Tie Fighters- Unfairly maligned?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-07-11 03:02am

"A later addition to the TIE starfighter arsenal, the TIE interceptor sports a jagged pair of dagger-like wings, giving it an ultrasleek profile that hints at the blinding speed the fighter possesses. Like the standard TIE, the interceptor has a ball-shaped single-pilot cockpit suspended between a pair of bracing arms. The arms terminate in solar gather panels that power the craft. Unlike the TIE fighter, the interceptor has four powerful laser cannons mounted on the tips of the dagger wings. TIE interceptors figured prominently in the Battle of Endor."

From the most canon source other than the movies and the novels I could think of, starwars.com. The thing I don't understand is what difference the shape of the wings on any TIE variant is on the view the pilot has. The pilot is seated rather far away from the front window of the cockpit, thus limiting his view to just what he can see directly in front of him. I don't think he would even see the wings on any TIE variant at all. They aren't bent inwards in front of the cockpit at all. They are parallel to the cockpit. I could be wrong, though. But from what I see, the pilots have a pretty big flight console in front of them and they are seated in the back of the cockpit.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » 2002-07-11 03:31am

There's a big slit in the TIE Intercepter's wings, theoretically allowing the pilot to see things that are a little bit more off-center.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-07-11 03:48am

I realize that, but from what I see, the pilot can't even SEE the wings because he is too far back and only sees what is directly in front of him out the window. [/i]

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-11 12:26pm

Plus he's got on that helmet. Perhaps the helmet has screens inside it that show side and rear views.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-07-11 05:18pm

The TIE Fighter is fast and manoeuvreable, true. However the first-generaton 'eyeballs' seem to be biased towards ease of production. Later designs like the Interceptor, the Defender and the Advanced all seem to be more rational designs which, if introduced in numbers, would have slaughtered the rebel fighter wings.

However, given shields which CAN take two or three hits before failing (according to my viewing of ANH) and missiles which, even if they can't hit a target are an excellent diversion, a skilled pilot can manufacture an advantage. And Wedge Antilles is a very, very good pilot. Good enough to get away from the DS1 and at least a dozen TIE Fighters in a crippled X-Wing.

P.S. Remember that the TIE Fighter has two lasers. The TIE Interceptor has between four and ten depending on the sub-model (assuming that the four-gun version in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter is a real production model). This was probably in response to the difficulty that the 'Eyeballs' were having against shielded Rebel starfighters.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-11 05:32pm

The TIE Interceptor has between four and ten depending on the sub-model

Sorry, it has four only, no sub-models ever made according to every manual and book out.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-07-11 05:38pm

David wrote:
The TIE Interceptor has between four and ten depending on the sub-model

Sorry, it has four only, no sub-models ever made according to every manual and book out.

Contradicted by books, and examination of the visuals in ROTJ.

HINT: Thrawn equipped his Interceptors with shields. HINT.

/me needs a [Hint] tag. To make it big and brilliant and neon. And flashing.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-11 06:07pm

Allow me to clarify~ no sub-models ever made with ten cannons on them.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-07-11 06:16pm

David wrote:Allow me to clarify~ no sub-models ever made with ten cannons on them.

Wrong. Look at the ICS pictures. You see an Interceptor with four lasers in the mid-pannel 'cut-outs' four more at the tips of the 'dagger points' and two on the traditional stations underneath the viewport.

This is over-kill I agree. I, personally think that a 6-gun model is the most likely standard production model. The dagger-point guns always strike me as having been welded on at the last minute.

Still, at least that explains how one A-Wing was killed head-on during the first pass in RotJ. Ten hits from lw-1 lasers is enough to ruin anyone's day, even in a shielded fighter.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-11 06:30pm

I suggest you read the text instead of looking at the picture. There are only four.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-07-11 06:46pm

True, but the key to the picture identifies ten guns. It shocked me too, when I first saw it as I had always assumed that the Interceptor only had four guns. Then, I realised that the lw-1s are so small, there is no real barrier to putting large numbers onto one hull. Contrast that with the cumbersome units on the X-Wing and Y-Wing! Wow!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-11 07:39pm

Those four on the Wings,
THEY ARE LIGHTS
I just watched ROTJ sure I see what looks like holes but when Tie/In are flying around shooting I did not see any 10 shots I saw four, from the slites in the wings not from the front

Unless HDS has some video to contradict me

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-07-11 07:51pm

Heh, here I was going to say that the TIE Interceptor having 10 laser cannons was insane. To prevent making an ass out of myself, I decided to check Saxton's TIE section. That's when I saw this:

The interceptor has numerous hard points for laser cannons. The most basic model has four cannons, which can be quad-linked, on the front tips of the wings. The sub-class of interceptors deployed at Endor bore a pair of identical cannons in the usual place below the forward window, and two more pairs on the hub of each wing near the targeting sensors. This gives a blistering firepower with a total of ten laser cannons. Of course, it is possible that some of the extra weapons are ion cannons or other types of armament, but their visible structural details are identical to the conventional laser cannons.

It is unknown whether there are any practical disadvantages counterbalancing the benefits of the weapons upgrade. Perhaps the heavily armed interceptors have marginally greater energy consumption, and therefore need to return to base for refueling slightly sooner than the basic model. Perhaps they simply are more expensive to construct and more difficult to maintain.

(Refering to two images next to text) A regular TIE interceptor like the ones deployed at the Battle of Endor, with ten laser cannons [highlighted on the first image]. The common notion that TIE interceptors have only four cannons is due to the omission of small parts for the guns on the cockpit chin and poor detail on the wing hubs on the model kit made in 1983. Since the computer games have subsequently used the 4-cannon model, the most generous possible explanation is that the games reflect a low-firepower, cheaper, older interceptor variant. The ten guns on the interceptors used at Endor are all shaped exactly the same as each other; there can be no mistaking their identification.

I'll be damned. Ten laser cannons on the TIE Interceptors at Endor does seem pretty reasonable after all.

While I'm here, I'd like to point out a minor pet peeve of mine in SW (vs. ST) technical discussions, and that's heavy reliance on the SW games for data, stats, or observations. Face it, from a technical standpoint, the games suck. I don't know why so many people use them as a reference.

Bean: Why lights? They sure as hell don't look like lights, and nor are they used as such in the film (at least not that I know of). Keep in mind that Saxton identifies them ALL as looking like laser cannons.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-12 12:25am

Mr Bean wrote:Those four on the Wings,
THEY ARE LIGHTS
I just watched ROTJ sure I see what looks like holes but when Tie/In are flying around shooting I did not see any 10 shots I saw four, from the slites in the wings not from the front

Unless HDS has some video to contradict me

Thank you.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-07-12 04:51am

Mr Bean wrote:Those four on the Wings,
THEY ARE LIGHTS
I just watched ROTJ sure I see what looks like holes but when Tie/In are flying around shooting I did not see any 10 shots I saw four, from the slites in the wings not from the front

Unless HDS has some video to contradict me

I should clarify here. The holes in the very forward tips of the Squints' daggerpoints are not laser emitters. They are most probably landing lights or even parts of the targetting sensor kit (as I've never seen them illuminated). The lasers are larger box-like affairs on the inside of the solar arrays just above and below the support pylons/stabilisers. However, the TIE-Interceptor v.1.1 that Spanky the Dolphin (love that screen-name

) described clearly does have ten lasers.

Basically, it comes down to that most horrible of debating tactics: Absence of proof equalling proven false. Because no one here has seen a 10-gun firing, means that there is no 10-gun. That falls into the same absurd line as 'I can't see God, therefore there is no God' (something that would make most philosophers and theologians tear their hair out. You can't see gamma radiation, after all, but I wouldn't step into an active fission reactor core because of that

).

Having never watched a Squint in battle in slow-mo, I can't say whether I have ever seen a 10-gun in battle. We'll just have to wait and see if anyone comes up with a video clip.

Ah well, sub-topic exhausted. Coffee, anyone?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-12 09:18am

Ten guns does seem a bit overkill, but the TIE Fighters are pretty impressive. I believe that 6 of them (Below the wings, below the pit) might be capable of being replaced with enchanced power cells, long range sensors, torpedo launchers, ion cannons, or shield generators. the cannons below the wingtips could be removed for increased maneuverability and speed, or to help prevent the other cannons from overheating.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-12 09:33am

a Tie Interceptor with ten guns would be crippling slow. it advantage is its speed and manueverablity. why would one deploy a fighter that gives up that advantage? in any starfighter, the power comes from the engines somehow. if you add a large amount of energy weapons it will drain power that could be used for speed. laser ar NOT like a machine gun, you can't just strap it on, it need energy. and where are you going to put all of those power generators in that cramped hull! the fact the an Interceptor can operate 4 laser cannons and still be fast in a hull that is not much larger than a standard Tie is increadible.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-12 02:25pm

Good point, the TIE Interceptor is hardly larger than a "eyeball" where would the extra power come from.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-12 02:49pm

And don't you dare say Magic least I strike you down

And steal your wallet
Why?
Its just good ecnomics

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-12 03:12pm

Are you threatening to spank the monkey? No wait, you must be talking about the other guy.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-07-12 05:12pm

Ten cannons is overkill. We saw how easily Lord Vader's shots punched through the shields in ANH, and that was only two. During the escape from the DS, the Falcon also suffered damage, meaning the shields were compromised. Four is more than enough to take down an X-wing, which is what TIE/I's were designed for.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-07-13 10:54am

put aside the eu game stuff for a moment. the f-4 at one time only fired missiles and its guns were removed as well as the hard points for the guns, why would the tie int keep the mounts if they were not going to be used?

The F-4 was designed without a gun because some military "genius" thought that missiles made it obsoliete. A fighter pilot officer decided to strap on a gun to prove to the Pentagon that missiles aren't perfect weapons and that the gun is not obsoliete. All later models included a gun as standard equiptment at a great exspence to the US government

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-07-13 02:46pm

David wrote:Good point, the TIE Interceptor is hardly larger than a "eyeball" where would the extra power come from.

One difference between ST and SW technology is that technology in the Star Wars universe does not always rely on a single central power source. Individual systems (weapons, shields, life-support) can and are shown in canon sources to have independent power generation systems.

The 10-gun TIE-Interceptor would have extra gun power generators seperate from the propulsion and manoeuvring systems. Given the size of the power unit on the E-Web, It wouldn't be that hard to do.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-13 02:59pm

The only power source shown is directly underneath the cockpit. Any more power sources would need more room and would be seen, and you can't find any in any of the sourcebooks, manuals, or movies. Alternate power sources are clearly shown in the DS and SDs, but not in any TIEs.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-13 03:17pm

If there was 10 cannons, they'd all probably be about 1 TJ/shot max, and trhe 4-cannon would have kiloton-shot cannons. Ten cannons could give a wide range of fire, but four would be more powerful.