Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[SeaKingTacco]

Ammunition storage and living accommodations do not mix well.

Oh, what would you know…it is perfectly acceptable to store hundreds of tonnes of ammunition in open fields…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ammunition storage and living accommodations do not mix well.

There is already a small group of PMQ's there by the gate looking at Google maps.

The Yacht · 8CVR+R8, Metchosin, BC, Canada

âââââ · Historical landmark

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[dapaterson]

Oh, what would you know…it is perfectly acceptable to store hundreds of tonnes of ammunition in open fields…

Halifax has a degree of familiarity with the negative implications of ammunition incidents.

 

[KevinB]

I’m surprised that you’re surprised.

(Yes I know that you’re not surprised)

Again, one of the larger US bases (e.g. Fort Cavazos) is essentially half of the entire CAF personnel.

Heck most of the Army bases here have more troops than the entire CA, the big Joint bases are bigger than the CAF (at least regular force)

 

[dimsum]

Heck most of the Army bases here have more troops than the entire CA, the big Joint bases are bigger than the CAF (at least regular force)

I remember seeing a courthouse on a base. I thought that was different.

 

[KevinB]

I remember seeing a courthouse on a base. I thought that was different.

When hotel chains have places on base…

 

[lenaitch]

I didn't really mean to start a debate about Bases and railways - it was more of a rhetorical question. I know nothing about military transportation and logistics, but it strikes me that when you have to move a lot of stuff, heavy stuff, or a lot of heavy stuff, in a halfways expeditious manner, doing it in ones-and-twos on truck or in an aircraft strikes me as a tad inefficient. I also don't know where lots of big heavy things are. Also, the concept of 'nearby' may have it's own limitations. Beyond the presence of loading facilities for 'big heavy things' and the quality (weight limitations) of a local line, having to schlepp something onto a truck only to off-load it to reload it onto rail seems rather inefficient.

Maybe it's not that big an issue.

 

[YZT580]

I didn't really mean to start a debate about Bases and railways - it was more of a rhetorical question. I know nothing about military transportation and logistics, but it strikes me that when you have to move a lot of stuff, heavy stuff, or a lot of heavy stuff, in a halfways expeditious manner, doing it in ones-and-twos on truck or in an aircraft strikes me as a tad inefficient. I also don't know where lots of big heavy things are. Also, the concept of 'nearby' may have it's own limitations. Beyond the presence of loading facilities for 'big heavy things' and the quality (weight limitations) of a local line, having to schlepp something onto a truck only to off-load it to reload it onto rail seems rather inefficient.

Maybe it's not that big an issue.

Considering where our heavy equipment is located and the places that it will probably be deployed, I would agree with you that rail is the most practical. It is a long way from the prairies to a suitable wharf. Building a loading platform and laying a short spur line to service it seems like a no-brainer especially in this day and age energy conservation. If you are only going to move one Leopard than by all means use a truck but when you have to deploy an entire regiment that is a different scenario.

 

[MJP]

I didn't really mean to start a debate about Bases and railways - it was more of a rhetorical question. I know nothing about military transportation and logistics, but it strikes me that when you have to move a lot of stuff, heavy stuff, or a lot of heavy stuff, in a halfways expeditious manner, doing it in ones-and-twos on truck or in an aircraft strikes me as a tad inefficient. I also don't know where lots of big heavy things are. Also, the concept of 'nearby' may have it's own limitations. Beyond the presence of loading facilities for 'big heavy things' and the quality (weight limitations) of a local line, having to schlepp something onto a truck only to off-load it to reload it onto rail seems rather inefficient.

Maybe it's not that big an issue.

It really isn't that big of an issue. I have been involved in both on base and local to base rail loads and while there was bit more coord needed with the local to base, the advantage that you get with local to base is often they are set up much better infrastructure wise. Plus, the rail loading expertise and equipment if required is right there.

 

[KevinB]

It really isn't that big of an issue. Canada doesn’t have much equipment anyway

FIFY

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ammunition storage and living accommodations do not mix well.

What do not mix well are ammunition, especially modern munitions, and radio devices that do not meet national standards ... which, now and again, almost* include radio devices procured (without proper approval) by military agencies at the request off some senior officers.

---
* Almost because, in my (admittedly outdated) experience a senior NCO always blows the whistle.

 

[OldSolduer]

Ammunition storage and living accommodations do not mix well.

Especially with soldiers that can sometimes overindulge ….hold my beer….

 

[ytz]

AEW aircraft don’t need to be posted in the Arctic in order to assert Arctic dominance.

Park them beside the STTC assets in YEG or YYC.

Most of the suggestions in this thread are bonkers. Also, like do we want recruiting and retention to get worse? Cause more remote bases is how you make it worse.

Likely candidates are transport bases: Trenton and Winnipeg. They have ramp space.

Sleeper choices for me are North Bay and Ottawa. North Bay because that's where most of the AECs are anyway. And Ottawa because of ramp space and its stealth evolution as an air and space ISR hub.

 

[MilEME09]

It really isn't that big of an issue. I have been involved in both on base and local to base rail loads and while there was bit more coord needed with the local to base, the advantage that you get with local to base is often they are set up much better infrastructure wise. Plus, the rail loading expertise and equipment if required is right there.

Many fail to realize we aren't large enough to maintain some of these niche skill sets on our own. Having civilians near by who are experts benefits us, even if it costs us more.

 

[dimsum]

Most of the suggestions in this thread are bonkers. Also, like do we want recruiting and retention to get worse? Cause more remote bases is how you make it worse.

Likely candidates are transport bases: Trenton and Winnipeg. They have ramp space.

Sleeper choices for me are North Bay and Ottawa. North Bay because that's where most of the AECs are anyway. And Ottawa because of ramp space and its stealth evolution as an air and space ISR hub.

How big is North Bay’s runway?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

How big is North Bay’s runway?

10,000 feet. It used to be a fighter base.

 

[ytz]

How big is North Bay’s runway?

Long enough. But also basing decisions are rarely made based on current infrastructure. We accept that we might have to upgrade some things to accomodate new capabilities. Lengthening a runway is not a big deal in the context of a multibillion dollar project.

 

[ytz]

Many fail to realize we aren't large enough to maintain some of these niche skill sets on our own. Having civilians near by who are experts benefits us, even if it costs us more.

There's literally only a handful of military rail units in all of NATO. The US military has one battalion sized units and even they've had major cuts:

A single unit handles the Army’s rail needs. It was cut from 600 to 180 soldiers

Two-thirds of Army equipment moves by rail to get to the fight.

www.armytimes.com

We obviously can't afford such niche capabilities. That's what we contract CN and CP to do.

 

[Furniture]

Long enough. But also basing decisions are rarely made based on current infrastructure. We accept that we might have to upgrade some things to accomodate new capabilities. Lengthening a runway is not a big deal in the context of a multibillion dollar project.

There is a lot more that goes into running an airfield than just paving a runway.

We are already short of the people required to keep our current airfields running, bringing back an old, unused airfield is essentially impossible at this stage.

 

[ytz]

There is a lot more that goes into running an airfield than just paving a runway.

We are already short of the people required to keep our current airfields running, bringing back an old, unused airfield is essentially impossible at this stage.

Absolutely. But it's a lot less of an ask than some of the other suggestions put forward. If you think basing an AEW squadron out of North Bay is difficult, wait till you see what it takes to make it work out of Yellowknife.