This has to be the most hilarious thing I've seen this week.
On Wookieepedia and Wikipedia articles, as we are aware, Saxtonites have been struggling to get their nomenclature accepted in implying that a Star Destroyer is, in fact, properly classed as a destroyer.
Now, in one of the old Marvel comics, a General Tagge had several of what are referred to as both "Star Destroyer class" vessels and "battlecruisers."
Apparently, the fact that they were drawn with a slightly different looking bridge tower with four knobs instead of two globes mean these must be roughly twice the size, and should be Star Destroyer class Star Battlecruisers.
I bet you can't say it aloud without laughing.
18 comments:
Don't the Rebel's use the terms "Stardestroyer" and "Imperial cruiser" interchangeably?
Yes, they do, which makes it all the more hilarious.
I personally think the Star Destroyer cannot be classified under modern military terminology. It's a combo heavy cruiser, carrier, and troop transport.
Sometimes I wonder if "Star Destroyer" is an actual ship classification in Star Wars, as opposed to "cruiser" or "destroyer" or whatever.
You're tiresome, dude. Get on with your Star Trek pages instead.
Soooo...they're basically arguing that the Star Destroyers aren't the primary warship in use in the Empire and are not, in fact, main line battleships despite everything we've seen in the movies and read in much of the EU?
I think an Imperial Star Destroyer is best classified as as an assault carrier, so is the Venator for that matter. So I agree with peteman that Star Destroyer is a classification of military vessel.
-ARSE
The closest modern-military parallel I can think of for a Star Destroyer would be the Kiev-type "Aviation Cruiser" fielded by the Soviet Navy in the latter parts of the Cold War.
Basically the ships were big guided-missile cruisers with a flight deck for air support operations. Despite a likely ability to conduct independent operations, they were still treated like aircraft carriers, primarily, and usually escorted.
Actually, the ISDs can fit into a semi-modern classification, albeit one that didn't really see any success. The ISD and the Venator could both be considered to be battlecarriers. Essentially half-battleship and half-carrier. In real life, the battlecarrier saw no success, and the only real battlecarriers ever produced were the Japanese Ise class during WWII. One of the main reasons for the Ise's lack of success, however, was the fact that, with only half a flight deck, they couldn't retrieve the planes they launched, and had to have a second carrier following along to recover the planes, which defeated the whole purpose of the battlecarrier.
Obviously, in space, with the level of tech in SW, you don't have to worry about only having half a flight deck, since you don't really need any length of flight deck to launch or recover your fighters, so the ISDs, Venator, SSDs, etc. wouldn't suffer from the biggest flaw in real-life battlecarrier design.
With the implementation of railguns and Joint Strike Fighter F-35s (which have verticle takeoff and landing capability) we could potentially see useful battlecarriers in the US Navy, or in other NATO forces.
Didn't Japan also make a hybrid submarine/aircraft carrier during WWII?
-ARSE
To Arse, yes the Japanese did make a sub/carrier hybrid. If I recall correctly, it launched a single plain that could land on water so the sub could recollect it.
And as for the JSF, I believe only the Marine Corps version is VTOL. The Navy's is equiped to be able to launch from traditional carriers and the Air Force's is designed with a larger fuel tank.
Like I said earlier, the closest parallel is the Kiev-type aviation cruiser. VSTOL aircraft capable, it was also effective as guided-missile cruiser. So it could engage enemy ships one-on-one (modern anti-ship missiles are basically the same kind of heavy armament any "battleship" today would have) and add it's own aviation umbrella.
Actually, come to think of it, there is a modern "battleship" (or at least a battlecruiser) - the Kirov class. I believe two are still in commission. Think of the Kiev as a little version of the Kirov with a VSTOL flight deck.
Then again, we see a flight deck of sorts in the long dorsal hanger bay of the Venerator, although the Empire eventually drops that idea.
Of course, the problem with the Russian "aircraft carriers" is that they wanted a ship capable of acting as a more traditional warship AND an aircraft carrier, and the result was too much a compromise and succeeded at neither.
It would be interesting to see if the problem exists for Star Destroyers. I would presume that it does, as such failings tend to happen with most-if not all military platforms that are intended to perform many different functions, at least in the modern world
That would help explain why the ISDs of the Imperial Fleet were overall getting their tails kicked by the smaller Mon Calamari cruisers.
I glanced once in one of those Star Wars tech manuals the entry comparing Imperial Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari cruisers. It showed that the Mon Cal cruisers were smaller but had a wider arc of fire
I am not sure, but I would agree with that. The Mon Cals seem to be more oriented towards a combat role than the multi-mission platforms that Star Destroyers tend to be.
They can of course carry auxiliary craft, even groups of fighters, but it seems that the proportion of volume used is less. A closer analogy would be a Trek ship's shuttlebay, only a bit bigger.
My explanation is that 1) Rebel fighters are almost all equipped with hyperdrive, which reduces their need for motherships, and 2) Rebel cruisers needed the ability to go head-to-head against Imperial warships, (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with capital ships at all). So the result seems to be a combat oriented vessel, and thus a more effective platform against other capital ships.
If a Trekkie might discuss the EU, it seems (sadly) that the New Republic falls for the same trap as the Empire, because their last, massive Mon Calamari designs are more balanced (carrier, troop ship, etc.), but at least they seem to build that around a combat platform.
-Kiev Guy again
Speaking of balance, I feel odd as a pro-Trek person to say that "balance" can be bad. Almost all Trek ships would be "too balanced" in a situation where combat is the only end.
That said, it is clear that emphases are important, witness the Defiant vs. the Galaxy. The Defiant is built purely for battle, and is regarded as more effective. However, the Galaxy class is still a fearsome combatant, and can (and has) been updated to be even more powerful.
The moral is that the biggest problem the Empire had is that the Rebels (like Trek and the Dominion), confronted with powerful warships, could update their strategies and ships to deal with other capital ships, while the Empire remained with an "enforcement" strategy.
-Kiev guy
In "Vector Prime" we know that there are "small cruisers" "aiding" the Star Destroyer. So Yes: Star Destroyer is NOT a destroyer in our fleet meaning: it is a battleship.
Actually, I think that Star Destroyer is cruiser/heavy cruiser, with Super Star Destroyer being battleship. However, when there are no SSD's around, Star Destroyer acts like battleship.
I also saw some comments about SW ships being too balanced. That is true, but it is probably dictated by tactical considerations - capital ships often operate alone, and must have fighter escort or risk being caught in massive bomber attack, just like Yamato or Musashi.
It is battleship only when Executor class isn't around. THEN it becomes destroyer/cruiser.
Post a Comment