Defence Strategic Review critics slam Army cuts as 'specious', kicking the can down the road

The declassified version of the Defence Strategic Review, released on Monday, called for a major overhaul of the country's defence settings in response to rising tensions and military buildup in the Indo-Pacific.

Led by former defence force chief Angus Houston and former defence minister Stephen Smith, the landmark review urged a focus on northern Australia and investment in long-range missile capability.

It was revealed last week the military's repositioning would be funded in part by a reduction in the number of infantry combat vehicles from 450 to 129 over the coming years.

Defence Minister Richard Marles acknowledged "tough decisions" had been made but said they were "in the best interest of our defence force and our nation".

Defence expert Professor John Blaxland described the cuts to the Army's land-based equipment as "specious".

"When the rhetoric talks about an almost existential challenge, why would we cut any of the programs?," he said.

The federal government's changes, including the planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, will be funded by $19 billion in reallocated spending over the coming four years.

A total of 21 projects will be rescoped while six are being delayed and another six cancelled.

Self-propelled howitzers, known as the Land 8115 Phase 1 project, are also due to be downsized in cost to make way for submarines and long-range missiles.

The changes form part of the strategic review's focus to shift the military from a balanced force to a more focused one, capable of littoral operations and warfare.

READ MORE:

Opposition defence spokesperson Andrew Hastie, a former special forces commander, slammed the Albanese government's changes warning they would troops at risk.

"The simple truth is that our troops will have less protection in close combat, infantry are most effective when fighting with armored support in a combined arms context," he said on Monday.

"And even with the promised expansion of long range strike capability, you still need to provide security to those assets and forces and the cuts today degrade this capability."

Professor Blaxland agreed with the opposition's criticism, saying cutting the military in one area to boost another area did not provide adequate security.

"It's like rock, paper, scissors," he said.

"If you have the rock and the paper, and somebody comes along with the scissors, guess what? The paper is shredded and the rock can do nothing about it.

"This is the problem with this simplistic thinking about armoured fighting vehicles. They are part of a combined team, where each vulnerability is complemented by the strengths of the complementary capability of the other systems.

"The whole point of a joint force is the complementarity of each bit."

Defence Industry Pat Conroy described on Monday the reduction of land combat vehicles, along with the slashing of self-propelled howitzers, as necessary to fund the capabilities required for a modern military.

The money saved will be put toward investing in High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems - or HIMARS - and land-based maritime strike capabilities to give the Australian Army "significant range and projection", Mr Conroy said.

The strategic review was scathing in its assessment of the military's current settings, outlining the rise of the "missile age" meant Australia could no longer rely on its geographic isolation as a natural defence.

Marcus Hellyer, head of research at Strategic Analysis Australia, said the federal government's repositioning of the defence force made sense for the geostrategic environment it faces.

While the review acknowledges the threat posed by climate change, it also directly references China's military build up and the role it plays in potentially impacting Australia's national interests.

A potential conflict with China would primarily play out in sea and air, Dr Hellyer said.

"If you're fighting a great power adversary, such as China, you're not going to be able to move [the Army] anywhere unless you have control of the air and sea," he said.

"Whether you like it or not, that's what the government has said is the highest priority - it's air and sea capabilities and the role of the Army is essentially to support that."

The defence expert said the government's cuts to the Army was simply "kicking the can down the road".

"The main reason that they drastically shrunk investment in infantry fighting vehicles is because they need to free up money for other things," Mr Hellyer said.

Paul Maddison, UNSW Defence Research Institute director and retired Vice Admiral for the Royal Canadian Navy, said he had confidence any issues with the changing approach to combined arms combat had been canvassed, likely in the classified version.

He welcomed the review's focus on shifting to a whole-of-government approach to the challenge rather than leaving it to one or two departments.

"I'm really pleased also to see a lot of language around this being a whole of nation, a whole of government enterprise - this is not the Department of Defence on its own in Canberra," he said, adding biennial national defence strategy updates were a "really good signal".

"That's a clear indication from the government that the work of the DSR will always be a work-in-progress that will aggregate greater detail and intent.

"And with, I assume, increased funding in order to afford the scale of the necessary ambition in the years to come."