Double Singularity Blog

In my earlier post, I have to admit that I did not take the time to see exactly how the budget requests had gone for the Navy before I posted. The long que of posts waiting to be published is also partly to blame.

Ever go into an exam expecting to do well, and then the professor hits you so hard you want to vomit? Apparently, the Navy knows how that feels now. The whole Navy shipbuilding scheme for the next few decades came into question, and it appears that the Littoral Combat Ship and Zumwalt class will suffer the most. Nuclear power also makes a controversial comeback!

The first two ships of the Zumwalt class have already been approved and paid for, and the Navy was requesting $2.5 billion to fund a third ship. This was rejected by the House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee on May 3, which means that the odds that there will only be two Zumwalts, at best. As a compromise, a $400 million line was added for advanced procurement of materials for another ship, in theory a possible DDG-1000 to be paid for at a later date, but Congress has heavily suggested that the Navy use the money to continue building Burke class destroyers. Good news for BIW.

Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., also called the Navy to task, calling into question a slow down in the number of ships built per year, while the unit cost of many ships has continually grown out of control. Taylor stated that the Navy should focus on continuing the production of vessels with proven construction schedules and costs, such as the Burke class destroyers and LPD 17 class amphibious assault ship. To this effect, the committee added funding for another LPD 17 class ship. He also criticized the LCS program, which is old hat at this point.

As far as good news, the committee approved the request for two T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo dock carriers, and funding was added for a second Virginia class submarine in 2010.

The committee added language which states that any further amphibious assault ships that are designed by the Navy must be nuclear powered. Lucky for the Navy, they aren't planning any future amphibious assault ships any time soon.

Taylor had stated on March 6 that he hoped that he could include money for fiscal year 2009 for a nuclear powered ship to replace the rest of the five planned Zumwalts. The Navy has been planning on a CG(X), based on the Zumwalt hull, but Taylor is against the move. Some in the engineering community believe that the tumblehome hull of the Zumwalts is unstable in seas. Also, there is concern that no matter how stealthy a hull form the CG(X) could possess, the electronic signature of the massive radar arrays the ship would carry would make it a sitting duck should someone be looking for it. Taylor would instead construct a CGN(X) based on an enlarged version of the Burke class destroyers, and would use a single reactor similar to the multiple unit reactors used in the Ford class carriers. The Navy expressed concern that a suitable reactor could not be placed in the hull form of the Burkes.

What is even more surprising, however, is that the Navy has not decided to stubbornly fight for this. The sudden turn around in opinion from this almost makes it seem like something that Navy has known for a while, but for whatever reason (and I bet that the reason has a nice row of stars on its collar) they were unable to act. While not that long ago the Navy stated that it doubted a nuclear reactor could fit inside of a Burke hull, the Pentagon expressed concern barely two days ago that the massive radar arrays that would not fit inside the tightly packed hull of the Zumwalts.

And in a story so new the timestamp hasn't actually occurred yet, the Navy has adopted the need to limit the Zumwalt class ships at only two units. Apparently, the Navy now feels that two ships would make an adequate technology demonstration for the CG(X), and that trying to procure five more ships would only limit the eventual growth of the Navy.

There is of course a wealth of information to absorb and regurgitate here, and I would love to editorialize it. However, it is very late (early?) and I have to work. I will start gathering stuff together to post about this more, and will most likely rearrange the que to make relevant stories more timely.