Star Destroyers

[McC]

Actually, while all Dreadnaught (and later super-dreadnaughts) were formally classed as battleships, virtually every navy evolved a system by which they designated dreadnaught and pre-dreadnaught designs. So it would stand as practical designation of ship type.

You mean dreadnought Dreadnought is the ship type, Dreadnaught is the ship class. That was the main point of my previous post.

[Publius]

Bridge tower itself is something of a misnomer. The bridge itself occupies a very small portion of the tower structure -- right in the middle of the front face. Command tower might be appropriate, given the equipment on the dorsal face (scanner globes and such). *shrug* Nitpicking, but hey.

By analogy to terrestrial naval terminology, the tower ought to be called the superstructure, which is defined as "the solid part of a ship above the main deck" (Basic Military Requirements, NAVEDTRA 14325, p. 8-6). The fact that the ship's top hamper is above the uppermost superstructure deck does not mean that the entire superstructure is devoted to command functions. Indeed, for all one knows, the bridge could very well be the only command-related compartment in the superstructure -- there is nothing requiring that the ship's signal bridge and combat information centre be anywhere near the sensors themselves.

PUBLIUS

[McC]

Yeah, superstructure's a good word. It's the one generally used to describe it, isn't it? But is "bridge superstructure" an apt term, or would just "superstructure" by itself be more appropriate?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The best extrinisic interpretation of the class designations given all of the canonical and official starships taken as a whole is that they probably mean nothing at all, and fit no consistent classification attempt (some of suggested this is preferable, and that wet navy classifications do not and should not be applied to starships).

In many cases regarding vessels originating in the EU, such as the first generation of WEG-created ships, we find a plethora of vessels not meeting any definite criteria (the classifications of "destroyer," "escort," or "battleship" is neglected entirely) and falling below the mass range and design aesthetics favoured by canonical Imperial starships. "Star Destroyer" is treated as somesort of untranslatable classification or trademark term by these sources apparently. Later EU references refer to nearly any angular, human-manufactured starship of larger than average size (by WEG's own quantity of ship classes) as a "Star Destroyer," and any such vessels larger than the ISDs of the movies are refered to as "Super Star Destroyers" (although this pattern was struck up by Tom Vietch's Dark Empire comic series, not WEG or the Bantam novels).

These difficulties have been amplified by several oversights. The EU, particularly WEG, appears to have done precisely no real naval research as a reference point for classification and writing. They also overlook the canonical scale of the Imperial Navy (with ISDs being the smallest warships shown) and the canonical scale of the Galactic Empire's/Republic's civilization in general (too many examples to list).

Later mistakes haven't helped in second- and third-generation RPG publications. The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook declares that any vessel over 300 meters is a cruiser, regardless of assigned task, role, or purpose, or even prior name (the Assault Frigate possesses a length overall of 700 meters). Further attempts to define the "Star Destroyer" as a classification term (if only within the human manufactures standards) is further fouled. The New Jedi Order series by Del Rey depicts a 1000 meter "Republic-class cruiser" in Destiny's Way. This is well within the previous and even continued mass range for ships deemed "Star Destroyers" and is even manufactured by Kuat!

So basically, just remember that as far as the mass range of Imperial ships go, the ISD is around the middle, with much larger classes of vessel currently uncataloged and unaddressed in EU. As for consistent classification along an analog with modern wet navies? Good luck.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, if I recall correctly

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I think its called a Star Destroyer because... uhh... its probably good at destroying stuff.

[Lex]

A bdidge outside the destroyer can also have benefits. If optical sensors are dead, a bridge somewhere inside will have toruble controlling the ship...

I have no idea why the shields are built up there tho.

[Ghost Rider]

I have no idea why the shields are built up there tho.

They aren't.

[Vympel]

Didn't I make these interminable "what are star destroyer" esque disussions one of the stickied common star wars topics? I'm sure I did ...

[Prozac the Robert]

Didn't I make these interminable "what are star destroyer" esque disussions one of the stickied common star wars topics? I'm sure I did ...

I don't see it. Apologies if I've gone blind.

As to the tower: if it has any use, shouldn't there also be a matching one on the underside?

[Cockknocker]

Has anyone else ever considered that the name "Star Destroyer" is just that - a name? One in the same vein as "Death Star", "World Devastator", etc.

In short, something that's simply supposed to be intimidating, as opposed to an actual classification? That would then remove anything weird about 17.6km long 'Destroyers' vs 350m long 'Cruisers'.

Just an idea.

[Vympel]

I don't see it. Apologies if I've gone blind.

As to the tower: if it has any use, shouldn't there also be a matching one on the underside?

No, it's not there, the reason I said so is because I'm certain I put it there at some point. Oh well.

[Lex]

I have no idea why the shields are built up there tho.

They aren't.

They aren't? What were thoose 2 ball on the executors bridge the star fighters destroyed if not shield gens?

[Lord Revan]

I have no idea why the shields are built up there tho.

They aren't.

They aren't? What were thoose 2 ball on the executors bridge the star fighters destroyed if not shield gens?

Sensor globes

[Howedar]

Though some sources do identify them as shield generators.

The key thing to remember is that, silly SW fighter sims aside, shields protect the generators as well as everything else. Shield generators must also be on the exterior of a vessel. So really it doesn't matter if they're shield generators, and sure as hell it doesn't matter where they are until shields are down, at which point the ISD is almost surely dead anyway.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Shield generators do not have to be on the exterior of the vessel. Shield projectors do.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Has anyone else ever considered that the name "Star Destroyer" is just that - a name? One in the same vein as "Death Star", "World Devastator", etc.

In short, something that's simply supposed to be intimidating, as opposed to an actual classification? That would then remove anything weird about 17.6km long 'Destroyers' vs 350m long 'Cruisers'.

Just an idea.

The problem with that is if it is just a "trademark" than it makes no sense as a class designation type.

[McC]

Perhaps "Star Destroyer" is simply KDY's term for any wedge-shaped capital ship, IP. I just did a quick check on an unrelated topic for the definition of the various 'types.' Here's what I found:

Battleship
- most heavily armed/armored warship afloat
Cruiser
- fast warship of medium tonnage with less armor/firepower than a battleship
- large warship calable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously
- smallest ship capable of independent operation
Frigate
- larger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser, used primarily for escort
- warship intended to protect other warships and merchant ships
Destroyer
- small, fast, lightly armored but heavily armed warship
- fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels

So, let's run down this list.

Is it a battleship? Certainly not -- "most heavily armed/armor warship" the ISD is not. Executor and her ilk clearly outperform an ISD.

Is it a cruiser? Possibly. It is capable of independent operation, does fall into the mid-range of ships, is capable of engaging multiple enemies at once.

Is it a frigate? Unlikely. While ISDs do escort heavier ships at times, they are rarely found acting in this capacity as their primary duty.

Is it a destroyer? It's neither small nor maneuverable, nor is it lightly armored.

Cruiser's the closest fit in terms of naval mission role designations. Of course, this appelation would apply to several smaller vessels in service as well (Victory Star Destroyers, for instance), but it also rectifies any possible problem that would arise from Mon Cal Cruisers, which are clearly in the same "weight class" as ISDs, yet are not referred to as "Star Destroyers."

I know you've debated this issue 'til you were purple in the face before, but I only glanced at the discussion, so apologies if I'm rehasing old arugments (I'm sure I am...).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just don't bother. Really. Unless you've read the previous threads in their entirety, and address those points, I'm just not going to debate this topic with you or anyone else.

We've drilled the points of canon, intent, SoD, self-consistency, modern naval analogs and such to the most basic minutae imaginable, and quite frankly, McC, just because you weren't here when things were debated doesn't mean that its something that needs to be drudged up anew, especially when its been beaten to death. I believe a similar bit came up over blasters.

And besides, do you really think "wedge-shaped ship" composes a naval class designation type?

EDIT 1.0 I suppose you missed the 1000-meter Kuati "Republic-class cruiser", the Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport, the Rand Ecliptic-type Acclamator-derivative frigate, and the almost certainly similar-form Mandator-class Star Dreadnought and Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser. All wedge-shaped, Kuati vessels, and none of them known as Star Destroyers, especially one falling directly between the Victory-class and Imperial-class in mass.

EDIT 2.0: And I also suppose you missed that "Star Destroyer" describes ships produced by other companies, including Rendili StarDrive and Kuat Systems Engineering, and ipso facto is not a "KDY term," particularly since it is used by members of the Imperial Navy's officer corps, and not KDY employees.

EDIT 3.0: Added edit notifications to refutations of McC's conclusion.

[McC]

Fair enough.

EDIT: Also just remembered that KDY doesn't make the Victory.

[Howedar]

Shield generators do not have to be on the exterior of the vessel. Shield projectors do.

Apologies, you are correct. My terminology is not the best.

[Prozac the Robert]

Alright, forget the ship classes, an I'm sorry I brought something up that has been done to death before. As for the tower:

If the globes are sensors, doesn't that make the star destroyer mostly blind on it's underside? Seems a pretty silly way to design a ship.

The tower can't be something left over from navel design because no other ship types do that and there have been a lot of ships between an ISD and some kind of modern aircraft carrier.

Putting the bridge up there for a better view is again silly, since it can only see what is 'above' the ship, and it is just as voulnerable as a bunch of external cameras anyway.

Communication suffers the same problem as sensors. Would you really want to have to rotate the entire ship just to send orders to various ships in the fleet?

Doesn't seem to be any sensible in universe explanation for this either.

[PainRack]

The problem with that is if it is just a "trademark" than it makes no sense as a class designation type.

True, that's why its a cruiser

Let's just remember that the only time in canon ISDs were called destroyers outside of name, is in ROTJ, when Admiral Ackbar compared his "cruisers" to their "destroyers". Of course, he also referred to them as "supervessels", so, does that count as a ship class?

The first time an ISD was called a destroyer, was in TESB. And isn't it so fascinating that the next line stated that they were cruisers?

Sigh.............. here's to hoping General Grievious brings up something new to chew about other than these dead topics.

[McC]

Let's just remember that the only time in canon ISDs were called destroyers outside of name, is in ROTJ, when Admiral Ackbar compared his "cruisers" to their "destroyers". Of course, he also referred to them as "supervessels", so, does that count as a ship class?

He never, ever refers to them as "destroyers," actually -- only by the full term "star destroyer." Specifically:

At that close range, our cruisers won't last long against those Star Destroyers.

Concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer!

Not really arguing with you, just pointing out potentially important semantics.

IMO, after reading the latest debate thread on the topic (note to IP: which I found to be left ultimately unresolved for either side), either "star destroyer" is its class, and is meant to define a unique vessel for which we have no modern analogue (and thus referring to its fleet role as a 'destroyer' analogue is erroneous), or it is a cruiser and "star destroyer" is a brand name or describes a ship of that general geometrical configuration. The latter case exhibits a few exceptions to the rule, but exceptions that can be rationalized.

However, if we are to get into a debate on this topic (again), then let's do it in a new thread, huh?

[Lex]

Though some sources do identify them as shield generators.

The key thing to remember is that, silly SW fighter sims aside, shields protect the generators as well as everything else. Shield generators must also be on the exterior of a vessel. So really it doesn't matter if they're shield generators, and sure as hell it doesn't matter where they are until shields are down, at which point the ISD is almost surely dead anyway.

Well how was the executor taken down then? AFAIK a A-Wing, which's pilot was called Crynid, crashed into the bridge after the deflecter was taken down, which happened when one of the two globes exploded.

Also, in XWA thoose globes are definitly described as shield generators.