Spitfire III Attack Fighter

Dedicated to the A10 Warthog, an elegant fighter that has marvelously carried my country's airmen safely into combat - and back.





The Spitfire III is USFI's answer to Star Force's need for a fast, multirole, atmospheric combat vessel with its primary target being anything bearing the enemy's signature on the ground. Be it tanks, bunkers, bases, grounded aircraft, whatever military object it is, the Spitfire III will send it sky high.



How does the it do this?  The Spitfire III accomplishes this magnificent feat through a combination of base weaponry and externally mounted munitions.  First the former:

x2 Light Phaser guns, mounted around the cabin.
x2 Heavy Phaser cannons, mounted at the wingtips.
x1 Torpedo Launcher, armed with micro photon torpedoes in the nose.

And now for the latter, in its standard ground-attack combination:

x2 Large Bombs.
x2 Rockets.
x1 EXM-PC.

That last one there is the coolest thing ever to be placed on a Star Fighter bearing the flag of the United Federation of Planets.

Behold!  The EXM-PC, or EXternally Mounted Plasma Cannon for long.

This incredible weapon fires a steady stream of plasma carnage - any poor object trapped in the path of the EXM-PC will find itself disintegrated into a trillion particles, each one no larger than that of dust, all flying in infinite directions from the force of a beautiful explosion.

The EXM-PC is the masterpiece of an engineer named Jon Fairchild, who works for the Federation science and technology center Aiten Industries.

LXF files for both an "empty" Spitfire III and a loaded Spitfire III should be able to be found here.

Enjoy the fireworks!

My dear friend.

Image removed due to security reasons. See PM for further details.

And one does not simply name a fighter based on the A-10 after a Spitfire. A Spitfire is to a F-15 as a JU-88 or a DeHallivard Mosquito is to an A-10.

Other than that, looks good! Only plasma would cut through an object, not shatter it into millions of disintegrated particles. But I love the design. Esepcially the high-place downward slanting wings, very nice. The large nose and little wing-tip flares are a nice touch as well. Very nice. I think it should have more Air-to-Ground missiles though, and maybe a rocket pod. You should create some different weapon load-outs and upload them to here.

Okay, the terminology is pretty wonky - but the A10 really is elegant!  I've heard a lot of USAF officials want to stop using the A10 because it's too elegant....

They want to retire it because it's old, and so awesome it's not fair to the enemy.......

But no, it's not elegant, not really sure who ever said that... It's a workhorse, it's like calling a tank elegant, no, a McLaren is elegant, a tank is beastly, as is an A-10, and that thing.

Well if you took all the weapons off Dino would say it was elegant.

Honestly I love its looks, and I love its gun. All in all it is nothing short of amazing, and eleg-.... never mind.

Well the Spitfire III looks pretty elegant, but no, I don't think I could call the A-10 elegant. It is, however, nothing short of amazing, and beastly.

I can't argue with that.

  <- A-10 * infinite.

Well, I'm glad you guys like the A-10, 'cause my grandpa helped design some of its electronics.

As for the Spitfire III, well, it looks mean. Like it enjoys swallowing you, chewing you to pieces, and spitting you back out again, all just for fun. Seriously though, nice fighter! It's a unique shape. I think you've really got that combination look of utilitarian bulk and speedy sleekness down pat. And, of course, the super-ultra-mega-powerful plasma beam of doom is just plain fun.

I don't know if it's possible for someone not to like the A-10.

Well, maybe the people who were trying to shoot it down, and who did manage to down a mere two. Actually they secretly liked the A-10, and wanted a closer look. jk

(Off topic) I hope I'm not getting into anything... delicate. But what's up with the picture/lack thereof in AA's post? (I'm just curious, that's all, not trying to pry)


I must concur with Talmid... the A-10 is elegant, in the sense that form follows function... it's like a Glock, its so exceedingly utilitarian-ly ugly, that it's somehow beautiful.



Spud, that's cool!




I LOVE this fighter bomber... it's a beast of a flying machine!

GREAT work Talmid! I agree with AA, add some more air to ground missiles, and definitely add a couple of rocket pods.

The EXM-PC seems VERY large, heavy, and non aerodynamic, just my observations. And to get the kind of damage you describe it doing, I suggest making it a disruptor, and much smaller as it looks like it literally weighs a ton, not counting support equipment in the vehicle itself.

My ONE suggestion regarding the build itself, is that you SNOT the heavy phasers to the sides of the wingtips, as they look un-aerodynamic hanging down so far at the tips (of course, neither are giant external bombs, but oh well, one can only make giant bombs so small )


Other than that, the fighter itself is absolutely awesome! WELL done Talmid! You are very talented at fighter craft.

Dino, the picture was a Boromir "One Does Not Simply" meme, regarding calling the A-10 elegant. Or how one does not simply call the A-10 elegant.

Thanks for the suggestions, and they do make a lot of sense. The EXM-PC is pretty heavy, but the Spitfire is designed to carry heavy loads, and being a 26th Century aerocraft weight isn't too much of an issue, even in an atmospheric environment. It still has an effect, but it's not too serious.

And if the EXM-PC gets damaged or runs out of power, it can be jettisoned. (and self destructed) I like the idea of it being a disruptor - even though we Feds typically stick with phasers, disruptors are still cool. Plasma disruptors are even cooler.

Ah, as for this heavy phasers, I was actually considered SNOTing them like on the Star Phoenix V, but I figured doing them this way would have them occupy less lateral space, and overall look more streamlined. I get your gist, though. There are some other ways to do it that I could try out.

Very nice, though the EXM-PC mounting system looks pretty flimsy... I would suggest redesigning the EXM-PC and mounting system all together. The EXM-PC itself is pretty basic. Not that that's bad, but it needs a little more detailing and it needs to be a little larger since it's such a powerful weapon.

My other criticism/suggestion is landing gear... where is it? I'm not sure how this bad boy is supposed to land...

Aside from that, I love the overall design. Especially the wings and tail. The curve on the underside in the back is awesome as well.

Thanks for the suggestions. What you said about the EXM-PC makes sense. I designed it, the bombs, and the rockets on the ANG-L1 variant for it to be possible for them to be installed at any of the mounting arms. What I could do for the EXM-PC is to extend its length so it utilizes the second centerline mounting arm too. It would lose its tilting ability but that is kind of weird anyway.

As for, hehe, the landing gear, I actually goofed by forgetting to color in the trans-green plates I use to signify my fighters' Magnetic Field Generator landing gear. My explanation for not going back to fix it this is that the generator is hidden behind all the armor, but it's still there, generating an artificial magnetic field so the Spitfire can "land" on the metallic surfaces of its home carriers and bases.

Otherwise it kind of just hovers above or precariously rests on the ground.