Tyrant missile cruiser WIP#1

A commissioned piece for this idea from the Warlords mod. Talking to evillejedi (the original designer), the ship was an idea for a late-Republic torpedo sphere sort of, with secondary fleet functions. Long and thin to minimize profile and a heavy warhead system. I’ve taken that concept and developed it a bit, with the main missile battery in a fixed and separate annular compartment away from the hull. Power should end up being ~2-3 ISD, so barely a cruiser, which is fitting given the very thin hull (I expect the reactor to be fully buried). Fast, well shielded, but not a slugger.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
81 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StarWars_Nerd
StarWars_Nerd
1 year ago

I’m having a problem understanding with the description: what’s the purpose of the ring? It looks cool, but what does it do?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  StarWars_Nerd

Missiles and a lot of them

Duggy
Duggy
2 years ago

Could you please tell me what the length, weapons, and fighter capacity of this plane is?

Kranky
2 years ago
Reply to  Duggy

It’s a ship not a plane. It’s quite obvious

you are TRIGGERING

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Duggy

~4.1KM

DanielShenise
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

My only issue is the ring. Everything else can be justified one way or other. It’s a universe with giant space worms, telekinetic wizards, and freakishly strong sentient teddy bears. 🤷‍♂️ I’m not going moan reloading missile tubes.

But I care about form and balance. I think what is actually bothering me about the ring is it’s not a flat ring, it slopes with overall hull planes. So it’s like kinked nut. It took me looking at it and thinking why I’m ehhh on it and I think that’s it. I originally thought making it a solid cylinder would do it. But that would take some of the interesting design elements out. That is the only issue I have with it other than maybe pulling it vertically out of the main hull more. I’d flatten it (making taking the slope out), make it a little thicker with 10 tubes per cell versus 8 (which would bring up vertically). Otherwise it’s cool as hell looking.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  DanielShenise

The reason given for the “free floating” ring instead of the solid part built into the superstructure is that in the case of a catastrophic damage of warhead detonations, it would explode away from the ship’s superstructure and not into it.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

You think you be able to reuse the hull for another design?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I said I can see this being used as Modular Taskforce Cruiser hull

DanielShenise
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Fair enough. I knew there was a reason you did it and trust me I know the changes I talked about aren’t exactly a quick fix. I definitely like the ring as a design element and think it’s very EU/Dark Empire. Just the slope bothers me. It’s similar to how I like Porsche Panameras but the rear end was just a little off on the first generation. Your VSD is best I’ve seen btw.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I actually like it, it’s a break from the traditional battle-wedge and the ring makes sense once context is given. The only thing that stood out to me at first glance (in the first pic) was how the superstructure appear cooked since the ring is relatively “flat” (in terms of the front-to-rear) in relation to the ship’s angle towards the camera.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Full agreement on this observation. I too think the ring structure added to it is what makes this ship class stand out somewhat and gives it a unique feature.
After looking even more closely at the general structure of the hull, I can see the “late-Republic” design influence despite the ill-fitting name of the class as the “wedges” or dents the hull has around its midsection where the ring is located on both sides is reminiscent of the dents the Venator has and the small ridge on the top is a nod to the Mandator series.

gejemica
gejemica
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I personally just don’t feel it completely gels with Imperial designs on account of the ring being perfectly circular. The idea of a ring in itself is fine, but if I were designing the ship (which, clearly, I’m not), I’d maybe aim for a more hexagonal design.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

That was fun 2 see how fast and large of an topic this design was

AT-AT
AT-AT
2 years ago

Can the Missile launchers be reloaded?
Because it looks like there is Not enough space to carry More of them inside. So I just wonder what the crew does when they run out of rockets

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago
Reply to  AT-AT

Beyond the missiles this ship also features 48 Venator-style Dual Heavy Turbolaser Turrets (24 on each side) so it can still dish out some punishment even when it has fired all its missiles.
I’m also sure it has some medium cannons scattered around the hull and possibly some point defense emplacements against fighters as well.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago

I think I know this ship class from the “Rise of the Mandalorians”-mod of Empire at War: Forces of Corruption. There it is called the Tyrant-class Star Destroyer and a sort of heavy missile destroyer which is yet faster than the Victory I-class.
The circle-like missile-batteries in the midsection are certainly a creative idea and give it a sort of immediate unique appearance feature.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

This is from that

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

The more you know. 😉
I do have to admit though that I didn’t know this ship-class is supposed to be also used by the Clone Wars-era Republic according to the original idea for it.
I am all for giving the Republic fleet a little variety but I’m a little skeptical on the naming. “Tyrant-class” doesn’t sound like something the Republic would have named, it sounds more definitely Imperial in origin.
Legator, Mandator, Praetor, Procurator, Imperator, Venator, Victory, Acclamator, Proclamator etc. all fit a sort of theme for the Republic, some having an aggressive subtext without being already outright oppressive as the Empire would become.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

first I thought it was mid or early Imperial is well

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Right, Tyrant-class sounds rather harsh for a Republic ship now that you mention it. It fits more to call it something like… Arbiter-class, or maybe Prosecutor-class

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

I mean that’s what the class is originally called as it is a fanon ship created for a video game mod, so it’s logical to apply the intended name, yet I do think that since the Empire renamed the Imperator-class to Imperial-class maybe they renamed this one as well and Tyrant-class is its designation under the Empire alone.
These names would fit the Republic naming theme, especially the second one. I had thought about perhaps calling it Iaculator-class which would also fit the usual Republic name scheme.
Iaculator means thrower or hurler (often in conjunction with spears or javelins) in latin so I thought it’d fit a ship that “throws” masses of missiles.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Yea, it’s named like it is in the original source. Funditor or Sagittor would also work well for the Republic variant. Funditor is another word that means “thrower” in latin and Sagittor comes from Sagittarius, the archer, which also fits this ship’s main role.
I’m just grateful you even make such fanon designs as your take on it often improves the original design in terms of quality. I quite like how this turns out.

countvertex
2 years ago

I like it! Let’s be honest – most Star Destroyer derived models look more or less the same. This one is a good mix of deviation and recognition factor.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago

By the way, may I ask what is the class system in use here? It clearly isn’t a cruiser from the Anaxes war collage system… I’ve heard its in relation to modern ship classification with its size ratio, which makes the most sense in this case, just looking to confirm.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

As I understand it, it’s pretty much standard wet navy classification (c.a. WWII) applied to space ships with the ISD being a typical destroyer.

keb
keb
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

It’s worth pointing out that the Separatist classification system is very close to what is used here. The Munificent is a frigate, the Recusants seen in ROTS are light destroyers, the 2,544 meter long Recusants that appear in TCW are simply called destroyers (in the episode “ARC Troopers”) and the 4,800 meter long Malevolence is a Subjugator-class heavy cruiser.

Chris
Chris
2 years ago

That is a whole heck of alot of beat down. As much as I like your work are there any NON-Imperial ships coming up on the docket?? Dauntless/Marsheem-Class, the forked Liberator-Class or the Aggressor-Class Destroyer?? I would love to see a conventionally armed Aggressor without that giant Ion/Plasma cannon.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Marsheem-class_heavy_cruiser
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Liberator-class_cruiser
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aggressor-class_Star_Destroyer

Bob
Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris

The fastest way to see one is to commission Ansel to create one.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago

Although I will point out that the ISD-style bridge module stands out too much, perhaps moving it a bit lower into that central ridge would be more visually appealing…

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Cdr. Rajh

The bridge tower stands out far more on a standard ISD than this ship. As a percentage of ship volume and height, this bridge is downright inconspicuous compared to a stock Imperator.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago

Never heard of missile spam? Well…

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Cdr. Rajh

In a nutshell, barraging a target with more missiles than its shields, armor and point defenses can intercept/deflect.

Thomas
Thomas
2 years ago

this is just awesome

jonathan
jonathan
2 years ago

my god…its beautiful

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  jonathan

Insert Rogue one Meme here

SpaceCoyote300
SpaceCoyote300
2 years ago

Do you think the silos could be configured to launch Stormtrooper drop-pods?

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  SpaceCoyote300

They look to be more than a deck’s height in bore, so it’s not completely out of the question size wise, but they may not be accessible to crew.

ManiacalSpark
ManiacalSpark
2 years ago

I like the main hull shape until it gets to the rear of the ship. Then it flares out too much in proportion to the rest of the design. I would have had them flare out, then hook back in at roughly were the middle of the gun batteries are. Give it more of a Executor SSD tail.

Another problem is that the missile ring just does not fit aesthetically with the angular shape of the ship. It would be better just to line the ship with port and starboard launchers or multiple vertical launch arrays along the length of the ship.

the bridge tower is way too large in comaprison to the rest of the ship, especially since you have said it’s almost not even cruiser size. I’d shrink it down significantly and tuck it closer to the main hull, much like an Arquitens class bridge tower does. And I’d also move it from midship to the rear.

I’d remove many of the gun batteries and go for more single turrets spread out across the hull. This is a missile boat, not something built for slugging it out in a broadside, so the guns should just be there to provide ‘omg keep away from meeeeeee’ fire until a more direct combat ship that get there.

There’s a lot of potential with the design but it also requires a lot of work to fix the glaring problems.

keb
keb
2 years ago
Reply to  ManiacalSpark

This is a commission for a ship that already exists in a computer game mod. It’s likely that Fractal doesn’t have much freedom to make big changes in the basic design or shape.

ManiacalSpark
ManiacalSpark
2 years ago
Reply to  keb

I see. Hopefully the mod developer will see my comment and take my suggestions into account. I really like the overall basic shape of this design, but it has some problems. They could be some easily fixable problems, but overall I think the ship design would be better off otherwise.

JamesMCGR
JamesMCGR
2 years ago
Reply to  ManiacalSpark

So if you can do better, let’s see it then.

ManiacalSpark
ManiacalSpark
2 years ago
Reply to  JamesMCGR

Really mature. If you actually read what I had to say, you’d see it is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, not just ‘lol this sucks’. Critiquing is how things get better. The design has a lot of promise, but it also has some problems. That’s ok, because nothing and no one is perfect. I offered my thoughts on how to make it look and feel like it belongs in the Imperial Navy (a fictional construct from a fictional universe. These suggestions were offered in a polite and constructive manner, in the hopes that FractalSponge could use his talents to make a better starship from the solid base structure he has here.

Attacking me serves no purpose other than to soothe your own ego and the hope that FractalSponge might notice you.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  ManiacalSpark

Your critique is well written, but I believe it’s at least partly based on a couple of incorrect assumptions.

First: Scale
When Fractal says a ship is cruiser scale, he means it’s significantly larger than an ISD (~4.1km long in this case, according to PhoenixKnight, below). He uses a system in which Star Destroyers equate to real life wet navy destroyers in role and relative size, with other ship classifications being adjusted in scale accordingly. In Fractal’s classification system the Arquitens would class as either a large corvette or a small frigate.
Given the above, I think the gun batteries make sense as they are, since this ship is of the size where running away from a fight with an enemy destroyer isn’t really an option, so (depending on the positions of friendly warships) it may be forced to slug it out with said vessel or risk catastrophic damage.

Second: Form or function
What we must remember about the missile ring is that form follows function; the function of that ring is to make sure that the enormous amount of munitions (easily capable of destroying the vessel several times over) are stored in such a way that, if enemy fire causes some of the missiles to detonate, the explosion is directed away from the hull, with the recoil safely absorbed without damaging the ship’s structure. If the missiles were arranged in the way you suggested, such an incident would surely destroy the ship and any escorts unfortunate enough to be hit by large chunks of debris. The forward missile batteries are positioned such that a chain reaction explosion there would merely severely damage the vessel, not destroy it. The alternative of adding sufficient backstop armour to the missile silos to protect the ship would add so much mass that it would accelerate more slowly than a Gozanti Cruiser.
In terms of the aesthetics of the tail and bridge tower, to me it looks fine. It looks like they started with a skinny murderwedge design, then cut chunks out to fit the missile ring. The bridge tower looks to be similar in size to the one on an ISD, just on a larger vessel.

From what you have written, if your assumptions were correct I would support the position.

cScott
cScott
2 years ago

At first, I was like what the heck is this, but now I keep finding myself drawn back in to keep looking at it. I like it, it’s very Imperial looking but at the same time it isn’t. I’ve always wondered if an Impellor-class ship could also be used in this sorta role, like if the forward prongs were retrofitted to carry missile batteries instead of hanger bays.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago

Very unique ship and concept, though I got a few questions: if it’s primarily a warhead reliant ship from late-Republic era, how does it got more output than an ISD? (I always thought ISD were cutting edge at the time of its release) Also what does it need 2-3 ISDs worth of power generation for? Aforementioned shields and speed?

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Count the heavy turbolasers. Looks like the same as on the Venator-class but 48 of them instead of 8. Fractal estimated the 8 turbolasers of the Venator with a yield of 70 teraton a barrel, and the turbolasers of the ISD-1 on 175 teraton a barrel. Giving this ship a turbolaser output of 48*2*70= 6720 teraton. While the turbolasers + ions of the ISD-1 have a primary weapon output of 2800 teraton.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  STONEhenk

Fair point.

DanielShenise
2 years ago

I like the overall shape, long and thin, just something about massing of the ring seems off to me. I almost think the ring ought to be a solid short cylinder and not a hollow ring. More like the modular task force cruiser from DE. Maybe positioning it higher vertically too so it’s even less imbedded in the main hull. I do think more antennas would be a good idea too. I love the way they looked on your VicStar.

Bob
Bob
2 years ago

What sort of a support ship feeds this beast? Given the size of those silos, and e slenderness of the hull, it would seem likely to only carry a reload or two, and might need some munitions carrier to follow it about to provide enough ammunition for a prolonged bombardment.

PauloMr
PauloMr
2 years ago

Don’t know how to feel about this one. It looks interesting and weird at the same time. I think it would be better if the missile batteries were engraved across the fuselage,as to not have them all in one spot(relatively speaking), but the drum does make sense for firing in multiple directions and if it rotates it could be better reloaded, by internal cargo containers. The only thing I’m certain you should add is more antennas and sensors for better targeting and maybe some decoys, somewhere (or a dedicated targeting, jamming and decoying ship) to prevent the warheads from being shot down.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Hey, so even the Imperial Navy finally got around to upgrading from MK41 to MK57 VLS. Good for them. I’m seconding the notion for more sensor globes as well. Looking forwards to seeing how this one progresses.
I wonder if this thing was built on a fleet light cruiser hull that omits the missile ring and fills in the wedge with conventional warship hardware.

Xeno
Xeno
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

Having the missiles be externally mounted is a fascinating concept, but it looks highly vulnerable to me with all that empty space between the ring and the hull – not to mention a perfect spot for a fighter to dive in or launch a torpedo at and being pretty irritating for maintenance crews who’d have to do EVA. I wonder if simply actually having it Mk57-type – attached to the hull for ease of access, no blind spots, etc, but armoring heavily *behind* the missiles and the missile bays themselves – would prove to be more efficient.

Regardless, highly interesting concept.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  Xeno

I suspect that amount of armour would cause an unacceptable increase in mass, leading to an unsatisfactory thrust:mass ratio.
If I’m correctly interpreting this ship’s role, it should (in fleet combat) have the majority of the fleet’s point defences and fighter complement between it and any enemy fighters which wanted to try it.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

If you’ve ever read Weber’s Honor Harrington series, he proposed a novel way of maximizing a ship’s missile salvo while maintaining protection called a Pod-layer.

Instead of mounting missile racks or VLS cells on the outside of a ship, a warship would instead have a hollow core filled with missile pods. Those pods would then be launched out of the back of the ship in combat, and use the ship’s sensors for targeting data. Perhaps it doesn’t quite feel like Star Wars, but an intriguing concept nonetheless.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

It wouldn’t be too hard to do for Star Wars; just a matter of how big the pod would have to be and how many starfighter deck slots a ship would have to sacrifice to carry it. A lot of the technical restrictions that forced the development of pods in the Honorverse (particularly the gravity wedge drives) don’t carry over into the SWU.

PauloMr
PauloMr
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I didn’t think about that but it does make a lot of sense given the size of the warheads.

(ps: for some reason your reply is all white, I had to select all of it to read it and I didn’t get notified of it even though I did click the bell. Do you know what might be happening?)

PauloMr
PauloMr
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

wait I have reloaded the page and now it shows up normally. Still not getting notified was weird.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  PauloMr

Are you using a mobile device? That sometimes happens to me as well

PauloMr
PauloMr
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

No I’m on my PC. I didn’t get notified of your answer either and after checking my email again it turns out Fractal’s response ended on the “promotional” section. Don’t know why because the first time I posted here it was fine, I think it was on “social”.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  PauloMr

It does that for me in Chrome when I move my cursor over the message.

wusolja
wusolja
2 years ago

One missile per silo or a cluster of missiles in each?

Vons Barador
Vons Barador
2 years ago

OH GOD I REMEMBER THIS MODEL

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Vons Barador

Is that good thing or bad thing

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

Wow. That’s 320 individual tubes on each side of the ship if I got the count right. I don’t imagine this thing has anywhere near the magazine capacity of a Torpedo Sphere, but it wouldn’t need to: basically a drive-by bombardment platform to make a high-speed run past a target like a real-world WW1/2 era destroyer.

By rotary, are you saying that the tubes move in the mount, ala the turbolasers on a Hapan Battle Dragon?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

*340 (revised)

Ryadra777
2 years ago

I honestly have no words for this just yikes!

Anyway what it’s length? It look like it is between 3-4km.

Also will the name Tyrant be it’s class name or not?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

It the name of the Class

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

~4.1km

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago

Love those lines.

Jaunty and rakish like a mofo.

The Imp Star bridge is a little jarring, but taking in the overall profile and economies of scale, I can see why it makes sense. Fantastic work regardless.

All those tubes though… Would love to the deep space exploration/reconnaissance + exploratory science refit. Dedicated research labs + factory for churning out new probe droids, amped up comms + sensors…

Arvenski
Arvenski
2 years ago
Reply to  Shaun

I agree about the bridge. From a distance it looks fine, though up close it looks kinda weird. If it’s an old Republic design, if Fractal wanted to he could go with a single Venator-style bridge instead.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Arvenski

Just now noticed that it is a Vic’ Bridge

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

I don’t think so. It’s in between a Vic I and ISD, maybe, but closer in scale to the ISD.

xXx
xXx
2 years ago

When Victory I overdose steroids

Taghmata Omnissiah
Taghmata Omnissiah
2 years ago

Not a fan of this design but you know who will love it, Orks…