Base closures?

[PPCLI Guy]

We need to close bases, while retaining training areas.  Shilo = training area, not base.  Edmonton = closed, Suffield = training area and base.  You get the drift.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

We need to close bases, while retaining training areas.  Shilo = training area, not base.  Edmonton = closed, Suffield = training area and base.  You get the drift.

I would be interested to see a cost analysis of the costs of building the infrastructure in Suffield to support 1 CMBG taking into accounts the costs of losing the Brits compared to the costs of 1 CMBG complete locating in Edmonton and doing collective training events in Shilo/Suffield/Wainwright. I suspect it would be pretty close as closing Edmonton would equal no more PLD and movement costs for training. However, moving everyone to Suffield, which is an ISOLATED posting would also be expensive and I dont think would save on the PLD costs. Plus, I would be curious as to what the VR rate in 1 CMBG would look like. I would absolutely love to say that 1 CMBG should merge in Suffield, but I suspect that the morale, welfare, and costs associated would make it more logical to move everyone to Edmonton which has the infrastructure.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Where are all the families going to live that move to Suffield?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Where are all the families going to live that move to Suffield?

Extremely valid point. Suffield has absolutely zero life support. The nearest town is Medicine Hat, 45 minutes away, and Ralston is a perfect storm of trailors and PMQs. This is not a valid option. As mentioned, I think Edmonton is the only valid option while keeping Shilo/Suffield/Dundurn/Wainwright as training bases. Considering 2 CMBG has a choice of Pet/Borden/Meaford and 5 CMBG has a choice of Valcartier/Gagetown, 1 CMBG is looking pretty good. I could argue sending 1 CMBG to Gagetown and leaving the west but there is literally zero chance of that. In this context, I would close Borden too and move CFLTC and the REME school to Gagetown (better training there) and the remainder to either Winnipeg or Kingston.

 

[Infanteer]

Most people I know posted to Suffield live in Medicine Hat and find it quite nice.  It's bigger than Brandon or Wainwright.

But, I think the real answer lies here.

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.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Are LAVS and tanks located in Wainwright now for 1VP and the Strats. If not what are the costs to convoy every time?

 

[Old Sweat]

i'm really not sure the savings would come from base closings, especially if training/impact areas are involved. Closures create the impression of creating savings, but I ain't really sure. After a base is closed, how many of the positions in the base infrastructure disappear as opposed to going elsewhere? Offsets for empire building elsewhere aren't savings.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would close the following:

Goose Bay (close 444Sqn)
Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)
Borden (move the schools, sell the PMQ side, keep the trg area)
North Bay (move everything there to Bagotville or Cold Lake)
Winnipeg (move the schools to Trenton or Moose Jaw. Move 435 Sqn to Cold Lake)
Portage (move 3 CFFTS to Moose Jaw)
Shilo (move the units to Edmonton, keep the trg area)
Wainwright (kill CMTC, but keep the trg area)

How did I do?

 

[dimsum]

Gander (keep 103 Sqn there- just no base)

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Isn't the old joke that if there is large infrastructure building going on, that means the base is being closed?

CFB Summerside saw a $11 million (at late '80s dollar values) built immediately before it was closed. 

Also, I'd keep that suggestion of MH going to Greenwood/Comox quiet - you'd get lynched by those who are used to Victoria and scoff at Halifax! 

I think I can say it over and over and loudly because it will never happen.  8)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would close the following:

Winnipeg (move the schools to Trenton or Moose Jaw. Move 435 Sqn to Cold Lake)

I think 402/1 CFFTS would be better situated at 14 Wing. 

- Gonzo would 'move' to a 404 asset; all trg would fall under 404 for pre-Wings.  There is one less Sqn to pay the overhead for.

- remove Gonzo flying from the AESOP training; all flights in the PCT and OMS.  This would help the ACSO courses as well I am assuming.

- move AESOP OFP / Wings to post-MOAT/OTU.  The BAQC+ would lead right to MOAT/OTU. 

- MH types could then be APd to 406 for OTU.  Should be less travel costs for things like BPAAC as well.

- remove posting restrictions at "Point X" in the trg (there is talk about the QL3 qual for AESOP being granted after a certain point of the proposed BAQC+ course that may replace BAQC and IAQC).  People would be happier IMO if they could bring their D HG & E along for the long ride.  There should be some point in the ACSO course this could happen a well.  CFSCE does it for 226ers, or they used to, sometime between the start of POET and the QL3.  Payoff?  Happier people with a better GAFF.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What about Aldershot

 

[BinRat55]

The only concern with closing 9 Wing / North Bay would be the Comms... Gander is the DEW line with the soccerball and so is North Bay... with Arctic sovereignty starting to come to the forefront, they may not even consider 5 Wing as well...

 

[George Wallace]

....... and Suffield is leased to the British and a source of major income.

Bergen-Hohne was 'owned' by the British, only being returned to the Germans this past year, and was used by all NATO nations for training, so that argument is moot.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The only concern with closing 9 Wing / North Bay would be the Comms... Gander is the DEW line with the soccerball and so is North Bay... with Arctic sovereignty starting to come to the forefront, they may not even consider 5 Wing as well...

Binrat- I am talking about closing the base. The radars stay. (There are lots of places like that already in Canada).

EITS- I could get behind a move of 402 Sqn to either Greenwood or Comox. Both have merits.

Training area is a precious resource. We are never going to get more of it in Canada. Keep all the trg areas. The "base side" just may get smaller.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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).

 

[Infanteer]

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?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

This said, and please pardon my ignorance of Air Force matters, could someone explain to me how moving the MH squadrons from Shearwater to Greenwood and Pat Bay to Comox would make sense and be considered "base closures"?

I mean: What is the point of having to fly 120 kms (Greenwood) or 180 kms (Comox) for the helicopters every time, just to join or return from the ship you are attached to? Moreover, is that convenient for the technical personnel of the Air Dets to have to drive to and fro from Comox to Esquimalt or Greenwood to Halifax every time they are deployed or return from deployment?

Finally, since Pat Bay and Shearwater already are part of CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax anyway, and those bases will not close as a result of such move, how would such a move be anything but simply moving around the same number of people, equipment structure and expenses without simplifying the overall CF administration one iota?

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: 

 

[jollyjacktar]

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?

That makes perfect sense and will be easier on the life cycle of the equipment as well.