Base closures?

[George Wallace]

Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax? (p.s.: I know about the weather conditions, i.e. fog at Shearwater, so don't give me that one).

I await crucifixion.  :nod:

Ummmm?  Are the runways at Shearwater not blocked by urban and base developments now?

 

[dimsum]

Now, I know I am about to be crucified, but if you want to "close bases" would it not make more sense to close CFB Greenwood and move its units to Shearwater, leaving the overall administration into a single CFB Halifax?

I think there would be a whole bunch of Aurora folk who would love that idea, if for nothing other than QOL. 

And no, the govt hasn't said anything about base closures, but one can always hope    :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

The study from a few years back looks a little flawed to me. They have used "operations" both domestic and internation as the factors with the most weight. By their analysis, Gagetown ranks 17 and Wainwright ranks 25. Ottawa is 2nd! Some much for making the CAF leaner. I assume they looked at how many "units" from Gagetown and Wainwright are used operationally. Where do the authors think that the army units that conduct operations come from? The officers and many of the soldiers are trained at Gagetown. The units conduct their collective training at Wainwright. Those two places are, I would say, our most valuable training areas. Edmonton is just a garrison, while Petawawa and Valcartier have limited training areas (Pet is better though).

I think that is a key point, as is SKT's that training areas are precious.

Maybe we should be looking to "recover" training areas, large and small ~ "Hello, Petawawa Research Forest" ~ and maybe we should be expanding bases with training areas whenever we (maybe) can. Could we, just for example ~ dreaming out loud, think about expanding Petawawa over to the Quebec side?  Could we ~ I'm in full dream mode now ~ build a major (10,000') air head at Petawawa and close Trenton?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Ummmm?  Are the runways at Shearwater not blocked by urban and base developments now?

I just looked at sat pics that are dated from last year.

The runways are all clear - no "base development there" - but I don't know what condition they are in, so some upgrade might be in order.

As for urban development, the houses in Eastern Passage, Willowdale or Russel Lake are no closer to the actual airstrip than the residential urban developments around the Trudeau airport in Montreal. I would think that traffic and noise at the Trudeau airport would be a lot more frequent and noisier than operating the small number of MLRPA turbo prop planes we operate on the East Coast.

 

[McG]

First of all, I note here that all posts in the last few days are in response to a hypothetical call to action from a university professor. I have not seen any indications anywhere that base closures of any kind are in the wind on the part of the government.

No, but there was a post yesterday showing the MND is launching a defence review and work toward a new "white paper," and we have had other discussions noting that some intelligent base closures might achieve some or all of saving money, cutting redundancies and improving effectiveness.  As noted somewhere else in this thread, intelligent base closures gets more milage when linked to intelligent restructuring of the force.

Asside from consolidating 1 CMBG somewhere in the praries and maritime air somewhere on each coast, we could also put RMC, CMR and CFC onto a common base with CMR being fully absorbed back into RMC.  CTC and LFDTS could be consolidated into a single layer of HQ in one location.  We have nine infantry battalions but every other component of a BG exists in a lesser multiple of three - maybe some rationalization could happen there and we would not need to invest so much in infrastructure while still consolidating brigades.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I would close the following:

Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)

Why not move 103 to St. John's and take out Gander completely?

I've asked that before. The answer I was given that that weather in St John's is actually, on average, worse than Gander.

True, Gander has generally more favourable flight weather than St. John's. Also Gander has a 10,000 ft runway while St. John's has a 8500ft runway.....

 

[Loachman]

Pretty much the way the Australian Army does it.  Garrisons are in cities, and when they need to go to the range, they convoy out there and back.

But they have enough functioning vehicles to actually form convoys, right?

I just looked at sat pics that are dated from last year.

The runways are all clear - no "base development there" - but I don't know what condition they are in, so some upgrade might be in order.

Borden's runways would have looked just fine from satellite photos in their final years, but would have required millions to bring them back up to operational standard in 1996 as top layers were delaminating/flaking off. The Base Commander was trying to use 400 Squadron as justification for that following our move there from Downsview that year.

They were removed and the airfield returned to grassland in the mid-2000s.

Could we ~ I'm in full dream mode now ~ build a major (10,000') air head at Petawawa and close Trenton?

How many millions/billions do you want to spend to save nothing? What benefit would be gained?

That's a pile of infrastructure to duplicate - runways, hangars and other buildings to house and support five Airbuses, seventeen C130J, five C17, the older SAR Hercs and Griffons, quarters, messes, navigation and landing aids, passenger terminal (which serves more than just 2 CMBG) - and full-cost moves. Trenton is being expanded to accommodate JTF-2, who did not seem to think that moving to Petawawa was a good idea, as well.

I do not see any value in closing Borden and moving everything that is already there either.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Both T2B and SKT have the right of it; we need to preserve our training areas, even if they are like Chilcotin where they are empty and surrounded by a DND no tresspassing sign but our units can go there and do stuff.

Garrisons near cities seem to be a prefered COA for QOL issues.  If moving equipment is such a cost (and I know what it is), why do we not consider cantonments in places like Wainwright for, say 80% of a units equipment while it keeps a few vehicles and simulators (for A vehs) in its garrison?

I agree, I don't think the answer is closing off training areas.  We should be preserving our training areas but handing over facilities management to a contractor who can look after all the training areas, without having the extensive infrastructure costs associated with garrisoning the base.  A good example of this to me is the US Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona which is owned by the US Army but managed by civilian contractors.

Create a few super cantonments close to Urban Centres for people to live in, most of our vehicles are wheeled anyways to road moves shouldn't be a big issue. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

But they have enough functioning vehicles to actually form convoys, right?

Borden's runways would have looked just fine from satellite photos in their final years, but would have required millions to bring them back up to operational standard in 1996 as top layers were delaminating/flaking off. The Base Commander was trying to use 400 Squadron as justification for that following our move there from Downsview that year.

They were removed and the airfield returned to grassland in the mid-2000s.

How many millions/billions do you want to spend to save nothing? What benefit would be gained?

That's a pile of infrastructure to duplicate - runways, hangars and other buildings to house and support five Airbuses, seventeen C130J, five C17, the older SAR Hercs and Griffons, quarters, messes, navigation and landing aids, passenger terminal (which serves more than just 2 CMBG) - and full-cost moves. Trenton is being expanded to accommodate JTF-2, who did not seem to think that moving to Petawawa was a good idea, as well.

I do not see any value in closing Borden and moving everything that is already there either.

Yeah, but on the bright side, UXO clearance work for me till I'm too old to put a shovel in the ground.  So at least three years.

 

[CountDC]

Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?

Wouldn't want Borden shut and moved to Gagetown.  I think the idea of having a seperate location for support training is better than an army base along with a location more central to Canada.  With the need for additional training facilities, accomodations, kitchens, etc would there really be savings?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?

I know NATO aircrafts use both CYYT and CYQX for fuel stops across the pond...

 

[McG]

Wouldn't want Borden shut and moved to Gagetown.  I think the idea of having a seperate location for support training is better than an army base along with a location more central to Canada.  With the need for additional training facilities, accomodations, kitchens, etc would there really be savings?

I have heard individuals express a want to see all CTC schools move to Gagetown (though, I have never heard this from anyone who could represent the opinion of either CTC or Army leadership), but I am not sure this is a move that actually delivers benefits.  Instead, I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.

The only thing that I could see moving to Gagetown might be merging the CFFCA under CFSME  (CBRN merging with EOD to for a CBRNE Sqn, and firefighting to be a stand-alone squadron).

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What about CFSAL?  Or is it called something else now?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Isn't Gander the fueling and jumping off point for flights across the big water for the military?

Don't really need a full military base to do that.  Just a contract in place for the fuel and a couple of hotels.

 

[dapaterson]

What about CFSAL?  Or is it called something else now?

CFLTC now.

 

[Loachman]

I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.

Where would CFSATE put their aircraft collection? Again, I do not see any benefit to be derived from such a disruptive move that would require a new school building and hangar to be built somewhere else. CFSATE's hangar is right next to 400 Squadron's hangar, so there's more real benefit to be had from keeping those two close.

 

[Loachman]

CFLTC now.

Another acronym that should have been pronounced out loud by several people multiple times before the sign and letterhead were changed.

 

[MilEME09]

I would wonder if either RCEMES or CFSATE might benefit from a location that could access and share facilities with RMC's faculty of engineering.

Given the new RCEME School is under construction in Borden, I highly doubt they would move back to Kingston after all these years. Then again the CAF does have a history of divestment after upgrade.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Given the new RCEME School is under construction in Borden, I highly doubt they would move back to Kingston after all these years. Then again the CAF does have a history of divestment after upgrade.

Yup CFSME comes to mind....

 

[Ostrozac]

I have heard individuals express a want to see all CTC schools move to Gagetown

I've never heard of anyone express a desire to move the CAAWC to Gagetown. I can't even remember there being a DZ in regular use at Gagetown, and leaving Trenton means leaving the Hercs behind.