If Chaos is Speed, range, and cheap carriers, explain the Repulsive, which is standard speed, short to mid-ranged, and carries torps? By your logic here, it should be heavilly restricted.
Really, this is your argument? Bringing up one ship? So what! The presence of one ship doesn't change the OVERARCHING theme of the chaos fleet. Ever wonder why it is that the slower grand cruisers rarely appear in chaos lists? They don't fit the theme. Stop splitting hairs.
Actually, the only ships that appear to be ubiquitous are the Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, and Mars (and, interestingly enough, all of them, are variants on the Mars hull, the oldest 'modern' IN hull. Personally, I suspect that this is due to them being dispersed far and wide during the reconquest following the Age of Apostasy). Armageddon has to take Sword and Cobra as Space Marine vessels, implying that the Battlefleet does not use these vessels (preferring the Falchion which can serve as either/or).
My mistake on the escorts. Funny that these ships make up the core of the fleets and by extension the core of their capabilities and tactics. That should tell you that there might be a few changes here or there but overall an IN fleet on one side of the galaxy will act similar to an IN fleet on the other side.
Now enough of this silliness. You've managed to generate pages of useless dialog on something that really has no bearing on the list under discussion. Simply put, BFG (the original and armada) is THE FINAL word on how Imperial fleets operate because it is first of all the most extensive and secondly the entire point of the game is about fleet operations which other sources only touch briefly. Anything you find in any book, be it 40k, black library, or FFG, contrary to what we have in BFG on this point quite simply is an anomaly and CANNOT EVER be use as a valid point to suggest the doctrines common to the Imperial fleet.
So, dialog on why fleets might have different ships has no bearing on on the fact that Bakka has a bunch of non-typical ships???
Explanations of how the FDT might work have no bearing on a discussion of why the FDT can't work?
A single ship doesn't change the way a fleet feels, unless it's the Jovian?
And, and this is my personal favorite, that if IN has four ships more or less in common across the Imperium, they all have to follow the same combat doctrines. That's like saying that the Steel legion and the Catachans both have the sentinel, las gun, heavy bolter, and frag grenade in common, so they obviously fight their battles the same way.
Bluntly: Just about any fleet would have Mars, Gothic, Lunar, and Tyrant, even if they were mainly carrier based. The Lunar is excellent for long range armed patrols where the Dauntless might not be enough, due to it's versatile selection of armament. It's also why it appeals to Rogue traders and the Ministorum, who both use decommissioned Lunars as privately owned flagships. The Mars for similar reasons, as a flagship for a cruiser squadron, it's probably got whatever you happen to need at a given moment, whether it's AC or guns or a NC blast.
Gothics, like Lunars, make excellent flagships for escort squadrons (according to BB fluff) and again, anyplace that you'd want to give a patrol more punch then a Dauntless (or you plain don't have the Daunt) a Gothic is a good option.
Tyrant's being everywhere is explained in Blue book. The admech told the Navy that this would be the greatest thing since sliced salt grox and built a ton of them in M39 before it was determined that it wasn't what they thought they were getting. It's also why they are turning up on the civilian market already in m41, despite being a very new class of ship. Without the range upgrades, they're not worth the cost of maintaining them.
As far as being definitive, I'll reserve my opinion on that until Battlefleet Koronus comes out in the next month or so. It's hyped as the most in depth examination of IN to date, but I'm not sure I'm buying that.