Should we scrap the RDF??

petergfiffin

I know will evoke strong reactions from people but I'd ask you to just hear me out and have a think about it, I'll just lay my cards on the table to start with and say I spent a good number of years in the reserves and few in the PDF too.

So here goes...Why do we need a reserve defence forces, or more specifically why do we need it in it's current form?
Is it time we did away with the current RDF? What benefit is there in having reserve units which directly mimic permanent ones e.g. infantry, artillery to just name 2?

I know a lot of people will draw comparisons with US & UK reserves but let's be real here, we are not a country which goes to war and if we ever had to the likelihood is that it would be for something along the lines of Gulf War 1 where we would only be a tiny part of a massive force.

Looking closer to home, whenever we have a major incident the order in which resources are called seems to be (correctly in my opinion) Emergency Services, Civil Defence & PDF, I cannot ever remember Reserves being called up, even if we did the most likely unit we'd call on would be transport. So, honestly, how much do we need the current RDF?
I know the RDF plays a role in society but to me it always seemed more social than military.


I think what we need is a much smaller reserve (maybe 1,000) of highly specialised units. To give a couple of examples:

• A medical unit with qualified doctors, nurses & surgeons
• An engineering unit of civil & electrical engineers & qualified tradespeople
• A base protection unit specialising in protecting camps at home and overseas which would relieve PDF staff from guard duties
• A translator unit given that we have so many nationalities here now.

I know people's immediate reaction would be negative but the benefits as I see it are:

• Freeing up money for the PDF which could be used to purchase new equipment, increase salaries and/or increase full time numbers.
• Creating a reserve which truly is integrated with the PDF, can be deployed overseas (even for very short periods) and would be better funded.

So what do you reckon??

Honey-ec

But without the RDF, what would film directors do when they need large numbers of extras at the drop of a hat???

Lockstep

Honey-ec wrote: »

But without the RDF, what would film directors do when they need large numbers of extras at the drop of a hat???

Outsource to Asia?

minidazzler

The RDF have a budget of around 10 million a year. The PDF 990 million. (Circa) The money for us won't make much difference.

RDF is just that a RESERVE. So in case the sh1t hits the fan we can all run to the hills and have the know how to survive and be a pain for our invaders.

christophicus

I think there might be something you are missing here. I would have thought that the RDF serves as a stepping stone to the PDF so that people can go into the RDF,see how everything is structured and run , get a taste of military life ( however cushy it is compared to PDF ) and then decide if they want to join the PDF. I would have thought a good few people have done it that way, in which case the RDF would be quite important for recruitment etc.

petergfiffin

minidazzler wrote: »

The RDF have a budget of around 10 million a year. The PDF 990 million. (Circa) The money for us won't make much difference.

I'm not sure where you got the figure for the reserve budget cause I couldn't seem to find it but assuming it's accurate that's in the ballpark of the price of one of the new Air Corps 139s so it's not exactly peanuts.

minidazzler wrote: »

RDF is just that a RESERVE. So in case the sh1t hits the fan we can all run to the hills and have the know how to survive and be a pain for our invaders.

Taking your figure above, do we really want to spend 100 million over the next 10 years on something that is so very highly unlikely?? Especially given the fact that we're part of Europe

christophicus wrote: »

I think there might be something you are missing here. I would have thought that the RDF serves as a stepping stone to the PDF so that people can go into the RDF,see how everything is structured and run , get a taste of military life ( however cushy it is compared to PDF ) and then decide if they want to join the PDF. I would have thought a good few people have done it that way, in which case the RDF would be quite important for recruitment etc.

It does act as a stepping stone but I'd say if you look at the number of people who actually go into the PDF from the reserves every year it's a very small percentage (I'd reckon you'd be lucky if it's more than 2%) and of that I'd say most of them would have joined the PDF anyway as they are that way inclined, I know that was me anyway.

Don't get me wrong here.....I'm not in any way putting down the reserves or the people in them, I'm really just questioning if the current setup can be justified or if we need to move to a more compact specialised setup

eroo

I've stated in previous threads how I believe the RDF could serve the State,by providing coastal OP's and patrols to combat drug and gun smuggling.

However,I think the best thing for the RDF would be to kick out the time wasters through bringing in annual fitness tests and being more stringent with courses etc;and by making the entire RDF organisation Integrated.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I think the OP has some good points.

A few of us had a chat about this during the week and came to the conclusion that maybe the Civil Defence be scraped (they're part of the Dept. of Defence) in its present form and be brought back something similar to what the OP outlines for a new RDF.

Good post OP.

ex_infantry man

Mairt wrote: »

Good post OP.

+1

Tribunius

Well one good reason for having elements of all branches in the reserve is that should you ever need to rapidly expand the military the structure is there to build on.

However it is probably too big as it stands. There is no need to have a mirror image of the PDF. Less units would mean more useful units as they would be much closer to being fully manned.

As for its current budget its is a pittance. It would make little difference if redirected.

minidazzler

Tribunius wrote: »

Well one good reason for having elements of all branches in the reserve is that should you ever need to rapidly expand the military the structure is there to build on.

However it is probably too big as it stands. There is no need to have a mirror image of the PDF. Less units would mean more useful units as they would be much closer to being fully manned.

As for its current budget its is a pittance. It would make little difference if redirected.

On the Books, Yes much too big. But, we all know that the numbers on the books are not the same as the numbers who show up. Not even close.

Tribunius

I'm fully aware of that. Its not as bad as it used to be pre reorg but it still isn't great.

However that is exactly my point. Inf bn's are actually company strength, coy's are ptl strength etc (a slight exaggeration but not by much). Being this far understrength units can't provide a useful amount of personnel for anything without a massive effort.

I would suggest cutting one maybe two of the INF BN's altogether from each brigade. In the case of two being cut I would give the remaining one an extra rifle company. Give each PDF BN an RDF rifle company.

Also I would try and promote the recruitment of people with the appropriate skills into the corps units.

concussion

Tribunius wrote: »

Give each PDF BN an RDF rifle company.

The aim of integration was for each PDF Bn to have an RDF platoon - and that turned out to be waay too optimistic.

Tribunius

Oh I know that but that's just because it was handled so very badly.

Darragh29

Every country needs a Dad's Army!

OS119

scrap it in its current guise - that of a large, high intensity combat-capable formation able to double the size of the Regular Army at need.

which, as we all know, is utter rubbish.

not only is the inplemetation absolute mince - in that the RDF is as capable of becoming a combat capable division (given everything from member participation, equipment funding and deployment chances to employment protection) as i am of flying to the moon, but the doctrine behind it has been nothing but the product of a crack smoking party since the 1950's.

Ireland (given its population and economic base) could not possibly defend itself against anyone who has the ability to attack it (US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Russia etc... all of whom would use air and sea power and never actually have to get their feet muddy) ergo having a land force geared to territorial defence is somewhat of a waste of time.

the century old political climate, which may change a little, but isn't going to change much - means that Ireland is not going to undertake any large-scale continuous involvement in 'foriegn wars' which provide the 'away' reasoning for the TA and National Guard, therefore if it can't be used at home, and isn't going to be used away, why bother?

Tribunius

Isn't it great that many presume that the only use of the DF is to fight.

I'll give you a different plausible scenario.

A large scale outbreak of some highly resistant disease e.g. bird flu, influenza etc. Now in that case the more boots we can put on the ground the better.

OS119

Tribunius wrote: »

Isn't it great that many presume that the only use of the DF is to fight.

I'll give you a different plausible scenario.

A large scale outbreak of some highly resistant disease e.g. bird flu, influenza etc. Now in that case the more boots we can put on the ground the better.

what you are suggesting is a large police reserve, something that may actually be of some use - and not just on judgement day.

if the DF, and RDF in particular, aren't just there to fight, why give them camouflage clothing, teach them patrolling, CQB, marksmanship, mortar and artillery fire control?

military forces exist to break things and to display to others the ability to break things should the government of the day decide that things need to be broken - they can do other things like provide a 'rough and ready' rule of law when normal structures breakdown, or indeed provide a much more specific service like logistics support (moving things), but the 'legacy' of all the other training and capabilities that come with a combat capable reserve force mean that they are a very expensive way of providing that service.

not unlike using an F-22 as a means of delivering AIM-120D's from one side of the US to the other, it'll do it, and very well, but you're still paying $250million for a truck that can be bought for $200,000.

if you want a police reserve/neighbourhood watch that does the civil emergencies stuff then set one up, but don't try to pretend that the RDF's core purpose isn't to break things and kill people as required by the government of the day - the fact that its utter bobbins at it is neither here nor there.

its rubbish at what its designed for, Irelands political culture has no interest in changing that, therefore scrap it.

petergfiffin

Tribunius wrote: »

I'll give you a different plausible scenario.

A large scale outbreak of some highly resistant disease e.g. bird flu, influenza etc. Now in that case the more boots we can put on the ground the better.

When foot & mouth hit (probably the biggest "biological" threat in decades) the only real role the army played was in deploying sniper teams to shoot sheep on hills. If it were something highly contagious I'd argue the last thing you need is more boots on the ground (cross infection) and instead you need fewer right boots (and left ones too of course before anybody says it!:p).

OS119 wrote: »

if you want a police reserve/neighbourhood watch that does the civil emergencies stuff then set one up.

I agree and we already have the Civil Defence.

eroo

If the Govternment/DoD scrapped the RDF,you can bet the general public would want to see the PDF downsized,so as to save money in the budget.A sort of ''while your at it . . . '',if you will.

r3nu4l

Mairt wrote: »

...that maybe the Civil Defence be scraped (they're part of the Dept. of Defence) in its present form and be brought back something similar to what the OP outlines for a new RDF.

Regarding the role of the Civil Defence!

CD comes under the remit of the Civil Defence Board in Ireland and is a part of the International Civil Defence organisation

See this.

In the terms of Protocol I, the expression "Civil Protection" means the accomplishment of those humanitarian actions intended to protect civilian populations from dangers arising from hostilities or disasters, to assist them in surmounting their immediate effects and to ensure the conditions necessary for their survival. Article 61 of Protocol I lists a certain number of tasks of Civil Protection organisations and defines them, always "for the purpose of the present protocol" (which is applicable in case of armed conflicts), "... even though, as is added in the commentary, "the creation of civil protection organisations should obviously be encouraged in peacetime also".

Civil Protection therefore occupies an important place in International Humanitarian Law and it is essential that Governments, and also public opinion, at the national and international level, actively ensure the dissemination and implementation of International Humanitarian Law relating to Civil Protection.

This is specific to Ireland.

The organisation was designed to undertake non–combatant activities and measures to afford defence against or mitigate the effects on persons and property of an attack on the state or of hazards otherwise arising during a time of war or emergency such as from radioactive fallout, biological or chemical warfare.
With the enactment of the Civil Defence Act 2002, the Civil Defence Board has assumed responsibility for Civil Defence at National level. Prior to this, the Civil Defence function at national level was the responsibility of the Minister for Defence and was normally delegated as a specific function to the Minister of State and administered by the Department of Defence.

One of the best things about CD as it stands is that it attracts far less of the Walter Mitty types that sign up to the RDF (not saying all RDF members are Walter Mitty's here). There is far less attraction for some people to being unarmed and highly visible in bright yellow overalls than there is to holding a gun and wearing DPM.

There is a clear need for the CD as evidenced by the activities of the AFS during scrub fires, searches for missing persons etc. The need for the RDF today is slightly less clear cut but I believe there is a benefit, just don't go trying to merge them with CD Very, very different animals.

In the event of a national emergency the CD would look after displaced peoples (as it did for Catholic refugees from NI in 1969 and Bosnia/Serbia in the 1990's) and support the emergency services.

The RDF would support the PDF. There is a clear delineation between the two and it would not be a good idea to merge the two.

Muppet Man

Granted - the RDF wont be able to do much when the Yanks/Russians etc. are dropping nukes on us, but I would like to take the OP up on this point -

Looking closer to home, whenever we have a major incident the order in which resources are called seems to be (correctly in my opinion) Emergency Services, Civil Defence & PDF, I cannot ever remember Reserves being called up, even if we did the most likely unit we'd call on would be transport.

I dont know what other units around ireland are doing, so I can only quote for Cork/East Cork in the search for Robert Houlihan in Midleton, in conjunction with Gardai, PDF, CD. The local RDF unit had a significant body of men on the ground involved in the search. There have been other incidents as well, but I'm no historian.

Take care,
Muppet Man.

petergfiffin

I wasn't saying the reserves were never called up, just that I couldn't remember any instances but I stand corrected, I'm sure there have been other occasions which people have little knowledge of too.

I still think the question still stands though, would a smaller reserve which is more specialised, better trained and better equipped not be preferable to the current setup (even in situations like this)?

concussion

Muppet Man wrote: »

Granted - the RDF wont be able to do much when the Yanks/Russians etc. are dropping nukes on us, but I would like to take the OP up on this point

And neither will the PDF if it comes to that.

There's already been arguments about the neccesity of any sort of Defence Force on this forum and the answer is yes we do. A reserve component, costing less than €20 million out of a €1 billion budget is also neccessary to provide a force that can be mobilised quickly in the event of a national crisis.
These troops are not going to be front line soldiers but they are trained militarily and can be brought up to standard much faster than a civilian who has never held a rifle or conducted patrols, section and platoon attacks etc. They can be used to free up the PDF from guarding barracks, convoys, logs bases etc etc etc.

The expense of an army will always be questioned in peace time, and I understand why people would wonder why Ireland should bother with a reserve compontent, given that there's very little threat to the country. However, people buy burglar alarms that may never be used and insurance on everything from health to mobile phones - why should a country do any different?
Reserves have been called up during the second world war and in the 70's along the border - why assume it will never happen again?

eroo wrote: »

If the Govternment/DoD scrapped the RDF,you can bet the general public would want to see the PDF downsized,so as to save money in the budget.A sort of ''while your at it . . . '',if you will.

All government departments (bar health and education AFAIK) are already reducing their budgets. Looks like there's going to be a recruitment freeze until 2010 after the last recruit platoons are finished this year.

OS119

concussion wrote: »

And neither will the PDF if it comes to that.

There's already been arguments about the neccesity of any sort of Defence Force on this forum and the answer is yes we do. A reserve component, costing less than €20 million out of a €1 billion budget is also neccessary to provide a force that can be mobilised quickly in the event of a national crisis.
These troops are not going to be front line soldiers but they are trained militarily and can be brought up to standard much faster than a civilian who has never held a rifle or conducted patrols, section and platoon attacks etc. They can be used to free up the PDF from guarding barracks, convoys, logs bases etc etc etc.

The expense of an army will always be questioned in peace time, and I understand why people would wonder why Ireland should bother with a reserve compontent, given that there's very little threat to the country. However, people buy burglar alarms that may never be used and insurance on everything from health to mobile phones - why should a country do any different?
Reserves have been called up during the second world war and in the 70's along the border - why assume it will never happen again?

if the RDF was to be used as you suggest, effectively a pool of individuals rather than formed units who can take over the more mundane and 'shiny-arse' tasks involved in the day-to-day running of an Army to allow the PDF to mobilise to degree it currently can't - an idea which i believe has significant merit - then quite simply it could be eighthed and it would still be over-manned.

the 'combat capable' role - or potentially combat capable as is rather nearer the mark - of the RDF is a joke in modern terms, quite simply the Irish forces - even with a fully mobilised reserve - couldn't fight anyone with the reach to take a swing at them, quite simply, why conduct land operations when you could destroy every major road, railway line, dock, harbour, power station, runway, factory, telecoms system, seat of local and national government and barracks without getting within 20,000 feet of a single Irish munition? Irish forces would be no more effective at defending Ireland than a five year old throwing snowballs at God.

the analogy with burglar alarms and insurance is misleading - burglar alarms, even false ones, are a genuine deterent to burglars, but Janes defence weekly means that the Irish forces are no deterent because everyone knows they can't bite. when you buy health insurance you do so because it will cover you in event of an accident, cancer, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis and a thousand and one other things - the RDF (and indeed the PDF) as insurance policies are pretty see through: their lack of capability (a product of 90-odd years of political policy concensus that is as likely to change as a rock) means they will protect you from anything short of actual fighting.

would you continue to purchace health insurance that didn't cover you for car accidents or cancer?

eroo

Good points there OS119.

While talking about the RDF,it brings up the topic of the capabilities of the entire DF.We have an Army that can carry out ATCP and overseas missions,yet it would not stand much of a chance against any other conventional army.

We have an Air Corps that can't transport it's military counterparts out of the country,or take on any other countries air force.

We have a Navy that can't sufficiently patrol Ireland's territorial waters;nor could it possibly engage the Navy of any conventional force.

SO,we all know that major military investment will not and does not need to be done.Instead,fix what is broke and build on that.Buy more ships for the Navy;buy troop carrier planes such as 2 C-90's;invest in a decent Air Defence system;train and fund a Reserve force that can indeed become combat capable;and continue to upgrade the Army(rather than freeze recruitment).
Well,it's not THE solution but I think things like above should be looked at.Obviously,we don't want the capability to take on superpowers,it's not only impossible,but quite unnecessary indeed!

IMO,you can't lay all the questions at the RDF.Questions need to be asked about aspects of the entire Defence Forces.

Tribunius

OS119 wrote: »

what you are suggesting is a large police reserve, something that may actually be of some use - and not just on judgement day.

No I am not. In the event of an outbreak on the scale that would over whelm the full timers civil order will have pretty much broken down. No police reserve on in the irish police mould will be able to handle that. Hell even a force based on the US model won't be able to see New Orleans. Any how I was only suggesting this as a more likely thing to occur than WW3.

OS119 wrote: »

if the DF, and RDF in particular, aren't just there to fight, why give them camouflage clothing, teach them patrolling, CQB, marksmanship, mortar and artillery fire control?

I would direct you to the stated roles of the DF.
http://www.military.ie/dfhq/overview/role/index.htm

Note that the second one is aid to the civil power. But you are correct the primary role is to fight as it should be for any military force.

Also I should remind you that everyone in the DF no matter their tasking, yes even the logs people, are trained riflemen first. They have to be since by carrying out their jobs they will become targets and must thus be able to protect themselves.

OS119 wrote: »

military forces exist to break things and to display to others the ability to break things should the government of the day decide that things need to be broken - they can do other things like provide a 'rough and ready' rule of law when normal structures breakdown, or indeed provide a much more specific service like logistics support (moving things), but the 'legacy' of all the other training and capabilities that come with a combat capable reserve force mean that they are a very expensive way of providing that service.

Yes it does well done. But you know you are contradicting yourself with that statement. See the question you asked above.

Also define combat capable.

OS119 wrote: »

not unlike using an F-22 as a means of delivering AIM-120D's from one side of the US to the other, it'll do it, and very well, but you're still paying $250million for a truck that can be bought for $200,000.

Poor analogy the capability the RDF provides is quite in line with the resources invested in them.

OS119 wrote: »

if you want a police reserve/neighbourhood watch that does the civil emergencies stuff then set one up, but don't try to pretend that the RDF's core purpose isn't to break things and kill people as required by the government of the day - the fact that its utter bobbins at it is neither here nor there.

its rubbish at what its designed for, Irelands political culture has no interest in changing that, therefore scrap it.

I wouldn't mind one in fact they already exist so I don't need to think about it. No where did I state or even suggest that their primary role is anything other than to "break things and kill people as required by the government of the day".

My friend they are not utter bobbins at it as you seem to think. They are far from professionals but then again that is to be expected they are after all part timers.

Really you think they are rubbish at what they are designed for, well might I ask what do you think they are designed for?

I think they are designed to be an available half trained group of bodies that can be whipped into combat ready status with a month or two of high intensity training. But as they stand can effectively carry out second line taskings ie guard duties and such.

petergfiffin wrote: »

When foot & mouth hit (probably the biggest "biological" threat in decades) the only real role the army played was in deploying sniper teams to shoot sheep on hills. If it were something highly contagious I'd argue the last thing you need is more boots on the ground (cross infection) and instead you need fewer right boots (and left ones too of course before anybody says it!:p).

Foot & mouth was not a real threat to the civil population when to compared to an aggressive resistant strain of influenza or the like so not really a valid example.

Also you are dead wrong about requiring less boots on the ground in the case of an outbreak. If you don't have any boots on the ground how are you going to contain the outbreak, how are you going to treat it?

Oh and of course the personnel involved will be equipped with the appropriate ppe.

eroo

Tribunius wrote: »

I think they are designed to be an available half trained group of bodies that can be whipped into combat ready status with a month or two of high intensity training. But as they stand can effectively carry out second line taskings ie guard duties and such.

Very good point.After all,PDF units(including ARW)go through months of intensive training before being deployed overseas.The reason being they would not be 100% ready if they were sent off on the hop.Same applies to RDF.

Nuttzz

petergfiffin wrote: »

I think what we need is a much smaller reserve (maybe 1,000) of highly specialised units. To give a couple of examples:

• A medical unit with qualified doctors, nurses & surgeons
• An engineering unit of civil & electrical engineers & qualified tradespeople
• A base protection unit specialising in protecting camps at home and overseas which would relieve PDF staff from guard duties
• A translator unit given that we have so many nationalities here now.

Nice ideas but

Would we get doctors and nurses to volunteer in the numbers?
After a 60 hour week why would a junior doctor give up his spare time to be taxed on what he might earn

Would we get engineers and tradespeople in the numbers?
Would a plumber give up his "cash jobs" to volunteer to join the rdf and get taxed on that? They might give up a weekend or a 2-3 weeks a year but not in the amounts to make it viable from the reserve.

Why do the PDF need to be relived of guard duties?

How might you validate the security credentials of a volunteer from a state outside of the EU? In what role would you use them? On the current overseas mission, polish, russian arabic etc speakers arent really needed.


Some nice ideas but not very practical

Poccington

eroo wrote: »

Very good point.After all,PDF units(including ARW)go through months of intensive training before being deployed overseas.The reason being they would not be 100% ready if they were sent off on the hop.Same applies to RDF.

Comparing the Form Up for an Overseas Mission to whipping the RDF into shape is quite silly.

eroo

Poccington wrote: »

Comparing the Form Up for an Overseas Mission to whipping the RDF into shape is quite silly.

Sorry but I don't know the exact details of a Form Up,I was just going on the basis of a large scale RDF training operation that could be the equivalent of a PDF prep for overseas.But could a similiar operation not be undertaken to 'whip the RDF into shape'?Organise a large scale RDF mobilisation once a year.Could that not make the RDF 'combat capable'?

zuroph

just gonna argue for one section, Air defence. Irish air defence is shared between PDF and RDF, the first fully integrated units. Curragh is PDF, the 3 others are rdf. All gunners are trained to deploy and use anti-aircraft bofors in the quickest most efficient time possible. they are strategically positioned in dublin cobh and limerick for airport/naval base deployment.

eroo

zuroph wrote: »

just gonna argue for one section, Air defence. Irish air defence is shared between PDF and RDF, the first fully integrated units. Curragh is PDF, the 3 others are rdf. All gunners are trained to deploy and use anti-aircraft bofors in the quickest most efficient time possible. they are strategically positioned in dublin cobh and limerick for airport/naval base deployment.

Yes but could they defend against a strategic air strike?i.e. number of batteries available

zuroph

no, the training is for stopping landings at the airports more than anything else. although new hardware is on the way which could. current guns can track mach2 at 200yds. missile system is hugely effective too.

minidazzler

eroo wrote: »

Sorry but I don't know the exact details of a Form Up,I was just going on the basis of a large scale RDF training operation that could be the equivalent of a PDF prep for overseas.But could a similiar operation not be undertaken to 'whip the RDF into shape'?Organise a large scale RDF mobilisation once a year.Could that not make the RDF 'combat capable'?

eroo, I am not sure what unit you are in, but the RDF have a minority of fit people and a large majority are "unfit" and are not in it for the "soldiering".

Whipping them into shape would just cause alot of people faking injuries and exhaustion just to get out of it!!!

Trust me I have seen it happen to a platoon of 27 be whittled down to 7, on a 72 hour exercise. and most of them were gone within the first 24 hours.

zuroph

there is a current push on retraining in southern brigade for the last 4 years, to bring back teh fitness element etc. they are tryin to discourage the people who make no effort from staying, and any promotion routes ar enow closed to them, as they must pass fitness to grade 3.

concussion

OS119 wrote: »

if the RDF was to be used as you suggest, effectively a pool of individuals rather than formed units who can take over the more mundane and 'shiny-arse' tasks involved in the day-to-day running of an Army to allow the PDF to mobilise to degree it currently can't - an idea which i believe has significant merit - then quite simply it could be eighthed and it would still be over-manned.

My suggestion is, that when on a 'war' footing, the less trained RDF can free up as many fully trained PDF soldiers to do what they've been trained to. RDF can support them in this by providing troops for convoy & logs base protection, comms, combat support etc. I don't mean have the RDF pulling gate duty or cleaning the heli pad while the PDF go off and train.

OS119 wrote: »

the 'combat capable' role - or potentially combat capable as is rather nearer the mark - of the RDF is a joke in modern terms, quite simply the Irish forces - even with a fully mobilised reserve - couldn't fight anyone with the reach to take a swing at them, quite simply, why conduct land operations when you could destroy every major road, railway line, dock, harbour, power station, runway, factory, telecoms system, seat of local and national government and barracks without getting within 20,000 feet of a single Irish munition? Irish forces would be no more effective at defending Ireland than a five year old throwing snowballs at God.

There are very few countries in the world that could defend against a sustained strategic bombing offensive. On the other hand, there are also very few that could conduct it. The DF wouldn't have a hope, so what should we do, disband it? I don't think so, if the country was expecting something like that we'd have a much much bigger military. There's no point complaining about the capabilities of the RDF if the PDF couldn't hope to defeat it.

OS119 wrote: »

the analogy with burglar alarms and insurance is misleading - burglar alarms, even false ones, are a genuine deterent to burglars

The thing about deterrance is you only know when it hasn't worked.

OS119 wrote: »

when you buy health insurance you do so because it will cover you in event of an accident, cancer, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis and a thousand and one other things

When you buy insurance you protect yourself against relevant, conceivable threats such as cancer. Health insurance won't protect you, for example, if you are injured as a result of civil uprising. The same way, the DF will not protect you against a world superpower but is capable of meeting the threat of smaller militaries or terrorism.

eroo wrote: »

Yes but could they defend against a strategic air strike?i.e. number of batteries available

No, see above and also the primary mission of the ADR - to provide low level air defence of vital installations. To complain that AD can't defend against a strategic attack is like moaning that the weapons platoon can't hit enemy troops 10 km away with their 60 mm mortar

minidazzler wrote: »

eroo, I am not sure what unit you are in, but the RDF have a minority of fit people and a large majority are "unfit" and are not in it for the "soldiering".

There is a minority of fit people - the majority may not be 'unfit' however - they just haven't been tested :D

minidazzler wrote: »

Trust me I have seen it happen to a platoon of 27 be whittled down to 7, on a 72 hour exercise. and most of them were gone within the first 24 hours.

I know where you're coming from but the problem there is because there's no repurcussions from pulling out. You just sit in the wagon til ENDEX. If you're hastily training up reserves to combat a threat you can be guaranteed there'll be corrective action - as the old saying goes, the army can't make you do anything, but they can make you wish you had

eroo

minidazzler wrote: »

eroo, I am not sure what unit you are in, but the RDF have a minority of fit people and a large majority are "unfit" and are not in it for the "soldiering".

Whipping them into shape would just cause alot of people faking injuries and exhaustion just to get out of it!!!

Trust me I have seen it happen to a platoon of 27 be whittled down to 7, on a 72 hour exercise. and most of them were gone within the first 24 hours.

As regards to fitness in RDF,I think everybody has heard about that unfortunately!
The best thing to do imo,is increase the minimum amount of nights a person must attend to get their grat pay.Also,have fitness tests before camp.You fail,you don't go.It should be just like any other course in RDF.Then that means the time wasters will have to put in or jog on out!

I remember a couple of parade nights last year where a private came in who I hadn't seen in my first 6 months there.I know those privates were constant no shows because I had been down to every parade night and I had not seen them.What surprised and annoyed me was that they were treated no different,despite they were showing up to get grat and camp.Where were they for the last 6 months,I thought to myself?What annoyed me even more was their attitude.They didn't seem to care,and acted as if they had never left.One of them couldn't march properly,and one was even scratching there leg when we were all at attention.Waste of space,yet they have a uniform etc:mad:

minidazzler

eroo wrote: »

As regards to fitness in RDF,I think everybody has heard about that unfortunately!
The best thing to do imo,is increase the minimum amount of nights a person must attend to get their grat pay.Also,have fitness tests before camp.You fail,you don't go.It should be just like any other course in RDF.Then that means the time wasters will have to put in or jog on out!

Well in my unit then there would be; 5 Officers, 1 CQ, 1 CS, 1 BQ, 5 Sergeants, 0 corporals(We have none I think), 6 3*'s, About 8 2* and thats it.

That would leave out around 70/80% of my unit.

Note: These are all approximations, based on the fitness levels and complaints I have seen from people about part-taking in real physical activity.

eroo

minidazzler wrote: »

Well in my unit then there would be; 5 Officers, 1 CQ, 1 CS, 1 BQ, 5 Sergeants, 0 corporals(We have none I think), 6 3*'s, About 8 2* and thats it.

That would leave out around 70/80% of my unit.

Note: These are all approximations, based on the fitness levels and complaints I have seen from people about part-taking in real physical activity.

At least then PDF in command would be asking questions as to why no one went on camps.

trellheim

we aren't the ones who decide that there will be an RDF [ or even a PDF ] and what its roles will be. The Government do that; the current White Paper runs till 2010 and we'll see what's coming in the next one, if there is one.

Some of us are trying to make it work and break out of the bagger culture

OS119

trellheim wrote: »

we aren't the ones who decide that there will be an RDF [ or even a PDF ] and what its roles will be. The Government do that; the current White Paper runs till 2010 and we'll see what's coming in the next one, if there is one.

Some of us are trying to make it work and break out of the bagger culture

sorry, but thats an idiot statement.

all Irish citizens, as the electorate, decide what Irish foreign and defence policy should be. Irish 'Neutrality' is not a policy handed down by God, its a reflection of the pervading, long-term view of Irish politicians that the Irish electorate won't like foreign policies that are either expensive (like actually having an military and doing things with it) or that might spark internal political controversy that in anyway undermines a remarkably successfull national self-image as a state that shouldn't have awkward questions asked of it governance, and is quite happy to accept massive - and sustained - cash handouts from other European contries to fund its development as a first world state in the richest trading and political bloc on the face of the earth yet feels that it has no responsibilties towards either those or other European countries in return.

every letter that you don't write to your TD or the Irish Times cements Irish foreign and defence policy, every time a prespective councillor or TD comes knocking on your door and you don't give them grief about foreign and defence policy you consolidate that 'say nothing, spend nothing, do nothing' policy.

trellheim

do you want eggs with that ham ? thanks for arguing your own point there. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

eroo

As regards foreign policy in military terms,I quote Gen.Michael Collins:
''We are a small nation.Our military strength in proportion to the mighty armaments of modern nations can never be considerable''

Ireland cannot ever be expected to be at the forefront of defence in the EU.That is why the DF(PDF and RDF)don't need massive amounts of funding;just enough to provide this country with the ability to patrol it's own waters and airspace,and to provide securiy in the event of internal conflict.

OS119

eroo wrote: »

As regards foreign policy in military terms,I quote Gen.Michael Collins:
''We are a small nation.Our military strength in proportion to the mighty armaments of modern nations can never be considerable''

Ireland cannot ever be expected to be at the forefront of defence in the EU.That is why the DF(PDF and RDF)don't need massive amounts of funding;just enough to provide this country with the ability to patrol it's own waters and airspace,and to provide securiy in the event of internal conflict.

who's talking about Ireland being at the forefront of European defence - presumably with half a dozen heavy armoured divisions, enough artillery and air power to destroy a handful of Shock Armies in two days and a Navy and MPA force large enough to close the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap?

the ability to actually put its troops (all 850 of them allocated to overseas duty) where it wants them and supply them in theatre, the ability to move them around while they are there and the ability to patrol, and if neccesary close, its air and sea space is not a wild, warmongering or imperialistic aim, its a prerequisite for being a first world state that takes a seat at the table of the largest and richest political and economic bloc in the world.

if Irelands defence budget as a portion of GDP was doubled to what everyone else in Europe - and i'm not talking about the UK and France - rather the scandinavian countries and most of the rest - pays then these things would be a reality. that Ireland refuses to do that, or indeed even admit that it has 'European responsibilities' (apart from being a destination for German subsidies), says an awful lot about istelf - and none of it complimentary.

eroo

OS119 wrote: »

who's talking about Ireland being at the forefront of European defence - presumably with half a dozen heavy armoured divisions, enough artillery and air power to destroy a handful of Shock Armies in two days and a Navy and MPA force large enough to close the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap?

the ability to actually put its troops (all 850 of them allocated to overseas duty) where it wants them and supply them in theatre, the ability to move them around while they are there and the ability to patrol, and if neccesary close, its air and sea space is not a wild, warmongering or imperialistic aim, its a prerequisite for being a first world state that takes a seat at the table of the largest and richest political and economic bloc in the world.

Well these new EU battlegroups are designed for that sort of operation,to put boots on the ground quickly.You can't slam Ireland for not investing in defence.Look at our population and the size of our forces.There is no need for a major defence budget.Purchase more NS vessels,more aircraft and better vehicles and equipment for army.

We're getting off topic now!

RFHazard

In short Yes.

The RDF serves no viable purpose, and has no clearly defined roles. It is, in essence, a social club for it's longer serving members and a youth club for the younger ones. The majority of it's members are between 17 and 20, and don't serve more than three active years, if even. The older sweats are set in their ways and cherry pick the activities that they want to participate in.

Officers and NCOs are too old and more interested in their perceived status and not so interested in training or advancing their units. Sam Brownes, swords, no rdf flash etc are symptomatic of this. Most will take off their berets when dealing with PDF they don't know, but in reality they can be spotted miles away.

The quality of training is poor, and there is little appetite for enduring the hardships entailed with raising the standard. Excuses are trotted out weekly on boards, and in messes as to why the RDF isn't better, but things don't change when extra time, money and resources are made available, and other excuses are made. Everybody wants wet gear to be a personal issue but I'll bet my house that they still won't show up when it's raining.

The reorg has been a paper exercise, and there is no real difference between the quality and capability of the RDF vs FCA. People get their knickers in a twist if you get the names mixed up, and I don't get why; except to say that in my experience of life in general those who are competent at something don't need to shout about it.

If you were playing a competitive sport you'd be giving up 2-3 evenings a week to train, and a full day/weekend to compete. Miss something without a good reason, and there are consequences. RDF aren't asked for a fraction of this and still can't manage it.

Scrap the RDF. It's leadership is deluded, apathetic and ineffectual, and it's main body are kids, and/or walts. Form a brand new reserve (no transfer of personnel), with new legislation, residential training, PDF instructors for recruits and career courses, consequences for those pull the piss, and the boot for those who do not meet the standard. Integration, and now overseas has/will prove that the RDF isn't actually interested in soldiering.

Muppet Man

Well written RFHazard... well written. I wouldnt necessarily agree with everything, but well written anyway.

I think a huge problem with getting lads training (and out in the wet, wearing wet gear), is the whole idea of the RDF being a voluntary organisation. I have to take a weeks holidays from work to do weeks working camp... I still struggle with the whole idea of taking a holiday from work, to allow me to work. Every year I have serious difficutly explaining it to the wife... all I get is "We could be Lanzarotte for a week.... blah blah blah", I'm sure you know what I mean.

Been serving now for nearly 20 years in the RDF and the integration "thing" has ruined it... just my opinion.

In reality though - a smaller, fully payed, better resourced, more intensive RDF would probably be a more effective and successful route forward.

G'luck.
Muppet Man.

RFHazard

Thanks Muppet Man,

If you'll indulge me I'd like bounce some ideas off you, and I genuinely appreciate honest debate

Muppet Man wrote: »

I think a huge problem with getting lads training (and out in the wet, wearing wet gear), is the whole idea of the RDF being a voluntary organisation. I have to take a weeks holidays from work to do weeks working camp...

I appreciate the old chestnut of no employment protection but it does not answer the issue of why people don't show in numbers for fields days on weekends or parade nights, neither of which are dependent on employment protection.

Muppet Man wrote:

Been serving now for nearly 20 years in the RDF and the integration "thing" has ruined it... just my opinion.

Would you mind expanding - what has the integration "thing" ruined and how exactly did it do so? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing but am interested in your perspective.

Muppet Man wrote:

In reality though - a smaller, fully payed, better resourced, more intensive RDF would probably be a more effective and successful route forward.

It is now smaller, FTT is paid, better resourced and there hasn't been meaningful change. From my experience, RDF personnel (3 years plus service) I know are not interested in more intensive training. They all talked a good game until equipment was provided and training was laid on, and then found excuses not to participate.

Muppet Man

Well, I'll do me best...

I appreciate the old chestnut of no employment protection but it does not answer the issue of why people don't show in numbers for fields days on weekends or parade nights, neither of which are dependent on employment protection.

Couple of scenario's... 17 - 22 year olds out on the piss looking for love on Fridays and Saturday nights and not able/not interested /not available to get their arse out of bed Sat/Sun morning for Field / range (due to hang overs / tied to bed by bunny boiler lover etc.). Sure, it questions RDF committment, but thats the reality, IMHO.

Young working parent... (male/female) will find it hard to give up a saturday / sunday in terms of sacrificing time with their child, which has already been limited by the necessity to purchase over priced child care during the week. Young children spend more and more time away from their parents mid week. The weekends are the only times parents actually get to meet / interact with their children.

Working a long way from their unit... (male/female). A lot of the folks I trained with no longer work close to where they were originally trained. People trained in Cork, HQ now Fermoy, but working in Waterford/Limerick/Dublin/Galway etc... its a big ask to expect a volunteer travel that distance to come "home" for training days with no reimbursement for petrol... and before you say it, no, gratuity pay does not cover this cost. Nowhere near.

People on shift work... Needless to say, if you get a shift, you kind of have to take it, especially in the current environment.

Would you mind expanding - what has the integration "thing" ruined

The crack! Units were broken up. Colleagues moved on/out/away. For me personally, the integration thing was not explained very well. It resembeled a company take over. New rules/new structures/new reporting lines... this is the way it is, take it or leave. To be fair, I guess thats typical of the military and I wouldnt go so far as to say that Integration isnt work, its just that it changed the RDF for me.

They all talked a good game until equipment was provided and training was laid on, and then found excuses not to participate.

I suppose I couldnt disagree with that. I think though that if you offered each soldier 25 euro for each night they turned up training, you would see a two/three fold increase in numbers.

For me personally, thats all it boils down. Cost of participating and time available to participate in the RDF. I simply couldnt afford to participate at the level that is required for me to be a (more) effective soldier. (i.e. the cost of travel is too much). Nor do I have as much time now as I used to.

I've witnessed the following arguement (as I'm sure you have) between a private and an officer... The private (self employed) was ordered to fire his ARP in the rain (it was heavy that day, as is usual for Kilworth). Said soldier refused point blank as he didnt have wet gear and there wasnt enough poncho's. His arguement to the officer was along the lines of ... "If I am out sick next week from serious flu/cold, will you pay my wages?".

Enough said. He didnt fire. Others did.

I've also seen RDF members being asked to remove wet gear, combat jackets, boots... because they werent issued by their CQMS (because he had nothing to issue). Sometimes the rigours of PDF rules just cant be applied to RDF members, at least in a sane way. The RDF operate under different levels of constraints sometimes overlooked by PDF staffed.

I have RDF service medals and havent had number ones to hang them off for about 7 years. But sorry, thats off topic.

Cheers
Muppet Man.

OS119

eroo wrote: »

You can't slam Ireland for not investing in defence.Look at our population.

why not?

in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's Ireland was a piss-poor country without a pot to piss in, it was in my view entirely fair that its defence budget was bog all - that is very definately no longer the case - Ireland now claims to be one of the richest - in GDP terms - in Europe, richer than Poland, yet it still tries to palm off its international obligations as if it was some agrarian economy of the 1950's

Ireland wants to be treated as a serious country when it suits it - a voice thats listened to whether in Brussels or New York - but not when it comes to actually paying for that seriousness in either blood or treasure.

why is it that Irelands defence spending - per head of population rather than just in absolute terms - is half of what the Scandanavian countries spend?

what makes Ireland so special that it can take the kudos, the economic rewards, the political clout and the security benefits of its membership of 'Europe' while not having to put its hand in its pocket in the way that every other European state does?