The Battle of Nui Le, fought on 21 September 1971, was the last major confrontation involving Australian and New Zealand forces in South Vietnam. As part of Operation Ivanhoe, Australian and New Zealand troops from the 4RAR/NZ (ANZAC) Battalion engaged in intense combat with the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) 33rd Regiment in Phuoc Tuy Province. This battle marked a significant moment in Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, which had spanned over nine years and was increasingly unpopular at home.

Background: Australia’s Withdrawal from Vietnam

By September 1971, Australia was preparing to withdraw its troops from Vietnam, following a decision made by the Australian government in late 1970. This gradual reduction of combat forces mirrored the strategy adopted by the United States, as both countries sought to extricate themselves from the protracted and unpopular conflict. Although the Australians had successfully pushed back the Viet Cong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) forces during Operation Overlord in June, by September, these forces had returned to Phuoc Tuy Province. Intelligence suggested that the enemy was preparing to ambush the Australians, hoping to score a propaganda victory before their withdrawal was complete.

The PAVN 33rd Regiment posed the greatest threat to the 1st Australian Task Force (1ATF) as it sought to reassert control over the region. The well-trained and well-armed regiment had fought the Australians before, and their presence in the area indicated a looming confrontation. The 4RAR/NZ Battalion, including two Australian infantry companies (B and D Companies) and one New Zealand infantry company (V Company), was tasked with a reconnaissance-in-force operation to disrupt the enemy’s plans.

The Build-Up to the Battle

Operation Ivanhoe, launched in early September, was aimed at neutralizing the PAVN and VC forces in northern Phuoc Tuy Province. The Australians and New Zealanders were supported by elements of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, the 104th Field Battery, and American air assets. Intelligence had identified the presence of the 33rd Regiment’s headquarters and 3rd Battalion in the area, but unknown to the Australians, the 2nd Battalion had also moved into the region, increasing the enemy’s strength to approximately 1,100 soldiers.

On 19 September, PAVN forces launched a mortar and rocket attack on a South Vietnamese outpost at Cam My village. Australian armoured personnel carriers (M113s) were sent to investigate but were ambushed by a large PAVN force using rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and small arms fire. The next day, 11 Platoon of D Company made contact with a PAVN platoon, resulting in a brief skirmish that left four enemy soldiers dead. Signs indicated that a significant PAVN force had passed through the area.

The commander of the PAVN 33rd Regiment, Colonel Nguyen Van Thuong, believed the Australians were vulnerable due to their reduced artillery support. Based on reports from Viet Cong spies, he expected a battle between infantry forces alone and set ambushes accordingly. However, the Australians did not follow the expected route, avoiding the ambushes.

The Battle of Nui Le

On the morning of 21 September, patrols from 11 Platoon, D Company, discovered evidence of fortified enemy bunker positions near the Courtenay rubber plantation. B and D Companies advanced toward the positions near Nui Le, ready to engage. At midday, 12 Platoon made contact with a PAVN security element guarding the 33rd Regiment’s headquarters, suffering one dead and four wounded from RPG fire.

As the battle intensified, airstrikes were called in. United States Air Force F-4 Phantoms and A-37 Dragonfly aircraft bombed the enemy positions, while Australian artillery and helicopter gunships provided additional support. The PAVN forces appeared to retreat under the bombardment, but this was a ruse, and they remained in their bunkers, waiting for the Australians to advance.

At 2:00 PM, D Company was ordered to move forward and destroy the bunker system. Unknown to the Australians, the PAVN’s 2nd Battalion had not fled as expected. As 11 Platoon advanced 50 meters into the bunker complex, they were ambushed. Three soldiers were killed, and two were wounded. Despite the overwhelming firepower and close-quarter fighting, including hand-to-hand combat, the Australians managed to withdraw under heavy fire, but the bodies of their fallen comrades could not be recovered.

As night fell, the battle continued. The commander of 11 Platoon, Lieutenant Garry McKay, was hit by sniper fire. In the pitch-black conditions, Captain Greg Gilbert, the forward observer, directed artillery fire to within 25 meters of the Australian position, a dangerous manoeuvre that likely saved the company from being overrun. The PAVN commander, realizing that Australian artillery was still active, disengaged at 9:00 PM.

Aftermath and Legacy

The Battle of Nui Le concluded with five Australian soldiers dead and 24 wounded, making it one of the costliest engagements for Australia in the Vietnam War. The PAVN suffered unknown casualties, though 14 bodies were recovered on the battlefield. The following day, New Zealanders from V Company reinforced D Company and conducted a search of the area, finding the bodies of the fallen Australian soldiers.

For their actions during the battle, several soldiers were honoured. Second Lieutenant Garry McKay, who was severely wounded, was awarded the Military Cross, while Captain Gilbert received the Distinguished Service Medal in 2018.

The Battle of Nui Le marked the end of Australia’s combat role in Vietnam. It was a fierce and costly encounter that underscored the bravery and resilience of the Australian and New Zealand forces in the face of a formidable enemy. As the last major battle fought by ANZAC forces in Vietnam, it remains a significant chapter in the history of both nations’ involvement in the war.

Mark Donaldson was awarded the first Victoria Cross medal since the Vietnam War.

Veterans are warning military medals are being devalued, with commanders expecting a decoration for doing their job rather than anything extraordinary.

The military honours system has come under renewed scrutiny after the Defence Minister revoked the medals and citations of up to nine officers linked to units accused of war crimes in Afghanistan.

One anonymous special forces patrol commander, with over 20 years of service, expressed frustration with the inconsistencies in how awards were distributed and the criteria for receiving them. He recounted being shot and wounded in battle alongside Mark Donaldson, the recipient of Australia’s first Victoria Cross since the Vietnam War. Despite a former army chief recommending the commander for a Star of Gallantry, he received no such recognition. Meanwhile, senior officers, who were not directly involved in combat, were commended.

“Was their leadership and command from behind a desk more deserving of a medal than my leadership, command, self-sacrifice, and gallantry in a significant ground battle?” the soldier questioned in a statement.

His account forms part of a submission by the Australian SAS Association to a Senate inquiry examining the Defence honours and awards system. The association argues that the current system is flawed, often overlooking those who risked their lives in combat in favour of senior officers who were distant from the battlefield. This, they claim, undermines the value of military awards.

The association has called for a comprehensive review of all recorded acts of gallantry from the beginning of the Afghanistan conflict. They also criticized the quota system, which they believe has led to some commendable acts going unrecognized.

“There should be no quota on recognising acts of gallantry,” the submission stated, adding that many SAS veterans feel their brave and dedicated service has been undervalued.

The association highlighted numerous examples of veterans who served multiple tours in East Timor, Iraq, and Afghanistan—some up to 15 times—without receiving individual honours, while others received medals after a single deployment. This disparity, they suggest, may be due to personal biases, poor submissions, or a lack of proper consideration.

“It is unacceptable that an officer far removed from the action can override the recommendation of two senior officers who witnessed the act of gallantry firsthand,” the submission argued.

The Senate inquiry, originally scheduled to report by November 28, may be extended due to the controversy surrounding the Defence Minister’s decision to strip some Afghanistan commanders of their awards.

Bell’s V-280 Valor won the US Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competition (Bell)

Bell Textron is advancing efforts to promote its V-280 Valor tiltrotor to Australia’s Army. Carl Coffman, Bell’s VP for military sales, will meet with Lt. Gen. Simon Stuart to discuss how the V-280 can meet Australia’s defence and disaster response needs. Coffman highlighted Australia’s vast geography and remote terrain, emphasizing the aircraft’s speed and flexibility for rapid internal force movement. He noted Australia’s familiarity with tiltrotors through the US Marine presence in Darwin and suggested the V-280’s advantages for disaster relief across the Indo-Pacific. While not yet available, the V-280 is in development, with the first test flights planned for 2026 and potential sales likely through the US Foreign Military Sales program.

A four-legged robot mugs for the camera in a video on the website for Australian robotics firm Breaker. (Screengrab from website)

Australian startup Breaker is pioneering a new era of drone technology with a small, unassuming box about the size of a thick deck of cards. While it may not stand out in a room filled with large ground vehicles, this “autonomy stack” is packed with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms designed to enhance unmanned systems for a variety of missions. Breaker’s co-founder, Matthew Buffa, explained that their technology aims to make drones behave more like human teammates, streamlining operations for the user and reducing cognitive overload.

Buffa emphasized the autonomy of their system. For instance, if a drone detects an abandoned car near a road but deems it non-threatening, it will not bother the operator, who may be preoccupied with more critical tasks. “The operator is doing something important,” Buffa said. “I’m [the drone] not going to go on the radio and tell him about this random car I’ve seen, which is what autonomous systems do right now.”

This AI-driven decision-making contrasts with current autonomous systems, which often require constant human input. Buffa highlighted the company’s goal of building robots that are intuitive to control and reduce the operator’s workload by integrating multiple autonomous systems across domains.

Breaker’s system is designed to function even under high stress. A soldier on a ridge, for example, could designate a single drone to act as the leader of a swarm, which would coordinate with the other drones and sensors. If a threat, such as a truck carrying armed personnel, is detected, the leading drone would inform the operator and seek further instructions. This type of natural two-way communication is key to Breaker’s vision.

Buffa compared the system to the Star Wars character R2D2, which helps Luke Skywalker fly, target, and shoot without overwhelming him with data. Instead of bombarding operators with information, Breaker’s AI aggregates and filters sensor input, alerting users only when necessary.

Before deployment, Breaker trains its AI models on various mission types and threats, ensuring the drones are well-prepared. Buffa explained that their team briefs the drones in much the same way human operators are briefed, providing them with mission details, documents, and visual data. This allows the AI to make smart, informed decisions during operations.

A key advantage of Breaker’s system is its ability to reduce human presence on the battlefield. Buffa pointed to lessons from Ukraine, where drone operators have been targeted by enemy forces due to the radio frequency (RF) signals emitted by their equipment. Breaker’s solution minimizes the need for continuous data streams, making the system more resilient in combat environments. By shifting more control to the AI, fewer humans are required in the field, reducing the risk of counterstrikes.

Buffa believes that offloading command structures to unmanned systems is the future of warfare, a future where operators can focus on high-priority tasks while AI handles routine decisions.

BAE Media Release

BAE Systems Australia has revealed its latest innovation at Land Forces 2024: the Autonomous Tactical Light Armour System (ATLAS™) Collaborative Combat Variant (CCV), an uncrewed ground vehicle (UGV) designed to enhance battlefield operations while safeguarding soldiers. This modular, cost-effective 8×8 UGV leverages BAE Systems’ extensive experience in autonomous technologies and armoured vehicles, developed in collaboration with industry partners.

ATLAS CCV represents a future where autonomous, semi-autonomous, and human-machine teams work together to generate combat mass and reduce the need for soldiers to engage in high-risk tasks. The vehicle operates with high levels of autonomy both on and off-road, complementing crewed vehicles like infantry fighting vehicles and main battle tanks at a lower cost. Its modular design ensures the capability remains adaptable to emerging threats and technologies, incorporating proven systems that can be upgraded as needed.

Andrew Gresham, Managing Director of Defence Delivery at BAE Systems Australia, emphasized the strategic advantage this system offers: “We’ve developed the ATLAS vehicle to give soldiers the advantage on the modern battlefield. This autonomous platform will perform the dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks expected in combat environments.”

A key feature of the ATLAS CCV is the integration of the VANTAGE ATSTM medium-calibre turret system, a lightweight, highly automated weapon designed for uncrewed platforms. Notably, it includes a “human-in-the-loop” targeting system, ensuring human oversight in critical combat decisions.

Transportability is another advantage of ATLAS CCV, as it is engineered to fit into a standard 20-foot ISO container or flat rack, offering a logistics multiplier effect for accompanying crewed platforms.

ATLAS CCV marks a significant milestone in Australia’s defence innovation.

The recent convictions of former senior Indigenous leader Geoff Clark highlight the critical need for comprehensive forensic audits of Aboriginal land councils and trusts. Clark, once the chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, was found guilty of stealing nearly $1 million from various Aboriginal organizations over a 15-year period. His case, now public after suppression orders were lifted, shows that significant sums were misappropriated to cover his personal legal fees, including defending historical rape allegations and other charges.

More than $400,000 of these stolen funds were used for his legal defences between 2000 and 2005. Additionally, Clark directed funds from the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and Kirrae Whurrong Community Inc to cover expenses related to his personal properties and accepted money from local eel fishermen unlawfully. His actions resulted in convictions on 25 charges, including theft, deception, perjury, and dealing with proceeds of crime. His son, Jeremy Clark, was also convicted of fraud involving over $231,000.

This case underscores the importance of rigorous financial oversight to prevent such large-scale misappropriation within Aboriginal land councils and trusts. Without forensic audits, the potential for funds intended to support communities being siphoned off for personal gain remains a serious risk. Protecting the financial integrity of these organizations is essential to ensuring that funds are used for their intended purpose—supporting Indigenous communities—rather than being lost to corruption or personal agendas.

Just a lot smarter than the average – Smile

The Krakow Post

The Ukraine war has entered a perilous new phase, as the UK and US prepare to make a pivotal decision that could significantly escalate the conflict. A crucial White House summit scheduled for today will focus on whether to allow Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia using Western-supplied long-range missiles. This potential shift in policy has already provoked a strong response from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who issued a stark warning to the West.

Putin emphasized that permitting Ukraine to use longer-range weapons to hit deeper within Russian territory would fundamentally alter the nature of the ongoing conflict. In a severe caution to NATO, Putin declared, “NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia,” suggesting that such actions could drag the Western alliance into a direct confrontation with Moscow.

Behind the scenes, intense diplomacy is underway as Western allies weigh the consequences of expanding Ukraine’s military capabilities. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been engaged in talks with British and Ukrainian officials, focusing on how the war in Ukraine might develop over the next year, with a key diplomatic moment looming at the United Nations General Assembly later this month. There, a potential deal could be confirmed, shaping the trajectory of the conflict in 2025.

Ukraine has been seeking greater flexibility to defend itself by striking deeper into Russian territory, a move seen as crucial to its defence strategy. Up until now, Washington has restricted Ukraine to targeting specific Russian locations near the border using US-provided weaponry. This represents a subtle but significant shift in policy from earlier in the war when Ukraine was entirely barred from hitting any targets inside Russia. However, President Joe Biden is now reviewing Kyiv’s request for greater leeway, a decision that could dramatically change the scope of the conflict.

This development follows growing frustration within Ukraine, where officials believe that being able to target strategic locations deeper inside Russia is essential for turning the tide of the war. For the West, however, the question remains whether these strikes could provoke an even more aggressive response from Moscow.

As the situation evolves, the potential for wider geopolitical ramifications is undeniable. Putin’s warning of NATO’s involvement carries significant weight, as any escalation could lead to a broader conflict that engulfs not just Ukraine and Russia but the broader European and global order.

This moment is poised to be one of the most consequential of the war, as leaders in Washington and London weigh the risks and rewards of supporting Ukraine’s requests for more advanced weaponry and a broader scope of operations. The outcome of the summit and subsequent decisions will likely shape the future of the conflict, determining whether it escalates or enters a new phase of negotiations.

In the coming days, all eyes will be on the White House as the world waits to see whether the war in Ukraine takes a decisive new turn or if diplomacy can prevail amidst the looming spectre of a broader NATO-Russia confrontation.

In recent weeks, numerous politicians have claimed that it would take at least two decades for Australia to establish a civil nuclear power capability. But how long would it really take for Australia to have a functioning nuclear reactor providing power?

The timeline largely depends on several factors, including regulatory frameworks, community engagement, and construction processes. However, if Australia were to follow global best practices, it could achieve this much sooner than the pessimistic estimates suggest.

According to Helen Cook, a highly respected expert in nuclear law, Australia could have a reactor operational within 10 to 12 years. This estimate accounts for the necessary steps such as setting up a regulatory structure, engaging with the community, and building the reactor itself.

A compelling example is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which announced its nuclear ambitions in 2008. Despite having no prior experience with nuclear technology, no nuclear regulatory body, and facing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, their first reactor became commercially operational within 13 years.

Australia, by contrast, has operated research reactors for decades and boasts a world-class regulatory authority, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). The country also has considerable experience managing radioactive waste. For example, it took just five years to build Australia’s latest research reactor, OPAL, which is now considered a state-of-the-art facility.

With the right level of ambition and by adhering to international best practices, Australia could realistically establish nuclear power in a much shorter timeframe, potentially within a decade. The question is whether the political will and societal consensus are aligned to make it happen.

Media Release

At just 3.3 kg, Boeing’s new lightweight Rapid Tactical Router (RAPTR) is set to revolutionize the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) communications in rugged and remote environments. Designed for small-scale deployments, this compact router weighs one-eighth of the current Integrated Battlefield Telecommunications Network (I-BTN) equipment, making it significantly more portable. Housed in a backpack-sized transit case, the RAPTR provides secure network access for both classified and unclassified domains, offering a flexible, mobile solution for military operations.

“The RAPTR allows the ADF to utilize the I-BTN in ways we hadn’t initially anticipated,” says Murray Brabrook, Boeing Defence Australia’s (BDA) Director of Joint Systems. “A single operator can now set up full connectivity in under 10 minutes, and the router’s small size means it can fit in an overhead locker, be easily transported on aircraft, and mounted onto vehicles.”

The development of the RAPTR began during the early stages of Project Currawong, driven by feedback from ADF users who needed a more lightweight and portable system. Though the RAPTR retains the capabilities introduced in the I-BTN—including rapid network connections through SATCOM, radio, VOIP, and public internet—it has been optimized for ease of transport. The system uses standard commercial interfaces like USB, Ethernet, and 4G dongles, simplifying training for operators.

While RAPTR was not part of the original LAND 2072-2B contract, Boeing developed it under the Commonwealth’s Capability Enhancement Strategy (CES). This strategy allows for continuous innovation in battlespace communications to meet evolving needs in the field. “The RAPTR is one of the first significant pieces of equipment to be developed under CES, with substantial orders already placed by both the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force,” explains Tom Minge, BDA’s Battlespace Communications System Program Manager.

RAPTR’s ability to host mission system software and its lightweight design make it ideal for smaller, more agile operations, complementing the larger, more robust I-BTN systems suited to extensive deployments and harsh environments. This technology promises to enhance communication capabilities for ADF personnel, allowing them to maintain secure and reliable networks in challenging conditions.