Navy To Auction Stealth Ship

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."

Comments

Failed experiment?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a failed experiment if nothing's learned. More often than not, experiments don't produce the expected result. It's how we learn.

Re:Failed experiment?

[zippthorne]

And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle? If all it is is a curious looking ship, who cares what happens to it after it leaves the Navy's hands?

This sounds more like something you'd do with a successful prototype that nevertheless was not militarily useful due to factors relating to the fact that it is a prototype and not a full blown warship....

Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....

Re:Failed experiment?

[boaworm]

It was developed in competition with other stealth ships. This one didn't win.

Nevertheless, it has a lot of cutting-edge technology that the US government has very little interest in giving to someone else. So the sensible option in this case is to keep producing the winning concept ships, and dismantle the losing prototype, making sure noone else can piggyback on all the money spent on it.

Re:Failed experiment?

[braeldiil]

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:Failed experiment?

[bigdavex]

It still would save a step for a foreign military if the design had some plausible design features. Instead of having to build it and test it, they would just have to test it to learn that what doesn't work.

Re:Failed experiment?

[Chris Mattern]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[shentino]

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

Re:Failed experiment?

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> It wasn't developed in competition with anything.

That's a testament to just how good the winning ship was.

Re:Failed experiment?

[ColdWetDog]

Oh come on. The thing looks wicked. You can't tell me that the Batman-like design wouldn't strike fear in the hearts of 16 year old geek jihadists everywhere.

Re:Failed experiment?

[MacGyver2210]

Well then what sort of nonsense is auctioning it off? Couldn't they just wait and auction off the scrap metal?

It seems ludicrous to say "SURE! Buy my awesome supersecret stealth boat! Oh, but you have to destroy it as soon as you get it."

Re:Failed experiment?

[phrostie]

it was competing with Chuck Norris.

Re:Failed experiment?

[bruce_the_loon]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[braeldiil]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[devitto]

If it worked in any way, those results would be top secret, and it would be scuttled in a deep trench somewhere. Even photos of its design would be TS if they were potentially useful to other nations, so it must have been a bit of a disaster, or at least the technology is now public.

Re:Failed experiment?

[DerekLyons]

Yes, radar cross section is a concern, no the Navy doesn't use the methods she used to reduce radar cross section. Yes, reduced crew manning is a concern and has been for decades, no, she didn't play any particular role in that either. Yes, roll reduction has been a concern, but as you point out - the one feature of Sea Shadow that contributed to that (the catamaran hull) isn't in operational use.

Re:Failed experiment?

[Cylix]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[chrisxcr1]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[tibit]

Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....

That'd about sum it up. The U.S. governmental thinking is, often, that anything that comes in contact with "top secret" stuff becomes somehow contaminated. Thus you buy some test equipment (stuff without any persistent memory that could store secrets) at a government auction, and months or years later you get a friendly call saying that "well, we'd want those back please". Whatever time you spent refurbishing the stuff is your loss at that point. I wish I was making this up.

Re:Failed experiment?

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[couchslug]

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

Because reasons do not exist to let it loose. It's a bit like a used hard drive. When in doubt, destroy it.

Scrap metal is high these days so it's valuable.

Re:Failed experiment?

[Salgak1]

Data from the F-117 showed a lot of expensive and/or exotic materials. Like Gold in/on the cockpit windows. Scrapping it allows most of the valuable material in the structure to be recovered. Making it worthwhile for the winning bidder to properly scrap it....

Re:Failed experiment?

[avandesande]

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

Re:Failed experiment?

[rahvin112]

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 would have been decimated within the first 20 minutes. That led to the creation of the bone yard.

Re:Failed experiment?

[SuricouRaven]

I imagine there are environmental concerns too. Some of those materials are sure to be toxic, and even though I am sure the military could easily pull a few strings and get an exception it would look bad to the public if they had to keep doing that.

Re:Failed experiment?

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[flyingsquid]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Failed experiment?

[DesScorp]

This one failed because the Navy already has stealth ships, and has had them for years. They're called submarines. Surface stealth ships just aren't as useful or effective.

Re:Failed experiment?

[modecx]

If the boneyard Hueys bum you ought, you'd be seriously depressed at the number of perfectly good, airworthy choppers which were pushed off the deck right into the drink during the withdrawal from Vietnam. Hueys, Chinooks, the whole shebang.

Re:Failed experiment?

[rahvin112]

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 aircraft the US has. I used to think like you did then I found out how many actual jets we had and I was SHOCKED. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft). If you add up the fixed wing fighter/bombers you'll end up with a number around 2500. Do you have any idea how incredibly small that is? US military prowess is highly dependent on air superiority.

I'm not going to disagree that a major war with a world power is highly unlikely, especially in todays economic climate BUT a proxy war can be FAR more involving and aggressive than you let on. The boneyard is a small piece of very cheap insurance, if front line jets are being used and destroyed at the least we can use the old airframes for training and behind the front lines support. The only costs are security on the yard and that's about it.

Re:Failed experiment?

[kava_kicks]

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 ...

Re:Failed experiment?

[hairyfeet]

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 base) and there is no way they could keep them running constantly if they had so few aircraft, but even if we take those numbers at face value frankly it would take longer to get those old F-5s and Hueys into combat shape than it would to simply call our allies or hell if the war isn't involving Russia i'm sure they would part with some MiGs and SUs for cash.

If they were being kept in a state of readiness I'd be with you friend, but they aren't. Hell I doubt our current weapons systems would even fit on an F-5 without major work done to both the combat systems as well as the craft themselves. Nope what they are doing is simply rotting, the rubber is getting brittle, the joints are locking up, its just not any good for a complex mechanical system to just sit anymore than to just stuff a car into a garage for 20 years and expect it to be drivable with a new tank of gas.

Hell if anything if you are worried about our state of readiness then you should be for my position, as long as they are sold to US citizens. after all in WWII we took over many civilian ships and aircraft until our manufacturing got up to speed, and it would be easier to refit a running Huey or warbird that is flown every month by a civilian than it would be to try to unwrap something that has been just sitting for a couple of decades and get it into flyable shape.

Re:Failed experiment?

[kgwilliam]

She was an abysmal failure. For a reasonable amount of armament, she ended up much larger more expensive than a ship with a conventional displacement hull.... and she wasn't actually all that stealthy. (In particular, her wake could be trivially detected using the same radar used to detect submarine periscopes.) On top of that, because of displacement limitations, she was highly vulnerable in combat, had low survivability, limited endurance, maintenance issues, and had habitability issues as compared to an equivalent conventional design.

tl;dr version: The Navy already had a stealth ship (the fast attack submarine) that filled the various mission needs that the Navy needed stealth for. Sea Shadow had no particular advantages over the submarine and several key disadvantages. Other than her one party trick (stealth), she was inferior to conventional surface ships but had a considerably higher price tag.

I don't think you understand what "tl;dr" means....

Re:Failed experiment?

[couchslug]

"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, 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."

And dig beaucoup ditches when they came apart. Civilians don't have the money and support equipment to fly their own Phantoms etc. unless they are extremely rich. The vast majority of the sixties stuff was gone when I went to AMARC for Aircraft Battle Damage Repair training in the 1990s. (I'm retired USAF Comm/Nav, Engine troop, and later Crew Chief. Broncos, Phantoms, and F-16 A/B/C/D)

AMARC has historically had a pretty good return to the taxpayer, with aircraft and parts routinely going to civilian agencies. Retired airliners also go there to be cannibalised for parts to keep the tanker fleet going. The drone program has made good use of aging fighters in training and weapons testing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/where-combat-planes-retire.html

"AMARC's return on investment is impressive. In FY02, the facility gave 99 aircraft valued at $520 million a new life, and it reclaimed $732.5 million worth of spare parts and placed them back into the active inventory. Thus, on an annual budget of $47 million, AMARC returned a total of $1.25 billion worth of equipment to the Department of Defense."

Re:Failed experiment?

[AK Marc]

tl;dr:

Sub better.

Re:Failed experiment?

[Lucractius]

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

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 electric drive designs to reduce motor & shaft noise, and Sonar Absorbent Materials, this thing would be likely be very very deadly to lone submarines.... possibly more than a standard hunter sub even, but no one will ever know.

Re:Failed experiment?

[RockDoctor]

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. Because the lifeboat carries 24 hours of fuel only, but up to a week of rations and water for the full compliment. (Check SOLAS'84 regs for the details.)

[SIGH] it'll be time for my offshore survival training refresher course soon. Again. Seventh or eighth time, I've lost count.

Such a waste

[GeoBain]

It's a shame it has to be dismantled.

Re:Such a waste

[lxs]

Hey, it's a stealth ship. Tell the government that you've dismantled it, then sail it away right in front of the coast guard. They won't suspect a thing.

Re:Such a waste

[RabidReindeer]

Yes sir, squire, this here is your actual stealth ship.

Of course you can't see it or touch it. That's what makes it a stealth ship.

But since I just happen to have one of these beauties in my possession and a need for some quick cash, I'm willing to part with it on low, low terms. If you pay up front, I'll even through in that bridge you can see right through the ship.

Re:Such a waste

[Sduic]

...it even comes with the dock.

For Sale: S.S. Borealis

Part of failed experiment; we guarantee it will be hard to find.

P.S. Buyer is required to return vessel to US territory for...disposal.

Re:Such a waste

[FirstOne]

"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

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.

Re:Such a waste

[couchslug]

Such a reflex. What "shame" ?

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

Re:Such a waste

[AK Marc]

Do they require you destroy the lathe turnings if you buy them?

Reverse engineered in the USA

[jesseck]

What they are asking is that the ship be dismantled and the design reverse engineered in the US, rather than overseas.

Re:Reverse engineered in the USA

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

yep, you buy it, you slowly dismantle and DOCUMENT every thing. then build your own, for millions of dollars.

Re:Reverse engineered in the USA

[dak664]

And dollars to doughnuts the winning bidder will be Lockheed.

Re:Reverse engineered in the USA

[jacknifetoaswan]

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.

A version of this was used in a James Bond film

[ElrondHubbard]

So, I guess Tomorrow Dies after all...

Strange definition of "evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't get your hopes up of an evil hideout, the fine print says 'The ex-sea shadow shall be disposed of by completely dismantling and scrapping within the U.S.A.""

Yeah, because as an evil supervillian, I always make certain that I strictly abide by my contracts with the US government.

Also, my lawyers have reminded me that the contract says nothing about not re-assembling it, or not using all the information gleaned by disassembling it to build a new one. Eeeexcellent.

Re:Strange definition of "evil"

[MacGyver2210]

Yes, but it doesn't say WHEN it has to be scrapped. Theoretically, agreeing to that just means you have to EVENTUALLY scrap it in the US. Who's to say you can't sail around a bit in it before then?

Re:Strange definition of "evil"

[hawguy]

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.

How will you find it?

[gstrickler]

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.

Bummer

[lennier1]

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

When?

[scint]

Nothing spec'd in there about time frame for dismantling it.

Re:On eBay

[Rynd]

Posting to undo accidental mod.

... A real pity

[gadget junkie]

Its lines went beautifully with my Volcano Island underground lair.

Other disposal options...

[White_Knight_32_KS]

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.

Re:Other disposal options...

[braeldiil]

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.

Re:Other disposal options...

[ceoyoyo]

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

Evil laughter

[Hentes]

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)

It's a bundle

[Lonewolf666]

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).

Re:Military/Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an ass. It's not a "privilege", it's solid money. Because scrap has value -- same reason a junkyard will pay you for the "privilege" of scrapping your car. If you're not confident you can make more than X+Y dollars, where Y is the cost of dismantling it to scrappable components, you don't bid $X for it -- really simple.

Quite frankly, bloated MIC or no, I'd much rather the Navy sell vessels rendered useless for whatever reason and let someone else scrap them, rather than doing that themselves. Dismantling ships for maximum scrap calue is not something they're particularly good at, being specialized in rather more, ah, high-energy disassembly methods.

Re:So what's the point?

[KingTank]

For scrap metal. That's why its so cheap.

Re:Military/Industrial Complex

[JimCanuck]

You do know the Barge alone has a scrap value of about 8 million dollars, and that is assuming you only scrap it out for the metal content in it. Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound.

Let alone anything of value that might be in it, such as equipment etc that can be sold for more then 90 cents a pound.

Old (and Fox) News

[arisvega]

This news is at least 2 years old, and it could be as old as 5 years or more.

I know you don't RTFA, at least google the story a bit or follow a wikipedia reference or two. It's not that someone will duplicate your scoop in the few moments it takes to at least try to verify the story.

Re:Old (and Fox) News

[DerekLyons]

I know you don't RTFA, at least google the story a bit or follow a wikipedia reference or two.

Don't take the Slashdot editors to task for what you're too lazy to do yourself.
 
If you actually read and comprehended your linked references, you'd note that the previous attempts have been to sell/donate Sea Shadow as a museum ship - while this offer is for scrapping and disposal.

Re:How will you find it? Failed Experiment

[RNLockwood]

If an X-1 were found boxed up in some government storehouse would it be labeled as a failed experiment? After all no nation has deployed any rocket propelled aircraft since the X-1, AFAIK.

No value except scrap? I disagree!

[kimvette]

(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.)

Re:No value except scrap? I disagree!

[roothog]

As a citizen who pays taxes and helped fund this project, I say it does have value beyond scrap, in the form of a museum exhibit.

The Navy's tried to sell it as a museum ship for the last six years. Nobody wants it.

Re:No value except scrap? I disagree!

[couchslug]

"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.

Re:No value except scrap? I disagree!

[Pyrus.mg]

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

Location: 38.069454,-122.101722

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Location: 38.069454,-122.101722

[roothog]

If I had the money to bid on a ship, I'd prefer the USS Iowa on the other end of that row.

Re:Location: 38.069454,-122.101722

[Pyrus.mg]

You missed out, the picture is out of date now. Iowa is tied up at Richmond and partially open as a museum ship now, when it's finished conversion it'll be moved to Los Angeles.

Re:Location: 38.069454,-122.101722

[hattable]

Actual location: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.069690,-122.102200

Re:Location: 38.069454,-122.101722

[Coren22]

Unfortunately, I am out of mod points, that deserved a funny..

Re:How will you find it? Failed Experiment

[Nimey]

There were a couple rocket-powered F-104s. Chuck Yeager crashed one of them, IIRC.

Re:How will you find it? Failed Experiment

[RNLockwood]

I didn't know that! Thanks.

They were aircraft used for research "sounding" of the upper atmosphere and had supplementary rocket propulsion.

Sad to see this thing go to scrap ;(

[atchijov]

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.

Re:Sad to see this thing go to scrap ;(

[dave420]

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 :)

Re:Sad to see this thing go to scrap ;(

[turkeyfish]

This is slashdot. No one reads the specs, the article, or the manual.

Re:reassembly

[Anonymous Coward]

Drat. Foiled again. You're fired lawyers! Into the pit. Go on. It was in the contract you signed when you started work here.

Isn't that a good thing?

[Roger W Moore]

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.

The Real Failed Experiment

[turkeyfish]

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.

The ultimate excuse

[turkeyfish]

This is a military contractor's dream. The ultimate weapon that has to be built so that it must be quickly destroyed. Because of its advanced capabilities it can't be allowed to fall into anyone's hands, not even that of our own military, thus requiring the immediate need for a new no-bid contract to build its technological successor.

Re:The ultimate excuse

[couchslug]

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".

Let's face it.

[turkeyfish]

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

Anyone have the numbers?

[turkeyfish]

As one looks over our "ghost fleet", does anyone know the total cost to taxpayers: 1) to build and 2) to maintain and secure of this fleet?

Why do I get the feeling that we all gave up the equivalent of free 4 year education at an institution of higher education of your choice to instead build ourselves a "ghost fleet"?

The cost of our military's inventory of useless junk would certainly be worth reading about, considering that as we look at the figures we can appreciate what we might have more usefully bought for ourselves. One would think that at least the cost of disposal ought to be written into the contract of any equipment that doesn't actually get used. Maybe at least that would provide some incentive to build military hardware that actually "works".

Good Money

[turkeyfish]

"Scrapping a ship is good money even if your only making 90 cents a pound. "

Sure would be interested to know what the ratio of the "profit" for the US taxpayer will turn out to be taking into consideration what it cost to build it.

Re:Recycle this!

[turkeyfish]

Sorry but a number of other contractors have already outbid you.

Weapon Control

[This is my user name]

One stealth ship, slightly used.... Why is it illegal to carry guns when the navy is selling a state of the art warship!?

Inside the floating dock with the Sea Shadow

[Luminary Crush]

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

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 ;-)

Re:WTF? They're going to pay money?

[compro01]

It's really too small to make a decent reef, nor is it a good candidate for target practice, so they just sell it to the breakers to recycle the hundreds of tonnes of steel and stuff, same as has been done for over a century.

Ghost Fleet!

[DarthVain]

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!*