January 26, 2015

The Pentagon spends billions of dollars developing weapons every year, but often that money is squandered on projects that never bear fruit. Part of the problem is the Pentagon’s byzantine acquisition process—but many weapons are simply ill conceived where a system is overburdened with competing requirements. In other cases, the Pentagon simply fails to fully take into consideration the kinds of threats it might be facing in the future.

Here are five examples of programs that should be canceled.

Ohio-class replacement

There is no question that the United States needs to maintain its strategic nuclear deterrence. But the Navy’s future replacement for its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is much more expensive than its predecessor while carrying fewer missiles. The Ohios carry 24 Trident D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, the new boats will carry only 16 such weapons.

(Recommended: 5 U.S. Weapons of War Russia Should Fear)

The boats will cost $4.9 billion if the Navy can get the unit price down—which means it will cost nearly $59 billion to build the 12 vessels. But with the cost of research and development factored in, the Navy will have to shell out $100 billion.

The cost of the Ohio-replacement subs stems from the Navy’s insistence on cramming high-tech and often unproven hardware onto the boats. The new boats will incorporate a new life-of-the-boat reactor that will last for 42 years on the new vessels. That investment makes sense, but the new boomers will also include a completely new and unproven permanent magnet motor to propel the vessels—for the sake of stealth. It will also have new X-plane stern control surfaces operated via a fly-by-wire system.

(Recommended: 5 Russian Weapons of War America Should Fear)

There is no question that the Navy needs a new boomer—but given the sheer cost of these boats, the Navy should scrap the current design. Instead, the service ought to go back to the drawing board and consider a simpler and cheaper design.

Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program

The U.S. Navy’s UCLASS was originally envisioned as a long-range carrier-based unmanned strike platform that would restore those giant vessels’ ability to hit targets deep inland. The Navy had been missing such a capability flying off its carrier flight decks since the Grumman A-6 Intruder was retired in the 1990s (the Intruder’s stealthy A-12 replacement was cancelled earlier). The UCLASS was to be a weapon that would allow the carrier to stand off far from shore in relative safety of the open ocean and launch attacks against heavily defended targets from afar.

(Recommended: 5 Chinese Weapons of War Japan Should Fear)

But while that was the original vision in the Pentagon’s 2006 quadrennial defense review, the Navy has dumbed down the requirements for the aircraft. Instead of a stealthy long-range strike platform, the Navy now envisions a very modestly stealthy, very lightly armed aircraft that focuses on reconnaissance. As currently envisioned, it does nothing to counter emerging anti-access/area denial threats in the western Pacific—something sorely needed to preserve the relevance of the carrier.

The Navy should cancel the current version of the UCLASS and instead build a real unmanned warplane capable of penetrating the toughest enemy air defenses from extended ranges. The current effort is a complete waste of taxpayer money.

(Recommended: Russia's Navy Rising)

Littoral Combat Ship

The Navy’s LCS is another ill-conceived program. Originally designed as a modular vessel that could be reconfigured to hunt submarines, fight other surface vessels and neutralize mines, the program has instead produced an overpriced, under-armed white elephant. The ships are being built—but at far greater cost than originally promised.

The bigger problem, however, is that only the anti-surface module currently works—the counter-mine and anti-submarine modules are not yet fully operational. But even that one working module is of questionable value. At the moment, it includes only a 57 mm cannon and two 30 mm guns. The original missile for the ship was cancelled and the Navy is now looking at the Norwegian-built Naval Strike Missile to arm the ships. But anti-ship weapons fielded by other powers massively outrange even that weapon.

(Recommended: 5 U.S. Weapons of War China Should Fear)

The LCS’s many deficiencies have not gone unnoticed in the Pentagon. In December, the Pentagon announced that it would build an upgraded version of both LCS variants called the Small Surface Combatant (SSC) that would have better anti-ship and anti-submarine capability. The last 20 of 52 LCS vessels will be SSC variant ships.

Given the long and troubled history of the program, there is no reason to believe that the Navy can develop the SSC variant on time or on budget. It’s probably a better proposition for the American taxpayer to cancel the entire project and reinvest the money in projects that offer a better return on investment.

M1A3 Abrams

The Army is developing a new variant of the long-serving Abrams main battle tank. But while the Abrams is still among the best tanks in the world, the design is more than three decades old—and at least one senior Army official told theNational Interest that there is not much room left for growth in the venerable design. The Army needs a new clean sheet design that has room for future growth.

Russia is developing a new series of armored vehicles called the Armata—which includes a main battle tank. China too is developing modern tanks. Meanwhile, Germany has recognized that it cannot keep upgrading its excellent Leopard 2 main battle tank—arguably a superior vehicle compared to the Abrams—indefinitely. As such, it is embarking on developing a new Leopard 3.

The U.S. Army too should consider building a new clean sheet design. That would not only preserve the superiority of the Army’s heavy mechanized forces, but would preserve the engineering design talent to build a new tank.

Dave Majumdar has been covering defense since 2004. He currently writes for the U.S. Naval Institute, Aviation Week and The Daily Beast, among others. Majumdar previously covered national security issues at Flight International, Defense News and C4ISR Journal. Majumdar studied Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and is a student of naval history.

New York (AFP) - Federal agents on Monday arrested an alleged Russian spy in New York accused of trying to collect economic intelligence and recruit US sources while working for a Russian bank, officials said.

US prosecutors named the alleged covert intelligence agent as Evgeny Buryakov, 39. He was to appear before US Judge Sarah Netburn in a Manhattan federal court later Monday.

Prosecutors said he was assisted in his illegal spying activities by Russian spies Igor Sporyshev, 40, and Victor Podobnyy, 27, who had been attached to the Russian missions in New York.

Although both had been protected by diplomatic immunity they no longer live in the United States, and have been charged in absentia despite not being arrested, officials said.

US prosecutors allege Buryakov worked as a covert agent for Moscow without notifying the US government, operating undercover while officially working for a Russian bank in Manhattan.

The arrest is likely to rock already deeply strained relations between Moscow and Washington, which have been at their lowest ebb in years over the crisis in Ukraine and war in Syria.

In 2010, the United States arrested 10 alleged sleeper agents including Anna Chapman, accused of spying for Russia in the New York region who were then subject to a prisoner swap with Moscow.

US officials said Monday's arrest harked back to the Cold War.

"These charges demonstrate our firm commitment to combating attempts by covert agents to illegally gather intelligence and recruit spies within the United States," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

"We will use every tool at our disposal to identify and hold accountable foreign agents operating inside this country -- no matter how deep their cover," he added.

US Attorney Preet Bharara said it showed that "more than two decades" after the Cold War, "Russian spies continue to seek to operate in our midst under cover of secrecy."

- Communicated in code-

Buryakov is accused of working as an undercover agent for Russia's SVR foreign intelligence agency while posing as an employee in the Manhattan office of a Russian bank.

It is illegal in the Untied States for foreign spies to operate undeclared. While Sporyshev and Podobnyy were also allegedly SVR agents, they were protected by diplomatic immunity.

From November 2010 to November 2014, Sporyshev worked as Russia's trade representative in New York.

From December 2012, to September 2013, Podobnyy served as attache to the Russian mission to the United Nations in New York.

But while exempt from notifying the attorney general of the true nature of their work they were not allowed to conspire, aid or abet Buryakov with his work, US prosecutors said.

The trio allegedly met regularly and communicated through coded messages to exchange intelligence.

From March 2012 until mid-September 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) observed dozens of meetings in which Buryakov passed a bag, magazine, or slip of paper to Sporyshev at meetings set up by a short telephone call.

Prosecutors said they were recorded attempting to recruit US citizens, including people working for major companies and several young women with ties to a New York university.

In 2013, Sporyshev asked Buryakov for help in asking questions to be used for intelligence gathering by others associated with "a leading Russian state-owned news organization," prosecutors said.

Officials said the net closed in on Buryakov after he met numerous times last summer with an FBI source posing as the representative of a wealthy investor looking to develop casinos in Russia.

The trio are charged with conspiring for Buryakov to act as an undeclared foreign agent.

Buryakov is also charged with acting as an undeclared foreign spy, and the other two with aiding and abetting that offense.

The charges against Buryakov are punishable by 15 years in prison.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) speaks with Bob Schieffer on CBS News "Face the Nation" in Washington in this January 25, 2015 picture provided by CBS News. REUTERS/CBS News/Chris Usher/Handout via Reuters

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. senators introduced a resolution on Monday opposing more sanctions on Iran unless nuclear talks fail or Tehran breaks an agreement, countering a push for tougher sanctions backed by Republicans that President Barack Obama has pledged to veto.

"For those who agree that the sanctions bill in the Banking Committee is detrimental, this resolution provides an option in support of diplomacy," Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a leading co-sponsor of the resolution with Senator Chris Murphy, said in a statement.

Backing the Obama administration, she said enacting new sanctions during the negotiations would "gravely undermine" efforts to reach a nuclear agreement with Tehran.

The Senate Banking Committee is due to vote later this week on legislation being developed by Republican Senator Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez that would toughen sanctions on Iran if there is no nuclear agreement before the end of June.

Six world powers - the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia - have given themselves until the end of June to produce a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran and end a long-running dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address last Tuesday to veto the Kirk-Menendez measure, which has strong support among many Republicans, who contend Obama is so eager to reach an important agreement with Iran that he is giving up too much in the talks.

The dispute contributed to a diplomatic flap. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, announced the day after Obama's address that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran, without consulting the Obama administration or congressional Democrats.

Netanyahu on Sunday defended his planned speech, saying he had a moral obligation to speak out on an issue that poses a mortal threat to Israel. His visit to Washington next month has drawn accusations in Israel that Netanyahu is undermining the country's core foreign alliance in an effort to win an election two weeks after the trip.

The new resolution's other co-sponsors include Democratic Senators Tom Carper, Dick Durbin, Al Franken, Martin Heinrich, Patrick Leahy, Jeff Merkley, John Tester and Sheldon Whitehouse, as well as Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Sandra Maler and Peter Cooney)

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (AP) — The sexual abuse of a 13-year-old scout by an adult volunteer was part of a "sordid history of child sexual abuse" within the Boy Scouts that has been documented internally by the organization for nearly a century, the victim's attorney said Monday in his opening statement at a civil trial in California.

The scout, now 20, has sued the Boy Scouts of America and a local scouting council for punitive damages after being molested by a volunteer leader in 2007. He claims in his negligence lawsuit that the Scouts failed to educate, train and warn parents and adult volunteers about the dangers of sex abuse.

His attorney, Tim Hale, won the right to draw from more than 30 years of "perversion" files kept by the Scouts as evidence at trial to support those allegations. The files cleared for use by Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck include 16 years of documents — from 1991 to 2007— that have never been seen before outside the Scouts.

Hale told the jury that when the case is over they will receive a CD of 100,000 pages of files to review while they deliberate.

"You're going to be the first people in the United States with the opportunity to review these files," Hale said.

Hale said in his opening remarks that the Scouts recorded between 9,000 and 10,000 such files between 1920 and 2007. He intends to use documents dating from 1971 to 2007 to build his case.

"The Boy Scouts of America has a long and sordid history of child sexual abuse committed against young Scouts . committed by Scout leaders and that timeline goes back, the files show, until at least the 1920s," he said.

"What has not been going on is notice to the public and notice to (the plaintiff) and his parents," the lawyer added.

An attorney for the Boy Scouts countered that the "perversion" files were created to keep children safe by maintaining a master list of people ineligible to volunteer with the Scouts.

The organization acknowledges mistakes in the way sex abuse allegations were handled in the past but now has a robust child protection program and parent training, attorney Nicholas Heldt said in his opening statement to jurors.

From 2003 to 2007, a key period for the lawsuit, only 27 adult volunteers were kicked out annually for sexually abusing Scouts, although there were at least 1.5 million volunteers nationally, he said.

When the plaintiff was abused, the youth protection training worked because the boy recognized the abuse, resisted and told his mother, Heldt said. She, in turn, told local Scout leaders who informed law enforcement.

"This case is about training and whether training would have made a difference," he told jurors.

"I think this is a case in which the one instance of sexual abuse against (the plaintiff) could not have been prevented and it wasn't prevented," he said. "But the training program may have helped prevent the second or the third instance of sexual abuse."

The victim's name is being used in court but The Associated Press does not generally name victims of sexual abuse.

The records allowed by the judge could reveal how much the national organization has improved its efforts to protect children and report abuse after several high-profile cases sparked the youth protection policy in the late 1980s.

Previous large verdicts against the Scouts focused on cases where alleged abuse occurred before the policy was put in place.

In 2012, the Oregon Supreme Court ordered the Scouts to make public a trove of files from 1965 to 1985. The records showed that more than one-third of abuse allegations never were reported to police and that even when authorities were told, little was done most of the time.

Those documents came to light after a jury in 2010 imposed a nearly $20 million penalty against the Scouts in a molestation case in Portland, Oregon, that dated to the early 1980s.

Since then, plaintiffs' attorneys in several states, including Texas and Minnesota, have sought to publicize the more recent records through similar lawsuits but the cases have settled before trial.

The current lawsuit alleges that Scouts volunteer Al Stein, now 37, pulled down the plaintiff's pants when he was 13 and fondled him while the two worked in a Christmas tree lot. The boy suffered bruises and a laceration in the assault and still suffers from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder that prevent him from leaving the house, Hale said.

Stein pleaded no contest to felony child endangerment in 2009 and was sentenced to probation. He served time in prison after authorities discovered photos of naked children on his cellphone.

He was paroled early, however, and was last living in Salinas, California, as a registered sex offender.

Under the judge's ruling, records that Hale does not use in open court will remain sealed.

After trial, the plaintiff's counsel and other interested parties can petition the court for the release of all the files.

That's what happened in Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court ordered the Scouts to make all the documents public after The Associated Press and other media outlets intervened.

_____

Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/gflaccus