Base closures?

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:

 

[armyvern]

I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:

OMFG. Did you just call the esteemed Mr. Campbell a "Retired NAVY guy!!??"

:blotto:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695/post-596145.html#msg596145

Edward Campbell – Managing Editor

Edward R. Campbell is the managing editor of The Ruxted Group.  He enlisted in the Canadian Army as a private soldier and subsequently earned a regular commission.  He served for over 35 years in nearly a dozen different ranks wearing several cap badges in the normal range of regimental duty appointments, from 'squaddie' to commanding officer, in various units in Canada and overseas.  After attending some academic, specialist and professional courses in Canada, Britain and the USA, he served in more senior command and staff appointments in Canada and Europe.  In the '80s and '90s, he served in NDHQ as director of a small, specialist staff branch dealing with national and international technical, policy and operational matters.  After retiring from the Canadian Forces he managed a (non-military) national advisory board which provided technical, regulatory and policy inputs to the Government of Canada.

He had cap badge deficit disorder.  ;D

 

[Brasidas]

OMFG. Did you just call the esteemed Mr. Campbell a "Retired NAVY guy!!??"

:blotto:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695/post-596145.html#msg596145

He had cap badge deficit disorder.  ;D

It was in reference to "says retired Navy Commodore Eric Lerhe, now an analyst critical of the Forces' overhead costs."

Mr. Lerhe was referenced at least twice in the original post.

 

[armyvern]

It was in reference to "says retired Navy Commodore Eric Lerhe, now an analyst critical of the Forces' overhead costs."

Mr. Lerhe was referenced at least twice in the original post.

Ahhh yes, but as Mr Campbell stated in his posting of the article - it is also one of his "favourite subjects" ergo my thoughts that it was referring to him. Them 'retired' guys from any service (and some of us) have been around long enough to have suffered through the dark years and to witness what PCness in pork barrelleing into one's own ridings will do to cause that 'rust-out' of equipment described wrt the necessity (or non-necessity of other places) of closures to make us an effective and capable force. And consideration #1 is not, necessarily "what is best for the forces and our requirements."

I, personally, do not think Edward's suggestions have a hope in hell of ever seeing the light of day - and not because they are not required, but rather because that would leave the prairies devoid of "presence" (less the "some" presence in Winnipeg) and the political powers that be would doom any move such as that from the get-go.

We can discuss and debate all we want - at the end of the day - politics will decide; whether or not the commentator is/was Navy, Air Force or Army or serving/retired is completely irrelevant.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:

I don't know about Lehre, but I was just disturbing the excrement.

 

[Journeyman]

...... some of us have been around long enough to have suffered through the dark years and to witness what PCness in pork barrelleing into one's own ridings will do....

And don't you have a history of being involved in bases closing around you?  :stirpot:

 

[armyvern]

And don't you have a history of being involved in bases closing around you?  :stirpot:

I prefer Edward's excrement stirring to yours; just saying. 

 

[McG]

I'm still wondering how a retired Navy guy suggesting that we close Army and Airforce bases has got us into four pages of wishing for self-inflicted wounds.  rly:

I think, because there are legitimate organizational flaws that would, if fixed, provide economies of effort and/or increases of effectiveness and/or freed resources (for reinvestment or adjust to reduced budgets).

I doubt we'll see anything too shocking in the way of base closures. First, it won't be a military decision. The inescapable regional political realities of this country would, I think, prevent anything like the closure of Gagetown or Winnipeg. Kingston was tried a few years ago (remember that...?) and IIRC the local pressures were instrumental in not only its retention, but its recent expansion and ongoing renovations.

Fortunately, I think many of the moves that might provide the most benefit are also ones that would be politically easier sells.  Consolidating smaller locations into existing larger bases (such as Moncton to Gagetown) should be within the realm of consideration as the smaller location has less of a footprint in the local economy.  The other type of move that should be politically possible is movement out of high-density urban centres where available real-estate is at a premium (in this case, a move of CFC from Toronto to Kingston should be palatable to the political class as some other commercial or government entity will no doubt quickly seek to fill the small relative-to-Toronto void).

... almost no major facilities, with the exception of Kapyong Barracks, were actually closed. Alot (like Calgary and Chilliwack) were reduced to ASUs or such, but we are more or less left with a pretty similar base footprint as we had prior to that round of cuts. And tis, I think, is what we will always look like.

Now is probably a good time to look at the vestiges of those past base closures.  Some of these ASUs may still be required, while others could probably be consolidated onto a near-by base (and with little present day political push-back due to the now smaller relative footprint these establishments have in their local economies).  Could the work of ASU London be done through the bases in Meaford & Borden?

The reduction in the number of headquarters or the consolidation of a couple of the commands would be more palatable politically than base closures.  Reducing top heavy HQ`s may not put the correct pyramid structure back into the field as these tend to be diamond shaped.

And there are probably more gains to be had from a review of HQs than from base and station closures.

 

[hauger]

Interesting thread, fun to read.  I don't know if I agree with base closures though, there are reasons to have assets available and spread throughout the country.  A good example of not thinking things through in the long term was the closure of the runways in Edmonton.  They took a runway that was 14,000 ft x 200 ft and one at 6,800 x 100 ft.  Now it's in ruins and there's buildings on it.  Air deployment of troops now has to go through Edmonton International, along with Cargo movement.  The concept of redeploying fixed with assets to train with their "customers" (the army) in Edmonton cannot simply happen without big re-investment or rebuilding another field elsewhere.  What if we wanted to disperse our transport capabilities to the west, where could we put them now?

Another good example is North Bay.  That base should never have been downgraded to ground ops only.  At best, the runway and hanger space should have been retained and leased in the interim.  Why?  Compare it to Trenton:

Main runway
Trenton:      10,000 x 200
North Bay:  10,000 x 200 (still in use)

Number of Major Rail Lines (Cargo/Troop movement)
Trenton:    2
North Bay:  3

Number of Major Highways:
Trenton:    1  (Hwy 401 - Granted, a big one)
North Bay:  2 (Hwy 11 and Hwy 17, both Transcanada)

Transit time to the Training Area (Algonquin Park)
Trenton:      approx 20 min
North Bay:  approx 20 min

Ground Travel Time to Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal
Trenton:      approx. 2 hours/2.5 hours/4 hours
North Bay:    approx. 3 hours/3.5 hours/5 hours

Now, my favorite:

Number of Highways that bi-sect the base making base security, land development, infrastructure upgrades, persons and material travel around the base an absolute nightmare:
Trenton:      1 (Hwy 2)
North Bay:    0

The best part is, to find ramp space for the C-130J, the C-130H remaining, the CH-146, the C-17, and the Airbus, the MEUF, and transient aircraft, and the odd CF-18 that hangs out there, Trenton has had to build a North ramp, further segmenting the base and greatly enriching local cement factories.  The rest of the base has their rulers out trying to figure out how close to within inches to highway 2 they can build the new hangers and comply with security regulations.

Best of all, one bad ice storm, aircraft incident, or whatever can shut down 95% of Canada's transport capability.

Did I mention the deconficting of air traffic with Toronto causes certain issues with Trenton Air Ops?

Now, in the 90's, we about 90% of the people out of North Bay, sold half the base housing and all the airport assets to the city.  Heck, peace broke out and we didn't need it any more.  Now, a 10,000ft runway with ample empty ramp space (and even ready hangers) sits highly underused, all while we attempt to make Trenton expand past it's limits to accommodate all of our transport needs.

So, back to my original point.  Closing base infrastructure is serious, and should never be done to meet short or even medium term budgetary constraints.  An American once told me that we should never give up a capability because once it was gone, it was near impossible to get it back.  I think the same could be said of bases, loosing the infrastructure might make sense today, but regaining that infrastructure if needed later will cause a lot more effort and money than just keeping it in the first place would have cost.

 

[aesop081]

Did I mention the deconficting of air traffic with Toronto causes certain issues with Trenton Air Ops?

I've operated out of bases with airspace situations much worse than that of Trenton, yet the bases handle a volume of movements that are several order of magnitude greater. Takes deconfliction....big f'ing deal.....

 

[hauger]

I've operated out of bases with airspace situations much worse than that of Trenton, yet the bases handle a volume of movements that are several order of magnitude greater. Takes deconfliction....big f'ing deal.....

Good on you, didn't realise AESOP's flew the plane or did ATC work.

De-conflicting IFR training routes with approach descents of Toronto traffic  causes problems.  Wedging that in with Kingston traffic causes additional problems.  I never implied it caused serious problems, but it ups the level of co-ordination.

All of that completely misses the point of my point, but good job employing an age-old argumentative tactic.  Rather than discuss the main point, find some nit-picky point to take issue with and concentrate solely on it from a position of aggressive superiority (use of the term "f'ng"). 

The problem with that tactic is it adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the conversation.

 

[armyvern]

Nor does 'yelling'. 

Or claiming that he insinuated that AESOPs flew the plane or did ATC, but that's a whole 'nother tangent.

 

[aesop081]

Good on you, didn't realise AESOP's flew the plane or did ATC work.

I dont fly the plan, file the flight plans or talk to ATC. I do however take care of safety-of-flight and airborne deconfliction by radar and, being a professional, i'm not clueless about what goes on around and i understand airspace pretty damned well thank you.

I didnt realize you had to be a pilot to understand those things........silly me.

To get back on track.....

Closing Trenton now would be stupid. North bay's fate is already a reality. It may suck but thats just how it is.

 

[hauger]

I dont fly the plan, file the flight plans or talk to ATC. I do however take care of safety-of-flight and airborne deconfliction by radar and, being a professional, i'm not clueless about what goes on around and i understand airspace pretty damned well thank you.

I didnt realize you had to be a pilot to understand those things........silly me.

To get back on track.....

Closing Trenton now would be stupid. North bay's fate is already a reality. It may suck but thats just how it is.

Fair enough.  I wasn't trying to make the argument that the fate of either should be changed though, just that infrastructure shouldn't just be divested without truly understanding the long term loss to the forces.  Again, looking at Edmonton, if the Army had at least not developed parts of the runway for buildings, that entire strip could be re-commissioned if required sometime in the future (obviously it would eventually atrophy to a point of no return).  I guess what I was trying to say was that balancing the books by removing infrastructure restricts the capabilities of the forces in the future.

ArmyVern:  True.  Sorry about the yelling.  Got my blood up.  Felt bad about it later.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The question of closing bases for purely financial reasons must be evaluated whether the units vacating the base are:
A)  Redundant and and not being relocated, but closed down
B)  Able to move onto an existing base without the need to create new infrastructure to house them
C)  Being moved to an exising CFB, but new infrastructure must be built or renovated at a significant cost so that the unit can use the facility.

At the end of the day, the base closures become a very very very sticky political mess, whereby keeping 1ESU and 4AD in Moncton, or closing down LFAATC - Aldershot, or North Bay, etc. are probably just as heavily weighed on the cost savings as they are the political damage or benefit that would result from their closing or expansion.

Given the redundancies in local reserve unit infrastructure, I wouldn't be surprised that although reserve units will remain in their local areas, several old, maintenance intensive armouries that are in prime real-estate locations will be targeted to be sold off, with units consolidating into other locations in the same geographic vicinity.  i.e. Canadian Grenadier Guards and The Black Watch having either of their downtown Montreal armouries closed down, sold off for several million (a significant amout of $s back into a deficit ridden government coffer), and consolidated into one armoury, etc.  The other thing that is politically advantageous to this is that most voters in dense urban areas are almost completely unaware of the local reserve unit presence, and as such the votes you lose by consolidating locations in these urban centres would be pretty minimal, as opposed to bases which which play fairly significant role in the local economy.  Closing such bases would give the opposition some significant political ammunition for the next election in terms of talking about local jobs lost, businesses suffering, etc. all because of the decision of the ruling party to close the base, and could well lose the riding for the incumbent, or destroy any chances of unseating an opposition party MP, which in such a fractured parliament could possibly make the difference between winning or losing the election.  If I were a betting man, I'd correlate the CF bases that could possibly be closed to a political ridings map.  Mark the bases out and see which ridings are solidly Liberal, NDP, or Bloc Quebecois with a snowball's chance in hell of ever electing a Conservative and those are the facilities which would be chosen to close.

I know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The problem you come across with closing a base is the clean up of the area if you plan on turning it over to the public.  I suppose you can just turn the lights off and leave but you can't through the keys on the table until all the hazards both environmental as well as things like ammunition (range clean ups etc) are cleared.

 

[AIC_2K5]

Given the redundancies in local reserve unit infrastructure, I wouldn't be surprised that although reserve units will remain in their local areas, several old, maintenance intensive armouries that are in prime real-estate locations will be targeted to be sold off, with units consolidating into other locations in the same geographic vicinity.

Jericho, anyone?

 

[Rick Goebel]

"I  know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things."

There can be some pretty rational reasons for keeping an old armoury as well.  Mewata Armoury, in Calgary, is very close to a Light Rail Transit station that connects well with U of C and SAIT (along with much of the rest of the city).  The Northeast armoury isn't as well connected to transit.  Since many members of the army reserve are post-secondary students, it seems wise to have at least one facility in town that is easy for them to get to.

Also, Mewata Armoury is a provincial heritage site.  I have long objected to such designations for any buildings because this makes it difficult for the owner to get someone to buy the property.  If you can't make major changes to a building to better suit a new use, you won't likely pay as good a price as you might otherwise pay.  Thus, the government might not realize the full benefits of getting rid of a downtown piece of property and buy a less-centrally-located one.

Note too that while the government could see a benefit from selling one piece of property and buying another, DND probably wouldn't.  The proceeds of a sale of a piece of property at least used to go into the general accounts rather than into those of the department concerned.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

"I  know the subject of closing down regimental armouries is a pretty emotional topic for alot of reservists who serve in storied regiments with their traditional homes, but lets look at things from a purely rational point of view here, without letting emotion and tradition for the sake of tradition cloud things."

There can be some pretty rational reasons for keeping an old armoury as well.  Mewata Armoury, in Calgary, is very close to a Light Rail Transit station that connects well with U of C and SAIT (along with much of the rest of the city).  The Northeast armoury isn't as well connected to transit.  Since many members of the army reserve are post-secondary students, it seems wise to have at least one facility in town that is easy for them to get to.

Also, Mewata Armoury is a provincial heritage site.  I have long objected to such designations for any buildings because this makes it difficult for the owner to get someone to buy the property.  If you can't make major changes to a building to better suit a new use, you won't likely pay as good a price as you might otherwise pay.  Thus, the government might not realize the full benefits of getting rid of a downtown piece of property and buy a less-centrally-located one.

Note too that while the government could see a benefit from selling one piece of property and buying another, DND probably wouldn't.  The proceeds of a sale of a piece of property at least used to go into the general accounts rather than into those of the department concerned.

I'm not talking about closing down ALL armouries in urban areas, but having a hard look at redundant facilities, or facilities which are not cost effective to maintain in the long-term.

Also, you're right in that the monies generated from the sale of DND lands don't go back into the DND budget directly, but they do raise revenue for the government in general, and it's because of the overall deficit, not so much DND's spending habits or internal deficits that are to blame specifically for the federal government's overall directives to reduce spending and increase efficiencies.

 

[AJC]

WRT to old Armouries. Mewata for one has outlived its usefulness. Eons of bandaid wiring, structural limitations, inadequate parking, unsafe, unsecure etc etc. Ditch both Calgary Armouries and build something functional. The trick would be to put it somewhere accessable, maybe CFB Calgary footprint? I suppose we would have to plan further ahead than yesterday for that.