PDA

View Full Version : "No ship that small has a cloaking device."



stillakid
10-10-2007, 11:18 AM
Officer
The ship no longer appears on our scopes.

Captain Needa
No ship that small has a cloaking device.



So, we are to assume that A) the Star Wars galaxy has Star Trek-esque cloaking devices and B) that the device is large so small ships can't install them.

C) Star Destroyers are immense, so we should be able to assume that they CAN have cloaking devices. With that in mind, why wouldn't Ozzel use the cloaking devices to hide the Star Destroyers as they come out of Hyperspace near Hoth?

El Chuxter
10-10-2007, 11:20 AM
They're expensive, and the Emperor doesn't want to spring the cash?

The Empire likes to strike fear by having a visible presence?

Both seem to be consistent with what we know about the Empire.

Battle Droid
10-10-2007, 12:01 PM
Maul's ship was smaller than the Falcon and it had one.

Rocketboy
10-10-2007, 12:07 PM
I never thought it meant an visual invisibility cloak. I figured it was a stealth like radar invisibility since it didn't appear on any tracking devices.

stillakid
10-10-2007, 12:26 PM
They're expensive, and the Emperor doesn't want to spring the cash?
The dude built TWO Death Stars and X number of massive Star Destroyers. I get the feeling that money wasn't really a concern of his.




The Empire likes to strike fear by having a visible presence?
Well, that's true, but striking fear wasn't the purpose of the attack on Hoth. Vader wanted to capture Luke, not play ego games with the Rebellion. So if they had cloaking abilities, why wouldn't they sneak up on the system and send "Shadow Troops" in to surprise the Rebels?

stillakid
10-10-2007, 12:27 PM
I never thought it meant an visual invisibility cloak. I figured it was a stealth like radar invisibility since it didn't appear on any tracking devices.

Ok, but the same question holds. And since you brought it up, there is no indication that the Rebels on Hoth had sentry ships out "watching" for invaders. Visual invisibility or not, the Rebels detected the Imperial ships so therefore the Star Destroyers did not have or did not use cloaking devices. Why?

Rocketboy
10-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Ok, but the same question holds. And since you brought it up, there is no indication that the Rebels on Hoth had sentry ships out "watching" for invaders. Visual invisibility or not, the Rebels detected the Imperial ships so therefore the Star Destroyers did not have or did not use cloaking devices. Why?I assume the original intent was to sit back out of sensor range and surprise them, but Ozzel (or whomever) screwed it up by coming out of Hyperspace too close which alerted the Rebels and gave them time to scramble.

El Chuxter
10-10-2007, 12:54 PM
The dude built TWO Death Stars and X number of massive Star Destroyers. I get the feeling that money wasn't really a concern of his.

While it's true he did put up the money, keep in mind that this incredibly massive space station could be taken out by one proton torpedo.

Kidhuman
10-10-2007, 07:13 PM
The dude built TWO Death Stars and X number of massive Star Destroyers. I get the feeling that money wasn't really a concern of his.


Didnt you watch Robot Chicken? He had to get a loan to build this stuff.

Slicker
10-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Please don't shoot me but going by the *shudder* EU cloaking crystals are so rare that they don't waste them on smaller ships like the Falcon. They save them for larger ships like Star Destoryers where the crystals are more useful.

El Chuxter
10-12-2007, 11:01 AM
They work especially well on asteroids and meteorites. Zahn said so. And Zahn > Lucas.

AussieScott
10-22-2007, 06:34 AM
When you have overwhelming military superiority, optical stealth and even sensor stealth are not really necessary, except when you're trying to evade that superiority... it's safe to assume that no non-Empire individual or organisation had the resources to develop or build such technology, and the Empire had no need of it, due to their overwhelming numbers and firepower, even though it was technically possible.