The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

[Vickers]

The figures don't stand up Zulu, you are assuming the figures for attendance at paid training are man-weeks they may not be (they could be the number of personnel who completed at least 1 day FTT (not all FTT counts towards grat)).

Also the requirements for grat changed significantly in 2009, you aren't comparing like with like.

The graph is largely meaningless. The rules for qualifying for grat changed between 2003 and 2010. One of the basic rules of graphical representation broken.

[ZULU]

I'm not assuming anything. You are.

The graph represents data supplied by the Minister for Defence in relation to the number of people who attended paid training (could be for an hour or a week - doesn't matter - the measurement is of people) and who qualified for gratuity (this could be either 1 week or 2 week rate)

The requirements for gratuity changed in 2008. Hence the large dip that can be seen in the graph. People who joined with less than 12 months service did not qualify.

On the 30/10/2008 a letter was sent from D-Reserve Forces to each formation for circulation to all Units advising the following: "The Department of Defence Conciliation & Arbitration (Civilian Section) have directed that the intent of the Department of Finance sanction does Not cover reservists with less than (1) year's service. To qualify for a gratuity reservists will have to be in the RDF for a period of one (1) year. Therefore to qualify for a payment in 2008 reservists must have enlisted prior to 01 Nov 2007."

In 2007 according to the Minister, 927 recruits were taken into the RDF with a further 1037 taken in 2008.

As you can see from the graph the difference in 2008 between people who attended paid trg and who qualified for grat is approx 2,200

927 + 1037 recruits = 1,964

The remaining 236 people who did not qualify for grat but who attended paid trg could be explained by:
a) either not doing 7 days
b) doing over 7 days but not covered by syllabus

So yes the figures do stand up and I think the graph is quite meaningful.

[ZULU]

Looking more closely at the figures:

The Army Reserve has haemorrhaged a net loss between 2008 and 2010 of:

Lt Col -1
Cmdt -9
Capt -37
Lt -92
2nd Lt -6
Total Officers -79

Sgt Major -3
BQMS -3
CS -16
CQMS -11
Sgt -167
Cpl -225
Total NCO -425


Pte -1826

Total Net loss -2330

[luchi]

Looking more closely at the figures:

The Army Reserve has haemorrhaged a net loss between 2008 and 2010 of:
Total Officers -79
Total NCO -425
Pte -1826

Total Net loss -2330

But how real are these?
For example I know of at least 1 Capt that finally threw in the towel even though he haddent been seen active for years.

If these are just dead wood any way then it is hardly a haemorrhage more like a natural correction.

[ZULU]

But how real are these?
For example I know of at least 1 Capt that finally threw in the towel even though he haddent been seen active for years.

If these are just dead wood any way then it is hardly a haemorrhage more like a natural correction.

I'll concede to that. The figures are from the Minister.

[DeV]

I'm not assuming anything. You are.

The think about statistics is they only compare when the standard is the same, it was different from 2008!

[quote[
The graph represents data supplied by the Minister for Defence in relation to the number of people who attended paid training (could be for an hour or a week - doesn't matter - the measurement is of people) and who qualified for gratuity (this could be either 1 week or 2 week rate)

The requirements for gratuity changed in 2008. Hence the large dip that can be seen in the graph. People who joined with less than 12 months service did not qualify.[/quote] Without the exact information zulu you can't jump to that conclusion!

In 2007 according to the Minister, 927 recruits were taken into the RDF with a further 1037 taken in 2008.

As you can see from the graph the difference in 2008 between people who attended paid trg and who qualified for grat is approx 2,200

927 + 1037 recruits = 1,964

Zulu you are saying that every single 1 of the 927 people attested in 2007, were attested after 1 November of that year, that is not the case!

The remaining 236 people who did not qualify for grat but who attended paid trg could be explained by:
a) either not doing 7 days
b) doing over 7 days but not covered by syllabus

So yes the figures do stand up and I think the graph is quite meaningful.

Not necessarily ... they may not have completed ARPs or the required unpaid training!

Looking more closely at the figures:

The Army Reserve has haemorrhaged a net loss between 2008 and 2010 of:

Lt Col -1
Cmdt -9
Capt -37
Lt -92
2nd Lt -6
Total Officers -79

Sgt Major -3
BQMS -3
CS -16
CQMS -11
Sgt -167
Cpl -225
Total NCO -425


Pte -1826

Total Net loss -2330

Are these from total strength, non-effective strength or effective strength ???

[ZULU]

Are these from total strength, non-effective strength or effective strength ???

Effective

[luchi]

Lots of rumours and speculation have been doing the rounds recently.

One is about the merging of units to facilitate the moving to a 2 Bde structure.

since there is 3 BTCs one would either be stooddown or they would be merged and then split in 2. one way or another ther would be only a need for 2 BTCs.

One rumour suggests the formation of a training Bn that would do the function of all the BTCs and maybe all basic training.

This might be all pie in the sky but it would certainally be possible to make it work.

If it did come to pass how would it effect the RDF?

Would RDF units still do their own recruitment or would the RDf have to mirror the PDF and move to a single training Bn?

[Hello Alaska]

As it stands, we're not going to lose a Brigade.

[goc132]

speculation is rife at the moment and the Defence Forces is the only department that has met all the goals set to change . But don't thrust FF/Greens?lowrey & Healy-Rae they cant be relied on to do anything for the military.

[luchi]

As it stands, we're not going to lose a Brigade.

Maybe so but lets suppose it was to happen.

The PDF could instigate centralised training simply by setting up a unit in the Curragh that does it.

But the RDF is a more localised organisation so it wouldn't easy to mirror such a move.

So if it came to pass what would be the out come?

As I said even if it is pie in the sky what would be the implications for the RDF?

[Goldie fish]

The key, to me is what has yet to be identified is "what do you want a reserve for?"
If it is to repel the hordes amassed on the nations borders then a geographically spread infantry based reserve is the way.
However, if you live in the 2010s, or even the real world, perhaps you want a reserve of people useful to the Permanent force, who are already equipped and trained with specialised skills that would be a huge advantage for deployable forces, but impractical to maintain on a full time basis?
I don't think the Reserve is best served by being a stepping stone to the PDF. You train them up, and watch them leave.
Perhaps, and don't kill me for suggesting it, it would be better to have a reserve that already has the Skills, such as medical practitioners, logistics, engineers, etc? Combat service support I think they call it these days? Recruit from the professions. Have them bring their skills instead of giving them the skills and watching them leave with them.
Leave the Artillery, Cavalry and Infantry units to the full timers, with a very limited reserve component, preferably made up of First line reservists.
Sure it would make most on this site redundant, but do we want a better reserve, or do we just want a better reserve to serve in ourselves?
If people want to serve in a defence force reserve, they should have to work for it. It's the only way you'll get the best people for the job. Scouring the school playgrounds for those without other hobbies is probably not going to get the most professional of candidate.
If people want to play soldiers... there's always airsoft.

[Hello Alaska]

Maybe so but lets suppose it was to happen.

The PDF could instigate centralised training simply by setting up a unit in the Curragh that does it.

But the RDF is a more localised organisation so it wouldn't easy to mirror such a move.

So if it came to pass what would be the out come?

As I said even if it is pie in the sky what would be the implications for the RDF?

It's not going to happen though.

Training is going to be centralised in each Brigade.

[Liachta Cultaca]

Centralised recruitment in the RDF is the only way forward

[DeV]

But the RDF is a more localised organisation so it wouldn't easy to mirror such a move.
?

If the TA can regionalise training and have FTT at national level plus have national TA units, why can't the RDF?

However, if you live in the 2010s, or even the real world, perhaps you want a reserve of people useful to the Permanent force, who are already equipped and trained with specialised skills that would be a huge advantage for deployable forces, but impractical to maintain on a full time basis?
Perhaps, and don't kill me for suggesting it, it would be better to have a reserve that already has the Skills, such as medical practitioners, logistics, engineers, etc? Combat service support I think they call it these days? Recruit from the professions. Have them bring their skills instead of giving them the skills and watching them leave with them.
Leave the Artillery, Cavalry and Infantry units to the full timers, with a very limited reserve component, preferably made up of First line reservists.
Sure it would make most on this site redundant, but do we want a better reserve, or do we just want a better reserve to serve in ourselves?
If people want to serve in a defence force reserve, they should have to work for it. It's the only way you'll get the best people for the job. Scouring the school playgrounds for those without other hobbies is probably not going to get the most professional of candidate.
If people want to play soldiers... there's always airsoft.

Part-time professionals is the way to go, for that standards have to be set and met. Plus maybe raise the min age to 20/21.

Would for example a doctor want to come in on a field day and do medicals for nothing, when they could be get €xxx on contract? There are many with the skills without the time/want to join the RDF, by training people in for example logs it could be a good way of upskilling for a job.

With regard to the FLR, I'd be all for getting them in..... but what age will they be, eg there may be Sgts, SNCO and officers but what about privates?

What about replacing the 1,500 personnel that are underestablishment (plus the intergrated reserve to bring the PDF up to proper establishment) with RDF, thereby keeping the all arms etc. Obvious those personnel would be better resourced, better equipped, better trained, contractually obliged, properly supported etc.

It's not going to happen though.

Training is going to be centralised in each Brigade.

Which is what the BTCs were supposed to do in the first place!