Are capital ships cost-efficient?

I have thinking a bit about space battles in the Star Wars movies and come to an observation, which I would like to discuss. I do not know if I am right about this, but this is what I think:
Starfighters are far more efficient in space battle when it comes to cost vs. effect.
Let me explain! Given calculations about the volume (size) of capital ships like Star Destroyer, they would cost hundreds of times more to build than starfighters, even ones that are relatively advanced like X-wing, and even that is probably an underestimation of the cost of a capital ships. Not to mention the required personnel.
How well would capital ships fare in battle? Well, of course. Normal laser cannons of starfighters will have a rather hard time penetrating the shields of a capital ship. How many X-wings do you think one Star Destroyer would be worth in space battle? Well, when that X-wing before Luke missed that thermal exhaust port in the Death Star, the resulting explosion still caused the floor to shake and stormtroopers to lose there footing in the giant battle station. How well do you think a Star Destroyer would do if it got several proton torpedo hits on its hull??
My estimation of how a battle between a Star Destroyer and its equivalent cost in X-wings (which would be hundreds) would go would be that the Star Destroyer would lose bigtime. Sure, it would be able to blast down a few fighters, probably even several with any short-range cannons it might have, but I think it would have a terribly hard time taking out all fighters before it took sufficient damage to be wiped out one way or another. I mean, it would be one big ship against a huge swarm of small ones. Not to mention that the manueverability of fighter would be infinitely better than for capital ships.

So, I believe the main reasons for the existence of capital ships are what the other purposes they serve in the movies, which fighters are too small to fulfill. That is, as carriers and in space docks for fighters, for longer trips (some fighters lack hyperdrive and almost none would have life support for a significant period of time) and for planetary bombardment. I mean, in direct battle, I do not think capital ships would be worth their cost in relation to fighters, or fighters would not really have much reason to exist.

What do you think of the purpose of capital ships?

 

Fear factor, for one thing. An Imperial Star Destroyer is an imposing thing.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"So, I believe the main reasons for the existence of capital ships are what the other purposes they serve in the movies, which fighters are too small to fulfill. That is, as carriers and in space docks for fighters, for longer trips (some fighters lack hyperdrive and almost none would have life support for a significant period of time) and for planetary bombardment."

Ah! As I was reading through the first part of the thread, I was already formulating what I was going to respond. "Well, I believe capital ships are mostly used to transport both ground troops and starfighters, as well as provide the heavy guns for orbital bombardment." Then, of course, I kept on reading, and you stole my very own response!

Needless to say, I obviously agree with you. Also, there is one more factor that I believe the Empire especially uses: fear. I mean, if a planet starts a small rebellion against the Imperial garrison one day, the appearance of that stark, menacing, wedge rumbling in the sky the next morning would do a whole more than 2 dozen squadrons of TIEs, IMO.

They work very well with the Empire's strategy of fear and intimidation.

 

Actually, I think Star Destroyers are very efficient, as they serve the role of battleship, troop transport and fighter carrier in one ship.

 

^What Baron said.

Besides, why have one Star Destroyer when you can have 25,000+ of them at 25,000+ X the price.

 

When considering the cost effectiveness of capital ships, it's important to remember that they serve a multitude of roles.

All of the X-Wings in the galaxy aren't going to be very effective at occupying a hostile planet because each ship only carries one person. Every pilot who gets out and acts as an infantryman means one less ship for aerial defense.

Star Destroyers carry troops as well as TIE pilots and their fighters. Star Destroyers can bomb a planet from orbit or effectively blockade a system. They are huge turbolaser platforms.

In effect, a Star Destroyer is a battleship and aircraft carrier all rolled into one.

 

They might not be cost-efficient, but they pack a helluva punch.

Imperial Navy Payroll - $175,000 credits / yr.

Ion Deflector Shield - $1,000,000 credits

97,409 tons of Titanium - $1,902,000,000,000 credits

The look on someone's face and the unexpected need for a change in underpants when they see a Super Star Destroyer come out of hyperspace right behind their sorry ass... PRICELESS!

There are some things money can't buy... and then there's the Empire.

 

Other things to consider:

The "chassis" for the Star Destroyer might well be the same as any number of large cargo ships, so maybe these things are mass-produced.

The SDs carry much larger and more powerfull weapons than fighters. In fact, they carry fighters and bombers and other craft.

The SDs carry a large number of troops, as well as AT-ATs and who knows what else? The Star Destroyer is a transport, carrier, battleship and shipyard all rolled into one.

The X-Wing is just a fighter.

 

Capital ships also have things like tractor beams for detaining ships, and heavy weaponry capable of planetary bombardment -- fighters would be useless in those roles.

Now does that make them cost efficient? Not necessarily, considering the cost to build and maintain the ship, plus feed its crew.

Maybe the empire should try a smaller command crew and running the ship with droids.

 

I don't think we have enough information about the capital ships of the GFFA to really judge their effectiveness, but I'll try to make an arguement for their use.

First off, I think you answered your own question when you pointed out that snubfighters are pretty useless without a carrier to launch from, and you can't invade a planet without the troops a capship can carry.

Furthermore, I think you give fighters too much credit. Yes, the torpedo that impacted on the DS's surface caused interior damage, but that was likely only in the immeadiate area of the blast. And the X-Wing's were operating from within the DS's shields. An Imperial Star Destroyer is indeed a formidable threat against fighters. The generator powering acapship's shields is vastly more powerful than those of snubfighters, and it could likely outlast them in a battle against, say, a squadron of X-Wings. If fighters were the be-all-and-end-all, the Alliance wouldn't have sent a fleet of capships to Endor, since the Alliance fighters were all hyperspace capable anyway.

While a capship might not be able to stand up against a battle with a force of fighters equal in construction costs, those same fighters would be entirely ineffective in a longer campaign, especially in situations involving planetary invasion and defence.

In conclusion, yes, X-Wings are a thousand times cooler, but if you want to win a war, you're better off with capships.

 

Well, I can remember reading in a few spots that a single Star Destroyer (Imperial class, definitely...perhaps not Victory class) can keep an entire system under control. This seems wiser to me than having a smattering of bases all over a system and a fleet of smaller ships. A gigantic ship in space with a ton of fighters and ground troops on it sounds like a fantastic instrument of domination to me.

This could also somewhat explain Leia's line to Tarkin in ANH ("...the more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more starsystems will slip through your fingers."). Death Star required so many troops, that's less that can man Star Destroyers.