Slashdot Mirror


More on the Swedish Stealth Ship

Dr.Knackerator writes "The BBC is running a story on Sweden's new carbon fibre stealth ship, the Visby. As well as being the first stealth ship, it is controlled by 'state-of-the-art computers using a Windows NT operating system'. 'But Kockums and the Swedish Navy deny it could be sabotaged by hackers and say that even if it did they could fall back to traditional steering and navigation'." We had a previous story about this as well.

82 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. And now... In Swedish. by lewko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Zee BBC is roonneeng a stury oon Sveden's noo cerbun feebre-a steelt sheep, zee Feesby. Bork bork bork! Es vell es beeeng zee furst steelt sheep, it is cuntrulled by 'stete-a-ooff-zee-ert cumpooters useeng a Veendoos NT oopereteeng system'. 'Boot Kuckooms und zee Svedeesh Nefy deny it cuoold be-a sebuteged by heckers und sey thet ifee iff it deed zeey cuoold fell beck tu tredeeshunel steereeng und nefeegeshun'." Ve-a hed a prefeeuoos stury ebuoot thees es vell.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    1. Re:And now... In Swedish. by kunudo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boot Kuckooms und zee Svedeesh

      Germans say 'und' for and, whereas swedes say och, and would have no reason to use that word. You fail!

    2. Re:And now... In Swedish. by kunudo · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not about replicating Swedish, you bafoon. It's the Swedish Chef from dialectizer... You know, as in the FUCKING MUPPET, which did say 'und'?

      Yes, I know. He was wrong too.

    3. Re:And now... In Swedish. by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not about replicating Swedish, you bafoon. It's the Swedish Chef from dialectizer... You know, as in the FUCKING MUPPET, which did say 'und'?

      Yes, I know. He was wrong too.


      What kind of Swedish Chef impersonation would it be if he went around correcting the flaws the original had? Then, you're just impersonating some random actual Swedish guy, and that's no fun. That's like correcting grammar mistakes in movie quotes. It's not the same thing if you 'fix' it. Therefore, it logically follows that if the Swedish Chef had some errors as part of his character (and yes, he had a ton of them...that's part of what made him funny) then anyone wishing to imitate him would neccessarily imitate them as well. As an aside, Huuurdy vuuurdy hooooo.

  2. You mean "when we are hacked we can fall back..."? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And the Swede's are using traditional stearing in 5...4...3...

  3. Why stealth? by aixou · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is everyone all of a sudden gunning at the Swedish ships?

    Maybe the powers that be saw Tomorrow Never Dies one too many times.

    1. re: why stealth? by ed.han · · Score: 2, Informative

      if you can see it, you can sink it. radar is how a lot of guided weapon systems (missiles primarily) acquire a target lock. smaller signature = longer ship life. however, some military scientist or sailor will probably weigh in (weigh anchor?) to explain in greater detail just how important this really is on the modern battlefield.

      ed

    2. Re:Why stealth? by mgs1000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They don't want the Finns or the Norwegians to get any ideas. :)

    3. Re: why stealth? by Wanderer2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Surely its low radar profile is useless once they switch their own radar on? itd light up like a christmas tree and every detector in theatre would lock onto it.

      Indeed. In general your own radar emissions can be detected upto twice as far away as you can detect the returns.

      However, you don't have your radar on all the time (in some cases at all) to be able to detect an enemy and fire at them.

      Imagine if both sides have airborne radar, sonar buoys and/or shore-based radar stations and their information is linked to the fleet. Perhaps both sides have scout ships that only fire off their active radar for short bursts at occasional intervals (and then sprint away to avoid getting clobbered) and the data from the returns is passed to every vessel in the fleet. In these cases it helps to be as stealthy as possible.

      Similarly, if someone fires a missile at you, it helps if the missile's radar has trouble detecting you if/when you turn your own radar off.

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    4. Re:Why stealth? by random_static · · Score: 2, Informative
      No country we are fighting these days, or are likely to fight in the forseeable future, can hope to hurt a battleship

      i wouldn't be so sure about that. the big gunboats were designed to stand up to the equivalent of their own weapons; artillery shells of a couple metric tons apiece, loaded with (oh, i dunno, at a wild guess) maybe a couple hundred kilograms of explosive charge each, coming in ballistically and relatively slowly, without active guidance.

      the problem is, there are three major threats to surface vessels today, and none of them look like a big-gun barrage. surface-to-surface missiles come in at supersonic speeds, skimming the sea, and carrying much larger warheads than any arty shell would, with excellent guidance and accuracy - plus they can much more easily use shaped charges.

      aerial attack is similar except usually from a higher angle; aerial bombs come in slower than missiles or shells, but again carry more explosives, and are also usually more accurate than arty. (well, okay, the U.S. navy doesn't have to worry about this one, but still.)

      torpedoes are still slow (well, except for the supercavitating ones, but there's only one of those in service and the russkis aren't much up to attacking anybody anytime soon). however, they have evolved better guidance, better independent target-seeking, and better warheads than their ancient WW2 predecessors - which were already enough to sink a gunboat, with a couple good hits and some luck. good submarines are expensive, but the smaller littoral subs are plenty effective enough, and have seen at least some proliferation - maybe not to the miserable third-world ends of the earth the U.S. is likely to be attacking, but you never know.

      yeah, if you're shooting artillery shells at your opponent's water line, a battlewagon is the thing to have. but modern-day navies, armies, air forces and submariners don't play that game any longer. a big sea-going artillery platform might still be nice to have for supporting amphibious operations and coastal assaults, just as the B-52 is still a very handy bomber even though its original nuclear mission is long obsolete. but it wouldn't necessarily have to be a WW2-era battleship just to lob shells towards land. they might well be just the wrong thing for that use, even, for reasons that might be as simple as economics. how many crewmembers did you need to run one of those things, again...?

  4. Why???? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is controlled by 'state-of-the-art computers using a Windows NT operating system'. '

    First off, I am not sure I would call an NT system "state of the art". Next, I have to wonder just why folks are using a commodity platform to perform literally "mission critical" operations in a combat environment. Particularly one whose history of security is dubious at best.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Why???? by shnarez · · Score: 3, Insightful
      controlled by 'state-of-the-art computers using a Windows NT operating system'
      First off, I am not sure I would call an NT system "state of the art".
      I read it as saying the COMPUTERS are top-notch state-of-the-art, but they are running some crappy OS...
    2. Re:Why???? by AtomicBomb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In most cases, the reporters are refering to the monitoring/ high level control software (SCADA). It should not be that bad as long as NT is not controlling anything lower level and not connected anyhow to the outside...

      If they really use windows for this kind of operation, I am not that surprise they are using NT rather than win2k/xp. The reason is simple. The ship was commissioned a while ago... At that time, winxp may not even come out, and win2k was not that stable. They need something that have an okay track record and reasonable stable. NT is a rational choice (although I would probably state away from MS OS for this sort of thing)....

    3. Re:Why???? by SnapShot · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fact, though the OS is NT, the language used to program the ship was state-of-the-art Java. It was very simple to create the stealth ship; they just used the method call:

      this.setVisby(false);

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    4. Re:Why???? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, the security of poorly administrated Windows systems is dubious. But none of the 25 Windows 2000 machines in this office has ever gotten a virus in the past three years...basically, since I took over as administrator.

      Why? First thing I did was install a firewall. Second thing I did was disable unneccessary services. Third thing I did was patch them regularly.

      And that's it. I am the only admin for the company and I spend maybe two hours a month working on Windows (most of which is spent convincing the Exchange server to run a little bit longer). Why is Windows security so bad? Because most Windows administrators are lazy and would prefer to let things go for a few weeks than test the effects of the patch themselves.

      And as for Windows systems NOT being state-of-the-art...would you like a list of hardware that had Windows support YEARS before Linux got it? You probably don't, it's quite long and includes such obscure technologies as "USB." Not dissing on Linux overall (and I realize support for new tech has gotten MUCH better), but if you're a company that needs support for cutting edge technology and you don't want to write your own drivers, sometimes Windows is the only option. All that bloat? Yeah, some of it is Minesweeper and that retarded dog, but some of it is also features.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:Why???? by Krezel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're forgetting something...

      Hardware companies PAY PEOPLE to write drivers for their "state-of-the-art" hardware.

      The Linux devs were lucky if they could get technical docs, let alone support from the hardware manufacturers. Things are a bit harder when you have to reverse-engineer everything.

      Things are a lot better now, except for the video card market. The competition is so tight there that the last thing they want is an open-source driver.

  5. Coolest part... by mobiux · · Score: 3, Funny

    The m.c. ecsher paint job.

    1. Re:Coolest part... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, cryptic paint schemes go back as far as the early 1900's in war ships designed to conceal edges and make it difficult to determine which direction a ship may be traveling in. They have been used on and off for years, but most commonly on smaller littoral combat platforms rather than larger ships.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Coolest part... by mmaddox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I would argue that the submarine is the first "stealth ship."

      --

      What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?

  6. Doesn't the US have a stealth Ship? by DeTHZiT · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember seeing a US stealth ship in Wired I think, it's black and it floats on two pontoons, so that it's sonar signature is reduced... ANyone else know what I'm talking about?

    1. Re:Doesn't the US have a stealth Ship? by Quila467 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're probably thinking of the Lockheed Martin "Sea Shadow" which was a stealth ship built by the same group that built the F-117 stealth fighter and the SR-71. It was built by Skunk Works in the mid 80's as a test ship to test stealth technology on ships. If you google for skunkworks sea shadow, you should be able to find a picture of it.

  7. Not so worried about it being hacked... by Trogdorsey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be more worried about it crashing

  8. The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80's by Flounder · · Score: 5, Informative
    but if I told you about it, I'd have to kill you.

    Sea Shadow

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  9. This is not the first stealth ship. by filledwithloathing · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not the first stealth ship., this is.
    http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ ships /ship-sea.html

    --
    Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum
  10. Re:I hear that... by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think perhaps if you bomb it a bit, it comes apart.

    --
    If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
  11. James Bond by Claire-plus-plus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well at least James Bond will find that one easier to destroy than the last stealth ship he dealt with, all he would have to do is give it's IP to some script kiddies.

    --
    99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
  12. Hmmm. by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First off, I am not sure I would call an NT system "state of the art".

    Well, the article says the computers are state-of-the-sart, not the operating system.
    However, I doubt they're running NT 4.0 in any case. Windows 2000 or Server 2003, most likely, and those are simply not operating systems to be laughed at.

    1. Re:Hmmm. by Flounder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows 2000 or Server 2003, most likely, and those are simply not operating systems to be laughed at. No laughing at Windows 2k or 2k3?? You do realize this is /. we're talking about, remember?

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    2. Re:Hmmm. by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No chance they're running 2003. Its been out how long?

      MIlitary development testing takes so long, I'm vaguely surprised if its not running Windows for Workgroups.

      As an example, look how long it took to get the m-16 into production.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    3. Re:Hmmm. by Geekenstein · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, NT is the most likely OS. Military hardware takes years of design and testing to be put into service. If you look at the computer specs for the newest USAF fighter prototypes, you'll see they have about the computing power of a 486. Once things are certified and stress tested, you don't go changing the design on something that works.

    4. Re:Hmmm. by borgboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, having been in the defense industry, I can say with the timeline this warship was developed that it's entirely probable that it does run Windows NT 4.0. You dont change specs like that on a project of this scope lightly. NT also has been rated C2, in certain specific configurations.
      Good? Bad? Evil? Not my argument.

      --
      meh.
    5. Re:Hmmm. by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have to remember that the M16 was a weapon made by a private concern looking to sell it to the military. It was a weapon looking for a problem. Vietnam provided that problem. Then the M16 provided a whole boatload of problems all by it's own, when the Army made it out to be less maintenance than a rock. A lot of early M16 adopters are dead because the damn thing wouldn't serve it's primary purpose, discharge bullets at the enemy.

      The M16 was not a government project. Political concerns delayed getting the weapon fielded for at least 5 years, IIRC. Which I think was your point.

      HAND.
      -Chris

    6. Re:Hmmm. by EulerX07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think he meant the F-16, which took three years for the final design to be accepted after the release of the specs requirement. A boat is a much larger structure, but like the F-16, they were constructing the boat using different technologies already available and tailoring a production model to the swedish army's specs.

  13. Sea Shadow by Genady · · Score: 3, Informative

    As well as being the first stealth ship,

    No, I'm afraid that that honor goes to Sea Shadow. True, it was only a technology demonstrator, but it WAS the first stealth ship. This Swedish upstart may be the first PRODUCTION stealth ship, but it certainly ain't the first.

    That said, lessons from Sea Shadow were incorporated into the Burke class Destroyers. So this isn't even the first 'stealthy' ship out here.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
    1. Re:Sea Shadow by Seehund · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Background: The Sea Shadow program was begun in the mid-1980s."

      The Swedish stealth ship program (which includes previous results such as HMS Smyge and this latest YS2000 Series 1 (Visby corvette)) was launched in 1986.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
  14. Been there done that! by 10Ghz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Finnish Hamina-class. Maybe not as radical as this ship, but stealth-ship regardless. And packed with high technology.

    So what makes this Swedish ship "first stealth-ship", when there are already stealth-ships in use in Finland? And they have been in use for quite some time already.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    1. Re:Been there done that! by Nodatadj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, this is /.
      What you're expecting quality journalism?

    2. Re:Been there done that! by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Funny
      So what makes this Swedish ship "first stealth-ship", when there are already stealth-ships in use in Finland?

      I'm sorry, we just couldn't find the Finnish ships to report about them. I know they're around here somewhere...

      Seriously, there have been stealthy ships before, but the Visby-class is the first of a new generation.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:Been there done that! by mgs1000 · · Score: 2, Funny
      So guess this is just the beginning of an arms race between Sweden and Finland. :)

  15. Probably OK by W2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this boat is running anything like the NT systems I used when I was in the army (the Swedish army that is) I'd say it's pretty stable and secure. Windows NT has had quite some time to mature as an operating system and has had most of its bugs fixed by now. Obviously, they won't be connecting these things to the Internet, so no need to worry about hax0rz.

    I, for one, welcome our new Swedish Navy Stealth Ship overlords.

    --
    Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    1. Re:Probably OK by Nobody+You+Know · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're probably right, but here I was looking forward to articles about the world's first warship capable of delivering 50 57mm shells and 10,000 penis enlargment e-mails per minute.

    2. Re:Probably OK by lala · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Then again, I'm sure the Sweedish air force might have a few F-16s or C-130s; but how many American jets, planes, tanks, and boats have Swedish software running them?

      Sweden has its own military aircraft manufacturer in SAAB Aerospace (SAAB actually stands for Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, freely translated Swedish Aerospace Inc).

      The newest aircraft is the hightech Gripen, which btw rumour has it runs an VisualBasic-app to control the steering...
      SAAB Aerospace Gripen

      But I agree with your point, it really seems odd that the military doesn't love the control they can have over the sourcecode in opensource-OSes.

    3. Re:Probably OK by sbowles · · Score: 2, Informative
      These firewalls would be setup to separate combat systems from each other as well as non-combat systems. This would be to protect against inside jobs (isn't it usually the galley cook ;^) or systems gone-wild.

      As well, these ships would have externally accessable wireless IP-based systems to support strategic and tactical communications. These would also require appropriate protections

      --
      You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
  16. Re:The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80' by Vacuum+Sux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As your link states, the Sea Shadow is a test craft. The Visby corvette is going to be in active service in the swedish navy.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, the profit overlords welcome you!
  17. the neXt big ship by phauxfinnish · · Score: 2, Interesting
    American designers are working on the US Navy's own fleet of stealth ships, the DD(X) destroyer, which is due to enter service in 2011.

    Why does every new thing have to have a X in the name? Being in parenthesis, its almost like an after thought.

    Maybe it signifies that this ship will also be run by Microsoft software... A Beowulf cluster of X-Boxen!!!

    1. Re:the neXt big ship by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      X has generally stood for eXperimental. For example the X-15 rocket plane. This is still often used in the millitary.
      Only since many of the more famous experimental craft did some really impressive/exciting things that captured public attention, comercial concerns began to use the x lable to indicate somthing new! exiting! fast! and so on ad nauseum.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  18. It may be invisible to radar... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but it'll be easily spotted by all the outgoing packets coming from the spyware, troyans and virusses "installed" on WinNT!

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  19. Not the first by still+cynical · · Score: 3, Informative

    The headline is not quite right. First off, the first stealth ship was the U.S. Navy's Sea Shadow, but it is only a technology testbed and demonstrator. This is the first stealth ship to see operational service.

    --
    Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Not the first by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not even that: Most militaries have stealth ships and have had for some time. I would make a joke about swedish military being hopelessly behind, if it wasnt for the fact that they _also_ already operates a few stealth ship.

      I other words, it is not the first, not even the first swedish one.

  20. Ahh.. I can se it now by MaGGuN · · Score: 2, Funny

    The phrase "Where would you like to go today ?" could not be more fitting in this case.. question is, where do you actually end up ?

  21. Re:The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80' by D_Gr8_BoB · · Score: 3, Funny
    There's clearly a lot of "secrecy" surrounding stealth ship technology. Best quote from the article:

    "We use a secret angle on our Type 23 frigates which enables our ships to reduce their radar signature to an absolute minimum." (emphasis added)

    WTF? There are only so many angles in the first place, and can't you just look at the ship to figure it out?

  22. The US Does by millahtime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US has a stealth ship. I read about it in Wired and saw something on TV awhile back on it. The ship is black, floats on 2 pontoons, travels pretty quick, leaves no wake, is black and uses the same stealth technology as the stealth fighter and bomber.

    It is housed in the San Fran area and is inside a large barge that can open up to let it out for testing but no one can see it coming and going.

  23. Re:I hear that... by phayes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, the resin used to bind the fibers is much easier to damage & burns easily giving off noxious fumes. Damage control in case of even a minor hit is going to be lots of fun...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  24. Stealth cars by DataCannibal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was at a job interview recently and those of us who were there being interviewed were chatting about fun jobs we'd like to have.

    One of the guys there told us that a friend of his, who had previously worked for an arms company, was being recentltly interviewed for a job at a Formula 1 racing team. When asked what he could tell them about his previous job and how he could use that experience in the job he was interviewing for he repliad that, because of the classified nature of his work he couldn't tell them much about what he had been doing. He could, however, help them to make their racing cars invisible to radar.

    --
    No but, yeah but, no but...
  25. Clippy by merky1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see that you are attacking a lesser third world country. Would you like to

    0 - Launch Missiles
    0 - Fire Cannons
    0 - Hide

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  26. Re:The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80' by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2

    ...can't you just look at the ship to figure it out?

    Spend a lot of time hanging around secured naval bases taking measurements of the weaponry?

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  27. Windows NT at the helm by LabRat007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So the crew would look something like...

    1 Captin

    1 First Mate

    50 Enlisted To Man Stations

    103 System Admins to keep NT's "blue screen of death" from sinking the ship

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
  28. Re:I hear that... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the US Navy, at least, all crewmembers are trained in fire and damage control, for good reason. One ship's entire damage control crew was wiped out in a blast, and nobody else was trained in damage control. The ship survived the experience, though.

    Again, in the US Navy, the standard firefighting gear includes an oxygen mask, so the fumes shouldn't be a problem. Treating crewmembers caught in the fumes before they could get their equipment on will probably require some additional training for the medical personnel, though.

  29. Re:I hear that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    These days if any kind of vehicle gets hit with any kind of major ordnance it's a crater anyway - or in this case, a rapidly filled hole in the water.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Re:Windows NT you say? by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't that be spelled, "4h0y m4t3y, th4r 5h3 bL0WZ0RZ!"?

    --
    blog |
  31. Can i ask a serious question.. by sinner0423 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly what USE would these people get out of building such a ship? This seems to me like a completely waste of money. Can you name any recent naval battles in the past 20 years or so that warranted having a stealthed ship that would not be picked up on radar?

    And please, i'm not talking about deploying troops or anything like that. This serves basically one purpose for the swedish navy R&D guys = We're bored, look what we did with your money!

    Carbon fiber too.. all they need now are some vinyl stripes, a big fartcan muffler, and TYPE-R on the side, and I bet somebody in the states would buy it.

  32. Re:Ah... by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Visby is the capital of Gotland, which is an island off the east coast of Sweden where the (historic) Goths lived. In case you wondered.

    --
    "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
  33. NT is a good choice... by Rick.C · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... if all you want to do is steer. Oh, and control engine speed. No problem. And maybe integrate the radar. Still no problem. And run LSASS to make sure that there are no NT license violations. And RPC to check if anyone wants to use the C$ share. And SVCHOST and SPOOLSV and WINLOGON. And CSRSS and SMSS and maybe WOW. And IE4 for the user interface. And MSTASK to monitor it all...

    Captain to Engine Room (through the low-tech voice tube): Switch to manual control IMMEDIATELY!

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  34. Correction: Moron the Swedish Stealth Ship by tbase · · Score: 2, Funny

    Named after the person who decided to use NT for the "State of the art" computers.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  35. Can't they apply this technology to their fish? by lobinator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mmmmm. Swedish Stealth Fish.

  36. I think the Swedes are missing the point... by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...on this. The US Navy did experiments with the Sea Shadow in the 80's (see previous posts), but it was determined that too much everyday utility would have to be sacrificed to acheive true stealthiness. However, some of the features of the Sea Shadow were integrated into new convential ships-of-the-line (like the Arleigh Burke-class guided missle destroyers) such as "secret angles" (LOL) that reduce radar signatures. This Swedish ship isn't much more than a large patrol boat. That's not to say that it can't do it's job effectively; however, it's not designed for long-endurance blue water operations. IMHO, the stealth moniker is for public consumption more than anything else. The best seaborne defense is not stealth, but good defensive weapons such as Sea Sparrows and CIWS (Phalanx)

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
  37. Re:The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80' by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 5, Funny

    I vish to use a protractor on your steelth wessels!

  38. Dept correction by nmnilsson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most scandinavian fjords are actually found in Norway.
    Never heard of a swedish parrot pining for the fjords, have you? ;-)

    --
    No sig to see here. Move along.
  39. A submarine isn't a ship... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Informative

    A submarine isn't a ship, it's a boat.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:A submarine isn't a ship... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      A submarine isn't a ship, it's a boat.
      The usage of the term 'boat' for submarines is actually in a shadow land between slang and semi-official. Regardless of that, they are and have long been, considered ships.

      In Naval usage a 'boat' is a small auxilary craft, not a fully fledged warship. Those few boats which are combat craft invariably have a "B" (as in PBR) in their designation. The (originally mildy derogatory) slang term of 'boat' arose because the earliest submarines could be, and often were hoisted onboard other ships in the same manner as other auxilary boats.

      Derek L - USN Submarine Service 1981-1991

  40. First stealth ship? by Squapper · · Score: 3, Informative

    The sea shadow was publically revealed in 1993...the prototype for Visby, the "Smyge", was uncovered in 1991...

  41. Not the first Swedish Stealth-ship.. pics! by deadog · · Score: 2, Informative

    1986, designstart of "Smyge", publically showned in 1991. it was a testbed/prototype and a smaller littorial craft.
    U.S Secretary of Defense William Cohen was demonstrated to it in 1997.
    pic

    1996, designstart of the Visby class... as of 2004 two of these ships have been delivered, the HMS Visby (2001) and HMS Helsingborg (2003). after 2 years of sea trials they are ready to enter full service.
    pic! pic

  42. aluminum is bad enough by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ships made out of aluminum are hugely vulnerable to damage from a relatively cheap cruise missile, as proved in the falklands (was that the sheffield? One of you brits or argentines help me out here).

    carbon fiber, although lighter and etc etc with the article, will not be able to take much damage at all before it is ineffective, it just won't. I know the *idea* is to be stealthy so you don't take damage, but as soon as you release one shot of anything, your position is out there.

    Navies in general are becoming less and less relevant with the advances in air warfare. They are OK until you really have to fight, they are good as offensive platforms with an enemy that has little in the way of ordance they can shoot back with, but as soon as it approaches some sort of even-ness, ships start to lose. The carrier battle group is the last effective sort of naval enterprise for actual *fighting* on any realistic scale, and that is primarily because it has it's own aircap and satellite remote sensing and protector subs set out in a perimeter. And only because they haven't been used in a nuclear environment, once nukes start getting used, well, missiles and nukes are still hard to stop, you lose. Right now, a large enough swarm of much cheaper sea skimming cruise missiles can overload any defenses and inflict significant damage, that is why they are trying hard to get the laser weapons operational. It's interesting to see where this will go, sucks they are doing it though. The planet (very generally speaking, applies to all nations and peoples) is still run by at best a few hundred seriously intelligent and seriously insane megalomaniacs, and all these other millions of people still "follow their orders".

  43. This isn't meant to be an offensive ship... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, tell me how Sea Sparrows and CIWS will help you sneak up onto a suspected smuggling vessel?

    This ship isn't built for offense. Heck, with a fibre glass hull it's not even built for defence. It's a large patrol boat, just like you've theorised. When you're a politically neutral country, with nothing but peaceful nations around you, why would you need anything more?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  44. Steathy and Obvious all at once by Jonathan_S · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the article:
    In a nutshell, if the Visby was 100km from an enemy vessel it could see the enemy on its radar but not vice versa.
    Hopefully this is the writers silly notion rather than something he was told. A stealth ship 100km away from any navy ship, but running its radar, is just broadcasting its position. (Naval vessels do have radar receivers you know).

    Kind of like making a perfectly light absorbing black truck for night usage, then looking around with a giant searchlight!
  45. Re:The US has had a stealth ship since the mid-80' by Creepy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, you have two planes of angles to work with from the top, and two from the side.

    The stealth aircraft have little odd angled "mirror rooms" (for lack of a better words - think a house of horrors hall of mirrors) that temporarily absorb signals, bounce them around a bit and let them out at various angles at various times, which is why they have a signature, but it is a lot like a flock of birds, not an airplane. A ship would probably reflect radar coming from the side into nearby waves and use them for the scattering effect and try to redirect deck waves in a direction other than straight back (thus the non-90 degree angle).

  46. It's a brilliant bluff by Nevrar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excellent idea...

    Bluff the world... Say you have an invisible navy - no one will be able to disprove it! Everyone will think Sweden is the next superpower...

    The fastrack to world peace.

    --
    Nevrar
  47. Not very original by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not only is the predated (by a long shot) by the US Navy Sea Shadow program in the mid-80s (as pointed out by another poster), but also by the French 'La Fayette' stealth frigates (circa 1988). Modified versions of that ship are also in use by both Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

  48. Article is incorrect. by Run4yourlives · · Score: 2, Informative

    The BBC article makes two glaring errors in the first paragraph, after which I stopped reading.

    1. The U2 is not of a stealth design, unless you consider all gliders as stealth aircraft. The U2 was disigned to fly adjecent to enemy territory, and not over it... which is why the russians had no problems shooting down Gary Powers in one when he "got lost".

    2. The SR-71 is the fastest production plane ever built, and travelled at Mach 3+. It was designed to do one thing - go fast. The faster you go, the hotter you get. Good luck keeping a monsterous semi-molten speeding aircraft off of a radar screen, regardless of it's shape.

    The "first" stealth aircraft was the F-117 which entered service in the 70's, followed by the B-2 which joined in the early 90's.

    To claim otherwise is to talk out of your ass, which is normal for reporters I guess.

  49. Norwegians beat the sweeds to it.. by process · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..with KNM Skjold. It's a similar vessel built with a similar material. It has a very low radar signature.

    A bullet from the norwegian standard issue AG-3 would go straight trough the whole ship :P

    They've also built mine-sweepers out of similar materials, to aviod magnetism setting off mines.
    More info on KNM Skjold here.

    Only the sweeds would go with NT :P

    --
    computers let you make more mistakes faster, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
  50. Re:USS Forrestal? by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And, the USS Ranger became "The Danger Ranger";

    Kitty Hawk became "The SHITTY KITTY"

    USS Brooke was nicknamed "The Broke-dick Brooke", since she reputedly was always having problems getting underway...

    Ahh, the affectionate names we came up for our ships.

    My first ship was the USS Flint (AE-32), an ammo ship, named after Flint, Michigan. Many ammo ships have names like Pyro, Haleakala, etc. We nicknamed ours "Flexible Flint", since our then-CO, a Commander, was charging hard for Rear Admiral. Seems we got volunteered for almost anything ServGru One in Alameda had going.

    My second ship was USS John A. Moore (FFG-19), nicknamed "The Jammin' John", since we seemed to charge hard for stuff. Our main space seemed to be spiffy, and that might be why, when as a NRF (Naval Reserve Force) ship, we were selected for advanced deployment to the Gulf in Nov 1987, from a pool of several other FFGs. But, we were given official notice maybe July. We got there.

    But, remember the Yorktown, which, while using winbloze NT, went broke-dick in the Atlantic and had to be towed in disgrace, thanks to a divide by zero error. Has to STILL be embarassing for the USN.

    As for finding the stealth ship... Just fly some RPV (drones) that drop or spew their own dronelets. Build a mesh over the target area. Anything that moves is going to be found, even small wave caps. Same principle as to how the stealth planes over Iraq were detected years ago: A bunch (or few) innocuous cell phone towers were built in strategic locations. The towers were sort of like inverse radars: Always on, but any aircraft passing thru created disruptions in the "mesh", giving away the location of the low-flying aircraft.

    If enough "mesh-making" dronelets are spewed over an op area, NO navy, not even the vaunted USN would stay invisible except in the presence of extremely foul weather and the absence of aircraft or RORSAT. Maybe the subs would be the only hard-to-detect ships, but blue-green laser and other improvements might upset that advantage in some scenarios.

    David Syes
    "TAO" (not the real one, just the nick-named one, due to my on-the-spot scenarios, such as: "Why do the Russians need to TORPEDO a carrier? Why not just swarm-lob low-yield nukes in the direction of the carriers, warp the flight deck, and make it tough for aloft birds to land. A CV without a flight deck is almost USEless..."

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  51. Obligatory USS Yorktown Reference! by Omega · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The US Navy tried to use Windows NT as a "ship operating system" a few years back and it died in the water because of an O.S. crash. It had to be towed back to the ship yard.

    The link referenced in the /. article seems to be dead, but Google found it's new location.