Star Wars Fleet Size

[FedRebel]

Is there any reason why the Galactic Empire doesn't have billions of ISDs?

Thing is the Imperator and her variants have only been around for 20 years, are a public military expenditure in a galaxy with no threats or other nation states

Politics more than anything would cap Star Destroyer production to what the Senate would allow to maintain galactic security and policing piracy.

Additionally Imperators are manufactured on Kuat, there are likely a finite number of slips available to start construction on new hulls and making more..or establishing yards in other systems would raise political opposition...and undermine other projects like the Executor Class.

The 25,000 is from an old roleplaying game, and isn't canonical any more.

technically, until something is directly countermanded, "there is always truth in 'Legends'."

25,000 Imperator's (all variants, MkI, MkII, and MkIII) seems reasonable. The Imperator is the typical first responder and the Empire can deploy a squadron of Imperator's to worlds like Lothal without any clear impairment of operations in a galaxy at least as large as our own. Until something comes along that says that 'the Imperial starfleet numbers only 200 hulls, 24 of which are Star Destroyers' there is no reason to summarily make 'Legends' technical data invalid.

[Abacus]

I'm pretty sure I covered all or most of this here.

[Simon_Jester]

You certainly covered the territory, though I recall disagreeing strongly with some of your conclusions. Your basic assumption of taking some generic 'sector fleet' and multiplying by a thousand leaves a good deal to be desired.

You also had a very strange notion of the Empire maintaining parallel "Systems Force" and "Starfleet" organizations with many of the same basic roles and missions and equipment.

And some of your conclusions were frankly bizarre, such as torpedo spheres outnumbering star destroyers.

[Adam Reynolds]

With the new canon, I don't see any reason why we should take the existence of torpedo spheres as a fact. If they exist it takes away the need for a Death Star if there is a capital ship that can overcome planetary shields in such an efficient manner when compared to the Death Star.

Like with siege warfare, there are only a few ways to defeat full planetary shielding. The primary method used historically seemed to be that of a siege, in which you simply blockade shielded worlds. The Death Star was a game changer in that respect, which is why it was so important to the Rebel Alliance that they blow it up.

The new movies actually offer a somewhat clever solution, jumping to lightspeed as a means to get through shields. Something that only an insane pilot would ever try. It would also only work against planetary shields, as those offer enough separation to allow the ship to decelerate, because the shield has to project far enough out to defend the atmosphere of the planet. What would justify this weakness is that hyperspace doesn't interact in the conventional sense. This also prevents things like hyperspace ramming from being an idea, which would otherwise be a major problem.

[Lord Revan]

Well the thing about historical sieges is that few cities or forts were self-sufficient, while Planets like Corusant are dependent on export, you can have planets that produce all needed material on them, so you can't really starve them to surrender.

[Simon_Jester]

With the new canon, I don't see any reason why we should take the existence of torpedo spheres as a fact. If they exist it takes away the need for a Death Star if there is a capital ship that can overcome planetary shields in such an efficient manner when compared to the Death Star.

Personally I tend to take old EU content, especially old EU content dating back to the Rebellion or Clone Wars era, as canon until explicitly contradicted.

And while the torpedo sphere was portrayed as a viable shield-buster, it was never very effective in the role, relying on carefully targeted shots and a great deal of patience... which helps to explain why only a handful were ever built. Not a substitute for the Death Star which is overwhelmingly greater in reliable firepower, and which has the sheer size to base entire fleets while surviving attack by the combined forces of the galaxy.

The new movies actually offer a somewhat clever solution, jumping to lightspeed as a means to get through shields. Something that only an insane pilot would ever try. It would also only work against planetary shields, as those offer enough separation to allow the ship to decelerate, because the shield has to project far enough out to defend the atmosphere of the planet. What would justify this weakness is that hyperspace doesn't interact in the conventional sense. This also prevents things like hyperspace ramming from being an idea, which would otherwise be a major problem.

It would prevent ships from ramming while moving through hyperspace, but does not prevent them from ramming immediately upon emergence from hyperspace, I would think.

[Galvatron]

And while the torpedo sphere was portrayed as a viable shield-buster, it was never very effective in the role, relying on carefully targeted shots and a great deal of patience... which helps to explain why only a handful were ever built. Not a substitute for the Death Star which is overwhelmingly greater in reliable firepower, and which has the sheer size to base entire fleets while surviving attack by the combined forces of the galaxy.

Imagine a world that has not only a shield, but also powerful artillery cannons that can disable large warships from the surface. Throw in a few squadrons of fighters to harry the invading force and I can see how even a torpedo sphere would have trouble sustaining a siege.

[Abacus]

A space borne fleet would always have the advantage against planetary defenses, Galvatron, just as modern day navies trump coastal defenses.

[Galvatron]

Modern day navies don't have to contend with energy shields rendering their weapons useless and TESB showed us what a couple of shots from a surface cannon can do to a warship.

[Eternal_Freedom]

And while it's ST not SW, the Cardassian orbital weapon platforms at chin'toka worked pretty damn well until they magiced up a solution.

And from the SW Legends there is also the w-165 planetary turbolaser that is able to rip through ISDs in one volley. Or the ground-based Hypervelocity guns which pose a serious threat to Star Destroyer-scale vessels unless they've been specially reinforced for the attack.

So, yeah, in SW at least, a space-borne navy doesn't have the advantage over a well-defended planet.

[Galvatron]

It took a lot of years and debate to get it out of people's heads that a single ISD could just BDZ any planet in the galaxy and that the Death Star was just some unnecessary terror weapon.

[Crazedwraith]

It took a lot of years and debate to get it out of people's heads that a single ISD could just BDZ any planet in the galaxy and that the Death Star was just some unnecessary terror weapon.

no, it's a necessary Terror weapon.

[Rhadamantus]

An ISD would have an advantage because it could fire from extreme long range (million km+) and still hit the planet, while the planet can't hit it because it can dodge.

[Batman]

3 million km is a mere 10 seconds for a lightspeed weapon, especially with the old EU out of the picture whether or not the ISD will even notice it's being fired upon is pretty much up for grabs (unless the new secondary materials have anything to say about this?) and those things aren't exactly nimble. Wouldn't surprise me if 10 seconds isn't enough to get the ship out of the way.
Plus a planet has the tiniest bit more room for power generators and offensive/defensive weapons.

[Galvatron]

It took a lot of years and debate to get it out of people's heads that a single ISD could just BDZ any planet in the galaxy and that the Death Star was just some unnecessary terror weapon.

no, it's a necessary Terror weapon.

Recommended reading.

[Simon_Jester]

A space borne fleet would always have the advantage against planetary defenses, Galvatron, just as modern day navies trump coastal defenses.

They don't. Carrier air forces can fight against coastal defenses (i.e. truck-launched missile batteries and land-based aviation), but they always maintain a respectful distance from shore if they want to be reasonably safe. If anything, modern missiles have made the situation worse, because the defensive battery that nails your ship with an antiship missile can be anywhere within a few hundred miles of your ship's location. Thus, if you are anywhere near the coast, you need to have effectively wiped out every site even capable of engaging you over a huge radius.

Likewise, in Star Wars it would be relatively trivial to construct weapons and shielding as large as the heaviest starship weapons and arm planetary fortifications with them- there's plenty of space for it, a planet can always hold weapons heavier than any mobile platform smaller than a Death Star.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, I would add the caveat that when you start removing bits of planet to accommodate your weapons, arguably that's a bit above 'trivial'... see Starkiller Base

(admittedly that's somewhat of an order of magnitude or two above the typical planet-to-space weapon, but you get my point)

[Galvatron]

For that matter, it's entirely possible that planetary superlasers exist and have for a very long time. Perhaps the Death Star was simply the first mobile platform ever to be equipped with one.

[Esquire]

In my opinion there's an investment/outcome calculus at play. For the cost of an ISD (or other usual warship design), any mobile unit will outperform a planet with equivalent armament and shielding. With arbitrary resources available that gets flipped as you start hitting the power-generation and heat dissipation limits of your mobile materials technology.

[Batman]

Well, I would add the caveat that when you start removing bits of planet to accommodate your weapons, arguably that's a bit above 'trivial'... see Starkiller Base
(admittedly that's somewhat of an order of magnitude or two above the typical planet-to-space weapon, but you get my point)

I think using SKB against a lone ISD gives a whole new meaning to the word 'overkill'.

[Rhadamantus]

Using Starkiller base at all does that already.

[Eternal_Freedom]

For that matter, it's entirely possible that planetary superlasers exist and have for a very long time. Perhaps the Death Star was simply the first mobile platform ever to be equipped with one.

I think one of the X-Wing or Rogue Squadron games had you on a mission to take out a superlaser on Drubillion in the old EU, so yeah.

[Crazedwraith]

It took a lot of years and debate to get it out of people's heads that a single ISD could just BDZ any planet in the galaxy and that the Death Star was just some unnecessary terror weapon.

no, it's a necessary Terror weapon.

Recommended reading.

How about no, I'm not reading a 7 year old 9 page thread. If you have a point, you make it.

But to clarify I was not arguing with the point that an ISD couldn't just BDZ any planet. Just the idea that having a planet destroying superweapon was anyway necessary, It fufills a need, just a need no non-evil government has.

[Galvatron]

no, it's a necessary Terror weapon.

Recommended reading.

How about no, I'm not reading a 7 year old 9 page thread. If you have a point, you make it.
But to clarify I was not arguing with the point that an ISD couldn't just BDZ any planet. Just the idea that having a planet destroying superweapon was anyway necessary, It fufills a need, just a need no non-evil government has.

Nevermind then. As long as we agree that the Empire needs it to be the Empire that the Emperor wants it to be, then we're good.

I still recommend reading that thread though. Some classic IP posts there. Man, he was an angry guy.

[Galvatron]

I'm currently reading Twilight Company for the first time and, once again, the new EU has made reference to the Empire recently finding and using a scarce resource (i.e. tibanna) to increase their production of blasters ABY.

I wonder if we should start calling this the Tagge Doctrine.