Carrier flight groups

S

Shrike

Spaceman
How did Kilrathi and Confed carrier flight groups stack up against each other? I'm trying to find some loose numbers on the quantity and type of fighters that were carried by late-war (WC3/4) carriers.

I'm sure someone here knows this. ;)
 
I believe they kilrathi had more than twice the fighters as confed, because they had much more fleet carriers left in the late stages of war. However, that my have changed a bit after the ambush at Vukar Tag...
 
Well too it depends on the acutally group that is together facing off as well. It may just be a carrier, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer against a carrier, 2 cruisers and 2 or 3 destroyers so can you give a better idea of what you want to know?
 
I think he's talking about fighter wings (circa WC3/4)...

Ranger class light carriers like the Victory carried four squadrons of ten fighters each -- a point defense squadron (Arrows or Hellcats), a patrol squadron (Hellcats), a space superiority squadron (Thunderbolts or Excaliburs at the very end of the war) and a bomber squadron (Longbows).

Concordia class carriers like the Lexington and Princeton carried six squadrons of sixteen fighters each (nine to ten squadrons of ten fighters each during the war) -- two point defense, two patrol, one space superiority, one bomber. (Arrow, Hellcat, Thunderbolt, Longbow respectively).

The premiere Kilrathi carriers of the era, the Bhantkara class, carried 96 fighter ships (and 32 shuttles of various types) in 12 Kilrathi squadrons:

Darket (2 squadrons)
Dralthi (2 squadrons)
Vaktoth (2 squadrons)
Paktahn (2 squadrons)
Strakha (1 squadron)
Zartoth (2 squadrons)
Hrakthi (1 squadron)
 
Probably from the novels, I think one the Zartoth was a shuttle ('twas asked a while back in Trivia, and was really frustrated I didn't know what it was).
 
Yes, both classes are from FC. But I think the Zartoth is some kind of jamming ship and the Hrakthi a scoutl. Lemme check... <...> <still looking for FC...found it...skimming through pages...> Here you go:
Zartoth: Electronic Warfare craft based on the fram of a Vaktoth.
Hrakthi: Reconnaissance craft, based on the Salti.
 
Cool, this will help.

But what are the big differences between the Ranger and Concordia classes? Like, are they supposed to look exactly the same?

Oh, and what's a loose estimate on the size of the Concordia class?
 
Enter (yet another) massive discussion and debate on the various lengths and claims of inaccuracy of the numerous WC ships, with only LOAF to save the day. :)

Ranger is a light carrier, the Concordia a standard sized one. They're both similar designs.

Rangers are 720m and carry 40 fighters. Can't remember the stats of the Concordias off the top of my head.
 
If memory serves, Connies are about 780m. Wartime complements of them were 10 squadrons of 10 fighters. Because of budget cuts and a nifty loophole which Tolwyn exploited, post-war Confed reverted to the peacetime 16 fighter squadrons, of which six squadrons were carried.

[More random stuff: The original Concordia was commisioned around the same time as McAullife, in 2633. She was destroyed, but her class lived on, serving with distinction in the war to come. The Connie is apparently quite similar to the Ranger, except larger and with the island on the opposite side of the hull. I also believe the Ranger design is rather older than the Connie, predating the war by a number of years. It would explain why the Victory is one of the oldest ships in the fleet]
 
I think the Concordia entered service in 2634, not 2633... (and I think they're a bit longer -- 900 meters or so).

The Ranger class first entered service in 2584 -- although Victory herself was comissioned in 2634.
 
So let me get this straight:

Rangers have their bridges on the port side.
Vesuvii have their bridges on the starboard side.
Concordias also have their bridges on the starboard side, but the WC4 Lexington has the bridge on the port side because they just recycled the Ranger model from WC3.

Is that correct?
 
Blah, so is the bridge of the Concordia-class supposed to be on the left or the right? I need to know, dammit! :p

And to further the discussion, what exactly are the roles of the Sheffield destroyers (is that the class name?) and the Caernaven frigates?

I was wondering because the destroyers are as big as the Talhasees, but have lighter armament. So what do they get in return? And the Cearnavens are allegedly over 600m long, but only have like 3 turrets. What gives?
 
Concordias have their bridges on the port side.

We don't really know the WC3 destroyer's class name. It does, however, have 9 laser turrets. The destroyer's basically used as a cheap anti-capship weapon. They're the primary gunship of the Confederation. They have a bigger bite than a corvette and are cheaper than a cruiser.

Frigates are larger and apparantly fill other roles. One suggested role is as, basically, an armed transport. I don't think it's ever been made entirely clear.

TC
 
The bridge is supposed to be exactly where it is. Just ignore everything Bob says. :)

The destroyers aren't Sheffield class -- they don't have a known class name. They're... destroyers. They destroy things <G> Destroyers are line ships, so they fight other line ships... and do things like bombard planets. They differ from cruisers in that they're faster and easier to build. Frigates like the Caernaven class are more specialized -- they do things like carry CSMs, radar packages or serve as armored transports.
 
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

So it would be entirely reasonable to assume that any cloak detection gear would be on a Cearnaven? (Hell, they have that giant-ass dish on the front, what else would it be for?)
 
Destroyers are also faster and more manueverable. It's supposed to be easier for destroyers to fight smaller ships than it is for cruisers. They are also used to protect cruisers from destroyers and smaller ships.
 
Originally posted by Shrike
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

So it would be entirely reasonable to assume that any cloak detection gear would be on a Cearnaven? (Hell, they have that giant-ass dish on the front, what else would it be for?)
Click to expand...

Well, we didn't have anti-cloak technology during the war... and after the war the Caernarvon's were being retired. (And, of course, anti-cloak technology was mounted on *fighters* by '73... <G>)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top