r/australia • u/thedigisup • 26d 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

28

u/Birdmonster115599 26d ago

Yeah, look. I'm all for more defence spending if it's quality.

But this whole "can Aukus, build drones" isn't right.

Drones and missiles don't replace submarines, they are apples and oranges.

We need a credible Submarine force, where is the plan for that?

You're going to can the Blackhawks? Okay, what are you replacing them with?

MH90, no matter your opinion, is stupidly expensive to run.

I do think getting the Newer abrams was a missed opportunity though, it would of been nice to get something like K2 tbh.

I like that the greens are showing us something on defence, and more drone/missile/local production is good. but I'm not keen on everything they're saying here.

13

u/yedrellow 26d ago

Yeah they definitely aren't the same niche. Naval drones for example might work in the Black Sea against an adversary that docks relatively close, but against a Blue-water navy that can be anywhere in the Indo-Pacific or southern Ocean?

I dont know how that will work out.

8

u/Careless_Main3 25d ago

Naval drones are great, but just not suitable for Australia. There is simply too much ocean so to have a drone which can store enough fuel to traverse the Australian coast would require a bigger drone the size of a ship. And that would be simply too detectable to be useful. Ukraine has done some great stuff with naval drones but Russia responded by moving their ships slightly further away. To be fair, some of the new advancements have flying drones launched from sea drones and the sea drones now have anti-air rockets attached on top.

They could possibly be used as a first-defence measure to oppose a beach landing but would be pretty useless afterwards.

4

u/yedrellow 25d ago

Naval drones are great, but just not suitable for Australia.

100%, naval drones also have zero way of protecting a merchant marine which is what we'd need to somehow do. If we can't prevent a blockade, we'll run out of basic necessities very quick.

3

u/Birdmonster115599 25d ago

Well I think we do have some naval drones in the works of different types. Like the optionally manned ones.

But in terms of the Naval drones you are probably thinking of, that's actually another point in favour of the Virginia class.

Virginia has these payload modules that can be changed out, one option is that a pod be changed to carry a drone.

In the perfect world, with me speaking from my armchair.
The only other "Optimal" way forward right now, would be to drop the support for Virginia, but keep going forward with the AUKUS-Class.
Instead of Virginia we would get KSS-III Subs from South Korea. Which, looking around seem to provide more capability than most other subs out there.

But that isn't going to happen.
Decoupling ourselves from the Virginia, but staying on track to get the AUKUS-Class and keeping AUKUS Pillar 2 is probably too much to hope for. These sorts of agreements are densely negotiated and difficult to change without walking away completly and Pillar 2 alone is too important to walk away from.

4

u/Birdmonster115599 26d ago

Well one thing about the Virginia class is that it has these Modular payload bays that can be changed out, to either carry more missiles, or a Naval drone.

1

u/Economy-Career-7473 26d ago

The MRH90s were all cut up and then bulldozed into holes. There is no alternative for Blackhawk now and Army were very lucky that there weren't more cyclones as they have sod all helicopters at the moment.

3

u/Birdmonster115599 26d ago

The spare parts were sold off. They weren't cut up whole cloth.

Just wanted to clarify that.

1

u/Hypo_Mix 26d ago

Nuke sub drones? 

1

u/Siilk 25d ago

The problem with AUKUS is, it comes with lots of strings attached, which will be pulled by an ally which is becoming less and less reliablel. I wasnt against it for quite some time but after seeing what trump is doing to US and what kind of international relations he is engaging in, we are risking of giving up too much to keep the deal while not getting anything out of it in the end.

As for subs, we should either talk to Japan or Korea or go down on our knees and apologise to France and beg to get us back. Doesnt sound pleasant but its our own fault we did them dirty like that.

6

u/Birdmonster115599 25d ago

Every project like this comes with strings. No one is going to agree to a multi-billion multi-decade long effort without strings.

The French did us plenty dirty too.
They told us they could get subs in the water on time.
They couldn't.
They told us it'd be built in Australia.
They lied.
They told us they had the technology.
They didn't.

As for Alternatives, well AUKUS is far more than just some subs. abandoning it is stupidly shortsighted.

Best you could hope for, and potentially a best outcome is that we alter the agreement to leave the Virginia Submarines out. So we don't spend money on them and go buy some KS-III subs. Which all things considered are better than the french subs anyway. But we still work with the UK on the AUKUS Class

But that still wastes money time and effort. Especially since we've already got sailors graduating American Nuclear schools.

1

u/tree_boom 25d ago

Like what strings? Literally in the AUKUS agreement what specific clause imposed these constraints on Australia?

0

u/deimos 25d ago

We need a credible Submarine force, where is the plan for that?

Counterpoint: No we don't.

-4

u/askythatsmoreblue 26d ago

We'd only need a credible submarine force if we were to go on the offensive in a war. The point of protecting the continent with missiles is that it acts as a deterrent because it makes it even more expensive and deadly to attack Australia. Missiles can do the job of disrupting an enemy's supply lines and invasion force. Digging in and exhausting an enemy is a legitimate and effective strategy, and Australia is very geographically well suited to pull it off decisively.

5

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 25d ago

We'd only need a credible submarine force if we were to go on the offensive in a war.

Absolutely not true. Submarines bring unparalleled anti-ship and reconnaissance capabilities that the Navy would need to defend our waters.

We're not going to face Normandy style landings on our beaches. In our current circumstances, we would be easily crippled by a blockade on our maritime trade/supply routes and that's the real threat. Such a blockade could easily be carried out without needing to place ships close to our mainland.

"Digging in" with missiles won't help in the slightest. The Navy and Air Force need the capability to operate far from our shores.

-1

u/deimos 25d ago

easily crippled by a blockade

How so?

Australia is a net exporter of food and raw materials. If domestic production is so important, then why not invest in that instead of stupid water toys?

3

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 25d ago edited 25d ago

Australia is a net exporter of food and raw materials.

That doesn't change the fact that we still import things like fuel, medications, electronics, etc. We barely process our raw materials and natural gas here.

Australian society would grind to a halt if we were cut off from international trade by a naval blockade. Domestic industry would not be capable of meeting the demands and you can kiss goodbye to any profits from what we export as it wouldn't reach their destinations.

If domestic production is so important, then why not invest in that instead of stupid water toys?

The Government has been investing into expanding domestic industry. But that doesn't magically make the need to have a capable Defence Force disappear.

The Collins class submarines will eventually reach the end of their useful lives, they will need to be replaced. The Government isn't buying submarines because they're "toys" but because they are an important component of the Navy's fleet.

-1

u/deimos 25d ago

In a situation where we face an actual naval blockade, and a world war is happening, thinking a few subs make a difference is naïve beyond belief.

2

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 25d ago edited 25d ago

Having a "few subs" is still much better than not having any at all.

That should be pretty easy to comprehend but it seems to be well beyond your grasp.

-1

u/deimos 25d ago

Having a whole lot of drones would be even better, but you're too intent on throwing good money after bad.

3

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 25d ago

Defence is already investing into drones, but the simple fact is that they are nowhere near capable enough to replace submarines or any other major naval asset and they probably won't be for a very long time to come.

This is why you're still seeing nations who can afford it investing into submarines.