Tyralak 12,068 Posted March 13, 2010 Often those alleging Imperial technical and military superiority point to the sheer size of Imperial ships and their huge crew compliments as an example. The Death Star and the Super Star Destroyer class ships in particular. The more I thought about this, the more I realized this isn't an example of superior technology. On the contrary, it's actually an example of a technologically stagnant society. There is no practical reason to have ships as large as most of these Imperial warships are. The "terror weapon" and general intimidation factors simply aren't enough to justify these kinds of wasteful designs. In fact, the Imperial designs remind me quite a bit of the "Steampunk" genre of Sci-Fi. Essentially involving, very large, complicated machines to do relatively simple tasks. This tells me that their technological advancement plateaued a very long time ago. Instead of being able to consolidate and create smaller, more powerful machines, they had to resort to scaling up current technology to meet increasing demands. This also explains the need for these tremendous power sources. The fantastic output of these reactors isn't a testament to the technological superiority of the Empire. In actuality, it's a testament to the massive inefficiency of SW technology. It really is analogous to claiming that the UNIVAC is a superior computer to your average PC because of it's room-filling size and ridiculous power requirements. Another issue that had been in the back of my mind since the discussion of computer technology, is the serious lack of automation in SW ships. This is the crew compliment of a standard (1600 meter) Imperator/Imperial I-class Star Destroyer: * Officers(9,235) * Infantry (9,700) * Enlisted (27,850) * Gunners (275) As compared with a similarly sized (1,041 meter) D'Deridex class Warbird: * Accommodation: 1,500 plus officers, crew, and troops. NOTE: The Warbird crew compliment figures were drawn from the non-canon DS9 Technical manual. Also, this is total accommodation, including passengers and troops not related to the functioning of the ship. It's also interesting that an ISD requires dedicated gunners, whereas on Trek ships, weapons functions are almost completely computer controlled. In fact, much of the functions of an ISD are manual, requiring huge crews to accomplish what a similarly sized Romulan vessel can do with a crew a small fraction of the size. When you really stop and think about it, the size and crew compliment of these vessels isn't anything to be proud of. It shows a serious technological deficiency on the part of the SW universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted March 13, 2010 Uhhhh.... Tyralak? Your complaining that warships have fewer automated systems? Or are you commenting on the resort style living accommodations that Star Trek has. Note also, an SD has FAR greater volume than a D'deridix. Compare the crew of an oil tanker and a CVN, they aren't very close, are they? This comes back to my familiar rant about TNG era starship design, even including the Defiant to an extent. Also, "1500 plus Officers, Crew, and Troops" means that there is room for 1500 passengers, What is your source? DDG-1000 complement: 140 DDG-1000 displacement: 14,564 tons DDG-51 complement: 273 DDG-51 displacement: 9,200 tons Which is considered the better ship? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted March 13, 2010 Uhhhh.... Tyralak? Your complaining that warships have fewer automated systems? Or are you commenting on the resort style living accommodations that Star Trek has. Both the Warbid and the ISD are warships, which is why I compared them. The fact that an ISD requires such a large crew simply to function (along with a staggering amount of manual systems) is not the mark of technological advancement. Not sure what the living conditions you mentioned have to do with anything. Note also, an SD has FAR greater volume than a D'deridix. The smallest class of ISD (Victory class) may have been a better comparison. 900 meters in length. 564 meters in width. However, the fact of the Imperitor class having a larger volume further proves my point. Compare the crew of an oil tanker and a CVN, they aren't very close, are they? No, but they're also not the same kind of ship. Apples and oranges. An ISD and a Warbird are both warships. They're designed for the same function. This comes back to my familiar rant about TNG era starship design, even including the Defiant to an extent. Also, "1500 plus Officers, Crew, and Troops" means that there is room for 1500 passengers, What is your source? I stated the source right below the figure. It came from the non-canon DS9 technical manual. Quickly gleaned from this Memory Alpha article. I wish I had a canon source to work from regarding crew compliment, but it's the best that's available. I also think you may be missing my entire point. The unnecessary size and immense power requirements of these ships points to a technologically stagnant society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted March 13, 2010 Both the Warbid and the ISD are warships, which is why I compared them. The fact that an ISD requires such a large crew simply to function (along with a staggering amount of manual systems) is not the mark of technological advancement. Not sure what the living conditions you mentioned have to do with anything. We can argue about the value of highly automated systems versus local control in a combat scenario, but this really comes down to differing design philosophies, different functions, and different support environments. 1. Design Philosophy - A. The Star Destroyer functions as a fighter carrier, a troop ship, and either a light or heavy ship-to-ship combatant. Each of these functions will require its own crew to support. The support requirements for the fighter wing are unknown, but you cannot count the infantry as part of the ship's crew, as they may not do anything other than firefighting. This number probably also does not count the "amphibious" elements there to service the infantry. Also, at a certain size (and the infantry is already above that size) you start requiring a rapidly expanding amount of support personnel simply because of the number of people that you have. Barbers, doctors, police, paper pushers, all scale with both the population and the square footage involved. B. This one is broader, but ships in modern Trek are very lightly populated, both on a square footage level and a volume level, and are much more lightly staffed than modern warships. Modern warships (as I tried to communicate with the DDG-1000 comparison) have already reached the point of diminishing returns with reductions in crew size. It is possible that instead of relying on central control, Star Destroyers have massive redundancy, and that all or most parts can be operated even in the event of massive systems failures isolating those systems from the rest of the ship. Trek ships seem more analogous to combat aircraft than warships, in that they fail catastrophically - thus needing very little damage control - and are highly centralized - hence the lack of need for local control for weapons. Aircraft also are far more reliant on external sources of maintenance than ships, which once again supports the idea that Trek ships are more closely related to combat aircraft than to warships. This is not an indictment of the design philosophy used in either universe, as there could be a number of very good reasons to adopt either model, but simply an observation that no matter what we do, we are probably comparing apples and oranges. 2. Different Functions - As I have alluded to above, comparing a Warbird and a Star Destroyer is like comparing a battleship and an aircraft carrier, they have very different functions. The SD is, depending on how you interpret the word "destroyer" either a relatively small combatant that is a "jack of all trades" or a line combatant that functions as carrier, battleship, and assault ship. As two of the most personnel intensive rolls on that list have no true analogue in Trek due to technological differences, I am not sure how you can really form a comparison. 3. Support Environments - Also mentioned above, but we have no idea what the maintenance task divisions are. From what we see in the shows, the Federation is pretty schizophrenic about what maintenance is done in depo and what is done by the ship's crew. The smallest class of ISD (Victory class) may have been a better comparison. 900 meters in length. 564 meters in width. However, the fact of the Imperitor class having a larger volume further proves my point. How so? No, but they're also not the same kind of ship. Apples and oranges. An ISD and a Warbird are both warships. They're designed for the same function. That really depends, the catastrophic nature of failures in Star Trek engineering really makes me want to say that ST ships are closer to airplanes. Also, warship is an incredibly broad word, covering everything from the US Navy's little SEAL speedboats to battleships. There is no old-ST analogue for a Star Destroyer, which carries a large ground complement, a large fighter wing, as well as ship to ship armament. There is no real world analogue to that. I stated the source right below the figure. It came from the non-canon DS9 technical manual. Quickly gleaned from this Memory Alpha article. I wish I had a canon source to work from regarding crew compliment, but it's the best that's available. That's what I get for composing in stream of consciousness, when I wrote the comment, I went back and did a quick look to see the source, and missed it, sorry. The way that is worded is really strange. I would interpret that quote as meaning 1500+o+c+t - which is a very strange way of stating capacity. I will see if I can find my copy of that Tech Manual. I also think you may be missing my entire point. The unnecessary size and immense power requirements of these ships points to a technologically stagnant society. Nobody I know of argues that Wars tech is anything but stagnant. You're the one bringing up something entirely different, the old "technology level" argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Praeothmin 532 Posted March 13, 2010 Nobody I know of argues that Wars tech is anything but stagnant. You're the one bringing up something entirely different, the old "technology level" argument. Actually, I think he's just bringing up the "Ships are bigger, thus SW is clearly has superior technology" argument some Warsies have spouted over the years... And as for the ST equivalent, as far as I can tell, that would be the Akira. Has a launch bay that goes from aft to fore, has over 15 torpedo launchers and shields equivalent to a GCS, the only thing it lacks is the infantry and ground combat crew and equipment because, lets face it, ST doesn't like ground combat... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted March 13, 2010 And as for the ST equivalent, as far as I can tell, that would be the Akira. Has a launch bay that goes from aft to fore, has over 15 torpedo launchers and shields equivalent to a GCS, the only thing it lacks is the infantry and ground combat crew and equipment because, lets face it, ST doesn't like ground combat... According to Memory Alpha, the Akira has a crew of 500. That's WAY to low to service any kind of air wing, so I'm going to ask what's up with that. Also, Memory Alpha says 2 photons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Praeothmin 532 Posted March 14, 2010 Well, Questor, what you saw in Memory Alpha was taken from the DS9 Technical Manual. I was going with this info from its creator: In the real world, Alex Jaeger of Industrial Light and Magic designed the Akira Class, which is named for the anime movie Akira. Jaeger's non-canon comments on the ship's design in an interview with Star Trek Magazine include: "This was my gunship/battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. It has 15 torpedo launchers and two shuttlebays - one in front, with three doors, and one in the back. I really got into it with this one, with the whole idea that the front bay would be the launching bay, and then to return they'd come into the back, because they'd be protected by the rest of the ship." And also the model disagrees with the 2 launchers: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/alex-jaeger-week-the-akira-class/ As for the "low" number of crew for support, as you yourself have pointed out, ST ships always seem to either work or fail, so perhaps their "fighters" are the same, they are low-maintenance crafts... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted March 14, 2010 http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/alex-jaeger-week-the-akira-class/ How on Earth did I not know about that blog? Awesome! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
