Thanks Thanks:  37
Likes Likes:  60
Dislikes Dislikes:  5
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 130
  1. #51
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    These are both PDF numbers and RDF numbers interspersed into this discussion, please be careful in what you are referring to. Annual PDF Attrition figures month by month by rank and service is not regularly asked as a PQ , it is not the same thing as PDF Strength as it takes no account of people in training . Another good question is number of people enlisted into RDF and PDF by service by month for GS and Cadets
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

  2. #52
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    400 recruits may well have been inducted but 400 recruits didn't finish training... So using them as a means to say "It's all ok" is just papering over the cracks.

    It's a fact that people are leaving the organisation in droves and not because of "natural wastage" or any other buzz words... It's because for many people it's just not a job worth doing anymore. It's not worth the stress, increased workload, time away from home/family and certainly not worth the time spent dealing with utter bullshit. Young lads are passing out as fully trained soldiers and within about a year, will start entertaining the idea of leaving the organisation.

    The outlook is bleak for the next few years.
    I corrected myself.



    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    These are both PDF numbers and RDF numbers interspersed into this discussion, please be careful in what you are referring to. Annual PDF Attrition figures month by month by rank and service is not regularly asked as a PQ , it is not the same thing as PDF Strength as it takes no account of people in training . Another good question is number of people enlisted into RDF and PDF by service by month for GS and Cadets
    Recruits (being a grade of Pte) and Cadets (having been enlisted as 3*s for the duration of their cadetship) are included in the figures for privates as they are on the DF's strength.

  3. #53
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    400 recruits may well have been inducted but 400 recruits didn't finish training... So using them as a means to say "It's all ok" is just papering over the cracks.

    It's a fact that people are leaving the organisation in droves and not because of "natural wastage" or any other buzz words... It's because for many people it's just not a job worth doing anymore. It's not worth the stress, increased workload, time away from home/family and certainly not worth the time spent dealing with utter bullshit. Young lads are passing out as fully trained soldiers and within about a year, will start entertaining the idea of leaving the organisation.

    The outlook is bleak for the next few years.
    I corrected myself.

    But you'd expect say at least 200 to be living on TOE/age grounds alone annually

    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    These are both PDF numbers and RDF numbers interspersed into this discussion, please be careful in what you are referring to. Annual PDF Attrition figures month by month by rank and service is not regularly asked as a PQ , it is not the same thing as PDF Strength as it takes no account of people in training . Another good question is number of people enlisted into RDF and PDF by service by month for GS and Cadets
    Recruits (being a grade of Pte) and Cadets (having been enlisted as 3*s for the duration of their cadetship) are included in the figures for privates as they are on the DF's strength.

  4. #54
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Defence Forces Strength

    28. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the extent to which the strength of the Army, Naval Service, Air Corps and reserves has fluctuated in the past ten years; if any changes in recruitment practice is envisaged to address any issues emerging; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33782/16]

    Minister of State at the Department of Defence (Deputy Paul Kehoe): The following tabular statement outlines the extent to which the whole-time equivalent strength of the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps has fluctuated over the last ten years.


    Table 1 – PDF Strength Fluctuation
    Year Total Approved Strength
    2011 9438
    2012 9359
    2016 9044
    DAIL answers Wednesday 14th March 2012

    Gives details of vacancy levels in PDF


    4. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence Alan Shatter the total number of retirements from the armed forces at the end of February 2012; the number of senior positions that are now vacant in the armed forces; the number of positions that have been or will be filled; his plans to maintain military capacities in view of these retirements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14579/12]

    Deputy Fergus O’Dowd:

    As the Defence Forces are currently more than 500 below the agreed serving cadre of 9,500, phased recruitment of in excess of 500, I believe, will be undertaken in 2012. I am advised by the military authorities that a new recruitment competition will be advertised shortly.

    PDF

    Strength at 29 Feb 2012 8,918
    That's a large disparity between answers given in the Dail in 2012 Vs ones given in 2016.

    Four years on and the Defence Forces is still at the same figure, 500 under strength, despite how many being recruited over 4 years? 2000+?

  5. #55
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    That's a large disparity between answers given in the Dail in 2012 Vs ones given in 2016.

    Four years on and the Defence Forces is still at the same figure, 500 under strength, despite how many being recruited over 4 years? 2000+?
    The strength given by Paul Keogh is probably the end of year or something.

    Because they are generally putting off attestation until towards the end of the year in order to save money that can be used elsewhere in Vote 36.

  6. #56
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    End of year for 2011 was 9,438 (Kehoe) with end of Feb 2012 figure being 8,918 (O'Dowd)

    In two months 510 people left??

  7. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  8. #57
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    According to annual reports

    Strength 31 Dec 11 was 9438
    Strength 31 Dec 12 was 9359

    633 having been inducted in 2012

    So if my maths are correct 712 left in 2012

  9. #58
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Page 108 - Key Output Targets 2016

    PDF strength 95-100%

    Actual output was 9,044 in September with all probability that it fell below 9,000 by December. 9000/9,500 is <95%

    http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/upl...s-16062016.pdf

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  11. #59
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-15a.774

    The Minister for State has stated that the DF strength at 31 December 2016 was 9,126 personnel, comprising 7,332 Army, 704 Air Corps and 1,090 Naval Service, whole time equivalent.

    subtract the 690 new entrants that were inducted in 2016 (590 General Service and 100 Cadets), who have just finished or in the majority of cases are still in training you are left with only 8,436 trained personnel. When you subtract the additional 60 cadets (all services) still in training and the 72 personnel on leave of absence, the real figure approaches
    8,300.

    Subtract the 500 personnel overseas at any one time and you can see why Reserve Recruit applications are left on a desk for several months. It also shows why people are leaving in droves due to burnout and why emergency transplant patient transfer flights cannot be manned
    Last edited by TangoSierra; 4th March 2017 at 17:54.

  12. #60
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Add to that not having the personnel to answer the questions being asked

    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...%3A152#g1016.r

  13. #61
    Lt General Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    4,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-15a.774

    The Minister for State has stated that the PDF strength at 31 December 2016 was 9,126 personnel, comprising 7,332 Army, 704 Air Corps and 1,090 Naval Service, whole time equivalent.

    subtract the 690 new entrants that were inducted in 2016 (590 General Service and 100 Cadets), who have just finished or in the majority of cases are still in training you are left with only 8,436 trained personnel. When you subtract the additional 60 cadets (all services) still in training and the 72 personnel on leave of absence, the real figure approaches
    8,300.

    Subtract the 500 personnel overseas at any one time and you can see why Reserve Recruit applications are left on a desk for several months. It also shows why people are leaving in droves due to burnout and why emergency transplant patient transfer flights cannot be manned
    Fixed that for you

  14. Likes TangoSierra, DeV liked this post
  15. #62
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    According to annual reports

    Strength 31 Dec 11 was 9438
    Strength 31 Dec 12 was 9359

    633 having been inducted in 2012

    So if my maths are correct 712 left in 2012
    803 left in 2012

    Untitled.jpg

    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...ection%3Awrans
    Last edited by TangoSierra; 22nd July 2017 at 17:30.

  16. #63
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    The real reason the DoD are happy to let the DF bleed personnel

    Permanent Defence Force: pay 30,556 Savings of €30.556 million arose due to higher than projected
    retirements and lower than projected recruitment in 2016, leading to
    lower than anticipated numbers of personnel serving in the PDF
    during the year. A supplementary estimate allocated savings of €23
    million from this subhead to subhead A.11 to facilitate payments for
    a fourth naval vessel under the Naval Vessel Replacement
    Programme.

  17. #64
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    It isn't necessarily the DoD!

    I was in a room where either the COS or ACOS (can't remember which) was forthcoming in saying that is how the DF paid for it (and the other 3 vessels).

    But remember during that period, people were still being pass the same, recruitment was still happening
    Last edited by DeV; 1st October 2017 at 03:28.

  18. #65
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    I remember a Dail Written Answer stating that the DoD did not have a policy of paying for equipment using money saved from the pay subhead

  19. #66
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even the press is catching on to the crisis. The budget will be an indication of whether the government intends to do anything about it beyond pouring cups of recruits and cadets into the bucket with the hole in the bottom.

  20. #67
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    The real reason the DoD are happy to let the DF bleed personnel

    Permanent Defence Force: pay 30,556 Savings of €30.556 million arose due to higher than projected
    retirements and lower than projected recruitment in 2016, leading to
    lower than anticipated numbers of personnel serving in the PDF
    during the year. A supplementary estimate allocated savings of €23
    million from this subhead to subhead A.11 to facilitate payments for
    a fourth naval vessel under the Naval Vessel Replacement
    Programme.
    Can we expect to see flying machines and armoured vehicles being purchased by this gimmick in the future, then, depending on which arm replaces him?

  21. #68
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a time when savings went back into central funds.. At least the DF is seeing the benefit now.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  22. #69
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Vehicles and equipment can be bought almost instantly.

    Recruiting, training and providing experiential learning to personnel to make them competent to operate vehicles and equipment takes years.

    When you have such a high turnover in such a short time, it means that experience is lost without that being passed onto the upcoming personnel to build upon. You lose capability as the system cycles on a downward spiral below technical competence.

    What happens when there are no more instructors left? The DF will have cadets and recruits being trained by cadets and recruits at this rate

  23. Likes Truck Driver liked this post
  24. #70
    2/Lt Bam Bam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The rich side of town
    Posts
    2,017
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sure as long as there are some hardy bucks to point some bayonets into the sky at Easter, thats all that really matters.
    It is only by contemplation of the incompetent that we can appreciate the difficulties and accomplishments of the competent.

  25. #71
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    The process of buying vehicles, or anything else for that matter, is so long winded that you could easily generate a basically trained man. 16 weeks will do that. The DF cannot buy any capital item bigger than a loaf of bread without jumping thru hoops, Civil service style unless it's an item given urgent priority.

  26. #72
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    You want to stop people leaving in droves, especially expensively trained techs? Shake up the Staff ranks to stop insisting that trained techs go abroad to act as rifle carriers; stop insisting that Air Corps techs do the same NCO's course as infantrymen, so that they waste 16 weeks of their lives instead of doing a proper tech NCOs course (the RAF stopped doing it in 1954, so the Don has a bit of catching up to do); stop dicking around with Naval personnel, who find themselves doing back to back rotations so that the 180 days at sea becomes a sick joke.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, TangoSierra, na grohmití, morpheus liked this post
    Dislikes Spark23 disliked this post
  28. #73
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The process of buying vehicles, or anything else for that matter, is so long winded that you could easily generate a basically trained man. 16 weeks will do that. The DF cannot buy any capital item bigger than a loaf of bread without jumping thru hoops, Civil service style unless it's an item given urgent priority.
    Basically trained does not equal technical competence. Support weapons, vehicle driving, exercises to provide experiential learning opportunities etc etc take years.

  29. #74
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your point was that vehicles can be bought almost instantly, which is really not the case. The only way the DF would take on any vehicle, from a bicycle to a recovery vehicle, at any kind of short notice, would be if there was a critical national or overseas emergency and they had to commandeer or otherwise take up into service as an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR-a term familiar to UK servicemen), ie, we want it now, as in right now, not next year or the year after. I don't know if it's still the case but some Officers had the power to spend several thousands to buy instantly required kit, without going thru channels but they had to be able to justify it later. As for training techs or skilled men, the DF seems stuck on the formula that 16 weeks is what it takes to learn to do anything smarter than tying shoelaces, which takes 16-week sized chunks out of the available manpower. The DF moans about lack of available vehicles/helicopters/ships but they keep shooting themselves in the foot by taking away the very people who are doing the job to do unrelated things. A vehicle tech going on a UN tour to keep Mowags rolling is doing his job; a helicopter tech or an ERA going on a UN tour because he has been told that he will never get promoted unless he does a tour and then finds himself spending six months holding a rifle or stacking a shelf is not doing his job, by being unavailable for seven months and the end result is that the vehicle/aircraft/ship spends longer up on a ramp/up on jacks/tied alongside than it should. The long term effect is that serviceability and availability fall to pieces (in this day and age, the basic standard is greater than 90%...I suspect the DF's is considerably less), the DF Staff form the opinion that their own techs are useless, which is not the case and ultimately, maintenance gets farmed out to civvies and the DF gets tied into expensive service contracts. It's the same for other grades and trades; why do you think AC pilots leave? Because they have to do ground tours and they end up bored to tears doing anything but flying and they jack it in. Other air arms have what is called the Professional Aircrew Spine or stream, where pilots are pilots first and foremost and are not sent off counting boots or rifles; they serve to fly and that's what they do...Why was the Navy losing ships Captains? because promotion to ships command was so slow, they literally had to wait until a man died before getting his seat. The DF doesn't help itself, sometimes.

  30. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, TangoSierra, Truck Driver, X-RayOne liked this post
  31. #75
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-15a.774

    The Minister for State has stated that the DF strength at 31 December 2016 was 9,126 personnel, comprising 7,332 Army, 704 Air Corps and 1,090 Naval Service, whole time equivalent.

    subtract the 690 new entrants that were inducted in 2016 (590 General Service and 100 Cadets), who have just finished or in the majority of cases are still in training you are left with only 8,436 trained personnel. When you subtract the additional 60 cadets (all services) still in training and the 72 personnel on leave of absence, the real figure approaches
    8,300.

    Subtract the 500 personnel overseas at any one time and you can see why Reserve Recruit applications are left on a desk for several months. It also shows why people are leaving in droves due to burnout and why emergency transplant patient transfer flights cannot be manned
    Personnel numbers still in a downward spiral

    https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/...ection%3Awrans

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
  •