Next-Generation Ferram Fighter Competition (BDA) (FAR)

[ProgradeInProgress]

High mach and tailless fighter jets are notoriously difficult to design. This challenge is made greater in Ferram Aerospace, and as a long-time fan of designing fighters in KSP, I'd like to see designs that people can come up with under certain restrictions. The challenge is inspired by the 5th Generation Fighter Challenge by @Halsfury. However, this challenge is largely focused on fitting within both capability and design constraints. The goal, ideally, is to make something that fits within these constraints and looks good doing it.

There are two tiers for this challenge, Proposal and Prototype. Posting the craft falls under the 'Proposal' section of the competition, subject to the rules below. 'Prototype' craft will be tested upon the submitter's request against other 'Prototype' craft (3 times per craft). Kill tallies will be posted, and the craft with the highest tally will be the current winner. The current #1s for each tier will have an image of the craft shown in the main post (for bragging rights), with past winners shown on a leaderboard.

Without further ado, the constraints are as follows:

Spoiler

Ferram Aerospace must be used.

BD Armory must be used.

Radar, a targeting system, and weapons manager must be present.

A Vulcan cannon (and ammunition for said cannon) must be present.

Must use only Panther Engines.

There must be a stock Mk2 cargo bay with internally mounted weapons.

The craft cannot have more than four tailfins.

Must have a TWR greater than 1 on dry thrust without weaponry.

Must be supermaneuverable (how this is achieved is up to the designer) when not under weapons load.

Must be capable of 6g+ turns.

Must be capable of supercruise when under weapons load.

The submission MUST contain a craft file and imgur links/galleries of the craft fulfilling these criteria.

The entries can be divided into two categories:

Spoiler

Light fighter (single-engine, minimum 500 lf)

Heavy fighter (twin-engine, minimum 1000 lf)

Check the Helpful Hints for permitted config changes.

Both categories must still comply with the restrictions above.

 

Helpful Hints and Useful Mods: 

Spoiler

You are allowed to edit the config of the Mk2 bicoupler to carry 700 Liquid Fuel, the Mk2 to 1.25m Adapter (Short) to hold 300 LF, the Mk2 to 1.25m (Long) to carry 500 LF,  the Mk2 short bay to carry 100 LF, and the long Mk2 bay to carry 200 LF (for part count and craft mass reduction).

3rd party cockpits are permitted.

Integrating radar and weapons manager modules into the cockpit via config is allowed.

Procedural Parts and B9 (including Procedural Wings) are allowed.

TweakScale is permitted unless it is on the engine or main fuselage.

Adjustable Landing Gear is recommended.

Kerbal Engineer is recommended to calculate TWR.

AtmosphereAutopilot by @Boris-Barboris is highly recommended for flight testing as it allows unstable designs to be easily flyable.

Due to the points system, it may be more beneficial to use four horizontal/ventral ruddervators than a near-vertical v-tail or a three-tailed design.

Points: 

Spoiler

 

One point for every 5° over 40° AoA where the plane can still be controlled without the use of afterburners.

One point for every weapon above 6 mounted internally.

One point for every G endured in a turn over 6. 

One half point for every externally mounted weapon if total capacity is over 14. Guns do not contribute to this score.

Two points for every .1 Mach over Mach 1.4 at supercruise.

Two points for every .1 Mach above Mach 2 when using afterburners.

Points will be distributed per tailfin below four used in the design, with the following scale: +1 point for a three-tail design, +3 points for a two-tailed design, +6 for a one-tailed design, +10 for a tailless design.

If the design has tailfins, and all tailfins are canted at least 45° from vertical, then an additional 5 points will be awarded.

 

An example craft of my own design will be posted soon. Good luck to all!

Edited February 27, 2016 by ProgradeInProgress
Formatting!

[JW2016]

" In KSP, fighter jets are notoriously difficult to design. This challenge is made greater in Ferram Aerospace "

Only when you make up a big list of arbitrary constraints to only allow things that looks a certain way for no reason.

[Guest]

The only constraint should be make the best jet possible

Testing them objectively is easy by recording people's craft duelling  with BDarmory AI pilot

See what actually happens ingame.

[ProgradeInProgress]

16 hours ago, JW2016 said:

Only when you make up a big list of arbitrary constraints to only allow things that looks a certain way for no reason.

They don't have to look a certain way at all. Wing design is not restricted, there are no restrictions on LERX and canards, and I am not banning the use of Mk-1 parts attached radially to the fuselage. The only design restrictions are fewer than 4 tailfins and the use of a Mk2 cargo bay.

The restrictions are intentionally similar to current design trends in fighter jets . A sixth-gen fighter is not and should not be a rehashed F-15 replica. When competing for a contract, it is not "Who makes the best jet", it is "Who makes the best jet under the required criteria?". 

The Mk2 Cargo Bay is necessary for internal weapon storage. The tailplane restrictions and use of a lifting body is meant to simulate stealth requirements. The performance restrictions are there for what should be expected of a sixth-gen fighter. I think the restrictions are fairly justified if you look at the current concepts of future fifth and sixth-gen fighters.

The points system is meant to encourage designs that are difficult to perfect. I will add a performance-based section for those who like that aspect later, but the idea is to match the criteria and emerge with the best aircraft within those restrictions.

 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I have a totally amazing fighter perfect for this..... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it uses 1.25 metre parts.

[ProgradeInProgress]

13 hours ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

I have a totally amazing fighter perfect for this..... 

But it uses 1.25 metre parts.

OK, looks like I'll be changing the requirements. If you can integrate a Mk2 cargo bay and fit a weapon into it, I'll allow it to qualify. Rules have been changed accordingly.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

4 hours ago, ProgradeInProgress said:

OK, looks like I'll be changing the requirements. If you can integrate a Mk2 cargo bay and fit a weapon into it, I'll allow it to qualify. Rules have been changed accordingly.

Nope,it has cockpit mounted guns, and wing mounted missiles. It's wont qualify.

[ProgradeInProgress]

7 hours ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

Nope,it has cockpit mounted guns, and wing mounted missiles. It's wont qualify.

Looks like I'll have to give the OP a thorough editing tomorrow morning. I have a few example craft and a WIP, and I need to change a rule or two as well. I'm rather new with these challenges, but I do need to simplify it. Feel free to post it for now.

As a side note, the WIP craft is a personal favorite- it's a tailless fighter with 10 internally mounted weapons, an integrated FLIR ball, and a Vulcan clipped into the cockpit. 

[ProgradeInProgress]

I've permitted some config changes for LF since no Oxidizer will be used. They're extremely lenient, so most craft should qualify for their respective categories with no problem. This should allow for some fun designs, and allow anyone who wants to compete without worrying about fuel and focus on designing the craft.

[NotAnAimbot]

I think the Mk.2 cargo hold is a bit limiting.

[Hodo]

Wow, lots of complaining.  This is a great challenge, doesnt seem all that hard except the supercruise part.  But that is an issue I personally am overcoming in my own designs.  

 

The mk2 bay is not at all a restriction and I have several OLD designs that use it as internal bay. 

This was BEFORE BDArmory had the  rotating rack for weapon bays. 

 

When I get some time I will most definitely be attempting this.