Page 2 of 4

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:42 pm
by McAvoy
This may be subjecive but possibly the most powerful Star Destroyer would probably be the Eclipse. Basically like Executor but more heavily armed, armored, had other neat tech and a had a superlaser like the Death Star but less powerful.

There is also the possbility that the Star Destroyer could be term like Frigate or Battleship. Like the 1 mile long Star Destroyers could be destroyers and be the equivilant of a mass produced destroyer and the Executor could be a Battleship. IE: Starfaring Destroyer

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:55 pm
by alexmann
A SD with a SUPERLASER! Awesome!

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:00 pm
by Captain Seafort
McAvoy wrote:This may be subjecive but possibly the most powerful Star Destroyer would probably be the Eclipse. Basically like Executor but more heavily armed, armored, had other neat tech and a had a superlaser like the Death Star but less powerful.


Indeed. The Eclipse also had the advantage of beeing far more massive than the Ex, despite being a few km shorter

There is also the possbility that the Star Destroyer could be term like Frigate or Battleship. Like the 1 mile long Star Destroyers could be destroyers and be the equivilant of a mass produced destroyer and the Executor could be a Battleship. IE: Starfaring Destroyer


That's exactly the case. The "Star" prefix is used to differentiate between the heavy warships of the Imperial Starfleet and lighter ships, that perform those roles at the sector and regional level (hence why the Carrack is called a light cruiser, and the Dreadnaught a heavy cruiser, despite being far smaller than an ISD. There's one example, the Vindicative-class that's dual-designated a heavy cruiser and Star Frigate, showing us what the equivalence is.

It's been explicitly stated that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is simple slang for any ship larger than a common ISD. Some of them are probably just heavy destroyers, but others are formally designated Star Cruisers, Star Battleships, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts. The latter term has been applied to four classes - the Mandator (a Clone Wars era ship), Sovereign (of which we know very little save that it had a superlaser like the Eclipse), the Eclipse herself and the Executor-class.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:26 pm
by McAvoy
Captain Seafort wrote:
McAvoy wrote:This may be subjecive but possibly the most powerful Star Destroyer would probably be the Eclipse. Basically like Executor but more heavily armed, armored, had other neat tech and a had a superlaser like the Death Star but less powerful.


Indeed. The Eclipse also had the advantage of beeing far more massive than the Ex, despite being a few km shorter

There is also the possbility that the Star Destroyer could be term like Frigate or Battleship. Like the 1 mile long Star Destroyers could be destroyers and be the equivilant of a mass produced destroyer and the Executor could be a Battleship. IE: Starfaring Destroyer


That's exactly the case. The "Star" prefix is used to differentiate between the heavy warships of the Imperial Starfleet and lighter ships, that perform those roles at the sector and regional level (hence why the Carrack is called a light cruiser, and the Dreadnaught a heavy cruiser, despite being far smaller than an ISD. There's one example, the Vindicative-class that's dual-designated a heavy cruiser and Star Frigate, showing us what the equivalence is.

It's been explicitly stated that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is simple slang for any ship larger than a common ISD. Some of them are probably just heavy destroyers, but others are formally designated Star Cruisers, Star Battleships, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts. The latter term has been applied to four classes - the Mandator (a Clone Wars era ship), Sovereign (of which we know very little save that it had a superlaser like the Eclipse), the Eclipse herself and the Executor-class.


And I thought the classifications for modern USN ships gave me a headache.

Well the SSD part came from the movies so naturally they had to figure out how to fit it in. If I remember correctly the Sovereign class is about roughly equal to strength to the Eclipse but shorter to only 15km vs. 17.5km for the Eclipse. It is also suggested that the first Eclipse is that long because of how it was built vs. the second one being around 16km. Not sure where I read that. I think theforce.net site.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:29 pm
by alexmann
Ok Thank you for helping me understand this.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:36 pm
by Captain Seafort
McAvoy wrote:Well the SSD part came from the movies so naturally they had to figure out how to fit it in. If I remember correctly the Sovereign class is about roughly equal to strength to the Eclipse but shorter to only 15km vs. 17.5km for the Eclipse. It is also suggested that the first Eclipse is that long because of how it was built vs. the second one being around 16km. Not sure where I read that. I think theforce.net site.


Aye - it didn't help that the first Eclipse's construction was somewhat stop-start, with the design being modified as they went along. Her sister ship, on the other hand, went much more smoothly.

alexmann wrote:Ok Thank you for helping me understand this.


No worries, that's what debates are for. :)

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:38 pm
by alexmann
Have done a bit of research and as far as I understand it the Eclipse is the most powerful.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:56 pm
by stitch626
What is with the Empire and giant lasers? :lol:

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:01 pm
by alexmann
I don't know but I like it!

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:11 pm
by McAvoy
stitch626 wrote:What is with the Empire and giant lasers? :lol:


Compensating for something I think.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:13 pm
by Captain Seafort
Just a BFG like any other - as they saying goes, there's no such thing as overkill.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:21 pm
by McAvoy
From what I understand, the superlaser is accurate fast enough to be used on ships. So you got a heavily armored ship with thousands of standard weaponry that can take the pounding from a fleet, and a superlaser that can make ships go pop one at a time. Not a bad idea actually.

Some theories also suggest that the superlaser is only a single element from the Deathstar's superlaser dish.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:29 pm
by Captain Seafort
McAvoy wrote:From what I understand, the superlaser is accurate fast enough to be used on ships. So you got a heavily armored ship with thousands of standard weaponry that can take the pounding from a fleet, and a superlaser that can make ships go pop one at a time. Not a bad idea actually.


I'm not convinced of that. It would certainly be useful if you could hit them with it, but given its design is unlikely to have the DSII off-axis fire capability. I think it's more likely that its purpose is much the same as the original reason the Death Star project was initiated - to burn through planetary shields. It's obviously not going to be as effective, given that an Eclipse or Sovereign superlaser is going to be a lot weaker than that of either of the Death Stars, and I doubt it would be able to punch through the shields of a major Core world, but it would probably make short work of lesser planetary shields, or threatre shields such as that that stumped Death Squadron at Hoth.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:33 pm
by McAvoy
I guess. The fact that it's extremely slmall compared to the original. But then again 1% of the power of the Deathstar's is still alot for example.

Re: Star Destroyer

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:38 pm
by Captain Seafort
McAvoy wrote:I guess. The fact that it's extremely slmall compared to the original. But then again 1% of the power of the Deathstar's is still alot for example.


1% of the Death Star would still be enough to smash a planet with ease. The SSD superlasers are probably a dozen orders of magnitude weaker than the full-size version