StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is a continuation of my "SW Fighter Tech Questions" thread, due to the many interesting ideas presented in that thread.

You (the reader) have just been hired as the head of R&D at a shipyard, approx. 50 years following the events of the movie ROTJ. The Empire is no more, and the Galactic Alliance is once again in power.

You may draw upon schematics and technology from both Empire and Alliance-made craft, and you have a large complement of parts, sheet metal, and worker driods eager to get started on prototype production.

Your task is as follows:

Design a heavy assault, long-range fighter. This fighter must be hyperdrive-capable, be as small as possible without compromising firepower or speed, and have some good, heavy guns. Heavy enough in fact to have a good-sized squadron of this new heavy fighter be an imposing threat to a capital ship.

Go to it, and please show your references and resources used, if possible.

What you're asking is for people to make up their own fanwanky fighter. Capital ship shields can take many teratons of damage. It is impossible for a starfighter-sized laser cannon to do significant damage to a capital ship. There are no limitations here, and we don't even know how starfighters are supposed to work. We would basically be making shit up.

Jim Raynor wrote:What you're asking is for people to make up their own fanwanky fighter.

Partially yes, but I'm also curious to see how such wankery would be achieved individually.

Jim Raynor wrote:Capital ship shields can take many teratons of damage. It is impossible for a starfighter-sized laser cannon to do significant damage to a capital ship.

Well, I originally thought "lots of missles" for this part, but that's simply my idea.

Jim Raynor wrote:There are no limitations here, and we don't even know how starfighters are supposed to work. We would basically be making shit up.

Alright, how would you like this quantified then? What would you deem to be reasonable limits to this that would still allow creativity in canon terminology?

Alright, how would you like this quantified then? What would you deem to be reasonable limits to this that would still allow creativity in canon terminology?

We don't know anything about starfighter design. We don't know the tradeoffs you'll have to make to fit another laser cannon onto the ship, or improve the engines. It can be assumed that existing fighters are already about as good as you can get with the technology. And canon already has wanky do-everything ships like the E-wing and TIE Defender. Even those can't threaten capital ships, so you're asking for uber-wank.

The fighter designs we see in the movies are likely the pinnacle of balance between firepower, maneuverability, durability, maintainability and endurance. The various starfighter models are at various different points on the balance of course, but since SW has homogeneous technological stasis, they'd be "balanced."

A more worthwhile question might be what features of starfighter design we consider most useful... but as Raynor says, things like the TIE are basically the best design you can get for the role.

Stark wrote:A more worthwhile question might be what features of starfighter design we consider most useful... but as Raynor says, things like the TIE are basically the best design you can get for the role.

I wonder what Mandalorian design philosophy is like. Judging from Xizor's ship and that bassilisk in KOTOR 2, it seems they fancy offensive firepower over maneuverability. Yet, the description given for Xizor's ship in Essential Guide has us believe that the ship is as fast as an X-wing and extremely maneuverable.

rhoenix wrote:Design a heavy assault, long-range fighter. This fighter must be hyperdrive-capable, be as small as possible without compromising firepower or speed, and have some good, heavy guns. Heavy enough in fact to have a good-sized squadron of this new heavy fighter be an imposing threat to a capital ship.

The closest thing to this ship that Star Wars seems to be capable of building is the GAT Blastboat series. It seems to be the smalest ship that can pose a threat (in sufficient numbers) to starships without starships of its own lending a hand--though probably against something like a Carrack or a Nebulon-B, not any ships of the line. You'll notice that it's considerably bigger than any fighter.

Feil wrote:The closest thing to this ship that Star Wars seems to be capable of building is the GAT Blastboat series. It seems to be the smalest ship that can pose a threat (in sufficient numbers) to starships without starships of its own lending a hand--though probably against something like a Carrack or a Nebulon-B, not any ships of the line. You'll notice that it's considerably bigger than any fighter.

Yes, I was looking up Star Wars ships on Wookiepedia, and discovered this myself.

Without quantifying data for restrictions and without proper path to balance things, this little idea of mine is purely conjecture, it appears. On the other hand, I have had a few ideas looking at the missleboats and blastboat-type of craft.

The Virago cost more than a Squadron of Tie-Defenders. It' achieves superior preformance through variable geometry, high maintainence and astronomical cost. Not to mention four generators that have to be mounted on the wings with ample radiators to boot. The thing was almost certainly a hanger queen.

Vehrec wrote:The Virago cost more than a Squadron of Tie-Defenders. It' achieves superior preformance through variable geometry, high maintainence and astronomical cost. Not to mention four generators that have to be mounted on the wings with ample radiators to boot. The thing was almost certainly a hanger queen.

Hmm a pity we don't know much about the Basilisks of the Mandalorian war. THen we could compare the differences between the Virago and the Baslisks.

So i guess you should add costs to the metric. I doubt the Alliance could afford a fleet of those things.

Vehrec wrote:The Virago cost more than a Squadron of Tie-Defenders. It' achieves superior preformance through variable geometry, high maintainence and astronomical cost. Not to mention four generators that have to be mounted on the wings with ample radiators to boot. The thing was almost certainly a hanger queen.

According to the Wookiepedia entry for the Virago, I can see why. I can also see why there was only one made, though the entry for the Virago states that the original company started making inferior versions of the Virago, based on the original specifications - but the entry for the StarViper-class Attack Platform doesn't mention anything beyond the Virago being the only known example.

Well, that, and the ship looks ugly as shit. People, I think, would be inclined to take that ship out first, as staring at it for too long will likely give one eye cancer.

And here's something that bugged me when I read the entry for the Virago - the entry mentions

Wookiepedia Entry wrote:Virago's weapon systems were built around an advanced targeting computer along with an experimental laser sighting system rather than being built around the weapons themselves.

Sounds about right for a pirate, but the next part is

Wookiepedia Entry wrote:With this unorthodox design strategy, the craft would not require excessive or illegal weapons that would attract attention. Once the targeting computer was in place, any weapon installed would perform better than manufacturer specifications.

...Right, and this hadn't been done before because...? I don't mean to nitpick too harshly here, but I was under the impression that a civilization capable of hyperspace flight would have a central targetting computer for weapons, particularly on a fighter. Did I misread this, or misinterpret this in some way? I'm nearly hoping I am.

And there's the simple fact that such retarded ships aren't worth the six squadrons of TIEs you could buy for the same money. Xizor might be willing to blow wads of cash on a single ship, but no military is going to follow suit.

I guess the Original post is calling for the pile of author ejaculation that is the missile boat?

Darth Fanboy wrote:I guess the Original post is calling for the pile of author ejaculation that is the missile boat?

After looking more thoroughly through Wookiepedia, I'm still not certain, quite honestly. However, it does appear that the starfighters that fit the description in the original post are rather easily found on wookiepedia.

Due to my lack of familiarity with all the details of the Star Wars universe however, I'll retract my challenge to the posters here, first placed in the first post of this thread.

I will say though that the many entries in Wookiepedia are helping me with ideas, though.

The only way that a star fighter could do this is if it could get under the shields of the capital ship. Snub fighters can get under some types of shields, (as in ANH where they go under the "magnetic shields" of the death star) but this doesn't guarantee that you could do it to anything smaller than the Death Star.

I in general don't understand what fighters are supposed to do in major fleet battles. They don't have the strength to do damage to the capital ships, and are not well equipped to defend the big ships vs. anything but other fighters. Which of course aren't a threat.

This thread covered those questions pretty well.

First thing I'd do is skip energy weapons completely. Weapon load will be 1-5 external-mount missiles (depending on how much handling I'm willing to sacrifice with the higher mass). Energy weapons will be limited to 2-3 light laser turrets, just enough to keep enemy interceptors away while they make their bomb runs.

For design size, I will be aiming for the high end of fighters (ARC-170, B-Wing, etc), giving enough room to add decent shields and engine power, as well as enough fuel to give a useful hyperdrive range.

The final element will be packing in as much stealthing/sensor jamming I can fit. Since a heavy fighter has little use in a large fleet battle compared to its cost in small capital ships, its primary role will be ambush tactics. Sneak in, launch their missiles, and run before enemy fighters can catch them.

In squadrons, they should be effective. We know that a Victory-class' missiles can be very effective against large capital ships, and these missiles are too small to be seen on any images of the ship (that I know of). So a squadron should be able to carry enough to be a valid threat.

The advantages:

1) Mobility. Fighter squadrons take less effort to move around than capital ships. This is especially important for their role in operations behind enemy lines.

2) They're cheap. Since they lack all the features of capital ships, they should be able to bring more firepower per credit (though of course at the expense of other areas).

3) They're light on crew demands. Not only can they provide more firepower per trained crew member, but even if a whole squadron is lost, that's still a lot fewer casualties than if a capital ship is destroyed.

Their disadvantages:

1) Logistical nightmare. They'll be throwing around a ton of expensive missiles, which will put a lot more strain on the supply lines and budget than turbolaser-armed capital ships.

2) Dependent on escort fighters. While they might be able to get enough brute-force engine power for good straight-line speed, turning on a heavy fighter overloaded with missiles will be awful. Last-ditch turrets won't be enough, they'll need proper escort or they will die in large numbers.

3) Dependent on carriers. They're missile tugs and not much more. They get one shot before they need to fly back home to re-arm. So while they might be good at smashing a single target, for large battles they are a lot less effective.



Imagine a bomber version of this: http://fs5.deviantart.com/i/2004/287/c/ ... egrine.jpg

That's the multirole fighter from my own universe, loaded for the anti-capital role. A bomber would be about twice as large, and scaling up the missiles you could easily get the firepower of 100x X-Wing torpedoes per missile (and likely much more).

So what about the fact that turrets on heavy fighters are shown to be pretty worthless against dedicated space superiority fighters, like Eta-2s or Tri-Droids? ARCs get chopped to tiny pieces with ease.

Stark wrote:So what about the fact that turrets on heavy fighters are shown to be pretty worthless against dedicated space superiority fighters, like Eta-2s or Tri-Droids? ARCs get chopped to tiny pieces with ease.

That's why I said they'd need proper escort. The turrets are just to keep them from being totally defenseless and giving enemy fighters complete freedom to kill them. If there's something shooting at them, an interceptor might have to pay just enough attention to getting into a blind spot to let the escort fighter deal with it.

Besides, TIE-fighters are proof that useful anti-fighter lasers can be pretty small, so it wouldn't be a huge sacrifice to include them.