All News

If you live in Queensland this petition may be of interest to you.

Click this link to open the E-Petition: https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details?id=3974

This E-Petition closes on 28/1/2024.

The Ukrainian military has recently acquired its initial batch of M39 missiles from the 1990s era. In a bold move, they launched three of these missiles at a Russian helicopter facility in Berdyansk, located in southern Ukraine. This night raid dispersed numerous grenade-sized submunitions over the airbase, leading to the destruction of an estimated nine helicopters.

Now, envision these steel-and-tungsten submunitions targeting an air-defence unit comprising delicate radars, accompanying vehicles, launch pads, and missiles. As U.S. Army Major Carter Rogers highlighted in his 1991 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College thesis, the ATACMS (of which the M39 is a type) can effectively neutralize or diminish various targets, notably air defence systems and radars.

Weighing two tons and spanning 13 feet, the M39 is a ballistic missile powered by a solid rocket motor. Its warhead houses 950 submunitions. Deployed from either tracked or wheeled launch systems, the missile can reach destinations up to 100 miles away using its inertial guidance.

The M39’s intended purpose for neutralizing enemy air defences is evident in its design. A missile designed for targets like bunkers would usually carry a singular, large warhead instead of numerous submunitions. Notably, during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the U.S. Army’s maiden combat use of an M39 targeted an Iraqi S-75 air-defence unit, posing a threat to coalition aircraft. As Major Rogers observed, the ATACMS strike was effective, demonstrating the system’s precision and lethality, despite its relatively new and unproven doctrine.

Currently, Ukrainian forces deploy a diverse range of weapons for the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) mission. These include the 40-mile range M30/31 rockets launched by M270 tracked systems and wheeled High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), which also launch the longer-range M39 missiles. In their arsenal are also explosive-laden drones with first-person views and Sukhoi Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-29 jets that deploy American AGM-88 radar-seeking missiles. For deeper SEAD operations targeting advanced S-400 systems in Crimea, Ukraine has employed modified Neptune anti-ship missiles.

The M39, in a SEAD role, bridges the gap between smaller drones and the potent anti-ship missiles. While a drone attack is considered opportunistic and causes limited damage, a Neptune missile strike is more strategic, planned, and devastating. The M39, when launched from 100 miles away, can target segments of the Russian air defence infrastructure located significantly behind frontline areas without necessitating a large-scale, specialized operation for its suppression.

In many respects, the M39’s capabilities might parallel the air-launched AGM-88. However, one key distinction is the relative safety of deploying an ATACMS missile compared to an aerial SEAD mission. While Russian forces have downed many of Ukraine’s pre-war fleet of Su-27s and MiG-29s, none of Ukraine’s army-operated M270s and HIMARS launchers have been destroyed thus far.

Veterans have unearthed potential evidence suggesting possible mismanagement and “systematic abuse” of the Australian honours and awards system, which might have led to the incorrect bestowing of “distinguished service” medals upon senior officers for several years. This list includes the present Defence Force Chief, General Angus Campbell.

These revelations came after some veterans, already upset about the potential stripping of Afghanistan war medals due to alleged misdeeds, decided to delve deep into the legitimacy of the awards conferred upon their top-ranking officers.

Newly accessed documents and communications suggest that since 1996, the Defence Department had been aware of Distinguished Service Crosses (DSCs) being possibly wrongfully awarded to senior officers who weren’t actively serving “in action.”

The veterans are specifically concerned about the DSCs and other accolades given to the leaders of Joint Task Force 663 (CJTF), the central command for Australia’s Middle East operations during the Afghanistan conflict.

A former Special Forces operative, referred to as “Marty” for anonymity purposes related to his current job, remarked on the gravity of their findings. “This issue requires immediate attention,” he expressed. He emphasized that they’re not against recognitions but want the criteria to be appropriate and not just serve as mere attendance badges.

The concerned group reached out to Defence Minister Richard Marles this year, urging him to instruct the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (DHAAT) to investigate the matter surrounding the DSC and related awards.

The group’s letter in May highlighted the crucial role CJTFs played in guiding Australian troops in Afghanistan. “Considering the DSC’s stature as a distinguished military award, it’s pivotal to ensure the process for its conferral remains transparent and unimpeachable,” the letter noted.

In 2012, Defence Chief General Angus Campbell was honoured with a DSC for his outstanding command during his tenure with Joint Task Force 633. Recent reports suggest he tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to return his DSC after facing pressure in a parliamentary session earlier this year.

Concerns about these awards are prevalent throughout the military, with both active and retired members voicing their apprehensions about medals seemingly being given out as mere tokens of attendance.

Neil James, Executive Director of the Australia Defence Association, calls for a comprehensive DHAAT review concerning the standards, criteria, and procedures of awarding honours. “It’s essential to differentiate between temporary and permanent units, ensuring that revoking any commendation remains precise, transparent, and is not misconstrued,” he commented.

On being questioned during a Japan visit, Defence Minister Marles chose to withhold his comments, mentioning that they’re currently addressing various issues related to decorations and awards.

Photo: CPL Sam Price

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has stationed six F/A-18F Super Hornets and one C-27J Spartan aircraft in north-west Malaysia as part of Exercise Bersama Lima. This deployment at the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth brings together forces from Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.

F/A-18F Super Hornets are dual-seat, multi-purpose fighter jets capable of air combat, supporting ground forces, and targeting enemy supply chains, including naval vessels. Their arsenal includes AIM-120 AMRAAMs, AIM-9X Sidewinders, joint direct attack munitions, traditional and laser-guided explosives, AGM-154 standoff weapons, AGM-84 harpoon missiles, and a forward-mounted M61A2 20mm gun.

This fortnight-long drill includes over 400 personnel from the Australian Defence Force, the Hobart Class missile destroyer HMAS Brisbane, infantry from the Australian Army, and the RAAF’s aerial assets.

Flight Lieutenant Russel, a pilot of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, highlighted the comprehensive coordination among the participating countries. The collaboration ranged from mission planning with Malaysian controllers to flying in mixed groups with multiple rapid-firing jets. He elaborated, “We’ve coordinated defence activities in the skies from the Malaysian Peninsula to Singapore and worked intensively with the naval strengths of the five nations to simulate threat detection on maritime assets or land targets in Malaysia.”

Once potential threats are identified, the combined forces proceed to intercept and engage them. He added, “Such exercises offer a valuable training opportunity with our allies.”

He further praised the dedication of the technical crew, stating they ensure the aircraft are consistently mission-ready. The experience at RMAF Butterworth, with its robust RAAF association and the assistance of the 19 Squadron, has been invaluable. Russel emphasized the importance of acclimating to different operational environments, noting the benefit of learning local best practices for mission success in unfamiliar territories.

Moreover, the Super Hornet boasts advanced equipment, including mission computers, heads-up displays, advanced radar, infrared detection, and targeting tools, as well as electronic warfare and infrared defence mechanisms.

By: Robert Dougherty – Defence Connect.

Picture: An Australian Army Electric Protected Mobility Vehicle demonstrate the capability to provide power to enable a medical treatment team to deploy in the field at Gallipoli Barracks, Brisbane. Photo: CPL Nicole Dorrett.

The Australian Defence Force has rolled out a Bushmaster electric protected mobility vehicle to support field training at Gallipoli Barracks earlier this month.

The Bushmaster vehicle prototype, which uses electric propulsion technology, was tasked with supporting members of the 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment undertaking simulated medical treatment in Queensland.

During the training, the ePMV was able to demonstrate its power storage and supply capability, enabling medical staff to work forward a role-two emergency hospital in an area of operations.

It’s understood there could also be applications to use the electric propulsion technology for greater thermal and acoustic signature management, exportable electrical energy, robotic and autonomous systems connectivity and tactical agility.

The ePMV was previously unveiled during the Chief of Army Symposium 2022 before being trialled and tested in a variety of conditions and by different units to test technological limitations.

The battery-powered prototype has had its engine and gearbox replaced with a pair of lithium-ion batteries and an electric motor driving each axle. It’s the first Australian electrification of a military vehicle and is about two tonnes lighter than a regular Bushmaster.

There is also more space between the driver and crew commander, and a modernised dashboard while the vehicle itself is expected to require less maintenance and be more reliable with no engine or gearbox.

The centre of gravity has also moved rearwards and down, according to Colonel Robin Smith, director of Army’s Robotic and Autonomous Systems Implementation and Coordination Office.

“That helps with stability, high-speed and cross-country manoeuvre, and safety under braking,” COL Smith said.

“It’s wickedly fast and we’ll be trialling speeds. But in theory it will do 0-60km/h in a little over three seconds. For a 12-tonne vehicle, that’s amazing. Up to 100km/h will take about 12 seconds where the normal Bushmaster takes 42 seconds.”

“The vehicle’s battery power could run the average Australian home for just over six days. It’s quieter and less warm, lowering the thermal signature, and it’s a software-driven vehicle so autonomy is easier.

“This (ePMV) one uses no fuel but if we do a hybrid, that will use a lot less fuel than a regular Bushmaster.”

COL Smith said his team wanted to “get this into the hands of soldiers and really test its real-world performance”.

The team is also interested in developing electrifying tracked vehicles, COL Smith said.

Recent data suggests a significant majority of Americans are worried about the country’s trajectory. This unease comes at a pivotal moment in international relations, posing potential challenges for allies, including Australia.

The past thirty years have presented a series of challenges to the United States. While the post-Cold War period was initially marked by optimism and the anticipation of ongoing progress, the nation has faced multiple crises since the early 1990s. Globally, the U.S. has been called upon to intervene in various situations, including the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Domestically, economic shifts have impacted the middle and working classes, leading to issues such as the opioid crisis, political polarization, and growing wealth disparity.

These events paint a concerning image of the United States, especially during these turbulent times. Both domestically and internationally, the country’s challenges haven’t gone unnoticed. For instance, Marco Rubio, a Republican senator, criticized the U.S. after the Chinese spy balloon incident, emphasizing the perception of America as a declining superpower.

Internationally, actions like the expansion of the BRICS organization and the limited impact of US sanctions on Russia, among other incidents, hint at an evolving global power structure. However, this report primarily focuses on domestic concerns.

Recent data from the Associated Press-NORC Center underscores the dwindling domestic confidence in the U.S. and the vision of its Founding Fathers. The majority of surveyed Americans believe the country is on the wrong path. In a study conducted, 78% felt the nation was heading in the wrong direction, while only 21% believed otherwise. This represents a decline from previous months.

Public sentiment also reflects concerns about current leadership. President Joe Biden holds a 38% approval rating, with a 61% disapproval. Similarly, Donald Trump, the former president, has a 37% approval rating and a 58% disapproval.

Former U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates has voiced concerns about America’s role on the global stage. In his analysis, Gates stressed the need for the U.S. to present a united front, particularly concerning threats posed by nations like China and Russia. He also noted the challenges presented by a shifting international perspective on organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and World Health Organization.

Gates suggests that to deter potential adversaries, the U.S. must present a united, bipartisan approach, reminiscent of strategies during the Cold War. Current political divisions, coupled with policy missteps, have weakened America’s international position.

Australia too faces a shifting global landscape. The relative decline of the U.S. means Australia must adapt to an evolving multipolar world. The focus will likely shift to the Indo-Pacific region, marked by the rising influence of nations like China, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan.

For Australia, this calls for a broader perspective, moving away from traditionally limited strategies. Policymakers and the public must work in tandem to understand and navigate the changing environment, evaluating opportunities and challenges in the Indo-Pacific. As the global stage sees more dominant players, Australia may need to reassess its position, potentially embracing a more prominent, independent role in the face of growing great power rivalry.

ED: Below I present my view on National Service, what are your thoughts?

Should We Reintroduce National Service?

The reintroduction of National Service has long been a topic of discussion in various in most circles. The concept I am present revolves around a system where young adults, irrespective of gender, are mandated to serve for a certain period in different sectors, be it defence or public service. This proposal suggests a 2-year part-time National Service for both males and females aged 18, across fields like the Army, Navy, Airforce, bush fire brigade, emergency service, and St. Johns ambulance and others.

Key Advantages:

1. Promotion of Unity and Social Cohesion:

1. • National Service acts as a melting pot, uniting individuals from various backgrounds. This shared experience promotes understanding and camaraderie, reinforcing a sense of national unity and pride.

1. Valuable Skill Acquisition:

1. • Participants acquire diverse skills, ranging from defence strategy to essential life-saving methods. These skills don’t just fortify national resilience, but also empower individuals in their daily lives.

1. Physical and Mental Growth:

1. • A structured National Service programme ensures participants stay physically active. Moreover, navigating challenges together can help in building mental fortitude and teamwork skills.

1. Enhanced Emergency Readiness:

1. • Having a cadre of trained individuals spread across the country means a faster, more efficient response to emergencies or natural disasters.

1. Flexibility with Part-time Commitment:

1. • Given that the service is part-time, young adults can continue their education, work, or other activities concurrently. This flexible model reduces potential opportunity costs.

1. Economic Benefits:

1. • Apart from direct benefits like skill development, the structured training and involvement in various public services can provide indirect economic boosts, such as infrastructure development and increased local employment during training sessions.

The Army Reserve System as a Model:

Basing the National Service on the Army Reserve system offers an established framework. This approach, known for its flexibility, allows participants to integrate their service seamlessly with their personal and professional lives, making the commitment less daunting and more appealing.

Conclusion:

The reintroduction of a part-time National Service presents an exciting avenue to promote national unity, personal growth, and enhanced national preparedness. Drawing inspiration from the Army Reserve system ensures flexibility, allowing young adults to contribute to their nation while also pursuing their personal ambitions.

By GREG SHERIDAN – The Australian.

What a magnificent referendum that was, No one should crow. nor screech: most people on both sides acted from goodwill. But No case advocates shouldn’t don sackcloth and ashes.

Their arguments were vindicated by a staggering 62 per cent of the Australian electorate, (the likely figure when all the votes are counted), including tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians.

The No vote represents a magnificent assertion of universal citizenship.

It’s a decision not only to protect the Constitution. It’s an act of love for Indigenous Australians, a determination they shouldn’t be imprisoned in an identity politics category Instead, as individuals they’re integral to Australian life, with all the rights and obligations all citizens share.

This wasn’t a vote against indigenous Australians or closing the gap. It was a vote of inclusion. But there was also this message: Australians support equality, they don’t support identity politics and racial essentialism. Indigenous advancement won’t come through the Constitution, Activist leaders massively overreached. In doing so, they unintentionally did harm.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the referendum’s central figure, rightly argues Indigenous advancement come from cultural change, education, employment, ending family abuse and the like. Much Aboriginal policy has been effective and good, A lot has been ineffective or worse, some 55 per cent of our continent has been granted to native title, but this hasn’t led to all those living on this land finding productive lives.

Some years ago, I spent a few days visiting a big Indigenous community, a million acres of wilderness, Aboriginal land as far as the eye could see. Yet an indigenous family wanting to own their own home has to move to a nearby town, not on Aboriginal land, because native title can’t be alienated.

No one, including Aboriginal people, can own it, Aboriginal people can be land-rich and dirt-poor,

This kind of policy doesn’t bring Indigenous Australians productive lives, it locks them out of the good life readily available to everybody else.

What else does this referendum tell us? In many Western nations the progressive left, on those rare occasions it lets voters have a say, often loses the vote but Wins the post-vote contest of narratives and undemocratically imposes policies furiously rejected by voters.

Australians refused to inject racial classifications into the Constitution by an almost identical margin. 62 to 38 (when all votes are counted) by which they embraced same sex marriage. 62-38. No campaigners must take this welcome rejection of identity politics forward. It’s a base for productive change along the lines advocated by Price.

The Constitution doesn’t mention any race, including Indigenous Australians. It did before 1967, but this was removed at that referendum.

The Constitution does have a race power, under which very few laws have been passed.

Rejecting measures to constitutionally enshrine race doesn’t mean governments can’t do special things for Aboriginal people.

Governments do different things for different people routinely.

Doctors and lawyers have professional rights other folks don’t, single parents get financial payments, cancer patients get expensive treatments. Others don’t.

These address need or responsibility, not race, and there’s no need to have them in the Constitution.

As I say, I believe the No vote a vote of love for Aboriginal people: you are part of Australia, not to be Imprisoned forever in a category of separateness,

The referendum has other lessons,

Take Canberra. a lovely small city situated close to fascinating foreign country, Australia.

Canberra was the only state or territory to vote Yes. It voted Yes by about the same margin the rest of the nation voted No.

Elites versus ordinary folks? Does it occur to anyone that it’s little subprime, so to speak, to have the bureaucratic and academic elite at the heart of national power aligned in social policy outlook only with the richest plutocrats and the densest inner-city soviets. while in furious, complete, social and ideological contradiction of the rest of the society it misrules and doesn’t understand? Anthony Albanese made much of the institutional support for Yes — the richest corporations, trade unions, elite sports codes, ethnic leaders, the ABC and SBS (the Prime Minister didn’t put them on the list but they were certainly there), Christian leaders and other religious leaders.

Here’s a wonderful thing. Our glorious immigrants came to this country for many reasons. but one, often, was to escape policies of racial distinction. That most high migrant electorates voted No shows that our newest citizens have become dinky-di Aussies,

Like the rest of us, they’re naughty voters. They don’t do as they’re told and they mostly recognise public policy foolishness, what colloquially used to be termed ratbaggery, when they see it.

Ethnic leaders, whose job is to get with the government in the interest of securing key priorities for their community, as well as a share of grants, overwhelmingly backed the government on a matter of not much importance to them. But their ability to influence the voting behaviour of the individuals in the communities they purport to represent turned out to be near enough to zero,

The same was true with Christian bishops. Most bishops in the end didn^’t make a formal vote recommendation.

The Catholic bishops indicated broad support for a voice before there was any detail.

But the Catholic Weekly conscientiously ran pro-Yes and pro-No pieces in a good balance. Finally, the bishops just asked people to take the matter seriously.

The nation’s most influential Anglican, the impressive Sydney Archbishop Ranishkä Raffel, expressed his personal sympathy for the voice proposition but never instructed Anglicans how to vote.

His Anglican synod in Sydney asked Anglicans to consider the matter prayerfully but stated no voting preference.

However, some bishops did campaign for Yes, people who regularly attend Christian Churches in Australia are significantly older and more conservative than the Australian average. Conservative older folks voted No overwhelmingly,

Even bishops couldn’t sell this racial proposition to their most faithful followers.

The Yes campaigners are saying reconciliation is damaged.

Who knows what they mean by that, except that their own political programs have been set back. If reconciliation means raising remote community Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life expectancy health outcomes, educational achievement to the Australian average, then I’m a million per cent with it.

But if reconciliation involves some metaphysical attribution of virtue or rights to racial background, some nonsense like divided Sovereignty or sovereignty, or the madness of a modern nation making a treaty with itself, or yet more wasteful expenditure to empower activist elites rather than redress searing disadvantage, then reconciliation itself is the problem.

Australians were not deceived into voting No. Nor are 62 per cent of Australians racist. There is deep wisdom in Australian caution about changing the Constitution, about avoiding extravagant, damaging symbolism. Albanese’s emotional concession speech said nothing to the 62 per cent who voted No. It’s not necessary to have bipartisanism on Indigenous policy.  We’ve had too much bipartisanism in support of bad policy, such as constitutional recognition being key to Aboriginal advancement, for too long.

William Buckley Jr famously remarked he’d rather be ruled by the first 10 pages of the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. Hallelujah that our Constitution requires the people be consulted.

Australian voters have demonstrated they know better than their betters, God bless ’em.

US Military Helicopters. Military Helicopters plays a crucial role in modern warfare, providing essential support in combat, search and rescue, transportation, reconnaissance, and more. So here we present list of helicopters used by US Armed Forces.

Written by Clive Williams, MG.

Operation Crimp (8–14 January 1966) took place 20 clicks north of Cu Chi in Binh Duong Province. The operation targeted a VC headquarters that was believed to be concealed underground, and on our side involved two US brigades under the command of the Big Red 1 – including US 173d Airborne Brigade with 1 RAR.

Heavy fighting resulted in significant casualties on both sides, but the operation was able to uncover an extensive tunnel network covering more than 200 square kilometres.

The operation was the largest allied military action mounted during the war in South Vietnam to that point, and the first fought at division level. Despite some success, the allied force was only able to partially clear the area and it remained a key communist transit and supply base throughout the war. The tunnels were later used as a staging area for the attack on Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. They were largely destroyed by heavy bombing from American B-52 bombers in 1970, ending their utility1.

As mentioned, this operation started for us on 8 January immediately following on from Operation Marauder. As ARVN was not forewarned about the operation, this time we had surprise on our side. We did not really know what to expect from the enemy. US intelligence reports would always tell us that there was an enemy brigade or division in the target area, and the location of extensive food caches etc. The information was provided in great quantities before an operation but usually proved to be incorrect, so after a while we would mark up our maps with what seemed credible and ignore the rest. Clearly, nobody at command level believed it either, because 1 RAR was often deployed against what were notionally far superior forces in terms of numbers.

The main problem with the intelligence assessments was poor discrimination or cross-checking before human intelligence (humint) was added to the US data base. As they say – “garbage in, garbage out”.

On this occasion, we were told that there were heavy enemy concentrations in the area and for once the intelligence proved to be correct. On 8 January 1966, as we approached a wooded area, heavy firing broke out directed at Jim “Bindy” Bourke’s 12 Platoon from D Company. There were soon calls of “medic” and my attached medic, Private Chris Clark, ran forward to assist. That was the last time I saw him alive.

Bindy came back through our area with his face streaming with blood. He had been shot in the face at close range. It turned out that the area was riddled with tunnels and his platoon had come under fire from VC bunkers. Both Bindy’s medic and mine – Chris, from Derbyshire in England – were shot from bunkers and killed. Chris was aged 20. By the time my platoon was sent forward, the enemy had withdrawn.

One of the tunnel entrances buried beneath loose earth and dead vegetation. (Unknown photographer)

There were clearly lots of tunnels in the area from the amount of spoil, which was about a metre deep, but we had trouble finding the entrances. A highly trained Labrador sniffer dog was brought forward but he sat down and yawned and feigned complete disinterest. Just then Z noticed a loop of wire that was nearly buried. It turned out to be one of many entrances to an enormous tunnel system.

Because we did not have pistols at platoon level, we were obliged to search tunnel systems armed only with bayonets – the tunnels were too restricted in diameter to allow for anything larger than a bayonet or a pistol to be taken into them.

Major John Healy and WO2 Jack Cramp with some of the weapons we recovered, including a 57mm recoilless rifle. (Photo Clive Williams)

3 Platoon recovered about 60 weapons from one cache in an underground bunker, mostly French. Some were “as new” and still in their original wrappings. I asked if we could retain some as souvenirs. We were told we could have one each and we were issued with tags so that we could put our names on them. This we did, and they were taken out on helicopters. None of them arrived back at our lines. All were souvenired by American helicopter crews.

We spent several days searching through the tunnels. My best tunnel rat was my ace scrounger, Private Don Aylett, who was tall and thin. He found several homemade .22 pistols but he sold them to others before I learned about them. (Having said that, the picture I took of him (below) actually shows him holding one!) Later, after discovering the theft of our French weapons, I was less annoyed with him.

I felt that I could not send my platoon members down tunnels without going down one myself. I regretted it as soon as I disappeared from their sight. There was just enough room to bend down to access the beginning of the horizontal shaft, about two metres down. Initially I was on my knees and elbows, but the tunnel was soon only large enough for me to wriggle on my stomach with my arms fully stretched ahead of me with a torch in one hand and a borrowed pistol in the other. I estimate the tunnel could have been no more than 30 centimetres high and 35 wide. I was quite thin, being just over 6 feet (1.85 metres) tall and weighing ten stone (63.5 kilograms) at the time. Even so, I had only gone about 10 metres before I got stuck because the tunnel narrowed. The tunnel was just bare sandy earth with nothing to support the roof. The air in the tunnel was thick and hot and humid, and I started to feel dizzy. I tried reversing but there was no going back. I started to panic. I lay there for some time regretting my decision and thinking that this was a hell of a way to end one’s young life. It was clear to me that nobody was going to know where to dig for me and that if I was going to get out, it was only going to be as a result of my own efforts. I decided that the only thing I could do was to try to go forward. After all, a Vietnamese must have been able to do it. However, I knew that if there was a tunnel collapse ahead, I was done for.

Don Aylett at one of the VC bunkers – and holding one of the homemade pistols. (Photo Clive Williams)

For the next half an hour or so, I inched gradually forward using my toes to push myself, not sure whether I was getting myself more and more firmly wedged. Eventually though, the tunnel seemed to be slightly wider ahead and I found that I could move a little more freely. After what seemed like a long while I reached a vertical shaft and was able to get to my feet and push up the tunnel cover. I was very shaken by the experience. It was the longest hour of my life, and it still brings me out in a cold sweat to think about it. It also gave me the greatest respect for the Viet Cong who had dug the tunnels and lived and died in them.

The next day an Australian sapper suffocated in a nearby tunnel when smoke came through from tunnels the Americans were searching. Most Americans were too big to get down the tunnels and one of their units had thrown smoke grenades down them instead. Eventually the Americans brought in heavy air blowing equipment and pumped CS gas (tear gas) down the tunnels. We were told that the area was to be bombed by B-52s to collapse the tunnels and make them unusable, but when we flew over the area several months later there were no obvious signs of aerial bomb damage. Some greatly enlarged tunnels are now the famous Cu Chi tunnels, a must-see for tourists.

There is a contentious post-Vietnam side issue between Australian Army infantry and engineer veterans regarding the searching of the Cu Chi tunnels, with sapper lobbyists playing down 1 RAR’s tunnel-searching that went on for at least a day before 3 Field Troop of the Royal Australian Engineers (RAE) appeared in our company area. For example, this is a narrative by Carey McQuillan on the 173d Airborne website: “It took 1st RAR a number of days to take and secure the position, during which time 1st RAR was subjected to intermittent sniper fire from within our own perimeter. Subsequently, some tunnel entrances were located and members of 3 Field Troop entered the tunnels with a torch in one hand and a 9mm pistol in the other and in so doing became the first TUNNEL RATS to enter what was to become known by US forces as, THE TUNNELS OF CU CHI.” The Australian War Memorial has adopted the engineer version of events – what might now be termed “fake history”!

I did personally benefit from this operation in a small way by acquiring a VC commander’s hammock. I did not use it in Vietnam because it was not a good idea to be off the ground at night on operations because you were more likely to be hit by incoming rounds or shrapnel, but I made good use of it on military exercises back in Australia and when I was attached to the British 3 Para as the intelligence officer.

We returned to Bien Hoa on 14 January 1966.