The Russian Air Force, while experiencing fewer losses compared to ground forces, is in a state of disrepair. The war in Ukraine has accelerated the ongoing degradation of Russian equipment and capabilities, with the industry struggling to replenish these losses. Even before the conflict, the Russian Air Force was on a downward trajectory, relying heavily on aging aircraft. Despite propagandistic claims, Russian design bureaus and factories have been unable to provide adequate replacements for Soviet-era planes.

According to Defence 24 expert Maciej Szopa, out of approximately 1,200 Russian planes in service, 550 are nearing the end of their life cycle. These aircraft, including the Su-24, Su-25, Su-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31, are so worn out from extensive use that they are approaching their structural endurance limits. Ukrainian estimates suggest that Russia operates 300 aircraft of various types daily, indicating that most of its combat fleet is engaged in the conflict.

The real number of combat-ready Russian aircraft is at most 850 units. Of these, about 340-360 aircraft produced after 2010 (including the Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, and Su-57, as well as older strategic bombers) are considered capable of effective combat use in a hypothetical confrontation with NATO countries. Despite this, due to wear and tear, Russia is expected to retire about 60 aircraft this year alone, regardless of combat damage or losses.

In the first half of the year, Ukrainian forces have destroyed at least 12 Russian aircraft, as confirmed by photographic evidence. Meanwhile, Russian industry produced only 27 new combat aircraft in 2022, 24 in 2023, and just six by mid-2024. The number of decommissioned and destroyed aircraft far exceeds the production capacity of Russian industry, leading to a systematic decline in the Russian Air Force’s capabilities.

Current Composition and Future Challenges Australia’s special operations units, including the SASR, Commando Regiments, Special Operations Engineer Regiment, Navy’s Clearance Diving Teams, and the Air Force’s Joint Terminal/Close Combat Attack Controller teams, form a highly capable but disparate force. These units have excelled in counter-insurgency operations over the past three decades. However, emerging threats from peer and near-peer competitors necessitate a strategic overhaul to maintain our edge.

In response to the rise of great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, a comprehensive restructuring of Australia’s special operations forces is essential. This involves:

• Creating Special Operations Command as an independent branch, enhancing its capability to operate across multiple domains.
• Expanding the Army’s special operations by establishing new Raider regiments to disrupt enemy operations behind lines, complementing the SASR and evolving Commando regiments.
• Transforming the Navy’s Clearance Diving Teams into a maritime-focused special operations force, akin to the UK’s Special Boat Service.
• Reshaping the Air Force’s No. 4 Squadron into a Special Tactics Squadron for special operations aeromedical support, while consolidating and expanding special operations aviation squadrons to provide dedicated airlift and close air support.

An expanded Special Operations Support Squadron will handle recruiting, training, and supporting logistics, signals, intelligence, and cyber warfare capacities, ensuring a robust and integrated force.

This strategic overhaul aims to position Australia’s special operations forces to respond swiftly and effectively to future regional and global challenges, maintaining our 4o national security and competitiveness in an era of multipolarity.

The ongoing existence of Taiwan as a self-governing democracy is a powerful and humiliating reminder for Beijing of China’s troubled and “embarrassing” history during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The survival of Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek’s forces on the island, despite being routed by Mao’s Communist Party, was largely due to the protection of the United States.

For the United States, supporting Taiwan is one of the last ideological battlegrounds of the Cold War, representing a recognition of its limitations. Although there is confidence that Taiwan and its allies can repel an invasion, the Japanese government has warned that China could land troops in Taiwan within a week of hostilities starting, signalling potential trouble for the island and the region.

To address this humiliation, Chinese President Xi Jinping has set a “deadline” of 2027 to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland, escalating tensions and potentially drawing the United States and allies, like Australia, into direct conflict with China.

While an uneasy peace continues in the region, many analysts believe it is only a matter of time before a miscalculation or accident leads to full-blown conflict between the United States and China. Adding to the tension, the Japanese government has released a report expressing concerns about the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s capability to launch a coordinated invasion of Taiwan.

Although China’s proximity to Taiwan gives it an advantage in blockade and invasion efforts, achieving maritime and air dominance before allied forces arrive remains a challenge. The Japanese analysis suggests that while Taiwanese resistance would be significant, it might not be sufficient to turn the tide.

Beijing’s invasion strategy would likely involve multi-domain operations, leveraging “grey zone” and “hybrid” warfare capabilities to gain a tactical and strategic advantage ahead of an allied response. The Japanese analysis states, “Such an operation could run into difficulty in the face of counterstrikes’ from Taiwan and US military intervention, so Chinese military forces apparently intend to seize control of the island before the United States’ main forces could get involved.” China might use “hybrid warfare operations,” combining armed attacks and cyberattacks on vital infrastructure, to delay US and allied interventions.

This approach aims to incapacitate Taiwanese resistance and complicate US response decision-making by reducing the physical presence of US forces and creating unreliable and conflicting information for decision-makers and commanders, giving Beijing time to achieve its objectives.

Australians will need to accept several uncomfortable realities in the coming years. As the Indo-Pacific becomes the most contested region in the world, both the Australian public and policymakers will have to acknowledge that without significant effort, investment, and reform, future generations may face economic challenges, and a nation increasingly influenced by rising regional powers.

China and the Philippines have reached an agreement to ease tensions at the Second Thomas Shoal, a hotspot in the South China Sea known for territorial disputes.

Agreement Details

The new agreement aims to de-escalate tensions without conceding territorial claims. Key points of the agreement include:

• Diplomatic Resolution: The deal was reached after a series of meetings and diplomatic exchanges, highlighting the importance of dialogue and consultation.
• Neutral Stance: Both sides agreed that the deal does not prejudice either party’s positions in the South China Sea.
• Government Announcement: The Philippine government announced the agreement on Sunday.
• Historical Tensions: The worst confrontation involved Chinese forces ramming and attacking Philippine navy boats with a pickaxe, boarding the vessels, seizing supplies, and injuring personnel.

Future Implications

This agreement could set a precedent for similar arrangements with other countries. China has ongoing disputes with several governments over land and sea borders. The success and longevity of this deal remain to be seen.

The F-35 delivers an unrivalled advantage for our pilots, nation, and global partners. A decisive differentiator in near-peer warfare, the F-35 is the most advanced node in the networked 21st Century Security operational vision.

CLICK LINK

5th Gen Capabilities (f35.com)

An aircraft carrier does not necessarily need a submarine nearby, as both are powerful naval assets with distinct roles and capabilities. However, they are often deployed together to enhance operational effectiveness and security. Here’s why submarines might accompany aircraft carrier groups:

A submarine can provide an extra layer of protection for the carrier battle group. Submarines excel at detecting and potentially engaging enemy submarines that could threaten the carrier. This defensive role is crucial for safeguarding the carrier and its accompanying vessels.

Submarines are instrumental in anti-submarine warfare, actively hunting down enemy submarines to protect the carrier group from underwater threats. Their stealth and advanced detection capabilities make them ideal for this role.

Submarines can operate undetected for extended periods, making them valuable assets for intelligence gathering. They can monitor enemy activities, including the locations of ships and submarines, providing crucial information to the carrier group for strategic planning and decision-making.

In certain scenarios, a submarine and carrier group might coordinate their efforts for combined operations. The submarine could launch a surprise attack on an enemy target, while the carrier’s aircraft provide air support, creating a powerful and versatile strike capability.

While submarines offer significant advantages, several factors influence their deployment alongside carrier groups:

• Resource Intensity: Submarines are expensive to operate and require substantial resources, making their deployment a strategic decision based on mission priorities.
• Existing Defences: Carrier groups are equipped with their own anti-submarine defences, including helicopters, sonar buoys, and specialized equipment, providing robust protection even without a submarine.

While a submarine is not a necessity for an aircraft carrier group, its presence can enhance protection, intelligence, and operational versatility. The decision to deploy a submarine alongside a carrier group is based on strategic considerations and specific mission objectives, balancing the benefits of additional security and capabilities against the costs and resources involved.

On Friday, 20 September 2024, we will commemorate the 25th anniversary of Australian service in Timor-Leste. This significant milestone honours the contributions and sacrifices made by Australian personnel in the region over a span of 14 years, from 1999 to 2013.

Australian involvement in Timor-Leste included dedicated service from members of the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, as well as numerous civilians who played crucial roles in the mission. Their collective efforts were pivotal in supporting peace and stability in Timor-Leste during a critical period in its history.

A national commemorative service will be held at the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra. This solemn event will provide an opportunity to honour and remember the six Australians who lost their lives in the line of duty, as well as to acknowledge all those who served and their families for their unwavering commitment and sacrifice.

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) strongly encourages everyone planning to attend the service to register their intention to do so. While a ticket will not be required for entry, registering will help ensure that adequate arrangements are made to accommodate all attendees and to facilitate a smooth and respectful commemoration.

To register your attendance, please visit the DVA website. Your participation in this important event will contribute to the collective remembrance and recognition of Australia’s service in Timor-Leste.

Please find attached the open invitation to attend a service and plaque unveiling at the Vietnam War Memorial at Canungra on Sunday 18 August 2024.

Our combined RAA plaque will be unveiled along with several other Corps and Unit plaques. Kevin O’Brien will deliver the main address during the service which commences at 1100 hours.

Please let me know if any Gunners and family members are attending and I will collate and pass numbers to the organisers. Alternatively, you may contact the organisers directly. Any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Peter Bruce, OAM, JP
President
4th Field Regiment (SVN) Old Boys
pjbruce8@bigpond.net.au
0419 349 317

CLICK LINK to read details

Invitation to attend Canungra Vietnam Veterans Memorial Service

I spent the entire morning trying to get a refund from Origin, only to end up frustrated and without a satisfactory resolution. My ordeal began with being shuffled from one department to another, each time told they couldn’t assist and passed along, with long waiting times in between. Finally, someone was willing to attempt to help.

This issue started on July 9th when our account was over $500 in credit, anticipating a potentially high bill while we were away. The bill turned out to be lower, leaving us with a credit. Origin had already messed us around with the installation of a smart meter after fitting solar panels, rescheduling the installation date and then raising our rates while reducing solar credits. Frustrated, I switched to another supplier offering better rates and solar credits.

On July 15th, I called to request a refund and was asked to provide various identification documents, which I did promptly. Shortly after, I received another email asking for a bank statement showing the last Bpay payment, which I also provided. I then received a confirmation email stating that my refund would be processed within five working days.

Today, I checked and saw no refund, leading to my wasted morning. I was told the refund wasn’t processed because my bank statement was two pages, and they required it all on one page, despite the header being on the first page and the Bpay payment on the third. Because it wasn’t on one page, they refused to credit the refund directly to my account. Instead, they said they would send a cheque to my home address, which could take up to 28 days. I had no choice but to accept this settlement.

I pointed out that if I took 28 days to pay their bill, I’d be sitting in the dark.

Throughout this process, Origin’s inefficiency and lack of proper communication were evident. Initially, they failed to handle the installation of the smart meter efficiently, causing unnecessary delays. When it came to processing my refund, they repeatedly requested additional documentation, despite already having everything needed. Each department seemed to have no coordination or understanding of the previous interactions, making me repeat my issue over and over again. The final straw was their insistence on an unreasonable documentation format, ignoring the practical constraints of standard bank statements.

In summary, Origin’s handling of my refund has been a prime example of poor customer service, lack of internal communication, and bureaucratic inefficiency. Their processes are cumbersome and customer-unfriendly, causing undue stress and inconvenience.

ED: Thank you for allowing me to vent my frustration!