0
0
0
From: Army Times
After more than a decade of war, the military is worn down.
The services' vice chiefs told lawmakers this week that troops' readiness is at a troubling low point, and projected budget tightening in years to come could even further jeopardize the military's response to threats.
"Can we meet the defense strategic plan under the president's [fiscal 2016] plan? Yes, just barely," said Gen. Larry Spencer, Air Force vice chief of staff. "Could we do it under sequestration? No."
The leaders' comments came during a pair of hearings Wednesday and Thursday as Congress debated a host of budget resolution drafts for next year, with the House settling on a plan to leave sequestration caps in place but offset those limits with a boost in temporary overseas contingency funds.
Pentagon leaders have panned that plan, saying it doesn't offer the long-term stability that repealing the mandatory spending limits would.
But the vice chiefs said the budget fight is only part of the problem, and even with the funds being requested by the White House this year, the military still faces a difficult path in restoring its ability to be prepared for any fight.
"We are consuming our readiness as fast as we're building it," said Gen. Daniel Allyn, Army vice chief of staff. "Right now, we are not building surge capacity."
Even post-war, current deployment demands have left soldiers with an average dwell-to-deployment ratio of 1 month to 1.6 months, well below the 1-to-2 ratio leaders have set as a goal, Allyn said. That limits time for reset and retraining, leaving the force potentially unprepared.
Marine Corps Assistant Commandant Gen. John Paxton echoed that concern, saying his service hasn't yet fully returned to the 1-to-2 goal either. He said more than half of home-based Corps units are in a state of "degraded readiness" because not enough resources have been invested in them.
"Will our forces be ready if called on? Yes," he said. "But we are going to accept more risk in our ability to respond."
Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michelle Howard said that under all the budget proposals now being discussed in Congress, the Navy still would not have enough money to fund full maintenance and upkeep of its fleet. Air Force officials said the same for their aging aircraft inventory.
Howard said that under the Pentagon's preferred budget plan — which would repeal sequestration and boost the base defense budget by more than $30 billion — the services would be "on a path" toward fixing those readiness problems.
Lawmakers are still months away from finalizing the 2016 budget for the Defense Department, and will spend much of the spring and summer sparring over whether a technically "off the books" boost to the overseas contingency fund will be enough to fix the military's immediate and long-term problems.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/03/26/vice-chiefs-readiness/70479224/
After more than a decade of war, the military is worn down.
The services' vice chiefs told lawmakers this week that troops' readiness is at a troubling low point, and projected budget tightening in years to come could even further jeopardize the military's response to threats.
"Can we meet the defense strategic plan under the president's [fiscal 2016] plan? Yes, just barely," said Gen. Larry Spencer, Air Force vice chief of staff. "Could we do it under sequestration? No."
The leaders' comments came during a pair of hearings Wednesday and Thursday as Congress debated a host of budget resolution drafts for next year, with the House settling on a plan to leave sequestration caps in place but offset those limits with a boost in temporary overseas contingency funds.
Pentagon leaders have panned that plan, saying it doesn't offer the long-term stability that repealing the mandatory spending limits would.
But the vice chiefs said the budget fight is only part of the problem, and even with the funds being requested by the White House this year, the military still faces a difficult path in restoring its ability to be prepared for any fight.
"We are consuming our readiness as fast as we're building it," said Gen. Daniel Allyn, Army vice chief of staff. "Right now, we are not building surge capacity."
Even post-war, current deployment demands have left soldiers with an average dwell-to-deployment ratio of 1 month to 1.6 months, well below the 1-to-2 ratio leaders have set as a goal, Allyn said. That limits time for reset and retraining, leaving the force potentially unprepared.
Marine Corps Assistant Commandant Gen. John Paxton echoed that concern, saying his service hasn't yet fully returned to the 1-to-2 goal either. He said more than half of home-based Corps units are in a state of "degraded readiness" because not enough resources have been invested in them.
"Will our forces be ready if called on? Yes," he said. "But we are going to accept more risk in our ability to respond."
Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michelle Howard said that under all the budget proposals now being discussed in Congress, the Navy still would not have enough money to fund full maintenance and upkeep of its fleet. Air Force officials said the same for their aging aircraft inventory.
Howard said that under the Pentagon's preferred budget plan — which would repeal sequestration and boost the base defense budget by more than $30 billion — the services would be "on a path" toward fixing those readiness problems.
Lawmakers are still months away from finalizing the 2016 budget for the Defense Department, and will spend much of the spring and summer sparring over whether a technically "off the books" boost to the overseas contingency fund will be enough to fix the military's immediate and long-term problems.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/03/26/vice-chiefs-readiness/70479224/
Posted in these groups: 
Readiness
Readiness
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
And just who is surprised by this?
Truth is, the second recruiting requirements dropped, so did readiness levels. As soon as you give up quality for numbers, you've admitted that readiness isn't what it should be.
Truth is, the second recruiting requirements dropped, so did readiness levels. As soon as you give up quality for numbers, you've admitted that readiness isn't what it should be.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It must be tough for these senior officers from each of the Services to admit that we are on the verge of not being ready. Skeptics might say they're just looking for more money, but I don't think that's it. Yes, more money (end of sequestration) is necessary, but there's the human aspect, the readiness aspect, that can't be completely fixed by more dollars. That will take time and support (over time) to improve.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google