Starfleet Jedi

This is not a vs debate in the normal sense. The two contestants might be the Galaxy-class and an Imperial Stardestroyer, but the question is not "Who will win in a fight?" No, the question is "How powerful are the weapons on each of these vessels, in your opinion."

The reason I'm asking is because during my time here and on other boards, I've seen a lot of calculations and a lot of reasoning leading to widely differing power levels when it comes to the weaponry. And I’ve yet to really settle on anything I consider most likely myself. And in the end, I realize the answer is quite subjective, mainly because of the inconsistencies in the source material.

So, in your opinion, how powerful are the weapons on each of these two vessels? You can answer any way you like, be it power per weapon emplacement, energy per shot, or total power channeled to all weapons at maximum. When it comes to the ISD, make sure to define whether the answer is based on the Movie+EU or Movie only continuity.

Give the figures you see as correct and then a brief reasoning for why you think they are correct.

How powerful GCS phasers are:
There are two primary families of evidence relating to phasers. First, we have numerous incidents against inert targets ("The Pegasus," "Legacy," "A Matter of Time," "Inheritance," "Masks") all of which suggest that phasers, used on carefully controlled [low] settings to limit collateral damage, can put out a hundred megatons per second or so. Extrapolating to combat settings leads us to estimate phasers can put out roughly a gigaton per second of effective material-destroying yield (placing disappearance equivalent to energetic vaporization.)

Second, we have the power generation evidence. From "The Sound of Her Voice," in DS9, we see phaser power banks significant relative to warp engines for an over-armed ship; in "Best of Both Worlds," we know that the phasers cannot handle the full warp core output. Knowing that phasers are significant but not overwhelming in comparison to other systems, we are best suited suggesting that phasers use up to 1-10% of what the warp engine puts out.

Requirements for warp fields and warping away from planets/suns place the warp engine's peak power usage at around a hundred gigatons per second, possibly even more.

Between these two families, our most plausible compromise is to place GCS phasers at around a gigaton per second in both effect against targets and in power required to use, i.e., that phasers are about as powerful as they look. I'm pretty sure they're between 1-10 exawatts; individual phaser "blasts" seen in combat, which often last a significant fraction of a second, probably reach an exajoule.

How powerful the photon torpedoes on a GCS are:
We have a lot of evidence indicating these are antimatter warhead devices. They are variable yield, and can be set anywhere from "firework" to "surface bombardment" yields. Their shields may absorb energy that is also released upon detonation.

Various detonations, especially "Skin of Evil" and similar incidents, suggest that the top yield of a photon torpedo is perhaps around a gigaton.

Views of the interior of a photon torpedo, and the much less energetic effects seen, suggest that standard [anti-shipping] loadouts are probably around 100 megatons, possibly even as low as the figure given in the TNGTM.

How powerful are the turbolasers on an Imperial Star Destroyer
From the movies

It is difficult for us to judge this well from observation in the movies alone. Depending on how the asteroids in TESB are scaled, the bolts seen fired could be sub-kiloton - or multi-megaton - if they're vaporizing the asteroids.

Impacts against other capital ships in ROTJ (and by similar ships in ROTS) could be against unusual hull materials, be partially blocked by shields, et cetera.

Most particular, however, are three things.

• Fighter-range ships around a millionth the size have gigajoule range beam weapons that fire multiple times per second. See Slave I.
• Thermonuclear weapons are used in combat, although just a couple missiles will not hurt a capital ship.
• Missiles are rarely used - almost never by capital ships.

From this, and my preferred estimate of ISD power consumption, my preferred best guess is that Star Destroyers can put out up to 10 megatons per second through turbolasers in their peak combat performances.

From the movies+EU

In spite of the outlier ICS, it becomes more difficult to place ISD firepower in the multi-megaton range, because volleys of relatively low yield proton torpedoes fairly consistently bring down capital ships. This makes it especially difficult to believe that capital ships can battle each other for significant lengths of time, even when we consider the much higher peak wattage of a nuclear device (1/1,000,000th second) compared with a similar yield turbolaser bolt (1/100th second) in overloading shields.

When I consider the whole of the EU, I am inclined to revise my estimate towards the mid, rather than high, end of the range in which nuclear weapons are useful yet not preferred. My best guess becomes a megaton per second peak turbolaser output - still enough to bombard a planet into ruin in a reasonable length of time, and with poor capital ship accuracy, mean the proton torpedo attacks don't have to invoke too many ridiculous assumptions.

Notes
I realizes this stretches the visuals of impacts seen on ships, especially in ROTS, but also in some DS9 battles. We can explain some through tough hull materials, for which we have substantial evidence in the Trek case.

(EDIT: An older poll/thread some might find interesting.)

This is just the latest reiteration of an old topic. In addition to JMS's linked to thread, I might remind people about the old Capital Ship Firepower thread from nearly 2 years ago which referenced the even older threads from the now defunct Strek-vs-SWars.Net forum and the ST-vs-SW.Net forum of Matt Carpenter where revised scalings were done using alternative methods to determine the ISD light and medium TL's actual lower limits, in turn correcting many mistakes as well as deliberate misinformation created over the years by proponents of Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries.

So for Star Wars light and medium TLs I will restate the following:

- Slave-I's demonstated firepower is low gigajoule range based on it shattering a few cubic meters of an asteroid as seen in AoTC. Being well-equipped and on the larger end of the small ship size scale, we can reasonably bracket starfighter firepower within this range.

- In the now infamous TESB asteroid popping scene the asteroids can be scaled reasonably to somewhere between 1-14 meters diameter on their long axis. They are nowhere near the 20-100 meters sizes often cited by certain pro-Wars types, which are based on incorrect scalings done for Brian Young's now defunct Turbolaser Commentaries website that mistake TL flack bursts for asteroid vaporization in the Avenger-Falcon chase scenes .

Interestingly enough, certain pro-Wars types like to claim justification for their firepower figures based on a passage from an EU story that claims the Hoth asteroids were iron in composition, however this runs contrary to the second-order canon of the TESB novelization which several times choses to describe the asteroids variously as "rock", and "chunk of rock".

Average low end estimate for light and medium TL firepower: 16 TJ

- The low gigajoule range firepower for Slave-I's weapons and the low terajoule range firepower for light and medium TLs matches up well since starfighters, even with kiloton firepower could not possibly hope to damage, much less destroy a capital ship, or even contribute to providing sufficent firepower support to harm them, if the AoTC: ICS TL firepower numbers were correct.


As for the GCS, I think JMS has pretty much covered the salient issues where that is concerned. I would only point out on the issue of photon torpedoes that while antimatter seems the prefered, standard warhead, we do know of other kinds, such as the gravimetric warhead ("The Omega Directive" [VOY, season 4]) that not only pack a relatively high yeild, but also have other, possibly spatial effects.
-Mike

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php ... ost1803287

I doubt anyones interested in sifting through this monster thread, but I recommend looking at Antaran_1979 and Saquist's work on the subject

the Conclusions put the GCs phasers at some 60x the power of the anti-fighter turbolaser

Oraghan, JMS. Like I said in the op, this is not a debate of any kind. I just want people to post what their stance on the matter is and then provide the reasoning behind it. If you want to debate how you reached those figures and the accuracy of them, do it somewhere else.

Like has been pointed out before, there are multiple threads that exist for that very purpose already. This is not one of those threads.

But how can you explain what your stance is if it requires calculations... without posting the calculations that led to your stance???

Praeothmin wrote:But how can you explain what your stance is if it requires calculations... without posting the calculations that led to your stance???

Of course you're allowed to post the calculations if you want. What I don't want to see is the pointless "yes it is" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" back and forth debating. Post the reasoning (which could include calculations if you want) behind your opinion and then leave it at that. You've obviously concluded that it's correct, someone else might disagree perhaps, but that has nothing to do with your stance on the matter.

It really shouldn't be that difficult.

Well, OK, mmm...

So, that's for firepower.

UFP standard ship pre-Sovereign.
TOS ignored.
Phasers : Terawatt flavour. Greater effects on most inert matter, but with reserves.
Torps : Variable yields for torps. Surely in the megaton range, and can start at the low end, but might be pumped up on the need to 50-100 MT, eventually, though this is more due to an overall impression and feeling about consistency than a real case to look at.
Seemingly able to be charged before firing, all charged well before that and stored on racks.

Star Destroyer (movies)
No missiles. I want to get that out first.
Turbolasers... well, as I pointed above, the movies don't give much to think about if at least some low end for the medium TLs in the kiloton range. Full yields could be higher, I cannot tell.

ROTS would even suggest sub kiloton shots for all weapons, even heavy TLs, following a certain logic when we saw a Venator and the Invisible Hand exchanging fire which put holes in their thickest armoured regions. All weapons, absolutely all of them, even the Venator's heavy TLs, were firing, all with similar effects on the opposite hull. Yet such shots, as the ones fired by the broadside fixed cannons, would unleash energies barely worth moderate car bombing, when penetrating cannon bays unhindered.
Eventually, I could consider that the TLs were firing low powered shots, but the ROFs were far from being high at all, and I don't see why those reactors couldn't pump enough energy into buffers to unleash a powerful salvo through the TLs, so that the IH or the Venator would have been downed instantly, especially since the ships were not attempting manoeuvers or having shields up, which would tax more energy.
So with the movies, and eventually, IF you scaled up weapons from blasters or, generously, the Slave-I's cannons, you may end with very low petajoule figures.

ROTS even has the novel pointing to TL capable of destroying a small town. Well, that would fit with kiloton shots, but there's not enough on these weapons. There's lots of argumentation about which TLs were referenced there (especially since the long hairlines seen from the surface would clearly point to the most luminous and elongated beams to be spotted, that is, some like the one fired from a Venator's ventral bay, which for the notice, was said to be in other sources a heavy TL mounted on a SPHA-T in some EU sources).
We don't know if they were representative of full yields either.

With the EU, there are several references about kiloton firepower, much more pointing to shots in the megaton range, and a single one pointing to the gigaton range (recoil dampeners capable of dealing with explosions in the giga-tonnage range, a formulation which doesn't necessarily prove that the cannons would be firing gigatons of energy... we've seen the Trade Federation massive gun batteries subject to huge recoil, yet the salvos of four bolts they were firing wouldn't even vapourize a mere N-1 fighter).

So on the average, with the EU, I'd put HTLs in the two digits megaton range.

What'd be more interesting is speculating what the crews themselves think of their weaponry.

I mean, I could imagine that a zealous Imperial gunnery officer, when asked, would proceed to waste about half an hour chewing your ear off while jabbering on about how the immense power of an ISD's big guns is like unto a glorious hammer, ready to come down and squash the foolish enemies of the Emperor into some sort of grey paste.

While the tactical officer on a GCS, he'd mutter something about how while the GCS is of course no warship, it is armed with state of the art weaponry but only for self defense before shuffling you off onto some sort of guided tour of the ship that you never really wanted. Let go of my arm, you jump-suited bastard.

Unless it was Worf, I guess. He'd probably just shout something at you.

KILL YOUR PARENTS wrote:What'd be more interesting is speculating what the crews themselves think of their weaponry.

I mean, I could imagine that a zealous Imperial gunnery officer, when asked, would proceed to waste about half an hour chewing your ear off while jabbering on about how the immense power of an ISD's big guns is like unto a glorious hammer, ready to come down and squash the foolish enemies of the Emperor into some sort of grey paste.

While the tactical officer on a GCS, he'd mutter something about how while the GCS is of course no warship, it is armed with state of the art weaponry but only for self defense before shuffling you off onto some sort of guided tour of the ship that you never really wanted. Let go of my arm, you jump-suited bastard.

Unless it was Worf, I guess. He'd probably just shout something at you.

You know, I'm going to have to disagree on that one...

If there's anything we've learned from the TNG episode Q-Who it's that Federation crews feel quite confident their starships (weapons and all) are up to the job. It was in fact the whole point of the episode that they where too certain of their supremacy ;)

(Or to put it another way: Reed, Worf, Yar, Tuvok.. They're all rather agressive and not really like what you just portrayed them to be. They're all quick to call for action and I don't think I've seen any respond to questions of their weapons by saying their ships where inadequate for combat. Ever.)

Roondar wrote:

KILL YOUR PARENTS wrote:What'd be more interesting is speculating what the crews themselves think of their weaponry.

I mean, I could imagine that a zealous Imperial gunnery officer, when asked, would proceed to waste about half an hour chewing your ear off while jabbering on about how the immense power of an ISD's big guns is like unto a glorious hammer, ready to come down and squash the foolish enemies of the Emperor into some sort of grey paste.

While the tactical officer on a GCS, he'd mutter something about how while the GCS is of course no warship, it is armed with state of the art weaponry but only for self defense before shuffling you off onto some sort of guided tour of the ship that you never really wanted. Let go of my arm, you jump-suited bastard.

Unless it was Worf, I guess. He'd probably just shout something at you.

You know, I'm going to have to disagree on that one...

If there's anything we've learned from the TNG episode Q-Who it's that Federation crews feel quite confident their starships (weapons and all) are up to the job. It was in fact the whole point of the episode that they where too certain of their supremacy ;)

(Or to put it another way: Reed, Worf, Yar, Tuvok.. They're all rather agressive and not really like what you just portrayed them to be. They're all quick to call for action and I don't think I've seen any respond to questions of their weapons by saying their ships where inadequate for combat. Ever.)

Well, no, of course not, that's not at all what I intented. Hence "state-of-the-art". It's just it always seemed to me that in TNG Starfleet always seemed sort of slightly embarrased by their military role; for example, classifying one of their most heavily armed vessels as an "Explorer", when it's quite capable of going toe-to-toe with other power's mainline warships.

I wouldnt say they are embarassed out their military role. Its just not their primary function. The primary role of a Galaxy is exploration, not flying around fighting other ships or conquering territory.

KILL YOUR PARENTS wrote:

Roondar wrote:

KILL YOUR PARENTS wrote:What'd be more interesting is speculating what the crews themselves think of their weaponry.

I mean, I could imagine that a zealous Imperial gunnery officer, when asked, would proceed to waste about half an hour chewing your ear off while jabbering on about how the immense power of an ISD's big guns is like unto a glorious hammer, ready to come down and squash the foolish enemies of the Emperor into some sort of grey paste.

While the tactical officer on a GCS, he'd mutter something about how while the GCS is of course no warship, it is armed with state of the art weaponry but only for self defense before shuffling you off onto some sort of guided tour of the ship that you never really wanted. Let go of my arm, you jump-suited bastard.

Unless it was Worf, I guess. He'd probably just shout something at you.

You know, I'm going to have to disagree on that one...

If there's anything we've learned from the TNG episode Q-Who it's that Federation crews feel quite confident their starships (weapons and all) are up to the job. It was in fact the whole point of the episode that they where too certain of their supremacy ;)

(Or to put it another way: Reed, Worf, Yar, Tuvok.. They're all rather agressive and not really like what you just portrayed them to be. They're all quick to call for action and I don't think I've seen any respond to questions of their weapons by saying their ships where inadequate for combat. Ever.)

Well, no, of course not, that's not at all what I intented. Hence "state-of-the-art". It's just it always seemed to me that in TNG Starfleet always seemed sort of slightly embarrased by their military role; for example, classifying one of their most heavily armed vessels as an "Explorer", when it's quite capable of going toe-to-toe with other power's mainline warships.

No.

Starfleet is a scientific exploration program first, and a military group second. That's why their security officers aren't all that uber in terms of combat; they are not warriors, they are there to stop simple breaches in security. Hell, Worf's main job is to push the nuke button, and then capture a bad guy alien of the week.

The Galaxy class series came about as a way to expand upon Starfleet's exploration with multi-platform ships that could both explore and defend. Never was any officer embarressed about what little military role Starfleet had, because it wasn't really an issue. May they not have cared for that part of theri job? Sure, a few did, but that's rather a bit pathetic in to say that they had little confidence in their own craft.

Mith wrote: No.

Starfleet is a scientific exploration program first, and a military group second. That's why their security officers aren't all that uber in terms of combat; they are not warriors, they are there to stop simple breaches in security. Hell, Worf's main job is to push the nuke button, and then capture a bad guy alien of the week.

The Galaxy class series came about as a way to expand upon Starfleet's exploration with multi-platform ships that could both explore and defend. Never was any officer embarressed about what little military role Starfleet had, because it wasn't really an issue. May they not have cared for that part of theri job?

Starfleet's main purpose may have been exploration, but they were still the Federation's military force. The fact that they consistantly downplay that, even to the lengths of classifying the Galaxy-class (Their most powerful and heavily armed ship class at the time of it's launch) solely as an exploration vessel speaks volumes.

Sure, a few did, but that's rather a bit pathetic in to say that they had little confidence in their own craft.

I never said that they didn't have confidence in their ship or it's capabilities, you silly person.

Talk is cheap, never fear the one who brags about how powerful his ship is, fear the one who does not. just because they don't talk about their fire power does not mean that they don't have it. they just don't need to brag. anyhow we all know that imperial officers are windbags.