The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

[DeV]

I meant to like, not dislike

[Truck Driver]

It would appear that many posters to the RDFRA facebook page are not being read the "Acts" as they are required to be done from time to time.

Correct me if I am wrong, T, but did certain sections of the Act which WERE required reading vanish with the update of DFR R5 a couple of years ago ?

[Infy]

ah sure it will be easier to trim the herd afterwards, surely charges should follow some of the posts? IMO RDFRA should at least make their page private or take it down altogether. Yet again the actions of a few will tarnish us all with the same brush.

[trellheim]

Correct me if I am wrong, T, but did certain sections of the Act which WERE required reading vanish with the update of DFR R5 a couple of years ago ?

Most of them remained the same as it was the Act not the Reg which was read out. Can't remember if the rollbooks were updated for the change.

[apod]

Cadre staff who MAY be surplus to requirement pending the publication of the VFM were informed today what PDF units they will be reassigned to.

[Docman]

The annoying thing with it all is the VFM isn't really the big news. The VFM is merely a report with some recommendations. The contents are already known by a number of people - it is how the decisions are implemented that the RDF needs to get involved in. RDFRA are hung up on the VFM and are making a strategic mistake by focussing on it completely.

[Goldie fish]

They should have been involved in the VFM process, rather than awaiting the result.

[Bravo20]

OK I need to correct a few misconceptions here. Firstly this crap that has been floating around that RDFRA (and the RDF as a whole) were not involved in the VFM process. That is not true, RDFRA took every opportunity they could to be involved in the VFM process. At the outset RDFRA asked to have a role in setting the terms of reference and to have someone on the committee (it was a long shot and it was turned down but it would have been remiss of RDFRA not to have asked). RDFRA were invited to make a written submission (as were the other representative associations) and they did so, a very detailed submission (it used to be on the old website but it appears to be gone now). RDFRA were asked to make a verbal presentation to the VFM to back up their written submission and they did. RDFRA also privately briefed various members of the RDF who were making their own submissions (along the lines of as you are making a submission you might want to hear/ see what we have submitted). RDFRA also used their normal meetings (with GOCs, DRES, COS, Minister, C&A) in the lengthy interim that it took to compile the VFM report. Again this was an important part of RDFRA selling the message that the RDF is a valuable organisation. RDFRA were also given assurances from various Ministers that they would be consulted prior to the publication of the report (as a representative assocation should be) but this seems to have been renaged on. So on that basis it is very very wrong to say that RDFRA was not involved in this process.

The next is how important the VFM report is. Yes both you and I know (and so does RDFRA) that the report is only supposed to be an analysis of how successful the re-organisation was (as that was the terms of reference of the review) and really only should form an opinion as to what changes should be made to the RDF. The recent re-org of the PDF has more of an impact. HOWEVER the publication of the VFM has been used as an excuse by both the military and DOD as an excuse not to make any decision on the RDF. Any questions about recruitment, promotion and role of the RDF are being brushed aside with the excuse that they have to wait for the outcome of the VFM. It is time that this excuse be removed. We need to start making decisions as to what the RDF should look like in the future, if it has a future. Enough of this procrastination. That is why it is important.

[Col Kilgore]

Well said Sir, well said indeed.
Unlike us, the Strategic Review undertaken by our neighbours has actual and sering members of the TA as members of the various sateering
and reporting committees.

[DeV]

With you 95% B20 but wasn't one of the terms of reference something along the lines of is a reserve required?

[Bravo20]

Original Terms of Reference of the VFM
1) Outline defence policy and strategy and the associated development plan for the Reserve Defence Force.
2) Identify the inputs i.e. level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with the Reserve Defence Force including Permanent Defence Force and Department of Defence staffing resources.
3) Identify the level and trend of training activity and the outputs associated with the Reserve Defence Force
4) Examine the extent that the plan's objectives have been achieved and comment on the effectiveness with which they have been achieved (The plan was RDFRIP)
5) Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of public funds on a current and ongoing basis and determine what measures could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of Reserve outputs, including alternative policy or organisational approaches (e.g. through international comparisons)
6) Specify potential future performance indicators that might be better to monitor the performance of the Reserve Defence Force

So yes point 5 is should we spend money on them or not

[DeV]

Does the FLR provide VFM?

It costs around €40,000 annually for zero return.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/23/00153.asp

These seem to be the latest figures available (End of October 2011) - not sure if the recent retirements could increase these figures or not:

Army:
Comdt - 6
Capt - 37
Sgt - 1
Cpl - 11
Pte - 123


AC:
Comdt - 5
Capt - 6
Sgt - 1
Cpl - 1
Airman - 7


NS:
Cdr - 1
Lt Cdr - 23
Lt - 11
S/Lt - 3
PO - 8
L/S - 2
A/S - 42

Chances are at least some of these (obviously the officers and NCOs) would have instructor qualifications, courses completed, technical skills and overseas experience that could be of much use to the SLR - by extension this would improve the "employability" of the RDF to support the PDF.

There are also a lot of privates (and equivalents) that could hold qualifications that the PDF could use (as reservists) eg drivers, engineers, ERAs etc. I'm sure at least some could go on RDF PNCOs Courses.

The FLR should be got rid of and offer them places in the SLR, based on a selection process (interview, qualifications (including are they up to date), fitness test, medical etc).

The benefits:
a once off (short to medium term (depending on the age and uptake) shot in the arm for the SLR.
Improving the VFM of the FLR.
The ability for fully trained personnel to replace cadre

[hptmurphy]

[QUOTE]There are also a lot of privates (and equivalents) that could hold qualifications that the PDF could use (as reservists) eg drivers, engineers, ERAs etc. I'm sure at least some could go on RDF PNCOs Courses.[/QUOTE

Dosen't mention the qualifications, most direct entries or trades men don't have a FLR commitment.

[DeV]

I meant COE other ranks for example, but you are correct but almost certain apprentices do have an FLR commitment.

Qualifications could be a ILSW YE course completed.

[midnight oil]

The FLR should be got rid of and offer them places in the SLR, based on a selection process (interview, qualifications (including are they up to date), fitness test, medical etc).

So a member of the RDF would interview a member of the PDF that is about to retire to see if he is suitable to join the RDF in order to meet his contractual obligations?