The 'Allegiance' Star Destroyer

[Vympel]

Fighting Imperial Ships ... fwar. There's a good idea.

[Spartan]

Hey, if don't make it. We could always petetion or someting (yeah right).

[Vympel]

Heh if there's a market the books will come ...

I would want it to be top quality though. Like super high quality images of the ships with nothing left to chance ... I can dream hehe

[AL]

Incidentally, the Nebulon-B doubtless carries many of its fighters in external racks, as shown by the MF in ESB. It probably does service some fighters and light freighters, but many of those can be external, reducing the problems created by internal space on a ship that size.

Can the escort frigate transport these fighters or light transports through hyperspace if they are carried this way?

[Master of Ossus]

Incidentally, the Nebulon-B doubtless carries many of its fighters in external racks, as shown by the MF in ESB. It probably does service some fighters and light freighters, but many of those can be external, reducing the problems created by internal space on a ship that size.

Can the escort frigate transport these fighters or light transports through hyperspace if they are carried this way?

Ships in external racks can be moved through hyperspace by the mothership. Just look at the SW:AotC ICS. It demonstrates this quite clearly with the first Naboo cruiser. Carrack cruisers also carry TIE fighters in such a manner, albeit in very limited quantities.

[nightmare]

nightmare wrote:

They are most definitely KDY brand. I see no reason why they should be light destroyers, particularly as the Allegiance is nicknamed "super", which means it has to be larger than standard. If those are VSD size, this can't be. Maybe I should include the pic to make sure what I'm talking about.

Nice Pic!

But...um how can you tell there KDY towers from fireballs? Kidding... We have been talking about different pictures sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of the Destroyers escorting Sedriss's ASD at the Battle of Balmora. Sorry

Well, it's Dr. Saxtons picture, so I can't take credit for it. Don't mention it, I suspected we were talking about different things here.

nightmare wrote:

Btw, I drew out the nose of the foreground destroyer and compared the keels to get my scaling. I think Saxton came to a smaller number because he considers several other pictures ASD’s as well, even though this is THE Allegiance. The other pics leave more to the imagination, I think this is the best possible picture, maybe even the only one, to get any accurate scaling of the ASD.

I believe you have over estimated the size. Dr. Saxton measured all the relevant pictures and took the average length. Besides those other ships you mention are not similar they are identical, in general hull shape and profile. We are dealing with line drawings so we can hardly expect them to be completely consistent. I seriously doubt the artist bothered to scale each comic panel to insure the ASD or any other vessel was accurately portrayed. But, hey what's + or - 400 meters among friends. All our estimates are speculation, and are therefore suspect. However, I'll make a small appeal to authority here. Dr. Saxton did write ICS, and is a sure thing for Episode III ICS. If he says their 2.2 km long that's good enough for me. Hopefully when some Lucasfilm employee hits on the bright Idea of making a Jane's Fighting Starships of the Galactic Empire (and it companion volumes ) they'll have the good sense to call him.

I called them light destroyers and even at the correct 1200 meter, they are compared to the Allegiance. Also it fits RL, where most destroyers and cruisers were broken down into: light, standard, and heavy classes.

Now if we consider they ASD as a light cruiser, then those ships are just plain-jane destroyers. Then again there are those 750 m long Cantwell class star destroyers, so one never knows.

Actually, this exchange has made me absolutely positive I'm correct. You see, the only other picture Dr. Saxton could have scaled from is the one with Salvager Three in it. The lenght of this ship is unknown, but it can be estimated from other scenes it shows up in with Han Solo and his friends. Furthermore, the Salvager Three is fruther away from the "camera" in the picture.

What Dr. Saxton establishes here is a minimum figure, not an average. It requires the base assumption of the size of Salvager Three, and that the ship in that picture is in fact an ASD.

I'm trying to establish the actual size, and my theory require no unknowns. The base assumption is that the other ships in the picture with the actual Allegiance are ISD sized, which is fitting with the evidence, while the other method requires the invention of a new ship class of 1200 m length.

Neither method is wrong. We are trying to establish different things. After going through this, I also understand why Dr. Saxton has given only one size for the Allegiance, whereas he usually provides minium and maximum. It's a product of the method used. I suggest you look upon his figure as a minimum size though, because that's what it really is.

[Spartan]

Nightmare wrote:

Actually, this exchange has made me absolutely positive I'm correct. You see, the only other picture Dr. Saxton could have scaled from is the one with Salvager Three in it. The lenght of this ship is unknown, but it can be estimated from other scenes it shows up in with Han Solo and his friends. Furthermore, the Salvager Three is fruther away from the "camera" in the picture.

What Dr. Saxton establishes here is a minimum figure, not an average. It requires the base assumption of the size of Salvager Three, and that the ship in that picture is in fact an ASD.

I'm trying to establish the actual size, and my theory require no unknowns. The base assumption is that the other ships in the picture with the actual Allegiance are ISD sized, which is fitting with the evidence, while the other method requires the invention of a new ship class of 1200 m length.

Neither method is wrong. We are trying to establish different things. After going through this, I also understand why Dr. Saxton has given only one size for the Allegiance, whereas he usually provides minium and maximum. It's a product of the method used. I suggest you look upon his figure as a minimum size though, because that's what it really is.

All good points, and your reasoning is certainly sound. I concede that your scaling of the ASD is correct. This does trash most of our previous ASD class observations and calculations.

Fortunately other than the Allegiance itself, the other vessels that were grouped with it (lets call them Heavy Destroyer Type I) appear to be the same size.

What I plan to do:

1. Go back to the Nar Shadda scenes and scale the Destroyer using the Millennium Falcon as a yardstick.

2. Go back to the Byss Security corridor scenes and scale the Destroyers using the Galaxy Gun as a yardstick.

Then I'll compare the to and see what I come up with.

[nightmare]

Hey, thanks.

I look forward to see what you come up with. Perhaps I will check what I can make out of the destroyers around the Eclipse, although the perspective makes it rather difficult.

[nightmare]

Well, that didn't take long.. I forgot this picture. We get no minimum figure from this picture either, in fact, the high numbers suggests that both destroyers in this picture are significantly closer to the viewer than the Eclipse. They may very well be ASDs, but the picture gives no reliable scale.