Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

manning levels, the future.

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

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Isn’t that the MOD’s SLAM requirements????

    Makes sense but polar opposite of DoD

    Part of the reason SLAM can do so is they are new builds
    I presume the Acronym has something to do with Single Living ? There is a huge retarding ethic permeating our Civil Service IRO of providing for specialist services whether that be Defence. Education, Medical etc. They don't ever achieve a turn key status, they are like the biblical widow and buy a few bob's worth of something and continually fail to prepare for the big picture and wind up failing in key expectations like ships NOT sailing, schools NOT opening, Nurses NOT employed etc. They take the Generals mandate but only have his spear carriers capability. Turning heritage buildings into accommodation may be like a Tommy Cooper magic trick- it will work in parts.

    Comment




    • The problem is we generally renovate/refurbish old British Army buildings we need new buildings

      Comment


      • The SLAM programme has had the odd failing, but it's been an overwhelming success. The 'rip it down and start again' ideology has been worth its weight in gold in allowing the project to be transformational rather than tinkering around the edges.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          The future is always Budget dependent and depends on how it is controlled and spent. Who should, once allocated, decide where money must be spent to maintain a fit for purpose Defence Forces. The Budget is decided in October and a global figure is allocated, however if elements understrength cause underspend of allocations then that money is returned to the exchequer, thereby missing an opportunity to use such funds to improve Defence structure and capability. It creates a diminishing and pauperising factor throughout the PDF and produces a threadbare Force. In my opinion Budget policy is killing off the PDF.
          As an addendum to comments made by me, there is an interesting piece by a retired member in the RACO Newsletter which states " Due to reviews, reorganisation and cut-backs the effectiveness of the PDF is reduced. The Defence forces, unlike the HSE or the Gardai , are NOT being tested on their primary fuction on a daily basis. As a result their ineffectiveness will remain hidden and unnoticed until , Call to arms. Fortunately in my opinion , the Navy, may be different in that they are fully operational in their duties and theatre all the time. Ships will always be ships, they just need manpower of the required trades and equipment fit-for-purpose to deal with threats.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            As an addendum to comments made by me, there is an interesting piece by a retired member in the RACO Newsletter which states " Due to reviews, reorganisation and cut-backs the effectiveness of the PDF is reduced. The Defence forces, unlike the HSE or the Gardai , are NOT being tested on their primary fuction on a daily basis. As a result their ineffectiveness will remain hidden and unnoticed until , Call to arms. Fortunately in my opinion , the Navy, may be different in that they are fully operational in their duties and theatre all the time. Ships will always be ships, they just need manpower of the required trades and equipment fit-for-purpose to deal with threats.
            Has there ever been precedent for compulsory transferring or posting of soldiers or airmen to the Navy, either temporary to cover any jobs they are qualified for, or total change and training them up to be sailors?
            'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
            'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
            Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
            He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
            http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
              Has there ever been precedent for compulsory transferring or posting of soldiers or airmen to the Navy, either temporary to cover any jobs they are qualified for, or total change and training them up to be sailors?
              Not compulsory to the Naval Service per se. but Soldiers have held posts in Haulbowline in the past such as armourers, and other trades, transport officers or signals officers.
              as for enlited rank and file, No point in transferring someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place, they could actually lose more than gain anything if this was the case.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                As an addendum to comments made by me, there is an interesting piece by a retired member in the RACO Newsletter which states " Due to reviews, reorganisation and cut-backs the effectiveness of the PDF is reduced. The Defence forces, unlike the HSE or the Gardai , are NOT being tested on their primary fuction on a daily basis. As a result their ineffectiveness will remain hidden and unnoticed until , Call to arms. Fortunately in my opinion , the Navy, may be different in that they are fully operational in their duties and theatre all the time. Ships will always be ships, they just need manpower of the required trades and equipment fit-for-purpose to deal with threats.
                Except the capacity to fulfil the day to day work is falling short too but that is mainly invisible to the public



                Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                Not compulsory to the Naval Service per se. but Soldiers have held posts in Haulbowline in the past such as armourers, and other trades, transport officers or signals officers.
                as for enlited rank and file, No point in transferring someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place, they could actually lose more than gain anything if this was the case.
                And from one location that is short of personnel to another

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                  Not compulsory to the Naval Service per se. but Soldiers have held posts in Haulbowline in the past such as armourers, and other trades, transport officers or signals officers.
                  as for enlited rank and file, No point in transferring someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place, they could actually lose more than gain anything if this was the case.
                  I remember in the Days of the Army Apprentice school we were alongside with a defective radar at Haulbowline in 1960's. The CRRM wasn't available but sent down a "new " man to try and fix the radar. He arrived, a Dubliner, small, busy, cheeky, and as confident as a lottery winner, all in a green uniform. We were sailing to Dublin and we took him to sea. The fault proved to be in the scanner, up a mast, he worked at it for hours, was getting sick, but stuck at it and fixed it. Later he ( PW ) eventually had a PO's uniform and his reputation was made as a radar black belt. Most of our ERA's, at the time came the same route and had to learn STEAM technology and then convert later to an all Diesel Navy. You can train anybody if they are willing and confident.

                  Comment


                  • You can train anybody if they are willing and confident.
                    Indeed you can, assuming they want to be there in the first place.
                    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                      Indeed you can, assuming they want to be there in the first place.
                      There needs to be a service driven policy on recruitment and retention based on a longer term strategy than at present. Micro management of the PDF by the Civil Service must stop and connection between Minister and Military must have unfiltered avenues. Stopping and starting recruitment to cover exigencies is counter-productive and wasteful of resources. It also overloads structures during training of larger numbers, especially accommodation and provision of instructors. Because of decisive effects those making Key decisions MUST be of a Military background.

                      Comment


                      • yer preaching to an open door here mate
                        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          There needs to be a service driven policy on recruitment and retention based on a longer term strategy than at present. Micro management of the PDF by the Civil Service must stop and connection between Minister and Military must have unfiltered avenues. Stopping and starting recruitment to cover exigencies is counter-productive and wasteful of resources. It also overloads structures during training of larger numbers, especially accommodation and provision of instructors. Because of decisive effects those making Key decisions MUST be of a Military background.
                          Which is why the DoD’s job is policy not military.

                          So what do you do instead of stop/start recruitment (which means for arguments sake 3
                          Recruit Classes annually in the NS)?

                          Have a recruit section minus in training at all times?

                          The normal sized classes are use resources more efficiently.

                          The problem is the much larger classes (which mainly is cadets) and the much higher number of classes (mainly recruits). Why are they needed? Poor retention!

                          Turnover is required absolutely - otherwise you have 59 year old privates/ratings, no promotions etc.

                          We need a better balance between recruitment and retention. All the attention has been going on recruitment.... which we do need.... but if we can’t retain those recruits it is a losing battle.

                          You quite rightly point out that significant resources are being tied up in Cadet and recruit training n

                          Comment


                          • There shouldn't necessarily need to be additional but smaller recruit classes every year but there could be a continual open door for potential recruits with fitness testing and medicals being scheduled far more regularly. How many potential soldiers have been lost because they went onto military.ie to see that recruitment was closed and to monitor social media for the next campaign. They probably took another job straight away. If they know they will be joining a class guaranteed in 2-3 months, they'll hold on.

                            Cadetships are a different kettle of fish. There should be an awareness of the process and the fact there is only one class per year by the applicant. I'd expect a higher level of research into the role. The website was far better at giving a breakdown, structure and length of training before the redesign.

                            No doubt whatever consultants helped with the design pushed for placing as little information online which can be counter-productive.

                            Comment


                            • It’s less predictable I suppose, you have been able to apply at anytime as a recruit for at least a few months now.

                              The current generation, they want to be able to start within weeks, if they don’t they have generally moved on.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                It’s less predictable I suppose, you have been able to apply at anytime as a recruit for at least a few months now.

                                The current generation, they want to be able to start within weeks, if they don’t they have generally moved on.
                                The US and British militaries manage with recruits waiting months to join. May be saying more about the applicants we get. If they are that fickle and are willing to give up on a 'dream' due to a few months wait, are we better off without?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X