Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Establishment versus reality.

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

  • Establishment versus reality.

    The establishment is based on manning a 8 ship fleet and allowing for ship/shore rotations (which the CRE figures could well have changed).
    A high percentage of the vacancies in the ranks never go to sea, there is no appointment for anything above L/Wr or even L/SBA aboard any of the ships... so until where the vacancies are occurring has been identified the issue is null and void.

    However if there is a shortage of 20 L/EAs or PO /RRTs you are in trouble.

    Without being derogatory toward any group or rank the structure must be looked at in dept and ranks vs manning levels needs looking at. Take for instance the Rank of SEior Chief Petty officer.... origin of the rank.... BQMS.. out side the Q branch the rank doesn't exist anywhere lese but every division in the NS has a couple ... because its a pay grade! I stand to be corrected on the actual year but prior to the 19890s the rank didn't exist in the NS as there wasn't the correct establishment figures to justify it.

    The same is true of senior officer ranks based on size Lts could have commanded minesweepers and PVs.....so when Eithne came along..., no offence to the first OC... an extra Commander post was created... at a time when there were already 4 executive branch Cdrs in Service, the NS at one point had 172 officers for just under 1000 men...and all the structures to support the rank.. except ratings. It wasn't uncommon to see the representetives on entire divisions on the square every morning made up entirely NCOs.

    So while the NS may be crying out for appointments to be filled, I wonder at the very end of the food chain how many they are actually short..as these are the people who do the duties and stand the watches and get paid the least!

    No back to the facilities element. The NS has dodged the bullet of having to have its own dry dock for many years because of the availability of other dock in the country. As these become unavailable or unsuitable we could very well see the day when ships won't be able to go to sea. The shift towards larger vessels and more arduous mission overseas will lead to increase in depth maintenance requirements and like the Aer Corps the outcry will only be made the day we need a ship and it wasn't available because of investment.

    Personnel issues and capital investment programmes need to be kept separate. The DF need two budgets, a running cost budget and a capital investment budget and neither should be dipped into to prop up the other.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  • #2
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Capital investment and and pay related issues should ever be considered in the same sentence. People overlook that all public service workers too k the same pay cuts as the DF and that there is a restoration process in place.

    Like building ships if we don't put capital investment projects in place to support ships, we won't have a navy for people to serve in!
    They did but none have the same terms and conditions as the DF

    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    A high percentage of the vacancies in the ranks never go to sea, there is no appointment for anything above L/Wr or even L/SBA aboard any of the ships... so until where the vacancies are occurring has been identified the issue is null and void.

    However if there is a shortage of 20 L/EAs or PO /RRTs you are in trouble.
    Look at the ranks where the biggest number of vacancies are
    Lt (NS) - over 1 in 3 vacant
    PO - over 1 in 4 vacant
    LS - over 1 in 4 vacant

    Personnel issues and capital investment programmes need to be kept separate. The DF need two budgets, a running cost budget and a capital investment budget and neither should be dipped into to prop up the other.
    If your investing in new infrastructure that requires more people they are related

    Don’t forget that the new ships were paid for (partially) by not filling vacancies

    Comment


    • #3
      Look at the ranks where the biggest number of vacancies are
      Lt (NS) - over 1 in 3 vacant
      PO - over 1 in 4 vacant
      LS - over 1 in 4 vacant
      I'm sure there are plenty of qualified people to fill the ranks should someone sign off on it, what would be more troubling is that if the lead in ranks to these vacancies aren't being filled.

      Recruitment and retention.. HR/IR issues can all be addressed in the short term with the political will to do so, how ever a large investment in a capital project such as a dry dock is a lot more hard sell especially when you have a shared capital budget with two other arms of the DF.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        So how many million should we invest in a drydock facility for NS use only, that will only be used as a drydock for an average of say 8 weeks annually and will be used as maintenance berth the rest of the time?

        Where outside contractors are likely to have to be brought in anyway!?

        At a time when the NS can’t retain personnel due to poor wages and conditions?

        In late 2017, these were how many personnel the NS were deficit:
        NS Lt -36%
        NS SCPO -15%
        NS CPO -12%
        NS SPO -14%
        NS PO -27%
        NS LS -26%

        And that is based on a establishment for an 8 vessel NS and was cut
        Do you have a source for those figures? I would like to see the complete breakdown of strength vs establishment.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          Do you have a source for those figures? I would like to see the complete breakdown of strength vs establishment.
          PQs
          The establishment hasn’t been provided in a while but if you go back a while you’ll get it

          Comment


          • #6
            Establishment versus reality.

            The NS is evolving out of necessicity and growing larger, both in it's original roles and, so far perceived future roles.
            However, like the Army and the Air Corps, it is under establishment, obviously there is little point in expanding the "toys" if we don't have the people to play with them.
            There has to be a NS recruitment drive with added incentive, ie: more money!
            Discuss:
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • #7
              As difficult as it is to recruit & retain soldiers, I cannot see why anyone would join the NS. The life is much harsher with far more limitations put on having a real life. Relationships suffer from being away all the time. I have a lot of respect for those that can enjoy that work / life balance

              Comment


              • #8
                And your 2 years ashore not being ashore

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  PQs
                  The establishment hasn’t been provided in a while but if you go back a while you’ll get it
                  As you brought up the subject can you provide the details.
                  Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The establishment does not seem to have changed in the NS since we had 4 p20 type, 1 hpv , 2 cpv and 1 lpv . If we are to replace the cpv type with opv then surely the establishment needs to follow? These ships will be spending more time at sea and having at least one vessel overseas seems to be the norm for future planning. Add to the mix a larger ship to replace the hpv and number are well below what is required. In 1984 bringing Eithne into service with her crew of 85 all ranks saw a recruitment drive to increase the establishment by 200.
                    Last edited by na grohmiti; 22 January 2018, 10:30.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      First and only way to address personnel Manning agility is to remove the DPER enforced ECF (employment control framework).

                      The DF are still operating an establishment framework based on pre-ww1 military structures.

                      Agility, adaptability to the needs of now are the factors of success in Manning the needed roles

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                        First and only way to address personnel Manning agility is to remove the DPER enforced ECF (employment control framework).

                        The DF are still operating an establishment framework based on pre-ww1 military structures.

                        Agility, adaptability to the needs of now are the factors of success in Manning the needed roles
                        Manning ships is a complex problem under many headings. The rule of thumb was it took three crew equivalents to keep one crew at sea. Then one has to take into consideration crew specialization and training, avenues of advancement, home life, pay, and the organizational ability to produce right crews with the right skills. Newer ships tend to be smarter technological, so manning needs to look at the ship from casual patrol to full warfighting capability, and/or overseas operations. The crew pools in civilian life are better educated, better housed, and have higher aspirations requiring a response from Naval Training that will encourage retention and offer a worthwhile range of careers . Other Navies are looking at Total Operating Costs but arriving at the Optimal skills and manning levels is an evolving task much depending on what the ship has to do and for how long and in what operational environment.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Turkey View Post
                          The NS is evolving out of necessicity and growing larger, both in it's original roles and, so far perceived future roles.
                          However, like the Army and the Air Corps, it is under establishment, obviously there is little point in expanding the "toys" if we don't have the people to play with them.
                          There has to be a NS recruitment drive with added incentive, ie: more money!
                          Discuss:
                          and maybe relaxing the very stringent eyesight requirements

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bring back the lash
                            To close with and kill the enemy in all weather conditions, night and day and over any terrain

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bring back the lash
                              More likely than ECF restrictions being eased, anyway. DPER love the DF cos they follow orders.
                              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X