Talk:Stealth ship

message: 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)
replies: text: Some of it is still nonsense, like the paragraph about the X form. -Amatulic 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After 2 months of no comments, I eliminated the X-form terminology while keeping the content intact. -Amatulic 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Loose definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Juan Ricardo is not a Stealth Ship 

message: 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 \bnaval-technology\.com\b 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The 30DX frigates have a major emphasis on stealth, where should they be placed? -Fhcgh (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  30DX frigate