US carrier to be based out of Perth?
Interesting idea, but as mentioned in the story, highly unlikely. Perth also is "too far away". It also talks about other regional options that could be more viable. It also identifies the costs required to just build a suitable port for one. It also highlights the regional availability of carrier power.
Which then brings up the idea, if we want carrier capability, would we perhaps be better off securing our own carrier. Of which there is a very big range of options.
It also touches on issues with US design for subs, larger airbases for US bomber forces and US force direction within the region.
I like how the CSIS report uses HMAS
Stirling "for evaluation purposes" as an example location for discussing the option of forward basing a CSG to the Western Pacific or SEA, probably thinking that the Australian media would see it and not jump on the discussion to churn controversy into a story. They probably chose
Stirling as the least controversial "example" to use instead of Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, etc.
In the end they didn't even go on to put the forward-basing of a CSG Option into their Recommendations. The report wasn't as hawkish as I might have thought.
The
Stirling/CSG is a bit of an odd Action to include as the others in
Option 3: Increased Posture are fairly uncontroversial, which are largely increasing units/unit strengths or rotating units to places where US forces are already based. Where this isn't the case, the Action would be largely welcome such as the basing of 2 LCS in Korea or ABM units to Japan or Korea, or internal US Forces organisational changes and unit transfers to US territories such as Guam and Hawaii.
The increased ISR presence (they talk about the Global Hawk) in Australia could be fairly easily explained away, especially if the ADF also operates the Global Hawk.
Any upgrading of airfields to handle dispersed bombers or tankers could be explained away if they aren't permanently stationed here, and pre-positioning of stores is fairly unobtrusive if it is part of a "ADF-US joint storage facility".
Perhaps the plan is to talk about CSGs now so the lesser accommodations of SSNs and stores/unit dispersal sites are more palatable.
