Starwars.com Databank update

[VT-16]

Yeah, I do notice KDY taking credit for alot of good stuff their subsidiaries did. Hogging the spotlight when the Acclamators and walkers did well at the start of the CW etc. And seemingly taking designs by others (Victory destroyers, interdictor cruisers, Republic T.I.E.s) and one-upping them (Imperator destroyers, Dominator-type interdictors and Etas).

EDIT: I was thinking a bit about the Venators... Since they get phased out by the Imperators and Tectors, would the Empire continue to use them in support-roles instead of scrapping them? I mean, with their extensive carrier-ability, couldn´t they just use them as pure carriers in the future? Just a thought.

[Firefox]

EDIT: I was thinking a bit about the Venators... Since they get phased out by the Imperators and Tectors, would the Empire continue to use them in support-roles instead of scrapping them? I mean, with their extensive carrier-ability, couldn´t they just use them as pure carriers in the future? Just a thought.

I don't see why they wouldn't, even though they're not mentioned elsewhere (for obvious reasons). I could see an upgraded variant of the design without those huge notches and cargo doors, with smaller apertures for launching fighters (or relying on the ventral opening instead).

[VT-16]

Yeah, it´s still a bit too soon to see them in other sources, if any. Who knows, they might get some cameos...

[Vympel]

Why would they get phased out at all? They're perfectly fine ships. I like them. A lot.

[VT-16]

I´m not sure, there hasn´t been any official sources saying so, just that they slowed down production when the Imperators and Tectors started up. I guess people just took it from there since they haven´t been mentioned in the OT period (yet). My pet theory is that they continue to serve as pure carriers, supporting other warships. The risk of opening the main hangars would diminish if they were no longer front-line, independent warships.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Why would they get phased out at all? They're perfectly fine ships. I like them. A lot.

You mean, they've got these huge openings (not so good even if they are shielded), they probably sacrificed a lot of antiship firepower to carry those fighters, they have utterly short legs, some people have questioned whether there is room on that ship to maintain all the fighters in the OOB (not having the book yet, I can't make any judgment, and their descriptions only serve to befuddle my visualization). They got no problems, all right...

[The Original Nex]

Why would they get phased out at all? They're perfectly fine ships. I like them. A lot.

You mean, they've got these huge openings (not so good even if they are shielded), they probably sacrificed a lot of antiship firepower to carry those fighters, they have utterly short legs, some people have questioned whether there is room on that ship to maintain all the fighters in the OOB (not having the book yet, I can't make any judgment, and their descriptions only serve to befuddle my visualization). They got no problems, all right...

Even with said weaknesses, what does the Rebellion have before BoE that could go toe to toe with this ship?

In fact, I'd think it would be more valued in fighting the Rebels due to its secondary carrier function. Rebel opposition forces are often made up of fighters and a small capital ship like a Corvette or Frigate, in which case the VenStar's fighter wings could take out Rebel fighter-support while the Destroyer itself easily deals with the capital ship(s).

[Illuminatus Primus]

How can the Venator carry so many more fighters than an ISD? We're talking on the order of 4 times the hangar capacity (though, admittedly the ISD carries troops and garrisons and such), with similarly sized craft. It's not like the Venator is considered a carrier, either--it's designated as a warship and it seems that its officers just bring them straight in to battles like you would expect with a cruiser or front-line combatant.

The ISD's fighter complement is supremely minimalistic; a modern aircraft carrier with far smaller volume in hangar space AND requiring a long runway for fixed-wing aircraft that doesn't apply to SW vessels and the aircraft carrier has many more fighters than an ISD.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why would they get phased out at all? They're perfectly fine ships. I like them. A lot.

They're shitty and vulnerable. The side cargo notches are stupid, the engines should be recessed into the hull more, it should just have a long and wide ventral hangar; the dorsal flight deck is imbecilic.

[Vympel]

They're shitty and vulnerable. The side cargo notches are stupid

The Imperator II-class has the same thing, only smaller. As long as they're shielded I don't see why it matters.

the engines should be recessed into the hull more

Doesn't really make a difference. If the shields go down in that quarter it's over anyway.

it should just have a long and wide ventral hangar; the dorsal flight deck is imbecilic.

I don't think it makes a difference- it's not like they'll be opening the hangars up in the middle of a battle, they launch all their fighters beforehand. One would figure they'd have the same shields protecting the opening as they do on other ships.

And besides, they look good.

[Ender]

Why would they get phased out at all? They're perfectly fine ships. I like them. A lot.

You mean, they've got these huge openings (not so good even if they are shielded), they probably sacrificed a lot of antiship firepower to carry those fighters, they have utterly short legs, some people have questioned whether there is room on that ship to maintain all the fighters in the OOB (not having the book yet, I can't make any judgment, and their descriptions only serve to befuddle my visualization). They got no problems, all right...

I wonder what they are basing that off of, It looks sufficient to me.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Imperator II-class has the same thing, only smaller. As long as they're shielded I don't see why it matters.

Smaller is crucial; most engagements are not swashbuckling 300-meter exchanges. The ship unnecessarily increases vulnerability and has a larger target profile (due to that tall tower and its thick pyramidal base), which is stupid. And "its shielded so it doesn't matter" is cretinous. Why have the thick plates of armor at all with that attitude. Even if they cannot stop heavy turbolasers, allowing any small ship with guns or torpedo-laden bombers to get easier shots into your soft bits is STUPID. And for what benefit? Cargo loading efficiency? Stupid.

Doesn't really make a difference. If the shields go down in that quarter it's over anyway.

In that quarter? Shit, lose port or starboard shields and your engines are vulnerable to your broadside. Why do other ships recess them if its pointless? And in some circumstances you may lose shields but roll and live to fight another day; the Venator pointlessly has soft exposed engines just asking to be torpedoed or shot up by lesser warships.

I don't think it makes a difference- it's not like they'll be opening the hangars up in the middle of a battle, they launch all their fighters beforehand. One would figure they'd have the same shields protecting the opening as they do on other ships.

Shielding is not the all to end all. Like I said, granted that once your shields are down in heated combat with an equivalent warship, you're done. But the Venator is unnecessarily vulnerable to fighter strikes and smaller warships during partial or total shield loss because of these pointless design oversights.

Moreover, those doors doubtlessly offer weaker armor, and also require heavier maintanence for the massive open-close mechanisms, and compromise the structural integrity of the ship. Why do you think the ISD doesn't have port or starboard hangars like the Home One or Invisible Hand - which are refitted civilian ships and a carrier-refit of a destroyer respectively? Because its a needless vulnerability which lowers the threshold for what could kill it. There's a reason real warships like the Empire fields concentrate their vulnerabilities on one face to minimize vulnerability.

[Vympel]

Smaller is crucial; most engagements are not swashbuckling 300-meter exchanges. The ship unnecessarily increases vulnerability and has a larger target profile (due to that tall tower and its thick pyramidal base), which is stupid.

It's larger target profile is a seperate issue- I'll agree with that, but it's bridge tower structure is also a smaller target to hit.

And "its shielded so it doesn't matter" is cretinous. Why have the thick plates of armor at all with that attitude.

The Imperator-class forgoes the very same thich plates of armor along the brim trenches as the Venator-class, remember. I see no reason to think that those cargo doors aren't heavily armored in the first place- we see fire from the Invisible Hand slam into the starboard door during the broadside exchange between her and Guarlara, to no effect. The shields look to be down, since we see a chunk of armor get torn out of Gualara below it's starboard HTL batteries.

Even if they cannot stop heavy turbolasers, allowing any small ship with guns or torpedo-laden bombers to get easier shots into your soft bits is STUPID. And for what benefit? Cargo loading efficiency? Stupid.

See above.

In that quarter? Shit, lose port or starboard shields and your engines are vulnerable to your broadside.

Are they? We're talking about things neither of us know now- where to the port/starboard shields stop and the rear ones begin? How many quadrants does it have? Etc.

Why do other ships recess them if its pointless?

Unknown.

And in some circumstances you may lose shields but roll and live to fight another day; the Venator pointlessly has soft exposed engines just asking to be torpedoed or shot up by lesser warships.

True that.

Shielding is not the all to end all. Like I said, granted that once your shields are down in heated combat with an equivalent warship, you're done. But the Venator is unnecessarily vulnerable to fighter strikes and smaller warships during partial or total shield loss because of these pointless design oversights.

I wouldn't say they're pointless, just not optimal for ship-to-ship combat. Remember that Vigilance, Obi-Wans's ship for his attack on Utapau, was a Venator class- I think those cargo bay doors are meant to facilitate quicker loading and offloading of troops and other supplies when landed on planets.

Moreover, those doors doubtlessly offer weaker armor

Are you sure? They look very thick to me.

and also require heavier maintanence for the massive open-close mechanisms, and compromise the structural integrity of the ship.

True.

Why do you think the ISD doesn't have port or starboard hangars like the Home One or Invisible Hand - which are refitted civilian ships and a carrier-refit of a destroyer respectively? Because its a needless vulnerability which lowers the threshold for what could kill it. There's a reason real warships like the Empire fields concentrate their vulnerabilities on one face to minimize vulnerability.

"Home One" and Invisible Hand however don't have armored doors across their hangards- well, Invisible Hand does in case of emergency, but normally it relies on it's hangar shield. The point's taken however.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Imperator-class forgoes the very same thich plates of armor along the brim trenches as the Venator-class, remember.

You're not listening. There's precisely no reason to forego more armor coverage than necessary; and it seems apparent to me that thick and heavy SW armor cannot be shaped well into curved shapes, but single unifrom plates; the plates need to meet somewhere, and they enclose the habitable honeycomb everywhere but the trench, where weapons, sensors, shield projectors, and active defenses can be mounted.

I see no reason to think that those cargo doors aren't heavily armored in the first place- we see fire from the Invisible Hand slam into the starboard door during the broadside exchange between her and Guarlara, to no effect. The shields look to be down, since we see a chunk of armor get torn out of Gualara below it's starboard HTL batteries.

Perhaps. Still, the surrounding hull is soft and asking to be barraged.

See above.

Are they? We're talking about things neither of us know now- where to the port/starboard shields stop and the rear ones begin? How many quadrants does it have? Etc.

They are still vulnerable along much broader angles than in the ISD.

I wouldn't say they're pointless, just not optimal for ship-to-ship combat. Remember that Vigilance, Obi-Wans's ship for his attack on Utapau, was a Venator class- I think those cargo bay doors are meant to facilitate quicker loading and offloading of troops and other supplies when landed on planets.

It was really stupid to cram the Acclamator's role into destroyer that was already being shoehorned into a carrier. Combined arms. Learn it, live it, love it. With the Acclamator-class Mark I and Mark II both serving this role, there was no need to do that.

Are you sure? They look very thick to me.

Thickness is nice for ablative armor and as a heat-sink for absorbed energy, but armor is explicitly superconducting; the larger the continuous plate is in area, the more area to reradiate the absorbed energy into space. That's really limited in this ship; not to mention the area of the notch in general is much greater than the doors and is unarmored, and there's not much area for reradiation of absorbed energy.

[Firefox]

I still agree that the Venator's compromising dorsal doors and brim notches are better off omitted. Launch/recovery operations could be carried out without possessing those large doors (a solid structure over the hangar facility would provide greater protection, obviously), using the ventral docking bay if it were enlarged, and perhaps an opening at the prow to launch craft.

The notches should go away. I see no reason why they should be there when the space can be closed up and devoted to reactor space. And the engines should either be recessed or covered over with hull plating.

And if you remove the Acclamator-type role of landing and disgorging troops and armor, you can remove the landing gear, and devote even more space to other functions.

[Kartr_Kana]

The Empire could not have been able to use the Venator's as carriers during the GCW. TIEs are designed to fit on racks and as far as I have seen the Venator does not have racks to hang its fighters. Without fighters the Venator is useless. I could see the Rebels using Venators since X-wings, Y-wings and Z-95s all land similarly to Eta's, V-wngs, VT-19's, etc.

[Lord Revan]

of course the Empire couldn't upgrade the Venator to have TIE racks (they used Dreadnaughts)

[Kartr_Kana]

They could if there was enough hight in the hangers, but it would be crowded when you launched. Drop out of your rack and fly all the way down to the launch doors and out. Imagine being the pilot in the back row threading all the way forward dodging the racks. How about landing? Pain in the ass!!

[Lord Revan]

Well the dorsal surface opens so you lift from every where from the flight deck. landing and lifting a TIE is not a problem (all SW are SVTOL).

[Kartr_Kana]

You mean the whole dorsal ridge opens on hinges and launches fighters? Do not some of the biggest structrual supports run through there? Seems to me that would be a huge waste of resources and it would weaken the vessel unduly.

[Lord Revan]

it slides open but yeah (it's shown in CW cartoon).

[Kartr_Kana]

So where are you going to put the TIE racks if you have no ceiling? Sure you can refit it as a carrier, but it would probabally be cheaper to scrap it and make an Imperator. Faster, more firepower, defense, etc. Sure you have fewer fighters, but atleast you have the ship. Now if you use Howlrunners it would work better, but TIEs just need to much support equipment.

[Hardy]

You mean the whole dorsal ridge opens on hinges and launches fighters? Do not some of the biggest structrual supports run through there?

The doors slide outwards on a track.

Seems to me that would be a huge waste of resources and it would weaken the vessel unduly.

The dorsal runway has been phased out, according to the ICS.

[Firefox]

The dorsal runway has been phased out, according to the ICS.

Where does it say that? I was under the impression that by "future Star Destroyers" they meant successors to the Venator class.

[Hardy]

The dorsal runway has been phased out, according to the ICS.

Where does it say that? I was under the impression that by "future Star Destroyers" they meant successors to the Venator class.

I think you know what passage I'm talking about. I'd interpreted "future Star Destroyers" to mean that KDY's later models don't have this flaw. It wouldn't make sense if KDY eliminated the dorsal flight deck from the Venator and thus change its defining feature. It'd be easier to just design a new class of Star Destroyer.