Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
NAU Kiowa-class destroyer by Jepray NAU Kiowa-class destroyer by Jepray
Developed in 2285 to replace the aging, nearly century-old Michigan-class destroyer, the Kiowa has become the mainstay of the North American Union navy. Designed to be capable of performing as an escort ship as part of a battleship group, or as a solo patrol ship with well-rounded capabilities, the Kiowa has proven to be quite effective.

More info to come after the writer AND artist both recover from their respective comas....
Add a Comment:
 
:icongoldpicker:
goldpicker Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This looks like a sniper off call of duty advanced warfare.
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Don't you mean, their sniper looks like my ship? i think i drew it way before CoD-AW came out
Reply
:icongoldpicker:
goldpicker Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:I yes.
Reply
:iconrevealedfromthevoy:
RevealedFromtheVoy Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
damn nice !
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you very much:D
Reply
:iconrevealedfromthevoy:
RevealedFromtheVoy Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
You're welcome !
Reply
:iconimleavinglol-goodbye:
ImLeavingLol-Goodbye Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
is that a small fighter launching from the side?

fuuuu totally awesome detail
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
yup, thats a fighter all right! Its this unit [link] :D and thanks. There are also drop ships deploying from the bottom edge of the hull
Reply
:iconimleavinglol-goodbye:
ImLeavingLol-Goodbye Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
thats so badass :D
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
thanks :D
Reply
:iconchadfuller:
Chadfuller Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2013  Professional General Artist
just too cool!
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks:D
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Wow, four really big spinal mount cannons in the nose, five big twin-barrel turrets along the top, five smaller turrets along one side, another turret on the side of the nose, and I think I see more weapons in the back- that ship sure has got a lot of firepower. XD I really like the hatches for smaller craft along the side, and the starfighter launcher on the side of the destroyer!! There is no reason you can have a launching strip on the "side" of a ship when there is really no "up" in space other than what you arbitrarily define as "up". It is neat to see a design where the little ships don't launch oriented to be "right-side up" to the big ship.

What kind of weapons does this ship carry? Are the big cannons lasers of some sort, and does it have other stuff like big kinetic weapons and missiles? Oh, and lovely work!
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
There is some talk about the weapons systems earlier in the comments of this ship. they are all energy type weapons or (AP - Anti Proton) in the turrets and main spinals and a few square "Gauss" type mass drivers or Kinetic kill in the spinal mount if you want to hit them with something hard and fast. I will see if i can't get Breandan, the owner and writer of Dark nova to explain some of it. If he has some time.
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Yeah, I checked back in the comments and found some details on the ship. I had figured the turrets and round muzzles were energy weapons, and that the square muzzles were some manner of mass driver. You really doesn't see that many square energy guns, lol. That would be cool, I'd love to have some more details on this destroyer, if Breandan has the time to explain them, of course! :D

I was wondering, though, what materials and steps you use to draw something like this? I saw some pencil sketches among your WiP uploads, so I was guessing that you started with a rough pencil sketch, refined it into a nice pen drawing, and then colored it in with markers- using the brownish paper to push out the values where you used a lighter marker. A lot of people use digital these days, it is cool to see spaceships drawn in the traditional methods. :)
Reply
:iconbreandan-ociarrai:
Breandan-OCiarrai Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2013  Professional Writer
The Michigan-class this replaced is one of the best representatives of the many antiquated vessels still flying in the North American Union navy. Due to budget constraints, the NAU can't just replace hundreds of thousands of warships, ranging from corvettes to dreadnoughts, so they upgrade existing ships as much as possible. The Michigan is nearly a century old, first launching in 2232, and there are nearly 80,000 of them in service- the largest quantity of any capital ship in the NAU Navy- making the Destroyer class the most expensive to replace. So, the design for the Kiowa was a bureaucratic nightmare as they had to 1) maintain the same number of ships in service, as downsizing in dangerous times with hostile nations and races everywhere is a bad idea, 2) keep the costs low so as not to crash the economy by overtaxation to fund the replacements, and 3) produce a vessel that was significantly more capable than the one it was replacing. Even after 33 years of slowly phasing the Michigans out and replacing them with Kiowas, they still make up less than 40% of the destroyer-class vessels fielded by the NAU.

The downsides of the vessel are the persistent antiquated design concepts of flying bridges- which cost the NAU dearly during the Freeman War- and a blockier design profile that builds up significantly greater tachyon radiation in hyperspace than more streamlined vessels. The upsides are firepower, pure and simple. The weapons loadout on this particular ship are two super-heavy particle projection cannon (PPC) spinal mounts, two heavy AP lancer spinals, two heavy Mass Accelerator Cannon (MAC) spinal mounts, fourteen heavy PPC turrets, eleven medium PPC turrets, twenty light PPC turrets, two long-range missile (LRM) bays, two ship-to-ship missile (SSM) bays, two anti-ship missile (ASM) silos, and a substantial amount of Electronic and Network Warfare Operations (ENWO) gear (ECM/ECCM, stealth, etc.) Lemme explain what each of those weapon systems are.

Particle projection weapons comprise the bulk of commonplace weaponry of the 24th century. They use magnetic acceleration to project self-contained packets of protons cocooned within an EM field that lasts for a few tenths of a second. Upon impact, the field disperses and releases the charged particles into the target with tremendous force. Particle projection weapons have significantly higher levels of kinetic impact from the larger packet of hypervelocity charged particles. Whereas a particle beam is like being hit with a light-speed pencil, a particle projection weapon is like being hit by a twenty kilo boulder hurled at a tenth that speed. Needless to say, it knocks the target back and has much greater explosive, radiant and thermal damage. If the weapon is a particle projection rifle or larger, the damage has an area affect, doing damage to everything within a one meter diameter for small arms, and then radiating outward with damage being reduced per every meter outward. Naval weapons like these have AoEs in hundreds of meters to kilometers when used against a planetary surface. A single shot from one of the spinal PPCs would hit dirtside with a yield comparable to a four gigaton nuclear weapon being detonated, with a blast radius of nearly 60km. Needless to say, orbital bombardments are deadly as hell.

AP lancers are the anti-proton version of a particle beam, requiring more power to produce anti-hydrogen from which to strip the antimatter particles, but resulting in far more damage upon impact. Like a particle beam weapon, An AP lancer uses a focused EM field tube to contain a stream of charged particles that travels from the emitter to the target at near-luminal velocities (i.e. .999999% of the speed of light). As the charged particles have some mass- minute though it may be- traveling at hypervelocity speeds, they cause significant kinetic impact on the target. This can knock the target back, depending on the size of the pulse and the target it strikes. Additionally, the charged particles release explosive energy upon impact, causing thermal, radiant and explosive damage. As if that wasn't enough, the antimatter nature of the charged particles annihilates when it contacts normal matter particles, adding the matter/antimatter conversion to energy explosive force to the impact of the weapon. While these effects are only a fraction of that seen in anti-proton particle projection weapons (APPCs), lancers have an ace up their sleeve that only lasers can duplicate: burn-through. The concentrated punch of the stream of particles in such a tightly focused group- even if only for a brief pulse- can overwhelm a shield's defenses when focused on a single point. As with lasers, particle beam weapons are zero time of flight weapons and cannot be detected by conventional sensors within their effective range- roughly two light seconds- due to their luminal velocities. They virtually strike the target the instant they are fired in close quarters, and fast enough to minimize evasion at longer ranges. Outside of their effective range, however, non-spacial sensors can detect the incoming fire quickly enough for the AI of the target to evade by rolling or vectoring out of the line of fire.

MAC guns are a powerful form of Gauss weaponry. Gauss weapons use magnetic or gravitic energy to accelerate a projectile to super-mach or high sub-luminal speeds. This hypervelocity projectile is difficult to trace back to its source due to a low energy signature, and is often used as a sniper weapon. In the case of naval weaponry, MAC guns are antiquated, comparably weak, and obsolete. However, certain alien races- namely the Capellans and Naradi- put far too much emphasis on shields and not enough on armour, making them vulnerable to mass driver weapons. Due to the energy-absorbing/redirecting nature of their shields, there is a chance that a projectile will not disperse its kinetic energy into the shield and instead punch through and into the hull. Terran ships have several meters thick of armoured skins, using atomically-bonded hyperdense materials that require nuclear disruption to degrade, making MAC guns a poor choice. Other races, however, disdain armour as the province of "primitive" races. As Thor from Stargate SG1 phrased it- "The Asgard have tried to stop them. You have demonstrated their weakness may be found from a less sophisticated approach. We are no longer capable of such thinking. The Asgard would never invent a weapon that propels small weights of iron and carbon alloys by igniting a powder of potassium nitrate charcoal and sulfur." Sometimes, brute force works.

Short Range Missiles are the most common missiles found due to their combination of low cost and small size. SRMs come in three classifications- Heavy Weapons, Vehicular and Naval. The Heavy Weapons variants are the ordnance loads found in man-portable missile launchers and powered armor. Vehicular SRMs are designed for fighters, vehicles, and small craft. These are significantly larger and more potent than the man-portable versions, and are designed to be used against vehicles and smaller vessels. Naval SRMs are the largest of the SRM family, but still far smaller than any other naval missile. These are loaded into ships’ missile batteries as close-quarters anti-fighter or massive-volley attack weapons.

Long Range Missiles- as the name implies- are larger than SRMs and have far greater range. They also carry larger warheads, allowing them to do significantly greater damage. Like SRMs, LRMs come in Heavy Weapons, Vehicular and Naval varieties as well. LRMs are used in very much the same way in each of those categories as their SRM counterparts, but due to their larger size the batteries generally can carry less of them. LRMs are far faster than SRMs, giving them greater effective range, making them most effective as an offensive weapon as opposed to largely defensive SRMs.

Ship-to-Ship Missiles come in two varieties, Vehicular and Naval. SSMs are designed to damage vessels of all sizes, though Naval-class SSMs are designed to combat capital ships more than the Vehicular ones. Unfortunately, small craft and fighters cannot carry Naval versions easily, as they are nearly as large as most fighters. SSMs can carry any number of warheads available, but the standard load is a 110lb antimatter charge with an effective yield of 2 gigatons.

Anti-Ship Missiles are part of planetary defense grids, orbital defense platforms, and larger naval vessels’ arsenals. These missiles are designed to do significant damage to capital ships, and can often devastate smaller vessels in a single shot. Unlike SSM and smaller missiles, ASMs are so large that they require silos instead of batteries. Likewise, they cannot be carried by small craft or fighters due to their size and relative bulk. Like SSMs, ASMs can carry any available warhead, but the standard payload is a 550lb antimatter charge with an effective yield of 10 gigatons. Used against a planet, this would have a blast radius of over 150km and destroy any non-hardened structures within 50km of ground zero unless shielded.

Hope that helps :)
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Okay, did some totally pointless calculations on the difference in energy deposited in target by the kinetic impact of the antiprotons fired from an AP Lancer and the annihilation energy. :D Assuming I did not make any silly errors-

The mass of a proton is 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms, and antiprotons apparently have the same mass as a proton. The antiprotons from an AP Lancer travel at 99.999% C, which is 299,792,000 m/s according to my graphing calculator. 299,792,458m/s*.999999=299,792,000 m/s
The speed of light, C, is 299,792,458 m/s, we'll need it for our calculations.

The relativistic equation for kinetic energy is Ek=M*C2(1/sqrt(1-V2/C2)-1).
So, Ek= (1.67262158x10-27kg.)(299,792,458m/s)2((1/sqrt(1-(299,792,000m/s)2/(299,792,458m/s)2)-1)
Ek=8.58143x10-8 joules. Which is a bit higher than the operating energy per proton of the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron accelerator in 1976, 6.4×10−8 J.

If we totally convert a proton (or antiproton) into energy, by E=MC2-
E= (1.67262158x10-27)(299792458m/s)2
E=1.50328x10-10 Joules.

But, when an antiproton annihilates with a proton, both are converted into energy, so the total energy released by one such annihilation will be twice this- about 3x10-10 joules.

(8.58143x10-8 J)/(3x10-10J)= about 285

So, the sheer kinetic energy of an antiproton at 99.9999% C is 285 times the energy released by it annihilating with a proton in the target ship's hull, assuming I made no silly math errors and understand how to use my calculator. ^^;

This was all purely for fun. I am not responsible for any damages to your starship resulting from using this calculation. XD
Reply
:iconbreandan-ociarrai:
Breandan-OCiarrai Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2013  Professional Writer
the kinetic impact happens a nanosecond before the annihilation occurs, as the matter and antimatter collide before mutual annihilation, so BOTH effects happen almost simultaneously. And for APPCs, the packet of anti-protons is a tightly-packed dense packet ranging from a kilo to a tonne, depending on the weapon type
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
lol
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Thanks a million, Breandan!! :) You sure put a lot of effort into working out the specifications of the ships and weapons used in Dark Nova- excellent stuff!!

Now I am wondering how much deadlier antiparticle annihilation actually makes the AP Lancers. At 87% C, an object- be it a grain of dust, a single proton, or a huge spaceship- has equivalent kinetic energy to how much its rest mass would be worth if converted totally into energy by E=MC2. And, at higher speeds, the kinetic energy gets greater and greater due to relativistic mass increase, so from 90%C-99%C will involve a much greater increase in energy than, say, 80%C-90%C. It is kind of hard to imagine how particle beams work because relativity makes it all screwy, even an electron appears massive at near C velocities. An antiproton traveling at 99.9999% C will be carrying so much energy, the energy released by annihilation only adds insult to injury- so you are right that the impact will account for most of the damage an AP Lancer causes to a target.

I might calculate the kinetic energy of a proton traveling 99.999% C later just for fun, these sorts of calculations always end up with a satisfying killer death boom. :D
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks, I will ask Breandan to explain some of the tech on the ships when I see him next.:D

For my artwork. My materials are the medium value heavy weight paper (its almost card stock) called "Desert storm" from a supplier called Kelly paper. I start a light sketch with a Straedtler 2H pencil. After the sketch I straighten it out with a ruler and use a "Sakura PIGMA micron 005" pen to ink it. Adding tweaks and more detail where needed. Erase all the pencil work after the inking with a normal cheap pink eraser. Then I marker it in with a mix of Tria and Prisma color markers, normally in a selection of Warm grey, Cool grey and French Grey. Then added some Prisma color pencil white and Verithin white to add highlights, and finally white paint pen, or Gouache for the white, since a pencil can never get That crisp of a white on this colored paper. Also if needed I will add some white digitally. As far as the general angle and dimension of the vessels, I can see it like that in my head and transfer it to paper with no real problem... its hard to explain that part. It is what people always ask me. I just draw it like I see it in my head... :D
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Thanks, Jepray!! :) I was just curious about the materials you use- the visualization or "structural imagination" skills have to come with practice. Part of it is just drawing something so often that you begin to have an innate understanding of how things are constructed, both real and imaginary. That is something I work on. Pens and markers don't help an artist with that. The most important drawing tool is the human brain!!

I can see why you get those questions, though, you have mad spaceship design skills. XD
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Irl I am a grease monkey. Being a general auto mechanic, I have always been interested in mechanical things. Also many years making and racing R/C cars like Losi JRX and Associated since the birth of the RC10. I am very mechanical minded. Sometimes it can be a problem, if a design slips outside of what I deem is possible. If you look at the designs I have made, they all fit into the Universe that they live in. The possible tech of the engines and such, and make up of the armor, plays a role in the ships design. If you see some of the races I made ships for in DN they follow design aspects as described my the author. I take those description and turn them into what you see. Once we start hammering out general shape, and positions of external items, such as, Will it have a flying bridge? will it have hard mounted turrets or will they retract when not in use? Will the weapons all be shuttered when not in action. Is the ship a new construction, is it slapped together like a reaver ship? is the armor smooth, or paneled, or ablative? is the ship modular or single purpose built unit? how many engines does it need to move? will it have enough power? is the hull simply too big for the given engines, do we need to add on external units? its the same it process i got through with mecha and vehicles as I do the ships. I will be working on some new ships soon for other clients:D and please feel free to ask me questions i will try to answer them the best I can.:D
Reply
:iconsagittarius-a-star:
Sagittarius-A-star Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Cool, mate, all the hands-on knowledge you have of how real mechanical things work shows in your spaceship designs. :D I like spaceships that look mechanically sound- that is, given the tech the race that built a ship has access too, does a craft look like it is a sound design? All the little details fascinate me- the engines, the design of the hull, the life support systems, the sensors and communications arrays, the control thrusters, the hatches, gun turrets, missile tubes, the airlocks, etc. A design that has those details seems far more real. Even with tech that is not scientifically plausible at the present time (like FTL engines), within the rules set by certain 'verse, there are certain principles that will apply to a ship. If a ship's superluminal drive runs hot and emit hazardous radiation while in use, you'll want to position it away from the main crew habitat and place some radiation shielding between it and crew sections, for example.

I'm looking forward to seeing some new ships!! :D Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions, too. Speaking of that, I was wondering, how big are the pieces of paper you draw the spaceships on? Kelly Paper offers it in 8.5x11in. sheets, but that seemed a bit small for the detail you put in some of these- but I have sketchbooks about that size, so I guess it works. I kind of like big paper often, big sketchbooks, bigger sketchbooks, huge sketchbooks... :D
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, I tend to ground my designs in some form of reality. You see all the DN ships have some form of Fin attached to them, either retractable or stationary. That is used to help dissipate radiation that builds up as the ship goes into hyper drive. Certain races in the game have different levels of technology, so if you look at them all, you can kinda see where their tech level is with how the ships are set up. The NAU ships are clunky and behind the times vs. the Australio-Pacifica Coalition but what they lack in finesse they make up with in shear firepower and sold hull. The Tech level of the Khurian Empire is rather pitiful vs. even the older NAU ships but still more then enough to take down a passenger liner or cargo ship. look at the Namaran ships, they are the best natural pilots in the game, but with a tech base that means they have Huge reactors for their ships making them overly bulky vs. Human ships. The technofiles that are the Teek, have ships so advanced you really can't tell what the heck they are made of, let alone where everything is on their ships, but they are in fact aliens, why should anything resemble a human design? The Dunbaren Trade Federation, a collection of races who (kinda) work together for mutual protection verses the larger enemies around them, their ship is almost a mess of differing concepts thrown into a hull, that actually works out in the end. There also the Serog race with their swarm tactics... there are soo many differing principle designs constraints to think of with so many different races and back stories.. :D its fun:D
:D all my pictures are in that 8.5 X 11 size, I pack a lot into a small space, and the ultra fine .005 pen helps too. its also the heavy stock stuff, its pretty much card stock thickness, it helps keep the paper from melting with too much marker work, normal paper will not handle multiple passes with a marker before it gets too wet, and starts to wrinkle... so i use very heavy paper. it rarely bleeds through, and I can making it to death and it won't start wrinkling on me.
Reply
:iconrietzhu:
Rietzhu Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2012
lol, awesome perspective on this one!
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you very much!:D
Reply
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Commenter
:iconroluevasvasreisa:
RoluevasVasReisa Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012  Professional General Artist
my pleasure =)... Oh for fucks sake i came up with Dark Nova, you too are stealing my idea? God damnit i came up with this years ago this is rediculous. How many of u are there stealing my idea....
Reply
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Owner
(1 Reply)
Hidden by Owner
:iconscarecrowking:
ScarecrowKing Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2012
My only problem with this are those four large double barreled cannons along the top of the ship. The way they are oriented, only the forward most gun can fire at an enemy as it approaches. I'm guessing though that they are mainly used for closer range ship to ship battles... But that really doesn't happen.

Sorry to nitpick. I really like the design. Especially the launch rails along the sides and the dropship hatches.
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
its a space ship, not a wet ship, if you wanted to just tilt the ship down to fire them off, but why do that, when it has Spinal weapons out the nose? it just allows the ability to rotate them to all possible targets...:D
Reply
:iconmrrogueace:
MrRogueace Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I used to play Roblox and I found this one awesome guy who made an excellent space rpg
that had a ship designed like that.
This appears to design like the Modern-day Battleships.
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, it was the general idea behind it:D
Reply
:icontx-game-player21:
tx-game-player21 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
just awesome :D
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks
Reply
:iconjames-dark-blue-wolf:
Wow I really like it!
Reply
:icontimeship:
Timeship Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2011  Professional Writer
Excellent!
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you!:D
Reply
:iconjozura:
Jozura Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
very nicely done, only problem is, if the target is straght ahead, only one twin linked deck gun is going to be able to fire
Reply
:iconjepray:
Jepray Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
those deck guns are nothing compared to the spinal weapons poking out the nose of the ship... who needs deck guns when the main spinals are so much bigger:D
Reply
:iconjozura:
Jozura Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
agreed but still, why limit firepower in a primary direction?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 2817 × 2295




Details

Submitted on
August 22, 2011
Image Size
1.4 MB
Resolution
2817×2295
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
9,455 (1 today)
Favourites
311 (who?)
Comments
102
Downloads
251

Camera Data

×