Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

rank, appointments, stuff....

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

  • rank, appointments, stuff....

    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Have to agree with this and did suggest it from the outset. However it should be remembered that the ships themselves will need minor - medium refitting after every few months on station.

    I do believe that it is quite feasible to deploy two vessels bearing in mind the gravity of the situation . However Crew rotation would then become an extremely important factor.

    The thing to remember is that very soon Malta will be in position to deploy a very capable vessel to the area with a crew that will reflect the same type of capabilities we currently have on site.

    Its going to get worse before it gets better, at least until someone can stop these people even getting into boats.
    The NS have a large amount of vacancies at Lt, S/Lt and LS level

  • #2
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    The NS have a large amount of vacancies at Lt, S/Lt and LS level
    Dosen't mean that the vacancies couldn't be filled. Depends what division the vacancies are in..Some one just has to sign off on the variation order to get people paid in the role.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #3
      It doesn't have vacancies, it just has a delay in getting promotions approved.
      German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
      German 2: Private? I am a general!
      German 1: That is the bad news.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
        Dosen't mean that the vacancies couldn't be filled. Depends what division the vacancies are in..Some one just has to sign off on the variation order to get people paid in the role.
        To deploy an additional vessel to the Med (in addition to existing commitments)?

        There are 11 NS cadets in training at the moment (ie they aren't fully trained), there is currently 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt's (that's 25% of the establishment that is currently vacant BTW). You therefore can't fill those vacancies currently (there is no one to fill them!!!).

        There are 17 vacancies for Lt's at the minute (that's 20% of the establishment BTW). If filled, it would make the Sub/Lt situation worse (although that shouldn't be a reason not to fill them.

        There are enough Seaman to fill the LS vacancies but that is assuming that they are all fully trained and qualified.

        Then as you say are they from the right division.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          It doesn't have vacancies, it just has a delay in getting promotions approved.
          hence whats known as a variation order

          To deploy an additional vessel to the Med (in addition to existing commitments)?
          But all the ships have their full compliments so the vacancies have no impact on sea going capability of ships.

          There are 11 NS cadets in training at the moment (ie they aren't fully trained), there is currently 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt'
          Cadets in training dosen't equate to vacancies as they still have to complete their watch keeping.

          There are 17 vacancies for Lt's at the minute (that's 20% of the establishment BTW)
          Again doesn't always equate to seagoing appointments, to go to sea all ships will have XOs and MEOs, all Lt appointments, so all seagoing appointments are filled.

          There are enough Seaman to fill the LS vacancies but that is assuming that they are all fully trained and qualified.
          Enlisted, being the terminology required again specific to role, requirement for 3 exec branch Leading hands for watch keeping, again specify the location of the vacancies.

          MTD's could be short 10 leading hands, but isn't a ship stopper.

          Huge difference between vacancies ,appointments, establishment in the NS vs Army. Army it really doesn't matter. NS unless they are ships stoppers they can always be back filled.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #6
            There are plenty of subbies on the base that can't do an LTs job on ship because they have not been promoted. Instead they are getting bounced on GoHs and admin jobs that realistically are actually being done by the Senior Rate who works for them.
            Look at the figures for yourself, compare them with crews. I note that there is a Commander overseas with Niamh, otherwise normal manning applies, in addition to the 2 Medics.
            The Average ship has 5 officers.
            Each ship is normally commanded by a Lt Cdr. The NS has 43. Only 8 are needed at sea.
            The remaining 4 are Lt or S/Lt. The NS has 93. Only 32 are needed at sea.
            As for an L/S, at sea few, as HPT says are shipstoppers. But the NS has 143 to chose from. Niamh/Roisin has (based on the crew list from L.E. Niamh's visit to asia in 2002) 6. 3 Seamans branch, 1 EMT, 1 Cook, 1 Steward.
            German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
            German 2: Private? I am a general!
            German 1: That is the bad news.

            Comment


            • #7
              In interview an LE Niamh spokesperson said they had 56 crew on board. It seems they have extras for the deployment. The original agreed manning scales for all ships was 3 crews for each ship to keep all at sea 24/7. This covers leave, courses, sickness , other deployments etc. The maths are 7x46x3=966 seagoing personnel plus the Base manning and Training elements. Ships are job specific and cannot carry too many first trippers as it effects operations, particularly at nighttime boardings etc. Once the open door policy on recruitment ended there has been a concertina effect on departments with shortages building up and skills diluted when the next wave of sanctioned newbies arrive.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                But all the ships have their full compliments so the vacancies have no impact on sea going capability of ships.

                Again doesn't always equate to seagoing appointments, to go to sea all ships will have XOs and MEOs, all Lt appointments, so all seagoing appointments are filled.
                Being filled by personnel on their shore rotation

                Who is doing the jobs ashore (say in the Dockyards) while they are at sea?

                This is effecting retention

                Look at L/ERA's, they have had to take on 2/3 classes of DEs


                Cadets in training dosen't equate to vacancies as they still have to complete their watch keeping.
                Not what I said, there are 10 vacancies for Sub/Lt's but as there are at least 2 NS cadet classes still in training (with a total of 11 cadets) there is no possibility of filling the Sub/Lt vacancies immediately



                Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                The original agreed manning scales for all ships was 3 crews for each ship to keep all at sea 24/7. This covers leave, courses, sickness , other deployments etc. The maths are 7x46x3=966 seagoing personnel plus the Base manning and Training elements. Ships are job specific and cannot carry too many first trippers as it effects operations, particularly at nighttime boardings etc. Once the open door policy on recruitment ended there has been a concertina effect on departments with shortages building up and skills diluted when the next wave of sanctioned newbies arrive.
                It has been 1.33 per crew since around 2000

                Comment


                • #9
                  1.33 ratio won't, cannot work. Like owning 3 socks you'll never have a clean pair after first wear. On strenuous deployments whole crew change could be a requirement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I always thought the argument about the numbers and balance of offrs and NCOs in the navy was to allow a suitable sea/shore lifestyle and rotation, ie 2/3 years out 3/5 years in (or there and thereabouts) . I know that despite all the additional places allotted the navy weren't able to recruit enough cadets and retain junior officers in the last number of years, ergo vacancies in the establishment.... If the vacancies in the establishment exist ( which they do) and are held against shore based appointments then that means certain junior ranks ( LS and subbies/Lts ) are doing more at sea then they are supposed to.... i.e getting screwed. This no doubt will have an impact on retention which leads us back to the vicious circle...... Of more junior offrs and NCOs going on their ticket as the job places too high a demand on them. As the economy continues to improve, more and more well trained and valuable individuals will head off to the private sector..... We already have Aldi Batt , could we be looking at LE Lidl ?

                    The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks..... I know it was all much harder in our day ( Bulls wool and dodgy corvettes) but if we are to retain our levels of effectiveness in the navy we need to recruit and retain a new generation of junior officers and NCOs ....
                    Last edited by Jack Booted Man; 9 August 2015, 15:20. Reason: Typo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jack Booted Man View Post
                      I always thought the argument about the numbers and balance of offrs and NCOs in the navy was to allow a suitable sea/shore lifestyle and rotation, ie 2/3 years out 3/5 years in (or there and thereabouts) . I know that despite all the additional places allotted the navy weren't able to recruit enough cadets and retain junior officers in the last number of years, ergo vacancies in the establishment.... If the vacancies in the establishment exist ( which they do) and are held against shore based appointments then that means certain junior ranks ( LS and subbies/Lts ) are doing more at sea then they are supposed to.... i.e getting screwed. This no doubt will have an impact on retention which leads us back to the vicious circle...... Of more junior offrs and NCOs going on their ticket as the job places too high a demand on them. As the economy continues to improve, more and more well trained and valuable individuals will head off to the private sector..... We already have Aldi Batt , could we be looking at LE Lidl ?

                      The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks..... I know it was all much harder in our day ( Bulls wool and dodgy corvettes) but if we are to retain our levels of effectiveness in the navy we need to recruit and retain a new generation of junior officers and NCOs ....
                      It's suppose to be 2 years at sea and 2 years ashore

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Depending on rank .... According to last set of pqs , 48 Lt Cdrs - 8 at sea..... 56 Lts - not sure how many at sea but 7 XOs at least .... Allowing for techies, Career cses, 'normal DF ' overseas.... At the higher ranks not so bad.....a lot worse for certain techies, and junior offrs/NCOs I would assume , the old adage of fecal matters susceptibility to gradient remains true.

                        Not wishing to drag ourselves off topic , I as a member of the army have been immensely proud of my naval colleagues in the last few weeks. The professionalism , from both crews, has been exceptional. The level of trauma they have been exposed to is significant and I hope we have learnt lessons from other traumatic experiences that other members of the DF have gone through in the last number of years ( Rwanda, Somalia, Grapes of wrath etc) . I hope the welfare of the crew is foremost in the minds of decision makers as they look at the duration of the Niamh's deployment and whether to extend or replace .....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Who is doing the jobs ashore (say in the Dockyards) while they are at sea?
                          Certain ranks filling appointments in the dockyard etc have no function realistically other than being at sea.

                          Again its the division system.

                          Of the 143 leading hands, how many are executive branch?

                          Other than specific training role rank carrying members of this branch serve no practical role ashore!

                          Of the 'x' amount of Lt Cdrs again other than Executive branch who will be ships captains they have no formal role ashore other than administrration, same goes for the engineering branch

                          Reeling off figures without break down by branch is lie assuming all soldiers do the same job and have the same level of qualification. Not all S/Lts are qualified watchkeepers thus have no function at sea.

                          It's suppose to be 2 years at sea and 2 years ashore
                          it is that, but its a case of needs must, and putting ships to sea is the priority not worrying whether PO 'x' has done more time at sea than PO 'y'.

                          Believe it or not most people prefer to be at sea as opposed to being in the base, they are actually full filling the role the joined to do. In my time stints in the base other than on courses were like a death sentence especially for single men.

                          The bottom line here is that we need to fill the vacancies in the establishment to ensure suitable manning levels at all ranks
                          For several reasons yes, but its not a ship stopper and should be used as an excuse to not deploy a second ship if required.

                          noticeable how inappropriate the blue “undress” uniform is
                          the term is working dress as that is what it is. For safety reasons it is what is , Designer gear and sandals are not really appropriate for working aboard ship, where everything has the potential to maim or kill if not treated with respect ( especially the cooks)

                          It has been 1.33 per crew since around 2000
                          thats an establishment figure as opposed to an operational practised number.
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            God bless you all but your some waffle monsters at this point of the thread.

                            Two in two out has never been anything but assperational at least in the last 20 years.

                            Only the few in certain senior nco and officer ranks have longer ashore than two years (often far longer)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Toolbox View Post
                              God bless you all but your some waffle monsters at this point of the thread.

                              Two in two out has never been anything but assperational at least in the last 20 years.

                              Only the few in certain senior nco and officer ranks have longer ashore than two years (often far longer)
                              bear in mind only two from the group have every served on sea going naval vessel, one as a rating the other as......
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X