Thanks Thanks:  11
Likes Likes:  24
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,911
    Post Thanks / Like

    rank, appointments, stuff....

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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

  2. #2
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  3. #3
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    It doesn't have vacancies, it just has a delay in getting promotions approved.

  4. #4
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    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.
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  6. #6
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  7. #7
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  8. Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #8
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    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

  10. #9
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  11. Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy, Truck Driver liked this post
  12. #10
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 ....
    Last edited by Jack Booted Man; 9th August 2015 at 15:20. Reason: Typo

  13. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #11
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Booted Man View Post
    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

  15. #12
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 .....

  16. Likes DeV, Shaqra, Herald, Sarsfield, Truck Driver liked this post
  17. #13
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    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 “undress” 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.
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  18. Thanks Sarsfield thanked for this post
  19. #14
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like
    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)

  20. #15
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Toolbox View Post
    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......
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  21. #16
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is definitely one or two commanders I believe we could do without

  22. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  23. #17
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!!

  24. #18
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  25. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  26. #19
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by whirlywind View Post
    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 NCO’s 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?
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  27. #20
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  28. #21
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    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).........

  29. #22
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  30. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  31. #23
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    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.

  32. #24
    Closed account hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    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


    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
    Pay them properly.....and they will come!

  33. Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #25
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    750
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 13th August 2015 at 08:43. Reason: omission

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •