Federal Corvette

[Calrissian]

I really hope that manage to give future large ships broadside and top mounted weapon mounts. Bottom weapons are an excellent position on fighter types but to put both weapon mounts, on a type-6, for example, on the bottom really leaves it vulnerable.

4 Class-2 weapon mounts along the sides would be killer. (2 each side)
4 Class-3 weapon mounts (2 on the top and bottom)
2 more Class-2 in the nose (missiles and/or torpedoes)
1 Class-2 in the rear (In the middle of the engines)

- - - Updated - - -

Another classic design that has survived the centuries. The first vessel was constructed in 2700 by Whatt and Pritney Ship Constructions. With the demise of the company and after various mergers and takeovers the ship design is now owned by Faulcon deLacy. The ship remains the slow and sturdy craft it was originally famous for and some smaller navies still use this class as a patrol cruiser (although tiny compared to the Imperial Interdictors and Federal Battle cruisers).

The Anaconda is the pride of Faulcon deLacy's ship yards. The design was first manufactured in 2856 by RimLiner Galactic. After numerous mergers the template was eventually owned by Faulcon deLacy, who have made only minor changes to the classic design. The Anaconda is a versatile craft that can transport large cargos as well as pack a decent punch. Some smaller navies use the Anaconda in the light cruiser and frigate roles. The Anaconda can also be upgraded with a docking bay allowing small fighters up to Sidewinder size to be carried and launched.

Can you see how the latter description omitts the words tiny and patrol cruiser ( which is Navy alternative for Corvette ) but uses the terms light cruiser and frigate ( which both are bigger then corvettes ).
Also the more important point imo is:

it would not make a lot of sense to me to make the biggest ( and lets face it just this attribute will mean many will want to play it ) ship a ship for faction assoc players...

I have to admit, your making sense here.

 

[Aleksej]

Another classic design that has survived the centuries. The first vessel was constructed in 2700 by Whatt and Pritney Ship Constructions. With the demise of the company and after various mergers and takeovers the ship design is now owned by Faulcon deLacy. The ship remains the slow and sturdy craft it was originally famous for and some smaller navies still use this class as a patrol cruiser (although tiny compared to the Imperial Interdictors and Federal Battle cruisers).

The Anaconda is the pride of Faulcon deLacy's ship yards. The design was first manufactured in 2856 by RimLiner Galactic. After numerous mergers the template was eventually owned by Faulcon deLacy, who have made only minor changes to the classic design. The Anaconda is a versatile craft that can transport large cargos as well as pack a decent punch. Some smaller navies use the Anaconda in the light cruiser and frigate roles. The Anaconda can also be upgraded with a docking bay allowing small fighters up to Sidewinder size to be carried and launched.

Can you see how the latter description omitts the words tiny and patrol cruiser ( which is Navy alternative for Corvette ) but uses the terms light cruiser and frigate ( which both are bigger then corvettes ).
Also the more important point imo is:

it would not make a lot of sense to me to make the biggest ( and lets face it just this attribute will mean many will want to play it ) ship a ship for faction assoc players...

1. Please re-read the quotes - it is stated tiny compared to Imperial Interdictors and Federal Battle Cruisers. Anaconda is also tiny if compared with them. Moreover, if there is a Federal Battle Cruisers - means that it is probably the real cruiser.

2. It is not stated anywhere that Anaconda is a cruiser - smaller navies use the Anaconda in the light cruiser and frigate roles. Being used in the role does not mean that it is of that class.

So as a conclusion - taking into account that a real cruiser is Federal Battle Cruiser, I do not see any reasons why a Corvette cannot be larger than Anaconda.

 

[Kastor]

every ship shouldn't be able to solo another ship. A fighter plane in world war 2 could not SOLO a destroyer. But anyway... if I have a corvette type craft, which has more armor, shields, weapons, and power...it should be able to (once piloted half away decent) beat anything else solo or DRIVE off its attacker. Not because you want to imbalance things but by its very nature a corvette is more powerful than a fighter in any lore.

So if you are going to stick with conventional navy classifications, the least you could do is stick to why vessels are classfied higher, which is because they have bigger displacement and are more powerful.

A corvette, or anaconda or python being able to beat a fighter one on one isn't over powered...its normal. The resources it takes to construct a larger ship, you could construct several fighters for, and there is your balance. So if Navy 1 constructs a python, and for the same price and resources Navy 2 constructs 3 fighters, then yes I expect the three fighters to beat the python.

But the python or other bigger ship, punch for punch blow for blow is individually more superior than any fighter. I can understand nerfing the pythons maneuverability if it is bigger, but nerfing its shields etc...went too far.

So all multipurpose ships or corvettes are for, is cool to look at but functionally inept.

8 times out of ten should be the mantra, it shouldn't be impossible for a small ship to take down a big one, just hard and unlikely. Big ships should have something they fear, and a fighter kited out for big game hunting explicitly should be one of them.

Historically the bigger the ship the more it needed escorts. I can solo NPC Annies in a viper, pretty easy really, just takes persistence and discipline, but a anaconda and a eagle is near impossible. (or at least it would be if the escort AI actually stayed close to the mother ship)

So no I don't think a big ship should have nothing to fear from a smaller one. But yes it should be a force multiplier not to be reckoned with.

This is all pointless currently though. PVP a proper anni trumps everything currently due to backwards flying and scbs. No ship balance can really occur till the meta takes a hit.

 

[Han Brannigan]

1. Please re-read the quotes - it is stated tiny compared to Imperial Interdictors and Federal Battle Cruisers. Anaconda is also tiny if compared with them. Moreover, if there is a Federal Battle Cruisers - means that it is probably the real cruiser.

Yet they use tiney for the Python and not for the Conda...

2. It is not stated anywhere that Anaconda is a cruiser - smaller navies use the Anaconda in the light cruiser and frigate roles. Being used in the role does not mean that it is of that class.

To fullfill that role to any extent it should be near that class

So as a conclusion - taking into account that a real cruiser is Federal Battle Cruiser, I do not see any reasons why a Corvette cannot be larger than Anaconda.

Bc you still ignore my main argument

it would not make a lot of sense to me to make the biggest ( and lets face it just this attribute will mean many will want to play it ) ship a ship for faction assoc players...

Also where is your argument for why it will be bigger

 

[Kastor]

1. Please re-read the quotes - it is stated tiny compared to Imperial Interdictors and Federal Battle Cruisers. Anaconda is also tiny if compared with them. Moreover, if there is a Federal Battle Cruisers - means that it is probably the real cruiser.

2. It is not stated anywhere that Anaconda is a cruiser - smaller navies use the Anaconda in the light cruiser and frigate roles. Being used in the role does not mean that it is of that class.

So as a conclusion - taking into account that a real cruiser is Federal Battle Cruiser, I do not see any reasons why a Corvette cannot be larger than Anaconda.

The Anni does fit the Frigate roll perfectly, it does a good job of being a anti fighter escort to the big cruisers. A combat ship of the same size would be more correctly coined a "Destroyer" which is to say an all gun frigate capable of interdependent action. A Corvette on the other hand should indeed be a little lighter than the Anni.

 

[Han Brannigan]

A combat ship of the same size would be more correctly coined a "Destroyer" which is to say an all gun frigate capable of interdependent action. A Corvette on the other hand should indeed be a little lighter than the Anni.

Well actually in modern ( late 20th early 21st century ) navies destroyers tend to be way bigger then frigates.

 

[Aleksej]

The Anni does fit the Frigate roll perfectly, it does a good job of being a anti fighter escort to the big cruisers. A combat ship of the same size would be more correctly coined a "Destroyer" which is to say an all gun frigate capable of interdependent action. A Corvette on the other hand should indeed be a little lighter than the Anni.

Again you are saying it fits the role. A Corvette might fit that role as well the same way as Anaconda does. And what class does Federal Battle Cruiser have?

For the reference Farragut Battlecruiser:
http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Farragut_Battle_Cruiser?file=Rough2.png
Dimensions 2km x 0.8km x 0.3 km.

Anaconda's dimensions are 152,4m x 61.8m x 32m, it is also tiny compared to the Battle Cruiser.

 

[Kastor]

Well actually in modern ( late 20th early 21st century ) navies destroyers tend to be way bigger then frigates.

Modern calls ships by their role not their class. After WW2 "ship classes" were basically thrown out the window and all media has been getting things just as wrong as right ever since.

Basicly from what I understand the WW1 and 2 ship classification system worked like this

By size we have the three basic warship classes, actual size isn't strictly defined.
Frigate < Cruiser < Battleships
Most other classes are variants of these.
All gun frigate = destroyer
All gun cruiser = battle cruiser
All gun battleship = dreadnought
By 'all gun' I mean pushing the upper limits of how much weaponry you can fit on a ship while being effective.
So common misconception dreadnoughts are NOT bigger than much battle ships, they are more or less similar in size.

I don't expect anyone to conform to this though, they've all been getting it mixed up so far, why stop now.

- - - Updated - - -

Again you are saying it fits the role. A Corvette might fit that role as well the same way as Anaconda does. And what class does Federal Battle Cruiser have?

For the reference Farragut Battlecruiser:
http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Farragut_Battle_Cruiser?file=Rough2.png
Dimensions 2km x 0.8km x 0.3 km.

Anaconda's dimensions are 152,4m x 61.8m x 32m, it is also tiny compared to the Battle Cruiser.

That "battle cruiser"'s role is really a battleship or carrier. Sure they've called it a "battle cruiser" but it's bigger than any other warship constructed so...

 

[kapparomeo]

Modern calls ships by their role not their class. After WW2 "ship classes" were basically thrown out the window and all media has been getting things just as wrong as right ever since.

This bears repeating. A modern "destoyer" can weigh just as much as if not more than a WW2 cruiser, and be four or five times the size of the WW2-era destroyers themselves.

 

[Aleksej]

Modern calls ships by their role not their class. After WW2 "ship classes" were basically thrown out the window and all media has been getting things just as wrong as right ever since.

Basicly from what I understand the WW1 and 2 ship classification system worked like this

By size we have the three basic warship classes, actual size isn't strictly defined.
Frigate < Cruiser < Battleships
Most other classes are variants of these.
All gun frigate = destroyer
All gun cruiser = battle cruiser
All gun battleship = dreadnought
By 'all gun' I mean pushing the upper limits of how much weaponry you can fit on a ship while being effective.
So common misconception dreadnoughts are NOT bigger than much battle ships, they are more or less similar in size.

I don't expect anyone to conform to this though, they've all been getting it mixed up so far, why stop now.

- - - Updated - - -

That "battle cruiser"'s role is really a battleship or carrier. Sure they've called it a "battle cruiser" but it's bigger than any other warship constructed so...

That's why the comparison with modern Navy ships is totally irrelevant.

Frigate USS Independence, which is similar to Corvette class according to Wiki is 127.4m long, USS Leathy - classified as a guided-missile frigate (DLG-16) until 1975, when she was reclassified as a guided-missile cruiser (CG-16) is 162.5m long.
And note the latter is now considered as a Cruiser, however earlier it was classified as a Frigate.

The length of modern Corvettes is up to 128m.

USS Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 155m long.

Ticonderoga class cruiser is 173m long.

So as you can see modern Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are of about the same lengths.

 

[Kastor]

This bears repeating. A modern "destoyer" can weigh just as much as if not more than a WW2 cruiser, and be four or five times the size of the WW2-era destroyers themselves.

Yo didn't do your research. Almost all warships of destroyer and frigate size in the past centurary have been 100 to 200m long. Even a super carrier is only 330m long. "four or five" times eh?

Heres a modernday frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Evertsen_(F805)
144m
heres a modernday Destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churchill
155m

Bigger sure. Not hugely so.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why the comparison with modern Navy ships is totally irrelevant.

Frigate USS Independence, which is similar to Corvette class according to Wiki is 127.4m long, USS Leathy - classified as a guided-missile frigate (DLG-16) until 1975, when she was reclassified as a guided-missile cruiser (CG-16) is 162.5m long.
And note the latter is now considered as a Cruiser, however earlier it was classified as a Frigate.

The length of modern Corvettes is up to 128m.

USS Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 155m long.

Ticonderoga class cruiser is 173m long.

So as you can see modern Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are of about the same lengths.

As I said, role over size class now. I'm not really sure what we are arguing about. I'm just saying that IF a game wants to use a size based ship classification system they should use WW1 and 2s system given that modern day classes them by role.

 

[Aleksej]

Yo didn't do your research. Almost all warships of destroyer and frigate size in the past centurary have been 100 to 200m long. Even a super carrier is only 330m long. "four or five" times eh?

Heres a modernday frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Evertsen_(F805)
144m
heres a modernday Destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churchill
155m

Bigger sure. Not hugely so.

I even did not have to do any research. I have just shown you that the comparison with modern fleet is totally irrelevant and you prove exactly the same. Currently, the sizes of all ships are very similar and comparable. But check ED, a Cruiser with the length of 2km, which is 13 times larger than that of Anaconda.

This means that all other classes of ships, their dimensions cannot be compared to modern navy ships.

 

[Han Brannigan]

Modern calls ships by their role not their class. After WW2 "ship classes" were basically thrown out the window and all media has been getting things just as wrong as right ever since.

Basicly from what I understand the WW1 and 2 ship classification system worked like this

No. Especially in WW 1 destroyers where pretty small compared top most frigates. And a battle cruiser is a bigger better armed ( guns in size and number like a ) cruiser and in most cases bigger ( esp longer ) then comparable Battleships. The idea was to use them in flanking maneuvers against the slower .

- - - Updated - - -

Currently, the sizes of all ships are very similar and comparable.

Wrong. A modern carrier ( which is what a Farragout is by role ) is way bigger then a corvette for example. The big battle cruisers and battle ships simply do not exist in modern Navies.

 

[Kastor]

No. Especially in WW 1 destroyers where pretty small compared top most frigates. And a battle cruiser is a bigger better armed ( guns in size and number like a ) cruiser and in most cases bigger ( esp longer ) then comparable Battleships. The idea was to use them in flanking maneuvers against the slower .

- - - Updated - - -


Wrong. A modern carrier ( which is what a Farragout is by role ) is way bigger then a corvette for example. The big battle cruisers and battle ships simply do not exist in modern Navies.

Ahh so your right on the subject of battle cruisers. What was I thinking of? There was some example of a cruiser frame with so many guns it barely sat above the water.

But yes I'd defiantly agree that the "Battle Cruisers" in this game are more carrier in role.

Anyway so far we've got
Federal Battle Cruisers and Imperial Interdictors = Battleships and/or Carriers
-
Cruiser??
-
Anaconda = Frigate (so far it's used in fleets as a anti fighter escort, which is the modern day description of many frigates.)
Federal Corvette = Corvette, Which implies it's faster than the Anni if nothing else. Size? Who knows.

Here's hoping that FD makes Imperial, Federal and Alliance cruisers that come in at about half the size of the current capital ships. Having a few of them both alongside the current capitals and by themselves in low intensity areas would be very cool.

 

[Han Brannigan]

^agreed ^

 

[Vincent Starson]

Why is everyone comparing naval ships from the 20th and 21st century with space ships from the 34th century in a fictional game? They aren't comparable in the least. Right now, in real life, we have railguns that shoot farther, faster, and hit harder than anything in game. We have missiles, cruise missiles, tactical nukes, bombs, anti aircraft weapons, anti missile weapons, and other extremely heavy weaponry that were apparently too deadly for the Elite universe. Not only that, but we also have much better targeting and computer systems, that are so accurate at miles away yet you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 3km in this game with a light speed laser weapon.

The weapons don't match, the ships don't match, so it's a pointless endeavor to compare.

Anyways back on topic about the glorious Fed Corvette, the real reason the Federal Corvette wasn't released in 1.2 and 1.3 despite being teased for each in the newsletters is because a majority of the players are not ready for it. I am ready for it, but I will be patient. It will be worth the wait.

 

[Thalios Abraxas]

Here's hoping that FD makes Imperial, Federal and Alliance cruisers that come in at about half the size of the current capital ships. Having a few of them both alongside the current capitals and by themselves in low intensity areas would be very cool.

Yes, the wiki states there's an Imperial Cutter who should become the counterpart of the Federation Corvette.


P.S.: I hope you guys haven't forgotten, in all your ship size arguments, that in the end, our space ships have to go through a station's letterbox and land on the pads. Your maximum size limit is right there.

 

[GJ51]

That's why the comparison with modern Navy ships is totally irrelevant.

Frigate USS Independence, which is similar to Corvette class according to Wiki is 127.4m long, USS Leathy - classified as a guided-missile frigate (DLG-16) until 1975, when she was reclassified as a guided-missile cruiser (CG-16) is 162.5m long.
And note the latter is now considered as a Cruiser, however earlier it was classified as a Frigate.

The length of modern Corvettes is up to 128m.

USS Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 155m long.

Ticonderoga class cruiser is 173m long.

So as you can see modern Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are of about the same lengths.

Having served over 4 years aboard the USS Horne (CG-30), the successor class to the Leahy, I can tell you first hand that it was originally designated as a DLG (destroyer) for one reason only. The DoD at the Pentagon changed the early build designation because at the time it was easier to get funding for a destroyer through congress than it was for a Cruiser. Nothing about the ships design or construction was changed as it went from a destroyer to a cruiser other than the hull number.

 

[badwolf77]

...it was easier to get funding for a destroyer through congress than it was for a Cruiser. Nothing about the ships design or construction was changed as it went from a destroyer to a cruiser other than the hull number.

Quite. Look up 'through deck cruiser' too. Most amusing.

Ships are, in general, classed by role (and sometimes by willy-waving -- the US cruisers were only called cruisers because the Soviets had cruisers and there was considered a 'cruiser gap'. Their cruisers in turn were named as such as they didn't have [much in the way of] carriers and wanted something that appeared to be capital vessels).

Most navies now have frigates that perform the old lone cruiser role.

Those frigates can be bigger or smaller than destroyers which now mostly perform the aerial defence role (what the fleet cruisers used to to). The T22s and T23s frigates were much heavier than the the T32 aerial defence destroyers that were their contemporaries.

Corvettes tend to be used by the green-water navies in the coastal patrol role and thus do tend to be smaller than both frigates and destroyers, which are blue-water ships.

The USN has a range of carriers that are three to four times as big [I'm talking displacement here. This scales roughly with the cube of length. Length, consequently, don't mean poop] as the carriers operated in the past by the RNand now by navies such as Spain, Italy and Thailand. They're all carriers.

So to cut a long story short, don't get hung up on the names. Where they're used to mean something they merely suggest the role. Where they're used for propaganda or political chicanery, they mean diddly squat.