StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SirNitram wrote:Just something to consider and chew on. Ships ranging from the tiny 'Defender' to the massive 'Eclipse' are called Star Destroyers. Unless we are to beleive every one of these ships is an escort vessel(Rather ridiculous in the Executor/Eclipse cases!), it becomes increasingly clear that 'Star Destroyer' is not a class designation, but something else. IIRC, aren't all the SD's from KDY?

That I recall, yes with exception being the 'Victory' Class Stardestroyer.

Knife wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Just something to consider and chew on. Ships ranging from the tiny 'Defender' to the massive 'Eclipse' are called Star Destroyers. Unless we are to beleive every one of these ships is an escort vessel(Rather ridiculous in the Executor/Eclipse cases!), it becomes increasingly clear that 'Star Destroyer' is not a class designation, but something else. IIRC, aren't all the SD's from KDY?

That I recall, yes with exception being the 'Victory' Class Stardestroyer.

Point taken, forgot they were Rendili. So much for the 'brand name' idea.

Knife wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Just something to consider and chew on. Ships ranging from the tiny 'Defender' to the massive 'Eclipse' are called Star Destroyers. Unless we are to beleive every one of these ships is an escort vessel(Rather ridiculous in the Executor/Eclipse cases!), it becomes increasingly clear that 'Star Destroyer' is not a class designation, but something else. IIRC, aren't all the SD's from KDY?

That I recall, yes with exception being the 'Victory' Class Stardestroyer.

Well there's also the Nebula/Defender-class Star Destroyers, and the Republic-class made by Rendili. Might be others I'm not recalling, too.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Consider the modest Chommel Sector: 36 worlds, 30,000 dependencies, and 24 ISDs minimum in the Imperial era. If even only 4 worlds have revolts or coups during this era, the entire ISD complement of the Sector Group is tied-up. They're really a lot smaller and weaker in terms of scale than people seem to think.

If you wish to use the 24 ISDs per sector number, then you also must go by the IN ToE in WEGs Imperial Sourcebook, each ISD leads a single squadron of lesser ships (around 20 or so) to secure the system of opposing combat starships. Then an element of an Assault Fleet is dispatched to perform the planetary assault. If necessary, an element of a Bombardment Fleet will also be sent to deal with planetary shields.

If you wish to take the ICS number of 6 ISDs per Major world, then there is no limit to the number of ISDs per sector.

I'd also like to point out this quote from the ICS entry "...a fleet of 6 Star Destroyers operating with support cruisers and supply vessels" Here you have cruisers operating in support of a Star Destroyer. In addition, there is a quote that reads "The Victory class Star Destroyer was developed in the final years of the Old Republic as a top-of-the-line peacekeeping battleship".

I have no problem with those, Andras. I prefer to use the 24 per Sector quote as that lines up best with the 25,000 number; one thousand sectors, plus one thousand ISD's that went Elsewhere. Death Squadron, personal fleets, stuff like that. The, what was it? 200? 2,000? Supporting ships for the ISD also works fine. There's alot of ships that perform normal duties better than those massive monoliths.

I checked my copy of the ISB incidentally.. why is it assumed that "Star Destrtoyer" neccesarily refers to ISDs? "Star Destroyer" is rather open ended (there are vessels somewhat larger than as well as smaller than the mile long ship that could easily be utilized in Sector Groups - the Shockwave types, the "Star Destroyer" Kuat of Kuat was aboard when he tried to wipe out KDY, the Alleigance, newer models of the "Victory" class like the Harrow, etc.)

I think we should also consider the previous Star Wars databank entry, where it is stated that the Devastator was modelled aftery a Battleship/Carrier hybrid.

IOW, just sticking modern day designations, or even worse, sticking modern day expectations of their firepower is worthless. We already note that Loronar Strike Cruisers are of lesser firepower than the Star Destroyer, Carrack cruisers are not as powerful as Assault Frigates, and so on and forth.

Even if we use the Starfleet vs sector fleets argument, such a massive jump in scale is worthless. At best, we can only notice that the ISD fulfills the roles of a cruiser and a destroyer equally well, we certainly cannot expect its firepower and mass to correspond according.

PainRack wrote:I think we should also consider the previous Star Wars databank entry, where it is stated that the Devastator was modelled aftery a Battleship/Carrier hybrid.

IOW, just sticking modern day designations, or even worse, sticking modern day expectations of their firepower is worthless. We already note that Loronar Strike Cruisers are of lesser firepower than the Star Destroyer, Carrack cruisers are not as powerful as Assault Frigates, and so on and forth.

Even if we use the Starfleet vs sector fleets argument, such a massive jump in scale is worthless. At best, we can only notice that the ISD fulfills the roles of a cruiser and a destroyer equally well, we certainly cannot expect its firepower and mass to correspond according.

I agree. Look at the political land scape of the Empire. They did not have (at the time) an external enemy they had to worry about. The large military buildup was to pacify their own people.

Granted, some systems and organizations had their own defensive fleet so that had to be taken into account, but they had to come up with a ship that could (1) take on those smaller fleets and do so easily and few in number as not to tie up large portions of the fleet. (2) Annilate any resistence from orbital defenses or ground base defenses from orbit, thus needing some heavy fire power of BDZ ops and an airwing for support on smaller ops. (3) Be able to land sizable ground troops and their gear to pacify planets and even set up garrisons to remain on planet.

Building a traditional navy would have been some what inefficent but developing a ship that can fit the role of battlecruiser/planetary assualt ship enabled the Imperial Navy to respond quicker to its needs.

If you look at the line of ships leading up to the ISD you can see this steady procession. The Acclamator was troop ship through and through and while it had some heavy guns on it, it was not a dedicated warship. Thus you bring in the Victory. Not a troops ship and meant for cap ship to cap ship engagments. My personal theroy is that the Victory was designed to escort the Acclamators.

And last but not least, the ISD was designed to combine the Victory and Acclamator into one ship. The ISD can escort herself while delivering the Grand Army or the Repu....Imperial troops.

SirNitram wrote:Why not simply use Official data, which leads to a far more sane result? Let's see... 2,000,000 ISD's. Where are these two million ISD's? This would clearly imply every single world in the Empire has at least one Imperator-style ship in calling range. Except.. That's not how it goes down in any of the EU or canon.

Because 25,000 ISDs is not consistent with WEG sector figures. There are many regions, and there are regions each containing thousands of sectors.

This is disregarding other quotes which specifically states that the Empire contains many thousands of sectors.

This is disregarding Priority Sectors, Oversectors, mobile commands like Death Squadron, and reserves in the Deep Core.

At absolute minimum, the Empire must contain 48,000+ ISDs according to WEG. Hence the rationalization of seperating the 25,000 ISDs as a "Navy" from the canonical "Starfleet." Otherwise the quote is just wrong.

There can't be 1,000+ Sectors in the Empire, especially when you have modest Sectors only containing 36 of the 1 million Imperial members, and when WEG specifically states there are regions of the galaxy containing thousands of Sectors.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, while Marina's estimates are rather appropriate for a Galactic-scale entity at war, anyone who keeps themselves familiar with the source material will realize this isn't what the Empire is.

It hardly matters. 24 ISDs isn't enough to even adequately defend or suppress the 36 worlds of the Chommel Sector as is, and it doesn't make a difference since the WEG material says that 25,000 ISDs is either wrong, or part of some special force.

SirNitram wrote:While built up from it's predecessors(Who did not even field an army!), it is not at war with an equal.

This is a red herring. The military might of the Old Republic, while not concentrated like that of the Empire or quite as extensive, was arranged in much the same way along similar scales: heavy fleet reserves around aristocratic or industrialist worlds, with fuck-all to the measely Outer Rim fringe worlds.

Saxton's interview does indicate sectors such as Kuat contain handsome fleet concentrations.

SirNitram wrote:Ultimately, the Empire in the Trilogy is fighting a police action against terrorists, and that does not require these ridiculously inflated fleet numbers.

Did you read your WEG materials? The Sector Groups are not for fighting the Rebels. They are for maintaining the Tarkin Doctrine within their own sectors. The member worlds still maintain token defense forces, and some worlds like Kuat and Corellia get even more allowance in this area. The Sector Groups are permanent occupation forces. Interestingly, the NRDF Fifth Fleet during the Black Fleet Crisis measured about equal to a Sector Group, and had the NR members screaming imperialism and accusing Leia of wanting her father's ambitions. Tig Peramis held that the Fifth Fleet was intended to suppress internal dissent.

Each Sector maintains a Fleet Marine Force consisting of primarily 24 expeditionary battlegroups minimum. This isn't adding whatever other crap may be assigned to the Sector's command under the Moff Governor. Additionally, each Imperial-class Star Destroyer's design itself reflects these needs: they're stocked with assault armor and nearly ten thousand elite infantry. It is essentially the minimum expediture platform for being able to cow a single developed world into line.

This is an important reason the New Republic defeated the numerically superior Empire: she had to control her own territory by fear while simultaneously fighting the Rebels.

SirNitram wrote:Destroyers are not multirole, and certainly not this multirole. In addition, they never lead fleets.

U.S. Navy Fact File wrote:Description: These fast warships provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups.

Features: Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare. (underlined emphases mine)

Before the red herring that somehow guided missile destroyers aren't really destroyers, and the fact they use "missiles" as the offensive means by which to accomplish their missions changes their role, I'll add the DD(X) is not a DDG and does not fit this pattern, and is equipped with an Advanced Gun System for fire support.

They are multi-role, and I'm inclined to believe Ender about them over you. Quite telling you repeat this claim and do not refute his response to it.

SirNitram wrote:Why? Because it's too many designs? They all fill the roles of heavy carriers/battleships/command ships.

The vast majority of the fleet carrier designs, the cruiser designs, and the battlecruiser designs are never seen commanding a fleet. Unjustified Assumption.

The majority of these cruiser designs seem to support heavier vessels, like Giel's flagship or an Executor-class. The Marvel Battlecruisers have been seen acting independently, but they also haven't been seen leading a fleet.

The Allegiance-class and the majority of the battlecruiser and cruisers lack dedicated carrier capabilities.

And the point still stands it defies reason to construct a dozen designs across two orders of magnitude all for the same or similar roles (which they actually do not hold).

Again, I hold that the ISD was originally built as a destroyer for the large Giel-Byss fleets, and was sold-off to the dimunitive local forces which operate on different warship-scaling. Local builders for local member fleets build Dreadnoughts as heavy cruisers, and compared against that, the ISD is a fast battleship/carrier, but none of the dimunitive WEG designs are efficiently built as pure warships (shitty firing angles), and Saxton's interview implies most of them have inefficient or short-range hyperdrives. These vessels were built to be highly localized fleets, and in a scheme of within a sector, the scale of warship-types is entirely different. The ISD dominates over the local vessels (analogous to picket fleets or coast guard forces) roughly as a fast battleship compared to them. None the less, it is a fast and long-range vessel with extreme longevity. That is not the design characteristics for something originally intended for patroling inside a single sector. They were intended for pan-galactic fleets, which as seen at Byss reflect a scaling philosophy where the ISD's tonnage and role is closest to a heavy destroyer, which it is why it is deemed "Star Destroyer."

SirNitram wrote:A few helicoptors for support is nothing like an entire Wing of fighters. This is more analoguous to the Neb-B's small flight deck, or the Modified CRV's fligth deck.

You can't argue from pure numbers if you're going to talk wet navy analogies. The helicopters perform supportive roles and defense, just like an ISD's fight complement.

The Neb-B and the CVL are more analogous the tiny submarine carriers, really. Quick limited-role vessels with tiny carrying capacity.

CV analogues would be warships where a large quantity of volume and mass is set aside for fighter support, and the vessel's offensive means are its fighters themselves. The ISD's fighters ARE NOT offensive means, but defensive and supportive, much like helicopters acting in concert with destroyers.

SirNitram wrote:No, cruisers do not. However, ISD's do come closer to cruisers by a long shot than any ridiculous claim they are Destroyers.

Given that you've made totally untrue assertions about what destroyers are and haven't researched the examples of the larger-than-ISD dagger ships, I'd say "rediculous" is premature.

SirNitram wrote:Are they capable of slugging it out for extended periods against both fighters and warships? This is quite different than being built to deliver a nasty punch briefly(Corellian Gunship).

Modern wet navy combat is ended by a brief but intense missile salvos, from aircraft and other vessels.

The Corellian corvette is mostly a blockade runner and tiny escort for vessels such as frigates. Vessels like the new Gunship from the NJO fit your description. Or a Monitor, which is equipped with heavier guns but tiny in number and short on longevity. Of course the difference even if you were right about the CRV, is tonnage, not duration.

Moreover, the fact file from the USN specifically states multi-mission combat, against fighters and surface targets and other vessels.

And what do you think the CGs do? Similarly supported by Aegis they carry the same missiles and operate in much the same way. Here's the same fact file for Cruisers....

U.S. Navy Fact File wrote:Description:Description: Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability.

Features: Modern U. S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Due to their extensive combat capability, these ships have been designated as Battle Force Capable (BFC) units. The cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability.

As you can see by comparing the Destroyer and Cruiser mission profiles, they're very similar. However, the Destroyer is actually has more variants and has more missions assigned to it. This is why the fact that there are heavier-than-ISD dagger vessels which perform more limited similar roles we class as Star Cruisers, where the ISD is a Star Destroyer. "Large" is even in the cruiser description. Tonnage does matter in classification.

Notice you start off with unteniable claims like "a destroyer can only be supported by its defensive of bigger ships," "it can't lead fleets," "it can't operate against warships and small vessels," and progressively nitpick down about "duration": a red herring.

SirNitram wrote:So your entire argument is semantical nonsense. Here's a semantical reply, since you've blown off everything relating to observation: Han Solo calls them 'Cruisers' in ANH.

It is not semantical nonsense. A Carrack is a cruiser and so is a MC90 according to face-value interpretations. Neverminding the fact that a Carrack is a local fleet vessel. Its a cruiser in concert with the tiny defense fleets. But an ISD is a destroyer because it was designed for implementation in the fleets of Giel and around Byss, where it is the smallest warship in orbit. But oh of course, its a battleship and command ship regardless.

And the Nemodian Viceroy calls the Royal Starship a cruiser in TPM. The blockade runner is called a cruiser. The Acclamator-class military transport is called a Republic cruiser.

SirNitram wrote:And yet they have all the duties of a Cruiser-analogue. How curious.

But they don't, because you don't know shit about classification or modern wet navy analogues, and disregarded a sailor's refutation to your bullshit.

SirNitram wrote:And again we get into your demands it must be a Destroyer-analogue because, and I quote, 'They call them destroyers!'. If I wanted this semantical nonsense, I'd debate Edam.

Saxton and the novelisations establish a in-universe ship nomenclature where roles like "destroyer," "cruiser," etc. are preceded with "Star." The "Super Star Destroyer" excuse falls flat in its face, because the SSD is a colloquialism at best, and even if it weren't, the "super" is a tonnage statement. You may whine about this all you want.

According the nomenclature, you'd be right if it were "Star Superdestroyer," but it isn't. The Super Star Destroyer fits three different vessels that do not in anyway share roles.

The "Star Destroyer" role is consistent throughout the other vessels.

SirNitram wrote:Do you get off on semantical bullshit?

I'll take that as a yes.

SirNitram wrote:

Knife wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Just something to consider and chew on. Ships ranging from the tiny 'Defender' to the massive 'Eclipse' are called Star Destroyers. Unless we are to beleive every one of these ships is an escort vessel(Rather ridiculous in the Executor/Eclipse cases!), it becomes increasingly clear that 'Star Destroyer' is not a class designation, but something else. IIRC, aren't all the SD's from KDY?

That I recall, yes with exception being the 'Victory' Class Stardestroyer.

Point taken, forgot they were Rendili. So much for the 'brand name' idea.

This was dealt with pages ago with DGG. I'd be nice if you read the thread, including Ender's ignored refutations.

Connor MacLeod wrote: How do you know the canon Star Destroyers from the OT were built at the end of the Clone Wars, neccesarily?

Because it was stated to be so. In the OEGVV if memory serves.

And even if it is, how would this reconcile with the later-built "subclasses" we see in the latter versions, anyhow

A subclass is still of the same overall class Connor. YOu have the Roosevelt subclass of the Nimitz class, but they are still all Nimitz class carriers.

(and thats if we ignore the fact there ARE references to the OT ISD's as cruisers, which despite your blithe dismissal of, cannot be as easily ignored as you may wish.)

What, Han's statement? I've shown how similar cruisers and destroyers look (in SW moreso) explaining that away. The fact that it is called a cruisr by the 3ed person parts? Everything is called a cruiser for that part making it a null point. Be specific here Connor.

And further support, I'd like to cite the Imperial Sourcebook which specifically says "Victory class Destroyers" and "Imperial class Destroyers" for its fluff.

Connor MacLeod wrote:How do you know the canon Star Destroyers from the OT were built at the end of the Clone Wars, neccesarily?

SPOILER









Episode III insider information hints that ISDs will be in service

Connor MacLeod wrote:And even if it is, how would this reconcile with the later-built "subclasses" we see in the latter versions, anyhow

This debate is going to have severe problems if you don't understand naval nomenclature.

Subclasses are of the same class. ImpStars and ImpStar Dueces always remain of the same class. "i]Imperial[/i]-class Star Destroyer" simply has "Mark II" added.

Ender wrote:Everything is called a cruiser for that part making it a null point. Be specific here Connor.

Indeed. When little-to-no descrimination by role and tonnage is showed toward calling something a "cruiser," than that label is not siginificant. The whole point of the labels is to tell us that information. The calling-into-question is the "cruiser" bit, not the "destroyer" in "Star Destroyer" by your statements.

Ender wrote:And further support, I'd like to cite the Imperial Sourcebook which specifically says "Victory class Destroyers" and "Imperial class Destroyers" for its fluff.

\

Perfectly in line with the canonical in-universe nomenclature system of "Star [role]."

And if "Super Star Destroyers" were variations within that nomenclature system (ie., the claims that by that nomenclature system the Eclipse is a destroyer), than the "super" prefix would be attached to the "destroyer" or "[role]" part of the "Star [role]" system, since it is a tonnage marker, as in "supercarrier" or "supertanker." "Super Star Destroyer" is an entirely different term which is not within the AOTC ICS/novelisation established nomenclature and cannot be used to refute it.

Moreover, what proof is the of the Shockwave or other heavy vessels being that far beyond the ISD's tonnage to refute our arguments? Or even that its role is not a destroyer? We know too little to make those judgements.

SirNitram wrote:Why not simply use Official data, which leads to a far more sane result? Let's see... 2,000,000 ISD's. Where are these two million ISD's?

Didn't we go through this when I posted my fleet estimates? Most of the damn things would have been clustered into large fleets in the core worlds or in auxilary fleets.

This would clearly imply every single world in the Empire has at least one Imperator-style ship in calling range. Except.. That's not how it goes down in any of the EU or canon.

Except it is. We saw in Rogue Squadron that even pissnt sectors had an ISD on call. Further, in AOTC we saw that given hyperdrive speeds you can have ships from most anywhere there inside 12 hours.

Of course, while Marina's estimates are rather appropriate for a Galactic-scale entity at war, anyone who keeps themselves familiar with the source material will realize this isn't what the Empire is.

Anyone familiar with the movies will realize that Marina lowballed stuff.

While built up from it's predecessors(Who did not even field an army!), it is not at war with an equal. Ultimately, the Empire in the Trilogy is fighting a police action against terrorists, and that does not require these ridiculously inflated fleet numbers.

Dondonna quote. ISD firepower. Simple division. 1E33/1E24 = 1E9 ISD level ships. Refute, or cease your bullshit.

Destroyers are not multirole, and certainly not this multirole. In addition, they never lead fleets.

So did you totally skip my last post where I corrected this and further warned you not to try this bullshit on me?

Destroyers were concieved as mulitrole ships, to range from anti sub work to fighting the big fights.

Further, I gave a specific example of it leading a fleet.

A few helicoptors for support is nothing like an entire Wing of fighters. This is more analoguous to the Neb-B's small flight deck, or the Modified CRV's fligth deck.

For scale, 4 helicopters is comparable with 72 fighters. We are talking about a universe where they build huge multi kilometer ships that are just giant hangers packed to the gills with fighters here Nitram.

No, cruisers do not. However, ISD's do come closer to cruisers by a long shot than any ridiculous claim they are Destroyers.

You are yet to toss up anything to support this I have not blown straight to hell Nitram.

Are they capable of slugging it out for extended periods against both fighters and warships? This is quite different than being built to deliver a nasty punch briefly(Corellian Gunship).

World War 1 and World War 2 Naval engagements. Lokk them up.

In other words, YES.

So your entire argument is semantical nonsense. Here's a semantical reply, since you've blown off everything relating to observation: Han Solo calls them 'Cruisers' in ANH.

Cruiser
Destroyer

Wow, clearly you are right Nitram. It's impossible that a guy getting only the briefest view of those ships could make a mistake. Especially a guy who has been out of the navy and on the outer rim away from fleet concentrations for pushing a decade.

And yet they have all the duties of a Cruiser-analogue. How curious.

If that were true, I'd concede in a heartbeat. Except they fit the role of destroyers far more easily then cruisers.

And again we get into your demands it must be a Destroyer-analogue because, and I quote, 'They call them destroyers!'. If I wanted this semantical nonsense, I'd debate Edam.

Nitram, all you have done so far is ignore counterpoints and repeated your claim that they are cruisers without offering any hard proof. So shut the fuck up.

I wo0n't hold my breath waiting for you to respond to this reply either.

Ender wrote:Except it is. We saw in Rogue Squadron that even pissnt sectors had an ISD on call.

Bullshit. In Rogue Squadron, a sector captial was totally undefended. The sector fleet considered of an indictor, a carrack cruiser, a Lancer frigate and a Strike cruiser. At after the first borleas mission wedge was suprised to hear there was an ISD any where near it. If even pissant sectors had ISDs "on call" then Wdge would have expected there to be an ISD.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Ender wrote:Except it is. We saw in Rogue Squadron that even pissnt sectors had an ISD on call.

Bullshit. In Rogue Squadron, a sector captial was totally undefended. The sector fleet considered of an indictor, a carrack cruiser, a Lancer frigate and a Strike cruiser. At after the first borleas mission wedge was suprised to hear there was an ISD any where near it. If even pissant sectors had ISDs "on call" then Wdge would have expected there to be an ISD.

Doesn't matter. WEG proves the weakest sectors have 24 ISDs minimum and one of many regions in the galaxy can have over a thousand sectors.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Ender wrote:Except it is. We saw in Rogue Squadron that even pissnt sectors had an ISD on call.

Bullshit. In Rogue Squadron, a sector captial was totally undefended. The sector fleet considered of an indictor, a carrack cruiser, a Lancer frigate and a Strike cruiser. At after the first borleas mission wedge was suprised to hear there was an ISD any where near it. If even pissant sectors had ISDs "on call" then Wedge would have expected there to be an ISD.

Yes, because we all know that a low ranking commander has access to the best intellegence, don't we?

Consider allthe other mistakes from Wedge on the number and size and power of imperial ships in the X-wing series. He clearly doesn't have the best idea of what to expect or be suprised by.

Boralis was part of an out of the way sector and they could have an ISD there very quickly. There was also an unclassified SSD in the area that Wedge also had no idea about.

Okay Eder I think I've finally figured it out. I had a look at those Navy fact files and talked to a semi-expert on them I know and I now realise that how I perceived the Destroyer role was wrong. I use to assume Weak/Small but that isn't the case it would seem. I now realise what a Destroyer really is and that the ISD can be a Destroyer while still being a very strong ship capable of taking on ships of the line. I guess I am just giving up :p Knowing a Destroyer can be big and powerful and still be a Destroyer is good enough for me.

Super-Gagme wrote:Okay Eder I think I've finally figured it out. I had a look at those Navy fact files and talked to a semi-expert on them I know and I now realise that how I perceived the Destroyer role was wrong. I use to assume Weak/Small but that isn't the case it would seem. I now realise what a Destroyer really is and that the ISD can be a Destroyer while still being a very strong ship capable of taking on ships of the line. I guess I am just giving up :p Knowing a Destroyer can be big and powerful and still be a Destroyer is good enough for me.

Its all about scale. SDs aren't necessarily diminutive. On the fringe, there certainly the greatest leviathan you'll encounter.

Ender wrote:Because it was stated to be so. In the OEGVV if memory serves.

I've checked in both EGV&V's (both the old nad new) and I can't find a statement to such effect in either. There are statements about the Victory-class being produced at the end of the Clone Wars, but nothign about the ISDs. In fact, the onyl thing I can remotely find in my sources that hint at the production start of the ISD is the fact Soontir Fel in "The Hutt Gambit" mentions the "new" ISDs - and the Hutt Gambit takes place no more than 10 years before ANH. Unless there is higher order evidence suggesting a earlier date, I don't see how it can be as you say. Unless you can be more specific regarding your source.

A subclass is still of the same overall class Connor. YOu have the Roosevelt subclass of the Nimitz class, but they are still all Nimitz class carriers.

But ISDs are built in the Imperial era, insofar as existing evidence indicates. So even if you are correct about subclasses, that is now irrelevant to the overall discussion.

Furthermore, whats to say the Empire didn't redefine ship classes sometime between the Clone Wars and the rise of the Empire? Ship classifications *do* change and differ according to timeframe and the government/country/group building them. Don't you use the same logic with the Mon Cals and the Empire?

What, Han's statement? I've shown how similar cruisers and destroyers look (in SW moreso) explaining that away.

First, its not "just" Han's statement (although there is no reason to ignore Han for no good reason, and to my knowledge no specific contradiction with Han's statement has been indicated.) - the last time this issue came up, I provided a number of references from the OT novelizations that supported the "cruiser" definition. For some reason you either did not see them or ignored them, even though IIRC you asked me to post them.

Secondly, I have provided references to them as "cruisers" in the past. You have no reference to them as "destroyers" except to point to what is obviously a title or slang of some sort (How else can one explain the numerous references of "Star Destroyer" applying to many different vessels without arbitrarily dismissing it? Its much the same logic as with "Super Star Destroyer", and it cannot just "change" arbitrarily because someone thinks the ISD is a destroyer.) Citing some vague "similarity" does not automatically negate the "cruiser" reference.

Third, this is irrelevant to my main point. I have admitted that its possible they may not be cruisers either (there is strong evidence for something more along the lines of a battleship/carrier hybrid, which is discussed in depth by Mike on his site.) - but that does not change the fundamental poitn that there is *zero* proof that the Empire uses the mile long vessels we see in the OT as mere "destrroyers".

The fact that it is called a cruisr by the 3ed person parts? Everything is called a cruiser for that part making it a null point. Be specific here Connor.

Again, I provided the references in the past discussion, but you apparently overlooked them or ignored them. And as I also indicated, this is irrelevant to my main point (about the fact there is zero proof about them being "destroyers") since I have conceded that it is possible they may not be cruisers.

And further support, I'd like to cite the Imperial Sourcebook which specifically says "Victory class Destroyers" and "Imperial class Destroyers" for its fluff.

First, so you're arguing that EU is higher than second tier canon? (No, I don't neccesarily think you really are, but that is how your logic is reading by that statement.)

Second, Its *still* capitalized as a title. I can think of numerous "Destroyer" references, and that doesn't alter my point one bit. (I could even point out SW.com's reference to the ISD as a "cruiser", especially with the information provided below, which supports the earlier novelization evidence and script evidence in the last discussion.)

Third, are you going to argue that a Nebulon-B is also a "Cruiser?" How about a Corellian Corvette? Because much as the Executor is referred to as a "Star Destroyer", there is evidence the same occurs with Rebel "Star Cruisers". And that is only in canon.

BTW, while we're on SW.com, how about this and this ?

Starwars.com - the Movies wrote: The triangular silhouette of an Imperial cruiser has come a long way since its Republic-inspired design. While vessels of the Jedi order were met with feelings of pride and relief as they came soaring to solve galactic strife, the Imperial Star Destroyer's gargantuan size cleary inspires both awe and terror.

Starwars.com - Behind the Scenes wrote: In the script for A New Hope, the term "Imperial Cruiser" was largely synonymous with Star Destroyer, which is never said aloud until The Empire Strikes Back. In early draft scripts, the term Stardestroyer (as a compound word) described tiny two-man fighter craft used by the Empire.

Third - as I have already mentioned twice proving they are cruisers is not crucial to my overall argument. I would in fact call it a Red Herring, as I have already *admitted* its possible they may not be cruisers. So we can drop the cruiser issue as irrelevant, as what I *AM* discussing is whether or not there is factual proof of them being "destroyers", and it does not hinge at all on my ability to prove whether or not it is a cruiser.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: SPOILER









Episode III insider information hints that ISDs will be in service

So you'r refuting my argument with... a rumor? Or is there something more explicit than that?

This debate is going to have severe problems if you don't understand naval nomenclature.

So I should take lectures on accurate naval terminology from a guy who thinks Guided Missile Destroyers are the same thing as destroyers but not the same thing as cruisers, even though the Ticonderoga-class cruiser is a DDG? Gee, I guess asking questions of people like Sea Skimmer or Marina or Phong (who have demonstrated apt knowledge about such topics) or consulting library books on the issue is just a huge waste of time.

Subclasses are of the same class. ImpStars and ImpStar Dueces always remain of the same class. "i]Imperial[/i]-class Star Destroyer" simply has "Mark II" added.

Even if it is the case, it is still irrelevant to the larger discussion at hand. Being wrong about it hampers my argument not in the least.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Unless there is higher order evidence suggesting a earlier date, I don't see how it can be as you say. Unless you can be more specific regarding your source.

Whatever. The point about the Empire calling other ships destroyers is unimportant or nonexistant. Note that Ender may be right, but its really tangental and unnecessary in my opinion.

You've not established how stuff like the Shockwave and Harrow (particularly since it falls into the same length and tonnage range as the Victory) and the Kuat of Kuat's ship are quote unquote "Star Destroyers" and how that violates the role and the class-designation nomenclature established by the AOTC ICS.

Connor MacLeod wrote:But ISDs are built in the Imperial era, insofar as existing evidence indicates. So even if you are correct about subclasses, that is now irrelevant to the overall discussion.

Doesn't matter anyway. Haven't established how EU Destroyers aren't so.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Ship classifications *do* change and differ according to timeframe and the government/country/group building them. Don't you use the same logic with the Mon Cals and the Empire?

This would be why the picket fleet under the local control of Moffs can use pan-galactic long-range destroyers with short-range vessels of local picket fleets as fast battleships. Is this palatable now?

Connor MacLeod wrote:First, its not "just" Han's statement (although there is no reason to ignore Han for no good reason, and to my knowledge no specific contradiction with Han's statement has been indicated.) - the last time this issue came up, I provided a number of references from the OT novelizations that supported the "cruiser" definition. For some reason you either did not see them or ignored them, even though IIRC you asked me to post them.

And I pointed to multiple incidences of the novelisations calling ships which weren't cruisers, cruisers.

And even if by some classification systems the ISD is a crusier, so what? Threepio indicates said alternative systems exist (ref: Vector Prime). How does this help you with claims about VSDs being battlecruisers and ISDs being battleships. Do you have a consistent alternative theory?

Moreover, they can be used as cruisers and referenced as such, but are never done so as a class-designation. ISDs are never "Imperial-class cruisers."

The Nemodian Viceroy calls the Naboo Royal Starship a Naboo cruiser. Now either he's right, and thusly canon descriptions of cruisers are wildly inaccurate (discontinuities in real life objective data are discarded as procedural or experimental error, and the same should be followed under Suspension of Disbelief) OR there is another classification system by which both "Naboo cruisers" and "Imperial cruisers" are both cruisers when the former is a fast private yacht and the second is a destroyer. That classification system should be useless for determining the class-designation of the ISD for obvious reasons.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Secondly, I have provided references to them as "cruisers" in the past. You have no reference to them as "destroyers" except to point to what is obviously a title or slang of some sort (How else can one explain the numerous references of "Star Destroyer" applying to many different vessels without arbitrarily dismissing it?

The Imperial Sourcebook, Chapter Five: Capital Ships wrote:Victory II Destroyers are designed with hangar bays large enough for two squadrons of TIE fighters. A recent shortage and high demand for the starfighters has seen the mothballing of several hangars, or the use of non-combat craft as battle platforms. (bolded emphasis mine)

None of the "many vessels" you've referenced as "Destroyers" have been proven to not be within the tonnage range and role that ISDs and VSDs occupy. HIMS Harrow is an excellent new light destroyer belonging to the Victory-class's tonnage range actually.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Its much the same logic as with "Super Star Destroyer", and it cannot just "change" arbitrarily because someone thinks the ISD is a destroyer.) Citing some vague "similarity" does not automatically negate the "cruiser" reference.

It does when the cruiser reference in canon is consistently inaccurate as to the actual military role and purpose of the vessel in question. It isn't a similarity--it is a class-designation nomenclature system known to be in use by the Kuati Sector government and presumably the central government of the Galactic Empire for the Imperial Navy as well as the Mon Calamari's early fleet before the NRDF is founded.

And the "Super Star Destroyer" doesn't disprove the nomenclature system because it is a colloquialism that is not within the nomenclature system. "Super" is a tonnage marker, which in ship classification is tied to the role in destinguishing said vessel class from normal vessels. For the Executor to prove "Star [role]" doesn't apply to ISD, the Executor would have to be a "Star Superdestroyer." The tonnage marker is always attached to the role of the vessel. "Star Destroyer" is a consistent class-designation applying to ships of similar roles and tonnages. If it was a class-designation, it would be "Star Superdestroyer." It isn't.

"Super Star Destroyer" is a semi-official colloquialism at best existing outside of the nomenclature system to refer to heavier-than-ISD vessels which are equipped to serve a mothership and command ship role on the Sector-scale picket fleets. The Executor, Eclipse, Soveriegn, and the Allegiance all potentially are deployed in this fashon. The "hunchback cruiser," the Marvel Battlecruiser, and the Vengeance are not described as "Super Star Destroyers"; thus they lack this ability or intent. "Super Star Destroyer" doesn't work as a catch-all class-designation for heavier-than-ISD ships as I've heard claimed because the aforementioned vessels do not apply.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Third, this is irrelevant to my main point. I have admitted that its possible they may not be cruisers either (there is strong evidence for something more along the lines of a battleship/carrier hybrid, which is discussed in depth by Mike on his site.)

Appeal to Authority. Ender is in the Navy, Mike, while knowledgable, is. And there's so many problems with comparing it to the Iowa-class Battleship-Carrier concept I don't know where to start.

Connor MacLeod wrote: - but that does not change the fundamental poitn that there is *zero* proof that the Empire uses the mile long vessels we see in the OT as mere "destrroyers".

Wrong. They fit the role ideally, AOTC ICS uses this nomenclature scheme, as does the Calamarian fleet, and also presumably the Imperial Navy.

Canon references to this system as "Star Battlecruisers," "Star Dreadnoughts," and "Star Cruisers." The pattern in the nomenclature of this class-designation protocol is seen to be "Star [role]." Therefore, the "Star Destroyer" is a destroyer.

Even if this is all wrong, you've carefully abandons criticisms of the ISD's role as a destroyer. The ISD's role does fit that of a destroyer working with coast guard and gunboat flotillas.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Again, I provided the references in the past discussion, but you apparently overlooked them or ignored them. And as I also indicated, this is irrelevant to my main point (about the fact there is zero proof about them being "destroyers") since I have conceded that it is possible they may not be cruisers.

Even filmic canon is consistently inconsistent between references to cruisers and their actual navy role and military usage. As I said, canon is not wrong, and perhaps they use cruiser in a colloquial manner or under a not understood classification system--which by virtue of not being consistent with actual naval role is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

Connor MacLeod wrote:First, so you're arguing that EU is higher than second tier canon? (No, I don't neccesarily think you really are, but that is how your logic is reading by that statement.)

No. He's arguing that the canon consistent with secondary sources is valid, and other canon should be reinterpreted in that context.

You have ISDs and Naboo Royal Starships as "cruisers" on the first side. This contradicts AOTC ICS nomenclature schemes consistent with refering to the Imperial-class as a "Star Destroyer," and also with EU claims of the vessel as a battleship.

On the other you have "Star Destroyers" fitting in with "Victory II Destroyers," "Star Cruisers," "Star Dreadnoughts," "Star Battlecruisers," from WEG Sourcebooks, the filmic canon, the AOTC ICS, to both canonical and EU novelisations.

You wouldn't argue that the "1,000 year" quote from Palpatine should supercede the EU-backed "1,000 generations [ie., 25,000 years]" by Obi-Wan, would you?

Connor MacLeod wrote:Second, Its *still* capitalized as a title. I can think of numerous "Destroyer" references, and that doesn't alter my point one bit. (I could even point out SW.com's reference to the ISD as a "cruiser", especially with the information provided below, which supports the earlier novelization evidence and script evidence in the last discussion.)

Nitpickery and a single corroboration with a known to be oft-flawed source against a corroboration across five different sets of sources, three of which are canonical.

Connor MacLeod wrote:*snip redundencies*

More of the same. Naboo Royal Starship and ISD are cruisers. Against the AOTC ICS and WEG corroboration, the nomenclature presented in which is still represented in both EU novels, filmic novelisations, and the films themselves. The canon cruiser reference is not even internally consistent.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Third - as I have already mentioned twice proving they are cruisers is not crucial to my overall argument. I would in fact call it a Red Herring, as I have already *admitted* its possible they may not be cruisers. So we can drop the cruiser issue as irrelevant, as what I *AM* discussing is whether or not there is factual proof of them being "destroyers", and it does not hinge at all on my ability to prove whether or not it is a cruiser.

And you've entirely abandoned the role of the ISD as a destroyer. Even without filmic proof of "Star Destroyer" as a "Destroyer," the ISD still matches as a destroyer.

Connor MacLeod wrote:So I should take lectures on accurate naval terminology from a guy who thinks Guided Missile Destroyers are the same thing as destroyers but not the same thing as cruisers, even though the Ticonderoga-class cruiser is a DDG? Gee, I guess asking questions of people like Sea Skimmer or Marina or Phong (who have demonstrated apt knowledge about such topics) or consulting library books on the issue is just a huge waste of time.

So I guess Connor learned how to use the Argumentum ad hominem.

This is all bullshit to excuse and dismiss the fact you're wrong, and apparently expect subclasses to take on entirely seperate name-designations from the overall class it belongs to anyway, especially despite obvious EU evidence that the subclasses are designated by "Mark" followed by a Roman numeral.

You didn't know what you were talking about, and that line wasn't intended to be inflammatory, but you responded with a spiteful "last laugh" ad hominem anyway. The point is, I was right about it, and still am, and none of that pathetic bitching drivel makes any difference. Why don't you actually refute my argument if it was so wrong.

I'll defer to Skimmer and Co.'s points as better informed when I debate them, but you're not better informed, and don't know what you're talking about, so I'll call you up on it. And if we're going to do the Connor and talk about authorities, since Ender IS in the Navy, and agrees with me, I'd take that as a strong sense of reliability, particularly since its his business to know.

And as a final note, your DDG bullshit was and is a red herring--not that it matters, since DD(X) follows my argument and isn't a guided-missile destroyer.

EDIT: According to the Navy at the website I fucking linked to both in this thread and in the last thread (here), the CG-47 Ticonderoga-class is indeed a cruiser. Such a cruiser it is designated "CG" for "guided missile cruiser." Yeah, it started off as a DDG, but is the USN not allowed to change their mind? Can you please add the logic by which this somehow means DDGs "don't count" as destroyers?

Let's even go by Skimmer's statements (again, from the same old thread), and ignore me entirely.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Ticonderoga's aren't cruisers. They where designed and even originally designated as destroyers, the type was only changed for political reasons.

Well, by Skimmer, the Ticonderoga-class is a destroyer, and no true cruisers exist. How does this help your argument that guided-missile destroyers somehow "don't count" as destroyers?

Connor MacLeod wrote:Even if it is the case, it is still irrelevant to the larger discussion at hand. Being wrong about it hampers my argument not in the least.

Then why the long-winded ad hominem attack without the slightest hint of an actual refutation? Saving face? Do everyone a favor and just concede next time. You were wrong, and this bullshit doesn't change a damn thing.

Threre's a quote I've been trying to find recently. Basically, it says that a full tenth of the empires military forces were held back in the core and deep core regions for offensive and rapid reaction duties.

In context with the 25,000 ISD quote and the vague numbers of sectors (and therefore sector groups), I wonder if both can be reconciled. If we assume that the 25,000 was part of the tenth in reserve, then that would leave 225,000 ISDs distributed through the sector groups. Not so improbable if we're looking at potentially almost 10,000 sector groups (up to 240,000 ISDs), more specifically 9,375 sector groups would equal 225,000 ISDs( and a cool 15,000,000 other combatants).

The Imperial Sourcebook, Chapter One: A Primer on Imperial Power wrote:Sectors and Regions

A sector is an economic and political division which originated in the early days of the Old Republic. Originally a cluster of star systems with approximately 50 inhabited planets, the definition of a sector became vague and the average sector grew in size during the latter days of the Republic. Now unimaginably large sectors contain vast numbers of inhabited worlds with no regard to limiting factors. Sectors are governed by Moffs.

Sectors are grouped together into larger territorial entities called regions. The Empire has countless regions, which can contain from as few as three to upwards of thousands of sectors. The establishment of a region depends not only upon galactic geography, but also upon wealth, influence, historic "sentimentalities," economic diversity and the level of direct control exerted by the Empire. Regions are governed by Grand Moffs (the title "regional governor" is commonly used). Some well known regions include the Outer Rim Territories (a vast expanse of space with many frontier colonies), the Galactic Core (historic "birthplace" of the Republic, containing Coruscant, the capital of the Empire, as well as several other vital systems), the Deep Core (a restricted area of space - essentially a giant "preserve" in the heart of the Empire), the Colonies, and the Inner Rim.

Under the New Order, the Galactic Empire continues to grow and expand, and new sectors and regions are being formed all the time. (bolded emphases mine; italicization original)

The Imperial Sourcebook, Chapter Eight: Sector Group Organization wrote:The Empire’s military might is organized at the sector level, and thus is called a Sector Group: all of the military forces assigned to a given sector of space. A Sector Group is a huge gathering of Imperial military might. It is a flexible organization, one which is readily reinforced to many times its original strength while retaining essentially the same command structure at all times. This flexibility is an integral part of the Emperor’s plan to fully arm the Empire.

While the organization and Order of Battle of a Sector Group has been outlined according to the numbers in these reports, these numbers can at best be considered averages. And in the wake of the Emperor’s command to mobilize the Imperial war machine, they may even be considered minimum levels of force. Also, the forces deployed in a given sector will depend upon the importance, size, and location of that sector.

....

To get a quick understanding of the organization of the Navy, use the following reference. Navy organization is completely different than the Army’s method - while the Imperial Army has a "baseline" Order of Battle (OB), with carefully classified exceptions to this OB, Navy command simply assigns the most appropriate force to the most appropriate mission. Therefore, while the listings below are "theory," Naval mission assignments in practice often bear little resemblence to the OB.

....

A Sector Group is the sum total of Naval strength which the Empire expects to commit to a normal sector. A Sector Group is commanded by a high admiral, usually a title granted to the Moff who heads the sector. If the sector is involved in constant and severe naval actions, the high admiral is a man distinct from the Moff, so the Moff does not have devote all of his time to the naval conflict.

A Sector Group HQ always has a squadron under the personal command of the Moff. If the Moff is particularly competent or politically well connected, they can have many more squadrons at their disposal. Men such as Grand Moff Tarkin and Moff Carlinson could easily have 15 additional squadrons attached to their Sector Group HQ.

A Sector Group can be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which are Star Destroyers, and another 1,600 combat starships. Thousands of Sector Groups are at the Emperor’s command as he seeks to bring the galaxy firmly under his control. (bolded emphases mine)

Absolute Minimum Star Destroyer Complement of the Sector Groups:

There are 1000+ Sector Groups. There are >24,000+ SDs in the Empire.

There are 2 or more Regions with over a thousand Sectors. Each Sector Group can be considered a minimum force. There are >2,000 Sector Groups; there are >48,000 SDs.

The 1026 figure commonly cited for the TPM Galactic Senate is quite irrelevent: the OR did not span the same territory as the Empire, and the representation was not strictly sectorial.

Precisely right, Primus. 50,000 ships under the nebulous term 'Star Destroyer' is a nice pegging for Imperial forces. 25,000 ISD's is a nice start into this, along with however many thousand VSD's still exist(If the production run is smaller than the ISD one, I will be surprised), along with possibly Allegiance-sized vessels as well.

SirNitram wrote:Precisely right, Primus. 50,000 ships under the nebulous term 'Star Destroyer' is a nice pegging for Imperial forces. 25,000 ISD's is a nice start into this, along with however many thousand VSD's still exist(If the production run is smaller than the ISD one, I will be surprised), along with possibly Allegiance-sized vessels as well.

Well that's severely underballing it for starters (consider the Naboo deployment by the TradeFed, and the even denser deployment about Byss simultaneous with Operation SHADOWHAND).

And there's no compelling reason to suggest the 25,000 figure refers to solely ISDs at all.

The Imperial Sourcebook, Chapter Five: Capital Ships wrote:The main duty of the small number of these Star Destroyers is sector patrol. In pairs, or with other ships, Victory IIs regularly move into suspected hot spots and areas of Rebel or pirate activity with orders to pacify the sector. (bolded emphasis mine)

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, page 188 wrote:As more Imperial Star Destroyers were built, Victory Star Destroyers found themselves reassigned to planetary defense roles or moved into reserve fleets in the Core. A number of Victory Star Destroyers were decommissioned and sold off to planetary defense forces...

...The usefulness of Victory Star Destroyers was renewed with the return of Grand Admiral Thrawn. The Imperial warlord found his forces lacking sufficient capital starships and began a systematic recommissioning and refitting of Victory Star Destroyers.

The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, page 143 wrote:Victory destroyers and all subsequent models, share the assault ship's wedge-shaped frame and elevated command bridge...

...Grand Admiral Thrawn later restored many Victory destroyers and the New Republic continues to use the vessels in the Yuuzhan Vong invasion...

...The Imperial Star Destroyer's power generator has yet to be suprassed...The reactor is incased in a shielded dome, constructed of durasteel and carbonite, located on the Destroyer's ventral surface.(bolded emphases mine)

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, page 80 wrote:The Empire's awesome wedge-shaped Imperial-class Star Destroyers form the core of the Imperial Navy...

...A full wing of seventy-two TIE fighters (six squadrons of twelve ships each) is standard aboard each Destroyer...

...Support ships, all maintained aboard the Destroyer, include eight Lambda-class shuttles, fifteen stormtrooper transports, five assault gunboats, and a variable number of Skipray blastboats and Gamma-class assault shuttles...

...For a long-term planetary occupation, the Destroyer can deploy a prefabricated garrison base with eight hundred troops, ten AT-ATs, ten AT-STs, and forty TIE fighters. Full planetary invasions often require a full fleet, normally six Destroyers, heavy and light cruisers, and carrier ships. (bolded emphases mine)

It seems unreasonable to honestly believe that there are two grossly disproportionate regions containing a thousand sectors each (actually I'm still low-balling, there were said to be sectors containing more than a single thousand of sectors). Moreover, VSDs were in enough surplus that they were being mothballed and sold off to autonomous planetary defense forces--in other words, not the Imperial Navy anymore.

Once you selectively start bending the meaning of "Star Destroyers" in one quote to allow for contradictions, you're already admitting the 25,000 figure is not a binding number and open to interpretation.

Excuse me? Bending? Examine context, Illuminatus.

One has simply saying 'Star Destroyers', in reference only to the idea of a sector group. All manners of a SD can do such. A VSD might be assigned a particularly poor sector(Naboo, for example), an ISD a more wealthy one. Coruscant's might well have merited Executors in her full OOB.

One has Pelleaon on the bridge of the Chimaera, an ISD. He is lamenting about the Chim being one of only 25,000 of her class. This is not exactly a flexible quote, while the other is.