Talk: Executor-class Star Dreadnought/Legends

Anybody mind researching and listing all of the Executor-class Destroyers from the EU? =P

It would b e a great help...

• I don't think we need a list. There's already a category. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• The category here has most of the Star Dreadnoughts we know of so far. VT-16 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Annhilator is an Executor-class.Darth Oompa Loompa 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximum aceleration

I dont think it makes sense

Maximum acceleration

1230 G

---

1230 G force it is imposible to survive

I think it is more like 1,23 G

96.20.90.148 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is its official max acceleration. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't forget that they're in space, and can generate their own gravity. The Venator-class Star Destroyer's accelleration was 3,000G. This is a LOT faster than the Executor-class Star Dreadnought. Is there anything in canon that says the crews of the Venator-class died due to the movement? 203.123.89.166 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That's why all starships have inertial compensators, to keep people from becoming splotches on the walls. VT-16 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably supposed to be a reference to jumping to lightspeed. If a star destroyer could do 1000+ G tactically, it could ignore fighters like X-wings since no X-wing is shown doing anywhere close to that. Just zoom past them. But even at 3000G, that's only 30 km/s^2, and even if there are weird, aether-based physics where you can accelerate to faster than light, you'd still take several hours just to get up to lightspeed. If you want to reach another planet during the time it takes to charge up a laser as in Episode VII, you'd need something even more ridiculous like 656,545,483,000 G. (1000 lightyears in 40 minutes at continuous acceleration then deceleration.) If hyperdrive conserves energy (it seems to in Ep. VIII!), it would be much more efficient if it could 'push' on something instead of somehow working like a rocket with constant acceleration at all velocities. Then it would start out fast but have a maximum speed, like a car. To travel at the same average speed, you'd have a much faster start than 100 billion G. 23.121.191.18 04:52, August 18, 2018 (UTC)

Size

I think the size on this is wrong i think its only 12,800 meters long --Boba Jango Fett 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Boba Jango Fett

• The size of the Executor-class has been a matter of continual debate, but the official Lucasfilm figure direct from the website is nineteen kilometres - this is correct, and fits better with the size of the Executor seen in the films than the previous mistaken length of 8 kilometres. The 12800m figure was on the Databank for a short time as a compromise figure, but it has since been replaced and is no longer relevant. See the 'Behind the scenes' section of the article for the full tortuous story.

• • Please look at this, and note that per an actual scale model used in filming an ISD and the Executor, it should have been 13,469 meters long. So it's basically the mistake of the 5 mile long (8000m) in reverse, and the 12800m is not far off, certainly closer than the 19,000m. http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements

Bottom line: The films and the Databank both now say it was 19 km long, and that's how it's going to stay. This is the correct canon figure. —Unsigned comment by CommanderJB (talk • contribs)

• Some of the Legends canon writers made a really elementary mistake here when it comes to what "five or ten times the size of" means. The Super- or Executor-class star destroyers are portrayed fighting against other, smaller ships, which are listed in various places as being in the 1~3 km length range. If Super-class has anywhere near the same shape as the smaller ships, being 11 times as long means it's 1000 times the mass. Every smaller ship should evaporate in a single turbolaser battery volley. To the extent that real-world ships are described as being "twice the size of" another ship, instead of that its armor has been engineered to repel the shells of the other ship, they would more likely be compared based on tonnage. (They might also have been compared based on the weight of a single volley of shells.) The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty limited the size of navies and individual ships, like cruisers, based on tonnage, not length. The result of a naval battle like the Battle of Jutland might also include tons sunk, but definitely not the total length of the ships sunk. A typical WWI or WWII destroyer was almost 1/3 the length of a modern US aircraft carrier, but barely 1% of the tonnage. This may not change the listed length for this class, but editors can at least be aware of the relationship between length and volume, even if the writers were not. 23.121.191.18 05:14, August 18, 2018 (UTC)

Page title

I've moved the page back to "Dreadnought" per its established canonical name as presented in Super Star Destroyer in the Databank (original site is defunct), pg. 171 of Star Wars: Complete Locations, and Starship Battles Preview 1 on Wizards.com (backup link) (original site is defunct). Nothing ever describes the ship as a "Dreadnaught" except a brief mention in Classic Star Wars, which even calls the ship a "Dreadnought" some issues later. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

they say it is that long becuase there is an atrophysicist at I beleive it is Theforce.net who calculated that in reference to the curvature of the 2nd death star (at a diameter of 900 km) it is 17 or better yet see the following

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html

shield generators

why are its shield generator domes listed as being sensor systems? that doesn't make sense

22:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Image Move

You need to move the image of the “toy soldier” in the superstructure in line with the effective text. It’s a couple of paragraphs down.174.25.49.236 23:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Inconsistency

In the beginning of the Dimensions section, it states: "The Executor-class measured 19 kilometers in length[6][1], was approximately five times larger and more destructive than any Star Destroyer class in the Imperial Navy[22], and was 100 times more massive than the ubiquitous Imperial-class Star Destroyer.[2]" The problem here is stuff drawn from multiple sources of differing dates (pre- and post-retcon) without somebody thinking it through. The "19 kilometers in length" and "100 times more massive" parts are fine, they are consistent with the source-confirmed dimensions of the Executor-class. However, the part in the middle (taken from the first edition of A Guide to the Star Wars Universe (which predates the Super SD size retcon, iirc)) says "five times larger and more destructive than any Star Destroyer class..." is obviously derived from when the SSDs were thought to be only 8000m long (1600x5=8000). That middle part should be deleted, and then the whole sentence will be more accurate. Doing so now. Xavic Kae 10:06, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, I think I deleted the initial reference point for A Guide to the Star Wars Universe citation in that edit. I don't know if it was ever referenced again in the article. If not, all clear, but if so, it may have messed something up down the line. My apologies if that occurred. I don't notice anything yet, but if someone finds something related to that, let me know or fix it. However, the deletion of the article material is still valid.Xavic Kae 10:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
• I realize this was brought up in the Behind the Scenes section, stating that there exist multi-km long SDs in the fleet, so that reference isn't explicitly contradictory, since it doesn't specifically state it's to the ISD. However...since the Guide to the Star Wars Universe predates the establishment of multi-km long SDs in later canon, the argument for its inconsistency is still valid. Regardless, I think the opening line of the Dimensions section is less confusing after edit. Besides, the Behind the Scenes section is the right place for that mention, not in between two other statements in the general article that are seemingly contradictory. If someone strongly disagrees, I won't fight a reversion; I just thought this was a small improvement.Xavic Kae 10:22, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle Complement

Um, ok, doesn't it seem a bit off that the Executor Class Star Destroyer is, at least, well over the combined size of 20 ISD II Star Destroyers (I believe the article says 100 times larger than an ISD II) and yet, its total vehicle complement is less than the combined amount of what a mere 3 ISD IIs could carry? I mean, if it's carrying so few vehicles in relation to its size, then what is it carrying? I hope that all made sense.--Master Tej (talk) 21:17, July 25, 2012 (UTC) I agree with you with the vehicles, just like the troop count their off, but even worse, it should have the complement 5X bigger then the Super Star Destroyer (Battleship) and that has the same ammount of certain objects (Deployible Garrison Bases, for example), THESE MISTAKES KEEP ON GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER! Wish they allow us to edit the things that are wrong. It's like the wiki hired a morron to fill in the the those two things, then lock it in (no offense Wikia).SWBoy922 (talk) 16:49, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Troop Complement

My topic right now is the troop complement, it should be WAY more then 60,000, like 300,000, because 60,000 is the troop complement of the Super Star destroyers (maybe should be named Super Star battleship sense it's in that section) which are 20X bigger and more powerful Then the Imperial Class Star Destroyer, an Executor Star Dreadnought is 5X bigger and more powerful then a Super Star Destroyer (Battleship). Do the math, and my number for the troop complement makes sense.

SOMETHING IS DEFINITLY WRONG! I calculated, and 100X Troop complement of a ISDII (Imperial Star Destroyer Mark 2) is 970,000, So everything is WAY OFF! SWBoy922 (talk) 17:09, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

What a Executor Star Dreadnought Should have.

What an Executor-class Star Dreadnought should have is this list

Troop Complement: 970,000, Prefabricated Garrison Bases: 100, Y-85 Titan Dropships: 2,100, AT-ATs: 2,000, AT-STs: 2,000, Gamma-class Shuttles: 100, Skiray Blastboats: 3,700, Gunboats: 500, Delta-class Trasports: 1,500, Lambda-class Shuttles: 800, Tie fighters: 7,200, Crew Complement: 3,708,500

If the wiki managers are reading this, this is what an Executor would have, everything is the ISDII (Imperial Star Destroyer mark 2) has X100 (the Dropships replace the AT-AT barges, because they 4X the amount of AT-ATs and carrys 4 AT-STs or can carry Garrison Bases in parts,I had to divide the amount of the ATs in half and add the ammount of the Garrison Bases to that). —Unsigned comment by SWBoy922 (talk • contribs)

• And... what is your source, exactly? Also please don't forget to sign all your posts with four "tilde" characters. --LelalMekha (talk) 17:59, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

To be exact, the ISDII, look at the list of things it has, and then time it by 100, exept the dropships, which is X25 to replace the AT-AT barges (made sense sence their more useful and bigger,they can fit in the Executor Dreadnoughts anyways). 108.84.45.35 01:31, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

First 4 Executors

In this article (Executor-class Star Dreadnought) it's reported that the second Executor-class Dreadnought was the Lusankya, but The Essential Guide to Warfare, page 166, clearly states that the first 4 Executors were: Executor, Reaper, Aggressor, Brawl. Moreover it is written that the Reaper and the Aggressor were nearing completion at Kuat Drive Yards when Vader attacked Laakteen Depot. Is it possible that the Lusankya, the other ship called Executor according to X-Wing - The Bacta War, had been completed just in time for the Kuat commissioning ceremony in 2.5 ABY? In this way the Lusankya would appear as a perfect "sister ship". In X-Wing - The Bacta War there is no date for Lusankya completion after all. 2.5 ABY means after the completion of the Brawl.

~~Mark Entropik~~

Original model

So I was reading Inside ILM in The Lucasfilm Fan Club Magazine 11, and the article mentions that the original model cost $100,000. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 23:25, July 31, 2017 (UTC)

Armament

The "over 5000 weapons emplacements" figure needs to clarify that it includes tractor beam projectors, and point defence laser cannons. Counting every turbolaser as a single emplacement (even if it's one of an 8-gun turret), every concussion missile tube, every heavy ion cannon, and every point defence laser cannon, and every tractor beam projector, the total is 5040.

Also - if you follow the link to the old Databank page, it doesn't say anything about the majority of its guns and missile launchers being in the "city-like island"

It only says "Weapons emplacements bristle on the layered city-like surface."

SWTC examines the number of "blisters" on the non-island parts of the hull:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exec.detail.html

and comes to 942. Counting every 8-barrelled turbolaser, every 8-barrelled heavy turbolaser, every ion cannon, every tractor beam projector, and every concussion missile tube, the total is 1040.

This allows for all the 500 point defence lasers to be in the trenches or the cityscape, and a few of the heavy weapons as well- but not the majority.

2A00:23C5:B7E3:5B00:70D7:4095:BFC6:EE3A 16:09, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly blatantly made up power output statistic

On the Legends page for the Executor-class, it cites pgs 170-171 of the Complete Locations book and pg 15 of the episode III cross sections book. I checked these places; pgs 170-171 of the locations book are the Executor command tower but do not seem to anywhere provide any power output numbers; pg 15 of the cross sections not only depicts the Invisible Hand but it also does not mention power output numbers anywhere. Where are the supposed Executor power output numbers coming from?