My (speculative) thinking on the Longbow in WCA is it is either a shuttle/S&R design that was converted (and redesignated) to a fighter/bomber shortly before the WC 2 period (for any number of reasons like a need for a cheap fighter-bomber for light carriers) or that it was an old bomber craft that got an upgrade and redesignation like the Broadsword only at a later point in time. Although it is a weird one given that most fighter bombers get the A designation (like the Banshee, Gladius, and Raptor... although the Sabre uses just F) By the way, what is the real-world US difference between A fighters and F/A fighters?
It is certainly conceivable that the Longbow had previously been designed for a different purpose. There is no way of determining this from existing knowledge, unfortunately. But certainly, the F/A designation of the real-world Hornet might help provide some clues. Basically, the Hornet had initially been designed in two versions, the F-18 and the A-18. Both shared the same designation number (from the F sequence), but the A version would have logically been the successor of the Navy's A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair - both Vietnam-era aircraft that had relatively limited anti-air capacity (even though the A-7 was developed from the F-8 Crusader). The big difference between the F-18 and A-18, as Wikipedia tells me, was the avionics package - seemingly a small difference, but if you consider that at the time these systems were not as capable as they are now, you will realise that having avionics devised for ground attack probably prevented good air interception systems from being included, and vice versa. However, technological progress eventually allowed both roles to be served by a single avionics package, so the F and A versions were unified into the single F/A-18 that could serve either role depending on weapons loadout. I'm sure there was also some encouragement in the form of ever-present threats of budget cuts to make this decision. An interesting consequence was that this effectively spelled the end of A-designated aircraft on US carriers - there was a very expensive attempt to develop the A-12 Avenger II, but it really got nowhere and finally was cancelled. Today, the F-35, which is intended to ultimately replace the F/A-18 (as I understand), doesn't even bother with an A in its designation.
This story also incidentally brought up the evolution of the F-8 Crusader into the A-7 Corsair II - so that certainly could be a clue about the F/A-76 Longbow. It didn't even have to be called a Longbow before - it would actually make much more sense for the Longbow name to be introduced after the Crossbow (as it was in the game development history, of course). Interestingly, the Longbow is a logical development of the Broadsword-Crossbow line of development - the Crossbow had sacrificed the side turrets and instead had more guns up front; it also had better speed. The Longbow has a very similar array of weaponry, but in terms of speed, takes the next step of incorporating afterburners (although its non-AB max speed goes back down to the Broadsword's 320 KPS - can't have everything).
There is, by the way, another very interesting bit of confusion regarding the use of the F/A designation in the WC universe, namely that it seems that the A designation does not relate to capship-striking capacity as we might initially think. The Sabre and Morningstar both have anti-capship capability, and yet they are not F/A. On the other hand, I just noticed that - of all ships - the Tigershark in WCP is designated F/A. And obviously, the Tigershark cannot strike capships. But then again, by this point in time, the heavies are designated TB rather than A or even F/A. So, clearly, even the meaning behind these designations cannot be assumed to be stable.
I think you're right, as I believe there were a pair of Ferrets involved in the TCS Iason being destroyed.
I hadn't realized a lot of the info originated (at least, canonically), in Star*Solider - figured it must have been in some of the novels, since I've never managed to pick them up. Much as with all the other stuff they did it with, definitely a cool thing on the part of the designers to incorporate as much of the fan work into the canon as possible.
Yeah, Star*Soldier gave a lot of these little details to the universe. It's certainly one of the most valuable manuals in this regard.
Oh, and I was able to check the Confed Handbook (like many other WC-related books, you can download it off Pix's Origin Adventures... I'm sure that's quite illegal, but hey, I own the paper version, just in a different country
). It does indeed have Ferrets in the Iason incident, and even has Paladin flying one of them and getting taken prisoner by the Kilrathi (an awful bit of world-building - it's just so unnecessary to have Paladin involved in *everything*). Obviously, the writer of the Handbook would have intended these to be the same Ferrets we saw in WC2, although technically, their designation is not mentioned, so it is conceivable that some future WC product (not that there ever will be any) would make it a different Ferret.
Maybe this is where the F/A-18 Hornet comparison could come into play, in the form of the Super Hornet. They kept the F/A-18 designation to help get the funding approved, but she's basically a brand new bird that's just based on the older Hornets. Could the Arrow V that we fly in WC3 be a "Super Arrow", so to speak? That might also go to explain why there's an Arrow that's a different size/different weapons in Armada. Perhaps the Armada or Academy variants could be the Arrow IV (or Arrow III, even, for the animated ship).
It certainly is possible. WC2 actually already makes use of the "Super Hornet" concept by introducing the P-64D Super Ferret in SO1 - although clearly, the changes there are nowhere near comparable to the evolution of the Hornet. The Super Ferret is basically a Ferret with a pair of missiles. But hey, who knows how much the Ferret needed to be modified to allow those missiles to be mounted and operated?
Couple of potential explanations:
-It's possible that the Thunderbolt we fly is, in fact, the actual HF version, and there's a standard F-66 version out there as well.
-HF became Confed's designation of choice for heavy fighters, and Sabres were retroactively termed HF-57s.
Well, the Excalibur is also designated a heavy fighter, but does not get the HF designation. In any case, the first explanation would make a lot more sense, particularly if we consider that S&R capabilities in WC2 came down to having a tractor beam in a rear turret (note: this is not the only form of S&R we see in the WC universe, with the Academy cartoon in particular adding other options). I can certainly imagine the Thunderbolt originally not having a rear turret, and receiving this turrets as part of the modifications to adapt it to the HF role. In this variant, the Sabre would not be HF-57 because it had the turret from the start as part of its design, just as the Broadsword and Crossbow did. Why does the HF-66 change to just plain F-66 by 2681? Well, perhaps by this point, the turret-less Thunderbolts are long-retired, and the H got dropped just to simplify things. All this is pure conjecture, of course.
I have to admit, I rather like the idea of WCP's bomber duo being war-time designs. I can just picture that design meeting...
Admiral: We need something that can handle these massive Kilrathi ships. Broadswords just aren't cut out for Hakagas and Hvar'kanns. What have you got for me?
Designer: ...um, we thought we'd take the Concordia and make her fighter-size...
Technically, there's nothing new about the plasma gun on the Devastator - we see lighter plasma weapons on the Longbow, and we can even buy a plasma gun in Privateer
. Regardless, it certainly would be logical in light of the advances in capital ships to start developing a more powerful gun to reduce reliance on torpedoes. A bomber built around a heavy plasma gun seems a sensible concept. And it's equally sensible to imagine it encountering all kinds of problems in development, and the project eventually being suspended or cannned. However, it's far from a solid explanation, there are many major issues with it.
