The Daedam class are the newest class of nuclear-powered guided missile submaries designed by Bangwigwan (formerly Institute 72) and built at the Musan Submarine Plant for the Menghean Navy. They are the second-largest submarine design under construction anywhere in Septentrion, and until the end of the Second Pan-Septentrion War they were in high-rate production, with one to two laid down every year.
Daedam-class submarines are designed to locate and engage enemy high-value surface targets, including aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and trans-oceanic supply convoys. For this role, they carry a heavy battery of anti-ship missiles which can be launched from underwater to overwhelm large escort formations. They also have relatively generous crew accommodations, to support long-range patrols and prolonged shadowing of potential targets in peacetime.
[...]
The building design for the Daedam-class submarine, designated Plan 360, was formally approved in 2008. Construction work on the first four hulls followed this set of plans.
A key feature of this submarine was its ability to carry the TY-8HJ, a submarine-launched anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of 600 kilometers. This weapon was planned as a derivative of the TY-8 Sŭngri then under development. Unlike the CSNS-guided TY-8, the TY-8HJ would locate, track, and target ships by means of an infrared electro-optical unit in the nose. It would also be specially modified for underwater launch. As an alternative to the TY-8HJ, each launch silo could be fitted for seven YDH-28 anti-ship missiles, SY-28 cruise missiles, or a two-stage high-supersonic anti-ship missile then in development for the Menghean Navy. Brochures and promotional material released by Menghe's Ministry of National Defense showed a notional combination of six anti-ship ballistic missiles and 42 subsonic missiles, with the ability to remove the seven-cell subsonic missile assembly by crane while docked at a pier.
Development issues plagued the TY-8HJ program from the start. Modifying the fin-stabilized, solid-fueled TY-8 for underwater launch proved much more difficult than expected, especially for a navy that had no prior experience with submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The anti-ship guidance mode, also in development for the land-based TY-8H Anhae, also had problems acquiring targets in testing, pushing back initial operating capability. Adding to these troubles, a 2012 assessment by the External Intelligence Agency reported that the Entente Cordiale was developing an upgrade or variant of the Aster-30 missile capable of intercepting short-range ballistic missiles like the TY-8. With this change, a barrage of six or even twelve TY-8HJ missiles would not be sufficient to saturate a hostile carrier battle group by the time the Daedam class entered service in any large number. Under the weight of these considerations, the General-Directorate for Research and Development formally cancelled the TY-8HJ program in 2013.
HMNHS Lionel Todd (S51) Lionel Todd is the first of four ballistic missile submarines commissioned by the Royal New Holland Navy between 1971 and 1974. It represents a fundamental shift in New Holland nuclear strategy and, as of January 1989, remains the primary deterrent of that country. An evolution of the hunter-killer submarine Erwin Thompson, New Holland's first nuclear-powered vessel, the Lionel Todd class carries sixteen Polaris ballistic missiles in an 80 foot (24 metre) extension of the hull. Official policy dictates that at least one member of the class is on station, ready to launch, at any given time. The exact patrol area is classified, though it is almost certainly somewhere in the northwestern Pacific Ocean. Lionel Todd is named after a New Holland psychist famous for his study of x-ray diffraction. Other members of the class include Harmon Wood, Martin Tucker, and Roger Munchenberg.
Development
From the detonation of New Holland's first atomic bomb in 1952 to the deployment of Russia's R-16 missile in 1961, New Holland was largely satisfied with the nuclear-armed strategic bomber. It viewed itself as a regional power with no desire to confront the Soviet Union directly. More pressing were communist threats in Malaya, Indonesia, and North China. There was also no bomber or missile gap to speak of. Soviet strategic weapons lacked the range necessary to attack targets in New Holland. The R-16 changed the equation. It was the first Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile able to strike New Holland. Only a small number were required to cripple the nation and there were concerns that, in a general conflict, the Soviet Union might annihilate New Holland as a final warning to the United States and NATO. The situation was exacerbated by the Cuban Missile Crisis, which sparked fears of short-range missiles appearing in Roheraki. It was in this heated climate that New Holland determined its need for nuclear weapons that could strike the Soviet Union.
Before settling on ballistic missile submarines, the Ministry of Defence scrutinised a number of options. Replacing New Holland's strategic bomber fleet with the B-52 Stratofortress was seriously considered, but that proposal was marred by the cancellation of Skybolt. A land-based ballistic missile, likely the Minuteman, was also mooted. This was shot down by Simon Young, the prime minister, who considered the deployment of land-based system in New Holland politically untenable. A number of other delivery methods were proposed including ship-launched ballistic missiles, satellites, and merchant ships sailing under the Soviet flag.
By 1963 the Ministry of Defence favoured the acquisition of four nuclear-armed submarines. They could deploy missiles closer to the Soviet Union than any other platform, required minimal support while on patrol, and were in a better position to survive until required. It was also the direction the United Kingdom was heading with the Nassau Agreement and there was little hesitance in the United States to share relevant nuclear technology with New Holland. The incoming government of prime minister Norman Miles formalised plans in December 1964. New Holland would first build an experimental nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine. Its existing submarine fleet was diesel-electric and this was considered inadequate for the role. A ballistic missile submarine class would then be derived from the hunter-killer submarine. Erwin Thompson was commissioned in 1968 and Lionel Todd class followed from 1971.
Design Lionel Todd is 385 feet (117 metres) long and displaces around 7,500 long tons (8400 short tons, 7620 tonnes) submerged. It is propelled by a Westinghouse S5W reactor indirectly driving a single screw and can attain speeds of 25 knots (29 miles per hour, 47 kilometres per hour) submerged. In addition to launch tubes for sixteen Polaris A-3 ballistic missiles, the submarine is also equipped six 21 inch (533 millimetre) torpedo tubes at the bow. These are directly below the attack sonar, which complements long-range hydrophones installed along the hull's flank and several other sensors. The drawing above shows Lionel Todd as it appeared in 1971. It is painted in an overall dark grey or black scheme with its pennant number presented on the sail. Anechoic tiles were added in a 1980 refit. The torpedoes shown, an old unguided type not normally carried and a later but slower acoustic homing design, were eventually replaced with a modern wire-guided model around the same time.
Following the increasing importance of nuclear weapons and deterrence and the introduction of vastly more capable submarines following the full implementation of wartime lessons, it was clear that the existing fleet of missile submarines would not be enough to carry Lasafenia into the nuclear age. As such, Lasafenia sought to augment and then replace their existing fleet of hastily assembled wartime conversions and derivatives with modern and purpose built nuclear submarines.
Derived primarily from the previous Type 57 class SSN, the Type 58 incorporated an array of twelve new nuclear ballistic missiles. Owing to a lack of experience with vessels of this type, the class was designed with the same duties of more conventional submarines in mind and as such incorporated a full sensor suite lifted off of the Type 57s alongside two radar sets for additional equipment. Rounding out her capabilities were six torpedo tubes as per the Type 57 class, albeit with two less torpedoes in reserve.
With four built, in service the ships were considered to be quite effective with the main complaint being their cramped conditions and quickly obsoleted sensor systems. However, the class would be appreciated for their somewhat more versatile nature and this would be reflected in their usage, often supplementing attack submarines when more capable SSBNs could fill the strategic role with longer range missiles on a more modern platform.
By far their most important impact however was their lineage as following Lasafenian SSBNs for nearly a decade would be derived from the platform of the Type 58s. The similar Type 60 class extended the hull for a greater missile capacity and improved the sonar systems while later iterations would modify or augment the propulsion setup with range increasing steadily over the lineage's run.
"I don't need you to tell me how cringe my post is, I'm the one who posted it. I know how cringe it is."
The Fryssian navy continued the Type XXI production after ww2 in the port of Hamburg many years after the war.
They produced 4 Type XXI ships and modified these to a more modern design.
The same design was also used for a baltic SSB that could launch 4 French M1 Missiles.
The way these missiles would be launched is different to other nations Gen 1 SSB submarines, the reason is pretty simple.
There is no design on the table able to be stretched enough for vertical launch.
To accomodate these missiles the designers added 4 rotatable tubes on the side of an enlarged Type XXI design.
The tubes would rotate to verticle launch position and then launch the missile.
*ship is not finished*
Last edited by Mitchell van Os on September 18th, 2023, 12:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114 viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier
Also, as a reminder to anyone wishing to participate in future challenges, please do read the requirements and rules before creating an entry. One entry here appears to depict a real life design when Design Requirement 1 calls for a "fictional submarine". Another (now updated) included a data sheet when Challenge Rule 2 states "Other elements, including data sheets and scenic elements, are not permitted." I permitted both entries, but I would prefer that future entries conform to the stated rules and requirements.
Options for the Next Challenge Emergency Vehicle Challenge (FD Scale)
1. Your submission must depict three fictional land vehicles employed by emergency services.
2. One vehicle should be associated with a police force, another with a fire department, and the third with an emergency medical service.
3. The three vehicles should be shown in the service of a single country and contemporaneous.
Directed-Energy Weapon Challenge (Gunbucket et al.)
1. Your submission must depict a fictional directed-energy weapon.
2. A single person working alone should be capable of carrying and operating the weapon effectively.
3. The weapon should be optimised for the neutralisation of enemy infantry.
World War II Motor Torpedo Boat Challenge (FD Scale)
1. Your submission must depict a fictional motor torpedo boat or equivalent (e.g. patrol torpedo boat, schnellboot, motoscafo armato silurante).
2. The boat should be in active service at some point between 1 September 1939 and 2 September 1945. It may enter service before this period.
3. At least two torpedoes should be included in the boat's armament.
4. The overall length of the boat should not exceed 40 metres (131 feet).
Real Life Challenge: FD Edition (FD Scale)*
1. Your submission must depict a real vehicle in FD scale.
2. Your drawing(s) should be suitable for inclusion in the Shipbucket archive.
3. The chosen vehicle must not already appear in the archive. You can draw a derivative of a vehicle already in the archive if it differs substantially from the original (e.g. the M74 recovery vehicle derived from the M4 Sherman).
4. Never built designs are permitted if you present a realistic interpretation of their appearance in service or an unmarked version identical to the real life proposal. *If chosen, Drawing Quality will be this challenge's sole category. Also, the number of views and drawings permitted in each entry will not be restricted.
Cold War Primary Trainer Aircraft (FD Scale)**
1. Your submission must depict a fictional primary trainer aircraft.
2. The aircraft should enter service between 1946 and 1991. Development may commence before this time frame.
3. The aircraft must be designed from the outset as a trainer and that should be its primary role.
4. Maximum takeoff weight must not exceed 15,000 lbs (6,803 kg).
5. Maximum speed should not exceed 800 km/h (497 mph). **Design Requirement 5 was not included in the previous iteration of this challenge proposal.
Last edited by Kiwi Imperialist on September 21st, 2023, 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sebu: Many good concepts I enjoy here such as the quad packed cruise missile and the drone launcher in the sail. Unfortunately the shading and highlights are quite underdeveloped which gives the ship an impression of being extremely flat. The two shadings used on the majority of the hull do not give enough of an impression for a curved hull. The single or double thick highlights also do not provide ample detail to help the curved depiction. The rear part of the hull is also highly under detailed, as well as a strange and weird use of curved lines that do not flow easily with one another
Myself: I am only somewhat pleased with my outcome of the submarine. I do feel as if I was able to execute my vision, but I do think that basing of the KSS-III does put me at a disadvantage compared to other entries, as although KSS-III is in fact an Attack / Ballistic Missile Submarine, many others are somewhat unaware of the KSS-III ballistic missile role and may see my sub as a lazy way of stretching a conventional sub into a boomer. I am upset that I never was serious regarding a top view and that could have been my chance at a possible higher position.
CF-18: I feel that the submarine is a bit unnaturally long. The sail also seems tall and skinny almost as an afterthought rather than drawn alongside the rest of the submarine (or perhaps the sail drawn first then the sub). The panel lines do have me confused however… especially the belt armor looking panels that I guess could be the flank array sonar but it lacks any substantial details and rather looks ripped from a dreadnought’s armored belt.
Superboy: I understand that you had to rework your entry from the Regulus cruise missile to ballistic missiles, however I do think the execution could have been better as all that was done was just take off the Regulus holders and shove some ballistic missiles in the sub. For me it seems you really like the concept of the longer submarine with a very thin and slightly tall sail, although I like this style for attack subs, I do not feel this works well for a boomer.
Remorseful Dreamer: Your sub is actually quite high on my favorites list. I enjoy the shark mouth, as well as the fact the general outline of the SSBN is very familiar looking as if it could have been in service IRL. Shading and highlights are decent, and in terms of details they are fine, but I would have added some more details within the centerline of the ship as it feels kind of bare. Is that also a flank array sonar or an armored belt?
TNGShM: An unconventional design, almost kind of mirroring a WW2 conversion invoking Typhoon. I do however have issues with how a number of components of the sub are depicted. First off I do think the part of showing the rudders as “not touching” the hull itself is kind of strange, as If you look at other similar ww2 submarines, most have the rudders touch the black lines, even if they do not fully connect to the hull of the submarine as the difference is so minor that it wouldn't show up in sb scale. Next the hull shading and highlights are all over the place, they follow more in line with surface ship hulls rather than the submarines that are designed to be curvature, as using your hull shading, the submarine would have a curved bottom but a flat side and top, almost being a square-ish top, not a good idea for a submarine, even if it has a more square-ish design for the top for the ballistic missiles, as it especially makes it look flat. I also have concerns about its speeds underwater given the flat bow, the hump forward of the sail for the missiles, and a mostly flat bottom. It also seems to have quite a few missiles (16x) for a ship of early design.
Nighthunter: I see the vision, but the first thing that pops out at me is the armaments total. 24x ballistic missile tubes total on that ship, plus the 10x tomahawks? That is a considerable armament on a ship that is still ~120 ft shorter than the Ohio that has less weapons. I feel like these armanets will impact the crew and the amount of space that they have, especially when considering the amount of space that the reactor and the propulsion systems take. I do wish the sail was shaded with more emphasis, as the light shading makes it look flat. Ihave no idea what that random line offshoot is supposed to signify on the sail .
Rbz88: I like this lad, it's kinda funny. Top view does in fact help me try and visualize her dimensions within my head. I do think the sail being short would have a bad impact on her ability to move into port however as it has poor forward visibility. The fins up front however are not depicted in the top view…
Huehen: I'm not sure how I feel about the submarine, the flank array sonars make little sense and instead just look “thrown on”. I'm not a great submarine expert, although I have consulted some friends who are studying submarine designs, and they do have concerns regarding the height of the sail and its possible effects on how the submarine operates underwater, with it acting more like an actual sail in the currents rather than a normal submarine sail.
Baron: I kinda helped you with this one with critiques, my primary concern still lies in the hull shading and highlights. I do think the sail still needs to be highlighted/shaded more to exemplify that it is not extremely flat. I also think the cylinders that hold the missiles should have far more extreme levels of shading as right now, they are very flat.
Sprinks: you are my #1 vote actually in this challenge, the shading adheres to my preferences and makes sense, the missile silo count is the most believable out of every submission, and there’s nothing truly wrong with it that I need to critique.
BillKerman1234: before I start: It is an amazing drawing, and I know I would never be able to replicate the detail even if I tried… But when I had joked about the challenge being “WW2 conversions, offbrand ohio’s and a typhoon” I wasn't quite expecting what in essence literally a typhoon. Yes I know it technically isn't a typhoon, as it even deviates from the Red October references, but idk… a whole typhoon does in fact feel kind of like a cheap shot and not really going for a unique sense for the spirit of the challenge to create something “new”. Take my opinion with heavy salt as it is more of personal preference for the “spirit of the challenge”, but I personally think it would have been cool for a slightly more modified design that isn't *almost* a typhoon. However it 100% hands down is in my top 3
Hood: I kinda vibe with it. I would have cut down the missiles in the sail by 2 however. (just a btw, wouldn't the little missile opening for the sub when lifted be a bit different to show its opening, as right now it gives the impression that they are 6 on each side for 12x total instead of only 6?)
BB1987: Quite an excellent boat, another extremely rational design. It will be highly ranked by me. I do wish however that the center and some of the aft did have details however, as it does look a bit bare. I have no other comments as the quality speaks for itself
Corp: another classic corp design with the air force getting a ballistic missile sub. There is however a mild artistic discrepancy where on the side view, you utilize black to show where the panel lines for the ballistic missile openings are, but you use a dark gray for the top view. Also is the sail a bit too thin or am I just crazy?
Polydegmon: Unfortunately I am not quite sure what is going on with this submarine, it is all over the place… sail is weirdly conducted, the rear rudders are highly exaggerated, panel lines in black, the flank array sonars just look thrown on. What did you take from crazyhorse?
Torbid: You innovated the anechoic tiles, as well as entering with a quite unique concept design that I very much enjoy. The only minor criticism I have for you is that I do think the highlighting shading color is a bit harsh and should be a bit darker, the shading however is fine.
Waff: It reminds me of the Type 094 SSBN of China, I feel personally It could be a tad shorter aft much akin to the Type 094s. Overall It is a very good submarine design rooted in irl. A noted criticism I however have is the use of a quad bladed Propeller, as the few blades it has means it has to spin faster, and thus cavitation noises are heightened. More Submarine Prop blades allows it to be quieter in the ocean to the sonar.
Christian 101: unfortunately I have much confusion on the basic design/style choices of this submarine… The dip in the back should be more gradual, the use of the old yellow props is off putting, the anechoic tiles are so faint that in certain shades they are barely visible to the point that they might as well not be there. I assume the ship was commissioned after 1980 as that's when the first USN ship to use anechoic tiles began popping into service. The highlight curve going in the aft also makes little sense as it disrupts the tube-flow of the submarine. I also would not have chosen the vertical stabilizers to curve back into the sub.
NepuNep: my criticisms are mostly regarding the style and process around how you made the submarine. In the discord you asked for our advice and we had made some suggestions regarding panel lines, but alas. The submarine is exceptionally long with a very strange rear section with two rudders(?) on the top and bottom, however they don’t seem to have an ability to “turn” given no sort of panel line denoting the ability. The panel lines throughout the ship are seemingly thrown around at random. In regards to style, the subs’s highlights are practically non-existent and barely visible to the naked eye. I had to go into paint to be 100% that was in fact a different shade. The hump at the front makes little sense, but also is not a smooth curve that you’d find on the equivalent submarines with a jump in the front. I don't understand why you opted for 24x silos for the submarine, especially one that has seemingly only theater ballistic missiles, the 24x silos is quite a lot that isn’t found on most submarines. The sail is also quite simple for a SSBN.
Kattsun: I mean it’s literally the NK SSB, so realism I guess is full marks, so my criticism is mostly going to be about style. First off why even credit HI Sutton, he doesn’t do sb but you likely used his image as a reference, which doesn’t require credits. Now onto the sub, the shading/highlights make poor sense especially the shading near the front where it literally just stops. The shading for the panel line you make for the ballistic missile part of the sail also doesn’t work stylistic wise, using highlighting shade as a panel line on the sail doesn’t work, also considering the panel lines don’t even match all that well with the actual submarine. The door is also a bit taller than you have depicted. I have no idea why you have erased the panel lines along the hull, as they are visibly still there on the NK sub. I have no idea why you made the exhaust into a weird bump as well.
_Zustt_: I am actually quite interested in this concept. I quite enjoy the design of the sun, my nitpicking is minimal, as I would have personally made a flat bow like the Romeo’s, and for the rear, I feel the props are quite tiny
Apdaf: time for your essay… first off when I suggested you the Kalibr, instead of !Vyuga, I was expecting you to literally only use one cruise missile for tube launching, not to have two separate types of cruise missile on the sub. And even then, the Kalibr and Zircon can be fired out of the main tubes instead of needing the heavy tubes that Dave mentioned to you about. So your bow armaments room has legit 5x separate launch equipment it needs to keep track of, even with similar roles to one another (PICK ONE OR THE OTHER). Next off your standard torp launchers aren’t even on your top view. Now why would you ever need a SSBN with a top speed of apparently 40+ knots…? I’ll excuse the hand waving of the fusion reaction because I am not a nuclear physicist. I had explained to you that the 24x launchers is excessive even without the SALT treaty, especially when you had stated each missile can carry 8-12 warheads. In effect you created a near impossible over complicated “super sub” that is not realistic in any way, shape, or form, possible as you combined the most extreme elements of various different submarines into one to make it “the best”
acelanceloet: I know you displayed your extensive evidence regarding your layout of her shading rules on the discord, but even then I think you should go more extensive as it looks extremely flat (and yes Ik it’s shape is essentially a square), but it just doesn’t look right and just seems too unnecessarily flat, the bow isn’t even shaded at all which is not really a good look. The sail is also very underdetailed. Idk what’s going on in the top view near the bow where it looks like wire crossing the putter black line? Like the inner crossings are from the railings, but the ones on the outside?
Illuminati: a quite realistic approach, reminds me of if the Álvaro Alberto was an SSBN. At the time of writing this critique, the sub unfortunately is Jpeg’d, however I will use the one on discord you posted as my reference. 16x silos is an optimal number and it’s design and style is conducted well. At least some people here know a flank array sonar too! My only criticisms are 1. I think it honestly would have looked better without the Anechoic tile look, and then 2. I think your prop shroud shading doesn’t match well with the rest of the sub as it looks overshaded
Soode: quite a decent sub and a very detailed top view, however I do have three concerns with the submarine. 1. Is that supposed to be a flank array covering the ballistic missiles or an armored belt… because I see the other flank array further aft, but no complement up fore? It also explicitly covers the ballistic missiles as why I’m like “armored belt??” Because others in the challenge have explicitly made armored belts. 2. Why so many torpedoes? Is the ship supposed to be akin to an enlarged KSS-III with an attack/ballistic role? 3. The hull below the sail is quite barren of details and could do with a tad of some work.
Kiwi: quite a realistic approach, most of my critique is just the shading up near the bow with the “hump” and how it looks a bit overshaded.
Schodact: I have two things immediately pop out to me 1. The PUFFS (or !PUFFS) and 2. The shading. The !PUFFS is an interesting choice for a SSB of the era, I do recall the US having a PUFFS on their SSBN plans that sprinks utilized, but I don’t recall any non-attack sub of the pre-1960s era design incorporating the PUFFS. Then 2. The shading near the front is strange, especially the part that kind of just “stops” and then goes back down to a normal level.
Tigerhunter: YES YES YES. I was literally going to do something exactly like this for Iran too! I had issues finding a base so that’s why I had given up, but the design is exactly what I envisioned. I have absolutely no criticism as it’s perfect, the shading, design, armament, etc.
Mitchell van Os: I know you were racing against time but I would have submitted mine separately and just waited until I was finished and satisfied rather. The lower sonar at the bow is not shaded at all, and the bottom rear is undershaded. I would have also put the horizontal rear missile tube pair with a black outline that can differentiate it from looking like a hull integrated flank array.
Also, as a reminder to anyone wishing to participate in future challenges, please do read the requirements and rules before creating an entry. One entry here appears to depict a real life design when Design Requirement 1 calls for a "fictional submarine". Another (now updated) included a data sheet when Challenge Rule 2 states "Other elements, including data sheets and scenic elements, are not permitted." I permitted both entries, but I would prefer that future entries conform to the stated rules and requirements.
Options for the Next Challenge Emergency Vehicle Challenge (FD Scale)
1. Your submission must depict three fictional land vehicles employed by emergency services.
2. One vehicle should be associated with a police force, another with a fire department, and the third with an emergency medical service.
3. The three vehicles should be shown in the service of a single country and contemporaneous.
Directed-Energy Weapon Challenge (Gunbucket et al.)
1. Your submission must depict a fictional directed-energy weapon.
2. A single person working alone should be capable of carrying and operating the weapon effectively.
3. The weapon should be optimised for the neutralisation of enemy infantry.
World War II Motor Torpedo Boat Challenge (FD Scale)
1. Your submission must depict a fictional motor torpedo boat or equivalent (e.g. patrol torpedo boat, schnellboot, motoscafo armato silurante).
2. The boat should be in active service at some point between 1 September 1939 and 2 September 1945. It may enter service before this period.
3. At least two torpedoes should be included in the boat's armament.
4. The overall length of the boat should not exceed 40 metres (131 feet).
Real Life Challenge: FD Edition (FD Scale)*
1. Your submission must depict a real vehicle in FD scale.
2. Your drawing(s) should be suitable for inclusion in the Shipbucket archive.
3. The chosen vehicle must not already appear in the archive. You can draw a derivative of a vehicle already in the archive if it differs substantially from the original (e.g. the M74 recovery vehicle derived from the M4 Sherman).
4. Never built designs are permitted if you present a realistic interpretation of their appearance in service or an unmarked version identical to the real life proposal. *If chosen, Drawing Quality will be this challenge's sole category. Also, the number of views and drawings permitted in each entry will not be restricted.
Cold War Primary Trainer Aircraft (FD Scale)**
1. Your submission must depict a fictional primary trainer aircraft.
2. The aircraft should enter service between 1946 and 1991. Development may commence before this time frame.
3. The aircraft must be designed from the outset as a trainer and that should be its primary role.
4. Maximum takeoff weight must not exceed 15,000 lbs (6,803 kg).
5. Maximum speed should not exceed 800 km/h (497 mph). **Design Requirement 5 was not included in the previous iteration of this challenge proposal.
is it a mistake that Polydegmon's competition entry is not included in the voting?
Please Update Your Poll Responses
I failed to include Polydegmon's entry in the Boomer Challenge poll. Thanks to Morten812 who identified the issue here on the forum. To Polydegmon and the seventeen people who have already responded to the poll, apologies. I should have been more diligent. If you have completed the poll, you can edit your response at this link. I have added Polydegmon's entry at the start. Please do update your response, because I will not be considering those in which Polydegmon's entry has no score. It would not be fair.
The Boomer Challenge community poll is now closed. Thanks to everyone who updated their responses following the addition of Polydegmon's entry and anyone else who participated. Evaluating 30 entries is no easy task! That said, seeing so many entries is wonderful. I appreciate the effort everyone put in. On that note, let's move on to our winners.
In first place with a total of 410 points is the Alexander Polnareff class drawn by The_Sprinklez. This entry also attained the highest score in the Design Quality category. It is a testament to the heights a modest conventional design can take you. Great work! Second place goes to Red October as imagined by BillKerman1234, which attained 404 points and the highest score in the Drawing Quality category. The largest of our entries, it goes to show that a big and bold drawing is not without merit. Following close behind in third place is the Daedam class submarine created by Soode. It's great to see another Menghean challenge entry, and this one received 399 points.
