StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Something that I have been considering for some time: Are Eclipse and Eclipse II of the same class? If one looks to the actual visual materials, then they are clearly distinct, with structural differences much greater than those between, say, the Imperial-I and Imperial-II classes; compare this illustration with this, for example. On the other hand, the written material refers to the two ships as being of the same class. Which interpretation would be the more reliable one in this case, going by comics artwork or the sourcebooks?

I would say the source books. Comic artists always want to use their own style and interpretations or they just don't have a good enough source image to go off of.

'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production. I seem to recall source material suggesting that the two ships used the same basic design, but that the first one came out ugly due to a protracted, intermittent and inconsistent construction process.

Starglider wrote:'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production. I seem to recall source material suggesting that the two ships used the same basic design, but that the first one came out ugly due to a protracted, intermittent and inconsistent construction process.

SW:EAW FOC saysthat the Eclipse I was first half-finished and stolen by a pirate lord, then it was once again half-finished when KDY engineers fled with it to Byss (SW:NEC).

Starglider wrote:'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production. I seem to recall source material suggesting that the two ships used the same basic design, but that the first one came out ugly due to a protracted, intermittent and inconsistent construction process.

They say so, yes, but going by visuals that makes absolutely no sense; the shapes are so different that there is no way they can be based on the same hull.

Though the Eclipse was not put into mass production, it was identified as a proper class by the DESB, implying that Palpatine wanted more of them (then again, designing an entirely separate class with similar capabilities, in the Sovereigns, might go against this).

There are plenty of real life classes that only had one or two ships built. Aside from that, yeah, they are extremely different in design, but I guess it's like the ships in Warhammer (IIRC) built with similar capabilities, not necessarily the exact same shape.

There's also the Devastation, a sistership of the Malevolence. Radically altered, but still the same class.

Darth Hoth wrote:

Starglider wrote:'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production. I seem to recall source material suggesting that the two ships used the same basic design, but that the first one came out ugly due to a protracted, intermittent and inconsistent construction process.

They say so, yes, but going by visuals that makes absolutely no sense; the shapes are so different that there is no way they can be based on the same hull.

Though the Eclipse was not put into mass production, it was identified as a proper class by the DESB, implying that Palpatine wanted more of them (then again, designing an entirely separate class with similar capabilities, in the Sovereigns, might go against this).

Well, he rolled out the second Eclipse just months after the first one's demise, so he clearly had the capability and will to make more than one. I interpreted the Sovereign to be a budget-version to fill out most of the fleet with, so that his subordinates wouldn't have a better ship than he did.

Darth Hoth wrote:

Starglider wrote:'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production. I seem to recall source material suggesting that the two ships used the same basic design, but that the first one came out ugly due to a protracted, intermittent and inconsistent construction process.

They say so, yes, but going by visuals that makes absolutely no sense; the shapes are so different that there is no way they can be based on the same hull.

Though the Eclipse was not put into mass production, it was identified as a proper class by the DESB, implying that Palpatine wanted more of them (then again, designing an entirely separate class with similar capabilities, in the Sovereigns, might go against this).

Gee whiz, history is full of ship classes with tiny series. The Eclipse and Eclipse II have nearly identical shapes. If you think otherwise, you're over-interpreting the artistic perspective. Hell, the Imperator and the Empire differed a lot more from later ISDs in their respective classes than the E and EII ever did from each other. Or how about the 8, no 12, no 19 km Executor variants?

Hmm, well, those varying SSD sizes would indicate different classes. There's a prototype 12km SSD made by the Empire that serves as precursor to the Executor class, but it's not the same class. Neither is the Eclipse nor Sovereign even though they are based on the Executor and closer in size to it (length-wise).

VT-16 wrote:Hmm, well, those varying SSD sizes would indicate different classes. There's a prototype 12km SSD made by the Empire that serves as precursor to the Executor class, but it's not the same class. Neither is the Eclipse nor Sovereign even though they are based on the Executor and closer in size to it (length-wise).

Whooosh. That's the onomatopoetic sound of the point. I'm pointing out that the fricken' prototypes of the ESD, ISD, and ISDII classes differ ginormously from the following ships in the series, and you respond that the ESDs, Sovereign, and Eclipse are different classes. I'll grant you the ESD, IF you can find a source stating it. But you know what? Prototype production in general is very different from line production. They may not be full scale, they may not have the same features, they may not be made of the same materials. Oddly enough, that case applies directly to the Eclipse / Eclipse II differences.

Um, I don't quite see the point here. I said this 12km ship was a prototype, as stated in Dawn of Defiance, but it would regardless be too dissimilar to the Executor class to ever be considered the same thing.
There's also an article made by WOTC about the Cardan-class space station, which was also used in the development of the future SSDs (in terms of internal layout and organization), but would also not constitute the same class, simply because they were sharing components or building-experience but not an overall structure or capability.

With the Eclipse II, there's a difference in thrusters and some cosmetic details on the ship's bow, might be enough to make it a subclass, but if not, then the ships have to be similar enough to leave these details irrelevant (same engine/power plant/armor etc).

'Class' doesn't really make much sense for ships that never entered true series production.

Take the current USS Enterprise as an example. It is a one of one class, but thats because it was the first of its type. After they got the first ship up and running it was realized that a lot of what they had designed didn't make sense from a nuclear perspective, but rather were just hold overs from classic carrier design. Because of this the decision was made to hold that class at one and instead create a new class that incorporated what they had learned. One of those things was that even if a conventional carrier has eight boilers, it does not necessarily follow that a nuclear carrier needs eight reactors.

From what I can tell the Eclipse and her sister were more or proof of concepts, then a more scaled down and modest version eventually pickup up the long term mission fullfillment requirments in the form of the Soverigns.

VT-16 wrote:There are plenty of real life classes that only had one or two ships built. Aside from that, yeah, they are extremely different in design, but I guess it's like the ships in Warhammer (IIRC) built with similar capabilities, not necessarily the exact same shape.

There's also the Devastation, a sistership of the Malevolence. Radically altered, but still the same class.

This is of course incredibly stupid, but if it is the best explanation . . .

I know it's retarded, but the Warhammer explanation appealed to me, so when I see this stuff in SW, I use that as justification.

Also, the Eclipse and Eclipse II were apparantly built a around the same time for 10 years (SOTGSE), so it could have been two competing teams trying out their various ideas simultanously.

VT-16 wrote:Also, the Eclipse and Eclipse II were apparantly built a around the same time for 10 years (SOTGSE), so it could have been two competing teams trying out their various ideas simultanously.

Someone obviously didn't do their math. There must have been a lot of labor disputes, wastage and faulty inspections to cause those kinds of delays otherwise. Then again, KDY has pretty much the run of the Imperial Supercapital fleet contracts, who the hell is going to say they can do better? It's always this way with private contractors with a near monopoly.

I tend to believe that it was actually the other way around; that Kuat may be starting to get slack and complacent in some ways, but the alternatives are much, much worse.

I'm trying not to draw an analogy to the current USN and it's problems with the Navy Yard system- and failing, because it seems to fit rather well. With one crucial difference, get to that in a moment.

Basically, the USN used to have the bulk of their large warships, AIUI, built in house, in yards owned by the navy, and the overwhelming majority of the repair and refitting required for all classes was done there. Historically, they seem to have done a very good job of enforcing high standards, both for themselves and keeping the civilians sharp.

Then, for short term cost and pork related reasons, the system was scaled back and the yards were stripped of their construction role, they still do most of the refits, but they no longer have the pool of expertise- in labour, design, project management- required to build ships, or to keep the civilian contractors up to scratch.


Yes, obviously, this is broad brush, but it applies because the Imperial Starfleet has in itself the beginnings of a navy yard system, deepdocks, fleet technical services et al- with the critical difference being that the overwhelming majority of the design, construction and management talent is still in the hands of the great private firms, I reckon.

The starfleet yard system can't function like the real world equivalent because it hasn't been around long enough, they haven't had time to build up any real depth of experience, and you can bet they're packed with 'advisors' from the private firms intended to make sure it stays that way. It might be generations before the starfleet yards acquire any real authority- worse yet, generations before they actually deserve it.

KDY have too many success stories, too many other classes in service and have outstripped too many competitors for me to lightly concede that their standards are that low; is it not more likely that the Eclipses were the product of the navy yard system, and a catastrophically badly managed one because the constructors were trying to function like a theoretical navy yard, be the keepers of the highest possible standard of quality- something far in excess of their actual abilities?

My theory here is that the navy yards vastly overreached themselves trying to prove that they could do it, took on a job far too big and too complex, and ended up making an utter cock of it and handing the whole mess over to KDY- who, not being best pleased by this, did little more than token work on Eclipse-I, too far gone to really salvage, rather more on Eclipse II, and mostly concentrated on their own alternative Sovereign class.

Vehrec wrote:

VT-16 wrote:Also, the Eclipse and Eclipse II were apparantly built a around the same time for 10 years (SOTGSE), so it could have been two competing teams trying out their various ideas simultanously.

Someone obviously didn't do their math. There must have been a lot of labor disputes, wastage and faulty inspections to cause those kinds of delays otherwise. Then again, KDY has pretty much the run of the Imperial Supercapital fleet contracts, who the hell is going to say they can do better? It's always this way with private contractors with a near monopoly.

The KDY shipyards met with serious disruption post Endor. Bobba Fett was involved with a succession dispute for example, the Rebels also disrupted some shipping at Kuat, the Marvel comics also had Fondor being captured by the Rebels........

Basically, the USN used to have the bulk of their large warships, AIUI, built in house, in yards owned by the navy, and the overwhelming majority of the repair and refitting required for all classes was done there.

This is completely and utterly false. For one just because something is called a "navy yard" does not mean it was actual run or owned by the navy. Second, the vast majority of capital ships were not built in such places, for example no nuclear vessel has ever been built at a government owned shipyard. As for the vessels that were this was normally done to supplement the civilian yards which were overwhelmed during wartime, and were normally building the smaller eaiser to constuct vessels.

Patroklos wrote:

Basically, the USN used to have the bulk of their large warships, AIUI, built in house, in yards owned by the navy, and the overwhelming majority of the repair and refitting required for all classes was done there.

This is completely and utterly false. For one just because something is called a "navy yard" does not mean it was actual run or owned by the navy. Second, the vast majority of capital ships were not built in such places, for example no nuclear vessel has ever been built at a government owned shipyard. As for the vessels that were this was normally done to supplement the civilian yards which were overwhelmed during wartime, and were normally building the smaller eaiser to constuct vessels.

Hm, no, the naval yards were government run. And they did build capital ships, witness the New Jersey and Wisconsin at Philadelphia Navy Yard, though most new construction moved to private yards after WWII, and now all USN construction is done by private contractors, and not all that many of them, at that. The Royal Navy actually preferred construction to be done in government yards for quality and cost reasons but there was not enough capacity in these yards for all the construction necessary. During wartime, this was even worse as space in the government dockyards were taken up with repairs and refits, so even more construction had to go to private contractors. The demise of state-owned large shipyards is a relatively new development.

KDY/KSE (and CEC and whatever the primary Rendili yards choose to call themselves) have been doing this for thousands of years. Scanty evidence of government yards during the Republic, so if there were any government facilities they were likely to be quite new even by Endor. The private giants must have a gigantic pool of expertise at their disposal, with literally generations of experience shaping the workforce of their home facilities; ECR's interpretation, by that measure, makes a good bit of sense.

Hm, no, the naval yards were government run.

I didn't say they were not government run, I said that just because they were named "navy yard" does not mean they were owned or operated by the Navy. I also said that just because the yard itself was owned by the Navy does not mean the actual constuction was being done by Navy employees. Rather various contractors and firms were hired to do so.

Also, if your contention is that major warships were not built by actual shipyards for the most then you are wrong. The US examples you gave were in wartime which I specifically mentioned. Civilian yards like Newport News Ship building have been producing warships since 1897, it by itself building 6 of the USN's 22 dreadnaughts.

The demise of state-owned large shipyards is a relatively new development.

They have not disappeared, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is still active, though all the work is still done by contracted firms.

Patroklos wrote: Also, if your contention is that major warships were not built by actual shipyards for the most then you are wrong.

No, that's not my contention. Merely pointing out that government yard construction wasn't inconsiderable. Tennessee, California, and several of the abortive South Dakotas were or were to be navy yard built also, and not during wartime. The Royal Navy is probably a better example of large scale state shipyard-based construction, but it's not obscenely rare in US history either. I guess it's not surprising that a lot of work is handled in private yards; no country in the world maintained state-controlled military shipyard capacity for all its naval needs; they'd never have enough work to be justified during peacetime. Still, that didn't preclude construction in state shipyards.

Patroklos wrote:They have not disappeared, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is still active, though all the work is still done by contracted firms.

Yes but there hasn't exactly been a lot of shipbuilding there over the last couple of generations, has there? It's a servicing/refitting facility now. The USN of today has been built exclusively in private shipyards. Actually, speaking of Portsmouth,

Patroklos wrote:Second, the vast majority of capital ships were not built in such places, for example no nuclear vessel has ever been built at a government owned shipyard.

I'm reminded now that that's not true, given the nuclear attack subs and Polaris boats built there. The advent of widespread nuclear power in the USN did sort of coincide with the selling off of most of the navy yards though.

Patroklos wrote: I didn't say they were not government run, I said that just because they were named "navy yard" does not mean they were owned or operated by the Navy. I also said that just because the yard itself was owned by the Navy does not mean the actual constuction was being done by Navy employees. Rather various contractors and firms were hired to do so.

So the employees have to be members of one of the armed forces for it to count as state-owned facility building ships under government supervision? Splitting the semantics a bit finely here, I think. And I'm pretty sure all the navy yards were government owned until after WWII.

Whether or not they are built in private of government owned yards, they are always built under government supervision.

Patroklos wrote:Whether or not they are built in private of government owned yards, they are always built under government supervision.

I think that comes under the yes and no bit, judging from the recent scandal over welds. A lot of faith is placed on contractors that they are not screwing the government around.

Black Sword Command was captured by the Yevetha, who were slaves at a shipyard. Considering the New Republic didn't know about the shipyard until certain events, I assume it was a smaller one, possibly secret.

What was the purpose of the shipyard? Refitting and repair, or construction? The Yevetha seemed to only have ISD's and the Executor-class they captured along with the yard, rather than having built any new ones for themselves. Instead, they relied on their crappy "thrust ships".

Actually, the Yevethat had at least one yard capable of ISD construction. And they did built new ships.

Their fondness for the thrustships seem to be more due to the fact that they could be manufactured planetside apparently.