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. Fire Dog Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2017
    I'm gonna try to upload it later sometime
  2. Chris0013 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2014
    star 4
    Was the the first canon pictures of the Starhawk but the Story Group found out about you getting ahold of them and sent a hit squad or Death Troopers after you and now you are in hiding??[face_monkey]
  3. Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare

    VIP
    Member Since:
    May 9, 2000
    star 6
    The reboot found me somewhat indigestible, Vialco...

    [face_fett]

    *snort* That is a terrible pun. :p

    Thankfully, no. [face_peace]

    It's an open mic at the fanboy cabaret...?

    It's a very comprehensive analysis of the CR90, but I'm not sure we can actually make good sense of the blockade runner by being ultra-inclusive - we have to squint away things like the hillariously small escape pod seen in the Dune Sea, which seem to have been designed as a "top-launched" pod on a really small version of the hull, to say nothing of the various different interpretations in TCW/REBELS and Revenge of the Sith...

    Speaking of which...

    I'm pretty sure the 126m figure is based on the "ANH" version as depicted (by Filloni and Plunkett I believe) in TCW (notes on the pics online indicate that they used the same external CGI in REBELS, but I'm less clear whether the new bridge matches that scale)...

    I just saw you shared a top-view of the Revenge of the Sith's CR70 in an earlier thread, too - if that's accurate to the on-screen design, then based on the 5.6-metre bridge width, I get an overall length of something like 90m...

    Is that "Deuce" a "TESB-style" one or a REBELS one with the taller bridge tower and the "upright" array...?

    Part of the problem with the ISD is the inconsistency of the evidence, but the more I look at this, the more sense it makes - it's just nothing like we thought...

    Firstly, a digression - not all ships of the same class are the same size.

    To take a couple of extreme examples from the Royal Navy - the S-class destroyers of 1917 actually included ships of three cimpletely separate designs, the standard "Admiralty" type and the "Thorneycroft" and the "Yarrow" types, which were designed in the shipyards, and sometimes known as "specials" - the Thorneycroft Special looked similar in appearance and proportion but had a bigger engine, a deeper hull and a taller bridge structure, whereas the Yarrow Special was a lightweight type, slimmer and shallower and about 5% shorter, with all sorts of weight-saving design tricks, and even though it had a much smaller engine, still holds the record for the fastest thing with a white ensign over the measured mile; meanwhile, the C-class cruisers built between 1914 and 1918 ran through a whole series of design changes and ranged upwards from a 420ft ship with two 6-inch and eight 4-inch guns to a ship of over 450ft with five 6-inch guns...

    With that in mind, the point I want to make is this - a specification like the "ISD-I" could cover several different designs. The Empire could say "we want you to carry these guns, these sensors, and these stormtroopers, and aim for at least this speed", and CEC could turn out something 2.2km long that was mostly engine while Sienar came up with a lightweight 1.3km ship...

    Now, hold that thought, and let's look at some things...

    1. if the kitbashed piece from a model kit on the "ISD-II" model (the triple 11-inch turret from a German battleship) was designed to represent the triple aperture on the tiny Tyrant bridge, then if the "ISD-II" is implicitly around 1100m (a very rough calculation using the lieutenant's 1:6.8 bridge-width / hull-length ratio); regardless, it seems well short of 1600m...

    2. The lieutenant asserts that the width of the bridge pod on the RotJ "communications ship" bridge would have the effect of scaling the "ISD-II" back down to around 1.3km (I've not seen the workings of this one, but I'll guess it's roughly accurate)...

    3. The lieutenant reckons that the "ISD-II" is either about 1.3km or 1.6km based on the size of the Falcon or the Lambda... each of those ships' sizes is really just as much of a puzzler as the other, but I'd regard the size of the Falcon as the more reliable...

    4. If the REBELS version has a 12.8m bridge-pod width, then scaling up from one perpendicular view to another, we find its bridge tower is around 18.5 times the width of the bridge pod, its overall width is around 3.7 times the tower width, and its length is almost exactly 1.5 times its width... giving a length of approximately 1.3km... :p

    http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb...2/Close-up-of-the-Star-Destroyer's-Bridge.png

    http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...troyer_.png/revision/latest?cb=20140725101633

    http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/reb_ca_2032_4d4e210d.jpeg

    In short, there's a strong trend in the scaling evidence for the "ISD-II" towards a length around 1.3km...

    On the other hand, the lieutenant argues that the "ISD-I" in ANH scales to around 2.2km based on a 150m Tantive IV, while the size of the Ex's bridge pod suggests that its conning tower would fit on an ISD of similar proportions... and give a 23.5km / 15 mile SSD...

    :oops:

    I do sort of like the idea of a ~2km "ISD-I", because it's something we've seen already in the pre-reboot canon, with the Shockwave and the Allegiance, and arguably the Mon Mothma and Elegos A'kla and Bail Organa too, it has the effect of making the Devastator already far bigger than the ordinary "ISD-II", and it gives us - finally! - an identification for the "big Corellian ships" - the "Yarrow Specials" of the GFFA, blitzing about the Outer Rim chasing super-fast blockade runners or deploying in pairs to Tatooine to make Han Solo realise he's in something bigger and deeper than he could have possibly imagined...

    ... but I hesitate, because the good lieutenant scales the "ISD-I" at Scarif at ~950m, based on a guestimate about its hull proportions, but certainly well below what we should expect - the bridge tower seems to be about 150m wide, and if anyone has a top-down shot, we should be able to get the scale from that... as it stands, though, noting that the big Ex model has canted-outwards domes of the "ISD-I" type, and the Scarif version of the "ISD-I" apparently has a 150m-wide bridge-tower... would give us an Executor approximately 10km or 6 miles long...

    Okay, so does this mean that the smaller Millennium Falcon in ANH is a different ship? :p

    EDIT: just to be clear, that's not to be taken entirely seriously...

    Is that really clear? Strictly speaking, the "state-of-the-art Immobilizer" of 14BBY could have been abandoned as a type until revived for REBELS...

    Anyway, based on a 1.3km "ISD-II", I get a length around 850m, but now I want to play with the size of the bridge pod. :p

    Seems to be about 8.5m wide, if anyone has good images to scale the hull from - I suspect it'll work out somewhere similar. There's also the fact it has one ISD engine and two secondaries, if they match up?

    I don't really have anything to add to what Iron_lord already said here - there are lots of options to chose from on this one, but the new canon agrees with you?

    [face_laugh] Sure, you're just saying what everyone else is thinking...

    Well, that's based on the idea that the ISD is a mile long, which is something that isn't very clear any more... :p

    The idea of the "winged" MC80 being a liner has always been something that tends to sneak through in odd sources because everyone "knows" it but no-one's quite sure where it was established before...

    On the other hand, there's a Mon Cal liner of unspecified design in Tarkin, p. 194. :D

    - The Imperial Ewok
    Last edited by Thrawn McEwok, Aug 10, 2017
  4. Vialco Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2007
    star 4
    That's absurd. No such power exists in this world. This Necromancer is nothing more than a mortal Ewok. A conjurer dabbling in black magic.
    Gamiel and MercenaryAce like this.
  5. comradepitrovsky Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2017
    star 3
    I think it's dangerous to say that any specific class has to be a specific size, or of a specific make or model. We see real life having dozens of variations of ships in a single class.
  6. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    I don't trouble myself over matching on-screen interior:exterior scaling owing to the necessary literary/cinematic conceit that a set prop does not have to visibly correspond to a special effects prop. We know the interior of the Falcon is far too large to fit in the full-scale model that the actors interact with. We understand that the vehicle portrayed is actually supposed to be as big as what it's said to be by the powers-that-be (in the case of the Falcon about 30-odd meters given for the ship instead of 20 or so that the actual full-scale hangar prop is in real life) instead of the slightly miniaturized version. We know the interior shots to Gozantis are too large to fit even in the cgi prop, but we understand the meaning the visuals are meant to portray instead of the precise dimensions. If the interior bridge to an ISD is slightly out of scale with the exterior façade, trust the officially stated dimensions.

    Though I honestly don't know why people refer to the ISD's in Rebels as "II"s when they're clearly meant to be the same style as the ANH Is.
    [IMG]
  7. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 8
    The 3 main engine nozzles lack the triple vanes seen on the ANH ISD. The domes on the tower have the "all triangles, with vanes on the top" format seen in TESB (whereas the Rogue One ISD domes more closely resemble those on the ANH ship.

    Most importantly - in the later episodes of Season 3, we get close-ups of the main guns, and they're TESB-style octets.

    The only thing they strongly have in common with ANH ISDs, is the tractor beam array.
    Snafu55 and vncredleader like this.
  8. Tzizvvt78 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2009
    star 5
    Not to mention they're different from the guns on the Rogue One Star Destroyers, which follow the ANH model. ;)
  9. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    Gotta share this latest shot from Star Wars Legos: The Freemaker Adventures!

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    Notice in the upper left? Yup, Lego MC80 Liberty-type star cruiser. :D

    --Adm. Nick
    Last edited by AdmiralNick22, Aug 11, 2017
  10. Chris0013 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2014
    star 4
    THey have some amazing graphics for the ships.
  11. vncredleader Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2016
    star 4
    They need to make one asap!!
  12. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    ugh I hate those exaggerated wildly off-model nebulons, like the kinds you used to see in all those older schematics that looked nothing like the actual prop, just drawn from a bad memory
  13. AdmiralWesJanson Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Well, they are made up of lego parts, so I actually give them more credit than the mon cals- they look like models taken from Rebels with a few lego pegs thrown on, rather than actually made of legos like the corvette and frigate.
  14. vncredleader Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2016
    star 4
    Speaking of our beloved Rebel Fleet, anyone want them to actually address the modifications to the Hammerheads and nebulons? Normally when ships get modded it just happens off screen but I think it would be cool if maybe we get some lip service to it. Either an ep driven by them trying to get parts or maybe something like an a few eps where we see them in dry dock and in one story they cannot give assistance cause they are being modded. Small stuff like that is what I have wanted from rebels since the start. S3 gave us that a bit with the shield generator
  15. Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare

    VIP
    Member Since:
    May 9, 2000
    star 6
    Vialco: I feel compelled to explain that nothing was involved beyond simple tricks and nonsense.

    To an extent, I definitely agree with you - especially when acknowledging the variation in design is the best solution to reconcile a contrast between a "single-class" designation and obvious differences of type, as has always been the case with the MC80; but if there's a body of canon which points towards a "uniform" design, then I'd be less inclined to wiggle in that sort of answer. More on this in my next response down to Star_Desperado...

    In broad terms, I very mich agee with you - but there are very few "officially stated dimensions" in the reboot, and most of those are carried over from the old off-screen canon, and given their relatively limited distribution and external origins, they may be subject to change, just like the "five-mile" SSD was.

    So long as STAR WARS was attempting to maintain a consistent and essentially all-inclusive canon, I was very much a supporter of maintaining these explicit "off-screen" numbers (and associated class-definitions) in contrast to the vagueries of the "on-screen" canon in the movies - I don't think that is any secret to anybody who pays much attention to this corner of the canon (and I'm sure no-one needs me to explain I'm just talking fanboy personal opinions here, either [face_peace] )...

    But what we have now is essentially a reboot that retains little of the older material beyond the six movies and the TCW cartoon, onto which have been added brand-new material such as REBELS and the ships we see at Scarif - which, incidentally, includes a great deal of what seems to be rather well-thought-out new "fleet junk". In this context, I was curious what the "rules" were (because I haven't been paying attention), and what the implications of the new on-screen material were...

    :D I'd actually like to see a LEGO version of an MC80...

    What's the "modification" with the Nebulon-B? I must have missed that...

    With the Hammerhead, do you mean the new REBELS/Scarif ship ratehr than the CR70/CR90 changes?

    With regard to the changes between what we see in REBELS and at Scarif, it looks to me as though the modifications largely consist of additions which fit onto the existing hull - the cargo loading assembly is replaced by blockade-runner style "side wedges" with escape pods (are these the same size of escape pods as the blockade runner?), the two side-boarding hatches have been used to give access to flanking gun pods (are these blockade-runner style gun pods?), an extra thruster has been added on top of the engineering section, and the lowest thruster has been spaced slightly further away from the engineering section by an inserted strut; this is the only modification whose purpose isn't immediately apparent - perhaps it's to offset the fact that the addition of an extra engine on top changes the relationship between angle of thrust and centre of mass?

    The "side wedges" and gun pods have the look of standardized "aftermarket" additions that can be retrofitted using existing hull features (especially if the components are the same ones seen on the blockade runner) - the added thruster and the "strut" are more complex changes, but they seem reasonably straightforward as these things go, and could also be standardized. Overall, the changes would have the effect of making the ship faster (added engine) and more heavily armed (added anti-TIE guns), and also better-equipped for combat (escape pods), but they make it less flexible, losing the cargo capacity (replaced by the "side wedges"), the surface-landing facility (changing the position of the lower engine means that the forward landing gear at the bottom of the "hammerhead" is now too high up) and the ease of access (the boarding hatches and cargo bay are suppressed, and the landing ramp is rendered largely useless). Whether they're from CEC or Rebel improvisation, they probably make it a much more combat-focused hull...

    Rewatching Scarif for details of the Hammerhead, I realised that Home One and Profundity seem to be using variants of the same bridge pod - and if so, that means we can scale Home One very precisely from Profundity's known 1.20444km length. From a very rough scaling from the very quick-and-dirty images I can find easily (using the Profundity broadside view out of the Visual Guide) I get a bridge pod height of around 20 metres for Profundity, which would give Home One a length of around 2.5km-3.2km...

    Unfortunately, a bridge pod 20 metres high does not fit with the size of the Mon Cal admiral visible through the viewports - I suspect the actual pod height is nearer to 10m, so Profundity on-screen is a much smaller ship than her asserted size, around 600m (Assault Frigate?!?!?!?!?!!), and following that logic, Home One should contract in scale accordingly... to something like 1.2km!!

    -- The Imperial Ewok
    vncredleader likes this.
  16. vncredleader Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2016
    star 4
    The Nebulon's have turrets on their bows in RO.

    [IMG]

    Also nice breakdown on the Hammerhead. Did not catch some of those changes.
  17. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    @Thrawn McEwok

    I made a post a couple months ago showing the difference between the original ILM studio model for the Nebulon and the Rogue One CGI prop, I could detail it if you want. Also I STRONGLY admonish against eyeballing dimensions because I've caught myself on more than one occasion thinking a vehicle looks too small to correspond to what's on screen or whatever dimensions are given and then seeing a real world object of the same size allaying those qualms pretty quickly.

    For example the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is somewhat larger than the Nebulon B or Pelta frigate, at 332 meters, but you can look at a photo of her with sailors on deck and she seems comically small to what we think she ought to be, yet clearly there's enough internal space for functionality and habitation for 6,000 men and dozens of aircraft (even excluding those carried on top).

    [IMG]
    [IMG]

    Now of course I'm breaking my rule about eyeballing, but I can't be off by that much, I just happened to luck out that I had images of both ships of nearly perfect resolution scale.
    Last edited by Star_Desperado, Aug 12, 2017
  18. Chris0013 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2014
    star 4
    I did not notice this before....the ramp on the YT-2400 looks like it is in the front of the ship.
    [IMG]
  19. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    Cool. I also like how the guns on it look like the old Ralph McQuarrie art for the Millenium Falcon's - basically M2 Browning machine guns.
  20. Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare

    VIP
    Member Since:
    May 9, 2000
    star 6
    Interesting - that could be someone at ILM thinking that the ESB/RotJ type isn't a combat variant (I don't think we ever see more than one on-screen, so it's arguable that we only see the Redemption), though if you want a speculative "save" that allows the existing designs to be the standard design (especially useful for REBELS), you could speculate that these ones have up-gunned flak because they're running picket duty on the Profundity... [face_thinking]

    Thanks! [face_blush] I'm not sure I'd done anything particularly new there, though, and I'm sure there could be other discrepancies as well... [face_peace]

    If you want, I'd be interested to read it, but no need to repeat yourself - just link to what you did already, if you like? :D

    I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here, so I don't really want to reply at a tangent - if you're talking about my rescaling of the Profundity to 600m, that wasn't just a guestimate: there's a point in the movie, during the TIE attack at Scarif, when you can see the squid in the command chair from the outside, and you can work out an (admittedly very rough) estimate of the height of the command pod.

    Of course, there are margins of error, and I have no idea what the exact height of the Mon Cal in question is, plus I did it very quickly and crudely when I noticed that you could actually see into the bridge in a "space shot"; I don't pretend to very much accuracy, but as rough guide, it seems indicative - and it seems to indicate a much smaller scale than when you scale downwards using the broadside view in the Visual Guide...

    Of course, we can just squint and accept the stated 1.20444km, but I'd be interested if anyone could do something more precise with this, because it seems to give us a "hard" scaling connection between interior and exterior scaling...

    [face_peace]

    - The Imperial Ewok
    vncredleader likes this.
  21. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    We do see more than one Nebulon on screen in ROTJ, but it's just the same model copy-paste composited multiple times. Also for some reason the website won't let me access the posts I've made, so you'll have to try searching through them on my profile, I can't spot them browsing the thread because a lot of them have spoiler tags. Fortunately I only joined a few months ago and only have about 200 posts.
  22. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    I found a couple posts on the subject but I don't know how to relink them, so I'll just post the picture and note the differences aside from those in minor greebling.

    Rogue One's model has:
    - more noticeable engine bulges
    - large hull extension below "medbay"
    - shorter, bulbous, more rounded prow
    - less angular, more vertical/squared-off hull plating
    - thicker spar, and thicker join between it and the hull
    - more conservative communications antenna mast, and on one side only
    - no turret on top of prow, new turrets on sides of forward hull, top of engine block, and bottom of aft engineering stack (spar side)
    - operations stack moved forward and its constituent components heavily modified in shape and dimensions, often being amalgamated or excised outright

    [IMG]
    MercenaryAce and vncredleader like this.
  23. Star_Desperado Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 5, 2017
    star 2
    @Fire Dog
    you plan on reuploading that picture any time soon, still don't know what it was even supposed to be
  24. Senator Wan Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2017
    [IMG][IMG]I think we may have official concept art based on a Starhawk's interior.
    JediBatman, Star_Desperado and Gamiel like this.
  25. Vthuil Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2013
    star 5
    That probably should be spoilered.

    Show Spoiler
    I'm guessing that specifically is for the whole Disney Star Wars land thing - this ain't the Enterprise-D - but IU I'd assume it's actually the/a Resistance/Republic capital ship design that will appear in TLJ, which may or may not actually be a Starhawk.
    Last edited by Vthuil, Aug 14, 2017
    Senator Wan and Star_Desperado like this.
  26. AdmiralWesJanson Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    That pic gives a nice eyeball estimate of why an internal hanger holding 24 fighters doesn't work. Each of those F-18s lined up in the front is roughly twice the length but half the height of a TIE/ln, so the nine you see parked take up about the deck space that 18 TIEs would, while only being half as tall. You could fit 24 in the frigate, but you would have to hollow out basically the entire forward hull above the seam to park them, much less give room for flight operations and maintenance.
    MercenaryAce and vncredleader like this.
  27. vncredleader Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2016
    star 4
    @Star_Desperado So what length would you want the Nebulon B to be ideally?