Contents 1 Measurements 2 Classification 3 Fighter Complement 4 2.2 Updated with new information

MeasurementsEdit

"Measurements of the Rand Ecliptic made it out to be more than 2 kilometers long, longer than an Imperial-class Star Destroyer, which made it's designation as a 'frigate' quite puzzling." Are these measurements online? If so, can you post a link to it? JimRaynor55 08:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I just read it on a discussion on SD.net. Its in the archives there. You'll have to ask the person who did it, just how he measured it. VT-16 11:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I recall that. Connor weighed in with his scaling, and it fell between 725 and 800 meters long. The 2000 one didn't account for perspective. - Lowkey
    • That range makes a lot more sense. Acclamators are 752 meters, and a ship that size would comfortably fit into the Star Frigate classification (which I'm sure McEwok will want to remind us that we have no proof of). JimRaynor55 22:23, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • JimRaynor, as much as we all can't stand McEwok, please don't bring it to other articles. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:50, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to beat a dead horse here, but if we all can't stand him, why is it seemingly impossible to get him banned? I tried twice in September when I had enough of his bullshit, and it looked like they did it. Then he came back at the end of october, with more bull and leaps of logic than ever before. VT-16 16:10, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The 2000 one didn't account for perspective.

How did they get the different measurements again? I thought it had something to do with the TIEs going into the hangar, but I could be mistaken. VT-16 16:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• • • • "and it looked like they did it". He was banned and he still came back?! Admiral J. Nebulax 19:45, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I don't think so, since I never got any response to my emails. He did stay silent for over a month, though, so I assumed at the time that he was banned. VT-16 20:28, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:03, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Scaled by Dr. Saxton at 1.29 +_ .15 km long. —Unsigned comment by 98.228.181.137 (talk • contribs).

• We have a number from a printed source. Saxton is nobody. Sign your posts with Mauser^Comlink 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC). ~~~~
  • Book doesn't list a value. Dishonesty is a negative trait. Don't attack authors, it is against policy.—Unsigned comment by 98.228.181.137 (talk • contribs).
    • Book says that it's smaller than 1,600 meters. No printed source says that it's 1,300 meters long. And, do we have a policy of non-attacking authors? Mauser^Comlink 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Conveniently 1300 is less than 1600. No printed source gives a length, which is what you initially claimed. Less than 1600 is quite a wide range of lengths. And we have had a policy of not attacking authors for years. Quit trying to make this place fit your image of what it should be, it is not your personal stomping grounds. —Unsigned comment by 98.228.181.137 (talk • contribs).
        • WP:NPA applies to everyone, be it contributors, authors, or other third parties. That said, fan scaling isn't canon. If Saxton adds it into the next Cross-Sections or Locations book, fine, but until it's in an official source, it's not canon. You're welcome to add a Behind the scenes note, though, so long as it's sourced. jSarek 01:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ClassificationEdit

"In SW: Empire #9, it was referred to on one page as both a 'cruiser' and a 'battle cruiser', while in SW: Empire #8 and #12 it was referred to as a 'frigate'." IIRC, Biggs, seeing the Rand Ecliptic for the first time, was the one who called it a "gleaming new battlecruiser" (paraphrased, I don't know the exact quote), expressing admiration for the ship. "Class II Frigate" is a formal designation that was stated by the Imperial officer who was handing out assignments, so I think it's more reliable. Biggs's words were probably slang/informal, which fits the WEG quote about the term "cruiser" being stretched up to anything over 400 meters. JimRaynor55 08:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• That's true, but I also included the reference to RL frigates being designated so, while not really fitting that description (i.e being more similar to destroyers and cruisers etc.) VT-16 11:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• The explanatory notes about differing opinions regarding roles and names vastly underestimates the issue - off hand, the great cruiser realignment shift of June 30, 1975, changed the type of more than a hundred US Navy ships, by eliminating the "old" frigate class, turning the ships into cruisers and less commonly destroyers, and turning some types of destroyer into a new frigate type. All of this was done on paper only, of course...--Winchester 12:52, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Fighter ComplementEdit

This article says that the Class II Frigate sports four extensive hangars, and yet it can only carry 16 TIE Fighters? That's only 4 per hangar, hardly extensive. Especially considering we see a lot of much smaller ships carrying a greater amount. I can only assume that if the number is 16, there must be something else filling all that empty space, and I doubt its weapons. Only way I can think it might have 'extensive hangars' and such a low fighter complement is if it designed to capture and hold smaller vessels. —Unsigned comment by Orpheus (talk • contribs).

• I believe that's what it's for. In the comic, it sends out TIE Fighters to keep an eye out on a large transport. I suppose that they were planning on bringing it in. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. That was my guess anyway. I dunno, since that would constitute a large aspect of its operational parameters, is it worth stating, possibly in the BTS, that it's likely or speculated that the Class II Frigate was designed to apprehend smaller ships and thus probably had ion cannons, tractor beams and a good boarding party number? I get the feeling that's probably too much speculation though.... Orpheus 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That might be too much speculation, but it does appear to be patrolling space lanes. However, we don't know if Rand Ecliptic was modified for that or not. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, figured it would be too much speculation. But never mind. There's only so much we can do with the information provided. So oh well. I should probably find another article to try to contribute to, something I actually have some references at home for. Too bad I only own about.... 4 books.Orpheus 12:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, we could still add something in the article about this. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Stating that the low TIE complement compared to hangar size is speculatively due to its operation as somewhat of an impound frigate would be good enough for me. It was mainly what I was wondering about. Orpheus 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
            • As long as it's Behind the scenes and doesn't sound like McEwok wrote it, I'm happy with it. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
              • There we go. I figure that what I've put covers the main points for a possible discrepancy. Orpheus 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Good job. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • Did the comic actually set the upper limit at 16 TIE fighters? Whatever you see on screen or panel is just the lower limit. I think it would be more accurate if the article stated that the ship's fighter complement (like just about every other stat) was unknown, but it carried at least 16. JimRaynor55 04:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • Good point. Yeah, at least 16 fighters would work. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2.2 Updated with new informationEdit

It kinda looks like a Vindicator Cruiser, you know the ship the interdictor is based on. —Unsigned comment by 24.148.53.199 (talk • contribs).

• It seems pretty clear that it's based on the Acclamator-class to me. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:20, December 28, 2009 (UTC)