Brian Young

By the way, the attack on Malevolence did not involve a ship without sufficient time to raise shields. The attack on the TradeFed ship in TPM didn't either. By the way, I'm about to solve the dish problem if I can talk long enough (allergies). Neither involved friendly turbolaser fire, fighters alone. Note that Anakin and his pilots felt they could accomplish this mission. Plo Koon said it would be a daring raid and asked if they could do it. Anakin asked his troops. They offered an enthusiastic yes. And don't forget Lando ordering to draw their fire away from the cruisers.

Enterprise fired an antimatter spread against the Borg cube in Best of Both Worlds part 2. I can confirm that not many people have watched the video. I watch the website stats carefully. Traffic has been down significantly the past week, not up. That video was viewed something like 5 times this week IIRC. S made an argument that if this was a viable tactic, there would be no capital ships. Well, the counter is if starfighters were not effective, there would be no starfighters. I pointed out in the video that starfighters take out unarmored targets, giving their mother ship an advantage in the battle. It's combined arms tactics, not all or none. You know, it's not like the ship would just sit there while this happens. An ISD, for instance, has perhaps over a hundred guns, which would be firing on the small ship in question. Note the sloped sides allows concentrated fire at virtually any angle. And I seem to recall they have starfighters of their own. Recall Ahsoka told Anakin during a similar attack on Malevolence "Master, you can make it, but everyone else is getting shot down." Let's imagine a 5% success rate with such attacks, which seems reasonable to me. That explains why they carry and launch waves of starfighters, because it is required. On average, one fighter out of every two squadrons would get it done, given such numbers. Note the Rebels launched 30 fighters, and they took out a tower, a hidden turret, and the main target, but two of these involved use of the Force. So minus Luke, they took out a tower with 30 fighters. So combined arms tactics are best, with fighters taking out shield generators, bridges, dishes, etc., giving the mother ship a decisive advantage. Pawns help the Queen. Runabouts are not as fast or maneuverable as starfighters, neither do they have the firepower of Xwings (I can prove that), but they may be powerful enough to do the job. They can combat Jem'Hadar vessels. And has no one argued that Starfleet could program their torpedoes to penetrate at the right velocity?

Well, in any event, starfighters can and do cause damage to capital warships many times in filmed or televised Star Wars, top level canon. This sometimes doesn't involve friendly turbolaser fire. So we are faced with two options: 1. The starfighters can circumvent these shields, meaning that other ships of similar size and power could as well. 2. The starfighters are powerful enough to overpower these shields, meaning that other ships of similar size and power could as well. Either of these options allows opposing ships similar in size and power to starfighters to accomplish the task. Given the extrapolated power of these ships, by multiple methods, the second option is a bit suspect. Those guys are oftentimes right, there is a lot to like about the Empire's military might, but the technology is not perfect. To suggest that a different advanced government, with impressive but vastly different technology, would have no advantage of any kind, is a bit prejudice. Whether using antimatter or not, a runabout is similar in size to a starfighter, and should have enough firepower to take out unarmored targets once they circumvent the shields. To suggest otherwise, in the face of all those examples, I feel is a bit dogmatic and unfair. However, I'd also dispute that it would be easy, or they could defeat the armor, or that it would have a high success rate. But in my estimation, it can be done.

thanks. I think I probably already deleted the follow up videos I posted from my Dropbox. Feel free to point them out. Buzzdroids Millennium Falcon/Avenger's hull Anakin's fighter ramming the battle droid in TPM Everyone please be patient with my slow progress. I've been sick for weeks with the thick pollen in the air this time of year, and I can only speak a few consecutive words before a coughing fit. I hope to get some work done soon, but it is difficult right now. Don't give up on me.

To my knowledge, the only civilian ship we've seen in the Federation was the cargo ship the helmsman in Enterprise previously served. But that was before Starfleet had more than a few ships. Later, the only non-Starfleet ship we've seen that I can recall was the automated freighter Enterprise destroyed in The Ultimate Computer. In my opinion, from TOS onward, there is no civilian traffic. Consider The Survivors, when a colony was destroyed but no one had a ship to get away. Consider all the times colonies were discovered where Starfleet ships had crashed, such as The Ensigns of Command, but I can't recall a single one from civilian ships. In that same episode, there was no mention of any civilian ships that could help with the evacuation. Note it was to take 3 weeks to get the necessary evacuation ship in place.

In Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which I rather enjoy), when Enterprise exits the drydock, there is a conundrum. Scotty says "Impulse power at your discretion." Kirk says "Impulse power, ahead warp point 5." The ships zooms away from Earth at relativistic velocities. This is a problem because we've seen several times in the films Enterprise leaving drydock or space dock at 1/4 impulse, or even taking a full minute to fly halfway around space dock at "full impulse power." It is always very low acceleration. Also, moments later, we observe Enterprise pass Jupiter. Then they say it has been 1.8 hours since launch, and they must risk going to warp while still inside the solar system. Reaching Jupiter in seconds, and 2 hours to clear the other planets, seems inconsistent. Also the quote is rather ambiguous. We rarely hear "impulse power" and "warp" in the same sentence, and I can't recall another instance when they were referring to the same acceleration event. Were they using impulse "power" to drive the warp nacelles up to half light speed? Does that explain the time problems via relativity? https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20522425/tmp3.mov

The traffic idea is a good thought, but there wasn't a lot of space traffic in Kirks's era. In that very movie, they had to use the unfinished Enterprise because "the only ship in interception range is the Enterprise." There was also a clip in TNG where getting somewhere on time was a big deal, so they dropped out of warp, transported people to a planet, and jumped back to warp. Deanna (my daughter's namesake said she thought she materialized inside a wall, and Data said for a moment she did. I have the clip. Anyway, that was close to a planet. The BoP used warp speed to slingshot back in time and forward in time in ST4. So it is an unusual example. Maybe it had to do with Enterprise's untested new engines? But the point being Kirk ordered not "full impulse" but "impulse power, warp point five."

We wee Hatak motherships being built in "Orpheus." I don't recall how many Goa'uld were present, but they definitely used Jaffa slave labor. This was a punishment for prisoners of war, IIRC. Anyway, that is a good episode to take a look at, to hopefully answer some of your questions. Also note the trees. Fan consensus is that these ships are about 700 meters across. That appears vastly in error here, and I plan a commentary on that in the near future.

I don't suppose Sybok(?) being a madman has anything to do with it...

I like to maintain a tidy computer. I personally think therefore the interface should be streamlined and neat. Star Wars and Star Trek are the most popular franchises, but I feel interest has been no greater than the Other forum. And personally, I like to compare other things just as much as these two. I therefore vote to combine.

Given the set criteria I'm using (which places the focus on abilities necessary to wage interstellar war), I'd say the Kllingons have the advantage. *FTL is roughly equal *Klingons probably have greater resources/industry. They rule an empire, which means everything in their similarly-sized territory is theirs. The Federation is comprised of members who join or decline of their own free will and accord. That means some planets are theirs, some are not, in a similar volume. *Klingons are pretty much all warriors, so they have an advantage in military numbers. *Klingons practice ground combat often. But they let their bloodlust get the better of them, throwing down their disruptors and using bladed weapons. Call it a tie. *Planetary bombardment. It is possible the Romulans are the big dogs here. As far as we know, the Klingons and Federation are about equal. *Ship to ship combat. It seems they are about equal. *Overall technology goes to the Federation. Those guys are pretty smart. *Planning/skill. The Klingons do this for fun, but not always intelligently. Call it a Federation advantage. So the Klingon advantages are in the most important areas, Federation advantages in the least important areas, and the rest about equal. In Yesterday's Enterprise, the intelligence and ingenuity of Starfleet are probably what kept the war going so long, but still winding down to a defeat. I'd say it is quite impressive they held on so long.

Lets say each ship is fully loaded and undamaged, but far from reinforcements. Galactica has advanced super dispersive armor that is probably as strong as the shields of lots of ships we discuss. Firepower doesn't seem that impressive, with maybe a dozen anti starfighter turrets. It carries 4 squadrons of Vipers. Vipers are very fast, but have slow turning rates comparatively. Omegas are slow and unwieldy, but have heavy advanced Centauri beam weapons they purchased from the Narns, which can slice and dice large capital ships. It carries 4 squadrons of Starfuries. Furies are very slow, but turn quickly comparatively. So this is speed and resilience vs firepower and maneuverability (Starfuries). Describe your scenario both with and without starfighter support.

But if we change it from the typical "blow up the other ship in deep space" scenario to something more realistic, like an Omega attacking a planet, with Galactica protecting the planet, would it be different?

Nobody seems interested, so I'll give my version. Agreed, if fighters are available, Vipers dominate the Omega. Starfuries have superior tumbling ability, but as they lack acceleration compensation, they would be slow, easy targets for Vipers. They could probably defend the mothership in formation as well as Vipers, where speed is not necessary, but in slowly crossing the distance between ships, they would be vulnerable. This means it is a defensive battle for Earthforce, and offensive for the Colonials. And Vipers do indeed have sufficient firepower to take out the Omega with or without Galactica's support. I think you're over thinking in terms of acceleration speed and reaction time, because those things are not known. We therefore cannot derive an advantage/disadvantage assessment. The data is insufficient. If no fighters are available, I think it is a more even fight. Galactica is more resilient, but Omegas probably have superior firepower, including interceptors. Fans of either show could claim victory with some validity. I'd still give Galactica a slight advantage due to superior mobility. The Omega can pivot quickly, as seen when they bugged out in Severed Dreams. This would allow them to keep their guns trained on Galactica, but it also places Galactica on the offensive and the Omega on the defensive, which is advantage Galactica.

As far as the acceleration goes, I assume that is in reference to the ICS acceleration thing. Just touching on that as a digression, Vipers make orbit in about twice the time as fast ships in Star Wars, and their firepower does indeed reflect that, as Apollo's strafing run seems comparable to the X-Wing strafing run against the skyscraper in ANH, or Luke's "got a little cooked" strafing run. However, Galactica can not keep pace with Vipers, and it is by orders of magnitude. In Star Wars, destroyers can chase down fast ships like Millennium Falcon, or perhaps even X-Wings(?). This is not the case with Galactica, and therefore we should not assume similar power levels. In fact, at "flank speed," it took Galactica several minutes to pass the "Gun on Ice Planet Zero." In a general sense, Vipers seem to have similar or superior firepower to Galactica's turrets.

We have seen Galactica and Pegasus attack Cylon Basestars. The damage inflicted did not seem any greater than that inflicted by strafing runs from Vipers in the Pegasus battle example. No, there is no indication Earthforce ships have FTL sensors. Galactica can indeed travel at light speed, but it seems to take a while to accelerate to that velocity. They probably could not perform a "Picard Maneuver" in battle. Vipers are very capable fighters. They can travel at light speed, and can get there pretty quickly. They definitely have acceleration compensation, built into the suit. Their firepower is impressive for star fighters, as Apollo took out a small Cylon base with a quick strafing run. All those things are far superior to Starfuries, but Furies have a turning advantage, and definitely have enough firepower to destroy Vipers in return. As such, Vipers are definitely superior offensively, but Furies may have an advantage in close protection of the mothership, where blazing speed is neutralized. Earthforce ships are heavily "armored," but it is not likely advanced armor like Galactica's, and can therefore probably be ignored. It is probably just steel or titanium or something. Rather, just consider the ship a large, heavy target, possibly twice the mass of Galactica. It is slow, but can pivot quickly, and has turrets, so Galactica's superior maneuverability is only a slight advantage. Omegas are a bit like a tank, bulky and slow, but packing a punch. Once again, Galactica is tough but has less firepower, Omegas less resilient but pack the heat.

Khas, I've produced over 2 hours of video dealing with this subject from multiple angles. Why don't you sit down and watch it? In it, I cover the acceleration method, scaling down the Death Star, direct effects against armor in combat, and maybe a few more things, each independent of Curtis' work in the book. In response to the physics book comment, yes I have taken basic Physics. Dr. Curtis Saxton holds a doctorate in that field, so back off. You and your fanboiz will never equal that level of Physics education combined. To be taken seriously, why don't you do your own work? You continuously refer to comments made by other fanboiz, as if their knee jerk reactions matter to virtually anyone. Here, in a bold move, you presented some math. That is great. But then you proceeded to use the lowest numbers you can find. Numbers which I challenge. I have the EGVV, and I see none if these numbers you suggest. Do you refer to a subsequent publication? If so, does it refer to the MGLT speed rates in video games? If so, carefully explain, using actually quotes, what that acronym stands for. Is it consistent? Is an ISD faster than the Millennium Falcon in that MGLT scale? Because it is on the movies. You are placing Han Solo's knee jerk reaction on an equal level to GENERAL Dodonna's MILITARY BRIEFING. To suggest he simply forgot about the Death Star's main weapon, and a small time smuggler is just as informed as he is, well that is simply asinine. And you know, I don't worship the ICS, offering up virgin sacrifices or anything. It is simply the secondary source I choose to fill in gaps or solve continuity problems in the movies. I do, however, choose to lean toward those firepower figures, because what I find from the films is much HIGHER. I feel it is more fair to come down to the levels in the books. It gives much more useful info on the size of ships and things than any other printed source. And my name is in the credits. A gun is named after me. Seriously, which secondary source would you predict I'd use? This is all explained in the 2 hours of video I've produced covering the topic. It is quite simple: you are debating the contents of videos you have not seen.

And to counter that, you use a ridiculous mass from a novel adaptation of a video game, which is so ridiculous it is absurd, and even miscalculate the math. Using these ridiculous figures, I find 2E18 watts, which is 485 megatons per second, not a few kilotons.

I thought we were talking about Star Wars. Silly me. I thought you were trying to debunk the numbers by applying a rational calculation to prove it is wrong. Silly me. Seriously, if you spin the numbers to favor your desired outcome, aren't you just making a mockery of it? Keep these two fact in mind. 1. Realistic numbers for the acceleration is around 10,000g. This is demonstrated by Dooku's escape in AOTC, Kenobi's escape in ROTS, and a few other times, but those are hard to dispute. Note events on the ground when Dooku's escapes and moons literally shrinking in the background when Kenobi's escapes. 2. Using the numbers in the AOTC ICS, it would take 10 quadrillion Acclamators to equal the firepower of the Death Star. General Dodonna compared this firepower to half the Starfleet. Note this is a separate calculation, not related to starship acceleration, and not dependent on some novel adaptation of a video game. It involves indisputable video evidence from the films. So, either the Empire has 20 quadrillion ships, or the numbers in the book do not represent a high level of firepower for the Imperial fleet. Read: conservative numbers in ICS.

Well, you can do a respectable calculation or be ridiculed for being ridiculous. Your choice. I'm just observing.

Of course, I'm assuming the 52,000 tons is in pounds. If we assume those are metric tons, we'd be looking at 531 kilograms per cubic meter. And this could be doubled, given the tapered hull both horizontally and vertically.

That is ridiculous. A VSD would be less than 1/4 the mass of Enterprise-D, when it is easily 5 times larger.

This is from Wikipedia, and shows the stats of an Iowa Class battleship. Using the 52,000 tons mean wartime mass, avoiding the later higher numbers, and using the overall dimensions (ignoring the tapered hull), I find the ship weighs 482 kilograms per cubic meter.

8 million metric tons is ridiculous. An ISD would be less than twice as massive as the already-too-light Enterprise-D (4.5 million metric tons). 1.8 times, actually. Use the dimensions and mass of a real life warship and do it again.

Yeah, but the point remains, no matter the specifics. A greater number of smaller and less powerful ships can be far more effective than one all-powerful ship. For offense, but most especially for defense.