StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I haven't been able to find anything concrete about the weight/masses of Starfighters and other land vehicles in the star wars universe. No official (Legends or otherwise) source I've seen gives any specifics for any example I've looked up yet. Has there been anything that maybe has an approximate example of how much an X-wing, AT-TE, Delta-7, TIE Bomber, or such weighs?

Since when are starfighters land vehicles?

The AT-AT weighs seven thousand tons, one might reasonably scale downward from there (AT-TEs, for instance, have an AT-AT sized body on much, much less massive leg assemblies)...

Take canon sizes (the ICS books are pretty useful for this) and compare to existing vehicles with roughly similar dimensions. That can give you a very approximate baseline. Say the A-wing fighter is approximately the size of a F-16; there you go. (I think it's actually a bit smaller, which is kinda impressive in its own way given that it's capable of hyperdrive and some ridiculous speeds...)

Elheru Aran wrote:Take canon sizes (the ICS books are pretty useful for this) and compare to existing vehicles with roughly similar dimensions. That can give you a very approximate baseline. Say the A-wing fighter is approximately the size of a F-16; there you go. (I think it's actually a bit smaller, which is kinda impressive in its own way given that it's capable of hyperdrive and some ridiculous speeds...)

But we have no idea of knowing the density of SW fuel sources. This will be the primary source of weight for something like an A-wing. Though I suppose that is a reasonable starting point, similar to that of using steel rather than whatever material they use in the SW galaxy.

Even an X-wing isn't much larger than an F-16. It is quite impressive considering that the X-wing has four engines and a hyperdrive*.

Another odd thing with the A-wing is that it was always stated to have shields in the old EU. Which frankly makes little sense considering that they seem to die rather easily in ROTJ. And despite supposedly having shields, they still die in droves in the X-wing novels as well. They are almost the Rebel Alliance version of TIE fighters, effective but easily killed. In Iron Fist, there was a case in which A-wings were even used to simulate TIE fighters due to a rather complicated scheme.

* It is interesting that in ESB, we never see Luke's X-wing enter hyperspace despite the fact that he must travel an interstellar distance from Hoth to Dagobah to Bespin. Though we clearly see them enter hyperspace in ROTJ with the rest of the fleet regardless.

Another random observation is that it is interesting that the entirety of the Rebel fighter force is capable of FTL. Which makes some sense from a strategy standpoint, but from a cost standpoint it is suprising that they lack cheaper non-FTL fighters to back up the primaries. They would at least be useful for defense of Rebel bases and for a desperate battle like Endor in which it was all or nothing.

Makes sense for all their fighters to have hyperdrives. Even if they're defending a base somewhere as you said, the Rebels most are most likely going to lose in a standup fighting against Imperial forces so they'd need the ability to cut and run with the rest of the larger ships (transports evacuating and so on). Having FTL in that case also makes sense as you'd want to leave as little equipment behind as possible as fighter's and other vehicles just don't grow on trees.

Sgt_Artyom wrote:Makes sense for all their fighters to have hyperdrives. Even if they're defending a base somewhere as you said, the Rebels most are most likely going to lose in a standup fighting against Imperial forces so they'd need the ability to cut and run with the rest of the larger ships (transports evacuating and so on). Having FTL in that case also makes sense as you'd want to leave as little equipment behind as possible as fighter's and other vehicles just don't grow on trees.

I guess it depends on the price of a hyperdrive. If that cost makes up a large fraction of the cost of a fighter, then it would make sense to have semi-expendable fighters without them(as done by the Empire and both sides in the Clone Wars). This is after all what the Rebels did at Hoth with Snowspeeders, even wasting two pilots for every ship shot down.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Another random observation is that it is interesting that the entirety of the Rebel fighter force is capable of FTL. Which makes some sense from a strategy standpoint, but from a cost standpoint it is suprising that they lack cheaper non-FTL fighters to back up the primaries. They would at least be useful for defense of Rebel bases and for a desperate battle like Endor in which it was all or nothing.

Like, oh, these?

I think the distinction needs to be made that all Rebel starfighters are FTL-capable, the snowspeeders (and the V-wings in the old EU) are strictly atmospheric craft and hence not "starfighters."

I think the distinction needs to be made that all Rebel starfighters are FTL-capable

Might that be true by definition? That a STAR fighter is capable of interstellar travel, as opposed to a sub-light limited SPACE fighter? "Starship" means something different from "spaceship", after all.

Zeropoint wrote:

I think the distinction needs to be made that all Rebel starfighters are FTL-capable

Might that be true by definition? That a STAR fighter is capable of interstellar travel, as opposed to a sub-light limited SPACE fighter? "Starship" means something different from "spaceship", after all.

the thing is that I've never heard TIEs being called spacefighters and they are apart from few special cases not FTL capable.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:

Sgt_Artyom wrote:Makes sense for all their fighters to have hyperdrives. Even if they're defending a base somewhere as you said, the Rebels most are most likely going to lose in a standup fighting against Imperial forces so they'd need the ability to cut and run with the rest of the larger ships (transports evacuating and so on). Having FTL in that case also makes sense as you'd want to leave as little equipment behind as possible as fighter's and other vehicles just don't grow on trees.

I guess it depends on the price of a hyperdrive. If that cost makes up a large fraction of the cost of a fighter, then it would make sense to have semi-expendable fighters without them(as done by the Empire and both sides in the Clone Wars). This is after all what the Rebels did at Hoth with Snowspeeders, even wasting two pilots for every ship shot down.

Well, it depends. Individual costs are a factor, but so is the availability of pilots. While the Rebellion was still small, They likely had maybe a couple hundred skilled starfighter pilots in the entire galaxy. TIE fighters and V-19 Torrents were expendable because their pilots are expendable, too. The Republic grew theirs in batches, while the Empire could just recruit or conscript thousands at a time when needed. To say nothing of the CIS and their droid fighters.

Until the rebellion got into full swing, the Alliance didn't know when they would get another skilled pilot to join their ranks. Therefore, they needed to preserve the pilots they had as best they can. Quantity was not an advantage the rebels had, so they had to make the best use of what they had. The shields, hyperdrive, and more varied weapons are not just about being superior to the TIE fighter, but also for giving the pilots the best chance at coming home alive.

The shields, hyperdrive, and more varied weapons are not just about being superior to the TIE fighter, but also for giving the pilots the best chance at coming home alive.

I don't know whether George had this in mind when he first filmed what we now know as Episode IV, but it's been pretty soundly supported in all the EU material I've seen--TIE Fighters are built with a "We Have Reserves" mentality, while the various Rebel craft are designed for survivability.

Regarding the nominal topic of the thread, it's always bugged me that science fiction space fighters are depicted as being so SMALL. Wookiepedia lists the X-Wing as 12.5 meters and the A-Wing as only 9.6 meters. In contrast, the shortest 4th-generation jet fighter listed on Wikipedia is the Korean FA-50 at 13.14 meters. I've walked around, ducked under, and hit my head on F/A-18 Super Hornets, and they're large and intimidating craft. I know that Lucas was specifically going for a WW2 feel, and the fighters were smaller back then, and also that building 60-foot mockups is expensive, but . . . I'd still like to see fighters sized more "realistically".

SAMAS wrote:Well, it depends. Individual costs are a factor, but so is the availability of pilots. While the Rebellion was still small, They likely had maybe a couple hundred skilled starfighter pilots in the entire galaxy. TIE fighters and V-19 Torrents were expendable because their pilots are expendable, too. The Republic grew theirs in batches, while the Empire could just recruit or conscript thousands at a time when needed. To say nothing of the CIS and their droid fighters.

Until the rebellion got into full swing, the Alliance didn't know when they would get another skilled pilot to join their ranks. Therefore, they needed to preserve the pilots they had as best they can. Quantity was not an advantage the rebels had, so they had to make the best use of what they had. The shields, hyperdrive, and more varied weapons are not just about being superior to the TIE fighter, but also for giving the pilots the best chance at coming home alive.

But in dogfights Rebel fighters don't necessarily do better, largely because they are weighed down by their additional systems and thus less maneuverable. Only at Endor do we see a positive kill ratio for Rebel pilots. And that was at least partially due to terrible Imperial tactics that forced their fighters to attack a mix of Rebel fighters and capital ships with little support early in the battle. Though the lousy Rebel kill ratio over the first Death Star can similarly be justified by the presence of Darth Vader and the fact that the Rebel pilots were almost suicidally focused on destroying the Death Star rather than killing enemy fighters(as they obviously should have been).

A-wings have just as little survivability as TIEs, but while incredibly fast, lack the same maneuverability as TIEs, because they are likely heavier.

Zeropoint wrote:I don't know whether George had this in mind when he first filmed what we now know as Episode IV, but it's been pretty soundly supported in all the EU material I've seen--TIE Fighters are built with a "We Have Reserves" mentality, while the various Rebel craft are designed for survivability.

That may have been what the EU states, but it is hardly what the movies show. Over the Death Star, X-wings actually have an inferior kill ratio to TIEs. And when either craft is hit they tend to die quickly. So either Rebel fighter guns suck or their shields do. Though as Brian Young showed, TIEs also have shields(they can be seen when fired upon by the Millennium Falcon's guns).

I don't think you can use Yavin as an example of X-Wings performing worse than TIEs, given that the X-Wings had to escort the Y-Wing bombers, suppress the surface guns and local shield towers and fend off hostile fighters who would probably have been the best the Empire could offer (because who else do you put on your ultimate superweapon than the best of the best?). Given the craziness of that battle and the presence of Vader in the later stages the X-Wings did as well as could be expected.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I don't think you can use Yavin as an example of X-Wings performing worse than TIEs, given that the X-Wings had to escort the Y-Wing bombers, suppress the surface guns and local shield towers and fend off hostile fighters who would probably have been the best the Empire could offer (because who else do you put on your ultimate superweapon than the best of the best?). Given the craziness of that battle and the presence of Vader in the later stages the X-Wings did as well as could be expected.

Sure. But my point was mostly that Yavin kills the myth of X-wing durability relative to TIEs. While they are slightly more durable, it is not to the degree often assumed as a result of the games and thus EU that followed their lead. I agree completely on the rest. In a straight up fight, I would say that X-wings are slightly superior to TIEs. Personally I've always felt it was equivalent to X-wings as the F4F Wildcat* to the TIE fighter/interceptor as the Zero. In the right hands, the TIE can be superior. The effectiveness of the Rebel fighters at Endor is likely due to the fact that while the average Rebel pilot is a combat veteran, the average Imperial pilot is not.

* The F4F actually had a positive kill ratio even throughout 1942, though not to the degree of its replacement. This was primarily due to effective tactics that were able to leverage its strengths as well as the fact that American pilots were more survivable over time, something that also likely applied to Rebel pilots.

Actually, instead of comparing it to real-world stuff, I would compare it to UNSC vs Covenant ships in Halo. Both sides have weapons that are similarly effective against each other (a plasma torpedo will gut UNSC frigates, a MAC round will shatter Covenant frigates) but Covenant ships have shields that will tank the first one or two salvos from UNSC forces, which lets them survive longer and return fire more effectively.

X-wings are build to be space superiority fighters, and given their long service in various forms in the old EU (new-model X-Wings were still in service 40 odd years after Yavin) they do very well. Even if we assume that an X-wing's laser cannon is the same as a TIE's laser cannon, the X-wing has twice the guns, and missile launchers, and shields that can take at least a few hits, four engines versus two for redundancy and power, a hyperdrive for quick escapes and an R2/R5 unit that can perform limited repairs. This gives it a much greater "average" survivability than TIEs, which lets pilots gain experience and get better, which makes the fighters better and so on.

If anything, I would use a comparison of X-Wings are F-15s, big, powerful, pretty fast and heavily armed, built to be kings of the sky. TIEs are something like English Electric Lightnings, built for low cost, high speed and response, fly out, hit one or two targets and return. Different build philosophies make a big difference.

Zeropoint wrote:

The shields, hyperdrive, and more varied weapons are not just about being superior to the TIE fighter, but also for giving the pilots the best chance at coming home alive.

I don't know whether George had this in mind when he first filmed what we now know as Episode IV...

Well, he did want to evoke the 'Wildcats versus Zeroes' aspect of aerial battles in the Pacific. And the Wildcats, as noted by others, were a good deal more survivable than the Zero, so... yes to a degree?

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Sure. But my point was mostly that Yavin kills the myth of X-wing durability relative to TIEs. While they are slightly more durable, it is not to the degree often assumed as a result of the games and thus EU that followed their lead. I agree completely on the rest. In a straight up fight, I would say that X-wings are slightly superior to TIEs. Personally I've always felt it was equivalent to X-wings as the F4F Wildcat* to the TIE fighter/interceptor as the Zero. In the right hands, the TIE can be superior. The effectiveness of the Rebel fighters at Endor is likely due to the fact that while the average Rebel pilot is a combat veteran, the average Imperial pilot is not.

Well, one can reasonably argue that deflector shields and heavy armor are only marginal advantages against Star Wars starfighter weaponry. Especially given that some of the estimates on the seldom-observed main page suggest that we're talking about fighters mounting kiloton-range weaponry.

This is actually what you'd expect. With the possible exception of the invention of the F-22, there has never been a time when one company or nation was designing planes that could effortlessly overwhelm every other military aircraft on the market. Realistic advantages in equipment quality are typically more like 1.2 to 1, not like 3 to 1. So the advantages you get are marginal and statistical- 10% more of your pilots are still alive in a year than would otherwise be, things like that. It nevertheless adds up.

Also, note that the Rebellion cannot hope to kill off every TIE pilot in the galaxy. There are so many Imperial TIE pilots that for all I know, if every Rebel pilot could just walk past a line of TIE pilots and shoot them with a blaster, the Rebels' arms would all fall off from overwork before they ran out of TIE pilots.

Therefore, the purpose of seeking out exceptionally survivable fighters has everything to do with making sure the Rebellion does not suffer the same fate as the IJN's carrier groups, where the death of all the finely trained pilots in 1942 left the Japanese unable to perform effectively in the air afterwards, even as they managed to upgrade their aircraft.

The Empire, meanwhile, cannot be worn down by similar attrition, so the quality of its pilots is likely to remain more or less constant over time, unless a handful of elite units do most of the actual fighting against the Rebels and are steadily replenished by the galaxy's best personnel... in which case those elites will improve over time, at the expense of the average Imperial garrison's quality actually declining.

* The F4F actually had a positive kill ratio even throughout 1942, though not to the degree of its replacement. This was primarily due to effective tactics that were able to leverage its strengths as well as the fact that American pilots were more survivable over time, something that also likely applied to Rebel pilots.

That was SAMAS' original point...

Simon_Jester wrote:The AT-AT weighs seven thousand tons, one might reasonably scale downward from there (AT-TEs, for instance, have an AT-AT sized body on much, much less massive leg assemblies)...

Is the AT-AT weight from one of the new or old canon books, or just an estimate based on its size?

Adamskywalker007 wrote: This is after all what the Rebels did at Hoth with Snowspeeders, even wasting two pilots for every ship shot down.

Point of order: the snowspeeders had a pilot and a gunner, who was not necessarily a pilot. Some pilots may have been paired with other pilots but it would have worked better to stretch their stock of pilots with non-pilot gunners in order to have spare pilots whenever necessary. Same situation with the Y-wing.

Elheru Aran wrote:

Adamskywalker007 wrote: This is after all what the Rebels did at Hoth with Snowspeeders, even wasting two pilots for every ship shot down.

Point of order: the snowspeeders had a pilot and a gunner, who was not necessarily a pilot. Some pilots may have been paired with other pilots but it would have worked better to stretch their stock of pilots with non-pilot gunners in order to have spare pilots whenever necessary. Same situation with the Y-wing.

it's also possible that the gunners were "pilots in training" so that a rookie pilot could observe a veteran in action in combat conditions without becoming a burden for the other pilots.

Balrog wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:The AT-AT weighs seven thousand tons, one might reasonably scale downward from there (AT-TEs, for instance, have an AT-AT sized body on much, much less massive leg assemblies)...

Is the AT-AT weight from one of the new or old canon books, or just an estimate based on its size?

This is important, because weight is usually the second way giant mecha break the laws of physics.

SAMAS wrote:This is important, because weight is usually the second way giant mecha break the laws of physics.

I wonder if the AT-AT uses active systems for stability and armor reinforcement. It would fit the fact that the armor actually absorbs laser blasts rather than simply stopping them.

So I finally got around to seeing the unfinished Clone Wars arcs, particularly the "Bad Batch" arc. In the first episode of the arc, there's a scene where a freakishly strong clone named Wrecker tilts a heavily damaged LAAT/i off an injured Cody. It was lying on it's side, and he managed to lift it up enough to get under it, then push it over onto the other side.

Some basic searching sets human Dead Lift records at a little over eleven hundred pounds. While no concrete numbers were given, it suggests that vehicles are still surprisingly light.

SAMAS wrote:So I finally got around to seeing the unfinished Clone Wars arcs, particularly the "Bad Batch" arc. In the first episode of the arc, there's a scene where a freakishly strong clone named Wrecker tilts a heavily damaged LAAT/i off an injured Cody. It was lying on it's side, and he managed to lift it up enough to get under it, then push it over onto the other side.

Some basic searching sets human Dead Lift records at a little over eleven hundred pounds. While no concrete numbers were given, it suggests that vehicles are still surprisingly light.

How heavily damaged was it? For example, if the engines had been blown out of the hull, its fuel evaporated or gone, weapons lost, there wouldn't be a whole lot there but reinforcing girders and sheet... metal or whatever they use.

It's also not impossible that a number of clones may be augmented with cybernetics or other enhancements that we don't know about, although as far as I know no such thing is actually stated anywhere.