Budget restricts Navy, Marine surge capability

Budget restricts Navy, Marine surge capability

The Navy and Marine Corps could lose the ability to surge combined sea forces against a crisis next year under the current and looming budget cuts, top service officials said Wednesday.

“When it comes to a surge capability, it won’t be there” unless Congress lifts or eases the sequester budget cuts that are projected to lop $500 billion off defense spending over the next 10 years, Vice Adm. Allen Myers, deputy chief of Naval Operations, Integration of Capabilities and Resources.

The Marine Corps “will not miss a beat for the next deployment or the next after” but future deployments are questionable, said Marine Assistant Commandant Gen. John Paxton, who joined Myers on a budget panel at the Sea Air Space Expo at National Harbor, Md.


The cuts have left each service looking to scavenge equipment that others are mothballing to save money, said Vice Adm. John Currier, the vice commandant of the Coast Guard.

Currier noted that the Air Force was getting rid of its fleet of C27J transport planes and the Coast Guard is “quite willing to take all 21 aircraft if they become available.”

Paxton and Myers, the deputy chief of naval operations, pointed to a range of uncertainties for their services growing out of the steep drawdown in funding that will see Defense Department spending shrink by $41 billion by the end of the current fiscal year on Oct. 1.

Paxton said the Marines had been counting on money from the account for Overseas Contingency Operations , used to fund the war in Afghanistan,  to overhaul equipment coming out of Afghanistan and get it ready to support the rebalance of forces to the Asia-Pacific region.

But with OCO money evaporating, “you’re going to see a corresponding slowdown in moving gear to the Pacific,” Paxton said.

Paxton also said that the Marines’ long-planned push for a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle to replace the aging Amphibious Assault Vehicles for ship-to-shore movement might have to go back to the drawing board under the budget constraints.

“We’re trying to keep it alive,” Paxton said of the ACV.

Budget cuts associated with sequestration were not reflected in the budgets submitted by the Pentagon Wednesday. However, Myers said “you can be assured there is a high degree of thought being given to those decisions we’ve got to make” if sequester continues.

Paxton said they were following the Defense Department guidance to “not self-sequester” and put the onus on Congress for further cuts.

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

This must be attributable to the F 35 program, along with climate change, the nutty Norks and body oder.

The simplest and best solution is to disband the marines. All the prima-donas ever do is tell us what they cant do.

When we were attacked on 911 the marines told the president that it would take them 5 months to deploy in Afghanistan. They have an institutionalized cant-do, wont go attitude that cannot be changed.

We’re pivoting to the Pacific (among other things) and you want to disband the Marines.

Really? I am not a Marine, but someone who was part of the first strikes into Afghanistan in 01, and the Marines were there pretty damn quickly. Yea they are not special forces but they move a hell alot faster than the big Army does. Look at Allied Force and the deployment of the Army into Kosovo vice the Marine deployment. I would take Marines any day of the week over similar sized Army forces and twice on Sunday.

If the Marines disappeared tomorrow, who would deploy from those LPD/LHD’s? The army? Hippies?

It’s easy to say something like that behind the safety of a computer monitor. I’d be willing to bet you’d have that same ‘can’t-do, won’t-go attitude’ and keep your mouth shut if there was a living, breathing, take no crap Marine standing across from you.

And if I remember correctly, once the dust quite literally settled, we had Marines and Soldiers on the first thing smoking towards Afghanistan within weeks, not months.

$180M for Presidential helicopters in the FY-14 budget that nobody is mentioning, while the USAF grounds aircraft, ships don’t get fixed, and the Blue Angels cancel an entire season.……

Comparing the USMC and the Army is amateur hour stuff. Neither is designed to do others mission which is why they both exist. A better question is does the USMC need it’s own aviators when the Department of the Navy is full of Naval Aviators?

Apparently you and oblatt1 are military geniuses — the USMC has delivered a military punch for well over 200 years, and has out-performed the Army countless times in it’s ability to rapidly deploy and locate, close with, and destroy the enemy (our charter — as neither of you would know). Remember — politicians are the ones that portray an unrealistic capability of our warriors and over promise/under deliver. It is obvious none of the comments posted come with any real operational knowledge or understanding of the challenges we face in the current operational environments and the poor politics that dictate our mission.

The reality s that the marines are an anachronism and to stay alive — ie secure funding — they take on every lame idea and operational failure in a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from the other services. Backed by a powerful PR machine that tries to make the whole mess look special.

Name any role, any task, and you’ll be guaranteed to find a marine tasked to do a worse job of it. Then there are all the ideas that are so dumb nobody else would do it — there are marines for that too.

The reality is that while the marines are leading the way in corrupting the procurement system, if you ask them to defend America its only when the battlefield has been secured by everyone else.

Scrap the marines keep a small group for glamor work such as defending embassies (that don’t face a threat) or props for Hollywood. They can keep the PR machine and when America is next attacked the president doesn’t have to waste time with people who don’t want to turn up.

Why is there no requirement to at least know something about world affairs and military operations before such ignorant comments get disseminated to millions? Why can you write idiotic things but not be called an idiot? The USMC and Navy disparagement s are false, ignorant and nothing more than an expression of personal bias and being too lazy to seek available knowledge first. You belong in a Jane Fonda blog or waiting tables for some Hollywood morale coward.

I agree with other get rid of F-35 and LCS and more for Operations and DDG-1000 destroyers.

To each his own I suppose, meh…

Yes, The USMC does need its own Aviators. The USMC is also part of the DON btw, and go thru the same training as their Navy counterparts.

Actually did you forget the numerous amphibious landings made by the Army during World War 2 and Korea? The Marine Corps does a fine job but chest pounding and saying the Army cant… Well we all know better.

For me, it’s strangely entertaining to see what some of these self proclaimed subject matter experts have to say on almost every article on this site and some other sites like this.

The Marines are the best of the best!

Not sure where you are getting that information but the 15th MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) had boots on the ground by November 25th 2001.

Well that was a lie you just told. I was in several high level meetings with the powers that be and let me tell you, it was not the Marines who couldn’t deploy in time. We can definately just leave it at that.

…and the 26th MEU rolled right in with them. General Mattis formed both MEUs together as 1 task force and they began to kick a… So again, oblatt just flat out lied.…

“Scrap the marines keep a small group for glamor work such as defending embassies (that don’t face a threat) or props for Hollywood”

Considering how many countries are going wingnuts and the chance that there is an American embassy there; I would disagree on embassies not facing a threat.

In ’82 Hezbollah put a car bomb in one. In the ‘90s AQ attacked Kenya and Tanzania simultaneously. The American embassy in Baghdad has been a pretty persistent target for attack since ’03.

Of course, Marines don’t have the weapons to deal with car bomb attacks.

Then there’s riots, and stuff like the Iranian Revolution. And before that in South Vietnam, the embassy was a target in Tet and had to be held against waves of left-behinds when South Vietnam fell.

Considering we have a DSS, I’m not sure why we still need Embassy security to be handled by the Marines. I suppose if embassy guard details rotated in and out of the FAST companies, you could have FAST companies that understand how embassies work detailed to act as the quick reaction force if necessary.

To try to stay relevant in an age with very few amphibious assaults, the Marines have slightly adjusted the mission from amphibious landings to “moving directly from ships to land targets” instead of committing themselves to amphibious assault, and have added helicopters to the mix.

And the mountain guys were there before any of them.

And the fact that it was the army first on the ground in Afghanistan, not the Marines.

Amphibious warfare, and warfare in general has evolved exponentially to just rushing a beach with Higgins boats.

Thanks, GOP amd President Obama, you have embraced sequestration and don’t seem to care that our military gets ruined in the process. How patriotic.

Where did all this anti-marines attitude come from? Could it originate from having an all volunteer Armed Forces which leads to less than 1% of the nation actually serving? As a submariner I understand what it means to volunteer and actually go in harm’s way. How many of the people chipping their teeth in this anti-military group have done so?
Do a little history reading and you will see that the Marines have been the point for every important action this country has been involved in for over 250 years. Read more and you will find that the Navy has been there to support them all the way. When air combat and major ground combat evolved and were sent into World Wars, all services took their cue from the methods developed and refined by those early heroes in the USMC and USN. Now the need is for advanced capabilities in stealth, intel, UAV and UUV technology so we don’t have to go into harm’s way as much as before. But PLEASE do not denigrate or “DISS” those who serve today as they might have to go out there to save your A__ in the near future. For those of you who don’t get this … grow up and get a life.

Want to know why we have the Marines?

First-Attitude.

Marines are Made. It sounds like a slogan but its true. Marines have a specific mindset that makes them different from the Army Soldier. The Marines are Assault troops. Trained to ram into a enemy and take his land even as they are killed. Can the Army do this? Yes but not as well and really not right now. The Army is in bad shape. Its given up everything to focus on COIN. However, Marines are still made for this.

Second is equipment. What would the Army do with the landing vehicles, etc? They have the history and institutional knowledge for Amphib combat and operating of ships.

There are a lot of reasons why the Marines exist. However they exist now and maybe will for a long, long, time because they are needed.

Yes, because Marines are really going to storm beaches against an enemy equipped with ATGM’s and modern heavy artillery.

Dream on.

And if they are not attacking fortified beaches, then why have the Marines in the first place?

“all services took their cue from the methods developed and refined by those early heroes in the[ir British counterparts]”

Royal Marines, defending Royal Navy ships from boarders, leading the attack and providing landing parties since…?

Royal Army, expelling the French and killing the Native savage since…?

Pretending that every Continental Army leader grew leadership skills de novo is a little much. Many cut their teeth in service to the Crown. The soldiers without prior experience were probably drilled by men drilled by some Prussian (Steuben).

Of course, post-Revolution every service took a Sequester because people wanted small government.

It took the XYZ Affair and nearly coming to blows with France to bring back a standing Army, a Navy, and Marines. I suspect the seeds of the Continental Army were sown after the Whiskey Rebellion, when people realized that state miltias weren’t the cat’s meow.

Yes, because Airborne are really going to airdrop against an enemy equipped with AA and modern SAMs.

Dream on.

And if they are not attacking fortified Airspace, then why have Airborne in the first place?

Just got to laugh at the Marine PR. For all the B movie swagger more marines off themselves due to stress each year than are killed in combat.

The Marines exist for one reason — they are where bad ideas go to get funded.

I am an old Marine. One thing that sets Marines apart from other military members is they don’t make excuses; they make things happen. When the mission is on, they don’t let protocol or regulations get in their way–they are trained to think out of the box. And why do we have our own air force? Because it is oriented toward supporting the Marine on the ground. And, since our aviators are trained by the Navy, they can be used to supplement Naval aviation in a pinch. If we didn’t have USMC aviation, the Navy would be forced to have squadrons of CH-53s, MV-22s, UH/AH-1s to support us.

Because Airborne are not meant do go into SAM heavy areas…? All they are doing is being transported by plane into an area, the same way that the rest of the army unloads from ships unto shore.

The difference is that the Airborne never try to make a stealth transport that is armed to the teeth for some kind of “combat insertion into a SAM heavy zone”, the same way that the Marines keep coming up with idiotic ideas for a “Swimming tank/heavy APC to fight on a contested shoreline”.

Because a MEU is an airmobile self contained assault battalion forward staged with everything it needs to conduct 30 days of combat ops with it.

We need the marines, but they have gotten too fat and too heavy. The Corps is in need of a major structural overhaul imo. Too much heavy armored vehicles, too many marines sitting on their asses shore side. III MEF should be an Army function, it’s a garrison force. We should shave the USMC down to more deployed MEUs in more of the places we have, or are going to have interests.

There should be a MEU on station in many more places than we currently have and don’t because they are wasting or wasted too much damn money on things like EFV and F35s. The marines are ship based infantry and there is nothing that says they have to storm a beach at all except glory days past history.

Used to be you had to earn respect. These days they give a kid a comic book telling him how great he is and he get an instant sense of entitlement.

The marines have to hire psychologists just to handle the wave of depression that our would be heros are having when they are cut from the force and nobody else thinks they are so super.

http://​www​.defense​.gov/​p​u​b​s​/​p​d​f​s​/​2​0​1​2​_​C​M​P​R​_​F​i​nal.…

Oblatt still doing your trolling and/or angry anti-american thing?

I’m sure it was great consolation to the men on the ground that when they were slogging up tora bora the marines were putting in the hard yards back home.

“When it comes to a surge capability, it won’t be there” unless Congress lifts or eases the sequester budget cuts that are projected to lop $500 billion off defense spending over the next 10 years, Vice Adm. Allen Myers, deputy chief of Naval Operations, Integration of Capabilities and Resources.
———————————————-

What???? We will do whatever is required to support such a mission if required. We can not afford to continue to budget money and then have it spent just so someone can justify next years budget.

You sir are way off base! My son is a marine LtCol; at times he works 15 to 16 hours a day, days at a time. He says the people in his section also work’ the same hours. The Marines have an institutionalized CAN DO attitude that cannot be changed. Were you at one times in the marines; and had a bad experience at one time?

The Obama administration wants the Marine Corps disbanded because Marines have never and will never turn on civilians in a marshall law scenario. The Army however..well history has already shown that some (not all) have and would. Marines have been programed to uphold & protect the constitution and I know plenty who would walk off base (AWOL) with rifles in hand to take the sides of law abiding citizens against this tyrannical administration.

They’re really naval infantry. If they have to get somewhere from a well deck or by helicopter, then that’s what it takes.

I’m not sure why they need to be in Okinawa in the first place either. If it’s about defending Japan, that mission is really best done with anti-ship missile batteries defended in turn by anti-air systems. The Marines are there for a fringe hypothetical case of the Chinese landing on the beaches and trying to seize the island with infantry; but comically without the means of actually keeping them away.

At least at Wake Island and Midway they had actual anti-ship guns to plink destroyers.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.