Talk:Stealth ship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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/M comm |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)
[edit] 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.
Notice the division between 'fully stealth' and 'reduced RCS' designs. --Joffeloff 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

