Executor "Dreadnought"

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-04-29 05:32am

evangelion1 wrote:The lack of Rebel intelligence on this area and others would mean they could probably haul a few hundred ISD's and SSD's to Endor. the problem with that idea is that the empire did'ent have a few hundred ssds so thats impossible to do if they don't have the ships is it not?

Yes they had. The imperials (or in that case Palpatine) just didn't thought them necessary. Hell, the emperor didn't view the Rebel-Alliance as a real threat, limited to the outer rim as they were. Palpatine says so himself in ROTJ and it is confirmed by "Isard's Revange".

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-29 10:34am

evangelion1 wrote:The lack of Rebel intelligence on this area and others would mean they could probably haul a few hundred ISD's and SSD's to Endor. the problem with that idea is that the empire did'ent have a few hundred ssds so thats impossible to do if they don't have the ships is it not?

What makes you think the Empire didn't have a few hundred Executor-class ships at worst?

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-04-29 11:32am

Surlethe wrote:
evangelion1 wrote:The lack of Rebel intelligence on this area and others would mean they could probably haul a few hundred ISD's and SSD's to Endor. the problem with that idea is that the empire did'ent have a few hundred ssds so thats impossible to do if they don't have the ships is it not?
What makes you think the Empire didn't have a few hundred Executor-class ships at worst?

Actually, I was under the impression that there were only a dozen or so SSDs, at most, at this point. Normally, I discount this as minimalism, but the design was very, very new (at least comparitively), and even if there were more in existance at that point, they'd likely still be under construction.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-29 11:51am

Noble Ire wrote:Actually, I was under the impression that there were only a dozen or so SSDs, at most, at this point. Normally, I discount this as minimalism, but the design was very, very new (at least comparitively), and even if there were more in existance at that point, they'd likely still be under construction.

Judging from the "Size Matters" essay on the main site, the volume of the Executor is roughly 4.5e10 m^3. The volume of the second Death Star is something like 3.8e17 m^3. Since that Death Star was constructed in secret over a period of nine months (IIRC), we can surmise the Empire didn't divert a great amount of its industrial capacity to the job, so if it only used half of its industrial capacity (for a rough lower limit), then it could have built some eight million Executor-class ships in that time.

The actual number is probably a lot smaller, but the sheer volume of the Empire's industrial output makes me question any assessment putting the number of dreadnoughts in the hundreds; unless the Empire actively decided Executors weren't to be mass-produced, there's no reason for there to be anything less than thousands floating around the galaxy.

Another point is that Han wasn't surprised at the Executor's presence at Endor, and if there were only several hundred in the entire Empire, you'd think its presence in the Outer Rim would tip him off to a serious fleet presence.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-04-29 12:05pm

The actual number is probably a lot smaller, but the sheer volume of the Empire's industrial output makes me question any assessment putting the number of dreadnoughts in the hundreds; unless the Empire actively decided Executors weren't to be mass-produced, there's no reason for there to be anything less than thousands floating around the galaxy.

Well, I suppose they could have decided not to actively mass-produce them, and the Emperor simply wanted to award a few of his servants with them (and a keep a few for himself). I mean, really, considering the existance of ISDs and large dreadnaughts, the Executor-class wasn't really a necessary addition to the Imperial Fleet, at least for that period of time (although its possbile he was already gearing up for the Yuuzhan Vong invasion at that point).

Its not a very good explanation though, I'll admit. Still, since virtually all would have had to have been destroyed during the Imperial power struggle (there were only a handful in existance by the time of the Pellaeon-Garvisom Peace Treaty), this consideration wants me to see EU on that even more. I mean, who wouldn't want to see fleets of SSDs and thousands of ISDs duking it out?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-04-29 12:33pm

From what I can remember, at the time of ROTJ, there were:

At least one Vengeance-type battlecruiser (the Vengeance). It was noted in Dark Forces: Rebel Agent that there were many ships of its size (whether that meant ships of its class, or other classes of a similar size, is unknown).

At least half a dozen different models of battlecruisers (from Marvel SW)

At least one battleship of Admiral Giel's ship-type, as well as an accompanying supercarrier-design. (Also Marvel)

Loronar and Rendili battleships (mentioned alongside battleships being constructed by Kuat in SW Illustrated Universe)

Kuati destroyers (like the Tector and Imperator class) being constructed, alongside cruisers and battlecruisers (with Kuat of Kuat wondering who will get them in the end, the Rebels or the Empire, in Slave Ship)

Many Super Star Destroyer classes, covering types from Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnaughts like Executor (and thereby hinting at other Star Dreadnaught classes in turn). (ITW:OT and SW:CL)

At least one Eclipse-class dreadnaught under production.

About a dozen Executor-class dreadnaughts finished or undergoing construction.

Two "mini"-Death Star battlestations undergoing construction around Coruscant. (SW Illustrated Universe)

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-04-29 12:52pm

I think it more likely that the construction of Executors slowed down or came to a complete stop when the Eclipse-Class was started.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-04-29 01:54pm

FTeik wrote:I think it more likely that the construction of Executors slowed down or came to a complete stop when the Eclipse-Class was started.

I don't see why? Well, maybe so, but more of a coincidence rather than a cause. Whole sale break up of the Empire probably spelled the doom of the Executor class than anything else. Even then, though, Warlords were still able to build them.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-04-29 03:51pm

Okay first off regarding the DK books and the 'star-class" stuff - I don't agree with the interpretation, I don't see the ISD as a "destroyer", but there it is. It has to be dealt with. The fact is, t hough, that there have been (and are) ships in real navies whose classicfications vary or cannot be agreed upon. Classifications can also vary according to factions or particualr navies or even timeframes. Those simple facts alone offer a wide degree in latitutde for classification. (Its equally, factually canon that SW ships are NOT referred to in "star-" prefix designations, Imperial Navy or otherwise. Generally, I tend to liken the "Star-class" nomenclature to being more akin to Age of Sail "rates" (where the class of a ship is dictated heavily by number of guns/firepower, as seems to be here.)

In any event, calling the Executor a "dreadnought" is less referring to the strict naval defintion than a more loose laymen's definition for the "largest and most powerful vessels" or something along those lines.

As for the number of executors... Cracken's Threat Dossier makes reference to "Super-Star Destrtoyers" as being designed as sector level bases/command ships (interestingly enough, the Death Stars were regional level, suggesting that more than one was planend for construction.) Given thousands of Sectors, that easily allows for at LEAST thousands of SSDs (whicn includes Executor-class., as well as the older Mandators and the like.) This would be in addition to "mobile" SSD assets like the ones in Death Squadron and Scourge Squadron (the Executor and the Reaper, respectively.) Don't forget too that some sector navies had their own warships including ships like the Mandator-I)

That said, we dont know how many Executor (or Executor-like vessels, remember Giel's Battleship) were built for sure. We don't see a whole lot of the navy in the movies, and in ROTJ we're told the Imperial fleet was "spread throughout the galaxy" in an effort to hunt the rebels. On top of that there are still an unknown number of other "Executor-like" ships (we saw one in one of the Prequel comics) like the Mandators. For all we know maybe the Mandators make up the bulk of "large ships" and the Executor, being the newest, is still a much smaller class.

Its also quite possible that the Senate played an active role in denying Palpatine the ability to construct large numbers of heavy warships like battleships and the like. Cruisers and destroyers and frigates would be useful (and not repersent a threat to local Sector navies, thus preventing and limiting Palpy from conquering anyone) but battleships and battlecruisers would.

Also, note that Executors seem to be designed espeically for long-range deployments and function something as command ships/carriers (not just a battleship) Thus they may be assigned more to specific mobile commands (again Death Squadron and Scourge Squadron.)

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-04-29 04:57pm

I've tried as much as possible to point out the versatility of the Venator, Victory and Imperator classes on Wookiepedia.

Read the ROTS:ICS, and it says quite clearly that the Venator class is used for military transport, escort of Republic battleships, carrier of starfighters. And also that it's fast enough to pursue enemy ships, and large enough to lead independent operations. It's a "medium-weight, versatile multi-role warship". Phew.

This, combined with the statements of the Victory and Imperator class as "battleships" in SW:ICS and the mention of "thousands of battleships" surrounding Invisible Hand and its fleet (clearly meaning the Venators), showcases not only the versatile roles of the Star Destroyers, but also the different classification systems being used. (One of which would allow the Dreadnaught class to be cruisers.) Can't say authors like Saxton aren't clever. ;)

Pax Britannia · Post by **Pax Britannia** » 2006-04-30 09:26am

Maybe we should stop trying to class these ships with our naval terms. Star Destroyers carry enough fire power to be more than a match in a ship to ship fight yet always seem to carry a small invasion force. They obviously arent purely battleships and arent purely troop carriers. Since these ships are such a huge investment of capital they cant afford to be one or the other. They have to be flexible and do a bit of everything.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-04-30 09:41am

Largely, we *don't* try to classify them in our terms. It's just a heirarchy, with Star Destroyers below Star Cruisers which are below Star Battleships. Venators and ISDs are arguably in the same weight-class, so I'd call them both 'Star Destroyers', but their roles are quite different. Alliegance is still a 'Star Destroyer' but it's very different to an ISD. The fact that ISDs fit many roles of Destroyers through the ages is just dressing on the cake - I think that the classifications more like the 'rates' of Men of War in the age of sail.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-04-30 10:10am

Actually, Allegiance, being an SSD and little under twice an ISD's length is not a Star Destroyer. It's at least a Star Cruiser.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-05-01 04:41am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Pinning down just exactly what an ISD is (at least by a strict adherence to naval terminolgy, disregaridng the issue of era) has been proven rather difficult on this board over numerous years. (You might as well go with Age of sail "rates" for what its worth )

Heh, Publius actually does that, as McEwok likes to note, ships from the ISD on up are pretty much all at least a hint of troop-carrier, a hint of fighter-carrier, and a good helping ship-of-the-line, the only real difference being tonnage and gun-number (there are apparently few guns of actual larger calibre than the ISD's, if Curtis' analysis of the Executor is any indication), just like the different ratings in the 19th century Royal Navy.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-01 05:06am

Isn't tonnage and gun-number at least part of the reason why different classes of warship exist? Barring the actual size of the individual guns, that is.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-01 06:16am

VT-16 wrote:Actually, Allegiance, being an SSD and little under twice an ISD's length is not a Star Destroyer. It's at least a Star Cruiser.

Really? I've only seen Allegiance in DE, and I mentally scaled it as a slightly-larger ISD with more armour and no bay. Still, refering to anything 3km long as a 'super Star Destroyer' shows the lameness of that apellation.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-01 06:48am

It's a SSD, so thems the breaks. The smallest of the SSDs were Star Cruisers, so that's what we have to work with.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-01 06:56am

What? It looks around 2km long, but you say it's larger because of it's NAME? Excuse me, but that sounds utterly backwards.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-01 06:59am

What? It looks around 2km long, but you say it's larger because of it's NAME? Excuse me, but that sounds utterly backwards.

Well, it's inbetween 2,400 and 2,800 meters long, it's called a SSD, and the Imperial-class (which is the biggest Star Destroyer seen), is also the most independent of the SDs (doing both destroyer as well as cruiser-duty). So, if anything, the Allegiance-class is in the cut-off point between Imperial destroyers and cruisers.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-01 07:50pm

VT-16 wrote:Well, it's inbetween 2,400 and 2,800 meters long, it's called a SSD, and the Imperial-class (which is the biggest Star Destroyer seen), is also the most independent of the SDs (doing both destroyer as well as cruiser-duty). So, if anything, the Allegiance-class is in the cut-off point between Imperial destroyers and cruisers.

What? The rebels call anything larger than a Star Destroyer a Super Star Destroyer - it isn't a specific, useful term like 'cruiser and higher'. It's just slang for 'bigger than common ISD'. The ship is about 2km long, it's a heavy escort. You can't claim it's the 'cutoff' between 1.6km Destroyers and 6km Cruisers because of a slang term!

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-01 07:54pm

Well, it just seemed like that was the specific notation in the book. The starting point of the term, so to speak. :?

It's just slang for 'bigger than common ISD'

No, it didn't say that, it said it was for ships bigger than Star Destroyers, no specific classes of destroyer mentioned.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-01 08:35pm

Which book? I've read DE, the ship is about 2km, they say 'target the Super Star Destroyer'. So what? I don't see how that can be used to imply it's some kind of light cruiser... technically, it IS a 'super' Star Destroyer! It's a slighly larger, more powerful, more armoured Star Destroyer. This doesn't mean we can assume it's the bottom of the cruiser size band.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-05-01 10:03pm

I don't know at 2.2 km long and 2/3 more volume, I'd class her as a heavy destroyer. If you want to be arbitrary about it start the cruiser scale at 3 km, which fits with the TF battleship and Home-1.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-05-01 10:18pm

This is the Inside the Worlds quote that explains what SSDs are:

To compensate for the destruction of the Death Star at Yavin, the Emperor -- urged on by Darth Vader -- orders KDY engineer Lira Wessex to rush into production a new class of gargantuan ship. Eventually designated the Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" -- a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnaughts like Executor. Over one hundred times more massive than a common Star Destroyer and almost 12 times as long, the Executor bristles with more than 5000 turbolasers and ion cannons, and carries wings of star fighters and two pre assembled garrison bases. Ostensibly designed to serve as a command and control center, this emblem of Imperial might leads the task force at Hoth and incites fear in many systems during its relatively short life.

Notice that no class name, or any other modifier that could narrow things down to a certain class is given when "Star Destroyer" is used in the same sentence as Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts, two other types of warships. The next sentence carefully specifies "common" Star Destroyers (almost definately ISDs), so that leads me to believe that in the previous sentence, Saxton was referring to Star Destroyers in general, likely because he wanted to set down his "Star" level warship classification.

Because "Super Star Destroyer" is slang for ships larger than Star Destroyers, any SSD can't be an actual Star Destroyer. We assume that Allegiance is a Star Cruiser because that's the smallest ship type that falls under the SSD label.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-01 11:26pm

Spartan wrote:I don't know at 2.2 km long and 2/3 more volume, I'd class her as a heavy destroyer. If you want to be arbitrary about it start the cruiser scale at 3 km, which fits with the TF battleship and Home-1.

Yeah, because cruiser going from 3km to 6-8km makes sense. Instead of ~2x the volume, we're looking at dozens of times the volume for various 'cruisers'. Pfffft.