Talk:Super Star Destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

We should try to get an image of the Executor.

Yeah, but any images would be copyrighted, and fair use is sketchy at best in a case like this. Good luck, though. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
However, a picture of the model would be perfectly fair use if taken by a user. --Golbez 16:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should it be said somewhere that the original name of the Knight Hammer was Night Hammer, probably as a reference to its stealth nature? If I remember well, Admiral Daala renamed it as a special humor that Jedi Knights might apreciate :P Fafner 13:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes and No. The ship was indeed named the Knight Hammer, but was renamed when Admiral Daala renamed it to Hammer Jedi Knights of the New Republic.Kingalex56 T C W U

Contents

[edit] Iceberg3k

Can you justify your latest addition (about the "Super-class") with a link of some sort? --Golbez 16:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ is my main source. The "Super-class" is entirely conjectural and mainly exists to harmonize the longstanding RPG contention that there is a class of 8,000 meter "super star destroyer" with the incontrovertable filmic evidence that the Executor-class star dreadnought measures 17,600 meters in length.
Iceberg3k 19:38, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Frankly, I (and so do many people, it seems) prefer to just think that West End Games was wrong when it published those numbers. :) However, there is a problem with your analysis... the X-Wing computer games listed the Executor itself as 8000m. Therefore, it can't be a schism - LucasArts and WEG were simply wrong. (One exception - X-Wing Alliance gives a figure of 16000m, but this is reconciled with the fact that all lengths are doubled. It lists an ISD as 3200m, IIRC.) --Golbez 19:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I actually like using the Super-class Star Cruiser - it gives me a fairly decent Imperial large combatant between the Star Destroyers and the huge Star Dreadnoughts like Executor and Eclipse. :) Iceberg3k 01:48, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
True, but just because a class wasn't in the movies, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If it follows terrestrial navies, there's probably an intermediate Star Battleship that's larger than the Star Destroyer. Star Cruiser as well. Gotta remember that the Star Wars movies all happened at the galactic rim, where the density of the Imperial Navy is likely to be very low. However, the Battle of Endor is somewhat anomalous - such a large force should have had a more varied selection of ships. However, again, with only single ships tootling around the rim (We never see a destroyer battle group), maybe destroyers was all they could manage, which would explain the lack of both larger, cruiser-class ships, and smaller, frigate-class ships. Who knows. --Golbez 02:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 66.117.217.78

Can you please justify your changes here? Obviously, several of us think they are inaccurate. Why do you keep removing these paragraphs? --Golbez 17:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've passed 3 reverts for today, and I refuse to continue. Grunt, please make a comment here so that we can claim that two of us have attempted communication, then get this put on arbitration, or some sort. Not quite sure what the routine is. --Golbez 18:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, a comment from 66 in an edit summary. I believe this is the first. However, the films never call it a Super-class, and if you can cite where starwars.com says so (itself not necessarily the final arbiter of such information), I'd be grateful. --Golbez 19:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that starwars.com has been shown to be factually inaccurate (e.g. its 12.8km length for this ship is not repeated anywhere else). -- Grunt (talk) 19:48, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html SWTC - Executor-class Star Dreadnought. The name "Executor class" and the designation "Star Dreadnought" are official, they were actually used in-print in the book Star Wars: Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy. Also: History of the Five-Mile Fallacy
Iceberg3k 19:53, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Starwars.com has been updated and now lists the new official length of 19 km, which is essentially a less conservative incarnation of Dr. Saxton's calculations of 17-19 km based on the movie models. The 12.8km length has now been completely abandoned; given that it was *exactly* halfway between the WEG 8 km and the conservative Saxton calc of at least 17.6km, it is speculated to have been some kind of office-politics compromise. In any case, the official line is now 19 km, which is *finally* in perfect accordance with the filmic evidence. --JaceCady 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking?

How can it say "rv blanking"? There was no blanking that I see.. how odd. --Golbez 20:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like it if we changed all "star dreadnoughts" to super star destroyers. If you got your info from those books from the 80s and 90s, they are somewhat out of date.- B-101 14:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Phongn

The term "Star Dreadnought" dates to a source published in 2004; the colliquial "Super Star Destroyer" term is deprecated.

Please link to your source--65.40.98.168 22:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Star Dreadnought

Can someone please link me to something that says that Star-Dreadnought has been estabilished as Canon? I've never seen it referred to as such. Accordingly, all refrences should, IMO, be removed. Seeing as how I'd like to discuss this, I have not changed the entry.

However, it is my opinion that these should be referred to as Executor-Class Star Destroyers rather than "Super" Star Destroyers. The Executor was the lead ship (although a strong argument could be made that these are in fact Lusankya-Class Star Destroyers.

All in all, some interesting topics for friendly debate IMO.-Txredcoat 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)



The Star Dreadnought crap was created by Curtis Saxton, he's actually pissed off alot of people with his constant stepping on official star wars information. This guy seems to think he can change anything Star Wars at his leisure. It's been Established on film three times that it is indeed a Star Destroyer. (DarthJames 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Re: Star Dreadnought

Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections is canon, hence its designation should stay. IIRC, anything not marked as "Infinities" is canon, though there are varying levels (beginning with "G-Level" cannon, "G" meaning George Lucas). Personally, I disagree with the view that Executor is a Dreadnought [Battleship] -- I believe her to be a battlecruiser like Lexington. I am overruled by canon, alas.

If you believe that all ships with the dagger aesthetic are Star Destroyers, then yes, HIMS Exector would be the lead ship of the Executor-class Star Destroyer. However, if one uses a more conventional nomenclature, then we should have Executor-class Star Dreadnought.

Phongn 26 Nov 2004

Merely saying that the ICS text is canon is not enough. For all I care, scan the passages you refer to and link to them, otherwise your argument is moot. According to this link, absolute canon is as follows: "screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations". Granted, the text goes on to say that there are inaccuracies. HOWEVER, I present the following argument: Granted, Ackbar was making an exclamation when he referred to the "Super Star Destroyer" HOWEVER - this was NOT the first time the Executor had been sighted or engaged by Alliance forces. Taking this into account, it is not incorrect to say that the official designation is that of Super-Class. That being said, nowhere have I seen (as I can recall) the designation of "Star Dreadnought" in the SW Universe. Please, if there is some evidence that can back your claim up, post it so this dispute may be overruled. Otherwise, all references to Star-Dreadnought need to be removed in favor of what appears to be the "Canonical" designation of Super Star Destroyer.--Txredcoat 21:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the only evidence FOR Star Dreadnought that has been presented is a WEB source (The SWTC). This web source, while supposedly backed up by several other sources, gives no insight to the designation "Star Dreadnough". This source is discredited and can no longer be used as refrence for this argument.
I've seen no scans of Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy, however I will seek the book out on my next citywide excursion.

"EITHER WAY - as neither of these are screenplays, the films, the radio dramas or the novelisations, they cannot overrule the Ackbar Statement in ROTJ.--Txredcoat 22:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


On this it appears that Curtis Saxton, the author of "Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy", was overruled by George Lucas, as he used the term "Star Battlecruiser" in his Star Wars Technical Commentaries for several years but recently altered it after the work on ITW. Presumably GL liked the word "Dreadnought" over "Battlecruiser" - it certainly sounds scarier.
Iceberg3k 00:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Can you link to this? Evidence, please.--Txredcoat 22:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why would the AOTC ICS be considered 'Canon' over the movies? If the Movies are the top level (G-Canon), then Admiral Ackbar's exclamation of "Super Star Destroyer" would be the canonical designation. Also, considering that AOTC takes place BEFORE ESB, why would such a reference be present? As soon as I figure out how to do it, I'm going to lodge a dispute on this article. It's a Super Star Destroyer. Let's be done with this Star-Dreadnought business please.--Txredcoat 22:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe a Rebel Admiral´s shout of "Super Star Destroyer!" is conclusive proof of an Imperial ship´s class. It´s like claiming American soldiers´ use of the word "Gook" conclusivly proves all North Vietnamese soldiers call themselves "Gooks". Military slang does not equal official names. Since the only solid name-sources come from C-canon, newer sources overrule older ones. Therefore Executors and Mandators are officially labeled Star Dreadnoughts, due to size and armament. VT-16 10:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The question is, does Star Wars follow the same conventional system we use today, i.e. frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battleships? My understanding is that destroyers are the biggest, except for super-star destroyers. Below them in size are cruisers. They are divided into Dreadnoughts, which are heavy cruisers, Strike-class cruisers, Carrack-class light cruisers, "bulk cruisers," and presumably lots of other types. Frigates are smaller than cruisers. Below them are corvettes, blockade runners, patrol boats, etc. Carriers are also smaller and less important than Star destroyers. This only applies to typical humans. For ships made by other races, for example the Mon Calamari, things can have different meanings. -151.200.147.78 05:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, since all of the original trilogy took place at the rim, it makes sense that destroyer groups might be the largest you'd find, with the larger craft and groups reserved for closer to the core. I think it DOES follow typical naval terminology, except that anything destroyer-class and higher also doubles as a carrier. Which, actually, may render the naval terminology moot... hm. Worth discussing. --Golbez 05:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
The trilogy doesn't prove it either way. In the Expanded universe, there are very few starships bigger than Star Destroyers, tons of cruisers that are dwarfed by Star destroyers, and hardly any battleships. There are some battlecruisers, but they're also smaller than Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer is also explicitly referred to as "the mightiest ship in the Imperial fleet." In the Eclipse Star Destroyer discussion I talk about why I dislike the dreadnought designation. Also, the post two above this one was mine, I just didn't log in.-LtNOWIS 16:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Didn't Han Solo once say the Millennium Falcon could outrun an "Imperial Cruiser"? --Golbez 17:42, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I believe in this case that "Imperial Cruiser" would be generic slang for any large type Imperial craft. All I 'know' is that from what I've read, the esablished types (to my knowledge) are Victory, Imperial, Super and Eclipse. From that, they're also all known as variants of a ship known as a Star Destroyer, developed by Kuat Drive Yards. I've never heard the term Dreadnought applied to them. If anything, they are capital ships, but in the SW universe, it seems that dreadnought refers to a specific type of ship rather than a class. --Txredcoat 19:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "Imperial Communications Ship" in the ROTJ film and novel is bigger than Imperial Star Destroyers and is speculated to be a Star Cruiser, while the Procurator and Preator vessels (named in AOTC:ICS and OT:ITW, respectively) are Star Battlecruisers (thus even bigger than Star Cruisers). I think alot of this confusion stems from the different scales that are applied by different factions and the difference between normal titles and titles with "Star" in front of them. VT-16 10:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The ROTJ novelization refers to Home One/Headquarters Frigate as "the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers." --Vermilion 11:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And it was comparable in size to a Star Destroyer; this does not render the naval terminology irrelevant, it could simply mean that the Rebel fleet was smaller in scale and had no ships they would term battleship-class. Furthermore, saying "star cruiser" along with "star destroyer" *does* imply a certain amount of class designation. The question now is, does the Empire have battleships and cruisers? Or are they content with destroyers and a handful of command ships? --Golbez 19:01, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood; Home One is supposed to be 3.8km long. The size fits the naval terminology perfectly. --Vermilion 20:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Less misunderstanding, and more misremembering; I'd forgotten how long Home One was. Of course, if Home One, a cruiser, is 3.8km long, and the Executor is 17.6km long, it would be poor form to call it a destroyer, even a "super destroyer". --Golbez 04:50, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


The term "Star Dreadnaught" was invented by Curtis Saxton a star wars fan who thinks he can step on everything official and change it as it suits him. Darth Vader in ESB specifically called it a Star Destroyer after he sliced off Luke's hand on Cloud City. This is Lucas' two cents on the matter.

(209.158.203.163 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Super Star Destroyer

The Star Wars website lists the Executor as a Super Star Destroyer HERE. It is referred to as Super Star Destroyer in the films. That should settle the matter, I think. Debate about the "correct" naval term is irrelevant because we are not talking about an Earth navy. Further, the number of different writers contributing to the series, with different understandings of naval standards, make any such comparison next to impossible. I think, in the Star Wars navy, "Star Destroyer" is its own classification, much like "Frigate" is in an Earth Navy. A Star Destroyer is not a Cruiser (though it may resemble one), it is a Star Destroyer. That said, perhaps a section on the terminology and length controversy is warranted? Demosthenes X 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Executor

The same question I asked back in January: if we're set on Super Star Destroyer, why the Executor article still defines it as a Star Dreadnaught? --Dmitry 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the saxtonites are determined to invade everything and enforce their one sided point of view. I see it's been repaired mostly but just watch and see these vermin will be back sooner or later. (SnakeEyesNinja)


Btw Super Star Destroyer is fantasyland's version of Supercarrier. Both very official designations. (SnakeEyesNinja 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Sensor Domes

I really hate to start a massive debate, but isn't the entire length of this section speculation from Saxton's website? While it does make logical points, it's all pretty much opinion, not neccesarily proven anywhere in canon. More importantly, it really isn't an important point either way. True or untrue, it really isn't a significant part of the Star Wars universe. -LtNOWIS 04:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If nobody responds, I'll have to delete that section. I'd hate to do that without valid consensus.-LtNOWIS 06:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The "sensor domes"-claim is backed up by information from Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy, and from production drawings shown on Saxton´s site. VT-16 14:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond. I think what information Saxton gives to us is valid. In the books he writes and is consulted for, they are Lucasbooks, which means they are backed by LucasArts and George Lucas himself. For the Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, Saxton was the consultant, more so than the author of the book. But that means that his ideas are considered G-Canon, and if not, C-Canon. His website also brings up great points and puts the saga into modern day comparisons that are real enough. Once again, I consider his research, which he collaborates with dozens others on, is valid. The section stays. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Valid or not, I really don't think the section is relevant enough to be in Wikipedia. Is it really important that lot's of people could be mistaken on the exact nature of the Executor's demise?-LtNOWIS 02:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is the Executor relevant enough? I'd say keep it, perhaps add a waffle phrase, like "many believe" or what not. Remember that in the movie, they are never called shield generators. --Golbez 05:26, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the section seems more relevant now than it did last week. I guess I shouldn't try to debate things late at night. A Waffle/explanatory sentence might help, like "according to Curtis Saxton's detailed analysis" or something. I guess it's ok.-LtNOWIS 20:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Surely Saxton can be identified as a credible source of SW information. I mean, the guy is Ph.D in Astrophysics, which means he knows alot more about this than any off us, and Lucas wanted him to give a technical nature to the saga. If anyone has a dispute that needs solving, such as the "sensor domes vs the shield generators" argument, then Saxton is official enough for me that he answers the question. If he says that the loss of shields made the domes vulnerable, I'll accept that as canon; but don't consider it a waffle. Btw, if Saxton is getting notable with this and other related technicalities, why doesn't he have an article by now? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where the flames are coming from are the sensor domes, used for communication, and the author of the book its in states "Key structures on command tower are hit by opportunistic Rebel fighters". Now why are these so important if all they are, are sensor towers, when there are many along the ship? I look harder to find that they double as shield projectors, as they have vanes attached to them that protect around a local area (i.e. the bridge that was destroyed by the kamikaze Arvel Crynyd). So in a series of events, they lost both communications and shields with these domes gone, and then the final blow was delivered by the out-of-control A-wing that wiped out the bridge and spread the damage farther inward, thus bringing the Executor out of control and plummeting into the Death Star. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • Yeah, I could've sworn he did. That's why I made the link. Also, on his site, I think he cites proof on the sensor dome thing, from an interview with one of the people from ROTJ.-LtNOWIS 22:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Btw, even though what I previously said here was already in the article, this was for confirmation purposes. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If the production crew working on the goddamn movie said they were sensor-domes, then that´s what they are. Case closed. VT-16 11:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Who the hell knows why they hit the shield globes, the shields do block laser blasts but not kinetic energy like fighters or missiles. The A-Wing did a kamikaze because they didn't have the time to knock both shield generators out. They probably did weaken the shield quite a bit after that port generator got hit. (AmericanMuscle 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Returned from a redirect

As Star Destroyer was getting entirely too large, I have split the Super Star Destroyer section (which was 1/3rd of the main article) back into its own article. I realize that this currently duplicates the section at Star Destroyer, however I will shortly be making a major revision to that article (see the draft at User:BinaryTed/Super Star Destroyer). --BinaryTed 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegiance Length

Just curious, but how was the 2.2km length of the Allegiance originally calculated, and by who? If it was based on scaling it by comparing it to the length of the Eclipse, was the 16 or 17.5 km length? User 81.129.147.143

Seeing as no-one else has answered, I'll give it a shot. I believe the 2.2km length was postulated by Dr Curtis Saxton via comparison to either the Eclipse or an Imperial class Star Destroyer escorting it. However, I'm not sure whether the 16km or 1.5 km figure was for the length of the Eclipse. Hope that helps. SMegatron 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse math!

How big is Eclipse, assuming that it should be far bigger than the Executor, which is itself 19km? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.61.189 (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The Eclipse is 16 km long, although it masses more than an Executor-class ship since the hull is much deeper. MartinMcCann 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources I've seen cite the Eclipse as 17, 500 meters and the Eclipse II at 16 000 meters. Do you have a source citing them both as 16 000? Demosthenes X 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vengeance/Arc Hammer link?

Is it just me, or does the Vengeance SSD bear a resemblance to Rohm Moc's factory ship Arc Hammer?

You are right, the colour and overall slender shape bear some resemblance to Jerec's ship. However I always figured the Arc Hammer to be much smaller, not much longer than perhaps 2km (compare the size of the trooper drop bays on the picture, for example). Perhaps somebody can investigate the cutscenes from the Dark Forces game and compare the size of the Arc Hammer to the freighter in which Kyle Katarn arrives, or accompanying other ships with known sizes?

IIRC the Arc Hammer was not significantly larger than the ISDs accompanying her, certainly nowhere near the size of an Executor-class SSD, and therefore unlikely to be built from a SSD frame in the first place. Due to the nature of the Dark Trooper-project I always assumed that the Arc Hammer was a one-of-a-kind ship, presumably a unique prototype. She also was no frontline warship and possibly unarmed, being kept in a secret location hidden in deep space and escorted by a fleet of regular Star Destroyers. Finally, the Arc Hammer was confirmed destroyed and the Vengeance (Jerec) only appears some 20 years later. 84.187.250.125

[edit] Vengeance (Admiral Senn)/Vengeance (Jerec)

I'd like to raise the point that these two ships might actually be the same SSD. The destruction of Senn's Vengeance is not canonical - in Balance of Power there is an alternate ending (the Imperial campaign) where the last mission sees the SSD Vengeance survive its successful attack against the Rebel shipyard. The Vengeance undoubtedly sustains heavy damage in the battle and neither the ship nor Admiral Senn are ever mentioned again. The different look of Jerec's ship many years after the Airam Sector campaign may be explained with repairs of that damage, and/or modifications to the ship. (The Vengeance received ramming attacks to her engine section so that region would have suffered the worst damage.) The 3D model of a SSD in Balance of Power was not very satisfying and it could be argued that the Vengeance need not have matched the in-game model that was used.84.187.250.125


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.