Base closures?

[George Wallace]

The economic affects of many Base closures in the past have been quite devastating to some communities.  The military personnel may be moved to other Bases, but the civilian staff seldom are.  The surrounding area businesses lose not only the business of the military, the military personnel and their families, but also the newly unemployed civilian employees of the Base. 

We have covered the amounts of monies spent in surrounding communities by military personnel and bases in several topics on this site.  One of the most popular stories is when Bases such as RCAF Station Moose Jaw paid all its personnel in $2 bills, a taboo currency in the Prairies at the time, flooding the city of Moose Jaw with those damn Bennett Bucks.  That quelled the negative attitude of the populace towards the Base.  Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.

 

[Journeyman]

Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.

To say nothing of the gene pool.   

 

[Old Sweat]

The economic affects of many Base closures in the past have been quite devastating to some communities.  The military personnel may be moved to other Bases, but the civilian staff seldom are.  The surrounding area businesses lose not only the business of the military, the military personnel and their families, but also the newly unemployed civilian employees of the Base. 

We have covered the amounts of monies spent in surrounding communities by military personnel and bases in several topics on this site.  One of the most popular stories is when Bases such as RCAF Station Moose Jaw paid all its personnel in $2 bills, a taboo currency in the Prairies at the time, flooding the city of Moose Jaw with those damn Bennett Bucks.  That quelled the negative attitude of the populace towards the Base.  Imagine what kind of economic affect that would have on Moose Jaw today if they announced the closure of the Base.

In Petawawa in 1959 one end-month pay parade was in $2 bills. The stores, etc in Pembroke were overflowing in orange bills. The aim, I think, was to illustrate the economic impact of the Camp as there was a vociferous local movement to close it and return the expropriated land to its original owners. As a personal recollection, pay parade took forever. You see, if one was to received $48.00, the paymaster would count out two twenties, a five, a two and a one for a total of five bills; this time he had to count out 24 two dollar bills or roughly five times the amount of bills.

 

[BinRat55]

In Petawawa in 1959 one end-month pay parade was in $2 bills. The stores, etc in Pembroke were overflowing in orange bills. The aim, I think, was to illustrate the economic impact of the Camp as there was a vociferous local movement to close it and return the expropriated land to its original owners. ...

That is really cool. Really. I would have loved to see the result throughout the local population's wallets! Cool! Smart too.

 

[GR66]

That is really cool. Really. I would have loved to see the result throughout the local population's wallets! Cool! Smart too.

Be careful with your praise or the Good Idea Fairy may see you having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry home your next pay...in toonies!

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Be careful with your praise or the Good Idea Fairy may see you having to bring a wheelbarrow to carry home your next pay...in toonies!

Or worst...loonies.... [

 

[McG]

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

(I still wish we had, decades and, indeed, almost a century ago, built large joint army/air force bases, but ...)

That looks fun.  Going to the most extreme would be CFB Leftcoast with HQ JTFP, CANFLTPAC, 19 Wing, 443 Sqn, JTFSC(P) and other bits.

And then there would be CFB Someplaceprairies with JTFW HQ, 1 CMBG, 4 Wing, 408 Sqn, JTFSC(W) and other lodger bits.

Of course there would also be CFB Centreofuniverse with JFTC HQ, CANSOFBDE, 2 CMBG, 8 Wing, 427 Sqn, 450 Sqn, JTFSC(C) and yet more other bits.

Don’t forget CFB Someplacequebec with JTFE HQ, 5 CMBG, 2 Wing, 3 Wing, UAVs, 430 Sqn, JTFSC(E) and still more other bits.

And then more stuff farther east (like Gagetown and Halifax/Shearwater) and a few other things sprinkled back through the rest of the country (like Kingston, Borden, Shilo) for training and support.

I don’t think it will ever happen.

 

[dimsum]

That looks fun.  Going to the most extreme would be....

Don’t forget CFB Someplacequebec with JTFE HQ, 5 CMBG, 2 Wing, 3 Wing, UAVs, 430 Sqn, JTFSC(E) and still more other bits....

I don’t think it will ever happen.

If we're dreaming, keep Mission UAV crews and Int Analysis in a Main Operating Base in Ottawa or Winnipeg (without planes), and the Launch/Recovery Elements in Comox/Victoria, Halifax/Greenwood and somewhere up north, since the plan is to be integrated into civilian airspace anyway. 

If range time is needed, stick a temporary LRE (one Ground Control Station, maintenance space and a few crews) in Cold Lake for the few weeks that they need to use the range. 

Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense. 

 

[George Wallace]

Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense.

It doesn't have to make sense.  It just has to have the optics of giving Quebec a share of the pie.

 

[McG]

Aside from pure politics, having a UAV unit in Bagotville makes absolutely no sense. 

It was to satisfy a Conservative promise.  With a new government, maybe a different basing option could be considered.

 

[MilEME09]

It was to satisfy a Conservative promise.  With a new government, maybe a different basing option could be considered.

Like say Yellowknife/White Horse with JTF North? perhaps even Gander?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't think any UAVs in the near future would end up off the coast of Canada. :2c:

 

[Baz]

I don't think any UAVs in the near future would end up off the coast of Canada. :2c:

Thread hijack on:

The desire for JUSTAS is for something that can do an Afghanistan like mission and domestic ops including the north and coastal approaches.  Therefore it makes sense to put the MOD in Greenwood, with a dedicated launch and recovery element, a second launch and recovery element in Comox, and the PED center in Winnipeg (although you could colate the PED center in Greenwood, mox nix).  You also need at least one deployable launch and recovery element, although you could make the Comox one deployable and loss the capability; in a perfect world you would equip three and man four so that rotations can be constantly maintained and still keep a Comox capability (the fourth one would normally be vacant due to leave, courses, etc, etc).  Assume that the US model is followed and all on station ops are accomplished at the MOB.

The desire is to do this with one UAV; my opinion is you need two:
- a predator like for the deployed piece, which also meets the armed requirement
- global hawk for the domestic peice, which also can slot into the coalition collection pool deployed
(Surprise, that's exactly what Australia bought).  I don't think there is one UAV that does both well; maybe the Avenger?

Of course, as the new government's policy seems to be leaning away from expeditionary ops, maybe just the global hawk like capability, which would still be a welcome asset in coalition ops?

I strongly feel we should have jumped at the polar hawk when it was offered; Norway probably would have come right along with us.  In a perfect world, it's what NATO AGS would have been as well, and then Canada and Norway could have just bought copies of the aircraft and MOBs, and we would have actually had the start of a NATO general surveillance and collection (they are definitely two different things) capability.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?

- I think GH could take on some of the YFR the 140 flies now for 'other than RCAF' folks, and focus primarily on the overland and ASW/AsUW piece;  that alone is a job and a bit.  And, heck they are pretty impressive pieces of kit; saw one in Sig.  The only other times I've 'seen' them was looking at a very high alt squawk and saying "wtf is...oh."  There is some continuing knowledge happening (hands on type) with HALE 'stuff' in the RCAF.

- Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc.

I don't know any details, but have heard some talk and rumours around Fat Camp about the CHUD-type days coming back to life...

.

 

[Baz]

Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?

Yes; the IFC (Intelligence Fusion Center) should be all source and responsible to the Commander; its not just about one platform.  You could make a case it should be the overall Joint Commander (ie in Ottawa), but the RCAF is going to want to keep control over that particular empire...

- I think GH could take on some of the YFR the 140 flies now for 'other than RCAF' folks, and focus primarily on the overland and ASW/AsUW piece;  that alone is a job and a bit.  And, heck they are pretty impressive pieces of kit; saw one in Sig.  The only other times I've 'seen' them was looking at a very high alt squawk and saying "wtf is...oh."  There is some continuing knowledge happening (hands on type) with HALE 'stuff' in the RCAF.

Triton even more so as it combines Surveillance with Collection, and understands they are different and how to do both.  USAF Global Hawk as yet hasn't realized its full potention, the Dragon Lady's mere existence means they don't have to push it as hard as they have to, but it fulfils an unique niche.  NATO AGS is kind of an orphaned child; conceived as a airborne (ground) battle management platform (a la JSTARS) it has morphed into an hybrid surveillance and collection platform; it may do both well, or it could do neither well...  Polar Hawk was interesting, Northrup Grumman seemed to know what we needed (and the Norwegians) then we did ourselves...

We have some people going to Sig; I was one of the voices after I left NATO AGS but was still at SHAPE trying to point out why we should do that, so when it materialized later on it was refreshing.

- Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc.

My mistake, I was thinking Reaper because it is more mature (in my understanding, I have no direct experience with it), but typed Predator.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yes; the IFC (Intelligence Fusion Center) should be all source and responsible to the Commander; its not just about one platform.  You could make a case it should be the overall Joint Commander (ie in Ottawa), but the RCAF is going to want to keep control over that particular empire...

Triton even more so as it combines Surveillance with Collection, and understands they are different and how to do both.  USAF Global Hawk as yet hasn't realized its full potention, the Dragon Lady's mere existence means they don't have to push it as hard as they have to, but it fulfils an unique niche.  NATO AGS is kind of an orphaned child; conceived as a airborne (ground) battle management platform (a la JSTARS) it has morphed into an hybrid surveillance and collection platform; it may do both well, or it could do neither well...  Polar Hawk was interesting, Northrup Grumman seemed to know what we needed (and the Norwegians) then we did ourselves...

You've given me a bit of reading and research to get up to speed on that para.  ;D

We have some people going to Sig

1 in place already...more screening happening this APS.  Wasn't sure if that was common knowledge...

 

[Baz]

1 in place already...more screening happening this APS.  Wasn't sure if that was common knowledge...

One came from YAW and I hooked him up with an Italian Pilot at AGS IO (Implementation Office) to discuss what it was before he decided to screen.

Obviously, my ability to do that has expired; the people I know are all moving on now anyway.  Reminds me, I was going to send an E-Mail to some of them and let them know I ejected...

Sorry, an explanation: my Global Hawk knowledge is as a result of I was the last Canadian in AGSIO before we got out, as the Surveillance Officer.  I worked next to and with the Intelliegnce Officer (USAF Major) for a Czech LCol that was head of "ISR" (but I can't remember his title).

 

[dimsum]

Is there a benefit to keeping the PED closer to the HQ and CAOC?  Or just to 'centralize' that part of the package?

- Predator over a Reaper? I am a UAV novice, but having spoken to a few CHUD guys, they seem to lean towards Reapers.  I visited an allied Reaper unit and had the up close tour.  I wasn't really interested in UAV stuff...until I was up close and personal to the GCS, etc.

One possible benefit is that analysis can be done faster, as in the operators can chat with the Int folks more reliably if they're somewhat co-located (as it was in the CHUD and Australian Heron days) via ICS, phone or even just walking over there and debriefing after a shift.  Granted, the "walking over" may be hard if the stations aren't next to each other.  I don't know if the Pred/Reaper/GH folks have direct voice/lines of contact with their Int cells.

Reaper is basically a larger turboprop version of a Predator.  Faster speed, higher altitude, possibly more stores, probably nicer sensors.  Very cool pieces of kit.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was pretty impressed with what I was exposed to.  Colour EON??

 

[Baz]

I don't know if the Pred/Reaper/GH folks have direct voice/lines of contact with their Int cells.

From the USAF'S point of view, Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk, and Dragon Lady, including their MOB collection teams, are all part of the Global ISR Enterprise... as a matter of fact when they speak of ISR they mean Global ISR and really nothing else.  The other part of that is the DGCS, which has three main locations in Beale, Langley, and Ramstein, which act as their primary IFCs.  They also have deployable reserve units to back fl at the theater level.

The Collection Managers are in continuous chat with the UAV crews.  For some missions voice may be up, but it certainly is just a phone call away.  These assets are running collection decks.

For direct action they are in UAV to ground comms with back up voice circuits, plus chat, with the supported commander.  To enable this the Army also has their own DGCS system, normally employed at the Corps level.  They also have their own UAVs feeding it up to and including Preds.

The USN is building it's own MOB and IFC infrastructure, which is a source of friction with the USAF which thinks it should use DGCS.  I think the reality will be that when Triton is running an overland collection deck it will feed DGCS, but Maritime Collection and Surveillance will remain a USN thing.

AGS (ie NATO) was struggling with where they would put everything, but I think it may fall out to be a more robust PHD capability at the AGS MOB, plus support for land and maritime surveillance and *possibly* battle management; the NATO IFC (NIFC) at RAF Molesworth (which where I did my Collateral Damage Estimation Course), which reports directly to SHAPE J2 isn't quite as robust as the USAF ones, and not quite as focused at the operation level.  The USAF DGCS at Ramstein also has a role to play with NATO.

The UK has a single Defence IFC (DIFC) at RAF Wyton supporting worldwide ops.  However their assets, including Sentinel, Rivet Joint, and UAVs can also down link to theater sites for direct support.

Canada only has experience with the theater side, but understands and wants the IFC requirement as well.  It's important to have; I hope they don't follow the USAF model too closely and lose site of the requirement for direct support at the same time.