Executor "Dreadnought"

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-05-01 11:35pm

Hey it desn't have to make sense it just has to look good.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-05-01 11:45pm

The paradigm-shifts are by powers of 10 in Saxton's scale, not linear.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-05-01 11:53pm

Huh? What do you mean, an order of magnitude seperates the star-classes?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-02 02:03am

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.

Hey, man, I just go with what's written in ITW:OT and SW:CL, that's where they're defined.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2006-05-02 02:16am

From DE, where it coordinated the attack on Mon Calimari, it seems the Allegiance is technically a Destroyer Leader. In many navies there is no Destroyer Leader type and light cruisers fulfill the role of destroyer flotilla commandships. So it makes some sense that the Allegiance can be considered a Light Star Cruiser.
Also, a little off-topic Destroyer Leaders in the U.S. Navy in the 60s were designated Frigates. Home One being called a headquarters frigate could be designating it as a Light Star Cruiser.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-02 02:34am

I agree with all that, it just seems silly to be at 'light cruiser' already at 2km when battleships are 12km+. Seems like cruisers would be a 10km or more band, with destroyers being from 1,200km (Venstar) to 1,600 (ISD).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-02 02:38am

already at 2km

Nah, it's from 2,400 to 2,800 m (depends on what those ships next to it are, ISDs or something smaller).

Seems like cruisers would be a 10km or more band

Really?

With the Executor-class being described as unprecedenty large warships, I almost expected the standard lengths up to that point to be somewhat smaller anyway.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-02 02:42am

Isn't Giels 'battleship' 12ish? Clearly, a heavy cruiser would be less than this, right?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-02 03:02am

Yes....

But how much less, is the question. >P
And then there's the battlecruisers running up and down the line between cruisers and battleships...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-05-02 05:53am

Spartan wrote:Huh? What do you mean, an order of magnitude seperates the star-classes?

Yeah; Saxtonian cruisers and battlecruisers are probably in and around 10 x the size of the ISD and battleships top off at around 100x or so with Executor.

Marko Dash · Post by **Marko Dash** » 2006-05-03 05:57pm

it seems that 'star destroyer' is just a moniker for all imp cap ships. personally i think the classifications would be more like this

Acclamator II -heavy frigate
Venerator -light destroyer
Victory -destroyer
Imperial -heavy destroyer
Imperial Mk -light cruisers
Executor -Battlecruiser
Eclipse -Battleship

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-05-03 06:07pm

Marko Dash wrote:it seems that 'star destroyer' is just a moniker for all imp cap ships. personally i think the classifications would be more like this

Acclamator II -heavy frigate
Venerator -light destroyer
Victory -destroyer
Imperial -heavy destroyer
Imperial Mk -light cruisers
Executor -Battlecruiser
Eclipse -Battleship

The thing is, there's a huge jump in size between ISD-IIs and Executors. What do you fit in there?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-03 06:26pm

Venerator -light destroyer
Victory -destroyer

The Venator and Victory are actually evenly matched, it's just the Venator has a bigger carrier-capacity.

As for ISD-EX inbetweeners, there's plenty of battlecruisers seen in Marvel SW that were multi-mile, yet still smaller than Executor (then again, that class was extraordinarly big to begin with).
There's also some light and heavy cruiser-types in Dark Empire, Giel's enormous battleship in Marvel 60-61, the Vengeance type battlecruiser in Dark Forces.... Plenty of stuff to fill in.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-05-03 06:31pm

VT-16 wrote:As for ISD-EX inbetweeners, there's plenty of battlecruisers seen in Marvel SW that were multi-mile, yet still smaller than Executor (then again, that class was extraordinarly big to begin with).
There's also some light and heavy cruiser-types in Dark Empire, Giel's enormous battleship in Marvel 60-61, the Vengeance type battlecruiser in Dark Forces.... Plenty of stuff to fill in.

Right. I'm wondering how he classifies those: the first five ships on his list are clustered closely in terms of size, and then you have an orders-of-magnitude jump. It seems rather asymmetric to classify them all as cruisers, when the destroyers are so closely clustered.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-03 06:39pm

Looking at SWTC I see the same thing. Really, in a range from ~1-~19km, you'd expect a bit more of an even progression - indeed, since volume/mass/powerplant output increases faster than simple length, the larger classes having a large length band is interesting. Perhaps they're just so much less common it doesn't matter? If ISDs and similar ships were, say, hundreds of thousands or millions of times more common than even the 7-8km cruisers, that's explain how the language changed in such a short time. Everyone calls 'large wedge ships' 'Star Destroyers', a term doubtless born with the Empire.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-03 06:50pm

Yeah, that makes sense. With the Empire rapidly expanding its military and its territory, the primary need would be to pump out small and medium sized vessels, leaving the larger cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships to the most important sectors before increasing their numbers as well.

Thus, the Star Destroyers would be very common in the galaxy, leading people to call every wedge-shaped vessel the same, because that's mostly what they'd ever see of the Navy.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-03 06:54pm

It even kinda makes sense with the Executor - which IIRC was relatively new in ESB - that by the time large numbers of large ships were produced, it was 15 or so years into the Empire, and the ISDs had been showing the flag everywhere for half a generation.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-04 12:59am

And frankly, VSD, ISD and similar Star Destroyer chassis may not have needed to be replaced for a very long time. There may not have been a real pressing need for SSD-size vessels, seeing as an ISD is nearly a match for anything besides Imperial technology. SSD's may be, really, more of a tool for keeping moffs in line than for shooting down smugglers and tiny little ships from other groups. What besides an ISD is really ever shown to be as powerful as an ISD? MonCals seem to be nearly as powerful, but there are so many more ISD's than MonCals that the SSD couldn't have been made just for them afterall. Seems to me that Star Destroyers were used all over for a billion different roles (thus their non-specialized nature) and SSD and larger ships are the sort of thing that keeps some local groups from going "Hey, I don't feel like paying taxes anymore!" Keep a few of those in an area, loyal strictly to people back home (maybe rotate them, so nobody is ever in one sector long enough to get too accustomed to the locals) and you're good.

Didn't do any research on this. Probably doesn't make any sense. But ISD's are so huge and powerful even within Star Wars that only Imperial technology seemed able to bitchslap them, and there were SO MANY. Doesn't seem like SSD's were even useful. You don't need a 19km long battleship just to command a fleet afterall.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-04 01:08am

Buh? ISDs are better than Venstars... but something like a TradeFed battleship would beat the shit out of an ISD and laugh to all it's mates about it. ISDs aren't huge and powerful - they're just slightly huger and slightly more powerful than everyone elses low-end ship (like Venstars, that CIS ship, etc).

There's always going to be the spectrum of ships, otherwise some guy could build a 20km ship and kill hundreds of ISDs. Those larger ships are just not that great/useful/efficient for general security stuff. The British Grand Fleet spent most of it's time anchored or touring but it was an essential part of Royal Navy dominance.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-04 01:20am

Huh? You're saying those big goofy horse-shoe ships could slap an ISD around? I don't think you really have much foundation for saying that. Those ships had a 3170 meter diameter but are not exactly the most well designed things ever. From the Star Wars Technical Commentaries:

Although the Trade Federation made a good investment in shield generators, their battleships' aggressive potential was poor for to the vessels' size. A ship that is purposely designed for battle has a minimal surface area compared to its volume; because each unit area of a ship's hull is another potential site for enemy attack

A ship with as many large protruding sections as the Federation's battleships is more exposed than a vessel of the same mass which is formed into a compact body. A complicated, uncompact shape means that the ship self-obstructs its own guns; a smooth, compact hull like the elegant dagger-like Imperial warships ensures a maximum field of fire for any particular emplacement. Therefore the Federation battleship gives enemy fighters plenty of opportunity for shelter which a dedicated warship would not.

The abundance of large and small hangar apertures is another obvious recipe for disaster: they make cargo transfer efficient (which is good for commercial purposes) but they also facilitate the entry of hostile objects.

The ship is big, but it's gun coverage is very weak, it has problems tracking fast moving vessels (which compared to it, looking at the films, an ISD would qualify for) and it's designed poorly. An ISD could chop it apart with heavy guns while the slow TF Battleship is unable to utilize much of it's armament--not all of it seems all that impressive by Imperial standards. It's a carrier vessel, not a real ship of the line.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-05-04 01:28am

Then why does it take a dozen of Venators to down a Lucrehulk? What the Trade Federation battleship lacks in maneuverability it more than makes up for in coverage (after the upgrade) and reactor output. Its volume is some twenty-seven times that of a Venator, given basic scaling laws, so its reactor output is also going to be at least an order of magnitude above a lighter ship's -- according to the thread linked below, it takes some thirteen Venators to evenly combat a Lucrehulk.

You seem to be arguing from a no-numbers standpoint, Covenant; why don't you provide some to back up your point?

EDIT: Checked back on some sources, and I'm an idiot. Fixed based on details from this thread.

Oh, and the Trade Fed battleship is the Lucrehulk, not Munificent.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-04 01:50am

Clearly if a shipping company has such large and powerful ships, ISDs are not super-powerful and larger ships are needed. Those larger ships just aren't very useful for many of the things a peacetime fleet does, so they're not seen.

Even the Republic had much larger, more powerful ships - they just weren't very useful for a quick-response role.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-04 01:54am

Interesting article! I'll leave this post here anyway. That's quite troubling--Lucre's have shields that are that potent do they? The Venator's armament was pretty pathetic, I wonder how that thing's shields would hold against HTL's. Maybe those were something they put on their faster destroyer chassis (as people have asserted me the ISD's are) after seeing the Munificents in action. Well, not after. MUCH after.

====
A Munificent is one of the Banking dude's ships. It's got the rounded front. I've never seen RotS, the one I was talking about was the trade federation battleship from Phantom Menace. But I'll scan Wookieepedia for some numbers. Is that a terribly disreputable site?

Muni-stats
Prow heavy turbolaser cannons (2)
Long-range ion cannons (2)
Twin turbolaser cannons (26)
Light turbolaser turrets (20)
Point-defense laser cannons (38)
power output
2.1 × 10^23 W

Vena-stats
8 DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets
2 medium dual turbolaser cannons
52 point-defense laser cannons
6 tractor beam projector
4 heavy proton torpedo tube
16 torpedo magazine each
power output
3.6 × 10^24 W

The trade federation battleships are Lucrehulk-class vessels, not Munificents. The Lucre's are the big U shaped ships with the coreship at the center. What I mean about poorer coverage is that their ship's shape obscures many of their weapons from firing. About half. So an ISD could engage them front-on with a massive concentration of firepower. Wong's articles state that an ISD has no less than 1E25 watts of power generation. I can't find any energy dissapation numbers for the trade ships. Anyone with the Cross Sections book might be able to help. Wong makes a good point about them though:

It should be further noted that this was not a true warship. The TradeFed battleships are converted transports. A true warship would probably possess superior firepower and targeting capabilities

I'll try to find more data. I still have no reason to believe the light guns on the battleships (even once upgunned) will be enough to scare an ISD that much, especially when only half of them can hit it. The shape of the ship itself dictates that unfortunate clause. However, it is possible that they decided to mount heavy guns on the top forward quadrant of the ship only, allowing it to pivot and keep all of it's heavy guns going one direction. That'd be much smarter.
====

It is a pretty graphic image. Either the Venators were horribly undergunned for their size--which seems possible--or the Lucres are just defensive monsters. Do we have any stats on their offense? Seems their ability to shrug off damage is high, but ISD's may still be able to chew them up before the Lucres can return substiantial fire. Seems those ships totally changed their nature between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith--that's actually pretty cool. Sounds like a good fight for the Empire, eh?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-04 02:16am

Cov, the Venstars HAVE HTLs. 16 of them. Did you even read your own stats? The point is, shielding is easy and huge ships can have very powerful shields. That these ships can ALSO be refit to drive their 'huge cargo load at reasonable speed' powerplant through a shitpile of guns is even better.

Seriously, even the upgunned Lucrehulks aren't that heavily armed - they lose most of their usable surface area to the donut shape, and things like ISDs and Venstars are already covered in guns. Most of them are just useless against other caps, like most of the Lucrehulks' guns. You've got a massive ship with IIRC 6-700 guns, including AA quadguns. That's not really heavily armed.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-04 02:30am

Hmm. My quote called them Heavy Dual Turbolasers, not Dual Heavy Turbolasers, so I figured they were like the turbolaser turrets used on the Death Star and some ISD's--heavy double guns. Thankfully, Dr. Saxton has already done the math for me.

However the Venator's eight heavy turbolaser turrets are approximately the size of an Imperator's heaviest guns.

Well then. I guess, as of RotS, it makes the most sense for an ISD to be a midsize heavy capital ship rather than their dreadnaught. I stand corrected, and I actually enjoy the idea of having ships out there bigger than an ISD in the hands of dorks like the Trade group. Makes the Empire less 'uber' and a much more believable military.

Did Lucas ever picture (in any media) the larger cruiser-class vessels the Venators were described as escorting? I'd love to see those--it'd give us a real sense for what the Empire might have used for it's main-duty heavy lifting when ISD's weren't heavy enough for the job.