Supermassive Star Destroyers: where do you draw the line?

[VT-16]

WEG also produced the moronic 60 heavy turbolasers & 60 heavy ion cannons, which was totally inconsistent with the movie models of both ISDs and prequel Kuati designs. So far, the only cross-section that ever showed where the various guns were, was the SW:ICS, which followed the movie model and thankfully superceded all other EU sources.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

WEG also produced the moronic 60 heavy turbolasers & 60 heavy ion cannons, which was totally inconsistent with the movie models of both ISDs and prequel Kuati designs. So far, the only cross-section that ever showed where the various guns were, was the SW:ICS, which followed the movie model and thankfully superceded all other EU sources.

It is because of this that I totally distrust WEG stats when one compares the Mon Cal cruisers against the ISDs. At the minimum, I expect an armament comparable to the Venator.

[Knife]

WEG also produced the moronic 60 heavy turbolasers & 60 heavy ion cannons, which was totally inconsistent with the movie models of both ISDs and prequel Kuati designs. So far, the only cross-section that ever showed where the various guns were, was the SW:ICS, which followed the movie model and thankfully superceded all other EU sources.

It is because of this that I totally distrust WEG stats when one compares the Mon Cal cruisers against the ISDs. At the minimum, I expect an armament comparable to the Venator.

I guess it depends on what 'cruiser' we are talking about. The liberty style *both wings and wingless* held their own fairly well at Endor even after it turned into a close quarters brawl. Liberty style ships were going nose to nose with SD's and surviving, even with the big ass SSD and the other Starcruiser floating around.

So a Liberty style ship, or cruiser, should be a fair match for a SD especially considering that hte SD's outnumbered the Mon Cals. The Home One style Starcruiser should be more than a match for a SD and it would seem that the ~three at Endor were a threat to the SSD.

[VT-16]

Isn't there also some big gun openings at the front of the Liberty model? Maybe those big guns pack a punch but the ship has to be aimed at the target and then take some time to recharge?

EDIT: There is

[K. A. Pital]

VT-16
You think they're big guns? I'm thinking they're reverse engines.

[NecronLord]

Every time I see this thread, I read it as 'submissive star destroyers' - that's just a freaky image I thought I should share with you.

Me, I'm not too keen on any star-destroyers bigger-and-better than an excecutor class. They typically don't look as good, either.

[Winston Blake]

But why a dagger shape? Why not do a sphere like most of these other huge superweapons/carriers, when you get to near/DS I levels in size?

A dagger shape allows you to get more weapons on and given fire arc, while minimising your target profile from all but the top and bottom projections.

Which only applies if you don't line your guns along a fixed axis in a broadside configuration along the sides of the ship. (Yes, I know, the wedge-shape thing seems to be a holdover frfom WEG, but it doesnt make sense given the placement of the heavy guns.)

A sphere gives you omnidirectional fire, but can only bring half its weapons to bear on a single target. A cone gives 100% of its fire on a mirrored cone in front of it (potentially a single target), and progressively less as you approach the rear where it cannot fire any of its weapons. If you put large enough engines integrated into an ideal sphere, you've already got an asymmetry since you can't fire out of your engines. Then the cone is natural.

However, materials often don't like being curved. It's far easier (i.e. cheaper) to use flat panels, and as few as possible. Hence a pyramid shape. At tetrahedron would have the fewest sides, but perhaps as warships evolved, the bottom was pushed out to make more internal space, like how the floor of a C-17 is bulged out. Hence, a square pyramid shape.

Now, so far this has been assuming omnidirectional weapon mounts and a lack of fleet tactics. If your weapons have a limited enough elevation and are closely spaced, then there may be 'corridors' along the flat sides outside your guns' firing arcs. By flattening the pyramid into a wedge shape, you can get an overlap which easily eliminates these. Further, fleet formations may benefit from asymmetry by allowing a commander to more freely concentrate the group's fire just by altering orientations.

So, if you've got big, integrated engines and either restricted weapon mounts or a desire for fleet flexibility, a flattened pyramid or wedge shape is the way to go. Now, the Death Star's sublight engines were incredibly tiny for its size. Planets can't run away - no need to chase them down. For a galaxy invader though, it may have to fight ships or fleets that can evade. Put large engines into a Death Star, and you may well end up with a wedge-shaped ubership.

However, it would probably not look just like a Star Destroyer, with a 'bridge' that is fucking km high and a hangar that could hold SSDs. Personally I'd expect a superlaser to have a large dish, sitting on the back surrounded by a ring of engines, since you can't fire out the back anyway. Putting the superlaser on the back means that small ships get fried by your exhaust streams and large ships get fried by the superlaser a la DSII, returning omnidrectional fire capability to the optimised wedge shape.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I guess it depends on what 'cruiser' we are talking about. The liberty style *both wings and wingless* held their own fairly well at Endor even after it turned into a close quarters brawl. Liberty style ships were going nose to nose with SD's and surviving, even with the big ass SSD and the other Starcruiser floating around.

So a Liberty style ship, or cruiser, should be a fair match for a SD especially considering that hte SD's outnumbered the Mon Cals. The Home One style Starcruiser should be more than a match for a SD and it would seem that the ~three at Endor were a threat to the SSD.

The trouble is that going by WEG stats, they don't, and then the die hard WEG idiots will ignore the films.

True, I agree, unless the Imperial Navy was incredibly incompetent, the Mon Cal cruisers like those did hold themselves rather well.

[RThurmont]

Perhaps a better starship design would be two giant balls, with a long cylindrical main fuselage.

So would the two spherical components each be reinforced structures each capable of functioning independently if the rest of the ship was destroyed, and the cylindrical section a weaker intermediary "bridge" containing luxury quarters, etc? If not, I don't see much of a point in that design. It would be better, IMO, to just build a larger sphere, unless you had specific manufacturing problems which prevented it.

The big problem with the ISD's wedge shaped design is the weak rear firing arc. This, in all probabiltiy, is a problem that many combat starships would have to face in "real life," especially those intended to be usable in atmosphere. In all probability, Newtonian space combat tactics will make extensive use of control moment gyroscopes to allow starships to remain oriented so that their primary firing arc is trained on the specific enemy ship they are attacking. Two ships locked in combat will essentially be engaged in a deadly dance. Attempting to retreat would be risky for a wedge-shaped ship, as it would most likely neccesitate exposing the less protected aft fascia to the enemy.

[RedImperator]

The double sphere design is useful if your engines/reactor are putting out so much radiation that you want some physical separation between the crew and them. But the engines in one and the crew in the other--the connecting tube doesn't even need to be pressurized except for a maintenence passageway. That doesn't seem to be an issue with Star Wars technology, though.

[Winston Blake]

Perhaps a better starship design would be two giant balls, with a long cylindrical main fuselage.

So would the two spherical components each be reinforced structures each capable of functioning independently if the rest of the ship was destroyed, and the cylindrical section a weaker intermediary "bridge" containing luxury quarters, etc? If not, I don't see much of a point in that design. It would be better, IMO, to just build a larger sphere, unless you had specific manufacturing problems which prevented it.

I believe the advantages of this design can be best illustrated with a diagram:
Guess

Rather than:

[RThurmont]

Oops.

[Knife]

The trouble is that going by WEG stats, they don't, and then the die hard WEG idiots will ignore the films.

True, I agree, unless the Imperial Navy was incredibly incompetent, the Mon Cal cruisers like those did hold themselves rather well.

Pfft; I really don't care too much about the WEG-ists. They have the stupid 'every mon cal ship is different' lodged in their small brains too.

Though, the Imperials were incompetent at Endor, they could not have been that incompetent to justify the numbers. At some point, you've got to decide that the Mon Cal ships were better than WEG gives them credit for.

[RThurmont]

Actually I like the idea of every Mon Calamari ship being a bit different, although, from a practical standpoint, its retarded, both in terms of the effect it would have on doing maintenance economically and efficiently, and in terms of the added costs in the manufacturing process. Standardization is your friend.

[Knife]

Actually I like the idea of every Mon Calamari ship being a bit different, although, from a practical standpoint, its retarded, both in terms of the effect it would have on doing maintenance economically and efficiently, and in terms of the added costs in the manufacturing process. Standardization is your friend.

*shrug* different strokes then. I hate the concept, especially considering the limited number of models used in the film and the easily seen duplicates of said models.

[Kartr_Kana]

not sure but isnt the new Pelleon class something like 8 klicks long. Larger then an ISD but fulfills the same role. or something like that. Anyway its a new design which I like better then any thing before except the origional ISD. Its a breath of new life in an over used stereotype.

[Ritterin Sophia]

No possible way, that'd make it longer than most Star Battlecruisers, with the exception of th Vengeance. Even if it were, it'd be wasting a whole lot of surface area by not mounting more weapons.

[nightmare]

not sure but isnt the new Pelleon class something like 8 klicks long. Larger then an ISD but fulfills the same role. or something like that. Anyway its a new design which I like better then any thing before except the origional ISD. Its a breath of new life in an over used stereotype.

1800 m shouldn't be far from the truth.