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

I'm curious as to what size guns can be seen on Fractalsponge's ships- I'm told that the Assertor has hundreds that start at the size of the Imperial-class's main weaponry, and continue to get bigger.

I also wonder if the ball turrets on the centreline of the Allegiance-class, are intended to be ion cannons of the same size and class as the KDY Planetary Defender weapon seen in ESB- or if they're also turbolasers.

It would be interesting to see a list of all the guns used on those models- with pics, all in the same scale, that show how big each gun is.

 

So I've been watching this thread for a while, hoping at some point that I might be able to jump into the conversation, and despite some personal interest in ship design, I have now realized I am vastly outclassed. So two questions for you guys:

1) where the heck do you guys find all this information. Teach me masters.

2) Who is Fractalsponge (mentioned on last page) and where might I find more of his ship designs (that last one looks great and I'd love to have a gander at others)

 

Fractalsponge is Ansel Hsiao.

This is his website:

http://fractalsponge.net

This is the thread on sci-fi-meshes where some of his work is shown in progress:

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?2212-Star-Wars-projects-thread

And the other thread is on Stardestroyer.net.

 

Though interesting enough even it goes with burst fire.

 

Thanks Iron_lord

 

Fractalsponge also contributed art of his models to the book The Essential Guide to Warfare, which came out last year.

 

I only noticed that after I looked at his site. Im absolutely terrible with remembering artist and author names other than the ones who come up frequently. Never forget a work or detail, but always who actually is responsible for coming up with it. (same problem with faces vs. names) Need to work on that.

 

Yup. Several of which are in TEGtW but not on his website- though they were in those threads: (Interdictor-class Star Destroyer, Endurance-class fleet carrier, Nebula-class Star Destroyer, and Praetor II-class Star Battlecruiser, most notably)

Most of his pics are to be found on Wookieepedia as I recall.

 

He gave a good description of his turrets here, middle of the page, though I can not get the associated picture to show up. Maybe you will have better luck.

I think the Allegiance ball turrets were suppose to be:

I know its not canon, but his intent for the Assertor was:

and at one point in the process this was the armament count, though I don't think it was final b/c I am pretty sure he had a big gun/superlaser as well among its final weapon count:

 

Not showing up for me either.

 

Probably been deleted at some point.

 

One thing that stood out in the SD.net Fractalsponge thread- the "standard sensor domes" are described as being 41-45m.

But the Imperial-II class ships's sensor domes are not that big.

ISD-II pattern bridge tower



Saxton's estimate for the tower width of the ISD-II was 270m - which would produce 30-odd metre domes on an ISD-II, not 41m.

The biggest guns are pretty huge in listed yield, compared to those of the Acclamator.

3600 x as big, in fact, per bolt.

 

After a bit of searching, I've managed to find an earlier one- with a picture that does show up:

Front row, left to right:

Octuple 32/40 teraton turbolaser
Quad medium turbolaser

Back row, left to right:

Quad 240-teraton HTL
Twin 720-teraton HTL
Single 720-teraton HTL
Ball single 720-teraton HTL
Quad 175-teraton HTL
Ball triple heavy ion cannon
Ball quad 175-teraton HTL
Ball quad heavy ion cannon

 

I don't think everyone who's interested in SW technical stuff follows Saxton's estimates, but do their own research. The standard tower on the Executor is 285 meters wide in ITW: OT.

Again, maximum yield from weapons that have scalable yield per G-canon.

 

Great find, its quite the thread to search through.

I did some googling just now and I think I found a better one, which I believe matches with the text in the link I found above, hope that helps:



Also found a latter armament count, that includes the big gun:

Throw in some kinetic energy weapons, and make sure she is packing some very high yield missiles and torpedoes and I am set to take command

 

Maybe there's no such thing as a "standard tower" - with the ISD-I, the ISD-II, and the Executor, all having slightly different towers, to match the different models.

Given that we already have established that the Falcon is 35m, not 53m (Millennium Falcon Owners Workshop Manual) - the tower it's attached to in ESB can't have 41m domes, logically).

 

The same page says the Executor's tower is indeed a standard model which can be configured with slightly different modules, like a space station.

The Falcon is closer to the camera than the sensor dome, so it's a bit difficult to line them up exactly. Even if the dome is slightly smaller, that doesn't mean the tower is. In fact, just from quick lining up, it seems to fit the Executor's scale.

 

Problem is, we've already seen an Executor firing maximum yield shots in the EU, as Gorefiend and I have pointed out in the past- Darksaber- where Daala orders the guns to fire at maximum power, to "reduce the world to a smoking cinder" - and what we get is 1 acre areas of obliterated forest, with fires (smoke?) around those spots that are visible from orbit.

Not exactly the "equivalent yield" to 720 teraton explosions, it must be said.

Not by much (lower image is the one from ESB I was thinking of that refutes "41m dome" if Millennium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual size is taken as best size.

 

Yes, that literary masterpiece where one Calamari cruiser vs. one Executor is an even battle. I'm talking about the films, which form a lot of the visual evidence for Star Destroyer firepower.

Not sure if the globes have any impact on the overall size, given the scale of the ISD tower is comparable to the Executor's tower. Even accounting for different modules on each.

 

Except for that all we see them do is destroy an Asteroid of unknown size and composition.

 

Admiral Gial Ackbar > SSD.

But yes, the book is insane.

--Adm. Nick

 

Ah yes, the "unknown size and composition" argument originally made by McEwok. I'm surprised you didn't consider it made out of concentrated dust particles while you're at it. If this is the height of vs. debates, we don't need Trekkies anymore.

And as usual, forgetting that it was WEG who came up with Base Delta Zero, a naval manuver to destroy a world. I guess that's one EU bit you'd like to forget/invalidate. If the Empire's Star Destroyers are expected to be able to do that, disintegrating an asteroid is peanuts. Hell, every time a spaceship jumps through hyperspace, it requires more energy than slagging the surface of an Earth-sized planet and SW ships do it all the time. This is the most maddening debate because it's not an actual issue, no one needs to cripple SW firepower if they're in the SW fandom.

 

Given that "what constitutes a properly carried out BDZ" can vary from author to author- and given that the topic's been brought up numerous times already, with people "agreeing to disagree" - maybe we should focus on Fractalsponge's energy figures for various weapons, and ask which work, and which are too high.

I think the biggest problem with his numbers, is that they involve a huge jump up from Acclamator-grade turbolasers to Venator-grade turbolasers, Imperial I and II turbolasers, etc.

Acclamator turbolaser- 0.2 teratons.
Venator turbolaser- 70 teratons (350x Acclamator)
Imperial-I turbolaser- 175 teratons (875x Acclamator)
Imperial-II turbolaser- 40 teratons (200x Acclamator)

Given that the Venator is not that much bigger than the Acclamator- it seems a bit much.

(Personally I think the Acclamator energies are also exceedingly high- if one tries to scale up from starfighter weaponry).

Assuming for the moment that weapons energies scale with volume (so the guns of a ship 10 times the length of a starfighter should have about 1000x the firepower) - then we're looking at around 1 million times as powerful, for a ship 100x as long.

So an Acclamators' guns should be on the order of 1 gigaton to 2 gigatons (given that starfighter lasers are on the order of 1 kiloton to 2 kilotons).

Even if turbolasers are more powerful than ordinary lasers, 100x as powerful as a laser of the same size is a bit much.

And past a certain point, it looks like turrets don't get bigger- instead the ship is simply fitted with more of them.

 

For all we know it is. It by the same token could also be made of the strongest metal know to the SW galaxy, we just don't know.

What vs debate and what does Star Trek have to do with any of it?

And you seem to want to forgot what WEG actually said BDZ is, like we must have talked about several 100 times.

I would like to see your math on that actually seeing how doing something that is impossible must take some truly mind breaking number crunching.

 

The calculations used in Turbolaser Commentaries assumed ordinary rock.

Another asteroid in a previous scene may have been as large as 100 meters in diameter, requiring at least 31,000 terajoules to vaporise!

31,000 terajoules is 31 petajoules (which corresponds to 7.38 megatons of TNT).

(and that was based on the assumption that the Falcon was 53m long- its canon length of 35m scales the energy down considerably).

So- you've got movie evidence of "low-megaton-range" firepower- but that's it.

It is possible to be "in the Star Wars fandom" and prefer a conservative, minimalistic approach to estimating energies.