Where is the RDF going to end up?

Poccington · 05-02-2011 04:40PM

BuckJamesRogers wrote: »

Would we really? Surely we could have just stayed at home after clearing snow? I live about a mile from the town, I could have walked if need be. 90% of the active members of my unit are the same.

I agree with you on certain points though. We don't serve a purpose as it stands, but we could potentially if the bloody will was there. The RDF has some very good bods and some awful ones. Same with every org.

When the standy platoon's were in place, it was 24 hours in barracks. Lads weren't allowed go home.

Don't get me wrong, as a former member of the RDF I know there's good people in it but with the VFM Review going on and the state of the finances in the country, they're the kinda questions that are going to be asked. If proper answers can't be put forward apart from stuff like "Well, we did a bit at the Special Olympics" well then, the outcome may not be good.

Endymion · 05-02-2011 04:46PM

Poccington wrote: »

Snow fall? I didn't see a single member of the RDF being deployed during the recent snow, same goes for the flooding.

The Special Olympics really isn't a good enough excuse to keep what is essentially an organisation that is wandering around with no aim or use.

The flooding in Shannon, 2 years ago (?) saw them deployed. And I saw green berets out shovelling snow around Harolds cross. But Ok, I'll give you that, forget flooding, forget snow which may have been individual companies. It's very good of you to decide the special Olympics are of no use. I notice you avoided the comment about foot and mouth.

BuckJamesRogers · 05-02-2011 04:47PM

Poccington wrote: »

When the standy platoon's were in place, it was 24 hours in barracks. Lads weren't allowed go home.

Don't get me wrong, as a former member of the RDF I know there's good people in it but with the VFM Review going on and the state of the finances in the country, they're the kinda questions that are going to be asked. If proper answers can't be put forward apart from stuff like "Well, we did a bit at the Special Olympics" well then, the outcome may not be good.

Completely agree. But as a former member, surely you'd think that we can still offer something to the DF as a whole? Full integration (well, as much as possible) would be the best way forward IMO.

Tubsandtiles · 05-02-2011 05:08PM

Skyhawk1990 wrote: »

It's obvious from your posts here that you're anti-RDF even though you've spent the past "four great years" in it. Honestly if you have that much resentment against the organisation just leave. The RDF doesn't need people like you in its ranks! We need people that show up, pull their weight and are willing to do what they can!

What you can do now is stop trolling the thread and not post in it again and I'd ask others not to listen to you either cause you're not adding anything useful to the thread at all. By the way if you reply to this don't expect me to reply to you at all!

I'm not anti RDF, I'm anti towards it's purpose anymore. I'm not a troll and I do turn up too training nights

and pull my weight, I take it serious as I want the military as a career. I obviously posted valid points to why I think it should be disbanded. The fact that I said I wish it would continue but should be disbanded for the best in a previous post shows I'm not anti RDF, please don't presume I am a troll just because I hold a strong opinion on something and "don't expect me to reply to this" as I am a narrow minded teenager

.

Poccington · 05-02-2011 05:19PM

Endymion wrote: »

The flooding in Shannon, 2 years ago (?) saw them deployed. And I saw green berets out shovelling snow around Harolds cross. But Ok, I'll give you that, forget flooding, forget snow which may have been individual companies. It's very good of you to decide the special Olympics are of no use. I notice you avoided the comment about foot and mouth.

If they were out in Harolds Cross, they were out on their own backs because in all the briefs I recieved during the snow I never once heard of the RDF being deployed.

Well in all seriousness, the Special Olympics is no use if you want to provide a reason to keep a military Reserve in place.

Actually didn't spot the foot and mouth part but ok, I'll give you that one. One example of the RDF actually being used, apart from being used as a transport service during the Special Olympics.

Now, once again, offer me a reason why the RDF should continue to exist in it's current form? Especially with such little Overseas happening, PDF Units are now back to having decent numbers.

If people want to do their civic duty, there's the Garda Reserve and Civil Defence, two volunteer organisations that actually do something.

Seriously, the RDF could cease to exist tomorrow and nobody in the DF would notice. In it's current form, it serves absolutely no purpose to the DF at all. So now, tell me why it should be kept in it's current form?

Poccington · 05-02-2011 05:21PM

BuckJamesRogers wrote: »

Completely agree. But as a former member, surely you'd think that we can still offer something to the DF as a whole? Full integration (well, as much as possible) would be the best way forward IMO.

In it's current form, I honestly think it doesn't offer anything to the DF.

How many people qualified for Grat last year? What was accomplished by the RDF in the last year?

It needs to be either disbanded or else a whole new re-org(Again) and hope that it actually works.

BuckJamesRogers · 05-02-2011 05:33PM

Poccington wrote: »

In it's current form, I honestly think it doesn't offer anything to the DF.

How many people qualified for Grat last year? What was accomplished by the RDF in the last year?

It needs to be either disbanded or else a whole new re-org(Again) and hope that it actually works.

But that's what I've been highlighting in my above posts mate.

goldie fish · 05-02-2011 07:00PM

The last reorg failed, due to the influence of ministers and TDs looking after the parish pump, and ignoring the bigger picture. This left us with a situation where many unit hq's are miles from the barracks where the parent unit is based, and further again from where the HQ coy is based. Infantry units that were unfortunate enough to be integrated with Corps units were treated as second class citizens, and no courses were made available to their SNCOs to upskill and fill a role.
And now I hear there are attempts to cull officer numbers too, mostly to protect empires.

OS119 · 05-02-2011 07:17PM

Endymion wrote: »

The flooding in Shannon, 2 years ago (?) saw them deployed. And I saw green berets out shovelling snow around Harolds cross. But Ok, I'll give you that, forget flooding, forget snow which may have been individual companies. It's very good of you to decide the special Olympics are of no use. I notice you avoided the comment about foot and mouth.

so far the only use of the RDF (and its only projected use) has been herding cows, filling sandbags, shovelling snow and showing tourists around Dublin.

can you give me three coherant reasons why an organisation who'se only use is manual labour and giving directions needs to be uniformed, why it needs rifles, and why it needs to be trained in Infantry tactics and the use of heavy weapons and artillery?

concussion · 05-02-2011 07:40PM

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Its costing the tax-payer and government too much money

concussion wrote: »

How much does the RDF cost per year?

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Too be honest I don't have a number or cost but I am sure there is one somewhere.

Jesus wept. How can you complain about the cost when you don't know what it is??

2009 figures show €6.75 million for all RDF pay, training, transport, rent of buildings and unit funds. That was when all Reservists were able to get 2 weeks paid training. Payments to cadre staff, who are members of the PDF and would be incorporated into their parent units if the RDF were disbanded, cost a further ~€22 million. Both the number of cadre and the allowances allowed to them have been cut since.

As a comparison, in 2007 the DF spent €31 million on barracks expenses, repairs and maintenance of lands.

OS119 · 05-02-2011 07:52PM

on the other hand €6 million a year spent on the PDF would buy quite a lot of overseas exercises, a issued desert uniform for overseas work and enough DMR's and Minimi's to double the firepower of an Irish Infantry section going, or preparing to go, overseas.

personally, i would find it difficult to say that some 2,000 reservists spread across the infantry, Artillery, cavalry, engineers, signals, medical and logistics units with variable training and no deployment capability is worth more than the above to the the military capability of the state.

concussion · 05-02-2011 08:33PM

Objectively, why do we need a 10000 strong military c/w artillery and anti tank weapons to provide security against Republican paramilitaries?? Give the RDF the opportunity to train up for overseas deployment and allow it to work with the PDF. The UK has reservists in a war zone, Australia has big reserve contributions in Timor, there is no reason that Ireland can't do the same and allow us to expand (current economic situation notwithstanding) our overseas commitments while maintaining the 10% cap on numbers.

OS119 · 05-02-2011 08:56PM

concussion wrote: »

Objectively, why do we need a 10000 strong military c/w artillery and anti tank weapons to provide security against Republican paramilitaries?? Give the RDF the opportunity to train up for overseas deployment and allow it to work with the PDF. The UK has reservists in a war zone, Australia has big reserve contributions in Timor, there is no reason that Ireland can't do the same and allow us to expand (current economic situation notwithstanding) our overseas commitments while maintaining the 10% cap on numbers.

there's no reason a reserve force couldn't - you could easily imagine a reserve force of 2,000 that supported a regular force of 6,000 and either acted as individual reinforcements for a deployment or where the reserve force feilded formed units that went on deployments in the same way as the USNG.

however getting, and keeping, reservists to a stage where they are willing and able to go overseas every 3 years is expensive, difficult and time consuming.

in the long term it would be cheaper to have 1 in 4 of your deployable forces as reservists, but in the short to medium term it would be cheaper and easier to just disband the reserve while having no impact on the military capability of the state. expensive and difficult, vs cheaper and easy: i'll give you three guesses, but you'll only need one....

concussion · 05-02-2011 09:21PM

The other option of course is to have a Reserve sufficiently trained to take a portion of the day to day security operations from the PDF. Combine this with an increase in the deployability from 10% to 15-20% of the Army and you get more PDF overseas along with a valid mission for the RDF. As the skill set in the Reserve increases over time you could then start to integrate RDF platoons within overseas Bn.'s.

OS119 · 05-02-2011 11:42PM

you certainly could do - and it the long term it would be cheaper to do so - however in the short term not only would you need to budget for the start-up costs of a new, effective reserve, you'd have to retain that part of the PDF you are looking to replace while the RDF works up to effectiveness.

a fundamental problem with such a restructuring is both the outgoing 'voluntary overseas' contracts, and the relatively high age profile within the Army - this means that there is quite a large section of the Army that either won't deploy, or are to old/unfit to do so effectively. this puts a big dent in the aim of getting 25% or so of the Army available for deployment at any one time, and would, unfortunately, require some significant political action to resolve.

Nuttzz · 06-02-2011 10:40PM

the reserve are a load of sh1t and cant be trusted to do anything, the funkers can bearly turn up for training never mind important stuff like duties...

heard it before? since 1990 i've heard it plenty of times from the pdf, and to be honest they are not wrong, but lets be honest who is really responsible for the reserve?

Go far enough up the chain of command can you will see the black hats there.

Each OC RDF bde is a career pdf officer, if he has taken a sideline move to take a promotion to lt col before he retires and leaves at a higher pension point then that is a fundamental problem with the pdf, assignment to a reserve command appointment shouldbnt be a retirement village for pdf officers and SNCO's who wouldnt cut it in regular units.

the reserve is an example of how badly the pdf can run things when they want, senior officers let the SNCO cadres off with murder because they are only putting in the time with the reserve unit until the retire or feck off else where.

I know lots of lads who have left the reserve for the pdf and tell me the pdf training is much harder...no ****, what access does a reservist have to the 4 months of recruit training you did or the 6 month PNCO course.

The willing volunteers of the reserve are looked at with disdain because they are willing to training as a reservist but not sign up as a regular. Heres my story when i wanted to sign up in 1990 I had to join a waiting list and by the time the pdf started to recruit I was too old, so am I not good enough to be a regular because im 5 months older than the limit?

All organisations take their lead from those who lead them, ultimately the pdf lead the rdf, if those in the pdf arent up to the job then the rdf failings lies at their doors...

Poccington · 06-02-2011 10:55PM

Nuttzz wrote: »

the reserve are a load of sh1t and cant be trusted to do anything, the funkers can bearly turn up for training never mind important stuff like duties...

heard it before? since 1990 i've heard it plenty of times from the pdf, and to be honest they are not wrong, but lets be honest who is really responsible for the reserve?

Go far enough up the chain of command can you will see the black hats there.

Each OC RDF bde is a career pdf officer, if he has taken a sideline move to take a promotion to lt col before he retires and leaves at a higher pension point then that is a fundamental problem with the pdf, assignment to a reserve command appointment shouldbnt be a retirement village for pdf officers and SNCO's who wouldnt cut it in regular units.

the reserve is an example of how badly the pdf can run things when they want, senior officers let the SNCO cadres off with murder because they are only putting in the time with the reserve unit until the retire or feck off else where.

I know lots of lads who have left the reserve for the pdf and tell me the pdf training is much harder...no ****, what access does a reservist have to the 4 months of recruit training you did or the 6 month PNCO course.

The willing volunteers of the reserve are looked at with disdain because they are willing to training as a reservist but not sign up as a regular. Heres my story when i wanted to sign up in 1990 I had to join a waiting list and by the time the pdf started to recruit I was too old, so am I not good enough to be a regular because im 5 months older than the limit?

All organisations take their lead from those who lead them, ultimately the pdf lead the rdf, if those in the pdf arent up to the job then the rdf failings lies at their doors...

What a load of bollocks. PDF Recruit Training is 6 months by the way.

Would you like the RDF Bde CO's to go around every platoon in the country to make sure the job is being done, standards are being enforced, people are trained properly? I mean by your post, why bother promoting or commissioning members of the RDF? We'll just fill each Platoon and Coy with PDF NCO's and Officers because according to you, the RDF can't look after itself.

All the problems within the RDF can't be placed at the PDF's doorstep. RDF members are responsible for their own personal standards, personal fitness or commitment to turn up to training. Empire protecting, resistance to Integration, complete lack of standards being enforced... That wasn't down to the PDF.

According to military.ie the establishment for the RDF is 9,292, somebody on here said only 2,000 members qualified for Grat.

Now tell me with a straight face, that the RDF in it's current form should be trusted by the PDF to perform any task, nevermind Overseas like some people on here are suggesting.

People can say "Oh it's the PDF's fault" all they want but sooner or later, they're gonna have to face up to the fact that the problems are a lot closer to home.

Tubsandtiles · 06-02-2011 11:09PM

Well this thread has really turned into a cat fight

, the good old argument trying to justify the RDF's existence anymore when in my opinion it should be finished and money invested into the PDF for recruitment and to increase it's number and size. It's better to to have one properly trained army than a army split into two. I also don't also get the argument that the PDF only need a certain number and have a limit on personnel, surely disbanding the RDF could allow the PDF's intake and capacity to go up

.

OS119 · 06-02-2011 11:58PM

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

Well this thread has really turned into a cat fight , the good old argument trying to justify the RDF's existence anymore when in my opinion it should be finished and money invested into the PDF for recruitment and to increase it's number and size. It's better to to have one properly trained army than a army split into two. I also don't also get the argument that the PDF only need a certain number and have a limit on personnel, surely disbanding the RDF could allow the PDF's intake and capacity to go up .

the PDF's establishment doesn't need to go up - 10,000 people is way more than enough to comfortably furnish a continuous overseas deployment of between 400 and 600, some CIT's, bomb disposal, ARW (counter-terrorism) and a training cadre.

what the PDF does need is regular, large scale (BG level) overseas exercises, a re-org of the ridiculous 9 fantasy battalion structure, a cull of the war-dodgers and wheezy fat boys with a note from matron, and some investment in section and Pn level weapons and battlefield mobility.

concussion · 06-02-2011 11:58PM

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

I also don't also get the argument that the PDF only need a certain number and have a limit on personnel, surely disbanding the RDF could allow the PDF's intake and capacity to go up .

I don't want to sound like I've a personal grudge against you, but once again, check your facts. The maximum allowed in the PDF is 10,500, down from 14,000 or so, and this was set in the height of the boom when there was big capital spending, lots of recruitment, a rake of peace enforcement missions and effectively as many mandays as Reservists wanted. For the next few years it will be held at 10,000 so recruitment will only serve to maintain this level.

OS119 - I don't suggest that the PDF be downsized as RDF theoretically take over security duties, I suggest that they free up deployable, fit PDF trooops to take on bigger/more overseas missions. Feasibly you could send a complete battalion as a unit rather than putting one together from a lead brigade.

I agree with a lot of what Nuttzz says, everything the RDF does is ultimately approved or denied by PDF. However Poccington is bang on, we need to pull our **** together, make a decision on our commitment, fitness and attitude and give the PDF reasons to use us, not excuses to ignore us.

OS119 · 07-02-2011 12:28AM

concussion wrote: »

...OS119 - I don't suggest that the PDF be downsized as RDF theoretically take over security duties, I suggest that they free up deployable, fit PDF trooops to take on bigger/more overseas missions. Feasibly you could send a complete battalion as a unit rather than putting one together from a lead brigade....

there's no reason - apart from cost, time and a difficulty that you couldn't.

most other western nations include their reserve forces in the day-to-day operations of their armed forces - and unless there's some genetic problem that i'm unaware of there's no reason Irish reservists couldn't do it as well.

the problem with your plan is that it costs more money than the current 'plan' - a well trained, well resourced reserve force that takes part in operations alongside a well trained, well resourced regular force is more expensive than a threadbare, half-arsed reserve force that doesn't take part in operations alongside its well trained, well resourced regular counterparts.

it may be better value, but it is more expensive.

in order to get the money to create a reserve you could - and would - actually use means taking the money from something else within the defence budget - and people are the easiest and quickest way of freeing up money.

concussion · 07-02-2011 12:52AM

If half the cadre were pensioned off or otherwise removed, with the remainder consolidated into offices that served several RDF sub-units, i.e. one central cadre per barracks you could free up nearly €10 million. This, along with the existing training allocation of ~€4 million could then be used to directly train the 3,000 or so effective Reservists without having to divert any extra money from the budget. Just a thought.

ruserious · 07-02-2011 01:20AM

The Naval Service Reserve does provide value for money seeing as the NSR gets to go on active patrols at sea

Tubsandtiles · 07-02-2011 01:32AM

concussion wrote: »

I don't want to sound like I've a personal grudge against you, but once again, check your facts. The maximum allowed in the PDF is 10,500, down from 14,000 or so, and this was set in the height of the boom when there was big capital spending, lots of recruitment, a rake of peace enforcement missions and effectively as many mandays as Reservists wanted. For the next few years it will be held at 10,000 so recruitment will only serve to maintain this level.

OS119 - I don't suggest that the PDF be downsized as RDF theoretically take over security duties, I suggest that they free up deployable, fit PDF trooops to take on bigger/more overseas missions. Feasibly you could send a complete battalion as a unit rather than putting one together from a lead brigade.

I agree with a lot of what Nuttzz says, everything the RDF does is ultimately approved or denied by PDF. However Poccington is bang on, we need to pull our **** together, make a decision on our commitment, fitness and attitude and give the PDF reasons to use us, not excuses to ignore us.

Don't worry about it, you're entitled to your own opinion, it was only an idea I had, using the money that is used in the reserve to better the PDF

.

DieHardMaggot · 07-02-2011 03:29AM

Poccington wrote: »

Duties such as what? I've seen the numbers that parade for the RDF in my barracks, if they can't get people to turn up on parade nights well then quite frankly, I wouldn't trust them to turn up for and perform duties.

Anyway this is all pointless because the RDF are gonna be out my back garden digging OP's. Along with their Officers and the cushy pensions they get.... Or something.

I agree, the attendance in some places is disgraceful. I know I'm just a lowly recruit of nearly 8 months.
But in my time I've noticed there's maybe 5/6 people on our roster alone who I STILL haven't seen.
I mean, I attend every night I can, which is about 90% of parades.
If they got rid of all the people who simply did not show up only for camps/duties etc The cost of the RDF and the number of it's members would drop drastically!

If the force could be wittled down to just the dedicated members than the cost of upskilling and upgrading current equipment would not nearly be as much.

It pisses me off that people just attend when it suits them.:mad:

Alkers · 07-02-2011 02:57PM

DieHardMaggot wrote: »

If the force could be wittled down to just the dedicated members than the cost of upskilling and upgrading current equipment would not nearly be as much.

How? Having names on the books does not actually cost the unit anything.

OS119 · 07-02-2011 03:31PM

Simona1986 wrote: »

How? Having names on the books does not actually cost the unit anything.

actually it does.

everyone who doesn't turn up still has to be administrated, they are still provided for - a rifle, clothing, PLCE, PTD's, ammunition allowance, training, NCO's, officers, training areas, ranges, transport etc... if you provide the above for a 120 man coy, and it only has an effective of 30 men, it costs the same as if it had 120. the money is some cases may not be spent by the unit, but its been allocated to the unit and can't be spent by someone else.

you then have the opportunity cost - a non-attending/non-effective member takes up a place in the unit that cannot then be allocated to someone else.

there is then a further cost - the image of the RDF is damaged by the impression amongst those it might otherwise recruit that it is threadbare, half-arsed and populated - where it is populated - by wasters. whether that is true or not is irrelevent, the kind of people you really want in a reserve force are those who are focused, determined, and able to take responisibilty for themselves - they want to do something different in their spare time, they want to do it well, and they want to give back to their society.

i would suggest that, given the perception of the RDF in the publics mind, a lot of the people you really want in the RDF, and who, were they in the UK or US would join the TA or USNG, decide that the RDF is not for them because they percieve it as lacklustre and amateurish. they join Mountain Rescue Teams or the RNLI instead...

Nuttzz · 07-02-2011 04:21PM

Poccington wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. PDF Recruit Training is 6 months by the way.

Would you like the RDF Bde CO's to go around every platoon in the country to make sure the job is being done, standards are being enforced, people are trained properly? I mean by your post, why bother promoting or commissioning members of the RDF? We'll just fill each Platoon and Coy with PDF NCO's and Officers because according to you, the RDF can't look after itself.

All the problems within the RDF can't be placed at the PDF's doorstep. RDF members are responsible for their own personal standards, personal fitness or commitment to turn up to training. Empire protecting, resistance to Integration, complete lack of standards being enforced... That wasn't down to the PDF.

According to military.ie the establishment for the RDF is 9,292, somebody on here said only 2,000 members qualified for Grat.

Now tell me with a straight face, that the RDF in it's current form should be trusted by the PDF to perform any task, nevermind Overseas like some people on here are suggesting.

People can say "Oh it's the PDF's fault" all they want but sooner or later, they're gonna have to face up to the fact that the problems are a lot closer to home.

We take our cue from our leaders, the ethos they give is what we follow. If they really dont give a funk then how does that trickle down through the organisation?

Are members of the RDF to blame, of course they are, but I dont know how the members of the PDF can wash their hands of all involvement in the reserve and the way it is? Not a chance.

Would I like the RDF bde CO's inspect the troops? why not?

How about he arrives unannounced and at random at various training sessions, weekends and camps to see what is happening, much better than the choreographed bullsh1t that goes on at present.

The idea that the OC could walk in at any stage would sharpen everyone up for a start.

Personally I dont see the need for reservists to serve overseas unless it was in a very specialised capacity that the PDF found hard to fill. There is no need for your run of the mill RDF infantry man to be even considering overseas duty.

That said I dont really see a place for the RDF infantry bn's at all. If only 2000 qualified for grat last year then the RDF is better off to be an organisation with 1000-2000 specialist roles that really supplement that the PDF need.

A lot of this thread has been what the RDF want, overseas etc, really shouldnt the question be, What do the PDF want (if anything) from a reserve

Alkers · 07-02-2011 04:50PM

OS119 wrote: »

actually it does.

everyone who doesn't turn up still has to be administrated, they are still provided for - a rifle, clothing, PLCE, PTD's, ammunition allowance, training, NCO's, officers, training areas, ranges, transport etc... if you provide the above for a 120 man coy, and it only has an effective of 30 men, it costs the same as if it had 120. the money is some cases may not be spent by the unit, but its been allocated to the unit and can't be spent by someone else.

you then have the opportunity cost - a non-attending/non-effective member takes up a place in the unit that cannot then be allocated to someone else.

Well I've been a member for 5 years and the amount of rifles, pistols etc has never changed and the numbers on the books have changed significantly in that time so I don't accept that point. Clothing is issued on a person by person basis, when a new member joins they get issued kit, members who are already signed up and on the books do not get new kit issued so it doesn't cost them for clothing either. Also, any courses/training etc... are allocated to the people who are actively parading and will not be given to members who are on the books but have not been attending so there's no wasted costs there either.
If the problem you've highlighted regarding opportunity cost were to arise, the non-parading members would be contacted, informed that if they don't start parading they will be taken off the books and their place offered to a new member.

OS119 · 07-02-2011 05:11PM

Simona1986 wrote: »

Well I've been a member for 5 years and the amount of rifles, pistols etc has never changed and the numbers on the books have changed significantly in that time so I don't accept that point. Clothing is issued on a person by person basis, when a new member joins they get issued kit, members who are already signed up and on the books do not get new kit issued so it doesn't cost them for clothing either. Also, any courses/training etc... are allocated to the people who are actively parading and will not be given to members who are on the books but have not been attending so there's no wasted costs there either.

you obviously don't know how an army works.

it orders 10,000 - or whatever - rifles. it employs x number of armourers to maintain them. it buys y quantity of ammunition per year and pays for z number of spare parts and upgrades. it spends that money whether anyone turns up, uses that rifle/clothing/training course/transport/training area/range or not.

Where is the RDF going to end up?

Comments