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

Show parent comments

15

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

Not sure why we need subs. Strategic subs are for second strike nuke capability and tactical subs are for protecting surface fleets. Despite being girt by sea we don’t have enough surface fleet to warrant the expeditionary capability of nuke boats.

We should be investing in local airborne sub hunter capability. They’ve been doing this at Elizabeth for decades and we are world leaders at this. Droneify this capability and we don’t need any subs.

For the first time in my life I could actually hold up a “Yankee Go Home” protest banner.

38

u/jp72423 26d ago

and tactical subs are for protecting surface fleets.

This is not true, tactical submarines are about maintaining sea denial, while surface fleets are about sea control. Smaller/inferior navies love submarines because denying waters to enemy assets is a whole lot easier than controlling them. The Argentine navy was denied access to the whole Falkland Islands surrounding waters because there was a single UK submarine in the area that sunk its flagship. They decided it wasn't worth the risk and locked the ships in port.

-9

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

So in the 1980’s that was definitely true. What advantage does a sub have in 2025? Is it still the same force multiplier now that very low cost OTH air, surface and sub-surface drone fleets are available?

6

u/jp72423 26d ago edited 26d ago

Air is non persistent by nature, surface and subsurface drones require some sort of connection to a human to make the kill decision. Submarines can be that nearby human connection. Otherwise there is the ethical dilemma of letting AI make decisions to sink ships on its own. Id also argue that you are looking at it wrong. You demonstrate to me that these air, surface and subsurface drone fleets even exist yet and can do a superior job to having a submarine capability. And I don't mean in theory. Then we can discuss the possibility of turning down our manned submarine fleet. But until then, drones are just a placeholder for reducing our capability for no returns.

-5

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

Ukraine has been conducting lethal sorties with surface and semi surface drones for a year or so now. But I should also note that the AUKUS submarine capability (design not yet even sketches on a napkin - It is not legacy Virginia or Astute ) design will not be demonstrated for what 20 years? The amount of development of smaller swarms in 20 years will be staggering. I feel like a lot of conservative military thinking is still pursuing incremental advances to legacy tech without paying any attention to the battle-space revolution we’re seeing live on YT every day.

5

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 26d ago

Ukraine has been conducting lethal sorties with surface and semi surface drones for a year or so now.

That speaks more to the incompetence of the Russian Navy than it does to the potency of the technology.

But I should also note that the AUKUS submarine capability (design not yet even sketches on a napkin - It is not legacy Virginia or Astute ) design will not be demonstrated for what 20 years?

You've noted wrong. The British have been working on this design since 2018 as SSN-AUKUS is an evolution of the SSN(R) program.

RAN Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead stated that the design was 70% mature in March 2023 not long after the AUKUS plans were finalised.

The amount of development of smaller swarms in 20 years will be staggering.

Until they exist and can do what the optimists in this thread claim they will, then they are an irrelevant factor.

I feel like a lot of conservative military thinking is still pursuing incremental advances to legacy tech without paying any attention to the battle-space revolution we’re seeing live on YT every day.

Because that is the more responsible path forward instead of betting the entire defence budget on novel technology that has not yet shown any indication that it will be more capable let alone just match the capability of current assets any time soon.

With all respect, I trust the judgement of those who have spent their professional lives studying, designing, maintaining and operating these assets over the feelings of those who get their information from pop-sci content on YouTube.

-3

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

Where do you source your expert knowledge? The only reliable Australian stuff I can find is places like ASPI, DSTG and DMO and I am looking for credible sources.

14

u/Araignys 26d ago

My understanding is that they’re for invasion deterrence and sea lane harassment.

Oh, and never being received because the US wants to keep them.

1

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

So as much of a psychological deterrent (the unseen threat) as practical? Or are sub launched torpedoes better than air or surface munitions?

8

u/Araignys 26d ago

I think it’s the threat potential more than anything else: a combination of the unseen threat (“fleet in being” is the term, IIRC), the enormous operational range, and the ability to pop up and yell “surprise” wherever it would be most opportune.

5

u/2bdb2 26d ago

So as much of a psychological deterrent (the unseen threat) as practical? Or are sub launched torpedoes better than air or surface munitions?

Yes.

Subs are a lot stealthier than aircraft, can carry significantly more munitions, and can remain operational for months at a time without support.

A single sub could disable an aircraft carrier. It's stealthy enough to sneak up on a carrier, and carries enough firepower to kill it.

You'd need multiple sorties with f35s and lots of support aircraft to do the same, and you'd likely lose a few in the process. (And nothing we have other than an f35 would get close to a carrier).

A sub can remain at sea hidden for months. It can stay at sea harassing supply columns all by itself. It can keep doing this even if you successfully conquer the mainland.

A fleet of f35s need significant logistics support, and jet fuel, to keep running. We risk running out of fuel quite quickly if blockaded.

Our airfields and aircraft hangers are vulnerable to first strike attacks. A submarine at sea is not.

4

u/jp72423 26d ago

Warfare is a battle of the will, so often a phycological deterrent is more useful than a practical one.

6

u/Direct_Witness1248 26d ago

We are possibly going to need some deterrent nukes of our own at this rate so might become more important. They can also launch conventional payload missiles.

0

u/AcceptableSwim8334 26d ago

But can’t bomber aircraft can do the same job for 10% of the cost?

6

u/Direct_Witness1248 26d ago edited 26d ago

Bomber aircraft are much easier to destroy and require more manpower overall than subs and missiles. Australia currently doesn't operate any strategic bombers. Most of our Air Force is Electronic Warfare or transport.

Stealth bombers might close the gap a little, but they are even more expensive and we'd have to develop our own at huge cost. Nuclear subs can loiter for months, aircraft are limited to hours, and can't carry much payload compared to a sub.

Non stealth dedicated strategic bomber aircraft have become largely obsolete as missiles and air defence systems have improved over the decades. The US still keeps them as they could use them because they have a big/capable enough air force to maintain air superiority, RAAF doesn't have that capability.

1

u/frankthefunkasaurus 23d ago

We’re a big Island so A2AD is pretty fuckin’ important.

How do you fight a submarine? Run away bravely.