Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.

 

[dapaterson]

Best case a few ships 'self retire' without hurting or killing people, because the institution is too stupid to call uncle. That's basically what happened with the 280s and tankers (althought there were few career ending injuries prior to the final straws, along with a lot of people with issues from the mold).

So, you're saying it's time to ATI the Protecteur BOI?

 

[QV]

Because sailors and soldiers need positions to establish a work life balance, and those same folks need to develop trades skills that can only be attained at a level behind the Bn OR, QM ect.

For CSS folks an understanding of lines behind 1st and how they work is intimately important.

Work life balance is achieved through a proper ops tempo cycles, not shoving soldiers sailors into critical and understaffed support positions that now lack continuity becUse of regular posting cycles. They should be in rest/refit mode rather than a “shore posting”. What i suggest is no doubt radical and would lead to more troop downtime and a larger force requirement but Canada could actually make a real contribution and scale up for those critical times.

 

[Kirkhill]

The company we keep....

The welfare-addicted West is too decadent to rearm itself, let alone Ukraine​

While Russia’s might grows, Western Europe can find only pennies to spend on defence
LEWIS PAGE 5 April 2024 • 10:00am


Ukraine’s shortage of artillery shells is in the news again. A senior Ukrainian officer has pointed out the blunt truth: that the imminent arrival of F-16 fighter jets from the West will be “irrelevant” if his nation is overrun because its guns have fallen silent.
Many people will be wondering how this can possibly be. Artillery shells are not expensive things. Ukraine only needs 10,000 or so shells a day to hold the invaders back.
In the case of shells, the problem isn’t money, it’s lack of production capacity. Even the mighty USA, owner of the largest military-industrial complex in the world, can only produce 28,000 rounds of 155mm per month – less than 10pc of what Ukraine needs – and this with its factories on 24-hour operation.
The millions of shells Ukraine has already fired have mostly come from existing stockpiles, not from new production. These have not only been American stockpiles: nations all around the world – often preferring not to have their names mentioned, but happy to take Western money – have shipped their stocks of 155mm to Ukraine.
At some point, however, the cupboards will finally be bare.

Why, then, aren’t new factories being built? The short answer is that they are. This situation was understood back in 2022. The US has been building new factories since then, and they are expected to come on line later this year. Soon the US will be producing 70,000-80,000 shells per month. Other nations are ramping up too, though they did not move as quickly as the US and their production will not come as soon.
But it may not make that much sense for the West to establish a massive shell production industry able to keep Ukraine’s guns firing forever. Nothing else appearing, Ukraine will run out of men in the fairly near term. Then, regrettably, our focus would have to turn to our own defence.
Yet as the head of the RAF has lately said: “We do not want to fight this type of war.” And indeed – at least when we fight alongside the US – we don’t fight like that. Saddam Hussein’s large Soviet-equipped tank army was destroyed for almost no British losses in 2003. Our artillery fired just 9,000 155mm shells in the entire campaign.
One way or another, fairly soon after the fighting stops in Ukraine, the Russian army – even crippled – will recover and rearm itself. It will be much bigger than it was in 2022, backed by Vladimir Putin’s new Russian war economy, and battle-hardened.
On the face of it, Putin would still be mad to attack Nato. Even assuming the US withdraws from the alliance, the Russian economy is still smaller than that of Italy alone. Russia should never be able to match the military potential of the non-US Nato nations.

The rise of Russian defence spending is far outpacing that of Western democracies CREDIT: REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov
But Russian military spending is rising to 6pc of GDP. Italy’s is just 1.7pc. Russia is already approximately three times as powerful as Italy.
Then, as Napoleon put it while conquering Europe, “the moral is to the physical as three to one”. Grit is even more important than numbers. The West could easily have supplied Ukraine with the weapons to drive the Russians out of Crimea: but we have not, because we lack grit.
Advertisement

Will Putin really believe he would face serious resistance should he strike into the Suwalki Gap and cut off the Baltics for re-conquest?
There is much talk here in the UK of the need to raise defence spending, perhaps to 2.5 or even 3pc of GDP. But during the Cold War it was 4 to 5pc. The debate should actually be in those terms, and not only here either but all across Europe. Even in Estonia, on the very lip of the bear, defence spending will only hit 3pc this year.
In the democracies of Western Europe we are – to put it bluntly – so addicted to our bloated welfare states that we can find only pennies for defence. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2023-24, Britain will spend just £32bn on defence (other figures are out there, but the UK is well known for creative accounting on its defence spending claims). In total the Government will spend an almost unbelievable £1,189bn.

Nobody dares to suggest a modest 3pc haircut for the other departments so that we can double our defence budget. Yet surely anyone can see that it would be better for all the pensioners, disabled, jobless and sick people to have 97pc of what they have now, given to them by their own government, than ruin and destruction and nothing at all as a newly conquered citizen of a hostile power.
If you’re thinking “that might happen in Estonia, but not here”, think again. When the dictators have conquered continental Europe, they always start looking at us.
Even if we somehow come to our senses and double our defence budget, our welfare mindset and stagnant economy would still cripple us.
Rather than just buying ships, we would keep attempting to revive long-dead British shipyards as social regeneration projects (Harland & Wolff). Rather than just buying fighters and missiles, we’d pour money into foredoomed job-creation schemes intended to copy US technology (GCAP). Rather than just buying drones and armoured vehicles, we’d insist on well-paid jobs for ourselves and in the process completely ruin successful designs (Watchkeeper, Ajax).
As the 155mm shell situation shows us, it’s too late to start getting ready once the war has begun. We need to develop some grit and stop assuming that it’s the Government’s job to give us welfare and nice well-paid jobs.
It’s the Government’s job, first and foremost, to see to the nation’s defences.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Work life balance is achieved through a proper ops tempo cycles, not shoving soldiers sailors into critical and understaffed support positions that now lack continuity becUse of regular posting cycles. They should be in rest/refit mode rather than a “shore posting”. What i suggest is no doubt radical and would lead to more troop downtime and a larger force requirement but Canada could actually make a real contribution and scale up for those critical times.

I just want to understand your position. We should expand the CAF so that when we are not on operation/at sea/in the field ect we should be off on some form of leave ?

 

[Kirkhill]

I just want to understand your position. We should expand the CAF so that when we are not on operation/at sea/in the field ect we should be off on some form of leave ?

Right the first time. Civil servants.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Right the first time. Civil servants.

?

 

[Furniture]

?

I could be wrong, but I think his idea is that non-deployable support is provided by civil servants, and uniformed pers end up in a training/standby pool between deployments and sailing.

It makes sense, but adds a lot of cost.

ECCC employs it's weather observers/upper air sounding techs in a three month rotations. Three months in the arctic, three months off, and three month working at Stony Plain doing training and staffing the upper air sounding/climatology site(8-12hr shifts), before heading back up to the arctic(Eureka, Alert, etc.) for three months. Something like that could be done with the RCN if we wanted to keep ships sailing with a high Op tempo.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I could be wrong, but I think his idea is that non-deployable support is provided by civil servants, and uniformed pers end up in a training/standby pool between deployments and sailing.

It makes sense, but adds a lot of cost.

ECCC employs it's weather observers/upper air sounding techs in a three month rotations. Three months in the arctic, three months off, and three month working at Stony Plain doing training and staffing the upper air sounding/climatology site(8-12hr shifts), before heading back up to the arctic(Eureka, Alert, etc.) for three months. Something like that could be done with the RCN if we wanted to keep ships sailing with a high Op tempo.

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that maintainers and loggies are operating even when they are not on operations. Those guys turning wrenches at TEME, Issuing parts from BSup, Serving your food in a galley are all practicing their job. They are operating.

They are also gaining XP (for you gamers) and understanding of how the support organization works. This part of our PD. As it becomes a needed skill the higher you go.

As for the rotation. So they (The RCN) tried to do this to my ship very very recently, for our upcoming deployment in June. The reaction from the crew was just short of a revolt. These folks had taken a ship worked it up through all phases, over a year and were expecting the reward of a six month deployment at the end.

Telling them we were swapping out 1/3 of them every 2 months was not received well, to put it politely. The ringing theme was "why would I ever to do a working up program again if I can just wait around for a third or two thirds of deployment" and "F-U I'm out if you do this".

I quite literally had an S1 crying that they were going to miss 2/3rds of the deployment so someone who didn't put in the work can get the experience and cash, and that this wasn't fair.

I think the rotation idea is interesting, but I don't think it would have the desired effects people think it would. I think It would create a culture of wait until the inglorious work is done then go get dollar bills.

 

[Furniture]

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that maintainers and loggies are operating even when they are not on operations. Those guys turning wrenches at TEME, Issuing parts from BSup, Serving your food in a galley are all practicing their job. They are operating.

They are also gaining XP (for you gamers) and understanding of how the support organization works. This part of our PD. As it becomes a needed skill the higher you go.

You're aware that my job is the same right? Forecasting/briefing/observing the weather is forecasting/briefing/observing the weather, whether or not we are deployed.

As for the rotation. So they (The RCN) tried to do this to my ship very very recently, for our upcoming deployment in June. The reaction from the crew was just short of a revolt. These folks had taken a ship worked it up through all phases, over a year and were expecting the reward of a six month deployment at the end.

Telling them we were swapping out 1/3 of them every 2 months was not received well, to put it politely. The ringing theme was "why would I ever to do a working up program again if I can just wait around for a third or two thirds of deployment" and "F-U I'm out if you do this".

I simply described what ECCC does, there is no reason it couldn't be expanded to longer rotation phases, so the people doing the WUPS get the trips.

I think the rotation idea is interesting, but I don't think it would have the desired effects people think it would. I think It would create a culture of wait until the inglorious work is done then go get dollar bills.

This already exists... CMs/Costal Advisors already parachute in their picked people to get the trip check in the box, before shuffling them off to the next stop on the succession management train.

The current situation is untenable, but nobody wants to explore options to fix it. It's the most CAF thing ever.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You're aware that my job is the same right? Forecasting/briefing/observing the weather is forecasting/briefing/observing the weather, whether or not we are deployed.

Hey man just staying in my arcs.

I simply described what ECCC does, there is no reason it couldn't be expanded to longer rotation phases, so the people doing the WUPS get the trips.

As it should be. And seems is the pulse of the folks.

This already exists... CMs/Costal Advisors already parachute in their picked people to get the trip check in the box, before shuffling them off to the next stop on the succession management train.

If this is your experience, I am sorry. But it's not mine. It's not something I am hearing being bitched about either. Pickings aren't deep enough to play those kinds of games.

The current situation is untenable, but nobody wants to explore options to fix it. It's the most CAF thing ever.

The answer is to make the CAF a place people want to work and thus boost our recruiting.

 

[Rifleman62]

If you can stand hearing her voice on CBC's The House this AM. If not:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-canada-support-ukraine-us-aid-1.7164585

U.S. 'unable to step up' on Ukraine aid, leaving Canada to fill the gap, says Freeland - 6 Apr 24​

U.S. ambassador says he's confident major aid will continue to flow to Ukraine​

Freeland was responding to a question about Canada's efforts to meet NATO's military spending target for member nations — two per cent of GDP — in an interview airing Saturday on CBC's The House.

Asked whether Canada would increase spending in the forthcoming April 16 federal budget, Freeland declined to give an answer either way. She told host Catherine Cullen that Canada's per capita commitments to Ukraine — which she called "NATO's most pressing challenge" — had been very significant.

"In March, Canada sent $2 billion in urgent budget financing support to Ukraine at a time when the U.S. — and this is maybe something you could ask the U.S. ambassador about — at a time when the U.S. has been unable to step up and provide support for Ukraine. We were there to fill the gap," Freeland said, after being told U.S. Ambassador David Cohen would also appear on the program.

"Canadians can stand up tall and proud, knowing that our country is absolutely doing our part to resist Russia [and] support Ukraine, which is NATO's biggest fight," she said.

As NATO marks a milestone amid the war in Ukraine, allies are keeping an eye on a possible second Trump presidency. The House speaks to representatives of two high-ranking member countries, U.S. Ambassador David Cohen and U.K. High Commissioner Susannah Goshko, about whether the alliance can survive and why NATO continues to put pressure on Canada to meet its defence spending promises.

Canada has faced increasing pressure — from both domestic voices and some allied countries — to meet the two per cent target set by NATO countries at the alliance's Wales meeting in 2014.

"We won't get kicked out of NATO, but when you make a point at the North Atlantic Council table, your voice carries less weight because you need to put your money where your mouth is," Kerry Buck, Canada's former ambassador to NATO, told CBC News earlier this week.

U.S. bill still in limbo​

Freeland said "shenanigans in Congress" have left the U.S. unable to provide much-needed support to Ukraine as it fights to defend itself from Russian forces.

"That is a problem. Canada's support for Ukraine is not Ukraine's problem," she said.

The U.S. has struggled to pass legislation that would authorize billions of dollars in aid for Ukraine and other allies. Republicans have demanded concessions on border measures in exchange for the foreign aid.

Cohen defended the U.S. contribution to Ukraine when asked about Freeland's comments.

"'I've no desire to debate Chrystia Freeland when she isn't even here," he said in a separate interview airing Saturday on The House.

"The United States has devoted to Ukraine US$77 billion, including $44 billion in military assistance ... I'll stand on that record every day and be very proud of it."

Discussing Canada's military spending more broadly, Cohen acknowledged Canada's actions on modernizing NORAD and supporting Ukraine, and its commitment to renew its fighter fleet. He said the 2 per cent target is still important as a spending floor but the U.S. considers other factors as well.

"I've been very careful to talk about my advocacy in terms of the need for Canada to invest properly in defence, in defence preparedness, to be able to continue to increase spending. And I've been equally clear that I don't think it's fair to assess Canada's performance or commitment to defence by reference to any single metric," he said.

"Democracy can be a little ugly at times, and it can be a little cumbersome. In the end, democracy works, and I have no doubt that the United States Congress will step up and that there will be an ongoing flow of continued significant support to Ukraine from the United States."

In previous statements, Cohen has balanced praise for Canada's other military commitments with some pressure on the NATO target. He has said "the world is watching" what Canada is doing and that he "remains hopeful" the target will be met.

"I don't think Canada has any interest in being that kind of an outlier in NATO," he told CBC News in February.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't think it's Canada's place to berate the Americans on their defense spending, especially not the Liberals. The Ukraine spending may be hung up in congress, but at least the Americans have a system that provides oversight of the government spending, while in Canada, the Liberals, with the assistance of the Conservatives from time to time when they were in power, have used their majorities starting in the 1960's to modify rules of Parliament so as to eviscerate any possibility of it exercising it's proper oversight power on spending.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Hell I wouldn't want to comment anything about the U.S. Defence spending when the bulk of our own continental defence rides on it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

How many people were aware that Canada transferred 2 billion in cash to Ukraine last month and it wasn’t to fund fighting the Russians?
In the whole history of Canada, the eastern “federal” government has never spent 2 billion in total in the interior of British Columbia. That amount of money would help to start to fix an awful lot of problems here.

I’m all for taking it to Putins Reds- blow them into a pink mist for all I care- but I am totally against transferring cash to - checks notes - pay public service retiree pensions in Ukraine.

We need to remove ourselves from that war for a few years and get things straight at home first, including our own military.

 

[FJAG]

How many people were aware that Canada transferred 2 billion in cash to Ukraine last month and it wasn’t to fund fighting the Russians?
In the whole history of Canada, the eastern “federal” government has never spent 2 billion in total in the interior of British Columbia. That amount of money would help to start to fix an awful lot of problems here.

I’m all for taking it to Putins Reds- blow them into a pink mist for all I care- but I am totally against transferring cash to - checks notes - pay public service retiree pensions in Ukraine.

We need to remove ourselves from that war for a few years and get things straight at home first, including our own military.

Nope.

We need to send $2 billion of military equipment manufactured in Canada to Ukraine to use now. Ukraine can't wait "a few years." What use is cash if it doesn't benefit Canadian defence industries. We don't have many industries that do the whole system but it could easily have been 155 ammo, LAVs and light armoured vehicles. Send equipment we have now and build replacements.

 

[Cloud Cover]

“We need to send $2 billion of military equipment manufactured in Canada to Ukraine to use now. Ukraine can't wait "a few years."

If Canada actually replaced the kit, I agree. But they won’t and everybody knows it.

As for the ammunition, the hold up must be entirely ideological because by now Canada could have scaled up production of at least that. It’s totally mystifying why we have not done so when throwing so much money around.

Ukraine will be around in a couple of years and it’s the better and proper role for Europe to see to that much more aggressively than we should ever have to be - and if they don’t then that’s on Europe and not us.

Our contributions militarily to Ukraine while seemingly large to Canadians, (you of course know they are just a NATO rounding error so far), but huge in the context of what little Canada had to offer- it has now become a sacrifice and not much more than that.

I’m sorry but I’ve come to the view that we are spending far too much money on Ukraine’s needs - both military and civil- and the whole thing is so far out of balance that feds are now going to position contributions to Ukraine as part of Canadian defence spending. The CAF will never be treated with the happy largess that Ukraine receives from Ottawa and so I don’t support it at the current levels until we have things together here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Governments that express concern about Ukraine's ability to defend itself and recapture lost territory would have stepped up contributions and manufacturing capacity (weapons, ammunition) immediately if they were serious. By observation, they're not serious. No amount of wordsmithing can mask lack of action. Either governments stop posturing and talking and start doing, or just make it crystal clear to Ukraine that no more aid will be provided than is necessary to prevent further loss of territory, so that Ukraine is forced to seek terms and the fighting (and dying) stops.

 

[dimsum]

Hell I wouldn't want to comment anything about the U.S. Defence spending when the bulk of our own continental defence rides on it.

I will. Not about the amount, but the fact that US military members’ pay has to be re-approved as part of the DoD budget each year.

Never in my time in the CAF did I ask whether I would be paid that month or not. Meanwhile, I was on a deployment during the last actual govt shutdown (there have been close calls since) in 2019 when our US rider didn’t get paid for about 5-6 weeks.

ETA: TD as well. If the govt has any hint of shutdown, all TD stops in case it doesn’t get approved in time. Same with US base childcare, I think, bc it’s also paid through that budget. Basically everything seems to grinds to a halt unless operationally necessary.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So, you're saying it's time to ATI the Protecteur BOI?

There is finally a bit of sketchily 'declassified' version that is hard to find but apparently legitimately released on the DWAN, but you have to know a guy to find it. But the names were simply replaced by xxxx, so it's really hard to follow, and because it's essentially buried it's not actually being used for LL. A large part of it is stuff like this;

'xxxx directed xxxx to do something, and then xxxx reported that ....'

Understanding the flow of information and the decision making process is where we get most LLs, so that makes it somewhat useless. I like the HMAS Westralia model, where they replaced names with positions (and numbers, when there are multiple people doing the same role, like attack team leader etc). That was broadly followed by things I've seen from the HNMS Helge Ingstad, as well as marine safety incident inspections, as the names don't really matter. The USN ones tend to use names after they've identified positions, but in really big incidents means you almost need a 'cast of characters' index. Those ones are great though, and probably our primary source for real world LLs.

Once we finally saw it, we realized that a lot of the recommendations for equipment changes don't actually make sense on a modern design for an AOR, or they didn't actually make sense for the PRO, so there are systems coming on JSS that will never actually be used.

The big LL is that you just use your fitted system if it's available. The hard part is reminding people that means the fitted system has to be working beforehand, and also work remotely. Not long ago a ship found out one of their big space protection systems didn't work when it was accidentally activated, and two years ago we found out the AOPs system as delivered didn't work for the entire class for the main engine spaces. Had to actually argue with the RCN on that one that it was a 'must fix' before sailing but there was plenty of butthurt about it impacting the planned sailing. They missed the point that they had been running HDW like that for 2 years at that point. And even though flooding is a big concern, still have people saying the local valve, that is in the bilge and would be underwater, is fine and they don't need to fix the remote operation. Pretty frustrating.

All the other BOIs are still confidential and some of them are just lost, but hoping that there are some hard copies that get found in a drawer as we do some renovations and moving around. The sad thing is we've had numerous repeats of the same fires, so really more of 'lessons written down'.

Noticed that 'risk acceptance' goes up levels before it gets rubber stamped, but consequences and accountability both still roll downhill.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I will. Not about the amount, but the fact that US military members’ pay has to be re-approved as part of the DoD budget each year.

Never in my time in the CAF did I ask whether I would be paid that month or not. Meanwhile, I was on a deployment during the last actual govt shutdown (there have been close calls since) in 2019 when our US rider didn’t get paid for about 5-6 weeks.

ETA: TD as well. If the govt has any hint of shutdown, all TD stops in case it doesn’t get approved in time. Same with US base childcare, I think, bc it’s also paid through that budget. Basically everything seems to grinds to a halt unless operationally necessary.

I can agree with your points here.

I also will offer that it is far less about the DOD budget and more about how Congress approves (or doesn't) budgets at the whims of political infighting.