The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) rated the Pentagon as declining in military readiness in three of four categories. This assessment is a grim forecast – and it isn’t the first. All the while, enormous strategic adversaries challenge the US globally. Last month, Liberty Nation reported on a Heritage Foundation report with similar findings. The GAO Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, Diana Maurer’s testimony before Congress on May 2 qualified the appalling trend in US military readiness. “Even with all of these challenges you just heard, the US military is the best in the world,” Maurer said. What she should have said but did not, however, is that if the current trend continues, being the best will be short-lived.
US Military Readiness Declining
While the US is depleting its inventory of weaponry supporting Ukraine, China is building ships, aircraft, and nuclear-capable missiles – as is North Korea. The capability the US has is not being sustained to keep up with our adversaries. In recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Senate Armed Services Committee, Maurer explained the challenges:
“Mission capability, can units execute their missions, has declined since 2017. While the Army and Marine Corps improved in the ground domain, we found declines in the sea, air and space domains. For example, only two of 49 aviation systems met their annual mission capable goals. The vast majority missed by over ten percent. The F-35 program in particular suffers from a variety of sustainment woes. Fleetwide mission capable rates have declined every year since 2020 and the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps face substantial gaps between what it costs to fly the aircraft and what they can afford.”
The joint service, multi-purpose F-35, produced in three variations to meet the capability requirements of the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, has had a troubled history of cost increases and questions about sustainability. The fighter program is emblematic of the military readiness in general. “The jet has long been defined by malfunctions and soaring cost overruns,” Tom Rogan wrote recently for Washington Examiner. Additionally, the F-35 program office is considering a logistics contract model allowing the contractor, Lockheed Martin, “to reduce its F-35 fighter jet spare parts stockpile,” Rogan explained. Maintaining the F-35 and keeping it capable in a fight with China will be critical to any outcome of the People’s Republic of China’s attack on Taiwan.
The most current detailed statistics from the GAO tell a dismal story of the F-35’s fully mission-capable rate. “This metric assesses only aircraft that are in the possession of F-35 units. It measures the percentage of time during which these aircraft are fully capable of accomplishing all tasked missions,” the GAO explains. The latest fully mission capable rate for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy variations is 50%, 19.5%, and 9.0%, respectively. That was just two years ago. Taxpayers have paid the full manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) and, in the best case, are getting just half of the capability promised. What is that MSRP? “Current DOD plans call for procuring 2,470 F-35s at an estimated total acquisition cost of just under $400 billion, leaving the majority of the estimated program costs, approximately $1.3 trillion, associated with sustainment of the aircraft,” according to the latest GAO report.
US Navy Readiness Trending Downward
(Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The US Navy’s ability to dispatch a credible combat-capable fleet is in no better shape. “The 10 ship classes we reviewed face a litany of maintenance and supply challenges related to the age of the ship, shortages of trained maintenance personnel, and diminished manufacturing sources for parts, among others,” the GAO reports. In terms of dollars, the GAO found that the Navy “had nearly $1.8 billion in deferred ship maintenance…The Navy also faces a significant crewing shortfall which can harm mission, maintenance and safety.” Put simply, the Navy can’t put to sea the ships it can’t man.
In operational terms, “The Marine Corps’ top general expressed serious regrets over the fact that Marines were not available to help in two major crises in recent months because of a lack of available Navy ships to position units in nearby waters,” Military.com reporter Konstantin Toropin wrote. The Marine Corps’ top general, Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger, was referring to not being able to generate a sea-based option with suitable amphibious ships to help with evacuating US citizens and other non-combatants from Sudan, for example. For several months, the Marine Corps has been in a food fight with the Pentagon over its stated requirement to retain an amphibious fleet of 31 amphibs. The Defense Department leadership doesn’t know the correct number but wants fewer. Even if General Berger had adequate ships, however, the recent GAO analysis casts doubt on whether they would be mission capable. Additional press reporting reveals significant Marine Corps frustration with the Navy’s inability to keep ready the ships necessary to move Marines to do that job.
Pentagon: Blind to a Serious Problem
As mentioned earlier, the deplorable state of the US military’s capability to maintain its force in fighting shape is not a sudden epiphany. Liberty Nation reported on comparable GAO findings in November 2022. For the last decade, the trend in mission-capable rates is downward. Considering this circumstance, a valid conclusion is that keeping the US military in fighting form is not a priority. During an exchange recently in a House Armed Services Committee, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro maintained that “climate change is a ‘top priority’ for the Navy and said he thinks the issue is just as important for the Navy as ensuring a steady stream of sailor recruits,” Fox News reported. Climate change is not a “top priority.” Congress told the Pentagon that. Those pushing this agenda are willfully ignorant or purposefully seeking to reduce US military capability. However, such comments by the Defense Department leadership may explain why recruiting goals aren’t met and combat ships and aircraft are not mission capable.
