Fighters makes no sense in Star Wars

[SWPIGWANG]

Fighters are a common sight in StarWars. They are avaible at every battle and carried by almost all capital ships bigger than a dreadnought. A immense amount of focus is also given to those tiny ships while their bigger friends are in the back ground.


But those fighters can't even hurt a ISD not shooting back! At least that is what is concluded in the forums.


First of all, their insignificant firepower means absolutely nothing in conventional ship battles. So A A-Wing rammed a SSD bridge might hurt, but a extra HTL which would take less space than a whole wing of fighters would do MAGNITUDES more damage than insignificant KE the A-Wing delivers. Since HTL bombardment is required to lower the shields in the first place, fighters does not add additional flexibility to the operation. It is only a space, weight, and monetary expensive piece of trash that can't do any damage in comparison to equal weight in guns.

Second of all, commerace raiding is impossible with fighters themselves as they lack Interdictor capacity to stop shipping in hyperspace where the ships would be for the majority of the time. The only time transports would be vulnerable is before launch, over their destination, or refueling. Because of this, the time escorts are required is nil compared to travel time and all vulnerable times would be over easily defended points over planets or major fleet assets. With the performance of the millennium falcon displayed, the time from hyperspace to surface landing for transport operations would hardly take 30 minutes at most, making the cooridnation required to strike such a target almost impossible without perfect intelligence. During that time major fleet assets or can be hypered in for escort and transports can rush under defenses of planetory and thearter shields which the fighters could not counter. It is also extreamly doubtful that shielded transports can be taken down at all before it hides behind major defenses or hypers away or even simply micro-jump leap frog, considering major blockades supported by capital ship firepower have been bypassed with the MF and Naboo Runner. It is inconceivible that a small raiding party by hyperspace capable fighters is capable of destroying ships when even capital ships fail.

[NecronLord]

Infantrymen have no place on a modern battlefield. Armoured vehicles rule it, Until someone needs to enter a building.

Fighters are like infantrymen, they can go into buildings (planets) and kill one enemy building or vehicle without having to kill the entire city.

[Smiling Bandit]

Fighters are awesome at dealing lots of minor damage to a target. With heavier ships to bring down the main shielding, fighters can inflict serious damage on even the largest and strongest vessels.

Your post reveals a serious case of all-or-nothing syndrome.

[The Silence and I]

Well, at the battle of Endor it was stated that TIE fighters and TIE Interceptors (which carry no missile weapons) were a threat to Medical Frigates. These capital starships were vunerable to sustained fire from fighter scale laser and blaster fire... While it is likely the Nebulon B Escort Frigates lost much of their combat power after conversion to medical duties, they should still have powerful shielding--enough to make such "small arms" fire useless. (Hell, [and this isn't meant as a forum hi-jack] if a few dozen TIEs pose a clear and present danger to such a modified 300 meter long Frigate, then a handful of even Federation starships could take one out!)

Remember, the most generous numbers for starfighter weapons are in the very low KT range. This would probably give very low GT range shielding for the Frigate, and it would have to have a very low shield wattage rating.

[Ender]

Well, at the battle of Endor it was stated that TIE fighters and TIE Interceptors (which carry no missile weapons) were a threat to Medical Frigates. These capital starships were vunerable to sustained fire from fighter scale laser and blaster fire... While it is likely the Nebulon B Escort Frigates lost much of their combat power after conversion to medical duties, they should still have powerful shielding--enough to make such "small arms" fire useless. (Hell, [and this isn't meant as a forum hi-jack] if a few dozen TIEs pose a clear and present danger to such a modified 300 meter long Frigate, then a handful of even Federation starships could take one out!)

Remember, the most generous numbers for starfighter weapons are in the very low KT range. This would probably give very low GT range shielding for the Frigate, and it would have to have a very low shield wattage rating.

The novel states that they were packing missile weapons, so these were modified to carry them as we didn't see any TIE Bombers

[Mad]

A properly coordinated torpedo strike from bombers can temporarially take down the shields of normal capital ships much more quickly than a capship on the same level can. A squadron of multi-purpose fighters like X-wings can down the shields of VSDs. But fighters lack the capability to take advantage of the hole before the shields are restored. (Rogue Squadron managed to take out the shields of a VSD in The Bacta War, but lacked the capability to strike at the hull before the VSD took defensive precautions. The squadron would run out of torpedoes before they could do any significant hull damage.)

But capital ships can take advantage of those holes while the fighters regroup. A HTL broadside into a starship during this time will nearly assuring victory for the side that managed to fire torpedoes properly.

Because of this, interceptor fighters are sent out to prevent the bombers from organizing a crushing torpedo volley. So the battle then turns into capships duking it out while bombers and heavy fighters try to sneak in a few hits to weakened areas, and interceptor fighters try to prevent that from happening.

[Aaron2]

I've been thinking about this recently. Remember in ANH, the fighter were able to fly completely through the DS's shields and attack the DS directly, damaging it quite successfully. Maybe starship shields are more effective versus attacks originating further away; having more time to dissipate the energy. A fighter up close is often flying within a ships superstructure. Starship then need a "tighter defense" and, thus, have a less efficient shield vs fighters.

Just a thought with no actual cononical support.


Aaron

[Kerneth]

Purposes for starfighters:

1) Commerce raiding. Yes, it can only be done inside a planet's gravity well or in an area where for whatever reason the merchants can't jump to hyperspace, but it's still doable. It's not that difficult for an ion-cannon equipped starfighter to knock out a civilian vessel's shields--possibly with warheads--then put a few ion cannon bolts into it in order to knock the systems offline for a while.

2) Capital ship strikes. If two warships are fighting then both ships can simply channel all their shield strength to whatever arc the enemy vessel is targeting. With starfighters, the warships have to spread their shields evenly across the entire surface to avoid opportunistic attacks by starfighters on such targets as sensors and the ship's bridge.

3) Escort duty. The exact opposite of commerce raiding, starfighters are a convenient means to provide cover to a convoy, either by themselves or in conjunction with light capital ships.

4) Disposable forces. Yeah, the Rebel Alliance/New Republic will say "Our starfighters have shields and hyperdrives and most certainly are NOT disposable." Bullshit. A wing of starfighters--72 ships--carries an enormous amount of firepower and is capable of long-distance strikes if hyperdrive equipped, but only puts 72 pilots at risk as opposed to hundreds or thousands on a similarly-armed capital ship. While starfighters may not be able to hang and bang with an ISD or larger vessel, they are most certainly a threat to frigates and even Victory-class Star Destroyers. And while the 25,000 ISDs in the Imperial Navy is an enormous number, that's 25,000 starships to defend an entire galaxy. That leaves plenty of places a fighter squadron can hyperspace in, blow up some things, then jump back out. And even if Shit Happens and the fighter squadron gets destroyed, pfft, it's only a dozen people and starfighters, far less loss of life than even a Correllian Corvette--and a squadron of starfighters carries far more weaponry.

Starfighters are not an all-or-nothing propostion, and just because a squadron of starfighters isn't going to go rampaging through the galaxy blowing up ISDs as fast as they find them doesn't mean that same squadron of starfighters can't hyperspace into a system, blow up a few targets of opportunity, then jump back out before help arrives.

[Soontir C'boath]

And while the 25,000 ISDs in the Imperial Navy is an enormous number, that's 25,000 starships to defend an entire galaxy. That leaves plenty of places a fighter squadron can hyperspace in, blow up some things, then jump back out. And even if Shit Happens and the fighter squadron gets destroyed, pfft, it's only a dozen people and starfighters, far less loss of life than even a Correllian Corvette--and a squadron of starfighters carries far more weaponry.

[singing]You are forgetting about the picket ships.[/singing]

Note that a dozen COULD be alot. There was only 30 starfighters at Yavin you know.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Admiral Johnason]

Well, SW isn't actually science fiction, it is science faction, when the science used isn't meant to be correct.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Remember, the most generous numbers for starfighter weapons are in the very low KT range. This would probably give very low GT range shielding for the Frigate, and it would have to have a very low shield wattage rating.

I believe this was explained by the existance of TIE Bombers--from the novelisation where there are thermnuclear blasts rocking Home One.

[PainRack]

The fighters in SW appear to serve the same roles as seaplanes and fighter aircraft in WW1.

Recon-hyperdrive equipped vessels can presumably jump to nearby systems and other jump points to recconnitere the area.

Sentry-non-hyperdrive equipped vessels could serve as sentry ships,similar to the roles played by short range fighter craft in WW1 and 2.Their roles served as to detect an incoming threat to the capital ship task force.

Fighter-To shoot down enemy space craft and even small vessels.

Gunnery-We don't see this reflected in SW,but it isn't inconceivable that SW fighters play a somewhat similar role,as the X-wing games have fighters IDing ships.This could be done as a preclude to a gunnery duel.

Long range strike-Fighters can serve as a long range bomber force,attacking and taking out precision targets that would be too risky/or cost-ineffective to use a capital ship on.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

They can deliver GT level bombs to enemy capships, with weapons like Jango's seismic charge (I doubt a capship could dodge that planar wave...). Not to mention it's hardly inconcievable that they can cary other forms of GT missle weapons.

This gives fighters the ability to kill even frigate level starships. Also, this forces the capship to weaken its shields to compensate for enemy fire on all sides, thus allowing a precise cannonade from an opposing capship to break a hole in the enemies shields.

And of course, then you need fighters in order to destroy the fighters that will be delivering the deadly ordinance.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Particle-desintegrator warheads possibly carried by starfighters could be very much a threat indeed that would warrant having to maintain a degree of shielding on all faces, thus being instrumental to aiding capital ships.

[Kerneth]

And while the 25,000 ISDs in the Imperial Navy is an enormous number, that's 25,000 starships to defend an entire galaxy. That leaves plenty of places a fighter squadron can hyperspace in, blow up some things, then jump back out. And even if Shit Happens and the fighter squadron gets destroyed, pfft, it's only a dozen people and starfighters, far less loss of life than even a Correllian Corvette--and a squadron of starfighters carries far more weaponry.

[singing]You are forgetting about the picket ships.[/singing]

Note that a dozen COULD be alot. There was only 30 starfighters at Yavin you know.

Cyaround,
Jason

I'm not forgetting about the picket ships. But if a squadron of starfighters drops out of hyperspace and the only picket ships are a few Corvettes or a light capital ship and the fighters are equipped with shipkiller warheads then the aforementioned picket is quite possibly screwed. And if it's a full wing of starfighters--say, B-Wings and X-Wings, A-Wings, or E-Wings for combat space patrol--then there's a good chance that anything up to a VSD is going to get hurt in the resulting fight.

There were only 30 starfighters at Yavin because that's all the Rebellion could scrape together. After the Alliance started getting more support--post DS1's destruction, which proved that they were a serious and effective movement--then the Alliance started being able to field signficant numbers of fighters, including going so far as to design and produce two brand-new models (though only in small numbers), the A-Wing and the B-Wing.

It's official that a single B-Wing carries as much firepower as a Corvette. A full squadron of B-Wings is considered capable of destroying a frigate, assuming the frigate doesn't have its own starfighters for support--in which case the B-Wings need other starfighters to occupy the Imperial snubbies, but the mission is still possible.

I'm not saying that starfighters are the be-all and the end-all of Star Wars combat, but they are an effective technique for dealing with light capital ships--such as the sort that would be used to picket less-important systems or run escort duty for convoys.

[consequences]

Proximity big booms and shield expansion(if freaking X-wings can do it without signifigant modification don't even try to claim capships can't) pretty well remove most fighter threat, especially if you decline to launch your own fighters to confuse the issue.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Proximity big booms and shield expansion(if freaking X-wings can do it without signifigant modification don't even try to claim capships can't) pretty well remove most fighter threat, especially if you decline to launch your own fighters to confuse the issue.

What proximity big booms? Flakbursting is a bullshit farce, and as for missile weapons, fighters are highly manuverable and equipped with ECM and active countermeasures.

And shield expansion would just make your primary defense system a much, much weaker and much, much larger target while requiring more energy.

[SWPIGWANG]

The problem is that just about every damn capital ship carries fighters. For the roles described, there is absolutely little reason for every ship to have a hanger and such. While it might make sense for fighters to be used for dedicated duties like raiding, there is no reason why every front line capital ship has them. Their combat capacity is marginal at best, useless at worst, why would every ship have them is beyond me.

Also GT level weaponary is has not been seen in those capital ship battles and appears non-standard as most proton torp yield is around MT levels. It seems unlikely fighters would be used more wide spread than such weapons.

Commerce raiding. Yes, it can only be done inside a planet's gravity well or in an area where for whatever reason the merchants can't jump to hyperspace, but it's still doable. It's not that difficult for an ion-cannon equipped starfighter to knock out a civilian vessel's shields--possibly with warheads--then put a few ion cannon bolts into it in order to knock the systems offline for a while.

While Planetary and orbital defense pound the fighters and on the escorts shoot them to death. Unlike raiding a merchant fleet out in deep space, this is requires the fighters to be under attack from static defenses that can be far more powerful and far cheaper than ships. Also in order for a fighter ground to take advantage of the tiny gap between hyper and destination, rebel intelligences needs to be magnitudes better than imperial intelligence as fighter bases are extreamly vulnerable.

Capital ship strikes. If two warships are fighting then both ships can simply channel all their shield strength to whatever arc the enemy vessel is targeting. With starfighters, the warships have to spread their shields evenly across the entire surface to avoid opportunistic attacks by starfighters on such targets as sensors and the ship's bridge.

With the sub-GT firepower we've seen for most fighters, that is not a major threat as it would be only ~1% of the shields even for a relatively large wing of fighters. Things like neutroium armor would probably not even be dented by most fighter weapons. Also if one assumes decent missile technology than it would be doable without missiles alone.

A properly coordinated torpedo strike from bombers can temporarially take down the shields of normal capital ships much more quickly than a capship on the same level can.

Extreamly doubtful, as capital ships can mount magnitudes more torpedo/missile/bomb launchers than the same huge hanger space devoted to fighters and bombers. A alpha strike from such a design would be far more powerful than any bomber attack.

This would probably give very low GT range shielding for the Frigate, and it would have to have a very low shield wattage rating.

And this would make them utterly useless in a fleet battle and should not have engraged at all.

[Mad]

Also GT level weaponary is has not been seen in those capital ship battles

How do you know this? Movie visuals? (What would a GT-level explosion that releases most of its energy as invisible gamma radiation look like?)

and appears non-standard as most proton torp yield is around MT levels.

Proof?

With the sub-GT firepower we've seen for most fighters, that is not a major threat as it would be only ~1% of the shields even for a relatively large wing of fighters. Things like neutroium armor would probably not even be dented by most fighter weapons. Also if one assumes decent missile technology than it would be doable without missiles alone.

Heat dissipation. Remember, ICS2 rates shields in watts, not in terms of total energy. A torpedo likely releases its energy very quickly, probably a lot faster than a turbolaser strike. This gives torpedo weapons a much higher wattage than an equivalent yield energy weapon. The shields have to absorb all that energy much faster, and if there's too much, internal systems will burn out, even though it's less total energy than the beating the shields could take from attacks with lower wattages.

Extreamly doubtful,

Huh? What do you mean, "extremely doubtful"? We've seen it done!

as capital ships can mount magnitudes more torpedo/missile/bomb launchers than the same huge hanger space devoted to fighters and bombers. A alpha strike from such a design would be far more powerful than any bomber attack.

Except that torpedoes can easily be shot down at standard capital ship combat ranges. It takes fighters to get in close (smaller, faster targets are harder to hit) and release the torpedoes at a close enough to give the torpedoes a chance to hit the shields.

[Kerneth]

The problem is that just about every damn capital ship carries fighters. For the roles described, there is absolutely little reason for every ship to have a hanger and such. While it might make sense for fighters to be used for dedicated duties like raiding, there is no reason why every front line capital ship has them. Their combat capacity is marginal at best, useless at worst, why would every ship have them is beyond me.

Wait. For the role of harassing enemy capital ships to force them to spread their shields evenly on every shield arc, there's little reason for every capital ship to have starfighters? For the role of mass, coordinated missile strikes against light capital ships there's little reason for capital ships to carry fighters to either perform those strikes or to help defend against them?

Also GT level weaponary is has not been seen in those capital ship battles and appears non-standard as most proton torp yield is around MT levels. It seems unlikely fighters would be used more wide spread than such weapons.

Prove that we don't see GT range fighter warhead strikes, particularly from a Y-Wing or B-Wing model since those are primarily bombers. When assaulting the Death Star, Wedge says "My proton torpedos won't even put a dent in that thing!" But he also evidenced surprise that they would armor the power core that heavily and it's quite possible his X-Wing was carrying lighter warheads, while the B-Wing squadrons had the heavier shipkillers. Keep in mind that the Rebel Alliance and even the early New Republic had a difficult time acquiring sufficient quantities of missiles and torpedos for its fighter squadrons. Also keep in mind that the Millenium Falcon's concussion missile launchers blew it apart easily. The notion that concussion missiles are considerably weaker anti-starfighter weapons is from the games, not from the movies. And in the Complete Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (I could be wrong since I don't own this) A-Wings are described as carrying concussion missiles that are extremely short-ranged, high-damage warheads.

While Planetary and orbital defense pound the fighters and on the escorts shoot them to death. Unlike raiding a merchant fleet out in deep space, this is requires the fighters to be under attack from static defenses that can be far more powerful and far cheaper than ships. Also in order for a fighter ground to take advantage of the tiny gap between hyper and destination, rebel intelligences needs to be magnitudes better than imperial intelligence as fighter bases are extreamly vulnerable.

Most planets don't have planetary shields and massive orbital defenses. Major, important planets--Coruscant, Corellia, Byss, possibly the Corporate Sector worlds, and major industrial centers--would have such defenses. Agrarian planets or less-inhabited--or planets largely inhabited by aliens the Empire doesn't like much anyway--may well have very limited or not any orbital defenses. The Empire was all about supressing the infighting between various planetary governments, why would it allow those planetary governments to build up stores of starfighters, capital ships, or even planetary shields and battlestations that would allow it to resist Imperial warships?

With the sub-GT firepower we've seen for most fighters, that is not a major threat as it would be only ~1% of the shields even for a relatively large wing of fighters. Things like neutroium armor would probably not even be dented by most fighter weapons. Also if one assumes decent missile technology than it would be doable without missiles alone.

Extreamly doubtful, as capital ships can mount magnitudes more torpedo/missile/bomb launchers than the same huge hanger space devoted to fighters and bombers. A alpha strike from such a design would be far more powerful than any bomber attack.

I'm not sure what you meant by "if one assumes decent missile technology than it would be doable without missiles alone." I'm wondering if you meant "With missiles alone" and not starfighters? If so, heavy warships already carry dozens of turbolaser batteries in the low-megaton to hundreds of gigaton ranges! Why would they want to use warheads that, in a long-range capital ship slugging match, can be targeted and shot down by the light turbolasers on the other vessel?

And you're still ignoring the fact that loading all those warhead launchers on a capital ship instead of putting them on snubfighters, the enemy ship can just put full power to whatever shield arc is facing your vessel, or roll ship once one set of shields goes down to force you to target a fresh set. Sure, you could probably program the warheads to fire on a curving arc that would bring them around and up at the other capital ship's flanks or the side facing away from your vessel, but then they have a hugely-long flight time to be targeted by light turbolasers...or the other capital ship's fighter complement.

This would probably give very low GT range shielding for the Frigate, and it would have to have a very low shield wattage rating.

And this would make them utterly useless in a fleet battle and should not have engraged at all.

You're right, frigates are utterly useless in a fleet battle against starships an order of magnitude more powerful than they are and capable of delivering firepower sufficient to smash through their shields and break their spines in a few volleys. And no, they probably shouldn't go around engaging ISDs in a 1v1 fight. Frigates are, however, supposed to serve as escort vessels, long-range reconaissance platforms, and as extra fighter-carriers.

[irishmick79]

Fighters would be greatly useful to capital ships delegated to patrol and recon duty. Having the fighters would extend their search range that much more, and the fighters would be able to take closer looks at areas that could be too dangerous for larger scale ships to go into (like the edge of an asteroid field, for instance).

[SWPIGWANG]

Wait. For the role of harassing enemy capital ships to force them to spread their shields evenly on every shield arc, there's little reason for every capital ship to have starfighters? For the role of mass, coordinated missile strikes against light capital ships there's little reason for capital ships to carry fighters to either perform those strikes or to help defend against them?

There is little reason for warships to carry them because dedicated carrier ships would be far superior in this role. A major warship should not lug a hanger around where every they go. The space dedicated to to fighters for many warships is significant. That is like designing a Essex Class to have 16 inch turrets. What we are seeing is a bad case of mutiple personality disorder.

(What would a GT-level explosion that releases most of its energy as invisible gamma radiation look like?)

Sources I've seen rate Torpedos at hundred of MT level max and I have not seen calcs contradicting that figure.

Except that torpedoes can easily be shot down at standard capital ship combat ranges.

Torpedos are faster and magnitudes smaller than a fighter, and capable AI capable of dodging fire does exist in starwars.

Huh? What do you mean, "extremely doubtful"? We've seen it done!

I meant it can't be done fast than capital ship weapons of same size given correct design.

This gives torpedo weapons a much higher wattage than an equivalent yield energy weapon. The shields have to absorb all that energy much faster, and if there's too much, internal systems will burn out, even though it's less total energy than the beating the shields could take from attacks with lower wattages.

Unless Starwars shields work similar to the Trek exploding console of doom, it should have surge protection that would buffer the energy or shut down the shields before internal systems burn out and overload should only occur when the load over long periods of time is greater than energy dissipation.

Why would they want to use warheads that, in a long-range capital ship slugging match, can be targeted and shot down by the light turbolasers on the other vessel?

Why would they want to use fighters that are bigger, slower, crewed, and far weaker?

Sure, you could probably program the warheads to fire on a curving arc that would bring them around and up at the other capital ship's flanks or the side facing away from your vessel, but then they have a hugely-long flight time to be targeted by light turbolasers...or the other capital ship's fighter complement.

Still far faster than snub fighters considering the million G turning capacity shown for your run of mil torpedo in the DS run. It is not a arc, but a snap turn.

Most planets don't have planetary shields and massive orbital defenses.

And they don't need it. Considering that half a dozen fighters can't take out a lone freighter, even a cheap orbital defense that would be lunch for a outdated dread would suffice for the role.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

There is little reason for warships to carry them because dedicated carrier ships would be far superior in this role. A major warship should not lug a hanger around where every they go. The space dedicated to to fighters for many warships is significant. That is like designing a Essex Class to have 16 inch turrets. What we are seeing is a bad case of mutiple personality disorder.

The galaxy is big, and that means that battleships patrolling around aren't always going to have a carrier following them around. So when a raiding Rebel B-Wing squadron shows up, the Imperial ships you envision would be far less capable of stopping them. Sure, they may have anti-fighter laser cannons, but a mobiel defense (fighters) will always get the job done better than a static one (point-defense cannons).

Also, these "carriers" you envision would be susceptable to capship attack! Even if they awere being protected by friendly capships in a major fleet action, you can bet an enemy capship will be able to squeek by and blast the defensless ships to smithereens.

This is why almost all capships in SW have both TLsandhangar bays, it just makes the most sense.

Sources I've seen rate Torpedos at hundred of MT level max and I have not seen calcs contradicting that figure.

From the main website, Mr. Wong writes:

"The energy yield of proton torpedoes depends on the exact model being used, but the largest ones exhibit power in the megaton or gigaton range. The recoil dissipation bracings on Imperial Star Destroyers can withstand "explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range" (ref. Slave Ship), and the Rebel fighters in Iron Fist used their proton torpedoes to blast through the hull armour of an unshielded Executor-class Star Destroyer."

Therefor, said Rebel fighters must have been using GT level torps. Not to mention they could use seismic charges (although never witnessed, they do have yields in the GT range).

Torpedos are faster and magnitudes smaller than a fighter, and capable AI capable of dodging fire does exist in starwars.

But jamming can turn that all powerful AI into a blundering bomb that'll shoot straight ahead and not much else. And then these uber-AI missles will be all too easy to shoot down.

That's why we see fighters delivering their bombs onto targets at very close range throughout the SW saga. Remember the A-Wings that destroyed the Executor's domes with missles? They were dangerously close, I'm not even sure if they survived the blast, but you don't think they'd fly in life-threateningly close for kicks do you? No, instead the jamming was too powerful for them to expect the missles to even traverse the distance of amilewithout getting shot down.

I meant it can't be done fast than capital ship weapons of same size given correct design.

Except in the midst of battle, where a capship who would normally just put all her power into her front shields and take the brunt of the TL assualt; now forced to devote power to shields in all directions through fear of fighter attacks. Then it can be done very effectively. Said ships probably devote more of their shields to the TL attacks, given their higher power, leaving the weaker areas prey to the fighters.

I don't know anything about the whole surge part so I'll skip that.

Why would they want to use fighters that are bigger, slower, crewed, and far weaker?

Because they can actually deliver their ordinance to the target.

Duh.

Still far faster than snub fighters considering the million G turning capacity shown for your run of mil torpedo in the DS run. It is not a arc, but a snap turn.

Thing is, these missles are un-manned so they rely on their computers. And those can be jammed VERY easily when you're using big military ones like on capships. So you need to put a person behind those missle launchers, who can guide the ship even under heavy jamming.

[Kerneth]

Half a dozen fighters can't take on a lone freighter? Prove this. Please.

And don't use the Millenium Falcon, which has been expressely stated numerous times to have shields, weapons, and engines upgraded to the point of being illegal to own on a civilian vessel. The Falcon is a "freighter" that has demonstrated impressive speed and manueverability both, and is vastly better-armed than most civilian vessels its size, with multiple concussion missile tubes in ROTJ and a pair of light turbolaser turrents in the EU, and possibly earlier!

Additionally, torpedos lack electronic countermeasures and shields capable of blunting or dissipating hits from anti-starfighter weaponry. And while anti-fighter warheads demonstrate incredible manueverability, the theoretical shipkiller warheads have not. The proton torpedos used against the Death Star in ANH could very easily have been the anti-fighter variant, for the simple reason that the target was unarmored and unshielded--even a shipkiller warhead detonating in the trench wouldn't destroy the reactor, while a fighter-killer missile could manuever to enter the vent and still possess enough power to destroy a reactor.

I once again point out that Wedge Antilles in ROTJ states with some surprise that his torpedos won't dent the reactor. That could be due to the reactor's size but it could just as easily indicate heavy armoring as a precaution after the DS1 disaster.

[Master of Ossus]

Thread locked. We've seen this argument NUMEROUS times in the past. There are still a large number of correct objections to it.