Superlasers - Why so rare?

[Baal]

If we list off all the times we see superlasers we note two important things.

1. They are very effective. You never see anything hit with a superlaser that isnt destroyed. In AOTC we see the ground arty version that destroy a TF sphere ship. In ROTS we see one mounted in the hold of a Venetor take out an enemy ship. Then there are the Death Stars. I dont think I need to say anything there.

2. They are very rare weapons.

So why do we see them so rarely in SW? Sure the really big ones the the DS1 and DS2 take massive effort to build but we see see smaller ones that are also effective yet we only see them for seconds.

Are Superlasers in and of themselves extremely difficult to make or maintain? Do we even know why they are seen so rarely?

[Havok]

Are you just using the movies as reference or are you taking the EU into account?

For the EU, there was the Darksaber, the Tarkin, the Eclipse, I think Center Point Station was one. Those are just of the top of my head.

In universe, they are obviously expensive. You need a large enough platform to house and move them. They are giant fucking targets, so you need to be able to defend them. Also they seem to be more of a terror weapon than anything, as they tend to destroy things out right, capital ships, moons, planets.

I think, out of universe, because it would end the stories pretty damn fast.

[Darth Hoth]

Are you just using the movies as reference or are you taking the EU into account?

For the EU, there was the Darksaber, the Tarkin, the Eclipse, I think Center Point Station was one. Those are just of the top of my head.

Unless that's something from the Legacy of the Force novels, which I refuse to read, Centerpoint wasn't one. It had all kinds of other weird gizmos, but not that.

In addition to the other examples mentioned, there were also Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyers, of which four were planned to be built as of Dark Empire; we know of none that actually entered service, however. These were to have Eclipse-grade superlasers.

As to the original question, from Darksaber, it appears the superlaser is a quite complicated device, given that Durga needs not only the original Death Star plans to build his superweapon, but also one of its key designers (the designer in the pre-prequels continuity). Since the New Republic also appeared to hold the only surviving copy of the blueprints at the time, stored in Coruscant's formerly Imperial computer core, it's quite likely the technology was very restricted as well. The required combination of scientific genious and plans would thus be very rare, making mass production impossible after that point; presumably Imperial secrecy had done so earlier.

[Anguirus]

Small-scale superlasers aren't THAT uncommon, as they are mounted on LAATs.

[Darth Hoth]

Small-scale superlasers aren't THAT uncommon, as they are mounted on LAATs.

Really? I had no idea. (And Wookiee doesn't say anything about that.) Can you please verify? AFAIK, superlasers were always rather large weapons.

[Isolder74]

Small-scale superlasers aren't THAT uncommon, as they are mounted on LAATs.

Really? I had no idea. (And Wookiee doesn't say anything about that.) Can you please verify? AFAIK, superlasers were always rather large weapons.

He's talking about the Superlaser style bubble turrets on the LAAT

[Darth Hoth]

Small-scale superlasers aren't THAT uncommon, as they are mounted on LAATs.

Really? I had no idea. (And Wookiee doesn't say anything about that.) Can you please verify? AFAIK, superlasers were always rather large weapons.

He's talking about the Superlaser style bubble turrets on the LAAT

Ah, that explains it, then. Those aren't superlasers, though, merely composite beam lasers. They use similar projection technology, but the beams themselves are quite different in nature.

[Lambda 00]

In AOTC we see the ground arty version that destroy a TF sphere ship.

Those are Turbolasers, the main part of the SPHATs.
http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/sphat/

[VT-16]

A superlaser is just an insanely powerful up-scaled composite beam turbolaser. We've had plenty of examples of those in ground warfare systems (even if most are from relatively recent sources), and the increasing amount of battle stations and battleships carrying similar devices also make the claim of relative "rareness" ludicrous.

Basically, if you're spending resources that would otherwise go to producing millions of smaller conventional warships and spending a few years on each design, that's mostly the reason why they're not all too common. The bigger they are, the more resources they demand. It's actually somewhat impressive that they kept making those stations over and over again, with at least four functional superlaser wielding stations, and three undergoing construction. Then there's the heavy Star Dreadnoughts fitted out with miniature versions of the superlasers.

Made this timeline of various projects to illustrate.

[Darth Hoth]

So you're saying Star Tours is canon? Too bad I didn't know when I posted on the "when did the EU go overboard" thread...

Seriously, though, there has to be a reason other than sheer inefficiency that they aren't more commonplace, since the Empire evidently can produce them very easily (without it even being noticed in the budget!). And for the Death Star, wasn't it the sheer mass, rather than the technology, that made it as expensive as it was? Super Star Destroyers wouldn't have that problem.

[Stark]

The OP is stupid. 'We never see anything hit by a superlaser that isn't destroyed' because they're fucking huge superlasers on 100km+ warships. It's not a magic quality of superlasers: smaller superlasers are not as effective, and very small superlasers appear to used more for sustained fire than anything else.

I imagine that turbolaser technology doesn't scale a single weapon up that high, thus the need for compound turbolaser (superlaser) technology.

Remember, the Eclipse dreadnoughts DID have superlasers. Not being giant 100km+ warships, their superlasers were much less powerful than those of the DS. 'Superlaser' is not a magic word for 'blow up planets', such simplistic analysis is absurd.

[Darth Hoth]

Remember, the Eclipse dreadnoughts DID have superlasers. Not being giant 100km+ warships, their superlasers were much less powerful than those of the DS. 'Superlaser' is not a magic word for 'blow up planets', such simplistic analysis is absurd.

2/3rds as powerful doesn't sound like "much less". Clearly there are other issues than just size that play a part. But of course, "superlaser" doesn't necessarily mean "planetcrusher" per se.

[Stark]

Yeah, and 2/3s is utterly absurd and stupid. What's your point? Either the output is far, far lower or the ship is 90% capacitors and needs to charge for weeks/months.

If it doesn't mean magic planet explosion, and most SW ships can send their reactor output through a few hardpoints, what's the need for superlasers? Eclipse uses massive capacitors to provide the power for it's low-power shots that don't even make much sense when you figure the output of the thousands of guns she'd have anyway. Powerplant output doesn't come from nowhere and putting a 'superlaser' on a ship isn't going to make it better.

[Darth Hoth]

Yeah, and 2/3s is utterly absurd and stupid. What's your point? Either the output is far, far lower or the ship is 90% capacitors and needs to charge for weeks/months.

If it doesn't mean magic planet explosion, and most SW ships can send their reactor output through a few hardpoints, what's the need for superlasers? Eclipse uses massive capacitors to provide the power for it's low-power shots that don't even make much sense when you figure the output of the thousands of guns she'd have anyway. Powerplant output doesn't come from nowhere and putting a 'superlaser' on a ship isn't going to make it better.

I don't have any calculations to back it up, of course, but is the first point necessarily true? If the Death Star, with its myriad systems and powerful defences, gets enough power out of the reactor core we see in RotJ to both run as normal and fire superlaser beams every few minutes, would an Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer have to recharge that long? Especially with its hugely inadequate normal weaponry...

The point with superlasers, as I understand them, is that they can break planetary shields, and do so instantly. IIRC from Wedge's Gamble, doing so with conventional weapons takes weeks/months, whereas the Eclipse could destroy a shield generator through its defences. That would also explain why the NR is so afraid of Thrawn's ploy with invisible ships and Star Destroyers firing "through" shields in The Last Command - they think it's a superlaser, though none mentions it at the time.

[Batman]

Where does 2/3rds as powerful come from? I never read Dark Empire (and don't think I missed much) but the DE sourcebook (well the old one anyway) merely described it as 'being able to sear whole continents in a flash'. Even if we assume this to mean vaporisation that takes an infinitesimal fraction of the energy required to what DS1 did to Alderaan.

As to the alleged 'rarity' of small-scale compound turbolasers, how about that's because they AREN'T orders of magnitude more powerful than same-scale standard turbolasers? The LAAT ones did nothing we haven't seen other crew-served weapons of that size do, and the SPHAT ones needed repeated hits to damage an apparently unshielded core ship to the point where it crashed. Acclamator. 200GT per gun per shot.

Indeed, the one thing the compound turbolaser seems to have going for it at ordinary ordinary scales is the ability to sweep across targets thanks to being a beam weapon.

[Batman]

Yeah, and 2/3s is utterly absurd and stupid. What's your point? Either the output is far, far lower or the ship is 90% capacitors and needs to charge for weeks/months.
If it doesn't mean magic planet explosion, and most SW ships can send their reactor output through a few hardpoints, what's the need for superlasers? Eclipse uses massive capacitors to provide the power for it's low-power shots that don't even make much sense when you figure the output of the thousands of guns she'd have anyway. Powerplant output doesn't come from nowhere and putting a 'superlaser' on a ship isn't going to make it better.

I don't have any calculations to back it up, of course, but is the first point necessarily true? If the Death Star, with its myriad systems and powerful defences, gets enough power out of the reactor core we see in RotJ to both run as normal and fire superlaser beams every few minutes,

You're kidding, right? The DS2 didn't HAVE powerful defenses yet, hence the need for the planetary based shield generator, a goodly portion of the myriad systems hadn't been installed yet what with the thing still under construction and firing a shipkiller blast every couple of minutes isn't even remotely comparable to being able to fire a planetkilling one. At all.

would an Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer have to recharge that long? Especially with its hugely inadequate normal weaponry...

Does the term 'scale' mean anything to you? The DS2 had a DS2 sized reactor and fired ship killers every minute or so. The Eclipse is about a millionth or less the size of the DS2 and is going to have accordingly less reactor power. So what makes you think it can fire planetkillers AT ALL, leave alone without ludicrously long chargeup times?

The point with superlasers, as I understand them, is that they can break planetary shields, and do so instantly. IIRC from Wedge's Gamble, doing so with conventional weapons takes weeks/months, whereas the Eclipse could destroy a shield generator through its defences.

This requires 2/3rds the firepower of the DS1 how?

That would also explain why the NR is so afraid of Thrawn's ploy with invisible ships and Star Destroyers firing "through" shields in The Last Command - they think it's a superlaser, though none mentions it at the time.

I think if I were facing an enemy that can apparently fire through planetary shields I would be concerned about that regardless of the nature of the weapon he does it with.

[JointStrikeFighter]

The Geonosis droid factory used a miniature superlaser to melt ore.

[VT-16]

I think the latest is now 2/3rds of one of the 8 planetary proton beams of the DS I.

[Batman]

Since when is it officially a proton beam and I suspect what you mean is tributary?

[VT-16]

According to the Death Star Designer they are called planetary proton beams (and elements from the website are noted in the Holocron, unless otherwise stated, according to Leland Chee). This originated in a fan-made description back in the 70s, IIRC.

[Batman]

Regardless of wether or not they are proton beams what is the reasoning behind calling them planetary, given they aren't?

[Illuminatus Primus]

As to the original question, from Darksaber, it appears the superlaser is a quite complicated device, given that Durga needs not only the original Death Star plans to build his superweapon, but also one of its key designers (the designer in the pre-prequels continuity). Since the New Republic also appeared to hold the only surviving copy of the blueprints at the time, stored in Coruscant's formerly Imperial computer core, it's quite likely the technology was very restricted as well. The required combination of scientific genious and plans would thus be very rare, making mass production impossible after that point; presumably Imperial secrecy had done so earlier.

Just because he required the original Death Star plans and the staff of Bevel Lemilisk to build it does not mean that they are impossible to construct without it; would you go about building a battleship without hiring engineers with experience and consulting previous design's schematics, even if you had access to all the requisite technical knowhow?

Ah, that explains it, then. Those aren't superlasers, though, merely composite beam lasers. They use similar projection technology, but the beams themselves are quite different in nature.

What are you talking about? There is nothing to suggest that superlaser is not simply parlance for megascale composite-beam energy weapons. They look the same and propagate at the same speeds. What evidence suggests the superlaser is something special, rather than in principle simply an immense composite-beam turbolaser?

Seriously, though, there has to be a reason other than sheer inefficiency that they aren't more commonplace, since the Empire evidently can produce them very easily (without it even being noticed in the budget!). And for the Death Star, wasn't it the sheer mass, rather than the technology, that made it as expensive as it was? Super Star Destroyers wouldn't have that problem.

The cost is almost certainly due to the mass; the Death Star I was on the order of hundreds of millions of ISDs in mass (assuming relatively comparable density), and the Death Star II is on the order of tens of billions of ISDs. That's an enormous opportunity cost. Furthermore, its not that it is called a superlaser which is responsible for its relativistically planetary-mass scattering firepower. It requires a reactor to generate the required power for such an event, and capacitors to store it, etc. A weapon operating on the same technical principles as the Death Star I superlaser but on the scale of an Executor-class battlecruiser would require probably thousands of refuelings and endless-capacity capacitors with the main reactor running at full intensity for weeks. A Super Star Destroyer's reactor cannot generate the relativistic planetary-mass scattering (in spite of a deflector shield!) that the Death Star I's reactor can.

2/3rds as powerful doesn't sound like "much less". Clearly there are other issues than just size that play a part. But of course, "superlaser" doesn't necessarily mean "planetcrusher" per se.

Its factually incorrect; the "searing continents" requisite firepower is on the order of at least a hundred billion times less than the firepower required to cause an event consistent with the destruction of Alderaan as depicted in Episode IV. The Death Star's main reactor is required to generate that firepower - the vessel is not for show, its a brute-force solution to its role: it is a really, really large warship with a really, really large reactor feeding a really, really large composite-beam turbolaser.

I don't have any calculations to back it up, of course, but is the first point necessarily true? If the Death Star, with its myriad systems and powerful defences, gets enough power out of the reactor core we see in RotJ to both run as normal and fire superlaser beams every few minutes, would an Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer have to recharge that long? Especially with its hugely inadequate normal weaponry...

The Eclipse's normal weaponry is not inadequate, we lack adequate information regarding its intended role and expected opponents, and we do not know the target acquisition, firepower, and combat longevity etc. of its weapons, so we do not know its capability. The Death Star II generated Mon Calamari cruiser-obliterating blasts every few minutes. What would make you think they compared to the firepower required to scatter an Earth-like planet's mass at velocities close to the speed of light?

The point with superlasers, as I understand them, is that they can break planetary shields, and do so instantly. IIRC from Wedge's Gamble, doing so with conventional weapons takes weeks/months,

It does so through raw firepower; the Death Star's beam is capable of projecting 1e22 megatons of firepower or higher on a very small area; this is considerably in excess of the firepower intensity which could delivered by any likely conventional fleet. That's why the Death Star was necessary, and why they need a fucking huge singular turbolaser mounted on a fucking huge ship.

whereas the Eclipse could destroy a shield generator through its defences.

I doubt this, otherwise the bulk and firepower of the Death Star is stupid and useless. Even if we grant this, its through the power of technobabble.

That would also explain why the NR is so afraid of Thrawn's ploy with invisible ships and Star Destroyers firing "through" shields in The Last Command - they think it's a superlaser, though none mentions it at the time.

This is circular logic. You assume that Thrawn's gambit reminds them of superlasers and then use it as evidence to support that superlasers = automatic shield penetration. Not to mention its a no-limits fallacy: "its called superlaser, it can beat any shield!!!shift+one!"

[VT-16]

Planetary range, perhaps? I have no idea, only that there are proton beams (for use on regular capital ships) and planetary proton beams (for use on battlestations that can pulverize planets).

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Geonosis droid factory used a miniature superlaser to melt ore.

And it was called such, backing up my refutation of the "name-based" argument. Thank you.

[Darth Raptor]

"Planetary" because they're positioned in a ring around the weapon's perimeter, most likely.