Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralWesJanson, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. DarthCane Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 4
    Oh, I agree that they could act without a carrier as part of Surface Action Groups; I'm just saying that you could do the same thing with 3-4 DDG-51s or CG-47s in a moderate-threat environment today. That right there is more surface-warfare firepower than most first-world nations can deploy at one time across their whole fleet. I don't see these proposed vessels being "capital ships;" they will be multimission replacements for the current stock of cruisers and destroyers, filling the same roles, likely being of similar or slightly larger dimensions, and probably being procured in similar numbers if the design is in production for 30+ years like the DDG-51 hulls.

    That brings me back to the GFFA; I've always argued that really the Star Destroyer designation works for the largest common size class of warships, as in 21st century navies destroyers have expanded in size and capability as to render the cruiser obsolete and take on the battleship's shore bombardment role. In the GFFA, Star Destroyers also serve as carriers and even assault ships - essentially a "do-everything" vessel, like a modern destroyer taken up to 11.
    Iron_lord and darthscott3457 like this.
  2. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3

    Very true, in my mind I always associate the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with the ISD, while most other Star Wars warships I would go with WWII era or before. Though I do think every type and size of warship would find a role in any era in the SW a Galaxy:)

    I will be excited to see how the US Navy can incorporate tech like rail guns and lasers going forward. I just wish they would start on a Space Navy instead, put the Air Force out of business.;)
  3. Tzizvvt78 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2009
    star 4
    The Zumwalt-class might be one of the biggest naval missteps in a long time. First they were gonna build 32 ships, then 10 and now 3. It fills the role of a modern cruiser, but isn't called it. It won't actually be used as the backbone of the US Navy, instead becoming glorified technology demonstrators. The Arleigh Burke-class is being relaunched instead. :rolleyes:
  4. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Agreed. And these new (well basically battlecruisers- heavy guns on a fast light hull) can cover some of the roles of carriers without the expense of the added air wing- things like commerce protection (and potentially interdiction) would work well as a command vessel for groups of destroyers. The Ford class carriers are designed to be more efficient and save effort and money by reducing crew size, but a new non-carrier would be even cheaper to operate. It wouldn't replace a carrier at all, but supplement it, allowing carriers to be deployed where they are more critical without leaving gaps in mission coverage.
    AdmiralNick22 likes this.
  5. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    Yeah, that is exactly what I was trying to say in my first reponse to DarthCane. Carriers are expensive and they are not always the answer. If we had large surface combatants that were multi-role and tough to kill, you could use them in place of carriers in small to mid-sized actions, plus they would also give the USN an advantage in ship-to-ship combat that we have lost focus on.

    --Adm. Nick
    darthscott3457 likes this.
  6. MercenaryAce Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2005
    star 5
    Ship to ship combat with who? Pirate dinghies?
  7. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    If there is ever a war (God forbid) in the South China Sea between the United States and China, there will be surface actions. The USN is falling behind in anti-ship missile technology (or at least losing our technological edge) and the majority of our current fleet of Arleigh Burke-class DDG's don't even carry Harpoon missiles anymore (I don't even think they are on the Flight II or III ships), as we have placed too much focus on AAM capabilities. Besides, in the event of a war, the USN has already hypothesied that they would probably have to double the number of escorts in a CSG to 6-8 ships, which would essentially tie up almost all surface warships assigned permantently to the Seventh Fleet. Sure, more could be sent from Pearl Harbor or San Diego, but many of them would be tied up in BMD roles or assigned to any additional carriers sent to the region.

    Just because we aren't about to wage war against a well armed surface opponent doesn't mean we should have the ability to do it.

    --Adm. Nick
    Iron_lord and darthscott3457 like this.
  8. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
    Yes it is better to be prepared for as many wartime scenarios as possible, otherwise there is the potential of getting caught by surprise or start at a large deficit.

    I can also see the evolution away from dedicated carriers as we see in many of the larger Star Wars warships and say something like the Battlestar Galactica. As technology advances I think we will see more multi-role warships.

    For that same reason I would think that across the Star Wars galaxy we would always see a wide array of warship designs and size. One fleet strategy may become dominant, but I don't they it would lead to the complete extinction of all other "obsolete" warship types.
    Last edited by darthscott3457, Jan 15, 2014
    Iron_lord likes this.
  9. DarthCane Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 4

    The USN is working on LRASM, but the other trick the Aegis surface combatants have up their sleeves is that the SM-2 Standard SAM (and I believe the new SM-6) can be targeted on ships. The range is shorter than Harpoon and the warhead is about a third the size, but the Standard is over three times faster - a bit harder to defend against, and a 137-pound blast-fragmentation warhead going off on a lightly armored target (which most modern warships are) will do nasty things. About 20 years ago the carrier USS Saratoga accidentally flipped off a pair of live RIM-7 Sea Sparrow SAMs (which have a 90-pound warhead) during an exercise; they hit a 2,200-ton Turkish destroyer of WWII vintage in the superstructure and destroyed the bridge and CIC.

    Long-range antiship missile engagements are also something of a crapshoot - you have to positively ID the target, have a good track on its course and speed, and not have any neutrals or friendlies in the area. LRASM is supposed to solve a lot of those targeting issues, although how exactly is being kept a bit vague for obvious reasons. The main issue with surface ship engagements is that they generally involve the other guy being able to shoot back at your ship, which is frowned upon by modern admirals. Subs and airplanes have been the traditional units to draw antiship duty.
    Iron_lord likes this.
  10. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
    "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy.";)
    Iron_lord and AdmiralNick22 like this.
  11. DarthCane Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 4

    These days it's "No captain can do very wrong if he can shoot the enemy and they can't shoot him."
  12. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Another note is that the increase in UCAV capability will allow for smaller vessels to support combat aircraft- being smaller and lighter, they require far less of a kick to take off (a major factor in the EM catapults is they can be used for small drones, and not just large full size planes), less space to land, and far less space to store/maintain.
    darthscott3457 likes this.
  13. Gamiel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2012
    star 5
    If a ship is locked in a tractorbeam from another ship and one of them try to hyperjump, what happen?
  14. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    I would think that the tractor beam would prevent the ship from achieving the run up to hyperspeed.
  15. MercenaryAce Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2005
    star 5
    So, after looking at some SWTOR: Galactic Starfighter stuff:

    - Cool, Kuat Driveyards flashpoint.

    -I didn't think it was pronounced that way, but now that I think about it, it is logical.

    -I think I like the Gunships the best, both in terms of having nice, original designs, and just because "sniper starfighter" is an idea you don't see very often (I can think of only one other example), and one I have always wanted.

    - The Hutt fighters are pretty neat as well.
  16. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3

    Does it look visually like the previous incarnations of KDY, with the rings around the planet?
  17. JABoomer Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Does anyone recall the Rebel gunship that can be seen in the "Coruscant assault" cutscene from the computer game Star Wars: Rebellion? It's a Corellian design, but is there ANY additional info out their on this vessel or class? It's been a favorite of mine since I first laid eyes on her.

    Gorefiend likes this.
  18. NCISliar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Sadly not really, it's just that, a "Rebel gunship", even the artist refers to it as such: Rebel gunship
  19. MercenaryAce Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2005
    star 5
    Yes:
    http://www.swtor.com/info/media/trailers/old-republic-insider-–-january-2014

    That is one of my favorites as well. No official info, but I like to believe that it is the Corellian bomber mentioned in the RoTJ novel.
  20. Gamiel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2012
    star 5
    And let me guess, no sight of Duro?
  21. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
  22. MercenaryAce Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2005
    star 5
    No, not that I know of.

    Though they did mention Kaut Mesa being a new starfighter map, and I saw a video of fighters flying around a mesa - a mesa where a Hutt dreadnaught was under construction.
    darthscott3457 likes this.
  23. CommanderDrenn Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2013
    star 4
    Question: In The Bacta War, Wedge's group needs a gravity well generator. Karrde provides it seemingly with ease. Earlier in the book, Isard needs an Interdictor Cruiser to stop the Rogue's guerrilla warfare. Why doesn't she just get a gravity well generator and slap it onto a freighter?
  24. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5

    Because unlike Karrde she is not a criminal kingpin with easy access to the Black Market. ;)
  25. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Additionally, a freighter with a gravity well generator would be easy prey for a starfighter squadron, while the station was much larger, and bluffed it's way through that fight.