[kaloonzu]

I know that the long standing assumption in FS2 has been that there are 12 fighters per one fighter squadron, but I have seen little evidence of this in canon. The more prevalent trend has been 4 fighters per wing, with a maximum deployment of 4 wings. Some basic arithmetic here, but 4 x 4 = 16. This also fits much better with the logical assumption that at least some of the 150 combat spacecraft carried aboard Hecate-class flag destroyers must be support ships, as they are "combat" spacecraft, albeit in a support role. This would leave either 144 or 128 spaces aboard a Hecate class destroyer for fighters and bombers (128 and 144 are both multiples of 16 and 12, and 144 is also a multiple of 24). Also, if a squadron is 12 craft, it is slightly more difficult to reconcile the mathematical differences in the number of craft carried between a Hecate and an Orion. I used 24 as a reference number because of its multiplicity with the other two choices, and it being a plausible answer. Thoughts or comments on this theory?

[Dilmah G]

Well I know that the FRED dialogue RE: FW's lends itself to the interpretation of 12 Fighters per squadron, and if we were to interpret that as the typical fighting formation then I'd agree. The only mission I can recall with 4 4 ship formations is the first mission of the Nebula. Apart from this I only recall 3 full wings deployed by the GTVA per squadron at max (of course I could be wrong - I haven't done some hardcore Freespacing for quite some time).

I believe the likely explanation is that a Squadron consists of 3 wings on deployment to make 12 fighters as a fighter squadron in action with 4 ships in reserve that can be deployed as another wing but are usually held back as well...reserves. I believe this is more or less what happens IRL and would make for a rational explanation.

More or less what you've said, but rationalized within the context of a fighter squadron. Although I disagree with your logic about support ships being designated 'combat spacecraft'. Just because the KC-30 can refuel aircraft in combat, doesn't make it a combat aircraft. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Goober5000]

When are four wings typically deployed?  In many missions you seldom even see three wings deployed.

The three-wings-per-squadron rule is taken directly from the Colossus cutscene, which is considered canon.  It's also supported by the fact that your loadout only shows three wings.

[kaloonzu]

Well I know that the FRED dialogue RE: FW's lends itself to the interpretation of 12 Fighters per squadron, and if we were to interpret that as the typical fighting formation then I'd agree. The only mission I can recall with 4 4 ship formations is the first mission of the Nebula. Apart from this I only recall 3 full wings deployed by the GTVA per squadron at max (of course I could be wrong - I haven't done some hardcore Freespacing for quite some time).

I believe the likely explanation is that a Squadron consists of 3 wings on deployment to make 12 fighters as a fighter squadron in action with 4 ships in reserve that can be deployed as another wing but are usually held back as well...reserves. I believe this is more or less what happens IRL and would make for a rational explanation.

More or less what you've said, but rationalized within the context of a fighter squadron. Although I disagree with your logic about support ships being designated 'combat spacecraft'. Just because the KC-30 can refuel aircraft in combat, doesn't make it a combat aircraft. Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't mean squadron specifically as it applies to combat deployment; I mean squadron as in the number of pilots in that combat unit. Also, the KC-30 is a combat craft. It may not directly engage the enemy, but neither does the EA-6B Prowler, which certainly is a combat craft. Also, the mission Apocolypse and the preceding mission escorting the Bastion has you in direct control of 4 wings of 4; you could only customize three in loadout.

[kaloonzu]

When are four wings typically deployed?  In many missions you seldom even see three wings deployed.

The three-wings-per-squadron rule is taken directly from the Colossus cutscene, which is considered canon.  It's also supported by the fact that your loadout only shows three wings.

The Colossus cutscene merely displays the same placeholder symbol for squadron that is used in FS2, and I don't think that can be used as a basis for how many wings are in a squadron. After all, in every mission involving an escort, they always use a model of a Hecate to represent a Terran destroyer, whether it actually is a Hecate or orion. Same thing applies for the Vasudans, for any Terran cruiser, and they always use the Perseus to represent a Terran fighter squadron. Symbols are only meant to represent something in a broader sense - they don't determine aspects of what they represent.

[mjn.mixael]

At the end of the day, there isn't enough canon evidence to absolutely prove one way or the other.. so just do what you want with your own mod.

There is however, enough data to make a reasonable assumption similar to Goober's. No proof, but the reasoning is there.

[Goober5000]

The Colossus cutscene merely displays the same placeholder symbol for squadron that is used in FS2.... Symbols are only meant to represent something in a broader sense - they don't determine aspects of what they represent.

The Colossus cutscene doesn't merely display a symbol, it also displays a series of unit conversions.  "One squad: 3 wings", "One wing: 4 ships", "Total ships: 240".

[kaloonzu]

The Colossus cutscene merely displays the same placeholder symbol for squadron that is used in FS2.... Symbols are only meant to represent something in a broader sense - they don't determine aspects of what they represent.

The Colossus cutscene doesn't merely display a symbol, it also displays a series of unit conversions.  "One squad: 3 wings", "One wing: 4 ships", "Total ships: 240".

Seriously? I've never seen that. YouTubing the cutscene now....

Edit: Ok, I YouTubed it, and at 1:45 I see exactly what you are talking about. However there is a caveat to that: There is definitely some kind of caveat that is written on the right side of the box that those numbers are in. Can't really read it, but it is there

[mjn.mixael]

Yup.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

I love that side text "math is cool ..."
I can't make out every word though.

[mjn.mixael]

In general, I recommend you always try to read filler text.. especially in a few of my ANI remakes..

[NGTM-1R]

Practical concerns militate against having a homogenous force of 12 of each every time.

We know, for example, that the GTVA isn't shy about issuing non-homogenous gear within a squadron or even a wing (they let you do it all the time) and it's unlikely those fighters are being taken from another squadron's roster of active fighters and made available to you. (It's even more unlikely you're being allowed to borrow them pilots and all.) I can think of a half-dozen ways that would cause people to have fits. This implies the GTVA carries significant pools of spare fightercraft aboard a destroyer, and considering how badly you can have some of your squadrons get shot up in a mission and yet be at full strength the next, significant pools of spare pilots.

Squadron size is to some extent more dictated by the number of personnel required to make up a squadron than the number of ships. Different fightercraft require different amounts of maintenance. Bigger ones require more people to see to their needs than smaller ones; more complex ones require more people than less complex ones. This is an important concern because it's necessary to have squadrons be interchangeable. This allows you to tailor the squadrons being sent with a ship to the mission, and to replace squadrons that have been shot up with fresh squadrons even if they're not necessarily the same type, getting more fightercraft to the battle zone. If you can't house enough mechanics for a medium bomber squadron in the space your interceptor mechanics took up (or the other way around), this is a problem.

Lastly, some types are simply more useful than others. You need more fighters than you do bombers, because fighters are required for strike escort, fleet escort, and destroyer escort, as well as offensive fighter action like sweeps or raids against enemy escorts. Certain types of fighters are more flexible than others, to boot. Medium bombers can be profitably employed against anything from freighters to destroyers, but it's not worth getting a heavy off the deck for anything smaller than a destroyer. You must be able, during wartime, to shuffle squadron size about in response to these things without having to redesign your hanger or crew decks.

[BengalTiger]

This is what I can make out of the text:

MATH IS COOL IM PRETTY
THATS HOW I F***ING
????ED OUT FUNNY MEN(?)
???? MANY ??? THOUGHT &
SHIPS ARE ON THE ???
BOARD WONT STOP TALKIN
MATH IS COOL IM PRETTY
THATS HOW I F***ING
????ED OUT FUNNY MEN(?)
????? MANY ??? THOUGH &

[kaloonzu]

Practical concerns militate against having a homogenous force of 12 of each every time.

We know, for example, that the GTVA isn't shy about issuing non-homogenous gear within a squadron or even a wing (they let you do it all the time) and it's unlikely those fighters are being taken from another squadron's roster of active fighters and made available to you. (It's even more unlikely you're being allowed to borrow them pilots and all.) I can think of a half-dozen ways that would cause people to have fits. This implies the GTVA carries significant pools of spare fightercraft aboard a destroyer, and considering how badly you can have some of your squadrons get shot up in a mission and yet be at full strength the next, significant pools of spare pilots.

Squadron size is to some extent more dictated by the number of personnel required to make up a squadron than the number of ships. Different fightercraft require different amounts of maintenance. Bigger ones require more people to see to their needs than smaller ones; more complex ones require more people than less complex ones. This is an important concern because it's necessary to have squadrons be interchangeable. This allows you to tailor the squadrons being sent with a ship to the mission, and to replace squadrons that have been shot up with fresh squadrons even if they're not necessarily the same type, getting more fightercraft to the battle zone. If you can't house enough mechanics for a medium bomber squadron in the space your interceptor mechanics took up (or the other way around), this is a problem.

Lastly, some types are simply more useful than others. You need more fighters than you do bombers, because fighters are required for strike escort, fleet escort, and destroyer escort, as well as offensive fighter action like sweeps or raids against enemy escorts. Certain types of fighters are more flexible than others, to boot. Medium bombers can be profitably employed against anything from freighters to destroyers, but it's not worth getting a heavy off the deck for anything smaller than a destroyer. You must be able, during wartime, to shuffle squadron size about in response to these things without having to redesign your hanger or crew decks.

This is what I meant, in terms of personnel. I accept Goober's argument on combat deployment numbers

[Kromaatikse]

Small nitpick: in Mystery of the Trinity you fly as four wings of three fighters each.  Total: 12 Herc IIs.

And when Kappa 3 shows up again during A Game of TAG, he identifies himself as being from the 107th Ravens, the same squadron as you were flying in back then.

[Buckshee Rounds]

They might have temporarily shuffled fighters about to get 4 wings on the go, they were trying to map a nebula after all.

So, on a fully kitted out Hecate you could expect to find let's say 10 squads of 12:- 120 fighters. 2 support ships per squad (20), plus transports. I'll bet at least two of those squadrons are 'ghosts' that are used as the spares NGTM was talking about. 150 is probably the textbook number, if more of those squadrons were heavy assault or bombers than usually expected then naturally there's going to be less craft aboard (but possibly more aircrew spacecrew).

Math*s* is cool.

[crizza]

Who knows, maybe the Colossus had huge cargo holds, where spareparts and fighters were stored.
I simply don't believe that only a small part of the ship is habitable, and the rest is what? Reactors, armours, girders, power supply and cabels?

[NGTM-1R]

Who knows, maybe the Colossus had huge cargo holds, where spareparts and fighters were stored.
I simply don't believe that only a small part of the ship is habitable, and the rest is what? Reactors, armours, girders, power supply and cabels?

Nobody said the rest of the ship isn't habitable. It's just not where people live. Workshops and fuel and cargo holds other stuff that wouldn't be manned in combat or slept in when off duty. You pump out the atmosphere and use them as extra armor during combat.

[KyadCK]

Math*s* is cool.

It very clearly states "Math is cool". Doesn't matter how all you people over seas say it, FS2 says Math. 

As a follow up, If you're going to say it that way, shouldn't it be "Maths are cool" following the logic of pluralization?


More on topic: Are all wings clearly labeled as in your squad when you get 3+ wings at your command? There is no reason you couldn't be lead wing and get to order another squad around since it is your mission.

[Kromaatikse]

I think Bearbaiting gives you the greatest number of fightercraft under your direct command - four wings of four to begin with, plus another wing as immediate reinforcements, and one or two more once the Sathanas jumps out (one being associated with the corvette brought in as fire support against the Demon).  Most of them are Vasudan, but I see no reason to suspect a big organisational difference between species.

I don't believe simply being under command is at all a reliable indicator of being in the same squadron.  In particular, in Dunkerque the Herc II wing already on the scene is clearly not a Blue Lions wing, though they are competent enough (unlike Theta wing in Exodus, who are absurdly stupid - they don't even lead-aim).