Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

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

  • Your completely disregarding the turnover/natural wastage rates of the DF that have been given by the minister.

    I showed that my suggestion would still enable recruitment even at drop off rates at 3% and 1% for Capts and Lt respectively and DF would still be under strength of the 11,500 figure.

    Even if you took the 355 cadre that would redeploy back to PDF and subtract it from the 11,500 you still have a gap in actual strength and establishment of 1,294 all ranks.

    If by some magical event the country comes out of the financial trouble its in tomorrow and you go recruiting to 2003-2007 levels, you will still have a gap of 694 all ranks. More than enough positions to enable promotional opportunities.

    If the DF was to go down a total restructuring of the 3 services in order to increase naval and air capabilities, more NCO/Officer positions would be required due to technical and small team management.


    If the PDF cadre did redeploy you would have better strength:establishment ratios in the units, which would be a far greater argument against restructuring of the 3 Bde model than the understrength status units find them selves in today.


    If anyone is taking the hit on cuts its the Reserve. I'm suggesting a cut of 4800 to the establishment or 3,648 to the strength (effective and noneffective)

    This is seeing itself to a reality without anymore needing to be done. The forecast year being 2013.
    If you take the figure for attending paid training/earning grat - its already there.
    Attached Files
    "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

    Comment


    • Establishment

      "Even if the DF is understrength now as long as the Gov doesn't get to change the est strength the army can bulid in the future"

      That luchi is what the gov is doing - they want an est of 10000, so those appts will be lost.
      So, there will be alot more SWA soldiers, excluding the 120 or so that exist in the RDF Cadre bracket (remember the Cadre appt list is for 298 (for an RDF est of 12000), since 1/10/2005)

      Considering the PDF have discharged 1499 (08), 977 (09), 307 (30/4/10), and are currently at 9856 (30/4/10), there still is recruiting & promotional abilities.

      Comment


      • Sh1t stirring is pointless. You just throw out facts and make them fit your oun goal. You refuse to look past that and look from the other side. The gov is committed to 10,000, established is 11,500. You are perfectly able to argue how to reduce the numbers but refuse to fight to keep them. That is what I think the rep organisations will or should try to do. Even if the DF is understrength now as long as the Gov doesn't get to change the est strength the army can bulid in the future. Ifr they do succeed in the reduction then those ranks are lost for ever.
        The established strength is 10,500 as we speak.It is gonna be reduced to 10,000.The new CS4 is being released in Early Autumn.Units are gonna loose companys and some corps units are gonna be amalgamated.Our unit structures will finally match the reductions in numbers that have happened since 1998.Big changes coming.Some ranks/appointments in the amalgamated units are gonna be suppressed.Those who currently hold the rank will be SWA.
        "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by apod View Post
          Those who currently hold the rank will be SWA.
          A very important point as it does not say they will be redeployed and block posts that otherwise would become available to promote into. Yes eventually they will be gone and their posts lost but at least those below will see promotional opertunities and strive to fill them.
          Without supplies no army is brave.

          —Frederick the Great,

          Instructions to his Generals, 1747

          Comment


          • I'd just like to make a point or two.

            Luchi said above

            Once those SWA "posts" are vacated they will no longer exist
            . These posts are anomalies since due to "letters of comfort" or other crapology they don't exist AT ALL when active PDF units are meeting themselves coming off duties and cashes . Removing SWAs is only regularizing these anomalies.

            Now in the narrow case that they are reducing numbers - totally correct - they are indeed. But if they have no job - i.e. are SWA , they are fulfilling the job of the human appendix.
            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

            Comment


            • Trell I totally agree with you. It may be a narrow case but it is the red rag to the bull.

              As soon as recruitment resumes, which may be later rather than sooner, there will be plenty of vacancies for the "hungry" to persue. IMHO this will create a competativeness and keep the ranks lean. There would be no excuse for a someone to be a Pte at the end of 20 years service.
              The SWAs will be gone over time and the established numbers realised.

              Who knows we may even return to the days of waiting lists to join the PDF and RDF.

              Also IMHO if Zulu's suggestion to become more efficient was realised in the way he suggests it would show to finance that more cuts are possible.
              At present we have SWAs. They are not needed and so can be got rid of.
              BUt then we also have vacant posts. But the Army is functioning and so, from an accountancy point of view, they are also not really needed.
              Without supplies no army is brave.

              —Frederick the Great,

              Instructions to his Generals, 1747

              Comment


              • One of the best answers I've ever heard from a line Minister. The Opposition questioners are to be congratulated for being well-informed.

                Deputy Brian O’Shea A new development plan needs to be put into place for the new Reserve Defence Force and a value for money review is being carried out at the moment.
                I am not sure it makes sense to hold back the new development plan until the value for money review is completed. I sensed considerable frustration in that organisation when I met its representatives recently.
                There is considerable scope for it to become involved in other activities, involving more interface with the civil authorities and civilian life generally.
                I seek reassurance that the issue of developing a new plan is not being sidelined until the review is completed.
                I ask the Minister to reconsider putting a member of the general staff in charge of the Reserve Defence Force.
                This is an issue of great concern to the Reserve Defence Force. Its representatives feel that if the person were a member of the general staff, he or she would not be aligned to an organisation like RACO.
                It would not cost very much money to make that change. This would give a very worthwhile boost to morale in the Reserve Defence Force.

                Deputy Tony Killeen
                Deputy O’Shea makes a fair point.
                We need to decide where we go regarding the reserve.
                We are likely to have the results of the value for money study fairly quickly and it will be informative.
                I have tried to look back over the action taken regarding the reserve in recent years and why it is in its current situation.
                Departmental officials, my predecessor and the military authorities appear to have done all of the things recommended as the way forward at particular points, in particular the pilot scheme for recruitment implemented by my predecessor.
                They do not seem to have worked.
                It is a bit unfair to judge them quite as starkly as that.
                Based on what Deputies O’Shea and Deenihan said to me on the last day we had oral questions, it indicates that despite having done pretty much everything that was recommended, there seems to be another problem and we may need to look more fundamentally at the role of the reserve.
                The Deputy may be on a rich vein regarding the other activities and availability to the civil authorities. There have been suggestions that during the extreme weather conditions,
                including flooding, and ice and snow, better use could have been made of the reserve.
                We need to assess the outcome of all the recommendations that have been made and implemented as far as I can see.

                We also need to have engagement, as I have already had, with the representative body to take a realistic view of what is attainable and what we need to do to attain that.
                I have a pretty open mind on the role of the head of the reserve.
                I know the point is made very strongly.
                However, when I consider that the other recommendations that have been implemented do not seem to have had the desired result in general, I have a strong sense that there is not a quick fix or a magic solution for the reserve.
                It will require considerable commitment and consideration. We should be prepared to do that.
                If it took six months or a year to do so and we emerged, in the context of a new White Paper, with a very good plan, that might be a better way rather than a knee-jerk reaction with one or two, what would seem like, quick-fix solutions.
                http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate...Node=H2&Page=3
                "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                Comment


                • I
                  sensed considerable frustration in that organisation when I met its representatives recently.
                  Did we discuss this somewhere else recently..isn't voicing ones opinions in our out of uniform to public representitives illegal under military law thus making the question to the minister void.
                  Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                  Comment


                  • Not when the association is meeting the minister in an official capacity as allowed under S7.
                    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ZULU View Post
                      This is a statement form PDFORRA, and I quote:
                      Zulu, the passage you are quoting is not a statement from PDFORRA, it is a passage from the Defence Sector portion of The Croke Park agreement and the section you quote is one of the specific reasons why the PDFORRA NEC recommended turning down the proposed agreement, which the members of PDFORRA did 55% to 45%
                      CRIME SCENE INSTIGATOR

                      Comment


                      • Rex is correct. But who allowed PDFORRA ballot on it ? And why weren't RDFRA balloted ? We are paid by the DOD same as the PDF.
                        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by REX View Post
                          Zulu, the passage you are quoting is not a statement from PDFORRA, it is a passage from the Defence Sector portion of The Croke Park agreement and the section you quote is one of the specific reasons why the PDFORRA NEC recommended turning down the proposed agreement, which the members of PDFORRA did 55% to 45%
                          Apologies do. I saw it posted on a PDFORRA notice board. Didn't have a heading on it (could have been covered by another page.

                          That part of my argument is scuppered so!
                          "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                          Comment


                          • Might be slightly off topic here but if true could effect the future of the RDF.

                            Heard last night that the people on the Snr NCOs Cse were having difficulty getting paid. Anyone hear this?
                            I'm not a number, I'm a free man.
                            Who is number 1?

                            Comment


                            • Ha rumours abound.

                              Pay issue rumours for all these courses have been bouncing about for some months now.

                              Even if it were true, what difference would it make?
                              If people really wanted to do it they would and not just for pay.

                              Another rumour about that course is that they are getting it easy to try and have them all pass so that they can be held up as an example of the "excellence of training" in the RDF
                              Without supplies no army is brave.

                              —Frederick the Great,

                              Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                              Comment


                              • I had difficulties getting paid last year for my second weeks annual training...Others had similar issues.

                                But the world kept turning, and the Unit wasn't disbanded. We got paid eventually, 3 weeks later.


                                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X