Relation between Industrial Capacity and Volume

[Who is like God arbour]

I've just read on StarDestroyer.Net the thread More T r e k t a r d BS on ST.com.

• • • By the way, Jedi Master Spock, that is a nice function, which automatically substitute T r e k t a r d with >> Trektard <<.
      But it is obstructive, if one only want to quote this term.

In this thread, the here relevant topic beginning with a statement from TC Pilot, [...]

• The construction of the second Death Star is absolutely incomparable to the production of Star Destroyers.

[...] some seems to be of the opinion that for the volume of the Death Star, one could build with the same Industrial Capacity accordingly many StarDestroyers or Galaxy Class Star Ships with the same volume. A prominent member of StarDestroyer.Net, Connor MacLeod, has quoted an article from Darth Wong, in which the latter has made volumetric comparisons to compare the Industrial Capacities of the Empire and the United Federation of Planets:

Since we know that DS2's volume is 3.8E17 m³ and a GCS's volume is 6.5E6 m³, we can easily calculate that DS2 is equivalent in volume to more than fifty billion GCS's. Approximately 60% of DS2 was completed in the six month period before ROTJ (ref. Shadows of the Empire). Therefore, if the Federation had comparable industrial production to the Empire, it should have been able to build 35 billion GCS's in six months, or 2200 GCS's per second. This is obviously not the case, therefore the Federation has at best a miniscule fraction (<1 millionth of a percentage point) of the industrial capacity of the Empire.

What is your opinion?

1. Could the Empire with the same Industrial Capacity, with wich it has built the Death Star, build as many StarDestroyers or Galaxy Class Star Ships, how would be necessary to equal with their total volume that of the Death Star?
2. Or would it need more time and effort to build as many StarDestroyers or Galaxy Class Star Ships, how would be necessary to equal with their total volume that of the Death Star?
3. Or could it build with the same Industrial Capacity so much StarDestroyers or Galaxy Class Star Ships, that their total volume would be greater than the volume of the Death Star?

Please give a reason for your opinion!

[l33telboi]

I'd say no. If this was true then a lot of things in SW history would've gone much differently. Here's a quote from one of the novels:

Legorburu nodded to the Tammarian Ayddar Nylykerka, chief analyst for asset tracking during the Yevethan crisis and now director of Fleet Intelligence. "Based on available data, we are now estimating Yuuzhan Vong naval strength at one thousand capital ships, deployed in task forces and flotillas, comprising anywhere from twenty-five to seventy-five vessels."

…

"It may please the general staff to know," Nylykerka added quickly, "that the senate has ratified the Universal Conscription bill, and that the Kuat, Bilbringi, Sluis Van, and Fondor shipyards expect to double their production of heavy cruisers by the end of next year."

…

"Yes, sir, but with our present stock of Mon Calamari Mediator-class battle cruisers, Bothan Assault Cruisers, and Corellian Viscount-class Star Defenders, we have sufficient firepower to engage the Yuuzhan Vong in multiple theaters."

It's worth noting that this is the New Republic and not the Galactic Empire. But somehow i doubt the difference in their production can be so great that the NR is having trouble matching the Vong invasion size and the GE would be able to do the feats proposed.

When their industry is mobilized for war, even the most prominent shipyards are only able to double the output. This of course leaves the question 'how many ships were being produced per year?', but given the relatively low numbers given throughout the novels, i'd say the estimates based off the Deathstar are going to be way to much.

[Mike DiCenso]

Let us not also forget that a mere 200 or so ships from the Katana fleet was more than sufficent to turn the tide in the conflict between the New Republic and the Imperial Remnant to the Imperial's side under Grand Admiral Thrawn. Even before that, Thrawn thought it was important to steal some 40 New Republic cruisers fromt the Sluis Van shipyards, and the leaving those those ships crippled after the aborted battle was critical loss to the NR as well as to the Imperials ("Heir to the Empire" and "Dark Force Rising).
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

This is after the fall of the Empire which could easily account for the vast reduction in number of ships.
Take a look at the USSR/Russian navy 1985/2005 comparison taken from globalsecurity.org

Ballistic Missile Submarines 83/12
Cruise Missile Submarines 72/7
Attack Submarines [nuclear] 71/15
Other Submarines [nuclear] 1/5
Attack Submarines [conventional] 140/18
Other Submarines [conventional] 7/0
Aircraft Carrier 5/1
Cruisers 32/5
Destroyers 74/17
Frigates 32/15
Corvettes ["Patrol Ships"] 185/55
Patrol Craft 430/95

Even without any wars the navy slided down an order of magnitude. It is not at all inconceivable that collapsed remnant of the Empire and internally squabbling New Republic could only maintain an insignificant percentage of the Imperial fleet.
Not to mention that in Thrawn trilogy it is explicitly mentioned that Empire had 25,000 ISDs alone. How many Acclamators, Venators, Executors and other intermediate ship classes?

A post from Darth Wong:

it is actually much easier to build millions of small devices than one gigantic device. You can decentralize production for parallelism, you can use standardization, you're using a basic design that is stable and well-tested, and you don't have to worry about the enormously increased difficulty of not only designing and constructing the station but also dealing with the vastly increased stresses brought about by its sheer size. That's why the Chinese can make millions of widgets per day but not one widget that stands 50 km tall,

Post from Kuroneko:

I wouldn't say the costs are incommensurate; actually, it's not unreasonable for an equivalent volume of star destroyers to be cheaper in the long run. In building the Death Star in such a short time, the Empire not only demonstrated the ability to move extreme quantities of materials quickly, but also that they are capable of implementing a complex new plan within a very short time-frame. However, the building of many star destroyers is much more adaptable to mass production than building Death Stars, for reasons that should be obvious; even if existing facilities aren't up to the task, constructing new automated facilities would be simple compared to building a Death Star.

Perhaps neglecting some exceptional cases, greatly increasing the production of a mature and already mass-produced product is simpler than building a new stupendously big project from scratch. The flower pot and balloon analogies are rather silly--we have no reason to believe that the per-volume technological complexity and cost of the DS is more than one or two orders of magnitude away from star destroyers, if that. It may actually be greater, since counteracting the sheer mass and self-gravity of the station would be an extraordinary feat of engineering in itself.

[Mr. Oragahn]

On the other hand, the Death Star II shows that it's almost self sufficient, in terms of support structures.

It's not like it's surrounded by a massive shipyard, or like each kilometer of the Death Star II requires a special infrastructure around them.
It's more like building a house. Of course, a house with probably hundreds of thousands small ships and droids buzzing around.

However, when it comes to fleets, it's like cars. You need infrastructures which even seem way bigger than a single unit the shipyard/factory can churn out.

So, well, who knows?
I'd be inclined that certain elements balance others, and in the end, Wong makes correct points about standardization... which even applies to the Death Star projects, considering how they made the second construction far more efficient than the first one.

[Praeothmin]

Take a look at the USSR/Russian navy 1985/2005 comparison taken from globalsecurity.org

Except that in this case, you are comparing to the vessels possessed by a group of nations (USSR) under the sale rule, to only one nation (Russia) that lost all the equipment and industrial capacity of the neighboring nations (Kazhakstan, Bielorussia, Ajzerbaijan, etc...).

[Who is like God arbour]

This is after the fall of the Empire which could easily account for the vast reduction in number of ships.
Take a look at the USSR/Russian navy 1985/2005 comparison taken from globalsecurity.org

Ballistic Missile Submarines 83/12
Cruise Missile Submarines 72/7
Attack Submarines [nuclear] 71/15
Other Submarines [nuclear] 1/5
Attack Submarines [conventional] 140/18
Other Submarines [conventional] 7/0
Aircraft Carrier 5/1
Cruisers 32/5
Destroyers 74/17
Frigates 32/15
Corvettes ["Patrol Ships"] 185/55
Patrol Craft 430/95

Even without any wars the navy slided down an order of magnitude.

Bad example:

• 1985 [1], the USSR was in Cold War [2], which could have changed, as far as the USSR was concerned, to a real War.
  The Defence expenditure at this time were very high [3].
• 2005, the Cold War was past.
  The USSR was broken down, also because the to high Defence expenditure [3].
  Russia, apart from the Chechnya conflict [4], a conflict against bad equipped Rebels, not unlike the conflict, the Empire had have with the Rebels in Star Wars, a conflict, in which huge ships are mostly irrelevant, was at peace.

As a basic principle, Defence expenditure are always higher in War.

Not even but because "without any wars the navy slided down an order of magnitude."

For the Empire in Star Wars, that would mean, that the Defence expenditure before the Battle of Endor were lower than after:
Before this Battle, the Rebels were only Rebels, who have applied typical tactics of a weaker party. Carl von Clausewitz [5] would call that asymmetric warfare [6]. That's a war, in which heavy military equipment is mostly irrelevant, because it doesn't come into operation against rebels, which don't engage in open war.

Even if you really believe the idiotic high numers of ships, the emperial fleet should allegedly consist of, you would have to admit, that I'm correct, because the Empire has send only a few ships to Hoth or Endor. They would have thought, that more ships wouldn't be necessary, even if they could have send more without problems, because the allegedly weakness of the Rebellion. But if they have thought that - and they had have no other real enemy, why should they have Defence expenditure, like they would be in a real, existence-threatening war?

That the Rebellion was a real threat to be reckoned with, which have become existence-threatening, has, if at all, shown the Battle of Endor, in which the total Rebel-Fleet has destroyed a - if one assume such ridiculously high numbers - infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet.

The "conflict" between the New Republic and the Imperial Remnant or the Yuuzhan Vong war were real, existence-threatening wars. At this time, the Defence expenditure of all parties concerned would be highest.

Not to mention that in Thrawn trilogy it is explicitly mentioned that Empire had 25,000 ISDs alone. How many Acclamators, Venators, Executors and other intermediate ship classes?

The question would be, how far the Thrawn trilogy is superseded by higher or equal canon, which imply other Fleet strengths.

• • • I will adress my own questions and the quotations of Darth Wong and Kuroneko, given by Kane Starkiller, later. First I want to see, what other have to say.

[Kane Starkiller]

On the other hand, the Death Star II shows that it's almost self sufficient, in terms of support structures.

It's not like it's surrounded by a massive shipyard, or like each kilometer of the Death Star II requires a special infrastructure around them.
It's more like building a house. Of course, a house with probably hundreds of thousands small ships and droids buzzing around.

However, when it comes to fleets, it's like cars. You need infrastructures which even seem way bigger than a single unit the shipyard/factory can churn out.

I already had this very discussion on this board and it didn't lead anywhere so I'm a little reluctant to go into it again but still.
If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships? As Darth Wong and Kuroneko explained the very fact that there are no preexisting shipyards and that Empire could still build this new huge ship in such a short amount of time proves they could build lot of smaller ships even more easily.

Except that in this case, you are comparing to the vessels possessed by a group of nations (USSR) under the sale rule, to only one nation (Russia) that lost all the equipment and industrial capacity of the neighboring nations (Kazhakstan, Bielorussia, Ajzerbaijan, etc...).

The Empire also collapsed and New Republic was formed. And while dissolution of USSR was more or less peaceful the Galaxy is still in a state of civil war not to mention no clear successor to the Emperor.

* 1985 [1], the USSR was in Cold War [2], which could have changed, as far as the USSR was concerned, to a real War.
The Defence expenditure at this time were very high [3].

* 2005, the Cold War was past.
The USSR was broken down, also because the to high Defence expenditure [3].
Russia, apart from the Chechnya conflict [4], a conflict against bad equipped Rebels, not unlike the conflict, the Empire had have with the Rebels in Star Wars, a conflict, in which huge ships are mostly irrelevant, was at peace.

So? The Empire was also broken down and almost every book treats us with Leia having to convince New Republic senate to do anything about the Vong invasion and commit it's forces. New Republic seems to be far less unified than Old Republic so it's no wonder their forces don't match up.

Not even but because "without any wars the navy slided down an order of magnitude."

You misunderstood. I was talking about internal civil wars that ripped the Empire apart. No such thing happened to USSR except for Checnya. We have no idea how the death of Emperor effected the Empire and how the inevitable fight for power within the Empire damaged the military industry.



The point is very simple: you cannot use the number of ships AFTER the collapse of a state to contradict the number of ships it had BEFORE the collapse. Especially since the very EU sources you are trying to use clearly mention 25,000 ISDs ALONE at the height of the Empire.

[l33telboi]

If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships?

What's the use in thinking about that? It's canon, you can't exactly override it.

As Darth Wong and Kuroneko explained the very fact that there are no preexisting shipyards and that Empire could still build this new huge ship in such a short amount of time proves they could build lot of smaller ships even more easily.

Logically, that could be true. But there is no backup to support it, in fact, pieces of the EU directly contradict it.

The point is very simple: you cannot use the number of ships AFTER the collapse of a state to contradict the number of ships it had BEFORE the collapse.

Not if we're talking about small margins of error. But we're hardly talking small marigins of errors here.

Especially since the very EU sources you are trying to use clearly mention 25,000 ISDs ALONE at the height of the Empire.

25000 ISD's in service simultaneously is a far cry from building millions of ISD's per year. Not to mention that this whole line of reasoning is based on one big assumption. That the infrastructure was hampered so severely that it doesn't even come close to previous capabilities.

Besides. When it comes to the production of a Death Star, the timetable certainly hadn't been nerfed by a whole lot. So how come they can still build a Death Star in a few years, yet only manage the meager output in cap-ships, if what you're saying is true?

[Who is like God arbour]

If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships?

Maybe they don't need yards for the Death Star, because it is so big, that it can support itself, so big, that all industrial and other support facilities (factories, habitations for the building crew etc.), that are necessary on location, could be placed inside it.

That wouldn't be possible for a substantially smaller ship. These facilities would be placed around the ship (or on other bases or on planets) and compose at large that, what we would call a yard, respectively a yard complex.

Insofar, the building of the Death Star could be more like the building of an oil drilling platform, which core is built ashore and then brought to its final position, where it is completed, than the building of a ship in a yard.

The Empire was also broken down

As I have already said, if the Empire had have such ridiculously many ships, in the Battle of Endor would have been destroyed only an infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet.
Russia has decided to demobilise its fleet - but not the Empire.
Where are all the other ships of the Emperial Fleet? Such an Imperial StarDestroyer don't get lost in nirvana - and a fortiori not thousands of them.

We have no idea how the death of Emperor effected the Empire

Correct, we - or at least I - have no idea.
But we know, that the Emperial Navy had have a strict order and command chain. Even if the Emperor, the head of this order and command chain, has died, it would persist.

• For example, the forces of the USA wouldn't come apart, only because the president, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, would die.
• Another example, when Stalin has died, the Red Army has not come appart, although Stalin was power-addicted and has created a cult of personality, not unlike the Emporer in Star Wars.

The point is very simple: you cannot use the number of ships AFTER the collapse of a state to contradict the number of ships it had BEFORE the collapse.

If there is no noteworthy difference between the industrial capacity before an event and after the event, I can very well compare both conditions. And the death of an Emperor is not the collapse of the Empire. As I have said already, only an infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet would have been destroyed at Endor, if it would really consist of thousands or even millions of ships. Where are the rest of the remainder of the Emperial Navy and why would the death of the Emperor affect the industrial capacity in a noteworthy extent?

Especially since the very EU sources you are trying to use clearly mention 25,000 ISDs ALONE at the height of the Empire.

Please don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections. The question is, how far the Thrawn trilogy is superseded by higher or equal canon, which imply other Fleet strengths?

• For example, why would the Emperial task force at Endor consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the fleet of the rebellion to escape. Admiral Ackbar has already started to order the withdrawal. He has seen the Emperial task force but, as it seems, has thought, that a withdrawal was possible nevertheless.
• Another example: why would the Emperial task force at Hoth consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the rebels to escape from Hoth.

The movies haven't left the impression of huge fleets, consisting of millions of ships. Only some exaggeratory EU novels have created such impression. But someone, who hasn't read any EU novels - like me - can't recognize the Star Wars Universe from the movies in the tales, which are told about some of these EU novels. They describe in my opinion another universe, which have only superficial relations to the universe, decribed by the movies. In my understanding of canon, that disqualified such EU novels as part of the original universe.
Please don't misapprehend me. I have nothing against continuative novels as long as they respect the spirit of the original. It's possible to explain every bollocks and every change. But that's not, what a continuative novel is supposed to do. If I want to read about Star Wars, I expect a story, in which I can recognize the Star Wars, I know.

[2046]

The situation is a lot more complicated than the "production capacity = volume" figures they're using, even beyond the simple observation that the Death Stars are full of wide open areas.

1. Quoting Wikipedia's entry on the USAAF, "The expansion from the Air Corps of 1939, with 20,000 men and 2,320 planes (a limit set in 1934), to the autonomous AAF of 1944, with almost 2.4 million personnel and 80,000 aircraft, was a remarkable feat."

Thus some 78,000 aircraft were built over five years, or 15,600 per year, not counting built-but-lost aircraft. The modern USAF has only 6000 aircraft. Even if all those were built in just three years, then according to Wong's logic that would imply that US industrial capacity was 7.5 times greater during WW2 than it is now, assuming rough volumetric equivalence.

2. Some fifty million cars are produced annually worldwide, according to some quick googling. By volume, an aircraft carrier is the equivalent of about 153,500 cars, give or take. (32,525,000 cu. ft. for the carrier, as referenced somewhere, and about six cubic meters for what we'll call an average car.)

By those figures, the world could build 325 aircraft carriers per year. And that doesn't even count tanks and planes and so on that could also go into the "industrial capacity" volumetric budget, or the simple economies of scale that would be involved in constructing aircraft carriers by the dozen.

But ignored are the simple details of raw materials and refinement thereof. Are 153,500 cars and an aircraft carrier equivalent by that standard? I rather doubt it.

3. An aircraft carrier is crewed by some 5700 men (3200 for the ship, 2500 for the air wing). 153,000 cars require no less than 153,000 people. We never get numbers for the Death Star crew as far as I know, or even for an ISD crew, but it would be obvious that replication of roles would be profound if smaller ships were built instead.

4. Sure, there's still the matter of economies of scale, though. Mass production of a single item should, as a rule of thumb, always trump the cost of a one-off big item. This is even true in the case of complex mass-produced items.

But the sheer size of the Death Star argues for the idea that it makes it own economies of scale, in a sense. Probably there were easily thousands of kilometers worth of identical corridors, or even hundreds of identical interior framing areas, corridors, and rooms. Vast areas the size of a Galaxy Class ship could thus be mass-produced like modular housing, and they wouldn't have warp reactors or nacelles or even external hull . . . it would just be rooms and corridors. Comparatively, that's stupidly easy.

Similarly, the Death Star would not need the same replication of support facilities. There is no need for numerous shipyards, waystations, or thousands upon thousands of repair drydocks. The thing is virtually its own economy.

The tough part would be the production and assembly of the framework and the superlaser, but as seen for DS1 the framework was largely complete by the end of RotS, and even the superlaser would be mostly composed of identical parts.

No one's denying that the Death Stars are profound achievements, but there's no need to further wank that by employing invalid analyses.

The Empire probably has 100,000 major worlds, compared to 100-150 for the Federation. Even if Federation technology allows an output ten times greater than that for Imperial worlds, it's still a 100-to-1 in favor of the Empire. The fact that they wasted their time building Death Stars instead of making uberfleets is not the Federation's problem by any means.

[Who is like God arbour]

Good things come to those who wait.

That was the kind of argumentation, I have hoped for.

And that were mostly the same arguments, I have thought of - only better verbalised.

But there is still one argument, I hope is yet to come.

It was hinted with two words in the post of 2046.

But it was not substantiated enough to really satisfy me.

[2046]

What, raw materials?

[Kane Starkiller]

If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships?

What's the use in thinking about that? It's canon, you can't exactly override it.

Yes that's the point. They don't need shipyards to build a 160km long starship so why would they need one for a 1.6km one?

25000 ISD's in service simultaneously is a far cry from building millions of ISD's per year. Not to mention that this whole line of reasoning is based on one big assumption. That the infrastructure was hampered so severely that it doesn't even come close to previous capabilities.

25,000 ISD ALONE.
US currently has 91 F-22A Raptor's in service but it also has 1280 F-16's. So older F-16 outnumbers F-22 14 to one. The same could be true for Venator/ISD ratio. The point remains that there is nothing there to contradict production levels implied by Death Star construction.

1. Quoting Wikipedia's entry on the USAAF, "The expansion from the Air Corps of 1939, with 20,000 men and 2,320 planes (a limit set in 1934), to the autonomous AAF of 1944, with almost 2.4 million personnel and 80,000 aircraft, was a remarkable feat."

Thus some 78,000 aircraft were built over five years, or 15,600 per year, not counting built-but-lost aircraft. The modern USAF has only 6000 aircraft. Even if all those were built in just three years, then according to Wong's logic that would imply that US industrial capacity was 7.5 times greater during WW2 than it is now, assuming rough volumetric equivalence.

That is not his logic at all. He simply states that observed construction of Death Star proves certain industrial capacity for the Empire. The same way building 78,000 aircraft in 5 years proves a certain industrial capacity for USA whether the country has that many aircraft today or not.

2. Some fifty million cars are produced annually worldwide, according to some quick googling. By volume, an aircraft carrier is the equivalent of about 153,500 cars, give or take. (32,525,000 cu. ft. for the carrier, as referenced somewhere, and about six cubic meters for what we'll call an average car.)

By those figures, the world could build 325 aircraft carriers per year. And that doesn't even count tanks and planes and so on that could also go into the "industrial capacity" volumetric budget, or the simple economies of scale that would be involved in constructing aircraft carriers by the dozen.

But ignored are the simple details of raw materials and refinement thereof. Are 153,500 cars and an aircraft carrier equivalent by that standard? I rather doubt it.

Except your analogy is completely reversed. In our case we are using Death Star to get the rough number of ISDs. This is analogous of taking aircraft carriers production rate and trying to derive the number of cars built. Obviously such an attempt can only result in underestimation of cars.

3. An aircraft carrier is crewed by some 5700 men (3200 for the ship, 2500 for the air wing). 153,000 cars require no less than 153,000 people. We never get numbers for the Death Star crew as far as I know, or even for an ISD crew, but it would be obvious that replication of roles would be profound if smaller ships were built instead.

Again your analogy is reversed. We are using huge object to determine the number of smaller while you are using the number of smaller objects (cars) to determine the number of larger (carrier).While your case results in overestimation of larger objects our case will result in underestimation of smaller ones (ISDs).

4. Sure, there's still the matter of economies of scale, though. Mass production of a single item should, as a rule of thumb, always trump the cost of a one-off big item. This is even true in the case of complex mass-produced items.

But the sheer size of the Death Star argues for the idea that it makes it own economies of scale, in a sense. Probably there were easily thousands of kilometers worth of identical corridors, or even hundreds of identical interior framing areas, corridors, and rooms. Vast areas the size of a Galaxy Class ship could thus be mass-produced like modular housing, and they wouldn't have warp reactors or nacelles or even external hull . . . it would just be rooms and corridors. Comparatively, that's stupidly easy.

How does this make Death Star easier to construct? Millions of ISD scale ships would also have millions of identical corridors, rooms, reactors, turbolasers etc. etc. which could also be mass produced.
Secondly would those millions of ISD reactors be more or less expensive than a single Death Star reactor? Could million ISD reactors blow up Alderaan like a firecracker? Could million ISD level hyperdrives move a 160km wide spherical ship?

Similarly, the Death Star would not need the same replication of support facilities. There is no need for numerous shipyards, waystations, or thousands upon thousands of repair drydocks. The thing is virtually its own economy.

What is your evidence that Death Star would not need the same effort to support as ISDs? How can you need complex shipyards to service a 1.6km ships but not for a 160km one? How is Death Star "it's own economy"? Can it produce grain? Fuel? Spare parts? Is that anywhere demonstrated?

The tough part would be the production and assembly of the framework and the superlaser, but as seen for DS1 the framework was largely complete by the end of RotS, and even the superlaser would be mostly composed of identical parts.

Assuming that most of the job on DS1 was really completed at the end of RotS what does that say about the Imperial economy? That Trade Federation itself could afford to build DS1 on a side while battling the Republic and later both were incorporated into the Empire.

No one's denying that the Death Stars are profound achievements, but there's no need to further wank that by employing invalid analyses.

There is no wank involved. Simple scaling.

The Empire probably has 100,000 major worlds, compared to 100-150 for the Federation. Even if Federation technology allows an output ten times greater than that for Imperial worlds, it's still a 100-to-1 in favor of the Empire. The fact that they wasted their time building Death Stars instead of making uberfleets is not the Federation's problem by any means.

How can you declare something for which you provided not a shred of evidence a "fact"? Do you forget that DS1 was built secretly as was DS2? That certainly doesn't imply that entire Imperial military industrial capacity was "wasted" on Death Stars. The Empire has million worlds and who knows how many "uncharted settlements" so the fact that we don't see millions of ships lumped in one place is hardly a surprise. Many cite ROTJ as an example but they neglect that this was a trap for a group of insurgents. Not to mention that no one actually bothered to provide evidence as to how many ships were present in the battle.

A quote from ROTJ novel:

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision.

This proves that the entire fleet extended beyond the visual range thus you have absolutely no evidence as to how many ships was there although I often hear 40 Imperial ships or so, based on the fact that we see no more than that in a single scene. But the quote above discredits any such reasoning.

[2046]

They don't need shipyards to build a 160km long starship so why would they need one for a 1.6km one?

We don't even know if Star Destroyers are built on the ground, as we might expect from Acclamators and Venators.

Thus some 78,000 aircraft were built over five years, or 15,600 per year, not counting built-but-lost aircraft. The modern USAF has only 6000 aircraft. Even if all those were built in just three years, then according to Wong's logic that would imply that US industrial capacity was 7.5 times greater during WW2 than it is now, assuming rough volumetric equivalence.

That is not his logic at all. He simply states that observed construction of Death Star proves certain industrial capacity for the Empire.

Well sure, but it's not like we can start making many claims off of that. The fact that they built the Death Stars proves only that they have the industrial capacity to do so. Sure, we can fantasize about them building other things, but we don't have enough detail to start making claims of that nature.

Except your analogy {about cars and aircraft carriers} is completely reversed.

So? The only real weakness to the analogy is that I'm referring to ground-based versus seaside construction . . . I could make the analogy even worse by comparing carrier build rates to ISS construction.

But the fact that it's from small to big versus big to small is wholly irrelevant. If you wish to view that as another flaw in volumetric analyses of industrial capacity, though, you're free to do so.

While your case results in overestimation of larger objects our case will result in underestimation of smaller ones (ISDs).

Why would it be an underestimate? We could build huge metal warships circa 1905 . . . that doesn't mean auto production would be underestimated by volume.

Millions of ISD scale ships would also have millions of identical corridors, rooms, reactors, turbolasers etc. etc. which could also be mass produced.

Yes, but reactors and such would presumably be the more complex items of an ISD. Simply making a room or a corridor, even if it has piping, is going to be far easier by comparison.

Secondly would those millions of ISD reactors be more or less expensive than a single Death Star reactor?

Depends.

Could million ISD reactors blow up Alderaan like a firecracker?

Nope. But that doesn't help you.

Could million ISD level hyperdrives move a 160km wide spherical ship?

How the hell should we know?

Similarly, the Death Star would not need the same replication of support facilities. There is no need for numerous shipyards, waystations, or thousands upon thousands of repair drydocks. The thing is virtually its own economy.

What is your evidence that Death Star would not need the same effort to support as ISDs?

Because instead of a million individual docks or a thousand different base facilities, you're basically in one.

How is Death Star "it's own economy"? Can it produce grain? Fuel? Spare parts? Is that anywhere demonstrated?

Did you see a spacedock for it?

But hey, fine, if you don't want the Death Star to be self-supporting at all then whatever.

Assuming that most of the job on DS1 was really completed at the end of RotS

. . . which I didn't say . . .

what does that say about the Imperial economy? That Trade Federation itself could afford to build DS1 on a side while battling the Republic and later both were incorporated into the Empire.

And yet the defenses of Mustafar nearly bankrupted them.

No one's denying that the Death Stars are profound achievements, but there's no need to further wank that by employing invalid analyses.

There is no wank involved. Simple scaling.

The problem that is being explained to you is that it is too simple.

The Empire probably has 100,000 major worlds, compared to 100-150 for the Federation. Even if Federation technology allows an output ten times greater than that for Imperial worlds, it's still a 100-to-1 in favor of the Empire. The fact that they wasted their time building Death Stars instead of making uberfleets is not the Federation's problem by any means.

How can you declare something for which you provided not a shred of evidence a "fact"?

What, that they didn't have uberfleets? We know they didn't. Where did you get the idea that they did?

Do you forget that DS1 was built secretly as was DS2? That certainly doesn't imply that entire Imperial military industrial capacity was "wasted" on Death Stars.

Please provide evidence for the millions of ISDs you seem to ponder, then.

Not to mention that no one actually bothered to provide evidence as to how many ships were present in the battle.

At Endor, your own folks have counted them.

A quote from ROTJ novel:

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision.

This proves that the entire fleet extended beyond the visual range

So they're more spread out in the novel. So what?