A carrier variant of the ISD. Armament modified to a uniform set of Venator-scale main gun.
The whole family, Dominator, Tector, Imperator, Imperial/ISD2, and Vector for scaling:
A carrier variant of the ISD. Armament modified to a uniform set of Venator-scale main gun.
The whole family, Dominator, Tector, Imperator, Imperial/ISD2, and Vector for scaling:
So does this carry more than a Secutor? Great work btw
My view is that since the Secutor is larger, and its hangar openings of comparable size relative to its length, then, if the two ships were packed equally densely, the Secutor would carry more. The Dictator and the Urbanus, also big Star Cruisers with big fighter complements, have the same hangar suite as the Secutor.
The Secutor normally carries 8 wings, but this may be deliberate “under-packing” to make for ease of maintenance and ease of scrambling the fighters/bombers.
This ship might carry 16 wings, according to Wrythley:
“Presumably around 16 wings for the fighter complement, unconfirmed”
but I believe that’s using a much “denser packing”.
Wonderful!
In the ‘_isd38’ image, I assume the apparent difference in engine lighting is a graphical artifact of the render and not an illustration of reduced engine output?
I want ten, pls.
the rebels wouldn’t have stood a chance
Does “Uniform set of Venator gun” refer only to the point defence weapons – triple-barrelled 40 TT gun being replaced by double-barrelled 70 TT gun, but the 3 double-barrelled 175 TT turrets remaining the same on each side (the ion turrets completely taken out)?
Or have the 3 175 TT turrets on each side been replaced with 3 70 TT turrets? They still look identical structurally to the Imperator Mark I’s double barrelled turrets, as seen on the Imperator Mark I and the Rector.
Sorry – spellchecker changed it and I didn’t notice – should have been Tector.
So far, as the primary armament, I count:
4 double barrelled 70 TT turbolasers (2 dorsal, 2 ventral)
2 quad barrelled 70 TT turbolasers (1 port, 1 starboard)
6 double barrelled 175 turbolasers (3 port, 3 starboard)
Alpha-strike – 3.22 PT.
All the primary cannons are 70 teratons. Miscount on the big dorsal turrets, those are quad 70tts
Good point. I was on a computer that couldn’t zoom in as easily – now that I’m on one that can, I can make out the four barrels instead of 2 on the port and starboard big dorsal turrets.
That reduces the power of the turret slightly (280 TT instead of 350 TT) and gives the whole thing an alpha strike of 2.8 PT instead of 3.22 PT.
Still quite heavily gunned compared to most light star destroyers like the Victory, Venator, and Provocator. It even very slightly outguns the Turbulent, so should probably be considered a “bottom end of medium Star Destroyer” ship in the same way.
(The Turbulent’s 36x 25 TT guns and 26x 70 TT guns give it an alpha strike of 2.72 PT)
Well, now I need a new name for the carrier variant of the Praetor. Nicely done.
The Procastinator
so basically, the venator of the imperator family. if the imperator carries one wing (72 craft) how many would the vector be able to carry and is the vector a frontline vessel (uses its weapons and craft to attack up close like the venator) or does it act like real-life carriers (hang back and let its craft do the attacking). amazing ship fractal
The Venator itself was, at least compared to the Victory, “a carrier” – less firepower, much more hangar space. With this ship having just over double the Venator’s firepower, it makes sense that it would be used like two Venators – a hybrid battleship/carrier rather than a pure carrier.
There are very few pure carriers once you get to Star Destroyer size – all big ships, even the ones with a high proportion of their internal space being devoted to starfighters, having lots of firepower as well.
Nice!. Hope you post the stats soon.
main armament is 8x4x70tt and 4x2x70tt
Presumably around 16 wings for the fighter complement, unconfirmed
The Secutor (between 2.2km and 2.15 km, instead of 1.6 km), with 2 big hangars instead of 1 big hangar, only carries around 8 wings according to its page. Maybe 10 wings.
This ship should be in-between the Venator and the Secutor in standard complement, rather than exceeding the Secutor.
Secutor’s number is a massive lowball. And for all ships, if they carry vehicles for surface forces, then their potential starfighter carriage is reduced substantially. You could fit several wings of fighter in the volume that even a normal ISD dedicates to AT-ATs and their dropships
Yup. However, absent the choice to trade away all ground vehicles and dropships for starfighter wings, the previously established standard starfighter complements for much larger ships, do imply a lower standard complement than 16 wings for this one.
Impellor, Assertor – 24 wings
Secutor, Dictator – 8 wings
Compellor – 6 wings
Using numbers that I came up with as lowball estimates to allow for ground complements, maintenance, and flexibility in order to argue against me is going to end really well.
I’m not arguing against 16 wings as a “packed to the brim with star fighters, no troop regiments at all, no vehicles at all” figure.
But I would like to know what the “lowball” figure for this ship’s starfighter complement, with troop regiments, maintenance, and flexibility incorporated, is.
It will depend on the fighter type and troop formation type (i.e. need for dropships and vehicles). 12-16 wings is a lowball. Volumetrically scaling from Venator gives numbers that are quite high. No, I have no interest in laying it out because there are too many potential variations.
Makes sense. “Upscaling from the Venator” and “Downscaling from the Impellor” both work as guidelines for what the standard complement for this ship should be.
The Impellor’s was 24 wings as a mixed starfighter-and-troopship carrier, 36+ wings as a mostly-starfighter-carrier.
Since TIE Interceptors represented the “standard fighter in a wing” according to one of the previous Fractalsponge posts on the subject, extra-bulky ships like the Star Wing Gunboat would significantly reduce the capacity.
They really don’t work as guidelines. A lot of the current estimates we have are lowballs even with a ground complement. I headcanon the current numbers as peacetime complements, which allow for fast sortie rates and not requiring all that much for maintenance.
A proper wartime complement would have far more starfighters without sacrificing ground forces.
Which is kind of the point – if all the other carriers have “low-end peacetime complements” , then, for consistency if nothing else, this one should be the same way – it shouldn’t be the odd one out.
Is this the Fractal version of http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics/marvel/gieldestroyer1.jpg
?
Either way, very well done as always!
More or less. I didn’t modify the engines and I kept the hangar shape but terraced it out to get some decent volume to the hangar complex.
I love and deeply respect that your One-Armed Man is defining and fully realizing all the weird ships we barely saw in the EU that the Star Wars Technical Commentaries dutifully cataloged.
Great point! I’m not familiar with that comic. What’s the source of that frame?
Marvel Star Wars comic series from the late 70s and early 80s. That particular frame comes from issue 60 “Shira’s Story” – it’s where Admiral Giel’s armada appears for the first time, and the ship itself is on the same page that Admiral Giel’s ship, a Praetor II, first appears. The ship is shown just a little above Giel’s.
Nice, thanks!