[Thaeris]

...The topic of course is a relative question. It's been a while since playing anything related to FS, so perhaps I'm looking over some data which was either explicitly stated or clearly implied. If not, then the data on the Wiki is just about all the concrete information out there. Thus, in the absence of any canon information, reasoned logic should do just fine.

My first question on this front centers on my favorite ship, the Hercules Mk.II: just how old is it, and by that, when would it have been introduced?

As a comparative example, the original mark (Herc Mk.I) is still in service during your time as a pilot in the main campaign, and presumably is in the twilight of its career. What can be inferred from this particular example, as well as from other designs of observable technology in the FS games, is that the developers thought the lifecycles of their ship designs to be similar to that of contemporary real-world fighters during the time of FS's development. Clearly, this DOES NOT generally include the design phase of a given fighter (even an older fighter like the F-4 took about eight years from the start of the project to reach fully operational status), but it does seem to include the operational phase of its development. By the conclusion of FS2, the old Hercules is about 32 years old in active operational status. This is more than reasonable, considering the F-16 of today is working on 36 years with no signs of it going away any time soon. As a historical precedent, fighters will only last longer and longer as frontline fighting machines as time goes on, and this generally works out very well for the FS universe as well. And, just like in real life, the development cycle is only bolstered by the presence of war.

If non-canon sources are considered, Cardinal Spear (one of my favorite campaigns) introduces the Hercules (Mk.I) during the late Terran-Vasudan war as an operational evaluation exercise; given the situations present within that campaign, it should probably be assumed that the OpEval was intended for less extreme circumstances! Needless to say, 'Spear takes place ten years into the T-V war, and according to this timeline, the Herc was being tested four years before it was officially deployed in 2335... well, at least to you. Therefore, take 2331 and then roll back a few years, and you likely have the real age of the Mighty Potato.

Returning to the original subject, the Hercules Mk.II, with regards to the thoughts above, is it likely to place the time of the ship's development before or during the time of BETAC? (Homesick certainly did)

[Cyborg17]

I don't know, dude.  I feel like the development times of strike craft and weaponry in FS1 are probably complete nonsense, given that all the ships and weapons given to the player are given over the course of three months, and they go from the avenger to the banshee, a weapon stated as specifically designed to take down shields, which would have had to have been developed in less than that time.  They must have super scientists or computer automated engineering or something because that is some fast dev time. 

At that speed they should have gone through what?  About 90 variants of the herc by the time FS2 came around.  But they only made it to 2.

Definitely made the game more fun, though. 

FS2 handled it a lot smarter.  For all we know there's some super elite hax squandron with Hercules M97 out there waiting for you to get promoted to them.

[Thaeris]

Hehe...

I was hoping to avoid answers like that, considering the data I fed into the initial narrative. There is a bit of a difference between "we now feel comfortable enough to start issuing these shiny new ships" and "these ships were literally designed just three weeks ago!" I'd like to think it can be argued for the former case in most parts of thee FS story, though to go back to the original post:

Clearly, this DOES NOT generally include the design phase of a given fighter...

...The second case is always an option.

Another factor to consider is that development cycles of military hardware slow down significantly during lulls in action - I said the same thing in the first post, though from the opposite spectrum. Recall that times of strife resulted in truly remarkable development times for many real aircraft (P-80, He 162), and times of relative peace give you things like the F-35.

Personally, I'm more than fine saying that most of the FS2 fighters were "born" during reconstruction. The question is "when is a reasonable time or timeframe to assume for each specific type?"

[Mars]

I always figured that the large number of Loki, Ulysses, Zeus, and Herc I fighters you see in the NTF implied that large scale deployment of newer fighters hadn't occurred at the moment of rebellion.

[The E]

I don't know, dude.  I feel like the development times of strike craft and weaponry in FS1 are probably complete nonsense, given that all the ships and weapons given to the player are given over the course of three months, and they go from the avenger to the banshee, a weapon stated as specifically designed to take down shields, which would have had to have been developed in less than that time.  They must have super scientists or computer automated engineering or something because that is some fast dev time.

Well, way I see it, the fighters and bombers you get were all part of a massive effort on the part of the GTA to end the TV-War quickly and decisively. Remember that the war was at something of a stalemate at the start of the campaign, and had been for quite some time (with capital ship losses being rather low). Developing a new generation of fighters and weapons is equivalent to the development of the tank during WW1; when we see those things appear on the frontline, we only see the tail end of a development process that took quite a few months or years to complete. Basically, had the Shivans not appeared, chances are that the GTA would have steamrolled the Vasudans under a wave of new, gamechanging tech.
Hell, the quick development of shield technology is indicative of both the GTA and the PVE already knowing most of the theory behind shields, they just lacked a few bits and pieces to make them work reliably.

[Thaeris]

I always figured that the large number of Loki, Ulysses, Zeus, and Herc I fighters you see in the NTF implied that large scale deployment of newer fighters hadn't occurred at the moment of rebellion.

The Loki and the Zeus indeed are probably in the "designed in three weeks" category to some degree, though to what extent is uncertain. They were ultimately produced in large numbers, true, though how large those numbers really were in 2335-36 cannot be said. I suppose you could make an estimate based off of ST and ST:R, though; one might also assume that GTI made off with most of the initial production run of the craft in question. The initial numbers therefore might have been relatively low. However, on THOSE grounds, you might infer that the production capacity for most FS factions is truly formidable for small craft, though the size of larger ships is still restrictive with regards to manufacturing. So... there may be quite a bit of merit in your statement.

...However, what does that signify for the GTVA if that's true? The NTF Rebellion was supposed to be a horrifying battle against extremist government and genocide, yet it took more than 18 months to settle the conflict. When comparing that timeframe to the Shivan conflicts, that's a really, really long time for a fight. Perhaps the following are indicators for why?:
*Refusal to engage in total warfare against one's own species (or allied species)
*Concerns for a more balanced economy or other such concerns; in the case of Shivans, the economy and social issues suddenly becomes far less concerning...

Either way you slice it, it's very strange behavior for the GTVA, and the points above might be very useful to consider when writing a campaign. Alternately, straying away from your theory one might consider this:

"New" fighters were in production and service, but the majority of which were with frontline GTVA units. Some of those units defected to the NTF, certainly, but the percentage and composition of the defectors cannot be ascertained. The majority of ships available to the NTF would have therefore been ships placed in regional storage, most likely the older types you mentioned. You will recall that both the Herc Mk.II and the Myrmidon were in service with the NTF, though in much lower proportions from the perspective of the player.

Therefore, as per age, I think it's very reasonable to state that both the Herc Mk.II and the Myrmidon are at least a few years old. The Perseus is canonically quite new and was just getting ready to enter service during FS2's main storyline; the Valks must have been phased out of most or all front-line squadrons during this time, and the only reason we saw none of the latter or the Athena bomber with the NTF is that those files were not included with the game!

Continuing this, the Pegasus is new (though if its development was started earlier or for other purposes could be argued?) and is stated to have been developed to operate specifically well in nebular environments... so, maybe just two weeks that time? The Erinyes seems likely to have been another "three-week fighter (though it was there during the first SOC loop)," as is the Ares and the Artemis D.H. Of those, the latter two only came into service by means of a new engine from existing (aero)spaceframes, and so may not be as new as they seem (in a way). As per the bombers, both the Artemis and Boanerges are said to have been of the same technological generation, so the NTF Rebellion may have been a factor in their development. Otherwise, all the other bombers were at least 30 years old and a replacement was due.

[Black Wolf]

I don't know, dude.  I feel like the development times of strike craft and weaponry in FS1 are probably complete nonsense, given that all the ships and weapons given to the player are given over the course of three months, and they go from the avenger to the banshee, a weapon stated as specifically designed to take down shields, which would have had to have been developed in less than that time.  They must have super scientists or computer automated engineering or something because that is some fast dev time.

Well, way I see it, the fighters and bombers you get were all part of a massive effort on the part of the GTA to end the TV-War quickly and decisively. Remember that the war was at something of a stalemate at the start of the campaign, and had been for quite some time (with capital ship losses being rather low). Developing a new generation of fighters and weapons is equivalent to the development of the tank during WW1; when we see those things appear on the frontline, we only see the tail end of a development process that took quite a few months or years to complete. Basically, had the Shivans not appeared, chances are that the GTA would have steamrolled the Vasudans under a wave of new, gamechanging tech.
Hell, the quick development of shield technology is indicative of both the GTA and the PVE already knowing most of the theory behind shields, they just lacked a few bits and pieces to make them work reliably.

When working up the history of the TV War for Frontlines, I figured that the arrival of the Typhon was probably the catalyst that triggered a massive boost to R&D spending by the GTA. Happy accident that most of it happened to come online (or was in a position to be rushed into service) when the Shivans arrived.

[Snarks]

Well, I've always categorized "new" ships made available to the player under 4 categories. 1) already in-service, 2) crash program development, 3) normal development cycle, 4) in-service but upgraded/modified very recently.

1) These ships are already in service but the player simply did not have access to them for a variety of reasons (e.g. insufficient rank/certification or absence of the appropriate squadron for deployment). In Freespace 1, I would include the following ships: Medusa, Ursa, Hercules, Athena
2) These are the "magical" developments that happen unrealistically fast. Although to be fair, you can reasonably explain their development as a combination of existing/developing technology + radical alien technologies. For instance, the Shooting Star was made under a period of 143 days. My only gripe with this category is the Zeus and Ulysses which came out to be terrific airframes and continued service far into FS2. It seems to me that the technologies in this category should have ample room for an improved model once the time permits or at least have a lot of flaws with their design (which to be fair, the Loki did have with its stealth). So realistically, these airframes should have been retired after the war. This category includes: Loki, Zeus, Ulysses
3) Basically the new technology happened to be delivered on roughly the right schedule (maybe a little bit of rushing). Things that would reasonably fit this time frame are: Hercules (it can fit in either 1 or 3 depending on your interpretation), Perseus, Hercules Mk. 2, Boanerges, Artemis, Pegasus
4) Same as category 1 except they saw a major refitting. The Valkyrie is probably the best example of this. Others include: Artemis D.H.

The biggest discrepancy for me is the lack of a next generation interceptor for the entire interwar period. Virtually all the older models were refitted with a new variant. I suppose you can argue that the Myrmidon was serving as the interceptor for the fleet while the Perseus was in development. The loss in the homeworlds combined with the massive war weariness probably contributed to the slow development in the interwar period. So it might be feasible that all the newer model ships were actually developed in the last 5 years of the interwar period, with the first 15 being devoted almost entirely to reconstruction. Basically all the major research centres were lost when the homeworlds were lost, so whatever technology development that happened in Silent Threat just happened to whatever was already near completion.

[Davros]

I think the ships were completed in 1998/1999 just before the game shipped

[headdie]

I was doing some research into the development of tech in FS and found only 4-5 tech/weapons/ships confirmed as developed in a short time frame, that being shields and a few weapons that could only have been developed in the timespace of the game playthroughs, beyond that the Valkyrie could have been developed quickly due to it being a redesign of an existing ship.  the rest there is no indication of when development started so could have taken months or years to bring to the field.

As for gaps in the deployment of FS2, look at FS1.  from what I can tell at the start of FS1 the terrans are fielding the grand total of 1 fighter design in the Apollo with 2 cannon types and 2 secondarie types, everything else seen is a "New Technology".

[BritishShivans]

I think the ships were completed in 1998/1999 just before the game shipped

lol

[Black Wolf]

Well, I've always categorized "new" ships made available to the player under 4 categories. 1) already in-service, 2) crash program development, 3) normal development cycle, 4) in-service but upgraded/modified very recently.

1) These ships are already in service but the player simply did not have access to them for a variety of reasons (e.g. insufficient rank/certification or absence of the appropriate squadron for deployment). In Freespace 1, I would include the following ships: Medusa, Ursa, Hercules, Athena

Check the briefing texts - the Athena was extant at the beginning of FS1, but the other the were all explicitly called "new" when they were introduced. The Ursa in particular - we're specifically told that R&D are still working on it immediately prior to your wing being given access to it - the impression that [V] were trying to create was that it was utterly bleeding edge - the Lucifer mission was it's op-eval, effectively.

[Thaeris]

I was just looking for more info on the Medusa - I wasn't able to see any specific briefing about the ship, but I was kind of the feeling that it too had been around for quite some time - any more insight on that one?

As per the Apollo and the Angel, were these present at the beginning of the T-V War? I realize that may be a bit of a dull question, as that data was likely not ever furnished in the first place. I get the impression that the T-V War team didn't take it that way, if only to make the ships and the settings a bit different.

[Lorric]

I was just looking for more info on the Medusa - I wasn't able to see any specific briefing about the ship, but I was kind of the feeling that it too had been around for quite some time - any more insight on that one?

As per the Apollo and the Angel, were these present at the beginning of the T-V War? I realize that may be a bit of a dull question, as that data was likely not ever furnished in the first place. I get the impression that the T-V War team didn't take it that way, if only to make the ships and the settings a bit different.

Interestingly, you receive both the Medusa and the Tsunami bomb in the same mission, La Ruota Della Fortuna, with it specifying the Medusa is new, and can carry the new bomb. And in the previous mission you have to save the two cruisers involved in Project Tsunami. It's possible both the bomb and the bomber were developed as part of the same project. In the debrief for that mission it says all the data for project Tsunami has been secured, and it should be completed within days. And then you're getting a new bomb and bomber in the next mission.

As for the Apollo and Angel I very much doubt they were present at the start of the TV War, it went 14 years and I believe was the first interstellar war both races had fought. I imagine there would have been a lot of early advancements made. Even in Freespace, the Angel gets replaced by the Valkyrie before the Shivans even arrive, suggesting an arms race was in progress even at that late stage.

[Black Wolf]

I was just looking for more info on the Medusa - I wasn't able to see any specific briefing about the ship, but I was kind of the feeling that it too had been around for quite some time - any more insight on that one?

As per the Apollo and the Angel, were these present at the beginning of the T-V War? I realize that may be a bit of a dull question, as that data was likely not ever furnished in the first place. I get the impression that the T-V War team didn't take it that way, if only to make the ships and the settings a bit different.

New Technology: Medusa Bomber

We have also acquired a wing of the new Medusa bombers. Though they are slower and less maneuverable than the Athena, they are far more powerful. Once again, full details can be found in the Tech Room.

All we get told is that it's "new" during Act 2 of FS1. There's a degree of room to interpret that, I suppose, but it certainly implies that it can't have been in regular use throughout the fleet for very long in 2335.

As for the Apollo and Angel, you're correct in assuming that there are no cannon dates. Again, FWIW, I plan to bring them both in about halfway through the war in FL, but that's purely my own interpretation.

[Thaeris]

I wouldn't say that it means the Medusa hasn't been in regular use for very long in 2335, but it certainly does mean it's new to the fleet to which you're assigned. The concept of irregular deployments of weapon systems in a warzone has a great deal of real-world historical precedent, and it makes a great deal of sense to apply this to FS. A real warzone has logistics (and logistic problems)! Therefore, you can't have everything new everywhere at once. It seems the Medusa ended up being where it was needed (with respect to the player) at the right time... Perhaps we should coin a trope of deus ex machina specifically for FS?

Just as an aside, I just noticed Ursa bombers in the FS2 intro cutscene - I'm sure this [generally assumed] plothole has been discussed many times over. But, in this context, we might rather use it constructively to consider the very apparent compartmentalization which occurs within the GTA, and later the GTVA. You, as a frontline fighter or bomber pilot, don't get to know things right away. Something "new" may in fact only just be new to you. Unless you're Ransom Archiem, FS really is fought on the tactical level, with you squeezing the trigger. As a result, you don't fight the game from the "omnipresent" perspective of commanders who order fleets and assets into action. You really are on a "need-to-know" basis.

[Black Wolf]

I wouldn't say that it means the Medusa hasn't been in regular use for very long in 2335, but it certainly does mean it's new to the fleet to which you're assigned. The concept of irregular deployments of weapon systems in a warzone has a great deal of real-world historical precedent, and it makes a great deal of sense to apply this to FS. A real warzone has logistics (and logistic problems)! Therefore, you can't have everything new everywhere at once. It seems the Medusa ended up being where it was needed (with respect to the player) at the right time...

Obviously, there's room to interpret the statements we have in multiple ways. I don't agree with yours, but it doesn't mean that either of us is more correct or incorrect. Ultimately, whatever keys you make a better mod is the better choice.

[Goober5000]

The FreeSpace Reference Bible has other ship descriptions, some of which conflict with the FS1 tech room.  Some of these imply that the ships were around at the beginning of the campaign.  The Medusa is described as "the current standard-issue strike bomber", for example.

[headdie]

While that would sit better I think in game canon has to take presidence

[Mars]

I always figured that the large number of Loki, Ulysses, Zeus, and Herc I fighters you see in the NTF implied that large scale deployment of newer fighters hadn't occurred at the moment of rebellion.

The Loki and the Zeus indeed are probably in the "designed in three weeks" category to some degree, though to what extent is uncertain. They were ultimately produced in large numbers, true, though how large those numbers really were in 2335-36 cannot be said. I suppose you could make an estimate based off of ST and ST:R, though; one might also assume that GTI made off with most of the initial production run of the craft in question. The initial numbers therefore might have been relatively low. However, on THOSE grounds, you might infer that the production capacity for most FS factions is truly formidable for small craft, though the size of larger ships is still restrictive with regards to manufacturing. So... there may be quite a bit of merit in your statement.

...However, what does that signify for the GTVA if that's true? The NTF Rebellion was supposed to be a horrifying battle against extremist government and genocide, yet it took more than 18 months to settle the conflict. When comparing that timeframe to the Shivan conflicts, that's a really, really long time for a fight. Perhaps the following are indicators for why?:
*Refusal to engage in total warfare against one's own species (or allied species)
*Concerns for a more balanced economy or other such concerns; in the case of Shivans, the economy and social issues suddenly becomes far less concerning...

Either way you slice it, it's very strange behavior for the GTVA, and the points above might be very useful to consider when writing a campaign. Alternately, straying away from your theory one might consider this:

"New" fighters were in production and service, but the majority of which were with frontline GTVA units. Some of those units defected to the NTF, certainly, but the percentage and composition of the defectors cannot be ascertained. The majority of ships available to the NTF would have therefore been ships placed in regional storage, most likely the older types you mentioned. You will recall that both the Herc Mk.II and the Myrmidon were in service with the NTF, though in much lower proportions from the perspective of the player.

Therefore, as per age, I think it's very reasonable to state that both the Herc Mk.II and the Myrmidon are at least a few years old. The Perseus is canonically quite new and was just getting ready to enter service during FS2's main storyline; the Valks must have been phased out of most or all front-line squadrons during this time, and the only reason we saw none of the latter or the Athena bomber with the NTF is that those files were not included with the game!

Continuing this, the Pegasus is new (though if its development was started earlier or for other purposes could be argued?) and is stated to have been developed to operate specifically well in nebular environments... so, maybe just two weeks that time? The Erinyes seems likely to have been another "three-week fighter (though it was there during the first SOC loop)," as is the Ares and the Artemis D.H. Of those, the latter two only came into service by means of a new engine from existing (aero)spaceframes, and so may not be as new as they seem (in a way). As per the bombers, both the Artemis and Boanerges are said to have been of the same technological generation, so the NTF Rebellion may have been a factor in their development. Otherwise, all the other bombers were at least 30 years old and a replacement was due.

I was actually thinking that the Perseus, Myrmidon, Herc II, etc. must have reached their deployment stage in the 18 months after the NTF rebellion started. The NTF was mostly left using old spaceframes (like the Loki, and indeed the Valkyrie as its referenced in your introduction to the Perseus) while the GTVA had the newer models. The GTI fighters were probably being built by the GTI throughout the Great War.

I just worded it badly, with double meanings.