US Navy Seeks Use Of U-Tapao

[webfact]

US navy seeks use of U-Tapao

THE NATION

Permanent centre for disaster, humanitarian operations sought, with no combat role, US Joint Chiefs head says; plans separate from Nasa's request to set up meteorological centre

PATTAYA: -- Apart from Nasa's proposal to use U-Tapao airport, the US Navy is also interested in using the Royal Thai Navy airfield as a multipurpose facility for humanitarian and disaster-relief operations.

The US Navy's plans, which are separate from the US space agency's proposal for a weather-monitoring centre at U-Tapao, are in line with the US Navy's strategy to concentrate the bulk of its forces in the Pacific, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday.

U-Tapao was a base for the US Air Force's B-52 bombers during the Vietnam War. The airport was a headquarters for humanitarian aid in the 2004 tsunami and for 2008's Cyclone Nargis. It also serves as a logistics hub for the annual Cobra Gold joint military exercises.

Dempsey said he has discussed the US Navy's plans with Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn to have U-Tapao as a permanent centre for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

"It's the perfect place for that," he said.

Thailand and the US have a long history of military relations, Dempsey said, and the US is looking to further those ties. A disaster-relief centre at U-Tapao could become the key to future US-Thai cooperation, he said.

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration has requested to use the U-Tapao airfield as a meteorology centre. It made the request under the administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva but has not yet received approval, Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul said.

'COMPLETELY UNRELATED'

"It is completely unrelated. Nasa is a civilian agency. It has nothing to do with the Department of Defence," Dempsey said in an interview yesterday with The Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon.

However, U-Tapao was a very logical place for such weather-related tasks as monsoon prediction and flood monitoring, Dempsey said.

Thailand and the US have not yet made any formal agreement on the joint use of U-Tapao.

Dempsey said he informed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra that he agreed with his Thai counterpart

Tanasak on the airfield's use for the Cobra Gold exercises and to explore the possibility of using it as a humanitarian relief centre.

Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat said the US would use U-Tapao only for humanitarian purposes, not as a base for combat command.

A possible US deal on U-Tapao also has nothing to do with fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra getting a visa to the US, Sukampol said.

Dempsey said the US has no intention to turn U-Tapao into a US combat base as it was during the Vietnam War, when locals were barred from entering.

"Anything we do with Thailand, it is on the basis that it is a Thai base," Dempsey said.

The interest in U-Tapao comes as the US is "repositioning" its naval forces to boost its presence in the Pacific. It is engaging with other countries, such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam.

In the Philippines, another ally in the Pacific, Dempsey said he has been seeking locations for military training and exercises.

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

The US would also not get involved in the conflict in the South China Sea between China and other Southeast Asian nations. The US' only interest in the area is simply the right of free navigation and the right of passage, he said. "We would not get involved in a territorial dispute," Dempsey said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-06

[BookMan]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

[Buchholz]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

Planned stealth destroyer could underpin US Navy's China strategy

A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.

"With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements -- this is our future," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, said in April after visiting the shipyard in Maine where they are being built.

On a visit to a major regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will be deploying 60 percent of its fleet worldwide to the Pacific by 2020, and though he didn't cite the stealth destroyers he said new high-tech ships will be a big part of its shift.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1wyEGTj76

[noitom]

With this "super stealthy warship" they'll be able to "sneak up", "pound targets", and have "incredibly capable sonar system 'strike capability'." therefore, it would make an "ideal" humanitarian and operations center.

The Chinese as well as US taxpayers must be freaking out with these blue prints. General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta should take a tour of depressed economically ravaged US areas such as the Inland Empire in California, and other areas across the country. Millions of Americans are living below the poverty line in makeshift dwellings and tent cities and 11 or 12% of the population is struggling without a job. Hopefully, this military initiated and managed humanitarian and operations center at U-Tapao airport in Thailand will reverse all of that economic hardship in the general's and the secretary's back yard in the good old USA.

[pakorn7]

US building up weapon arsenal waiting to attack China.

Remember JFK and the Cuba event?

Same same here, only different is:

USSR -> USA

USA -> China

Cuba -> Thailand

ICBM = ICBM

[EvilDrSomkid]

With this "super stealthy warship" they'll be able to "sneak up", "pound targets", and have "incredibly capable sonar system 'strike capability'." therefore, it would make an "ideal" humanitarian and operations center.

The Chinese as well as US taxpayers must be freaking out with these blue prints. General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta should take a tour of depressed economically ravaged US areas such as the Inland Empire in California, and other areas across the country. Millions of Americans are living below the poverty line in makeshift dwellings and tent cities and 11 or 12% of the population is struggling without a job. Hopefully, this military initiated and managed humanitarian and operations center at U-Tapao airport in Thailand will reverse all of that economic hardship in the general's and the secretary's back yard in the good old USA.

Who says that these stealth ships would be based in U-tapao?

Too bad that the source of that item is from Fox ..cough.. "news"

The US defense budgets are being cut across the board. Did you know that? The Navy will mothball a large number of ships in the near future. And why should Panetta and Dempsey take tours of the impoverished areas in the US?

Congressmen/women should be doing that.

Edited June 6, 2012 by EvilDrSomkid

[EvilDrSomkid]

US building up weapon arsenal waiting to attack China.

Remember JFK and the Cuba event?

Same same here, only different is:

USSR -> USA

USA -> China

Cuba -> Thailand

ICBM = ICBM

WHAT? You are comparing this to the Cuban missile crisis?

[BigJohnnyBKK]

The US definitely needs to contain China for the good of the world.

Too bad that's not its reason for doing so.

[OzMick]

" It made the request under the administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva but has not yet received approval...." - Foreign Minister Surapong

When asked what he has been doing the last 9 months, he said "I asked Thaksin when I delivered his passport, but he was too busy. He's got a lot (46 billion) on his mind at the moment. You people have to learn to get your priorities right."

[noitom]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

[chooka]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

True. The U.S I believe wants to move 60% of the military thoughout the Asia/Pacific region, they say it is for humanitarian and disaster relief but I am a little sceptical. The U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Vietnam trying to negotiate a deal with them to reopen the former U.S Naval base at Can Ranh Bay. He apparently has said that it commands a strategic location on the South China Sea. The U.S are also in talks with Singapore and India to expand thier military presence. China were very quick to lodge a notice of objection and a please explain to Australia when the Australian government gave approval to the U.S to greatly expand it's military presence on Australian soil earlier this year. Yes I am sceptical and don't believe it is to assist 3rd world countries like Singapore and Australia in case they are hit by a cyclone, flood or fire. I think it is solely a personal agenda.

P.S my comments are not intended as American bashing and I apologise to the Americans who find it offensive.

[chooka]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

Planned stealth destroyer could underpin US Navy's China strategy

A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.

"With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements -- this is our future," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, said in April after visiting the shipyard in Maine where they are being built.

On a visit to a major regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will be deploying 60 percent of its fleet worldwide to the Pacific by 2020, and though he didn't cite the stealth destroyers he said new high-tech ships will be a big part of its shift.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1wyEGTj76

So do these stealth ships that require less manning go under the disguise of supply ships. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, The supply ships like the Byrd which will be stationed in the area have only a handful of Navy sailors aboard but have a mostly civilian crew.

[OzMick]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

Well the servicemen who spend time here are taxpayers, and I would estimate that 90% at least enjoy their time here immensely. They also gain a whole new attitude on the value of sexual intercourse which will help them to make wiser decisions for the rest of their life, much of which may be spent in Thailand, PI or parts nearby.

[EvilDrSomkid]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

True. The U.S I believe wants to move 60% of the military thoughout the Asia/Pacific region, they say it is for humanitarian and disaster relief but I am a little sceptical. The U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Vietnam trying to negotiate a deal with them to reopen the former U.S Naval base at Can Ranh Bay. He apparently has said that it commands a strategic location on the South China Sea. The U.S are also in talks with Singapore and India to expand thier military presence. China were very quick to lodge a notice of objection and a please explain to Australia when the Australian government gave approval to the U.S to greatly expand it's military presence on Australian soil earlier this year. Yes I am sceptical and don't believe it is to assist 3rd world countries like Singapore and Australia in case they are hit by a cyclone, flood or fire. I think it is solely a personal agenda.

P.S my comments are not intended as American bashing and I apologise to the Americans who find it offensive.

A slight correction: 60% of the Navy's fleet will reposition to the Pacific. Not 60% of the US military.

Trying to contain the Chinese is not possible. The US (Navy) military knows this.

They are trying to counter the anti-access/area denial efforts of the Chinese.

And so far, I have not read that the US pivot to the Asia Pacific is for humanitarian efforts.

The request to use U-Tapao as a base for humanitarian relief, maybe, but that does not mean that the rest of the military efforts are geared towards that. Neither has such a claim been made.

[Thai at Heart]

It is split currently 50:50 and on the basis that Russia isn't exactly commanding the Atlantic these days, and with a bit of downsizing and retirement of ships, I doubt this amounts to an enormous increase in the amount of US ships in the region.

[ratcatcher]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

Well the servicemen who spend time here are taxpayers, and I would estimate that 90% at least enjoy their time here immensely. They also gain a whole new attitude on the value of sexual intercourse which will help them to make wiser decisions for the rest of their life, much of which may be spent in Thailand, PI or parts nearby.

Nothing wrong with a boom-boom in the sex trade, since most of the proceeds end up helping support Isaan and other provincial families whose daughters are the main supporters of their parents & young. With rice prices looking precarious, this may be a boon.

[jaltsc]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

Well the servicemen who spend time here are taxpayers, and I would estimate that 90% at least enjoy their time here immensely. They also gain a whole new attitude on the value of sexual intercourse which will help them to make wiser decisions for the rest of their life, much of which may be spent in Thailand, PI or parts nearby.

Nothing wrong with a boom-boom in the sex trade, since most of the proceeds end up helping support Isaan and other provincial families whose daughters are the main supporters of their parents & young. With rice prices looking precarious, this may be a boon.

This will surely cut the budget for R&R and add money to the local Pattaya economy. Who thought the Americans and Russians could get along so well and share like good little boys?

[hellodolly]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

True. The U.S I believe wants to move 60% of the military thoughout the Asia/Pacific region, they say it is for humanitarian and disaster relief but I am a little sceptical. The U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Vietnam trying to negotiate a deal with them to reopen the former U.S Naval base at Can Ranh Bay. He apparently has said that it commands a strategic location on the South China Sea. The U.S are also in talks with Singapore and India to expand thier military presence. China were very quick to lodge a notice of objection and a please explain to Australia when the Australian government gave approval to the U.S to greatly expand it's military presence on Australian soil earlier this year. Yes I am sceptical and don't believe it is to assist 3rd world countries like Singapore and Australia in case they are hit by a cyclone, flood or fire. I think it is solely a personal agenda.

P.S my comments are not intended as American bashing and I apologise to the Americans who find it offensive.

A slight correction: 60% of the Navy's fleet will reposition to the Pacific. Not 60% of the US military.

Trying to contain the Chinese is not possible. The US (Navy) military knows this.

They are trying to counter the anti-access/area denial efforts of the Chinese.

And so far, I have not read that the US pivot to the Asia Pacific is for humanitarian efforts.

The request to use U-Tapao as a base for humanitarian relief, maybe, but that does not mean that the rest of the military efforts are geared towards that. Neither has such a claim been made.

you are rite all they ask of Thailand is a base for humanitarian aid. I notice that when Thaksin was legally the PM and had nothing to gain by opposing it the Thailand government allowed it. Now that he is deposed and a criminal on the run running the country from

Dubai and can not get a visa to get into the states it is being opposed.

[hellodolly]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

Well the servicemen who spend time here are taxpayers, and I would estimate that 90% at least enjoy their time here immensely. They also gain a whole new attitude on the value of sexual intercourse which will help them to make wiser decisions for the rest of their life, much of which may be spent in Thailand, PI or parts nearby.

Nothing wrong with a boom-boom in the sex trade, since most of the proceeds end up helping support Isaan and other provincial families whose daughters are the main supporters of their parents & young. With rice prices looking precarious, this may be a boon.

You are right looking at the boom-boom trade with a over all picture it is a necessity. Yes it does have it's darker side but so do most religions.

Let us not forget that the boom-boom trade has always been around but after bigamy was outlawed many women found themselves in need of the basic commodities in life such as food.

[Bagwan]

If the US is planning on storing disaster relief supplies there, it would be best to have a company of marines to guard them, lest they be sadly deteriorated by 2-legged rats.

Dare I hope that you mean Royal Marines and their Aussie equivalent? One of the supreme achievements of US Forces in Europe from 1944 onward was the establishment of a flourishing 'black market'. Hollywood even had the neck to make a film about the phenomenon. I understand that Patton died while on his way to investigate a huge scam and there were rumours, unsubstantiated of course, that the accident in which he died was no accident.

It is a pity that the whole World did not send regiments of people to supervise the receipt and distribution of relief supplies after the tsunami.

[55Jay]

Not surprised at all, Obama came right out in public speech and said he was going to refocus military to PAC region, so his boys are out knocking on doors and slipping dollar bills into politician G-strings. Public media, photos are part of the strategy.

On a lighter note, the caption to the above photo might be, "But General, my water buffalo is sick and, and......".

Agreed, the "humanitarian/disaster response base" is not the unpin on this...... doing so at U-Tapao, uh... on the beach... in an indirect earthquake/ Tsunami risk area.... isn't a very smart contingency plan. LOL. US is so unpopular, especially anything military related, it would be a huge loss of face, so the public double speak is necessary, but not foolin' anyone.

US is like a fat girl friend these days. A superstar in bed and she pays well, just don't wanna be seen in public with her.

[Bagwan]

The US definitely needs to contain China for the good of the world.

Too bad that's not its reason for doing so.

That is of course your opinion and I support your right to express it. Many others may have contrary views. US foreign policy has been less than brilliant for years and that it is now headed up by a power at all costs woman who worked her way to her lofty height by hook and by crook, mainly crook according to knowledgeable people in Arkansas, gives me no comfort.

As another poster has pointed out, US Governments have not been particularly successful in looking after the welfare of its own peoples so it seems reasonable to suppose that they wouldn't make much of a fist of supporting its allies and/or ensuring a peaceful World.

[Buchholz]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

True. The U.S I believe wants to move 60% of the military thoughout the Asia/Pacific region, they say it is for humanitarian and disaster relief but I am a little sceptical.

While the US Navy does want to move from the current 50/50 split between Pacific/Atlantic committments to a 60/40 split, they have never said it is for humanitarian/disaster relief purposes.

.

[Buchholz]

The US "rebalancing" in the Pacific is not intended as a move to contain China, Dempsey said.

I don't think anyone believes this statement, certainly not the Chinese.

Planned stealth destroyer could underpin US Navy's China strategy

A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.

"With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements -- this is our future," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, said in April after visiting the shipyard in Maine where they are being built.

On a visit to a major regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will be deploying 60 percent of its fleet worldwide to the Pacific by 2020, and though he didn't cite the stealth destroyers he said new high-tech ships will be a big part of its shift.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1wyEGTj76

So do these stealth ships that require less manning go under the disguise of supply ships. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, The supply ships like the Byrd which will be stationed in the area have only a handful of Navy sailors aboard but have a mostly civilian crew.

If you are referring to the ship, USNS Richard E. Byrd, a dry cargo ship, it has precious little in common with the new stealth destroyers.

The Byrd's low manning level (123 civilians, 12 US Navy staff) is possible because of its extremely limited purpose. It's simply an unarmed freighter and like its civilian counterparts, there isn't a need for a lot people to man it in order for it to accomplish its sole task.

The manning on the new destroyers is low for completely different reasons. It has a multitude of purposes and with no civilian counterparts. Its low manning derives from its use of automation to accomplish its tasks that previously were down by people.

.

[OzMick]

If you are referring to the ship, USNS Richard E. Byrd, a dry cargo ship, it has precious little in common with the new stealth destroyers.

The Byrd's low manning level (123 civilians, 12 US Navy staff) is possible because of its extremely limited purpose. It's simply an unarmed freighter and like its civilian counterparts, there isn't a need for a lot people to man it in order for it to accomplish its sole task.

The manning on the new destroyers is low for completely different reasons. It has a multitude of purposes and with no civilian counterparts. Its low manning derives from its use of automation to accomplish its tasks that previously were down by people.

.

I must insist that a civilian freighter would have FAR fewer crew, in fact the 12 navy personnel should be sufficient. I'm not sure what the 123 civilians do, but I'm dam_n sure it has nothing to do with transporting freight.

[Buchholz]

This 50 year US Military/Thai partnership adds up to a boom for Thai sex trade, an increase in drug traffic, lots of siphoned off US taxpayer money for lining corrupt Thai politician pockets. No residual benefit for US taxpayers.

Well the servicemen who spend time here are taxpayers, and I would estimate that 90% at least enjoy their time here immensely. They also gain a whole new attitude on the value of sexual intercourse which will help them to make wiser decisions for the rest of their life, much of which may be spent in Thailand, PI or parts nearby.

I'd just add the drug traffic aspect of the comment hasn't been relevant for the past 25 of those 50 years.

The days of sending Thai Stick et al through the military postal system have vanished long ago.

.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

True. The U.S I believe wants to move 60% of the military thoughout the Asia/Pacific region, they say it is for humanitarian and disaster relief but I am a little sceptical. The U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Vietnam trying to negotiate a deal with them to reopen the former U.S Naval base at Can Ranh Bay. He apparently has said that it commands a strategic location on the South China Sea. The U.S are also in talks with Singapore and India to expand thier military presence. China were very quick to lodge a notice of objection and a please explain to Australia when the Australian government gave approval to the U.S to greatly expand it's military presence on Australian soil earlier this year. Yes I am sceptical and don't believe it is to assist 3rd world countries like Singapore and Australia in case they are hit by a cyclone, flood or fire. I think it is solely a personal agenda.

P.S my comments are not intended as American bashing and I apologise to the Americans who find it offensive.

A slight correction: 60% of the Navy's fleet will reposition to the Pacific. Not 60% of the US military.

Trying to contain the Chinese is not possible. The US (Navy) military knows this.

They are trying to counter the anti-access/area denial efforts of the Chinese.

And so far, I have not read that the US pivot to the Asia Pacific is for humanitarian efforts.

The request to use U-Tapao as a base for humanitarian relief, maybe, but that does not mean that the rest of the military efforts are geared towards that. Neither has such a claim been made.

From the perspective of American interests, the US does need to maintain its military superiority over the Chinese.

As the Chinese economic status rises to rivaling status, it becomes even that much more crucial, should China decide to use that new economic status to threaten the USA financially.

It may become America's last trump card.

.

[Buchholz]

It is split currently 50:50 and on the basis that Russia isn't exactly commanding the Atlantic these days, and with a bit of downsizing and retirement of ships, I doubt this amounts to an enormous increase in the amount of US ships in the region.

Another very practical reasons for a differing fleet size is geography. The Atlantic Ocean is only about half the size of the Pacific Ocean.

[MrRealDeal]

The main job of the US NAVY is to protect corporations by keeping the international sea lanes open. It's other jobs like transporting Marines , bombing shore positions , providing air assult and cover , come second, and not even in wartime but especially in wartime. ........ The shopping must go on !

[gsteph45]

I believe it's a good idea!