Shipbucket

I know that this place is meant primarily for real ships and I'm already working on one (doing research right now), but I fought that starting with something new and easier would be a good idea since I've never done this kind of art before.

As the title implies this ship is a multi-purpose destroyer, meat to cram as many function in a single vessel without too much compromise from any, specially the guided missile destroyer. It's supposed to be a stealth trimaran, a mix of Zumwalt, LCS-2 and Benchijigua Express. I tried to maximize both cargo capacity and flight deck area without compromising the ship's stability and stealth profile, therefor I adapted an under-deck hangar/modular cargo bay instead of a more conventional design.
It's roles would be: Escorting, seek and destroy, anti-piracy, support fire, commerce raiding, fighting unregulated fishing, mission control, support fire, deployment of infiltration teams, gunship diplomacy, anti submarine warfare, airspace control, mobile jamming platform and etc.




Displacement: 18000 t.
Beam: 50m.
Propulsion: Three gas turbines totaling 125 MW; four pump jets (two on the main hull and one in each Ama).
Speed: 40 knots.
Complement: 175.
Armament: 24 VLS cells for Brahmos; MK41 VLS with 76 cells for naval SCALP, Aster 15 and 30, Exocet MM40; one 300 mm autocannon; two Bofors 57 mm; 8 Nulka cells.
Aircraft and vessels carried: One CH-53 Super Stallion, one Mil Mi-24 Superhind Mk. V, five MQ-8 Fire Scout, one CB90.

I'd hope I made a good first try (an a realistic one). If I made any blatant mistake please let me know.

Q: What is an ideal way to post pictures on the forum? Both IS and PB re-size and reduce considerably the quality of my images.

PS: That big radar tower is retractable.

I have seen so much worse. Right now, for hosting I would recomend drop box - and use the public folder. The other option is to adjust the setting in Photobucket for file size not image size.

As fopr the ship, I think you might be trying to do too much, and that bow is just over sized.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

may I ask what real design? not all are as good to begin, and not to be harsh but you still have a lot to learn about ship design, which is best done by practising and studying real ships
that said, it is not an that bad start. hell, my own first design was far worse!
take a good look at the propulsion train, and at the systems on board. like timothy says, it looks like you try to do too much with one ship. to be honest, this is one of the first multihull designs I have seen that actually will have problems with topweight. you are not gonna get 40 knots out of an hull that size, or at least not with that much weight on top of it.
but, apart from that, the only real problem I have with it is that huge gun, which I just don't see use for

anyways, welcome aboard, and hoping to see more work from you, as this is an promising start

_________________
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

Ok, smaller bulb them. Just out of curiosity what would be the negative implications of a bulbous bow that is too big? And what else is too excessive? I'm inclined to think it's the bow thruster and stabilizers.

I'm thinking in doing one of the ugliest and weirdest ships that has ever sailed: the Novgorod ironclad.

PS: Odly enough I choose that big-ass gun to save space in comparison to the two main guns on a Zumwalt... an intermediate would be better. So... no under-deck hangar?

The hanger deck isn't a bad idea, you're just not going to hit 40 knots.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I am afraid that I have to dissapoint you on the ironclad:
http://www.shipbucket.com/Real%20Design ... Popov1.png
alvama, one of our masters of art, has done that one already

EDIT: I am sorry, you can do the novgorod, just read a bit into her again and saw that the admiral popov was not an representative, but an slightly enlarged version! so if you want........

also, I would suggest you that you take ships from the same era to start with, and expand from that. seeing that you did this ship, maybe an suggestion.... the USS zumwalt on the main site in need of an underwater hull and update.
well, if constructed like that, it will just break of in any big waves. in general though, it gives a lot more drag for no real gain. also, note that warships more often have such streamlined bows that an bulb is useless, (or at least the hull is designed to pierce the seas, not to carry as much as possible over it) and the main reason many warships have bulb-like shapes is sonar domes.

indeed the bow thrusters are a bit excessive, but also an waterjet propulsion doesn't really work like this. for an ship this size, regular screws are more useful as well, IMO.

for that huge gun. by doubling the ammunitions diameter, you actually make the ammo 4 times (or more) as heavy. this gives you more firepower per shot fired, but per ton weight for the system you have actually less. the gun itselfs weights quite a lot too, and of course think of the blast you get when you fire it, forcing you to make your construction about 5 times as heavy as the 155 of the zumwalt. so yeah, doesn't really work that way xD

_________________
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

Bow looks very similar to my lifting ram-bow concept...

I'd agree with Ace on the gun, it just seems a bit too big, maybe just go for a 125mm or 100mm

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

now I am interested, do you have anything of that posted?

_________________
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

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Not reaching 40 knots is a lesser issue than having stability problems. Getting a conventional hangar would help with the weight, but that weight isn't all that high especially if compared with the superstructure (it must be a bumpy ride on Zumwalt). Maybe a more conventional superstructure and a tower for the radars instead of that big hulking thing.

But back to the speed issue. Did I just shoot up too high for the weight, or my hull just suck? And I never heard that waterjets, specially pumpjets had a size limit.

So, things to do...
#1- Smaller main gun.
#2 - Shorter bow (is it ok to keep it flat in the horizontal plane to help in the stability?)
#3 - More compact superestructure.
#4 - Improved propulsion.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that I'm not sure if what we saw so far is a reliable representation of the final thing. I will do some research, but I'm not confident; you know how this kind of military projects are, take submarine screws and pump jet as an example. So I think whatever I do will be pure especualation or will be based on somebody's else speculation or purposely thrown disinformation. Better start with... the Seashadow?