8 hours ago, xanderf said:It is, as with everything First Order, breathtakingly stupid looking. And at the 7700 meters they quote, that would mean the "Ludicrous" guns underneath it are going to be large enough to fly a CR90 down (if not a Nebulon-B)...
And you can bet that the wole thing can be destroyed by a si gle shot or ramming a starfighter into it.
I already see as a secondary hero flies into the big gun, sacrificing himself as it is about o fire. Because we never saw that before...
I am wondering if Disney is following the old Star Trek model, that only every other movie needs to be really good.
15 hours ago, Animewarsdude said:It is said to be meant to bombard a planet, ISDs and SSDs do that well enough and leave the planet at a molten slag state.
Maybe, in the newcanon, ISDs don't melt crust. Hence this ship.
We see something like only three images of the ship. Calm down!
It's certainly advante-garde in design... eliminating the superstructure entirely and making a long bridge. It's just as interesting as eliminating the hammerhead bridge of the old Imperial class when designing the Resurgent.
Seems like the cannons have to telescope away from the hull to get into firing position... normally they're folded up against the hull. Interesting.
My question is whether the First Order uses one of these as a planet killer (against D'Qar) or several. We knew the First Order operated bigger ships...
I really hope this is just a specialized weapon and not Snoke's command ship.
Yeah I really liked the interview initially linked by @Ironlord, it explained away a lot of my fears. I don't know if the ship measurement is off, but in the interview in this article it says the Dreadnaught is "2-3 times the size of a Star Destroyer" which puts it way more in line with the size of the finalizer, just a little bigger.
Also, it shows a picture of the guns tucked up underneath in a the dorsal position, and that it was based off WWII battleships whose main guns would raise and lower into the hull.
I like this design, and if it doesn't make the finalizer look like a corvette, than I will be totally sold on this.
Here is the link to the interview with designers:
http://www.starwars.com/news/inside-two-deadly-new-first-order-vehicles-from-the-last-jedi
Here it is for any not interested in reading it (which you should!)
6 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:Yeah I really liked the interview initially linked by @Ironlord, it explained away a lot of my fears. I don't know if the ship measurement is off, but in the interview in this article it says the Dreadnaught is "2-3 times the size of a Star Destroyer" which puts it way more in line with the size of the finalizer, just a little bigger.
Also, it shows a picture of the guns tucked up underneath in a the dorsal position, and that it was based off WWII battleships whose main guns would raise and lower into the hull.
I like this design, and if it doesn't make the finalizer look like a corvette, than I will be totally sold on this.
Here is the link to the interview with designers:
http://www.starwars.com/news/inside-two-deadly-new-first-order-vehicles-from-the-last-jedi
Here it is for any not interested in reading it (which you should!)
It can't be 2 or 3 times the measurement of an ISD... it's more than 7.000 metres long (and the numbers they show are quite precise, so no estimate there, they know what they want) EDIT: 7,669.72 is the number, so 4.79 times bigger
Edited by Visovics“Nah. Big guns. It just needs big guns.”
Best.Quote.Ever
1 hour ago, Visovics said:It can't be 2 or 3 times the measurement of an ISD... it's more than 7.000 metres long (and the numbers they show are quite precise, so no estimate there, they know what they want) EDIT: 7,669.72 is the number, so 4.79 times bigger
2 or 3 times bigger than the Finalizer. Which itself is nearly twice the size of an ISD. Star Destroyers come in lots of different sizes.
And I see I was right about the canons deploying, although they still look rather stuck on.
Edit: hang on... "two enormous orbital autocannons for large-scale bombardments and 24 point-defense anti-aircraft cannons on its dorsal surface" - these guns are meant to be anti-aircraft?
They're huge! I'd assumed those were its main anti-ship armament. I guess the downside of having CGI ships rather than models is that the designers can get a bit carried away with detailed weapon hardpoints, rather than just having shots emerge from the ship.
Further edit: And... based on the other shot of the canons, there aren't any of these massive anti-squadron batteries underneath... So a big, wide, flat ship, with lots of anti-fighter defences on top, and nothing underneath... Seems like a little bit of an oversight to me. No cover for the guns, also no cover for what looks like the hangar in a standard Star Destroyer position.
Final edit: also "Mandator IV-class" - so a Mandator as in someone who mandates things? I guess that clears up the Executor/Executor thingamy...
Edited by GrumbledukeJust now, Grumbleduke said:2 or 3 times bigger than the Finalizer. Which itself is nearly twice the size of an ISD. Star Destroyers come in lots of different sizes.
Yeah, I end up taking the Imperial star destroyer as a standard, it was the only one used as reference not so long ago... They grow up so quickly... *sobs as eyes fill with pride, or tears, depends on how you call it*
2 minutes ago, Visovics said:Yeah, I end up taking the Imperial star destroyer as a standard, it was the only one used as reference not so long ago... They grow up so quickly... *sobs as eyes fill with pride, or tears, depends on how you call it*
To be fair, that is what was meant by the quote. The Finalizer/Resurgent-class are not 'Star Destroyers', that was changed a year or so back. They are now 'Battlecruisers'. Still, the quote is taken out of context - he'd said 'the original brief was to be big, 2-3 times the size of a Star Destroyer'. In point of fact, he went 5 times larger for the version they ended up shooting.
Two Words can fill in my view of starwars disneyquels..... "F_ _ _ This...."
I'll join on the minority side here and say that I actually like the design of the Dreadnaught. It took a little bit but I can see it fitting into Star Wars fairly well. The big guns on the bottom took some getting used to though, but it looks better when they're stored away in the ship and only come out for orbital bombardments. I'm actually surprised that it's smaller than the Super Star Destroyer, I thought the First Order would have gone just as big, if not bigger, than the Super Star Destroyer. Seems to be their typical theme.
Though maybe my liking for the ship is coming out of pure spite for the raging forum posters who are judging the ship and/or the whole movie based on a handful of stills of a single ship and walker.
I'll save judgement on the new walker until I see it in action. It looks a bit silly in the stills, but I'm not bothered by it. It could easily end up appearing much more functional and cool on screen.
18 minutes ago, Visovics said:“Nah. Big guns. It just needs big guns.”
Best.Quote.Ever
I actually am kind of disappointed that the VISION for the ship lacked that feature, and it was some Disney cutting room stooge that got them added in. It makes a LOT of sense when you think about it. They are a lowest common denominator kind of change, added for big booms and as some have already mentioned, merchandising reasons. IF you took those guns off or at least scaled them practically so it didn't look a wangchung the size of a star destroyer (IE they had two smaller double turrets tucked into the bottom), and scaled it to 3x the size of an ISD as I inferred from the interview, I think this would be one of my favorite star wars ships.
I think by this ships logic we WILL eventually see star destroyer the size of the death star, and a death star the size of an actual star. And they will all still have comical weaknesses.
But in all seriousness where in the heck did the first order get all these resources?!? Starkiller base, bigger isds this raises serious logistical questions. The empire had most of the galaxy's production and it still took them a long time to build up their fleet to the levels in the OT. Would that not be crippling when they lost death star 3: the lazering. They can't have that impressive of a fleet right?
I may be over thinking this though.
Does anyone else think this is just a typo error? All the turrets seem way out of scale. I bet it's 770m or something and not 7700m.
Like, those ones at the back under the bride spoiler are as large as the upper half of an ISD!?
1 hour ago, Noosh said:I think by this ships logic we WILL eventually see star destroyer the size of the death star, and a death star the size of an actual star. And they will all still have comical weaknesses.
But in all seriousness where in the heck did the first order get all these resources?!? Starkiller base, bigger isds this raises serious logistical questions. The empire had most of the galaxy's production and it still took them a long time to build up their fleet to the levels in the OT. Would that not be crippling when they lost death star 3: the lazering. They can't have that impressive of a fleet right?
I may be over thinking this though.
If I had to guess, a good chunk of ship building resources may have initially come from the Super Star Destroyer Elcipse, which was revealed to have been sent to the Unknown Regions post-Endor for the beginning of the First Order. It's possible the First Order eventually took apart the Super Star Destroyer to start building these new ships before they started using resources from planets in the Unknown Regions/Outer Rim to build up their new fleet.
6 minutes ago, homedrone said:Does anyone else think this is just a typo error? All the turrets seem way out of scale. I bet it's 770m or something and not 7700m.
Like, those ones at the back under the bride spoiler are as large as the upper half of an ISD!?
Main reasons against - they call it a Mandator IV - which suggests they know about the Legends Mandator (which was 8 km) and are making a nod to it. Plus it's called a Dreadnought, which tends to be reserved for the big ships - new canon calls the Executor a Dreadnought/Star Dreadnought, as did late-period Legends material.
59 minutes ago, homedrone said:Does anyone else think this is just a typo error? All the turrets seem way out of scale. I bet it's 770m or something and not 7700m.
Like, those ones at the back under the bride spoiler are as large as the upper half of an ISD!?
Heh, the 'pauldron' turrets?
1 hour ago, Ironlord said:Main reasons against - they call it a Mandator IV - which suggests they know about the Legends Mandator (which was 8 km) and are making a nod to it.
The Mandator was, but Wookieepedia lists the Mandator III as 12km. But the II and III only turn up in The Essential Guide to Warfare, not even being Legends. Given they're going with Mandator IV-class specifically, I don't think that's a coincidence - they must be aware of them.
Edited by GrumbledukeTEGTW was Legends.
The first newcanon source to mention the Mandator was Rogue One: Mission Files (otherwise known as Rogue One: Rebel Dossier.
If this is kept to the scale of the article, about 2-3 times the size of the old Star Destroyer, then it's actually pretty decent as a support ship for planetary bombardment.
If this is the actual 8km behemoth their numbers indicate, then it's just bad looking. Basically a giant floating slab of metal. The way to defeat this thing is rather simple: fly around to the (completely undefended) bombardment side, blast the hyper mega cannons with impunity, and assuming that doesn't cause the entire thing to violently explode like every other Imperial superweapon just keep blasting at it until it turns into scrap.
On other ship designs I'd normally recommend taking it the bridge if possible. But with half of the ship sporting no point defenses or even normal turbolasers in a universe where a single X-Wing can destroy a planet sized superweapon, what's the point? Bombard it with a thousand proton torpedoes for a fraction of the cost and move on to more dangerous targets.
3 hours ago, BrobaFett said:I actually am kind of disappointed that the VISION for the ship lacked that feature, and it was some Disney cutting room stooge that got them added in. It makes a LOT of sense when you think about it. They are a lowest common denominator kind of change, added for big booms and as some have already mentioned, merchandising reasons. IF you took those guns off or at least scaled them practically so it didn't look a wangchung the size of a star destroyer (IE they had two smaller double turrets tucked into the bottom), and scaled it to 3x the size of an ISD as I inferred from the interview, I think this would be one of my favorite star wars ships.
I'd still think it was dumb if they had done that, but sizably less offensive. Because I'm on mobile, I won't quote your other comment but still point out no genuine Age of Steam capital ship ever until the commissioning of USS Zumwalt had a main battery that retracted into the hull. What you're thinking of are Q-ships, which were generally restricted to cruiser or destroyer grade armament due to mechanical restrictions. (There are a fair number of pre-dreadnought cruisers and battleships whose armament would fold against the hull, and even retract for the light secondary battery, but every design I know of left their main battery fully deployed.)
30 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:I'd still think it was dumb if they had done that, but sizably less offensive. Because I'm on mobile, I won't quote your other comment but still point out no genuine Age of Steam capital ship ever until the commissioning of USS Zumwalt had a main battery that retracted into the hull. What you're thinking of are Q-ships, which were generally restricted to cruiser or destroyer grade armament due to mechanical restrictions. (There are a fair number of pre-dreadnought cruisers and battleships whose armament would fold against the hull, and even retract for the light secondary battery, but every design I know of left their main battery fully deployed.)
I ALMOST tagged you along with a disclaimer that the hull guns retracting comment was (sic) from the article.
With the highest degree of respect I knew you wouldn't let the error slide but decided against it.
Just now, BrobaFett said:I ALMOST tagged you along with a disclaimer that the hull guns retracting comment was (sic) from the article.
With the highest degree of respect I knew you wouldn't let the error slide but decided against it.
I appreciate that respect, and hope you know I wasn't just trying to be irritating. I genuinely would have preferred the design you mentioned, but it definitely fits the Star Wars aesthetic. (See: underside of an ISD)