A guest post from Martin…
The USA has apparently decided to mothball its base in Diego Garcia when the current lease expires in 2016. Details are still quite sparse but it seems the USA will move many of its air operations to the Australian Coco’s islands. The move is seen as part of the increased US focus on the Asia Pacific region. The Coco’s islands are significantly closer to the pacific allowing the USA to better focus on the South China Sea while still maintaining a foot hold in the Indian Ocean.
Diego Garcia has for a long time been seen as one of the most valuable pieces of strategic real estate in the world. The base allows for resupply of naval vessels anywhere in the Indian Ocean and the runway can allow aircraft to strike at areas from Singapore to Kenya.
Since 1971 the USA has invested significant amounts of money into the base building a very long runway and deep water anchorage.
The mothballing of the base now presents the United Kingdom with a golden opportunity. The base at Diego Garcia has long been an irritation to India which sees the base as being in the middle of its sphere of influence.
The United Kingdom could use the shutting down of US operations as a way to foster a military and diplomatic relationship with India. No doubt India would greatly value access to an airbase which could allow its aircraft much greater range into the central and southern Indian Ocean. The USA is likely to retain key facilities such as satellite tracking and GPS control so it’s unlikely we could simply swap out the lease and give the base to the Indian’s. Instead we could run it as a British base allowing both US and Indian aircraft to operate at our discretion.
The base could further serve to enhance British forces in the area in a post Afghanistan world. The bases isolation and deep waters make it ideal for the forward deployment of British SSN’s. This would allow the UK to maintain Submarines in the IO without the need to transit the Suez Canal or horn of Africa. Forward deploying even a small portion of British warships to Diego Garcia could further help the United Kingdom to rebuild military relations not just with India but also with FPDA nations such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Australia.
While we are currently broke we should not allow the present difficult financial situation to scupper a golden opportunity to once again weald some influence over one of the 21st Centuries most significant strategic theatres. Possibly asking both the USA and India to contribute to operation of a fully functional RAF Diego Garcia is a way to do this.
Even in our current difficult position we should be able to consider stationing a small force on the island.
This force may constitute
- 4 Typhoons
- 1 Voyager Tanker
- 1 Infantry company
- 2 SSN’s
- 1 Type 45 Destroyer
- 1 Type 23 Frigate
- 1 Oiler or Replenishment vessel
With much of the Royal Navy already operating in the Indian Ocean it should not be much of a stretch to base or at least supply one frigate and one destroyer from Diego Garcia. The two SSN’s may be more difficult however there is usually an SSN in the Indian Ocean and having two based there would give us greater reach. It may also help to alleviate the general shortage of such platforms alleviating transit times. For many years SSBN’s have been operated with Gold and Blue crews. I am not sure if it presents a significant difficulty to operate an SSN in the same manor however we really need to try and get the absolute most out of these platforms given their expense, capability and scarcity.
The Indians seemed particularly grateful when a Trafalgar Class conducted war games with them in 2010 as part of David Cameron’s visit. Showcasing British submarine technology as well ASW, AAW and MCM capabilities could give a significant boost to British exports to the world’s largest defence importer. The same might be said with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia all of whom face significant challenges in countering Chinese Submarines.
Basing aircraft at Diego Garcia and removing a pure US presence on the Islands may even be enough of a sweetener to get India to reverse its decision on the Rafale deal. At the very least it should help us to get more nations onboard with the Type 26 project, not to mention other kit such as Type 2087 sonar, Merlin and even Seaviper.
If things work well with our increased presence in the region we may even consider building a greater presence in the future. The island would be the ideal location for the basing of a future 6th generation aircraft based on the Taranis UCAS. India has proven keen to work on a 5th generation fighter with Russia however the UK is the only nation other than the USA close to fielding a 6th generation capability. A joint project with India is likely to be relatively lucrative given the fact the UK would have to take the lead partner role, as opposed to joint partners with France or junior partners with the USA.
Maintaining such a force would not be cheap. Something along the size of Mount Pleasant would cost around £500 million per year. However if we can get contributions from both the USA and India we may be able to bring the cost down significantly.
Even at a cost of £500 million per year it’s likely to be a worthwhile expenditure if it can foster stronger relations with the nations of the Eastern Indian Ocean.
Rent. Can you collect it? Failing which, the sale of it to India is also possible, that would solve some of the financial problems (particularly the 2 that are constructed in modules).
One penny on a litre of road fuel would pay its running costs for a year. What excellent value for money which ever way the money was raised.
All for running it as a joint base with India, but in which case absolutely no reason what so ever to based a small naval squadron there.
Also, if an SSN doesn’t transit the horn of africa to get to Diego, how is it going to get there in the first place ? Why do we need an SSN in the Indian ocean at all times ? Do we think when we are down to only 7 that is going to be reality ?
Didn’t people live on Diego Garcia before the MoD went and deported them?
I’m seeing a different opportunity here. My plan, and I’m sure you can guess what it looks like, is not based on WASAWPYK fantasies and spending money the MoD doesn’t have. Time for a letter to the paper I think.
Hi Martin,
Quite agree with ” The USA is likely to retain key facilities such as satellite tracking and GPS control so it’s unlikely we could simply swap out the lease and give the base to the Indian’s. Instead we could run it as a British base allowing both US and Indian aircraft to operate at our discretion.”
- no need to base much there (cfr. Bahrain and Oman for surface fleet)
The lease is a reality, but how does it compare with the joint base (with the US only) on Ascension – there is no lease involved in that arrangement?
@Angus
The inhabitants were kicked out as the lease agreement with the US was for an uninhabited island. They have been clamouring for it back though.
I seem to recall when the Wikileaks scandal broke a couple of years ago, there was something about the British Government wanting to turn Diego Garcia (and the rest of archipelago) into a nature reserve, or something like that.
I remember reading a paper by the late Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly from the 60s about establishing 4 RN task groups to patrol the India Ocean, South East Asia, and East Africa coast line. He proposed using Gan in the Maldives as the forward base. Gan is 200 miles to the north of DG. The orbat was something like a small VSTOL CVS, an amphibious ship, an AAW cruiser, and small diesel frigates. One group would be on patrol. One at Gan. One in either Singapore or North Australia in maintenance / rest. And one in the UK in refit.
Personally, I think we should look for basing opportunities with places like Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore, Australia or maybe even Burma if things go well there.
If Britain as a whole is going to compete then we need to be out there on the world stage seen to be being useful and in Asia a defence agreement is worth substantially more than anything else a politician can promise.
In return we could look for foreign trade zones under British control where companies like BAE can manufacture their goods using British workers with wages linked to local earnings (but with generous pension schemes) and who pay tax to the UK.
That way you can save a lot of money on big contracts whilst also retaining British workers and skills and creating cheaper, more appealing products for the international markets.
We can also offer to share expertise and potentially contract sharing as well as military exercises etc.
Martin, interesting insight. One piece of kit I would include given that the Island’s in the arse end of nowhere would be one or two MPA’s.
One longtime rant, is that DfID money should be spent on those few remaining pink dots on the map. Building airstrips & ports on Pitcairn, South Georgia, montserrat, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, would give the UK unique global coverage. We would even get money back from adventure tourism & potential underwater resources.
Whatever the costs I am certain that maintaining a small British presence would be great value for money.
Agreed that sharing with India and the lingering US contingent would potentially bring costs down.
A small SSN/surface squadron would be good. A MPA/Typhoon and small ground force would also be important if we really wanted to use the base as a means of projecting power.
However even just using it as an Ascension style forward base would give us influence. It would get our foot in the door of an area that will only increase in importance in the years to come.
While I think the sentiment has merit in the far east region surely Brunei would be the centre of mass? Instead of the fighty stuff something like a bay or fort class vessel with natural disaster capability support a helicopter and allows some of the Brunei troops to be moved about perhaps accompanied by a survey vessel may gain us more influence in the far east than moving more aggressive forces in
Mark,countering Chinese influence in the region would require more than just a Bay or Fort. Also, deploying highly capable forces in the region doesn’t mean we have to operate them in an aggressive manner. Assertive, but not aggressive
Talking about DfID, what about HA/DR? Pre-position emergency supplies and equipment on the Island and fly out transport aircraft when needed? A transport aircraft/fast catamaran based there for rapid response?
@ x – “The orbat was something like a small VSTOL CVS, an amphibious ship, an AAW cruiser, and small diesel frigates.”
Curiously, that sounds a lot like the orbat of an idea I’ve been thinking about: MSO/ASW/forward presence squadron…and the numbers work out to 4 of them…
What is odd about Diego Garcia is that the Americans do not seem to have built a golf course there, which is normally priority 2 for an American base after fencing it in. Must be very hard living for them.
I’m quite attracted to the concept, but there are two hurdles to overcome:
1. There must be a political settlement of fairness for the islanders. Is there enough space for them to come back? Simply converting a US base back to a British base is going to run into all sorts of political trouble if the islanders remain frozen out.
2. There’s got to be a good strategic reason for us to have a base there. I think the case is fairly easily made, but it does need to be made. Otherwise, it’s a bit of a wilderness posting for those rotated in and out.
Actually, 3, as well. Give the RAF Regiment something to do. Their sole purpose it to guard airfields. There’s an airfield. Guard it. Never mind the lack of a threat or the mind-numbing boredom, you should have thought of that before trying to play at soldiers but not be prepared to do it properly.
@ Gareth J
It was the sixties. I forgot to say he saw about 8 frigates. This was the era of Mk10 and Blackwood class 2nd rate ASW frigates. Well before the helicopter became prominent. Further I didn’t mention that all the large ships would have been nuclear. Might sound odd but it was really seen as the future; though I believe there are some rumblings across the Pond with the USN looking at nuclear one again.
@ James
Those Global Security lads have a plan to bombard Baghdad with a laser cannon sited on DG.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-enroute-map.jpg
I think with the Sino-Indian rivalry bubbling nicely and Chinese commercial colonialism in Africa DG may be to important to give up just yet.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm
@andyw: The Chagos Archipelago has indeed been some sort of nature reserve thingy since 2010-ish. Not a transparent attempt to manufacture a nice, eco-friendly reason not to let the Chagossians return of course. Perish the thought. New Labour would never have done anything like that.
John Hartley’s idea about DfID and the remnants of empire is a reasonable one, but it will never happen. Uzbekistan wants money, and it will get it, so that’s where any savings from ending aid to India will go.
@ Jed – Obviously SSN’s would have to transit but if they were forward deployed then they would require significantly less in transits. Given the regions significance I think we should have an SSN in the IO at all times when possible.
@ ACC good question I am not sure how the Ascension base operates. As far Diego the lease expires in 2016 with the option to renew for another 20 years. We obviously have to make sure the USA is onboard with whatever we do.
@ Ace Rimmer – If we had any MPA’s I would have included it. The base would certainly be ideal for it. Maybe we can get India to base it’s P8’s there.
@ James –
There must be a political settlement of fairness for the islanders. Is there enough space for them to come back? Simply converting a US base back to a British base is going to run into all sorts of political trouble if the islanders remain frozen out.
That’s a good point. We can’t talk about self-determination for the FI then kick people of their islands. At present there are some 2-3000 Philipino workers employed on the island in general service contracts. The original islanders would like the ability to come back and replace those workers which seems fair to me. The main sticking point has been the US insistence on keeping the base super secret (possibly due to the presence of optimums prime and the auto bots) We should also offer the original islanders full British Overseas Territory passports.
Gentlemen, please.
1. IF the US intend to mothball parts of Diego Garcia it is obviously cost cutting. ‘Mothball’ implies the retention of a right of return. Preserving a right of return in any extended lease with the US is going to be a considerable contraint on third party use.
2. What benefit would the West gain from giving India central access to much of the Indian Ocean? Since Independence India has not operated in the West’s interests, it has operated totally, completely and exclusively in its own interests. There have and will be be plenty of occasions where India’s interests have not and will not align with the west’s interests. It would be nice if the ‘Raj’ and it descendants including the US would get over the idea of using Indian troops for its own purposes.
3. Indian forces in DG would provoke China as it would increase Indian options against China’s supply lines to Middle East Oil. I can think of no simpler way of growing China’s Blue water navy fast. After all similar pull factors worked for the RN 300 years ago.
4. Mothballing significant chunks of Diego Garcia would be a significant strategic back step for the US and by extension the West. The Cocus Islands could only ever replace a fraction of the existing capacity of DG. US/Aust discussions on US use have revolved around Global Hawk/BAMS operations. The current facilities (a single runway)is focussed on Orion transits and the Island’s needs, not basing. The Islands themselves provide limited scope for expansion. The US is planning to base some forces in Singapore and is talking about greater use of the HMAS Stirling base south of Perth WA but that is a long way from the likely action (hopefully).
The current talk in Australia is of greater use of ADF facilities (Darwin, Stirling, Cocus) by the US but that is only occuring because the US is pulling back in other areas…….
@ aj – I am unclear as to the exact details of the lease post 2016. As I said any options with India must be approved by the USA first. Giving India better access to the io may not be I’n Australia’s best interests but strong ties with India are deffinetly I’n the uk’s interest.every country acts I’n it’s own interest. The trick is to make sure those interests align.
Would it not be easier and more politically convenient to just keep DG as a British base and allow access to interested parties as and when they need it, with a fairly liberal attitude as to who may come and what they may do whilst there?
Very interesting, but first we let the Chagosians go home.
Hi Johnno,
Regrouping, rather? “(Darwin, Stirling, Cocus) by the US but that is only occuring because the US is pulling back in other areas…….”
- A2AD being taken seriously, long-distance penetrator capability being invested into…
Further to my previous: carrier power needs more supporting acts than before, on these lines
“The Air Force reckons it takes the destruction of 30,000 targets to knock most countries out of a fight. If 70 F-15s can destroy 1,000 of those targets in just one sweep, imagine how fast the combined American aerial arsenal could devastate an enemy’s army and infrastructure.
Upgrades to the F-15′s systems since 2006 allow the twin-engine fighter to carry up to a dozen GPS-guided Small-Diameter Bombs, each weighing 250 pounds and capable of punching through a reinforced aircraft shelter. “We could hit the ‘pickle’ button once and all 12 would drop — and hit 12 different targets,” Capt. Matt Hund said.
Huge air power exercises are becoming more common as the Pentagon pivots towards the Western Pacific, which is increasingly contested by America’s biggest strategic rival, China. In early March, U.S. and South Korean F-16s practiced a mass take-off involving no fewer than 60 of the single-engine jets. Last week, Air Force F-22 stealth fighters and B-1 bombers flew a mock air raid on central Alaska, testing out a new radar-evading strike force concept meant for defeating Chinese air defenses.”
The above is from yesterday’s Wired Mag Danger Room article
@Martin, great post. The use of DG as a forward UK base is a no brainer to me. Justiftying significant basing further east is much more difficult. Having a forward squadron of SSNs / surface ships will allow the UK to have a level of presence in the region.
First and foremost though is that the population should be allowed to return and are compensated for what has happened.
@ Chris B – That is essentially what I am proposing. However might be good to get a bit of cash for running the place from the US and India.
I could not agree more about allowing the Chagosians to go home and properly compensating them.
One thing that did spring to mind is the adage, ‘Britannia negotiates the waves’ given the UK’s need to negotiate transit rights due to our lack of capability. Having a base that’s ours, in a strategic location, without the need for permission off some banana republic to use it can only be a godsend.
As for the population, we do owe them greatly, there has got to be a settlement where a large base can be operated and the population can be returned. Especially with a pocket full of cash and a heartfelt apology from her Maj.
@Aussie
Good points, the “push” factor for China was something I failed to consider. Worse, it would be a very driving reason for them to project power out to the Indian Ocean. Right now, they seem to be content to harass the Phillipines in South East Asia, but that could change in a hurry if pushed. It does show China’s economic adventures in Africa in a different light too. An attempt for forward influence so that they can push forward to secure LOC in an emergency?
As for US basing in Singapore, I’m of 2 minds about it. Sure, the gesture is nice, but it really plays hob with the neutral position we were supposed to be taking. Most likely case? Refueling and transit rights, no bases, with maybe a reciprocal agreement with China. I’m sure the agreement can be extended to the UK, we’re supposed to be a free port after all, but if you offered to the Phillipines, they’d probably canonize you, they’re in a very tight spot at this point in time. Of course, the chances of getting shot in an accidental shootout with China is higher too.
TD
Timing is everything.
I mentioned DG in another thread regarding the RAF legend about Australia being moved 600 miles west to try and make air power more useful.
I have always thought that the 600 mile move was cover for the plans to build a base in DG which were then handed to the US to deliver.
If we get it back then things really can move on.
As always I have to question your cost figures – £500mill?
I have to ask is this figure net or gross?
If MPA didn’t exist would the people be in Civvy Street or twiddling their thumbs in Cyprus / Norfolk / Germany?
The main positive for me would be the potential to improve our relations / connections with our Thick Colonial cousins in the first instance and then improve our links with all the countries in the area with a residual connection to the UK.
Not sure that we could transform the region but at least it would move us away from the stifling EU / French focus we have at the moment.
One thing in its favour over the FI is the larger harbour.
No problems in getting a 199m patrol frigate on berth.
Consequently VFM garrison – colonial sloops / SIMSS to the fore.
FBOT Australia was moved 600 miles so that the RAF could demonstrate that they could provide air cover over the entire region using the F111 that was planned to be purchased. Carriers got cancelled and we never got the F111 either!
And the crowning irony.
Australia got the Ardvarks (F-111s)
FBOT, which cousin is Thick is still a matter of debate. So far, you’re making it looking like a coin toss.
Observer, I think we’re a bit late with regards to China’s expansion into the Indian Ocean. One of the reasons for Sri Lanka defeating the Tamil Tigers was military and economic aid from China in exchange for access to a deep sea port in that country.
In this sense, our operating from DG would be a counter to China’s bases in Sri Lanka. I believe allowing India to use the base would merely antagonise China, rather than if it was just the UK and US.
Worth a quick read……
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/us-naval-basing-in-sri-lanka
All Pats @ 11.34
How did that work?
What was the plan?
What bases were we flying from to help our “Thick Colonial Cousins”?
If you are trying to support the Indian Ocean, DG is the place to be.
Martin,
Love the post. Agree. Now if we can just get the Indians to buy Typhoon rather than Rafale…
@james, martin. Excellent points about the Islanders. I can see the Govt getting very uneasy about continuing that fight once they can’t blame it on the US agreement – esp. when fighting the Falklands corner as well. As I understand it the majority of the population used to live round the coconut plantation on East Point and that whole area south (up to the restricted area by the GEODSS station) is undeveloped bar the military R&R centre (if still open). The latter could be moved or kept for more employment / close community relations. A ready supply of local civilian workers for outsourced jobs on the base would be useful and in time once the forced repatriation merely becomes taught history and not painful personal memories, they could be as independent but still loyal/proud of British association as the Gibraltarians or the Kelpers.
@ Observer, a pity that Australia then failed, over decades, to put an effective anti-ship weapon on the Ardvarks
@ Ace, RE “In this sense, our operating from DG would be a counter to China’s bases in Sri Lanka”
- consider also Myanmar, Pakistan and Eritrea/ Tanzania (still unconfirmed in which one – may be in both)
- no wonder India is in a frenzy to counter what they see as an attempt at encirclement [emphasis on "they see as"]
Anyone actually got a source for this? Strikes me as somewhat unlikely that the US would up sticks to the Coco’s when they already have Guam roughly equidistant to the South China Sea.
Why move your Army/Marine prepo squadron further away from where it is likely to be needed (Persian Gulf, Horn of Africa) when the local alternates (Bahrain etc) are considerably less stable?
I’d not bother putting Typhoons or an infantry company (shouldn’t that be RAF regiment anyway?) all the way out there; they’d have nothing to do. A Navy presence might be worthwhile though.
I think the Indian irritation is out of date, being more of an issue about the US bringing the Cold War down to India’s backyard. They’re probably more appreciative of any forces there now that might help balance Chinese power in the Indian Ocean region; whether that were US, UK or other countries’ forces.
NaBoffin,
I agree that the prepositioning on and near DG is unlikely to be abandoned, the “moth balling” means that for airs strikes the activation can be done quickly, but specifically for drones (and associated SOF, when applicable) you can put a lot of pins on the map; see this one for optimised coverage:
“The Navy is actively looking for a suitable site in the Western Pacific for a BAMS base, and is currently in talks with several Persian Gulf states about a site in the Middle East. It already has Global Hawks perched at its base in Sigonella, Italy.
…
Elsewhere in the Greater Middle East, according to Aviation Week, the military is launching Global Hawks from Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, piloted by personnel stationed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland, to track “shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Arabian Sea.” There are unconfirmed reports that the CIA may be operating drones from the Emirates as well. In the past, other UAVs have apparently been flown from Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem Air Base and Al Jaber Air Base, as well as Seeb Air Base in Oman.
At Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the Air Force runs an air operations command and control facility, critical to the drone wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The new secret CIA base on the Arabian peninsula, used to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, may or may not be the airstrip in Saudi Arabia whose existence a senior U.S. military official recently confirmed to Fox News. In the past, the CIA has also operated UAVs out of Tuzel, Uzbekistan.
In neighboring Afghanistan, drones fly from many bases including Jalalabad Air Base, Kandahar Air Field, the air base at Bagram, Camp Leatherneck, Camp Dwyer, Combat Outpost Payne, Forward Operating Base (FOB) Edinburgh and FOB Delaram II, to name a few. Afghan bases are, however, more than just locations where drones take off and land.
It is a common misconception that U.S.-based operators are the only ones who “fly” America’s armed drones. In fact, in and around America’s war zones, UAVs begin and end their flights under the control of local “pilots.” Take Afghanistan’s massive Bagram Air Base. After performing preflight checks alongside a technician who focuses on the drone’s sensors, a local airman sits in front of a Dell computer tower and multiple monitors, two keyboards, a joystick, a throttle, a rollerball, a mouse, and various switches, overseeing the plane’s takeoff before handing it over to a stateside counterpart with a similar electronics set-up. After the mission is complete, the controls are transferred back to the local operators for the landing. Additionally, crews in Afghanistan perform general maintenance and repairs on the drones.
…
Following the May Navy SEAL raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, that country’s leaders reportedly ordered the United States to leave Shamsi. The Obama administration evidently refused and word leaked out, according to the Washington Post, that the base was actually owned and sublet to the U.S. by the United Arab Emirates, which had built the airfield “as an arrival point for falconry and other hunting expeditions in Pakistan.”
The U.S. and Pakistani governments have since claimed that Shamsi is no longer being used for drone strikes. …
The new scramble for Africa
Recently, the headline story, when it comes to the expansion of the empire of drone bases, has been Africa. For the last decade, the U.S. military has been operating out of Camp Lemonier, a former French Foreign Legion base in the tiny African nation of Djibouti. Not long after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it became a base for Predator drones and has since been used to conduct missions over neighboring Somalia.
For some time, rumors have also been circulating about a secret American base in Ethiopia. Recently, a U.S. official revealed to the Washington Post that discussions about a drone base there had been underway for up to four years, “but that plan was delayed because ‘the Ethiopians were not all that jazzed.’” Now construction is evidently underway, if not complete.
Then, of course, there is that base on the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean. A small fleet of Navy and Air Force drones began operating openly there in 2009 to track pirates in the region’s waters. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-20121271.html
I repeat. Is there any veracity whatsoever to this idea of “mothballing” Diego Garcia?
As far as WestPac BAMS goes (if that programme survives), what’s wrong with Andersen AFB on Guam?
A fairly balanced account of DG – Cocos – Guam (and why Guam is too far)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-expand-ties-with-australia-as-it-aims-to-shift-forces-closer-to-se-asia/2012/03/19/gIQAPSXlcS_story_1.html?sub=AR
ACC @ 11.19
Where does Vietnam fit into all this?
Location wise it is right in the mix, history an issue?
On the subject of irony I always found it strange that the most populat pick up in Cuba was the Ford F250, made in Mexico of course but still with the Blue Oval up front.
Similarly the popularity of the Ford Transit in Hanoi is always worth a chuckle so would their not be any mileage in trying to build bridges after 40 years?
Finally DG is looking very good for a VFM return East of Suez.
Hi FBOT,
At the defence level US is on good terms with Vietnam, but it is really India who is cozying up to them
- naval basing rights
-training to the army
- possibly the Russo-Indian version of PAK-FA
Return East of Suez; where has all the action been for the last twenty years?
- I know what you mean: rational presence rather than not so rational forays at a minute’s notice
Martin, I am really curious, it is not in the interests of anybody to make enemies of emergent nations but what do you see as UK’s pressing interests in India? (……may not be I’n Australia’s best interests but strong ties with India are deffinetly I’n the uk’s….). India has demonstrated its intentions to act in its self interest repeatly over the years. At the moment it is using the US’s clear desire to use India as a balance for China to stock up on US military technology but it is far from clear that India and China won’t reach an accommodation, recent missle tests not with standing.
At the moment China and India are the up and comers in minerial resource investment in Australia (and elsewhere)and it is clear both are engaged in securing the resources they need to power their growing economies. As long as this doesn’t turn into a competition it is not in China’s or India’s interest for direct conflict between the two.
At the moment Australia pollies are wrapping themselves in the ANSUS treaty, but the really spooky shadow hiding behind the curtains is what does Aust do when China and India seek facilities here to support their warships protecting their merchant marine in a minerial export trade we cannot do without? Won’t happen, don’t bet on it. So Aust is decidely twitchy on US regroupings.
Hi Johnno,
This is very true “At the moment it is using the US’s clear desire to use India as a balance for China to stock up on US military technology but it is far from clear that India and China won’t reach an accommodation, recent missle tests not with standing.”
- it is not only that age-old building a balance game (what happened to UK’s prowess in that?), but also in the long game, there would be very few advanced weapon systems in production in Russia, had India not been such a big customer, demanding new or upgraded models, and kept at it after the fall of the Berlin Wall when domestic funding for such started to collapse. So, putting a break on this will cement the technology lead that the US is currently enjoying…
I note that you have bought into the view that (at least currently)rather than “pulling back” the US is regrouping in the way it faces Asia?
- I am most interested to find out how much “beef” there is in backing the AirSea Battle concept; air seems to be coming along, but other than for a few piddly LCSs the navy seems to be ever shrinking
@ Aussie Johno – India being the world’s largest defence buyer and eventually one of the world’s top 3 economies says to me the UK needs to get more involved with them today. Losing out to the French on possibly one of the biggest arms deals of the decade says to me we are not presently doing enough. I think giving India access to DG is a way to facilitate this. However I would be just has happy to see Australia use the facility along with the USA.
I don’t forsee any risk to Australia of India’s rise however as a regional power Australia will likely feel the squeeze in the area of the Eastern IO aas India continues its military and economic build up.
Basing personnel and units in DG in any meaningful way is a complete non starter.
The base is far from anywhere useful and a total PITA to get to. it would cost an enormous sum of money to store sufficient spares to keep 15% of our destroyer force in an island chain, which would require support, housing, establishment of a complete UK network of schools etc for the families, moving in of engineering support and so on, just to sustain two ships.
The concept of basing away has been looked at and trialled repeatedly – it simply doesnt work for the RN in its current format.
The idea of putting people into DG is not a good one for retention, and would be an expensive disaster for the RN.