# CFB Bagotville gets 2 Air Expeditionary Wing (CPC's 600 man Bn election promise)



## vangemeren (20 Jul 2007)

*CFB Bagotville gets rapid deployment force in $300M federal plan*

The federal government is adding a rapid deployment force at CAF Bagotville in the Saguenay, officials announced Friday.

Ottawa will spend $300 million on the new force between 2008 and 2015, said Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Some 550 soldiers will be sent to Bagotville to join the new force, which will increase the base's population by 50 per cent and inject new blood into the local economy, said Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative MP for the Saguenay/Lac-Saint-Jean.

Blackburn campaigned on a promise to build up Bagotville's capacities in the last federal election.

More to come

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/07/20/qc-bagotville0720.html


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Jul 2007)

Of course, the cynic would ask:  what "rapid deployment unit"? 

Where are these soldiers coming from?  We cannot man current and newly-created units, how are we manning this one?  What role will this "unit" fill?  Why (aside from politics) Bagotville?  What operational need is driving this initiative?  So many questions...

And people wonder why I think the Conservative governments' strategic defence plan is largely the result of sniffing too much glue.   :blotto:


----------



## Patricia13 (20 Jul 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't CSOR our rapid deployment unit when it becomes fully operational, and if not then how many are we going to have.  1 VP has enough problems with troop numbers and now there is another unit being formed.   ???


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Jul 2007)

Yep, we have CSOR, JTF2, DART, MAJAID but someone in their infinite political ladder climbing wisdom has decided we need another? In Bagotville?  ???


----------



## Patricia13 (20 Jul 2007)

Do these guys know how to count.  I mean shit.  1 VP has been run into the ground since we got back, we can't get spare parts or proper ammo for the LAVs, we're spending millions on ad campains that are laughed at by the infantry (never saw a two story building in an Afgan villiage) we have no troops and yet we're *STILL* creating new units to take troops away from the units that we can't properly man.  This reminds me of a scene in the movie The Messenger.  The woman playing Joan of Arc orders that the 15,000 reserve troops be brought up to continue the assault of the walls of Paris.  One of her deputies then look at the "15000" (only had about 500-1000) troops and he asks her if she can count.


----------



## Tow Tripod (20 Jul 2007)

I see a whole bunch of people lined up at the door for this task.Baggotville, Please

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## Trinity (20 Jul 2007)

This isn't instead of the rumours of JTF being moved to Trenton, .... could it be?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jul 2007)

My vote goes for 2 R22eR - it will let us offload the Citadel to Parks Canada, and that will be a significant savings.

On the down side, between the VanDoos and the pilots, the barbers on base will go bankrupt...


----------



## Armymedic (20 Jul 2007)

Hey army-centrics,

could this be an Air Force rapid deployment unit?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jul 2007)

The problem, of course, is that there just aren't the PYs out there (let alone the Ps to fill those PYs) to support this kind of expansion without relocating something that already exists.  And the Air Force is already pulling out its (long, well coiffed) hair over finding pilots and crew for CC-177s and Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopters - unless 1 CAD is moved from Winnipeg, the Air Force doesn't have a 550 PY unit to relocate to Bagotville.

Mind you, the official press release at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2392 does imply that this will be an air-centric organization:



> The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, today announced the formation of a new Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) at Bagotville, Quebec. This new formation will be able to rapidly deploy as a self-contained unit, providing air power and associated support wherever needed, across Canada or around the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> This represents a fundamental change from the traditional static wing-based structure for the Air Force. The new AEW will be composed of a Command Element, an Operations Support Flight, and a Mission Support Flight. It will train together and deploy as a team, with aircraft and personnel tailored to the specific requirements of an operation.



What a wild concept - a deployable air force!  Though the deployed mission security element is conspicuous by its absence - do I smell another task for the Army?

Still no idea where the 550 personnel will come from - but I suspect there will be some unhappy folks in Trenton and Cold Lake when they get calls from their career managers...


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jul 2007)

It's an Air Force unit of a type that does not now exist--from the Conservative website:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/84430

Air Force Expansion in Quebec
July 20, 2007



> The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, today announced the formation of a new Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) at Bagotville, Quebec. This new formation will be able to rapidly deploy as a self-contained unit, providing air power and associated support wherever needed, across Canada or around the world.
> 
> *"This expeditionary capability marks a new era for our Air Force* [emphasis added]. And it will also help ensure the long term life of CFB Bagotville, which has a long and proud tradition," said Minister O'Connor. "Today's announcement once again demonstrates this government's commitment to further strengthening Canadian Forces units located in Quebec, to make up for the previous government's years of neglect," he added.
> 
> ...



Not exactly the silly 2006 campaign promise:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/01/03/elxn-harper-bagotville.html



> The Conservatives revealed more details about their defence policy on Monday as Stephen Harper said a government led by him would establish an army unit at the Canadian Forces Base in Bagotville, Que.



This was to be a rapid reaction battalion like those pledged (see below) for Goose Bay and Comox.

What about these other silly campaign promises?

1) http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/39090


> Establish a regular army presence in Newfoundland and Labrador by stationing a new 650 regular force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay for Atlantic Canada requirements.



Maybe a "Northern Sovereignty Support Centre" will have to do for this promise.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d4e3d936-d76d-4722-a5bd-192f075d2b15

2) http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/36893


> Restoring a regular army presence in British Columbia with a new rapid reaction army battalion of 650 regular force personnel, that will be air deployable, to be stationed at CFB Comox



The "Marine Commando Regiment" instead?
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ec597318-4fd0-48ec-9925-a19f9105788b

3) http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/35032


> Creation of a 650 strong airborne battalion, to be stationed at CFB Trenton, available for rapid or difficult deployments for emergency, humanitarian, or military operations.



JTF 2 to Trenton instead?
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ec597318-4fd0-48ec-9925-a19f9105788b

So in fact none of the promised Army "rapid reaction battalions" will (thank goodness) be created.  Rather some sort of new CF unit must however be pledged for each base in order to be seen to be following up on campaign pledges.

What a stupid way to run defence policy and allocate scarce resources.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Privateer (20 Jul 2007)

This is way outside my area, but is it possible that this means that they intend to put all or most of the Chinooks at Bagotville?


----------



## rick7475 (20 Jul 2007)

Well, they won't be going back to Ottawa, they tore all the hangars down.


Now, let's see, under the Liberals we lose military units, followed by much complaining and criticism, and under the Conservatives, we gain military units, followed by much complaining and criticism.

C'est la vie.


----------



## Privateer (20 Jul 2007)

More cryptic clues from the MND's speaking notes.  (Notes in full are here:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2394 )



> ...This new expeditionary capability will be another step in the air force’s ongoing transformation and will improve the way the air force does business.  It will meld together air force support and combat elements into a “comprehensive package” better positioned to respond to crises.  It will allow our airmen and airwomen to train together as a team before arriving in a theatre of operations.  And, it will enable commanders to better direct a rapid and decisive response to any domestic or international contingency – ranging from large-scale humanitarian response to more traditional allied operations...





> ...The new expeditionary wing will be implemented in two stages, with an initial allocation of personnel in Bagotville as soon as 2008. This number will, over time, grow to up to 550 in total...In addition, there will be a need to increase the general military support staff on base...Given this expansion plan, we project the military population in Bagotville will increase by 50 per cent. With family members included, over 1,000 new people would likely call this community home...





> ...Bagotville’s military population won’t be the only thing that grows as a result of this announcement. The expeditionary wing will need to be properly supported with appropriate equipment and infrastructure. While it is early to get into specific details, this will translate into an investment of up to $300 million into Bagotville...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Jul 2007)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> Now, let's see, under the Liberals we lose military units, followed by much complaining and criticism, and under the Conservatives, we gain military units, followed by much complaining and criticism.
> 
> C'est la vie.



It's hardly "complaining" - most of the opinion posted thus far reflects the operational and manning realities faced by the entire CF.  My original critique still stands, even if this is touted as an Air Force capability.  I could care less about which party does what; I'm quite non-partisan in my cynicism.  MarkOttawa has pointed out some of the more brainless ideas, some of which (TDBGs, anyone?) are still very much alive.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

>This new formation will be able to rapidly deploy as a self-contained unit, providing air power and associated support wherever needed, across Canada or around the world.

This sounds like nothing more than a unit at a high level of readiness.  What a pity the air force isn't flexible enough to rotate the capability as a task among existing units to ensure they all maintain the necessary skills.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What a pity the air force isn't flexible enough to rotate the capability as a task among existing units to ensure they all maintain the necessary skills.



What makes you say the Air Force doesn't have a High level of readiness?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

It's my pointed cranky way of asking whether there is a military (non-political) exigency which supports this special rapidly deployable unit.  Why aren't all the functional air units capable of being rapidly deployed, subject to participating in a rotating schedule of varying states of readiness?

If it's just a scheme to buy Quebec votes, then can someone please just say so and I'll maintain a disgusted silence while crossing my fingers for a "Oui" vote in the next referendum.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's my pointed cranky way of asking whether there is a military (non-political) exigency which supports this special rapidly deployable unit.  Why aren't all the functional air units capable of being rapidly deployed, subject to participating in a rotating schedule of varying states of readiness?
> 
> If it's just a scheme to buy Quebec votes, then can someone please just say so and I'll maintain a disgusted silence while crossing my fingers for a "Oui" vote in the next referendum.



Vanguard is the Air Force Expeditionnary Force.  There CF-18s ready to go for NATO mission at any given time.  The duties are shared every year an a half between 3 Wing and 4 Wing.

Max


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

So is this announcement a re-announcement, or is "Vanguard" being expanded, or is it something else entirely?  It seems wasteful to move the whole unit involved every year-and-a-half to Bagotville rather than to just move the task wherever the designated unit is lodged.


----------



## mudrecceman (20 Jul 2007)

Well I might be out of my lane but...I am betting this "new" unit will have some stuff that is already at Bagotville...aka the Radar Sqn (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/3wing/squadron/12_e.asp).

Now, the most deployable assets of the support side, AFAIK, is 8 ACCS at 8 Wing and the Radar Sqns at CL and BV.  Could they be put under the "command" of this "new" unit, but not move an inch?

Not enough detail IMO at this time...once the smoke and mirrors effect is taken into account.

"This represents a fundamental change from the traditional static wing-based structure for the Air Force. The new AEW will be composed of a Command Element, an Operations Support Flight, and a Mission Support Flight. It will train together and deploy as a team, with aircraft and personnel tailored to the specific requirements of an operation."

Gee.  2 announcements, in 2 days? on major spending in the Quebec area...this one and the Fort in St-Jean.

Hmmmm.


----------



## JoeCanada (21 Jul 2007)

I from the 3r22r and some time they say to us that it is possible that have moves to bagotville.


----------



## mudrecceman (21 Jul 2007)

Joe

Did they mention when that might happen?


----------



## JoeCanada (21 Jul 2007)

no, for the moment they was rumours until  today


----------



## observor 69 (21 Jul 2007)

OK I feel the urge to say something here, spent 4 years and six months in Bagotville in the 70's, but I am struggling to be fair and polite. 

As an Anglo family it was four and a half years of marking time. Yes I did take french training on base and was able to get what I needed downtown. I am a pretty open guy to new cultures but with an Anglo family it is difficult to fully engage with the local community.
Bagotville/Lac St.Jean is north, the other side of Laurentide Park, of Quebec City. It is a very very French area and there are no English options like driving to Montreal from St.Jean. 

That would be the big two, the language barrier and the relative isolation from the rest of English speaking Canada.
So when they start posting in the additional Anglo families that is the challenge they will face.

Interesting to note that O'Connor wasn't shy about mentioning his time as a youth spent in Bagotville but yet he isn't bilingual.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jul 2007)

This _Globe and Mail_ story explains how the new unit makes military sense. 
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070721.wdefence20/front/Front/frontBN/rbc-front

However it seems to me that basing the new unit at Trenton or Winnipeg--where the types of aircraft most likely to be deployed on overseas expeditions (transports) are stationed--would make a lot more practical sense than Bagotville, where only CF-18s are now stationed. And the last time they were deployed overseas was to Aviano, Italy, in 1998/99 in response to the Kosovo crisis.

Maybe some of the new Chinooks will be based at Bagotville.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## pjocsak (21 Jul 2007)

Courtesy of our friends at the Globe and Mail:

Reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copy write act and all that jazz.


*Rapid-response air unit seen as policy shift*

MATT HARTLEY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

July 21, 2007 at 12:31 AM EDT

OTTAWA — An air force unit capable of rapid deployment will be established at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville in northwestern Quebec, the government said yesterday, a move seen by some experts as a major shift away from Canada's traditional military role as a peacekeeper.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the government would spend about $300-million on equipment and other costs to set up the unit, and would add 550 new troops to the base over seven years.

"What this unit does is allow the air force to establish an operating air field anywhere in the world, even in remote areas of the North," Mr. O'Connor said in an interview.

It was the second major military announcement in as many days in a province where the military enjoys less support than in other parts of the country, and where the Conservatives must pick up seats to win a majority government.

On Thursday, Mr. O'Connor announced $200-million in funding to resurrect the Saint-Jean campus of the Royal Military College in Quebec, a move designed to draw more potential francophone officers into the Canadian Forces. CFB Bagotville is the only predominantly French-speaking air base in the country.

Some experts see the military's new emphasis on rapid troop deployment as a major shift in both defence and foreign policy.

"We're acquiring the capacity to project forces overseas into difficult areas by buying the equipment that will allow us to go there, and by creating units such as this," said Colonel Michel Drapeau, a Canadian Forces veteran and military analyst.

"Obviously this government intends to have Canada back to where it was a number of years ago, in playing a more active role as a middle power in security operations, wherever these may take place — which is a departure from what we've done for the last 20 years."

This month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a $3.1-billion government expenditure to establish a fleet of six to eight Canadian-made Arctic patrol ships, as well as build a deep-water port, to defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

"What we're seeing now is a manifestation of this government's unequivocal decision to change the character of the Forces," Mr. Drapeau said. "This government wants to make sure the Canadian military is now a force to be reckoned with and a force that will be ready for deployment as, and when, required."

*The new Air Expeditionary Wing will have the capacity to provide a control tower, radar, security engineers and any other infrastructure needed to establish and maintain an airfield anywhere in the world. It is similar to units already employed by the U.S. Air Force.* (my emphasis added)

Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the local MP, said the move would pump between $80-million and $85-million yearly into the Saguenay regional economy.

Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand said the Conservative government will be disappointed if they think Quebeckers will change their minds regarding Canada's role in Afghanistan.

"I don't think running around throwing a little bit of money on one side or another will change the opinion of the Quebeckers concerning the mission," he said.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said the announcement amounted to little more than political posturing ahead of by-elections in Quebec.

"It appears that we're becoming more focused on being prepared to participate in missions around the world, in coalitions of the willing, rather than following an independent Canadian foreign policy — and I find that troubling," NDP defence critic Dawn Black said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070721.wdefence20/BNStory/National/

I recall reading not so long ago about a "Mission Support Squadron" or something to that effect in Wpg. Now, I can't quite recall all of the details, however I wonder if it is in any way similar to this Air Expeditionary Wing being created at Bagotville?

P


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2007)

So it's an airbase establishment "unit", not an operational air unit.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Jul 2007)

InterestedCivilian said:
			
		

> *The new Air Expeditionary Wing will have the capacity to provide a control tower, radar, security engineers and any other infrastructure needed to establish and maintain an airfield anywhere in the world. It is similar to units already employed by the U.S. Air Force.* (my emphasis added)



That clarifies things a bit. This is more of a support capability that I dont think we had before.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> That clarifies things a bit. This is more of a support capability that I dont think we had before.



Airfield Engineers do that...  Already...


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jul 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> That would be the big two, the language barrier and the relative isolation from the rest of English speaking Canada.
> So when they start posting in the additional Anglo families that is the challenge they will face.



Yet, we never talk about franco families being posted in English countryside.  How surprised I am....  I guess francos are expected to speak English, yet Anglos aren't expected to speak French.  In the middle of Saskatchewan, there are not many French options available to me.  I learned the language and I don't whine about it.  

Max


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Airfield Engineers do that...  Already...



Really? On a quick reaction basis or as part of a fully planned deployment?  Or both?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Jul 2007)

+1 Max


----------



## Franko (22 Jul 2007)

Back on topic troops....

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## honestyrules (22 Jul 2007)

If you provide the money, the engineers are happy to be the "first in-last out" kinda thing.
If the resources are there, and the tools are packed up ready to go, why not?


----------



## McG (22 Jul 2007)

InterestedCivilian said:
			
		

> The new Air Expeditionary Wing will have the capacity to provide a control tower, radar, security engineers and any other infrastructure needed to establish and maintain an airfield anywhere in the world. It is similar to units already employed by the U.S. Air Force.


A little over a year ago, I had heard the Air Force was interested in restructuring itself entirely along these lines.  IIRC, the vision was to have 3 or 4 expeditionary wings such as the one described here, and these would rotate through levels of readiness just as Army units in managed readiness.  Maybe this announcement is just a first step?


----------



## honestyrules (22 Jul 2007)

Construction engineering+Air Force assets+force protection=Something interesting..are they foreseeing an other theater of operations?


----------



## mudrecceman (22 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Airfield Engineers do that...  Already...



as well as 8 ACCS and the 2 Radar Sqns.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jul 2007)

delavan said:
			
		

> Construction engineering+Air Force assets+force protection=Something interesting..are they foreseeing an other theater of operations?



The AF was discussing doing this when I was posted to Trenton. I left in 2003. It's not a new concept; just an announcement.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yet, we never talk about franco families being posted in English countryside.  How surprised I am....  I guess francos are expected to speak English, yet Anglos aren't expected to speak French.  In the middle of Saskatchewan, there are not many French options available to me.  I learned the language and I don't whine about it.
> 
> Max



Well I was going to rebut your comments by quoting the new SL policy announced by Gen Hillier a while ago but every DND related web site is down. 
Dam terrorists.  

So rather than attempt to misquote the document I will just say that most of your military career will demand the us of English not vice versa. This was the logic in the new policy that will be modelled on the civil service policy of language training as required for the position.

Oh and ref the "whine" comment. My family didn't whine we, like most Anglo families posted to Bagotville, just got on with life and did the best we could. 
 I might add this was in the 70's before cable TV, Video derry ?, hit Lac St.Jean. Our only English TV was one hour of Lawrence Welk on Friday night.  God to even hear the band start up now gives me flash back.  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jul 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This _Globe and Mail_ story explains how the new unit makes military sense.
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070721.wdefence20/front/Front/frontBN/rbc-front
> 
> However it seems to me that basing the new unit at Trenton or Winnipeg--where the types of aircraft most likely to be deployed on overseas expeditions (transports) are stationed--would make a lot more practical sense than Bagotville, where only CF-18s are now stationed. And the last time they were deployed overseas was to Aviano, Italy, in 1998/99 in response to the Kosovo crisis.
> ...



You are using military logic not political logic. he's looking for votes in Quebec not trenton or winnipeg.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jul 2007)

Anyone else notice the left wing liberal agenda creeping in to all the news reports about this and the rest of the military spending? G & M starts by saying this is a departure from our "traditional peacekeeping role." last night on CTV Bob Fife was thumping the same drum and then of course we had the inevitable sound byte of Jack Layton saying the same thing. Layton even said it was a US style war build up......wow does he even know the capabilities of the US forces...ha ha what a fool.
I have to admire the PM and party for pushing ahead....i just hope he gets re-elected so we can take delivery and beef up before the old guard get back in again and reverse all the good being done.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Jul 2007)

I like the idea of this type of unit but i will temper my enthusiasm until i get an explanation on where the troops will come from


----------



## honestyrules (22 Jul 2007)

As JoeCanada stated, if the Vandoos got a head up reference possible positions in Bagotville, that would make it  the force protection part of the deal.

For construction engineers, adding a few civilian positions within CE would get you the provision for the CE section within the new entity. I seen in the local paper that the Meteo section contracted out some of the work to civies recently here in Bagotville. Maybe thay was planned?

That unit being located to Bagotville would get you a mostly Franco staffing anyway.
What surprises me is that I thought that Greenwood and Winniped already had deployable contruction assets, fully kitted out. That's about all I know about the Air force expeditionary assets already in place.
Anyway, I just got posted here in Bagotville and I would switch to the new outfit in a heartbeat! Anybody a little "anxious" about their next career manager's briefings/appointments?


----------



## McG (22 Jul 2007)

There are a total of 10 Airfield Engineering Flights within the Air Force.
Ref:  http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/4wing/squadron/aes_e.asp


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jul 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> A little over a year ago, I had heard the Air Force was interested in restructuring itself entirely along these lines.  IIRC, the vision was to have 3 or 4 expeditionary wings such as the one described here, and these would rotate through levels of readiness just as Army units in managed readiness.  Maybe this announcement is just a first step?



Ive been hearing this kind of talk on and off since 1990, but it never seemed to get done.  Everytime the need was demonstrated, the operation would end or Canada would cease participation, and the political momentum would dry up.  

When we are talking 'rapid reaction', are they refering to a "be there within 72 hours" type of reaction force, or a "be there in a couple of weeks" type of reaction force?


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2007)

Could this be an attempt to stand up the SSF in an 'airlanding' vs. 'airborne' role?


----------



## Globesmasher (23 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Why aren't all the functional air units capable of being rapidly deployed, subject to participating in a rotating schedule of varying states of readiness?



Brad:

You need to come and spend some time at 8 Wing Trenton and see just how busy the "Air Mobility" portion of the Air Force.  It's been deploying and rotating since winter 2001 without respite supporting overseas operations.  429, 436 and 437 Sqns are "vanguard" units (as defined in 1 Cdn Air Div Planning Guidance) and go anywhere at anytime.  In fact, like other branches and services that are subject to the high ops tempo, many personnel within "Air Mobility" who have spent time at 8 Wing are burning out.  This is also one reason why the CC150 Airbus has overflown it's YFR consistently and why the old CC130s are being "run into the ground" faster than was ever predicted.

There are plenty of us in blue who are ..."_capable of being rapidly deployed, subject to participating in a rotating schedule of varying states of readiness"._  Mind you, I only speak for Air Mobility ... that's in my lane.


----------



## armyvern (23 Jul 2007)

I'm going to go with Globesmasher on this one.

3 tours in 5 years out of Trenton (min 6 month), not counting DARTs and other short deployments +/- 3 months. You've got SAL etc that all launched from that location using hard Air Trades and purple trades posted to that location.

One of the busiest postings I've ever had, operationally wise. That's all without getting into our 3 X annual treks on 2 X dom ops Boxtop & 1 X dom op Hurricane, and their weekly resupply runs to Alert.

The pers op tempo was crazy.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jul 2007)

While Maritime patrol cannot claim to have it as busy as out TAL friends, our shortage of trained personel and ongoing operations abroad have increased the Op tempo to very high levels.  My time away from home in the last 2 years can attest to this.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2007)

In some ways, this will be a good cross-cultural pollination:  The fat, dumb and happy folks in fighters will get some exposure to real, deployable and deploying air assets and their support personnel.

Maybe they'll even try to up their readiness level so they can actually perform tasks other than air shows...

(Tongue planted slightly in cheek)


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jul 2007)

>You need to come and spend some time at 8 Wing Trenton and see just how busy the "Air Mobility" portion of the Air Force.

Your response is noted, but misses the point of my skepticism.  Either a capability was lacking or it was not (in which case the announcement smacked of political window dressing, and enough bullshit has transpired with this and previous governments for me to not give any benefit of doubt).  Now that more details have been publicized, it seems clear enough that a capability was lacking - not on the part of functional air units, but on the supporting establishment side.  IOW, the shortfall isn't the ability to project aircraft, but to project supporting establishments on shorter notice.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jul 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In some ways, this will be a good cross-cultural pollination:  The fat, dumb and happy folks in fighters will get some exposure to real, deployable and deploying air assets and their support personnel.
> 
> Maybe they'll even try to up their readiness level so they can actually perform tasks other than air shows...
> 
> (Tongue planted slightly in cheek)



Before you talk in bad about fighter guys, I suggest you spend a bit of time with a fighter unit to see what they do.  They are probably the folks that are away the most...  And it's not only for airshows...

Does Kosovo ring a bell for you?  Just for your info, I'm pretty confident in saying that they are ready to deploy in Afghanistan.

Max


----------



## Franko (23 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Does Kosovo ring a bell for you?  Just for your info, I'm pretty confident in saying that they are ready to deploy in Afghanistan.



Just out of curiosity....can you name any ops that the fighters have been deployed on since '02?

Regards


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jul 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity....can you name any ops that the fighters have been deployed on since '02?
> 
> Regards



Combat ops no. But it's certainly not because they aren't ready to go.  Me think the reason is political.  If we deploy fighters, the population sees that as a war now.  

They are deployed on exercices more than their fair share and when they are home, it's far from being 8-4.  If you haven't been in a fighter unit and haven't seen how much work they put into it, you have no right to make comments such as :



> In some ways, this will be a good cross-cultural pollination:  The fat, dumb and happy folks in fighters will get some exposure to real, deployable and deploying air assets and their support personnel.
> 
> Maybe they'll even try to up their readiness level so they can actually perform tasks other than air shows...



Their readiness level is way up there.

Max


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2007)

So then, what's your take on this RDF thing? Is it just political hocus pocus, or will we see a 'new' type of deployable package developed?


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jul 2007)

How the trick may be done--from a Feb, 1 story by a certain reporter, based on a leaked document:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d4e3d936-d76d-4722-a5bd-192f075d2b15



> ...the 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Combat ops no. But it's certainly not because they aren't ready to go.  Me think the reason is political.  If we deploy fighters, the population sees that as a war now.



My support on that too.  A lot of these guys are gung-ho and ready to come join the fight, but if the government decides that the fighters and helicopters arent going to get deployed, then thats the way it is.  If you dont like it, send an email to Gen Hillier.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> My support on that too.  A lot of these guys are gung-ho and ready to come join the fight, but if the government decides that the fighters and helicopters arent going to get deployed, then thats the way it is.  If you dont like it, send an email to Gen Hillier.



Erk.  Not quite.

If the _*government * _ has made a decision, it is not up to the CDS to change it.  It is up to the government to do so.


----------



## vangemeren (26 Jul 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> How the trick may be done--from a Feb, 1 story by a certain reporter, based on a leaked document:
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d4e3d936-d76d-4722-a5bd-192f075d2b15
> 
> ...the 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team...
> ...



Isn't Bagotville a little far away to support DART? (or am I just a moron and it makes perfect sense)


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (26 Jul 2007)

I don't understand in the first place why the army would put a airbase in a highly separatist region who has very little respect for Canada, english and army. And i understand even less why the government would buff the manpower of this base at the other units(who lack personnel) expenses. Was it political(buy votes), was is requested by the CAS, i'm clueless.


I don't like the ppl of this region very much generally speaking.They're probably(and i hope), Canada's most dangerous drivers, could be easily compared to the standard Afghan drivers. Just an advice, when you get out of the base, there's a light, you better do a stop/slowing down and look at both sides before crossing or turning left. 

And i do empathize with english speaking ppl getting posted here, i come from quebec which is a 2 hour drive, my mother tongue was english until i was 3 years old, but i ended up french later on, well whatever.  i never got used with the local mentality. I guess i'd best fit in a civilized place.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Jul 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Erk.  Not quite.  If the _*government * _ has made a decision, it is not up to the CDS to change it.  It is up to the government to do so.



Im aware of that - it was meant along the lines of 'write your MP'.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Jul 2007)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> Isn't Bagotville a little far away to support DART? (or am I just a moron and it makes perfect sense)



Probably just politics...


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> i never got used with the local mentality. I guess i'd best fit in a civilized place.



Take caution in your comments ........

milnet.ca staff


----------



## mudrecceman (26 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I don't understand in the first place *why the army would put a airbase in a highly separatist region who has very little respect for Canada, english and army*



Ummm the "army" didn't do it...but it appears the Federal Government and the MND did/may/are?



> I understand even less



You said it!



> i'm clueless.



 :-X

I am not sure what the rest is about...

MRM


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I don't understand in the first place why the army would put a airbase in a highly separatist region who has very little respect for Canada, english and army. And i understand even less why the government would buff the manpower of this base at the other units(who lack personnel) expenses. Was it political(buy votes), was is requested by the CAS, i'm clueless.
> 
> 
> I don't like the ppl of this region very much generally speaking.They're probably(and i hope), Canada's most dangerous drivers, could be easily compared to the standard Afghan drivers. Just an advice, when you get out of the base, there's a light, you better do a stop/slowing down and look at both sides before crossing or turning left.
> ...



Be careful buddy, I'm from that area of Quebec.  I really think you comments are disrespecful.  You didn't have a good experience in Saguenay, so be it. 

You REALLY ticked me off and I really don't see why you are bashing us.   I'm disgusted  :-X


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yet, we never talk about franco families being posted in English countryside.  How surprised I am....  I guess francos are expected to speak English, yet Anglos aren't expected to speak French.  In the middle of Saskatchewan, there are not many French options available to me.  I learned the language and I don't whine about it.
> 
> Max



FYI:
http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dol/engraph/coverpage_e.asp?docid=20

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=10472&SourceId=196215&SwitchLanguage=1

Again ref whining. It is a fact that a posting to Bagotville is a hardship on an Anglo family as it is to a Franco family to Saskatchewan.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (27 Jul 2007)

Well, i apologize to have hurt your feeling, but did you ever drove a car around?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2007)

I think you should all take your disgust, hurt feelings and delicate sensibilites to PMs, and let this thread get back on track. Continuing on this tact will see another good thread go down, and get locked, due to regional disagreements and (perceived?) personal slights. This will be the only warning. Get back on track now.

The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## AIC_2K5 (27 Sep 2007)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=3766

So the AF has to stand up another Wing in order to make it 'deployable'...I don't get it but obviously someone has their reasons.


----------



## GK .Dundas (27 Sep 2007)

I understand the Airforce is currently funding development of a self deployable portable 5 star hotel .They seem to be having a wee bit of a problem with the swimming pool and the self stowing stewardesses.


----------



## Spencer100 (27 Sep 2007)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> the self stowing stewardesses.



"Stewardessess"......There call flight attendants now.  Remember to please be PC


----------



## geo (27 Sep 2007)

Heh.... that should creaate room for a couple on new Generals.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2010)

A statement from the Ministers of National Defence and Veteran's Affairs (latter being senior Quebec Minister):


> "The Government of Canada has made a promise to CFB Bagotville and the government will follow through on that promise.  The establishment of 2 Air Expeditionary Wing in Bagotville remains a priority for the Government of Canada.  The Air Expeditionary Wing will offer a deployable and comprehensive air package that will host and support our air combat elements. As a result, the Expeditionary Wing will significantly enhance the Canadian Forces' ability to:
> 
> * contribute to the activities of any future coalition military operations and,
> * provide air expeditionary elements to a domestic or international operation.
> ...



_(Ici en français)_

Some previous discussion of the future of Bagotville:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64371.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48580.0.html


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2015)

So, the AEW has been around for a bit.  How is the shake-out going?

What do the OSE and MSE do, and what is the relationship to 3 CSU's role?


> 2 Wing - Air Expeditionary Wing
> 
> 2 Wing is the Royal Canadian Air Force’s air expeditionary wing, a formation able to rapidly deploy as a self-contained unit, employing air power and providing associated support wherever needed, across Canada or around the world.
> 
> ...


http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/2-wing/index.page


----------



## Eland2 (13 Aug 2015)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Of course, the cynic would ask:  what "rapid deployment unit"?
> 
> *Where are these soldiers coming from?  We cannot man current and newly-created units, how are we manning this one? * <snip>
> 
> It would seem to me that the answer to your question is, 'by partially cannibalizing other units', which, naturally will leave the cannibalized units with an operational deficit.


----------



## Eland2 (13 Aug 2015)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Hey army-centrics,
> 
> could this be an Air Force rapid deployment unit?



It looks more like a means of supporting a heavy airlift function, since the focus appears to be on getting airfield engineering units to any place in the world they need to go, quickly and efficiently. The fact that this initiative is being situated at CFB Bagotville and on the heels of an election announcement suggests to me that it's being done more for political reasons than a real strategic need. 

It seems to me that CFB Trenton has been handling the new role envisioned for CFB Bagotville, and about the only difference between the two bases might be minor time savings when a deployment is needed - of maybe two or three hours, since Bagotville is closer, in broad geographic terms, to the east coast of Canada (and hence Europe or Africa) than Trenton is.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> It seems to me that CFB Trenton has been handling the new role envisioned for CFB Bagotville, and about the only difference between the two bases might be minor time savings when a deployment is needed - of maybe two or three hours, since Bagotville is closer, in broad geographic terms, to the east coast of Canada (and hence Europe or Africa) than Trenton is.



One hour.  It would only save one hour, perhaps, for a deployment across the Atlantic.  One hour is no big thing.


----------



## dimsum (13 Aug 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> The fact that this initiative is being situated at CFB Bagotville and on the heels of an election announcement suggests to me that it's being done more for political reasons than a real strategic need.



2 AEW isn't a new unit though, so it wasn't set up on the heels of the election announcement.  People have been posted there since 2013 or so.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> What do the OSE and MSE do, and what is the relationship to 3 CSU's role?



Having been exposed to the workings of an AEW before, picture it as a "portable airfield".  The Operational Support Element (OSE) and Mission Support Element (MSE) are sub-units of the AEW.  The OSE concerns itself with "airfield operations" and the coming and going of planes.  The MSE is like the Adm Coy/base function dealing with camp services, supply, and (IIRC) aircraft maintenance.  The third element of an AEW should be the Ground Defence Force (GDF), which depending on the threat would be an infantry company securing the exterior areas of the airfield where air traffic occurs (think RAF Regiment) while the Ground Security Force (GSF) consists largely of Blue MPs and secures the gate and interior of the airbase.

Put the AEW together with some Air Dets and you get an Air Task Force (ATF), the RCAF's answer to the joint deployable (green) HQ!

On the other end, 3 CSU is (from what I've seen in email chains) like a big warehouse that gets stuff overseas.  Camp needs some line item, and the MSE will go back through its A4 chain to CJOC, who gets the 3 CSU to supply it.  I may have that wrong, and a Loggie can correct me.


----------



## McG (16 Aug 2015)

I would imagine maintenance is force generated from the same squadron(s) as the aircrew, and I would think it desirable that operations staff also come from the same squadrons or wings as are FG air crew.  

So, 325 pers and growing to 700 pers seems like a lot of people for a skeleton organization.  I guess I am still lost on the employment concept for the Canadian AEW ... or maybe it is the FG concept that I am lost on.

... And what is the ACCUA if the OSE is the ops function?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Aug 2015)

From what I saw, 2 AEW was formed for ROTO O; although the RCAF tasks wings with follow on ROTOs, the follow on AEWs appear to be Frankenstein's monster filled from Wings across Canada.

As an ATF could (would most likely) have multiple platforms, the maintenance organization would be a conglamoration of assets that the Air Dets would bring.


----------



## McG (25 Aug 2015)

Moving along, I see that 2 AES gained 23x Const positions on 01 Apr 2015.  What is the relationship of roles between these positions (which appear to be organized in two sections each under a jr offr) and the existing Construction Engineering Squadrons?


----------

