StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As Revan pointed out, from what we've witnessed so far, turbolasers hardly seem well-suited to BDZ levels of destruction though.

The Imperial carrier stationed over Ryloth, although armed with turbolasers, used TIE bombers to conduct punitive strikes in retaliation against the Free Ryloth Movement. Maybe this is also the tactic the Empire uses, on a much larger scale and with more powerful bombs, when they decide that the populace of an entire planet needs to be exterminated.

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-09-10 08:16pm As Revan pointed out, from what we've witnessed so far, turbolasers hardly seem well-suited to BDZ levels of destruction though.

The Imperial carrier stationed over Ryloth, although armed with turbolasers, used TIE bombers to conduct punitive strikes in retaliation against the Free Ryloth Movement. Maybe this is also the tactic the Empire uses, on a much larger scale and with more powerful bombs, when they decide that the populace of an entire planet needs to be exterminated.

Nitpick:

Given simple back-of-envelope scaling, that carrier looks to be about 300m wide and only 30-50m thick. From other angles I can't make out any reactor bulges.

Or, for that matter, weapon mounts.

So presuming it is even armed for proper ship-to-ship combat, it may not be able to properly bombard a planet at the scale an ISD (or proper warship) could.

Um-he never said it was?

He specifically states that despite the carrier being armed with turbolasers, it used TIE bombers for bombardment. Presumably (from context) this is to back up the hypothesis that turbolasers may not be adequate for BDZ-level bombardments, hence reliance on bombers in this case. This is further induced from the mention of the possibility of using bombers equipped with higher grade bombs to achieve depopulation of a planet.

I am stating that this use of bombers is not an indication of the limitations of turbolaser firepower in general but rather of the limits of the vessel in question.

Aah. Okay.

Nitpick conceded. It doesn't really change my mind though.

Khaat wrote: ↑2017-09-01 02:03pm The line of barrel-nosed frigates or escorts or whatever are not premium warships, certainly not against something like this new mega-eggs-in-one-basket ship.

From the toys they are referring them as NR heavy bombers

"Bombers"? They're calling them bombers?

Gah. I mean, I like the ship designs well enough, and good lord do I want more starship battles in Star Wars instead of just fighter battles and super weapons with nothing in between, but they look a bit big to be bombers, and perform like warships, not bombers.

Idiot marketing people?

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-30 02:46am "Bombers"? They're calling them bombers?

Gah. I mean, I like the ship designs well enough, and good lord do I want more starship battles in Star Wars instead of just fighter battles and super weapons with nothing in between, but they look a bit big to be bombers, and perform like warships, not bombers.

Idiot marketing people?

Yeah, I saw it as Hot Wheels toy labeled as "resistance heavy bombers" from Force Friday 2 working event
Yeah I hate that it looks like it could be a frigate

Corvette or very light frigate. They do look small, but they look like light escort-type star ships, not bombers.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-30 02:58am Corvette or very light frigate. They do look small, but they look like light escort-type star ships, not bombers.

When I first saw them in the trailer yeah I thought it was a light frigate maybe at the very least and escort

They are called B/SF-17 (very creative name), and they do seem to be rather small, between 20 and 40 meters in length, IMO closer to 20.

Some measurements and a heated discussion here:
https://community.fantasyflightgames.co ... 70-x-wing/

What does B/SF-17 stand for

Presumably Bomber/Strike Fighter or something like that.

Hmm, that is pretty small, though still a bit big for a fighter/bomber.

I'd probably go with "gunship" or corvette, personally.

It's less of a fighter-bomber, and more of a long range heavy bomber, think... well, B-17, which even has similar size, if the lower end estimates are correct.

Now I think about it, it might be a little more like a B-29 than B-17

That's pretty much what I was thinking, the SW equivalent of a strategic bomber.

It doesn't look like they are doing anything strategic. I am thinking more like Marauder.

This what I thought of when I saw the description of the Supremacy class

https://cdnb1.artstation.com/p/assets/i ... 1473427636

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-02 03:09pm This what I thought of when I saw the description of the Supremacy class

https://cdnb1.artstation.com/p/assets/i ... 1473427636

Based on my extremely rough scaling estimate, that ship is actually only ~100 km long, giving it a fraction of the firepower of the Death Star. For something that is wankery, I am actually surprised that it is not bigger, starting with the inner ball as a normal Death Star and scaling up.

It has nothing on the Ultra-class Star Destroyer Imperium at 260 km long.

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-02 03:09pm This what I thought of when I saw the description of the Supremacy class

https://cdnb1.artstation.com/p/assets/i ... 1473427636

That is a random unofficial concept art for an ILM contest, not the MEGA class. And the Mega looks a lot better than that concept.

fractalsponge1 wrote: ↑2017-10-03 04:18pm

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-02 03:09pm This what I thought of when I saw the description of the Supremacy class

https://cdnb1.artstation.com/p/assets/i ... 1473427636

That is a random unofficial concept art for an ILM contest, not the MEGA class. And the Mega looks a lot better than that concept.

yeah,but the similarities b/w them is no less quite interesting

Iroscato wrote: ↑2017-09-04 07:26pm</s>
They couldn't have just called it Supremacy-Class? Mega-Class is something a six year old would proudly proclaim as his newest lego creation.

I actually like the shape of it though, but sweet Jesus...60km. There's just no reason for it to be that massive.

I was thinking the same thing

SAAA wrote: ↑2017-09-04 04:06pm As for Legends, I'm pretty sure the Eclipse and similar were said to crack planet cores (whatever the heck that means) or continents... in other terms they would resemble what the Death Star did to Jedha or Scarif, if not more.

What was the firepower of the Conqueror-class Star Destroyer's superlaser?

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-04 11:18pm

SAAA wrote: ↑2017-09-04 04:06pm As for Legends, I'm pretty sure the Eclipse and similar were said to crack planet cores (whatever the heck that means) or continents... in other terms they would resemble what the Death Star did to Jedha or Scarif, if not more.

What was the firepower of the Conqueror-class Star Destroyer's superlaser?

I don't know what exact canon figures were given, but firepower must be limited to reactor/capacitor power at that point, not so much the practical limit for a downscaled superlaser.

If you take ~1e25 W as power figure (old legend values hovered around that for ISD) and assume it can fire every 1-10 minutes that's 6e26 to 6e27 J, in other words a hundred petatons up to an exaton of TNT equivalent... let's just assume it's similar to Jedha blast again.

I've seen estimation far lower for Jedha but they don't take into account the immense energy required to fracture and move so much planetary crust like we see in the last moments of the shot: remember a magnitude 10 earthquake carries ~6GT energy yet you'd have an hard time seeing any effect on the surface looking from space, we see cracks kilometres wide in the top down view here...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWFe-OkYSiE/maxresdefault.jpg

PS: after looking at legends wiki, I wasn't that far from it...

It was projected that the superlaser on the Conqueror, when properly installed, would give the Star Destroyer the ability to break apart a small moon, or crack a continent in half.