StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't know if New Republic used Star Destroyers to serve as carriers instead of cruisers, but if they wanted it to serve as a carrier would it be necessary to sacrifice weapons to squeeze in more fighters?

Dark Primus wrote:I don't know if New Republic used Star Destroyers to serve as carriers instead of cruisers, but if they wanted it to serve as a carrier would it be necessary to sacrifice weapons to squeeze in more fighters?

Probably not. A Star Destroyer's hanger can hold 72 Ties of various types. There seem to be plenty of room on board to use to carring starfighters. it may not hold as many rebel/NR craft but that is still alot of birds. The ground combat vehicle storage areas could be converted to more space to the fighters if need removeing the ship's ability to support a ground invasion with its own vehicles. considering the sizeeof AT-AT's there is probably enought space to add up to 36 more fighters. there are lots of ways to increase its fighter capacity without removing any exterior weapons.

Dark Primus wrote:I don't know if New Republic used Star Destroyers to serve as carriers instead of cruisers, but if they wanted it to serve as a carrier would it be necessary to sacrifice weapons to squeeze in more fighters?

The New Republic appears to use its Star Destroyers with much lower endurance ratings, meaning that they obviously run the ships with less of a reserve of supplies and run the engines and generators at higher levels. Going by the ICS cutaway, taking a big bite out of the stores bays that surround the small forward hangar might free up enough space for several more squadrons.

Other than that, there does not appear to be all that much in the way of usable "fat" that could be cut from the design, with one notable exception: the big lateral turrets. Since a carrier version of an ISD should not be engaging in major capital ship slugfests, one could delete all eight of the huge turrets. Then one simply enlcoses the resulting open terrace areas to each side of the rear sides in large rectangular boxes that should be big enough to accommodate another full wing of TIEs or other fighters per side. A scattering of light turbolaser emplacements and big armored doors protecting the resulting side-opening hangar bays would be a good idea. Ideal would be one launch bay per squadron and, below that, a centralized recovery bay to allow the fighters to launch quickly and to allow for reasonable sizes for the armored doors.

Going by that off the cuff idea, an ISD reconfigurerd for limited carrier duty could perhaps carry 3 wings, 4 if it sacrificed stores. It would still have decent firepower, enough to deal with any lighter vessels than itself, serving as its own escort. But it would obviously not be as good as a dedicated ISD-sized carrier backed up by two Acclamator-sized dedicated escort ships to protect it. That last combination could probably reasonably accommodate a dozen or more wings of fighters and have space and stores to spare.

As a slight revision to my previous post, I'd have to agree with Isolder 74 that deleting the ground combat capabilities would probably add quite a bit more space. That could certainly add another wing of fighters without sacrificing guns.

Patrick Ogaard wrote:As a slight revision to my previous post, I'd have to agree with Isolder 74 that deleting the ground combat capabilities would probably add quite a bit more space. That could certainly add another wing of fighters without sacrificing guns.

The reason I picked the Ground combat storage are 2

1. The Area is already connected to the Hanger in order to be able to drop the vehicles.

2. The Area by definition would already have the open space needed to add fighter ganties without rebuilding the interior

Isolder74 wrote:

Patrick Ogaard wrote:As a slight revision to my previous post, I'd have to agree with Isolder 74 that deleting the ground combat capabilities would probably add quite a bit more space. That could certainly add another wing of fighters without sacrificing guns.

The reason I picked the Ground combat storage are 2

1. The Area is already connected to the Hanger in order to be able to drop the vehicles.

2. The Area by definition would already have the open space needed to add fighter ganties without rebuilding the interior

That would, of course, explain why I agreed with you. Somewhere in that area has to be the space to house the parts of the prefab garrison bases in addition to all the other stuff, so the storage spaces in question have to be characterized as large by huge.

If one were really desperate for a quick fix to allow a regular ISD to bring many more fighters into battle, another option might be to produce a plug-in module for the main hangar. Basically, it would be another full-fledged set of storage bays, stores and maintenance hangars for at least another wing of TIEs, along with dedicated drop chutes along the edges to allow deployment of the normal TIE complement. The necessary automatic fighter-handling technology is already deployed in the launch and recovery chutes of prefab garrison bases. The main TIE recovery bay on the forward side of the main hangar bay would also be provided with a cutout to allow its continued use.

In effect, the hangar box would allow any ISD to double its fighter capacity if needed, with even more capacity if the ground assault capabilities were removed. The hangar box plug-in would screw up the deployment of ground assault systems in any event. One big drawback would, of course, be that adding that kind of mass that far forward would require some well thought out adjustments to the ISD's maneuvering systems.

The EU added the Escort Carriers which carry the same fighter compliment but is far smaller lacking the weapons of an ISD it also needs far fewer personel and supplies compared to an ISD

IIRC an ISD on it's own carries quite a lot of fighters and other ships on it's own before a conversion to carrier. Don't forget the ISD carried more than Ties. What about the ATAT Landing barges, lambda shuttles, gamma assault shuttles and skiprays. According to sources i read, WEG i think, an ISD carries all those. Hell just drop the ground forces and you must have enough space for a few other squadrons.

IIRC an ISD on it's own carries quite a lot of fighters and other ships on it's own before a conversion to carrier.

I disagree. A modern aircraft carrier is less than a fifth of the length of an ISD, and carries more fighters. For its size and the number of fighters it carries, an ISD is WAY understocked to even remotely be considered a carrier.

SPOOFE wrote:

IIRC an ISD on it's own carries quite a lot of fighters and other ships on it's own before a conversion to carrier.

I disagree. A modern aircraft carrier is less than a fifth of the length of an ISD, and carries more fighters. For its size and the number of fighters it carries, an ISD is WAY understocked to even remotely be considered a carrier.

And WEG was stupid to the point that they believed a SSD, even an 8 km one, would only have twice as many fighters as an ISD II.

An Executor-class should have dozens and dozens of wings at least.

Using the ICS cut-away as reference, it would appear that the bottom of the fighter hold in an ISD's hangar is full. Normally that would be fine but one thing that irks me is that they didn't stack the fighter racks! From the looks of it, they could've easily quadroupled their fighter load just by stacking the TIE fighter racks.

Another thing that bugs me is why they don't have fighter racks suspended over the hanagar opening. It's a HUGE space! And a huge WASTE of space too. They could've easily multiplied their TIE Fighter loadout by six if they had just suspended some racks over that space.

It seems that whoever designed the TIE fighter racks aboard an ISD is a numbskull. Naturally, I place blame on WEG; they created such an outrageuosly low fighter compliment for a MILE LONG ship. Had they done a tiny bit of research on modern day aircraft carriers, they might've noticed how small they really were. Then again, maybe not. Stupid WEG.

Not to mention the NR did not use terror weapons such as the ATAT walker. So they are almost going to automatically have open space. Obviously they will use some other form of ground assault vehicles, but not as demanding as those damn hulks.

Cal Wright wrote:Not to mention the NR did not use terror weapons such as the ATAT walker. So they are almost going to automatically have open space. Obviously they will use some other form of ground assault vehicles, but not as demanding as those damn hulks.

Psychological warfare through the imposing nature of the AT-AT != terror weapon.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:An Executor-class should have dozens and dozens of wings at least.

Lets see... An Executor is ~30 times the size of an ISD. We already know that the ship has lower shields then 30 ISDs and that it carries few enough weapons that 30 ISDs can outgun it. That is partialy explained in that 30 ISDs have more surface area and hence can have more shielding and weapons. On the other hand an Executor has tons of internal volume. A single Executor should carry a minimum of 72 squadrons of fighters. Realisticaly given its lack of capitalship combat capabilities (when you factor in its size) I can see an Executor easily equiped with 180 squadrons, 2160 fighters. That doesn't even factor in the support ships, heavy assault, landing ships, etc...

Super Carrier indeed, and thats using the same low fighter figure the ISD has. If the Executor was optimized for strike craft it could carry 600+ squadrons.

The 30 x ISD volume is also a bit iffy--far more of the Executor is dedicated to hangar and carrier operations.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The 30 x ISD volume is also a bit iffy--far more of the Executor is dedicated to hangar and carrier operations.

Yet with so much internal volume dedicated for hangars and carrier opperations, that gives us all the more room to play with for fighter counts.

Alyeska wrote:Yet with so much internal volume dedicated for hangars and carrier opperations, that gives us all the more room to play with for fighter counts.

This is backed up by Rebel Assault II, which showed massive hangars and racks of the V38 Fighters deep within the hull.

Another thing that bugs me is why they don't have fighter racks suspended over the hanagar opening. It's a HUGE space! And a huge WASTE of space too. They could've easily multiplied their TIE Fighter loadout by six if they had just suspended some racks over that space.

This would be a little hard to do for a few reasons.

1) TIE fighters and Interceptors have very bad vision as far as seeing the top of the craft goes, so docking would be difficult at best unless a sensor or monitor were added to see were it was going.

2) Not so difficult but would still have to be done, would be some sort of walkway to get to and from the fighters hanging from the racks.

This doesn't account for added difficulty of mainanence of the fighters while suspended. To use a modern day reference, in the military, you don't call a pilot every time you have to start up or move an aircraft. There are line operators that can get qualified for and do that job. Doing something like this would call for an increase in the number of people in maintenance that need these qualifications, and those qualifications are difficult and take a long time to get.

I believe it would be far easier for alliance X,Y,A etc.. wings to do something like this, if anything due to the ease of docking due to visibiltiy from the cockpit.

As an aside, it should be remembered that Captain Purdy M. Trico, captain of the Star Destroyer captured in Jedi Knight, mentioned that his Star Destroyer embarked "more than a hundred TIE pilots." Evidently, some Star Destroyers already have been modified in some fashion to embark more fighter craft.

Publius

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Another thing that bugs me is why they don't have fighter racks suspended over the hanagar opening. It's a HUGE space! And a huge WASTE of space too. They could've easily multiplied their TIE Fighter loadout by six if they had just suspended some racks over that space.

A stray shot into the hangar during a battle would obliterate the racks and leave the TIEs without a place to land, whereas with the way it is, the ceiling is damaged but no vital TIE racks are lost.

Publius wrote:As an aside, it should be remembered that Captain Purdy M. Trico, captain of the Star Destroyer captured in Jedi Knight, mentioned that his Star Destroyer embarked "more than a hundred TIE pilots." Evidently, some Star Destroyers already have been modified in some fashion to embark more fighter craft.

Publius

Or they have more pilots then craft. Most modern carriers have more pilots than aircraft so they can have more than one shift of airplanes for patrols. With only 1 pilot per plane you can only run so many sorties untill your pilots are too tired to fight or fly anymore. The number of pilots can not be used to determine how many craft embarked.

Isolder74 wrote:

Publius wrote:As an aside, it should be remembered that Captain Purdy M. Trico, captain of the Star Destroyer captured in Jedi Knight, mentioned that his Star Destroyer embarked "more than a hundred TIE pilots." Evidently, some Star Destroyers already have been modified in some fashion to embark more fighter craft.

Publius

Or they have more pilots then craft. Most modern carriers have more pilots than aircraft so they can have more than one shift of airplanes for patrols. With only 1 pilot per plane you can only run so many sorties untill your pilots are too tired to fight or fly anymore. The number of pilots can not be used to determine how many craft embarked.

This is true IIRC most aircraft carriers have 3-4 times as many pilots as planes

Cal Wright wrote:Not to mention the NR did not use terror weapons such as the ATAT walker. So they are almost going to automatically have open space. Obviously they will use some other form of ground assault vehicles, but not as demanding as those damn hulks.

Yes, but on the other hand the NR figthers are bigger than a TIE fighter so a single craft needs more space.

While TIEs can be parked on racks -rows below and above each other- you need to build different decks to do the same with NR fighters.

Boba Fett wrote:

Cal Wright wrote:Not to mention the NR did not use terror weapons such as the ATAT walker. So they are almost going to automatically have open space. Obviously they will use some other form of ground assault vehicles, but not as demanding as those damn hulks.

Yes, but on the other hand the NR figthers are bigger than a TIE fighter so a single craft needs more space.

While TIEs can be parked on racks -rows below and above each other- you need to build different decks to do the same with NR fighters.

And IIRC(again) TIE's all use a "universal clamp" rack system so they can hook any TIE model into any rack port making for quicker recall and ;ocldown for jumps, and swap TIE mode;s ass need be.

Setesh wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:

Cal Wright wrote:Not to mention the NR did not use terror weapons such as the ATAT walker. So they are almost going to automatically have open space. Obviously they will use some other form of ground assault vehicles, but not as demanding as those damn hulks.

Yes, but on the other hand the NR figthers are bigger than a TIE fighter so a single craft needs more space.

While TIEs can be parked on racks -rows below and above each other- you need to build different decks to do the same with NR fighters.

And IIRC(again) TIE's all use a "universal clamp" rack system so they can hook any TIE model into any rack port making for quicker recall and ;ocldown for jumps, and swap TIE mode;s ass need be.

I think we are talking about the same...