Jump to content
XCOMUFO & Xenocide

Fighter Concept


fux0r666

Recommended Posts

I know that you are not in need of another human aircraft but started working on this before I was informed and I thought that if I didn't finish it it would go to waste. I'm starting to paint it up like the scene displayed in the original Interceptor information screen, but I wanted to share the concept with you all.

The text between the asterixes would be the write up on the aircraft. The text afterward is information on the development of the aircraft. The text in between the dashes is weapon information that I threw out on missile systems that I created to suit the concept.

**** High Speed Aircraft Interceptor/Anti- Cruise Missile Platform. With its cryogenic fuel, axial flow turbojet it is the fastest survice jet to date. Its systems are fully shielded against EMP effects for use with the avalanche tactical nuke. It is an incredible display of modern technology. ****


Following the dismal field performance of the tomahawk missile defence system, and North Korea's nuclear proliferation and cruise missile program, the pentagon saw a need for an intelligent, high speed missile defense system. The initiative called to utilize an UAV type craft, but pending the maturation of that technology, an interim solution was needed.

Lockheed was commissioned to resolve this problem. The YF-25 was developed to fill this urgent need for a very high speed interceptor. Sharing some 28% of its components with the F/A-22, the design is indicative of a lower cost solution.
Lockheed began by testing the F/A-22 platform with the much larger, more powerful F-132 high by-pass, axial flow turbojet. This 43,000 lbs thrust class engine is capable of pushing the YF-25 beyond mach 3.5 at an altitude of 80,000 feet. During windtunnel testing it was found that the F/A-22's wing geometry produced too much wave drag at speeds above mach 2.5. In order to combat this Lockheed tried thinning the airfoil profile. This resulted in unacceptible levels of elastic wing deformation, so a canard delta wing configuration was adopted. This allowed the wings to be thick and sturdy while remaining well inside of the conical shockwave eminating from the aircraft's nose.

The type has more post mach 3 endurance than it's closest counter-part, the MiG-25 Foxbat, and does not suffer from the same engine heat problems thanks to its cryogenic fuel system and use of thermal plastics.

While this aircraft has amazing high speed performance, the delta wing lends it low lift and high drag characteristics at subsonic speeds, decreasing it's cruise range. Although it is equipped with 2 dimensional thrust vectoring and does not have a maneouverability deficiency at low speeds like most delta wing configurations, it suffers from stability problems at high angles of attack. This makes it unsuitable to serve in an air superiority fighter role.

While an ultimately successful interceptor design, the project was abandoned after the North Korean missile crisis diminished. A number of prototypes and test models were built that were procured by X-Corp whom later reopenned the project.

-
The YF-25 is typically armed with the large, long range, tactical nuclear tipped Avalanche missile system on an underbelly pylon for anti-missile/anti aircraft missions. This allows near misses to splash small, airborne targets with EMP and overpressure effects. It is also capable of carrying an array of other weapon systems in its internal bays, such as the stingray medium range, radar guided missile. It can not be armed with both at once, however, as the Avalanche missile blocks the bay door when mounted. Within an internal gun bay, the YF-25 is armed with a 20mm M61 vulcan cannon.

- Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrm... this brings out the nit-picky techno-junkie in me (I suppose this part of my nature will be a danger if / when I get access to the other forum).

First: You have a cockput and pilot, you also have a vehicle intended to act as a weapons platform (deploying other weapons at a target, not blowing itself up) ergo you do not have a cruise missile.

Second: I am aware of no thermal plastics which offer strength/heat dissapation/weight numbers comparable to A1, Ti or many of the common alloy steels.

Third: Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are asserting the tomahawk (a cruise missile) as part of a missile defense system; this is not accurate.

Fourth: A tactical nuclear missile as an anti-missile platform seems rather dramatic and non-sensical (and use of such a expensive and dangerous item would violate many international laws). I'm also unaware of an interceptor being used as an anti-missile platform... but there is a first for everything ;)

As an aside, the Mig's biggest problem over Mach 2.6 is that the turbojets start acting more like ramjets and have a tendancy to overspeed. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey -

I'm nopt exactly sure what direction you want to take with this. Are you suggesting another Interceptor design to be added? Or is this just a concept peice to get the creative juices flowing? In any case, it is an interesting write-up, but before its taken any further, lets plan where its going.

How exactly do you see this entry playing into Xenocide?
Gold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misunderstanding a lot.

This fighter is an interim solution pending the development of an UAV. Missile defense meaning defense against missiles. Cruise Missile/High Speed Aircraft Interceptor AIRCRAFT. Meaning an aircraft that intecepts cruise missiles and other aircraft.

[quote]Second: I am aware of no thermal plastics which offer strength/heat dissapation/weight numbers comparable to A1, Ti or many of the common alloy steels.[/QUOTE]

Cryogenic fuels do nothing to cool engines, either.

[quote[Third: Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are asserting the tomahawk (a cruise missile) as part of a missile defense system; this is not accurate.[/quote]

You got me there. I thought they used tomahawk missiles to shoot down other missiles.

[quote]Fourth: A tactical nuclear missile as an anti-missile platform seems rather dramatic and non-sensical (and use of such a expensive and dangerous item would violate many international laws). I'm also unaware of an interceptor being used as an anti-missile platform... but there is a first for everything [/quote]

Anti aircraft nuclear tipped missiles is technology from the 60's... and cruise missiles are slow. There is no service jet propelled aircraft capable of mach 3.5 either. The original interceptor in Xcom was powered by a pulse detonation engine which would shake the aircraft apart. None of this has to be air tight, it's science fiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all pie-in-the-sky since the interceptor is already modelled and decided upon. Believe me, it's not going 2 be changed I fought long and hard 4 a different design but I realised it's not going 2 happen. There's plently more u could work on rather than tryin 2 reinvent the wheel, ave a look round.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct Jim, while additional models for the interceptor could be considered after v1 is out, that would seem to be energy better spent elsewhere. But as mentioned he didn't want to leave it half done either. I agree that nuclear weapons have been used on aircraft, wasn't that done by Taiwan like you said in the 60s? It was reported that a single Taiwan craft would intercept a squadron of much better Chinese aircraft, and they'd all be destroyed. Later when US military was in the region they were required to wear giger (sp?) counters to check for radiation. The premise was that the Taiwan craft had a low grade nuclear warhead on board, and it would detonate when close enough to destroy all the enemy fighters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's feasable to have scientists working separately from xcom on military projects to come up with improved equiment and interceptors, but I think that's for V1+ too. It would be fun though, having all research go much slower, so in the beginning you're stuck with waht you got, until the latest aircraft is presented, incorporating the latest anti-ufo equipment (in other words, they're still no good against the big ones, but who are you to complain ^_^ )

On a side note: it was the ol' US of A that developed nuclear AA missiles, at the highest point of soviet nuclear bomber threat. The idea was, you could have a few interceptors with one such missile, and they could wipe out enormous bomber fleets (imagine a nuke going off in a bomber formation).
Well, maybe Taiwan had similar ideas, but I only know of the US ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]This fighter is an interim solution pending the development of an UAV. Missile defense meaning defense against missiles. Cruise Missile/High Speed Aircraft Interceptor AIRCRAFT. Meaning an aircraft that intecepts cruise missiles and other aircraft.[/quote] Missile interception is a task which, AFIK has never been assigned to an aircraft. The only existant missile defense systems revolved around missiles fired from fixed emplacements, mobile artillery, or ships... though Regan wanted to use particle beams and satilites.

That's not to say "it can't be done", but tring to get a Mach 3 aircraft to intercept a missile is not the simplist of tasks.

[quote]Cryogenic fuels do nothing to cool engines, either.[/quote] Yea, I was gonna skip over that... I'm not sure that heat is the primary reason the one Mig-25 that did Mach3 needed engine replacement either.

[quote]Anti aircraft nuclear tipped missiles is technology from the 60's[/quote] The technology does exist, and there are missiles that use nuclear payloads (obviously many ballistic and cruise missiles). I can neither confirm nor deny weather there exists/existed a nuclear-enable anti-arcraft missile (if there was, I would imagine it was a pheonix).

BTW [url="http://www.rmf.se/launchpd.htm"]http://www.rmf.se/launchpd.htm[/url] has a decent list of missiles actually in use.

[quote]None of this has to be air tight, it's science fiction.[/quote] I agree, and I did warn you at the beginning of my post it was techno-geek nit-picking.

[quote]I agree that nuclear weapons have been used on aircraft, wasn't that done by Taiwan like you said in the 60s?[/quote] Tiwan is not a nuclear power, therefore this is a myth.

Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States are confirmed nuclear countries.
Isreal is assumed nuclear.
N.Korea has declared itself nuclear.
South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine had nuclear weapons but disposed of them.

[quote]On a side note: it was the ol' US of A that developed nuclear AA missiles, at the highest point of soviet nuclear bomber threat. The idea was, you could have a few interceptors with one such missile, and they could wipe out enormous bomber fleets (imagine a nuke going off in a bomber formation).[/quote] I thought "Red Storm Rising" offered a brilliant use of tactical nukes... launch dozens from long-range bombers to take out carrier groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are concepts modelled, let's see them. The only things I've seen are concepts for the skyranger and the avenger, both of which need a lot of refinement.

What I want you to focus on is the freaking PICTURE of the fighter, damnit. I spent 3 days learning a vector program for that thing. I spent 10 minutes on the stupid write up- and all that was just trying to find a way to justify a super fast aircraft like that in this age of moderate speed and stealth technology. There's no reason for it because there's no niche. North Korea has a missile program but it's an ICMB program, not a cruise missile program. Having an aircraft intercepting a sub orbital object travelling at 20,000 feet per second is more fantansy than a cruise missile travelling at transonic speeds.

And a big issue with the mig 25 travelling at higher than mach 3 for longer than sprints was a problem because of heat build up which would put a lot of strain on the engines. I researched a lot about interceptors, engines and the like before I put pencil to paper.

I am quite aware of the realities of modern aviation and what is and is not realistic about the write up.

I disagree that the write up needs to be fleshed out because noone wants to read a 6 page technical manual on a game screen when they are selecting their interceptor.

To answer the question as to what this is for, I answered it. I had this thing in the works before I realised that it had already been done but I was too interested in it to stop. What I'm looking for is feedback on the aircraft design as a composition, not why all my fiction wouldn't work as non fiction.

edit: and perhaps to get someone interested in my artwork and suggest a project to me. All this information SHOULD be on the website, and the department heads should know what needs doing. I'm currently working on a sectoid and personal armour as well. Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='fux0r666' date='Aug 20 2003, 11:45 PM']If there are concepts modelled, let's see them.  The only things I've seen are concepts for the skyranger and the avenger, both of which need a lot of refinement.

What I want you to focus on is the freaking PICTURE of the fighter, damnit.  I spent 3 days learning a vector program for that thing.  I spent 10 minutes on the stupid write up- and all that was just trying to find a way to justify a super fast aircraft like that in this age of moderate speed and stealth technology.  There's no reason for it because there's no niche.  North Korea has a missile program but it's an ICMB program, not a cruise missile program.  Having an aircraft intercepting a sub orbital object travelling at 20,000 feet per second is more fantansy than a cruise missile travelling at transonic speeds.

And a big issue with the mig 25 travelling at higher than mach 3 for longer than sprints was a problem because of heat build up which would put a lot of strain on the engines.  I researched a lot about interceptors, engines and the like before I put pencil to paper. 

I am quite aware of the realities of modern aviation and what is and is not realistic about the write up.

I disagree that the write up needs to be fleshed out because noone wants to read a 6 page technical manual on a game screen when they are selecting their interceptor.

To answer the question as to what this is for, I answered it.  I had this thing in the works before I realised that it had already been done but I was too interested in it to stop.  What I'm looking for is feedback on the aircraft design as a composition, not why all my fiction wouldn't work as non fiction.

edit:  and perhaps to get someone interested in my artwork and suggest a project to me.  All this information SHOULD be on the website, and the department heads should know what needs doing.  I'm currently working on a sectoid and personal armour as well.[/quote]
Look m8, there are a lot of things goin on, if u want a project PM either Demios, Breunor or look on the asset list 4 things THAT DON'T HAVE NAMES BY THEM. Sounds pretty simple 2 me, everyone else seems 2 work fine with it. AFAIK noone is doin the Sectoid, so feel free. Just do what u ave done here really, a little description of ur idea and a concept, we'll say what we all think, get it to a stage where as many peeps are happy as possible and then move on to the modelling stage. I understand ur frustration, it must seem pretty unorganised at the mo, but just contact a senior member, they'll point u in the direction of some work that ain't been started :)

I also agree that it's a good concept picture, don't throw it out, just keep it till we get all the models done and then we can start bringing up what we think are some superior models and discuss, well thats my opinion ne way since I actually quite like the design.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the information. In my first post I was wondering how to get a hold of one of the senior members, and I consulted the list, but noone actually told me to speak to one of them so I assumed that there was a certain way to go about it... and I needed to find out.

I spent a few hours colouring it up like they have in the xcom ufopedia.. I'm going to write up stats for it just to have the picture around (which is why the composition is so far off to the right. I thought I would post it just because.

edit: and there are light sourcing issues that I'm aware of.. I just got tired of the screen and multiply tools for today.

edit: lightsourcing resolved. Added my signature. Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks killer, unfortunatly we aren't sticking 2 the UFOpaedia design in UFO, we are creating our own X.Net database with actual model pictures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last pic could work for cut scenes however, and I agree it's a nice picture. I'm the one to see about what models to do, we currently have modelers working on a sectoid and personal armor, that's my bad for not having the asset list up to date. Recently lost power where I have access to ftp, so I'll get the assetlist up to date today.

Current aliens not assigned include Muton, Floater, Ethereal, Celatid, Silacoid, Snakeman, and Reaper. There are concept pics for the snakeman and reaper, but neither are final/approved yet. Take a stab at any of those, we need to see concept art for them first, and once that's worked out and approved modeling and skinning can happen. Send me a personal message about which models you're working on, and when you have a concept pic I'll update the assetlist.

Thanks :happybanana:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, just put at the end that "some fux0r came up with this" and that should cover you. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Heh, maby we could use this in v2, when upgrading craft with alien tech is (will it ever?) implemented. The original interceptor is the bread and butter 100% human tech one, but once upgraded with a shiny new alien alloy hull, and improved fusion (non elerium) engines, it looks like your concept! I like that, and it lets your concept make it into the game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpl. Facehugger always remember that we are in concept stage, we still dont have definite tech in... just placeholders for alpha work, nobody is telling this concept cant be the interceptor fighter. We will choose the highest quality concept that fits in the style of the game. So keep the concepts coming. Even for already placeholder selected ones.

Greetings
Red Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is set in stone. There is room for improvement always, maybe thid design will be used for v1.0. This doesn't mean as we refine the game that it won't be changed. I think whoever said that it won't be changed ever only meant what I have said above, that's the line I have maintained. Remember that once 1.0 is out the art department has a lot less work to do as most of the improvements will be on a programming level, this gives us ample time to tweak all the graphics. However it is better to have all the craft in a placeholder status than to have one model perfect.

If I am wrong I would like to know now as this has been what I have been telling others, and misinformation is always bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the result of a lot of careful research... I mean, days of it. I must have researched 5 different planes, 3 different wing configurations, all kinds of powerplants and how those features if depicted accurately would affect the overall composition.

So if you like it, it's what referring to good source material can do!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my only beef are those cannards. for some reason they just look awkward in comparison to the rest of the plane though I don't have any suggestions as to what shape to make them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was referancing the top image, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the perspective. Basically the shape of the cannards themselves is differnty that any other part of the plane and it looks odd for some reason but I can't think of a better shape for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it's now they just look like cardboard pieces glued to the plane because they look so flat and rectangular compared to the rest of the aircraft.
I'd say:
1) draw a thick black line at the underside (like with the wings, to make them stand out a bit
2) round the front corner a little
3) the line forming the connection between the canard and the fuselage should get an easy bend, so as to make the canard look slightly rounded, having a small volume instead of looking completely flat

I think that would make it look better, could be way off of course :unsure: Edited by j'ordos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think would improve it in that was is if I moved the canard to the corner of the fuselage. I don't know if I would change the shape of the Canard itself, though, that shape is what stealth geometry calls for.

Edit: I could reduce or completely retract the corner where the canard turns back on itself at the trailing edge and make the shape more akin to the wings of the f-23, but this is the least of my priorities at the moment.

Check the coloured picture again. I fixed a few issues with placement and perspective. See if it's still AS offensive. Edited by fux0r666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='fux0r666' date='Sep 17 2003, 01:14 PM']Check the coloured picture again.  I fixed a few issues with placement and perspective.  See if it's still AS offensive.[/quote]
Yes, I am SO offended by the picture! :D :D

Here's a stray thought about tying this into the lightning design fux0r. I think you said you were working on something seperate for that, but could this design be spread out some between the engines, say the 2+ meters needed for guys to sit between the engines? Looking at the colored pic, I could see this plane being a bigger craft with enough room for troops, and still be really fast. What are your thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Editted wings! BAH! I worked on this concept for weeks while combing the internet for source material. I went through like 5 concept stages. I sure hope you are not implying that I took a picture of the F22 and 'editted it's wings.'

That would make me very grumpy.
Teehee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice also that the thrust nozzles are about 2ce or 3 times the size on the intereceptor. There are several differences and the concept was meant to be development from the f22 project. If you'd care to read the CT that accompanies the black and white concept drawing, all answers lay therein.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crix Dorius' date='Sep 22 2003, 06:10 PM']Huuu...

Vaaish ?
Do you have a high-res version of it... ??? :blink:[/quote]
sorry, I don't I was just posting it to show where I Was coming from about the edited wings concept. I never said the two were the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vaaish' date='Sep 23 2003, 04:39 AM']sorry, I don't I was just posting it to show where I Was coming from about the edited wings concept. I never said the two were the same.[/quote]
Damn... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see why I thought the tailfins went in! I was looking at the bottom! :LOL:

Anyway, I like the current interceptor. As this is already modeled, I don't really see why we need to add another one until after version 1. Once v1 is out the door, then we should revisit your concept because it really looks good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, while this thread was fux0r wanting to post his pic, he is aware and everyone else should also be that the interceptor concept has been locked in already, and no amount of discussion will be changing that design at this point. It might seem unfair, but the concepts already locked in were voted on by the art department and senior members many months ago and modeled so we could move on to other areas. Once all the models are done and we're looking at them all together, if some stick out as not up to par or not fitting with the look of the game, then changes or replacements will be considered. But until then we should focus these energies and hours towards designs we don't have yet, so we're that much closer to a working game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...