# How has MES treated you thus far?



## upandatom (4 May 2014)

I have been curious, I have spoken to alot of Sigs members about MES. Not the most encouraging words, very little to no positive. Alot of the members I have spoken to havent been the happiest since the whole re org occurred and alot are actually getting out, and releasing. 

I am still lost as to the outline and the arcs of fire, within the trades, with the exception of LST. 

From what I have seen, 
I think we should take a half step back, I think the creation of another trade/sub occupation was the right idea, I think Sig Op and LCIS Tech became a bit too broad. It created a good new trade, one that as technology advanced, the Signals community could as well. 
The advantage of every Signal member having a general knowledge base was good too, but could it be possible we are delving too deep into it? Is the increase in training causing a backlog and taking too long to train new core, CST, IST, and LST. 

I know there has been a gap in the knowledge from when the old system sent knew members out to what we are getting now.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2014)

MES was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Why did we need a specialized helpdesk/server group? LCIS and SigOps were doing it just fine with OJT and formal courses at CFSCE. IST was a great idea 20 years ago, when computers were new, complex, and your average recruit had no computer skills what so ever. Now, most new recruits are computer savvy and having a trade dedicated to IT is realistically a waste of PYs. Radios are rapidly becoming IP-based and Windows-software programmed. Am I going to have to call an IST to program everything? I shouldn't have to.

I agree with you that the general knowledge base across all trades is a good idea. It could have been implemented with TP changes, including classes on each of the trades taught at a knowledge level 1. Thinking that you're going to plop an LST/CST/IST into a sub occ, give them cursory training and 10 years later expect them to led a rad det (or vice versa with Core) was completely naive of the MES team, and shame on the staff officers who thought it up/bought into it.


----------



## JBP (21 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> MES was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Why did we need a specialized helpdesk/server group? LCIS and SigOps were doing it just fine with OJT and formal courses at CFSCE. IST was a great idea 20 years ago, when computers were new, complex, and your average recruit had no computer skills what so ever. Now, most new recruits are computer savvy and having a trade dedicated to IT is realistically a waste of PYs. Radios are rapidly becoming IP-based and Windows-software programmed. Am I going to have to call an IST to program everything? I shouldn't have to.
> 
> I agree with you that the general knowledge base across all trades is a good idea. It could have been implemented with TP changes, including classes on each of the trades taught at a knowledge level 1. Thinking that you're going to plop an LST/CST/IST into a sub occ, give them cursory training and 10 years later expect them to led a rad det (or vice versa with Core) was completely naive of the MES team, and shame on the staff officers who thought it up/bought into it.



Rant ON:

You should have started with: "IST's make me angry and I want to bash them! We don't need them for nothin, us Sig Ops got along just fine without them!". 

MES has worked out great for me thus far. I'm an IST. I have been since 2008; I've been doing the job for my entire reg force career. It is the general ignorance of the greater Signals (and Army) world that computer specialists are not needed or a separate trade required. I mean no offence by saying ignorant, honestly. You can't tell what's needed or not if you have no idea what actually goes on behind the scenes or what an IST does besides 'sit in helpdesk!"...

Yes we clugged along with OJT (mostly trial by fire / ex), plus CFSCE courses and 'made it work' as we all do in the Signals branch. At least any Sig worth his buttocks! Regardless, it was very detrimental to the personnel whom have been doing the 'IT' thing, and the units/brigades/HQ's, when said persons became posted, deployed, burnt out, released, pissed off (VOT), etc... What I witnessed at 1CMBG HQ & Sig Sqn from 2008 - 2012/13 roughly was luck. They got lucky by having people posted in who wanted to do those jobs. Not a lot of them! For quite a few years it's been a handful of Corporal's doing the brunt of the IT work there running LCSS and higher level networks etc... The previous OC 1 Sigs even said that some of these Cpl's were 'strategic' Cpl's whom could cause the failure of the mission/training ex if they could not complete their jobs. An entire Signal Squadron's success hinged on a couple switched on guys' motivation and ability. Think about that. That's wrong! For so many reasons and so many ways... 

Notice I'm not talking about entry level tech positions and help desk IST wanna-be's. Tactical, critical, field and operation deployable networks. If LCSS 'doesn't work' when a Brigade commander wants to command his brigade during operations... He has to go back to using just radios, just maps. Throw us back into the pre-computer era. In our past operational environment (Afghanistan), a MIST report for example, would come in over the radio from a unit out on patrol, to a FOB via radio... Then the CP Sig listening there and he/she would type it into a COMPUTER. Into a NETWORK. A Classified one that was operated by specially trained Sig Ops and LCIS techs... All the information called in over the radio would be actioned on a live tactical network. Any Sig can be trained to answer a phone and input trouble tickets into Sharepoint, Support Magic or Remedy, no problem. Any Sig can be helpdesk. That's not the issue. It's everything behind the helpdesk that matters! What if the Sharepoint site on LCSS or other classified networks goes belly up? And this so happens to be the site that critical mission information resides on that some officer needs to make a quick command decision? Is the 'Sig Op do Everything guy' going to know how to read SQL and Server Event logs to figure it out? Is he going to understand that the Sharepoint site is an Microsoft SQL relational database that has many parts? Will he even know to check the server's hard drives to see if they're full or that the backups completed to enable the transaction logs to purge? No... What about throwing all the computers away and just using maps and radios because it worked in the past? Well you can forget that... All our allies, especially NATO and the US specifically, are placing greater and greater requirements, importance and necessity on these networks. Everything will be integrated, why do you think all the radios will now have IP addresses?!?! You ever play Command and Conquer? Or any other top-down realtime strategy game like Starcraft? World of Warcraft? ... Pretty cool eh? To see your neat army smash into the other guys and be able to make snap-command decisions that effect the battle... That's what they're gearing towards, and want. With more interoperability with our allies.

If the network went down, officers and brigade staff etc would go to the shacks and play cards, or stress the hell out because they couldn't accomplish their jobs. That was in theatre, during operations. 

I could go on and on with real-world examples of problems and issues that any ACISS-CORE guy of any rank could not fix in my line of duty without extensive retraining and experience. I'm also not ignorant to the fact that I couldn't do that soldier's job to their level either! I've been deployed overseas, I've been on international training exercises showing our skill and equipment to other nations... I think it's mostly a penis envy thing; ACISS thinks IST are smarter than they are, so they naturally don't like us. It's a misconception that you have to be some incredibly smart guy to be 'good with computers'. THAT is the past... There are some incredibly stupid people running networks and servers out there these days... Same as the CORE jobs... We know we couldn't operate a radio very well 1 year after our 3's, and we don't want too! We love that you guys love your radios and jobs, it means we don't have to do it!!! We each have our delineated lanes now and can drive down the highway at troubleshooting speed... Without fear of being posted into a job where we're suddenly a duty sig on a radio after five years running networks! When it comes down to it... Sigs pers make it work... Guys who are IST's aren't fantastically smarter than the switched on Core guys, we're both just good troubleshooters! I will say that maybe not as many of the low-hanging fruit make it through all the way to IST so maybe the general populace of IST isn't as varied with pumps? There are still pumps that's for sure but not as many... You can't be a pump when your one of the very few in an operation that HAS to do thier job or people notice REALLY REALLY fast and it has dire consequences.

That all being said, most of the commonwealth armies I think have integrated Signallers, like our old system. I'm not sure if that's because they've tried this type of streaming and it didn't work or we're just ahead of the curve. Obviously it didn't go so well for our Air Force!

Rant OFF...


----------



## 211RadOp (21 May 2014)

Firstly, I would like to say that MES is a mess, I don't mean the good type where you can go for a beer after work.  They are still trying to sort things out as to how it is supposed to work.  Just using one example, the DP4B.1 (CISTM) that I attended had four ACISS on the course, along with nine CISTM (Line and LCIS Tech background, IST was new so there was none as we were all WOs) and I was one of the core guys.  The course is not designed for us.  It has now been put into hiatus for the time being until the young ISTs, such as yourself, get to that point in your careers.

As per you comments about operating a network, ISTs do not operate a network, they manage a network.  Big difference.  Are they more intelligent then the canvas monkeys setting up the Unit/Bde/Div CP, no.  But they do have a needed skill set that brings a required capability to the Unit/Bde/Div staff, as do LSTs, CSTs and ACISS.  We all have a part in the battle

I've done the IT stuff and don't like it, hell I can barely find the on/off switch half the time.  Did we chug along with OJT and courses at CFSCE, not at that time as CFSCE did not run the courses needed, so we contracted out to civilian companies.  Do I envy one sub-occ over the other, no.  Do I care when the ISTs start talking 1s and 0s, no.  Do I care about LSTs taking about 25 pair lines, not at all.  What I care is that when, as a WO, I go to my experts and I get an answer that will satisfy the question I have asked.

Puckchaser hit it on the head when he said we should have started this 20 years ago.  If we had, we would have Sgts and WOs in a position to be able to advise the CO (not OC) of the HQ & Sig Sqns on the employment and deployment of their IS Sections, rather than having people like me trying to do it now.  Fortunately, when I was in 1 Sqn at the Regt, I was not the Tp WO for either of the "Geek" Tps, as I would have had to heavily rely on my MCpls and Sgts for the answers that my Sqn OC needed.

This really burns me though, 





> I could go on and on with real-world examples of problems and issues that any ACISS-CORE guy of any rank could not fix in my line of duty without extensive retraining and experience.


  This is blatantly false.  There are a large number of computer and network savvy people in the trade that opted to stay core because that is what they wanted, and I can give you many examples.  You are painting people with a broad brush.  That is like me saying that there are no ISTs can input a freq into a radio, which we both know is not true.

The long and the short of it, in my opinion, was MES required for the Signals trades, no.  Did we need a specialist trade to manage the networks, no.  We did well enough without it.  Am I angry/jealous of ISTs, not one bit.  Will I continue to bash them, damn straight, same as I will bash Linemen, Rad Techs, Tel Techs and TE Techs (it is my god given right!).

I apologize for going all over the place with this, but I am on my second bottle of Pinot Noir, and my brain is a bit askew (I'm surprised I can still spell at this time of night also).

Disclaimer: I use geek in the non-bias manner.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 May 2014)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> This really burns me though,   This is blatantly false.  There are a large number of computer and network savvy people in the trade that opted to stay core because that is what they wanted, and I can give you many examples.  You are painting people with a broad brush.  That is like me saying that there are no ISTs can input a freq into a radio, which we both know is not true.



Just to amplify the point, I have a college diploma in Computer Networking and stayed Core. I'll talk geek all day and then sling some canvas at night. 

I'll also point out that coherent thought after drinking more than the "Low Risk Drinking guidelines" say is probably a PC that every operator had to pass at some point, I agree with everything your wine-clouded speech had to say.  ;D


----------



## upandatom (22 May 2014)

I have to say I agree, 20 years ago would of been better, and probably cheaper. 

I think now it has become a major deterrent for the signals army side. It has caused kind of a mess and people are getting frustrated. 

ISTjoeschmo, I have heard from ISTs that it has been good for them to be Network Managers, I do know Cores that have worked at 4191, with the qualifications to be IST, but get turned down at every request.


----------



## Sig_Des (22 May 2014)

Let me preface this by saying that I am a true ACISS-Core. I am also a one who has done CompTIA A+, Network+, and Security+, and who previously worked on an LCSS Tiger team that tested, trained and implemented what was then known as TacNet. I do not enjoy the Network/computer side of the house, but realize that to be effective, one must have at the very least a basic understanding of the systems, and how to troubleshoot them. However, I much prefer carrying a radio on my back for long hours and in pretty miserable conditions in direct support of combat arms.

1.  MES is a dirty, stinky stagnant mess. It was a rushed, poorly explained, poorly implemented, not well thought out carriage-in-front-of-the-horse exercise. Considering there are working groups going on right now to try to fix it, when many if not all of the people who ran it have moved on is the proof in the pudding.  It has created stovepiping at the cost of lowering the value of the lowest common denominator, and fostered an attitude of "They'll get the training elsewhere" (School pushes training requirements to Sqns, Sqns believe training should have been provided at the school, and new DP1's are left playing catch-up, or sweeping floors, or sent to first-line units where their lack of training can very much be seen).

2.  IST's. I personally believe that the creation of the IST sub-trade (SUB-trade, which could also be seen as an occupational specialty) was the ONLY good thing that came out of MES. Not because I think the compu-geeks needed to be their own trade per se, but because certain capabilities need to be fostered and developed. Because of the long training periods for members to become technically proficient and deployable, specialists (for better lack of a non-spec pay deserving term) needed to be protected and have the time invested into them to make them valuable to the organization (in a value added way, not as in we need you more than Linemen, Techs or Operators). If a sub-trade was the only way to protect these members from being posted immediately following the point where they are truly the experts on their system, then so be it, but I believe it was ultimately a solution to the problem of poor man-management.

 However, I believe a misconception is that since IST stood up, it minimized the requirement for Core operators to have training and knowledge on IS systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. IPs and computers are here to stay. But with that....

3. Dependence on IS - This is an institutional issue. And this:



> If the network went down, officers and brigade staff etc would go to the shacks and play cards, or stress the hell out because they couldn't accomplish their jobs. That was in theatre, during operations.



is abso-*******-lutely unacceptable.

Networks go down, but people don't stop shooting at you. The dependence on computer systems is disgusting. Despite the best efforts of the smartest Technicians and Engineers, equipment will break. A validation along the lines of "you guys need us, because the war stops when the computers die" is something that needs to be bred out right away. Not to take away from your livelyhood, but an ability to effectively command and control combat without the added benefit of computer networks must be maintained. This is an institutional bad-habit that NEEDS TO BE BROKEN. Combat maneuver elements CAN be controlled by a CP in nothing but tents with radios and maps, and should be the basis of CP capabilities at the NCM and Officer level. Tactical and Strategic level networks are immensely beneficial, but they should revolve around conflict, and not the other way around.

As far as the 1s & 0s chicken-bone readers, like 211RadOp, I will continue to mock and ridicule them, just as much as I will Linemen, Techs, and other Operators.


----------



## JBP (23 May 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> I have to say I agree, 20 years ago would of been better, and probably cheaper.
> 
> I think now it has become a major deterrent for the signals army side. It has caused kind of a mess and people are getting frustrated.
> 
> ISTjoeschmo, I have heard from ISTs that it has been good for them to be Network Managers, I do know Cores that have worked at 4191, with the qualifications to be IST, but get turned down at every request.



Very good points brought up by all... 

I do too agree 20 years ago would have been perfect, we'd have a proper structure in place for a generation already. But we're the ones who now have to make the generational change.

Could you clarify what you mean by worked at 4191 with quals but turned down at every request? As in, they were not allowed to transfer to IST?


----------



## JBP (23 May 2014)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Let me preface this by saying that I am a true ACISS-Core. I am also a one who has done CompTIA A+, Network+, and Security+, and who previously worked on an LCSS Tiger team that tested, trained and implemented what was then known as TacNet. I do not enjoy the Network/computer side of the house, but realize that to be effective, one must have at the very least a basic understanding of the systems, and how to troubleshoot them. However, I much prefer carrying a radio on my back for long hours and in pretty miserable conditions in direct support of combat arms.
> 
> 1.  MES is a dirty, stinky stagnant mess. It was a rushed, poorly explained, poorly implemented, not well thought out carriage-in-front-of-the-horse exercise. Considering there are working groups going on right now to try to fix it, when many if not all of the people who ran it have moved on is the proof in the pudding.  It has created stovepiping at the cost of lowering the value of the lowest common denominator, and fostered an attitude of "They'll get the training elsewhere" (School pushes training requirements to Sqns, Sqns believe training should have been provided at the school, and new DP1's are left playing catch-up, or sweeping floors, or sent to first-line units where their lack of training can very much be seen).
> 
> ...



Bang on... Especially # 2 & 3... Notice I said I wasn't agreeing with, or happy that people would throw their hands up in frustration with the system down... I just mentioned it does happen. They are currently dependent on the system of technologies we have in place. That being said, they're being forced too. The institutions that be (ours, NATO in general) is forcing more use of technology and compliance with it (can't go into specifics due to security) so we're all more 'interoperable' on the battlefields of the future. 

We did due a simulated network outage on our pre-deployment planning where we took the entire network offline right in the middle of a large, simulated muti-AOR operation and forced the staff to think on their feet, plan and make orders and decisions the old fashion way. This was part of the EXCON staff's plan to monkey wrench things for them a bit. The staff we had at the time, did pretty good actually. I was surprised. But that was a tour that has long since passed and with a BGen who was VERY comfortable and appreciative of his technological capabilities and deficiencies.


----------



## upandatom (26 May 2014)

IST Joeschmo said:
			
		

> Very good points brought up by all...
> 
> I do too agree 20 years ago would have been perfect, we'd have a proper structure in place for a generation already. But we're the ones who now have to make the generational change.
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by worked at 4191 with quals but turned down at every request? As in, they were not allowed to transfer to IST?



one request at the start, (the grace period you were allowed to say hey I made a mistake I want this) and now two or three official requests now. 





			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Let me preface this by saying that I am a true ACISS-Core. I am also a one who has done CompTIA A+, Network+, and Security+, and who previously worked on an LCSS Tiger team that tested, trained and implemented what was then known as TacNet. I do not enjoy the Network/computer side of the house, but realize that to be effective, one must have at the very least a basic understanding of the systems, and how to troubleshoot them. However, I much prefer carrying a radio on my back for long hours and in pretty miserable conditions in direct support of combat arms.
> 
> 1.  MES is a dirty, stinky stagnant mess. It was a rushed, poorly explained, poorly implemented, not well thought out carriage-in-front-of-the-horse exercise. Considering there are working groups going on right now to try to fix it, when many if not all of the people who ran it have moved on is the proof in the pudding.  It has created stovepiping at the cost of lowering the value of the lowest common denominator, and fostered an attitude of "They'll get the training elsewhere" (School pushes training requirements to Sqns, Sqns believe training should have been provided at the school, and new DP1's are left playing catch-up, or sweeping floors, or sent to first-line units where their lack of training can very much be seen).
> 
> ...



Thats pretty bang on there.


----------

