StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is there a canon or official source that actually states a superlaser can be fired in flak mode?

BTM states that the superlaser is a compound turbolaser, and turbolasers can be fired in flak mode.

Mr. Wong has the relevant quote:

"No other weapon produced during the Galactic Civil War proved as devastating as the awesome Imperial superlaser. The superlaser was created by several turbolaser pulses, produced by amplifications crystals around the cannon's circular well. These pulses were fused over the central focus lens, resulting in a devastating energy beam with more firepower than half the Imperial starfleet".

We've never seen flak fire out of any of the compound weapons though, or seen it in any official source that I'm aware of (I haven't read the NJO series.) Are we sure that we're not inventing a capability this weapon has never demonstrated? IMHO it seems to function more like the "raking weapons" in B5, where you see it slashed across the ground in the Arena scene and slicing into the Trade Federation core ships later on. The only exception we have visual evidence for would be the Death Star.

A superlaser doesn't need to be a flak weapon. Hit any planet near the target vessel, and you will have a tremendous fragmentation blast of 6 billion trillion tons of debris, all moving at more than ten thousand kilometres per second. Now that's flak.

Darth Wong wrote:A superlaser doesn't need to be a flak weapon. Hit any planet near the target vessel, and you will have a tremendous fragmentation blast of 6 billion trillion tons of debris, all moving at more than ten thousand kilometres per second. Now that's flak.

For that matter, the fact that its TLs and Blaster weapons that are the flak weapons (or the exact definition of flak weapons) is still questionable.

This seems to be becoming something of a "Brain bug" in SW, I would guess.

If there is no flak, how do we explain those explosions we see in between the fleets at Endor?

I have no idea about the flak thing. I started a thread about it and it went way OT into the characteristiscs of TLs.

Vympel wrote:If there is no flak, how do we explain those explosions we see in between the fleets at Endor?

Shield interactions, different weapons being employed (the CANON novelizations and radio dramas do describe a rather diverse variety of weapons) - I have yet to see one signficant reason why that particular interpretation of VFK, or that particular interpretation of "flak"

I have no idea about the flak thing. I started a thread about it and it went way OT into the characteristiscs of TLs.

I suspect that its a holdover from the "TL's are plasma" Days, and people just dont want to give it up, even if it is an unworkable theory.

Flak can be readily seen through out much of TESB in paticlular wheer numerous explosions ripple past the MF from an ISD but do not strike. It seems rather apparent they are trying t score a lucky hit on the much faster and more manuverable vehicle.

Flak can be readily seen through out much of TESB in paticlular wheer numerous explosions ripple past the MF from an ISD but do not strike. It seems rather apparent they are trying t score a lucky hit on the much faster and more manuverable vehicle.

Shield interactions- similar to the effects seen in both TPM and AOTC.

Shield interactions, different weapons being employed (the CANON novelizations and radio dramas do describe a rather diverse variety of weapons) - I have yet to see one signficant reason why that particular interpretation of VFK, or that particular interpretation of "flak"

The explosions I meant were the ones we see when Luke is watching from the Death Star. Some of the explosions are occuring in between the fleets (where there were no ships apparent).

But you're still right, these flak bursts can easily be described as maybe fighter missiles- like the thermonuclear explosion outside the bridge of Home One.

If TL's have Flak mode then could someone explain why in the book "Iron Fist" the SSD was firing at asteroids (to hit them with pieces of it) in an attempt to hit the X-Wings attacking because they were tracking too slow? Why not just fire flak mode? Then again this is EU and I know how much the people who hang around this site hate it.

Super-Gagme wrote:If TL's have Flak mode then could someone explain why in the book "Iron Fist" the SSD was firing at asteroids (to hit them with pieces of it) in an attempt to hit the X-Wings attacking because they were tracking too slow? Why not just fire flak mode? Then again this is EU and I know how much the people who hang around this site hate it.

Because he was trying to trap them, just like it says in the novel. He knew they would be coming in using the asteroids to cover themselves, like it says in the novel, so he blew up the asteroids to try and get them when they thought they were covered, LIKE IT SAYS IN THE NOVEL.

And it was Solo Command that happened in, not Iron Fist.

Ah see I was too lazy to dig out the book, I was going on 2 years memory of a small portion, even got the book wrong! Sorry

The ESB novel specifically mentions 'flak bursts rocketing towards' the Falcon from the Avenger

I don't think there is such thing as flak mode, and if there is, I think it is probably specialized weapons or specialty kinds of laser SW weapons that create the plasma burst "flak" affect.

I don't feel its the norm though.

In ROTJ and in ESB they might as well struck w/ the weapons themselves rather then flak, the Falcon could've been struck w/ small ion cannons or point-defense fire. Which is what I think they were doing--herding the Falcon w/ point-defense fire and not w/ "flak." In ROTJ at the ranges they were seeing there was no point to shoot at short range at cap ships w/ "flak." Only reasonable flak I've seen in AOTC--the Geonosian fighter shots, but that can easily be explained as being a Geonosian specialty on their laser cannons, I don't see that all laser weapons have flak abilities.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Vympel wrote: I have no idea about the flak thing. I started a thread about it and it went way OT into the characteristiscs of TLs.

I suspect that its a holdover from the "TL's are plasma" Days, and people just dont want to give it up, even if it is an unworkable theory.

Connor you do realize that they still move at STL velocities and a good deal of energy isn't transfered until impact right? ICS, VD, etc all state that plasma is involved and several other sources link the coherenceof the plasma bolt to the effective range of the weapon. I don't want to spark up too much here but it isn't an untennable theory.

CmdrWilkens wrote:Connor you do realize that they still move at STL velocities and a good deal of energy isn't transfered until impact right? ICS, VD, etc all state that plasma is involved and several other sources link the coherenceof the plasma bolt to the effective range of the weapon. I don't want to spark up too much here but it isn't an untennable theory.

Just because they travel slower than light doesn't matter, we've seen them do weird stuff all the time.

ICS doesn't speak of plasma, Saxton himself is loathefull of the theory
VD only speaks of blasters and have enough jargon that it can mean something else.

Also the visuals disagree with it, they're not white-hot loads of plasma that white out the screen, which they should be.

Also, the sheer unworkability of a plasma weapon of 200GT yield compared to something more EM like is incredible.

Also, the distinct difference between Yv plasma weapons and NR TL's must be observed, plus many other quotes on TL's that have been presented, they seem to be tightly packed EM pulses(for higher wattage), slowed down somehow and with a guidance/coherence beam and bolt speeds seem to have an upper limit of exactly C.

Do check out my theory on turbolasers.

In a strict sense, we can't say with certainty that the Death Star SL can flak burst, though it's a definitely possibility.

An analogy would be that while hand phasers can fire a wide beam, (for use against fighters) we've never seen ship-mounted phasers do it, (at least not to my knowledge) so they may not have the capability. We surely wouldn't buy it without evidence.

But, we can definitely claim that the Eclipse- and Sovereign Star Destroyers can flak burst their SLs.

TL = can flak burst.

Death Star
Compund TL = SL = can flak burst?

Eclipse Star Destroyer
Single SL = Single TL = can flak burst.

Er.. I mean ship-mounted phasers fire on wide beam setting for possible use against fighters, of course.

I think I'll hit the sack now.

The flak burst theory may work for the Death Star, as firing 1E38 J of energy at a planet would be more likely to simply tunnel through the planet, rather than detonating it. If the superlaser burrowed into the core and then "exploded" in a flak burst, that would cause the effects we saw.

*just sorta peers*

Okay. You people have seen the ESB chase scene, and don't believe TL's can explode flak style?

SirNitram wrote:*just sorta peers*

Okay. You people have seen the ESB chase scene, and don't believe TL's can explode flak style?

Are those flak? Or something else?

His Divine Shadow wrote:

SirNitram wrote:*just sorta peers*

Okay. You people have seen the ESB chase scene, and don't believe TL's can explode flak style?

Are those flak? Or something else?

They are fired at a small, junking object, exploding violently even on misses...

Just like flak from an AA gun.

So I'd say yes.

SirNitram wrote:They are fired at a small, junking object, exploding violently even on misses...

Just like flak from an AA gun.

So I'd say yes.

I'd say no though, I didn't find them very violent, for flak they'd be quite inefficient, bolt/shield interaction works better I think, because the flak theory would be very difficult to explain and might require that infernal plasma idea to actually work, and that takes us to trek-level badness.

I think this letter from Brian Young regarding turbolasers has some very good points:
http://www.skayhan.net/BYCritique.htm

Just scroll down.

Also here are some quotes from Saxton in an e-mail conversation I had with him:
Accelerating massive particles to a high velocity is costly in terms of
energy. Massless lightspeed quanta are inherently created with the
velocity of c, and indeed they cannot exist at lower or higher speeds.

With tens of thousands of years of military technology available, why
should a society use massive sublight plasma accelerators instead of the
tidy efficiency of a beam weapon involving laser light, gravitons, gluons
or analogous energy?

For example.... Were you online when this "plasma" nonsense started, in
the newsgroups of the mid-1990s? Originally it was a debating tactic
intended to confound Trekkies who claimed that all lasers can be reflected
by an Enterprise "navigational shield," regardless of the energy of the
shot. But the whole idea went too far and grew a life of its own. Now
"plamoid theory" is a set of mantras used blindly by many people who don't
know what a real-world plasma is, apart from the vague notion of something
hot and glowy in sci-fi.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

SirNitram wrote:They are fired at a small, junking object, exploding violently even on misses...

Just like flak from an AA gun.

So I'd say yes.

I'd say no though, I didn't find them very violent, for flak they'd be quite inefficient, bolt/shield interaction works better I think, because the flak theory would be very difficult to explain and might require that infernal plasma idea to actually work, and that takes us to trek-level badness.

Uh-huh. You cling to your Official material and theories, I'll go with Canon data. As for the effects of such, it will impart part of the energy even on a miss. Which is better than nothing at all.