PDA

View Full Version : rank, appointments, stuff....



DeV
8th August 2015, 22:14
Have to agree with this and did suggest it from the outset. However it should be remembered that the ships themselves will need minor - medium refitting after every few months on station.

I do believe that it is quite feasible to deploy two vessels bearing in mind the gravity of the situation . However Crew rotation would then become an extremely important factor.

The thing to remember is that very soon Malta will be in position to deploy a very capable vessel to the area with a crew that will reflect the same type of capabilities we currently have on site.

Its going to get worse before it gets better, at least until someone can stop these people even getting into boats.

The NS have a large amount of vacancies at Lt, S/Lt and LS level

hptmurphy
9th August 2015, 01:04
The NS have a large amount of vacancies at Lt, S/Lt and LS level

Dosen't mean that the vacancies couldn't be filled. Depends what division the vacancies are in..Some one just has to sign off on the variation order to get people paid in the role.

na grohmití
9th August 2015, 01:12
It doesn't have vacancies, it just has a delay in getting promotions approved.

DeV
9th August 2015, 01:19
Dosen't mean that the vacancies couldn't be filled. Depends what division the vacancies are in..Some one just has to sign off on the variation order to get people paid in the role.

To deploy an additional vessel to the Med (in addition to existing commitments)?

There are 11 NS cadets in training at the moment (ie they aren't fully trained), there is currently 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt's (that's 25% of the establishment that is currently vacant BTW). You therefore can't fill those vacancies currently (there is no one to fill them!!!).

There are 17 vacancies for Lt's at the minute (that's 20% of the establishment BTW). If filled, it would make the Sub/Lt situation worse (although that shouldn't be a reason not to fill them.

There are enough Seaman to fill the LS vacancies but that is assuming that they are all fully trained and qualified.

Then as you say are they from the right division.

hptmurphy
9th August 2015, 01:58
It doesn't have vacancies, it just has a delay in getting promotions approved.

hence whats known as a variation order


To deploy an additional vessel to the Med (in addition to existing commitments)?

But all the ships have their full compliments so the vacancies have no impact on sea going capability of ships.


There are 11 NS cadets in training at the moment (ie they aren't fully trained), there is currently 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt'

Cadets in training dosen't equate to vacancies as they still have to complete their watch keeping.


There are 17 vacancies for Lt's at the minute (that's 20% of the establishment BTW)

Again doesn't always equate to seagoing appointments, to go to sea all ships will have XOs and MEOs, all Lt appointments, so all seagoing appointments are filled.


There are enough Seaman to fill the LS vacancies but that is assuming that they are all fully trained and qualified.

Enlisted, being the terminology required again specific to role, requirement for 3 exec branch Leading hands for watch keeping, again specify the location of the vacancies.

MTD's could be short 10 leading hands, but isn't a ship stopper.

Huge difference between vacancies ,appointments, establishment in the NS vs Army. Army it really doesn't matter. NS unless they are ships stoppers they can always be back filled.

na grohmití
9th August 2015, 02:31
There are plenty of subbies on the base that can't do an LTs job on ship because they have not been promoted. Instead they are getting bounced on GoHs and admin jobs that realistically are actually being done by the Senior Rate who works for them.
Look at the figures for yourself, compare them with crews. I note that there is a Commander overseas with Niamh, otherwise normal manning applies, in addition to the 2 Medics.
The Average ship has 5 officers.
Each ship is normally commanded by a Lt Cdr. The NS has 43. Only 8 are needed at sea.
The remaining 4 are Lt or S/Lt. The NS has 93. Only 32 are needed at sea.
As for an L/S, at sea few, as HPT says are shipstoppers. But the NS has 143 to chose from. Niamh/Roisin has (based on the crew list from L.E. Niamh's visit to asia in 2002) 6. 3 Seamans branch, 1 EMT, 1 Cook, 1 Steward.

ancientmariner
9th August 2015, 08:32
In interview an LE Niamh spokesperson said they had 56 crew on board. It seems they have extras for the deployment. The original agreed manning scales for all ships was 3 crews for each ship to keep all at sea 24/7. This covers leave, courses, sickness , other deployments etc. The maths are 7x46x3=966 seagoing personnel plus the Base manning and Training elements. Ships are job specific and cannot carry too many first trippers as it effects operations, particularly at nighttime boardings etc. Once the open door policy on recruitment ended there has been a concertina effect on departments with shortages building up and skills diluted when the next wave of sanctioned newbies arrive.

DeV
9th August 2015, 08:56
But all the ships have their full compliments so the vacancies have no impact on sea going capability of ships.

Again doesn't always equate to seagoing appointments, to go to sea all ships will have XOs and MEOs, all Lt appointments, so all seagoing appointments are filled.
Being filled by personnel on their shore rotation

Who is doing the jobs ashore (say in the Dockyards) while they are at sea?

This is effecting retention

Look at L/ERA's, they have had to take on 2/3 classes of DEs




Cadets in training dosen't equate to vacancies as they still have to complete their watch keeping.
Not what I said, there are 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt's but as there are at least 2 NS cadet classes still in training (with a total of 11 cadets) there is no possibility of filling the Sub/Lt vacancies immediately




The original agreed manning scales for all ships was 3 crews for each ship to keep all at sea 24/7. This covers leave, courses, sickness , other deployments etc. The maths are 7x46x3=966 seagoing personnel plus the Base manning and Training elements. Ships are job specific and cannot carry too many first trippers as it effects operations, particularly at nighttime boardings etc. Once the open door policy on recruitment ended there has been a concertina effect on departments with shortages building up and skills diluted when the next wave of sanctioned newbies arrive.

It has been 1.33 per crew since around 2000

ancientmariner
9th August 2015, 11:44
1.33 ratio won't, cannot work. Like owning 3 socks you'll never have a clean pair after first wear. On strenuous deployments whole crew change could be a requirement.

Jack Booted Man
9th August 2015, 16:19
I always thought the argument about the numbers and balance of offrs and NCOs in the navy was to allow a suitable sea/shore lifestyle and rotation, ie 2/3 years out 3/5 years in (or there and thereabouts) . I know that despite all the additional places allotted the navy weren't able to recruit enough cadets and retain junior officers in the last number of years, ergo vacancies in the establishment.... If the vacancies in the establishment exist ( which they do) and are held against shore based appointments then that means certain junior ranks ( LS and subbies/Lts ) are doing more at sea then they are supposed to.... i.e getting screwed. This no doubt will have an impact on retention which leads us back to the vicious circle...... Of more junior offrs and NCOs going on their ticket as the job places too high a demand on them. As the economy continues to improve, more and more well trained and valuable individuals will head off to the private sector..... We already have Aldi Batt , could we be looking at LE Lidl ?

The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks..... I know it was all much harder in our day ( Bulls wool and dodgy corvettes) but if we are to retain our levels of effectiveness in the navy we need to recruit and retain a new generation of junior officers and NCOs ....

DeV
9th August 2015, 16:46
I always thought the argument about the numbers and balance of offrs and NCOs in the navy was to allow a suitable sea/shore lifestyle and rotation, ie 2/3 years out 3/5 years in (or there and thereabouts) . I know that despite all the additional places allotted the navy weren't able to recruit enough cadets and retain junior officers in the last number of years, ergo vacancies in the establishment.... If the vacancies in the establishment exist ( which they do) and are held against shore based appointments then that means certain junior ranks ( LS and subbies/Lts ) are doing more at sea then they are supposed to.... i.e getting screwed. This no doubt will have an impact on retention which leads us back to the vicious circle...... Of more junior offrs and NCOs going on their ticket as the job places too high a demand on them. As the economy continues to improve, more and more well trained and valuable individuals will head off to the private sector..... We already have Aldi Batt , could we be looking at LE Lidl ?

The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks..... I know it was all much harder in our day ( Bulls wool and dodgy corvettes) but if we are to retain our levels of effectiveness in the navy we need to recruit and retain a new generation of junior officers and NCOs ....

It's suppose to be 2 years at sea and 2 years ashore

Jack Booted Man
9th August 2015, 17:27
Depending on rank .... According to last set of pqs , 48 Lt Cdrs - 8 at sea..... 56 Lts - not sure how many at sea but 7 XOs at least .... Allowing for techies, Career cses, 'normal DF ' overseas.... At the higher ranks not so bad.....a lot worse for certain techies, and junior offrs/NCOs I would assume , the old adage of fecal matters susceptibility to gradient remains true.

Not wishing to drag ourselves off topic , I as a member of the army have been immensely proud of my naval colleagues in the last few weeks. The professionalism , from both crews, has been exceptional. The level of trauma they have been exposed to is significant and I hope we have learnt lessons from other traumatic experiences that other members of the DF have gone through in the last number of years ( Rwanda, Somalia, Grapes of wrath etc) . I hope the welfare of the crew is foremost in the minds of decision makers as they look at the duration of the Niamh's deployment and whether to extend or replace .....

hptmurphy
9th August 2015, 20:00
Who is doing the jobs ashore (say in the Dockyards) while they are at sea?

Certain ranks filling appointments in the dockyard etc have no function realistically other than being at sea.

Again its the division system.

Of the 143 leading hands, how many are executive branch?

Other than specific training role rank carrying members of this branch serve no practical role ashore!

Of the 'x' amount of Lt Cdrs again other than Executive branch who will be ships captains they have no formal role ashore other than administrration, same goes for the engineering branch

Reeling off figures without break down by branch is lie assuming all soldiers do the same job and have the same level of qualification. Not all S/Lts are qualified watchkeepers thus have no function at sea.


It's suppose to be 2 years at sea and 2 years ashore

it is that, but its a case of needs must, and putting ships to sea is the priority not worrying whether PO 'x' has done more time at sea than PO 'y'.

Believe it or not most people prefer to be at sea as opposed to being in the base, they are actually full filling the role the joined to do. In my time stints in the base other than on courses were like a death sentence especially for single men.


The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks


For several reasons yes, but its not a ship stopper and should be used as an excuse to not deploy a second ship if required.


noticeable how inappropriate the blue ďundressĒ uniform is

the term is working dress as that is what it is. For safety reasons it is what is , Designer gear and sandals are not really appropriate for working aboard ship, where everything has the potential to maim or kill if not treated with respect ( especially the cooks)


It has been 1.33 per crew since around 2000

thats an establishment figure as opposed to an operational practised number.

Toolbox
9th August 2015, 22:55
God bless you all but your some waffle monsters at this point of the thread.

Two in two out has never been anything but assperational at least in the last 20 years.

Only the few in certain senior nco and officer ranks have longer ashore than two years (often far longer)

hptmurphy
10th August 2015, 03:00
God bless you all but your some waffle monsters at this point of the thread.

Two in two out has never been anything but assperational at least in the last 20 years.

Only the few in certain senior nco and officer ranks have longer ashore than two years (often far longer)

bear in mind only two from the group have every served on sea going naval vessel, one as a rating the other as......

na grohmití
11th August 2015, 20:49
There is definitely one or two commanders I believe we could do without :)

ancientmariner
11th August 2015, 20:58
Any qualified officer, NCO, or seaman can do the job of appropriate appointments above him. So a Sub with a watchkeeping certificate can do a lieutenants job etc.Not promoting people shouldn't stop the job but it p---es off those concerned no end who are doing the work but not getting paid. Technically everybody , in emergencies, has the Field Marshall's baton in his knapsack!! It's petty penny pinching under some Agreement with Civil Service Unions. Things are tight and everybody must suffer or be embarrassed like soldiers I saw today driving a 97-D- truck!!

ancientmariner
12th August 2015, 08:32
Under the heading of "stuff". During the rescue missions down south I was very impressed at the number of Deepwater ports particularly around Sicily eg Catania, Palermo, Augusta, Messina etc. We, in this country need to develop something similar. I would suggest that all new port developments, like lower Harbour in Cork should have a dedicated Naval Berth for our ships and Visiting Naval vessels. Other than Dublin and Cork we have done nothing to develop the Marine possibilities at a commercial level-- just hard to get at Fishery Harbours.

hptmurphy
12th August 2015, 13:42
Could anybody tell me (without breaching OPSPEC rules) why is the establishment of 45 Lieutenant Commanders and indeed 13 Commanders required for the functioning of an 8 vessel flotilla.

Is it necessary that purely administrative and non-military duties (aside from that undertaken by civil servants) be done by military personnel in the defence forces or, if it is, does it have to be done at such an inflated rank? Would not senior NCOís be quite able and competent to perform such tasks?

Naval officers quite rightly control the operational requirements, planning, manning and performance of the fleet but is a seven fold hierarchy required? Can this total number of 58 be justified when training (non-military), educational, engineering, and maintenance could be achieved with civilian staff. Sea going appointments in the above mentioned ranks would be, allowing for sea/shore rotation, in the order of 18-20; what do the other 40 do?

If there is a valid reason other than military hierarchical mind-set for such an establishment? Would the effectiveness of the Naval Service be diminished by a reduced military presence in its non-military administrative function or, dare I say it, could the converse be true?

Its based on the army system where there has to be an appointed head of each department or sub department with a laid down establishment structure.

The Naval system of command on ships is departmentalised with each department having an officer in charge, solely based on rank,

Think of it army terms of having a Lt Cdr in charge of a unit slightly bigger than a Platoon.

roughly 1 Lt Cdr commanding 45 people a Lt as XO and Lt as MEO a S/lt for Guns and Nav and an understudy MEO

6 Officers with 37 crew remaining..again not to mention Officers under training such as Ensigns
1 CPO Coxn 1 X PO Bosun, CPO ERA, PO MECH, PO RRT, SPO DUSTY PO COOK PO Commop PO EA PO Chippy (or L Shipwright)

this would be the typical structure with each department having its L/hands

Lot of stripes and bars in the mix but thats the way ships have been manned.

It could be argued that ships could be captained by Lts, wouldn't wash obviously but no reason why

The figures above are the ideal from memory and may vary slightly.

I do remember at one point in the 80s Eithne had 13 officer appointments outside of the AC

out of 100 poeple in the NS 175 were officers, again this was 30 years ago, has it changed much?

ancientmariner
12th August 2015, 14:59
In general the picture as you describe would be true. I would add in the 3 PO/ERA's for watchkeeping. I think your ratio is a typo , so I'm reading 1000 for 100. Whirlywind's point about replacing Service persons with civilians would scupper the sea to shore ratio's and would doom security and GOH's and make training, range practices, and overseas participation difficult. In my time we were never in a situation of sitting on our hands. It's never like a fire brigade with nothing to do until the fire starts, Mess Audits, Boards of Survey, UN duties, courses, training etc. To work at sea all the time, you need an off crew at home for each ship, and relieve on a back to back basis, with a cadre of spare reliefs for those dropping out for various reasons. It would take 736 personnel to man 8 ships and if you add in contingencies you are close to 1000 with the shore side still to be manned.

DeV
12th August 2015, 18:24
Current establishment is 183 officers out of total of 1083.

All 8 (saying JJ and WBY have been delivered), at sea or available to go to sea (I think the KPI is 90% of fleet within 8 hours or something) - this means 40 officers & 269 enlisted (total of 309 (28% of the establishment)).

Factor in the running of Haulbowline (eg stores, transport, guards, resting off, admin, logs, NSDS, range practices, training/Naval College/NMCI, workshops, dockyard, other (non-NS) courses, etc etc.

Factor in that 7% of the year of an individual should/will be on leave (over 11% if sea going).........

GoneToTheCanner
12th August 2015, 21:04
Ancient mariner, Italy's deepwater ports have existed since WW 1...i'm sure any firefighters reading this would disagree with the notion that they have nothing to do but wait til a fire kicks off. These days, they are more paramedic than firefighter, yet have to be good at both.

na grohmití
12th August 2015, 21:18
In general the picture as you describe would be true. I would add in the 3 PO/ERA's for watchkeeping. I think your ratio is a typo , so I'm reading 1000 for 100. Whirlywind's point about replacing Service persons with civilians would scupper the sea to shore ratio's and would doom security and GOH's and make training, range practices, and overseas participation difficult. In my time we were never in a situation of sitting on our hands. It's never like a fire brigade with nothing to do until the fire starts, Mess Audits, Boards of Survey, UN duties, courses, training etc. To work at sea all the time, you need an off crew at home for each ship, and relieve on a back to back basis, with a cadre of spare reliefs for those dropping out for various reasons. It would take 736 personnel to man 8 ships and if you add in contingencies you are close to 1000 with the shore side still to be manned.

Delighted to hear recently that PO/ERAs now hold the appropriate civilian Engineer ticket for fourth, third & second engineer, as they progress. CPO/ERA will have earned a civilian 2nd Engineer qualification. The Engineering officer has become a more engineering supervisory and management role than in the past. Indeed many Navies are moving away from the whole engineering officer completely. The majority of MEO work is ashore these days.

hptmurphy
13th August 2015, 00:00
I would add in the 3 PO/ERA's for watchkeeping. I think your ratio is a typo , so I'm reading 1000 for 100.

It is indeed, thank you


These days, they are more paramedic than firefighter

Only in Dublin


Current establishment is 183 officers out of total of 1083.

Percentage wise hasn't changed much then


Whirlywind's point about replacing Service persons with civilians would scupper the sea to shore ratio's and would doom security and GOH's and make training, range practices, and overseas participation difficult.

The shore side needs lean manning applications in the middle and senior management and could probably be somewhat more efficient if there was a civillian input.Plus it would free up persons for seagoing reducing duration of rotations.


Factor in the running of Haulbowline (eg stores, transport, guards, resting off, admin, logs, NSDS, range practices, training/Naval College/NMCI, workshops, dockyard, other (non-NS) courses, etc etc


Ah recruit a few Aldi managers.. they seem to have the right back round:-D



Factor in that 7% of the year of an individual should/will be on leave (over 11% if sea going).

In the old days being posted to ship doubled your annual leave entitlement so if that is still the case the percentage of those on A/L on ships should be higher.


To work at sea all the time, you need an off crew at home for each ship, and relieve on a back to back basis,

But for various reasons it never worked this way in reality

ancientmariner
13th August 2015, 09:39
Indeed, Gone to the Canner, they existed decades before that into the early ages, but Augusta did not become one of Italy's, and Sicily's, biggest Ports except through development and the foresight of an island state. Here in Ireland we are stuck in first gear as far as maritime developments are concerned. Even in the Naval sphere we are under resourced on berths capable of being identified as Naval berths. We are , except for individual port companies efforts, where the Brits left us, soon maybe with no National Drydocks.

DeV
13th August 2015, 09:45
Under the heading of "stuff". During the rescue missions down south I was very impressed at the number of Deepwater ports particularly around Sicily eg Catania, Palermo, Augusta, Messina etc. We, in this country need to develop something similar. I would suggest that all new port developments, like lower Harbour in Cork should have a dedicated Naval Berth for our ships and Visiting Naval vessels. Other than Dublin and Cork we have done nothing to develop the Marine possibilities at a commercial level-- just hard to get at Fishery Harbours.

Cost benefit?
What return will they make for the cost?

There is ports that can take NS vessels without the need for a Naval berth.

Medsailor
13th August 2015, 12:21
Cost benefit?
What return will they make for the cost?

There is ports that can take NS vessels without the need for a Naval berth.

Its not just a case of investment. We are talking about harbours in a non-tidal, non estuary environment that are naturally deeper than ports subject to the silting associated with tides and rivers. In addition, Sicilian (and indeed Italian) ports are run by the Capitaneria del Porto (basically part of the Italian Coastguard) which in turn is subordinate to the Navy. Thus the need for occasional moorings for military/coastguard vessels is something that they factor into their planning from day one. Finally, not all is as rosy as it looks. In Augusta Naval BAse, limited quay space means that the vast majority of the vessels are on Med Moorings with no possibility of loading heavy gear alongside. Having visited Haulbowline, I would say that you are far better off.

DeV
13th August 2015, 15:02
Apart from jobs and the NS it isn't a strategic asset.

If it loss making (don't know if it is), then the jobs are probably unsustainable in the long term.

The NS wouldn't use it enough to just its retention alone.

If the NS was to recommission the one in Haulbowline the same applies.

NS scheduled dry docking requirements would be 37 days annually (assuming a 7 day working week).

ancientmariner
13th August 2015, 16:22
Ancient mariner, Italy's deepwater ports have existed since WW 1...i'm sure any firefighters reading this would disagree with the notion that they have nothing to do but wait til a fire kicks off. These days, they are more paramedic than firefighter, yet have to be good at both.

They are probably there even longer, however the ports are developed to meet and match all modern requirments. Augusta in Sicily is one of Italy's bigger ports coming in at No.5 , which means there are 4 others with even bigger capacity. Sciliy on its own has expanded many ports and has at least 5 that can take our ships alongside. In Ireland we have only two ports at most that can take ships at low water and provide a berth. Marine wise we are short on berths and dockyards, with an overall weak maritime planning and governance.

ancientmariner
13th August 2015, 16:35
One final point about crewing on Naval ships. There is a factor that drains a ships competence. If the ship is in action mode, where most crew are required, to man stations, as in action, or assist in major emergencies all lasting beyond 24 hrs, then bigger crews are a must. Corvette wartime crew was as high 80/90 depending on type, to cover 24/7 availability.

na grohmití
13th August 2015, 19:52
" In Ireland we have only two ports at most that can take ships at low water and provide a berth."
While in agreement with most of the sentiment expressed by ancientmariner I know of at least eight ports (excluding the tidal docks in Galway and Limerick) that could and have provided a berth for Irish naval ships at low water.

Can it hold any of them? Discount limerick because a ship cannot leave whenever it wants to.

ancientmariner
13th August 2015, 21:11
IRISH Ports to access all tides . 1. Dublin 2. Dun Laoghaire ,but weather constrained and yacht obstructed. 3. Rosslare, but no preferential berth all spoken for.4 Cork Harbour mainly at Naval Base. 5. Killybegs, up to Aisling size but not for long stay. 6. Rathmullen, but weather constrained. 7. Derry, but berth has no bollards and necessary to tie on to car park rails. 8. Belfast. There's 8 Ports but only two are tenable Cork and Dublin. I discount Foynes as it is too far up the Estuary and clogged with other traffic.
Can you list ports with 5+metres at LWS?

CTU
13th August 2015, 21:19
3. Rosslare but no preferential berth all spoken for.

What about berth 4 in Rosslare, Stena used it for the fast ferry but stoped that service a few years ago, And I have seen one of the P40s using it once.

danno
13th August 2015, 21:44
It can be quite expensive to dock/tie up in commercial ports.

GoneToTheCanner
13th August 2015, 23:01
I presume the daily watch duration and timing is changed to suit circumstances; a friend who was RN said that they went 7,5,5,7 for actions like the Balkans during ops in the Adriatic

hptmurphy
13th August 2015, 23:32
Waterford, but given the city docks are so far from the mouth of the harbour its a nightmare,but Belview is very capable New Ross is quite capable as well

ancientmariner
13th August 2015, 23:43
I did NOT know that Large ships ie more than 10,000 tonnes could get into Killybegs but I see they have done port development to cater for 40,000 and 12 metres draft. That is good news. In such a harbour we should book a naval berth with water and access to fueling facilities at least by truck.
We need more progress like this in case there is a need to base a unit on the West Coast for a period.

Bravo20
14th August 2015, 08:44
MOD: For those of you reading this who are a bit confused, looking at the thread title and then trying to work out what deep ports have to do with rank or appointments. Those posts fall under the theme of "Stuff"

Truck Driver
14th August 2015, 16:53
....the term is working dress as that is what it is. For safety reasons it is what is , Designer gear and sandals are not really appropriate for working aboard ship, where everything has the potential to maim or kill if not treated with respect ( especially the cooks)...

Brilliant... :-D

danno
17th August 2015, 18:54
Waterford, but given the city docks are so far from the mouth of the harbour its a nightmare,but Belview is very capable New Ross is quite capable as well

Low water transiting to 'Ross can be about 3-4m in spots.

hptmurphy
17th August 2015, 21:03
Low water transiting to 'Ross can be about 3-4m in spots.

They got CPVs in there in the past

ancientmariner
18th August 2015, 01:06
They got CPVs in there in the past

New Ross would not be an ideal Naval Port. Usually quick access to the sea without locks, bridges, or sand bars is the ideal. The CPV has a draft of 2.7m but would find the Bar at Duncannon difficult at low water in adverse weather.

ancientmariner
25th August 2015, 08:49
More stuff. Our side sank a derelict two masted motor sailer off the ssw coast recently. Any forensics? Or just Davy Jones? Name? Where built? Any Docs. on board. Where from. Interpol. Any History?

Toolbox
25th August 2015, 11:47
Petite D'Eau.

Adrift from Bahamas.

Owners contacted.

Hazard to shipping removed.

ancientmariner
25th August 2015, 11:54
Just asking. Insurance own the boat, if they paid up.Hazard no more.

Dogwatch
26th August 2015, 20:38
More stuff. Our side sank a derelict two masted motor sailer off the ssw coast recently. Any forensics? Or just Davy Jones? Name? Where built? Any Docs. on board. Where from. Interpol. Any History?

Think ur asking the obvious..... which won't be answered here

DeV
23rd March 2017, 01:52
http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/FOI_DL65

na grohmití
23rd March 2017, 09:52
Am I missing something? Table bears no connection to foi request.

Bravo20
23rd March 2017, 10:28
Am I missing something? Table bears no connection to foi request.

I was thinking the same thing

DeV
23rd March 2017, 12:58
It was more the info contained in the table I was interested in

As at 30/6/16, the NS was critically short of Lts, S/Lts, POs and LSs

ancientmariner
25th March 2017, 09:48
It was more the info contained in the table I was interested in

As at 30/6/16, the NS was critically short of Lts, S/Lts, POs and LSs

It's a pity that unvarnished truth is always scarce but in any event the vacancies from WO down to L/S must be given an accumulated figure and added to any vacancies in the overall A/B rates. You cannot be down over 70 NCO's and claim NO vacancies in junior seaman of various Branches. If you declare that you are short 46 L/S then you can ONLY find them in your NON NCO strengths subject to training. It is the same maths for commissioned ranks which relies in strengths within Cadet, Ensign, and Sub-Lieutenants, to eventually fill vacancies on promotion. In other words Recruit and Train.

DeV
25th March 2017, 11:27
It's a pity that unvarnished truth is always scarce but in any event the vacancies from WO down to L/S must be given an accumulated figure and added to any vacancies in the overall A/B rates. You cannot be down over 70 NCO's and claim NO vacancies in junior seaman of various Branches. If you declare that you are short 46 L/S then you can ONLY find them in your NON NCO strengths subject to training. It is the same maths for commissioned ranks which relies in strengths within Cadet, Ensign, and Sub-Lieutenants, to eventually fill vacancies on promotion. In other words Recruit and Train.

Absolutely

ancientmariner
12th September 2017, 09:58
Absolutely

We are going to have up to three depletion's in Senior Officer ranks imminently. All in Haulbowline. I wish them well in their retirement, and their replacements a bright industrious future taking the Navy forward.

na grohmití
12th September 2017, 18:18
Interesting times ahead. The age profile at the upper three levels has dropped by 10-15 years in one go.

ancientmariner
12th April 2018, 10:57
Interesting times ahead. The age profile at the upper three levels has dropped by 10-15 years in one go.

Always interesting to see what will happen next and to figure reasoning and expectations of those promoting and being promoted. The only inevitability is that all will eventually enter the uncertainty of shifting PENSION zones. The current long term pensioner scene is crushing with costs of all non-food services increasing, against a diminished pension ( FEMPI) overlaid with additional taxes, and no basic pension increase in the last 10 years.
The PDF pension generally has to support, eventually, two elderly people, who had their medical cards removed at an increased cost of 1728 Euro, plus on going excesses payable on Hospital charges. Times seem to be more challenging for some.

DeV
12th April 2018, 12:36
It's a pity that unvarnished truth is always scarce but in any event the vacancies from WO down to L/S must be given an accumulated figure and added to any vacancies in the overall A/B rates. You cannot be down over 70 NCO's and claim NO vacancies in junior seaman of various Branches. If you declare that you are short 46 L/S then you can ONLY find them in your NON NCO strengths subject to training. It is the same maths for commissioned ranks which relies in strengths within Cadet, Ensign, and Sub-Lieutenants, to eventually fill vacancies on promotion. In other words Recruit and Train.

Not forgetting of course there are direct entry S/Ltís and LSs

Auldsod
13th April 2018, 13:38
Actually, back on topic about rank - did the SCPO rank insignia change sometime back in about 2012?

I remember just before I left the NS overhearing a discussion new rank insignia for a senior enlisted rank. Have the stripes been replaced with a Warrant Officer style insignia or are they both in use?

The rank table available on military.ie hasn't been updated anyway!

Fantasia
13th April 2018, 13:52
Actually, back on topic about rank - did the SCPO rank insignia change sometime back in about 2012?

I remember just before I left the NS overhearing a discussion new rank insignia for a senior enlisted rank. Have the stripes been replaced with a Warrant Officer style insignia or are they both in use?

The rank table available on military.ie hasn't been updated anyway!

Yes they have changed as you described but I do not know when

ancientmariner
13th April 2018, 20:15
Yes they have changed as you described but I do not know when

In the last few years I've noticed the emergence of what I would call WO1 and WO2 in the NS. The former has two thin sleeve rings with gold wired FF badge and the latter has one sleeve ring with FF badge.

Fantasia
13th April 2018, 21:48
I think it started in around 2015 but I am open to correction

hptmurphy
13th April 2018, 22:42
It was changed getting rid of he ringed chevrons with the capbadge to either a single or double bar at the forearm but without the divisional flash using the cap bage instead. The eight button jacket has been retained.

na grohmití
13th April 2018, 22:57
I suppose it just brought naval ranks in line with the equivalent Air Corps and Army BSM and BQMS uniforms. While not technically equal to a BQMS, the SCPO as an OR-8, should always have been wearing a rank marking similar to a WO.

na grohmití
13th September 2018, 20:11
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Delighted to present the Senior and Junior Command &amp; Staff Courses with their awards up to Masters level at the <a href="https://twitter.com/defenceforces?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@defenceforces</a> Conferring Ceremony in the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MilitaryCollege?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MilitaryCollege</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DFTC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DFTC</a>. Well done to the students, staff and families on this momentous day <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/strengthenthenation?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#strengthenthenation</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MaynoothUni?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MaynoothUni</a> <a href="https://t.co/MAqxZrZVSP">pic.twitter.com/MAqxZrZVSP</a></p>&mdash; DF Chief of Staff (@DF_COS) <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_COS/status/1040210794410123265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Can anyone tell me what insignia the Naval Lt Cdr is wearing? Looks wrong for both dolphins and parachutes.

Rhodes
13th September 2018, 20:20
Can anyone tell me what insignia the Naval Lt Cdr is wearing? Looks wrong for both dolphins and parachutes.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge.

Rhodes
13th September 2018, 20:29
Gold for Officers and silver for NCO's and Privates.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8588&d=1536863261