Rethinking Defence Logistics: The Strategic Imperative for Change
In an era of shifting geopolitical dynamics and evolving security challenges, traditional approaches to defence logistics and industrial cooperation are proving fundamentally inadequate. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has starkly illustrated that modern warfare demands not just superior firepower, but the ability to sustain, adapt, and surge capabilities at unprecedented speed and scale. For allied nations like Australia, this reality necessitates a complete reimagining of how defence logistics operates moving from national silos toward truly integrated, multinational systems.
The traditional model of defence procurement and logistics, characterized by lengthy acquisition cycles, geographically dispersed supply chains, and rigid national boundaries, is increasingly unsuited to the realities of contemporary conflict. Recent military operations have demonstrated that success depends not merely on having the right equipment, but on maintaining the flexibility to rapidly reconfigure logistics networks, repurpose existing capabilities, and sustain operations across vast distances with uncertain supply lines.
This challenge is particularly acute for Australia, given its geographic position, alliance relationships, and growing role in regional security architecture. Rather than static stockpiling and linear supply chains, contemporary military operations require dynamic, adaptive systems that can rapidly pivot between different operational requirements while maintaining efficiency and security.
This represents a fundamental shift from thinking about military logistics as a discrete, defence-specific function toward what might be termed “national logistics” or integrated systems that seamlessly leverage civilian infrastructure, commercial industrial capacity, and alliance relationships to create resilient, adaptive capabilities that serve both military and civilian needs.
The implications extend far beyond traditional military planning. Modern defence logistics must encompass civilian transportation networks, commercial manufacturing facilities, dual-use technologies, and broad economic relationships that transcend conventional military-industrial boundaries. The artificial distinction between “defence industry” and broader economic activity becomes not just counterproductive but strategically dangerous in an environment where adaptability and surge capacity may determine operational success.
We started by discussing the case of the deployment of U.S. Osprey aircraft to Australia’s Northern Territory as an example of a forcing function to work on a broader logistics enterprise. As Beaumont notes, this initiative forces both militaries to confront fundamental questions about sustainability, parts management, and logistics integration that go far beyond traditional host-nation support agreements.
Australian personnel must develop expertise in maintaining complex systems, establishing supply chains for specialized parts, and creating secure storage and distribution networks. More importantly, it requires both nations to think systematically about how American and Australian logistics capabilities can be integrated rather than simply coordinated.
The implications extend well beyond the immediate operational requirements. Success in sustaining these aircraft operations will require developing what Beaumont calls “mutual benefits” or shared logistics capabilities that serve both nations’ interests while creating efficiencies that neither could achieve independently. This could include joint maintenance facilities, shared training programs, and integrated supply chains that reduce costs while improving operational flexibility.
Critically, this arrangement also serves as a forcing function for broader strategic thinking. It compels both militaries to consider how they will manage “global enterprise level activities as a coalition” without creating the kind of friction that has historically plagued multinational operations when resources are scarce and access is limited
The path forward requires what Beaumont describes as “enterprise-level” thinking about defence logistics. Instead of treating logistics as a series of discrete joint, national or coalition responsibilities with occasional coordination, this approach envisions truly integrated networks where allies share not just information, but actual logistics infrastructure, industrial capacity, and operational responsibilities.
This enterprise mindset represents a paradigm shift comparable to the transformation of global commercial supply chains over the past several decades. Just as modern corporations have learned to optimize efficiency and resilience through integrated global networks, allied militaries must develop similar capabilities but with the added complexity of maintaining security, sovereignty, and operational effectiveness across different national systems.
The enterprise approach becomes particularly crucial as force posture arrangements scale up to place considerable demands on Australia’s industrial base. Rather than viewing increased military cooperation as a burden on existing capabilities, the enterprise framework suggests ways that expanded cooperation can actually enhance national industrial capacity while serving collective security interests.
This integration requires moving beyond traditional coordination mechanisms toward genuine resource sharing and joint investment in capabilities that serve multiple national interests simultaneously. It means developing institutional arrangements that can manage “global enterprise level activities as a coalition” without creating the friction and resource competition that has historically plagued multinational operations.
The concept of embedded logistics offers a concrete framework for implementing enterprise-level thinking in practice. This model envisions multiple allied nations collectively investing in shared industrial capacity within strategically positioned locations, using existing commercial relationships as foundations for expanded defence cooperation.
Australia’s current industrial relationships provide an ideal starting point for this approach. South Korea’s existing vehicle manufacturing operations in Australia, for example, could serve as the foundation for expanded production capabilities that serve multiple allied requirements. By having the United States, Japan, and South Korea jointly invest in Australian production facilities for common weapons systems and ammunition, allied nations could create genuinely shared industrial assets that enhance collective capability while strengthening individual national positions.
The embedded logistics approach offers several strategic advantages that extend well beyond simple cost savings.
First, it creates geographic diversification of critical manufacturing capabilities, reducing collective vulnerability to disruption while providing Australia with enhanced industrial capacity.
Second, it generates operational efficiencies by producing materials closer to where they might be employed, rather than manufacturing in distant locations and shipping across vast ocean distances under potentially contested conditions.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, embedded logistics creates shared stakes in the success of these facilities, strengthening alliance bonds through mutual economic interests that transcend traditional diplomatic relationships. When allied nations have joint investments in Australian production capabilities, they develop vested interests in Australia’s security and stability that reinforce formal alliance commitments with economic incentives.
The model extends beyond simple production to encompass the entire logistics ecosystem. Manufacturing capability without corresponding distribution networks, supply chain management, and surge capacity planning provides limited strategic value. Embedded logistics therefore requires thinking holistically about how materials move from production through distribution to end users, including the civilian infrastructure and commercial relationships that make this movement possible.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine provides crucial insights for rethinking allied defence logistics. As Beaumont observes, “the real lesson out of Ukraine is one of logistics and industrial adaptability and not necessarily preparedness This observation challenges fundamental assumptions about defence planning that have guided military thinking for decades.
Traditional defence planning emphasizes detailed preparation, pre-positioning of specific capabilities, and comprehensive logistical preparation for anticipated scenarios. The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that such preparation, while valuable, may be less important than maintaining the intellectual agility and institutional flexibility to rapidly adapt available resources to meet unexpected requirements.
Ukrainian forces have shown remarkable creativity in employing weapons systems in ways never originally intended, finding innovative solutions when ideal capabilities were unavailable, and rapidly scaling production and distribution of critical materials under extreme conditions. They have demonstrated that adaptability—the ability to creatively employ whatever resources are available—may be more valuable than having precisely the right equipment for anticipated scenarios.
This lesson has profound implications for allied defence logistics planning. Rather than fixating on delivering specific capabilities through lengthy acquisition programs, allied militaries might achieve better results by developing flexible systems and maintaining the institutional knowledge to employ them in novel ways when circumstances demand adaptation.
The embedded logistics concept directly supports this adaptability imperative by creating diverse, geographically distributed production capabilities that can be rapidly reconfigured to meet changing requirements. Instead of depending on single-source suppliers or geographically concentrated production facilities, embedded logistics creates multiple options that can be activated and scaled according to operational needs.
Implementing enterprise-level logistics cooperation requires more than new concepts and frameworks. It demands fundamental institutional innovation and cultural change within defence organizations accustomed to national approaches to logistics and procurement.
Australia’s creation of the National Support Division within its defence structure represents an important step toward institutional arrangements capable of managing these more complex relationships. Rather than treating industry engagement as a series of transactional procurement decisions, this new institutional framework envisions sustained, strategic partnerships that enable rapid adaptation and surge capacity when needed.
However, institutional change alone proves insufficient without corresponding changes in organizational culture and operational practice. Historical examples of similar initiatives that failed to achieve practical outcomes demonstrate that new frameworks must “prove themselves and create results” through concrete achievements rather than remaining conceptual exercises.
Success requires defence organizations to develop new capabilities for articulating requirements, not just immediate needs but potential future requirements across a range of scenarios. This includes creating institutionalized mechanisms for expressing demand signals to civilian industries and partner nations in ways that enable proactive capacity development rather than reactive crisis response.
The communication challenge extends beyond simple procurement to encompass broader questions of national resilience and crisis response. Rather than waiting for crises to begin negotiations with civilian logistics providers, defence organizations need ongoing relationships that enable rapid mobilization of commercial capabilities when needed. This requires breaking down artificial barriers between military and civilian logistics while maintaining appropriate security and oversight measures.
An effective logistics enterprise also requires improved coordination across government departments and agencies that have traditionally operated independently. As Beaumont explains, there are frequent situations where different agencies have complementary needs that could be addressed through coordinated investment approaches.
When governments at all levels consider infrastructure investments that might also serve defence logistics requirements, coordinated planning could achieve both objectives more cost-effectively than separate programs. Similarly, when civilian emergency management agencies develop disaster response capabilities, coordinated approaches could create systems that serve both emergency response and military logistics as well as broader civil preparedness requirements.
This type of “co-development” arrangement requires breaking down bureaucratic silos while maintaining appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms. It means developing planning processes that can identify opportunities for shared investment while respecting the different mandates and constraints that govern different government agencies.
The economic benefits extend beyond simple cost savings to encompass broader questions of national industrial capacity and economic resilience. Embedded logistics investments can strengthen civilian economic sectors while building defence capabilities, creating jobs and technological expertise that serve both military and commercial purposes.
As global security challenges continue to evolve in unpredictable directions, the nations that succeed in creating integrated approaches to defence logistics may find themselves better positioned not just to respond to immediate threats, but to adapt to challenges that have not yet emerged. In an era where adaptability may prove more valuable than preparedness, enterprise logistics approaches that seamlessly integrate civilian industry and decision-makers become essential elements of national security strategy.
Additionally, an embedded logistics framework offers a promising path toward allied cooperation that enhances both collective capability and individual national resilience. By moving beyond traditional transactional relationships toward truly integrated logistics enterprises, Australia and its allies can create more resilient, efficient, and adaptable defence capabilities suited to the strategic challenges of the twenty-first century.
Beyond Fight Tonight: Building Resilience and Capacity Across Defence and Industry