HOME | DD
Ryuukei8569 — Battlecruiser Defiance
#battlecruiser #spaceship
Published: 2015-06-09 02:25:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 2897; Favourites: 32; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
A simple pic of the updated battle cruiser design, the ship design intended to run down and destroy carriers.Related content
Comments: 13
The first thing about this impressive vessel that catches the eye are her gun turrets! Obvious firepower is something I admire greatly. Wise placement of turrets both in super-firing positions and in actually have guns on the "bottom" of the hull (something some ship designs lack, sadly) give the warship a fearsome appearance. Though some claim that the general shape may resemble a Star Wars "Star Destroyer", this sleeker design definitely supports its intended purpose for being a swift hunter. The only thing I'd recommend would be turrets mounted on the sides of the hull, but regardless, it is a solid design that would surely serve well against almost any adversary. Great job, and keep up the impressive work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, I don't really see the need for side mounted turrets, given that the guns in each turret can elevate fully to 90 degrees, and guided ammunition takes care of the rest. Plus the ship is build for fleet actions, so while wide firing arcs and good weapons coverage is still very desirable, the ability to concentrate firepower on a single target is also a very important trait, hence the ability of the ship to fire all main guns forward or to the broadside.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Love the sleeker, skinnier design. It fits perfect with its role as an interceptor/hunter-killer. When this thing is coming right at you, its design makes it a much smaller target. Chances are high that if you shoot in the same place, any slight maneuvering from Defiance would have the shot hitting somewhere else or just missing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Umm.... umm ummm ummm ummm...wait... THAT is an Imperial Star Des-/...... what are you... fucking HIGH!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sorry but it looked like one
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, but I generally consider the Star Destroyer to be the king of wasted potential and a stellar example of things not to do in a starship design. The big one being the, lets combine troopship, battleship and carrier into one design sillyness.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
True enough on the mixed roles (though I would... and will... argue it makes sense in context), but the Star Destroyer is a pretty excellent design in terms of form. It's wedge shape supports a large engine area to allow a high degree of acceleration, while not having an overly large silhouette (especially from the front/sides, less so from above or below). Furthermore the staggered gun turret placement allows it to fire all of its guns forward, or most of them to either side... though it'd definitely be improved by the addition of ventral turrets.
As for the mixed roles, it's intended as a dominance-projection platform to operate alone or in conjunction with another Star Destroyer. It is mainly a fighting ship, with enough firepower to annihilate most enemies it is likely to actually face - system monitors, converted freighters, and maybe frigates, to say nothing of the whole 'can burn planets to the ground'. It carries a relatively small troop complement for those occasions when you might *not* want to nuke the site from orbit, primarily intended for occupations, searches, raids, boardings etc. The fighters... all 72 of them... allow for some level of projection over multiple areas, reconnaissance, and to run down vessels the Star Destroyer itself cannot or does not want to pursue.
Now as to the matter at hand. The model is very good and the texturing is quite sufficient. And the design is solid and very striking, though without knowing more I can't say much else about it. Are the red things at the back radiators?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No the red things are hatches for the Ships vertical launched missile system. Inspired by the modern day Mk 41 VLS system used on modern US warships en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_… ; Much like its Real world inspiration, the VLS on my battlecruiser design can be used for a variety of Anti fighter, anti Missile, and anti ship missiles. The missiles are capable of engaging any target in any direction relation to the ship, maneuvering around it if they have to.
Dont get me wrong, the Star destroyer's wedge shape is not a bad idea for spaceship designs. with a proper weapons arrangement, it allows for good firing arcs and allows a warship to have both a strong broadside and frontal arcs, hence why, aside from an all centerline main armament, I use a rough wedge shape weapons arrangement for my ships, though I use longer and narrower designs, so warships will present a relatively small frontal profile. Plus with heavily sloped frontal armor, its tough to penetrate the warships frontal armor. Hence the very large main guns, and their size makes wing turret mounts for them impractical. Side mounted thrusters and forcefield based thrust vectoring allow my ships to accelerate at near top speed in any direction, regardless of the direction that the nose is facing.
I will say about the weapons arrangement on an ISD, arranging the main turrets in an all centerline arrangement with 4 turrets on top and 4 on bottom, and super elevating over each other would have given better arcs of fire. However battle carrier like warships are generally highly inefficient. Real world attempts have almost always resulted in miserable failures that cant efficiently do either job, and even in the age of missiles, they just generally don't perform as well. Let alone sticking troop carrying capacity on top of it. Now combining carriers with Troop carrying ability generally isn't a bad idea. Modern day amphibious assault carriers do this, and it works fairly well. Now the one of the main reasons that star wars is even able to make the idea work at all, is mainly because turbolasers just aren't very big weapons relative to the size of the ship, plus they don't have a magazine. That and star wars doesn't have as restrictive of an FTL as my setting does, though at the same time, star wars fighters do come off as being overpowered relative to the capital ships. With my setting, the concept wouldn't work at all, mainly because battleship sized armaments, in addition to the turret being quite large, a good amount of internal volume is taken up by the magazines and power generators, let alone the space taken up by the missiles. Now this doesn't mean that carriers are completely unarmed, however at most a fleet carrier will only be armed with at the biggest, cruiser caliber weapons, and they have far fewer missiles. That and more restrictive rules about FTL in my setting make jumping into close combat an unlikely occurrence.
Though all in all, I find that i still prefer Star wars esque designs over the current sci fi starship trend of big flying bricks with one or two oversized fixed axial mounted guns.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, figured it was either that or a VLS. I'd like to see more radiators on starship designs, though...
"Side mounted thrusters and forcefield based thrust vectoring allow my ships to accelerate at near top speed in any direction, regardless of the direction that the nose is facing. "
Well, that's convenient.
"I will say about the weapons arrangement on an ISD, arranging the main turrets in an all centerline arrangement with 4 turrets on top and 4 on bottom, and super elevating over each other would have given better arcs of fire."
Good point. Though again with the turrets being so small it may be that the main limitation on how much firepower you can put out is reactor load, not how many guns you can fit on... eh.
My main point is the SD's fighter complement is probably more comparable to the helicopters on a modern-day cruiser than a real 'carrier'. It's a mile long with 72 fighters, the real-world Lexington class carried more. Now why they feel the need to make a hangar bay big enough to dock corvettes is another question... they could at least move the fighter bays to the sides. That, and its designed more for 'gunboat diplomacy' than total war.
The big flying bricks with axial/spinal mounted guns are... certainly a thing. Maybe a bit trendy (let's see, Halo, Mass Effect, Homeworld, even Star Wars with the Eclipse, though I'd really only classify Halo and Homeworld as 'flying bricks'. It's an ideal design for 'jousting' type combat, admittedly. Or if you just can't fit an effective weapon system in a turret. Or if, as in, say, MGLN (see avatar), the shot is guided enough to hit behind you anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I figures it was time to design spaceships that stop flying like wet navy ships or aircraft, and start flying them, like they are, you know, actually in space.
I kinda figured that the limitations on an ISD's loadout had more to do with power than gun size. Though one thing worth noting, Tie fighters are generally smaller than even world war 2 era fighter aircraft, and they are positively puny compared to a modern jet fighter. But typically, when you are going for gunboat diplomacy, it is generally prudent to actually make your ships also effective at actually fighting wars, otherwise it will just lead to an embarrassing defeat sooner or later. Which will also pop the whole deterrence balloon real quick. But then again, I guess that the empire can be excused for the fact, that before the clone wars, there hadn't been a major war for a thousand years. As a result the only war experience that anyone had was the clone wars, which only lasted for 3 years. Given that situation, mistakes are understandable.
Though in most cases where spinal mounted weapons are used, they are usually far more powerful than what is actually needed to kill their intended target. but the main issue, is the fact that in most cases, axial weapons do not fire guided projectiles of any kind, so they can only be aimed by maneuvering the entire ship. That and its also a singe point of failure. Halo I can see the necessity given the power disparity of Covenant ships compared to UNSC ones, but for a lot of others, and for a lot of designers here on DA, the ships have little need for that kind of excessive firepower. But as far as I can tell, its usually done specifically to avoid the World war 2 battleship style look with multiple large gun turrets. Problem is, that practical concerns are not often considered when they are doing that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0