Ship Sizes

[Condottiere]

As I understand it, the Star Destroyer evolved from a very heavy fighter to what appears to be a very large cruiser.

If you think about it, you have to be very optimistic to believe that ten thousand troops could control a half way civilized planet, which is where the lurking hulk orbiting above would discourage large scale insurrections.

The only way you could explain the disparity of a half division and an air group of a hundred odd, is that they are built to TL15 specs, and most worlds still cruise along TL12.

 

[dragoner]

Yes, a main world can hold out forever, we have so far. Which is another thing that speaks against the sizes for ships like the Star Destroyer, it would be better to split them down: Battle Riders, Cruisers, Carriers (at one point, Marc Miller said the Tigresses were to be like Carriers, as the center piece of a group). That way, you don't leave all your component pieces in a system together.

 

[Reynard]

"There was some interesting info, for that fact I didn't know a SW Star Destroyer was so big and carried 9000 troops. But I think that is putting too many eggs in one basket, you bring in troop transports after you have established some sort of control over the space in the system. Traveller definitely does not do it that way, even though there aren't troop transports of an enormous size, somehow they bring in troops."

Star Wars is all about BIG. The entire galaxy is part of the theater with millions of habitable worlds. Star Destroyers are the standard cruiser but, with only 25,000, each they more often operate alone. They are big because they need to project power. Traveller has a much smaller space theater broken up into semi-isolated sector. A fleet of smaller ships do the same job.

Also, compared to many Traveller worlds, we see SW worlds with low populations and scattered cities. 9,000 trooper plus armor air support dropped near any capital or important city usually guarantee capture. Then again, if you use most resource rules to create Traveller fleets and system defenses a moderate fleet will have little opposition.

We need to build a Traveller "Star Destroyer" to see how a single ship fares compared to a typical fleet making both have a similar tonnage and price. Would an all in one ship be better than a group of specialized individual ships separately featuring guns, fighters and troops?

How about the alien battle tender and the battle riders from Independence Day? All the weapons seem to be in the riders with the city destroyers equivalent to a spinal mount. For all their size, I think those riders were mostly gun and power source to fire it. Thin armor once the shield went down. Fighters were then long arm defense when there was planet side resistance. Troops were on the mothership for garrison once the opposition was removed. I got the inference the mothership's defense was its size (almost a planetoid) and space-going fighters.

 

[Condottiere]

There are very few constraints on the Emperor, neither distance nor resources, in fact, I'm not even sure where he gets his money from, or for that matter, the tax base of the Republic; whereas the Imperium only can manufacture warships to suit budget and personnel constraints.

As noted in another thread, I favour a multipurpose ship for internal security, since anything really needing the attention of a frontline capital ship (and I include the larger cruisers in that) would be rare, unexpected and might require a local shake up of some intelligence branches. It's essentially an economy of force where all the functions can be carried out within one hull.

It should project power without being overly overbearing about it, have enough troops to reinforce Imperial garrisons, facilities, carry out surgical strikes, extractions or be the spearhead of planetary forces. I'd say a brigade would be sufficient, a battalion might be too small and a division seems threatening.

I agree with specialization of the frontline units, where you would want a more modular approach.

The nearest equivalent to the Imperial class would be the Tigress, but with one caveat, the Imperials lumber along, whereas modern Imperium ships of the line are almost as fast as fighters.

 

[phavoc]

In the SW universe a Star Destroyer was deployed to overwhelm smaller planets, and a group of six of them was sufficient to bombard most worlds into submission. They were the 'shock and awe' of the Empire. Another reason they were so damn huge was that the had supplies for 6 YEARS of operations. The idea being once deployed they could stay away from any depot for long periods of time. Helps out on the Rim and other remote locations (though in the SW universe trips of very long journeys did not seem to be that long at all).

But there were many other types of vessels, like the Nebulon-B frigates and such that were part of the Imperial navy. We just didn't see them or have them talked about as much. If you can afford them, specialized hulls work best. Though as one can tell from navies today, specialist ships are becoming few and far between. The tech and hulls cost too much so you have to make a single unit do more.

 

[Condottiere]

The six year stores could be the result of just having more capacity than knowing what to do with it. Though if you view Star Destroyers more like traditional frigates, having to be self reliant on distant stations, that would make sense.

I'm going to disagree on modern ships becoming more general purpose, at least in NATO. There may be a tonnage inflation, but escorts tend to focus either on ASW or AA, carriers focus on squeezing as many aircraft as they can manage onboard (though the RN seems unnecessarily handicapped in this regard, having bet on the Lightning and relying on the RAF to make up the numbers when surging, which at this point won't exceed thirty six in the air group).

There's a trend to use modules to change roles - my take on this is that the hulls need to be cheap and plentiful.

 

[phavoc]

The six year stores could be the result of just having more capacity than knowing what to do with it. Though if you view Star Destroyers more like traditional frigates, having to be self reliant on distant stations, that would make sense.

The Empire wanted a Star Destroyer to be self-sufficient for long periods, hence the 6 year supply capacity. The New Republic reversed that by reducing stores to a more reasonable 6 months supply and also reducing the crew size to about 25,000 (they eliminated the ground units, vehicles and accompanying support staff and crew).

I'm going to disagree on modern ships becoming more general purpose, at least in NATO. There may be a tonnage inflation, but escorts tend to focus either on ASW or AA, carriers focus on squeezing as many aircraft as they can manage onboard (though the RN seems unnecessarily handicapped in this regard, having bet on the Lightning and relying on the RAF to make up the numbers when surging, which at this point won't exceed thirty six in the air group).

There's a trend to use modules to change roles - my take on this is that the hulls need to be cheap and plentiful.

I'm not as well versed with NATO warships, but the US Navy sends some mixed messages. Classes like the Spruance and Oliver Hazard Perry are optimized for ASW, while Arleigh Burke's and Ticonderoga's are multi-mission. Smaller transports like the LSD/LPH/LST's have essentially one function, but the larger LHA's have an impressive amount of air and land power, and can embark ASW helo's as well, though like carriers they are too valuable to leave unescorted.

The new littoral combat ships do have the modular capability you reference, but they are more support than combat ships. For what they cost I think they are over-priced and under-gunned, not to mention rather fragile. I doubt the US defense industry would EVER let the Navy have a plethora of cheap and plentiful hulls! Hell, they can't even build a Coast Guard cutter for a reasonable price these days (not to mention without hull weaknesses...oy!).

The Imperium faces much the same problem as blue water navies today - they simply can't afford enough ships to do all the tasks they have. Sector Fleet kind of goes into some detail here, but I think that a lot of the basic functions are going to have to fall to sub-sector forces, or even planetary system navies. Though from a RPG perspective, a PC ship coming up against a 2,000 ton escort or frigate is going to get it's ass kicked. Even mega-corps don't have the capability of going up against battle-fleet. But smaller sub-1,000 ton escorts and such would be within reason to take on.

 

[dragoner]

Star Wars is all about BIG. The entire galaxy is part of the theater with millions of habitable worlds. Star Destroyers are the standard cruiser but, with only 25,000, each they more often operate alone. They are big because they need to project power. Traveller has a much smaller space theater broken up into semi-isolated sector. A fleet of smaller ships do the same job.

Also, compared to many Traveller worlds, we see SW worlds with low populations and scattered cities. 9,000 trooper plus armor air support dropped near any capital or important city usually guarantee capture. Then again, if you use most resource rules to create Traveller fleets and system defenses a moderate fleet will have little opposition.

We need to build a Traveller "Star Destroyer" to see how a single ship fares compared to a typical fleet making both have a similar tonnage and price. Would an all in one ship be better than a group of specialized individual ships separately featuring guns, fighters and troops?

How about the alien battle tender and the battle riders from Independence Day? All the weapons seem to be in the riders with the city destroyers equivalent to a spinal mount. For all their size, I think those riders were mostly gun and power source to fire it. Thin armor once the shield went down. Fighters were then long arm defense when there was planet side resistance. Troops were on the mothership for garrison once the opposition was removed. I got the inference the mothership's defense was its size (almost a planetoid) and space-going fighters.

I'm not terribly conversant in the SW universe, but it does seem bigger than big is their motto; funny thing is that I remember someone doing a striker based estimate on how much the Imperium generates in revenues for its expenditures and they found the fleets seemed small. In the line though, it has been generally accepted that bigger isn't better, I haven't played Mongoose High Guard or TCS, so I don't know how much that has changed. I have been part of conversations and thought about it for years; one thing from the Fifth Frontier War that I saw is that the more populous worlds have a tendency to be laid siege to, even for years. Makes sense, why spend the resources if you don't have to. Maybe at one point the Imperium maintained larger fleets in its border regions, but changed that after Plankwell and Arbellatra led fleets to the core and deposed the sitting Emperor.

The aliens from Independence Day seem incredibly weak without the shield system from their mother ship, which in turn that ship seemed real hollow. Hard to place them in any Traveller terms. If that screen could stop meson guns, then they might do well, but then if not, Traveller capital ships would lunch them, quickly.

 

[dragoner]

There are very few constraints on the Emperor, neither distance nor resources, in fact, I'm not even sure where he gets his money from, or for that matter, the tax base of the Republic; whereas the Imperium only can manufacture warships to suit budget and personnel constraints.

As noted in another thread, I favour a multipurpose ship for internal security, since anything really needing the attention of a frontline capital ship (and I include the larger cruisers in that) would be rare, unexpected and might require a local shake up of some intelligence branches. It's essentially an economy of force where all the functions can be carried out within one hull.

It should project power without being overly overbearing about it, have enough troops to reinforce Imperial garrisons, facilities, carry out surgical strikes, extractions or be the spearhead of planetary forces. I'd say a brigade would be sufficient, a battalion might be too small and a division seems threatening.

I agree with specialization of the frontline units, where you would want a more modular approach.

The nearest equivalent to the Imperial class would be the Tigress, but with one caveat, the Imperials lumber along, whereas modern Imperium ships of the line are almost as fast as fighters.

For me, I'm more of the idea that multiple smaller ships would be better, that way you don't lose too much if a ship is destroyed or mutiny's or something. There is the Kinunir though, as a troop carrying patrol cruiser, through it doesn't carry that many troops. Though I think for the most part, the Imperium activates a lot of local stuff, mercenaries, etc. for control, and only acts directly when it has to. I would say though, that if the big ships scare a place into submission without firing a shot, then they have done their work.

 

[Condottiere]

You tend to fight the last war.

The primary difference between RL battleships and scifi ones, is that the principals have the resources to build humongous examples, which means they can soak up a great deal more punishment (besides the usual plot armour). But the utility of having increasingly large ships will meet the law of diminishing returns, unless you have the means of instantaneous transportation.

In regard to the Kinunir, that always seemed an odd duck. Seems too early for Space Marines, though Heinlein's Mobile Infantry platoon transport might have something to do with it.

The Danes have developed a modular frigate class, though their reason probably has to do with limited number of hulls and personnel constraint. The RN is thinking about a corvette family that can undertake a number of duties. The USN littoral ships probably suffered some form of creep during the design stage.

As regards the Executor class Super Star Destroyer, that ships looks enormously fragile to me.