StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shields may also be an indication of a lack of performance in the acceleration and maneuverability front. Most Rebel fighters we see are multi role or bombers by design and there seems to be a good balance between the numbers of each, while two of the three Imperial fighter we see in the OT are dedicated apace fighters and we see them near exclusively. Rebel tactics may dictate that hits have to be taken, hence shields.

It really is comparable to WW2 Pacific fighters. American fighters tended to be somewhat tougher, while their Japanese counterparts were lighter and more maneuverable. In space, as maneuverability is only dictated by speed, this is even more apparent. While shields are useless against a dedicated attack, they will undoubtedly mean that Rebel pilots are more likely to survive combat than their Imperial counterparts. Which also happened in the Pacific. Over time, this would skew pilot skill in favor of the Rebel Alliance.

If one goes to the Legacy era, shields become more common, with the TIE Predator having 'em too (though the Alliance Crossfire still being more of a brick comparatively! It's interesting how heavy a fighter they went with- the Jedi's fighter of choice, the Twintail, was closer to the Imperial one than the Alliance one) The Imperial-Sith fighter as well, I think (which seems to be basically based on the Predator), but I'm not sure about the pure-Sith fighter we see, which is a rather light craft.

Adam Reynolds wrote:It really is comparable to WW2 Pacific fighters. American fighters tended to be somewhat tougher, while their Japanese counterparts were lighter and more maneuverable. In space, as maneuverability is only dictated by speed, this is even more apparent. While shields are useless against a dedicated attack, they will undoubtedly mean that Rebel pilots are more likely to survive combat than their Imperial counterparts. Which also happened in the Pacific. Over time, this would skew pilot skill in favor of the Rebel Alliance.

Without the application of plot armor I don't know if shields is a good predictor of suitability. If you are doing a torpedo run against an ISD or other target through a fighter/PD screen you need to be able to take a hit, but presumably some tradeoff has to be made regarding other missions, specifically space superiority or interceptor roles. Also do shield generators in that mission role make you measurably more survivable than other fighter designs all told, or just in that role? As has been postulated from some movie evidence it doesn't appear they are much of a factor in fighter to fighter combat. So what could the mass and power of a shield generator be used for instead?

Thats making an assumption that that trade off is in performance though. The trade off may very well be in economics or training. The Rebels can't afford to lose pilots or whole hulls, and that avoided cost is presumably more valuable to them than up front expense of having more expensive fighters unit for unit compared to the Empire. The problem here is that in the setting we know supposedly the Rebels are materially constrained as well as personnel constrained. This also doesn't describe the Empire very well, which while it can afford to lose pilots it can also afford to arm them to the teeth by all accounts.

Which is why I lean towards there being a performance trade off between roles. The Empire isn't doing much capital ship killing and if they are their doctrine is to use their own capital ships to do it so their fighters are not designed to do it and are kitted appropriately. The Rebels are doing capital ship strikes and don't have the capital ship power to do it and are kitted appropriately. It seems highly unreasonable to assume that either Imperial fighters or Rebel fighters are assumed to be jacks of all trades AND master of each. There must be some real downside to having shield generators over other kit. There is no reason for the Imperials not to take advantage of being free to not worry about fighting capital ships with their fighters and design them to be better at there smaller mission sets. There is certainly no reason to design them to be WORSE at their dedicated mission sets than a multi role fighter that presumably can't be optimized for everything.

If I had to guess, I'd say that shields for fighters are intended against flak bursts and glancing point-defense hits primarily, and secondarily against poorly-angled or poorly-targeted fire from other fighters, which fits in rather neatly with your tactical assessment, Patroklos.

I also observe that Rebel fighters are overwhelmingly hyper-capable, which one assumes would make their small craft much larger and much more expensive; in that case, it makes financial sense to provide shields as well in direct proportion to the prices of hyperdrives and shield generators - that is, if a shield costs 50% of a hyperdrive unit per craft and provides better than double survivability in the fighter's probable mission profile, you'd be stupid not to provide it, and similarly for other proportions.

Esquire wrote:If I had to guess, I'd say that shields for fighters are intended against flak bursts and glancing point-defense hits primarily, and secondarily against poorly-angled or poorly-targeted fire from other fighters, which fits in rather neatly with your tactical assessment, Patroklos.

If it's more useful against defense-fire from ships and ground... yea, that'd really make sense, since the rebels normally expect the Imperials to have more of it pointed at that.

Hm, I wonder if there's a 'flak' setting to turbolasers to improve hit chances...

Esquire wrote: I also observe that Rebel fighters are overwhelmingly hyper-capable, which one assumes would make their small craft much larger and much more expensive; in that case, it makes financial sense to provide shields as well in direct proportion to the prices of hyperdrives and shield generators - that is, if a shield costs 50% of a hyperdrive unit per craft and provides better than double survivability in the fighter's probable mission profile, you'd be stupid not to provide it, and similarly for other proportions.

All of this makes sense. The problem I have is that hyperdrive + Shields + bomber capability, all of which have near zero relevance to space fighter combat, should make them hopelessly outclassed in that mission versus a fighter that has none of those three and is otherwise optimized for that mission. We can argue that the TIE is missing those things and is also NOT optimized, but then that's its own brand of stupidity.

As you describe it, a star fighter that can basically travel anywhere with a credible anti ship physical ordnance load and with significant extra self defense equipment versus a purpose built space superiority starfighter is like describing a B1 vs an F15 in capabilities. The B1 is good at a whole lot of stuff, but is also dead meat if an F15 can get to it because thats all it does and it does it exceptionally.

Except we know the Rebel fighters have those capabilities,and yet they can hold their own against the presupposedly optimized for space superiority TIEs. Also, I think you're exaggerating the performance difference. The Lancer is MASSIVELY larger than the Eagle. The alphabet wings are NOT massively larger than the TIEs. So however they do it, the alphabet wings manage to be on par with or even slightly better than the TIEs.

Batman wrote:Except we know the Rebel fighters have those capabilities,and yet they can hold their own against the presupposedly optimized for space superiority TIEs. Also, I think you're exaggerating the performance difference. The Lancer is MASSIVELY larger than the Eagle. The alphabet wings are NOT massively larger than the TIEs. So however they do it, the alphabet wings manage to be on par with or even slightly better than the TIEs.

The point of this line of discussion is that in the movies there really isn't any noticeable superiority in Rebel fighters in SW. When it's Imperial mook versus Rebel mook (ie there is no plot armor) we actually see Rebel pilots get totally rocked (ANH) or hold their own at best (Endor). Even in TFA when you are done laughing at the wanktastic Poe you will not the rest of the Rebel pilots are mostly dead. This is why we are noting the inadequecy of fighter shields, because a lot of them get blown out of the sky via the same fire we take out TIEs.

Batman wrote:Except we know the Rebel fighters have those capabilities,and yet they can hold their own against the presupposedly optimized for space superiority TIEs. Also, I think you're exaggerating the performance difference. The Lancer is MASSIVELY larger than the Eagle. The alphabet wings are NOT massively larger than the TIEs. So however they do it, the alphabet wings manage to be on par with or even slightly better than the TIEs.

Perhaps not in absolute dimensions, but the word 'massively' is key here - a X-Wing may not occupy much more space than a TIE Interceptor, say, but it's quite a bit more massive (heavier, I mean, colloquially) - less area devoted to radiator wings (solar panels are blatantly stupid and I hope they're excised in the new canon), more to systems-bearing fuselage.

Patroklos wrote:

Esquire wrote: I also observe that Rebel fighters are overwhelmingly hyper-capable, which one assumes would make their small craft much larger and much more expensive; in that case, it makes financial sense to provide shields as well in direct proportion to the prices of hyperdrives and shield generators - that is, if a shield costs 50% of a hyperdrive unit per craft and provides better than double survivability in the fighter's probable mission profile, you'd be stupid not to provide it, and similarly for other proportions.

All of this makes sense. The problem I have is that hyperdrive + Shields + bomber capability, all of which have near zero relevance to space fighter combat, should make them hopelessly outclassed in that mission versus a fighter that has none of those three and is otherwise optimized for that mission. We can argue that the TIE is missing those things and is also NOT optimized, but then that's its own brand of stupidity.

That assumes a similar per-unit cost; in space, where maneuverability, speed, and engine power are different words for the same thing, one might easily substitute money and/or mass for optimization at some (unknown but, as per my assumptions above, favorable) ratio.

As you describe it, a star fighter that can basically travel anywhere with a credible anti ship physical ordnance load and with significant extra self defense equipment versus a purpose built space superiority starfighter is like describing a B1 vs an F15 in capabilities. The B1 is good at a whole lot of stuff, but is also dead meat if an F15 can get to it because thats all it does and it does it exceptionally.

I'd scale back a few decades, actually - Rebel fighters aren't quite so hyperspecialized as a strategic bomber, after all. Moreover, I'm positing a sufficient increase in per-unit cost from hyperdrive (and anti-warship armament, although I note that mass isn't necessarily so much of a problem in space as it is in atmosphere, assuming sufficient engines) that statistically a relatively-cheap defense system makes financial sense; the WWII comparison really does align better. Zeroes and Hellcats, as representative samples of the specialist-maneuverable and the generalist-protected phenotypes. I'm not really a historian, so if you think different aircraft would be better, I'll cheerfully concede.

So to open the TIE/Alphabet wing debate up again post Rogue One, I personally think the Rebels operating the more expensive fighters makes a good degree of sense.

TIES don't seem markedly superior to X-Wings in any real sense. They chop up the fighters making the trench run with no room to manoeuvre, true. The battle above the trench with the X-Wings screening the Gold Squadron/the backup X-Wing runs seem fairly evenly matched, however. We also see Luke and Wedge take hits and survive the battle, Luke especially as his ship remains combat effective. Even Red Leader is hit badly enough to lose all of his engines, but he is killed by colliding with the Death Star, not enemy fire so I think it's fair to assume that had he not been fighting spitting distance from a moon sized space station his odds of surviving at least short term are fairly good, assuming the TIEs break off to focus on the other ships that are still capable of combat. I never recall a TIE surviving a single hit, so it seems fair to assume that the X-Wings at least are more durable than the TIEs.

For a rebellion where trained fighter pilots are going to be at a premium that cost alone would likely be worth it, but for the rebels the operating costs for TIEs or TIE equivalents would be staggeringly more expensive.

Most of the Rebels major actions, especially initially, are raids by small groups of starfighters. If you try to do that with a squadron of X-Wings you need one pilot per starfighter and their ground crew. If you want to do it with TIES, you need one pilot per fighter, their ground crew, a capital shit to carry them to their destination and a crew for the ship. Given crew complements for star wars capital ships range from hundreds to thousands of people, that's orders of magnitude more trained people the rebellion has to recruit, feed, house and run security on to make sure they aren't Imperial spies. If X-Wings cost two or three or four times what as TIE does both upfront and in running costs that still saves the rebels an absolute fortune.

Plus, they can exit hyperspace already in formation with their capital ships a la Endor, making large scale hit an run attacks much more feasible.

TIEs are super cost-effective for defending places, like the Russian air-defense forces' doctrine of point-defense fighters. And by the Imperial logic, with the sheer abundance of ISDs and sub-ISD-type vessels carrying TIEs, sending capships that disgorge TIE fighters and TIE bombers in attack roles makes more sense than just FTL-equipped fighters. Since Imperial attack ships are meant not only to strike... but to stay afterwards and occupy the conquered area! Whereas Rebel hit and run tactics would be more amenable to expensive FTL-equipped snubfighters that can operate independently of capships. Blowing up Eadu bases, even attacks on Jedha (as we see in that background crash site before Donnie Yen beats up those troopers, are more feasible with X-Wings. Yes, individually they're costlier to operate... but I guess the Rebels save cash by not having to need a capship deployed alongside their fighters.

Plus without FTL, TIE fighter pilots can't defect!

I found this interesting because it sounds like a departure from the old EU, in which rebel fighters were superior to Imperial fighters in virtually every way without sacrificing anything:

A-wings were modified for use by the Alliance to favor raw speed over power or protection. The Alliance's modified A-wings consisted of a stock model stripped of its shields, armor, and heavy weapons. As a result, the ship was faster than the Empire's variant, the TIE/IN interceptor.

As we've seen in the new comics, A-wings don't even have sufficient firepower to breach AT-AT armor so my theory is that they're used primarily to defend rebel capital ships as interceptors.

I suspect that the ability of Rebel fighters to hold their own in space combat against Imperials is down to three factors:

1. Differences in doctrine, specifically "quality over quantity". Both in terms of ships and pilots. The Empire doesn't care if it loses a hundred TIEs, because it can build a million or a billion more. The early Rebel Alliance loses a hundred X-wings, and they've lost a significant percentage of their fighter force.

2. Imperial corruption and nepotism. Maybe the TIE design contract went to some well-connected rich Core asshole who toed the party line and who didn't know shit about real combat. And again, it doesn't matter, because they can build a billion ties, and keeping your Core politicos happy matters more than having an optimal fighter.

3. Shields grant greater survivability (at least against glancing hits) to compensate for potential reduced maneuverability/Rebel fighters being bigger targets.

Edit: Oh, and having repair droids on the fighters probably doesn't hurt their survivability either.

I'm fine with the nerfing of the A-Wing and how in Rebels it appears earlier than the X-Wing unlike the old EU/Legends where it is an iteration after the X-Wing and the TIE and thus pimped out af and totally imba.

That explains why it wasn't seen in Yavin in ANH as it was an escort and not a frontline all-purpose/multi-role strike and space superiority fighter. But a light escort with hyperdrive to keep up with the vessels it escorts.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I suspect that the ability of Rebel fighters to hold their own in space combat against Imperials is down to three factors:

1. Differences in doctrine, specifically "quality over quantity". Both in terms of ships and pilots. The Empire doesn't care if it loses a hundred TIEs, because it can build a million or a billion more. The early Rebel Alliance loses a hundred X-wings, and they've lost a significant percentage of their fighter force.

2. Imperial corruption and nepotism. Maybe the TIE design contract went to some well-connected rich Core asshole who toed the party line and who didn't know shit about real combat. And again, it doesn't matter, because they can build a billion ties, and keeping your Core politicos happy matters more than having an optimal fighter.

3. Shields grant greater survivability (at least against glancing hits) to compensate for potential reduced maneuverability/Rebel fighters being bigger targets.

Edit: Oh, and having repair droids on the fighters probably doesn't hurt their survivability either.

While I don't think you're totally incorrect, I suspect that TIE-series isn't poor quality per say, but rather it's easier and more simple for the empire to manufacture in bulk so it's not super optimizied but the per craft cost isn't that high. Also TIEs would probably typically be used against pirates and such who would most likely have poor quality pilots so the additional cost of shields wasn't deemed a necessity. Also TIEs tend to operate near a mothership of some sort so they don't really need hyperdrives.

While I think the wing/alphabet series of fighters was meant for planetary militias to the per craft cost would be high but since the number of fighter squads avaible for those militias would smaller the importance of survivebility would be greater as you'd have smaller reserves with possible exception of the B-wing that seems have designed for rebel use rather then being an older design adopted by the rebels. Also I suspect that militias would have smaller recruiting pools having as many pilots as possible return from missions would be a high priority. Also planetary militias would probably also have less ships capable of acting as fighter motherships so a hyperdrive on the fighters would be useful as well.

If not planetary militias then Sector Defense Forces. (Because I think planetary militias just sound so... plebeian)

I think the X-Wings and all that are too costly for the planetary militias to afford... but something that sector- or system-level authorities can afford, a compromise that explains their FTL capability and somehow puts them in the "sweet spot." High quality per unit but still something tailored for entities that can't afford capital ships that much and don't need capital ships that much.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:If not planetary militias then Sector Defense Forces. (Because I think planetary militias just sound so... plebeian)

I think the X-Wings and all that are too costly for the planetary militias to afford... but something that sector- or system-level authorities can afford, a compromise that explains their FTL capability and somehow puts them in the "sweet spot." High quality per unit but still something tailored for entities that can't afford capital ships that much and don't need capital ships that much.

Or can afford only light capships there is after all quite a large difference between a corellian covette and a star destroyer.

oh and by "planetary militias" I meant things like the Naboo defence forces or what ever they're called. Obviously places like Tatooine would had couple guys with out of date blaster(s) and they might even have to share a single blaster , but more wealthy planet might be able to afford fighter squadron(s) or even light capital ships in addition to what ever ground forces they had, also isn't planet and system level authorities generally the same thing in SW I can't remember that many examples of several unique goverments in a single star system, Kashyyk system from the legendaries comes to mind with Kashyyk itself and Trandosha as seperate authorities that's about it.

Where Nabooey fighters hyperspace capable?

I presume Naboo was a hub for sector or... whatever local systems-level shit and thus was of import and of influence and that's why the TF bothered them.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Where Nabooey fighters hyperspace capable?

I presume Naboo was a hub for sector or... whatever local systems-level shit and thus was of import and of influence and that's why the TF bothered them.

I dunno about being hyperspace capable the fighters are in canon (though the AOTC ICS implies that they had short range hyperspace capability) but Naboo was a sector capital in the legendaries (I dunno if that's still true)

Hmmm... I don't know how to square SW technological stagnation vs. whether hyperspace-capable snubfighters is that new a thing vs. Jedi starfighters needing external hyperdrive-rings to FTL. This is my boggle John Spartan.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Hmmm... I don't know how to square SW technological stagnation vs. whether hyperspace-capable snubfighters is that new a thing vs. Jedi starfighters needing external hyperdrive-rings to FTL. This is my boggle John Spartan.

Jedi starfighters weren't new. The latest issue of the comic shows that they were already in use at least a decade before the Clone Wars.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Where Nabooey fighters hyperspace capable?

I presume Naboo was a hub for sector or... whatever local systems-level shit and thus was of import and of influence and that's why the TF bothered them.

May be not intitially but in Attack of the Clones two are used to escort Padme's ship in the beginning of the movie

hunter5 wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Where Nabooey fighters hyperspace capable?

I presume Naboo was a hub for sector or... whatever local systems-level shit and thus was of import and of influence and that's why the TF bothered them.

May be not intitially but in Attack of the Clones two are used to escort Padme's ship in the beginning of the movie

In the ICS, Padme's ship in AOTC has docking ports for Naboo fighters to attach to it during hyperspace travel, so that implies they were either not hyper capable or short ranged.

Elheru Aran wrote:

hunter5 wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Where Nabooey fighters hyperspace capable?

I presume Naboo was a hub for sector or... whatever local systems-level shit and thus was of import and of influence and that's why the TF bothered them.

May be not intitially but in Attack of the Clones two are used to escort Padme's ship in the beginning of the movie

In the ICS, Padme's ship in AOTC has docking ports for Naboo fighters to attach to it during hyperspace travel, so that implies they were either not hyper capable or short ranged.

True forgot about that