StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What's the role of Star Wars fighter class craft? With their incredibly weak weaponary compaired to a cap ships, one would think that using them in battle would be next to worthless in accual practice. Someone care to explain what all they are used for?

Cap-ships can't go down trenches and access tunnels, most can't go into atmosphere. And fighters are used to fight other "worthless" fighters.

It's been discussed several times but...

Maintain blockades.
Intercept fighters/bombers.
Ground support.
Planetary defence/patrol.
Cooperate with custom ships.
Recon duties.

That's all I can think for the moment.

In addition to the duties Boba mentioned, fighters can perform precision strikes against specific components of capital ships (comms gear, weapons emplacements, hangar apertures, etc.), once the shields are lowered by a capital broadside.

Fighters could also deal heavy damage to lightly or non-shielded ships, such as most civilian or commercial vessels, like freighters.

Fighters also allow you to threaten enemy ships from all sides. A ship's shielding is divided into sections, each covering a different area of the ship (dorsal, ventral, etc.). Swarms of fighters armed with gigaton-level torpedoes can damage capital ships. With their superior speed and maneuverability, they can strike from almost any angle, forcing an enemy ship to split power between all shield sections rather than concentrating most or all of its power to the section(s) facing your own capital ships.

Robert Treder wrote:In addition to the duties Boba mentioned, fighters can perform precision strikes against specific components of capital ships (comms gear, weapons emplacements, hangar apertures, etc.), once the shields are lowered by a capital broadside.

A torpedo barrage can also go a long way to overloading the shields of a capital ship. The fighters can't realistically take advantage of that since the shields can be restored before their next run, but a friendly capship broadside can.

We also don't really know all that much about Imperial shield technology. It's possible that deflecting fire from capitalship weapons creates small openings in a ship's shields that fighters could exploit. Thus, during a major capitalship engagement, fighters would be constantly aiming for soft targets of opportunity (like weapons, sensors, etc.) hoping to do damage if heavy weapon fire causes a shield burp.

Reconaissance

Precision airstrikes against ground targets or strikes where orbital bombardment is impractical

Starfighter Superiority, because if the other guy brings out fighters you need to be able to counter those regardless.

Destroying smaller transports and shuttles or escorting said craft

Maintain blockades.

Ok, that works, just so long as the planet you are blockadeing doesn't have any transports with cap ship/near cap ship grade shields.

Intercept fighters/bombers.

This works to, but only if said bombers can accually do more than irritate a cap ship. Given the disparity in firepower, I just can't see it myself. The numbers required to pose a threat would make this diecy. Better to to use light starships with better sheilds and weapons IMHO.

[qupte]Ground support. [/quote]

Provided the target isn't protected by a theatre shield, this is dooable. But given that most theats would likely have such a defense, this one is slightly suspect in my mind.

Planetary defence/patrol.

Defence only if weapons are capable of hurting cap ships. Patrol I can see, as you get many platforms cheap.

Cooperate with custom ships.

This I can see as your average smuggler wouldn't have military grade shields. Doesn't explain why they are used by military starships though.

Recon duties.

Makes sense, as you get many platforms cheaply. Allows you to cover a wide area with relatively little resource investment.

A torpedo barrage can also go a long way to overloading the shields of a capital ship. The fighters can't realistically take advantage of that since the shields can be restored before their next run, but a friendly capship broadside can.

Ok, but by my line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to place more launchers on a more survivable platform? Once heavy weaponry starts getting thrown around, something as perishable as a fighter isn't the safest place to be. A more well defended hull, with larger weapons capacity, would make more sense given the weapons disparity between fighters and military cap ships IMHO.

Fighters also allow you to threaten enemy ships from all sides. A ship's shielding is divided into sections, each covering a different area of the ship (dorsal, ventral, etc.). Swarms of fighters armed with gigaton-level torpedoes can damage capital ships. With their superior speed and maneuverability, they can strike from almost any angle, forcing an enemy ship to split power between all shield sections rather than concentrating most or all of its power to the section(s) facing your own capital ships.

Again, a light starship would be better for this in my mind. Heavier firepower would pose a greater threat to the defending ship, causing even more energy to be spent on the shields not facing the enemy cap ships. It all comes back to my idea that something as fragile as a fighter isn't a good use of resources for the firepower they can deliver. Lighter starships can do the same job as a strike fighter/bomber better due to greater survivability and weapons loadout.

When you need hundreds of GT level torps to equal a single TL, I just can't see why they don't use things the size of Slave 1 or even the Millenium Falcon instead of the small, one or two man fighrters that are considerably more commonplace. Their larger hulls are just as manuverable as a fighter or very nearly so, and they are considerably more well protected and house heavier/more weaponry.

In addition to the duties Boba mentioned, fighters can perform precision strikes against specific components of capital ships (comms gear, weapons emplacements, hangar apertures, etc.), once the shields are lowered by a capital broadside.

Couldn't the capital ship do this as well once it's targets shields are lowered? Or if not able to get a bead on the exposed target herself, why not the cap ships escorts?

Fighters could also deal heavy damage to lightly or non-shielded ships, such as most civilian or commercial vessels, like freighters.

So could a cap ships LTL's, or scale back the energies of a HTL if you don't have any LTL turrets aboard. I can see fighters use as system patrolers and as help to customs ships given the level of opposition they would face, but an accual military ship is different, and I just can't see the difference being equalized enough given the facts.

Cap-ships can't go down trenches and access tunnels, most can't go into atmosphere. And fighters are used to fight other "worthless" fighters.

How often are trenches and access tunnels required to be used as points of interest in a regular Star Wars fleet engagement?

I just can't get my head around how building fighers is an effecitve use of resources given how fragile and weakly weaponed they are vs Starships. In a universe where ISDs have TT level shields, I just can't make myself consider their weapons a credible threat unless used in obscenely high numbers. I just keep thinking that the resources used to make enough fighers to be a threat to a cap ship would have been better used making another cap ship. (shrug)

Is there something stopping the Wars galaxy from upgunning their fighters? Like say putting a TL on a fighter sized chassis?

Reconaissance

Precision airstrikes against ground targets or strikes where orbital bombardment is impractical

Starfighter Superiority, because if the other guy brings out fighters you need to be able to counter those regardless.

Destroying smaller transports and shuttles or escorting said craft

As for resources...it the same as most militaries...striking capabilites and fighters in groups are cheaper then hiant starcrusiers.

-The fighters can do things a capship can do but at less expense(yes...a capship makes a blockade better...but every single planet in a galaxy wide empire?)

-Plus they are there for support and precision strikes.

Literally saying because they have less power is useless(unless they can tear apart a capship) is saying why don't we commit war with Nukes instead of soliders with guns...going overkill is a pointless tactic.

Trench Run Defence. Apparently a very effective form of attack against a Cap-Ship but only with Capital Ship support. Fighters on their own can batter at the other side of the ship the supporting cap ship is attacking, The fighters prevent the cap ship from diverting the shields power to the side the supporting cap ship is attacking.

HappyTarget wrote:This works to, but only if said bombers can accually do more than irritate a cap ship. Given the disparity in firepower, I just can't see it myself. The numbers required to pose a threat would make this diecy. Better to to use light starships with better sheilds and weapons IMHO.

Bombers can take out/seriously damage lighter starships. A Corellian Corvette can be taken out by a couple bombers, for example (ref: Rogue Squadron). A squadron's worth of fighters can take down the shields of a VSD for a short time, though the shields can be restored before those same fighters can launch a second attack (ref: The Bacta War).

Ok, but by my line of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to place more launchers on a more survivable platform? Once heavy weaponry starts getting thrown around, something as perishable as a fighter isn't the safest place to be. A more well defended hull, with larger weapons capacity, would make more sense given the weapons disparity between fighters and military cap ships IMHO.

A bigger ship is just a slower, bigger target. Capships have much more trouble hitting fighters. And bombers carry enough firepower to take out more expensive light ships.

I mean, a squadron of fighters equipped with torpedoes can do far more damage than a Corellian Corvette could do, and would be harder to take out because it is 12 separate, hard to hit targets as opposed to one, easy to hit target.

Besides, capship torpedo launchers are next to useless when the enemy can shoot down the torps from standard combat range. Fighters can get in closer before having to worry about being hit and launch the torpedoes at short range.

Torpedo barrages have a way of draining shields a quickly as a full broadside. It could be due to the blasts occuring over a very short timeframe (compared to turbolasers), thus giving it an insane wattage value that can overload the shields before they can react properly. Once the shields are down, a capship can fire a broadside and hit the hull to do massive damage and perhaps prevent the shields from coming back up.

If the fighters can't get an early barrage off, (due to the opponent sending its fighters to intercept), then they can wait until the capship starts overload the shields, and then the fighters can try to make precision strikes against weakened areas (sensors, shield projectors, weapons, etc).

Fighters have the role of complimenting their carrier's firepower. A squadron can't take out a VSD or larger on its on, but that squadron can be very important in assisting against those kinds of capital ships.

Bombers can take out/seriously damage lighter starships. A Corellian Corvette can be taken out by a couple bombers, for example (ref: Rogue Squadron). A squadron's worth of fighters can take down the shields of a VSD for a short time, though the shields can be restored before those same fighters can launch a second attack (ref: The Bacta War).

But a Corellian Corvette isn't a capital ship. It's a light starship. Which I have agreed fighters are useful for taking out due to the considerably less difference in their firepower vs. their targets shields.

Torpedo barrages have a way of draining shields a quickly as a full broadside. It could be due to the blasts occuring over a very short timeframe (compared to turbolasers), thus giving it an insane wattage value that can overload the shields before they can react properly. Once the shields are down, a capship can fire a broadside and hit the hull to do massive damage and perhaps prevent the shields from coming back up.

Ok, so shields can be disrupted by an intense blast of GT level firepower. Why don't capital ships just time their TL volley and aim for the same point? Should have the same effect with their greater firepower.

If the fighters can't get an early barrage off, (due to the opponent sending its fighters to intercept), then they can wait until the capship starts overload the shields, and then the fighters can try to make precision strikes against weakened areas (sensors, shield projectors, weapons, etc).

Granted, but again, why can't a cap ships LTLs do the same thing?

Trench Run Defence. Apparently a very effective form of attack against a Cap-Ship but only with Capital Ship support. Fighters on their own can batter at the other side of the ship the supporting cap ship is attacking, The fighters prevent the cap ship from diverting the shields power to the side the supporting cap ship is attacking.

Again, given the weapons discrepency, they should be an irritant, not a threat, hence the energy diverted to the fighter strike side should be minimal.

As for resources...it the same as most militaries...striking capabilites and fighters in groups are cheaper then hiant starcrusiers.

Yes, but only if said fighters can strike effectively at their opponents giant starcruisers. And ISD should have no worries ignoreing them when it's involved in a pounding match.

The fighters can do things a capship can do but at less expense(yes...a capship makes a blockade better...but every single planet in a galaxy wide empire?)

Again, I have said that for things like pirate defense and customs inspection support, fighters have their place. But I don't see them being effective against Military cap ships VSD sized and up.

Literally saying because they have less power is useless(unless they can tear apart a capship) is saying why don't we commit war with Nukes instead of soliders with guns...going overkill is a pointless tactic.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we commit war with soldiers with guns against something that can only be harmed by a Nuke its suicide and pointless. Just use nukes instead.

Precision airstrikes against ground targets or strikes where orbital bombardment is impractical

Only if there are no shields present. (TESB)

Destroying smaller transports and shuttles or escorting said craft

Agreed, but sending them against something like an ISD seems to make very little sense to me. Yet this is done quite a bit.

Starfighter Superiority, because if the other guy brings out fighters you need to be able to counter those regardless.

Only if they are a threat to a cap ship. Since bombers used in mass apparently are due to their ability to concentrate a wattage burp on heavy shields with their GT range torps, why not use something the size of Slave 1 or the MF and load up its forward arc with box launchers? Seems a better design to achieve the effect of wattage spike via concentrated volley fire than the standard bomber platforms used by the Wars galaxy. Both platforms are larger than the standard fighter and could mount more weapons. Yet both are as survivable as a fighter and as manuverable.

Besides, capship torpedo launchers are next to useless when the enemy can shoot down the torps from standard combat range. Fighters can get in closer before having to worry about being hit and launch the torpedoes at short range.

Why can't a torpedo be designed with the manuverablity of a fighter then? Have it employ the same evaision routines as a fighter strike would normally do and it should get to attack range as easily as they do right? Or am I missing something?

I mean, a squadron of fighters equipped with torpedoes can do far more damage than a Corellian Corvette could do, and would be harder to take out because it is 12 separate, hard to hit targets as opposed to one, easy to hit target.

How about a smaller Corvette sized starship that has HTLs as its main armament? This is the design I'm thinking of for use rather than fighters in cap ship engagements. What's keeping TLS from being stuck on a manuverable and relatively small platform? Or the creation of a torpedo gunboat only slightly larger than a standard fighter and as manuverable?

A bigger ship is just a slower, bigger target.

A much bigger ship yes, but the MF and Slave 1 are bigger targets, but they handle the same or better than smaller fighters and can carry more payload. Why aren't ships built along those lines than the way they are currently? They would seem to be more cost effective for a Cap ship engagement than swarms of very fragile bombers and fighters as far more would survive and fewer would be needed due to increased firepower.

See return of the Jedi. Using torps, fighters can be a serious threat to frigates, and can wound other ships.

That is why they are used.

Ok, so shields can be disrupted by an intense blast of GT level firepower. Why don't capital ships just time their TL volley and aim for the same point? Should have the same effect with their greater firepower.

Whoever claimed they where GT weapons, plus their not really DET weapons.
A cruicial misstake is indeed in just assuming proton torps are just conventional weapons

HappyTarget wrote:But a Corellian Corvette isn't a capital ship. It's a light starship. Which I have agreed fighters are useful for taking out due to the considerably less difference in their firepower vs. their targets shields.

A capital ship is usually considered something that is 300 meters in length I believe. Doesn't matter though, Corellian Corvettes can damage cap ships with their MTLs, hence that are a suitable target for torpedo barrages.

Ok, so shields can be disrupted by an intense blast of GT level firepower. Why don't capital ships just time their TL volley and aim for the same point? Should have the same effect with their greater firepower.

That happens, which are devastating broadsides that cna disable/destroy ships. But, what if the guns on the attacking capship have been destroyed due to extended combat. It would take some time to go out and repair them mid-battle, meanwhile inside the saftey of the shisp hangars, a steady supply of torpedoes is fed to a steady supply of fighters. Because of battle damage capships take during battle (as a result of them not beign able to avoid fire, like fighters), fighters can often be the backbone fo an assualt.

Granted, but again, why can't a cap ships LTLs do the same thing?

LTLs are more likely to be busy with enemy fighter badgaring them first off. Second, what if the TLs have been destroyed (previous scenario)? That aside, torpedoes can be significantly more powerful than LTLs, and you can deliver many, many torpedoes in the time it takes to punch out an LTL shot, which may not be effective at destroying the target.

Again, given the weapons discrepency, they should be an irritant, not a threat, hence the energy diverted to the fighter strike side should be minimal.

Shield overloading again. You shove enough bombs down their throat at the same time, same place, and the shields shut down, thsu the energy diverted to fighter strikes should be just as important.

Yes, but only if said fighters can strike effectively at their opponents giant starcruisers. And ISD should have no worries ignoreing them when it's involved in a pounding match.

Tell that to Rouge Squadron. The combined firepower of them and an ISD took out the Lusankya. It should be noted that an ISD could not have possibly done that alone.

Again, I have said that for things like pirate defense and customs inspection support, fighters have their place. But I don't see them being effective against Military cap ships VSD sized and up.

IIRC the Rouges took out a VSD without any capship support. Anyways, consider this: big bulky cruiser might have difficulty stopping ships from running the blockade (TPM), because of the inaccuracy of its guns. Versus frighter which can pester escaping craft long enough for A.) Their mothership to arrive, or B.) Untilt he target craft is destroyed/disabled.

Only if there are no shields present. (TESB)

Indeed. Surgical fighter strikes were used on Mrlssi.

Agreed, but sending them against something like an ISD seems to make very little sense to me. Yet this is done quite a bit.[/quoe]Don't dodge the point. Fighters are better at destroying smaller transports and shuttles because they can actually hit them.

Only if they are a threat to a cap ship. Since bombers used in mass apparently are due to their ability to concentrate a wattage burp on heavy shields with their GT range torps, why not use something the size of Slave 1 or the MF and load up its forward arc with box launchers? Seems a better design to achieve the effect of wattage spike via concentrated volley fire than the standard bomber platforms used by the Wars galaxy. Both platforms are larger than the standard fighter and could mount more weapons. Yet both are as survivable as a fighter and as manuverable.

The WEG missle boat (that cansupposedlydestroy an ISD, whic is bullshit) uses this design. Problem is, loading all your bombs onto one ship, and having that ship destroyed, doesn't leave a lot of bombs left for the others. its much easier to lose valuable torpedoes. Deploying them from multiple platforms that carry less missles ensures that less torpedoes will be needlessly destroyed when the bomber goes up.

Why can't a torpedo be designed with the manuverablity of a fighter then? Have it employ the same evaision routines as a fighter strike would normally do and it should get to attack range as easily as they do right? Or am I missing something?

Capship missles, to the best of my knowledge, have never shown the manuverability of something like Jango's missle from AOTC. Which is why they are easier to shoot down.

How about a smaller Corvette sized starship that has HTLs as its main armament? This is the design I'm thinking of for use rather than fighters in cap ship engagements. What's keeping TLS from being stuck on a manuverable and relatively small platform? Or the creation of a torpedo gunboat only slightly larger than a standard fighter and as manuverable?

Corvettes don't have reactors big enough to wield HTLs (at leat the ISD sort). Torpedo boats exist, but again its a bad idea to put all your bombs in oen place, lest it be destroyed.

A much bigger ship yes, but the MF and Slave 1 are bigger targets, but they handle the same or better than smaller fighters and can carry more payload. Why aren't ships built along those lines than the way they are currently? They would seem to be more cost effective for a Cap ship engagement than swarms of very fragile bombers and fighters as far more would survive and fewer would be needed due to increased firepower.

It would most certainly cost more. The MF and Slave 1 are modified up the wazoo to be as tough as they are. Fighters, although more flagile, are easily more cost effective because they don't use super-advanced sensors/jammers/bombs (like the seimic charge).

In reallity HT, this is all beside the point. Fighters have proven effective at damaging/destroying capships, and thats just the way it is.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Tell that to Rouge Squadron. The combined firepower of them and an ISD took out the Lusankya. It should be noted that an ISD could not have possibly done that alone.

Well, there was more than just the Rogues and the ISD. There was the Alderaanian war cruiser and torpedoes being fired from nearby freighters.

IIRC the Rouges took out a VSD without any capship support.

Again, the Alderaanian war cruiser saved the day. The Rogues were able to take the shields down, but then the VSD rolled to present the fresh shields. The Rogues could've knocked those down, too, but then the VSD would've had the first side restored again. The war cruiser was able to prevent all that from happening.

Despite that, fighters were still important in those battles. Had the war cruiser went toe-to-toe with the VSD without fighters, it would've suffered a lot of damage. Not sure which would win, though.

ok According to the Rotj novel Before the battle of endor Cap ships used fighters against other Cap ships.

And using light starships would cost more than fighters.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:[Tell that to Rouge Squadron. The combined firepower of them and an ISD took out the Lusankya. It should be noted that an ISD could not have possibly done that alone.

Bullshit.

The Lusankya, which is not even a true warship, was ambushed after emurging from hyperspace by over eighty proton torpedoes that were intended for heavy fixed-point defensive mountings aboard a space station.

That only temporarily collapsed the bow shield.

Further salvos and the intervention of an ISD at close range (which favors the ISD's gun placement) and an Alderaanian War Cruiser reduced its combat capability by less than 30%.

It was only after New Republic reinforcements arrived along with another ISD, and their leader, Isard, had fled them, that the Lusankya was persuaded to surrender.

Furthermore, the captain was incompetant and much of the crew might have been the inferior Thyferran Home Defense Corps that Isard had used to stand in for real Imperial troops earlier in the novel anyway.

Also, the Lusankya is modified to support a repulsor and engine system capable of lifting, and tearing through kilometers thick of bedrock and Coruscant cityscape to flee from its prison. It was also altered to serve a prison and programming facility for Isard, as well as being a stash for Palpatine's personal treasures and prepped to be his personal escape ship.

The Lusankya is not a standard Executor-class, and primarily not even a warship.

Mad wrote:Again, the Alderaanian war cruiser saved the day. The Rogues were able to take the shields down, but then the VSD rolled to present the fresh shields. The Rogues could've knocked those down, too, but then the VSD would've had the first side restored again. The war cruiser was able to prevent all that from happening.

Despite that, fighters were still important in those battles. Had the war cruiser went toe-to-toe with the VSD without fighters, it would've suffered a lot of damage. Not sure which would win, though.

One also wonders if flying through the Alderaanian graveyard costed the VSD some of its shield strength in debris impacts.

Starfighters have several primary roles in SW:

1. Intercepting mid-sized starships, such as freighters, inspecting them, and calling in reinforcements when necessary.

2. Striking at lightly defended areas more quickly and easily than capital ships can.

3. Recon duties, inspection duties, and relaying coordinates for capital ships' weapons fire.

4. Finishing off crippled capital ships with torpedoes.

5. Posing a danger for picket ships, and harassing larger capital ships.

Fighters provide screening against bombers, which can mass the firepower to damage capital ships. They also allow for missile strikes against point targets like gun turrets on capital ships, which have lost their shields. Missiles launched from the capital ships are far more likely to be shot down

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Furthermore, the captain was incompetant and much of the crew might have been the inferior Thyferran Home Defense Corps that Isard had used to stand in for real Imperial troops earlier in the novel anyway.

Wrong about the crew. It's stated in the beginning of the book that the Lusy had a full crew from the beginning.

Also, the Lusankya is modified to support a repulsor and engine system capable of lifting, and tearing through kilometers thick of bedrock and Coruscant cityscape to flee from its prison.

How does this affect its combat capacity? The repulsor bed fell away as the Lusy exited Coruscant's atmosphere, and there were even holes in it so that guns could fire through. The ship itself was never drastically affected by this.

It was also altered to serve a prison and programming facility for Isard,

Only a small chunk of it. Remember, there were only ~300 prisoners, and they were all kept on ONE DECK (stated in Bacta War).

as well as being a stash for Palpatine's personal treasures and prepped to be his personal escape ship.

How does this affect its combat capabilities? Remember, this is the EMPEROR'S escape ship. He merits a bit more than an escape pod.

The Lusankya is not a standard Executor-class, and primarily not even a warship.

Remember, the Lusankya is stated at various times to be the Executor's twin. Everything the Executor had, the Lusy had. The fact that it was taken out of its rightful place as a warship tells us nothing about its combat abilities.

Why use fighters?

1: All the reasons stated before.

2: They just look cool.

3: Without them, people would not have gone to watch the films.

4: If in the right place, a squadron of X wings could shoot down an entire barrage of enemy missiles (X-wing series)

5: They look too cool.

6: Maneuvering past a defense system (eg a Golan III station in I, Jedi/The Last Command) where capships would be seriously damaged.

7: They are too cool not to be in the films OR EU.

8: Hit and runs: they can strike a facility and get out before reinforcements arrive.

Did i mention they look cool?

Man I can't believe that you're not able to realize that usually taking on a capital ship requires combined forces.

All your answers supports the idea that you think fighters are worthless against capital ships.
Yes, if they going in alone but if they're backed up with some medium or several light vessel...than it's a totally different story.

Don't base your judgement on desperate cases, like when a star destroyer arrives in a system and the defending force's only a squad of Y-wing.
It'll be a heroic but surely short battle.

But that's NOT how fighter's are supposed to used...

Military grade shields are very expensive, so you don't have to worry about to see them on every crappy, old, flying garbage can.

Oh and how do you supposed to catch incoming fighters with battleships if they're coming from the other side of your planet. They simply dive into the atmosphere and then bye-bye...
Although some smaller vessels are capable to go into the atmosphere but they're really small and the attacking forces would wipe them out or you have to deploy them in bigger quantities.

That brings up the question which is more cost efficient?

Build several anti-starfighter starship to every planet that worth something for you, or build hundred fighters and one medium sized ship?

Of course the second. It costs less. Takes fewer crew personell. Maintenance cost is lower.

Oooh...almost forgot the most important thing.

While a fighter can outmanouver mos fixed base artillery, even a half-blind, unskilled worker from the power-station would be able to get a direct hit on a bigger warship.
Bigger size means bigger target profile and that means a capital ship must be dealt at least with a ship of her size and weapon strength or many smaller, faster but heavily armed starships with fighter escort.