Hull designs of stealth warships compared [6500x1450][OC]


Agreed. We've never ever been capable completely put my head around the basic idea of a ship that large (or larger) staying afloat. I mean, the concept is got by me, nonetheless it still boggles the brain. Zumwalt's outline ...



This image with the title of "Hull designs of stealth warships compared [6500x1450][OC]" is one of a large collection of pictures from the category Warship . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com

Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.

Some random comments on reddit about Hull designs of stealth warships compared [6500x1450][OC]

  • Agreed. I've never been able to fully wrap my head around the idea of a ship that large (or larger) staying afloat. I mean, I get the concept, but it still boggles the mind.
  • Zumwalt's outline profile reminds me of a bell buoy . But in this case a really big bell buoy.
  • I love how distinctive the Type 45 is - could recognise it from the thumbnail!
  • Yup.. HMS Clownhat on the horizon!
  • No love for the Burke? It was designed with a reduced radar cross-section.
  • Not this time. The Burkes were designed with a reduced RCS in mind, true, but not very consequently. They ended up somewhere between a conventional warship and a true "stealth" ship. To be fair, Braunschweig and to a lesser extend Stereguschy more or less fall into the same category of "inbetweeners" and I included them nonetheless. I also wanted to move away from my US and Europe centeredness a bit and there were already three US warships. I actually tried to include Kolkota, Shivalik, Kamorta or Tuo Chiang but couldn't find any decent frontal photos or drawings. US vessels are covered extensively wherever you look but there are many interesting designs in developing countries that don't get nearly as much attention. Burkes are also at least ten years older than any other vessel in the graphic and it started out as a comparison of recent designs.
  • Ah, good answer!
  • What about the San Antonio -class?
  • They are stealthy, I can attest to that. There were times when I'd be worried about other ships hitting us on STETHEM because they could not see us on their radar.
  • I can attest to their stealthy ladders going up to the RHIBs in that the face of the rungs was pointy and uncomfortable. I always wondered how much more difficult we were to detect. Seems like we'd light up like a Christmas tree with those phased array panels near the mast (at least from aerial radar), no?
  • That just seems nonsensical when you consider how exposed the RHIBS themselves are. And all the cranes, launching equipment etc. I can't imagine that it would have been that difficult to give all Ft. IIA Burkes the same enclosed bay the RMS Burkes had. Seems like we'd light up like a Christmas tree with those phased array panels near the mast (at least from aerial radar), no? If the radar is active they can see you. Radar warning receivers always have a longer range than the radar systems themselves. Though I would imagine the AN/SPY-1D has quite a few tricks up its sleeve to make identification and range estimates harder for anyone listening.
  • Well we did cover the RHIBs in a blanket of sorts when out at sea, which was radar absorbent. Also most of the launching mechanisms were similarly coated, but I agree with your sentiments. As to your second point, it makes sense to be able to detect radar from long range easier than it is to get a return, since that energy is propogating outwards like a wave. Let's say a weak radar signal hits something at distance. Well now that weak signal gets difracted and has to return-- it's much easier to just look for that frequency, detect it, and amplify it. I'm sure you know all of this but for me I just put two and two together. As for how to not act like a giant homing beacon (in terms of active radar), I'm very interested in some of the theories as to how to defend against this. Off the top of my head I'd think switching rapidly between frequencies would be a possible solution, but then again wouldn't this be easily be countered by constantly scanning known radar freauencies?
  • Off the top of my head I'd think switching rapidly between frequencies would be a possible solution, but then again wouldn't this be easily be countered by constantly scanning known radar freauencies? That's the idea but it's a non-trivial task since most radars have a fixed range of frequencies they can operate at (frequency diversity) and changing between them can take time (frequency agility). Agility is one of the things AESA radars are especially good at - randomly changing the frequency with every pulse so that any RWRs that might be listening can't properly pick it up over background noise. Makes identifying the specific radar type harder, too since it appears to have no specific frequency at all.
  • Are there any common procedures for increasing a ship's signature to avoid this scenario? Open all the hatches? Set some metal stuff on deck?
  • There sure are although I don't know if they are fielded on these ships. Radar Reflectors. Basically big metal cubes with right angles that are great at returning radar signals. Many boats and buoys (useful both for navigational buoys as well as fishing buoys since they are inexpensive, require no power, and work pretty well) that want to be found easily have them. Edit: http://imgur.com/a/NtBOy Here are a few pics. Sorry for low resolution, was just a quick google search.
  • Bonus graphic! French and Italian FREMM variants So this one happened because I head some frontal silhouettes from another project that didn't pan out and thought it might be neat to show off some of the different hull designs used to reduce radar visibility, ranging from Zumwalt's and Visby's monolithic bloc shape to the complex X-shape of recent German designs. Some notes: As I said I reused some older silhouettes...and it shows. The Fremms are by far the best ones and they didn't make it into the final graphic because Aquitaine's mast was too high. The ships are arrayed from largest beam to smallest and that dimension should be accurate. I can't guarantee the same for the various drafts since that wasn't really the focus of the graphic. The stylised cross-sections below the labels are just that...stylised. Damn, Independence is fat . Over thirty meters despite being much lighter than the next five ships.
  • A lot of these don't seem that stealthy to me. Is it because unlike an aircraft you don't need to go for almost no RCS, just one much smaller than what you actually are? Like, hey, I'm just your friendly neighborhood fishing boat, versus a war ship?
  • Read more comments


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *