US Deployments in Asia


Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
US, Japan to establish military bases in the Philippines

US, Japan to establish military bases in the Philippines
By Joseph Santolan
29 June 2013

On June 27, at a press conference in Quezon City, Philippines, Philippine Defense Minister Voltaire Gazmin and his Japanese counterpart, Itsunori Onodera, announced that the Philippines would establish basing arrangements with both the US and Japanese militaries. China was the explicit target of this move allowing the US and Japan to station military personnel and equipment in the Philippines.

At the press conference, Gazmin called China “the oppressive neighbor” and the “bully at our doorstep.” He stated, “At this point in time, we cannot stand alone. We need allies. If we don’t do this, we will be bullied by bigger powers and that is what is happening now: there is China, sitting on our territory.”Onodera is in the Philippines on a two-day official visit. In discussions of the disputed waters of the South China Sea, he pledged to help the Philippines defend “its remote islands.”

Onodera also announced that Japan would officially back the Philippines’ claim of territorial sovereignty, which is currently being adjudicated by the United National Commission on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These statements constitute an unprecedented acknowledgement by Japan of the validity of the Philippine claim to the disputed waters.

There is a continuing, two-month armed stand-off between Philippine marines stationed on one of the islands in question and the Chinese navy.

“We agreed that we will further cooperate in terms of the defense of remote islands... the defense of territorial seas as well as protection of maritime interests,” Onodera continued. He stated that Japan was “very concerned that this kind of situation in the South China Sea could affect the situation in the East China Sea,” referring to ongoing Sino-Japanese disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

Both Defense Ministers called for an increased US military presence in the region, and specifically for basing US forces in the Philippines. Onodera said that “both sides agreed that the US presence is a very important public asset in East Asia.”

The Chinese embassy in Manila issued a statement Thursday, asking the Philippines and the United States “not to exacerbate tensions in the area.” Beijing’s response to Filipino-Japanese talks was sharper. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi denounced them as the “path of confrontation,” stating that they are “doomed.” He added that countries that “try to reinforce their poorly grounded claims through the help of external forces” would find the strategy a “miscalculation not worth the effort.”

There is an escalating US intervention to include US allies in the region in military alliances directed against China. Recent years have not only seen Washington back Japanese claims on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, but also develop military bases in Australia and basing agreements for US littoral combat ships in Singapore.

Preparations to restore the basing of the US military in the Philippines have been long in the making. They were made public in January 2012, during the 2+2 meeting held in Washington between then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and their Philippine counterparts . The details of the basing arrangements are now becoming clearer. Manila is preparing a 70-acre facility at the former Subic Naval Base to house US warships and fighter planes. Upgrades on the site will cost some US$230 million. An airbase is being prepared on Cagayan de Oro, on the southern island of Mindanao.

Some of these bases are now being prepared for Japanese troops and equipment, as well. While the troops stationed in the Philippines would be rotated in and out of the country, this would constitute the permanent stationing the so-called ‘self-defense forces’ outside Japan. If carried through, this unprecedented move would mark the reemergence of Japan as an global imperialist military power.

This move is a further step in Tokyo’s long-standing drive to remilitarize Japan, with Washington’s backing. The Philippines have played a key role in this process. In December 2012, Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario told the Financial Times that Manila would support the scrapping of the so-called pacifist clause in the Japanese constitution, which has inhibited Japanese remilitarization, citing tensions with China as the justification.

Gazmin said that Manila would “allow the United States, Japan and other allies access to its military bases under the plan to roll back China’s expansive claims in the West Philippine Sea [South China Sea].” What other “allies” were also discussing basing arrangements with the Philippines was not disclosed.

The twentieth century saw the Philippines subjected to the brutal colonial rule of two imperialist powers, the United States and Japan, both of which the Filipino ruling class collaborated with. Under the leadership of President Benigno Aquino, they are actively functioning as the proxies of the same imperialist powers. As Washington recklessly pursues its drive to encircle China, the Philippines is being prepared as the staging point for a global war.

The Philippine constitution explicitly bans all “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.” This ban is being cynically circumvented by having the Philippine government maintain the base facilities, at which the foreign troops are stationed as so-called “guests.”

During the meeting between Onodera and Gazmin, Washington launched a six-day joint military training exercise with Philippines in South China Sea. Five hundred US military personnel and an equal number of Filipinos are engaged in a series of war games of a calculatedly provocative nature.

The USS Fitzgerald, a guided missile destroyer, and the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, the Philippine navy's flagship, staged naval maneuvers in waters less than 50 miles from the disputed shoal where Filipino marines are occupying a facility surrounded Chinese naval vessels. The exercise’s stated aim was “to intercept suspected enemy ships, board them and seize materials they may be carrying that could pose a danger to allies.”

The use of the terms “enemy ships” and “allies” is a marked escalation of rhetoric previously used to justify the war games. Previous war games allegedly targeted regional piracy, conducted rescue operations, or defended maritime trade. The 2013 Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises are now couched in the language of global war.

At Cavite naval base, six miles south of Manila, US military personnel trained their Filipino counterparts in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). They launched and remotely guided Puma surveillance drones from a boat in the South China Sea. The Philippine navy also received training in naval gunnery.

The intensifying US military drive in the region finds expression in the fact that in first five months of 2013, 72 US warships and submarines have visited Subic Bay, compared with 88 for the entirety of 2012; 54 in 2011; and 51 in 2010, according to Filipino government figures.

US, Japan to establish military bases in the Philippines - World Socialist Web Site


and off we go........


The Bunker Group
Japan put offensive military asets overseas ? That will made certain amount of adjustment within Japanese political conciousness.
Philippines has no choice though, base on their own procurement and modernisation track record, it's very dificult to see them amassing enough deterence within even a decade. Still will be interested to see this work within internal Philippines politics.


Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Japan put offensive military asets overseas ? That will made certain amount of adjustment within Japanese political conciousness.
Philippines has no choice though, base on their own procurement and modernisation track record, it's very dificult to see them amassing enough deterence within even a decade. Still will be interested to see this work within internal Philippines politics.
There is a fair amount of anger over the way that the chinese have been pushing their claims on the Spratlys/Paracels, so this not really unexpected

as much as the chinese have tried to exploit the japanese behaviour in WW2 the reality for the majority of neighbours in this region is that the japanese have never been aggressive in their politics and have been long term donors of aid, they are regarded as less onorous partners and they haven't caused ructions amongst the locals as has happened in other places (incl central africa)

eg look at examples like the 2004 Tsunami and what the two major asian powers respectively did to assist.


The Bunker Group
as much as the chinese have tried to exploit the japanese behaviour in WW2 the reality for the majority of neighbours in this region is that the japanese have never been aggressive in their politics and have been long term donors of aid, they are regarded as less onorous partners and they haven't caused ructions amongst the locals as has happened in other places (incl central africa)
There's no doubt that majority of SEA nation (except Cambodia and Myanmar), will be more comfortable with Japan then China. WW 2 has been ended nearly 70 years ago, and Japan is the biggest Investor and one of the largest trading partner for most SEA nations.

My concern mostly with what internal Japanese politics will be in the future considering any military tied up with any SEA nation. Philippines will also facing some internal challenges it self on opeing bases for foreign troops, after they close down Subic 2 decades ago. However considering what most Philippines public mood right now on the matter of China and SCS issue, I do feel it will be minority.

Japan already supporting Philippines coast guard, but they also done similar thing with Indonesian Coast Guard. However coast guard mostly are civilian entity, and for me it will open to see, what Japanese internal politics moved when they talked about cooperating and supporting foreign military entity on long term policies.

It will be taking further step than supporting coalition forces on logistics. This could end up on supporting Philippines naval operation perhaps on join patrol and survailance or even supporting them on teritorial issues. Again this is only possibilities, but when you are already committed some of your military assets overseas, that can be what you end up with.

Based on the communique and statement, it's for me clear that Philippines intended to increase the pressure to China for changing approach when dealing on SCS issues. I have put on my earlier posts on the thread on SCS issue, that no other nation in the region will let by if China intended to wrest control and try to dominate SCS by it self. How far this is, on the counter moved, will remain to be seen.


The Bunker Group
Just to add, If Japan will be more open on military cooperation with SEA nation, for my self, I rather have Indonesian AF considering future C-130 replacement with Kawasaki C-2, rather than A-400. Well that's my personal liking, not going to happen considering EADS large influences with DI/IAe, and thus Indonesian Mindef procurement policies on the transport plane..

Anyway, it will not come to consideration before 2020..well enough on the off topic thinking..:D


Banned Member
I personally would love to see Japan take off the pacifist gloves and bring back their bushido. I'm sure Washington is heavily trying to persuade them to do the same. WW2 is water under the bridge and a military minded Japan would be a strong counter point to China. I put Japanese goods on a shelf, I throw Chinese goods in the trash.

Give em their guns back.

Mod: The tone of your post is unacceptable. You need to come back and do some serious self moderation before a Mod does it for you. Whatever strategic and political differences exist between countries doesn't give anyone in here license to cause national disharmony in here,

we expect everyone to show restraint and respect to the same level that they would expect to see it demonstrated and articulated for their own country.

Delete it if you don't like it, my opinion was voiced. The day I start "moderating my points" is when I become a communist.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Japan already supporting Philippines coast guard, but they also done similar thing with Indonesian Coast Guard.
Japan has also provided substantial aid to the Malaysian Maritime Agency [MMEA], including a training vessel, RDF equipment, RHIBs and NVGs. This aid is intended to better enable the MMEA to monitor the Melaka Straits, which of vital importance to Japan.
Last edited:


The Bunker Group
MMEA, KPLP (Indonesian Sea and Coast Guard), Philippines Coast Guard, show the patern of Japanese Security cooperation with SEA nations are with Non Military/Civilian security establishment. Japan also increase the cooperation with Indonesian Police, especially after Indonesian Police being removed from Soeharto era's Military organisation structure.

None of the above show Japanese cooperation with SEA military establishment. Thus if Abe government really intent to put Japanese Self Defence force assets within Philippines teritory, and that game's changging rule in Japanese relations cooperation with SEA nations.

This in my oppinion put considerable shift within Internal Japanese politics. How far this will be implemented in the future, that's will be interesting to see.


Super Moderator
Staff member
Delete it if you don't like it, my opinion was voiced. The day I start "moderating my points" is when I become a communist.
It's a shame you can't take the time to understand why the forum rules are as they are, and you immediately discount any such behaviour on your own part as "communist". You are truly mistaken if you think this place is anything like that. Not that it matters now.


Super Moderator
Staff member
Delete it if you don't like it, my opinion was voiced. The day I start "moderating my points" is when I become a communist.
Congratulations on earning your perm-ban. This forum is moderated and this behaviour will not be tolerated. Thanks for playing the how fast you can get banned, game.


Well-Known Member
First, keep in mind that the claims in East China Sea and the claims in South China Sea have fundamentally different justifications.

Generally speaking, when two parties have competing claims, and each say their claim is the valid one and the other is invalid, and negotiation failed to resolve the issue, the civilized way of adjudicating this is to bring the matter into a neutral court or arbitration. Given that the matter involves sovereign countries, no court has the jurisdiction to judge on this. However, UN has an amazing pool of legal experts available, and if the parties concerned will agree to binding arbitration, the matter could be arbitrated by the UN. (Note: binding arbitration means that both parties agree beforehand that they will follow the result of the arbitration. The bond comes from their word.)

This, for example, was how Indonesia and Malaysia settled their competing claims on the Sipadan and Ligitan islands, by taking it to UN arbitration.

So, to answer your first and second question, submitting the issue to UN arbitration is a civilized and peaceful way of validating the respective claims and avoiding conflict in the region.

The rest of your questions doesn't make sense as a whole. It assumes that there's one legally valid claim, and yet at the same time the owner of that claim refuses to validate its claim by submitting the issue to UN arbitration. This doesn't make sense. Occam's Razor says that a likely reason why a party refuses arbitration is that the party does not actually believe the arbitration will go their way. Logically this implies either or both of the following:
1. That the claimant isn't actually convinced of the legal validity of its own claim.
2. That the claimant does not believe in the competence and/or neutrality of the arbitration body (in the case, the UN).

Since apparently UN arbitration is out of the question, the legal validity of the respective claims are deprecated. It's there, but it doesn't matter much in the big picture. Thus you shouldn't focus on whether the claims are legally valid or not and simply focus on the issues of power.

You may want to reframe your questions by taking the issue of validity out. Otherwise your questions are loaded questions.
Last edited:


New Member
What? Let's sit back & think about this.

Japan is replacing old ships with new ones at no more than 1:1 (albeit the new ones are more capable), & aircraft at less than 1:1. It's been replacing AFVs at less than 1:1 for years, & there's no sign of change.

North Korea is armed to the teeth - but build up? That was in the 1960s & 1970s. Its air force is sinking further into obsolescence, with no replacements for museum pieces that other air forces retired long ago. Where it is introducing new equipment, it's in small numbers, less than the numbers of old weapons wearing out.

South Korea is upgrading, but not expanding. It's buying high-end new systems in smaller numbers than what they're replacing.

Taiwan - what build up? Numbers are falling, again.

Don't confuse modernisation with a build up. Weapons wear out. Before that, they've probably become ineffective through obsolesence. If you don't replace them with something new, your capabilities decline.
I stand correct, sorry guys..
I did mean modernization and upgrading in general.
I did not intent to say a build up as in a pre to war.

@ tonnyc
Thanks for the clarification.
In regards to those questions that did not make sense, I would like to point out that,
The involved nations have their claims on a couple of islands, some might have legit claims others might not so legit.
What I was trying to point out is that, the UN arbitrage might rule in favor of one of the nations due the presented proof (If any) and leaving the other nations stranded with their claims.
However that does not mean that they automatically will honor the ruling of the UN.
And still pursue ways to "add" that piece of territory to their ownership.
Either using force or either using other means.
And yes the validity question is loaded, for one reason alone.
China does consider its claims valid
Japan does, The Philippines do and so are others who are making claims.

Each single one of them have their own reasons to make those claims.
regardless if they proof in time to be right or wrong.
Now since you already pointed out that the UN arbitrage is sort of out of the question, how are these nations going to respond if one seriously considers to write their claim in stone and goes into action with the aim to take the islands by force if need be.

Then you got yourself a conflict with possible huge implications for the nations itself, but even more to the US as they are "allied/friendly" to most of them.
Which eventually will draw in US response So what then?

Because personally I do not see China dropping its claims, and neither do I see Japan or the Philippines walk away from their respective claims.
In other words depending on how bad a nation wants to stack their claim this would be a recipe for a major conflict, where probably China and US will meet in the middle.
So that's why I asked if the US is setting itself up for a conflict by taking sides.
See my point?


New Member
You're right it did not; and that is one reason why - in the 1990's - a U.S. official publicly stated that the Mutual Defence Treaty did not cover the Spratlys. I forgot who the U.S official was and in what context the statement was made [it could have been after the Mischief Reef Incident] but I remember reading it in a local paper.
Might be true, as i do not know personally, but lets assume it does not include the Spratys, where does that leave the Philippines in case of a armed conflict over them?
Because even tho the MDT does not cover the islands i can hardly see the US sit back and just let it happen like that.
So according to you what would be the response of Philippines partners and allies (If any other then US)
And given the limited options available to the Philippines what could they do other then scream at the UN council?:rolleyes:
Because honestly given the situation at hand the last thing Asia needs is another potential crisis.
That being said what are china's options here in this situation and how would they respond to any situation beyond just saber rattling?

Lt. Fred

New Member
Just to change direction a bit:

If it is indeed true that Japan is considering or has in fact decided to set up a permanent Japanese base, or to permanently station Japanese vessels in a Filipino base, that's a fairly substantial escalation of this administration's undermining of the infamous Article Nine of the Japanese constitution. A little over twenty years ago, the Japanese interpreted Article Nine in a way prohibiting them even from deploying vessels outside a 150 nm (from memory) sphere of defence. Anything beyond that was unconstitutional.

Now, it's true that this has already been somewhat undermined, first with an unarmed peacekeeping mission in Iraq around a decade ago, then with the deployment of a pair of destroyers to the Somalia anti-piracy operations. But a permanent non-UN deployment would be a big deal, constitutionally.

Edit: Unless, of course, I've made a huge obvious error.
Last edited:


New Member
Yes there is, but it will no doubt be completely removed from the remit of this forum to discuss. It all revolves around the reality of the nature of relations between powers and especially great powers.

A good place to start would be to research the nature of the classical Chinese system of Suzerainty, as this is the historic diplomatic glue that has underpinned this region for most of at least the previous thousand years.
Thanks for that and yes i see what you mean, but i think you misunderstood what i did mean with making every side smile.
Let me clarify:
What i was suggesting is that the "owner" of the islands remains in total control and ownership, BUT due some sort of agreement gives access to its resources and thus a economic or industrial bonus to both.
Now for example China's resource harvesting technological industry is way better developed then their counter parts in the Philippines and way better funded.
So china needs resources and by giving them economic access to the resources the industrial and economic development in the Philippines will probably get a major boost and perhaps some new knowledge to refine and improve their current industrial base which in turn enables them to harvest other resources on their own home soil.
This way hypothetically speaking every side could be happy, perhaps its wishful thinking on my side but i think that the idea holds some merit.


New Member
US and Japanese forces in the Philippines...

One good thing about having US and Japanese forces in the Philippines is that it will give the Chinese Navy something to seriously think about before sending any ships in the disputed area. I am of course assuming that there would be US or Japanese ships on the bases.
This will make the PLAN deploy more ships to the area to regain its supremacy. Less ships in the East China and Yellow sea?

But it is true that there will be problems regarding foreign military personnel inside the country (sexual related cases and other criminal offenses). Having the US and Japanese forces in the country will have its pros and cons, but I personally think it would be beneficial especially if the Philippines could increase its military capabilities by training with these two forces.


Super Moderator
Staff member
...A little over twenty years ago, the Japanese interpreted Article Nine in a way prohibiting them even from deploying vessels outside a 150 nm (from memory) sphere of defence. Anything beyond that was unconstitutional...

Edit: Unless, of course, I've made a huge obvious error.
Article 9 Note:

In the interest of preserving the sanity of members of the Mod Team (who know something about Japan), there shall be no discussion on Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution in this thread without extensive citation of reputable sources. A member choosing to discuss Article 9 must demonstrate basic knowledge of how Article 9 is interpreted (as this has been a topic discussed at length in other DefenceTalk threads).

A failure to read the thread or do basic research before the posting of personal opinions without sources will lead to a ban. Thus far, the Mod Team has banned two new members participating in this thread, for failure to follow instructions issued. Read the sources provided and think before posting on the topic of Article 9. New members are to take note of this point of order.

We strongly encourage members who are interested in Article 9 to read the Japanese Ministry of Defense explanation: 'Fundamental Concepts of National Defense' and kindly note that Article 9 bans the Japanese from threatening to use force (aka 'the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized'), as a means to resolve its disputes with other countries. It does not prevent Japan from acquiring weapons, which it can use for self defence. National self-defence is a legitimate function of the Japanese government and the sovereign right of the nation. To understand this point, we recommend reading this 1990 article: 'Article Nine of Japan's Constitution: From Renunciation of Armed Force 'FOREVER' to the Third Largest Defense Budget in the World.'

Reading the text of Article 9 alone to discern 'first principles' is not how constitutional interpretation works in Japan. This is because a body of interpretations and decisions has evolved since 1952, and has set precedents for the constitution. In Japan’s case it is the Cabinet Legislative Bureau (CLB) that has been the main source of legal interpretations of the Japanese constitution. The Japanese Supreme Court in the Sunakawa case of 1959 held that self-defense is not excluded by the Japanese constitution, but has left interpretation of the national-security related provisions of the constitution, and the constitutional legitimation of national defense related laws, up to the CLB.

What has been proscribed for Japan is 'war potential'. The Japanese place limits on the potential to wage 'war' as a means of 'settling international disputes'. This been understood by the Japanese government to be the potential to engage in war to invade other countries. However, the Japanese government interprets 'war potential' as referring to the total strength of the Japanese Self Defence Forces (JSDF).

From the past Japanese body of interpretations and decisions, we know that this does not specify that a given JSDF capability is offensive or defensive. Further, 'war potential' is also not an unchanging, level of military capabilities and therefore relative to international conditions.

For example, the ability to refuel fighters in mid-air was not developed in the 1960s. However, by 2001, it was no longer considered by the Japanese to be caught by the meaning of a proscribed 'war potential'. Therefore, Japan was able to acquire four KC-767J refuelling tankers because of the ability of Russia and China to challenge Japan’s defensive perimeter. The interpretation of proscribed 'war potential' is full of contradictions and grey-zones.

There is plenty of scope to disagree but it is important to recognise that it is the Japanese institutional understanding of 'war potential' that matters (i.e. the Japanese Supreme Court and the CLB). What others think of their understanding does not matter to the Japanese that much.
Last edited:


Super Moderator
Staff member
The Japan Times said:
13 August 2013 -- The government panel on security issues will propose that Japan help defend not only the United States but also other allied nations by exercising the right of collective self-defense, the panel’s acting chairman said Tuesday. Shinichi Kitaoka, president of the International University of Japan, said in an interview that the panel will state in a forthcoming report that Japan can exercise the right when “countries with close ties (with it)” are under attack and it is deemed Japan could also come to harm.

Collective self-defense is the concept of a nation coming to the aid of another that is under attack. Kitaoka indicated the panel will not specify which countries to defend as withholding such details would be helpful in maintaining deterrence. “There needs to be some degree of vagueness when we talk about security,” Kitaoka said....

It is important to note that while US and Japan are allies bound by a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security (signed in 1960), whereas the Philippines and Japan are not treaty allies. However, the US and Philippines are allies bound by a Mutual Defense Treaty (signed in 1951). Extracts of news sources quoted above and below are the latest ideas being presented in Japan and the Philippines, and these ideas are worth tracking, to see how they develop. We will have to await what comes of the ongoing US-Philippine access negotiations. said:
3 July 2013 -- President Aquino said for the first time... that the United States and Japan would have access to the former US bases in the Philippines to be able to forge a “credible alliance”... In an ambush interview in Camp Crame, Aquino stressed that giving the two countries access to the installations was “not permanent.”

....Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin dismissed a foreign news report that the Philippines planned to build new air and naval bases that US forces could use to counter China’s creeping presence in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). Gazmin clarified that the Philippines would instead give the United States, Japan and other allies access to its military bases....
It is interesting that the recent announcement by Philippine defence officials that the country would allow access of military forces of the United States and other allies to Philippine military bases has been met by strong opposition not only from the usual anti-American groups but also from members of the Philippine Senate.

By a 1991 vote of 12-11, the then Philippine Senate voted to not to renew the lease for US military bases from the Philippines. On 29 June 2013, it was reported that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile (who was one of the 12 Senators who voted against US bases in 1991), said that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the two countries allows only a temporary stay of US forces in the country. Enrile, who was among the 12 senators that rejected the extension of the Philippine-US military bases agreement in 1991. He said that when the Senate ratified the VFA in 1999, what we agreed upon is a rule (under which) American soldiers (will stay in) the Philippines only temporarily. Enrile also said that if the access plan would allow the US forces to stay in the Philippines for an unlimited period, then it would be an issue that the Supreme Court would have to settle.

It should be noted that the US Embassy has clarified as follows:

“The United States is not seeking to create or reopen any military bases here. Working with the Philippines, we seek to promote security and stability for our nations and in the region.”​

Echoing earlier statements of Philippine diplomatic officials, the US Embassy said an agreement on the “temporary access by US forces” would be within the framework of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement, which have been governing the parameters of Philippine-US defense ties.

[Mod Team Reminder:

If a member wishes to post an opinion, he is reminded to ensure that he has:

(i) read every post in this thread; and

(ii) made an effort to understand the topics discussed, before posting a personal opinion relating to the Philippines.
Keep in mind that while further discussions are encouraged, this not an invitation to spam the thread with nonsense. Personal opinions without regard to ground realities in the Philippines will be deleted - as we do not cater to children who cannot read sources already provided in this thread. Further, members are reminded to observe the usual Forum Rules.

This reminder is provided as a spam/quality control measure, designed to encourage members to do some basic research before posting.]
Last edited:


Super Moderator
Staff member
US to base B1 bombers/operate from Australia.

US B-1 bombers coming to Aust: official
Long-endurance, high-altitude remotely piloted Global Hawk aircraft and F-35 fighter jets will be in Japan, four combat ships in Singapore by 2020, a Virginia-class submarine in Guam, and "significant numbers of marines" in Australia, Hawaii and Guam.
"We will be placing additional Air Force assets in Australia as well, including B-1 bombers and surveillance aircraft," Shear told the committee on Wednesday.