Strategic Transformation for a New Era: Reworking the Australian’s Army’s Role in Australian Defence

06/16/2025
By Robbin Laird

The Australian Army is undergoing what its leadership describes as the most significant transformation since World War II, fundamentally reshaping itself for an era of great power competition in the Indo-Pacific.

This comprehensive adaptation, driven by the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, represents both a strategic pivot and a return to the Army’s amphibious warfare heritage forged in the Pacific campaigns of the 1940s.

According to Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of the Australian Army, the service stands at “an historic inflection point” necessitated by the most challenging strategic circumstances since the end of World War II.¹ The Defence Strategic Review concluded that Australia faces “the prospect of major conflict in the region” and that the Australian Defence Force must transition rapidly from a “balanced force” to an “integrated, focused force” designed to address the nation’s most significant strategic risks.²

This transformation is underpinned by Australia’s adoption of a “strategy of denial” – an approach that aims to deter conflict and prevent coercion through force, with a naturally strong maritime focus befitting an island nation.³ As General Stuart noted, “for the first time in more than 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals… to take a ‘first principles’ approach.”⁴

Rediscovering Littoral Warfare DNA

Central to this transformation is the Army’s optimization “for littoral manoeuvre operations by sea, land and air from Australia, with enhanced long-range fires.”⁵ This direction represents what Australian military leaders call a rediscovery of the Army’s “amphibious and littoral-operation DNA,” acknowledging that Australia has always relied on maritime strategy as a nation “girt by sea.”⁶

The material foundations for this capability are substantial. The Australian government is procuring 18 medium landing craft of around 500 tons and 9 heavy craft of between 3,000 and 5,000 tons – representing “the largest fleet of littoral watercraft operated by the Australian Army since World War II.”⁷ These capabilities, operating in conjunction with the Royal Australian Navy’s two 27,500-ton amphibious assault ships, will fundamentally transform the Army’s ability to maneuver, deter, and deny in the littorals of Australia’s archipelagic region.

The scale of this transformation becomes apparent when considering the operational requirements. As General Stuart explained to defense industry leaders, “an Australian Division in the Indo-Pacific must be capable of distributed archipelagic operations spanning hundreds if not thousands of kilometres,” referencing how during World War II, “the Australian Army’s frontage stretched from Borneo to Bougainville… greater than the distance from Sydney to Perth.”⁸

Professional Foundations Under Review

Beyond physical transformation, the Army is conducting a comprehensive assessment of its professional foundations – what General Stuart describes as “the first time since 1947 that we have attempted a wholesale, holistic review of our profession.”⁹ This review is structured around three fundamental pillars:

  • Jurisdiction – defining the unique service the Army provides to society. General Stuart argues that the Army’s role has become unclear to the nation it serves, partly due to recent “niche wars” that “didn’t touch Australia’s shores, or the vast majority of Australians, in any tangible sense.”¹⁰ The challenge is articulating what sort of Army Australia needs “in the middle decades of the 21st Century” and ensuring this role is clearly understood by both the military and society.¹¹
  • Expertise – maintaining and developing the Army’s professional body of knowledge. This involves balancing “war’s enduringly human nature with its ever-changing character,” requiring the Army to be proficient in both cutting-edge technology and classical military theory.¹² As General Stuart emphasized, the Army needs “technologists and futurists” but also “historians, philosophers, ethicists and strategists in equal measure.”¹³
  • Self-regulation – the Army’s ability to uphold professional standards, particularly regarding command accountability. General Stuart identified this as “perhaps the most pressing” challenge, noting that “the command relationship between our Army and the individual has not thrived these last two decades.”¹⁴

Regional Integration and Alliance Cooperation

The transformation emphasizes collective deterrence through strengthened alliance relationships. Australian forces now regularly participate in major multilateral exercises including Super Garuda Shield with Indonesia and the United States, Exercise Alon with the Philippines and United States, and the expanding Talisman Sabre exercise that will host nineteen nations in 2025.¹⁵

General Stuart articulated the value of allied land power through five key advantages: presence, persistence, asymmetry, versatility, and value. He argued that allied armies provide “sheer presence” across the region, can “persist indefinitely, regardless of season, weather, or terrain,” offer “asymmetric” capabilities against adversary strengths, demonstrate remarkable “versatility” in mission adaptation, and deliver exceptional “value” for defense investment.¹⁶

This collective approach is particularly relevant given the Indo-Pacific’s geographic challenges. As General Stuart noted, “it is impossible for even the most capable militaries to maintain a continuous presence of platforms across the vast scale of the Indo-Pacific,” but armies “can offset these challenges by our ability to persist indefinitely.”¹⁷

Technology Integration with Human-Centered Warfare

While embracing technological advancement, including artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons, the Army maintains that “technology does not replace the very human aspects of war, it is instead additive.” This represents “very much an ‘and’, not an ‘or’ proposition.”¹⁸

The Army recognizes that “the ability to wield technology in war is a ‘new basic’ requirement in soldiering,” with technology becoming “as ubiquitous for our soldiers as the employment of their weapons.”¹⁹ However, this technological sophistication must be balanced with understanding of war’s enduring human nature, requiring soldiers prepared for “the most demanding of human endeavours, physically, intellectually and spiritually.”²⁰

Trust as the Foundation

Underlying all transformation efforts is what General Stuart has identified as the Army’s central strategic priority: trust. “Trust and social license are explicitly linked,” he argued, “lose one, and we lose the other.”²¹ This focus on trust responds to challenges identified in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and lessons learned from recent conflicts, particularly Afghanistan.

The Army’s approach to rebuilding trust centers on strengthening command accountability and ensuring that “the equation must be in balance” between commanders’ accountabilities and the authorities and resources they are assigned.²² This includes fostering a “virtue-ethic” that serves as “the greatest protector against unethical and unprofessional behaviour in war.”²³

Historical Context and Future Direction

The transformation draws heavily on historical precedent, particularly the Australian Army’s rapid adaptation for Pacific warfare between 1941 and 1945. As General Stuart observed, “the Army that fought to achieve victory [in 1945] had not even been imagined four years earlier,” yet managed a “remarkable” transformation “in contact.”²⁴ Today’s Army has the advantage of conducting transformation “out of contact,” allowing for more considered planning while recognizing that “time is not on our side.”²⁵

This comprehensive transformation represents more than equipment modernization or tactical adaptation. It constitutes a fundamental reimagining of Australia’s land power for an era where, as the National Defence Strategy concludes, “Australia no longer enjoys the benefit of a ten-year window of strategic warning time for conflict.”²⁶ The Australian Army’s evolution reflects broader questions about how middle powers adapt their military institutions for great power competition while maintaining the professional foundations essential for democratic societies.

As Australia approaches the Army’s 125th anniversary in 2026, General Stuart has committed to having “the answers to the questions I have posed today,” ensuring the nation can be “fully engaged in writing the next chapter in the story of your Army.”²⁷

The success of this transformation will likely influence not only Australia’s security but serve as a model for how allied nations adapt their land forces for the challenges of 21st-century competition in the Indo-Pacific.

Footnotes:

  1. Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession,” Address at the Lowy Institute, 3 April 2025.
  2. Major General Ash Collingburn and Colonel Tom McDermott, “Australia’s Army Is Adapting for the Littorals,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2025.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, “The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession,” Address at Australian National University, 25 November 2024.
  5. Collingburn and McDermott, “Australia’s Army Is Adapting for the Littorals.”
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, “Remarks by the Chief of Army to the Land Forces Defence and Industry Dinner,” 12 September 2024.
  9. Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession.”
  10. Stuart, “The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession.”
  11. Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession.”
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Stuart, “The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession.”
  15. Collingburn and McDermott, “Australia’s Army Is Adapting for the Littorals.”
  16. Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, “The Role of Allied Land Power in Deterring Conflict,” Address at LANPAC, 15 May 2025.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession.”
  19. Ibid.
  20. Stuart, “The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession.”
  21. Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession.”
  22. Ibid.
  23. Stuart, “The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession.”
  24. Stuart, “Strengthening the Australian Army Profession.”
  25. Ibid.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Ibid.

The featured image was generated by an AI program.

See also the following:

Australian Army’s Strategic Pivot: Adapting for the Indo-Pacific Century