# CFB Gagetown now called 5th Canadian Div Support Base



## slayer/raptor

Interesting, I wonder if other bases will change their names:

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/reactions-mixed-over-name-change-at-cfb-gagetown-1.1429081


----------



## Armymedic

???

WTF?


----------



## blacktriangle

nothing surprises me anymore


----------



## Infanteer

You're behind the times by a few months.  All former ASGs have transformed to the "superbase" concept and are now called Div Spt Gps.


----------



## PuckChaser

That is the most retarded idea I've ever seen... the CF has hit a new low. If it was 5 Can Div Support Base GAGETOWN, it would be buttons and bows but still make the tiniest bit of sense.

What are they going to name Kingston? 1st Canadian Division Royal Military College Joint Signal Regiment Electronic Warfare Regiment Royal Canadian Corps of Signals School Support Base? Uh oh, I just gave someone an idea....  :facepalm:


----------



## Gorgo

Keep the physical structures and locations the same name.  Rename the ASGs into DISCOMs or whatever they dream up.

As I voted on the CTV poll at the link, Gagetown is Gagetown.  Nuff said.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're behind the times by a few months.  All former ASGs have transformed to the "superbase" concept and are now called Div Spt Gps.



Wait a minute; isn't BFC Valcartier not now the 5th Canadian Division Support Base?


----------



## Infanteer

2e Division


----------



## PMedMoe

And ASU Toronto is now 4th Cdn Div.  Do you not read CANFORGENS???


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 2e Division



Frig...My head is just spinning with numbers now.    :stars:


----------



## Infanteer

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And ASU Toronto is now 4th Cdn Div.  Do you not read CANFORGENS???



LFCA is now 4 Cdn Div.  ASU Toronton is a det of 2 Div Spt Gp, an amalgamation of 2 ASG and CFB Petawawa.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> LFCA is now 4 Cdn Div.  ASU Toronton is a det of 2 Div Spt Gp, an amalgamation of 2 ASG and CFB Petawawa.



You are really throwing those numbers around.  :stars:  Is 2 Div Spt Gp in Toronto and 2e Canadian Division Support Base in BFC Valcartier?   :stars: :dunno:

I thought 2 CMBG was part of 4 Div.

Here is what I have:



> UNCLAS C PROG 006
> 
> SUBJ: ORGANIZATION MESSAGE - CANADIAN ARMY (CA)
> 
> THE MND HAS AUTHORIZED THE FOLLOWING:
> 
> Rename Land Force Central Area to 4th Canadian Division
> Rename Land Force Central Area Headquarters to 4th CDN DIV HQ
> Rename 2 Area Support Group to 4th Canadian Division Support Gp (4 CDSG)
> Rename 2 Area Support Group Signal Sqn to 4th CDN DIV Support Gp Signal Sqn (4 CDSH SIG Sqn)
> Rename CFB/Area Support Unit Petawawa to 4th CDN DIV Support Base Petawawa
> Rename Land Force Central Area Training Centre to 4th CDN DIV Trg Centre (4 CDN DIV TC)
> Rename CFB/Area Support Unit Kingston to CFB Kingston allocated to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 2 CMBG to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 31 CBG to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 32 CBG to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 33 CBG to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 2 Svc Bn to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 2 INT COY to 4 CDN DIV
> Rename 2 INT Platoon to 7 INT COY and allocate to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 21 EW Regt to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate Regional Cadet Support Unit (Central) (RCSU CENTRAL) to 4 CDN DIV
> Allocate 3rd Canadian Ranger Patrol Gp to 4 CDN DIV
> DISBAND Area Support Unit Toronto


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are really throwing those numbers around.  :stars:  Is 2 Div Spt Gp in Toronto and 2e Canadian Division Support Base in BFC Valcartier?   :stars: :dunno:
> 
> I thought 2 CMBG was part of 4 Div.



Ugg...the numbers are even mixing me up now!

It should read "ASU Toronto is a det of 4 Div Spt Gp, an amalgamation of 2 ASG and CFB Petawawa".

I would have much preferred Regional nomenclature for the Divs as it is far more representative of their static, institutional role and it is easier to remember.  (Western Division, Central Division, Division Quebec, Atlantic Division).


----------



## McG

Back when it was anounced that many ASUs were closing, the concept was floated that the "big base" in each LF Area would become an Area Support Base ... effectively, the mother ship that would be the one base headquarters for all of what used to be bases, stations, locations and other places in the area.  The ASB would be a formation with units for pers admin, tech services, CE, etc.  These units would then become little stovepipe empires all over the area with every BCEO reporting back, not to a local base commander but to the CO of CE for the ASB.  The only "new" change is that the Army has since renamed all the divisions as areas, and so we are now getting DSBs.

Somewhere on this site, there may be a thread discussing the changes under the ASB terms.  The "support base" title is window dressing on something that actually is a structural change to the system.  One can debate if this change is good or not.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Just like CFB/ASU Wainwright is now 3 CDSB Edmonton det Wainwright.  And at least in WX case it is more than just a renaming since as part of ASU closures/rationalization, WX lost it's LCol CO, and downgraded it too a Maj, as well as other streamlining changes.   This is nothing new really, just a repeat of history, as "Camp" Wainwright was originally a det of CFB Calgary prior to the closure and move to Edmontion :-/

Jon


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ugg...the numbers are even mixing me up now!
> 
> It should read "ASU Toronto is a det of 4 Div Spt Gp, an amalgamation of 2 ASG and CFB Petawawa".
> 
> I would have much preferred Regional nomenclature for the Divs as it is far more representative of their static, institutional role and it is easier to remember.  (Western Division, Central Division, Division Quebec, Atlantic Division).



Yes both Toronto and Kingston will be Dets of 4 CDSG Petawawa, ASU London would have been as well if it was not being disbanded and partially rolled into the Res Svc Bn, which would fall under the Res CMBG, and then under 4 Can Div.....

Jon


----------



## McG

LFCA became 4 Div, and SQFT became 2 Div ... interesting.  The "historical" force generating home for 2 DivHQ & Tps was 2 Militia District (Central Ontario) and the force generating home for 4 Div HQ & Tps was 5 Militia District (Eastern Quebec).



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes both Toronto and Kingston will be Dets of 4 CDSG Petawawa, ASU London would have been as well if it was not being disbanded and partially rolled into the Res Svc Bn, which would fall under the Res CMBG, and then under 4 Can Div.....


The Support Base concept was supposed to give the DSBs the responsibilities that were formerly held by disolved ASUs.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> LFCA became 4 Div, and SQFT became 2 Div ... interesting.  The "historical" force generating home for 2 DivHQ & Tps was 2 Militia District (Central Ontario) and the force generating home for 4 Div HQ & Tps was 5 Militia District (Eastern Quebec).
> The Support Base concept was supposed to give the DSBs the responsibilities that were formerly held by disolved ASUs.



It's been a few month's since I've seen any kind of SITREP, but I know people that were ASU London and some that are PRes at the Svc Bn in London, and the last info I heard is that the Svc Bn would be beefed up to 35 RegF CSS positions to solidify the added CSS support functions that they would take over from the now defunct ASU. 

Yes in theory DSB Pet would cover off that support, as well as 2 Svc Bn on the CSS functions they cover off....but it is a long way from Pet to London :-/

We face the same issue out west to support Calgary from ASB Edmonton/1 Svc Bn.  And I know from our past briefings that 1 Svc Bn was given a Wng O that with the ASU closure we could expect more support tasks, as well as that more RegF CSS postings into PRes Svc Bn's would happen, and that these would not be the old retirement postings, but putting key highly qualified pers in place in order to ensure that the new reenforced PRes Svc Bn would have the expertise required to succeed.

But this is a bit off topic for the OP 

Jon


----------



## Teager

For Toronto I've heard and received e-mails with it being called Garrison Toronto now.


----------



## caocao

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That is the most retarded idea I've ever seen... the CF has hit a new low. If it was 5 Can Div Support Base GAGETOWN, it would be buttons and bows but still make the tiniest bit of sense.
> 
> What are they going to name Kingston? 1st Canadian Division Royal Military College Joint Signal Regiment Electronic Warfare Regiment Royal Canadian Corps of Signals School Support Base? Uh oh, I just gave someone an idea....  :facepalm:



That"s what it is called; 5th Canadian Division Support Group/5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown


----------



## Brad Sallows

Hm.  "Support groups" were one of the less successful variations the Brits played with in North Africa.  Hope the name isn't cursed.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Teager said:
			
		

> For Toronto I've heard and received e-mails with it being called Garrison Toronto now.



Yes we like inventing multiple names for places, you can refer to the Base in Edmonton as Garrison Edmonton, Steele Barracks, CFB Edmonton, and now 3 CDSB :-/  Though you can argue that they are all slightly different in focus...

Jon


----------



## pbi

Good Lord. What a pointless load of rubbish. 

I hear the scraping of deck chairs being moved about.....

And all this improves what, again?


----------



## George Wallace

An ego here or there.


----------



## dapaterson

I'm sure this is supported by the sign painters' union.


----------



## pbi

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm sure this is supported by the sign painters' union.



 :goodpost:


----------



## McG

pbi said:
			
		

> Good Lord. What a pointless load of rubbish.
> 
> I hear the scraping of deck chairs being moved about.....
> 
> And all this improves what, again?


The "Division" part of the name change is a topic for another thread.  The move to the area support base is a structural change.  Now, local commanders will not have a Base Commander to fix their problems.  Instead, all the base service providers will report through separate stovepipes to COs in the area "super" / support base.


----------



## cupper

If you cannot understand it, you won't be able to reveal anything under interrogation.

Sounds simple enough. :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar

cupper said:
			
		

> If you cannot understand it, you won't be able to reveal anything under interrogation.
> 
> Sounds simple enough. :nod:



That's exactly why I barely pay attention in orders, especially "highers intent"


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> The "Division" part of the name change is a topic for another thread.  The move to the area support base is a structural change.  Now, local commanders will not have a Base Commander to fix their problems.  Instead, all the base service providers will report through separate stovepipes to COs in the area "super" / support base.



Yes I'm sure this is not 100% an easy transition, I haven't spoke with my friends at "Base Maint" in Wainwright yet.  But I see by their email that they are falling officially under 3 CDSB Tech Services....vice Maint, probably because 3 CDSB doesn't have anything to do with Maint/LEMS in Edmonton as that is a function of Maint Coy 1 Svc Bn.   

However they still are a functioning Coy level org with a CSM and a Maj OC.  Which leaves the question of how in practice is having an OC/CSM of Tech Svc(ie Supply/Transport/Admin etc) and an CSM/OC of Maint is working inside of one "Tech Services" banner and CoC to 3CDSB Edmonton....

Jon


----------



## McG

3 CDSB is a formation with a commander.  Tech services is a unit - it should have a CO and not an OC.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> 3 CDSB is a formation with a commander.  Tech services is a unit - it should have a CO and not an OC.



That doesn't mean that the CO must be higher than a Major or Capt though.


----------



## McG

The old base Comd positions were used to make the new CDSB/ASB CO positions.  So, the LCol slots all move to the super bases and COs of tech services, admin services and Engr services should all be LCols.


----------



## Infanteer

I think Base Operations was the fourth one.  Ops, Tech Services, Adm Services and Engr Services.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think Base Operations was the fourth one.  Ops, Tech Services, Adm Services and Engr Services.



Yes and I believe that the OC of Ops in a satellite base acts as the local "Base Comd/Snr Maj" as it would have been the former DCO position, that way local minor issues can be solved without engaging any of the LCol's on the super base.   And chair all the meetings required to run a base no matter what you call it :-/  AFAIK, the BRSM/CWO at least in WX, still exists as well...now in Ops I would assume.


----------



## McG

NDA and QR&O give several specific authorities to Base Commanders and no mention of ability to delegate.  Who now exercises this authority on locations sataliete to the Div Sp Base where there no-longer is a true BComd?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Exactly.  Certain financial and disciplinary functions can only be performed by a B Comd.  How is that going to work?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Getting back to the topic of the thread.

I'll continue to call it the 'G spot'.


----------



## Ostrozac

MCG said:
			
		

> NDA and QR&O give several specific authorities to Base Commanders and no mention of ability to delegate.  Who now exercises this authority on locations sataliete to the Div Sp Base where there no-longer is a true BComd?



Do you have examples?

The National Defence Act does not mention the concept of a Base or a Base Commander.

QR&O seem to use the term "base, unit or element" a lot, but I'm not tracking any authorities that are specifically held only by a base commander.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Do you have examples?
> 
> The National Defence Act does not mention the concept of a Base or a Base Commander.
> 
> QR&O seem to use the term "base, unit or element" a lot, but I'm not tracking any authorities that are specifically held only by a base commander.



I believe the term is Commanding Officer under the NDA, which is what a Base Commander is functioning as for the satellite base, so someone has carry out this function, it would be unnecessarily complicated if the BComd/CO of the superbase had to make all these decisions/sign all the papers for the satellite bases because they lacked a "CO" locally.


----------



## FJAG

I'll just add a little to this thread as I do not have access to the DWAN and therefore can't confirm actual details.

The status as an organization as a unit (commanded by a CO) or a formation (commanded by a formation commander) depends on how it is described in the establishing Canadian Forces Organization Order (CFOO). The CFOO sets down all lines of authority and from it flows the powers of its CO/commander.

If I was to take a guess, I'd say major bases, regardless of their name, would be units (commanded by COs) that report to their superior formations.


----------



## Rifleman62

Would this not be covered on a change of command when the BComd gets a letter from higher, IAW  QR & O, stating he/she has i.e. the powers of punishment of a CO or Superior Comd?

In a simple form, with all these"name" changes, new letters are required.


----------



## dapaterson

There is a provision within the QR&Os that permits the CDS to designate individuals as commanding officers even though they are not in command of a unit (a base is a unit).  That is how the Ceremonial Guard (organizationally, a detachment of the Governor General's Footguards) has a CO.  Thus, designations of COs can be made to ensure the smooth operation of the new structure.



Per volume 1 chapter 1 of the QR&O:



> "commanding officer" (commandant)
> means
> except when the Chief of the Defence Staff otherwise directs, an officer in command of a base, unit or element, or
> any other officer designated as a commanding officer by or under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff;


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is a provision within the QR&Os that permits the CDS to designate individuals as commanding officers even though they are not in command of a unit (a base is a unit).  That is how the Ceremonial Guard (organizationally, a detachment of the Governor General's Footguards) has a CO.  Thus, designations of COs can be made to ensure the smooth operation of the new structure.



That is a useful function for an organization that has only a temporary existence or a similar circumstance. Permanent CF organizations are established and defined by CFOOs and of course Ministerial Organization Orders (MOOs) (sorry I should have mentioned MOOs in the previous post).

Attached is a sample CFOO.

:cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

No, permanent CF organizations are established and defined by Ministerial Organizational Orders (MOOs), which in turn the CDS expands upon in Canadian Forces Organizational Orders (CFOO).  Can't have a CFOO without a MOO.

A MOO will state that prior MOOs are rescinded (or that this is the first MOO for the unit or formation), name the unit, assign it to a component (Reg, Res, or when so constituted the Special Force), and assign it to a formation - even formations are assigned to formations.


CO designations are fairly common - the Ceremonial Guard gets a new one every time a new Reg F Major is posted in, for example.  Whether that is an appropriate approach is a topic best discussed over libations of choice. :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

I think that's what I said but the real point of my post is to say that speculation is interesting but a futile exercise. One of you who does have access to the DWAN/DIN should simply look up the new or amended MOO/CFOO for these bases and then settle the issue.

 :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

...except depending on the approach selected, the bases may no longer be units but rather be detachments of the larger entity, in which case they will have neither MOO nor CFOO.


----------



## FJAG

Your profile says current member. Go look and let me know what you find. Despite myself I'm actually getting interested in this.

 ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

FJAG said:
			
		

> Your profile says current member. Go look and let me know what you find. Despite myself I'm actually getting interested in this.
> 
> ;D



Yes I'll have to see what paperwork is in existence, if the former ASU's are now not "units" any longer I assume that can only happen with some sort of paperwork, if not a MOO/CFOO, then something rescinding the old ones.  And if the former ASU's are just dets under the CDSB/ASB concept, the CDS could appoint a "CO" of the detachment.  IIRC the 742 Det Wainwright back when I was their did have a Capt as a CO.  Though I'm not sure what level of approval created that designation.


----------



## dapaterson

From what I can see, the amended CFOOs have yet to be promulgated (at least to the DWAN repository).  Thus, this will remain one of life's great mysteries... for now...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

...I've just gone cross eyed reading this thread.


----------



## kratz

+300  :goodpost:


----------



## Brandonfw

I grew up near CFB Gagetown. To me, it will ALWAYS be CFB Gagetown. Always. Forever. I'll never squeal!!  :threat: lol


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

OK, I'll stir the pot then:

If the Canadian Army can rename the CF bases it "controls" to "Xth Canadian Div Support Base" (Why not just "Camp Gagetown", for instance ???), then does it mean that the RCN can rename the CF bases it "controls" as HMC Dockyard Halifax, HMCS Stadaconna and HMCS Shearwater, for CFB Halifax and HMC Dockyard Esquimalt and HMCS Naden for CFB Esquimalt ?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK, I'll stir the pot then:
> 
> If the Canadian Army can rename the CF bases it "controls" to "Xth Canadian Div Support Base" (Why not just "Camp Gagetown", for instance ???), then does it mean that the RCN can rename the CF bases it "controls" as HMC Dockyard Halifax, HMCS Stadaconna and HMCS Shearwater, for CFB Halifax and HMC Dockyard Esquimalt and HMCS Naden for CFB Esquimalt ?



They, like the CA and RCAF are free to change the name of support organizations on bases all they want.  All bases belong to the CF and are therefore CFB putyournamehere regardless of what you chose to put on the sign by the gate.  Until the NDA is changed we will have a CFB Gagetown, CFB Halifax and CFB Cold Lake.  They might be refereed to as 5 CDSB Gagetown, HMCS Stadaconna, and 4 Wing Cold Lake, but that doesn't change the NDA, it is just branding/reorganizing.  Like I said before, CFB Gagetown was the home to 3 Area Support Group, now with the Divisions coming in it's 5 Can Div Support Group, so very little has changed.....move on to your homes there is nothing to see here...


----------



## dapaterson

There's nothing in the NDA to dictate that it's CFB Gagetown or anything similar.  A base is a type of unit.  A unit is a collection of personnel and materiel organized under the authority of the Minister.

It is the Minister, through the use of a Ministerial Organizational Order (MOO), who dictates the names of units.  The CDS then expands on the MOO with a Canadian Forces Organizational Order (CFOO).

Thus, the change to names of Army bases is done by the MND, under the authority of the NDA.


For more information, find a copy of CFP 219.


----------



## Old EO Tech

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's nothing in the NDA to dictate that it's CFB Gagetown or anything similar.  A base is a type of unit.  A unit is a collection of personnel and materiel organized under the authority of the Minister.
> 
> It is the Minister, through the use of a Ministerial Organizational Order (MOO), who dictates the names of units.  The CDS then expands on the MOO with a Canadian Forces Organizational Order (CFOO).
> 
> Thus, the change to names of Army bases is done by the MND, under the authority of the NDA.
> 
> 
> For more information, find a copy of CFP 219.



Understood, maybe I should have been a little more generic, all bases/units belong to the CF, therefore they are CF Bases/units, whether they are officially named that in a MOO/CFOO.  Without opening the NDA right now, I'm sure the fact that all bases belong to the CF/DND is in the NDA.....

Regardless, we will have to wait to see what the new MOO/CFOO says since it is not published yet.  But I'll put beer on the fact that "CFB Gagetown" is not disappearing but that 3 ASG is, in order to make 5 CDSB...much like CFB Borden and CFSTG Borden exist concurrently.  

But for now this is all speculation.

Cheers


----------



## quadrapiper

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Regardless, we will have to wait to see what the new MOO/CFOO says since it is not published yet.  But I'll put beer on the fact that "CFB Gagetown" is not disappearing but that 3 ASG is, in order to make 5 CDSB...much like CFB Borden and CFSTG Borden exist concurrently.


Biggest difference is in the common-usage side of things - whether the usual point of reference is the tenant or the real estate. Certainly, I already hear "Dockyard," "Naden," and "19 Wing" more often than CFB Esquimalt or Comox.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK, I'll stir the pot then:
> 
> If the Canadian Army can rename the CF bases it "controls" to "Xth Canadian Div Support Base" (Why not just "Camp Gagetown", for instance ???), then does it mean that the RCN can rename the CF bases it "controls" as HMC Dockyard Halifax, HMCS Stadaconna and HMCS Shearwater, for CFB Halifax and HMC Dockyard Esquimalt and HMCS Naden for CFB Esquimalt ?



Any other old timers here?  If my mind isn't completely addled weren't these things named Camp Shilo, Camp Petawawa, Camp Gagetown etc back in the early 60s before all they became CFBs?

 :warstory:


----------



## armyvern

FJAG said:
			
		

> Any other old timers here?  If my mind isn't completely addled weren't these things named Camp Shilo, Camp Petawawa, Camp Gagetown etc back in the early 60s before all they became CFBs?
> 
> :warstory:



I was just going to post to that effect in response to the (obviously) young lad's earlier post about having grown up in the "CFB Gagetown" area and thus it would always be known to him as such.

Me too --- I being apparently much older than he (but am a hair less than 45 thanks cripes), drove people nuts by calling it Camp Gagetown which it will always be to me.  And, I am quite certain that the "Welcome to Camp Gagetown" sign was still at the front gate when I was posted out in 09 although there were rumours that it was to come down when the "new" front gate was opened up. Alas it may now be gone.


----------



## Rifleman62

I thought is was loving titled "Camp Gagtown" as in a restraint to speech or being sick.


----------



## Old EO Tech

FJAG said:
			
		

> Any other old timers here?  If my mind isn't completely addled weren't these things named Camp Shilo, Camp Petawawa, Camp Gagetown etc back in the early 60s before all they became CFBs?
> 
> :warstory:



Yes those would be the old CA designations.  When Hellyers single CF became effective as part of the amended NDA in 68, renaming the bases to CFB was the rule of the day.  I can't imagine the MND/CDS sitting their with 300 MOO/CFOO's renaming bases though so I bet there was some expedient blanket document used in that time :-/

But "Camp" didn't die everywhere, there was a provincial sign outside the base in Wainwright saying "Camp Wainwright" with an arrow pointing in the direction of the base still there when I was posted out in 04....  And if you wanted Telus to hook up your phone and internet you had to tell them you lived on Camp Wainwright :-/

Jon


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...... I am quite certain that the "Welcome to Camp Gagetown" sign was still at the front gate when I was posted out in 09 although there were rumours that it was to come down when the "new" front gate was opened up. Alas it may now be gone.



Alas, the whole Front Gate, not just the sign, is gone.  Nothing but openness.   Very unmilitary like.


----------



## PMedMoe

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Alas, the whole Front Gate, not just the sign, is gone.  Nothing but openness.   Very unmilitary like.



Yes, I was rather shocked at that when I was there in August.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yes, I was rather shocked at that when I was there in August.



And you didn't look me up...... ;D


----------



## PMedMoe

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And you didn't look me up...... ;D



En route from lunch with my daughter to Shediac.  Literally only stopped to get my leave pass stamped.  Sorry.


----------



## CBH99

Hey guys (and gals),

I'm confused about the bigger picture of this whole thing, especially in regards to the CF's efforts to eliminate excessive administration/overhang.

For quite some time now, I was always under the impression that the CF as a whole was making substantial efforts to try to reduce the number of excessive administrative/overhang/top heavy positions - therefore making the CF a more streamlined organization that would be able to save $$ from eliminating/streamlining those positions.

However, if we are going to start re-naming everything "X Div" and, for example, 1CMBG is going to be a sub-unit of X-Div - is that not going to create a great number of the types of positions we have been trying so hard to streamline?

And isn't the creation of these new hollow "umbrella" units just going to create more confusion, paperwork, admin positions, etc etc - which in effect will have the exact opposite affect of what we were trying to do, re: streamline?

I'm sorry if my post isn't as clear as it could be, just been trying to get my head wrapped around this and I can't seem to.


Cheers


----------



## dapaterson

Much of this is mere lipstick on a pig - renaming of existing formations and units.  Whether it's called Land Force Atlantic Area or 5th Canadian Division, the change is merely cosmetic.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Much of this is mere lipstick on a pig - renaming of existing formations and units.  Whether it's called Land Force Atlantic Area or 5th Canadian Division, the change is merely cosmetic.


The "Div" part is a renaming, but the "support base" part reflects a reorganization and regional stovepiping of functions.


----------

