MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clive Williams, Visiting professor, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNSW Sydney

In the lead-up to the release of the National Defence Strategy (NDS) this week, the Albanese government has announced it will spend an additional A$2–5 billion on drones and counter-drone systems.

This will bring total spending on uncrewed and autonomous systems to A$12–15 billion over the decade to 2035–36.

With this announcement, the government is apparently learning from the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East how best to prepare for the future of warfare.

What is emerging is not simply a technological shift in military capabilities, but a structural one: recognising the growing importance of cost, scale and domestic industrial capacity in determining military effectiveness.

The rapid evolution of drone warfare

The origins of this dynamic lie in Iran’s development of mass-produced offensive drones, which cost US$20,000–$50,000 (A$28,000–70,000) each, depending on the model.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Iran has supplied it with both Shahed drones (known locally as Geran) and production expertise, enabling Moscow to swarm the skies over Ukraine.

This has forced both sides into a rapid process of adaptation, focused less on maximising performance and more on reducing cost and increasing production volume.

Ukraine has quickly become a world leader in drone technology. Last year, it announced it would produce around four million drones, about double its production of the previous year. It has also developed a layered defence system capable of defending against swarms of Russian drones.

While both Russia and Ukraine initially focused on developing small quadcopters, they are now investing heavily in fixed-wing drones optimised for range, endurance and adaptability.

Russia’s Molniya (and newer Molniya-2 version) is a cheap, expendable, fixed-wing loitering munition, built from lightweight plywood and foam. These drones have extended Russia’s strike range into Ukraine’s rear areas and can operate as “motherships” for smaller drones. They can also relay messages from one drone to another.

These Russian platforms are increasingly being deployed in conjunction with first-person-view (FPV) quadcopters. They often incorporate satellite communications (such as Starlink terminals) and specialised payloads. These can include smaller attack drones or reconnaissance sensors.

Ukraine, in turn, is developing its own fixed-wing interceptors and strike systems, including the Blyskavka, which is also constructed from plywood and foam or plastic. These systems emphasise speed (up to 140 kilometres per hour), autonomy and resistance to electronic warfare.

The goal on both sides is the same: keep it super cheap. The Blyskavka reportedly costs around US$800 (A$1,120) per unit. It is simple to build in garages or small workshops, but can carry a payload of up to eight kilograms.

Ukraine is also partnering with a Japanese firm to develop a low-cost, stealthy, high-speed interceptor drone called the Terra A1.

The Terra A1, with a top speed of 300 kph, is designed specifically to counter piston-engined Shahed-type drones with a top speed of 185 kph. The Terra A1 system combines relatively simple features — electric propulsion, autonomous targeting and short endurance — with the ability to be deployed in large numbers.

Its exact materials have not been publicly disclosed. However, it likely uses lightweight composites, 3D-printed parts or other cheap materials to achieve its low unit price of US$2,500–3,000 (A$3,500–4,200).

Why this matters for Australia

As Australia unveils its next defence strategy, it must focus on how to defend large areas with finite resources.

Australia’s current drone capability emphasises high-end, ISTAR systems (meaning intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance), including the Shadow and Triton drones. Australia is also increasingly adopting low-cost tactical drones.

Compared to Ukraine, though, Australia lacks large-scale domestic drone production and does not have a standalone unmanned systems branch.

Australia is different from Ukraine in many ways, but both countries share similar underlying constraints. Because Australia needs to defend extensive maritime approaches, northern military bases and critical infrastructure, this raises many critical questions Ukraine has had to face, such as how to deal with:

• saturation threats, where large numbers of relatively simple systems overwhelm defences

• cost-imposition strategies, in which adversaries exploit cheaper technologies to generate financial strain

• the capacity to produce and replenish defence systems over time.

While more traditional, high-end air defence systems remain essential, particularly against cruise and ballistic missile threats, the Ukraine and Middle East wars have shown that Australia can’t rely on these alone.

This means the key issue is not the replacement of advanced systems, but the integration of very low-cost alternatives.

For Australia, this implies a need for a more layered approach combining:

• high-capability systems for complex and high-speed threats

• low-cost, disposable systems capable of countering large volumes of simple drone platforms.

A shift in the economics of warfare

Land wars of the recent past were shaped primarily by the industrial-scale production of tanks and artillery. Increasingly, wars are now being determined by the capacity to produce and deploy large numbers of unmanned systems at relatively low cost.

Iran demonstrated how affordability could be used to great effect. Ukraine, working with international partners, has applied similar principles in defence.

The war in Ukraine is, therefore, not only a contest over territory. It is also a contest over the cost of warfare itself.

Australia’s latest defence strategy must fully reflect this shift. Because cost is becoming a defining feature of modern conflict, the ability to generate capability at scale — and cheaply — may prove as important as technological sophistication.

– ref. What Australia must learn from Ukraine about drone technology and the future of warfare – https://theconversation.com/what-australia-must-learn-from-ukraine-about-drone-technology-and-the-future-of-warfare-280466

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/what-australia-must-learn-from-ukraine-about-drone-technology-and-the-future-of-warfare-280466/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annette Greenhow, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University

A recent move from a leading insurance provider has made it more difficult for AFL and AFLW players to access brain injury insurance.

In March, Zurich Australia announced concussion and head trauma exclusions for professional players who held total and permanent disablement (TPD) insurance as part of the AFL Players Association superannuation fund, the trustee for which is AMP.

This means no TPD benefit will be payable for football-related brain injury including concussion and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Read more: I’ve seen the brain damage contact sports can cause – we all need to take concussion and CTE more seriously

The change comes into effect on May 1.

So why did Zurich make this move and how may the decision impact sports leagues and athletes?

A rapidly escalating risk landscape

Zurich has stated it is the only insurer offering this type of coverage to AFL and AFLW players, reflecting a reduced appetite from insurers and underwriters to cover these types of injuries.

Media reports suggest Zurich is worried by a higher-than-expected volume of claims paid since it commenced coverage in 2020, with several seven-figure payouts to athletes.

Another reason given was the high levels of uncertainty associated with brain injuries and attempts to limit liability for high-contact sports.

Unlike their AFL counterparts, NRL players don’t appear to have access to a single default insurance arrangement. Instead, the league and its players association have two funds: a “past player medical support fund” and the “player hardship fund”.

There is limited publicly available information about the nature and scope of these funds.

Limited options for athletes

Millions of Australian workers are covered by state-based workers compensation schemes such as WorkCover. These provide no-fault insurance that pays medical costs and replaces part of a worker’s income when they are injured because of their job.

Most professional athletes are excluded. This exclusion was a focus of a 2023 Senate inquiry into concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports.

From May 1, unless an AFL or AFLW player has their own private TPD insurance, they will need to look to the league and its players association for support.

The AFL, via its players association, does offer a “severe injury benefit” which provides financial support up to $600,000 to eligible AFL and AFLW players who suffer cognitive impairment caused by their playing career. This includes the impacts of traumatic brain injuries.

But this capped payment is not comparable to the financial security previously offered by Zurich.

There are also concerns about the discretionary nature of these private schemes and whether the level of funding available is sufficient to cover the number and amount of claims.

For now, privately funded arrangements such as the AFL’s act as a stopgap.

More sustainable solutions are needed.

One sport, differing approaches

How countries organise responsibility for the long-term impact of head injury risk varies significantly.

A useful comparison can be found in the three rugby heartlands of the southern hemisphere: Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

In Australia, registered rugby players at all levels are covered by a national risk management and insurance program. Injury cover is basic and capped.

This insurance does not cover long-term head injury risk.

Instead, the future costs of concussion tend to fall across a mix of private insurance, public health systems and increasingly for professional players, the courts. Litigation related to concussion and head trauma is rising and is widely viewed by insurers as an accelerating legal risk.

Insurers have responded by withdrawing or excluding head injury cover from their TPD insurance. In effect, concussion risk is being treated as uninsurable, rather than governable.

New Zealand takes a fundamentally different approach.

Through its no-fault Accident Compensation Corporation, head injuries are treated as a publicly pooled social risk – coverage is automatic and universal.

The compensation corporation works alongside sport through SportSmart, a national injury prevention program developed by academics, clinicians and sporting organisations.

In this system, litigation is largely replaced with guaranteed medical care, rehabilitation and income support, while prevention becomes a direct tool for protecting the sustainability of the insurance pool.

South Africa sits somewhere between these models.

While the system does not rely on a public insurer, it operates in partnership with a private insurer and incorporates BokSmart, a national safety program which mandates education, enforces evidence based laws and applies strict return-to-play protocols across all levels.

Litigation is possible in South Africa but remains uncommon.

Rather than adopting an initiative such as SportSmart or BokSmart, Australia’s concussion governance is largely decentralised. Individual codes have responsibility for concussion protocols within their competitions and pathways.

Stronger partnerships are needed

While a lack of TPD insurance does not directly threaten the viability of sports, Zurich’s decision does require alternative solutions to protect athletes.

Better partnerships between sporting organisations, insurers and governments should create an opportunity to improve how head injury risk is understood.

By pooling more injury surveillance data, stakeholders could gain a clearer picture of long-term exposure and emerging trends. This would support better decisions about preventing harm, designing policy, and managing risks.

This approach will likely be most effective if it extends down to community and junior sport.

Concussion and head injuries often first occur in youth participation, and early mismanagement can increase the risk of long-term health consequences.

A serious concern

The Zurich decision only impacts the specific TPD cover of elite AFL and AFLW players. However, any decision to reduce or exclude sport-related concussion cover could lead other insurers to review their coverage, including community or junior sport insurances.

This will be a serious concern, because as the Insurance Council of Australia cautioned in its 2023 submission to the Senate inquiry: “no insurance means no sport”.

– ref. When insurers walk away from concussion risk, who protects athletes? – https://theconversation.com/when-insurers-walk-away-from-concussion-risk-who-protects-athletes-279740

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/when-insurers-walk-away-from-concussion-risk-who-protects-athletes-279740/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

The fallout from war between the United States, Israel and Iran has dominated global oil markets. And not just because the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries about 20% of global oil and gas, remains effectively closed to shipping traffic.

Deep uncertainty about how long the disruption will continue has added a persistent “risk premium” – an extra cost built into oil prices to account for the risk of disrupted supply.

Rising insurance costs, reduced ship traffic and longer transit routes avoiding the Middle East have all added further friction to global oil supply chains.

An optimist might say this will all be sorted out quickly and soon enough we will be back to “normal”. And oil prices have retreated back below US$100 per barrel this week, on renewed hopes of a peace deal.

But they’re still elevated. Before war broke out in the Middle East, benchmark oil prices had hovered in the range of US$70–80 a barrel since 2023. That’s near where they’ve sat, on average, in “normal” times for much of the past two decades.

But what if there is no way back to “normal”? What if the fundamental challenge now isn’t the short-term disruption in supply, but the realisation that the days of cheap oil may have come to an end?

Oil’s invisible reach

Higher oil prices have a ripple effect that typically starts at the fuel pump. Petrol, diesel and jet fuel are top of mind. Driving to work, moving goods and travelling all become more expensive.

Many fertilisers, too, are petrochemical products. That means farming around the world is exposed to a shock.

But the list of goods that rely on oil and gas goes far beyond fuel and fertiliser. According to the US Department of Energy, petrochemicals (derived from oil and gas) are involved in the manufacturing of more than 6,000 everyday products.

In many cases, this is because petrochemicals are a key input in the production of plastic. But other products on the list may be surprising, such as aspirin, dishwashing liquid, toothpaste and dyes.

Building materials used in construction warrant a special mention. Asphalt, insulation, paint, pipes, membranes, fittings and other composite materials are mostly oil byproducts. Manufacturing bricks and many ceramic products is also gas-intensive.

Add transporting it all to the construction site, and the oil crisis becomes another headwind to housing affordability.

Is this the end of cheap oil?

In 1999, an article in The Economist quoted Don Huberts, who was then head of Shell Hydrogen at oil company Royal Dutch/Shell:

The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

True enough, but what about cheap oil? Can that come to an end?

The world has faced many oil shocks before, some for geopolitical reasons, others due to concerns demand would outstrip supply.

But almost every time analysts predicted the world was about to run out of oil, price hikes were met with new discoveries, technological improvements and oil substitution.

Companies such as Chevron have pioneered new techniques, such as deepwater drilling.

Extracting oil from shale through fracking unlocked new supplies, especially in the US. This helped the US become the world’s largest producer of crude oil in the late 2010s.

This time, however, production facilities across the Middle East have suffered major damage, which may take years to repair. The central question is no longer whether oil exists in the ground, but whether it can be supplied cheaply, reliably and at scale again.

Just in time vs just in case

Until 2020, global economies largely operated in “just-in-time” mode. You only take what you need, when you need it, assuming it will always be there for you. This system works efficiently – and is cheap – until something goes wrong.

Lessons from the pandemic brought back the idea of “just in case”, particularly as the war in Ukraine caused further disruption.

“Just in case” means that you keep more than you need, so if someone closes the tap, you can keep all else running. However, this creates new costs.

To keep more oil and gas than you need, you don’t just have to pay for the extra stock. Countries also have to build new storage and infrastructure, and pay more in insurance.

You refine your management to make sure it all works properly, so that the extra cost added is part of a larger contingency plan. But someone must foot this bill.

How the world will have to adapt

The end of cheap oil does not mean the end of oil use. It means higher costs embedded throughout daily life.

Pressure on governments to subsidise fuel, expand stockpiles and intervene in markets can mean larger budget deficits. Households will have less money left for non-essentials as the cost of living bites even harder.

We will adapt, as we are already beginning to see in the current crisis. There are signs people around the world are travelling less, using more public transport and electrifying cars and homes.

Industries may invest more in efficiency and green energy not out of environmental idealism, but cost necessity.

But there may still be a rocky road ahead, and we may never get back to “normal”. Adaptation does not end oil dependence; it reshapes it. The challenge is managing a world in which oil remains essential, but is no longer cheap, stable or politically neutral.

– ref. Will oil prices ever truly go back to ‘normal’? – https://theconversation.com/will-oil-prices-ever-truly-go-back-to-normal-280572

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/will-oil-prices-ever-truly-go-back-to-normal-280572/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Kadlec, Researcher, Athlete Health and Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University

It’s an athlete’s worst fear. Hearing a loud “pop” and feeling severe pain are usually the first signs you’ve torn your anterior cruciate ligament, also known as the ACL.

The ACL connects your shin and thigh bones, and is one of the key ligaments that help stabilise your knee joint.

Research suggests ACL injuries are becoming increasingly common across all age groups. Children as young as ten are rupturing their ACLs, with many never regaining their pre-injury strength or ability.

So how do ACL injuries happen? And what makes them so serious?

Why the ACL matters

The ACL is an indispensable part of your knee joint. Its main job is to keep your knee stable by stopping it from rotating or extending too much. This is especially important if you regularly twist, pivot or land on your knee joint.

ACL injuries are most often a result of the fatigue-failure process. This is the idea that repeatedly using and putting strain on the ACL, without proper training, makes it significantly weaker over time.

Doing specific strength exercises and regular physical activity can help slow this process. But if you don’t do these activities, even minor movements can gradually weaken your ACL.

Importantly, ACL injuries don’t just affect elite athletes. Injury rates are just as high in amateur and community sport, where access to athletic rehabilitation is typically more limited. This means people playing at amateur levels can face longer, more uncertain paths to recovery compared to professional athletes who have a specialist team of medical and performance staff. As a result, many amateur athletes stop playing sport altogether.

Why are ACL injuries so severe?

Unlike many other tissues in the body, the ACL has a very limited capacity to heal. Once torn or damaged, it can’t regenerate in a way that restores its original structure or function.

ACL injuries impact the stability of the knee, often causing the joint to “give way”. This leads to physical symptoms such as pain and swelling. But ACL injuries can also damage other parts of the leg including the meniscus, cartilage and other ligaments.

Over time, a person with an ACL injury may develop osteoarthritis, a painful condition where the cartilage in your knee breaks down and causes the bones to rub together. Even with appropriate medical care, one in two people who tear their ACL will have knee osteoarthritis.

The road to recovery

Recovering from an ACL injury can be a long, and at times painful, process that typically lasts between nine and 12 months. Any attempt to speed this up increases the risk of re-injury. And subsequent ACL injuries often have more severe consequences than the initial rupture.

The recovery process starts with diagnosis. This usually involves seeing a medical professional, such as a GP or physiotherapist, in a clinic. They often use MRI imaging to assess the damage to your ligaments and knee joint.

Many people will then have surgery to reconstruct their torn ACL. This requires the surgeon to take a piece of suitable tissue, known as a graft, from another part of the body to put it where the torn ligament was. Using special screws, they then secure the replacement tissue to the bone.

No matter how you treat an ACL injury, rehabilitation is key. An exercise physiologist or physiotherapist can help you rebuild the strength and flexibility of your knee joint through exercises focused on reducing swelling and restoring your range of motion.

Rehabilitation is particularly important if you’re planning to return to sport. As you heal and recover, you’ll go through several phases of exercises. By taking this gradual approach, you’ll be better prepared to perform more high-risk movements, such as pivoting or jumping.

Increasingly, ACL rehabilitation prioritises psychological health. This has given rise to a biopsychosocial approach to recovery, where recovery relies on physical healing as well as a positive mindset. Athletes can use strategies such as goal setting to manage the emotional ups-and-downs of sustaining a serious injury. This approach also recognises how crucial an athlete’s support network, which may include coaches, teammates and family, is to their recovery.

Injuring your ACL can take an immense physical and psychological toll. That’s why getting support from qualified medical professionals, as well as a close social network, is vital.

– ref. Injured your ACL? It’s more than just a knee injury – https://theconversation.com/injured-your-acl-its-more-than-just-a-knee-injury-278080

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/injured-your-acl-its-more-than-just-a-knee-injury-278080/

By Margot Staunton, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

The Solomon Islands’ Attorney-General is challenging a ruling by the Chief Justice in favour of a new coalition of political parties seeking to oust the Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele.

In the High Court on Tuesday, Sir Albert Palmer ordered Manele to call Parliament within three days to face a motion of no confidence in his leadership.

Sir Albert ruled in favour of a new coalition of 28 MPs (in the 50-member house), including government defectors, who filed a judicial review claim in the High Court.

Palmer denied attempts by Attorney-General John Muria Jr to have the judicial review struck out.

It is the latest development in a political saga that began last month after a mass defection of government ministers to the opposition.

However, the prime minister said in a statement shortly after that Sir Albert’s order raised “profound issues” regarding the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

Manele added that Muria Jr would appeal the decision “to protect the constitutional integrity of the Office of the Prime Minister for future generations”.

“It is the firm view of the government’s view that certain fundamental legal questions were not adequately dealt with in the judgement,” Manele said.

Remain calm plea
He also urged Solomon Islanders to remain calm as the government sought “absolute legal certainty” over the case in the Court of Appeal.

Muria Jr spoke to local media about an appeal outside the court on Tuesday.

He spoke Solomon Islands pijin, which has been translated: “I think firstly, its appealable, so we will be filing an appeal for that. A lot of the things in the original, all the orders that the claimants were seeking that is not what the Chief Justice has granted.”

Meanwhile, Gabriel Suri, the lawyer for new coalition, said the ruling over the political impasse facing the country represented a significant development in constitutional law.

Speaking outside court, Suri told local reporters that it provided clarity in the event of future constitutional crises.

“The order that he is given today is that the prime minister has a constitutional duty [to call parliament and face a no-confidence-motion] but he failed to exercise this. So that is what he clearly states,” Suri said.

“The prime minister failed to exercise his constitutional duty so he ordered the prime minister to perform his constitutional duty. If he does not perform it then the Governor-General can step in and exercise his residual power.”

‘Constitutional duty’
In his ruling, the Chief Justice stated that Manele had a “constitutional duty” to ensure the motion was brought before Parliament expeditiously and failing to do so was “unlawful.”

Despite their numerical superiority, the group has been locked out of parliament by Manele’s refusal to call a sitting and face a leadership challenge.

The mandatory orders go further in stating that, if the prime minister fails to call parliament within three days, the Governor-General can call parliament and the Speaker must ensure the motion of no confidence is prioritised.

The judgement stated that the judicial review raised questions that were “serious, arguable and justiciable.”

“The claim raises questions at the very core of the constitutional order-namely, the scope and limits of the powers of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister in relation to the summoning of Parliament, and the role of the court where those powers are said not to have been exercised in circumstances giving rise to constitutional impasse,” it said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/solomon-islands-pm-challenges-court-order-to-face-no-confidence-vote-within-days/