Why is this a thing? Isn't a submarine already a a stealth ship?
What ship anon?
quit blerting out things without thinking.
>>32630950
i don't get it, what are you talking about? say the ship you're talking about anon.
>>32630950
Okay so I guess op is talking about the zumwalt, here's a different angle of the ship, hopefully you guys can see it now.
>>32630992
Woah
>>32630976
Magical 71 mile 155mm guns in my dreams.
It can fly into space, don't tell anyone ok!
>>32630950
Where's Zunwalt?
>>32630950
Submarines can't exactly scan with radar and engage airborne targets while concealed.
>>32631069
Yeah, and twice the price tag, half the payload and 71 mile range vs 1000. Washington sure has their priorities right.
>>32631195
>VS a Tomahawk
Fuck forgot to add that! I'm tired...
>>32631097
Found Wally!
>>32631172
>scan with radar
radar is for plebs
passive sonar can detect state of the art russian bombers all day erryday.
>>32631251
You can detect a Tu-95 just by checking for blood dripping out of your ears.
>>32631172
>scan with radar
>while concealed
Think about what you just said for a moment.
>>32631338
Think about what you read for a moment.
>>32631350
You can't transmit and be stealthy at the same time.
>>32631195
I want to see it in rough seas
Why is this a thing? Isn't a tank already an armoured fighting vehicle?
>>32631442
Tanks can't carry troops, except for the Merk.
>>32630950
Post the ship then you mong
>>32631172
Are you actually implying the Zumwalt can power up active radar and "stay concealed"
Are you on the drugs anon-san?
>>32631462
The Merk can't "carry troops" look at the goddamn troop compartment. You might as well ducttape marines to walls of an Abrams, they'd probably be more comfortable.
(And more useful, spall is a bitch)