Another one of Forstchen's mistakes? The WCIII adaption is the only source I am aware of that refers to fighter's shields as "phase". The Kilrathi Saga manual OTOH, says the following:
The latest in defense technology, capital ship shields are impervious to damage from all fighter mounted missiles and guns. Torpedos are the only fighter-mounted weapons capable of getting through.
Well, as I pointed out in my last post, the 'co author' books are generally written by their co-authors... so you'd have to blame the reference on Andrew Keith. Still, I believe Ohlander again uses the term when discussing fighter shields in the Wing Commander IV adaptation.
I don't see a necessary contradiction between the idea that all shields are "phase shields" and the fact that the JFS 2664 Update is discussing specifically the newest capital ship shields. It can say "Heat Seeking Missile" and then discuss specifications for a specific model of Javelin.
Eh? How is the Vesuvius's single massive deck more capable than the two good sized Midway decks? Not to mention that the Midway is capable of carrying, refitting, and launching far more planes, Its design obviously reflects a different strategic thinking, but I don't see how it is any less capable than the Vesuvius.
The Vesuvius carries four fighter wings, for a total of 400 fighters -- compared to the Midway's three fighter wings with 252 fighters total.
The Midway is special because of its 'extras' -- the science division, the Marine Expeditionary Unit... but as a straight up carrier, the Vesuvius-class is still the heaviest class in the fleet (Vesuvii also have significantly more offensive weaponry than the Midway-class does -- carrying anti-matter guns, torpedo tubes and the like.)
I thought about this too. The Cerberus kind of bothered me, because Jeep Carriers were all decommisioned after the war. After a bit of thinking, I realized two things:
1. The US operates amphibious assault ships, which are a form of mini-carrier. These ships operate helicopters and harrier jump jets off their decks, and are capable of independent operations and supporting fire. Very similar to the Cerberus's role.
2. After WWII, Britian switched to using nothing but light carriers. While these were later found to have problems projecting power, they were full blown carriers with complete flight ops capabilities. e.g. The Centaur class and later the Invincible class. If we assume that Confed encompasses a parallel of both Britian and the US, then things still make sense.
I'm not referring to the Cerberus class, which hasn't really been developed into anything but an unusual CIS program at this point. The ICIS Manual makes clear that the carrier fleet of the 2681 is divided between fast escort carriers and heavy fleet carriers (like the Vesuvius and the Midway). It talks about how fighters like the Panther and the Shrike are designed specifically for escort carrier operations -- while the Vampire and the Devestator are designed to serve on the larger carriers.
No, I'm attempting to suggest that either:
1. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. This would have made the Concordia class a later arrival. Given its precense at the Battle of Earth, it makes sense that the namesake may have been destroyed and thus replaced with the newer Confederation carrier. This would make the Concordia class easily only 10 years old or less by the time of WCIV.
2. The fan concept of the Concordia class carrier in the AS timeframe is wrong. The class was either the Ark Royal, or a non-ship name as was common in British ships. Jane's manual "mistakenly" printed the class type as Confederation class, when the Concordia was in fact the first of her kind. Thus later references to the Concordia class carrier actually refer to a ship similar to the WCII Concordia. (Note that this explanation harmonizes with the books the best.)
I guess I find the latter situation unacceptable because it clearly goes against the intent of the game - the TCS Lexington (CV-44) is clearly not the same class of ship as the TCS Concordia (CVS-65). The old fan backstory about how they were 'based on the same design, without the Phase Transit Cannon' always seemed exceedingly silly to me, and I was glad that AS created a better solution.
As to the first situation... I just don't see why it's necessary. Without any contradicting evidence in the Wing Commander continuity, I don't see how it can be appropriate to invent an extra TCS Concordia (when there are already three) based only on a gut feeling. I love how some of the incidental details match up between Wing Commander IV and AS -- like when Tolwyn describes the white hull and such. (Also, it strikes me as somewhat disjointed to first complain that AS is *too literal* a WW2 analogy... and then that Wing Commander doesn't exactly mimic one type of carrier history over another.)
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that drawing from the WWII parallel, the Confederation would immediately decommision and mothball its early war/pre-war carrier assets, thus allowing the newer models to remain in service while the latest in carriers finished construction.
They DID immediately decommission all of their early war/pre-war carrier assets. I named several classes in both the USN and RN as examples! It's EXPENSIVE to keep wartime readiness! So the fleets were immediately scaled back.
I would say that the Confederation did the same thing -- in fact, we know for a fact that they retired the Victory and her sisterships. Carriers built more recently - like the Princeton and the Lexington - would be kept in service for the time being, until the "modern" carrier force could be built up.
But the Vesuvius *was* commisioned. Earlier than originally planned, but she was commisioned. And Tolwyn was certain that the existing carriers in service should be more than a match for the BW tech. (Which he would be correct.) It's possible they pulled a carrier from mothballs, but I sincerely doubt it. Remember, the whole situation was smoke and mirrors designed to place the blame for genocide on the Border World's sholders.
I think the idea that they pulled a carrier from mothballs (in the case of the Princeton) seems possible (although unnecessary, since in the final analysis there is absolutely no evidence that a carrier whose design is thirty years old has to be retired in 2673) -- since it's supposedly replacing the TCS Lexington (that may well be what "ad hoc repairs" are).
The Vesuvius is commissioned ahead of schedule, on 2673.224 -- which is several days after the fighting in the Border Worlds had already begun (and to the credit of your idea that much of the fleet has been mothballed, the Wing Commander IV adaptation does make a big deal about the fact that the Lexington is the Third Fleet's only carrier).
What are you basing the smaller size on? I have the manual up at the moment, and I don't see any sizes given. (Some stuff cut because I hit the char limit again - see above)
The sizes are from the 'ship viewer' in the game (in the Midway's lounge, by the killboard).
The only ship that sets any sort of speed record is the Vampire -- clocking in at a mere 10 kps faster than the WC3 variant of the Arrow (this ignores Armada's higher speeds - taking them into account, Prophecy holds no records for speed). The rest pretty much fall into line with their Wing Commander III/IV role equivalent.
If I may, I'd like to cite a lack of information here. While the Bengal class may have differed significantly between ships, we don't have a whole lot of info on any other than the Tiger's Claw. The Yorktown and Essex classes were in a very similar situation. The Hornet and Wasp were technically in their own classes, yet the Hornet is usually listed as Yorktown class, and Wasp is considered to be part of the Yorktown family. In the Essex class, it has long been stated that no two ships were alike, and the only definition of the Ticonderoga class was the longer hull. Some have even argued that the Ticonderoga wasn't a true class, but rather a way of indetifying some of the more advanced Essex ships.
With so little information, we may be identifying Bengal class carriers that are actually of another subclass or in a class of their own.
Actually, we have fairly detailed sets of specifications for the pre-Tiger's Claw and post-Tiger's Claw Bengals. The original TCS Bengal is 75 meters shorter and 25,000 tonnes less massive than the Tiger's Claw. I agree with you that this is a good historical parallel -- but the fact that we still refer to the Tiger's Claw as being Bengal-class does serve to indicate that significant changes to a design don't indicate a new class of ships in Wing Commander.
Yes, but when new technology changes the very face of how a ship functions, it also allows for overall design changes that shipbuilder will take advantage of. For example, the introduction of torpedos would have suggested the addition of torpedo tubes. While a carrier could be refitted with these, they would probably have several issues that make them less effective than a ship which was designed with the tubes in mind. That's what happened between the major WWII classes. For example, the Essex class added the side elevator after the Yorktown class showed how the deck elevators made the carrier vulnerable. That, combined with other major structural changes, resulted in a new class of carrier.
As I said in one of the posts below, I don't see a huge change in the way a ship functions - the logistics required for supporting a squadron of torpedo bombers doesn't seem significantly different from supporting a squadron of space-to-ground bombers.
We don't see torpedo tubes on Concordia-class ships ever, so there's no contradiction if they aren't there (the old quote about a carrier captain who allows enemy ships coming within visual range of his ship deserves to die applies). The Concordia-class is Confed's standard "center of a battlegroup" ship -- it's not a semi-ship-of-the-line like the Bengal Strike Carriers or the Confederation dreadnoughts.
I'm well aware of the novel. In the game it was unnamed, so I try to refer to it as nameless when speaking about it being an old carrier as opposed to a new carrier.
Well, at the very least, the designation does appear in the game: CV-48. The name was established in material created for the game rather than generated by Mr. Ohlander -- I'm not sure why it didn't make it into the actual mission artwork.
I said "effectively" the same source. Most of the KS manual is a reorg and reprint of the WC1-WCIII manuals. Speaking of which, can you tell me what page it refers to the problems with the Concordia's cannon? I keep hearing about the issue, but I'd like to read the reference.
Page 126 in my copy. The explanation is derived from a situation in Special Ops 2. (If you haven't taken a good look the Kilrathi Saga manual, it's worth a look -- most of the WC2 material is newly created, as there was no 'Claw Marks'/'Victory Streak' style manual for that game.)
Huh? You said the *game* used the term battleship interchangably, and that you are forgiving of it. I said that I'm even more forgiving, because the term battleship is actually quite generic. I think we both agreed that "battlewagon" was a stupid name, but it's now psudo-canon.
Yes, I suppose I'd say I'm forgiving of it (and the unusual battleship reference in Fleet Action
). I guess what I'm asking about is something you said in a post yesterday (when the subject of battlewagons was first brought up): "His insistence on calling what are rightfully cruisers, "battlewagons" only serves to underscore that point." As best I can tell, he's not referring to what we know as cruisers in Wing Commander, but is rather creating a new type of ship derived from the heavily armored WW2-style battleships. (And yes, I'm aware that practically every warship can be boiled down to a point where it's referred to as a cruiser -- the term is somewhat more distinct in terms of Wing Commander.)
No, it does not. One could read that into it, but that's playing with words. I could say that the Enterprise CVN-65 was a "new type of nuclear carrier" without suggesting that nuclear carriers existed before that.
Even assuming that you're right (which you're not, you just made that up), how does the "new type" differ from the "old type"? And if he really meant that, why didn't he say "a new type of skipper missile", and then follow up with it's full specs (including cloak)?
Hmm, good question. Of course, it could be something as simple as Confed having developed some form of countermeasure for the older Skippers... and the new ones are designed to overcome that.
We know that they have two different designations: K459-C (movie) versus YM-13A (WC3). There's some practical differences: the movie's skipper missile is much slower (akin to a fighter at full acceleration rather than at afterburners)... and it seems to have a much larger range, compared to the corvette-fired Skippers seen in Wing Commander III.
In terms of 'new type of nuclear carrier' -- I can't agree with you gramatically. To me, that statement implies that other nuclear carriers already exist.
What is your source for this information? Truthfully, it sounds like nonsense to me. Shipyards don't work that way, because every ship is custom built. Take 10 years to retool a shipyard (!) would suggest that they'd need completely new bearths, manufacturing technology, crew, etc., etc., etc. Actually, I can't even see it taking that long to *build* a shipyard.
The 'ten years to build a yard, five years to build a carrier' reference comes from End Run
AFAIK, all new ships of the US Navy come from Norfolk. It certainly did not take Norfolk 10 years to retool for the first lines of supercarrier, and they had no trouble chucking out standard size fleet carriers.
Norfolk is where the Naval Shipyard is -- you're thinking of Newport News, which is where the Nimitz-class carriers are constructed. (they're both in the same area, but they're distinct facilities/cities -- Norfolk is where ships are repaired and housed by the navy... Newport News is the private company that builds them in the first place.).
It's also certainly not the only place warships are built -- another famous one is the Bath Iron Works, where the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were built.