Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

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

  • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
    With the reserve constituted as is, no there isn't outside the financial side which any change wont touch as its all been punted to the commission. Since 2005 when it came out its not stopped a single thing from happening. Honourable mention to "officer commanding a reserve brigade" but in reality thats never caused an issue. Grat and reward for those who put the effort in should come back but I'd say I can whistle for that.

    Admin Instruction R5 should be a living dynamic document reviewed and updated on an annual basis ( as should the reserve side of CS4 ) but R5 ..... being sold a pup
    Transfers from PDF/FLR - facilitate, ages, rank on enlistment etc
    What constitutes effective service
    Advancement in grade
    Promotions (including temporary and fixed term promotions)
    Training obligations
    FTT
    Training Year (that may have been done already)
    Being retaken on effective from non-effective list
    Children’s allowance
    Grant in Aid?
    Motor travel allowance
    Welfare funds

    Some of the WP projects could be easily and quickly completed, 1 being a find “effective” and replace all with “active”

    Comment


    • Transfers from PDF/FLR - facilitate, ages, rank on enlistment etc
      What constitutes effective service
      Advancement in grade
      Promotions (including temporary and fixed term promotions)
      Training obligations
      FTT
      Training Year (that may have been done already)
      Being retaken on effective from non-effective list
      Children’s allowance
      Grant in Aid?
      Motor travel allowance
      Welfare funds
      Many minor and none stopping anything at all. Every single problem raised there has been dealt with in practice or is not relevant any longer.
      "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
        With the reserve constituted as is, no there isn't outside the financial side which any change wont touch as its all been punted to the commission. Since 2005 when it came out its not stopped a single thing from happening. Honourable mention to "officer commanding a reserve brigade" but in reality thats never caused an issue. Grat and reward for those who put the effort in should come back but I'd say I can whistle for that.

        Admin Instruction R5 should be a living dynamic document reviewed and updated on an annual basis ( as should the reserve side of CS4 ) but R5 ..... being sold a pup
        Grat for those putting the effort in is the quickest win and quite cheap. It would go a LONG way as both a motivational and moral boosting tool.

        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        RDFRA like here have different members with different opinions.

        Credit where it’s due they made a substantial submission to CODF with a lot of detail .... there happens to be a lot I disagree personally with

        Does it suit the needs of the State - IMHO no
        As I've stated before. I applaud the volume of work put in by RDFRA. I would have appreciated more consultation but I'll them give benefit of the doubt and maybe they wanted to get it completed as efficiently as possible. The reserves issues are well known to be fair.

        What I found strange was their huge focus in their submission on providing establishments for a new reserve right down to the role and rank.

        I think a representative organisation should be focusing on our pay, promotions, adequate training, proper resourcing, etc, etc.

        Should it not be the government, DoD, General Staff who propose and decide the size and scope of a reserve we need and how it should be structured? So much work went into that aspect but I found it very odd and a bit of stretch being honest....
        Last edited by Auldsod; 12 March 2021, 12:16.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by apod View Post
          Tenner on the bet that RDFRA have managed to negotiate a way out of Annual fitness tests and Course Qualification before promotions.
          'Cos that's worked out so well lately
          Those criteria shouldn't be in R5 they should be in an ADMIN instruction, all that should be in R5 is to be effective the reservist must meet the annual criteria as laid down by Director whoever. That would give the DF greater flexibility to change the criteria to meet whatever it's future needs are without having to go back to the minister

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
            Grat for those putting the effort in is the quickest win and quite cheap. It would go a LONG way as both a motivational and moral boosting tool.



            As I've stated before. I applaud the volume of work put in by RDFRA. I would have appreciated more consultation but I'll them give benefit of the doubt and maybe they wanted to get it completed as efficiently as possible. The reserves issues are well known to be fair.

            What I found strange was their huge focus in their submission on providing establishments for a new reserve right down to the role and rank.

            I think a representative organisation should be focusing on our pay, promotions, adequate training, proper resourcing, etc, etc.

            Should it not be the government, DoD, General Staff who propose and decide the size and scope of a reserve we need and how it should be structured? So much work went into that aspect but I found it very odd and a bit of stretch being honest....
            To be fair to RDFRA, that in part is the purpose of the CoDF based on their own terms of reference. While it may not be considered, it would be a shame to waste the opportunity. If you ask often enough, eventually someone may notice. Indeed pay is one of the thing CoDF will not be dealing with, in most instances. If we can all accept the most recent reorganisation of RDF has not been a success, rather than saying "it's broken" and ignoring that what went before wasn't much better and nothing would be gained by going back to that position, they are providing a detailed alternative future-proofed solution.
            It shows, to the reader, that it wasn't an afterthought noted down on the back of a cigarette packet (as seemed to be the case with more recent reorgs).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
              Those criteria shouldn't be in R5 they should be in an ADMIN instruction, all that should be in R5 is to be effective the reservist must meet the annual criteria as laid down by Director whoever. That would give the DF greater flexibility to change the criteria to meet whatever it's future needs are without having to go back to the minister
              Well then R5 would need to be amended to allow DCOS to do so

              Comment


              • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                With the reserve constituted as is, no there isn't outside the financial side which any change wont touch as its all been punted to the commission. Since 2005 when it came out its not stopped a single thing from happening. Honourable mention to "officer commanding a reserve brigade" but in reality thats never caused an issue. Grat and reward for those who put the effort in should come back but I'd say I can whistle for that.

                Admin Instruction R5 should be a living dynamic document reviewed and updated on an annual basis ( as should the reserve side of CS4 ) but R5 ..... being sold a pup
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                RDFRA like here have different members with different opinions.

                Credit where it’s due they made a substantial submission to CODF with a lot of detail .... there happens to be a lot I disagree personally with

                Does it suit the needs of the State - IMHO no
                Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                To be fair to RDFRA, that in part is the purpose of the CoDF based on their own terms of reference. While it may not be considered, it would be a shame to waste the opportunity. If you ask often enough, eventually someone may notice. Indeed pay is one of the thing CoDF will not be dealing with, in most instances. If we can all accept the most recent reorganisation of RDF has not been a success, rather than saying "it's broken" and ignoring that what went before wasn't much better and nothing would be gained by going back to that position, they are providing a detailed alternative future-proofed solution.
                It shows, to the reader, that it wasn't an afterthought noted down on the back of a cigarette packet (as seemed to be the case with more recent reorgs).
                I accept your point. I guess it is better for the RDFRA so suggest a renewed structure in the absence of the other relevant parties doing it. In an ideal world, it shouldn't be the RDFRA suggesting the building blocks for a revitalised reserve structure but rather the other parties I mentioned.

                Of course it is a great opportunity so something that looks professional and competent is better than nothing.

                Comment


                • I think a representative organisation should be focusing on our pay, promotions, adequate training, proper resourcing, etc, etc.
                  A great point. In actual fact all this this is laid out in Regulations, second schedule to S7 . RDFRA are not allowed to make representations unless it is covered in that schedule. Numbers of personnel are specifically exempted - they can not make representations on them. e.g.

                  "criteria governing the entry of personnel into the Army Reserve and the Naval Service Reserve, other than the number of such personnel;"


                  But pay and so on - yes no problem.
                  "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                  Comment


                  • Is it time for the non-integrated reserve to hang up its boots??

                    We know that integration was has successes & failures but if the non-integrated was got rid of completely think of the savings & there was just integrated (properly equipped & trained to (close to) PDF standards):

                    Transport
                    Rations
                    Uniforms & Equipment
                    Rent, maintanance, Light & Heat
                    Pay & Grat
                    etc

                    The reorg has been a disaster! - by the end of 2009 the following is supposed to have happened:
                    Legislation to allow overseas service (by Dec 06)
                    Overseas training (start 2007)
                    Steyr programe (by Dec 07)

                    It would mean getting rid of 9292 non-integrated reservists.

                    Taughts?
                    First post in this thread.

                    12 years later interesting to look back
                    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by trellheim View Post

                      First post in this thread.

                      12 years later interesting to look back
                      As ever the success of a plan is in the implementation

                      Comment


                      • In the Dail committee on Tuesday last re the DA Bill

                        I have just been handed a note on the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2020 and am looking for the relevant date. The Department is engaged with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General to finalise the legal text of the amendments I talked about. They will brought forward on Report Stage of the Bill. I am anxious to get on with that - yesterday, if we could. It is fairly straightforward legislation and the signal it gives to reservists is strong. It also gives a signal to the Commission, quite frankly, on the direction of travel we would like it to pursue. Far be it from me to lean on the Commission, which I certainly will not do, and there is a strong chairperson who will make his own decision on the direction of travel in terms of policy and recommendations. I would be surprised if the reserve was not a large part of those recommendations.
                        see https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates.../2021-03-30/2/


                        There is a lot in this discussion for many parts of the DF actually, well worth a read for everyone PDF and RDF


                        ( presses REFRESH on https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/b...tab=amendments about two or three times a day lol )
                        Last edited by trellheim; 3 April 2021, 12:23.
                        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                        Comment


                        • Hilarious to see the shinners still banging on about Neutrality and the dangers of a european army.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            Hilarious to see the shinners still banging on about Neutrality and the dangers of a european army.
                            Not really when you consider there is a very real chance they will form the next Government

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post

                              Not really when you consider there is a very real chance they will form the next Government
                              They won't do it. They will give some bullshit excuse but are much happier in opposition. Long standing members have already abandoned the party because of this stance. They know their first chance in govt will be the only one, and they will go the same way as the PDs, DL etc.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                                They won't do it. They will give some bullshit excuse but are much happier in opposition. Long standing members have already abandoned the party because of this stance. They know their first chance in govt will be the only one, and they will go the same way as the PDs, DL etc.
                                Unfortunately a sizeable proportion of the electorate will have other ideas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X