Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defence Forces Personnel Strength Figures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Of course we are assuming that those figures are accurate of course we know they aren't.

    Case in point (and let's remember that we are talking in the days of IT). Unfortunately one of my corporals died in 2006 (I think he had about 5 years service. We RO'ed his death.

    Obviously at most his TOE would have expired around 2010 and he obviously wasn't posted non-effective or discharged but somehow he received a posting in the 2013 reorg.

    The error wasn't at unit level.
    Last edited by DeV; 14 November 2016, 08:44.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by trellheim View Post
      @Tangosierra I had read almost every Defence PQ since 1954 which is not something I want to repeat to get those numbers.
      There might be an easier way

      Need to be able to extract the tables/figures from the search results. There might be a way to automate this?





      Last edited by TangoSierra; 13 November 2016, 23:40.

      Comment


      • #33
        The figures while not perhaps "correct" are not "incorrect" in certain senses. They very definitely give a clear idea of the relative strengths
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • #34
          pity someone doesnt "share" these charts in the public domain on twitter or facebook
          "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
          "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

          Comment


          • #35
            That information is entirely public domain ! and collated from Oireachtas reports , its not secret in the slightest. Fun Graph - smooth it out, add straight lines for authorised strength vs actuals , or graph % actual vs establishment which is a much more "truthy" graph

            fun Exercise for reader - search kildarestreet or oireachtas.ie for authorized establishment figures going back to 1955
            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

            "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

            Comment


            • #36
              There might be an easier way

              Need to be able to extract the tables/figures from the search results. There might be a way to automate this?
              Please define in English the information you want

              For example

              Strength - PDF Cpl [ Army ] 1955-2016 . Need to filter out NS and AC ? Include FCA /RDF ? Authorised vs Actual ..... Many many times they conflate some of these qualifiers, meaning you have to read the detail answers to find out what is being reported. This is because the questioner asks different information every time, its not standard reporting down the years.
              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

              Comment


              • #37
                End state:

                Graph showing establishment vs strength for all services for as many years as possible

                Graph showing establishment vs strength of all ranks for as many years as possible

                Overlay graph with periods of time of government and ministers for defence and chiefs of staff

                Comment


                • #38
                  oK thats a lot of work !!!!
                  "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                  "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                    oK thats a lot of work !!!!
                    That's why I'm attempting to crowd source it

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Where S&S when you need him? he had lots of these sorts of stats already done up
                      "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                      "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        AFAIK the establishment didn't really change between around 1969 and 2005

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I am advised by the Military Authorities that 372 General Service Recruits have been enlisted into the Army and 47 General Service Recruits have been enlisted into the Naval Service, to date in 2016. This year some 99 Cadets have been inducted into the Defence Forces.

                          I am advised by the military authorities that in 2015, 76 officers and 490 members of the enlisted ranks retired or were discharged.

                          ...up to 21 May 2016, 34 officers and 193 in the enlisted ranks have retired or were discharged. In line with human resources policy, there is a significant turnover of personnel in the Permanent Defence Forces due to the requirement to maintain a lower age profile.

                          Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Deputy Paul Kehoe)


                          With management yet to identify their key takeaways from the report, the continual exit from the Defence Forces, by all ranks, is running at between 40 and 50 a month. This begs the shocking question, at what point of dysfunction will management engage if ever?
                          Comdt EarnĂ¡n Naughton is general secretary of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (RACO)


                          31 May 2016 : DF = 9,137 personnel

                          30 Sept 2016: DF = 9,044 personnel

                          = Net loss of 23 personnel per month ( (including recruitment) (Loss of 276 per year)


                          Based on the answers and figures he gave in the dail



                          The Defence Forces has seen an AVERAGE NET LOSS PER YEAR = -84 (Average from 2010-2015)

                          If you take the average from 2006 its even higher (NET LOSS per year = -143)


                          I'm willing to bet by 2020 the DF will be below 8,500.
                          Last edited by TangoSierra; 20 November 2016, 17:17.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Closing KK, a dublin barracks and going to 1Bde would easily do that, the DF is not going to get bigger any time soon. Even when we have a Paris style event here we'll stick to the dickless "neutral" foreign "policy" so the DF won't grow.
                            Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Those numbers (in isolation) are nothing worrying really when you think there are about 400 recruits and 30 cadets inducted annually.

                              A big issue is promotions IMHO, which effects the income, morale, retention, etc.
                              Last edited by DeV; 19 November 2016, 19:42.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Those numbers (in isolation) are nothing worrying really when you think there are about 400 recruits and 30 cadets inducted annually.

                                A big issue is promotions IMHO, which effects the income, morale, retention, etc.
                                Those numbers account for induction of Cadets and Recruits. I.e. the DF is shedding more people than it recruits, every year, for the past 10 years.

                                My guess is that it is a Gov/Dept decision to increase the ratio of post 2011 contracts. By focusing on introducing new contracts (recruitment) and completely ignoring retention, it goes in some way to address the annually increasing pensions budget. This being that post 2011 entrants are cheaper pensions wise than pre 2004 and pre 2011 contracts.
                                Last edited by TangoSierra; 19 November 2016, 20:34.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X