Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

Navy To Auction Stealth Ship 124

Posted by samzenpus
from the invisible-fishing dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Navy To Auction Stealth Ship

Comments Filter:
  • Failed experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29, 2012 @09:29AM (#39837159)

    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.

    • by zippthorne (748122) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @09:49AM (#39837273) Journal

      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....

      • by boaworm (180781) <boaworm@gmail.com> on Sunday April 29, 2012 @10:13AM (#39837347) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by braeldiil (1349569) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @10:36AM (#39837449)
          It wasn't developed in competition with anything. It wasn't a warship, or really a working ship at all. It was a test platform for a bunch of different technologies. And, since the technologies being tested have since been incorporated into actual navy ships, I'd say it was a successful test ship. Calling it a failure is nearly as stupid as calling the Norton Sound a failure. After all, they didn't build any more of her, either.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by phrostie (121428)

          it was competing with Chuck Norris.

        • by bruce_the_loon (856617) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @12:45PM (#39838107) Homepage

          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.

          • 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.

          • by flyingsquid (813711) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @05:51PM (#39839753)
            I suspect the main reason this design didn't catch on is that there's no clear military role for a ship like the Sea Shadow that another vessel couldn't already do better. The unconventional design of the hull limits the ship in a lot of ways, the most obvious is that you can't put guns on it. You can't put a radar on it either, or rather, you could, but it would undo all your efforts to make the ship invisible as soon as you turned it on. So the ship can't be used in a defensive role against ships and aircraft like a destroyer.

            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.

            • 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

          • by RockDoctor (15477)

            Like the Royal Navy still insisting on sails and sail drill in the mid to latter days of steam.

            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.

        • by DesScorp (410532)

          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.

      • by bigdavex (155746)

        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.

      • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @10:49AM (#39837505)

        And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle?

        Because we've learned all there is to be learned from it.

        If all it is is a curious looking ship, who cares what happens to it after it leaves the Navy's hands?

        Because we don't want anybody learning what there is to be learned from it.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Considering that it's military equipment the requirement to dismantle probably has something to do with national security.

        • 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."

          • by Cylix (55374)

            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.

            • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday April 29, 2012 @02:11PM (#39838593) Journal

              Exactly, the Navy scraps boats all the time, not a big deal. What DOES piss me off about the military is how many old choppers and warbirds we have wrapped in plastic out at the boneyard. Now if it is useful for parts then yes, i can see it, but frankly all those early to late 60s choppers and warbirds are so hopelessly out of date the military is never gonna want to fly those again and they would fetch a damned good price on the civilian market. the huey is still used quite a bit today by civilian pilots and of course old warbirds are seriously prized by collectors. Oh and before anyone says some third world country would buy them...so what? Frankly you can buy better birds from Russia that aren't nearly as out of date and as we saw in desert storm without top notch pilots you get another turkey shoot anyway, not to mention we know exactly how these old birds handle and what their weaknesses were.

              When we are drowning in red ink its just retarded to let billions of dollars worth of aircraft just sit and rot out in the desert when they could fetch good money on the civilian market. We should sell a few to test the waters and then if they fetch good prices then see about selling more. i know this won't take away the debt but every little bit helps and they certainly aren't doing us any good wrapped in plastic out in the desert. Hell you could even give a discount to small hospitals on the choppers for those that don't have lifeflight and might even save some lives, better than just letting them rot.

              • by rahvin112 (446269)

                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

                • If there were a total war like WWII, one where the existance of the US were seriously under threat, none of those forces would matter: They'd get out the nukes. The US nuclear arsenal is less than it used to be, but it's still enough to obliterate every major city in whatever hostile region threatens them. The US doesn't need a navy to defend their own lands any more - they need it to defend their interests overseas. Trade routes, allies depending upon them. Things like that.
                • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday April 29, 2012 @06:00PM (#39839785) Journal

                  Except other than crazy military scenarios that could NEVER EVER happen...why? Nukes. You only really have two kinds of war anymore, those with nukes and those without. Now looking at the state of the world's militaries right this minute there are only two countries that could actually wage a war long enough for your scenario to be plausible, and that is Russia and China, and guess what? they both got nukes. There is no such things as "gentlemen's agreements" in total war and I seriously doubt if we had Russia or China backed against the wall they wouldn't fire off a few, hence why the threat of actual war with either country is virtually nil. They know we would launch, we know they would launch, so the best you are gonna get is proxy wars.

                  So I'm sorry but that argument simply no longer holds. it did during the cold war simply because other than sat pics we honestly didn't know what the USSR could do as far as production, that is no longer true. And as for China? they can royally fuck us economically by dumping all their US currency on the market so a war with them would be frankly suicidal, so again no real threat there. Oh we'll bitch at them occasionally, and they will bitch at us, but in the end we want to buy and they want to sell so that's that.

                  Besides do you HONESTLY think if we managed to toast our ENTIRE inventory of front line fighters, which considering we have 11 carriers to the next biggest guys 2 is no small task, that a bunch of mid 50s to mid 60s planes would make a difference? hell the time it would take to get them back into fighting shape and to the front would take too long anyway!

                  No the boneyard is just another cold war relic that needs to be gotten rid of. like I said where we still have craft in service and thus need the parts? yes, all for it, please keep those. But I can't picture the military suddenly wanting to go back to flying F-5s and Hueys and remember just because they are wrapped does NOT make them some sort of instant 'just unwrap and use" because the rubber is gonna get brittle, parts are gonna lock up, its just not good on an aircraft. better to sell those that we no longer have any use for to the civilian market. hell if we need them back at least then they'll be in running condition and we can always get them back just as we drafted boats and planes for service in WWII.

                  • by rahvin112 (446269)

                    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

                    • by hairyfeet (841228)

                      The reason the number is not higher is because of politics, because some many in the MIC are sucking at the teat with the F-35 but within a year or so that will be over, hell the Navy is quietly buying more F-18s and it looks like the USAF is gonna end up buying the Stealth Eagle along with a pile more F-16s because they too are tired of waiting.

                      But even with those numbers, which I doubt are accurate as for example they have C-130s flying over my head 24/7 pretty much (I'm within 60 miles of the training ba

                • Did you write that the wrong way around?? I.e. did you mean that the Russian air force would be decimated in the first 20 minutes? From what I read of the Six-Day war, the Israelis were very successful and their air force dominated ...
              • by modecx (130548)

                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.

              • by couchslug (175151)

                "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

          • by turkeyfish (950384) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @02:28PM (#39838677)

            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.

            • by couchslug (175151)

              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".

      • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday April 29, 2012 @11:07AM (#39837575) Homepage

        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?

        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.
         

        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....

        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.

        • 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.

        • by braeldiil (1349569) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @12:47PM (#39838111)
          Actually, she was quite the success. While we're not building ships exactly like her, radar stealth has been a significant concern of the Navy, and current ships are designed to minimize their radar cross section. Reduced crew manning has also been a really big push, as had improved roll stability. About the only major design feature not in use is the catamaran hull. and really, figuring out something is a bad idea is still a successful experiment.
          • 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.

            • 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.

        • It was the considerably higher price tag that was the primary "military" objective.

        • by kgwilliam (998911)

          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....

      • by devitto (230479)

        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.

      • by tibit (1762298)

        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.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        "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.

      • Maybe the ship would be a hazard in the open seas since radar can't see it?

    • 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.

  • It's a shame it has to be dismantled.
    • by lxs (131946) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @09:33AM (#39837183)

      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.

      • 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.

      • by Sduic (805226)

        ...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.

    • by FirstOne (193462)

      "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.

      • 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"?

    • by couchslug (175151)

      Such a reflex. What "shame" ?

      It served it's purpose and may be discarded like lathe turnings or milling machine chips.

  • What they are asking is that the ship be dismantled and the design reverse engineered in the US, rather than overseas.
    • yep, you buy it, you slowly dismantle and DOCUMENT every thing. then build your own, for millions of dollars.
    • by dak664 (1992350)

      And dollars to doughnuts the winning bidder will be Lockheed.

      • Lockheed Martin doesn't dispose of ships, nor do we (I am an employee) build them, per se. We contract other companies to build them for us (LCS) or simply provide the combat systems and radar systems to go on them (DDG-51). We should have purchased the shipyard in Pascagoula, where they build half the DDGs, but shortsighted management didn't do so, and Northrop Grumman bought it, instead.
  • So, I guess Tomorrow Dies [imdb.com] after all...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29, 2012 @09:57AM (#39837301)

    "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.

    • 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?

    • by hawguy (1600213) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @11:44AM (#39837781)

      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.

  • by gstrickler (920733) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @10:02AM (#39837323)

    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.

  • Too bad she's so slow, otherwise the US Coast Guard might have found a use for her.

  • by scint (555735)
    Nothing spec'd in there about time frame for dismantling it.
  • Its lines went beautifully with my Volcano Island underground lair.
  • Why not transfer the ship from the USN, to the US Border Patrol and do a 'little real fishing' for drug runners & smugglers? It may be a failed design from a contract contest, but it certainly could be useful elsewhere, far more sensible, to me.
    • It's a 30 year old ship that was never really designed for extended operations. It has a max crew of 12, and they're roughing it. It's slow, with no weapons. Please describe exactly how you think this ship would be useful to the border patrol. Not "worth the cost to maintain an old, one-of-a-kind vessel", just useful.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      It's one ship, and probably slower than the speedboats the drug runners use. A conventional ship with a helicopter is much more useful.

  • The ex-sea shadow shall be disposed of by completely dismantling and scrapping within the U.S.A

    Yeah, like you can find me if I don't !
    (filter doesn't let me post the original legal text apparently)

  • 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)

    by arisvega (1414195) on Sunday April 29, 2012 @11:16AM (#39837631)

    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.

  • (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.)

    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.)

    • by roothog (635998)

      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.

      • by Pyrus.mg (1152215)

        Wanted: Secret military stealth ship. For perfectly innocent display in private museum on little known volcanic island.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.069454,-122.101722

  • I have seen this thing in person. It looks absolutely amazing. Stationary or when its go full bore. I wonder why its called - failed? This ship was used extremely effectively in intercepting drug runners using speed boats. Not only its fast enough to keep up, despite its size it sits very high in the water, so it can follow these light boats in very shallow waters. Also if you read these "for sale" ad, what they selling is floating dock and scrap metal from this boat.
    • by dave420 (699308)
      14 knots isn't anywhere near fast, and it has a draft of 4.6m (15 feet!). Unless you include "super tankers" in your definition of "speed boats", your point seems a bit weird :)
  • One stealth ship, slightly used.... Why is it illegal to carry guns when the navy is selling a state of the art warship!?
  • 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 ;-)

  • 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!*

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...