GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,114
- Points
- 1,160
If the Kingston's still have that much life in them and serve useful peacetime roles then who says we need to get rid of them when we get whatever replaces them? Tie them up and use them when appropriate and use the Rivers/AOPS/Kingston-replacements when appropriate. Nothing says we have to get rid of what we can't fully man at a given time.
15 x CSC's
12 x Kingston-replacement Corvettes
6 x AOPS
12 x MCDV's
12 x Subs
Those are the ships you have available. They are the tools in the shed. Put to sea the ones you need at the time with the personnel you have available. It's like deploying Infantry in a LAV, TAPV, BvS10, G-Wagon, CH-147 or RHIB depending on the situation.
Of course we should strive to increase our available personnel to be able to equip as much of the fleet as possible, but that can be worked on over time.
Why are we as a military/government/country so damned closed minded in our thinking?
15 x CSC's
12 x Kingston-replacement Corvettes
6 x AOPS
12 x MCDV's
12 x Subs
Those are the ships you have available. They are the tools in the shed. Put to sea the ones you need at the time with the personnel you have available. It's like deploying Infantry in a LAV, TAPV, BvS10, G-Wagon, CH-147 or RHIB depending on the situation.
Of course we should strive to increase our available personnel to be able to equip as much of the fleet as possible, but that can be worked on over time.
Why are we as a military/government/country so damned closed minded in our thinking?