Media Release – DIU

The U.S. Defence Innovation Unit (DIU) has awarded contracts to four companies, including two based in Ukraine, to develop modular, long-range, one-way attack drones capable of rapid deployment and mission-specific payload adaptation. The initiative, known as Project Artemis, focuses on addressing the need for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that can operate effectively in environments where electronic warfare (EW) and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are denied.

Project Artemis aims to expedite the development and deployment of scalable, cost-effective drones that provide a tactical advantage in modern conflicts. The selected companies include two U.S. firms and two Ukrainian firms, which have partnered with American software developers to enhance drone capabilities. Demonstrations of the prototypes are scheduled between April and May 2025, with further selections to follow based on performance evaluations.

The program was launched following a congressional directive to accelerate the introduction of adaptable, low-cost, long-range UAS platforms for military use. Other branches of the U.S. military are conducting parallel efforts to develop similar systems to enhance battlefield capabilities. The only official visual accompanying the DIU’s announcement features an AI-generated image of drone-like aircraft with three engines.

The drones under development must meet specific criteria set by the DIU, including affordability, rapid launch capability, low-altitude navigation, and resistance to electronic interference. They are designed to function in disrupted, disconnected, intermittent, and low-bandwidth environments while carrying various interchangeable payloads suited to diverse mission requirements.

Project Artemis seeks to provide operational units with advanced drone systems significantly earlier than traditional military procurement programs. The DIU, in collaboration with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition & Sustainment, selected the participating firms through a competitive evaluation process involving 165 proposals and flight demonstrations, completed within a four-month timeframe.

The program reflects evolving global military trends influenced by recent conflicts. The increasing emphasis on scalability and cost efficiency over highly sophisticated, high-cost systems is evident. Observations from ongoing military engagements highlight the growing role of mass-deployable drones in modern warfare, reinforcing the necessity for rapid adaptability in drone technology.

Scalability and affordability are also shaping procurement strategies for other defence assets, including fighter aircraft. The shift towards producing and maintaining adaptable platforms rather than prioritizing extreme technological advancements is gaining traction. The involvement of Ukrainian firms in Project Artemis underscores their experience in asymmetric warfare and drone development, having demonstrated success in deploying various unmanned systems in recent conflicts.

The DIU has also initiated a separate project, the Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV), which shares similarities with Artemis but focuses on developing cost-effective cruise missile alternatives. The objectives of both programs align with current operational needs and combat conditions, with direct input from defence personnel regarding the challenges posed by near-peer adversaries.

As global military strategies evolve, initiatives like Project Artemis highlight the increasing reliance on unmanned systems to enhance operational effectiveness. By leveraging emerging technologies and fostering collaboration between U.S. and international defence firms, the program aims to develop versatile and resilient aerial platforms capable of meeting modern battlefield demands.

Photo credit U.S. Defence Innovation Unit

Only in Australia would we name the Army’s latest armoured 4WD after a highly venomous snake—one that was, in turn, named after a beer-chugging Prime Minister!

In this video, we take a deep dive into the Hawkei Protected Mobility Vehicle, exploring:

✅ What the Hawkei is and why it’s a game-changer for the Australian Army

✅ How it got its unique name

✅ Where it’s built and how it enhances military operations

Air & Space Forces Association’s Warfare Symposium – Release

China’s latest fighter jet has become a focal point of discussion at a major American defence conference, prompting renewed urgency among US military leaders to advance their own sixth-generation stealth combat aircraft.

The issue took centre stage at the annual Air & Space Forces Association’s Warfare Symposium, held in Colorado from March 18-20. Senior US Air Force officials voiced concerns over China’s rapid advancements in aerial warfare and debated the future of America’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, a multi-billion-dollar initiative aimed at developing the next evolution of air superiority fighters.

China’s Breakthrough Raises Alarms

US military officials are closely monitoring China’s latest stealth fighter, believed to be a sixth-generation aircraft designed to counter American air superiority in potential future conflicts. While details on the Chinese aircraft remain classified, analysts suggest it incorporates advanced stealth, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted combat systems, and networked capabilities—features also central to the US NGAD program.

During a panel discussion at the symposium, US Air Combat Commander General Kenneth Wilsbach acknowledged the urgency of responding to China’s advancements.

“We have some choices to make as we observe what China has produced, and we can presume we know what that’s for – for air superiority,” Wilsbach stated, according to Defence One.

His remarks underscored growing concerns within the Pentagon that China is closing the technological gap in air warfare, potentially challenging US dominance in the skies.

The Status of the NGAD Program

The NGAD program is the Pentagon’s ambitious plan to develop a next-generation fighter jet to replace the F-22 Raptor and ensure continued US air superiority. Initially conceived as a highly advanced, multi-role combat system with manned and unmanned components, the program has faced obstacles, including budget constraints, technical hurdles, and strategic debates over its necessity.

Last year, the program was paused as military planners reassessed its feasibility and cost. However, China’s latest breakthrough may force Washington to accelerate its timeline.

According to US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, the NGAD program remains a top priority but must align with real-world threats and fiscal realities.

“We must ensure that our investments in next-generation air dominance are strategically sound and provide the US with a decisive advantage,” Kendall stated at the symposium.

The Strategic Implications

China’s air force has made significant strides in recent years, with its fifth-generation J-20 stealth fighter already in service and undergoing upgrades. If China has successfully developed a true sixth-generation aircraft, it could tip the balance in the Indo-Pacific region, where tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea continue to escalate.

The US, meanwhile, is under pressure to maintain its edge. Defence analysts argue that if the NGAD program remains stalled or delayed, America risks falling behind in a critical area of modern warfare.

With heightened geopolitical tensions and a rapidly evolving threat landscape, the US military may soon have to make tough decisions about the future of its next-generation fighter jet program—before it’s too late.

The Times

Well, that didn’t last. Just two months after agreeing to pause the chaos, the Israel-Hamas war is back in full swing.

As we reported last week, the Trump administration attempted to extend the ceasefire with a “bridge proposal,” but Hamas rejected it outright. This time around, Hamas also refused to release the hostages, further escalating tensions. Israel, in turn, stated that Hamas was preparing to launch another attack. Israel Defence Minister Israel Katz made it clear: the strikes are all about achieving “war objectives,” which include bringing the hostage’s home. However, Hamas remained defiant, demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza—something Israel was never going to accept.

With no diplomatic resolution in sight, Israel wasted no time in ramping up military operations. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) launched an aggressive campaign, targeting key Hamas commanders and operational infrastructure. Airstrikes and precision attacks aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities have been relentless.

Meanwhile, on the political front, tensions are reaching a boiling point. Prime Minister Netanyahu has doubled down on his commitment to bringing all hostages home while decisively eliminating Hamas’s threat. Defence Minister Katz did not hold back in his warnings, stating that Hamas was about to face “the gates of hell,” echoing President Trump’s aggressive stance. Hamas, in response, condemned Israel’s actions as “treacherous aggression” and called on the international community to intervene.

As the situation continues to unfold, global attention is now turning to Iran’s potential role in the conflict. President Trump has issued stark warnings against Iranian involvement and the actions of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The coming weeks will determine just how much further this conflict escalates and whether any diplomatic off-ramps remain viable.

Washington Post

The United States has launched a series of massive airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, intensifying tensions in the region. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to Iran, urging them to cease their support for the Houthis or face serious consequences.

The Houthis have been ramping up their assaults on US naval forces, targeting the USS Harry Truman group with missiles and drones. Over the weekend, they launched 11 drones and a ballistic missile, none of which came close to hitting a US vessel. The attacks continued on Sunday with an even greater intensity—18 ballistic missiles and multiple drones were fired, all of which were intercepted or failed to hit their marks.

In response to these provocations, the US unleashed a wave of airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday, hitting key Houthi military targets. The Pentagon reported that dozens of terrorist training grounds, weapons depots, and command centres were destroyed. According to US officials, the strikes resulted in numerous Houthi militant casualties, while they deny any credible reports of civilian deaths.

Donald Trump did not hold back in his condemnation of the Houthis, branding them as “sinister mobsters and thugs.” He directly accused Iran of supplying the Houthis with financial backing, weaponry, and intelligence, making it clear that any future Houthi aggression would be seen as an Iranian attack. Trump warned that Iran would face “overwhelming lethal force” if such attacks persisted. Critics argue that this rhetoric could be used to justify pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, further escalating the conflict.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the strikes, emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of navigation in the region. With major international shipping routes at risk, the US is determined to prevent Houthi aggression from threatening global trade and security.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander, Hossein Salami, issued a response that seemed both forceful and evasive. While initially presenting a strong front, he later pivoted, insisting that the Houthis operate independently, and that Iran is not directly involved in their actions. This statement suggests that Iran may be attempting to distance itself from the Houthis to avoid becoming the next direct target of US military action. Some analysts argue that Iran’s response lacks the strength that state-controlled media outlets claim.

Adding an unusual twist to the conflict, the Houthis recently released an animated video depicting US-flagged coffins floating among the wreckage of American warships. This bizarre display underscores their continued defiance and propaganda efforts aimed at rallying their supporters.

As tensions escalate, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. With the US ramping up its military actions and Trump’s strong warnings directed at Iran, the potential for a broader conflict looms large. The coming weeks will reveal whether diplomacy or further military action will define the next phase of this crisis.

The security and prosperity of Australia depend on maintaining a strong national identity and ensuring that those who seek to become Australian citizens share our values, respect our laws, and embrace our way of life. It is not just about handing out passports—it is about protecting what makes Australia one of the greatest nations on Earth.

Australia has long been a land of opportunity, attracting people from all corners of the world. Many have come here with a deep desire to integrate, contribute, and embrace Australian culture. These people should be welcomed with open arms. However, there are others who arrive with no intention of adapting, who wish to change our society to reflect the very countries they left behind. This is unacceptable.

We must take a firm stance when it comes to citizenship. The current system is far too lenient, and it is time for real reforms. A minimum period of eight years of residency before citizenship should be enforced, allowing sufficient time for individuals to demonstrate their commitment to Australian values. This period should include strict requirements such as consistent employment, a clean criminal record, and a thorough understanding of Australian laws, history, and customs.

Additionally, we must be wary of those who come with an agenda to reshape Australia into something it was never meant to be. Those who openly reject our values, refuse to integrate, or seek to impose foreign ideologies should not be granted the privilege of citizenship. Australia is a free and democratic nation built on principles of fairness, hard work, and mateship. Anyone who cannot respect that does not belong here.

Decisions about who becomes an Australian should not be influenced by globalist bureaucracies, foreign organisations, or leftist ideologues with no stake in the future of our country. It is Australians—real Australians—who should decide what is best for Australia. We cannot afford to be dictated to by career politicians and out-of-touch elites who do not have to deal with the real consequences of their weak policies.

For those who do not accept our laws and customs, the solution is simple: they are free to leave. Any Real Australian will gladly point them toward the nearest airport if they find our way of life so unbearable. We will not allow our country to be compromised by those who do not respect it.

The time for appeasement is over. It is time to put Australia first and ensure that those who wish to join us truly deserve the honour of calling themselves Australian.

ED: There has been a bit of a battle going on Facebook over a comment about ANZAC Day. Because many of you may not have seen it – here’s a rundown which includes one of the reply comments.

Senator Mehreen Faruqi is a Muslim Greens Senator and has once again expressed views that many Australians find deeply offensive. As a member of our Federal Parliament, she has a responsibility to respect the values and traditions that define our nation, including our deep reverence for the ANZACS.

If she finds it impossible to align with the core principles and cultural heritage of Australia, she should consider whether serving in our Parliament is truly in the best interests of the country she represents. Australians expect their elected officials to uphold and respect our national identity, not denigrate it.

Mehreen Faruqi @ GreensAU2

“Why are Anzac lives so special? Are their sacrifices somehow worth more than Muslim soldiers dropping dead in Palestine every single day?  Ofcourse not. It’s time to smash the rotten colonialist chains of Anzac Day to pieces and replace it with a Global Fallen Soldiers Day that finally honours my people too. Justice can’t wait. We need to scream out the cries of the fallen who are begging for our attention today. It’s time to torch the whitewashed colonial legacy of the Anzacs and build a remembrance to commemorate ALL lost lives.”

Facebook: “Our post today on the subject of Mehreen Faruqi questioning our ANZACs has expectedly brought about many criticisms. One of our happy punters has saved me the time by making this comment a few minutes ago, I agree completely.”

“Dear Mehreen Faruqi,

Allow me to address your questions.

Why are ANZAC lives so special? Australia was just a British colony with no cultural or special identity of its own until ANZACs landed on the front lines of WWI and through determination, grit, intestinal fortitude, sheer will and not a little larrikinism gave us an identity.

ANZACs served, lived, and died for Australia. Palestinian “soldiers” are doing it for Palestine so to Australians yes, an ANZAC’s sacrifice is worth a lot more than a Palestinian, Israeli, Ukrainian, Russian or otherwise foreign soldier’s life. And some ANZACs are and were Muslim, so religion doesn’t enter here as a reason why.

As to “smashing the chains of rotten colonialism,” as mentioned above, ANZACs are a product of post-colonial Australia, and if you really deserved to breathe free, clean, bomb-free Australian air, you would know this.

We have a day that is dedicated to Global Fallen Soldiers—we call it Remembrance Day. But the beauty of Australia is if you want to pick a dead Palestinian day and celebrate it, then your neighbours probably won’t mind.

ANZAC legends are not in any way “whitewashed.” Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islanders, horses, dogs, and birds also served in the first A (Australia) alongside “white” Australians. The NZ part is New Zealand, which had the Māori Battalion, who were more feared by the enemy than the Black Watch of Scotland, along with “white” men and women, horses, dogs, and birds.

In the AC (Army Corps), that’s right—you’re attacking the legacy of multiple countries, races, and religious beliefs when you attack the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (better known as ANZAC).

Now, I am myself an immigrant. A naturalised and proud Australian Citizen who came here in the 1980s. This red earth worked its way into my heart and veins. I do not call any country but Australia home. I am not divided between here and there; I am not committed to any country other than this nation known as Australia. Back then, in the ‘80s when I first arrived here, Australia had a phrase or two they laid on newcomers that I would like to lay on you now:

1. You came to Australia to be Australian, not turn Australia into the place you just left.
2. (And the most important one) fit in or leave.
3. If you don’t like Australia, you’re free to go back where you came from.

I hope this helps resolve your delusions. But if not, and you feel you can’t fit in, I will help you pack.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is considering an election pledge for a referendum in the next term of parliament to strengthen deportation powers for criminal dual nationals. This proposal aligns with the Coalition’s broader plan to tighten Australian citizenship rules and ensure the safety of the community. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has also called for a more rigorous citizenship test, reinforcing the need for stricter policies.

Currently, Australian law permits the deportation of dual citizens if they have been sentenced to more than three years for serious crimes such as terrorism. This is done not as a punishment but as a measure to protect the community. However, Dutton argues that a constitutional change may be necessary to enhance the government’s ability to revoke citizenship from those who pose a serious threat. Given the rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim attacks, he asserts that Australia should be “mature enough” to debate tougher measures.

If elected, Dutton intends to explore legislative options, but if a legal roadblock arises, a referendum may be the only viable path. Such a move would mirror a 2015 proposal from then Prime Minister Abbott, which sought to strip Australian terrorists of citizenship even if they were not dual citizens. While that plan did not come to fruition, Dutton’s push for a referendum highlights his commitment to national security and crime prevention.

This approach is not only reasonable but also necessary. Granting citizenship is a privilege, not an entitlement, and individuals who betray Australia’s laws and values should not be permitted to retain the benefits of citizenship. An eight-year waiting period before granting citizenship would allow authorities more time to assess an applicant’s character and commitment to Australian values. This would ensure that only those who genuinely contribute to society are granted full membership.

Critics may argue that such measures are too harsh, but public safety must take precedence. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom already enforce strict deportation policies for criminal non-citizens. Australia must follow suit to maintain law and order.

Ultimately, the proposed changes would reinforce the principle that Australian citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. Those who engage in criminal activities, particularly serious offenses such as terrorism, should not have the right to remain in the country. A referendum would provide Australians with the opportunity to decide on this critical national security issue, ensuring a safer future for all citizens.