Grounding of U.S. Marine Unit Spotlights Lack of Ships in Asia-Pacific
Training exercise points to larger difficulties as U.S. pivots toward China
The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is meant to be a rapid-response force, designed for quick deployment to handle crises anywhere in the Asia-Pacific region.
At times, it doesn’t have the ships to leave its bases in Japan.
The unit was supposed to be on board the amphibious warship USS Rushmore earlier this year for a training exercise intended to help maintain readiness. Then the Rushmore had maintenance problems, and the mission was scrubbed, defense officials said.
While the immediate impact was limited to a training exercise and temporary after another ship was brought in weeks later, the Marine unit’s grounded status illustrates the larger obstacles the U.S. is facing as it tries to pivot its military to handle challenges from China.
The Rushmore is large enough for helicopters to land and take off, and the lack of such warships, defense officials said, might prevent Marine units from deploying on time. In a crisis, the officials said, the Marines could make do with other types of ships, but going without the aircraft supported by the larger amphibious assault ships means no air cover, hampering troop landings and limiting operations.
Overall, the defense officials said, the Navy doesn’t have enough amphibious ships to transport troops—a central part of the Marines’ strategy to hop from island to island in the Asia-Pacific and harry Chinese forces in the event of conflict.
The bigger amphibious assault ships, known as big-deck ships, are in particularly short supply. Of the 31 such ships in service, roughly a third have undergone sufficient maintenance and training to deploy, according to Marines statistics. If one of those amphibious assault ships has maintenance issues, it can delay a mission, defense officials said.
“We are at the point where any little problem with one of the amphibious ships throws the schedule for the whole fleet and affects the Marines’ ability to deploy,” said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute. “If the pivot toward Asia really was a priority, we would ensure that the Pacific-facing amphibious ships were maintained ready.”
A Pentagon spokesman, asked for comment, referred to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s remarks in March pointing to increased investment in forces and training exercises in the Indo-Pacific region. The spokesman declined to address the Marine unit’s deployment.
The Navy and Marine Corps referred requests for comment to the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which said in a statement that the Marine unit will soon deploy with other amphibious ships, though it didn’t say when.
Defense strategy documents, starting five years ago, identified China as a primary competitor for the U.S., setting in motion a shift of resources and plans to counter the Chinese military. Adjusting to the new priorities is running into difficulties after decades of fighting insurgents and dealing with threats from countries such as Iran.
The U.S. Air Force is reducing the number of F-15 jet fighters stationed in the Asia-Pacific region, though new replacements won’t be fully in place for two years, leaving what some military specialists say is a vulnerable gap. The Army has set up task forces to study its role in any future conflict in the Asia-Pacific but remains centered on Europe and other parts of the world. Other than adding a submarine in Guam, a front-line base, the Navy has yet to increase its presence, defense officials have said.
The limited number of amphibious ships affects a range of operations, defense officials and military specialists said. Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, said earlier this year that the Marines couldn’t support earthquake relief in Turkey because there were no ships to transport the troops.
That shortage could become critical if China were to move against Taiwan, a longtime U.S. partner that Beijing has vowed to take control of, by force if necessary. If Taiwan faces a China threat, “time matters,” Gen. Berger said in recent congressional testimony.
“Most of the cases, you need a seaborne force,” Gen. Berger told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “And you need Marines that can project power ashore.”
Based in Okinawa, the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is made of roughly 2,200 Marines. On its website, the unit describes itself as “positioned to respond to crisis anywhere in the world.”
Units such as the 31st are likely to take a leading role if China moves against Taiwan or tries to seize other islands it claims, from the South China Sea to Japan’s outlying islands.
To deploy, those expeditionary units rely on a group of three ships known as an amphibious ready group, led by an amphibious assault ship, with a deck from which aircraft can take off. The ships are known as the Marines’ “ship-to-shore connector.”
After the Rushmore broke down, the Navy sent the USS Ashland, which also can launch helicopters, as a replacement, according to the Pacific Fleet, which is responsible for U.S. naval operations in the Asia Pacific region. It wouldn’t say how long the 31st waited for the replacement and how long the Ashland stayed in the region.
The 31st’s deployment problem is part of a debate over the size and shape of the future Navy. The Navy has said that it is meeting a congressionally mandated number of 31 amphibious assault ships and that it doesn’t have the funds to build more of the vessels, which cost as much as $2 billion a piece.
The Navy’s $255.8 billion budget request for fiscal year 2024 proposes decommissioning several amphibious warfare ships to save money and determine which kinds of ships are needed to deter China, Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations, said at a recent congressional hearing.
Earlier this year Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said that there was a “strategic pause” on buying amphibious ships while the Pentagon conducts a classified study on the cost- effectiveness of building future ships.
While testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee recently, Mr. Del Toro faced criticism from legislators who said the budget doesn’t address short-term needs.
“Let me be clear: this budget request has failed—yet again—to build a U.S. Navy fleet that is capable of meeting even basic tasks, to say nothing of growing strong enough to deter near-term threats,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) told Mr. Del Toro.