Navy To Auction Stealth Ship 124
First time accepted submitter Sparticus789 writes "Looks like the Navy is doing some housecleaning and selling off failed experiments, 'Yup, the Lockheed Martin-built Sea Shadow is being auctioned off from its home in the Suisun Bay ghost fleet in California.' Bidding is right now at $100,000 and it even comes with the dock. Don't get your hopes up of an evil hideout, the fine print says 'The ex-sea shadow shall be disposed of by completely dismantling and scrapping within the U.S.A."
Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a failed experiment if nothing's learned. More often than not, experiments don't produce the expected result. It's how we learn.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Interesting)
And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle? If all it is is a curious looking ship, who cares what happens to it after it leaves the Navy's hands?
This sounds more like something you'd do with a successful prototype that nevertheless was not militarily useful due to factors relating to the fact that it is a prototype and not a full blown warship....
Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was developed in competition with other stealth ships. This one didn't win.
Nevertheless, it has a lot of cutting-edge technology that the US government has very little interest in giving to someone else. So the sensible option in this case is to keep producing the winning concept ships, and dismantle the losing prototype, making sure noone else can piggyback on all the money spent on it.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Funny)
>> It wasn't developed in competition with anything.
That's a testament to just how good the winning ship was.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
it was competing with Chuck Norris.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go and read Ben Rich's Skunk Works for the history of the Sea Shadow. Lockheed-Martin developed this one on their own and the Navy rejected the design because it didn't look like a ship an admiral would be seen dead in. Like the Royal Navy still insisting on sails and sail drill in the mid to latter days of steam.
As far as their stealth was concerned, Skunk Works had to increase the radar reflectivity profile because the effect was so good, it appeared as a flat line against the shifting waves on radar and was visible as a result.
Isn't that a good thing? (Score:3)
the Navy rejected the design because it didn't look like a ship an admiral would be seen dead in.
If I were an admiral I'd consider that a good thing. I'd much rather that than a ship that looks like I would be seen dead in it.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically the only places where a stealth ship makes sense are missions where the need for stealth outweighs other considerations. Stealth is useful in an attack role, or for electronic eavesdropping, or perhaps for infiltrating a small group of special operations forces close to shore. However, the ship still has long way to go in terms of stealth. The main issue is that you can see the thing- a 100 foot long ship is going to be visible to patrol aircraft and other ships from a long way off, and it will also be visible to satellites. At night it would probably be fairly easy to pick up using thermal imaging, unless you found a way to heat or cool the skin of the boat to the same temperature as the surrounding ocean.
But there's a simple way to make you invisible to radar and to avoid visual detection at the same time: put the boat underwater. And I suspect that is the real reason nothing like the Sea Shadow was ever built. We've been able to achieve total invisibility to radar and visual detection for close to a century using subs, it's hard to imagine what advantage the Sea Shadow would have over something like a Seawolf attack sub.
Re: (Score:2)
The Sea Shadow has a pretty strait forward advantage over a submarine, a lower active sonar signature.
The side 'spars' are using a design known as SWATH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_waterplane_area_twin_hull [wikipedia.org]
The lack of a single flat plate reflective surface (the face on profile of a typical V bottom hulled warship) means that the design of their hulls is much harder to find even when you give up your stealth and active ping for it. Its not going to be perfect, but between the hull design, the electri
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a novel propulsion system which is still undergoing rapid development ... wouldn't you include a backup propulsion system that all the crews would be familar with?
Next time you're on a commercial boat, take a look at the lifeboats. Most likely they'll have a diesel engine (more robust at low maintenance & usage than petrol) with a stored hydraulic pressure starting system. And oars. Yes, oars.
Re: (Score:3)
This one failed because the Navy already has stealth ships, and has had them for years. They're called submarines. Surface stealth ships just aren't as useful or effective.
Re: (Score:3)
It still would save a step for a foreign military if the design had some plausible design features. Instead of having to build it and test it, they would just have to test it to learn that what doesn't work.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we've learned all there is to be learned from it.
Because we don't want anybody learning what there is to be learned from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that it's military equipment the requirement to dismantle probably has something to do with national security.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then what sort of nonsense is auctioning it off? Couldn't they just wait and auction off the scrap metal?
It seems ludicrous to say "SURE! Buy my awesome supersecret stealth boat! Oh, but you have to destroy it as soon as you get it."
Re: (Score:2)
Scrap dealers will buy it for the metal.
This is a fairly standard term for purchasing equipment which can only be taken away as scrap.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a new total war like WWII where the US military inventory is slowly eroded away in total war. We can't build the new ones quick enough and we need back lines aircraft to keep the war moving. That's the point of the boneyard. Drag out the old airframe and refurb them quicker than you can build new ones and keep inventory in place.
Initial calculations after the '67 day war with Israel using western aircraft and Arabs using Russian missile systems was that in a war with the Russians the US airforce wou
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorta in reverse order. The boneyard is just that, bones. All that's stored there is the airframe. They are stripped off everything else (ie no motors, no seals, no nothing but the aluminum airframe. Second, the boneyard costs almost nothing (security costs) for a benefit that admittedly is likely to never be used but if it was ever needed its benefits would be infinite. Third it's not just F4's and huey's, it's cargo aircraft, air command and dozens of other roles.
I think you overestimate how many aircraf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the boneyard Hueys bum you ought, you'd be seriously depressed at the number of perfectly good, airworthy choppers which were pushed off the deck right into the drink during the withdrawal from Vietnam. Hueys, Chinooks, the whole shebang.
Re: (Score:2)
"What DOES piss me off about the military is how many old choppers and warbirds we have wrapped in plastic out at the boneyard."
Worn-out high-time military birds would need expensive overhauls before civilian service, and replacement radios and avionics in many cases. Beware the "aircraft-shaped object" which LOOKS just dandy parked in the desert but needs overhaul before return to service. There's often structural deterioration you can only see on X-ray.
"Now if it is useful for parts then yes, i can see it
The ultimate excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a military contractor's dream. The ultimate weapon that has to be built so that it must be quickly destroyed. Because of its advanced capabilities it can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands, not even that of our own military, thus requiring the immediate need for a new no-bid contract to build its technological successor.
Re: (Score:2)
What utter babble. EXPERIMENTS are "experimental". Go research the MANY experimental aircraft (the Smithsonian saved quite a few) which were built before the advent of convenient computer modelling.
They were built to TEST ideas. That's why the people who flew them were called "test pilots" instead of "foregone conclusion pilots". If you know your end result it's not an "experiment" nor is it "research".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the government doesn't sell military equipment unless it's either a) been demilitarized (essentially, rendered useless), or b) going to be scrapped. Otherwise, as it does for museum ships, it retains custody.
She was an abysmal failure. For a reasonable amount of armament, she ended up much larger more expensive than a ship with a conventional displacement hull.... and she wasn't actually all that stealthy. (In particular, her wake could be trivially detected using the same radar used to detect submarine periscopes.) On top of that, because of displacement limitations, she was highly vulnerable in combat, had low survivability, limited endurance, maintenance issues, and had habitability issues as compared to an equivalent conventional design.
tl;dr version: The Navy already had a stealth ship (the fast attack submarine) that filled the various mission needs that the Navy needed stealth for. Sea Shadow had no particular advantages over the submarine and several key disadvantages. Other than her one party trick (stealth), she was inferior to conventional surface ships but had a considerably higher price tag.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come on. The thing looks wicked. You can't tell me that the Batman-like design wouldn't strike fear in the hearts of 16 year old geek jihadists everywhere.
Re:Failed experiment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, radar cross section is a concern, no the Navy doesn't use the methods she used to reduce radar cross section. Yes, reduced crew manning is a concern and has been for decades, no, she didn't play any particular role in that either. Yes, roll reduction has been a concern, but as you point out - the one feature of Sea Shadow that contributed to that (the catamaran hull) isn't in operational use.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, roll reduction has been a concern, but as you point out - the one feature of Sea Shadow that contributed to that (the catamaran hull) isn't in operational use.
Well, there's the five HSV/TSVs, the FSF 1 Sea Fighter, the Spearhead class JHSVs and the Independence class LCS trimarans. I would think the catamaran experience learned from the Sea Shadow must have had some effect on the decision to procure those vessel types.
Let's face it. (Score:3, Funny)
It was the considerably higher price tag that was the primary "military" objective.
Re: (Score:1)
She was an abysmal failure. For a reasonable amount of armament, she ended up much larger more expensive than a ship with a conventional displacement hull.... and she wasn't actually all that stealthy. (In particular, her wake could be trivially detected using the same radar used to detect submarine periscopes.) On top of that, because of displacement limitations, she was highly vulnerable in combat, had low survivability, limited endurance, maintenance issues, and had habitability issues as compared to an equivalent conventional design.
tl;dr version: The Navy already had a stealth ship (the fast attack submarine) that filled the various mission needs that the Navy needed stealth for. Sea Shadow had no particular advantages over the submarine and several key disadvantages. Other than her one party trick (stealth), she was inferior to conventional surface ships but had a considerably higher price tag.
I don't think you understand what "tl;dr" means....
Re: (Score:2)
Sub better.
Re: (Score:2)
If it worked in any way, those results would be top secret, and it would be scuttled in a deep trench somewhere. Even photos of its design would be TS if they were potentially useful to other nations, so it must have been a bit of a disaster, or at least the technology is now public.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....
That'd about sum it up. The U.S. governmental thinking is, often, that anything that comes in contact with "top secret" stuff becomes somehow contaminated. Thus you buy some test equipment (stuff without any persistent memory that could store secrets) at a government auction, and months or years later you get a friendly call saying that "well, we'd want those back please". Whatever time you spent refurbishing the stuff is your loss at that point. I wish I was making this up.
Re: (Score:2)
"And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle?"
Because reasons do not exist to let it loose. It's a bit like a used hard drive. When in doubt, destroy it.
Scrap metal is high these days so it's valuable.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the ship would be a hazard in the open seas since radar can't see it?
The Real Failed Experiment (Score:2)
When one looks at the cost to taxpayers of what this thing cost us to build and what we will get for it in scrap, its obvious that the real failed experiment is the one in which taxpayer's haven't seem to learned any lessons about how building this kind of useless junk in the first place not only does not address our security challenges but doesn't provide any sustainable means of supporting our economy.
Such a waste (Score:2)
Re:Such a waste (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it's a stealth ship. Tell the government that you've dismantled it, then sail it away right in front of the coast guard. They won't suspect a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes sir, squire, this here is your actual stealth ship.
Of course you can't see it or touch it. That's what makes it a stealth ship.
But since I just happen to have one of these beauties in my possession and a need for some quick cash, I'm willing to part with it on low, low terms. If you pay up front, I'll even through in that bridge you can see right through the ship.
Re: (Score:2)
...it even comes with the dock.
For Sale: S.S. Borealis
Part of failed experiment; we guarantee it will be hard to find.
P.S. Buyer is required to return vessel to US territory for...disposal.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's a shame it has to be dismantled."
Agreed.. I would have loved to spent some time behind the controls of this baby, see 16 page article on Sea Shadow layout/design, interior photos and other goodies [hnsa.org]
The companion Huges built Mining Barge(HMB-1), displacement floating dry dock, (with a retractable roof no less), should have kept the Sea Shadow in great shape while it was in storage.
Waste is an understatement (Score:1)
Buy yourself a video game. It will be a lot cheaper for us taxpayers. Do you have any idea of how many copies of Mortal Combat the government could have given away for free but instead chose to build this "failed experiment"?
Re: (Score:2)
Such a reflex. What "shame" ?
It served it's purpose and may be discarded like lathe turnings or milling machine chips.
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse engineered in the USA (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And dollars to doughnuts the winning bidder will be Lockheed.
Re: (Score:1)
A version of this was used in a James Bond film (Score:3)
Strange definition of "evil" (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't get your hopes up of an evil hideout, the fine print says 'The ex-sea shadow shall be disposed of by completely dismantling and scrapping within the U.S.A.""
Yeah, because as an evil supervillian, I always make certain that I strictly abide by my contracts with the US government.
Also, my lawyers have reminded me that the contract says nothing about not re-assembling it, or not using all the information gleaned by disassembling it to build a new one. Eeeexcellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it doesn't say WHEN it has to be scrapped. Theoretically, agreeing to that just means you have to EVENTUALLY scrap it in the US. Who's to say you can't sail around a bit in it before then?
Re:Strange definition of "evil" (Score:4, Informative)
Also, my lawyers have reminded me that the contract says nothing about not re-assembling it, or not using all the information gleaned by disassembling it to build a new one. Eeeexcellent.
The auction listing says this:
(THE EX-SEA SHADOW SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY COMPLETELY DISMANTLING AND SCRAPPING WITHIN THE U.S.A. DISMANTILING IS DEFINED AS REDUCING THE PROPERTY SUCH AS IT HAS NO VALUE EXCEPT FOR ITS BASIC MATERIAL CONTENT.)
I fail to see how you could disassemble it in a way that allows reassembly and still be able to show that you reduced the ship down to where it has no value except its basic material content. I suppose you could melt it down and reshape each piece into its original shape, but that seems more expensive than just building a brand new ship.
Re: (Score:1)
Drat. Foiled again. You're fired lawyers! Into the pit. Go on. It was in the contract you signed when you started work here.
How will you find it? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, it's a stealth ship in a ghost fleet. If it can be found, I think it's safe to call it a failed experiment.
Re:How will you find it? Failed Experiment (Score:2)
If an X-1 were found boxed up in some government storehouse would it be labeled as a failed experiment? After all no nation has deployed any rocket propelled aircraft since the X-1, AFAIK.
Re:How will you find it? Failed Experiment (Score:4, Informative)
There were a couple rocket-powered F-104s. Chuck Yeager crashed one of them, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that! Thanks.
They were aircraft used for research "sounding" of the upper atmosphere and had supplementary rocket propulsion.
Anyone have the numbers? (Score:2)
As one looks over our "ghost fleet", does anyone know the total cost to taxpayers: 1) to build and 2) to maintain and secure of this fleet?
Why do I get the feeling that we all gave up the equivalent of free 4 year education at an institution of higher education of your choice to instead build ourselves a "ghost fleet"?
The cost of our military's inventory of useless junk would certainly be worth reading about, considering that as we look at the figures we can appreciate what we might have more usefully boug
Re: (Score:2)
Bummer (Score:2)
Too bad she's so slow, otherwise the US Coast Guard might have found a use for her.
When? (Score:1)
... A real pity (Score:2)
Other disposal options... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one ship, and probably slower than the speedboats the drug runners use. A conventional ship with a helicopter is much more useful.
Evil laughter (Score:2)
Yeah, like you can find me if I don't !
(filter doesn't let me post the original legal text apparently)
It's a bundle (Score:2)
There is a second item included:
THE EX-HUGHES MINING BARGE (HMB-1), COVERED SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE DECK CARGO BARGE/FLOATING DRY-DOCK (WITH DOCKED EX-SEA SHADOW (IX-529) ON BOARD.) HMB-1 â" LIGHT DISPLACEMENT: 4,585 TONS, LENGTH OVER ALL): 324 FEET, BREATH: 106.8 FEET, DEPTH: 18.8 FEET, HEIGHT OF WING WALLS ABOVE MAIN DECK: 62 FEET, LENGTH INSIDE WING WALLS: 276 FEET, WIDTH INSIDE WING WALLS: 76.6 FEET, YEAR BUILT: 1972, DRAFT: FORWARD: 8 FEET, AFT: 9 FEET, AIR DRAFT: 97.7 FEET, BUILDER: NATIONAL STEEL SHIP BUILDING COMPANY, SAN DIEGO, CA., CONSTRUCTION: WELDED STEEL, SPOON BOW AND FLAT BOTTOM WITH 18 INCH DEAD RISE, AND RADIUS BILGE PLATING.
I guess the HMB-1 is what is really interesting for legit buyers. Lots of old-fashioned steel for melting down there, or maybe the buyer has use for the floating dock (there is no requirement to scrap the HMB-1).
Old (and Fox) News (Score:4, Informative)
This news is at least 2 years old [foxnews.com], and it could be as old as 5 years or more [wikipedia.org].
I know you don't RTFA, at least google the story a bit or follow a wikipedia reference or two. It's not that someone will duplicate your scoop in the few moments it takes to at least try to verify the story.
Re:Old (and Fox) News (Score:5, Informative)
Don't take the Slashdot editors to task for what you're too lazy to do yourself.
If you actually read and comprehended your linked references, you'd note that the previous attempts have been to sell/donate Sea Shadow as a museum ship - while this offer is for scrapping and disposal.
No value except scrap? I disagree! (Score:2)
As a citizen who pays taxes and helped fund this project, I say it does have value beyond scrap, in the form of a museum exhibit.
(Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
Re: (Score:3)
As a citizen who pays taxes and helped fund this project, I say it does have value beyond scrap, in the form of a museum exhibit.
The Navy's tried to sell it as a museum ship for the last six years. Nobody wants it.
Re: (Score:1)
Wanted: Secret military stealth ship. For perfectly innocent display in private museum on little known volcanic island.
Re: (Score:2)
"I say it does have value beyond scrap, in the form of a museum exhibit."
Good. Now pay for that, too.
Times are hard and it's tough enough to fund exhibits of historic ships such as those from WWII.
Location: 38.069454,-122.101722 (Score:1)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.069454,-122.101722
Re: (Score:2)
If I had the money to bid on a ship, I'd prefer the USS Iowa on the other end of that row.
Re: (Score:1)
You missed out, the picture is out of date now. Iowa is tied up at Richmond and partially open as a museum ship now, when it's finished conversion it'll be moved to Los Angeles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I am out of mod points, that deserved a funny..
Sad to see this thing go to scrap ;( (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot. No one reads the specs, the article, or the manual.
Weapon Control (Score:1)
Inside the floating dock with the Sea Shadow (Score:2)
Pretty cool. The ship was locked up though, so I only got to check out the outside. It's bigger than you'd think.
Sea Shadow in the floating dock [fbcdn.net]
From what I understand they tried to find a museum for the ship but there were no takers. The dock was in rusty/poor condition, but the ship looked garage-kept ;-)
Ghost Fleet! (Score:2)
Let me get this straight... The Sea Shadow is part of the Ghost Fleet?
They may not be able to build a stealthy ship, but they can certainly name stuff good! ;)
Though the Sea Wolf is a great name for a sub, but where is the Kraken!
I am just waiting for someone to create an Albatross Class of warship...
"Ensign congratulations, you have just been assigned to the Davie Jones, an Albatross Class vanguard attack cruiser!" *facepalm!*
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be an ass. It's not a "privilege", it's solid money. Because scrap has value -- same reason a junkyard will pay you for the "privilege" of scrapping your car. If you're not confident you can make more than X+Y dollars, where Y is the cost of dismantling it to scrappable components, you don't bid $X for it -- really simple.
Quite frankly, bloated MIC or no, I'd much rather the Navy sell vessels rendered useless for whatever reason and let someone else scrap them, rather than doing that themselves. Disma
Re: (Score:3)
You do know the Barge alone has a scrap value of about 8 million dollars, and that is assuming you only scrap it out for the metal content in it. Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound.
Let alone anything of value that might be in it, such as equipment etc that can be sold for more then 90 cents a pound.
Good Money (Score:2)
"Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound. "
Sure would be interested to know what the ratio of the "profit" for the US taxpayer will turn out to be taking into consideration what it cost to build it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but a number of other contractors have already outbid you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really too small to make a decent reef, nor is it a good candidate for target practice, so they just sell it to the breakers to recycle the hundreds of tonnes of steel and stuff, same as has been done for over a century.