Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'design'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 22 results

  1. >>Brasileiros de sua opinião aqui<<
  2. Content Season

    For some reason I have been working on producing more content his time of the year. Whether its been putting up some videos on YouTube and getting 100 subscribers or just procrastination from schoolwork; ouch. I have had a weird influx of content being worked on. Now for any who see this I plan on holding a contest within a few weeks for my 100 subs on YouTube. I plan on giving away some ships and maybe some doubloons. I don't mean this as an advertisement as much as it is... But with the information being released about the US cruiser split I feel I should be posting a hint of what I have been saving for an entry for a contest in the future. This has been a lengthily project that I know when the right contest comes up I will enter it in. Hopefully before the new US cruisers are introduced. Try to guess the ship, i'm trying to be accurate to some extent. But for now just a peak of a special creation that will be made IRL at some point in the future when funds allow. Also if anybody has some ideas for the next model, let me know. I can post instructions when completed.
  3. My main is on Asia and this post was originally posted on reddit. I was reminded by a fellow player that I should page Sub_Octavin and seeing how the devs are active on the NA server I thought I should probably post it on here. Off topic: I get much better ping on NA server (~120ms) than on Asia server (~230ms) (I live in Australia), I should have played on NA since the beginning. (The following is a copy of my post from Reddit, slightly formatted for the forums) Long post ahead, you have been warned. First, we need to understand the difference between a paper ship and a paper ship. Some ships in the game are purely fantasy ships, i.e: their design is completely fabricated by Wargaming. Such examples are the Roon, Hindenburg, the Henri IV and the Zao. Alright, maybe Zao have a bit of historical background, as the IJN had actually planned to lay down a new generation of heavy cruisers, however, no such plans for the class survived the war and the current Zao in-game closely follows that of a fan-design on a Japanese Warship Magazine. Then there are the ones that have historical designs but some parts have been altered by Wargaming. Examples in-game included the Hakuryu-she have the dimensions of the G-14 Project but have G-15 (kai-Taihou) project features, the Großer Kurfürst (the H-class designs all had 4 twin mounted turrets in a A-B X-Y layout not the triple turret it had in-game, and the upgraded Friedrich der Große with 420mm guns (H-39 class were not to have 420mm guns). Then there are designs which haven’t been altered (except for things like AA armament, torpedo belt and whatnot-these things are for balancing the ship into a specific tier) but are in various stages of design, some near finished, some not, some are purely design studies. Examples are the Izumo, the Nicolas, the Phoenix, and some French/Russian/British cruisers and destroyers. And then there are the designs that existed, finalised and are either ready to be built/laid down but cancelled for whatever reason. Examples in game are the Ibuki, Montana, Amagi, De Grasse, the Friedrich der Große with stock guns, some Russian/British cruisers/destroyers. One thing that differs finalised designs and designs in various stages of development is that, with finalised designs, you have accurate drawing of the said ship, many times you have wooden mock up models, and everything is finalised-including how the external appearance will look like when constructed. But with designs in various stages of development, the actual external appearance of the said ship are not ever finalized. There are rough indication of the positions of guns and funnels and superstructures and other stuff but they are not to be treated as if this is how they are going to look like if built. Wargaming have done a fantastic job on modelling paper ships. The Roon and the Hindenburg, though completely fictional, resembles many signature details of Admiral Hipper (the Bridge/conning tower shape, the seaplane facility aft of the funnel, the location of the fore and aft range finders, the Friedrich der Große and Großer Kurfürst have similar shapes of the Bismarck as well. The high tier french cruisers shares the look of the Dunkerque and the Richelieu, with the hexagonal bridge and the spikes (I don’t know what to call them) and the funnel that is swept backwards and in some ships integrated with the aft superstructure much like the Richelieu class. The Russian cruisers of Moskva and Donski all had their fair share of the Russian cruisers’ oddly high bridge and large superstructure profile. The Hakuryu looks just like an enlarged Taihou and the Zao’s superstructure and mast are not much of a departure from the Mogami class. The Myogi’s bridge also resembled that of the Modernised Kongo class. (Note that the in-game Kongo actually uses the real-life Hiei’s bridge. Hiei is the only Kongo class that have a completely different bridge than the other Kongo’s) The Conqueror, Lion and the Monarch all resembles the Vanguard/KGV/modernised QE class’s sturdy bridge look, the secondary placement and the seaplane facility located between the two smoke stacks. I think you all get the idea, WG is not bad at modeling fictional warship superstructures at all. They can, and they does closely examine built ship’s appearances and applied it to paper ships but with a slight modernisation effort. Such as the addition of FC radars and whatnot. And then there’s Izumo. Man, I never knew the Japanese opted for a minimalistic appearance for their battleships! WG’s excuse for the Izumo is that, as that’s how it looked like in the design drawing, that’s how they modelled it because that’s the official design. Is it really? Apart from ships, such as the Montana, Ibuki and the Amagi, they are been built when cancelled and the appearance is firmly decided in official drawings and plans. And Montana and Amagi even have mock up models built. The Izumo is far from been a finished design. It is one of the sub-designs of the J-series of the Yamato’s preliminary designs. It only went as far as a design study. There is a reason why only the J-series of the Yamato designs have 410mm guns as opposed to other designs which have 460mm guns. This is because it is a design study based around the fact that if it possible to for a battleship that can be built and maintained using existing dry docks and other facilities. The gun of course is downscaled to 410mm and the armour is downscaled as well. It is a design study, and it is not even close to finalised, that’s why the drawing should never be used as the basis of the Izumo’s appearance. This is the design the Phoenix in-game is based upon, WG, why didn’t you copy the appearance? https://i.imgur.com/Q7CSuBD.jpg Would you call this the Farragut? https://i.imgur.com/LkjDrZh.jpg If not, then why is this the in-game Izumo that we see? (Please note: I was unable to find the exact drawing for A140-J2 which Izumo is based upon, but this is the other design with all turrets forward.) https://i.imgur.com/Df63RPA.png But you get the idea, the drawing is far from a complete, finalised drawing. Check this design drawing for Moskva: https://i.imgur.com/xI497na.jpg How about this wooden mock-up of Montana at New York Navy Yard? https://i.imgur.com/qS1u1NG.png The reason these ships’ in-game model closely resembling their actual drawings is that they are basically finalised and that’s how they are going to look like had they being completed. The Izumo is not. I hope this will end the debate on the historical accuracy of Izumo’s in-game model. Now I wish to talk about how Wargaming could fix the model. Failure No.1 The placement of fire control director with the rangefinder. Let’s start with the bridge, https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg Note the part in red (Main fire control director) and the blue (forward rangefinder) For all modernised IJN battleships, there are three distinct placement styles of fire control director with the rangefinder. The Kongo class and the Fuso class https://imgur.com/a/E58YX Note that Fuso’s bridge is on top, the bottom one is actually the in-game Myogi. However, as I mentioned above, the in-game Myogi actually resembles the real life Kongo. While the in-game Kongo resembles the real life Hiei. The FC director is located forward of the rangefinder and they rotate individually. The Nagato Class https://i.imgur.com/0FHmdF7.jpg The FC director sits at the top while the rangefinder is located a couple of levels down. They rotate individually and the rangefinder actually rotates around a rail, (it’s hard to see the rail in my screenshot) And there is the Hiei-Yamato style:https://imgur.com/a/2thbR Top is Hiei (again, that’s the Kongo in-game, which is modelled after the real-life Hiei), and Yamato on the bottom. Note that they have FC director sits directly on top of the rangefinder and they rotate together. Coming back to the Izumo, why did you realise? https://i.imgur.com/dY9XTjq.jpg It have the Nagato style layout. Which completely makes no sense whatsoever. As you will see next. The reason why Hiei have a different superstructure than her sisters is that, she was a training ship demilitarised under the treaty. And she was the last ship to be modernised and refit into service. All the Kongo class received a second refit between 1934-1936. Except, Hiei’s modernisation began at 1937. She was used as an experiment platform to test out some of the features that would have been used later on the Yamato class. One of these are her bridge shape including her FC director and rangefinder layout. That is why they look so similar. I don’t think it would take a genius to figure out that had Izumo been built, she would have the same style as Yamato. Unfortunately not, she retained the layout of the Nagato class. Failure No.2 The bridge shape Now let’s move onto the bridge itself. As we can see from my screenshot before, the Hiei and Yamato’s bridge are very similar, not only did they lose the ‘pagoda’ look common to other battleships, it looks much more compact and the shape are swept backwards. There are other features which are similar, including the AA platform (where all the binoculars are) situated directly below the rangefinder, the different platform levels, the location of AA directors and so on. That should be what Izumo looks like. Failure No.3 and No.4 combined: the lack of superstructure and the placement of secondaries. Moving on, Izumo’s mid section. https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg 404 superstructure not found. Ehh, what on earth? How would there be barely any built up? Even in its Hull C (did not have the credits to buy Izumo back so I borrowed a youtube thumbnail) https://i.imgur.com/1Yc2mmo.jpg There are no superstructure. There should be plenty of superstructure around the smoke stack and between the Bridge and the aft bridge. This is yamato on trails:https://i.imgur.com/iVFU2wd.jpg Yamato’s refits only came with the addition of AA guns and secondaries, there are always plenty of superstructure. Why don’t Izumo have them? All nation’s new generation battleships comes with superstructure. You don’t just waste empty places a ship, you can have places for AA ammo storage, addition of AA directors, more AA guns etc. Oh yeah, AA guns, this is where WG have shown themselves to be lazy, use the C-hull Izumo again:https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Ah, fluent use of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, truly a masterpiece indeed. Looking back at every nations’ new generation battleships: (Yamato, Missouri, Tirpitz, KGV) https://imgur.com/a/h286D Note how the secondaries AA guns are all S P A C E D A P A R T (and on different levels) There are very good reasons why every nation have this layout, not only does it make all guns spread apart and firing blasts won’t affect other guns and their crews, this also gives every gun much more firing angles and they can cover multiple enemy plane approaches from different heights and different angles. And even if a bomb hit as not all of them are crammed together the damage will be smaller. You can see, not only should Izumo have much more superstructure, she would certainly have AA guns on different levels as opposed to the in-game C hull where they line up closely with each other. On top of that, check the A hull-https://i.imgur.com/uryG4VU.jpg And C-hull again-https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg No addition of AA directors at all….whew lads...what can I say… Failure No.5 Lack of local rangefinders on main turrets Even though they are all located forward, there must be local range finders for turrets. See this IJN Tone picture for example: http://i.imgur.com/7hcEJbg.jpg In-game? Not present.https://i.imgur.com/bbimvIc.jpg Of course, not all turrets should have it. Turret A situated at the forward and in heavy seas the local rangefinder is nigh impossible to use. Turret C may have transverse problem if it have them. But how about turret B? High enough, and nothing to block it, it only makes sense for there to be local rangefinders, starting from A-hull. Overall, my take on the Izumo’s model: (NOTE: I rushed these with MS paint, I may redrawn these, for now they are for rough illustrative purpose only) Overall appearance regardless of which hull: Picture 1: It should have Yamato/Hiei style bridge, local rangefinder to be installed on B turret. Picture 2: More superstructure surrounding the smokestack where I coloured in red, and the funnel should be extended to avoid interference with operation on these levels. Next, AA placements according to which hull the player is using, I tried to resemble Yamato’s historical AA refits. But without any change in actual in-game characteristics. Hull A: Izumo as she was completed, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. Note that 12.7cm is built on the superstructure, much like how Yamato is when it was completed, they are NOT on deck level. Hull B: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The in game hull B have single mounted 25mm AA, i replaced them all with triple mount 25mm. Number of barrels stays the same as in-game (AA DPS stay the same). The placements of the 25mm are very similar to the Yamato before Letye Gulf. Also more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Hull C: Again, red is 15.5cm, green is 12.7cm and blue is 25mm triple AA. The number of 12.7cm increased and so two 15.5cm are removed to save weight. I replaced all the single 25mm with triple mounts but kept the barrel count the same again so DPS is same as in-game. Placements of 25mm kind of resembles that of Yamato before final mission. Stern has two 25mm AA. added 4 more near the seaplane facility. Where the 15.5cm are were plated over add two 25mm on top. three 25mm AA added on the edges on both side. B turret gets two 25mm on top. Again, more Type 95 AA directors need to be installed along with the AA. Feedbacks are more than welcome, if you have any suggestions that I may have overlooked, please feel free to tell me in the comments.
  4. 1927 PROGRAM (SURREY) The new (10,000 ton) sketch design showed 1,620 tons of armour, compared to 1,100 tons for the most recent A Cruiser Dorsetshire. Magazines would be protected against 8in fire at all ranges below 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges. The protected part of the machinery would be protected against 8in fire between 7,000 and 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges up to 20,000yds. The other ship, Design Y, cut power to 60,000shp (six boilers, four shafts). Speed would fall to 30kts or perhaps 30.25kts. Length was reduced again, to 570ft. Hull weight was cut by reducing hull depth… The weight saved in machinery and hull could provide protection for the entire machinery space. The reduction in power eliminated one funnel, clearing the deck for catapults and HA directors. Controller liked the added protection and the improved arrangement… Legend and drawings were approved by the Board on 22 November 1928. ** More details to come ** Arrangements looked similar to Exeter, which benefited from Surrey design process, except she had four twins. Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.
  5. Stupid German designers 101

    #They never learn WW1 example: un-angling for your enemy's shot, (not a really stupid mistake yet, the British turret aint much stronger) ww2: un-angling for your enemy's shot, great contribution of ending the German navy faster. #Best WW1 battleship design in WW2 (talking bout u Bismarck ) Rodney: thx #Removing upper plate while u have a big [edited]weak spot WW1 example: This dude has a lump, a weakspot popping outta the deck, but no worries, it got a 200mm upper plate covering it WW2 example : This dude has a lump on the deck as well!........ BUT WHY THE DUCK YOU REMOVE THE UPPER PLATE PROTECTING IT, IS 45MM REALLY GONNA STOP ANYTHING? German dont just not learn, they become extra stupid German engineering at its finest they say....
  6. ¡Greetings all! Well guys, this topic have one function: be a place for those who enjoy creating ships of the ww1 or ww2 in any kind of format: 3D Modeling, hand drawing, paper model, wood, etc, also, minecraft and lego are allowed too, then ¡dont be shy and show us what you can do! and you are able to discuss about your work or about the work of others. Just post your WIPs designs step by step or ships already finished, ask for help or tips with your work or look at those fictional or real ships and enjoy the creativity of the comunity. I will post my own work to start this: Well, after a few months, finally i can show you something a bit less empty... Was a lot of work to gather some info about a few things to take in mind at the time to make each part of this bridge, for now is looking good, but it need some improvements, but lets start with this: As you can see, this bridge have a lot in common with the Yamato-class figure (is almost the same bridge), but with some differences, some of them listed here: -The main telemeter system, for the main guns and secondary guns: The size of the telemeter for the main guns is 14 meters long, and 9 meters long the other, then in the next picture we have: -The machine-gun control towers among two enclosed 40mm (2in) AA guns and the auxillary machine-gun control towers (the small ones) Another picture to look the arrangement of each component (keep in mind one thing, the two quadruple enclosed mounts are a placeholder, because i still have to model a periscope or a dual 40mm mount (or why not both) to fill that empty place, keeping in mind the weigth over the structure: At the bottom of the structure, you also can see three 40mm AA mounts and next the rangefinder for high angle fire control system, the ship will have four of those systems. For now i can say this: the bridge is almost completed (like the 85%), but it will have a bit more of details soon. After that, i will start work over the main guns. And to finish this post, i will leave two more pictures, one taked from the top side of the structure and one of the side: Hope you like this idea, i will wait to see your works guys
  7. Hi guys It has been a long time since the alpha stage of WoWs ended, and during that period, here was a small place where everyone could leave our design work. Now, i create this place to show you my naval creations. Here we go: The Ship Design Bureau: Designing a Fleet for the ARA The main theme of my project is to create a fictional fleet for the ARA in the period of the WWI and WWII during a fictional conflict (in part) between the powers of South America, the famous ABC. For now, here above these lines, you can see my Zapaleri-class Heavy Cruiser Tuzgle, with my latest creation: the Battleship General Lamadrid-class. While i was improving my creations over the years, there were certain projects and designs that leave behind and i would like to rescue or at least re-use in future designs.Here you can see for example, the bridges i was creating, from my beginnings to the most recent, the prototype for a new battleship: In this case, you will see that is quite similar to the bridge of the Yamato, because that's the idea, which take certain characteristics of that ship: I made this survey by the fact of wanting to know well wich one of those ideas could be useful and which i will use in the end for the main armament and armored belt. I planned to follow the line of the battleship Andrea Doria because i liked how that ship looks, but i would like to know the opinion of you guys. And here is the list of my fictional fleet and future creations: BB/BCs: -Design A-7 Prototype (Under Construction). -Design A-6, General Lamadrid-class BB, two units: General Lamadrid and Las Heras. -Designs A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 (Under Study). CA/CLs: -Design C-6, Zapaleri-class CA, four units: Zapaleri, Tuzgle, Vilama and Chañi. -Future Design: Design C-5; Santa Bárbara-class CA, four units: Santa Bárbara, Branqui, Siete Colores and Hornocal. -Designs C-0, C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 (Under Study). DDs: (Under Study). CVs: (Under Study). Well, i will post the progress later, at least with the bridge for now, hope you liked this, any comment, sugestion or opinion are welcome
  8. Most of your remember this ship from my early days >>Old Battleship<< I'm assuming you are since you all are still commenting on it and my inbox is full of requests, critiques, suggestions, and the like. Well, the good news is that I am in fact planning on revising the modern battleship design. The bad news, this one is going to be more realistic and thus less cool (no sweet pop-out turrets or VIP Champaign room) I am aiming for something that can adequately fill in for the Iowa Class ships since they are gone, BUT take into consideration all the lessons learned since then. So in theory we need: Heavier firepower Ability to loiter offshore for extended periods Ability to protect itself from threats To be effective on today's battlefields, it also has to be: Cost effective Maintain a smaller compliment of sailors compared to the previous Iowa Class Take into account the desire for reduced collateral damage (i.e. more precision) Before I begin designing the second coming of the Montana class with depleted uranium armor and laser guided shark munitions, I want to nail down the basic concepts of a modern battleship. GUNS (Stage 1) Since Battleships are designed around there guns, the first thing I want to talk about are the weapons. What would the ideal weapons be for a large warship. Should we utilize the 12" guns from the original, or work on something new? Let's discuss below and work something out. Hull / Layout (Stage 2) *Coming Soon* Power plant (Stage 3) *Coming Soon* Armor (Stage 4) *Coming Soon* Secondary Weapons / Protection (Stage 5) *Coming Soon* Miscellaneous (Stage 6) *Coming Soon* Once we nail down the basic concept, I will then work on rendering the final design! Final Renders! (Stage 7) *Coming Soon* *Remember, the goal is to create something that is plausible enough to actually be laid down in a ship yard today. So try and be rational. I want a squid launching cannon as much as the next guy but so far the Navy shot down my proposal for that. So current technology only.*
  9. Arizona model

    Alright, let's do this. So, I made a thing. It's a battleship based off of Jracule's Arizona in (guess the app from the pictures). It took about 3 months off and on. I decided to launch it Dec 7 in honor of the actual ship (and my 1-year anniversary of finding this place) (and yes, I know there can't be another one but I wanted to make it because the render was badass and I needed a ship in the game), but homework and details are a *edited* and I didn't get it done until today. So, here it is. The links to the original threads are below too. Also, keep in mind: 1. It's physically impossible to be exact with the game model and the CAD model. 2. The game is Japanese, so no Oerlikons or OS2Us (the latter they literally added as i was wrapping up to start taking pictures. I scrolled down and was like "hey, that's new. So is that...") and instead 25mm guns and Mitsubishis. 3. This is my first, and probably last time doing this unless I get a request (see below). Now, the link: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/50856-arizona-class-super-battleships-revised/page__p__1253657#entry1253657 http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/9043-super-battleship-uss-arizona-part-1-development/
  10. Would love to see maps where weather conditions had more of an impact on game dynamics. It would help to spice up the experience if every so often we encountered maps that flipped the script on standard play.
  11. OK, I know there are a few prototype\design phase ships peppered into the trees to fill them out... My habit of "rivet counting" when making mods has started me on a quest to find the actual sources of these ships... and also to find the true identities of some seemingly mislabeled ships for my "Information Overhaul\Overload" mod. In the USN line Phoenix - Design Phase - 1916 Scout Cruiser concept Nicholas - Design Phase- 1919 Destroyer Leader concept In the KMS line Hermelin - Wrong Name - which seems to be the K-1\Kolonialkanonboot 1939 Karlsruhe - Wrong Name - which seems to actually be a Konigsberg 1915 class Cruiser Nurmberg - Wrong Name - which seems to actually be a Leipzig Class Cruiser Yorck - Design Phase - Entwurf I/10? Roon - Design Phase - my best guess is that this is an early phase (P1) modified "Pazerschiff Kreuzer P" class, the rear top secondary being replaced with a primary turret. Hindendburg - Design Phase - my best guess is that this is a late phase (P12) modified "Pazerschiff Kreuzer P" class, both top secondaries being replaced with a primary turrets. This is as far as Ive gone.... any insight or knowledge on these ships\designs is greatly appreciated... Next will be the IJN and VMF lines
  12. Some of you might remember the battleship I designed way back in 2013. Basically a what-if scenario centered around the US drinking the same Kool-Aid that Japan (Yamato flavor) and Germany (Maus Flavor) did. So I looked into some of the bar napkin scribbles that US Designers did, took bits and pieces of naval theory, and strung them together into a Super Battleship under the American flag. You can find the original topic here >>Clicky Clicky<< Well, Over the past year, I still tweak the ship and play around with the design. I recently redid the entire Design and centered it on a more late-war model, specifically on the proposed redesign of the Iowa class. Dubbed the "Iowa CIP (Class Improvement Plans)" this redesign was based on the BuShips review of the Iowa Class Battleships. BuShips called for the following improvements: Improved side protection (To be achieved by reducing length by 40' and boosting beam to 120' via 6' blisters) Reduce topside weight Improve AA firing arcs Rearrange secondary battery to provide full 360 degrees of coverage Remove the 20mm and 40mm AA battery for the improved 3"/50 AA gun Remove/Reduce the problems generated by the Iowa's unique bow wave Improve Habitability I focused on rebuilding my design to the above specifications, especially the changes to the superstructure. Had the Kentucky and Illinois been finished to the Class Improvement Plans, they would have appeared similar to the final generations of US Heavy Cruisers with single trunked funnels and improved bridges. Basically the superstructure would have looked similar to the Oregon City Class Heavy Cruisers rather than the earlier Baltimore Class (The Final Two Iowa Class ships would have looked very similar to the Oregon City Class Cruiser at the bottom rather than the Baltimore Class up top) I also took some creative liberties in adding features that, while known about, were not prevalent in US battleship design, specifically the transom style stern (for better efficiency at speed) and a more bulbous bow. Other areas where changes were made include: Replacing the single 20mm mounts for the dual models coming into service near the end of the war. Using a single trunked funnel Using a modified bridge (Based on the Des Moines Class) with an added open bridge above (Valued by US captains for AA defense) Replacing the 40mm Bofors for 3"/50 RF guns Improved hull design Remodeled the props and rudders after those on the South Dakota class (Simply for the better protection offered by the unusual Skegs) The ship's primary armament is still the same as before, main guns based on the 18" gun tested by the US throughout the interwar years and into WW2. Secondary armament made up of the Dual-purpose 6"/47 gun as used by the Worcester Class light cruiser. Now that the changes have been explained, here are the new renders below! I hope you all like how I changed the design from last time. If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, ect, etc, then please feel free to comment below. I have recently been caught up in several projects, but I still dapple in sketchup, I have a model nearly finished of the French Alsace Class battleship that I might post. I have also helped several people with projects of their own so you can also request things in that regard. Lastly, like most of my models, I have uploaded my model to the warehouse, feel free to download and modify it however you like.
  13. It's not easy if you do not have experience working with pixels and layers. But I will try to make it really simple to help anyone get right into it. We will start by choosing a ship. The USS Sampson (DD-63) is the ship of choice for this example. First step on our journey is locating the texture files used to paint the Sampson in game. We will open the World_Of_Warships folder and continue deep into the directories. Make your way to the TEXTURES folder. ..\World_of_Warships\res\content\gameplay\usa\ship\destroyer\textures\ Location of the default textures successful. Notice there are 5 files with the Sampson name. ASD002_Sampson_1917.mfm ASD002_Sampson_1917_a.dds ASD002_Sampson_1917_ao.dds ASD002_Sampson_1917_mg.dds ASD002_Sampson_1917_n.dds We will be skipping some really advanced stuff which will exclude 4 of the files. All that is needed is in the _a.dds file. Make a copy of the ASD002_Sampson_1917_a.dds to your desktop. Install and run DDS Converter. Convert the DDS file to a BMP. Install and run GNU Image Manipulation Program. Open the BMP with the GIMP. We could get into more advanced graphic techniques and separate the ship components into layers. But let's keep it simple as intended. We are going to add a basic decal to the hull. For this I found a HD transparent PNG image of a bumblebee. Save Bob the bee to your desktop. Drag and drop the bumblebee image into the GIMP Layers window and move it to the top. With that same "bee" layer still highlighted. Select on the main menu the following: Layer -> Scale Layer... Change it to 50% and scale. Lets move Bob closer to the front of the ship. On the Toolbox window select the Move Tool (4 arrows point out icon). Grab the bee and move him into place. We could blend him in using the Mode options for the layer (look for Mode: Normal drop down menu on the Layers window). But we will keep it simple and continue. Right click on the Layers window and select Flatten Image at the bottom. Go to File on the main menu and select overwrite ASD002_Sampson_1917_a.bmp. Install and open Easy2Convert BMP to DDS. Convert the BMP back into the DDS. Add the new DDS to your res_mods folder in the correct place and tada! If you get a black ship then you need to open a FRESH bmp from the original DDS with GIMP. Copy the flattened skin you created and paste as new layer over the FRESH bmp. Flatten Image and OVERWRITE. The format settings and variables are kept in check so the game doesn't get confused reading it. If you have a word or image that is upside down or backwards you will have to reverse the effect in GIMP by Layer -> Transform options. If you have any other problems reply.
  14. Starting playing around with a new Design, or designs to be more exact. I want to create a modern Battleship and modern Battlecruiser that could realistically be built right now. Now, my first hurdle was overcoming the massive cost of these capital ships. I decided to go with a standardized approach by using an identical hull for both ships. The only difference in the hulls would be a more armored version for the Battleship. Other than that, the same powerplant, the same props, the same rudders. I'm also aiming to keep the superstructures nearly identical too. Hull Specifications Length - 840' Waterline / 880' overall Beam - 108' Draft 34' Displacement - TBD Powerplant - x2 B1B Nuclear Reactors, Integrated Propulsion system, 4x electric engines, 4x screws Range - Unlimted Speed - 35 knots + (Enough speed to keep up with carriers) (Front to Rear: Modernized Iowa, Modern BB/BC Design, Arizona Class Super Battleship) *For More Information on the other designs displayed, you can find them here* Modern Iowa Class Super Battleship Arizona The biggest differences between the ships are the armaments and the electronics Battleship Battlecruiser Type: Heavy Anti-Surface Heavy Anti-Air Armaments: x6 Main Cannons (Main guns removed, space dedicated to more VLS modules) 200-300 Vertical Launch Tubes 400-600 Vertical Launch Tubes Medium Caliber Guns Possible Medium Caliber Guns (TBD) x8 CIWS x8 CIWS x8 Bofors 57mm x8 Bofors 57mm x3 Helicopters / UAVs x3 Helicopters / UAVs The Battleship will have the standard electronics, while the Battlecruiser will be equipped with a wide variety of Electronics systems. I envision the BC as being the central warship in the fleet for directing AA warfare. Sticking close to carriers of battleships, the BC will be equipped to tract surface, air, and even low orbit threats like Satellites. With its advanced systems, it will then relay information to other vessels. Its VLS modules will be primarily equipped with a full compliment of Anti-Air missiles. The Battleship will be a more stand-alone unit. While capable of working with the main fleet, it has the capability to detach to serve on the gun line with other gunnery vessels. Providing firepower against surface targets on land and sea. A majority of its VLS modules will be loaded with tomahawk missiles and anti-ship missiles for precision. Another difference that separates it from the Battlecruiser is that it will have a heavier armor layout. Enough to withstand anti-ship missiles and land based artillery. Questions to Ponder At the moment, I'm still debating the main cannons to use on the BB design. Modern 12" guns like the previous design, modernized 16" guns of a new design, or possibly an advanced version of a railgun. I'm also still debating the final weapons layout for each ship. All input from the WoWS community will be appreciated.
  15. After months of testing, designing, trial and error phases, and so on, I have finally created the first of my Super Battleship designs. This design is called the Arizona Class Super Battleships, the American equivalent of the Yamato Class. Today, I will lead you through the development phase of these leviathans in the first part of this five part series. Super Battleship U.S.S. Arizona (Part 1: Development) It was only hours following the news that the Americans had managed to turn back the Japanese at the Battle of Midway, that President Roosevelt sought to capitalize on an important victory. In the months after the crushing attack at Pearl Harbor, the American public became increasingly demoralized as the Japanese ran amok throughout the western Pacific. However, the results of Midway caused a small but noticeable shift in public moral. Though bloodied, the US Navy had held out and now leveled the playing field. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese sought out the American Battleships at Pearl Harbor because they stand as a symbol of Naval Might. Though aware of the increasing power of carriers, he thought that a Battleship might be the ideal symbol on which the public could place their support. On June 9th, he sent a message outlining his thoughts to the Naval Board and requested a preliminary design as well as the general opinions of the Naval Board. It has come to my attention that Japanese expansion has finally been halted and that we might finally go onto the offensive. However, our enemy remains strong and committed. Even our most optimistic commanders are of the opinion that the war will go on for some time. Our citizens, already worried by the bleak news over the last months, will no doubt become increasingly war weary as the Pacific War rages on. Therefore, I would like a new warship to be constructed, one that might become a symbol for victory for our sailors, our people, and ourselves. Like our cause, this warship must be tough and resilient. No warship can better uphold these traits than a Battleship. Though the previous battleship class has been delayed, I would like to offer a chance at something new. A new breed of dreadnought, one stronger and more powerful than anything we have ever done before. Furthermore, to cement this ship as a symbol of victory, I would suggest that the vessels of this class be named for those fallen at Pearl Harbor. The public has mourned the loss of the Arizona, but perhaps they could rally behind it as well. The war began with the loss of the USS Arizona, but it shall also end on the decks of the new USS Arizona. -President Franklin D. Roosevelt. June 9, 1942 The Naval board was surprised by the Presidential request, but overwhelmingly happy. At the time, it was thought that the Montana class battleships were about to be cancelled in favor of carriers. The offer of a new warship, one incorporating all of the lessons learned from the war was an offer too good to pass up. Immediately efforts were made to produce a design. To save time, design studies of the previous Montana class were utilized. To create a ship capable of engaging any other battleship required immense power and heavy armor. The Montana designs were designed to match any warship, but the new battleship was required to destroy any enemy. Heavier weapons were needed along with stronger armor to resist them. Designers chose to utilize the 18" guns that had been in testing for years. A new Super Heavy Shell had been designed for them that offered incredible capabilities. A battleship with 16" of belt armor and over 6" of deck armor would have no immune zone at all against these super heavy projectiles. The production versions of the 18" guns were known as the 18"/48 Mark 2 cannons. To hold the immense weight of twelve 18" guns, the ship would have to be very large. A larger design study of the Montana class was chosen. This hull stretched over 100' longer than the Montana's final design. To improve stability for the massive guns, the beam was widened to 133'. (Forward 18" guns) This basic design, just the general dimensions and the main armament was sent to President Roosevelt for approval on June 11th. Within 12 hours, a message was sent back that approved the design. The Four Montana class battleships would be suspended with all funds and materials going to support only two of the new vessels. These new warships would become known as the Arizona Class. Upon Receiving Conformation for the two new ships, the Naval Board went into a frenzy to finalize the designs before the window for construction would close. Both the New York and Norfolk Naval Yards were launching ships from the building slips soon and the empty slips could not be wasted. Armor The first obstacle encountered by designers was the armor of the new vessel. The adoption of the powerful 18" weapons meant that armor would have to be substantially thicker to protect against them. Despite talk of forgoing traditional US policy of armoring against ones own guns, the General Board eventually chose to design a new armored layout. At long range, a large slab of armor was needed to protect against shell fire. However, at close range the 18" weapon could penetrate over 22 inches of armor. It would be impossible to armor a ship with such heavy amounts of armor plate. Designers where then forced to become more creative with their armored layout. Designers chose to utilize a two layer approach. A single heavy layer of external armor was used on the outside. This armor continued all the way down to the warships's double bottom, getting thinner as it went. This armor would provide excellent protection from long range shell fire and would be sufficient to stop a majority of small caliber shells including most battleship shells. Only the most powerful shells could penetrate the first plate at close range. To protect against these shells, designers chose to utilized an inwardly sloping plate. This idea, based on the pre-war "Ironclad" battleship design would act as sloped armor. Depending on the angle of the incoming round, the 9" sloped plate could have an effective thickness approaching 18" of armor, sufficient to stop any known battleship shell in existence. Resting on top of these twin armor belts was a single 8" thick bomb deck. This single layer of heavy plate was designed to defeat heavy aircraft bombs and projectiles fired at flat trajectories. Above this armored deck was another deck of only .75". This STS deck was designed to only contain the spalling from explosions caused by bombs and explosive shells. Finally, the top deck served as the first defense against air attack. This 1.25" deck was to arm bombs as they hit the deck and contain the following explosion. The deck itself was armored enough to resist small caliber shells. Black - 16" Armor belt Grey - Lower belt armor Orange - secondary sloped belt red - main 8" deck armor blue - torpedo bulges and void space purple - internal void space/ bunkerage space green - boiler rooms yellow - turbine / generator room Propulsion The Arizona class utilized a different style of propulsion compared to other contemporary battleships. Rather than the traditional turbine and shaft propulsion, designers instead opted for a turbo-electric drive, a style of propulsion used on older battleships and most famously on the aircraft carriers Lexington and Saratoga. In a turbo electric drive, boilers provide steam for turbines just as traditional drives do. However, the turbines are connected to generators which create electricity. Trough cables, this electricity is sent to electric engines. Previously, US designers had moved away from this style of propulsion due to its bulky and heavy nature. However this style of propulsion offers several benefits including: Rather than carry a separate turbine for reversing, the electric currents can be reversed and the engines simply reversed as a result. This allows a ship to reverse quicker and at higher speeds with a turbo-electric drive. The electric engines can be placed farther aft. This saves weight by eliminating the shafts while also reducing the vibrations caused by them. The lesser vibrations and reduced noise make the ship quieter and more comfortable with the crew. US designers also chose another novel setup with the propulsion system. The engine compartments were arranged with the boiler rooms being placed above the turbine/generator rooms. This design was chosen for two specific reasons. Increased the amount of space between the engineering rooms and the hull sides. This allows for better fuel storage and increased the availability of void space. As a result, the ship is more resistant to damage caused by gunfire and torpedoes. The close grouping of the boilers allowed all of them to be trunked into a single large funnel. A single funnel allowed the superstructure to be smaller and allow for better firing angles for the anti-air armaments. ​A benefit of the long hull of the Arizona class means that less power is needed to propel the ship. However, enormous power was still needed to propel the ship. At first, a power plant similar to the Iowa class was chosen. This was good to propel the Arizona class to 28 knots. However, several members of the board argued that a higher speed was needed. Carriers were valuable units and a battleship could provide these units with superior protection. To protect these units, speed was needed to keep up with them. Thus, after a lengthy deliberation, a maximum speed of 30 knots was settled on. A 300,000 horsepower power plant was needed to achieve these speeds. Feeding the engines of this ship required a good amount of fuel. The fuel bunkers on the Arizona class could carry enough fuel to allow the vessel to sail for 16,000 nautical miles. Like other US Battleships, the Arizona class carried two large rudders. The greater width of the vessel also allowed for the rudders to be spaced more widely apart. This in turn allowed the Arizona to achieve a turning circle just inside that of the Iowa class. Armament After the 18" guns were chosen, designers were then forced to chose other armaments. Secondary cannons were hotly debated for the longest time. At first it was assumed that the 5"/38 cannon would be used due to its ease of use and availability. 24 of these weapons could be carried with room to spare. Others argued for the more powerful 5"/54 cannons. The higher altitude capabilities of aircraft required a longer ranged cannon and so the 5"/54 was advocated for. However, a third party within the general board brought forth the issue that aircraft would continue to become faster and more agile. The 5" guns would have difficultly in tracking these aircraft. In addition, experience had shown the the Japanese favored nighttime attacks with destroyers and cruisers. A more powerful weapon was needed to engage these vessels before they could use their torpedoes. This party referenced an experimental gun being constructed for a new cruiser class. This 6" cannon was designed to be a fully functional dual purpose weapon. It would utilize an auto-loading mechanism to allow for a high sustained rate of fire. This weapon would be ideal for engaging light and medium warships while also providing a sizable wall of flak against attacking aircraft. After a lengthy deliberation, the 6"/47 DP guns were finally chosen. With the secondary weapons focused on surface warfare, the AA guns would be left to content more with aircraft. Therefore, the Arizona class was designed with a massive battery of AA weapons. 132 of the 40mm bofors were carried. A unique arrangement style was chosen. Half of the bofors were arranged a strategic locations about the ship. These weapons could cover vast areas around the ship. The other half were arranged in a dense battery in the center of the ship around the funnel. These bofors were more restricted in their firing arcs, but could combine their fire into a single dense cloud of AA shells. It was hoped that this would help compensate for the increasing elusiveness of attacking aircraft. A dense stream of AA fire was more likely to hit a target. In addition to the 40mm weapons, the Arizona class also carried 66 of the smaller 20mm Oerlikon cannons. These weapons, though not as powerful as the Bofors, were capable of causing damage and were relatively compact. These weapons were placed around key areas of the superstructure and in groupings on the main deck. These close groups of 20mm weapons allowed for easier distribution of 20mm ammunition and reduced the need for ammunition handlers. Finally, the ship itself was designed for better AA firepower. The single funnel and pyramidal bridge design allowed for better firing arcs of the AA weapons. It was hoped that by combining flexibility and great numbers of AA weapons, the battleships could provide unsurpassed firepower both offensively and defensively. (overhead view of the USS Arizona) Construction Amazingly, the first two vessels of the Arizona class were ordered within two weeks of the conclusion of the battle of Midway. Working night and day, designers were able to finalize the ships and have them presented to building yards in both New York and Virginia. Construction of the USS Arizona began on June 23rd, 1942 at the Norfolk Naval Yard. Her sister, USS Oklahoma, began construction only a week later at the Brooklyn naval yard. To speed up the building of these ships, a new method of construction was used. Components were built on the dock nearby and then craned into position on the ship itself. This style of construction, coupled with the urgency of building these behemoths, almost doubled their building speeds. Extensive use of welding was also employed, speeding up the process. Within 6 months, the hulls were completed up to the waterline. At 7 months, the engines were placed into the hull. At 9 months the hull was built up to the main deck. At 11 months, the main sections of the superstructure were attached to the hull. Within a year, the turrets were placed into their barbette cradles. A month later and the barrels were placed into their turrets. Within 14 months, the secondary battery was installed. In exactly a year and 6 months, the USS Arizona was launched from dry dock into the water. Within two months she was ready for trials. Trials (Arizona class Bridge) On a cold November morning, the massive bulk of the USS Arizona slowly glided out of the Norfolk Naval yard and ventured northwards into the bay. For the next two days, the ship conducted a number of trials in the south section of the Bay. A number of designers were on board. Many were breathless in anticipation for the results. A warship of this size was never constructed in such a quick amount of time. Furthermore, the ship was to be a naval icon to the people. The reputation of the warship rested on the results of these tests. First on the agenda were basic engine tests. For three hours, the ship was repeatedly ordered to steam forward then stop, reverse and then stop, and repeat all over again. The ship cleared the tests brilliantly. A designer on board recalled that, "The electric drives revealed themselves to grant great acceleration and stopping ability to the warship. The Arizona could quickly speed up to 20 knots, then stop within one half length of itself. When ordered too, the ship could reverse and hit speeds of 15 knots. The engines were remarkably quiet and didnt resist the sudden changes in speed or direction" Next came rudder and turning tests. Again the ship passed the tests with excellent results. The turning radius, though larger than most vessels, was still excellent for a vessel of its size. A gunnery officer recorded his own thoughts on the performance of the ship and remarked "When the order came for hard turn to starboard, the ship responded quickly. Even at 25 knots, the ship turned effortlessly. There was barely a hint of list as the ship brought itself around. The Arizona is an ideal gun platform." Others also noted the excellent stability of the battleship. The great beam and full bow provided a stable ride. The ship rode over waves effortlessly and did not slice into them as the Iowa class vessels often did. The Arizona would be just as at home in the stormy North Atlantic as she would in the Pacific oceans. Other tests came and went, but it was the final one that everyone waited for. Finally, in the last hours of the second day, the order was given for full speed ahead. One of the designers captured the moment, "The ship sat quietly then the order was given. Faint vibrations were felt as the ship's propellers bit the water with ferocity. At first she slowly picked up speed. But she went faster and faster. 23, 24, 25 knots. Soon she was surging down the bay, great waves forming off the bow. 26, 27, 28 knots. Everyone was dead silent as they listened to the speed announcements. 29 knots, 30 knots, 30.5 knots! At the last announcement the call came for reduced speed and the ship slowly came down to idle. A great cheer broke the air as crewmen and designers alike applauded the big ship." The Arizona then moved back into the naval yard. The trials were good, but more work was needed to complete the final fitting out of the vessel. Commissioning was rapidly approaching. In keeping with the vessel's motto, the Arizona was formally commissioned on December 7th, 1943. A great number of people came to witness the monster warship. Survivors of Pearl Harbor and even the President himself made an appearance. Newspapers recorded the triumphant day. Though World War 2 raged on, for a brief moment the people of the United States were confident that they were going to prevail and this ship was the one to end the war. For two more months, the Arizona completed trials in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Atlantic Ocean. All aspects of the ship were tested and the men trained on their new equipment. Initial testing had revealed the ships to be excellent vessels and unexpectedly, the US Navy had ordered two additional vessels to be laid down. Finally, in late March of 1944. The Arizona was joined by her newly ready sister, the USS Oklahoma. Together, they were to make their way to the Pacific where they would throw themselves into some of the fiercest battles of the Second World War. Too be continued in: Super Battleship U.S.S. Arizona (Part 2: World War 2 Service) Specifications Length - 1025' waterline length (1055' overall) Beam - 133' Draft - 36' Displacement - 78,000 tons standard, 86,000 tons maximum Propulsion - 10x boilers, 4x turbines, 4x generators, 4x electric engines to 4x shafts Speed - 30.5 knots Range - 16,000nm Armor - Belt - 16" Deck - 8+" Barbettes - 22" Turret Faces - 24" Conning towers - 12" Armament - 12x 18"/48 Mark 2 guns 20x 6"/47 Mark 16 guns 132x 40mm Bofors 66x 20mm Orelikon Aviation - 2x catapults 1x crane 6x Kingfisher or Seahawk aircraft Final Thoughts There you have it, a the first part of new story being laid down. I decided to try something a little different from the normal method of simply describing the ships. I wanted to tell a story of how these ships would serve in the latter parts of the Pacific Theater. The second part of the series is a lot of more interesting in my opinion, so I hope you all will enjoy it more than this boring development process In addition to these battleships, I also have an idea for a carrier and guided missile variant of the remaining two battleships. I created a poll so you can tell me which ship you would like to see first. I also have received many requests for new warship designs and ideas. Though it is difficult to do both the future fleet series and these older designs, I will start work on a new warship. The catch is you get to decide what ship that is via poll number 2. Some of the potential designs include: Alsace Class based design (My personal favorite suggestion) Enlarged Lion Class (A Super British Battleship) A new 1944/45ish Japanese Battleship (45,000 ton design perhaps?) Canadian Battleship? (Meh) Australian Cruiser design There are the 5 more interesting designs. Choose the one you want and I shall create it if your chosen ship wins. As always, I hope you enjoyed the topic. Feel free to leave a comment or suggestion below. Until next time sailors
  16. Improved Frigate Design (Future Frigate V2) Starting with the Frigate Design, I'm now introducing the secondary versions of the next generation ship designs. These designs differ from the previous generation in that they are improved in a multitude of ways including cost, firepower, overall design, etc, etc. Thoughts concerning these improvements come from both the author and the community at large. Today's topic concerns a next generation frigate. This particular design was created to solve the problems that have become inherent in the Freedom and Independence class LCS vessels. Trying to squeeze so much performance from such little vessels have resulted in an outrageous price tag for vessels that do not perform any better than the older Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (The argument can even be made that they are worse.) My original design was based on an enlarged Independence class vessel. After creating this first version of the vessel, I stepped back and looked at the design to discover areas that needed addressing. The first and foremost area that needed to be readdressed was the overall cost of the vessel. Admiral Zumwalt advocated for the use of cheap, easy to build vessels to balance out the cost of more expensive special units. I decided to use this method of thought to rebuild my line of vessels. How I rebuilt the Frigate: The first thing I did was ax the trimaran hull and opt for a more conventional hull. Though trimaran hulls are efficient, they are also extremely costly to produce. I instead chose to utilize a standard monohull. This would allow for cheaper costs and faster production. Next was a reduction in weaponry. The previous design included a 76mm Cannon, CIWs, RIM-116 Launchers, and Vertical Launch Systems. I reduced this to a single 76mm Cannon, a smaller compliment of Vertical Launch Cells, and three Gun/Missile CIW modules. This served to reduce costs and allow for greater amounts of internal volume. The New Product: The new ship design incorporates design elements from the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and the Freedom Class LCS. I sought to combine the ruggedness and reliability of the OHP class and technological elements from the Freedom class. The end result looked like this: The new frigate is designed to fulfill the roles of previous LCS ships and then some. It is designed to adhere to Zumwalt's idea of a cheaper, easy to produce vessel designed to provide escort services to both Naval fleets and convoys. Though the ship is designed to function as a multi-role vessel, special emphasis is placed on anti-submarine warfare. Several features help this vessel perform those roles, these features are listed below. Propulsion: The design utilizes several features to promote cost effectiveness and speed of construction. One of these features is the adoption of two General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines, the same as used in the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. These powerful engines allow the frigate to achieve LCS level speeds while also allowing for greater levels of commonality with other naval vessels. At 4600 tons, the vessel can achieve 40 knots thanks to its powerful engines. These engines provide power to three electric engines through an Integrated Power System or IPS. The electric engines provide power to three pump jets. The combination of IPS and pump jets allow for an extremely quiet vessel, helping it to better elude submarines. The added power also allows the vessel to easily maneuver around the fleet and overtake submarines. The vessel also incorporates a retractable thruster forward for added agility, helping the vessel perform in littoral environments. Protection: Protection is minimal on the vessel, with only minor kevlar protection over vital components. However, the vessels are designed to provide the same level of reliability and ruggedness as the Oliver Hazard Perry Class. Firepower: The primary firepower of this vessel is provided by a 48 cell Vertical Launch System. The primary missiles will generally be anti-submarine and anti-air missiles for normal escort work. Of course, land attack and anti-ship missiles can also be carried if needed. Gun based firepower is provided by a single 76mm OTO 76mm Super Rapid Cannon mounted forward. This weapon provides both anti-surface and anti-air firepower. The last weapon is a new invention. Called the Legionnaire System, this is a new Gun/Missile hybrid system designed to provide an expanded layer of protection against threats. The System is made up of two GAU/8 30mm cannons and two pods each housing 10x RIM-116 missiles. Thermal imagine and a self contained radar allow the system to engage a variety of threats. Combined rate of fire is 8400 rounds per minute. One issue with the system is that it requires a through hull mount to supply cannon ammunition. The last offensive weapons include helicopter aircraft. The large hanger can accommodate two full size SH-60 helicopters. These helicopters are invaluable in the anti-submarine role. Overview The vessel provides cheap, effective protection for more valuable vessels. In addition, it fulfills these roles while also still remaining a capable littoral combat vessel. Smaller operations like anti-piracy can also readily be performed by these vessels. Due to the effective performance and cheap cost, these vessels would likely make excellent vessels for export sales. Specs: Length- 455' Beam- 55' Draft- 19' Displacement - 4600 tons Compliment - 175 men Powerplant- twin LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines Speed- 40 knots Range - 5000 nautical miles Armament - 1x 76mm cannon, 3x 30mm Gun/Missile systems, 48x VL cells Aircraft - 2x SH-60 Final Word This vessel is the first of the completed series of next generation vessels. While all vessels will be redone to conform to this second series, some new vessels will also be added. My current line-up looks like so: Frigate (Anti-Submarine) Destroyer (Anti-Air) Cruiser (Anti-Surface) Battle-Cruiser (Heavy Anti-Air) Battleship (Heavy Anti-Surface) Light Carrier (Escort Carrier) Landing Ship (Heavy Landing Ship) Like always, these designs are posted on the google warehouse so you can download them and modify them as you wish. Also, be sure to leave a comment below and voice your thoughts. You can also head over to the design page to comment on the next designs. Until next time gents.
  17. Taking a break from my battleship to post what will be the first of a new series of designs. These are the successors to the original future fleet vessels, intended to be improvements (or in some cases complete redesigns) of the first generation vessels. We are starting off with one vessel that is a complete redesign, the Destroyer. I listened to your comments and thoughts, lets see if design 2 is more to everyone's liking! Future Fleet Destroyer: Round 2 Alright, in case anyone forgot, here is the original design from Generation 1. (Bleh...) Design Specs: Length - 505' Beam - 68' Draft - 25' Displacement - 11,500 tons (standard) 13,500 (Full) Speed - 30 to 32 knots Compliment - 300 (Full) or 225 (Peacetime) Sensors - Armament : 2x 5"/62 guns PVLS (128 tubes) RIM-116 missile Launchers (42 Missiles) 4x 20mm Phalanx CIWs Aircraft - 1x SH-60 Seahawk helicopter >LINK< Issues with the first design: Some issues people had with this design included: Issues with zumwalt inspired hull Dislike of the 5" weaponry Odd weapons layout What I did for Version 2 The first thing I did with the second design is completely start over. I looked at the strengths of the current Arleigh Burke Class destroyers and figured that it went against the grain to even try and build a new ship. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" So, my second design centered around the idea that instead of building a new ship, I would design a vessel that increased the attributes of the Already existing Arleigh Burke design. I would strengthen and improve all of the things that made the original Arleigh Burke vessels so effective. The second consideration was including the following attributes: Cost effective Ease of construction Good export vessel With these design criteria in mind, I first started with a standard hull similar to that used by the existing Arleigh Burke class.I lengthened the hull by 20' and widened it by 4'. This brings the vessels total dimensions to 525' by 70'. This increase in size was two fold, first it would increase sea keeping by reducing roll and allow for better interior capacity. The next issue to be resolved is the rather large top weight found in the Arleigh Burke class. To remedy this problem was rather simple. Due to the coming change to AESA radar rather than the current PESA radars, I was able to eliminate the radar panels and the tall superstructure needed to house them. The smaller AESA array can be carried up on a mast. The removal of the tall superstructure and relocation of the radar providing two immediate benefits: 1. Higher radar position equals longer range for the radar as it can better see over the horizon. 2. The loss of the large bridge structure removes top weight and reduces the roll that the vessel experiences. While the forward bridge was heavily modified, I kept the rear portion of the super structure the same as it was already effective as is. However, I did trunk both funnels into one relatively large funnel simply for the fact that it would reduce the radar cross section ever so slightly. Weapons The next design overhaul was to the weaponry. I did this portion of the design with the idea that the Ticonderoga class cruisers are slowly approaching the end of their service lives. With this in mind, I decided to utilize the larger ship size to accommodate an increased missile capacity. This vessel can carry the same number of missiles as the Ticonderoga class, 122x Vertical Launch Missile Cells. These are installed just like they are in the current Arleigh Burke design. While this design is optimized for the Air defense role, I also made sure that the vessel was just as effective as the current destroyers in performing multiple roles. So, after the missiles, I then looked at the main cannon armament. Rather than carry twin 5" guns from the previous design, I decided to revert to the current single gun design used in most destroyers. However, I still wanted to bump up the firepower. I decided to include the Advanced gun system currently installed aboard Zumwalt Class destroyers. My reasoning was that the 155mm gun not only increased firepower, but it also allowed for ammunition commonality with both the Zumwalt and my personal Cruiser design, potentially saving millions in cost and aiding logistics. BAE had already done testing on a lightweight version of the AGS for destroyer use, so it would not cost as much to actually implement the gun. Of course, the adoption of the AGS removes the 5" dual purpose gun from play, reducing anti-air firepower. To counter this, I removed the 20mm CIWs from the Arleigh Burke design and opted for larger 76mm rapid fire cannons. I placed four of these weapons onto the vessel, two fore and two aft. The OTO melara provides a high rate of fire with an expanded engagement range over the current 20mm Phalanx weapon. This larger engagement range would allow the vessel to better protect allied units over a large area, a trait important for an escort vessel. Lastly, the final weapon to round out the new destroyer is two Mk38 Bushmaster machine guns. These are carried over from the current Burke class to provide anti surface protection against small vessels. Propulsion Despite the enlarged hull, the longer length helps to counteract the negative effects. This design can still utilize the current power plant installed in the Arleigh Burke design and only loses about half a knot due to the larger size. However, the upside is that the larger hull allows for a slightly larger fuel load. The range of this destroyer should extend to roughly 5000 nautical miles at 20 knots. Version 1 vs. Version 2 (Pros and Cons) In a simple list, the benefits of the 2nd design over the first include: Cheaper design More seaworthy hull Better Multi-role capability Better Radar Coverage Better Weapons Layout On the other hand, some of the cons include: Lower speed and reduced range compared to Version 1 More visible on radar Cost While cost is hard to determine since it can be influenced by numbers of units built and whatnot. I estimate that this ship would fun about 20 to 40% more expensive per unit compared to the current Arleigh Burke design. Now with everything that has been said, I ask the readers to choose their preferred design in the included poll above, if every goes correctly and this refined design is chosen, I will then create the perfect final render. Destroyer Design #2 Length - 525' Beam - 70' Displacement - 10,250 tons 4x Gas Turbines, Integrated Propulsion System, two electric engines, two shafts, and two propellers Speed - 35/36 knots Range - 5000nm Weapons: 1x 155mm AGS, 4x 76mm Oto Melara Super Rapid cannons, 122x VL cells, 2x Mk38 25mm cannons. Aircraft carried - 2x SH-60 Helicopters Notes from the Author As I said, this will be the start of the 2nd Generation of fleet designs. I'm redesigning all the vessels to include all of the feed back that I have received from readers and other forum goers. I hope that people are happy with the changes. This design has been the 2nd biggest redesign after my frigate design. As always, I hope that everyone enjoyed the thread. Please comment below and if you would like to submit you input on this or other designs, please do so below or better yet send me a PM. Until Next time sailors *Keep in mind that this is another pre-render, if this design is more well received than the previous version, then I will redesign this model into a more detailed render*
  18. After so many design studies and smaller projects, I returned to designing another project for the future fleet study. This time, I looked into the creation of an advanced anti-air warfare vessel. A ship to provide the heaviest amount of firepower and carry a huge amount of missiles for extended coverage. Placing the design among my other vessels and looking into operations being conducted today, I looked at a vessel that could provide heavier firepower than my destroyer, but also have the advantage of extended operating time. I decided that reviving the concept of a battlecruiser might provide for the best option. So without further delay, let us begin. Advanced Anti-Air Warefare BattleCruiser Design The Design Phase Because the vessel was to be modeled after the concept of a Battlecruiser, I looked into the only comparable vessel at sea, the Russian Kirov class. Though expensive, problematic vessels that suffered from a confusing development program, they emerged as a formidable class of warships. Equipped with good electronics, sensors, and a vast array of weaponry, the represent the pinnacle of Russian power just like the super carriers for the United States. (Power of the Kirov Class) The main role of the Kirov class is anti-ship work, though they are outfitted with a number of anti-air and anti-submarine weapons as well. Due to their size, they can equip a large amount of weaponry. Since I was also seeking a large amount of weapon capacity, I began my design with the Kirov class as a basis. Using a hull 830' long by 95' at the beam, I had a large blank slate to begin working with. I first added a large superstructure in the center of the hull. This would house the vast array of electronics, radars, and other sensors. Next I began to work on propulsion. (plus the Anti-air capability of the Ticonderoga class Cruiser) (Finally the advanced electronics of the Type 45 class are added to the equation) Propulsion At first, I had believed that using a gas turbine propulsion would be the easiest and most cost effective method of providing power. However, I began looking into extended deployments of anti-air vessels, especially those engaged in ballistic missile monitoring or anti-ballistic missile warfare. Extended deployments like those monitoring North Korea's missile program (laughable as they currently are at the moment) are often directed around the monitoring vessel's ability to stay on station. Nuclear propulsion could allow for a vessel to operate for the same length of time as three vessels with gas turbines. This ability would actually save money as one vessel can fulfill the same role as three other ships. The second advantage of the nuclear propulsion set-up is that it allows the battlecruiser to match the vessels it escorts. I imagine this vessel being the primary escort for carriers or my battleship design, both nuclear powered. By also utilizing nuclear power, this vessel can easily keep pace with the larger vessels regardless of speed or duration. Lastly, a nuclear power plant offers a massive amount of reserve power. With the imminent arrival of laser based weaponry, the need for power is greater than ever. Because this ship is to be an anti-air warfare unit, it needs to readily adapt to the newest technology available. Nuclear power will allow it to accept newer weapons faster than smaller, less powerful warships like destroyers or cruisers. So, with those factors in mind, I chose nuclear propulsion. * A ship of this size using nuclear power would cost 600-800 million more per ship compared non-nuclear propulsion. However, operating costs are reduced. The amount saved is dictated by the service life of the ship. The nuclear propulsion will feed into an Integrated Power system. This power is fed into electronics, weapon systems, and the engines. Twin electric engines each drive their own shaft and screw. This system will allow the ship to reach speeds of 33-35 knots. Electronics With the abundance of power available, the ship is also able to better handle the most powerful electronics. This is important for a vessel design to operate in an anti-air role. With stealth aircraft and missiles reaching faster speeds, it is important for a vessel to be able to detect threats as soon as possible. The vessel will utilize the newest Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system currently in development. The system is reported to be 30 times more powerful than the AN/SPY series used in current AEGIS warships. The system is also benefited from its active scanning rather than the earlier passive scanning of the AN/SPY family of radars. Testing has also revealed that this new system also has the potential ability to perform electronic attacks. This would allow the radar to actually blind enemy aircraft, missiles, or ships. A system that has been seen on the F-22 Raptor. Though testing so far has failed to show how effective such an attack might be, the potential benefits should merit some investigation. Coupled with the advanced radar system is the Aegis combat system. Though older, the system has continued to receive many upgrades that have improved capabilities and reduced operating costs. The ship also makes use of a potent 3-D air surveillance radar system to further support the AMDR along with numerous tracking systems for the ships many weapons. Finally the latest in surface radar and sonar systems round out the package. Weapon Systems Unlike the Kirov class which has a more multi-role set-up of weapons, this class will focus on anti-air warfare. The removal of the large anti-ship missiles from the Kirov design offers tremendous space for additional anti-air weaponry. Seeing that missiles are the current weapon of choice for anti-air warfare, the battle cruiser carries a vast number of missile tubes, 736 to be exact. Depending on the choice of missiles, a maximum capacity of 2944 missiles can be carried. The standardized vertical launch tubes allow for a wide range of missiles to be carried such as the short range RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missile (27nm) , long range RIM-174 ERAM anti-air missile (130nm), and finally the RIM-161 anti ballistic missile and anti-satellite missile. Despite the ship's focus on anti-air warfare, the vessel can also utilize the ASROC anti-submarine missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the Tomahawks replacement, the LRASM. (RIM-161) While the vertical launch system provides the first two layers of anti-air coverage, the short range RIM-116 will provide the third and last layer of missile based defenses. The vessel carries 5 RIM-116 launchers with 21 missiles each for a total of 105 missiles. This weapons have a range of of 5.6 mi and are effective against aircraft and missiles alike. The fourth layer of anti-air defense is provided by the 76mm OTO melara cannon. Six of these weapons are arranged so that no fewer than 2 cannons can fire at any given target and on some approaches as many as five guns can lay down fire. Each gun is capable of firing at a rate of 120 rounds per minute. In addition to anti-air duties, these weapons will serve as the ships defense against close range surface threats. Finally, the fifth layer of defense is provided by a set of 20mm CIWs. These weapons are dual mounted with 8 separate mounts for a total of 16 20mm cannons. No matter the direction of attack, up to 6 mounts (12 cannons) can lay down fire on target. This equals a total of 54,000 rounds of 20mm shells per minute on a target. A pretty difficult obstacle for even the most advanced anti-ship weapons. Overall, this Five layer defensive screen is enough to provide a strong cover for any nearby vessels in addition to the ship itself. While anti-air warfare is the primary task of the vessel, it can also utilize its vast number of missile tubes to fulfill a secondary role as a floating battery. This fulfills the role of a arsenal ship that the navy looked into during the late 1990s. In this role, the ship waits off shore to provide immediate and sustained heavy fire support through its numerous missile tubes. Armor Being as the vessel is modeled after the concept of a battle cruiser, it will remain relatively not as protected as the future battleship. However, compared to most other modern vessels, the ship will still remain better protected. The superstructure is essentially an armored citadel. Armor thickness will measure up to 6" thick while a secondary kevlar spall liner will back-up the steel. During combat, all of the crew will reside within this armored structure. The power plant is also protected under this armor, ensuring that even should the ship take heavy damage, it should still be able to return to port with its intact engines. Outside of the citadel, the other heavily armored section of the ship is the missile bank.s They are heavily armored on the sides and bottom. This is to protect everything around them rather than the missiles themselves. Should a missile bank take a hit, the possible detonation of the missiles will have the blast directed up and away from the interior of the ship. The hull of the ship will have light steel armoring of up to 2" with additional backing around important areas like the engine shafts and the steering compartments. Outside of armoring, the ship will also have full NBC protection (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) and will feature extensive compartmentalization. Overall, light armoring compared to my battleship, but enough to ensure that it would go all HMS Hood in the event of a hit. How well can this ship function? At this point, the question remains on the feasibility and effectiveness of this ship design. While more expensive than an anti-air destroyer, it does provide better firepower and staying power. Its range allows it to easily keep pace with carriers or patrol for extended periods of time. I believe that as a surveillance ship, it would be greatly suited for such tasks. For operations like surveillance of North Korean missile tests or supporting operations like that in Libya, the battlecruiser design offers considerable potential. In the escort role, the ability to keep pace with carriers and battleships while also providing heavy cover is an advantage that is also very beneficial. (Pictured: Plenty of AA firepower) Lastly, as a floating missile platform, the battle cruiser could find itself very useful. The Battlecruiser can carry as many missiles as nearly 8 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, providing for an effective fire support vessel for less cost. For operations like that seen during the 2011 Libya intervention, the combination of a Battlecruiser and Battleship would have provided nearly all of the needed support for a fraction of the cost. Overall, despite the costs of the class, I believe that they could prove useful. I would suggest an initial build of 6 ships. This will allow for one ship to accompany the carrier force based in Japan, two based on the east coast of the US (Or one based on the east coast allowing the other one to be based with the sixth fleet in Italy), and the remaining three to be based on the west coast of the United States (Or Hawaii). In keeping with tradition of naming battle cruisers (Or large cruisers in keeping with another US tradition ) after territories, I would suggest naming it the Puerto Rico Class Specifications Puerto Rico Class Battlecruisers (CBGN-1 through CBGN-6) Type - Battlecruiser, guided missile, nuclear (Thus CBGN) Length - 830' Beam - 95' Draft - 31' Propulsion - Nuclear reactor, twin electric engine, twin screw Speed - 33-35 knots Range - Unlimited Compliment - 550 sailors Weaponry: 736x Vertical Launch tubes 6x 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapid cannons 5x RIM-116 Launchers 8x 20mm CIWs (Dual Mounts) Armor: Hull - up to 2" thick + Kevlar spall liner Superstructure - up to 6" thick + Kevlar spall liner Additional armor around reactor, engines, and steering Aircraft - 2x SH-60 Notes from the Creator * Though I called the ship a battlecruiser, I still designated it a "large cruiser" in keeping with US policy, hence the CB (Large cruiser designation) rather than BC (Battlecruiser) ** When I mention modern battleships, I specifically mean mine. As I design these vessels, I imagine them in a world where my other ship designs also exist. This was another design that immersed me into another area of warship design theory I had not explored. Namely electronics, radar systems, and western observations of the Kirov class vessels. Like the other projects, I greatly enjoyed this one for the educational benefits. That said, I hope you enjoyed the topic. Feel free to leave a comment in the comments below. Believe it or not, I do read through all the comments and make note of good pieces of advice. It is reader reviews that have led me to start redesigning the future destroyer and frigate designs. On the subject of future projects, my release schedule is as follows: H-44 class battleship render (Both original and modernized) Arizona class render (new design circa 1944) Possible submarine commission Redesign of Frigate Redesign of Destroyer Open for commission Once again, I hope you enjoyed the topic. Until next time gents
  19. Trimaran Assault Carrier Design Study Recently, I was researching the early designs behind the Wasp Class and America Class Amphibious assault ships of the United States Navy. (Wasp Class) (America Class) What I specifically looked at was the numerous problems involved with designing such vessels. Two major problems that were specifically mentioned in both designs included 1) Aircraft vs. Vehicle carrying capacity and 2) Aircraft handling on deck. I took these issues and attempted to resolve both through a new ship design. How I sought to address these issues is described in the following sections. Carrier or Landing Ship? One big issue surround nearly all amphibious assault ships is their intended role. Are they landing ships or are they aircraft carriers? Thus far, every navy attempting to build vessels of this class has debated this topic and for good reason. Depending on the selected main role will directly influence how the ship performs. An assault ship designed more along carrier lines will perform aviation roles better while its landing abilities will suffer. Ships designed to better support landing operations have lesser aircraft handling abilities. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US. The Wasp class vessels were designed to better support landing units, thus when the US navy then began to place more emphasis on aircraft, the class wasn't able to provide as well. Fast forward to the newest America class vessels. The first ship of the class, the USS America was specially designed for aircraft operations. While they have the capabilities of a light carrier, they lost their well deck and much of their equipment carrying ability. Already issues with the first vessel, the USS America ,has caused the Navy to now rethink its strategy. Future America class vessels are now to be redesigned to carry a well deck. Better Aircraft Handling The Second issue with amphibious assault ships is their ability to handle aircraft. Unlike fleet carriers, assault carriers have less deck space yet need to handle large helicopters rapidly. As jet aircraft have entered the mix, handling both types of aircraft at the same time on a busy deck has become extremely difficult. Helicopters are being loaded, launched, and recovered in close vicinity to powerful jet aircraft that are being launched, recovered, and rearmed. Performing all of this on a single deck is both difficult and dangerous. During initial design phases of the Wasp and America classes, the US Navy discovered that having twin decks would be ideal for assault carrier operations. One deck would be placed on each side of the superstructure. One deck would be optimized for aircraft, while the other would be optimized for helicopter operations. This allowed aircraft to operate on their respective decks with greater freedom. However, cost issues restricted the Navy to one deck, thus hampering aircraft operations. Designing a vessel to rectify these problems I set out to design a vessel capable of resolving known issues while also strengthening other potential problems. I sought to create a vessel that was to have the following aspects to its design: Able to handle aircraft and carry vehicles equally well Utilize the twin deck design to optimize aircraft handling Ability to carry a full Marine expeditionary Unit. Take into consideration the threats of operating in a littoral combat area Increased cargo capacity Ability to operate as a headquarters / sea control vessel The first hurdle with this design was incorporating the twin deck idea from earlier assault ship designs. Supporting two decks on a monohull decreases stability and makes the ship roll more. In turn this affects how well the vessel can manage aircraft on deck. I remedied this by utilizing a trimaran hull. This hull style with its outer hulls increases stability and provides support to the flight decks. Another big benefit of this hull design is that it allows for a massively increased flight deck, allowing for more aircraft to operate on the deck at a given time. Most importantly, it allows for each deck to better handle jet aircraft or helicopters separately. The increase in hull volume also allows for greater amounts of aircraft, vehicles, and equipment to be carried. This design utilizes three large internal hangers. The first is an aircraft hanger located under the flight deck. It is large enough to accommodate even the large V-22 Osprey aircraft. Fore and aft of the hanger are elevators used for carrying aircraft to the flight deck. Directly under the aircraft hanger is an auxiliary hanger. This hanger is sandwiched between the aircraft and well deck hangers. This hanger has a elevator at the front connecting it to the lower well deck while the rear end houses another hanger running to the aircraft hanger above. This allows the hanger to carry either vehicles or aircraft depending on the role of the ship. In a landing role, the hanger will carry more vehicles and equipment, while in the light carrier role the hanger can carry additional aircraft. ​Finally below the auxiliary hanger is the well deck and well deck hanger. This hanger carries the heaviest vehicles (Generally tracked vehicles) and carries the landing craft. The well deck can carry 3 LCAC units, 12 landing craft, or 40 LVT-7 amphibious vehicles. (LCAC or Landing Craft Air Cushion) The carrying capacity of this vessel is dependent on its role. LANDING CONFIGURATION - this vessel can carry a full Marine expeditionary unit of 2200 men and their equipment instead of the partial 1900 men of previous vessels. The vehicles of the Marine unit are also carried, this includes 5 M1 Abrams tanks, 25 AAVs, 8 howizters, 70 trucks or other vehicles with space still left over. The air group would consist of 8 F-35s, 6 Super-cobra gunships, 12 V-22 Ospreys, 6 Ch-53 heavy lift helicopters, and 4-6 UH-1 or SH-60 helicopters. VEHICLE TRANSPORT - Should the vessel be required to carry vehicles only, the massive hangers can carry a large variety of vehicles. The well deck hanger can carry 40 M1 Abrams main battle tanks, 50 Bradley vehicles, 50 LVT-7 amphibious vehicles, or any combination of thereof. The auxiliary hanger above can then carry a wide variety of smaller wheeled vehicles. Aircraft can still be carried in the top hanger while three LCACs rest in the well deck. LIGHT CARRIER - In this role with the auxiliary hanger utilized for aircraft, the vessel can carry 40 F-35 aircraft, 4 V-22 Osprey, and 6 SH-60 helicopters. The Ospreys can be removed for additional F-35s, but with recent interest in V-22 refueling craft, they could fulfill a crucial role in carrier operations. In addition, further configurations can be tailored to fulfill other roles including ANTI-SUBMARINE, DISASTER RELIEF, SPECIAL OPERATIONS, and more. In addition to the internal hangers, the ship also includes a greater amount of internal space for a larger hospital and accommodations for 2200 marines. Due to the vessels ability to land units on shore, it needs to have the capability to survive being so close to the action. Unlike carriers, assault carriers operate much closer to threats. As such, they need to have sufficient firepower to quickly counter threats. As such, this class of warships are heavily armed. Their weaponry includes: ​​x1 155mm AGS x2 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapid cannons x2 RIM-116 Launchers x4 CIWs 20mm x192 Vertical launch tubes The ship is also outfitted to act as a headquarters vessel during operations. It contains a Combat information center, control room, as well as space for commanders / admirals and their staff. What this vessel offers This vessel offers several benefits over current assault ships. It is larger and more capable compared to previous vessels. It can easily handle aircraft and landing units. Such a vessel might actually serve as a cheaper alternative to the larger super-carriers for a variety of rolls. The role that this vessel would excel in would likely be fighting smaller skirmishes and special operations. Feasibility compared to current vessels While its easy to make something superior to another, feasibility of such a design is often the biggest issue. Comparing this vessel to the America class reveals a number of feasibility issues. While greatly superior to previous assault ships, the costs are also greater. Is the greater performance worth the extra costs? The second major issue is size. To achieve the desired performance, the ship expands in size. Its waterline beam of 150' prevent it from utilizing the Panama canal. While recent operations have shown the Panama canal to not be as important as it once was, the ability to transit the canal is still a nice benefit. So are the benefits of the design outweighed by the costs? You decide in the included poll. Assault Carrier Specifications Length - 850' Beam - 150' Displacement - 55,000 to 60,000 tons Powerplant - 2x gas turbine engines and 2x auxiliary electric engines Speed - 25 knts Range - 12,000 miles Compliment - 1150 sailors Troops - 2200 Marines Armament 1x 155mm AGS 2x 76mm OTO Melara Superrapid 2x RIM-116 Launchers 4x 20mm CIWs 192x Vertical Launch tubes Final Thoughts Like all of the other design studies, this one has once again showed me that designing something better is not a simple matter. For every change, no matter how small, often changes crucial aspects of a design, whether it is cost, size, combat ability, etc. Along these lines, it's easy to see why ship design has remained relatively the same for the past couple decades. Cost has remained the biggest issue and as such as hampered truly innovative designs. Unless war or a truly ground breaking design comes along, it seems that newer more expensive designs will not be as easily justified. Feel free to debate this though below and provide your input below. As always, I hope that you enjoyed the topic. My next project will include an advanced battle cruiser design. Feel free to comment on the battle cruiser design at the Warship Design Bureau homepage. Stay tuned for further updates. Until then, fair winds and calm seas friends.
  20. While I was supposed to be working on the Assault Carrier Design, I had to take a detour to contend with a certain issue. The problem is that as of late, my Inbox has become flooded with requests for a modernized Iowa class Battleship. Either people are of the opinion that the ships can still see service, or they simply want to know what one could look like. So, to free myself from this nonsense, I begrudgingly present: Return of the Iowa Class 2014 Now, unlike my other projects that I have a greater amount of freedom for design, I found that the Iowa class heavily limits my ability to change the design. So, I was forced to design a ship and attempt to keep it as realistic as possible. I started by taking the USS New Jersey as it currently sits now. I stripped the 5"/38 guns from the vessel as well as the missile launchers. Also, keeping in mind the lost #2 turret on board the USS Iowa, I decided to remove the 2nd turret completely from all ships. Having a stripped down hull, I began adding more modern weapons. The barbette of turret #2 made a perfect spot to mount a new Vertical Launch system. I could squeeze in 114 missile tubes without needing to alter the hull in anyway as they fit perfectly into the vacant barbette. This provides 66 additional missiles compared to the old 1980s scheme of 48 missiles total. The vacant space left over from the removed 5" guns was taken over by six brand new OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid mounts. With a rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, these weapons will make excellent anti-air and anti-surface weapons. Once again, I was able to easily fit them into the hull with no major changes. Their placement allows for excellent coverage all around the ship. Close in weapon was changed up a bit too. The original 20mm Phalanx weapons remained as they were, but they are joined by three RIM-116 launchers. Taking over space left by the previous missile system, the launchers fit in quite nicely. This overall defense scheme provides for a system that is second to none among modern naval vessels today. Besides weapons and the likely update of electronics on board the ship, I did not mess with either the armoring or propulsion aspects of the ship. My reason for this being that if the Navy did for some reason recommission the Iowa class, they would not waste the money tearing apart those systems. Thus I refrained from doing the same. As they are however, the Iowa class will likely be the most armored vessel afloat with speed matching that of the swiftest vessels. Overall, for whatever reason the vessel might be recommissioned, I believe that it could fulfill the needed role rather well. Is the Design Feasible (Will the Iowa class ever be recommissioned?) To put it simply, the answer is.... NO The Iowa class is old and no matter the weapons or electronics you slap on it, it is going to remain dated.The only real thing they could bring to the table are their 16" weapons, but even they have their disadvantages. Giant explosive weapons like them have found themselves discarded in favor of precision weapons for the most part in US combat doctrines. Should massive explosions for a shock and awe campaign be needed, we have plenty of other weapons for that. In addition, the power plant of the Iowa class is also a major weakness. The ships can only generate so much electricity. With the world finding itself on the threshold of lasers and rail guns, the Iowa's power plants are just not up to the task of supplying the needed power. In fact, many current electronic systems would push the boundaries of the Iowa's capabilities. While possible to replace the engines, the money needed to perform such an act could be better used elsewhere. I would estimate that a modern Iowa class battleship could enjoy all of 10 years of usefulness before it is completely outclassed by single destroyers mounting 155mm Railguns. Overall, the entire design is dated for the most part. Weaponry, electronics, propulsion systems are not the only things to have advanced over the years. Smaller things like hull construction have also greatly improved over time. Using modern technology, one could build a battleship the size of the Iowa class, but have it perform many times more efficiently. Lastly, without even touching issues like faults in the hull or other issues stemming from neglect, there is the argument that the Iowa class should just be left alone. The old girls have already performed decades of stellar service. While they were the best battleships ever built, their time has come and gone. It is only fitting to let them rest quietly rather than retool them for a role in which a modern vessel could perform better. For that reason, I will place my support behind a modern battleship rather than the Iowa class. NOTES *If this seems like a lesser model from me, it is because it is a lesser model from me. I whipped this design up in about an hour. While I would enjoy doing a fantastic design, I was really getting tired of numerous requests. Seeing as how the Iowa modernization project would take place 3 designs from now, I did not want to wait that long and slapped together the project now. ** Before you ask, no I will not do a design if we completely tore the Iowa class down to make it truly modern. It isn't realistic and I can safely say that it will never happen. Therefore, there is no point in doing it. *** Despite everything I have said, I truly hope that you enjoyed the topic and were mindful of my arguments regarding the feasibility of recommissioning a modern Iowa class battleship. Please feel free to leave a comment below or if you feel the need to rant and rave about how I am wrong and the Iowa class can serve today, please PM me so I can more easily ignore it. **** If you have an idea for a new warship and you would like to see it come to life, please send me a message and we can work something out. I enjoy creating these designs and like new challenges. I can do modern warships, older warships, just about anything. You can also stop by the warship design bureau home page to also suggest your own design or just kick back there. Until next time sailors!
  21. One of the latest ships that I was requested to build was an Aircraft carrier. Originally, I had no intention of designing one as I like to focus on ships that I can actually improve upon. But, due to the request, I decided to give it the good old college attempt. The results of the design study should prove to be a lesson in ship design. That said, let us get started. MODERN CARRIER DESIGN STUDY So having been presented with the issue of improving the concept of carrier design, I looked at current carriers and any potential issues that they have. A few things current carriers are pushing for are better aircraft handling on deck, faster launching speeds, and better protection. I sought to improve aircraft handling and launching by readopting the design of multiple deck carriers. At the beginning of carrier design, the multiple deck carriers were liked due to their ability to directly launch aircraft from the hanger deck. There were able to rapidly launch aircraft from the lower decks while recovering aircraft from the top deck at the same time. However, as aircraft got heavier they became incapable of being launched in this fashion. Due to this, carriers switched over to the single deck style common even up to today. (HMS Courageous with two flight decks) (IJN Akagi with her distinctive triple flight decks) Due to improved catapults, I believed that this might once again permit the return of a multiple deck carrier. In turn, this should allow for an improvement of aircraft handling on deck and faster launching. This would be achieved by having aircraft primarily launch from the hanger flight deck, while leaving the upper deck free to recover aircraft or handle other things like rotary aircraft. In effect, both decks would be focused on a single activity. (The Nimitz class carriers of today, still utilizing the traditional single deck layout) However, the first problem with multiple deck carriers is that it eats up precious deck space. I did not want to lose any space over current carrier designs. To maintain deck space, I lengthened and widened the ship. At 1200' long and 155' at the beam, the ship is larger than the Nimitz class at 1098' and 134'. While the larger size brings its own problems like docking, access to dry dock, or navigation, I was still able to achieve a similar sized flight deck. Due to the multiple deck design, the upper deck is much more open and less clustered compared to the Nimitz class. In fact, aircraft handling my enjoy up to a 40% improvement over the Nimitz class since they don't have to deal with aircraft also moving towards the launching area. (Size comparison between this and a Nimitz class) Since aircraft can be launched straight out the hanger, they also do not have to sit out on the deck as much as aircraft do on the current carriers. This reduces their exposure to corrosive salt spray and reduces maintenance on them as a result. On the subject of maintenance, the larger design allowed me to include a larger, roomier hanger over the Nimitz class. This provides better access to aircraft as well as making the ship capable of accepting larger aircraft should that be required. Finally, on the subject of protection, the design includes several changes. First the layout out of the ship is a bonus in itself. Due to aircraft being able to launch from the hanger, less aircraft have to remain on deck thereby reducing the amount of fuel and explosives carried in the open. The Japanese learned the dangers of vulnerable aircraft left out on the deck the hard way during the battle of Midway. Aircraft inside the hanger are also protected by a heavily armored hanger that is shielded from the outside by heavy blast doors when in combat. The larger size of the ship also provides a bonus in that it grants greater reserve buoyancy, allowing to soak up more damage before finally succumbing. Greater compartmentalization can also be utilized, improving resistance to damage. Finally, combining the advantages of Integrated propulsion with nuclear reactors offers a much safer, more reliable power plant compared to previous carrier designs. Finally, in addition to improved passive defenses, active defense systems are also improved. I installed three weapon systems on board the ship to provide a thorough defensive screen. The weapons systems include the improved dual 20mm Close in weapon systems, the RIM-116 RAM launcher, and the inclusion of a Vertical missile launch system, a first for a carrier. This removes the need for the 8 cell sea sparrow launchers from older carriers, allowing for a greater variety of missiles to be carried as well as more of them. The primary missiles will be the RIM-162 ESSM and RIM-174 Standard ERAM. This will allow the ship to effectively increase the engagement range over previous carriers. Targets within 130nm of the carrier will be targeted by the RIM-174, within 27nm they are then engageded by the RIM-162, within 5nm the RAM launchers come into play, and finally the last approach to the carrier is covered by 20mm CIWs. Total weapons are as follows: x96 VLS cells x5 RIM-116 Launchers x6 Dual 20mm CIW mounts Design Feasability Now that every thing is all said and done, the question comes into play about the feasibility of this design. Despite having done all of this to create a carrier that in theory is superior to the current crop of carriers, oddly enough I believe that the answer is NO. Despite the possible improvements, I believe that this design is unfeasible for two primary reasons. 1) Size to air wing ratio. Studies have shown that the maximum air wing for a carrier is 100 aircraft or less. Any more and it becomes difficult for the carrier to control so many aircraft. While increasing the size of this design provides some benefits, the fact that no additional aircraft can be carried seems to diminish the benefits. 2) I believe that larger carriers will loose their importance. Advances in technology are drastically altering naval combat and I believe that the carrier is going to be the hardest hit. Once rail guns become widely available, I believe that carriers will become second tier for ship to ship engagements. However, I do not think carriers will lose their ability to support land operations. For that reason, I do not see carriers going anywhere anytime soon. So what is the Ideal carrier Design? If this design is not feasible, then what is? I believe the answer is simple enough. I believe that the United States has pushed carrier design as far as its going to go. The USS Enterprise represented the pinnacle of carrier evolution. The fusion of nuclear propulsion, effective air wing, and good design created an ideal carrier. Furthermore, it helped set the limitations of carrier design. The following Nimitz class was not a complete redesign, but an improvement over the Enterprise basis. Further issues have been resolved with the arrival of the Gerald R. Ford class carriers. Each modern carrier design is improving the design set down by the first. I doubt that there will truly be a new carrier design, but rather further improvements to current designs. The Gerald R. Ford class is set to show off the ideal blend of carrier traits. It is the best size to handle the required air wing while managing them to the best of its abilities. Any major additions to improve certain characteristics like aircraft handling will likely result in detriments to other areas. In that regard, I believe the Ford class to be more feasible than mine. Carrier Design in my Future Fleet Project? Due to the lack of feasibility in this design study, I am effectively without a carrier in my project. However, that is not so bad as I believe that the Ford class would be ideal to fulfill that role. On carriers however, I am not quite done. I believe that improvements can be made to the light carrier field. Escort, anti-submarine, and attack carriers could prove to be a valuable addition to the already standard fleet carriers in service. For that reason, my next project is centering around an improved assault carrier designed to fill the above roles. Something that will more than make up for my inability to create a new fleet carrier. For information or suggestions on the Assault carrier project, swing into the Design Bureau homepage. I hope you enjoyed the topic and took the lessons in ship design to heart, especially the idea of ideal size and blending for the best combination of features. Until next time
  22. Thus far I have introduced frigates for anti-submarine, destroyers to provide anti-air, and even cruisers for anti-surface warfare. That would generally be enough to equip most navies. However, what if a navy needs to bring in some heavy firepower? What if they need to make a statement? What if taking out land targets is not enough and one would want to simply level the whole damn area? Well, I gave thought to the matter and decided to design a ship to perform all of those things. And what ship would perform those roles as well as a Battleship? So, for my fourth design, I'm bringing in the big guns and debuting a modern battleship ready to take command of the seas. So without further delay, let me introduce my newest topic: FUTURE FLEET PROJECT: THE BATTLESHIP What we Have now: (Or more appropriately what we had) Iowa Class The only thing close to a modern battleship were the four ships of the Iowa class. Having served into the early 1990s, the Iowa class ships operated for a long time. Perhaps even more remarkable was that they served as well as they did despite the changing technology of the times. Attempts were made to modernized the ships to bring them up to spec, but such efforts can only continue for so long. Despite their age and technological issues, the Iowa class enjoyed one of the best, if not the best, service lives among battleships. Beyond the anti-surface role, they proved themselves while escorting carriers using their immense firepower. They used their heavy cannons to provide unparalleled firepower when striking land targets. Indeed, during World War II, Japanese civilians reported that shelling by battleships was more terrifying that air attack due to the lack of warning and the unrelenting destruction that followed. This trend continued during the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and even Iraq. Where ever the battleships sailed, they effectively controlled the surrounding area. Their big guns could be called in at a moments notice and their ability to cause destruction was enjoyed by allies and feared by enemies. In Iraq, the threat of heavy firepower caused Iraqi soldiers to immediately throw down their arms and surrender when they heard the targeting drone overhead. Despite this enormous potential, the Iowa class battleships were retired in the 1990s. IN regards to future needs for firepower, the Navy had two ships maintained in case they needed to be reactivated. However, in 2006, the last battleship was finally removed from this agreement and the Navy found itself without a battleship. What the Problem is The retirement of the Iowas and the aftermath is what is puzzling. Despite the excellent performance of these ships and the vital role they provided throughout their service lives, nothing rose up to take their place in the naval gunfire role. Despite the many calls for improvements to gunfire support, arguments from opposing factions generally over rid any attempts. The carrier crowd claimed aircraft can fulfill the role better, the air force claimed that friendly nations would allow aircraft to operate on their turf, eliminating the need for naval support, even the navy believed that naval gunfire was unneeded for landings when the trend went to long range, high speed landings. This would eliminate the need for gunfire support as units would launch outside the range of enemy fire. (Such a thought led to the mess pictured above) However, improvements made to anti-ship missiles and cannons increased the engagement range and made it impossible for forces to launch outside of them. Once again, we find ourselves at that point where we have to engage in a slug fest with the enemy to effectively land units. Outside of landings, the need for effective on-call firepower remains as important as ever and current methods won't cut it. Several attempts have been made to try and fix this problem including more heavily armed destroyers. (Good Idea, but not further pursued) (Good Idea, wrong direction entirely) While the idea of increasing firepower is a step in the right direction, the concept of using current ships is wrong. Current ships like the Zumwalt design are hampered by the fact that they are designed to perform too many roles. The navy appears to have forgotten the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none." What is needed for the future is a warship that is designed from the keep up to provide heavy firepower. Everything else is second tier. What the navy needs is a heavily armed and armored warship. Something that can take punishment and dish it out ten-fold. Rather than an elegant boxer with a glass jaw, a bruiser who loves a good slug-fest is needed. Such a ship might be bloodied in such a fight, but the opponents can't take solace in that fact because they will in all likely hood be annihilated. (A ship that can sail through here, slinging shells with one hand while also flipping off the people on shore with the other) Simply put, the need is for a warship that exists only for one purpose: to rain destruction down upon people in similar to that of Mel Gibson on his wife. What I did to create such a ship I started by designing a new battleship from the ground up that would function in the modern world and for a considerable period in the future. I utilized all of the features of the best battleships and took lessons from the Iowa class as they were perhaps the greatest battleships service-wise. Starting with the hull, I took the Iowa class hull and modified it, essentially turning it into a new design. Length, draft, and beam are all similar, but the width of the hull has been extended forward, eliminating the poor hull volume of the Iowa class. This feature would also serve to increase sea-worthiness as well as increase survivablilty due to more buoyancy. From this hull, I added a large superstructure. While I strove to keep the ship stealthier, I took care not to impact the performance in any way. Stealthiness takes second stage to firepower. The large superstructure is designed to accommodate the latest in radar systems. Not only the latest, but also carry multiple systems of varying types. This will ensure that the ship can easily track any target. The superstructure was also enlarged in order to allow the ship to carry a large command center. This will enable the ship to function as an effective flagship for fleets and as a command ship for landing operations. Firepower 12"/55 Mark 9 Main firepower is provided by six 12"/55 cannons in two three-gun turrets. This Mark 9 model is a complete overhaul of the older 12"/50 found on the Alaska class. Improvements include longer barrel for improved velocity as well as a barrel lining in improve barrel life. Shell loading and handling is completely automated, bringing the rate of fire up to 5-6 shots per minute per barrel. In addition, the shells will also be of a newer generation in order to take advantage of all current technology. This will include improved Armor piercing and high explosive shells. Extended range shells will also be included. The option to take the 12" cannon over the previous 16" guns of the Iowa class was a subject of intense research. Though lacking in overall power, the 12" guns allow for a faster rate of fire and are cheaper to operate. They also are more easily converted to automated handling systems than the larger, bulkier 16" guns. Simply put, the 12" guns do 90% of what the 16" guns do for 60% of the price and effort. Mark 57 PVLS A healthy compliment of missile tubes are also carried on this warship. 192 cells to be exact. Though they can carry a variety of missiles, the most common will likely be the tomahawk cruise missile to compliment the cannons in the shore bombardment role. The tubes will also carry a number of anti-air missiles for protection. These will include the long range RIM-174 ERAM and the short range RIM-162 ESSM. Four RIM-161 ESSM missiles can be loaded into each cell, bringing the battleships total missile capacity up to a potential 768 missiles. OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid Cannon The secondary Battery is made up up eight OTO Melara 76mm Rapid fire guns. These guns can fire at a rate of 120 rounds per minute per gun, engaging both air and surface targets. The larger round allows for an increased engagement range over current CIWs weaponry. When not in use, these weapons can be retracted into the hull to increase the overall stealthiness of the warship. RIM-116 Launchers Additional close range missile protection is provided by four RIM-116 launchers. These launchers are positioned at all sides of the ship, providing excellent all around firepower. The launcher can engage a variety of incoming anti-ship missiles out to 5.6 mi using its rolling airframe missiles.The system has thus far proven to be extremely effective in its intended role. Like the cannons, the RIM-116 launchers are retracted into the ship when not in use. 20mm Phalanx CIWs Emergency close range protection is provided in the form of six 20mm Phalanx cannons. These are the last line of defense for the battleship, providing protection against missiles and small craft. Future Weapons Currently, we find ourselves at a time when the next generation of naval weapons are upon us. As such, this ship is designed to easily accommodate the latest in technology such as rail guns and laser weaponry as soon as possible. Armor Like previous battleships, this design is intended to withstand punishment. Protection is provided by an improved version of an internal armored belt. The main belt is made up of armor up to 13" thick. Outside of this belt is a secondary layer of armor that provides a stand-off barrier. Between these layers is a void space that is honey-combed. This honey comb design increased structural strength over earlier internal belt designs. In addition, it solves the problem of water spilling into the void space, keeping damage contained within the affected cells while preserving the rest of the ship. (Armor Belt Illustration Red: Main Armor Belt. Blue: Honey-comb encompassed void-space. Green: Stand off secondary belt.) Deck armor is accommodated within a single thick layer of 7.5". Vital parts of the ship are further protected by armored boxes backed by Kevlar layers to act as spall liners. Finally, the conning tower is heavily protected by 17" of Kevlar back steel. During combat, all of the crew will operate this ship from the safety of this heavily protected citadel. Propulsion This Battleship will be the very first to utilized a nuclear propulsion. The reason for this is the need to provide enough juice to power all of the ships systems. This will be extremely important as rail guns and laser based weapons come into play. In addition, the nuclear power allows the ship to steam at high speeds for long periods, a nice feature for when the ship needs to be called into position to administer a dose of metal rain. The power plant will two B2B nuclear reactors. B2B standing for Battleship, 2nd Generation, Bechtal Marine Propulsion. These reactors will generate steam which will power turbines. The tubrines then generate electricity which is sent throughout the ship by way of an integrated power system (IPS). Four Permanent Magnet Motors (PMM) each drive their own screw. This allows the ship to reach speeds up to 33 knots. Specifications Displacement: 40,000 tons standard / 52,000 tons maximum load Length: 880' Beam: 108' Draft: 35' Propulsion: 2x B2B Nuclear Reactors / 4 Electric Motors / 4 Screws Speed: 33 Knots Range: Unlimited Compliment War: 1,000 / Peace: 750 Armament: 6x 12"/55 cannons 8x 76mm OTO Melara RF guns 6x 20mm Phalanx CIWs 192x Mark 57 missile cells 4x RIM-116 Launchers (84 Missiles) Renders (Rough) (Rear) (Above) (Above Front) (Above) (Closeup of Secondary weapons) Thoughts Overall on Design Overall, this has been my favorite design. I think it is a solid design, that would definitely have its role in the current scheme of things. If anything, throwing a battleship into the pacific would definitely throw the naval higher ups of nations such as Russia and China into disarray as they scramble to provide a suitable response. The vessel would provide an excellent demonstration of naval power as well as function as an excellent fleet flagship or high power carrier escort. Of course, it would function most ably as a shore bombardment vessel. Both in on call strikes and as a powerful shock and awe weapon. I predict that as rail guns and lasers make their debut in naval warfare, we will see a decline in carrier power, setting the stage for other warships to rise again. Such weapons on board this vessel would make a monster, however even with current weapons this battleship would be a force to be reckoned with much like its forerunners. On the subject of names and number built, I would suggest four ships. Two for Atlantic and Pacific Fleet service. Or if need be, one ship could operate in the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets, while the other two can be forward deployed to Japan and Italy with their respective fleets. I would name the four ships: Arizona: to commemorate the Arizona lost at Pearl Harbor Montana: Only one of the lower 48 states to not have their own battleship Texas: Named for the First Battleship (Unfortunately, a sub has this name at the moment ) Maine: Named for the Second Battleship (Another sub has stolen the name x2) Feel Free to suggest new names for the 3rd and 4th Ships, anything works. Overall, I would name the class, the Dreadnought Class as a homage to the return to big gun warships and to the original HMS Dreadnought, a historical nod if you will. Notes from the Creator I hope you all enjoyed this series of design threads I posted. I know I am not a naval expert, so everything I design is based on history and opinion. Take it as you will. I originally set out to complete four new designs: Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship. Once I finished those, then I would leave for some other endeavor. However, responses to my threads have been overwhelmingly positive and many people have messaged me about future designs. Should people have any ideas about potential designs or other projects, feel free to message me or suggest it in the comments section. I would enjoy to collaborate on future projects. That being said, I hope you all enjoyed the topic and the series overall as much as I enjoyed creating them. Please comment below and let me know what you think? Until next time sailors