Something Different, a Look at Fortress

Pedantry is fun.
I enjoy breaking down the silly and nonsensical elements of a story, especially in terms of design. Now with access to the internet and a blog of my own, I can ramble about these things and might entertain some people while I'm at it.

A person by the name of Dima Fedotov created a couple of animated short films, the first being released in 2013. Now I saw these a few years ago, and the bothered me even back then. But now that I've found them again, I can articulate my issues with them.

The first one is simply called Fortress.

The video in question

Now I'll take a look at the titular Fortress itself eventually, but the first thing that really bothered me was the craft that comes to intercept the Fortress. 

The Interceptor

This thing irks me on many levels.

First, the general design.

This thing is not streamlined very well, especially around the intakes. Just look at those flat areas!

In many ways, it reminds me of several German aircraft from the Second World War. Like the Heinkel He 162, with the large engine mounted above the cockpit. But the He 162 has a rounded nose and a proper tail assembly. The color scheme, cockpit, and wings make me think of the Me 109.

A Me 109 at the Museum of the United States Air Force

At first, I was not very confident in the interceptor's ability to maneuver, considering it does not have a real tail, but also looks unlike other so-called 'tailless' aircraft. Many of which have a vertical stabilizer, nor does it resemble a flying wing. But, the apparent arrangement of the engines could allow thrust vectoring to make up for the lack of a tail.

A view of the Interceptor from the tail, showing the engines and primary armament 

The next issue is the greebles all over the thing. Like the odd cylinders mounted on the nose and leading edges of the wings, and the little fins mounted on the upper engines. The bits on the nose especially make little sense. They aren't part of the engines considering they are at the back. They could be some sort of sensor system, which is probably what they are considering the big 'thing' of the film. 

Spooky Scary Skeletons

Everyone is dead. And has been for years now. Everything is running fully autonomously and has been for long enough for the pilots of these things to be drafted into the SKELETON WAR. So a fancy sensor system makes a lot of sense for the automated nature of the craft.

In terms of engines, the interceptor has five of what looks to be some kind of jet engine, considering the flames and the air intakes. This strikes me as somewhat inefficient for something like this, considering the small size of the interceptor. The nose intake also doesn't look like it can connect to the engines in the rear because of where the cockpit is located. Especially with the narrowing of the fuselage around the cockpit.

Next up is the downright anemic armament. 

Interesting how the shells are ejected out the top, against gravity... possibly out the front of the wings?

As can be seen, the interceptor only carries two cannons mounted in the wings. Adequate armament for interceptors has been a recurring problem since before the Second World War. During the Cold War, the US alone developed many weapons to shoot down Soviet bombers. Some more useful than others.

The Mk 4 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket [also known as the Mighty Mouse] on an F-94

The unguided AIR-2 Genie with a 1.5 kiloton nuclear warhead, Museum of the USAF

The AIM-26 nuclear air-to-air missile

The 20mm M61 Vulcan, with a rate of fire of 6,000+ rounds per minute 

The AIM-54 Phoenix, with an operational range of 115 miles

During WWII, the Me 262 generally carried four 30mm cannons, and the He 162 had two 20mm cannons. The thing is, they were mounted in the nose. The US, UK, USSR, and the Imperial Japanese all adopted cannons for their fighters as the war progressed. 
One of the big advantages of nose-mounted guns is ease of shooting. Wing mounted guns generally were aimed slightly towards each other so that their lines of fire would converge at a point out in front of the aircraft. The result was that getting the proper range before shooting was even more important.

But! I hear you say, 'what if it's supposed to carry more weapons than the cannons, and after a decade of endless automatic war, there are just no more left? Sorry to say, no. There are no hardpoints for mounting additional weapons on the interceptor. 

The landing gear well can be clearly seen, (the gear itself can be seen falling away a moment before this), and naught but smooth wing the rest of the way. The narrowing of the fuselage around the cockpit can clearly be seen here as well. And there is no space for internal weapons like the Mighty Mouse rockets either. 

Now, two large cannons might well have been… adequate for WW2. But with the much, much larger bombers already being designed, that would swiftly have been lacking. Especially with the improvements in automatic and remotely controlled defensive guns. This is part of the reason that the Germans created the X-4 wire-guided air-to-air missile, to give interceptors a means to hit their targets without getting in range of their guns.

Though it never saw combat, the X-4 is a fascinating creation. This example is in the USAF museum 

In fact, that’s how the interceptor meets its end. The defensive guns on the Fortress shoot off the starboard wing and canard. And while the interceptor managed to disable one of the Fortress's defensive guns, it was still well enough off to continue operating for another ten years. 

The Fortress's top defensive gun turrets before

And after the Interceptor hits its mark

Ouch. The canard and starboard landing gear can be seen clearly in this shot in the lower left

In conclusion, the Interceptor is lacking in the equipment, and weaponry to effectively engage the existing threats. The apparent lack of guided munitions is especially strange considering the highly automated nature of the conflict. I suppose that if there were swarms of the Interceptors they'd stand a better chance, but unmanned missiles would be a better investment considering the apparent technology at their disposal. 

More questions and pedantry will have to wait until the next round.

Image sources:

Own work

Fortress, Dima Fedotov

Wikimedia