Shipbucket

Apparently, there is some sort of beneficial suction effect if you're pulling rather than pushing.

So I'm trying out a ducted push-pull azimuth thruster setup. How does this look? I deliberately left it unshaded for ease of editing.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

that long duct is not going to be very efficient. in addition, I really doubt ducted propellers would be an good idea around ice (if something gets stuck in a ducted propeller, it really gets stuck!)

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

In fact, many recent-ish icebreakers have featured kort nozzles.

I cant comment on the hull shape, not being specialized in IBs, but the design is interesting and I would like to know more about what you have in mind for the upper hull in terms of equipment and layout. I'm curious about the weapons/sensors fit you have in mind for the mixed role, as well as the helicopter and boat facilities. I guess you'll get to that later on?

Regarding the concept and its feasibility: does your AU allow for a joint program with, say, Canada or Norway, to reduce the building costs? What about a modular propulsion for a non-nuclear variant?

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

Kort nozzles are something else then the complete tube drawn here
(I had not yet seen them on icebreakers though, interesting.....)

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

Ditching the push-pull idea and going with more conventional ducted azimuth thrusters. I tried two shading schemes, one adapted from BB1987's Halsey and one from HeuHen's Sandefjord, the latter of which I think is more appropriate for an IB.

As a baseline, it'll have all the standard IB equipment, including cranes and high-powered searchlights. In addition to navigation radars and such, I plan to employ LIDAR to scan the hardpack in front of the vessel and detect things such as large pressure ridges from a distance at night.

As for the mixed role, I would like to have something like a modular barbette socket on the superstructure, capable of fitting a 57mm and magazine in drydock, though this would not be a typical configuration. I'm also interested in seeing if there is a sensor that can scan ISO containers for stowaways from alongside a vessel, for the anti-trafficking role. Unfortunately, the best fit so far is gamma radiography, which has the nasty little side effect of possibly harming the folks you're trying to help.

The vessel will be capable of carrying two native helos with two corresponding hangars and aviation facilities. It will also carry both life rafts and RHIBs, with the ability to deploy embarked MSRT or VBSS teams.
The AU nation in question has a GDP multiple times larger than that of the United States, so there isn't a pressing need for a joint program. That said, I tend to have it coexisting selectively with certain real-life countries, as a relatively young state, they wouldn't be averse to collaborating with nations that have decades of IB experience. Modular non-nuclear propulsion isn't really being pursued; more likely would be joint multinational missions aboard a nuclear vessel. Nuclear propulsion, in addition to its advantages in terms of power and long periods on station, also partly arose from a position of the AU administration that polar research missions, many of which involve climate research, ought to center around a zero-emission (excluding aviation etc.) vessel utilizing advanced industrial technologies, including nuclear process heat. It also will have a Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS) on board.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Major update. Hull and superstructure more or less finished. Livery is for the AU version. The next step after getting this through critique is furnishing it with equipment such as cranes, RHIBs, life rafts, helos, etc. You may notice an amalgam of influences from other IBs such as Healy, 50 Let Pobedy, and the new Arktika.

A few things I'd especially appreciate feedback on:

• Do the reactor water intakes and hull lubrication ducts look good in terms of size and positioning?
• I used a recessed green light that I saw on both Victory and Arktika. I'm guessing that's a starboard running light?
• Do the mast and comms array setup look ok?
• Is the weight distribution appropriate for a ship of this size? I averaged freeboard-to-draft ratios and similar of other IBs to get an idea of what proportions I should be using.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Everything just feels like it's 150% too large.

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

I do feel what you mean. I'm thinking I might lower the freeboard, but I otherwise have everything in SB scale and sized intentionally. It's just a huge ship.

For comparison, below is a real-life concept drawing for the propose European Union icebreaker Aurora Borealis, which I roughly resized to SB scale. It's a 199m PC-1 class, which is the same as what I'm going for at 200m.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!