5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
97 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keilerbie
Keilerbie
1 year ago

I love how this frigate that we on earth would call massive could fit in the hangar bay ten fold. These comparison shots have always been my favorite, really brings the ships into perspective, you should do more fleet renders.

Mick
Mick
1 year ago

Hi Fractal,
I love your work, you really bring the SW universe to life. I do have a small question though, as you put vast amounts of thinking into your art. On these ships, there are so many weapon platforms its astounding. But in your head, or specs, are these all human crewed? The task of trying to co-ordinate fire plans for something of this scale, particularly in fast moving combat just seems overwhelming. Particularly as it seems in SW combat you really need to overwhelm an enemies shields by concentrated barrages to do anything.

Or do you see only the heaviest guns being crewed and then given fire plans and orders from the bridge?

Thanks for your time and effort!

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

The first sci-fi example that comes to mind is the Honorverse; generally, ship’s guns in that universe operated under centralized control, but maintained on-mount crews as a backup in case of battle damage. Part of the litany of damage control reports featured in various battle scenes is something along the lines of “Graser Mount Three is in local control.” Presumably, “local control” meant that the gun was still operating, but at reduced accuracy and coordination levels due to the cannon being “out of the loop,” as it were.

edudriS
edudriS
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Judging by the crew sizes of ships (which aren’t all accurate but still) and visuals of canon operators I think at least all laser canons are gunner controlled for higher efficiency’s due to operator skill. Turbo lasers on the other hand I’m less sure of because the added bonus to targeting speed, etc. may not be necessary or even apparent since their targets aren’t quick star fighters. Though even the Death Star technically had a “canon operator” who had to fire its’ laser; so who’s to say what does and doesn’t get man operated.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  edudriS

Capital ships may not *corner* like (much) smaller craft, but they consistently demonstrate comparable acceleration onscreen, and we (occasionally) see them start surprisingly abrupt turns (see that ROTJ bit where the fleet starts reacting to Lando’s ‘pull up’ order); as such, longer-range running engagements might demand more rapid coordination of a given ship’s HTLs or heavy ions than one would assume.

Ben
Ben
1 year ago

How many people would crew this ship?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

A thought: including the Lancer for scale is an awesome touch, and something I’d like to see more of, but I wonder if a CR90 might be more appropriate. Considering one of the first things we see in ANH is how a CR90 fits into the bay of an Imperator, seeing the same ship in far more massive bays on far more massive ships would really drive home how much larger said ships are in a way that the Lancer lacks…

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Eh, the Lancer’s only 2/3rds again a CR90’s length, though you might have a point WRT more film-only and/or recent-media fans lacking that frame of reference. Come to think of it, pretty sure there’s a roughly Falcon-scale Disneyboot patrol ship using that name now, which could complicate Googling slightly.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

True, but it’s one thing to know that a Lancer is 100 meters longer than a CR90 and quite another to actually see it on screen.

As to the other, I had to Google it, but yeah, it’s a Clone Wars-era ship. You’d think that, with all the words in all the various languages on the planet, the Lucasfilm Storygrope could find something original. Hell, just throw “Lancer” into Google Translate and start clicking random languages to see if anything you like comes up.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I’ll give the Disneybooters this much: as ship names go, ‘Ravager’ fits an Executor rather better than it did that Lancer from the X-wing books. Still suggests a somewhat low-energy approach to space-combat details.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Disney also reintroduced Lancer Frigates for the First Order, but I don’t think they have a new visual representation yet. Hopefully it’s a little less phallic this time around.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

With the siege pizza’s precedent, there’s a fair chance it’ll rock a pair of extra-evocative thruster blisters.

Valiran
Valiran
2 years ago

The Bellator has been my favorite ship since I saw it on SD.net back in the late 00s. I can hardly wait to see what it will look like after you’ve finished giving it a modern update!

TheEpicDude
TheEpicDude
2 years ago

So…much…hanger…space!!!

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago

Lancer in the hangar opening is truly breathtaking! I can practically hear the PA now!

Sorican
Sorican
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Yeah. I came here looking for a new desktop background. the only real problem is…uh… picking which one. right now, it’s the Lancer with the hangar bay. we’ll see how long it lasts (Awesome render… maybe a little busy for a desktop background. Before finding this ever so lovely place, i was always a matte gray kind of guy.)

xavi
xavi
2 years ago

Mr. Fractal. I download all your stuff, I’m collecting all (for personal consumption only). I love all them… but I would like some more “rebel scum” material…. for example I was looking as crazy for Nebula Class destroyer pictures through all internet but I only could find always the same picture

Sorican
Sorican
2 years ago
Reply to  xavi

B-WING! I want a B-WING!! I have a wish list of ships I’d love to see turned into proper models… and for which I cannot afford commissions. Bwings and nebulas are at the top of the list.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  Sorican

You do realize he’s already done a Nebula.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

But has he updated it yet? I do wonder why the Nebula never been on his site?

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

Most of the way down the page. http://fractalsponge.net/?p=923

2-SX-E
1 year ago
Reply to  xavi

Wait you actually downloaded those 3D models? How? Where?

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
1 year ago
Reply to  2-SX-E

I think xavi means the pictures. These 3dD models are not up for download because thats a easy way to get your art stolen.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  xavi

@ xavi
I was wondering about that too is a chance to see the more of the Nebula SD and co?

xavi
xavi
2 years ago

every few days I check this page checking for new updates like a child in front of a toystore. Amazing as always. This pictures with the Lancer inside are Epic. I don’t use to comment because I don’t use have anything clever to say… just “Wow!!”

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  xavi

Much as I love technoblathering, this is so very relatable.

n/a
n/a
2 years ago

hey fractal have u ever thought about doing warhammer 40K ships?

Valoren
Valoren
2 years ago
Reply to  n/a

I wouldn’t bet on that, unless someone make an actual commission.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago

Wow, those shots with the Lancer are truly beautiful!

Certainly a very humbling view for any crew aboard that Lance, that;s for sure!

Ragnrok
Ragnrok
2 years ago

Those shots are aaaamaaazing!

DanielShenise
2 years ago

I hate to be the contrarian but I’ve tried and tried, but I like your old lighting setups better. I thought it peaked with the Allegiance.

Revan
Revan
2 years ago

It looks amazing, when you’re done could you post the official armament, compliment and other stats please? I’m pretty sure you’d keep track.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago

Turret Count Update:
PD Turrets: 863
Quad Medium Turbolaser Turrets: 116
Quad Heavy Turbolaser Turrets: 42
Octuple Heavy Turbolaser Barbettes: 22
Twin UltraHeavy Turbolaser Turrets: 24
Quad Heavy Ion Cannon Ball Turrets: 14
Missile Launch Tubes: 108

I haven’t been counting tractor beams, but if you’d like me to, just let me know.

As ever, corrections are welcome.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Thank you for keeping this running commentary of how many weapons this behemoth of a ship has! I guess we must pretty much be approaching the end of the design process now and you’re probably on the final stretch now.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

As you say, the PD mounts are quite easy to miss when you don’t have access to the model itself. “Is that a gun, or a greeble?” has been asked a few times. I’m surprised I missed 43 of them. It implies that there may be more on the centre line, given that the bow cannon cluster is the only set that’s taken my count off even.
Whatever the reason, I’ll set 906 as my new “carried forward” for PD turrets.

I’m not sure how I came up with 10 more quad MTL turrets, either. Perhaps there are some innocent structures which look a bit like MTL turrets at certain resolutions. I’ll recount tomorrow.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

I’ve rechecked my MTL count against all the WIPs and, unless you’ve removed some turrets between WIPs, I think it’s accurate. Breakdown of positions below:

Conning Tower: 4×2 turrets
Top Terrace: 4×2 turrets
2nd Terrace: 6×2 + 4×1 turrets
3rd Terrace: 10×2 turrets
4th Terrace: 14×1 turret
5th Terrace: 2×2 + 4×1 turrets
6th Terrace: 4×2 + 4×1 turrets
Upper Dorsal Ridge Indent: 2×2 + 4×1 turrets
Dorsal Ridge Forward Section: 2×2 turrets
Dorsal Ridge Front Surface: 2×2 + 4×1 turrets
Trench (forward of foremost large indent): 2×1 turret
Superstructure Aft: 4×2 turrets

Sum: 116

I’m not entirely sure about the trench turrets, and some of the others may have been removed since I counted them, but otherwise my maths works out.
I’m not looking for conflict, I just would like to make sure I’ve got it right for the next count.

During my checking, I’ve also spotted 4 of the 43 PD guns I missed.

Taghmata Omnissiah
Taghmata Omnissiah
2 years ago

I like the idea that one or two Lancers are permanently stationed aboard this ship.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago

Aye would be a nasty surprise, additional anti-fighter escorts dropping out of her belly and staying close. Thing is this ship is liberally slathered with anti-fighter weapons, she’s very well protected against fighter strikes. Someone did a breakdown of the armament in a previous update.

PD Turrets: 830
Quad Medium Turbolaser Turrets: 106
Quad Heavy Turbolaser Turrets: 42
Octuple Heavy Turbolaser Barbettes: 12
Twin UltraHeavy Turbolaser Turrets: 24
Quad Heavy Ion Cannon Ball Turrets: 10
Missile Launch Tubes: 48

And the PD turrets are double and quad mounts of lasers. The Lancers might even seem a bit pointless, but with a ship this valuable and expensive, you’d want to protect her against fighters, so your idea really does make sense 🙂

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I get the distinct impression parasite corvettes/frigates could pose a notable extra-thing-to-blow-under-bleedthrough hazard if, say, your battlewagon’s jumped by a peer or two & eats a salvo to the underside before they’re launched. Certainly useful to have the carriage/emergency-tending capability, but you’d probably want ’em elsewhere (and with maneuvering leeway) when expecting a firefight.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Almost sounds like a gaming objective…

GM: “None of the weapons are your ship are powerful enough to damage the Bellator, but your sensors detect a Lancer-class Frigate in the starboard docking bay. It’s shields are down, so it might be vulnerable to a proton torpedo attack…”

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“Rolling for aggressive maneuver…ah fierfek, a 2”

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

“Soooo half your torp spread gets picked off by the Bellator’s point defense, and the Lancer’s gunners vape the rest. No, wait, reroll, three slip through…one kriffs up the Lancer’s engine block, one takes out a docking arm, and that last one slags a stormie transport. Oh, and the Bellator’s ventral mains got off two volleys while all this resolved. Rolling for evasion, shield focus, hull soak…ooh. And not the good ‘ooh’.”

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

*break sweat as GM scribbles something down on his notepad*

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

I was thinking more along the lines of what a skin-dancing X-Wing or armed light freighter could do in close where the mains don’t have a firing solution and only a handful of PDs can be brought to bear. Add to that the Lancer would essentially be idling in the bay with its weapons shut down to avoid any unfortunate accidents (depending on the Bellator’s PDs to defend it if needed). But yeah, there would need to be a new house rule to represent that, too…

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I’d err toward gunboat-equivalent freighter, just to be sure of enough ordnance & resilience to pull the entry off, never mind the rolls for egress. ‘Course, there’s always that group who’d figure ‘hey, we’re here already, why not try an Ep 4 crash-board infiltration once the biggest Lancer bits are clear?’

Taghmata Omnissiah
Taghmata Omnissiah
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I get that, but by coincidence you create interesting concept. Bellator is huge ship and I presume operate as lead ship of a Task Force, but if he can carry in his hangar space smaller combatants like Lancer or Carrack he can provide much larger patrol net for system control if he could operate alone. I think this could be rather similar to concept used in UNSC Infinity that carry with him support frigates.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago

I can roll with that premise WRT Halo, but SW designs & space-combat mechanics strike me as just different enough to make light capitals more dependent on freedom of maneuver than the benefits of a parent ship. Different story if they’re disabled and/or the reactor’s powered down, though. Maybe if more cruiser-plus-scale craft or specialized tenders had bay doors ala Han’s bulk freighter in TLJ…

Steve
Steve
2 years ago

Oh wow! Six shield generators, and a lovely hangar layout, putting the Lancer in there is a clever use of ‘banana for scale’ as a TIE would be all but unnoticable. Whilst the Bellator don’t carry as many fighters as a more rational Executor (as 144 seems way too low for a ship of that size) I’d guess this thing carries somewhere in the order of 200 odd fighters, shuttles and assorted small craft (and that goes from TIE Manglers, to Skiprays to Starwings, various shuttles, assault transports etc)

Valoren
Valoren
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

To be honest, the thing is so large, a venator-size fighter complement could probably fit pretty easily without even counting additional small craft.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Valoren

Very true but the 500+ compliment of a Venator always seemed very high, especially when looked at with the context of later vessels. This can be blamed with a change of naval doctrine as the Empire was a huge proponent of big gun vessels rather than carriers. Huge monsters like the Executor and Eclipse could probably carry well in excess of 1000 fighters, but a ‘smaller’ ship like this, who’s got a lot of focus on raw firepower, say 288 fighters + 150 odd small craft?

That’s double the canon Executor’s compliment of fighters. And the Bellator is built for anti-shipping action, not to rely on her fighters who could well be more used as anti-fighter protection or strike roles as needed. The Executor in this setting with Fractal’s more rational and better armed ships probably has a fighter compliment well north of 1000 fighters. Something like the Allegiance probably has something like say 96 fighters (she’s a gunboat, not a multi-role ship) and they’d mainly be for anti-fighter duty. The Bellator, at least in my mind is an extension of that doctrinal approach. She’s made to run down and gun down anything this side of an Executor, her guns, like those on the Alligiance are her main armament, but carrying nearly 300 fighters is still a massive layer of protection and I doubt she’d ever go off alone without escorts.

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

The Venator 500+ fighter complement is nothing compared to the 20 at-at’s + landing barges a Imperator carry canonically. An Imperator can easily carry 3 times Venator-complement when they trade in their Imperator-complement. The firepower and volume of a single Imperator are also equal to 3 Venators when going with Fractals HTL-power stats.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  STONEhenk

Indeed. Square meterage of parking space is something that gets overlooked w/r/t “fighter complements” in the SWU. Many people (including otherwise excellent novel writers) just assume that if a ship has a capacity for 72 starfighters (6 squadrons), then that will be its absolute complement regardless of whether those 72 starfighters are TIE/ln’s or B-Wings. Never mind that TIE’s are carried in overhead racks wholly unsuited to B-Wings, or that two TIEs could be parked in the deck space needed to land a single B-Wing (likely with room left over).

A real world example: during the early stages of WW2 in the Pacific, the US Navy was able to increase the number of aircraft assigned to its carrier-based fighter squadrons from 18 to 27. They did this by introducing the folding-wing variant of the F4F Wildcat, which allowed more aircraft to be fitted into the space allotted for the fighter squadron.

So yes, the “official” fighter capacity for an ISD is 72 TIEs, but this doesn’t take into account how many TIE Maulers, TIE Scimitars or TIE Demolishers could be fit into the same square meterage of deck space.

It also doesn’t take into account how the Alliance might make use of the deckspace on their captured ISDs post-Endor. Considering how much simpler landing is for an Alliance fighter (a flat space on the deck, as opposed to the TIE overhead racks), it’d be very easy to pull out a lot of the ground assault vehicles and put fighters in in their place. How many X-Wings could be parked in the same deck space taken up by a single AT-AT? It’s easy to picture the Alliance pulling a lot of the ground combat forces and equipment off of a converted ISD to double or triple its fighter capacity for use as a superiority platform.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Considering how ubiquitous force fields, tractor beams and repulsorlifts are in the SWU, it wouldn’t be difficult at all to build a “shelf” type parking structure for starfighters to maximize their use of volume. A lot of warehouses use the same structure, stacking storage space vertically with long aisles between for accessibility. In fact, they did something similar with Naboo N-1s in the Theed Hangar. If starfighters can move as slowly as they are seen to move in the take-off scene in ANH:SE, maneuvering into and out of stacked storage spaces wouldn’t be too difficult. The next step would be a modular system that changes “shelf” dimensions to better fit certain ships that require extra height, like a Lambda.

Or something like that could be reserved for deep storage or reserve hangars, with “ready group” ships parked in more conventional deck space maximizing their ability to launch and recover quickly…

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Offhand, A- and E-wings seem like the Alliance/NR’s best bet for low-ceiling, bulk-storable snubs of passable performance. On the opposite end, K-wings strike me as even deck-hoggier than the B- or most strike-specialized TIEs. Probably still manageable with all that freed-up walker space, but I’d stop at ~2 squads for a retrofitted Impstar or lighter destroyer.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Thought there was some non-movie, Legends era resolution to this idea–the Quasar Fire-class ‘Flurry’ in ‘Truce at Bakura’ being an example where Alliance/NR fighters are shown as racked in resource materials.

I think for the most part the issue is one of the Rebellion’s non-carrier dedicated and repurposed civilian ships taking the forefront of visual identities.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Depends on what source you go by. It was originally introduced in The Truce At Bakura as a “converted Virgillian Bulk Carrier,” IIRC. The whole design and backstory makes little sense, though. The description reads like that of a Bulk Cruiser, but it lacks anything resembling an actual bulk cruiser’s armament.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

The new look is nice, but I prefer to tack it onto a modified background of the old version. I picture the “stock” Quasar Fire as a bulk carrier, like a space-going heavy-lift ship, with the space between the bridge section and the engines used to haul cargos too massive to be fit into the cargo bays of normal freighters (starships, small space stations, bulk cargo pods, etc). All that would be needed to convert it to a carrier would be to strip out the heavy docking tackle and build in the launch bays.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

‘Bulk’ & ‘heavy’ seem like very relative terms in a setting which includes stuff like the FSCV & Lucrehulk, but I could see the Quasar as fitting roughly on the U-HAUL end of that spectrum. Also strikes me as one of those tertiary-party designs that winds up being used by every other (mainly Outer Rim-ish) space-capable faction.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

When referring to cargo, a “dry bulk carrier” carries large quantities of loose form material, such as coal, grain or granular ore. Tankers are also technically bulk carriers, but are classified differently. It’s still possible for a ~110-meter Action VI to be a Bulk Freighter in the traditional sense, so long as its cargo bay is configured to carry “bulk cargo.”

It’s also not too much of a stretch to interpret “bulk” as hauling cargos too large to fit into the cargo holds or docking bays of other ships. In the real world, heavy-lift ships are used to reposition oil drilling platforms or ships that can’t make the voyage on their own for whatever reason (the MV Blue Marlin – of the “ship-shipping ship shipping shipping ships” meme fame – was also the ship that transported the USS Cole back to the yard after the bombing attack). A Star Wars equivalent could be used to haul non-HS capable vessels like the IPV 1 from system to system, or to transport badly damaged ships in the <300-meter size range back to shipyards as part of larger salvage and repair operations. It could even be used to deploy large ground vehicles like Lando's Nomad City on Nkllon, or Fractal's AT-SP.

Considering the first escort carriers in WW2 were converted merchant ships, having the Quasar Fire start as a commercial design which is subsequently modified for military use isn't outside the realm of possibility. There could even be modular versions, where the landing bays are actually "cargo" modules being hauled by a stock Quasar Fire (with attendant vulnerabilities and combat losses making it fall out of service in favor of fully modified carrier variants). That's not without precedent either; the SS Atlantic Conveyor was lost in the Falkland Islands war while serving as a combination cargo ship and auxiliary aircraft carrier…

But I digress…

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Well, that’s the idea. The old EU one had purpose-built racks for Alliance/NR fighters. Logistically speaking, no, the Alliance racks won’t be as clean or standardized between fighters, but they are feasible.

I would suggest that it’s safe to say that when the Alliance/NR purpose-built or heavily refit ships as carriers (or captured them from the Empire) they would include or adapt racks suited to- or adaptable to their own projected fighter compliment.

When they’re refitting cruise liners or buildings or whatever to act as mobile bases or guerrilla capital ships, then they’re going to be limited by pre-existing frames and infrastructure that preclude racks or larger service bays and hangers.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I would love to see this and that would be so cool

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

As far as the rack mounts for TIEs, though, they appear to only use a single layer in their ready-to-launch bays. In effect, it’s an inversion of simply parking the ships on a deck, just dropping down from the racks and the other parked TIEs to fly out from under them rather than lifting up and flying over other ships parked on a flat deck…

Valoren
Valoren
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Talking about folding-wings, I’d wager TIEs are pretty easy to disassemble, which would make their mass storage significantly more efficient, even if they’re not battle ready.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Speaking of overlooked logistics: pretty sure one of the prior WIP threads mentioned this, but sweet Sithspit is there a brainbug WRT how rapidly ship small-craft complements can deploy in combat. Granted, repulsors & tractors can enable much, but very few debate threads seem to factor in, say, launches under fire or emergency thrust/maneuvers on the carrier craft’s part. Depending on surprise, initiative, intent (i.e. planned strike vs. random encounter) & a few factors I’ve probably overlooked, fighter-heavy ships might not get the necessary time/distance to smother a Tector/Allegiance-style gunboat with enough strike wings to make a difference.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Conversely, a carrier could have scouts or AEW platforms forward deployed and detect the gunboat outside of its effective sensor range. As you say, a lot of factors potentially come into play.

And I think that other convo was one of mine, where I suggested that perhaps the WEG-listed fighter complements of the various ships were actually their combat ready complement, such as that while an Executor might have 20-30 wings onboard ship, it could only immediately launch two of them in the event of a short, sharp come-as-you-are engagement of the type a roleplaying group can expect to encounter.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

True; I was just spit-balling at the time. However, the larger conversation was about how a ship will only be able to surge launch its entire fighter complement under certain circumstances, generally only when it has sufficient time to prepare for a battle it knows it going to happen. IIRC, the numbers for the Soviet fighter regiments in FM-100-2-1 stated that fighters would only be kept on “ready to launch” status for a couple hours at a time. So basically, out of a squadron of 12 fighters, only one at a time would be ready to launch immediately (or thereabouts) in any given 24 hour period.

The numbers likely vary for ships in a sci-fi setting, but it’s worth taking into account.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I do wonder how much warning shipboard interceptors generally get in the face of R1/ROTJ-style jump-in strikes. The Scarif Impstars sure seemed to be caught napping in that regard, though I doubt *every* engagement involves cinematic gravity-well-&-collision-hazard-range shenanigans.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Of course, Scarif is the only time we get to see a TIE spam launch (from the shield gate station). There were other TIEs already in combat before that launch, but they could’ve been CAP from the station just as easily as they could’ve been launched by the ISDs.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

* regarding TIE spam launch As far as movies go yes but several video games depicted as well

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I don’t recall it ever being discussed. WEG is the source for a lot of the “known” small craft complements and, apart from some brief fluff discussions on maintenance hours per flight hour in a couple articles, there’s no real mention of how many fighters out of a ship’s official complement will be down for maintenance, or needing to warm up from a cold start before being launched. For all the guidance given in the game, any capital ship could surge its entire starfighter complement into battle in a matter of seconds.

The system worked well enough for what it was; no group of PCs was going to be able to stand up to that many TIEs at once, so they pretty much could only cut and run. The game wasn’t built around set-piece realistic battles, so there wasn’t a critical need for knowing exactly how many fighters a large ship could carry, so long as the answer was [too many for you to fight].

A more realistic approach would’ve been to give each ship some sort of base value, which would then be modified by combat conditions and a dice roll to randomize ships being downchecked on preflights or something. That’s what I was hinting at with the earlier idea…

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That more/less makes sense to me, though I suspect most superheavies’ base value (even with an extra-unlucky mitigating-conditions ‘roll’) would still handily outstrip the 2-wing stat. Well, besides Praetor, but Fractal’s version just sports a couple proportionally-minuscule bow bays.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

In a lot of ways, it works better for a gaming scenario if you don’t have exact numbers to work with. If a GM can just roll the dice and say, “you’ll have to get past the flight of TIEs on CAP, but you’ll have to make it quick, because the destroyer can get another two squadrons of ready-alert fighters into space in twelve rounds,” that’s far more useful in a story-driven gaming scenario than knowing exactly how many TIE Fighters, Interceptors and Bombers are assigned to an ISD (which later turns about to wrong anyway).

A lot of this stuff makes more sense if we either don’t know exactly how many fighters these ships can carry or if that knowledge is merely incidental to how many it can get into space in a minute or two…

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That noted, saner-sounding estimates would be handy for writer/fan-resource databases & the odd simulation demented enough to actually model that much stuff.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I dunno where to add this input so I’ll slap it here: interesting conversation on how there could be more TIEs stored in the likes of ISD and larger vessels, but I do believe the limited number listed on compliments could possibly be an optimum number sortied per battle while retaining response time. Aside from Imperial combat doctrine that doesn’t rely too much on fightercraft, it has been said that TIE are deployed very rapidly from its rack mounts, but fighter retrieval takes longer than its deck mounted counterparts – a fact that Rebels used to great effect to flee their Imperial attackers. So while an ISD may be able to launch a swarm of TIEs, perhaps it’s limited to six squadron per any given moment of time is not out of pure capacity but rather it being just enough for (relatively) rapid retrieval to allow the continuation of the pursuit instead of launching all the wings and find yourselves an hour or so behind.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

I could halfway see that making sense if your TIEs are all early-GCW models sans hyperdrive and the support screen lacks a dedicated retrieval carrier to collect ’em, but that still leaves at least a fistful of upper-end capitals with enough apparent deck space to scramble several times the (formerly) official total count (mainly looking at Executor/Vengeance/Eclipse, but I suspect a couple of the heavier Mon Cals are also lowballed to a lesser degree).

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Per the ICS, a stock Imperator has a relatively small separate retrieval hangar and a transfer passage to the launch hangars which would give a set number of TIEs it could retrieve per minute, although a mass launch from a high readiness state would be nearly instantaneous, like Scarif.

Even if the TIEs are limited by endurance, there’s no reason why an Imperator couldn’t carry a few light tankers in the air wing, perhaps based upon the Sentinel spaceframe to keep the fighters spaceborne and fueled up for a little longer during extended operations.

All of the supercapitals have official specifications that were clearly written by someone with no sense of scale, but from an in-universe perspective, I guess they were all designed to operate in the company of specialized carriers. Besides, Eclipse must be mostly capacitor by volume to support the doom-beard, while Vengeance is too anorexic to really have that much room for flight deck operations.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

And here I figured tender or supercarrier capacity was the soundest explanation for Vengeance’s entire-ventral-bow cavity. Starting to wonder if that thing was either some kinda wacky stealth-battlecruiser concept or just waaay too far down the structural-lightening-for-extra-sublight-thrust curve.

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Steve*
Allegiance do not carry fighters and Fractal have estimate that the Executor can carry around 200 fighter wings which equal to 14,400 fighters total.
Don’t know about the Eclipse’s fighter compliment but I think it less than the Assertor’s fighter compliment. (Which is 24 fighter wings.)

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Ahh okay 🙂 So basically the Allegiance is a super-Tector got ya, I thought she’d carry at least some fighters for self defence even though she’d have escorts and wouldn’t be alone. And that many aboard an Executor…bloody hell!

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

The Allegiance have dozens of PD cannons for anti-fighter so it fine without escorts.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Perhaps, but considering the expense of such a big ship, and her somewhat specialized nature, that she’d almost certinally have escorts. Whilst she’s a ‘fat’ Star Destroyer, she’s still a major asset and would probalby have an Imperator or two or some smaller ships riding shotgun.

LazerZ
LazerZ
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Wow, 200 Fighter wings was way off my estimate, which was closer to the complement of the Impellor-class

Kerobani
Kerobani
2 years ago

Placing a Lancer in that hangar was a neat touch.

Adam Warnock
Adam Warnock
2 years ago

What’s this? Are you branching out into interiors? Looks good Fractal. I’m looking forward to seeing how this gets developed.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Adam Warnock

Our host’s cranked out some snazzy hangar assemblies on a few prior projects, but the lighting here stands out.