StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was going through WEG's Star Wars Sourcebook again a couple of days ago and read something that disturbed me once upon a time so I thought I'd pose it here:

ISD's TIE complement is only 72. When I first read it more than 10 year ago I already thought it was pretty low. A ship 1.6 km long and they only had 72 fighters (6 squadrons)? Even the Acclamators could carry, what, 800 LAATs? Loronar Corporation's Escort Carrier can also carry "one wing" which is the same as 72 fighters as well, and it's only 450 meters long.

1. Is that another example of WEG's minimalism or is there an in-universe explanation for it?

2. How does this compare with modern aircraft carriers in real life in terms of size of ship to number of fighters carried?

The ISD is not an aircraft carrier. Acclamators are military transports and are pretty much hollow.

I made an error... It's just 80 gunships, not 800.

Star Wars: Databank | Imperial Star Destroyer

Starwars.com Databank wrote:The Imperial-class Star Destroyer bristles with 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries, and 10 tractor beam projectors. It carries a full stormtrooper division, 20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, eight Lambda-class shuttles, 12 landing barges, and six TIE squadrons.

Navy Fact File: Aircraft Carriers

General Characteristics, Nimitz-class wrote:Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts
Length, overall: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft: 85
Cost: about $4.5 billion each
Ships:
USS Nimitz (CVN 68 ), San Diego, Calif.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.
USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), San Diego, Calif.
George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (keel laying 6 Sept 2003)
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 - Air Wing: 2,480
Armament: Two or three (depending on modification) NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts: (3 on Nimitz and Dwight D. Eisenhower and 4 on Vinson and later ships of the class.)
Date Deployed: May 3, 1975 (USS Nimitz)

Outstanding... disregarding the Imperator-class, since it's not actually a carrier:

Nimitz: 332.8 meters / 85 aircrafts.

Escort Carrier: 450 meters / 72 TIEs (6 squadrons / 1 wing).

Well I guess that does sound about similar. Thanks, Vohu.

Its pretty pointless to compare a real fleet carrier to any Star Wars vessel, given that Star Wars fighters only need a hole in the hull to fly in and out of (or just some external racks in the case of some vessels).

However it would not be unreasonable, as a baseline guesstimate, to assume that the total internal volume required per aircraft would be similar.

Howedar wrote:However it would not be unreasonable, as a baseline guesstimate, to assume that the total internal volume required per aircraft would be similar.

Not quite if the visuals we seen described in EU and game lit are anything to go by, your avarage SW hangerbay is the US Navy equivilant of the Tasham Hall... all that open space, but then the bay is in 3rd which we can't do efficently

Conceded.

To be fair, I was thinking in overly general terms of length without taking into account width and height of the ships, so I apologize.

The height of the escort carrier appears to be roughly 1/4 its length. (Width unknown.) So, for a dedicated fighter carrier, wouldn't there be more fighters in its bay than just a mere 72?

For that matter, even if the Imperator-class is not a carrier, shouldn't there be space for more fighters for its size?

As has been said before, it isn't a dedicated carrier.

It does carry all those AT-ATs and shuttles. But the real killer in terms of space is probably those 12 landing barges. Anything capable of carrying an AT-AT to the surface has got to be huge.

As an aside, the ISD's starship complement is more plausible than that of the Executor. It looks like a carrier, but only carries five wings, IIRC.

Old Plympto wrote: For that matter, even if the Imperator-class is not a carrier, shouldn't there be space for more fighters for its size?

There may well be more space, and indeed the picture ICS shows of a TIE hanger on an ISD looks big enough to easily hold twice its normal complement of fighters. However the equipment of a warship is not just a matter of finding space to cram more crap on that might be nice to have in action. It is a balance between cost and the required capability for the ship to conduct its mission. An ISD has 72 fighter craft because the Empire decided that was how many its destroyer design needed to carry. How they arrived at that requirement and what growth margin for more craft might exist is a matter of conjecture.

Old Plympto wrote:The height of the escort carrier appears to be roughly 1/4 its length. (Width unknown.) So, for a dedicated fighter carrier, wouldn't there be more fighters in its bay than just a mere 72?

Well, present carriers (as I know, so feel free to correct) get water and air from their surroundings and still need to be resupplied in every four months. According to WEG, an Escort Carrier can last for nine months. Still according to WEG it carries up to six shuttles and 800 troops and can survive more damage than even a Victory could. EDIT: So, while the present carriers need escort, the Escort Carrier is the escort.

Bear in mind the ISD also carries a prefabricated base in some configurations, further cutting down on space.

And are the 85 aircraft of a modern carrier all its fighters? There are transports, ASW, and fuelers in there as well... whereas an ISD also carries somethign like 8 Lambdas.

Plus there's capability-- a five TIE squadrons and a TIE bomber squadron (the typical loadout on an ISD IIRC) can probably do more damage than a US Carrier, so fewer aircraft are needed to carry out the mission.

And as has been pointed out, the ISD is not only "not a carrier" but it is a primary battle cruiser in its own right. The TIE simply support it, whereas for a Carrier, the fighters are its primary means of warfighting and the ship itself is little more than a place for the pilots to put their stuff.

whereas an ISD also carries somethign like 8 Lambdas.

And Sentinels, TIE boarding craft, bombers, interceptors, scout ships etc. making it even more cramped for fighters.

Well yeah, ideally at around the Battle of Yavin an ISD carries 4 attack squadrons (fighters and interceptors), one recon squadron and one bomber squadron.

In addition to that upon reading the Imperial Sourcebook it also says that the ship carries shuttles (TIE shuttles, Lambdas, Gammas and Sentinels?), repair and recovery vehicles, landing barges(AT-AT barges?), drop ships (MT/191s and Landing Bricks?), ground assault vehicles (Juggernauts, Mobile Command Bases and Floating Fortresses?)and prefab garrison bases. So yeah I guess it can get pretty cramped in there.

Thanks for the replies. Things are much clearer now.

With all that, where do the AT-ATs and AT-STs go? Inside the landing barges when in flight?

I believe the large vehicles like the AT-At go into deep storage when unused, as per Zahn's Dark Force Rising. When they need them for operations or maintenance, they tractor them from the zero-g storage area onto elevator platforms that lead to hangar bays and such.

vakundok wrote:Well, present carriers (as I know, so feel free to correct) get water and air from their surroundings and still need to be resupplied in every four months.

A USN nuclear carrier carries all of most types of supplies it will need for a six month deployment. However it still must replenish some items at sea from time to time during that period like refrigerated food. Also it needs additional fuel for its air group constantly, and in combat bomb stocks might be empty in a week or less.

VT-16 wrote:With all that, where do the AT-ATs and AT-STs go? Inside the landing barges when in flight?

In the ICS book, they show the entire aft wall of the hanger bay having slid open, revealing a huge additional hanger bay holding walkers.

Its pretty pointless to compare a real fleet carrier to any Star Wars vessel, given that Star Wars fighters only need a hole in the hull to fly in and out of

The other side of the coin is that aircraft carriers only need to float on water... they don't need life support, shields, hyperdrives, repulsors, or any of that other fun stuff.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Its pretty pointless to compare a real fleet carrier to any Star Wars vessel, given that Star Wars fighters only need a hole in the hull to fly in and out of (or just some external racks in the case of some vessels).

Not really....the deck is part of the external surface, but if all the aircraft on a carrier were stowed in the hangar, the hangar would be full, so even if all the aircraft were capable of VTOL operations, the carrier wouldn't be much smaller.

Would the empire have built variants of ISD's designed soley for space supremacy? I think a number of sources have stated that the ISD's primary mission was being able to conduct BDZ operations and planetary occupations. It seems like it would have made sense to develop a few ISDs that reduced the size of troops and garrison equipment on board in order to expand starfighter capacity.

Why would they wish to do that?

Old Plympto wrote: Even the Acclamators could carry, what, 800 LAATs?

I made an error... It's just 80 gunships, not 800.

Are you sure? Watch the Clone Wars cartoon, those ships were literally launching hundreds of fighters apeice.