Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Stealth warships!

Posted by: JongWK Jun 10 2004, 06:25 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3724219.stm

Posted by: Shadow Jun 10 2004, 06:34 PM

The US Navy had a stealth ship available to them in 1987. It was built by Lockheeds Skunkworks. The Navy never bought any though. The reasons were many... but mostly I think it came down to politics. At the time Lockheed was riding high on the Stealth Fighter and building a proposal for the Stealth BOmber. Some idiotic pencil pusher in the pentagon felt that they were getting to much business. Which is why they lost the 400 million a piece bomber. Then the pentagon went and bought the B1 for 1.7 bill a piece. Go figure.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jun 10 2004, 06:37 PM

OMG it runs on Windows NT. How long do you figure until some 14-year-old AOL script kiddie hacks it, and thus owns his very own stealth warship?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 10 2004, 08:32 PM

There's something immensely amusing about these ships using a "secret angle".

So what would you give one of these for Signature?

~J

Posted by: BGMFH Jun 10 2004, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)

OMG it runs on Windows NT. How long do you figure until some 14-year-old AOL script kiddie hacks it, and thus owns his very own stealth warship?

Forget the Script Kiddie!

Dumpshockers Unite!

THe SR Dumpshock will be ours!!!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 10 2004, 09:08 PM

Dumpshockers haxxor their seabox! Then we can install Linux on it and become cyberpirates!

~J

Posted by: Phaeton Jun 10 2004, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Dumpshockers haxxor their seabox! Then we can install Linux on it and become cyberpirates!

~J

Of the Caribbean!

Posted by: Nikoli Jun 10 2004, 09:15 PM

Nah, they'd get side tracked talking about the merits of various piratical code interpretations and this whole "parley" thing and the vgaries of being a eunic to ever get the ship out of the british harbor.

Posted by: Phaeton Jun 10 2004, 09:47 PM

QUOTE (Nikoli)

Posted by: Nath Jun 10 2004, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (Shadow)

If you're referring to the http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sea_shadow.htm it seems it was never supposed to be produced in serie. Much like the Swedish conceived the http://www.canit.se/~griffon/diverse/miltech/stealthships.html#smyge before the Visby. Then it's true for whatever reasons no completely new ship came out of the Sea Shadow project, the project was pretty much halted and then restarted when the development of the DD 21 was decided. It is said the http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/index.html class design was modified at some point with data gathered on Sea Shadow. But it should be noted the Arleigh Burke class was from the start conceived with stealth in mind. It may not look as cool as the Visby, but calling one or the other a "stealth ship" is like calling one a "fast ship" or a "big ship" : it depends on what you compare it to. In that case, the French http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lafayette/index.html class frigates (sold to the Saudi as Al Riyadh class, to Taiwan as Kang Ding class, and Singapore as Project Delta) are stealthier than the Arleigh-Burke, and less than the Visby.

Posted by: Panzergeist Jun 10 2004, 10:18 PM

The US navy is actually working on a stealth destroyer right now. The reason the old stealth ship was canned was not politics; it was because it was too fragile, too high-maintenence, and couldn't carry many supplies. This Swedish ship has many of those same problems. The lack of supplies isn't a problem for the Swedes, as their navy is a defensive coastal navy, and doesn't have to deploy ships around the world like the US and Britain do. However, the carbon fibre hull makes it very weak. Dumbfire weapons still have their uses, as do torpedos, mines, and heat-seekers.

And you should hear about the Leviathan, their plan to bring battleships back into style. Also, the U-2 was not the first stealth plane. The British Mosquito light bomber in WW2 acheived radar stealth by being made of wood.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 10 2004, 10:20 PM

The type 45 class is the first major class of warship built for the british since the Falklands. They are supposed to incorporate all the combat lessons of the last 20 years, which other wise the RN has made stop gap changes, like adding mg's to support Seadarts for in close missle defense.

Gamers looking for what a SOA warship will be like in 2060 should certainly pay close attention to asm uch of the design as they can, remember a lot of what you get is NOD cleared and will probably have some stuff wrong to spread misinformation but it's a stepping stone.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 11 2004, 03:09 AM

QUOTE (Panzergeist)

Not according to Ben Rich. The man who dreamed of it, desgned it, and built it.

Read http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316743003/qid=1086922204/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-4986255-1005602?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 To learn about Americas stealth projects.

With all do respect Nath. The Sea Shadow was invisible. So invisible that you could see a hole in the waves. So they had to give it a return that mimicked the waves.

Posted by: Domino Jun 11 2004, 07:32 AM

The Sea Shadow is what is called a technology demonstrator. It was never specifically built with production in mind just what can we do and will it work?

Posted by: Omega Skip Jun 11 2004, 07:47 AM

Maybe I just don't get it, but could someone please explain to me why the Swedes, of all people, need stealth ships so badly? All I can think of is exporting the technology, or maybe when assisting in international missions. But the article said these ships would be used to protect the Swedish coast most of the time, and I'm wondering: Who do the Swedes fear so much that they feel the need to develope some high-tech stealth ship for their defense?

It's far less strange that the US and UK develope those things, given their "geopolitical forays" that are sometimes met with force. I could also understand if Israel would want stealth ships, just in case. But Sweden? What am I missing?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 11 2004, 07:49 AM

Maybe they're setting up to annex Denmark.

~J

Posted by: Domino Jun 11 2004, 08:04 AM

QUOTE (Omega Skip)

Maybe I just don't get it, but could someone please explain to me why the Swedes, of all people, need stealth ships so badly?

Well there are a few very good reasons. And mind you this is mostly speculation on my part no real facts involved here.

I would imagine that their newest destroyer/frigate is at least 20 years old and older ships cost more to operate and keep seaworthy. Also when you build new ships you incorporate new technology for many reasons.

One survivibility. If you are going to invest in something make sure it can do what you want it to do, which is a platform to direct force, and if it is resting on the ocean floor it can't direct much more than reef formation.

Two Force Multiplication. Newer more advanced ships can do more things and may be as useful as 2 of the older things it has replaced. Now instead of 12, number pulled out of ass, they could feild 8 and have gained the capabilites of 4 additional ships over what they had while reducing overall numer by 4. In the long run saving money.

Three less upkeep. Newer things like ships do not need overhauls as often as older, is this water supposed to be here?, things. And possibly they can if not soon in the relatively near future have all the same type of ship making equipment purchases and maintanence programs cheaper and easier.

Posted by: toturi Jun 11 2004, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (Omega Skip)

Simple. When you are neutral country, like Swiss-take-no-sides-at-all neutral, EVERYONE becomes are potential adversary. Remember the Swedes never took sides during any modern war other than their own side.

You cannot have a large navy or army if you are neutral, if you do, you are a threat. But unless you can ream any aggressor an asshole, you are going to be a target. So you need something that will give you an edge, without the massive arms buildup.

Posted by: dandy Jun 11 2004, 11:40 AM

also the swedish government want to demonstrate superior technological power. sweden is one of the evry few countries (france, america, russia) that actually export and build nuclear powerplants!

Posted by: Siege Jun 11 2004, 11:47 AM

Given the nightmare of trying to invade Switzerland, I'm not sure how many countries would waste the effort for such a relatively minimal return.

-Siege

Edit: To bring this to a relative point, Sweden lacks a similar military priority. If I remember correctly, the Nazis rolled through Sweden on principal rather than any real military objective.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 11 2004, 12:04 PM

I wasn't going to enter this fray, but you're wrong. The germans didn't invade Sweden. They didn't have to. Sweden joyful sold iron ore to the Germans. The Germans invaded Norway out of a fear they would interfere with the Swedish/German sales. In both world wars Sweden sided with germany. They didn't fire any shots but did business with the germans, meaning the germans didn't have to tie up more troops.

Posted by: toturi Jun 11 2004, 12:39 PM

The Swedes never sided with the Germans. It was simply business as usual. Just that almost nobody else did business with the Germans.

Posted by: Nikoli Jun 11 2004, 12:44 PM

That and Switzerland has one of the largest (by percentage, not numbers) militia of any nation. Every male over teh age of like 16 or so has a rifle, and attends training in the use of and defense with that rifle. House to house combat is defintely no fun when the force you face is mostly trained in guerilla tactics and has a very high percentage of sharpshooters. Tanks need infantry to protect it, infantry need tanks to protect it, each, without the other is far more vulnerable in modern warfare.

Posted by: Nath Jun 11 2004, 12:58 PM

QUOTE (Omega Skip)

They fear the Russians. Sure, we all know since 1991 Russia is a nice, democratic and friendly country, but when you change your military equipment every thirty years, and take ten years to develop them, you have to account what the situation could be like in a decade or two (the project was started in 1988 for one large and one small ship, and then merged for only one mid-sized ship in 1993 ; the SMYGE demonstrator was made public in 1991). The need of military power only arose when somebody else notice you have less than he does. If Russian decided to invade Sweden, would NATO start third world war just for them ? Would you bet your country on the answer ? It's one thing to have a border with Canada or Italy, another to have Big Mama Russia as a neighbour.

It worthes noting the first Visby will be dedicated to mine and anti-submarines warfare. During the Cold War they were on Naval Highway 102, many submarines from both side finding a perfect ground for infiltration in the Swedish islands, those ilands also being perfect outpost for amphibious invasions. Sweden can't maintain a large naval force so stealth can come in a force multiplier. But I guess they also considered they could make some business overseas like they did with the Gripen.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 11 2004, 01:25 PM

Also, it's 'easy' to know where the Swedish navy is. It's not like an American carrier task force that can be 'anywhere in the ocean'. A costal defense ship needs to be hard to find of it will be sunk by air power long before it does anything useful.

The idea for stealth power projection ships if so that it will complicate the mathematics of searching for such a ship. If your radar can detect the ship at 100 miles, the you need X planes to cover a certain area... If the same radar can only detect the steatlh ship at 50 miles, finding just became about 4 times as hard.

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 11 2004, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Shadow)

QUOTE (Panzergeist @ Jun 10 2004, 02:18 PM)

I'm not sure how what you said conflicts with Panzergeist's comment.

Panzergeist said the Sea Shadow was canned because it was high maintenance, fragile, and had little in the way of storage space.

You said it was stealthy, which Panzergeist never denied.

In fact, following the link you provided, I found this comment in the reviews: "Rich is justifiably proud of Skunk Works' successes, but he also admits their failures, notably: an attempt in the late '50s to create a plane fueled by liquid hydrogen, and also a stealth catamaran ship."

As others have noted, the Sea Shadow was just a technology demonstrator. It might've been very stealthy, but that doesn't change its flaws.

Posted by: Lindt Jun 11 2004, 05:18 PM

Along with it being high maintenance, and fragile, the sucker was SLOW. 10 knots? I could drag race it with a sailboat... If thats the case (which is cant be, can someone say classified?) its even more worthless in that respect.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 11 2004, 06:50 PM

I was saying the reason it was cancelled had nothing to do with what PG said. It was all political.

The boat was fast, it could pull 50 knots if not trying to be stealthy. It was tough, could carry a good offensive load. And it didn't have to have a lot of crew.

The reason it was never put into production was pure politics. The same reason why we don't still fly Blackbirds.

I wouldn't trust those little blurbs at the bottom, they don't even come close to telling the whole story. For instance, the 'failed liquid-hydrogen' plane was the Blackbird. I wouldn't call that failed.

Posted by: Camouflage Jun 11 2004, 09:51 PM

Wasn't the Sea-Shadow just a test-prototype for basic research into naval stealth technology? AFAIK that thing was never meant for any practical military purpose, not even as a direct prototype for later combat vessels, it's just a lifesize model to test the theories on new stealth technologies.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 11 2004, 10:03 PM

Nope, it is an actual boat. It is not a combat vessel, as weapons were never added to it. But had the navy commissioned it they would have just put the weapons in place. Read the book, it's awesome.

Posted by: Siege Jun 11 2004, 10:05 PM

Politics and military procurement can be fun, if disturbing, to watch.

Some of the back-pedalling on the Crusader mobile artillery piece was highly amusing.

-Siege

Posted by: Panzergeist Jun 11 2004, 10:45 PM

The Crusader is too heavy, and we don't really need new artillery for another 10-15 years. They should never have started work on it. Gotta hand it to Rumsfeld, he has done a great job of making our military more mobile.

Posted by: JaronK Jun 11 2004, 11:26 PM

Rumsfeild's scrapping of the overly expensive and barely useful Crusader was something I really gave him credit for. Let's face it, the US isn't in serious need of a new cannon.

JaronK

Posted by: Siege Jun 12 2004, 01:58 AM

On paper, the Crusader was supposed to be a highly transportable, highly accurate piece of artillery designed to support a Rapid Reaction Force.

The actual product was something resembling a self-propelled howitzer that was anything but easily portable and the accuracy wasn't anything particularly remarkable.

-Siege

Posted by: toturi Jun 12 2004, 11:57 AM

It is artillery. It is NOT supposed to be very accurate. You are not supposed to be able to hit a specific target with a single arty round, but given the rate at which technology is advancing, I wouldn't put it pass the US or Japan or some hi-tech country to do it.

Posted by: Siege Jun 12 2004, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/ details.

Improved accuracy was part of the design spec.

-Siege