Why not Build another Townsville?

[MangoMadness]

I have been thinking about something for a couple of years. With the high cost of housing and the increasing infrastructure overload in our major cities why doesnt the government move the Enoggera army base (and other Brisbane based units) and create another Townsville somewhere up the coast or even inland?

It would free up a substancial amount of inner suburban land that the government could parcel out at a great price.

It would immediately pull thousands of people out of Brisbane to this new area to build the new township.

It would encourage business to move to the new area and set up a new economy in that town.

We have such high level of population in a handful of locations around the country, why not artificially engineer another large population centre?

Brisbanes population is approx 2 mil, townsville is approx 185k

I am not saying that a new population centre is going to hit 185k immediately but why not use the military to sew the seeds of more population centres?


EDIT - or rather than starting a new population centre, boost an existing one like Gladstone maybe?

 

[BV]

I have been thinking about something for a couple of years. With the high cost of housing and the increasing infrastructure overload in our major cities why doesnt the government move the Enoggera army base (and other Brisbane based units) and create another Townsville somewhere up the coast or even inland?

MM
I think this is a great idea.
There is no reason for having army bases in the cities and IMO they should move them all out to smaller regionals.

 

[BuildingBlocks]

MM
I think this is a great idea.
There is no reason for having army bases in the cities and IMO they should move them all out to smaller regionals.

I agree. As long as they stay there long enough for the towns to bring in other streams of revenue so that they can stand on their own legs if the army left.

 

[twobobsworth]

Government probably doesn't want to let go of the land. Think about the naval base in sydney harbour. Does it have any strategic value?

 

[BV]

Government probably doesn't want to let go of the land. Think about the naval base in sydney harbour. Does it have any strategic value?

Garden Island?
I doubt it. Its a maintenance facility.
The Holsworthy base should go as well.
They should move it further inland.

 

[womble66]

They will eventually as they have in both Sydney and Melbourne.

In Sydney the Navy got out of Zetland, Randwick, Rydalmere, Nirimba and Newington. The Army is reducing their footprint at Moorebank. The RAAF got out of Regents Park. All of the land I suspect, if not already, will eventually become housing.

In Melbourne the RAAF has vacated Laverton which is now being developed for housing.

The only problem Defence has when they relocated to regional areas is attracting the required skilled staff in the support services (DMO) and also support from corporate/commercial area.

It will only be a matter of time.

 

[INVSTOR]

I think you're a bit late with your suggestion! My husband is currently working there as they are redeveloping the site. I think he said it was 2 years worth of work. http://www.google.com.au/#sclient=p...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=53fc7c430c8dc342

 

[Sunfish]

Garden Island?
I doubt it. Its a maintenance facility.
The Holsworthy base should go as well.
They should move it further inland.

Much of this is already happening. Townsville is becoming a BIG Army base (don't quote me but I think it is Holsworthy that's moving in) and some of Sydney's Navy is going to Cairns. The RAAF has permanent deployments in Darwin, Tindal and Sherger.

Best do some research on what's happening already.

If the Navy gave back Garden Is the bun-fight over what would happen to the land would last 20 years.

 

[MangoMadness]

We have seen a general movement of units to the top end in the last 20 years, one of the most notable was 1st armoured move to darwin.

But as Invstor's link shows they are renovating enoggera which might have been a good opportunity to move it and bulldoze rather than renovate.

The Brisbane units do most (if not all) of their training at shoalwater bay, maybe they should move there or alot closer

Ahh well, just a thought

 

[Aaron Sice]

Much of this is already happening. Townsville is becoming a BIG Army base (don't quote me but I think it is Holsworthy that's moving in) and some of Sydney's Navy is going to Cairns. The RAAF has permanent deployments in Darwin, Tindal and Sherger.

Best do some research on what's happening already.

If the Navy gave back Garden Is the bun-fight over what would happen to the land would last 20 years.

funny they build up the defense forces on the coast to..... protect the barrier reef?

have they not thought to maybe start protecting the resources we're mining by setting up a base in Derby / Exmouth / Port Hedland / Onslow?

probably not, by the looks of this.

i bring you the camel - a horse, designed by a committee.

 

[Murphy69]

This is pretty common practice.

Governent does well selling off former defence assets that are developable land in major cities. (Middle Head in Sydney etc) and relocating bases to remote locations, often as a way on increasing development in those remote locations.

Darwin is a good example, where a brigade was moved up there. No real defence benefit in having a mechanised brigade located in a high rainfall area. It costs the tax payers more money when they exercise, because much of the heavy armor has to be moved outside the high rain fall area.

It also costs tax payers a lot because, oddly enough, most soldiers want to live in more habitable places. Therefore, it affects retention, and the government has to pay the soldiers more in allowances etc.

A fully qualified diesel fitter who has electrical and refridgeration quals, and who is used to working independantly in austere conditions doesn't last long when he realises that if he is going to live in Darwin he can earn a lot more working for a mining company.

Its just one of those decisions that the country makes. Like so many of the procurement programmes that defence gets blamed stuffing up. Close inspection of many will reveal deep political interferrence to select an option that buys/builds/maintains/moves things to marginal electorates. Thats fine, if its important to build the infastructure in that location go ahead, but don't blame defence when the result is less than optimal.

Murphy

 

[_Kaos_]

MM is correct, 1st Armoured Regt left Puckapunyal for Darwin in the 90s. The 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR) recently relocated from Darwin to SA.

The 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) is moving from Holsworthy, NSW, to Townsville by the end of 2012 that's about 1500 troops and their families relocating.

The ADFs intent is to create two super bases being RAAF Edinburgh in SA to protect the southern coast and RAAF Amberly in Qld for the North East. NT will still retain a large proportion of defence assets to protect the North Coast.

There was some talk awhile back of the US building their own super base in NT or Qld, which would have been home to more troops than our entire defence force combined, but not sure what happened to this idea.

The ADFs role is not to build up regional areas and make room for property investors or developers, it's role is to protect the nation. I am pretty sure the Generals and other Service chiefs know a bit more about the strategic value of ADF asset locations than property investors do.

 

[Murphy69]

The ADFs role is not to build up regional areas and make room for property investors or developers, it's role is to protect the nation. I am pretty sure the Generals and other Service chiefs know a bit more about the strategic value of ADF asset locations than property investors do.

Whilst I agree with you about the ADF's role, the fact is, politicians don't agree, and whilst the Service Chiefs will have a view, the politicians will often win.

Additionally, Basing locations are not only, or even significanlty about strategic issues. Putting a Mech Brigade at the end of a long supply line close to a possible enemy is not strategically sound.

There is no significant strategic reason to move part of 1 Bde down to Adelaide, its 85% about giving soldiers retention and posting options. Not everyone wants to live north of the tropic of Capricorn.

Which is one of the flaws when looking at basing troops at Shoalwater bay.

Murphy

 

[MangoMadness]

Good points about the ADF being influenced politically. I recall being told that the main reason the ADF bought Mack Trucks in the 80's/90's was because Mack Australia was going to go bankrupt if they didnt get the contract.

Could have been BS, i dunno, that just what the talk was going around at the time

Murphy - the skill loss to the ADF from the mines or other jobs has always been there (at least in the last 20 years) with stagnant promotion opportunities as the army rank heiracy often cemented themselves into positions and much better pay/conditions elsewhere. Having more remote posting options would certainly add to that skill loss thats for sure, Brisbane was always seen as a 'lucky posting'.

 

[--(< PJ >)--]

I have been thinking about something for a couple of years. With the high cost of housing and the increasing infrastructure overload in our major cities why doesnt the government move the Enoggera army base (and other Brisbane based units) and create another Townsville somewhere up the coast or even inland?

It would free up a substancial amount of inner suburban land that the government could parcel out at a great price.

It would immediately pull thousands of people out of Brisbane to this new area to build the new township.

It would encourage business to move to the new area and set up a new economy in that town.

We have such high level of population in a handful of locations around the country, why not artificially engineer another large population centre?

Brisbanes population is approx 2 mil, townsville is approx 185k

I am not saying that a new population centre is going to hit 185k immediately but why not use the military to sew the seeds of more population centres?


EDIT - or rather than starting a new population centre, boost an existing one like Gladstone maybe?

Gladstone is full, but Rockhampton has a $5.2 billion economy, ample land, and an under-utilised established army base beside the airport and Singaporean Army logistics facility.

Who knows?

 

[_Kaos_]

Whilst I agree with you about the ADF's role, the fact is, politicians don't agree, and whilst the Service Chiefs will have a view, the politicians will often win.

Based on advice from the CDF and Service chiefs. There are other retention initiatives such as retention bonuses, they are not going to move bases purely based on retention, why do you think they are spending big dollars on Edinburgh, Darwin, Amberley and Townsville?

Additionally, Basing locations are not only, or even significanlty about strategic issues.

Um, yes it is, it's mostly about that both on a training and operational level.

Putting a Mech Brigade at the end of a long supply line close to a possible enemy is not strategically sound.

Can you explain why it is not and where you would place these assets? The northern coast was identified as the most likely enemy approach (*cough* Indonesia *cough*) as it would be logistically too hard to go around the entire country and attack the south (SASR has WA covered) and doing so undetected.

There is no significant strategic reason to move part of 1 Bde down to Adelaide, its 85% about giving soldiers retention and posting options. Not everyone wants to live north of the tropic of Capricorn.

Some of the intent was to give soldiers a break from the tropics but not 85%, more like 20%. It was mostly to allow good access to the training areas (Cultana Training, SA) and other areas which link central and Northern Australia which in turn benefits Army's CAPABILITY. It's called the hardened and networked Army. Should read up about it, quite a good read.

Murphy

Not sure where you are getting your info Murph, could you name your source?

 

[Sunfish]

funny they build up the defense forces on the coast to..... protect the barrier reef?

While in 10 sqn (flying Neptunes) in the early 70's rumours were rife that it was going to move to Adelaide to share a base with 11 sqn once we got Orions. Our Engineering Off addressed us one day and said that the move was 12 months closer than it was a year before. I loved the logic.

He also said that because we were to progress from lumbering, low flying aircraft that took all day to fly out of sight to a much faster pressurised one which could transit quickly (not at jet speeds of course) they SHOULD go to Alice Springs. It was said in jest of course but I bring it up to show how things can change. How is it logical to station a maritime surveillance squadron in the Dead Heart? The "logic" stands but the practicality does not.

But addressing Aaron's observation about protecting "The Great Barrier Reef". They are not. Tactically our deserts are as important to us as "General Frost" was to Russia when repelling their invaders. Our fighters and bombers are based in Newcastle and Brisbane, well back from "the front" ie the north west. Aircraft are faster over the ground than infantry.

 

[Murphy69]

Originally Posted by Murphy69

There are other retention initiatives such as retention bonuses, they are not going to move bases purely based on retention, why do you think they are spending big dollars on Edinburgh, Darwin, Amberley and Townsville?


Agreed, they won't build a base solely for retention, but its a big issue. Edinburgh was built partly because of the difficulty of the NT's training areas and partly for posting preferences. Mech qualified soldiers have very few places they can go. For families with special needs etc Darwin lacks a lot of facilities.

Additionally, Basing locations are not only, or even significanlty about strategic issues.

Um, yes it is, it's mostly about that both on a training and operational level.[/]

Maybe for Airforce and Naval bases (aka Scherger, Curtin, etc), but not for Army bases. In fact you want the bulk of your bases away from potential enemies.

Putting a Mech Brigade at the end of a long supply line close to a possible enemy is not strategically sound.

Can you explain why it is not and where you would place these assets? The northern coast was identified as the most likely enemy approach (*cough* Indonesia *cough*) as it would be logistically too hard to go around the entire country and attack the south (SASR has WA covered) and doing so undetected.

SASR doesn't have WA covered. Not their job.

One of Australias strenghts is the 'dead space' up north. Any enemy invading will have to cross this dead space and extend supply lines, in a hostile and resource intensive environment. However we have placed our most resource intensive brigade at the far end of the supply line, close to the *cough* threat, in an environment that for much of the year is not suitable for armor. If you were to put a brigade there it should have been a light infantry bde with aviation support.

Now, you can make an argument that the threat isn't proper invasion, but someone capturing (or just damaging) our mineral resource in the north, and thats probably more likely. But again, I'd argue that a Mech Bde in Darwin isn't the answer to that either. But all of the above is just my personal assesement.

It was mostly to allow good access to the training areas (Cultana Training, SA) and other areas which link central and Northern Australia which in turn benefits Army's CAPABILITY.

Yep, I agree, and 85% was probably overstating the retention bit on my behalf.

It's called the hardened and networked Army. Should read up about it, quite a good read.


Yep, I've glanced at it once or twice. Its sort of superceded now, google Plan Beersheba (which is also superceded, but will give google hits).

Not sure where you are getting your info Murph, could you name your source?

Just my opinions.

 

[Sunfish]

Rereading this thread it is clear that there are a lot of "arm chair generals" here.

Defense is a multi billion dollar business and what seems to have been missed is that we are no longer fighting WWII. We no longer fly primitive aircraft (the Spitfire WAS primitive) and drive 3 ton trucks, flat out @ 100 k's.

An F18 would need thousands of hours of maintenance for every hour in the air (I don't know the actual figures). The facilities needed were, in my day, called "time tunnels" ie us "queer trades" would vanish into them @ 7:30 and not reappear till 4:30. These workshops COULD NOT be replicated in a shipping container. What is wrong with keeping the maintenance Squadrons thousands of miles from "the front" and flying the serviceable "black boxes" to the forward bases? This is what we do by maintaining the operational squadrons at Richmond, Amberley and Williamtown.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with that.

I am speaking of the RAAF because that is the defense arm I sort of understand. If you understand it better, feel free to contribute.

 

[womble66]

The facilities needed were, in my day, called "time tunnels" ie us "queer trades" would vanish into them @ 7:30 and not reappear till 4:30.

Busy playing uckers.............