StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If you've been reading the new Legacy series of comics, you've seen that at the end of each issue an orthagonal view of one of the new starship classes is provided.

For those of you who haven't, here's the two released so far:

Sienar Predator-class Starfighter

KDY Pellaeon-class Star Destroyer

According to Randy Stradley, artist Sean Cooke has designed a whole mess of other starships, including some utilized by the mysterious "Galactic Alliance Core Forces".

Discuss-- I know the Predator's been talked about, but the PSD not so much.

As for my opinion, I think the Predator's pretty poorly designed, while the PSD looks quite practical (but for the giant engine nozzel).

* The small reactor bulge indicates a poor power:mass ratio, which translates to slow acceleration, low firepower, and so so shields. That is more keeping in with the intimidation over ability mindset of the Legacy Empire, but is still asinine.

*The reactor will logically be the center of mass, and having the center that far forward is incredibly impractical.

*I don't immediately see any hangars, which is interesting.

*Hull armor appears to be several large plates instead of an overlapping crisscross of smaller ones. This is bad in terms of damage control and durability, the small plates are easier to replace when damaged.

* large guns mounted far away from the center of mass, which means they either hurl the ship around when the fire or that the are limited in power. The small reactor indicates the latter.

* If this is a star cruiser of better size ship then the scale and overall desing open it to large blindspots in the heavy coverage, much more so then the Imperial, Venator, or Victory designs.

* I've seen claims that this is a "super star destroyer" which makes the complete lack of heavy guns on the bottom troubling - on a small ship like a destroyer it makes sense that they can only power so many and brace so many. Not so on larger ones, note that the Executor class was literally covered in heavy guns

Its hard to condem it without knowing more, as many aspects of the design only come into play if it is a large ship. Off hand, I place it as better then the Carrack, but worse then the Dreadnaught

Use a program like Irfanview to shrink them.

The artist apparently wanted an Executor-like SSD that went for "impressive height" instead of "impressive length", with some cathedral-like structure on top. He also took cues from Jabba's sail barge by giving it that "snowplow"-like front, thinking it would look like it could "plow through" smaller ships.

The small reactor bulge indicates a poor power:mass ratio

Maybe that bulge belongs to a secondary reactor?

EDIT: Seems I was off there. Randy Stradley confirmed on TFN that it's supposed to be a Star Destroyer, nothing bigger. The Executor reference was from a prelimenary design only.

The horizontal slats cover up much more of the pilot's view than the "cage" of the TIE fighter. What a retarded concept.

The Predator class fighter is incredibly ridiculous, glad i'm not spending any money on this series. Verdict is still out on the Pellaeon class to me. And I'd like to second the staement about using Iview.

Yeah, I know how to manually resize an image. I was looking for some sort of thumbnail bbcode-- I don't have as much experience with bbs as with other systems.

Anyway, I just made 'em text links.

Interesting analysis, Ender. Couldn't the reactor be contained entirely internally, though? It seems (to my untrained eye) to mass more than an Imperator, and the forward bulge could be something other than the reactor.

The hanger is forward facing, and obscured by the forward bulge in the front view.

And like VT-16 said, it's been confirmed by both Sean Cooke and Randy Stradley that it's a destroyer, comparable in length to an ISD. Don't know where the Super description came from.

I'm okay with the Predator fighter. It just doesn't bother me that much.

I'm really iffy about the PSD, though. Does anybody else think that it looks almost a little too similar to the titular ship from John Carpenter's Dark Star?

Meh. The Predator fighter doesn't look to hot to me. In 'badminton birdie' configuration, it presents a depressingly huge forward profile with its wings positioned as they are, but it would be quite maneuverable, since thrust could be vectored far to either side; in 'tuning fork' configuration, it would be hard to hit from the front or rear, which is very good, but it would have the much reduced left-right handling.

Furthermore, it's apparent that the 'badminton birdie' would have its linear acceleration severely curtailed as well, given that the only support for the radiator panels positions would be the internal mechanism of the swing system. (And we've seen Star Wars metals destroyed by forces far less than those that would result between the radiator panels and their mounts at thousands of graveties--most notably the Buzz Droid scene in ROTS.) Badminton birdie mode is therefore useless for cruising aswell.

So, we gain nothing whatsoever, lose maneuverability and/or small forward profile, and increase production and maintenance costs by giving it moving parts.

Did they just forget simple aerodynamics theories when making the Predator's wings? I mean, the original TIE wings weren't that aerodynamic either, but at least they weren't flat side forward like these are.

And why are they so big? Each wing's two and a half times longer than the cockpit ball itself.

Feil wrote:in 'tuning fork' configuration, it would be hard to hit from the front or rear, which is very good, but it would have the much reduced left-right handling.

I believe the configuration where the wings are retracted is used specifically when the fighters are docked in their storage racks.

Shadowtraveler wrote:And why are they so big? Each wing's two and a half times longer than the cockpit ball itself.

The wings actually have about one third the surface area of the original TIE's wings.

I don't know much about physics, but isn't aerodynamics irrelevant in a vacuum?

What I don't like about the Predator isn't necessarily the aesthetics of it, it's the fact that there doesn't seem to be any room for all the extra power generation it'd need to have hyperdrive, shields, and so forth.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The horizontal slats cover up much more of the pilot's view than the "cage" of the TIE fighter. What a retarded concept.

Well, are they piloted or droids? I've only read the first 2 issues. Though if its all sensor equipment and projects it inside, it would make more sense.

Ender wrote:* The small reactor bulge indicates a poor power:mass ratio, which translates to slow acceleration, low firepower, and so so shields. That is more keeping in with the intimidation over ability mindset of the Legacy Empire, but is still asinine.

It could be a secondary reactor with the main one completely covered by the hull. Having the main reactor actually bulge out of the ship's structure always struck me a weird design choice for ISDs.

000 wrote:I don't know much about physics, but isn't aerodynamics irrelevant in a vacuum?

Aerodynamics is irrelevant, of course. However, inertia will be significant. Anything not in a direct line with the thrust, or very close to the thrusters, will be dragged along by the accelerating ship, rather than being pushed along by the engines. A low-tech approximation could be done by spinning about in circles, arms outstretched. If your arm is straight out, the acceleration just pulls on the whole arm. If you make an L-shape at the elbow, the acceleration of the arm makes it want to straighten; the ability of the arm to remain in the L position is dependant on the strength of the mechanism holding it in position and the materials from which it is built.

The badminton birdie configuration is like an arm in the L-shape. Can the mechanism holding it in position withstand thousands of Gs?

Hence why the swing-wing design is just plain stupid.

Ender wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The horizontal slats cover up much more of the pilot's view than the "cage" of the TIE fighter. What a retarded concept.

Well, are they piloted or droids? I've only read the first 2 issues. Though if its all sensor equipment and projects it inside, it would make more sense.

It might be a variant, given that in a previous image the Predator had conventional windows.

And while the windows do limit visibility, they also reduce the likelihood of penetration (remember Crimson Empire? ) which is going to be something of an advantage. Moreover, the visibility can be circumvented using sensors and cameras (that variant may very well be designed for long-range, beyond visual range fighting, for example. Its not as if SW ships are intrinsically limited to dogfighting at dozens of meters or less that we see in the movies or the X-wing books.)

Frankly the thing evidently has greater internal hull volume than previously suspected as well, which offsets the problems the "hyperdrive and sheild generators" assumed.

Ender wrote:* The small reactor bulge indicates a poor power:mass ratio, which translates to slow acceleration, low firepower, and so so shields. That is more keeping in with the intimidation over ability mindset of the Legacy Empire, but is still asinine.

Do we know that it's a reactor? Just because its a bulge on the ship does not automatically in my mind make it a reactor. Interdictor cruisers have bulges too, after all. (So did the Eclipse, IIRC.)

And that assumes it is in fact the only reactor (see below.)

*The reactor will logically be the center of mass, and having the center that far forward is incredibly impractical.

That assumes that IS the reactor (or the only reactor.) As SST notes, they may use multiple reactors for all we know - that ship's bulk is quite extensive. Having most of the reactors (or the primary reactors) recessed inside the hull rather than exposed as they are in ISDs would make them much better-protected (and multiple reactors introduces some redundancy.)
I always thought it was pretty dumb to leave the reactor bulb exposed like that (one of hte few things I like about the Venators. And we know the Executor did away with that flaw too.)

*I don't immediately see any hangars, which is interesting.

Maybe they dispensed with the single huge-ass hangar bays we're used to from some Star Destroyers. Despite the limitations it may carry in terms of its carrier role it eliminates the vulnerabilities the hangar bay has reprenseted in the past (Imperial communications ship at Endor.)

*Hull armor appears to be several large plates instead of an overlapping crisscross of smaller ones. This is bad in terms of damage control and durability, the small plates are easier to replace when damaged.

Bigger plates also mean a much larger volume of armor through which turbolaser fire can be dissipated (especially going by the "powered armor" concept) - I believe Brian Young has hinted at the use of thick hull armor as a form of heat sink.

note that some of those "plates" may not be the uniformly thick slabs you surmise. Looking at the side views, some of them look to have a sort of "cityscape" sort of detail that you see in the side trenches of ISDs (for that matter, they're kind of reminisicent of some of the large "raised" sections you see on the ISD's ventral and dorsal sides as well.

* large guns mounted far away from the center of mass, which means they either hurl the ship around when the fire or that the are limited in power. The small reactor indicates the latter.

If they adopt more of a "broadside" style firing design like an ISD or Venator, this might be a problem. However, The ship seems to be optimized with most of its firepower forward, and the engines are going to offset that quite a bit. Besides, forward-facing offers a smaller silhouette than a broadside view and it takes advantage of the primary reason to adopt the wedge shape (that is, directing the vast majority of firepower forward.)

Besides, the placement seems to offer much less obstruction to its turrets when firing forward, unlike an ISD or Venator.

This does, of course, assume those ARE the heaviest guns. For all we know they carry a number of fixed-axis internally mounted HTLs like we see from Separatist frigates. (The Executor evidently did, judging by SOTE.)

* If this is a star cruiser of better size ship then the scale and overall desing open it to large blindspots in the heavy coverage, much more so then the Imperial, Venator, or Victory designs.

Assuming those are, in fact, the heaviest guns. Of course, the ISD and Venators are not exactly a "whole" lot better in terms of heavy gun placement than this ship is, either. Since heavy guns seem to be designed more for long-range dueling, this shouldn't be a significant problem.

* I've seen claims that this is a "super star destroyer" which makes the complete lack of heavy guns on the bottom troubling - on a small ship like a destroyer it makes sense that they can only power so many and brace so many. Not so on larger ones, note that the Executor class was literally covered in heavy guns

Uh, we dont know what those bumps are. They're assumed to be guns, but that seems to contradict what was placed in the ITW:OT entry ('thousands" of turbolasers and ion cannons, not hundreds.)

Besides, calling it a "super star destroyer" doesn't really tell us anything about the role. The "Alleigance" is an SSD too, after all. And wasn't this ship supposed to be this comic's version of the ISD or something?

Its hard to condem it without knowing more, as many aspects of the design only come into play if it is a large ship. Off hand, I place it as better then the Carrack, but worse then the Dreadnaught

Its not a well-designed ship (then again few ships in SW are) but it does avoid some of the mistakes of the ISD and Venator classes too.

Shadowtraveler wrote:Did they just forget simple aerodynamics theories when making the Predator's wings? I mean, the original TIE wings weren't that aerodynamic either, but at least they weren't flat side forward like these are.

Those panels aren't going to be areodynamic no matter how you place them. Then again, with repuslors and shielding, the issue of aerodynamics becomes somewhat less important (like with a numbre of SW fighters, actually.)

And why are they so big? Each wing's two and a half times longer than the cockpit ball itself.

If they are radiators (and they probably are), the positioning allows them to radiate AWAY from the pilot (which could mean that they can dispose of waste heat or weapons fire absorbed by the shields without worrying about frying the pilot.)

I wouldn't assume the bulge we can see on Pelleaon-class is the only reactor it has, or even the main one, for that matter.

I would assume that the PSD's turning base is large and slow, with all it's engines clustered around the center line and a very disproportionate one right in the middle.

All it's primary weapons are in a narrow area on the dorsal bow too. I have no idea what it's stats are, but a concentrated and *sucessful* attack in a small portion of it's hull would defang the thing pretty thoroughly.

Looks top heavy too. God forbid an A-wing tag the bridge around a Deathstar. It'll do a flat spin right into the DS instead of a graceful dive.

Ender wrote:Its hard to condem it without knowing more, as many aspects of the design only come into play if it is a large ship. Off hand, I place it as better then the Carrack, but worse then the Dreadnaught

I'm curious why you place the Carrack as lower then the Old Dreadnaught? They both have similar arms yet one is much smaller and quicker.

Knife wrote:I would assume that the PSD's turning base is large and slow, with all it's engines clustered around the center line and a very disproportionate one right in the middle.[/quote[

Depends on how much thrust the engines produce really. The only thing I could note is that with one really big thruster centrally located like that, it could give equal levels of thrust in all directions without much obstruction.

Of course, i ts not like manuverability is always a key requirement in a starship, since even at the best of times you can either use your guns at full power, or engines, but not both. That thing seems to take a page from the Eclipse and Sovereign (tremendous mass and who the fuck cares about manuverability.)

All it's primary weapons are in a narrow area on the dorsal bow too. I have no idea what it's stats are, but a concentrated and *sucessful* attack in a small portion of it's hull would defang the thing pretty thoroughly.

Since its a sketch its rather hard to say where all the weapons are placed (its not like we can always SEE Every single gun turret now can we?) but I don't see it as any more problematic than the ISD's gun placement (the heavy turrets on ISDs and Venators aren't THAT widely spaced, after all.)

Its also possible that the rear trailing edges of the wedge may mount guns (they look alot like ISD-style HTL mountings)

Looks top heavy too. God forbid an A-wing tag the bridge around a Deathstar. It'll do a flat spin right into the DS instead of a graceful dive.

It looks alot like the Eclipse and Soveriegn, which were equally "top-heavy". This may imply some sort of heavy combat role (durability over mobility.) Combat wise it looks like its designed to point its bow at the enemy, sit there, and direct its full firepower at the target, while its mass allows it to shrug up punishment (the Eclipse had uber armor too remember, it could ram other ships.) and used its engines to counter weapons recoil, if neccessary.

Here's a fun image of the PSD showing the hangar location

Amusingly enough, when I am looking at this, the ship seems to look quite similar to Giel's battleship. Which actually kinda pisses me off, because it attributes yet ANOTHER warship to KDY....

edit; some of the aspects of the Vengeance seem to resemble the PSD too, especially from the rear

000 wrote:I don't know much about physics, but isn't aerodynamics irrelevant in a vacuum?

Well, yeah, but the Predator's atmospheric as well.

The Predator's design reminds me of nothing so much as the retarded child of Xizor's "Virahgo".

KDY Pellaeon-class Star Destroyer:
Hard to tell without some supporting text. Aesthetically it is a mixed bag. Overall the shape is pleasing, especially the view from above. It looks heavily armored, which I like. Where are all the heavy guns? It looks like much of the advantage of having a tall superstructer is wasted. If they were to retrofit multiple terraces of turrets all the way up the structure it would make sense of the tall design. It would seem that, unless the Legacy period has developed more efficient power plants, the main reactor is entirely contained with the pyramidal superstructure, which from a defensive point of view is good. From a maintenence point of view, looks like you gotta cut through the ships main armor belt to get to it, which is less good. Where are the hangers? Are they the slits toward the bow? If so, its going to have a much smaller launch capacity for squadrons of fighters and other craft. There might be cavernous internal hanger bays, but the small slit openings would limit the number of craft lauching and recovering as well as their overall size.

Sienar Predator-class Starfighter:
Ugh. Aesthetically it just does nothing for me. I've seen worse, and uglier designs, but not many. I picked up Legacy 1, opened to the first page, saw this... thing, and put it back down. Starfighters are a staple genre convention (trope) of space-opera. This is doubly so for Star Wars. If you can't excite me with your fighters, I begin to question whether you can do a pleasing space-opera.

Overall these seem to offer nothing over the iconic Imperial designs of Imperator and TIE in terms of function. Just different form, for its own sake. Maybe this is intentional? The New Empire doesn't want to associate to closely with the Empire that blows up planets?