Best designed SF/sci-fi ships

[Stormbringer]

As I've said before, the mainstream Honor-verse ships are all well designed for their universe. Weber put a lot of thought into the design of his ships (aside from the massing but even that has an in universe excuse).

[Master of Ossus]

Frankly, I think that one of the contenders is the Imperator class Star Destroyer. It's angles provide excellent weapons coverage, with a good potential for overlapping fire.

[gravity]

Culture ships (all types). They eliminate one of the biggest weaknesses of all; human error (Minds do make mistakes, but are much less likely to screw up than a human crew, and have a much greater reaction rate.)

[gravity]

ISDs aren't that well designed. Their bridge sticks out horribly (even if there *is* a back-up bridge, it's still a glaring weakness and far from an example of good design), their weapons are innaccurate and slow-moving, they have a a craptastic aiming system (human gunners), and have a big weakness in the rear, with poor rear firepower and gaping holes in the particle shields around the engine. They lack maneuverablity (by their universes's standards) too.
They're also highly vulnerable to (true) lasers, something which only a few universes (mainly book ones) avoid.

[Sokar]

new Courvoisier pod lauching battlecruisers

Pod Battlecruisers Kick ass........I havent read the latest book, "War of Honor" but Pod armament would would really give BC's some teeth I've got to get that book........

[Mayhem]

I have waited, in vain, for years to see a cargo ship in a sci-fi series acting as a tractor rig, carrying around a 'train' of self-contained cargo units like the ones in 'X-wing vs. TIE Fighter'.

Watch Cowboy Bebop "Heavy Metal Queen", it's episode 5 or six I think. You'll love it, space born trains/big rigs.

[Stormbringer]

If you feel like punishing yourself for an hour and a half you can the same in Space Truckers. It's not worth it unless you're keen on unnecessary human suffering.

[Micheal Ryans, Beta pilot]

An REF Ikazuchi-class heavy cruiser/carrier. It carries almost 500 fighters, a ship-to-ship and anti-fighter armament that is second to none and it can, if need be, engage an enemy base on its own. Not to mention that while it does have a bridge tower, the tower is pulled close to the hull in order to reduce the targetting profile from its fore quarter.

[Master of Ossus]

ISDs aren't that well designed. Their bridge sticks out horribly (even if there *is* a back-up bridge, it's still a glaring weakness and far from an example of good design),

Speculation. The destruction of the two bridges did nothing to damage the rest of the ships in either ESB or in RotJ. Moreover, the shielding that protects the bridge is designed specifically to lower the risk. By your standards, only a perfect geometric shape can be a well designed ship.

their weapons are innaccurate and slow-moving,

Speculation based on nothing. Therefore it's an unsubstantiated claim.

they have a a craptastic aiming system (human gunners),

Outright lie. ISD's use gunners to choose targets, not to actually aim the weapons. This is demonstrated in ICS and numerous other books.

and have a big weakness in the rear, with poor rear firepower and gaping holes in the particle shields around the engine.

LMAO! This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Demonstrate that they don't have particle shields over their engines. Demonstrate that the engine wash of ISD's creates a vulnerability. Demonstrate that this constitutes "A big weakness" that can be exploited by anything, given the acceleration of such a starship.

Moreover, their "poor rear firepower" is actually a strength, as it allows concentration of fire along the forward pathways, and along the sides of the ship. By this standard, a Borg cube is well designed.

They lack maneuverablity (by their universes's standards) too.

Unsubstantiated claim at best, outright lie at worst. The ISD's mass creates a hinderance for their maneuverability, however their maneuverability is quite good as demonstrated by their turning ability at Endor.

Besides, you are comparing the design for this ship with other universes (as evidenced by your "their universe's standards" statement). That is not the topic of conversation, which is design. You are trying to figure out the best design for its universe, and not comparing technology levels.

[/quote]They're also highly vulnerable to (true) lasers, something which only a few universes (mainly book ones) avoid. [/quote]

LMAO! Where are you getting this information? Another unsubstantiated claim.

[Admiral Piett]

"Speculation. The destruction of the two bridges did nothing to damage the rest of the ships in either ESB or in RotJ. Moreover, the shielding that protects the bridge is designed specifically to lower the risk. By your standards, only a perfect geometric shape can be a well designed ship."

Yes but where is the need of an exposed bridge with windows in first place? It is not like they are going to direct a battle by looking out of the window.
Unless you are going to make it a detachable module bridges should be well within the hull.What works for a battleship is not going to be the best solution for a spaceship.

The ISD has also an other weakness:the firing arc of the main batteries,I am referring to those big gun turrets on the side of the superstructure,is very,very poor.The only way you could concentrate all the fire of the main batteries on a target is by going "under" it.

A problem of the SSD is instead all those canyons on the superstructure.

[SirNitram]

Hrm. A large, well defended bridge with good LOS of everywhere on the dorsal side, without any active system required for the direction of battle... The possibility it might be blasted is a weakness, yes, but it also continues to give a view of hte battlefield in low-power situations. Something, you know, combat vehicles have been known to undergo.

Gee, the heaviest guns require you to pitch your fore down a few degrees. What a horrible problem. Thankfully they can do that.

[Admiral Piett]

"Hrm. A large, well defended bridge with good LOS of everywhere on the dorsal side, without any active system required for the direction of battle... The possibility it might be blasted is a weakness, yes, but it also continues to give a view of hte battlefield in low-power situations. Something, you know, combat vehicles have been known to undergo."

The conning tower shoul hold the sensors but should not house the officers.If you cannot even use a TV camera on aSW starship,then it means that you are fucked in anyway.Note that even in the current warships the battle is directed from centres well protected into the hull.
Face it,there is no rational reason that can justify an exposed bridge on a star destroyer

"Gee, the heaviest guns require you to pitch your fore down a few degrees. What a horrible problem. Thankfully they can do that."

A pity that you forgot to mention that doing so you cannot use the batteries of the inferior portion of the hull.The rationale behind the dagger shape is exactly that you can concentrate all the batteries on a single target.Unfortunately the SD batteries are placed in a way that this advantage goes out of the window.

[Admiral Piett]

"Gee, the heaviest guns require you to pitch your fore down a few degrees. What a horrible problem. Thankfully they can do that."

A pity that you forgot to mention that doing so you cannot use the batteries of the inferior portion of the hull.The rationale behind the dagger shape is exactly that you can concentrate all the batteries on a single target.Unfortunately the SD batteries are placed in a way that this advantage goes out of the window.

Without mentioning that pitching down you would offer a bigger target to the enemy.
All the potential advantages of the dagger shape,such as concentrating all the weapons against a single enemy while offering the smallest target at the same time are essentially wasted.

[Vympel]

The ISD has also an other weakness:the firing arc of the main batteries,I am referring to those big gun turrets on the side of the superstructure,is very,very poor.The only way you could concentrate all the fire of the main batteries on a target is by going "under" it.

The ISD1 has no such 'problem'- it's weapons can fire forward easily.

A pity that you forgot to mention that doing so you cannot use the batteries of the inferior portion of the hull.The rationale behind the dagger shape is exactly that you can concentrate all the batteries on a single target.Unfortunately the SD batteries are placed in a way that this advantage goes out of the window.

Against a target that's how far away? Those guns are meant for long range work, for a typical engagement it'd only need to pitch a few degrees for all it's guns to have a bead on the target, if it's going for the full 64 HTL blast, or it can do a broadside and go for half that. It's not a huge issue.

As for the guns on the ventral side, the ventral side isn't where combat power is concentrated. A Star Destroyer can simply invert if it wants to engage any capital ships that are under it- though how they would get under it is another issue. You won't be using the anti-fighter defenses on any capital ships anyway.

[Admiral Piett]

"The ISD1 has no such 'problem'- it's weapons can fire forward easily."

I might be wrong but I get the impression from the pictures of the Devastator that the turrets of the ISD1 are not superimposed,although the pitching necessary to aim them against a single target is much smaller than that necessary for the ISD2

"Against a target that's how far away? Those guns are meant for long range work, for a typical engagement it'd only need to pitch a few degrees for all it's guns to have a bead on the target, if it's going for the full 64 HTL blast, or it can do a broadside and go for half that. It's not a huge issue."

Maybe not so huge but the weapons coverage could have been better.

"As for the guns on the ventral side, the ventral side isn't where combat power is concentrated. A Star Destroyer can simply invert if it wants to engage any capital ships that are under it- though how they would get under it is another issue. You won't be using the anti-fighter defenses on any capital ships anyway"

The guns on the ventral side can still be used against a corvette.Even in a capital ship combat the secondaries can be handy ,although admittely this is a minor issue.

[Vympel]

I might be wrong but I get the impression from the pictures of the Devastator that the turrets of the ISD1 are not superimposed,although the pitching necessary to aim them against a single target is much smaller than that necessary for the ISD2

Well, they're not on different levels, but they do offer a greater arc of fire- the ISD2 turrets can't seem to fire forward at all, though I heard somewhere else on SD.net that they can elevate to fire forward. Anyone know anything about this?

Maybe not so huge but the weapons coverage could have been better.

I must admit my ideal ISD design includes a pair of those lovely ISD2 octuple turrets on the ventral facing, near the rear on those two raised 'plates'.

The guns on the ventral side can still be used against a corvette.Even in a capital ship combat the secondaries can be handy ,although admittely this is a minor issue.

Probably because a single HTL blast would've done it in, instead of capturing it

[Vympel]

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd09.jpg

Judging from this excellent picture of the Avenger model, it seems that HTL turrets have some, but not unlimited, rotation, i.e. the heaviest guns cannot be fired dead forward, but they could be used to cover targets in front of and slightly above, and of course, deliver a devastating broadside. If they can indeed elevate, then that would be good- anyone know anything about this?

[Admiral Piett]

Judging from this excellent picture of the Avenger model, it seems that HTL turrets have some, but not unlimited, rotation, i.e. the heaviest guns cannot be fired dead forward, but they could be used to cover targets in front of and slightly above, and of course, deliver a devastating broadside. If they can indeed elevate, then that would be good- anyone know anything about this?

I believe that they could elevate and maybe even rotate ,but unlike the ISD1 bringing them against a single target would require a substantial pitch.It could be quite impractical.
In effects it seems that they are designed primarily for lateral bradsides.
Not much thought has apparently gone into the ability to concentrate all the weapons on a single target.

[Vympel]

I believe that they could elevate and maybe even rotate ,but unlike the ISD1 bringing them against a single target would require a substantial pitch.It could be quite impractical.
In effects it seems that they are designed primarily for lateral bradsides.
Not much thought has apparently gone into the ability to concentrate all the weapons on a single target.

Well, at the ranges combat would occur, it wouldn't be much of an issue- there's no huge need for a Star Destroyer to attack an enemey from the front quarter. Wars combat is just blast away at the enemy till someone dies

[Admiral Piett]

Well, at the ranges combat would occur, it wouldn't be much of an issue- there's no huge need for a Star Destroyer to attack an enemey from the front quarter. Wars combat is just blast away at the enemy till someone dies

In order to accomplish that you would need to manouver the ship in a way that would be problematic,essentially "diving" and thus increasing the distance from the targets (or remaining stationary and thus becoming easy targets),or trying to sneak under the enemy fleet.While this might be possible clearly it is not a primary design concern.And this is not a good thing.

[Micheal Ryans, Beta pilot]

The ISD usless?! I personally hold the believe that the Ikazuchi design was based on a wrecked ISD that found its way into the Robotech galaxy. I mean they both mount extensive weapons arrays, they both have heavy fighter compliments, they both can absorb extreme amounts of damage and they are both incredibly manouverable for their size.

[SirNitram]

Well, at the ranges combat would occur, it wouldn't be much of an issue- there's no huge need for a Star Destroyer to attack an enemey from the front quarter. Wars combat is just blast away at the enemy till someone dies

In order to accomplish that you would need to manouver the ship in a way that would be problematic,essentially "diving" and thus increasing the distance from the targets (or remaining stationary and thus becoming easy targets),or trying to sneak under the enemy fleet.While this might be possible clearly it is not a primary design concern.And this is not a good thing.

Given the accuracy of guns(Hitting the Falcon repeatedly while it junked, hitting an X-wing FROM THE SIDE), an ISD will always be an easy target. Except you ignorantly don't realize that it is built with sitting still and slugging in mind.

[Admiral Piett]

In order to accomplish that you would need to manouver the ship in a way that would be problematic,essentially "diving" and thus increasing the distance from the targets (or remaining stationary and thus becoming easy targets),or trying to sneak under the enemy fleet.While this might be possible clearly it is not a primary design concern.And this is not a good thing.

Ok, actually the ISD2 might be able to mantain the same distance with the target but that would require some complicate manouvres.
Probably the idea is that of punching in the middle of the enemy formation and of using the guns of each side.

[Admiral Piett]

"Given the accuracy of guns(Hitting the Falcon repeatedly while it junked, hitting an X-wing FROM THE SIDE), an ISD will always be an easy target."

A battleship is also a big target,but at long ranges it is a small target.
A ISD may look like big but in an engagement with an enemy cruiser thousands of kilomenters away with EW in fully action it is an other history.

"Except you ignorantly don't realize that it is built with sitting still and slugging in mind."

If you simply sit still the enemy can dictate the terms of engagement.
Bad.The ISD cannot concentrate all its weapon on a single target,which in any capital ships engagement is important.Let me guess you do not know much about naval warfare.

[SirNitram]

"Given the accuracy of guns(Hitting the Falcon repeatedly while it junked, hitting an X-wing FROM THE SIDE), an ISD will always be an easy target."

A battleship is also a big target,but at long ranges it is a small target.
A ISD may look like big but in an engagement with an enemy cruiser thousands of kilomenters away with EW in fully action it is an other history.

"Except you ignorantly don't realize that it is built with sitting still and slugging in mind."

If you simply sit still the enemy can dictate the terms of engagement.
Bad.The ISD cannot concentrate all its weapon on a single target,which in any capital ships engagement is important.Let me guess you do not know much about naval warfare.

Let me guess, you blindly assume the rules for wet navy combat translate directly into space. Let me guess, you haven't though about how the ISD-I and -II complement each other.

An ISD-I has it's positively huge guns mounted in a forward position. An ISD-II has it's guns arrayed to it's sides. You obviously can't see what's going on there, so let me spell it out. Have an -I or a group of them smash a pathway through a formation with it's heavy forward array. The -II's with the group move with them, through the hole, pouring fire to the sides.

The need to cover all arcs, in a 3D medium like space, always outweighs putting all firepower on the target. Because if you have a weak spot, that is where the opponent will come from. The Imperator, however, can always put some fire on it's opponent, all the time retaining it's command and control abilities.