If this is true, it's a sad state of affairs in the fleet.  Navy/Marine guy's, what's the fix here; money, people, new leadership, or all of the above?

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/03/fewer-13-navys-amphibious-ships-are-ready-deploy/383874/

The readiness of the Navy’s amphibious fleet is low—really low, the Marine commandant said.

“I woke up this morning, checked what's the readiness rate. It's 32 [percent]. We can't live with that. We can't live with a 32 percent readiness rate.

The current 32-percent mark is just a “snapshot”—but if it doesn’t come up, 2023 will set a new record low.

Larson ascribed the low readiness to “ship maintenance.” The ships are maintained and operated by the Navy.

WTF?  Over the past 13 months, the Marines have twice been unable to deploy to urgent missions. In February 2022, maintenance problems delayed an emergency response to the Ukraine invasion. And last month, the Corps lacked the ships it needed to send Marines to help earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria.

“It's not just the amphibious ships and you've heard the [chief of naval operations] talk about readiness,” Berger said. “We've got to improve that. Because if we can't have the readiness, we won't be ready to respond. And you heard about Turkey a couple of minutes ago...And that might be a humanitarian crisis like an earthquake, or a typhoon, or a conflict. Either way, the maintenance, the readiness, it’s a direct impact, because the sailors and Marines have to have that vessel to go.”

The operational availability of ships is “the biggest problem” for the Navy when it comes to readiness challenges for its fleet, Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said Thursday during Defense One’s State of the Navy event.

“You hear the submarine force talking about how you've got a large percentage of the submarine fleet on any given day that's in the shipyard, unable to get out on time,” Clark said. “You've got surface combatants that can't get into the shipyard on time or out on time, because of the lack of availability of dry docks. And then on top of that, you've got ships that are taking too long in maintenance periods because new ships are becoming increasingly complicated, and they're also finding that they're in worse condition.

Berger said the near-term answer is not to retire the dock landing ships, all of which are at least three decades old.

Priorities

SAPR readiness at 100%

Many of those ships have a lot of years on them and the saltwater is a bitch.  Amphibious capability hasn't seemed to be the biggest priority for the Navy in recent years.

Humanitarian missions, that's about all the Marines will be good for soon. Took away all the tanks, most arty, some aircraft ,snipers, ....crayons are about all that's left.

I had a discussion along similar lines with a DOD engineer regarding vehicles who previously spent time in the private sector doing the same.  

Compared to commercial stuff, DOD vehicles are a bad joke.  If the they made a car, it wouldn't sell well because it would be poorly engineered, stupid expensive, maintenance intensive, and prone to preventable breakdowns.   Widespread hubris prevents the problem from being addressed.  "we have the best minds solving these problems!" Not true, but even if it was, those minds are using a process that is so broken and de-incentivized that it will always fall short.  There are plenty of million mile trucks and 50,000 hour plus dozers.  It would be possible to make a tank that didn't break down every 7 hours, but it seems as though our current processes wouldn't allow for it.  

There is no incentive to refine products and make them more reliable, cheaper to produce or better.  stinger is a great example.  it was first designed in the 1960s and is still being produced at substantial cost with goofy and obsolete tech.  

I retired off an amphib, they're nearly all old and janky (not newer LPD). Coming from destroyers was a huge culture shift for me. If I were still in I'd avoid the heck out of any hull number that started with "L".

Probably won’t have the crews either https://news.usni.org/2023/03/01/navy-reserve-struggling-to-recruit-new-sailors-playing-up-benefits

Simple:  DoD is underfunded, and Congress (and this administration) sucks.

That still leaves us with more amphibious capability than any other country.

And if all we needed them for was 'helping' Ukraine and Syria, we probably don't need them at all

Wrong.  

The Navy has been its own worst enemy as far as going to Congress to build the fleet.

Congressional Research Service says the Navy's at around a 1:3 ratio now, with aging ships (1 in port or overhaul while the others are at sea, training, preparing, or recovering).  CRS says an ideal ratio is closer to 1:5 -- but the Navy cannot man them.

The reserve mothball fleet is in even worse condition.

The Army has been slashing its ship fleet even faster than the Navy.  The problem for Transportation Command is everything needed to fight a war on the other side of the planet (food, fuel, bullets, troops, and vehicles) needs to go by ship.

The old saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war" is quaint -- but the United States has NEVER been ready for a major war.

Strategy is spelled with dollar signs.

They're not underfunded.   They're horribly managed.  Maintenance isn't sexy and puts very little money back in the congressional districts (with a few exceptions).  DoD has always like shiny new things.  They don't do well with old, worn out things.

Funding isn't the problem. Procedures and leadership are the real problem

OP, why you focus on this? The military has made great strides in diversity, making people feel safe during their service, and protecting the climate.



Your logic is flawed. Those other Countries don’t need to project power as far as the US is required to do. Look at a map.

China only has to push out a few hundred, maybe a thousand miles, the US has to put equipment, manpower, and supplies thousands of miles. The same goes for most of our regional allies.

Sounds almost as bad as the Soviet Navy at the time of their collapse.

I am sure China already knew and welcomed this news.

McCarthy already confronting Biden over debt ceiling, I can see DOD budget getting axed in a deal to come to a budget agreement

It's not a new thing nor wholly any one administrations doing. Readiness was 45% last year. It's more that historically the MIC sees the DOD as the goose that lays golden eggs and the MIC employs A LOT of voters. For years I have overheard Gov. engineers battling with vendors daily on cost creep and inflated pricing. Greedy fuckers.

Anyway..........

“You've got surface combatants that can't get into the shipyard on time or out on time, because of the lack of availability of dry docks. And then on top of that, you've got ships that are taking too long in maintenance periods because new ships are becoming increasingly complicated, and they're also finding that they're in worse condition."

There's a lot of variables tied to readiness.

Why the fuck does The Ukraine need Amphibious Ships?

Obviously we don’t have enough females / gays / trannies / minorities / SJWs , putting a black female lgbtq tranny in charge of each step of the process / every department can perform miracles !

that's okay, at least all the DIE annual training is 100 percent.

EAT ME FOOL

Going Woke and green at the same time is a bitch.

That whole article sounds like a not-so-subtle announcement to China that, yes, this is a good time to invade Taiwan.  Because military readiness is obviously low and won't be changing; that's part of Biden's agenda, proven by his military budget cuts (in real dollars).

Combat power in the USMC is shrinking because there’s no growth planned for so no, it’s not properly funded as Peter is robbed to pay Paul.  I don’t think the DoD budget even keeps up with inflation.  

Maintenance for ships and other big end-user items does in fact produce jobs, so not sure why you think those contracts would be ignored by Congress.

No doubt.

Amphibs are “Blue in Support of Green” BISOG and by Title X along with medical, clerical and naval fire support are required support the USN provides to the USMC.

Although Ampibs make up the majority of tonnage of US combatants, they receive approx 15 percent of USN ship dollars, the reason for this is there are 4 competing tribes within the Navy: the Expeditionary (OPNAV N95), the Surface (OPNAV N96), the Sub Surface (OPNAV N97), and the Aviation (OPNAV N98).  The Expeditionary Warfare tribe is the one Amphibs, along with mine warfare, SEALs, EOD and Construction Battalions.

N95 is headed by a Marine General General Officer, which is the first glitch in the system.   The billet calls for a 2 star, the Marines often only send a 1 star if they don’t just gap the billet because not have a sufficient number of officers on hand.   So a 1 star often loses in a fight with 2 star, even forgetting the inter service issues.  

The second major glitch is by the time a head of one of those warfare divisions (tribes) get to that position, for the Navy its their 3rd  or 4th tour doing a resourcing/requirements related job, while for the Marine it may be his first time in the Pentagon, much ever having been a resource sponsor.  The Marines tend to pick people who have commanded line units for GO, while Navy awards those who did well in staff positions with line commands prior to returning them to a staff job.  For this reason the Navy is just so much better at bureaucratic maneuver warfare than their Marine counter parts.  

The last major glitch is a difference in service philosophy, when the Commandant of the Marine Corps says something the discussion is closed, when the Chief of Naval Operations says something the discussion begins.   So even when the two 4-Star Service Chiefs agree, only one of the services has agreed.  The other services has agreed to consider it.  

Had to Google that.

This years PB requested a 3% increase which does not keep up with inflation and when you throw in UKR support and back fill chances, are there are going to be massive cuts in milpers, O&M, sustainment, modernization etc.

Sir, why are you raising your voice again?

This, as they say, "You brought that sh!t on yourself."

More diversity is the answer

The physical making of ships and their physical repair is relatively cheap, it’s the software, comm, combat systems and weapons that make ships expensive.  

Take for example the PULLER class ESBs, they have the largest displacement of any convention warship in the Navy, and they are also the cheapest to build because they have an off they lack sophisticated weapon systems and have a very basic comm and combat/ships management systems.

Surface Navy (both blue and brown) seem like maintenance is always an issue and we can't deploy -- but look at the example they use, going on relief runs to Turkey and Syria. Well meaning but shouldn't be something the Navy is doing if we're short ships and ops tempo is killing our gear.

Why do you think the LHA 6 and 7 don’t have well decks?  During the time they were initial developed, OPNAV N85 (now N95) was gapped its Marine general and the was Navy 1 star deputy was running the show.  That deputy positions is now a SES and not a FO, so it only get worse as 1/2 Stars seem to love to crush SESs.

FPNI all you have to do to see the problem is look at the top. Leadership is toxic and completely uninterested in actual military functions. The leadership is also in bed with China and does not have American interest in mind.

There are cures for these ailments.  But for the people who run the DoD, the cure is worse than the disease.

So, the USN is squeezing every drop of blood from procurement dollars at the expense of maintenance / readiness then?

Sort of makes sense (as an explanation) if that’s the case, but it should never have come to this point obviously.

Look at the LCS ships.  Freedom class are still being built even though they are decomming them.
The Independence class was supposed to be multi-role with plug-in mission modules.  They have scrapped that idea now and each ship is single mission.

The Navy is a mess and the contractors continue to make bank.

They are different colors of money.  Ship construction is SCN.  It is programmed by Congress and the appropriation is very specific on what it is for.  In effect the money is fenced off so big Navy cannot really mess with it all that much.  Ships sustainment and upkeep is OMN.  Congress does program for specific OMN items, but the money is not fenced and the Navy can to an extent control its usage.  

The aviators have been able to get their ship major upkeep ( also known as availabilities, aka yard periods) into SCN as “complex reactor, overhauls” and the money is fenced from other programs.  N95 tried to do the same with big deck sustainment  but big Navy fought it and ACOH proposal was killed.

From the outsider perspective, it would appear that fixing the larger issues in the Pentagon would take A: massive turnover in elected leadership in DC, followed by B: massive bloodletting of basically almost everyone O7 and up.

Short of a world war, its not likely to happen. Which is precisely why a world war becomes more likely to happen.

There were numerous things that went wrong with LCSs

1) LCS having 2 ship classes was workfare, one of the classes should never have been built.  If only one class was built they could have reduced cost as the prime would have a contract for a larger number of ships.  Also the Navy would only need 1 training pipeline, 1 set of spares, etc.  
2) They also attempted to split the cost of building ships from the cost of capabilities by the mission module concept, the problem is mission modules are not built via SCN, they are OMN and resources sponsors have a say in their building and upkeep.  
3) The Navy would not relent on the top speed of the class of ships, that causes the cost of the ships to go up almost by 1/3.  If they would have allowed a max speed of a like 2-3 knots per hours less, the cost would have been significantly less
4) The minimum manning model works if you have CIVMARs assigned to the ships, it does not work well with USN crews.  Using a blue-green concept also hurt the manpower cost for the ship.

Procedures and leadership might be contributing, but... Well, fuck me, now I feel old... We're coming up on 20 years since I got out, now that I think of it. Shit, I can't imagine shit's changed that much, but back in '06 when I EAS'd out of COMSECONDFLT, the biggest bitch in the Amphib fleet *was* funding for maintenance. Didn't matter which gator freighter C2F had me on.

I mean, the Mount Whitney was a garbage scow that'd sink if she ever sailed through a slick of paint thinner, but she was put to sea in the 60s, so that was a bit expected. The Wasp and the Bataan certainly bitched about maintenance budgets, but the Iwo Jima was fresh out of commissioning back then and it wasn't any different there either.

When we sent the Whitney to Europe, they replaced the sat com antennas before she went, which was good because the fuckers would intermittently loose signal if you were at sea and turned hard to port while going above a certain speed. They moved us on to the Iwo when the Whitney left, and when the Iwo came out of the yards the next time, it suddenly started dropping signal at sea.  Walked down to the ship's ET shop thinking this sure fucking felt familiar... and yeah, they installed the Whitney's old gear to save money. FML.

There's been a backup of Wokesmanship classes for the crews. As soon as we find more politically correct instructors they'll clear the backlog.

I'm shocked.

Good news for Chicom

I've seen a lot of articles of late about all the russian equipment that failed on the battlefield due to rotting tires, non-existent maintenance, old and outdated gear in general. Seems like that dragon has settled into our services as well. Gee, kinda makes ya wonder just exactly ALL THE MONEY THE SERVICES GET IS GOING..............

Don't get me wrong , I totally support the military mission as I understand it to be. But just as with everything else..........


WHERE IS THE GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL THIS BULLSHIT????

1989-1993 disagrees with you.

All the world's forces are falling apart in some way or were never much to begin with.
The one great soviet union is no more. The Russian GDP is about equivalent to Italy's.
China can't field a blue water navy, much less get their aircraft carrier under way.
Great Britain has to rotate ships in and out of service because they can't afford to run them all at the same time.
The Cold War saw spending on an unprecedented scale. That is all over now.