Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Navy To Auction Stealth Ship

Posted by samzenpus on from the invisible-fishing dept.

First time accepted submitter Sparticus789 writes "Looks like the Navy is doing some housecleaning and selling off failed experiments, 'Yup, the Lockheed Martin-built Sea Shadow is being auctioned off from its home in the Suisun Bay ghost fleet in California.' Bidding is right now at $100,000 and it even comes with the dock. Don't get your hopes up of an evil hideout, the fine print says 'The ex-sea shadow shall be disposed of by completely dismantling and scrapping within the U.S.A."

9 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Failed experiment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Failed experiment? by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Failed experiment? by braeldiil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Failed experiment? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Failed experiment? by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Failed experiment? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    6. Re:Failed experiment? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Go and read Ben Rich's Skunk Works for the history of the Sea Shadow. Lockheed-Martin developed this one on their own and the Navy rejected the design because it didn't look like a ship an admiral would be seen dead in. Like the Royal Navy still insisting on sails and sail drill in the mid to latter days of steam.

      As far as their stealth was concerned, Skunk Works had to increase the radar reflectivity profile because the effect was so good, it appeared as a flat line against the shifting waves on radar and was visible as a result.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  2. Re:Such a waste by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  3. Strange definition of "evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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