From what I understand: when a ship enters hyperspace it must enter from a planetary system and exit at another planetary system, since the enter and exit relies on planetary mass projection.

However a ship can freely move from one system to any other system as long as it knows where the target system is located.

This makes me wonder, in such setting, if there is a war between two super powers, both parties can just move their whole fleet to the capital star of the rival and bomb that to ash.

I am not sure if am I misunderstanding the FTL setting in Star Wars. But if I am correct the naval strategy movement will be somehow similar to nuclear weapon IRL. And on the other hand since FTL is so cheap and a ship can just move to any other system, it makes guerrilla unstoppable.

The more I think about that the more I feel hyperspace FTL technology may create story loopholes if we people start to think about the naval strategy.

  • 1
    You don't need to go from one planetary system to another. You can stop halfway or change direction mid-flight. – Valorum Apr 20 at 6:49
  • 1
    FWIW just because someone doesn't do something, or do what you expect, that doesn't mean there is a loophole. – TheLethalCarrot Apr 20 at 8:00
  • 5
    @TheLethalCarrot Category error: That only applies to reality. In Star Wars you can make stuff up when you feel like it. – David Tonhofer Apr 20 at 8:35

Your understanding of hyperspace technology is fundamentally inaccurate.

"When a ship enters hyperspace it must enter from a planetary system and exit at another planetary system"

This is incorrect. Ships in hyperspace also travel through normal space, which means that they can choose to come out of hyperspace between systems, reverse direction or change direction.

"the enter and exit relies on planetary mass projection"

This is incorrect. The ships have hyperdrive engines that can be turned on and off at will.

"However a ship can freely move from one system to any other system as long as it knows where the target system is located.

Again incorrect. Ships rely on travelling along hyperspace "lanes" that have been confirmed to be free of obstructions. The planetary systems at each end (and to some extent along the way) benefit greatly from this. There are also limited entry and exit points in each system, allowing these choke-points to be guarded and taxed.

As Han says;

“…Traveling through hyperspace isn’t like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?”

  • 2
    I've always wondered who is chiefly responsible on the Millennium Falcon for those "precise calculations": Han, or Chewbacca? – Invisible Trihedron Apr 20 at 13:14
  • 5
    @InvisibleTrihedron - Neither. They use a navi-computer. Han seems to be the one operating it though – Valorum Apr 20 at 14:00
  • 4
    @Carson - That's precisely how interdictor ships work. Tarkin deploys them in Tarkin and it results in a bunch of ships coming out of hyperspace early and colliding – Valorum Apr 20 at 15:45
  • 2
    @Bergi Indeed, Han discovered at least one new route -- he made the Kessel run in slightly over 12 parsecs. – Ross Presser Apr 20 at 16:34
  • 6
    @InvisibleTrihedron I think the Solo movie showed that Lando's dying robot girlfriend was integrated into the Millenium Falcons on-board navigation computer. So in a sense a semi sentient AI is responsible for the navigation calculations. – Ghos3t Apr 20 at 18:07

Other than @Valorum's very valid points, several things would prevent this kind of naval strategy:

  1. Usually there are patrols and other defense systems, especially near a capital.
  2. Hyperfuel: As we learn in Solo: A Star Wars Story, hyperdrives need coaxium to fuel them. While it doesn't necessarily need to be refined, it is highly unstable when unrefined and also highly reactive, making it dangerous to use unrefined coaxium. Coaxium itself is expensive and the refining process also costs money. In order to move a full fleet, you need the coaxium to fuel them for the entire journey there, plus probably at least a partial return journey. The logistics of doing this for just a bombing run on a capital planet don't make sense.
  3. Risk management: If you commit your entire fleet to an attack, but the enemy has sufficient strength to stop your fleet, you lose your fleet and the enemy gains the upper hand. They don't even need to be stronger. In the Expanded Universe, Thrawn and Tarkin are both noted to have used Star Destroyers (or similar cruisers) equipped with gravity cones, which generate a powerful gravity signature to pull ships out of hyperspace and prevent them from entering. They used these mainly for offensive maneuvers, allowing their exit from hyperspace to be more controlled, but they can also be used in hyperlanes to block access and establish checkpoints. If your fleet gets unexpectedly pulled out of hyperspace, the enemy has some time for free shots before your crews react.
  4. Ethics (and some kind of related logical stuff): Most of the time in Star Wars, guerilla warfare is seen to be not targeting civilians, but military targets that will make an effect. A capital world, even if bombed to ashes, won't put an end to an enemy's military. As seen from the fall of the Empire, even a military group that suffers a loss of government will continue to fight as long as they have some sort of leadership. It's kind of hard to take out the entire chain of command of a military, so this wouldn't be effective as it would leave no government to negotiate a full surrender while leaving military leadership to continue the fight.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.