Alright, let me start by saying I'm predisposed to like the idea a little bit. I've been thinking about attempting something similar, though I was thinking more of a classic ghost ship… anyways, I've got a few thoughts here, some of which overlap with Malcolm's post.
Keep in mind I do understand why you're trying to avoid becoming bogged down in detail; that's obviously not a good place to be, generally. But with what you're trying here, a little bit of detail is necessary. For instance, take a look at 998 or scp-973. 998 is very technical but still brief in describing the plane. 973 is much more vague, but you still get a good idea of what the entity is. Just saying "a police car" might have worked for 973, but the added details made the sentence (and the article) better. You've already made progress by giving the ship a nationality, but you need to pin it down a little more. I think even something like "an American WWII-era ███████-class battleship" would handle that problem. Having it belong to a class also takes away the question of what armaments it has. I do see that you say it doesn't have an identifiable model, but for a battleship that doesn't really work. If it has no model, then how was it determined to be of World War II provenance, or that it is American, or (etc)? Thinking about that angle some more, in fact, it could be interesting if instead you mentioned that it fit the design scheme of similar American battleships but appears to belong to a previously unknown class. Do that right and you might have people thinking of it as some sort of Philadelphia Experiment "secret weapon gone wrong" sort of thing.
Just now thought you might want to read 802, which covers somewhat similar ground to your SCP's current form, i.e. military vehicle that roams about and destroys things.
I agree with Malcolm that you probably should state whether or not the ship has been observed to have any sort of crew; the Foundation is dedicating significant resources to watching this thing and would note either their presence or the absence thereof.
In the incident logs, the only thing that really stuck out to me (other than the heavy usage of EXPUNGED; may want to change that) was the attack on the NATO battlegroup. To my knowledge, NATO doesn't use the terminology battlegroup for naval forces; the closest thing to what you have in mind are the Maritime Groups, which are small but certainly formidable. That the Foundation, even with its seemingly near limitless resources, could present this as a pirate attack strains credulity. I'd say, what did these pirates have, an aircraft carrier? I'd suggest toning this down some. Maybe it destroyed a lone frigate that was already prepared to fight after reporting actual pirate activity; that would nicely illustrate the threat it is (something that can pop up off the Horn of Africa after being last seen near Guam, and then can assault an alert frigate) without seeming ludicrous.
The telekill usage doesn't seem right. Generally, new articles have trouble using the substance; it's low in quantity to begin with and it tends to be overused in articles. If you're going to keep it, at the very least there should be a reason given why Dr. █████ thought that the telekill would work, why the bosses approved, and why it appeared to have limited effectiveness. If there's no good reason for all three, I'd axe it.
Beyond all that, there's some minor phrasing issues, but my post is more than long enough already. Work hard on this: I think it could turn out to be pretty good. Well, I'd like it, at least.
