• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Base closures?

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
5,751
Points
1,260
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
 
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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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 :P 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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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   
 
Back
Top