Talk:Stealth ship

Nonsense?
I do not agree with the speedy deletion because the article is not nonsense anymore. The external links prove it. ( I do not think that the technology will ever be successful but that is a different issue). Andries 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of it is still nonsense, like the paragraph about the X form. -Amatulic 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After 2 months of no comments, I eliminated the X-form terminology while keeping the content intact. -Amatulic 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. X-form in this sense is used only occasionally, mostly by journalists. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and I notice (from searching google) that a lot of those references to "X-form" trace back to Wikipedia. -Amatulic 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they need to paint them black as they grey they have painted them with will look really visible at night (whats the point in being undetecable on radar if your enemies can see u just by looking in your direction?) It might mess up the stealthness of the ships but the B-2 (stealth fighter in the american air force) is all so painted black and must work pretty damn well because the americans pay millions to have them built!!!

83.197.153.3 16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Stealth ship of China : http://www.wforum.com/specials/articles/03/22932.html


 * Painting a ship black is also nonsense. Visual contrast relationships remain the same in any light level, even in the dark. It makes sense to paint the ship decks black (and they are, or nearly so) because the ocean looks black when viewed from the sky. The Navy's research indicates that "haze gray" is the best overall color in all conditions. Ship masts used to be painted black to disguise the soot deposits from the stacks, but that's not a problem anymore the cleaner-burning gas turbines, so the masts are now gray also. Amatulic 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please expand on the reson for the removal of the Vsiby picture, I do not understand the rationale.Mossig 11:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Loose definition
I'd say that you can't put all these ships in the same basket. All the conventional ships with a few radar image-reducing features (nansen, the german frigates, etc) should be classed as 'low-observable', while real stealth ships designed from the ground up to be less visible on radar (sea shadow, visby, skjold, ddx etc) are the only ones fit to be called stealth ships. This is similar to the division between aircraft with 'low-observable features' like the Eurofighter and Rafale contra the B-2, F-117, F-35 and F-22.


 * Stealth aircraft

Notice the division between 'fully stealth' and 'reduced RCS' designs. --Joffeloff 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Steregushchy class corvette "stealth" or "reduced RCS"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.201.110 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Visby first of her kind?
Article says Visby was first to enter service, it was launched in 2000, when for example Finnish FNS Hamina was already commissioned ever since 1998, and naturally launched even before that. Visby's hull was laid down in 1995, but being laid down doesn't count as being in service. Ape89 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement about Visby is wrong. Even in the mid-1990s, we had the French Lafayette class, as well as the US Arleigh Burke class, which preceded the Visby. I have removed the statement from the article. The statement also cited a dead link, which I have also removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stealth technology was developed gradually, so it is difficult to say which ship was the first actual stealth ship. On Burke class, the only "stealth" feature was that vertical surfaces were angled. Lafayette class does have more stealth features, but those only reduce the radar signature by 60%, so the radar cross section is equivalent to that of traditional corvette. (I wonder if a destroyer or bigger ship can ever be called stealth.) The radar cross section of Visby is reduced by 99% compared to traditional corvette (so it is 1/100 of that of Lafayette). Hamina class probably has similar reduction and the ship is smaller, so I reckon it should have radar cross section comparable to a rowing boat. However, Hamina class was not the first stealthy ship in Finland. Its predecessor Rauma class (commissioned 1990) was already considered a stealth ship, and even its predecessor, Helsinki class (1980) had some stealth features, at least as much as Burke class.
 * Further, it should be noted that small radar cross section is not the only thing that makes a stealth ship. Other things to consider are infrared visibility (a normal ship is like a lighthouse when seen with infrared camera), sound, magnetic field, emitted radio signals, and of course visual visibility. --PauliKL (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that you can't point at a ship and say "this was first" - you could go as far back as the CSS Virginia from the Civil War (although her shape wasn't intended for stealth). And it's true that there's more to stealth than radar, although radar is still currently the primary means of detection and tracking at sea.
 * However, much of what else you wrote up there is wrong. I worked as a signature management engineer in the Navy. I was involved in the RCS treatments on the Arleigh Burke class. Those ships have far more than just angled vertical surfaces; all topside objects (ladders, stanchions, steps, handles) are shaped, and she includes several types of surface treatments for RCS as well as infrared treatment for stack gases. Based on our at-sea tests, her signature is far less than you think compared to other destroyers. Even though the purpose of Burke's design was not to evade detection but to defeat radar-guided missiles, the class easily qualifies as stealthy, at least for that time. We also analyzed other ships. The Lafayette class's features reduce its signature to less than 1/1000 (30 dB or more) of a conventional frigate (not 60%, that's only -4 dB reduction). The Visby has even greater reduction, being designed primarily for stealth. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Juan Ricardo is not a Stealth Ship
The Juan Richardo Oyola Vera class is not a stealthy design. Its shaping is meant for ballistic protection, not for radar cross section reduction. 76.235.63.58 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stealth ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808165330/http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/DDG1000/default.htm to http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/DDG1000/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826050140/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Project17.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Project17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

30DX frigate
The 30DX frigates have a major emphasis on stealth, where should they be placed? -Fhcgh (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reduced signature isn't the same thing as stealth. These ships have a major emphasis on reduced signature, not stealth. There appear to have been some cost considerations affecting the design. The topside clutter and vertical structures present, in my mind, disqualify it from being a stealth ship. The ship has reduced signature, however, which doesn't prevent detection, but would allow anti-ship missile countermeasures (like chaff) to be much more effective. I'd put it in the "Reduced radar cross-section ships" section, because of the similarity to the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, if the Mogami-class frigate was disqualified, then why was the Ada-class corvette (and also the Type 055 destroyer & Hamina-class missile boat) qualified in the "fully stealth" list? Sorry, I'm not really knowledgable in this field, and I, visually, can't understand why they are classified like that.  Hwi . padam   08:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)