Theoretical Exercise - reform the DF.

OS119

Given that the only exciting thing happening around here is Manic going through trousers like he's got perpetual incontinence, lets have a theoretical thread.

ok, you get to play with 20% of the defence budget for a five year period (very roughly €200m a year for the Irish DF), you can enact primary legislation, change contracts and re-role units and personnel - but you can't sign mutual defence treaties.

how, and why, would you change the DF - and what would be the outcome you'd like to see?

djtechnics1210

I would let members of AGS join RDF, like they let police join TA in uk...
I know loads of people that didnt want to leave RDF and had to when they joined AGS.
Well thats my suggestion anyway....

helimachoptor

After promoting Manic to Chief of Staff there'd probably only be enough money to buy new paper cups

In all seriousness I wouldn't even know where to begin, but this will be an interesting thread.

diverdriver

Cut most barracks, just reduce to one base in each province. One barracks in Dublin with the rest in the Curragh. One in Galway, One in Cork or Limerick and maybe in or near border. Equip it properly and train to NATO standards, (now that we voted Yes to Lisbon:rolleyes:). Build proper bases like most armies have. This would stop the idea of joining the army and still living with your parents that many young soldiers do.

Total reform of the Air Corps to be a real Corps of the army, (green uniforms). Helis and army support only, move them to the Curragh or turn Baldonnel into the only Dublin army base, a proper base. Lose the fantasy mini fighters and the VIP stuff, also aid to the civil power function. Use civvies for that.

The Navy could be reorganised as a well armed Coastguard, give it civil powers, so it can go after drug runners etc.

Get rid of the fat soldiers and old privates and corporals. It should be a young man's army or woman's.

cork1

diverdriver wrote: »

Build proper bases like most armies have. This would stop the idea of joining the army and still living with your parents that many young soldiers do.

Just out of curiosity what does it matter where a guy lives as long as he gets his job done properly?

minidazzler

Me, what I would do is.

Start the shutdown of all minor out posts.

Keep 1 Main camp in each Province and have the Curragh.
Collins Bks Cork, The Don Dublin, Renmore Galway and The Curragh.

I like the Idea of making the Aer Corps an actual Corps again and getting rid of the Fixed Wing Aircraft. What we need is Transport Heli's for Bodies and Equiptment.

Build a proper training Area in Kilworth and the Glen. A Small Arms range in the Glen wouldn't go astray.

Build a Small but highly functional FIBUA Village in Kilworth with changable Scenarios if Possible.

Offer the 31 year retirement package to all the old Privates who have been in past 24 years and give them a Services no longer required (I'd hate this but it's for the best I think, young blood is needed).

Have a staged introduction of fitness into the RDF, train as many PTI's and PTL's as possible. It is a basic aspect of soldiering and we shouldn't be able to avoid it.

Have a changing Cadre who do 2 year stints with the RDF, but only people who volunteer for these duties as I would want people who want to help the RDF. This would also bring ties between the RDF Unit and the regular unit as they get to know the various Cadre that pass through.

Cut officer Numbers if necessary but bring the regular units of the Army up to Establishment.

Transfer the Navy to a more Coast Guard orientated role and have some Rescue Choppers around as well so we don't only depend on RNLI.

Alot more cross training, even of Reserves with our various allies in Europe.

That's just quick off the top of my head stuff though, there is more I would do. Most of it could be done for little or no money really.

OS119

OK, here goes...

amend the Defence Act so that (1) the RDF may be mobilised for training and operations, (2) their employment rights are protected, (3) that they may serve overseas - either voluntarily or through mobilisation, (4) that any rank/post in the RDF is equivilent to that in the PDF, (5) amends all PDF and RDF contracts both removing the right to refuse to serve overseas, and enacts 'up or out' clauses ensuring the end of 35 yo privates and captains.

allow any member of the PDF/RDF not wishing to serve under the new contract to resign with 1 years pay as a tax free lump sum in addition to whatever pension entitlements they have accrued.

end all 'regular' ATCP operations by the DF - it is the job of the Gardai to escort securicor and operate police helicopters.

place an order for 12 CH-47F (€624M at August 09 prices) to be delivered in years 2,3,4 and 5. place an order for 1 MRV (the RN's Bay class 16,000 ton Landing Ship Dock cost £100m each) and 3 OPV (€150m) to be delivered in years 3,4, and 5.

sell/scrap the force of PC-9M, transfer the government jets to a 'diplomatic flight' operated entirely without military involvement - contract it out if appropriate... if any money is re-couped from the PC-9M's, attempt to purchace another CASA-235 MPA.

structure the RDF/PDF into a 'one Army' concept of Two fully manned infantry brigades with formed RDF units being part of the Order of Battle of each brigade. spend €125m over years 1,2, and 3 significantly increasing the Artillery fire power and general logistics capability of the Army.

i've run out of money...

pmg58

minidazzler wrote: »

Keep 1 Main camp in each Province and have the Curragh.
Collins Bks Cork, The Don Dublin, Renmore Galway and The Curragh.

It would make a lot more sense, I think, to keep and expand athlone than renmore.

pmg58

diverdriver wrote: »

Total reform of the Air Corps to be a real Corps of the army, (green uniforms).

In the not too distant past, this was actually the case, i don't know why they changed.

The Navy could be reorganised as a well armed Coastguard, give it civil powers, so it can go after drug runners etc.

AFAIK Naval officers already have some powers in this regard.

minidazzler

pmg58 wrote: »

It would make a lot more sense, I think, to keep and expand athlone than renmore.

Never been to either, so I was going on little info there, could be a good idea depending on location really.

Actually looking at a map there, it might be better to Expand on Finner because there is no cover in the North if either Athlone or Galway are used.

I know VERY little about the Western Brigade though.

pmg58

minidazzler wrote: »

Never been to either, so I was going on little info there, could be a good idea depending on location really.

Actually looking at a map there, it might be better to Expand on Finner because there is no cover in the North if either Athlone or Galway are used.

I know VERY little about the Western Brigade though.

Athlone would probably be a better, more central location, also it is a lot bigger, I think, and most of the brigade is based there anyway. Although it is in the town and I don't know if there would actually be any room for expansion.

Finner has plenty of room for expansion, and is really a one stop shop for everything you need, ranges, tactics etc. Theres plenty of potential there to increase it in size.

I'd be against reducing the Western Brigade to one barracks, considering its size, I think keeping Athlone and Finner would make more sense.

I can't really speak for the East or South though, have no real experience of either (excluding Kilworth).

minidazzler

pmg58 wrote: »

Athlone would probably be a better, more central location, also it is a lot bigger, I think, and most of the brigade is based there anyway. Although it is in the town and I don't know if there would actually be any room for expansion.

Finner has plenty of room for expansion, and is really a one stop shop for everything you need, ranges, tactics etc. Theres plenty of potential there to increase it in size.

I'd be against reducing the Western Brigade to one barracks, considering its size, I think keeping Athlone and Finner would make more sense.

I can't really speak for the East or South though, have no real experience of either (excluding Kilworth).

The South could work well with one Camp and Kilworth. Although if there was MASSIVE expansion of Kilworth that would alleviate a need for any Bks. There is no Bks big enough to take all the unit's though.

Limerick - Fairly Packed.
Kilkenny - Empty except for the Bloods, but not big enough to take too many units.
Collin's Bks - fairly Packed but if you moved the RDF Huts to one corner they could theoretically fit in one or 2 more units.
Tipp - Never been there but I think it's supposed to be fairly full.

There is nothing else AFAIK that shouldn't be condemned and sold.

pmg58

How many other barracks in the South?

minidazzler

Well, there's Tralee, Bere Island, and I think Waterford has one.

There could be more but I'm not sure.

pmg58

Thats a lot, we have Finner, Athlone, Renmore, Cavan and Mullingar. Rockhill, Lifford and Longford were closed this year.

newby.204

diverdriver wrote: »

Get rid of the fat soldiers and old privates and corporals. It should be a young man's army or woman's.

From a guy in 3 years looking forward to being a career soldier i dont see the problem with having old soldiers as long as they are capable, the overweight soldiers i agree with though oh and at the risk of being flamed to death, i would axe women from enlisting as frontline soldiers, say what you want, and if your not in dont want to hear your opinion, because more often than not ive ended up carrying their **** and well its a pain in the arse

OS119

Having re-written the Defence Act and spent €1bn...

Part II, Army Re-organisation.

Two fully manned combat brigades fashioned from a 'one Army' concept.

re-form from the 18 (paper?) infantry battalions to 8. six PDF and two RDF - each Bn with 3 Rifle Coys, a Patrol Coy, Spt Coy, and HQ Coy (a 700 man Bn) - split equally between the two brigades.

Artillery however would be significantly increased to 8 105mm LG Bty's (six guns each) with four each of RDF and PDF in Two Regiments, with the 120mm mortars being transfered to the Infantry Bn's Spt Coy's.

The reduction of infantry bodies would fall mostly on RDF units and they would be re-roled to Artillery, Logistic Spt and Combat Engineer units.

the objective is two fully manned and combat capable Brigades (though perhaps not both on operations at the same time), each with sufficient Artillery, Engineers, CIS, Med Spt and Logistics to operate without needing to 'poach' resources from the other brigade.

The AC (again probably with some re-roled RDF to create a Remote Airfield Support Unit) and its 12 new CH-47F and 6 AW1-139 would also deploy - at a stretch you could probably squeeze 8 CH-47F's and 3 AW-139's for a big operation...

unfortunately i've run out of cash for the Cavalry, i'd like to have looked at 'strategic' UAV's for the AC (Maritime Patrol and OverLand ISR) as well as 'tactical' UAV's for Brigade/Bn level organic ISR. Fixed wing Airlift also missed out - i looked at the USCG's HC-130 and HC-144 (a Maritime patrol CASA-235) programs to try and get one platform to do Maritime Patrol and Airlift, but costs were both all over the place and very high, and i decided that Battlefield mobility in the shape of Heavy/Medium lift was more desirable.


your views?

pmg58

Whats a patrol coy?

OS119

Patrol(s) Company provide the Bn with a dedicated/specialized Reece force - could be in vehicles or on foot. assuming the Bn would be MOWAG equipped, the Patrol Coy would be motorized in something like a WIMIK.

the idea is to have your Rifles Coys as the Bn's fists - along with Spt Coy - and to do that they need to concentrate their mass, not spread it out all over the Bn's AOR performing the reece/ISTAR task. lighter, perhaps more mobile, and less inclined to get into a stand-up fight, than the Rifle Coys but able to extracate itself if there's a problem...

pmg58

Supplementing or replacing the Cavalry squadron?

Manic Moran

After promoting Manic to Chief of Staff there'd probably only be enough money to buy new paper cups

Well, I -am- looking for new work...

OS119 wrote: »

Patrol(s) Company provide the Bn with a dedicated/specialized Reece force - could be in vehicles or on foot. assuming the Bn would be MOWAG equipped, the Patrol Coy would be motorized in something like a WIMIK.

the idea is to have your Rifles Coys as the Bn's fists - along with Spt Coy - and to do that they need to concentrate their mass, not spread it out all over the Bn's AOR performing the reece/ISTAR task. lighter, perhaps more mobile, and less inclined to get into a stand-up fight, than the Rifle Coys but able to extracate itself if there's a problem...

Don't like it. Why dilute the fighting power of your infantry battalion down to three line companies? Further, the battalion recon unit only needs to perform duties to the frontage of the battalion which, as you say, should be fairly concentrated. A company is overkill. By way of counter-example, look at a US light infantry battalion which has four line companies, and a single scout platoon in the HQ coy.

Instead, beef up the Brigade recon squadron to at least double, if not a regiment. Right now, it's one company of recon troops for the frontage of three line battalions. By comparison in the US, you've one recon battalion for the frontage of two line battalions. It is argued that the 'ideal' is to have a third line battalion in the brigade (Not done due to costs/manning issues), but even that is far more recon/counter-recon capability than in your proposed structure.

I fully agree with you about making the artillery regiment actually something worthy of the name 'regiment', though.

Would you consider a 'training regiment' in addition to the two line brigades consisting of those in training to go overseas so that you're not negatively affecting the manpower of the line brigades?

NTM

diverdriver

cork1 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity what does it matter where a guy lives as long as he gets his job done properly?

If you have to ask?:rolleyes: Ask yourself, does it happen in the US Army, or the British or German or French? It's about professionalism otherwise the job is a social employment scheme which all too often it was.

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, I -am- looking for new work...



Don't like it. Why dilute the fighting power of your infantry battalion down to three line companies? Further, the battalion recon unit only needs to perform duties to the frontage of the battalion which, as you say, should be fairly concentrated. A company is overkill. By way of counter-example, look at a US light infantry battalion which has four line companies, and a single scout platoon in the HQ coy.

Instead, beef up the Brigade recon squadron to at least double, if not a regiment. Right now, it's one company of recon troops for the frontage of three line battalions. By comparison in the US, you've one recon battalion for the frontage of two line battalions. It is argued that the 'ideal' is to have a third line battalion in the brigade (Not done due to costs/manning issues), but even that is far more recon/counter-recon capability than in your proposed structure.

I fully agree with you about making the artillery regiment actually something worthy of the name 'regiment', though.

Would you consider a 'training regiment' in addition to the two line brigades consisting of those in training to go overseas so that you're not negatively affecting the manpower of the line brigades?

NTM

i think you're correct if the Brigade were to be deployed en-mass, as a full combat brigade - having four reece Coys in one Brigade would be a real duplication of assets, but, i think its realistic to assume that its far more likely that the Brigade would be deployed one, or possibly two Bn's at a time, probably with the Rifle Coys in relatively fixed locations/operating areas, so i'd still be inclined to devote a whole Coy to Patrols/reece. we've also used Patrols Coy in that situation to both support the Bn's Log framework by helping to keep the MSR's free, and in beefing up Spt Coy as and when required.

i'm attracted to the idea of a 'training Bn' in terms of a pre-deployment work-up (in its widest sense) for those who've just finished their training, but i'm not sure i fancy the idea of holding recently trained soldiers back from joining deployments for two reasons, firstly i'd be wary of anything that gave the impression that the training wasn't good enough to allow people to go and do the job as soon as they'd finished it, and secondly i think unit cohesiveness/identity would suffer if the steady stream of individual replacements that will be required for any unit on deployment came from other Bn's in the Brigade, rather than from members, albeit new ones, of that Bn.

your views?

OS119

pmg58 wrote: »

Supplementing or replacing the Cavalry squadron?

probably replacing it. its not my choice, but its doing a very similar function to that which the Cavalry currently undertakes, and without a much improved platform (not to mention the inability to support the cavalry in its proper role - the 105's would be hard pushed to get rounds to 17km) its not as if the cavalry can go very far forward anyway...

to use the cavalry properly - the ability to go a long way from base area and fight hard - would require a much more potent light tank/AFV, as well as Air Support, and there just isn't the money, so i'd rather concentrate resources on what can be done than using them to pretend to have a capability that would in reality cost far more.

Manic Moran

OS119 wrote: »

i think you're correct if the Brigade were to be deployed en-mass, as a full combat brigade

If you're not envisioning the Brigade ever fighting as a full brigade (in WWIII or whatever), then why bother with a brigade structure? Just go with a bunch of independent battalions and support units to be used in a pick-and-pull mode, and delete the overhead of the Brigade headquarters elements.

i'm attracted to the idea of a 'training Bn' in terms of a pre-deployment work-up (in its widest sense) for those who've just finished their training, but i'm not sure i fancy the idea of holding recently trained soldiers back from joining deployments for two reasons, firstly i'd be wary of anything that gave the impression that the training wasn't good enough to allow people to go and do the job as soon as they'd finished it, and secondly i think unit cohesiveness/identity would suffer if the steady stream of individual replacements that will be required for any unit on deployment came from other Bn's in the Brigade, rather than from members, albeit new ones, of that Bn.

I was more thinking along the lines of maintaining establishment whilst realising the realities of the current deployment practise.

Let's say for the sake of argument Ireland stands up the 150th InfBatt for a deployment to (Pick UN mission of choice). As it currently stands, I believe, the personnel are pulled from units around the country. This results in there being gaps in their 'home' units which need to be filled. Obviously the deploying/deployed troops can't hold positions in both their 'home' unit and 'deploying' unit at the same time, so have them officially transferred on strength to this 'ready/on deck' battalion, which would require the official establishment of that battalion. (And the one for the 149th InfBatt currently overseas) which thus frees up the manning slots in the line units for people to be backfilled into. That way, when the unit trains, it's not training whilst missing half a platoon which is on spin-up to be on a UN deployment.

NTM

Manic Moran

to use the cavalry properly - the ability to go a long way from base area and fight hard - would require a much more potent light tank/AFV, as well as Air Support

Not necessarily. Look at the US IBCT cavalry squadron (Battalion). Nothing heavier than a HMMWV.

Granted, it does have some pretty good artillery support from the 155mm battalion.

NTM

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you're not envisioning the Brigade ever fighting as a full brigade (in WWIII or whatever), then why bother with a brigade structure? Just go with a bunch of independent battalions and support units to be used in a pick-and-pull mode, and delete the overhead of the Brigade headquarters elements.



I was more thinking along the lines of maintaining establishment whilst realising the realities of the current deployment practise.

Let's say for the sake of argument Ireland stands up the 150th InfBatt for a deployment to (Pick UN mission of choice). As it currently stands, I believe, the personnel are pulled from units around the country. This results in there being gaps in their 'home' units which need to be filled. Obviously the deploying/deployed troops can't hold positions in both their 'home' unit and 'deploying' unit at the same time, so have them officially transferred on strength to this 'ready/on deck' battalion, which would require the official establishment of that battalion. (And the one for the 149th InfBatt currently overseas) which thus frees up the manning slots in the line units for people to be backfilled into. That way, when the unit trains, it's not training whilst missing half a platoon which is on spin-up to be on a UN deployment.

NTM

i'd look to keep the Brigade structure because while i don't doubt that sub-units would be deployed rather than the whole brigade in normal circumstances, i'd like to keep the Brigade as a coherant fighting organism both for a WWIII-type capabilty, and to allow senior Irish officers to undertake command roles in NATO/PfP/EU fighting operations which a 'battalion-level' Army might not allow them to do - thats as much for political reasons:a bigger chair at the table - as it is for military ones.

i'd completely scrap that type of force raising and deploy formed, established Bn's, so apart from the rear party everyone in the Bn would go on deployment. i can't see any advantage whatsoever to the current system.

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

Granted, it does have some pretty good artillery support from the 155mm battalion.

NTM

thats exactly my point - though perhaps i'd be looking for Cavalry to have a greater organic punch - your US Cavalry Humvee has 155's, MLRS, AH-64's, and the worlds supply of fixed-wing Air Support at its beck and call, if an Irish cavalry unit was more than 17km from its 105's it'd be completely on its own, and therefore probably wouldn't get used.

concussion

newby.204 wrote: »

From a guy in 3 years looking forward to being a career soldier i dont see the problem with having old soldiers as long as they are capable,

Can a 40 year old Private or Corporal keep up with 20 year olds? The primary job for them is on the front line - and that's a job for the young lads. Transferring them all to Corps units wouldn't work and there are only so many positions in Coy/Bn stores for them to hide.

newby.204

concussion wrote: »

Can a 40 year old Private or Corporal keep up with 20 year olds? The primary job for them is on the front line - and that's a job for the young lads. Transferring them all to Corps units wouldn't work and there are only so many positions in Coy/Bn stores for them to hide.

yes ive seen cases where they are more than capable if not more so than younger lads, now i agree more often than not they arent but everyone shouldnt be written off just because they dont neatly fit into a nice little age bracket

OS119

newby.204 wrote: »

yes ive seen cases where they are more than capable if not more so than younger lads, now i agree more often than not they arent but everyone shouldnt be written off just because they dont neatly fit into a nice little age bracket

if, at 35 or 40, they are more capable than their 20 yo colleagues, why aren't they Sgt's?

age/time in service brackets work; occasionally they can be harsh on ancient privates/LCpl's who have no interest in going up the scale, but they produce the result of an Army young, fit, ambitious and enthusiastic soldiers with the senior ranks in the Bn being about 35 to 38.

concussion

newby.204 wrote: »

yes ive seen cases where they are more than capable if not more so than younger lads, now i agree more often than not they arent but everyone shouldnt be written off just because they dont neatly fit into a nice little age bracket

Why should the Army keep them as Pte's until they're forty because in some cases they are as capable as those in their early twenties?? Why pay wages, allowances and pension to a Pte for 20 years when more often than not they can't do the job?


Promotion or discharge makes complete sense.

Rob67

concussion wrote: »

Why should the Army keep them as Pte's until they're forty because in some cases they are as capable as those in their early twenties?? Why pay wages, allowances and pension to a Pte for 20 years when more often than not they can't do the job?


Promotion or discharge makes complete sense.

The 'yellow pack' system was supposed to take care of the age profile issue, in conjunction with the VER introduced in the late 90's to get rid of the elder lemons still serving. It didn't exactly work that way unfortunately, as a lot of people who should have gone, stayed in. It will work eventually, as those Ptes and Cpls reach retirement age (60) and have no choice but to retire.

To speed up the process, a new VER programme could be brought in, in the current climate though the cost would be prohibitive, but a lot of people would go if the deal was worth it.

newby.204

the size of the pdf itself, doesnt allow for your prmotion or discharge policy as well as how lads get the promotions sometimes its the clic your in and not neccessarily how good you are at your job!!

In an ideal world i agree with some of your points but the pdf as an organisation will never work the way you want it to as far as i can see!!

Poccington

newby.204 wrote: »

the size of the pdf itself, doesnt allow for your prmotion or discharge policy as well as how lads get the promotions sometimes its the clic your in and not neccessarily how good you are at your job!!

In an ideal world i agree with some of your points but the pdf as an organisation will never work the way you want it to as far as i can see!!

Which is why it needs to be reformed and quite frankly needs to be viewed as a fully operational, properly equipped breaker of things.

Too many people in the DF are opposed to change or have it handy so ask "Ah sure why change it now?"

The view needs to be taken that either you're a soldier and take soldiering seriously or you're out on your ear. No more barrack rats, no more office rats, just proper soldiers.

concussion

newby.204 wrote: »

the size of the pdf itself, doesnt allow for your prmotion or discharge policy as well as how lads get the promotions sometimes its the clic your in and not neccessarily how good you are at your job!!

It's been working that way since the PWC review of the DF suggested it in the early 90's....as Rob67 say's, there are some oldies left but they're gradually retireing.

However, as Poccington says, if the DF was well and truely (sp?) committed to this approach then every one of these rats would be given their ticket rather than being allowed to serve their maximum as privates. At least I think that's what you mean P?

newby.204 wrote: »

In an ideal world i agree with some of your points but the pdf as an organisation will never work the way you want it to as far as i can see!!

The PDF and the RDF will never work as well as they can because too many people (Regular and Reserve) are either protecting their asses or their little empires. It disgusts me.

odin_ie

I would

1. Scrap a brigade and restructure so the PDF would have 2 Brigades(North and South) each consisting of of 3 Infantry Bns structured in the following way, 1x Command Coy, 1x Logs Coy, 2x Close Combat Coys, 2x Stand off Coys which equals 692 all ranks in the Bn. This is basically the Commando 21 method adopted by the Royal Marines recently and allows a Bn to be more flexible. There would be a Bn Battlegroup (1 Bn, 1 Arty Bty, 1 Cav Sqn, Mps, Etc) which would be constantly overseas and each other Bn would rotate into this role (see overseas stuff later). Each new Bde would have an Artillery Regt(Hq, 3x gun batteries, Support workshops) , and a Cavalry Regt (Hq, 2x Sqns, Support workshops), a dedicated Logs Bn(Similar to what is currently in the DF) and finally the AD Regt with 3 batteries, 1 in the Bal, one in the South Bde and one in the North Bde. The restructure of the Infantry would mean the purchase of Minimis for a section level weapon.

2. The Reserve. Part of me wants to say scrap it. But there may be some role for it in the future, and as the saying goes, "better to have and not need than to need and not have". So with this in mind, I think a Bn per brigade, and a Sqn and Bty of arty capable of filling in for the PDF would suffice. Training would have to be brought up to a PDF standard though. And as a part of that, employment protection is needed as I would see future reservists doing a full recruit and 3 star training, and after that a modularised programme dependant on the unit they are in. This would allow reserves to be capable of being deployed if needed.

Basically the goal for the Army would be to shrink the size to around the 7500 mark, and increasing the Naval Service to about 2000 and the Aer Corps to 1000. The Army Reserve would be around the 2000 mark and would have a more important role in the future because it would have to deploy in some form to take up the slack in the smaller Army. The Army would be smaller, but more focused.

3. Training would be carried out in the Curragh, no more BTCs, just a training Bn in the Curragh which would handle Recruit Training, 3* Training, NCO Training and of Course Officer Training. The wing and mowags would remain in the Curragh, the Mowags would be attached to the overseas Bn.

4. Overseas would drastically change. Instead of multiple missions overseas, Ireland would focus its effort on one mission. And as stated above, would deploy in a Bn Battlegroup. A self contained unit capable of looking after itself and not needing support from other countries, bar for Air Support in the form of fast Air. I would see the Aer Corps deploying in some form, and I will make a suggestion for the AC later on, but I would see 4 AC Helis overseas with the BG.

5. DF properties. I would like to sell pretty much everything, bar the Kilworth, the Glen, Kilbride, the Naval Base, the Curragh and Bal. Having urban barracks is unnecessary in the 21st Century. I would suggest 2 bases, obviously one in each Bde Area, that would contain accommodation for 3 Bns, Cav and Arty Regts, and Logs Bn along with Bde HQ. Each one of these Barracks should have enough training rooms for the units Platoons/Sections. There should be facilities for the AC in each of these Bases.

6. The AC. I agree with other comments above on the PC-9s, so scrap them. The AC will become a part of the Army again. I would buy about 12 EH 101's, 4 would be on overseas duty, and the other 8 remaining home with 2 on call to each of the Bdes as needed. The AW 139's would be retained along with the EH 139's. The ministerial air transport would not be a DF job, set up a new government air taxi service and budget them to do it, or get Michael O'Leary to do a deal for the ministers.

7. The Naval Service. As I stated above, they will get a man power increase, and some shiney new ships to go with it. I would see a fleet of between 14 and 16 ships, especially if the UN gives us that extra chunk of Atlantic. Ideally, I would like to see between 10 and 12 Patrol vessels. I think that the NS should be getting larger ships from now on, 100m at least, and all ships in the future should have heli pads. A blue/green vessel as is already tendered, a support vessel, and and survey vessel.
I think that a naval air wing, manned by NS personnel should be created too with them getting the CASA and Beechcraft, along with 4-5 Helis, possibly the Westland Lynx.


In conclusion, there will be less officers in the Army, more troops, a larger NS and AC. I know I am probably way over budget, but I would see the Army Suggestions as the cheapest and quickest to implement, with the AC and NS programmes being a 5 and 10 yr programme respectively.

Comments?

pmg58

odin_ie wrote: »

Cavalry Regt (Hq, 2x Sqns, Support workshops)

How about 3x Sqns? Would be easier to form the battle groups then.

As a reservist, I agree with your ideas on the reserve, to an extent. I think a smaller, more capable reserve is whats needed, and what we probably will end up with over the next few years. I don't think its completely realistic for reservists to complete full PDF training courses however, but an increase in the quantity and qualty of training is definitely needed.

odin_ie

The reason I didn't say 3 sqns to a Cav Regt, is that there are currently only 4 sqns in the country and it would be difficult to kit out another 2.

pmg58

Good point, but would you consider it as a long term goal? I mean, realistically, if youre sending battlegroups off from the brigades, the Infantry lads are going to end up on every third trip, but the troopers will be on every second one.

odin_ie

It could be a long term goal of course, but it is with that in mind that I suggested 2 cav sqns in the reserve.

OS119

Question regarding the using the reserve as part of normal overseas operations:

in my 're-org' i've got the reserve making up 25% of the combat power of the Army - 2 Bn Battlegroups out of the Army's 8 - now i'm not thinking that 1 in 4 tours is a reserve tour, but if 1 in 6 was, how would that go down with the reservists?

could the reserve manage that - would i be tasking them with something they couldn't do?

odin_ie

Personally, I couldn't see an indepdent reserve BG going overseas. I would see a time when reserves, with the right amount and kind of training might make up say 20% of a BG, but standards need to drastically change for the better in the Reserve before that happens.

At this stage, the DF is about as small as it can afford to be. The Army has 9 Bns, but none of them is up to strength, and there are simply too many officers no matter what way you look at it. The whole Army needs to be restructured and more boots need to be put on the ground. If the model I stated about, or something similar was brought in, it would make the Army smaller, and a lot more flexible. It would also allow for expansion in the NS, something that is badly needed and will become more needed in the next few years. It would also force the AC to be used as a part of the DF first and foremost, not as the Governments personal Air Taxi Service.

The major worry for the General Staff is how much the Government will cut from the DF.

As for the RDF, things are bad, very very bad, and change needs to happen.

Donny5

OS119 wrote: »

could the reserve manage that - would i be tasking them with something they couldn't do?

Maybe, I'd be happy to do that, and so would lots of others. Many in the current RDF would just feck off, though. This would be no bad thing, and a combat-ready reserve would attract the right kind of person, less Walts.

odin_ie wrote: »

Personally, I couldn't see an indepdent reserve BG going overseas. I would see a time when reserves, with the right amount and kind of training might make up say 20% of a BG, but standards need to drastically change for the better in the Reserve before that happens.

It could, the yanks do it, so can we. The RDF would need to change, though, you're right about that.

OS119

odin_ie wrote: »

Personally, I couldn't see an indepdent reserve BG going overseas. I would see a time when reserves, with the right amount and kind of training might make up say 20% of a BG, but standards need to drastically change for the better in the Reserve before that happens....

...As for the RDF, things are bad, very very bad, and change needs to happen.

it'd be a hell of a thing to aim for though!

my own view of the problems facing the reserve is that its precisely because it's never had to face being deployed that its so abject - MM's unit is entirely reservists, its operating in an area the PDF would have kittens about, yet it does so effectively - and while there's the world of difference between the funding, employment protection etc.. of the USNG and the RDF, i bet the biggest difference is that the USNG's minds are concentrated by knowing they'll be in Afghanistan in 12 months, whereas the RDF know that they'll never be put to that kind of test.

chicken and egg perhaps, but you've got to start somewhere.

odin_ie

The problem with the RDF is the RDF itself. Too many poor officers, old time SNCO's, and an attitude that the RDF is a Drinking/Shooting/Orienteering club. Shooting and Orienteering are military skills, but some units think that the competitions in these skills is the sole reason for existance.

The DF as a whole is top heavy with brass. In 2008 there was 1 person of General rank (Brig gen, Major gen, Lt gen) to around 700 troops.

I cannot find exact numbers at the moment, but the amount of Cmdts is crazy in relation to the number of Lts

cork1

im active in the RDF at the moment and if you ask someone why didnt integration work they say "oh the Pdf wouldnt give it a chance" from this thread i dont see lads object to the idea of having a reserve they just dont want the current methods and goals of the reserve which honestly is very understandable. the only thing ill add to yer requirments for the rdf to fulfill is that I think you should need to log so many training nights in the year to be allowed to take part in a summer,winter or easter camp. Im sick of 6 or 7 three stars and two stars turning up on training nights and then camp comes round and you have 16 or 17 of them. and the fellas who only turn up for camps then always cause the trouble on camp! its ridiculous!!

Donny5

odin_ie wrote: »

The problem with the RDF is the officers

FYP

Manic Moran

i bet the biggest difference is that the USNG's minds are concentrated by knowing they'll be in Afghanistan in 12 months, whereas the RDF know that they'll never be put to that kind of test.

Not even deployments.

The use of the Guard to the current level is unprecedented outside of WWII. A few units were used here and there in the Gulf War and the Vietnam War, but by and large, they were just garrison duties with no expectation of deployment unless the Godless Evil Red Commie Hordes came through the Fulda Gap. However, employment security and mandatory* attendance are not new concepts. Everyone (Active Duty/Reservist) going through the same basic schooling together isn't all that recent either.

Those two steps alone would go a long way to 'professionalising' the RDF.

NTM

*Mandatory as in "if one of my soldiers doesn't show up for a training session without being excused by me, as a commander I can (and have done) issue a bench warrant for his arrest." It sortof annoys the police, as they're responsible for the detention until we get around to swinging by the jail. That could be a few days if he gets picked up on a day we're not training, or in a different part of the country.

odin_ie

Donny5 wrote: »

FYP

there are some very good officers, I have had the pleasure working with, but there some very very bad ones out there, and I think anybody in the RDF will have come across their fair share of bad officers.

pmg58

OS119 wrote: »

Question regarding the using the reserve as part of normal overseas operations:

in my 're-org' i've got the reserve making up 25% of the combat power of the Army - 2 Bn Battlegroups out of the Army's 8 - now i'm not thinking that 1 in 4 tours is a reserve tour, but if 1 in 6 was, how would that go down with the reservists?

could the reserve manage that - would i be tasking them with something they couldn't do?

It'll never happen, the US National Guard do this, but thats only because the US Military is under so much pressure. Asking members of the RDF to go overseas every 2 or 3 years is just not going to happen.