11-23-2015, 09:59 PM
(11-23-2015, 08:26 PM)SilverOtter Wrote:Sooo, why are we not calling them fighters? They are spacecraft, not (naval) ships.(11-23-2015, 08:03 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: Can we just call the "FAST ATTACK CRAFTS" fighters like everyone else does?A general list of navy ship classes, with some modifications.
Heavy frigates should have a reactor of their own (at least some of them).
"Capital" is not a class. It defines a ship you can not afford to lose. You could rename the capital class to "Mothership" if you want to.
What are these classifications based on?
Also fighters is a word for aircraft, and only specialized ships can enter the atmosphere, and none of those are even aerodynamic enough to fly, only to make entrance and exit of the atmosphere less of a inefficient hell. But making them straight-up spaceplanes is a design choice that can make a chassis more expensive, cramped, and specialized than a military needs. Plus, weapon types for space and types for atmosphere only merge with larger ships, because of heat issues that require big radiators, which means none of the weapons on a FAC would even work. I mean, technically they would, but magnetically launching a subatomic particle at subluminal speeds tends to cause the atmosphere to set on fire.
“i saw this at least i know how to bullet things” - AustinLB90 2015