manning levels, the future.

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=hptmurphy;443434]Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience.

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;443457]

Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience.

.

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

[DeV]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;454923]

.

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=DeV;454924]

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=ancientmariner;455701]

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

Well! Well! Ireland has now joined a European Defence Service by 72 votes to 42 votes in the Dail. Better known as PESCO it is in the process of being formed , and following a Council decision will be adopted by majority vote before the end of 2017.
Permanent Structured Cooperation ( PESCO ) will be a framework for closer coop and a structured process to gradually deepen defence coop within the EU. " It will be a driver for integration in the Defence field".
It involves agreed Budgets, and Plans, and involves oversight and regular assessment. It's to reinforce EU's autonomy to act alone in Defence matters with willing partners, and with regional integration such as the European Air Transport Command and Belgian-Dutch Navy Cooperation in regional Defence. There must be a hope we can upgrade to fit in with our Allies.

[trellheim]

if you are following our other threads there is a good discussion about PESCO

[sofa]

Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

[ancientmariner]

Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

Given the continuing move towards European Defence Co-operation, we are miserably short of dedicated secure Naval Berthage. Historically we had the Naval Base, Basin berths, and an Oil Wharf used by default as a standby short term berth. We also had a Naval Buoy in Dunlaoghaire which we traded for what we called the Naval Berth on the inner southern arm of Dunlaoghaire Pier. We also had some anchorage rights in Bere island and Lough Swilly.
By and large we have been edged out to alongside at Base only and as visitors on paid sufferance elsewhere. With up to 9 ships, and a steady stream of Naval visitors we need to provide for more dedicated, secure naval Berths nationally.

[na grohmiti]

Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

[DeV]

Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

[ancientmariner]

Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

[ancientmariner]

To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

As far as Naval Future can be foreseen, it is clear that, to be effective, assets have to be capable, deployable, and expediently positioned in the area of operations, with all supports adjacent in nearby Ports or on Fleet Logs ships. Squeezing more toothpaste into the tube at Haulbowline shows that collateral consequences need to be evaluated to prevent overload of the system. As for recruiting, MOD plan on paper only with little provision for maintaining quality and encouraging a retentive envoironment for personnel and families. I'm judging that due to the multi-layering of Ministries that proposals to do things are not followed through to a functioning outcome.

[ancientmariner]

As far as Naval Future can be foreseen, it is clear that, to be effective, assets have to be capable, deployable, and expediently positioned in the area of operations, with all supports adjacent in nearby Ports or on Fleet Logs ships. Squeezing more toothpaste into the tube at Haulbowline shows that collateral consequences need to be evaluated to prevent overload of the system. As for recruiting, MOD plan on paper only with little provision for maintaining quality and encouraging a retentive envoironment for personnel and families. I'm judging that due to the multi-layering of Ministries that proposals to do things are not followed through to a functioning outcome.

In today's Irish Examiner there is comment about recruitment and retention failures in the Naval service and consequential difficulty in manning ships. The problem lies with civil leadership and to a lesser extent Staffs. Overall we lack a Defence Culture and give very little coverage to good news stories, or opportunities within the Defence Forces. Huge effort has gone in to providing Naval Hardware, but manning is too much based on waiting to see what will turn up. Critical technicians will have to be subject to a quota release scheme based on date of application. The same rules will have to be applied to key qualified Officers. Where a person is over-retained in Service he should receive a gratuity of say at least E 5000 per annum and prorata for a portion of a year. For example if three watchkeeping Officers wish to leave and the quota for that year is two then the later applicant will be retained until the next quota, when he/she will be number 1. The retention gratuity could be fixed at the same amount , i.e. E5000 for all ranks.

[TangoSierra]

Until a realistic crew manning level of 2 crews per ship (circa 900) and THEN factor in shore support, the NS will continue to experience severe HR issues

[Fantasia]

What happens in a few years when the only consistency, the NCOs with 15+ years done, that train the ratings and train the officers all get to 21 years and pull the plug?

The only thing keeping the NS afloat is the NCOs that are not yet pensionable

[koppiteal]

Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS

[DeV]

Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS

Lol’ed when I read that

[DeV]

What would help is also not making it easy for junior NS officers to leave immediately on completion of their training.

[trellheim]

[Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS

rumour doing the rounds all right. ABs LS/PO or Officers ?

[na grohmiti]

There are members of the NS who are in civvy street, maritime watchkeeping officers and marine engineers. Their skills would be most welcome at this time (should they be appropriately compensated).

[popeye]

This is not a ballhop, no details on it yet but people have been asked for expressions of interest. Hard to see many people taking up the offer if it happens given the poor pay in the PDF and NSR people know how bad things are in the NS.

[trellheim]

Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.

[DeV]

Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.

I assume that they were called up for permanent service?


Because there is no legislation that allows transfer from RDF to PDF

[Bravo20]

They were initially called up for permanent service but some then transferred into the PDF. By whatever mechanism I don't know but it happened. One of the last Sgt Major of CTD East was one as far as I know.

[hptmurphy]

The stupidity of the management that has allowed the shortage to exist in the first place even beyond the scope of poor pay etc is unforgivable. To surrender, under PWC, what was in effect the compliment of a ship, and then build new ships without factoring in a requirement to increase the establishment of the service is not about anything other than bad planning.

Transferring persons to whole time service from volunteer part time service is fraught with issues around, pensions and reckonable service for pay purposes , assuming that persons would take up the issue. You would have effect people moving to ranks that now cannot be filled by new entrants to the service thus blocking promotions which could actually fuel an even greater exodus.

There is no cheap solution, Tie up what can't be operate on pre 2009 levels of manning and conditions with reliefs etc, restore the pay scales to pre 2010 levels and then incentivise recruitment with bounties paid to people who actively encourage friends and family to join.

Short service commissions for suitably qualified watch keepers both engineering and executive branch, with bonus's paid on re enlistment across the boards. Reduce the initial five year contract for enlistment back to three and remove pension levy for those on first enagement.

The management need to take positive action, even if it means putting heads above parapets , to stop the decline.