Knight26

Not sure how to take the comment about the "same company" defense, these craft were always intended to be designed by the same company, I'm working under more of an design bereu style, with multiple manufacturers building a single companies design. And yes, I will eventually texture them with individual sqauadron and to a lesser degree nose art. Now onto the update, i decided to start fresh again, going back to the three seat config, but that will definitely change, i rationalized a reason for the third crewman but decided against it later. I'm considering side by side seating now instead of tandem in order to make it look more unique. Anyway here is what I came up with more working out loud then anything else at this point, I really need to sketch this out before I start putting into 3-D, will do that on the plane tomorrow. BTW I will be on travel this week so don't expect any updates before saturday, by which time I will hopefully have a design locked in.

Ok, small update, reshaped the nose and antimatter cannon pod, that thing will take some major rework soon. I also added preliminary engine pods (not attached yet) and torpedo launcher, these may or may not stay, man this thing is being a pain. Wabbit: Primary purpose of this craft is to be used against light captial ships, Corvette-Cruiser in size. Also interdiction strikes, precision strike, and limited close air support of ground troops. Lynx: I kind of see where you are going, this one along with the last two are designed by the same company are designed to be highly modular, hence the similar configurations. Right now though the only common componets are the cockpit, guns, torpedo packs (though modified on this one). I admit I have a bad habit of sometimes making craft look too similar to one another, but if I do I try to make sure that they are either all made by the same rave, or in this case the same company, kind of like the Solaar fighters of the GF as well. SS: Funny it does look really similar and that gives me some ideas on how to proceed, if you don't mind that is, i don't want to be accused to stealing your design. As for any in environment renders, the last render or two of each thread is usually an in environ render, just take a quick search and look.

Nifty, makes me wish my nephew was young enough for me to buy that for him.

Here is the first shot of the new concept, I look forward to yout input.

Ok now we have the long range strategic bomber, main line medium/superiority fighter and the fleet defense interceptor. What's next you ask, how about the light assault bomber, basically it's a cross between the A-6 and A-10. Nothing on this one is sacred at this point, except making it a two seater (maybe three) and assymetric. The old design was a three seater and only slightly assymetric, the third person in the cockpit really served no usefulness so will likely be dropped. The weapons load for the current design is as follows: 2-Plasers, 2-Energy cannons, 2-Antimatter cannons, 30-missiles (in 2 rotary launchers), 20-bombs (dual internal bays), and 6-light torpedoes. Again this weapons mix is not sacred and can easily be changed. I look forward to input on this one because I am not quite sure what direction i want to take it yet, I only have a rough idea. Anyway here is the registry for the original:

Ok one last shot before I start on the next design. Man those shadows are pain to line up.

The Su-30MKI would own the Super Hornet, lets face it, thrust vectoring, the Archer (which has off bore sighting capabilities). the Gsh-301 (highly accurate and can be set to autofire as soon as it has a good firing solution.) Besides the Su-30 MKI would also have the advantage in being inherently more manueverable with a better thrust to weight ratio and the ability regain lost energy better, as well as keep up its energy more, the Super Hornet bleeds energy in a turn like you wouldn't believe.

It's an F-22 on crack, but really I doubt the current Chinese aviation industry could turn out an aircraft like that, lets face it most chinese aviation designs are just rip offs or production liscences from other countries. I think they have maybe turned out two unique designs, that weren't oversized "kit bashes" of other aircraft, and both of those were garbage.

Nice woz, but the flaps are wrong, the VF-1's flaps don't simpyl fold down they are slotted flaps, will try to find some pics of this later.

Man I thought I knew every fighter nickname, but what the heck is the RHino? Last plane I heard that one attached to, besides the Hammerhead from SA:AB, was the Phantom, one of its many nicknames.

A quick comparison shot with the Splicer 5000, you can see that while the 2000 is larger, mostly in length and wing span, it is much slimmer. The 5000 is built like football linebacker, tough, bulky and strong, whereas the 2000 is a track star, sleek and fast. yes I see the texture issues, I am trying to resolve that, I know what is causing it but now how to fix it yet. ANyways, enjoy. Man I can't believe I am using sports analogies for my fighters, lol.

Parting shot, will start on the "ugly sister" tomorrow.

The things we do to satisfy the test pilots, the cockpit is in, and with the results I anticipated, they took out my nice clean, new plane and got i all dirty, sheesh guys.

Ah yes the FAMRAAM, the AMRAAM with ramjets, not the greatest idea in my book, but the closest thing to a phoenix replacement without a brand new full up design being approved. Man if only the navy leadership had a brain we would either 1: have the Tomcat-2000, 2: a super hornet that was better designed, to arry phoenix, have larger engines and longer range, or 3: have a whole new design that would be a true successor to the tomcat.

Very very nice, by cruiser which one do you mean? Post a description or pciture and we can give you the correct name.

Finally the test pilots come and have a look, I swear these guys are always complaining, now they're dissatisfied that there is no cockpit interior, I swear there is no satisifying some people.

Another shot.

Ok, the front end is pretty much completed with all the details and panel lines, I may still add a few more details but have to mull that over first. Next thing to do is add the cockpit then detail up the LRM mounts and start texturing. I'mn going to hold off on textureing though until I have the next model finished, there is a reason for this trust me. Mostly I need to start working out paint schemes and such. Anyway here she is.

puppet sex?

The currently applied texture is only temporary, once I have more time I will create a more suitable texture, but that will take a while, I want to finish the modelling first. I have not redone that aft portion yet, i think the angle and texture help to wash out that facets that I don't care for. I'll try to finish the forward fuselage this weekend if I can.

Last shot for tonight, I applied a basic texture, only about 70% blended, it washes out the brown a lot gives it more of a light brown/grey color. As always C&C are welcome.

The underside, I added two LRM mounts to the ventral side, one on either side of the torpedo pack. I will eventually detail those mounts but want to finish the rest of the craft first. I will work on the mid and forward fuselage next. I'm not sure how but somehow the forward landing gear and doors got messed up, the hole in the fuselage where the well is somehow got closed, will fix that right away.

Ok, sorry this is a little late and I did not make as much progress as I would have liked this week, will work on it more this weekend and next week since I will be on travel again. Mostly I worked on the after fuselage, reshaped the area around the central engine. I'm not happy with how that turned out, I may redo it again later. I also reshaped the intakes, they needed it.

Yes they do have an effect, they make it easier. One of the reasons why Saab has put so much emphasis on canards is because if properly designed they give planes great low speed handling qualities, which is essential for carrier landings. Saab doesn't make them for landing on carriers though, but instead to take off and land from short stretches of highway. This is especially visible on the viggen where the vortices produced by the canards actually help produce lift on the main wing giving it great STOL capablities.

Man I need to wade into this thread more often, love the discussions. I'm not surprised the navy has officially retired the phoenix. Don't get me wrong I love the Phoenix, it is a great weapon system, but has one inherent design flaw, only the tomcat can carry it. With the Tomcat being retired it was inevitable that the Phoenix would fade away as well, unfortunately. Also DH before you stated that US designers have an aversion to canards, that is not true, the aversion to canards comes from the military commanders and higher ups. True designers and aero-engineers, except for a few hardline old timers, all know the inherent greatness that is the canard and most would love to go to an all canard air force and navy. Unfortunately military commander favor the more traditional "standard" wing, tail configuration and tend to shy away from canards. I can't count the number of times I was speaking with a high ranking military type (O-5 or above) and they looked at a plane with a canard only to comment that it was built backwards. Putting a canard on a standard layout aircraft has been proven time again to make it more agile. Infact if you look back the original lockheed proposal for the JSF was a canard, basically it was nearly identical except for the wing/tail layout was in a canard configuration. THey did many tethered hover tests with a test bed back in the 90s and it performed well IIRC, but the navy did not like it because of the canard. Also canards do not have an adverse reaction to stealth and in some cases have helped it, scattering the radar waves before they hit the wing's leading edge. FSWs face a similar problem, engineers love FSWs except for the structural problems they challenge. However old line military higher ups do not like FSWs because of how they look. FSWs as an aside have actully proven to be more stealthy then their non-FSW counterparts, something to do with the wingtips scattering the radar waves, will have to check my books again.