Shipbucket

Hi, im back after a longer than necessary break. Here is a ship that I made to present to the shipbucket gods. Please provide suggestions and criticizations


Its a deep water destroyer with anti-air and anti-missile capabilities in mind

There are way too many differing angles on this, she'd be lit up like a Christmas tree on enemy radar.

Kannevets is right you have all the wrong angles for stealth and it looks very similar to a previous design on yours

Other points, that sonar is getting on in years as systems go, that propeller is basically the only prop SB won't receive well.

Also looks like it'd bury it's bow in any sort of noticeable swell

Kannevets wrote: ↑November 19th, 2017, 5:28 am There are way too many differing angles on this, she'd be lit up like a Christmas tree on enemy radar.

Hmm that depends. Angled panels reflect radar signals towards a different direction then where it has to go to.
If you build lpd like blocks then you are a christmas tree.

That's not how stealth works, the angles need to be somewhat similar. That's why the Zumwalt is in the shape it is. All the angles on the superstructure are the same. The gun housings are similar to that. Because the angles are similar they give it the same radar profile as a fishing boat.

I will not be a diplomate, and I will not talk with an filter, I'm tired and should probably have gone to bed for 2-3 hour ago! But when you go out visiting friends... time can run away from you, fast!

battleship lover wrote: ↑November 18th, 2017, 7:35 am Its a deep water destroyer with anti-air and anti-missile capabilities in mind

I give you some fast one:
1. When possible, avoid to many different angles:
- if all surfaces are angled similar, it would look more consistant
- it would also be easier to build (cost)
- a clean surface is always a bonus
2. look at other ships that are build and study them a little and see how things are placed around. to just put on random ting here and one random thing there aren't how you draw a ship.
- Note you show the basic on what is needed on a ship, but you could spend a little more time on going over the drawing. For me it looks like a drawing in early stage. when I draw, this is how a ship would look when I am around 20% done drawing.
3. you are a little overkill on the VLS, this is an AAW destroyer not an Missile silo ship/barge
- VLS weight a lot
- VLS take a lot of space under deck and on deck
4. Hm. why do Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burk class destroyer and most modern frigates have two funnels
- can it be because they have more than 1 engine, in case they get problem with one engine, they still have an another engine
- can it be that they have more than 1 engine room, in case they have an accident in on engine room, they still have another engine room, so they can get home again.

Oh. BTW Avoid surfaces that are vertical, you want to reflect your signature in a different direction, not return it.
Basic thumb rule for an Stealth "object":
- your eyes are the radar
- a mirror is the stealth object.

Kannevets wrote: ↑November 26th, 2017, 1:46 am That's not how stealth works, the angles need to be somewhat similar. That's why the Zumwalt is in the shape it is. All the angles on the superstructure are the same. The gun housings are similar to that. Because the angles are similar they give it the same radar profile as a fishing boat.

they DO not need to be similar, but they need to reflect radar signature to a different direction so the radar searching for the vessel do not get a return signature. Basicly you can have 10.000 angles so long it doesn't return the signal (wave) send from the radar back in the same direction. STEALTH is about reflecting your signature in a different direction. And you do not need the entire ship to be shaped in a certain way to give it a signature of an fishing boat, to get the fishing boat signature, you only need a small area reflecting what you want.


The main reason for that modern Navy vessel are so flat and clean..., it's because it's easier to build and cheaper to build, and more practical, when it come to the internal layout. It's cheaper to build a cube shaped building, than Pentagon...


French Navy did something like that in one of their serious project, for next gen. vessel, can you tell me how many angled surface this design have?:


How many angled surfaces do an F117 have...?:


How about F222 Baden-Württemberg, not so extreme, but there's more angle than a hend-house:


or F260 Braunschweig:


or the South African Valour class, look at those sexy angles!:


or the Norwegian Skjold class, I can count at least 17 different surface angles per sides...:

Planform alignment is not the same as simply counting the number of individually constructed facets. And of course, large planar surfaces are more important than small ones, so large surfaces are more likely to be normal-aligned. The F-117 and F222 are actually perfect examples of this.

Heuhen, you are not correct in your analysis.

Stealth aside (I'll let those more knowledgeable than me field that one), some basic layout points in no particular order:
- That's way too many VLS cells indeed. Well, if you only have one row, your ship would carry the same loadout as a Ticonderoga cruiser, but that would only make sense if your ship is about 12 meter wide.
- Also, the placement of your amidships VLS block would probably be seen as a structural weakness by modern shipbuilding standards. Not sure how much of a blocking point that is, depending on how developed you want your design to appear.
- Most reasonable power plants for that displacement would require two stacks. One stack means either not enough power for modern mobility, or a merged exhaust that would be both detrimental to survivability and take up too much hull depth.
- Stability and sonar capability would both be improved with a bow bulge.
- Not sure how much space is actually left for the helo hangar(s) with the main radar perched on top of it. The radar mast's supporting structure will cut down on hangar space.
- Not sure how to understand the shape of the bridge structure, but the angles suggest a very wide bridge, possibly too much for balance.
- Speaking of bridge structure, you might want to avoid protruding bridge wings and overhanging bathtubs for CIWS and EW if you want your ship to park alongside anything at least its own size without damage.
- Overall angles of canted edges could certainly be reduced. All discussion of stealth aside, your 45° hangar faces eat up a lot of deck space.
- Fields of fire would be improved by swapping the positions of CIWS and decoy launchers. Those don't need a clean LOS and hiding them lower would help reduce radar signature.
- You might want to have a look at deck continuity, looks like your ship has a lot of stairs from end to end...

All in all, it boils down to what I always gab on about with beginner designs: try to think about what's inside your ship. Drawing a profile for the sake of it does not a functional design make. At least scribble a crude top-down view to get an idea of the proportions and the space taken by your systems. Ideally follow that up with a(n extremely broad-brush) side cut view where you can 1) reserve internal space for cumbersome stuff like engines and 2) count decks. I'm not suggesting you aim for full-on blueprints, but trying to build a virtual ship will only help you debug your design.

Just a first go at hopefully constructive criticism, I'd gladly see more attempts along this line.

erik_t wrote: ↑November 27th, 2017, 5:05 pm Planform alignment is not the same as simply counting the number of individually constructed facets. And of course, large planar surfaces are more important than small ones, so large surfaces are more likely to be normal-aligned. The F-117 and F222 are actually perfect examples of this.

Heuhen, you are not correct in your analysis.

that's happen when I write a text 3 in the morning, instead of going to bed. Simple is always best, I was just reacting to his line about that a surfaces have to be similar to be Stealth.... I just went in the totally wrong direction when I was writing on that.

But simple is always best

And I stand corrected (even when I was writing the text while I was halfway into coma. Note to my self: do not try to explain, when in coma)

Thanks for all the comments and criticisms(I half expected it), I'm probably going to tear up the ship and rework it.