Omega Project (Fleet Action)

Wedge009 said:
Interesting. I'm not all that aware of what goes on in cutting-edge military development, fictitious or otherwise. But I would have thought that keeping projects 'in-house' would minimise security leaks.
Defense contractor employee security clearances and contracts do not come, or are kept, easily (US at least) :). Extensive background checks and constant DoD/external agency monitoring/auditing are just the starting points. :)
Bandit LOAF said:
Defense contractors exist specifically to take on classified projects. . .
Not really (at least in the US). While both defense contractors and the DoD/military carry on classified research and development, the big 'money makers' for private sector defense companies (in general) are the public contracts (F-35/JSF being the most recent example off the top of my head) the government shops around and gives to the best performer/design/etc.

C-ya
 
While the F-35 is nowhere near as secret as the stealth fighter or the Omega dreadnaught, I'd bet that a large amount of its development is classified.
 
I'd make that bet, too :). The project itself usually isn't classified, but the means to meet the public specifications doled out by the customer usually are.

C-ya
 
I think it's pretty clear that we never get to see Omegas in any games or books...
And I think it's probably big, given that it's heavily armoured and armed and shielded... Following WC's logic, you need very big ships to have the extrar armor, guns and shields.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I believe the original Wing Commander uses it to refer to any line warship (Exeter and Ralari-class destroyers, in particular).

Interesting, I never noticed that. Where do they refer to them as "battlewagons?"
 
In the mission briefings and some of the in-between mission conversation I think they are called battlewagons...I definitely remember Halycon saying something about a battlewagon when talking about a ralari....
 
"Battlewagon" never showed up in the dialogue, but "battleship" was used several times in reference to ships such as the Exeter and Ralari.
 
Edfilho said:
But that's an important difference for the debate :)

Not really, given that the issue in the debate is the dictionary definition.

(Look up 'battleship'.)
 
GreyViper said:
Isnt "battleship" a sort of hybrid, betwen heavy cruiser and dreanaught.

Dreadnought is not an official term but a old general term for armored warships AFAIK.
 
Maybe your thinking of a Battlecruiser, which is supposed to have the armorment of a battleship but the speed of a cruiser by sacraficing armor protection for speed.
 
Battleship is often employed in a more general meaning of warship. Battlewagon isn't... And you said that they used the word Battlewagon in WC1 refering to destroyers, while as far as we can tell, they didn't.
 
The battlecruiser is the hybrid of a cruiser's speed and a battleship's firepower. The shortcoming of this design is that the battlecruiser also lacks the armor and durability of the battleship.
 
Edfilho said:
Battleship is often employed in a more general meaning of warship. Battlewagon isn't... And you said that they used the word Battlewagon in WC1 refering to destroyers, while as far as we can tell, they didn't.


Battleship
bat·tle·ship
Pronunciation Key (btl-shp)
n.

Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor. Also called battlewagon.
 
Back
Top