Star Destroyers

[Lord Revan]

Didn't sound like lasers, not did they travel as 'fast' as lasers usually do. I'll capture and post the sequence if you'd like.

no need I belive you.

[Howedar]

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.

And you base this on... a twenty-meter long missile nailing the windows dead on?

Please.

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

Concession accepted.

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.

I suppose that "jam everything but your eyes" quote from ANH actually meant "everything but your eyes, oh except those cameras of yours".

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

Obviously, since we see light coming off of them it's fairly obvious that the bolt will eventually lose power.

Furthermore it should be obvious that the larger turrets would be designed so that they could target more precisely, since there's little need to fire the light guns at targets thousands of KM away.

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.

Please explain this difference.

You can also explain why one would need to be looking at far-away objects when in combat.

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?

Why the fuck does that matter?

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?

And you continue to belie your ignorance.

Submarines do not surface to receive orders. They ascend to periscope depth and either stream a floating wire antenna or raise an antenna from the sail.

[Prozac the Robert]

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.

And you base this on... a twenty-meter long missile nailing the windows dead on?

Please.

And yet that still wouldn't have happened if the bridge was somewhere else. Such as in the center of the ship.

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.

I suppose that "jam everything but your eyes" quote from ANH actually meant "everything but your eyes, oh except those cameras of yours".

Anyone like to post a little bit of context and the full quite, I'm afraid I can't remember it.

Jamming a fiber optic cable is like jamming a persicope. As in, not going to happen.

And you still haven't happened to think about the fact that the bridge window has an extremely limited field of view. As such it is hardly useful in a 3d combat situation.

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

Obviously, since we see light coming off of them it's fairly obvious that the bolt will eventually lose power.

Furthermore it should be obvious that the larger turrets would be designed so that they could target more precisely, since there's little need to fire the light guns at targets thousands of KM away.

OK the bolts do disipate, but is there any evidence of them disipating before they have exceded accurate targeting range?

If the answer is one of these options it looks like targeting for the heavy guns might be the best.

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.

Please explain this difference.

The difference is bloody obvious. An the one hand you have a relatively small component that roates indeppendantly, and on the other you have a star destroyer. It is unlikely to be a quick turner, and it has to have a pretty immense moment of inertia. Much fuel will be needed to set it spinning at a reasonable rate. How fast do you think they rotate?

I can't think of any examples of rotating star destroyers, and I would have thought such a perculiar mode of operation would be noted in one of the books.

You can also explain why one would need to be looking at far-away objects when in combat.

To avoid being suprised when the small force you are engaging is reinforced by a larger one perhaps?

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?

Why the fuck does that matter?

Well since we are talking about star destroyers you can hardly use other star destroyers as examples of other ships that use giant domes. How about mon-cal ships or dreadnoughts? How do they do without?

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?

And you continue to belie your ignorance.

Submarines do not surface to receive orders. They ascend to periscope depth and either stream a floating wire antenna or raise an antenna from the sail.

Semantics. They still have to stop what they are doing and ascend. Not having to do that would be a big advantage.

[McC]

The quote, as requested:

Luke received the report at the same time as everyone else. He began hunting the sky for the predicted Imperial craft, his gaze dropping to his instrumentation. "My scope's negative. I don't see anything."

"Maintain visual scanning," Blue Leader directed. "With all this energy flying, they'll be on top of you before your scope can pick them up. Remember, they can jam every instrument on your ship except your eyes."

Luke turned again, and this time saw an Imperial already pursuing an X-wing--an X-wing with a number Luke quickly recognized.

However, Howedar is also potentially wrong.

I suppose that "jam everything but your eyes" quote from ANH actually meant "everything but your eyes, oh except those cameras of yours".

Exactly why would fighters, to which this quote applies, have fiber-optic external cameras? A capital starship could easily have fiber optic cameras (please inform us as to how you would 'jam' a camcorder without actually touching the camcorder itself, for instance) to relay combat information to a secured bridge structure. The visual data would not be obstructed. Infared, ultraviolet, and other EM cameras could interfered with through jamming, but I know of no way to disrupt an actual fiber optic visual relay.

[Howedar]

And yet that still wouldn't have happened if the bridge was somewhere else. Such as in the center of the ship.

Correct.

Anyone like to post a little bit of context and the full quite, I'm afraid I can't remember it.

Jamming a fiber optic cable is like jamming a persicope. As in, not going to happen.

Evidently jamming occurs at some point in such a system.

I don't have the quote, but it's floating around here. I'll look for it.

And you still haven't happened to think about the fact that the bridge window has an extremely limited field of view. As such it is hardly useful in a 3d combat situation.

I never said it was. Don't put words into my mouth.

OK the bolts do disipate, but is there any evidence of them disipating before they have exceded accurate targeting range?

If the answer is one of these options it looks like targeting for the heavy guns might be the best.

Glad you're finally realizing that.

The difference is bloody obvious. An the one hand you have a relatively small component that roates indeppendantly, and on the other you have a star destroyer. It is unlikely to be a quick turner, and it has to have a pretty immense moment of inertia. Much fuel will be needed to set it spinning at a reasonable rate. How fast do you think they rotate?

Hell, one revolution an hour would be enough. As for the immense moment of interia, it is nothing compared to the canonical fact that ships that size can accelerate at thousands of m/s².

I can't think of any examples of rotating star destroyers, and I would have thought such a perculiar mode of operation would be noted in one of the books.

Neither can I.

To avoid being suprised when the small force you are engaging is reinforced by a larger one perhaps?

If they're far away (we're talking light-years here), they're not a threat.

If they're close, you see them on close-range systems.

Well since we are talking about star destroyers you can hardly use other star destroyers as examples of other ships that use giant domes. How about mon-cal ships or dreadnoughts? How do they do without?

Well to start with, they have a notable lack of heavy turbolasers.

Semantics. They still have to stop what they are doing and ascend. Not having to do that would be a big advantage.

Wrong again. What, you think they have to ascend to periscope depth and then stop and pick their asses? No, they keep steaming wherever the fuck they were going in the first place.

It's not that big of a deal. Particularly when your alternative is tantamount to building a small surface ship to get the communiques and follow the sub around at all times and relay the orders.

[Prozac the Robert]

Thanks McC.

And you still haven't happened to think about the fact that the bridge window has an extremely limited field of view. As such it is hardly useful in a 3d combat situation.

I never said it was. Don't put words into my mouth.

I wasn't accusing you of that, I'm just asking you to think why a bridge window would be any use if everything else was so badly jammed.

Wrong again. What, you think they have to ascend to periscope depth and then stop and pick their asses? No, they keep steaming wherever the fuck they were going in the first place.

It's not that big of a deal. Particularly when your alternative is tantamount to building a small surface ship to get the communiques and follow the sub around at all times and relay the orders.

I'm talking about adding another tower to the bottom of the ship. If subs could be able to recieve transmitions all the time like that then I bet they would build them like that.

If nothing else comes up, I think it will have to be turbolaser sensors. (Still finding the idea of spinning star destroyers rediculous).
But why would they need to be lifted up like that? And why put the bridge up there?

[Zac Naloen]

A transmission, capable of being sent across interstellar space distances of hundreds of light years is gonna get stopped by the hull of a starship how exactly?

I can understand if the shields are up... but by the hull and the rest of the superstructure?

[Howedar]

I wasn't accusing you of that, I'm just asking you to think why a bridge window would be any use if everything else was so badly jammed.

Because, again, "they can jam everything but your eyes".

I'm talking about adding another tower to the bottom of the ship. If subs could be able to recieve transmitions all the time like that then I bet they would build them like that.

I suppose it escapes you that things like this cost money, and as a general rule sensors and comm equipment is the most expensive part of a modern-day warship.

If nothing else comes up, I think it will have to be turbolaser sensors. (Still finding the idea of spinning star destroyers rediculous).

For reasons you still have not explained.

But why would they need to be lifted up like that? And why put the bridge up there?

How the hell should I know? Maybe the CO liked the view. As I said before, it really doesn't matter.

[McC]

Because, again, "they can jam everything but your eyes".

Referring to starfighters, Howedar. You don't have conclusive proof that the same is true for Star Destroyers or optical sensors as well.

[Howedar]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that things are any different for ISDs (or for optical sensors, which would logically be fitted on X-wings if they were not jammable).

[McC]

Exactly when have we ever seen any evidence whatsoever of optical camera sensors on an X-wing? Please show me the cockpit display that relays that data. Further more, the only indication of such a camera was, in fact, not jammed -- the targeting computer, which could use telemetry data either from the plans or the surrounding area to precisely calculate to the apparent meter the distance to the exhaust port.

[Howedar]

Exactly when have we ever seen any evidence whatsoever of optical camera sensors on an X-wing?

Fighters have carried gun cameras for confirming kills since before WW2.

Please show me the cockpit display that relays that data.

I don't think we've seen the full cockpit. Hell, it may not even display in the cockpit.

Further more, the only indication of such a camera was, in fact, not jammed -- the targeting computer, which could use telemetry data either from the plans or the surrounding area to precisely calculate to the apparent meter the distance to the exhaust port.

Could have been inertial guidence or home-on-jam for all we know.

Oh, I accept your implicit concession regarding the similarity of X-wing and ISD sensors.

[McC]

Fighters have carried gun cameras for confirming kills since before WW2.

And exactly when have those ever been "jammed" by external means?

I don't think we've seen the full cockpit. Hell, it may not even display in the cockpit.

We see a large amount of it in ANH. No, it's not the full cockpit, but a tiny optical display would be largely useless to a pilot -- if it's too small to show encroaching enemy starfighters, for instance. Ideally, the display would be the size of the large central display that indicates target lock -- roughly the size of a small TV screen.

Could have been inertial guidence or home-on-jam for all we know.

Or, it could've been optical data mapping. We don't know, as you imply. Therefore, it's inconclusive. My point is that it's possible it was optical, as much as it's possible that it was something else. Home-on-jam seems unlikely, since that would require implicit knowledge of the locations from where the Death Star would emit jamming signals. Of course, they did have a full technical readout, so I suppose that's not entirely unreasonable.

Oh, I accept your implicit concession regarding the similarity of X-wing and ISD sensors.

*shrug* I have no particular reason to suggest they're terribly dissimilar in function, only in magnitude. I'm also not arguing about the capabilities of non-optical sensors. However, there is little logic in placing an optical camera for operator use on a small starfighter (unless, perhaps, it's a rear-facing camera), whereas there's much more sense in placing such a camera on a large capital ship with limited visibility from its command deck.

My point, ultimately, is that a bridge secure deep in the hull of a starship utilizing optical cameras for displays (optical cameras which cannot be jammed through "flood the area with X radiation" means) rather than windows will be no more or less blind than a starship utilizing windows, assuming equal jamming for other instrumentation. The instrumentation for remote sensing is identical -- the method of external view is what differs. There is no external means, beyond particulate matter, to prevent the accurate functioning of an optical imaging device. Given that there is no evidence in the ANH quote to the contrary (i.e. Blue Leader doesn't say, "Our gun cameras will be useless too!"), there's no reason to believe otherwise.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Rothana Heavy Engineering Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport does not use physical windows in its bridge.

[Howedar]

And exactly when have those ever been "jammed" by external means?

Listen whack-a-loon, it doesn't fucking matter if they've been jammed historically. What matters is that we have fucking out-of-Lucas'-mouth canon statements to the effect that SW jamming effects everything electronic. I'd be willing to entertain the notion that the statement is hyperbole, but only if you provide evidence that not everything can be jammed.

You've failed to do that.

We see a large amount of it in ANH. No, it's not the full cockpit, but a tiny optical display would be largely useless to a pilot -- if it's too small to show encroaching enemy starfighters, for instance. Ideally, the display would be the size of the large central display that indicates target lock -- roughly the size of a small TV screen.

So in other words, you have no evidence against (nor, I might add, does anything preclude a multi-function display).

Or, it could've been optical data mapping. We don't know, as you imply. Therefore, it's inconclusive. My point is that it's possible it was optical, as much as it's possible that it was something else.

Except that we have a canon statement that something else would be jammed.

Home-on-jam seems unlikely, since that would require implicit knowledge of the locations from where the Death Star would emit jamming signals. Of course, they did have a full technical readout, so I suppose that's not entirely unreasonable.

Took the words out of my mouth, you did.

*snip*

I have at no point argued that putting the bridge on a tower is the best solution.

[McC]

Listen <snip>, it doesn't <snip> matter if they've been jammed historically. What matters is that we have <snip> out-of-Lucas'-mouth canon statements to the effect that SW jamming effects everything electronic. I'd be willing to entertain the notion that the statement is hyperbole, but only if you provide evidence that not everything can be jammed.

You've failed to do that.

Basic logic and physics of optical equipment proves that optical relays cannot be jammed. You can cover or obstruct a camera lens, but you can do nothing to "jam" a camera lens.

Further, I bolded your above statement because it is false. Blue Leader clearly says that they can jam "every instrument on your ship except your eyes." He was talking about detection methods, unless you would seriously like to argue that any electronic system aboard a starfighter -- weaponry, droid interface, computer, S-foil servo controls, thrust modulation controls, etc -- can be affected by jamming. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on with respect to optical jamming, which as I have said over and over is impossible to jam without direct obstruction of the lens.

So in other words, you have no evidence against (nor, I might add, does anything preclude a multi-function display).

Nor do you have evidence for. The default assumption is that something is not true, not that something is. Proof is required to demonstrate that something is true. You are correct that nothing precludes a multi-function display. However, is there any proof that it has one? (As an aside, I would tend to agree with the idea that the display is capable of multiple functions, but since we're quibbling over who has proof of what...)

Except that we have a canon statement that something else would be jammed.

Inertial guidance cannot be jammed, to my knowledge, nor could home-on-jam detection, both methods you pointed out. Inertial guidance is based on accelerometers and gyroscopes, as I understand it. Internal mechanisms which do not rely on external input.

I have at no point argued that putting the bridge on a tower is the best solution.

Nor have I ever suggested that you did. I was simply clarifying my position.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Howedar, how can you take a general remark refering to the sensor systems of a starfighter and apply it as a hard-and-fast rule against all ships? That's a gross generalization.

Besides, we know they can do it in the Acclamator, and choose not to in the ISD. Its a design flaw; an unnecessary weakness. A minor one, but still present. Live with it.

[Howedar]

Basic logic and physics of optical equipment proves that optical relays cannot be jammed. You can cover or obstruct a camera lens, but you can do nothing to "jam" a camera lens.

No, but you can dazzle one by shining a laser at it. This is done today for crying out loud.

Further, I bolded your above statement because it is false. Blue Leader clearly says that they can jam "every instrument on your ship except your eyes." He was talking about detection methods, unless you would seriously like to argue that any electronic system aboard a starfighter -- weaponry, droid interface, computer, S-foil servo controls, thrust modulation controls, etc -- can be affected by jamming. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on with respect to optical jamming, which as I have said over and over is impossible to jam without direct obstruction of the lens.

You can say it still more, that won't make it be true.

Nor do you have evidence for. The default assumption is that something is not true, not that something is. Proof is required to demonstrate that something is true. You are correct that nothing precludes a multi-function display. However, is there any proof that it has one? (As an aside, I would tend to agree with the idea that the display is capable of multiple functions, but since we're quibbling over who has proof of what...)

Strictly speaking a MFD is not necessary for there to be a camera on the X-wing.

Inertial guidance cannot be jammed, to my knowledge, nor could home-on-jam detection, both methods you pointed out. Inertial guidance is based on accelerometers and gyroscopes, as I understand it. Internal mechanisms which do not rely on external input.

Right... Your point?

Howedar, how can you take a general remark refering to the sensor systems of a starfighter and apply it as a hard-and-fast rule against all ships? That's a gross generalization.

Do we have any evidence of a system on any capital ship that is completely different in operation from systems on fighters?

It's not as if the size of ship is going to affect jam-ability, if you've got a larger ship then you're only going to need more powerful jammers. The only way to explain a scenario where fighters were completely jammable and ISDs were not would be the existance of a completely different system on the ISD, operating on completely different principles.

To my knowledge, there is no precident for the existance of such a completely separate system.

I would also point out that there is zero historical precident for a sensor system that cannot be jammed. Any active system can be jammed almost by definition, simply by transmitting false readings and the like. Passive systems like cameras could be jammed by dazzling them with lasers, whereas gravity sensors would presumably be jammed by, if nothing else, Interdictors.

Besides, we know they can do it in the Acclamator, and choose not to in the ISD. Its a design flaw; an unnecessary weakness. A minor one, but still present. Live with it.

I'm not entirely sure how we got on this camera tangent anyway, I thought Mr. Prozac was still whining about how ISDs should have two towers.

[McC]

No, but you can dazzle one by shining a laser at it. This is done today for crying out loud.

Sure. You could also flood an area with an immense amount of light to wash out the camera. We don't see either of these things happening, and precisely shining a laser at the cameras on every starfighter would be ludicrously difficult and highly unreliable.

You can say it still more, that won't make it be true.

Your concession is accepted.

Strictly speaking a MFD is not necessary for there to be a camera on the X-wing.

Right.

Right... Your point?

My point being these are navigational systems that cannot be jammed, thus your statement (to which I just said, "Your concession is accepted") that all electrical systems are jammed is erroneous.

The only effective camera jamming methods are never demonstrated and some of them would be visible in some way (in the case of light flooding).

I'm not entirely sure how we got on this camera tangent anyway, I thought Mr. Prozac was still whining about how ISDs should have two towers.

Discussing the merits of an exposed bridge vs. a concealed bridge. A raised platform to provide commanders a view of the battlefield vs. multiple external cameras relaying to an internal bridge. Prozac said a fiber optic cable would be difficult to jam, making this the more meritorious design. You then decided to say that the ANH quote suggested that any instrument can be jammed, and that's when I jumped into this discussion.

[Howedar]

Sure. You could also flood an area with an immense amount of light to wash out the camera. We don't see either of these things happening,

Explain to me how we'd see lasers in the vacuum of space, McC

and precisely shining a laser at the cameras on every starfighter would be ludicrously difficult and highly unreliable.

It would be rather easier than hitting them with turbolasers (since you could open the focus somewhat and bathe the whole fighter), and they don't seem to have a lot of trouble doing that.

You can say it still more, that won't make it be true.

Your concession is accepted.

Cameras can be blinded. That is fact.

Right.

Are you being sarcastic?

My point being these are navigational systems that cannot be jammed, thus your statement (to which I just said, "Your concession is accepted") that all electrical systems are jammed is erroneous.

It is. My wording was imprecise. What I meant was that any electronic system that was dependent on exterior input could be jammed. Obviously if I have a milspec laptop sitting in the cockpit so I can play solitare as I fly, it would be very very difficult to jam.

The only effective camera jamming methods are never demonstrated and some of them would be visible in some way (in the case of light flooding).

We can surmise that there is a good reason why camera systems aren't used by SW fighters to pick up enemies (on their canonical "scopes"). Certainly it's not a design issue, because in the blackness of space it would be very easy to have a set of cameras and have them pick up large movement against the stars in the background. Such camera systems (with slightly different software) are in use today in satellites to mantain attitude reference.

I'm sincerely curious, can you think of any reason that these wouldn't be used besides jamming? I honestly cannot.

Discussing the merits of an exposed bridge vs. a concealed bridge. A raised platform to provide commanders a view of the battlefield vs. multiple external cameras relaying to an internal bridge. Prozac said a fiber optic cable would be difficult to jam, making this the more meritorious design. You then decided to say that the ANH quote suggested that any instrument can be jammed, and that's when I jumped into this discussion.

Which it does. Fair enough.

[McC]

Explain to me how we'd see lasers in the vacuum of space, McC

Touché. However, we have never heard of jamming in this fashion in any of the extended literature. Then again, we've also never heard of optical cameras for sensing, either.

It would be rather easier than hitting them with turbolasers (since you could open the focus somewhat and bathe the whole fighter), and they don't seem to have a lot of trouble doing that.

Again, we have never encountered evidence of equipment like this in canon or EU. Yes, you can do it that way, but I imagine it'd need to be a relatively intense laser, and it would only be effective in one facing for the fighter.

Cameras can be blinded. That is fact.

Yes, that is a fact. Repeating, though, evidence of camera blinding equipment has never appeared. To be fair, again, neither have cameras. But Prozac's original point that an optical imaging system would be more difficult to jam than another kind of remote sensing system is still valid.

Are you being sarcastic?

No, I was agreeing. If I were being sarcastic, I would've done something like. "...riiight. " Sorry for the confusion.

It is. My wording was imprecise. What I meant was that any electronic system that was dependent on exterior input could be jammed. Obviously if I have a milspec laptop sitting in the cockpit so I can play solitare as I fly, it would be very very difficult to jam.

Okay, that I'll tentatively agree with. However, I still contend it would be more difficult to accurately jam an optical camera system (in space) than any other remote sensing method.

We can surmise that there is a good reason why camera systems aren't used by SW fighters to pick up enemies (on their canonical "scopes"). Certainly it's not a design issue, because in the blackness of space it would be very easy to have a set of cameras and have them pick up large movement against the stars in the background. Such camera systems (with slightly different software) are in use today in satellites to mantain attitude reference.

I'm sincerely curious, can you think of any reason that these wouldn't be used besides jamming? I honestly cannot.

No, I can't. It seems somewhat illogical not to use them, as they would provide greatly expanded visibility to the pilot who, in the case of Rebel fighters, has extremely limited visibility. But simultaneously, jamming alone cannot be the justification -- while you are correct that it is possible to "jam" a camera, it is quite difficult to do this consistently. All the fighter would need to do would be roll away from the jamming source.

[Howedar]

That's wierd, I'm goddamned sure I didn't say that bit about "everything electronic". Grammar Nazi that I am, I don't say "effect" when the proper word is "affect".

How very peculiar.

[McC]

Well, I'm looking right at it...

[Howedar]

As am I.

[Prozac the Robert]

If you can jam a camera using lasers, you can do the same to someone's eyes. Which they apparently can't.

Jamming an optical fiber is the same as jamming a periscpe or a window, or even someones eye. It's just a tube which light travels through (using total internal refraction).

A transmission, capable of being sent across interstellar space distances of hundreds of light years is gonna get stopped by the hull of a starship how exactly?

I can understand if the shields are up... but by the hull and the rest of the superstructure?

Ah, but if this is true, which it probably is, why put the communication stuff on a tower and not inside the better armoured hull?