Background Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at  sea that have resulted in serious damage to Navy ships and the loss of  17 sailors (see figure 1). Three of the four at sea mishaps that have  occurred—two collisions and one grounding—have involved ships  homeported overseas in Yokosuka, Japan. Appendix II provides a  summary of major mishaps for Navy ships at sea in fiscal years 2009  through 2017. The Navy currently has 277 ships, a 17 percent reduction from the 333  ships it had in 1998. Over the past two decades, as the number of Navy  ships has decreased, the number of ships deployed overseas has  remained roughly constant at about 100 ships; consequently, each ship is  being deployed more to maintain the same level of presence. We  reported in September 2016 that the Navy, along with the other military  services, had been reporting persistently low readiness levels. The Navy  attributes these, in part, to the increased deployment lengths needed to  meet the continuing high demand for its aircraft carriers, cruisers,  destroyers, and amphibious ships. For example, the deployment lengths  for carrier strike groups had increased from an average of 6.4 months  during the period of 2008 through 2011 to a less sustainable 9 months for  three carrier strike groups that were deployed in 2015. In 2016, the Navy  extended the deployments of the Harry S Truman and Theodore  Roosevelt Carrier Strike Groups to 8 and 8.5 months, respectively. In  addition, the Navy has had to shorten, eliminate, or defer training and  maintenance periods to support these high deployment rates. These  decisions have resulted in declining ship conditions across the fleet and  have increased the amount of time required for the shipyards to complete  maintenance on these ships. Lengthened maintenance periods, in turn,  compress the time that ships are available for training and operations. Ships Homeported  Overseas Provide  Increased Forward  Presence but Train  Less, Defer More  Maintenance,  Degrade Faster, and  Cost More to Operate As we previously reported, to help meet the operational demands using  its existing inventory of ships, the Navy has assigned more of its surface  combatants and amphibious ships to overseas homeports. Since 2006,  the Navy has doubled the percentage of the fleet assigned to overseas  homeports. In 2006, 20 ships were homeported overseas (7 percent of  the fleet); today, 40 ships are homeported overseas (14 percent of the  fleet) in Japan, Spain, Bahrain, and Italy; and an additional destroyer will  be homeported in Yokosuka, Japan in 2018 (see figure 2). According to the Navy, homeporting ships overseas is an efficient method  for providing forward presence and rapid crisis response. Our prior work  confirms that having ships homeported overseas provides additional  presence, but it comes at a cost. For example, we found in May 2015 that  homeporting ships overseas results in higher operations and support  costs than homeporting ships in the United States. In addition, the  operational schedules the Navy uses for overseas-homeported ships limit  dedicated training and maintenance periods, resulting in difficulty keeping  crews fully trained and ships maintained. In fact, the primary reason that  Navy ships homeported overseas provide more deployed time than ships  homeported in the United States is that the Navy reduces their training  and maintenance periods in order to maximize their operational  availability. Ships homeported overseas do not operate within the  traditional fleet response plan cycles that apply to U.S.-based ships.  Since the ships are in permanent deployment status during their time  homeported overseas, they do not have designated ramp-up and ramp- down maintenance and training periods built into their operational  schedules (see figure 3). Navy officials told us that because the Navy  expects these ships to be operationally available for the maximum  amount of time, their intermediate and depot-level maintenance are  executed through more frequent, shorter maintenance periods or deferred  until after they return to a U.S. homeport—generally after 7 to 10 years  overseas. In May 2015, we also found that high operational tempo for ships  homeported overseas limits the time for crew training when compared  with training time for ships homeported in the United States. Navy officials  told us that U.S.-based crews are completely qualified and certified prior  to deploying from their U.S. homeports, with few exceptions. In contrast,  the high operational tempo of ships homeported overseas had resulted in  what Navy personnel called a “train on the margins” approach, a  shorthand way to say there was no dedicated training time set aside for  the ships so crews trained while underway or in the limited time between  underway periods. We found that, at the time of our 2015 review, there  were no dedicated training periods built into the operational schedules of  the cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships homeported in Yokosuka  and Sasebo, Japan. As a result, these crews did not have all of their  needed training and certifications. We recommended that the Navy  develop and implement a sustainable operational schedule for all ships  homeported overseas. DOD concurred with this recommendation and  reported in 2015 that it had developed revised operational schedules for  all ships homeported overseas. However, when we contacted DOD to  obtain updated information for this testimony, U.S. Pacific Fleet officials  stated that the revised operational schedules for the cruisers and  destroyers homeported in Japan were still under review and had not been  employed. As of June 2017, 37 percent of the warfare certifications for  cruiser and destroyer crews homeported in Japan had expired, and over  two-thirds of the expired certifications—including mobility-seamanship  and air warfare—had been expired for 5 months or more. This represents  more than a fivefold increase in the percentage of expired warfare  certifications for these ships since our May 2015 report. The Navy’s  Surface Force Readiness Manual states that the high operational tempo  and frequent tasking of ships homeported overseas requires that these  ships always be prepared to execute complex operations and notes that  this demand for continuous readiness also means that ships homeported  overseas should maintain maximum training, material condition, and  manning readiness. With respect to the material condition of the ships, we found in May 2015  that casualty reports—incidents of degraded or out-of-service equipment—nearly doubled over the 2009 through 2014 time frame, and  the condition of overseas-homeported ships decreased even faster than  that of U.S.-based ships (see figure 4). The Navy uses casualty reports to  provide information on the material condition of ships in order to  determine current readiness. For example, casualty report data provide  information on equipment or systems that are degraded or out of service,  the lack of which will affect a ship’s ability to support required mission  areas. In 2015, Navy officials acknowledged an increasing number of  casualty reports on Navy ships and a worsening trend in material ship  condition. They stated that equipment casualties require unscheduled  maintenance and have a negative effect on fleet operations, because  there is an associated capability or capacity loss. In our May 2015 report, we recommended that the Navy develop a  comprehensive assessment of the long-term costs and risks to its fleet  associated with the Navy’s increasing reliance on overseas homeporting  to meet presence requirements; make any necessary adjustments to its  overseas presence based on this assessment; and reassess these risks  when making future overseas homeporting decisions. DOD concurred  with this recommendation, but, as of August 2017, it has not conducted  an assessment, even though it has continued to increase the number of  ships homeported overseas. Size and Composition  of Ship Crews May  Contribute to Sailor  Overwork and Create  Readiness and Safety  Risks In the early 2000s, the Navy made several changes to its process for  determining the size and composition of ship crews that may contribute to  sailor overwork and create readiness and safety risks. These changes  were intended to drive down crew sizes in order to save on personnel  costs. However, as we reported in May 2017, these changes were not  substantiated with analysis and may be creating readiness and safety  risks. With fewer sailors operating and maintaining surface ships, the  material condition of the ships declined, and we found that this decline  ultimately contributed to an increase in operating and support costs that  outweighed any savings on personnel (see figure 5). The Navy eventually  reassessed and reversed some of the changes it had made during this  period—known as “optimal manning”—but it continued to use a workweek  standard that does not reflect the actual time sailors spend working and  does not account for in-port workload—both of which may be leading to  sailors being overworked. Additionally, we found that heavy workload  does not end after ships return to port. Crews typically operate with fewer  sailors while in port, so those crew members remaining must cover the  workload of multiple sailors, causing additional strain and potential  overwork. In 2014, the Navy conducted a study of the standard workweek and  identified significant issues that could negatively affect a crew’s  capabilities to accomplish tasks and maintain the material readiness of  ships, as well as crew safety issues that might result if crews slept less to  accommodate workload that was not accounted for. The Navy study  found that sailors were on duty 108 hours a week, exceeding their weekly  on-duty allocation of 81 hours. This on-duty time included 90 hours of  productive work—20 hours per week more than the 70 hours that are  allotted in the standard workweek. This, in turn, reduced the time  available for rest and resulted in sailors spending less time sleeping than  was allotted, a situation that the study noted could encourage a poor  safety culture. Moving forward, the Navy will likely face manning  challenges, especially given its current difficulty in filling authorized  positions, as it seeks to increase the size of its fleet by as much as 30  percent over its current size. Navy officials stated that even with  manpower requirements that accurately capture all workload, the Navy  will be challenged to fund these positions and fill them with adequately  trained sailors at current personnel levels. Figure 6 shows the Navy’s  projected end strength and fleet size. In our May 2017 report, we found that the Navy’s guidance does not  require that the factors it uses to calculate manpower requirements be  reassessed periodically or when conditions change, to ensure that these  factors remain valid and that crews are appropriately sized. We made  several recommendations to address this issue, including that the Navy  should (1) reassess the standard workweek, (2) require examination of in- port workload, (3) develop criteria to reassess the factors used in its  manpower requirements process, and (4) update its ship manpower  requirements. DOD concurred with our recommendations, stating that it is  committed to ensuring that the Navy’s manpower requirements are  current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and  future surface fleet. As of August 2017, DOD had not yet taken any  actions to implement these recommendations. We believe that, until the  Navy makes the needed changes, its ships may not have the right  number and skill mix of sailors to maintain readiness and prevent  overworking its sailors. The Navy’s Inability to  Complete Ship  Maintenance on Time  Hampers Its Efforts to  Rebuild Readiness To address its persistently low readiness levels, the Navy began  implementing a revised operational schedule in November 2014, which it  referred to as the optimized fleet response plan. This plan seeks to  maximize the employability of the existing fleet while preserving adequate  time for maintenance and training, providing continuity in ship leadership  and carrier strike group assignments, and restoring operational and  personnel tempos to acceptable levels. The Navy’s implementation of the  optimized fleet response plan—and readiness recovery more broadly—is  premised on adherence to deployment, training, and maintenance  schedules. However, in May 2016, we found that the Navy was having difficulty in  implementing its new schedule as intended. Both the public and private  shipyards were having difficulty completing maintenance on time, owing  primarily to the poor condition of the ships after more than a decade of  heavy use, deferred maintenance, and the Navy’s inability to accurately  predict how much maintenance they would need. We reported that in  2011 through 2014 only 28 percent of scheduled maintenance for surface  combatants was completed on time and just 11 percent was completed  on time for aircraft carriers. We updated these data for the purposes of  this testimony to include maintenance availabilities completed through the  end of fiscal year 2016 and found continued difficulty completing  maintenance on time for key portions of the Navy fleet (see figure 7): Aircraft Carriers (CVNs): In fiscal years 2011 through 2016,  maintenance overruns on 18 of 21 (86 percent) aircraft carriers  resulted in a total of 1,103 lost operational days—days that ships were  not available for operations—the equivalent of losing the use of 0.5  aircraft carriers each year. Surface Combatants (DDGs and CGs): In fiscal years 2011 through  2016, maintenance overruns on 107 of 169 (63 percent) surface  combatants resulted in a total of 6,603 lost operational days—the  equivalent of losing the use of 3.0 surface combatants each year. Submarines (SSNs, SSBNs, and SSGNs): In fiscal years 2011  through 2016, maintenance overruns on 39 of 47 (83 percent)  submarines resulted in a total of 6,220 lost operational days—the  equivalent of losing the use of 2.8 submarines each year. Navy officials are aware of the challenges faced by both the public and  private shipyards and have taken steps to address the risks these pose to  maintenance schedules, including hiring additional shipyard workers and  improving their maintenance planning processes. However, Navy officials  have told us that it will take time for these changes to bring about a  positive effect. For example, as of May 2016, data on the public  shipyards’ workforce showed that 32 percent of all employees had fewer  than 5 years of experience. According to Navy officials, this workforce  inexperience negatively affects the productivity of the shipyards, and it will  take several years for them to attain full productivity. Navy Readiness  Rebuilding is Part of a  Broader DOD Effort In September 2016, we found that although DOD has stated that  readiness rebuilding is a priority, implementation and oversight of  department-wide readiness rebuilding efforts did not fully include key  elements of sound planning, and the lack of these elements puts the  overall rebuilding efforts at risk. The Navy states that its overall goal for  readiness recovery is to reach a predictable and sustainable level of  global presence and surge capacity from year to year. The Navy identified  carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups as key force elements  in its plan for readiness recovery and had set 2020 for reaching a  predictable and sustainable level of global presence and surge capacity  by implementing the optimized fleet response plan. However, we found in  2016 that the Navy faced significant challenges, such as delays in  completing maintenance and emerging demands, in achieving its  readiness recovery goals for carrier strike groups and amphibious ready  groups, and projections show that the Navy will not meet its time frames  for achieving readiness recovery. As a result, we recommended that DOD and the services establish  comprehensive readiness goals, strategies for implementing them, and  associated metrics that can be used to evaluate whether readiness  recovery efforts are achieving intended outcomes. DOD generally  concurred with our recommendations and, in November 2016, issued  limited guidance to the military services on rebuilding readiness; it has  also started to design a framework to guide the military services in  achieving readiness recovery but has not yet implemented our  recommendations. The Navy has since extended its time frame for  readiness recovery to at least 2021, but it still has not developed specific  benchmarks or interim goals for tracking and reporting on readiness  recovery. Navy officials cited several challenges to rebuilding readiness,  chief among them the continued high demand for its forces, the  unpredictability of funding, and the current difficulty with beginning and  completing ship maintenance on time. In January 2017, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to  conduct a readiness review and identify actions that can be implemented  in fiscal year 2017 to improve readiness. DOD and Navy officials told us  that, as part of this readiness review, the Navy prioritized immediate  readiness gaps and shortfalls. These officials added that this review  would guide the Navy’s investment decisions in future budget cycles, with  the intention to rebuild readiness and prepare the force for future  conflicts. However, high demand for naval presence will continue to put  pressure on a fleet that is already stretched thin across the globe.  Looking to the future, the Navy has plans to grow its fleet by as much as  30 percent, but it has not yet shown the ability to adequately man,  maintain, and operate the current fleet. These readiness problems need  to be addressed and will require the Navy to implement our  recommendations—particularly in the areas of assessing the risks  associated with overseas basing, reassessing sailor workload and the  factors used to size ship crews, and applying sound planning and  sustained management attention to its readiness rebuilding efforts. In  addition, continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that  the Navy demonstrates progress in addressing its maintenance, training,  and other challenges. Chairmen Wilson and Wittman, Ranking Members Bordallo and Courtney,  and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared  statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have  at this time. GAO Contact and  Staff  Acknowledgements If you or your staff have questions about this testimony, please contact  John Pendleton, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management at (202)  512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who  made key contributions to this testimony are Suzanne Wren, Assistant  Director; Steven Banovac, Chris Cronin, Kerri Eisenbach, Joanne  Landesman, Amie Lesser, Tobin McMurdie, Shari Nikoo, Cody  Raysinger, Michael Silver, Grant Sutton, and Chris Watson. Appendix I: Implementation Status of Prior  GAO Recommendations Cited in this  Testimony Over the past three years, we issued several reports related to Navy  readiness cited in this statement. Table 1 summarizes the status of  recommendations made in these reports, which contained a total of 11  recommendations. The Department of Defense generally concurred with  all of these recommendations but has implemented only one of them to  date. For each of the reports, the specific recommendations and their  implementation status are summarized in tables 2 through 4. Appendix II: Summary of Major Mishaps for  Navy Ships at Sea for Fiscal Years 2009  Through 2017, as of August 2017 The Navy defines a class A mishap as one that results in $2 million or  more in damages to government or other property, or a mishap that  resulted in a fatality or permanent total disability. We analyzed data  compiled by the Naval Safety Center for fiscal years 2009 through 2017  to provide a summary of major Navy mishaps at sea (see table 5). Appendix III: Related GAO Products Report numbers with a C or RC suffix are Classified. Classified reports  are available to personnel with the proper clearances and need to know,  upon request. Department of Defense: Actions Needed to Address Five Key Mission  Challenges. GAO-17-369. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2017. Military Readiness: Coastal Riverine Force Challenges. GAO-17-462C.  Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2017. (SECRET) Navy Force Structure: Actions Needed to Ensure Proper Size and  Composition of Ship Crews. GAO-17-413. Washington, D.C.: May 18,  2017. Military Readiness: DOD’s Readiness Rebuilding Efforts May Be at Risk  without a Comprehensive Plan. GAO-16-841. Washington, D.C.:  September 7, 2016. Navy and Marine Corps: Services Face Challenges to Rebuilding  Readiness. GAO-16-481RC. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2016.  (SECRET//NOFORN) Military Readiness: Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Navy’s  Optimized Fleet Response Plan. GAO-16-466R. Washington, D.C.: May  2, 2016. Navy Force Structure: Sustainable Plan and Comprehensive Assessment  Needed to Mitigate Long-Term Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas  Homeports. GAO-15-329. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2015. Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Assess Risks to Its Strategy to  Improve Ship Readiness. GAO-12-887. Washington, D.C.: September 21,  2012. Force Structure: Improved Cost Information and Analysis Needed to  Guide Overseas Military Posture Decisions. GAO-12-711. Washington,  D.C.: June 6, 2012. Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Reassess Its Metrics and  Assumptions for Ship Crewing Requirements and Training. GAO-10-592.  Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2010. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at sea that resulted in serious damage to its ships and the loss of 17 sailors. Three of these incidents involved ships homeported in Japan. In response to these incidents, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered an operational pause for all fleets worldwide, and the Vice Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of surface fleet operations, stating that these tragic incidents are not limited occurrences but part of a disturbing trend in mishaps involving U.S. ships. This statement provides information on the effects of homeporting ships overseas, reducing crew size on ships, and not completing maintenance on time on the readiness of the Navy and summarizes GAO recommendations to address the Navy's maintenance, training, and other challenges. In preparing this statement, GAO relied on previously published work since 2015 related to the readiness of ships homeported overseas, sailor training and workload issues, maintenance challenges, and other issues; GAO updated this information, as appropriate, based on Navy data. GAO's prior work shows that the Navy has increased deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and reduced or deferred maintenance to meet high operational demands, which has resulted in declining ship conditions and a worsening trend in overall readiness. The Navy has stated that high demand for presence has put pressure on a fleet that is stretched thin across the globe. Some of the concerns that GAO has highlighted include: Degraded readiness of ships homeported overseas : Since 2006, the Navy has doubled the number of ships based overseas. Overseas basing provides additional forward presence and rapid crisis response, but GAO found in May 2015 that there were no dedicated training periods built into the operational schedules of the cruisers and destroyers based in Japan. As a result, the crews of these ships did not have all of their needed training and certifications. Based on updated data, GAO found that, as of June 2017, 37 percent of the warfare certifications for cruiser and destroyer crews based in Japan—including certifications for seamanship—had expired. This represents more than a fivefold increase in the percentage of expired warfare certifications for these ships since GAO's May 2015 report. The Navy has made plans to revise operational schedules to provide dedicated training time for overseas-based ships, but this schedule has not yet been implemented. Crew size reductions contribute to sailor overwork and safety risks: GAO found in May 2017 that reductions to crew sizes the Navy made in the early 2000s were not analytically supported and may now be creating safety risks. The Navy has reversed some of those changes but continues to use a workweek standard that does not reflect the actual time sailors spend working and does not account for in-port workload—both of which have contributed to some sailors working over 100 hours a week. Inability to complete maintenance on time: Navy recovery from persistently low readiness levels is premised on adherence to maintenance schedules. However, in May 2016, GAO found that the Navy was having difficulty completing maintenance on time. Based on updated data, GAO found that, in fiscal years 2011 through 2016, maintenance overruns on 107 of 169 surface ships (63 percent) resulted in 6,603 lost operational days (i.e., the ships were not available for training and operations). Looking to the future, the Navy wants to grow its fleet by as much as 30 percent but continues to face challenges with manning, training, and maintaining its existing fleet. These readiness problems need to be addressed and will require the Navy to implement GAO's recommendations—particularly in the areas of assessing the risks associated with overseas basing, reassessing sailor workload and the factors used to size ship crews, and applying sound planning and sustained management attention to its readiness rebuilding efforts. In addition, continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that the Navy demonstrates progress in addressing its maintenance, training, and other challenges.