Author Topic: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?  (Read 17322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rubixcube

  • best username ever
  • 28
GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
This is just a little query I had. Is the Raynor considered a super destroyer? Because I notice it's always just referred to as just a destroyer, even though it's 3200m long and is much more powerful than a regular destroyer.
Stuff

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
The GTVA considers the Raynor to be a natural evolution of the destroyer class.

Superdestroyers tend to be gimmicky one-off totem ships built around the ability to WTFPWN things with silly weapons. The Raynor is a production-run vessel that integrates beam, torpedo, and pulse weapons systems with on-board tactical fighters in an effort to create a line combatant that can sustain engagement with Shivan destroyers and juggernaughts. Modifications to the class's systems to support SSM launch and guidance and enhanced jump drives are now in testing.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Besides, as a quick and dirty comparison shot shows, the size difference is far less pronounced than you might think.

If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline rubixcube

  • best username ever
  • 28
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Huh, your right, didn't see that coming
Stuff

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Pretty ships are pretty, even in FRED. :)

 

Offline MatthTheGeek

  • Captain Obvious
  • 212
  • Frenchie McFrenchface
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
It's still closer to a superdestroyer scale than a destroyer scale :

People are stupid, therefore anything popular is at best suspicious.

Mod management tools     -     Wiki stuff!     -     Help us help you

666maslo666: Releasing a finished product is not a good thing! It is a modern fad.

SpardaSon21: it seems like you exist in a permanent state of half-joking misanthropy

Axem: when you put it like that, i sound like an insane person

bigchunk1: it's not retarded it's american!
bigchunk1: ...

batwota: steele's maneuvering for the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: you mispelled grâce
Awaesaar: grace
batwota: oh right :P
Darius: ah!
Darius: yes, i like that
MatthTheGeek: the way you just spelled it it means fat
Awaesaar: +accent I forgot how to keyboard
MatthTheGeek: or grease
Darius: the killing fat!
Axem: jabba does the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: XD
Axem: bring me solo and a cookie

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
You may consider it a superdestroyer, but it's ussualy just called destroyer.
It has the firepower to deal with Lucifer and (most likely) Hades, as well as ability to properly engage the Sathanas, so it's likely that it's called a superdestroyer in propaganda, but it's technically a destroyer, just like Lucifer (notice the SD Lucifer, not SSD Lucifer).
I doubt that superdestroyer is an official classification at all, it was just a term coined to describe the Lucifer and later applied to Hades (was it called like that at any point in ST?), which means "something the size of a big destroyer, but so powerfull that a normal destroyer won't stand a chance".
If the Raynor was introduced by the time of FS1, it would be called a superdestroyer, but I think that at the time of FS2 the term might have went out of fashion.
I think that UEF would have called the Raynor a superdestroyer at the beggining of the war (it has Lucifer-like beams, is large and very powerfull, so comparing it to Lucifer won't be much out of place), perhaps some civilians still do it. It all depends on how you define "super".

In short: it isn't technically a superdestroyer, but somebody unfamiliar with military may call it like that.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
It's still closer to a superdestroyer scale than a destroyer scale

Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.

The Orestes' role is as a destroyer.

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
You mean modern cruisers are the size of WWII battleships.

WWII battleships are technically dreadnoughts, they just stopped calling them that because there were no pre-dreadnoughts anymore (well, there were very few, and it made more sense to make the oddballs stand out). At least...that was the impression I've always gotten  :nervous:

But yea, it's intended role, not size that matters.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Also, theoretically, a superdestoryer would be the same thing and have the same role as a destroyer, but better (unless FS classification is even weirder than I thought).
But as I said, superdestroyer doesn't seem to be an official designation.
Raynor is a destroyer, whether it's super or not is up to debate.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.

No they weren't. WW2 battleship designed owed more to the battlecruisers then it did to HMS Dreadnaught's true kin. A minimum of 10,000 tons more displacement and typically half again as long.

You mean modern cruisers are the size of WWII battleships.

Again, that'd be a no. A modern cruiser remains roughly WW2 cruiser sized; the AEGIS Ticos were built on a hull that is about the same length as the Brooklyn/Cleveland/Baltimore hull family of WW2 cruisers. (Admittedly this isn't more than 20 feet shorter than a South Dakota-class but SoDak was a surprisingly compact design; it's significantly shorter than Iowa, the Japanese Nagato, Bismarck/Tirpitz and the Brit KGVs.)
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.

No they weren't. WW2 battleship designed owed more to the battlecruisers then it did to HMS Dreadnaught's true kin. A minimum of 10,000 tons more displacement and typically half again as long.

Y'know, I was in the shower, and I just knew I'd come back and find something from you on this.  :p

Ancillary to the point, though.

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Dude who cares, srsly?


THEY LOOK PRETTY!

 

Offline rubixcube

  • best username ever
  • 28
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Well yeah, but geeks like me like to know specifics
Stuff

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
The designation is role-based, not size-based.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
I just checked, there's no such thing as "superdestroyer" designation.
Lucifer and Hades are called "destroyers" in tech entries and their designations are SD and GTD, respectively.
Therefore, "superdestroyer" is just a term used to cover destroyers vastly more powerfull than usual and not an official designation.
This classification is non-canon in both FS and BP.

 

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Maybe non-canon isn't quite the word. More like unofficial, because (at least in the german version) of FS1 the Lucifer was clearly refered to as a super destroyer in briefings. So it's probably something the shipcrews used, but that wasn't officially endorsed by the leaders.

 

Offline Klaustrophobia

  • 210
  • the REAL Nuke of HLP
    • North Carolina Tigers
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
"superdestroyer" was used in the english version as well.  my take on it is that in retail it was used to denote a destroyer with some special ability that put it above and beyond the current destroyers.  sheilds/beams on the lucifer, shivan tech on the hades.
I like to stare at the sun.

 
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Why don't we just assign the term "Super-Destroyer" to anything that can level planets and collapse star-systems.

... you know, the big important stuff.  :nervous:

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: GTD Raynor superdestroyer?
Why don't we just assign the term "Super-Destroyer" to anything that can level planets and collapse star-systems.

Because then we'd have to call bombers Super-Destroyers (and the Myrm too, I guess :P).  Harbingers can do that too, remember. (Plus, the Hades and Lucifer couldn't collapse star-systems either.  Just the Sathanas that we've seen.