[Black Wolf]

I've been thinking about this for a little while - what do we think a typical complement for an Orion would be? I mean the makeup of the squadrons on board: if you were the admiral determining how to deploy your fighters in a new ship, how would you do that? Let's say you get ten squadrons ala the Bastion, either FS1 or FS2 era. How do you set up your fighterbay to make your Orion the best it can possibly be? For simplicity, assume each squadron only flies a single fighter or bomber type at all times.

I think that it's going to change a lot over time. In FS1, the real emphasis would be on bombers because of the lack of effective anti cap weapons, whereas by FS2, the Orion is an anti cap beast all on its own, but is super vulnerable to enemy bombers, so you'd want to fill up mainly on interceptors.

I'm going to focus on FS1 because I think there's a little more diversity there, immediately post Silent Threat. My Orion would have:

3 Heavy Bomber Squadrons (Medusa): I feel like the Medusa is a better all rounder than the Ursa, and I never got the impression there were a tonne of Ursas or Helios' made, so I think Medusa's would be more typical.

2 Light Bomber Squadrons (Zeus): Would really like the Athena in here, but Zeus seems like a better bet for compatibility.

3 Interceptor Squadrons (Valkyrie): Neccesary to defend the mothership against enemy bombers, can do escort.

1 Recon Squadron (Loki): I really would like a second squadron here, because I feel like recon has to be a big part of what FS fighters do, but I'm feeling the pinch in terms of numbers.

1 Space Superiority (Apollo): So tempting to put the Uly in here, but the missile capacity is just too low.

If I had to drop down to the eight canonincal, I'd probably cut a Medusa squadron and my Apollos... The Valks can do their job in a pinch. Interested to hear what everyone else would do - going to give some thought to some other destroyers as well.

[Su-tehp]

There's also the chance that a destroyer might have to switch out certain squadron types for a particular mission. If an Orion is going on, say, a border patrol mission, it will want fewer bombers but more interceptors and space superiority fighters for escort and defense since offensive missions will not be a priority. OTOH, if the Orion is sent on a strike mission, it might want more bombers (to attack the enemy) and recon squadrons (to find out where the enemy actually is), but will retain at least a few interceptor squadrons for defense.

There are probably other squadron complements for even more types of battlegroup missions that I haven't thought up. Not to mention on whether the Orion is in a peacetime or wartime deployment, which could change the fighter complement even further: not just the type of fighter complement, but also whether the number of squadrons could be reduced from 10 to 8 in a peacetime deployment.

[0rph3u5]

I think that it's going to change a lot over time. In FS1, the real emphasis would be on bombers because of the lack of effective anti cap weapons, whereas by FS2, the Orion is an anti cap beast all on its own, but is super vulnerable to enemy bombers, so you'd want to fill up mainly on interceptors.

I don't think there would be much of a change on basis of armaments, after all the design of the Orion - with its easily identifiable "windward"/"leeward"-split for combat - didn't change; the armament change to FS2 equalizes the sides of the Orion somewhat with 1 BGreen and 1 TerSlash on the hangar side, 1 BGreen and 2 TerSlash on the on the armoured side (and one BGreen on turret01 which can be turned to either side), but doesn't change that if its maneuvered like in the FS2 intro, the bulk of the ship can protect launching fighters during combat.
This makes the Orion suited for both aggressive close quaters combat and defensive deployments, regardless of weapons.

(the split is also what would have made the Typhon an effective combatant against it, as the Typhon has its turrets placed in a way that it could move over or under a Orion in broadside position while bringing a plurality of its turrets to bear. Let's a please take a momement to remember the subtlties that fell by the wayside thanks to the introduction of GIANT LAZORS.)

What would have prompted a change however would be introduction of a complementary destroyer/carrier class in the Hecate, which is much more suited for the long range support and carrier duties - meaning that strategic roles in a battlegroup would shift away for an Orion, e.g. removing a dedicated scout squadron and filling its place with a squadron that more closely related to a combat role.


Now if the premise is 10 squadrons, and no complementary carrier for late FS1, I would split the squadrons like this:

Strategic Operations Wing - 7
(These are the squadrons mainly for the missions away from the mothership)
- 1 dedicated Scout Squadron (Valkyrie/Loki; Apollo for the recon-in-force missions) - as scouting roles include not just spotting enemies but also testing their capabilities, I think a dedicated squadron for that is in order
- 2 dedicated Long Range Combat Patrol Squadrons (Hercules/Apollo)
- 1 dedicated Rapid Response Squadron (Valkyrie)
- 1 dedicated Ship Support Squadron (Athena/Hercules) - a dedicated squadron to supplement cruiser groups on their missions, performing hit and run attacks or outflanking the enemy battle line; canonically we don't see much aggressive cruiser deployment but the Fenris makes for a good ship of the line and the Aten could make a good line breaker (detachable ramming spikes )
- 1 dedicated Anti-Ship Bomber Squadron (Zeus) - the Zeus is just the most swiss-army knife of the FS1 bomber crop in terms of payload capacity
- 1 dedicated Anti-Installation/Anti-Capital Bomber Squadron (Medusa/Ursa) - engaging an installation is different mission profile from taking on a ship, so it makes sense to me to seperate that into a dedicated squadron

Tactical Operations Wing - 3
(There are the squadrons for the missions in tandem with the mothership)
- 1 dedicated Combat Interceptor Squadron (Valkyrie)
- 1 dedicated Close Range Support Squadron (Hercules)
- 1 dedicated Close Range Anti-Ship Squadron (Medusa/Ursa)

As for FS2, some of the strategic roles would probably transfer to Hecate (most likely the dedicated Scout Squadron and the Ship Support Squadron) and be replaced (if possible) with Squadrons already part of the Tactical Operations Wing.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

In FS1, I think these would make up the 10 squadrons in an Orion:
- 4 bomber squadrons (1 Athena or Zeus/2 Medusa/1 Ursa)
- 2 heavy assault squadrons (all Hercules)
- 2 intercept squadrons (1 Apollo/1 Valkyrie)
- 1 space superiority squadrons (Apollo or Ulysses)
- 1 recon squadron (Apollo or Loki)

In FS2, with the Hecate destroyer supposedly replacing the Orion in certain capacities, I reckon these would be its 10 squadrons during the NTF Rebellion:
- 4 bomber squadrons (1 Artemis/2 Medusa/1 Ursa)
- 2 heavy assault squadrons (1 Hercules/1 Herc II)
- 1 intercept squadron (Perseus)
- 2 space superiority squadrons (1 Ulysses/1 Myrmidon)
- 1 recon squadron (Ulysses or Loki)

...and around the time of the Capella supernova:
- 2 bomber squadrons (1 Artemis/1 Boanerges)
- 3 heavy assault squadrons (2 Herc II/1 Erinyes or Herc II)
- 3 intercept squadrons (all Perseus)
- 1 space superiority squadron (Myrmidon)
- 1 recon squadron (Loki)

[Trivial Psychic]

Wouldn't the Pegasus have replaced the Loki in recon by the time of the Capella supernova?

[Nightmare]

While I don't know how long such things would take in 2367, the Pegasus was in Eval roughly in the middle of the campaign, I wouldn't expect it to be used fleetwide by the end.

[Trivial Psychic]

Well, he did put the Erinyes in there and that was a very recent introduction.

[Nightmare]

True, despite being "fresh off the drawing board" according to Snipes the Erinyes was not too uncommon towards the end of FS2.

[Mito [PL]]

Wasn't Loki's stealth capability rendered totally useless during ST (or ST:R)? While this doesn't make it a bad fighter in itself, that still definitely lowers its utility for recon...

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Widespread deployment of the Erinyes only began in Exodus, despite SOC already having access to the fighter during the peak of the NTF Rebellion. Because of this, the Erinyes' deployment across the Alliance is a bit of an unknown factor, although the Aquitaine definitely received a shipment of them.

Although I forgot about the Pegasus, I believe a squadron needs to be really brave - or really suicidal - to main the Pegasus, hence I'd still think the Loki, despite its flaws, is more likely to be the standard ship for any recon squadron.

[Nightmare]

Wasn't Loki's stealth capability rendered totally useless during ST (or ST:R)? While this doesn't make it a bad fighter in itself, that still definitely lowers its utility for recon...

IIRC yes but that was only for Terrans/Vasudans, the main opponent would be Shivan. That being said ST also hinted that the Shivies would be capable of that too.

[Nightmare]

Widespread deployment of the Erinyes only began in Exodus, despite SOC already having access to the fighter during the peak of the NTF Rebellion. Because of this, the Erinyes' deployment across the Alliance is a bit of an unknown factor, although the Aquitaine definitely received a shipment of them.

Still it would be just a few months from OpEval to common use.

[Su-tehp]

Although I forgot about the Pegasus, I believe a squadron needs to be really brave - or really suicidal - to main the Pegasus, hence I'd still think the Loki, despite its flaws, is more likely to be the standard ship for any recon squadron.

I dunno, I beg to differ. By 2367, the Loki is more than 30 years old while the Pegasus is brand new. From what I gather, the Pegasus is a lot harder to detect than the Loki and surviving dogfights is not what the Pegasus was designed for, but it is (in-universe, anyway) very good at not getting detected while conducting recon. So it only makes sense that a recon squadron would want to fly the Pegasus instead of the Loki. If a recon squadron is detected and fired on, the mission is already a failure (or at least only a partial success, if the Pegasus fighters can get away with their recon data and report back to base). The purpose of the Pegasus is to gather intelligence and get out alive, not to fight, so its dogfighting ability is irrelevant to its recon mission.

That being said, if the mission is to conduct "hot" recons where combat is likely, then flying Lokis instead of Pegasus fighters would make sense (assuming Lokis truly do perform better in combat).

[0rph3u5]

In this mission, the 134th will participate in a test of the new Pegasus-class stealth fighter, developed for allied operations in the nebula. The unusual design of the Pegasus minimizes the EM signature emitted by the fighter, making it all but impossible to detect with sensors. This exercise will be the first simulation of the Pegasus under combat conditions in the nebula environment.

While the briefing is ambigious as to the state of the Pegasus combat trials at this point, but that is designed for the Nebula specifically (which also puts a spot-light on the "exposed wires and neon lights"-texture - "its still being worked on")

[Nightmare]

While I agree on the "its still being worked on" I doubt that GTVA could make an entire new type (not just shipclass but functional wise) within months.

[Su-tehp]

While I agree on the "its still being worked on" I doubt that GTVA could make an entire new type (not just shipclass but functional wise) within months.

Yeah, I agree. In Real Life (TM), that sort of thing usually takes years, not months. According to Wikipedia, the F/A-18 Hornet first began its existence as the YF-17 in its design phase during the late 1970s and it didn't see actual deployment in the US Marines until January 1983 and was introduced into the US Navy on July 1, 1984.

Granted, we're talking about a sci-fi video game here so the rules of reality may or may not apply, but we still want to preserve the suspension of disbelief as well and keep things as "realistic" as possible.

(On a related note, "verisimilitude" is my safe word.)

[0rph3u5]

While I agree on the "its still being worked on" I doubt that GTVA could make an entire new type (not just shipclass but functional wise) within months.

That's the beauty of the FS2's main campaign having an elastic time-scale, isn't it?


I have, upon revisitation to introduce FS2 to people who don't really play games that much (in order to find expert advice on certain plot points and subject matters), refined my thesis that the elastic timescale of FS2 main campign exists so as to have everything that could have possibily happened happen off-screen, in order to reinforce the divide between the tactical warfighting bits at the beginning and the end, when it is clear that all the convential means of warfare are woefully inadequate in their application against the Shivans (which reflects some late 1990s disillusionment; digging for subtext makes a games like FS2 way easier to explain).

Recently I've come across an example of similar plotting in an analysis of the movie Predator (you might have heard of it), which makes the point better than I ever could - see 10:10+ (or 14:15+ for even less introduction) in the linked video. (Not all of it translates because its a paralell reading of two different kinds of media at very different points of development of their respective mediums).

[Mobius]

My own guess is that it wouldn't be fixed, as we may all expect changes depending on the theater of operations, frequency of supplies, losses, timeline, and a number of other factors. It would also take into account things like how massive and logistically troublesome certain combat spacecraft may be - I don't expect a GTB Ursa to be as handy and flexible as a GTF Loki inside the hangar of an Orion destroyer.

I also believe that, just like we see in real life conflicts, there'd be much more variety even within the same type of combat spacecraft. You may have, let's say, 20 Ulysses fighters in your hangar, yet some of them would be of a specific version and require certain components, other would have minor experimental upgrades with different requirements, and so on. You'd also expect to have considerable amounts of spare parts for repair and regular maintenance.

If you're asking for numbers, I'd expect a 2:1 ratio between fighters and bombers, possibly extendable to 3:1. Each category would then have different ratios for its subcategories (fighters would have scouts, interceptors, regular fighters, while bombers would be heavy, medium, small and so on).