Possibly the SWATH hull, they're a lot more structurally complicated and have higher maintenance costs than catamarans or mono-hulls, so they might've been pushing they're limits with simulated structural analysis.
In one sense, probably a lot. Computer models are highly useful, but there are always a lot of effects and practical issues (like how RAM coatings interact with sea water) that you don't know until you build something. You don't start changing superstructure designs on 10,000 and 20,000 ton ships without having tested concepts in real life. It's the equivalent of an x plane and we still build those for the same reasons.
In another sense, nothing. Stealth isn't useful for an aircraft carrier or particularly so for something protecting an aircraft carrier and those are really the only two things the surface navy cares about. The comparison of the air force, which saw stealth as a revolutionary development that would change its force structure and tactics, and the navy, which has remained locked in its surface tactical thinking since 1945 despite multiple new technologies, is interesting.
they could make a great james bond movie from it? :) the ship was in tomorrow never dies.
ReplyDeleteProbably a lot considering it was an experimental design that was never meant to be mission capable.
ReplyDeletei'm not so sure.
ReplyDeletecouldn't they have learned the same things cheaper through computer simulation?
i just don't get the expense of building a one off warship to prove stealth characteristics.
it seems the basic twin hull design went into the design of the sea fighter.
ReplyDeletetwin hulled vessels aren't ground breaking or unique. you don't need to build the sea shadow to prove that.
ReplyDeletePossibly the SWATH hull, they're a lot more structurally complicated and have higher maintenance costs than catamarans or mono-hulls, so they might've been pushing they're limits with simulated structural analysis.
ReplyDeleteIn one sense, probably a lot. Computer models are highly useful, but there are always a lot of effects and practical issues (like how RAM coatings interact with sea water) that you don't know until you build something. You don't start changing superstructure designs on 10,000 and 20,000 ton ships without having tested concepts in real life. It's the equivalent of an x plane and we still build those for the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteIn another sense, nothing. Stealth isn't useful for an aircraft carrier or particularly so for something protecting an aircraft carrier and those are really the only two things the surface navy cares about. The comparison of the air force, which saw stealth as a revolutionary development that would change its force structure and tactics, and the navy, which has remained locked in its surface tactical thinking since 1945 despite multiple new technologies, is interesting.
If stealth tech can make a large cruiser or destroyer look like a fishing trawler or smaller on radar, it is worth it.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about keeping the enemy from firing for even just a few minutes. That is worth it.
Sea Shadow uses a SWATH hull. Sea Fighter uses a catamaran hull with some "semi-SWATH" features. They really aren't that similar.
ReplyDeleteOf course the Navy HAS embraced stealth, in the form of the SSN and SSBN.