www.ditl.org

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Yet X-Wings, E-Wings, A-Wings, and B-Wings are superior to the TIE Fighter due to three reasons-they are all FTL capable

Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage is dependant on role - it's unnecessary for TIEs, since they're deployed from base ships, but for the rebels, with their lack of such mobile bases, it's vital.

they are more heavily armed

True, given the rebel's proton torps, although this seems to grant them great flexibility (and the firepower to take on small starships), rather than better firepower in a dogfight. Note that the kill/loss rates in the battles of Yavin and Endor seemed about even.

and they have shields.

This is a blatant lie perpetrated by the EU - visual evidence from ANH (specifically the Falcon escape scene) clearly shows shielded TIE fighters.

Given how Starfleet wants its officers to survive...it would be reasonable for their starfighters to have shields and Warp capability.

I'd agree with the shields, but not the warp drive. They're intended to be deployed from carriers, so they don't need to be capable of independant operation, and if their isn't enough carrier space at the end of a battle transporters make evacuating homeless fighters fairly easy.

Captain Seafort wrote:This is a blatant lie perpetrated by the EU - visual evidence from ANH (specifically the Falcon escape scene) clearly shows shielded TIE fighters.

Nope. It isn't a lie. The only TIE variant in ANH that had shields was the TIE Advanced that Vader piloted. TIE Fighters themselves do not have shields, Han and Luke were just missing or having glancing blows.

And, Lucas hasn't contradicted it. TIE's are cheap fighters that do not have shields.

As for FTL capability, what happens if the mothership is destroyed? Basic impulse will leave most pilots dead in space before rescue can come.

Actualy, you can see evidence of shields on TIEs during the dogfights in ANH, and the asteroid chase scene in ESB.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Nope. It isn't a lie. The only TIE variant in ANH that had shields was the TIE Advanced that Vader piloted. TIE Fighters themselves do not have shields, Han and Luke were just missing or having glancing blows.

From ANH:



The detonating bolt in the last frame is nowhere near the physical structure of the TIE, demonstrating that it must be hitting a shield.

[quot]As for FTL capability, what happens if the mothership is destroyed? Basic impulse will leave most pilots dead in space before rescue can come.[/quote]

As I said, any fighters left with nowhere to land could be evacuated by transporter. Trek combat places great emphasis on full starships, with fighters playing a supporting role. Even if CVBGs were deployed in the manner of the modern US Navy, escorts would still be present to rescue any homeless pilots.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:[
Yet X-Wings, E-Wings, A-Wings, and B-Wings are superior to the TIE Fighter due to three reasons-they are all FTL capable, they are more heavily armed, and they have shields.

Yet if you pay careful attention to the battle scenes in the films you'll notice that at best they achieve a 1:1 kill ratio on both sides and that the shields have virtually no effect. There's also a few scenes in ESB that indicates the TIE's have shields.

It wasn't until the TIE Defender came out that the Imperial Remnant really had a Space Superiority Fighter that didn't have to rely on heavy numbers.

See above.

Given how Starfleet wants its officers to survive...it would be reasonable for their starfighters to have shields and Warp capability.

Shields, yes. Warp drive, no. At best they'd get the warp four/five that a runabout gets without the benefit of having supplies to feed the crew. So they won't get far before they die of dehydration. And a carrier would likely not be operating solo so if it get's destroyed the fighter crew can still be recovered. If your going to the trouble of building warp capable fighters, than they may as well spend the extra money and crank out some more of the Defiant class.

And again - that's a lot of resources to expend, and mass to include, on a craft that is designed specifically to be carrier-borne.

Mikey wrote:And again - that's a lot of resources to expend, and mass to include, on a craft that is designed specifically to be carrier-borne.

Exactly, this is like asking why a modern carrier fighter doesn't have a nuclear reactor with a range measured in weeks.

SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:How about a custom starfighter for the Star Trek universe for this carrier then?

Should it be one manned or two? Warp Drive capable or not?

The lenght of one would basicly be detirmined by the torpedo tube. I think that a fighter only armed only by phasers delivers far to little firepower.

mlsnoopy wrote:
The lenght of one would basicly be detirmined by the torpedo tube. I think that a fighter only armed only by phasers delivers far to little firepower.

You could mount them on the wings, no need for a tube.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

mlsnoopy wrote:
The lenght of one would basicly be detirmined by the torpedo tube. I think that a fighter only armed only by phasers delivers far to little firepower.

You could mount them on the wings, no need for a tube.

Yeah, those "micro-launchers" from the Danubes, Peregrines, etc. seem to take very little space, either internally or externally. If anything, I think the magazine would be the determining factor, not the launcher.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

mlsnoopy wrote:
The lenght of one would basicly be detirmined by the torpedo tube. I think that a fighter only armed only by phasers delivers far to little firepower.

You could mount them on the wings, no need for a tube.

And how do you lunche them. As far as I know torpedos don't have their own engines. I belive you need a tube.

Mikey wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:

mlsnoopy wrote:
The lenght of one would basicly be detirmined by the torpedo tube. I think that a fighter only armed only by phasers delivers far to little firepower.

You could mount them on the wings, no need for a tube.

Yeah, those "micro-launchers" from the Danubes, Peregrines, etc. seem to take very little space, either internally or externally. If anything, I think the magazine would be the determining factor, not the launcher.

The torpedo is 2m long, so the magazine should be the same size. Those were micro-torpedos I want full size torpedos.

What one wants and what is feasible are often two very different things.

The detonating bolt in the last frame is nowhere near the physical structure of the TIE, demonstrating that it must be hitting a shield.

Or it could be hitting a piece of debris in the fighter's shadow. They were still in the Alderaan system where a planet had been blown up.

And how do you lunche them. As far as I know torpedos don't have their own engines. I belive you need a tube.

They do have engines, otherwise they wouldn't be able to change coarse. I do know of at least one example of this so it is canon.

As for putting warp drives on carrier based fighters, I doubt it would be very big, maybe a small one capable of Warp 2 for in-system travel or tacticle jumps.

Mikey wrote:What one wants and what is feasible are often two very different things.

If the tube is betwene 10-20m long, than you ad another 2-3 m for the magazine, than a fighter with full size torpedos is possible.