How do you think fleets move their ships? One by one?
We have seen the Lucifer and several fighter wings occuping the same node corridor at once.
We have allso seen transport entering the node en masse (wiht 1-2 seconds delay)
In King's Gambit the enemy warships were running from the Colossuss towards GD in no particular order.
And a fleet jumping doesn't mean they have to jump all in the same nanoseconds, but in VERY small intervals (several seconds)
The problem is that firstly transports and fighters are vastly smaller than a km+ long vessel, so they could exit travelling relatively alongside without risking colision or heavy weapons bombardment. If there is a physical constraint upon the size of tunnels, then even with the below Sathanas issue, it would still mean that you'd have 2 destroyers (or similar sized vessels) exiting extremely close to each other, with the resulting impared maneuverability and obscured broadsides.
However, the point I was making is that there's not any evidence for this as a fleet movement strategy, as we never see it performed by capship groups; so we can't use it as a combat situation to demonstrate a pro or con.
It possibly also leaves a vulnerability to ambush if someone is perching a destroyer (or Mjolnir set, etc) behind the arrival vector of 2 ships; arrive in-order in a queue, and you could probably maneuver the latter vessel to provide cover in a sort of 'circling the wagons' type arrangement; perhaps the frontal vessel rotating 90 degrees to use its broadside weaponry and shield the incoming vessels (to a degree)
There's alls othe Sathanas Issue. If it's big enough to jump trough the node, then so can two destroyers side-by side... that of course, if we assume they jumped at the exact same time.
Which is a good point, but also raises a seperate issue as we don't know what the restictions upon jumping are in terms of the node/tunnel formation; whether or not 2 vessels jumping simultaneously is possible, as they are accessing the same aperture to do so.
Of course they do. But fighters need more.
A 30 turret destroyer and 150 fighters and 60-80 turrets BB.
Gee.. I wonder which needs more crew?
Based on comparing the Deimos & Orion by volume - probably turrets.
On the Iowa class, each of the 9 main turrets had a crew of around 77 to 110 men (and also extended 4 decks down). The Iowa, with 45,000 tonnes displacement, 9 main turrets (406mm), 20 quad 40mm gun mounts, and 49 20mm cannon single mount, had a crew of 2,800.
The Midway class, with 59,000 tonnes displacement, had a crew of 4,800 with a theoretical maximum of 130 aircraft (100 actual; I'm not sure what the difference was, whether it was space, or lack of aircraft), and 18 127 mm guns, 84 40mm guns, and 68 20mm guns.
(note; obviously there's a few years between vessels here).
You might want to provide some reasoning as to the numbers, next time.
b.t.w. - I did a small test in Truespace where I arranged 120 fighters as seen in the FS mainhalls on how terran hangarbays look, and compared that to hte Orion. Guess what - they take a helluva lot of space. Far more than even I tought! 
What on earth makes you think that's how they're stored? The mainhalls seen in FS1/2 are quite probably launch bays or staging areas for scramble ready or mission prepped fighters, not actual storage of those held in reserve.
It was a low-powered laser and primitive at that, whose purpose was to mesure the distance to the moon, not to do damage. GTVA has fusion reactors, power plants on fighters and far more advanced laser tech than we have now. So the damage is something they can easily increase by that time.
Easily? Then why haven't they. Give me one good reason why,
if it was feasible, the GTVA doesn't have that sort of close-to infinite range weaponry. Even assuming there aren't limits placed by physics restricting the damage-per-energy factor of weaponry. Or, hell, if they do, what makes you think it won't have, y'know, a logical increase in power requirements or heat build-up?
Again, this falls back to design - where are the reacort located? How armoured vulnerable are tehy? Does the sihp even need all of them or are some back-ups?
All of which place compromises upon the design. You move your reactors under armour and deeper inside the ship, and you have to place more cooling around them (for crew safety), put in countermeasures against an overload and explosion taking out the heart of the ship, place more power conduits from those reactors, allocate the same space to backups, etc - not to mention the problems if you have to service the things externally and they're buried under several feet of metal. You can't just plonk down a bunch of fusion reactors without consequences to the ship design.
And back to the argument of not being able to fit all that heat sinks and weapons and reactors into it - there's a canon example you're completely wrong.
Leviathan and Fenris - same size, same shape. Leviathan has more than twice the armor and firepower.
And you're telling me you couldn't do that on a bigger scane, on a bigger hull?
Leviathan is firstly a different frame; it has more armour and, crucially, half the speed. You could do it again on a larger frame, but would the ship be that much better? I doubt it - you'd have to compromise it. However, let us look at the turret differences that have occured to half our speed (more than half for the max oclk speed, which is 25 for the Fenris)
Fenris;
9 turrets; 5 Terran turrets, 1 LTerSlash, 2AAAf, 1 Fusion mortar
Leviathan;
9 turrets; 3 Terran turrets, 1 SGreen, 4 AAAf, 1 Fusion mortar
Hmm. Let's examine the main difference; the LTerSlash vs the SGreen
LTerSlash; fire wait; 10, damage; 150, lifetime 30
SGreen; fire wait; 45, damage;210, lifetime; 2.5
Not what I'd call a massive improvement in offensive firepower; pretty much the same gun for different uses here. But they both have 0.30 energy consumption, so let's look at the 2 Terran turrets vs 2 AAAfs, because that's the only real offensive difference. And we find the Terran Turret has the same energy use as the AAAf, which shows us how completely meaningless that statistic is. So, the only measurable difference, appears to be halving the speed to improve the hitpoints.
Going by the Fenris, maybe you could decrease the Orions' speed after bolting on some extra armour. Otherwise it's the same ship, slightly different specialisation.
If you want good node defense your capship have to be in range to deliver the hurt. Blockading the node focuses on crippling/destroying enemy warship as fast as possible, before they can launch fighters or bring more reinforcements trough the node.
Based on your view of capships being used to destroy other capships of the same class.
Except FS1 and 2 have shown that bombers take that role above anything else; they're quick, agile, far-ranging and can carry heavy weaponry as effective as beam weapons. So any defensive force of capships can just sit a few km left and let bomber wings wear down the enemy capships (hence why attack forces require immediate fighter cover from their lead destroyer, to intercept).
Besides which, I thought the battleships vast array of weaponry meant it was better than a destroyer - now it needs one to provide it fighter cover so it isn't obliterated by bomber patrols? So a battleship is effectively useless unless it can survive a long, slow trek through waves of bombers and probably Mjolnir to get its and the enemies weapons in range?
Pulling back your capships and reliyng only on fighters/bombers is a bad idea, as while they are focusing on a BB and wearing it down, more ships will jump in to provide support. In this scenario the BB is practilcy buying time as it takes a bit longer to destroy. And thus the defending fighters will have to face enemy capships point-defense and their fighter complements.
You're assuming the battleship will take longer to destroy, but in actuality - like any FS2 capital ship - all you need is a few Helios hits and the thing is doomed. and also relying on - yep - destroyers to provide it support
And if you amass your capship aroudn the node, you're practicly letting the BB fire off a few salvo's at them, since you can't destroy/disable him fast enoughto prevent it. And again, support jumps in and you're f***, since you have damaged capships, a enemy BB that's still "afloat" and mroe enemy capships and fighters incoming.
This is all assuming, the defending force doesn't have BB's.
Why? - it's slower (if it's that well armoured to survive the waves of attacks from an organized blockade - see Leviathan-Fenris), and the blockade has point defense forces tasked with destroying the turrets and stripping down the battleships subsystems before it can even come in range for them to fire. And, again, you're relying on other ships to support the battleships weaknesses; it's role is now to be a very expensive sponge to absorb enemy ranged fire.
You're assuming the battleship will take longer to destroy, anyways, but in all likelihood- like any FS2 capital ship - all you need is a few Helios hits and the thing is doomed.
What you're actually doing is hypothesising a scenario where the enemy is stupid enough to play to every strength of this posited battleship class, and also sucesfully ignores it's weaknesses. And you've still not given an example of the armour, turrets, etc of such a vessel.
