StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My math isn't great but an ISD has a total of 53 Turbolasers in various configurations? (I looked up wookieepedia and guesstimated the numbers). I also learned that the ISD2 peak output is 9.28e24W. How much of it can be put into it's turbolasers?

On a tangent, how many turbolasers in a battery? And do I have the number or turbolasers right?

The Revenge of the Sith ICS indicates that 'true warships' can pour their entire reactor output into their main guns.

Ford Prefect wrote:The Revenge of the Sith ICS indicates that 'true warships' can pour their entire reactor output into their main guns.

Then they'd use batteries to power everything else to keep the ship operational?

Enigma wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:The Revenge of the Sith ICS indicates that 'true warships' can pour their entire reactor output into their main guns.

Then they'd use batteries to power everything else to keep the ship operational?

Capacitors, but essentially correct.

May seem silly, especially considering they are called "light" and "heavy" for a reason I suppose, but why are there different classes of turbolasers if true warships can just funnel their entire reactor output through the turbolasers? Is it a difference in range? Upper power limits? Or could it be something else?

recon20011 wrote:May seem silly, especially considering they are called "light" and "heavy" for a reason I suppose, but why are there different classes of turbolasers if true warships can just funnel their entire reactor output through the turbolasers? Is it a difference in range? Upper power limits? Or could it be something else?

Think of it in terms of World War 2 ships like an Iowa-class Battleship:
Heavy Turbolasers are like the 16"/55 cal Mk7 Cannons.
Medium Turbolasers are swing role and can be used against ships and aircraft (but more often ships) like the 5"/38 cal Mk12 guns.
Light ones are going to be akin to 40mm Bofor antiaircraft guns.
Laser Cannons are like the 20mm Oerlikons.

Anything large enough to mount Heavy Turbolasers can route the power through them, smaller ships mediums, smaller still light guns, and the smallest only the laser cannons.

It says that a "true warship" can funnel its entire reactor output through its main guns, not through ANY gun. I would assume that only the mains would be built to handle such punishment.

Seemed to me that the transfering of practically all the reactor power to the weapons would be either an act of desperation or expediency.

for Desperation it would be if they lose main shields and are in a position where engine power isn't going to help them anyways, so they just pump everything into the weapons in the hopes that they can kill the enemy before they get killed, seems to be the standard when you lose shields "Sir We've lost our bridge Deflector shields (and port comscan)" "Intensify fire in the forward batteries, I don't want anything to get through."

for Expediency it would be while performing a Base Delta Zero on a planet that has no real means of defending itself (either it had no defenses or it's defenses had been destroyed prior to being given the order to BDZ)

A question becomes, how fast can they reroute power? would imagine it would be well under a minute, since it can be done in mid combat.

Enigma wrote: Then they'd use batteries to power everything else to keep the ship operational?

The original star wars ICS which shows the ISD mk1 shows it with several small reactors spread around the ship beside the main reactor. So its likely those would keep the air flowing and the lights on. The battery capacity you need just for lighting a mile long ship with two hundred something decks would be rather absurd.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Enigma wrote: Then they'd use batteries to power everything else to keep the ship operational?

The original star wars ICS which shows the ISD mk1 shows it with several small reactors spread around the ship beside the main reactor. So its likely those would keep the air flowing and the lights on. The battery capacity you need just for lighting a mile long ship with two hundred something decks would be rather absurd.

Well the use of merely turret-size capacitors to store energy for heavy TL shots suggests storage capacity could be pretty substantial. Would basic life support use up even a miniscule fraction of that?

Not to state the obvious too much, but there are probably other operational limits to how far you might go with "full power to weapons." Cutting power to ECM/ESM in combat, or losing acceleration as the engines get dialed back, doesn't seem like a very good option just to get a few percent more firepower out the main guns, unless the shit really hit the fan.

Full power to weapons is just as it says. Almost the full output of the reactor is diverted to the weapons (which may either be a single broadside or all weapons, it's not really specified. I'm assuming the latter, meaning a broadside can utilize at most halpf the power of the reactor.) All other major systems (engines, possibly shields, etc.) suffer as a result (note: "major" - stuff like life supportaren't likely to be significant contributors even under the best of circumstances and can probably be maintained on whatever power remains, but its doubtufl you'll be moving much.)

Another reason not to devote full power to the guns is that transferring power betwene one system to another is unlikely to be done quickly (at least, not quickly AND safely.) - and in combat time is of the essence. So they may just divvy up power (or even keep a certain reserve) as an emergency measure (in case they need more power, or more speed, or whtaever at a given moment.)

There is also simply wear and tear on the gun. Operating them at or near maximum levels continuously is going to put alot more strain on the weapon than at lower levels, and I don't think that (from an engineering perspective, at least) this will neccesarily scale in a linear manner (I had an argument with rabid fivers over inertial dampers along the same lines.) And at or near max probably assumes a reduction in any safe operating margins for the weapon as well. Either possibility is a not-insignificant factor to consider and can justify reducing outputs in most situations.

In practice though I doubt ISDs would do this all that often. For one thing the recoil is going to be immense (you're channelling a portion of the power that would, in the engines, impart thousand+ gees of acceleration to your ship. Guess what your guns will be doing?) and will have to be handled in some way (engines, firing both broadsides at once, already moving in the direction you're firing, etc. you probably want at leats some engine power for mobility's sake anyhow, so having some of the power diverted to engines seems like a given anyhow.) Shields may or may not consume lots of power, and even if they do they may not do it consistently, so that's up in the air (It may ven be that only certain defensive properties consume energy - the absorption/reradiation mechanisms are unlikely to consume much power as I understand things, at least.) Hyperdrive (if used tactically) and FTL comms (subspace or hyperwave) are also other "possible but not constant" large scale power draws on the ship.

All that said, it is possible and not unreasonable that (depending on role) an ISD (or rather an ISD variant) uses guns that only consume part of its overall power. It can depend on alot of factors - cost, role (what sorts of opposition are they going to fight?) tradeoffs, and so on. A "cheap built" ISD probably wouldnt carry nearly as much firepower as a "true military" ISD, but the former could be cheaper and more easily built than the latter, even assuming comparable sizes.

Capacitors on the guns are used to store the energy until the guns are ready to fire, for the most part. They probably can be used for other purposes - to allow for (At least temporary) firing of guns at full power even if a smaller portion of the overall reactor power is devoted ot the guns. If the reactor is shut down, or failed, it could still allow the guns to be fired (for a short time). IT could even allow for a greater "throw weight" if the gun was somehow designed to handle outputs greater than its max power rating (possible, but unlikely to be common in the big guns, since it's going to suck up reactor power even MORE quickly and generate correspondingly greater recoil. It also liekly means an over-engineered design since such guns would only ever be useful in an "alpha strike" or "coup de grace" type or other unusual/emergency situation.)

That could make sense. Peronsally, I like to believe that the designers installed preventive measures that ensure at least Life Support and basic docking thrusters get enough power to prevent them from shutting off completely. However, firing the cannons on full power is probably murder on the barrels because of the increased stress on them.