Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Retsof on September 11, 2011, 10:39:31 pm
-
A lot of thoughts floating around at the moment aren't there? Anyway, I was thinking, It should be ridiculously hard to conquer any planet that doesn't want to be. Even a planet that is low tech by SW standards could put a giant railgun in orbit. I don't care how good your shields and armor are, there won't be much left after getting hit by a slug the size of a buss at a quarter of the speed of light... So yeah, thoughts?
-
:wtf:
Death Star.
-
If you think about this you either go insane, or start thinking you're a ****ing genius like the SD.net guys did and become unable to recognize basic flaws.
-
I don't recall railguns being in Starwars
Lot of good a giant railgun does in orbit anyhow. All the invasion force has to do is pop in on the opposite side of the planet and poof, take it out by dispatching a small enough force to eliminate it. Afterall, a giant railgun won't do too well against small vessels now would it
That, and there are benefits to being part of the dark side. Protection for example. It may not be the best alternative, but at least your system is free to go about their business in case Shivans come from nowhere and try to kill everyone
-
Planet conquering be damned, I just want to know how you would manage the recoil that a gun shooting a projectile the size of a bus at 0.25c would produce...
-
inertial dampeners
Srsly though. Star Wars is by no means hard sci-fi and we could poke logical holes in it all day long if we wanted to. It plays by its own rules. Just take it with a grain of salt and enjoy it as it is. :p
-
Well yeah, conquering a planet in and of itself is a hard-as-frak thing to do, as the planet is self-sufficient, and cannot be starved of resources. While threatening them with complete annihilation would work, all they have to do is wait for you to move your giant laser elsewhere and bam, rebellion all over again. A more effective strategy would be to glass decently sized population centers or other culturally significant locations. Not all at once, mind you, but in a progression. Each day they don't surrender, you blow up another city. The psychological damage from slow, ever-encroaching destruction will last a lot longer, and make the populace generally less willing to rebel, unless you've chosen to f*** with a planet reminiscent of Sparta. In that case... god help you. Or god help them. God help us all when we start shooting Gigajoule and Terajoule-rated lasers at people.
And while we're talking about bus-railguns, a bus, fully loaded, weighs approximately 42700 imperial tons. This converts to roughly 21410 kg. 0.75c = 7.5 x 10^7 m/s.
KE = .5m(v)^2.
KE = .5(21410)(7.5 x 10^7)^2 = 6.02 x 10^19 Joules, or 60214 Petajoules.
To put it in perspective, the Tsar Bomba detonated at 210 Petajoules. So we're talking 287 Tsar Bomba's needed to dampen the recoil such a weapon would generate. This means that whatever you fire at isn't going to be there much longer. I'd reckon such a weapon would be able to down several star destroyers if it could line them all up.
For even greater lols, have the projectile fragment into smart kinetic-kill submunitions. Fleet? What fleet?
-
you know in the early days of underground nuclear weapons testing, a very large metal plate placed atop a shaft that was dug for a warhead test suppository acquired escape velocity when the blast flash vaporized some ground water. weaponize this and you got a thunderwell which could theoretically destroy a large alien spacecraft in a fixed orbit. if you got a warhead, a projectile, some water and can dig a hole, you can make a thunderwell. sort of a real life yammato gun.
-
The biggest problem with all this is that an Orbital defence is predictable. (Otherwise it's just a ship with a big honking gun.)
If we take the element that side A is deploying kinetic weapon based orbital defences it has three problems.
1: Ships move more than planets. If the ships are also using kinetic weaponry they can sit ten to twenty million kilometres out and still hit the target while moving around to avoid that big honking gun. And even then being an Orbital defence if it's moving around the planet below is still hit. (If the shots being fired by both sides are relatavistic then you don't need to be on the 'right approach' to punch through the atmosphere.)
2: Smaller targets. Fighters are stupidly prevalent in Star Wars. Building a giant anti-capital ship cannon will do you precisely nothing while the Capital ships wait for their bomber wings to take out the orbital defence.
3: Planets are REALLY big targets in the scheme of things. You can have your honking big orbital cannon, right up until the enemy is firing their own relatavistic projectiles, not at the gun, but at the object it was built to defend.
Oh yes, and there is a fourth.
For all the resources you expended to make a giant relativistic kinetic kill cannon in orbit you may as well have spent the money to make your own capital ships and bomber wings. And every man and his dog seemed to have the resources to do so in the Star Wars galaxy. (I mean hell, apparently in one of the novels the HUTTS built their own weird death-star thing.)
-
Esarai: Two things: Peta is 1015. Exa is 1018. Also the speed of light in vacuum is 3x108 m/s, so 0.75c = 2.25x108 m/s.
And that's kinetic energy without relativity -- the Newtonian formula, KE = 0.5mv2, is only true in the limit as v-->0. It incorrectly predicts that kinetic energy approaches infinity as velocity approaches infinity. In reality, kinetic energy approaches infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light. (This is one argument for why surpassing the speed of light is impossible.) At 0.75c, the correction required for relativity is fairly significant, as we'll see:
The relativistic formula for kinetic energy is
K = mc2/root(1-(v2/c2)) - mc2 = (γ-1)mc2,
where γ is just a shorthand for the square root nonsense, since it appears quite often in these kinds of formulas.
With a speed of 0.75c, γ is approximately 1.512.
With a mass of 21410 kg, this gives us a kinetic energy of 9.86x1020 joules, or very near one zettajoule. :eek2:
Edit: So really we're talking about 4695 Tsar Bomba's. It still of course means that anything in the way won't be in the way for very long! :beamz:
-
a bus, fully loaded, weighs approximately 42700 imperial tons.
REaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllly?
(http://www.thermmanual.com/rm1small.jpg)
-
a bus, fully loaded, weighs approximately 42700 imperial tons.
REaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllly?
(http://www.thermmanual.com/rm1small.jpg)
the old London Routemaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routemaster) was 7.35 long tons (7.47 t)
are kilograms being confused for tonnes?
-
Yeah. . . the bus you're talking about appears to weigh the same as 4 fully loaded US coal cars. I'd guess 7-15 tons maximum.
-
An interesting but useless fact -- a 60kg human traveling at 27% of c would have the kinetic energy equivalent of the Tsar Bomba detonation.
**** YEAH
-
An interesting but useless fact -- a 60kg human traveling at 27% of c would have the kinetic energy equivalent of the Tsar Bomba detonation.
**** YEAH
Dont tell nuke..... damn too late
-
An interesting but useless fact -- a 60kg human traveling at 27% of c would have the kinetic energy equivalent of the Tsar Bomba detonation.
**** YEAH
Another interesting but useless fact. (Or perhaps it does have some use...)
Attempting to accelerate a human of any weight to 27% of c creates a mess that will cause your janitors to go on strike for the next ten years until they have a 45'000% payrise. ;)
-
And every man and his dog seemed to have the resources to do so in the Star Wars galaxy. (I mean hell, apparently in one of the novels the HUTTS built their own weird death-star thing.)
You must be talking about the Darksaber. It was indeed a project commissioned by the Hutts, and was pretty much a shoddy Chinese knockoff of the Death Star's main armament strapped to a rather unstable powersource. In no way did it have the defensive or tactical capabilities of either Death Star, or even a moderately-sized battlestation. To be frank, it was a piece of ****.
While superweapons seem to be a dime a dozen in the GFFA, they're generally confined to pan-galactic superpowers, rather than comparatively tiny crime syndicates.
I don't recall railguns being in Starwars
Mass drivers do exist in the Star Wars universe. While not exactly standard Imperial weaponry, the EU has shown a large number of railgun-type weapons at all scales. Ranging from the fragile, handheld Verpine Shatter Gun, to the mass driver cannons seen on Vengeance-class Frigates. The EU has an answer for everything. So it's not hard to imagine there would be scaled-up fixed orbit defenses with mass drivers, although I'd wager a Golan-class platform would be far more effective, given it's rather varied supply of armaments.
In fact, lasers probably explain why there aren't that many mass drivers in the Star Wars universe. For a society that seems to have discovered dozens of ways to generate cheap and plentiful energy, it is thus far more efficient to build a giant ****-off reactor and channel it into a giant ****-off energy cannon. That way, you don't have to worry about ammunition, nor recoil. Plus, if memory serves; the output of a single turbolaser turret reaches well into the gigatons of TNT equivalent. Why bother with a MAC platform when, as previously stated, you can just get yourself a Golan-style setup with a few dozen turbolasers to start with. Plus, considering the technology exists for planetary shields, singular platforms are hardly the only way to defend your world.
Relating to the original question, though: Yes, general technological level throughout the GFFA seems to be at a scale that would allow for any number of fantastical defensive options. Ignoring the requirement of a very solid industrial base as well as the technical expertise to build such a defensive array, I'm sure most planets would be able to throw up dozens of railgun platforms. Hell, they probably wouldn't even break a sweat. However, the fact remains that the person on the defensive is always at a disadvantage. This is magnified when trying to defend a target as big and as stationary as a planet. It would take an ungodly amount of platforms to make any serious defense against even a small fleet of mobile starships controlling everything past a high orbit. When you introduce ordinance like missiles that could dodge incoming fire, or the presence of fighters that could manually swoop in and annihilate any orbital infrastructure, there's not much a planet can do.
Plus, if a planet is giving you too much trouble, just blast the **** out of it. Or drop a few asteroids on it. A railgun platform isn't going to do squat to a rock the size of a small country hurtling towards a planet. Just keep annihilating parts of the planet until it either surrenders or there's nothing left to conquer. Hell, the threat of such action should be enough to prevent any world from rebelling. So sayeth the Tarkin Doctrine.
On a side note; I saw this rather interesting experimental art piece yesterday. Specifically, it was the left third of Star Wars, the middle third of Empire Strikes Back, and the right third of Return of the Jedi, on the same screen at the same time. Essentially, all three movies together, at once, in a 2 hour sitting, with the sound mix varying and overlapping between them. Quite the experience.
-
Holy crap watsisname. Thanks for the corrections.
About the differing bus sizes, we don't have those double decker red things here. My point of reference are these gargantuan machines that will carry ~125 people if you've played enough tetris and will smash sports cars into oblivion if they so much as side-swipe one. But on that note the first mass estimate does seem ridiculous, now that I think about it. A minivan is ~2 tons, so I'd have to imagine a bus weighing in somewhere between 20-25 tons. Still, someone's gonna be hurting.
Here's an interesting thought--instead of giant orbital guns, why not giant orbital missile batteries equipped with missiles that use SW hyperdrive technology to accelerate to C during terminal engagement? There's no hiding from missiles, and you still get your insane payload delivery. It'd be kinda like the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, except on every steroid known to man.
-
A subspace capable missile system would be interesting, 2 problems as I see it would be in the missile tracking it's real space target while in subspace, you might only have a small window after the invaders revert from subspace to attack before they are able to jump out of the way if they detect a launch. The second is the restrictions of gravity wells on subspace travel in the SW universe, your launch platforms would have to be outside of the too close region of the gravity well
-
Here's an interesting thought--instead of giant orbital guns, why not giant orbital missile batteries equipped with missiles that use SW hyperdrive technology to accelerate to C during terminal engagement? There's no hiding from missiles, and you still get your insane payload delivery. It'd be kinda like the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, except on every steroid known to man.
Firstly, hyperdrives don't work like that. Secondly, this is space we're talking about. Space is big. Light speed is ****ing pedestrian compared to the scale we're talking about. A projectile moving at relativistic speeds could still be dodged, considering that the light given off by the missile will precede it, and something moving close to the speed of light can't really be expected to maneuver to target.
-
Mefustae, all good points, but you missed a critical part of what I said--'terminal engagement.' That means the final portion of the missile's attack, when jamming and evasive maneuvering have failed and the last line of defense is shields. It assumes the missile has already successfully tracked to target and has a collision vector. The missile travels at sub-light speeds so it can maneuver. Once a hit is certain it accelerates to C and pretty much becomes a MAC projectile, smashing into it's target for massive damage.
Headdie brings up another good point. At long ranges an attacking fleet could just jump out of the way, but at normal SW combat ranges, these would be inescapable. I guess that means these wouldn't really work as a stationary defense, but a ship armed with such a missile would scare the piss out of any sane captain.
And good point--how the f*** do hyperdrives work?
-
The key point is that you can't go through a gravity well beyond a certain point/strength otherwise you get ripped out of hyperspace and if you are really unlucky go splat, squish or fizz against/in the the object causing the gravity well. naturally occurring asteroids small enough to be towed can cause a large enough gravity field to force a ship out of hyperspace (there are occasional references to pirates using the technique to ambush target ships.) there are also certain government ships around and post ANH with gravity projectors (though these are often extremely power hungry).
-
I seem to recall the Empire had the Interdictor class Star Destroyer for exactly the job of disabling Hyperspace.
-
I seem to recall the Empire had the Interdictor class Star Destroyer for exactly the job of disabling Hyperspace.
yes but the drain from the gravity projectors was such that if any combat of decent size or a squadron of x-wings fired off a volley of torps the captain often had to deactivate the projectors to strengthen their shields to prevent damage to the thin hull and fragile gravity projectors.
-
Yup, I could take out a 'Dictor with a Z95 given enough time in the LucasArts games, but I suppose it's kind of how modern fleets are comprised today, there are certain ships with specialised jobs that are pretty vulnerable and need to be protected by other vessels, such as an Aircraft carrier being surrounded by a ring of Ticos etc, since they are actually pretty weak defensively.
-
yes but the drain from the gravity projectors was such that if any combat of decent size or a squadron of x-wings fired off a volley of torps the captain often had to deactivate the projectors to strengthen their shields to prevent damage to the thin hull and fragile gravity projectors.
Good luck trying to get that squadron close enough to do any damage when the gravity well generators are active. They'd have to jump in at extreme range, and fight through whatever screening force is protecting the Interdictor, first. As Flipside said, it's doubtful such a tactically specialized ship is going to be operating on its lonesome.
Mefustae, all good points, but you missed a critical part of what I said--'terminal engagement.' That means the final portion of the missile's attack, when jamming and evasive maneuvering have failed and the last line of defense is shields. It assumes the missile has already successfully tracked to target and has a collision vector. The missile travels at sub-light speeds so it can maneuver. Once a hit is certain it accelerates to C and pretty much becomes a MAC projectile, smashing into it's target for massive damage.
Headdie brings up another good point. At long ranges an attacking fleet could just jump out of the way, but at normal SW combat ranges, these would be inescapable. I guess that means these wouldn't really work as a stationary defense, but a ship armed with such a missile would scare the piss out of any sane captain.
My point still stands; it's an inefficient way to battle. You've got a sub-C projectile (at least to begin with), in a fighter involving lasers. Granted, Star Wars lasers seem to move substantially slower than C, but they can't be intercepted or destroyed, which a solid projectile can. Granted, a terminal phase jump to lightspeed could almost guarantee a hit, but you'll need quite a few to piece the average shield. Let's just say I don't think hyperdrives are all that cheap.
-
Know an efficient way to battle? Create a black hole using red matter
Wrong Universe, but still
-
Well, the EU did have the Sun Crusher, which is almost an equivalent. :p
-
Good luck trying to get that squadron close enough to do any damage when the gravity well generators are active. They'd have to jump in at extreme range, and fight through whatever screening force is protecting the Interdictor, first. As Flipside said, it's doubtful such a tactically specialized ship is going to be operating on its lonesome.
Depends. Anti-interdictor tactics have been proposed and used before; and the Interdictor's main function is to pull things out of hyperspace. Thrawn used it to drop reinforcements exactly where he wanted them, but it could be made to work both ways; why no one ever has is a minor mystery.
-
Wasn't there a space station that manipulated gravity? This happened in the EU before the Yuuzhan Vong invasion.
-
Wasn't there a space station that manipulated gravity? This happened in the EU before the Yuuzhan Vong invasion.
Centrepoint Station? The one that could pull planets into Hyperspace etc?.
As for using Hyperdrive technology on missiles. That is seriously not going to work, they couldn't fit Shields or Hyperdrives on the TIE Fighters let alone missiles.
The main point being. You can have any fixed defence in the universe. Spend the Empires annual budget on it even. But any fixed or orbital defence will always be inferior ultimately to a ship of the same value (still going off of the kinetic weapons tangent) because a projectile in space has a range of 'until it hits something' A missile is much the same unless set to detonate after a certain time, only energy weapons realistically have a 'maximum range' in space.
And something fixed and orbiting around a planet will always be easy to hit. Especially compared to a ship 10-20 million kilometres away.
-
The Eye of the Palpatine was a ship and it was a supposed superweapon, was it not?
-
As for using Hyperdrive technology on missiles. That is seriously not going to work, they couldn't fit Shields or Hyperdrives on the TIE Fighters let alone missiles.
they are obviously not building big enough missiles then, the idiots
-
I agree with you the Empire was pretty stupid and cocky. Emperor Palpatine wanted it to last for Ten thousand years, but he didn't forsee Vader or Leia kicking his butt! The Yuuzhan Vong kicked their butt as well.
-
Firstly, hyperdrives don't work like that. Secondly, this is space we're talking about. Space is big. Light speed is ****ing pedestrian compared to the scale we're talking about. A projectile moving at relativistic speeds could still be dodged, considering that the light given off by the missile will precede it, and something moving close to the speed of light can't really be expected to maneuver to target.
Yes but one thing FTL makes possible is for a ship to instantly jump in nearly anywhere in a solar system, including within "knife fight" range of your own ship, rendering those long range weapon sets far less effective than they otherwise would be.
-
The only problem about FTL is that your coordinates has to be exact or you will be in a lot of trouble. Unless you knew where the enemy was going to pop out, then it would be simple to do a short jump to scare the livng crap out of them.
-
A lot of thoughts floating around at the moment aren't there? Anyway, I was thinking, It should be ridiculously hard to conquer any planet that doesn't want to be. Even a planet that is low tech by SW standards could put a giant railgun in orbit. I don't care how good your shields and armor are, there won't be much left after getting hit by a slug the size of a buss at a quarter of the speed of light... So yeah, thoughts?
Someone answered your question.
http://i.imgur.com/xWweh.gif
-
Aldaraan shot first!!
-
Then it got blown-up by an overzealous Moff.
Quote: "This battlestation is the ultimate weapon in the universe!"
Yeah, I'm a Star Wars nerd. ;p
-
Know an efficient way to battle? Create a black hole using red matter
Wrong Universe, but still
That pissed me off so much. I mean, come on, they should have used dark matter instead of red.
By doing so they'd have made a reference to something that actually has a basis in real physics, a terminology that sounds much more foreboding, and a means for having something that looks much more badass than using a ridiculously delicious cinnamon ball as a weapon! So WTF.
/me is so nerd-rage. :mad:
-
Know an efficient way to battle? Create a black hole using red matter
Wrong Universe, but still
That pissed me off so much. I mean, come on, they should have used dark matter instead of red.
By doing so they'd have made a reference to something that actually has a basis in real physics, a terminology that sounds much more foreboding, and a means for having something that looks much more badass than using a ridiculously delicious cinnamon ball as a weapon! So WTF.
/me is so nerd-rage. :mad:
As SFDebris put it regarding Red Matter:
"Physics aside, The film shows that you need about a teaspoon of the stuff to create a black hole big enough to suck up a Supernova, so why did they bring what looks like a 10 gallon tank of it?"
With regards to the Interdictor, it always confused me a little because the Rebels relied on Hit and Fade tactics, so, ironically, it's one of the few situations where an orbital system would probably be far more useful than a Star Destroyer class, since an Interdiction platform in orbit around an important planet would mean the Rebels would have to come to it, rather than vice versa.
-
Hardly. An Interdictor cruiser is a mobile bubble of "HA HA, CAN'T GET ME" to the hit-and-fade crowd, properly supported. Not to mention being able to cut off a retreat is a nice tactical option to have.
-
Perhaps so, but the Rebels main focus was not on tackling the Imperial Fleet head on, they knew they would lose in that situation, so they focussed on attacking installations and support structures. A small Interdiction platform in Geostationary orbit with a support fleet over important installations would have made surprise attacks that much more difficult.
-
Perhaps so, but the Rebels main focus was not on tackling the Imperial Fleet head on, they knew they would lose in that situation, so they focussed on attacking installations and support structures. A small Interdiction platform in Geostationary orbit with a support fleet over important installations would have made surprise attacks that much more difficult.
Except that would be like putting a club lock on a car with no wheels.
Planets already interdict attempts to go FTL, it's why they have to escape the planets gravity well, and all an Interdictor does is simulate a planets gravity well...
Not to mention the potentially negative effects of activating a gravity well generator in orbit of a planet that supports life. We're talking tidal effects etc.
-
Well, Star Wars physics have always been a bit selective in that department, relying heavily on what Pratchett calls 'Narrativium' ;) It's like asking how an Interdictor could launch Tie Fighters when the generators are on (which often happened in the games).
-
If i recall correctly Interdictor could only affect a relatively small area to the point there are examples of fighter squadrons being pulled out of hyperspace in range of the cruisers guns.
As for using Hyperdrive technology on missiles. That is seriously not going to work, they couldn't fit Shields or Hyperdrives on the TIE Fighters let alone missiles.
Shields and hyperdrives were not fitted to TIEs to save weight, power usage and more importantly cost. even during ANH the Empire was experimenting with TIE designs with these features added to counter rebel hit and run tactics
-
Also don't forget the single awesomest use of interdictor technology from the EU, the technique Thrawn used at Sluis Van - a focused interdictor beam on an enemy target, plus a precisely coordinated hyperjump by a nearby Star Destroyer... instant close range heavy firepower, plus truly impressive shock factor.
-
As for using Hyperdrive technology on missiles. That is seriously not going to work, they couldn't fit Shields or Hyperdrives on the TIE Fighters let alone missiles.
Shields and hyperdrives were not fitted to TIEs to save weight, power usage and more importantly cost. even during ANH the Empire was experimenting with TIE designs with these features added to counter rebel hit and run tactics
Culminating in the TIE Defender, which easily had the survivability of an X-Wing. The down side was that it also probably cost as much as an X-Wing, thereby undermining the entire reason for the TIE series.
-
If i recall correctly Interdictor could only affect a relatively small area to the point there are examples of fighter squadrons being pulled out of hyperspace in range of the cruisers guns.
As for using Hyperdrive technology on missiles. That is seriously not going to work, they couldn't fit Shields or Hyperdrives on the TIE Fighters let alone missiles.
Shields and hyperdrives were not fitted to TIEs to save weight, power usage and more importantly cost. even during ANH the Empire was experimenting with TIE designs with these features added to counter rebel hit and run tactics
As pointed out, culminating in the Tie Defender, AND the occassional modified TIE Interceptor and Bomber.
Also bear in mind that a Proton Torpedo or Concussion Missile are what? 1/100th of the Tie Fighters mass>?
-
What thesizzler said. If you can't fit a hyperdrive to it, you're not building a large enough missile. And we're pretty certain my terminal-c missile is not a long-range weapon, it's for knife fight range. And yes, lasers cannot be intercepted, but it takes a lot of them to be an effective anti-ship armament. A few terminal-c missiles of decent size would carry a lot more hitting power than the laser banks of most star destroyers.
Also... given the prevalence of black hole-based systems in SW, is it possible to make a weapon that simply causes a singularity near its target, damaging and/or shattering the hull?
Or better yet, combine the two, so you have a black hole traveling at relativistic speeds. Energy requirements are gonna be a *****, but this is SW, since when has that made any difference?
-
What thesizzler said. If you can't fit a hyperdrive to it, you're not building a large enough missile. And we're pretty certain my terminal-c missile is not a long-range weapon, it's for knife fight range. And yes, lasers cannot be intercepted, but it takes a lot of them to be an effective anti-ship armament. A few terminal-c missiles of decent size would carry a lot more hitting power than the laser banks of most star destroyers.
Also... given the prevalence of black hole-based systems in SW, is it possible to make a weapon that simply causes a singularity near its target, damaging and/or shattering the hull?
Or better yet, combine the two, so you have a black hole traveling at relativistic speeds. Energy requirements are gonna be a *****, but this is SW, since when has that made any difference?
post Yuuzhan Vong war this would be viable
-
The Yuuzhan Vong black hole devices of course had a weak spot and the New Repblic exploited it. The Yuuzhan Vong conquered several hundred worlds and killed One Hundred trillion lives.
-
Energy requirements are gonna be a *****, but this is SW, since when has that made any difference?
Best way to explain this is a perpetual energy system
-
A perpetual energy system? Maybe Matter-Antimater or a Fusion Reactor.
-
A perpetual energy system? Maybe Matter-Antimater or a Fusion Reactor.
I believe the reactor in the death stars and test ISDs was a hyper matter reactor using matter drawn from hyperspace in a matter anitmatter style reactor
-
Why didn't I think of that? Of course! When the Second Death Star exploded it created a brief wormhole.
-
What thesizzler said. If you can't fit a hyperdrive to it, you're not building a large enough missile. And we're pretty certain my terminal-c missile is not a long-range weapon, it's for knife fight range. And yes, lasers cannot be intercepted, but it takes a lot of them to be an effective anti-ship armament. A few terminal-c missiles of decent size would carry a lot more hitting power than the laser banks of most star destroyers.
Also... given the prevalence of black hole-based systems in SW, is it possible to make a weapon that simply causes a singularity near its target, damaging and/or shattering the hull?
Or better yet, combine the two, so you have a black hole traveling at relativistic speeds. Energy requirements are gonna be a *****, but this is SW, since when has that made any difference?
Hmm. If you are hyperdriving a missile, how are you going to control it after it has exited hyperspace, assuming that you are launching it from another system?
You are also building... you know... a hyperdrive into a suicide machine. Its probably really expensive.
And if something is big enough to fit a hyperdrive, its probably also big enough to be intercepted...
-
What thesizzler said. If you can't fit a hyperdrive to it, you're not building a large enough missile. And we're pretty certain my terminal-c missile is not a long-range weapon, it's for knife fight range. And yes, lasers cannot be intercepted, but it takes a lot of them to be an effective anti-ship armament. A few terminal-c missiles of decent size would carry a lot more hitting power than the laser banks of most star destroyers.
Also... given the prevalence of black hole-based systems in SW, is it possible to make a weapon that simply causes a singularity near its target, damaging and/or shattering the hull?
Or better yet, combine the two, so you have a black hole traveling at relativistic speeds. Energy requirements are gonna be a *****, but this is SW, since when has that made any difference?
Hmm. If you are hyperdriving a missile, how are you going to control it after it has exited hyperspace, assuming that you are launching it from another system?
You are also building... you know... a hyperdrive into a suicide machine. Its probably really expensive.
And if something is big enough to fit a hyperdrive, its probably also big enough to be intercepted...
fair point on both counts with the cost and size though perhaps more justifiable as a missile delivery system. on the range, I am unaware of any minimum jump distances and indeed the starwars wiki
Intrasystem hyperdriving was quite uncommon, but was sometimes used strategically to surprise an enemy.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperspace#Hyperdrive_usage
so it would seem feasible within the the physics of the SW universe.
-
Hmm. If you are hyperdriving a missile, how are you going to control it after it has exited hyperspace, assuming that you are launching it from another system?
You are also building... you know... a hyperdrive into a suicide machine. Its probably really expensive.
And if something is big enough to fit a hyperdrive, its probably also big enough to be intercepted...
It's not exactly without precedent. See: The Galaxy Gun. I giant gun-like phallic symbol built by the resurrected Emperor to shoot giant hyperdrive cruise missiles to other systems. Unlike the ship-to-ship missiles suggested here, these things took out planets. Of course, they were ridiculously armored, bristling with weaponry of their own, and almost impossible to stop in their terminal phase. From this, we can gather that hyperdrive missiles are fundamentally possible, but given the scarcity of them they are most likely highly expensive and therefore inherently inefficient.
-
When was the Galaxy Gun constructed? Before or after the Yuuzhan Vong War?
-
Before, during the reign of the Clone Emperor.
-
If there was a superweapon that I would use, I would use the Star Forge. The power of the sun in your hands. A factory that could make an unlimited army!
-
/me bristles with effort at not bringing up the Force in a SW weaponry thread.
-
I propose a superweapon that mines out entire planets - inhabited or otherwise - and uses the resources to manufacture other ships. Unlike other superweapons, this actually gives you an abundance of resources to build stuff after you destroy a planet. And if there are currently no planets in need of destroying, it can be put to use mining out uninhabited planets for more ships! Just think of how many star destroyers can be made out of an entire planet!
Would be even better if it was capable of constructing a copy of itself with said resources. By the time the pesky rebels figure out how to blow up one you will have multiple spares.
Star Forge? Bah. Planets have a far greater density.
EDIT; Just realised this is a really good way to prevent rebellions. It's one thing to get threatened to have your planet turned into various nanoparticles. It's quite another to be threatened with having your planet turned into yet more ships for the invaders. Either outcome benefits the invaders, so suicidal displays of resistance just to spite the invaders are far less likely.
-
If I recall correctly, The Empire already did something similar with the World Devastators.
-
Almost identical, actually. Only difference is that they couldn't manufacture capital ships, just fighters.
-
Your talking about skipping to other solar systems while you can build several factories over stars! You have ten billion years of the star's lifetime!
It is best to put these factories in the Unknown Regions first, before you conquer. :)
-
And just keep a few in reserve, hidden somewhere in deep space within a systemwide nebula or something, just waiting to be re-activated just in case something goes horribly wrong and the rebels get the better of you somehow.
Assuming a competant commander, there really should be no way to destroy all of these factories. There will always be at least a few in reserve.
Wait. Instead of constantly designing all new superweapons, the Empire should really be refining the ones they already made! Especially since they know exatly why superweapon v1.0 was stopped, so now they can redesign it so that method won't work and deploy superweapon v1.1
-
Well, the Empire, right or wrong, decided that approach didn't work too well after they lost the Death Star. Twice.
-
I wonder what the EU will bring out next? The options of superweapons has probably run dry. Unless you want to build a superweapon that can strike a target from across the universe and destroy entire galaxies.
P.S. You think impossible? Tell that to the First Creations. Dudes, you can't even imagine what worlds I have created!
-
The death star was just an unreasonably colossal undertaking, done by engineers who were complete idiots (Oh there's no weakness OLOL). Surely there are far more cost effective ways to destroy a planet. The cost of rebuilding Death Star 1.1 is just too huge...
Death Star is dramatic? Big yes. But I don't see it being able to do anything that a fleet of star destroyers couldn't.
-
A fleet of Star Destroyers would render planets dead, but I don't think they would destroy them. Han pointed that out in IV.
-
The death star was just an unreasonably colossal undertaking, done by engineers who were complete idiots (Oh there's no weakness OLOL). Surely there are far more cost effective ways to destroy a planet. The cost of rebuilding Death Star 1.1 is just too huge...
Death Star is dramatic? Big yes. But I don't see it being able to do anything that a fleet of star destroyers couldn't.
Obviously. The Death Star is horribly inefficient, logistical support would be a nightmare, and a single weakness could completely compromise the battlestation. The far more logical approach would be to construct several fleets worth of far more flexible and useful fleet assets, for probably only a fraction of the cost of a single Death Star. Granted, it was powerful, and the Death Star II had no major weakness whatsoever (hence the do-or-die attack in RotJ). But when you get right down to it, the Empire would have been crazy to think the Death Stars were efficient ways to wage war.
But the Death Star was never about efficiency. It was about terror and intimidation. Both Death Stars were constructed as a direct response to the Tarkin Doctrine. Simply; that the presence of stupefyingly powerful tools in the Empire's arsenal would incite such terror in its citizenry, that all rebellion would cease. Grand Moff Tarken conceived of the idea, and that was why he was in charge of the Death Star project, as well as all the other superweapon programs operating out the Maw facility. The Death Star would never have been used to actively wage war, and honestly would never even have fired its main gun all that often. It was built so that the Emperor could point to it and say "DO NOT **** WITH US."
That said, as I belive Han pointed out during the Yuuzhan Vong War; a Death Star or two would've come in bloody handy during that conflict.
-
Like the quote says from Episode IV "This battlestation is the ultimate weapon in the universe!" Which was pwned by Vader saying, "Nothing will compare to the power of the Force," Am I right? Think Darth Nihilus.
-
A fleet of Star Destroyers would render planets dead, but I don't think they would destroy them. Han pointed that out in IV.
No strategic or tactical difference.
Save that it's a whole ****load harder to kill the fleet of Star Destroyers.
There were ways you could have made the Death Star more practical and lost none of the psychological advantages (Pulsar Station from Isard's Revenge comes to mind) so really, the whole project seems like they needed a place to store Tarkin's and later the Emperor's ego rather than a well-considered plan.
-
Plus, the Death Star was totally vulnerable to hacking. :P
-
Plus, the Death Star was totally vulnerable to hacking. :P
By a bloody Macintosh, no less!
-
If I were to write about the Empire, I'd make them actually tough instead of being wimpy.
-
You really need to read some of the novels before you come in and make a statement like that.
-
I have read a couple like the Thrawn Trilogy and the Children of the Jedi, but I have more interested in the Yuuzhan Vong war. What is the series that features Centre Point Station and the Galaxy Gun?
-
Centerpoint Station is the in the Corellian Trilogy, Galaxy Gun is Dark Empire/Empire's End comic book series.
-
Thanks! :)
-
All I know about the Yuuzhan Vong thingy is that it's something that makes the majority of fans cover their ears and yell "LALALALA THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!" Kind of like the prequels, come to think of it.
-
I found most of the Yuuzhan Vong series quite entertaining and tbh i have read little after that period
-
There is nothing wrong with Episode III, okay so Anakin goes emo and becomes Darth Vader. You have to like the John Williams theme to the Jedi's downfall and Battle theme between Anakin and Obi-wan!
-
All I know about the Yuuzhan Vong thingy is that it's something that makes the majority of fans cover their ears and yell "LALALALA THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!" Kind of like the prequels, come to think of it.
Probably because all it would have taken for the Vong to have never been a real threat would have been to stop lobotomising everyone, thing and object in the new Republic.
Throwing characters into wells of infinite stupidity does not a threatening enemy make.
-
There is nothing wrong with Episode III, okay so Anakin goes emo and becomes Darth Vader. You have to like the John Williams theme to the Jedi's downfall and Battle theme between Anakin and Obi-wan!
I wasn't aware that liking John Williams' work meant that one automatically had to like the film it was used in. :p
-
Back on the topic of my FTL anti-ship missile, I do believe episode VI has X-wings making FTL jumps. Unless there's some EU malarkey stating otherwise, it is entirely possible to make a miniaturized hyperspace drive. Hence, these missiles would be of extreme tactical importance, as they can be small enough, fast enough, and maneuverable enough to avoid CIWS fire until they make their final attack. Their range is intended for broadside engagements, but could likely be used at longer ranges against targets not protected by an interdictor.
And while we're thinking up ridiculous new superweapons, what about pushing a region of space into hyperspace? That way you can dump a crap-ton of energy into said region and have it appear on the far side of the galaxy. Death Star v2.0--doesn't even have to move. Of course, this is coming from someone who never bothered with the EU stuff, so :P
-
See, the problem with hyperspace missiles isn't possibility, it's practicality. X-Wings are EXPENSIVE for snubfighters. Plugging one into a vessel that's explicitly designed to fling itself into the enemies' shields and armor is literally blasting money out of your missile tubes.
-
See, the problem with hyperspace missiles isn't possibility, it's practicality. X-Wings are EXPENSIVE for snubfighters. Plugging one into a vessel that's explicitly designed to fling itself into the enemies' shields and armor is literally blasting money out of your missile tubes.
Exactly. The proposed weapon would be of absolutely zero tactical importance or value because it would be too expensive to ever use.
What is more realistic. 1'000 Snubfighters that can be used over and over again (and that using the X-Wing) and carries 12 normal torpedoes. OR 1'000 FTL missiles that have to be replaced.
Yep, the snubfighters. An FTL missile is, when it comes down to it, worthless by virtue of its own drive. AND esarai is neglecting to consider other factors. An FTL drive on a missile will take from the power of the warheads. They WILL make it less agile and in every odd, except on 'final approach' it will be slower.
This is the same reason that the governments all over the world didn't replace its airforce with ICBMs and Cruise Missiles.
-
Cost is why I was thinking a remote or drone missile delivery system, the drone is launched from your defensive position, hyperspaces across the system, swarm launches a ton of missiles at it's target and either hyperspaces back home or sits around and waits for recovery
-
They call those 'snubfighters.' They're used quite extensively.
-
They call those 'snubfighters.' They're used quite extensively.
the most i have seen at once in SW from a snubfighter is a twin launch, i am talking multiples of 10 or more per launch
-
They call those 'snubfighters.' They're used quite extensively.
the most i have seen at once in SW from a snubfighter is a twin launch, i am talking multiples of 10 or more per launch
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Boat (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Boat)
-
As a sidenote: Why hasn't anyone here thought of making a giant cube with a hyperspace drive and a one man pilot? There you go. Crash into the bastards with a solid cube
Or as an obvious Family Guy reference, make a sphere which is a disco ball
-
They call those 'snubfighters.' They're used quite extensively.
the most i have seen at once in SW from a snubfighter is a twin launch, i am talking multiples of 10 or more per launch
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Boat (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Boat)
Totally OP. ****ing awesome craft, but seriously OP. Though, to add further credence to your argument, the A-Wing is capable of launching a crapload of concussion missiles in a burst, too.
Oh, and Torpedo Sphere FTW (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Torpedo_Sphere)
-
The Torpedo Sphere is a borderline superweapon and while the missile boat is closer to what I had in mind i was thinking something that didnt carry a person that could fire one or several large waves of missiles at once rather than fire a couple of missiles, wait a second, fire two more, etc.
Basically local defences detect the arrival of badguys, a space station that is clear of mass shadows then deploys an appropriate number of these drones. The drones jump to where the enemy is unleash a barrage of missiles at the targets, destroying or badly damaging them and either go dormant or return to the station. The fact that they are drones means loosing one is no issue in terms of loss of life and financial cost wise they would be somewhere between a TIE and a X-wing, heck the intelligence on the drones dont need to be that high because all they are doing is pointing at a target and shooting..
-
/me watches as the drones get picked off by TIE-fighters or similar as they retreat from having fired their missiles due to their lack of intelligence...
What you are describing sounds exactly like what bombers were designed to do.
-
The Torpedo Sphere is a borderline superweapon and while the missile boat is closer to what I had in mind i was thinking something that didnt carry a person that could fire one or several large waves of missiles at once rather than fire a couple of missiles, wait a second, fire two more, etc.
Basically local defences detect the arrival of badguys, a space station that is clear of mass shadows then deploys an appropriate number of these drones. The drones jump to where the enemy is unleash a barrage of missiles at the targets, destroying or badly damaging them and either go dormant or return to the station. The fact that they are drones means loosing one is no issue in terms of loss of life and financial cost wise they would be somewhere between a TIE and a X-wing, heck the intelligence on the drones dont need to be that high because all they are doing is pointing at a target and shooting..
List of problems with that idea.
1: Torpedoes take time to lock onto a target.
2: We've seen the long list of problems with Star Wars drone technology.
3: A Microjump will throw the missile lightyears out from their target.
4: Every jump has to be calculated exactly *cue Han's speech about jumping into a star etc*
5: The financial cost will be ASTRONOMICALLY high. (Ship + Hyperdrive + Torpedo/Missile Launchers + Loadout of missiles/torpedoes + Cost of Autonomous systems + Advanced Jump Plotting Computer)
Machinery of the complexity required to make your plan work would be more costly than the pilot who the Empire hires by the million.
Star Wars is the ENTIRELY wrong universe for your proposed technology to be viable within.
-
The Torpedo Sphere is a borderline superweapon and while the missile boat is closer to what I had in mind i was thinking something that didnt carry a person that could fire one or several large waves of missiles at once rather than fire a couple of missiles, wait a second, fire two more, etc.
Basically local defences detect the arrival of badguys, a space station that is clear of mass shadows then deploys an appropriate number of these drones. The drones jump to where the enemy is unleash a barrage of missiles at the targets, destroying or badly damaging them and either go dormant or return to the station. The fact that they are drones means loosing one is no issue in terms of loss of life and financial cost wise they would be somewhere between a TIE and a X-wing, heck the intelligence on the drones dont need to be that high because all they are doing is pointing at a target and shooting..
List of problems with that idea.
1: Torpedoes take time to lock onto a target.
2: We've seen the long list of problems with Star Wars drone technology.
3: A Microjump will throw the missile lightyears out from their target.
4: Every jump has to be calculated exactly *cue Han's speech about jumping into a star etc*
5: The financial cost will be ASTRONOMICALLY high. (Ship + Hyperdrive + Torpedo/Missile Launchers + Loadout of missiles/torpedoes + Cost of Autonomous systems + Advanced Jump Plotting Computer)
Machinery of the complexity required to make your plan work would be more costly than the pilot who the Empire hires by the million.
Star Wars is the ENTIRELY wrong universe for your proposed technology to be viable within.
1. fair point but then a sentient pilot also has this issue
2. the issues drones have in my understanding is their ability to handle the complexities of manoeuvring in an effective manner during combat, something these wont be doing, a fairly basic droid brain could handle it, mostly for target recognition purposes.
3. It wont be the missile that jumps but the missile delivery system which only has to get close as a star fighter would in a similar situation.
4. the calculations would be simple compared to an intersystem jump as there are less mass shadows to contend with.
5. I think you are overrating the cost to be honest. the launching station can handle the jump calculations which is why I suggested they might be one way, though storing a return journey wouldn't be that hard so no need for a computer to process the jump. the ship only has to be sturdy enough to survive a hyperspace jump with a little armour to make it harder to destroy. Reactor, Reactor fuel, probably enough for an hour's operation+jump, sublight drive for manoeuvring and positioning, hyperspace drive for the FTL bit, drive fuel, launch tubes, targeting electronics, sensors, basic droid brain, communications suite with directional receivers to allow for target priority updates and aborts if necessaries, directionality would help prevent hacking attempts and a basic navigation suite able to utilise jump data. and that's it, shields would be a useful option but costly and not essential.
The drone would benefit from not having to carry any life support, probably wont need as powerful a inertial dampening system as seen on fighters either.
-
The Torpedo Sphere is a borderline superweapon and while the missile boat is closer to what I had in mind i was thinking something that didnt carry a person that could fire one or several large waves of missiles at once rather than fire a couple of missiles, wait a second, fire two more, etc.
Basically local defences detect the arrival of badguys, a space station that is clear of mass shadows then deploys an appropriate number of these drones. The drones jump to where the enemy is unleash a barrage of missiles at the targets, destroying or badly damaging them and either go dormant or return to the station. The fact that they are drones means loosing one is no issue in terms of loss of life and financial cost wise they would be somewhere between a TIE and a X-wing, heck the intelligence on the drones dont need to be that high because all they are doing is pointing at a target and shooting..
List of problems with that idea.
1: Torpedoes take time to lock onto a target.
2: We've seen the long list of problems with Star Wars drone technology.
3: A Microjump will throw the missile lightyears out from their target.
4: Every jump has to be calculated exactly *cue Han's speech about jumping into a star etc*
5: The financial cost will be ASTRONOMICALLY high. (Ship + Hyperdrive + Torpedo/Missile Launchers + Loadout of missiles/torpedoes + Cost of Autonomous systems + Advanced Jump Plotting Computer)
Machinery of the complexity required to make your plan work would be more costly than the pilot who the Empire hires by the million.
Star Wars is the ENTIRELY wrong universe for your proposed technology to be viable within.
1. fair point but then a sentient pilot also has this issue
2. the issues drones have in my understanding is their ability to handle the complexities of manoeuvring in an effective manner during combat, something these wont be doing, a fairly basic droid brain could handle it, mostly for target recognition purposes.
3. It wont be the missile that jumps but the missile delivery system which only has to get close as a star fighter would in a similar situation.
4. the calculations would be simple compared to an intersystem jump as there are less mass shadows to contend with.
5. I think you are overrating the cost to be honest. the launching station can handle the jump calculations which is why I suggested they might be one way, though storing a return journey wouldn't be that hard so no need for a computer to process the jump. the ship only has to be sturdy enough to survive a hyperspace jump with a little armour to make it harder to destroy. Reactor, Reactor fuel, probably enough for an hour's operation+jump, sublight drive for manoeuvring and positioning, hyperspace drive for the FTL bit, drive fuel, launch tubes, targeting electronics, sensors, basic droid brain, communications suite with directional receivers to allow for target priority updates and aborts if necessaries, directionality would help prevent hacking attempts and a basic navigation suite able to utilise jump data. and that's it, shields would be a useful option but costly and not essential.
The drone would benefit from not having to carry any life support, probably wont need as powerful a inertial dampening system as seen on fighters either.
1: Yes they will. But a Sentient pilot is more capable of making evasive manoeuvers while trying to maintain lock.
2: You mean like all the hundreds of Droid fighters we've seen that CAN'T do that. If your missile delivery platform is not moving then it will be dead before it ever gains weapons lock.
3: Same problem. Intra-System jumps are rare IN Star Wars. I've seen it maybe twice in all the novels. And most of the novels have even a two second hyperspace jump throwing fighters lightyears out.
4: Why would it be simple hmm, you're not just plotting a way out of the system. No your plotting an in-system jump and the destination may not have a clear mass-shadow LOS to your position. In-system jumping shows every evidence of being far MORE difficult because you have to be precise x100.
5: *Shakes head.* If you think that "basic anything" is going to cut it with your concept you are sadly mistaken. You know what BASIC gets you.
The Alpha-Class XG-1 Star Wing.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080714051237/starwars/images/thumb/2/2c/XWA-Xg1-3d-new.jpg/830px-XWA-Xg1-3d-new.jpg)
2 Ion Cannons
2 Blaster Cannons
2 Concussion Missile Launchers (40 Missiles)
Shields
Hyperdrive
Armoured to hell and back.
Cost 125'000 Credits.
TIE Droid
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081030150913/starwars/images/thumb/8/87/TIEdroid_egvv.jpg/830px-TIEdroid_egvv.jpg)
2 Laser Cannons
No Shields
No Armour
No Hyperdrive
Cost 170'000 Credits.
-
Exactly. The proposed weapon would be of absolutely zero tactical importance or value because it would be too expensive to ever use.
What is more realistic. 1'000 Snubfighters that can be used over and over again (and that using the X-Wing) and carries 12 normal torpedoes. OR 1'000 FTL missiles that have to be replaced.
Yep, the snubfighters. An FTL missile is, when it comes down to it, worthless by virtue of its own drive. AND esarai is neglecting to consider other factors. An FTL drive on a missile will take from the power of the warheads. They WILL make it less agile and in every odd, except on 'final approach' it will be slower.
This is the same reason that the governments all over the world didn't replace its airforce with ICBMs and Cruise Missiles.
I accept your point that ramming an x-wing into a star destroyer is an impractical way to wage war. However, an FTL missile is not an x-wing. The FTL missile does not have life support. It does not have shields. It does not have weapons. It doesn't even have a pilot. Already, it will cost significantly less than an x-wing. Also, you must consider the costs to maintain and repair the snubfighters. In the long run, missiles cost a lot less to store and maintain than fighters do. Also, a missile can be more maneuverable than a fighter, as it does not have an organic pilot to worry about. Organic life forms can only take about 9 Gs. A missile can take as many Gs as its spaceframe can withstand. A missile can perform turns that would splatter an organic pilot across the interior of his fighter.
Your comparison between fighters and missiles does not work, as fighters and missiles fill different tactical and strategic roles. A fighter is meant for space superiority, and precise strikes against ship systems. An x-wing is not meant to engage and destroy a star destroyer. A missile, however, is meant for such a mission, and will likely do more damage than an x-wing could ever hope to. You see, the missile expends all its energy attacking its target. An x-wing must expend energy to sustain its pilot, fire its weapons, maintain its shields, and power its computers.
I don't think you can neglect something that was never a factor in the first place. You state that the FTL will make the missile slower and less damaging. The FTL does not have to be tied to the same generators the sublight drives are. Thus, the activation of the FTL has no impact on the maneuverability of the missile before its terminal approach. In fact, this missile becomes less maneuverable as it accelerates to C. Next, this missile has no warhead. It relies on sheer kinetic energy to damage its target. The activation of an FTL drive will not reduce its hitting power in any way. In fact, the more energy dumped into the FTL drive, the more damage the missile does. It derives its lethality FROM the drive itself. The drive is the only thing that makes this weapon viable.
I only half agree with you about the modern militaries. You are correct that the fighter is preferred for its reusability, but you must also consider that ICBMs, cruise missiles and jet fighters all have vastly different roles, and cannot be compared to one another as substitutes. An ICBM is meant to have a strategic impact in a war--that is it is intended to destroy infrastructure and civilian populations. A cruise missile is meant for rapid, precise strikes that cannot be intercepted. Jet fighters are meant for air superiority and close support. ICBMs cannot support troops at close quarters, just as cruise missiles cannot destroy population centers. Thus, the x-wing to missile comparison is irrelevant, as they both fill vastly different roles, and would likely be used together, instead of exclusively one or the other.
-
Exactly. The proposed weapon would be of absolutely zero tactical importance or value because it would be too expensive to ever use.
What is more realistic. 1'000 Snubfighters that can be used over and over again (and that using the X-Wing) and carries 12 normal torpedoes. OR 1'000 FTL missiles that have to be replaced.
Yep, the snubfighters. An FTL missile is, when it comes down to it, worthless by virtue of its own drive. AND esarai is neglecting to consider other factors. An FTL drive on a missile will take from the power of the warheads. They WILL make it less agile and in every odd, except on 'final approach' it will be slower.
This is the same reason that the governments all over the world didn't replace its airforce with ICBMs and Cruise Missiles.
I accept your point that ramming an x-wing into a star destroyer is an impractical way to wage war. However, an FTL missile is not an x-wing. The FTL missile does not have life support. It does not have shields. It does not have weapons. It doesn't even have a pilot. Already, it will cost significantly less than an x-wing. Also, you must consider the costs to maintain and repair the snubfighters. In the long run, missiles cost a lot less to store and maintain than fighters do. Also, a missile can be more maneuverable than a fighter, as it does not have an organic pilot to worry about. Organic life forms can only take about 9 Gs. A missile can take as many Gs as its spaceframe can withstand. A missile can perform turns that would splatter an organic pilot across the interior of his fighter.
And as I demonstrated above with the Droid Tie Fighter, systems made WITHOUT those things are actually more expensive. Also the Gs angle is a waste of your time as we already know that Star Wars has inertial dampeners that negate G forces as a factor. As demonstrated by Porkins slamming into the Death Star because he had his on full power and couldn't feel that he was descending into the Death Star's surface. (Canon from the novels I believe)
Your comparison between fighters and missiles does not work, as fighters and missiles fill different tactical and strategic roles. A fighter is meant for space superiority, and precise strikes against ship systems. An x-wing is not meant to engage and destroy a star destroyer. A missile, however, is meant for such a mission, and will likely do more damage than an x-wing could ever hope to. You see, the missile expends all its energy attacking its target. An x-wing must expend energy to sustain its pilot, fire its weapons, maintain its shields, and power its computers.
Yes, and those fighters have missiles for exactly that purpose.
I don't think you can neglect something that was never a factor in the first place. You state that the FTL will make the missile slower and less damaging. The FTL does not have to be tied to the same generators the sublight drives are. Thus, the activation of the FTL has no impact on the maneuverability of the missile before its terminal approach. In fact, this missile becomes less maneuverable as it accelerates to C. Next, this missile has no warhead. It relies on sheer kinetic energy to damage its target. The activation of an FTL drive will not reduce its hitting power in any way. In fact, the more energy dumped into the FTL drive, the more damage the missile does. It derives its lethality FROM the drive itself. The drive is the only thing that makes this weapon viable.
Except that you are not just in essence, but in fact, adding an entire second drive system, NOW you're adding a seperate generator, PLUS this system has to have a nav computer in order to use the FTL drive at all.
Oh and then there is the fact that the Hyperdrive appears to UTTERLY DESTROY any factor of relativity or kinetic energy.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090222062829/starwars/images/a/a0/Griffs'sdeath.jpg)
That is THREE Star Destroyers leaving Hyperspace straight into the Executor's shields.
I only half agree with you about the modern militaries. You are correct that the fighter is preferred for its reusability, but you must also consider that ICBMs, cruise missiles and jet fighters all have vastly different roles, and cannot be compared to one another as substitutes. An ICBM is meant to have a strategic impact in a war--that is it is intended to destroy infrastructure and civilian populations. A cruise missile is meant for rapid, precise strikes that cannot be intercepted. Jet fighters are meant for air superiority and close support. ICBMs cannot support troops at close quarters, just as cruise missiles cannot destroy population centers. Thus, the x-wing to missile comparison is irrelevant, as they both fill vastly different roles, and would likely be used together, instead of exclusively one or the other.
The problem isn't the comparison. The problem is the proposal to design an utterly ridiculously expensive weapons system that all evidence shows won't work anyway instead of what they actually do, which is just field more fighters with missiles and bombs.
Now if your proposal was for a planetary-strike missile (for unshielded planets) then i'd agree with you if you could somehow bypass the mass-shadow issue (or instead of just decelerating to slow decelerate to just under C)
But as a proposed weapon against starships all evidence points towards them being nothing short of useless.
-
can i ask where you are getting the price figures from?
-
can i ask where you are getting the price figures from?
Wookieepedia: Alpha-Class Xg-1 Star Wing (http://"http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wing")
(It should be noted you can pick up a used Star Wing for only 75'000 instead of the new price of 125'000.)
Tie-D Automated Starfighter (http://"http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/D_automated_starfighter")
Listed under "Characteristics".
Taking the standard TIE series command pod with twin ion engines and twin laser cannons, additional armor plating and rectangular wing panels with adjustable pitch were added. Despite their heavier armor, they could actually reach a higher atmospheric speed than the TIE/In starfighter—overall, they were fast, small, and very expendable. A single TIE/D cost 170,000 credits.
-
Characteristics
Taking the standard TIE series command pod with twin ion engines and twin laser cannons, additional armor plating and rectangular wing panels with adjustable pitch were added. Despite their heavier armor, they could actually reach a higher atmospheric speed than the TIE/In starfighter—overall, they were fast, small, and very expendable. A single TIE/D cost 170,000 credits.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/D_automated_starfighter
also see
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor 175,000 credits,
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Y-wing 134,999 credits (new) 65,000 credits (used)
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-wing 185,000 credits
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/XJ3_X-wing_starfighter New: 315,000 credits Used: 220,000 credits
I cant find costings for the TIE series of comparable piloted craft but http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A-9_Vigilance_interceptor is a comparable craft and comes in at 130,000 to 185,000 credits
indeed it would seem that a drone fighter is comparable in cost to a piloted craft, so either its the usual case of Starwars discontinuity or the Assault gunboat was badly priced.
-
And as I demonstrated above with the Droid Tie Fighter, systems made WITHOUT those things are actually more expensive. Also the Gs angle is a waste of your time as we already know that Star Wars has inertial dampeners that negate G forces as a factor. As demonstrated by Porkins slamming into the Death Star because he had his on full power and couldn't feel that he was descending into the Death Star's surface. (Canon from the novels I believe)
Fair enough. However, I do not accept your analysis of pricing as we have no knowledge of SW economics, so it is unfair to say that all snubfighters cost less than drones. And you only provided one vessel, you did not provide enough data to prove that all drone vessels inside SW cost more than piloted ships.
Yes, and those fighters have missiles for exactly that purpose.
Missiles which are incapable of dealing damage on the scale of an ICBM, hence your point is moot. A proton torpedo would not have the same yield as a FTL missile.
Except that you are not just in essence, but in fact, adding an entire second drive system, NOW you're adding a seperate generator, PLUS this system has to have a nav computer in order to use the FTL drive at all.
I'm only adding a second generator. This missile would already have two distinct drives, one for sublight maneuvers and one for FTL, just as any normal starfighter. Also, from Episode IV, Han's description of the hyperdrive suggests it is entirely possible to engage an FTL jump without calculating it. I will assume that the drive accelerates the ship linearly and adjusts course to evade celestial bodies. Though, as I am EU illiterate, could you tell me if this assumption is accurate? Or does it work like BP's interpretation of subspace, where activating a subspace motivator without a properly calculated destination could spit you out anywhere? If my assumption is accurate, since this missile attacks at close ranges, there is no need for it to make corrections to its FTL jump, and thus it does not need the computers required to make the calculations required for long-range FTL jumps.
Oh and then there is the fact that the Hyperdrive appears to UTTERLY DESTROY any factor of relativity or kinetic energy.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090222062829/starwars/images/a/a0/Griffs'sdeath.jpg)
That is THREE Star Destroyers leaving Hyperspace straight into the Executor's shields.
Uh.... it says cruisers. I never read the comic that came from, so did they mean Star Destroyers? As far as I know, SW cruisers are smaller than destroyers. Assuming that they got their terminology right (unlikely), that's three cruisers ramming into the Executor, not three Star Destroyers. Also, they are not travelling at relativistic speeds. They dropped out of Hyperspace and decelerated. While it is impressive that the executor's shields managed to protect it against that kind of bombardment, it does not accurately represent what an FTL missile will do. I don't think the executor just shrugged this impact off. I would expect the Executor's shields to be significantly weakened after having to repel that much energy. I concede that this does demonstrate that to take the Executor out with FTL missiles, you would need a ridiculously large number. However, this missile was never intended for use against an SSD. It is simply a powerful anti-capital weapon meant for use against cruisers and destroyers.
The problem isn't the comparison. The problem is the proposal to design an utterly ridiculously expensive weapons system that all evidence shows won't work anyway instead of what they actually do, which is just field more fighters with missiles and bombs.
You have not convinced me this weapon will not work. You've shown several scenarios where it will not be effective, but you have yet to demonstrate that an object traveling faster than light ramming into another will not severely weaken and/or destroy the target. You have also not convinced me that this weapon is cost ineffective. Granted, when Han discusses the jump in Ep. IV, his main concern is bumping into a star. We know his ship would be pulled out of hyperspace by the gravity well, but he also mentions flying through a supernova. Supernovas are not gravity-rich environments, which means that while you are in Hyperspace you can collide with Realspace objects.
The problem with what you said above is that it is blatantly false. The governments of the world designed an utterly ridiculously expensive weapon system that worked so well, they went and build tens of thousands more of them. And then they fielded some more fighters, just in case. Your example fails in that the ICBM and Cruise Missile are not expensive, ineffective weapons. They are expensive, yet incredibly effective, do exactly what they are meant to do, and do it with an efficiency unrivaled in the history of warfare.
Now if your proposal was for a planetary-strike missile (for unshielded planets) then i'd agree with you if you could somehow bypass the mass-shadow issue (or instead of just decelerating to slow decelerate to just under C)
But as a proposed weapon against starships all evidence points towards them being nothing short of useless.
Hmm... targeting a planet with said missile would be interesting indeed. Entering the atmosphere traveling FTL... what would that do? Would it be the Tunguska Event x100?
Still haven't convinced me this weapon is useless. Unsuitable for certain situations? Yes. Using it against a SSD is not a very good idea. Using it against an SD is.
-
Star Wars hyperspace doesn't work the way you think it does. Gravity wells like planets absolutely prevent vessels from entering or even traveling in hyperspace, and hyperspace travel can only be done in straight lines. Jumping without a calculated route means you could end up anywhere along your starting course, and of course you could always run into something along the way that wasn't visible from where you entered hyperspace. Also, when you leave hyperspace you pretty much have zero velocity, so your FTL missiles would have to have droid brains capable of plotting hyperspace jumps near enemy vessels while avoiding any gravity wells like planets or interdictor vessels, and then the droid brains would have to acquire the targets and then maneuver and accelerate from a dead stop into them while simultaneously avoiding any attempt by enemy strikecraft or escort vessels to destroy the missiles with their laser cannons.
-
I think I had a pretty good notion of how gravity wells prevent hyperspace travel, but you clarified some points. What I didn't know was whether or not the drive functioned linearly or randomly, and you have answered my question--hyperspace drives cause linear acceleration, but distance of a jump is random if it is not calculated.
I think there's a general misunderstanding of the operation of these missiles here. These missiles do not function like FreeSpace SSMs, where they jump to target. They jump through the target, using the kinetic energy of their superlight velocity to cause massive damage:
1. Acquire Target, identify potential weak points.
2. Plot attack vector, prioritizing vital areas.
3. Deploy from launcher.
4. Maneuver into attack position.
5. Adjust for interceptor fire and obstacles, find new attack position if necessary.
6. Once attack position is attained, accelerate to hyperspeed, ramming into hostile vessel.
I don't think leaving hyperspace is something we have to worry about. This missile never leaves hyperspace. It's attack is its acceleration to hyperspace. So the AI on board the missile must be capable of identifying its target, plotting an attack vector, evading enemy fire, and finally activating its drive when it is at optimal attack distance.
Droid brains are quite capable, if you don't mind my saying. C3PO knows practically every form of communication in known space, R2D2 is capable of repairing pretty much any craft he's placed on. These are native language and mechanical assessment algorithms that take an enormous amount of computing power to perform at the speeds they do, and they are crammed into a humanoid and wastebin-sized robot. Quite frankly the task required to guide a missile is much simpler than what 3PO and R2 do minute to minute.
-
And as I demonstrated above with the Droid Tie Fighter, systems made WITHOUT those things are actually more expensive. Also the Gs angle is a waste of your time as we already know that Star Wars has inertial dampeners that negate G forces as a factor. As demonstrated by Porkins slamming into the Death Star because he had his on full power and couldn't feel that he was descending into the Death Star's surface. (Canon from the novels I believe)
Fair enough. However, I do not accept your analysis of pricing as we have no knowledge of SW economics, so it is unfair to say that all snubfighters cost less than drones. And you only provided one vessel, you did not provide enough data to prove that all drone vessels inside SW cost more than piloted ships.
headdie provided some other values.
Yes, and those fighters have missiles for exactly that purpose.
Missiles which are incapable of dealing damage on the scale of an ICBM, hence your point is moot. A proton torpedo would not have the same yield as a FTL missile.
However those missiles don't have ridiculously expensive FTL drives and their equally expensive nav computers.
Except that you are not just in essence, but in fact, adding an entire second drive system, NOW you're adding a seperate generator, PLUS this system has to have a nav computer in order to use the FTL drive at all.
I'm only adding a second generator. This missile would already have two distinct drives, one for sublight maneuvers and one for FTL, just as any normal starfighter. Also, from Episode IV, Han's description of the hyperdrive suggests it is entirely possible to engage an FTL jump without calculating it. I will assume that the drive accelerates the ship linearly and adjusts course to evade celestial bodies. Though, as I am EU illiterate, could you tell me if this assumption is accurate? Or does it work like BP's interpretation of subspace, where activating a subspace motivator without a properly calculated destination could spit you out anywhere? If my assumption is accurate, since this missile attacks at close ranges, there is no need for it to make corrections to its FTL jump, and thus it does not need the computers required to make the calculations required for long-range FTL jumps.
It needs the computers to calculate when it exits, hell, it requires the computer to even function at all.
Oh and then there is the fact that the Hyperdrive appears to UTTERLY DESTROY any factor of relativity or kinetic energy.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090222062829/starwars/images/a/a0/Griffs'sdeath.jpg)
That is THREE Star Destroyers leaving Hyperspace straight into the Executor's shields.
Uh.... it says cruisers. I never read the comic that came from, so did they mean Star Destroyers? As far as I know, SW cruisers are smaller than destroyers. Assuming that they got their terminology right (unlikely), that's three cruisers ramming into the Executor, not three Star Destroyers. Also, they are not travelling at relativistic speeds. They dropped out of Hyperspace and decelerated. While it is impressive that the executor's shields managed to protect it against that kind of bombardment, it does not accurately represent what an FTL missile will do. I don't think the executor just shrugged this impact off. I would expect the Executor's shields to be significantly weakened after having to repel that much energy. I concede that this does demonstrate that to take the Executor out with FTL missiles, you would need a ridiculously large number. However, this missile was never intended for use against an SSD. It is simply a powerful anti-capital weapon meant for use against cruisers and destroyers.
It was three Star Destroyers led by Admiral Griff who made the jump to fill a weak point in a blockade. And how on earth do you get "not relativistic" out of them leaving hyperspace directly into the Executor? That is the exact same thing your missile is proposed to do.
It VERY accurately represents what an FTL missile would do because when it is actually travelling at FTL it won't impact anything unless it has a gravity well.
The problem isn't the comparison. The problem is the proposal to design an utterly ridiculously expensive weapons system that all evidence shows won't work anyway instead of what they actually do, which is just field more fighters with missiles and bombs.
You have not convinced me this weapon will not work. You've shown several scenarios where it will not be effective, but you have yet to demonstrate that an object traveling faster than light ramming into another will not severely weaken and/or destroy the target. You have also not convinced me that this weapon is cost ineffective. Granted, when Han discusses the jump in Ep. IV, his main concern is bumping into a star. We know his ship would be pulled out of hyperspace by the gravity well, but he also mentions flying through a supernova. Supernovas are not gravity-rich environments, which means that while you are in Hyperspace you can collide with Realspace objects.
The problem with what you said above is that it is blatantly false. The governments of the world designed an utterly ridiculously expensive weapon system that worked so well, they went and build tens of thousands more of them. And then they fielded some more fighters, just in case. Your example fails in that the ICBM and Cruise Missile are not expensive, ineffective weapons. They are expensive, yet incredibly effective, do exactly what they are meant to do, and do it with an efficiency unrivaled in the history of warfare.
We know for a fact that Hyperspace craft cannot impact objects in realspace at FTL.
We know for a fact that the Shields on an Executor Class vessel can withstand THREE Star Destroyers worth of material at nearly C, and your missiles will mass a LOT less and cost as much or more as a cheap snubfighter which can carry its own missiles.
Supernovas ARE Gravity Rich environments because of the occasional "birth of a black hole" problem they have.
And nothing I said was false. Because you're designing a missile with an ICBM's cost, but a tactical yield.
We have proven, whether you accept it or not, that such a missile would be too costly for not enough return on investment. Especially as its destructive abilities are impossible to calculate and trying to hit your target will be a one in a million (if not billion) proposition that requires you to know down to the metre where the target is.
Now if your proposal was for a planetary-strike missile (for unshielded planets) then i'd agree with you if you could somehow bypass the mass-shadow issue (or instead of just decelerating to slow decelerate to just under C)
But as a proposed weapon against starships all evidence points towards them being nothing short of useless.
Hmm... targeting a planet with said missile would be interesting indeed. Entering the atmosphere traveling FTL... what would that do? Would it be the Tunguska Event x100?
Still haven't convinced me this weapon is useless. Unsuitable for certain situations? Yes. Using it against a SSD is not a very good idea. Using it against an SD is.
[/QUOTE]
The closest you'd get is entering the atmosphere at .99c at which (hell at .65c even) the weapons entire mass will explode with the power of antimatter (it won't be an antimatter explosion, but the energy release will be identical to that as if the warhead was made of antimatter.
-
so a missle system doesn't work, but what about using gravity wells from interdictor SD's to hurl a warhead at relativistic sped?or would turbolasers be more accurate and cheaper for the damage done?
-
so a missle system doesn't work, but what about using gravity wells from interdictor SD's to hurl a warhead at relativistic sped?or would turbolasers be more accurate and cheaper for the damage done?
Turbolasers would be more accurate and cheaper.
The Mass Shadows of Interdictors didn't seem overly powerful in and of themselves. Those few times I read where they were damaging a lot of gravity well projectors were brought to bear.
The Star Wars verse could definitely have improvements to the way it wages war, but its weapons are one of the few points where it is fine. If I wanted to look at real ship-killers within their tech base I would be looking at scaled down Superlasers, similar to the Super Star Destroyers like the Eclipse.
But take it further, trade immediate power for a sustained output, combine it with co-axial heavy Turbolasers and you've got a beam keeping the shields down, causing damage with a set of incredibly powerful turbolasers backing up its output.
The downside would be probably having to upgrade the reactors on regular ships for the new system.
-
Okay, I'm done discussing this missile system. I see now that we are suffering an extreme disconnect, involving our understanding of the SW universe, our understanding of my weapon system, our interpretation and our omission of other facts or points herein mentioned. I have spent the past 45 minutes preparing a tirade about these omissions, but it is in my better judgement to not post it. I will however note that a lot of what I have said has been ignored or outright misinterpreted. When one responder's propositions not heeded, it is not a discussion, it is a shouting match.
The problem with the EU is that it is like the Bible--there are so many contradictions that everyone can take a standpoint and find the evidence to support themselves when it blatantly contradicts some other part of the canon. As such, I will attempt to explain my reasoning only a little bit more, and then respectfully take my leave of this discussion.
In regards to the Star Destroyers exiting Hyperspace, you assume that they exited right on top of the Executor, thereby impacting with close to 1C velocity. I assumed they exited some distance further away, and were probably traveling at .25 to .5 C. As we do not have any hard data to go on, this point will have to remain undecided--it can't work either way. However, the true importance of this point hinges on the following paragraph.
In regards to the supernova, Han said 'fly right through a star or bounce close to a supernova.' A star going supernova does not mean that the remnant core will form a black hole. It means that a majority of the star's mass is now flying outwards into space at relativistic speeds, well outside the mass shadow of the star itself. What is left over may form a black hole. As Han was talking specifically about getting near a supernova, I assumed he did not have to be in the mass shadow of the star's remnant core to be in danger. Given this, I must assume that something other than a possible black hole posed a threat to the ship.
I hope those last two paragraphs help illuminate my reasoning. I am done.
-
The problem with the EU is that it is like the Bible--there are so many contradictions that everyone can take a standpoint and find the evidence to support themselves when it blatantly contradicts some other part of the canon. As such, I will attempt to explain my reasoning only a little bit more, and then respectfully take my leave of this discussion.
No disagreement there.
In regards to the Star Destroyers exiting Hyperspace, you assume that they exited right on top of the Executor, thereby impacting with close to 1C velocity. I assumed they exited some distance further away, and were probably traveling at .25 to .5 C. As we do not have any hard data to go on, this point will have to remain undecided--it can't work either way. However, the true importance of this point hinges on the following paragraph.
The relevance is next to meaningless, the energy difference of an object travelling at .25c and .99c is almost negligible, an object travelling at relatavistic velocity will only have the destructive power of its mass, the kinetic energy difference of an object a .25c and .99c is barely worth calculating. (In fact if I recall correctly the only advantage of accelerating a relativistic projectile past .65c is to reduce time to target, IIRC there is utterly no kinetic energy difference between an object at .65c and .99c
In regards to the supernova, Han said 'fly right through a star or bounce close to a supernova.' A star going supernova does not mean that the remnant core will form a black hole. It means that a majority of the star's mass is now flying outwards into space at relativistic speeds, well outside the mass shadow of the star itself. What is left over may form a black hole. As Han was talking specifically about getting near a supernova, I assumed he did not have to be in the mass shadow of the star's remnant core to be in danger. Given this, I must assume that something other than a possible black hole posed a threat to the ship.
Han also said that he could do the Kessel run in under 1 Parsec in a "time" context when it is in fact a unit of distance. And hyperspace is a linear drive, you don't take turns, taking that to its full extension one can assume that the bounce reference refers to exiting hyperspace within a Supernova's ejection which I think we can both agree depending on the age of the Supernova is a potentially lethal event.
The only thing that is ever demonstrated to effect hyperspace travel (from outside it) are gravity wells.
But fare ye well. I dare say your idea has merit, just Star Wars is the wrong verse for it *Shrugs*.
-
You guys are talking about average missiles with a hyperdrive, that is one component in the Star Wars lore. What about the lasers? They weren't exactly railguns. They donated gas in a chamber before forcing it down a magnetic barrel to where they desired.
Ion cannons were probably the same, but used a electrical charge to weak their defenses, like the Ion Cannon in Episode V, for example.