Star Destroyers

[Lord Revan]

Maybe ISD and VSD are both destroyers and cruiser. So that when bigger ships are available there heavy destroyers, but can also work solo as cruisers

[McC]

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.

The globe was made vulnerable and consequently destroyed due to the shields dropping. It was not the cause. If the globes were deflector shields, why would the loss of one eliminate the entire shield capability of the vessel? Further, why would it render the bridge vulnerable, one of the places that is most necessary to protect? It's not a logical conclusion to come to.

[PainRack]

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.

The full term would had been Imperial Star Destroyer, as found in TESB novelisation.

Anyway, as IP said, there really isn't a point in raising the dead unless there's some new points to consider. I consider his position heavily flawed as the canon material, as well as artwork and background scenes clearly shows that the ISD is a cruiser, he considers that the massive scale and number of vessels in between ISD to SSD to be anaethema to the cruiser idea, as well as many others.

The problem doesn't lie in the fact that we disagree. The problem lies in the fact that we agree on too many points, but yet end up on totally different sides.

[Mange]

Maybe ISD and VSD are both destroyers and cruiser. So that when bigger ships are available there heavy destroyers, but can also work solo as cruisers

By (American) definition (?), a cruiser is a vessel which is capable of engaging several ships at the same time, while a destroyer is designed to escort larger vessels.
It could also be said that a destroyer is a small but fast and heavily armed vessel while a cruiser is larger than a destroyer, but smaller than a battleship. That much for definitions, uh ?

The domes on top of the bridge superstructure are clearly sensors. What would be the logic of placing shield generators/projectors on such a vulnerable location? There is no visual evidence supporting the notion that they're shield generators. TPM established that they're internal features.

[Howedar]

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.

If they're targetting sensors for HTLs, it's a perfectly sensible design. If they're long-range sensors, it's likewise rather sensible, since you can't place sensors so they can see the entire range, better to put them all in one spot and just roll the ship occasionally.

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.

You stupid bastard, that's the whole point. With shields up, it's no more vulnerable than any other spot.

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?

What is your alternative? Have two arrays per ship, adding mass, complexity and cost?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

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.

Actually, according to at least the CT and AotC ICSs, shield projectors don't always have to be above the hull, either.

[phongn]

By (American) definition (?), a cruiser is a vessel which is capable of engaging several ships at the same time, while a destroyer is designed to escort larger vessels.

Not anymore its not. Cruisers typically have flag facilities whereas destroyers do not; an Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer is nearly as powerful as a Ticonderoga guided-missile cruiser.

It could also be said that a destroyer is a small but fast and heavily armed vessel while a cruiser is larger than a destroyer, but smaller than a battleship. That much for definitions, uh ?

The new destroyer project DD(X) will displace more than the USN's current cruisers.

[Prozac the Robert]

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.

You stupid bastard, that's the whole point. With shields up, it's no more vulnerable than any other spot.

Oh, so why do they armour key areas then? Infact, why armour anything at all, since it will all be safe as long as the shields remain up? Obviously it's so they can still fight effectively when they lose shields. Loss of the bridge will cause confusion and other bad things, which could be avoided by having the bridge in a safer position.

Anyway, the point I was making is that there is no actual advantage to having the bridge up there. It won't give a better view than a bunch of cameras would (even for the upper half of the ship, if the enemy are bellow it it gives no view at all) and it doesn't seem to have any other advantage over viewscreens or fibreoptics.

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.

If they're targetting sensors for HTLs, it's a perfectly sensible design. If they're long-range sensors, it's likewise rather sensible, since you can't place sensors so they can see the entire range, better to put them all in one spot and just roll the ship occasionally.

For the guns, that would kind of make sense, but why would those guns need a sensor system so much better than all the other guns?

As for the long range sensors, I think losing some guns or even being able to afford less ships would be a fair price to pay for ships that can see in all directions.

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?

What is your alternative? Have two arrays per ship, adding mass, complexity and cost?

No other ship needs giant domes away from it's main hull in order to communicate. If the SD does, then better to double its cost than to have it fail to receive orders because its facing the wrong way.

[Mange]

By (American) definition (?), a cruiser is a vessel which is capable of engaging several ships at the same time, while a destroyer is designed to escort larger vessels.

Not anymore its not. Cruisers typically have flag facilities whereas destroyers do not; an Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer is nearly as powerful as a Ticonderoga guided-missile cruiser.

It could also be said that a destroyer is a small but fast and heavily armed vessel while a cruiser is larger than a destroyer, but smaller than a battleship. That much for definitions, uh ?

The new destroyer project DD(X) will displace more than the USN's current cruisers.

Hmmm... I was thinking more in terms of the classical characteristics, which I'm sure is more fitting than modern military terminology.

[Stormbringer]

It could also be said that a destroyer is a small but fast and heavily armed vessel while a cruiser is larger than a destroyer, but smaller than a battleship. That much for definitions, uh ?

The new destroyer project DD(X) will displace more than the USN's current cruisers.

Which were actually destroyers (and used a destroyer hull) and were simply re-designated cruisers as a political measure. So that doesn't mean too much in overall terms.

[Howedar]

Oh, so why do they armour key areas then? Infact, why armour anything at all, since it will all be safe as long as the shields remain up? Obviously it's so they can still fight effectively when they lose shields. Loss of the bridge will cause confusion and other bad things, which could be avoided by having the bridge in a safer position.

Protection from small fire light fighter weapons. Of course they armor the bridge as well, so you're still not making much of a point.

Any single heavy weapon strike anywhere on an unshielded ISD and it's basically shitcanned.

Anyway, the point I was making is that there is no actual advantage to having the bridge up there. It won't give a better view than a bunch of cameras would (even for the upper half of the ship, if the enemy are bellow it it gives no view at all) and it doesn't seem to have any other advantage over viewscreens or fibreoptics.

It's hard to jam a window.

For the guns, that would kind of make sense, but why would those guns need a sensor system so much better than all the other guns?

Because they are much larger and so almost certainly have longer effective range.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

As for the long range sensors, I think losing some guns or even being able to afford less ships would be a fair price to pay for ships that can see in all directions.

You fucking dipshit, do you really think it's that hard to roll the ship to see the bottom arc? Hell, why not just slowly roll all the time?

Is an AWACS a shitty design because at any point in time it can only see one direction? No, because the fucking radome rotates.

No other ship needs giant domes away from it's main hull in order to communicate.

Yes, except the half-dozen other classes we've seen with identical domes on top

If the SD does, then better to double its cost than to have it fail to receive orders because its facing the wrong way.

I suppose it has escaped your feeble mental grasp that submarines have been doing exactly that for fifty years without difficulty.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Am I reading it correctly that Prozac is assuming the SENSOR globes are used for COMMUNICATIONS?

[Batman]

Am I reading it correctly that Prozac is assuming the SENSOR globes are used for COMMUNICATIONS?

In his defense, I dimly recall them being called 'sensor/communication domes' somewhere.
Not that that makes his stance any more sensible.
He assumes
-incoming signals will inevitably come from BELOW the ISD
-cannot POSSIBLY be relayed ny another ship/comsat/whatever
-there CANNOT be secondary arrays on the LOWER surface of the ISD

and completely ignores that an ISD under shields is incommunicado anyway...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Well, not completely. IIRC, there are some communications that can work with shields up, but things such as hyperwaves and Holonet transmissions don't.

[Batman]

Well, not completely. IIRC, there are some communications that can work with shields up, but things such as hyperwaves .and Holonet transmissions don't.

Well, no long-range transmission was what I meant, so yeah.

[Prozac the Robert]

Oh, so why do they armour key areas then? Infact, why armour anything at all, since it will all be safe as long as the shields remain up? Obviously it's so they can still fight effectively when they lose shields. Loss of the bridge will cause confusion and other bad things, which could be avoided by having the bridge in a safer position.

Protection from small fire light fighter weapons. Of course they armor the bridge as well, so you're still not making much of a point.

That bridge window doesn't seem to be well armoured.

Any single heavy weapon strike anywhere on an unshielded ISD and it's basically shitcanned.

Anyway, the point I was making is that there is no actual advantage to having the bridge up there. It won't give a better view than a bunch of cameras would (even for the upper half of the ship, if the enemy are bellow it it gives no view at all) and it doesn't seem to have any other advantage over viewscreens or fibreoptics. It's hard to jam a window.

It's hard to jam a fibreoptic cable. Infact its hard to jam anything which doesn't transmit by radiowaves or similar. And since the bridge can only see things infront of and above the ship, you still need to rely on cameras anyway.

For the guns, that would kind of make sense, but why would those guns need a sensor system so much better than all the other guns?

Because they are much larger and so almost certainly have longer effective range.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

Do turbolasers have a maximum effective range? I always assumed they were limited only by accuracy. Sorry if I'm being silly.

As for the long range sensors, I think losing some guns or even being able to afford less ships would be a fair price to pay for ships that can see in all directions.

You fucking dipshit, do you really think it's that hard to roll the ship to see the bottom arc? Hell, why not just slowly roll all the time?

Is an AWACS a shitty design because at any point in time it can only see one direction? No, because the fucking radome rotates.

Exactly, the radome rotates so it can see the entire area that might need looking at.

There is a difference between rotating the radar and rolling the whole fricking ship, especially if it happens to be engaged. I don't think we ever see any hint of constant rotation anyway.

No other ship needs giant domes away from it's main hull in order to communicate.

Yes, except the half-dozen other classes we've seen with identical domes on top

How many of these have names ending with something other than star destroyer?

If the SD does, then better to double its cost than to have it fail to receive orders because its facing the wrong way.

I suppose it has escaped your feeble mental grasp that submarines have been doing exactly that for fifty years without difficulty.

Oh yes, without difficulty. Come on, don't you think subs would be a more effective force if they could be sent orders without them having to surface first?

[Prozac the Robert]

Am I reading it correctly that Prozac is assuming the SENSOR globes are used for COMMUNICATIONS?

In his defense, I dimly recall them being called 'sensor/communication domes' somewhere.
Not that that makes his stance any more sensible.
He assumes
-incoming signals will inevitably come from BELOW the ISD
-cannot POSSIBLY be relayed ny another ship/comsat/whatever
-there CANNOT be secondary arrays on the LOWER surface of the ISD

and completely ignores that an ISD under shields is incommunicado anyway...

Hmm, someone else mentioned the tower as for communication. It doesn't really matter if it's the domes or the rest of the tower, my points still stand.

Now, I'm not saying that the destroyer will inevitably be facing the wrong way, but it could be. SDs do sometimes operate solo, no? So there may be nothing else there to do the relaying.

There could be arrays built into the main hull, and presumably many classes do that, so why put all the coms stuff in the tower to start with?

And ok, I did ignore the shields. How exactly does that work? Can they tell they are being sent a signal, or do they generally cruise around with no shields?Or regularly drop them to check in with their base?

[Lex]

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.

The globe was made vulnerable and consequently destroyed due to the shields dropping. It was not the cause. If the globes were deflector shields, why would the loss of one eliminate the entire shield capability of the vessel? Further, why would it render the bridge vulnerable, one of the places that is most necessary to protect? It's not a logical conclusion to come to.

Well In RotJ we see the globe explode, the an officier tells Piett: We've lost our primary deflector shield, and the the a-wing kills the bridge...

[Lord Revan]

Well In RotJ we see the globe explode, the an officier tells Piett: We've lost our primary deflector shield, and the the a-wing kills the bridge...

Read the main site goddammit, the globes were also shielded so that deflector shield had droped destroy the globe in first place. Your post doesn't prove anything.

[VT-16]

Even though I go with the "sensor globe"-alternative, it´s really hard not to connect the two incidents we see on film. Maybe with better editing these things wouldn´t happen.

[McC]

Well In RotJ we see the globe explode, the an officier tells Piett: We've lost our primary deflector shield, and the the a-wing kills the bridge...

Bridge deflector shield, not primary.

Had the shield still been up, the A-wing attack would have been unsuccessful -- the missiles would've hit the shield first. The dome exploded because the shield had just collapsed due to sustained cruiser bombardment. I realize that the two events could be (and sadly were by many) interpreted in that manner, but if you think about it, it does not make any sense. Why would destroying one of two "deflector globes" drop the bridge deflector shield, which protects the command and control center of a command ship? If that really is a deflector shield, it's a poorly designed one. The consensus is that KDY isn't that stupid.

[Lord Revan]

Well In RotJ we see the globe explode, the an officier tells Piett: We've lost our primary deflector shield, and the the a-wing kills the bridge...

Bridge deflector shield, not primary.

Had the shield still been up, the A-wing attack would have been unsuccessful -- the missiles would've hit the shield first. The dome exploded because the shield had just collapsed due to sustained cruiser bombardment. I realize that the two events could be (and sadly were by many) interpreted in that manner, but if you think about it, it does not make any sense. Why would destroying one of two "deflector globes" drop the bridge deflector shield, which protects the command and control center of a command ship? If that really is a deflector shield, it's a poorly designed one. The consensus is that KDY isn't that stupid.

of course the A-Wing attack could have caused the shields to fail, but the main reason still would the cruiser bombardment as you said and A-wings would be the final straw that took out the overtaxed shields

[McC]

of course the A-Wing attack could have caused the shields to fail, but the main reason still would the cruiser bombardment as you said and A-wings would be the final straw that took out the overtaxed shields

That would work if we saw the concussion missiles explode against the shield. They didn't.

EDIT: Woot! I'm a Jedi.

[Lord Revan]

of course the A-Wing attack could have caused the shields to fail, but the main reason still would the cruiser bombardment as you said and A-wings would be the final straw that took out the overtaxed shields

That would work if we saw the concussion missiles explode against the shield. They didn't.

EDIT: Woot! I'm a Jedi.

were they missiles? I belived they were laser cannon bolts.

[McC]

Didn't sound like lasers, nor did they travel as 'fast' as lasers usually do. I'll capture and post the sequence if you'd like.