Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby BigJKU316 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:57 pm

Tyyr wrote:Yes, the concs cost money, but again, the entire point of this thing is to protect starships a single one of which could keep a squadron of conc Lancers in missiles for a few centuries. This is also the faction that built the Death Star without anyone noticing.

I can't argue with a 300m effective range, it's too stupid to even try so I'll just concede.


You are fundamentally correct though. It makes far more sense to use missiles for anti-fighter defense than guns, particularly the man in the loop guns many SW ships seem to use. Logic would seem to dictate that if one can build all this machinery to fly around space in that a decent SAM analog should be easy enough to put in service. After all space is a far more favorable environment in which to operate missiles anyway as there is no drag to slow the thing down. In theory you could just hurl the things out of rail guns at ultra high speed and need propellant only to steer the damn thing. There is no reason they should not have ranges of many thousands of km's really.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Mikey » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:59 pm

Tyyr wrote:starships a single one of which could keep a squadron of conc Lancers in missiles for a few centuries.


Given that choice, I'd take the ISD over the load-out of missiles any day.

BigJKU316 wrote:After all space is a far more favorable environment in which to operate missiles anyway as there is no drag to slow the thing down. In theory you could just hurl the things out of rail guns at ultra high speed and need propellant only to steer the damn thing. There is no reason they should not have ranges of many thousands of km's really.


That's the problem with canon- it's still canon, even if it's stupid. You're right, of course - there's no good reason a concussion missile should have such a limited range.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33073
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:16 pm

BigJKU316 wrote:You are fundamentally correct though. It makes far more sense to use missiles for anti-fighter defense than guns, particularly the man in the loop guns many SW ships seem to use.


Why? Missiles are significantly sub-c, and short-ranged. beam weapons are C and much longer-ranged.

After all space is a far more favorable environment in which to operate missiles anyway as there is no drag to slow the thing down.


It's the lack of drag that's the biggest problem - it makes steering the thing far more difficult than simply tweaking a fin.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:27 pm

Tyyr wrote:Yes, the concs cost money, but again, the entire point of this thing is to protect starships a single one of which could keep a squadron of conc Lancers in missiles for a few centuries.


No, it couldn't. Booster Terrik was was willing to flog a slightly-used ISD2 for 1 billion credits. A concussion missile costs 750 credits. You could therefore buy a single reload of missiles for maybe a dozen conc-fit Lancers for the cost of a new ISD2. This will last maybe fifty or so engagements, spread over (say) five years. An ISD2 will keep going for decades, and is capable of far, far more than a Lancer. It will, obviously, have running costs, but so will the Lancers.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby BigJKU316 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:48 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
BigJKU316 wrote:You are fundamentally correct though. It makes far more sense to use missiles for anti-fighter defense than guns, particularly the man in the loop guns many SW ships seem to use.


Why? Missiles are significantly sub-c, and short-ranged. beam weapons are C and much longer-ranged.

After all space is a far more favorable environment in which to operate missiles anyway as there is no drag to slow the thing down.


It's the lack of drag that's the biggest problem - it makes steering the thing far more difficult than simply tweaking a fin.


To point 1 I would say you already addressed this. A lancer could not knock down one X-Wing charging directly in at it and passing within feet of its hull. One the whole the anti-fighter weapons in the movies and books seem fairly useless for the most part. Since they can't seem to hit anything with the laser emplacements then the missiles make the most sense to me as we have seen evidence in the movies of missiles with very good tracking capability and post firing acceleration, even if they then equip them with silly warheads full of droids with saws. They seem to have solved the agility issues and range issues, as those fighters had to travel a long way in that scene.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:16 pm

BigJKU316 wrote:To point 1 I would say you already addressed this. A lancer could not knock down one X-Wing charging directly in at it and passing within feet of its hull.


And if it can't do this with lasers how do you expect it to do so with missiles?

One the whole the anti-fighter weapons in the movies and books seem fairly useless for the most part. Since they can't seem to hit anything with the laser emplacements then


Indeed - the conclusion seems to be that fighters can't hurt capships and capship PD can't hurt fighters.

the missiles make the most sense to me as we have seen evidence in the movies of missiles with very good tracking capability and post firing acceleration, even if they then equip them with silly warheads full of droids with saws. They seem to have solved the agility issues and range issues, as those fighters had to travel a long way in that scene.


We've seen missiles used against fighters precisely twice - once in that idiotic scene you refer to and once in AotC, when Obi-Wan was able to first outrun the missile and then detonate it with a box full of shrapnel. Every other time they were used against fixed targets. While they have insane centripetal acceleration (tens of thousands of g), they simply don't seem to be effective against fighters.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:06 am

@ seafort, CMs have far greater range then 700m. In XvT they have a self targeting range of 6000m. With a lock on they have a travel range of 20,000m.

The issues with warheads in SW are first they cost money, second are slower then energy blasts, third being slower can be shot down or otherwise intercepted, and finally they can be jammed.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:57 am

Deepcrush wrote:@ seafort, CMs have far greater range then 700m. In XvT they have a self targeting range of 6000m. With a lock on they have a travel range of 20,000m.


Good. That's the problem with the EGWT - whoever wrote it had no comprehension of the ranges of modern weapons, let alone SW. The worst is probably the E-Web which apparently has a maximum range of only half a km, despite clearly being on the upper edge of what could be considered a GPMG.

The trouble with CMs is that, going by their first appearance, it's very difficult to estimate a range other than "less than 60km".
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:23 pm

I don't find the CMs randge an issue. It's a fighter mounted weapon smaller then my leg that can fly 1.5x the speed of a TIE fighter for 20,000m and still carries a warhead strong enough to take out said fighter.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:27 pm

Deepcrush wrote:carries a warhead strong enough to take out said fighter.


Or a 500-mile wide planet-smashing superweapon for that matter. :wink:
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:35 pm

There's that to... :roll:

But it's best ignored as its really just that stupid and adds nothing to the topic of the lancer.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:52 pm

Deepcrush wrote:There's that to... :roll:

But it's best ignored as its really just that stupid and adds nothing to the topic of the lancer.


Why? It's the only G-canon example of CMs, therefore if some aspect of the Falcon's use of them contradicts any other statement regarding CMs, then that statement is discarded as non-canon.

Unfortunately, we can't get any useful information regarding their range or mobility, given the circumstances of their employment - all we can tell is that carry more effective warheads than X-wing PTs, given that Lando could breech the reactor while Wedge couldn't.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:02 pm

The DS2 bit is a bit of an issue since it's only a series of fan based guesses. It's one of those things that just causes trouble with no useful outcome.

CMs are shown commonly enough in games, guides and novels to give us a general view of their uses without having to make up theories about them.

On the whole, CMs are weaker, smaller cheaper then PTs while being faster, more agile and easier to produce.

Use is more a matter of personal preference.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:08 pm

Deepcrush wrote:The DS2 bit is a bit of an issue since it's only a series of fan based guesses. It's one of those things that just causes trouble with no useful outcome.


No it isn't. There are a few obsolete, disproven sources that get the size wrong, but the briefing holo shows both it's size relative to Endor and it's internal structure very clearly. The fact that the databank now agrees with what can be seen in the film further clinches the argument.

On the whole, CMs are weaker, smaller cheaper then PTs while being faster, more agile and easier to produce.


And yet the only CMs seen in G-canon are explicitly stated to be superior to PTs. Wedge stated that his PTs "won't even dent" the reactor. Lando expected to be successful, specifically because he was carrying CMs, and was correct. Ergo, fighter-weight CMs are superior to fighter-weight PTs.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:30 pm

I would like to see a line from the film dictating that...

Also, you're missing the point as to how PTs and CMs work. PTs just make a very big bang. High powered explosive warheads to damage soft or already damaged targets. CMs are the shaped charges of SW. Meant to punch through armor rather crack shields.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest