ARC-170 and the X-wing

[rommel17]

the "upgrade" you suggeting for the ARC-170 is nothing short of a complete rebuild, if there's nothing apart of the hull shape left of the orginal ship how is that not a new ship, but an upgrade of the old?

It still shares the same frame and concept like the TIE fighters. Each new TIE was basically an update of the original TIE fighter.

[Lancer]

the new X-wings are basically complete rebuilds as well. They're no more the same ship than (to borrow your current military analogy) the original F/A-18 is the same as the F/A-18E superhornet.

[Lord Revan]

the "upgrade" you suggeting for the ARC-170 is nothing short of a complete rebuild, if there's nothing apart of the hull shape left of the orginal ship how is that not a new ship, but an upgrade of the old?

It still shares the same frame and concept like the TIE fighters. Each new TIE was basically an update of the original TIE fighter.

Only the TIE/ln (and it's mods) share the same hull shape as orginal T.I.E fighter were as TIE/I, TIE/B, TIE/X1, TIE/A or the TIE/D has very little to nothing in common with the orginal TIE.

[Lancer]

Errm, no. The TIE/In's hull was slightly more elongated horizontally compared to the original TIE fighter, hence the nickname "squints".

[Lord Revan]

Errm, no. The TIE/In's hull was slightly more elongated horizontally compared to the original TIE fighter, hence the nickname "squints".

OK so no later TIE shares the same shape as the orginal TIE, my point stands still.

[rommel17]

the new X-wings are basically complete rebuilds as well. They're no more the same ship than (to borrow your current military analogy) the original F/A-18 is the same as the F/A-18E superhornet.

Precisely, except F/A-18E Superhornet is updated for current threats and so pilots of the original F/A 18 can quickly adapt to the new upgrades. Likewise the Z-95 Headhunter's controls were similar enough to the X-wings for pilots to switch over. As the X-wing becomes updated the flight controls remain similar so older X-wing pilots like Wedge and Luke can adjust easily to the new capabilities along with newer recruits. Same thing with everything else.

Back to ARC-170 variants. For defense suppression of say a moon's defenses, you need the ARC-170 to be able to trip the defense radar and the guns attached to them. So it needs to amplify its radar signal to defenses to get them to turn on. Once a defense radar turns on, the ARC-170 shoots one of its torpedos with a HARM warhead at the radar to silence it and the gun or missile battery nearby. The ARC-170 can also strafe unguided weapons systems as well. This clears the way for Y-wings or K-wings escorted X-wings or E-wings to bomb the enemies infrastructure or clear the way for a commando team to infiltrate depending on the mission.

[Lancer]

Rommel, you are aware that you can't upgrade a F/A-18 into a Superhornet short of ripping it apart and building it with mostly new parts?

[Ender]

the new X-wings are basically complete rebuilds as well. They're no more the same ship than (to borrow your current military analogy) the original F/A-18 is the same as the F/A-18E superhornet.

Actually, they are not. The later X series are longer and fatter, and with a distinctively different engine design. I saw something online that showed the XJ series model, the wings split outside the engine cover, with one big front inlet on each sidee with 2 thrusters facing aft, instead of all 4 splitting atop the wings. This bit was later apparently recycled into the ARC-170 design for the movies (guess someone at the ranch liked the look when they were looking at the NJO stuff)

[Lord Revan]

the new X-wings are basically complete rebuilds as well. They're no more the same ship than (to borrow your current military analogy) the original F/A-18 is the same as the F/A-18E superhornet.

Actually, they are not. The later X series are longer and fatter, and with a distinctively different engine design. I saw something online that showed the XJ series model, the wings split outside the engine cover, with one big front inlet on each sidee with 2 thrusters facing aft, instead of all 4 splitting atop the wings. This bit was later apparently recycled into the ARC-170 design for the movies (guess someone at the ranch liked the look when they were looking at the NJO stuff)

are agreening or disagreening with Matt Huang?

[rommel17]

Rommel, you are aware that you can't upgrade a F/A-18 into a Superhornet short of ripping it apart and building it with mostly new parts?

Yes as that is what upgrading does.

[Lord Revan]

I'd say that the F/A-18 E/F Superhornet and T-65D-A1 and T-65J3 X-wing are closer to redesigns then to upgrades and possible it's to upgade/downgrade something with out rebuilding it.

EDIT: and you haven't proven yet why redesigning the ARC-170, would cheaper/easier then using chaft that have already been designed or designing new craft.

EDIT:the "upgrade" (aka a redesign) you're suggesting is, so extensive that what ARC-170 was orginally is irrelevant.

[Ender]

the new X-wings are basically complete rebuilds as well. They're no more the same ship than (to borrow your current military analogy) the original F/A-18 is the same as the F/A-18E superhornet.

Actually, they are not. The later X series are longer and fatter, and with a distinctively different engine design. I saw something online that showed the XJ series model, the wings split outside the engine cover, with one big front inlet on each sidee with 2 thrusters facing aft, instead of all 4 splitting atop the wings. This bit was later apparently recycled into the ARC-170 design for the movies (guess someone at the ranch liked the look when they were looking at the NJO stuff)

are agreening or disagreening with Matt Huang?

I think I'm agreeing, but I'm honestly not sure.

More the point is that you can't just upgrade like the newbie-trying-to-mod here thinks, particuarily WRT starfighters. Mass balances are really tight on them. To improve acceleration means either ditching mass (which weakens it in both structure and performance) or replacing the powerplant. Frankly, you can't ditch enough mass before you make the thing unflyable, so you have to go the other route. Which means expanded fuel tanks and structure changes, a new power layout and waste heat distribution system. And since you are going faster and increased the mass, your forces on the spaceframe just jumped, so you need to rebuild that. This means you need to alter componenet layout now. Plus the added mass of the new spaceframe slowed the craft so you have to adjust again. and again. and again.

Plus he talks about minuturazied and improved comonents, yet we know the galaxy is technologically stagnent, so I wonder where these nonexistent things will come from. Plus he talks about upgrading the computer power, but when a bog standard nav computer has to do an absolute bare minimum 10^25 FLOPs to do a jump, I wonder how much processing power he thinks it needs.

[Lord Revan]

to honest there is some advancement in techology in SW, but not much.

EDIT:It's kind of funny that some one would think that just add/replace stuff with improved/newer tech with no penalty.

[Noble Ire]

to honest there is some advancement in techology in SW, but not much.

Its not so much advancement, but optimization and modification for the current galactic condition. The galaxy was at relative peace for a millenia, it is not unreasonable that decades of war wouldn't trigger new innovations and implimentations of tech. However, discovery of completely new technology, or massive improvement in speed, firepower, or energy generation is very unrealistic.

[Lord Revan]

to honest there is some advancement in techology in SW, but not much.

Its not so much advancement, but optimization and modification for the current galactic condition. The galaxy was at relative peace for a millenia, it is not unreasonable that decades of war wouldn't trigger new innovations and implimentations of tech. However, discovery of completely new technology, or massive improvement in speed, firepower, or energy generation is very unrealistic.

yeah that's true, but it's enough to justify some minuturazition.

[Lancer]

Ender & Rommel:
the F/A-18c/d Hornet is 56 feet long, 15.3 ft high, and has a 40-ft wingspan. It uses two F404-GE-402 engines that have about 17,700 lbs thrust each. Top speed is estimated to be Mach 1.7, max takeoff weight is 51,900 pounds.

The F/A-18e Superhornet is 60.3 feet long, 16 feet high, and has a wingspan of 44.9 feet. It uses two F414-GE-400 engines that have about 22,000 lbs thrust each. Top speed is estimated to be Mach 1.8, max takeoff weight is 66,000 pounds.

(info obtained from navy.mil)

Like I said, the only possible way you could "upgrade" a normal hornet into a superhornet is a wholesale disassembly, then replace almost everything important with new components and reassemble it as a new fighter. But that's not an upgrade, it's a wholesale rebuild.

Perhaps I should have used an analogy you two would have been more familiar with.

Think of the difference between the Z-95 Headhunter and the T-65 X-Wing.

[Lord Revan]

*snip*

I think Ender was trying to argee with you.

for those who too lazy/stupid to convert those stats to SI unit.

F/A-18 C/D
length:16.8 m
height:4.6 m
wingspan:12 m
thrust:7965 kg
max take-off weight:23355 kg

F/A-18 E/F
length:18.1 m
height:4.8 m
wingspan:13.5 m
thrust:9900 kg
max take-off weight:29700 kg

they don't seem very similar to me.

EDIT:fixed typo caused by a browser crash.

[The Dark]

Rommel, you are aware that you can't upgrade a F/A-18 into a Superhornet short of ripping it apart and building it with mostly new parts?

Yes as that is what upgrading does.

Not in the least. Upgrading is something similar to the modification from F-14 to F-14B, where the engines were replaced, or the shift from -14A to -14D, where new electronics and engines were put in. The Hornet and Superhornet have totally different airframes, minimal parts compatibility, and are not even close to the same aircraft. A more similar comparison there might be the TIE Fighter and TIE Interceptor...the squint is clearly based off the eyeball, but is also clearly a very different craft. Upgrading generally confers a relatively low boost to combat performance - returning to the Tomcat as an analogy, the -14D is actually slightly slower than the original, although the engines are more reliable, and the electronics boost gives it only about the same capabilities as more modern aircraft as far as detection goes. What you are suggesting is something along the lines of upgrading the F-14 continuously, and suggesting that it would be superior to an F-22 in air-air combat.