[Iranon]

That Command has its head up its... nether regions is generally known. Sometimes I wonder about R&D as well.
In Freespace 2, the GTVA had become rather cocky and too confident of their technological superiority... but one needs to ask where that self-image came from.

FS1-era craft tend to be uncompromising and great at their role. The Valkyrie is everything an interceptor should be and is simply a joy to fly with its vast afterburner reserves and extreme acceleration/deceleration. The Ulysses is still the space superiority fighter to beat Dragons at their own game (a case could be made for the Loki if Kaysers are available and you prefer something slightly heavier), and the Hercules remains the iconic heavy assault fighter for much of FS2.
Something similar holds true for the bombers: the Athena is fondly remembered as an excellent strike bomber/missile delivery vehicle that could hold its own in a dogfight and the Ursa is still the craft of choice if payload matters.

The new toys? In the Myrmidon, we got a supposed Ulysses-replacement that is nowhere near manoeverable enough to fill its stated role, a tad on the slow side for interception duty and too flimsy for an assault fighter. It also has a huge target profile and off-center weapons; apparently they bashed mismatched parts together until the feature list looked good on paper. The Herc2 isn't a bad ship, but why build an Athena-wannabe if we could have retained the Athena? The Perseus is a solid and  balanced design... too balanced.  The Valkyrie was better as a pure interceptor and the Loki is still better in a dogfight... why introduce another multirole craft if performing its job as a slightly slower, heavier interceptor is about the only thing the Myrmidon does well?
Truth be told, the Ares, Erinyes and Pegasus are worthy additions, but as I understood it those are not going to be produced in numbers.

The new bombers seem even more questionable. The Artemis can't use its 4-gun bank well in a dogfight because of horrible placement. Against capital ships, a 2+2 split would better so we can carry Maxims and still defend ourselves. It's reasonably speedy while also considerably sturdier than the Zeus so I suppose it has its niche in theory... but I can't imagine flying it voluntarily if the older bombers are available. The Boanerges is worse as an almost strict downgrade compared to the Ursa... the modest increase in cruising speed is not worth giving up a 3-gun-bank, a Kayser turret and a good part of one's hull armour. Different-sized banks are good in principle (a small bank for self-defence, 2 large banks for bombs) but an Ursa with an all-bomb loadout can still take better care of itself.

*

The GTVA made considerable advanced in many areas of weapon design: Beam and Flak cannons redefine the capabilities of capital ships. Missiles have become a lot better. Maxim cannons give fighters a great standoff potential against capital ships and need to be dealt with. High-powered primaries are available at a corresponding high energy drain and in limited numbers. Good job there, R&D... but if you can do this, then why is the bread-and-butter weaponry so utterly pants?

Freespace 1 had an awesome general-purpose weapon in the Avenger. Its hull damage is still spectacular for the low energy requirements, and we had not one but two excellent anti-fighter tools in the Flail and Shield Breaker. The Subach Hl-7 sucks compared to the Avenger (the Mekhu isn't too bad in comparison, especially since we lost useful anti-shield tools), and the Morning Star/Circe are almost unusable thanks to unreasonable energy requirements for a weaker effect than that of their predecessors. The Prometheus R is downright embarassing.
There isn't a single energy-efficient setup that can compete with the classics.

[The E]

This sounds pretty much like an aviator from the Vietnam War era complaining that the F15 isn't needed cos the F4 does the job quite well, thank you very much.

[Spoon]

This sounds pretty much like an aviator from the Vietnam War era complaining that the F15 isn't needed cos the F4 does the job quite well, thank you very much.

Bad comparison, the F-15 is an air superiority fighter that excells in it's roll. most def. an upgrade over the F-4
Iranon is saying that a lot of the new FS2 fighters aren't really that much of an improvement over the old FS1 ones because the FS2 fighters all try to be multi roll in some regard, whereas the FS1 are more specialised in what they do.

[SpardaSon21]

The Herc. II was definitely a downgrade from the Herc. I.  You give up two gun banks for nothing in return.

[Spoon]

The Herc. II was definitely a downgrade from the Herc. I.  You give up two gun banks for nothing in return.

+5 top speed, slightely better shielding and armor. 

[General Battuta]

Isn't secondary capacity higher? The Herc II carries more Trebs than the Zeus.

[Sushi]

Although the Perseus isn't quite as fast as the Valk, the extra armor (and generous powerplant) go a long way towards making it great for any mission where your main targets are fighters or bombers. I *always* choose it over the Erinyes, and only sometimes choose a HercII or Ares if I know I'll need to do a lot of Trebuchet-lobbing and/or use Maxims. Other than that: dual kayser banks, a rack of tornadoes, and a rack of trebs (you never know when you'll need to take out a beam turret quickly!).

The other thing to remember about "new" fighters is that performance is not the only important consideration (case study: F-14, F-22). Cost and maintainability are just as important, especially if you expect a war with heavy losses.

The Herc. II was definitely a downgrade from the Herc. I.  You give up two gun banks for nothing in return.

You get increased secondary capacity and a slimmer profile, along with slightly increased speed and armor.

[General Battuta]

Profile is a terribly underrated attribute. The Herc 1 is a deathtrap because it's so huge. The Herc II is more difficult to kill from many angles.

[CP5670]

As others have said, the Herc II has many other advantages over the Herc I. I once used to like the Herc I better but prefer the Herc II in most situations now, mainly for the Maxim compatibility and much larger missile capacity. The Herc I's primary mounts are also somewhat far apart, which makes it hard to land all four shots on small targets at close range.

Profile is a terribly underrated attribute. The Herc 1 is a deathtrap because it's so huge. The Herc II is more difficult to kill from many angles.

You can especially notice the difference with this when you're up against them. AI controlled Herc Is are much easier to kill than Herc IIs.

[headdie]

Profile is a terribly underrated attribute. The Herc 1 is a deathtrap because it's so huge. The Herc II is more difficult to kill from many angles.

problem is you spend longer behind each target to kill it with having fewer guns  so your time vulnerable is longer.

As others have said, the Herc II has many other advantages over the Herc I. I once used to like the Herc I better but prefer the Herc II in most situations now, mainly for the Maxim compatibility and much larger missile capacity. The Herc I's primary mounts are also somewhat far apart, which makes it hard to land all four shots on small targets at close range.

Profile is a terribly underrated attribute. The Herc 1 is a deathtrap because it's so huge. The Herc II is more difficult to kill from many angles.

You can especially notice the difference with this when you're up against them. AI controlled Herc Is are much easier to kill than Herc IIs.

they both still have big target profiles.

in the herc IIs defense though
there is design issue with the mission layout in that you go to the herc II from the myrmidon so downgrading speed and your first mission in the herc II contains some of the shivans fastest fighters across a large field of engagement making the class feel slow, unwieldy and useless

[Qent]

The Boanerges is worse as an almost strict downgrade compared to the Ursa... the modest increase in cruising speed is not worth giving up a 3-gun-bank, a Kayser turret and a good part of one's hull armour. Different-sized banks are good in principle (a small bank for self-defence, 2 large banks for bombs) but an Ursa with an all-bomb loadout can still take better care of itself.

I pick the Boanerges because it can carry more bombs than an Ursa. I also like having Helios banks in even numbers.

[Iranon]

Re the Herc II: If you can ignore that the Athena was officially a bomber (it can't carry real bombs...), the Hercules Mk II is essentially its equivalent in FS2: A missile delivery vehicle that's certainly not helpless in a dogfight but not as impressive a gun platform as the original Hercules. If one ship would be suitable for a mission, the other would do just fine too and the respective advantages balance out overall. Personally I prefer the Athena (minor edge in speed, afterburner capacity, profile and weapon placement rather than a minor edge in payload, manoeverability and shielding).

@ Sushi: Power output is identical for all fighters since that table entry isn't used. Incidentally, Perseus and Valkyrie are both listed at 2.0. If this value did anything, usefulness of the different craft would be vastly different...
The Perseus is equally good for space superiority as interception duty and a fine overall craft; but I'd say the Perseus can be replaced by the Myrmidon in a pinch even if it's a little lardy. The Valkyrie on the other hand has no other Terran equivalent. Of course, FS2 contains no missions where you actually need that much speed since those would be unwinnable.

@ Qent: Good point about the Boanerges; the ability to carry and additional Helios and to can dump its load more quickly could indeed be a relevant advantage. I hadn't noticed because I tend to throw them 1-by-1 until the target is dead in space anyway.

[Qent]

Actually I think the energy regeneration is a fixed percentage of total weapon energy.

[Colonol Dekker]

Two answers to the original question...

1 (Please dont hate me but insert generic gameplay progression answer right <HERE>)


2 - The whole SOL R&D infrastructure base was cut off so they had to rely on Temporary contractors and Junior graduates to design everything from the ground up?

[da1edwin]

The new bombers seem even more questionable. The Artemis can't use its 4-gun bank well in a dogfight because of horrible placement. Against capital ships, a 2+2 split would better so we can carry Maxims and still defend ourselves. It's reasonably speedy while also considerably sturdier than the Zeus so I suppose it has its niche in theory... but I can't imagine flying it voluntarily if the older bombers are available. The Boanerges is worse as an almost strict downgrade compared to the Ursa... the modest increase in cruising speed is not worth giving up a 3-gun-bank, a Kayser turret and a good part of one's hull armour. Different-sized banks are good in principle (a small bank for self-defence, 2 large banks for bombs) but an Ursa with an all-bomb loadout can still take better care of itself.

Weren't you complaining about poor gun placements? Regardless of the fact that the Ursa has 5 guns, it has the worst gun placement in the history of mankind. The bottom bank is way too low and the side bank is way too far to the right. The lead indicator is practically useless for either.

Also, I think it's somewhat silly that the Ursa has a Kayser turret in FS2 when its actual gun banks can't carry Kaysers.

[Iranon]

If find the Ursa's gun placement quirky rather than truly bad... the 2-gun-bank isn't that far off-centre, and at least the guns of each bank are reasonably close together. The arrangement is only horrible if you try to fire from both banks... and why would we want to do that?

2 guns for self defence, 3 Maxims for anti-capital use works well enough for me. Aiming a little left with the latter comes naturally to me by now. It's far from ideal... but on a bomber I can live with that.

[Mongoose]

FS1's Black Omega makes for excellent training on the Ursa's side gun, at least if you stick to the default loadout.  I got fairly decent at pegging HoL fighters with triple Prometheus blasts.

[jkalltheway]

I've always preferred the Ursa as a bomber. High armor pretty much saves my rear every time. The guns are placed weird, but the top guns are close together, so they almost always hit together.

[General Battuta]

You will die hard on Insane without the magic damage buffer provided by lower difficulties.

Bombers are bloody suicide. Haven't really found one yet that doesn't suck at its job (possibly barring the Sekhmet.)

[Black Wolf]

Exactly. Everyone forgets the Zods. The Sekhmet makes up for a multitude of sins, and the Serapis is the true Ulysses successor. The rest of their new stuff is kind of take-or-leave (Bakha and Tauret - the Ptah is a carbon copy of the Pegasus), but hell, with those two on your side you don't need anything else anyway.