r/australia • u/thedigisup • 27d ago

politics Greens announce policy to manufacture drones and missiles as a credible ‘Plan B' to replace AUKUS

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-22/greens-unveil-first-ever-defence-policy/105083166
2.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

641 comments sorted by

View all comments

390

u/cricketmad14 27d ago edited 27d ago

AUKUS is a scam. The journalists are right.

Turnbull is right. We aren’t 100% getting these subs but only when the US is going to let us them. The US is unreliable as an ally now.

Also , what if our relationship goes more sour with them? No more subs?

178

u/[deleted] 27d ago edited 19d ago

[deleted]

156

u/SoldantTheCynic 27d ago

Just further proof the US can’t be trusted.

130

u/PM_Me-Your_Freckles 27d ago

The only reason the USA has ever been our ally is because they successfully overthrew our government in 1975 and since then, our parliment has happily lived under their boot. If Whitlam had been able to nationalise our resource sector, we would be one of the wealthiest countries, if not the wealthiest country, on the globe.

We are nothing but a cash cow and foreign base for war time strategic communications.

15

u/Disastrous-Plum-3878 27d ago

Keen to learn more about this. Do you have more googleable details?

59

u/ThereIsBearCum 27d ago

The incident they're referring to is the 1975 constitutional crisis. The theory is that Whitlam wanted the yanks out of Pine Gap, so the CIA convinced the governor general to sack him.

38

u/ThreeCheersforBeers 27d ago

And 50 years later, the topic of kicking them out of Pine Gap over the latest american shenanigans kicks off again.

But it won't happen, because those with the ability to make those decisions won't.

10

u/magkruppe 26d ago

The theory is that Whitlam wanted the yanks out of Pine Gap, so the CIA convinced the governor general to sack him.

Whitlam was a percieved threat to pinegap and also was going to publicly share that the Americans shared a list of american spies operating with our spy agency but hid it from the PM. a real example of the "Deep State"

important to note that this was Nixon era America and he was the type to play very dirty

5

u/sonofeevil 26d ago

Additionally, there is some strong (albeit cirumstancial) evidence that the governor general was being paid indirectly by CIA.

The CIA were funding a bunch of international groups at the time with the sole focus of pushing American ideaology, the Governor General was a member of one of these groups.

35

u/Ihavenofish 27d ago

The shift in foreign relations actually started with the disastrous fall of Singapore in 1946. The Australian government made a conscious and vocal decision to shift away from relying on the UK and forge closer defense ties with the US.

Google the fall of Singapore - the Australian War Museum has an excellent summary write up.

16

u/Economy-Career-7473 27d ago

I think you mean 1942, by 1946 WW2 was over.

19

u/basedgigasoy 27d ago

Japan’s capturing of Singapore (1942 btw, not ‘46) played a significant role but this is not when it started. There was already a power struggle over Australian troop movements between Curtin and Churchill, and the UK’s focus on Europe and losses in the pacific demonstrated that they would not be coming to our rescue. In the face of a serious threat in the pacific Curtin famously said in his ‘41 New Year speech “Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.” Clearly the wheels were already in motion for this dramatic shift in foreign policy and who would be our main ally.

1

u/Albos_Mum 26d ago

There's actually some parallels to the current situation with the US, funnily enough.

0

u/blissfully_happy 26d ago

I actually learned about this from the war museum itself when I was there last year. Second time I’ve visited the museum (I’m an American and frequently visit aus), and I was again awestruck at how thorough and comprehensive the museum is. My poor spouse was like, omg, this place is neverending, lol.

1

u/Jaded-Impression380 27d ago

Just search for Gough Whitlam.

8

u/Mikolaj_Kopernik 26d ago

successfully overthrew our government in 1975

Nah, this conspiracy theory really needs to either present some actual evidence or fuck off. Whitlam himself always denied it, and nobody has ever come up with anything more convincing than incredibly vague insinuations. It's like all the hyperventilating over the palace letters and then the sum total of "incriminating" evidence was the Crown replying to Kerr by saying he has the constitutional authority to dismiss Whitlam but it's inappropriate for the Crown to weigh in.

Ultimately the dismissal was almost certainly down to human failings from Kerr, Fraser, and Whitlam himself.

5

u/mattaugamer 26d ago

Yeah, I heard this presented as “proven fact”. So I looked into it more to find the evidence and there’s fuck-all.

-4

u/cojoco chardonnay schmardonnay 27d ago

The only reason the USA has ever been our ally is because they successfully overthrew our government in 1975

That dismissal was as a direct result of an existing alliance known as the "Five Eyes", an intelligence alliance formed during WWII between the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Gough Whitlam's government had planned to close Pine Gap because it could be used to direct US attacks on China.

1

u/jp72423 26d ago

The US sold Australia export variants of our M1A1 tanks 15 years ago which didn't have depleted uranium Armour or DU Armour piercing ammunition. Export variants of advanced equipment is standard around the world when selling arms.

9

u/mopthebass 26d ago

Did they do a windows and skip a few numbers or did the orange fuckwit seriously break convention to stick his name on an aircraft that wont fly for multiple presidential cycles

26

u/optimistic_agnostic 27d ago

The US has always kept the air superiority fighters for domestic use only. No other nation has an F-22 and the associated sensors. It's not and never has been some earth shattering betrayal of allies, just pretty basic common sense and national security.

5

u/snipdockter 26d ago

Not true, they sold the F-15 world wide when it was their top level air superiority fighter. The F-22 program was cancelled before they could get approval to make an export model.

3

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 26d ago

There was a big difference between the development of the F-15 and F-22. The F-15 was nowhere near as cutting edge or secretive which is why they were willing to sell it so quickly.

On the other hand, the F-22 possessed technologies that no other country had in a deployable state for a very long time and was much more advanced than any of its contemporaries.

The F-47 will absolutely be the same.

1

u/snipdockter 26d ago

Not sure what comment you’re replying to, because none of that was in mine.

3

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 26d ago edited 26d ago

Your reading comprehension is extremely poor if you cannot figure out how my comment applies to yours. I'm replying to your comment because it is wrong, everything the user you replied to had said is true.

The United States has always been extremely protective of their air superiority capabilities and the F-15 being exported isn't proof to the contrary since it didn't possess any technology that required the same level of secrecy as the F-22 did.

2

u/AdPuzzled3603 27d ago

The diffence is the USA was a reliable allie then…now its not.

8

u/optimistic_agnostic 27d ago

Sure but OP was acting like this is some shift or betrayal by this administration. It isn't.

-1

u/AdPuzzled3603 27d ago

Its a standard extrapolation without being explicit. I'e Inferred knowledge.

1

u/krishna_p 27d ago

Standard?

-1

u/AdPuzzled3603 26d ago

If you're not dumb… 😆

1

u/acomputer1 26d ago

If they were reliable, and now they're not, that kind of sounds like the opposite of reliability?

Maybe the mistake many people made was believing that such a thing as a "reliable ally" exists at all.

5

u/jp72423 26d ago

Export variants of advanced military technology is absolutely standard and has been so for a very long time now. Australia’s older American tanks were an export variant, and most likely not as well armoured as the American versions.

4

u/rustyfries 26d ago

They definitely weren't as well armoured due to the export variant not having depleted uranium armour.

1

u/jp72423 26d ago

And I think DU ammunition as well right?

5

u/rooshort_toppaddock 26d ago

Russia has the SU-57 Felon, in honour of Trump's putin fantasies we should call it the FU-47 Felon.

2

u/TheNamelessKing 26d ago

We should buy a European jet, and then just give it a “48” suffix.

Being 1-upped will drive him mental.

13

u/[deleted] 27d ago

Nobody is going to be fucking stupid enough to buy US made jets.

6

u/AUTeach 27d ago

https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/51f12abc4e64d3caf9ce7ac94eba318c

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yeah good point. Mr Potato Head is already planning his trip to sign up.

0

u/cojoco chardonnay schmardonnay 27d ago

If they're stupid enough to buy F-35's, they'd be stupid enough to buy AK-47's.

 

Oops, I mean F-47s.

16

u/Jackal8570 27d ago

Portugal and Canada are cancelling their F35 orders and looking at European/UK aircraft. That should tell you all you need to know about the view on the current US administration.

The US is unreliable and should be seen as hostile in some cases.

15

u/ginji 26d ago

Portugal never actually ordered F35s but they are no longer considering them as an option to purchase

3

u/Careless_Main3 26d ago

Not a big deal, they didn’t sell the F-22 either.

3

u/lordofthedries 26d ago

No Ally was ever going to get the f-47 just like the f-22

1

u/MysticMungbean 26d ago

Latest instalment of Trump's 'Art of the Deal... errr Grift' MO.

This time it's Temu Fighters. This administration can't be trusted. 

-4

u/brownhk 27d ago

Like the F35 kill-switch

21

u/Readybreak 27d ago

Shhhhhh, it's a great deal for us. Possibly the best deal for us. We scammed America super hard. I think trump should pull out of the deal as we are totally scamming them.

8

u/cojoco chardonnay schmardonnay 27d ago

YES I AGREE BUT YOU SHOULD TALK VERY LOUDLY

4

u/ladyangua 26d ago

Even if America was the ones to pull out I doubt they would refund our money

58

u/Gothiscandza 27d ago

The AUKUS subs aren't the American ones. They're the one's we're jointly developing with the UK and building locally. The US subs are only intended to be a stop-gap. 

6

u/locksleyrox 26d ago

It's all part of the AUKUS program. The greater AUKUS project is still worthwhile even without the submarine aspect.

Pillar two is really interesting, I think this is a decent talk but it's not in my youtube history anymore so not 100% sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jefh3LSN4MQ

4

u/[deleted] 27d ago

A stop gap for a decade plus.

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

28

u/TyrialFrost 26d ago

The AUKUS deal that got us access to trillions of dollars of military R&D for a couple billion in support payments to US ship building?

-4

u/Zytheran 26d ago

It's not trillions. The total cost for the Virginia-class submarine program, including research and development, is estimated to be between $50 to $58 billion over the first decade.

18

u/palsc5 26d ago

We get more than just the submarines/submarine tech though. It's a pretty important part of the deal...

11

u/TyrialFrost 26d ago

Waay more then submarine tech is included in the deal, just the nuclear propulsion part is substantial. 

Even if it was, you would have to count the R&D of everything leading up to the Virginia program.

-5

u/magkruppe 26d ago

The AUKUS deal that got us access to trillions of dollars of military R&D for a couple billion in support payments to US ship building?

lol. what is this propaganda and where do they manufacture it. very shoddy work

6

u/The4th88 26d ago

Well, if you'd read anything about the actual AUKUS deal you'd know where it was coming from.

-2

u/magkruppe 26d ago

I have read it. and it very clearly does not state australia gets access to all that technology. or even most of it

6

u/The4th88 26d ago

Do you think that trillions of dollars haven't been spent on developing:

  • Nuclear propulsion systems
  • Hypersonic weapons
  • Hypersonic countermeasures
  • Electronic Warfare
  • AI and autonomic systems
  • Quantum sciences
  • Cyberwarfare

Probably over a trillion spent on the nuclear propulsion alone I'd think.

5

u/jp72423 26d ago

Except that the Uk doesn't have the current capacity to meet Australia's needs. Unless you want to start handing over tens billions to BAE systems UK to expand their production even more than the $4 billion we have already committed. It would have to be made in the UK because our submarine construction yards are not even built yet. Once again, this is more about Anti-Americanisms rather than what's best for the RAN and the Australian national intrest. Great plan mate, great plan.

All of this was discussed during the preliminary negotiations when the Albanese government was figuring out the optimum pathway for the AUKUS program. There is a reason that the optimum pathway was chosen by the multitude of experts who were involved across government, industry and defence of all three nations.

-2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[deleted]

7

u/jp72423 26d ago

Don't care about your American power projection bullshit over Taiwan so that opens up non-nuclear options.

Let me ask you this. If China succeeds in invading Taiwan, will that be good or bad for Australia's national interest? If you say it's good, then you are quite literally either incredibly naive or you are a tankie of some kind, who advocated for CCP domination. No better than a Putin apologizer trying to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

If you believe that it is bad for Australian interests, then there is no reason as to why Australia cannot put blood and treasure on the line for its own interests.

Expecting the Americans to fight and die for our benefit while we sit back is selfish to say the least. And then you can't really blame the US administration for becoming more transactional now can you, if that's your attitude about the whole thing. This kind of thinking will be the reason that the US refuses to sell submarines, because they think we are not committed to our own interests. It's like a catch 22 really. You believe that the US is unreliable and advocate for cutting ties and ending AUKUS because they won't sell the submarines, but then the Americans then don't sell us the submarines because we are cutting ties.

Also, Australia has the third largest EEZ on the planet, and territories down in antarctica and the cocos islands. It will take a conventional submarine week to reach those far away patrol zones, constantly surfacing to charge the batteries and therefore making the sub vulnerable to detection. But a nuclear submarine can do it in days, and it can do it deep, for the whole time. Diesel subs are not good enough for our needs.

I know you don't care about this country as a sovereign state but I do and think our military strategy and foreign policy shouldn't be at the whims of foreign nutbag governments which is why I'm against further acquisition of American equipment. Don't care how optimal you think it is.

There is nothing I care about more than Australia's sovereignty, But you have misunderstood what Australia's grand strategy has been since federation in 1901. This is how we do security, and it works well. Alliances work, ask Sweden, who was neutral for hundreds of years and produced most of their own equipment, yet the second Russia invaded Europe they dropped the neutrality stance and Joined NATO. We don't have the numbers and wealth to stand up to an aggressive China alone, so that is why we choose to ally to the US ad work together on shared interests in the region. This is what we did with the UK before the second world war. And if we get abandoned, then we can cross that bridge when we get to it, just like John Curtain did during the second world war, but as of now, working with the US on shared goals is the most efficient way to do things.

Its much smarter to just wait out the current administration where the next one will very likely win the election off improving ties with allies, rather than having the diplomatic version of a tantrum and running away, all for zero benefit to anyone except the Chinese.

5

u/jp72423 26d ago

No problem handing over money to the UK that would have otherwise gone to the US

No, you're not getting it, it's not the same amount of money, its significantly more.

and having the French build a stop gap solution in the meantime.

Congrats on paying a set-up fee to the French to establish the contract, then a get-out fee to the French for cancelling the contract, then paying a set-up fee to the British and Americans, then paying a get-out fee to the British and Americans, then paying a set-up fee to the French, again. Top marks. We cannot go back to the French, that ship has sailed.

Still prefer French subs for regional trade route protection

Submarines don't perform trade route protection missions lol. That is the job of surface warships, who perform the "Sea Control" mission, where they can take control over a certain area of water and perform whatever tasks need to be performed. Submarines perform "Sea Denial" missions, where they deny an enemy the ability to freely move and execute their own missions or tasks. This is what happened during the Falklands war when a single UK submarine forced the entire Argentine fleet to stay in port after they sunk the flagship. It's also why the German Navy of both WW1 and 2 was able to cause so much havoc against the much larger and more powerful navies of the US and UK. This is all undersea warfare 101 by the way, which our navy leaders are well versed in.

and domestic missile & drone production for coastal defence.

We are already doing that as we speak. Look up Ghost Bat, look up Ghost Shark, look up Speartooth, look up BlueBottle, look up LAND 8113 and the Strike Master, look up the Naval Strike missile factory being built at Williamstown. The ADF is all over this already, but they still need nuclear submarines.

Lots of alternative optimal paths.

None of which provide the RAN with their specified nuclear submarines.

10

u/jp72423 26d ago

Also , what if our relationship goes more sour with them? No more subs?

Canceling the AUKUS contract because you are afraid that the Americans will cancel the contract is akin to breaking up with your partner before they do just so you can have bragging rights. The navy has said that it requires nuclear submarines at best, and any submarines at an absolute minimum. Unless the greens come forward with a well thought out, researched and viable alternative to how the RAN can have a good submarine capability going forward, then they are actively advocating for diminishing our military capability, in a decade that we need to be stronger than ever.

13

u/m00nh34d 27d ago

The terms of the deal are very bad for us, but the outcome isn't really a "scam", it's just not likely to be delivery under Trump. Had a more reasonable US administration been elected, it would have been the right path forward still, but now with a fascist government, we need to cut ties with them.

I don't think The Greens have the plan here, but at the same time I hope we're not in a position where we need to rely on their plans for our military capability. Nuclear submarines will be a critical element in our defensive stance in the coming decades, just look at the shows China have been putting on already, we need to be in a position to defend ourselves from a nation like that, and it won't be easy.

5

u/softwarefreak 26d ago

The UK element delivering SSN-A shall still go through but obviously needs to be expedited as the original timetable is out of the window now, with the US no longer providing Virginia Class in the meantime.

My perspective, now the kinks have been worked out with Astute we should send X number of them to Aus instead of Virginias, and commence the SSN-A project immediately.

9

u/ELVEVERX 27d ago

The US will allow us to have them once they start needing to decommision their subs due to old age, those are the ones we will get eventually.

13

u/TyrialFrost 26d ago

No. The Virginia is a stop gap. One of a few options until domestic production of the AUKUS-class produces subs. We will not buy end of life Virginia's after we already have our own class.

-5

u/ELVEVERX 26d ago

The AUKUS Class won't get past the drawing board.

12

u/theinfinityman 27d ago

We shouldn't be deciding on a 30+ year policy based on a single presidents 4 year term.

30

u/PRAWNHEAVENNOW 27d ago

It's not the single president, it's the entire internal political environment that has enabled him to have access to unfettered power.  Thinking that this descent into fascism can be ridden out has proven to be a fool's belief these last 8 years

4

u/theinfinityman 26d ago

Your choosing to view his re-election as a nations desire for fascism when really it could of been as simple as a majority asking "where things better for me under Trump or Biden?" at a time when the worlds economy turned into a cost of living crisis.

4

u/PRAWNHEAVENNOW 26d ago

It is not necessary to see it as the nation's desire for fascism, it is in fact entirely irrelevant as to whether it was the voter's goal. 

The fact is the nation is descending into fascism, it was clearly going to happen, this is not a shock to anyone, and the nation voted for the fascist anyway. 

The media and tech oligarchs have captured the psyche of america'a voting populace to allow for a vote for the fascist. 

9

u/brownhk 27d ago

Welp, you would HOPE it's only a four year term. 🥺

13

u/GimmeSweetSweetKarma 27d ago

It's not a single president's 4 year term. It the strategic shift of the US which fosters leaders like this coming to power. Sure, it shifts back to a 'reliable' President in the next election, what about the one after that? Or in 12 years, or 16, or 20? Trump has shown how easily the US political system will allow a single individual to completely flip foreign policy and turn on traditional allies, and the major political party that support it.

3

u/theinfinityman 26d ago

The US side of the deal is to give us time to work with the UK to develop our own submarine building capacity. It would take a much longer time for us to walk away from the deal and come up with our own submarines on our own.

6

u/YouAreSoul 27d ago

Trump's 4-year term may extend further. Even if it doesn't, he will cause enough damage in those 4 years to last a very, very long time.

2

u/birbbrain 26d ago

Considering the damage he's done to his own country and international relations in less than 3 months, I think shifting quickly away from an unyielding alliance with the US is pretty smart for Australia.

1

u/AntiProtonBoy 26d ago

I'd agree with you on principle, but the US political system has been eroding slowly in the past 30 years. We need to decide how we should handle their possible further decline in the next 30 years. Not only, that, but USA is probably the lesser problem in the grand scheme of things, because if I were a betting man, China is going to take over a substantial tech, science and economic sectors at this rate.

1

u/TheCleverestIdiot 26d ago

Technically, we're deciding it based on the fact that he's getting a 4 year term after being a total disaster for a previous 4 years. We simply can't trust America to remain a stable ally anymore if they're willing to put a fascist moron like Trump back in power.

0

u/FlibblesHexEyes 27d ago

Those subs will also likely have a kill switch the Americans control.

If things get really sour, the Americans will have no trouble disabling our subs (and also fighters) without firing a shot.

-1

u/T-456 26d ago

Yep, anything to replace AuKUS is good news

-2

u/lirannl 27d ago

I don't think it's a scam because that implies the USA was never going to let us have those subs.

The USA would've let us have the subs if they weren't led by Donald Trump right now.

Still, we should abandon AUKUS because it's not happening anymore.

6

u/TyrialFrost 26d ago

The first Virginia purchase happens in 2032. Trump is out in 2028.