[Kadaeux]

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.

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

2 Laser Cannons
No Shields
No Armour
No Hyperdrive
Cost 170'000 Credits.

[esarai]

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.

[Kadaeux]

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.



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.

[headdie]

can i ask where you are getting the price figures from?

[Kadaeux]

can i ask where you are getting the price figures from?

Wookieepedia: Alpha-Class Xg-1 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
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.

[headdie]

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.

[esarai]

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.



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. 

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[esarai]

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.

[Kadaeux]

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.



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.

[MR_T3D]

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?

[Kadaeux]

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.

[esarai]

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.

[Kadaeux]

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*.

[Firstdragon34]

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.