Who is usually the Radio Operator?

[HItorMiss]

Jammer

In point of Fact Wonderbread has years of experience as a Signaler in an Inf Bn both home and overseas, I suggest in the future before you tell someone what they do or do not know you explore their personal backround.

Wonderbread expressed His Opinion on based on his experience, yours differs so argue his points. As for the Sig who passed a Recce course Good on him that's a challenging course but that doesn't for a second mean he has a grasp on Coy level raid tactics or advance to contact TTPs that's why the OC has an INF signaler in his boat and the 2ic who runs the CP boat has the Sig Op. An Infanteer is not nor will he ever be as good at comms as a Sig Op nor should he be just like I will never expect a Sig Op to have the grasp on the fighting stuff and the Infanteer does, they work in tandem achieving the best possible result.

 

[Jammer]

My point being that, no an operator is not an infanteer, nor vice versa.
Wonderbread's experience is limited to being an Infanteer with comms experience, not a Sig Op employed in many different facets.
The same goes for the other lad. He is a Sig Op with a recce crse, not an infanteer.
I would (will) argue that the Coy Signaller (215) is in the OC's back pocket a good deal of the time outside of the boat...why? Because I WAS that guy.
I would like to hear wonderbread weigh in on this rather than have someone speak for him.

 

[GDawg]

i'm not saying that you have the Sig Op be the only one on the radio, far from it.
Based on your profile you have a very limited view of what an operator does beyond just working in a CP.
Why would you not train a switched on Sig Op (see my previous post about one of my operators who just completed the Inf recce crse), and teach him infantry stuff (moot point).
As far as teaching others comms skills in an Eng Sqn, you were just doing part of your job...nothing more than what is expected of you.

Sig Ops come and go. It would make more sense to send an infantryman on an infantry recce course, because he will remain an infantryman, whereas that Sig Op could find themselves posted to CFJSR or a Svc Bn or what not. Personally I think its a great idea to send Signalers on courses like that once in a while, but certainly this is the exception and not the rule.

Jammer, you need to read more carefully. I have stated that I have operational experience as a Sig Op in a field troop of Combat Engineers. I did a shift or two in the Infantry Coy TOC, but the lions share of my tour I was humping C4 around Panjwai or doing construction work at COPs and PBSG. I will also remind you that my past as a reservist has SFA to do with what we are discussing right now. I was a Sig Op for 5 and a half years, and that includes a tour in Afghanistan where I got a BG Commanders Commendation for doing a damn good job of being a Tp Signaler. I have earned the right to throw in my 2 cents on this debate and not have it dismissed outright!

 

[Jammer]

GDawg,
PM Inbound

 

[HItorMiss]

Jammer

I'll speak for myself now I was not to long ago a Coy Signaler during 3-06 to exact working for Charles Coy as the OC Signaler. Not once or in my 10yrs as infantry soldier has the OC moved anywhere with a Sig op as his signaler it was always and to my knowledge still is an senior Cpl comms qualified and was/is done so for all the reasons stated by Wonderbread.

Sig Ops in my experience work best and the optimal use for them is in the various levels of CP's short of some very specialised occasions. Just as the Infantry signaler is best used next to the various leaders doing what Wonderbread describes and fighting the battle.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out once the SR2 project comes full swing. Where things become more IP based and there's more integration with networks.

As it stands, I know in the HQ region we need to know things like sub-netting and the basics of network topology in order to make the bigger stuff work(TSL, HCLOS, TACNET). I wonder how it will fit into this long standing argument.

Just some food for thought from a Bde HQ Sig.

 

[Jammer]

Bulletmagnet
We breathed the same dust on 3-06 then.
I was the ECM Sect Comd with 23 Fd Sqn.
It really depends on the BG and what the OC of the Coy wants.
In M and N Coys on 3-08 they were comfortable having the 215s with them on the ground.

 

[Fusaki]

First off, I can't emphasize enough the respect I have for Sigops.

I'm privileged to have worked for and learned comms from a group of extremely switched on guys from the 1RCR sigs platoon from 2004-2009.  Jammer, I know you'll agree with me when I say that anyone who's been under the tutelage of guys like Randy J, Jay M, Joe A (The Lebanese Newfie), Steph P, and Josh B would have a hard time NOT being good with comms.  Under their guidance, I've held comms positions both in Canada and overseas: section, platoon, and OC's sig, CP operator, and culminating in a stint as Coy Sigs Rep.  When I say that I'm not just some dumb 031 who forgot to put it in HIDS, it's only because of the experience (and extreme patience) of the guys I mentioned above.

There's my background, and I stand by my opinions.  With some exceptions aside, it's better for the sub-unit signallers to be soldiers of that trade trained in comms.  While Sigops are expected to maintain a VERY wide range of comms skills across a variety of equipment types, those skills typically used at the sub-unit level are VERY specialized.  Because comms equipment at the coy level and below is such a narrow skillset, it's more practical to train an infantry guys to carry the radio then it is to train Sigops to be Infanteers.

 

[GnyHwy]

Jammer, 

Please quote me on where I was incorrect or where I stated how sig ops should employed.  Otherwise all your doing is ramblimg. 

As far as staying in my lanes go, I am well within my lanes as I have many years of experience in many jobs with many different types of communications.

The topic is who is usually the radio operator not how sigs should be employed.

My past posts in this topic have had nothing but praise for actual sigs.  My points are accurate and are taken directly from my experience in numerous positions and tours.

As far as a concept of things, as an experienced Sig you should know what value the Arty brings to the table and the diversity of our equipment.  RMC raises a good one about networking coming in the near future.  I will likely be right in the middle of that.  Hey, maybe you can come teach me.

 

[Jammer]

As you might know as well my posts have acknowledged that Arty Sigs have to take a separate course taught by gunners before they are turned loose.
This thread had devolved by others in regard to HOW sigs should be employed, in particular those who have no experience in the trade at all.
Networking on the battlefield has been around for us for some time now. Catch up you're behind a bit.
I not exactly a new guy at this Sig stuff either...oh yeah, it what I do.

 

[GnyHwy]

This thread had devolved by others in regard to HOW sigs should be employed, in particular those who have no experience in the trade at all.

Once again, please quote me on where I stated anything like this.

Networking on the battlefield has been around for us for some time now. Catch up you're behind a bit.

What are you speaking of.  Mirc? or maybe SAS. LOL.  We have barely chipped off the tip of the iceberg for networking potential.

I not exactly a new guy at this Sig stuff either...oh yeah, it what I do.

I never said you were but somehow you seem to know enough about me to be able to slander my name.

Neither one of you have any idea where/how SigOps are employed or what we do in Cbt Arms units, or anything else for that matter. You are both talking out of your a## about something you have no concept of

You have mentor attached to your name.  Maybe you should better understand the definition of mentor and try some tact.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Everyone better reel in their necks. Good info is getting lost amongst the pissing contests. If people are claiming to be super SMEs they oughtta start acting like it. It'd be a shame to have to lock this because some can't play nice in the same sandbox with the rest.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Let me clarify,

I  know that we have and use networking on the battlefield for Bde and higher level comms. Thats a given. Things like FDNet and TACNET have been around or in concept since before I started grade school.

What I was getting at was the introduction of IP based (or at least capable) comms within the combat arms Pl/Tp allowing more information in real time to be streamed live over a WAN rather than in bits and pieces through a freq net.

I was merely throwing out the point that as technology changes, and things get more complex, how does this affect the answer to the question originally posed? is a rad op merely a rad op? Can you honestly and completely transfer concepts that require a month of course for a Sig to an Infanteer in 2 weeks (thats not a shot at your capability, I don't think anyone could fully grasp that sort of stuff in that short of time)?

Opinions and positive responses welcome.

 

[GnyHwy]

I personally am for as much real time info as possible. 

Some would disagree.  If you read the Section Cmdr PDA http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90008.15 you would see that some see it as a negative opportunity for higher to micromanage.

Blue SA is a high priority for me and I will support any real time IP based network.

As far as training and employment goes.  I think with todays tech savvy troops, a basic course shouldn't be too tough but, a solid core of Sigs with comprehensive knowledge need to be at the BG level.

 

[GnyHwy]

Further,

Some see this capablility as a burden on a Section/Squad/Det etc. but, the way I see it is we must go below Plt if we want it to be effective. 

A Plt is easy to track with old methods i.e. a radio and a greasy fat tipped marker.  The fidelity that near real time networking can provide is something that we are lacking.

 

[Jammer]

If you are familiar with Blue Force Tracker I think you would agree that it as close to being able to provide Blue/Red/Brown/yellow SA all the way down to det/veh level.
I have used it on several occasions and agree wholeheartedly that it far and away ourstrips SAS in every respect, but we don't own it and that shortcomings are noted by the folks in the Ivory Towers.
The challenge we face now in order to permit the user (you guys) is to develop a system that falls into the following criteria:

Can it process voice/data information on a VHF freq in real time without bandwidth loss? Not at this time. We tried in several years ago in a unit here in Kingston. By introducing a secure feature to piggyback on the system eats up additional B/W.

Can we do this in a multi-national environment? Not as I see it with many VHF freqs being used multiple times by multiple users.

Why not TACSAT? Why not indeed? Can we do it on the move with no loss of signal at critcal times? No, given the nature/capabilities of the equipment being used at the tactical level right now.

this is a signifgant bone of contention for us at the Operator level to get through to the people at the higher levels who are pushing stuff like SAS down our throats. If we as operators can't make it work at BG/BDE level, how in heavans name can we make it work for the Foxhound in the back of a LAV?

There are systems that are being used that I will not discuss here.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

There is some really good discussion here. Like previously stated, the location of a Sig Op is usually dependent on unit resources, SOPs, and availability.

For the individuals talking blue PA/digital networks, the Air Defence is ahead of most of the Army in terms of the capability.  Unfortunately, the trade is close to dead, but there are a lot of good lessons learned that are around that could assist the folks in the back of LAV as the guys in the back of the ADATS have/are learning them. Without getting into specifics, digitization is a great thing if folks understand network design, equipment capabilities, and bandwidth limitations.