Base closures?

[dapaterson]

I think this is the key quote in the article.  Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.

A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.

There are facilities that could be closed, lights turned off, with no operational impact - and that do not represent significant spare capacity, so even if we end up needing more of whatever it is they provide, we can get it elsewhere.  The lack of political will is what keeps these useless places open, not any military requirement (indeed, the military has been trying to divest of such places for years).

There are others where units could be relocated to other sites and again, the loss of the facilities would save money on moves to train with other units and on the maintenance of facilities in the current location.

None of this is rocket science - it's all about political will to make changes.

 

[McG]

I think this is the key quote in the article.  Until the government conducts a comprehensive foreign policy review it's hard to say what exactly it is we will be expecting from our military.  You can't make informed and effective decisions on what infrastructure (equipment, manning, organizational structure, etc...) you require without a clearly defined objective.

A Foreign Policy (and subsequent Defence) White Paper should be a top priority for the government in my opinion.  Until we get those any ongoing "transformation" and procurements are going to be unfocused and therefore less effective than they could/should be.

You are right about that being the key quote to define how we do this, but you are wrong in suggesting we need to wait for some new White Paper.  The call for a new White Paper seems to be the great do-nothing screen that is dug out everytime substantial change is proposed.

Despite the 2005 International Policy Statement and the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy, we continue to hear the argument that DND & the CF cannot move forward because no document has been published with "White Paper" in its title.  We have the government's stratigic vision.  We can move forward.  The requirement for a detailed plan means that assements of base closures need to be looked at in conjuction with our force structures.  The context for this assessment is within the ongonig SR and SOR.

 

[GR66]

Foreign Policy is a major 'driver' of defence policy but it is not the only one. National security and defence rests on (at least) three legs: protecting guaranteeing our sovereignty over our land and adjacent waters and the airspace above them; aiding our people in dire emergencies; and protecting and promoting our vital interests in the world.

It is, I believe, and error to make defence policy a handmaid of foreign policy: the two coexist and must be in synch but one does not 'drive' the other.

Agreed that foreign policy shouldn't be the ONLY driver of defence policy (or even the PRIMARY driver for that matter), however with a military of the limited size and scope that we as Canadians are willing to support it is very difficult to make the most of our defence dollars without efficiently balancing our forces to fulfill both our domestic and international requirements. 

I'd argue that while the Conservative government has made it clear that we as a nation will take a fairly robust role in the world they have not laid out any clear sense of what our overall objectives are internationally or how we plan to pursue those objectives.  Defining that (be it through an official "White Paper" or by other less formal means) would go a long way to setting the varied priorities for the military in much clearer focus. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.

For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes? Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated guess, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.

 

[George Wallace]

But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.

For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes? Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated guess, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.

I often wondered if we could have some units strategically located in small "Kasernes", as found in Europe, spread across the land.  They could be used as locations for "Long Halts" for larger units moving from one Training Area to another.  They could be used to have a Regular Force presence in a metropolitan area, and also serve as an Armoury for local Reserve units.  These could offer a large "Transient Quarters" and Messing facility capable of housing large units in tansit as well as house units doing weekend or Summer training.  Not all training requires Ranges or large Training Areas, only Training Lecture Buildings and Quarters.  In some instances, this may be a solution to some Reserve units crumbling infrastructure.

 

[dimsum]

But MCG has it about right. The government has all the tools and guidance it needs to make some desirable and even necessary decisions about DND and the CF.

For example: Do we need all the bases and stations we have now? Are they in the right places? Should soldiers, for example, be housed in large bases with adjacent training areas which are, of practical necessity, in rural areas, or should we base our army in or near major urban centres where they are more likely to be needed for e.g. civil assistance and where they are close to major transport nodes? Each option has proponents and opponents, including, at an educated guess, amongst the senior ranks of the CF and amongst senior officials in government.

Exactly what I wonder as well (and I extend that to airbases.)  Taking a page from the Australian Defence Force, I've noticed that all of their Regular Force (Army and RAAF) bases are near, if not in, their cities.  They maintain training areas (Woomera range, etc.) but they just travel there, do their thing and return to Brisbane/Sydney/wherever.  The Australian Army bases are in fairly large cities (over 100,000 at least, up to Brisbane with 2 million people) and they obviously go somewhere to train. 

For the people arguing that fast jets wouldn't work near cities, the RAAF's fast jet bases are RAAF Amberley (50km outside Brisbane) and RAAF Williamtown (27km from Newcastle.)  I'm sure they have missile ranges somewhere in the vast Outback.  With that in mind, is there really any reason to have 3 and 4 Wing where they are? 

This will help solve the issue of QOL as well, since spouses will have jobs and personnel can live near cities if they wish.  I'm sure there are issues that they have which I haven't thought about, but I'd think that they would have less attrition from people getting pissed off that they are stuck in Gagetown/Shilo/Cold Lake.

 

[ModlrMike]

I agree that rationalization of our assets is a necessary exercise. Just the same, it's important to remember how we got to this state. There was a large push during the 50s, 60s and 70s to use Defence infrastructure as a means of local employment control. If you look at the distribution of bases and stations, you should notice that there many are located near small population centers. Witness the former bases at Chatham NB and Debert NS. That is not to say that large centers have not had closures... witness London and Calgary.

 

[CountDC]

uh oh someone had to drag the Air Force and their wings into it.  Looking at the map one could ask do we really need all those wings on the east coast?  West coast has one, prairies have one for each province.  How about Ontario which has 4?  Quebec 1, Newfoundland 1, Labradour 1 and Nova Scotia has 2. Couldn't some be co-located instead of scattered around?

It would take some research into exactly what each wing does and how much space they need.  For example NS with 2 - on looking closer it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways.  12 Wing Shearwater is the location of Navy Aviation - Sea King - helicopters needing open space big enough to drop into.  Make sense to have the 2 locations? NL 2 wings are both small 3 Helicopters.  Do we need 2?  I imagine when someone is in the Atlantic waiting for rescue they would argue we need which ever one is closer.

and to answer the question on 3 and 4 Wing - I think we do need them where they are.  They are well established, for the most part have the needed facilities and provide air security to both coasts. Where would we move them? Why spend all that money? I do wonder though do we really need to have 15 Wing Moose jaw?

Sure there are places we could cut but it is going to be a pain to figure out. I would even wager that the ones hit the hardest would be the army and reserves.

 

[aesop081]

How about Ontario which has 4?

That is an unfair comment and does not reflect reality.

1 Wing is located in Kingston and is only the HQ for units located at other bases around the country.
16 Wing is located in Borden and is thus not a base in its own right.

Newfoundland 1, Labradour 1 and Nova Scotia has 2. Couldn't some be co-located instead of scattered around?

Newfoundland.......Goose bay is a political sacred cow and any effort to close 9 Wing will be met with political atom bombs courtesy of the Cougar crash. 12 Wing is located close to the fleet it supports, as it should, on both coasts.

on looking closer it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways.

You need to look closer.....much closer.

I do wonder though do we really need to have 15 Wing Moose jaw?

Where else would you like that kind of training to be held ? Closer to large populated centers ? Closer to very high density airspace that imposes more restrictions ? On an operational base where that many movements a day would clash with operational flying ?

 

[dimsum]

For example NS with 2 - on looking closer it turns out 14 Wing Greenwood is a sovereignty and surveillance missions location - Auroras - large planes needing run ways. 

....like the runways an hour down the road at Halifax International Airport? 

 

[jollyjacktar]

12 Wing is located close to the fleet it supports, as it should, on both coasts.

[/quote]

And at any rate, Shearwater has not been a base of it's own accord since 96.  It was raped, downsized and almagamated into CFB Halifax and is just a lodger unit now for all intents and purposes.  Both Shearwater and Pat Bay are as CDN Aviator said right where they should be.

....like the runways an hour down the road at Halifax International Airport? 

Sure they have nice long runways.  But there is not the space an operation like that would need at Stanfield International.  How much of a savings would be realized after you purpose build all the hangars etc needed?  That would be so very penny wise, and mega dollar stupid.

I believe they have pretty well cut the CF, base wise, down damn near as far as they could go with respect to sites that are actually used.  ie: Petawawa, Gagetown, Cold Late etc.  They have in the past given away land and property for SFA and could have/should have sold them for fair market value.  ie: Jerrico Beach, Calgary etc.  That would have been a source of cash infusion.  There are still locales that DND have possession of and do not use, they should look there first if they want to save bucks.

 

[dapaterson]

I believe they have pretty well cut the CF, base wise, down damn near as far as they could go with respect to sites that are actually used.  ie: Petawawa, Gagetown, Cold Late etc.  They have in the past given away land and property for SFA and could have/should have sold them for fair market value.  ie: Jerrico Beach, Calgary etc.  That would have been a source of cash infusion.  There are still locales that DND have possession of and do not use, they should look there first if they want to save bucks.

You know nothing of federal real property management or disposition rules.  Surplus property does not belong to DND/CF, it belongs to the Crown. The Crown has an agency charged with disposition of surplus land and buildings; sometimes assets are transferred to other departments, sometimes there is Political interest and other arrangements are made, and sometimes they are sold and proceeds are shared with the original operating department.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yup, I'll admit.  Crown asset disposal machinations is not my area of expertise.  I agree, everything ultimately belongs to the crown and the various departments that make up said entity have different parts to play in the system.  But, I do know of situations where money was thrown down the well with respect to property.  And money thrown down the well, however well the original intention or property management is money lost to the budget of whichever department it belongs to.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? 

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has proven that he is good at misdirection, rhetoric and personal insults. What he is not so good at is giving straight answers. The minister hurls accusations of fearmongering, but the biggest source of fearmongering is the minister's refusal to clear the air on base closures. The minister is the only who can put military families and their communities at ease. Will he please stand in his place and assure military base communities that they have nothing to fear?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, me thinks he doth protest too much. When it comes to fearmongering, he is referring to a report that was late. The October 2011 departmental directive, which he is referring to, does not speak of base closures. What does reference in an accompanying news article is a Liberal senator musing about base closures. The only person who is causing alarm in the military community, their families and in the country and misleading Canadians about base closures is the member opposite.

Christopherson:  Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the directive to which the minister refers. It says: "We will also reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating Defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites." Again, does this mean base closures, yes or no? 

MacKay: Mr. Speaker, sound and fury signifying nothing. Let me be clear about what the NDP members are up to, and we have seen this before. It is an old opposition tactic. Create a crisis, panic people, put fearmongering out there among military families and then when it does not happen, claim credit. That is what they are up to. The member opposite is simply trying to create a crisis that does not exist. The NDP does not support the military, it does not support the investments and that is unfortunate.

 

[DCRabbit]

Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

I think the NDP is nervous cos it'll be Quebec's turn to bear the brunt of it this time. Everything in Ontario is safe.. Politics... politics..

 

[dapaterson]

Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on potential base closures:  wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

I believe this is what you meant to post:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think the NDP is nervous cos it'll be Quebec's turn to bear the brunt of it this time. Everything in Ontario is safe.. Politics... politics..

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.

What is really left in Quebec now? Three bases.

CFB Montreal, which includes mostly the largest most modern Depot of the supply branch - the only one in Canada with access to main rail lines, air cargo airports and an important ocean harbour - and the training base for all basic and leadership including field facilities modern and up to date at Farnham. Can anybody see any of this moving in a money saving move?

CFB Valcartier: Anybody wants to tell the vandoos they are moving?

CFB Bagotville: Anybody can see any savings in trying to relocate on third of our jet fighters and all their support to another location (and explaining to the Americans why the air defence of half of North America has to be re-planned and redesigned.

 

[DCRabbit]

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.

What is really left in Quebec now? Three bases.

CFB Montreal, which includes mostly the largest most modern Depot of the supply branch - the only one in Canada with access to main rail lines, air cargo airports and an important ocean harbour - and the training base for all basic and leadership including field facilities modern and up to date at Farnham. Can anybody see any of this moving in a money saving move?

CFB Valcartier: Anybody wants to tell the vandoos they are moving?

CFB Bagotville: Anybody can see any savings in trying to relocate on third of our jet fighters and all their support to another location (and explaining to the Americans why the air defence of half of North America has to be re-planned and redesigned.

Major bases? No.. but armouries and smaller stuff yes. Whatever's cheap to clean and can be sold for money. CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property. CPCs are gonna look to punish Quebec. It may not be practical or make sense.. but it's politics. Politics rarely does..

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Major bases? No.. but armouries and smaller stuff yes. Whatever's cheap to clean and can be sold for money. CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property. CPCs are gonna look to punish Quebec. It may not be practical or make sense.. but it's politics. Politics rarely does..

:Tin-Foil-Hat: :rofl: :facepalm: :sarcasm: k:

Sorry. Couldn't decide which one was most appropriate. Pray, tell how you came to such a conclusion.

 

[2010newbie]

CFLRS would bring a big chunk of change cos it's riverfront property.

I did not go to CMR St. Jean while at CFLRS, but I believe it is on the river, not CFLRS. CFLRS is approximately 2.5 km from the river.