# Modern ships....



## Lucky13 (Jan 16, 2008)

Are getting more and more weird looking....












Naval Technology - Visby Class - Stealth Corvette - ASW MCM and Attack Vessel


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 16, 2008)

Impressive. Strange looking, but impressive. I guess we will have stealth tanks next.

Which leads me to this question. Since it seems the worlds navy's have declared the Battleships as an outdated weapon, do you think tanks would be next? It seems to me tanks are highly vulnerable to TOW missiles, laser guided missiles/bombs, etc. Am I wrong? Do tanks have decent/good defenses against such an attack?


----------



## F-14 (Jan 30, 2008)

the Visby Class was the world's First true all stealth ship it entered in 96-97 and then all this talk stealth hit the water and now all the Ships have stealth charater


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

yes yes i know about those those are the new destroyer or something


----------



## Elvis (Feb 17, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Impressive. Strange looking, but impressive. I guess we will have stealth tanks next.


I think we already have those...






Despite the existance of arms that can defeat them, tanks still offer the best mobile crew protection available and probably will for a very long time to come.

It's kinda like the B-52. 
On the surface, it seems outdated and vulnerable, but its still the best suited plane for some jobs.



Elvis


----------



## Grampa (Feb 17, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpvULfzBJ1Q_


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 17, 2008)

Almost reminds me of Iron Clad ships from the U.S. civil War........Just because of the sides.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2008)

Elvis said:


> I think we already have those...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No the M-1 is not stealth at all. The largest threat to the detection of a tank is its heat signature and the M-1 actually gives off a very large one when compared to other newer modern tanks that do not run off of Turbines.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 17, 2008)

Well said, Adler.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 18, 2008)

Adler,

I was thinking about the radar signature, i.e., low profile and angled sides.
Probably smaller than what a Sherman would give off, but you are correct about the heat signature.



Elvis


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 18, 2008)

It seems that everything these days is going stealth...


----------



## Elvis (Feb 18, 2008)

Where are you, Konigstiger205?!

I can see the words, but not you.

Turn off that @$#$ Stealth mode and get over here!






Elvis


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 18, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Where are you, Konigstiger205?!
> 
> I can see the words, but not you.
> 
> ...



Disengaging stealth...can you see me now?


----------



## ccheese (Feb 18, 2008)

And to think The Vulcans had the "stealth mode" many, many years ago.
They called it 'a cloaking device'.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Adler,
> 
> I was thinking about the radar signature, i.e., low profile and angled sides.
> Probably smaller than what a Sherman would give off, but you are correct about the heat signature.
> ...



I dont know, there are plenty of tanks just like that. Tanks that are searching for tanks are looking for its heat signature and so are the helicopters that are searching for it, so it would not help anyhow.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 19, 2008)

Konigstiger205 said:


> Disengaging stealth...can you see me now?



Ollie, Ollie, Oxenfree!...oh, there you are!





Konigstiger205 said:


> It seems that everything these days is going stealth...


Even the engine in your car!














Elvis


----------



## ezlead (Feb 19, 2008)

According to Popular Mechanics the Royal Navy and the U S Navy are looking at this exact type of ship to replace Destroyers,Frigates and Cruisers. The shape reflects radar up and away from the ship. Also supposed to have a low heat signature.

As for tanks,look for same type of technology. Low profile,low heat.
But, big gun(155MM) plus missiles(Hell-Fire type)
According to Army we still need fast big gun on battlefield to protect troops and other armored vehicles.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 20, 2008)

I think this is a case of money doing the talking.
It must still be cheaper to fire a shell with gunpowder out of a barrel, than to launch a rocket or small missle out of a tube, not that that hasn't been implemented successfully before.



Elvis


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2008)

Actually I am sorry but it was the Romulans in the Original Series of Star Trek that had the cloaking device not the Vulcans. The Federation steals a cloaking device from the Romulans and used it to develop their own. Also I know what you mean about stealth, but there will still be large heavily armoured and armed tanks probably that will be used where stealth is probably less wanted and the enemy already knows about it, like a peacetime base. Healz.


----------



## Condora (Jul 21, 2009)

Sorry guys, but actually armoured vehicles have that "slanted look" but not for stealth: although they want to deflect something, in this case it is not radar - not practical to something on the ground -, but projectiles thrown against them.

As far as ships and airplanes are concerned, it really is to enhance passive stealth capabilities, deflecting returning radar waves away from the tracking device. Now they are also trying to conceal their heat emissions, as it was being used to pinpoint them.

Cheers


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 21, 2009)

imagine a stealth aircraft carrier....

enclosed flight deck with VTOL aircraft .... maybe submersible..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2009)

Condora said:


> Sorry guys, but actually armoured vehicles have that "slanted look" but not for stealth: although they want to deflect something, in this case it is not radar - not practical to something on the ground -, but projectiles thrown against them.



I think most were aware of that. It is a design that was used going back to WW2.



comiso90 said:


> imagine a stealth aircraft carrier....
> 
> enclosed flight deck with VTOL aircraft .... maybe submersible..



I would not be surprised if someone in some government office has thought up that idea already.

It would be kind of neat though...


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not be surprised if someone in some government office has thought up that idea already.
> It would be kind of neat though...



It's highly unlikely to be practical though... Stealth doesnt make items invisible.. just ALOT more difficult to acquire via radar or lock onto. Even if aircraft carrier's signature could be reduced to the size of a 20 foot vessel... it's still large enough to be seen by missiles.

I'd like to see an artists rendering ...

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> It's highly unlikely to be practical though... Stealth doesnt make items invisible.. just ALOT more difficult to acquire via radar or lock onto. Even if aircraft carrier's signature could be reduced to the size of a 20 foot vessel... it's still large enough to be seen by missiles.
> 
> I'd like to see an artists rendering ...
> 
> .



I agree, but I would still love to see an artists rendering as well.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

I think the new type 45 Destroyer shows some stealth features in its design
T45 Photo Gallery : Air Defence Destroyer (Type 45) : Future Ships : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy


----------



## Condora (Jul 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think most were aware of that. It is a design that was used going back to WW2.



It didn't look like a joke, that's why I spoke up.
If that's the case, great!

On the stealth aircraft carrier, I know I've seen some drawings on a submarine concept. 
The Type 45 is a stealth design, usually you can tell when it has almost no openings, just flat, about 10º-from-vertical surfaces, usually a single mast. Now they are also dissimulating the exhaust heat, and the guns.


----------



## BillF (Jul 23, 2009)

F-14 said:


> the Visby Class was the world's First true all stealth ship it entered in 96-97 and then all this talk stealth hit the water and now all the Ships have stealth charater



Actually the first was the Sea Shadow (IX-529), which was built in 1985.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 23, 2009)

Now THAT is a weird lookin ship.


----------



## DBII (Jul 23, 2009)

The tank's armor is sloped the increase the thickness and not so much as to deflect the round. Sorry but I am at work and do not have a picture I can post. For example, if you take a plate 1/2 inch thick and place it on a table at a 90 degree angle, a round will have to punch through 1/2 inches. If you change to angle to 60 degrees the round will have to pass through more than 1/2 inch. This wil help

Sloped armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am an old Cav Scout. The army has been working on stealth tank designs since the early 1990's. They are working on using digital cameras to project images on the sides of AFV to mask it from gunners. They are also using rotorwing technology to help with engine noise and heat signatures. People have been talking about the death of armour since WWI. Technology always changes the advantages between, armour, fire power and mobility. Right now the attack helo is on top. Armour will be back.

DBII


----------



## Condora (Jul 24, 2009)

DBII said:


> The tank's armor is sloped the increase the thickness and not so much as to deflect the round. Sorry but I am at work and do not have a picture I can post. For example, if you take a plate 1/2 inch thick and place it on a table at a 90 degree angle, a round will have to punch through 1/2 inches. If you change to angle to 60 degrees the round will have to pass through more than 1/2 inch. This wil help
> 
> Sloped armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Sloping:
I know that, but the subject was deflection, so I did not mention increased thickness.

Stealth armour - I always thought the cost of developing of a Predator-like camouflage would be too deer, I didn't even know it was being thought of. It they manage it, it would be real fun... 

As you said it yourself, it's a never-ending race for supremacy: if the heat problem was solved by hiding the heat-sources UNDER the vehicle, I guess someone would come up with heat-seeking anti-tank mines.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 24, 2009)

Way off topic with all the tank talk, so I'll join in. Tank "stealth" has been in the works since WWII actually. There was an effort to hang lights around tanks to mask their silhouette while running ridges. Imagine a tank riding atop a ridge backlit by daylight. The tank is obviously well seen. Well, some genius thought that if you mounted lights upon the tank pointing in all directions, the light would blend into the normal daylight glare and the tank literally disappears to human sight. This application was actually tried on the leading edges of airplane sub hunters too. In the end, while the physics worked, the practicality of its application did not.


----------



## DBII (Jul 24, 2009)

I have not run across that before. I read about the lights being tested on B-24s. 

DBII


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 25, 2009)

There was a show on PBS Nova about 10-15 yrs ago. I tried finding it on youtube, but didn't find anything.


----------



## MacArther (Jul 26, 2009)

My take on the whole stealth thing is "Great....but does all this electronic stuff work if the enemy can *see* you and has guns and missiles trained?" I understand stealth goes a long way towards preventing the enemy from seeing you in the first place, but there will always be the flukes where a screen misses a fighter or small recon boat that happens upon something big and happens to have a radio.... Not pessimistic, but relying too much on new toys and technologies could be kinda bad if those same things take up areas previously reserved for more armor or damage control (probably doesn't happen, but I'm trying to make a point). In conclusion, Murphys Law happens more often then not (if I could just remember the guy that said that Murphy was an optimist...)


----------

