Army Reserve Disbanded on the quiet by the DoD over the weekend?

testicle

Simona1986 wrote: »

Anyone had any luck leaving the RDFRA, I'm part of the NSR and the whole association seems to completely ignorant of our existince and I don't want any more of my paychecks goign towards these incompetents.:mad:

Yep. Fill out these 2 pages, and send them off to the respective addresses.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~idmtraining/RDFRA%20resignation%20form.pdf

Owryan

Morphéus wrote: »

Hey, NSR head, thats no different than the army lol, they dont notice us either

Pte complains to his RDFRA rep:
"Im in the army, i cant wear barrack boots out on the ground and they wont issue tactic boots unless i do a 72hr ex... my feet were cold and wet for 42 of the last 48hr ex i was on as our patrol harbour was in a swamp surrounded by rivers on an island in a big lake with no boats."

RDFRA: "No worries, well help .... heres some sam brownes for your officers"

see!

But RDFRA are seeing the bigger picture . The warm glow that the tossifer will be radiating while he strokes his new sam browne will keep all his men nice n cosy

goldie fish

The incompetence of the RDFRA knows no bounds.

Manic Moran

I really am at a loss to understand why the Irish find it so hard to have a functioning reserve which works and plays well with everyone else.

The National Guard Association is holding its annual conference here this weekend. I may be able to swing by for the second day. Will try to be the inconspicuous captain amongst all the generals and colonels and attempt to divine the issues they choose to talk about.

Maybe when I'm over your way later this month, I should give a briefing to the RDFRA, PDF and Minister on how easy we find it here. I'm already bringing the ACUs and Blues...

Owryan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I really am at a loss to understand why the Irish find it so hard to have a functioning reserve which works and plays well with everyone else.

Its not too hard to understand for an insider. For one it has no purpose or role, oh sure there's the statute and whole "defend" the country bit but in terms of the day to day role the Reserve is lost without direction (this is my own opinion from pers experience)

Units seem to do their own thing according to their own wishes with only a passing nod towards training programmes. Sadly for all too many its still a social club and until this minority which sadly often contains the decision makers are retired off there will still be opposition to "more work, less play" on camps.

My own solution would be simple, disband all battalions, regiments and squadrons. create a reserve company/battery/troop in each PDF unit and a HQ and training company at brigade level to handle recruits and promotion courses.

The PDF will need to have a much closer working relationship with its reserve element as they will either get value out of it or else it will become a burden to them .There would be a lot of details to sort and a long bumpy road to go down but if the reserve wants to survive its probably the only solution .

syklops

Owryan wrote: »

Its not too hard to understand for an insider. For one it has no purpose or role, oh sure there's the statute and whole "defend" the country bit but in terms of the day to day role the Reserve is lost without direction (this is my own opinion from pers experience)

Units seem to do their own thing according to their own wishes with only a passing nod towards training programmes. Sadly for all too many its still a social club and until this minority which sadly often contains the decision makers are retired off there will still be opposition to "more work, less play" on camps.

My own solution would be simple, disband all battalions, regiments and squadrons. create a reserve company/battery/troop in each PDF unit and a HQ and training company at brigade level to handle recruits and promotion courses.

The PDF will need to have a much closer working relationship with its reserve element as they will either get value out of it or else it will become a burden to them .There would be a lot of details to sort and a long bumpy road to go down but if the reserve wants to survive its probably the only solution .

What you see is more the effect, not the cause of the problem.

We are a small country(population roughly the same as Manchester), and we are neutral, despite being on an Island of strategic importance to Britain and mainland Europe. These two 'facts' alone have had tongues wagging for decades asking why do we even need an Army? If the sh1t hits the fan, our friends the British won't want a strategic position like ours falling and so will defend our Island. Aid to the Civil Power could be done more cheaply by private security firms, search and rescue can be done more cheaply by volunteers, the Gardai and private firms. Why don't we spend more on the Civil Defence etc etc.

Just to clarify these are not my opinions, these are the questions asked every day / week / year to those in power and to those who hold the purse strings(especially around budget time). The result of this shortsightedness is those at the top of the PDF are actually under constant fire to keep their budgets in order, and keep their personnel up to date, fit and be able to react.

The RDF is seen by many as a drain on resources, and a threat to the future of the PDF. Whether that is the case or not i don't know. Who knows what crazy idea a future politician may have. However the disdain that is often shown to the RDF by the PDF has resulted in many RDF units and sub-units having to go about things 'their own way', just to get some things done.

The main difference between the US and Ireland military wise is budget. The US spends about 10 times per head of population than Ireland does.

TL;DR version : there is a much smaller pot here, so a lot more squabbling goes on over it.

Morpheus

Glad thats not your opinion because Ireland is not a neutral country, thats a false statement held over from during the emergency that the average joe in the street thinks is still in existence and one that our Govt likes to hide behind from time to time when it suits. we would need to be constitutionally neutral for it to be a real neutrality.

anyway enough politics....

we have a small force, they have to face facts that they will continue to shrink, they should start to look at reserves as a way to augment larger numbers and look at the reality.

The defence forces could have one of two trains of thought:

Today, the defence forces stand at roughly 9500 members

or

Today, the defence forces stand at roughly 13500 members

You can be damn sure that its the former and the them and us mindset instead of....

Lateral thinking, well weve 9500 well trained fulltimers, and 4000 of various levels of training. scrap and replace all current RDF syllabi that arent working, augment and improve existing ones and then well lets train the sh*t out of them, push for job security (theres only 3-4000 people country wide in the RDF and thats the tiny amount that would need their employer to come to terms with this and out of those, only those who are not students or self employed) and start deploying them on and off dutys...

dutys.... what does that comprise of?

do we want the RDF to supplement the df at home, or do we want them as organic units able to deploy on the exact same missions as the PDF?

well lets see....

we have a limit on the numbers of pers we can send overseas...

is this due to a political decision or the reality of numbers, if its a reality of numbers then by simple maths, if we have 13500 available then lets increase the numbers we send overseas, then lets make a commitment that in all future overseas missions 10% will be reserves, initially.

lets try to make a commitment to send 10% to the battlegroups

lets start recognising the poxy civvie certifications and looking to piecemeal employ these little nuggets inside our own organisation

i mean i just came up with that crap over a 5 minute coffee.... now why the f**k does nobody in charge seem to be thinking the same f**king way?

look at the TA, national guard, french reserves, german reserves, dutch reserves, any other countrys reserves, combine all of their various roles on an excel sheet, then pick and choose the ones we deem suitable for ireland and then give the RDF a mission and train them up for the army to f**king employ.
:pac:


also rather than bash the RDFRA, id say that they need to realise that theyve lost touch with the members / non members that matter most... not the crusty old top brass and senior positions, but the standard NCO's down .... they are the orgs future, if it still has one. they need to embrace this change as much as they can, swallow the bitter pills that we all know are sure to follow and then something needs to be done to absolutely DESTROY the them and us pox that blights the ENTIRE DF of which the RDF makes up almost THIRTY %

testicle

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm already bringing the ACUs and Blues...

Did you not get in enough trouble the last time?

Manic Moran

testicle wrote: »

Did you not get in enough trouble the last time?

Dept of Foreign Affairs has signed off.

newby.204

Morphéus wrote: »

we have a limit on the numbers of pers we can send overseas...

is this due to a political decision or the reality of numbers, if its a reality of numbers then by simple maths, if we have 13500 available then lets increase the numbers we send overseas, then lets make a commitment that in all future overseas missions 10% will be reserves, initially.

The 2 highlighted parts of the quote are enough to make sure that nobody in the PDF would want the RDF to survive, its hard enough for us to get overseas as it is!! The idea that a reservist took the place of a PDF member would cause a sh!tstorm, you could forget all about integration on that point alone. Overseas trips are essential to fulfill contractual/promotional obligations and as such reservists overseas in place of PDF would never happen

just my 2c

Maoltuile

newby.204 wrote: »

The 2 highlighted parts of the quote are enough to make sure that nobody in the PDF would want the RDF to survive, its hard enough for us to get overseas as it is!! The idea that a reservist took the place of a PDF member would cause a sh!tstorm, you could forget all about integration on that point alone. Overseas trips are essential to fulfill contractual/promotional obligations and as such reservists overseas in place of PDF would never happen

just my 2c

Agreed. And the employment protection stick will never be implemented in a corrupt little crony capitalist state like this one, so it ought to be dropped. You'd have more luck with the enticement of PRSI or tax breaks in return for supporting staff in a wider variety of voluntary organisations giving back to society - like St. VdeP, Civil Defence and the RDF.

OS119

newby.204 wrote: »

...The idea that a reservist took the place of a PDF member would cause a sh!tstorm, you could forget all about integration on that point alone. Overseas trips are essential to fulfill contractual/promotional obligations and as such reservists overseas in place of PDF would never happen..

phew!

i had been labouring under the mistaken impression that the function of the Irish Defence Forces is to undertake military operations as required by the government of the day, and that the configuration of the force to be used was determined by the requirement to successfully complete the mission and its objectives as laid out by the Minister for Defence on behalf of the government.

thank fcuk my understanding has been corrected, i'd really got the wrong end of the stick there!

Manic Moran

Huh. Mitt Romney is on the speakers list for the NGAUS conference. Wonder if Michael D. Would address the RDFRA AGM?

newby.204

OS119 wrote: »

phew!

i had been labouring under the mistaken impression that the function of the Irish Defence Forces is to undertake military operations as required by the government of the day, and that the configuration of the force to be used was determined by the requirement to successfully complete the mission and its objectives as laid out by the Minister for Defence on behalf of the government.

thank fcuk my understanding has been corrected, i'd really got the wrong end of the stick there!

It is however the fact of the matter is(your blatant condescension/sarcasm aside) that a reservist isn't fulfilling any contractual/legal obligations by partaking in an overseas mission, a members of the DF is, therefore feet on the ground would be opposed to reservists taking their placement/promotion/financial opportunities away from them.

Turbine

newby.204 wrote: »

It is however the fact of the matter is(your blatant condescension/sarcasm aside) that a reservist isn't fulfilling any contractual/legal obligations by partaking in an overseas mission, a members of the DF is, therefore feet on the ground would be opposed to reservists taking their placement/promotion/financial opportunities away from them.

Last time I checked reservists were members of the Defence Forces and are under contract.

Manic Moran

Wait. Surely a PDF contract doesn't state that they -have- to go on a deployment, period, does it? I can't imagine why they would put in a requirement that is out of their hands.

newby.204

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait. Surely a PDF contract doesn't state that they -have- to go on a deployment, period, does it? I can't imagine why they would put in a requirement that is out of their hands.

Is that a genuine question manic?? I'm only asking cause I'm not sure if your having a dig or not??

Local-womanizer

newby.204 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait. Surely a PDF contract doesn't state that they -have- to go on a deployment, period, does it? I can't imagine why they would put in a requirement that is out of their hands.

Is that a genuine question manic?? I'm only asking cause I'm not sure if your having a dig or not??

It's genuine I'd say, he is pointed out the fact the DF have no say whether they deploy overseas or not.

If the government decided to end and cease all overseas missions for the foreseeable future what would happen contract requirements!

Maoltuile

Manic Moran wrote: »

Huh. Mitt Romney is on the speakers list for the NGAUS conference. Wonder if Michael D. Would address the RDFRA AGM?

Particularly as Michael D. was the gentleman who provided the RDF with something useful to do during the Nineties!

KickstartHeart

Who said reservists have to 'replace' soldiers. Why can't they be used as well as the current numbers of PDF personnel being used. It would mean that the DF could get more people overseas in different areas and gain more.

I'd agree with .204 on this one re: soldiers needing overseas as it is their bread and butter and soldiers should have those opertunities first. But the DF should be able to undertake more overseas ops (if it was to use its reserve forces) meaning soldiers and reservists can get the opportunities.

From what I know the RDF isn't nearly capable of contributing troops for overseas service that would have the skills and capabilities as PDF soldiers, but there's no reason why, with a bit of hard work and imagination + interest in such a step that it isn't possible to change that fact. The government would be silly not to tap into such a possibility.

Manic Moran

newby.204 wrote: »

Is that a genuine question manic?? I'm only asking cause I'm not sure if your having a dig or not??

It is in response to your statement: "Overseas trips are essential to fulfill contractual/promotional obligations and as such reservists overseas in place of PDF would never happen"

What sort of contractual obligation is incumbent upon a PDF soldier that if he doesn't go overseas (say because an RDF chap 'took his spot'), that he will be penalised for this?

Maoltuile

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is in response to your statement: "Overseas trips are essential to fulfill contractual/promotional obligations and as such reservists overseas in place of PDF would never happen"

What sort of contractual obligation is incumbent upon a PDF soldier that if he doesn't go overseas (say because an RDF chap 'took his spot'), that he will be penalised for this?

It came in with the Yellowpacks back in the 90s.

OS119

newby.204 wrote: »

...therefore feet on the ground would be opposed to reservists taking their placement/promotion/financial opportunities away from them.

feet on the ground probably don't like getting up at 5am, spending a week in a ditch, and spending 6 months in a hot, dusty ****hole - but they do so, regardless of their happiness, because they are told to do so...

if an RDF soldier is better suited to the mission than a PDF soldier because he happens to have a skill that the mission requires - perhaps a language, or a technical skill - or just that the operational tempo of the DF means that it needs more soldiers than the PDF can provide, then the RDF soldier goes, and PDF soldier who wants a conservatory, or needs a tour to tick his promotion boxes just lumps it.

you would have thought that anyone who'd spent more than a week in the DF would have grasped very quickly that the requirements of the Army come, first, second and third - and that the particular wants, needs and desires of the individual are somewhere between that bottom and nowhere on that list...

i find it deeply ironic to see PDF honking off about how unprofessional the RDF are while castigating the RDF's participation in Defence because it would impact on their personal circumstances.

Manic Moran

Maoltuile wrote: »

It came in with the Yellowpacks back in the 90s.

Wait, so you're saying that if a member of the PDF doesn't go on a deployment for any reason at all, such as that there is no room for him or the Army stops sending people overseas, that he's in breach of contract? What sort of idiot came up with that one?

NTM

Yitzhak Rabin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait, so you're saying that if a member of the PDF doesn't go on a deployment for any reason at all, such as that there is no room for him or the Army stops sending people overseas, that he's in breach of contract? What sort of idiot came up with that one?

NTM

The contracts state that they has to have either 2 career courses and 1 overseas trip OR 3 career courses.

I believe provided the soldier is a consistent volunteer for overseas, but ultimately doesn't get a trip, he is not in breach of contract.

Given that priority for overseas is given to soldiers without any previous overseas trips, it'd be unusual for an individual to have 5 years service, and not have had to opportunity to serve overseas.

CIGANO

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wait, so you're saying that if a member of the PDF doesn't go on a deployment for any reason at all, such as that there is no room for him or the Army stops sending people overseas, that he's in breach of contract? What sort of idiot came up with that one?

NTM

This isn't the case at all, if it is out of the soldiers hands then he wont be penalised, during the recruitment/promotions embargo there were loads of soldiers who were technically in breech of contract but the were signed back on any ways as it wasn't their fault that they couldn't fulfil there contract requirements. As yekahS said as long as the soldier keeps volunteering for overseas/courses whether he gets them or not he will be allowed to sign back on.

Midnight Oil

there is a loophole as well, for someone in their first 5 year term, ordinarily they need to have (I think) 2 courses (from a select list) and 1 o/s trip
OR 3 courses. This loophole only exists for 0-5yrs contract and not 5-9, 9-12 or 12 -21 contracts which each require a trip with no loophole as far as I can remember, have not read the relevant sections of AI in about 18 months so going from memory

Manic Moran

Still seems odd to me. if an isolationist government came to power and stopped all deployments, the guys on their second term would be hosed.

Midnight Oil

Manic Moran wrote: »

Still seems odd to me. if an isolationist government came to power and stopped all deployments, the guys on their second term would be hosed.

Are you saying the DF should be a job for life?

Morpheus

you dont get it do you?
unfair... you cannot pick and choose my comments like that and take me out of context!!! i also asked before that, why the limit on numbers deployed overseas?

we have a limit on the numbers of pers we can send overseas...

is this due to a political decision or the reality of numbers, if its a reality of numbers then by simple maths, if we have 13500 available then lets increase the numbers we send overseas, then lets make a commitment that in all future overseas missions 10% will be reserves, initially.

based on the answer to THAT I am suggesting sending a commitment of 10% reserves overseas.

By the way, there is a precedent for RDF going overseas already, not happened much but has happened at least once at officer level.