Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,994
- Points
- 1,110
Are our leaders so weak they cant say no to retired dudes with little clout with the public?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 45,016
- Points
- 1,160
Little clout with the public, maybe, but huge clout inside the CAF, certainly.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,826
- Points
- 1,010
When we had to move HMCS Donnacona from its old downtown Montreal location in the early 90's because the almost 100 years old building couldn't be brought to the modern standards required to house all the new training equipment and simulators required to train reservists for the MCDV and modern RCN requirements, CRCN decided to fund it because CFB Montreal didn't have the funds for it. The Base Engineering and base command people came to the unit and asked this question (which they had faced before in the militia): "If we study and develop plans to build you a new unit and get all the way to the point of putting shovel to the ground, is your Regie going to come out and stop us after all this effort has been put in, because your current building is the home of the unit?"
They were agreeably surprised to hear us tell them: "No! We are in the Navy. We use our ships while they are effective and in commission. When they get too old, we scrap them and replace them with new ones. To us, a ship is the ship's company, the name and the attached honours - not the hull and physical things."
They were agreeably surprised to hear us tell them: "No! We are in the Navy. We use our ships while they are effective and in commission. When they get too old, we scrap them and replace them with new ones. To us, a ship is the ship's company, the name and the attached honours - not the hull and physical things."
