StarDestroyer.Net BBS

At 1,137 meters long, it was a bit shorter than the later Imperator-class Star Destroyers. Yet it carried an incredible amount of starfighters and other support craft. The following is taken from the StarWars.com Databank (numbers are verifed in the RotS: ICS). I highlighted the important parts in bold print.

"Its surface was dotted with eight heavy turbolasers, two medium dual turbolaser cannons, 52 point-defense laser cannons, four proton torpedo tubes and six tractor beam projectors. In a creative move, some captains would use carried SPHA-T walkers to fire out of the ventral docking bay, supplementing the ship's considerable firepower without taxing its energy reserves."

<snip>

"Though it was capable of making planetary landings, this versatile Star Destroyer was used mostly as a spacebound fighting ship. This meant its hangars were stocked with starfighters rather than ground craft. Its standard complement included 192 V-19 Torrent or V-wing fighters, 192 Jedi starfighters, 36 ARC-170 fighters, and 20 LAAT/I gunships."

While the standard ISD carried 72 TIE fighters total, while the SSD Executor carried 12 squardrons (for a total of 144 fighters), the 400+ fighter capacity of the Venator seems ridiculous. While it is true that the VenStar and the ImpStar have different fighting roles (the VenStar being used as a fighter carrier, while the ImpStar is a more heavily armed battleship), how can you justify the Venator carrying THAT many fighters?

The Venator is more of a carrier than the Imperator. And the old WEG-derived stats make no sense with the canonical lengths of the other two (at least not the Executor, if I understand correctly).

The only ridiculous thing around WEG minimalism. The people behind that simply have no comprehension of the size of the ships they are dealing with. Even if there 8km figure for the executor was correct, the thing should still be able to carry tens of thousands of fighters. That thing is the size of a freaking major city. 144 fighters is just fucking stupid. USS Midway, a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier that would be simply dwarfed by an ISD managed to hold 137 aircraft , and a TIE fighter is really not any bigger then a WW2 carrier plane.
Put Midway besdies Executor and you'd proubabbly mistake her for one of the ships antennas or somthing like that. The size comparsion would be like a lifeboat beside a battleship.

In short, Star Wars ships are really freaking big and that size is not appreciated by most people, especially not Star Wars writers besides Saxton.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The only ridiculous thing around WEG minimalism. The people behind that simply have no comprehension of the size of the ships they are dealing with. Even if there 8km figure for the executor was correct, the thing should still be able to carry tens of thousands of fighters. That thing is the size of a freaking major city. 144 fighters is just fucking stupid. USS Midway, a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier that would be simply dwarfed by an ISD managed to hold 137 aircraft , and a TIE fighter is really not any bigger then a WW2 carrier plane.
Put Midway besdies Executor and you'd proubabbly mistake her for one of the ships antennas or somthing like that. The size comparsion would be like a lifeboat beside a battleship.

In short, Star Wars ships are really freaking big and that size is not appreciated by most people, especially not Star Wars writers besides Saxton.

I'm not familiar with West End Games and their "minimalism". I'm assuming they come up with these stats and numbers in their RPG sourcebooks? IIRC these numbers have also been mentioned in other non WEG sources, such as the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.

Order 66 wrote:I'm not familiar with West End Games and their "minimalism". I'm assuming they come up with these stats and numbers in their RPG sourcebooks? IIRC these numbers have also been mentioned in other non WEG sources, such as the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.

The Essential Guide series are just a waste of good trees. They do nothing more than repeat WEG mistakes.

To clarify what THE GREAT LEADER said; no, the Venator's fighter compliment isn't wank, the ISD fighter compliment is shockingly small.

The Essential Guide series are just a waste of good trees. They do nothing more than repeat WEG mistakes.

If I had to use a phrase to describe the bad history of SD stats, it would be "negatively charged wank".

So in your opinion, what do you think the fighter complement in a regular ISD Mark 1 should be? I'm thinking 150-200.

The only justification I can see for the ISD's low fighter complement is that they're not intended to truly be carriers, and their TIEs are more similar to the handful of fighters carried on WWII era battleships. Under this concept, the TIEs aboard the ISD would be more intended for scouting and patrolling where the sensors of the ISD might not be able to see (other side of planets, et cetera) and extend the sensor net. It would also allow for "flushing" and herding prey towards the ISD. The Venator would be more a true carrier, with relatively weaker LOS firepower but far more small vessels.

The Dark wrote:The only justification I can see for the ISD's low fighter complement is that they're not intended to truly be carriers, and their TIEs are more similar to the handful of fighters carried on WWII era battleships. Under this concept, the TIEs aboard the ISD would be more intended for scouting and patrolling where the sensors of the ISD might not be able to see (other side of planets, et cetera) and extend the sensor net. It would also allow for "flushing" and herding prey towards the ISD. The Venator would be more a true carrier, with relatively weaker LOS firepower but far more small vessels.

Remember also that Star Destroyers carry an appreciable number of gunboats, blastboats, shuttles, and various types of military transports as well as being designed to hold in its interior the vessels of suspected smugglers and rebels. Its hanger space is quite large, perhaps even as large as a Venator's, but it has a wider variety of uses. Besides this, the hanger space on an ISD seems to focus more on having plenty of compartmentalisation and blast doors, suggesting that the more open design of the Venator had fallen out of favor.

Quadlok wrote:

The Dark wrote:The only justification I can see for the ISD's low fighter complement is that they're not intended to truly be carriers, and their TIEs are more similar to the handful of fighters carried on WWII era battleships. Under this concept, the TIEs aboard the ISD would be more intended for scouting and patrolling where the sensors of the ISD might not be able to see (other side of planets, et cetera) and extend the sensor net. It would also allow for "flushing" and herding prey towards the ISD. The Venator would be more a true carrier, with relatively weaker LOS firepower but far more small vessels.

Remember also that Star Destroyers carry an appreciable number of gunboats, blastboats, shuttles, and various types of military transports as well as being designed to hold in its interior the vessels of suspected smugglers and rebels. Its hanger space is quite large, perhaps even as large as a Venator's, but it has a wider variety of uses. Besides this, the hanger space on an ISD seems to focus more on having plenty of compartmentalisation and blast doors, suggesting that the more open design of the Venator had fallen out of favor.

And I just realized I forgot to account for the possibility that it can land AT-ATs (unless Executor landed them all at Hoth). Those would take up a decent amount of hangar space. The compartmentalization brings up a good point too. While any analogy is dangerous, the ISD/Ven difference could also be partially analogous to the difference between UK and US carriers in WWII, with the British carrying fewer fighters in their armored carriers and the Americans carrying more in relatively more fragile fleet carriers. Possibly the Venator was found vulnerable later on, and the ISD's hangar space was developed for greater survivability.

And I just realized I forgot to account for the possibility that it can land AT-ATs (unless Executor landed them all at Hoth).

The OT:ICS shows a AT-AT inside an ISD's hangar bay, and I believe the Essential Guides note that they carry AT-ATs and a variety of other land craft, as well as entire prefab bases, which would probably take up a fair amount of room as well.

Order 66 wrote:So in your opinion, what do you think the fighter complement in a regular ISD Mark 1 should be? I'm thinking 150-200.

I think 72 is just right, its about the equivlent of the helicopters modern destroyers carry in terms of scale.

Crown wrote:The Essential Guide series are just a waste of good trees. They do nothing more than repeat WEG mistakes.

Perhaps... But the original book at least had really cool pics in it

Maybe we should look opon the imperial star destroyer as a WWII battleship,they often carried 1-3 spotterplanes but was in no respect carriers..the venstars was carriers.

Incredible Cross Sections shows that the hangers within the hanger bay that hold the TIEs only run down one of its four sides, and the setup of each bays is pretty ineffective of space. I would think 2-4 times the listed 72 fighter compliment would be quite reasonable.

Ender wrote:I think 72 is just right, its about the equivlent of the helicopters modern destroyers carry in terms of scale.

Yeah, but the ship has a planetary assault role, which blurs the picture.

ratio of length to fighters in a VnSD is not that different from modern carrier (2.5 m per fighter in VnSD and 3.9 m per fighter in USS Nimitz) and V-wings and Eta-2s are smaller then the F/A-18 Hornet or the F-14 Tomcat.

Lord Revan wrote:ratio of length to fighters in a VnSD is not that different from modern carrier (2.5 m per fighter in VnSD and 3.9 m per fighter in USS Nimitz) and V-wings and Eta-2s are smaller then the F/A-18 Hornet or the F-14 Tomcat.

Length doesn't matter, not on its own. It's the actual area of the flight deck and hanger deck, which counts, and the star destroyer is much wider then an aircraft carrier. In the case of the ISD, the hangers also have the TIEs hanging from roof racks, with enough underneath that you could probably put in a second set of racks from the floors. The things launch forward on rails and with tractor beam control, so launching each fighter would not take any longer.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:ratio of length to fighters in a VnSD is not that different from modern carrier (2.5 m per fighter in VnSD and 3.9 m per fighter in USS Nimitz) and V-wings and Eta-2s are smaller then the F/A-18 Hornet or the F-14 Tomcat.

Length doesn't matter, not on its own. It's the actual area of the flight deck and hanger deck, which counts, and the star destroyer is much wider then an aircraft carrier. In the case of the ISD, the hangers also have the TIEs hanging from roof racks, with enough underneath that you could probably put in a second set of racks from the floors. The things launch forward on rails and with tractor beam control, so launching each fighter would not take any longer.

Yeah I knew that the area is what truly coun't but I used the length ration because it less favoreble for my point (if I used the area to fighter number ratio I think the Nimitz migh lose to the VnSD).

Lord Revan wrote:Yeah I knew that the area is what truly coun't but I used the length ration because it less favoreble for my point (if I used the area to fighter number ratio I think the Nimitz migh lose to the VnSD).

Nimitz has a flight deck and a hanger deck, on a Venator hangers and flight deck appear to be the same level. On a ship, which has scores of decks, if they wanted a really heavy fighter compliment they could just have 2-5 decks dedicated to the purpose, each with its own exit to space and elevators to go in-between. That would give just immensely greater capacity, and it still wouldn't be particularly taxing to the total volume of the ship.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:ratio of length to fighters in a VnSD is not that different from modern carrier (2.5 m per fighter in VnSD and 3.9 m per fighter in USS Nimitz) and V-wings and Eta-2s are smaller then the F/A-18 Hornet or the F-14 Tomcat.

Length doesn't matter, not on its own. It's the actual area of the flight deck and hanger deck, which counts, and the star destroyer is much wider then an aircraft carrier. In the case of the ISD, the hangers also have the TIEs hanging from roof racks, with enough underneath that you could probably put in a second set of racks from the floors. The things launch forward on rails and with tractor beam control, so launching each fighter would not take any longer.

True, but a good designer would account for the potential for battle damage to take out some of those systems, meaning you'd want slightly more space in case of needing to manually dock TIEs. Also, the Vens and ImpStars do carry heavier (relative) armament than a Nimitz, which takes up (relatively) more volume. You could fit in more fighters, but it would be more risky in case of battle damage.

The multiple deck idea could make sense, though. Maybe that was felt to make the ship too fragile for some unknown reason?

ALso, bear in mind that most of the fighters aboard the Venator, especially the Actis interceptors, are very small, the interceptors much smaller than a TIE fighter, and the V-wing about the same size.

The larger planes, ARC fightiers and LAATs, are fewer in number.

Combine this with the Venator's role as a carrier/destroyer, and it's not too much at all.

Annatar Giftbringer wrote:ALso, bear in mind that most of the fighters aboard the Venator, especially the Actis interceptors, are very small, the interceptors much smaller than a TIE fighter, and the V-wing about the same size.

Eta-2 Actis is about 1 meter shorter than a TIE, and the V-Wing is 1.6 meters longer than a TIE (5.47 (sw.com) or 5.49 (RPG) meters to 6.3 meters to 7.9 meters). Assuming packing nose-to-tail in a straight line, the 384 "small" fighters carried by the Venator would be the same length as a line of 408 TIE fighters.

The larger planes, ARC fightiers and LAATs, are fewer in number.

Each ARC-170 is longer than an X-wing by 2 meters, or more than double the length of a TIE, so that's another 82 TIEs. The LAAT is listed as 17.4 meters in the RPG (only source I could find with length), so the 20 of them are as long as 55 TIEs.

Combine this with the Venator's role as a carrier/destroyer, and it's not too much at all.

While I realize using length alone gives funky numbers, the 440 craft on the Venator are as long as 545 TIEs. For the ISD to only carry 1/6th that number is very odd.

Eta-2 on other hand only about as wide a TIE and nowere that tall and the V-wing could. the stuff you should be comparing is a modern carrier and an F/A-18 E takes a box of 18.31* 9.32 * 4.88 (m^3) even when the wing are folded and the F-14 is even bigger.

My view in short: old fighter stats are too small and the Venator's fighter complement is more realistic. That said, it obviously sticks out for the same reason.

nightmare wrote:My view in short: old fighter stats are too small and the Venator's fighter complement is more realistic. That said, it obviously sticks out for the same reason.

I think that's not far from the truth (I mean come on just 12 squadroon for SSD and 24(!) for a DS).