StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2005-04-15 02:13am**

Alright, just a little background on this so yall understand. This is a fighter I made for a SW RP, Id like to know with SW tech if this is feasable, or even realistic for the SW universe.

Name/Model: Ares Fighter

Designer/Manufacturer: Blitzkreiger Driveyards

Combat Designation: Space Superiority Fighter

Length: 12.5 Meters

Propulsion System: 2 Blitz 65D Fusisl Thrust Engines

Navigation: 3XK-AIDA Astromec Droid

Crew: 1 Pilot, 1 Astromec Droid

Speed Rateing: 100-110 MGLT

Hyperdrive: Marcel HNk-2300 Motivator Drive Unit

Weapons: 2 BI 3N5 Laser Cannons/ 1 BI K55 40mm Cannon/ 1 BI 3F Rear Arc Laser Cannon

Shields/Armor: Forwar/Rear Projecting Chempat Shields (50 SBD); Titanium Alloy Hull

Special Design Features:

Everything but the weapons are practically copy/paste from an Xwing:

BI 3n5 Laser Cannons-same fire power as the laser cannons found on an Xwing

BI 3F Rear Arc Laser Cannon-About half the fire power of a standard laser cannon

BI K55 40 mm Auto Cannon- Cyclic rate of 160 rounds per minute, each round the equivalent of a proton torpedo, a fire and forget weapon that explodes on impact. Fired from a sort of magnetic accelerator gun. Similar to a modern gatling gun. The advantage being, they cant be traced by electronic signature, both being too small and that they have no real electrical components, and no propultion trail.

Posted: **2005-04-15 02:15am**

Doh, no edit..

anyways, please feel free to criticize, add opinions, etc

Posted: **2005-04-15 10:27am**

A little more information? Visuals?

Posted: **2005-04-15 11:05am**

1. Why should anyone buy this fighter when they could get an X-Wing, which is well-established and works very well? I can think of a few reasons why a company would build something that strongly resembles an X-wing, but I want to see your answer.

2. How does this fighter accomplish its role of space superiority? Could it be used in any other role if necessary?

3. Change the names of the fighter and the company making it, so they don't sound like blatant Earth references. The galaxy where Star Wars takes place has no relationship with Earth. Why would anyone in that galaxy name a fighter for the Greek god of war or a company for a German military term?

4. I'm no expert, but I'm quite sure the hulls of SW spacecraft are made of much stronger materials than titanium.

5. They do not use lasers (focused light) in SW. The turbolaser is actually a larger form of a blaster, firing superheated gas at a target.

6. Do you think bullets, even those fired through a super-duper gatling gun, would really penetrate the shields of an enemy ship, which can already stop all sorts of tiny space projectiles?

Posted: **2005-04-15 11:13am**

Zwinmar wrote:BI K55 40 mm Auto Cannon- Cyclic rate of 160 rounds per minute, each round the equivalent of a proton torpedo, a fire and forget weapon that explodes on impact. Fired from a sort of magnetic accelerator gun. Similar to a modern gatling gun. The advantage being, they cant be traced by electronic signature, both being too small and that they have no real electrical components, and no propultion trail.

This sounds quite wankish. 160 rpm, fire and forget, and each round the equivalent of a proton torpedo?!

I'm not familiar with EU uberfighters but good grief, man. That's a bit over the top IMO. I'd just replace this with a general purpose warhead launcher.

The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.

EDIT: How maneuverable is this thing anyway (measured in the BS units seen in X-Wing extra material, DPF if I recall correctly)?

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:18pm**

I said good, but the projectile gun with rounds equal in yield to a Proton Torpedo is just a tad. . .how do I put it:

Yeah, that's it

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:20pm**

The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.

Really minor ROTS Spoiler, but since some people get really pissed about little things:

The ARC-170 Fighters in RotS have two rear mounted guns (but then, they have a dedicated gunner specifically for them).

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:22pm**

The Original Nex wrote:
The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.
Really minor ROTS Spoiler, but since some people get really pissed about little things:

The ARC-170 Fighters in RotS have two rear mounted guns (but then, they have a dedicated gunner specifically for them).

ARC-170 is also a recon craft and bigger then a X-wing

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:27pm**

CDiehl wrote:5. They do not use lasers (focused light) in SW. The turbolaser is actually a larger form of a blaster, firing superheated gas at a target.

Turbolasers are massless particle beam weapons which fire a lightspeed invisible bolt with an STL tracer element.

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:28pm**

Lord Revan wrote:
The Original Nex wrote:
The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.
Really minor ROTS Spoiler, but since some people get really pissed about little things:

The ARC-170 Fighters in RotS have two rear mounted guns (but then, they have a dedicated gunner specifically for them).
ARC-170 is also a recon craft and bigger then a X-wing

Yes, but it's still plenty maneuverable

In any case, I agree that this little fan fighter is wanking it up a notch, just pointing out that rear mounted cannon are not necessarily "odd."

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:35pm**

The Original Nex wrote:Yes, but it's still plenty maneuverable

In any case, I agree that this little fan fighter is wanking it up a notch, just pointing out that rear mounted cannon are not necessarily "odd."

yeah but its role needs it sometimes run from its opponents with out being blown apart and the fan fighter

:ish especially the projectile gun.

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:41pm**

The Original Nex wrote:
The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.
Really minor ROTS Spoiler, but since some people get really pissed about little things

that's not an ROTS spoiler, it was already established in Clone Wars.

Posted: **2005-04-15 03:45pm**

Matt Huang wrote:
The Original Nex wrote:
The rear turret is a bit odd too, since unless this fighter is as nimble as a dead hippo, it won't need it. I'd just add a cannon or two to the forward armament and forget the rear turret.
Really minor ROTS Spoiler, but since some people get really pissed about little things
that's not an ROTS spoiler, it was already established in Clone Wars.

I know, the RotS ICS shows it too, but some people get pissy.

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:09pm**

CDiehl wrote:1. Why should anyone buy this fighter when they could get an <a href="x%20wing" onmouseover="window.status='X-Wing'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">X-Wing</a>, which is well-established and works very well? I can think of a few reasons why a company would build something that strongly resembles an X-wing, but I want to see your answer.

2. How does this fighter accomplish its role of space superiority? Could it be used in any other role if necessary?

3. Change the names of the fighter and the company making it, so they don't sound like blatant Earth references. The galaxy where <a href="star%20wars" onmouseover="window.status='Star Wars'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Star Wars</a> takes place has no relationship with Earth. Why would anyone in that galaxy name a fighter for the Greek god of war or a company for a German military term?

4. I'm no expert, but I'm quite sure the hulls of SW spacecraft are made of much stronger materials than titanium.

5. They do not use lasers (focused light) in SW. The turbolaser is actually a larger form of a blaster, firing superheated gas at a target.

6. Do you think bullets, even those fired through a super-duper gatling gun, would really penetrate the shields of an enemy ship, which can already stop all sorts of tiny space projectiles?

1.) Its not an Xwing, its a crecent shaped fighter, unfortunantly i cant draw for shiot so i can show yall what im imagining. What it comes down to, they dont have access to anything other than occasionally downed/captured ships.

2.) Its role is that of a medium fighter, the combat designation being Space Superiority because its primary mission is to intercept and delay other fighters.

3.) The company name is what it is cause well i couldnt think of anything else and it was connected to the Character that founded the company, was his last name. Basically, i couldnt think of nothing so i used earth references.

4.) The source i got it from said Xwings ..and many other fighters had titanium hulls, but to be honest i really didnt look at that, so your probly right

5.) Im aware of that, the term Laser Cannon being a misnomer, though in what ive seen that is what they are called, though they arnt true lasers

6.) No Shields wont stop the projectiles, what this would primarily used for is to drop shields in space.

My line of thinking on the projectile is along the lines of a Class A Thermal Detonator, though i have no idea of the power figures so i ramped it up to proton torps, no excuse really for that.

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:12pm**

The rear arc cannon: reason for that, is that when an opponent is on your 'six, they are extremely dangerous, by haveing even a minor weapon that fires back there, it can throw off the other fighter pilot..either by distraction or downing them. Typically, fighters are not known for being able to fire behind them.

The Droid is programed to fire behind.

As for how nimble, I was thinking about Xwing equivalent..it sure as hell wouldnt be as nimble as the TIE but it does have the advantage its aerodynamic

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:26pm**

6.) No Shields wont stop the projectiles,

Why the hell not?

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:29pm**

The rear arc cannon: reason for that, is that when an opponent is on your 'six, they are extremely dangerous, by haveing even a minor weapon that fires back there, it can throw off the other fighter pilot..either by distraction or downing them. Typically, fighters are not known for being able to fire behind them.

Useless waster of power that can be used in shields/engines (craft that have rear arc weapons are normaly bomber or other craft that have stay in relative straight course for extended periods).

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:32pm**

Lord Revan wrote:
The rear arc cannon: reason for that, is that when an opponent is on your 'six, they are extremely dangerous, by haveing even a minor weapon that fires back there, it can throw off the other fighter pilot..either by distraction or downing them. Typically, fighters are not known for being able to fire behind them.
Useless waster of power that can be used in shields/engines (craft that have rear arc weapons are normaly bomber or other craft that have stay in relative straight course for extended periods).

It's also wasteful to use an astromech droid solely as a rear gunner.

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:34pm**

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
The rear arc cannon: reason for that, is that when an opponent is on your 'six, they are extremely dangerous, by haveing even a minor weapon that fires back there, it can throw off the other fighter pilot..either by distraction or downing them. Typically, fighters are not known for being able to fire behind them.
Useless waster of power that can be used in shields/engines (craft that have rear arc weapons are normaly bomber or other craft that have stay in relative straight course for extended periods).
It's also wasteful to use an astromech droid solely as a rear gunner.

I think that the OP said it has other duties then maning the rear gun (I'm not sure though)

Posted: **2005-04-15 04:51pm**

Don't need a rear arc weapon on a fighter, that's what your wingman is for! If you want to compete with an X-wing, you need to have a gimmick, such as "You can buy two Ares for the price of an X-wing" and depending on time period, "And not get hassled by the Empire!" The cannon was already mentioned to be wankish. Might be better off carrying a couple of torpedoes instead, or maybe offer add on packages. There can be a torpedo package, ground attack, recon, and maybe make the hyperdrive an add-on.

Posted: **2005-04-15 05:10pm**

Your fighter is a

vessel man.

A particle cannon that fires unstoppable shots? wtf? doesnt exist, that's what particle shields are for. Switch those off for Heavy Proton Torps.

Fighters are made from Durasteel and Plasteel and if its a TIE then Quadanium for the solar panels.

MGLT is a useless marker for speed. try KPM or KPS.

Your fighter seems like a medium fighter type. you dont really need a rear turret on a medium fighter its quite near useless. Try a ECM instead for throwing off torpedoes and missiles.

Add in a Secondary Hyperdrive as an option.

Use R-Units for your astromechs, they're tried and true.

Add in a sensor package with comms jammers.

BTW what are you doing this for, D6 (WEG) or D20 (WOTC) ?

Posted: **2005-04-15 07:44pm**

Like it's all ready said this is a wank ship

some suggestions
1. lose projectile gun (smallest ship to use a railgun a LAAT (IIRC)) and replace it with GP warhead launcher

2. ship armor are durasteel

3. use acceleration instead of speed (as speed is always reletive in space)

4. use R-series astromechs as they are common (so you find spare parts easily)

5. lose the rear gun as in a medium fighter it's not really needed

6. specify the sensor and comm systems

7. rethink the names (they're way too Earth based).

Posted: **2005-04-15 08:30pm**

I would replace the aft cannon with chaff and flares plus ECM. Or even a secondary shield generator or backup hyperdrive.

I would replace the cannon with a proton torpedo launcher or concussion missile launcher. The E-Wing carries 14 pro-torps according to both versions of the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. So you can have plenty. Proton torpedoes have yields in the kiloton range minimum.

As everyone else stated I would use an R2 unit. You *Can* go with R7 if it takes place in the same period as when the E-Wing was introduced but R2s are vastly more common and more affordable.

Posted: **2005-04-15 09:20pm**

In the OP, you stated that everything but the weapons is based on the X-wing. Then, you state that the main cannons on this fighter are about equal to those on the X-wing. Basically, you have an X-wing packed in a different chassis, with the addition of a couple of questionable weapons (the weak rear arc gun and the gatling gun). How do you imagine these additions, which will make this fighter more expensive than the similar and already proven X-wing, would aid it in its role as a space superiority weapon? To whom do you imagine this company would sell this fighter, and how would it market this? Deathstalker is right that this being a new design, it needs some sort of hook to attract buyers to take a chance on it, and I don't think what it has that makes it different meets that standard.

Posted: **2005-04-15 10:09pm**

He could upsize it, rip out the wankogun and expand the powerplant to run better shields and maintain speed. Have a proper rear gunner, throw in some warheads (the XWing launcher doesn't take alot of volume).

Then again, the EU says the B-wing has piles of heavy torps, THAT'S wank.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Custom SW fighter

Custom SW fighter

Re: Custom SW fighter