By Robbin Laird
In an era of unprecedented global uncertainty, Australia faces a critical question: Can the nation mobilize its industrial base quickly enough to meet emerging security challenges?
According to Matt Jones (seen above in the featured photo), Head of Future Business Defence Delivery at BAE Systems Australia, the answer lies not in waiting for crisis to justify action, but in learning from history’s most successful and failed attempts at defence industrial mobilization.
Speaking at the Sir Richard Williams Foundation symposium on combat readiness at the “speed of relevance,” Jones delivered a compelling case for immediate action, drawing on lessons from World War II industrialists and Ukraine’s recent transformation to argue that Australia’s defence industrial mobilization cannot wait for bullets to fly.
The Urgency of Now
Australia finds itself navigating what Jones describes as “the most uncertain and unsettling period of our lifetimes.” Strategic pressures are multiplying from Europe and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, where China remains a persistent threat. The required pace of capability development is accelerating while operational risks increase exponentially.
In this context, Jones argues, Australian industry must evolve beyond its traditional role as a transactional supplier to become “an enabler of national combat power.” This transformation requires what he calls both urgency and historical perspective which requires understanding not just what needs to be done, but learning from those who have faced similar challenges before.
The fundamental lesson Jones extracts from history is stark: “Waiting for crisis to justify investment leaves us with money, but no time.” This principle underpins his entire argument for proactive industrial mobilization, supported by three compelling historical examples that offer both inspiration and warning.
Bill Knudsen: The Power of Unified Purpose
The first lesson comes from America’s “Arsenal of Democracy” during World War II, orchestrated by Bill Knudsen, the General Motors president thrust into wartime industrial leadership by President Roosevelt in 1940. Knudsen’s approach offers a masterclass in rapid industrial mobilization under pressure.
Leading the hastily formed National Defence Advisory Commission, Knudsen harnessed America’s industrial giants —General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler — leveraging their management capabilities, workforce, and production expertise to scale military capability at unprecedented speed. His genius lay in understanding that winning wars required more than battlefield strategy; it demanded mobilizing industry at extraordinary pace.
Knudsen’s key innovations were revolutionary in their simplicity. He forged early partnerships between government and industry, creating coordinated efforts that prepared production lines before war arrived. Most importantly, he prioritized mass production and standardization over perfection. His philosophy that “100 good enough aircraft today would save more lives than one perfect aircraft next year” transformed how America approached wartime production.
The results speak volumes: America’s mobilized industrial base produced 70% of all Allied military equipment. Knudsen had correctly identified war as fundamentally “a production problem” and solved it through industrial might rather than seeking perfect solutions.
Essington Lewis: The Cost of Delayed Action
Australia’s own wartime industrial experience offers a more sobering lesson through Essington Lewis, BHP’s managing director who became Director-General of the Department of Munitions and later Aircraft Production. Lewis faced a reality starkly different from Knudsen’s—attempting to mobilize Australia’s industrial base before conflict began, only to be frustrated by governmental inaction.
From 1935 onwards, Lewis lobbied increasingly urgently for Australia to prepare for war mobilization. His foresight proved accurate, but his warnings fell on deaf ears in Canberra. When conflict finally arrived, Australia was underprepared despite having adequate funds. The nation lacked the industrial experience needed to build both capability and culture under wartime pressure.
Lewis’s experience crystallizes a fundamental truth: “foresight without action is useless.” His later reflection that “money cannot buy lost time” serves as a warning for contemporary Australia. Despite accomplishing remarkable feats such as expanding steel production, building aircraft and munitions plants, innovating under financial constraints, his efforts were continually slowed by bureaucracy and underfunding.
The comparison between Knudsen and Lewis is instructive. Knudsen had government backing and urgency; Lewis had vision and capability constrained by bureaucracy. Lewis’s experience demonstrates that industrial mobilization in constrained environments requires exceptional leadership, innovation, and the ability to navigate political obstacles while working “with what you have, not what you wish you had.”
Ukraine: Modern Lessons in Adaptive Mobilization
Perhaps the most relevant contemporary example comes from Ukraine’s transformation following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. Rather than assuming NATO would provide adequate deterrence, Ukraine began modernizing its defence industry and detaching itself from Soviet industrial legacy.
Ukraine’s state-owned Ukroboronprom transformed from a corrupt, inefficient Soviet-era concern into a transparent, investor-friendly entity capable of leading large defence projects and full-scale production. Hundreds of small and medium enterprises entered the market, many focused on drones, advanced electronics, and AI-enabled capabilities. Crucially, Ukraine shifted away from Russian supply chain dependence, pursuing joint ventures with countries like Turkey and Poland.
The transformation wasn’t perfect, inefficiencies, corruption, and gaps remained. However, Ukraine’s crucial advantage was starting mobilization eight years before Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. This head start proved enormously valuable when conflict erupted.
By 2022, Ukraine possessed engineers and innovators capable of adapting commercial drones into formidable battlefield weapons. The nation had built capacity to sustain artillery fire and manufacture unmanned systems even as Western ammunition supplies fluctuated. Partnerships with Poland and Turkey yielded battlefield-leading systems like the Bayraktar TB2 drone.
Most importantly, Ukraine had cultivated “a culture of innovating at wartime speed.” Civilian scientists and small businesses weren’t standing on sidelines but they were integral to the fight. When battlefield problems emerged, solutions were prototyped in days and fielded in weeks, not decades.
Australia’s Current Reality
These historical lessons frame Australia’s contemporary challenges starkly. The nation’s geography, alliance relationships, and regional change pace mean that if crisis comes, it may arrive fast. Industrial mobilization cannot wait for emergency justification.
Australia currently operates what Jones terms “a two-speed economy,” requiring simultaneous investment in immediate readiness and expensive future force structure pillars. This dual demand strains defence budgets significantly, even with projected increases over coming years.
The hard truth is that peacetime publics rarely demand higher defence spending. Every dollar faces scrutiny while bureaucracy and oversight, though protecting accountability, slow innovation and mobilization. Markets reward efficiency and shareholder returns, not readiness thereby creating fundamental tension with defense requirements.
Australia’s current industrial base, while modernizing, remains underweight, fragmented, and reliant on extended global supply chains. The Defence Strategic Review acknowledges this poses significant risk. If conflict disrupts supply lines, substantial gaps exist in specialized electronics for guided munitions, advanced materials for aerospace and high-speed weapons, and essential machining capabilities for military-grade production at scale.
Additional challenges include duplication of effort across multiple organizations conducting similar work, consuming precious resources unnecessarily. Competition often stifles effective outcomes, forcing small and medium enterprises to operate under fragmented demand signals and compliance pressures threatening their long-term viability.
Budget pressures risk undermining capabilities built carefully over decades. Once capability is lost, regaining it becomes extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming. This reality demands closer government-industry collaboration, sharing affordability challenges and jointly developing solutions.
Building on Strengths
Despite these challenges, Jones maintains optimism based on Australia’s demonstrated capabilities. The nation has repeatedly proven that when incentivized, it can advance and build sophisticated technologies quickly.
The Counter-IED Task Force supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplifies this potential, where Defence, DSTO, industry, and academia collaborated to deliver leading-edge capability into the field, saving soldiers’ lives. This success model demonstrates Australia’s capacity for rapid innovation when organizational barriers are removed.
Australia’s industrial base already possesses hundreds of innovative SMEs designing and building weapons and drones, many operational in Ukraine and exported globally. The nation maintains robust munitions capabilities at facilities like Mulwala and Benalla, producing high-quality ordnance reliably at scale.
Advanced aircraft sector achievements include projects like the Ghost Bat, showcasing Australian ability to produce high-end aviation systems. Next-generation shipbuilding at 21st-century facilities like Osborne make traditional shipbuilders envious globally. World-leading advanced capabilities exist in hypersonics, over-the-horizon radar, electronic warfare technologies, and underwater sensing and autonomous systems.
Underlying all achievements is Australian engineering quality, renowned globally for achieving remarkable solutions efficiently. These strengths provide solid foundations for accelerated growth if properly coordinated and resourced.
The Path Forward
Drawing from historical successes and failures, Jones proposes specific actions for strengthening Australia’s industrial base rapidly. These recommendations synthesize lessons from Knudsen’s coordination success, Lewis’s bureaucratic struggles, and Ukraine’s adaptive transformation.
• First, Australia needs a government-led industry steering council with real authority and incentives, similar to what Lewis advocated. This council, ideally led by experienced industrialists, would transcend contract-by-contract decision-making to orchestrate whole-of-nation industrial effort. It would integrate SMEs, advanced manufacturers, software companies, and non-traditional sectors, following models demonstrated by Australia and the U.S. decades ago and Ukraine more recently.
• Second, dedicated funding must be carved from the 2026 Integrated Operations Plan to strengthen industrial base capabilities. Following UK experience, budget portions should be allocated top-down, guided by the steering council toward areas of greatest strategic need. This approach mirrors Lewis’s wartime aircraft focus and Ukraine’s drone emphasis.
• Third, Australia must select and develop capabilities suitable for large-scale manufacturing. This requires identifying what Jones calls “the skipping missile”—capabilities that can be produced efficiently at scale while providing genuine military advantage.
• Fourth, a strong export strategy is essential for sustaining sovereign capabilities during peacetime. Exports keep production lines running, skills sharp, and innovation alive. They’re not merely about GDP enhancement or export rankings—they sustain sovereign capabilities ready to pivot when domestic requirements arise. The Australian Defence Strategic Sales Office provides a good foundation, but every government official should advocate for Australian industry to secure deals strengthening capability base.
• Fifth, policy settings must adjust to enable rapid peacetime mobilization. While public money deserves scrutiny, rigid policies can stifle urgent capability decisions. Sole source selections are often justified, yet current policies can prevent them. Rather than viewing audit bodies as barriers, their compliance role should inform policy improvements serving mission requirements.
• Finally, companies must develop contingency plans for crisis response. This requires streamlined internal governance, minimized bureaucratic hurdles, and maintained agility for when demand signals arrive. Strategic preparation includes stress-testing delivery pipelines, planning manufacturing ramp-ups, and validating alternate Australian suppliers. Effective communication and leadership must align internal and external stakeholders, ensuring readiness to operate under emergency protocols while prioritizing mission-critical outputs over business-as-usual tasks.
The Mobilization Culture
Perhaps most importantly, Australia must cultivate what Jones calls “a mobilization culture”, one that dials up risk appetites while clearly defining risk ownership in every situation. This culture enables deployment of minimum viable capabilities rather than waiting for perfect solutions that arrive too late.
This cultural transformation requires leadership at every level, government officials who understand industrial mobilization urgency, company executives who prepare for rapid scaling, and engineers who prioritize speed and effectiveness over bureaucratic compliance. It demands recognition that in crisis, good enough today beats perfect tomorrow.
The Ukrainian example demonstrates this culture’s power. When battlefield problems emerged, solutions appeared within days because the entire system was oriented toward rapid response rather than perfect processes. Australia needs similar agility built into its peacetime industrial preparation.
A Decisive Moment
Australia stands at what Jones characterizes as “a decisive moment.” The nation possesses ingenuity, talent, and industrial foundations necessary to deliver sovereign capability when required. What’s needed now is urgency, coordination, and leadership to align industry and defence in a truly national endeavor.
The lessons from Knudsen, Lewis, and Ukraine’s transformation are clear: early action, wise investment, and clear organizational purpose determine success when crisis arrives. Australia cannot afford to repeat Lewis’s frustration with governmental inaction or assume that crisis will provide sufficient justification for mobilization.
If Australia acts early, invests wisely, and organizes itself with clarity and purpose, when the call comes, the nation will be ready to fight tonight, not just in rhetoric, but in reality. The choice is stark: begin serious industrial mobilization now during relative peace, or face the consequences of unpreparedness when strategic patience runs out.
History’s lessons are unambiguous. The question now is whether Australia will heed them before it’s too late.
Also, see the following:
Re-Thinking Australia’s National Security Strategy – Lessons from the 1930s for the 2030s
The Australian Defence Strategic Review: Lessons from the Past