The future will contain a perplexing, complex array of security challenges for Australia. Many elements within Defence struggle with the dialectic regarding what should drive the future structure of the Australian Army, should this be the capability to deploy land forces to fight in foreign conflict, the focus on counter-terrorist capabilities, or the traditional defense of Australia doctrine (DOA). The Chief of Army (CA) 's hardening initiative correctly addresses this dilemma, directing that it would be wrong for Australia to focus on any one option. Australia can no longer classify national interests from a perspective coterminous with territory. This paper examines the current proposal presented by the Future Land Warfare (FLW) Directorate to achieve the CA 's hardened concept and presents an alternative option. The FLW hardening force structure proposal upgrades the current in-service MBT and reorganizes the ground components of the Australian Army into two mechanized infantry battalions, and 3 light infantry battalions, each standardized with three rifle companies. While this structure creates the flexibility for the development of robust, combined arms teams, it is suggested that there may be some limitations, in particular in the ability for a mechanized force to achieve desired levels of modularity. An alternative modular force structure solution may be a more suitable construct for the hardened Army because of the inherent advantages of balance, operational flexibility and adaptability that brigading of armored mobility assets into APC regiments versus the mechanization of two infantry battalions. The ability to tailor a discrete package of force elements creates opportunities to ensure forces that are flexible, scalable and adaptable to meet the demands of the complex environment. This paper suggests that the ability to tailor a modular force, commensurate with Australian national interests provides an advantage over the proposed FLW mechanized model. At minimum this alternative serves as a useful medium to create further debate on this subject.

ADA429381 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)