Why is the Nemesis an Armageddon Level Ship ?

[Burger]

no it may not be insta death as such but how many fighters are likely to live against ANY sort of attack without their dodge? (I assume it ignore stealth too?)

Quite a few. Sky Serpents and Thunderbolts, hull 5... the Vorlon gets no AP/SAP on the energy pulse. Quite a few others have hull 4, thats only 50% chance of dying.

 

[Voronesh]

Yet the problem is, if i read the rules right, everything that moves into range gets hit.

Normally most ships fire after fighters, this one works before fighters activate. Plus if you move 15 T-Bolts into range 5 of them are going to die. That is alot more than any other ship can achieve.

 

[Burger]

Well the Vorlons need something to make up for their complete lack of anti-fighter weapons. I think the charged pulse is a pretty good and fair one.

I'd bet the Fusion Cannons of a Sharlin could shoot down 5 t'bolts no poblem, that might be after they fire but they can do it up to 4".

 

[Epaminondas]

Well, if you're talking the gap between the Omega and the Warlock it's actually 17 years. The Omega Destroyer wasn't new in Season 2, it was created at the end of the Minbari war.

Actually the first prototype omegas were fielded before the Earth-Minbari war; the plans were shelved during the war in favor of mass production of existing designs.

After the war Omega production kicked in.

Adds what, two three threes of design maturation, plus the lead in time? Probably another ten years all told.

===

The omega is exactly what it looks like- a nova hull with improved weaponry, and artificial gravity via the rotating section. A true cruiser capable of long patrols (no microgravity long term problems as with other ships).

===

Does it bother anyone else how badly scifi shows screw up standard ship classification?

ie making destroyers better the cruisers etc?

the power/size progression should be
Frigate, Destroyer, light cruiser, cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship, dreadnought.

Over half the time in scifi shows, destroyers end up being the most powerful....

I would have classified the EA ships thusly...
Hermes frigate
Hyperion destroyer or light cruiser [Marathon as light cruiser]
Nova cruiser
Omega heavy cruiser
Warlock heavy cruiser or battlecruiser
Nemisis Battlecruiser

 

[Goldritter]

In a Wikipedia article about Destroyers I´ve read, that the US Navy now use the term "Destroyer" for ships too, which are normaly smaller or bigger as the "standart" Destroyer to give not away their real strength.

I think the EA does this with the Omega too.

Don´t forgett after the Ea-Minbari War the humans get realy paranoid about their weaknesses.

So with the "Calssification" of Destroyer the EA don´t give away how powerful the Omega realy is.

 

[Goldritter]

In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft).

I´ve found this text in Wikipedia.

Now if you consider, that the Omega has a longer enourance as the Hyperion. It can count as a Destroyer for the EA. Espacially if you think, that the EA try to build better long-range Vessels after EA-Minbari War.
And the Hyperion was only a Vessel which can be massbuild to fill gaps in their defence after the War. Before the better ships, like the Omega, can be mass produced.


**Edit**
And this Quote is interessting too :

At the beginning of the 21st century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant vessels in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers and none operating battleships.[1]

**Edit**

 

[Goldritter]

And I found another interesting information.

The Navy of Germany (Bundesmarine), don´t use any Destroyer anymore.
Their biggest ships are now Frigattes.
And the Sachsen-Class Frigatte has a tonnage of 5600t, where the last Destroyers (the Lütjens-Class) has a tonnage of 4150t.

 

[Alexb83]

The difficulty in ship classification is that at the turn of the last century, it tended to be based around gross tonnage and/or no. guns. This shifted somewhat in later years to be based on speed, or thickness of armour, or weight of broadside.

In more modern terms, it is based on role. 'Destroyer' in a modern navy tends to refer to AAW vessels, rather than anything else. If you look at the RN for instance, the Type 22 Frigate is actually a vessel of equal or greater displacement than their contemporary Type 42 destroyers. They're also longer, have a broader beam and deeper draught. So why are Type 22's 'frigates' and not 'destroyers'? Why are Type 45 'destroyers' and not 'frigates'? Partly it's political, but as I pointed out, it very much hones in on their role in a fleet. AAW centric vessels are considered destroyers, ASW vessels frigates. Earth Alliance may take a similar tack.

 

[Epaminondas]

Warship size inflation has been the trend for a hundred years now.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20060904.aspx

Compare a dreadnought from pre WWI to a modern destroyer right now... guess what, the newest Destroyer X class that the US is building will be BIGGER.

Just because most nations aren't building more then a few patrol vessels right now doesn't mean a destroyer is larger then a cruiser... or a battlecruiser!

There hasn't been a battlecruiser in commission with a front line navy since the 1950s; and only three battleships in the same time.

====

Essentially modern airpower and submarines make surface forces obsolute, other then the carrier task force.... which really only needs carriers and escorts.

Its more flexable for the carrier task force to have escorts that can do both AA and anti sub work.

B5 and Star Wars operate differently; more like the 1920's and 30s where airpower is useful for scouting and inflicting some damage; but the big guns are where the battle is decided.

 

[Epaminondas]

And my complaint is more generalized- Star wars does the same thing; the destroyer class topping out with the victory and star destroyers; while the cruisers are tiny in comparision (strike for example).

 

[Goldritter]

(..)
Does it bother anyone else how badly scifi shows screw up standard ship classification?

ie making destroyers better the cruisers etc?

(...)

In the article you linked. it´s written, that you can call some Destroyer Cruiser.
So the Sci-Fi shows doesn´t screw up more than our realworld politicians and militaries do.

 

[captainsmirk]

And my complaint is more generalized- Star wars does the same thing; the destroyer class topping out with the victory and star destroyers; while the cruisers are tiny in comparision (strike for example).

I always took the term Star Destroyer as a ship type in itself, rather than "Star" Destroyer. Plus they are also in a completely different galaxy so why would they use our ship classifications?

As for B5 I have said on other threads that ships classifications have changed a lot since the original inception of those terms. Take the frigate, the original sailing frigate had the role of the WW1/WW2 Cruiser but disappeared with the introduction of steam-powered iron ship and was reintroduced in use for a anti-submarine escort in WW2.

As the EA doesn't seem to have any other ships classified as Destroyers until the Omega, perhaps the term destroyer went out of use in interveaning centuries and was reintroduced to cover the fairly new role the Omega has.

Nick

 

[Burger]

Destroyers destroy things. So all my ships are destroyers :twisted:

 

[Jellicoe]

The difficulty in ship classification is that at the turn of the last century, it tended to be based around gross tonnage and/or no. guns. This shifted somewhat in later years to be based on speed, or thickness of armour, or weight of broadside.

In more modern terms, it is based on role. 'Destroyer' in a modern navy tends to refer to AAW vessels, rather than anything else. If you look at the RN for instance, the Type 22 Frigate is actually a vessel of equal or greater displacement than their contemporary Type 42 destroyers. They're also longer, have a broader beam and deeper draught. So why are Type 22's 'frigates' and not 'destroyers'? Why are Type 45 'destroyers' and not 'frigates'? Partly it's political, but as I pointed out, it very much hones in on their role in a fleet. AAW centric vessels are considered destroyers, ASW vessels frigates. Earth Alliance may take a similar tack.

Very true, but it also depends on the country. In the US Navy the primary surface anti-air vessel is the cruiser. The newer destroyers are very similar, albeit on a slightly smaller scale and designed to do all the jobs - ASW, AAW and surface warfare. Historically the term "cruiser" meant something very different.

As far as Scifi use of naval terms goes - it tends to varry a lot and not be too accurate

 

[Voronesh]

Yer names are often political. Nowadays it has turned to become a role designation.

And Star Wars really wanted the name Star Destroyer as a term, more terrifiying, than Star Cruiser or Battleship.