Summary of IPA Report

For years, Australia’s decision-makers have deluded themselves into believing that the CSIRO’s GenCost modelling is an accurate and reliable foundation for designing our nation’s energy future. This misplaced trust has led us astray, hiding the real costs of our energy choices. According to Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), “We have been misled for too long on the true cost of the energy options on the table.”

The IPA’s newly released research report, “The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy: Why a System Built on Renewables Is the Most Expensive of All Options,” authored by University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson, exposes the harsh realities of Australia’s future energy system. The report delivers a critical message: the federal government’s current energy system plan, coupled with its 2030 emissions targets, will result in a minimum four-fold increase in the average wholesale price of electricity. This sobering conclusion should make every Australian reconsider the direction we are headed.

The Flawed Approach of CSIRO’s GenCost Modelling

At the heart of the issue is the CSIRO’s Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) methodology, which the federal government has heavily relied upon. However, the report argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed and misleading. The LCOE method only looks at the costs associated with generating electricity but neglects the broader, more critical aspect—the Total System Cost. According to the research, any meaningful decisions about our energy future should be based on Total System Cost, which considers all the expenses tied to delivering electricity to consumers.

Wilson’s report demonstrates that when a system is built on variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind, the Total System Cost can be at least twice as high as that of a system based on coal or nuclear baseload generation. This stark contrast is crucial for understanding why renewable energy is not the cheapest option, despite popular belief.

The High Cost of Renewables: A Price Too High to Pay

Australia once enjoyed some of the lowest electricity prices in the industrialised world, but those days are long gone. Now, we are among the nations with the highest electricity costs, a situation that has been exacerbated by decades of poor decision-making, rooted in flawed advice and ideological bias. “Decades of poor decision-making based on flawed and misleading advice and ideology is crushing the most productive sectors of our economy,” Hargreaves noted.

The report’s analysis of the Total System Cost method reveals three distinct wholesale energy cost zones:

• $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) zone: This represents the total cost of the inherited coal-based generation system, which has been the backbone of Australia’s energy infrastructure.
• $100 per MWh zone: This reflects the total cost of a generation system led by reliable 24/7 options, such as coal and nuclear power.
• $200 per MWh zone: This represents the total cost of a generation system primarily based on variable renewable energy sources, like wind and solar.

The study shows that as the energy system shifts from the $50 cost zone of coal-based power to the $200 cost zone of renewables, the actual outcomes for consumers will likely result in even higher electricity prices. This shift is not merely an academic concern but a pressing economic reality that will hit Australian households and businesses hard.

Unseen Costs of Renewable Infrastructure

The report also highlights a critical oversight in the government and CSIRO’s current modelling: the failure to account for the enormous infrastructure costs associated with transitioning to a renewable energy system. The infrastructure required to support a renewable-dominated grid, including extensive upgrades to poles, wires, and storage facilities, represents a massive and often overlooked expense. When these costs are factored in, the case against a renewable-led energy future becomes even stronger.

According to Hargreaves, “Total System Cost calculations make clear that an energy system led by variable renewable generation is by far the most expensive approach government could take.”

The Need for a Reality Check on Australia’s Energy Future

Australia’s current energy system, primarily based on coal, represents the lowest cost option, according to the report. The next most affordable option would be a system built on new baseload power plants, whether they are coal-fired or nuclear. Yet, the government’s plans seem determined to phase out coal-fired generation, not on the basis of cost but due to emissions concerns.

While renewable energy sources like wind and solar are often touted as “free” because they do not require fuel, the reality is far more complex. The upfront investment required for renewable energy infrastructure is substantial, and the LCOE, which is used by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) relying on CSIRO’s GenCost model, fails to capture the true costs involved. This oversimplified calculation does not provide an accurate picture of the Total System Cost across the different types of generation needed to serve customer demand consistently.

The True Cost of Renewables: A System on the Brink

As the report underscores, a system that relies heavily on renewable energy will inevitably lead to much higher costs for consumers. The transition from a coal-based system at $50 per MWh to a renewable-based system at $200 per MWh will place a significant financial burden on Australians. Even if temporary price relief is provided through subsidies or other measures, the underlying economic issue remains unresolved.

In summary, the report by Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson can be distilled into several key points:

• The energy system with the lowest Total System Cost is the one we currently have, based on coal-fired power.
• The LCOE of any generation type does not reflect the Total System Cost, making it an inadequate metric for decision-making.
• Renewable technologies can play a role in the energy mix, but their involvement should be limited to avoid escalating the Total System Cost.

Contrary to popular belief, coal-fired power plants are not destined to become obsolete after a set number of years. These plants can be periodically refurbished and continue to operate, making them a viable option for the foreseeable future. The benchmark for comparing costs should not be hypothetical new coal plants but the existing coal fleet, which remains the most cost-effective option.

Conclusion: A Call for Honest Assessment

Australia must face the facts. National security cannot be achieved without energy security, and a reliable, affordable energy system is crucial for the country’s future. Our leaders must urgently reassess the true costs of the energy alternatives and stop relying on the discredited GenCost modelling from CSIRO.

As the report concludes, the lowest cost system is the one we already have, and the next lowest cost system would be built on new baseload power plants, whether coal or nuclear. It’s time Australians were given the facts, and it’s time for our leaders to commission a thorough and honest analysis of the true costs of our energy options.

The Krakow Post

Germany’s political landscape has been thrown into disarray following the recent electoral success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Often labelled as the country’s leading “far-right” party, the AfD’s victories in state elections have sparked widespread controversy and concern about the future direction of German politics.

The AfD made history by winning a state election in Thuringia and came close to securing another victory in Saxony. This marks the first time since World War II that a “far-right” party has won a state election in Germany, a development that has sent shockwaves through the country’s political establishment. In Thuringia, the victory was led by Björn Höcke, a figure often associated with the more radical elements within the party. Meanwhile, in Saxony, the AfD finished just behind the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), highlighting the growing appeal of the AfD in Germany’s eastern regions.

The election results have placed immense pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government. The governing coalition, consisting of the Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and Free Democrats (FDP), received less than 15% of the vote combined in these state elections. This dismal performance reflects the growing discontent among voters with the national government’s handling of key issues such as inflation, economic stagnation, and internal divisions. Additionally, there is widespread frustration with the government’s immigration policies and its support for military aid to Ukraine, sentiments that the AfD has effectively capitalized on.

The conservative opposition, led by the CDU, faces significant challenges in forming governments without involving the AfD. Despite leading in national polls, the CDU must navigate complex coalition-building processes to exclude the AfD, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult as the AfD gains strength in key regions. In Thuringia, for example, even a coalition of the CDU, Scholz’s SPD, and the newly formed Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance would fall short of a majority. The AfD’s growing influence, particularly in eastern Germany, complicates the formation of governments that align with more traditional conservative or centrist values.

The implications of these election results are profound for Germany’s political future. With another state election in Brandenburg on September 22, the outcome could further weaken Scholz’s coalition and bolster the AfD’s momentum. The success of the AfD underscores the deep divisions and dissatisfaction within the country, driven by a range of factors including economic concerns, immigration, and scepticism towards the European Union.

Recent incidents of Islamist extremist violence have also fuelled public anxiety, leading to increased support for the AfD’s anti-immigration stance. The AfD’s ability to tap into these concerns, coupled with growing unease over inflation and economic management, has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Many Germans are turning towards policies that advocate for less government spending and tighter control over the nation’s finances, seeing these as necessary measures to protect Germany’s economic stability.

The media frequently describes the AfD as a “far-right” party, a label that is largely based on its controversial policies. The AfD strongly opposes illegal immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, and advocates for stricter border controls. However, the party also supports moderate legal immigration based on qualitative criteria, where there is irrefutable demand that cannot be met by domestic resources or EU immigration.

The AfD is also known for its Euroscepticism, with the party being critical of the European Union and even calling for Germany to leave the Eurozone. This stance reflects a broader nationalist agenda that emphasizes traditional German culture and values, a message that resonates with voters who feel that these are under threat from globalization and liberal policies. Additionally, the AfD supports welfare policies that prioritize native Germans over immigrants, a position often referred to as welfare chauvinism.

The Need for Far-Right Politics?

The rise of the AfD raises important questions about the need for far-right politics in Germany. For many, the AfD’s success is a troubling sign of growing intolerance and a retreat from the progressive values that have defined post-war Germany. Critics argue that the party’s nationalist and anti-immigration policies threaten social cohesion and undermine the country’s commitment to human rights and European integration.

However, supporters of the AfD argue that the party is simply responding to the legitimate concerns of ordinary Germans who feel abandoned by the mainstream parties. They point to the failures of the established political class to address issues such as immigration, economic inequality, and national sovereignty, which have left many voters feeling disillusioned and alienated.

The question of whether there is a need for far-right politics in Germany is ultimately a reflection of the broader tensions and uncertainties facing the country. As the AfD continues to gain ground, it is clear that the party is tapping into a deep well of dissatisfaction and frustration that cannot be easily dismissed. Whether this will lead to a fundamental realignment of German politics or merely a temporary surge remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Germany’s political landscape is in turmoil, and the AfD’s recent electoral success is a clear indication of the challenges that lie ahead.

Three Australian Navy officers, newly graduated from the UK’s Royal Navy nuclear reactor course, have been swiftly deployed to serve on British Astute-class attack submarines. This marks a significant step forward in Australia’s journey toward developing its own nuclear-powered submarine capabilities under the AUKUS agreement.

Admiral William Houston, who oversees the US Navy’s nuclear propulsion program, acknowledged the difficulties ahead in meeting the ambitious production goals to supply Australia with between three and five Virginia-class nuclear submarines. “It’s going to be challenging, but we’re committed to making it happen,” he said, emphasizing that the US is on track, with plans to hire 40,000 workers and invest over $10 billion in the submarine industrial base by 2032.

Speaking at HMAS Stirling near Perth, alongside Australian Submarine Agency Director-General Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead and Royal Navy Second Sea Lord Vice Admiral Martin Connell, Admiral Houston assured that the US is fully dedicated to delivering the submarines to Australia. He highlighted that this transfer is conditional on Australia’s readiness to maintain them and adhere to safety and stewardship standards.

The gathering of submarine chiefs coincided with a milestone: the Virginia-class submarine USS Hawaii underwent maintenance at HMAS Stirling, marking the first time such work has been performed outside US territory. Over 30 Australian Navy personnel have been embedded with their US counterparts since January on the submarine tender USS Emory S. Land, contributing to this maintenance effort.

Vice Admiral Mead described the development as “unprecedented” and a crucial step toward ensuring that by 2027, HMAS Stirling will be prepared to host a rotational presence of up to four US and one UK nuclear-powered submarines, in addition to Australia’s future fleet.

Despite these advancements, the US submarine production rate has dropped to just over one per year since 2022, far below the 2.33 per year needed to replace the vessels promised to Australia. Admiral Houston confirmed that achieving this production rate is a top priority, requiring a concerted effort across all levels of the US government. He noted the broad bipartisan support for the submarine build, stressing that AUKUS is a strategic imperative that strengthens all three nations involved.

Vice Admiral Mead also outlined plans to ramp up Australian submariner training in the US, aiming to have around 100 personnel, including 50 in the nuclear program, by 2025. However, he acknowledged the challenge of recruiting more Navy personnel and submariners to meet the growing demands.

Meanwhile, Vice Admiral Connell revealed that Australian personnel are now fully integrated into the design team for Australia’s future SSN-AUKUS submarines, which are expected to be delivered in the early 2040s. This collaboration signifies a deepening partnership among the AUKUS allies as they work towards a shared strategic goal.

On September 3, 2024, Australians mark the 82nd anniversary of the Battle for Australia, a pivotal series of events during World War II that forever shaped the nation’s history and identity. This day serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifices made by the Australian military and civilians in defence of their homeland during one of the darkest periods of the 20th century.

The Historical Context

The Battle for Australia refers to a collection of military actions fought between 1942 and 1943, as Japan sought to expand its dominance in the Pacific. After the fall of Singapore in February 1942, Australia found itself directly threatened by Japanese forces. The bombing of Darwin on February 19, 1942, marked the first time the Australian mainland had been attacked by a foreign power, shattering any sense of invulnerability.

The threat was not limited to aerial assaults. Japanese submarines patrolled the Australian coastline, launching attacks on Sydney and Newcastle, while Japanese forces advanced through Southeast Asia and the Pacific, inching closer to Australia’s shores. The fear of invasion loomed large over the nation.

The Campaigns That Defined the Battle

The Battle for Australia encompasses several key engagements, both on Australian soil and in the broader Pacific theatre. Among these, the Kokoda Track campaign stands out as a defining moment. Fought in the rugged mountains of Papua New Guinea, Australian soldiers, many of them young and inexperienced, faced overwhelming odds against seasoned Japanese troops. Their tenacity and courage under brutal conditions became emblematic of the Australian spirit.

Another crucial battle was the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, often cited as the first major naval battle in which aircraft carriers engaged each other. This strategic victory halted the Japanese advance toward Port Moresby, which would have placed northern Australia within range of Japanese bombers.

The battles of Milne Bay and Buna-Gona, among others, also played critical roles in turning the tide against Japanese forces. These victories were hard-fought and costly, but they were essential in ensuring the safety of the Australian mainland and the eventual Allied victory in the Pacific.

The Impact on Australian Society

The Battle for Australia had a profound impact on Australian society. It marked a turning point in the nation’s relationship with the British Empire and its reliance on British military protection. As Australia faced the prospect of invasion, it turned increasingly towards the United States for military and economic support, setting the stage for a long-standing alliance that continues to this day.

The war effort also led to significant changes on the home front. With men enlisted in the military, women stepped into roles that were previously reserved for men, from working in factories to serving in auxiliary military units. The sense of national unity and purpose that emerged during this time would have lasting effects on Australia’s social fabric.

A Day of Remembrance

Today, the Battle for Australia Day serves as an occasion to honour the memory of those who served and sacrificed during this critical period in history. Commemorative events are held across the country, including ceremonies at war memorials, educational programs in schools, and tributes to veterans. The day is not only a time to reflect on the past but also a reminder of the resilience and determination that defines the Australian character.

As we remember the 82nd anniversary of the Battle for Australia, we are reminded of the cost of freedom and the enduring importance of standing united in the face of adversity. The legacy of those who fought in the Battle for Australia lives on in the values of courage, loyalty, and perseverance that continue to shape the nation today.

Lest We Forget

ED: The article you just read was a speech given our granddaughter, Ella Cave, a year 11 student, at her school’s memorial service on the 3^rd September.

The Late Rear Admiral Guy Richmond Griffiths, AO, DSO, DSC (1 March 1923 – 5 March 2024), stands as a remarkable figure in the history of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). His century-long life, marked by extraordinary bravery, leadership, and service, reflects the dedication and resilience of a man deeply committed to his country. Griffiths’ military career spanned pivotal moments in global history, including World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Beyond his military achievements, Griffiths continued to serve his nation and fellow veterans well into his retirement. His passing at the age of 101 marks the end of an era, but his legacy endures as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Australian Navy.

Early Life and Naval Beginnings

Born on 1 March 1923 in Sydney, New South Wales, Guy Richmond Griffiths grew up in the Hunter Valley, a region known for its rich history and rugged landscapes. His early life was shaped by the values of duty and discipline, which would later define his military career. In 1937, at the age of 14, Griffiths entered the Royal Australian Naval College as a cadet midshipman, beginning a journey that would see him rise through the ranks of the RAN and earn distinction in multiple theatres of war.

World War II and the Sinking of HMS Repulse

Upon graduating from the Naval College, Griffiths was posted to the Royal Navy for further training. It was during this time that he joined the battle cruiser HMS Repulse, a ship that would play a tragic role in his early career. On 10 December 1941, HMS Repulse, alongside HMS Prince of Wales, was sunk by Japanese air attack off the coast of Malaya. The loss of these ships was a significant blow to the Allied forces in the Pacific, but Griffiths, then a young midshipman, survived the ordeal. The experience of the sinking, with its profound loss of life, would leave an indelible mark on him, shaping his resolve and commitment to service.

Following the sinking of Repulse, Griffiths continued to serve with distinction in the Royal Navy and later the Royal Australian Navy. He was promoted to lieutenant in 1944 and soon after was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) in May 1945 for his gallantry, skill, and devotion to duty during the successful assault operations in the Lingayen Gulf, Luzon Island, while serving aboard HMS Shropshire. This recognition highlighted Griffiths’ courage and leadership during some of the most challenging naval battles of the war.

Post-War Service: Korean and Vietnam Wars

After World War II, Griffiths’ career continued to ascend as he took on more significant roles within the RAN. During the Korean War, he served as the Gunnery Officer on HMAS Sydney, contributing to the ship’s operations in the conflict. His expertise in naval warfare and leadership skills were further recognized when he was given command of the guided missile destroyer HMAS Hobart during the Vietnam War. Under his command, HMAS Hobart played a critical role in naval operations, demonstrating Griffiths’ tactical acumen and ability to lead in complex and dangerous situations.

One of the defining moments of his post-war career came in 1974 when Griffiths, then commander of HMAS Melbourne, was called upon to assist in relief operations following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Tracy in Darwin. The cyclone had caused widespread destruction, and Griffiths’ leadership in the relief efforts showcased his dedication to helping those in need, whether in war or peace.

Leadership Roles and Retirement

In 1976, Griffiths was promoted to rear admiral and appointed Chief of Naval Personnel, a role that placed him in charge of managing the careers and welfare of RAN personnel. His experience and deep understanding of the Navy made him well-suited for this position, where he influenced the development and support of the Navy’s human resources during a time of significant change.

In January 1979, Griffiths took up his final posting as the Flag Officer Naval Support Command. This role, which he held until his retirement in 1980, saw him overseeing the logistical and operational support for the entire Navy, ensuring that the RAN remained ready and capable of fulfilling its mission.

Post-Military Contributions and Legacy

Following his retirement from active service, Griffiths did not fade into the background. Instead, he continued to contribute to the Australian community and the welfare of his fellow veterans. From 1980 to 1983, he served as the personnel director of Wormald International, bringing his leadership skills to the corporate world. Simultaneously, he was deeply involved in veteran affairs, serving as the national president of the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council from 1980 to 2004. In this role, Griffiths was a tireless advocate for the rights and recognition of veterans, ensuring that their sacrifices were not forgotten.

Conclusion

Rear Admiral Guy Richmond Griffiths passed away on 5 March 2024 at the age of 101, leaving behind a legacy of service, bravery, and leadership that spanned more than six decades. His life is a powerful reminder of the sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces and the enduring impact they have on their country. Griffiths’ story is not just one of military achievement, but also of a lifelong commitment to the principles of duty, honour, and service to others. His legacy will continue to inspire future generations of Australian naval officers and serve as a beacon of the values that define the Royal Australian Navy.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) extensively employs the Enhanced F88 (EF88) service rifles, a locally produced weapon by Thales Australia. The EF88, a modernized version of the original Austrian Steyr AUG, has become the standard issue for the ADF, serving across various branches and operations.

In the foreseeable future, the ADF seems set to continue using the EF88 in all its configurations. This observation was made by a member of Queensland’s Police Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, who highlighted Australia’s longstanding tradition of making service rifle versions accessible to licensed and regulated civilian markets. Historically, Australia has allowed civilians to purchase versions of military rifles, such as the Martini Cadet, a variant of the Martini-Henry, and the Morris Tube system, which complemented the .303 SMLE (Short Magazine Lee–Enfield). Additionally, a single-shot target rifle variant of the SLR (Australian L1A1 rifle) was once developed for civilian use.

Given this tradition, there is a growing argument for Thales to produce a single-shot variant of the EF88 for the civilian market. The civilian version could retain the .223 calibre munition, commonly available to the public. However, it would require modifications to meet legal standards, such as being converted into a single-shot, straight-pull, or push-button variant, adhering to a minimum overall length of 80cm (with the current ADF length being 80.2cm), and a likely maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds, contrasting with the ADF’s 30-round capacity.

Furthermore, any civilian variant would need to comply with state-specific appearance laws, particularly in New South Wales (NSW), where regulations prohibit firearms resembling police or military-issue semi-automatic or fully automatic rifles. The NSW Firearms Registry has recently established a Firearms Classification Working Party (FCWP) to review the state’s classification practices and develop a consistent framework.

The NSW Police Force confirmed that this working party includes consultative members from the firearms industry and other stakeholders. Discussions have already taken place regarding firearm appearance, length-of-pull, and adjustable stock restrictions in NSW. James Walsh, CEO of the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia (SIFA) and a member of the FCWP, emphasized the importance of addressing inconsistencies in firearms categorization, particularly those based on appearance.

Walsh noted that these inconsistencies often result in certain firearms being banned in NSW while being legal in other Australian states and territories. He expressed optimism about the collaborative effort with NSW Police, thanking them for initiating this crucial review and engaging proactively with the firearms industry.

In conclusion, while the move to create a civilian version of the EF88 rifle could appeal to a niche market of enthusiasts, the regulatory landscape, particularly in states like NSW, presents significant challenges. Whether this effort is worthwhile depends largely on the ability to navigate these legal hurdles and the demand within the civilian market. Given Australia’s history of adapting military firearms for civilian use, it remains a possibility, but one fraught with complexities.

A Detailed Account of the Vietnam War Engagement (23–24 February 1966)

The Battle of Suoi Bong Trang, fought between 23 and 24 February 1966, stands as a significant engagement during the Vietnam War, involving the combined forces of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The battle unfolded amidst Operation Rolling Stone, an American security initiative aimed at safeguarding engineers constructing a critical road near Tan Binh in Binh Duong Province, approximately 30 kilometres northwest of the Bien Hoa airbase. During this intense confrontation, the 1st Brigade of the US 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR), attached to the operation, successfully repelled a regimental-sized Viet Cong night assault. Overwhelmed by the firepower of artillery and tanks, the Viet Cong suffered severe casualties and were forced to retreat by dawn. Post-battle, the US and Australian forces did not pursue the retreating Viet Cong but focused on securing the battlefield and tending to their own wounded. Despite intermittent harassment from Viet Cong snipers and mortar fire, the road construction continued, culminating in its completion on 2 March 1966.

The Strategic Context of February 1966

In February 1966, the United States launched a road-building program aimed at disrupting the Viet Cong’s mobility in the regions surrounding Saigon. The US 1st Engineer Battalion, under Lieutenant Colonel Howard Sargent’s command, was tasked with constructing an all-weather road connecting Route 13 and Route 15 in central Binh Duong Province, west of Ben Cat. This road was strategically designed to sever the Viet Cong’s supply lines between War Zone C, the Mekong Delta, the Iron Triangle, and War Zone D. Additionally, it was intended to link the two forward brigades of the US 1st Infantry Division between Phuoc Vinh and Lai Khe, thereby extending the South Vietnamese government’s authority into the area.

As the road construction progressed, Viet Cong Local Force units began a campaign of harassment against the American engineers. They engaged in daily sniping, laying mines, and sabotage activities to impede the construction work. In response to these disruptions, the US 1st Division initiated Operation Rolling Stone on 11 February 1966, a comprehensive security operation aimed at protecting the engineers and their work. Colonel Edgar N. Glotzbach, commander of the US 1st Brigade, was assigned the task of securing the area. He deployed one of his three battalions to guard the engineers on a rotating basis, while the other two battalions conducted offensive operations to keep the Viet Cong off balance.

The Involvement of 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR)

At the request of the American divisional commander, Major General William E. DePuy, the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR), under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Alex Preece, was temporarily detached from the US 173rd Airborne Brigade and placed under the operational control of the US 1st Division until 5 March. DePuy specifically selected the Australian battalion for its reputation for aggressive and effective patrolling. Supporting 1 RAR were Australian M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) from 1 APC Troop, engineers from 3 Field Troop, Bell Sioux light observation helicopters, Cessna 180 fixed-wing aircraft from 161st Independent Reconnaissance Flight, and 105-millimeter L5 Pack Howitzers from 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery.

The headquarters of the US 1st Brigade was located approximately 1,000 meters east of the engineer base camp near the hamlet of Tan Binh, just north of the new road and less than five kilometres west of Route 16. The brigade’s constituent battalions were dispersed across the area, conducting search and destroy operations, leaving the area only lightly defended. Despite the harassment faced by the engineers, contact between the US and Australian forces and the Viet Cong had been sporadic during the early weeks of Operation Rolling Stone.

Australian intelligence had assessed that at least two Viet Cong Local Force platoons, and possibly a Local Force company, were operating in the area. However, they cautioned that the Viet Cong likely had the capability to concentrate a Main Force battalion in the area with little warning. The Australians were tasked with protecting the engineer base, the laterite pit, and road work parties over a distance of 6,000 meters, as well as safeguarding engineer reconnaissance parties as they moved forward to plan new sections of the road.

The Lead-Up to the Battle

On 19 February 1966, 1 RAR was airlifted into the area, relieving the 2nd Battalion, US 38th Infantry Regiment. Upon arrival, Preece immediately implemented a program of 24-hour dispersed patrolling, which quickly reduced the level of Viet Cong activity against the road construction. To bolster the defence, two platoons of American M48 Patton tanks were also deployed to the area, patrolling during the day alongside the Australian APCs and securing the laterite pit at night.

Several engagements with the Viet Cong occurred, and by 22 February, the Australians began to suspect that a major attack was imminent, noting that they were now facing Main Force elements. In the early morning of 23 February, three Viet Cong soldiers were killed in an Australian ambush, while several others were wounded but managed to escape. The dead soldiers were well-equipped with new AK-47 assault rifles and other gear, indicating their affiliation with the 761st Main Force Regiment. A significant quantity of ammunition, rations, and medical supplies was also captured. Later that night, a North Vietnamese engineer officer was killed in a separate ambush, further supporting the Australians’ suspicions of an impending attack.

The Viet Cong’s Assault

Unbeknownst to the US and Australian forces, three battalions of the Viet Cong 9th Division were preparing for a large-scale assault on the American and Australian positions. The attacking force, numbering around 2,000 men, included the J10 Battalion of the 761st Regiment, the 707 Battalion of the 763rd Regiment, and the D800 Independent Battalion. By the evening of 23 February, the Viet Cong had completed a 25-kilometer approach march and were positioned near the village of Ap Bo, utilizing local women and youths as porters to carry ammunition and supplies.

Viet Cong reconnaissance parties had easily located the American headquarters, which was conspicuous due to the noise and light emanating from the area. The Viet Cong commander planned to launch a three-pronged assault on the American and Australian positions, with the aim of surrounding the defenders and preventing them from concentrating their forces. Fire support for the attack was provided by 60-millimeter and 82-millimeter mortars positioned in the vicinity.

By late afternoon on 23 February, 1 RAR had established an all-round defensive position near the Suoi Bong Trang creek, west of the US 1st Brigade’s headquarters. The American engineers had also moved into a new defensive position within the Australian perimeter. In anticipation of the impending attack, additional American forces, including a platoon of M48 Patton tanks and a second field artillery battery, were deployed to defend the Brigade Headquarters. The 1st Battalion, US 26th Infantry Regiment, returned from the field and augmented the defences, joining Company B, 1st Battalion, US 28th Infantry Regiment.

The Battle Unfolds

At 22:00 on 23 February, soldiers from B Company, 1 RAR, occupying the western sector of the Australian perimeter, observed lights approximately 250 meters in front of their position. Major Ian McFarlane, the company commander, requested artillery and mortar fire to target the location, but his request was denied by Preece. Meanwhile, a small Australian standing patrol deployed forward of the main defensive position, led by Private Walter (Bruno) Brunalli, observed the lights moving closer to the US 1st Brigade’s headquarters.

By midnight, the American forces stationed on the eastern approaches also reported hearing movement and seeing intermittent flashes of light through the trees. Shortly after midnight on 24 February, sporadic firing broke out across the area as forward American listening posts detected small groups of Viet Cong moving outside the perimeter. After one of the sentries opened fire, two Viet Cong were killed, and the remainder withdrew into the darkness.

The American and Australian forces remained on high alert, bracing for the main Viet Cong assault. At 01:45, the battle commenced with a heavy barrage of Viet Cong mortar and small arms fire. The Americans responded with a barrage of small arms fire, machine guns, tank fire, mortars, and artillery. The intensity of the firefight grew over the next hour, and at 03:00, the Viet Cong shifted their fire to the northwest side of the American perimeter, augmenting their barrage with recoilless rifles.

Glotzbach anticipated a full-scale ground assault, but the Viet Cong were held back by the overwhelming firepower of the American defenders. The Americans, supported by eight field artillery batteries, including 8-inch and 175-millimeter howitzers from Phuoc Vinh, unleashed a devastating barrage on the Viet Cong positions. Some artillery units even fired directly at the Viet Cong, lowering their tubes to fire over open sights.

Meanwhile, the Australian standing patrol remained in position despite the proximity of the Viet Cong. The intense American fire directed at the area soon caught the Australians in the crossfire, and Brunalli was wounded in the arm. Although the Australian position was not the primary focus of the Viet Cong assault, it came under attack from 60-millimeter mortar fire, resulting in the death of an American sapper. There was initial confusion over the source of the rounds, with both Glotzbach and Preece speculating that the fire might have originated from US 1st Brigade’s headquarters or from supporting artillery batteries.

However, the subsequent recovery of fragments revealed that the mortars were of Chinese origin, confirming they had been fired by the Viet Cong. This realization prompted Preece to request artillery support from the American battalion tasked with providing fire support. At 04:10, the main Viet Cong assault was finally launched, with infantry supported by heavy machine guns and recoilless rifles.

The Viet Cong managed to close to within 150 meters of the Australian perimeter before being forced to ground by the concentrated Australian and New Zealand artillery and mortar fire. The determined defence and overwhelming firepower broke the momentum of the Viet Cong assault, forcing them to retreat back into the jungle. As dawn broke on 24 February, the Viet Cong were in full retreat, leaving behind significant casualties.

The Aftermath

The Battle of Suoi Bong Trang was a decisive victory for the US, Australian, and New Zealand forces. The Viet Cong’s regimental-sized attack had been repelled with heavy losses, and the road construction continued, eventually leading to the completion of the vital supply route on 2 March 1966. The battle demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms operations, with artillery, tanks, and infantry working in concert to thwart a determined enemy attack. The battle also highlighted the growing capability and professionalism of the Australian and New Zealand forces, who played a crucial role in the defence of the engineer base.

The battle had a lasting impact on the Viet Cong’s operations in the region. The heavy losses suffered during the engagement forced the Viet Cong to reconsider their tactics and avoid large-scale frontal assaults against well-defended positions. The battle also underscored the importance of maintaining strong defensive positions and the value of artillery in providing critical support during engagements.

In the years that followed, the Battle of Suoi Bong Trang would be remembered as a testament to the bravery and tenacity of the soldiers who fought there. The battle remains an important chapter in the history of the Vietnam War and serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who served in that conflict.

The Javelin missile system has become one of the most effective and versatile anti-tank weapons in modern warfare. Developed by the United States, the Javelin is known for its ease of use, precision targeting, and lethality against armoured vehicles. Since its introduction in the 1990s, the Javelin has been widely adopted by various military forces around the world and has proven itself in numerous conflicts.

The FGM-148 Javelin was developed as a successor to the M47 Dragon, which had limitations in range, accuracy, and lethality. The Javelin was a product of a collaboration between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, combining advanced technology to create a portable, shoulder-fired missile system capable of defeating modern tanks.

One of the Javelin’s key features is its fire-and-forget capability. Unlike earlier systems that required the operator to maintain a line of sight with the target until impact, the Javelin allows the user to fire the missile and immediately seek cover, enhancing their survivability on the battlefield. The missile’s guidance system, equipped with infrared imaging, autonomously tracks and homes in on the target after launch.

The Javelin missile system consists of two main components: the Command Launch Unit (CLU) and the missile itself. The CLU, which weighs about 6.4 kg (14 lbs), is the targeting and launching component that houses the infrared imaging system, a day sight, and controls. The missile, stored in a disposable launch tube, weighs approximately 15.9 kg (35 lbs) and is equipped with a tandem-shaped charge warhead designed to defeat reactive armour.

When preparing to fire, the operator uses the CLU to locate and lock onto the target. Once the missile is launched, it ascends in a curved trajectory before diving down onto the target from above, where the armour is typically thinner. This top-attack mode is particularly effective against tanks and armoured vehicles. The Javelin can also be fired in direct-attack mode for engaging bunkers, buildings, and helicopters.

Since its introduction, the Javelin has been used in numerous conflicts, demonstrating its effectiveness against a wide range of targets. The system was first deployed in 1996 by U.S. forces, and it saw extensive use during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. In these conflicts, the Javelin proved highly effective not only against tanks but also against fortified positions, light vehicles, and even personnel in cover.

The Javelin has been exported to several countries and used by various military forces. It gained significant attention during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where Ukrainian forces used Javelins to devastating effect against Russian armoured columns. The success of the Javelin in this conflict has further solidified its reputation as a game-changing weapon system.

The Javelin’s portability, ease of use, and fire-and-forget capability make it a highly versatile weapon on the battlefield. Its ability to engage targets at ranges up to 2.5 km (1.5 miles) and its effectiveness in both top-attack and direct-attack modes give it a significant tactical advantage over earlier anti-tank systems.

However, the Javelin is not without its limitations. The high cost of each missile, which can exceed $175,000, makes it an expensive option, especially when used against lower-value targets. Additionally, while the system is highly effective in open terrain, its performance can be reduced in urban environments where obstacles can interfere with the missile’s flight path.

The Javelin anti-tank weapon system represents a significant leap forward in military technology, providing ground forces with a reliable and effective tool for neutralizing armoured threats. Its proven track record in multiple conflicts has made it a staple of modern arsenals, and its continued development and deployment ensure that it will remain a key asset in future warfare.

Australia is home to nearly half a million military veterans, many of whom are active participants in the workforce. However, a significant portion, around 60%, struggle with long-term health issues. Of these, about half face persistent mental health challenges, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and an elevated risk of suicide.

While disclosing these conditions can pave the way for essential workplace support, many veterans choose to remain silent. This silence often stems from a fear of stigma and the potential impact on their professional lives. Unfortunately, keeping quiet can create a cycle of isolation, where veterans feel compelled to continue concealing their struggles, even when it might be in their best interest to seek help.

This issue is particularly pronounced in roles that require full disclosure, such as Australian government positions needing security clearances. Veterans who initially choose not to disclose their mental health conditions may find themselves trapped, forced to seek external assistance privately without informing their employers. This secrecy can lead to self-harm or even mental health crises, leaving employers unaware and unable to provide the necessary support.

At the University of Queensland, a team is studying the complex dynamics of how and when veterans choose to disclose their mental health conditions. Through surveys and interviews, they have identified a wide range of approaches to disclosure.

On one end of the spectrum, some veterans refuse to reveal their health concerns to anyone, including close family members. They often feel that others cannot truly understand their experiences, and fear that disclosure might damage their relationships. On the other end, some veterans are subjected to frequent, mandatory disclosures, sometimes as often as every six months. This constant scrutiny makes them feel as though their personal lives are on display to supervisors and human resource managers, leading to a sense of vulnerability and invasion of privacy.

One veteran recounted an experience where, during a government job application process, all veterans diagnosed with PTSD were asked to identify themselves in a crowded room. They were then required to fill out extensive documentation detailing their condition, treatment, and medication regimen, long after other applicants had finished.

Another veteran described the intricate decision-making process involved when considering new contracts or contract renewals. They would assess factors such as the length of the contract, the contracting firm’s health policies, reporting requirements, and the actual support offered for mental health. Importantly, this veteran also sought out insights from fellow veterans to gauge the firm’s true commitment to supporting mental health.

Despite the challenges, many employers genuinely care about their employees’ well-being but struggle to convey that message effectively. One veteran-turned-business owner shared that the best way to build trust with veteran applicants was by first disclosing some aspect of his own health condition, thus creating a mutual sense of understanding and support.

Our study is ongoing, and while it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions, we hope that our findings will contribute to creating safer, more supportive environments for veterans. By understanding the delicate balance veterans must strike between reaching out for help and fitting into the workforce, we aim to make it easier for them to disclose their conditions and access the support they need—potentially saving lives in the process.

Richard O’Quinn, The University of Queensland; Emma Knight, The University of Queensland; Justin P. Brienza, The University of Queensland; Laura Ferris, The University of Queensland; Tarli Young, The University of Queensland