Designing the ISDIII, what would you do?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Variants would likely be along existing lines: dedicated, hangerless warships, gravwell ships, dedicated, HTL-less carriers, etc.

The first and second are already fulfilled, with the Tector and Dominator-class ships, respectively.

[Lord Pounder]

IIRC Grand Admiral Pellaeons Star Destroyer HIMS Chimera was considered to be a Mark 3. Based on the Deuce it had been given torpedo tubes, advanced targeting systems (which didn't work) and a cloaking device. Though I may be wrong.

[RedImperator]

It seems to me that if the Empire could have mounted HTLs on the ventral side, they would have. You can't just slap on a multi terraton energy weapon, no matter how many you could apparently fit on the outer hull. The visible turrets are, as on real battleship turrets, the tip of the iceberg. Adding any new turrets would involve displacing existing internal systems. Then you have to power it, absorb the recoil, and dissapate the heat.

This discussion reminds me of "how would you improve the GCS" debates in PST. There's always someone who wants to add phasers here, phasers there, phasers phasers everywhere. Well, that's nice, except just because it's possible to add a decal to a model doesn't mean it's also possible to add a system to a "real" starship. Or to take a real world example, I could glue a 5" turret on top of the bridge of a model of U.S.S. New Jersey, but that doesn't mean the US Navy engineers who designed the real world ship were idiots for not putting one there.

[Ender]

75cm of armour on an ISD? How much crack did that require?

Yeah, no shit. The heavy armor is 20 meters thick, I have no idea whay you would cut it down. Or did you mean the light plating on the bridge tower face and the like? That stuff is only 41cm thick.

Fear those who do their own scaling.

Variants would likely be along existing lines: dedicated, hangerless warships, gravwell ships, dedicated, HTL-less carriers, etc.

The first and second are already fulfilled, with the Tector and Dominator-class ships, respectively.

The third is as well, we just don't know its name. We have 3 dedicated carriers - One that looks like a cutdown of a star dreadnaught, one that looks like a cutdown of the Victory class (or should that be Victor?), and one that looks like a cut down of the Imperator.

Personally, I don't see the point in modifying the Imperator further. I mean we know they did it, as the Rejuvenator is a modified Avenger type, so there is a mod 3 out there, but I don't see the point. Like the Venator, the Imperator is to put out brushfires. Hence the jack of all trades design philosophy, why we see them in the outer rim so much, and the light production run.

I'd just go with a Tector class dedicated destroyer myself, and mow you down.

[wilfulton]

Okay, I've done a bit of searching. I don't know how "reliable" theforce.net is held to be by this forum, but I did find some blueprints indicating that the armor plating (on the belly at least) is 150 cm thick, which is a bit closer to what I put down. Here's the address I found those prints at.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/kdy/blueisd2.gif

*sigh* everyone likes to talk about how well armored it is, but precious few ever mention just how thick that armor plating is. I'll keep looking and see what I can find.

BTW, according to theforce.net, the Acclamator (or maybe that was a prototype ISD, I'm honestly not too sure) Masses about 1.5 million tons. Again, assuming this is a reliable source, scaling the given dimensions up to ISD size, the ship would have a mass of between 25 and 35 million tons (guessing it might have fewer open bays than an Acclamator), assuming that my estimates of its dimensions being 1600x800x300 are accurate. If anyone wanted to know how up-armoring the vessel would affect mass (an hence, acceleration) you can go from there.

[Lone_Prodigy]

Jesus, you're using the Mandel Blueprints? The ones that, if you scale the TIEs in a hanger shot or even the decameter scale, the ISD length comes out to 486 meters? The one that gives an ISD antimatter engines and heavy missiles with 5 megaton yield? The one that says that the reactor bulb is actually a tractor beam projector, and that an ISD has a crew of ~200? You've got to be shitting me. That blueprint is so unreliable that its not even funny.

[Stark]

@wilfulton: Acclamator masses 1.5MT? That seems quite ridiculous given the mass-energy equivalents of it's fuel.

And Endor scaled the outer plating: 20m. I'm actually a bit surprised: I would have expected more. In any case, it doesn't fucking matter, since HTLs slice through the armour like tissuepaper. It's there for lower-level weapons, I imagine - perhaps it even has a role providing the prodigious structural strength required by its engines.

[Ender]

Okay, I've done a bit of searching. I don't know how "reliable" theforce.net is held to be by this forum,

I'm sorry, I'm busy laughing my ass off over you being worried that Star Wars Technical Commentaries ismight not be thought of as reliable here.

Yes. Yes, Dr. Saxton's work is known to be extremelyt reliable.

However, that's an old blueprint that is not represenative of how the ships ended up onscreen.

[White Haven]

Okay, one argument I've seen repeatedly against ventral armaments...power. You have the ability to power a given amount of weaponry for your reactor output, but that only applies to the number of weapons you have active at any given time. Unpowered weapons draw no power at all, and, in theory, power could be transferred FROM active dorsal weapons to ventral ones to engage a target that's maneuvered there, rather than trying to roll the entire ship. Also, in a long engagement, dorsal shielding would likely become degraded over time, but if the ISD rolls to present its belly, it can't effectively return fire as it stands. With more guns than it can power, it could roll to present an undamaged ship and return fire with a separate set of weaponry. While there would be some mass penalty for the added weapons, the existing reactor installation could remain unaltered, with the exception of additional runs to power the extra weaponry. Granted, I'd prefer the ability to spew fire in all directions with impunity but that's beyond the scope of a modification to the existing Imperator-class.

[wilfulton]

*scratches head*

20 m of armor won't stop a HTL bolt? Holy shit , I'm going to disappear into R&D for awhile, because that is totally not acceptable. We really do need better armor.

For an interim solution, possibly just better shields, and screw the armor. If it won't protect the ship, not much point in having it anyway is there? And use the extra weight we saved to tack on some more generators. Shit ventral side looks as good as any, and a few more HTL batteries. If the fucking armor won't do its job, might as well have a few extra guns to let it smash through its enemies shields first.

Hmm...still awaiting the results of the cyclotron gun prototypes. Just need to see if it would work better than a TL for punching through enemy defenses. :joke:

[Stark]

Wilfulton, the armour can't protect against the heaviest weapons, but without it covering most of the ship, even temporary shield failures would be deadly because of fighters or smaller combatants. It's worth it, just not against other heavy ships.

And I don't see the point of adding all the mass of ventral guns when you can just roll the damn ship. Anything powerful enough to worry about isn't going to move out of the way in the few seconds it takes to realign. Of note is that there is very little volume in the 'rear, ventral' section of an ISD: the reactor sticks out! For all we know, the HTL turrets descend so deeply into the superstructure it's impossible to add others below. Having two main batteries would probably result in attempting to engage two targets at once, at lower power or rate of fire.

[wilfulton]

Wilfulton, the armour can't protect against the heaviest weapons, but without it covering most of the ship, even temporary shield failures would be deadly because of fighters or smaller combatants. It's worth it, just not against other heavy ships.

And I don't see the point of adding all the mass of ventral guns when you can just roll the damn ship. Anything powerful enough to worry about isn't going to move out of the way in the few seconds it takes to realign. Of note is that there is very little volume in the 'rear, ventral' section of an ISD: the reactor sticks out! For all we know, the HTL turrets descend so deeply into the superstructure it's impossible to add others below. Having two main batteries would probably result in attempting to engage two targets at once, at lower power or rate of fire.

I get it, it can protect against smaller ships, just not the biggest boys on the block. That sounds pretty logical, actually, so I'll give you that one.

I might not have explained it clearly. I got the idea that the reactors would all be on the ventral side of the ship, and the additional HTL on the dorsal side, so it would have more firepower to reach a target above it, and no more to reach below it.

Almost gives you some modicum of respect for starship designers. Look at what kind of shit they have to go through just to build a goddamned Starship.

But I'm also looking at the ISD's intended role. It looks like it really is more of a power projection platform rather than a dedicated fighting ship. It's good for police actions against the SW equivalent of a tin pot dictator, just that it's not designed for combat against another superpower. For such a role, it simply plays an escort role for an even bigger ship. Hmpf. My favorite ship in all of sci-fi relegated to a role of being an escort. That's a rather...strange thought.

I still say need better armor.

[Lord Revan]

well ISD is a Star Destroyer, anyway it make's sence that most the Empire's ship aren't meant to fight against nother superpower but rather they're mean fight against tiin pot dictator or rebels

[Illuminatus Primus]

The armor is supposed to protect against oppurtunistic attacks by smaller ships and fighters that it'd be invulnerable to when shielded. Shielding doesn't last all that long against full broadsides by equivalent vessels either.

[Stark]

It's worth noting that on ISDN Executor, there are indeed HTL turrets on both sides, so Imperial designers aren't suffering from some EU-induced stupidity. ISDs simply appear too small to carry much more armament than they do, along with their other shit.

Perhaps ISDs were created to be a standing fleet with the role of preventing any Trade Federation-style blockades: not to fight external enemies, but to defeat converted freighters etc. Good thing that's all the Rebels had!

[RedImperator]

Okay, one argument I've seen repeatedly against ventral armaments...power. You have the ability to power a given amount of weaponry for your reactor output, but that only applies to the number of weapons you have active at any given time. Unpowered weapons draw no power at all, and, in theory, power could be transferred FROM active dorsal weapons to ventral ones to engage a target that's maneuvered there, rather than trying to roll the entire ship. Also, in a long engagement, dorsal shielding would likely become degraded over time, but if the ISD rolls to present its belly, it can't effectively return fire as it stands. With more guns than it can power, it could roll to present an undamaged ship and return fire with a separate set of weaponry. While there would be some mass penalty for the added weapons, the existing reactor installation could remain unaltered, with the exception of additional runs to power the extra weaponry. Granted, I'd prefer the ability to spew fire in all directions with impunity but that's beyond the scope of a modification to the existing Imperator-class.

There are other considerations you haven't addressed. The internal components of these gun turrets have to go somewhere, just for starters. Then there's the issue of mounting them so they don't damage the ship with their own recoil. As well, they're going to generate tremendous amounts of waste heat each time they fire. You're looking at a substantial redesign to get these turrets in, and by your own admission they'll see limited use unless you also increase the reactor's output.

[Star-Blighter]

Regarding ISD turret placement. There ARE guns on the ventral surface, its just that they are not heavy turbolasers. The ventral guns seem to be for anti-fighter protection and to destroy lighter ships trying to get in the blind-spot. ISD engines can produce thrust in excess of 4000 g's. Imagine what happens when only the starboard engine is powered up (can you say SPUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!)...

Anything that can get out of the arc of the heavy guns can likely be destroyed by lighter turbolasers in short order.

And crossroads.inc, I have seen your design before. It lacks a point to it when larger dedicated warships serve the same purpose (Allegiance class).

[Ra]

For all we know, the HTL turrets descend so deeply into the superstructure it's impossible to add others below.

Actually, the HTL sits atop the engine assembly, as this scan from the OT ICS shows. Power cells (the orange blocks) flank the turrets. The turrets probably feed directly from the auxiliary reactors right in front of them.



Here's the diagram of the HTL, also from the OT ICS.
- Ra

[FOG3]

Design a ISDIII, huh?

Okay first the pre-fab base is going bye-bye. If one needs to be put on a planet it'll need the dedicated bureacratic structure which needs to be briefed, specialized troops, etc. Better to have those on either transports or troop transports. With the speed of hyperdrive delivering one where it's needed won't take that much longer, and those that do probably won't be fixed by the immediate response of a ISD.

The oversized gym will be shrunk.

The guns already are sufficient so will not be touched. If anti-fighter guns can be improved with minimal cost and loss of functionality they may be beneficial.

From here I see two paths:
A) We simply shrink the ship. This'll increase shield strength as it covers less area and improve other performance perameters to a degree. It'll also require less resources in construction of each ship.

B)Maintain the same ship size. We use the freed up ship volume and efficient storage to carry either a additional shield ala Calamari cruiser or mount a bigger shield generator. Additionally increasing the fighter and/or ground complement will be looked into.

Net effect: Incremental increase in performance and ability with only the loss of a capability that should probably have been assigned to another ship anyway.

[Ender]

The oversized gym will be shrunk.

Oversized gym?

From here I see two paths:
A) We simply shrink the ship. This'll increase shield strength as it covers less area and improve other performance perameters to a degree. It'll also require less resources in construction of each ship.

While it might increase the shields capacity/intensity, it would reduce its dissipation rate. Dissipation rate is proportional to surface area.

B)Maintain the same ship size. We use the freed up ship volume and efficient storage to carry either a additional shield ala Calamari cruiser or mount a bigger shield generator. Additionally increasing the fighter and/or ground complement will be looked into.

Or do what the rebels did and simply plug on a bunch of missile launchers.

[Crossroads Inc.]

For all we know, the HTL turrets descend so deeply into the superstructure it's impossible to add others below.

Actually, the HTL sits atop the engine assembly, as this scan from the OT ICS shows. Power cells (the orange blocks) flank the turrets. The turrets probably feed directly from the auxiliary reactors right in front of them.

[img]-snip-[/img]

Here's the diagram of the HTL, also from the OT ICS.
- Ra

[img]-snip-[/img]

*Looks at pics* Well Well, How interesting. No massive structural supports. No large Gun wells connecting to the Turret, and no extensive reinforcements under the Turret. Gee, it looks like you could place one of these anywhere

[Ra]

As long as you have the power feeds and a good line of sight, you could place more turrets. I expect the power drain is severe, though. Still, one could delete that "prefabricated base" shit and fill the room with a bigger reactor to compensate having eight more heavy turrets on the bottom.

Why would the Empire's main capital ship need a that base anyway? Not every ship is going to set up garrisons on a planet on its deployment.
- Ra

[White Haven]

Well, in all fairness there is at least one major advantage to having JOAT ships as your mainline combattants. Given that the Empire CAN deploy hysterical amounts of them, if an attack fleet /is/ hit en route to a target, there are no vulnerable troop ships to target and prevent the assault. You have to attack the warships, and even if you kill one...big whoop, they've ALL got troops and armor.

That picture, however, interests me. Power requirements be damned, I'd rather have heavy gun coverage everywhere and a power shortage such that I can only power half, than heavy guns on one side and the ability to power all of them. Any any commander who engages on both sides at once, well, what asshat Moff promoted him?

[RedImperator]

For all we know, the HTL turrets descend so deeply into the superstructure it's impossible to add others below.

Actually, the HTL sits atop the engine assembly, as this scan from the OT ICS shows. Power cells (the orange blocks) flank the turrets. The turrets probably feed directly from the auxiliary reactors right in front of them.

[img]-snip-[/img]

Here's the diagram of the HTL, also from the OT ICS.
- Ra

[img]-snip-[/img]

*Looks at pics* Well Well, How interesting. No massive structural supports. No large Gun wells connecting to the Turret, and no extensive reinforcements under the Turret. Gee, it looks like you could place one of these anywhere

You can't under the turrets at all in that picture, and the simple fact of the matter is, those guns must produce massive recoil that has to be absorbed by the ship, even if the cutaway drawing doesn't show how that's done. And there's still the heat dissapation problem. Plus, we have no idea (from what I remember of the ICS, anyway) of what would have to be displaced from the ventral side in order to fit more turrets.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hangars and storage bays. Subsidiary reactors. Magazines. Etc.