ADF recruitment crisis.

[Stryker001]

The GAP year was designed so the Government and senior military can look at the numbers and not want to hang themselves, even if it is only for one year periods. Australia wants a smaller highly specialized military not an Army of conscripts that would poorly equipped and less capable force.

While the Defence Department under Brendan Nelson acknowledged the benefits of national military service, it is considered to be prohibitively expensive.

So if the resources were available they would consider national service, inline with strategic circumstances. Over the life of operations in Afghanistan and probably in another location linked to the war on terror, some regional deployment’s will have to rely on a scheme similar to the ready reserves, reserves for low intensity peacekeeping.

The important thing is the retainment of a certain number of the current crop of war fighters, which adds backbone to the army.

The Army has trained over 1 million people since 1980, so the turnover rate is inline with recruitment.

 

[old faithful]

McTaff....another option is to scarp that micky mouse bandaid called GAP, and address the real issues. Maybe re-introduce DFRDB...I have a mate working with me, he gets his Military pension, + his salary,takes him close to if not over the 100K per year mark....

 

[Stryker001]

The by-product of an enhanced level of recruitment is that there is always a 900,000 to 1million plus people who have undertaken basic training still of fighting age, the meat to fill out the skeleton that is the Australian Army.

Then there are people who have served in other nations defence forces and are now Australian citizens of fighting age. (a minority)

Combine those numbers with the age of a national service scheme.

Add the technology that the ADF have and it is a most formidable force and a sustainable force, due to the numbers of available bodies.

There needs to be an increase with recruitment due to the obligations the ADF face now and into the future. The general structure and numbers of the ADF inline with their mission commitments and the Defence of Australia (invasion) are sound.

Changing demographics in the future have to be taken into account less people undertaking basic training; globalisation will lead to more dual citizenship holders, holders of another nation’s citizenship by birth also.

Legislation that enforces a freeze on passports and travel of dual or by birth citizenship of 'service age' in the event of war would need to be introduced. Therefore, they cannot shirk their responsibilities to Australia.

Plus there is another 2.8 million some coming out of the numbers Government would prescribe in those calculations.

So on the surface recruiting has some problems, in the bigger picture it has no effect, however it has implications on future abilities.


If I was the enemy I would not like to come to Australia.

 

[Waylander]

You are aware if the fact that one needs "some" stocks to make conscripts usefull?

There is no point in being able to call thousands of reserve forces (aka former conscripts) in time of war when you still just have the equipment for your 50.000 regular guys.

And the modern equipment pruchased mostly off the shelf also prevents a fast weapons program in country.

 

[McTaff]

GAP year isn't bad, it gets some people through the door who wouldn't sign up for the normal 4 - 5 years.

However the earlier comment of the pension? Absolutely it was a mistake to phase it out. It was the only time-based reward that was tangible to the people in Defence. It should be bought back - pronto. Many folk have cited that the loss of the pension was one of the deciding factors of leaving the forces, mainly because they felt there was no further reason to stay.

There are 'surveys' spread out amongst the defence force, but unfortunately they never ask the right questions. They come close but never ask the hot button questions that are the real issues.

Recruiting needs to go back to the forces, more 'rest' postings need to be created, some civilian contracts need to be moved back to defence personnel, and some schemes (such as the pension) need to be bought back.

Simply having inactive reserves is a poor substitute for a well trainined and fully equipped fighting force with good morale.

 

[Tasman]

GAP year isn't bad, it gets some people through the door who wouldn't sign up for the normal 4 - 5 years.

However the earlier comment of the pension? Absolutely it was a mistake to phase it out. It was the only time-based reward that was tangible to the people in Defence. It should be bought back - pronto. Many folk have cited that the loss of the pension was one of the deciding factors of leaving the forces, mainly because they felt there was no further reason to stay.

There are 'surveys' spread out amongst the defence force, but unfortunately they never ask the right questions. They come close but never ask the hot button questions that are the real issues.

Recruiting needs to go back to the forces, more 'rest' postings need to be created, some civilian contracts need to be moved back to defence personnel, and some schemes (such as the pension) need to be bought back.

Simply having inactive reserves is a poor substitute for a well trainined and fully equipped fighting force with good morale.

I still don't think GAP provides a worthwhile return if there is not at least some ongoing service in the active reserve.

However, I agree totally with the rest of your comments, especially what you have said about getting recruiting back to the forces and reinstating the pension scheme.

Tas

 

[McTaff]

I still don't think GAP provides a worthwhile return if there is not at least some ongoing service in the active reserve.

However, I agree totally with the rest of your comments, especially what you have said about getting recruiting back to the forces and reinstating the pension scheme.

Tas

It's a tough one. GAP in itself is a great way of getting new recruits in who would otherwise be skeptical (worried about ongoing service if they don't like the first year). But the fact that a whole lot is spent on training someone for 6 months and then having them leave 6 months after they get a posting is somewhat wasteful, because they are still learning the ropes for at least half of that time.

There are other schemes which are grossly under advertised, such as the undergraduate scheme. I trained with a few lawyers and various other officer types who were only going to do the bare minimum service length once they got out of uni and into the service; the main reason they joined up was purely because they had their degrees paid for.

The undergraduate scheme should have a longer Return Of Service Obligation for starters. Unfortunately, the recruiting power-that-be seems to think this is the best way to get trained officers, basically a 'short-cut' to screening and training themselves.

What the government should seriously think about is opening up a large number of apprentice positions for civilian-transferable skills (such as mechanics for heavy and light vehicles, basic aircraft, re-starting up having actual trained fitters/turners, machinists in Marine Technician rates postings, etc) and actually paying for apprentices to learn their trade with civilian companies for the first two years while they have Reserve obligations, and then they can join up and complete their apprenticeships within the defence force (if possible) and be enlisted full time.

The beauty is, they can be enlisted as whatever their apprenticeship is if there is a type available in the defence force, otherwise (if they are something like a carpenter) they can be trained as infantry or bosuns mates, or any related field for the remainder of their time. If, say, there is no direct job in defence, I am sure that something can be worked out.

I was surprised at the number of people in enlisted jobs that are on-the-job trained with very few qualifications. It would be more feasable to actually get them an apprenticeship in at least the closest thing to what they actually do so they can have something to build on, and this does have the effect of increasing the ROSO as you are training them for longer in the first place. Apprentices might take three or four years to train in Civvie land, but with all the other service-related stuff it could be at perhaps six or seven years(?) to train within Defence force (which means you have your enlisted personnel for a total of fifteen years if that is accurate) However, you are giving them something to build on and work at in the long term. Although this isn't applicable to all jobs, it'd be a sizeable chunk of those that are there.

I guess the structure of the Defence force is partly to blame for the high turnover rate. Actually having someone build on something other than just "rank" while they are under the Defence employ is a much better option than trying to entice them with bizarre lump sum payments (which is what seems to happen in fits and starts).

 

[enghave]

I took six whole years from first phone call to commision. Don't let it worry you, it's getting faster and faster...

It took me 4 months, I commission (Seaman Officer) on 29 Jan 08.

Thanks for your postings McTaff, in this thread especially.

 

[old faithful]

back to the GAP...if i was still a seco in the RAR, then my GAP soldiers would occupy "Arse end Arnold" and other such positions in the section. Long term soldiers deserve the better possies scout,gunner,etc....no point in investing time in training a soldier whos getting out in 6 months...IET training is just the start, you learn your trade as a grunt, on ex or ops, and 6 months in a Bn, is just a start. most IET,s let their gaurd down after training, thinking that its all over after the march out parade....but in reality, its just about to start!

 

[icelord]

I'd agree with you there OF, i'd love to see how a Kapooka Seco deals with GAP, hell Chokos might be considered royalty from now on...HA!

 

[Stryker001]

Why would many people bother to join when you’re Government seeks the return of a terrorist, lets him quash his conviction and then make millions for his treachery.

A kick up the bum from the motherland…

 

[old faithful]

No argument from me stryker....however, if the shoe was on the other foot, like private security company,s , does the govt have the same obligation to "help" those....mercenaries?...just a question, not an opinion. if you wanna fight a war, being a part of a recognisied military formation, that is run by a government is really the only way to go IMO, if you wanna be a merc, then you take that gamble, regardless of which side you fight for, or what the gain is, prestige or cash. Join YOUR COUNTRIES FORCES IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR!

 

[battlensign]

What about if....

Your country's forces (through no fault of their own) are crap, have no funding and are unlikely to 'go to war'? .............NZ?

Brett.

mod edit:

Sorry? Who are you addressing this to?

I'm not sure they deserve the disrespect though.

AD

 

[old faithful]

Your country's forces (through no fault of their own) are crap, have no funding and are unlikely to 'go to war'? .............NZ?

Brett.

mod edit:

Sorry? Who are you addressing this to?

I'm not sure they deserve the disrespect though.

AD

Consider yourself lucky! if you were a kiwi hell bent on brassing up bad guys, make the effort and join, or attempt to join the NZSAS, I assure you, they are not CRAP! By all means be a merc, but dont DEMAND your Govt save you if you are captured by the bad guys. Its a risk that PSC take.

 

[battlensign]

Your country's forces (through no fault of their own) are crap, have no funding and are unlikely to 'go to war'? .............NZ?

Brett.

mod edit:

Sorry? Who are you addressing this to?

I'm not sure they deserve the disrespect though.

AD

Hmmm, Sorry AD, perhaps I ought to clarify this potentially somewhat 'throw-away' comment. My point was being made in relation to the hypothetical scenario previously posted by old faithful during which he stated: "Join YOUR COUNTRIES FORCES IF YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR!". Its a little out of context though, should have read with the above label: "But what about if......Your country's forces...etc"

In essence my point was that in some countries the prospect of actually being deployed to a confrontation rather than others forms of military service are limited. Sorry to pick on NZ, but there is a small military there (underfunded through no fault of their own) which is less likely to be deployed to the sorts of places mercenaries can go (Iraq?). At that stage, despite the vagueness of the ability of the to apply the rules and laws of war to a merc, there might be a legitimate expectation of State assistance in some circumstances.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But if you can't handle NZ's attitude, then its fairly easy to relocate to Australia join the ADF or join the NZDF and get put on loan to the ADF. There are options for other countries too.

McTaff suggestion about building on something more than rank is something that should be looked into. I was thinking about joining the reserves, but with the snail pace of rank movement (10 years to sargent?) even fulltime thats pretty glacial. That would be far too slow for me because I am very goal driven, as are I assume most people. I would be aiming for some sort of significant professional goal to be achieved every 12 months.

Which brings back the main point, what can the ADF offer me? Apparently not much. Not much useful training (ie transferable skills), not many new challenges, not much promotion, not many benifits, average pay. Infact the average pay is pretty much the only thing why I haven't discarded it. Because as average as it is, it would be a sizable increase on my $49,000 p.a I am currently earning (despite a B. Sci (phys) and a masters).

 

[icelord]

But if you can't handle NZ's attitude, then its fairly easy to relocate to Australia join the ADF or join the NZDF and get put on loan to the ADF. There are options for other countries too.

McTaff suggestion about building on something more than rank is something that should be looked into. I was thinking about joining the reserves, but with the snail pace of rank movement (10 years to sargent?) even fulltime thats pretty glacial. That would be far too slow for me because I am very goal driven, as are I assume most people. I would be aiming for some sort of significant professional goal to be achieved every 12 months.

Which brings back the main point, what can the ADF offer me? Apparently not much. Not much useful training (ie transferable skills), not many new challenges, not much promotion, not many benifits, average pay. Infact the average pay is pretty much the only thing why I haven't discarded it. Because as average as it is, it would be a sizable increase on my $49,000 p.a I am currently earning (despite a B. Sci (phys) and a masters).

Wow, thats brilliant, you must have taken a while to come to that conclusion
Lets set aside the fact how totally wrong you are for a minute. The ADF Trade is compatable in the civilian world, and any qualifications are recognised in the "real" world as any made in the read world are recognised by the ADF. A degree earned in the ADF also is paid for, and it does not always relate to your job, but if you were to quit it would be useful in the outside. Plus a qualitication from the ADF, as well as time served would look better to any employer then 3 years of apprenticship and a year of job work, the chances of the ADF being more disciplined and willing to show up on time are part of the Extras package.

Reserves is slower promotion wise, but theres a reason you don't get bumped up in a hurry. The jobs in the ADF require you to be put in charge of not just work, but at times peoples lives. If you freeze for any reason because "you don't know" then, You Die.(this is not across the board but you get the idea)
Professional goals vary,mines to be AB in 16mths, and within the next 3 year heading for OSB with a nice little Resume to go with it. First ones easy, the next one depends on my service records and how i perform in my job. I'm ambitious as all hell, and i want officer, and i know i gotta perform well for myself and my peers over the next 3-4 years to get it, otherwise i may as well do my ROSO and bugger off.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im not exactly new to management, I've been a foreman for about a year and have been responible for peoples lives. Maybe not in the same way as a CO, but people were using ramset guns, nail guns, heavy machinery, moving loads, confined spaces, elevated platforms, demolition, not to mention supervising 70+ personel on site and stop them from killing each other. I got to foreman from labourer within 12 months with no formal qualification. I know in private industry 5 years is ages. There would be (for someone pushing up) atleast 2 promotions in that time.

My masters was paid for by my current employer (DET). With hindsight I proberly should have done my undergrad through the ADF, but there is nothing to change that now. I didn't know about the ADF graduate program and I guess thats my fault.

If the ADF is so fantastic, how come its struggling to even retain current staff or recruit to replace leaving staff? How come as an outsider asking questions I still don't know what my immediate, intermediate and long terms goals would be. You will have to explain some of your acronyms, I don't follow you.

 

[old faithful]

stingray??/ where are you going with this...the ADF is not just a job....its a way of life...youMUST want to do it for reasons other than $$4 and personal gain, if you dont, then dont join...besides, you can have all quals under the sun, but it still may not get you in anyway. they are struggling with numbers because they (recruiting) still have to filter out those with other motives.

regarding the hicks can of worms....id be happy passing meals to him through a hole in a door for the next 20-40 years myself, but what if he saw him self as a mercenary? some here seem to regard mercs as legit military service...i had considered it in tha past myself....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hmm I do seem to be losing my point in my rants, to many beers I suspect..

Okay, as a person concidering the ADF there is a lack of information. It is assumed you will just be able to talk to someone and clear up all your issues, which I doubt because you don't know enough to as the right basic questions, but it is a start. It needs to better spelled out not just the duties of a particular job, but career path, options etc.

I know its not about money, but money is important these days, even people working for charities get paid (charities infact get lot of special benfits above and beyond the ADF). This ties in with career progression. Longer the commitment the higher the pay? The higher the training the higher the pay? Details on how this works would be useful. Its not always the total amount, but opportunities to improve it.