US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Under pressure from the Navy to develop a new cruiser based on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class hull form, and from Congress to incorporate nuclear power, a group of analysts working on the next big surface combatant may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program.

One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an “escort cruiser,” to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant.

The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission.

In all, five large CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy’s 30-year, 313-ship plan, which calls for replacing today’s CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers and adding a specially designed sea-based missile defense force.

The ideas are taking shape as part of an analysis of alternatives (AoA), due to the Navy this fall from the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research center in Arlington, Va.

Details of the AoA have been closely held, but sources have confirmed that two different designs are being considered. They also say the analysis will recommend dropping the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) from the CG(X) program.

The KEI is a large ballistic missile-defense rocket under development by Northrop Grumman as a ground- or sea-based weapon to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost, ascent and midcourse flight phases.

The KEI is much larger than the SM-3 Standard missile developed by Raytheon to arm Navy cruisers and destroyers for the BMD role. The 40-inch diameter KEI is nearly 39 feet long, while the 21-inch diameter SM-3 stands just over 21 feet tall. Both missiles use a kinetic energy warhead, intended to ram an enemy missile.

Sources said a missile launch tube for a KEI would need to be so large it would take the place of six SM-3 launch cells.

“That’s a poor exchange ratio,” said one naval analyst familiar with the AoA.

Tactics generally call for at least two interceptors to be launched for each incoming target. Just how many missile cells the AoA is considering for each cruiser variant remains under wraps.

The Missile Defense Agency included money for the sea-based KEI in its 2008 budget request, although the program is concentrating first on developing the ground-based missile, with Northrop’s first flight test next year. No contracts have been issued for the sea-based KEI, said Northrop officials.

Nuclear Cruisers
The analysis group is said to be firm in its recommendation for the smaller escort cruiser. Details are less developed on the nuclear-powered variant, sources said.

Reps. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. — the current and former chairman, respectively, of the House Seapower subcommittee — are strong proponents of nuclear power for surface ships, citing concerns about the future supply of oil. Navy officials testified earlier this year that the rising price of oil could soon make the more expensive nuclear option viable, and the House is expected to include language in the 2008 defense bills requiring nuclear power for the new cruisers.

According to sources, the AoA looked at two possible nuclear powerplants based on existing designs: doubling the single-reactor Seawolf SSN 21 submarine plant, and halving two-reactor nuclear carrier plants.

Doubling the 34 megawatts of the Seawolf plant would leave the new ship far short of power requirements — and not even match the 78 megawatts of the Zumwalts.

But halving the 209-megawatt plant of current nuclear carriers would yield a bit more than 100 megawatts, enough juice for power-hungry BMD radars plus an extra measure for the Navy’s desired future directed-energy weapons and railguns.

The anti-missile cruiser also wouldn’t require the high level of stealth provided by the Zumwalt’s tumblehome hull, analysts said, since the ship would be radiating its radars to search for missiles. Returning to a more conventional, flared-bow hull form would free designers from worries about overloading the untried tumblehome hull.

“There will be great reluctance to use the wave-piercing tumblehome hull form for the larger ship,” said one experience naval engineer. He noted the DDG 1000 stealth requirement is necessary for the ship’s ability to operate in waters near coastlines, but that the open-ocean region where a BMD ship would operate “means you don’t need to go to the extremes of the tumblehome form.”

Splitting the CG(X) into two designs also makes political sense, sources said.

“There’s a concern that the DDG hull has stability problems and doesn’t have growth margin,” said a congressional source. A nuclear-powered option, the source said, also would placate Congress, and “a cash-strapped Navy wouldn’t be fully committed to a nuclear ship.”

Nuclear power, of course, comes with a price — in dollar amounts and in size.

An appropriate plant for the ship might cost $1 billion, one source said.

Another analyst, using very rough figures, guessed the cost for a CGN(X) would range from something just under $5 billion to as much as $7 billion.

The Navy estimates its first two DDG 1000s will cost $3.3 billion each, although estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and others put the potential true cost at over $5 billion and as much as $7 billion.

Ron O’Rourke, a naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service, was asked by Defense News to estimate the potential cost for a nuclear cruiser.

“Depending on DDG 1000 construction costs and how the cost of the cruiser would scale up from the cost of a DDG 1000, and also taking into account the additional cost for a nuclear power plant, a follow-on ship in a class of 25,000-ton nuclear-powered cruisers might cost roughly $4 billion to $5 billion.”

The nuclear ship also would need to be larger than the DDG 1000. In separate statements, Navy officials have been hinting that a 20,000-ton-plus ship could be in the works.

Sources said early analyses of the CGN(X) showed a 25,000-ton ship, which the Navy said was too large. More realistic, one source said, would be about 23,000 tons.

Another cost for developing a new power plant for the nuclear cruiser, even if an existing reactor was used, would be time to design a new propulsion system.

“Five years of research and development would be needed to come up with the turbines, reduction gear, shaft and propeller,” said one experienced naval engineer. The Navy now plans to order the first CG(X) in 2011, with the last ship included in the FY 2023 budget.

The Navy declined to comment on the current state of the CG(X) analysis.

“The content of the AoA is predecisional,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, a Navy spokesman.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

The USN wants to build 25,000 and 14,000 ton cruisers

Hey I can't make this stuff up.. I'm sure others will disagree with me but I see no need for this program as long as the Arliegh Burke DDG's are regulary upgraded.

Go ahead and voice your opinions....

Click to expand...

After months of heated debate, the Army will conduct a side-by-side test shoot next month with its standard-issued carbine to see how well it can withstand extreme dust and sand environments.

The tests, which will be conducted at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland, will include three other rifles some say are better constructed to withstand the grueling environmental conditions often found in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The service yielded to critics - particularly lawmakers in Congress - who recently ratcheted up the debate over whether the current M4 carbine, manufactured by Colt Defense, is more susceptible to jamming in dusty conditions than other weapons used by Soldiers and special operators.

"The Army agreed to conduct testing of four carbine designs in an extreme dust environment," said Lt. Col. Timothy Chyma, product manager for individual weapons with Program Executive Office Soldier, in an email to Military.com.

"The test results will inform the U.S. Army Infantry Center in the development of a potential new carbine requirement as part of their ongoing capabilities based assessment."

...

The shoot off will test the capabilities of the M4/M16 operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built HK416, the FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine.

...

"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months."

Click to expand...

The_Zergling said:

Army Agrees to M4 Sand Test Shoot-off

Nice to see the XM8 making another appearance. But the project seems 4 years too late, and a somewhat half-assed attempt at that. 5 freaking months to complete a shooting test? I know that you can't be too hasty while testing weapons, but still.

Click to expand...

U.S. paid $1 million to ship two 19-cent washers

Click to expand...

Schumacher said:

I hear they used B-2s to ship the washers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. paid $1 million to ship two 19-cent washers

By Jim Wolf
Reuters
Thursday, August 16, 2007; 6:39 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department said on Thursday that a flawed system designed to rush supplies to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan let a small-parts supplier improperly collect $998,798.38 to ship two 19-cent washers.

Loopholes in the automated purchasing system have been fixed and the ill-gotten gains were being returned to the U.S. Treasury, said Army Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman.

The lock-washer incident was the last in a series of abuses by twin sisters running a South Carolina company that bilked the Pentagon out of about $20.5 million in fraudulent shipping costs, federal prosecutors said after obtaining guilty pleas earlier in the day.

The owners of C&D Distributors of Lexington, South Carolina, submitted online bids to the Defense Department to supply hardware components, plumbing fixtures, electronic equipment and other items, according to court papers.

Related shipping claims were processed automatically "to streamline the resupply of items to combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," said a statement by Reginald Lloyd, U.S. attorney for the district of South Carolina.

Lloyd said C&D fabricated shipping costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as in the case of the washers, although the value of the items purchased rarely topped $100.

Lock washers place tension against a nut after tightening, to help prevent the nut from loosening.

Maka said the Defense Criminal Investigative Service launched an investigation last September into invoices submitted to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, or

DFAS.

"DFAS has put in place the internal controls necessary to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again," Maka said of the shipping fraud. "The money that they stole will be returned to the U.S. Treasury."

Charlene Corley, 47, of Lexington, South Carolina, as well as her company, C&D Distributors LLC, pleaded guilty to wire-fraud and money-laundering conspiracy charges in federal court in Columbia, South Carolina.

Darlene Wooten, Corley's twin and co-owner of C&D Distributors, committed suicide at her lake house last October after being contacted by federal investigators about the fraud, Lloyd said.

The improperly collected funds were used to buy beach houses, luxury cars, boats, jewelry and vacations among other things, prosecutors said.

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is punishable by up to 20 years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Conspiracy to commit money laundering carries up to 20 years and a fine of $500,000, or twice the value of the property involved in the laundering transactions, whichever is greater.
© 2007 Reuters

Click to expand...

Although this is always unfortunate when it happens...there is nothing new here. People have been trying to find loop holes in government procurement practices for a long time and ripping the government and the tax payers off over it

Click to expand...

BEIJING, Aug. 21 - Amid repeated calls from the Bush administration for China to be more transparent about its military build-up, a visiting senior United States naval commander praised his Chinese counterpart here today for allowing a revealing tour of defense facilities and exercises.

The United States chief of naval operations, Adm. Mike Mullen, said he had organized a comprehensive visit to the United States in April for China’s naval chief, Adm. Wu Shengli.

“What I asked in return was for him to do the same thing,” Admiral Mullen said. “He has done that. What I have seen is actions, not just words, which have met that standard and I consider that to be very positive.”

Admiral Mullen, who will become the top American uniformed military commander when he becomes Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, said that communication and exchanges between the two militaries needed to improve further, but that he had reached a better understanding of China’s goals during his six-day visit, which ends Wednesday.

He said his Chinese hosts had told him that he had been granted access that had never been given to others. He held talks with senior Chinese officers, went to sea to observe air and sea exercises and met students at the Dalian Naval Academy, a naval officer training school.

The United States has repeatedly called on China to be more open about its defense spending and military plans as a step toward reducing tension in Asia as the People’s Liberation Army continues a rapid and sustained modernization.

Double-digit increases in annual defense outlays over most of the last 15 years have allowed the 2.3 million strong PLA to sharply increase its firepower. It has trimmed manpower from what remains the world’s biggest standing force while continuing to deploy a wide range of modern weapons including warships, strike aircraft, missiles, tanks and artillery.

American and other foreign military analysts say that a top priority for China’s military is to prepare for the possibility of conflict over Taiwan. The ruling Communist Party regards Taiwan as a renegade province and has threatened to use force against the self-governing island in response to a number of possible contingencies, including any move towards formal independence.

Most foreign military experts agree that the PLA is attempting to build a force that could defeat Taiwan while at the same time deterring or slowing any United States intervention. Chinese naval forces would be expected to play an important role in this type of conflict, and the United States has been closely monitoring the efforts China is making to deploy ships, submarines, missiles and aircraft that could challenge United States forces in Asia, particularly aircraft carrier battle groups.

Naval experts believe stealthy, Chinese-designed-and-built Song-class submarines, along with Kilo-class conventional submarines purchased from Russia, could pose a potent threat to United States forces coming to Taiwan’s assistance.

Admiral Mullen said he had seen an exercise involving one of China’s Song- class conventional submarines. ”That submarine in particular was a very capable submarine,” he said. “Certainly I have a better understanding of that having seen it on the trip.”

The American commander said the Taiwan issue had been raised in most of his discussions with Chinese military leaders. He said he reaffirmed that the Bush administration would not support Taiwan if it made any unilateral move towards independence, but was encouraging the island to bolster its military forces as a deterrent to China.

Click to expand...