# Base closures?



## Edward Campbell

Here, in an article reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is one of my favourite topics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/tough-choices-for-defence-spending/article1771105/


> Tough choices for defence spending
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK AND JEREMY TOROBIN
> Ottawa—
> 
> Published Monday, Oct. 25, 2010
> 
> Across the country, the 23 Canadian Forces bases and a host of stations, posts, and support units are what connect men and women in uniform to the society they defend. For small towns and rural areas, they are a key driver of the local economy; for regions, part of the community. And for politicians, they're a way of life they're wary of messing with.
> 
> Some former military figures argue the Canadian Forces could get by with as few as a dozen bases. But can Stephen Harper's  minority government, always facing a nearby election, risk the politics of closing bases such as CFB Borden in Simcoe County, Ont., where former Tory Helena Guergis is running as an independent?
> 
> The conundrum is that if Canada's military doesn't cut bases, it will have to trim people, or training, or planes, or ships. All the plans, including expanding the forces and purchasing a shopping list of equipment - fighter jets, navy ships, maritime-surveillance planes and more - can't be paid for with the money now set aside. Operating costs - personnel, training, maintenance, buildings, and bases - will eat away money to replace equipment.
> 
> "It's a sure-fire route to obsolescence, irrelevance, and rust-out," says retired Navy Commodore Eric Lerhe, now an analyst critical of the Forces' overhead costs.
> 
> After deep cuts in the 1990s when equipment aged and the forces were downsized, Canadians have seen defence spending increase substantially - up 40 per cent since 2004. But hard long-term choices still have to be made. The Forces will have to cut infrastructure and administration. Even so, buying the fighters the air force  wants now might mean passing on ships the navy needs later.
> Deficit pressures and a slow economy loom. Those who call for vastly increased spending are unlikely to be satisfied. Barring a major public shift, the political reality is we're unlikely to spend much more. Mr. Harper's pro-military Conservatives trimmed spending-increase plans in their 2010 budget.
> 
> In 2008, the Conservative government set out its Canada First Defence Strategy with a plan to replace and add fleets of planes and ships and expand the Forces' numbers, with rising defence spending that would total $490-billion over 20 years. But the 2010 budget confirmed not only that the extra sums allocated for deployment to Afghanistan will end in 2011, it cut back base-spending increases by seemingly minor annual amounts that will add up over time. Under current projections, there will be $44-billion less than under the 2008 defence strategy - a shortfall greater than the entire sum of $35-billion the government set aside to replace and upgrade the major fleets of ships, planes and vehicles.
> 
> Even with the bigger sums planned in the defence strategy, analysts worried the 12 per cent of funding set aside for all capital spending on equipment was far from the 20 to 25 per cent typically required to update. Now, Canada's military faces the task of cutting operating costs to buy equipment, when half of defence costs are for personnel, and the Forces' numbers are supposed to grow.
> 
> "The larger you grow the Canadian Forces, the less equipment they're able to buy, and they already can barely buy the equipment they need," says University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagassé.
> 
> The Canadian Forces have appointed a chief of transformation, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, to trim about $1-billion from overhead and operating costs in the $19-billion base budget and devote it to things that fly, sail, roll, or shoot. But the shortfall means that over time, more than $2-billion a year would have to be trimmed from the plans to pay for all the equipment.
> 
> The military will have to become leaner. The 69,000 men and women in the uniforms of the regular force include only 46,000 in its main fighting forces - 22,000 in the army, 14,000 in the air force, 9,000 in the navy, and about 1,000 in the special forces. About 10,000 are in basic training. Another 12,000 are at headquarters, in national commands, recruitment, personnel, information and medical staff, and the defence department also has 28,000 civilian employees.
> 
> Gen. Leslie's task includes rationalizing HQ staffs to move uniforms to the deployable forces, but the main fighting forces feasibly can't get smaller.
> 
> The defence strategy sets out $140-billion over 20 years for maintenance, spare parts and training - 29 per cent of spending but it's a small increase over the existing sums, so deep cuts will show in an area that the government insists is key to the military's ability to deploy to any operation.
> 
> That's why bases, cut in the 1990s, could face the scissors again. The Canada First Defence Strategy calls for infrastructure spending on its bases, stations and 21,000 buildings to total $40-billion over 20 years, 8 per cent of the budget. Mr. Lerhe cites studies showing Australia and the Netherlands field more advanced capabilities with smaller budgets partly because they have much less infrastructure.
> 
> The argument that Canada's big geography requires a scattering of bases doesn't mean Ontario needs six, plus stations and support units, he says. The Air Force's 14,000 people don't need 11 bases, and search-and-rescue planes can fly from civilian hangars.
> 
> CFB Borden, a century-old facility credited as the air force's birthplace, now hosts a recruiting centre and training schools, but not operating units. Such sprawling bases are expensive to maintain, and could have functions cut, outsourced or merged into other bases, says Gary Garnett, a retired Navy vice-admiral who was heavily involved in the Defence Department's 1990s cost-cutting.
> 
> Already, the Forces are "shaving the ice cube," trimming program budgets by 5 or 10 per cent, reducing training and maintenance to buy equipment. Each procurement project gets a haircut: there's now to be two navy supply ships, not three, for $2.6-billion; the plan to buy six to eight Arctic Patrol Ships will be six, with smaller guns, and still might not meet the $3.1-billion budget.
> 
> Accounting rules make it alluring to believe it will all fit over time. On the books, equipment such as planes and ships are paid for over their lifespan, so the government will be tempted to delay big purchases to allow more to fit in the 20-year spending plan. But that means more of their costs will weigh on the books afterward. And the crunch is long-term.
> 
> The Canada First Defence Strategy calls for buying major equipment fleets that will cost $75-billion to $80-billion over their full life-spans of 30 or 40 years, but many analysts believe the price will exceed $100-billion. F35 fighters alone will likely cost $25-billion over their 40 years; without a set total and no bidding competition, it's not known if another fighter would be substantially cheaper. The navy needs to replace its three destroyers within a decade, and in 20 years will replace the core of its fleet, 12 frigates - at an estimated total cost of more than $40-billion for all 15 ships.
> 
> Some choices have been made, because of Afghanistan, or justified by it. Right or wrong, they constitute a decision to fund the army and an expeditionary force: four big C-17 strategic lift planes; smaller Hercules transports; Chinook helicopters; army vehicles and tanks. Some domestic musts will have to come soon, such as maritime-surveillance and search-and-rescue planes. Tough decisions loom.
> 
> Will the navy's Arctic Patrol vessels be cut for smaller Coast Guard boats? Can the army skip armoured close-combat vehicles for troops fighting alongside tanks? Can Canada afford F35 stealth fighters, with advantages for evading air defences abroad, or should it choose another fighter if it can guard Canadian airspace for billions less - and if it means preserving the navy's capacity to sail a task force around the world?
> 
> Elsewhere, budget pressures are forcing countries such as Germany and Britain to slash military spending. But Canada doesn't have a big army to cut, has made choices to fund an expeditionary force, and has domestic needs to meet - and will have to decide what else gets top dollar.




My choice for bases to be retained:

•	Esquimalt;
•	Comox – expanded, if we can;
•	Wainwright – much expanded;
•	Lloydminster *NEW!* – replaces Edmonton & Winnipeg & Moose Jaw;
•	Cold Lake – expanded;
•	Kingston – retained, mainly, for historic reasons, but reduced to, essentially, on the Royal Military College and the Joint Staff College and a (revived) National Defence College;
•	Ottawa – expanded, somewhat;
•	Petawawa;
•	Valcartier;
•	Québec City – also retained for historic reasons, which do matter, mostly for the Citadel;
•	Bagotville;
•	Gagetown; and
•	Halifax – expanded replace Greenwood.

That means that the following bases, at least, are closed – but DND will retain some facilities there:

•	Edmonton;
•	Moose Jaw;
•	Winnipeg;
•	Borden; 
•	Trenton; and
•	Montreal.

There is still a need for some _stations_ and for units in many cities and towns.

I would centralize _most_ Army Training in an expanded Gagetown and I would make Cold Lake the ‘home’ of the Air Force including for Air Force schools like aerospace and communications-electronic.

Fire at will!  :flame:


Edit: typo


----------



## krustyrl

I'd say good luck with your choice of Trenton with the "hockey-sock" of $$$ pumped into that place and continuing to do so.....


 :2c:


----------



## Occam

How about we close Ottawa and keep Trenton?   ;D

Seriously though...Trenton is in a state of growth, with even more on the horizon.  Would it make sense to close it?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Occam said:
			
		

> How about we close Ottawa and keep Trenton?   ;D
> 
> Seriously though...Trenton is in a state of growth, with even more on the horizon.  Would it make sense to close it?



No.  So count on it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Occam said:
			
		

> How about we close Ottawa and keep Trenton?   ;D




Sounds good to me. Several years ago a chum snuck a proposal into a very senior staff briefing to move NDHQ to Saskatoon (near the centre of the country, etc). I liked it; the boss didn't. 



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Seriously though...Trenton is in a state of growth, with even more on the horizon.  Would it make sense to close it?




Many years ago a very senior air transporter told me that Trenton was a poor choice for our major air transport base. Edmonton was, he reckoned, much better for a whole host of reasons.

Plus, of course, there has to be _something_ controversial, no?


----------



## aesop081

Lets see here........



> Esquimalt;



Not much choice there.



> •	Comox – expanded, if we can;



Not much room for expansion in Comox and retaining it is almost a non-issue.



> •	Wainwright – much expanded;



I can see it



> •	Lloydminster *NEW!* – replaces Edmonton & Winnipeg & Moose Jaw;



I dont see what there is to gain by this, specialy for the air force.



> •	Cold Lake – expanded;



Expanded to do what ?



> •	Kingston – retained, mainly, for historic reasons, but reduced to, essentially, on the Royal Military College and the Joint Staff College and a (revived) National Defence College;



Sure.



> •	Ottawa – expanded, somewhat;



I would rather see consolidation rather than expansion here



> •	Petawawa;
> •	Valcartier;
> •	Québec City – also retained for historic reasons, which do matter, mostly for the Citadel;



I'm following ya for these...




> •	Bagotville;



Why ? For political reasons ? Hardly any operational reasons there.......



> •	Gagetown; and



Obvious choice but why not move all that stuff to your expanded Wainwright ?



> •	Halifax – expanded replace Greenwood.



I am a big fan of this one. Nuke the base in Greenwood while we're at it. Move all the flying units to the Halifax Airport.





> That means that the following bases, at least, are closed – but DND will retain some facilities there:





> •	Moose Jaw;



Why ? What is there to gain by doing that ?



> •	Winnipeg;



Why ?



> •	Trenton; and



That makes no sense at all.......




> I would make Cold Lake the ‘home’ of the Air Force including for Air Force schools like aerospace and communications-electronic.



Hardly a suitable location. If you are just looking for a spot to move the HQs and schools located in Winnipeg, CFB Trenton is much better choice.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Lloydminster *NEW!* – replaces Edmonton & Winnipeg & Moose Jaw;


Why?  Why move a brigade from one location without much of a built-in training area to another location without much of a built-in training area?  Why invest in a new base for mashing together an army field formation and an Air Force stratigic HQ?  

What of Shilo, Suffield, Aldershot and Meaford? 

Should decisions on keeping, closing and/or opening be done looking at maps, or by considering which existing formations or functions would be better served by consolidating?  The collection of Ontario based Army & CFSTG schools in Borden & Kingston & maybe also Meaford would probably benefit from being co-located on a single mega-training base with centralized PAT admin & services  ... but only if the training area had enough realestate to meet all the demand from training activities.

Does RMC really need a satellite in Quebec, or could it be on a single base?  If one location is achievable for RMC, then does the recruit school need a location all by itself?

There is not much room left in Gagetown to try squeezing more of CTC's schools but ...
Would 1 CMBG benefit from consolidation (in Edm, wainwright or wherever)?  Could Shilo become a new training mega-base to consolidate all the Army & CFSTG schools from Ontario (less the parachute school) with the recruit school in a location with a decent sized training area, existing infrastructure, lower property values, and (therefore) lower PILT?

...  I haven't really thought any of this through.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> ...  I haven't really thought any of this through.




Neither have I.  :nod:  But I am convinced that some base closures are a very good idea. Which ones is more difficult.


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My choice for bases to be retained:
> 
> •	Kingston – retained, mainly, for historic reasons, but reduced to, essentially, on the Royal Military College and the Joint Staff College and a (revived) National Defence College;



Where are you going to put CFJSR, CFSCE, 21 EW Regt, NCIU, MSU, 1 CanDivHQ, LFDTS, PSTC?

You've just moved over 5,000 people with no idea where to put them. Not to mention the infrastructure cost involved in rebuilding a technology school and 2 Signal Regiments.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Why?  Why move a brigade from one location without much of a built-in  *with absolutely no *  training area to another location without much of a built-in training area?
> 
> What of Shilo, Suffield, Aldershot and Meaford?



I would offer instead of Lloydminster, once Edmonton is closed, move 1 CMBG to either Shilo (expanded base proper) or some other "new" training area, away from Wainwright.  Although Wainwright is often held up to be the better of training area over Gagetown, it is terrible for live-fire training.  The CMTC is still there, along with LFWA TC.  1 CMBG doesn't need to try to compete.  Shilo offers a Leo 2-suitable training area.  Need more land?  Buy it.
Suffield: leave the Brits there.
Aldershot and Meaford have two ATCs: I would retain them.

I won't comment on the air force choices offered up, because I haven't a clue what they do.

As for Ottawa, I would move the base, NDHQ, lock stock and stinking barrel (outside of the supreme executive who often need facetime with ministers, etc) to the old Uplands site, or Dwyer Hill, or some other place, all in one spot, complete with ALL facilities that CFBs offer, from churches to gyms to MFRC (as much as I loathe that organisation) and so forth.


----------



## McG

Moncton can close.  Everything in Moncton can move to Gagetown.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where are you going to put CFJSR, CFSCE, 21 EW Regt, NCIU, MSU, 1 CanDivHQ, LFDTS, PSTC?


PSTC & CFSCE can move to Gagetown, Borden or a new training Mega-base.


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> PSTC & CFSCE can move to Gagetown, Borden or a new training Mega-base.



I can see PSTC moving fairly easily. But moving CFSCE out of the C&E Branch Home Station will cause A. a riot, B. huge infrastructure costs to replace all of the buildings and technical classrooms.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

So two analysts respond to a reporter with some hand-waving about Holland and Australia and we are gnashing our teeth over base closures?  We're a big regional country that will have inefficiencies.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But moving CFSCE out of the C&E Branch Home Station will cause A. a riot,


Other branches have moved and managed to survive.  The C&E Branch is not that emotionally fragile that it would be the first to fail because of a relocation of its school or a _splitting_ of the home station.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> B. huge infrastructure costs to replace all of the buildings and technical classrooms.


Other technical schools have successfully moved.  CSFEME has a move planned in its future now (though, still staying in Borden but into an all new building)


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> So two analysts respond to a reporter with some hand-waving about Holland and Australia and we are gnashing our teeth over base closures?  We're a big regional country that will have inefficiencies.


Don't be a party pooper - a little bot of base closing could be fun  and there are some worthwile effeciencies to be had if we can get over the attachment to some peices of geography.  In any case, the same claim of being a big regional country might be said of Austrailia.

And, while there are effeciencies to be had from select base closures & geographic consolidations, these are not the pancea to financial constraints.  Elimination of superflous organizational structure (some HQs, staffs & other organizations) or divestiture of capability need also be considered in the equation.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for Ottawa, I would move the base, NDHQ, lock stock and stinking barrel (outside of the supreme executive who often need facetime with ministers, etc) to the old Uplands site, or Dwyer Hill, or some other place, ...


Like NORTEL?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Move 2CMBG to London.  Move NDHQ and the baggage train to Petawawa.  Move all of the crap in Trenton to Ottawa.  Move all the crap in Kingston to Trenton.  Take everything in North Bay and send it to Toronto, then promptly close it.  There!  Leading change bubble right justified forever!


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> Other technical schools have successfully moved.  CSFEME has a move planned in its future now (though, still staying in Borden but into an all new building)



I'll grant you the Branch point, however moving CFSCE isn't as simple as packing up a few triwalls full of kit. There's simulation labs, wired and accredited secure teaching facilities, crypto vaults, etc. I don't want to see the budget and the time estimate required to do all of that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'll grant you the Branch point, however moving CFSCE isn't as simple as packing up a few triwalls full of kit. There's simulation labs, wired and accredited secure teaching facilities, crypto vaults, etc. I don't want to see the budget and the time estimate required to do all of that.



Infrastructure can be moved. So can people. At the end of the day, if Ottawa says go, you will.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'll grant you the Branch point, however moving CFSCE isn't as simple as packing up a few triwalls full of kit. There's simulation labs, wired and accredited secure teaching facilities, crypto vaults, etc. I don't want to see the budget and the time estimate required to do all of that.



None of that is perticularly challenging to relocate.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Well to talk of closing any base is tragic and has huge personal consequences.  Just ask Summerside, Chatham , Chilliwack and Cornwallis. They were half way finished a brand new messhall in Summerside and poof!
So after reading this why so many Air force bases?
As for Borden, it has no real bus service and no airline or airport. So many schools, but CFSAL could go anywhere.  it's big school.  
The cook/steward school is an abandoned messhall, plenty of those around.  Sell off parts of Borden as house prices are fair compared to Barrie and there are so many commuters from Toronto in Angus or Lisle.   
We have Greenwood but there is Shearwater an hour or two away
in Halifax.  Gander, Goose Bay ????????
Cold lake and a couple hrs away Edmonton.  North Bay and Bagotville sitting up there.
We need to consolidate.  
We are in the electronic age and do we really need so many people in Ottawa.  Uplands, Rockcliffe and NDHQ.  Leave some offices in Ottawa and move the rest someplace cheaper, or a base with room.  Trenton has an airport.
The staff college in Toronto could be moved and sell off the land.  Set it up in Meaford or Gagetown.   
One thing we have to look at is save jobs for the Forces and don't move towards venues like the Coast Guard. 




Some of the bases have pelnty of room to grow as many buildings are torn down. 
One


----------



## aesop081

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> We have Greenwood but there is Shearwater an hour or two away
> in Halifax.



Did you ever ask yourself why, or did you just look at a map and said "2 bases not far from eachother...thats not needed" ?


----------



## McG

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> We are in the electronic age and do we really need so many people in Ottawa.  Uplands, Rockcliffe and NDHQ.  Leave some offices in Ottawa and move the rest someplace cheaper, or a base with room.


So long as Ottawa & Gatineau are the national reference for PLD, there is probably not going to be a cheaper place to put that many people.  And, despite being in the electronic age, the cold reality is that people don't talk effectively when we move them appart.  I've seen communication fail between directorates in different buildings in the NCR just because people weren't talking enough to know what each of the other was doing.



			
				mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> We need to consolidate.


I agree, but think you may be taking the idea to the wrong extreme of consolidation for the sake of consolidation.


----------



## ArmyRick

I can not speak about air force and navy, I simply lack the knowledge. Here is what I think the Army can consolidate down to.
-1 CMBG (Edmonton less 2VP and 1RCHA)
-2 CMBG (Petawawa less 2RCR)
-5 CMBG and SQFT TC (Valcatraz less 1 x bn of Van doos, not sure which)
-CTC and LFAA TC (Gagetown) + Aldershot Detachment
-CMTC and LFWA TC (Wainwright)
-2VP and 1RCHA, LFWA TC DET (Shilo)
-LFCA TC (Meaford) Keep this one open because its cheap compared to most bases and has an extremely high volume of troops trained (REG and PRES)

That leaves us with 7 locations for the LFC, I would say that is more than reasonable. Borden and Kingston? To me they are tri-service bases. 

Thoughts? Rotten tomatoes pitched at me?


----------



## ArmyRick

How about closing St Jean? Seriously, that to me is not a very practical location for recruit training.

Solution, move recruit training to Area Training Centers and keep a National Recruit Training HQ in Borden (if its kept, which in my mind it should be).


----------



## George Wallace

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Well to talk of closing any base is tragic and has huge personal consequences.  Just ask Summerside, Chatham , Chilliwack and Cornwallis. They were half way finished a brand new messhall in Summerside and poof!
> So after reading this why so many Air force bases?
> As for Borden, it has no real bus service and no airline or airport. So many schools, but CFSAL could go anywhere.  it's big school.
> The cook/steward school is an abandoned messhall, plenty of those around.  Sell off parts of Borden as house prices are fair compared to Barrie and there are so many commuters from Toronto in Angus or Lisle.
> We have Greenwood but there is Shearwater an hour or two away
> in Halifax.  Gander, Goose Bay ????????
> Cold lake and a couple hrs away Edmonton.  North Bay and Bagotville sitting up there.
> We need to consolidate.
> We are in the electronic age and do we really need so many people in Ottawa.  Uplands, Rockcliffe and NDHQ.  Leave some offices in Ottawa and move the rest someplace cheaper, or a base with room.  Trenton has an airport.
> The staff college in Toronto could be moved and sell off the land.  Set it up in Meaford or Gagetown.
> One thing we have to look at is save jobs for the Forces and don't move towards venues like the Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the bases have pelnty of room to grow as many buildings are torn down.
> One



You really just showed us that you don't know that much after all.

Neither of the Shearwater or Edmonton airstrips are of much use any more.  The Brigade has build mega buildings on the airstrip in Edmonton.  Shearwater's strip is suffering from outside development.  North Bay is fairly much history these days.  Rockcliffe has been history for years now.  Most of Uplands has been torn down.  I highly doubt that Meaford or Gagetown are suitable for a Staff College that hosts numerous foreign officers to a greater benefit and less expense than Toronto.  I really doubt you have any concept of what is involved in the employment and training of members of the CF.  You are coming off as a Pork Barrelling Politician.


----------



## George Wallace

Actually........Shouldn't this topic be renamed?   Instead of "Base closures?", it should really be "Pork Barrelling" as that is all it is.  What the CF really needs and what the politicians land up doing when it comes to the stationing of CF personnel are usually two completely opposing propositions.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually........Shouldn't this topic be renamed?   Instead of "Base closures?", it should really be "Pork Barrelling" as that is all it is.


Given that the majority of participants in this thread will be speaking from the perspective of what they think is best for the CF, I don't think that is an appropriate label to slap on this conversation.


----------



## Zoomie

Close Edmonton in its entirety - retain a GSU for local Militia units.

1 and 3 VP relocate to Wainwright.  Return the Leopard tank to the fields of Shilo, throw in gun tubes while we're at it.  Lots of cheap real-estate in the Brandon area, room to expand.

Shut down Portage, relocate school in its entirety to a newly developed airfield at Shilo with Brandon as an IFR destination.  Shutdown CH-146 school in Gagetown and merge it with the current program at 3CFFTS - Basic FE course to be run concurrently with Phase 3 Helo.


----------



## PuckChaser

recceguy said:
			
		

> Infrastructure can be moved. So can people. At the end of the day, if Ottawa says go, you will.



We're all in the Forces, I'm not debating whether I'm going to follow orders and move. I'm debating the actual cost savings and effort involved in morning 2 large and unique Signal units and 1 large school.


----------



## AmmoTech90

One problem with closing Borden would be where to put the CFAD.  Not only is that huge cost in money, it is a huge real estate bill.  Selling off the rest of Borden and keeping CFAD would simply result in the same problems as they have in Bedford with civilian development encroaching on their operations.

One thing about Trenton is that it is fairly close to Angus and Montreal where mission equipment is kept.  Montreal also has port facilities.


----------



## old medic

I'd leave Borden alone.  There are several ASU's and hollow remains of already closed bases that should be looked at 
before most of the ones being discussed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

ASU Calgary
ASU London
North Bay


----------



## mad dog 2020

Dear George
I may be 15 yrs behind the times. I have been posted to Cornwallis, Work Point, Borden, CFB Toronto and Lahr. I've been to Goose Bay, Wainwright, Chilliwack, Shilo, North Bay, Petawawa, Gagetown, Suffield and Shilo. I lived thru the decade of darkness and saw FRP (first hand). So I have a different perspective. 
So many aren't here anymore.  I ain't the sharpest pencil in the box but I dare to say there may be a better or cheaper way to do business. I still think we got more (sorry) chiefs than indiginous people.  
So over the years many empires have been built and to even crack the foundations would be a task.  Pork Barrelling yes as why is St Jean- St Jean. Poor location and resources. Cornwallis wasn't all that great.
I truly believe we should go back to the YETP days and had dozens of platoons trained right in Wainwright and the NCOs brough the new kids back to the bns.  
So No, I am not current and type in point form. I guess I stimulated debate and I thank you for your input and enlightment.  
Peace bro, and melllllow..


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're all in the Forces, I'm not debating whether I'm going to follow orders and move. I'm debating the actual cost savings and effort involved in morning 2 large and unique Signal units and 1 large school.



Large yes. Unique ~ not so much. CFJSR is another 1st line unit. Granted we are the largest 1st line unit in the entire of the Canadian Forces, but it's simply the commodity that differs and, that commodity's required clearance requirement can be found in other commodity holdings in units outside of sig units. Not special; just specialized. I've dealt with all kinds of kit & equipment requiring specialized handling & storage and security and it sure as heck is not the unique domain of the sigs world (sacrilege, I know, saying that --- especially given where I am currently serving, but true as heck).

While we are at it, the new Base Hospital under construction here in Kingston is coming along well ... and "here's your sign."  

Please, please, *please* ... re-locate me to a base with an actual and honest-to-goodness training area that can _actually_ accomodate us in a field-deployed fashion.


----------



## GAP

Years after 2 VP moved to Shilo, the base & bldgs in Wpg. are still sitting there while everyone argues over who should get it.....


----------



## DCRabbit

No matter what the military says it needs or should be done to make operations more cost effective.. all the politicians are gonna care about is local economic impact and voting trends. I'm willing to bet nothing's gonna be gone from Ontario or Quebec.. if anything, they're gonna become busier. Too many HOC commons seats in play there. Especially in Ontario.


----------



## DCRabbit

old medic said:
			
		

> I'd leave Borden alone.  There are several ASU's and hollow remains of already closed bases that should be looked at
> before most of the ones being discussed.



 Station a reg force unit at Borden. With the gutting of London, Toronto and OTtawa, the nation's capital and largest populated area have no defensive capability that I know of within quick deployment ability. PET is in the middle of nowhere. We do not have the capacity to defend this vast country.. but we do have some ability to defend our concentrated population centers.

 If something is to close in Ontario, it would make sense to me to close Meaford and move it's operations to Borden if space permits. Closing Borden means relocatiing schools and units which would require more infrastructure construction cost at other locations. Closing Meaford means making money from the encroaching condos and resorts.

 Note, tho.. my opinion is biased as Borden is my home. I'm also non-military so my knowledge is rather limited and this is my personal opinion only.


----------



## aesop081

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Station a reg force unit at Borden. With the gutting of London, Toronto and OTtawa, the nation's capital and largest populated area have no defensive capability that I know of within quick deployment ability. PET is in the middle of nowhere. We do not have the capacity to defend this vast country.. but we do have some ability to defend our concentrated population centers.



Defend them against what ? What exactly is the threat to Ottawa ? Is Ontario about to be invaded ?


----------



## DCRabbit

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Defend them against what ? What exactly is the threat to Ottawa ? Is Ontario about to be invaded ?



 Neither is the rest of the country. But if a domestic incident is gonna happen that requires any kind of force it's gonna happen where the population is... not in the boonies.


----------



## aesop081

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Neither is the rest of the country. But if a domestic incident is gonna happen that requires any kind of force it's gonna happen where the population is... not in the boonies.



Well, lets see........we responded to the Winnipeg floods well enough. We responded to the 98 ice storms too........Even managed to respond not too long ago to incidents in Newfoundland did we not ? Even managed to respond to fires in BC.....managed to be ready for major flooding in BC.........The Vancouver olympics....remember those ? Hell....lets talk about Oka......

Any kind of force.......wtf ??


----------



## ArmyRick

Close Meaford? Your right out of your depth my friend.
#1 Meaford is one the cheapest bases to run in the CF (Well technically a TC)
#2 It generates income from a large number of Police and Security agencies that PAY MONEY to use the facilities when its in slow peroid
#3 Borden is actually quite full and the templating in Borden is limited
#4 You can fire alot of cool weapons in Meaford given the unique way the impact area is laid out (the Hogs back road is closed regularly for larger weapon shoots). The templating is very flexible for such a small base
#5 What encroaching condos? Seriously the houses and condos on the meaford town Lakeshore have been there a long time. The town has seen very limited growth and you won't see much more
#6 Do you have any idea how many PRes units use Meaford? It would create a huge black hole for units in central Ontario to train. Borden is a very limited option
#7 The TC trains more DP1 Infantry (Reg F and Res) than any other TC in the country (I already looked up the info from LFDTS)
#8 OP SEC REASON can't state. Trust me its a damn good reason. Very damn good reason. Extremely damn good reason.
#9 What alternative would there be in this part of Ontario?

Don't look at the small size of the training area and think its nothing but a sleepy little unit. It is far more busier than you could imagine.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're all in the Forces, I'm not debating whether I'm going to follow orders and move. I'm debating the actual cost savings and effort involved in morning 2 large and unique Signal units and 1 large school.



Too easy. Get rid of JSR. Drop it down to a Sqn, and spread the remaining assets to the Bde Sqns


----------



## DCRabbit

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, lets see........we responded to the Winnipeg floods well enough. We responded to the 98 ice storms too........Even managed to respond not too long ago to incidents in Newfoundland did we not ? Even managed to respond to fires in BC.....managed to be ready for major flooding in BC.........The Vancouver olympics....remember those ? Hell....lets talk about Oka......
> 
> Any kind of force.......wtf ??



  Yes I remember those.. great jobs done at all of them. I also remember the FLQ crisis cos my father was there. But what happens if there's an FLQ or an Oka type crisis or a major terrorist incident in the Golden Horseshoe area or the nation's capital? There's nothing left in the area to handle it. What if Caledonia suddenly boils over and other bands launch their own Caladonias in support? The odds of this happening are very slim.. but they're better than those of the country being invaded. But the topic is budget cuts.. and if the CF wants to sell itself to the public for more money for equipment. it needs to show it's there directly for the people first.. not constantly ready for overseas.. and handling environmental crises isn't enuff to do it. The public has to see troops where the people are, engaged with the people and equipped locally to defend the people on the message that there is a credible possibility of a local threat. Not based far away in places most people haven't heard of. Cos if any of the above happens and the response is days coming rather than hours then there's gonna be hard questions asked and harder cuts following.

 But eh.. I'm prolly getting off topic so I will thank you for your replies and go back to lurking. Please take care.


----------



## DCRabbit

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Close Meaford? Your right out of your depth my friend.
> #1 Meaford is one the cheapest bases to run in the CF (Well technically a TC)
> #2 It generates income from a large number of Police and Security agencies that PAY MONEY to use the facilities when its in slow peroid
> #3 Borden is actually quite full and the templating in Borden is limited
> #4 You can fire alot of cool weapons in Meaford given the unique way the impact area is laid out (the Hogs back road is closed regularly for larger weapon shoots). The templating is very flexible for such a small base
> #5 What encroaching condos? Seriously the houses and condos on the meaford town Lakeshore have been there a long time. The town has seen very limited growth and you won't see much more
> #6 Do you have any idea how many PRes units use Meaford? It would create a huge black hole for units in central Ontario to train. Borden is a very limited option
> #7 The TC trains more DP1 Infantry (Reg F and Res) than any other TC in the country (I already looked up the info from LFDTS)
> #8 OP SEC REASON can't state. Trust me its a damn good reason. Very damn good reason. Extremely damn good reason.
> #9 What alternative would there be in this part of Ontario?
> 
> Don't look at the small size of the training area and think its nothing but a sleepy little unit. It is far more busier than you could imagine.



 This is stuff I obviously do not know. Thank you very much for the info and your post. Back to lurking for me.


----------



## aesop081

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Yes I remember those.. great jobs done at all of them. I also remember the FLQ crisis cos my father was there. But what happens if there's an FLQ or an Oka type crisis or a major terrorist incident in the Golden Horseshoe area or the nation's capital? There's nothing left in the area to handle it.



You know that Petawawa is only an hour away right ? You know that they several reserve units in the Ottawa area right ?



> not constantly ready for overseas..



Thats where the wars are happening.




> But eh.. I'm prolly getting off topic so I will thank you for your replies and go back to lurking. Please take care.



Maybe not off-topic but certainly outside of you comfort zone.


----------



## Wookilar

Waintwright is out for expansion. It is pretty much at its peak now. The whole area is constrained by one thing, clean drinking water. The plants now are pretty much at full capacity, given the rapid growth in the last few years. If we had moved to Wainwright instead of Edmonton in the first place, maybe we'd be ok.

Water was the reason given back then as well.

Wook


----------



## Loachman

There is one operational unit in Borden: the Mighty 400 Squadron. Borden is the only suitable location for a Tac Hel Squadron in Southern Ontario. It is central to Petawawa (many missions are conducted there since 427 Squadron was cut to CANSOFCOM), Meaford, Trenton (for long-range deployment purposes such as Op Podium, Op Nanook, and any future domestic or international relief ops) LFCA/JTFC HQ in Downsview, Res Force units in Southern Ontario, and a reasonable population base for its own Res Force people. It has decent on- and off-base tactical low flying areas, and good base infrastructure.

I am skeptical of perceived cost benefits from consolidating bases. Unless we reduce our personnel numbers, people require equivalent infrastructure wherever they are. Close a unit's buildings on one base, and new buildings have to be built in the new location. There's a cost for that, and a cost for the move. What savings, exactly, would result from a move of, say, all of the schools and units at Borden or Kingston?

An operational reason for a move, such as proximity to training areas, I can accept. I do not readily accept that fewer but bigger bases necessarily translate into cost savings.


----------



## George Wallace

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> ..........I have been posted to ________, _____________, __________, ___________ and Lahr.



Lahr: a prime example of Base Closures due to perceived “cost savings” and the “Peace Dividend”.  With the “Fall of the Wall” and end of our commitment to Peacekeeping in Cyprus, the Mulroney Government thought that closing down our two Bases in Germany would save us a fairly large chunk of change.  Then along came Bosnia and Kosovo, then Afghanistan.  We no longer had a Forward Staging Base for those operations in the Middle East, Africa and Southern Asia.  We all can see where Camp Mirage is going.  Foresight is a hard thing to master, and I don’t think we have even the most rudimentary grasp of it now, nor in the past fifteen to twenty years.

Yes, it cost X Billion Cdn dollars to keep our Bde and Air Wing in Germany, but it was like a Master Card commercial:

To keep the Bde in Germany –  $ X Billion Cdn
Training and working with the Germans, Brits, Americans, Dutch, French, etc. – PRICELESS!

How do you put a price on the experience gained from working with troops from these foreign nations and learning lessons on interoperability?


----------



## vonGarvin

There was an argument previously about terror attacks in Canada, and how the CF would respond.  One must remember that although the CF's raison d'être is the defence of Canada, that role within Canada (other than fighting off Fenian raids, etc) is provided by the Police, RCMP, etc.  So, if there is an "incident", the CF's role, if any, would be in a supporting role.


As we have seen, our police forces have done an outstanding job in finding, fixing and striking terror cells within Canada.  A LAV 3 APC Platoon, in 3-up T in front of Parliament Hill does not make the House of Commons safe from anything other than attacks by BMPs.


----------



## AC 011

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Close Meaford? Your right out of your depth my friend.
> ...
> #8 OP SEC REASON can't state. Trust me its a damn good reason. Very damn good reason. Extremely damn good reason.
> ...



I knew it!  The Weather Vortex Generator does exist.  How else do you explain snow in June.   ;D


----------



## Jammer

The Fenians are back???? We'll burn the potato crops.
Reinstate the Fort Garry Horse!


----------



## George Wallace

That horse was put out to pasture a long time ago.   ;D


Of course one could also call into question where the 12 Rubber Boots have room to play.


----------



## Blackadder1916

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> The staff college in Toronto could be moved and sell off the land.  Set it up in Meaford or Gagetown.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that Meaford or Gagetown are suitable for a Staff College that hosts numerous foreign officers to a greater benefit and less expense than Toronto.



The move of Staff College out of Toronto to Ottawa (or the surrounding area) would actually be suitable:

-  It would still be in a "major" city that attracts many of the "guest" lecturers (and foreigners);
-  Since many of the graduates' follow-on postings are to staff jobs they would already be located in the same area as their potential next employment;
-  Being in the PLD reference city, there would be some reduced costs in allowances to staff/students;


----------



## Old Sweat

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There was an argument previously about terror attacks in Canada, and how the CF would respond.  One must remember that although the CF's raison d'être is the defence of Canada, that role within Canada (other than fighting off Fenian raids, etc) is provided by the Police, RCMP, etc.  So, if there is an "incident", the CF's role, if any, would be in a supporting role.



Pretty well, except for certain units in SOFCOM. Leaving them aside, I can envisage cases such as happened in Ops Essay and Ginger (aka The FLQ Crisis) where the CF could take on certain security of personnel and installations roles, thus freeing up police for policing duties. There is also a bit of a comfort zone effect to the general public in just being seen. Anyone remember the effect of a pair of CF18s making a few passes over Toronto and Ottawa on 9/11 2001?

Edit: Op Ginger was the guarding of personnel and installations in the National Capital Region in support of the Federal Government

Op Essay was Aid of the Civil Power in response to a requisition submitted to the CDS by the Attorney General of Quebec.


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am skeptical of perceived cost benefits from consolidating bases. Unless we reduce our personnel numbers, people require equivalent infrastructure wherever they are. Close a unit's buildings on one base, and new buildings have to be built in the new location. ...
> 
> ... I do not readily accept that fewer but bigger bases necessarily translate into cost savings.


There would be savings in TD (as the frequency of things being somewhere else reduces), SWE (as one-of positions are eliminated on closed bases and staffing efficiencies are realized on larger bases), PLD (assuming movement is from high-cost to lower-cost places), PILT (again, assuming movement is from high-cost to lower-cost places), and relocations (as more no-cost moves become possible).

However, I see the biggest savings being in PYs which can be reinvested from bases into operational organizations.  

Where elements of the institutional structure (bases, stations, depots, schools, static support units, non-deployable HQs and any other organization outside the field force, operational air units and the fleets) are superfluous, those elements self-generate superfluous work.  In the case of superfluous HQs (even unit & base HQs) the reports & returns, information tracking, information processing, planning efforts, etc are all unnecessary consumption of effort - often the amount of work that goes into this effort is used to justify growth or retention of PYs.  The CF and DND also has a vast array of work that is mandated of every unit and formation - this is more work that only exists because a unit/formation exists.  Here again, growth is justified in order get the mandated work done but no discussion occures as to whether there is even a requirement for the organization who's existence creates the work.

So, if one eliminates a base (or an intermediate HQ) then there is a lot of work that simply disappears with the organization.  Granted, there will be a requirement for PYs to reinforce bases that become the new homes to the lodger units of closed bases.  But, there will also be PYs freed for reinvestment into operational units and schools/training centres.

This is not to say that there should be a wholesale elimination of bases and intermediate HQs.  It might be an irreversible mistake if a base closure results in a CF wide training area shortage for land operations, and it would take years to recover from the effects of closing an HQ only to discover that is necessary.  Instead this is a suggestion bases and intermediate HQs should be deliberately assessed for thier value-added and necessity.  One could then ask, what is the opportunity cost of keeping a base (or intermediate HQ) as opposed to reinvesting the PYs.


----------



## pbi

I doubt we'll see anything too shocking in the way of base closures. First, it won't be a military decision. The inescapable regional political realities of this country would, I think, prevent anything like the closure of Gagetown or Winnipeg. Kingston was tried a few years ago (remember that...?) and IIRC the local pressures were instumental in not only its retention, but its recent expansion and ongoing renovations. (It's one of the three biggest employers here, along with the City itself and Queens U). The bad will, political wrangling and inevitable cost overruns resulting from any large scale force relocations would scare most Canadian governments away, especially a minority Govt.

If your recall the last big round of base "closures" back in the 90s, also as a result of crisis economic measures, then you'll recall despite all the screaming and yelling that almost no major facilities, with the exception of Kapyong Barracks, were actually closed. Alot (like Calgary and Chilliwack) were reduced to ASUs or such, but we are more or less left with a pretty similar base footprint as we had prior to that round of cuts. And tis, I think, is what we will always look like.

IMHO, the pound of flesh will come from some other source, either creative accounting, capital purchases, or (worst of all) an ill-considered hacking of people (think of the FRP fiasco that took years to recover from). I can't see any Govt with the stomach for the fight that a round of base closures will cause, especially in provinces that lose a major facility.

Cheers


----------



## Retired AF Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, in an article reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is one of my favourite topics:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/tough-choices-for-defence-spending/article1771105/
> 
> My choice for bases to be retained:
> 
> •	Esquimalt;
> •	Comox – expanded, if we can;
> •	Wainwright – much expanded;



I remember mentioning the same idea to friend of mine (PPCLI) and he quite literally choked on his beer. I don't think many families would be happy about moving from Edmonton to the boondocks of Wainwright.



> •	Lloydminster *NEW!*


 I've been out of the forces for a few years, but when did we open a base in Lloydminister?? Not that I'm against it, but just surprised.



> •	Cold Lake – expanded;


 Is there any room for expansion. My understanding is that things were getting full.



> •	Kingston – retained, mainly, for historic reasons, but reduced to, essentially, on the Royal Military College and the Joint Staff College and a (revived) National Defence College;


 Closing or even reducing CFB Kingston would be devastating economically and political suicide to whichever party suggested it. If you don't think so, just look at the hooray about closing two prison farms that a employed a couple of dozen inmates and housed a bunch of cattle.



> That means that the following bases, at least, are closed – but DND will retain some facilities there:
> 
> •	Edmonton;


 And move them where? Wainwright?? See above post. 


> •	Moose Jaw;


 Besides CFAD Dundurn only military base in Saskatchewan. Ain't going to happen.


> •	Winnipeg;


 Home for 435 Transport and Rescue Sqn. In its rescue role it covers Manitoba and western Ontario. Moving it would result in longer deployment times for rescue operations.  



> •	Trenton;


 They've just spent (and continue to spend) millions expanding the base. I would think it would be politically unacceptable to do so and a waste of taxpayers money. That's not to say something couldn't be done to downsize the base. My suggestion is that you could more some transport aircraft to North Bay. North Bay has the room for expansion and it has a large airfield that's capable of taking large aircraft including AN-124 Condor's. It would also be good for the economy (pork barreling I know) and politically. I know some have suggested closing down North Bay, but remember DND just spent tens of million of dollars on a new NORAD Air Defence HQ so closing it and moving it somewhere else is crazy. Besides, that bunker may come in handle down the road.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

I have been browsing this topic with some interest.

The reduction in the number of headquarters or the consolidation of a couple of the commands would be more palatable politically than base closures.   Reducing top heavy HQ`s may not put the correct pyramid structure back into the field as these tend to be diamond shaped. There would be some career stagnation similar to the 1990`s as we await a large number of Maj plus ranks to retire as these ranks will not provide the boots on the ground immediately.  It would also provide the current government to direct any lessons learned or recommendations for consolidation towards our previous outspoken and highly respected CDS.  

With a minority government, it would be political suicide to close bases and this, if it does ever happen will occur, during a majority and only when the government can provide an alternate IRB into the region offset economic impacts.  Small units like Moncton, having done the commute and had the headquarters located 90 minutes away from bulk of the soldiers in Gagetown sucked.   These are the bases that should be scrutinized for the return on investment.  

Small bases such as Moncton and Goose Bay would still be a politically lightning rod to close, but much easier if there was a majority.


My two cents!


----------



## aesop081

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Goose Bay



That one is my candidate for immediate elimination. How much longer do we have to pay for a base that no one, including us, uses ?


----------



## Kiwi99

So, with all the talk about retention we are know talking about closing bases and moving not only soldiers but their families with them.  Sad thing is, a lot of those spouses cannot move their jobs.  Picking up 1CMBG complete and moving it to Wainwright is not doing a lot for retention of soldiers.  Sure, the Govt and DND may save money, but they would for sure be losing experience in the form of countless veterans of all trades and ranks.  MONEY SAVED does not but this experience when it is suddenly needed again.

Here's an idea for the Government; stop sending money to these half-a$$ed third world countries with no idea of whose hands it actually end s up in.  Use that money in Canada, on our homeless, our schools, our veterans etc. Foreign aid handouts and compensation payments to shady characters who claim to be tortured by other countries is a waste.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:


----------



## armyvern

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:



OMFG. Did you just call the esteemed Mr. Campbell a "Retired *NAVY* guy!!??"

 :blotto:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695/post-596145.html#msg596145



> Edward Campbell – Managing Editor
> 
> Edward R. Campbell is the managing editor of The Ruxted Group.   He enlisted in the Canadian Army as a private soldier and subsequently earned a regular commission.  He served for over 35 years in nearly a dozen different ranks wearing several cap badges in the normal range of regimental duty appointments, from 'squaddie' to commanding officer, in various units in Canada and overseas.  After attending some academic, specialist and professional courses in Canada, Britain and the USA, he served in more senior command and staff appointments in Canada and Europe.  In the '80s and '90s, he served in NDHQ as director of a small, specialist staff branch dealing with national and international technical, policy and operational matters.  After retiring from the Canadian Forces he managed a (non-military) national advisory board which provided technical, regulatory and policy inputs to the Government of Canada.



He had cap badge deficit disorder.  ;D


----------



## Brasidas

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> OMFG. Did you just call the esteemed Mr. Campbell a "Retired *NAVY* guy!!??"
> 
> :blotto:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695/post-596145.html#msg596145
> 
> He had cap badge deficit disorder.  ;D



It was in reference to "says retired Navy Commodore Eric Lerhe, now an analyst critical of the Forces' overhead costs."

Mr. Lerhe was referenced at least twice in the original post.


----------



## armyvern

Brasidas said:
			
		

> It was in reference to "says retired Navy Commodore Eric Lerhe, now an analyst critical of the Forces' overhead costs."
> 
> Mr. Lerhe was referenced at least twice in the original post.



Ahhh yes, but as Mr Campbell stated in his posting of the article - it is also one of his "favourite subjects" ergo my thoughts that it was referring to him. Them 'retired' guys from any service (and some of us) have been around long enough to have suffered through the dark years and to witness what PCness in pork barrelleing into one's own ridings will do to cause that 'rust-out' of equipment described wrt the necessity (or non-necessity of other places) of closures to make us an effective and capable force. And consideration #1 is not, necessarily "what is best for the forces and our requirements."

I, personally, do not think Edward's suggestions have a hope in hell of ever seeing the light of day - and not because they are not required, but rather because that would leave the prairies devoid of "presence" (less the "some" presence in Winnipeg) and the political powers that be would doom any move such as that from the get-go.

We can discuss and debate all we want - at the end of the day - politics will decide; whether or not the commentator is/was Navy, Air Force or Army or serving/retired is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:




I don't know about Lehre, but I was just disturbing the excrement.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...... some of us have been around long enough to have suffered through the dark years and to witness what PCness in pork barrelleing into one's own ridings will do....


And don't you have a history of being involved in bases closing around you?   :stirpot:


----------



## armyvern

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And don't you have a history of being involved in bases closing around you?   :stirpot:



I prefer Edward's excrement stirring to yours; just saying.


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:


I think, because there are legitimate organizational flaws that would, if fixed, provide economies of effort and/or increases of effectiveness and/or freed resources (for reinvestment or adjust to reduced budgets). 



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I doubt we'll see anything too shocking in the way of base closures. First, it won't be a military decision. The inescapable regional political realities of this country would, I think, prevent anything like the closure of Gagetown or Winnipeg. Kingston was tried a few years ago (remember that...?) and IIRC the local pressures were instrumental in not only its retention, but its recent expansion and ongoing renovations.


Fortunately, I think many of the moves that might provide the most benefit are also ones that would be politically easier sells.  Consolidating smaller locations into existing larger bases (such as Moncton to Gagetown) should be within the realm of consideration as the smaller location has less of a footprint in the local economy.  The other type of move that should be politically possible is movement out of high-density urban centres where available real-estate is at a premium (in this case, a move of CFC from Toronto to Kingston should be palatable to the political class as some other commercial or government entity will no doubt quickly seek to fill the small relative-to-Toronto void).



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> ... almost no major facilities, with the exception of Kapyong Barracks, were actually closed. Alot (like Calgary and Chilliwack) were reduced to ASUs or such, but we are more or less left with a pretty similar base footprint as we had prior to that round of cuts. And tis, I think, is what we will always look like.


Now is probably a good time to look at the vestiges of those past base closures.  Some of these ASUs may still be required, while others could probably be consolidated onto a near-by base (and with little present day political push-back due to the now smaller relative footprint these establishments have in their local economies).  Could the work of ASU London be done through the bases in Meaford & Borden?



			
				birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> The reduction in the number of headquarters or the consolidation of a couple of the commands would be more palatable politically than base closures.   Reducing top heavy HQ`s may not put the correct pyramid structure back into the field as these tend to be diamond shaped.


And there are probably more gains to be had from a review of HQs than from base and station closures.


----------



## hauger

Interesting thread, fun to read.  I don't know if I agree with base closures though, there are reasons to have assets available and spread throughout the country.  A good example of not thinking things through in the long term was the closure of the runways in Edmonton.  They took a runway that was 14,000 ft x 200 ft and one at 6,800 x 100 ft.  Now it's in ruins and there's buildings on it.  Air deployment of troops now has to go through Edmonton International, along with Cargo movement.  The concept of redeploying fixed with assets to train with their "customers" (the army) in Edmonton cannot simply happen without big re-investment or rebuilding another field elsewhere.   What if we wanted to disperse our transport capabilities to the west, where could we put them now?

Another good example is North Bay.  That base should never have been downgraded to ground ops only.  At best, the runway and hanger space should have been retained and leased in the interim.  Why?  Compare it to Trenton:

*Main runway*
Trenton:       10,000 x 200
North Bay:   10,000 x 200 (still in use)

*Number of Major Rail Lines (Cargo/Troop movement)*
Trenton:     2
North Bay:  3

*Number of Major Highways:*
Trenton:     1  (Hwy 401 - Granted, a big one)
North Bay:  2 (Hwy 11 and Hwy 17, both Transcanada)

*Transit time to the Training Area (Algonquin Park)*
Trenton:       approx 20 min
North Bay:   approx 20 min

Ground Travel Time to Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal
Trenton:       approx. 2 hours/2.5 hours/4 hours
North Bay:    approx. 3 hours/3.5 hours/5 hours

Now, my favorite:

*Number of Highways that bi-sect the base making base security, land development, infrastructure upgrades, persons and material travel around the base an absolute nightmare:*
Trenton:       1 (Hwy 2)
North Bay:    0

The best part is, to find ramp space for the C-130J, the C-130H remaining, the CH-146, the C-17, and the Airbus, the MEUF, and transient aircraft, and the odd CF-18 that hangs out there, Trenton has had to build a North ramp, further segmenting the base and greatly enriching local cement factories.  The rest of the base has their rulers out trying to figure out how close to within inches to highway 2 they can build the new hangers and comply with security regulations.

Best of all, one bad ice storm, aircraft incident, or whatever can shut down 95% of Canada's transport capability.

Did I mention the deconficting of air traffic with Toronto causes certain issues with Trenton Air Ops?

Now, in the 90's, we about 90% of the people out of North Bay, sold half the base housing and all the airport assets to the city.  Heck, peace broke out and we didn't need it any more.  Now, a 10,000ft runway with ample empty ramp space (and even ready hangers) sits highly underused, all while we attempt to make Trenton expand past it's limits to accommodate all of our transport needs.

So, back to my original point.  Closing base infrastructure is serious, and should never be done to meet short or even medium term budgetary constraints.  An American once told me that we should never give up a capability because once it was gone, it was near impossible to get it back.  I think the same could be said of bases, loosing the infrastructure might make sense today, but regaining that infrastructure if needed later will cause a lot more effort and money than just keeping it in the first place would have cost.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Did I mention the deconficting of air traffic with Toronto causes certain issues with Trenton Air Ops?



I've operated out of bases with airspace situations much worse than that of Trenton, yet the bases handle a volume of movements that are several order of magnitude greater. Takes deconfliction....big f'ing deal.....


----------



## hauger

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I've operated out of bases with airspace situations much worse than that of Trenton, yet the bases handle a volume of movements that are several order of magnitude greater. Takes deconfliction....big f'ing deal.....



Good on you, didn't realise AESOP's flew the plane or did ATC work. 

De-conflicting IFR training routes with approach descents of Toronto traffic  causes problems.  Wedging that in with Kingston traffic causes additional problems.  I never implied it caused serious problems, but it ups the level of co-ordination.

All of that completely misses the point of my point, but good job employing an age-old argumentative tactic.  Rather than discuss the main point, find some nit-picky point to take issue with and concentrate solely on it from a position of aggressive superiority (use of the term "f'ng").  

The problem with that tactic is it adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the conversation.


----------



## armyvern

Nor does 'yelling'.  

Or claiming that he insinuated that AESOPs flew the plane or did ATC, but that's a whole 'nother tangent.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Good on you, didn't realise AESOP's flew the plane or did ATC work.



I dont fly the plan, file the flight plans or talk to ATC. I do however take care of safety-of-flight and airborne deconfliction by radar and, being a professional, i'm not clueless about what goes on around and i understand airspace pretty damned well thank you.

I didnt realize you had to be a pilot to understand those things........silly me.

To get back on track.....

Closing Trenton now would be stupid. North bay's fate is already a reality. It may suck but thats just how it is.


----------



## hauger

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont fly the plan, file the flight plans or talk to ATC. I do however take care of safety-of-flight and airborne deconfliction by radar and, being a professional, i'm not clueless about what goes on around and i understand airspace pretty damned well thank you.
> 
> I didnt realize you had to be a pilot to understand those things........silly me.
> 
> To get back on track.....
> 
> Closing Trenton now would be stupid. North bay's fate is already a reality. It may suck but thats just how it is.



Fair enough.  I wasn't trying to make the argument that the fate of either should be changed though, just that infrastructure shouldn't just be divested without truly understanding the long term loss to the forces.  Again, looking at Edmonton, if the Army had at least not developed parts of the runway for buildings, that entire strip could be re-commissioned if required sometime in the future (obviously it would eventually atrophy to a point of no return).  I guess what I was trying to say was that balancing the books by removing infrastructure restricts the capabilities of the forces in the future.

ArmyVern:  True.  Sorry about the yelling.  Got my blood up.  Felt bad about it later.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

The question of closing bases for purely financial reasons must be evaluated whether the units vacating the base are:
A)  Redundant and and not being relocated, but closed down
B)  Able to move onto an existing base without the need to create new infrastructure to house them
C)  Being moved to an exising CFB, but new infrastructure must be built or renovated at a significant cost so that the unit can use the facility.

At the end of the day, the base closures become a very very very sticky political mess, whereby keeping 1ESU and 4AD in Moncton, or closing down LFAATC - Aldershot, or North Bay, etc. are probably just as heavily weighed on the cost savings as they are the political damage or benefit that would result from their closing or expansion.

Given the redundancies in local reserve unit infrastructure, I wouldn't be surprised that although reserve units will remain in their local areas, several old, maintenance intensive armouries that are in prime real-estate locations will be targeted to be sold off, with units consolidating into other locations in the same geographic vicinity.  i.e. Canadian Grenadier Guards and The Black Watch having either of their downtown Montreal armouries closed down, sold off for several million (a significant amout of $s back into a deficit ridden government coffer), and consolidated into one armoury, etc.  The other thing that is politically advantageous to this is that most voters in dense urban areas are almost completely unaware of the local reserve unit presence, and as such the votes you lose by consolidating locations in these urban centres would be pretty minimal, as opposed to bases which which play fairly significant role in the local economy.  Closing such bases would give the opposition some significant political ammunition for the next election in terms of talking about local jobs lost, businesses suffering, etc. all because of the decision of the ruling party to close the base, and could well lose the riding for the incumbent, or destroy any chances of unseating an opposition party MP, which in such a fractured parliament could possibly make the difference between winning or losing the election.  If I were a betting man, I'd correlate the CF bases that could possibly be closed to a political ridings map.  Mark the bases out and see which ridings are solidly Liberal, NDP, or Bloc Quebecois with a snowball's chance in hell of ever electing a Conservative and those are the facilities which would be chosen to close.

I know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The problem you come across with closing a base is the clean up of the area if you plan on turning it over to the public.  I suppose you can just turn the lights off and leave but you can't through the keys on the table until all the hazards both environmental as well as things like ammunition (range clean ups etc) are cleared.


----------



## AIC_2K5

> Given the redundancies in local reserve unit infrastructure, I wouldn't be surprised that although reserve units will remain in their local areas, several old, maintenance intensive armouries that are in prime real-estate locations will be targeted to be sold off, with units consolidating into other locations in the same geographic vicinity.



Jericho, anyone?


----------



## Rick Goebel

"I  know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things."

There can be some pretty rational reasons for keeping an old armoury as well.  Mewata Armoury, in Calgary, is very close to a Light Rail Transit station that connects well with U of C and SAIT (along with much of the rest of the city).  The Northeast armoury isn't as well connected to transit.  Since many members of the army reserve are post-secondary students, it seems wise to have at least one facility in town that is easy for them to get to.

Also, Mewata Armoury is a provincial heritage site.  I have long objected to such designations for any buildings because this makes it difficult for the owner to get someone to buy the property.  If you can't make major changes to a building to better suit a new use, you won't likely pay as good a price as you might otherwise pay.  Thus, the government might not realize the full benefits of getting rid of a downtown piece of property and buy a less-centrally-located one.

Note too that while the government could see a benefit from selling one piece of property and buying another, DND probably wouldn't.  The proceeds of a sale of a piece of property at least used to go into the general accounts rather than into those of the department concerned.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> "I  know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things."
> 
> There can be some pretty rational reasons for keeping an old armoury as well.  Mewata Armoury, in Calgary, is very close to a Light Rail Transit station that connects well with U of C and SAIT (along with much of the rest of the city).  The Northeast armoury isn't as well connected to transit.  Since many members of the army reserve are post-secondary students, it seems wise to have at least one facility in town that is easy for them to get to.
> 
> Also, Mewata Armoury is a provincial heritage site.  I have long objected to such designations for any buildings because this makes it difficult for the owner to get someone to buy the property.  If you can't make major changes to a building to better suit a new use, you won't likely pay as good a price as you might otherwise pay.  Thus, the government might not realize the full benefits of getting rid of a downtown piece of property and buy a less-centrally-located one.
> 
> Note too that while the government could see a benefit from selling one piece of property and buying another, DND probably wouldn't.  The proceeds of a sale of a piece of property at least used to go into the general accounts rather than into those of the department concerned.



I'm not talking about closing down ALL armouries in urban areas, but having a hard look at redundant facilities, or facilities which are not cost effective to maintain in the long-term.

Also, you're right in that the monies generated from the sale of DND lands don't go back into the DND budget directly, but they do raise revenue for the government in general, and it's because of the overall deficit, not so much DND's spending habits or internal deficits that are to blame specifically for the federal government's overall directives to reduce spending and increase efficiencies.


----------



## AJC

WRT to old Armouries. Mewata for one has outlived its usefulness. Eons of bandaid wiring, structural limitations, inadequate parking, unsafe, unsecure etc etc. Ditch both Calgary Armouries and build something functional. The trick would be to put it somewhere accessable, maybe CFB Calgary footprint? I suppose we would have to plan further ahead than yesterday for that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We traded in our old place for this: http://wikimapia.org/11556691/Major-FA-Tilston-Armoury-Police-Training-Centre


----------



## Matt_Fisher

recceguy said:
			
		

> We traded in our old place for this: http://wikimapia.org/11556691/Major-FA-Tilston-Armoury-Police-Training-Centre



Whilst I would say that is a great model for how to acheive economies of scale and cost sharing between federal and municipal/provincial agencies, do we have the budget to replicate that across the country?  I think that over the next 5 years, the primary focus will be on near term immediate cost reduction rather than increased spending for long term cost savings.  This is why I think that with regard to base closures, unless a significant case can be made for the immediate cost savings of closing one location down and consolidating it with another, we won't see much going on in the arena of base closings.


----------



## hippz

I highly doubt they'd close Borden, it's the largest training facil. in Canada and the birthplace of RCAF.


----------



## vonGarvin

hippz said:
			
		

> I highly doubt they'd close Borden, it's the largest training facil. in Canada and the birthplace of RCAF.


CFB London was the home station of The Royal Canadian Regiment, and it was "downgraded".  And Borden is much smaller than Gagetown, for starters.  I think your facts may be off.


----------



## aesop081

hippz said:
			
		

> and the birthplace of RCAF.



Does that give it some sort of operational necessity for the Air Force ?

No.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Technoviking said:
			
		

> CFB London was the home station of The Royal Canadian Regiment, and it was "downgraded".  And Borden is much smaller than Gagetown, for starters.  I think your facts may be off.



The largest is Suffield........


The Gagetown Military Camp (or Camp Gagetown) opened in 1956 and was named after the village of Gagetown, although the base was located west of this historic village and was headquartered 25 kilometres to its north in Oromocto. The base's territory measured 1,129 km² and included numerous live-fire ranges for infantry, armoured, and artillery units, as well as aerial weapons ranges.

At the time of its opening in 1956, until the opening of CFB Suffield in 1971, Camp Gagetown was the largest military training facility in Canada and the British Commonwealth of Nations. By comparison, Suffield has 2,690 km² with 2,270 km² usable by the military, and 420 km² designated as a National Wildlife Refuge.


----------



## vonGarvin

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The largest is Suffield........


Oh, I know.  I just looked out my window and happened to see one training area that was larger than Borden, that's all.


----------



## McG

Is "training facility" the same as "training area"?
hippz could have been commenting on how places measure up when comparing annual student days  ...  but I still don't know that Borden would neccesarily be the "largest"


----------



## PanaEng

New infrastructure mega-projects don't guarantee the safety of the installation/base.  Just look at Chilliwack:

new buildings for 1 CER
new buildings for CFSME
new barracks
multi-million dollars for new ranges and upgrading existing ones
the home of CFOCS; and 
the home for all Military Engineers - including the people that maintain the infrastructure on all the bases... 
it was closed shortly after most of this facilities came online.


----------



## PMedMoe

That may have very well been the selling conditions.  Several new building were put up in Baden (and possibly Lahr) before the military announced their closures.


----------



## George Wallace

Lahr saw a great deal of new construction.  A whole, brand spanking new hospital was constructed outside of the Kasserne.


----------



## PMedMoe

And no different than Baden, those buildings went up even though the military knew it was closing those bases.  As I said, they were a condition of sale.


----------



## PanaEng

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And no different than Baden, those buildings went up even though the military knew it was closing those bases.  As I said, they were a condition of sale.


I don't recall any "condition of sale" on Chilliwack. It is mostly still federal property.


----------



## Blackadder1916

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lahr saw a great deal of new construction.  A whole, brand spanking new hospital was constructed outside of the Kasserne.



The hospital was in the design/build stage long before there was any announcement (or even an inkling) that Lahr and Baden would close.  It was the major project on my desk during the three years I was at NDHQ in the late 1980s.  It was opened and fully operational (_I was at the opening ceremony_) before the decision to withdraw forces from Europe was made.  It continued to be used as a medical facility (granted during the the final year in-patient services were discontinued) until a few months before the closure of Lahr.  It was also the first property to be sold/transferred to a non-government entity.  It was purchased by a private medical group that converted it to a cardiac surgery facility.  Even while it was still used by us, there were numerous visits (and tours) by parties interested in purchasing it.  On the day the medical section transferred to temporary accommodation on the airfield, the new owners started renovation/expansion.  I was the last Adm O and as I was clearing out my office and doing a final check to make sure that nothing had been left behind their construction crews had already started to add an additional four (or maybe seven) operating rooms to the three existing in our design.

But there shouldn't be worry that we incurred a loss on that particular building.  Knowing what the budget was to build and equip it, how much of the equipment (and its value) was removed and distributed to med facilities in Canada and what the new oners paid, I'm confident we turned a significant profit.  I used to joke that I should have received a real estate commission based on my interaction with prospective buyers.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And no different than Baden, those buildings went up even though the military knew it was closing those bases.  As I said, they were a condition of sale.



I also closed the Base Hospital in Baden.  While there was some construction (but nothing of great note) that was completed after the announcement that the base would close, these were projects that had been planned, approved, funded and contracts awarded prior to the announcement.  The disposal of property occupied by us (or any NATO forces) in Germany works differently than similar disposal in Canada.  Technically, the Government of Canada doesn't "sell" it.  Any infrastructure (under the control of a NATO force) that is excess to needs is first offered to any other NATO force who may wish to use it for that force.  If another NATO force does not claim it, it is transferred back to German control.  If the property is subsequently sold (or otherwise used by the Germans) the value of improvements to that property is considered by the German government in determining the amount that they will reimburse the nation who made those improvements.


----------



## DCRabbit

Technoviking said:
			
		

> CFB London was the home station of The Royal Canadian Regiment, and it was "downgraded".  And Borden is much smaller than Gagetown, for starters.  I think your facts may be off.



 Borden is the largest training facility.. all the support schools, etc..  as opposed to training area.


----------



## JesseWZ

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Borden is the largest training facility.. all the support schools, etc..  as opposed to training area.



I'm still not sure Borden puts as many candidates through courses as CTC... what are your sources?


----------



## DCRabbit

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure Borden puts as many candidates through courses as CTC... what are your sources?



 http://www.borden.forces.gc.ca/998/index-eng.asp

 15k personnel a year... that's a lot. The 'largest training facility' claim comes from the Wikipedia page for Borden. That could be a dubious source. But put that with 15k people and it's a pretty good case. What volume does the CTC do?


----------



## mover1

Bordens sole purpose is to Train people.  Lots of Schools and establisments there.  Check it out

http://www.borden.forces.gc.ca/998/index-eng.asp

15000 Annually is backed up by its web page.


----------



## JesseWZ

I'll admit that 15000 is more then I expected, I dug around the CTC and 3 ASG page, as well as Wikipedia and found no numbers to substantiate for CTC. 

You may well be correct.   :'(


----------



## observor 69

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I also closed the Base Hospital in Baden.  While there was some construction (but nothing of great note) that was completed after the announcement that the base would close, these were projects that had been planned, approved, funded and contracts awarded prior to the announcement.  The disposal of property occupied by us (or any NATO forces) in Germany works differently than similar disposal in Canada.  Technically, the Government of Canada doesn't "sell" it.  Any infrastructure (under the control of a NATO force) that is excess to needs is first offered to any other NATO force who may wish to use it for that force.  If another NATO force does not claim it, it is transferred back to German control.  If the property is subsequently sold (or otherwise used by the Germans) the value of improvements to that property is considered by the German government in determining the amount that they will reimburse the nation who made those improvements.



There was a large expensive looking "bunker?" style building being built in 1984/85 inside the Baden restricted area. At the time I think it was stated to be a new NBCW proof shelter for the incoming shiny new CF-18 maintainers equipment? 
I often wondered if it ever got used and whatever became of it when the base closed. I have seen on the Baden Soellingen Remembered web site Germans using the old aircraft shelters for various roles.


----------



## exspy

> The largest is Suffield........



This exact issue was a topic of debate about thirty years ago in the 'letters to the editor' section of Sentinel magazine.  It actually started with a discussion over the size of Borden vs Gagetown.  Ultimately two things were revealed.  Gagetown was bigger than Borden and Suffield was bigger than Gagetown, in total area.  But the biggest Base in Canada was at that time, and may still be, CFB Cold Lake due to the inclusion of the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range.

Suffield may be larger than Gagetown but, because of its division into three distinct areas one of which is a nature reserve, I don't recall if its available training area is greater than Gagetown's.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## GAP

Appeal boosts Kapyong costs
$2M a year to maintain barracks during legal tussle
By: Mia Rabson Posted: 6/11/2010
Article Link

The federal government will be stuck paying $2 million a year to maintain the buildings at the abandoned Kapyong Barracks site while it appeals a court decision requiring it to consult with First Nations before selling the land for new development.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for Tuesday -- more than a year after Justice Douglas Campbell ordered the government to halt the sale of the land until it had properly consulted with two First Nations, Brokenhead and Peguis, on their treaty land entitlements.

Norman Boudreau, lawyer for the bands, told the Free Press he doesn't expect this dispute to end with this appeal no matter the outcome.

"It is a case that is ripe for the Supreme Court," Boudreau said.

When asked to explain the appeal, Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office deferred to department officials. They did not respond to the Free Press by deadline Friday.

So far, it has cost about $2 million a year to maintain the 41 buildings at the Kapyong site, most of which are empty -- and all of which will likely be demolished once the land dispute is sorted out.

Since the base was abandoned in 2004, the bills have come to between $10 and $12 million. When Ottawa agreed to sell the land in 2007 to Canada Lands Company, the price tag was $8.6 million.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the government just reached a negotiated settlement with First Nations over a land claim on another abandoned military base.

That claim, involving the land occupied by the former Canadian Forces Base Rockcliffe, was settled in September with Ottawa agreeing to allow the Algonquins to participate in the redevelopment of the site with the Canada Lands Company.

CLC is the Crown corporation that buys and redevelops surplus federal land. It planned to redevelop the sites in both Winnipeg and Ottawa -- considered prime real estate -- into innovative eco-communities with a mix of housing, business and green space.

The land claims in both cases caused CLC to close up shop on the redevelopments until a settlement was reached.

Rockcliffe was finally vacated in 2005. Kapyong has been empty since 2004.

Boudreau said the two claims are not the same, noting the federal government has always agreed to negotiate with the Algonquins on their land claim, which includes 3.5-million hectares in and around Ottawa.

"The government has not even recognized a duty to consult on Kapyong," Boudreau said.

That's why the Algonquins did not have to go to court to halt the sale of Rockcliffe like the Treaty One First Nations in Manitoba did.

In the years since the judge ordered the consultations, not a single discussion has taken place between Ottawa and the First Nations because of the legal claim and appeal.

Ottawa has argued the bands gave up their claims to surplus federal lands by accepting financial compensation.
More on link


----------



## mover1

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I'll admit that 15000 is more then I expected, I dug around the CTC and 3 ASG page, as well as Wikipedia and found no numbers to substantiate for CTC.
> 
> You may well be correct.   :'(



Its to be expected. With a little more time in and a broader prspective of the CF your gen knowlege of the CF out side of the combat arms will increase. Just remember to listen to your Sr. NCO's because they "will" be correct.  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax

E.R. Campbell, 

Your plan may well be a very good plan from an Army perspective, however doesn't make much sense from an Air Force perspective.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell,
> 
> Your plan may well be a very good plan from an Army perspective, however doesn't make much sense from an Air Force perspective.



You just can't hang your hat on that Max. You have to tell us why you think that.

P.S. - Don't forget to read and digest Edward's other comments, not just the first post  like :stirpot:


----------



## SupersonicMax

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Keep
> •	Comox – expanded, if we can
> •	Lloydminster *NEW!* – replaces Edmonton & Winnipeg & Moose Jaw;
> •	Halifax – expanded replace Greenwood.
> 
> Get Rid Of:
> •	Moose Jaw;
> •	Winnipeg;
> •	Borden;
> •	Trenton;



I modified your initial post to reflect my perspective.

Comox:  As stated, not much room for expansion.  What else would you put there?

Replace Moose Jaw and Winnipeg with Lloydminster.  

Moose Jaw: You need a base that can accomodate 20+ Basic Trainer and 8+ Advanced Jet Trainer and a significant amount of traffic.  Lloyd is not even close to having the requirement to handle this with its lone 5700' runway (FWIW, Phase III Hawks need 6000' of runway as a minimum).  In Moose Jaw, they have 2 parallel runways that continuously operate simultaneously and it is sometimes dicey in the circuit.  And I didn't talk about the issues related with NAVAIDs (they only have 1XNDB and RNAV(GPS) approaches none of which the Hawk is able to execute).

Winnipeg: As stated, 435 Sqn is based out of Winnipeg for a very good reason: its location.  It is central to some of the most remote places in Southern Domestic Airspace.  Moving it 1000 NM west will have a significant impact on SAR times in Nunavut, Northern Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario.  Also, 1 Cdn Air Div is there.  Moving it to some other place would be costly and unnecessary.  One last thing, Winnipeg is responsible for 3 CFFTS in Portage.  Not a big deal, but some other bureaucratic problem.

Borden:  As stated, 427 Sqn being a CANSOFCOM unit, 400 Sqn is the only Tac Hel unit in Ontario belonging to 1 Wing.  Also, less of a concern if we strictly think of money is the historical aspect of it.  It is the birth place of the RCAF.

Trenton:  The heart of Air Mobility in Canada.  With all the money invested into the place, it doesn't make any financial sense to move it.  I agree the location may not be ideal, but that's IMO the only viable option at this time.  Edmonton would have been great, however some genious decided to put up building on the massive runway.

We also cannot forget that even though our fighters have Cold Lake and Bagotville as Main Operating Bases, they also have Deployed Operating Bases and Forward Operation Locations.  Getting out of those locations would have a SIGNIFICANT impact on our NORAD operations and capabilities.  I don't believe it would be smart to forward deploy armed jets on an operational mission to a busy civilian airfield, therefore we have a need to keep those military airfields open.

That was my take.

Cheers,


----------



## Edward Campbell

Max: you are, almost certainly, right. As I said, I was offering a _soft_ target (well stirred excrement) at which people were invited to shoot.

My personal preference is fewer, bigger and, whenever possible, joint bases or 'clusters' (e.g. Wainwright/Lloydminster), collocated, for the Army, with large training areas. But that's just a personal preference. There are good arguments for more, smaller bases to give the Cf better _visibility_ across the country.

As someone else said, if we close more bases it will be a political decision made for political reasons - but a base does have costs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

My original thread title was going to be "Let the "which base to keep" cage match begin!", but it appears waaaaaaaay too early in the process for that level of alarm. DRDC's produced a paper with a ranked list of CF bases - with detailed explanation of the factors leading to the list - to start the discussion for the Strategic Review process for 2010 (PDF) <<previous link has been updated to bring you to a copy of the full report via Dropbox.com>> - from the Abstract:


> This report presents a methodology developed by the Defence Research & Development Canada Centre for Operational Research & Analysis for the Assistant Deputy Minister for Infrastructure and Environment organization to support its decisions on potential infrastructure divestments as part of the departmental Strategic Review process for 2010. The approach was directed to consider major infrastructure sites and to produce a prioritized list of those sites that reflects their inherent ‘value’ to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The study developed seven individual measures of effectiveness (MOEs) to capture ‘value’, covering three general classes: operational impact, infrastructure condition and efficiency, and economic impact. The operational impact MOEs were based on subjective ratings of relevance by a group of subject matter experts. The other MOEs were based on available data within the department and from available census data.
> 
> A rank ordering approach was adopted to enable all MOEs to be placed onto a common playing field. The MARCUS methodology was employed in producing a final consensus prioritized list of infrastructure sites. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted on the set of MOE weights applied. This prioritized list provided a starting point for potential divestment discussions as part of the Strategic Review process.


Executive summary attached, including the ranking of bases, as well as a visual of the chart - let the data bashing begin  

_- mod edit to add new link to summaries -_


----------



## Halifax Tar

Wow... I didn't think we would see this again to be honest...

If I read this correctly CFB Trenton would be the last base to be closed while "Europe" (?) would be the first ? Or is it a top to bottom list of most bang for our buck ?

Woop answerd my own question with some reading:

7.
The objective of this study from the Strategic Review perspective was to rank the major infrastructure sites on performance and relevance.

Ref: Pg 17, Para 7


----------



## brihard

Fingers crossed... *PleasecloseMeaford PleasecloseMeaford PleasecloseMeaford*  ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy

Comox ranks ahead of Greenwood, who knew?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Comox ranks ahead of Greenwood, who knew?



 I think there are somethings I agree with


----------



## Edward Campbell

And see here for an earlier discussion of bases that _might_ be closed.


----------



## Infanteer

Funny how the parameters show places like Yellowknife and Alert providing more "output" than Suffield or Wainwright.  I think almost every Task Force that went to Afghanistan would disagree - that's alot of white space they're counting out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Funny how the parameters show places like Yellowknife and Alert providing more "output" than Suffield or Wainwright.  I think almost every Task Force that went to Afghanistan would disagree - that's alot of white space they're counting out.




Alert, like its sister stations, is unique and should not even be on that list at all. To say that Alert has less "operational value" than Trenton or Ottawa is just plain silly, and indicates that the "six core missions" in the Canada First Defence Strategy (which were used to determine "operational value") are either wrong or terribly misunderstood by the SMEs. But, in fairness, Alert's mission is _strategic_ and the CF is a _tactical_ (and sometimes wishes to be an _operational_) level organization which has little understanding of and less expertize in strategic matters.

The PCO will decide if and when Alert closes - until then DND must keep it running, at whatever cost; the military SMEs' views on the matter are of no consequence to anyone who matters in Ottawa.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Funny how the parameters show places like Yellowknife and Alert providing more "output" than Suffield or Wainwright.  I think almost every Task Force that went to Afghanistan would disagree - that's alot of white space they're counting out.


I think a missing factor in the assessment, something that should have been weighted just behind the two operational roles, is the institutional support role.  Ranked high were those locations from which we conduct operations or station deployable formed units.  Lower on the list were those locations where we generate the capabilities found in operational units (ie, those locations with training establishments, CSS hubs that support training domestically, and other capability development faciliites).

Even with that missing criteria added, the assessment has one critical flaw.  There is no apparent assessment of the portability for the capabilities housed at the various bases.  Halifax and Esquimalt scored high because those are where the bulk of the Navy can be found - those are probably fair assesments because if either base is closed we do not have the option of moving ships to remaining bases inland.  At the same time, Edmonton sits high on the list because it is home to 1 CMBG (there should also be points for the depot, but I am skeptical that they were awarded).  However, I would suggest that 1 CMBG is more portable than MARLANT and if Edmonton were to close then we could move 1 CMBG to Suffield, Shilo or Wainwright without sacrifice to either assessed operational role.  While the relatively portable base in Edmonton is getting high points, those lowly ranked training bases that I mentioned earlier have an essential and very non-portable asset: space.  The Army needs great big areas to train in.


----------



## McG

As a follow-on, in looking at the eleven bases ranked RED I see three that I know are non-portable (Meaford, Suffield and Wainwright) and two that I strongly suspect to be portable.  From St Jean we could move everything from the CMR campus to Kingston and then everything from the CFLRS campus to Borden or Shilo.  From Toronto we could move the staff college to Kingston.  I do not know about the portability of the DRDC in Toronto and I suspect a small ASU would still be desired by the Army.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MCG,

My understanding is that the RMC campus is already at max capacity and CMR was re-opened to increase the training capacity.  Moving it to Kingston would only create an other problem, which is an infrastructure problem at RMC.


----------



## dapaterson

CMR was a big P political decision.  Arguably, we could meet the full needs of the CF's officer corps from DEO or ROTP (Civvy U) and come in much cheaper than RMC; DEOs have the added bonus of not accumulating 4 years of pensionable service before we can begin their training in earnest.

Retention of RMC/CMR is driven by politics of the big and small P variety, not out of military necessity.


----------



## McG

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the RMC campus is already at max capacity and CMR was re-opened to increase the training capacity.  Moving it to Kingston would only create an other problem, which is an infrastructure problem at RMC.


The facilities may have been maxed, but RMC has built a new residence since CMR opened, there is space for new facilities if required, and CDA could move its offices off the penisula (to base proper) in order to free-up buildings already at the campus.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson,

Absolutely, however I believe the CF needs to retain the capacity to educate its Officers from scratch, at least a good portion of it.  In part for the historical aspect, but also because RMC provides an education that can be found nowhere in the civilian education system because it is very much military oriented.

Also, I don't believe DEO is the goto solution.  It's much less appealing for someone with a degree to join the CF than it is for someone that will get a free education with service in return.  Yes, when the economy takes a turn for the worst, DEO recruiting is going to be full tilt, however as soon as the economy picks back up, the DEO pool will dry up.

MCG,

The new building was started back in 2004-2005 I believe (before CMR opened).  They had significant issues, especially when they discovered archeological (sp) remains while digging, putting the project on hold for a long while.  It takes a LONG time to put up builidngs on the peninsula because it has such a history and it is over-protected.  It drives both the time AND costs up.


----------



## DCRabbit

Then the politicians review it and give the heaviest ratings to things like local economic impact and potential seat losses in the next election. 

But I guess that paper means that everything in the red is fair game and where they will look.. with those operations consolidated onto other facilities. Close enuff of them and you don't have to close a major base.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, it is a silly list and the so-called Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) whose _subjective_ views are expressed on it are clearly dunderheads with little to no appreciation of either domestic or international *operations* - and yes, I understand that they are, most likely flag/general officers or captains/colonels, that doesn't mean they are not capable of misunderstanding basic things like operational imperatives.

Look, for example, at the North Warning System (NWS) sites: what could be more critical to our *operational* roles that surveillance and warning about (foreign) intruders approaching or violating our (domestic) sovereign territory? But Petawawa and Valcartier are 7 (domestic) and 1 (foreign) in the _operational_ ranks while NWS is 15th and 27th*!?!* What did they do in DRDC when they asked for SMEs, send in the clowns?

The list should be perforated every 4 inches, rolled up and the put in an appropriate place for good use as arse wipe - that's all it's worth.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Edward, one of these days we will have to bring you out of your shell and tell us how you really feel. ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Look, I favour base consolidations and closures. As I have said, bases cost money and money is always scarce. I repeat: "My personal preference is fewer, bigger and, whenever possible, joint bases or 'clusters' (e.g. Wainwright/Lloydminster), collocated, for the Army, with large training areas." You could add to that "and located, for the Air Force, near large instrumented manoeuvre and bombing ranges." But I think we need to understand both the economics and _operational_ requirements for bases and stations. Only a small handful of bases and stations - none of them in the Army - are _operational_ in themselves: dockyards and a few flying stations and the NWS and SIGINT sites. The rest are administrative - they are "home" to and may provide training areas and other support for _operational_ units, but they have no inherent _operational_ status of their own. Petawawa doesn't "go to war,' it "sends people and units to war" and it looks after their families and it provides facilities for training and preparing the next batch of people and units who will go to war; ditto Wainwright and Gagetown and, and, and ... 

I repeat: let's have fewer, bigger, consolidated bases that best fit the needs of the CF and can _survive_ the political processes. But the political processes are not always cast in concrete; a few years ago, while I was in the staff college, we used to joke that the baseline force structure was a _Vandoo_ battalion in Summerside. Well, Summerside is gone - closed by a Conservative government that faced financial problems and didn't have much representation in PEI - see also my comments about "governing without Québec" and then reconsider the political requirements for e.g. St Jean.


----------



## dapaterson

Fewer and larger bases drives a wedge between the military and the people it serves.  A nation the size of Canada (if we are to be a nation) requires the visible presence of national symbols such as the military.  Shipping the military off to the armpits of the nation because land is cheap is pennywise and pound foolish.

Would it not be better to have a more widely dispersed military, but with large training areas to enable the conduct of large scale collective training.  Certainly, some inefficiencies would be introduced, but you then have an enhanced abiltiy to respond to domestic events, an increased community footprint, and a stronger bond.

Just my contrarian 2c.


----------



## DCRabbit

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I repeat: let's have fewer, bigger, consolidated bases that best fit the needs of the CF and can _survive_ the political processes. But the political processes are not always cast in concrete; a few years ago, while I was in the staff college, we used to joke that the baseline force structure was a _Vandoo_ battalion in Summerside. Well, Summerside is gone - closed by a Conservative government that faced financial problems and didn't have much representation in PEI - see also my comments about "governing without Québec" and then reconsider the political requirements for e.g. St Jean.



 Political majorities are made in Ontario. If you don't win around the GTA area, you're not gonna win a majority. Giving a 400 million (give or take) hit to any of the economies in the area is political suicide. Only way that'll happen is if one party has such a stranglehold on the area it doesn't have to worry about it.. like the Libs with closing London, Downsview, etc.. but in today's fractious political landscape I don't see that hold on the GTA area happening for a very long time. Any other region in the country just doesn't compare for political seat concentration. 

 Fewer, bigger, consolidated bases make sense logically. But having big bases away from population centers (Cold Lake, Wainright, Shilo, etc..) contributes to the disassociation of the general public with the CF. Unless reserve units can do the job of engaging the population in major cities..

 Just my civvie 2 cents.


----------



## George Wallace

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> ....... Unless reserve units can do the job of engaging the population in major cities..



And of course they are often first on the chopping block........and the current political atmosphere (not only in the House of Commons, but in the higher echelons of the CF) seems to indicate those days may be closer than we thought.


----------



## DCRabbit

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And of course they are often first on the chopping block........and the current political atmosphere (not only in the House of Commons, but in the higher echelons of the CF) seems to indicate those days may be closer than we thought.



  Hmm.. maybe that's why Meaford's in the red area on that list. *scratches head* 

 It seems that a lot of the red sites are reserve support sites (I could be mistaken). It would seem that's where they are gonna wield the knife and leave the reg forces infrastructure mostly alone.. with some minor trimming and consolidation. Shilo and Suffield I dunno about.. CF needs training area.. and I would think those are cheap to run with almost no local interference.


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fewer and larger bases drives a wedge between the military and the people it serves.  A nation the size of Canada (if we are to be a nation) requires the visible presence of national symbols such as the military.  Shipping the military off to the armpits of the nation because land is cheap is pennywise and pound foolish.





			
				DCRabbit said:
			
		

> But having big bases away from population centers (Cold Lake, Wainright, Shilo, etc..) contributes to the disassociation of the general public with the CF.



Is this true?  I hear this a lot, but is there anything to prove it is accurate or not?

I'd be willing to be that most people's exposure to the military consists of seeing recruiters in public (who are in those cities anyways), see reservists of urban units training (who are in those cities anyways) or catch a news clip on CTV about Afghanistan.  I don't how CFB Edmonton creates any special link to to Canada - the units there send soldiers all over Western Canada for COMREL events; this would be done just as easily from Wainwright or Suffield.

The United States doesn't have Major military installations in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago to connect with Americans.  Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.


----------



## AIC_2K5

> I'd be willing to be that most people's exposure to the military consists of seeing recruiters in public (who are in those cities anyways), see reservists of urban units training (who are in those cities anyways) or catch a news clip on CTV about Afghanistan.  I don't how CFB Edmonton creates any special link to to Canada - the units there send soldiers all over Western Canada for COMREL events; this would be done just as easily from Wainwright or Suffield.



Agreed, but I think something needs to be said about having Reg F units near urban centres. I'm not saying we should move our CMBGs to downtown Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, but when troops stop by their local timmies, gas staitions, or grocery stores to or from work in a bigger city like Edmonton it gets the CF 'out there' to the Canadian population more so than in a place like Moose Jaw. I don't believe that Reservists produce this level of exposure.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The United States doesn't have Major military installations in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago to connect with Americans.  Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.



And the US is having problems with recruiting not drawing on the NE population centres - its military is becoming less representative of the population at large, and that is a major concern for any democratic state.


----------



## aesop081

> Los Angeles



Los Angeles AFB. Edwards AFB is also located in LA County.



> Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.



Far from it. A cursory look at a list of US military instalations indicates a significant military presence near major centers. Go take a look at San Diego for example ( NAB Coronado, NAS North Island, San Diego naval Station, Point Loma Naval submarine base, Imperial beach Naval oulying field, MCRD San Diego)


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the US is having problems with recruiting not drawing on the NE population centres - its military is becoming less representative of the population at large, and that is a major concern for any democratic state.



That is likely related to issues other than whether Boston has an Army base with soldiers hitting the local Fred Meyer - much like our demographics which feature over-representation from certain groups and geographic areas.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Los Angeles AFB. Edwards AFB is also located in LA County.  Far from it.



Well, if you want to be pedantic, almost every US base is an urban center simply because most of them are huge, often over 100,000 when dependants are included.

However, I'm talking about major urban centers - generally cities with over 1,000,000 people.  San Diego is an outlier; the only one of the top 10 U.S. cities to have a major military installation in it.  You could sneak Ft Lewis in the Sea-Tac area and Kings Bay in Jacksonville if you wanted to up your batting average to over .100.  However, neither of the other 9 major U.S. Army bases (with a division), nor the USMC's East Coast home, nor the U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet are located near the largest of U.S. cities.   You may have a couple of airfields, but that is about it.

Major U.S. cities do not generally have large Active Duty bases/stations in their immediate vicinity.


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> San Diego is an outlier; *the only one * of the top 10 U.S. cities to have a major military installation in it.



Not only *A* major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :

Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)

San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)

Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not only *A* major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :
> 
> Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)
> 
> San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)
> 
> Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.




But, back _circa_ 1941, when e.g. Lackland AFB was first built, San Antonio was far, far smaller and Lackland was _waaay_ out in the country - as were many (most?) of our BCATP aerodromes here in Canada. San Antonio and Lackland both grew and, in the process, got closer and closer to one another. While the _centre_ of Lackland is the same distance from the _centre_ of San Antonio as in 1941, the ubiquitous motorcar and the freeways make 15+ miles nothing in 2011, but 70 years ago that was a _loooooong_ way.









Lackland AFB 1941                                                        Lackland AFB 1969
                                                                                     One can still see traces of the original structures near the centre, above the main road
                                                                                     It is, doubtless, much larger now


----------



## McG

What mechanism of public interaction would we hope to gain from by spreading units through more major cities?  Is such a suggestion really about capitalizing on the value of random encounters between civilians and uniformed service personnel at the grocery store?


----------



## Infanteer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not only *A* major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :
> 
> Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)
> 
> San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)
> 
> Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.



Hey, I gave you a few airfields!  Regardless, we're still in the minority and bases tend to be, more often or not, away from the largest cities.  The original point, that U.S. bases are for the most part not integrated into major metropolitan centers, still stands.

I think we can generally conclude that:

1.  Navies have no choice but to have bases in large coastal cities;
2.  Airforces can be anywhere they want, but want to keep enough distance to avoid interference in airfield activities;
3.  Armies need bases away from cities where they have big spaces to run around in; and
4.  None of this really has anything to do with "connecting with the nation".


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> Is such a suggestion really about capitalizing on the value of random encounters between civilians and uniformed service personnel at the grocery store?



Maybe, if we do, we'll get both 60mm mortars AND the CASW!


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe, if we do, we'll get both 60mm mortars AND the CASW!


Are those next to the dairy?


----------



## DCRabbit

MCG said:
			
		

> What mechanism of public interaction would we hope to gain from by spreading units through more major cities?  Is such a suggestion really about capitalizing on the value of random encounters between civilians and uniformed service personnel at the grocery store?



  It shows military personnel as human and part of the community rather than just numbers stationed god knows where in yet another gov't dept that vast amounts of money is spent on. In an increasingly urban population that the CF will need to recruit from, it pays to generate familiarity in urban centers.. and offer urban recruits job opportunities close to urban centers.


----------



## McG

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> It shows military personnel as human and part of the community rather than just numbers stationed god knows where in yet another gov't dept that vast amounts of money is spent on. In an increasingly urban population that the CF will need to recruit from, it pays to generate familiarity in urban centers.. and offer urban recruits job opportunities close to urban centers.


Is the corollary of your theory that the absence of a permanent Regular Force presence in a major Canadian city will result in that city's population dissociating us and eventually opposing our existence?  Do you believe there is really a tangible PR benefit from the random cereal isle encounters in Toronto where the majority of the population is likely still oblivious to our presence there?


----------



## aesop081

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, back _circa_ 1941, when



I dont beleive that the argument was that we should connect with people from 1941.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> 4.  None of this really has anything to do with "connecting with the nation".



Indeed. I never bought into that argument anyways. I just wanted to be a pain in the ass after you said SD was the only top 10 city with a major military presence. >


----------



## Journeyman

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  Navies have no choice but to have bases in large coastal cities;


Scandalous; forgetting the HQ of the Quebec National Navy on the coast of the St Lawrence River.


I figure if _CDN Aviator_ can be a pain.....  ;D


----------



## Griffon

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> It shows military personnel as human and part of the community rather than just numbers stationed god knows where in yet another gov't dept that vast amounts of money is spent on. In an increasingly urban population that the CF will need to recruit from, it pays to generate familiarity in urban centers.. and offer urban recruits job opportunities close to urban centers.



There is actually quite a bit of truth in this.  One of the major complaints that I hear on this base (Cold Lake) is how isolated it is from a large urban center.  It could be much more attractive to prospective recruits if there were more urban locations that they could be posted to, and more importantly I would be willing to bet there would be less of an issue of retention as there are many members who decide to leave after their Basic Engagement because they have problems with being at a location isolated from the larger urban centers in Canada.


----------



## aesop081

Griffon said:
			
		

> I would be willing to bet there would be less of an issue of retention as there are many members who decide to leave after their Basic Engagement because they have problems with being at a location isolated from the larger urban centers in Canada.



I was posted to Edmonton early after the base became an army one. What transpired was the exact oposite of what you describe. In my regiment, 95% of the privates we had released at the end of their first BE because they could easily get jobs on civvy street.


----------



## AIC_2K5

> Do you believe there is really a tangible PR benefit from the random cereal isle encounters in Toronto where the majority of the population is likely still oblivious to our presence there?



On principle, probably not. I do still believe communities with nearby military bases have a greater connection with those units and, by extension, the CF as a whole.

And then what about looking at the issue from a personnel welfare point of view? While there are many members who enjoy living in rural areas, many prefer living near urban cities. And I would say this number is growing based on the demographics shift in Canadian population, which we recruit from.



> I was posted to Edmonton early after the base became an army one. What transpired was the exact oposite of what you describe. In my regiment, 95% of the privates we had released at the end of their first BE because they could easily get jobs on civvy street.



Interesting. Though I would tend to think this reasoning would be more the exception rather than the norm.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Griffon said:
			
		

> There is actually quite a bit of truth in this.  One of the major complaints that I hear on this base (Cold Lake) is how isolated it is from a large urban center.  It could be much more attractive to prospective recruits if there were more urban locations that they could be posted to, and more importantly I would be willing to bet there would be less of an issue of retention as there are many members who decide to leave after their Basic Engagement because they have problems with being at a location isolated from the larger urban centers in Canada.



You know I agree whole heatedly with you on this one. After spending 15 months in a relatively close environment with a) NSE FP (Full of PRES folks from the Tor Bdg) and b) Oodles of young (and some old ) folk posted to Petawawa who made up the meat of the NSE I found the following 2 statements very interesting, and this is from the horses mouth:

When one would ask one of the fine NSE FP Ptn folks why they don't join the regular force the over whelming answer was as follows:
What and be posted to Pet or Gagetown ? These kids, while fine soldiers, have no interest in moving from a major center like Toronto where these is culture and life outside the military to a place like Pet or Gagetown. I'm sure both places have there merits but they don't have allot to offer the now modern demographic that we have become, i.e. the move from rural to urban centers. 

When I would ask one of the Pet people why they hated Pet so much and why they were going to release upon return the over whelming answer I got was a follows:
They 100% answered that Pet had nothing offer them in the way of work for the spouses or things to do after hours, unless you want to hunt, fish or go 4-wheeling. I found this to be the same for my self as well while I was in Pet doing work up training. 

I took the opportunity to look around Pet and Pembroke to see if my better half and I would like it here. What I found was very disheartening. My wife is a Master Degree educated lady who has a very good job that I would not ask her to leave. Not to work the drive thru at McDonald's anyways.

I think this is something the CF will have to come to grips with  as time moves on. The vast majority of Canadians are now born and raised in urban centers, to one degree or another, and this will play havoc with retention issues as members will simply be unwilling to resign or sign at all when forced with staying in what I would consider isolated posting.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bubbles said:
			
		

> And then what about looking at the issue from a personnel welfare point of view? While there are many members who enjoy living in rural areas, many prefer living near urban cities. And I would say this number is growing based on the demographics shift in Canadian population, which we recruit from.



I think I pretty much echoed you Bubbles!


----------



## aesop081

Bubbles said:
			
		

> Interesting. Though I would tend to think this reasoning would be more the exception rather than the norm.



Simply making an observation. Norm or exception, i cannot say.


----------



## dimsum

Further to the urban v. rural split, if the CF plans on recruiting more members from visible minorities, this issue will become even more important.  Try explaining the benefits of being posted to, say Comox, to a second-generation Chinese-Canadian from a big city...that was me a few years ago, and my family was convinced I moved to the moon.  

I was lucky that I lived in Victoria for a few years so I knew Comox would be an awesome place, even if I had to do trips to Victoria or Vancouver to get back in touch with real city life.


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> CDA could move its offices off the penisula (to base proper) in order to free-up buildings already at the campus.



If you're going to build new buildings for them.... sure. There's no space up top right now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Accepting, as I do, the morale advantages to urban postings, and even accepting, just for the sake of argument, the "community connectedness" point, but noting some of the very real constraints Infanteer added, then my question is: *how much is it worth to have too many bases and stations? Should we sacrifice nships or tanks or fighter or transport aircraft and x people to have some more of our folks posted to or near major urban centres?* At any given time the defence budget is finite, so it is a "zero sum game." If we want to spend more on people and equipment than we need to spend less on e.g. infrastructure and administration. Generally, consolidation is seen as a good way to free up infrastructure and administrative resources. So, which way shall we go?


----------



## George Wallace

I find it interesting that so many are calling for Bases to be closer to urban centers.  It doesn't take too much research to look at all the Bases around the country that have had to be closed down due to the growth of urban centers.  Once upon a time Bases such as those in Calgary, Edmonton, Connaught, Downsview, Kingston, Winnipeg, even Gagetown, were all way out in the boonies.  The former Bases in Calgary have both been swallowed up by urban sprawl.  Both the Air Bases and Army Bases in Winnipeg and Edmonton had at one time also been located well outside of the city limits.  Now one Air Base in the center of Edmonton is a municipal airport and part-time race track, Griesbach is swallowed up, and the city is within a short walk of Namao.  The City of Winnipeg has also surrounded all DND lands in its urban sprawl.  Rifle ranges and Ammo Compounds in Halifax/Dartmouth are now well within the urban center.  Shearwater's airstrips are being encroached upon by urban sprawl.   The Ranges in Connaught are completely surrounded by the City of Ottawa now.

All of these Training Areas have no room for expansion, and as weapons systems change/improve there is no room to expand DANGER TEMPLATES.  (A solution in Halifax in the distant past was not to fire at night so that the locals wouldn't see tracer flying over the highway.....  ;D )  These are serious concerns that require a lot of forethought and consideration as to where the CF establishes its Bases.  There has to be enough 'Manoeuvre Area' to train in and a safe buffer zone for growing Danger Templates for Ranges.  These are not going to be found in or near large urban centers.


----------



## dapaterson

There are many ways to make things work with a dispersed military.  Our current methods of force generation, taking a single unit then grafting on everyone, his brother, sister, dog, and adding new equipment throughout the training cycle, then sending them away for months on pre-deployment training, would not see any significant changes.  Except with the main unit also being sent away to a large training area, the schedules would be rationalized and tightend up - unlike today's pre-deployment training that is too often "Go home at noon and spend time with your family" "But I'm an augmentee - my family is 2000 km away" "Sucks to be you then".

However, the families would be in larger areas with more services available to them.  Better employment opportunities for spouses.  And turning large bases from garrisons with the related support staff into training areas, with minimal resident support (units would bring their own) would improve training and planning - no more "we'll just hop on to the base to get X, Y and Z that we neglected in our plan".

(Note that this speaks to Army training areas and bases; it's not practical for the other two services)


----------



## McG

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The new building was started back in 2004-2005 I believe (before CMR opened).  They had significant issues, especially when they discovered archeological (sp) remains while digging, putting the project on hold for a long while.  It takes a LONG time to put up builidngs on the peninsula because it has such a history and it is over-protected.  It drives both the time AND costs up.


It may take time & resources to build on the peninsula, but it is still possible.  Further, there is not necessarily a requirement to build for a few reasons.  As I previously indicated, the RMC campus has occupants that do not necessarily need to be there.  CDA could move up the escarpment to base-propor.  As well, with the plethora of messes in CFB Kingston, one could argue that the SSM is not an essential establishment and could instead be converted to educational purposes.

Further, there are many things on the CMR campus that could move to base-proper in Kingston as opposed to the RMC campus.  The CFSTG detachment, the ILQ residency programme and the CMR PMQ patch would not need to be stuffed into RMC.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CDA could move its offices off the peninsula (to base proper) in order to free-up buildings already at the campus.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to build new buildings for them.... sure. There's no space up top right now.
Click to expand...

If we choose to consolidate onto fewer bases, then new infrastructure is going to be requried.  That is not a surprise.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Accepting, as I do, the morale advantages to urban postings, and even accepting, just for the sake of argument, the "community connectedness" point, but noting some of the very real constraints Infanteer added, then my question is: *how much is it worth to have too many bases and stations? Should we sacrifice nships or tanks or fighter or transport aircraft and x people to have some more of our folks posted to or near major urban centres?* At any given time the defence budget is finite, so it is a "zero sum game." If we want to spend more on people and equipment than we need to spend less on e.g. infrastructure and administration. Generally, consolidation is seen as a good way to free up infrastructure and administrative resources. So, which way shall we go?


I think the Edmonton model is a good one for the Army.  The brigade (or most of it) is based at the extremities of a metropolitan centre with quick highway access to a huge training area that is not at risk of urban encroachment.  Valcartier is probably another working example that itself is close enough to a major centre for the families but with its own training area.  Petawawa is the unfortunate outlier.

I am not convinced that the _urban presence for community relations _ is a relevant factor and, while the perceived quality of life issues are worth considering, I don't see it being worth our effort moving the 2 CMBG to the edges of Kanata in order to emulate the 1 CMBG dynamic.  In the big scheme, I would not see moving CTC or any of the three brigades, and so ...



			
				Bubbles said:
			
		

> Do you believe there is really a tangible PR benefit from the random cereal isle encounters in Toronto where the majority of the population is likely still oblivious to our presence there?
> 
> 
> 
> On principle, probably not. I do still believe communities with nearby military bases have a greater connection with those units and, by extension, the CF as a whole.
> 
> And then what about looking at the issue from a personnel welfare point of view? While there are many members who enjoy living in rural areas, many prefer living near urban cities. And I would say this number is growing based on the demographics shift in Canadian population, which we recruit from.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that we should de-consolidate rural super-bases into cities, or that we should retain what we have in cities already?

Where people have suggested closing bases, it has been generally those bases at which the average service member will spend very little if any time.  Outside of a year at Staff College, Toronto does not offer many postings to provide an urban lifestyle for service members.  The same is true of St Jean (both CFLRS and CMR).

I suspect E.R. Campbell would move 1 CMBG to a home training base.  There is merit to that, but I think it works well were it is.  I believe that the majority of base consolidations suggested within this thread would not have tangible impacts on either our public engagement nor our aggregate QoL because the majority of the base consolidations suggested involve locations that are sufficiently small in contrast to their local populations and in contrast to the CF population as a whole.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> I suspect E.R. Campbell would move 1 CMBG to a home training base.  There is merit to that, but I think it works well were it is.  I believe that the majority of base consolidations suggested within this thread would not have tangible impacts on either our public engagement nor our aggregate QoL because the majority of the base consolidations suggested involve locations that are sufficiently small in contrast to their local populations and in contrast to the CF population as a whole.




I would, indeed, in a perfect world. In the one we're in I accept that Edmonton is, indeed, a good enough choice.

Re: Kingston - again, in a perfect world, I would move the Signals School part of Kingston to Gagetown, the Air Force C&E bits to Cold Lake and the SIGNIT and Int School parts to Ottawa (an even more urban place) and free up the Vimy side of the base for an expanded RMC. Perhaps some of the non-undergraduate parts could move to the top of the hill, freeing space in Fort Frederick and on the Barriefield site for undergraduate facilities. Or, alternatively, perhaps the staff colleges could move from Fort Frontenac and Toronto to Vimy Barracks and let RMC expand into Fort Frontenac. Further consolidating Army training in Gagetown would, I think be *operationally* beneficial to the Army and Signals. Assuming we're not closing Trenton and moving air transport to Edmonton or (better) a new CFB Lloydminster, then the Joint Signal Regiment, and whatever HQ it supports is probably good to stay in Kingston. The new EW Regiment is movable.


Edit: a little more excrement mixing for the Sigs/C&E crowd.  >


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... in a perfect world, I would move the Signals School part of Kingston to Gagetown, the Air Force C&E bits to Cold Lake and the SIGNIT and Int School parts to Ottawa (an even more urban place) ...


I don't think I would split the C&E school along environmental lines.  It is a very technical area in which I suspect all elements have much to gain from a "shared mother ship."  If moved from Kingston, the Peace Support Training centre should follow it.  I would see CFSCE, PSTC and the CFSEME consolidated in a common location (probably one of Borden, Shilo or Gagetown) - this consolidation would reduce CTC HQ's current geographic span of control in Ontario and allow them to takeover PSTC from LFDTS.

... of course, that is assuming we don't just altogether dissolve CTC HQ as a redundant layer of HQ.


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The new EW Regiment is movable.



That's because there's no infrastructure built for it yet (I'll be a WO by the time the shovel hits dirt). As soon as you start moving TSSA facilities, its going to cost you a lot of money and time in the short term, making it a hard sell. Now, if you built the EW Regt a new building in another base, I'm sure they'd be happy to pack up and go, just to stop feeling like squatters in JSRs perceived control of E30.

Edit: Also, where do you move it? You move it to Pet, and 1+5 CMBG now get into a tiff because they don't have integral tac EW. Same thing if it heads to Edmonton/Valcartier. Its central to everyone and near 1 Can Div HQ right now.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...I'm sure they'd be happy to pack up and go, just to stop feeling like squatters in JSRs perceived control of E30.
> ...



 :rofl:

Sigh ~ where's those ducks when you need them to demo.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Edit: Also, where do you move it? You move it to Pet, and 1+5 CMBG now get into a tiff because they don't have integral tac EW. Same thing if it heads to Edmonton/Valcartier. Its central to everyone and near 1 Can Div HQ right now.



Kingston's central to Edmonton and Valcartier?


----------



## PuckChaser

Hour drive to Trenton to throw kit on C17s. We could always create a base in the exact epicenter of Canada to make sure everyone's feathers aren't ruffled.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hour drive to Trenton to throw kit on C17s. We could always create a base in the exact epicenter of Canada to make sure everyone's feathers aren't ruffled.



Kenora, Ontario!


----------



## GAP

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Kingston's central to Edmonton and Valcartier?



close...... ;D


----------



## DCRabbit

Hmm.. also, wouldn't it be prohibitively expensive to clean up a base with a training area that's been in use for a great length of time? If so.. and add in the replacement infrastructure costs elsewhere.. would it still be worth it to close a major base? Would it save money to close Borden rather than consolidating to it?  Would it save money to clean up and close Suffield? Would the CF save more money by closing a major base rather than the properties in the bottom third? Or would it take years and years to see a savings over the cost of closing?

Mod Edit: Cleaned up the excess spaces.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> near 1 Can Div HQ right now.



So what ?


----------



## AIC_2K5

> Are you arguing that we should de-consolidate rural super-bases into cities, or that we should retain what we have in cities already?



Maintain the status quo. I accept that there are obvious challenges with picking up whole units and building new bases for them closer to urban centres. And I accept that when many of the larger rural army bases were first built, the upper management was primarily concerned about proximity to suitable training grounds. But I don't believe the Army should be moving units from perfectly suitable bases near a city for the sake of access to training areas, such as 2 VP in Winnipeg.


----------



## armyvern

Bubbles said:
			
		

> Maintain the status quo. I accept that there are obvious challenges with picking up whole units and building new bases for them closer to urban centres. And I accept that when many of the larger rural army bases were first built, the upper management was primarily concerned about proximity to suitable training grounds. But I don't believe the Army should be moving units from perfectly suitable bases near a city for the sake of access to training areas, such as 2 VP in Winnipeg.



Why is proximity to urban area such a big point for you? You keep bringing it up, but don`t substantiate why you think that being closer to a city is more important for the ARMY than immediate accessibility to a training area where they can practice their primary task of defence & offense -when required- ?

To be, in your words, "perfectly suitable" to the ARMY, immediate access to that oh-so-critical-to-the-Army-thing called a training area should weigh _very_ heavily.


----------



## ArmyRick

I was thinking of a new idea. On topic base closures but steering in a new direction. What if we added to Campbell's idea. Instead of closing bases, we actually increase bases BUT we add Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP facilities, other federal government buildings that don't require the public to access them.

1. This would consolidate cost across the federal govt (A rresponsibility any govt should take seriously towards joe taxpayer)
2. DND could be the manager of these bases and the facilities but leave those other govt agencies free to do their business (there would have to be serious MoU drafted up)
3. In times of domestic emergencies, it makes security for fed govt facilities much easier if we max out consolidation 
4. It could make govt cooperation between agencies much easier (especially for dom ops) if there is some colocation
5. Most bases are open now anyways so security on a day to day basis is not that big an issue

I know some people are ready to rip my idea apart but I would love to hear thoughts, suggestions, comments, etc, etc.


----------



## observor 69

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> we add Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP facilities, other federal government buildings that don't require the public to access them.
> I know some people are ready to rip my idea apart but I would love to hear thoughts, suggestions, comments, etc, etc.



In Cold Lake ....Bagotville ?  On this one of the colder days of the year I get shivers just thinking about it.
BBBrrrrrr !

And ya I have done my time at both places.  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Hmm.. also, wouldn't it be prohibitively expensive to clean up a base with a training area that's been in use for a great length of time? If so.. and add in the replacement infrastructure costs elsewhere.. would it still be worth it to close a major base? Would it save money to close Borden rather than consolidating to it?  Would it save money to clean up and close Suffield? Would the CF save more money by closing a major base rather than the properties in the bottom third? Or would it take years and years to see a savings over the cost of closing?



If I remember correctly, when the Canadian Government returned Harvey Barracks in Calgary to the Sarcee Nation, it cost approx one million dollars per square meter to clear the land of explosives down to a depth of six meters or something to that effect.

All our current major Bases, including Borden, have been used for Artillery and Armour Ranges, some dating back over one hundred years.  To clear those Ranges would put the Government into such a huge Deficit that we would never recover.


On another point, the Ranges in Gagetown are considered a 'nuisance' to the populations of St John and Fredericton when Tanks and Artillery are firing.  The same is said in Petawawa, and it is a Rural area.  When Night Illumination is used, the reports of UFOs are rampant.  Would the populations of a larger metropolitan area put up with this?  Most likely not.


----------



## observor 69

On another point, the Ranges in Gagetown are considered a 'nuisance' to the populations of St John  Saint John and Fredericton when Tanks and Artillery are firing.  The same is said in Petawawa, and it is a Rural area. 

Fixed that for ya.


----------



## George Wallace

You're a saint.    :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> On another point, the Ranges in Gagetown are considered a 'nuisance' to the populations of St John  Saint John and Fredericton when Tanks and Artillery are firing.  The same is said in Petawawa, and it is a Rural area.
> 
> Fixed that for ya.




If we get MLRS, Gagetown can be a nuisance to St John as well.


----------



## McG

Bubbles said:
			
		

> Maintain the status quo. I accept that there are obvious challenges with picking up whole units and building new bases for them closer to urban centres. And I accept that when many of the larger rural army bases were first built, the upper management was primarily concerned about proximity to suitable training grounds. But I don't believe the Army should be moving units from perfectly suitable bases near a city for the sake of access to training areas, such as 2 VP in Winnipeg.


Then we have a bit of common ground.  I do not see it worth our while to move any of the Army's brigades with the possible exception of consolidating 1 CMBG probably in Edmonton.

There are several units and non-field formations that could be well served by relocation/consolidation.  As I mentioned in much early posts, relocation needs to be decided upon in conjunction with an examination of our force structure.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I was thinking of a new idea. On topic base closures but steering in a new direction. What if we added to Campbell's idea. Instead of closing bases, we actually increase bases BUT we add Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP facilities, other federal government buildings that don't require the public to access them.


In principle, I see nothing wrong with shared federal facilities and especially not between agencies that operate in concerte.  However, I would not create more bases to do this, and I would not try to squeeze more things into existing congested facilities.  Where there is space and it makes sense, then there should be an arrangement that can be made to work.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Please everyone, get you johns in order: Its St. John's, Saint John and Saint-Jean. 

Also, pairing up government facilities is sometimes done in the Military, but rarely practical.

In Montreal, for instance, the new Naval Reserve Unit that the Navy built (or CFB Montreal built for the Navy - paid by the Navy though) is also housing the RCMP and other Federal offices. Its fine because the building is near downtown Montreal. But can you see federal employees from, say, Health and Welfare based in Valcartier, or Petawawa? You'd have the unions on your back faster than you can say free Transpo bus pass.


----------



## vonGarvin

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Please everyone, get you johns in order: Its St. John's, Saint John and Saint-Jean.


[tangent] For what it's worth, I noted a gravestone in St-Jean, QC that listed the place of death as "Saint John's, Quebec"
[/tangent]

Consolidation of Federal Goverment departments, or at least some facilities, could work in Gagetown, but as a rule of principle?  I'm not sure.


As a former resident of the area bordering the base near the Enniskillen Ranges, I had not in 3 years heard any firing from the training area, though I did hear a few explosions from time to time.  To be honest, anyone living near CFB Gagetown may complain about the sounds of freedom eminating from the base; however, they pale in comparison to the random shootings by "hunters" in the surrounding area.  At least the Army templates its shooting such that all rounds land within the training area (Geary Speedway notwithstanding) ;D


----------



## DCRabbit

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, when the Canadian Government returned Harvey Barracks in Calgary to the Sarcee Nation, it cost approx one million dollars per square meter to clear the land of explosives down to a depth of six meters or something to that effect.
> 
> All our current major Bases, including Borden, have been used for Artillery and Armour Ranges, some dating back over one hundred years.  To clear those Ranges would put the Government into such a huge Deficit that we would never recover.
> 
> 
> On another point, the Ranges in Gagetown are considered a 'nuisance' to the populations of St John and Fredericton when Tanks and Artillery are firing.  The same is said in Petawawa, and it is a Rural area.  When Night Illumination is used, the reports of UFOs are rampant.  Would the populations of a larger metropolitan area put up with this?  Most likely not.




  So the only thing that could 'save' Borden would be the astronomical cost of cleaning the site up. The same with any other major base. I think Borden is gonna be axed, myself.

 And if the residents around Pet are complaining about the noise.. they're nuts. If there were no base, there would be no town.


----------



## ArmyRick

To close Borden down would be very costly. Where the heck would move all those schools and facilities to? Who is going to do a level 2 clearance of the training area? Borden was once the Armoured and Infantry school so I imagine the UXO threat is notable.


----------



## REDinstaller

I think that closing any base that had a training area attached would be costly. Just a 25M pistol range is quite the headache to remediate.


----------



## AIC_2K5

> Why is proximity to urban area such a big point for you? You keep bringing it up, but don`t substantiate why you think that being closer to a city is more important for the ARMY than immediate accessibility to a training area where they can practice their primary task of defence & offense -when required- ?
> 
> To be, in your words, "perfectly suitable" to the ARMY, immediate access to that oh-so-critical-to-the-Army-thing called a training area should weigh very heavily.



I've substantiated my reasoning in an earlier post. Simply creating an argument from the viewpoint of member morale for the sake of debate.


----------



## quadrapiper

Question...

Given the various comments regarding once-rural training areas being surrounded by cities, possible needs for larger range templates, and so on, should the focus of debate shift to finding new training areas that could provide a comparable or improved service to the Army? (I'll leave the Air Force and Navy out of it - neither need to occupy quite the same footprint for training) Pick up significant areas of land in areas where development is unlikely _now_, and throw them open as "unimproved" to any Reserve units, cadet corps, other federal agencies, etc that can reach them, just to maintain the CF's presence on the land. There's plenty of Canada; might as well use it.

Then, and only then, look at closing or shuffling current facilities, or maintaining a caretaker presence only.


----------



## dapaterson

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> (I'll leave the Air Force and Navy out of it - neither need to occupy quite the same footprint for training)



You may wish to look at Cold Lake on a map sometime - fast jets need lots of three-dmensional space to train.  It's not just the Army with a large real estate bill.


----------



## George Wallace

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> ............. There's plenty of Canada; might as well use it.



That's what I thought until the people of the North complained that Low Level NATO flights were disrupting the Caribou migration and all NATO Low Level Flight Training had to stop in Goose Bay.  It is no longer environmentally safe to fly NATO fighter aircraft over our northern wastes, so they must now train in their native highly populated nations with high volumes of civilian aircraft activities to avoid.   Such is the new world order.

Needless to say, now Goose Bay is becoming a ghost town, and Canada has lost valuable NATO funding dollars.


----------



## aesop081

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> (I'll leave the Air Force and Navy out of it - neither need to occupy quite the same footprint for training)





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> You may wish to look at Cold Lake on a map sometime - fast jets need lots of three-dmensional space to train.  It's not just the Army with a large real estate bill.



Let us not forget the fact that Significant portions of Canada's airspace is reserved for military operations.


----------



## kratz

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> I'll leave the Air Force and Navy out of it - neither need to occupy quite the same footprint for training




Look at the environmental protests off the BC coast with the Navy's torpedo weapons range. We need a large training area as well.


----------



## vonGarvin

kratz said:
			
		

> Look at the environmental protests off the BC coast with the Navy's torpedo weapons range. We need a large training area as well.



Here's one training area:






Here's another:





And a third, seasonally open:


----------



## kratz

Actually, I was thinking of the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental & Test Ranges  (CFMETR) in Nanoose Bay, BC and the protests they had there.


----------



## aesop081

kratz said:
			
		

> Actually, I was thinking of the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental & Test Ranges  (CFMETR) in Nanoose Bay, BC and the protests they had there.



The Footprint of CFMETR is actualy pretty small. It is by no means large.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Footprint of CFMETR is actualy pretty small. It is by no means large.



I dunno- I've seen 407 Sqn crews lose Mk30 targets there such that you'd think it was a much, much larger range.  >


Come on- you know I love you, bro!


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I dunno- I've seen 407 Sqn crews lose Mk30 targets there such that you'd think it was a much, much larger range.  >
> 
> 
> Come on- you know I love you, bro!



Yeah, you're pretty funny for a fling-wing puke !


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Question...
> 
> (I'll leave the Air Force and Navy out of it - neither need to occupy quite the same footprint for training)



We have our own issues from maneuvering to avoid fishermen to not flashing up our sonar so as not to disrupt the whales and dolphins. not the same but we need substantial training areas ourselves.


----------



## DCRabbit

So.. any more scuttlebutt on this? Or is the idea abandoned for now and is a dead issue? I'm just curious.


----------



## DCRabbit

Yes.. resurrecting a dead thread in curiosity.. anyone hear any news on base closings? I thought the decisions would have been made by now.


----------



## George Wallace

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> So.. any more scuttlebutt on this? Or is the idea abandoned for now and is a dead issue? I'm just curious.






			
				DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Yes.. resurrecting a dead thread in curiosity.. anyone hear any news on base closings? I thought the decisions would have been made by now.



SO?  Why are you so interested?  Do you have a dollar that you hope to use when the Government decides to sell a Base at Crown Assets so that you can make a mint in selling off all the infrastructure?


----------



## DCRabbit

George Wallace said:
			
		

> SO?  Why are you so interested?  Do you have a dollar that you hope to use when the Government decides to sell a Base at Crown Assets so that you can make a mint in selling off all the infrastructure?



 Umm.. no. I grew up at CFB Borden. My sis and I spent the first 23 years of our lives there. My father did his basic there.. and spent most of his military career there.. my mother, all of hers. It's home and I do not want to see it close. None of my family do.


----------



## ArmyRick

The needs of the CF come first, sentimental value is way down the list, my friend. If I was to guess, I don't think Borden will be chopped anytime soon.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> The Western world appears to be desperately short of political leaders willing to take tough decisions these days, with Barack Obama standing at the head of the line and several European leaders cowering behind him. Perhaps Stephen Harper, secure in his majority mandate, could upstage these wafflers by doing something unpopular, but useful, to free up some money for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> What should be done would not go over well in places that are home to outdated or irrelevant military infrastructure. Nevertheless, the hard truth is that the government could save a big chunk of money dumping a pile of it. There are several military facilities across the country that should be closed, either because they're outdated or never made sense in the first place.
> 
> That money should then be reinvested in the Canadian Forces to provide our soldiers with the equipment and personnel they need to protect Canadians. Knowledgeable people inside the military will tell you that the government has never projected enough funding to implement its "Canada First" military strategy. With the current austerity pinch underway, that strategy is just going to keep unravelling. Every now and then the government announces bold new military expenditures only to quietly back down later.
> 
> When the outspoken Gordon O'Connor was this government's defence minister, he nailed it on the head: "We have too much infrastructure. We have too many buildings, too many everything. However, until I see a detailed plan on where the too many is against what our policy is and what our intentions are, we cannot start making adjustments. Down the line, there will be adjustments to infrastructure."
> 
> Five years later, Canadians are still waiting for these ad-justments. Not only have they not been forthcoming, there is actually a government edict in place that no military personnel may comment on infrastructure. The military owns in excess of $20-billion worth of realty assets across this country, and sources assure me that as much as 30% of it is redundant.
> 
> Stephen Harper should take advantage of a moment in Canada's political history that isn't likely to come along again for some time: a majority government, with at least four more years in power guaranteed. If the Prime Minister moved quickly, he could put a plan in place that would rationalize Canada's military infrastructure without paying an enormous price at the ballot box.
> 
> Harper doesn't even have to finger the infrastructure that should go - in fact, he shouldn't. He should instruct his military leaders to do an assessment of what infrastructure is still needed, and what can be eliminated in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Once that report was in - and it would be a controversial one no matter what bases and installations were selected for closure - the government should enact it, on the military's advice.
> 
> The Prime Minister should make it clear to all Canadians that this is an arm's-length operation - no interference from the Cabinet or other members of Parliament. The government would simply respond to the military's own analysis of its needs. If he acts quickly, he and his Cabinet would have more than three years to provide economic stimulation if needed to soften the blow where military facilities have been shuttered. Ideally, looking after the military would always come before looking after Conservative electoral fortunes, but it would be naive to deny that closing local bases are never popular with voters. To put it bluntly, if they did it soon enough before the next election, the Tories could spend their remaining time in office trying to find ways to win back those votes.
> 
> The good thing about this kind of initiative is that it wouldn't be a one-off saving for the military, like flying fewer patrols or keeping ships in harbour for a given amount of time to save on fuel. This exercise would save the military money, initially through the sales of assets and then, in perpetuity, through savings on upkeep.
> 
> Am I confident that Cabinet ministers could keep their hands off the formulation of the redundancy list? Not very - Tony Clement may even want to put a naval base in Muskoka to protect water skiers and escort kayakers. Am I confident that Stephen Harper would designate the money saved to making essential military expenditures that aren't being made during this time of fiscal restraint? Not really. He will be tempted to throw any savings into general revenue as he attempts to co-opt the Paul Martin strategy for deficit reduction.
> 
> Do I even believe that this Prime Minister is one step up on all those other international leaders who can't seem to make the tough calls?
> 
> I honestly don't know. But I'd love to find out.


_National Post_, 26 Aug 11

While it may save money, I disagree with the Senator in that I don't think any political capital the PM may have would be enough to overcome any political dogfighting over base closures.


----------



## GR66

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act.__National Post_, 26 Aug 11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, until I see a detailed plan on where the too many is against what our policy is and what our intentions are, we cannot start making adjustments. Down the line, there will be adjustments to infrastructure."
Click to expand...


I think this is the key quote in the article.   Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.

A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.


----------



## Edward Campbell

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think this is the key quote in the article.   Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.
> 
> A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.




Foreign Policy is a major 'driver' of defence policy but it is not the only one. National security and defence rests on (at least) three legs: protecting guaranteeing our sovereignty over our land and adjacent waters and the airspace above them; aiding our people in dire emergencies; and protecting and promoting our vital interests in the world.

It is, I believe, and error to make defence policy a handmaid of foreign policy: the two coexist and must be in synch but one does not 'drive' the other.


----------



## dapaterson

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think this is the key quote in the article.   Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.
> 
> A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.



There are facilities that could be closed, lights turned off, with no operational impact - and that do not represent significant spare capacity, so even if we end up needing more of whatever it is they provide, we can get it elsewhere.  The lack of political will is what keeps these useless places open, not any military requirement (indeed, the military has been trying to divest of such places for years).

There are others where units could be relocated to other sites and again, the loss of the facilities would save money on moves to train with other units and on the maintenance of facilities in the current location.

None of this is rocket science - it's all about political will to make changes.


----------



## McG

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think this is the key quote in the article.   Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.
> 
> A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.


You are right about that being the key quote to define how we do this, but you are wrong in suggesting we need to wait for some new White Paper.  The call for a new White Paper seems to be the great do-nothing screen that is dug out everytime substantial change is proposed.

Despite the 2005 International Policy Statement and the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy, we continue to hear the argument that DND & the CF cannot move forward because no document has been published with "White Paper" in its title.  We have the government's stratigic vision.  We can move forward.  The requirement for a detailed plan means that assements of base closures need to be looked at in conjuction with our force structures.  The context for this assessment is within the ongonig SR and SOR.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Foreign Policy is a major 'driver' of defence policy but it is not the only one. National security and defence rests on (at least) three legs: protecting guaranteeing our sovereignty over our land and adjacent waters and the airspace above them; aiding our people in dire emergencies; and protecting and promoting our vital interests in the world.
> 
> It is, I believe, and error to make defence policy a handmaid of foreign policy: the two coexist and must be in synch but one does not 'drive' the other.



Agreed that foreign policy shouldn't be the ONLY driver of defence policy (or even the PRIMARY driver for that matter), however with a military of the limited size and scope that we as Canadians are willing to support it is very difficult to make the most of our defence dollars without efficiently balancing our forces to fulfill both our domestic and international requirements.  

I'd argue that while the Conservative government has made it clear that we as a nation will take a fairly robust role in the world they have not laid out any clear sense of what our overall objectives are internationally or how we plan to pursue those objectives.  Defining that (be it through an official "White Paper" or by other less formal means) would go a long way to setting the varied priorities for the military in much clearer focus.


----------



## Edward Campbell

But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.

For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes? Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated _guess_, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.
> 
> For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes? Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated _guess_, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.



I often wondered if we could have some units strategically located in small "Kasernes", as found in Europe, spread across the land.   They could be used as locations for "Long Halts" for larger units moving from one Training Area to another.  They could be used to have a Regular Force presence in a metropolitan area, and also serve as an Armoury for local Reserve units.  These could offer a large "Transient Quarters" and Messing facility capable of housing large units in tansit as well as house units doing weekend or Summer training.  Not all training requires Ranges or large Training Areas, only Training Lecture Buildings and Quarters.  In some instances, this may be a solution to some Reserve units crumbling infrastructure.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.
> 
> For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? *Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes?* Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated _guess_, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.



Exactly what I wonder as well (and I extend that to airbases.)  Taking a page from the Australian Defence Force, I've noticed that all of their Regular Force (Army and RAAF) bases are near, if not in, their cities.  They maintain training areas (Woomera range, etc.) but they just travel there, do their thing and return to Brisbane/Sydney/wherever.  The Australian Army bases are in fairly large cities (over 100,000 at least, up to Brisbane with 2 million people) and they obviously go somewhere to train.  

For the people arguing that fast jets wouldn't work near cities, the RAAF's fast jet bases are RAAF Amberley (50km outside Brisbane) and RAAF Williamtown (27km from Newcastle.)  I'm sure they have missile ranges somewhere in the vast Outback.  With that in mind, is there really any reason to have 3 and 4 Wing where they are?  

This will help solve the issue of QOL as well, since spouses will have jobs and personnel can live near cities if they wish.  I'm sure there are issues that they have which I haven't thought about, but I'd think that they would have less attrition from people getting pissed off that they are stuck in Gagetown/Shilo/Cold Lake.


----------



## ModlrMike

I agree that rationalization of our assets is a necessary exercise. Just the same, it's important to remember how we got to this state. There was a large push during the 50s, 60s and 70s to use Defence infrastructure as a means of local employment control. If you look at the distribution of bases and stations, you should notice that there many are located near small population centers. Witness the former bases at Chatham NB and Debert NS. That is not to say that large centers have not had closures... witness London and Calgary.


----------



## CountDC

uh oh someone had to drag the Air Force and their wings into it.  Looking at the map one could ask do we really need all those wings on the east coast?   West coast has one, prairies have one for each province.  How about Ontario which has 4?  Quebec 1, Newfoundland 1, Labradour 1 and Nova Scotia has 2. Couldn't some be co-located instead of scattered around? 

It would take some research into exactly what each wing does and how much space they need.  For example NS with 2 - on looking closer it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways.  12 Wing Shearwater is the location of Navy Aviation - Sea King - helicopters needing open space big enough to drop into.  Make sense to have the 2 locations? NL 2 wings are both small 3 Helicopters.  Do we need 2?  I imagine when someone is in the Atlantic waiting for rescue they would argue we need which ever one is closer.

and to answer the question on 3 and 4 Wing - I think we do need them where they are.  They are well established, for the most part have the needed facilities and provide air security to both coasts. Where would we move them? Why spend all that money? I do wonder though do we really need to have 15 Wing Moose jaw?

Sure there are places we could cut but it is going to be a pain to figure out. I would even wager that the ones hit the hardest would be the army and reserves.


----------



## aesop081

CountDC said:
			
		

> How about Ontario which has 4?



That is an unfair comment and does not reflect reality.

1 Wing is located in Kingston and is only the HQ for units located at other bases around the country.
16 Wing is located in Borden and is thus not a base in its own right.




> Newfoundland 1, Labradour 1 and Nova Scotia has 2. Couldn't some be co-located instead of scattered around?



Newfoundland.......Goose bay is a political sacred cow and any effort to close 9 Wing will be met with political atom bombs courtesy of the Cougar crash. 12 Wing is located close to the fleet it supports, as it should, on both coasts.



> *on looking closer* it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways.



You need to look closer.....much closer.



> I do wonder though do we really need to have 15 Wing Moose jaw?



Where else would you like that kind of training to be held ? Closer to large populated centers ? Closer to very high density airspace that imposes more restrictions ? On an operational base where that many movements a day would clash with operational flying ?


----------



## dimsum

CountDC said:
			
		

> For example NS with 2 - on looking closer it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways.



....like the runways an hour down the road at Halifax International Airport?


----------



## jollyjacktar

12 Wing is located close to the fleet it supports, as it should, on both coasts.

[/quote]

And at any rate, Shearwater has not been a base of it's own accord since 96.  It was raped, downsized and almagamated into CFB Halifax and is just a lodger unit now for all intents and purposes.  Both Shearwater and Pat Bay are as CDN Aviator said right where they should be.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> ....like the runways an hour down the road at Halifax International Airport?



Sure they have nice long runways.  But there is not the space an operation like that would need at Stanfield International.  How much of a savings would be realized after you purpose build all the hangars etc needed?  That would be so very penny wise, and mega dollar stupid.

I believe they have pretty well cut the CF, base wise, down damn near as far as they could go with respect to sites that are actually used.  ie: Petawawa, Gagetown, Cold Late etc.  They have in the past given away land and property for SFA and could have/should have sold them for fair market value.  ie: Jerrico Beach, Calgary etc.  That would have been a source of cash infusion.  There are still locales that DND have possession of and do not use, they should look there first if they want to save bucks.


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I believe they have pretty well cut the CF, base wise, down damn near as far as they could go with respect to sites that are actually used.  ie: Petawawa, Gagetown, Cold Late etc.  They have in the past given away land and property for SFA and could have/should have sold them for fair market value.  ie: Jerrico Beach, Calgary etc.  That would have been a source of cash infusion.  There are still locales that DND have possession of and do not use, they should look there first if they want to save bucks.



You know nothing of federal real property management or disposition rules.  Surplus property does not belong to DND/CF, it belongs to the Crown. The Crown has an agency charged with disposition of surplus land and buildings; sometimes assets are transferred to other departments, sometimes there is Political interest and other arrangements are made, and sometimes they are sold and proceeds are shared with the original operating department.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yup, I'll admit.  Crown asset disposal machinations is not my area of expertise.  I agree, everything ultimately belongs to the crown and the various departments that make up said entity have different parts to play in the system.   But, I do know of situations where money was thrown down the well with respect to property.  And money thrown down the well, however well the original intention or property management is money lost to the budget of whichever department it belongs to.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?  





> *Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):*  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has proven that he is good at misdirection, rhetoric and personal insults. What he is not so good at is giving straight answers. The minister hurls accusations of fearmongering, but the biggest source of fearmongering is the minister's refusal to clear the air on base closures. The minister is the only who can put military families and their communities at ease. Will he please stand in his place and assure military base communities that they have nothing to fear?
> 
> *Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):*  Mr. Speaker, me thinks he doth protest too much. When it comes to fearmongering, he is referring to a report that was late. The October 2011 departmental directive, which he is referring to, does not speak of base closures. What does reference in an accompanying news article is a Liberal senator musing about base closures. The only person who is causing alarm in the military community, their families and in the country and misleading Canadians about base closures is the member opposite.
> 
> *Christopherson:*  Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the directive to which the minister refers. It says: _"We will also reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating Defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites."_ Again, does this mean base closures, yes or no?
> 
> *MacKay:* Mr. Speaker, sound and fury signifying nothing. Let me be clear about what the NDP members are up to, and we have seen this before. It is an old opposition tactic. Create a crisis, panic people, put fearmongering out there among military families and then when it does not happen, claim credit. That is what they are up to. The member opposite is simply trying to create a crisis that does not exist. The NDP does not support the military, it does not support the investments and that is unfortunate.


----------



## DCRabbit

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?



 I think the NDP is nervous cos it'll be Quebec's turn to bear the brunt of it this time. Everything in Ontario is safe.. Politics... politics..


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?



I believe this is what you meant to post:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> I think the NDP is nervous cos it'll be Quebec's turn to bear the brunt of it this time. Everything in Ontario is safe.. Politics... politics..



I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.

What is really left in Quebec now? Three bases.

CFB Montreal, which includes mostly the largest most modern Depot of the supply branch - the only one in Canada with access to main rail lines, air cargo airports and an important ocean harbour - and the training base for all basic and leadership including field facilities modern and up to date at Farnham. Can anybody see any of this moving in a money saving move?

CFB Valcartier: Anybody wants to tell the vandoos they are moving?

CFB Bagotville: Anybody can see any savings in trying to relocate on third of our jet fighters and all their support to another location (and explaining to the Americans why the air defence of half of North America has to be re-planned and redesigned.


----------



## DCRabbit

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.
> 
> What is really left in Quebec now? Three bases.
> 
> CFB Montreal, which includes mostly the largest most modern Depot of the supply branch - the only one in Canada with access to main rail lines, air cargo airports and an important ocean harbour - and the training base for all basic and leadership including field facilities modern and up to date at Farnham. Can anybody see any of this moving in a money saving move?
> 
> CFB Valcartier: Anybody wants to tell the vandoos they are moving?
> 
> CFB Bagotville: Anybody can see any savings in trying to relocate on third of our jet fighters and all their support to another location (and explaining to the Americans why the air defence of half of North America has to be re-planned and redesigned.



 Major bases? No.. but armouries and smaller stuff yes. Whatever's cheap to clean and can be sold for money. CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property. CPCs are gonna look to punish Quebec. It may not be practical or make sense.. but it's politics. Politics rarely does..


----------



## Fishbone Jones

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> Major bases? No.. but armouries and smaller stuff yes. Whatever's cheap to clean and can be sold for money. CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property. CPCs are gonna look to punish Quebec. It may not be practical or make sense.. but it's politics. Politics rarely does..



 :Tin-Foil-Hat: :rofl: :facepalm: :sarcasm: k:

Sorry. Couldn't decide which one was most appropriate. Pray, tell how you came to such a conclusion.


----------



## 2010newbie

DCRabbit said:
			
		

> CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property.



I did not go to CMR St. Jean while at CFLRS, but I believe it is on the river, not CFLRS. CFLRS is approximately 2.5 km from the river.


----------



## DCRabbit

recceguy said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat: :rofl: :facepalm: :sarcasm: k:
> 
> Sorry. Couldn't decide which one was most appropriate. Pray, tell how you came to such a conclusion.



The fact that Quebec elected all those NDP members. The provinces that elect MPs of the governing party are gonna get the spoils. The ones that don't get the cuts. Hence why all those NDP MPs from Quebec are worried. Sarcasm all you want, tis your right.. 

We shall have to see.

Okay.. this board seems to be randomly reposting mesasages.. time to stop after this post as to not compound the problem any more than I am by posting this.


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Christopherson:  Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the directive to which the minister refers. It says: "We will also reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating Defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites." Again, does this mean base closures, yes or no?
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*

If I may just zero in on that one statement.

If the Honourable Member, Mr Christopherson, were one to actually read the newspapers and watch the news, he would of course remember that DND has purchased the Nortel Complex in Nepean into which DND plans on consolidating all its various organizations spread throughout the NCR (both in Ottawa and Gatineau) into one location; thus the necessity of the Minister's statement: "We will also reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating Defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites."

Does this really mean Base Closures or is it only a statement of some fiscal responsibility on the part of DND?  DND is being looked upon to cut its budget and being a little more frugal in renting office space scattered throughout Ontario and Quebec in the NCR is just one way they may be able to do it without affecting "Operations".  I will tend to agree with the Minister, the Opposition in both Houses are fearmongering.*


----------



## McG

> Feds Pull Trigger on London's Wolseley Barracks
> AM980
> 04 April 2012
> 
> A high ranking union official says Wolseley Barracks, a London landmark established in the 1880s, will close its doors in March 2013.
> 
> The announcement was made early Wednesday afternoon before approximately 100 employees, both civilian and military personnel.  34 civilian workers are expected to lose their jobs permanently, while most of the military members will likely be reassigned.
> 
> "Based on the information we got yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon directly from the department, they did identify that Wolseley Barracks in London was closing along with four other ASU sites," said John MacLennan, the Union of National Defence Employees President.
> 
> The civilian workers are among some 1,119 civilian employees of Canada's Department of Defense receiving layoff notices across the country Wednesday as part of federal budget trimming.
> 
> Among the positions affected were clerks, drivers, kitchen staff, heavy truck mechanics, dental hygienists, weapons technicians and radiation safety personnel, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen. There were no cuts made to military personnel, who reportedly have been told to expect raises, the Citizen said.
> 
> In last month's federal budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the Conservative government intends to trim 19,200 civil service jobs during the next three years.
> 
> MacLennan says the Wolseley Barracks in London is scheduled to close March 31st, 2013.
> 
> However, a London Conservative MP says the closure talks are just rumours.
> 
> "I want to be clear that 1st Hussars are staying put and the RCR (Royal Canadian Regiment) are staying put," said London West MP Ed Holder.
> 
> "From that standpoint I think people can have some confidence that this government has great respect for its military."
> 
> London-Fanshawe New Democrat MP Irene Mathyssen says the cutbacks will have a serious impact on the community.
> 
> “The reality of these cuts means that soldiers will have to take on the jobs currently done by civilian personnel, forcing them to refocus their priorities and burdening them with extra work,” said Mathyssen.
> 
> Wolseley Barracks was established in London back in the mid-1880s, and served as the headquarters of Number-1 District Depot in 1939 when war was declared on Germany.
> 
> The fate of the building itself remains unclear, although it's a recognized and classified Federal Heritage building on the Register of the Government of Canada Heritage Buildings.


http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1681703


Bouncing to a few other articles on the web, it looks like ASU London is closing but Wolseley Barracks will remain as a campus-esque reserve armoury.
It's almost like some of the cuts are ideas stolen straight from Army.ca.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Shoulda been a no brainer after they built all the new facilities there. Never fails :


----------



## McG

UNDE president is also quoted as saying ASU Chilliwack and ASU Moncton are closing.
http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2012/04/more-than-34-jobs-lost-with-wolsley-barracks-asu-closure/


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Has he said anything about Meaford?


----------



## my72jeep

The ASU here in Northern Ont. is on the block.


----------



## armyvern

MCG said:
			
		

> UNDE president is also quoted as saying ASU Chilliwack and ASU Moncton are closing.
> http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2012/04/more-than-34-jobs-lost-with-wolsley-barracks-asu-closure/



Cool; nice for the troops to hear about base/det/ASU closures from the civvies (the same civvies that bargained away our severance pay at that) --- or did we somehow miss a CANFORGEN today?


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Cool; nice for the troops to hear about base/det/ASU closures from the civvies (the same civvies that bargained away our severance pay at that) --- or did we somehow miss a CANFORGEN today?


I would not conclude that the troops heard about it "from the civvies."  There are more ways than just CANFORGENS to communicate information.  I am sure the local chain of command told the affected soldiers.


----------



## PuckChaser

recceguy said:
			
		

> Has he said anything about Meaford?



Seconded!

I heard they are closing every base in Canada, and posting everyone to the NCR to save on PLD costs. That, and some of the dot coms can actually see the people they are apparently responsible for.


----------



## armyvern

MCG said:
			
		

> I would not conclude that the troops heard about it "from the civvies."  There are more ways than just CANFORGENS to communicate information.  I am sure the local chain of command told the affected soldiers.



Really?? Sorry, but if you're going to close military installations, then perhaps a message letting the troops know such things would be appropriate and polite with, of course, the appropriate CoC personally informing those directly affected --- at the end of the day, we are ALL affected by this; it would have been nice to know to hear it from the appropriate and official powers that be. I don't consider the UNDE president to be fitting of that bill.

After all, how many emails etc have we got this week ref the budget and staff cuts? Apparently no one thought this was important to have a heads up on.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really?? Sorry, but if you're going to close military installations, then perhaps a message letting the troops know such things would be appropriate and polite with, of course, the appropriate CoC personally informing those directly affected --- at the end of the day, we are ALL affected by this; it would have been nice to know to hear it from the appropriate and official powers that be. I don't consider the UNDE president to be fitting of that bill.
> 
> After all, how many emails etc have we got this week ref the budget and staff cuts?



ASU Toronto had everyone, Civvy and Military, at an early morning Townhall to announce the details of the news, before it was officially released.  I am assuming the other ASUs were instructed to do the same.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ASU Toronto had everyone, Civvy and Military, at an early morning Townhall to announce the details of the news, before it was officially released.  I am assuming the other ASUs were instructed to do the same.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I realize that; the rest of us military members find out from the UNDE president. Nice.

As I already said, we got umpteen emails ref the budget and rationalization because it was "important and nice to know" - apparently the powers that be didn't think same could be said about this.

I guess my guy that was supposed to be posted to location X ... won't be going now. Eerie how the rollout of the news does indeed affect others outside of location proper.


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... at the end of the day, we are ALL affected by this; it would have been nice to know ...





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I realize that; the rest of us military members find out from the UNDE president. Nice.


Across the size scope of our organization, a few ASUs is a very small thing.  Organizational changes of greater magnitude than these often happen and without informing the whole of the CF.  That is because, at the end of the day, this affects very few of us.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I guess my guy that was supposed to be posted to location X ... won't be going now.


You are assuming.


----------



## Occam

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Cool; nice for the troops to hear about base/det/ASU closures from the civvies (the same civvies that bargained away our severance pay at that) --- or did we somehow miss a CANFORGEN today?



What does severance pay have to do with base closures?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I guess my guy that was supposed to be posted to location X ... won't be going now. Eerie how the rollout of the news does indeed affect others outside of location proper.



Did he have a posting message in hand yet?  If no, then he's no worse for wear as he shouldn't have been making any commitments until the message was cut.  If yes, then it's a sad situation, but he can join the long list of servicemembers who have had postings changed on short notice for service reasons - and if my memory hasn't failed me, you yourself have been in that unfortunate but necessary position.

The saying "Don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind.  The CF personnel posted to the affected base/det/ASUs will still have jobs when the dust settles.  The same may not be said for the affected civilian personnel.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I realize that; the rest of us military members find out from the UNDE president. Nice.
> 
> As I already said, we got umpteen emails ref the budget and rationalization because it was "important and nice to know" - apparently the powers that be didn't think same could be said about this.
> 
> I guess my guy that was supposed to be posted to location X ... won't be going now. Eerie how the rollout of the news does indeed affect others outside of location proper.



Vern,

The Union were informed that there was a 48 hour embargo - they did not follow it.  It is the Union that screwed you, not the chain of command....


----------



## armyvern

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> The Union were informed that there was a 48 hour embargo - they did not follow it.  It is the Union that screwed you, not the chain of command....



Thanks for that!! Nice to have relevant info because it certainly didn`t make sense to me after the email flurry this week. Thanks again.


----------



## armyvern

Occam said:
			
		

> What does severance pay have to do with base closures?
> 
> Did he have a posting message in hand yet?  If no, then he's no worse for wear as he shouldn't have been making any commitments until the message was cut.  ...
> 
> The saying "Don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind.  The CF personnel posted to the affected base/det/ASUs will still have jobs when the dust settles.  The same may not be said for the affected civilian personnel.



Ohhhh, PM sooooooooo coming in to your mailbox. Not that I`ll get into the situation on here as it is, quite frankly, NOYB, but if I`m posting that it affects him - it is because it IS.


----------



## PMedMoe

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ASU Toronto had everyone, Civvy and Military, at an early morning Townhall to announce the details of the news, before it was officially released.



Really?  Oh, that's right, I only belong to ASU Toronto for admin purposes.


----------



## ArmyRick

I support Armyvern's stand on these issues
1. This smacks of 1995 when we found out about disbanding of the CDN AB REGT on the media before CoC could tell everybody;
2. It was the same year that MND Collinette announced 2VP UNPROFOR deployment to Bosnia was cancelled, again announced on TV and our CO, Lt Col Turner trying to re-assure us on parade AFTER the annoucement on TV was already made, that we (our BN) were still going. Needless to say he had to explain later that we were not going;
3. The Canadian public service union gets 0 sympathy from myself. They have rules like not saying anything for 48 hours and ignore it? They think they are free to do whatever pleases them; and
4. PLEASE, please do not arm chair quarter back someone else situation!!! People do that ALL the time on army.ca and I get sick of it. If they ask for input or an opinion, fair enough. Armyvern stated something here about one of her subordinates and people chime in with opinions without the full picture.

The way to find out things properly should be via the CoC. Good on the ASU toronto commander for doing it right by a townhall. That union leader just sparking off and saying things without respecting the 48 hour gag bugs the hell out of me.

It makes me glad that I have less and less to do with the army and more with farming.


----------



## ArmyRick

Also Meaford is HIGHLY unlikely to close.

Its small yes, has only the TC and 31 Health services det on it but it actually has way more functional use than most other bases in Southern Ontario (army wise). The amount of individual, operational and collective training that goes on there is staggering. It is also a hot spot for most of Ontario police forces to train in spring and fall.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

WHOA!!   Unless the union agreed to the 48 hour gag then you are full of kife. This is Canada, free speech and all,...in case you forgot.

Back to your chair...............


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Also Meaford is HIGHLY unlikely to close.
> 
> Its small yes, has only the TC and 31 Health services det on it but it actually has way more functional use than most other bases in Southern Ontario (army wise). The amount of individual, operational and collective training that goes on there is staggering. It is also a hot spot for most of Ontario police forces to train in spring and fall.




One can hope and dream. Leave an old man some recurring fantasy in his remaining years  ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

Sorry Bruce, we actually do not have the right to free speech as far as I knew. Don't ask me where, but I had a former infantry officer now civy lawyer explain that we in Canada, don't actually have the right to free speech. Now I don't know if that was lawyer trickery or if its true.

Yes, I am back in my chair and now facing the corner in addition.

Mr Monkhouse, I'll be in for my detention when I am done work at 4 PM or 1600 HRS for army types.

On a side note, I still think I am owed 4 extra credits in high school for all the detention time I put in!!!


----------



## Infanteer

It is lawyer trickery.  Read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The lawyer trickery is in that thing called "interpretation"....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

If the gag order was agreed upon BEFORE the info was handed over then the Union needs to do some deep-thinking about their credibility, but if the COC just handed over documents and THEN said "Oh, by the way", then they are the inept ones.............

...and just for the record I don't really think much of most of the Federal unions. I can't stand selling out "new guys" for the benefit of the old guard like they have.


----------



## the 48th regulator

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Really?  Oh, that's right, I only belong to ASU Toronto for admin purposes.



Meh,

We at DCSM weren't invited, we had to send our people out who had friends to get the info.


----------



## ArmyRick

OK, on the ASU Toronto doing the right thing, I will say from my perspective it appears like it was a good intent with poor execution.

Enough of all this damn thinking and typing, I am going back to feeding pigs and sheep. Good things cows and calves are already done.


----------



## GAP

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> OK, on the ASU Toronto doing the right thing, I will say from my perspective it appears like it was a good intent with poor execution.
> 
> Enough of all this damn thinking and typing, I am going back to feeding pigs and sheep. Good things cows and calves are already done.



What? You mean they come precooked?


----------



## Occam

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and just for the record I don't really think much of most of the Federal unions. I can't stand selling out "new guys" for the benefit of the old guard like they have.



Speaking as one of the "new guys" out of the 172,000 unionized federal public servants, I personally don't feel sold out that I won't be getting severance if I voluntarily quit my job before retirement.  I've read that "The Treasury Board is still actively seeking an expedited agreement with the PIPSC Groups under the TB (CS, RE, SP, SH, NR, and AV). They have made it abundantly clear to our representatives that they have established the termination of our Severance Pay for voluntary departures as a pre-condition to a settlement in this round of Bargaining. According to the Treasury Board, failure to gain an agreement on this item will result in an impasse at every table (whether we expedite the bargaining process or not)".  That link also states "PSAC has said that it was motivated to accept Treasury Board’s demand to relinquish severance because it felt the government’s severance liabilities posed the threat of layoffs".

I don't have any reason to disbelieve any of the above, and in the case of my own union (IBEW), it certainly appears that TBS is adopting the same negotiation (or rather, non-negotiation) tactic by stalling arbitration over and over and over because severance is hotly contested.  Our collective agreement expired 31 August 2010. 

I can't speak for the other 171,999 unionized members.  I don't know.  At least some PSAC members must have thought parting with severance was a good idea, slightly more than half voted in favour of ratifying the agreement that did away with severance.


----------



## fraserdw

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Cool; nice for the troops to hear about base/det/ASU closures from the civvies (the same civvies that bargained away our severance pay at that) --- or did we somehow miss a CANFORGEN today?



I think Moncton is a fait accompli as all 23 civies are terminated and 3 of 4 units are moving to Gagetown or Kingston.  No surprise if you read between the lines.  It is a base closure without saying base closure "government speak".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Occam,

Don't let the fact that over half voted for it sway whether it was a good deal or not, voting against it probably means a strike [or at least gives the Union the strike mandate] and one has to judge how serious the other side is. Obviously your negotiators thought that they were very serious.


I have to admit I have not read the agreement, nor do I plan too.
The OPSEU contract is done at the end of this year so I should start worrying about what Dalton wants from me to balance his spending habits.

I guess we should get back to the topic though, sorry folks for the swerve.


----------



## 392

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ASU Toronto had everyone, Civvy and Military, at an early morning Townhall to announce the details of the news, before it was officially released.  I am assuming the other ASUs were instructed to do the same.



Comd CTC did the same yesterday at 1530 for all mil and civ pers belonging to CTC. All of this info was briefed to the whole crowd....closures and all.....


----------



## aesop081

DGIMO did the same yesterday for units within ADM(IM).


----------



## fraserdw

;D


----------



## a_majoor

I missed any potential town halls (beng out of town), but I wonder if they are simply shutting down the ASU as opposed to the base? Getting rid of extra layers of headquarters and bureaucracy would do wonders for the balance sheet without affecting operational readiness too much.


----------



## LineJumper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I missed any potential town halls (being out of town), but I wonder if they are simply shutting down the ASU as opposed to the base? Getting rid of extra layers of headquarters and bureaucracy would do wonders for the balance sheet without affecting operational readiness too much.



Quit it, that makes too much sense.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Five Army ASUs will be closed, and alternative arrangements will be made to support local dependancies.  In the case of the two Western ASUs, the actual facilities themselves will be maintained, by dint of some clever reassignments / divestment of older PRes Arouries / facilities.

As you can tell, I was lucky enough to be able to attend a townhall on Wednesday....


----------



## dapaterson

For those with DWAN access, all three Environments have information about their SR/DRAP initiatives.  The Army information page includes a powerpoint presentation that gives good information on the changes, including HQ changes and equipment divestments.


----------



## The_Dictat

The service battalions are going back from ASUs to the CMBGs, IT services are sent to Shared Services Canada... ASUs were loosing much of their military personnel anyway... closing them made sense. Area G4 will have more responsibilities... and civilian engineering will go under base HQs as it should be.

I never understood why they kept CFB Moncton going for so many years...

 ;D Most importantly are the army bases going to be called CFB or Garrisons? :-\ I want garrison as the official army base designation!!! :nod:

Let's mix tradition with common sense: 

Canadian Forces Base: for bases that house multiple elements (Canadian Army, RCAF and RCN) (ie. CFB Borden, CFB Ottawa, etc)
Garrison: for installations with Canadian Army units (Tac Hel squadrons don't count) (ie Edmonton Garrison, Valcartier Garrison, Petawawa Garrison)
Camp: for training areas (Camp Meaford, Camp Farnham, etc)
RCAF Airbase: well the name says it... it must have landing strips to get the name...
RCAF or CF Station: bring back the name... for radar and radio sites

CFB Esquimalt needs a proper navy sounding name like Halifax has HMC Dockyard

Ideas?


----------



## aesop081

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> RCAF Airbase: well the name says it... it must have landing strips to get the name...



RCAF bases should all be know simply as RCAF {insert name}. "RCAF Comox" for example.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> RCAF or CF Station: bring back the name... for radar and radio sites



CFS exists, CFS ST.JOHN'S, CFS ALERT, CFS LEITRIM come to mind......


----------



## Sub_Guy

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> CFB Esquimalt needs a proper navy sounding name like Halifax has HMC Dockyard



It does (unless things have changed).  HMC Dockyard Esquimalt, and Naden (Admin side of the base).  I do believe the signs are still up for both, but it has been a few years since I have had the pleasure of visiting Esq, and to be honest I wasn't paying attention to the signs.  But when I was posted there, I do know that they were there.


----------



## Old Sweat

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> ;D Most importantly are the army bases going to be called CFB or Garrisons? :-\ I want garrison as the official army base designation!!! :nod:
> 
> Garrison: for installations with Canadian Army units (Tac Hel squadrons don't count) (ie Edmonton Garrison, Valcartier Garrison, Petawawa Garrison)
> 
> Camp: for training areas (Camp Meaford, Camp Farnham, etc)
> 
> Ideas?



In the Canadian Army places like Petawawa, Shilo, Gagetown and Valcartier were Camps. I am not sure how it worked in Kingston and Calgary, but I think they had Camp Commanders who probably ran all the army stuff in the garrison. Being the army, all sorts of variations in names evolved. Calgary had Camp Sarcee and Currie Barracks; Kingston had Fort Frontenac and Barriefield Camp as well as some other stuff scattered around town; and Edmonton had Griesbach Barracks. There was Camp Borden and Camp Ipperwash and Camp Picton, but Wolseley Barracks in London. 

Edit to add: I just consulted my copy of the 1965 Canadian Army List and there are a few camps listed, as well as other installations which are titleless. These include Calgary, London, Kingston and Chilliwack. The brigade headquarters were separate, as were the commands and areas. And for a what goes around, comes around moment, the tactical formation in Petawawa was the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade Group, The Special Service Force, commanded by Brigadier JA Dextraze. Guess we know where he got his idea for the formation in Petawawa when he became CDS.


----------



## Maxadia

Sure ......take all the civies and rehire them as the "CF Rename Battalion"......

 ;D


----------



## Jed

So what is happening to ASU Wainwright and ASU Shilo? or are they currently CFB Wainwright and CFB Shilo?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Further two what Old Sweat sais: the Canadian Army, _circa_ 1960, was organized on a geographic basis and common services and support were provided, on the same geographic basis, to all comers - regardless of who was where on an _org chart_. Things with straightforward names like "Transport Company" and rather less clear ones like "Camp Ordnance Railhead" and "Works Company" provided support to one and all. Soldiers in brigade service units, S&T companies, Ordnance Field Parks and Field Workshops, did their combat jobs in garrison, too: delivering field supplies and munitions, repairing tanks and trucks and so on. Not a whole lot changed, over time, except that we deprived the service "tail" of people and we muddied the organizational structure so that we wasted the too few people we had.

In my opinion there is too much _organization_ in the CF, too many boundaries that prevent logistical _element_ A from proving support to combat unit B. It shouldn't matter what formation badge you wear - if you are in the support business you ought to be able, willing, indeed eager to provide support to all and sundry. If your chain of command says that the unit next door has go to the next town to get support that you can provide then the _organization_ is flawed - the empire builders have defeated the soldiers.

We worry too much about what something is called or what badge is painted on its sign and too little about how much work it can do.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

What he said!   :nod:


----------



## Dissident

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> if you are in the support business you ought to be able, willing, indeed eager to provide support to all and sundry. If your chain of command says that the unit next door has go to the next town to get support that you can provide then the _organization_ is flawed - the empire builders have defeated the soldiers.



This.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion there is too much _organization_ in the CF, too many boundaries that prevent logistical _element_ A from proving support to combat unit B. It shouldn't matter what formation badge you wear - if you are in the support business you ought to be able, willing, indeed eager to provide support to all and sundry.


Indeed.  There alone is enough argument to insist the roll-back-the-clock movement should leave bases alone.  We don't need to establish unnecessary cultural boundaries to support by applying our various tribal names to specific bases.

I've heard the RCAF is looking to separate bases from wings - allowing WComd to focus on operational business while a BComd focuses on running the fixed establishment (and all the support & outreach obligations that come with that).  This would bring us back closer to the vision for bases when they were all renamed CFB.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The structures put in place when the original CFB system was introduced were a big part of the problem: organizational boundaries and _silos_ were created that seriously hampered operations and support.

Back over 30 years ago I took command of an army unit that was a _lodger_ on an _integrated/unified_ base. It took a really good BComd, a sapper, a lot of heart ache and effort to, finally, develop some common sense, _military_ support relationships - but he and I both got fairly regular rockets from Command HQs that were both much more interested in _featherbedding_ than operating or supporting. We both survived but not without some black marks and reputations for not being "team players." This was 15 years after CFBs became the norm, and in that 15 years a whole new culture had taken root and blossomed - a culture that put command badges above military support issues.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The structures put in place when the original CFB system was introduced were a big part of the problem: organizational boundaries and _silos_ were created that seriously hampered operations and support.
> 
> ... This was 15 years after CFBs became the norm, and in that 15 years a whole new culture had taken root and blossomed - a culture that put command badges above military support issues.


By my read of your description, the problematic organizational silos that you describe were the initial manifestations of re-tribalizing ourselves and the command badge was (at that time) the rallying cultural boundary to support.


----------



## bridges

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> Comd CTC did the same yesterday at 1530 for all mil and civ pers belonging to CTC. All of this info was briefed to the whole crowd....closures and all.....



I'm envious.  We have yet to have a town hall or meeting of any kind, about the cutbacks - base closures, personnel or otherwise.  Until something comes through the CoC, Army.ca is my town hall - and the info has been quite interesting.  Thanks to everyone who's shared factual info.


----------



## aesop081

bridges said:
			
		

> I'm envious.  We have yet to have a town hall or meeting of any kind, about the cutbacks - base closures, personnel or otherwise.  Until something comes through the CoC, Army.ca is my town hall - and the info has been quite interesting.  Thanks to everyone who's shared factual info.



Your location says:



> Ottawa ON



All major groupings in the NCR had mass briefings last Wednesday at various locations in the NCR. I saw the list in my email last Tuesday afternoon.


----------



## bridges

My unit has neither held nor been invited to a town hall.   I heard about them at the time, as well.  I'm confident some info will eventually come, but in the meantime, the silence is deafening.

Perhaps we aren't included in one of the "major groupings".   Anyway, there's looking something up, and there's testimony from the field.  Both can be true at the same time.


----------



## aesop081

bridges said:
			
		

> but in the meantime, the silence is deafening.



All information that was presented is freely available on the DIN, including the very same PPT that was used at the briefings last week. 

There is no hidden information, no "silence".


----------



## bridges

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> All information that was presented is freely available on the DIN, including the very same PPT that was used at the briefings last week.
> 
> There is no hidden information, no "silence".



There is DEFINITELY silence, in that people in some units still don't know which programs or personnel are being cut.  You may know everything you need to know, but others are still waiting.  

As for the ppt used at the briefings - if you happen to know its location on the DIN, I'd be most grateful.  Cheers.


----------



## AmmoTech90

The information is on the DWAN, under the VCDS website, a list of many divestments.  If you do not have DWAN access, ask someone in your CoC who does to provide the information.


----------



## bridges

Thanks for your time.

For anyone else who may still be looking for a list of areas where cuts are being made, here's a start:
http://defenceteam-equipedeladefense.mil.ca/change-changement/sr-rs/sr-rs-eng.asp

Note that just because a program appears on the list doesn't mean it's cut entirely.  Some are gone, and others are reduced.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It shouldn't matter what formation badge you wear - if you are in the support business you ought to be able, willing, indeed eager to provide support to all and sundry. If your chain of command says that the unit next door has go to the next town to get support that you can provide then the _organization_ is flawed - the empire builders have defeated the soldiers.
> 
> We worry too much about what something is called or what badge is painted on its sign and too little about how much work it can do.



Case in point. Here in Regina we have 15 Wing Moose Jaw 45 minutes down the road. We now (after a pile of staffing) are allowed to use the medical and dental facilities at the base. But for PSP support we are still forced to use 17 Wing  Winnipeg (if fact they fly a team out 3 times a year to do our EXPRES tests) meanwhile there is a fully funded and manned (personned?) PSP organization at Moose Jaw.


----------



## FSTO

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> CFB Esquimalt needs a proper navy sounding name like Halifax has HMC Dockyard
> 
> Ideas?


 
Well in Esquimalt the Dockyard is called HMC Dockyard. Naden is the home to the base administration and Fleet School. Wouldn't be much of a change to go from CFB Esquimalt to HMC Dockyard and HMCS NADEN and CFB Halifax to HMC Dockyard and HMCS STADACONA. Don't know why we would want to though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Doug Bland, Queens University, is (was _waaaaay_ back when, anyway) a good soldier and he is also a respected scholar, and he suggests, in an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_, that the "fat" is to be found in "headquarters staffs, public service positions and infrastructure costs." He says, further, that "If Trudeau truly intends to build a “leaner, more agile” military, then he must act to protect the military muscle and cut away the bureaucratic fat. Fortunately, there is an untapped layer of fat that could provide adequate funds to reinforce the present structure and rebuild operational muscle."

Prof Bland's solution includes cutting some of the 38 bases and stations ... some he says, "are critically important to the Canadian Forces’ operations and thus to Canada’s national defence."

I agree and I would count, _inter alia_, Alert (and similar stations), Comox, Esquimalt, Cold Lake, Leitrim (or some place like it to put the unit that's there), and Halifax being, obviously, essential. I'm sure we need, must have some other good flying stations for operations and training ~ Moose Jaw, Trenton, Bagotville, Greenwood, is that enough? We also need three, preferably six full brigade bases: three "staffed" with regular force brigades and two or three "vacant," with facilities for reserve training. We need some service schools, too ... but couldn't we close Borden, for example, and move its schools to, say, primarily Cold Lake and Gagetown? A couple of bases, the Citadel in Quebec and Kingston - RMC and Fort Frontenac, at least, have great historic significance and are, probably, "permanent." But do we need the rest of CFB Kingston or could it be moved to, say, Gagetown and Trenton? Or, if we must keep Forts Frederick and Frontenac shouldn't we expand Kingston into a major military installation ... perhaps with things from Borden? Anyway, that's just musing ...

Prof Bland says we can close 12 bases ... 

What do you think, _netizens_?


----------



## Journeyman

His key line:  "The challenge in such a process is to produce defensible recommendations while holding at bay political lobbyists and partisan pleading."  

 Sometimes my cynicism is just experience-based reality, but I can't see it happening.  There are simply too many supporters Trudeau _et al _  are beholden to, whose underlying premise is "it's our turn."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

On the RCAF side, I've always thought the LRP and MH fleets could be co-located in Greenwood and Comox.  However, there has just been recent infrastructure spending in both Pat Bay and Shearwater.  Coupled with that would be the major reason this move would never happen (IMO);  politics.  Moving to those (more logical) locations would mean loss of jobs in the areas they are in now.  This was hinted at in the article.

I would like to see the list of the 12 bases/locations that went unnamed in the article that could be closed with zero impact on operational effectiveness, but I could see the RCAF consolidating some of the X CFFTSs.  

The question isn't if it makes military sense, the question is "is the potential savings worth the possible political fallout" when people face the realities of a base closure like Summerside did back in the early '90s.  But, we are constantly downsizing, doing less with more.  33 Argus's were replaced with 18 Aurora's, 14 of them are left and at age 35 or so today, they are supposed to fly until 2030.  LSVWs anyone?  No mukluks in the system in recent years.  Hell, we can't even get name tags at supply.  

Examples like that are why I don't really pay attention to anything anyone who isn't in a uniform and posted to an operational unit says when they start using words like _leaner_ and _more agile_.  They are just buzzwords to most people.


----------



## Old Sweat

I agree with JM on this one. Doug Bland, who I think I first met on the Combat Intelligence course in 1964, has presented a logical, reasoned argument for an approach that doesn't have a hope of being implemented. Perhaps the only option is to start with a cut in the GOFOs and then reduce the rank pyramids beneath them that, cynically I'll admit, seem to exist for no other reason than to provide meaningful career progression for a quarter of the CAF.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> His key line:  "The challenge in such a process is to produce defensible recommendations while holding at bay political lobbyists and partisan pleading."
> 
> Sometimes my cynicism is just experience-based reality, but I can't see it happening.  There are simply too many supporters Trudeau _et al _  are beholden to, whose underlying premise is "it's our turn."




Agreed, but in fairness to politicians, back (it's a _waaaaay_ back thing, again) when I was in the staff college our baseline, absolute bare-ass to the breeze minimum force structire was 1R22eR in CFB Summerside ... and guess what? They finally had the balls to close Summerside ... miracles can happen if you pray drink hard enough


----------



## quadrapiper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prof Bland says we can close 12 bases ...
> 
> What do you think, _netizens_?


Not worried if units (especially if this can be done incrementally) are relocated to make better use of one base, while saving on overhead at another.

Dislike the possible next steps - tearing down infrastructure and/or selling the base. What sort of, and how much, basing we should have in reserve I don't know, but seems that the demo-and-divest option might be short-sighted. Wouldn't mind defence land being almost as hard to sell, once acquired, as national parks. As far as infrastructure, the ability to house a bunch of people, be they recruits, out-of-area units on DOMOPS, pers on large exercises, or foreign or domestic displaced persons, seems one worth maintaining - not necessarily as a solely DND line item. Maybe have a look at PILT, and whether building footprint is really the best way to calculate it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They finally had the balls to close Summerside ... miracles can happen if you pray drink hard enough



_Except_ Summerside was a better location than Greenwood and should have been the base that survived...


----------



## The Bread Guy

For a bit of background, here's the DRDC's study & lists from previous postings - enjoy!

Standby for split & merge ...


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> On the RCAF side, I've always thought the LRP and MH fleets could be co-located in Greenwood and Comox.  *However, there has just been recent infrastructure spending in both Pat Bay and Shearwater.*  Coupled with that would be the major reason this move would never happen (IMO);  politics.  Moving to those (more logical) locations would mean loss of jobs in the areas they are in now.  This was hinted at in the article.



Isn't the old joke that if there is large infrastructure building going on, that means the base is being closed?  

Also, I'd keep that suggestion of MH going to Greenwood/Comox quiet - you'd get lynched by those who are used to Victoria and scoff at Halifax!


----------



## Ostrozac

I've spoken to some people who were involved in previous base closures (London and Calgary, specifically) and it seemed to my uneducated as well as their experienced eyes that minimal savings are involved, and least over the course of the first few decades. Environmental remediation is costly as hell, and the military wasn't exactly treating our land with great respect and restraint. More like dumping ammo and fuel anywhere we could. You'd save money on PILT, but you'll be cleaning up UXO for decades before you turn the impact area into a golf course.

Now, rebalancing forces does make some sense, I remember back when the units of 1 Brigade were spread over 5 garrisons. Now it's on 2, which is clearly better for promoting combined arms training and saving on cost moves. Would 1 garrison per brigade be better (like Valcartier is now)? Maybe. But if you flat out closed either Edmonton or Shilo you'd be remediating environmental damage for decades. Now, concentrating the brigade in one garrison, and then downsizing the other base without fully closing it seems a better option. But turning a big base into a little base isn't base closure, it's just downsizing. North Bay losing aircraft and Esquimalt and Winnipeg losing infantry weren't really base closures, as the article seems to suggest.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hell, Edmonton can't use dud producing munitions such as Arty sims and any major training would occur in Wainwrong or Shilo. Good luck selling a base like Shilo given the impact area and they find projectiles many times when digging on the non training side of Range Control. The cost to clean up a base is astronomical.


----------



## dapaterson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Hell, Edmonton can't use dud producing munitions such as Arty sims and any major training would occur in Wainwrong or Shilo. Good luck selling a base like Shilo given the impact area and they find projectiles many times when digging on the non training side of Range Control. The cost to clean up a base is astronomical.



Then move out the units & cut the base support (BComd et al), and retain the training area.  Much smaller staff - no BOR, no messes, no supply, no transport... just units rolling in, checking in with Range Control, and carrying on.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Then move out the units & cut the base support (BComd et al), and retain the training area.  Much smaller staff - no BOR, no messes, no supply, no transport... just units rolling in, checking in with Range Control, and carrying on.



Pretty much the way the Australian Army does it.  Garrisons are in cities, and when they need to go to the range, they convoy out there and back.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Hell, Edmonton can't use dud producing munitions such as Arty sims and any major training would occur in Wainwrong or Shilo. Good luck selling a base like Shilo given the impact area and they find projectiles many times when digging on the non training side of Range Control. The cost to clean up a base is astronomical.



Being in Shilo, I think that moving 2 VP and 1 RCHA to Edmonton (as was the plan back in 2004 when 2 VP came here from Winnipeg) makes complete sense from a support and training point of view-  1 Svc Bn would support the entire brigade, not just the brigade minus 2 units and all units could train together (simulation in Edmonton, real in wainwright). That said, the intent from my understanding would be to maintain a minimal footprint in Shilo to support reserve training in Manitoba/Saskatchewan and not right out sell the base. 

Shilo, specifically, is in desperate need of significant infrastructure investments in the future, including a new kitchen, new barracks, new water mains, etc and the savings from not doing that would be beneficial.


----------



## Ostrozac

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Shilo, specifically, is in desperate need of significant infrastructure investments in the future, including a new kitchen, new barracks, new water mains, etc and the savings from not doing that would be beneficial.



As well as a new Officer's Mess, since the existing one decided to self-destruct a couple years ago.

That is the sort of thing that makes perfect sense. Mass 1CMBG complete in Edmonton, and treat Shilo like Meaford, just a minor garrison. That saves you the incredible cleanup cost.

And because it makes so much sense, it won't happen. Instead we'll do something weird and idiotic, like close down Primrose Lake and CFB Suffield, spend trillions cleaning up old weapons, and wonder why closing two such big bases didn't save us any money.


----------



## MedCorps

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Being in Shilo, I think that moving 2 VP and 1 RCHA to Edmonton (as was the plan back in 2004 when 2 VP came here from Winnipeg) makes complete sense from a support and training point of view-  1 Svc Bn would support the entire brigade, not just the brigade minus 2 units and all units could train together (simulation in Edmonton, real in wainwright). That said, the intent from my understanding would be to maintain a minimal footprint in Shilo to support reserve training in Manitoba/Saskatchewan and not right out sell the base. .



How about the other way around where 1 CMBG moves to Shilo, so we have a CMBG and training area co-located for all events? 

MC


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> For a bit of background, here's the DRDC's study & lists from previous postings - enjoy!
> 
> Standby for split & merge ...


My apologies - the link & attachments seem screwed.  I've added a new link for an exec summary of the report, and will share the full report when I find it again online.

Links fixed, with attachments re-added and available again - attached below are the exec summary and list of bases from the 2010 DRDC report (top of chart = most worth saving) FYI.

Please continue ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MedCorps said:
			
		

> How about the other way around where 1 CMBG moves to Shilo, so we have a CMBG and training area co-located for all events?
> 
> MC



The training area in Shilo is inadequate to host a Bde level exercise due to its size and the garrison facilities are COMPLETELY inadequate to support a brigade. It would require building a new Gym, 20-30 buildings, streets, street lights, thousands of PMQs, etc. I suspect by the time the infrastructure was in place the training area here would be extremely reduced. In the west the only 2 bases that could host bde level events are Wainwright and Suffield, so you would have to move the entire brigade to either of those spots. If 1 CMBG moved to wainwright than CMTC would need to move (realistically speaking) and Suffield is leased to the British and a source of major income. Both would require MASSIVE infrastructure investment to make it worthwhile. In this case, it would be more logical to move 2 units to Edmonton, which has the infrastructure in place (or civilian equivalents) and pay to train in wainwright, Suffield, or Shilo on a semi-regular basis.


----------



## dapaterson

Close CMTC.  It's expensive and forces an unhealthy obsession with using it "since we're spending the money anyways".  It was and is a mistake.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

We need to close bases, while retaining training areas.  Shilo = training area, not base.  Edmonton = closed, Suffield = training area and base.  You get the drift.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We need to close bases, while retaining training areas.  Shilo = training area, not base.  Edmonton = closed, Suffield = training area and base.  You get the drift.



I would be interested to see a cost analysis of the costs of building the infrastructure in Suffield to support 1 CMBG taking into accounts the costs of losing the Brits compared to the costs of 1 CMBG complete locating in Edmonton and doing collective training events in Shilo/Suffield/Wainwright. I suspect it would be pretty close as closing Edmonton would equal no more PLD and movement costs for training. However, moving everyone to Suffield, which is an ISOLATED posting would also be expensive and I dont think would save on the PLD costs. Plus, I would be curious as to what the VR rate in 1 CMBG would look like. I would absolutely love to say that 1 CMBG should merge in Suffield, but I suspect that the morale, welfare, and costs associated would make it more logical to move everyone to Edmonton which has the infrastructure.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Where are all the families going to live that move to Suffield?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Where are all the families going to live that move to Suffield?



Extremely valid point. Suffield has absolutely zero life support. The nearest town is Medicine Hat, 45 minutes away, and Ralston is a perfect storm of trailors and PMQs. This is not a valid option. As mentioned, I think Edmonton is the only valid option while keeping Shilo/Suffield/Dundurn/Wainwright as training bases. Considering 2 CMBG has a choice of Pet/Borden/Meaford and 5 CMBG has a choice of Valcartier/Gagetown, 1 CMBG is looking pretty good. I could argue sending 1 CMBG to Gagetown and leaving the west but there is literally zero chance of that. In this context, I would close Borden too and move CFLTC and the REME school to Gagetown (better training there) and the remainder to either Winnipeg or Kingston.


----------



## Infanteer

Most people I know posted to Suffield live in Medicine Hat and find it quite nice.  It's bigger than Brandon or Wainwright.

But, I think the real answer lies here.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pretty much the way the Australian Army does it.  Garrisons are in cities, and when they need to go to the range, they convoy out there and back.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Are LAVS and tanks located in Wainwright now for 1VP and the Strats. If not what are the costs to convoy every time?


----------



## Old Sweat

i'm really not sure the savings would come from base closings, especially if training/impact areas are involved. Closures create the impression of creating savings, but I ain't really sure. After a base is closed, how many of the positions in the base infrastructure disappear as opposed to going elsewhere? Offsets for empire building elsewhere aren't savings.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would close the following:

Goose Bay (close 444Sqn)
Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)
Borden (move the schools, sell the PMQ side, keep the trg area)
North Bay (move everything there to Bagotville or Cold Lake)
Winnipeg (move the schools to Trenton or Moose Jaw. Move 435 Sqn to Cold Lake)
Portage (move 3 CFFTS to Moose Jaw)
Shilo (move the units to Edmonton, keep the trg area)
Wainwright (kill CMTC, but keep the trg area)

How did I do?


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)



Why not move 103 to St. John's and take out Gander completely?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I've asked that before. The answer I was given that that weather in St John's is actually, on average, worse than Gander.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Isn't the old joke that if there is large infrastructure building going on, that means the base is being closed?



CFB Summerside saw a $11 million (at late '80s dollar values) built immediately before it was closed.  



> Also, I'd keep that suggestion of MH going to Greenwood/Comox quiet - you'd get lynched by those who are used to Victoria and scoff at Halifax!



I think I can say it over and over and loudly because it will never happen.   8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would close the following:
> 
> Winnipeg (move the schools to Trenton or Moose Jaw. Move 435 Sqn to Cold Lake)



I think 402/1 CFFTS would be better situated at 14 Wing.  

- Gonzo would 'move' to a 404 asset; all trg would fall under 404 for pre-Wings.  There is one less Sqn to pay the overhead for.

- remove Gonzo flying from the AESOP training; all flights in the PCT and OMS.  This would help the ACSO courses as well I am assuming.

- move AESOP OFP / Wings to post-MOAT/OTU.  The BAQC+ would lead right to MOAT/OTU.  

- MH types could then be APd to 406 for OTU.  Should be less travel costs for things like BPAAC as well.

- remove posting restrictions at "Point X" in the trg (there is talk about the QL3 qual for AESOP being granted after a certain point of the proposed BAQC+ course that may replace BAQC and IAQC).  People would be happier IMO if they could bring their D HG & E along for the long ride.  There should be some point in the ACSO course this could happen a well.  CFSCE does it for 226ers, or they used to, sometime between the start of POET and the QL3.  Payoff?  Happier people with a better GAFF.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What about Aldershot


----------



## BinRat55

The only concern with closing 9 Wing / North Bay would be the Comms... Gander is the DEW line with the soccerball and so is North Bay... with Arctic sovereignty starting to come to the forefront, they may not even consider 5 Wing as well...


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ....... and Suffield is leased to the British and a source of major income.



Bergen-Hohne was 'owned' by the British, only being returned to the Germans this past year, and was used by all NATO nations for training, so that argument is moot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> The only concern with closing 9 Wing / North Bay would be the Comms... Gander is the DEW line with the soccerball and so is North Bay... with Arctic sovereignty starting to come to the forefront, they may not even consider 5 Wing as well...



Binrat- I am talking about closing the base. The radars stay. (There are lots of places like that already in Canada).

EITS- I could get behind a move of 402 Sqn to either Greenwood or Comox. Both have merits.

Training area is a precious resource. We are never going to get more of it in Canada. Keep all the trg areas. The "base side" just may get smaller.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The study from a few years back looks a little flawed to me. They have used "operations" both domestic and internation as the factors with the most weight. By their analysis, Gagetown ranks 17 and Wainwright ranks 25. Ottawa is 2nd! Some much for making the CAF leaner. I assume they looked at how many "units" from Gagetown and Wainwright are used operationally. Where do the authors think that the army units that conduct operations come from? The officers and many of the soldiers are trained at Gagetown. The units conduct their collective training at Wainwright. Those two places are, I would say, our most valuable training areas. Edmonton is just a garrison, while Petawawa and Valcartier have limited training areas (Pet is better though).


----------



## Infanteer

Both T2B and SKT have the right of it; we need to preserve our training areas, even if they are like Chilcotin where they are empty and surrounded by a DND no tresspassing sign but our units can go there and do stuff.

Garrisons near cities seem to be a prefered COA for QOL issues.  If moving equipment is such a cost (and I know what it is), why do we not consider cantonments in places like Wainwright for, say 80% of a units equipment while it keeps a few vehicles and simulators (for A vehs) in its garrison?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, I note here that all posts in the last few days are in response to a hypothetical call to action from a university professor. I have not seen any indications anywhere that base closures of any kind are in the wind on the part of the government.

This said, and please pardon my ignorance of Air Force matters, could someone explain to me how moving the MH squadrons from Shearwater to Greenwood and Pat Bay to Comox would make sense and be considered "base closures"?

I mean: What is the point of having to fly 120 kms (Greenwood) or 180 kms (Comox) for the helicopters every time, just to join or return from the ship you are attached to? Moreover, is that convenient for the technical personnel of the Air Dets to have to drive to and fro from Comox to Esquimalt or Greenwood to Halifax every time they are deployed or return from deployment?

Finally, since Pat Bay and Shearwater already are part of CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax anyway, and those bases will not close as a result of such move, how would such a move be anything but simply moving around the same number of people, equipment structure and expenses without simplifying the overall CF administration one iota?

Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax? (p.s.: I know about the weather conditions, i.e. fog at Shearwater, so don't give me that one).

I await crucifixion.  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Both T2B and SKT have the right of it; we need to preserve our training areas, even if they are like Chilcotin where they are empty and surrounded by a DND no tresspassing sign but our units can go there and do stuff.
> 
> Garrisons near cities seem to be a prefered COA for QOL issues.  If moving equipment is such a cost (and I know what it is), why do we not consider cantonments in places like Wainwright for, say 80% of a units equipment while it keeps a few vehicles and simulators (for A vehs) in its garrison?



That makes perfect sense and will be easier on the life cycle of the equipment as well.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax? (p.s.: I know about the weather conditions, i.e. fog at Shearwater, so don't give me that one).
> 
> I await crucifixion.  :nod:



Ummmm?   Are the runways at Shearwater not blocked by urban and base developments now?


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax?



I think there would be a whole bunch of Aurora folk who would love that idea, if for nothing other than QOL.  

And no, the govt hasn't said anything about base closures, but one can always hope    :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The study from a few years back looks a little flawed to me. They have used "operations" both domestic and internation as the factors with the most weight. By their analysis, Gagetown ranks 17 and Wainwright ranks 25. Ottawa is 2nd! Some much for making the CAF leaner. I assume they looked at how many "units" from Gagetown and Wainwright are used operationally. Where do the authors think that the army units that conduct operations come from? The officers and many of the soldiers are trained at Gagetown. The units conduct their collective training at Wainwright. Those two places are, I would say, our most valuable training areas. Edmonton is just a garrison, while Petawawa and Valcartier have limited training areas (Pet is better though).




I think that is a key point, as is SKT's that training areas are precious.

Maybe we should be looking to "recover" training areas, large and small ~ "Hello, Petawawa Research Forest" ~ and maybe we should be expanding bases with training areas whenever we (maybe) can. Could we, just for example ~ dreaming out loud, think about expanding Petawawa over to the Quebec side?  Could we ~ I'm in full dream mode now ~ build a major (10,000') air head at Petawawa and close Trenton?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?   Are the runways at Shearwater not blocked by urban and base developments now?



I just looked at sat pics that are dated from last year.

The runways are all clear - no "base development there" - but I don't know what condition they are in, so some upgrade might be in order.

As for urban development, the houses in Eastern Passage, Willowdale or Russel Lake are no closer to the actual airstrip than the residential urban developments around the Trudeau airport in Montreal. I would think that traffic and noise at the Trudeau airport would be a lot more frequent and noisier than operating the small number of MLRPA turbo prop planes we operate on the East Coast.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, I note here that all posts in the last few days are in response to a hypothetical call to action from a university professor. I have not seen any indications anywhere that base closures of any kind are in the wind on the part of the government.


No, but there was a post yesterday showing the MND is launching a defence review and work toward a new "white paper," and we have had other discussions noting that some intelligent base closures might achieve some or all of saving money, cutting redundancies and improving effectiveness.  As noted somewhere else in this thread, intelligent base closures gets more milage when linked to intelligent restructuring of the force.

Asside from consolidating 1 CMBG somewhere in the praries and maritime air somewhere on each coast, we could also put RMC, CMR and CFC onto a common base with CMR being fully absorbed back into RMC.  CTC and LFDTS could be consolidated into a single layer of HQ in one location.  We have nine infantry battalions but every other component of a BG exists in a lesser multiple of three - maybe some rationalization could happen there and we would not need to invest so much in infrastructure while still consolidating brigades.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would close the following:
> 
> Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why not move 103 to St. John's and take out Gander completely?





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I've asked that before. The answer I was given that that weather in St John's is actually, on average, worse than Gander.



True, Gander has generally more favourable flight weather than St. John's. Also Gander has a 10,000 ft runway while St. John's has a 8500ft runway.....


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pretty much the way the Australian Army does it.  Garrisons are in cities, and when they need to go to the range, they convoy out there and back.



But they have enough functioning vehicles to actually form convoys, right?



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I just looked at sat pics that are dated from last year.
> 
> The runways are all clear - no "base development there" - but I don't know what condition they are in, so some upgrade might be in order.



Borden's runways would have looked just fine from satellite photos in their final years, but would have required millions to bring them back up to operational standard in 1996 as top layers were delaminating/flaking off. The Base Commander was trying to use 400 Squadron as justification for that following our move there from Downsview that year.

They were removed and the airfield returned to grassland in the mid-2000s.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Could we ~ I'm in full dream mode now ~ build a major (10,000') air head at Petawawa and close Trenton?



How many millions/billions do you want to spend to save nothing? What benefit would be gained?

That's a pile of infrastructure to duplicate - runways, hangars and other buildings to house and support five Airbuses, seventeen C130J, five C17, the older SAR Hercs and Griffons, quarters, messes, navigation and landing aids, passenger terminal (which serves more than just 2 CMBG) - and full-cost moves. Trenton is being expanded to accommodate JTF-2, who did not seem to think that moving to Petawawa was a good idea, as well.

I do not see any value in closing Borden and moving everything that is already there either.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Both T2B and SKT have the right of it; we need to preserve our training areas, even if they are like Chilcotin where they are empty and surrounded by a DND no tresspassing sign but our units can go there and do stuff.
> 
> Garrisons near cities seem to be a prefered COA for QOL issues.  If moving equipment is such a cost (and I know what it is), why do we not consider cantonments in places like Wainwright for, say 80% of a units equipment while it keeps a few vehicles and simulators (for A vehs) in its garrison?



I agree, I don't think the answer is closing off training areas.  We should be preserving our training areas but handing over facilities management to a contractor who can look after all the training areas, without having the extensive infrastructure costs associated with garrisoning the base.  A good example of this to me is the US Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona which is owned by the US Army but managed by civilian contractors.

Create a few super cantonments close to Urban Centres for people to live in, most of our vehicles are wheeled anyways to road moves shouldn't be a big issue.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Loachman said:
			
		

> But they have enough functioning vehicles to actually form convoys, right?
> 
> Borden's runways would have looked just fine from satellite photos in their final years, but would have required millions to bring them back up to operational standard in 1996 as top layers were delaminating/flaking off. The Base Commander was trying to use 400 Squadron as justification for that following our move there from Downsview that year.
> 
> They were removed and the airfield returned to grassland in the mid-2000s.
> 
> How many millions/billions do you want to spend to save nothing? What benefit would be gained?
> 
> That's a pile of infrastructure to duplicate - runways, hangars and other buildings to house and support five Airbuses, seventeen C130J, five C17, the older SAR Hercs and Griffons, quarters, messes, navigation and landing aids, passenger terminal (which serves more than just 2 CMBG) - and full-cost moves. Trenton is being expanded to accommodate JTF-2, who did not seem to think that moving to Petawawa was a good idea, as well.
> 
> I do not see any value in closing Borden and moving everything that is already there either.



Yeah, but on the bright side, UXO clearance work for me till I'm too old to put a shovel in the ground.  So at least three years.


----------



## CountDC

Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?

Wouldn't want Borden shut and moved to Gagetown.  I think the idea of having a seperate location for support training is better than an army base along with a location more central to Canada.  With the need for additional training facilities, accomodations, kitchens, etc would there really be savings?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CountDC said:
			
		

> Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?



I know NATO aircrafts use both CYYT and CYQX for fuel stops across the pond...


----------



## McG

CountDC said:
			
		

> Wouldn't want Borden shut and moved to Gagetown.  I think the idea of having a seperate location for support training is better than an army base along with a location more central to Canada.  With the need for additional training facilities, accomodations, kitchens, etc would there really be savings?


I have heard individuals express a want to see all CTC schools move to Gagetown (though, I have never heard this from anyone who could represent the opinion of either CTC or Army leadership), but I am not sure this is a move that actually delivers benefits.  Instead, I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.

The only thing that I could see moving to Gagetown might be merging the CFFCA under CFSME  (CBRN merging with EOD to for a CBRNE Sqn, and firefighting to be a stand-alone squadron).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What about CFSAL?  Or is it called something else now?


----------



## SupersonicMax

CountDC said:
			
		

> Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?



Don't really need a full military base to do that.  Just a contract in place for the fuel and a couple of hotels.


----------



## dapaterson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What about CFSAL?  Or is it called something else now?


CFLTC now.


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.



Where would CFSATE put their aircraft collection? Again, I do not see any benefit to be derived from such a disruptive move that would require a new school building and hangar to be built somewhere else. CFSATE's hangar is right next to 400 Squadron's hangar, so there's more real benefit to be had from keeping those two close.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CFLTC now.



Another acronym that should have been pronounced out loud by several people multiple times before the sign and letterhead were changed.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.



Given the new RCEME School is under construction in Borden, I highly doubt they would move back to Kingston after all these years. Then again the CAF does have a history of divestment after upgrade.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given the new RCEME School is under construction in Borden, I highly doubt they would move back to Kingston after all these years. Then again the CAF does have a history of divestment after upgrade.



Yup CFSME comes to mind....


----------



## Ostrozac

MCG said:
			
		

> I have heard individuals express a want to see all CTC schools move to Gagetown



I've never heard of anyone express a desire to move the CAAWC to Gagetown. I can't even remember there being a DZ in regular use at Gagetown, and leaving Trenton means leaving the Hercs behind.


----------



## Loachman

Helicopter support for their various courses would suffer dramatically. It's a challenge to meet all requests as it is.


----------



## Blackadder1916

With all this talk about moving (or not) any number of training establishments and even mention that a new facility is in the works for at least one in Borden, I am reminded about an important discussion point we had when planning (and designing and building) the "new" CFMSS.  Well it was "new" when I was involved in the process approaching thirty years ago.  And that point was "utilization rate" - how much of the facility would be used per year.  From my long ago experience, it is something that DND (as well as other government departments) did not get right very often.  Of course, since size determines budget, a lot of work goes into justifying to TB the space that you want for your shiny new building.  And a lot of the statistics used for that justification are derived from past (sometimes long past) utilization rather than any firm projection of future use.  I wonder if it has improved any in the last couple of decades.

The CF of the 1980s was significantly larger than that of today, and, of course, as we often "plan for the last war", many of the concepts (and assumptions) that were used in the planning process for facilities that were eventually built in the 1990s originated in thinking from the 1970s (and earlier).  That, anyway, is my perspective (in hindsight) on that particular project and a few others that I observed.

Take Borden as an example, our largest training base (?).  How much of the footprint of the base as a whole and the schools individually is actually used on a daily basis?  How much duplication (in both staff and spaces) is there among the several schools (or should I be saying "training centres" in keeping with new terminology)?  I do recall that question was actually asked of us as we developed the SOR.  We, of course, had no idea what other branches were doing in their training facilities nor was there any central planning.  A standard reply would obviously be that, because the schools in Borden are so physically separated, it would be counterproductive to use empty classrooms in one school for students from another branch.  It keeps a lot of petty fiefdoms open.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I very much see the logic, indeed the _operational_ necessity in maintaining the training areas; I also understand and agree the logic in maintaining large troop garrisons in larger urban centres ~ so I support having (nearly) bare training areas, with most vehicles and equipment (and sufficient maintainers) there and only a few sets plus plenty of simulators in the urban garrisons.

(I still _wish_ we had, decades and, indeed, almost a century ago, built large _joint_ army/air force bases, but ...)

So, it seems that the best options are to consolidate on fewer large bases ... maybe starting with moving all of NDHQ and almost all Ottawa units into the HUGE complex on Moody Drive ... and, yes, I mean moving DND out of Gatineau and moving most of Leitrim, too (the antennas (and some _rx_ equipment) can be relocated to even more remote areas and the receivers (parts of them anyway) can be remoted to "set rooms" in a nice warm, dry, big and very secure HQ complex.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, it seems that the best options are to consolidate on fewer large bases ... maybe starting with moving all of NDHQ and almost all Ottawa units into the HUGE complex on Moody Drive ... and, yes, I mean moving DND out of Gatineau and moving most of Leitrim, too (the antennas (and some _rx_ equipment) can be relocated to even more remote areas and the receivers (parts of them anyway) can be remoted to "set rooms" in a nice warm, dry, big and very secure HQ complex.



Well, Connaught is practically right across the street.  It could use some new infrastructure in the way of Barracks/Quarters.


----------



## Happy Guy

There are no plans to move close Star Top and move the staff over to the Carling Campus.  Louis St Laurent (LSTL) stays put.  The building's lease, where my unit is located, is scheduled to be terminated in 2017 or 2018 so I'm guessing it'll move to the Carling Campus along with the other occupants.


----------



## kratz

Under our current system, Borden is an easy target to close. 
If we look at history, and think of future surge needs, Borden continues to 
be a valuable piece of real-estate.

I agree. Today the base is underutilized, for it's position and value. But IF....we ever NEED the asset, we'd never be able to call on one like Borden again, if we sold it off.  As a military, we are still pillared  for Georgetown's training area. No Canadian government could gather enough land, quick enough the size and usefulness of Borden....if we had a sudden need.


----------



## ArmyRick

Borden training area is not all that grand, its kind of small and restricted. 

From an Army perspective, keeping all training areas intact is smart. Consolidating where we can in other areas is more ideal.

Can we really afford to give up any bases?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This said, and please pardon my ignorance of Air Force matters, could someone explain to me how moving the MH squadrons from Shearwater to Greenwood and Pat Bay to Comox would make sense and be considered "base closures"?



12 Wing is part of CFB Halifax, but I think we are focusing on the peas and not the steak to look solely at that aspect.



> I mean: What is the point of having to fly 120 kms (Greenwood) or 180 kms (Comox) for the helicopters every time, just to join or return from the ship you are attached to? Moreover, is that convenient for the technical personnel of the Air Dets to have to drive to and fro from Comox to Esquimalt or Greenwood to Halifax every time they are deployed or return from deployment?



What is point in maintaining 2 complete airfield infrastructures?  As it stands now, 14 Wing houses both fixed and rotary Wing and can take C-17s any day of the week.  The same cannot be said for Shearwater.  As for the tech's, the simple solution is called "taking a CAF bus", in the interest of paying for only 1 airfield and base to support maritime aviation types in the RCAF.  I think the cost of a bus ride every now and then would have merit in comparing the costs of maintaining all the ramps, taxiways, tower/nav aids/RADAR systems.

Convenience? When did the military every consider that part of the equation?  5 Bde used to travel to Gagetown to use the training area.   ;D



> Finally, since Pat Bay and Shearwater already are part of CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax anyway, and those bases will not close as a result of such move, how would such a move be anything but simply moving around the same number of people, equipment structure and expenses without simplifying the overall CF administration one iota?



Running 2 airfields should be less expensive than running 4?  Owning/operating 4 cars is going to usually be more expensive than owning operating 2 cars.  



> Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax? (p.s.: I know about the weather conditions, i.e. fog at Shearwater, so don't give me that one).



People in the 12 Wing area complain when there are short duration night flights.  Imagine adding the # of flights that happen between 413 (fixed and rotary wing, operational SAR Sqn), 404, 405 and 415 Sqns plus some other folks that fly into Greenwood/make stops in the valley.

AFAIK, the reason the Shearwater airshow was moved out to Stanfield was people complained about the noise.  That was one day a year.  Imagine how they would love sustained flying ops  8)

Why else would it be possibly cheaper to move Swater -> Greenwood and not the other way around?  PLD.

Now, keep in mind this is just guesstimation on my part;  I am in no way up to speed on costs of the current way and 'if we did it that way'.  Just my  :2c: from the cheap seats.   :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Borden training area is not all that grand, its kind of small and restricted.
> 
> From an Army perspective, keeping all training areas intact is smart. Consolidating where we can in other areas is more ideal.
> 
> Can we really afford to give up any bases?



Besides the CAF, CFB Borden is also the Eastern location for the Cadet movement's summer Camps.  The closure of Borden would mean that some other Base would inherit that function.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Really? We are going to make Defence Infrastructure decisions based upon Cadet Camps?


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Really? We are going to make Defence Infrastructure decisions based upon Cadet Camps?



Who knows?  The optics may be played out.  Where would you suggest they move the Cadet Camp?

To add to the points already made about the facilities, airstripe, etc., Borden is also the Support Base for Meaford, and surrounding area.  Who would then become the Support Base if Borden is closed?  Would it be feasible to move all that to Meaford and take up even more of what limited Training Area Meaford has?

The question of closing Borden has a lot more factors involved than some seem to have in mind.


----------



## bLUE fOX

I thought I read somewhere that when London downsized it became a detachment of Toronto, and when that downsized the both became a detachment of Kingston.

Regardless, why don't we look at getting rid of leased sites like Portage La Prairie and Gimli and consolidating those functions at sites that we still own? If there are really those big of savings to be had either leasing back sites (like this mentioned above) or contracting out maintenance and operations on the sites we do own (like Meaford and to a lesser extant Alert and the Canadian Forces College), why isn't this being done at more places?


----------



## ArmyRick

To the response about the Cadet movement, does anybody in the Forces really want to deal with 50,000 upset Moms and Dads because Cadet camps are closed?

There are alot of other reasons to NOT close Borden. Way too many schools, way too much logistical support for surrounding units, home of 400 Squadron, it was an alternative place to train recruits during the big build up a decade ago (St Jean overload). On and On. 

Meaford is a very valuable base and generates income (police and private uses during the slow times) it trains alot of soldiers (DP1 infantry and most of the PAT in Kingston and Borden conduct their BMQ(L) at Meaford), as well CANSOFCOM likes the location. Not too mention the majority of the P Res ARmy in 4 Div train their in summer. Meaford has a very high use.  

Just looking at my end of the world, I can not see what in 4 Div we should or could close down without a large negative impact. I suspect the whole army is in the same boat. I can not speak for the other divisions as well. I think the 60s and 90s we kind of consolidated things to death. Unless we want to change the structure of the army, how can we down size?

How about a non-army place? I did my ILP in St Jean college. Very scenic and beautiful but really? Why keep that open? Consolidate it maybe and do ILP/ALP/CWO Q at RMC perhaps or Borden or Gagetown? Anybody want to defend keeping St Jean NCMPD open? Takers? I am all ears?


----------



## ArmyRick

Or how about shutting down St Jean altogether?

Have Recruit training at Borden and a few other locations? Or decentralize recruit training and have a common Recruit standards group that oversees all national recruit training?

I remember while up at Meaford we ran a few BMQs to take the load off of St jean and Borden a decade ago, and we were told quietly on the side that we did the best job of the three locations mentioned. Having all combat arms instructors kind of helps. 

What say you? Ditch the so called mega? and close everything military St Jean? Yar? Yes, I put forward a pirates yar.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Problem is it takes away from the French mafia


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Problem is it takes away from the French mafia



And why anything in Gatineau is untouchable.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> To the response about the Cadet movement, does anybody in the Forces on Parliament Hill really want to deal with 50,000 upset Moms and Dads because Cadet camps are closed?


FTFY  ;D


----------



## Staff Weenie

Is there not a standing requirement that x% (25?) of all Federal infrastructure in the NCR must be on the Quebec side? I've heard this cited many times as to why certain orgs will be left in Gatineau after others consolidate in the Carling Campus.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Is there not a standing requirement that x% (25?) of all Federal infrastructure in the NCR must be on the Quebec side? I've heard this cited many times as to why certain orgs will be left in Gatineau after others consolidate in the Carling Campus.



That's what I've heard as well.


----------



## BinRat55

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Or how about shutting down St Jean altogether?
> 
> Have Recruit training at Borden and a few other locations? Or decentralize recruit training and have a common Recruit standards group that oversees all national recruit training?
> 
> I remember while up at Meaford we ran a few BMQs to take the load off of St jean and Borden a decade ago, and we were told quietly on the side that we did the best job of the three locations mentioned. Having all combat arms instructors kind of helps.
> 
> What say you? Ditch the so called mega? and close everything military St Jean? Yar? Yes, I put forward a pirates yar.



Haha... we did the same thing here in Gagetown - maybe a dozen years ago now... and it's funny because WE were also told quietly on the side that we did the best job of all training locations at the time.

I don't know if it mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but Cornwallis was where it was at. Not just because I am an alumni... yar.


----------



## George Wallace

The economic affects of many Base closures in the past have been quite devastating to some communities.   The military personnel may be moved to other Bases, but the civilian staff seldom are.  The surrounding area businesses lose not only the business of the military, the military personnel and their families, but also the newly unemployed civilian employees of the Base.  

We have covered the amounts of monies spent in surrounding communities by military personnel and bases in several topics on this site.  One of the most popular stories is when Bases such as RCAF Station Moose Jaw paid all its personnel in $2 bills, a taboo currency in the Prairies at the time, flooding the city of Moose Jaw with those damn Bennett Bucks.  That quelled the negative attitude of the populace towards the Base.  Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.


----------



## Journeyman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.


To say nothing of the gene pool.


----------



## Old Sweat

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The economic affects of many Base closures in the past have been quite devastating to some communities.   The military personnel may be moved to other Bases, but the civilian staff seldom are.  The surrounding area businesses lose not only the business of the military, the military personnel and their families, but also the newly unemployed civilian employees of the Base.
> 
> We have covered the amounts of monies spent in surrounding communities by military personnel and bases in several topics on this site.  One of the most popular stories is when Bases such as RCAF Station Moose Jaw paid all its personnel in $2 bills, a taboo currency in the Prairies at the time, flooding the city of Moose Jaw with those damn Bennett Bucks.  That quelled the negative attitude of the populace towards the Base.  Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.



In Petawawa in 1959 one end-month pay parade was in $2 bills. The stores, etc in Pembroke were overflowing in orange bills. The aim, I think, was to illustrate the economic impact of the Camp as there was a vociferous local movement to close it and return the expropriated land to its original owners. As a personal recollection, pay parade took forever. You see, if one was to received $48.00, the paymaster would count out two twenties, a five, a two and a one for a total of five bills; this time he had to count out 24 two dollar bills or roughly five times the amount of bills.


----------



## BinRat55

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In Petawawa in 1959 one end-month pay parade was in $2 bills. The stores, etc in Pembroke were overflowing in orange bills. The aim, I think, was to illustrate the economic impact of the Camp as there was a vociferous local movement to close it and return the expropriated land to its original owners. ...



That is really cool. Really. I would have loved to see the result throughout the local population's wallets! Cool! Smart too.


----------



## GR66

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> That is really cool. Really. I would have loved to see the result throughout the local population's wallets! Cool! Smart too.



Be careful with your praise or the Good Idea Fairy may see you having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry home your next pay...in toonies!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

GR66 said:
			
		

> Be careful with your praise or the Good Idea Fairy may see you having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry home your next pay...in toonies!



Or worst...loonies.... [


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... Could we ~ I'm in full dream mode now ~ build a major (10,000') air head at Petawawa and close Trenton?





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> (I still _wish_ we had, decades and, indeed, almost a century ago, built large _joint_ army/air force bases, but ...)


That looks fun.  Going to the most extreme would be CFB Leftcoast with HQ JTFP, CANFLTPAC, 19 Wing, 443 Sqn, JTFSC(P) and other bits.

And then there would be CFB Someplaceprairies with JTFW HQ, 1 CMBG, 4 Wing, 408 Sqn, JTFSC(W) and other lodger bits.

Of course there would also be CFB Centreofuniverse with JFTC HQ, CANSOFBDE, 2 CMBG, 8 Wing, 427 Sqn, 450 Sqn, JTFSC(C) and yet more other bits.

Don’t forget CFB Someplacequebec with JTFE HQ, 5 CMBG, 2 Wing, 3 Wing, UAVs, 430 Sqn, JTFSC(E) and still more other bits.

And then more stuff farther east (like Gagetown and Halifax/Shearwater) and a few other things sprinkled back through the rest of the country (like Kingston, Borden, Shilo) for training and support.

I don’t think it will ever happen.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> That looks fun.  Going to the most extreme would be....
> 
> Don’t forget CFB Someplacequebec with JTFE HQ, 5 CMBG, 2 Wing, 3 Wing, *UAVs*, 430 Sqn, JTFSC(E) and still more other bits....
> 
> I don’t think it will ever happen.



If we're dreaming, keep Mission UAV crews and Int Analysis in a Main Operating Base in Ottawa or Winnipeg (without planes), and the Launch/Recovery Elements in Comox/Victoria, Halifax/Greenwood and somewhere up north, since the plan is to be integrated into civilian airspace anyway.  

If range time is needed, stick a temporary LRE (one Ground Control Station, maintenance space and a few crews) in Cold Lake for the few weeks that they need to use the range.  

Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense.



It doesn't have to make sense.  It just has to have the optics of giving Quebec a share of the pie.


----------



## McG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense.


It was to satisfy a Conservative promise.  With a new government, maybe a different basing option could be considered.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> It was to satisfy a Conservative promise.  With a new government, maybe a different basing option could be considered.



Like say Yellowknife/White Horse with JTF North? perhaps even Gander?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don't think any UAVs in the near future would end up off the coast of Canada. :2c:


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't think any UAVs in the near future would end up off the coast of Canada. :2c:



Thread hijack on:

The desire for JUSTAS is for something that can do an Afghanistan like mission and domestic ops including the north and coastal approaches.  Therefore it makes sense to put the MOD in Greenwood, with a dedicated launch and recovery element, a second launch and recovery element in Comox, and the PED center in Winnipeg (although you could colate the PED center in Greenwood, mox nix).  You also need at least one deployable launch and recovery element, although you could make the Comox one deployable and loss the capability; in a perfect world you would equip three and man four so that rotations can be constantly maintained and still keep a Comox capability (the fourth one would normally be vacant due to leave, courses, etc, etc).  Assume that the US model is followed and all on station ops are accomplished at the MOB.

The desire is to do this with one UAV; my opinion is you need two:
- a predator like for the deployed piece, which also meets the armed requirement
- global hawk for the domestic peice, which also can slot into the coalition collection pool deployed
(Surprise, that's exactly what Australia bought).  I don't think there is one UAV that does both well; maybe the Avenger?

Of course, as the new government's policy seems to be leaning away from expeditionary ops, maybe just the global hawk like capability, which would still be a welcome asset in coalition ops?

I strongly feel we should have jumped at the polar hawk when it was offered; Norway probably would have come right along with us.  In a perfect world, it's what NATO AGS would have been as well, and then Canada and Norway could have just bought copies of the aircraft and MOBs, and we would have actually had the start of a NATO general surveillance and collection (they are definitely two different things) capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?

- I think GH could take on some of the YFR the 140 flies now for 'other than RCAF' folks, and focus primarily on the overland and ASW/AsUW piece;  that alone is a job and a bit.  And, heck they are pretty impressive pieces of kit; saw one in Sig.  The only other times I've 'seen' them was looking at a very high alt squawk and saying "wtf is...oh."  There is some continuing knowledge happening (hands on type) with HALE 'stuff' in the RCAF.

- Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc. 

I don't know any details, but have heard some talk and rumours around Fat Camp about the CHUD-type days coming back to life... 

.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?



Yes; the IFC (Intelligence Fusion Center) should be all source and responsible to the Commander; its not just about one platform.  You could make a case it should be the overall Joint Commander (ie in Ottawa), but the RCAF is going to want to keep control over that particular empire...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - I think GH could take on some of the YFR the 140 flies now for 'other than RCAF' folks, and focus primarily on the overland and ASW/AsUW piece;  that alone is a job and a bit.  And, heck they are pretty impressive pieces of kit; saw one in Sig.  The only other times I've 'seen' them was looking at a very high alt squawk and saying "wtf is...oh."  There is some continuing knowledge happening (hands on type) with HALE 'stuff' in the RCAF.



Triton even more so as it combines Surveillance with Collection, and understands they are different and how to do both.  USAF Global Hawk as yet hasn't realized its full potention, the Dragon Lady's mere existence means they don't have to push it as hard as they have to, but it fulfils an unique niche.  NATO AGS is kind of an orphaned child; conceived as a airborne (ground) battle management platform (a la JSTARS) it has morphed into an hybrid surveillance and collection platform; it may do both well, or it could do neither well...  Polar Hawk was interesting, Northrup Grumman seemed to know what we needed (and the Norwegians) then we did ourselves...

We have some people going to Sig; I was one of the voices after I left NATO AGS but was still at SHAPE trying to point out why we should do that, so when it materialized later on it was refreshing.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc.



My mistake, I was thinking Reaper because it is more mature (in my understanding, I have no direct experience with it), but typed Predator.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> Yes; the IFC (Intelligence Fusion Center) should be all source and responsible to the Commander; its not just about one platform.  You could make a case it should be the overall Joint Commander (ie in Ottawa), but the RCAF is going to want to keep control over that particular empire...
> 
> Triton even more so as it combines Surveillance with Collection, and understands they are different and how to do both.  USAF Global Hawk as yet hasn't realized its full potention, the Dragon Lady's mere existence means they don't have to push it as hard as they have to, but it fulfils an unique niche.  NATO AGS is kind of an orphaned child; conceived as a airborne (ground) battle management platform (a la JSTARS) it has morphed into an hybrid surveillance and collection platform; it may do both well, or it could do neither well...  Polar Hawk was interesting, Northrup Grumman seemed to know what we needed (and the Norwegians) then we did ourselves...



You've given me a bit of reading and research to get up to speed on that para.   ;D



> We have some people going to Sig



1 in place already...more screening happening this APS.  Wasn't sure if that was common knowledge...


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 1 in place already...more screening happening this APS.  Wasn't sure if that was common knowledge...



One came from YAW and I hooked him up with an Italian Pilot at AGS IO (Implementation Office) to discuss what it was before he decided to screen.

Obviously, my ability to do that has expired; the people I know are all moving on now anyway.  Reminds me, I was going to send an E-Mail to some of them and let them know I ejected...

Sorry, an explanation: my Global Hawk knowledge is as a result of I was the last Canadian in AGSIO before we got out, as the Surveillance Officer.  I worked next to and with the Intelliegnce Officer (USAF Major) for a Czech LCol that was head of "ISR" (but I can't remember his title).


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?
> 
> - Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc.



One possible benefit is that analysis can be done faster, as in the operators can chat with the Int folks more reliably if they're somewhat co-located (as it was in the CHUD and Australian Heron days) via ICS, phone or even just walking over there and debriefing after a shift.  Granted, the "walking over" may be hard if the stations aren't next to each other.  I don't know if the Pred/Reaper/GH folks have direct voice/lines of contact with their Int cells.

Reaper is basically a larger turboprop version of a Predator.  Faster speed, higher altitude, possibly more stores, probably nicer sensors.  Very cool pieces of kit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was pretty impressed with what I was exposed to.  Colour EON??


----------



## Baz

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I don't know if the Pred/Reaper/GH folks have direct voice/lines of contact with their Int cells.



From the USAF'S point of view, Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk, and Dragon Lady, including their MOB collection teams, are all part of the Global ISR Enterprise... as a matter of fact when they speak of ISR they mean Global ISR and really nothing else.  The other part of that is the DGCS, which has three main locations in Beale, Langley, and Ramstein, which act as their primary IFCs.   They also have deployable reserve units to back fl at the theater level.

The Collection Managers are in continuous chat with the UAV crews.  For some missions voice may be up, but it certainly is just a phone call away.  These assets are running collection decks.

For direct action they are in UAV to ground comms with back up voice circuits, plus chat, with the supported commander.  To enable this the Army also has their own DGCS system, normally employed at the Corps level.  They also have their own UAVs feeding it up to and including Preds. 

The USN is building it's own MOB and IFC infrastructure, which is a source of friction with the USAF which thinks it should use DGCS.  I think the reality will be that when Triton is running an overland collection deck it will feed DGCS, but Maritime Collection and Surveillance will remain a USN thing.

AGS (ie NATO) was struggling with where they would put everything, but I think it may fall out to be a more robust PHD capability at the AGS MOB, plus support for land and maritime surveillance and *possibly* battle management; the NATO IFC (NIFC) at RAF Molesworth (which where I did my Collateral Damage Estimation Course), which reports directly to SHAPE J2 isn't quite as robust as the USAF ones, and not quite as focused at the operation level.  The USAF DGCS at Ramstein also has a role to play with NATO.

The UK has a single Defence IFC (DIFC) at RAF Wyton supporting worldwide ops.  However their assets, including Sentinel, Rivet Joint, and UAVs can also down link to theater sites for direct support.

Canada only has experience with the theater side, but understands and wants the IFC requirement as well.  It's important to have; I hope they don't follow the USAF model too closely and lose site of the requirement for direct support at the same time.


----------



## Baz

By the way, in case anyone is concerned or wondering, everything I wrote above can be gleaned open source, ie the internet; I do have the luxury of knowing where to look though.

I can provide refs when I had some time if anybody wants them, but intelligent googling of the key terms will get you there.

...and this really belongs in a different thread.


----------



## Tulsa01

The only base closures I can see in the immediate future are Goose Bay and Dwyer Hill. We're pretty much bare minimum as it is. Interestingly it looks like Trenton may end up losing its FWSAR capability.  Imagine all the closures if we contracted SAR like the Brits.


----------



## PuckChaser

You're not moving Dwyer Hill without at least $500M in construction for a new facility in Trenton. Flash to bang on that its at least 5 years (more like 7-8), that's not immediate. You can't just up and move a unit like that, look at the footprint CSOR is all over Petawawa, and they're 10 years old without a proper building.

Goose Bay has been on life support for decades and needs to go. Liberals already have their votes from there, they can deal with the fallout in 3 years, and it'll only be one seat.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Goose Bay has been on life support for decades and needs to go. Liberals already have their votes from there, they can deal with the fallout in 3 years, and it'll only be one seat.



5th Canadian Division is making extensive use of the base and surrounding area for winter/arctic ops....


----------

