Varrus makes a starship. (56K at your own risk)

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Remind me to wear chainmail gloves so I don't cut myself on the wings. Also, I'm imagining a ¾-ish power-law nose cone using the same angle it meets the flat sides but with a quarter off the length. Otherwise kewl space fighter.

[VarrusTheEthical]

So here's the latest work on my fighter. I've added details like maneuvering thrusters, a cannon, and a two-tone grey color scheme. I've also slightly reduced the length of the nose.



Here's a better view of the fighters bottom. Note the doors for the landing-gear on the engine nacelles and nose.

\

And a top view, of the fighter. I moved to Cockpit (the tiny bump in the center of the fuselage) back a few meters in order to place it on the fighter's (theoretical) center of gravity.



And here's an up-close view of the front. Note the cannon just above the tip of the fighter's nose.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Well I can say two things for sure. One I was right about the cockpit, and two...I wouldn't want to be in front of this monster. That front view just screams DEATH!! Seriously though, good work, I like how this fighter is going.

[VarrusTheEthical]

So I've taken another shot at fighter design, and here is the result.



Though the layout is similar to my previous fighter design, it has a very different shape.



Here's the view of the fighters front with the rotary cannon visible on the nose.



And a view of the back with the engine nozzles clearly visible. You can also see the slight downward angle of the outer wings.



From the top, you can get a good look the fighter's shape. I was trying to combine the characteristics of both the Saab Draken and the SR71 Blackbird, hopefully to good effect.



From the bottom, you can see the two weapons bay, which are just like those from my first fighter.

[VarrusTheEthical]

So here's my second fighter design with more detailing.


From the front you can see the undercarriage, which I based on the main landing gear of the B-52. I also added external hardpoints to the inner wings.


From the top, you can see the red-outlined cockpit, sensor blister mounted on the back of the main fuselage, and dorsal hardpoints on the wings.


On the bottom, note the two internal weapons bays and six externally mounted missiles.


From the side you can get a better view of the sensor blister, undercarriage, and bay-doors.




A good view of the rear, note the thrust-vanes.



Here's a simple scene to give you an idea of the fighter's scale.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

Isn't it a little on the huge side to be a fighter? Judging from this shot its the size of an airliner. I know modern fighters are relatively large compared to WWII stuff, but this is big by anyones scale.

[VarrusTheEthical]

It is pretty big, a little over 41 meters long to be exact. In-universe, it's supposed to be a fusion-powered, interplanetary range aerospace fighter. As such, I felt it would need to be quite large.

[Imperial528]

41 meters isn't bad at all, that's only a bit larger than the Shuttle, and it can only pull Earth orbit. If we were talking about an air-only fighter it would be quite huge, but something designed for both air and space, especially interplanetary travel, will have to be rather large.

Heck, one of my fighter designs, meant for limited interstellar range, is almost twice the length of a 747.

As for the design itself, I like it. Could use some smoothing, but making rounded edges in Sketchup is really more of an art than an acquired skill in my experience. So don't fret if you can't make won't work the first time, or the second, or the third.... Otherwise, a nice looking fighter.

One thing I might suggest is adding some sort of vertical stabilizers to it.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

I'm not sure I'd agree with your humungous fighter concepts. Fighters can usually be defined as short range, small, agile and (relatively) lightly armed ships with only 1 or 2 crew. Building them huge rather defeats the concept and reduces the abilities they are valued for. By building them large enough to make them very long range you are making them a bigger target and less agile, reduce the number that can be carried and they require a larger crew for longer journeys. The Germans tried the heavy fighter concept in WWII with the Bf110 'Destroyer' and it got withdrawn pretty quickly as genuine fighters shot them down in droves. It found its niche as a night fighter because it was large enough to carry early radar and the extra crew to operate it. Against proper fighters it had to run.

Say I build a dedicated space fighter concept and set it against yours. The carrier (or base) the small fighter operates from has the range, not the fighter, so I could build and carry 3 or 4 fighters for every one of yours. They would almost certainly be more agile, small targets and carry weapons almost as deadly. Your ship would be outclassed and outnumbered in such a fight. Its only benefit would be to dive into the atmosphere to escape, where it would be outclassed by any aircraft designed for that specific environment. Building very long range, very large ships may have some purpose, but it would not be as dedicated fighters.

[Imperial528]

The conventional definition of a fighter, I think, falls apart once you start designing for hybrid air/space vehicles. Although, with modern fighters I should think that their greatest defense in the face of danger is countermeasure systems, rather than maneuverability, because even the most nimble fighter will not be able to outmaneuver a missile.

Now, back to the topic at hand. In space-based fighter warfare conventional thinking about fighters runs up against problems very quickly, especially the size vs. maneuverability argument. In space maneuverability is limited not by size but by the ability to accelerate and change your heading. As such, a fighter that is 200 feet long can be made to be just as maneuverable as a fighter which is 50 feet long, because the primary limit is how much force that A) the vehicle itself can withstand, and B) what the pilot can withstand. The larger fighter will have to deal with larger stresses, yes, but it will also be able to carry more fuel, weaponry, and countermeasures. Target size gets pretty irrelevant when we have missiles that can track either vehicle equally well.

In terms of atmospheric combat, the idea behind my design is essentially that it is deployed during a planetary invasion, and meant to go in fast and destroy enemy air resistance before they become a threat to my ground forces. Even if my interceptors are outclassed by the enemy airplanes in terms of maneuverability, I can always go where they cannot, and come back when they least expect it.

[VarrusTheEthical]

About the only advantages that a smaller fighter would have over a large fighter would be 1.) it could turn faster, and 2.) more could be carried in a given volume of space, as Kenny pointed out. The first point doesn't really matter that much in a missile fight, and the second point would be countered by the fact that the bigger fighters would have a larger ordinance load to off-set the smaller fighters' numerical superiority.

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

lol, I love these discussions. I know I'll never change your minds or get anyone to admit a problem, but I like the challenge! It clarifies a lot of ideas too. Here goes...

Ok Imperial528, you are now designing hybrid air/space vehicles. A pure fighter is something else entirely. When you start making hybrids you start making compromises and it never really works as well as it could in either environment. For example, a flying boat is not as good as a boat on water, nor as good a plane as a dedicated aircraft. You are designing a compromise vehicle for what must be a specific set of circumstances, and it will be at a disadvantage against a pure design. Saying they can run away back into space when they get beaten is hardly a huge plus point. It would be fun to design an invasion fighter like you describe (given a certain level of tech) but its not a fighter twice the size of a jumbo.

Missiles are called missiles and not hittiles for a reason. They are not infallible, as the United States found out to their cost in the early days of their use, and often circumstances stop you using them. The need to visually confirm the target meant pilots had already given up the long and medium range missile advantage right away, and in a dogfight it proved hard to get a lock or a hit, and guns had to be added again. Evasion, jamming and other ECM systems are widespread as well, so missiles are not the ultimate weapon that cancels out fighters.

As for agility, assuming no inertial dampers or antigrav, it depends more on the mass and power and not length. A lightweight ship will pull a high-G manouever with much less strain on the airframe than a heavy ship, and would require much less power to do so. If it were true that size was no restriction you would pretty much never need fighters, your battleships would fly rings round them.

Where size definitely comes into play is detection. The fighter that sees and shoots first has the advantage. Being small and not putting out huge amounts of energy are a distinct advantage there, and you are a smaller target for a missile to hit. Saying you can overcome numbers by carrying more weapons is not on either. You would need to be invisible, invulnerable or very lucky every time you attacked, where any of the enemy ships only need to be lucky once to take you out.

[VarrusTheEthical]

An aerospace fighter would have an advantage over a pure atmospheric fighter in a similar way that a jet has an advantage over a prop fighter. An aerospace fighter can operate at sub-orbital altitudes where atmospheric air-breathing fighters cannot reach them, and from there can either pelt them with missiles, or dive down on the atmospheric fighters in boom-and-zoom attacks that the atmospheric fighter would not be able to counter. An atmospheric fighter would never be able to force and aerospace fighter into a fight, while at the same time would never be able to leave a fight with an aerospace fighter on it's own volition.

The problems that you mention that the US had with missiles were for AIR TO AIR missiles, space is a much friendlier environment for missile combat. Against the empty background of space, the detection and identification of a target will happen long before you enter combat range, so there is no need to get close enough to "visually identify" the target. And the best way to defeat anti-missile defenses such as ECM, aside from just having better missiles than the other guy, is through saturation. More missiles means more chances for a hit, and the guy who carries more missiles is likely going to be the guy who wins the fight.

Size would put a limit on the amount of G's a fighter can pull, though the real upper limit would be the pilot no matter what. And even if we ignore that, a 30-ton space fighter is probably not going to have a huge structural advantage over a 150 ton fighter, especially if take advanced materials into consideration.

Finally, if your fighter is generating enough power to run the pilot's life support system, any decent sensor system is going to pick you you from the background of space from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of kilometers away. And there no way you're going to remain undetected if you ever light your drive, no matter how tiny your ship is.

[thewhitetigersb]

I would suggest to let the creativity flow. realism is not nessessary when creating something for the joy of it.
If this was to be in a series or a movie then more stringent definitions would need to be applied. And that would also be defined as to the concept of the story.
would it be defined by true physics, something many many sci-fi shows ignore for plot? onlong the lines of 2001?
would it be modified physics such as babylon 5 or star trek?
would it be out the door science such as Star wars or old BSG?
I say in thhis case enjoy the creation process, let your spirit take you where it will.