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)

Contents 1 Maximum aceleration 2 Size 3 Page title 4 shield generators 5 Image Move 6 Inconsistency

Maximum aceleration Edit

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)

SizeEdit

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.

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).

Page title Edit

I've moved the page back to "Dreadnought" per its established canonical name as presented in  Super Star Destroyer in the Databank (content now obsolete; backup link on Archive.org), pg. 171 of Star Wars: Complete Locations, and  Starship Battles Preview 1 on Wizards.com (original article link, backup links 1 2 on Archive.org). 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 generatorsEdit

why are its shield generator domes listed as being sensor systems? that doesn't make sense ASDF1239 ^Discussion 22:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Image MoveEdit

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 Edit

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)