StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm in a small disagreement with another member of our little SW game. Is it possible for an ISD II if refitted to a carrier could hold 24 fighter squadrons?

Assuming you remove all the unnecessary parts for it to be possible. A lot of weapons and power generators would have to be stripped away of course, and probably large part of the crew quarters.

There's far easier ways to get a super carrier. But just taking out most of the stromtrooper complement and ground combat equipment would make room for a fair number of fighters. Landing barges, Prefabricated garrison bases, AT-ATs, and that rtidiculous space large enough to swallow up a Corellian Corvette can all be filled witrh TIEs.

We know from the EU about ISDs, that carried 12 squadrons of TIEs, but not 24.

Although i think it would be possible.

This is like asking if Missouri could carry 80 fixed-wing aircraft if it were turned into an aircraft carrier.

I suppose so, but why the fuck would you want to? It would be extremely expensive and in every way inferior to a purpose-built carrier.

Howedar wrote:This is like asking if Missouri could carry 80 fixed-wing aircraft if it were turned into an aircraft carrier.

I suppose so, but why the fuck would you want to? It would be extremely expensive and in every way inferior to a purpose-built carrier.

The Lexington, Enterprise and Yorktown were almost finished Battlecruiser hulls before they were made into carriers after the Washington Treaty. So turning an Iowa on the production block would not add to much to the expense of the ship in general, but if it is after the installation of the guns then forget it.

Of course the Iowa-Class ship does not have the massive hanger and troop space an ISD has. If the Storage space for the Ground Vehicles, Garrison Bases and the Troop Barracks were used to berth fighters ect then it might be possible. The truth is though the ship will still have is original launch return rate unless the docking facilities are increased. Doing so I see as perhaps increasing his strategic reserve but not providing any real tactical value other than allowing more attack runs with craft like Tie Bombers and Assault Gunboats.

It would cost quite a bit to rebuild all of those internal areas with an already finished ship. Built from new would be easier and would also allow the enlarging of the docking facilites. The Firepower and stadard compliment of the ISD is more than enough to deal with any known rebel craft from the Imperial period.

FTeik wrote:We know from the EU about ISDs, that carried 12 squadrons of TIEs, but not 24.

Although i think it would be possible.

ISDs carried 6 squadrons of 12 TIEs.

For your question, it'd probably be possible, but would require a lot of modification to the superstructure- it'd be cheaper just to build a new carrier ship.

Isolder74 wrote:

Howedar wrote:This is like asking if Missouri could carry 80 fixed-wing aircraft if it were turned into an aircraft carrier.

I suppose so, but why the fuck would you want to? It would be extremely expensive and in every way inferior to a purpose-built carrier.

The Lexington, Enterprise and Yorktown were almost finished Battlecruiser hulls before they were made into carriers after the Washington Treaty. So turning an Iowa on the production block would not add to much to the expense of the ship in general, but if it is after the installation of the guns then forget it.

Not true, the Royal Navy converted Glorious, Corageous and Furious between the wars into carriers.
And the Nihon Kaigun converted the unfinished battlecruisers Akagi and Kaga into carriers, not to mention the almost completed Shinano into a carrier. Most importantly was that during the war they also converted the battleships Ise and Hyuga into a hybrid battleship/Carrier.

So it was possible to convert already finished battleships into carriers. Actually was cheaper to convert an existing Battleship into a carrier, rather then scrap it, and build a new carrier instead.

As to the original question, of course it would be possible to convert an ISD to into a flying hangar, but why would you want to?

Praxis wrote:

FTeik wrote:We know from the EU about ISDs, that carried 12 squadrons of TIEs, but not 24.

Although i think it would be possible.

ISDs carried 6 squadrons of 12 TIEs.

For your question, it'd probably be possible, but would require a lot of modification to the superstructure- it'd be cheaper just to build a new carrier ship.

72 fighters is a small number for a mile long warships with a hanger big enough to swallow a Correlian corvette. ISD's should have a somwhat larger number of fighters.

Lucius Licinius Lucullus wrote: Not true, the Royal Navy converted Glorious, Corageous and Furious between the wars into carriers.

Glorious, Corageous, and Furious were giant light cruisers, not battleships. Only two primary turrets, minimal armer, etc. And for the record, they made very much poorer carriers than purpose-built jobs like period US CVs.

And the Nihon Kaigun converted the unfinished battlecruisers Akagi and Kaga into carriers, not to mention the almost completed Shinano into a carrier. Most importantly was that during the war they also converted the battleships Ise and Hyuga into a hybrid battleship/Carrier.

All markedly inferior to normal aircraft carriers.

So it was possible to convert already finished battleships into carriers. Actually was cheaper to convert an existing Battleship into a carrier, rather then scrap it, and build a new carrier instead.

And, as I said, they made shitty carriers, inferior in every way to purpose-built ones.

IIRC ISD's alreasy carry an absurd amount of assault shuttles, landing craft and troops. Surely it'd be just a matter of moving the shuttles out and the TIE's in?

Praxis wrote:

FTeik wrote:We know from the EU about ISDs, that carried 12 squadrons of TIEs, but not 24.

Although i think it would be possible.

ISDs carried 6 squadrons of 12 TIEs.

In the NJO the Errant Venture transported ten squadrons of fighters (although the ship hasn´t been under the banner of the empire for twenty years then) and, i think it was in the Steele-Chronicles, the ISD Vengeance was modified to carry two wings of TIEs.

Another question: Since ISDs carry prefabricated garrisons, do they also transport the fighters (35 TIEs and 5 TIE-bombers) and the ground-vessels of such an installation in addition to their own fighters and ground-vessels?

Lucius Licinius Lucullus wrote: As to the original question, of course it would be possible to convert an ISD to into a flying hangar, but why would you want to?

Not me, another player wants to have so many fighters. I just want to know if it is possible.

consequences wrote:There's far easier ways to get a super carrier. But just taking out most of the stromtrooper complement and ground combat equipment would make room for a fair number of fighters. Landing barges, Prefabricated garrison bases, AT-ATs, and that rtidiculous space large enough to swallow up a Corellian Corvette can all be filled witrh TIEs.

After boarding the Tantive IV, the Devastator turned it loose and destroyed it. They did not haul the corvette with them. (Souce: A New Hope radio drama.)

Howedar wrote: And, as I said, they made shitty carriers, inferior in every way to purpose-built ones.

Granted a purpose built carrier could carry more fighters per ton but why do you consider the Lexington, Akagi, Kaga, and Shinano markedly inferior to purpose built carriers. As well, a discussion in a warship discussion group suggested that the US Escort carriers (Merchant Conversions) were more important to the war effort than the Essex class.

This does not seem to be directly the situation, the troop gear seems to rarely be used and it appears that it could be pulled without harming the ship yet giving alot more space for fighters.

Kitsune wrote:Granted a purpose built carrier could carry more fighters per ton but why do you consider the Lexington, Akagi, Kaga, and Shinano markedly inferior to purpose built carriers.

Brain-mouth disconnect.

As well, a discussion in a warship discussion group suggested that the US Escort carriers (Merchant Conversions) were more important to the war effort than the Essex class.

This has to do with the number that were built, the time of completion (Essex carriers were fairly late in the war) and the way in which they were used, not their effectiveness as carriers. Pit an Essex against a jeep and I'll put my life savings on the Essex.

Both the Lexington and Saratoga were markably superior to other nations' CVs for many years, and were certainly superior to the purpose built Ranger.

That's because Ranger was less than half the displacement of Saratoga and Lexington.

Lord Pounder wrote:IIRC ISD's alreasy carry an absurd amount of assault shuttles, landing craft and troops. Surely it'd be just a matter of moving the shuttles out and the TIE's in?

In theory yes, although you'd only be able to rapid-scramble the standard number of squadrons because of the fixed number of racks. But an ISD is primarily a weapon platform akin to a warship at sea or a tank on land (to be honest, I've never entirely understood why spacecraft are assumed to be more analogous to sea vessels than land vehicles). Its auxiliary capabilities as a carrier or assault ship are only made possible by its size, and would not be expanded to the point that they would compromise its ability to hold its own in gun battles with enemy warships.

Darth Wong wrote:(to be honest, I've never entirely understood why spacecraft are assumed to be more analogous to sea vessels than land vehicles)

My best guess on that is the nature of space - a hostile environment - is more analagous to the nature of the sea - another hostile environement. However, I'm beginning to consider submarines a more fitting parallel to spaceships in this regard.

Darth Wong wrote:(to be honest, I've never entirely understood why spacecraft are assumed to be more analogous to sea vessels than land vehicles)

I think it is the 'pounding the beach' mentality, to be honest. Spacecraft have to carry troops, protect a task force, carry planes and landing gear, I don't see how they can be anything but ship analogous ... although I would be highly interested in hearing some reasons to the contrary.


EDIT :: Changed counter to contrary.

FTeik wrote:

Praxis wrote:Another question: Since ISDs carry prefabricated garrisons, do they also transport the fighters (35 TIEs and 5 TIE-bombers) and the ground-vessels of such an installation in addition to their own fighters and ground-vessels?

Perhaps they are stored inside the Prefab bases in the racks ready to use or are in crates ready to assemble. Its not certain but sinse the base is dropped whole it may be possible.

Howedar wrote:Brain-mouth disconnect.

Would you please stop being stupid and really look at the numbers.
The numbers are what really matter here, quick data from Haze Grey:

Lexington class large fleet aircraft carriers
Displacement: 38,746 tons design full load
Dimensions: 850 x 105.5 x 24.25 feet/295 x 32 x 7.5 meters
Extreme Dimensions:888 x 105.5 x 24.25 feet/270.6 x 32 x 7.5 meters
Propulsion: Turbo-electric, 16 300 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp, 34 knots
Crew: 3,300
Armor: 5-7 inch belt
Armament: 4 dual 8/55 SP, 12 single 5/25 DP
Aircraft: 90 initially

compared to Essex:
Displacement: 34,881 tons full load
Dimensions: 820 x 93 x 28.5 feet/250 x 28.3 x 8.7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 872 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/265.8 x 45 x 8.7 meters ("Long Hull" types: 888 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/270.6 x 45 x 8.7 meters)
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 565 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp, 33 kts
Crew: 2,631
Armor: 1.5 inch hangar deck, 2.5-4 inch belt
Armament: 4 dual, 4 single 5/38 DP, 18 quad 40 mm AA, 61 single 20 mm AA ; single 20 mm AA replaced late WWII/postwar by 35 dual 20 mm AA
Aircraft: 100

Displacements are comparable, the number of aircraft is comparable, the Lexington has a less efficient (volume / mass wise but better for damage control) and more powerful propulsion system. It also has the inefficent use of 8 inch guns and is heavier armor. The Saratoga fought through the entire war as well and was decommissioned from the stress the ship went through during the war.

In Star Wars terms, we have many thousand of Star Destroyers. A purpose built carrier would probably be more efficient per volume but a star destroyer hull due to having heavier firepower and the conversion woudl be less expensive.

This has to do with the number that were built, the time of completion (Essex carriers were fairly late in the war) and the way in which they were used, not their effectiveness as carriers. Pit an Essex against a jeep and I'll put my life savings on the Essex.

Very good, actually I will put my saving on the Escort Carriers:
According to Janes Fighting Ships of World War Two, one Essex class carrier averages $68,932,000 with about 100 aircraft End of teh War costs $76,000,000 to $90,000,000
A Commencent Bay Escort carrier costs 11,000,000 each (which was end of the war cost) and can carry around 33 aircraft each. It had the advantage of being able to carry huge amounts of fuel due to using a tanker hull. You could but 6 of them which can carry almost twice as many aircraft as the one Essex and the loss of one Essex, you are done. Escort Carrier could carry Hellcats, Corsairs, and Avengers.

You also are screwed up as far as dates,
Essex was commissioned 31 Dec 1942
Yorktown was commisioned 15 Apr 1943
Intrepid was commissioned 16 Aug 1943
Lexington was commissioned 17 Feb 1943.
Bunker Hill was commissioned 24 May 1943.

All of these Essex class carriers (6 carriers) were commissioned within about 1.5 years of Pearl Harbor and within about a year of Midway.

Lonestar wrote:Both the Lexington and Saratoga were markably superior to other nations' CVs for many years, and were certainly superior to the purpose built Ranger.

It is really more than the how and why that the Ranger was built than specific displacement. The Ranger has a higher ratio of planes to size of the carrier than any of the other carriers but paid for it in terms of low horsepower, no armor, and unable to operate in high sea states.

Kitsune wrote:Would you please stop being stupid and really look at the numbers.
The numbers are what really matter here, quick data from Haze Grey:

*snip stats*

Displacements are comparable, the number of aircraft is comparable, the Lexington has a less efficient (volume / mass wise but better for damage control) and more powerful propulsion system. It also has the inefficent use of 8 inch guns and is heavier armor. The Saratoga fought through the entire war as well and was decommissioned from the stress the ship went through during the war.

The Essex carriers were also vastly cheaper and much easier to build. They carried 10% more aircraft and didn't waste displacement on such silliness as heavy guns and armor. On aircraft carriers, number of aircraft matters above all else. Ask the British, who foolishly built carriers near the end of WW2 which were heavily armed and armored, but carried far less aircraft than their US counterparts.

In Star Wars terms, we have many thousand of Star Destroyers. A purpose built carrier would probably be more efficient per volume but a star destroyer hull due to having heavier firepower and the conversion woudl be less expensive.

Congratulations on missing everything I fucking said. A purpose-built carrier is cheaper than ripping up an old vessel, particularly when you can't just slap a fucking deck on top and call it good.

Very good, actually I will put my saving on the Escort Carriers:
According to Janes Fighting Ships of World War Two, one Essex class carrier averages $68,932,000 with about 100 aircraft End of teh War costs $76,000,000 to $90,000,000
A Commencent Bay Escort carrier costs 11,000,000 each (which was end of the war cost) and can carry around 33 aircraft each. It had the advantage of being able to carry huge amounts of fuel due to using a tanker hull. You could but 6 of them which can carry almost twice as many aircraft as the one Essex and the loss of one Essex, you are done. Escort Carrier could carry Hellcats, Corsairs, and Avengers.

Frankly this is all a red herring anyway and I'm not sure why I entertained it in the first place. Fine, well and good, you can beat an Essex with a bunch of Jeeps. They're all purpose-built carriers though.

You also are screwed up as far as dates,
Essex was commissioned 31 Dec 1942
Yorktown was commisioned 15 Apr 1943
Intrepid was commissioned 16 Aug 1943
Lexington was commissioned 17 Feb 1943.
Bunker Hill was commissioned 24 May 1943.

All of these Essex class carriers (6 carriers) were commissioned within about 1.5 years of Pearl Harbor and within about a year of Midway.

My bad on dates.

Howedar wrote:The Essex carriers were also vastly cheaper and much easier to build. They carried 10% more aircraft and didn't waste displacement on such silliness as heavy guns and armor. On aircraft carriers, number of aircraft matters above all else. Ask the British, who foolishly built carriers near the end of WW2 which were heavily armed and armored, but carried far less aircraft than their US counterparts.

The situation between a Lexington class carrier and a British Implacable class are not parallel. The British sacrificed hanger deck height which the Lexington did not. If only aircraft mattered, the US woudl simply have built a bunch of Rangers.

The cost of the ships are very hard to debate because the Essex is based on late 1930s technology while the Lexington operated on 1910s technology. Speed of cosntruction is also not a valid debate point because the Essex class were built as wartime programs and they were a much higher priority than the Lexington class was when built. As well, the Lexington class was suspended for at least a year when they were redesigned as carriers.

Price of the Lexington is listed as 45,000,000 but the cost does not include how much was already spent for them beuing built as a battlecruiser.

Congratulations on missing everything I fucking said. A purpose-built carrier is cheaper than ripping up an old vessel, particularly when you can't just slap a fucking deck on top and call it good.

It is more of a similar situation than you want to admit. What I am talking about is pulling out all of the troop support and replacing them with hanger facilities. Tie fighters require less facilities than a Naval fighter. The AT-AT, the landing barges, and that sort of stuff are rarely used in my opinion and would be better suited to being operated from troop transports. They also by a drawing in ICS to be in the main hanger bay.

Frankly this is all a red herring anyway and I'm not sure why I entertained it in the first place. Fine, well and good, you can beat an Essex with a bunch of Jeeps. They're all purpose-built carriers though.

You are right and wrong (They were purpose built as carriers but were based on T3 tanker hull) but Sangamon class are specifically tanker conversions, have a slightly greater ability to carry aircraft. I don't have a price but would suspect that they are less expensive than Commencement Bay Class.