Where is the RDF going to end up?

OS119

concussion wrote: »

...OS119 - I don't suggest that the PDF be downsized as RDF theoretically take over security duties, I suggest that they free up deployable, fit PDF trooops to take on bigger/more overseas missions. Feasibly you could send a complete battalion as a unit rather than putting one together from a lead brigade....

there's no reason - apart from cost, time and a difficulty that you couldn't.

most other western nations include their reserve forces in the day-to-day operations of their armed forces - and unless there's some genetic problem that i'm unaware of there's no reason Irish reservists couldn't do it as well.

the problem with your plan is that it costs more money than the current 'plan' - a well trained, well resourced reserve force that takes part in operations alongside a well trained, well resourced regular force is more expensive than a threadbare, half-arsed reserve force that doesn't take part in operations alongside its well trained, well resourced regular counterparts.

it may be better value, but it is more expensive.

in order to get the money to create a reserve you could - and would - actually use means taking the money from something else within the defence budget - and people are the easiest and quickest way of freeing up money.

concussion

If half the cadre were pensioned off or otherwise removed, with the remainder consolidated into offices that served several RDF sub-units, i.e. one central cadre per barracks you could free up nearly €10 million. This, along with the existing training allocation of ~€4 million could then be used to directly train the 3,000 or so effective Reservists without having to divert any extra money from the budget. Just a thought.

ruserious

The Naval Service Reserve does provide value for money seeing as the NSR gets to go on active patrols at sea

Tubsandtiles

concussion wrote: »

I don't want to sound like I've a personal grudge against you, but once again, check your facts. The maximum allowed in the PDF is 10,500, down from 14,000 or so, and this was set in the height of the boom when there was big capital spending, lots of recruitment, a rake of peace enforcement missions and effectively as many mandays as Reservists wanted. For the next few years it will be held at 10,000 so recruitment will only serve to maintain this level.

OS119 - I don't suggest that the PDF be downsized as RDF theoretically take over security duties, I suggest that they free up deployable, fit PDF trooops to take on bigger/more overseas missions. Feasibly you could send a complete battalion as a unit rather than putting one together from a lead brigade.

I agree with a lot of what Nuttzz says, everything the RDF does is ultimately approved or denied by PDF. However Poccington is bang on, we need to pull our **** together, make a decision on our commitment, fitness and attitude and give the PDF reasons to use us, not excuses to ignore us.

Don't worry about it, you're entitled to your own opinion, it was only an idea I had, using the money that is used in the reserve to better the PDF .

DieHardMaggot

Poccington wrote: »

Duties such as what? I've seen the numbers that parade for the RDF in my barracks, if they can't get people to turn up on parade nights well then quite frankly, I wouldn't trust them to turn up for and perform duties.

Anyway this is all pointless because the RDF are gonna be out my back garden digging OP's. Along with their Officers and the cushy pensions they get.... Or something.

I agree, the attendance in some places is disgraceful. I know I'm just a lowly recruit of nearly 8 months.
But in my time I've noticed there's maybe 5/6 people on our roster alone who I STILL haven't seen.
I mean, I attend every night I can, which is about 90% of parades.
If they got rid of all the people who simply did not show up only for camps/duties etc The cost of the RDF and the number of it's members would drop drastically!

If the force could be wittled down to just the dedicated members than the cost of upskilling and upgrading current equipment would not nearly be as much.

It pisses me off that people just attend when it suits them.:mad:

Alkers

DieHardMaggot wrote: »

If the force could be wittled down to just the dedicated members than the cost of upskilling and upgrading current equipment would not nearly be as much.

How? Having names on the books does not actually cost the unit anything.

OS119

Simona1986 wrote: »

How? Having names on the books does not actually cost the unit anything.

actually it does.

everyone who doesn't turn up still has to be administrated, they are still provided for - a rifle, clothing, PLCE, PTD's, ammunition allowance, training, NCO's, officers, training areas, ranges, transport etc... if you provide the above for a 120 man coy, and it only has an effective of 30 men, it costs the same as if it had 120. the money is some cases may not be spent by the unit, but its been allocated to the unit and can't be spent by someone else.

you then have the opportunity cost - a non-attending/non-effective member takes up a place in the unit that cannot then be allocated to someone else.

there is then a further cost - the image of the RDF is damaged by the impression amongst those it might otherwise recruit that it is threadbare, half-arsed and populated - where it is populated - by wasters. whether that is true or not is irrelevent, the kind of people you really want in a reserve force are those who are focused, determined, and able to take responisibilty for themselves - they want to do something different in their spare time, they want to do it well, and they want to give back to their society.

i would suggest that, given the perception of the RDF in the publics mind, a lot of the people you really want in the RDF, and who, were they in the UK or US would join the TA or USNG, decide that the RDF is not for them because they percieve it as lacklustre and amateurish. they join Mountain Rescue Teams or the RNLI instead...

Nuttzz

Poccington wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. PDF Recruit Training is 6 months by the way.

Would you like the RDF Bde CO's to go around every platoon in the country to make sure the job is being done, standards are being enforced, people are trained properly? I mean by your post, why bother promoting or commissioning members of the RDF? We'll just fill each Platoon and Coy with PDF NCO's and Officers because according to you, the RDF can't look after itself.

All the problems within the RDF can't be placed at the PDF's doorstep. RDF members are responsible for their own personal standards, personal fitness or commitment to turn up to training. Empire protecting, resistance to Integration, complete lack of standards being enforced... That wasn't down to the PDF.

According to military.ie the establishment for the RDF is 9,292, somebody on here said only 2,000 members qualified for Grat.

Now tell me with a straight face, that the RDF in it's current form should be trusted by the PDF to perform any task, nevermind Overseas like some people on here are suggesting.

People can say "Oh it's the PDF's fault" all they want but sooner or later, they're gonna have to face up to the fact that the problems are a lot closer to home.

We take our cue from our leaders, the ethos they give is what we follow. If they really dont give a funk then how does that trickle down through the organisation?

Are members of the RDF to blame, of course they are, but I dont know how the members of the PDF can wash their hands of all involvement in the reserve and the way it is? Not a chance.

Would I like the RDF bde CO's inspect the troops? why not?

How about he arrives unannounced and at random at various training sessions, weekends and camps to see what is happening, much better than the choreographed bullsh1t that goes on at present.

The idea that the OC could walk in at any stage would sharpen everyone up for a start.

Personally I dont see the need for reservists to serve overseas unless it was in a very specialised capacity that the PDF found hard to fill. There is no need for your run of the mill RDF infantry man to be even considering overseas duty.

That said I dont really see a place for the RDF infantry bn's at all. If only 2000 qualified for grat last year then the RDF is better off to be an organisation with 1000-2000 specialist roles that really supplement that the PDF need.

A lot of this thread has been what the RDF want, overseas etc, really shouldnt the question be, What do the PDF want (if anything) from a reserve

Alkers

OS119 wrote: »

actually it does.

everyone who doesn't turn up still has to be administrated, they are still provided for - a rifle, clothing, PLCE, PTD's, ammunition allowance, training, NCO's, officers, training areas, ranges, transport etc... if you provide the above for a 120 man coy, and it only has an effective of 30 men, it costs the same as if it had 120. the money is some cases may not be spent by the unit, but its been allocated to the unit and can't be spent by someone else.

you then have the opportunity cost - a non-attending/non-effective member takes up a place in the unit that cannot then be allocated to someone else.

Well I've been a member for 5 years and the amount of rifles, pistols etc has never changed and the numbers on the books have changed significantly in that time so I don't accept that point. Clothing is issued on a person by person basis, when a new member joins they get issued kit, members who are already signed up and on the books do not get new kit issued so it doesn't cost them for clothing either. Also, any courses/training etc... are allocated to the people who are actively parading and will not be given to members who are on the books but have not been attending so there's no wasted costs there either.
If the problem you've highlighted regarding opportunity cost were to arise, the non-parading members would be contacted, informed that if they don't start parading they will be taken off the books and their place offered to a new member.

OS119

Simona1986 wrote: »

Well I've been a member for 5 years and the amount of rifles, pistols etc has never changed and the numbers on the books have changed significantly in that time so I don't accept that point. Clothing is issued on a person by person basis, when a new member joins they get issued kit, members who are already signed up and on the books do not get new kit issued so it doesn't cost them for clothing either. Also, any courses/training etc... are allocated to the people who are actively parading and will not be given to members who are on the books but have not been attending so there's no wasted costs there either.

you obviously don't know how an army works.

it orders 10,000 - or whatever - rifles. it employs x number of armourers to maintain them. it buys y quantity of ammunition per year and pays for z number of spare parts and upgrades. it spends that money whether anyone turns up, uses that rifle/clothing/training course/transport/training area/range or not.

Alkers

Well our unit has its own room in the armoury in which its weapons are housed. The number of rifles kept there has always been the same and is less than the number of people in the unit (on the books or actually parading). They only see an armourer when we go to the range and there is always only one amourer there regardless of the number of details we have firing on the day. So, for my unit at least, I don't see how having a few people allowed to stay on the books costs any more than striking them off if they miss a certain no. of parade nights.
Also, a lot of people end up going away /can't parade because of work and then parade again at a later date, picking up where they left off. If they were taken off the books they'd have to go through the whole joining process again.

c-90

thats shocking that only 2000 of the rdf qualify for grat. if the rdfs budget was concentrated on that 2000 alone then maybe they would serve a purpose. what are the effective numbers of the pdf? how many are eligible to go over seas and how many are just waiting til the contract is up. maybe the pdf should set the standard before expecting the rdf to live up to it.

concussion

c-90 wrote: »

thats shocking that only 2000 of the rdf qualify for grat. if the rdfs budget was concentrated on that 2000 alone then maybe they would serve a purpose. what are the effective numbers of the pdf? how many are eligible to go over seas and how many are just waiting til the contract is up. maybe the pdf should set the standard before expecting the rdf to live up to it.

Sounds like a good question for the minister, can't find any figures on kildarestreet.com. PDF strength as of 30/11/10 was 9,502 while the Army was 7,704. 10% of Army strength is the limit for overseas deployment. I wouldn't label pre-94 contract holders as non-effective however, and especially not when in comparision to RDF, effective or non-effective.

Poccington

c-90 wrote: »

thats shocking that only 2000 of the rdf qualify for grat. if the rdfs budget was concentrated on that 2000 alone then maybe they would serve a purpose. what are the effective numbers of the pdf? how many are eligible to go over seas and how many are just waiting til the contract is up. maybe the pdf should set the standard before expecting the rdf to live up to it.

The PDF as a whole has already set a standard.

The RDF as a whole, has failed to live it up to it. I don't remember the PDF ever being in a position where less than one third of it's establishment is effective or in the case you raise, unable to go Overseas.

It's either going to have to go through yet another re-org or knocked on the head because at the moment, it's just not working.

concussion

Also, lets not forget that to be 'effective', or more accurately, avoid being classed as 'non-effective', you must only attend two training nights a month, fire your Steyr and attend one weeks camp. It says nothing about your skills other than you can safely handle a rifle, in the opinion of the testing officer.

OS119

concussion wrote: »

Also, lets not forget that to be 'effective', or more accurately, avoid being classed as 'non-effective', you must only attend two training nights a month, fire your Steyr and attend one weeks camp. It says nothing about your skills other than you can safely handle a rifle, in the opinion of the testing officer.

frigtening really.

does anyone know what, in the 'grand design', the PDF/RDF/DoD think the readiness/effectiveness of the RDF should be?

most military units have a 'readiness stance' - an idea of how long it should take the unit to be able to conduct operations - and depending on the units role, whether it has recently come back from operations, how under-strength it is etc.., that figure changes from immediate to 'pick-a-number'.

i was just wondering if there actually is a plan - however burried in dust it may be - for either the RDF as a whole, or specific units, to be mobilised for the operations set out in the brigade structure?

concussion

I have absolutely no idea, but then again I don't see anyting more sensitive than Restricted :P

OS119

concussion wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea, but then again I don't see anyting more sensitive than Restricted :P

you must have some idea though - you can gauge it on what standard those considered by the CoC to be 'trained soldiers' within the unit are at, attitudes of the Officers and NCO's etc...

concussion

OK, in that sense I do have quite an understanding of the AR's capabilities. Publically, it would appear that eligibility for gratuity would be about the only KPI we can work with, and it's essentially useless as I mentioned above. KPI's for, say, a % of a sub-units trained men and NCO's to be proficient at x,y and z may exist, but I've never seen them.


With regard to training, I was delighted to see some documents recently that show that someone, somewhere, is trying to effect change.

davetherave

That was me who posted the stat's about the members of reserve who got the grat.

Broken down by subunit.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2009/12/17/00217.asp

Reservists paid Gratuity by Unit

Location And Description	Number
2 E BDE RDF — HQ	22
62 RES INF BN — BN HQ	2
62 RES INF BN — HQ COY	12
62 RES INF BN — A COY	14
62 RES INF BN — B COY	13
62 RES INF BN — C COY	15
62 RES INF BN — D COY	30
62 RES INF BN — SP COY	24
65 RES INF BN — BN HQ	1
65 RES INF BN — HQ COY	40
65 RES INF BN — A COY	41
65 RES INF BN — B COY	22
65 RES INF BN — C COY	24
65 RES INF BN — SP COY	44
67 RES INF BN — BN HQ	1
67 RES INF BN — HQ COY	19
67 RES INF BN — A COY	31
67 RES INF BN — B COY	27
67 RES INF BN — SP COY	28
62 RES FAR — REGT HQ	4
62 RES FAR — HQ BTY	35
62 RES FAR — NO 1 GUN BTY MC KEE	18
62 RES FAR — NO 2 GUN BTY CURRAGH	19
62 RES FAR — NO 3 GUN BTY CURRAGH	28
62 RES CAV SQN — SQN HQ	32
62 RES FD ENGR COY — COY HQ	21
62 RES FD CIS COY — COY HQ	21
62 RES FD MP COY — COY HQ	34
62 RES LSB — BN HQ	4
62 RES LSB — TPT COY	40
62 RES LSB — MED COY	18
DEFENCE FORCES TRAINING AUTHORITY (DFTA)	23
1 AD REGT — 2 AD BTY	19
1 S BDE RDF — HQ	7
32 RES INF BN — BN HQ	9
32 RES INF BN — HQ COY	31
32 RES INF BN — A COY	21
32 RES INF BN — B COY	21
32 RES INF BN — C COY	32
32 RES INF BN — D COY	32
32 RES INF BN — SP COY	32
33 RES INF BN — BN HQ	1
33 RES INF BN — HQ COY	51
33 RES INF BN — A COY	23
33 RES INF BN — B COY	16
33 RES INF BN — C COY	32
33 RES INF BN — SP COY	26
34 RES INF BN — BN HQ	12
34 RES INF BN — HQ COY	53
34 RES INF BN — A COY	36
34 RES INF BN — B COY	48
34 RES INF BN — SP COY	19
31 RES FAR — HQ BTY	24
31 RES FAR — NO 2 GUN BTY THURLES	27
31 RES FAR — NO 3 GUN BTY NENAGH	30
31 RES FAR — NO I GUN BTY CORK	31
31 RES CAV SQN — SQN HQ	45
31 RES FD ENGR COY — COY HQ	26
31 RES FD CIS COY — COY HQ	11
31 RES FD MP COY — COY HQ	39
31 RES LSB — BN HQ	1
31 RES LSB — TPT COY	36
31 RES LSB — MED COY	47
33 RES INF BN — D COY	16
34 RES INF BN — C COY	35
1 AD REGT — 3 AD BTY	36
1 AD REGT — 4 AD BTY	36
4 W BDE RDF — HQ	11
51 RES INF BN — BN HQ	2
51 RES INF BN — HQ COY	8
51 RES INF BN — A COY	20
51 RES INF BN — B COY	34
51 RES INF BN — C COY	37
51 RES INF BN — D COY	53
51 RES INF BN — SP COY	11
56 RES INF BN — BN HQ	16
56 RES INF BN — HQ COY	26
56 RES INF BN — A COY	14
56 RES INF BN — B COY	25
56 RES INF BN — C COY	15
56 RES INF BN — SP COY	19
58 RES INF BN — BN HQ	3
58 RES INF BN — HQ COY	11
58 RES INF BN — A COY	34
58 RES INF BN — B COY	22
58 RES INF BN — SP COY	33
54 RES FAR — REGT HQ	4
54 RES FAR — HQ BTY	31
54 RES FAR — NO 1 GUN BTY GORT	19
54 RES FAR — NO 2 GUN BTY TUAM	18
54 RES FAR — NO 3 GUN BTY MULLINGAR	44
54 RES CAV SQN — SQN HQ	23
54 RES FD ENGR COY — COY HQ	15
54 RES FD CIS COY — COY HQ	31
54 RES FD MP COY — COY HQ	32
54 RES LSB — TPT COY	25
54 RES LSB — MED COY	15
58 RES INF BN — C COY	21
58 RES INF BN — D COY	21
DUBLIN UNIT NAVAL SERVICE RESERVE	26
WATERFORD UNIT NAVAL SERVICE RESERVE	27
CORK UNIT NAVAL SERVICE RESERVE	11
LIMERICK UNIT NAVAL SERVICE RESERVE	22
Total	2,447

If we are define "active" people as those who got their grat, then it is shocking that there are some battalions that can't raise a company strength.

What I would do is, just using the 65th as an example because that's what I know, take everybody from McKee, Swords, Kells and Navan and make one full strength company based in McKee. That company would be the reserve company for the 5th battalion.

Or if that is too drastic then implement annual fitness test to weed out the unsuitable. If they fail, give them four weeks to prepare and retest.

OK, in that sense I do have quite an understanding of the AR's capabilities. Publically, it would appear that eligibility for gratuity would be about the only KPI we can work with, and it's essentially useless as I mentioned above. KPI's for, say, a % of a sub-units trained men and NCO's to be proficient at x,y and z may exist, but I've never seen them.

I would say how self-sufficient a subunit is could be a somewhat good measure of "effectiveness" or "capability".

Do we have enough people with 154's in transits or nissans or trucks to move ourselves without LSB or PDF help? If we do, good. If not, then why not and who is putting their name down for the next course.

If they are a support company, are they able to field a .5 crew or an 81 crew. And how many? Can they run a support weapons course on their own with qualified NCO's as instructors or do they need their parent unit to provide instructors.

concussion

davetherave wrote: »

I would say how self-sufficient a subunit is could be a somewhat good measure of "effectiveness" or "capability".

Do we have enough people with 154's in transits or nissans or trucks to move ourselves without LSB or PDF help? If we do, good. If not, then why not and who is putting their name down for the next course.

If they are a support company, are they able to field a .5 crew or an 81 crew. And how many? Can they run a support weapons course on their own with qualified NCO's as instructors or do they need their parent unit to provide instructors.

Good points, and one paper it would give a pretty good indication of where improvements need to be made. However it would be difficult to quantify in reality due to the endemic lack of commitment which results in ~20% of establishment actually turning up for anything. Added to this is the variation in instruction and testing - those who turn up may have completed a relevant course but may not actually be able to implement their skills efficiently.

Cryos

concussion wrote: »

Good points, and one paper it would give a pretty good indication of where improvements need to be made. However it would be difficult to quantify in reality due to the endemic lack of commitment which results in ~20% of establishment actually turning up for anything. Added to this is the variation in instruction and testing - those who turn up may have completed a relevant course but may not actually be able to implement their skills efficiently.

I think lack of commitment is probably more prominent through the front line companies, for my own unit there is two people who currently do not show up with solid reasons for the last month maybe. We only have around 28 including the CO's and face a problem now because of the embargo that theres more sgts than cpls and recruits put together.

It would be most interesting to see what the current numbers are rather than trying to look at 2008 and 2009 data for active numbers vs persons eligible for gratuity.

But like above if a quota or a minimum attendance was enforced you would have a far more lean and professional reserve army.

xflyer

Really I think the real issue is where the PDF is going to end up. That will decide the fate of the RDF. The new government will be gloves off with the public service and anything not performing will be cut or axed. If the choice is to cut the PDF or the RDF, it's easy to see where the axe will fall.

The sad thing about the RDF and it's predecessor the FCA was that it was never really used for anything, the occasional guard duty aside. In the new economic reality anything that doesn't have a purpose will be cut.

concussion

There is a quota, in a roundabout way. If you don't meet the minimum requirements for grat you are posted on the non-effective list. Once there you are either discharged or have to apply to be removed and posted as effective. This decision is made by the Bde. Commander.

I agree, I would like to see current numbers but those currently available will only reflect the strength of the Reserve, most of whom don't show up for regular training. Gratuity numbers at least shows how many fulfilled their minimum trainining requirement. (With the exception of recruits, as they do not receive a gratuity until they have completed a certain time in service, 12 months possibly)

Cryos

Time to get working on that FOI request!

davetherave

Once the Dail is back a written question to whoever the new minister is, via your local TD, should be able to find it out the number of reservists who qualified for grat in 2010.

Edit: Would a freedom of information cover it???

Cryos

davetherave wrote: »

Once the Dail is back a written question to whoever the new minister is, via your local TD, should be able to find it out the number of reservists who qualified for grat in 2010.

Edit: Would a freedom of information cover it???

It would, its not going into detail about particular people just an overall number on the force and those that received gratuity, the last FOI requests i did with the DF went through without a problem.

OS119

not sure if an FOI request would do it, but a question from a TD should - to ask the minister what the framework and timescale for mobilising the RDF for territorial defence is and what force he expects the RDF to generate...?

one is tempted to think that however much personal satisfaction individual members get from training, if the DoD/PDF don't even have a fag-packet plan for using the RDF then the whole thing ought to be scapped without delay.

SamuelFox

Interesting thread. To be honest, whoever said that “things that don’t do anything will be cut” got it right. Even if you buy into the idea that Ireland needs a military (which I do) and that the current system supplies that (which I don’t) the RDF doesn’t provide much of an asset. If a situation ever arises where Ireland needs to raise a reserve force then it would take a matter of months – the skill level in the RDF is unfortunately so low that very basic training of civvies (which is pretty much the RDF anyway) would result in a better quality force.

Discussions of the RDF need to be separated from the very understandable loyalty that a lot of people have towards it. Those of us that served know that it contains a number of very high quality people, and for a lot of us the FCA/RDF sated an appetite for further military service – some into frontline militaries and more into the Irish services. However, militaries rely so heavily on leadership that regardless of the quality of the troops, if the leadership isn’t equally good the unit will not develop. Unit and sub-unit leadership in the RDF is a serious issue, but the bigger issue is the PDF. Unlike front line armies, the PDF have not utilised the RDF at all. I suspect the reason is an understandable professional insecurity on the part of the PDF. However, regardless of the reason the RDF have not been utilised except as a training aid to the PDF and generally only at a Pte and JNCO level. The extent that other militaries use their reserves shows how wasteful this policy is. Unless a meaningful role is found for the RDF within the existing structure the whole thing is a waste of time.

Tubsandtiles

SamuelFox wrote: »

Interesting thread. To be honest, whoever said that “things that don’t do anything will be cut” got it right. Even if you buy into the idea that Ireland needs a military (which I do) and that the current system supplies that (which I don’t) the RDF doesn’t provide much of an asset. If a situation ever arises where Ireland needs to raise a reserve force then it would take a matter of months – the skill level in the RDF is unfortunately so low that very basic training of civvies (which is pretty much the RDF anyway) would result in a better quality force.

Discussions of the RDF need to be separated from the very understandable loyalty that a lot of people have towards it. Those of us that served know that it contains a number of very high quality people, and for a lot of us the FCA/RDF sated an appetite for further military service – some into frontline militaries and more into the Irish services. However, militaries rely so heavily on leadership that regardless of the quality of the troops, if the leadership isn’t equally good the unit will not develop. Unit and sub-unit leadership in the RDF is a serious issue, but the bigger issue is the PDF. Unlike front line armies, the PDF have not utilised the RDF at all. I suspect the reason is an understandable professional insecurity on the part of the PDF. However, regardless of the reason the RDF have not been utilised except as a training aid to the PDF and generally only at a Pte and JNCO level. The extent that other militaries use their reserves shows how wasteful this policy is. Unless a meaningful role is found for the RDF within the existing structure the whole thing is a waste of time.

Well said, the RDF serves no purpose without a fundamental role in which it has none at the moment and more than likely will not receive in the future. The PDF maintain the roles they have very well.

Cryos

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Well said, the RDF serves no purpose without a fundamental role in which it has none at the moment and more than likely will not receive in the future. The PDF maintain the roles they have very well.

I think both posts by yourself and SamuelFox hit it on the head, without a proper mission statement or objectives as defined by the parent organisation the RDF will continue to provide little value for the money invested [which of course is far less than the pdf].

Checking Radios or maintaining some equipment for the PDF units provides some value but doest justify the numbers in a wider scope of operations. Unless ireland goes mission crazy in the next while i dont see the RDF being brought in to tackle much apart from the ongoing PA etc activities.

Poccington

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Well said, the RDF serves no purpose without a fundamental role in which it has none at the moment and more than likely will not receive in the future. The PDF maintain the roles they have very well.

Quite correct.

However, it has also been pointed out that as an organisation, there's also been quite a resistance to change within the RDF. I mean just look at Integration, there was a big, massive chance for the RDF to step up to the plate beside PDF Unit's and what happened? It fell flat on it's face and this time, the fault definitely didn't lie purely at the feet of the PDF.

Less than a third of it's establishment qualifying for grat, when the qualifying criteria requires such little commitment, empire protecting etc.

These are all things that need to be dealt with head on, long before talk of the RDF being given any kind of viable function aside from "We'll call you when everything goes tits up".

Local-womanizer

Is there a minimum number required to be qualified for Grat each year?

What annoys me is that in my unit at least,the majority of people would jump at the chance to partake in integration, and many did the first time around. As a result the effect on the relationship between our unit and the parent PDF unit has been hugely positive.

In our unit too this year,there is a noticeable change in the handling with anything now. There is a real drive to get things organised and completed and so far it has work.

The fitness levels are also on the increase with PT held anytime we are in barracks overnight.

For the organisation to change the system needs too,drastically. Annual PT tests and entry level interviews would go a long way to improving matters. Aim for a slightly higher age of recruit,those in the final years of college perhaps. Would it not be possible to train RDF members to a level were they could handle many domestic issues such as CIT and guard in barracks to free the PDF up for training up for overseas?(when overseas do open up again) Reduce the need for PDF bods in Ireland so more can do overseas missions.

The big thing for me is to cut the numbers,and I mean all those on the inactive list. They take up funds and resources that could be put in to use to those who put in the effort. Restructure the RDF into a more viable effective force,no need for huge numbers for that.

Our unit is making a big effort in the way we do things,with the PT and the running of any training weekends. This I feel is a big step in improving the perception we have of ourselves,if the RDF can't take itself seriously then what hope has it of any of the politicians doing so when it comes to cuts...

SamuelFox

I’d agree to an extent with what Poccington said, but I think the bigger point is that the RDF is a military organisation and everything that happens, or doesn’t happen, is the responsibility of the leadership which is the PDF.

The fundamental point that people need to remember about the RDF is that is a creation of, and a mirror of, the PDF. All the leaders are selected, trained and managed by the PDF.

In terms of integration, the opposition in our unit came from two places, mainly the Cadre staff and the RDF officers. Both of those groups were allowed to slow the process down because of vested interests – the Cadre, because in the long term it would expose their cushy numbers; and the officers because when their troops became part of a PDF unit they would become irrelevant. I remember being pulled aside by my Cadre CQMS and told that I wouldn’t be able to balance work and the RDF, and if I was RTU’d from Integration I would have that mark on my record for the rest of my RDF career. It didn’t bother me and I proceeded with integration, but I’m sure others got the same chat and took the advice.

Equally, once we got to the PDF Unit we saw a lot of resistance – the only thing that went smoothly was issuing new kit. Everything else was accompanied by some drama. In practice, I think the PDF were insecure about having RDF pers being improved, with the potential to take PDF jobs. People here will scoff at that, buts it quite true – every time a RDF guard is mounted in a PDF barracks it is money out of PDF pockets.

PDF troops saw the bigger picture – that if the TA could serve in Afghan than RDF troops would be more than able for somewhere like Chad or Kosovo. If you can train a Seaman to be a peacekeeper in a few months you can definitely do the same with reservists. Overseas slots are scarce enough without having to compete with the RDF for them. Without question they would also be able for CITs, Portlaoise etc, all the nice allowance earners enjoyed by the PDF.

More than that, some were scared about the potential for a reduction in numbers in the PDF. If the RDF could take some tasks, why not cut the PDF? RDF were doing fine in the Naval Service, they would do even better in the less technical Army.

What if civilian skills could be used, as in front line militaries? Why send as many troops on FAS apprentice courses when we can use qualified RDF tradesmen? Same with training up Officers to do professional roles like lawyers or Engineers – let RDF officers do it at a fraction of the cost, and probably to a far higher level. Things like that make it clear that the RDF, for all its faults was not the only problem with the failure of integration.

One of the fundamental tenets of military leadership is that you can delegate authority but you can’t delegate responsibility. If a decision was taken to proceed with integration then it should have happened. Something was going wrong - the RDF were still doing parade nights and going on camp, so why weren’t they signing up for integration, particularly given the extra money on offer? Questions should have been asked of the PDF leadership at Unit level and pressure put on them to sort it. This wasn’t done, and if the PDF had any interest in integration it would have been.

SamuelFox

LW, I think you are spot on with what needs to be done but unfortunately that’s the easy part – if the will was there the RDF could be transformed into a fantastic asset that would most likely cost a fraction of what it does now.

Morpheus

It already costs f3ck all.

certain senior NCOs and Officers of units quietly instructed innocent 3 stars and corporals NOT to get involved in the integration. this was wrong but it happened.

concussion

Myself and three Gunners went for Integration with our local Bn. - after the orientation day we were told that as we were Artillery we couldn't do an infantry module, much to the disappointment of ourselves and our PDF instructor. Don't know where the decision was made but that's all the chance we got Total shame, they barely had a section of the platoon that they hoped for and it would have given us great skills to bring back to our own unit.

Poccington

Morphéus wrote: »

It already costs f3ck all.

certain senior NCOs and Officers of units quietly instructed innocent 3 stars and corporals NOT to get involved in the integration. this was wrong but it happened.

**** like that needs to stop.

IMO, 1 Coy of a PDF Inf Bn should be RDF. Can't really speak for Arty, CIS etc. cause I wouldn't be too clued up on how they're run.

With the RDF Coy all they would need is a PDF Office Staff run by a Sgt, a PDF CQ and a PDF Coy Commander to deal with the boss upstairs. Every appointment after that should be filled by RDF bodies, trained at the initial stages by the BTC, with modulised YE and Instructor Courses run by the PDF Unit itself, again using both PDF and RDF instructors. The Coy would then throughout the year work towards taking part in the Bn Ex, Brigade Ex and Bn LFTT and assuming the early years are positive, then the issue of Overseas could be tackled. Of course, someone needs to cop on and get the employment protection issue sorted.

As for CIT's and Portlaoise, you're welcome to them. I hate doing either of them and CIT's aren't worth anything allowance wise. :pac:

Cryos

Great to see the thread not go to the usual "Disband those RDF tossers"

Alot of good points that do converge on most issues and do provide educated insight as to where things could go !

Local-womanizer

Cryos wrote: »

Great to see the thread not go to the usual "Disband those RDF tossers"

Alot of good points that do converge on most issues and do provide educated insight as to where things could go !

Now if only does who make the call regarding the DF would actually look at this thread!

Tubsandtiles

Some good views on here, so what's everyones verdict-get rid of the Rdf or keep it and try and sort it out ?.

OS119

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Some good views on here, so what's everyones verdict-get rid of the Rdf or keep it and try and sort it out ?.

you need a strategic defence and security review that looks at a 20+ year picture, decide what you want to be able to do, decide what the potential/likely threats are likely to be - and whether you think its worth trying to counter them - and only then deciding on what structures you need to carry you through.

deciding on this or that structure without deciding what you want to do with it first is just madness.

SamuelFox

OS119 wrote: »

you need a strategic defence and security review that looks at a 20+ year picture, decide what you want to be able to do, decide what the potential/likely threats are likely to be - and whether you think its worth trying to counter them - and only then deciding on what structures you need to carry you through.

deciding on this or that structure without deciding what you want to do with it first is just madness.

Well said! The problem with that, as the UK have found out each time they do this, is that sometimes the answer is not popular and Fine Gael might have enough on their plates for the next while.

Plus it means debating neutrality.......

OS119

FG seem to want to ditch the triple lock - so it appears they have some appetite at least for offending people they might otherwise not have...

not particularly wanting to get into the 'neutrality' debate, but it seems to me archly hypocritical for FF to retain the TL when they asked the UK to provide air policing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks - something which, under the TL, Ireland couldn't do in return and, if extended to other states, other people couldn't ask for either.

Runner_11

It will be intresting regarding the TL system if FG get into power, it looks like they are the only ones that have put forward a defence policy for the general election.
I have got a lot out of the reserves due to my own personal reasons i cant go full time but i would like to make a bigger contribution to the defence forces and i hope some day the powers that be realise that they have a huge group of people willing to do just that, if they just let them and give them the tools to do the job!!

Poccington

Runner_11 wrote: »

It will be intresting regarding the TL system if FG get into power, it looks like they are the only ones that have put forward a defence policy for the general election.
I have got a lot out of the reserves due to my own personal reasons i cant go full time but i would like to make a bigger contribution to the defence forces and i hope some day the powers that be realise that they have a huge group of people willing to do just that, if they just let them and give them the tools to do the job!!

I wouldn't say a huge group but there's certainly a core group of Reservists dedicated to their work.

Now it's up to the DoD and the General Staff to utilise them, whether it be in all Units or CS and CSS Units.

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

....Now it's up to the DoD and the General Staff to utilise them, whether it be in all Units or CS and CSS Units.

absolutely - there are lots, and i mean 10's of thousands - of blokes in the UK willing to put in 2 or 3 weekends a month, 2 nights a week, personal time for fitness, and several weeks FTT a year to be effective reservists, and these blokes put themselves forward for seriously hard tours everyday.

assuming the genetic makeup and character of Irish blokes isn't that different from that of TA soldiers, then there is no reason why an Irish reserve force could acheive the same effectiveness.

trellheim

The RDF and PDF ( the DF) were set up by the Oireachtas.


Given the current economic situation, I believe the Govt. should decide to

1) make use of the RDF and give it a focused, real role. Demand and enforce accountability ( including full liability to Military Law, you can't just piss off back to your civvy job if you f**k up or lose a Kite ). One Standard for everything. PDF need to accept this and find a real space for RDF that allows the PDF to benefit not the RDF. If thats back doing regimentals initially then fine but there must be a progression i.e NCO doing NCO Job, CS/CQ the same, and an officer having a role, when trust is built. RDF need to accept that the definition of a volunteer="I will make it my priority to parade, for 3 years - if I can't - I'm off " NOT "Something better's come up- better do that instead, who gives a toss about the baggers"

Yes we're our own worst enemy, but as in any relationship both sides need to work at it, to make it happen.
or

2) Disband it.

Tubsandtiles

Cryos wrote: »

Great to see the thread not go to the usual "Disband those RDF tossers"

Alot of good points that do converge on most issues and do provide educated insight as to where things could go !

I have to admit I am for disbanding the RDF but would never consider them tossers as a member myself. It's such a positive thing although without a fundamental role anymore. There is some very good idea's on here that could save the RDF maybe ?. It's nice too see people like yourself that put a positive look into it, people like you and some other posters here are the reason the RDF can be a joy to take part in .

Tubsandtiles

trellheim wrote: »

The RDF and PDF ( the DF) were set up by the Oireachtas.


Given the current economic situation, I believe the Govt. should decide to

1) make use of the RDF and give it a focused, real role. Demand and enforce accountability ( including full liability to Military Law, you can't just piss off back to your civvy job if you f**k up or lose a Kite ). One Standard for everything. PDF need to accept this and find a real space for RDF that allows the PDF to benefit not the RDF. If thats back doing regimentals initially then fine but there must be a progression i.e NCO doing NCO Job, CS/CQ the same, and an officer having a role, when trust is built. RDF need to accept that the definition of a volunteer="I will make it my priority to parade, for 3 years - if I can't - I'm off " NOT "Something better's come up- better do that instead, who gives a toss about the baggers"

Yes we're our own worst enemy, but as in any relationship both sides need to work at it, to make it happen.
or

2) Disband it.

Best two idea's on here.