• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada’s military

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
Couple of factors: ample parking (free, or very inexpensive) and easy transit access.

Nice to have: patch of ground (natural vice landscaped) for low-level dry training - say, 160 acres (1/2 mile a side).
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,723
Points
1,090
Couple of factors: ample parking (free, or very inexpensive) and easy transit access.

Nice to have: patch of ground (natural vice landscaped) for low-level dry training - say, 160 acres (1/2 mile a side).
If DND can expropriate land from a farmer for a now canned project of a training facility to JTF, I bet we can expropriate a bunch of empty commercial or industrial land, demo it and build an armory up to modern standards.
 

stoker dave

Member
Reaction score
164
Points
660
I have read some references to a "CAF Reconstituting Plan" promulgated by the CDS. That plan may address some of the concerns in this thread. Apparently the plan's focus is:

  • prioritizing effort and resources on people,
  • rebuilding strength while making necessary changes to CAF culture on readiness and on modernization to develop the capabilities and
  • adapt the structure necessary to respond to evolving character of conflict and operations.


Is that plan publicly available? I suspect not as I was unable to locate it. It may need a thread dedicated to that if/when it becomes available.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,723
Points
1,090
I have read some references to a "CAF Reconstituting Plan" promulgated by the CDS. That plan may address some of the concerns in this thread. Apparently the plan's focus is:

  • prioritizing effort and resources on people,
  • rebuilding strength while making necessary changes to CAF culture on readiness and on modernization to develop the capabilities and
  • adapt the structure necessary to respond to evolving character of conflict and operations.


Is that plan publicly available? I suspect not as I was unable to locate it. It may need a thread dedicated to that if/when it becomes available.
That plan is Force 2025 and no it is not public
 

Fabius

Member
Reaction score
129
Points
580
Technically F2025 is only Army and is only tangentially related to Reconstitution.
CAF Reconstitution is all services, and all the Services and other L1 HQs are working on their plans to support Reconstitution.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,638
Points
1,040
Seems like a lot of empty words in the story that don't mean anything in particular.

On the Navy side, hope this means paying off some ships in the very near future and downsizing to a fleet we can actually crew properly, while trying to build up the training system in a sustainable way to train enough people for the incoming fleet.

What I suspect will actually happen is they will target some arbitrary cuts in some trades to get rid of 'tail', have a bunch of people take buyouts while the going is good, realize they need the tail to get things done (like complex procurements and rebuilding) and then scramble to hire the same people back via contractors at a massive premium.

Nothing rebuilds morale like the feeling of impending doom from vague policy pronouncements!

Hard to get that W when you keep scoring on your own Tendy boys, give your nuts a tug!
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
546
Points
860
Hey there's a place for my sponsorship idea! The RCR Wolseley Barracks presented by Canada Life. The HMCS Star and National Flag Ship Haida by Circle K.

One comment: the old armoury buildings of 1900's will out last the new ones built today.
Probably but that doesn’t mean their really fit to task anymore. Not that a parade square isn’t a good multi purpose facility, but they need to be built with class rooms and maintenance facilities as the for front.
 

bgc_fan

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
If DND can expropriate land from a farmer for a now canned project of a training facility to JTF, I bet we can expropriate a bunch of empty commercial or industrial land, demo it and build an armory up to modern standards.

It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,635
Points
1,090
It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.
I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere. As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them. It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,110
I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere. As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them. It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.
This all harkens back to Canada's dependency on a greater power to protect it, therefore why spend the money on military stuff? Add to that "We are peacekeepers"
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,896
Points
1,310
I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere. As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them. It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.
Hey now, our comms are somewhat modern.... mostly because we'd be punted from the FVEY community if we didn't...
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain

I imagine a thorough survey of all of the occupants - as in, people who work there - might indicate differently. Associations and non-serving mess members who meet there shouldn't get a vote.
 

bgc_fan

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere. As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them. It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.

Because it is all behind the scenes. You have it backwards. The units don't want to give up the old armouries so DND is wasting money to try to modernize them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-armoury-restoration-progress-overruns-1.6221485 Not to mention as a business case separate armouries for individual units doesn't make sense, i.e. maybe 1 or 2 nights a week you get full utilization. But that is how most of the traditional armouries work. That is quite a bit of money tied up in dead infrastructure.
There have been some successful new armoury projects like the Hoffmeister Building: B.C.’s army brigade gets new HQ — Seaforth Highlanders which is essentially a big office building but meets the needs of the units that call it home. 35 RGC in Quebec got a recent new armoury: 35 Combat Engineer Regiment Armoury - Québec - Defence Capabilities Blueprint. St-Hubert got a new one as well: Government completes new armoury at Saint-Hubert Garrison

What probably helped is that the units likely weren't housed in 1900s historical buildings , but rather in 1960s buildings that they were happy to leave.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
80
Points
330
It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.
YMMV depending on location, but there may also be a concern from some units about lost capacity. The current facility might be past the century mark, idiosyncratically plumbed, expensive to heat, riddled with messes, feel like a brick cave system, act as a Faraday cage, and be apparently held together by asbestos and black mould, but it's capacious and flexible, and you saw what happened when B Coy up the road got a new armoury: no more barracks bays or showers, smaller drill shed/covered space, and it looks like a middle school.
 

bgc_fan

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
YMMV depending on location, but there may also be a concern from some units about lost capacity. The current facility might be past the century mark, idiosyncratically plumbed, expensive to heat, riddled with messes, feel like a brick cave system, act as a Faraday cage, and be apparently held together by asbestos and black mould, but it's capacious and flexible, and you saw what happened when B Coy up the road got a new armoury: no more barracks bays or showers, smaller drill shed/covered space, and it looks like a middle school.

No offence, but you realize I have no idea who you are nor what you are talking about. B Coy can be part of any number of units so that doesn't give me anything to understand what you are talking about. Could you be more descriptive of at least the unit and the armoury in question as well as how new it is? The fact is a number of the "historic" armouries that I've seen are basically a large parade square with some offices running alongside them. Sure a parade square is a large/flexible space, but when units start parking vehicles and equipment in them, that space goes away. Plus many that I've seen have 0 showers (or maybe 1) as they were never designed to have them in the first place. As for sleeping areas, I'd say that there are minimal as the most I've seen are the few guard duty type sleeping quarters, but tell me what armoury you are talking about so I have some reference.
 

bgc_fan

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
I imagine a thorough survey of all of the occupants - as in, people who work there - might indicate differently. Associations and non-serving mess members who meet there shouldn't get a vote.

Well, you can speak with the COs and ask them. There are going to be very few who are going to jump at the chance as being known as the last CO who closed the armoury.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
B Coy can be part of any number of units so that doesn't give me anything to understand what you are talking about.

I'd guess he meant it as a generic example.

Most COs are one step away from being a non-serving member; I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.
 

bgc_fan

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
130
I'd guess he meant it as a generic example.

Most COs are one step away from being a non-serving member; I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.

Then how about CCA? I am sure there are many GOFOs who would say the same thing. Keep in mind I'm refering mainly to the older armouries, not the ones in the 1970s or so that have no historical attachment that many would gladly leave if they have the opportunity. However, trying to close out the WWII vintage armouries (which are the ones that need to be gone as they really don't meet requirements) is an uphill battle.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
This all harkens back to Canada's dependency on a greater power to protect it, therefore why spend the money on military stuff? Add to that "We are peacekeepers"
Oh THAT frustrating myth, perpetuated by literally generations of politicians who clamour on about the ‘glory days of peace keeping!’

If we commit a force of 1200 personnel to an operation, I would much rather contribute those resources to a NATO operation and a UN operation. The UN couldn’t find its way out of a paper bag, not to mention fight it’s way out.


Instead of hiding things like Medak, promote it.

Promote it as a somewhat modern example of a good vs evil story, to show what happens when the world turns a blind eye to the sheer brutality of ethnic conflict.

Instead of downplaying our operations against ISIS, promote them. People love the mystery around SOF operations & the government having no comment due to OPSEC. It again promotes the good vs evil fight that people want to believe in.

If folks are wishing we’d go back to being ‘peacekeepers’ as a source of national pride, they need to wake up to what modern peacekeeping efforts look like. I haven’t seen much progress in those theatres.

0.02
 
Top