Two questions about capital ships

[Illuminatus Primus]

Did you mean 30-100? If so, I know the Millenium Falcon is slightly smaller and not an average military ship of the line, but an ISD seemed to have quite a bit of trouble with it.

"Trouble"? They were trying to capture it, and as C-3PO notes, the chances of even a heavily modified YT-1300 like the MF surviving a direct assault on an Imperial Star Destroyer are very poor. Are you seriously employing the reasoning the ISDs will be hard pressed to destroy larger craft because of TESB? We saw it manhandle a blockade runner with orders of magnitude more firepower and shielding capacity.

I always saw Skipray-type blasboats to be our torpedo boat analogs. Nearly as fast as a starfighter, but with significantly more punch, sacrificing armor. Much as American PT boats did.

Role is important in not superficial appearance and name, but in literal capability relative to other ships. How is the Skipray supposed to serve as a threat to capital ships the way that submarines and torpedo boats do/did with torpedoes? Obviously the Skipray does not qualify, whereas the Munificent does.

[Batman]

The ISDs had trouble with the MF in CATCHING them, nothing more. Whenever an ISD was in trouble, it was from dedicated warships of roughly comparable size and/or sizable fighter swarms. Barring the freak kill in COPL the MF has NEVER given an ISD more trouble than trying to hit her, preferably WITHOUT killing her.
As for the Skipray, that's not a torpedo boat. That's the A-6 (possibly F-111) to the X-Wing's F-15, the Y-Wing's F-4 and the A-Wing's F-16.

[Dark Flame]

You two are right about the MF issue.

But the Skipray blasboat is packing 3 ion cannons, 2 laser cannons, proton torpedo launcher, and a concussion missile launcher ( from starwars.com ). That's punch that is out of proportion to it's 25 meter length. It doesn't have the possibility of a one-shot torpedo kill like an American PT boat, but it carries very few crew and is hauling a lot of armament in a small, fast package.

According to the above link, in some registries the Skipray is listed as a capital ship, despite being a fourth the size (or smaller) of most capital ships. That's why I used naval terminology, to compare it to the cap ships it fights. Batman's Air Force comparisons with other fighters is completely irrelevant.

For example: The F-4 ( =Y-Wing) is 19 meters long, maxes out at Mach 2.23, carries 18,650 lbs. of bombs and 8 missiles.

Source

The A-6 ( =Skipray) has 2 crew, is 16.6 meters long, tops out at 648 mph, and carries 18,000 lbs. of ordinance.

source

That particular comparison is worthless, as it would show the Skipray to pack less punch and be even more limited in ordinance, size, and capabilities than a Y-wing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Jesus. Its not that close of a comparison; this is exactly why the rating system is screwed up is people use these one-off analogies. Anyway, the Skipray lacks the ordinance and firepower to credibly challenge more than the smallest corvettes and maybe frigates except in large numbers. Therefore, it does not play the torpedo boat to the battle line (big Saxtonian ships) and to the destroyer (ISD).

[Darth Ruinus]

This is why people say that Naval terminology wouldnt work for space forces, since there is no real comparison? So what would work? Would a new terminology come about, would army terminolog or air force terminology be used?

Still though, this sounds pretty silly, its much easier to just say thats an Imperator, thats an Executor, thats a Victory etc etc instead of getting muddied about with these names.

[Knife]

You also have to take into account size and scope. While the Trade Federation and other pan galactic corporations can afford huge fleets of large craft, there are plenty of smaller entities in the Republic/Empire that don't need galaxy level ships nor could afford to run them.

You also have to figure into the mix what the entities are going to use the ships for. No need to run and maintain a Stardestroyer to ward off those pesky pirate snub-fighters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just because Panama only needs missile boats and patrol craft doesn't mean that is a good reason why their mouse-ships should be labeled battleships.

[Knife]

Just because Panama only needs missile boats and patrol craft doesn't mean that is a good reason why their mouse-ships should be labeled battleships.

So says you, however there's been quite a few times where nations have upped the naming of a ship type for national ego. Pocket battleships come to mind as does the Ticonderoga destroyer/cruiser.

[Isolder74]

Just because Panama only needs missile boats and patrol craft doesn't mean that is a good reason why their mouse-ships should be labeled battleships.

So says you, however there's been quite a few times where nations have upped the naming of a ship type for national ego. Pocket battleships come to mind as does the Ticonderoga destroyer/cruiser.

Actually in the case of the 'Pocket Battleships' of the Nazi's that was a nickname given them by their enemies noting that they were not truly battle-cruisers in the strictest sense.

[Isolder74]

You know I think the A-wing better fits being compared to the Avro Arrow.


Avro Arrow

[NetKnight]

Just because Panama only needs missile boats and patrol craft doesn't mean that is a good reason why their mouse-ships should be labeled battleships.

So says you, however there's been quite a few times where nations have upped the naming of a ship type for national ego. Pocket battleships come to mind as does the Ticonderoga destroyer/cruiser.

Actually in the case of the 'Pocket Battleships' of the Nazi's that was a nickname given them by their enemies noting that they were not truly battle-cruisers in the strictest sense.

A better example of this principle would be the American "battleships" of circa 1900 (of which USS Maine is an example), which were classified BBs, but were more akin to heavy cruisers by European standards.

The opposite principle exists in history, as well. The American United States “frigates” (USS Constitution being an example) were more properly light ships of the line in capabilities and size, but were not classified as such for political reasons. I am not overly knowledgeable on EU canon, but perhaps the same principle might be observed in Star Wars canon with overtly pacific governments which nevertheless maintain military commitments?

[VT-16]

That might explain why Rendili keeps Dreadnaughts smaller than Corporate Alliance destroyers and Banking Clan frigates. (And the neutered Republic Navy as well, since they used alot of those dreadnaughts.)

[Batman]

You know I think the A-wing better fits being compared to the Avro Arrow.
Avro Arrow

Except the Arrow, while being extremely fast, was also rather large and not all that maneuverable. Whereas the A-Wing, while being exceptionally fast (or so the EU says) is also small and agile (or at least it's depicted that way in the EU. I don't think what we see of it in RoTJ is enough to determine anything besides it being tiny, and that it's at least as maneuverable as any other fighter depicted so far).
The problem with aircraft-wars fightersize craft analogies is that modern day combat aircraft basically come in 2 sizes-fighter and strategic bomber, with the performances in both classes being pretty close together (excepting speed and allowing for age differences). While the smart thing to do is probably NOT to do the comparisons to begin with, WW2 aircraft might be a less useless approach when you feel you have to.

[Warsie]

That still doesn't explain the internal inconsistency of role ratings within professional militaries like the Imperial Navy.

you could try to say one is for the local fleets and the like and the others is for the giant multi-mile warships.

[phongn]

You know I think the A-wing better fits being compared to the Avro Arrow.
Avro Arrow

Except the Arrow, while being extremely fast, was also rather large and not all that maneuverable. Whereas the A-Wing, while being exceptionally fast (or so the EU says) is also small and agile (or at least it's depicted that way in the EU. I don't think what we see of it in RoTJ is enough to determine anything besides it being tiny, and that it's at least as maneuverable as any other fighter depicted so far).

I usually compare the A-Wing with the F-104 Starfighter; both were designed as short-range, high-performance point-defense interceptors.

The problem with aircraft-wars fightersize craft analogies is that modern day combat aircraft basically come in 2 sizes-fighter and strategic bomber, with the performances in both classes being pretty close together (excepting speed and allowing for age differences).

Er, no, not at all.

[Batman]

You know I think the A-wing better fits being compared to the Avro Arrow.
Avro Arrow

Except the Arrow, while being extremely fast, was also rather large and not all that maneuverable. Whereas the A-Wing, while being exceptionally fast (or so the EU says) is also small and agile (or at least it's depicted that way in the EU. I don't think what we see of it in RoTJ is enough to determine anything besides it being tiny, and that it's at least as maneuverable as any other fighter depicted so far).

I usually compare the A-Wing with the F-104 Starfighter; both were designed as short-range, high-performance point-defense interceptors.

I would agree except the Starfighter wasn't all that agile. The A-Wing supposedly is excellently so.

The problem with aircraft-wars fightersize craft analogies is that modern day combat aircraft basically come in 2 sizes-fighter and strategic bomber, with the performances in both classes being pretty close together (excepting speed and allowing for age differences).

Er, no, not at all.

Please elaborate. I may have oversimplified somewhat but generally there IS a huge gap between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers with there currently not being any aircraft in-between.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Please elaborate. I may have oversimplified somewhat but generally there IS a huge gap between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers with there currently not being any aircraft in-between.

There are some in-between aircraft still; the F-111 and the Su-34 spring to mind.

[Batman]

Please elaborate. I may have oversimplified somewhat but generally there IS a huge gap between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers with there currently not being any aircraft in-between.

There are some in-between aircraft still; the F-111 and the Su-34 spring to mind.

Um-no. The Aardvark has been decommissioned and neither carries a significantly larger payload than other tactical aircraft. Not that that comes as a surprise what with the Su-34 being a Flanker variant and the Vark originally being intended for the role the F-14 wound up in, among others.

[phongn]

I would agree except the Starfighter wasn't all that agile. The A-Wing supposedly is excellently so.

Other than that concern, though, they're pretty much form-and-function similar. In addition, I'd expect A-Wing pilots to prefer "boom and zoom", anyways.

Please elaborate. I may have oversimplified somewhat but generally there IS a huge gap between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers with there currently not being any aircraft in-between.

Well, even for "fighters" there are quite a few size differences. There's lightweight, cheap fighters like the Gripen, heavyweight fighters like the F-22 or Su-27 series, big bulky interceptors like the MiG-31 and so forth.

[Batman]

I would agree except the Starfighter wasn't all that agile. The A-Wing supposedly is excellently so.

Other than that concern, though, they're pretty much form-and-function similar. In addition, I'd expect A-Wing pilots to prefer "boom and zoom", anyways.

No argument there. I would've chosen the Manned Missile myself if it weren't for the agility issue.

Please elaborate. I may have oversimplified somewhat but generally there IS a huge gap between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers with there currently not being any aircraft in-between.

Well, even for "fighters" there are quite a few size differences. There's lightweight, cheap fighters like the Gripen, heavyweight fighters like the F-22 or Su-27 series, big bulky interceptors like the MiG-31 and so forth.

Of course there are. But none approaching the differences between tactical fighters and strategic bombers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just because Panama only needs missile boats and patrol craft doesn't mean that is a good reason why their mouse-ships should be labeled battleships.

So says you, however there's been quite a few times where nations have upped the naming of a ship type for national ego. Pocket battleships come to mind as does the Ticonderoga destroyer/cruiser.

Right. I forgot Panzerschiffe means battleship. Oh wait... Not to mention, that was hardly the same as calling the Carrack a cruiser, since the Panzerschiffe were the largest ship in the German Navy and really a very beefed up cruiser. Its like mistaking the 8 or 12.8 kilometer Super for the Executor. Not like mistaking a tiny shit couple hundred meter ship for something a hundred times its volume or more.

A better example of this principle would be the American "battleships" of circa 1900 (of which USS Maine is an example), which were classified BBs, but were more akin to heavy cruisers by European standards.

The opposite principle exists in history, as well. The American United States “frigates” (USS Constitution being an example) were more properly light ships of the line in capabilities and size, but were not classified as such for political reasons. I am not overly knowledgeable on EU canon, but perhaps the same principle might be observed in Star Wars canon with overtly pacific governments which nevertheless maintain military commitments?

Again, this is taking a very heavy cruiser-to-near-battleship comparison, a ship-of-the-line-to-frigate comparison etc. You guys are taking special cases of one kind - which are generally one-offs and moving ships from one tier to the one above or below it and trying to justify calling something like the Carrack, or even worse, the Consular the same as something a hundred times more voluminous.

The more you guys have to make exceptions, take a special case and turn it into a generalization, and post disclaimers; the more it ceases to be a useful or appropriate excuse or analogy. The more you're papering it up to justify what is really just an ad hoc or extremely informal comparison and the more excusing it is a system which is just fundamentally useless for describing things and communicating meaning in a useful way. You're trying to fit a square peg to a circle hole and it shows.

[Fire Fly]

Could it not be considered that the older ship class's designation be simply a product of not wanting to change its designation to better fit the most current designation scale? There were already ships that were hundreds of years old still being used by the time the Republic fell and then the Empire began a massive shipbuilding program. The new Imperial Navy would essentially be a hybrid of old ships and new ships with mismatched designations. It would be akin to the US Navy incorporating WWI class warships into the current navy but not updating the ship classes to better reflect their firepower, armor, and speed relative to modern day ships.

I just want to make sure, is the current consensus that the Star Destroyer is a destroyer or a cruiser?

[Knife]

Right. I forgot Panzerschiffe means battleship. Oh wait... Not to mention, that was hardly the same as calling the Carrack a cruiser, since the Panzerschiffe were the largest ship in the German Navy and really a very beefed up cruiser. Its like mistaking the 8 or 12.8 kilometer Super for the Executor. Not like mistaking a tiny shit couple hundred meter ship for something a hundred times its volume or more.

Oh look, I cocked up one analogy but you seemed to have missed the other completely. I wonder why?

Tico, destroyer or cruiser? Wait, it can't be both it's the same size? Dear god, shouldn't one be larger? Fuck.

Again, this is taking a very heavy cruiser-to-near-battleship comparison, a ship-of-the-line-to-frigate comparison etc. You guys are taking special cases of one kind - which are generally one-offs and moving ships from one tier to the one above or below it and trying to justify calling something like the Carrack, or even worse, the Consular the same as something a hundred times more voluminous.

No we're not. We're acknowledging that a galaxy wide civilization that used to be a loose Republic with sovereign chunks might have different needs than a galaxy spanning fucking navy.

Ontop of all that, in all the original novels of the movies, they use 'cruiser' as nothing more than a fast ship. Rebel Cruiser, Republic Cruiser, Imperial Cruiser, etc...

The more you guys have to make exceptions, take a special case and turn it into a generalization, and post disclaimers; the more it ceases to be a useful or appropriate excuse or analogy. The more you're papering it up to justify what is really just an ad hoc or extremely informal comparison and the more excusing it is a system which is just fundamentally useless for describing things and communicating meaning in a useful way. You're trying to fit a square peg to a circle hole and it shows.

Gotcha, a galaxy wide navy and aux should all cram into five or six Star[insert here] designations.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh look, I cocked up one analogy but you seemed to have missed the other completely. I wonder why?

Tico, destroyer or cruiser? Wait, it can't be both it's the same size? Dear god, shouldn't one be larger? Fuck.

No, I did address it. Its one thing to cite a single example of political classing when the historical trend for idiosyncratic historical-technological reasons (which do not extend to the SW analogy) lead destroyers and cruisers to be very similar, and for it to be a generally reasonable thing for it to occur across entire classification systems. Even granting the example, how does it in a single case and from from one tier to a neighboring one (heavy cruiser/battlecruiser to battleship, destroyer to cruiser, etc.) excuse calling stuff like the Carrack-class a cruiser? It does not perform the function of a cruiser (it does not serve alone, it typically serves as escort etc.) and it is far too weak to serve in a main battle force. Its a hundred times or more smaller than the commonest one-mile Star Destroyer. Its just stupid. Why we have to backflip to justify stuff WEG said when they claimed the Death Star II was 160 kilometers and the Executor was 5 times a one-miler ISD, I don't know. Even the Dreadnaught-class "heavy cruiser" is 30 times smaller than an ISD. The Consular-class could probably land inside an ISD's hangar. The descriptions used mean nothing; you cannot make even the WEG/RPG system consistent with itself to have cruisers and such. Everything is a cruiser from the Consular-class to the Executor-class; universal criterion are useless criteria.

No we're not. We're acknowledging that a galaxy wide civilization that used to be a loose Republic with sovereign chunks might have different needs than a galaxy spanning fucking navy.

This interpretation is a paper-over, and everyone knows it. The galaxy is not chopped up into really culturally disparate components. A decent starship can get you anywhere in the community in a day.

Ontop of all that, in all the original novels of the movies, they use 'cruiser' as nothing more than a fast ship. Rebel Cruiser, Republic Cruiser, Imperial Cruiser, etc...

Exactly, its just what they call a ship, so ignore it entirely as a meaningful class-descriptor. It isn't and treating it as such does not yield useful information and the model fails to make meaningful difference. So it should be discarded.

Gotcha, a galaxy wide navy and aux should all cram into five or six Star[insert here] designations.

Given under the Empire any trouble had a Star Destroyer within minutes away, I doubt severely these limpdick ships could have micromachine battles in total isolation of the greater tactical situation. I don't have problems with the Carrack; it just clearly is not a cruiser, light or otherwise, unless every missile boat and gunboat is when its at top of a task force of puny-ass cutters. Its an insect; it cannot even wither snubfighter attacks by even typical non-dedicated torpedo-bomber flights.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I just want to make sure, is the current consensus that the Star Destroyer is a destroyer or a cruiser?

Well the general answer is: it depends. Deployed along with a full force in the Imperial Navy, it would only serve as an escort. However in sector forces and such it may serve as a cruiser in itself.