Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cold-War Era Naval Vessels Up For Grabs

Posted by kdawson on from the yours-for-a-dock dept.

mcleland lets us in on a Wall Street Journal story about two cold-war era, formerly top-secret vessels the US Navy is trying to give away. At issue are the Sea Shadow (the ancestor of all modern naval radar-evading technology) and the Hughes Mining Barge (a floating dry-dock and more-or-less base for the Sea Shadow). While the ships are being 'given away,' there are multiple regulations involved, making the gift a very costly one. "A Naval Museum is 'a bloodthirsty, paper-work ridden, permit-infested, money-sucking hole,' warns the Historic Naval Ships Association. Because the Navy won't pay for anything — not rust-scraping or curating — to keep museums afloat, survival depends on big crowds."

27 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. That bad, eh? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Naval Museum is 'a bloodthirsty, paper-work ridden, permit-infested, money-sucking hole,' warns the Historic Naval Ships Association.

    But tell us what you really think. Don't hold back.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
    1. Re:That bad, eh? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dealing with the Navy on issues of museums is a bona fide pain in the ass. As far as they're concerned, there is nothing, zip, zero nada, nil that they have ever 'lost.' Whatever it was, where ever it is, it is still theirs and will gladly tie you up in court for the rest of your life to prove this point. They stick to the following excuses when it comes to the issue of recovering one-time Naval Aircraft:

      -It's a war grave (the excuse they've given for blocking the recovery of Grumman TBM Avenger dive bombers in Lake Michigan. That the pilots may have survived in most cases makes no difference. They're all war graves.)

      -It's still Navy property that they've never bothered to finish recovering (the excuse that's being used after a North Carolina man recovered pieces of an FG-1, a Goodyear-built Corsair. Never mind that the Navy last visited the crash site in 1945.)

      -It just plain doesn't exist at all (the excuse that was given for years when attempts were made to recover one of several B-29's that were being used as target practice at China Lake, even after recovery groups showed recent satellite photographs of B-29's out in the desert, the Navy simply responded by saying that they did not, nor did they ever, possess B-29's.)

      There is purportedly still one, more-intact-than-most-B-29's B-29 that was moved to a hangar sometime in the 1990's, but the Navy refuses all inquiries regarding that aircraft. To their credit, the Navy also had some bad experiences with allowing warbird recoveries at China lake, as the last group that was allowed in supposedly stuffed their B-29 full of whatever happened to be lying around, instead of just grabbing 'their' plane and leaving. There are a few hundred thousand versions of that story floating around, changing by the minute.

      The Navy is an institution unto themselves when it comes to loaning items to museums. Hell, They Scrapped the USS Enterprise. Perhaps it's the type of person that the Navy assigns to handling museum requests, or perhaps its the hundreds of years of Maritime Salvage law that they have to contend with, but based on everything I've heard, they are a bureaucratic nightmare directly out of 'Brazil.'

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:That bad, eh? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're probably thinking of PIMA's B-36, which was never really in "private" hands. B-36's fall under one of the early SALT treaties as strategic heavy bombers. True, the Air Force handled the whole situation poorly, they will come out in the right, if the case actually goes to trial. Any "strategic" arms fall under a whole different set of guidelines, regardless of ownership.

      Case in point. There is (I am almost certain) only one B-52 on display at a non-military base in the world. There are others on static display, but only one in civilian hands. It also happens to belong to the museum I volunteer for. Several years after we acquired the aircraft, we moved it up on a concrete stand approximately 15 meters from where it once stood. ALL. HELL. BROKE. LOOSE. We received an unhappy visit from the Air Force, who had gotten a call from the state department, who'd gotten a call from the Russian Consulate, because the Russian air force team in charge of monitoring SALT compliance noticed that the plane had moved since the last photo pass and, since it was supposed to be de-miled, they damn sure wanted to know why.

      Interesting aside: The air force is in a unique spot when it comes to their old airframes that have been disposed of to civilian hands. A records fire in the 1960's destroyed the paperwork on hundreds of thousands of disposed aircraft. The Air Force has a very limited paper trail prove that they ever actually owned many Korea / WW2 vintage aircraft that they disposed of at auction. It usually falls to that old legal statute of "possession is 9/10ths of the law."

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    3. Re:That bad, eh? by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny thing about that... Spain doesn't think you can.

  2. Don't settle for the mining barge... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...hold out for an exhumer, man!

    1. Re:Don't settle for the mining barge... by Alzheimers · · Score: 3, Funny

      Typhoon:

      Highs:
      4x Miner IIs
      4x Arbalest Cruises

      Mids:
      2x Shield Expander II
      2x Invuln Field II

      Lows:
      7x Cargohold Expander II

      Drones:
      5x Ogre II

      That is how you mine.

  3. Poor Howard Hughes by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He really believed Nixon when he told him there was all that gold in the continental shelf.

    I keed I keed! To be fair, this wouldn't be the first time they've sold off K-129 salvage gear. The Glomar Explorer herself is leased out and operated for commercial deep-sea oil drilling.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Poor Howard Hughes by Talkischeap · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "He really believed Nixon when he told him there was all that gold in the continental shelf."

      I don't recall anything about gold, but the "official" cover story for the Glomar Explorer was deep ocean mining, and they even made at least one test run.

      I still have a couple of deep sea photos showing the manganese nodules littering the ocean floor, and a small box of tennis ball sized manganese nodules recovered on that test run (they are soft like Ulexite/Borax, and turned my hands black when handled).

      My late father was a principle designer on the H-MB "mining barge", and "Clementine", the huge claw made to pick up the Russian Golf class sub.

      Every time our family drove past the H-MB on the 101 in Redwood City, he'd point it out to us, likely chuckling inside because if we only knew what it was really for ...

      After it was declassified, he eventually received a framed commendation from then President Regan, and a bronze medal.

      If you want some more history, try to read "A Matter of Risk", it was the first book published after the covert operation was declassified, my father said it was fairly close to actual events.

      Wow, guess it's out of print: http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Risk-Incredible-Explorer-Submarine/dp/0394424328

      --
      If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
  4. Sea Shadow would be ultimate party boat by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rough water stabilized, diesel electric propulsion and radar stealthy. Me likely. I want to live on it. Too bad it would probably cost a fortune to move and retrofit. The ultimate party boat, though it would be a little tough to fish off the back.

    And you could always fit it with missiles and have endless fun making the great navies of the world think they were shooting at one another.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Sea Shadow would be ultimate party boat by Nos. · · Score: 3, Funny

      And you could always fit it with missiles and have endless fun making the great navies of the world think they were shooting at one another.

      Be careful who you do that to, since the presumed guilty party might surrender, stopping the planned war. After being convicted of the crime, he could escape, return to his ship, hunt you down, and at the last minute find a way around your cloaking technology and blast you out of the sky, er, water. Oh yeah, and his personal physician will be with him.

    2. Re:Sea Shadow would be ultimate party boat by Spectre · · Score: 5, Funny

      None of my friends and family qualify as "innocent". It's all good.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
  5. Hmmmm... by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if I didn't put them as a Museum? Instead, I'll use them as part of my dastardly plot to steal missiles from a British vessel lost in the South China Sea due to tampering with the GPS signal. Then use those missiles to provoke a war between China and Great Britain.

    Do you think they will still let me have it?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Hmmmm... by 0racle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh come on now, that idea is so stupid that no one would ever think it would be a good movie, let alone actually attempt it.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Hmmmm... by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      What if I didn't put them as a Museum? Instead, I'll use them as part of my dastardly plot to steal missiles from a British vessel lost in the South China Sea due to tampering with the GPS signal. Then use those missiles to provoke a war between China and Great Britain.

      Do you think they will still let me have it?

      It depends. You've already established that you have have a criminally-inclined genius and a ruthless, murderous streak. But more is required.

      1. Can your organization's name be turned into a suitably menacing acronym?
      2. Henchmen with unusual and remarkable deformities?
      3. Henchwomen with names both unlikely and sexually suggestive?
      4. Do you have a white persian cat?
      5. Do you enjoy monologuing?
      6. Can you credibly threaten the destruction of western civilization while maintaining a PG-13 rating?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  6. Floating base! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 3, Funny

    Step 1: Acquire free Naval floating base.
    Step 2: Fill said base with servers, generators and networking gear.
    step 3: Profit!

    Companies looking to build floating data centers could be the people to unload these things to. That or have your very own Sea World like base if you can anchor it in international waters. Properly cleaning them up would be the most cost prohibitive as I am sure they are filled with asbestos.

    1. Re:Floating base! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If all you need is a hull that floats, there are a lot cheaper ways of getting one than acquiring Navy hardware. Check out the standard crew complement of just about any naval vessel sometime and you'll come to understand that these are overly complicated beasts that are not designed for civilian use.

      (As an aside, a few non-superpowers tried to float aircraft carriers after WWII. They proved to be so expensive to operate, that most were decommissioned.)

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  7. ARR!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That quote really sounds awesome if you say it with a pirate voice!

  8. Just goes to show.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Funny

    TANSTAAFS. :-)

  9. Re:Batleships for sale too by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In all seriousness, where are those $15 jeeps?

    I'd buy a dozen right now at that price. I've never been able to locate any of that stuff at a reasonable price, only via "army/navy" resellers who jack up the price 1000% so they can make a healthy profit.

    Even "Cheaperthandirt" isn't all that cheap.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  10. So, by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Chinese Federation is challenging our Holy Britannian Empire?

    Very well, The stake is the world, prepare for battle...

    All Hail Britannia!!

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
  11. Anyone else intereted in forming a Naval Fleet? by ipc0nfig · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the webpage: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/09/fr091406.html Other ships that are currently available for donation include: (1) Patrol Combat ex-CANON (PG 90), Philadelphia, PA. (2) Guided Missile Destroyer ex-CHARLES F. ADAMS (DDG 2), Philadelphia, PA. (3) Destroyer ex-CONOLLY (DD 979), Philadelphia, PA. (4) Destroyer ex-EDSON (DD 946), Philadelphia, PA. (5) Submarine ex-TROUT (SS 566), Philadelphia, PA. (6) Guided Missile Cruiser ex-TICONDEROGA (CG 47), Philadelphia, PA. (7) Aircraft Carrier ex-RANGER (CV 61),Bremerton, WA.

  12. Pass on this one... by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I asked my brother in-law AND my ex-brother-in-law, who both work for Bath Iron works.

    You don't want this boat. Even for free.

    One of them mentioned some ancient wisdom about being given boats for free...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. Re:Batleships for sale too by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

    https://www.drms.dla.mil/sales/

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  14. Re:Batleships for sale too by couchslug · · Score: 4, Informative

    "In all seriousness, where are those $15 jeeps?"

    They were scrapped carcasses back many decades ago. For example, M151s were demilled by being torchcut into chunks. "Jeeps" of the actual "Jeep" persuasion are ancient history.

    http://www.govliquidation.com/

    is where to directly bid online for much of what Uncle Sugar no longer needs, but bulk buyers drive up costs quite a bit. If you collect military vehicles, large trucks are often bargains, but fun stuff like CUCVs tend to go high. Lots of interesting stuff, and well worth a browse.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  15. Re:Skunk Works by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, the Navy didn't want it because it was very expensive and of limited combat utility. It might have been of some use to a primarily coastal defense navy, but it's useless to a power projection navy like the USN.

    The paint locker story reflects Ben Rich's ignorance of the Navy and inability (or unwillingness) to listen to people other than himself. Had he asked, he'd have found that the paint locker is an important space on a warship - because the paint locker is where volatiles and flammables are stored. It has special ventilation and fire fighting provisions, something quite important on a ship that goes in harm's way.

  16. Here they are! by ukemike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ship in question, and the floating dry in which it rests are here:
    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.069464,-122.101327&spn=0.001824,0.003455&t=h&z=18

    The box at the Northwest end of the row, contains the Sea Shadow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shadow

    Interestingly the ship on the other end of the row is the USS Iowa, a WW2 and Korean War Battleship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)

    --
    -- QED
  17. Re:Skunk Works by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He said that no one in the Navy was very interested in the ship. He speculated that it was partially because the crew complement was too small; he said that in the Navy you get promoted for commanding lots of people. He used the paint locker story as an example of how Navy guys were focusing on petty details and not paying attention to the big picture: that this was a ship that could sneak up on a task force, wreak serious havoc, and slip away again unchallenged.

    Which, as I said, is indicative of Ben Rich's ignorance of the Navy - a paint locker isn't a petty detail. A paint locker is a matter of life or death if a Sea Shadow was ever damaged in combat. It's fine for Ben Rich to sit in his ivory tower and paint the big picture, but the Navy guys have to worry not only about the combat capability of the ship, but it's survivability in combat.
     
    Other accounts I've heard through the grapevine over the years tend to support my interpretation - Rich offered the design to the Navy, which built and evaluated it. The Navy found it had little combat capability and low combat survivability, and lost interest. Rich then got pissed be he saw the Navy as rejecting his wonder weapon.
     
     

    His conclusion was that he was better off dealing with the Air Force, because they actually were interested in advanced stealth technology.

    The Air Force is also filled with guys interested in high technology for high technologies sake. In the Navy you get promoted for commanding things, but with the high tooth-to-tail ratio of the Air Force you get promoted for being a brilliant manager - especially if you are the brilliant manager who brings home a new shiny. Heck, as long as you fight the good fight against the bureaucracy and Congress, you don't even have to actually bring it home.
     
     

    Is sneaking up on a superior force and blowing the heck out of it inconsistent with a power projection Navy? I'd like that one explained, too.

    The Navy already has entire service branch dedicated to exactly that task - the original stealth service. The Submarine Service.
     
    You also have to consider that a power projection Navy needs global range - something the Sea Shadow cannot do without requiring tremendous support while being less flexible than aircraft.

    The US Air Force has gotten good use out of stealth aircraft to blow up air defense systems before the non-stealth aircraft make their attacks; is there some reason this sort of thing doesn't work for the US Navy? Or do you just believe the ship doesn't work as advertised?

    The USN and USAF operate in completely different environments. The USN doesn't have to take out a missile battery to get at given tactical target - they have to take out entire ships. By the time Sea Shadow came on the scene, the USN had already worked out the combined arms tactics using aircraft and submarines in concert to defeat large enemy formations. The Sea Shadow didn't really bring anything useful to the picture.
     
    And no, it doesn't actually work as well as advertised. Something you won't find in Skunk Works and only rarely discussed in the open literature is this: Against any halfway decent ASW radar (the kind they use to spot periscopes), the Sea Shadow stands out like a sore thumb - while the ship itself is invisible, it's wake is highly visible. If the Sea Shadow slows down to avoid leaving a detectable wake, the defenders have won because a ship sitting virtually still isn't sneaking up on anyone. It's being left behind in their wake.