Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 5  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Author Message
Corp
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 13th, 2020, 8:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 14
Joined: November 14th, 2014, 4:13 am
I'm surprised how well I did. This challenge does leave me somewhat skeptical of people's definitions of realism as my entry scored well above what I thought were much more plausible designs.

My favorite entries were minepagan's and Kat's for, (in my view) stepping farther outside the box than I did. (Nuclear SES aren't exactly in the box but I think they stretched the definition of "Surface Combatant" far more than I did.
erik_t wrote: *
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.
1) Top views aren't my strong point and ordinarily I would have skipped it but I felt it was important to show the overall box shape as you don't really get a full perspective from just a side view. I think the big killer for me though was trying to fill in the sheer amount of deckspace.
2) My power plant as based on a handful of various pdfs I have which I hodgepodged information from together in a way god never intended with a side of shoddy back of the napkin math. The main basis for the propulsion scheme was the plant setup of my starting point, LSES. LSES would have been a 12,000 ton flat top amphibious assault ship powered by 4 LM5000 Engines and 8 diesel engines. From there I hopped over to a pdf I have on SEC/SECN a 22-26,000 ton Aircraft Carrier. The nuclear version of which used electric motors for propulsion powered by two vaguely described LWNPs. I then went to a Westinghouse study on LWNP. The study I have focus on replacing the LM2500 and is vague on details for the mentioned LM5000 replacement but it has enough figures for me to do some awful awful math. The LM5000 is stated to give out 60k SHP which equates to 44 MW of power per reactor. I need two of them to replace 4 LM5000 which comes out to 88 MW. Factoring in the extra power requirements of the fan motors requires another few MW for which I did more awful math before just I rounding up to 100MW to get a nice even number. I know this is math is all wrong but I'm a Software Engineer not a mechanical one. I just throw numbers in wolfram alpha until I get something that vaguely looks plausible enough.

And right as I finish writing this I took a second look at my drawing and I realized that I made a typo and the spec sheet is wrong. It should be 2 x 50 MW reactors for a total of 100MWs not 2 100MW plants.

3) I meant for a boat or two to be carried at the stern internally. I figure there's enough space for two small ones there.

acelanceloet wrote: *

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)
1) VLS is mounted on the sides as originally I was concerned about not having enough height for them in the center. It was less of an issue after I raised the main deck more but I kept them there as I liked the free space the peripheral placement gave. Ship is definitely bow heavy which I realized while cutting down the number of VLS (originally I had more on the side amidships). In hind-sight I think it would have been better to have kept the Amidships VLS and scrap the forwards VLS.
2) Looking back I think I've underestimated weight. I did some back of the envelope math on what propulsion/weapons system would weigh but I suspect my estimates for the mass of the ship's structure and other fittings was an underestimate. I can't find my scrap paper I did the math on but iirc I started with something like 1000 tons for the propulsion plant, another 500-1000 tons combat systems and then 7000 tons for everything else which I suspect is Not Enough™.
3) Rain in the fan intakes is something I thought about briefly but figured was something I'd have to live with due to the high volume of air required to maintain the cushion.

EDIT: I realized this may have come off as a little defensive but that's not really my intent. I crave feedback and typically respond to feedback in search of further feedback.


Last edited by Corp on May 13th, 2020, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 13th, 2020, 8:51 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8438
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
For me I take the comments with a smile, I have an tendency to overkill, I had a list of things I wanted to change,
- realistically I was thinking the ship to be more a 25+ knot ship.
- I was unsure on the main gun and was considering to drop it, and just left with a asymmetrical installation of 56 mm and RAM instead.
- she would never carry all those helicopters, but it would be on rotation, depending on mission and how much place there is Bellow deck. Chinook I want to drop
- Radar mast, I thinking about redesigning it into a sort of FN-class radar mast, but with only three plates for the radars.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kattsun
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 13th, 2020, 10:21 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 242
Joined: September 10th, 2012, 6:03 am
yay

re: erik_t's comments: yes i agree a top view would have been nice, but i suspect it would have just been some CONEX boxes with a helicopter sitting on deck (though the cranes are meant to be very far to port like MV Transatlantic IRL so that might not be noticeable although i tried to imply with the shading), but at the time i was more focused on figuring out where things were inside the ship since the actual boat is basically an empty CONEX hull and the one i drew would probably be compartmentalized and full of berthing or something; sadly i didn't think we were allowed to post internal block drawings

re: acelancelot's comments: i think that the comment regarding the shading being "a bit much" is accurate since it is a spherical bow, which is a very different geometry from the general old-style cruiser hulls and modern destroyers like the various fiberglass/steel superstructures of modern vessels that tend to be flatter, squarer, or generally more polygonal than a sphere bow, so the shading can be done with 2-3 tones rather than 4-5.

it is also true that the lighting is a bit silly in parts (noticeably the cranes' upper edges), but my intent was that the light source is roughly from the upper right, and it is fairly diffuse since if it were coming solely from the top right then you would find it hard to see the rest of the hull as it would be in the shadow of the bow, so i sort of had to make do with a generally diffuse lighting while also emphasizing the roundiness of the bow/forecastle which i think was OK if not perfect

if i had to do it again i would probably go for a bit more unorthodox crane, like a gantry or something

thank you for your comments

_________________
The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9.6 [million sq. km]. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Cascadia
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 14th, 2020, 6:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 564
Joined: September 1st, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Germany
acelanceloet wrote: *

Cascadia's Aoba class:[/b]
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 :D
Well, shame on me, because to be honest this was a quite old drawing from years ago, and I just wanted to participate at least once as I'm not that into designing ships.
Look at the USS Pigeon, USS Safeguard, and USS Edenton, and you will see that my attention into details can also be found on my ship drawings.
So, sorry fo not contributing a proper design.

_________________
My deviantart account
http://cascadiasb.deviantart.com/?rnrd=191663


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 14th, 2020, 7:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3750
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
A few short thoughts in order of the entries:

Independence Class: At the time I scored, I couldn't put my finger on what exactly was off about the design, but looking back, I am pretty sure that it was that the ship felt overloaded.

Historia Class: Superboy's work is always a pleasure to see, and this one is no exception. Not an overgrown destroyer, but something smaller, and more manageable. One of the top three entries in my opinion.

Glormhar Class: An unconventional hull form, well rendered and thought. It really does remind me of the late ninties/early aughts renders in popular magazines.

Monte Sano Class: A 25-30 year earlier version of the various large missile defense ship concepts, it's certainly one of a kind here. Drawing detail quality is good, but more practice will make even better.

Muribhreid Class: Garlic is excelent at pushing the limit on adding detail without going too ovearboard, and again he runs right up to the limit. The design is rather conventional, and in a field with a variety of types, that helps.

Type 45 Class: It's a Type 45 with a new skin. That' great for everything but originality, where it takes it on the chin. Were originality not a catetory, this would be tied for first place.

Towers Class: I know Erik has been doing conceptual 1990s+ USN ships for a over a decade, and the latests shows all of the thought that has gone into the iceas over the years. Easily my favorite, and with a unique combat system to boot. I'll probably be raiding it for ideas in the future.

Leahy Class: Big SES is Big. I'm not sold on the displacement numbers, but it does feel like the listed displacement is a bit low. Great first entry. A few points were knocked off however for lifting a full Burke forward superstructure.

Rambiert Class: I like flex-decks, but I question the final configuration here - more detail might help. The ship is probably pushing the limits of capability at the stated displacement

Son Zhonshan Class: Well drawn, but I am still trying to make heads or tails of the design, In the end, above average, but it left me feeling a bit confused. Surface launched IRBMs don't thelp the confusion.

Mjukheten Class: Even with the stated backstory I am unconvinced that the concept would work at all. That said, it is unique.

Melbourne Class: The first of two entries that are similar enough that they feel like they are rehashed AEGIS Destroyers. This one at least has a unique mast.

San Sadera Class: The second of two entires that are similar enough that they feel like they are rehashed AEGIS Destroyers. Here it feels like the artist put a Maya and a Burke in a blender, and this was the output.

Broome Class: A design that feels like a logical extension of work that thegrumpykestral has done for Westralia in the past, I've got nothing bad to say about it.

Normandie Class: The Dazzle patern does a great job in making my eyes want to look anywhere but at the ship. I question the geometry of the phased array faces we see.

Type 055: I'm not sure it isn't an artists interpretation of the real Type 055. It feels like it is sliding away from shipbucket style on some of the detail, but not too far.

Aoba Class: This would not have been too bad of a drawing - in 2008 (other than the attack helo and some of the color choices, it could have been actually from then). The superstructure is squashed, and the exposed CWIS is going to stand out like a sore thumb.

Type 85 class: If I were to pick the most average of the entires, this would be it.

Semeru Class: A workman like design. I'm not fully convinced of the size of the forward VLS, but that's about it.

Williams Class: Other than the drive systems, it reminds me very much of DwightLooi's FFG-500 design, which can be found floating around in various places (for some reason I didn't save his orthos, but I have the non-orthos saved, and they can also be found in the WoW thread he posted). As for this design, fantastic, until as Ace notes, it's made atomic powered.

NNFR-90 Class: I can't really comment too much on this one, as Ace bounced ideas off of me a few times, but it's one of my three favorites from this competition.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Kiwi Imperialist
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 15th, 2020, 12:24 am
Offline
Posts: 72
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 9:38 am
It’s great to see constructive criticism for each submission. Thanks Erik_t, Acelanceloet, and TimothyC. I don’t know if I will modify the Sun Zhongshan class, as it is unrelated to my existing AU, but I will definitely consider comments relating to it when drawing in the future. Erik_t and Acelanceloet both picked up on the fact that underwater features are not my strong suit. It is something I hope to improve upon.

acelanceloet wrote: *
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?
It was meant to be a unique and distinctive intermeshing rotor design at first, but ended up resembling Kamov helicopters. Regardless, your concerns about hangar height are correct. It should just fit, in theory, but the clearances are probably a little small.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 15th, 2020, 12:49 am
Offline
Posts: 2838
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
It's a two-way street! Lots of "why didn't I think of that?"

:)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
minepagan
Post subject: Re: Post-Cold War Large Surface Combatant ChallengePosted: May 20th, 2020, 4:41 am
Offline
Posts: 18
Joined: June 5th, 2019, 3:21 pm
Quote:
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.
Thank you! I did struggle with shading, as you and others have pointed out. I'm still trying to find the balance between strictly following the rules, and taking liberties to show shape. Naturally I'd say it's original, and merely inspired by the HII FSC concept, but then again I am a little biased :lol:
Quote:
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?
As previously mentioned I did struggle with shading, but I think you already knew that, heh. I appreciated the help, even if you were ultimately unable to ram something sensible into my head. As for the loadout, I made sure to only use missiles that would have been available near the ship's commissioning, and things like the ESSM didn't come until much later. I also agree that they'd be a good addition, but I wanted to constrain myself to a relatively early time period. As for a skeg...I think that was a goof, yeah, seeing as the classes before and after the Harpers Ferry definitely have them. Something to add for the real ship's drawing, I suppose! In any case, thanks for the feedback.
Quote:
Monte Sano Class: A 25-30 year earlier version of the various large missile defense ship concepts, it's certainly one of a kind here. Drawing detail quality is good, but more practice will make even better.
Danke Schön! Improving is the goal, as always.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 5  [ 48 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]