Planetary shields shouldn't even be a factor

[Lord Sabre Ace]

As I said earlier, if you're going to go through the investment of mounting a hyperdrive on a BFA, you might as well just build a death star. Reusable weapons platforms are so much more economical in that they can destroy over and over and over again without having to build a new one each time you want to go fuck somebody up.

But a Galaxy Gun would be even better since you can fuck a lot of people at once without even leaving the system.

[bilateralrope]

As I said earlier, if you're going to go through the investment of mounting a hyperdrive on a BFA, you might as well just build a death star. Reusable weapons platforms are so much more economical in that they can destroy over and over and over again without having to build a new one each time you want to go fuck somebody up.

Or at least stick lots of guns all over the BFA in such a way that it just looks like any normal BFA. Then you can hyperspace into their outer system where they arn't watching, then drift towards them (on a corse that gets close to, but doesn't hit, the planet.) at low power. Then when your in range, activate your shields and open up will all guns, leaving a crash as a last resort.

But this plan sounds hopelessly complex and slow, so it would be better to just drop your armed BFA out of hyperspace and open up on them. But that loses the possible stealth advantage, so it seems much better to just send a fleet.

[wilfulton]

As I said earlier, if you're going to go through the investment of mounting a hyperdrive on a BFA, you might as well just build a death star. Reusable weapons platforms are so much more economical in that they can destroy over and over and over again without having to build a new one each time you want to go fuck somebody up.

Or at least stick lots of guns all over the BFA in such a way that it just looks like any normal BFA. Then you can hyperspace into their outer system where they arn't watching, then drift towards them (on a corse that gets close to, but doesn't hit, the planet.) at low power. Then when your in range, activate your shields and open up will all guns, leaving a crash as a last resort.

But this plan sounds hopelessly complex and slow, so it would be better to just drop your armed BFA out of hyperspace and open up on them. But that loses the possible stealth advantage, so it seems much better to just send a fleet.

Actually, I used that whole argument as a reason why it would be more logical to just build yourself a death star. Adding shields, lots of guns (Lotza Gunz in Ork, in case you were wondering), hyperdrive, reactors to power all your HTL's, hyperdrive, and regular sublight engine(s), would be a substantial investment. All of a sudden you've built a hell of an expensive suicide rock. At that rate, you'd be better off just building a death star, even if you were to just build a ramshackle one by hollowing out said BFA and mounting a superlaser in it. Really, a durable weapons platform that can be used repeatedly (assuming you don't bungle your op and get it blown up by the enemy ) seems a far better investment than just slapping all that flash and dash onto what in the end amounts to a really expensive missile that might or might not work (and it seems we're more or less in the agreement that it won't, or would at the very least be quite frivolous). Let's not forget, it still takes IIRC 1e38 J to reliably destroy a planet through its defenses, by Imperial reckoning. You're going to have to apply this much energy to the target, and if you're going to build a reactor to impart this much energy to our BFA, you might as well use the same to power a super laser which can be fired over and over and over and over and over again (again assuming the enemy doesn't shoot it out from under you).

[Kurgan]

Considering that Alderaan's planetary shield could withstand something on the order of 1e38W for tenths of a second I doubt an asteroid could do the job. Besides the simple fact we don't see giant mass drivers or asteroids used as weapons probably means shields and point defense have rendered them obsolete. If planetary shields could be defeated so easily, why invest in Torpedo Spheres, Death Stars, and the Galaxy Gun? All of which were somewhat expensive and very specialized.

Don't just assume logic! Writers of sci fi can make errors and we're left making up explanations (like Star Trek's refusal to use slug throwers and frag grenades in the era of the Borg... explained away as anti-military politik). Death Stars hardly make sense when you have so many cheapers and easier ways to destroy planets in Star Wars, and yet we have them.

[Norade]

Why not tow the rock in? If you hooked the BFA to an ISD or tow it would getting moving, that way the rock would have the ISD's as cover untill just after it is released. Assuming you enemy is using only ground based defences you could tow the BFA, or two if you have a small fleet, away from the planet and get a long run at the planet to impart the required momentum.

With this plan, and a suply of decent sized asteroids, you could just keep throwing rocks untill a few got through, this way you could avoid the planetary defence guns. Also against certain targets, like the rebels at Hoth, They would have to use their preciuos fighters to kill the asteroid while you move forces into position to kill them or get some shots in while the shield is down to let them back in.

[Lord Sabre Ace]

The rock we're talking about is hundreds of kilometers in diameter.

A Death Star or Galaxy Gun would still be more practical.

[Lord Sabre Ace]

Don't just assume logic! Writers of sci fi can make errors and we're left making up explanations (like Star Trek's refusal to use slug throwers and frag grenades in the era of the Borg... explained away as anti-military politik).

There was the grenade launcher from ST:I. They developed that after ST:FC.

Death Stars hardly make sense when you have so many cheapers and easier ways to destroy planets in Star Wars, and yet we have them.

The Death Star isn't made to be practical. It's made to be a terror weapon.

[Norade]

Wouldn't much matter... you would eventually get the rock up to speed. It would take a long while and your enemy might call in support but the orkc could potential get moving. This may be a task that a tractor beam can't accomplish, however a simple steel cable and anchor set up could do the trick.

[Kurgan]

Don't just assume logic! Writers of sci fi can make errors and we're left making up explanations (like Star Trek's refusal to use slug throwers and frag grenades in the era of the Borg... explained away as anti-military politik).

There was the grenade launcher from ST:I. They developed that after ST:FC.

And while a good idea, it's never seen again. Then again the sniper rifle was also a one-episode wonder.

The Death Star isn't made to be practical. It's made to be a terror weapon.

EXACTLY! So whenever we see something stupid or impractical we can always say "terror weapon." So this business about taking a big rock and slapping shields and hyperdrive and crap onto it, while impractical, could be used in an EU story and then we'd all be defending it (well not all, but you get the picture). Saying that it's a waste of money to build a suicide ship with all this "expensive equipment" seems a good solid argument until you realize how "wasteful" the Empire is in other areas. They've got an entire galaxy of resources, it doesn't seem to have stopped their plans in the past with this type of thing. So who knows...


Actually Asteroids used as a surprise tactic was featured in Mysteries of the Sith, though the actual Asteroids weren't used as weapons (just launching platforms for concealing a strike force), unless I'm forgetting something, it's been many years since I played the game.

[Norade]

Also they were used as bases in X-Wing and TIE fighter, such bases might be easy to construct.

[NRS Guardian]

Don't just assume logic! Writers of sci fi can make errors and we're left making up explanations (like Star Trek's refusal to use slug throwers and frag grenades in the era of the Borg... explained away as anti-military politik). Death Stars hardly make sense when you have so many cheapers and easier ways to destroy planets in Star Wars, and yet we have them.

I didn't just mention Death Stars. I also mentioned Torpedo Spheres and Galaxy Guns. Plus, the DS, Sun Crusher, and Galaxy Gun are the only weapons that are almost guaranteed to succeed at their mission. Planet destroyed within 15 minutes or the next one's free. Whereas the Torpedo Sphere, fleet bombardment, or axial superlaser require lots of time to do the same thing.

[NRS Guardian]

With this plan, and a suply of decent sized asteroids, you could just keep throwing rocks untill a few got through, this way you could avoid the planetary defence guns. Also against certain targets, like the rebels at Hoth, They would have to use their preciuos fighters to kill the asteroid while you move forces into position to kill them or get some shots in while the shield is down to let them back in.

First, the Rebels Ion Cannon could probably destroy asteroids. Second, Vader's Fleet could do the same thing as those asteroids more efficiently. Third, the imperials didn't go for a full on bombardment because they wanted to capture the base (with Luke) relatively intact.

[Kurgan]

Don't just assume logic! Writers of sci fi can make errors and we're left making up explanations (like Star Trek's refusal to use slug throwers and frag grenades in the era of the Borg... explained away as anti-military politik). Death Stars hardly make sense when you have so many cheapers and easier ways to destroy planets in Star Wars, and yet we have them.

I didn't just mention Death Stars. I also mentioned Torpedo Spheres and Galaxy Guns. Plus, the DS, Sun Crusher, and Galaxy Gun are the only weapons that are almost guaranteed to succeed at their mission. Planet destroyed within 15 minutes or the next one's free. Whereas the Torpedo Sphere, fleet bombardment, or axial superlaser require lots of time to do the same thing.

With this plan, and a suply of decent sized asteroids, you could just keep throwing rocks untill a few got through, this way you could avoid the planetary defence guns. Also against certain targets, like the rebels at Hoth, They would have to use their preciuos fighters to kill the asteroid while you move forces into position to kill them or get some shots in while the shield is down to let them back in.

First, the Rebels Ion Cannon could probably destroy asteroids. Second, Vader's Fleet could do the same thing as those asteroids more efficiently. Third, the imperials didn't go for a full on bombardment because they wanted to capture the base (with Luke) relatively intact.

But of course a couple of ISD's is marvelously cheaper than a Death Star, a Sun Crusher, or any of the other super weapons, that the heroes destroy anyway (because the good guys always win in the end). There is no one device that's perfect in every situation, I agree, but the more tools they have, the better, right? If their goal is simply destruction, they have far more than they could possibly ever need. And if the goal is pacifying but not destroying a planet that has a super all encompassing shield, I suppose they have their ways around that too, the EU comes up with all kinds of stuff.

The only point of my post was to point out that we need not say "well the Empire has one way to destroy planets, so they don't need another" or "it's not cost effective so they would never do it." Because we have examples of them ignoring both sentiments. Blame it on writers obsessed with super weapons and repeating plot devices, but there you go.

[Sea Skimmer]

A shield is a effectively a form of obstacle in the planetary defense role, similar in function to today’s and the pasts defensive walls, ditches and minefields. No man made obstacle is effective unless you cover it with defensive fire to prevent the enemy from breaching the obstacle. This is a basic fact of combat.

This holds true for this situation quite well. If you simply bombard with asteroids, the enemy planetary turbolasers will simply blow them to pieces, then vaporize the pieces. If the enemy doesn’t have turbolasers, then the planetary shield is just a time delaying inconvenience.

[Star Wars Fan]

The rock we're talking about is hundreds of kilometers in diameter.

A Death Star or Galaxy Gun would still be more practical.

can't you fill it with baradium?

[Ghost Rider]

The rock we're talking about is hundreds of kilometers in diameter.

A Death Star or Galaxy Gun would still be more practical.

can't you fill it with baradium?

You aren't still getting this entire set up is for a ONE SHOT weapon, which is going to require a set up similar to a small ship.

Why not use suicide ships given they have everything but being a rock at this point.

So no, a single shot weapon is rather useless compared to a reusable weapon on the scale of the Death Star or Galaxy Gun.

[The Nomad]

Nomad - wattage is different from energy, and energy applied appears to matter more then rate at which it is applied when it comes to shields.

Well, I must be a bit out of date with shield theories, I thought the general consensus was that wattage was crucial ( explaining why the ICS figures do not give an energy rating along with the shield wattage : I thought that the heat-sink capabilities* were so quickly exceeded that mentionning them was superfluous ).

*my English is far from great, so I might be mistaken on the exact meaning of the technical term 'heat sink'; I think another important thermodynamic characteristics was mentionned once in shield discussions but I couldn't find it.

So the fact the impactor would have less energy is important.

I would have thought that it would matter If the shield cannot dissipate the (admittedly inferior) energy quickly enough ( wattage ), some damage would leak through. Of course, since even using these suppositions I can't quantify exactly the fraction of the energy that would go through the shield, the whole stuff is kind of pointless, ultimately .

And it wouldn't release this energy or impart this force in a millisecond. the duration it is applied over is dependent on the structural characteristics of the colliding bodies if I understand it correctly (ask mike or go to SLM), and shields are a complete unknown there.

The 0.5c 250 km asteroid would cross its own lenght in about 2 milliseconds. I figured out that at such speeds, normal matter would go splat against an inelastic flat shielding and the asteroid would release its energy in about this time. You'd be right, however, to point out that the elasticity of shields is a total unknown, and that they IIRC are volumetric force fields, not flat walls. So the collision and subsequent energy liberation would probably last longer ( meaning less force and wattage ). Which makes the impactor idea more dubious.

So shield generators have been shown to withstand the force and energy this .5 c impactor would have.

Besides, wouldn't the engine-fitting, structural reinforcing and shielding of such a large ( hundreds of kilometers, so larger than the DS I, and probably with a reasonable fraction of its bulk mass ( how denser are SW materials ? One, two orders of magnitude ? IIRC it's the fuel that makes up over 99% of a ship's mass, doesn't it ? )) , one-use asteroid be about equivalent, in economical terms, to building a near-Death Star scale object in itself and fueling it ( the asteroid idea would anyway consume large quantities of fuel, meaning its running costs are not incredibly lower than those of the DS ), then throwing it at the enemy. Kind of preposterous when you think about it, hey ?

Besides, the 250 km asteroid has a fragmentation energy of as little as around 15,000 gigatons, something a single ISD can output in at most a couple of broadsides ( assuming a low end of 200 GT x 64 HTL, it should take a little more than one alpha strike of said HTLs, discounting the trench guns and axial turrets ), spreading the fucker across the solar system from light-minutes away.
And equipping it with a planetary shield... well, other debaters have explained why it would be such a bad idea ( namely the ludicrous cost of equipping a one-shot weapon with such powerful shields ).

[Stark]

Skimmers comments raise an interesting idea. If a planet has as shield, but no fleet/orbital platforms/defence guns, can the shield be breached? If a ship can descend to the shields surface unmolested, can an opening be created? The EU is full of ideas that suggest otherwise (torpedo spheres, etc).