Shipbucket

First you have to save you'r drawing as an PNG-file.

for the re-size issue. It have been a long time since I have used Photobucket but the easiest solution is to don't use photobucket and use dropbox instead!

Well, colo, take a look in the mirror!

Anyway, Ruterra: like I said, the drawings are reasonably well-executed (which compliment seems to have been totally overlooked by other respondents...) - so, evidently you've got the basic talent down. Which is good, very good.

I gave you the advice I did, since you seem to want to have a rather heavily armed ship at hand. Nothing wrong with that, if your means allows it. However, the hull you've used for your attempt is wholly insufficient for the weapons' systems your proposing - hence the proposition to use a more modern hull. Also, masts have not been as crowded as yours are right now, since the 1950s, when electronics and sensors were so much bulkier. Yours appear to be designed for a much later period.
As for my own attempts, my "friends" here are right, they've too been trashed at times. c'est la vie. Unfortunately (or fortunately?!?) I can no longer post any of those, since they were irretrivably lost when a memory stick of mine suffered a meltdown.
I fact my first attempt on a "modern" missile ship was a pen drawing, using the hull of the KM Nuernberg from the 1930s. And I did overload that critter fully! I did learn that "less is more" meaning that even if you've got less armament, your other gains might be so much more, for instance stability, seaworthiness, endurance and efficacy of operation!
So, if I may modestly suggest, decide on what weapons' system you care to ship, and then select a suitable hull for that. You will want to have reserve volume! And, no, there were no heart attacks!

@ace Well, so have I for that matter about yours. If you call that "bullying" I don't think you know the meaning of that word. And I do agree with you, I have done worse, and we all will stumble still, regardless of how skilled we'll become.

Anyway, Ruterra, I, too, welcome you to this crazily insane forum. I'll be looking forward to seeing what you may be doing next.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

about not knowing words, bezo, you have to look at what more modern hull means. it is something different then bigger. which is what would solve these problems, not an more modernised shape.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

A lot bigger. That first destroyer has a substantially heavier combat system than a 11,000 ton California.

In fact, my des race. I know fully well what I was talking about. Maybe you're simply lacking the imagination to fully comprehend? I don't know. First of all, this current hull is from the 1940s. Premium then was the quest for speed, not least fleet speed, since destroyers were required to be able to keep up with the fast fleet carriers. That meant long, narrow hulls, ergo wholly unsuitable for the systems our friend Ruterra would like to ship.
As you are well aware of, the length to beam ratio has since gradually decreased, which we can observe in the LCF, Horizon and other modern constructions.
As for US destroyers (frigates and destroyer-leaders), they too, have approached the size of a Cleveland-class CL. This is what I had in mind. The lack of beam, and thus stability was my chief concern, hence my reference to "more modern hull", which I'm sure you'd grasped had you not been so thick-headed in trying to thrash my every word and sentence, ace! But, your doing that speaks about your intent, that's all I can say.

Ruterra: consider the weight, size and volume of the equipment you want on your ship and then try to pick the best suitable hull. I do agree with Erik_t that you will need a much wider hull. If you chose a WW2 origin hull or a modern one ( I e built from the 1960s onwards), doesn't really matter, so long as you understand how you can fit them properly ( or more or less so...)

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I want to mix post WW-2 looks with 1970's technology (hey I like WW2). So I think I will use a light cruiser hull and take the superstructure of my current ship and impose it on the hull. Would that work?

well, I would suggest starting with the full light cruiser hull and superstructure.

fact is, keep this in mind.
missile era ships are mostly using volume. gun era ships are mostly using weight. this because missiles and fuel are a lot lighter for their size then guns and ammo. the checkout and finning areas early missile systems required made that even worse.
to get the WW2 look on missile ships, you should indeed look at the FRAM conversions and maybe some british destroyers (for example the county and daring classes share part of their design lineage, and it shows)

superstructures are shaped with the powerplant(intakes and funnels), control systems (bridge, CIC and computers) fire control (directors) and weapons (CIWS, missile magazines, small guns) in mind. this means, look at comparable ships of the same size, with the same systems and the same time era, and you should get an way more accurate ship then bashing parts of ships completely different in size and role together

@bezo, note that the L/B ratio made a big change basically around... 1990. note for example how the WW2 destroyers and the spruance have almost exactly the same L/B. and the same top speed. and hey, that was about the time missile systems decreased in size again already.
so no, I cannot grasp how 1960 tech needs an 1990's hull design, as you are suggesting now.

you currently are saying entirely different things then in your first post, and are mostly saying to me you don't and giving advice already given. it that really worth your time?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

but overall these ships you have chosen can't support anything like what you have posted in the drawing. you have to use one weapon-system, not multiple. and from different country's (some of them can't communicate with US system...)

and also having to many different system, make you'r navy expensive and difficult to supply.

here you have an example of an British AAW ship with some ability in ASuW and ASW. (note the Sea-Slug is taking almost half the ship. It is the missile system you can see on the aft deck!)

and an US version (note: missile system on this ship is taking a lot of space):


Here you have two example of ASW ship's (it's ASW weapon is ASROC, torpedoes and helicopter):

an Norwegian one (it's ASW weapon is: Terne III ASW, torpedoes, depth charge, and helicopter)


other ships that do both AAW and ASW:


or AAW ships, note how big she must be just to carry similar weapons to you'r ships (note this one is nuclear!):
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... 0Beach.gif

Thanks I will definelty use these pictures for reference. Also could you fit the GMLS between the funnel? I am not sure if the funnel would allow the space needed to the magazine.

I am really excited to redesign these destroyers to be a little larger and then eventually make a new cruiser as well.

If you are wanting to design 1970s stuff, just design 1970s stuff for your nation. Saying that "a posy-apocalyptic society can't manufacture today's equipment" is a bit silly - it also couldn't manufacture the stuff on these destroyers.
On the contrary, I encourage you to go and find some examples where I am outright hostile to new folks: good luck!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)