Fighter carrier meets modern era

[Praxis]

Technically this is ST vs SW since ST is supposed to be us in the future (I hope not...lol).

A freak wormhole opens, but instead of appearing in the milky way during the TNG era (as most fanfics happen), it appears during 2004.

The Empire detects our primitive little planet and sends a single fighter carrier to conquer us.

The fighter carrier has a squadron of bombers and three squadrons of TIE fighters. It also carries 10 AT-ST's, 5 AT-AT's, and 5,000 Stormtroopers.

If (fat chance) all the nations in the UN ally and combine their fighter planes and troops, will this fighter carrier be able to conquer the planet?

[Howedar]

No. Five thousand troops cannot conquer a planet.

[Sarevok]

The TIE fighters would be devastating against modern fighters. They are extremely fast. Besides being capable of doing thousand g accelaration in space they should also be very fast in atmosphere since they can overcome the gravity of a planet and achieve orbit - something not even a SAM can do.

The fighter carrier would be virtualy immune. It's shields can shrugg of ICBM hits with ease. Point defense cannons can shoot down missiles. And it can climb to a higher orbit to avoid missiles altogher.

The AT-ATs would slaughter any ground opposition. Stormtroopers would be deadly since most small arms wont be able to kill them. However the ship does not have enough of them to occupy Earth. The Imperials best bet would be to threaten orbital bombardment and demand surrender.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Technically this is ST vs SW since ST is supposed to be us in the future (I hope not...lol).

You are technically correct, but I still think this should be in PSW.

The fighter carrier has a squadron of bombers and three squadrons of TIE fighters. It also carries 10 AT-ST's, 5 AT-AT's, and 5,000 Stormtroopers.

If (fat chance) all the nations in the UN ally and combine their fighter planes and troops, will this fighter carrier be able to conquer the planet?

It depends. The ship is definitely invulnerable. The bomber and fighters ... depends on what tactics they follow. If they do thousand G accelerations like their canon acceleration figures, we have no chance. But if they do stuff like they do in the movies (300m/s or so closures, 2-3km usage range weapons) for some reason, we might have a chance against the starfighters.

The soldiers. Killing the AT-ST wouldn't be TOO tough - it is a light vehicle. The AT-AT ... maybe you could kill it if you hit it with a Maverick.

[Howedar]

Highly unlikely, considering the fire the AT-AT's shrugged off in the movie I'd say that anything less than a 500lb bomb would be a waste. You'd need a tactical nuke for a sure kill.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Highly unlikely, considering the fire the AT-AT's shrugged off in the movie I'd say that anything less than a 500lb bomb would be a waste. You'd need a tactical nuke for a sure kill.

Use a frigging SLAM then (BTW, some Mav variants IIRC got 300 pounds). Hell, they are probably big enough you can pretend they are a antiship target and use Harpoons on them.

If you are desperate, use a 2000 pound Paveway bomb (or for Russian aircraft, the KAB-500 and KAB-1500 series of bombs).

[Mr Bean]

Their best best would be to simply sit in orbit broadcast some threats, drop some fire on a few major military bases smashing runways/exposed planes then send the Tie's on a merry turkey run of shooting down all our Sat's effectivly cutting off alot of comms for us


Then drop some AT&AT's on the Mall in Washington DC and send in the Stormies to seize Congress(Or do this the same time as the other things)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Their best best would be to simply sit in orbit broadcast some threats,

How do they make sure we understand such spoken threats?

drop some fire on a few major military bases smashing runways/exposed planes

You mean, the bases will disappear under thermonuclear plus level yields?

then send the Tie's on a merry turkey run of shooting down all our Sat's effectivly cutting off alot of comms for us

We'd still have HF, at least, until they start jamming.

Then drop some AT&AT's on the Mall in Washington DC and send in the Stormies to seize Congress(Or do this the same time as the other things)

That only conquered the United States at most.

[Praxis]

Personally, if I was the Imp commander, I'd find some nation dying for power and promise them the chance to be a world power if they help me...
That gives me an army...
And go from there...unless, of course, no one was willing, in which case to wipe out their capital and MAKE them willing
Some monarch nations will probably switch to your side if you capture the King/Queen.

Use TIE bombers to nuke enemy air bases, TIE fighters to take down anything already in the air...

Drop AT-AT's and AT-ST's on the edge of, say, Washington DC. TIE Bomber the congress, and capture the White House. Oh yeah, and bomb the Supreme Court. With the President the only one left, he'll be in complete command (no senate to order him around or Supreme Court for checks and balances), and then will be able to surrender WITHOUT a senatorial debate.

Conquer US, and move on to another counrty...

I dunno. Would 5,000 troops be enough? Considering Stormtrooper armor should easily repell bullets, and the AT-ST's would provide serious cover...AND the air support is so overwhelmingly powerful, AND the carrier can move the troops around at will to avoid battles...

[Praxis]

The TIE fighters would be devastating against modern fighters. They are extremely fast. Besides being capable of doing thousand g accelaration in space they should also be very fast in atmosphere since they can overcome the gravity of a planet and achieve orbit - something not even a SAM can do.

The fighter carrier would be virtualy immune. It's shields can shrugg of ICBM hits with ease. Point defense cannons can shoot down missiles. And it can climb to a higher orbit to avoid missiles altogher.

The AT-ATs would slaughter any ground opposition. Stormtroopers would be deadly since most small arms wont be able to kill them. However the ship does not have enough of them to occupy Earth. The Imperials best bet would be to threaten orbital bombardment and demand surrender.

Well, I was thinking of a fighter carrier like the Flurry, just a bit bigger to carry the ground forces.
Meaning, not many heavy weapons. That rules out orbital bombardment.

The only way I can think of doing any serious damage to the fighter carrier would be to hit it with a nuke at the precise moment its shields are down to launch fighters. Yes, I know the armor would likely withstand it, but if you could get it inside the hangar...wipe out the fighters in the bay, likely blast through internal bulkheads, and give a pretty good number of the crew (maybe the ground troops?) radiation poisoning...

Of course, the chances of managing to get a bomber with a nuke close enough to the fighter carrier to nuke it just as its launching fighters which are attacking the bomber are slim to say the least...

[warpusher]

The AT-AT's would have to stay close to the Fighters. Without Air cover they would be vulnerable to PGM (Precision Guided Munitions) like the GBU-28...also known as the bunker buster. 5000 lb rock falling real fast would hurt.

Without Air Cover, AT-AT's would prove vulnerable (up close) to any tank crew worth it's salt. A 120mm KE rod penetrator (M-1 Abrams Main AT round) could prove effective at weak points, like AT-AT necks.

AT-AT's would also prove vulerable to infantry in CQB/Urban terrain. Modern troops could attach grapples like luke and place shaped charges. Also they could plant mines in front of AT-AT legs. They could blow a crater up before an AT-AT was to step there. Ever step somewhere where you thought it was firm? multiply your tripping to something the size of an AT-AT. Infantry could topple a tall building onto an AT-AT.

In the Stormie VS Infantry battle, time would tell on the modern infantry side. Without TIE or AT-AT support, they would slowly get worn down. weak spots on armor would get hit. Artillery shells would find their mark. Infantry battles are inherently close combat. You wouldn't call down heavy Orbital Bombardment for fear of hitting your own troops.

Their best bet would be to do the "high-tech merc" rental detail. that way they could pick and choose their combat. If they (the gallant 5k) came at the 6.5 Billion of earth, eventually they'd loose.

[Mr Bean]

How do they make sure we understand such spoken threats?

Translation software its pretty likey that somewhere in those 6 million plus lanaguages your typical Protocol droid knows that they can draw enough similaritys to give a workable transaltion even if it might sound like a badly translated Japanese Kung-Fu movie

Not to mention we are putting off enough signals each HOUR to give them several hundred thousand hours of recorded material to sort out which lanuage belongs to what area/region

You mean, the bases will disappear under thermonuclear plus level yields?

One does not have to use a HTL to make a point a simple pass by the carrier even shooting the point defense lasers will make a point(A few hundred meter deep melted crater point)

We'd still have HF, at least, until they start jamming.

Not to mention wonderful old land-lines... Well the ground pounders do anyway
More likley than not considering the evidant power of SW Jammers its more likley that simply lighting them off is going to zorch every single transeirver for some distance

That only conquered the United States at most.

One needs a start point, one could repeat or preform a duplicate move with various other world captials, even with such high technology the stated forces don't have the power to supress the poplace only kill/destroy us

Meaning that a surrender by world leaders is likley the only way of going sort of say glassing Austrailia and threatening the rest of the world with the same

[Mr Bean]

Well, I was thinking of a fighter carrier like the Flurry, just a bit bigger to carry the ground forces.
Meaning, not many heavy weapons. That rules out orbital bombardment.

You only need one heavy weapon to preform a bombardment... its just going to be a very SLOW bombardment

The only way I can think of doing any serious damage to the fighter carrier would be to hit it with a nuke at the precise moment its shields are down to launch fighters.

Wearas it could simply sit in orbit launch fights and fire from there nevermind the fact any missle launched would have over fourty seconds flight time in which they could do anything they wanted

[Praxis]

The AT-AT's would have to stay close to the Fighters. Without Air cover they would be vulnerable to PGM (Precision Guided Munitions) like the GBU-28...also known as the bunker buster. 5000 lb rock falling real fast would hurt.

Without Air Cover, AT-AT's would prove vulnerable (up close) to any tank crew worth it's salt. A 120mm KE rod penetrator (M-1 Abrams Main AT round) could prove effective at weak points, like AT-AT necks.

I wouldn't be so sure. The rebels had some pretty heavy artillery, and hardly effected the AT-AT.

The bunker buster might hurt, but as you said, TIE cover would fix that.

AT-AT's would also prove vulerable to infantry in CQB/Urban terrain. Modern troops could attach grapples like luke and place shaped charges. Also they could plant mines in front of AT-AT legs. They could blow a crater up before an AT-AT was to step there. Ever step somewhere where you thought it was firm? multiply your tripping to something the size of an AT-AT. Infantry could topple a tall building onto an AT-AT.

And as they run up to the AT-AT, the AT-ST's nuke 'em...

In the Stormie VS Infantry battle, time would tell on the modern infantry side. Without TIE or AT-AT support, they would slowly get worn down. weak spots on armor would get hit. Artillery shells would find their mark. Infantry battles are inherently close combat. You wouldn't call down heavy Orbital Bombardment for fear of hitting your own troops.

Their best bet would be to do the "high-tech merc" rental detail. that way they could pick and choose their combat. If they (the gallant 5k) came at the 6.5 Billion of earth, eventually they'd loose.

Stormies have artilleries too...
But with the advantage of the fighter carrier, the Stormies can be anywhere. Drop them off at Washington DC, for example- the US can't scramble its entire army in time, and the Air Force will be too busy to bomb the stormies.

It'll be basicly Stormies vs whatever army troops are at DC.

Once you conquer one nation, you can turn their troops against others...

[warpusher]

and on the TIE's in atmosphere conditions...I don't know how the performance would be.

They (like all starfighters) are finely designed machines. They are designed for operations in Space (I'd say 99.9% of their operations are space-space)

When their design is influenced by an external media they're not used to (IE gas atmosphere) their performance may not be up to snuff. On the other hand, Modern fighters are designed to perform in atmosphere.

I'm not saying that TIE's wouldn't work, it would be a task that they're not well suited to perform. For example, using starfighters, why didn't the rebels have a X-wing go strafe the AT-AT's at hoth before it went on escort duty? Should have made mince meat of them. maybe their performance was so degraded in atmosphere that only the repulsor snowspeeders had a chance.

And though the stormies do have everything...the numbers would eventually tell against them.

What would happen if you took a the US Army Ranger Regiment and had them fight Napoleon. They'd wade through the ranks like a hot knife through butter, but when it is thousands against hundreds, eventually time favor the side with greater numbers.

How effective would the AT-ST's be against modern infantry anyway? They couldn't keep a small group of rebels and some teddy bears from winning. Modern infantry trained in urban operations would seriously tear AT-ST's a new one.

Much like modern tanks, AT-AT's And AT-ST's size could preclude their use in heavily built areas. Their size doesn't allow them the manuverability to perform. In an open field they are devastating...but if you can get in close (or the terrain allows you the chance to get close) you have a chance.

A more effective attacker of Modern earth would probably be the Trade Feddies (or at least their equipment). Having fighters that can work as ground walkers (giving you dual role/use platforms) and smaller more mobile platforms (the tank from TPM) along with troops totally immune to toxins and radiation (if you were to invade russia they probably have no qualms about nuking their own)

[Ghost Rider]

Off we go to PSW...mainly because this is Modern Day Earth versus Imperial carrier.

[Axis Kast]

Star Wars ships possess point-defense guns? Or do you mean that the laser and turbo-laser emplacements are quick enough to engage modern missiles?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Trade Federation Core Ships mount 850 kiloton-range point-defense lasers.

[Praxis]

A Trade Federation Core Ship isn't a fighter carrier...It's a cargo ship refitted to a warship, for ship to ship combat.

A Lancer also has point defense cannons. A Nebulon-B- or a Quasar-Fire like the Flurry- does not.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

A Trade Federation Core Ship isn't a fighter carrier...It's a cargo ship refitted to a warship, for ship to ship combat.

A Lancer also has point defense cannons. A Nebulon-B- or a Quasar-Fire like the Flurry- does not.

The LTLs should be able to engage them. ICBMs are pretty predictable fliers. Even if that doesn't work, a single burst of acceleration would easily evade the weapon, even if they got an ICBM to have homing abilities - even the slowest SW vessel can easily outmaneuver one of our vessels, which are limited to the single G range.

[Raven4602]

Once the Stormies ran up against aboriginees in australia they would get owned.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that TIEs sucked in atmosphere. Or is it only that they suck compared to X-wings?

[Rogue 9]

Highly unlikely, considering the fire the AT-AT's shrugged off in the movie I'd say that anything less than a 500lb bomb would be a waste. You'd need a tactical nuke for a sure kill.

I'd at least try a Strike Eagle loaded with Mk 84s before I resorted to nukes. That's quite a bit of iron and explosive on target. I'd say a B-52 load would do it, but getting one over the AT-AT in the face of TIE opposition and orbital PD fire would be nigh impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that TIEs sucked in atmosphere. Or is it only that they suck compared to X-wings?

TIEs suck in atmosphere. One need only look at the wing design to see that. Frankly, just due to the aerodynamics of the thing (and the stated problems that TIEs have with wind shearing off the solar panels if they try to corkscrew in atmosphere, ref. Rogue Squadron and a lot of the rest of the X-Wing series) I'd give the atmospheric maneuverability contest to some of the more modern jet fighters. However, until someone gets into a spinning dogfight with TIEs (which would invariably happen if this was made into a movie, but its not), that's not the deciding factor. However, the TIEs' maneuverability when compared to the tracking ability of an AMRAAM or Sidewinder is more relevant.

[Mr Bean]

Not to mention the TIE's have the handy ablity of being able to simply outrun any kind of missles tossed at them

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

However, the TIEs' maneuverability when compared to the tracking ability of an AMRAAM or Sidewinder is more relevant.

AFAIK, the AMRAAM or Sidewinder are effective against targets pulling up something like 7 to 9Gs. The R-27's limit is about 8, and I suppose the Sparrow's limit would be somewhere close to that. The R-73 and R-77 are claimed effective up to 12. I suppose the new generation of dogfight AAMs in the West (Python 4, ASRAAM, perhaps the Mica and even the BVR Meteor and the like) would have at least similar ability. Long range missiles (R-33, R-37, perhaps the Phoenix) are designed for as low as 4Gs only.

Of course, these numbers are obviously for when they have enough energy to make the turn, not the numbers when they got about 800km/h of airspeed left and are falling past the target.

In short, if you figure a modern fighter can out-maneuver the TIE, figure the missiles they carry can too. Of course, the TIE probably carries enough jamming power to simply fry any active seekers.

IR seekers, however, are another matter. The twin ions give such an advantage in power ratio they probably are much hotter as well and thus more vulnerable to tail chasing IR weapons. For the front, their unaerodynamic shape not only makes it hard to maneuver, but would probably increase their frontal edge's heating, which increases vulnerability to weapons fired off at the TIE's front.