StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mad wrote:

Batman wrote:The very fact that they could take down the shields of a Victory means that the torpedoes have to be high-gigaton. A lousy Acclamator has 7E22 W worth of shielding. That's 16,746 GT per second. Even allowing that that's overall and sustained and that the X-Wings took down only one shield facing, that would require thousands of MT-range torpedoes.

Sure, you'd need around 17,000 GT released over the course of a second in order for the shields of an Acclamator to start to take notice. But what if it was 17 GT released in 0.001 seconds? You've passed the heat dissipation rate at that point. Sure, it'll be fine again a fraction of a second later, but the idea is that time is certainly a factor when dealing with wattage.

The problem is the heat sink most certainly can take that.

There are several components to a shield system that can be taken advantage of. There's the shield itself and whatever its made of [1]. There are the shield projectors which maintain the shield and presumably move the energy aboard to dedicated heat sinks [2]. There's the shield generator which provides the power and mechanism to maintain the shield effect, implemented by the projectors [3]. There is the dedicated heat sinks themselves [4]. And lastly there is the heat dissipation mechanisms [5].

The shield may be made of exotic force fields or a bubble of exotic matter, or some combination (I think Mike prefers an explanation involving a bubble of exotic, superconducting matter). Anyway, there are shield-disrupting torpedoes that disrupt whatever it is that makes up the shield, presumably without overwhelming the power and energy management constraints - these include the T-33 torpedoes carried by New Republic K-Wing tactical bombers and perhaps the torpedoes mounted aboard Loronar Torpedo Spheres. These attack the shield from angle No. 1.

Energy beams and torpedo impacts don't just vanish, so their energy is not totally absorbed and reradiated by dedicated neutrino radiating systems. The shield itself is superconductive and reemits absorbed energy at probably a given wattage. This is probably not very important since the heat dissipation wattage of the shield itself probably is less than the dedicated systems.

There are the shield projectors, which presumably can only manage directing a certain wattage max to the heat sinks and radiators without damage. Presumably in most cases - like ship-to-ship combat across an entire broadside this wattage exceeds that of the radiators' heat dissipation rate, or the latter would not be of much meaning. However, this probably applies the whole network as a whole, or at least large arcs, not small sections. A single projector covering a particular shield arc probably can manage only a significantly lower wattage, and probably much less energy content than the dedicated heat sink. Overwhelming portions of the projector grid over a small arc of a ship with concentrated high-wattage (but not necessarily high-energy) firepower may be a sound strategy. However EGtW&T suggests burned-out projectors are routine in pitched battle and experienced crews can repair and replace damaged components back to full function in minutes. This is how you can hit the shield system from angle No. 2.

I don't know if you can hit the shield from No. 3; nothing intuitive comes to mind.

As for No. 4 and 5, this is how capital ships brute-force through most opponents' shields. You attack with sufficient wattage to exceed the heat dissipation rate of the radiators, forcing the heat sinks to store the energy. These attacks must be both very high energy and very high wattage, because they must both overwhelm the ships' ability to reradiate the absorbed firepower into space, and to overwhelm the ship's ability to store and contain the energy of your attacks. A capship attacking with overhwhelming force will fill the heat sinks to capacity, in which case the projector grid probably shuts down being simply unable to absorb more energy, and the shield dissipates, allowing unimpeded shots to hit the hull until the heat sink radiates significant amounts of energy away so it has the capacity to absorb more.

I think No. 2 and No. 1 are the best angles and models for explaining hard-to-explain examples of starfighter and torpedo efficiacy against large warships. In particular No. 2 seems to intuitively match the damage patterns caused in most of the incidents. The No. 1 examples too provide probably small windows of opportunity; Loronar Torpedo Spheres provide areas of weakness in planetary shields that are measured in small fractions of a second. Its presumably a simple and quick fix to reangle and reinforce disrupted shield arcs.

I think Mad's theory makes the most sense in relation to No. 2. Of course, Rogue Squadron makes it easy but extrinsically Stackpole's a shitty author and intrinsically, just because Rogue Squadron can do it doesn't mean its easy or broadly applicable. Think about it; in order to take advantage of No. 2 a full squadron of fighters must attack an armed warship from along what is nearly a single vector, must all fly relatively an equal distance from the ship, and all fire simultaneously, at close enough range where it is unlikely they'll be stopped by point defenses, with sufficiently powerful torpedoes, to even have a hope of success. This is extremely dangerous! Anti-starfighter defenses need only be directed against a single arc against ships flying in formation, placing them at extremely high risk.

Presumably being able to form up and fire torpedoes in synchronicity and bug out quickly enough for it to not be suicide against a competent crew and while being reliably effective enough to be worth the fired torpedoes is the kind of starfighter circus acrobatics that can only be expected and relied upon from an ultra-ace squadron like the Rogues, or comparable experience and talent. Also, I can't think of a single incident where Rogue Squadron was posted on a mission to take out a capital ship in such a way. Each time the tactics were last-ditch efforts to salvage a shitty situation they unexpectedly ran into. The fact they're not assigned to do it means that Command cannot possibly rely on such tactics working enough to justify the risk.

Is it possible that if the shields heat sink ability os overloaded briefly this overload could burn out/fuse/melt/do unspecified bad things to the heat sink in question, rendering it useless for further work as part of the shielding system and requiring that the shield stay down until it is repaired/replaced. This could explain why the shields stay down for a few minutes after a successful torpedo strike, repair teams have to cool,strip out, and replace the heat sink?

Dealt with above.

Mad wrote: When did this happen? I recall Rogue Squadron forcing an Interdictor to power down its gravity well generators and retreat when it couldn't capture its target in Rogue Squadron. I also recall them fighting a losing battle against a Victory-class Star Destroyer until support arrived in The Bacta War.

Though a ship retreating is still different than taking one down.

I'm referring to the X-wing games, where one of the missions was to chase away a ISD.

While the specifics are obviously not canon, what about the backstory?

PainRack wrote:

Mad wrote: When did this happen? I recall Rogue Squadron forcing an Interdictor to power down its gravity well generators and retreat when it couldn't capture its target in Rogue Squadron. I also recall them fighting a losing battle against a Victory-class Star Destroyer until support arrived in The Bacta War.
Though a ship retreating is still different than taking one down.

I'm referring to the X-wing games, where one of the missions was to chase away a ISD.
While the specifics are obviously not canon, what about the backstory?

Which says what exactly about the number of torpedoes used, the timeframe they impacted the shield in, and the area of shield they impacted on?
Sorry, the very fact that the mission hinged on being able to chase away the ISD with a couple of X-Wings means that it is based on game mechanics.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:There are the shield projectors, which presumably can only manage directing a certain wattage max to the heat sinks and radiators without damage. Presumably in most cases - like ship-to-ship combat across an entire broadside this wattage exceeds that of the radiators' heat dissipation rate, or the latter would not be of much meaning. However, this probably applies the whole network as a whole, or at least large arcs, not small sections. A single projector covering a particular shield arc probably can manage only a significantly lower wattage, and probably much less energy content than the dedicated heat sink. Overwhelming portions of the projector grid over a small arc of a ship with concentrated high-wattage (but not necessarily high-energy) firepower may be a sound strategy. However EGtW&T suggests burned-out projectors are routine in pitched battle and experienced crews can repair and replace damaged components back to full function in minutes. This is how you can hit the shield system from angle No. 2.

[...]

I think No. 2 and No. 1 are the best angles and models for explaining hard-to-explain examples of starfighter and torpedo efficiacy against large warships. In particular No. 2 seems to intuitively match the damage patterns caused in most of the incidents. The No. 1 examples too provide probably small windows of opportunity; Loronar Torpedo Spheres provide areas of weakness in planetary shields that are measured in small fractions of a second. Its presumably a simple and quick fix to reangle and reinforce disrupted shield arcs.

Agreed, especially on the #2 portion. That the squadron has to fire at the same time is stressed, so we know timing has to be important. And, if you'll recall, in The Bacta War, Rogue Squadron took out the shields to a Victory-class Star Destroyer with a volley. However, the shields were expected to be brought back online in short order. Crews replacing the projectors on the downed section while the VSD maneuvers to keep its fresh shields facing the fighters would be consistent with this.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I think Mad's theory makes the most sense in relation to No. 2. Of course, Rogue Squadron makes it easy but extrinsically Stackpole's a shitty author and intrinsically, just because Rogue Squadron can do it doesn't mean its easy or broadly applicable. Think about it; in order to take advantage of No. 2 a full squadron of fighters must attack an armed warship from along what is nearly a single vector, must all fly relatively an equal distance from the ship, and all fire simultaneously, at close enough range where it is unlikely they'll be stopped by point defenses, with sufficiently powerful torpedoes, to even have a hope of success. This is extremely dangerous! Anti-starfighter defenses need only be directed against a single arc against ships flying in formation, placing them at extremely high risk.

Presumably being able to form up and fire torpedoes in synchronicity and bug out quickly enough for it to not be suicide against a competent crew and while being reliably effective enough to be worth the fired torpedoes is the kind of starfighter circus acrobatics that can only be expected and relied upon from an ultra-ace squadron like the Rogues, or comparable experience and talent. Also, I can't think of a single incident where Rogue Squadron was posted on a mission to take out a capital ship in such a way. Each time the tactics were last-ditch efforts to salvage a shitty situation they unexpectedly ran into. The fact they're not assigned to do it means that Command cannot possibly rely on such tactics working enough to justify the risk.

In addition to the inherent difficulties in simply pulling the attack off against a starship with point-defenses, enemy fighters constantly buzzing around makes the attack even more suicidal: the entire squadron has to stop dogfighting and lock on and fire synchronously while enemy fighters are trying to kill them.

And a single squadron still can't do it against an Imperator-class or better, making its use limited. Of course, more squadrons working together could theoretically have the firepower to do it, but the required coordination becomes much, much more complicated as more pilots are required.

Oh, and enough of your pilots have to still be alive. So, yeah, it's more of a last-ditch effort, and certainly not a preferred a first-strike tactic.

It should be noted that the attack on the Lusankya was different because the full squadron didn't need to be occupied at the same time. The freighters providing support had their targeting systems slaved to the fighters, so a concentration of torpedoes could strike when any pilot had the opportunity to get a lock and fire. In addition, the freighter-mounted torpedoes could have had a larger yield than the fighter-mounted torpedoes.

Batman wrote:

Mad wrote:

Batman wrote:I am moderately aware of that, thank you. The thing is that if the ship is fine again a fraction of a second later you have for all practical purposes NOT taken down the shield.

That would depend on whether or not you hit it hard enough in that small fraction of a second, now, wouldn't it?

Except the refire rates shown throughout SW say you can't, yet bringing down the shields on that Victory/Interdictor was apparently cause for a)glee on the part of Rogue Squadron and b)worry on the part of the Imperials. If the shields would have been back up a millisecond later (which if memory serves they weren't) nobody would have cared very much (and the Rogue's likely would have bothered to try to begin with).

The point I was getting at is if you hit it hard enough and fast enough, you break it.

The idea is that the wattage powersurges the equipment and overheats it or burns it out. As Illuminatus Primus pointed out, the projectors are a good candidate for the equipment that could be burned out but quickly repaired/replaced, hence explaining the peculiar behavior shown.

Only times I can remember of Rogues (or any other starfighter squadron for that matter) taking capital ships unassisted by cap ships was destruction of the Doomgiver in Jedi Outcast (shields downed by a rebel agent inside) and possibly the destruction of the Endar Spire by the Sith (during KOTOR era).

Though my knowlage on the EU is not the best possible.

You're correct about the Rogue's taking down the Doomgiver, AFTER Kyle Katarn shut off it's shields (and killed it's commander).

Also, the Doomgiver was really, a massive carrier, nothing more. I don't even think it was armed or armored to heavily.

Reasoning;
If it was, then any competent commander (and Fryar and Deasan struck me as reasonably competent, if over-confident) would have, after getting the layout information from a sensor sweep, have fired a few turbolasers into the Jedi Academy to do most of the damage, then sent down the Shadowtroopers, Reborn and other forces to deal with the surving Jedi, instead of putting out a full born tactical assault that proved useless.

Then again, the Doomgiver probably launched early due to Deasan discovering Luke Skywalker on there base, and deciding it was time to leave before he could warn the Republic/Jedi and get defenses to Yavin.

Either way, Doomgiver wasn't that impressive a kill for Rogue Squadron.

As for the Endar Spire, its obvious that there were Sith capital ships involved in the Battle of Taris, as indicated by the presence of Darth Malak's flagship and (presumably) the other ships that assisted in the bombardment of the planet. We only see the Spire after she's been heavily damaged and is being actively boarded; it is entirely possible that she took a beating from other capital ships before Darth Bandon's fighter squadrons finished her off.