Replies

I wonder what happened to Singapore offering to base one of our fleets. Probably a more convenient location than Perth, though it might have been more convenient for the enemy as well.

I'd say it would be far safer than any M.E. port thats for certain. You have to be careful about where you do yard work and who you allow around the ships. If you want to know a ships secrets that's the best place to learn them. Going back to a two carrier group presence in the MED SEA as we did since post WW2 - the 1990's would also be wise. But we need at least two more carriers built to make it practical. We need to get away from Suez dependence with our fleets and go back to some basic rules of safety in numbers while underway. The COLE was a perfect example of what happens when that is violated. COLE should have fueled at sea.

I don't think the security would be such a problem. I'm not an expert on naval warfare, but I think the bigger issue would be the submarine and mine threat in the straits, and the ground-based air threat from Hainan, which is only 1,200 miles or so away. There's also the possible IRBM threat, though you probably have that at Perth, too.

China's best strategy, if we stationed a carrier group there, would be to commence hostilities when those carriers are in port, and neutralize them there.