Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Underway]

If you're talking about the 1 and 4 Alpha it's been abandoned.

There were others besides those ones.

As far as 1 and 4A being abandoned, it's not on all ships, and not for all departments. Techs like straight 12s if they can get them or 7 and 5s. You can actually fix a problem instead of turning it over to the next watch.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There were others besides those ones.

As far as 1 and 4A being abandoned, it's not on all ships, and not for all departments. Techs like straight 12s if they can get them or 7 and 5s. You can actually fix a problem instead of turning it over to the next watch.

When I was CHOD on CHA we were instructed to abandon the 1&4A and revert to the traditional watch rotations. And were told it was no more.

MSE went to 1 and 3 and the rest went to 1 and 2 or day working.

Had a big fight between OPS and MSE about Stoker's breakfast.

 

[MilEME09]

So if we want to increase quality of life of troops, and spend more.....I have a recommendation..... field bakeries, thank you France.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2068005442576416844

 

[dapaterson]

When I was CHOD on CHA we were instructed to abandon the 1&4A and revert to the traditional watch rotations. And were told it was no more.

MSE went to 1 and 3 and the rest went to 1 and 2 or day working.

Had a big fight between OPS and MSE about Stoker's breakfast.

The Navy will fight to maintain tradition above operational effectiveness almost as hard as it will fight to maintain parking privileges for seniors in Halifax.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So if we want to increase quality of life of troops, and spend more.....I have a recommendation..... field bakeries, thank you France.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2068005442576416844

Shocking.

The levels of subliminal porn are off the charts ...

It might pass the smell test but would never pass the woke test.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Navy will fight to maintain tradition above operational effectiveness almost as hard as it will fight to maintain parking privileges for seniors in Halifax.

Definitely an argument to be made, I'm just missing it's application in this context...

 

[HavokFour]

Agreement inked.

Canada solidifies agreement with Australia to buy Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar system​

Canada signs agreement with Australia to deliver early warning Arctic radar system

BAE Systems Australia will provide surveillance technology for the Far North in $2.5-billion deal

www.theglobeandmail.com

Archive

Canada advances Arctic defence on Over-the-Horizon Radar capability through partnership with Australia - Canada.ca

The Government of Canada is protecting Canadians and upholding sovereignty through investments in Arctic defence. In response to an increasingly complex global environment, the government is strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with advanced capabilities to detect threats earlier. These...

www.canada.ca

 

[Sub Standard]

When I was CHOD on CHA we were instructed to abandon the 1&4A and revert to the traditional watch rotations. And were told it was no more.

MSE went to 1 and 3 and the rest went to 1 and 2 or day working.

Had a big fight between OPS and MSE about Stoker's breakfast.

After sleep studies Submarines went to an 8 &4 1 and 2 for CSE and Ops while the MSE do a 1 in 3 with no split dogs. It does make for long stretches between meals with breakfast at 0300, dinner at 1100 and supper at 1900. the 4 hour watches are 1130 -1530 and 1530 - 1930.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I kinda thought it was about deterring totalitarian regimes but hey... what do I know

What Counts as Defence? The Case for Climate Adaptation in NATO’s 1.5% Commitment​

NATO has consistently recognized climate change as a profound security threat. Yet when Allies convened at The Hague in 2025 to commit to what is perhaps their most ambitious defence spending target in history, climate adaptation was conspicuously absent from the conversation.

The new framework targets 5% of GDP annually by 2035, introducing a new 1.5% GDP category for defence-related resilience spending whose scope remains largely undefined, raising a crucial policy question: what should count?

Given NATO’s own recognition of climate change as a direct threat to military readiness, infrastructure, and operational effectiveness, the Alliance should formally recognize climate adaptation as eligible spending within the 1.5% framework, particularly as Allies prepare for the plan’s 2029 review. Canada, as host of NATO’s Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence (CCASCOE), is institutionally well positioned to lead this push within the Alliance and would benefit strategically as an Arctic country facing growing climate-driven security threats.

An Ambiguous Spending Category

The 1.5% defence spending category remains largely open-ended and therefore offers a crucial policy opening. The Hague Declaration describes the category as ancillary, aiming to “protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.” Beyond this general language, however, NATO has provided no further guidance on what expenditures qualify – in contrast to the 3.5% requirement, which the communiqué explicitly ties to direct military planning and NATO Capability Targets.

What Counts as Defence? The Case for Climate Adaptation in NATO’s 1.5% Commitment

What should count as defence investment in an era of climate-driven insecurity? In this article, Olly Griesbach argues that NATO’s new and largely undefined 1.5% resilience spending category offers a crucial policy opening to formally recognize climate adaptation, and that Canada is uniquely...

natoassociation.ca

 

[KevinB]

I kinda thought it was about deterring totalitarian regimes but hey... what do I know

What Counts as Defence? The Case for Climate Adaptation in NATO’s 1.5% Commitment​

NATO has consistently recognized climate change as a profound security threat. Yet when Allies convened at The Hague in 2025 to commit to what is perhaps their most ambitious defence spending target in history, climate adaptation was conspicuously absent from the conversation.

The new framework targets 5% of GDP annually by 2035, introducing a new 1.5% GDP category for defence-related resilience spending whose scope remains largely undefined, raising a crucial policy question: what should count?

Given NATO’s own recognition of climate change as a direct threat to military readiness, infrastructure, and operational effectiveness, the Alliance should formally recognize climate adaptation as eligible spending within the 1.5% framework, particularly as Allies prepare for the plan’s 2029 review. Canada, as host of NATO’s Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence (CCASCOE), is institutionally well positioned to lead this push within the Alliance and would benefit strategically as an Arctic country facing growing climate-driven security threats.

An Ambiguous Spending Category

The 1.5% defence spending category remains largely open-ended and therefore offers a crucial policy opening. The Hague Declaration describes the category as ancillary, aiming to “protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.” Beyond this general language, however, NATO has provided no further guidance on what expenditures qualify – in contrast to the 3.5% requirement, which the communiqué explicitly ties to direct military planning and NATO Capability Targets.

What Counts as Defence? The Case for Climate Adaptation in NATO’s 1.5% Commitment

What should count as defence investment in an era of climate-driven insecurity? In this article, Olly Griesbach argues that NATO’s new and largely undefined 1.5% resilience spending category offers a crucial policy opening to formally recognize climate adaptation, and that Canada is uniquely...

natoassociation.ca

They sort of missed the fact that the nations are actually getting ready for global LSCO’s and thus the climate is taking a serious back row.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Climate change (environmental change) is a non-zero threat. Film at 11.

It is not an equal threat everywhere, nor one meriting much consideration in some places.

I doubt NATO members have to worry about spending to mitigate their own "climate threats". What NATO needs is armed forces capable of dealing with unrest outside NATO borders which spills into conflict (over resources). Obviously the huge sums alarmists talk about for mitigating changes are a colossal magnet for grifters, including entire nations that have fucked up their shorelines, or their water table, or their land erosion patterns, or the quality of their arable lands; but, I can guess that political mismanagement is going to be the root cause of conflict over resources by about 100 (political) to 1 (environmental), provided we properly assign environmental changes resulting from political mismanagement to the "political" category.

Don't lose sight of the aim because of the frantic activity of the money leeches.