Interesting articles

Alkers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122177224#Comment_122177224

1 in 20 is not the failure rate, it's the pass rate. 19 in 20 is the failure rate.

When you consider that only a subset of the general population is interested in the roles, it seems very high to me and absolutely should be studied.

If for example fitness is a major hurdle, more effort could be put into offering introductory training programmes. Similarly if specific medical issues are ruling out a high percentage, that could be considered. Hypothetical of course but it's a personnel crisis so they should know what's causing the issues.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122176590#Comment_122176590

There has to be some limit on how many can be accepted, so candidates who meet the standards don't get in because other candidates did better at aptitude test or interview or whatever.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122177224#Comment_122177224

How many failed the aptitude test, a test that has no relevance whatsoever to military life, but was used purely to reduce the number of applicants going on tot he next stage in the process.

1 in 20 is a ridiculous failure rate, when you consider how many will then fail to complete basic training. Its not like all the country's school leavers are lining up to apply to join (as was the case in the past). We can't afford to exclude someone just because they can't tell the difference between their, they're and there, and don't know about percentages and pie charts..

roadmaster

The Navy dumped the test and numbers went up straight away. The other two branches should do the same otherwise its a fantasy to think they will get numbers up to level

vswr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122177224#Comment_122177224

The point I was getting at is they are un-necessarily high. People can fail Irish tests, but pass UK and French Foreign legion ones no problem,which are forces with far more opportunity and better pay opportunities, it not a case of let anyone in as sandbags.

Know of two who went to other national forces due to being rejected from the Irish process.

Supposedly easier medical and tests to get into the likes of the Fire Brigade and Gardai, which in Ireland, you could argue you could be in more harms way, than in the defence forces.

roadmaster

@Larbre34 was that you on newstalk??

https://www.newstalk.com/news/national-service-in-ireland-could-be-a-real-benefit-for-young-1729053

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191196#Comment_122191196

Nothing worse than having someone in the military who doesn't want to be there. The days of the NCO beasting you around the camp field because you smiled, sneered or moved when you weren't supposed to are gone with the Green Pound.

The Defence forces needs motivated volunteers, not school leavers passing the time.

the_syco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175174#Comment_122175174

I'd wonder how many of those 8,000 applicants are Irish/EEA/refugees with no criminal record?

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191481#Comment_122191481

You could have just said, "I wonder how many of those 8000 applicants were not eligible"

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191196#Comment_122191196

No.

But it is interesting that a conversation has started that some said was impossible just a few months ago.

Yes, it is being prompted by political circumstances in other Countries (and in the case of the Tories it is absolute desperation to appeal to their old base), but it goes to show that the reality in Europe has shifted.

As I keep saying, when all other possibilities to staff an enlarged military, Europe-wide, have been exhausted, whatever remains, will be the solution.

Its far less likely in Ireland, but no longer impossible.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193590#Comment_122193590

go have a look at the article on the Thinpinstripe on the resources needed for the Tory “plan”, even if you reduced it to only 10% (3k), you would still need a huge increase in resources to the DF, for a policy that is going to be massively unpopular, and extremely limited value. Such resources actually invested in the DF would make vastly more sense.

Also given the general reaction to this Tory insanity, take a guess as to which Irish party would volunteer to commit political suicide.

kenny80

https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-defense-freeloader-ukraine-work-royal-air-force/

This looks very bad

jonnybigwallet

All very true. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here though

https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=Eoin+Drea+site%3Airishtimes.com&kp=1

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122197183#Comment_122197183

it’s not like it is a surprise to literally anyone with even a passing awareness of European defence matters.

kenny80

No its not indeed, nice to see it been shoved in there faces tho

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122198866#Comment_122198866

It could be plastered on every house in Ireland, it won't make a bit of difference.

vswr

iReLaNd Is NeUtRaL

the_syco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122197183#Comment_122197183

The only politicians that care are the ones which will have a public tantrum should anyone attempt at giving the Defence Forces 2% of the GDP.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122199448#Comment_122199448

You could change it to 2% in the morning, say nothing, nobody would notice.

Apart from the crusty far left and the idiot far right, who would be prompted by their masters in Moscow to cause a fuss.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122199448#Comment_122199448

2% of Irish GDP would be over €11 Billion.

For comparable countries; Denmark spends 8 billion, Portugal 4 Billion, and Austria 4 billion or so also.

Thats the sort of ballpark we need to be in, and even at that, it will take years to build up the capacity to spend that sort of budget effectively. I've said it many times before, Ireland's DF issues are not financial, they are structural and managerial.

But 11 Billion in 2024 terms? Not a snowballs.

Grassy Knoll

issue is at this point the absorption capability does not exist with the erosion in man power over the past decade or so. Defence is hi tech now, we need to catch up, but the skills and boots are not there. Maybe the €11 bn means we could get in contractors instead for the whole job ….

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122199918#Comment_122199918

Technical point of course that neither Portugal or Austria are spending the 2% either, with Portugal circa 1.4%, and Austria just 1%, if they were hitting the 2% both would be at or about the danish level. And given NATO is now pushing for 2.5, both Denmark and Portugal would be moving closer to that 11 billion figure if they were to attempt to meet it.

Markcheese

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122200200#Comment_122200200

Whats the metric ireland use, ? Adjusted gnp ? Anyway we: re no where near 2 % of that either ,

tippilot

It would take years to be able to spend 4 billion?

Such is the equipment deficit, you could spend €4 billion in the morning and not make a big impact on current capability gaps.

The issue we have now is spend, or lack of it. Behind the scenes structural changes are great for box ticking and producing glossy documents that shout about your "achievements". The fact is there are no active equipment programs out to tender. They are advancing nothing in terms of glaring capability gaps. Without a minister, the Dept are operating in an oversight vacuum. Sec Gens who need notes to know the size of the helicopter fleet. Looking for pats on the back for handing back unspent budget.

Heads should be rolling at this point.

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122200473#Comment_122200473

I believe the Metric they use is what is the bare min we have to do divided by 5

jonnybigwallet

I agree. I could spend 4 billion by lunchtime today. Say 1 to 1.5 billion on 18 decent jet aircraft plus training spares and ammo. Another 1 billion on 2 fairly basic corvettes. And what do you reckon it would cost for a half a dozen self propelled 155mm artillery pieces? There's most of the money gone!

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122200533#Comment_122200533

It's as if I wrote this myself. The embarrassing element of the I assume final White Paper progress report was that even some of the commitments to equipment replacement programs promised in 2015, have not yet gone to tender, and nobody seems to be able to explain why.

Meanwhile DoD office staff swan off to Seville for a Tour of the factory building the C295. Would love to know how much that cost.

You can be sure they didn't take the learjet.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122201056#Comment_122201056

So in the DF, today, where would you....

a) get the people to form permanent project teams for such grand acquisitions?

b) get the naval architects, aeronautical engineers and staff officers to work on the ground with the builders, all of which would be overseas

c) get the spare officers, NCOs and technicians to go away to train on the acquistions, to bring back the knowledge to begin conversion for the personnel at home?

d) get the personnel at home to undertake that training and man the assets?

You're probably talking 2,000 people just to on-board the capital you have mentioned above.

Do you see know what people mean about capacity?

Dohvolle

Its a chicken and egg situation in some regards.

People don't join the Air Corps to watch contractors fix aircraft that have a 40% availability. You could order the planes and helis to do the interesting stuff in the morning, and hope that that will draw in more recruits to maintain and operate, but PAC etc will ask after the money is spent "why did you order these aircraft when you have nobody to maintain or operate them?

People don't join the Navy to spend all year doing fishery protection. You could order the Frigates etc tomorrow, get them built, to an off the shelf design with minimal input from the Irish NS. Then PAC and the naysayers will ask "who will sail these fine ships home?"

You need to combine an aggressive recruiting campaign with the ambitious plans. "Join now so you get to work with these future exciting projects".

The current recruiting drive has the whiff of desperation. The modern school leaver is much smarter than those of my generation, who joined when Eithne was the next big project at sea, and Dauphin Naval Helicopters and 24hr SAR were the big projects in the Air. These people started leaving when the ambitions failed to materialise. The modern school leaver will know the ambition is too far fetched. They hear the Media tell about the continued haemorrhaging of skilled staff from the defence forces. Do they want to join to fill the gaps, or instead decide they don't want to be the last one standing, in 5 years time, when their classmates are graduating from college, expecting to earn a wage that it may take them 10 years to reach?

The main problem though is the absolute absence of urgency from those in control of the finances.