US military eyes Cocos Islands as a future Indian Ocean spy base

[The Northerner]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

UNITED STATES military aircraft, including drones undertaking surveillance operations over the South China Sea, could be based on Australia's Cocos and Keeling Islands in the Indian Ocean.

As part of enhanced US-Australian military co-operation announced in November by Julia Gillard and the US President, Barack Obama, the islands would replace the US's present Indian Ocean base of Diego Garcia, which the US leases from the British and is due to be mothballed in 2016.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the US was eyeing the Cocos Islands, 2700 kilometres east of Diego Garcia, as ''an ideal site not only for manned US surveillance aircraft but for Global Hawks, an unarmed, high-altitude surveillance drone''.

...

When Mr Obama visited Australia in November, he and Ms Gillard announced an increased US presence in Australia that experts said was all about containing a rising China. The three priorities were an increased rotation of up to 2500 US Marines through the Northern Territory, more US war planes using NT air bases, and increased access by US Navy ships and submarines to the HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia.

Read more: http://m.smh.com.au/national/us-military-eyes-cocos-islands-as-a-future-indian-ocean-spy-base-20120327-1vwo0.html

---

Can ANYONE here justify the US military expansion into Australasia?

Certainly the military-industrial complex and the neocons approve of such a decision, but I can't think of one good reason at all.

[think]

1. Keep the printing presses running. We need another military base...

[MADem]

6. Is this going to be a base, or an outpost?

If it's going to be anything like DGAR, we're not going to see a full-fledged installation. No military family housing, schools, tennis courts, golf courses, etc--just a few buildings and a short tour for the people who are stuck there.

[think]

8. I am so burned out on any expansion of our military I don't care if it is

an outpost, a base or lemon aid stand because it's adding to our debt. We need to reduce our military spending not increase it.

If they announce the closing of another base or ANYTHING to show a way to pay for this other than adding to the debt then GREAT I might see the merit.

Otherwise it is just an expansion of a military that's spending is bankrupting our country and stealing money that could be better spent on America's infrastructure, helping keep Americans employed or reducing the national debt.

We spent more than $1 trillion in defense and security related costs just last alone year alone and we will spend that much again this year! It's fucking a sham and shameful...

The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World
By Winslow Wheeler Published: March 16, 2012


~snip~
Adding in all of these non-DOD agencies' costs, plus a share of the annual interest on the national debt, can get total US defense-related spending up to about $1 trillion, rather than the $739.3 billion the IISS counts for the US for 2011.

Full article:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

[MADem]

10. There's a BRAC underway right now and a number of facilities have already been consolidated/closed

WALTER REED is a famous example--the facility on Georgia Ave in DC closed last summer and was consolidated with the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. They also entered into a lot of public private partnerships for medical care which enable the military to more easily ramp up/down requirements when/as needed.

You can be sure that WAY more than one base will close in the next year or three. Also, there will be another BRAC in 2015, and then one every eight years thereafter.

As you can see from the link, below, the military is sometimes eager to close/realign facilities. They know what their budgets are/will be, and they know they can't carry all that infrastructure for no real purpose. Even when you "mothball" a base, there are still costs associated with keeping it on the books. The easiest thing is to close/return. It takes a lot of work, though, particularly when site cleanup from post WW2/Cold War 'trashing' of the places, before people became environmentally intelligent, is a factor.

http://www.army.mil/article/75455/

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 9, 2012) -- The Army needs two more rounds of base realignment and closure, known as BRAC, to align its infrastructure with a downsizing force, the assistant secretary responsible for installations told lawmakers this week.

"The Army does support the DOD request for BRAC authority for 2013 and 2015," said Katherine Hammack, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, "because changes in force structure will necessitate evaluation of our facilities to optimize usage and capability."

...Under BRAC 2005, the Army closed 11 installations and 387 reserve-component sites while realigning 53 other installations, Hammack said.
...In Europe over the last six years, the Army closed 97 sites and returned 23,000 acres. In Korea over the same time period, Hammack said the Army closed 34 sites with 7,300 acres returned to the host nation.

"In the next four years, we plan to close another 23 sites and return 6,400 acres, primarily to Germany," she continued, adding that in Korea over the next four years the Army plans to close 20 sites and return 9,400 acres.

I am the first to say not everything is rosy (I would like to see more accountability and cost efficiencies across the board)--but watch, there is a HUGE drawdown coming, which will produce enormous personnel savings fairly quickly: the Army is going to take the biggest hits, and the Navy (which was decimated under Bush) the least.

[DJ13]

2. Can ANYONE here justify the US military expansion into Australasia?

Well, suppose this idea was leaked ahead of time to key investors, who then went on a buying spree for real estate in the selected areas beforehand.......

[cstanleytech]

3. Wouldnt a land base in the area make sense kinda from a cost perspective?

Or are carriers cheaper to run than a land base would be?

[MADem]

5. A carrier is cheaper, and harder to bomb because it moves around.

They last for many decades, if they are upgraded via SLEP (service life extension program) where the vessel is updated with the latest this-n-that to make it more efficient. That's not to say they aren't very expensive, but they have much more utility over their useful lives.

Also, you can put them where they are needed--they aren't stuck in one place. You can also swap them out.

Installations are HORRIBLY expensive to run. The overhead alone is enormous, and that's before you even get to your cadre of non-fighter-civilian personnel that scrub the toilets and paint the walls and take out the garbage and do all manner of "non-essential" work that keeps the place humming.

It's why the new paradigm is portable buildings that we can dismantle and haul off, rather than large, imposing buildings, when we do fire up a base.

I don't think this will be a full-bore base...more like a military outpost for a specific mission. If we don't have to support family members at this place, we can do it cheaply.

[hack89]

12. Land bases are much cheaper.

I suspect that it would be a forward operating base with no major maintenance facilities where detachments of aircraft are rotated through on relatively short deployments.

[cstanleytech]

13. Which is it? You cant both be right.

[MADem]

14. You replied to yourself!

I think it's going to be a special-purpose outpost, with a limited mission, limited "Quality of Life" assets, and will operate as a "hardship tour" type place--like DGAR but perhaps more specialized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia . Those kinds of places are cheap to operate, particularly if an ally is giving us the real estate for little or no money. And I'll bet we're trading information and protection for use of the place, a friendly sort of arrangement. We'll know more once we fire it up.

We've been war-gaming with the Aussies for eons. We do exercises with them regularly. I'm sure the price is right...!

[cstanleytech]

15. Yes I did it so I wouldnt have to post a reply to both of you :P lol

But anyway thanks for answering.

[IamK]

16. with a 12K+ ft runway for B52's like DGAR?..... n/y

[MADem]

17. No, I meant "hardship outpost" like DGAR. "Mission specific" like DGAR.

"No dependents" like DGAR. Not "let's replicate DGAR." Why would we need to do that? We still have DGAR, after all.

The mission here is drones--at least that is what we're being led to believe. They don't need quite so much runway.

[cstanleytech]

18. Would you prefer unarmed or armed ones? Frankly I am more in favor of unarmed

or atleast a very, verrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy limited number of armed ones.

[MADem]

19. Depends on the mission.

If they're doing maritime surveillance, there's no real need for arming--assuming USN in the region could put ordnance on target should needs must (and hopefully that will not be the case).

They'd only used armed assets if there was some sort of threat in the region, I should think.

[hack89]

20. They would most likely be unarmed ocean surveillance Global Hawks.

used to keep track of shipping in the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca.

The United States Navy's MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) program provides persistent maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) data collection and dissemination capability to the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force (MPRF). The MQ-4C BAMS UAS is a multi-mission system to support strike, signals intelligence, and communications relay as an adjunct to the MMA/P-3 community to enhance manpower, training and maintenance efficiencies worldwide.

The MQ-4C BAMS UAS, at full operational capability, will provide ISR persistence over large maritime distances for long periods of time for up to five simultaneous orbits worldwide. The MQ-4C BAMS UAS missions include, but are not limited to, maritime surveillance, collection of enemy order of battle information, battle damage assessment, port surveillance, communication relay, and support of the following missions - maritime interdiction, surface warfare, battlespace management, and targeting for maritime and littoral strike missions.

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/bams/index.html

[MADem]

4. It's convenient to China, and we were invited. nt

[XemaSab]

7. Let's take a small group of islands with 600 people and an endemic bird species

and pave the shit out of it.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

[hack89]

21. There is already an 8000 foot runway there.

it has already been paved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_%28Keeling%29_Island_International_Airport

[FarCenter]

9. Must continue to bear the white man's burden east of Aden n/t

[hack89]

11. Besides all that oil and other commerce passing through the Indian Ocean? nt