[Demetrious]

Of these three requirements, the Valkyrie has only speed. It lacks firepower slightly in comparison to its contemporaries and it heavily lacks durability.

Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease, I can't see where you're coming from with this. Sure, it can only carry 8 Phoenix missiles, but there's something to be said for staying power, especially with the way bombers come in waves and waves that don't leave you a lot of time to re-arm.

The problem really boils down to terminology that doesn't fit- "interceptor" is a term derived from modern air warfare, where a single missile will deal with pretty much anything. In Freespace, some of the heavier AI bombers are really approaching the firepower and size of Corvettes (11 guns on the Seraphim? Hooooo...) Their defenses are so thick that you really need a heavy assault fighter to batter through them, and absorb turret fire in turn.

In light of that it might be a mistake to judge the Valk as an interceptor. Just like it for what it is- very vast, and very manuverable. I always disliked it's fragility- you could get rammed to death in it, whereas in a Herc the same impacts would do nothing- but it was just the thing for those missions when you had to get from one side of a 2-k long ship to the other in a right hurry. The Tech room description describes it as the successor to the "Angel Scout Fighter," and I think that is a better description of the Valk then "interceptor."

[Timerlane]

Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease

Decent on shields(good by FS1 standards), it's marginal against hulls(slightly less damage per shot than the Avenger), and carries a whopping 1.6 energy usage per shot(Avenger is 0.3, Prom-S is 1.0, Kayser is 1.2), and on a ship with 1/3 less weapon energy reserve than the Perseus(same power output), it's quite significant.

Equipping double Banshees makes you virtually ineffectual against anything that isn't a fighter, though a mix of Banshee/Avenger is pretty good.

I would say that if the Valk could carry Prom-S, it could simply fight by outranging any canon turret gun on bombers, though sometimes you don't have the luxury of "stay > 1km, but < 1.5 km away". It would be a pretty effective mobile Trebuchet delivery system(and could 'theoretically' fire the same number of double-fire salvoes that the Perseus(or Horus) can, then run back to the nearest support ship for more, faster than any other Terran fighter).

Of course, neither were likely available at the time the GTVA made the decision to create a new interceptor.

EDIT: Kayser energy usage I quoted was too high.

[NGTM-1R]

Considering that the Valk is one of only two fighters in FS1 that can carry the Banshee, which rips through shields and hulls alike with frightening ease, I can't see where you're coming from with this. Sure, it can only carry 8 Phoenix missiles, but there's something to be said for staying power, especially with the way bombers come in waves and waves that don't leave you a lot of time to re-arm.

The Banshee's ultimately going to hurt you when you hit hull, and Neps/Seras have not-inconsiderable hulls too. Ultimately your ability to kill bombers rapidly is directly proportional to your remaining load of missiles. Run out of missiles and you will kill things much slower. Doesn't matter what you're packing in the primaries.

The problem really boils down to terminology that doesn't fit- "interceptor" is a term derived from modern air warfare, where a single missile will deal with pretty much anything. In Freespace, some of the heavier AI bombers are really approaching the firepower and size of Corvettes (11 guns on the Seraphim? Hooooo...) Their defenses are so thick that you really need a heavy assault fighter to batter through them, and absorb turret fire in turn.

The terminology "interceptor" in fact dates back to WWI when people were intercepting zepplins, and the role and mission profile is just as old. The world's first dedicated interceptor was probably the Hawker Hurricane; in that time and place speed was not as great an issue because of the forewarning radar provides, so the Hurricane just needed firepower and durability, and it had those.

FS presents a similar tactical paradigm of relatively long dogfights against heavily armed and armored bombers with turrets, but it also throws in subspace, making speed a required element because you have little warning of impending attack.

Granted more modern interceptor designs like the F-106, F-14, or MiG-25/31 tend to also include high speed in their requirements, but they also go the relatively low manuverability route FS interceptors don't take.

[roguevalkyrie]

I just got back and I'm still not sure how this turned into a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of my favorite FS1 Terran fighter but yeah Banshees over Avengers works well though I played around with Banshees over Prometheuses as well sometimes

[S-99]

You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.

WRONG!
There is no athena mk2 in the fs2 campaign. What i was actually referring to was the artemis. Fs2's knock of the artemis which has crappy primary firing points to balance out the fact that this light bomber actually carries bombs. But, either way, i'll try flying the zeus next time and have a less crappier time in fs2 with light bombers (the zeus is so easy to forget).

EDIT: haven't been here for days.

[General Battuta]

You mean the Zeus?
Cause the Athena (mk2) has the same fire points as a FS1 Athena.

WRONG!
There is no athena mk2 in the fs2 campaign. What i was actually referring to was the artemis. Fs2's knock of the artemis which has crappy primary firing points to balance out the fact that this light bomber actually carries bombs. But, either way, i'll try flying the zeus next time and have a less crappier time in fs2 with light bombers (the zeus is so easy to forget).

Uh, I believe TrashMan made an Athena Mk2, which he is probably referring to.

[S-99]

Yes there is an athena mark 2 in existence, but it is not part of the fs2 campaign ship list. This whole thing is a big misunderstanding because i couldn't remember the name of the artemis which i earlier referred to as "fs2's version of the athena", which i apparently didn't think that there was also another light bomber in fs2 as called the zeus (i tend to forget this one because i'm not sure if you even get a chance to fly it in the campaign since the ntf took most of them).

[Thaeris]

Yes, you can fly the Zeus in the main FS2 campaign, and I have made use of that facility in the past.

The mission I used it in (in which it was available - I'm not sure of the other missions where you perhaps could have used it...) was with the Mjolnir beam emplacements, where the agility of the Zeus was useful for my purposes in blasting the NTF.

[Paladin327]

you can use in in both 64th raptor missions, and i think you might be able to use it in Slaying Ravana, but not sure about that. can also use it in the nebula mission of the demo, but that doesnt count now that i think about it, there arent enough good bombing missions in fs2 where you fly terran bombers.

[headdie]

you can use in in both 64th raptor missions, and i think you might be able to use it in Slaying Ravana, but not sure about that. can also use it in the nebula mission of the demo, but that doesnt count now that i think about it, there arent enough good bombing missions in fs2 where you fly terran bombers.

I think thats because of the squadron element in the story, while flying in terran squadrons they have a strongly defined roles so most of the time you fly fighters because your are in fighter squadrons with only a very short stint in a bomber light squadron, the vasudan missions seemed a little more relaxed on the subject though it was more like playing FS1 in that regard.

[TrashMan]

Granted more modern interceptor designs like the F-106, F-14, or MiG-25/31 tend to also include high speed in their requirements, but they also go the relatively low manuverability route FS interceptors don't take.

 

[NGTM-1R]

What, you think a Tomcat can turn inside a single-engine single-seat aircraft?

[Klaustrophobia]

i think he might have been referring to the freespace end of that.

[General Battuta]

What, you think a Tomcat can turn inside a single-engine single-seat aircraft?

Like I've always told TrashMan, there's a reason they called it the steel cloud.

[Klaustrophobia]

who called it that? 

[General Battuta]

Okay, apparently it was aluminum cloud. 

[Thaeris]

This is actually a pretty heated argument (with regards to the Tomcat) - it really depends on who you talk to.

I've actually had a conversation with a USN Lt.Cmdr. (can't remember his name - it was at an airshow in Prescott, AZ) who noted that the 'Cat was more maneuverable than the F-15. He was flying the F/A-18F at the time when I was having the conversation, however. The (Pre-Revolutionary) Iranians also thought the plane was superior: given the size of Iran in comparison to Israel (who opted for the Eagle), the selection of an interceptor with very long-range BVR capabilities made more sense... and probably saved the program as well.

That said, as the pilots in question here were not push-overs in any regard, it might be fairly safe to conclude that the close-range fighting capabilities of both the F-14 and the F-15 would be comparable. So, if there's any single-engine fighter you'd think the F-15 could turn inside of, there's a good chance the Tomcat could do the same.

[Klaustrophobia]

there's not a lot the f-15 can out-turn close in either. 

[roguevalkyrie]

roguevalkyrie shakes his head with an amused smile as he counts the loops this discussion has gone through. " From discussing whether or not Freespace has planet-based starfighters to discussing the strengths and weakness of my Favorite Terran FS1 fighter and some of it's FS2 terran counterpart to discussing strengths and weaknesses of FS interceptors and RL Interceptors to comparing manuverability of RL interceptors to single engine fighters.

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, apparently it was aluminum cloud. 

I thought that was the C-5.