Defence Forces Personnel Strength Figures

[TangoSierra]

People aren't machines that come off an assembly line finished and ready for war. They have the basics but are not technically or tactically competent. Unit cohesion, teamwork, ethical and leadership development, relationship building, a driving and weapons course or two, experiential learning during the a daily grind, etc. There are those that will adapt quicker and have maturity, but there are those that will take longer. Also it takes longer than 3 years to develop corps tech personnel.

[irishrgr]

The raw personnel numbers are only an element of the equation. As was pointed out in an earlier post, effective strength is a more useful metric. IE subtract people on courses, long term sick leave, in training, etc. and you have a realistic picture.

A better question to ask would be "What are the defined criteria for readiness and how many units can meet that metric?". Over 'ere readiness is part art & science but we are about to field a new system which will link training reports (say weapons scores), human resource data (unit strength, trained personnel, etc.), medical data (are people medically deployable?), equipment data (do you have it and is it working?) among some other data points. The initial tests of active units were ugly with a big "U". Reserve units, will be definition, only be able to get to a certain waypoint in readiness until called up.

If the DF were to generate such data, that would be interesting. It may be done, and if so, the results should be rightly classified. However, as a general statement, the minister should be able to say something to the effect of "the mission required units are meeting the defined readiness standards" The ministers remarks of " the DF assure us they are capable of meeting all assigned requirements (paraphrase)" makes me raise an eyebrow. What mission and by what standard?

Granted, Ireland doesn't have the need to have large forces ready to deploy in 72 hours, but surely there has to be some basic requirement even if it's a company sized element ready to deploy in 24 hours for and be self sustaining for 72 hours.

Mind you, beyond numbers and the "don't close the barracks in my constituency" Ireland lacks any military advocate at the national policy level, so I don't see the hard questions being asked. Frustrating.

A

[irishrgr]

Sorry, meant to add this. We have the same retention issues over here, people sign on, do a 4 year hitch and get out. It's constant churn of both officer and enlisted personnel. Re-enlistment bonuses, choice of duty assignment, schools, etc, are all handed out but we still bleed people. Some of it is self inflicted, we recruit a lot of young people to join & get school money, so they do and move on. Even a West Point officer only has to serve 6-8 years active. Bloody waste IMHO.

A recent analysis also noted, like other employers, especially public service, the 20-30 demographic is not as set on the "same job for life" many of us grew up with. They try things, jump from career to career, no loyalty. I'd be willing to bet there is an element of that playing into things to in Ireland. Here they are trying to figure out how can career breaks, lateral entry and so on fit into the traditional career paths of the military...not a simple fix I'm sure.

[expat01]

Ireland doesn’t have the US problem to maintain what is basically an army in a dispersed, undeclared war without A draft.
I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a constant churn of privates and corporals, so long as you can retain a solid NCO and officer corps and maintain technical skills. “Job for life” as a private is no longer that attractive and not every soldier can aim for the exalted and honourable rank of sergeant unless the army is constantly expanding.
So long as the churn is managed, you are increasing the number of people in the country with direct knowledge of the military and that is only good for the attitude the country has to the forces. If those ex-soldiers had a decent experience.
Having ten thousand or so voters in every generation who know what the DF does and needs is useful.
But you have to pay the people you want to keep, and have enough other bodies so that everyone isn’t doing the job of ten.

As for unit effectiveness, apart from border ops in the bad old days the DF has never needed to consider that because units do not deploy.

[expat01]

Which becomes part of the problem. So long as a battalion can be deployed the goverment doesn't know or care if it has to be scraped together from the odds and ends of a dysfunctional force.

[paul g]

I parted ways with the PDF back in 1990 when my then girlfriend pointed out that if we wanted to get married and have kids then we couldn't afford it on a privates wage, so I ended up going to england cause there was **** all else in Dublin in 1990 (and ironically although I eventually got married and had kids, it was to somebody else).

Point is they actually want privates to leave at a certain point and the salary for a three star is intended for and actually not bad for a young person with no responsibility. Its only problematic when you start to have adult responsibilities. Same with officers, when I was in they had as real glut of captains and some of them were ancient. I was on cash escorts with felow privates who were in the Congo and now that I'm their age i wonder how they managed it.

But people leave for a lot of reasons, truth be told the job in peace time can be boring and frustrating, its not the real world, they promote terrible idiots simply because their face fits, there was in my day at least a real drinking culture, its an institrution and people get very institutionalsied, etc.

[irishrgr]

I agree that "private for life" is not, nor it should be a career option. We have an "up or out system" for all ranks, you don't hit certain rank by certain timelines, then you are separated (kind word for discharged :-). It's designed to prevent stagnation and stop people "homesteading" at a certain rank. It has it's flaws as a technique, but it does keep the system moving.

The tip of the spear is the junior officers/NCO's in any military organization and yes, that has to have constant new blood. Military service is a young mans game and the juniors are the ones who will do all the fighting (or whatever), so yes, some degree of churn is useful. However, the organization still needs to attract people and be able to offer a long term career if they so desire. Over here a privates wages are on a par with the Irish wages, as they are predicated on a young, single Soldier. However, that private has a reasonable chance of promoting to CPL/SGT in 4-5 years (assuming he/she does a good job) and so on up the chain after that. NCO and junior officer wages are decent, could be better for the senior NCO's IMHO, but it's a sustainable for a family.

As expat01 said, as far as the govt. is concerned, if a battalion of random humans in green uniforms show up on the relevant day, there seems to be little interest in how the sausage was made. Until the govt. demands change, why would it happen? Politically, in Ireland, defense is an afterthought aside from the Easter parade and UN missions. What makes it frustrating is those who serve are stuck dealing with the crap end of this, struggling to make a career, serve their country, be a Soldier are met with indifferent leaders.

Reading the results of the survey doesn't suggest a high state of morale or any kind of readiness either....sigh.....

[DeV]

The junior ranks (privates, corporals, sergeants, 2/Lt’s, Lt’s and captains) of the army are and need to be a young persons game for physical reasons. The average person is at their physical peak around the age of 21 or so. There are a lot of variables and their are 50 years olds that could run rings around any 21 year old. But let’s talk averages.

Where someone is in a tech appointment where it has taken 3+ years of investment to get them capable of doing tasks is a different matter.

When I googled British Army age profile this came up
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...eport_2014.pdf

At the time:
55% of the British Army was under 30
31% of the British Army was under 25
12% of the British Army was over 40

Average age officers was 37, other ranks 30

The vast majority of those you leave the British Army are aged 24 or younger (>70%)

[DeV]

Of course the offer/reward isn’t just pay. The DF I think is starting to look outside the box and go after some low hanging fruit, eg:

- student travel time on courses
- changes to how leave is taken
- family friendly overseas trips
- modularised courses

It may sound stupid but the floral hanging baskets and tracksuit days also make a difference. It’s very small, it’s not financial and won’t put food on the table but...

[ropebag]

The least challenging years the UK armed forces have had for both recruitment and retention were the years we were very publicly fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Aside from the pay, the housing etc, I think one of the elephants in the room is that energetic young people who want to see the world, work hard and use their skills will inevitably find a garrison Army very, very boring.

We're having that problem - the people we want have no interest in wearing silly clothes and painting rocks for 8 years. They want to do the job, and the reduction of deployments, the loss of some overseas exercises is having a real impact - it's less of an issue for old farts like me, I just want to go to a warm building where I can sleep in peace while building up my pension, but for the people in their 20's and early 30's it's getting a bit boring, and they take the view that if the outside world might not be much more exciting, it is very much easier.

[jack08]

The DF has a 12% turnover of personnel at present.

People are leaving because the wages are shit.

[trellheim]

People are leaving because the wages are shit.

Yes they are leaving but it is not as simple as the wages, having been a PDF watcher since 1986.

Don't get me wrong the wages are a massive issue, as is the absolute scandal/shame of PDF families on FIS.

External employment availability and the massive reduction of people who see it as a long-term career option as career choice briefings get better are huge things as well.

with an FG government there is very little chance of soldiers pay improving.

[DeV]

And the more workload due to double/triple jobbing

[trellheim]

People forget - it is difficult enough to replace Infantry NCOs but the time spent qualifying Corps NCOs to instructor level leads to much more pressure on those that are left , so more than double-hatting

[DeV]

People forget - it is difficult enough to replace Infantry NCOs but the time spent qualifying Corps NCOs to instructor level leads to much more pressure on those that are left , so more than double-hatting

Plus the effect it has on capability (eg EOD No2s)

[popeye]

PDF double jobbing, wouldn't know a real job if it bite them in the arse.

[sofa]

PDF double jobbing, wouldn't know a real job if it bite them in the arse.

Ok, tell us you story, Catch wife given one a admiring glance.? lady suggest a bit of role play, worried where she's getting these dirty idea's from.?

Or are you just, one of the self loathing Irish.

Hope it's the first one