Star Destroyer registries?

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Lord Sander »

Browsing through the SWTC I stumbled upon this:
"The hull number of the star destroyer Entor (CVS 1049) indicates either that in excess of a thousand star destroyers of this class have been built, or that this is the 1049th built by its particular shipyard."

The Entor is the Star Destroyer that was hit by an asteroid in TESB.
This is the first time I've come across an actual hull number of an ISD. Unfortunately, Dr. Saxton makes no mention of the source, and I can't find any other references to it.
Does anyone know where this registry number came from?
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
Wyrm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2206
Joined: 2005-09-02 01:10pm
Location: In the sand, pooping hallucinogenic goodness.

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Wyrm »

Lord Sander wrote:Browsing through the SWTC I stumbled upon this:
"The hull number of the star destroyer Entor (CVS 1049) indicates either that in excess of a thousand star destroyers of this class have been built, or that this is the 1049th built by its particular shipyard."
Not necessarily, as a registry number can logically skip randomly through the registry space to hide the true strength of the fleet.

In WWII, the Allies got the idea of deducing the number of tanks produced by the Germans by observing the serial numbers of mark V Panzer tanks they captured, and assuming that the Germans —being Germans— would logically number their tanks in order from 1 to N. Using this, they estimated that the number Panzers produced between June 1940 and Sept 1942 was about 246 per month. This estimate turned out to be almost spot on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1824525,00.html

Emboldened by these numbers (the previous numbers on German production were gross overestimates), the Allies attacked the western front in 1944 and smashed the Panzers; a neat triumph of statistical analysis.

I imagine registries are no longer numbered sequentially to avoid an adversary doing the same trick on them... although given the dominance of the SW main spacies (Republic and Empire), they might not bother.
Darth Wong on Strollers vs. Assholes: "There were days when I wished that my stroller had weapons on it."
wilfulton on Bible genetics: "If two screaming lunatics copulate in front of another screaming lunatic, the result will be yet another screaming lunatic. 8)"
SirNitram: "The nation of France is a theory, not a fact. It should therefore be approached with an open mind, and critically debated and considered."

Cornivore! | BAN-WATCH CANE: XVII | WWJDFAKB? - What Would Jesus Do... For a Klondike Bar? | Evil Bayesian Conspiracy
User avatar
Cao Cao
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 2004-07-20 12:36pm
Location: In my own little world

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Cao Cao »

Wyrm wrote:I imagine registries are no longer numbered sequentially to avoid an adversary doing the same trick on them... although given the dominance of the SW main spacies (Republic and Empire), they might not bother.
Oh gawd. Don't give trektards and/or Karen Traviss ideas.
Image
"I do not understand why everything in this script must inevitably explode."~Teal'c
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Starglider »

Wyrm wrote:Emboldened by these numbers (the previous numbers on German production were gross overestimates), the Allies attacked the western front in 1944 and smashed the Panzers; a neat triumph of statistical analysis.
Modern global satellite surveillance makes hiding military strength much more difficult (though not impossible). That brings up a question; in Star Trek there are installations (e.g. the Argus Array, a 'subspace telescope') that can spy on planetary surfaces over a range of at least several light years and generate images at least comparable to a current commercial LEO satellite. They can detect uncloaked fleet movements at a range of at least light years. Do SW powers have comparable or superior long range surveillance capabilities, other than cheap long-range probe droids?
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

Starglider wrote:Do SW powers have comparable or superior long range surveillance capabilities, other than cheap long-range probe droids?
IIRC during the Yuuhzan Vong War an Executor-class was able to pound a Vong Worldship over Coruscant from the other side of the system.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Starglider »

General Schatten wrote:IIRC during the Yuuhzan Vong War an Executor-class was able to pound a Vong Worldship over Coruscant from the other side of the system.
That scene is more useful for establishing turbolaser range than sensor capability. Frankly we could locate and hit a worldship from the other side of a solar system with current sensor technology, if we had a sufficiently accurate mass driver that could shoot at a significant fraction of c. By 'long range surveillance' I meant 'at least several light years'.

EDIT: It may be that there's just never been the motivation to build such a thing in SW. In Trek there's a cold war with well defined neutral zones and fortified borders, which you can't just send a starship across to check out a planet directly. Being able to spy on installations and fleets over a few light years range is a useful capability. AFAIK there's never been a time where a similar capability would be strategically useful in SW. If the telescope had a range of tens of thousands of lightyears that would be very useful though. I know the Vong were discovered by an ExGal station at a fairly long range, but I don't know the specifics; anyone got the book (Vector Prime I believe)?
Last edited by Starglider on 2007-05-20 08:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Noble Ire
The Arbiter
Posts: 5938
Joined: 2005-04-30 12:03am
Location: Beyond the Outer Rim

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Noble Ire »

General Schatten wrote:
Starglider wrote:Do SW powers have comparable or superior long range surveillance capabilities, other than cheap long-range probe droids?
IIRC during the Yuuhzan Vong War an Executor-class was able to pound a Vong Worldship over Coruscant from the other side of the system.
It was a Mon Calamari capital ship, actually. Although that event demonstrates highly refined sensor technology, I don't believe it correlates to the surveillance technology that Starglider discussed (that capable of accurate, remote observation over light-year distances).

Edit: A bit late...
The Rift
Stanislav Petrov- The man who saved the world
Hugh Thompson Jr.- A True American Hero
"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - President Barack Obama
"May fortune favor you, for your goals are the goals of the world." - Ancient Chall valediction
User avatar
Darth Servo
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8805
Joined: 2002-10-10 06:12pm
Location: Satellite of Love

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Darth Servo »

Lord Sander wrote:Browsing through the SWTC I stumbled upon this:
"The hull number of the star destroyer Entor (CVS 1049) indicates either that in excess of a thousand star destroyers of this class have been built, or that this is the 1049th built by its particular shipyard."
As everyone else has pointed out, registry numbers and even fleet/squadron numbers aren't consecutive. Hell, I've stayed in hotel rooms with four-digit numbers. Said hotel sure as hell didn't have thousands of suites.
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

USN hull numbers tend to be sequential but that's not true for all navies - in particular, the Russian Navy's hull numbers are also based on location.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by PainRack »

Starglider wrote: Modern global satellite surveillance makes hiding military strength much more difficult (though not impossible). That brings up a question; in Star Trek there are installations (e.g. the Argus Array, a 'subspace telescope') that can spy on planetary surfaces over a range of at least several light years and generate images at least comparable to a current commercial LEO satellite. They can detect uncloaked fleet movements at a range of at least light years. Do SW powers have comparable or superior long range surveillance capabilities, other than cheap long-range probe droids?
Rogue squadron recon of Sernipdal was first preceded by the use of "gravitic" sensors to detect any Yuzhan Vong warships before they jumped into the system. Given the early stage of the war, its possible that this kind of capability was not developed specifically for the Yuzhan Vong.


Similarly, Kyp Avengers also pulled off navigational data to track smugglers and miscreants off satellites that tracked ships passing them by via hyperspace.

Not to mention the use of such interstellar sensors in Thrawn duology.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
FTeik
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2035
Joined: 2002-07-16 04:12pm

Post by FTeik »

I have to look into the ROTS:ICS again, but I'm sure that it talks about lightyears of sensor-range for the sensors of the Munificient-class-frigates.

The Imperial Survey Corps can detect traces of technology from outside a system on a planetary surface.
The optimist thinks, that we live in the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist is afraid, that this is true.

"Don't ask, what your country can do for you. Ask, what you can do for your country." Mao Tse-Tung.
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Post by Lord Sander »

:? We all know the Empire has more than a pitiful 1000 ISDs and that the number doesn't have to be sequential.
But does anyone know where this hull number came from?
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Lord Sander wrote::? We all know the Empire has more than a pitiful 1000 ISDs and that the number doesn't have to be sequential.
But does anyone know where this hull number came from?
The old Imperator diagrams with the incorrect size.
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Post by Lord Sander »

phongn wrote:The old Imperator diagrams with the incorrect size.
Ahh. Thank you.
Are those official?
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
Chris OFarrell
Durandal's Bitch
Posts: 5724
Joined: 2002-08-02 07:57pm
Contact:

Post by Chris OFarrell »

FTeik wrote:I have to look into the ROTS:ICS again, but I'm sure that it talks about lightyears of sensor-range for the sensors of the Munificient-class-frigates.

The Imperial Survey Corps can detect traces of technology from outside a system on a planetary surface.
Actually I'm pretty sure its Light Hours.
And there are quite a few examples in the Thrawn Trilogy of Thrawn assembling his forces only a matter of light hours from major planets then jumping in, all without his ships being detected.
Image
User avatar
Hawkwings
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3372
Joined: 2005-01-28 09:30pm
Location: USC, LA, CA

Post by Hawkwings »

Well, space *is* really big. A light-hour is nothing to sneeze at, expecially in 3 dimensions.
FTeik
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2035
Joined: 2002-07-16 04:12pm

Post by FTeik »

Looked it up. Lightdays it was.
The optimist thinks, that we live in the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist is afraid, that this is true.

"Don't ask, what your country can do for you. Ask, what you can do for your country." Mao Tse-Tung.
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

Lord Sander wrote:
phongn wrote:The old Imperator diagrams with the incorrect size.
Ahh. Thank you.
Are those official?
Apparently that's not the case. Mandel drew them, but they were never official.
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Chris OFarrell wrote:Actually I'm pretty sure its Light Hours.
And there are quite a few examples in the Thrawn Trilogy of Thrawn assembling his forces only a matter of light hours from major planets then jumping in, all without his ships being detected.
Well, if we assume that it can take some time to scan a volume of space (or defending forces are operating under EMCON) even a jump-in of a few light hours can be "good enough" as long as you don't let so much time go that your giant engines signature finally reaches someone.

Hell, SW sensors might be suspect to sidelobing effects and other issues that allow warships to mask themselves at a distance.
User avatar
Warsie
BANNED
Posts: 521
Joined: 2007-03-06 02:08pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Re: Star Destroyer registries?

Post by Warsie »

Lord Sander wrote:Browsing through the SWTC I stumbled upon this:
"The hull number of the star destroyer Entor (CVS 1049) indicates either that in excess of a thousand star destroyers of this class have been built, or that this is the 1049th built by its particular shipyard."

The Entor is the Star Destroyer that was hit by an asteroid in TESB.
This is the first time I've come across an actual hull number of an ISD. Unfortunately, Dr. Saxton makes no mention of the source, and I can't find any other references to it.
Does anyone know where this registry number came from?
I think that was the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy when a scavenger ship finds the wreckage of an ISD destroyed during an evacuation of an Imperial world.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

phongn wrote:Hell, SW sensors might be suspect to sidelobing effects and other issues that allow warships to mask themselves at a distance.
Perhaps this is why ISDs have two sensor lobes, as well as who knows how many other sensor equipment over the ship.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
Post Reply