Re: Modern Stealth Corvette Challenge
Posted: August 15th, 2022, 4:20 am
by Soode
Donghan-class Medium Coastal Destroyer (GYJ)
GYJ-250 Donghan
GYJ-250 Donghan as she appeared upon commissioning, with her commissioning plaque at left.
General Characteristics:
Class Overview:
Builders: Gyŏngsan Songsu-do Shipyard
Operators: Menghe
Preceded by: Saebyŏk-class corvette
Built: 2019-present
In commission: 2022-present
Planned: 10
On order: 2
Building: 8
Completed: 0
General Characteristics:
Type: Corvette
Displacement: 2,500 tons full
Length:
- 109.5 m overall (excl. flagstaff)
- 98.6 m at waterline (full load)
Beam:
- 14.1 m overall
- 12.6 m at waterline
Draught:
- 3.96 m to keel (full load)
- 5.95 m to sonar bulge (full load)
Complement:
-16 officers
- 98 enlisted crew
- 12 passengers
Power and Performance:
Propulsion layout: CODAG WARP
- 1 × GGE LM2500+ gas turbine (30,200 kW)
- 2 × MTU 16V 1163 M84 (5200 kW)
Power: 4 × Samsan S690N diesel generator (690 kWe each)
Drive:
- 2 shafts
- 1 waterjet
Speed: 35 knots
Range: 2,150 nautical miles (4,000 km) at 20 knots
Sensors:
- 1 × Thales NS50 3D search radar
- 1 × Ŭ-104 medium-frequency hull sonar
- 2 × Hongmoja IR search unit
Electronic warfare and decoys:
- Metturi ECM suite
- 2 × Baram-2B countermeasure launcher
- 2 × Manhwagyŏng-H torpedo decoy launcher
Armament:
- 1 × HP-130/1 Type 102 single 130mm turret
- Mk 41 VLS (16 cells, self-defense length)
- 1 × HP-35/2 Type 110 twin 35mm anti-air gun
- 8 × YDH-26 angled box
- 6 × 350mm torpedo tube (YŎ-35/2 torpedo)
- 5 × 12.7mm GCh-75 HMG
Aircraft carried:
- 1 × GH-30HG light helicopter, OR
- 2 × Chogwan Air Corporation CK-205 UAV
Aviation facilities: Flight deck and hangar
Overview:
The Donghan-class corvettes are a type of warship currently being built in Menghe for the Menghean Navy. Officially labeled "medium coastal destroyers" (
junghyŏng yŏnan guchugham) in the Menghean Navy's ship classification scheme, they are typically regarded as large corvettes or small frigates in foreign sources. Ordered as a premature replacement for the Saebyŏk-class corvettes, and influenced by the sinking of GYS-231 Bŏmram during the Innominadan Crisis, they have much better anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities than their predecessors, though these capabilities are largely limited to self-defense. To conduct their primary mission of shore bombardment, the Donghan-class corvettes sport a 130mm gun in a single turret as well as vertical and angled launch boxes for YDH-26 anti-ship missiles or SY-26 land-attack missiles.
Development:
During the late 2000s and early 2010s, the Menghean Navy had built two classes of "coastal destroyers," the Saebyŏk-class corvettes and Taepung-class corvettes. These vessels were tasked with engaging Innominadan light craft and missile boats, bombarding coastal targets, and escorting short-range amphibious landings. In contrast to proper destroyers or frigates, they were given minimal anti-ship, anti-air, and anti-submarine armament, with both classes carrying no surface-to-air missiles of any kind as built. The original rationale behind this decision was that they would operate with the support of land-based long-range surface-to-air missile systems and dedicated anti-submarine corvettes, and that they should be made as compact and inexpensive as possible to reduce the cost of inevitable losses.
The Innominadan Crisis showcased the usefulness of the coastal destroyer concept, but also showcased its vulnerability. GYJ-231 Bŏmram, a Taepung-class corvette, was sunk on 7 October 2014 after a low-flying MiG-21 fighter engaged her with unguided bombs. Analysis of combat data from the ship's recording box revealed that her 2D search radar detected the range and bearing to the target, but could not generate an altitude reading, leaving the ship's 76mm and 23mm guns unable to engage. In early 2015, after analyzing a report on the sinking of the Bŏmram, the Menghean Navy cancelled the 13th through 16th Saebyŏk-class corvettes and announced plans to retire the existing ships ahead of schedule, primarily by selling them to other members of the Namhae Front.
The resolution of the Innominadan Crisis also led Menghe to re-evaluate the rightful role of coastal destroyers. Most of Innominada's light missile boats had been destroyed during Menghe's intervention, and the lion's share had been sunk by aircraft or helicopters rather than naval gunfire. With the movement of the front line, the Menghean Navy now faced a greater focus on controlling the Strait of Portcullia, with amphibious combat along the shoreline a secondary priority.
The Menghean Navy responded by updating its coastal destroyer concept. The core requirements remained the same: a compact vessel with a 130mm gun and hangar space for a single GH-30 helicopter, capable of traveling at 35 knots, on a hull displacing under 2,500 tonnes. Beyond this, however, the coastal destroyer would need to carry at least 32 YDG-64 surface-to-air missiles for self-defense, along with a 3D multipurpose radar system capable of tracking targets effectively within the missile's range. Signature reduction was also a major design priority, as a smaller radar cross-section would help the vessel evade detection by mimicking the radar return of a small fishing boat. As with the preceding Saebyŏk class, the ship would operate close to friendly ports and deploy consistently in assigned areas, so range and endurance would be sacrificed in order to remain within cost and tonnage limits.
In 2018, the Menghean Navy began advertising a preliminary design under the label Plan 588. It appeared as computer-generated concept art and as a scale mockup. The initial version apparently sported no anti-submarine systems or sensors apart from a mine and obstacle avoidance sonar protruding under the keel. A revised model, Plan 588N, added a hull sonar, six 350mm torpedo tubes, and Manhwagyŏng-H torpedo decoy launchers. Given the lack of HŎ-3 Ryongorŭm anti-submarine rockets, a towed sonar array, or an ASW-capable helicopter, it appears that these systems are intended purely for self-defense against submarines operating in shallow coastal areas.
The first ship built to Plan 588N's design was laid down on 21 August 2019. In 2020 it was announced that the ship, still under construction, would bear the name Donghan, which at the time was still carried by a Chŏndong-class destroyer; independent analysts interpreted this as evidence that GY-217 Donghan and other early-model Chŏndongs would be retired by 2022 at the latest, to avoid a situation where two warships carried the same name simultaneously.
Design:
Armament:
The main armament of the Donghan-class corvette is a HP-130/1 Type 102 130mm naval gun. This is the same gun used by the Haeju-class destroyers, Insŏng-class destroyers, and Chunchŏn-class frigates, all of which are much larger in displacement. The gun can fire at a rate of 30 rounds per minute and is fed from two 20-round carousels within the hull. Its longest-range shell, which uses a rocket-assist base, has a claimed range of over 100 kilometers, though conventional shells have ranges of 21 to 25 kilometers depending on type and payload. Additional rounds and charges are stored in a magazine compartment aft of the autoloader compartment, roughly below the VLS module, and are manually transferred to the autoloader.
Facing aft is a twin 35mm close-in weapon system with a DGP-35-2 anti-aircraft gun. This system feeds from two large drums containing 430 rounds in total, and can select contact-fused or smart-fused ammunition depending on the threat and the availability of smart-fused rounds. This turret has its own fire-control radar and electro-optical sight, and is cued to targets by the ship's other sensors. It can engage fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, anti-ship missiles, and surface craft.
Unlike previous coastal destroyers in the Menghean Navy, the Donghan-class is also fitted with a 16-cell Mark 41 VLS module. The self-defense-length cells can carry quadpacked YDG-64 missiles, quadpacked YDG-66 missiles, single YDH-26 anti-ship missiles, or single SY-26 land-attack cruise missiles. A typical loadout might consist of 16× YDG-64, 16× YDG-66, and 8× SY-26. The surface-to-air missiles allow the Donghan-class corvette to defend itself against aircraft and engage anti-ship missiles at greater ranges, making it more survivable against peer-opponent threats while operating in contested coastal waters. Menghe is also reportedly working on a 210mm land-attack rocket which can be quadpacked into these cells, improving the ships' land-attack capabilities.
Other armament consists of two quad-box angled launchers for YDH-26 anti-ship missiles, six fixed launch tubes for YŎ-35/2 torpedoes, and five mounting points for 12.7mm machine guns, which are normally stowed inside the ship to reduce radar returns and fitted when there is a threat from enemy light craft. No onboard torpedo reloads are carried, and the tubes are reloaded externally while in port.
Sensors and Electronics:
Atop the main mast of the Donghan-class corvette is a Thales NS50 radar with integrated IFF interrogator. This radar has a maximum instrumented range of 180 kilometers and can support 1000 target tracks while spinning at 15 or 60 rpm. In addition to detecting airborne threats, it can also designate contacts for active radar homing surface-to-air missiles and correct fire control for the ship's main gun. A small-size CEAMOUNT radar forward of the main sensor mast provides backup fire control and illumination in a jamming-heavy environment, and two Nun-10 electro-optical sensors flanking the sensor mast allow the ship to detect incoming missile, aircraft, and surface threats without emitting radar signals.
Under the hull is a single Ŭ-104 medium-frequency hull sonar, the same type used on the Yungju-class corvettes and Muran-class corvettes. Neither a towed sonar array nor a variable depth sonar are fitted, and there are no provisions to fit either system in containerized form. This primarily reflects the self-defense focus of the Donghan's anti-submarine armament, with a hull sonar adequate for detecting torpedo launches and nearby submarines. It also reflects the ship's optimization for littoral areas in the tropics, where the sea is typically too shallow to enable the use of towed sonar arrays and the upper thermal layer extends all the way to the seabed. A separate high-frequency hull sonar helps the ship detect mines, divers, and underwater obstacles.
For electronic warfare, the ship carries the Metturi ECM suite, with active and passive panels arranged around the base of the main sensor mast at 45-degree angles off the centerline. This system can automatically detect, classify, and jam radar signals from a variety of aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and can also jam enemy communications within a small range. Like other Menghean ships, the Donghan-class corvette is itself optimized to operate in a jamming-intensive or emissions-restricted environment, and features secure UHF datalinks, SHF backup antennas, and FSO laser datalinks, the latter in a new reduced-RCS housing atop the sensor mast.
Power and Propulsion:
Like the last two coastal destroyers before it, the Donghan-class corvette uses a CODAG WARP powerplant in which two cross-connected diesel engines drive conventional propellers and a single LM2500+ gas turbine drives a central waterjet. The waterjet possesses neither steering nor reversing capabilities, and is only used for forward sprinting, while the propellers are reversible and followed by conventional rudders. On the Donghan class, the diesel engines are license-built MTU 16V 1163 M84 units, each generating 5200 kW of power. On diesels alone, the corvette can cruise at 20 knots. The GE LM2500G+ turbine generates an additional 30,200 kW at full power. On trials, GYJ-250 Donghan comfortably exceeded 36 knots at full power, though at more realistic combat loads her rated top speed remains 35 knots.
Aviation facilities:
The ship's quarterdeck contains a landing pad for a Saebyŏk SS-30HN multi-purpose naval helicopter, with a hangar in the aft superstructure. The SS-30HN has an advanced electro-optical camera, side pylons for rocket pods or light guided missiles, and internal seating for six passengers. It carries neither a dipping sonar nor a magnetic anomaly detector, and it lacks the payload to carry both a sonobuoy ejector and a 350mm torpedo, making it ineffective in the anti-submarine role. Instead, the SS-30HN would be launched to search for small boats beyond the horizon and engage them with rockets or missiles if necessary. It can also provide laser illumination, coordinate calculation, and fire correction against coastal targets.
In place of the single manned helicopter, the Donghan-class corvettes will also reportedly be able to carry two helicopter UAVs. This capability was first advertised alongside a 2019 mockup, with the notional UAVs carrying electro-optical sights and identifying and designating targets beyond the horizon. In July 2022 the Menghean Navy unveiled the Chogwan Air Corporation CK-205 as the Donghan-class's helicopter UAV option. The CK-205 has an electro-optical unit, a surface search radar, and two hardpoints which can be used to mount small rocket pods or Brimstone missiles.
Special forces support:
Though it is not primarily designed for delivering special forces to coastal targets--a mission reserved for other dedicated littoral ship types--the Donghan-class corvette does have the ability to transport up to 12 additional personnel in austerity berths and send small teams to shore via the ship's helicopter or its boats.
Re: Modern Stealth Corvette Challenge
Posted: August 15th, 2022, 10:35 pm
by Soode
I was writing a larger post with individual comments on each entry, but my comments on armored man's became long enough that I decided to break out a separate entry on a combined topic that showed up with a lot of these entries. Because there are few rivets for me to count in the modern naval ecosystem, I will count weld lines instead.
Weld lines are
sometimes faintly visible on modern warships, but at the resolutions and lighting conditions an SB drawing is meant to simulate, they
aren't really visible at all. If anything, the
dimpling caused by internal welding and stress is equally visible as the weld lines, and drawing that dimpling on SB art feels downright heretical to me. So the first issue is that weld lines on modern ships are typically faint enough that they really shouldn't merit a different shade on SB art, or at most, a difference of 2 points in HSV lighting value.
The second issue is that putting down weld lines arbitrarily can result in unrealistic weld line placement. If you follow that link above to the drydocked Burke, you'll see that the horizontal weld lines are nearly evenly spaced and appear to correspond more or less to the decks inside the ship, with additional breaks where the curve is especially pronounced. The vertical weld lines tend to carry over continuously from one section to the next, all the way from the deck down to the keel. This is no coincidence: often, modern ships (not just warships) are built in prefabricated sections which are built alongside the hull and then
lifted onto it with the help of large cranes. It's not like interwar shipbuilding, where individual sheets of metal were riveted onto the outside of a metal skeleton sitting on the slipway, and the difference in paneling reflects this. This might also be a good time to link back to
that classic shipbucket thread on modern shipbuilding rules of thumb, which is helpful for plotting out modern ships in general, with or without weld lines.
The third issue is that panel lines
can be useful where they correspond to deck lines, important bulkheads, or the bases of bulwarks, which incidentally are the same places where pronounced weld lines tend to be. For example, you'll notice that on my entry I do include single-shade weld lines at some of these locations. Even if it does bend the first rule above, it at least gives the viewer some useful information about what's going on, what's recessed and what's enclosed, where certain transverse bulkheads continue when they're no longer visible. This is, I suppose, an argument for using weld lines more often if they're properly placed, for example if you want to illustrate watertight bulkheads or major load-bearing bulkheads. But putting down weld lines more or less arbitrarily doesn't convey any useful information about internal components, and may even generate confusion.
Why do I write so much about weld lines when the challenge is already over? In short: because a lot of people, myself included, browse through past challenge threads when looking for references of well-drawn and in-style ships, and might be tempted to carry forward panel lines onto their own art in the future. Now, imitating other people's detailing when it's correct and accurate is absolutely something to encourage, and it's how I've honed my own art over the years. But when the examples you follow contain errors, those errors can multiply, becoming standard practice not because they accurately or informatively represent something, but because they're similar to what someone did in the past. Legend has it, that infamous yellow eight-bladed surface ship prop from the original parts sheet is still circling through NationStates factbooks as we speak... In other words, my fear is that new or newish users will look through this thread for examples, see that armored man's and Charguizard's entries feature the most weld detailing, assume (based on those users' credibility) that those welds must be the most correct in the challenge, and emulate the patterns found there.
Now, individual comments specifically about weld lines. I've omitted entries that used too few weld lines to merit comment.
M.Yates's entry: the weld lines are faint enough to just barely register, which is good, and appear to correspond to deck lines, which is good. I'm mentioning this one especially because of the way it shows drainage gaps at the base of a bulwark. If there's any stylistic practice people copy from this challenge, it should be that.
MattewEx's entry: the weld lines are, again,
very faint on this entry, and seem to follow an every-deck or every-half-deck rule on the upper hull. They disappear in the shaded hull, though. I guess you could make a case for showing weld lines on normal-shaded areas but not the shaded areas of the hull, as the shadows there prevent them from standing out whereas more reflective sunlight highlights them on the flat or up-angled surfaces. So I'll take it. The vertical welds are weird though, they don't really permit assembly by blocks and in some cases they bisect hull side openings and gun magazine spaces, which rules out putting major structural bulkheads there. At least it's clear where the decks and bulwarks are.
Superboy's entry: Weld lines here are a little bolder HSV-wise, but don't stand out as much in my eyes. They correspond clearly to decks, though the bridge is rather short at 15px. Note the absence of vertical welds and the absence of welds in the shaded hull area. Another case for using welds conservatively and only on the normal-light-shaded hull areas? It's certainly clear where the decks and bulkheads are on this one.
Hood's entry: It's kinda hard to comment on this one because it's hard to tell what's a weld line and what's a change in angle. Then again, that's worth noting in and of itself: by adding clutter, weld lines (especially mid-deck and non-critical ones) make it hard to tell which lines denote something important like a join between different angles and which are fluff.
BillKerman1234's entry: I'd call this another example (second only to Ecstatic Owl's) of weld lines done right. They're very faint, and although they don't correspond to vertical assembly modules, they may correspond to horizontal ones. They're also very informative about where the various decks are, and apart from the boat bay, important hull openings don't cross them.
The weld lines are especially arbitrary on armored man's entry, which is the one that motivated me to write this post. Now in fairness, armored man freely admitted in discord chat that he added these for flavor, and is more experienced with ships in about 1900-1960, where ship construction did indeed take the form of welding or riveting individual rectangular panels onto a steel frame sitting on a slipway. But this is all the more reason to pick apart this example for the sake of other readers. A straight line drawn forward from the flight deck lines up with the gangway and boat bay, but the nearest weld line is 2-3 pixels below that. The next line above this is 19 pixels from the flight deck, so it possibly denotes another deck, but it's 9 pixels below the base of the bulwark around the life raft canisters, which isn't enough for a separate deck. The topmost black line amidships is 17px below the hangar roof and 33px (2x17 with overlap) from the hangar floor, so there could be three decks here, but the cutouts for the life raft canisters clearly imply that this is a bulwark, and the missile tubes are clearly recessed. And then the weld line wrapping around the hangar suggests two decks, at 27px and 23px respectively, which is very tall even for Finns and Dutchmen. The superstructure level atop the hangar roof is a mere 13px. And I genuinely can't understand what the decks and bulwarks are doing forward of the bridge, what's fully enclosed and what's open-topped, why the holes for mooring gear are below where the deck formed by the hangar floor should extend to. Modern warship deck plans are usually pretty straightforward, because lining up your vertical bulkheads contains damage and increases structural strength, and abruptly breaking decks creates structural weakness, so I'd really recommend at least sketching out your deck levels in a different layer, even if you don't go as far as I do and plot out the individual toilet stalls.
Corp's entry is a little better, in that the vertical weld lines appear to correspond to vertical bulkheads that form the major internal compartments, and make sense in terms of both dockyard assembly and internal structure.
Idunevenknow's entry has an odd mix of light and dark weld lines. Some of the vertical ones line up logically, but they don't continue below the waterline, or in some cases they don't continue into the hull shading. The superstructure is tall enough for two decks to just about fit in, but the weld line running across it is much too low to denote the presence of such a deck. The weld line under the hangar can't denote a deck, but it doesn't seem to denote the base of a bulwark either, and if it did, I'd have the bulwark wrap around the aft AK-630(s) which should be on a pedestal.
J. Scholtens reportedly makes use of a central citadel on his entry, so I can see the case for that major weld line through the superstructure just aft of the hatch for the AShM exhaust. A line on the bridge wing denotes the bulwark there; good. The only other marks on the hull are angles and sliding rails.
Mitch's entry apparently only uses weld lines to denote bulwarks, decks, and pronounced changes in angle, which is good. I'm kinda concerned about the 27px height of the main deck, but it's at least clear that we are in fact dealing with a 27 px high main deck. Minor welds are not shown.
Christian101's entry has a lot of interesting shading, including double-shaded weld lines. The weld lines on the hull are, however, the most true-to-form out of all the thoroughly-welded entries: once you realize that they're consistently placed at decks and half-deck intervals, their placement is actually quite realistic (in addition to that drydocked Burke I linked earlier,
here's HMS Glasgow rolling out of a construction hall). The vertical bulkheads are also well-aligned, though they don't line up with the edges of the superstructure, which has a lot of other issues, especially aft. And the doors in the side of the hull appear to break a deck. But I'll get into this more in my proper critique post.
Ecstatic Owl's entry is the only fully satisfactory implementation of section-assembly welds in this set of entries, which is no surprise, as Owl, Blackbuck, and I spent a lot of time figuring out the rough contours of the internal structure--it turns out, 3D modelers hired by the Egyptian Navy also design concept art with minimal attention to where deck breaks should and shouldn't go. Note that it's clearly visible how individual sections were lifted and welded together like legos. Note also that the weld lines are
just barely visible, unless you really squint and zoom in. So although this entry has weld lines, (1) they are very faint, (2) they are realistically placed, (3) they convey useful information about decks, bulwarks, and bulkheads. Bravo.
Charguizard's entry is something of a halfway example between Ecstatic Owl's and armored man's. On the hull, many of the weld lines are reasonably realistic: many horizontal welds are placed apparently at half-deck intervals, and many vertical welds follow internal watertight bulkheads or assembly sections, with realistic exceptions for the reinforced plate around the anchor, the outlets for mooring lines, and the prow and its associated void spaces. Other hull welds, however, break from this norm, which makes me even more confused as now I'm not sure if the irregular bulkheads and deck heights are deliberate. And then there's that section of superstructure between the two sensor masts, which seemingly can't decide if it's flush-decked or recessed between bulwarks; either one creates issues with other parts fitting together. The weld lines on this drawing are also more pronounced, and stand out almost as strongly as actual openings in the hull.
Schodact's weld lines are reasonable for construction, though the superstructure could line up with the major hull bulkheads better. Vertical welds seemingly correspond to major structural bulkheads, horizontal welds to deck lines (with rather low but not impossible 16px ceilings). I do wish that the difference between a bulwark and enclosed area were clearer in the case of the forecastle, but that could be shown in other ways, too.
Some other Discord users mentioned plans to write comments on weld placement and weld intensity, so perhaps more posts will follow after this. And I do still have a post listing non-weld-related comments in the works.
Re: Modern Stealth Corvette Challenge
Posted: August 16th, 2022, 3:25 am
by Soode
And the post with individual comments, as promised before.
Sebu, Borga class:
A cute little corvette, and one of the entries better conforming to the stealth requirement. Covered anchor openings are a nice touch. Could use more detail below the waterline, though: bilge keels, clearer shading, anodes. Some of the geometry doesn't line up between views, especially the bridge wings and hatches. The mooring line openings are small and high, and the boat bay cutout is rather low. I don't see a hatch on the top view for turbine removal. The main thing that sits poorly with me, though, is the phased arrays. They should be square or rectangular, but you've drawn them as (non-right) rhombuses and parallelograms. A square array on an irregular tilted surface like what you've got there would not line up with the edges of the surface it's on.
Polydegmon, Watchman class:
At a first glance, I really like this ship. It has a nice reclining profile, very clean lines, and a unique axe bow. The script on the hull is a nice touch, as are the railings (and their shadows) around the front of the bridge. On closer inspection, though, there's a lot of room for improvement. I'll work my way from bow to stern. I'd scoot the anchors maybe 50 pixels aft and maybe even a bit higher to get them clear of the sonar bulge. Underwater shading could use more detail, but what you have is fine under the old standard. I'd also add bilge keels and stabilizers, to give this ship better seakeeping as it's "patrolling far-off overseas possessions." Forward above the waterline, this is actually one of the few ships in this challenge list that would benefit from weld lines or other visible signs where the bulwarks meet the deck, as it's hard to tell what's enclosed and what isn't. Maybe more minimally, you may want to sketch out a deck plan before you get started on the exterior. In any case, the decks don't really make sense to me when I go to measure them. Sensor fit seems rather light for a ship emphasizing sensor capability; maybe add a taller sensor mast for better ELINT capability, and search radars in different bands, while downgrading to smaller illumination radars. The GT exhaust at the aft waterline seems awfully small, and there are no diesel or water exhausts at the waterline on the sides. The propeller has too many blades (aim for 3-5) and the blades seem to be facing directly fore and aft as if feathered; blades pointing at the viewer should be diagonal in cross-section. In summary, I really want to love this ship, but the longer I look, the more issues I see.
Blackbuck (M. Yates), Flower class:
It's unfortunate that strict adherence to the stealth requirement results in such blocky ships. Blackbuck/Yates put a lot of thought into internals, sensor arrangement, and the contents of the mysterious mast tube, but I can't shake the feeling that the end product looks like it was made by a new user stretching some random lines between points and copy-pasting windows in a row. Aesthetically and spatially speaking, I'm not a fan of the wraparound bridge either, even though I know it's a real thing that's been done. On close inspection, though, Blackbuck's attention to detail paid off. The decks are logically spaced and pretty generous. The sensors are deliberately chosen. And while the hull is, by necessity, fairly bare above the waterline, Yates makes up for it with ample and correct detailing below the waterline. I still think the non-outlined nav radars are too hard to see.
Heuhen (H.heuser), CMD Johnson class Type 2:
The "cheese grater" intakes on the sides of the funnel instantly identify this as a Heuhen design. She is a rather chunky looking ship, quite beamy and deep for her length, but she does adhere well to stealth principles. I see separate intakes for the GT exhaust cooling and GT intake, and a channel for GT removal, which is nice. Separate helo and drone hangars are nice, as are the tracks leading into them. The slack line from the forward mooring hatch to the boat bay is a neat touch. There seems to be a deck break where the foredeck meets the superstructure; the top of the bulwark lines up with where I'd expect the deck to be, but the bottom of the bulwark, and thus the actual deck level, is about halfway down the next deck. And why all the changes in height around the hangar roof? Top view is good, but it could benefit from more loose electronics equipment like antennas, nav radars, SATCOM domes, and so on, even on a stealthy ship the totally bare deck over the bridge is odd.
that_person, 2020 mobilization frigate:
It's hard to evaluate this one on a blank slate after seeing and participating in all the Discord conversations about it. I still think SPY-5 is a poor choice for a low-cost mobilization frigate, though arguably this is more of an issue with the mobilization frigate concept in general. The deck heights are rather odd, especially the main deck (which tapers very quickly) and 01 deck (which is about 50% taller than it has to be). The bridge windows are a real weak point in terms of drawing quality, especially on top of the broken shading around them. Actually, now that I look closer, the shading is broken elsewhere; there seem to be two hull-side shades and two single-shadow shades in use here. I don't think I see a single air intake anywhere on this ship, and the lack of railings outside of the helipad and bridge wings has my OSHA senses tingling. The end version of the propeller is a definite improvement.
Maxwell John, Spectre class:
The bridge is the strongest part of this entry aesthetically, but it's also taken (credited) from another drawing, so I can't count it for much. Working from the top down: missiles, decoys, and torpedoes should be placed on the upper line of the template. Sensor masts seem to be stacked with generic electronics rather than deliberately selected systems. Shading is inconsistent; there are a lot of leftover shades not reached by the fill tool, and dark outline shades which are lighter than the main hull side shades. Deck heights are odd, though this is only really visible around the front of the superstructure because on the rest it isn't clear what's a bulwark and what's fully enclosed. Single-shadow lines where the bulwark meets the deck are a nice and easy way to denote this. The side boat bays could benefit from being grouped closer together, and their bottoms should line up with the deck they're sitting on. I can't tell what the openings in the sides of the hull (forward section) are, they don't look like covered anchors or mooring line hatches. The hull needs some love below the waterline: shading, bilge keels, stabilizers, a more detailed maneuvering thruster, markings and outlets around the waterline (as-is you have no engine exhaust and no air intakes), and sacrificial anodes. Don't lose heart, though: everyone starts somewhere, and as you put in more practice and compare your work with other entries in this thread, I'm sure you'll improve.
MattewEx, Alcance class:
I'm not going to comment on the panel lines again, because I've done that in my other post, but I will comment on the boat bays, which are not long enough for the RHIB you've included (54px door including outlines, 56px boat including outlines, and the hangar side door is even smaller). Sensor fit is rather austere, I see four phased array panels on the corners and possibly a large ring-type surface search and IFF array but that seems to be it. Separate navigation radars, datalinks, HF/VHF/UHF antennas, electro-optical units, and navigation lights would add some more detail topside. Detail at and below the waterline is very nice, especially the sawtooth-like dark paint around the exhausts, though the maneuvering thrusters' internal equipment will deny space to the 127mm gun's magazine and the stabilizers connect to the hull in a very weird way, making them look almost like vertical retractable keels. I think I see GT exhaust on the stern, but I don't see any intakes for the GT or diesels, or for general ventilation. Oh, and is that a firefighting nozzle over the hangar? If so, that's a really nice touch, a good feature on a multirole OPV that could be called upon for firefighting duties.
Baron von Teapot, Exocetidae class:
The weirdest thing about this is that it's based on a real concept mockup. Without having done my research on that real concept mockup, there's not much I can confidently say, except to question the judgement of whatever defense company made it. I still think it would have benefited from a top view so the audience can understand what is going on, and to better illustrate to yourself the geometry of the sail.
Superboy, Worakarn class:
You know what? This is actually my favorite entry, on the plain grounds that it looks the most realistic. By which I mean, it looks like something a real Earth navy would operate: conservative armament, conventional layout, simple 20' container mounts on the open deck, and then a bunch of COTS SATCOM domes and railings that were tacked on later and interfered with the stealthy design. No exotic hull shapes, no beste-in-der-welt sensor fit, no turbine-driven waterjets for 35-knot sprints, no exhaust ducted out the waterline to make room for even more stuff up top. If I were browsing Jane's or Wikipedia and saw this ship as Malaysia's latest acquisition, I'd think nothing of it. Still, I have some nitpicks... at 15px inclusive of lines, the bridge is very cramped. The cone mast and octagon mast should be separated by a black line on the side view. And what is with the slight difference in shading just below the black lines, all around the superstructure?
BurnedBread17, Ryktbarhet class:
Another beginner entry. Again, I'll work my way fore to aft. The gun is very far forward; the hull is very narrow right below it, and narrower still around the waterline, leaving very little space for the magazine. Moreover, the anchors seem to be competing for space with the gun's loading system. RAM placement is okay, though I'd like to see hatches, vents, lights, or other detailing on the sides of its pedestal. The bridge is rather odd; it's not clear how it converts from an overhang forward to being flush with the sides aft. Separating the windows from one another could help with this, and in the process, you really should adopt a newer glass color palette. Also, you can shade the forward-angled part of the bridge a lighter color, as it's facing up and forward. The decks are actually correctly sized on this one, hovering around 9 feet tall and running consistently from bow to stern. The sensor mast needs more thought: the panels on the sides and the front are different, and there are no panels on the rear, so you don't have consistent 360-degree coverage, and your navigation radar is aft of the mast, so you can't see the surface ships and land obstructions that you care about most: the ones in your path of travel. The top of the superstructure could use more clutter: consider defensive autocannons, SATCOM domes, electronic warfare systems, liferaft containers, more communication antennas, chaff/flare ejectors, and other details that you see on other ships in the challenge. Not quite sure what's going on around the boat bay, where the bulwarks seem to disappear but the deck steps up again. There are cooling intakes on your funnel, but you'll need more intake volume to supply the engines. Also pay attention to what other entries do at and below the waterline: exhaust points for diesel engines and water, water intakes, anodes, a cleaner connection for the bilge keel, and so on. The camo is a nice touch overall, but there are two squared-off corners that need more polish.
Hood, Type 31 Egret class:
The first of our trimaran entries, though by no means the most unusual hull so far. I'm a little antsy about putting big cutouts for the boat and gangway right where the superstructure connects to the outer hulls, because that seems like it could cause structural issues. I also think she could benefit from a top view, at least a draft one that isn't posted. For example, the sensor mast leads directly into the superstructure, and that part of the superstructure is wider than the hangar, implying that the sensor mast is much wider than it is long. Aesthetically, though, the sensor mast is very nice, as is the rest of the ship.
Boroda, Pr.20388M class:
A lot of my original thoughts on this ship related to the top view, but the top view is no longer part of this entry. I'll work fore-to-aft again. There doesn't seem to be an anchor anywhere on this ship, and the mooring gear is quite minimal. The bright red color of the antifouling paint is reminiscent of old Shipbucket, but more recently duller shades of red are more common. The forward Pantsir-M anri-aircraft system may not have space to turn around fully when it's that close to the superstructure, and the aft one's firing arc is interrupted by what appear to be missile boxes. There are two giant phased-array radars facing forward, but they're much larger than what you need when all your air defense is two Pantsir-M mounts, and they leave the rear 180 degree arc unprotected. Indeed, because of their high angle, they likely can't detect targets at the horizon, either. A lack of separate navigation radar hinders regular operations, including surface search, and a lack of offensive and defensive electronic warfare systems leaves the ship vulnerable. There are no visible intakes for the gas turbines. The gas turbine funnels are clear to see, but are shaded with gradients, which is "extremely haram." The use of black lines to denote changes in angle of the superstructure (other than 90 degrees) is also against the style; dark grey lines should be used here instead. I see no communications gear whatsoever--HF, VHF, UHF antennas, datalinks, nothing. It seems there are two types of anti-ship missile, or perhaps even three, including the VLS cells. The VLS cells also leave no space for the helicopter inside the hangar: the distance from the front of the hangar to the aftmost VLS cell is too short. The helicopter itself is covered in anti-aliasing and surrounded by stray pixels. The removal of the helicopter hangar within the hull may help with seaworthiness somewhat, but the addition of boat bays on either side of the hull so close to the waterline is arguably worse. And for all of this, just two lifeboat canisters? If these are typical 20-man Soviet lifeboat canisters, you have space to evacuate 40 crew members in all, but the crew is 60, so you really should have enough lifeboats to evacuate 90 crew to leave a safe margin if some canisters are damaged.
Ultraking101, Guerrico class:
The lore behind these ships is a very nice touch. For all the time I spend encouraging artists to design a ship around a given nation's requirements and roles, it's interesting to see a situation where a navy acquires a ship that was genuinely not tailored to its requirements and for good reason! Some of the hull openings are a little odd, especially where they're trying to fit in around the break between the superstructure and the hull proper, but the issues aren't fatal in my eyes. Deck spacing is hard to figure out though, the bridge is quite short at 15px but then the deck below it seems to drop out, compressing the decks fwd of the helicopter hangar to 16px. The propeller looks okay. Exhausts look awfully chunky for diesel engines but that could just be aggressive use of cooling. Good detailing around the upper part of the superstructure around and aft of the bridge. Base of the sensor mast is kind of funky, without a top view it's hard to tell what's going on with those three triangles and their different shades. Is the RHIB carried inside the stern, under the helicopter deck?
BillKerman1234, Shinsato Ken'Ichi class
I can't believe I'm saying it, but the entry with a clear Independence-class LCS aesthetic is one of my favorites. The detailing around the vents and intakes is superb, and the top view is stellar. The 55mm gun looks amazing, though I have some... concerns about the 5.5cm nuclear shell. The first issue is feasibility (the smallest warheads I know of were designed to fit in 155mm shells with nine times that volume), the second issue is radiation damage and contamination of your crew and electronics "at close range," the third issue is the implication in your writeup that nuclear shells are intended for use against pirate motorboats. The lower writeup also has some ships remaining in service for over 100 years, but even with mid-life overhauls and comprehensive upgrades, even half that is very optimistic. Alas, this isn't a writeup-writing challenge, it's a drawing challenge, and the drawing is very impressive.
1143M, Frigate No.727:
It's nice to see North Korea getting some attention in an AU entry, especially with a reference to the July 27th victory day slipped into the hull number. The aesthetic style of this ship is very interesting, reminiscent of Soviet ships of the late 80s and PLAN ships of the 90s and early 00s: notable RCS reduction compared to earlier ships, but with a lot of non-stealthy weapons, sensors, and antennas, including a lattice mast up top. For a while I thought this ship might simply not have any guided munitions at all, but those do appear to be box launchers between the bridge and the funnel, so it seems you forgot to put missiles up at the top. And the shading at the front of the superstructure is, in my eyes, too strong. There don't seem to be any liferaft canisters, either, but perhaps for a North Korean ship this is intentional? :p
armoured man, Raisanen class:
I've commented on the odd panel lines and deck heights already, so I'll focus on other things here. 4000 tonnes is awfully big for a corvette, and armament- and sensor-wise she feels more like a frigate, but then again the 2,500-ton "limit" was only informal, never official. "Charlie Charlie Terrathree Nadazero" should more properly be represented as "Charlie 1st Substitute Terrathree Nadazero." I suppose if you have two Charlie flags and are just dressing the ship for a commissioning ceremony, you could go with what you have, but the substitute flags need some love and it's not every day you have a message that allows you to use them. But these non-welding complaints are splitting hairs. The propeller is quite good though, and so is the expanded boot topping around diesel and water exhausts. I want to stress that it's a really nice ship when seen from a distance, and if it weren't for the odd amidships deck height and improvised welding pattern, I would have scored it a lot higher.
It would have been an absolutely legendary gigachad move to deliberately paint style-altered versions of Princess Luna and Princess Celestia on a challenge entry, slip into the top five, and then reveal that half the SB community had just submitted 10/10 scores to an image containing My Little Pony fanart. That would have been a level of cold, calculated, intellectual trolling far surpassing all of Kattsun's increasingly stale joke entries combined. Unfortunately, armoured man confirmed to me on Discord that the resemblance of the space-maned horses to certain fictional characters is purely coincidental, so I'm left in the embarrassing position of claiming to discover an Easter egg where none exists.
Remorseful Dreamer, Aetos class:
What strikes me most about this entry is that it looks like a small ship. Not like a corvette, like a frigate that's been shrunk slightly. . But the measurements do in fact add up! Deck heights are 16 pixels, a tad austere but still workable. Freeboard forward is quite low, but not fatally bad, especially since the superstructure is relatively low-set. Sonar dome is quite small, I'd suggest instead using an under-keel sonar like Kingklip, which would also make the location of the anchors so close to the sonar dome less concerning. Aesthetically, I just like it somehow. It helps that it's not packed to the gills with missiles, in fact it doesn't carry any at all as built, but from the description it seems to function as a low-intensity OPV so that's fine.
Corp, Achilles class:
The best thing about this entry is that it involves Congress imposing arbitrary requirements that result in actual human waste piling up (there's no mention of a head anywhere in the description of crew facilities and I like to imagine that was a deliberate omission). Also, bonus points for having an anime badge. Autonomous sub-trailing vessels are a neat concept, and this is a neat expansion of the concept. Not much else I can comment on as I don't know much about unmanned sub trailers except that they exist. Liquid CONREP via trailing a hose from the receiving ship is weird, since standard practice for ships without alongside refueling facilities is AFAIAA to trail a hose from the providing ship, and equipment exists for clearing seawater that accumulated in the hose, but again, that's nitpicking on the writeup, not the entry itself.
Idunevenknow, Provornyi class:
I like that this is a small entry in comparison to all the others. Some issues with deck heights but I'm not rehashing them here. I would suggest positioning the AShM launch boxes so they are not protruding, and moving the engine intake so it doesn't appear to bisect a structural deck. The navigation radar is quite obstructed in that position even if it's offset to one side, this could be solved by mounting that narrow mast onto the top of the thick mast forward of it. The sideways-facing boat bay is original, but original isn't always better--it makes it impossible to recover the boat while even slightly underway, and also makes me worry about the risk of a wave swamping the ship's interior. I'd suggest cutting the sonar entirely, on a ship that small you won't have space for the required supporting equipment and operator posts, it's right next to the engines and generators, and you don't have any ASW weaponry to actually engage targets. At a minimum, reduce it to a collision avoidance or mine avoidance sonar.
acelanceloet/J.Scholtens, Holland class:
I really like this ship's unique layout and the reasoning behind it. At a glance I was skeptical about how the powerplant could fit, but I can actually tell from the intakes, extraction hatches, and exhausts exactly where the gas turbines are located, which is a sign of a design that is very well thought out! Is the Oto 76 indeed capable of operating with no manual human input? I can only assume so. I am curious to know what this ship's intended role is; her AShM loadout is too small to make her a dedicated FAC, she lacks any sonar equipment or ASW weaponry, and her compact crew accommodations don't allow the flexibility of an OPV.
Mitchell van Os, Kalundburg class:
She seems rather slender for a catamaran. The top view and side view don't line up when it comes to the outer hulls; the top view suggests that the hull side keeps angling outward as you go down the outer hulls, but the side view has this shaded as if it's sloping inward, and the top view of the connecting wing isn't consistent with either. The connecting wing is also, on closer inspection, probably not tall enough to fit a deck plus structural supports. Perhaps a sketched front view would have helped in the drafting process? The slot/rail forward for crew members to move around safely with the help of a harness is a nice detail!
Christian 101, Type 057C:
While the welding is actually not that bad, the rest of this design needs a lot of work. There doesn't seem to be enough space for an anchor through that forward hatch. Her superstructure is extremely bare: I see traces of an air search radar, and one could put additional antennas inside a transparent cone mast, but she's still missing navigation lights, boats, radio antennas, a gangway... there's not much to comment on because there's not much there.
Miklania, Vennli class:
This looks quite nice as an OPV and general-purpose light combatant for a confined inland sea. Deck heights make sense, funnel seems to make sense, comms gear makes sense. The little holes scattered around the sides give the impression of being stray pixels, they don't seem to follow the usual kind of rhyme or reason. The propeller also bothers me, the diagonal profile of the blade facing the viewer should be a lot more apparent. But the fact that these are the only issues I can find is good.
Ecstatic Owl, Marttyyri class:
A nice little OPV overall, nothing too exotic. Good to see that the deck height issues in preliminary references were fixed. These comments are getting shorter as I'm running out of steam.
Soode, Donghan class:
Not really fair if I comment on myself. Kinda feel like I'm gonna get dinged for not having liferaft canisters, when they're actually behind hatches on the main deck, in special compartments that have floor plans and maintenance access and everything. Trust me, the reason I'm going all-out in these comments is because I drew not only side views but also individual floor plans for every single deck on this ship, and this forced me to think a lot about where to put major structural bulkheads and where the decks connect. For the record, I did try deck-level welds in an earlier draft, but I use 10-interval HSV shading so they looked like changes in the angle of the superstructure sides. And I'm too artistically conservative to introduce a new shading tones specifically for weld lines. Eh. Maybe I'll try it in the future. There is a deck-level weld line I forgot to remove on this ship, props to anyone who can find it.
Charguizard, Tekun class:
As with armoured man, I'm not going to repeat anything about welding here. Even setting aside the welds, she does look rather cluttered, especially for a stealthy ship. Wooden railings, portholes forward, exposed piping... it's not bad per se, it just feels like there's a lot going on. Maybe there's a happy medium level of detail somewhere. Still, all things considered, it's a good ship. I believe it's the only entry in this challenge that has liquid CONREP receiving gear, despite several other users mentioning long-term patrols, and the little color-coded squares are there too. Armament and role are well thought out, she reminds me of those French avisos.
Schodact, Lanze class:
This one also looks like a destroyer or frigate that was shrunk to half size. I think the bridge windows are the main thing giving me this impression. Fore to aft, one last time. What appears to be the anchor hatch is directly over the sonar dome, so in danger of damaging it, and also very high up, so much so that the shaft of the anchor should be protruding quite far up from the deck and the capstans should be visible. Transverse thrusters are competing for space with the gun magazine, and the aft transverse thruster is running through a wide part of the engine room. I'd recommend using a sonar dome under the keel and a single transverse thruster forward of the gun's magazine. The watertight bulkheads are nice in isolation, but you get structural benefits by aligning the front and back of the superstructure elements with them. Windows on the bridge are projecting out a little too far for even my taste. Are those large vents gas turbine intakes, or gas turbine exhausts? If they're intakes the rain will get into them, if they're exhausts there is nowhere to remove the turbines for maintenance (and redirecting the uptakes to be inline like that will eat up internal space, you can trust me because I've done it). The boat bay seems too short to store a RHIB of any useful size, and I assume one of the other cutouts is for the torpedo tubes. The helicopter hangar doors are too narrow to fit the helicopter you currently have even if it's perfectly lined up with the centerline of the hangar, and having a downward ramp doesn't save space if you can't slide back the hangar roof. I'd recommend just raising the deck heights to something a little more reasonable and having a regular two-deck-high hangar. Also, I feel like every time I see a new draft of this the propeller shafts are weirder, why can't you just use normal propellers or normal waterjets?
TigerHunter1945:
This image is corrupted on the regular forum view, so I'll comment on it when I actually take the link to give my votes.
