Shipbucket

you definetly need to submit this great work.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

@Acelanceloet
I think You know the answer.

@BB1987
Thanks! My primary inspiration was Bolkhovitinov DB-A (albeit obviously scaled-up), and to lesser extent Pe-8 and indeed the Tupolev's giants with their overhead engines (including the never-were ANT-26 - but 12 engines and wingspan of 95 meters was bit too much for me ).

@Gollevainen
Thanks! Well, first of all, Challenge rules state that there can be only 3 views per template, and I have 4. Secondly, I'm really proud of the shading, detailing and generally 'artistic' part of this work, but I made no paint schemes nor the (seemingly popular) set of bombloads - and these could hurt my chances for winning in the eyes of many - and if I were to end up outside top 3, it would hurt my pride too much. (especially if I were to lose against one of the too-numerous entries that seem to be made by Artists blissfully unaware of such concepts as 'centre of gravity', 'wing spar' or 'undercarriage height' )

Well naturrally i respect your choise, i sometimes struggle with the same anxiety, for this challenge, i decided to skip it, since heavy bombers have not been my main focus, and so much other stuff to drawn, and while I at some point would need those for my AU projects, the timing just isen't right. And the competition is severe this time, there is allready so many great entries that many exelent drawing will need to set for mid rank in the scoring. But its a cool thing to see you on doing AU stuff in first place, its not so often to see on.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

I would still love to see you enter the challenge Eswube! if it was all about winning, I should have stopped participating some time ago, as I always end up in the middle. If your entry isn't perfect in your opinion, well, then you have a good reason why you didn't win

That said, if you see a general lack of something (knowledge of certain aspects, drawing style, whatever) that you see many challenge entries could be improved with, I would love to see your comments on the challenge entries. When there is a challenge where I have some knowledge on the subject and can offer meaningful feedback, I always try to add a post after the scoring is complete giving feedback how people could improve

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

@Gollevainen
This particular drawing was for me just a past-time. If I didn't had to wait for a book to arrive by mail, I wouldn't even start it.

@Acelanceloet
I'm preparing such list of comments. To be posted once the time for posting entries ends.
(Btw. in the discussion I started about frequency of challenges, number of people remarked that very few people bother to provide any feedback in them, which is indeed the case - if others don't bother to comment, why I - of all people - should bother more than others?
I remember the early challenges (like the NATO ASW or Tartar DEG etc.) when posting WiP's for comments was quite routine matter. But it seems to be no longer the case - I don't count whatever may happen on Discord, because there one has to be online at the right time to comment anyway.)

Its a crazy concept but I like the Soviet-British style mash up, you should definitely enter it, I mean its mad as a box of frogs but looks good and plausible enough just the same.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

@Hood
Thanks for the kind words, but I won't enter. Btw. are You planning to post something there?

Perhaps a good way to encourage discussion about the feasibility of entries would be to separate the challenge into two threads, a "development/WIP" thread where contestants can post their WIPs and generate discussion about their designs before finalizing them, and a "final post" thread where contestants could post their completed designs to be judged. That way discussion could occur as the design is evolving, rather than just leaving all the comments and critiques for the end once the design has been judged.

CANT Z.1020, The ones who got excluded
-Blank Versions-


With the collapse of the kingdom of Italy, both the Aviazione Cobelligerante Italiana and the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana scrambled to capture many Z.1020’s as possible due to strategically and morally important these bombers are. Usage of the bomber from both sides were relatively successful, as their primary function is to bomb each other’s strategic targets ruthlessly, even innocent towns where caught in the bomber’s might due to the growing pettiness and hatred between the Co-Belligerents and the Social Republic.



CANT Z.1020 Artigliere

During 1944, on the brink of pushing back the allies from Italy itself, a group of Italian Naval Warfare Theorists suggested the Regia Aeronautica to make a more effective and potent version of the torpedo. Instead of relying on the sea as a vessel of motion, this new “airborne torpedo” was to use the sky, meaning flight was to be involved. With the basis of the Germans’ innovation of radio guided bombs to be used, Various Aircraft and Armament inventors and manufacturers tried their hands into developing the first “airborne torpedo”. Meanwhile, the CANT was developing a maritime version of their Z.1020. When this “airborne torpedo” concept took the interest of Filippo Zappata. Thus, the Z.1020 Artigliere was born, alongside the successful “airborne torpedo” Designs of Caproni-Campini and Parano-Panzeri.



The Z.1020 Artigliere started its service as the Serie 1 “Narvalo” with its rocket-propelled bombs and radio guidance capabilities. During 1946, it was relatively capable of sinking small fleets of Destroyer & Cruiser Escorts as Squadrons in assistance with both German and Italian Submarines. Even when stationed in the English Channel, it was able to survive and thrive.

After the war, due to the collapse of the British and a silent, grey, peace treaty that took place in Oslo, the Narvalo has proven itself as a capable naval bomber without ever using a single torpedo. Though sadly, it was aging and a lot of radar avionics and reliability issues where ignored during the war. After the war, the realization of the design’s flaws where too much for it to be salvageable. With this revelation, the development of the Serie 2 immediately started. Nicknamed “Delfino” due to its new nose radar somehow resembling that of a Dolphin’s mouth, it drastically improved in every aspect, from radar avionics, to ergonomics.

Tested in 1948, it proved itself very potent against ships with improved Anti-Ship Missiles from the Designs of Caproni-Campini and Parano-Panzeri. With the formation of the Regia Aviazione Navale D’Italia, the Delfino was their first Modern Maritime Aircraft, and it was involved in confrontations against German Ships when the relations between the two countries declined due to the ousting of Benito Mussolini during 1949. It was so good, that it stayed in service with significant upgrades up until 1970.

_________________
Gotta take the good with the bad,
Smile with the sad,
Love what you got,
And remember what you had.

Aeritalia A-300 Retaliator



Development of the A-300 began in the mid-1960s as a result of an expanding Bongrovian military. Bongrovia would test its first nuclear weapon in 1958, and development of various nuclear-capable platforms would rapidly surface thereafter. Admiral Alessio Nervetti, then-Commander of Bongrovian Naval Aviation, realized that a carrier-based supersonic nuclear bomber would be vital to Bongrovia’s nuclear force in a future war. The Bongrovian Navy also wanted a replacement for the obsolete A-2S Savage. Taking many elements from the American A-5 Vigilante, the A-300 was originally designed to carry only two nuclear bombs in an internal payload bay—designed after the more reliable F-111 payload bay—but shifting doctrines caused by Bongrovia’s involvement in Vietnam required changing the design to also carry heavy conventional loads on external mounts.



Making its first flight on November 2nd, 1972, the Retaliator would enter service with the Bongrovian Navy in April 1975. It would be deployed aboard the Essex-class carrier BGS Erasmo Capitani (CV-04) and conduct trials with Heavy Attack Squadron NINE (VAH-9), who would later become the first squadron to deploy with the Retaliator operationally. Marine Heavy Attack Squadron (All-Weather) TWO (VMAH(AW)-2) would receive the first Retaliators for the Bongrovian Marine Corps the next year. The four Navy squadrons and two Marine Corps squadrons at the time would see extensive use during NATO exercises throughout the 1970s and 1980s, most notably Exercise Grand Slam II in 1979 and the infamous Able Archer 83 in 1983. Retaliators aboard BGS Re Umberto (CV-03) in the Mediterranean and BGS Valkyrie (CV-09) in the Norwegian Sea would later be considered one of the primary factors behind the potential escalation during Able Archer 83. Retaliators would finally see combat use in 1991 when Bongrovian forces would deploy to Kuwait as part of Operation Voodoo, Bongrovia’s commitment to the Coalition. A-300s performed numerous day and nighttime strikes against Iraqi targets, including bunkers, command structures, and vehicles. Photo reconnaissance and electronic warfare variants of the Retaliator would see action as well, with reconnaissance aircraft taking pre- and post-strike photos and EW aircraft destroying Iraqi radars and surface-to-air missile sites. Retaliators continue to serve with both the Bongrovian Navy in the upgraded A-300C and EA-300C variants and the Royal Australian Air Force in the export A-300D variant, which was built in 2009/2010 to replace the aging F-111C fleet.

The Retaliator would be developed in six distinct variants. The A-300A was the initial variant, resembling the U.S. A-5A Vigilante and being powered by two Rolls-Royce RB.168 Mk.202 Spey engines built under license by Aeritalia. The A-300B was built in three subvariants; A-300B1 (initially just “A-300B”) was visually identical to A-300A, with primary improvements being the correcting of failures with landing gear strength and the terrain-following radar system, A-300B5 would introduce the distinctive dorsal fuel hump as well as new General Electric F110-GE-100 engines, and the A-300B10 would introduce updated avionics and the Tactical Laser Attack System (TLAS) allowing it to carry and use laser-guided precision munitions. The A-300C entered service in 2007 and introduce modernized avionics, a fully digital glass cockpit, new F110-GE-132 engines, and a largely increased munitions capacity (including Storm Shadow, IRIS-T, GBU-39/B, and many others). The A-300D was a series of 30 new-build aircraft based on the A-300C to replace the F-111C fleet with the Royal Australian Air Force; they entered service in 2011. The EA-300A/B/C is an electronic warfare aircraft, utilizing a tail AN/ALQ-99 jamming pod and AGM-45 Shrike or AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles. The RA-300A/B/C was a tactical photo-reconnaissance variant; originally being equipped with a permanent multi-camera pallet in the weapons bay, the RA-300 was retired in 2011 and replaced by the removable Leonardo Eagle Eye camera and ELINT pod which can be equipped on any regular A-300.

Specifications

• Crew: 2 (pilot, bombardier/navigator)
• Length: 23 m (70 ft)
• Height: 5.5 m (18 ft)
• Wingspan: 16.2 m (53 ft)
• Powerplant:
  • 2x Rolls-Royce RB.168 Mk.202 Spey built under license by Aeritalia (A and B-1 variants)
  • 2x General Electric F110-100/132 (B-5/B-10/C/D variants)

Armament (A-300A ONLY)
Hardpoints: 6 total (4x under-wing, 1 under-fuselage on weapons bay door, 1 under-fuselage behind the weapons bay) plus 2 attachment points in weapons bay; up to 5,000 lb each, 37,000 lb total with provisions to carry:
Rockets

• 4-round 5-inch Zuni pods
• 6- or 12-round 81mm SNORA pods
• 7- or 19-round 70mm CRV7 pods

Missiles

• AGM-12 Bullpup AGM
• AGM-45 Shrike ARM
• AS.34 Kormoran 1 AShM
• AIM-9E/J Sidewinder IR-AAM

Bombs

• Mk 80 series unguided GP bombs
• BL755 cluster bomb
• Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bomb
• BN-70/71/71CP nuclear bomb
• AGM-62 Walleye/Walleye II TV glide bomb

Misc

• SUU-23/A 20mm gun pods
• 400-gallon drop tanks
• Mk 60 CAPTOR naval mine (from 1980 on)
• Various practice stores, baggage pods, and countermeasure launchers