Proposed US Carrier Strike Group stationed at HMAS Stirling, Perth (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

A report for the US military contains a recommendation to expand America's defence presence in Australia by massively expanding a base in Perth for a US aircraft carrier and supporting fleet.
...
The strike group would include a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, a carrier air wing of up to nine squadrons, one or two guided missile cruisers, two or three guided missile destroyers, one or two nuclear powered submarines and a supply ship.
...
"Australia's geography, political stability, and existing defence capabilities and infrastructure offer strategic depth and other significant military advantages to the United States in light of the growing range of Chinese weapons systems, US efforts to achieve a more distributed force posture, and the increasing strategic importance of south-east Asia and the Indian Ocean," says the report.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...up-in-perth-20120801-23emq.html#ixzz22HxGrInB​

Share your thoughts, friends.

 

[townie]

Don't mind the idea of the navy being here, not sure if I'm keen on one of the ships being nuclear powered

 

[SnowFox]

Dont think any of the nuke boats have gone apeshit yet.

 

[soloooooo]

It doesn't worry me. We (Australia) need the US a lot more than they need us.

 

[Lolsmith]

We get paid for this right

 

[Azure]

So can we station some of our military in the US?

 

[funkshen]

Don't mind the idea of the navy being here, not sure if I'm keen on one of the ships being nuclear powered

At least 3 vessels (likely more) would be nuclear powered - the carrier and two submarines. The implication is that the facilities that service them would need to have the added capacity to service nuclear reactors, most notably nuclear waste disposal. However, as SnowFox mentions, there have never been any critical incidents involving the failure of nuclear powered vessels. The most recent incident was 1992, where around 400 litres of radioactive cooling water leaked from the USS Long Beach, a guided-missile cruiser, into San Diego Bay. The last incident of that kind was 14 years ago, in 1978.

So can we station some of our military in the US?

Our vessels regularly make use of US (and other) naval facilities, if that counts.

We get paid for this right

Most of the burden in terms of construction and ongoing operating costs would be the US'. There would also be immense education etc opportunities for Australian Naval personnel.

 

[soloooooo]

So can we station some of our military in the US?

Our resources are already stretched. Australia needs to vastly increase its military capacity. Indonesia and our SE Asian neighbours pose a substantial (future) threat to us.

 

[townie]

At least 3 vessels (likely more) would be nuclear powered - the carrier and two submarines. The implication is that the facilities that service them would need to have the added capacity to service nuclear reactors, most notably nuclear waste disposal. However, as SnowFox mentions, there have never been any critical incidents involving the failure of nuclear powered vessels. The most recent incident was 1992, where around 400 litres of radioactive cooling water leaked from the USS Long Beach, a guided-missile cruiser, into San Diego Bay. The last incident of that kind was 14 years ago, in 1978.

oh look I accept the risk is low but it is another risk (on top of the existing risk)that I think should at least be considered and mitigated against, if the US was willing to footthe bill if it all went wrong and disposed the waste themselves then I guess that's ok

 

[Lentern]

Our resources are already stretched. Australia needs to vastly increase its military capacity. Indonesia and our SE Asian neighbours pose a substantial (future) threat to us.

OMG shutup!

Also heard it on radio, Smithy says no.

 

[Azure]

From the SMH comments:

I think the Americans know we are home to the World's Best Treasurer and Wayne can make those little debt numbers appear insignificant. They just want to be close to our Guru Wayne and lets face it who wouldn't want to absorb the wisdom of the WORLD'S BEST TREASURER.
CommenterJohn Location Date and time Aug 1, 2012, 04:12PM

Outstanding.

 

[funkshen]

OMG shutup!

Also heard it on radio, Smithy says no.

With the rise of China and India, control of the Indian Ocean will have a newfound significance over the next century. However, the Indian Ocean is also where the US' presence, and ability to project force, is weakest. US naval forces that operate in the Indian Ocean (the Seventh Fleet) are based in the Pacific (Yokosuka, Japan), and must therefore traverse marginal seas that will become much more hostile (e.g. East China Sea, South China Sea, Arabian Sea) and key chokepoints (e.g. Straits of Malacca) that are already plagued with pirates. When operating in the Indian Ocean, US vessels must also rely on the services of unreliable or vulnerable allies with Indian Ocean exposure. The US has few assets of its own in the Indian Ocean, the most prominent being Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia does not have the facilities to service a carrier battle group, and is a strategic liability due in part to its geography and the grievances of its dispossessed population.

The US will, therefore, need to restructure, rationalise, and expand its ability to project force in the Indian Ocean. A naval base in West Australia, preferably south of Exmouth but at the most Broome, is the only real choice, and will therefore become a lynchpin of future US-Australian relations. As Smithy, and Colin Barnett, have stated, there is no way that HMAS Stirling will ever fulfill this role. But it's going to happen somewhere, and I want to know what my esteemed peers here at NCAP think about the whole idea - HMAS Stirling gets the discussion going.

 

[Lolsmith]

Most of the burden in terms of construction and ongoing operating costs would be the US'. There would also be immense education etc opportunities for Australian Naval personnel.

I would love to see China make a move on this in order to curb U.S expansion

 

[Lolsmith]

From the SMH comments:

I think the Americans know we are home to the World's Best Treasurer and Wayne can make those little debt numbers appear insignificant. They just want to be close to our Guru Wayne and lets face it who wouldn't want to absorb the wisdom of the WORLD'S BEST TREASURER.
CommenterJohn Location Date and time Aug 1, 2012, 04:12PM

Outstanding.

the ALP's Danny G

 

[Lolsmith]

Seriously though how can they even afford this

 

[mirakon]

Do you think India could possibly be a threat in the future?

Curious to hear your thoughts

 

[funkshen]

Do you think India could possibly be a threat in the future?

Curious to hear your thoughts

india has far better growth prospects than china, least of all because it's not in the early stages of a demographic crisis

they'll have the manpower and the money

 

[mirakon]

I was thinking more along the lines of a military threat though

Or is this somehow related?

 

[funkshen]

I was thinking more along the lines of a military threat though

Or is this somehow related?

money -> equipment
people -> soldiers

the more money you have, the better equipment
the more people fit for military service you have, the more soldiers you have

military power is therefore a direct function of money and people

people with military power use it to do shit, ergo threat is a direct function of power

india is therefore a threat

 

[mirakon]

money -> equipment
people -> soldiers

the more money you have, the better equipment
the more people fit for military service you have, the more soldiers you have

military power is therefore a direct function of money and people

Fair enough