Shipbucket

Now with new intro text!

The 100m Generica Multirole Corvette provides a strong backbone for greenwater navies. Equipped with anti-air, anti-submarine and anti-surface equipment as well as an unmanned aerial vehicle for large-area surveillance, the Generica Corvette is an adaptable surface combatant fully capable of peace-time and war-time roles. Doubling as a Mission Bay, the climate controlled hangar provides space for special operations insertion forces, mine laying, cold beer storage and more for unprecedented flexibility in a 100m package.



Basic outline:

Propulsion

• CODOG, two shafts
  30 knot sprint
  12 knot cruise
  4000nm range

Sensors

• SPY-1K
  SPS-67
  Navigation radar
  2 x SPG-60
  SQS-510 Sonar
  Mirador EOIR

Weapons

• OTO Melara 76mm (Stealth housing, Super Rapid)
  Mk 41 VLS, Tactical Length, 24 cell
  • Standard 2MR
    ESSM
    VL ASROC
  21-cell Mk 49 RAM system
  2 x Browning M2

ESM

• SRBOC
  MASS soft-kill system

Aviation Facilities

• Hangar, landing area
  MQ-8B Fire Scout
  Note: Hangar equipped with sliding frame doors for use as multi-role mission bay

I would very much appreciate any form of feedback or criticism of art, design or concept.

76mm is too low, bow block out forward fire sector.

I like it.

Off the top of my head I'd do the following.

• Lower the bulwark angle for the 76mm as mentioned
• Raise the mast slightly
• Raise the funnels slightly and with them the aft SPY-1 faces
• Maybe look at including a deck house aft with the RAM launcher? (Shouldn't interfere too much with the coverage of the aft faces)
• Include roller shutter doors abreast the hangar for usage as a mission bay?
• Ditch the rear most windows on the bridge, they seem superfluous (I'm not sure how I'd re-shape it though)

~Mark.

To ad to what Blackbuck said, I'd move the gangway aft to about midship and I'd move the big sat dome to the top of the bridge or on to the hangar roof. Having sensitive electronics as your widest points is generally considered a bad thing. I'd also raise the torpedo tubes so they're both on the hangar level.
That said it seems like a solid little design.
As a design exercise you could try and make a topview. Side views like these are perfectly fine, but it's easy to draw something that looks good on one but can't really fit.

Thanks all for the advice, working on the changes now.

@Theil's suggestion of a topview, I actually did have to put together a topview of the bridge area because it turned into a mental cluster!@#$ with all those odd angles. I will do a top view though! I just want to get any major changes out of the way first so corrections aren't double-work.

Edit:

to fix what you don't like with the bridge. just make the windows not so tall. And lower them by 1 or 2 px.

You might also want to do an overlay with the internal decks marked on it because they don't seem to line up right now

Thiel wrote:You might also want to do an overlay with the internal decks marked on it because they don't seem to line up right now

I see what happened, the landing pad (and thus hangar) is about three feet higher than it should be (https://i.imgur.com/LwHXBjT.png). Everything else seems to align. I don't want to lower it (reducing freeboard at the stern significantly) but obviously raising everything else three feet doesn't seem right either. What's the solution? Just an internal stair case?

edit: Sorry Huehen, I'm not ignoring you, I've actually made the change you suggested on the .pdn file but it didn't make it over to the .png I used for this overlay

I'd consider moving the SPY-1K faces to a single structure. This will reduce the back-end equipment costs, which right now is duplicated between the fore and aft faces.

Nice start.

TimothyC wrote:I'd consider moving the SPY-1K faces to a single structure. This will reduce the back-end equipment costs, which right now is duplicated between the fore and aft faces.

Nice start.

I agree in principle but I'm a bit leery for a few reasons

1. If I go the Nansen route with a SPY mast, I get a better radar horizon, but I'd be really questioning the top-weight issues.
2. Duplicated back-end equipment is redundant back-end equipment. I might be chasing a wild goose with this line of thought, but even if something big and not easily repairable failed I'd rather have one radar hemisphere still operational.
3. I like the look of it. This is a really weak argument and personal design taste means very little when designing a combat system, but it's just sleek looking to my eye.

If you have some really pressing point that I'm missing (maybe duplicating the system would make the ship unaffordable to small countries it's aimed at?) I'd strongly consider it.