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

Cabinet to decide navy deployment, O'Connor says

RL206

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Cabinet to decide navy deployment, O'Connor says
Canadian Press

Quebec — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the federal cabinet as a whole will have to decide whether it wants the Canadian Navy intercepting illicit North Korean cargo.

There has been no formal request from the United States so far for such a mission, he told reporters on Friday after speaking at the NATO Parliamentary Association meeting in Quebec City.

But Mr. O'Connor qualified his remarks by saying he has been out of the office all week on a speaking tour to drum up support for the Afghanistan mission.

"What we'd have to look at is the size of the [deployment] and how to sustain it," he said.

The Globe and Mail reported Friday that U.S. and Canadian officials have discussed naval co-operation as a way to counter North Korea's nuclear program.

The Conservative government apparently agrees in principle with the project, but Ottawa has not announced the deployment of ships.

North Korea exploded an atomic warhead last month, raising fears the cash-starved regime might try to sell nuclear material to terrorist groups.

The UN Security Council has authorized the interception of ships to or from North Korea to look for material that can be used in nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials say Canada has more than a dozen modern frigates and other warships that could help track cargo vessels suspected of carrying illegal weapons.

Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay scolded North Korean leaders and said Canada was prepared to stand with its allies to enforce United Nations sanctions against the isolated Communist state.

Ottawa has a "direct interest" in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons material in the Pacific Rim, he said on Oct. 15.

But Mr. MacKay stopped short of committing the Canadian navy.

A defence analyst and former admiral has warned that while its ships are relatively new, the navy does not have enough of them to maintain separate deployments in different parts of the world.

Fred Crickard, a former rear admiral and author of several scholarly papers on naval strategy, said Canada would likely have to end its support of the U.S.-led war on terror in the Arabian Sea.

The biggest hurdle in taking on mission interdiction off Korea is the navy's lack of a supply ship. The only West Coast-based replenishment vessel is in dry dock undergoing an overhaul and is not scheduled to be back in the water until early next year.

 
A link - http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/061117/n1117113A.html
 
Big hurdle?  No supply ship?

Am I missing something, last time I checked we had ALLIES......... We also have the Ottawa in the gulf with no Canadian supply ship to send the Lucky over


 
Ahem... you are forgetting us here on the East coast.  We have the tasking to respond and deploy to on either coast including the Far East, until our sister is out of the yard and back on her feet.
 
Question: If a ship is on the East Coast, how does it respond to the West Coast Incidents? VIA?
 
GAP said:
Question: If a ship is on the East Coast, how does it respond to the West Coast Incidents? VIA?

If some crisis were to arise that required the capabilites of a Supply Ship (ie. humanitarian crisis, UN mission East Timor, ect etc) the East Coast could be tasked to step up to the plate and deploy.  They would transit I am sure by the most direct route as required by the mission.  The Panama Canal is not too far away and gets one into the Pacific faster than any other route from Halifax. 

Once the West Coast has their Supply Ship back up and running they I am sure will take care of that side of the back yard.  This stuff happens all the time.  The West Coast is taking up the strain of deploying to the Gulf at present.  I am sure that in time the wheel will go around and we on the East Coast will see our turn come again.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Ahem... you are forgetting us here on the East coast.  We have the tasking to respond and deploy to on either coast including the Far East, until our sister is out of the yard and back on her feet.

Heck no I didn't forget the east coast!  I am well aware of the contingency task group, high readiness ships, we always have a TG ready to go.

Deploying Preserver to NK would be feasible, but think about it, that would mean that both coasts would be without tanker support, the point I was trying to make was that we can send ships without tankers.  If the ships are there on a UN mandate there would be allies there to support each other, the Japanese/Yanks would be able to provide us with tanker support, and if that wasn't possible there are many ports in that region in which we could pull up and get fuel/stores.
 
Can the Navy do both the Gulf and NK deployments (tanker issue aside)?
 
If the countries that are in the immediate vicinty feel no compelling reason to undertake these tasks, why should we? What is Canada's strategic interest in NK? Next to nothing, or at least it is so slight it is not worth the cost of the effort.

What can we in the West add of value that the Indian, Chinese, Japanese, South Korean or Singapore navies don't already possess? It is their monster in their closet- deal with it - we're busy.  In any event, if things get too far out of hand, Japan will slap them down. They hate Koreans, they see them as less than equal in the Asian race, and will not be prepared to be threatened any further. Politically incorrect, but that's a fact.

This proposed deployment of Canadian assets would likely have no increased deterrent effect on North Korea and it would be a useless and inefficient use of dwindling Canadian Navy resources.

It would, however, provide yet another deployment for the anti-US crowd in Canada to pile on the Harper government.   

 
Sadly we are a shadow of our former selves nowadays.  I would think that it would be difficult to burn the candle at both ends right now.  At one time we would have had the personnel and equipement to sufficent to cover all the bases.

Don't worry Sub_Guy, I am sure that you did not forget about us here on the East Coast.  We send CPF's and 280's away all the time without having a Supply Ship tag along.  But if push came to shove, they would task a Supply Ship if needed for whatever the mission even if it meant there was not one available in home waters for a period of time.  But then, that is for the really big guns to decide.  Not a pip squeek like me.
 
This could be a good oportunity for a CP-140 deployement to Japan methinks.....
 
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...
 
cdnaviator said:
This could be a good oportunity for a CP-140 deployement to Japan methinks.....
I'm neither Navy nor AirFroce -- but to me -- this appears to be the more effective and cheaper method -- without the "showing the flag" of the surface fleet (for good or for bad)
 
Infidel-6 said:
I'm neither Navy nor AirFroce -- but to me -- this appears to be the more effective and cheaper method -- without the "showing the flag" of the surface fleet (for good or for bad)

Interesting way of looking at it. I was thinking more of "where the fleet goes , we go" but i think you have a point.
 
Although nothing shows a nations resolve more then warships off the coast.
 
warspite said:
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 would think that almost all of new project funding for the navy would be for the new ships we have on the way.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Although nothing shows a nations resolve more then warships off the coast.

This is true....would be even more so if we could fire TLAM or something
 
Yup....you guys disable the bad guys and we board and search. Works for me.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Yup....you guys disable the bad guys and we board and search. Works for me.

You would almost think there is still a role in this world of ours for Ship / MPA co-op ?
 
Back
Top