U.S. Navy deployments, readiness eroded by budget cuts: Navy chief

WASHINGTON Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:58pm EDT

U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert speaks during the International Maritime Security Conference in Singapore May 15, 2013. REUTERS/Edgar Su

U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert speaks during the International Maritime Security Conference in Singapore May 15, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Edgar Su

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Budget cuts have prompted the U.S. Navy to trim the number of warships deployed overseas and eroded the readiness of forces at home, undercutting its ability to respond rapidly to future crises around the globe, the top Navy officer said on Friday.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said the Navy had an aircraft carrier strike group and an amphibious assault ship with U.S. Marines in the Arabian Sea. A similar group of ships is in the Western Pacific, he said.

In the event of a crisis, however, the Navy has only one fully prepared carrier strike group and one amphibious assault group in reserve that it could rush to the scene. By comparison, the Navy a year ago had three of each that could have been used.

"The rest of the fleet is not ready to deploy with all the capabilities that are needed that we would normally have in our fleet response plan," Greenert told a Pentagon briefing.

The Navy has had to cut training and maintenance because of spending reductions to the point where many other ships and personnel are not fully certified for all the tasks they might ordinarily have to handle, he said.

The Navy chief voiced his concerns about readiness during a news conference to discuss the state of the Navy several months after the Pentagon was ordered to cut $37 billion in spending when it was nearly halfway through the fiscal year.

The across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, took effect in March after Congress and the White House failed to find another way to reduce government deficits.

"Since sequestration sort of set in ... we're down about 10 ships from ... several months ago, forward deployed," Greenert told reporters. "So there is an impact."

Greenert said the Navy was working with the Pentagon and Congress to try to shift some of its funding between accounts so it could be used to offset training shortfalls. A similar move helped the Air Force resume flying some of its grounded planes.

He said the Navy still had 95 combat ships deployed abroad to support the Afghan war, conduct routine operations and respond to other crises. The total fleet is 286 ships.

The number of warships in the Pacific and Mediterranean has risen slightly because of the U.S. strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific and instability in the Middle East. The number of U.S. combat vessels has fallen slightly around Africa and the Indian Ocean. The Navy no longer has any combat ships in Latin America.

He said the military had other vessels and air operations in Latin America and would occasionally send a combat ship there.

"But I'm not trying to tell you there isn't reduced presence," Greenert added. "There is reduced presence there."

SCRAMBLING TO CUT SPENDING

The Defense Department has been ordered to slash its spending plans after a decade of war that saw military budgets rise dramatically, contributing to huge federal deficits.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 called for the Pentagon to cut projected defense spending by $487 billion over a decade. It also approved an additional $500 billion in across-the-board spending cuts unless Congress and the White House could agree on an alternative package of cuts and revenues to reduce deficits.

No deal was reached, forcing the Pentagon to scramble to reduce spending. It cut training, grounded air squadrons and canceled ship deployments.

Some 680,000 civilian defense employees were hit with 11 days of unpaid leave through September 30, the end of the fiscal year, an effective 20 percent pay cut for 11 weeks.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel toured bases across the Southeast this week, delivering the sobering news that the department next year will likely face a further $52 billion in sequestration cuts, which were not factored into the Pentagon's proposed $526.6 billion budget request for 2014.

(Reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Peter Cooney)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (29)
ARJTurgot2 wrote:
Uh, the U.S. is not at war in Latin America, or Africa, or the Pacific. The pride of the Chinese navy is a scrap Ukrainian carrier that has never actually landed an aircraft. The Ukrainians got it after the Soviet navy scrapped its high seas fleet and went out of the navy business. I think the next two significant fleets are those of the U.K. and France, and they are reducing their defense costs as well. Exactly who are we going to conduct a sea war against? For decades they navy has been told their super carriers were obsolete and over expensive, but they keep building new ones.

Jul 19, 2013 7:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
HortonPDX wrote:
We need to stop preparing for war and instead prepare for peace. Mothball most of the 7th fleet. Pull the 6th back into the east coast ports. Quit thinking like we are the police of the world. Stop electing people who think war is the answer to everything. Put the money saved into our infrastructure and education. Real national strength and security come from a stable and prosperous homeland.

Jul 19, 2013 9:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:
@ARJTurgot2, HortonPDX…

What are you smokin’?

Guess you folks didn’t get the memo that Putin is well along resurrecting the Russian navy and can be counted on to be an increasing military “spoiler”. Iran only plays nice around the Strait of Hormuz so long as American naval power is close by, otherwise they bide their time to put a “stick in our spokes” by disrupting the flow of ME oil.

China is quite capable of using their “scrap carrier” to gain “fleet air experience” sufficient to correct significant design and operational deficiencies in “scratch-built” Chinese carriers and aircraft. China has ambitions that scare it’s neighbors and will continue to rattle sabers with the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and other nations to control rich undersea natural deposits.

The United States is the only “policeman” on the “world beat” and serves as a deterrent to war. The sole way to do that is to forever be prepared to fight the war no one else can win.

We can’t do that with bridges and scholarships funded by disbanding our military’s technological advantages or America’s ability to design, build and maintain the “latest and greatest”. It was not by chance that America quickly and decisively rolled over, around and through the best of Soviet technology in Saddam’s Iraq.

But that was then and this is now. Believe me when I say if Putin is ever gets the Russian capability even close to our military capabilities there will be hell to pay, and at that time no one will be worrying about prosperity, infrastructure or education in a teeth, hair and eyes conflict we dare not loose.

Jul 20, 2013 3:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.