Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

[Galvatron]

So, apparently ISD-1s have their heavy planetary-bombardment turbolaser cannons somewhere amidship, inside the main docking bays:





Reminds me of a 40k exterminatus.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well... that would be quite a useful panel for the Star Wars side if St vs SW debates were still a big thing.

Edit: That actually looks to be in the same ballpark as the single reactor shots from the Death Star in Rogue One. Which make me wonder what's so special about the Death Star if a trio of relatively tiny SDs (of which the Empire has tens of thousands) can approximate that level of destruction.

[Galvatron]

The bombardment occurs shortly after a protracted surface campaign all over the planet, during which the command bunker was overrun by Imperial forces. Presumably, although it's not stated outright, any planetary defenses that may have shielded Mon Cala from an orbital bombardment until that point could have been neutralized.

Even then, Mon Cala apparently had nothing on par with Scarif's planetary shield. Tarkin was simply holding back.

[Patroklos]

Not that I think this will end up being the case, the location of the blasts source makes me think it may be a special purpose module that can be carried for niche work. I always thought thae ISDs hanger was particularly suited for temporary mission modules.

In this case though an ISD should have no need for such a thing in 99% of cases. It’s firepower is enough for any target not under a planetary it theatre shield.

[Lord Revan]

Well... that would be quite a useful panel for the Star Wars side if St vs SW debates were still a big thing.

Edit: That actually looks to be in the same ballpark as the single reactor shots from the Death Star in Rogue One. Which make me wonder what's so special about the Death Star if a trio of relatively tiny SDs (of which the Empire has tens of thousands) can approximate that level of destruction.

Well the "single reactor" shot in Rogue One is a really tiny fraction of the full power Superlaser shot we see in ANH, there's also the symbolism of firing a single shot and having a planet blow up like a fire cracker oppose to having a fleet of hundreds or thousands of ISDs do the same.

[Captain Seafort]

Not that I think this will end up being the case, the location of the blasts source makes me think it may be a special purpose module that can be carried for niche work. I always thought thae ISDs hanger was particularly suited for temporary mission modules.

Presumably either the same, or a similar, weapon that the VenStars were armed with in the same location.

Well the "single reactor" shot in Rogue One is a really tiny fraction of the full power Superlaser shot we see in ANH, there's also the symbolism of firing a single shot and having a planet blow up like a fire cracker oppose to having a fleet of hundreds or thousands of ISDs do the same.

Plus the issue that a fleet of ISDs, even if they've got the firepower to blow the planet apart, might not be able to get through the shields.

[PhoenixKnig]

Not that I think this will end up being the case, the location of the blasts source makes me think it may be a special purpose module that can be carried for niche work. I always thought thae ISDs hanger was particularly suited for temporary mission modules.

Presumably either the same, or a similar, weapon that the VenStars were armed with in the same location.

Well the "single reactor" shot in Rogue One is a really tiny fraction of the full power Superlaser shot we see in ANH, there's also the symbolism of firing a single shot and having a planet blow up like a fire cracker oppose to having a fleet of hundreds or thousands of ISDs do the same.

Plus the issue that a fleet of ISDs, even if they've got the firepower to blow the planet apart, might not be able to get through the shields.

I thought that as well that's what they were trying to do is make a modular system in there. Note on VenStar: it is just SPHA-T w/ power cables attached to the reactor of the ship.

Don't tell me they recon that Sea Troopers I don't really like the design. Too much

[Elheru Aran]

At least the underwater fighters aren't just TIE balls with a propeller on the ass...

[PhoenixKnig]

At least the underwater fighters aren't just TIE balls with a propeller on the ass...

I like the Imp Sub ( I believe that might be is what pic)
Imp subs r not Tie based

[Galvatron]

Here's a nice pic of it:

[PhoenixKnig]

At the bottom of a pic, is that the "tie with propellers" Aran was referring to?

[Elheru Aran]

At the bottom of a pic, is that the "tie with propellers" Aran was referring to?

No, I was joking about old canon's tendency to slap TIE cockpits on just about any version of an Imperial vehicle, like the TIE tank, TIE boat, etc...

EDIT: The two balls at the bottom of the picture are two swimmers in diving suits, those are the helmets.

[PhoenixKnig]

Oh ok I don't know they were diver suits

[PhoenixKnig]

At the bottom of a pic, is that the "tie with propellers" Aran was referring to?

No, I was joking about old canon's tendency to slap TIE cockpits on just about any version of an Imperial vehicle, like the TIE tank, TIE boat, etc...

EDIT: The two balls at the bottom of the picture are two swimmers in diving suits, those are the helmets.

Yeah some of the TIE series in the Old EU are a little ridiculous
Let us not forget the TIE spider Walker

[Elheru Aran]

At the bottom of a pic, is that the "tie with propellers" Aran was referring to?

No, I was joking about old canon's tendency to slap TIE cockpits on just about any version of an Imperial vehicle, like the TIE tank, TIE boat, etc...

EDIT: The two balls at the bottom of the picture are two swimmers in diving suits, those are the helmets.

Yeah some of the TIE series in the Old EU are a little ridiculous
Let us not forget the TIE spider Walker

There's no "TIE spider walker". There's the MT-AT and the CIS Spider-Droid, but no walker exists that uses a TIE cockpit. There are actually two versions of a TIE tank, though.

[PhoenixKnig]

I thought I saw it on an dossier

[Galvatron]

This is from Star Wars #50:

[fractalsponge1]

So, apparently ISD-1s have their heavy planetary-bombardment turbolaser cannons somewhere amidship, inside the main docking bays:





Reminds me of a 40k exterminatus.

Jesus, it's like no one has ever actually looked at a damn star destroyer model before... Guess comics authors aren't afraid to use author's fiat.

[Batman]

It's a big honking hole in the hull. Where would 'you' park a specialized planetary bombardment mission module?

[fractalsponge1]

Not inside the hangar bay. It's not just a convenient hole. There's a gantry crane system in the ceiling, and it's not a natural place to think "oh, major weapon mount goes here" Would you just decide to mount an ICBM on top of a carrier deck because there's plenty of space? And I'd definitely wouldn't mount it where any recoil force is perpendicular to main engine thrust.

Just rolling the destroyer and using maybe all those big obvious turrets would look better, but seems there is really supposed to be an "up" and a "down" in most scifi. But whatever, the author can do what he wants. I just don't have to believe it looks like a good idea.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US did a whole test series of firing V-2 rockets off carrier decks, plus I have an official diagram around of how an MX missile on a motorized trolley can be driven off a Nimitz class hanger deck to fire from the water. Another option was to strap the MX to the side of the CVN island and drop them from that position. MX basing is fun.

The fact is nearly every single one of the Star Wars shipboard hangers in a horrible inefficient waste of space, and the ISD ones are bonus stupid since they don't even simplify takeoff and landings while the ship is underway. It's not unreasonable to think that some ships might be modified to exploit that space, that seems to be a leftover legacy of even worse designed clone wars era ships, for some other purpose. Really these ships should just have torpedo tube like apertures a few places that let the fighters come in an out, but graphic designers didn't allow that long before the authors got involved.

[fractalsponge1]

The US did a whole test series of firing V-2 rockets off carrier decks, plus I have an official diagram around of how an MX missile on a motorized trolley can be driven off a Nimitz class hanger deck to fire from the water. Another option was to strap the MX to the side of the CVN island and drop them from that position. MX basing is fun.

The fact is nearly every single one of the Star Wars shipboard hangers in a horrible inefficient waste of space, and the ISD ones are bonus stupid since they don't even simplify takeoff and landings while the ship is underway. It's not unreasonable to think that some ships might be modified to exploit that space, that seems to be a leftover legacy of even worse designed clone wars era ships, for some other purpose. Really these ships should just have torpedo tube like apertures a few places that let the fighters come in an out, but graphic designers didn't allow that long before the authors got involved.

I think for launch at least the the sides of the main bay are all launch racks bays, just behind doors. So that's almost like the apertures you're talking about. Unless flank apertures are huge any recovery is probably going to have to be automated with tractor beams anyway.

Landing *is* awkward, since a fighter has to get up into the bay volume then level out. Though I think if a fighter is lining up on a hangar, once they get past the lip of the main bay they have the same fighter lengths available for final approach than a carrier fighter hitting a deck just because the bay is so damn big and a TIE is so damn small - but if the system somehow misses the "catch" the fighter goes splat. That's the case with any pretty much any scifi big hangar system I can remember - no equivalent to touch and go.

Yeah I've heard about the ballistic missile launch tests - but my point is more that that's not what the area is designed for. The bay can be filled with cargo containers too but it'd be a little weird looking. And something as powerful looking as that bombardment weapon is is going to impose a lot of structural stress on an unprepared area. And to me, the hangar is not a natural looking area for something like that.

[Sea Skimmer]

That's why these kind of hanger systems are dumb, you have a giant opening but no chance of a touch and go, so really all you are doing so increasing the probability of a bad landing smashing directly into the hanger equipment and parked craft, probably causing a massive fire and explosion. In the event of a good landing, a much smaller aperture would work just as well, and you could rely on a tractor beam for safety of the pilot and craft, while passive safety in the form of the not giant hole, protects the rest of the hanger which is more important.
TIEs clearly require a lot of support equipment and aren't meant for independent operations anyway, I mean when your hanger needs a force field just to keep the air in, needing a tractor beam for landings isn't that big a deal.

But you shouldn't really need a beam anyway. Since this is space you would just be doing a matched speed landing anyway like a a Harrier or helicopter onto a warship deck, not a 150 knot relative speed attempt at a wire trap. So landing into a small opening should be trivial, if the craft is not able to do this because of damage it's probably a wreck anyway, frankly one would quickly ask how it is even able to fly or move or otherwise attempt any kind of landing, and you have a shuttlecraft rescue the pilot and maybe hook the damaged fighter to an external rack for short term storage.

The only way a big open hanger opening makes sense if it's its going to take on bigger objects. AT-ATs and whatever transports those would be one reason, but that's still just a reason for an AT-AT sized slot.And that's not even considering the common but super dubious idea of pulling an entire rebel ship into the hanger bay to capture it. That's a really great way to get yourself blownup and yet for lol still appears to require the use of shuttlecraft to conduct the actual boarding operation.

The big hanger opening as actually being a modular mission payload space for actual ship componets would make some sense. Not amazing sense but it's a better use for it then being a giant hanger for tiny fighters that also happens to greatly increase the vulnerability of the ship and the surface area that needs armor.

[Elfdart]

I always assumed the enormous hangar was for launching or docking with one or more smaller ships, or for connecting with huge payloads, or both. Like most compromise designs, it's not ideal for any of these uses. It has one advantage to launching smaller craft: a bunch of them could hover in place, shielded inside the bay, then launch altogether.

As for the hangar beam weapon, it looks like a bigger version of this weapon from Revenge of the Sith (1:01):

[tezunegari]

I always assumed the enormous hangar was for launching or docking with one or more smaller ships, or for connecting with huge payloads, or both. Like most compromise designs, it's not ideal for any of these uses. It has one advantage to launching smaller craft: a bunch of them could hover in place, shielded inside the bay, then launch altogether.

As for the hangar beam weapon, it looks like a bigger version of this weapon from Revenge of the Sith (1:01):

IIRC that beam weapon in RotS was a SPHA-T according to one of the EU novels. Placed in the fighter hangar by Anakin to give the Venator a surprise attack during an Assault that then got adopted by the fleet.

Or has that been retconned into a dedicated weapon already? (beam details and sound of the weapons differ from the SPHA-T though that could be attributed to being fired in space vs in-atmo)