Full Series X-wings

TaradosGon

If I had to try to place an Imperial class Star Destroyer into a ship particular naval category/role from our world, I'd probably try to label it a Battlecruiser. It's shown to be fast, heavily armed and armored. It's capability to carry troops and fighters is what throws the definition off the most. EU has it carrying a complement of 72 fighters, along with assault barges and shuttles. And then there's the ~10,000 infantry and transports it carries as well. If it didn't have the firepower it does, then I'd be tempted to reclassify it as some sort of planetary assault ship/carrier hybrid.

Modern militaries don't have anything that really fits design role of an ISD. For a variety of reasons, both good and bad, we tend to create ships that are dedicated to specific functions and roles, and then form naval groups with a mix of these ships to provide a wide variety of mission capabilities. The ISD largely packages a lot of these functions into one ship. Trying to fit the ISD into a single design role or type, such as a Frigate, Cruiser or Carrier, is just not going to be very accurate. It's really it's own animal, and designed specifically for the GFFA. If we have come up with a definition, the "star destroyer" as a "type" or "role" of ship should be categorized as a multi-role ship of the line, capable of operating independently on its own, and carrying both troops and fighters.

 

It is not a battlecruiser. It's role is simply the cruiser role combined with an amphibious assault ship role, with all abilities needed. The problem is also not the stuff it has, but the size compared to other ships like the Executor or the Death Star.

 

N00b32

What are your reasons for classifying it as a cruiser and not a battlecruiser?

 

Kinda forgot about the X-wings tbh but like they have to be in Rebels they're some of the most iconic ships in Star Wars. I could see them being brought in in the last few episodes maybe with like a bigger space battle with the Rebellion forces

 

Because a battlecruiser is a specialized concept for a pure (sea) combat unit with a lot of attention to speed and less attention to armor and a role as a capital ship hunter with the option to retreat, if the enemy is too powerful. An ISD is more of a wolf pack vessel, it is usually used in combination with other ISDs, it has a multipurpose role.

However, the canon is very confusing about ships in general, the ISD in special. It is something like the holy grail of a Star Wars ship, and contributed with all kind of silly references. Let's take the Tie Fighters. An ISD II has a crew of 37k, can carry almost an invasion force of 10k soldiers (along the ATs of all kinds, he already carries) but has only 72 Ties ? But it does not end there. It also carries a modular garrision base, with a needed complement of 30 Ties. So it has to distribute the Ties to the invasion forces on board. And yet people think it is a carrier and even classify the ISD II as a carrier.

Which brings me to the Ties. They have half the length of a modern fighter and yet, in this world, a 300 m long aircraft carrier has more fighters than an ISD II. You get the point.

So, it is not a carrier, but why is it not a battlecruiser ? Because it lacks speed. A Venantor class has more acceleration and a better Hyperdrive. An Acclamator can outrun it and a Providence is also faster. I know, Star Wars has the generall "bigger is slower" rule, however it does not even seem to be able to follow the Home One. Most other ships accelerate faster and have a faster hyperdrive.

What remains is a cruiser role, which fits perfectly for its job. As a warship that can stand on its own as a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

If you go by the notion that a ship's type is defined by size (or displacement in regards to real world vessels), then all we know is that the Arquitens is a "light cruiser" the Gozanti is a "light cruiser" and the Venator is a "cruiser." Which would imply that the ISD is something else. But the concept of defining a ship based on displacement is an incredibly arbitrary delineation. Since the Zumwalt class destroyer displaces much more than the Ticonderoga class cruiser, and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer of the US is bigger than a lot of ships that were once considered cruisers. It's become largely an issue of semantics, the class of ship tells you more about it than the type of ship, since there's huge overlap in mission roles and no strict definition of what makes a cruiser a cruiser, or what makes a destroyer a destroyer. Hell, the Ticonderoga class cruiser used the Spruance class destroyer's hull as a base. The US opts to call the Ticonderoga class a cruiser, some navies don't use cruisers and only use destroyers. But yes, at certain points a ships type could be determined by displacement, but those aren't rules etched in stone and the

But in the real world a ships type is indicated in the name followed by the class. E.G. Ticonderoga-class cruiser. In Star Wars, there is the Imperial-class star destroyer. If you were to apply the rules of the real world naming scheme to the ISD, then the ship's type is literally "star destroyer." It's not a frigate, nor cruiser, nor battleship. It's a "star destroyer." It's its own fictional type; separate from things like the Republic cruiser (Venator-class) or the Banking clan frigates (Munificent-class).

 

There's also the "Rebel Star Cruisers" seen in ROTJ.

Which eventually led to a whole series of "star" prefixed ship names - Star Frigate, Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser, Star Dreadnought.

Not everyone used that system though.

 

The ISD also supposedly carries at least one "prefabricated garrison base" which is exactly what it sounds like - a big planetside fortification with high walls, heavy weapons, and housing multiple troops, vehicles and up to 40 TIE fighters.

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/ImpPrefabGBase.html



The way it ended up re: starship nomenclature in the EU by the time of the 2000s was that ISD's were actually one of the smaller classes of Imperial capital ship, but were seen a lot due to their great number. Above that you had Star Battlecruisers, Star Battleships, all the way up to Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor-class.

Names like "super star destroyer" were thrown around informally by the likes of Rebel commanders, but weren't official Imperial nomenclature.

Picture: An Assertor class star dreadnought gets refueled by an Altor class fleet replenishment vessel, while three ISDs, an Allegiance-class battlecruiser and a Praetor II class battlecruiser stand by:

Spoiler: Large image

Obviously all of this stuff is pre-Disney EU. We don't know what Disney is gonna do, what direction they're gonna take with all of this ship class stuff, or if they ever even bother. For now, this is all we've got.

 

Imperial commanders used the term too. And it's made it into the newcanon as an Imperial-used term as well as a Rebel-used one - with Grand General Tagge talking about "the Super Star Destroyer Annihilator".

 

Dialogue suggests that they are merely localized shield generators.

"Sir! We've lost our bridge deflector shields!"

Discussion of shields gives me a headache just because you can poke holes in the logic of their use. I can pose the question as to how the Rebels destroyed the Executor's bridge deflector shied generators, if the shields were up? Shouldn't the generator have been protected by the shield it was generating? Wouldn't the Rebel ships have to be within the shield's "bubble?" I believe people have said that the ROTJ novelization says that they were taken out by proton torpedoes, which ANH indicates can bypass ray shields. While that solves the "bubble" issue, I can make the observation that the blasts both looked and sounded just like blaster shots in the film itself. Part of me thinks that the best explanation (though this is just fannon), is that those were sensor domes and had nothing to do with the shields, but the fact that one of them was destroyed was evidence that the bridge deflector shields were down. But ignoring my fannon (because it is just fannon) I can follow that up with another two questions.

First: The Rebels destroyed one of two generators. Why didn't the other one offer any protection. Unless it was like a giant battery and one tower was the positive node and the other was the negative node and destruction of one disrupts the circuit and collapses the entire field, then I don't get what the significance of the attack on the single tower did. .

Second: If proton torpedoes can bypass shields... Why not just make a run on the bridges of these ships in the first place, just like Anakin does in the Malevolence arc? ANH establishes that turbolasers aren't really accurate against fighters.

The Executor is not the only star destroyer to have it's bridge deflector shields targeted. There's at least one ISD with a destroyed dome in the background. I'm not sure if the logic was for the fighters to target the generators with torpedoes and then let the capital ships target the bridges. But again, if the torpedoes can bypass shields... why risk a run on the generators and not just on the bridge?

But if the capital ships were dependent on the fighters to take out the shields of the enemy's capital ships. Then the implication is that the Imperial fighters, despite being very numerous, were not able to keep Rebel ships away from their capital ships and that the Rebel ships were just better once they got over the psychological intimidation of the Star Destroyers. And also that putting shield generators at a very high exposed spot where it's easy to line up a torpedo run is just a horrible decision. The Venators by contrast have very inconspicuous shield generators that I can't see. I have no idea where they are supposed to be just by looking at the ship. And in the Incredible cross-sections, they seem to be embedded in the ship's hull, which is way smarter than what the ISD and SSD have going on. Same thing with the Mon Cala ships. They are so irregularly shaped I have no idea where the vulnerable points are or where the bridge sits.

I've gotten off topic from the subject of X-wings, but in the broader topic of faction ships, it seems like the Imperials are much more frail, even when it comes to their much larger ships. Something like an X-wing seems leaps and bounds better than a TIE. I would like to see the plot line of Incom working for the Empire and the X-wings being prototype craft for the Empire being retained. Having Incom jump sides seems like a major blow to craft quality, since the Battle of Endor just doesn't show TIEs as really being able to go toe to toe with the Rebel ships.

 

Or one side points "back" and the other side points "forward" and it was the one pointing forward that was disabled.

That said, newcanon does suggest ships have lots of shield generators.

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-heir-to-the-jedi-exclusive-excerpt

“That cruiser has to be shielded.”
“It is, but this is one of the Immobilizer models, and we’ve been studying them since the Empire has been using them against us on our raids. They have twelve shield generators—some of them ray shields, some particle shields. We take out the particle shield generators for the port side first, then go after the gravity projectors with whatever we have left.”

I could see that working well.

 

N00b32

First, I agree with you that the Imperial class Star Destroyers shouldn't really be considered carriers. They have the capability to carry fighters, but their primary role is to personally engage other ships in combat. They just happen to also have multi-role capabilities.

However, I disagree with you vehemently on the notion that the Imperial I class lacks speed. While it's maneuverability is in question, there is ample evidence that the Imperial I class has the capability to maintain a very high straight-line flank speed. For example, in ANH, it not only has enough speed to keep pace with the Tantive IV, but also to run down the Millennium Falcon when it escapes Mos Eisley. The Falcon isn't some slow plodding cargo ship. It's a heavily modified freighter that leads a starfighter attack on a Death Star. While it probably doesn't have the speed of an A-Wing, I don't think that it's a stretch to think that the Falcon has the speed to keep up with most of the other starfighters in the Rebel fleet.

Spoiler

Remember, Luke also remarks: "At the rate they're gaining?", referring to the ISDs ability to chase. It's doubtful that Han is somehow slow-boating it away from Tattooine. Chances are that Han has the throttle wide open, and those ISDs are still closing the range. It's okay though, because he knows "a few maneuvers" (indicating that the ISDs may not have maneuverability).

In ESB, the Falcon is, again, chased by an ISD as it escapes Hoth. And then also when the ISD Avenger pursues the Faclon as they exit the asteroid field. In both cases the ISD in pursuit seems to have little trouble remaining in weapons range during a straight line run. It's only when Han employs maneuverability and dirty tricks that he can escape.

Spoiler

Let's remember that, because the GFFA doesn't truly apply newtonian physics in space, acceleration isn't necessarily as important as it should be. A ship with a higher acceleration will have a head start, but a ship with a higher maintainable speed will eventually be able to catch up or at least keep their target within range long enough to do pound them with turbolasers. Also, the relative hyperdrive speeds of various other is somewhat irrelevant to the argument over the ship's classification or role. A faster hyperdrive is an extremely valuable strategic asset, but tactically, it's irrelevant, and has no bearing on the ship-to-ship combat performance once the ship is in "real space".

If we're only comparing ship-to-ship capabilities, then in comparison to an Imperial I, the Venator class is severely out-gunned. If the Venator is going to be classified as a cruiser, then the Imperial I class might as well be considered a battleship or a dreadnaught in terms of firepower.

Just because the Imperial I class is ubiquitous in the Imperial navy, doesn't mean that the battlecruiser role doesn't apply. The Imperial I has the speed to run down most of the ships it will encounter in it's era and the firepower to outgun them as well. It may not have the defensive capabilities of an MC80, but it certainly outguns it. In fact, the ISD doesn't need to operate in a "wolfpack" because of it's multi-role capability. It's just that the Imperial Navy has the option to.

Bringing the discussion back towards X-Wings, the only real advantage that Rebel Alliance has in space is a fighter corps with good pilots and craft that almost universally carry anti-ship firepower (i.e. proton torpedoes). That's the only thing that even remotely keeps the Alliance competitive in space.

 

Shielding, at least in the EU, was portrayed as a major thing - with shields, so-so pilots survived long enough to become good or even great pilots.

 

This is pretty much the point I was trying to make. If we tried to cram the ISD into one particular category of ship from our world, I would personally consider the battlecruiser role to be the most apt (ignoring the fighter and troops complements). However, the capabilities of the ISD are unlike anything we have in our world. The ISD is a fighter and troop carrier with significant anti-ship capabilities of its own, which needs no escorts or support ships to operate. "Star Destroyer" as it's own unique classification/role is perfectly fine in my book.

Also, as an interesting side note, the concept of trying to use displacement as a method of classification was greatly abused by various nations prior to WWII, as a way to end run around restrictions contained in naval arms treaties of the era. Which is how we ended up with terms like "Pocket Battleship".

 

Way back in the Marvel Star Wars era, before "Imperial" became a class, the term frequently used was "Star Destroyer-class battlecruiser".

 

We are talking pseudo space physics here right ? Such things like no resistance in space and light speed border still counts in pseudo space phyics ?

 

I don't know if shielding in Star Wars is supposed to be as it is in Star Trek or not.

For example, in Star Trek, you'll hear damage reports like "Shields at 40%, we have a hull breach on deck 4!" Thus the shields mitigate damage, but it still does bleed through, enough to breach the hull on occasion. In Star Wars games, generally it felt like the hull was impervious to damage so long as your shields were up.

In AOTC, Jango ambushes Obi-Wan over Geonosis, and seems to riddle him with shots. You can see little specks of blue trailing off Obi-Wan's ship as he gets shot at (I assumed this to be the splash of his shielding reacting to Jango's fire). But otherwise his ship seemed fine (kind of like in the video games). But in the Battle of Coruscant for instance, you have ships blasting away at each other and every single shot seems to make contact with the hull. I don't know if it's that every ship just so happens to be flying around with its shields down, or if the shields are up, but do not prevent all energy from reaching the hull.

Even in the excerpt posted above from Heir to the Jedi, it is mentioned that Luke doesn't bother firing on the Interdictor because one ship isn't going to be enough to weaken the shields enough to punch through. I take that to mean that, like in Star Trek, damage does make its way through, with perhaps minimal damage getting through when the shields are at 100%, with more getting through as they are weakened. Such that at 20% shielding, the bulk of incoming energy is reaching the hull with slight energy mitigation, etc.

So, while I'm sure some shielding is better than none, we still do see plenty of Rebel ships go down in a single shot. Obi-Wan is the only instance I'm aware of of a ship taking sustained fire like that.

 

Curtis Saxton was the one who came up with better stats for PT-era ships than OT-era ships - the newcanon doesn't have to follow that trend.

I think we see a lot of it in TCW as well.

In the movies, not so much. Luke takes a hit and keeps on going in ANH - but that's one hit, not lots.

 

It's Star Wars. Of course we're talking pseudo space physics.

I'm not sure what factors apply, frankly, but observable evidence suggests that ships in Star Wars have a maximum speed in space. It of course, violates everything we know about real physics, but it looks cool on the screen.

Edit: Let me clarify to say SW ships have a maximum speed well below that of the speed of light.

 

"Orbiting the planet at maximum velocity"

I recall reading an argument that because SW is entirely pseudophysics, "she'll make .5 past light speed" refers to her maximum speed without jumping into hyperspace.

And hence, that the trip between the Anoat System and Bespin, was all accomplished without hyperdrive.

 

There is actually a maximum speed at which you can orbit a planet. If you go faster, your orbit climbs away and eventually if you keep building speed you'll break orbit.

 

Unless you're providing "downward velocity" as well - not a satellite-style unpowered orbit - but engines blasting away at full power. Result - orbiting an Earthlike planet in a couple of minutes or so - instead of the usual 90 minutes that something like the Space Shuttle would take.

Yavin being vastly bigger than Earth, it's more like 30 minutes to complete only a partial orbit - but that's still faster than an ordinary satellite orbiting at that height would do.

 

If Picard had been in charge of the Death Star, he would have used a slingshot maneuver around Yavin, and done a high speed "drive by" of Yavin IV.

 

Maybe they are slingshoting - but Yavin is so big, it takes a long time.

 

After doing a little research on the weapons on the Executor and the ISD, I come to the conclusion, they are indeed neither cruisers, battlecruisers nor battleship. [tarkinmode]They lack the one thing, that defines those ship. A large weapon the ship is build around.[/tarkinmode] All cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships were build around large guns or other huge weapons like missiles. (The battleships to withstand hits from the guns they could fire and the battlecruisers with battleship gun calibre).

Also destroyers do not fit, because they should protect larger ships.

What remains is something between a destroyer and a cruiser, I call it a light cruiser not build around huge guns but more balanced in gun selection. While one could argue the ISD still has 6 turbo laser batteries (also not seen) the Executer lacks all of this and I wonder, how the Executor would handle an enemy of her size with guns for her size. I know those guns exists, because the Malevolence was build around such a gun (also the Death star). Just image a ship half the size of the Executor with a few HUGE guns and armor to withstand its own guns. Without the superlaser, the Executor would be finished.

Yes, the Executor clearly is out of any definition, because the design has a few problems. (even with the superlaser nobody needs this amount of guns against smaller enemys)