StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Meh, the Eclipse and Sovereign both had superlasers, and that only drew the NR's attention. Both were blown up. A superficially good idea, but it draws Rebels like flies to honey. I'd leave off even a small superlaser.
- Ra

I don't see the purpose of a superlaser on a ship, at least one the size of an ISD. I takes up space, doesn't give you any extra power, and while it has the bonus of concentrating the firepower better than 12 or 16 guns, it also has the disadvantage of being a fixed-axis weapon, at least if it's mounted along the central spine like the two other superlaser-bearing ships.

I say go with what we have already talked about. Get rid of the Ground Army (and it is an Army) remove the oversized over exposed hanger, split it up, and make a better layout of the heavy guns.

That, and redesign the conning tower. It's too tall and exposes the command crew too much. Make a smaller tower, and make it conformal to the main hull. I know it seems like a minor point, but I'd rather present as little of a target aspect as possible.
- Ra

Ra wrote:

I doubt that ship would work.

How would it not work? Does a warship need ground forces to conduct space combat missions? Is it overarmed? Underpowered? There are solutions to both problems, obviously. Reducing armament and building a bigger reactor come to mind.
- Ra

No, its armed ridiculously; the outrigger wings couldn't support the recoil as well if the barrels traversed up or down relative to the ship's plane of oirentation. There's a reason the turrets are usually recessed right up next to the centerline or superstructre - close to the reactor and solidly mounted.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:I say go with what we have already talked about. Get rid of the Ground Army (and it is an Army) remove the oversized over exposed hanger, split it up, and make a better layout of the heavy guns.

Sounds like you're aiming for something like the Tector-class.

The Imperators are MEANT to have the army and fighters. The Imperial Starfleet already has a "ship-killer" in an ISD frame; to change the Imperator line to a ship-killer would be redundant at best.

Which brings us back to what I was saying; its probably nearly impossible to be an ISD any better than the ISD does.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which brings us back to what I was saying; its probably nearly impossible to be an ISD any better than the ISD does.

So, like, your saying theres NOTHING you would change? Not up-arming the bottom? not fully hiding the Reactor? not lowering the profile of the Bridge? The ISD is just the picture of Ship Perfection? Despite the fact that, in all hounesty, it was made by a special effects department in the 70's for the purpose of looking 'cool' ?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which brings us back to what I was saying; its probably nearly impossible to be an ISD any better than the ISD does.

Although the New Republic-biased EU would have you believe that there are over 30,000 design flaws in the ISD (without even making the effort to show what they are).

No ship is perfect, and there is always room for perfection. That's the case with any sci-fi or real-world ship. CR's post adequately recaps the things that need improving. I mean, this is a post to see how to improve the ISD. What's the point if we're going to conclude it's perfect?
- Ra

Crossroads Inc. wrote:So, like, your saying theres NOTHING you would change?

It fits the role assigned to it. It's a jack of all trades ship. Kind of.

Not up-arming the bottom?

What for? Just maneuver your turrets into position.

not fully hiding the Reactor?

Hiding it from what?

not lowering the profile of the Bridge?

What for?

It's not perfect, but it's a good ship.

Stofsk wrote: What for? Just maneuver your turrets into position.

My God, people! The ventral side is a fucking weak spot! What part of weak spot do you not you understand? Maneuver the turrets into position? How, pray tell, when they are on the DORSAL surface? All you even have are the trench guns.

Hiding it from what?

Um, it's hanging off the ship in the open. It's exposed to enemy fire!

What for?

Something called "target aspect", perhaps?
- Ra

Ra wrote:

Stofsk wrote: What for? Just maneuver your turrets into position.

My God, people! The ventral side is a fucking weak spot! What part of weak spot do you not you understand? Maneuver the turrets into position? How, pray tell, when they are on the DORSAL surface? All you even have are the trench guns.

Roll the ship. Turrets on the dorsal surface come into angle.

Hiding it from what?

Um, it's hanging off the ship in the open. It's exposed to enemy fire!

And it's going to do jack shit 'hiding it' deeper inside the hull. The shields are the only thing that protect the ISDs. Armour helps, but not when you're shrugging of hundreds of gigatons of turbolaser energy.

What for?

Something called "target aspect", perhaps?

Yes, what about it?

Roll the ship. Turrets on the dorsal surface come into angle.

Roll the ship? An ISD isn't a fucking starfighter. Rolling it takes time, and there isn't much reaction time in space. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with putting some damn guns on the bottom of the ship? WHAT IS WRONG with it? Please explain.

And it's going to do jack shit 'hiding it' deeper inside the hull. The shields are the only things that protect the ISDs. Armour helps, but not when you're shrugging of hundreds of gigatons of turbolaser energy.

You don't build a fucking reactor on the outside of the hull! Show me a nuclear sub with the reactor hanging off the bottom.

Yes, what about it?

What about it? The less aspect you present to an enemy, the less chance they have of hitting it. I know the ship's a fucking mile long, but any improvement helps. TESB proved how vulnerable an ISD conning tower is, although that is an extreme example. You don't need the bridge that high up, especially since most spatial navigation is done by charts and sensors. In fact, they probably don't need the tower at all.
- Ra

Ra wrote:Roll the ship? An ISD isn't a fucking starfighter. Rolling it takes time, and there isn't much reaction time in space. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with putting some damn guns on the bottom of the ship? WHAT IS WRONG with it? Please explain.

It's not necessary when ISD captains roll their ships to present reinforced shields to their enemy's angle to give their weakened shields a chance to reform. Same principle can be applied towards guns. ISDs have 1000s of gees acceleration as per Endor, though not nimble or agile it's not going to take that long. ESB shows us that an ISD 'diving' can move quite a bit in under a minute.

So essentially what you want is a ship where all angles of approach are covered by guns. So build a sphere. That's the Death Star. You can't approach the DS from a 'safe' angle, unless you arrive on opposite ends to the superlaser, and even then you're still dead, just slightly longer in the wait.

You don't build a fucking reactor on the outside of the hull! Show me a nuclear sub with the reactor hanging off the bottom.

Why don't you calm the fuck down?

The reactor is not on the outside of the hull, only a part of it is exposed. Big deal.

What about it? The less aspect you present to an enemy, the less chance they have of hitting it. I know the ship's a fucking mile long, but any improvement helps.

Actually, no. The bigger you are, the less important maneuver is and the more important armour or static defences become. In this case, shields.Because the bigger you are, the harder it is to move. The bridge jutting out doesn't do much, and it may give the scanner globes on top a better capability to give targetting information to the ship's gunners.

Shields are not perfect. You need to design a ship for survivability in case shields fail, even if we're dealing with teraton firepower.

ROTJ. ISD cops a hit amidship. It goes up.

Doesn't matter where the fucking bridge is. It could be there or in the dagger hull, it doesn't matter. Once the shields fail you're fucked. End of story.

I'm not going to argue this anymore. Even the fucking FEDDIES put phasers on the bottom of their ships. Even the Blockade Runner had TL's on the bottom. Why can't an ISD? Because it can roll over! Please.

I would want the OPTION of guns on the bottom of my ship, thank you, not have to roll the damn thing over. And don't go into "why don't you build a sphere". We're supposed to be improving a Star Destroyer. There is no excuse for having no HTL's on the bottom of the ship. If I was an ISD captain, I wouldn't want to have to roll the ship over just to hit someone that's attacking from below. Space is three-dimesional, last time I checked.

OK, I get your point about the bridge and reactor, that point is moot. Consider it conceded.
- Ra

Stofsk wrote:

Ra wrote:Roll the ship? An ISD isn't a fucking starfighter. Rolling it takes time, and there isn't much reaction time in space. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with putting some damn guns on the bottom of the ship? WHAT IS WRONG with it? Please explain.

It's not necessary when ISD captains roll their ships to present reinforced shields to their enemy's angle to give their weakened shields a chance to reform. Same principle can be applied towards guns. ISDs have 1000s of gees acceleration as per Endor, though not nimble or agile it's not going to take that long. ESB shows us that an ISD 'diving' can move quite a bit in under a minute.

So essentially what you want is a ship where all angles of approach are covered by guns. So build a sphere. That's the Death Star. You can't approach the DS from a 'safe' angle, unless you arrive on opposite ends to the superlaser, and even then you're still dead, just slightly longer in the wait.

While I don't wish to enter into the Frey, I would like to mediate before things get too out of hand... I have read many ancient threads concerning improvements to the ISD. And every time when someone mentions the obvious blind spot on the bottom, the answer has always been "Just Roll the Ship" well, Über speed or no.. In battle, if someone has come up under you, I would much rather already have heavy guns down there to defend with, rather then take 60 very precious seconds 'rolling' the ship in order to bring guns to bare...

Look, I know many of us like to think the ISD is the end all of ship design, but If I told you I have a ship, and 50% of it's surface is lacking heavy guns, you ask me why the Hell not, not respond with "Well, lets just turn the ship over.

Did it ever accrue to anyone that when one 'Rolls the ship' you are STILL going to have a surface exposed with no guns? It's just on the other side now...

Oh yes.. You don’t need to step into Extremism by saying “Well gee, if you don’t like it just build a sphere” That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, and I think Our esteemed Mr. Wong frowns on this tactic.

As such, perhaps we should all take a breather for a while, were all friends here, no senmse in starting any uneeded strife..

The typical combat that an ISD is going to find itself in, when dealing with targets deadly enough to be a threat, is going to be long-distance. Remember that close-range battles, like Endor, are rare enough that Ackbar (or was it Lando?) said they would be inventing a new form of combat. When your enemy is far away, it's best to focus your strengths on one side.

Why? Let's look at a well-rounded ship in this circumstance. The guns on the side facing away from the enemy are going to do absolutely nothing for you. That's power and space wasted. The extra hull plating around the generator is going to do nothing.

Now if we put a normal ISD in this situation, all it has to do is face its top towards the enemies. All of its guns are able to fire, not the half we had before. Its vulnerable bits are hiding safely behind the bulk of the ship. If the enemy tries to go around to take advantage of the weak points, they have to take a long loop, which gives you more than enough time to reorient your own ship.

By spreading out the weapon systems, you're sacrificing concentrated firepower to prepare for situations that should never happen.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Look, I know many of us like to think the ISD is the end all of ship design, but If I told you I have a ship, and 50% of it's surface is lacking heavy guns, you ask me why the Hell not, not respond with "Well, lets just turn the ship over.

Having a couple guns down there might help, but the 'roll the ship tactic' is very much working within the ship's design limitations. I simply pointed that out as a kind of "Well, the regular ISD gets by even without guns down there" and it seemed like your only improvement was to put guns down here.

I actually thought there was guns down there anyway. Just not the heavy ones. But whatever. If there aren't any guns down there, stick a few on and send it out. If that's all you want, what's the harm?

Oh yes.. You don’t need to step into Extremism by saying “Well gee, if you don’t like it just build a sphere” That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, and I think Our esteemed Mr. Wong frowns on this tactic.

No, I was serious. A spheroid is the perfect shape for a warship in space, simply because you can stick guns on any 'side' and you've covered all the angles of approach. This is why the Death Star rocks.

It's got nothing to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're redesigning the ship, right? I thought anything goes. Read the OP, the guy wanted total creativity. Only limitation was it has to be the same 'size' as the ISD. What does that mean? That it masses the same? That it's the same length of 1.6 KM? That is must retain a wedge shape?

As such, perhaps we should all take a breather for a while, were all friends here, no senmse in starting any uneeded strife..

Dude, it gets like this all the time.

I wonder about equipping an ISD with slightly different weapon systems. I am proposing that in lieu of the heavy turbo laser batteries, it will be equipped with something like HALO's MAC gun. I'm thinking either two or four (depending on what we have enough juice for) cyclotron-like guns firing 16000 kg iron spheres at near the speed of light. These guns would be compact, as the projectile would be accelerated around a circular path, and then ejected in line with the enemy. They would exist in a ball turret configuration, so the accelerator could be angled toward the target. I would of course, test this before attempting to use it in combat for real! If it turns out not to be feasible, I'm afraid I'd have to bite the big iron bullet and submit to arming it with four big turbo-laser turrets. BTW, does anybody know if other metals besides iron would make for a better bullet at near relativistic speeds. I'm using it because it's common, and magnetic, hence I would assume easier to use a magnetic accelerator on. I suppose something like tungsten or depleted uranium would be denser, and so concentrate the force of impact on a smaller area, penetrating deeper into the target, but sacrificing the potential for making a bigger hole in terms of diameter. Also, I am aware that the KE is less for such a projectile than the energy carried by a TL bolt, but I was hoping to offset this through its much greater momentum as a physical projectile. As I said, if it wouldn't work, this would be discovered in the testing ground, not in actual combat.

As for light and medium guns, I would have them arranged to pretty much cover the entire arc of the starship. I would, however, move internal components around quite a bit. For example, the main reactor would be divided into at least four smaller reactors, all of which are protected by armored bulkheads in the event of penetration. The force of any resulting explosion would be vented to space, in the manner of the blow-off panels on the turret of a real-world Abrams tank. So while the ship would lose some power, it would be able to continue the fight.

Better shields are always a must.

As for armor structure, I would altered the ship slightly. I would eliminate the flat edges between the two major armor decks, as I intend for this ship to advance straight into battle, without angling its nose slightly downward to protect the reactor, as the older ships did. I would seal the armor decks, so the ship would have a sharp, dagger like edge. This would give it the full benefit of sloped armor for protection, thus diverting anything that manages to penetrate the shields away from the core of the ship.

A slight rearrangement too. I like the bridge tower, so I'm going to keep it, but it will not be the bridge. The bridge will be placed in a better protected location, namely the second tier leading up to the bridge tower. The old superstructure will be the new flight deck, where all her fighters are stored. The central bulb on the lower side of the ship, which used to house the reactor, will stay too, but it will no longer be a reactor (hell it could be cyclotron / uber turbolaser #5).

I am open to suggestions on this one, should the ship have missile launch capability? I'm only thinking a dozen or so proton torpedo launchers. Open to ideas.

I might cut back the fighter complement to say 12 TIE defenders, 12 TIE bombers, and 12 Missile Boats. It's a small complement of craft, but I'm building this as more of a fighting ship. Heavy automation will reduce the size of the crew, and it will not carry a complement of stormtroopers for planetary invasions. It must sacrifice its status as a troop carrier for the sake of being a super battleship.

And then my old favorite, armor. I am pretty sure the old Star Destroyer's armor is supposed to be 75cm thick (but correct me if I'm wrong). My model will feature at least 2 meters of armor, however it will be built differently. The outer layer will be a steel or titanium alloy which, if pitted, by something peentrating the shield, is no harm no foul, easy to replace, nothing big or too terribly expensive. It will feature a thick layer of ceramic right underneath (same kind used in stormtrooper armor), and then a layer of depleted uranium impregnated with neutronium. It will be backed by another layer of ceramic, and then a thicker layer of steel or titanium. Keep arranging the layers until your heart's content, but there will be a layer of ceramic between each layer of metal. So in a sense, it's a composite armor. Areas where crew quarters are closest to the outer hull will be protected by at least three meters of armor, and the bridge will be protected by a total of five. Killing the command crew will literally blow the brains out of the starship. These officers have faithfully served the Empire / New Republic for many years, we should take every effort to protect them and their years of experience. The tiers will no longer have the flat, exposed face on the front, either. it will be a sloped armor plate to provide a glancing surface for any incoming attack. While we're at it, I think we should install additional shielding around some of the ship's electronic systems to protect it in the event of shield penetration by ion cannon bolts. That does represent a very anticlimatic ending to an otherwise flawless frontal assault, to have your ship suddenly disabled by an ion bolt.

Oh yes, don't forget fire controls. I'll need to get rid of those big sensor domes atop the superstructure-cum-hangar, and replace them with more arrays scattered about the ship to reduce the chances of it being blinded by a single lucky hit. Whatever the best fire controls are that money can buy in SW, I want 'em for my wanked out Star Destroyer, because we all know that if the most powerful weapon in the universe completely misses its target, it does zero damage.

Oh yes, and the ship's library will be stocked with all the latest porno flicks, in addition to some good books and some less perverted electronic media. The ship's bar will include a wide selection of drinks for off-duty crew members. Hey, creature comforts are important for a crew of living, breathing creatures.

What do you guys think? Feasible? possible? Or should I stop wanking before I hurt myself?

wilfulton wrote:BTW, does anybody know if other metals besides iron would make for a better bullet at near relativistic speeds.

Tungsten and Depleted Uranium are just about the pinnacle when it comes to kinetic projectiles, Tungsten being favored in most railgun concepts. DU offers better energy tranfer and such, but you need a much more powerful driver to fire it. In fact, I think I read that a large railgun slug made of DU would carry the kinetic energy equivilant to a modest nuke.
- Ra

Stofsk wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote:-snip-

I actually thought there was guns down there anyway. Just not the heavy ones. But whatever. If there aren't any guns down there, stick a few on and send it out. If that's all you want, what's the harm?

Oh, well, yess, tahts actually very nice, I’d be quite happy with that thank you!

No, I was serious. A spheroid is the perfect shape for a warship in space, simply because you can stick guns on any 'side' and you've covered all the angles of approach. This is why the Death Star rocks.

Again, misconception, got carried away by your tone. In truth, the Sphere is the perfect ship design in terms of defence and offensive gun coverage. The only thing that would cause a problem is perhaps how you put the engines.

As such, perhaps we should all take a breather for a while, were all friends here, no senmse in starting any unneeded strife..

Dude, it gets like this all the time.

Yes well, I do try and keep things, at least between me and others, as civil as possible. Must come from my up bringing on Sluggy.Net. In any case, of the three big beefs held against the ISD: Exposed hanger, ‘Exposed’ Reactor, and lack of heavy firepower on bottom half, I would say that there are suitable reasons for all of these. Massive shields, and what happens when they go down ((IE being screwed)) being the biggest.

But this is really about making a NEW ISD, and not nitpicking about errors with the original. So it would be nice to see fresh designs...

I done on concept a will ago here...

Stronger armor...
Bettet firearc for the heavy TL`s...
A bit larger... 2100 meter...
More troop`s and fighter`s...
Four more turbotruster`s...

Crix Dorius wrote:I done on concept a will ago here...

Stronger armor...
Bettet firearc for the heavy TL`s...
A bit larger... 2100 meter...
More troop`s and fighter`s...
Four more turbotruster`s...

Can you provide better views? All I see here is three turrets; if they're all mirrored, that gives you six. The original had eight. Not only that, but your design puts some of them farther away from the reactor, likely reducing their power.

And can you pluralize normally, without the apostrophes/tildes? That and the spelling make reading your posts a little difficult.

75cm of armour on an ISD? How much crack did that require?

Everyone seems to be assuming the ISD features several design flaws. I'd like to suggest

1) armouring the trenches was seen as a waste of time, either for some sytem to work, or merely because in a fleet battle the ship will be destroyed easily after losing shields, regardless of little strips of light armour

2) tower is high to give wider scope for sensors and communications. Burying it would make it more protected, but again, once shields are down its all over in any case. The tower is really only vulnerable to rogue asteroids

3) the weapon placement seems to be dictated by some constant, since everything has guns directly adjacent to the powercore. Duplicating the guns on the reverse side would probably mean the powerplant would be inadequate

Basically, all this talk of 'sloped armour' and 'kinetic penetrators' strikes me as ridiculous. An ISD was utterly blown to shit by a single group of TL shots in ROTJ: armour is obviously useful against SOMETHING (like MTL or SPHATs or something of that calibre, perhaps) but NOT heavy capship killers. Needless to say, armouring the entire ship is probably mass-probitive. Unless it's a sphere, of course

Variants would likely be along existing lines: dedicated, hangerless warships, gravwell ships, dedicated, HTL-less carriers, etc. Not 'OMFG more gunz0r'. ISDs aren't the best at everything, but to make it better at one thing it must be made worse in another. It's a fine balance, and it's only a bloody escort ship anyway.