All News

NavyWatch Blog – UK

In February 2024, mechanical issues with the propulsion system of a major naval aircraft carrier forced it to withdraw from an important NATO exercise. This was one in a series of technical problems affecting the latest class of British carriers, raising concerns about their reliability and operational readiness.

The issue was detected during routine pre-sailing checks, revealing a problem with a coupling on the starboard propeller shaft. As a result, the vessel remained in port and was unable to join Exercise Steadfast Defender, the largest NATO maritime drill since the Cold War. The carrier was scheduled to operate alongside its sister ship, which had recently returned to service after experiencing similar propulsion failures.

Recurring issues with propulsion systems have led to questions about whether these mechanical failures are typical of new warship designs or indicative of deeper systemic flaws. While minor defects often emerge as ships undergo real-world operations, the frequency and severity of these problems suggest potential design shortcomings.

A similar vessel suffered a breakdown in 2022, just a day after departing for a U.S. deployment. The cause was traced to a misaligned propeller shaft, prompting thorough inspections of the other carrier in the class. Engineers reported no misalignment issues, and officials deemed the problems unrelated to a broader design flaw. However, recurring malfunctions continue to disrupt operations, prompting scrutiny of the fleet’s engineering integrity.

By contrast, other nations’ carriers have faced fewer propulsion-related difficulties. France’s sole nuclear-powered carrier, commissioned in 2001, has seen limited breakdowns, while the U.S. Navy’s newest carrier resolved its propulsion issues early without long-term setbacks.

As these challenges persist, the question remains: are these growing pains of a new fleet, or signs of a larger problem?

On February 20, 1942, as the Japanese invasion of Timor began, the 2/40th Infantry Battalion, as part of Sparrow Force, made a valiant stand at Koepang, fighting to defend the island against overwhelming enemy forces.

The 2/40th Infantry Battalion was composed almost entirely of Tasmanian soldiers and had earned a reputation for their resilience, determination, and unwavering spirit. Fighting alongside Dutch troops, they mounted a determined resistance, determined to hold their ground against the Japanese advance. Despite being heavily outnumbered and facing a well-equipped enemy, they fought with incredible bravery, inflicting significant casualties on the invaders.

For four days, the men of Sparrow Force engaged in fierce combat. However, the relentless assault from Japanese ground forces, supported by air superiority and armoured units, made their position untenable. With ammunition and supplies critically low, and no possibility of reinforcement, the order was finally given to surrender on February 23.

The battle took a heavy toll on the 2/40th Infantry Battalion. Eighty-four men were killed in action, and 132 were seriously wounded. Yet, their suffering did not end with surrender. More than twice the number of those lost in battle would later perish in the brutal conditions of Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. The hardships they endured in captivity remain a tragic chapter in the history of Australia’s involvement in World War II.

Today, we remember the incredible courage and sacrifice of the 2/40th Infantry Battalion and all those who fought in the Battle of Timor. Their bravery and dedication to duty will never be forgotten, standing as a testament to the fighting spirit of the Australian soldier.

Australia’s StrikeMaster is redefining coastal defence and long-range strike capabilities. This cutting-edge system integrates the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) onto the Thales Bushmaster 4×4, creating a highly mobile, land-based maritime strike platform. Developed by Kongsberg Defence Australia and Thales Australia, the StrikeMaster enhances the Australian Defence Force’s ability to rapidly deploy and deny access to key strategic areas—especially in Northern Australia.

As tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, the 2023 Defence Strategic Review has emphasized the need for long-range precision strike capabilities. The StrikeMaster competes with the M142 HIMARS, offering a cost-effective, locally-produced alternative that strengthens Australia’s sovereign defence industry. However, some within the Australian Army remain sceptical, favouring the extended range of HIMARS’ Precision Strike Missile (PrSM).

With a range exceeding 250 km, stealth features, and the ability to strike naval targets with precision, how does the StrikeMaster compare to global systems like Poland’s NSM Coastal Defence System or China’s DF-21D missile? Could it be a game-changer for Australia’s defence strategy, or will the government favour alternative strike platforms like HIMARS and the B-21 Raider bomber?

The video features some unforgettable Australian Vietnam War photographs. Includes photographs of the Australians in the Army, Navy and Air Force in the Vietnam War. 60,000 Australians served in the war with 521 being killed and more than 3,000 being wounded. Australian Vietnam veterans were honoured at a ‘Welcome Home’ parade in Sydney on the 3rd of October 1987, and it was then that a campaign for the construction of the Vietnam War Memorial began. The memorial, known as the Vietnam Forces National Memorial, was established on ANZAC Parade in Canberra, and was dedicated on the 3rd of October 1992. The video also features the backing track for the Australian War Heroes Song titled ‘Can You Hear Australia’s Heroes Marching?’, authored by Peter Barnes in 2001.

Opened in early November 2024, the museum covers 386,600 square meters and cost approximately VND2.5 trillion (US$98.5 million) to build. Within the severe concrete walls are 150,000 objects related to several thousand years of conflict in Vietnam. Construction, hampered by COVID-19 delays, took almost five years. The opening roughly coincided with the 80^th anniversary of the People’s Army of Vietnam, which was founded on December 22, 1944.

CLICK LINK

Insights, Polished History Lessons Await in Hanoi’s Massive, Brutalist Military Museum – Saigoneer

Photo- The Jiangkai-class frigate Hengyang was among the Chinese flotilla sailing east of Sydney. (Department of Defence)

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is monitoring three Chinese navy ships currently sailing east of Sydney. The vessels, identified as a Jiangkai-class frigate, a Renhai-class cruiser, and a Fuchi-class replenishment ship, were first spotted northeast of Australia last week and have continued their journey along the coast.

The ADF routinely monitors all maritime activity within Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Reports indicate the ships are approximately 150 nautical miles east of Sydney.

This naval movement signals China’s growing ability to project military power off the Australian coastline. Similar Chinese flotillas have previously visited Pacific island nations, raising concerns about strategic stability in the region.

A comparable visit occurred in 2019 when Chinese navy ships entered Sydney Harbour in coordination with the Australian government. This current presence, however, coincides with a visit by the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, who has been meeting with Australian defence and foreign officials.

China’s military activities have intensified, with recent wargames around Taiwan and incidents in the South China Sea. Last week, a Chinese fighter jet released flares in front of an Australian military plane in what Australian officials described as a dangerous encounter. The Australian government has expressed its concerns to China, while Beijing has accused Australia of airspace intrusion.

China continues to assert its territorial claims over Taiwan, despite never having governed the island. These developments highlight the increasing complexity of regional security dynamics and reinforce the importance of Australia’s defence posture and strategic alliances in the Indo-Pacific.

Daily Mail

A recent survey has revealed that nearly six in ten Britons support the deployment of national troops to Ukraine, should a ceasefire agreement be reached. The poll, conducted by YouGov, found that 58 per cent of respondents either “strongly” or “somewhat” back such a move, while only around a fifth oppose it.

The results showed differences in opinion among political affiliations. Support for troop deployment was highest among one major party’s voters at 67 per cent, closely followed by another at 66 per cent. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of one smaller party’s supporters backed the move, while only 44 per cent of a right-wing party’s supporters expressed agreement.

The poll also highlighted that while a majority of the public favours military involvement, there is resistance to tax hikes to fund increased defence spending. Around 55 per cent of respondents opposed raising taxes for this purpose, indicating a preference for reallocating funds from other areas.

The government has suggested that if British troops are deployed, they would be part of a European peacekeeping force tasked with monitoring a ceasefire agreement. Officials have stressed that such a mission would be vital not only for Ukraine’s security but for the stability of the entire continent.

The urgency of discussions on Ukraine has intensified following recent diplomatic moves by the United States, with negotiations being conducted between Washington and Moscow. The absence of Ukrainian representation in these talks has raised concerns among European allies, prompting an emergency summit in Paris. Leaders from several European nations attended, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring Ukraine’s role in any peace agreement.

During the summit, European officials reiterated the need for increased defence commitments. Some leaders called for a greater share of military funding from European nations to meet global security demands. The current defence spending target of 2.5 per cent of GDP remains under discussion, with calls from international allies to raise it further.

As diplomatic efforts continue, the focus remains on securing a sustainable peace that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty. European leaders have stressed the importance of maintaining strong support for Ukraine and ensuring any negotiated agreement is both lasting and enforceable. While discussions over financial commitments and troop deployments remain ongoing, the latest poll suggests that public sentiment largely aligns with the government’s stance on increasing military support for Ukraine.

ABC News

A 72-year-old Western Australian man has been found guilty of breaching the state’s Aboriginal Heritage Act after building a bridge on his own property without approval.

Tony Maddox, a real estate agent from Toodyay, 85km northwest of Perth, constructed a concrete bridge over a creek on his land, unknowingly disturbing the ‘Rainbow Serpent’—a sacred figure in Noongar mythology. Authorities argued that his actions disrupted the site by removing a significant amount of silt from the waterway.

Facing a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $20,000 fine, Mr Maddox instead received a $2,000 fine, a spent conviction, and was ordered to pay $5,000 in legal costs when he appeared before the Perth Magistrates Court on Monday. Despite avoiding the harsher penalties, he described the verdict as “shattering” and “quite unbelievable.”

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, it is illegal to excavate, destroy, conceal, or alter registered heritage sites. Mr Maddox maintained that he was unaware the creek was protected under these laws and said no Indigenous elders had expressed concerns to him prior to the charges.

However, Magistrate Andrew Matthews rejected his defence, ruling that while the works did not cause significant damage, they had altered the site.

Prosecutor Lorraine Allen stated that the case should serve as a warning to others, reinforcing the importance of protecting Aboriginal heritage sites.

In a staggering display of legislative absurdity, this new law has emerged that is not only devoid of factual basis but threatens to set a dangerous precedent across Australia. Mr. Maddox has taken a firm stand against this blatant nonsense, calling for its immediate repeal before it infects other states with its sheer stupidity.

This law, based entirely on myth rather than any shred of scientific or historical evidence, represents a worrying trend of emotion-driven policymaking overriding rational thought. Without any proof to support its claims, it is nothing more than a work of fiction being imposed upon the public under the guise of legal authority.

Mr. Maddox has rightfully pointed out that laws should be based on verifiable evidence, not on superstitions or politically motivated fabrications. “It is an absolute disgrace that we are even entertaining such nonsense in a modern society,” he declared. “We are allowing fantasy to dictate policy, and if we don’t stop it now, we will see more of these ridiculous laws creeping in under the radar.”

Mr. Maddox was charged under this absurd law for allegedly violating its restrictions, despite no factual basis for its enforcement. Authorities claimed he had breached regulations that have no grounding in evidence, further demonstrating the law’s utter lack of credibility. His case highlights the dangers of allowing mythology to become the foundation for legal action, punishing individuals based on fiction rather than fact.

This is not just an isolated case—it is a slippery slope. If one baseless law is passed without resistance, it opens the floodgates for an endless stream of irrational policies. Australians deserve better than to be subjected to legal frameworks built on mythology and unproven claims.

The time to act is now. This law must be struck down before it gains traction and spreads further, eroding the foundation of common sense and logical governance in this country. Mr. Maddox has sounded the alarm—now it’s up to the people to ensure their voices are heard and demand the immediate repeal of this absurd legislation.

Before the outbreak of war in the Pacific, Darwin’s port, its airfield facilities, its coastal defence batteries, and its steadily growing garrison were of vital strategic importance. The Japanese Empire was becoming increasingly aggressive in the region, and Darwin played a critical role as a deployment base for the defence of the Dutch East Indies. Its location and infrastructure made it a prime target should hostilities escalate.

That escalation came swiftly. On the morning of 19 February 1942, the war arrived on Australia’s doorstep in a brutal and unprecedented fashion. At 9:58 AM, the first wave of Japanese aircraft descended upon Darwin, launching a devastating assault on the city’s military and civilian infrastructure. More than 188 Japanese aircraft, fighters, bombers, and dive bombers rained destruction upon the harbour, the airfields, and the township. A second wave of 54 bombers followed later that morning, completing what would become the most devastating attack on Australian soil.

The raids were meticulously planned and executed by the same Japanese fleet that had struck Pearl Harbor just ten weeks earlier. The first wave primarily targeted shipping in the harbour, sinking eight vessels, including the USS Peary, a U.S. Navy destroyer, and the Australian hospital ship Manunda, which suffered significant damage. The airfields, crucial to Australia’s northern defence, were also heavily bombed, with at least 30 aircraft destroyed. The second wave focused on military and civil facilities, ensuring that Darwin’s capacity to serve as a strategic base was severely crippled.

The human cost was staggering. Over 250 people, including Australian and Allied service personnel, merchant seamen, and civilians, lost their lives. Hundreds more were wounded. Chaos reigned as survivors sought shelter and assistance, many unaware of whether further attacks would follow. The city was left smouldering, its streets strewn with wreckage, its people in shock.

Despite this catastrophe, the defence of Darwin was far from over. The city endured another 63 attacks between 1942 and 1943, with enemy bombers targeting northern Australia in a relentless campaign to disrupt Allied operations. While other towns, including Broome, Townsville, and Horn Island, also suffered from Japanese air raids, none bore the brunt of attack as Darwin did on that fateful day in February.

The bombing of Darwin was a harsh awakening for Australia, shattering any lingering illusions of geographic invulnerability. It prompted an urgent strengthening of national defence, increased coordination with Allied forces, and a renewed determination to repel any further threats. It also instilled a lasting resilience in the people of northern Australia, who rebuilt their communities despite the ever-present risk of further attacks.

Today, we pause to remember those who lost their lives in the attacks on Darwin and the broader northern campaign. We honour the courage of those who defended Australia, from airmen and naval personnel to soldiers and civilians who stood their ground in the face of adversity. Their sacrifice reminds us of the price of war and the enduring spirit of a nation that stood firm in its darkest hours.

Lest we forget.