Shipbucket

Let’s go into history for a moment. The Cold War is over, the NFR-90 program is close to collapsing and every navy in the world knows things will have to change. It is unlikely the amount of ships, funding and crew can be maintained in the NATO nations, so both the USN and the European navies start to wonder what kind of ships they will need in the new environment. In all the uncertainty of the Cold War, they knew what their ships would be doing and roughly where. The new situation was one of an unknown mission, anywhere on the earth. It was likely the crisis that would require the ships would not be known long in advance, making the time for preparations short.

So, what the NATO needed at the time, would be not-too-costly, highly flexible but still powerful ships which could make high speed crossings over the world’s oceans under all weather conditions, would be independent from large support organisations if needed. Both the USN and NATO needed such a ship, and the solution would be nuclear cruisers…. Except those were extremely costly, too big and not that flexible. The USN had however, in this alternate world, build a few ships which were not that much more expensive then conventional powered ships: the nuclear Spruance, the Thorn subclass. http://shipbucket.com/drawings/4373 The Thorn subclass was powered by LWNP’s, had a slightly lower top speed then the other Spruance class ships, a bit more expensive and needed it’s 4 reactors swapped out every 2 to 3 years operationally.

So, the US Navy proposed a new design/requirement into NFR-90. The Royal Navy, US Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy would in the end pick this up and build some ships based on this requirement. The USN build 12 Arleigh Burke class DDGN’s, the Dutch would build 4 LCDN and the RN would build 4 Daring class Nuclear destroyers. The 3 classes shared the same hull and machinery, The USN one was heavier armed (96 cell VLS) and the RN one had a different combat system based on PAAMS, and thus a different superstructure and weapons layout.

Core in the design was the Westinghouse E1W, a power generation system based on a small gas cooled nuclear reactor, a turbine, a generator and an automated control system attached to that. The E1W was a raft mounted unit that could be removed, refuelled, tested and configured away from the ship, while no radiation shielding had to be breached to remove this unit for refuelling. The entire raft would be taken to an refuelling facility (one in the US, one in the UK) for refuelling and maintenance when needed. This mean no huge 10-year refit cycle as on the nuclear cruiser, it would even be possible to directly swap the E1W unit for another directly. This operation did not have to take longer then the time to open up the decks and lift out the 300 ton units. Each E1W unit could provide up to 9000 kW. Due to their modular nature, these units could be scrapped (or even be refurbished and reused) separately from the ships they are placed in.
The hull design was based on the USN experience with nuclear cruisers. By creating a long and narrow hull optimised for high speed, the ship could reach over 30 knots on just 20000 kW of power. This meant cruising speed was less efficient and the ship was bigger then needed for the systems on board, but that was thought to be an reasonable trade-off.

The resulting ship was 9019 tons, with an length of 170 m (WL), 177 m (OA) Beam of 17,6 m and a draft of 5,9 m (keel). The ship used 3 E1W units but only 20 10MW electric motors were installed for propulsion. Operationally, this meant the E1W units had to be refuelled every 3 years during constant high speed (nuclear carrier escort) operations or every 5-6 years for less then 20 knot operations. This setup made it possible to use the E1W units as an IEP system, meaning all combinations of the power generation could be used to provide electrical power to the weapons, radars, hotel load and propulsion. For low or peak loads a single SSTG was also installed in the superstructure, for example if quick startup was required. This SSTG and the emergency diesel under the helideck were modified to use aviation fuel so only a single type of fuel was required on board. Due to this power system layout, it could be chosen to “empty” one of the reactors earlier or spread the load over all equally, to vary operational readiness and maintenance cycles.

The radar systems consists of an AEMS (enclosed mast) with in it the Signaal APAR and the Raytheon Planar SPS-49 (for both the USN and the Dutch version). An Sabre ECM system is used on the Dutch ships, while the USN uses their SLQ-32.

The USN ships were commissioned from 1998 onwards, the Dutch from 2003 onwards and the RN ships (due to issues with the development of PAAMS) from 2009 onwards. With refits after roughly 20 years of service planned for most ships to fit the latest weapon and radar technology, it is expected that they will stay in the forefront of these navies until at least 2040.

I could say more, but I think all else I could describe is better described by the drawing. So here it is.

Feel free to ask questions, I will expand upon this text when I place it on the wiki too soon so the description answers all questions Hope you all enjoy!

The poll for the Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant Challenge is now available and can be accessed through this link.

Responses will be accepted until the 12th of May, with the poll closing at 23:59 UTC-12 (International Date Line West).
A countdown timer can be found here for those wondering how much time they have left.

@acelanceolet, what are the two rectangles set on the deck by the harpoon missiles?

CaptainPaulov wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 5:12 pm @acelanceolet, what are the two rectangles set on the deck by the harpoon missiles?

You mean the recession in the deckhouse that the launchers are in?

acelanceloet wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 6:30 pm

CaptainPaulov wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 5:12 pm @acelanceolet, what are the two rectangles set on the deck by the harpoon missiles?

You mean the recession in the deckhouse that the launchers are in?

he ask about those big deck hatches

Ah. Those are the deck hatches for the E1W units described in the text.

The poll for the post-Cold War large surface combatant challenge has closed. 21 entries were submitted before the deadline and 31 people responded to the poll. Once again, I would like to thank the members of the community who voted and the artists who made this challenge possible. I hear disparaging comments about modern warships from time to time. They are said to be boring, bland, and non-distinctive. I don't think many people would say the same about Superboy's Historia class or Garlicdesign's Muirbhreid class. We have a diverse collection of great designs representing a number of different roles and doctrines. I believe this challenge has amply demonstrated that modern warships can be interesting and visually appealing. Nice job Shipbucket!



Congratulations to MitcheLL300 who achieved first place with the excellent Independence class cruiser Conqueror. TheGrumpyKestrel, a mere three points behind MitcheLL300, came second with the wonderful Broome class frigate Port Hedland. Great work! My personal favourite, Erik_t's USS Towers, achieved third place and was only four behinds behind second. There was definitely some competition for the top spot. If your name appears near the bottom of the table, I would love to see how your skills improve between now and the next challenge in which you participate. For those interested, the Interwar Fighter Challenge is now open.

I'm a little surprised on who come top 10, how become bottom 10.

I'm mostly surprised of Acelanceloet ending so far down.

For me, I could of course do things differently and I probably pulled to many strings with mine

I did not vote in this challenge, thinking I would be unable to be objective and not play favorites. Rather than give numerical scores, here are my thoughts (worth exactly two American cents) on each submission. Hopefully we are all getting to be better thinkers and artists as the community continues to evolve. Offered in the order in which the challenge entries were submitted.

MitcheLL300:
The drawing is of very high quality and seems relatively well-considered, but it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the ship is overloaded. The most prominent example of this is the helo hangars, which are almost shrink-wrapped onto the AW101. I would not want to attempt to perform any sort of maintenance on those helos. In practice, helo hangars on surface combatants are about 25-30% wider and taller than the helo they are meant to contain. Your hangars are literally the exact width of an AW101. The crew also seems oddly large and, therefore, cramped. Bonus points for the top view.

superboy:
The drawing is of fairly high quality and generally makes sense. The underwater features seem a little unlikely to me. The midbody is very full, and the bilge keels and especially stabilizers are undersized.

Blackbuck:
The drawing is of very high quality. Bonus points for the top view. I appreciate the extra effort of adapting the unusual hull form and hangar arrangement, but more discussion of this choice and its implications would add to the entry. I like the "islanding" of the combat system, but the S-band units are going to have comparatively poor azimuthal resolution. Personally, I would worry about any stern access with such an expansive compartment aft... seems like it might be a recipe for poor stability in a damaged condition.

minepagan:
The drawing is of high quality, somewhat let down by shading on, e.g., various domes. It's hard to know exactly how to score this for "originality" when it's mostly a drawing of a model that has been presented, but I appreciate the relatively unorthodox concept.

Garlicdesign:
The drawing is of very high quality. Bonus points for the top view. I think your engine rooms must be quite cramped, with four GTs as well as four diesels. The top view does not seem to match the description: I cannot find space for two RHIBs and two helos in the same topside compartment, never mind two UAVs.

Hood:
The drawing is of high quality. It scores relatively low in originality, of course, being essentially a real-life design of fairly conventional nature. Two Merlins seems optimistic when the real ships carry one, but I am by no means an expert on the Type 45. The VLS fit is also quite a bit superior to the real article.

erik_t:
Like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way

corp:
The drawing is of high quality. Bonus points for the top view, although it does not seem nearly so detailed as the side view. The concept is obviously quite wild, and it scores high on originality, but it is difficult to evaluate its realisticness, although nuclear power in general does not seem to me like a great fit for a weight-sensitive surface-effect ship (100MW seems highly optimistic for anything like a LWNP). The total lack of boats is conspicuous.

heuhen:
The drawing is of fairly high quality. The concept is interesting but I think the hull is badly overloaded and unlikely to be practical. Ten primary power sources is too many. A 30 knot hull will likely be difficult to adapt to a well deck. 750 (!) people aboard will be horribly cramped by modern standards. Interesting overall, but I think it would be more likely a 25 knot ship displacing 15,000+ tons. The radar arrangement could use more development; right now, the mast feels sort of pasted together.

Kiwi Imperialist:
The drawing is of high quality. Bonus points for the top view. I would give this effort relatively higher points for originality; it has a certain unique flavor to it, Russian but not quite. I think this is difficult to achieve. I like certain details like the flexed whip antennas. Some of the underwater details are not up to the standard of the rest of the drawing/concept; the hull has a very low block coefficient amidships. I think the stacks are also undersized relative to the declared power.

Kattsun:
The drawing is of very high quality and is quite original, with a certain unique style. I won't say it's the most plausible or likely entry, but the attention to detail is rather delightful. This would have been the hardest entry for me to score, by a fairly wide margin. I think a concept as unorthodox as this would especially benefit from a top view.

morgansshipyard:
The drawing is of fairly high quality, although it would benefit from more attention to detail around the hangar and on the mast (conversely, the SVTT and SPQ-9B are handled very nicely). Shading is not up to modern standards. IMHO the light gun fit is a bit excessive; it's hard to see what the four RWS are contributing when the CIWS is so massive. It's hard not to see the skeleton of a Burke lurking underneath this drawing. More attention to consistent deck heights would improve the concept.

Shiguire:
The drawing is of quite high quality, especially the attention to detail in the shading, although I do not like the treatment of the Harpoon* launchers. It's basically a redrawn Burke, which is fine, but it's not very original. It's notable how some areas of the ship are clearly in the modern era of slanted-back surfaces for lower RCS, while other areas are starkly vertical.

TheGrumpyKestrel:
The drawing is of the highest quality. Attention to detail is excellent. The concept is not super original, but it is highly realistic (although I think the speed is a bit optimistic for this plant configured as CODLOG). In my opinion, this would be the runaway winner if a top view had been provided.

VictorCharlie:
The drawing is of lower quality than most other submissions. It has a notably flat affect. Shading is somewhat rudimentary. For a design that appears to care about RCS above all, planform alignment is notably absent. A modern combatant with no organic helicopters seems unlikely. I'm skeptical that even a landing spot could be provided. The VLS complement seems optimistic. Extra credit for the effort put into the dazzle camo, which seems unlikely but adds a fun flavor.

1143M:
The drawing is of high quality and seems plausible enough, although I am skeptical of the value of the provided stabilizers. The hull feels relatively sahllow for its length. The challenge entry is notable for the lack of information provided, compared to other entries. Missiles are not provided as is standard.

Cascadia:
The drawing is of lower quality than most other submissions. It feels especially flat, lacking shading and feeling "pasted-together" (e.g., the bay below the pilothouse that has no discernible purpose). The concept is notably top-heavy. Planform alignment is haphazard. Cold fusion power is notably unrealistic, and other detail is not provided.

JSB:
The drawing is of fairly high quality. Shading is a little inconsistent (notably the sonar dome and underneat the bridge wings). The concept seems reasonable, although as with MitcheLL300's drawing, I would not want to deploy or stow the helos anywhere but pierside. The active stabilizer seems immense and cuts right through the shafts. I'm skeptical of the claimed range and speed for the plant provided, unless it is IEP and can operate both shafts on a single MT30.

TigerHunter1945:
The drawing is of the highest quality. Attention to detail is excellent. It is not a highly original drawing, feeling very much like a Dutch LCF, but it's certainly realistic. I'd love to see this level of attention devoted to a top view.

Miklania:
The drawing is of fairly high quality, although the shading is a little flat for my tastes. The concept is one of the more interesting ones submitted, and while I won't try to make the case for its realism, it's sufficiently well explored that I won't argue against it either.

acelanceloet:
The drawing is of very high quality, and attention to detail is excellent (although I'm not in love with the bilge keels). Bonus points for the top view. Certainly one of the more interesting concepts submitted, and if you accept on faith that the LWNP is realistic (certainly real-life naval architects explored it), then so is the design. The only part of the design I question is whether the AEM/S structure could realistically support the weight of large phased array radars above it. I like the way that the Goalkeepers and Sabre ECM units are situated.

As I usually do, hereby my comments on the entries of this challenge. First of all, it was amazing seeing all the different takes of everyone on this subject, and I love that we have some artist we hadn't seen before add in their works. Congratulations Mitch on winning, and congratulations everyone on your interesting entries. I look forward to comments from others on my drawing, and see you all next challenge!

MitcheLL300's Independence class:
A very nice design, quite well drawn and a well deserved winner. Drawing wise, my only comments are that the light seems to do strange things on the top view (the 45 degree angles are light while the front, back and sides are dark, so where is the light coming from?), the forward Mk 49 launcher is backwards and the darker shading on the overhanging funnel is a bit weird when the hull has the shading near or on the 45 degree line (do the funnels slope out that much?). I also disliked the fact that doors in the outher superstructure were outlined in grey but "regular" doors were outlined in black.
Ship design wise, I think improvements could be made on the amount and the placement of the air intakes, and I am missing turbine removal hatches on the top view. In real life, such a long superstructure would not be all one-piece as drawn, but would have some open spaces to pass from side to side and some superstructure 'ends' or expansion joints to make certain the superstructure was not structurally loaded. I also found the SMART-L a bit too close for comfort to the aft funnel. Speaking of too close, the aft navigational radar is unable to turn in that location. I think the sonar is a tad small for the use of ASROC.

Superboy's Historia class:
A well designed ship and an excellent drawing. The drawing is a bit pulled down by the use of old parts (especially the NH-90) and the hull shading seems a bit strange. Design wise, I am not certain about the big VLS amidships, I would personally move the ESSM there and have the forward launcher handle all the big missiles. That way the VLS does not intrude below main deck level, as such a big hole in the strength deck of an medium sized ship does mean increased weight.

Blackbuck's Glórmhar class:
One of the most interesting designs in the challenge, I would have many comments except I knew it was based on a real design. I applaud the use of an novel hull shape, the AWJ-21, unique weapons and of course the drawing quality itself. A turbine removal hatch would have been good to see, and can't help myself but worry about how those containers are offloaded: there is no crane in sight.

Minepagan's Monte Sano class:
I personally quite disagree with the used hull shading, I cannot find any set of rules that would explain it. Is this the most sensible design? Well, operationally I am not sure, but if such a ship would be required I am quite certain this could be build as such. The Tomahawks and SM-2 have me doubt though, I would personally fill that VLS unit mostly with ESSM for self defence. Are you sure this hull has no skeg though?

Garlicdesigns's Muirbhreid-class:
It looks very nice. There are some minor errors between the top and sideview though, mostly apparent in the superstructure atop the hangar and the superstructure at the pilothouse level not being the same width while being on the same level while the side of the superstructure is a single flat surface. I don't like the way the hull is shaded here ( Too dark and too many shades) but that is personal taste. Design wise, I am kind of missing the air intakes for the gas turbines, the VLS block looks somewat bigger than needed and the aft radar seems to be blasted by the aft funnel. All in all, great work!

Hood's T45:
I love it. The only issue I have with it is that it is basically just an T45, even though everything about it is different Design wise, it works (I mean it is basically a real design) and as a drawing it is great! I am a bit worried about the large anchor hitting the sonar dome though..... drawing wise, that same anchor might be made to look a bit better, and why put an overhang shading on the bow while the bow at the front has no width? This suggests an broad overhanging carrier-style flight deck

Erik_t's Towers class:
I hate the zumwalt style air intakes, but that is a matter of preference. I really love the rest of it. I have some doubts about the hull being as flared out as is suggested by the hull shading and I miss some mooring gear placed on the deck both in the side and the top view (I suppose that goes belowdeck, but the hatches for it seem to be missing forwards?) I think it might be a little bit more apparent that the ship has 2 shafts, as the stern behind the skegs looks a tad too flat in both length and beam directions.

Corp's Leahy class:
It's amazing. And mad. But still amazing.
I do wonder about the placement and the amounts of the VLS batteries though, and about the weight distribution over the hull. A lot seems to be forwards. Also, are you certain you are getting an entire Burke worth of systems on basically the displacement of a Burke but this time nuclear powered SES? I suspect you are either going to loose some of the systems or going to have to go bigger. Btw, I am not certain those air intakes opening to the top is a good idea, that will get rained into.... but you might not be able to avoid that on a ship like this. I would avoid the liferafts hanging over the side though, hard to get to and maintain and vulnerable (especially since they even extend out of the oa beam in this case)

Heuhen's Rambiert class:
How did you get that many helicopters, that many VLS and that many guns on a hull not that much larger then a burke? Especially when also carrying those hovercrafts and transport 750 additional people. Something is going wrong with the laws of physics there
Other then that, it is quite a good drawing, could do with a tad more details such as the openings in the hull (both under and above the waterline), UNREP gear, gas turbine removal hatches etc.

Kiwi Imperialist's Sun Zhongshan class:
Interesting design, and well drawn. From a design standpoint, I miss the air intakes for the turbines, the bilge keels are a tad high and I miss mooring gear aft. I also wonder why the walkway at main deck level amidships is not enclosed to the sides, having this open is not that useful in my opinion. I would expect an expansion joint or split structure between the funnels or between the pilothouse structure and the forward funnels, or is that deck level structural?
As a drawing, the ship could use some more underwater hull details, and there is suddenly an additional tone of hull shading aft compared to the rest of the hull. Something also seems to have gone wrong with the rotor of the kamov, it is off to the side.... and didn't these kamovs have double rotors on top of each other? does that fit in the hangar?

Kattsuns FV Mjukheten:
While this is not a bad drawing, I consider it certainly not a good one. The shading is a bit much for shipbucket, but that is not the issue I have with it: the fact that the different parts of the ship have different light directions (according to the shading) is. The light is coming from the viewer, the front and the top, looking at the bow, mast and hull respectively. Design wise, well it is basically a real ship so sure it works. It only isn't an combatant, and thus does not fit the criteria of this challenge in the slightest.

Morgansshipyards's Melbourne class:
It isn't that detailed, and the hull shading could use some work around the skeg, and there are more different types of missiles on board then I would find logical...... but the design works. I look forward to seeing more work from this artist.

Shigure's San Sadara class:
Well, it's a burke! I do wonder about the aft boat bay, do you have the space to use that with a hangar and a VLS module in that same space? or does that hatch open to your hangar? The air intakes and the exhaust seem a bit small compared to IRL burke, and I would really think there would be better spots for those ASM's (for example between the funnels), right now they both blast and use deckspace that could be quite useful, for example for UNREP or for the boat that you pushed into the hangar now
Drawing wise, there is only one major issue in my opinion: you have 2 shades of hull shading aft but somehow that almost disappears forward. Is that a realistic hull shape? is that an error? I'm not sure.

thegrumpykestrel's Broome class:
When the words "Batch II" makes you wonder if the first batch was as good looking. Well drawn, nice design, unique and sensible. I only have 2 issues with it: the RAM launcher fires the wrong way, and the hull shading looks strange forwards. You have the above the water shade that suddenly stops at the waterline and the hull shape shading underwater that just goes straight on forward of the hangar.

Victorcharlie's Normandie class:
Well, basically, it is CGX/CG-21. It's not a bad drawing, and not a bad design. The camoflage pattern distracts from the basic shape of the ship, Which might be both bad and good. Bad, because the ship is not badly drawn and deserves a proper look, good because it is applied quite well, with proper shading, and makes a sparsely detailed ship look busy. For the future, I would recommend some more detailing, a good look into underwater hull shading and otherwise, just practice and I think you might surprise us all a few drawings further along the line.

1143M's Nan Chang:
Well drawn, and the design is quite realistic. The only thing I really would change is move the 2 funnels further apart and split up the superstructure a bit more. The drawing could be a tiny bit more detailed, but doesn't suffer from a lack of details.

Cascadia's Aoba class:
I'm sorry to say, but I have to admit I liked nothing about this drawing. Ancient parts, and I feel the artist knew little about ships and even less about stealth ships. The aircraft shown on the drawing are of course of the standard we are used to from Cascadia, which has the minor issue that it made the rest of the drawing look much worse. That said, Cascadia, if you are interested in drawing more ships, (as your challenge entry suggests), would you like a hand to improve it? I could tell you all that is wrong with this drawing, but I'd much rather help you with getting it right on the next one and I think I am not the only one. I'd love to see the attention to detail you put into your aircraft into some ship drawings

JSB's Type 85:
Well, I quite like this drawing. It is unique, balanced, and I think it could work. I really dislike those pilothouse windows though. Drawing wise, some more mooring gear spread over the ship, some UNREP gear, some hull details and a new pilothouse window and I would call this an excellent drawing. Recommendation: maybe add in some deck lines, that alone would make this superstructure look more detailed.

TigerHunter1945's Semeru Class:
I'm jealous on how you can get that amount of detail look that good. The design also seems quite sensible. The active stabiliser seems a tad high on the hull, and if you have the zinc anodes shown I would also expect openings for cooling water etc visible. The aft RAM launcher is facing the wrong way, and I personally dislike that doors are outlined in black while hatches in the side of the hull are outlined in grey.

Miklania's James E. Williams class:
This ship seems basically an zumwalt style/era Perry. Small, austere, simple, but capable. The nuclear reactor clashes with that..... if I look at the drawing only, it is excellent and I can find really nothing wrong with it but that non-shipbucket standard missile. The D3G that is supposed to be in there changes things though. Since nuclear ships have very few liquids on board, that means the weight balance should be good as-is. That means the nuclear reactor in this ship would have to be amidships, as it would be by far the heaviest thing on board apart from the hull itself. So, for refuelling, that means removal or rebuild of the superstructure. Seeing that this ship is just under spruance sized and goes 30+ knots, we can expect the reactor to have more power then 2 D2G's. And even if that means that that reactor is ONLY the size of a single D2G, that still is quite a unit for such a small hull, and quite a lot of power to put on a single propeller. Your text mentions the reactor lasts 30 years..... so this ship will not be going 30 knots a lot, since a D2G powered ship lasted about 10?

Lastly, my own ship.
I am happy with the design, but not entirely with the drawing. I ran out of time in the end, and this resulted in a few details I planned not being on the drawing and a few small errors. I think I have never done a top view of a combatant before, so this was quite the experience, and it took quite some time to get every line to match up between top and sideview. I was crazy enough to also add shadows so the top view had some depth in it. In-universe, I believe my design is quite sensible, keeping in mind that that would be an universe where LWNP powered ships were already in use in the USN and could be brought into the NFR-90 program without it completely collapsing. I hope to return to this drawing soon, with an british and USN version also drawn out, but for now I have to leave it alone for a bit so I can look at it with a fresh eye and make some improvements to make it perfect. Any comments on it are thus very welcome, I will use them to make it better in the future, or to improve my future works.