Originally Posted by _Rabid_
I see what you mean, especially I was in the navy myself...so I can agree there is a general aesthetic (or way the ships of different fleets look). You can see a difference between a French ship and an USS, for example. But within those fleets, an FFG still looks remarkably different from a CG or DDG. They don't just shrink the parts from a CG and cram them into an FFG and call it a different class.
Mainly what I getting at is that each ship has different components to them that serve specific functions. A kit-bash of a modern navy ship to fit some (not all) of the designs you find on websites would be like this::
Find a picture of a ticonderoga class cruiser. Grab the forward superstructure, paste 3 of them to the aft and one in between, call it a "Super Command Battle Cruiser"...end of story. I"d post an example but anyone who has searched for design schematics in Sci-fi knows exactly what i'm referring to. NO IMAGINATION, just stuff copy pasted in MS paint and given a new name.
They have to look different enough to justify a new designation, not just the same ship with maybe an extra radar tower or two. That would be a new production run of the same ship class, I.e. Ticonderoga vs. Bunker hill (Rail launchers vs VLS).
That small caveat aside I LOVE this thread and all the recent posts.
Ya I Agree that some of em are poorly done and thats why I tried to get away from the Kitbashes and stick with decent 3d and even 2d models..
The search continues for cool BSG concepts.