Base closures?

[AIC_2K5]

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

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

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

 

[quadrapiper]

Question...

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

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

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

 

[aesop081]

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

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

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

 

[kratz]

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

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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

Here's one training area:

Here's another:

And a third, seasonally open:

 

[kratz]

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

 

[aesop081]

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

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


Come on- you know I love you, bro!

 

[aesop081]

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


Come on- you know I love you, bro!

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Question...

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

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

 

[DCRabbit]

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

 

[DCRabbit]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

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

 

[DCRabbit]

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

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

 

[ArmyRick]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

The Western world appears to be desperately short of political leaders willing to take tough decisions these days, with Barack Obama standing at the head of the line and several European leaders cowering behind him. Perhaps Stephen Harper, secure in his majority mandate, could upstage these wafflers by doing something unpopular, but useful, to free up some money for the Canadian Forces.

What should be done would not go over well in places that are home to outdated or irrelevant military infrastructure. Nevertheless, the hard truth is that the government could save a big chunk of money dumping a pile of it. There are several military facilities across the country that should be closed, either because they're outdated or never made sense in the first place.

That money should then be reinvested in the Canadian Forces to provide our soldiers with the equipment and personnel they need to protect Canadians. Knowledgeable people inside the military will tell you that the government has never projected enough funding to implement its "Canada First" military strategy. With the current austerity pinch underway, that strategy is just going to keep unravelling. Every now and then the government announces bold new military expenditures only to quietly back down later.

When the outspoken Gordon O'Connor was this government's defence minister, he nailed it on the head: "We have too much infrastructure. We have too many buildings, too many everything. However, until I see a detailed plan on where the too many is against what our policy is and what our intentions are, we cannot start making adjustments. Down the line, there will be adjustments to infrastructure."

Five years later, Canadians are still waiting for these ad-justments. Not only have they not been forthcoming, there is actually a government edict in place that no military personnel may comment on infrastructure. The military owns in excess of $20-billion worth of realty assets across this country, and sources assure me that as much as 30% of it is redundant.

Stephen Harper should take advantage of a moment in Canada's political history that isn't likely to come along again for some time: a majority government, with at least four more years in power guaranteed. If the Prime Minister moved quickly, he could put a plan in place that would rationalize Canada's military infrastructure without paying an enormous price at the ballot box.

Harper doesn't even have to finger the infrastructure that should go - in fact, he shouldn't. He should instruct his military leaders to do an assessment of what infrastructure is still needed, and what can be eliminated in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Once that report was in - and it would be a controversial one no matter what bases and installations were selected for closure - the government should enact it, on the military's advice.

The Prime Minister should make it clear to all Canadians that this is an arm's-length operation - no interference from the Cabinet or other members of Parliament. The government would simply respond to the military's own analysis of its needs. If he acts quickly, he and his Cabinet would have more than three years to provide economic stimulation if needed to soften the blow where military facilities have been shuttered. Ideally, looking after the military would always come before looking after Conservative electoral fortunes, but it would be naive to deny that closing local bases are never popular with voters. To put it bluntly, if they did it soon enough before the next election, the Tories could spend their remaining time in office trying to find ways to win back those votes.

The good thing about this kind of initiative is that it wouldn't be a one-off saving for the military, like flying fewer patrols or keeping ships in harbour for a given amount of time to save on fuel. This exercise would save the military money, initially through the sales of assets and then, in perpetuity, through savings on upkeep.

Am I confident that Cabinet ministers could keep their hands off the formulation of the redundancy list? Not very - Tony Clement may even want to put a naval base in Muskoka to protect water skiers and escort kayakers. Am I confident that Stephen Harper would designate the money saved to making essential military expenditures that aren't being made during this time of fiscal restraint? Not really. He will be tempted to throw any savings into general revenue as he attempts to co-opt the Paul Martin strategy for deficit reduction.

Do I even believe that this Prime Minister is one step up on all those other international leaders who can't seem to make the tough calls?

I honestly don't know. But I'd love to find out.

National Post, 26 Aug 11

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

 

[GR66]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.National Post, 26 Aug 11

However, until I see a detailed plan on where the too many is against what our policy is and what our intentions are, we cannot start making adjustments. Down the line, there will be adjustments to infrastructure."

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

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

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