Posted on 12/04/2017 4:08:12 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Service failed to meet over 90 percent of requests for support training in 2016
The U.S. Navy doesn't have enough amphibious warships to effectively support the Marine Corps in training for combat operations, according to senior Pentagon officials.
Marine Lt. Gen. Brian Beaudreault, deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, said Friday the current fleet of 32 amphibious assault ships falls short of the number needed to meet operational requirements. He said this negatively impacts the ability of joint naval forces to train, particularly in large-scale formations, which harms readiness.
Beaudreault, testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, said the training shortcomings have left at risk the "core competency" of the Marine Corps and Navy to move a combat force from ship-to-shore to rapidly penetrate enemy battle space.
"We can do some training…through virtual systems, but at some point you have to put the ships to sea and go through a mission rehearsal," he testified. "The ability to generate the number of ships required to train at a Marine expeditionary brigade level just simply isn't there, so we take it in bite-size chunks."
The Navy has said it needs as many as 38 amphibious ships to meet rising operational demands, but the service likely won't be able to reach that number until 2030 due to budget constraints.
A report released Friday by the Government Accountability Office identified the lack of available amphibious ships on which to train sailors as the most prevalent factor impeding training completion.
In 2016, for example, data collected from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which operates in the Pacific, revealed the Navy was unable to fulfill more than 90 percent of requests for support training due to a lack of ships.
"These deficits can create a potential gap between the Marine Corps' ‘ready bench' of units and, if called on, these units could be left scrambling to obtain last-minute training, risking their ability to be fully ready once deployed and underway," testified Cary Russell, director of the defense capabilities and management team at GAO.
Both Beaudreault and Navy Vice Adm. Andrew Lewis, deputy chief of naval operations for operations, plans, and strategy, who also testified Friday, agreed with the study's findings. They both stressed the need for stable, predictable, and adequate funding over several years to confront readiness challenges.
"The most important actions that Congress can take now is to immediately repeal the caps on defense spending under the Budget Control Act and provide a defense appropriation that provides a sufficient, consistent, predictable funding," Beaudreault testified.
Good work, Obama.
I’d like to think our enemies are in even worse shape.
Russia has built naval bases in Syria.
Exactly.
In truth, I’m not confident Bush handed off anything to be proud of either.
Every president after Reagan, except Trump, has cut out military.
While we have both houses of Congress, perhaps they could leave a good legacy by disallowing the military to ever be decimated again. Defense is one of the enumerated duties of the federal government.
“Good work, Obama.”
We don’t have enough of anything...by design. The rest of the world is well aware of our order of battle. If the public knew how vulnerable we are .....
US Navy: lack of transport ships; lack of fighting ships; lack of training;
US Army: underfunded; old, worn out, obsolescent tracked vehicles; lower physical standards;
US Air Force: fighters without missiles; fighters that do not work; too few that do work; approaching war, major disaster looms.
Thanks ODUMBO, Hopefully Trump will have time enough to get our military folks the tools they need to do the job. For the life of me I cannot understand what the odumbo administration was thinking other than to destroy America. As a veteran and patriot, I loath every single one of them.
Same here. But, as far as I know, Sequestration is still in effect continuing to doom the military to much less than the best. Along with the Politically Correct Perfumed Princes running the Pentagon, I fail to see any real practical hope baring a miracle ...
I’m no military expert. When was the last time we landed on a beach or in a port at brigade strength? What is the future likelihood that we would need an amphibious landing at brigade force? I thought we depended more on the small, fast delivery speed of the Air Force, rather than the slow, massive speed of the Navy.
Those pushing for military drawdowns failed to learn the lessons of history. In the early 1900’s the Ottoman Empire was in the process of collapsing, the result was WWI, and arguably WWII. Whether or not you believe a strong Russia should be the policeman in eastern Europe, the Mideast, and East Asia, history and geography dictate otherwise. A strong U.S. military becomes essential to keep the inevitable Russian involvement in these areas within reason.
Money is a tool. Money alone doesn’t determine the outcome. Management decisions related to the efficient spending of the money determine the result.
The US spends twice the combined budgets of Russia and China. Do our military bureaucrats and politicians spend that money efficiently and effectively. If not, throwing more money at the problem will not result in a better outcome.
It is long past time to get serious about cutting the bloat throughout the military industrial complex. A Navy that has as many admirals as it has ships is unaffordable. A Navy that continues to spend $12.8 billion for aircraft carriers vulnerable in a single strike to all types of modern weapons systems, obviously will not spend on the less glamorous amphibious ships needed to land Marines on the beaches.
It is the responsibility of leadership to make choices. Unfortunately throughout the federal bureaucracy (all departments), the unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians have made poor choices for decades, wasting trillions of dollars and continuing to shovel more dollars at failed projects and programs.
In the private sector bloated organizations die at the hands of their competitors. Nations with bloated government bureaucracies ultimately implode economically or are conquered by lean, mean, and hungry enemies.
Yeah but it has enough money to keep more admirals living in style than ships. Don’t buy this underfunding crap.
Especially if they keep wrecking the ships they do have.
With today’s anti-ship missile technology large troop ships are at high risk. Better a large number of smaller troop transport craft so a single hit does not kill an entire unit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.