CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[MJP]

I agree, I think Op KINETIC in 99 mounted out of Edmonton by rail.
Smarter than me log types have told me that even the civilian yards in Edmonton now lack the ability.
I’m skeptical still but maybe there is truly no ability to load by rail in Edmonton and the G4 Tn folks were right.

I have my doubts on that one, industry still loads machinery on rails there give the proximity of the O&G sector. Happy to be wrong but a railhead isn't some over complicated beast of infrastructure that a major rail hub like Edmonton wouldn't have the ability

Imagine if they had an airstrip capable of landing a C-17...

Like YEG? Cold Lake?

Does Val or Pet have airstrips that can accommodate a C-17? No, but they have airfields close by that can serve the same purpose. It might have been nice to keep that runway going but we are almost 30 years past that decision and it isn't gonna happen.

 

[KevinB]

Like YEG? Cold Lake?

Does Val or Pet have airstrips that can accommodate a C-17? No, but they have airfields close by that can serve the same purpose. It might have been nice to keep that runway going but we are almost 30 years past that decision and it isn't gonna happen.

Makes one wonder why none of the three major Army bases don’t have them though.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Like YEG? Cold Lake?

Still requires a large amount of GLOC coordination to get to either of those locations, including a lot of CIMIC Coordination

Does Val or Pet have airstrips that can accommodate a C-17? No, but they have airfields close by that can serve the same purpose.

Same issue as mentioned above. Uplands was closer to Pet than Trenton, but now here we are with the same issue. Val is another issue all on it's own.

It might have been nice to keep that runway going but we are almost 30 years past that decision and it isn't gonna happen.

I agree, it was more a commentary on how tactical, "pennywise, pound foolish" decisions have long lasting strategic consequences.

A Mech Bde with Heavy assets won't ever have a need to move them anywhere outside their own garrison, right?.....RIGHT?

 

[captloadie]

Makes one wonder why none of the three major Army bases don’t have them though.

Because the infrastructure cost to recap them is so high there is no way the Army is going to prioritize them on their wish list. It is hard enough to get ADM(IE) to prioritize the funding to recap RCAF runways. And besides, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Quebec City all have large airports to accomodate.

 

[MJP]

Makes one wonder why none of the three major Army bases don’t have them though.

The most salient reason is likely exactly what @captloadie posted. With only TACHEL at the bases why would the RCAF utilize resources to maintain airheads that would see significantly less usage and could be serve well by other options?

 

[childs56]

The army wants to ship 15 tanks across the country quickly. Calls railway asks for availible space. Informed it will take one to three months to ship 15 cars east. (The military does not ship enough to make the railway jump for them).
Army we need them there next week.
Trucking company we can haul them next week, just need permits.
Army send.

We tried to ship 4 large trucks and trailers a few years ago by rail. We were told it would be up to three months before they arrived.
We hired a private company to deliver the trucks and trailers. Hindsight they ran into one of the low bridges in Vancouver and caused a pile of damaged. Should have waited to ship by rail we had to wait 6 months to fix the trailer that hit the bridge.

 

[Quirky]

We hired a private company to deliver the trucks and trailers.

Army doesn't have trucks and trailers for tanks and large vehicles?

 

[markppcli]

Army doesn't have trucks and trailers for tanks and large vehicles?

We do

 

[dapaterson]

The most salient reason is likely exactly what @captloadie posted. With only TACHEL at the bases why would the RCAF utilize resources to maintain airheads that would see significantly less usage and could be serve well by other options?

By daily number of air movements, Petawawa is one of the RCAF's busiest bases...

 

[Fabius]

Army doesn't have trucks and trailers for tanks and large vehicles?

We do but I think its a total of 4 that can move MBT weight vehicles.

Edited.
My initial guess of 4 was slightly wrong its actually about dozen AHSVS HETTs spread across the country as per wikipedia. The bigger issue for military lift is the acquisition of provincial move permits. Interestingly if we want to move the LEOs via road there are some pretty big restrictions in terms of provincial road weight restrictions during the Spring season.
I would assume all 12 AHVS Tank haulers will be deployed to Latvia as well.

 

[KevinB]

Because the infrastructure cost to recap them is so high there is no way the Army is going to prioritize them on their wish list. It is hard enough to get ADM(IE) to prioritize the funding to recap RCAF runways. And besides, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Quebec City all have large airports to accomodate.

The most salient reason is likely exactly what @captloadie posted. With only TACHEL at the bases why would the RCAF utilize resources to maintain airheads that would see significantly less usage and could be serve well by other options?

Who’s have thought maintaining Military capabilities would be expensive…

Outside of the small town Coy positions of the ARNG or USAR, nearly all facilities down here have an air head.

- it’s odd as one of the reasons that the move to Edmonton was promoted from Calgary was the airfield. Which was already planned to be used for base buildings.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Who’s have thought maintaining Military capabilities would be expensive…

Outside of the small town Coy positions of the ARNG or USAR, nearly all facilities down here have an air head.

- it’s odd as one of the reasons that the move to Edmonton was promoted from Calgary was the airfield. Which was already planned to be used for base buildings.

While speculation and repetition of incorrect facts on "social media" was not one of the problems faced back in the 1990s, there was just as much (relative to the ability to communicate) bullshit about the move to Edmonton. The transfer out of the flying squadrons and closure (downsizing/restructure?) of Edmonton was announced with the February1994 Federal Budget; Calgary didn't meet it's fate until the February 1995 budget. I sure that some "thought" the really long piece of concrete would have a place in Edmonton future, but soon after the announcement as we planned the move North, it was quite clear that the airfield was not, and never had been, a factor in future plans.

There was a lot of criticism in Calgary media at the time and as much as the decision to close the base had a political element, so too was the opposition.

From the 2 April 1995 Calgary Herald, this snippet has a brief description of the timeline.



Prior to my posting to Calgary in 1994, I had been in Germany. When my future boss was informed what I had been doing in my last few postings (closing 4 Fd Amb. closing CFB Baden, closing CFB Lahr), he was very indignant with the Adjt (a friend of mine) and made the comment "if he thinks that he's going to close Calgary, he has another think coming".

 

[childs56]

Army doesn't have trucks and trailers for tanks and large vehicles?

Premay, Totran, Myshak, are three of hundreds of companies close to or in Edmonton who can haul tanks around. More wheels required during road bans. But DND has exemptions for this.

 

[KevinB]

Premay, Totran, Myshak, are three of hundreds of companies close to or in Edmonton who can haul tanks around. More wheels required during road bans. But DND has exemptions for this.

I think ‘can’ is a rather optimistic word.
Last time I looked moving AFV’s takes more than just a truck and low bed.

 

[childs56]

I think ‘can’ is a rather optimistic word.
Last time I looked moving AFV’s takes more than just a truck and low bed.

Lots of expieranced people and suitable equipment in Alberta to transport our tanks across the country safely and efficiently.
Just because they usually don't does not mean they can't.

 

[Spencer100]

Lots of expieranced people and suitable equipment in Alberta to transport our tanks across the country safely and efficiently.
Just because they usually don't does not mean they can't.

And probably don't want too...lol

The pain you have to go though to supply the government. The juice is just not worth it for most.

CAF is a low volume very high touch customer.

 

[childs56]

I think ‘can’ is a rather optimistic word.
Last time I looked moving AFV’s takes more than just a truck and low bed.

I didn't know DFI transported other equipment. Looks to me all the did in 2012 was use a tri drive tractor, 8 wheel jeep and 24wheel trailer. 4 chains and away they went. Video to prove it. Currently in Alberta right now there is at least 200-500 setups like this. And permits

 

[KevinB]

I didn't know DFI transported other equipment. Looks to me all the did in 2012 was use a tri drive tractor, 8 wheel jeep and 24wheel trailer. 4 chains and away they went. Video to prove it. Currently in Alberta right now there is at least 200-500 setups like this.

Again you miss the larger issues.

Controlled Goods Regulations

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Just because a company may be physically able to do something, doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do so.

 

[childs56]

Again you miss the larger issues.

Controlled Goods Regulations

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Just because a company may be physically able to do something, doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do so.

How would you figure they are not legally allowed to do transport this?

Again you miss the larger issues.

Controlled Goods Regulations

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Just because a company may be physically able to do something, doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do so.

There are a few people/ companies I know who are legally allowed to transport those sealed trailers no one is allowed to open enroute. They have GPS trackers, specific routes and often security teams escorting them.
In some of their contracts they have to drive specific type and style of tractor and or a specific style trailer. Which often limits who will bid those contracts.
Thousands if not tens of thousand of workers across the country have security clearances for working with, on, manufacturing and transporting sensitive military products.
Transporting a tank down the highway I am sure can be handled without to much getting in the way

 

[KevinB]

How would you figure they are not legally allowed to do transport this?

There are a few people/ companies I know who are legally allowed to transport those sealed trailers no one is allowed to open enroute. They have GPS trackers, specific routes and often security teams escorting them.
In some of their contracts they have to drive specific type and style of tractor and or a specific style trailer. Which often limits who will bid those contracts.

So from Hundreds in Edmonton to a few across Canada…

Thousands if not tens of thousand of workers across the country have security clearances for working with, on, manufacturing and transporting sensitive military products.
Transporting a tank down the highway I am sure can be handled without to much getting in the way

You already answered it above.