StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is it cannon, this is Dr Saxton's chart is it not? Plus alot of those ships are one hit wonders, if you will. The Eclipse class has two know ships and some of the others are seen only once. Ontop of that, a couple have only been seen in the background of comic pages and I don't know how much we can interprete into them due to artistic licence.

Anyway, my contesion still stands. Maybe not you, but others are trying to equate an Imperator to a destroyer due simply to the fact that it was observed escorting a larger ship. This makes it an escort but not necessarily a destroyer.

Yes, that is it. Still the main reason we see so many ISDs is also artistic liscence. They're iconic and so appear more than other ships.

Being an escort doesn't make it a destroyer. It's a star-destroyer, not a submarine-destroyer. In the same way there's a difference between the roles of Imperial command ships and real command ships (which aren't that big, IIRC as they are protected by the rest of the fleet, and don't enter battle as a rule)

I recall Han Solo refering to a pair of Star Destroyer type Ships in ANH as Cruisers so maybe Star Destroyers are a cruiser class with the designation "Star Destroyer" as there class name.

Jaris Merc wrote:I recall Han Solo refering to a pair of Star Destroyer type Ships in ANH as Cruisers so maybe Star Destroyers are a cruiser class with the designation "Star Destroyer" as there class name.

Is Imperator-class Star Destroyer difficult to understand

Destroyers were originally known as torpedo-destroyers because they went after torpedo boats or something right?

What if Star Destroyer means they go after starships?

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Destroyers were originally known as torpedo-destroyers because they went after torpedo boats or something right?

Yes (well, TB destroyers). They were later equipped to kill anything else that carried torpedos, namely other destroyers, enemy submarines and enemy aircraft.

Alyeska wrote:

NecronLord wrote:http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... fleet2.jpg

It's a destroyer.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... mada1b.jpg

Another fleet.

That proves nothing. Modern Heavy Cruisers have been used to escort ships. Hell, Aegis cruisers are used as escorts semi frequently. The difference is that a cruiser is designed with the capability to lead formations on its own and its a primary assault platform. On the other hand a destroyer is designed to protect ships within the fleet. The ISD can escort, but can do much more (as evidence by countless EU examples) and as such proves it is a cruiser.

Well,several nitpicks.

1.A Aegis is actually destroyer class.The USN for political reasons upgraded their status to cruiser.Also,considering the anti air capability of the Aegis platform,one can say its primary role is to act as an escort for the carriers,LPHs and whatnots of the USN.

2.A destroyer is not designed to protect ships within the fleet,nor is it not the main component of a formation or a primary assault platform.

British destroyers in WW1 were formed up into destroyer squadrons to launch waves of torpedoes at BB formations,thus,making the destroyer an assault platform.Furthermore,the Type 42 Destroyer is the centerpiece of the British navy task force where a carrier isn't present,and plans in the 80s for a dispersed naval aviation force,in which a destroyer will carry only a few VTOL will also make it the centerpiece of a formation.

In fact,the advance of technology over the ages where a missile boat can take out a cruiser has now made role classification a thing of the past.It is usually more approiate to use the tonnage ratings for a ship for classification.

PainRack wrote:
1.A Aegis is actually destroyer class.The USN for political reasons upgraded their status to cruiser.Also,considering the anti air capability of the Aegis platform,one can say its primary role is to act as an escort for the carriers,LPHs and whatnots of the USN.

No AEGIS is a combat system. It is carried by the American Ticonderoga class cruisers, and Arleigh Burke destroyers, the Japanese Kongou class destroyers and the Spanish F100 class frigates.

2.A destroyer is not designed to protect ships within the fleet,nor is it not the main component of a formation or a primary assault platform.

The traditional role of the destroyer is to protect the fleet.

In fact,the advance of technology over the ages where a missile boat can take out a cruiser has now made role classification a thing of the past.It is usually more approiate to use the tonnage ratings for a ship for classification.

Actually tonnage and length have steadily become less relevant to classification.

Alyeska wrote:
That proves nothing. Modern Heavy Cruisers have been used to escort ships. Hell, Aegis cruisers are used as escorts semi frequently. The difference is that a cruiser is designed with the capability to lead formations on its own and its a primary assault platform.

The existence of the flotilla leader throws that assertion off.

Alyeska wrote:The Stardestroyer is NOT a destroyer. For the size of the Empire it has to few of them.

It is "too." And the oft cited Zahn statement in SoTP is erroneous and has been admitted as such--the given number of worlds is wrong.

Furthermore--its a rehash of WEG calcs--which demand no less than 48,000 ISDs. Its likely far more given the Oversectors, Priority Sectors, roaming fleet commands, and offensive fleets.

Alyeska wrote:The ISD is used like a classic cruiser. It is large enough to lead its own battle groups, yet it can and will escort larger ships when needed.

The ISD is not a cruiser. Its designed to be a fleet destroyer and fullfills secondary missions of planet subjugation and interdiction/crime control. Hell, even the Mk. I's weapons are optimized for fleet destroyer work.

Alyeska wrote:Yes, there is a massive size difference between the ISD and the SSD ships. That is because the SSD ships are, well, built absurdly large. Those things are super battleships, mobile battlestations, etc...

The Executor is a command ship that doubles as a supercarrier.

Alyeska wrote:The ISD fills a role most typicaly done by that of a cruiser. It commands formations, leads assaults, represents a significant level of firepower for the Imperial fleet, and rarely escorts larger ships. Strike Cruisers and Carrack Cruisers are much more along the lines of destroyers.

It represented such a heavy level of firepower because it was designed to hold down a world without support--doesn't change the fact that when deployed in true Imperial fleets--it is designed and called a destroyer.

Strike Cruisers and Carracks execute the roles of support craft and cutters and even spyships before--they're not destroyers.

Alyeska wrote:Now, if the SSD type ships had been built in the numbers they were originaly intended as, the ISD would most certainly have become a destroyer.

We do not know how many were built, simply that the NR has only the Guardian--the rest is assumption.

Han Solo: "Now don't get jittery Luke. There are a lot of command ships."

Alyeska wrote:It is not uncommon for a navy to redesignate the ships of the fleet based on new ships entering service.

The Mk. II is definitely a destroyer shoe-horned into performing as a cruiser against Rebel capships.

Alyeska wrote:Had the Exector class replaced the ISD as originaly intended,

Justify this. The Executor was never intended to the minimum power to hold down a world and double for anti-insurgent and criminal work. Its a command ship that doubles as a supercarrier. Nothing like the ISD except in the make of command tower.

Alyeska wrote:the ISD would most certainly be relegated to destroyer status and missions while the Executors went out and scared the crap out of anyone who dared threaten the Empire.

The Executor was never intended to replace the ISD.

Alyeska wrote:Aliegance ships would be heavy destroyer escorts, VSDs would be light destroyers.

Which they are.

Alyeska wrote:Eclipse and Sovereigns would be heavy level battleships

While the Soveriegn does appear to be a command ship/heavy battleship, the Eclipse seemed to be for the Emperor and possibly he closest minions only. The Soveriegn appears to complement the supercarrier secondary role of the Executor with its superlaser and heavy anti capship guns.

Alyeska wrote:while the Executor is a heavy cruiser.

All it has is ISD guns and devotes most space and mass to hangars and military cargo. Supercarrier.

Alyeska wrote:While the Executor is longer then either the Sovereign or Eclipse, its internal voume is far less and it being not in the same catagor as the other two is understandable.

Your role assumptions are bullshit.

Sea Skimmer wrote: No AEGIS is a combat system. It is carried by the American Ticonderoga class cruisers, and Arleigh Burke destroyers, the Japanese Kongou class destroyers and the Spanish F100 class frigates.

The Aegis Cruiser in popular literature,properly known as the Ticonderoga class cruiser,is a destroyer class vessel.

The traditional role of the destroyer is to protect the fleet.

Yes,but is that its only role?

Actually tonnage and length have steadily become less relevant to classification.

Actually,I will disagree.The advance of technology over the ages,in which a Oliver Frigate can stand in for a Arleigh Burke destroyer has made classification based on purely roles worthless.

A ship sea-handling capability,which is more often than not defined by its tonnage and lenght(ignoring ship design technology) is a more accurate way to define a vessel class in our times.

If the Executor is a heavy carrier, it fails miserably. Only having 12 squadrons and all that.

It was carrying 12 squadrons? The capacity is vast. In any case it isn't, it's a battleship, theres a picture of a heavy carrier on Saxton's site.