Pat Conroy, Australian minister for defence industry and capability delivery, and Maj. Gen. Richard Vagg, the Army’s head of land capability at the 2024 Land Forces conference in Melbourne. (ADF Cpl. Janet Pan)

WASHINGTON: Australia is set to announce a contract for the domestic production of 155mm artillery shells within the next few weeks, according to Defence Acquisition Minister Pat Conroy. While the country currently imports these shells from a South African Rheinmetall subsidiary, this move aims to boost local manufacturing capabilities in response to growing international demand, largely driven by the war in Ukraine.

Conroy confirmed that the NIOA-Rheinmetall partnership, along with French firm Thales, is competing for the contract, with a third, undisclosed bidder also in the mix. Few details regarding the contract value or production quantities have been revealed.

The shift toward domestic production aligns with Australia’s broader defence strategy. Major General Richard Vagg emphasized the need for local 155mm production, reflecting the government’s substantial investments in the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise (GWEO), which has allocated up to AUD 21 billion over the next decade.

Conroy also expressed optimism about Australia’s role in the global munitions supply chain, aiming to expand production capacity beyond domestic needs. Alongside 155mm shell production, Canberra is exploring solid rocket motor manufacturing, a critical element for missile production.

During his recent visit to Washington, Conroy discussed a $7 billion AUD deal for SM-2 and SM-6 missiles for the Australian Navy with U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro, focusing on securing production slots and delivery timelines.

Washington Post

The US Continues to Push for an Elusive “Ceasefire,” But It Seems Yahya Sinwar, the Late Hamas Leader, Was Never Interested in Peace

As global leaders call for peace in the Middle East, one thing has become increasingly clear: the late Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, had no intention of negotiating for a ceasefire. Despite international pressure, Sinwar’s strategy was not to de-escalate but to escalate, banking on a deadly cycle to push his agenda forward.

Sinwar’s Strategy: Casualties as Leverage

Sinwar’s approach to the conflict was ruthless. As Israeli forces closed in on him, he made it clear to Hamas that no concessions should be made under any circumstances. His belief? That the higher the civilian death toll, the stronger Hamas would stand in negotiations with Israel and the international community. It’s a chilling reminder that, for Sinwar, peace was never the goal.

His twisted strategy was built on the suffering of civilians, with the expectation that each life lost would harden Hamas’ position and weaken Israel’s resolve. Sinwar ordered his followers to refuse any Israeli peace offerings, no matter the potential for relief for Gaza’s citizens. In his mind, high casualties equalled leverage—a cruel calculation that prolonged suffering on all sides.

Leadership Beyond Death: Sinwar’s Final Orders

Even after his death, Sinwar’s tactics continue to guide Hamas’ actions. Reports suggest that before his death, Sinwar instructed Hamas leadership to reject any possibility of compromise and to form a leadership council to perpetuate his hardline strategies. In the wake of his death, Hamas has shown no signs of altering its approach. Civilian casualties remain tragically high, and Hamas’ leadership has remained firm in rejecting concessions, as per Sinwar’s orders.

While many had hoped that Sinwar’s death might shift the dynamics within Hamas, the group’s brutal methods persist. The question now is: how long can this cycle of violence continue? And with Hamas unwavering in its deadly strategy, will there ever be room for a lasting ceasefire?

A Grim Forecast for Peace

As the US and other nations continue to push for a ceasefire, the reality is that Sinwar’s legacy casts a long shadow over any peace negotiations. His belief in the power of civilian suffering as a bargaining tool reflects a deep unwillingness to seek peace—a mentality that remains entrenched in Hamas leadership.

Without a significant shift in strategy or leadership, it’s difficult to see how the situation can improve. For now, the prospect of a true ceasefire remains elusive. As long as Hamas follows Sinwar’s brutal playbook, the bloodshed seems destined to continue, leaving the region trapped in a tragic cycle with no end in sight.

Australia, the United States, and Britain have axed barriers to sharing defence technologies, a significant boost for the AUKUS alliance. Now, 70 percent of defence exports from the U.S. to Australia, previously under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), will be licence-free.

The launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 confronted the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with a new geopolitical reality. Once described as “braindead” by French President Emmanuel Macron, the alliance was jolted into action by a threat that seemed consigned to history—a full-scale conventional war in Europe.

Military leaders began issuing warnings of a resurgent Russia, stressing the need for NATO allies to be prepared within three, five, or eight years. Romanian Defence Chief Gheorghita Vlad underscored the gravity of the situation, stating in February 2024, “The Russian Federation has become a problem for the world order, for democracy. It is not just a war with Ukraine but a war against the democratic world.”

Following decades of post-Cold War downsizing and years of focusing on counterinsurgency rather than traditional military threats, NATO’s readiness for this new challenge has come into question. European defence budgets shrank during the “peace dividend” years, and the shadow of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House adds uncertainty to NATO’s cohesion.

According to Gordon B. Davis, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and NATO’s former deputy assistant secretary general, NATO’s current capabilities are not sufficient to defeat Russia without significant costs. However, NATO’s collective strength still makes it a formidable force.

As of 2024, NATO’s 32 members, especially its European contingent, face challenges such as ammunition shortages, fragmented defence industries, and limited air defence coverage. Yet, in many aspects, even the European portion of NATO can outgun Russian forces. NATO, excluding the U.S., has approximately 1.9 million active personnel, 2,400 combat-ready aircraft, and 6,650 tanks, compared to Russia’s 1.1 million troops, 1,370 aircraft, and 2,000 tanks, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The accession of Sweden and Finland further strengthened NATO, adding well-trained militaries and extending the alliance’s defence line with Russia by over 1,300 kilometres. This expansion puts additional pressure on Russia’s defence capabilities.

NATO also possesses superior long-range firepower, with advanced jets like the F-35, and more modern airpower compared to Russia. Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), remarked that Russia’s tactics in Ukraine would likely be ineffective against NATO forces, which could swiftly decimate Russian troops in a short, intense conflict.

However, a quick war may not be what NATO would face. The Russian state and society, as demonstrated during the first year of the invasion, appear capable of enduring initial losses and regrouping for a prolonged conflict. NATO planners view the Baltic states as particularly vulnerable to attack, given their proximity to Russia and Belarus, and the strategic Suwalki Gap remains a crucial concern.

While NATO’s firepower could overwhelm Russian forces, Davis cautioned that NATO might still suffer significant losses, particularly from Russian bombers, drones, and submarines targeting NATO territory. The balance of power between the two forces remains uncertain, hinging on political will, resources, and the endurance of Western societies in a potential long war.

Photo: Luke Johnston overlooking a burial site where 20 North Vietnamese soldiers were laid to rest. (Supplied: Luke Johnston)

In a rubber forest just north of Ho Chi Minh City, an excavation to find the bodies of North Vietnamese soldiers has made a long-awaited discovery.

The search has unearthed dozens of men, presumed to have been killed in battles more than 50 years ago.

CLICK LINK to read this ABC News story

Australian Vietnam War veterans and descendants help discover long-buried Vietnamese soldiers – ABC News

HMAS Sydney fires Royal Australian Navy’s first Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) near Hawaii during Exercise Pacific Dragon 2024. (ADF LSIS Daniel Goodman)

SYDNEY — Australia has announced a significant $7 billion AUD) investment in SM-2 IIIC and SM-6 missiles, boosting the Navy’s long-range precision capabilities and strengthening its defence against ballistic missile threats. This purchase underscores the country’s commitment to modernizing its naval defences with US-made advanced missile systems.

Defence Minister Richard Marles highlighted the strategic importance of these weapons in enhancing Australia’s defence capacity. “The Standard Missile 6 and Standard Missile 2 Block IIIC will enable our Navy to strike maritime, land, and air targets at long range, providing a terminal ballistic missile defence capability,” Marles said in a statement. He added that these systems will be deployed on Hobart-class destroyers and the future Hunter-class frigates, enhancing the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) ability to protect national interests.

Australia’s recent investment comes after the successful test firing of an SM-6 missile from the HMAS Sydney, demonstrating the Navy’s growing operational capability. Pat Conroy, the Minister for Defence Procurement, emphasized the strength of Australia’s alliance with the United States, noting that Australia was the first country outside the US to fire an SM-6 missile.

The SM-2 IIIC, with its active seeker technology, brings enhanced defensive capabilities against missile threats. Meanwhile, the SM-6 provides extended range for Australia’s missile defence, giving the Navy greater depth and versatility in responding to potential threats.

This development builds on years of cooperation between Australia and the US in missile technology. In 2021, the US State Department approved a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) case valued at $350 million USD for services related to future purchases of the SM-6 and SM-2 IIIC missiles. Although the new investment is not explicitly stated as an FMS case, it is likely that it includes essential elements like training, spare parts, and manuals, managed by the US government as an intermediary between Raytheon, the manufacturer, and Australia.

The SM-2 missile had experienced a production hiatus in 2013 due to declining international demand but resumed production in 2020. More than 12,000 SM-2 missiles have been delivered worldwide to countries including Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Spain. Australia has operated earlier versions of the SM-2 since 2010.

The Australian order is expected to bolster the SM-2 and SM-6 production lines, supporting broader missile production efforts. The US Navy, which also relies on these missiles, has faced challenges in meeting missile procurement demands, with planned production rates lower than in previous decades. Australia’s investment is poised to strengthen both nations’ missile defence capabilities in the coming years.

US Army (AUSA) Conference

The U.S. Army is in the early stages of testing specialized 30mm and 25mm rounds to help counter the growing threat of small drones. These new rounds, intended for the AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, are designed to neutralize unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), a growing concern in modern combat. Army officials made the announcement during the annual Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference, highlighting the lessons learned from ongoing conflicts, particularly in Ukraine.

“The character of war is changing,” said Army Maj. Gen. John T. Reim, Jr., who oversees the Army’s Joint Program Executive Office Armaments & Ammunition. He stressed the need for tactical solutions to deal with the increasing number of first-person view drones being used by adversaries. Traditional air defence systems are insufficient to meet the scale of the drone threat, and the Army is focusing on upgrading its existing platforms to tackle the issue.

One of the key challenges is the cost disparity between interceptors and the drones they are designed to destroy. Drones are relatively inexpensive, with some adversary UAVs costing as little as $1,200, whereas intercepting them can cost upwards of $100,000 per drone. This imbalance has prompted the Army to seek more cost-effective solutions by modifying current weapons systems.

The XM1228 Bradley Aerial Defeat Group Enhanced Round, or BADGER, is a 25mm proximity-sensing round being developed to help mechanized units engage drones. Similarly, the XM1225 Aviation Proximity Explosive (APEX), a 30mm round, is intended for use with Apache helicopters. The APEX round is designed to airburst, allowing it to destroy small drones mid-flight. These new munitions represent a significant step forward, with the APEX marking the first major upgrade to the Apache’s 30mm cannon in 30 years.

Though both rounds are still in the developmental stage, with live-fire testing scheduled soon, they promise to provide a more affordable and scalable defence against small drones. Lt. Col. Saleem Khan, product manager for medium calibre ammunition, emphasized that these rounds will offer protection with minimal modifications to existing systems.

As drone warfare continues to evolve, the Army is moving quickly to ensure its formations are equipped with the tools needed to neutralize this growing threat.

ABC News

The visit of King Charles III to Parliament House, intended as a ceremonial and diplomatic event, took an unexpected turn yesterday when Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe interrupted the occasion with a highly controversial outburst. As the King finished his speech in the Great Hall, Senator Thorpe confronted him, loudly proclaiming her rejection of his sovereignty.

“You are not our king. You are not sovereign. Give us our land back,” she shouted, in a move that has since drawn widespread criticism across the political spectrum.

The incident has sparked significant backlash, particularly from senior members of the Liberal Party. Senator Linda Reynolds expressed her disgust at Thorpe’s actions, calling them “disrespectful” and “deeply inappropriate.” Reynolds suggested that Thorpe’s behaviour did not befit the office she holds, stating, “Being an elected representative comes with a great responsibility to maintain the dignity and respect of the parliament.”

Reynolds also revealed that she would support a formal censure motion against Thorpe when parliament reconvenes in November. A senior Liberal staffer confirmed that two other senators are considering joining Reynolds in pushing for this censure.

Although a censure motion holds no formal power to penalize Thorpe, it would be a strong statement of disapproval from the Senate. For many in the Liberal Party, the incident represents a new low in Thorpe’s confrontational political style, which has consistently courted controversy.

Thorpe, a long-time advocate for Indigenous rights, has made headlines before for her outspoken views on Australia’s colonial history and its institutions. However, this latest outburst — directed at the monarch — is seen by many as crossing a line. Her accusation that King Charles III shares responsibility for what she described as “genocide” shocked many, who found the disruption to be disrespectful not only to the King but to the institution of Parliament itself.

The push for Thorpe’s resignation is now gaining traction among some political figures. Critics argue that her continued presence in the Senate undermines its decorum and brings international embarrassment. While Thorpe has the right to express her views, many believe she overstepped in both tone and venue.

The potential censure motion will be a key test for Thorpe’s political future, as pressure mounts for her to be held accountable for her actions. Whether the motion will garner the necessary support remains to be seen, but the incident has undoubtedly sparked a debate about the limits of protest in public office and the conduct expected from those who represent the Australian people.

As the Senate prepares for its November session, this issue is sure to remain in the spotlight, with growing calls for Lidia Thorpe to face the consequences of her actions — if not through censure, then possibly through wider political pressure to resign.