Best designed SF/sci-fi ships

[Admiral Piett]

"Let me guess, you blindly assume the rules for wet navy combat translate directly into space."

Some rules still applies.Of course being in 3D environment changes much.

"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."

Nice idea,but it cannot work.Take a picture of the main batteries of an ISD mark 1.You will see that the main turrets are not superimposed.Thir frontal arc of fire is either non existant or extremely poor.Firing forward would probably require pitching the ship.Which means you cannot charge frontally.

"The need to cover all arcs, in a 3D medium like space, always outweighs putting all firepower on the target."

That would be precisely the rationale behind the dagger shape.Your weapons could cover the majority of the ship whilse still being capable of concentrating against a single target forward.Very good,but unfortunately the batteries placement screws this.

[Admiral Piett]

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... r17isd.jpg

As you may see there is no way the six turbolaser turrets can concentrate their fire on a target in front of th ship,it must be over it.While the arcs of fire are much better on the ISD mark1 than in the ISD mark2 it is still insufficient for what you are proposing.

[Admiral Piett]

Now that I have observed them better I am starting to suspect that the turrets cannot even be trained forward without the barrels being blocked by the turret in front of it,since apparently there is not the space for them.I would not be surprised if only the first turret of each bank had a forward arc of fire.Still better than the mark 2,but evidently frontal firepower is not exactly a priority of the design.

[Master of Ossus]

"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.

Not really, pitching the ship down by four or five degrees also protects the more vulnerable hangar deck. That's the way an ISD was designed to enter combat.

[Parallax]

Best designed sci fi ship?

A TARDIS from Dr Who

Bigger on the inside than out, with the outside shell being just this side of completely indestructible. The outside shell can be reconfigured into pretty much anything the pilot wants ... and the inside can be likewise reconfigured to suit the tastes of the pilot.

And it can time travel as well

[Admiral Piett]

Not really, pitching the ship down by four or five degrees also protects the more vulnerable hangar deck. That's the way an ISD was designed to enter combat.

Four or five degrees maybe would be sufficient for the Mk1 if the turrets could be trained forward.But from the pictures it would seem that there is not enough space between one turret and the other to make the barrels fit.
So probably only two turbolaser turrets can be trained forward with or without a small pitch.You would need a pitch near to 90° to bring all the main batteries on a single target if the ISD and the enemy ship were on the same plane.The same goes for the Mk2.Hangars probably are protected by blast doors.

[Mayhem]

You, my good sir, are either mistaken or lying through your teeth about the MK2's turrets. The barrels on the MK's heavy guns don't even extend past the edge of the turret base. They are also so flat that pitching the ships nose down by a few degrees gives all of them sufficient elevation overthe one in front to allow it to literally shoot above the turret in front... allowing all of the 64 barrels to fire dead ahead with little trouble.

I have confirmed this with a close inspection one of of the principal shooting models from the original trilogy.

And just a quick note on the desgin of the ISD... that huge superstructure on it's upper hull and the placement of it's engines mean that in order to go straight without constantly making corrections pretty much forces the beast to fly slightly "nose down" anyway, so having to do so to fire it's primary batteries forward doesn't mean it suddenly loses manuverability.

[Micheal Ryans, Beta pilot]

I should mention the Robotech Master Azashar-class mothership. Their shields are, I think, completely unique as they are, instead of being deployed in bubbles, deployed in hexagonal plates which allows for much more flexible shield coverage than most other classes I know of. They also carry almost thirty thousand mecha, 200 small corvettes 300 aerial attack drones and 2-5 400 m long ships as well as having almost 2000 weapons, including a cannon which takes up a big chunk of the fore half of the ship. And it can produce ammo faster than it can use it.

[Admiral Piett]

"You, my good sir, are either mistaken or lying through your teeth about the MK2's turrets. The barrels on the MK's heavy guns don't even extend past the edge of the turret base.
I have confirmed this with a close inspection one of of the principal shooting models from the original trilogy."

The problem is that those you are probably referring about are not the barrels.The ISD Mk1 model has lost the most of its barrels but not all of them(source Curtis Saxton).
Let us give a look again to the picture.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

Do you see the first turbolaser on the left (which would be the second turbolaser turret in the row of three)? As you may notice there it has a single,thin stick under what you believe are the two flat barrels.Well that thin stick IS the barrel, or better one of the surviving ones.It is surely a barrel because all turbolaser barrels are similar to it,and it could not conceivably be something else.Take a picture of the Mk2 and you will see that all the barrels look like it.
And I doubt that it could fit into the space between two turrets.


And just a quick note on the desgin of the ISD... that huge superstructure on it's upper hull and the placement of it's engines mean that in order to go straight without constantly making corrections pretty much forces the beast to fly slightly "nose down" anyway, so having to do so to fire it's primary batteries forward doesn't mean it suddenly loses manuverability.

Maybe.Or maybe not.If the dome on the bottom of the hull contains something of very heavy,such as the hyperdrive or the hypermatter reactor or whatever, the ship might be balanced.

[Admiral Piett]

From Curtis Saxton

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exhibit/devastator.html

"At some point a few barrels have been knocked off the turbolaser turrets; they should have two per turret."

On the Avenger the turbolaser barrels are long and thin

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exhibit/devastator.html

Like that single barrel left in the turret of the devastator

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

Those you have mistaken for barrels are something else.

[Admiral Piett]

Sorry,posted wrong link for the Avenger

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

[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),

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.

What? Are you trying to defend the huge tower as a good bridge location? Don't be ludicrous. A well-designed futuristic ship doesn't need to be a perfect geometric shape, but the bridge (if it has one) shouldn't be on the outside, it should be near the center.

their weapons are innaccurate and slow-moving,

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

Ever seen any Star Wars movies? Ever seen how slow (and "wild") the bolts are compared to ship speeds?

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.

They're shown aiming the guns in the movies (I think), which overrides fanboy ICS bullshit. Even if you're right, it's still a poor system to have people actually sitting in the guns, and to have individuals choosing targets for each gun, rather than a more centralized system.
Also, the fact that targets are (iirc from the movies) aquired *optically* is a glaring weakness, which combined with the slow-moving projectile weapons, would make ISDs completely worthless against a well-desgined Wars ship (not that there are any).

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.

They must not, or they couldn't move (paricle propulsion engines)

Demonstrate that the engine wash of ISD's creates a vulnerability.

I didn't say anything about engine wash creating vulnerability.

Demonstrate that this constitutes "A big weakness" that can be exploited by anything, given the acceleration of such a starship.

Given the acceleration exhibited in battle, a well-designed Wars ship could easily fly around the rear of the ISD and chuck a few HTL's up the engine pipe.

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.

Just because something enables a strenght doesn't make it not a weakness in itself. And a Borg Cube *is* a pretty good design for non 1:1 combat (good targetting, distrubuted systems rather than a sticking-out bridge), it's just that some of it's internal systems are a bit dodgy.

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.

They can't maneuver fast enough to dodge fire with any consistency, while many other ships in that universe can.

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.

What? I was comparing it to, say, the Millenium Falcon which is much more maneuverable. Sure, it's also much less massive, but if ISDs can barely hit the Falcon, then Falcon style ships (large numbers thereof) are probably a more efficient combat design for the Wars universe than ISDs.

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

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

Photons in the visible range go through wars shields (we can see the ships). Therefore lasers go through the shields.


ISDs suck from a design standpoint. They're all brawn and no brains at all.

[Admiral Piett]

"Photons in the visible range go through wars shields (we can see the ships). Therefore lasers go through the shields"

Then? Lasers are not used as weapons thus it is not necessary to keep the shields always tuned to face lasers.What tells you that they would not be able to tune their shields against them should the need arise?
Note that according to your argument nearly EVERY sci fi ship should be vulnerable to lasers (because we see them).
Also I doubt that staying behind the engine's exhaust would be an healthy thing to to do.Any missile/particle weapon would be destroyed by the engine's exhaust.And again this would be a weakness for nearly EVERY sci fi ship.
Optical aiming is probably forced by the intense electronic warfare.
Although I will grant that a SW computer with an optical camera would be much better than an human.You may use decentralized computers, so the failure of a centralized unit would not be fatal.

[Warspite]

They're shown aiming the guns in the movies (I think), which overrides fanboy ICS bullshit. Even if you're right, it's still a poor system to have people actually sitting in the guns, and to have individuals choosing targets for each gun, rather than a more centralized system.
Also, the fact that targets are (iirc from the movies) aquired *optically* is a glaring weakness,...

We haven't enough proof to see that anybody, inside any turret, was aiming the guns, or that they were choosing it's own targets. They could be servicing them, we just don't have enough evidence.

As a military vessel, the ISD must have a central combat system, from were targeting is performed, and the firing instructions are coordinated to each gun; local control, from the turret itself, can be performed when: the central control is disabled, or it's more efficient to defer local control to the guns. One other option could be that light-, or even anti-fighter, turrets are mantained in local control, with information feedback from/to central control.
As for the DS, due to it's size, and because it was fighting mosquitoes, not capital ships, local control might be much more efficient, due to the localized nature of the attack.

Electroptic devices can be more efective than radar, for example, since they're passive systems, in conjuction with fast computers that can produce good trajectory predictions for the target, and accurate enough firing solutions for the guns.

... which combined with the slow-moving projectile weapons, would make ISDs completely worthless against a well-desgined Wars ship (not that there are any).

They can't maneuver fast enough to dodge fire with any consistency, while many other ships in that universe can.

What? I was comparing it to, say, the Millenium Falcon which is much more maneuverable. Sure, it's also much less massive, but if ISDs can barely hit the Falcon, then Falcon style ships (large numbers thereof) are probably a more efficient combat design for the Wars universe than ISDs.

You're mixing apples with oranges, my board-member coleague... You pick up the MF and the ISD, and say one is better than the other due to their speed and maneuvrability. That's the same as putting a patrol boat and a cruiser side by side and say the patrol boat is better, because it's faster and more maneuvrable.

They're totally incompatible, each of the ships were designed with a mission in purpose: the ISD for carrying out several duties, including capital ship combat, while the MF is a cargo vessel, heavily modified, but still vulnerable to ISD fire.
Saying that MF are more efficient designs than ISD is just plain stupid. Both are different, with different mision profiles and duties.
A ISD can mantain deep space patrols for extended periods, without the needs of a space port, it mantains a heavy complement of spacecraft and vehicles, ground troops, and packs enough firepower to take on another equal-sized ship, or smaller ones.
A MF travels fast but barring supplies it can't stay long without a port, it has facilities for a few dozen persons, doesn't carry a great amount of firepower, only for it's self defense, it's cargo space is laughable...
In conclusion, and once again, they're tottaly diferent, and more numbers of MF don't make a better platform than a single ISD.

ISDs suck from a design standpoint. They're all brawn and no brains at all.

So what? If they can take on ships their own size and win, is a good enough design.

[SirNitram]

The amount of brainlessness being exhibited by those that don't like the ISD astounds me.

A ship is well-designed if it fufils it's goals. Let's check, shall we?

Capital ship combat: Regarded as a terrifying force. Three of these ships, some 16 years after Endor(Hand Of Thrawn duology) are enough to threaten several hundred lesser craft. Excellent forward arc, excellent shields, excellent linear accel.

Commandship: Can coordinate smaller vessels with relative ease, often found in charge of battlegroups.

Carrier: Can deploy 72 fighters rapidly, and coordinate with them effectively.

Terror Weapon: 1 hour. 1 planet. Equals one dead husk. Fear my BDZ.

Response Time: Can cross entire galaxy in hours, can cross sectors in minutes.

Now, from actually looking at canon, they fufil their duties exceptionally well. Those wanking to the idea of tiny, manevuerable ships with HTL's sufficient to breach the rear shielding are being morons, as you must generate the power somewhere, and that's part of the ISD's huge bulk. An ISD is built to withstand fire, and withstand fire they do(Did you miss that it took nearly half an hour of combat in ROTJ to start bringing them down? Or are you just painfully stupid?).

As for all those plugging their fingers in their ears and decrying the bridge tower, how many of the 25,000 ISDs produced died from that?

Oh yea. One.

[Alyeska]

The ISD is well designed for the scifi universe that it comes from. That is what REALLY counts. From a practical stand point its got some glarring weaknesses, but then again so did all of the Trek ships I listed, yet I don't see people harping on me for listing them. The ISD suits the role it was designed for in Star Wars and that is the most important factor to take into account.

[Atlan]

My vote for best designed ship goes to the Discoverer class starships from the Perry Rhodan series.
It is a sphere about 1800 meters in diameter, with all major crew compartments in the center, most important systems are present in duplicate, it has both gravitic and reaction drives, and two entirely different FLT systems, the fastest of which allows for travel of up to 85 million times C. Acelleration in realspace is a maximum of 880 km*s^2.
It carries a total of 60 light cruisers, and some 100 fighters.
It`s own weaponry consists of 60 multi-purpose beam cannons, 20 Transform cannons capable of firing up to 1 TT bombs, and 8 heavy Transform cannons firing up to 4 TT weapons in salvos of 10 shots per cannon.
Being a sphere means that you`ll allways be facing at least half of that weapons load.

Link to a picture of the Leif Ericsson (cross-sectioned):
http://www.rz-journal.de/Downl/2067.jpg

[Admiral Piett]

As for all those plugging their fingers in their ears and decrying the bridge tower, how many of the 25,000 ISDs produced died from that?
Oh yea. One.

Sure,because you know the individual fate of all the 25000 ISDs
The Executor was destroyed thanks to the exposed bridge.
That ISD in the TESB was at the best disabled at the worst destroyed always thanks to the exposed bridge flaw.On what basis you state that it could have not happened in others cases?

[SirNitram]

As for all those plugging their fingers in their ears and decrying the bridge tower, how many of the 25,000 ISDs produced died from that?
Oh yea. One.

Sure,because you know the individual fate of all the 25000 ISDs
The Executor was destroyed thanks to the exposed bridge.
That ISD in the TESB was at the best disabled at the worst destroyed always thanks to the exposed bridge flaw.On what basis you state that it could have not happened in others cases?

You'll note I said 'ISD', not "All SD's", braindead boy. So the Executor isn't part of the tally.

My basis is simple: It is the only time a death of that type is ever mentioned. You are assuming the bridge tower has led to more lost vessels without any proof. Feel free to provide any you find for your claim. If you have no proof and just say it ought to be so, well, fuck you and your ignorant methods.

[Mayhem]

Do you see the first turbolaser on the left (which would be the second turbolaser turret in the row of three)? As you may notice there it has a single,thin stick under what you believe are the two flat barrels.Well that thin stick IS the barrel, or better one of the surviving ones.It is surely a barrel because all turbolaser barrels are similar to it,and it could not conceivably be something else.Take a picture of the Mk2 and you will see that all the barrels look like it.
And I doubt that it could fit into the space between two turrets.

ummm.... I hate to point out the obvious... but every pic you linked to shows a MK I ISD. I specifically reffered to the MK II... whose main batteries look nothing like those. They have 8 barrels per turret, all of which fit in the circle of the turrets.

[Andras]

Back on topic, I nominate Renegade Legion ships as well designed. Heavy, all around direct energy weapons, massive missle capability, devestating fighters, variable shields and effective CIWS weaponry.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't know if it's been suggested, but I'd like to put forward Michael (Project Archangel) from Niven's book Footfall. Now that was an overwhelmingly cool ship and well designed to boot.

[Howedar]

I should like to point out for the record that a TL bolt is seen hitting the shields covering an ISD's engines in ROTJ. In fact, to my knowledge this is the only time shields have ever been seen.