Australia could find itself without any submarines if the troubled AUKUS nuclear submarine deal collapses, a senior defense official warned Friday, declining to discuss contingency plans for the nation's aging Collins-class fleet. Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey told a Canberra security forum that the government has no "Plan B" beyond the $368 billion agreement with the US and UK.
Speaking at the National Press Club's Security and Sovereignty Forum, Jeffrey faced pointed questions from former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about what would happen if promised American Virginia-class submarines never arrive under Australian command.
"What is the government's Plan B if we do not get any Virginia [class submarines] at all because the Americans are not producing enough for their own needs?" Turnbull asked. "What is the Plan B if we end up with no new subs and we're left with the creaking hulls of the Collins?"
Jeffrey's response was stark: Australia has been directed to pursue AUKUS, and that remains the only plan on the table.
The exchange highlighted growing concerns about Australia's submarine capabilities as the Collins-class fleet, commissioned in the 1990s, approaches the end of its extended service life around 2030. Australia has already committed more than $2 billion of a promised $9 billion to boost US and UK industrial capacity, without guarantees that submarines will be delivered on schedule.
The deputy secretary, who oversees strategy, policy and industry, warned that abandoning AUKUS would mark the fourth failed attempt to replace Australia's submarine fleet since the 1980s. Each previous effort "has fallen afoul of domestic politics," he said.
"Forgive me if I'm cynical about these questions. I do think we need to get out of this relentless politicisation of defence capabilities,"Jeffrey told the forum.
The timing is critical for Australia's naval defense. The Collins-class submarines have already had their working lives extended "far beyond forecasts," according to the Guardian report, and replacement options are narrowing. Retired Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, speaking at the same forum, argued that the US and UK cannot deliver the promised submarines on time and urged Australia to "turn back" from AUKUS.
Turnbull, whose government's original submarine deal with French manufacturer Naval Group was scrapped by the Morrison administration in favor of AUKUS, has emerged as one of the agreement's most vocal critics. His questions Friday focused on the practical realities of American submarine production capacity and legislative constraints.
The submarine capability gap represents more than a military concern for Australia. The nation sits in increasingly contested waters, with regional tensions rising and maritime security becoming a defining strategic challenge. Without a functional submarine fleet, Australia's ability to project naval power and secure its extensive maritime borders would be severely compromised.
Jeffrey's refusal to acknowledge backup planning reflects the political sensitivity surrounding AUKUS. The agreement has faced scrutiny over its opacity, cost, and reliance on foreign industrial capacity that may not be able to deliver on promised timelines.
The deputy secretary emphasized that discussing alternatives falls outside his remit as a public servant: "It's not my job as a public servant to talk about 'Plan Bs', that's the prerogative of government."
This stance leaves Australia in a precarious position. With the Collins fleet aging out and no guaranteed replacement timeline, the nation faces the possibility of a submarine capability gap lasting potentially decades in waters that defense experts consider among the world's most strategically important.