Where did all the Star Destroyers go???

[Illuminatus Primus]

Additionally:

Description: These fast warships provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups. (emphases mine)

Does that remind anyone of a certain ubiquitious vessel from the Original Trilogy at all?

EDIT:

Description: Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability.

They're comparitively large, but as shown by the construction quantity to tonnage diagram, they're comparitively small to the Empire as a whole. Byss showed clearly that there are potentially many thousands of such higher-end vessels, that to the Imperial Navy the ISD is not compartively very large vessel. This, however, is exactly my point, to the Moff's Starfleet/Sector Group with a smaller budget and much smaller fish to try, and relying on small picket fleet-scale navies, the ISD can serve in such a role.

[Alyeska]

Many thousand? Lets be generous and say thats eight thousand such ships. Thats a whopping .08% of the Imperial navy assuming 10 million ships total. The Empire sure spends an awful lot of its resources on pissant ships like destroyers and frigates when its capable of so much more (as people keep harping on in this thread).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Many thousand? Lets be generous and say thats eight thousand such ships. Thats a whopping .08% of the Imperial navy assuming 10 million ships total. The Empire sure spends an awful lot of its resources on pissant ships like destroyers and frigates when its capable of so much more (as people keep harping on in this thread).

Care to back up your piss-poor claim that the Empire is somehow obligated to build ships without that much purpose? I don't understand why you're being so obstinant, obtuse, and bitchy about this. I'm agreeing with you that at the local level, the ISD was a plenty powerful leviathan, but it was originally contracted to be built for the purpose of those massive uber-fleets (which DO exist, despite your crying and delusions including that the Reserves of Byss can be counted on your hands). Also, those cruisers completely enveloped Byss in a cloud, easily denser than the field of ships around Naboo, itself estimated in the tens of thousands. Even if you're right, there are hundreds if not many thousands upon thousands of Deep Core worlds of which Byss is just one, and enough left-over shit that the paste-together federation of Warlord fiefdoms as of Darksabre still turned up an Executor-class and the Shockwave, and that was after years of civil war (which by observation heavily favors smaller vessels; the most costly, dangerous, and logistically hungry vessels would probably be amongst the earliest casualties of the conflicts) amongst one another and could threaten the NRDF despite its apparently stronger position.

A comparitively small core fleet of Saxton-scale fleets forming the central Imperial Navy in conjunction with Deep Core crap being built does make sense: that was intended for intergalactic war, as per the DESB. Hell, we even SEE the Saxton/KDY-scale fleets being dispatched under this purpose. The largest single fleet command in the Empire's history, under Giel, was sent to apprehend a semi-intelligent extragalactic living entity, the Teezl, which possibly could've been placed by the Yuuzhan Vong.

Again, the graph of figures above place the numbers and tonnage of the ISD into what would be predicted for a destroyer. Furthermore, it clearly fits the role as well, particularly when in the uber-fleet scale context, which is my assertion in the first place.

[Connor MacLeod]

Additionally:

Description: These fast warships provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups. (emphases mine)

Does that remind anyone of a certain ubiquitious vessel from the Original Trilogy at all?

Except from that same page: (emphasis mine)

Features: Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare.

Just when have Star Destroyers ever been primarily missile-armed ships, like vessels in the current USN are?

EDIT:

Description: Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability.

They're comparitively large, but as shown by the construction quantity to tonnage diagram, they're comparitively small to the Empire as a whole. Byss showed clearly that there are potentially many thousands of such higher-end vessels, that to the Imperial Navy the ISD is not compartively very large vessel. This, however, is exactly my point, to the Moff's Starfleet/Sector Group with a smaller budget and much smaller fish to try, and relying on small picket fleet-scale navies, the ISD can serve in such a role.

[/quote]

Again, same page you cite (emphasis mine)

Features: Modern U. S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Due to their extensive combat capability, these ships have been designated as Battle Force Capable (BFC) units. The cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability.

I would also point out that the tonnages of the guided missile destroyers and cruisers are also similar, in addition to apparent similarity of roles.

Moreover, that ignores the fact the ISD is not exactly applicable to modern navy, due to the fact missiles are not AS relevant. If anything, its more a parallel to the earlier battleship-era navy (Something Mike has pointed out on his webstie before in regards to ISD role.) Which seems to fit more with what I stated originally. In any event, the fact is that they are stated in novels and observed in canon to behave more like a cruiser, not a guided missile destroyer. (although more accurately, a light cruiser, since it falls in the lower end of the "Star Destroyer" range.. but not the smallest such light cruisers. Bigger ships would be heavier cruisers)

That doesnt mean they don't have a "Guided missile destroyer" variant, or "destroyers" (the novels do mention destroyers existing, and even the Rebel fleet had destroyers as well as cruisers and battleships), but its not a destroyer just because the name is "Star Destroyer." I would point out that it seems to be more of a title than anything else, as Vader's ship is referred to as the "Largest of Star Destroyers" in other canon as well (aside from Super Star Destroyers) - even though they are identified as command ships.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Many thousand? Lets be generous and say thats eight thousand such ships. Thats a whopping .08% of the Imperial navy assuming 10 million ships total. The Empire sure spends an awful lot of its resources on pissant ships like destroyers and frigates when its capable of so much more (as people keep harping on in this thread).

Yes, and canon stresses much more. Billions or trillions of ships.

It should be pointed out the ISB suggests that the Empire has tens or hundreds of thousands of Star Destroyers under its control. If 25,000 are the mile-long variants, just where do the rest come from, exactly?

Moreover, how do you explain the Trade Federation fleet?

[Connor MacLeod]

*snip*

Actually, the ISD very often seems to fill the role described by the USN (nix antisubmarine warface) and comparitive tonnage (which IS very important to classing--and LOA is not perfectly proportional to mass) seems to fit. Like I said, with the big Saxton-style fleets and such, the ISD is purchased and classed by name probably as a destroyer.

Maybe for guided missile destroyers, but the canon ISDs aren't pure missile platforms, are they. regular destroyers seem to be dedicated defense/escort/recon vessels. ISDs most certainly aren't, being quite capable of effective offense. Moreover they are well suited to independent roles

But most commonly in the Sector Groups its classed as a cruiser with the name holdover as it was designed/designated by KDY/High Command.

And in the movies, and the novels. Hence, why I am saying they must be cruisers (as I said, probably light cruisers rather than heavy)

And the entire Mon Calamari shipline is scaled-down from the overall Imperial shipline. Therefore, a smaller or equal tonnage vessel to a Imperial Navy destroyer in the Calamarian fleet is easily a cruiser, and this fits with their roles. The Calamarian "Star Cruisers" are designed for heavy broadsides and their ovoid shapes accomodate larger reactors in a smaller LOA. They lack the speed and the troop accomodations as well as much of the figher/gunship support of the ISD, but are more heavily protected.

Irrelevant, largely, except how I elaborated on this to Ender. If the Mon Cal line is relevant, then clearly ships of the mile long Imperial variant would laso be cruisers (since the Liberty class is such, and is nearly a mile long itself). If the Mon Cals ship classifications are not relevant (quite possible), then the fact they call them cruisers has no bearing on Imperial classifications. Either way does not refute my points in the slightest.

I will under no circumstances argue that the ISD is always utilized as a destroyer. However, the grandiose main-line fleets (which I believe are part of the Navy as opposed to the local Starfleets under Marina's theory which does have support in ANH and WEG, the autonomy of local forces under Moffs and the noticably different make-up of centrally commanded forces) apppear to be fighting "Yesterday's War" if you will, use the ISD as a destroyer mostly, and as a support and escort vessel.

The ISD hull apparnetly has variants (like the Interdictors) if they have large destroyers (like some Guided missile variant that is nearly as large as a cruiser), then that makes sense. But its quite clear from the evidence that they are *not* just destroyers. Not heavy cruisers, either, but cruisers nonetheless.

The fact it ended up being used locally more as a fast battleship and a de facto mothership for putting down revolts, and that the later incarnation of the Imperial II appears to be another step toward converting the "Yesterday's War"/Navy/KDY-scale destroyer into a cruiser or even fast battleship by the Sector Group/Calamarian scale.

Cruisers as I recall are and were used for supporting surface/ground actions as well. In addition they are used for commerce raiding and independent operations. Insofar as ISD roles are concerned, as I pointed out, Mike has described this in detail already, so I feel no need to repeat it.

I was under the impression the various calcs for the quantity of TF BBs at Naboo was dependent on the observation(?) that they totally englobed the planet at the distances seen in the opening scenes.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... stry2.html

In the first minute of TPM we see that the Trade Federation blockade consists of 2 mile wide starships in geosynchronous orbit, less than 10 miles apart. Since the TradeFed blockade was a full planetary blockade, this means that they had thousands of these vessels in orbit. This isn't even the government- it is a mere shipping company! Furthermore, the blockade itself is described as "trivial" by Qui-Gon; clearly, this was not a stunning quantity of starships to him. Obviously, attempts to equate Imperial fleet size to Federation fleet size are misguided and futile.

Not from what I read. Just from the fact its a "full blockade", and from what was observed onscreen.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just when have Star Destroyers ever been primarily missile-armed ships, like vessels in the current USN are?

I guess destroyers didn't exist in WWII, as almost exclusively gun-armed ships under many of the same roles...oh wait. Submarine warfare is irrelevent, because its blatently obvious such things cannot be analogued from wet to space navies. The destroyer label is used throughout labelling of Sci Fi navies, but I've yet to find one that fights submarines.

I would also point out that the tonnages of the guided missile destroyers and cruisers are also similar, in addition to apparent similarity of roles.

Moreover, that ignores the fact the ISD is not exactly applicable to modern navy, due to the fact missiles are not AS relevant. If anything, its more a parallel to the earlier battleship-era navy (Something Mike has pointed out on his webstie before in regards to ISD role.) Which seems to fit more with what I stated originally. In any event, the fact is that they are stated in novels and observed in canon to behave more like a cruiser, not a guided missile destroyer. (although more accurately, a light cruiser, since it falls in the lower end of the "Star Destroyer" range.. but not the smallest such light cruisers. Bigger ships would be heavier cruisers)

The roles of Guided Missile Destroyers and Cruisers (which are still a subset of destroyer and cruiser, the meaning of which has not changed much since WWII).

Can you please explain how this "wet navy guided missile" red herring has anything to do with the simple fact that WWII era destroyers and cruisers exactly fit the descriptions listed? And there's a reason they seperate features from description. Description does just that: give a general description of the purpose and role of a class. The Features describe how the modern vessels matching that description fullfill said description. WWII era Cruisers and Destroyers filled very similar if not nearly identical descriptions, merely changing the fact that they featured ballistic cannon to fullfill those descriptions, rather than guided missile.

I just don't see how the "guided missile" and wet navy bits change the generally purposes of the said types.

That doesnt mean they don't have a "Guided missile destroyer" variant, or "destroyers" (the novels do mention destroyers existing, and even the Rebel fleet had destroyers as well as cruisers and battleships), but its not a destroyer just because the name is "Star Destroyer." I would point out that it seems to be more of a title than anything else, as Vader's ship is referred to as the "Largest of Star Destroyers" in other canon as well (aside from Super Star Destroyers) - even though they are identified as command ships.)

Commandship is a specific ship-class. It overrides descriptions to the contrary, particularly coming from the Galactic Emperor who commissioned their construction and an Imperial Academy ace and human General who doubtless was expected to know the technicalities of such things.

And again, when the novel-level canon describes many differing-role vessels as cruisers, that does not necessarily make it particularly reliable. Remember according to Threepio there are many scales of measuring technology and war materiel, and where we're told the Tantive (IIRC) and the ISD are both cruisers, while not necessarily wrong, is not particularly useful to develop determinations about their utilization.

However, within certain circumstances, they certainly are cruisers and even larger scale vessels. My assertion was merely that according to the central large-scale Imperial Navy, they are destroyers, and act accordingly in ESB and ANH (in ROTJ it is arguable they act as cruisers, but it isn't hard to see why destroyers would be able to execute a cruiser role against alien cruisers of similar but often lesser tonnage and inferior design). Again, I don't deny by the Imperial Remnant period and much of the EU the ISD is a battlecruiser/heavy cruiser or even fast battleship. I'm just saying the context of the Empire at her height and the large-scale fleets, it was intended as a destroyer.

[Ender]

Everything is called a cruiser, so it not a valid way of telling.

Which applies equally well to calling them destroyers because they are "Star Destroyers", or "Star Cruisers" for that matter.

If all ships are generically called "cruisrs" but specifically called star destroyers or star cruisers or star battlecruisers or star dreadnaughts, I'd say the "star whatever" is a very strong indicator.

Doesn't really help your argument any, does it? Especialyl when there is in fact a vast difference in size and role between the ISD and the CC/Republic cruiser (Aside from the fact one is from the Empire and another is from the "Republic" which has nothing close to the Empire's Navy.)

there is a difference between the generic description and the actual name

We see larger ships titled "star Cruisers", not described as such. And thier role is identifed by comparing what they do in the movies and novels with the textbook definitions of the ship classes

You should really do some better research before you go spouting off facts.

1.) First off, the "Star Destroyer" designation, given its capitalization and reference (both in terms of "Star Destroyer" both in TESB and "Super Star Destroyer" in ROTJ) suggest they are merely titles. The same is equally true of "Star Cruiser". This can be further reinforced by the existence of ships called "Star Defenders" - are you suggesting there is a ship designation of "Defenders?"

I've outlined this before, having done alot of research on it: The Imperial navy chose to do the opposite of what a number of earth governments and what the New Republic did. Many countries do not use the title destroyer for its destroyer class vessels because of the negative connotation. Instead they use frigate, cruiser, or in the NR's case, "star defender" (though defender appears to substitute for battleship, not destroyer). However, the Empire rules by fear, so they want that. So all thier large ships are going to be called destroyers. however, since ISDs were built in the tail end of the Old republic, they would still go under the old "star then class of ship" system. This old system had Star Dreadnaughts and Star Battlecruisers according to AOTC ICS, and fits with Star Cruiser, Star Destroyer, and the odd references (websites only, I don't know the true source) stating that the Katana ships were Dreadnaught class Star Frigates.

2.) They are referred to as "Cruisers" or "Imperial cruisers", in all three of the OT novelizations. They are also labeled "cruisers" on the official SW.com website. You will note that such naming of "cruisers" is lowercase, not capitalized.

Not having the novel handy, is the designation cruiser 3rd person or via a character? If its 3rd person, could you provide the quote, if its from a character, the images of a destroyer and cruiser are similar enough to easily be confused.

3.) The Liberty, the first ship destroyed by the second Death Star, was also labeled a "Star Cruiser", yet is comparable in size and dimensions to a Star Destroyer. For that matter, its inferred alot of smaller vessels are "Rebel Cruisers" or "Star Cruisers" as well (IE the fact that "Dozens" of "Cruisers" engaged the I mperial fleet, etc.) Furthermore we know most "Star Cruisers" are only 1.2-1.3 km long, typically. This fits more closely with my side than yours, in fact - the only difference being is that the ISD would simply be "light" cruiser (which I see no problem with concluding) and that much larger ships (such as perhaps the communications ship in ROTJ) are much larger cruisers. Seems to fit more with my argument than with yours, doesn't it?

Until you remember that ships are classified not by length, but by tonnage. As Mon Cal cruisers are ovoid and not pyramidal, they will have something like 12x greater volume for the same XYZ dimensions. Given the same density (fuel and armor requirements would be similar, so there is no pressing need to argue differently), even the smaller EU ships would still outmass an ISD by a fair amount (almost double or so last time I did the math, 300 vs 800 or something)

So at best, even *IF* the naming is just coincidental regarding "Imperial cruisers" (unlikely given the evidence), your argument also falls flat over reason 1 and 3.

I see that as the opposite, i see 2 as the hardest to counter there.

Secondly, regarding roles of the "Star Destroyer", correct me if I am wrong (and please provide sources in doing so) but are not destroyers small, agile warships primarily dedicated to defensive/escort/recon mission roles? They hunted submarines, swept for mines, provided AAA support and anti-torpedo support, and scouted for enemy vessels. Cruisers were also support ships, but were multi-role offensive and defensive ships expected to assist larger battleships in battle (at least by engaging enemy cruisers, if not supporting against larger ships). They also supported ground assault operations, acted independently as commerce raiders or in convoy escort They even carried limited numbers of craft/planes/helicopters in some cases, but also carried enough heavy armament and armor to be able to effectively slug it out. They were also fast, but not neccesarily agile. And on top of that, they could also serve as command and control vessels of sorts in certain variants, although this was certainly not their main role or requirement.

IP provided the quotes above. Cruisers and destroyers fulfill alot of the same roles (including command ships and what not) , but ultimatly the destroyer role fits better.

For that matter, a cruiser is more likely to be mistaken for a battleship than a destroyer is (battlecruiser/heavy cruiser, anyone?)

Not by a long shot, last time this was argued pics were brought up showing that destroyers and cruisers are almost identical in looks and size. Unless you know what to look for, its hard to tell the difference.

So unless you can do better than this to prove me wrong, what we see and read in the canon and EU suggests something more along the lines of a cruiser than a destroyer.

Suppossing for a minute you are right, how would you fit all the other identified dagger ships into the classification then?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Maybe for guided missile destroyers, but the canon ISDs aren't pure missile platforms, are they. regular destroyers seem to be dedicated defense/escort/recon vessels. ISDs most certainly aren't, being quite capable of effective offense. Moreover they are well suited to independent roles.

The description of the meaning of the destroyer designation fits WWII destroyers armed with cannon. Red herrings.

And in the movies, and the novels. Hence, why I am saying they must be cruisers (as I said, probably light cruisers rather than heavy)

No, light cruisers are not fast pursuit ships, nor are they designed to chase down blockade runners or escort commandships/carriers launching ground assaults. The multiple-roles of the ISD are actually one of the characteristics which support a destroyer description, as the cruiser designation is much more narrow.

Irrelevant, largely, except how I elaborated on this to Ender. If the Mon Cal line is relevant, then clearly ships of the mile long Imperial variant would laso be cruisers (since the Liberty class is such, and is nearly a mile long itself). If the Mon Cals ship classifications are not relevant (quite possible), then the fact they call them cruisers has no bearing on Imperial classifications. Either way does not refute my points in the slightest.

Bullshit. Not all ships made by all species fall into the same classifications. You do not know how to determine ship types. LOA has precisely diddly shit to do with ship-types. Red herring.

The ISD hull apparnetly has variants (like the Interdictors) if they have large destroyers (like some Guided missile variant that is nearly as large as a cruiser), then that makes sense. But its quite clear from the evidence that they are *not* just destroyers. Not heavy cruisers, either, but cruisers nonetheless.

Stick a heavy and particularly diverse destroyer for huge multi-mile ships among picket navies with "cruisers" of Dreadnought-tonnage, and the why becomes obvious.

Cruisers as I recall are and were used for supporting surface/ground actions as well. In addition they are used for commerce raiding and independent operations. Insofar as ISD roles are concerned, as I pointed out, Mike has described this in detail already, so I feel no need to repeat it.

Commerce raiding and independent operations are more in line with a destroyers role by far. You still haven't accounted for its fast pursuit and blockade-runner-chasing and observed customs/patrol duties. In these large fleets its almost entirely an escort vessel.

Cruisers are more limited in spectra of mission than destroyers.

*snip*

Thank you. I knew that was available somewhere.

[Ender]

Many thousand? Lets be generous and say thats eight thousand such ships. Thats a whopping .08% of the Imperial navy assuming 10 million ships total. The Empire sure spends an awful lot of its resources on pissant ships like destroyers and frigates when its capable of so much more (as people keep harping on in this thread).

Yes, and canon stresses much more. Billions or trillions of ships.

1 billion low end (low end avg Rx power of DS divided by order of magnitude of ISD gets you 1.16E9) , 52 trillion high end (3.4E38 divided by extrapolation and average firepower of all ships from Dreadnaughts to Eclipse).

Actually , if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel and extrapolate out an order of magnitude for what the Executor should be, then assume the whole fleet is executors, then go with DS Rx output for power, you can get something like 1 million ships, but that is really streching it.


Using information I got from Shep and the low end little over 1 billion number, here's what I got to the fleet, assuming that it is comparable to 1945 USN sans subs.

Rounding to 1 billion:

Type: Landing craft
Number: 389,687,882
Examples: Delta 7 stormtrooper transport, Sentinal landing craft, Raptor lander, gamma assault shuttle

Patrol craft
Number: 184,210,526
Examples: Carrack Cruisers, Lancer frigates, Nebulon B frigates, Corellian Corvettes, systems patrol craft

Special Warfare
Number: 89,657,283
Examples: Interdictors of all types, Abolisher cruisers, ECM ships, NR Ferrets

Frigates
Number: 55,232,558
Examples: Dreadnaught class Star Frigates, "Rand Eliptic" type star frigates, Enforcer class "cruisers"

Destroyers
Number: 57,680,539
Examples: Victory class Star Destroyers 1&2, ISDs 1&2

Cruisers
Number: 10,709,914
Examples: Allegiance class, a number of the larger ships on the Saxton page

Escort Carriers
Number: 10,862,913
Examples: The Demolisher on the Saxton page (personal theory is its a varient on the VSD design)

Fleet Carriers
Number: 4,283,966
Examples: The monsterous carrier from screams in the void, the smaller carrier that looks like an ISD with its nose cut off on the saxton page

Battlecruisers
Number: 305,998
Examples: General Tagge's battlecruiser and Vader's post Yavin battlecruiser

Battleships
Number: 3,518,972
Examples: Geil's battleship, Executor, Eclipse, Vengence, Sovereign

Auxilary
Number: 193,849,449
Examples: some of all, basically what we saw over Byss


Now I do somewhat agree with Alyeska: I don't think there were alot of Executors produced. I think them and the Sovereigns and Eclipses were a special variant of battlehip with so much firepower available that I think of them as strategic use ships. In addition, the massive leap in size from Geils battleship to the Executor further indicates that these later produced ships were something special.

[Ender]

As an aside thought, if victory class star destroyers were the bulk of the destroyer type, the 25,000 number might still be workable.

And if I knew more about Heavy Destroyers, there might be a way to rationalize the cruiser & destroyer aspects of the ISD by saying they are that, though I recall someone saying that HDs were a france only political move.

[Ender]

Oh, andthe 1 billion number averages out to 20 ships per system, which meshs nively with the Imperial Sourcebook statment of 14-60 ships per system.

[JME2]

Ok, we all know that there were 25,000 Star Destroyers created by the Empire in its reign (if you didn't know, you do now).

My question is where did they all go? Were they destroyed, captured, drifting in spcae, in the current Empire, or are they in a secret fleet somewhere in the unknown regions?

I NEED TO KNOW!!!!!
DRIVING ME CRAZY!!!!!

The same place as Zeno's arrow?

[Ender]

Should mention: the fleet carrier number is a bit high because a number of those were turned into command ships. So as soon as I can find out how many ar of that type, that number will become more accurate, and we can gage how many of the Executor type or others there were.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In addition, the massive leap in size from Geils battleship to the Executor further indicates that these later produced ships were something special.

Nitpick, assuming power generators are along a spherical or at least squattish cylindrical configuration, the Giel's battleship should be able to mount a larger version than the Executor.

Although it is probably ~8 km, it could be as much as ~12. Its width and depth are also much greater than something like the Executor, which is very narrow and dagger like, and has a large inset cutout of its hull because so much of it is dedicated to carrier duties.

Personally I agree with you on the special kind of vessel. I believe Executor-class ships were designed to be commandships with extensive C4I equipment and a tremendous amount of troops and ships for supporting major ground operations, while the Soveriegn-class is the Empire's uber-dreadnought. I believe they're intended to work in concert, but the greater relevance to the Rebel threat allowed the Executor to take initial precedence. The Eclipses appear to be simply custom-built vessels for the Emperor and perhaps his close lieutenants, and are extrapolations from the Soveriegn-class concept.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As an aside thought, if victory class star destroyers were the bulk of the destroyer type, the 25,000 number might still be workable.

And if I knew more about Heavy Destroyers, there might be a way to rationalize the cruiser & destroyer aspects of the ISD by saying they are that, though I recall someone saying that HDs were a france only political move.

I still think the Navy/Starfleet dichotomy theory works best for resolving dual cruiser-destroyer utilizations and the 25,000 number, etc. while still taking direct inspiration from WEG and movie canon.

[vakundok]

Side note:

The thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=275 had been closed before I could quote this:

HAN
Watch your mouth, kid, or you're
going to find yourself floating
home. We'll be safe enough once
we make the jump to hyperspace.
Besides, I know a few maneuvers.
We'll lose them!


EXT. SPACE - PLANET TATOOINE

Imperial cruisers fire at the pirateship

But this is from an internet source, so could someone, who has a printed version check this?

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

Parroting already-stated arguments is bad for you.

[FTeik]

From what i know about the Sovereign-Class i was under the impression, that it has a much larger hangar, than the Eclipse in its ventral side.

Command and Carrier-function sound right for the Executors. The function of mobile deepdock for capital ships could be added, too. However i´m sure, that they were going to be replaced by Sovereigns and Eclipses, since the later two have gravity-well-projectors and axial superlasers. This would also explain why there are less than twenty ships of the Executor-class known.

[Illuminatus Primus]

From what i know about the Sovereign-Class i was under the impression, that it has a much larger hangar, than the Eclipse in its ventral side.

Unjustified Assumption. For all we know, the Soveriegn does not even have a major hangar.

Neither the Soveriegn nor the Eclipse can perform the supercarrier duties to the extent the Executor can. Not to mention the Executor's lighter mass and absence of axial superlaser makes it safer and more practical to build, not to mention it more appropriately deals with the Rebel threat.

Justify your claim the Soveriegn was replacing the Executor at a role is almost certainly couldn't fit, and that the Eclipse was even a major class, rather than custom-built leviathans (which is what it appears to be).

[Alyeska]

1 billion to 52 trillion capitalships? You have got to be shitting me. You have no fucking idea how assinine this sounds. The Empire lost fucking 99.999% of their fleet in something like three years time. The Rebel Alliance and New Republic never had a strong navy but I seriously doubt a navy of less then 100,000 ships could ever hope to fight an enemy that outnumbers them 10,000-1 low end and ten-million to one high end. If the Empire could put 20 ships in every single starsystem the Rebellion would never have one.

[Illuminatus Primus]

1 billion to 52 trillion capitalships? You have got to be shitting me. You have no fucking idea how assinine this sounds. The Empire lost fucking 99.999% of their fleet in something like three years time. The Rebel Alliance and New Republic never had a strong navy but I seriously doubt a navy of less then 100,000 ships could ever hope to fight an enemy that outnumbers them 10,000-1 low end and ten-million to one high end. If the Empire could put 20 ships in every single starsystem the Rebellion would never have one.

And you have early-NR hard fleet figures from where, praytell? Care to back up your claims at all that the NR did not build a fleet to fight against the Imperials, even at these numbers? The only hard figures on the NRDF I know of come from the tiny emasculated NR of the BFC, and even that's only refering to segments of the central fleet.

You also ignore that the member worlds had their own fleets to help overthrow the Empire, vast sects of the Empire simply surrenders or defected, and the Empire was placed at disadvantage by the fact that with Sector Groups, they had to permanently occupy their own territories to prevent them from revolting. Those forces will be quite busy when the NR comes knocking and the revolutionaries start coming out of the woodwork. Large segements, possibly even the majority of Imperial might had to deal with internal conflicts, putting down revolts, and fighting other factions and Warlords. Not to mention that Palpatine recalled a significant percentage of the Imperial Navy which consequently never saw a day of combat against the Rebels until Operation SHADOWNHAND.

I'm seeing a bunch of unjustified assumptions and contrived dilemmas against figures, which I remind you are barely appropriate under observed canon civilization's scale, and implied by canon themselves.

[Alyeska]

Oh yes, vast sections of the Empire just defected to the Rebellion. This is why the Rebel fleet after Endor was composed almost entirely of ISDs the whole time...

Gee, how about the fucking fact that Endor was composed of MOST of the Rebellions ships (only 12-24 Mon Cal cruisers). Mon Cal could not produce enough ships to even hope to compete with the Empire and the Rebellion RARELY captured ISDs. Infact they captured so few of them that when they took Couriscant they attacked with a grand total of 7 Mon Cals and 2 ISDs. And these were ISDs captured from Endor, not ships gained from Defections.

I think my assumptions and speculation have a little more base in reality then that wild ass guess of a figure at billions to trillions of ships. Especialy because this flies in the face of logic. Oh yes, the Empire had trillions of ships that it managed to piss away in less then half a decade.

BTW, past discussions on Rebellion and NR size came to the conclussion that at its height the NR had a 30,000 ship fleet. Thats on THIS board FYI. Of course for the Empire to have 52 trillion ships that means the NR must now suddenly have at least 30 million ships, sounds good, right?

[Sea Skimmer]

EDIT: Not to mention Alyeska, modern examples of cruisers and destroyers with very similar tonnages (the Kidd-class Destroyer and the Ticonderoga-class Cruiser, etc.) contradicts your false demand that a destroyer CANNOT serve as a cruiser in different circumstances. Quite frankly the ISD of Giel's fleet and Death Squadron and the Reserves of Byss is fighting a much different war than the ISD of the local Moff's Superiority Fleet to root-out a Rebel hide-out.

The Ticonderoga's aren't cruisers. They where designed and even originally designated as destroyers, the type was only changed for political reasons. In fact the USN hasn't built a real cruiser from the ground up since 1945, everything since then has been an escort.

[FTeik]

Unjustified Assumption. For all we know, the Soveriegn does not even have a major hangar.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/ ... ereign.gif

And from the accompanying text:

The docking facilities are not well known, since the Sovereign is only seen as a silhouette. However there is an important indentation in the keel line immediately behind the fin of the axial superlaser. This may represent a significant cavity like that of the Executor, although it is far from proven. According to the Dark Empire Sourcebook, the fighter capacity includes only 35 squadrons of interceptors and 5 of bombers, and 75 "all terrain armoured vehicles" are carried as well.



So while we have no real evidence FOR a large ventral hangar-bay we also have no evidence AGAINST it.

Neither the Soveriegn nor the Eclipse can perform the supercarrier duties to the extent the Executor can.

Where did i claim this to be the case? And tell me one incident where an Executor used its supercarrier-abilities to its full extent?

Not to mention the Executor's lighter mass and absence of axial superlaser makes it safer and more practical to build, not to mention it more appropriately deals with the Rebel threat.

What makes you think this is the case? Reading your post makes me wonder, why the empire built Sovereigns or Eclipses in the first place.

Justify your claim the Soveriegn was replacing the Executor at a role is almost certainly couldn't fit, and that the Eclipse was even a major class, rather than custom-built leviathans (which is what it appears to be).

Claim?

I made an assumption. Assuming that the Executor never had to use its abilities as carrier to full extent and that the Sovereign´s lesser (but still existing) hangar-capacities could do the same job in addition to the benefits of a superlaser and gravity-well-projectors it seemed to be logical explenation why there are less than twenty Executors known to date although the empire with its huge industrial base and its known attitude towards the "bigger is better" should have been able to build them by the dozen.

Concerning the Eclipse we´ll never know for sure, since only two were built, but every official source i have read on them talks about Eclipse-CLASS.

Additonally emperor Palpatine obviously contributed only to the design of the first of those ships built, while the second looked rather different and was probabely more up to the original specs. That doesn´t fit with "custom-built leviathan", if you ask me.