Stars & Stripes

Did you know the M16 rifle, a staple of modern military arsenals, was designed by Eugene Stoner, an innovative American engineer, in the late 1950s? Stoner was working for the Armalite Corporation when he developed the rifle’s original design, which was first introduced as the Armalite AR-15. This lightweight, gas-operated, magazine-fed weapon stood out due to its use of advanced materials like aluminium and composite plastics, which made it lighter and easier to handle compared to earlier rifles.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. military adopted the AR-15 design and designated it the M16. This transition occurred during the Vietnam War, as the M16 replaced the heavier and less versatile M14 rifle. The M16’s design prioritized portability and a high rate of fire, making it well-suited for the challenging conditions of jungle warfare.

Since its initial adoption, the M16 has undergone numerous upgrades and modifications to improve reliability, accuracy, and adaptability. Variants of the rifle, such as the M16A1, M16A2, and the M4 carbine (a shorter, more compact version), have been widely used by U.S. forces and allied militaries worldwide. Today, while newer models like the M4 are more commonly deployed, the M16 remains a symbol of innovation in firearm design and an enduring piece of military history.

ED: This from my inbox. I was not expecting to be able to post today but my admission time was pushed back from 8:00am to 1:00pm.

The Coalition’s plan to address the housing crisis by prioritising local homebuyers over foreign investors is a bold move that resonates with a vast majority of Australians. According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor survey, 69 per cent of voters support the initiative, with 73 per cent in marginal electorates expressing strong approval. This bipartisan endorsement, including 60 per cent of Labor voters, highlights the widespread demand for action on housing affordability.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal includes a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes. This approach aims to level the playing field for local bidders struggling to secure housing amid skyrocketing prices. While the policy permits foreign investment in new developments to stimulate construction, its emphasis on protecting existing housing stock for Australians could prove pivotal in the upcoming election.

Marginal electorates—often decisive in determining government—stand to benefit significantly. The higher level of support in these areas reflects the acute pressures faced by local communities. Housing affordability remains a critical issue, and this plan’s potential to shift market dynamics could attract voters seeking tangible solutions.

In addition to the housing ban, Dutton has pledged to reduce the annual permanent migration intake from 185,000 to 140,000 for the next two years and tighten restrictions on international student numbers. These measures aim to alleviate demand pressures on housing and infrastructure, offering a comprehensive response to the crisis.

While the Albanese government has criticised the policy as insufficient, citing existing restrictions and fees on foreign buyers, the Coalition’s plan addresses a key public concern. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ comments that foreign purchases are already limited overlook the symbolic and practical impact of further tightening these measures. The Coalition’s focus on Australian homeownership as a priority signals a commitment to ensuring fair access to housing.

A review of the policy after two years will be crucial to assessing its impact. Regular evaluations will provide the necessary data to fine-tune the approach and address any unintended consequences. Housing affordability is a complex issue, but decisive steps like this—grounded in public support—are essential for progress.

As Australia’s housing market continues to dominate the political agenda, the Coalition’s plan offers a clear stance on prioritising local buyers. By addressing concerns in marginal electorates and committing to regular reviews, this policy has the potential to become a cornerstone of effective housing reform. The widespread support it enjoys across the political divide is a testament to its relevance and urgency.

From 19FortyFive.com: F-15EX Proving Its Mettle with More Missiles – You want to talk about the biggest load of missiles for an American fighter? Let’s discuss the F-15EX Eagle II because it is becoming quite the missile truck. There are two more weapons stations on the Boeing fighter that were tested with two successful missile launches in late November above the Gulf of Mexico.

• Comparing the Missile Load to Other Fighters –

The F-15EX fired air-to-air missiles in a manner that was deemed satisfactory by the Air Force. This evaluation was noteworthy because now the F-15EX can carry a load of 12 missiles. Other F-15 variants can only deploy eight of the munitions. F-16s have a six air-to-air missile load. Then the F-22 has a capacity for eight missiles, and these are a combination of Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. F-35s have a load of six – four internal and two external. Lockheed Martin plans to increase the missile load with a new F-35 variant. The extra weapons stations will be affixed to the tips of the wings on the F-15EX. This worked well for the 96th Test Wing that ran the evaluation for the firing. One F-15EX launched an AMRAAM and another fired a Sidewinder during the November test. It happened over the Eglin Test and Training Complex’s water range.

G’day to you all,

Tomorrow I’m being admitted to John Flynn Hospital for a couple of days. No worries just a very minor op that is necessary. I was told to expect a two-night stay, haven’t been there for a while and starting to miss those lovely nurses … don’t tell Julie I said that!!

Should be back on air and posting on Friday …

Cheers

Ray

eWISE Blog

On Australia Day, a citizenship ceremony meant to celebrate unity and pride erupted into a national debate after a former Young Australian of the Year wore a provocative t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “FUCK MURDOCK” while sharing the stage with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The incident, which was broadcast across the nation, quickly became the focal point of public criticism, with many Australians taking to social media to express their outrage.

Critics labelled the Prime Minister as “gutless” for failing to address the offensive message on the spot. Some argued that allowing the individual to remain on stage undermined the decorum of the occasion and shifted attention away from the true purpose of the ceremony.

One Facebook user wrote, “That slogan is far more appropriate, she clearly demonstrated her mentality, and Albo showed he is gutless. He should have told her to leave the stage until she was appropriately dressed.”

Another added, “Albo is a weak PM. Allowing her to stand with him wearing such a derogatory t-shirt, and in front of the nation no less! Not good for your image, PM, at home or overseas.”

The Prime Minister’s decision, or perceived lack thereof, drew fire from across the political spectrum. Many felt that the incident disrespected the significance of Australia Day, with one post stating, “This now takes away from the celebrations of Australia Day. How low can he go?”

Others targeted the former Young Australian of the Year, questioning her fitness to represent the values of the nation. “She should be made to give back the award,” one person argued. “She was unworthy in the first place!”

The backlash has reignited conversations about freedom of expression, leadership, and respect for national events. While some defended the protest as a courageous exercise of free speech, the prevailing sentiment on social media was one of disapproval, particularly toward the Prime Minister for failing to prevent the incident.

In a brief response to the controversy, Albanese’s office stated, “The Prime Minister respects the democratic right to freedom of expression. The focus of the day remains on celebrating Australia’s new citizens and the diversity that makes our country strong.”

However, for many Australians, the incident left a sour taste, overshadowing what should have been a day of unity and celebration. Whether viewed as a powerful act of protest or an inappropriate disruption, the moment will likely be remembered as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about the intersection of politics, leadership, and public ceremonies in Australia.

Stars & Stripes

The U.S. Air Force’s deployment of B-1B Lancer bombers to Guam underscores its commitment to bolstering the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific. These deployments, part of Pacific Air Forces’ (PACAF) Bomber Task Force (BTF) operations, demonstrate operational readiness, reinforce strategic deterrence, and enhance cooperation with regional allies.

The Indo-Pacific region’s growing security challenges, including threats from China’s military expansion and North Korea’s missile programs, make it a focal point of U.S. defence strategy. As a key hub for BTF operations, Guam offers a strategic location that enables rapid power projection and extended operational reach, ensuring the U.S. can address security challenges across the region’s vast expanse.

The B-1B Lancer, originally designed for high-speed, low-level missions, has evolved into a versatile, long-range strategic bomber. Its capabilities include carrying a wide range of munitions—from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to precision-guided missiles. The aircraft’s variable-sweep wing design allows speeds of up to Mach 1.2 at low altitudes, enabling it to evade radar systems and strike targets with precision. With a payload capacity of 34,000 kg (75,000 pounds), the B-1B offers unmatched flexibility in mission planning and execution.

The B-1B’s range of approximately 9,260 km (5,000 nautical miles) with aerial refuelling makes it ideally suited for operations in the Indo-Pacific. Its ability to integrate with fighter jets, surveillance aircraft, and refuelling tankers enhances the U.S.’s capability to conduct sustained operations. These deployments not only showcase U.S. airpower but also strengthen interoperability with regional allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

BTF operations highlight the importance of joint and allied missions. By integrating U.S. Navy, Army, and allied forces, these exercises ensure coordinated, large-scale responses to potential threats. This unified approach strengthens the collective deterrence posture and sends a clear message to adversaries about the U.S.’s readiness and resolve.

Beyond military readiness, these deployments serve broader strategic goals. They ensure freedom of navigation, protect vital sea lanes, and uphold stability in a region critical to global trade and security. Cooperation with regional partners reinforces the collective ability to counter emerging threats and respond effectively to crises.

The deployment of B-1B Lancers to Guam as part of PACAF’s training exercises demonstrates the U.S. Air Force’s commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. With advanced capabilities and strategic partnerships, the U.S. continues to project strength and uphold the principles of a rules-based international order in one of the world’s most critical regions.

From 19FortyFive.com: We live in an era where stealth technology dominates the conversation on modern and future airpower. America’s F-35, the F-22 Raptor, and the brand-new B-21 Raider bomber are all at the bleeding edge of stealth technology. China, too, is making inroads in the realm of stealth aircraft. How is it that Dassault’s Rafale remains a viable option for many countries worldwide? The Rafale’s continued longevity, even in a world where fighter design is moving toward incorporating low-observable aspects, is partly thanks to Dassault’s ability to source or manufacture components domestically, the jet’s relatively low operating costs, and filling a specific, non-stealthy market niche without the financial and logistical complications of steal aircraft programs. Not every air force needs stealth capability, and Dassault can deliver minimally stealthy but still capable jets very quickly, thanks in part to the success of its domestic defence industrial base.

The loss of the Tartus port represents a significant setback for Moscow’s strategic ambitions. The Russian Navy is likely to face reduced submarine operations in the Mediterranean Sea following the termination of its longstanding investment agreement with the company managing the Syrian port.

This facility, in operation since 1971, underwent extensive upgrades in recent years. In 2019, an agreement pledged $500 million for further development under a 49-year lease. However, the recent decision by Syria’s government has effectively ended Russia’s foothold in the region, leaving the navy to seek alternatives.

The withdrawal from Tartus is currently underway. Recent reports indicate that Russian vessels have been granted access to retrieve equipment, avoiding a complete blockade of evacuation efforts. While this allows for an orderly withdrawal, it marks a severe blow to Russian naval logistics.

Tartus had gained increased importance following the conflict in Ukraine, as it provided critical logistical and maintenance support for Russia’s Mediterranean fleet. With Turkey restricting access to the Black Sea through the Bosporus, the port’s strategic value was indispensable.

Without Tartus, the Russian Navy must either secure another base or scale back its Mediterranean presence. The port was uniquely capable of sustaining diesel-electric submarines, which require frequent refuelling and maintenance. These vessels, cheaper and quieter than nuclear-powered submarines, have formed a core component of Russia’s operations in the region.

Deploying nuclear-powered submarines is an alternative, but the Mediterranean’s limited entry points and heavy NATO presence make such a move highly risky. Furthermore, the logistical support needed for extended deployments would remain unresolved without a dedicated base.

Russia may consider Algeria as a potential host. The country has maintained strong ties with Moscow, reflected in ongoing military cooperation. However, balancing relationships with other North African nations could complicate negotiations.

Libya presents another possibility, but significant challenges exist. Any agreement would likely involve collaboration with a warlord who controls parts of the nation, which might provoke opposition from the UN-backed government. Moreover, the conditions of Libyan ports, weakened by years of conflict, are questionable. The ports’ capacity to handle Russian naval operations remains uncertain, and the political instability further deters long-term investment.

The loss of Tartus significantly diminishes Moscow’s ability to project power in the Mediterranean. Reduced submarine operations or reliance on ad hoc arrangements could undermine its naval presence in the region. As options narrow, Russia faces the prospect of recalibrating its strategic priorities, potentially signalling a shift in its regional influence.