If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Interesting articles



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    May 25 2025.

    Hopefully by then the new DFHQ structure will be approved, and the first CHOD will be appointed.

    Meanwhile, by my calculations, All current Maj Generals in the DF will have reached retirement age (they are all 1981 cadet class), and both 1st Brigade and the Naval service will have new OF-6. 2 Brigade got a new GOC a few weeks ago, and it unlikely GOC AC will leave the Corps just as its about to become a force. So apart from the current A/COS expect all the general staff to be fresh faces.

    Interesting time to be a Lt Col or Col in the Defence forces.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    Looking at the GOC 2 Brigiade and his list of

    credentials he may be in the right place and seniority at the right time to become the 1st CHOD

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    He only became a 1-Star 8 weeks ago. At best he'll be in the contest to head the Land Component in the Re-org.

    Is the ACoS due to retire next year? He seems younger than Class of '81

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭sparky42

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    Seniority is no longer a factor in senior appointments. You just need to be established as Brig Gen or higher to apply for any of the top 3 positions. The Previous DFCOS was OF5 just long enough to become flag officer, and famously, previous CoS Dermot Earley went from Lt Col to Brig gen in record time, so he would be eligible to apply for CoS when the incumbent retired. Promoted to Col in 2001, Brig gen in 2003, and Maj Gen the year after. He was promoted to Lt Gen in April 2007. (sadly his term was cut short by illness).

    Unfortunately though, when the Army was downsized in 2012, it also greatly reduced the pool of potential candidates for promotion.

    There used always be at least 2 Lt Cols overseas at any one time, with another large pool at home sharing appointments between unit commanders and brigade admin posts. Then there was a colonel over each of the Corps, Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Signals, Ordnance, MP, Medics, Engineers, and S&T with another over the Military college.

    Now we have less corps, but twice as many colonels than we need. All those jobless Lt Cols had to go somewhere!

    We have 37 Colonels in the Army, and 109 Lt Cols. For an army of About 6000, thats one Col per 160 troops, one Lt Col for every 55 troops.

    By comparison, the Naval Service has 1 colonel equivalent for every 379 sailors and One Lt Col for every 58 while the Air Corps has 1 Col Equivalent for every 358 airmen, and 1 Lt Col equivalent for every 51.

    Why does the army need so many Colonels????? Using the same maths as the Navy and Air Corps, we only need 16 Colonels in the Army.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    Dail told by some gobshite from the bog who thinks the army are only useful for stopping the floods.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    Transfer some Army Colonels to the Air Corps and navy to do Admin tasks.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    Let's just pour some water on this cooking oil fire here. What's the worst that can happen…..

  • Registered Users Posts: 299 ✭✭Grassy Knoll

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭sparky42

    I agree, but lets not pretend that they are just lone voices spouting that Rubbish, both there and in the general public. I have no doubt the old "EU ARMY" shite will continue to be rolled out, aided by the fact that FG/FF have spent 100 years not talking about defence matters and letting this type of shite be pushed over and over.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    Its true, they have made themselves a hostage to fortune. The current government only have their parties' predecessors to blame for the hard task this all becomes now.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    When you look back at it, the only party who actively contributed to the expansion and modernisation of the defence forces was, ironically, Sinn Fein.

    If it wasn't for their armed wing's activities on the Border and in NI in the late 60s and early 70s, as well as their all too frequent raids on Irish banks and Post Offices in the 80s, we'd still have a tiny peacetime Defence Forces with obsolete ships, aircraft and vehicles.

    If you look at the history of the Post Emergency Defence forces, all the major modernisation and equipment purchases came about as a result of a weakness being publicly identified, often following a loss of life.

    The First FPV order was placed not long after the Navy was left badly exposed by the Loss of an Aer Lingus aircraft off Tuskar rock, when the Crumbliing corvettes arrived just in time to meet the Royal Navy who were first on scene, even though the Irish Naval Hq was only an hours sail away.

    Helicopters only arrived after public outcry following the Heavy Snows of winter 1962.

    24 hr SAR only happened because an injured Irish fisherman died while waiting for the UK based SAR heli to lift him off his trawler on the NW coast.

    and so on.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    We are quiet the Nation when you look at it. On the upside the examiner this morning is saying naval number are levelling off

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    Like a submarine levelling off 2 feet above crush depth, with the pumps at 110% capacity.

  • Registered Users Posts: 299 ✭✭Grassy Knoll

    Lovely image there !! Question is do our hero’s make it back to the surface …

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭sparky42

    While it’s still effectively the soundbites of a dying government, interesting lines from Shapps on Sky News this morning talking about European NATO members not reaching the NATO figure and then there’s this bit:

    “That’s why this government is committed to [spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030] and I want to see other European countries do the same.”

    He added: “We set a Nato minimum of 2% 10 years ago to be met this year. We’ve now raised that to 2.5%, but meantime only two-thirds of Nato countries have got to the 2%.

    “What about those countries who enjoy the umbrella of European security but aren’t even part of Nato, who aren’t even contributing?”

    Phillips told him: “I don’t want to put you off, but you’re sounding slightly Trumpish here.”

    Shapps said: “I think everyone should play their part and pay their part, that is certainly true, because in the end if you’re in a country that does not spend on your own defence but enjoy the overall umbrella of a security apparatus then you enjoy the benefits but you’re not paying in.

    “In this more dangerous world, I think everybody does need to pay.”

    Its hard not to think he might be referring to us…

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    I don't care for Shapps, but I wouldn't characterise that as a Trumpian remark for the sake of it. I think its fair comment.

    Ireland needs to begin being very clear about its defence policy, vis-a-vis our neighbours and partners.

    No change to military non-alignment / entry to NATO without consent of the people

    Yes to increased cooperation on areas of mutual concern (cyber, undersea, trafficking etc)

    Yes to vastly increased investment in order to surveil and protect our own back yard and to contribute to the regional intelligence picture

    Yes to a target percentage of GNI* on Defence, but not of GDP, which is skewed in Ireland's case. 2% of GDP would mean a Defence budget of €11.5 Billion!

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭Markcheese

    To be clear , the only reason UK provides and security to ireland is because its in the UKs interest,

    If that interest were to change

    For most of the 20th century we were broke , with little resources , and on the far northwest of europe , its only the in ast 30 odd years that we have much worth protecting ,

    These days its data and cables -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭sparky42

    to be fair, if we had been willing to fund a basic level of defence we could have been in a better position throughout the 20th century. However I think at this point it might be far more the issue that the U.K. is no longer in the position to cover our lack of interest in defence.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    We probably should have installed that primary radar before those waves of Israeli F-15EX I's arrive off our south coast!

    A glib comment, yes, but quite seriously; would we be foolish to assume that the Mossad now won't start f**king with us, just because they can? If they haven't already.....

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave

    I'd be a little more concerned with our troops on the Israeli / Lebabon border. Neutrality & all that.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    Its ok Simon and Mickey got there soundbites this morning they dont have to worry about stray shells and missiles that may hit irish posts and convoys when they are in the Dail

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    I wouldn't be so much concerned for the Troops themselves, as for some sort of diplomatic retaliation, perhaps a complaint from Israel to the UN about Ireland's involvement in UNIFIL, given its new political position etc etc.

    Though at the same time I'm sure potential consequences of that were considered in the mix by the Government prior to this morning's announcement, and they went ahead anyway. Which is fair enough IMHO.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

    Never stopped either side having a go off Irish UNIFIL troops in the last 40 or so years. Hezb tell locals that UNIFIL=Israel. Israeli's get fired on from Hezb positions near UN posts, don't care if UNIFIL get hit in the crossfire.

    Lebanon is not Palestine.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    The below taken from the times today

    She asked how many of the 8,000 applicants to the Defence Forces in 2023 had been recruited, and Ms McCrum confirmed later in the meeting that it was 415. Some 755 personnel left in the same period.

    What happened over 7500 that applied but didnt make it to training? Have they done an excercise to see what causes this?

  • Registered Users Posts: 34,443 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato

    Do you think anyone who applies for a job is suitable for that job?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭roadmaster

    Of course not but the numbers applying and the not progressing are very high. I wonder is the Aptitude tests causing the issue.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭Dohvolle

  • Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭vswr

    For some reason entry requirements tests and medicals have always been to really high standards. That's why you have so many Irish in the British Army who have failed at some point in the PDF process. It's been a similar story for decades.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    There should be absolutely no lowering of standards in a race to the bottom.

    Speed up the process, speed up the testing and medicals etc, and then pay people properly and give them limitless opportunities.

    For a job that requires emotional maturity, good judgement, mental toughness, good communication, excellent physical health, excellent eyesight and hearing, and proficiency in a number of physically demanding skills; 1 in 20 does not sound to me like a particularly high failure rate.