main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

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. Gamiel

    Gamiel Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2012
  2. NCISliar

    NCISliar Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Metal Arsenal Gear!?
     
    Darth_Elu likes this.
  3. Darth Basin

    Darth Basin Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 15, 2015
  4. Zeta1127

    Zeta1127 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    No, I still can't see the image.
     
  5. AdmiralNick22

    AdmiralNick22 Retired Fleet Admiral star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 28, 2003
  6. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    When I open those links, I get "access denied" and can see nothing.

    That site doesn't allow hotlinking.
     
  7. Zeta1127

    Zeta1127 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Yeah, the only way to view those images is to open the links in a browser.
     
    Gamiel likes this.
  8. JABoomer

    JABoomer Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2009
  9. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    They still have another 14 unconverted Ohios.
     
  10. JABoomer

    JABoomer Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Right but they have jobs. Or are you thinking they could be converted to SSGN's after the Ohio-class replacement SSBN enters service?
     
  11. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Or give them a bit more missile variety - maybe make them fit the "arsenal ship" role a bit better than the SSGN ones do.
     
  12. JABoomer

    JABoomer Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2009
    I see a couple of problems with that strategy:

    1) Putting other missile types onto a SSBN will degrade their ability to perform the SSBN role. Getting into firing position for anything other than a Trident missile will not help their being a "black hole in the ocean".

    2) Putting anything other than Tomahawks on a SSGN will require you to develop submarine-launch capable SM-6 Standard missile for example, unless the submarine is required to operate on the surface for launching operations. And if you did, the SSGN would be tied to the cruiser and destroyers with the AEGIS system. I think Ticonderoga-class and Arleigh Burke-class ships have sufficient surface-to-air missiles in their magazines to not need the extra help. In fact, the presence of a SSGN in-theater allows the cruisers and destroyers to carry less Tomahawks and more SM-6.

    I think the US Navy has a more more flexible ship with the SSGN than the arsenal ship would have provided. It's not a sitting duck on the ocean, it's stealthy as are all subs, and it provides special operations insertion capabilities that the arsenal ship could not.

    Converting more SSBNs to SSGN configuration when the Ohio-class replacement comes on-line, or building some SSGNs with the next batch of SSBNs would be a very good idea.
     
  13. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Any thoughts on the whole "Avenger was intended to be only 1270m" argument here?


    http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...-battle-in-return-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-5

     
  14. Vthuil

    Vthuil Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2013
    [face_tee_hee]
     
    AdmiralWesJanson and Iron_lord like this.
  15. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Sometimes there's enough size inconsistency that a certain amount of compromise is necessary.

    I did say a few months back that the Avenger's shield domes were smaller than the Devastator's:

    which fits with the bridge shots here:

    Saxton's 41m estimate might be compatible with the Multi-Bridge Star Destroyer - using the "Falcon rounding the Star Destroyer's tower" shot - but it does require that the central bridge be pretty huge, with enormous windows.
     
  16. Vthuil

    Vthuil Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2013
    I actually don't care that much about the specific details (as I've said in the past, ship length and technical specifications are really not the side of fleet junkieism that interests me). "Irrefutable" is just an amusingly strong word to use given the history of this stuff.
     
    AdmiralWesJanson likes this.
  17. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Vthuil wrote

    "Irrefutable" is just an amusingly strong word to use given the history of this stuff.

    No offense, but could it be that you are confusing apples with oranges?

    I think we can all safely agree that the VFX compositions in ROJ are not reliable, as I tried to illustrate in the above picture compilation with the Rebel Blockade Runner.
    And the only evidence for an Avenger-class length of 1 mile is a VFX composite of Vader's Lambda-class shuttle disembarking what is the large VFX Star Destroyer model built for ESB.

    In contrast you have the model builders that set a length of 1,270 meters for the Avenger-class with both
    1. the Falcon attached to the back of the Avenger's conning tower
    2. the correct balcony bridge width briefly seen during the space battle in ROJ
    [​IMG]

    That's the irrefutable evidence I'm referring to, unless we start disregarding the model builders intentions and "their" onscreen evidence - and base our conclusions entirely on VFX compositions. ;)
     
  18. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
  19. Vthuil

    Vthuil Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Again, I have no particular stake in this either way. It was just a joke about how people have argued about Star Destroyer sizes for literal decades now, to the point where it's become a meme.
     
  20. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Vthuil

    I guess you are referring to the SSD length debate, which I have fortunately (or unfortunately) missed. It will never cease to amaze me that nobody noticed that Raymond Velasco just made a transcription error in his Guide to the Star Wars Universe (1984) when he wrote that the Executor is 5 times longer than a regular Star Destroyer although Donald Glut merely wrote that it was larger than the 5 Star Destroyers escorting it in the ESB novelization (without ever stating how large exactly).

    So, everybody has been exhausted by this debate, and because of it nobody paid attention to the conning tower size of the Avenger?
     
  21. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012

    Which, as Saxton theorised, may actually be the Communications Ship rather than an Avenger-class.

    I've been arguing that 41m as the diameter of an Avenger tower dome (figure used in fractalsponge models) does not work, for a while:

    however - this doesn't mean the Avenger can't have domes slightly larger than the Falcon's diameter, rather than smaller - this does not massively contradict what we see on screen.
     
  22. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    So the Star Destroyer the Falcon was attached to in ESB was not the Avenger or an Avenger-class Star Destroyer but the smaller "main communications ship" from the ROJ novelization that's supposed to be a "larger", not smaller Star Destroyer? 8-}
     
  23. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    No - it means we don't take the shot too literally - we assume that, as a movie rather than a documentary, the models aren't always exactly right, and the Falcon is really slightly smaller relative to the Avenger tower than it looks.

    The most conservative interpretation, I think, is that the Avenger-type and the ROTJ intro ship are the same class - and that any inconsistencies are due to the limitations of movie-making.

    None of this "Invader-class" weirdness.

     
  24. AdmiralWesJanson

    AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    May 23, 2005
    Another issue would be that while the details- tower, turrets, engine bells, tractor beam projectors, are modified between the Devastator and Avenger models, the core of the ship and proportions are not modified.
     
  25. Tzizvvt78

    Tzizvvt78 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Thing is, though, ILM made a new tower model for ROTJ alongside making one for the Executor, which can be seen in the b&w production shot. This fourth design ended up in the movie and is clearly not the same tower model as the Executor (seen previously in the same film), nor the standard Star Destroyer towers made for ESB.
     
    Lt. Hija likes this.
  26. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    But...the proportions of the large conning tower model are the same, yet the balcony bridges differ visibly in size, thus suggesting equal proportions but different volumes:

    [​IMG]

    And what exatly is so weird about that name for the possible missing link?

    Avenger (name chosen by George Lucas):

    [​IMG]
    Grumman TBF Avenger

    Devastator (name chosen by Brian Daley for the radio drama)

    [​IMG]
    Douglas TBD Devastator

    These names seem to have been derived from American WW II planes, but there is still one missing to complete the trio, IMHO:

    Invader

    [​IMG]
    Douglas A-26 Invader

    Should there be another American WW II plane with a sounds-like-a-Star-Destroyer name, I'll gladly consider it.
    Unless the name "Invader" is on some kind of black (LOL) list in the GFFA. :p