Discussion about the technical details with
B5/Crusade's Warlock Class Destroyer. This discussion group
is intended to supliment to the
Warlock Project
Site.
i am basically developing an app that deals with the management of web services...soap services to be exact..
i have created a dll .. put a wrapper on it in terms of wsdl and wsml files generated thru the soap toolkit too...
even i am able to generate a client and hit the service...
the problem i am facing is ... i want to configure a service by adding my own handler in it...like we can do the same in a dot net service thru the web.config file...
i basically want to figure out a way to trap the request/response whenever a client hits the service...(the same task as done by the soapextension class in dot net services..)
can u give me any clues as to how to proceed..
thks in advance
balaji
Posted on Jun 28, 2004, 10:01 PM from IP address 203.197.145.1
I have been extremely busy at work lately, and havn't had much time to do anything with this site. However, there really hasn't been anything new for a long time, so I'm not sure anything really could be added even if I did get a chance...
Posted on May 4, 2003, 6:51 AM from IP address 216.58.19.101
Here is something I have been thinking about a bit lately. Which vessel is superior, the G'Quon class Heavy Cruiser, or the Omega class Destroyer?
I think the key to this revolves around the X-Ray lasers mounted on both vessels. We know from B-5 and ITB that the Narn sold the EA weapons technology for use in the Minbari war, and that several Hyperion class cruisers were retrofitted with these X-Ray lasers. We also know from ITB that the G'Quon was in service at the time of the Minbari war, because we see one get blasted to bits. Also, we know that the X-Ray lasers on the Hyperion were probably weaker than those on the Omegas, from the battle footage.
I think we can safely assume that the Narns sold an older design that was not in use on the G'Quan to the EA. Selling their latest and deadliest would be a pretty foolish thing to do, and frankly it is pretty obvious that the EA had nothing like it at the time anyway. So let's assume that they improve on the X-Ray Laser design and manage to make a major improvement on it in a short period of time, being able to catch up to the Narns in terms of energy output for the Omegas. In other words, let's take a liberal estimate and say that the Omega's lasers kick out the same juice as the G'Quon.
First, I propose that the G'Quon has a faster recharge time for its lasers than the Omega. We almost NEVER see the Omega fire more than one sustained blast from its X-Ray lasers at a time. However, WHENEVER a G'Quon fires it's main weapons, it fires both of them. Assuming that the Narns do not teach their captains reckless disregard for safety at their senior officer's military courses, this would imply that the Narn ships recharge their laser capacitors more quickly than the EA ships do, possibly because of a greater power plant capacity.
For the sake of argument (and keep in mind I am being liberal for the EA) and using some information I gathered at the excellent http://www.b5tech.com/, we can estimate what the frontal volleys of these two ships ought to be about the same. The Omega could ostensibly fire two bursts of heavy plasma bolts and two X-Ray laser blasts to the G'Quon's two X-Ray laser blasts, one energy mine launch, and the medium plasma cannons that can be brought to bear on the frontal arc (this is based on my own estimate - a conservative one at that - of the wallop the energy mine packs).
However, from that point forward, the Omega suffers. The G'Quon's superior recharging time would allow it to start cutting the Omega into shreds as it fired laser blast after laser blast.
This is all reasonable given the visual evidence from the series and the thesis that while MAYBE the EA could catch up to Narn X Ray laser technology in a few years, they certainly could not manage to overtake them in any significant fashion.
Also, the Narn ship presents a very low profile on all angles but dorsal and ventral. The EA ship has a small profile on the front and back, not as tiny as the slit presented by the Narn vessel. Manuvering to get a good shot against the Narn ship would be much more difficult, but in both cases, once you get on a good angle, the ship presents a big fat target and has limited ability to return fire.
Both ships possess nuclear weapons and both would be about the same, so comparing missile salvos would be pretty pointless.
Outside of ship to ship combat, the Omega comes up pretty well.
We don't know anything about the acceleration characteristics or top speed of either vessels, but we can see in B5 that the Omega turns a lot better than the ponderous-looking G'Quon.
The EA structures a lot of their tactics around their elite corps of Starfuries, and their ship designs reflect this. All of them have a lot of plasma pulse cannon, and approaching them with fighters must be an ugly bit of business. This would naturally free up your elite fighter pilots to go do what you would WANT elite fighter pilots to go do - attack the enemy. The Omega is no exception. With 12 pulse cannons, it bristles with anti-starfighter defenses and carries 3 dozen fighters. By contrast, the G'Quon carries fewer fighters and fewer pulse cannons. The G'Quon would have to keep its fighters close for self-defense. It is on this point that the Omega starts to catch up, and this should not surprise anyone. Relative to other races, the EA is heavily reliant on fighters. This shows by how many fighters EA ships carry relative to their counterparts.
I would assume that the two ships are similar in terms of armor protection, but that is just a guess.
We also don't know anything about the relative electronics of the two warships, but I propose that the Omega has better computational-based equipment (like navigation or targeting), EW, and COM gear than the G'Quon. The EA is a much more capitalist society, and we can assume that the EA would have an edge in any technology with obvious commercial applications (which most electronic equipment does).
One important point here is that the Omega's electronics suite is concentrated on its nose, right up front. While protected by a heavily armored cowl on its flanks, it is highly vulnerable from hits to the front. The G'Quon's electronics suite is either split between two pods on the wings, or better, might be DUPLICATED on two pods on the wings. That redundancy is very important in a fight. One hard hit could eliminate the Omega's ability to see or communicate. The G'Quon would require at least two hits on different targets.
The Omega has more endurance, by virtue of its simulated gravity.
So the sum of my thesis is that the two ships have similar volley capability, but the G'Quon has a higher sustained rate of fire. The Omega has a better fighter strike capability AND a better anti-fighter capability. The Omega also possesses superior electronics, manuverability, and vastly superior endurance. We do not know anything about speed and armor, so I assume they are roughly equal. That would make the G'Quon the better ship killer, but the Omega a more flexible vessel.
The differences between the G'Quon and the Omega are moderate, and when you add things like crew quality and command quality into the mix, one could vault over (or well beyond) the other. However, the Omega is a vastly superior ship to the Hyperion or Nova that preceeded it. The G'Quon was introduced when these two vessels were the frontline warships of the EA and the Omega was only on the drawing boards. The G'Quon no doubt gave EA planners a terrible scare!
Posted on Jan 3, 2003, 11:27 AM from IP address 160.111.101.132
i am currently in a heated public debate(found here http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41914 )
which questions this site or more precisely rather or not tim earls actual came here and gave you the scalings (the accusation is- you made them up). and rather or not his re-scalings were approved by JMS/copeland thus making them canon. the argument is- tim did the scalings later on in the series and it contradicts his earlier scalings shown in some printed B5 material. as well as the person in questions eror filled use of measuring screen shot pixel sizes in an attempt to scale the ships, specifically the white star. (i have already proven him wrong about 3 items related to this debate). i need some form of comfirmation or way to contact tim and settle it once and for all.
thanks
-mughi3
i had to post it here because you email doesn't seem to be working.
Posted on Dec 24, 2002, 11:53 PM from IP address 209.245.161.248
well the debate was nicely settled. the following is an email exchange bewteen myself and JMS on dec 25/26 2002 as to the validity of the charts on this page.
[quote]first the original email i sent to JMS quote:
To : jmsatb5@aol.com
Subject :
JMS-this is a matter of legal concern reguarding B5 and tim earls
greetings mr. Straczynski i am writing you this brief mail to clarify and resolve dispute as well as bring something to your attention. the worlock project at <http://warlock.isnnews.net/home.html>; has scale charts of B5 ships posted on it's page. these charts were said to be submited by tim earls and approved by you and mr. copeland. some have made the claims that you did not approve these charts. as well as claiming mr. earls had no authority to design/re-scale the ships, that an imposter has put the scalings on-line simply to legitimize the charts. your clarification on this issue would be greatly appreciated. a long time B5 fan -matt[/quote]
the reply i recieved from JMS quote:
[quote]From : jmsatb5@aol.
comTo : mughi3@hotmail.com
Subject :
Re: JMS-this is a matter of legal concern reguarding B5 and tim earls
They all look familiar and correct to me, though it's been a while.
jms[/quote]
Posted on Jan 29, 2003, 10:06 PM from IP address 63.214.14.14
ok here is the deal on the warlock
1: higher rate of fire then the Excalibur
2: different missle munitions (HARM does screw with acient sensors too)
3: more structure
4: lower profile ( i.e. harder to hit)
5: ability to do planetary bombardment
6: abiltiy to care a crap load of fighter both starfury and t-bolt
as far as i am concerned the warlock is a far superior fighting machine then the Excalibur in all forms
Posted on Jun 4, 2002, 5:17 AM from IP address 24.28.48.80
I'm as big a B5 fan as anyone else. But much like Star Wars ,after the first few dilms creators lost touch with what made it great, the ships and weapons!. Even the crew on Legend of the Rangers admitted getting a second or third or even cargo like ship. I'm a tech fiend myself and the show left me with nothing but some star shaped ships to OOH and Ahhh at? the weapons didn't appear to be better than earth ships during the dilgar war era. The touch of adding a weapons officer that kicked and punched Ion like cannons in a non-gravity environment didn't wow me at all. Where were all the new armoured ships with slicer beams or new killer pulse weapons like in third space. These guys were suppose to be more advanced than the shadows and vorlons? I don't think so! The mine field like ball was semi new era but the ships and weapons left alot to be desired. Anyone of the same or different opinion?
Posted on Jan 28, 2002, 7:10 AM from IP address 207.233.104.4
I thought the movie was a big letdown in all departments. I guess they were vague about "The Hand" so a series could pick up the idea and run with it, but thats a problem with these movies, they don't give you a clear ending. I found the ships to be pathetic as well, why was the Valen so pathetic. It was supposed to be a brand new design right off the assembly line and the fastest ship in the fleet(which means it could outrun a whitestar which is contradictory to what Sheridan said in ACTA about nothing being able to keep up with a whitestar). Why would you give the newest and fastest ship in the fleet a much smaller and obviously slower escort, plus escort ships usually bring capabilities and firepower to the aid of a more defenseless ship. Is the Valen really that weak, if it is then why build it. Is it just a high speed transport? Even if it was, it would have been better off just going full speed on its own and hope to outrun any threat because if its faster than your best ship, that race will probably be able to take out a 20 year old ship known to have problems. As for the weapons system being controlled by someone punching and kicking, I can't see how it would be more advanced at all. It's well known that computers have more speed and accuracy in applications like weapons targeting (that's why the U.S. spent so much developing AEGIS cruisers and destroyers so they wouldn't require a slower human thought process). That targeting system also makes it impossible to engage multiple targets accurately. She also didn't have any points of reference, so she couldn't really tell which weapon would fire when, if the aft guns are slower or less powerful than the forward guns, she may have to adjust her shots, but then certain guns may be anti-fighter and nearly ineffective against larger targets. Is she supposed to know exactly which weapon will fire when she punches/kicks at it?
Posted on Jan 29, 2002, 1:40 PM from IP address 208.59.132.101
I know it might be a little early but does anyone know if there are any websites with pictures and information on the ships of the film Legends of the Rangers yet?
Posted on Dec 17, 2001, 6:48 AM from IP address 207.233.104.4
I've asked around on other message boards too - nada. There are very few usable pics of the 'Liandra' (our hero's main ship) and virtually nothing of the others. Guess we just gotta wait...
Posted on Jan 8, 2002, 4:53 AM from IP address 65.10.109.118
...did Tim create the Olympus?If so,what's its armament and does it carry any fighters?I can only find limited info on it.Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Posted on Dec 5, 2001, 11:55 AM from IP address 167.127.100.48
Personnally, I think the Victory class would win. I believe this because it seems the more powerful of the two (and the much larger). For example, while the Warlock has to Particle beam cannons(Heavy fusion beams), the Victory has eight Quantuam Gravititic beam cannons, Fusion beam cannons, neutron cannons, AND better plasteel crystaline armor, not to mention its Super Quatuam discharge cannon. The only way I see a Warlock win is if it jump in behind or to the side of the Victory, and fired its 12 large missile silos at it.
Posted on Nov 23, 2001, 1:23 AM from IP address 212.219.190.183
We dont know all of what the Warlock has, and its GOD cannons are quite capable of destroying the VCD, from what weve seen it seems to be more manuverable and faster to accelerate.
I personally believe that it would be one of those matches of who hit who 1st.
and BTW the VCD would be cutting its own throat if it tried using the Main gun on the Warlock.
Posted on Dec 5, 2001, 5:36 PM from IP address 12.239.59.163
I seriously doubt the Warlock stands any chance at all.
by Psi-Cop Kenny
The Victory outclasses it in almost every category(weapons, speed, maneuverability, and very likely durability as well). The Warlock uses some Shadow tech but for the most part it contains improved versions of Earthforce standard(pulse cannons, engines, reactors, sensors etc.).The Excalibur by comparison uses very advanced tech in every portion of the ship.
Posted on Dec 17, 2001, 11:32 AM from IP address 167.127.100.48
The Warlock has shown more speed and manuverbility than the VCD has in the Drakh attack on earth.
As to the rest the advanced tech the VCD has the Warlock has in most circumstance but Shadow TEch rather than Vorlon. It assumed to Have Shadow inhanced armor where the VCD has Vorlon Inhanced. They Both Have Anit grav Drives developed using existing minbari tech. and the weapons on each are all standerd earth tech except for the main gun on each. Where the VCD has more main guns the Warlocks are likely far more powerful. Except for the VCD main gun but it has no relevance in a fight between the 2.
Posted on Dec 24, 2001, 5:41 AM from IP address 12.239.59.163
wasn't the Warlock designed to capture large installations and planets as opposed to going toe-to-toe with other capital ships. I'm sure it could knock around most vessels of the same class from other races (excluding the minbari) but according to descriptions I have read of it and its design, you can see that was not its intended use. The GOD beams and most other heavy weapons as well as the missile tubes face forward. That means there is a rather small area where the Warlock could concentrate firepower. The VCD has powerful forward firing, rear firing, and at least two turreted weapons to rain fire on from any direction. There's also no way the Warlock is faster, in ACTA they said it was the fastest ship Earth ever built, ruling out the Warlock. Then the Warlock has 2 gravitic drives as well as 4 of a more advanced, yet conventional design. This suggests that EA wasn't able to either create reliable or powerful enough gravitic engines to be the only form of propulsion. And as far as Armor goes, the Warlock was SUPPOSED to get shadow Bio-Armor, but the shadow creatures that were helping earth graft it onto there tech destroyed it before they left for the rim. We know the VCD has the plasteel/crystalline armor which deflects 80% of a weapons firepower. Then it could also be said that the VCD WILL have the Vorlon Bio-Armor as intended, the excalibur doesn't because it was rushed into service but future models will.
Posted on Jan 2, 2002, 3:31 PM from IP address 208.58.107.190
I Recall that the main reason EA fielded the Warlock was to have a ship capable to besting the Sharlin, but it was also ment to Seize planets.
I agree i doubt it has a faster top speed than the VCD but it has shown great Acceleration, and for all we know it may take the VCD 2 min to reach max speed.
As to Armor Im speaking of what they BOTH currently have not what the future holds for them. Now Im not certain the Warlock does have Shadow armor BUT Tim Earls has Hinted at it, and JMS himself has written Short Stories that show the Warlocks as having far mre Shadow Tech in their construction than we have yet to be informed of.
Posted on Jan 5, 2002, 7:13 AM from IP address 12.239.59.163
I can see why the Warlock may out accelerate the Victory, just look at the size comparisons. They would both would have to overcome inertia to get up to speed, giving the Warlock better acceleration.
I also was unaware it was designed to take on a Sharlin, though I could see how its layout could be used advantageously; a quick sprint head on at the sharlin would give the warlock's main armament (heavy missiles and GOD beams)a direct line of fire that could inflict great enough damage to possibly disable but definetly reduce the Sharlin's combat effectiveness. The warlock could then simply pick apart the wounded Sharline.
But against the VCD, I believe the Warlock could hurt it but not destroy alone. I think the best way to deploy the Warlock in a fight against the VCD is as sledge hammer. Use other ships of Corvette size to harrass the VCD and draw its attention and fire, then have the Warlock run full speed at the VCD same as with the Sharlin, all guns blazing and missiles firing.
Though I doubt there would be many chances for someone to try this, as the VCD would dispatch the smaller ships quickly and advanced sensors on the VCD would sense the Warlock's approach.
Posted on Jan 5, 2002, 12:28 PM from IP address 208.58.107.37
the Design of the VCD is a poor combat design, more than 60% of its fire power is on its forward weapons mount which is on a thin shaft. about a third as thick as the warlocks mid section, not to mention the fact that its a HUGE target and shoudlnt be hard at all to hit, one volly from the forward guns on the Warlock would cripple a VCD if it struck its neck.
cut the head from a snake and it cant bite you.
any competent commander would fear a Sharlin more than a VCD, the Sharlins at least have the design and manuverability to be a more dangerous threat.
a Sharlin could do the Same to a VCD as well.
and i hope no one mentions the main gun, any VCD captain stupid enough to use the main gun in such a fight deserves the swift and sure death he going to get for thinking it possible.
Posted on Jan 7, 2002, 10:56 AM from IP address 12.239.59.163
The VCD may have the bulk of its firepower along the neck as you refer to it, but this isn't really a vulnerability when compared to the Warlock's weapon layout. The VCD has 4 forward mounted Whitestar cannons as well as 4 rear mounted one's plus additional turreted beam weapons that cover all the angles. The Warlock has, as I said before, all its main armament facing forward, reflecting its primary job, taking large installations. It was also designed to bring enough firepower down on a Sharlin to destroy it, which I'm sure it could if somehow given a clear shot at a Sharlin that was unaware of its presence. The Whitestar guns on the VCD are more powerful than the slicer beams on the Sharlin, they could easily disable the Warlocks heavy weapons with a single barrage. The Warlocks armor also is simply an advanced earth design and not the intended Shadow bio-armor. The VCD even without the Vorlon Bio-armor and shields still has the more advanced Minbari armor.
And as for the main gun, and I object to calling it that, I agree with you. The only Captain that would use that during a long engagment with enemy ships is a suicidal one. Sure it will destroy any one ship, no one can doubt that, but what could is it if it leaves the VCD vulnerable for 60 seconds! The only time it should be used is when the VCD has a lot of friendly ships nearby ready to guard it once it fires, because I would think those fancy gravitic shields would drain like the rest of the ship.
Posted on Jan 7, 2002, 11:56 AM from IP address 208.59.132.78
yes the Warlocksa main gun are facing forward, but they do have some firing arc, im guessing around 30 degrees perhaps more, and the fact that the Warlock is VERY manuverable for a ship its size, easily pulling a 90 degree turn in 2 seconds or less. if you include the firing arc i think its safe to say a Warlock could easily bring its weapons to bear more than fast enough.
Also we dont know that the Whitestar beams are more powerful than Sharlins, Its only been said thats it has the most powerful weapons of a ship its size.
I think its been said that some of the turrented weapons on the Warlock are improved versions of the GROPOS "think thats what they were called?" cannons on B5. Not sure on this one though, but if true then its turrented weapoons could easily bring Just as much hurt to bear as the VCD could from a broad side give or take a bit.
Posted on Jan 10, 2002, 3:21 PM from IP address 12.239.59.163
If the Warlock's weapons were so advanced, they would have been used on the VCD. If its supposed to be a fusion of the Best of EA and Minbari tech, why doesn't it have it? The VCD is also much more powerful than a Sharlin. If it wasn't, why build it, why not build more Sharlins and save money. Also, if the Heavy Quantum Discharge cannons (whitestar cannon) are less powerful than the Sharlins weapons, why use them or even bother developing them for that matter. If the Slicer Beams or another weapon on the Sharlin was more powerful it would have been used on the VCD. The same applies to the Warlock, which is a slightly older design than that of the VCD.
The VCD armor also reflects 80% of a weapons power meaning the definitely less powerful Warlock weapons would inflict damage over time, but not before the VCD could cut it to pieces. I was wondering why you think an obviously more advanced race like the Minbari wouldn't be able to design a better weapon than that of the EA which is over a 1000 years younger. And I don't know how a ship with all its thrust in one small area could turn that quickly, the thrust vectoring alone would make it slow, the gravitic drives could help, but their first generation, the Minbari have it for over a 1000 years (the Tinashi in the last pre-EA war against the Shadows). The VCD would be powered by nothing but gravitic drives, meaning omni-directional thrust. Plus the engines are arrayed in a large triangle that would allow asymetric thrust to push it around much faster even though it is larger.
Posted on Jan 11, 2002, 8:51 AM from IP address 208.58.106.214
"If the Warlock's weapons were so advanced, they would have been used on the VCD"......They Wouldnt be used on the VCD because EA would never allow them to have the tech , they would guard it like they do the shadow tech theve aquired.
"The VCD is also much more powerful than a Sharlin. If it wasn't, why build it, why not build more Sharlins and save money."......again very flawed, they build is because its the ISA's top ship not the Mibarirs Top ship, hence the ISA's distiguishing ship. and they could build Sharlins because EA was contructing the ship in exchange for some help with their Anti grav drives. The Minbari would never allow them to build Sharlins.
"Also, if the Heavy Quantum Discharge cannons (whitestar cannon) are less powerful than the Sharlins weapons, why use them or even bother developing them for that matter"........because they are the strongest weapons avalible for a ship of its SIZE!, A Whitestar or even 2 is no match for a Sharlin. Whitestars are made to pack hunters and hit and run ships.
"If the Slicer Beams or another weapon on the Sharlin was more powerful it would have been used on the VCD. The same applies to the Warlock, which is a slightly older design than that of the VCD."........Only if the Minbari would allow EA the tech since they were the ones building the ships, which they wouldnt. You also have to take into consideration power contraints, the Beams on the VCD might "might" be more Powerful then the Minbaris Nuetron Cannons If they didnt fire in bursts and had the exstended firing cpability the Sharlins have with theirs.
"The VCD armor also reflects 80% of a weapons power meaning the definitely less powerful Warlock weapons would inflict damage over time, but not before the VCD could cut it to pieces."........They only stop 80% up to a level, heres a simple example. Imagine a trampoline and you have 2 500lbs sets of weights, 1 group is in 50lbs weaigs while the other is 1 500lbs weight, well the Trapolin could take an exstended pounding from the 50lbs weeights, but would be pushed passed its threshhold when the entire 500lbs was dropped on it at once. Well the God cannons on the front of the VCD are 1000lb weights.
"I was wondering why you think an obviously more advanced race like the Minbari wouldn't be able to design a better weapon than that of the EA which is over a 1000 years younger"......well lest see in EAs 1st ten years of space travel after meeting the Centauri they jumped ahead 500 years from a technological Stand point, and haveing access tech now from the Oldest race ever know "shadows" besides Lorien and help from Shadow Thralls to understand it to a degree and further help from the minbari themselves to further some tech, How far do you think that pushed the EA forward? and Lets not forget simple human Ingenuity.
"And I don't know how a ship with all its thrust in one small area could turn that quickly, the thrust vectoring alone would make it slow, the gravitic drives could help, but their first generation, the Minbari have it for over a 1000 years (the Tinashi in the last pre-EA war against the Shadows). The VCD would be powered by nothing but gravitic drives, meaning omni-directional thrust. Plus the engines are arrayed in a large triangle that would allow asymetric thrust to push it around much faster even though it is larger.".........Cant give you a definity answer to this one cept that it can it does and perhaps it has something to do with the Shadow Tech involved int he Warlocks contruction, and before you bring up the Vorlon Tech in the VCD please consider that the Shadows ships were always MUCH fast and more manuverable than the Vorlon ships.
Posted on Jan 11, 2002, 8:27 PM from IP address 12.239.59.163
The EA would be able to adapt the Shadow tech, in what two years, whereas the Minbari have been working with the Vorlons for over a thousand years. All the Shadow Tech involved in the Warlock was destroyed by the Shadows when they left, and any working models were destroyed when Sheridan's assault fleet destroyed their R&D facilities and construction yards. So Basically, the EA has their tech and minbari gravity drive tech. As for how far advanced EA tech is, I heard the Centauri helped push us 200 years ahead, not 500. Plus, the bulk of that is related to Jump Gate and Hyperspace technology, meaning evey other race most likely got a similar boost in tech. Even if the EA did receive a 500 year jump and no one else did, why did they get decimated by the Minbari when they fought them. Only one real victory came out of that, and that was because Sheridan pulled a brilliant trick that would only work once.
Yes the EA was paying for construction on the VCD, but it was designed by Minbari and built by the ISA, not the EA.
Posted on Jan 12, 2002, 7:48 AM from IP address 208.58.106.167
all the shadow was not destroyed, not even close, as is proven by short stories written by JMS himself. and they were able to adapt the shadow tech as fast as they did because they were helped in the beginning to better understand shadow tech by Shadow Thralls whom have been using Shadow Tech for thousands of years.
Posted on Jan 13, 2002, 8:20 AM from IP address 12.239.59.163
Just because the EA says they designed the Warlock to go toe-to-toe with the Sharlin does not mean that the Warlock actually CAN. For that matter, I would be surprised if the Victory itself were a general qualitative match for the Sharlin. Recall that througout the series, the EA was in denial about even LOSING the war in the first place. During the series, Sherdian states point blank that the EA is nowhere near Centauritech standards, let alone Minbaritech. The EA closed that gap up in under a decade? I doubt it.
Think about it. The Sharlin is the frontline warship of the most advanced civilization in known space (following the departure of the First Ones). The Whitestars are the product of technological aid from the Vorlons, so that class of ship's systems would be equal to or superior to the Sharlin in every respect. Only the difference in size makes the Sharlin a better fighter than the White Star.
However, the Victory is a product of some Minbari and some Vorlon technology being put on a vessel built by HUMANS, who are centuries behind the former and millenia behind the latter. Frankly, the Victory must either be hideously expensive or mostly human tech with a few really souped up, exotic features that break down all the time. As a PRACTICAL matter, that would be what happens when you push the envelope that much using features that your own industrial base cannot provide. Modern examples of this sort of thing about around the world.
The Warlock would be even worse, because here we are talking about what is OBVIOUSLY mostly human technology with some primitive Minbari artificial gravity features and some rumors of Shadow tech. If the ship is armed the way that I have read that it is armed, the only truly new feature is the artificial gravity onboard. The ship has visible reaction control nozzles, and therefore does not even use gravitic propulsion for manuvering as the Centuari warships do. ALL the weapons are either present on previous EA warships, or are improvements on them.
Now, JSS is God as far as these things are concerned, so if he has Sheridan saying that the Victory is better than a Sharlin, that is the bible. However, under such circumstances, it would be pretty obvious that the Victory, as built by humans, would be monsterously expensive and time consuming to build. The ship would be 100% exotic.
However, the Warlock is distantly behind EITHER. Get real. The Warlock is the equivalent of a battleship to the Omega's destroyer/cruiser role, but they are still on roughly the same technological ballpark. The idea that the EA could go from not even being able to defend itself against the Minbari's navy to being able to field warships that are their qualitative match in the space of a generation, jumping a several century gap, is ludicrous. This is taking into consideration Shadowtech aid and Minbaritech aid.
Posted on Jan 3, 2003, 10:30 AM from IP address 160.111.101.132
Well i see you have all made good points. However i do infact believe that the warlock would beet both a sharlin and a VCD (not at the same time). It was the ea that constructed the VCD and i very much doubt it would build a superior ship without, firstly taking into consideration that they should have something to atleast match it. Also you are all forgetting that clark would have massiverly increased both ea tech and the military. As for mars if you captured and developed technology from a race millions of years ahead of your own wouldnt you like put it in a safe somewhere lol come on. EA ships are taking on a huge rle they are intended for multiple roles atack defense diplomacy espionage. Also cost effictivness maintinance planetary assualt dont think this is not true i no the military and if its there theyll use it. In conclusion a Warlock is definetley the all round better ship whether it could take on a VCD, that isnt the most important thing something very small could affect the outcome of a battle between these two. As for a sharlin the warlock would no doubt beet it this was its main reason for bieng constructed.
Posted on Jan 14, 2003, 9:26 AM from IP address 194.117.133.198
The VCD was designed by the Minbari and built mainly by Humans to be a Anla'Shok ship, specifically a battleship version of the Whitestar. I'm guessing the only reason humans were involved at all were is because of Sheridan.
The VCD was supposed to get Vorlon bio-armour that would make it look related to a Whitestar but the Drakh attacked before it could be grown over the existing structure near Minbar. This suggests that the Minbari have at least mastered Vorlon bio-armour, whereas the Warlock, which wasn't rushed into service has no advanced armour at all. During the EA war it was planned to use Shadow armour but Shadow tech was banned by the ISA, EA might get away with using Shadow tech if it wasn't visible, such as sensors but not on the exterior of a ship. So even though neither got there planned bio-armour the VCD poly-crystaline armour and gravitic defense fields is far superior to the Warlock's.
As for weapons, the Warlock does use the GOD type cannon, however at full power a GOD satellite would destroy itself, this would be stupid for a manned ship so the Warlocks cannon would be limited to a lot lower output. Also the technology used in these cannons is still primitive compared to that used by the Minbari. As for its other weapons they are probably upgraded version of those used on the Omega class.
The VCD uses upgraded Whitestar cannons, since the Whitestar was developed in secret by mainly the Religious cast it can be assumed that there will be no problem with an ISA ship having Minbari tech's most advanced weapons. Also the VCD has 8 of them as opposed to the Warlocks 2 particle beams.
As for power admitedly the VCD will be dead in teh water if it fires its main gun, but it still has a quantum gravimetric reactor and fusion reactors so it's endurance and rate of file of it lower power guns will be much better than the Warlock.
Since the VCD's engines are Minbari designed and gravimetric it's speed, rate of acceleration and manoeuvrability, although probably lower than a Sharlin's will be far superior to that of the Warlock's, which uses the gravitic principles to increase acceleration and rate of turn, but not overall speed.
The VCD also has a Minbari stealth device to stop it beaing detected, a tractor beam that could be used to slow the Warlock, and 14 more Starfurys to use attacking the less protected Warlock.
On top of these points, when activated the VCD was the most advanced ship made by any of the younger races, 5 years after the Warlock. If it couldn't defeat a ship of younger races why would it have been built.
Finally, if the Warlock were superior to a VCD then why would the EA need to borrow the Excalibur to search for a cure to the Drakh plague when they have so many Warlocks?
Sorry if this explanation is a bit long but I think I cover most of the points.
Posted on Jan 16, 2003, 3:54 AM from IP address 139.222.1.161
I'm amazed at the ships of B5, but when I do a size comparison with other sci-fi shows I find it hard to imagine that a whitestar with a crew of 50 or so is it? is bigger than the Star Trek's Enterprise with a crew of hundreds or thousands. I'm from the old days of watching Battlestar Galactica and that, what I thought was huge ship at 610 meter carries a couple thousand people plus hundreds of fighters. The Whitestar is a couple of hundred meter shorter but only carries 2-4 fighters and a fraction of the crew. Can anyone put this size differential into perspective for me. Or is there that much empty space on a whitestar? Then on the flip side the warlock and earth destroyers have 80,000 troops on a 1600-1800 meter destroyer or dreadnaught? (Aside from the notion that those other ships are alot wider explanation please.) Is this right?
Posted on Oct 5, 2001, 6:37 AM from IP address 207.233.104.4
...the jump engines and related systems take up a whole lot of space.Ever notice how big the jumpgate struts are?And how the largest ships are usually the only ones that are jump-capable?That's my two cents.
Posted on Nov 29, 2001, 7:27 AM from IP address 167.127.100.48
You have to remember that the White star was designed strictly as a heavy fighter of the shadows. Ok lets start. The main bubble of the ship, the large part at the front from which the focused laser fires is nothing but that weapon. The Bridge is actually a small, seperate structure above this. Also, this bubble supports two pulse cannons on each side. 70% of the ship is hollow and open to space. The spaces not hollow are filled with a jump engine (an enormous structure, and this is the smallest ship ever to have one, outside of shadow or vorlon) Also, the ship has a gravimetric drive, which gives it omnidirectional movement. And that takes up a lot of space. But, in case of failure of the drive, the ship also has three redundant fusion drives, ie the ones under and to the sides of the ship, which require room for a fusion reactor. Somehow, in all that, you have to find room for the auto repair systems and the vorlon biomechanical systems. If you think about the 4 massive structures incorporated into the design of this ship, and taking into account that aestethics of a minbari desinged ship, it is very easy to see how after they bundled up all that, there is very little room for anything else. EA ships of similar size dont have any of these devices, and have plenty of room for people and other devices.
Hope this helps
David Williams, B5 universe integrator, Warner Brothers
Posted on Jul 26, 2002, 7:34 AM from IP address 64.53.89.175
Dear Bert,
I read your message, and might be able to answer ist. I am myself a great babylon 5 fan and also interested in warfare. So I might be able to answer it.
The white star is designed as a escort and attack ship and not to carry many fighters. The battle star galactica, the imperial star destroyer and the omeaga class destroyer and the Nova class dreadnaught, are designed to deliver huge fire power and suplement of fighters onto the battle field like aircraft carriers do it today and battle ships in the past. Such ships need to be huge to have supplies for its fighters. The Hyperion class cruiser, there different types, the biggest so far as I remember the biggest 1445 m and the smallest 800 m, do not have many fighters either. It has to be noticed that the 1445 version of the hyperion class cruiser is only slighter smaller, than the Omega destroyer. Both versions which i have mentioned carry only 6 fighters. I summary it depends for which purpose the vessels arev designed and not size.
I hope i could help you.
Sincerely Swen
Posted on Mar 25, 2003, 1:50 PM from IP address 137.49.235.107
I'm a newbie here and find this site fantastic.
So I wonder if there is out there a canon Warlock model. I've seen Sapiano's, it's great, but I don't know what are the windows doing on the side of the hangar. I ask myself: would it be a disaster if the original models would be available? Or will it show up in the Rangers? Because if the Rangers won't go in series (certainly I hope it will), there will be no more reference for models, and it would be a disaster!
Posted on Sep 18, 2001, 1:57 PM from IP address 152.66.142.106
I have looked through all the posts, but I apologize it this has been put forward before:
We know the Warlock has Gravititic Drives, we also know that the Warlock was already constructed before the ISA was proposed. As such, the tech couldn't have been handed over from the ISA at that time.
Now we could conclude that the tech is from the Shadows (we know they had a hybrid ship based on shadow tech) but Tim Earls stated that it is Minbari designs with human tech.
But what if EA Gravititic engines where reversed engineered from tech salvaged from the Earth-Minbari War? This explains why the Warlock still needs conventional engines as well as the Gravititic drives and why Delenn still offered the tech to the EA President. The reverse engineered tech is still not powerful enough to be useful on its own, so receiving tech from the ISA would still be a significant leap forward.
Comments?
MaSC
Posted on Jul 28, 2001, 2:12 PM from IP address 62.254.64.5
The Warlocks we saw in ACTA were from 5 years after the establishment of the ISA. They may have been refitted with the 2 grav drives in that 5 year
period.
The hybrid drive may be a result of limitations with the new first generation engines (power or reliability limitations perhaps). Remember these engines are built on "Minbari design principles" but use EA design and materials. Theses are not refined Minbari engines.
Posted on Aug 3, 2001, 7:00 AM from IP address 63.175.153.253
Actually I think that is the least likely situation...
by
But you can just glue on 2 drives and suddenly have gravity.
The ship would have been designed in one of two ways:
Rotating section:- if you remove this it would require a complete redesign of the interior of the ship (as most of the crewed parts would be within the section) it would be easiler to build another ship from scratch. with that and looking at the Warlock's shape, this idea is out of the window.
Zero-G: Again it would require complete redesign of the ship as thje interior would be designed with Zero-G in mind whichg means no up or down, no stairs. In fact to get around the ship crew would move through small tunnels (no need for 7ft walkways)with handrails. This is supported by itb where you could see small doorway at the rear of the bridge. the layout of everything would be designed for Zero-G where with gravity crew might not be able to reach. Its possible they where originally Zero-G but unlikley due to the Omega.
And that all assumes you don't have to design the ships systems for the drives (ie you can't just stick a jet engine on a car and drive supersonic) you have to design the ship around it. And then you have make space for them within the ship. Further you have to take into account the extra-power consumption.
Like I said possible, but very unlikely
Posted on Aug 3, 2001, 2:39 PM from IP address 62.254.64.5
1. We know the grav-drive engines were based on Minbari design. We have no cannon evidence that EA had working grav tech of any other kind. Where would they have gotten the tech to reverse engineer? They only won 1 battle in the EM war and the Black Star was blown to little tiny pieces. Hard to collect in-tact enemy engines unless you are in possession of the "battlefield".
2. If EA had already reverse engineered Minbari grav tech (even crude copies) then it would not have been such a powerful incentive for the EA to join the ISA.
3. The habitable section of the Warlock may be a small % of the ship. The launch bay, cargo areas, engineering sections, weapons bays, etc. are probably Zero G most of the time. They would be designed mostly the same with or without AG.
To say that "it would be easier to design a whole new ship from scratch" may not be accurate. Fitting new crew sections to the prototype(s) may be reasonable within 5 years. Hell, they designed, tested , and built at least 100 Omegas in ~10 years.
3. The Warlocks may have been designed to allow an easier AG refit. We were trying to develop/acquire the tech I am sure.
4. The "outside" of the ship we all know and love may be somewhat different than that of the original prototype.
Posted on Aug 4, 2001, 8:03 AM from IP address 63.62.130.211
that the Warlocks were designed from the ground up to use grav tech, considering upcoming break throughs and the help from Shadow Thralls in developing all forms of advanced tech.
Posted on Dec 24, 2001, 5:46 AM from IP address 12.239.59.163
It was stated in the 2nd to the last episode in season 4 that Ivanova was going to take command of a new prototype warlock. The new prototype could of had a rotating section, then with the introduction of grav. tech, they were able to take out two of the engines and upgrade it with grav. tech. Of course this would mean removing the rotating section too.
Posted on Dec 8, 2001, 4:29 PM from IP address 66.81.23.78
Most of the crew would serve in the rotating section which means most of the crewable locations would be there. Pulling it out would leave the Warlock without anywhere for the crew. It would require a complete redesign of the interior. The only way that would work is that if the Warlock had an interior rotating section and it was simply locked down. (Although I suspect it would be more difficult to provide gravity in that fashion (because most of the crew sections would be arranged around the innards of a drum.
Posted on Dec 9, 2001, 1:53 AM from IP address 62.254.64.6
From what I can extract from Tim Earls posts, the recovery bay is the large opening at the side of the vessel (just right of the missile silos on the profile view) and the maintenance bay is opposite it. If that's true than what is the bay sticking out at an angle facing the rear towards the back of the Warlock.
or have I got it the wrong way round? If so what are the bays at the front? (just right of the missile silos on the profile view)
Posted on Jul 22, 2001, 5:30 AM from IP address 62.254.64.5
It just discovered the discussion aides page soi heres the message again witth thoses co-ords
From what I can extract from Tim Earls posts, the recovery bay is the large opening at the side of the vessel (1-E16) and the maintenance bay is opposite it (2-E6). If that's true then what is the bay sticking out at an angle facing the rear towards the back of the Warlock.(1-D9)
or have I got it the wrong way round?
If so what are the bays at the front? (1-E16 and 2-E6)
MaSC
Posted on Jul 23, 2001, 6:50 AM from IP address 62.254.64.5
Nope, the bays you mention (1-E16) on both sides are 'ordinance' bays (not sure what that means, but that's what Tim called them). The rear angled bay on the right side of the ship (1-D8) is the recovery bay and the maintenance bay is on the oposite side (2-D13, has no opening).
Thanks, the reason I thought they where the ones in (1-E16) was:
first, There was only one bay towards the rear and the oposite wasn't open to space (as you noted).
Has Tim Earls said it has no opening or have you deduced from the pictures (ie it could have a closed door)?
I thought the point of the maintinence bay having its own entrance was to prevent damaged fighters/shuttles compromising the retreival of launched fighters/shuttles. i.e. if it crashed into the bay the operational fighters might not be able to use the hanger.
But from what you tell me it seems they will have to travel through the recovery bay which is risky as above.
Second was that it was closer to the fighter launch bay and as such fighters would not have to be moved as further down the ship for launch position.
I can see the wisdom of having it facing towards the rear of the ship though, as opposed to the front or side, as the warlock would not have to slow as much (or stop althogether) due to the reletive speeds being differant.
Posted on Jul 24, 2001, 6:27 AM from IP address 62.254.64.5
Yes, Tim has said that it doesn't have any apperature (I have the quote, just awaiting permission to publish it). Adding a additional opening would require the addition of an airlock, armor and a lot of space consuming equipment. Also doors will always be weaker than fixed armor, and hence a potential weak point. I suppose if the fighter jammed up the recovery bay that it wouldn't be too hard for them to go in the launch bay.
Those openings are actually quite large (have to look in more detail to get a number) and should leave plenty of room for a mammed fighter to make its way through. I would also assume that there are aides in the bay to grab, slow and dock the fighters (sim. to the cables used in modern aircraft carriers) so that they can come in without having to slow too much.
As to why the maintenance shop is extruded as it is, you'd have to ask Tim
I think I visited minbari 5's website and saw this fighter there? Does anyone know of any other tech sites that feature it, or if Tim Earls verifies it's existence? Also curious about the shadow hybrid capitol ship.
Posted on Jul 10, 2001, 12:40 PM from IP address 207.233.104.5
This is the first time I've ever heard of this ship is there and actual appearance on any episodes? which one(s)? is there a tech site with specifics and pictures of it somewhere?
Posted on Jul 10, 2001, 12:36 PM from IP address 207.233.104.5
In the episode where Sheridan is dieing and goes past the edge of the rim (the name escapes me), he uses a small blue version of the whitestar - officially called the Snubnose whitestar, also called the 'Bluestar' or 'Smurf' by fans. I believe the b5 technical manual (b5tech.com) has an article on this ship, however AFAIK all the data was generated by the site's author and not from any official sources.
This is called the Bluestar, and is a ship designed for and requested by the Rangers for the increasing role in espionage and uniformity of their presence. They needed a small, tough fighter based on the whitestar design, and the ISA delivered with the BlueStar. The Blue star is capable of fitting into cargo bay of the whitestar for deployment.
Hope this helps
David Williams
B5 Universe Integrator, Warner Brothers.
Posted on Jul 26, 2002, 7:38 AM from IP address 64.53.89.175
Those charts were created by Tim Earls, the visual arts director for Babylon 5/Crusade to standardize the scalings of the ships in the series. Tim was quite generous to allow us to publish these charts on this site, however I am not sure if official charts for those ships exist, or if Tim hasn't had time to prepare them.
Also, AFAIK the Bin-tak is only an AOG ship and hence not wholy official so it would probably not be on the show's official charts. However, AOGs charts should have their scaling for the ship - and since they created it, that would be more or less official in its own right.
Have you seen this site? some of the films show Minbari neutron cannons bouncing harmlessly off Federation energy shields. If I'm reading b-5 tech pages accurately with anti-matter put into the mix of the neutron cannon, it shouldn't react with anything save it's intended target (the hull of the ship right?) on the flip side their phaser and photon torpedoes blowing the non shielded but considerably larger and armored hulls of b-5 ships out of the sky with one or two torpedoe hits. Hypothetically speaking of course, shouldn't it be like that "Independence day" seen of AM RAM missles hitting and causing damage to(Just not enough) to do much of anything scenario? What is to your knowledge the most complete guide to b-5 weapons and shields tech page? I tried B-5 tech pages but they were a little shady when it came to comparing firepower between ships.
Posted on Jul 9, 2001, 10:01 AM from IP address 207.233.104.5
we have little canon technical information about the weapons systems in the ships on the show. Luckilly Tim has provided us with the armament of this ship, which cannot be said for the other ships. The same cannot be said for any other ships on the series.
Without any objective information about what exactly the weapons we have no way to say what would happen. We have no idea what the sharlin's weapons are (neutron canons are also a fan creation AFAIK), nor do we know anything about how ST shields work. There are many different sites out there with their own interpretation of the show - including the B5 technical manual. Interpretation is inherently subjective, and every site is entitled to their own opinion.
As for spacebattles.com, their animations are made by fans. The fans who made them have no more official information than you or I, and are therefore the author's subjective opionion (as above) of what would happen.
The other thing to remember is that comparing different shows and their universes is usually futile. There is no way to know how different technologies will interact. Different shows also use widely differing theories, which could potentially be mutually exclusive (ie if a B5 tech works, than a ST tech wouldn't work and vice versa)
I believe that Neutron Cannons and "fusion lasers" are cannon. They were in a screenshot of B5 sensor readings of a Sharlin in the episode "Epiphanies" (the one where Bramners body in "stolen").
Posted on Jul 11, 2001, 9:47 AM from IP address 63.175.153.253
I think that the makers don't know much about science...
by
A neutron beam would do not much harm to an inorganic ship, but it would harm organic materials. (It wouldn't destroy Hyperions and Nova gunboats, but kill the people in them.)
Posted on Sep 18, 2001, 1:42 PM from IP address 152.66.142.106
They would probably damage a ship, depending on how they work, and I have several ideas about that:
1) Anti-neutrons- IE a stream of anti neutrons destroys the neutrons in a particle, thus causing the collapse of the particle. No evidence to back this up unfortunatly.
2) They launch a large amount of neutrons at the target. This would cause damage, as the impact with the neutrons in particles and maybe even the other parts of the atom would effectivly knock it to pieces, a bit like the Particle beam cannon does except without the problem of electrical partical repulsion (sorry, can't think of anything else to call it).
Posted on Nov 11, 2001, 6:40 AM from IP address 62.6.75.52
Sorry, but I do not agree. (But I think this is the sense of this forum.
I don't know nothing about antineutrons, but I know about neutrons. There are two kind of neutron projectile.
1) There is the neutron beam. Think of it like a kind of radioactivity. (It is radioactivity in fact.) Sole neutrons rush in a stream in a traight line affected only by gravity. The neutron bombs radiate such thing.
So it can destroy an atom, if the nucleus catch it. But there is a very-very little chance for this to happen. So if the nucleus don't catch it, the neutron flies through the material with very-very little effect. Certainly because it didn't have any effect on the inorganic hull, it comes through at almost the same intensity. (Effect-countereffect, I think they say like this in English.)
BUT the organic materials, like people, animals, plants, funghi, polymers and so on, have very-very large molecules. And while in a crystal grid there are vast spaces among the crystal-dots (I don't know how is it in English - sorry!), the organic materials molecules are easy to hit and in a molecule there is very little space between the atoms. AND there is very much hydrogen, wich can relative easily catch a neutron. So the neutron radiation destroys the latter.
2) There are neutron stars. After a supernova it can emerge a black hole, or a neutron star (or something other). The neutron star was under kind of pressure that the protons and electrons got pressed together and became neutrons. So there are much neutrons attached to each other by the "weak" force. It can be small like Florida, but denser than any known element. It's just like an atom with the number 0 on the Periodic Table. I can imagine, that it could be in smaller masses and measures a great projectile. But it needs something to shoot it out. I could imagine, something like this had been hurled down by the Centauris' mass accelerators to the Narn homeworld.
Posted on Nov 11, 2001, 3:15 PM from IP address 152.66.142.21
I hope this is Tim Earls, and you can finally put something to rest. In one of the crusade episodes "The path of sorrows" I think it was is this a Earth alliance black ops ship that appears and destroys an EA destroyer or is it a shadow hybrid that I've seen on the b-5 tech.com and babylon 5 the place to be websites?
Posted on Jul 9, 2001, 9:37 AM from IP address 207.233.104.5
Among one of the scripts JMS published on Bookface.com ("End of the line"), was a story on that exact issue. According to this script, the ship is a 'Shadow Hybrid' developed by a rouge faction of the EA. Acording to Major Lee (the leader of the particular faction they found), the ship attacked the Cerberus because, similar to EAs previous attempts to use shadow ships, pilots periodically loose control along with they're ships.
The articles noted above were written before the publication of this script, and hence didn't have the above information to include in their writings.
