TL Flak bursts

[omegaLancer]

well here two paper from two researcher experimenting with cavity generated laser soliton ..

http://alexandra.di.uoa.gr/Dienst/UI/2. ... /TR97-0012

and

http://home.rclph.spbu.ru/journal/artic ... Kozlov.htm

A loop mirror base soliton generator is discuss in the following paper:

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~code09/ThesisF ... hysics.pdf

A list of special military projects ( in this case non linear optics):

http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/PCOG99a.htm

[ClaysGhost]

well here two paper from two researcher experimenting with cavity generated laser soliton ..

http://alexandra.di.uoa.gr/Dienst/UI/2. ... /TR97-0012

and

http://home.rclph.spbu.ru/journal/artic ... Kozlov.htm

The cavity involved is not free space, but fibre.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well if the visible pulse is material in nature, could it not be used as the "cavity" in question?

Then with some invisible system from the ship they can have some unknown form of energy or something to intersect at a given point along the beams lenght.

Or the galven coils form the beam somehow so that the "ripple" and it's effects might achieve that flak result after an approximate amount of time...

[His Divine Shadow]

I'd agree with Connor though, physical projectiles sheated in energy sounds more plausible than this soliton talk.
Besides we have no idea how many types of weapons an ISD really have beyond it's laser cannons TL's, and HTL's

Also if it where plasma, then could it not flakburst if stimulated in the right kinda way?

[ClaysGhost]

Well if the visible pulse is material in nature, could it not be used as the "cavity" in question?

That's just multiplying the unknowns for no advantage. The visible pulse was suppposed to be the soliton, as I understand the idea, but if there's a physical medium there you could do without the soliton altogether.

Then with some invisible system from the ship they can have some unknown form of energy or something to intersect at a given point along the beams lenght.

Or the galven coils form the beam somehow so that the "ripple" and it's effects might achieve that flak result after an approximate amount of time...

I'm not sure that there's much evidence for TL flakbursts. From the examples posted so far, it does seem as if they're only there if it's assumed that they are. Regarding the soliton model, if it's true then why do flakbursts sometimes appear in the middle of nowhere? Surely the soliton should be seen right up until the flakburst?

Besides we have no idea how many types of weapons an ISD really have beyond it's laser cannons TL's, and HTL's

Yes, I agree. The TL + flak burst idea seems to imbue one weapon with the abilities of many.

Also if it where plasma, then could it not flakburst if stimulated in the right kinda way?

In the "free plasma" model, where no confinement is in evidence, then no. However, the free plasma model doesn't really fit what we see (the bolts travel slowly but don't expand very rapidly/at all - even an ordinary gas at room temperature should expand at rates of thousands of km/s in vacuum, which is why most explosion SFX supposedly in "space" irritate me so).

If there were a confinement field around the bolt, it could be dropped and the plasma would just expand and cool rapidly, looking like an explosion. However, the expanding cloud should keep moving with the velocity of the bolt. The flak bursts I remember from ROTJ appeared stationary relative to nearby capital ships, but I can't be sure about that.
I've stated my dislike and doubt of such a confinement system before, I think.

[Patrick Ogaard]

The turbolaser flak burst, if official evidence makes its existence necessary and the soliton or degenerating containment field concepts do not appear compelling, is still fairly easily explainable.

Specifically, take one extremely important aspects of a turbolaser: turbolaser barrels have a physical aperture at the end of the barrel. If, as appears very likely, the barrel includes acceleration coils for a plasma component, or at least for the evacuation of spent reactant/coolant from the mechanism, we have an answer:

proton torpedoes or the like set for omnidirectional or cone-shaped blasts


Specifically, the thing is that the necessary software and mechanical modifications (such as a compact feed mechanism, firing chamber and magazine) would represent a relatively insignificant additional expense in the production of a turbolaser. It would also explain why the ISD appears to entirely lack missile weapons in its standard weapons loadout. (Aside from the fact that there are few tasks a missile weapon could take care of better than could a turbolaser bolt.)


Thus, a standard ISD twin turbolaser turret (as opposed to point defense turbolaser bay) might simply have a small magazine of proton torpedoes that feeds in torpedoes as necessary.

The obvious tactic for an ISD so equipped would be for multiple turrets to coordinate their fire when engaging hostile fighters without fighter support of its own:

1. One or two turrets fire proton torpedoes at the approaching fighters.

2. Fighters not damaged or destroyed - and most should survive - are forced to divert their flight paths.

3. If the planning was right, the new flight paths of the fighters bring them into murderous crossfires from turbolasers firing standard bolts.


If - and I make no claims here - the concept is correct, then it explains the concept of flak bursts, as well as the canon (novelization) mention of explosive solids, and requires no technologies not already displayed in canon. Since explosive projectiles would have few useful applications outside of herding/disorienting fighters and other small vessels, and are likely very expensive compared to equivalent turbolaser fire, I would expect a standard ISD twin turbolaser turret to have enough projectiles on hand for no more than a dozen or so volleys.

Point defense turbolasers and the really big turbolasers used to blast right through the shields of smaller capital ships would likely dispense with the option of firing projectiles: point defense weapons would be better employed blasting apart the fighters herded by the medium guns' flak bursts, and the ship killing turbolasers would simply be wasted firing projectiles.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

I don't think anyone mentioned this but you can very obviously see visible turbolaser flakbursts in AOTC.



These ofcourse are not shots from Imperial weapons but the technology obviously exists. More interesting however is one of these bolts in another scene hits the ground before it "flak bursts" and creates no explosive effect whatsoever. This would indicate that the flak burst effect is (much like in some modern anti-aircraft missiles/guns) a backup in case the weapons misses its targets (so it will cause at least some damage instead of sailing past) as opposed to a totally seperate mode of fire. This would explain the fact that many turbolasers have intergrated range finders. Another interesting feature seen in the picture on the right is the way not all of the turbolaser energy is used up when it explodes, perhaps indicating poor tuning of the weapon on one of the craft, because some of the other bolts do not exhibit this behaviour.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't think anyone mentioned this but you can very obviously see visible turbolaser flakbursts in AOTC.



These ofcourse are not shots from Imperial weapons but the technology obviously exists. More interesting however is one of these bolts in another scene hits the ground before it "flak bursts" and creates no explosive effect whatsoever. This would indicate that the flak burst effect is (much like in some modern anti-aircraft missiles/guns) a backup in case the weapons misses its targets (so it will cause at least some damage instead of sailing past) as opposed to a totally seperate mode of fire. This would explain the fact that many turbolasers have intergrated range finders. Another interesting feature seen in the picture on the right is the way not all of the turbolaser energy is used up when it explodes, perhaps indicating poor tuning of the weapon on one of the craft, because some of the other bolts do not exhibit this behaviour.

I should point out that in the AOTC novelization (as Mike has noted in his "AOTC observations" page,) that the Republic gunships are indicated to have used shielding. These could be explained as bolt/shield interactions.

In the first example, you might notice the "explosion" looks a bit flat, like its being spread out against the surface of something. The second is interesting because it looks like the explosion as such occurs not at the "front" of the bolt, but a little past it (you can see the tip of the bolt.) - which would indicate a glancing hit off the shields, perhaps.


As for the "light bullet" stuff, I'll deal with that tomorrow.

[Connor MacLeod]

Patrick: interesting concept. It would fit with the "physical projectile looking like an energy bolt" theory, but there is one slight nitpick: why would one build proton torpedoes into the barrel of the weapon? IT would be much simpler to mount the torpedoes in a separate launcher on the turret (or next to it, perhaps)... it actually may not even be necceary to even mount it in the same launcher as athe turbolaser. Also, it need not be a proton torpedo neccesarily.. it could be any kind of projectile potentially.

I suppose it MIGHT be possible for a plasma-flak burst, though. As you said, they may have equipment to eject the gas already... perhaps they "recycle" it to use as a weapon (or use in reaction jets, etc.).. Perhaps they can eject the blaster gas directly without "reacting" it and trigger it... I've speculated on something along the lines of a "plasma/particle " weapon being derived from the residual gasses from the TL generation... but I still see problems with this as well:

1.) How does one trigger a plasma bolt to "flak burst?" Presumably its a large input of energy.. but isn't it already energetic? Can you input enough energy into a plasma to make it scatter/explode? Perhaps its a "pellet" instead...

2.) Like with the protorp fired from the TL barrel, its not realy neccesary to build multiple functions into a single weapon (its actually more problematic, as the so called "particle beam/laser combo is.) You could just as easily mount it in a separate launcher/turret/cannon.

3.) in regards to being fired from the barrel, the coils or gear to eject waste gasses need not be powerful accelerators really, just strong enough to eject the gas so it gets out of the way of the blast, fairly quickly.

Really, in the end it still comes down to: IF the flak burst must be assumed, its more than likely a different weapon, and probably a projectile. And that its unlikely that the TL itself flak bursts, because of the problems inherent in creating such a mechanism in a beam weapon, even a plasma. But as I said, I don't really think flak bursts are a neccesary weapon (personally I'd prefer the "splinter shot" idea.. )

[ClaysGhost]

I suppose it MIGHT be possible for a plasma-flak burst, though. As you said, they may have equipment to eject the gas already... perhaps they "recycle" it to use as a weapon (or use in reaction jets, etc.).. Perhaps they can eject the blaster gas directly without "reacting" it and trigger it... I've speculated on something along the lines of a "plasma/particle " weapon being derived from the residual gasses from the TL generation... but I still see problems with this as well:

1.) How does one trigger a plasma bolt to "flak burst?" Presumably its a large input of energy.. but isn't it already energetic? Can you input enough energy into a plasma to make it scatter/explode? Perhaps its a "pellet" instead...

Plasma would "explode" on its own - a hydrogen plasma at 100,000K would expand at roughly 50km/s if unimpeded, simply by virtue of its thermal energy. The problem is more that the bolts don't appear to expand or change shape at all.

[His Divine Shadow]

Plasma would "explode" on its own - a hydrogen plasma at 100,000K would expand at roughly 50km/s if unimpeded, simply by virtue of its thermal energy. The problem is more that the bolts don't appear to expand or change shape at all.

No but when flakbursted they become spheres of white stuff that quickly dissapears, the same is true for the blasters on the snowspeeders on Hoth, they create small white glows or something that lasts for only a very short duration of time.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Patrick: interesting concept. It would fit with the "physical projectile looking like an energy bolt" theory, but there is one slight nitpick: why would one build proton torpedoes into the barrel of the weapon? IT would be much simpler to mount the torpedoes in a separate launcher on the turret (or next to it, perhaps)... it actually may not even be necceary to even mount it in the same launcher as athe turbolaser. Also, it need not be a proton torpedo neccesarily.. it could be any kind of projectile potentially.

I suppose it MIGHT be possible for a plasma-flak burst, though. As you said, they may have equipment to eject the gas already... perhaps they "recycle" it to use as a weapon (or use in reaction jets, etc.).. Perhaps they can eject the blaster gas directly without "reacting" it and trigger it... I've speculated on something along the lines of a "plasma/particle " weapon being derived from the residual gasses from the TL generation... but I still see problems with this as well:

1.) How does one trigger a plasma bolt to "flak burst?" Presumably its a large input of energy.. but isn't it already energetic? Can you input enough energy into a plasma to make it scatter/explode? Perhaps its a "pellet" instead...

2.) Like with the protorp fired from the TL barrel, its not realy neccesary to build multiple functions into a single weapon (its actually more problematic, as the so called "particle beam/laser combo is.) You could just as easily mount it in a separate launcher/turret/cannon.

3.) in regards to being fired from the barrel, the coils or gear to eject waste gasses need not be powerful accelerators really, just strong enough to eject the gas so it gets out of the way of the blast, fairly quickly.

Really, in the end it still comes down to: IF the flak burst must be assumed, its more than likely a different weapon, and probably a projectile. And that its unlikely that the TL itself flak bursts, because of the problems inherent in creating such a mechanism in a beam weapon, even a plasma. But as I said, I don't really think flak bursts are a neccesary weapon (personally I'd prefer the "splinter shot" idea.. )

All good points. Here comes some disjointed commentary.

My comment to the effect that proton torpedoes might be the culprits is actually not entirely accurate. That is, I (clumsily) used proton torpedoes as a placeholder for any energy shell combining a plasma effect and a physical projectile core.

The Episode I ICS includes a two-page spread on the Trade Federation's Armored Assault Tank. The vehicle is shown as having a total of six launchers (mounted low forward) for energy projectiles of three different types: highly streamlined general-purpose energy shells, high explosive bunker busting shells, and armor piercing shells (that look very much like shaped charge weapons). The shells are supposed to be provided with a drag-reducing and penetration-enhancing high energy plasma cocoon (that would likely also provide these shells with protection against point defense weapons), applied in an energy cocooning chamber just before the launch tube. Thus, these weapons appear to be the vehicle-scale versions of Wookie bowcasters, whose function and ammunition are defined in the SW Visual Dictionary as virtually identical to the above.

The fact that the droid army did not use these energy shells to bombard the Gungan shield seems to indicate that the added firepower they could have added to the main guns of the tanks would not have been significant, or possibly that the tanks faced an either-or situation. If it was an either-or, then quite possibly the recoil of the shell launches, added to the heavy recoil of the main laser cannon, could have damaged the tanks: each shot of the main guns visibly rocked the repulsor tanks backward, an obvious problem for a ground vehicle without ground contact. It might also have been too much activity for the droids to coordinate simultaneously. A third alternative would be that the energy shell launchers could not fire rapidly enough to have a hope of overcoming the energy reradiation capacity of the small theater shield.

Going back to canon sources, as opposed to official stuff like the books above, the visuals of both proton torpedoes and concussion missiles are indistinguishable from conventional SW energy blasts (except that turbolaser bolts don't normally zip around corners). That makes it awfully difficult to differentiate between SW plasma-sheathed projectiles and other standard SW weapons.

Regarding the need perceived by me for the energy projectile launch systems to be integral to at least one class of Imperial turbolaser mount, that would be based on the following:

1) none of the material I've seen or read to date has stated that ISDs have any shipboard weapons systems except for assorted sizes of turbolasers and ion cannon;

2) something out there is throwing explosive solids around, and

3) the older Victory class of Star Destroyer, just under a kilometer long, is referred to as having large numbers of concussion missile tubes, while the similarly venerable Invincible class battleships, with a length of over two kilometers, is referred to as being bristling with gun turrets and missile tubes, making it strange that a more modern destroyer would entirely dispense with missile weapons.

Of course, a potential compromise would be to assume that some turrets simply include conventional energy shell / protorp launchers of standard fighter size. The launcher mechanism with a fairly large magazine would be tiny compared to the big, boxy twin turbolaser turrets, and would likely be all but invisible. All that would be visible on the turret face would be the relatively tiny black aperture of an energy shell launcher's muzzle, a detail that would simply disappear at that scale.

One potential method of exploding a plasma bolt would be the following, a method that would explain why, in one ROTJ, a turbolaser bolt appears to pass harmlessly through the forward section of an A-wing starfighter: Making laser cannon and turbolasers into particle lasers and using the option of generating mesons or other weakly interacting particles and subjecting them to precise acceleration that delays the inevitable decay of the mesons until a specific distance is reached. At that point, the mesons go boom, generating a massive shower of nasty EM and particle radiaton. That way, the ghostly tracer bolt could be considered to be nothing more than the premature decay of a tiny portion of the bolt. Energy shields should likely interact with mesons, simulating the impact of a conventional plasma bolt. Conventional armor materials would be virtually useless against such a bolt, however, though neutronium cladding would almost certainly provide effective protection. The one thing about mesons, though, is that a gun using them would be entirely capable of firing straight through geographic features or, for capital cannon, planets; that's an ability never demonstrated in canon or official materials as far as I know.

Another possible method would be to dope a conventional plasma bolt with mesons, accelerating both to the same speed. When the mesons decay, the energies released blast the plasma bolt apart in a flak burst. That does require two different systems (meson-based particle accelerator and plasma cannon), but it is another possible option.

The third method I can think of is to use a small energy shell with a large plasma cocoon. The shell is fired complete with its cocoon. At a suitable distance, the shell undergoes self-destruction and the plasma bolt again bursts apart. (That idea shows up on the stardestroyer.net website as one possible explanation for turbolaser behavior.) If the shell is not programmed to self-destruct, the shell/plasma combination could simply hit a target's shields or armor. The shell would also provide a physical source for a containment field keeping a plasma bolt together over extended distances.

[ClaysGhost]

No but when flakbursted they become spheres of white stuff that quickly dissapears, the same is true for the blasters on the snowspeeders on Hoth, they create small white glows or something that lasts for only a very short duration of time.

I should've thought that plasma expanding in atmospheric and vacuum conditions would behave differently. There's also the question of why the plasma doesn't expand before the flakburst, and why flakbursts can appear in the middle of nowhere.

[ClaysGhost]

Conventional armor materials would be virtually useless against such a bolt, however, though neutronium cladding would almost certainly provide effective protection.

*twitch*

Another possible method would be to dope a conventional plasma bolt with mesons, accelerating both to the same speed. When the mesons decay, the energies released blast the plasma bolt apart in a flak burst. That does require two different systems (meson-based particle accelerator and plasma cannon), but it is another possible option.

Why? The plasma already has sufficient thermal energy to expand explosively. If the mesons are travelling with the TL bolt, at the movie speeds, they certainly aren't travelling at sufficient speed to avoid rapid decay. Also, why do we see flakbursts with no visible source?

The third method I can think of is to use a small energy shell with a large plasma cocoon. The shell is fired complete with its cocoon. At a suitable distance, the shell undergoes self-destruction and the plasma bolt again bursts apart. (That idea shows up on the stardestroyer.net website as one possible explanation for turbolaser behavior.) If the shell is not programmed to self-destruct, the shell/plasma combination could simply hit a target's shields or armor. The shell would also provide a physical source for a containment field keeping a plasma bolt together over extended distances.

What's the advantage? Why not pack a shell with suitably advanced explosive which wouldn't need a power source? Plasma would quickly diffuse and become ineffective, once released.

[Patrick Ogaard]

*twitch*

No need to get twitchy. Seriously, the idea is that multiple layers made of superdense material embedded in a matrix of durasteel or whatever spiffy superscience steel SW warships use will tend to interact more strongly with the particles than would ordinary materials. Offsetting thousands of microthin layers of the superdense micropellets would force an incoming meson bolt to run into what is effectively a solid wall of neutrons. Even weakly interactive subatomic particles would tend to react in that situation. Thus, a meson bolt timed to explode inside the ship would instead explode on the surface as it impacts the cladding. Obviously, that cladding would have to be sandwiched in an alternating manner with sheets of more conventional armor to absorb the blast energies. As ideas go, it has some attractions, but it's not always a perfect fit.

Another possible method would be to dope a conventional plasma bolt with mesons, accelerating both to the same speed. When the mesons decay, the energies released blast the plasma bolt apart in a flak burst. That does require two different systems (meson-based particle accelerator and plasma cannon), but it is another possible option.

Why? The plasma already has sufficient thermal energy to expand explosively. If the mesons are travelling with the TL bolt, at the movie speeds, they certainly aren't travelling at sufficient speed to avoid rapid decay. Also, why do we see flakbursts with no visible source?

This is actually not one of my favored interpretations, so I threw it in for the sake of completeness. Essentially, to solve the relativistic speed problem we would have to assume that either: 1) the TL sends a follow-up meson burst down the same beam path to burst the plasma bolt's cohesion (as something's got to be keeping the plasma together, or 2) the "beam spin" referred to in the last ICS refers to some manner of keeping the mesons cycling through the plasma at relativistic speeds, thus delaying their decay even though the plasma/meson packet is moving at non-relativistic speeds. Obviously, there's a certain element of creakiness, in that the system, especially as the question of how the plasma remains together over long distances is not answered. As for the "flak bursts" with no discernible source, I have no idea how that would fit in.

The third method I can think of is to use a small energy shell with a large plasma cocoon. The shell is fired complete with its cocoon. At a suitable distance, the shell undergoes self-destruction and the plasma bolt again bursts apart. (That idea shows up on the stardestroyer.net website as one possible explanation for turbolaser behavior.) If the shell is not programmed to self-destruct, the shell/plasma combination could simply hit a target's shields or armor. The shell would also provide a physical source for a containment field keeping a plasma bolt together over extended distances.

What's the advantage? Why not pack a shell with suitably advanced explosive which wouldn't need a power source? Plasma would quickly diffuse and become ineffective, once released.

This is actually one of my favored ideas (though I rather like the meson bolt concept). Basically, the idea is this: the plasma is not released to fly off randomly. Rather, the shell acts as the mechanism for maintaining bolt cohesion. The fields generated by the shell's onboard mechanisms keep the plasma bolt from diffusing into ineffectiveness during flight. The plasma itself acts both as the damaging agent as well as protection against point defense attacks. Effectively, the shell is wrapped in a high energy plasma field that acts as a defensive shield to divert or block point defense fire and simultaneously acts as a damaging plasma projectile. An ordinary explosvie shell would have two disadvantages in comparison: greater vulnerability to point defense fire and the limited destructive potential of even the most advanced conceivable conventional explosive compared to gigatons of plasma. An explosive shell using a thermonuclear or antimatter reaction would have similar problems: point defense vulnerability and the likely limited yield of thermonuclear weapons in that size, or the potential dangers of a systems failure when handling an antimatter-loaded shell.

[Spartan]

I have to agree with Connor on this either the flak bursts are shield interactions or a separate weapon system generates them.

A potential compromise would be to assume that some turrets simply include conventional energy shell / protorp launchers of standard fighter size. The launcher mechanism with a fairly large magazine would be tiny compared to the big, boxy twin turbolaser turrets, and would likely be all but invisible. All that would be visible on the turret face would be the relatively tiny black aperture of an energy shell launcher's muzzle, a detail that would simply disappear at that scale.

I also like Patrick's theory. The idea of small anti-fighter weapons mounted in or on the larger turbolaser turrets has precedence in real life. This is very similar to the arrangement used by WW2 warships which often times mounted light AA weapons on their heavier turrets, or even modern tank turrets and cupolas. If I recall correctly the EGW&T credits Mon Cal cruisers with some sort of non-turbolaser anti-fighter weapons. Grenade launchers I think.

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but what about Robert Brown's Virtual light theory. Its explained on his lightsabre page.

[Connor MacLeod]

well here two paper from two researcher experimenting with cavity generated laser soliton ..

http://alexandra.di.uoa.gr/Dienst/UI/2. ... /TR97-0012

and

http://home.rclph.spbu.ru/journal/artic ... Kozlov.htm

A loop mirror base soliton generator is discuss in the following paper:

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~code09/ThesisF ... hysics.pdf

A list of special military projects ( in this case non linear optics):

http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/PCOG99a.htm

There aer some problems here:

1.) First, no source you've posted even appears to even remotely connect solitons or light bullets with weapons technology, except perhaps for targeting purposes. I did a web search and came up with a bunch of references that dealt with communications technology. This leads me to believe that this technology is not applicable as a weapon, at least not by any of the sources you've listed.

2.) as Clay mentioned, most of the references appear to mention the use of a "medium" in creating this, particularily fibre-optics. Since as I mentioned this technology seems tied more to the communications technology, this seems to imply that the solitons occur/exist WITHIN fibre-optic mediums (IE cables) and have uses primarily in communications technology (which might make sense if I understand what a soliton is - they don't lose energy easily, which means that data gets transmitted more accurately)

3.) None of the "military" applications make mention of solitons or light bullets as weapons either. Only mention of use of such technology is as sensor and communications tech.

I also checked this with a friend of mine, his answers matched up pretty much as I said. Light bullets and solitons are mostly involved with fibre optics and communications technology only. They don't appear to be either useful or designed as weapons, and they only occur as effects within fibre-optic cables or other mediums. So whatever you thought they were, you must have misread it, because it in no way makes a viable explanation for TL technology OR Flak bursting.

[Connor MacLeod]

All good points. Here comes some disjointed commentary.

My comment to the effect that proton torpedoes might be the culprits is actually not entirely accurate. That is, I (clumsily) used proton torpedoes as a placeholder for any energy shell combining a plasma effect and a physical projectile core.

The Episode I ICS includes a two-page spread on the Trade Federation's Armored Assault Tank. The vehicle is shown as having a total of six launchers (mounted low forward) for energy projectiles of three different types: highly streamlined general-purpose energy shells, high explosive bunker busting shells, and armor piercing shells (that look very much like shaped charge weapons). The shells are supposed to be provided with a drag-reducing and penetration-enhancing high energy plasma cocoon (that would likely also provide these shells with protection against point defense weapons), applied in an energy cocooning chamber just before the launch tube. Thus, these weapons appear to be the vehicle-scale versions of Wookie bowcasters, whose function and ammunition are defined in the SW Visual Dictionary as virtually identical to the above.

Yes. I was thinking of those as well when I mentioned it.

The fact that the droid army did not use these energy shells to bombard the Gungan shield seems to indicate that the added firepower they could have added to the main guns of the tanks would not have been significant, or possibly that the tanks faced an either-or situation. If it was an either-or, then quite possibly the recoil of the shell launches, added to the heavy recoil of the main laser cannon, could have damaged the tanks: each shot of the main guns visibly rocked the repulsor tanks backward, an obvious problem for a ground vehicle without ground contact. It might also have been too much activity for the droids to coordinate simultaneously. A third alternative would be that the energy shell launchers could not fire rapidly enough to have a hope of overcoming the energy reradiation capacity of the small theater shield.

They may not neccesarily have had ammo for the launchers, either. Or they may not be designed for antipersonnel work. Or perhaps those tanks were just not outfitted with them (analogous to some Droidekas not having shield generators).

Going back to canon sources, as opposed to official stuff like the books above, the visuals of both proton torpedoes and concussion missiles are indistinguishable from conventional SW energy blasts (except that turbolaser bolts don't normally zip around corners). That makes it awfully difficult to differentiate between SW plasma-sheathed projectiles and other standard SW weapons.

Ion cannons could be another culprit. They look almost identical to lasers, yet apparently are a charged particle/plasma weapon. Perhaps they originate with the flak bursts... or maybe they are also the plasma-based "weapons" if we need them. That is something else I've considered.

Regarding the need perceived by me for the energy projectile launch systems to be integral to at least one class of Imperial turbolaser mount, that would be based on the following:

1) none of the material I've seen or read to date has stated that ISDs have any shipboard weapons systems except for assorted sizes of turbolasers and ion cannon;

Weapons loadouts for the Imperators (and even other ships) have varied from source to source. You'll recall that neither WEG nor WOTC (nor the novelizations really) have ever put the heavy flank turrets (or the quad laser batteries, or other weapons) on ISD's. Recently, WOTC added point defense lasers to the ISD-1 model (about the time the ICS came out, IIRC) There's also been disparity about the number/types of tractor bem projectors on the ship, also.

2) something out there is throwing explosive solids around, and

They could be internal launchers, and we just don't see them.

3) the older Victory class of Star Destroyer, just under a kilometer long, is referred to as having large numbers of concussion missile tubes, while the similarly venerable Invincible class battleships, with a length of over two kilometers, is referred to as being bristling with gun turrets and missile tubes, making it strange that a more modern destroyer would entirely dispense with missile weapons.

Executor-class ships also mounted concussion missile launchers. ACcording to canon (ANH novelization and radio drama) the Death Star also had "explosive solids" (Novel) and "missile tubes" (radio drama.) The novelization also, as I said, mentions weapons that aren't explicitly mentioned in other sources.

Some novelizations have indicated that ISD's apparently CAN be outfitted with missile batteries without much trouble (or internal redesigning, or concessions to armament.) The Emancipator and Liberator (Star destroyers captured at Endor and later lost during the Dark Empire era) had missile launchers. Pellaeons Star Destroyer in the Hand of Thrawn duology, as well as the Errant VEnture (and presumably the Tyrannic, the ship it was impersonating) had proton torpedo launchers. Zsinj in courtship of Princess Leia appeared to also have missile-armed ISD's. The probable conclusion does seem to be that there are at least some missile-armed ISD variants or that they CAN be outfitted rather easily with missile tubes (note that the VSD has two subclasses - one without ion cannons but with missile launchers and one with.) And of coruse we have the EClipse and Sovereign command ships without missile tubes.

Of course, a potential compromise would be to assume that some turrets simply include conventional energy shell / protorp launchers of standard fighter size. The launcher mechanism with a fairly large magazine would be tiny compared to the big, boxy twin turbolaser turrets, and would likely be all but invisible. All that would be visible on the turret face would be the relatively tiny black aperture of an energy shell launcher's muzzle, a detail that would simply disappear at that scale.

As I already said, they dont neccesarily need to be turrets. Fixed launchers could work fine (missiles are generally more useful for beyond energy range anyhow)

One potential method of exploding a plasma bolt would be the following, a method that would explain why, in one ROTJ, a turbolaser bolt appears to pass harmlessly through the forward section of an A-wing starfighter: Making laser cannon and turbolasers into particle lasers and using the option of generating mesons or other weakly interacting particles and subjecting them to precise acceleration that delays the inevitable decay of the mesons until a specific distance is reached. At that point, the mesons go boom, generating a massive shower of nasty EM and particle radiaton. That way, the ghostly tracer bolt could be considered to be nothing more than the premature decay of a tiny portion of the bolt. Energy shields should likely interact with mesons, simulating the impact of a conventional plasma bolt. Conventional armor materials would be virtually useless against such a bolt, however, though neutronium cladding would almost certainly provide effective protection. The one thing about mesons, though, is that a gun using them would be entirely capable of firing straight through geographic features or, for capital cannon, planets; that's an ability never demonstrated in canon or official materials as far as I know.

I dont know if I go witht eh hybrid "particle laser" notion exactly, though.C Such a weapon is rather awkward (the laser is going to heat the plasma/particles, exciting them and cuasing them to dissipate more rapidly.)

What you were describing with mesons sounds lik what Curtis has proposed. However, rather than being a massive particle like a meson, its composed of massless particles that decay into visible light. The visible "bolt" we see is a ripple along the otherwise-invisible beam, generated by the decay of said massless particles into visible light. This "decay" process is also used to help explain teh "flashses" we sometiems see in shield interactions. and like a meson, the massless particles release tehir energy in the form of photons, which cause the heating effects we've attributed to turbolaser sbefore.

Another possible method would be to dope a conventional plasma bolt with mesons, accelerating both to the same speed. When the mesons decay, the energies released blast the plasma bolt apart in a flak burst. That does require two different systems (meson-based particle accelerator and plasma cannon), but it is another possible option.

Clay already addressed this, I believe. I'll just add that mesons, as a source, are hard to control and really, too complex. But as I recall you abandoned this. If you were going to "charge" the bolt later with energy.. I suppose a small antimatter charge would do, or heat it from a laser..

The third method I can think of is to use a small energy shell with a large plasma cocoon. The shell is fired complete with its cocoon. At a suitable distance, the shell undergoes self-destruction and the plasma bolt again bursts apart. (That idea shows up on the stardestroyer.net website as one possible explanation for turbolaser behavior.) If the shell is not programmed to self-destruct, the shell/plasma combination could simply hit a target's shields or armor. The shell would also provide a physical source for a containment field keeping a plasma bolt together over extended distances.

Sounds like plasma bomb/energy cannosn from homeworld. It might work, but then again, one wouldn't neccesarily have to use a plasma in this example either. Other possiblities exist as well. WEhat you would do though, is a physical casing generating/sustaining the magnetic or whatever field containing the damaging component (plasma, or something else could work also.) Perhaps it also emits this "plasma to surround the shell as well.

[ClaysGhost]

No need to get twitchy. Seriously, the idea is that multiple layers made of superdense material embedded in a matrix of durasteel or whatever spiffy superscience steel SW warships use will tend to interact more strongly with the particles than would ordinary materials. Offsetting thousands of microthin layers of the superdense micropellets would force an incoming meson bolt to run into what is effectively a solid wall of neutrons. Even weakly interactive subatomic particles would tend to react in that situation. Thus, a meson bolt timed to explode inside the ship would instead explode on the surface as it impacts the cladding. Obviously, that cladding would have to be sandwiched in an alternating manner with sheets of more conventional armor to absorb the blast energies. As ideas go, it has some attractions, but it's not always a perfect fit.

I can cope with superdense materials, just not with neutronium

This is actually one of my favored ideas (though I rather like the meson bolt concept). Basically, the idea is this: the plasma is not released to fly off randomly. Rather, the shell acts as the mechanism for maintaining bolt cohesion. The fields generated by the shell's onboard mechanisms keep the plasma bolt from diffusing into ineffectiveness during flight. The plasma itself acts both as the damaging agent as well as protection against point defense attacks. Effectively, the shell is wrapped in a high energy plasma field that acts as a defensive shield to divert or block point defense fire and simultaneously acts as a damaging plasma projectile. An ordinary explosvie shell would have two disadvantages in comparison: greater vulnerability to point defense fire and the limited destructive potential of even the most advanced conceivable conventional explosive compared to gigatons of plasma. An explosive shell using a thermonuclear or antimatter reaction would have similar problems: point defense vulnerability and the likely limited yield of thermonuclear weapons in that size, or the potential dangers of a systems failure when handling an antimatter-loaded shell.

If it's a choice between gigatonnes of plasma and gigatonnes of antimatter, I know which I'd bet on as being the better weapon. Why not use antimatter shells with no plasma? The plasma might help a bit against lasers (although sufficiently strong/short-wavelength weapons will always get through), but it also lights up the shell like a christmas tree for defences. Of course, a non-plasma shell would be detectable in IR, but I'm unclear as to the sensor prowess of SW ships. The SD/SD collision over Hoth gives me misgivings about it. The plasma shell's need for a power source also bugs me. Thinking about it, my primary objection to all plasma weapons (shell, bolt or beam) is the apparent need for a power source or magic field at every stage compared to directed EM/particle or projectile weapons.

[Master of Ossus]

How would an AM shell react with shields, though? And it may be much more difficult to create an AM shell, or even impossible.

[Patrick Ogaard]

I can cope with superdense materials, just not with neutronium

Remember: neutronium is just the sci-fi term for a variety of superdense matter. The problem is that neutronium has, because it has been used pretty much exclusively in sci-fi contexts, and because of serious confusion regarding its likely properties and ability to survive outside the environment of a neutron star, acquired a serious negative connotation. Essentially, it is the "crazy Buck Rogers stuff" connotation that makes neutronium seem like the holy grail to goofier sorts and like pure idiocy to the harder-headed sorts. It's used almost as liberally and wrongly as the infamous word "quantum" is in sci-fi contexts (and I've been guilty myself of misunderstanding the likely properties of superdense matter and in what contexts it might actually prove useful).

If it's a choice between gigatonnes of plasma and gigatonnes of antimatter, I know which I'd bet on as being the better weapon. Why not use antimatter shells with no plasma? The plasma might help a bit against lasers (although sufficiently strong/short-wavelength weapons will always get through), but it also lights up the shell like a christmas tree for defences. Of course, a non-plasma shell would be detectable in IR, but I'm unclear as to the sensor prowess of SW ships. The SD/SD collision over Hoth gives me misgivings about it. The plasma shell's need for a power source also bugs me. Thinking about it, my primary objection to all plasma weapons (shell, bolt or beam) is the apparent need for a power source or magic field at every stage compared to directed EM/particle or projectile weapons.

In many ways, though, we're very much stuck with plasma weapons in both the Star Wars and Star Trek realities. Plasma weapons are canon in Trek and official in Wars, so we are essentially stuck with coming up with ways to rationalize them. In atmosphere, there are certainly ways to do so, and in vacuum situations, well, let's all do our best.

Some day (if I get my wish) Curtis Saxton and George Lucas will issue the Star Wars Technology Encyclopedia, in which everything is actually laid out. Until then, it's all at least a source of interesting debates and brainstorms.

[ClaysGhost]

Remember: neutronium is just the sci-fi term for a variety of superdense matter. The problem is that neutronium has, because it has been used pretty much exclusively in sci-fi contexts, and because of serious confusion regarding its likely properties and ability to survive outside the environment of a neutron star, acquired a serious negative connotation. Essentially, it is the "crazy Buck Rogers stuff" connotation that makes neutronium seem like the holy grail to goofier sorts and like pure idiocy to the harder-headed sorts. It's used almost as liberally and wrongly as the infamous word "quantum" is in sci-fi contexts (and I've been guilty myself of misunderstanding the likely properties of superdense matter and in what contexts it might actually prove useful).

I don't have a problem with crazy Buck Rogers stuff. Hell, Erin Gray. I think I listed my objections to neutronium in a thread some way back.

In many ways, though, we're very much stuck with plasma weapons in both the Star Wars and Star Trek realities. Plasma weapons are canon in Trek and official in Wars, so we are essentially stuck with coming up with ways to rationalize them. In atmosphere, there are certainly ways to do so, and in vacuum situations, well, let's all do our best.

I'd think I'd mind less if TLs were magic rather than plasma. *Anything* but plasma.

Some day (if I get my wish) Curtis Saxton and George Lucas will issue the Star Wars Technology Encyclopedia, in which everything is actually laid out. Until then, it's all at least a source of interesting debates and brainstorms.

True.

[Connor MacLeod]

While we are stuck with plasma weapons, most direct quotes relegate them to only personal blasters and ground artillery. Most capital-scale weapons are implied massless, speed-of light energy beams. The only novel-based quotes for plasma weapons come from (I think) Children of the Jedi, but it never refers directly to TLs or laser weapons in this fashion. We can therefore assume that if plasma weapons exist as capital ship weapons, it is in another form.

Certainly the weapons the NR uses against the Yuuzhan Vong are nothing like THEIR plasma cannons. That alone should prove they aren't plasma

[Patrick Ogaard]

While we are stuck with plasma weapons, most direct quotes relegate them to only personal blasters and ground artillery. Most capital-scale weapons are implied massless, speed-of light energy beams. The only novel-based quotes for plasma weapons come from (I think) Children of the Jedi, but it never refers directly to TLs or laser weapons in this fashion. We can therefore assume that if plasma weapons exist as capital ship weapons, it is in another form.

Certainly the weapons the NR uses against the Yuuzhan Vong are nothing like THEIR plasma cannons. That alone should prove they aren't plasma

No question there. The only blasters (and thus definitely plasma weapons) I can think of right off the bat in space combat would be the blasters used by the old Z-95 Headhunters, the dual blaster cannon turrets found on M-class passenger liners, and the autoblasters carried by the B-wing fighters. The Headhunters are supposed to be old-fashioned, hopelessly outclassed fighters by the time of the Empire; the M-class passenger liners are civilian craft obviously not designed to engage anything more threatening than a few pirate fighters; and the B-wing's autoblasters appear to be the B-wing's close-in dogfighting weapons, designed for maximum firepower at short range when engaging light fighters more agile than the B-wing itself.

A few othe references are made to blasters as fighter and capital ship weapons, but in those cases the reference is interchangeable with laser cannon. Two examples would be the TIE Interceptor in the Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, and the ISD's heavy turret guns being described as blasters in the Star Wars ICS, even though in both cases the terms laser cannon and turbolaser, respectively, are used alongside the term blaster.

That standard fighter and capital ship weapons can not be primarily plasma-based weapons is pretty much evident. (I'm still in favor of the plasma/x-ray laser/graser = blaster / laser cannon / turbolaser hierarchy with a plasma or ionized gas tracer, personally.)

Actually, though, if flak bursts are a phenomenon used at close range to combat fighters and similar agile, small, soft targets, then a straightforward plasma bolt, regardless of the weapon originating it, might be a decent source of such a burst (if such a burst is required by canon or official references). It might possibly be a proper offensive use for ion cannon: instead of laboriously attempting to target fighters with a weapon that likely won't kill the fighter on even a direct hit, fire an ion bolt that quickly decomposes into a flak burst. That would potentially threaten or kill more fighters per shot. (Or it might add yet another complication to the mix... )

[Patrick Ogaard]

I don't have a problem with crazy Buck Rogers stuff. Hell, Erin Gray. I think I listed my objections to neutronium in a thread some way back.

Ering Gray? I think we can agree there. On the neutronium side, obviously the problem (aside from the negative connotations) is that neutronium or superdense materials are often treated as technobabble magic that does anything. The likeliest thing is that it would act as the Star Wars equivalent of depleted uranium armor: useful when integrated into a matrix of conventional armor but not the Ultimate Secret Defense/Weapon. From what I've gleaned to date, the Star Wars justification seems to be that the neutronim-laced armor provides extremely good protection against EM and particle radiation and provides thermal superconductivity of the sort apparently seen on AT-ATs. Lighter vehicles either have fewer layers or no neutronium cladding (durasteel) at all, which would explain how vehicles like the Trade Federation tanks and Imperial AT-STs can get themselves blown to bits by light vehicular blasters that apparently could (literally) not even scratch the finish on an AT-AT.


I'd think I'd mind less if TLs were magic rather than plasma. *Anything* but plasma.

I don't think TLs use plasma (or even ionized gas) except as a tracer. Really long distance fire in vacuum likely would not work well, explaining why even lightweight fighters like the basic TIE models all use the longer-ranged laser cannon. In fighters, apparently the only major uses are on the older models of the Z-95 Headhunter and the B-wing starfighters that apparently carry several autoblasters to greet more maneuverable opponents with a hail of fire at close range. In one case, the fighter in question is old and normally carries other weapons (presumably missiles, torpedoes and the like) on hardpoints, while in the other, the blasters act as a rapid fire close range weapon to make up for lacking dogfight maneuverability against small and agile opponents like the various TIE fighter series. The Z-95's blaster range is expressly stated (Han Solo at Stars' End) to be shorter than that of the laser cannon of CSA IRD fighter prototypes.

Some day (if I get my wish) Curtis Saxton and George Lucas will issue the Star Wars Technology Encyclopedia, in which everything is actually laid out. Until then, it's all at least a source of interesting debates and brainstorms.

True.