The **** Official **** Stardestroyer Thread

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-08-06 05:28pm

ISD IV? So that means there are ISD IIIs? What are those like?

the ISD III is shown on SWTC to be as I heard to be command version of the ISD, the ISD II is more a dedicated fleet combatant, and the ISD I is far more mutipurpose than the later versions.

Cpt_frank's proposed ISD IV is not a bad idea, bridging the gap between the ISD and the allegiance, close to it's awesome firepower but not quite as expensive.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-08-07 02:17pm

I think that everyone here is taking the term "destroyer" a bit too much as a definition by the text book.
In my opinion in the galaxy of star wars,like in the earth navies of today,
they have simply screwed up the classification system.
Just to give you the idea of what I am speaking about,have you ever heard about the DD 21?
It was a project for a warship which should have replaced the Spruance class destroyers and the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates,to be used for antisubmarine warfare,fire support and strike missions.Its displacement should have been around 20.000 tons.Now 20.000 tons is the size of a battlecruiser,yet the ship was labelled as destroyer.
The Arleigh Burke class is a multimission warship with the size of a WW2 era light cruiser,yet again the ship is labelled as destroyer.
So you should not take the term destroyer too much literally.
Probably the empire has designed a single type of ship which could handle the majority of the tasks and then has put it in mass production.Smaller ships are used only for coast guard duties and only a limited number of larger ships exists.If one star destroyer is not enough then more than one is used.If this is still not enough a larger ship,a SSD or something else,is dispatched.This at least is what I get from the films.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-08-07 02:56pm

Doesn't change the fact ISDs are medium sized ships. There are many larger designs for battlecruisers and battleships (Vengeance class and Giel's ship etc), and command ships.
And there are many smaller ones (the whole frigate collection, the corvettes etc).

AL · Post by AL » 2002-08-08 02:44am

perhaps were all wrong, and the class is actually named the Star Destroyer class. Although i'm not sure of that one myself, but who knows.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-08-08 07:14am

errr... if I got this right we weren't talking about the class name but about the size of the ISD, ie if it's a destroyer in the traditional sense, a battleship etc.
And it's well accepted the SDs are either Imperator class or Victory class, so there's nothing wrong with that.

Btw, anyone know where I can fid a pic of a Defender class SD?

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2002-08-10 11:28pm

What if they call em Destroyers because they destroy there foes before WW1 Destroyers were called torpedo boat destroyers the name was shortened over time.Cruiser ,bttle cruiser and light cruiser give people headaches here is what they actualy are so litstenclose Battlecruiser is a cruiser hull,with cruiser armor sporting battleship engines and guns,they trade armor for speed .Light and heavy cruisers refers to the arnament on said ships in some cases light cruisers weighed more than heavys

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2002-08-13 04:38am

Cpt_Frank wrote:errr... if I got this right we weren't talking about the class name but about the size of the ISD, ie if it's a destroyer in the traditional sense, a battleship etc.
And it's well accepted the SDs are either Imperator class or Victory class, so there's nothing wrong with that.

Btw, anyone know where I can fid a pic of a Defender class SD?

Defender class SD?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2002-08-13 04:54am

Actually the Star Destroyer (Imperator-Class, Victory-Class) are the smallest triangular ship (KDY-style) within the Imperial Navy, so IMHO it's quite reasonable to classify Star Destroyers as "destroyer" class.

BTW, this is what I've ripped from Saxton's page

:

gunboat
a small vessel of shallow draught and with relatively heavy guns. [Oxford]
monitor
a heavily armed warship of shallow draught. [Oxford]
corvette
a small, lightly armed, fast vessel, used mostly for convoy escort, ranging between a destroyer and a gunboat in size. [Macquarie]
frigate
a naval escort vessel between a corvette and a destroyer in size. [Oxford]
destroyer
a fast warship with guns and torpedoes used to protect other ships. [Oxford]
cruiser
a warship of high speed and medium armament. [Oxford]
battlecruiser
a warship of maximum speed and fire power, but with lighter armour than a battleship. [Macquarie]
battleship
a warship with the heaviest armour and the largest guns. [Oxford]

So the "destroyer" classification for Imperial, oops, Imperator-Class Star Destroyer is consistent with the size of Nebulon-B Escort Frigate and Corellian Corvette. Corellian Corvette is smaller than Nebulon-B Frigate, and Nebulon-B Frigate is smaller than Imperator-Class Star Destroyer; as they should in the naval classification.

Also, the Imperator-Class Star Destroyer are much smaller than Executor-Class Command Ship. And there are Star Cruisers and Star Battleships between them.

The only inconsistency is with the MonCal MC-80 Cruiser, but different government may build ships with different scale. We don't know the size of Mon Cal destroyer, maybe smaller than Nebulon-B Frigate? (note: Nebulon-B is KDY built; same as Imperator

)

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-08-13 03:26pm

AL wrote:I'm starting to think that the empire uses nothing smaller than an isd for a capital ship. The isd is multi rolled and can be specialized as well. I would see no need for an interdictor class crusier, when you have a larger Dominator class interdictor SD.

Economics, my friend.

Smaller ships like the Immobilizer-418 are less expensive per unit than a Dominator, and when you attempt to cover larger amounts of space, you need more ships. Therefore, the Immobilizer is more useful for picket duty in larger fleets as well as patrolling for piracy.

Corellian Corvettes and Gunships, as well as other corvettes/gunships, fill in the traditional roles for such ships. They don't have that much firepower individually, but it's the same situation as with the Immobilizer-418. Corvettes and Gunships also have a speed advantage over some larger ships; properly modified, they have better sublight acceleration than Imperators.

Autochton · Post by **Autochton** » 2002-08-25 02:31pm

Mayhap we are looking too narrowly at the class designations. We have, in the films, blockade runners/corvettes, frigates and cruisers, and star destroyers which are biggest of all. If we add in EU and the computer games, we also get dreadnaughts, more cruisers, and various others. Still the SDs dwarf all others. Seems to me that the terms 'super battleship', (used on Earth to describe such monstrosities as the German WWII projected Führer class of 122,000 tons displacement(!)) and 'Star Destroyer' are somewhat equivalent. Interestingly, we do not see destroyers, as in not star, anywhere. However, this might stem from recognition difficulties as much as anything.

Just a few thoughts from the newbie here.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-08-25 08:59pm

Autochton wrote:Mayhap we are looking too narrowly at the class designations. We have, in the films, blockade runners/corvettes, frigates and cruisers, and star destroyers which are biggest of all. If we add in EU and the computer games, we also get dreadnaughts, more cruisers, and various others. Still the SDs dwarf all others. Seems to me that the terms 'super battleship', (used on Earth to describe such monstrosities as the German WWII projected Führer class of 122,000 tons displacement(!)) and 'Star Destroyer' are somewhat equivalent. Interestingly, we do not see destroyers, as in not star, anywhere. However, this might stem from recognition difficulties as much as anything.

Just a few thoughts from the newbie here.

The H-44 was a design project and never intended for construction. The point was to firgure out what kind of armor was needed to resist modern aerial bombs and what kind of ship would be needed to haul it around.

Nothing past the H-41 design was ever intended to be built.

And in the scale of things, an ISD is just that, a destroyer. Above the Executor would put you into the realtive super battleship range.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-08-26 09:10am

Autochton wrote:Mayhap we are looking too narrowly at the class designations. We have, in the films, blockade runners/corvettes, frigates and cruisers, and star destroyers which are biggest of all. If we add in EU and the computer games, we also get dreadnaughts, more cruisers, and various others. Still the SDs dwarf all others. Seems to me that the terms 'super battleship', (used on Earth to describe such monstrosities as the German WWII projected Führer class of 122,000 tons displacement(!)) and 'Star Destroyer' are somewhat equivalent. Interestingly, we do not see destroyers, as in not star, anywhere. However, this might stem from recognition difficulties as much as anything..

Actually, the Dark Empire comics show Imperial warships which are 3-4 km long.

One of them are even escorted by a nearby Star Destroyer which is half as big as itself, thus making it clear that it is 3-4 km long. This ship is - of course - far bigger than a Star Destroyer, but nowhere as big as an Executor.

Other SW comics show truly gargantuan ships which are even bigger than these ships, but only 60-70% the length of an Executor-class Command Ship.

This probably makes it clear that there ARE bigger than SDs but smaller than SSDs.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-08-28 01:10pm

Doesn't the ICS state that the structures on top of the SD are the shield generators?? Apparently the ICS isn't all it is made out to be... I know there are many Imperials here that would have a hissy fit if someone were to actually believe that... I agree that they are sensor globes, btw.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-08-28 01:13pm

Commander LeoRo wrote:Doesn't the ICS state that the structures on top of the SD are the shield generators?? Apparently the ICS isn't all it is made out to be... I know there are many Imperials here that would have a hissy fit if someone were to actually believe that... I agree that they are sensor globes, btw.

I know the most recent ICS declares such fuel pods.

And there are Imperials here? Is Piett logging in from the Holonet or something?

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-08-28 01:35pm

And there are Imperials here? Is Piett logging in from the Holonet or something?

Well, there's Cap Lennox.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-08-28 01:42pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:
And there are Imperials here? Is Piett logging in from the Holonet or something?
Well, there's Cap Lennox.

He doesn't count. He sucks.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-08-28 06:44pm

SirNitram wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:
And there are Imperials here? Is Piett logging in from the Holonet or something?
Well, there's Cap Lennox.
He doesn't count. He sucks.

Screw you.

j/k

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-08-29 04:35am

The Stardestroyer entry for the SW: ICS does NOT call the sensor globes shield generators.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-08-30 05:48pm

According to the EU novels, are the sensor globes sensor globes or are they shield generators?

Morte · Post by **Morte** » 2002-08-30 11:38pm

As usual the EU typically gets it wrong and calls them shield generators.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-08-31 04:03pm

The first ICS doesn't label them, and the EGVV calls them "shield generators". As for the AotC ICS, they called a few globe-shaped things in the TF core ship "fuel silos". I don't think the're the same things that are on the ISD bridge.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-08-31 11:53pm

If turbolasers are not lasers, and a lightsabre is not made out of light, why does a stardestroyer have to be a traditional destroyer? In all the movies, and most EU they are used in a different role than what we would consider for a destroyer are they not? Escorting larger ships like the Executor is not always a role for a destroyer. Cruisers can escort Battleships, Battleships can escort Fleet Carriers, ect....

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-09-01 10:57am

Knife wrote:If turbolasers are not lasers, and a lightsabre is not made out of light, why does a stardestroyer have to be a traditional destroyer? In all the movies, and most EU they are used in a different role than what we would consider for a destroyer are they not? Escorting larger ships like the Executor is not always a role for a destroyer. Cruisers can escort Battleships, Battleships can escort Fleet Carriers, ect....

They weren't nessecarily escorting the Executor, it didn't need really to be escorted, but they were assigned with the Executor, so I suppose a secondary role besides smashing rebels would be to make if the Executor was overwhelmed that it could get out of there. ISDs are virtual escort carriers, same fighter compliment, the Carriers primary job is to deliver non hyperspace fighters to outposts and planetary defenses.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-09-01 01:12pm

In ANH Han Solo called the Imperial Star Destroyers "Cruisers" just after having left Tatooine. SD's are not "destroyers" they are most likely the second largest class "cruiser" the Empire has. The Executor being the largest. (I'm not talking about Dark Empire, etc...)

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-09-01 02:37pm

Commander LeoRo wrote:In ANH Han Solo called the Imperial Star Destroyers "Cruisers" just after having left Tatooine. SD's are not "destroyers" they are most likely the second largest class "cruiser" the Empire has. The Executor being the largest. (I'm not talking about Dark Empire, etc...)

But why not talk about Dark Empire? It's Canon it should be realised...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Official Stardestroyer Thread