

Fighting the urge to go off on a rant about that topic.

I am not a big fan of people using the CF to gain skills to use elsewhere.  The whole concept of serving is to GIVE, but people who do this are demonstrating TAKE.

Every time I talk to someone getting out and they say something like "I'd like to OT first to ______ so I can do that when I get out", I would say "If you want to stay in, how about you learn some skills as a Private that you'll use as a Sergeant?".

I have no problem whatsoever with quitting if they don't like being in; it's the concept of gaining skills in the CF with no intent on ever using them in the CF.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (10 Apr 2010)

Perfectly understandable reaction.

However, not everyone who signs up at day zero is doing so with the intention of doing 30, 25, or even 10 years in the Forces.  How much time in is sufficient to justify joining in the first place? Going into any employment without an exit plan and giving some time for thought about what comes after is just dumb.


----------



## NinjaRider (10 Apr 2010)

Thanks everyone for the advice. I got some thinking to do and will not rush this. The way I worded my question on where it could lead is within or out of the military. I would go in with the intention of a permanent career in the CF. That's the way I've always seen it. As a pilot who's been through numerous layoffs and tough periods I've learned to appreciate education and acquired skills. In between flying jobs I've done all sorts of casual work from delivering chicken, customer service to sales as I don't have other skills other than flying aircraft nor a degree. I don't want to find myself like this at 40. Like many of my fellow pilots I'm considering getting out of a deteriorating industry but it's very difficult to carry through because there is that passion and so much put into it. It's a tough decision. I got a contract coming up in May, the CF is the backup and I'm reflecting in advance. Thanks for all your help and advice.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Apr 2010)

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> However, not everyone who signs up at day zero is doing so with the intention of doing 30, 25, or even 10 years in the Forces.



Which I do not understand at all, really.

I am convinced that if the average person knew what life in the CF was actually like, Canada would have a standing Army of approx 10 million people.

Nobody forces you to check off "combat arms" at the recruiting centre, and people can just as easily check a box that they'll never suffer a day's worth of hardship, all while collecting awesome pay, raises every year forever, incredible hours, medical, they pay you to work out on company time, and you never have any work expenses.

Really the only counter-argument is "Well I could get deployed and be gone from my family for a long time", but it's not like we're not financially compensated for it.

I don't honestly know why anyone gets out, really.


----------



## Apollo55 (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Which I do not understand at all, really.
> 
> I am convinced that if the average person knew what life in the CF was actually like, Canada would have a standing Army of approx 10 million people.
> 
> ...



Since I'm in the process of joining as we speak, I have done LOTS of reading and research on everything I can about the CF. I think the perception of those in the public is very very different than what the CF is actually like. I think many people, without researching the CF, have sort of the typical movie/television view of the army, or perhaps that of the US army. My roommate is convinced I'm going to die if I join the Canadian military...

But after researching, you realize it is one of the greatest careers in Canada.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

I agree that typically the perception of my family and friends has been that everyone in the CF storms the beach like in the first scene of Saving Private Ryan.

Only 10 or so trades in the CF out of 100+ are ever exposed to real danger, and most of those even are extremely brief.  The perception is typically that Infantry is the typical life, but I will be the first to admit that Engineers are carrying the heaviest burden in Afghanistan.  That's theatre dependent though, as if we were to go to some place like Haiti there aren't any IEDs (yet).

Back on topic, even for those 10 or so exposed to danger/hardship, the relative time exposed to those elements is small over a career.

A soldier may spend a lot of time in the field, but over a lifetime a construction worker will be rained on or sun f___ed far more than us (granted they go home at night).  

And if you're talking about life in danger, if you were to add up the amount of time total your life was at risk (on foot patrol, driving down a common IED route, on a deliberate operation, etc) I don't think it would be any more than a police officer or firefighter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's easy and cushy to be combat arms 

But the main point being that when you go to the RC, 90% of the jobs will get you guaranteed raises for life and all those benefits for essentially *no* danger or hardship.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> But the main point being that when you go to the RC, 90% of the jobs will get you guaranteed raises for life and all those benefits for essentially *no* danger or hardship.



Danger is our business. 

 :camo:

Sorry could not resist.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Only 10 or so trades in the CF out of 100+ are ever exposed to real danger,





I'm dying to hear what they are........


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm dying to hear what they are........



1. Combat Engineer
2. AES Op
3. AES Op
4. AES Op
5. AES Op
6. AES Op
7. AES Op
8. AES Op
9. AES Op
10. Public Affairs Officer


----------



## Tetragrammaton (11 Apr 2010)

FIN clerk needs to be on that list.


----------



## REDinstaller (11 Apr 2010)

FIN Clerk is no longer a trade. Admin and Fin combined about 12 years ago to from RMS Clerk. And its funny PAF O made the list, on TF 1-07 the PAF O was out in the leagure babysitting a couple of reporters. Not quite the desk he imagined.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 1. Combat Engineer
> 2. AES Op
> 3. AES Op
> 4. AES Op
> ...



Thanks....that realy clears it up.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thanks....that realy clears it up.



Well if you ask a smart ___ question, you get a smart ___ answer.

Can you honestly tell me that 100 out of 100 trades in the CF put life and limb in danger on a regular basis?

Worse, even the most dangerous trades do not automatically guarantee a person will ever face danger.  Theree is a probability that a trade will be dangerous, and then another probability that serving in that trade you will be one of the ones who faces it.

They may be rated as Engineer, Infantry, etc, but that does not mean that an Engr will face certain death, and it does not mean that a Log driver won't be in multiple TICs overseas.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (13 Apr 2010)

Depends what you want to do. Signal Operator is technical (ACCIS soon by the way) and both jobs have their lows. Just remember if your posted to HQ sigs overseas and your not on the radio your brewing coffee or sweeping the floor.

The motto of Sigs:

Comms Camo Comfort


----------



## MikeL (14 Apr 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> The motto of Sigs:
> 
> Comms Camo Comfort



Comms, Cam, Defence, Comfort is the priority of work in a det setup.

Signals motto is Velox Versutus Vigilans / Swift Skilled Alert


----------

