FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,953
- Points
- 1,160
Never. Sell. Land. . . . Ever.But what about all the really expensive bases, and other infrastructure/ overhead, we've built across the country to bribe the locals with federal pork?![]()
![Clinking beer mugs :beers: 🍻](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f37b.png)
Never. Sell. Land. . . . Ever.But what about all the really expensive bases, and other infrastructure/ overhead, we've built across the country to bribe the locals with federal pork?![]()
Seriously, as I said, I've toyed with the reduction of the full-time army by 30% and moved another 30% into urban centres as 30/70 units for increasing/enabling the part-time force.But what about all the really expensive bases, and other infrastructure/ overhead, we've built across the country to bribe the locals with federal pork?![]()
We aren’t getting any more ranges and training areas, ever.Seriously, as I said, I've toyed with the reduction of the full-time army by 30% and moved another 30% into urban centres as 30/70 units for increasing/enabling the part-time force.
That still required keeping all the same bases albeit some functioned at lower capacities.
Keeping all the ranges is a given. The base infrastructure is for the most part also required albeit much of it needs repurposing to logistics functions and as temporary accommodation for visiting training forces or schools.
The savings come from pay envelopes and not infrastructure.
![]()
Never. Sell. Land. . . . Ever.
![]()
Seriously, as I said, I've toyed with the reduction of the full-time army by 30% and moved another 30% into urban centres as 30/70 units for increasing/enabling the part-time force.
That still required keeping all the same bases albeit some functioned at lower capacities.
Keeping all the ranges is a given. The base infrastructure is for the most part also required albeit much of it needs repurposing to logistics functions and as temporary accommodation for visiting training forces or schools.
The savings come from pay envelopes and not infrastructure. Just as an example, I ran it through the CBO Interactive Force Structure tool and the cost savings of converting an active army SBCT to a ARNG SBCT saves approximately $2 billion per years. It also reduces the force size by 2,000. The number of active army to ARNG is a numbers wash so the reductions come from overhead personnel requirements needed to support active army troops.
![]()
Summerside????
That was before I was in, but from hearing folks who were posted there, then Greenwood, many preferred Greenwood.I thought it was considered more desirable than other bases that were kept. But I could be out to lunch.![]()
St Charles Range just outside Winnipeg - its very close to the city. I am somewhat surprised it hasn't been put on the chopping block. After all what does the RCAF need a SA range for?We aren’t getting any more ranges and training areas, ever.
What we have, is what we have. Don’t sell training areas…
Don't forget Bermuda.The biggest mistake of the CAF’s cuts in the 90’s was closing all those bases then selling them to various organizations for a dollar, if that. Many, if not most, were in places that would have helped with retention (Calgary, Chilliwack, Winnipeg, Toronto, Summerside, etc.).
To remind ourselves why we joined the RCAF.. After all what does the RCAF need a SA range for?![]()
TrueWhen it comes to PR's this isn't a bad thing.
it shouldn't take that long...
For CA/US systems, yes. But information sharing isn't always that simple when some more closed societies are involved.True
But when an applicant isn't a PR, it is a bad thing.
Most of the security clearance checks are automated now, so unless someone has a million things flag, it shouldn't take that long...
We could open recruiting up to some of those one million international students we got.
Have you ever had to consult foreign intelligence services because Bob spent a month overseas? That's fairly routine - and those checks are usually not a priority for the foreign services. There are delays which can be mitigated and reduced, but not all are under the control of the CAF or GoC.True
But when an applicant isn't a PR, it is a bad thing.
Most of the security clearance checks are automated now, so unless someone has a million things flag, it shouldn't take that long...
Have you ever had to consult foreign intelligence services because Bob spent a month overseas? That's fairly routine - and those checks are usually not a priority for the foreign services. There are delays which can be mitigated and reduced, but not all are under the control of the CAF or GoC.
And I assume they upstaffed the 'background checking department' to help out with this new flood of PR applicants? Or not...