Cabinet to decide navy deployment, O'Connor says

[andpro]

Could the government possibly use this as an excuse for increasing the funding for the Navy.....?
Not saying their going to, just asking could they...

I don't think so, they're already spending lots of money on Afghanistan, they would just run into more criticism. Throwing money at the problem will not immediately reduce the strain on the navy, it takes time. As much as I would like to see this mission taken up I don't think it's feesable right now for the reasons already stated.

edit:

I would think that almost all of new project funding for the navy would be for the new ships we have on the way.

very good point

 

[honestyrules]

I'm no Navy expert, but with with trigger happy Kim around and the Navy they got in North Korea...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/navy.htm

It seems to me that it's a hornet's nest...
Then what is the exact proposal? How many ships could be sent and who's there right now? Is there a carrier battle group in the area?

 

[GAP]

All this chatter is very well, but has anybody listened to the news? South Korea has rejected participating in the search of NK ships....uh...I dunno about you, but if SK is not in, why are we getting all excited about it?

 

[aesop081]

All this chatter is very well, but has anybody listened to the news? South Korea has rejected participating in the search of NK ships....uh...I dunno about you, but if SK is not in, why are we getting all excited about it?

i saw that too.......but discussion on this isnt a bad idea IMHO.  call it contingency planning

 

[Roadracer]

There are a number of issues driving where/when/how the navy can make commitments:

1. Force disposition:
East coast = 2 x Iroquois class, 7 x Halifax class, 1 x AOR,  3 x Victoria class, 6 x MCDV. Total = 19
West coast = 1 x Iroquois class, 5 x Halifax class, 1 x AOR, 1 x Victoria class, 6 x MCDV. Total = 14

2. Allied commitments:
East coast = 1 ship always committed to NATO's Standing Naval Maritime Group. Hence the extra frigates as this duty rotates 2 - 3 times a year. Every 6 years or so, Canada must provide the flagship (and staff) for this force, hence the extra destroyer. Rotating commitment to provide a frigate to a carrier battle group.
West coast = Rotating commitment to provide a frigate to a carrier battle group.

3. National commitments:
Both coasts maintain a ready duty ship to support things such as search and rescue, they also provide ships for fisheries patrols. The east coast also provides ships for northern sovereignty patrols (this summer/fall a frigate and 2 MCDV's)

4. Equipment readiness. Warships are expensive and time consuming to maintain. At any one time there is always 1 ship (or more) in some sort of work period to maintain/replace/upgrade equipment. Also, in the near future one east coast frigate will be modified to support the new Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP) and will work with the contractors to train air and support crews. In the not too distant future, the Frigate Life Extension Project (FELIX) will get underway. This will significanly extend the life span of these ships while increasing their capabilities, but will leave the navy short of hulls while underway.

As always, if the navy was told to go, the resouces would be made available. But also, as always, something else would suffer.