Shipbucket

Hi Hood: Thanks a lot for your comments! They are very helpful.

Hi there,

Bit late in the game, but I'm still taking the opportunity to salute a good start with a well-drawn and mostly credible modern ship.

While I'll let, as usual, those more knowledgeable than me discuss the ship design part to their hearts' content (but still, that bow is a bit on the short side), I have a few remarks on the systems:
- You mention a VLS system with 16 cells for ESSM, do you have a specific launcher in mind? You have drawn a pair of under-deck boxes, which suggest two 8-cell Mk.41s. The 16 cells therein can be quad-packed for the ESSM, giving you capacity for 64 missiles. If you're looking for a corvette-sized mid-range SAM umbrella and can afford to cut that to 32 missiles, you can remove one of your boxes and move the gun turret back by that much length without lengthening the bow (much). Otherwise, you can also use the lighter 16-cell Mk.48 Mod.2 (warning: .PDF), that carries either 32 ESSM or 16 VL-Sea Sparrow. Anything heavier than an SDLS Mk.41 will be overkill for ESSM alone.
- The quad Harpoon launchers could afford to sit lower on the superstructure. That high, they aren't doing any favors to your ship's stability and radar signature. Depending on what you have housed in the superstructure below, you can cut that out a bit and move the launchers down, or move the launchers outwards so that they sit closer to the deck's edge. In both cases, don't forget to cut out backblast outgassing panels in your outer wall!
- If you're using SPG-60s for both ESSM tracking/guidance and gun-laying, wouldn't the latter work better with an SPQ-9B for low-altitude target designation? I have no information as to how the Artisan can handle this kind of things. Come to think of it, maybe the SPG60 could be replace with a more versatile STIR or something like that. Then again, maybe it would work perfectly, or you have an internally consistent reason to stick to the SPG-60.
- Are your 324mm torpedo tubes supposed to emulate something from IRL, or are their a custom fixed-tube installation? In either case, the three tubes side-by-side could be problematic. If they are firing full abeam, I have doubts about the torpedoes handling the sideways water impact if the ship is sailing full steam, and if the tubes are canted outwards as is more usual, this installation takes an awful lot of deck space. I'd use the customary Mk.32 Mod.9 twin-tube stacked launcher. For this one, you would need to draw a recessed cut-out, but examples of those abound on SB. Or go the lazy/low-RCS way and just draw a sliding cover
- Doesn't your stern MLG-27 block too much firing arc for the RAM? From the look of your ship, you probably have space for one MLG-27 on each side of the hangar, for a total of 4, but either way, it wouldn't hurt moving the RAM up a few feet.
- Looks like your ship could do with at least one navigation radar for, y'know, navigation. A good spot would be the small platform on the front edge of your radar mast, if you enlarge it a bit and move it up a few pixels to free up room for the FC radar. Alternatively, move the SPG60 to that platform (which can be moved down but must be enlarged) and the navigation radar atop the bridge; in that case, maybe also move the big satcom (?) bubbles back a bit from the mast to free field-of-view for the SPG60. Also maybe a second navigation radar furhter back for helicopter management? If not some sort of TACAN antenna would be a minimum.
- How does your bridge work in relation with the forward edge of the superstructure? From the look of it, only the forwardmost window is canted forwards, the other 3 run parallel to the hull side, while the lower panel of the superstructure keeps running outwards to meet the rear edge of the bridge. Based on SB drawing rules, there is only one way of seeing it: the whole bridge side is offset from the superstructure's edge, which gives you spacious bridge wings, but compromises sideways visibility from inside the bridge. Not wrong as such, but not optimal. I would advise extending the 45° part of the bridge (from 1 to 2 windows) and lightening the line separating it from the superstructure below to show the continuity. Similarly, the line between the superstructure's side and the canted front can be lighter than black.

Of course, please take this as constructive criticism aiming at helping you improve your design, which is already fairly well thought out.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

Alright guys, thanks for the feedback, I'll start seeing what I can to "fix" some of the problems outlined!

I believe I have fixed most of the problems and suggestions outlined with the ship.

It's a nice design, but there are done lines that need to be cleaned for example the bow. But I can show that when I get home from work at some point.

What software are you using when drawing. I use paint it have all the tools to make nice lines



- you have stray pixel all over the place.
- Some of your lines is all over the place.

Other than that, it's a good drawing


What you see below is an example:

Do you see what I have done to you'r drawing, small adjustment can do big changes:



and with some other adjustment:

Thanks! Very useful instructions.

Yep, Heuhen's last version explains what I was rampling on about the bridge in much clearer fashion
The bridge wings are gone though.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

The bridge wings are there, but enclosed.

Up here in North like Sweden, Norway, Finland. Where it is very, very cold and the weather can be insane sometimes, so you want the bridge wings enclosed.. you want to have an enclosed bridge wing. There's a reason for Norwegian Frigates have enclosed bridge wings, even Coast guard ships

I see, thanks for the help!