An imperial star destroyer?

[The Thing]

Does anyone else think that the basic design of an imperial star destroyer would make a good capital ship design for traveller?

I really like the star destroyers, they were about my favorite ship design from the whole star wars series, with maybe darth vader's advanced tie prototype and darth maul's sith infiltrator coming in second.

But I was thinking of making the star destroyer an official traveller ship, with a spinal mount meson cannon, since technically a meson cannon spinal mount doesn't need an opening in the ship to fire thru. (So tell me why it can't fire thru the front of the ship mounting it?)

The rest of the ship seems fairly well designed, with the possible exception of the bridge being mounted up high and easy to target, but bridges have traditionally been mounted in easy to hit locations, and we all know how the vilani feel about "tradition"....

BTW, I wonder of the imperial scout design was influenced by the star destroyer design?

 

[veltyen]

Size is going to be the killer.

The smallest Star Destroyers are 900m long, 564 wide and 289 high.

Assuming these are dimensions of the pyramid then the volume would be 1/3 * 900 * (rear area).

The rear area is 564.289/2 ~= 81,500 m^2
Total Volume is therefore 24.5 * 10^6 m^3
Total Volume (dTons) is 1.75 Million dTon

.... and that's the smallest. So one of the first modifications you would need to make to convert to traveller is to shrink the ship. Half the size in all dimensions would be approximately 200k dTon (a good capital ship size for traveller). A third the size would be 65k dTon, though that drops it to a medium cruiser rather then a large capital vessel.

And lastly of course...
"That's no type S!"

 

[chshrkt]

Hehehe, I remember drafting out the plans for a capital ship back in Jr High based on the Base Stars from the original BSG. I had some 36"x24" graph paper that I sketched it out on...

I wonder if it is still in the garage amongst my boxes of old school papers that I have not quite been able to get rid of these past 30 years.... <--- yes, that is the tell-tale sign of an unrepentant packrat.

 

[Valarian]

A Star Destroyer would not have a spinal mount as a weapon if you're staying true to the Star Wars design. It would have an immense amount of turrets (over 120 turrets). The Star Wars design uses Turbolasers and Ion Cannons. The turbolasers could be substituted in Traveller terms with Fusion Guns. The Ion Cannons are more problematic.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_II-class_Star_Destroyer

 

[Gallowglacht]

Wouldn't Ion Cannon be particle accelerator bays?

 

[Valarian]

Aren't the particle accelerators destructive?
Ion Cannons are like EMP. They temporarily overload and disable the ship systems.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The Gionetti-class cruisers are pretty close.

 

[kafka47]

Star Destroyers are what got me into Science Fiction to begin with...so it is only natural that they appear in MTU. They are usually the big capital ships that the Imperium keeps in every subsector as part of the numbered fleets. The biggest problem that I have found is calculating the crew and weapons ratios. I think, maybe, my estimates of one per subsector was too generious by Imperial Squadrons calculations, so I might want to up it to one per sector but that eats away at my MT campaign...or the post Rimwar (campaign idea that I have been mulling about) milieu.

The biggest problem is the Interstellar travel times between Traveller and Star Wars, for a ship of that size to react to crises or go to war would require enormous logistics that can only be partially solved by Cold Sleep.

:devil::devil:Here is an evil thought...a dormant pre-Rebellion Third Imperium Star Destroyer is found in 1248 by a 4th Imperium Scout ship modelled on Zhodani designs. Wakes up the crew or at least ship systems (who might wake up a crew). After a pitched battle, the scout ship limps back to 4th Imperial Space unaware they are been tracked. Having believed the Star Destroyer is infected with Virus, they plan appropiate counter measures. It would be interesting to see how a crack 3I Naval personnel would fare against the 4th Imperium scattered fleet...not to mention an Admiral comanding the Star Destroyer with greater ambitions....

 

[navywarlord]

A Star Destroyer would not have a spinal mount as a weapon if you're staying true to the Star Wars design. It would have an immense amount of turrets (over 120 turrets). The Star Wars design uses Turbolasers and Ion Cannons. The turbolasers could be substituted in Traveller terms with Fusion Guns. The Ion Cannons are more problematic.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_II-class_Star_Destroyer

Remember too that a Star Destroyer is also a carrier, containing a wing of TIE fighters.

Another of the Star Wars weapons can be difficult to reproduce in Traveller, besides the Ion Cannons. Namely, the Proton Torpedoes.

Regular missiles can take the place of concussion missiles.

The SD was supposed to have 20 or so Turbo Lasers... Could these be Fusion or Particle Accelerator BAYS? This would fit if the ship is in the 60K ton range.

Just thinking out loud

 

[Tobias]

Visually, the Sylea class battleship is very close to the Star Destroyer. It's illustrated in Supplement 8: Library Data on Page 16, and in the MT Rebellion Sourcebook, Page 20. It is described as a 100,000-ton vessel by Supplement 8. Later, TNE's Battle Rider boardgame classed it as 200,000 tons, but for my own design I went with the original size, while emulating other aspects of the BR version - thus it's a pure Spinal, lasers, missiles and sand thing. And here it is:

**********************************************************
Ship: Sylea
Class: Sylea
Type: Battleship
Architect: Tobias
Tech Level: 15

USP
BBB-R136AJ3-C99900-900T9-0 MCr 89,858.870 100 KTons
Bat Bear E 9 1Y Crew: 905
Bat L D 1Z TL: 15

Cargo: 587.500 Frozen Watch Fuel: 40,000.000 EP: 10,000.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 100
Craft: 4 x 50T Cutter
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Backups: 1 x Model/9fib Computer 1 x Factor 9 Nuclear Damper 1 x Factor 9 Meson Screen
Substitutions: Y = 42 Z = 60

Architects Fee: MCr 898.125 Cost in Quantity: MCr 71,896.376


Detailed Description

HULL
100,000.000 tons standard, 1,400,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
83 Officers, 722 Ratings, 100 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-3, 6G Manuever, Power plant-10, 10,000.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
1 Model/9fib Backup Computer

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 60 50-ton bays, 330 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-T), 60 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 130 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 13 Batteries (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
200 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 20 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9), Armoured Hull (Factor-12)
1 Nuclear Damper Backup (Factor-9), 1 Meson Screen Backup (Factor-9)

CRAFT
4 50.000 ton Cutters (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 11.600)

FUEL
40,000.000 Tons Fuel (3 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
456.0 Staterooms, 453 Low Berths, 587.500 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 90,710.595 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 898.125), MCr 71,849.976 in Quantity, plus MCr 46.400 of Carried Craft

CONSTRUCTION TIME
200 Weeks Singly, 160 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
*********************************************************

EDIT: And here is the picture:

 

[Commander Drax]

According to TNE, the meson weapon needs to have the firing end of it mounted outside of the hull (or is best served behind a retractable cover), this is because bonded superdense material can effect the electromagnetic focusing elements of the weapon, causing tiny beam deviations, that whilst insignificant close to the barrell, become tactically important over Traveller starship combat ranges resulting in increased chances of missing a target hundreds of thousands of kilometers away. Source: See the description of the Meson Artillery Vehicle in Regency Combat Vehicles

 

[Jame]

:devil::devil:Here is an evil thought...a dormant pre-Rebellion Third Imperium Star Destroyer is found in 1248 by a 4th Imperium Scout ship modelled on Zhodani designs. Wakes up the crew or at least ship systems (who might wake up a crew). After a pitched battle, the scout ship limps back to 4th Imperial Space unaware they are been tracked. Having believed the Star Destroyer is infected with Virus, they plan appropiate counter measures. It would be interesting to see how a crack 3I Naval personnel would fare against the 4th Imperium scattered fleet...not to mention an Admiral comanding the Star Destroyer with greater ambitions....

I actually used this one!!! It was in an ATU, mind.


On topic, I've always liked the Correlian Corvette, AKA the Tantive IV.

 

[atpollard]

According to TNE, the meson weapon needs to have the firing end of it mounted outside of the hull (or is best served behind a retractable cover), this is because bonded superdense material can effect the electromagnetic focusing elements of the weapon, causing tiny beam deviations, that whilst insignificant close to the barrel, become tactically important over Traveller starship combat ranges resulting in increased chances of missing a target hundreds of thousands of kilometers away. Source: See the description of the Meson Artillery Vehicle in Regency Combat Vehicles

Exploring the consequences:
So buried meson guns in a planetoid hull is a go - and they use no hardpoints (Ouch, how many meson guns will fit in a cargo hold?). Meson guns shooting thru "non-bonded" superdense, lamellar and hardened steel armors are a maybe.

 

[Brian Blank]

In the MegaTraveller Rebellion sourcebook there is a really nice illustration of a couple of Gazelle class CE's in formation with what looks like a Sylea Class Battleship. Gives you a pretty good idea of the scale.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

The Gionetti-class cruisers are pretty close.

That's what I always thought.....

 

[Straybow]

Only 100 marines on a 100kdT ship, five times the size of a US supercarrier??

That's just crazy talk.

 

[aramis]

Actually, at 97,000 Tons Metric displacement (US Ref: US Navy, 2007) (and thus mass) loaded, that's roughly 97,000/15=6466 2/3 Tons displacement equivalent mass (see Brilliant Lances in the drives section for this conversion), or, given that most naval warcraft only displace 20% of their volume, 97,000*5/14=34,642.857... plus the volume of the open flight deck... and that carriers are only about 10% displaced... that gives us about 69KTd

Now, given that a Traveller Starship of 100KTd is carrying 40KTd of fuel, versus less than 10Ktd on the Nimitz (a VERY generous estimate...60KTonsMass) that leaves a similar amount of free volume, in which far more engine (5G's versus about 0.1), plus full life support instead of limited... plus spinal weapons.... plus the not calculated volume of the flight deck being unavailable...

She's operating with a 5th the crew. So that smaller detachment's (more than 10% of the crew...) presence is higher. Further, the marines are not in 1T bunks but are two to a 4T SR.

It's not outlandish.

A better comparison would be a submarine, tho'.