StarDestroyer.Net BBS

An Imperial-I Class Star Destroyer is 1,600 meters long and carries 72 TIE fighters. The Imperial Japanese Carrier Akagi was 260 meters long (with a narrower profile) and carried 66 airplanes and an additional 25 in reserve. Now the Akagi was a dedicated carrier as opposed to an ISD which is mainly a platform for heavy directed energy weapons and also serves as a troopship and of course their are the distinctions between an WWII oceanic vessel and a Star Wars spacecraft. Even so, the fighter capacity of a Star Destroyer does seem to be kind of low to me.

Would you agree?

Zor

The difference between ISD's single wing and a Venator's 6 wings is I think due to the ground complement. AT-ATs are enormous, and the dropships required for them are also enormous, as is the area required to maintain them, in comparison to the AT-TEs that could be lifted by an LAAT. Plus fighters and other craft have gotten larger - apart from surface force dropships, ISDs seem to carry more shuttles and transports, which are themselves much more voluminous than snubfighters. Add that up with a ship that devotes a far smaller percentage of its volume to hangars and you get the end result.

In actual volume, Venator-sized complements for an ISD are easy to fit.

Of course it is too low, relative to a carrier like the Venator class. But then it is likely that the TIE fighter complement of a Star Destroyer is more akin to a modern destroyer's helicopter or two than that of an aircraft carrier's complement of fighters. When they want waves of fighters, they probably use something like Executor. Imperial fighters just plainly aren't very effective, tending to be fodder for targets like the Ghost and utterly failing to achieve superiority over Endor. They really are only effective over the first Death Star, and that was with direction by Darth Vader.

Though you have to consider the reason why they use so few fighters. They don't need them. Star Destroyers are general purpose ships with enough power to be extremely difficult for Rebel cells to take down as well as the speed to catch the hot rod Millenium Falcon at sublight(official speed is/was 20% faster). The Venator, which has a much larger complement, also has a rather vulnerable collection of hanger bays. The Empire probably decided that the increase in durability was worth the smaller complement of fighters it would require.

In case you are wondering about the disparity in sublight speeds shown in combat, which is also shown in that a Venator at full engine power can outrun its ARC-170 fighters, it is because fighters and the Falcon are always at maximum engine power. Capital ships have to divert power to their main shields and weapons when in combat, running only light weapons and minimal shields while in pursuit. Notice that Captain Needa only orders the shields be raised after the Falcon turns around after chasing it in ESB.

The Empire also dislikes fighters enough that they don't bother giving them hyperdrives or even hyperspace rings, which were standard issue on the Venator class during the Clone Wars, and every fighter in the Republic fleet without its own hyperdrive could use one. We see no evidence of TIE fighters having them.

EDIT: Though it is interesting why the Empire doesn't bother still using the Venator class. It is likely that they just don't like fighters all that much. Without a proper war, they don't bother deploying very many. Especially considering the design flaws in the Venator class caused by the abundance of fighters.

There is also the problem that fighters require individual initiative, which is something the Empire is not big on.

Yes it is low for its size but you have to take into account the ISD was a multi role combat vessel combination carrier, battleship, and planetary assualt craft. With no active enemy there was no need for a lot of ships dedicated to just one role.

Adam Reynolds wrote: Imperial fighters just plainly aren't very effective, tending to be fodder for targets like the Ghost and utterly failing to achieve superiority over Endor.

Exactly. If fighters are destroyed so quickly, then more are required. Imperial doctrine doesn't dislike fighters, they have different ways of using them. The Rebel MC80's, have about half the fighter complement of an ISD. That doesn't mean the Rebellion hates X-wings. The Empire has their starfighter tactics, someone in West End Games just didn't do their research.

Though you have to consider the reason why they use so few fighters. They don't need them.

Yes they do. A very popular image is one of B-wings flying triumphantly away from an exploding ISD. But if you ever read about the Battle of Fara's Belt, you know that TIEs can destroy B-wings.

The Empire also dislikes fighters enough that they don't bother giving them hyperdrives or even hyperspace rings, which were standard issue on the Venator class during the Clone Wars, and every fighter in the Republic fleet without its own hyperdrive could use one. We see no evidence of TIE fighters having them.

While it is true that TIEs have no hyperdrive or shields, this is again doctrine, not dislike. Shields and hyperdrives are bulky and heavy. By omitting them, TIEs can outmaneuver any rebel vessel short of an A-wing. This also drives down the production cost, allowing numberless hordes to be deployed.

Though it is interesting why the Empire doesn't bother still using the Venator class. It is likely that they just don't like fighters all that much. Without a proper war, they don't bother deploying very many. Especially considering the design flaws in the Venator class caused by the abundance of fighters.

No, it's because TIE fighters need launch racks that Venators don't have.

There is also the problem that fighters require individual initiative, which is something the Empire is not big on.

Flight controllers. Every squadron has one. No initiative needed on the part of the meat-cans.

When they want waves of fighters, they probably use something like Executor.

This is a relatively trivial error, but SSDs are not used as carriers. The Escort Carrier is a dedicated vessel, and is far cheaper.

fractalsponge1 wrote: which are themselves much more voluminous than snubfighters.

TIE fighters are not snubfighters. A snubfighter is a starfighter evolved from atmospheric dive bombers, such as a Y-wing. A TIE fighter is a superiority fighter.

And now, for my own view. The entire point of the launch rack system used for Tie fighters is to increase the storage capacity and expendability. If the complement of a Rebel EF76 can take down the ISD's entire complement, something is very wrong.

I should point out that it is generally considered bad form to restart a thread after so long. But given that discussion here has been so slow lately, it might as well continue unless a mod says otherwise

KraytKing wrote: Exactly. If fighters are destroyed so quickly, then more are required. Imperial doctrine doesn't dislike fighters, they have different ways of using them. The Rebel MC80's, have about half the fighter complement of an ISD. That doesn't mean the Rebellion hates X-wings. The Empire has their starfighter tactics, someone in West End Games just didn't do their research.

The Rebel Alliance has a fraction of the resources of the Empire. The fact that they have so few fighters is hardly surprising. Especially given the qualitative advantage that the Rebel Alliance seems to maintain.

In any case the real problem with Imperial fighters is that their pilot training is awful and the Rebel Alliance is almost entirely combat veterans. With the exception of Darth Vader, we never see TIE fighters achieve space superiority over their Rebel counterparts. While they take casualties, Rebel pilots are free to carry out whatever objectives they want. This overall lousy quality is why they don't bother with deploying fighters all that often. It is just something for the Rebels to destroy.

Yes they do. A very popular image is one of B-wings flying triumphantly away from an exploding ISD. But if you ever read about the Battle of Fara's Belt, you know that TIEs can destroy B-wings.

B-wings were designed after Star Destroyers. In any case, the Empire is wrong and fighters are effective. It is just that the Empire is unwilling to develop what is required to make it so, a proper training doctrine that allows their pilots to genuinely be effective. The recent novel Lost Stars goes into the Imperial training program for officers. Even at the most elite academy, a pair of youths from an Outer Rim world are the best pilots in their class merely because they had prior flight experience outside the Empire. They also seem to have a jack of all trades problem somewhat. The main Imperial character is both a fleet officer and an occasional fighter pilot. While flying in Star Wars is almost comparable to driving, it is still problematic that a character could be properly rated at both in a military.

Given that that battle is not part of the new canon, it has no relevance anymore. B-wings may be vulnerable to TIEs, but Imperial fighters in general are unable to stop their Rebel counterparts based on all of the current canon evidence. The new season of Rebels might show us actual Imperial competence, but we'll see if it applies at the smaller scale like this.

While it is true that TIEs have no hyperdrive or shields, this is again doctrine, not dislike. Shields and hyperdrives are bulky and heavy. By omitting them, TIEs can outmaneuver any rebel vessel short of an A-wing. This also drives down the production cost, allowing numberless hordes to be deployed.

I was talking about a lack of hyperspace rings and an utter reliance on carrier vessels. There is no good reason to not have them, given that the Old Republic did. Because they aren't always needed, they don't drive up the production cost as strongly as dedicated hyperdrives. The Rebel Alliance is forced to install them because of their hit and run strategy.

No, it's because TIE fighters need launch racks that Venators don't have.

And those can't be installed? If they have a battle hardened dedicated fleet carrier design and they retire it without a proper replacement, it shows that they don't particularity care about fighters.

Flight controllers. Every squadron has one. No initiative needed on the part of the meat-cans.

Each pilot still has a degree of initiative much larger than a crew member aboard a star destroyer. The infamous MiG defection from the Cold War is all but impossible with an entire warship. That lack of initiative relative to their Rebel counterparts is also why Imperial fighters are nearly useless. Which is my entire point.

This is a relatively trivial error, but SSDs are not used as carriers. The Escort Carrier is a dedicated vessel, and is far cheaper.

They haven't appeared in the new canon. Which is what my current argument is based upon. The much smaller and weaker Quasar Fire-class has made an appearance, but it seems to be one of the smaller ships that go out of favor in the time of the OT due to the increasing strength of the Rebel Alliance. In that era they seem to have nothing but star destroyers most of the time.

And now, for my own view. The entire point of the launch rack system used for Tie fighters is to increase the storage capacity and expendability. If the complement of a Rebel EF76 can take down the ISD's entire complement, something is very wrong.

But then why don't they have more fighters on a standard ISD? This argument makes no sense in light of the smaller complement.

Adam Reynolds wrote: In any case the real problem with Imperial fighters is that their pilot training is awful and the Rebel Alliance is almost entirely combat veterans.

Incorrect. According to WEG Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, the average rebel pilot is terrible, but Alliance Command installs good tacticians as Sector Commanders. And don't point out that this isn't canon. You can't have a real argument without Legends.

The Rebel Alliance has a fraction of the resources of the Empire. The fact that they have so few fighters is hardly surprising. Especially given the qualitative advantage that the Rebel Alliance seems to maintain.

What I was referencing was the size of the numerical gap in complement. If the Rebellion has the qualitative advantage, shouldn't the Empire counter it with numerical superiority, to the point where resistance is futile?

It is just that the Empire is unwilling to develop what is required to make it so, a proper training doctrine that allows their pilots to genuinely be effective.

They have the doctrine. Overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers. We only see battle scenes in a movie that was very much influenced by the idea that heroes should always win and a simple inability to pit seven thousand TIEs against thirty X-wings.

Given that that battle is not part of the new canon, it has no relevance anymore. B-wings may be vulnerable to TIEs, but Imperial fighters in general are unable to stop their Rebel counterparts based on all of the current canon evidence.

This is Legends. That should be clear by now.

The new season of Rebels might show us actual Imperial competence, but we'll see if it applies at the smaller scale like this.

Did you see season one? If you want Imperial competence, go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_CP4SuoTU

And those can't be installed? If they have a battle hardened dedicated fleet carrier design and they retire it without a proper replacement, it shows that they don't particularity care about fighters.

They do have a replacement. The ISD. Which is why ISDs should have a a larger fighter complement.

And now, for my own view. The entire point of the launch rack system used for Tie fighters is to increase the storage capacity and expendability. If the complement of a Rebel EF76 can take down the ISD's entire complement, something is very wrong.

But then why don't they have more fighters on a standard ISD? This argument makes no sense in light of the smaller complement.

I meant that because of the launch rack system, the complement should be higher. The Rebel system forces hangars to be smaller, and it also reinforces the idea of starship individuality. If the Empire wants to seem infinite, they should have the capability to keep up the act a little longer. As for the EF76 thing, I was referring to the fact that the Star Destroyer does not carry enough starfighters to overwhelm a vastly inferior Rebel counterpart.

Also, apologies on the breach of etiquette. My 3PO is in for repairs at the moment.

This is pointless if you are going to ignore actual canon in favor of Legends and a fanfilm. In actual canon the Empire doesn't have a thousand TIEs for every X-wing squadron in any battle in which the Rebel Alliance is going to bother showing up. They are also unable to win space superiority with moderately superior numbers.

The Death Star had a complement of seven thousand. And don't forget that Legends was canon a few years ago. I'm just citing the only sources written by someone with half a mind.

Adam Reynolds wrote: They are also unable to win space superiority with moderately superior numbers.

Exactly. Therefore, ISDs should have more fighters.

Oh, and I wasn't citing TIE fighter as a source. It is just your only hope of Imperial competence. Rebels isn't worth the electricity it takes to light up the screen.

B-wings were designed after Star Destroyers. In any case, the Empire is wrong and fighters are effective. It is just that the Empire is unwilling to develop what is required to make it so, a proper training doctrine that allows their pilots to genuinely be effective. The recent novel Lost Stars goes into the Imperial training program for officers. Even at the most elite academy, a pair of youths from an Outer Rim world are the best pilots in their class merely because they had prior flight experience outside the Empire. They also seem to have a jack of all trades problem somewhat. The main Imperial character is both a fleet officer and an occasional fighter pilot. While flying in Star Wars is almost comparable to driving, it is still problematic that a character could be properly rated at both in a military.

This is actually how it works in real life. Every carrier CO, and a significant number of other ship COs and higher echelon commanders are pilots. Many keep their flight status through O6.

This is also not a uniquely Imperial trait. Need I remind you the likes of Han, Luke and Lando have all acted as high level fleet commanders while eachspends most of their time dying small craft in combat. On the Imperial side folks like Piett and Ozzel and Thrawn were not flying fighters.

Patroklos wrote:

B-wings were designed after Star Destroyers. In any case, the Empire is wrong and fighters are effective. It is just that the Empire is unwilling to develop what is required to make it so, a proper training doctrine that allows their pilots to genuinely be effective. The recent novel Lost Stars goes into the Imperial training program for officers. Even at the most elite academy, a pair of youths from an Outer Rim world are the best pilots in their class merely because they had prior flight experience outside the Empire. They also seem to have a jack of all trades problem somewhat. The main Imperial character is both a fleet officer and an occasional fighter pilot. While flying in Star Wars is almost comparable to driving, it is still problematic that a character could be properly rated at both in a military.

This is actually how it works in real life. Every carrier CO, and a significant number of other ship COs and higher echelon commanders are pilots. Many keep their flight status through O6.

This is also not a uniquely Imperial trait. Need I remind you the likes of Han, Luke and Lando have all acted as high level fleet commanders while eachspends most of their time dying small craft in combat. On the Imperial side folks like Piett and Ozzel and Thrawn were not flying fighters.

The problem wasn't so much that she did both it was that she was better than almost all of the dedicated pilots while doing it only part time. While part of that is the obvious fact that she was the protagonist, it is problematic in terms of what it shows about the quality of Imperial pilot training.

I would also suspect that the Empire uses fleet officers to helm star destroyers. They are battleships first and carriers second.

You nailed it. She is a protagonist, and there are not many that aren't better than average fighter jocks. Hell, even Leia has some kills to her name I am sure.