ED: From my inbox – thanks to Troy Walsh RAA. Please remember everyone is welcome to contribute articles.

The artillery has played a pivotal role in Australian military history, with its origins tracing back to the colonial era. Over time, the Royal Australian Artillery (RAA) has grown into a versatile and essential component of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), providing key offensive support and ensuring battlefield dominance through indirect firepower, target acquisition, and air defence.

Artillery in the First World War

The First World War marked a significant expansion of Australia’s artillery capabilities. Sixty field batteries, twenty howitzer batteries, and two siege batteries were raised, alongside heavy and medium trench mortar units. These artillery formations were vital to the success of Australian infantry operations on the Western Front, providing long-range fire support, destroying enemy fortifications, and coordinating with infantry and armour to eliminate resistance.

The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery

On 19 September 1962, a key moment in the history of the Australian Artillery occurred. Queen Elizabeth II granted the RAA the official title of “The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery,” reflecting its stature and importance within the Commonwealth of Nations’ military forces. The regiment remains the only Commonwealth artillery regiment to have been presented with the Queen’s Banner, a prestigious honour originally presented on 1 August 1971, in honour of the regiment’s centenary. This replaced the King’s Banner, which had been presented by Lord Northcote, Governor General of Australia, in November 1904 in recognition of the RAA’s service in South Africa during the Boer War.

Artillery in the Second World War

During the Second World War, the RAA underwent massive expansion, with over 70 regiments of field, medium, anti-tank, and survey artillery raised, as well as over 200 anti-aircraft and coastal artillery batteries. Many of these units saw action in critical theatres such as the Middle East, Malaya, and the Southwest Pacific. However, the war also witnessed significant losses, with several artillery units captured by the Japanese in Singapore, Ambon, Timor, and New Britain, particularly those serving with the ill-fated 8th Division.

Post-War Developments

Following the war, Australia’s permanent artillery was a relatively modest force until the establishment of the Australian Regular Army in 1947. Prior to this, the artillery had been militia-based, with only a few permanent units such as ‘A’ Field Battery, which traces its lineage back to the New South Wales Artillery. By 1962, heavy coastal artillery, once stationed at strategic points around Australia’s coastline, was progressively phased out.

As warfare evolved, so too did the organisation of the RAA. In January 2011, the regiments and batteries underwent a significant reorganisation, with traditional terms such as “field” and “medium” being removed from their titles. Today, the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery continues to serve as a crucial component of the ADF’s combined arms approach, supporting operations with its sophisticated indirect fire capabilities, including long-range weapons designed to inflict casualties, destroy enemy equipment, and provide essential support to infantry and armoured units.

The School of Artillery

In 1998, the present School of Artillery was completed in Puckapunyal, Victoria, providing modern training facilities and acting as the heart of artillery education within the ADF. Co-located with the Australian Army’s Headquarters Combined Arms Training Centre, the School is supported by the 53rd Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, ensuring that Australia’s gunners receive the best training in the latest techniques and equipment.

Looking Forward

The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery continues to play a key role in Australia’s defence strategy. Its mission is to maximise the combat power of the Australian Defence Forces through the coordination of offensive support, the provision of indirect firepower, surveillance, target acquisition, and ground-based air defence. By doing so, the regiment remains a vital part of Australia’s military capabilities, ready to defend the nation and support its allies in future conflicts.

Institute of Independent Studies

Is nuclear energy really double the cost of renewables? That’s what all the headlines say, but this soundbite doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – especially when you compare all the massive costs being paid by Australians now and in coming decades to support renewables. Watch the video to find out how fixing three key flaws in the CSIRO’s GenCost model shows that nuclear is cost-competitive with renewables.

The F-35A Lightning II, a fifth-generation multi-role stealth fighter, is a crucial component of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) modernization efforts under Project AIR 6000. Australia has committed to acquiring 72 aircraft, with deliveries continuing through 2024. Officially entering service in 2018, the F-35A provides advanced capabilities in air superiority, strike operations, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare.

Key features include cutting-edge stealth technology, the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, and Distributed Aperture System (DAS), giving pilots unparalleled situational awareness. The aircraft carries a range of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, including the AIM-120 AMRAAM and JDAM bombs. With a top speed of Mach 1.6 and a combat range of 1,100 km, the F-35A is a versatile asset.

Operational squadrons include No. 3 Squadron at RAAF Base Williamtown and No. 75 Squadron at RAAF Base Tindal. The aircraft has been deployed in international exercises such as Pitch Black and Red Flag, showcasing its interoperability with allied forces.

Australian industry has played a significant role in the F-35A’s production, contributing components and supporting sustainment through facilities like the Asia-Pacific F-35 Sustainment Hub at Williamtown. Future upgrades and fleet expansions are expected as Australia continues to enhance its air combat capabilities.

ED: This week we profile Alby Morrison a true leader of men. 

Major General Alan Lindsay “Alby” Morrison, AO, DSO, MBE (15 August 1927 – 9 May 2008), was a senior officer in the Australian Army whose career spanned over three decades. Known for his leadership during significant military operations, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Morrison’s contributions to the Australian Army left a lasting impact on military strategies and organizational practices. His life, both personal and professional, is a testament to his commitment to duty, leadership, and service.

Alan Lindsay Morrison was born on 15 August 1927 in Sydney, New South Wales. He was the second of three sons to John and Eileen Morrison, a close-knit family that initially resided in Haberfield before relocating to Bronte. Growing up near the beach, Morrison developed a passion for body surfing and rugby union, a sport he played throughout his youth.

Morrison attended Waverley College, where he completed his education in 1944. His academic achievements and early leadership qualities led him to the prestigious Royal Military College, Duntroon, at the beginning of 1945. Duntroon, a premier institution for military education in Australia, provided Morrison with the foundational knowledge and skills that would guide him throughout his career. Upon graduating in December 1947, Morrison was commissioned as an infantry officer, marking the beginning of what would become a remarkable military journey.

Shortly after graduating, Morrison’s first overseas posting was to Japan in 1948. He joined the 66th Battalion, part of the 34th Brigade, which was serving as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. The battalion was later renamed the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and Morrison returned to Australia with the unit by the end of the year.

In 1950, as Australia committed forces to the United Nations-led effort in Korea, Morrison volunteered to serve with the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR). As a platoon commander, Morrison led his men in the challenging environment of the Korean War. 3RAR was part of the 27th Commonwealth Brigade, which was engaged in key operations during the United Nations’ offensive into North Korea, as well as the subsequent retreat after Chinese intervention during the winter of 1950–51.

Morrison’s service in Korea was not without personal sacrifice. He sustained a serious eye injury during the campaign, which led to his evacuation and hospitalization. However, his recovery did not mark the end of his time in Korea. After recuperating, Morrison was reassigned to the British Commonwealth Occupation Force headquarters in Japan, and later, the 28th Commonwealth Brigade’s headquarters. His organizational prowess earned him an appointment as a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for his “outstanding contribution to successful integration of all units” within the brigade.

Upon returning to Australia in 1953, Morrison was posted to Cairns as adjutant to the 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. It was during this period that Morrison met Margaret, his future wife. The couple married in December 1954, and they went on to have two children, David and Jenny.

In 1956, Morrison took up a teaching role at his alma mater, the Royal Military College, Duntroon, imparting his knowledge and experience to the next generation of military leaders. After a successful stint as an instructor, he further honed his strategic skills by attending the British Army Staff College in Surrey, England. Morrison’s time in England also included a two-year assignment at Australia House in London, where he served on the military staff.

Upon his return to Australia, Morrison continued to climb the ranks. His role as operations officer and later second-in-command of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, set the stage for future leadership positions. In November 1967, Morrison was appointed the commanding officer of the 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (9RAR), with the responsibility of raising and preparing the battalion for combat.

In 1968, Morrison led 9RAR during its deployment to the Vietnam War, where the battalion was engaged in numerous combat operations. His leadership and tactical acumen were instrumental in the battalion’s successes, and he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for his “gallant services” during the conflict. Morrison’s tour of duty in Vietnam ended in January 1970, and his experience there solidified his reputation as a capable and courageous leader.

Following his return from Vietnam, Morrison’s career continued to progress. He was appointed as Military Assistant to the Chief of the General Staff, where he played a crucial role in advising on key military decisions. His strategic insights and leadership abilities earned him a promotion to colonel, and later, to brigadier in 1974.

In 1975, Morrison attended the Royal College of Defence Studies in England, an institution that groomed senior military leaders from around the world. Upon completing his studies, he returned to Australia to take up the post of Commander of the 1st Brigade at Holsworthy Barracks. His tenure as commander was marked by effective leadership and continued dedication to the improvement of the Australian Army’s capabilities.

Morrison’s final significant posting was as Commandant of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, where he oversaw the training and development of future Australian Army officers. His role as Chief of Personnel followed, and he was responsible for overseeing the Army’s human resources and personnel policies. In recognition of his distinguished service, Morrison was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO). After 36 years of service, he retired from the Army on 10 August 1981.

Following his retirement, Morrison remained actively involved in the military community. He founded the Royal Australian Regiment (RAR) Association and served as its inaugural Chairman. His post-military career also included a role as the Services Member of the Repatriation Commission, a position he held until 1989. Additionally, Morrison served as Deputy Chairman of the Calvary Hospital Board in Canberra until 1997, further demonstrating his commitment to public service.

Morrison passed away on 9 May 2008 at the age of 80, leaving behind a legacy of leadership, service, and dedication to his country. He was survived by his wife, Margaret, and his two children, David and Jenny. His son, Lieutenant General David Morrison, followed in his father’s footsteps, serving as the Chief of Army from 2011 to 2015, unfortunately he did not earn the same regard as his father.

Throughout his career, Major General Alan Lindsay “Alby” Morrison exemplified the qualities of a dedicated soldier and leader. His service in Korea, Vietnam, and his numerous command positions reflect his unwavering commitment to the Australian Army and the nation he served. His legacy continues to inspire future generations of military officers and leaders.

Summary of the Ministers speech in parliament:

In 2016, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) commissioned an inquiry led by Major General Paul Brereton into serious misconduct by members of the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2016. The resulting Brereton Report, based on 510 interviews and 60,000 pages of evidence, found credible information of unlawful conduct, including 23 incidents of alleged killings involving 25 ADF personnel, and a sub-culture of elitism.

The report made 143 recommendations, which Defence accepted and has worked to implement through the Afghanistan Inquiry Reform Program (AIRP). This program addressed leadership, ethics, accountability, and cultural reforms to prevent future misconduct. The government has now closed 139 recommendations, with four still pending further investigation by the Office of the Special Investigator.

The speech highlights the importance of the inquiry in holding Australia accountable for war crimes, acknowledging the courage of those who provided testimony. It also emphasizes the ongoing commitment to reform the ADF’s culture and maintain accountability, while paying tribute to the service and sacrifice of Australian personnel in Afghanistan.

If you wish to read the full speech, click on the Link  Statement on the closure of the Afghanistan Inquiry Report | Defence Ministers

Frontline – Ray Payne

I’m deeply concerned about how loosely the media has reported on allegations of war crimes, particularly when it comes to our Australian soldiers. Imagine a journalist relying on a source who openly admits their memory is hazy and they can’t provide specific details. Would anyone genuinely trust a story based on that? Yet, stories like this have been used to accuse our soldiers of serious crimes, including killing innocent civilians and breaking the rules of war.

It feels like some parts of the media, especially the ABC, have been racing to the bottom for clicks or industry awards, with little regard for the impact this has on the veteran community. Just this week, we learned from a Royal Commission that 2,007 current or former defence personnel took their own lives between 1985 and 2021. Many of our soldiers, after facing combat, have had to battle again when they return home—whether through a lack of support from the Defence Force, delays by Veterans Affairs, or the looming threat of losing their medals.

Meanwhile, some outlets seem to have declared their own war on our troops, with no one more involved than the ABC’s Mark Willacy. Over four years, he churned out nearly 40 negative stories about our soldiers, and even received a Gold Walkley after showing footage of an SAS soldier shooting an unarmed Afghan—a case still before the courts. But what’s truly alarming is how the ABC kept allowing these stories to air, even when the facts were shaky at best.

In one instance, Willacy’s source—a US Marine—warned him that his memory was hazy and he couldn’t remember specific details. He didn’t witness anything firsthand, but heard a sound on his helicopter radio and assumed it was a gunshot. That flimsy claim became a fresh war crime allegation. When Heston Russell rightly complained, the ABC not only refused to apologise but doubled down, wrongly linking him to a criminal investigation. Russell sued and won, with the court awarding him $400,000.

It’s frustrating that this kind of sloppy journalism, with no accountability from the ABC’s management, has real consequences for those who served. This is a prime example of why we need to be careful when accusing our ADF of horrific crimes. The public has seen through this kind of reporting, and many now stand with the few who risk everything to protect our freedom.

Jumbotron Research 

Wind turbines in Australia are typically large, complex structures that require significant planning, engineering, and financial investment. Below is an outline of the construction details and an estimate of the average costs associated with wind turbine installation.

Construction Details of Wind Turbines

1. Foundation:
   • Type: Usually concrete (spread footing), reinforced with steel.
   • Depth: Foundations can be between 10-20 meters deep, depending on soil conditions and turbine size.
   • Material: Up to 1,000 tonnes of concrete and rebar are used to ensure stability.
2. Tower:
   • Material: Usually steel, though concrete towers exist in some designs.
   • Height: Towers range from 140 to 200 meters in height, depending on turbine capacity.
   • Sections: Typically transported in multiple sections and assembled on-site.
3. Nacelle:
   • The nacelle houses the generator, gearbox, and other mechanical parts. It sits atop the tower.
   • Weight: Usually between 50 and 100 tonnes, depending on turbine size.
4. Rotor Blades:
   • Material: Fiberglass, carbon fibre, or a combination of materials for lightness and strength.
   • Blade Length: Blades can range from 60 to 85 meters.
   • Transport: Blades are often transported separately due to their size and assembled on-site.
5. Electrical System:
   • Includes transformers, underground cables, and substations to transmit electricity from the turbine to the grid.
   • This requires significant trenching, cabling, and electrical engineering work.
6. Erection:
   • Cranes are used to lift the tower sections, nacelle, and blades into place. These are specialized cranes capable of handling heavy loads at great heights.
7. Road Access:
   • Construction of access roads for transporting materials and heavy machinery. These roads must be durable enough for large trucks and cranes.
8. Grid Connection:
   • Wind farms must be connected to the grid via substations. High-voltage transmission lines may be required, depending on proximity to the grid.

Average Cost of Wind Turbine Construction in Australia

1. Turbine Cost:
   • Turbine (including nacelle, rotor, and blades): Around AUD $1.2 to $1.8 million per MW of installed capacity.
   • A 3.5 MW turbine would cost roughly AUD $4.2 to $6.3 million.
2. Foundation & Civil Works:
   • Foundations and civil work costs: Around AUD $300,000 to $600,000 per turbine.
3. Tower Construction:
   • Tower costs: AUD $500,000 to $1.2 million depending on height and materials.
4. Transport and Installation:
   • Transport, crane hire, and installation: AUD $500,000 to $1 million per turbine.
5. Electrical Infrastructure:
   • Electrical connections, transformers, and cabling: AUD $300,000 to $800,000 per turbine.
6. Planning and Permits:
   • Planning, permitting, and environmental assessments: AUD $100,000 to $300,000 per turbine.
7. Operation and Maintenance:
   • Ongoing operational costs are roughly AUD $50,000 to $100,000 per MW per year.

Total Average Cost Per Turbine

• For a 3.5 MW turbine, the total construction cost would range between AUD $6 million and $10 million, depending on factors like site location, access, and size.

Additional Factors Impacting Cost

• Location: Wind farm proximity to infrastructure (roads, transmission lines) can significantly affect costs.
• Site preparation: Terrain and geological conditions can increase foundation costs.
• Grid connection: Costs increase for remote areas needing significant new infrastructure.

This is a general overview, but specific projects might have variations in costs due to unique logistical challenges and economies of scale.

Thoughtful words from the veteran Simon Pohatu:

RSL NSW. They have taken a decisive stand by telling all clubs trading off the RSL name to cease such use. This is a significant move that is long overdue. Despite the millions made by these clubs, only a meagre amount, if any, is donated to the RSL or veterans. The disparity between the profits these clubs accumulate and the support they offer veterans is stark, demonstrating their lack of genuine care for those who have served the country.

The misuse of the RSL brand, which should represent support for veterans, has instead been used to market clubs heavily reliant on gambling and alcohol. While these venues generate huge revenues, often from poker machines (“pokies”), the amount donated to actual veteran causes is minimal in comparison. The estimated billions of dollars raked in by pokies clubs annually contrast sharply with the small sums that make their way to RSLs and veteran support initiatives. For example, many venues that have “RSL” in their name donate as little as $0.01 for every $10 earned from gambling back to veteran causes, raising serious concerns about where the money is going.

Simon Pohatu and other veterans argue that a venue that uses the name of the Returned and Services League (RSL) should be focused on veterans’ welfare, not just business and profit. Veterans who have served their country often face struggles such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), addiction to gambling and alcohol, and other issues related to their service. Having the RSL brand attached to establishments that promote activities many veterans are vulnerable to is, in their eyes, disrespectful and inappropriate.

RSL NSW is rightly concerned about the harmful impact these venues may be having on veterans and is asking for change. Gambling, especially on pokies, is known to have a disproportionately negative impact on vulnerable populations, including veterans. The reliance on pokies, sports betting, and alcohol to drive revenue can worsen the struggles of those who have served in the military.

Instead of venues pushing these habits, Pohatu suggests a new model: a club environment that genuinely caters to veterans and their needs.

A Vision for a Veterans’ Club

1. No Gambling Focus: A venue that is free from pokies, racing, and sports betting would create a safer, healthier environment for veterans, particularly those struggling with gambling addiction.
2. Inclusive Bar Offerings: A bar that caters to both alcoholic and non-alcoholic refreshments would better serve a diverse range of veterans, respecting those who wish to abstain from alcohol due to addiction or health concerns.
3. Respect for Veterans’ Contributions: Memorabilia and military history should take pride of place, rather than being locked away or replaced by commercial interests. Veterans’ service should be honoured, with venues fostering a sense of community and respect, not just treating them as another customer.
4. Safe Social Spaces: A safe space where veterans can gather, relax, and socialise is crucial. Veterans need places where they are understood, appreciated, and can feel comfortable. A venue designed to feel like a familiar mess hall, rather than a standard bar, would promote camaraderie and mutual support.

Simon Pohatu describes a club where “a vet stumbling is appreciated as an injury rather than an accusation of drunkenness,” highlighting the need for staff and patrons to have a deeper understanding of veterans’ experiences and challenges. In this space, veterans, both past and present, and current military personnel would be respected and supported, not treated as potential sources of profit.

RSL NSW Leading the Way

The call for clubs to cease using the RSL name if they don’t truly serve veterans is an important step forward. By taking this stand, RSL NSW is aiming to protect the integrity of the organisation and the veterans it represents.

State and Territory RSLs across Australia are being urged to follow suit, holding clubs accountable for the use of the RSL name and ensuring that these venues truly reflect the spirit of support and respect for veterans.

It’s time for pokies clubs using the RSL brand to either change their ways or stop using a name that should symbolise veterans’ welfare, not profit.

In a bold move to control the spread of “misinformation,” Australia’s Labor government is proposing new legislation that would impose strict controls on tech platforms. This proposed law, touted as a measure to safeguard the public, is being met with significant backlash, notably from Elon Musk, who called the government’s efforts “fascists.”

Proposed Legislation

The proposed law is designed to regulate how platforms handle so-called “dangerous falsehoods.” Under this law:

• Tech platforms could face fines of up to 5% of their global revenue if they fail to comply with new standards.
• Platforms must establish codes of conduct to prevent the spread of what the government deems as “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
• A government regulator will oversee these platforms, enforcing the rules and slapping companies with fines if they don’t meet the standards.

At first glance, this might seem like a reasonable step to address the modern information landscape. Who could argue with limiting the spread of dangerous falsehoods, especially when they may cause real-world harm? However, the deeper issue lies in the subjectivity of what constitutes “falsehoods” and who gets to define them.

The Complexity of Defining “Misinformation”

As we’ve seen in recent years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the line between “misinformation” and inconvenient truths can be thin and ever-shifting. Mark Zuckerberg of Meta and documents from the “Twitter Files” revealed that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to censor content deemed “misinformation,” particularly related to COVID.

However, several of these so-called “conspiracy theories” were later shown to have more substance than initially claimed. Topics like:

• The lab leak theory of COVID’s origin
• Vaccine side effects
• The role of natural immunity

These theories, once dismissed by governments and platforms alike, have since gained credibility or been validated in some capacity. The lesson? The truth is often not immediately clear, and what is dismissed today could be proven tomorrow.

This opens a Pandora’s box—who decides what information is harmful? What if governments or corporations use this power to suppress inconvenient truths under the guise of combating misinformation? In this light, the Australian government’s proposal starts to resemble a dangerous encroachment on free speech.

Musk’s Reaction

Elon Musk, the billionaire behind X (formerly Twitter), is no stranger to controversy or criticism of governments. In response to Australia’s proposal, Musk kept his reaction short but striking: he labelled the Australian government “fascists.”

While Musk’s comments predictably drew ire from Australian lawmakers, including Government Services Minister Bill Shorten, who mocked Musk’s selective defence of free speech, the underlying message resonated with many. Musk has consistently championed an open internet, where ideas can be freely debated and explored without heavy-handed oversight.

Musk’s one-word response cut through the diplomatic rhetoric and called out the authoritarian undertones many feel underpin the government’s proposed actions.

The Government’s Defence

The Australian labor government, meanwhile, have staunchly defended the need for these laws. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland pointed to the need for transparency and accountability from tech giants, particularly in an age where online content can spread like wildfire. Similarly, Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones rejected the notion that the government was suppressing free speech, arguing that harmful content should not be protected under its banner.

The government maintains that this law is not about censorship but about protecting citizens from dangerous misinformation that could incite violence, undermine public health, or destabilize democracy.

A Pattern of Clashes

This is not the first time Musk has butted heads with Australian authorities. Earlier this year, X challenged an order from the Australian cyber regulator to remove posts related to a stabbing. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took a swipe at Musk, calling him an “arrogant billionaire,” demonstrating that tensions between the tech mogul and Australian officials have been simmering for some time.

The current battle over free speech and “misinformation” in Australia is emblematic of a larger, global debate. On one side, there are those who believe that misinformation poses a dire threat to public safety and democracy. On the other, free speech advocates like Musk warn of the dangers of allowing governments to dictate what can and cannot be said online.

While the Albanese government may feel that its actions are justified, it’s crucial to consider the slippery slope such measures create. If the government can determine what constitutes misinformation today, what prevents it from censoring political dissent or unpopular opinions tomorrow?

In a democracy, free speech, even when uncomfortable, must be protected. Australia’s proposed law threatens to tip the scales too far in favour of government control, and Musk’s criticism, while brash, serves as a necessary counterbalance to creeping authoritarianism.

The real question is: How far are we willing to go in policing speech to combat misinformation, and at what cost?

Army soldiers from Regional Force Surveillance Group (RFSG) Pilbara Regiment are trialling surveillance robots to patrol and monitor the nation’s north. The Ground Uncrewed System, or GUS, is an uncrewed surveillance system that can be out in the field for around 30 continuous days. The technology is supporting RFSG to keep an eye on areas with difficult terrain across a broader distance.