Picture: An RCV Light at desert testing. (Original image by Savannah Baldwin/ US Army; Code image by Markus Spiske via Pexels; Graphic by Breaking Defence)

Earlier this year, US Army soldiers tested prototype Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs) at Fort Irwin, California. This demonstration highlighted a key issue: the technology currently does not keep human soldiers far enough from danger.

The Army’s long-term goal is for autonomous software to handle most of the navigation for its future robotic fleet. However, since this technological challenge is expected to take years to resolve, the initial RCVs deployed will rely on a radio “tether.”

At Fort Irwin, this setup required five soldiers in a trailing vehicle to control two frontline RCVs. This configuration included one driver and two teams of two, each remotely operating an RCV, and the vehicles had to stay close enough to maintain the radio link. This proximity nearly defeats the purpose of using RCVs to perform dangerous tasks under fire, as envisioned by the Army.

“We need to get [soldiers] a little further back,” said Brig Gen. Geoffrey Norman, then the director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team, shortly before retiring earlier this month. “If they’re inside the direct fire range, whether it’s from a cannon, direct fire, or anti-tank guided missiles, those control vehicles are very vulnerable.”

The Army has been aware for several years that its backup teleoperation setup poses technical challenges. Recent demonstrations, including one at this year’s Project Convergence capstone event, highlighted the severity of these challenges as the Army prepares to potentially field RCVs in fiscal 2028. With the future of autonomy unclear, the service is now considering changing mission sets, concepts of operations, and even technical solutions to make the tether work.

Despite these hurdles, Army leadership is determined to press ahead, convinced that field deployment is essential to advancing the development of its robotic fleet.

“It’s our first robot system like this [that] we’re actually going to keep,” Army acquisition head Doug Bush reiterated. “So, I’m not surprised that there’s turbulence in the key technologies, including the radio comm link, which is foundational to the whole thing and having that capability … being robust enough.”

“A ground environment is the hardest thing possible, it’s way harder and way harder on equipment than a [unmanned aerial vehicle] UAV,” Bush added.

It’s unnerving when life imitates art, especially when we witness it unfolding right before our eyes. Coincidences that come true can be both fascinating and frightening.

Back in 1993, Lloyd Bridges, Jim Abrahams, and Pat Proft unknowingly provided a glimpse into the future through their work. Their satirical portrayal in films like “Hot Shots!” offered a sneak preview of the social chaos and leadership challenges America would encounter in 2020. Little did they know how eerily prophetic their comedic depiction would become, reflecting the unexpected realities of a tumultuous year.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is among 21 nations contributing to the C-130J Hercules aircraft’s impressive milestone of 3 million flight hours since its first flight on April 5, 1996. The C-130J supports 18 mission types, including combat, transport, medevac, humanitarian relief, search and rescue, weather reconnaissance, and firefighting. This achievement underscores the aircraft’s versatility and reliability.

To bolster its capabilities, the Australian government announced the purchase of 20 new C-130J Hercules for the Royal Australian Air Force, worth $9.8 billion, with the first delivery expected in late 2027. Currently, the ADF employs the C-130J for personnel deployment, equipment transport, humanitarian missions, and search and rescue operations.

Rod McLean of Lockheed Martin praised the crews and partners for their role in maintaining the global Super Hercules fleet’s readiness. Nations contributing to these flight hours include the UK, US, Australia, Italy, and others.

Lockheed Martin Australia also rebranded its STELaRLab as Advanced Systems and Technologies, enhancing its focus on hypersonic, autonomy, robotics, and C4ISR technologies. This initiative aims to strengthen Australia’s defence industry and foster innovation through collaboration with government, academia, and industry.

Recently, Lockheed Martin Australia delivered the first sensor systems for Australia’s Joint Air Battle Management System, AIR 6500, from Silentium Defence. These systems offer advanced 3D covert surveillance capabilities, crucial for modern battlespace awareness. Silentium Defence CEO Dr. James Palmer highlighted the importance of innovative technologies and real-time data for informed decision-making.

Lockheed Martin Australia remains committed to leveraging homegrown technologies to enhance Australia’s national security and defence capabilities.

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.