Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
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.
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.
In today's Irish Examiner there is comment about recruitment and retention failures in the Naval service and consequential difficulty in manning ships. The problem lies with civil leadership and to a lesser extent Staffs. Overall we lack a Defence Culture and give very little coverage to good news stories, or opportunities within the Defence Forces. Huge effort has gone in to providing Naval Hardware, but manning is too much based on waiting to see what will turn up. Critical technicians will have to be subject to a quota release scheme based on date of application. The same rules will have to be applied to key qualified Officers. Where a person is over-retained in Service he should receive a gratuity of say at least E 5000 per annum and prorata for a portion of a year. For example if three watchkeeping Officers wish to leave and the quota for that year is two then the later applicant will be retained until the next quota, when he/she will be number 1. The retention gratuity could be fixed at the same amount , i.e. E5000 for all ranks.
Until a realistic crew manning level of 2 crews per ship (circa 900) and THEN factor in shore support, the NS will continue to experience severe HR issues
What happens in a few years when the only consistency, the NCOs with 15+ years done, that train the ratings and train the officers all get to 21 years and pull the plug?
The only thing keeping the NS afloat is the NCOs that are not yet pensionable
There are members of the NS who are in civvy street, maritime watchkeeping officers and marine engineers. Their skills would be most welcome at this time (should they be appropriately compensated).
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
This is not a ballhop, no details on it yet but people have been asked for expressions of interest. Hard to see many people taking up the offer if it happens given the poor pay in the PDF and NSR people know how bad things are in the NS.
Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.
Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.
I assume that they were called up for permanent service?
Because there is no legislation that allows transfer from RDF to PDF
They were initially called up for permanent service but some then transferred into the PDF. By whatever mechanism I don't know but it happened. One of the last Sgt Major of CTD East was one as far as I know.
The stupidity of the management that has allowed the shortage to exist in the first place even beyond the scope of poor pay etc is unforgivable. To surrender, under PWC, what was in effect the compliment of a ship, and then build new ships without factoring in a requirement to increase the establishment of the service is not about anything other than bad planning.
Transferring persons to whole time service from volunteer part time service is fraught with issues around, pensions and reckonable service for pay purposes , assuming that persons would take up the issue. You would have effect people moving to ranks that now cannot be filled by new entrants to the service thus blocking promotions which could actually fuel an even greater exodus.
There is no cheap solution, Tie up what can't be operate on pre 2009 levels of manning and conditions with reliefs etc, restore the pay scales to pre 2010 levels and then incentivise recruitment with bounties paid to people who actively encourage friends and family to join.
Short service commissions for suitably qualified watch keepers both engineering and executive branch, with bonus's paid on re enlistment across the boards. Reduce the initial five year contract for enlistment back to three and remove pension levy for those on first enagement.
The management need to take positive action, even if it means putting heads above parapets , to stop the decline.
Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment