PDA

View Full Version : manning levels, the future.



Sparky42
21st June 2016, 18:55
you say this every time, and you always put it at the top o the 'whats needed?' list - but its not true.

in Irish EPV/MRV would (in the context of the current op) go to the Med in April and stay there until October, it would port in Italy and Malta and its crew would rotate.

6 month, 12 month, 18 month deployments are relatively routine in Navies - hell, even Submarines can do 11 month deployments (the crew must look like uncooked chips after that...).

an Irish EPV/MRV that was part of a relatively modern, 9 ship fleet would spend the overwhelming majority of its life on overseas duty - 6 months in the Med/Indian Ocean, exercises with the Army/AC both at home and with EUBG, defence diplomacy, support for UN/EU ops, humanitarian relief in the Carribean...

the idea that the EPV/MRV is a fisheries protection ship that will get dobbed to do other things once a decade utterly, utterly wrong.

To be fair I'm not sure about 12/18 month deployments, I mean aren't there news reports about issues with the RN hulls having moved to 9 month deployments (among other issues), and even the USN has paid a price for extended tours in terms of support and maintenance issues.

That being said I totally agree about what the EPV/MRV should be used for if we go down that route rather than stay in EEZ operations.

hptmurphy
21st June 2016, 20:35
an Irish EPV/MRV that was part of a relatively modern, 9 ship fleet would spend the overwhelming majority of its life on overseas duty - 6 months in the Med/Indian Ocean, exercises with the Army/AC both at home and with EUBG, defence diplomacy, support for UN/EU ops, humanitarian relief in the Carribean..


Should... being the word , not would!

You are assuming that we will have a 9 ship Navy , if we ever get around to MRV / EPV. While the numbers look good on paper over the next five years,a third of that fleet, will be all but 35 years old and needing replacement, another two units will be approaching 21/23 years service.

personally I think it will be hulls in the water to supplement what we already have in a standard OPV fit rather than elusive one off builds and Blue / Green Ops machines.

And for all that bombed up stuff that gets bandied about, thats Frigates, not OPVs, frigates need speed in excess of thirty knots to be effective,some combination of Gas Turbines and requiring at least double the shaft horse power of an OPV to get it over the 30kt mark, all that will take either buying a FREMM off the shelf or a build we have no idea of.

So 90m to 110 OPVs will be the future for some considerable time.

DeV
21st June 2016, 21:40
Why does the NS primarilly need bigger ships? Because Irish home waters are now bigger in area and more challenging in terms of conditions

Why does the NS primarilly need more vessels (apart from replacing existing hulls)? Because Irish home water are under policed (and they are now much bigger).

The NS is unable to retain people with 21 days patrols (I've seen somewhere that those are now broken up to give a bit more time at home), when they are between patrols they are on X hrs NTM at practically all times, when the ship is in dock the crew are involved in maintenance.

So P70 goes to the Med with a crew for say 60 days and then the crew rotate. What will the crew be doing when they get back? Going back to sea, doing duties at the base, being at X hrs NTM.

The NS can't retain enough people to crew 8 ships (and provide for rotation).

Larger navies can deploy a ship for 6-12 months, rotate crews, put a ship into refit for 12 months etc and give guaranteed leave.

The DF by the way are trying to modularise longer courses so people aren't away from home for say 9 months of the C&S Cse. They are also offering something like a job share for overseas (eg on a 6 month tour, you could do 3 months and then someone replaces you for the remaining 3 months).

ancientmariner
22nd June 2016, 09:54
The NS can't retain enough people to crew 8 ships (and provide for rotation).

Larger navies can deploy a ship for 6-12 months, rotate crews, put a ship into refit for 12 months etc and give guaranteed leave.

The DF by the way are trying to modularise longer courses so people aren't away from home for say 9 months of the C&S Cse. They are also offering something like a job share for overseas (eg on a 6 month tour, you could do 3 months and then someone replaces you for the remaining 3 months).

Retention of personnel is down to personnel management and realistic deployment ,with rotation in theatre, every 4-6 months. My class had a six month CSCE and a 3month SSCse, some Senior officers did not value that Command and Staff Course at full value, certificates were eventually issued, reluctantly, much later by brown envelope post. That was 1976. Glad to say it produced a few Generals eventually.
Assuming the Flagship is replaced by a larger vessel then that vessel should be planned around certain capabilities such as undertaking Flagship/Command duties, ability to resupply Army/Naval stores by collecting military/naval stores from overseas, ability to transport a Coy strength in relative comfort, ability to act as a humanitarian/ hospital ship in pop-up crises, and ability to Defend and Protect itself and adjacent attachments.
It should also have a working flight deck to handle stores ,and personnel, with suitable cargo lifts for the former. What that ship will look like will only emerge from Builders proposals taking into account all tasks envisaged. We are peeing in the wind trying to second guess each other until we see such proposals.

DeV
22nd June 2016, 11:52
Longer deployments and even less time off between patrols isn't going to improve the situation

Turkey
22nd June 2016, 13:47
They will have to just raise the establishment figures, pay people extra to be away, and involve the reserve, if it still exists after all their messing with it.

The Usual Suspect
22nd June 2016, 16:24
MINISTER'S DAIL ANSWERS Tuesday 21st June 2016

Yesterday I signed off on the commission for a fourth vessel. The UK contractors will start building that fourth ship in the next few weeks.

Thanks to Kieran Marum

Expect something on DoD (http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/$$ViewTemplate%20for%20Press%20Releases?openform), DF (http://www.military.ie/en/home/), and Naval Service (http://www.military.ie/en/naval-service/) websites shortly.

Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/), RTE (http://www.rte.ie/news/index.html), and The Examiner (http://www.irishexaminer.com/) thereafter.

Agree LE Seamus Heaney has to be the early favourite...

DeV
22nd June 2016, 17:25
They will have to just raise the establishment figures, pay people extra to be away, and involve the reserve, if it still exists after all their messing with it.

Raising the establishment just means more jobs unfilled (more double and triple jobbing)
Outside DF control
FLR is currently being used to keep ships at sea

Galloglass
22nd June 2016, 17:38
Raising the establishment just means more jobs unfilled (more double and triple jobbing)
Outside DF control
FLR is currently being used to keep ships at sea

I think Turkey means hire MORE sailors Dev.

The Usual Suspect
22nd June 2016, 17:41
Had no idea DeV that things were as stressed as this. Obvious radical and comprehensive reform is needed as a matter of urgency.

This might be totally na´ve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

DeV
22nd June 2016, 19:28
I think Turkey means hire MORE sailors Dev.

That is the strength.

They are leaving faster than they can be replaced


Had no idea DeV that things were as stressed as this. Obvious radical and comprehensive reform is needed as a matter of urgency.

This might be totally na´ve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

AFAIK the FLR haven't been called up permanently, but they have been called up all the same

AFAIK it is tech's (watchkeepers, ERAs etc) that the main issues are with the people that take a lot of time and experience to train

restless
22nd June 2016, 19:49
maybe if ns lowered the eyesight requirement from an almost 20/20 requirement it would increase numbers. i know of 3 young lads, one of whom has had a life long dream to join up, only to be rejected due to not quiet meeting criteria, and it galls him to see all ranks on ns facebook wearing glasses.

Turkey
22nd June 2016, 20:31
I mean people Dev, the size of the NS has to get bigger, by at least 200 bodies...

DeV
22nd June 2016, 21:45
I mean people Dev, the size of the NS has to get bigger, by at least 200 bodies...

Yes strength (ie actual people) as opposed to establishment (how many they should have)

ancientmariner
23rd June 2016, 12:05
This might be totally na´ve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

Navy needs qualified Navigators, marine engineers, and electronic/electrical engineers. Glasses don't disbar seagoing but colour blindness limits employment to the Q side only. Most army officers have never been at sea. The concept is kind but naive.

Tempest
23rd June 2016, 15:20
To put all it's aircraft in the air the AC needs less then 50 bodies.

To put 8 ships at sea requires 8 times that number.

Yet there is not that much difference in their establishments. How it can require 850 people to run 23 relatively small aircraft (with civvies added on as well) is surely a problem. Dropping the AC establishment and increase the NS establishment pro rata would surely be sensible?

DeV
23rd June 2016, 16:12
To put all it's aircraft in the air the AC needs less then 50 bodies.

To put 8 ships at sea requires 8 times that number.

Yet there is not that much difference in their establishments. How it can require 850 people to run 23 relatively small aircraft (with civvies added on as well) is surely a problem. Dropping the AC establishment and increase the NS establishment pro rata would surely be sensible?

Just over actually, but it may take 3 times that number to maintain them (possibly increase to allow for 24/7 cover), there are limitations on pilots and they can't fly an aircraft 24/7 so you need to increase that. Add in admin of units, stores, air base, ATC, ground handling, catering, fire, GoH, leave etc and the numbers quickly add up.

Is there not enough balance of ops -V- non-ops ? Probably
Should ops be the priority? Definitely
Room to manoeuvre? Probably

But possibly not 200 jobs.

The real Jack
23rd June 2016, 16:44
If they expand the navy I guarantee they'll keep the Df Manning ceiling and just bin an infantry coy or 2.

hptmurphy
23rd June 2016, 20:45
This might be totally na´ve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

Yeah..and we'll get vets to work in hospitals to clear back logs!

danno
23rd June 2016, 22:17
Navy needs qualified Navigators, marine engineers, and electronic/electrical engineers. Glasses don't disbar seagoing but colour blindness limits employment to the Q side only. Most army officers have never been at sea. The concept is kind but naive.

Let the secondees do base duties etc and let the sailors do the sailing.

Laners
24th June 2016, 06:19
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

ancientmariner
24th June 2016, 09:32
Let the secondees do base duties etc and let the sailors do the sailing.

The nature of a seagoing career is a cycle of shipboard assignments followed by a period ashore, The seagoing replacements section is a vital part of keeping ships manned, and provides training staffs, unscheduled reliefs at sea, courses, overseas DF appointments. It is untenable to have someone at sea forever. Numbers can be met by, having for a period of two years, with a review, a recruiting open door policy to get 4/6 fully trained classes of sea personnel in that period. You keep numbers up by continually topping up NFA's from a panel to achieve a final output of 200 sea persons.
The male/female ratio policy needs to be applied sensibly to ensure ability of ships to function socially, domestically, with fair sea/shore ratios for all.

DeV
24th June 2016, 11:02
If we had waited a few days would we have saved a few million?

Medsailor
24th June 2016, 11:45
If we had waited a few days would we have saved a few million?

None of us will save a penny (or cent), we'll all pay through the nose for this folly.

sofa
24th June 2016, 18:10
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

True and a lot of the staff running them chefs etc are ex BA

DeV
24th June 2016, 18:58
So when the A/Cook has done his 2 years at sea who replaces him? Another A/Cook who has been doing admin/duties for 2 years?

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 00:02
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

Sodexho

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 00:09
So when the A/Cook has done his 2 years at sea who replaces him? Another A/Cook who has been doing admin/duties for 2 years?

And who do you think has been preparing meals in the base all along?

DeV
25th June 2016, 00:59
And who do you think has been preparing meals in the base all along?

That's my point.

If you privatise the cooks in the dining hall, there is no where for the cooks to go when on shore rotation.

spider
25th June 2016, 12:43
I was chatting to a Chief Chips on exercise recently (WO2 Chef).

He told me that the British Army only recruited 24 Chefs last year...

The future is apparently, contractors in MOB's...with Army Chefs and Army Reserve Chefs from this lot further forward...

http://www.army.mod.uk/logistic/regiments/26026.aspx

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 21:32
Sodexho might do deliveries!

DeV
25th June 2016, 22:07
Sodexho might do deliveries!

That's what type naval UAVs are for :)

DeV
20th July 2016, 21:59
The NS hit the 10,000 rescue mark today

RoyalGreenJacket
21st July 2016, 19:50
That's my point.

If you privatise the cooks in the dining hall, there is no where for the cooks to go when on shore rotation.

in most of our bases Military Chefs still work in the kitchens - with Sodexo, or whichever provider has the catering contract.

ancientmariner
22nd July 2016, 12:32
There used to be, in the BA, an Army Catering Corps, now in this age of doing things better, we have The Royal Logistics Corps, under which bullets, beans,and POL are all part of the supply and delivery system. They have of course killed off old allegiances and dovetailed private catering into shore based units. None of which would work in operational scenarios. Enforced modernisation, by the mandarins , on military/naval systems, is a cost cutting exercise, and usually mean you get less with less.

hptmurphy
22nd July 2016, 14:11
Enforced modernisation, by the mandarins , on military/naval systems, is a cost cutting exercise, and usually mean you get less with less.

Not necessarily , the army here use service companies in a lot of kitchens and it frees up people from menial tasks to perform other duties.

Outsourcing would free up a lot of people for other duties, in the case of the NS , sea going. Get rid of security duties and employ a force that solely do this as a sole tasking again releasing people .

The DF need to take a joint step into the 21st century in relation to these type of roles, we have too few people to be tied up doing jobs which could be carried out more efficiently by contractors.

expat01
22nd July 2016, 15:46
I'm not sure I like the idea of anyone but the military securing military bases.

na grohmitÝ
22nd July 2016, 15:53
What's best international practice?

DeV
1st August 2016, 21:20
NS are currently recruiting DE Ops Branch (watchkeeping) and Engr (Marine & Electrical) officers.

http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/careers/DE_NS_2016/T_Cs_DE_NSOfficers_16.pdf

ancientmariner
2nd August 2016, 13:49
NS are currently recruiting DE Ops Branch (watchkeeping) and Engr (Marine & Electrical) officers.

http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/careers/DE_NS_2016/T_Cs_DE_NSOfficers_16.pdf

This is an onerous undertaken which must be run by a top cadre of Officers and NCO's. All DE officers should undergo a new entry training course covering drills, All Arms drills, Guards, Inspections, documentation, accounts, including estimates, DFR's , divisional duties and Messes.
The DE officer should also have Branch Training in Naval Navigation procedures, Gunnery etc. Other Branch officers should receive Type training on Engineering and Electrical systems as appropriate. Such courses could run for at least 12-14 weeks with refresher elements to follow where necessary. At all costs an overwhelmed, hung out to dry ,officer must be avoided.

Graylion
2nd August 2016, 14:28
question from newbie. How is the NS and the rest of the service doing for recruiting?

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 15:28
This is an onerous undertaken which must be run by a top cadre of Officers and NCO's. All DE officers should undergo a new entry training course covering drills, All Arms drills, Guards, Inspections, documentation, accounts, including estimates, DFR's , divisional duties and Messes.
The DE officer should also have Branch Training in Naval Navigation procedures, Gunnery etc. Other Branch officers should receive Type training on Engineering and Electrical systems as appropriate. Such courses could run for at least 12-14 weeks with refresher elements to follow where necessary. At all costs an overwhelmed, hung out to dry ,officer must be avoided.

Civvy to Sub Lt in 14 weeks quite do able given all the cadet bullshit will be removed and the people already hold a qualification that is applicable to the job.

I do find the qualification criteria puzzling. You actually qualify for the selection process if you are a refugee????

If it's a short service commission is extension of service again based on a maximum engagement contract and if so what rank will candidates have been expected to attain by end of contract?

It mentions a short service commission pay rate.

Is this payable annually as an allowance or as a gratuity on termination of contract.

For what it's worth this is the most foward thinking move the NS has made in relation to recruitment in 30 years.

It was offered piecemeal in the past but this now could make it a regular recruitment tool for executive branch officers.


I DO

DeV
2nd August 2016, 17:11
question from newbie. How is the NS and the rest of the service doing for recruiting?
Around 400 short of establishment


I do find the qualification criteria puzzling. You actually qualify for the selection process if you are a refugee????
Have been for around 10 years or so


If it's a short service commission is extension of service again based on a maximum engagement contract and if so what rank will candidates have been expected to attain by end of contract?

3 years as a Sub/Lt is the offer (they get a bonus at the end of each year unless after 18 months service they have entered a normal commission).

Promotion reads like ask RACO to make a submission


For what it's worth this is the most foward thinking move the NS has made in relation to recruitment in 30 years.[/QUOTE]
Not the first time in the last 20 years

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 17:33
Ir ws offered on a ad hoc basis on a couple of occasions. It could be offered on a two year basis now as part of scheduled recruitment. ..which hadn't been done in 30 years!

na grohmitÝ
2nd August 2016, 19:16
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of Ç60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 22:20
So why bother with all the high end investment in cadets and just get them in on short service commissions.

Makes sense realistically. No long term financial commitment

danno
2nd August 2016, 22:54
Its the same throughout the Public Service where certain workers have skills needed by private concerns. There was an article in late 2015 where the State Solicitors office in Dublin couldnt recruit solicitors at 30k pa whilst the big firms were offering newbies 55-60k pa.

DeV
3rd August 2016, 01:23
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of Ç60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.
Except they will be burnt out within 3 years. They are worked for that salary. Some of those recruited by the likes of Lidl haven't lasted a year with them.



So why bother with all the high end investment in cadets and just get them in on short service commissions.

Makes sense realistically. No long term financial commitment

Currently cadets are commissioned on a 3 year SSC which is the duration of their training. Is that part of the issue.

Toolbox
3rd August 2016, 07:51
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of Ç60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.


Eh not exactly 100% correct only one NS officer workig for a supermarket (Two NCO's are working on manager ref prog). Anecdotally the 10 or so army offices that left o do the same are now dropping out of the while thing as the hours are fairly insane?

one of the bigger issues is pay is fairly poor for junior offices, the pension is now terrible (careers average payment) and their are no real perks.

The object of the DE officers is to get bums on seats as fast as possible, they will never be considered "real" officers in any case and like the last lot most will be driven from service within a decade!

It will be fascinating to see what the up take is this time as the last lot where on better wages etc.

hptmurphy
3rd August 2016, 11:33
Problem there straight away 'real officers '

Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems.

The high turn over thing has always been an issue and even without the financial issues attached the inability to provide scheduled relief is a bigger issue to my mind.

Hence welcome the DEs with open arms.

On the point of the leavers going to greener pastures. Anyone who leaves to join the retail multiples on the conditions mention can expect to be working 60 - 70 hour weeks under huge pressure. At that level they expect high burn out and probably expect very resilient people coming from the DF. However the types of pressure around making money and driving ships are incomparable and the guys at the retail end are merciless. As an officer you have team to help seal with issues..in retail the guy behind you is lining himself up for your job when you slip.

As for the jobs

ancientmariner
4th August 2016, 10:06
[QUOTE=hptmurphy;443434]Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience.

ancientmariner
8th October 2017, 10:43
[QUOTE=hptmurphy;443434]Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience..

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

DeV
8th October 2017, 16:49
[QUOTE=ancientmariner;443457].

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

ancientmariner
15th November 2017, 18:07
[QUOTE=ancientmariner;454923]

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

ancientmariner
8th December 2017, 09:42
[QUOTE=DeV;454924]

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

Well! Well! Ireland has now joined a European Defence Service by 72 votes to 42 votes in the Dail. Better known as PESCO it is in the process of being formed , and following a Council decision will be adopted by majority vote before the end of 2017.
Permanent Structured Cooperation ( PESCO ) will be a framework for closer coop and a structured process to gradually deepen defence coop within the EU. " It will be a driver for integration in the Defence field".
It involves agreed Budgets, and Plans, and involves oversight and regular assessment. It's to reinforce EU's autonomy to act alone in Defence matters with willing partners, and with regional integration such as the European Air Transport Command and Belgian-Dutch Navy Cooperation in regional Defence. There must be a hope we can upgrade to fit in with our Allies.

trellheim
8th December 2017, 10:10
if you are following our other threads there is a good discussion about PESCO

sofa
8th December 2017, 19:32
Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

ancientmariner
21st April 2018, 09:56
Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

Given the continuing move towards European Defence Co-operation, we are miserably short of dedicated secure Naval Berthage. Historically we had the Naval Base, Basin berths, and an Oil Wharf used by default as a standby short term berth. We also had a Naval Buoy in Dunlaoghaire which we traded for what we called the Naval Berth on the inner southern arm of Dunlaoghaire Pier. We also had some anchorage rights in Bere island and Lough Swilly.
By and large we have been edged out to alongside at Base only and as visitors on paid sufferance elsewhere. With up to 9 ships, and a steady stream of Naval visitors we need to provide for more dedicated, secure naval Berths nationally.

na grohmitÝ
21st April 2018, 10:32
Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

DeV
21st April 2018, 10:54
Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

ancientmariner
21st April 2018, 13:34
Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

ancientmariner
24th May 2018, 09:35
To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

As far as Naval Future can be foreseen, it is clear that, to be effective, assets have to be capable, deployable, and expediently positioned in the area of operations, with all supports adjacent in nearby Ports or on Fleet Logs ships. Squeezing more toothpaste into the tube at Haulbowline shows that collateral consequences need to be evaluated to prevent overload of the system. As for recruiting, MOD plan on paper only with little provision for maintaining quality and encouraging a retentive envoironment for personnel and families. I'm judging that due to the multi-layering of Ministries that proposals to do things are not followed through to a functioning outcome.