Waiting for VFM

Maoltuile

This week, innit? Has anyone heard differently?

ruserious

It's been due every few months for the last few years. The latest was the end of September. Now October, pfff. Await and see.

Local-womanizer

Maoltuile wrote: »

This week, innit? Has anyone heard differently?

Think it's this week on the minister's desk, possibly a bit longer till it gets to the public.

goldie fish

Isn't the minister out sick at the moment? Was in hospital last week for a "routine procedure".

Local-womanizer

goldie fish wrote: »

Isn't the minister out sick at the moment? Was in hospital last week for a "routine procedure".

Hope it's not from the shock if the VFM!

Morpheus

What VFM???

nothing to see here, move along move along...

KickstartHeart

According to the RDFRA the VFM on the Reserve Defence Forces will be published on Wednesday the 24th. This was posted a few minutes ago on their twitter account.

goldie fish

24th of when......

Turbine

They'll find a reason to delay it again.

But whenever it does get published, I can see them going beyond just mirroring the announced changes to the PDF. I wouldn't be surprised if they made another (and final) attempt at full integration. Anything short of that would be a missed opportunity IMO.

Doctor14

Turbine wrote: »

But whenever it does get published, I can see them going beyond just mirroring the announced changes to the PDF. I wouldn't be surprised if they made another (and final) attempt at full integration. Anything short of that would be a missed opportunity IMO.

Have to agree - either disband it or make major changes. "More of the same" is the worst thing that can happen.

KickstartHeart

goldie fish wrote: »

24th of when......

This month

Turbine

Surprise, surprise, the release of the VFM report has been delayed again.:rolleyes:

testicle

Turbine wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, the release of the VFM report has been delayed again.:rolleyes:

Only from the date that RDFRA made up.

Hightower21

http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/news/roundup/articles/2012/10/30/4013024-sinn-feacutein-councillor-claims-rdf-to-be-slashedbr/

Its starting to leak out!

testicle

I wouldn't take any notice of a Shinner

Turbine

testicle wrote: »

I wouldn't take any notice of a Shinner

I'd sooner trust them than the scum in Fianna Fáil.

testicle

Turbine wrote: »

I'd sooner trust them than the scum in Fianna Fáil.

So you support terrorism then?

Turbine

testicle wrote: »

So you support terrorism then?

:rolleyes:

My local TD isn't a terrorist and has no connection with the RA. Grow the f**k up and move on...

goldie fish

Turbine wrote: »

:rolleyes:

My local TD isn't a terrorist and has no connection with the RA. Grow the f**k up and move on...

Indeed. We should all move on, and those who were imprisoned for their crimes while members of the IRA should stay in jail.

testicle

Turbine wrote: »

:rolleyes:

My local TD isn't a terrorist and has no connection with the RA. Grow the f**k up and move on...

They haven't gone away you know.

Alkers

Part of it up for the RDF anyway
http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Sub+Document+ID/106441151B85CE4880257ABC0059DDC9?OpenDocument

davetherave

For those short on time

The Steering Committee Recommends:
*The retention of a re-organised Reserve with a strength of 4,000 personnel (3,800 Army Reserve and 200 Naval Service Reserve). This is subject to the abolition of gratuities for members of the Reserve and the re-assignment of this budgetary provision to paid training.

*The utilisation of the Reserve in a voluntary unpaid capacity for aid to the civil authority type tasks, subject to appropriate regulatory and training adjustments. In addition members of the Reserve with professional skills from their civilian lives should be afforded the opportunity to assist the PDF in a voluntary unpaid capacity.

*A Reserve organisational model with Reserve Units becoming sub-elements of PDF Units and administered and trained by those PDF Units, and that the Reserve retains a country wide geographical spread, albeit with fewer Units.

*The implementation of a system to capture indirect costs for PDF personnel subsuming Reserve duties in order to provide greater transparency with regard to new Reserve costs.

*That the Naval Service Reserve should be consolidated within its current effective strength of approximately 200. The current PDF Cadre strength of the Naval Service Reserve should be adjusted downward to reflect the reduced Unit establishments. Recommendations in this regard should be brought forward by the group tasked with bringing forward proposals for the broader re-organisation of the Defence Forces.

*The success of the revised organisational approach and effectiveness of the Reserve should be reviewed after a period of not later than four years by a group with similar representation to the Steering Committee for this review. Key metrics in line with those outlined in chapters 5, 6 and 7 should be agreed by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, monitored by the Defence Forces and reported in the Department of Defence and Defence Forces Annual Report in order to facilitate ongoing review.


In the event that the recommendation to abolish gratuities for members
being unacceptable, the Steering Committee considers that a Reserve of 2,600 – 2,700 personnel would be viable within existing resources and that a Reserve organisation of this strength should be predominantly barrack based.

--
At end 2011 the regulatory defined effective strength of the Reserve was 4,554 personnel. This represents 47% of its numerical establishment level of 9,692 personnel

In 2011, the number of personnel that met training requirements for payment of a gratuity was 2,010. This represents 44.1% of the regulatory defined “effective strength” or 20.7% of the establishment.

Maoltuile

So, Cadre being slashed and the remainder being put on a tighter leash, locations being drastically trimmed, everyone becomes a sub-unit of a PDF unit, and 1,000 fortnights & 3,000 weeks (i.e. a 38% increase in training days allocation). And hopes that RDF will work for nothing in tasks supporting the PDF.

What did I miss?

galwaycyclist

In todays Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1121/1224326896087.html

galwaycyclist

So we are to have a situation where all attendance at training is to be paid. This limits access to training to availability of man days and would seem to place an upper limit on the number of training "events" an individual can avail of.

At the same time as voluntary training is being dispensed with, we are expected to volunteer time to assist the PDF.

Why do I feel this has not been thought fully through?

Muppet Man

RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/shatter-to-cut-reserve-army-funding-by-50.html

Morpheus

Where did it say that Voluntary training (week nights) was to be abolished? I didnt read that in it.

galwaycyclist

Morpheus wrote: »

Where did it say that Voluntary training (week nights) was to be abolished? I didnt read that in it.

See the news reports

The system of training reserves will also be changed from the existing combination of some paid training days mixed with unpaid days with a gratuity payment - to a system of fully paid training days.

The weeknight training will likely go the way of the local RDF hall

Morpheus

an unpaid training day is a day on the range or a field day.

training nights as far as im aware will continue, they are the staple of the training. you CANNOT train someone up if you only meet 2 weeks out of the whole year. theres a TON of prep work that requires the weekly meetings to continue.

IMO that is a misinterpretation - nevertheless it remains to be seen.

the tragedy out of all of this is that they looked at all of these other countries Reserves, saw that they were ACTUALLY using them, then decided that instead of OUR approach being wrong, that everyone else was wrong. COP out.

bluecode

A few things spring to mind. They rejected the option of disbandment but somehow I think this is the ultimate effect of this. They've capped the numbers at 4000, in practical terms if the figures follow the current pattern of effective strength being around 20%. Then were are looking at less than a 1000 personnel who are fully engaged with the training. That may be on the low side but unless there are changes in the training and courses available there is no reason to suppose members will be any more engaged than they are now.

Then there's the issue of cutting the PDF cadre while handing more responsibility for training and administration to PDF units. Now we all know that the PDF in general are not really interested in the RDF. I do think it's a little optimistic to think that reducing the numbers of PDF directly linked to RDF training will somehow help improve the situation. It's quite likely the local PDF unit will do only the minimum required.

The aid to the civil power idea is all very fine and laudable. It won't happen for much the same reason, it's never happened before. Not least the logistical difficulties in getting boots on the ground. Then there's the question of training and availability. Telling an employer already struggling with missing staff because of the weather that you're off to shovel snow will not go down well. There will be no mandatory mobilisation.

I suspect the this idea was thrown in partly to add to the justification for keeping the RDF. The reality is that there is little in the report which tells us why it's needed at all. There is mention of the use of reserves in other countries but fails to elaborate on how this could be copied other than to say they have 'well developed support structures'.

Note this paragraph:

Given the considerations above, the Steering Committee recommends the retention of the Reserve, subject to it becoming more cost effective. The Steering Committee recommends that Reservists should be utilised, when required, in a voluntary unpaid capacity as outlined above.

The italics are mine. Anyone here think that will happen?
It would need a whole change of mindset. It's not disbandment but it's close.

galwaycyclist

bluecode wrote: »

Then there's the issue of cutting the PDF cadre while handing more responsibility for training and administration to PDF units. Now we all know that the PDF in general are not really interested in the RDF. I do think it's a little optimistic to think that reducing the numbers of PDF directly linked to RDF training will somehow help improve the situation. It's quite likely the local PDF unit will do only the minimum required.

This integrated unit model was tried before and, going by the FCA men I knew, the net result was that the FCA ended up being treated as barracks dogsbodies. This integrated model may work for some of the Corps such as the Artillery but for the Infantry I am deeply skeptical.

galwaycyclist

Morpheus wrote: »

an unpaid training day is a day on the range or a field day.

training nights as far as im aware will continue, they are the staple of the training. you CANNOT train someone up if you only meet 2 weeks out of the whole year. theres a TON of prep work that requires the weekly meetings to continue.

IMO that is a misinterpretation - nevertheless it remains to be seen.

Sorry Morpheus but I am afraid that I getting an impression of a Dublinocentric universe here. Rural units are much more reliant on field days at weekends rather than night parades to get the same level of training in.

One reason, among others, is access to weapons which are centralised in the main garrisons.

Unless of course they all start keeping their rifles at home - which used to be how it was done in the old days.

neilled

galwaycyclist wrote: »

.

Unless of course they all start keeping their rifles at home - which used to be how it was done in the old days.

That will not happen.

bluecode

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This integrated unit model was tried before and, going by the FCA men I knew, the net result was that the FCA ended up being treated as barracks dogsbodies. This integrated model may work for some of the Corps such as the Artillery but for the Infantry I am deeply skeptical.

Yes and 'armed' roles are specifically excluded so no cash escorts for one thing. Which rather defeats the idea of soldiering. I wonder does that include guard duties? But as that would be unpaid there won't exactly be an enthusiastic take up for that particular job.

bluecode

neilled wrote: »

That will not happen.

That's obvious, it's not as if they are still using .303s. The 'new IRA' would soon be fully equipped with assault rifles not to mention the local drug dealers.:eek:

Fear

The full 111 page report is available here:

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Sub+Document+ID/106441151B85CE4880257ABC0059DDC9?

However the Departmert of defence press release has it all in plain english:

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/9717E770E30193F480257ABC005F07A6?OpenDocument



Notice that some counties will now have no Defence Forces presense, namely, Co. Monaghan, Co. Leitrim, Co. Longford, Co. Laois, Co. Carlow & South Tipperary. Seems the lads in Clonmel took a bit of a kicking there, they lost their barracks in March and now this.

testicle

Fear wrote: »

Notice that some counties will now have no Defence Forces presense, namely, Co. Monaghan, Co. Leitrim, Co. Longford, Co. Laois, Co. Carlow & South Tipperary. Seems the lads in Clonmel took a bit of a kicking there, they lost their barracks in March and now this.

Is there a threat of insurgents from any of those?

Turbine

And for anyone looking to join the RDF, this should be of particular interest:

A geographic spread for the Reserve will be achieved between existing Permanent Defence Force locations and the retention of 16 external locations. The locations of the new Reserve Units are set out on the attached map. This consolidation into an effective organisation will entail the amalgamation and closure of Units throughout the country. Recruitment is also envisaged where this is necessary to achieve the numbers required in particular locations.

Overall it looks like a good outcome for the RDF, and if fully implemented should mean more opportunities for reservists.

Manic Moran

I read the lot.

Some of it really is a no-brainer. The cost savings of consolidation to reduce the Cadre numbers and payroll are large and obvious. Dropping the gratuity seems to make sense as well, as long as the money gets put into more paid training.

That said, I am amused / a bit insulted by the thinking that RDF personnel will conduct reliably PDF duties out of the goodness of their hearts for no pay (Barracks duties etc). I think they have drawn the wrong conclusions from the Civil Defence and Garda Reserve experience: There is immediate reward/satisfaction from making a decided and obvious difference as a result of your efforts, either by collaring crooks or rescuing people. The idea of calling out RDF unpaid volunteers for natural disaster etc is reasonable for the same reason CivDef works. But people donating a 24-hour orderly period just to save the government the money that it should be paying to whoever does the duty seems to be a little optomistic.

I am disappointed that there was nothing stated in favour of employment protection legislation. It's as if the VFM review considers the topic poison, they were just looking for excuses not to do it. It doesn't cost the government money, what on Earth are they afraid of? Their logic to support it doesn't hold water either. For example, they theorised that since a number of troops were able to make 14 or 21 manday years, there was no need for the employment protection. There are two flaws with this. Firstly, the troops were only able to make the mandays that they could happen to match up with what the employer would let them have, not necessarily what was most beneficial to the Army or themselves. Secondly, there were also a number of troops who were not able to make the required amount of days, meaning that collective training suffers, and the troops in question are decidedly undertrained.

The comparisons with other nations seems to have been a waste of space. I didn't see the chapter ask (1) Were the other nations actually satisfied with what was going on there, and (2) what lessons are actually applicable to the Irish situation.

I definitely have mixed opinions on the VFM.

Manic Moran

galwaycyclist wrote: »

See the news reports



The weeknight training will likely go the way of the local RDF hall

I didn't see that in the full report either.

Maoltuile

Manic Moran wrote: »

It doesn't cost the government money, what on Earth are they afraid of?

It's a crony capitalist paradise, what did you expect?

Turbine

Members of the TA in the UK didn't get employers protection till after the Iraq War started. So it would probably take something like the reserves being deployed overseas to force the government to legislate for it here. Not that that'll ever happen.

bluecode

On the point of employment protection that is needed. In the end it was what drove me out of the FCA. I was offered a place on an NCO course but my employer asked if it was compulsory. When the answer was no, he refused me leave. I knew I couldn't continue as a private and if I couldn't become a Corporal there was little point. Ironically afterwards he was replaced by a former Commandant of the Air Corps, himself a member of the first line reserve. He would certainly have facilitated me. But that's the problem. It requires employer good will. Many of the true stalwarts of my company had public service jobs. There was always greater flexibility there.

Even situations like being called out for civil emergencies would require compulsion because employers are simply going to say no. I agree with MM in relation to barrack duties. Who is going to volunteer to spend the day painting things or some other fatigue duty. Armed duties are excluded. Do that also include guard duty? That isn't clear. There is no incentive to volunteer.

The more I look at it, the more I see how poorly thought out it is. There is nothing to suggest there be improvements in training and equipment. Arguably because of the attachment to PDF units that might promote greater access but realistically we know the PDF have little enthusiasm for all things reservist. It's hard to see reservists exercising alongside their regular counterparts. Indeed you can easily see the RDF component being used for the dogsbody stuff, thus freeing up the regulars. The sandbag jibe is all too close to the truth.

Milk & Honey

Fear wrote: »

The full 111 page report is available here:

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Sub+Document+ID/106441151B85CE4880257ABC0059DDC9?

However the Departmert of defence press release has it all in plain english:

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/9717E770E30193F480257ABC005F07A6?OpenDocument



Notice that some counties will now have no Defence Forces presense, namely, Co. Monaghan, Co. Leitrim, Co. Longford, Co. Laois, Co. Carlow & South Tipperary. Seems the lads in Clonmel took a bit of a kicking there, they lost their barracks in March and now this.

What is happening to the Air Corps. Why is it not shown in the maps.

Manic Moran

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What is happening to the Air Corps. Why is it not shown in the maps.

There is no notable air reserve component. No point in mentioning it