New Generals?

[timhorgan]

It's an appointment,

With our strength there is really no need for so many generals, we should at max have two generals.

The Swiss have the right idea- a full General is appointed only in time of war. The last was the great Vaudois Henri Guisan in WW2. Even in the modern Swiss Army titles such as Divisionnaire are used. Anyone travelling in Switzerland can only be impressed by the common sight of Swiss soldiers traveling on trains to camp with their weapons. Michael Collins wanted the New Irish Army to be modelled on the Swiss-pity he did not have time to see it through.

[Goldie fish]

It's an appointment,

With our strength there is really no need for so many generals, we should at max have two generals.

In the Army or in the DF?
I cannot fathom why the head of an islands defence force, is an army general. Given the state is surrounded on 3 sides by water, and covered by sky surely the proportion of defence command should reflect this? Why is the CoS position not either shared or rotated between the 3 branches?
Brig general for Army, Air Corps and Naval service. There is no practical need why a colonel cannot command a brigade. Their role as head of corps directorates is purely a superficial one, designed so they can mark time till a Brigade command comes up. Compare it to the equivalent in the Air Corps and Naval service, where each of the 4 (2 each) colonels occupy actual technical management positions within the ORBAT. There is no overlap.

Think of it.
Lt commands Pln/tp
Capt 2ic to Comdt
Comdt commands Coy/bty/sqn
Lt Col Commands Bn/rgt
colonel... well er.. um...2ic to brig gen? So why do we need so many?
Brig Gen commands Brigade...
Simples.

[Jungle]

Think of it.
Lt commands Pln/tp
Capt 2ic to Comdt
Comdt commands Coy/bty/sqn
Lt Col Commands Bn/rgt
colonel... well er.. um...2ic to brig gen? So why do we need so many?
Brig Gen commands Brigade...
Simples.

Interesting; we had the same arrangement years ago, then reorganized our structure. Now we have Cols commanding Bdes, and BGens commanding Areas.

We have more Gens then we have formations; one BGen is second-in-command to the US Army III Corps, others are tasked to different international orgs. We also keep higher-level HQs and staff for tasks like assuming command of RC(S) or missions like Libya.

[DeV]

Is the term GOC an appointment rather than a rank?

It's an appointment,

With our strength there is really no need for so many generals, we should at max have two generals.

It isn't an appointment but what does the G stay for? You have to be of General staff rank to hold the appointment.

Ah, the establishment versus the strength! But that will change (assuming the change the establishment as well)

In the Army or in the DF?
I cannot fathom why the head of an islands defence force, is an army general. Given the state is surrounded on 3 sides by water, and covered by sky surely the proportion of defence command should reflect this? Why is the CoS position not either shared or rotated between the 3 branches?
Brig general for Army, Air Corps and Naval service. There is no practical need why a colonel cannot command a brigade. Their role as head of corps directorates is purely a superficial one, designed so they can mark time till a Brigade command comes up. Compare it to the equivalent in the Air Corps and Naval service, where each of the 4 (2 each) colonels occupy actual technical management positions within the ORBAT. There is no overlap.

Assuming the person is qualified and has come throught the ranks (including Major General) I see no reason why not?

The UK, NZ and Australia are all islands. I know the UK rotate it, not sure what NZ do but they have heads of the 3 services and the equivalent of the COS is a Lt General.

[Jungle]

The UK, NZ and Australia are all islands. I know the UK rotate it, not sure what NZ do but they have heads of the 3 services and the equivalent of the COS is a Lt General.

Interesting... we used to rotate the CDS between the 3 Services; now, the person best-qualified gets the job. Our current CDS is Army (Armour).

The Canadian Army, RCN and RCAF are force generators, commanded by LGens; Canada-Command and Expeditionary Forces Command are force employers, also commanded by LGens. MGens command divisions or equivalent multi-national formations.

[Truck Driver]

It isn't an appointment but what does the G stay for? You have to be of General staff rank to hold the appointment....

Where does it says that though ? As I said previously, officers of Colonel rank held the appointment in the past

[DeV]

Where does it says that though ? As I said previously, officers of Colonel rank held the appointment in the past

The establishment!

Same way a Captain can't call himself the Coy Comdr even though there is a vacancy

[hedgehog]

It's an appointment not a rank,

[Bravo20]

But a Captain can hold the Coy Commander appointment, if he/she is posted into that appointment.

[DeV]

From what I have been told they can't! They can in effect be the Coy Commander but will hold the appointment of 2i/c.

Unless you hold the qualifications for an appointment (in this case the rank), you can't hold the appointment.

[Goldie fish]

Corps Directors, O/C Colleges, etc

You mean "jobs for the boys". Do we need corps directorates? Does the OC need to be a colonel?

[chrisr]

From the Dail Yesterday

1x Maj Gen(22,24feb)
1x Brig Gen(13,20/21feb)
6x Col(12Mar)
12x Lt Col(??)

A future COS will most definitely be amongst those promoted after the competitions above. Is there any bright and shining lights coming up the officer ranks, that aren't close to retirement, who can steer the DF through the White paper process, in the days of recession, while still keeping a credible and efficient Defence Force?

There are more potential moves and promotions before a COS vacancy is there so I would think there are still plenty of cards to be dealt yet

[Jessup]

You mean "jobs for the boys". Do we need corps directorates? Does the OC need to be a colonel?

Be careful what you wish for Goldie. Many of the posters on this forum seem to have a severe case of myopia when it comes to the same issue as it applies to officers and o/ranks.

Why does an Ord Room Sgt need to be a Sgt? Why do MPs need to be at least Cpls? Why does the senior NCO in an Arty Regiment need to be a Sgt Maj? The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.

In less constrained times it was a simple approach to something which would become far more complicated otherwise. Different times suggest that a more complicated solution will just have to be found for officer and NCO appointments. Just remember that the payroll savings in any project to depress officer ranks downwards will be a fraction of the savings for same exercise among NCOs. Don't cod yourself, the case for the defence for many NCO appointments is equally under threat. The only pers safe from this are the Ptes and Lts but they will loose out on promotion opportunities.

It's the usual persecution complex reaction of you "make the poor rich by making the rich poor". Go for the sensational example, the lads in the canteen busy bitching about the upper ranks but never taking the time to look in the mirror. Meanwhile, ignore all the elephants in the room like all the PDF pers employed as RDF cadre as just one example.

There's no doubt that some officer appointments should be reviewed but NCOs are no postion to be throwing stones either. Some officers have looked after themselves in the past but they've also looked after NCOs too (often as a reward for an NCO looking after them so well). During the Defence Forces Review and Implementation Plan (DFRIP - can you believe no one saw that); D ARTY lost the directorship but held on to the RSM in each Regiment.

For altogether different reasons you could question why all ARW pers being at least Cpl and why there are all the NCOs in technical appointments like the Band and workshops etc. or why the NS and AC have a very high % of NCOs. Furthermore, there are as many 'questionable' senior NCO appointments as senior Officer appointments in DFHQ.

On a human level I will not be canvassing for any officer or NCO to be made redundant, forced to be a SWA or loose out on any promtion prospects for the rest of their career.

[Vamp369]

The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.

"Don't confuse your rank with my authority" as the saying goes.

[Jessup]

Agreed, but imagine the 'confusion' when dealing with charges; Cpl Bloggs disobeyed a direct order from Pte (MP) Jones or Cpl Smith did not complete the task as instructed by Cpl Murphy. Maybe there's no need for rank to carry authority and everyone should be called comrade? Would be great when there's an incident and the dreaded question "who was the senior man/woman"? No one!

[danno]

Its not the authority thing as such thats being questioned,its the amount of persons holding various levels of rank in given units/corps.

[Vamp369]

Agreed, but imagine the 'confusion' when dealing with charges; Cpl Bloggs disobeyed a direct order from Pte (MP) Jones or Cpl Smith did not complete the task as instructed by Cpl Murphy. Maybe there's no need for rank to carry authority and everyone should be called comrade? Would be great when there's an incident and the dreaded question "who was the senior man/woman"? No one!

If the person who issues a legit order and holds the required authoirty, regardless of rank, such as your MP example above then where is the problem? If Cpl Bloggs didn't do what he should have done, then theres the problem. No confusion there.

As for the senior man/woman, is it not the case within the DF that all personnel are taught to take charge if there is no one there already designated too? For example at section level, from IC to 2/IC to 1RM etc. If the IC and 2/IC are taken away, then it is up to 1RM to assume command until thier return. Seniorty does not come into it there. The problem arises when no one has the balls to do what they are trained to too!

[Jessup]

If the person who issues a legit order and holds the required authoirty, regardless of rank, such as your MP example above then where is the problem? If Cpl Bloggs didn't do what he should have done, then theres the problem. No confusion there.

We're going off thread here vamp, but there's four pretexts in your scenario above, each on their own represent complications. If it's there's no problem or confusion, then linking it to the question about why all the Generals and Colonels; why must PDF MPs in ireland need to be at least Cpls? If you disagree with the link between rank and authority then surely PDF MP Cpls is another example of 'jobs for the boys'. We know that's not the case, so that logic must apply when applied to Generals and Colonels who are hated even more than MPs

As for the senior man/woman, is it not the case within the DF that all personnel are taught to take charge if there is no one there already designated too? For example at section level, from IC to 2/IC to 1RM etc. If the IC and 2/IC are taken away, then it is up to 1RM to assume command until thier return. Seniorty does not come into it there. The problem arises when no one has the balls to do what they are trained to too!

You're making my point. In order for someone to be in charge you follow the chain of command. The reason for a Corps Director being a Col is the simplicity of the chain of command where he/she out ranks the Lt Col unit commanders, the same with D COS SP and D COS OPS out ranking the Bde OCs. The simplicity of this follows a basic rule of the military; K.I.S.S. It's not 'jobs for the boys'. In the current environment such simplicity might be seen as a luxury and more complex solutions will have to investigated across appointments in all ranks. EG the senior NCO in an Arty Reg being the most senior CS and the Unit OC is the most senior Comdt? Ok when it's case of "2 i/c take over" but can foresee all sorts of problems if that was the default configuration.

__

[Goldie fish]

But.. do you really need a Corps Director?

[Flamingo]

Michael Collins wanted the New Irish Army to be modelled on the Swiss-pity he did not have time to see it through.

The only problem with his idea Tim, is that he'd also have to model the Irish people on the Swiss, and I couldn't see that succeeding somehow, could you?

[Jessup]

But.. do you really need a Corps Director?

Fair question. From what I've heard, "everything is on the table" now Goldie. The Infantry Corps have managed without a Corps Director and they're the 'biggest' Corps.

D ARTY and D CAV were 'merged' years ago but units are still separate, contrary to what happens overseas with ARTY and CAV in the same sub unit. There's speculation of a combined Arty/Cav Regiment per Bde?

The LSBs went the opposite way. The units were merged but retained their individual Corps Directors. For those folks there's speculation of a new 'D Logs' with specialist staff officers in S&T, Ordnance, Medical etc. The Corps loose their separate directors and some of the staff officers and NCOs.

It's not nice for anyone to have their career path narrowed due to a lack of vacancies but it tough for everyone in this country at the moment. I'm advocating a bit of balance and foresight about so called 'jobs for the boys'. Any 'casualties' will not be limited to officers.

[Truck Driver]

Fair question. From what I've heard, "everything is on the table" now Goldie. The Infantry Corps have managed without a Corps Director and they're the 'biggest' Corps...

Ohhh - there was one a couple of years ago - gone since ?

Any 'casualties' will not be limited to officers.

This is also true - the associated support staffs - NCOs and Ptes would also be lost in such a re org - meaning redeployment of same to other
units / locations

[hedgehog]

Many of the posters on this forum seem to have a severe case of myopia when it comes to the same issue as it applies to officers and o/ranks.

Ah the old them and us defence- if in doubt throw in a curve ball- dont worry Jess its not a them and us situation now, the recent multiple senior officer appointments has made sure of that, and just in case you think it is-

-Some of my best freinds are black,
-Some of my best freinds are gay,
-Some of my best freinds are officers,
-Some of my best freinds are goths-

that counter defence will work all the time.

Why does an Ord Room Sgt need to be a Sgt?

Because its the rank set out in the establishment- an Ord Room Sgt is a trmemdously responsible job- very few units have trained Adjts or Admin Officers so in a lot of Units the O Room Sgt actually does the work of the Officer who reads the Metro and gets the salute etc etc-

You will find now because of the promotion embargo that a lot of Units dont have an O Room SGt but rather an O room Cpl doing the work of the Sgt and the Capt.(unpaid)

Again its not a them and us myopia but I am glad that we have Col's exercising the vital function of Corp Directors and the little known job of Bde EO.

Why do MPs need to be at least Cpls?

Up to quiet recently (last ish month or two) we had PA's who did the course but because of the embargo they didnt get the stripe.

Why does the senior NCO in an Arty Regiment need to be a Sgt Maj?

Because they are an operational Unit and if you had 4 Btys with 4 Bty Sgts and no RSM - who exactly is in charge?

The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.

Nothing like it at all.>

[Jessup]

Because its the rank set out in the establishment

Up to quiet recently (last ish month or two) we had PA's who did the course but because of the embargo they didnt get the stripe.

Because they are an operational Unit and if you had 4 Btys with 4 Bty Sgts and no RSM - who exactly is in charge?

Nothing like it at all.>

So let's get this straight; A question is asked about why a certain appointment carries a certain rank. If the question relates to o/ranks an acceptable justification can be "that's the rank set out in the establishment". However, if the question relates to officers that justification cannot be used? So for o/ranks the policy is, that's the way it always has been and that's the way it will be but when it comes to officers snide comments about 'jobs for the boys' are fair comment?

As for the PA/MP example, I see you're not denying the some appointments benefit from a minimum rank to promote the authority of that appointment holder when trying to do their job. Just to be clear, that intention is organisational support when it applies to o/ranks but it's jobs for the boys when it applies to officers? Your PA/MP alumni are in diificult position made more challenging by not carrying the stripe. However, their plight is not a unique one. Plenty of officers have done the J C&S since the embargo HH. Many have not been promoted from Capt and are working a Coy Comdrs for lengthy periods while the other Coy Comdrs in the same unit are Comdts. This leads to obvious challenges when two Coy Comdrs are fighting for resources or a fair allocation of taskings for their Coy with one and Captain and the other a Comdt. Add to that that the Captain Coy Comdr might be 'junior' to the Captain Adjt, QM, Ops Officer etc.

As for your last point, that's just a blatant double standard. The RSM must be an RSM so that he/she can be 'in charge' of 4 x BS. How is that not the same as a Maj Gen having to be a Maj Gen so that he/she can be in charge of the 3 x Bde OCs for Ops and Sp issues? Or, how is that not the same as a Col must be a Col to be 'in charge' of the 3 x Unit Comdrs. Operations, Training, Doctrine, someone has to be in charge. It's exactly the same thing..................except it's not when it applies to officers?

BTW I presume you mis-spelled friends (freinds) on purpose. None of your best friends are black or gay or goth or officers, are they?

[trellheim]

ÓGLAIGH NA hÉIREANN
Tá an Rialtas inniu tar éis
An Briogáidire-Ghinearál Conor O’Boyle
(Brigadier-General Conor O’Boyle)
a cheapadh chun oifig Leas-Cheann Fóirne (Tacaíocht) Óglaigh
na hÉireann, go ceann tréimshe dar tosach an 6 Márta, 2012
agus dar críoch 28 Meán Fómhair, 2014.
MARTIN FRASER
Ard-Rúnaí an Rialtais
BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, DUBLIN,
An 6ú lá seo de Márta, 2012. This 6th day of March, 2012.

http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/IR130312.pdf