Base closures?

[SupersonicMax]

dapaterson,

Absolutely, however I believe the CF needs to retain the capacity to educate its Officers from scratch, at least a good portion of it.  In part for the historical aspect, but also because RMC provides an education that can be found nowhere in the civilian education system because it is very much military oriented.

Also, I don't believe DEO is the goto solution.  It's much less appealing for someone with a degree to join the CF than it is for someone that will get a free education with service in return.  Yes, when the economy takes a turn for the worst, DEO recruiting is going to be full tilt, however as soon as the economy picks back up, the DEO pool will dry up.

MCG,

The new building was started back in 2004-2005 I believe (before CMR opened).  They had significant issues, especially when they discovered archeological (sp) remains while digging, putting the project on hold for a long while.  It takes a LONG time to put up builidngs on the peninsula because it has such a history and it is over-protected.  It drives both the time AND costs up.

 

[DCRabbit]

Then the politicians review it and give the heaviest ratings to things like local economic impact and potential seat losses in the next election.

But I guess that paper means that everything in the red is fair game and where they will look.. with those operations consolidated onto other facilities. Close enuff of them and you don't have to close a major base.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, it is a silly list and the so-called Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) whose subjective views are expressed on it are clearly dunderheads with little to no appreciation of either domestic or international operations - and yes, I understand that they are, most likely flag/general officers or captains/colonels, that doesn't mean they are not capable of misunderstanding basic things like operational imperatives.

Look, for example, at the North Warning System (NWS) sites: what could be more critical to our operational roles that surveillance and warning about (foreign) intruders approaching or violating our (domestic) sovereign territory? But Petawawa and Valcartier are 7 (domestic) and 1 (foreign) in the operational ranks while NWS is 15th and 27th!?! What did they do in DRDC when they asked for SMEs, send in the clowns?

The list should be perforated every 4 inches, rolled up and the put in an appropriate place for good use as arse wipe - that's all it's worth.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Edward, one of these days we will have to bring you out of your shell and tell us how you really feel. ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Look, I favour base consolidations and closures. As I have said, bases cost money and money is always scarce. I repeat: "My personal preference is fewer, bigger and, whenever possible, joint bases or 'clusters' (e.g. Wainwright/Lloydminster), collocated, for the Army, with large training areas." You could add to that "and located, for the Air Force, near large instrumented manoeuvre and bombing ranges." But I think we need to understand both the economics and operational requirements for bases and stations. Only a small handful of bases and stations - none of them in the Army - are operational in themselves: dockyards and a few flying stations and the NWS and SIGINT sites. The rest are administrative - they are "home" to and may provide training areas and other support for operational units, but they have no inherent operational status of their own. Petawawa doesn't "go to war,' it "sends people and units to war" and it looks after their families and it provides facilities for training and preparing the next batch of people and units who will go to war; ditto Wainwright and Gagetown and, and, and ...

I repeat: let's have fewer, bigger, consolidated bases that best fit the needs of the CF and can survive the political processes. But the political processes are not always cast in concrete; a few years ago, while I was in the staff college, we used to joke that the baseline force structure was a Vandoo battalion in Summerside. Well, Summerside is gone - closed by a Conservative government that faced financial problems and didn't have much representation in PEI - see also my comments about "governing without Québec" and then reconsider the political requirements for e.g. St Jean.

 

[dapaterson]

Fewer and larger bases drives a wedge between the military and the people it serves.  A nation the size of Canada (if we are to be a nation) requires the visible presence of national symbols such as the military.  Shipping the military off to the armpits of the nation because land is cheap is pennywise and pound foolish.

Would it not be better to have a more widely dispersed military, but with large training areas to enable the conduct of large scale collective training.  Certainly, some inefficiencies would be introduced, but you then have an enhanced abiltiy to respond to domestic events, an increased community footprint, and a stronger bond.

Just my contrarian 2c.

 

[DCRabbit]

I repeat: let's have fewer, bigger, consolidated bases that best fit the needs of the CF and can survive the political processes. But the political processes are not always cast in concrete; a few years ago, while I was in the staff college, we used to joke that the baseline force structure was a Vandoo battalion in Summerside. Well, Summerside is gone - closed by a Conservative government that faced financial problems and didn't have much representation in PEI - see also my comments about "governing without Québec" and then reconsider the political requirements for e.g. St Jean.

Political majorities are made in Ontario. If you don't win around the GTA area, you're not gonna win a majority. Giving a 400 million (give or take) hit to any of the economies in the area is political suicide. Only way that'll happen is if one party has such a stranglehold on the area it doesn't have to worry about it.. like the Libs with closing London, Downsview, etc.. but in today's fractious political landscape I don't see that hold on the GTA area happening for a very long time. Any other region in the country just doesn't compare for political seat concentration.

Fewer, bigger, consolidated bases make sense logically. But having big bases away from population centers (Cold Lake, Wainright, Shilo, etc..) contributes to the disassociation of the general public with the CF. Unless reserve units can do the job of engaging the population in major cities..

Just my civvie 2 cents.

 

[George Wallace]

....... Unless reserve units can do the job of engaging the population in major cities..

And of course they are often first on the chopping block........and the current political atmosphere (not only in the House of Commons, but in the higher echelons of the CF) seems to indicate those days may be closer than we thought.

 

[DCRabbit]

And of course they are often first on the chopping block........and the current political atmosphere (not only in the House of Commons, but in the higher echelons of the CF) seems to indicate those days may be closer than we thought.

  Hmm.. maybe that's why Meaford's in the red area on that list. *scratches head*

It seems that a lot of the red sites are reserve support sites (I could be mistaken). It would seem that's where they are gonna wield the knife and leave the reg forces infrastructure mostly alone.. with some minor trimming and consolidation. Shilo and Suffield I dunno about.. CF needs training area.. and I would think those are cheap to run with almost no local interference.

 

[Infanteer]

Fewer and larger bases drives a wedge between the military and the people it serves.  A nation the size of Canada (if we are to be a nation) requires the visible presence of national symbols such as the military.  Shipping the military off to the armpits of the nation because land is cheap is pennywise and pound foolish.

But having big bases away from population centers (Cold Lake, Wainright, Shilo, etc..) contributes to the disassociation of the general public with the CF.

Is this true?  I hear this a lot, but is there anything to prove it is accurate or not?

I'd be willing to be that most people's exposure to the military consists of seeing recruiters in public (who are in those cities anyways), see reservists of urban units training (who are in those cities anyways) or catch a news clip on CTV about Afghanistan.  I don't how CFB Edmonton creates any special link to to Canada - the units there send soldiers all over Western Canada for COMREL events; this would be done just as easily from Wainwright or Suffield.

The United States doesn't have Major military installations in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago to connect with Americans.  Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.

 

[AIC_2K5]

I'd be willing to be that most people's exposure to the military consists of seeing recruiters in public (who are in those cities anyways), see reservists of urban units training (who are in those cities anyways) or catch a news clip on CTV about Afghanistan.  I don't how CFB Edmonton creates any special link to to Canada - the units there send soldiers all over Western Canada for COMREL events; this would be done just as easily from Wainwright or Suffield.

Agreed, but I think something needs to be said about having Reg F units near urban centres. I'm not saying we should move our CMBGs to downtown Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, but when troops stop by their local timmies, gas staitions, or grocery stores to or from work in a bigger city like Edmonton it gets the CF 'out there' to the Canadian population more so than in a place like Moose Jaw. I don't believe that Reservists produce this level of exposure.

 

[dapaterson]

The United States doesn't have Major military installations in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago to connect with Americans.  Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.

And the US is having problems with recruiting not drawing on the NE population centres - its military is becoming less representative of the population at large, and that is a major concern for any democratic state.

 

[aesop081]

Los Angeles

Los Angeles AFB. Edwards AFB is also located in LA County.

Most major U.S. installations are located near mid-sized cities, not major metropolitan centers.

Far from it. A cursory look at a list of US military instalations indicates a significant military presence near major centers. Go take a look at San Diego for example ( NAB Coronado, NAS North Island, San Diego naval Station, Point Loma Naval submarine base, Imperial beach Naval oulying field, MCRD San Diego)

 

[Infanteer]

And the US is having problems with recruiting not drawing on the NE population centres - its military is becoming less representative of the population at large, and that is a major concern for any democratic state.

That is likely related to issues other than whether Boston has an Army base with soldiers hitting the local Fred Meyer - much like our demographics which feature over-representation from certain groups and geographic areas.

Los Angeles AFB. Edwards AFB is also located in LA County.  Far from it.

Well, if you want to be pedantic, almost every US base is an urban center simply because most of them are huge, often over 100,000 when dependants are included.

However, I'm talking about major urban centers - generally cities with over 1,000,000 people.  San Diego is an outlier; the only one of the top 10 U.S. cities to have a major military installation in it.  You could sneak Ft Lewis in the Sea-Tac area and Kings Bay in Jacksonville if you wanted to up your batting average to over .100.  However, neither of the other 9 major U.S. Army bases (with a division), nor the USMC's East Coast home, nor the U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet are located near the largest of U.S. cities.  You may have a couple of airfields, but that is about it.

Major U.S. cities do not generally have large Active Duty bases/stations in their immediate vicinity.

 

[aesop081]

  San Diego is an outlier; the only one of the top 10 U.S. cities to have a major military installation in it.

Not only A major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :

Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)

San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)

Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not only A major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :

Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)

San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)

Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.

But, back circa 1941, when e.g. Lackland AFB was first built, San Antonio was far, far smaller and Lackland was waaay out in the country - as were many (most?) of our BCATP aerodromes here in Canada. San Antonio and Lackland both grew and, in the process, got closer and closer to one another. While the centre of Lackland is the same distance from the centre of San Antonio as in 1941, the ubiquitous motorcar and the freeways make 15+ miles nothing in 2011, but 70 years ago that was a loooooong way.

Lackland AFB 1941                                                        Lackland AFB 1969
                                                                                    One can still see traces of the original structures near the centre, above the main road
                                                                                    It is, doubtless, much larger now

 

[McG]

What mechanism of public interaction would we hope to gain from by spreading units through more major cities?  Is such a suggestion really about capitalizing on the value of random encounters between civilians and uniformed service personnel at the grocery store?

 

[Infanteer]

Not only A major installation but multiple major installations. Then, we have (in the top 10 largets US cities, SD being 8th) :

Pheonix, Arizona (5th largest) has Luke AFB 15 miles to the West ( 7000+ military and civillian employees)

San Antonio, Texas (7th largest) has Lackland AFB ( roughly 7000+ military and civilian employees) and Randolf AFB (8000+)

Thats 30% of the top 10 largest US cities being home to major military installations.

Hey, I gave you a few airfields!  Regardless, we're still in the minority and bases tend to be, more often or not, away from the largest cities.  The original point, that U.S. bases are for the most part not integrated into major metropolitan centers, still stands.

I think we can generally conclude that:

1.  Navies have no choice but to have bases in large coastal cities;
2.  Airforces can be anywhere they want, but want to keep enough distance to avoid interference in airfield activities;
3.  Armies need bases away from cities where they have big spaces to run around in; and
4.  None of this really has anything to do with "connecting with the nation".

 

[Infanteer]

Is such a suggestion really about capitalizing on the value of random encounters between civilians and uniformed service personnel at the grocery store?

Maybe, if we do, we'll get both 60mm mortars AND the CASW!

 

[McG]

Maybe, if we do, we'll get both 60mm mortars AND the CASW!

Are those next to the dairy?