Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[Cloud Cover]

CFAD Angus is a bit of a deterrent.

Sounds perfect for Carney Condos. Everything blows up on him anyway.

 

[FJAG]

Been tried over and over, a school is the net result.

Old timer story alert.

There used to be a lovely service detention barracks in Borden with a central core and five, star-shaped wings. When they concentrated prison services in Edmonton, the Borden barracks became surplus and were, for quite a few years, used as temporary quarters for Militia units and personnel coming up from Toronto and the surrounding areas to do exercises or courses.

I've just did a quick Google maps view of the area and I see it has gone the divestment route. Whenever something requires maintenance but doesn't have a full-time (read RegF) use, it tends to disappear.

What is this school of which you speak?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Old timer story alert.

There used to be a lovely service detention barracks in Borden with a central core and five, star-shaped wings. . . .

Old timer response. By the mid-70s (after 14 CFSPDB opened in Edmonton) those in custody were held in cells at the guardhouse down at the Alliston gate for short sentences or until they were escorted to Edmonton. And no, I didn't do time in cells there, though I did escort a detainee.

This was the old Borden DB.

 

[FJAG]

Old timer response. By the mid-70s (after 14 CFSPDB opened in Edmonton) those in custody were held in cells at the guardhouse down at the Alliston gate for short sentences or until they were escorted to Edmonton. And no, I didn't do time in cells there, though I did escort a detainee.

This was the old Borden DB.

View attachment 95079

I think that's a war time pic. I believe it was improved afterwards.

 

[ytz]

I'm not suggesting picking any point in the US. I was trying to understand why North Bay was picked for the location of an 'Arctic' related radar base. I'm aware that its an existing CAF base but as noted, its no where near the north in Canada. Choosing Hearst or Kapuskasing or Cochrane, all aside a major hwy, are further north than North Bay.

Because OTH radars don't actually need to be in the Arctic. And basic logistics like accessibility for maintenance, being able to train technicians and operators on it, etc. also matter. North Bay is not just any CAF base in this context. It's the home of the RCAF's Aerospace Surveillance enterprise. The primary unit using the radar will be there. So if it was feasible to co-locate, it was always going to be high on the list. North Bay is also high on the list for a lot of space infrastructure. For similar reasons.

And likewise, Borden actually makes these lists, just because of relative proximity to North Bay, while having sites under DND control.

 

[ytz]

Dispersion maybe? It might seem more logical to put NORAD assets near CFB Winnipeg where the Canadian headquarters is but maybe they wanted to move some stuff around for targeting purposes?

Realistically though, some MP needed more jobs in their riding.

There's politics. But they actually do substantial siting studies for these. Interference and issues with population proximity really matter on these things.

 

[ueo]

Old timer story alert.

There used to be a lovely service detention barracks in Borden with a central core and five, star-shaped wings. When they concentrated prison services in Edmonton, the Borden barracks became surplus and were, for quite a few years, used as temporary quarters for Militia units and personnel coming up from Toronto and the surrounding areas to do exercises or courses.

I've just did a quick Google maps view of the area and I see it has gone the divestment route. Whenever something requires maintenance but doesn't have a full-time (read RegF) use, it tends to disappear.

What is this school of which you speak?

All techies!

 

[Kirkhill]

Because OTH radars don't actually need to be in the Arctic. And basic logistics like accessibility for maintenance, being able to train technicians and operators on it, etc. also matter. North Bay is not just any CAF base in this context. It's the home of the RCAF's Aerospace Surveillance enterprise. The primary unit using the radar will be there. So if it was feasible to co-locate, it was always going to be high on the list. North Bay is also high on the list for a lot of space infrastructure. For similar reasons.

And likewise, Borden actually makes these lists, just because of relative proximity to North Bay, while having sites under DND control.

IIRC there was a previous OTH Backscatter effort on the East Coast a couple of decades back that was shut down due to radio interference.

 

[PrairieFella]

Old timer story alert.

There used to be a lovely service detention barracks in Borden with a central core and five, star-shaped wings. When they concentrated prison services in Edmonton, the Borden barracks became surplus and were, for quite a few years, used as temporary quarters for Militia units and personnel coming up from Toronto and the surrounding areas to do exercises or courses.

I've just did a quick Google maps view of the area and I see it has gone the divestment route. Whenever something requires maintenance but doesn't have a full-time (read RegF) use, it tends to disappear.

What is this school of which you speak?

You can say something similar about Kapyong. The reservists in Winnipeg desperately need new infrastructure, the SE block with the railhead would have been perfect for a new reserve super-armoury, all units in one spot. Wasn't meant to be.

 

[FJAG]

You can say something similar about Kapyong. The reservists in Winnipeg desperately need new infrastructure, the SE block with the railhead would have been perfect for a new reserve super-armoury, all units in one spot. Wasn't meant to be.

Yeah. I was in Brandon in those days but had been in Winnipeg for 6 years in the early 80s. Minto and MacGregor are barely adequate for parading and terrible for vehicle storage. One of the problems is that with 2 PPCLI leaving in 2004, infrastructure maintenance would continue to fall on the RCAF who are never happy to look after army reserve properties. So divest, divest, divest. The first attempt to sell the land ran into problems from the Treaty One folks. That delayed demolition and a new agreement for quite some time. Not sure where things stand now. Recent air photos show the demolition complete but the land bare.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah. I was in Brandon in those days but had been in Winnipeg for 6 years in the early 80s. Minto and MacGregor are barely adequate for parading and terrible for vehicle storage. One of the problems is that with 2 PPCLI leaving in 2004, infrastructure maintenance would continue to fall on the RCAF who are never happy to look after army reserve properties. So divest, divest, divest. The first attempt to sell the land ran into problems from the Treaty One folks. That delayed demolition and a new agreement for quite some time. Not sure where things stand now. Recent air photos show the demolition complete but the land bare.

Its to be developed in its entirety as Naawi-Oodena, a Treaty 1 urban reserve. No land has been held by the CAF. We didn't even need the whole thing, just one of the small blocks on the other side of route 90. Oh well.

McGregor (now Harcus Strachan V.C. M.C.) is...adequate, especially with the new hangar but growth of either 38 CER or FGH will be tough to accommodate with the current layout. There are also only 4 large sheltered vehicle bays and between the two units establishment, ideally there are probably supposed to be 30ish-40 vehicles. Thats a problem, especially if the gwagon replacement is armoured.

Minto should have been divested after the fire in the 70s. It is in rough shape and completely inadequate.

 

[Rifleman62]

There used to be a lovely service detention barracks in Borden...

Housed in the bldg. several times. There was a CF 100 parked nearby surrounded by a frost fence. Story told it was exposed to radiation.

The Minto Armoury fire was 1956.

The drill floor at Minto still has a very big plywood hole cover I believe. Beem like that for years.

 

[dapaterson]

Housed in the bldg. several times.

Umm...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Umm...

Nope, you read that right lol or at least the same way I did lol

 

[PrairieFella]

z

Housed in the bldg. several times. There was a CF 100 parked nearby surrounded by a frost fence. Story told it was exposed to radiation.

The Minto Armoury fire was 1956.

The drill floor at Minto still has a very big plywood hole cover I believe. Beem like that for years.

Between the plywood and the potholes in the parade square, BMQ troops run the risk of eating shit on parade haha. Seen it happen once. Luckily it was a practice.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yeah. I was in Brandon in those days but had been in Winnipeg for 6 years in the early 80s. Minto and MacGregor are barely adequate for parading and terrible for vehicle storage. One of the problems is that with 2 PPCLI leaving in 2004, infrastructure maintenance would continue to fall on the RCAF who are never happy to look after army reserve properties. So divest, divest, divest. The first attempt to sell the land ran into problems from the Treaty One folks. That delayed demolition and a new agreement for quite some time. Not sure where things stand now. Recent air photos show the demolition complete but the land bare.

"As Spock uses to say, I like to think that there are always alternatives"

In the late 90's, the Naval Reserve needed some buildings urgently replaced - HMCS STAR and HMCS DONNACONA - in areas controlled by the CA, who didn't want to put in the "funds". So CRCN told them: "Fine, and F*** You. Build the damn things and I will pay you for it out of my budget." We got the new buildings in 4 years. The Army can always do the same if the RCAF balks.

P.S.: Funny associated story here: I was XO of DONNACONA at the time this plan started. The BCEO senior people came to meet with us at the beginning of the process and had some weird questions for us, basically asking: "If we start this process, when we get to the point of actually letting tenders out and building, are we going to have a "regie" come and torpedo the whole thing because of historical reasons?" Apparently (we didn't know that) they had had many attempts in the Montreal area at building new armories for the Militia that had been blocked at the political level after the money was spent to do all the work up to getting shovels in the ground because the "regies" thought of the old armories as "the Home of the Regiment". They were happy with us because we told them "We're Navy: when the ships get old, we scrap them and replace them. We are not married to the ships hulls."

 

[dapaterson]

"We're Navy: when the ships get old, we scrap them and replace them. We are not married to the ships hulls."

* laughs in Oriole *

 

[YZT580]

"We're Navy: when the ships get old, we sail them for another 15 years and then we scrap them and replace them 1 new for 2 old. We are not married to the ships hulls." we are chained.

 

[FJAG]

"As Spock uses to say, I like to think that there are always alternatives"

It's amazing actually how often folks dig in their heels over things. I was OC HQ Coy for ARTS in Dundurn. One of our problems was that Moose Jaw was the support base and dead set against providing funding for the old buildings on the base. These were quite adequate for Militia training in the summer and nothing else. All they needed was draining the water systems at the end of the summer and restarting the water the next summer and firing up the heaters. Every year we had to go hat in hand to whine for $10-15,000 of CE services for that. Their program was to raze buildings one by one - which we opposed. Unsurprisingly the army wasn't prepared to contribute nickel one because of the precedent it would set. Simply put the CAF system works on a very formal system of who supports where.

The "regie" issue often has its genesis in key stakeholders - including the honouraries - either not being consulted or not being consulted in time for a project. Every business transformation project - and a new armouries is a major business transformation project - needs to follow a number of principles which include the early finding of a "champion" to support the project and to build consensus among the key stakeholders. By the time the project is shovel ready, all those folks should already have a vested interest in its success. All too often, the "professional" engineers have already formulated, costed and presented their own plan with minimal input and then fight tooth and nail against any changes because - increased costs.

Old armories are an engineering challenge because they have a limited footprint and come with antiquated structure and utilities. Bulldozing and building new is by far the easiest and most cost effective engineering solution. Brandon University had a unique solution when, in 1997, they decided to rebuild their administration building, Clark Hall, which dated back to 1901. Essentially they stabilized the front facade, blew away the rest of the structure and rebuilt it new. From the outside the building has its original look and heritage but its interior consisted of brand new everything. As you say - "there are always alternatives."

 

[PrairieFella]

It's amazing actually how often folks dig in their heels over things. I was OC HQ Coy for ARTS in Dundurn. One of our problems was that Moose Jaw was the support base and dead set against providing funding for the old buildings on the base. These were quite adequate for Militia training in the summer and nothing else. All they needed was draining the water systems at the end of the summer and restarting the water the next summer and firing up the heaters. Every year we had to go hat in hand to whine for $10-15,000 of CE services for that. Their program was to raze buildings one by one - which we opposed. Unsurprisingly the army wasn't prepared to contribute nickel one because of the precedent it would set. Simply put the CAF system works on a very formal system of who supports where.

The "regie" issue often has its genesis in key stakeholders - including the honouraries - either not being consulted or not being consulted in time for a project. Every business transformation project - and a new armouries is a major business transformation project - needs to follow a number of principles which include the early finding of a "champion" to support the project and to build consensus among the key stakeholders. By the time the project is shovel ready, all those folks should already have a vested interest in its success. All too often, the "professional" engineers have already formulated, costed and presented their own plan with minimal input and then fight tooth and nail against any changes because - increased costs.

Old armories are an engineering challenge because they have a limited footprint and come with antiquated structure and utilities. Bulldozing and building new is by far the easiest and most cost effective engineering solution. Brandon University had a unique solution when, in 1997, they decided to rebuild their administration building, Clark Hall, which dated back to 1901. Essentially they stabilized the front facade, blew away the rest of the structure and rebuilt it new. From the outside the building has its original look and heritage but its interior consisted of brand new everything. As you say - "there are always alternatives."

Who actually controls infrastructure? Who can actually approve a new armoury or on-base barracks block for example?

Base commander? Div commander? CDS? Political?