The Javelin missile system has become one of the most effective and versatile anti-tank weapons in modern warfare. Developed by the United States, the Javelin is known for its ease of use, precision targeting, and lethality against armoured vehicles. Since its introduction in the 1990s, the Javelin has been widely adopted by various military forces around the world and has proven itself in numerous conflicts.

The FGM-148 Javelin was developed as a successor to the M47 Dragon, which had limitations in range, accuracy, and lethality. The Javelin was a product of a collaboration between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, combining advanced technology to create a portable, shoulder-fired missile system capable of defeating modern tanks.

One of the Javelin’s key features is its fire-and-forget capability. Unlike earlier systems that required the operator to maintain a line of sight with the target until impact, the Javelin allows the user to fire the missile and immediately seek cover, enhancing their survivability on the battlefield. The missile’s guidance system, equipped with infrared imaging, autonomously tracks and homes in on the target after launch.

The Javelin missile system consists of two main components: the Command Launch Unit (CLU) and the missile itself. The CLU, which weighs about 6.4 kg (14 lbs), is the targeting and launching component that houses the infrared imaging system, a day sight, and controls. The missile, stored in a disposable launch tube, weighs approximately 15.9 kg (35 lbs) and is equipped with a tandem-shaped charge warhead designed to defeat reactive armour.

When preparing to fire, the operator uses the CLU to locate and lock onto the target. Once the missile is launched, it ascends in a curved trajectory before diving down onto the target from above, where the armour is typically thinner. This top-attack mode is particularly effective against tanks and armoured vehicles. The Javelin can also be fired in direct-attack mode for engaging bunkers, buildings, and helicopters.

Since its introduction, the Javelin has been used in numerous conflicts, demonstrating its effectiveness against a wide range of targets. The system was first deployed in 1996 by U.S. forces, and it saw extensive use during the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. In these conflicts, the Javelin proved highly effective not only against tanks but also against fortified positions, light vehicles, and even personnel in cover.

The Javelin has been exported to several countries and used by various military forces. It gained significant attention during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where Ukrainian forces used Javelins to devastating effect against Russian armoured columns. The success of the Javelin in this conflict has further solidified its reputation as a game-changing weapon system.

The Javelin’s portability, ease of use, and fire-and-forget capability make it a highly versatile weapon on the battlefield. Its ability to engage targets at ranges up to 2.5 km (1.5 miles) and its effectiveness in both top-attack and direct-attack modes give it a significant tactical advantage over earlier anti-tank systems.

However, the Javelin is not without its limitations. The high cost of each missile, which can exceed $175,000, makes it an expensive option, especially when used against lower-value targets. Additionally, while the system is highly effective in open terrain, its performance can be reduced in urban environments where obstacles can interfere with the missile’s flight path.

The Javelin anti-tank weapon system represents a significant leap forward in military technology, providing ground forces with a reliable and effective tool for neutralizing armoured threats. Its proven track record in multiple conflicts has made it a staple of modern arsenals, and its continued development and deployment ensure that it will remain a key asset in future warfare.

Australia is home to nearly half a million military veterans, many of whom are active participants in the workforce. However, a significant portion, around 60%, struggle with long-term health issues. Of these, about half face persistent mental health challenges, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and an elevated risk of suicide.

While disclosing these conditions can pave the way for essential workplace support, many veterans choose to remain silent. This silence often stems from a fear of stigma and the potential impact on their professional lives. Unfortunately, keeping quiet can create a cycle of isolation, where veterans feel compelled to continue concealing their struggles, even when it might be in their best interest to seek help.

This issue is particularly pronounced in roles that require full disclosure, such as Australian government positions needing security clearances. Veterans who initially choose not to disclose their mental health conditions may find themselves trapped, forced to seek external assistance privately without informing their employers. This secrecy can lead to self-harm or even mental health crises, leaving employers unaware and unable to provide the necessary support.

At the University of Queensland, a team is studying the complex dynamics of how and when veterans choose to disclose their mental health conditions. Through surveys and interviews, they have identified a wide range of approaches to disclosure.

On one end of the spectrum, some veterans refuse to reveal their health concerns to anyone, including close family members. They often feel that others cannot truly understand their experiences, and fear that disclosure might damage their relationships. On the other end, some veterans are subjected to frequent, mandatory disclosures, sometimes as often as every six months. This constant scrutiny makes them feel as though their personal lives are on display to supervisors and human resource managers, leading to a sense of vulnerability and invasion of privacy.

One veteran recounted an experience where, during a government job application process, all veterans diagnosed with PTSD were asked to identify themselves in a crowded room. They were then required to fill out extensive documentation detailing their condition, treatment, and medication regimen, long after other applicants had finished.

Another veteran described the intricate decision-making process involved when considering new contracts or contract renewals. They would assess factors such as the length of the contract, the contracting firm’s health policies, reporting requirements, and the actual support offered for mental health. Importantly, this veteran also sought out insights from fellow veterans to gauge the firm’s true commitment to supporting mental health.

Despite the challenges, many employers genuinely care about their employees’ well-being but struggle to convey that message effectively. One veteran-turned-business owner shared that the best way to build trust with veteran applicants was by first disclosing some aspect of his own health condition, thus creating a mutual sense of understanding and support.

Our study is ongoing, and while it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions, we hope that our findings will contribute to creating safer, more supportive environments for veterans. By understanding the delicate balance veterans must strike between reaching out for help and fitting into the workforce, we aim to make it easier for them to disclose their conditions and access the support they need—potentially saving lives in the process.

Richard O’Quinn, The University of Queensland; Emma Knight, The University of Queensland; Justin P. Brienza, The University of Queensland; Laura Ferris, The University of Queensland; Tarli Young, The University of Queensland

A place for veterans and their families to get help, support & access the services they need.

SMEAC Inc. is a veteran run and operated charity which runs on the mantra of Veterans Helping Veterans.

SMEAC is currently in the process of refurbishing Camp SMEAC an amazing piece of infrastructure located on the Sunshine Coast, less than an hour from Brisbane and around 10 mins from Caloundra.

Camp SMEAC sits on around 50ha of mostly bush, surrounded by Beerwah State Forest to the North, South and East and the magnificent Ewen Maddock Dam to the West.

Camp SMEAC is being created specifically to work with and support Veterans and Veteran families catering for their unique needs.

Camp SMEAC has been created specifically to work with and support Veterans and Veteran families catering for their unique needs.

CLICK LINK for more information

SMEAC Inc. | Camp SMEAC, Veterans Helping Veterans

ED: From my inbox from Brian Hurlock

The world is slowly waking up to the fact that people have been deceived by the most costly and environmentally destructive fraud in history: the so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change theory and its false alarmism based on the demonization of CO2.

As my mate, author John Dawson, wrote in his book “Climate Alarmism”:

“CO2 does not pollute the planet; it greens the planet. Plants evolved when there was up to 6,800 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, 16 times more than today, so plants are now on a CO2 starvation diet. Nearly all plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2. Greenhouse growers have known this for a long time, which is why they raise CO2 in their glasshouses to 2,000 ppm about the level you breathe in a crowded or poorly ventilated room.”

Forget the propaganda about CO2 being a pollutant driving the modest, naturally cyclical “global warming” period. And consider the trillions of dollars wasted worldwide on the fraudulent fantasies of so-called “renewables” money that was needed for other essential areas of life and development. This has left the Western world with degrading infrastructure and huge cost-of-living increases, which should make you not only sad but angry! Nearly every financial difficulty faced by grassroots people in the Western world can be blamed on the false alarmists of the Climate Change fraud and their pursuit of the insane idea that so-called “renewables” will ever be economically viable, reliable, or efficient enough to provide baseload power 24/7, 365 days a year, now or in the future!

And the cost!

Hooroo 4 now,

Brian Hurlock

Click Link below

500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature

By Jo Nova – Sunday

And Then the Climate Pledges Evaporated

The tech giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have quietly given up on their carbon neutrality goals, no longer boasting about their environmental efforts. This comes after their emissions have increased by 29% and 50%, respectively, over the past four or five years. More than 500 companies had pledged to achieve net zero emissions by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track.

To distract us from discussing how the climate bubble has burst, some companies are now blaming artificial intelligence (AI). The claims the world is facing mass death and boiling oceans, and despite wind and solar power still not being as cheap as claimed, Big Tech is retreating from their role in “saving the world.” Why? Because AI uses a lot of electricity? It’s as if these CEOs, once hailed as saviours of the planet, are now more focused on capturing the AI market than preserving the environment. The so-called planetary heroes have reverted to being robber barons in business.

Dr. Jemma Green, who sells software for renewable energy markets, is trying to spin a tale of bad luck, but it doesn’t add up. The truth is, if net zero technologies were truly cheap and effective, and if CEOs genuinely cared about the planet, they wouldn’t be abandoning their commitments. But they are.

Why Are Big Corporations Quietly Abandoning Their Climate Commitments?

Jemma Green, in a Forbes article, discusses AI’s energy demands and corporate climate hypocrisy. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Shell once positioned themselves as leaders in sustainability, setting ambitious net-zero goals to align with global environmental efforts. However, the rapid rise of energy-hungry AI is forcing these companies to reconsider—or even abandon—these commitments.

Corporate climate pledges surged recently, with over 500 companies globally committing to net-zero emissions by 2040. This momentum continued between June 2022 and October 2023, with a 40% increase in new net-zero targets. Yet, as the AI revolution gains traction, cracks in these promises are beginning to show. Recent analysis reveals that only 4% of these companies are on track to meet their goals, highlighting a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and reality.

Despite the headline, Green isn’t even trying to explain why this shift is happening. After blaming AI for a few paragraphs, she notes that other giants like Shell, Gucci, and EasyJet are also stepping away from their goals, which pokes a hole in her thesis that AI is the sole culprit. After all, Gucci isn’t exactly trying to sell AI programs.

What Green is documenting is the corporate world quietly erasing their mistakes. For instance, Shell has abandoned its 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity, citing “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.” This target was a key milestone towards Shell’s broader goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Similarly, luxury fashion house Gucci, which once committed to carbon neutrality through verified carbon offsets, quietly removed its claim of being “entirely carbon neutral” from its website in May 2023.

The truth is, if the Earth were in real danger, smart CEOs and billionaires—who have to live on the planet too—would be pushing for nuclear power as if their children’s lives depended on it. Instead, it seems it was all just an intellectual fashion contest, a quick subsidy grab, and maybe some even believed wind and solar power would be useful. But they don’t anymore.

Defender Blog

Australia’s fuel supply, a critical component of national security, depends heavily on maritime routes through the western Indian Ocean. Despite the Royal Australian Navy’s long history of operations in the region—ranging from counter-piracy and counterterrorism to supporting the Gulf Wars—Australia’s focus on the western Indian Ocean has been limited. This oversight could have significant consequences as the region becomes increasingly contested.

Australia’s engagement in the western Indian Ocean is often seen as part of its alliance responsibilities with the United States or a means of gaining operational experience. However, the fundamental reason for maintaining a presence in this region is that maritime security there directly impacts Australia’s national security, particularly its fuel supply.

Since the introduction of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ concept in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Australia has predominantly focused on the eastern Indian Ocean. This focus was reinforced in subsequent documents, including the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper and the recent National Defence Strategy (NDS). The NDS highlights Australia’s primary military interest as the area encompassing the Northeast Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. This focus is logical, given the strategic importance of oil and gas reserves on Australia’s northwest shelf and the Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok straits, which are vital to Australia’s maritime trade.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has taken steps to strengthen its presence in the northeastern Indian Ocean. This includes naval diplomacy through the Indo-Pacific Endeavour, upgrades to facilities on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and the expansion of HMAS Stirling, Australia’s primary naval base in Western Australia. These initiatives align with Australia’s broader strategy of bolstering its military capabilities in the region, ensuring the security of its northern approaches and the critical maritime routes that pass through them.

However, confining Australia’s Indian Ocean strategy to the northeastern quadrant is a mistake. The western Indian Ocean is of strategic importance, not only due to population growth in Africa and trade relationships with the European Union but, most importantly, because of Australia’s dependence on fuel imports. Australia imports 90% of its fuel, and any disruption to this supply chain would have immediate and severe consequences for the nation’s economy and defence capabilities.

While Australia imports refined fuel primarily from South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia, the crude oil needed to produce that fuel largely comes from the Middle East, crossing the western Indian Ocean. A disruption in this supply chain—whether due to piracy, conflict, or strategic moves by other nations—would directly threaten Australia’s fuel supply. For example, China’s growing influence in the region, exemplified by its base in Djibouti and investments in regional ports, poses a potential risk to Australia’s fuel security.

Australia cannot afford to ignore the western Indian Ocean in its maritime strategy. While Australia has historically relied on its partners and allies for security in this region, it has also maintained an independent presence through nearly three decades of continuous naval deployments. This combination of alliances and independent operations has been crucial in ensuring maritime security, and it must be continued and expanded.

To safeguard its national security, Australia must increase its engagement in the western Indian Ocean. This can be achieved through more frequent deployments of naval vessels and aircraft, as well as investments in regional capacity building. Such actions would not only strengthen Australia’s presence in the region but also build relationships and enhance the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to operate effectively in the western Indian Ocean.

Australia’s focus on the northeastern Indian Ocean is understandable, but it should not come at the expense of neglecting the western Indian Ocean. As this region becomes more contested, Australia must adapt its maritime strategy to ensure that its fuel supplies—and, by extension, its national security—are protected. This means becoming more active in the western Indian Ocean, both independently and in collaboration with allies, to secure the maritime routes essential to Australia’s survival and prosperity.

For the war fighter, extended aircraft time in the air can make all the difference. The ability to refuel mid-flight, allowing for longer mission durations, is a game-changing capability. The film “FLOW” showcases how a tenacious team successfully applied aerial refuelling technology to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, transforming it into an even more capable asset for the U.S. Navy.

The dedicated team behind this innovation includes former Navy aviators and pilots, whose expertise and perseverance led to a historic milestone: the first successful in-flight fuel transfer from a tanker aircraft to an E-2D. This achievement marks a significant advancement in the E-2D’s operational capabilities, enabling it to remain airborne for extended periods, thus enhancing its mission effectiveness.

The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is a pivotal asset in the U.S. Navy’s battle management command and control. Often referred to as the “digital quarterback,” the E-2D sweeps ahead of strike groups, managing missions, and ensuring that carrier battle groups remain out of harm’s way. Its role in advancing naval missions is unparalleled, providing war fighters with expanded battlespace awareness, particularly in the realms of information operations, battle management, theatre air and missile defence, and sensor fusion.

Equipped with a two-generation leap in radar sensor capability and robust network-enabled capabilities, the Advanced Hawkeye delivers critical, actionable data to joint forces and first responders. These advancements compress the time between initial threat detection and active engagement, giving the war fighter a decisive edge in dynamic combat environments.

As the cornerstone of the U.S. Navy’s theatre air and missile defence architecture, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye operates effectively across various environments, including littorals, overland, and open seas. Its superior technology and global performance have earned it a prestigious ranking among the U.S. Navy’s top five acquisition programs for 2024.

The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye continues to redefine naval warfare, ensuring that the U.S. Navy remains a dominant force on the global stage.