Thanks Thanks:  14
Likes Likes:  28
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51
  1. #1
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Defence Forces Review


  2. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  3. #2
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the co-editors is an RDF Lt

    2 contributions by RDF officers.

  4. #3
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was at the launch.Some really good presentations and debates on the papers .More than one RDF contributor BTW.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  5. Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #4
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,614
    Post Thanks / Like

  7. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  8. #5
    Recruit Poiuyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    The research by Jonathon Carroll - “Relying on the goodwill of the individual, and luck The Problematic Nature of Utilising The Army Reserve Skills Base in The Single Force Concept" makes for very depressing reading. I would argue that the opportunity is gone and the RDF is a "dead man walking". I also doubt that the higher ups will have any interest in the research or in keeping the RDF.

  9. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  10. #6
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    East
    Posts
    169
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would you care about the RDF, how do you make them more appealing to the higher ups. If it helps them get promoted they will be interested. So how do you make the RDF function better as it is.

  11. #7
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by batterysgt View Post
    Would you care about the RDF, how do you make them more appealing to the higher ups. If it helps them get promoted they will be interested. So how do you make the RDF function better as it is.
    Allow unit commander to approve up to 28 mandays

    Consolidation of Cses at bde level (eg why have 3 different units running a cse for a section each, when you could have a pln on 2 cses

  12. Likes Truck Driver liked this post
  13. #8
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The contribution from the Naval officer about the international importance of protecting the undersea cables on the west coast was discussed in the Dail yesterday.
    The minister responded by suggesting it was the responsibility of AGS or the Dept of Communications...
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. #9
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    East
    Posts
    169
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Allow unit commander to approve up to 28 mandays

    Consolidation of Cses at bde level (eg why have 3 different units running a cse for a section each, when you could have a pln on 2 cses
    There is no real limit I have seen plenty of RDF well over 28 days, if the training programme is submitted, correct, its rarely not approved. If the units does not submit the correct documentation, unfortunately a lot is, it will be rejected.

  15. #10
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,003
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The contribution from the Naval officer about the international importance of protecting the undersea cables on the west coast was discussed in the Dail yesterday.
    The minister responded by suggesting it was the responsibility of AGS or the Dept of Communications...
    The response is what I expected, "stick our heads in the sand and hope no one kicks us hard in the ….
    those data links and the numerous power links will be essential for the nation going forward and the protection is the responsibility of the DF. The sooner we get a proper minister the better.

  16. Likes na grohmiti, CTU, DeV liked this post
  17. #11
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The response is what I expected, "stick our heads in the sand and hope no one kicks us hard in the ….
    those data links and the numerous power links will be essential for the nation going forward and the protection is the responsibility of the DF. The sooner we get a proper minister the better.
    Well it's not like we have some of the world's leader's in IT based in the country.......Oh wait we do. Well it's not like any unfriendly nations or Individuals ever try and hack into these companies and try and steal their data....Oh wait They do.
    Well at least it wont effect the electorate in Wexford, except those pesky kids, with their smart phones permanently connected to apps from said tech companies!

    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  18. Likes EUFighter, Truck Driver liked this post
  19. #12
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by batterysgt View Post
    There is no real limit I have seen plenty of RDF well over 28 days, if the training programme is submitted, correct, its rarely not approved. If the units does not submit the correct documentation, unfortunately a lot is, it will be rejected.
    Yes I know people who are probably approaching 100 days and I know others who get 14 and that it’s.

    What I said was allow OC’s to approve up to 28 days (currently thats 7 days)... lot of places room for error when 7-28 Mandays has to go to GOC


    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The response is what I expected, "stick our heads in the sand and hope no one kicks us hard in the ….
    those data links and the numerous power links will be essential for the nation going forward and the protection is the responsibility of the DF. The sooner we get a proper minister the better.
    The person writing the answer to the PQ won’t change no matter what party is in power

  20. #13
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Poiuyt View Post
    The research by Jonathon Carroll - “Relying on the goodwill of the individual, and luck The Problematic Nature of Utilising The Army Reserve Skills Base in The Single Force Concept" makes for very depressing reading. I would argue that the opportunity is gone and the RDF is a "dead man walking". I also doubt that the higher ups will have any interest in the research or in keeping the RDF.
    It is not gone. The current shortage in the PDF is forcing them to use us wherever they can and that is right in the middle of our role. If you look at the sheer procrastination in the white paper update, all of the RDF improvement projects forced into the long grass for the PDF skills gap shortage for no reason , then it is clear there is something weird going on in the DOD but we knew that.

    I've never seen the RDF so busy every active barracks unit has a tasking a mile long thats mostly in PDF support and given that the pay shenanigans this year will do nothing to stop the PDF bleeding people it is likely to continue.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

  21. Thanks DeV, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #14
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    It is not gone. The current shortage in the PDF is forcing them to use us wherever they can and that is right in the middle of our role. If you look at the sheer procrastination in the white paper update, all of the RDF improvement projects forced into the long grass for the PDF skills gap shortage for no reason , then it is clear there is something weird going on in the DOD but we knew that.

    I've never seen the RDF so busy every active barracks unit has a tasking a mile long thats mostly in PDF support and given that the pay shenanigans this year will do nothing to stop the PDF bleeding people it is likely to continue.
    Seconded

    And we can’t even get “OC Bde RDF” changed in R5

  23. #15
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    And we can’t even get “OC Bde RDF” changed in R5
    The draft versions of revised R5 went to every government department for comment ffs the minister said as much in a PQ recently in a "completely missing the point"
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

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

  24. #16
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,003
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Took some time to read all, there are some excellent papers even if a bit weighted toward the latest fashion areas of Cyber and RPAS/UAV's. Lots of constructive conclusions to what need to be done but which as ever will fall on deaf ears.

  25. #17
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by batterysgt View Post
    There is no real limit I have seen plenty of RDF well over 28 days, if the training programme is submitted, correct, its rarely not approved. If the units does not submit the correct documentation, unfortunately a lot is, it will be rejected.
    He did say allow the UNIT CO to approve up to 28 days. Currently it's 7 days for Unit CO sign off. After that it's GOC/DOD level signoffs. Why do you think this would improve matters, Dev? Only difference immediately obvious to me is faster pay turnaround?
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  26. #18
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Truck Driver View Post
    He did say allow the UNIT CO to approve up to 28 days. Currently it's 7 days for Unit CO sign off. After that it's GOC/DOD level signoffs. Why do you think this would improve matters, Dev? Only difference immediately obvious to me is faster pay turnaround?
    Less bureaucracy
    Increased manday usage
    Less excuses not to pay people / allow people to do over 14 days

  27. #19
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    East
    Posts
    169
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's there if they really want it. My experience from within my unit and listening to out it is "some RDF " wont put in the tine and effort to move things on.

  28. #20
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are units who will approve everything manday going, units that will strictly limit everyone to 7/14 days, units that will refuse mandays as they can’t meet the manday approval timelines (eg you get 3 days notice of a week of doing something in some support of PDF you have already done 28 days and have to have manday approval 21 days in advance), units that refuse to process paperwork for anyone Doing over 28 mandays.

    It isn’t set up to be user friendly

  29. Likes Sluggie liked this post
  30. #21
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    The draft versions of revised R5 went to every government department for comment ffs the minister said as much in a PQ recently in a "completely missing the point"
    There is too much history hanging around our concept of Reserves and their origins in the LDF and Slua Muiri. Some effort should have been made to include elements, or even individuals in frontline operations ashore and at sea. The role of SM in Port Control was esoteric with no means of carrying out the Duty. When I was aged out in 1992, I got to write a last wisdom brief in which I said the SM must be used or disbanded. That's 28 years ago! What's different now!!

  31. #22
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Port control is a non runner, training is done for it, but only seen when detailed to assist in local aquatic events. If security for visiting vessels is done, it is done by AGS water unit combined with NS assets.
    The modern NSR is providing a useful role doing duties on the base at weekends, or providing certain seamans branch crew.
    However, until NSR are qualified in all branches, at all ranks, their usefulness is token.
    There is still an absence of watch keeping officers. I only know of 2 in the entire service. One a master mariner who struggled for years for his ticket to be recognised (former artillery) and the other is a former NS officer.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. #23
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Port control is a non runner, training is done for it, but only seen when detailed to assist in local aquatic events. If security for visiting vessels is done, it is done by AGS water unit combined with NS assets.
    The modern NSR is providing a useful role doing duties on the base at weekends, or providing certain seamans branch crew.
    However, until NSR are qualified in all branches, at all ranks, their usefulness is token.
    There is still an absence of watch keeping officers. I only know of 2 in the entire service. One a master mariner who struggled for years for his ticket to be recognised (former artillery) and the other is a former NS officer.

    I havent seen the NSR carry out duties in a good few years.

    From what im led to believe, there were a number that didn't turn up for whatever reason leaving the Duty Watch short.

    The uncertainty of having a full duty watch led to the ceasing of said duties.

    Not sure that that qualifying all branches to the same level as NS personnel is possible.

    I believe given adequate resources and training the NSR could carry out a limited coastal FP and SAR role.

    Other NS taskings could be supported i.e. diving ops platform if the NSR get updated Motor Launches.

    If the will is there on both sides, they could be a valuable asset to the NS,and they could benefit from real world operational experience.

    At the moment as you said its a token effort covering certain ceremonial taskings.

  33. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  34. #24
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Port control is a non runner, training is done for it, but only seen when detailed to assist in local aquatic events. If security for visiting vessels is done, it is done by AGS water unit combined with NS assets.
    The modern NSR is providing a useful role doing duties on the base at weekends, or providing certain seamans branch crew.
    However, until NSR are qualified in all branches, at all ranks, their usefulness is token.
    There is still an absence of watch keeping officers. I only know of 2 in the entire service. One a master mariner who struggled for years for his ticket to be recognised (former artillery) and the other is a former NS officer.
    There was 2 got there NWC in 2016

  35. #25
    BQMS Auldsod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wesht
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be of course impossible to qualify fully in the other branches of the NS. Then again, NSR personnel can only go far in the seaman's branch being able to possible cover the basic and intermediate task performed by an A/Sea.

    I have wondered why a similarly basic level of training couldn't be achived as a Commop or Supply. There are AR CIS units and clearly they are never going to be able to spend the same time in role or go on the same courses as their PDF counterparts.

    The NSR is receiving more opportunities of late with regards courses being run and training but it will need to prove itself. If even more fresh enthusiastic blood joins in the next few recruitment campaigns, who knows what could happen....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •