Redesigning the TIE-Defender:

[hvb]

Comment: the X-W's cannon are larger in volume then the Y-W's top mounted ion cannon and the TIE cannon by a factor of about 12½ (based on measurements done on the SW Vehicles&Weapons manual, or whatever it was called), so the power needs of a T/D's weapon systems is probably rather less then the need of the X-W's. Overall I don't think it needs as much power as the X-W, even with the higher acceleration.

The one major change I would make to the T/D: cant the 6 smaller panels inwards rather then outwards, thus forming a hexagon of panels around the hull, thus making the T/D a smaller target, as well as increasing the protection of the main hull; and probably making them stackable in standard TIE launchers.
The problem is reduced visibility, so some closed-circuit cameras in the panels will be nice to have, but this should be hard to jam, so seems doable.

[Edward Yee]

But only six torpedoes makes it worse than the stated (Isard's Revenge) eight. I've considered replacing one of the laser cannons with an ion cannon, in laser/ion per wing ...

hvb, where does it get visibility from other than the front window? (I heard it had an aft blind spot due to the new centerpiece containing all the extras.)

[Dakarne]

But only six torpedoes makes it worse than the stated (Isard's Revenge) eight. I've considered replacing one of the laser cannons with an ion cannon, in laser/ion per wing ...

hvb, where does it get visibility from other than the front window? (I heard it had an aft blind spot due to the new centerpiece containing all the extras.)

Ahem, Proximity Sensors.

All TIE fighters have them... in fact, all ships in the Star Wars Universe have them.

[Edward Yee]

Dakarne, thanks for the point-out, but as per hvb's original statement, I don't understand why an inward cant would reduce visibility, considering (as you said) the proximity sensors and the lack of a window besides the front.

[Solauren]

I don't know why everyone is saying 6 torpedoes is much.
It's entirely feasible they are stored outside the main body, in some kind of shielded location (i.e right next to the solar panel/base join) and fire like moder airplanes do.

I mean, hey, it's a freaking Tie Fighter. Once the shields are gone, 4 or 5 hits will blow it up anyway, having the torpedoes out in the open doesn't make it any less safe.

[hvb]

Dakarne, thanks for the point-out, but as per hvb's original statement, I don't understand why an inward cant would reduce visibility, considering (as you said) the proximity sensors and the lack of a window besides the front.

The smaller panels are have pointed fronts (and rears), that would enter into the pilots periferal vision if not canted outwards, thus the need for (at least consideration of) a system to compensate for the loss. (A better design would extend the panels sternward to compensate for removing the front triangles, but I was thinking of minor adjustments to the craft rather then a full redesign ... in which case I would start from scratch using a single medium hull).

TIEs don't need to have windows in front either, if sensors will do, but they do ... so why are they there?

No matter how unspoofable a close-circuit TV system (or rather the SW equivalent 3D passive sensors) is, it can still suffer a mechanical (or I guess rather an electronical), so a window is better from a system failure standpoint. Sure it may not be quite as strong as the remaining hull, but the difference is low enough that the guarantee that you will have forward visibility is worth it.

Another reason putting cameras on the wings instead of having free visibility from the cockpit is a problem is that there are situations where moving the pilots viewpoint by 6 metres is a non-optimal solution.
True, this is most likely to be a problem only during manual docking manouvers, landings in build-up areas/woods and possibly tight parade formation flying; but those just happen to be the most dangerous activities (along with combat) the craft can engage in, even before the viewpoint is moved.

So we can easily do without good cockpit transparasteel visibility by adding some sensors, but it will always be a less optimal design compromise.
Modern fighters have LLTV and radar (onboard and AWACS link), but they like good visibility from the cockpit too, and use the other sensors for tactical decisions and targeting; for guiding the craft they prefer eyeball Mk1 ... The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't know why everyone is saying 6 torpedoes is much.
It's entirely feasible they are stored outside the main body, in some kind of shielded location (i.e right next to the solar panel/base join) and fire like moder airplanes do.

I mean, hey, it's a freaking Tie Fighter. Once the shields are gone, 4 or 5 hits will blow it up anyway, having the torpedoes out in the open doesn't make it any less safe.

Heck, the Y-Wing had a whole heap of room for ProTorps. The ICS pic of it shows fourteen, and I'd make a guess and say that there is at least one more in the magazine.

[Golan III]

since the computer games were produced by LucasArts directly, and not some hack author who never has played the games or been a part of their storyline before, generally I'd take their items as canon moreso than novels.

Soo, according to TIE Fighter (where the Defender was first created), the Defender is considerably faster than any comparable Alliance starfighter - its cruise speed was 156 SBD, I believe. The TIE Advanced (called the Avenger) motors along at 136 I think. Dunno, it's been a very long time since I played those games.

Also, there is a common mistake out there - it's typical for illustrations or 3d models (Such as the Ultimate Guide to Ships and Vehicles) of the Defender to use reversed Interceptor solar panels as the "wings"; the TIE Fighter game and all strategy books associated (that had some illustrations in them as well) had the "wings" of the Defender consisting of reversed Advanced wings as well; these are substantially larger than the Interceptor foils.

I really liked what Micheal Stackpole did with his books, he'd played the games and could write about the starfighter tactics & combat with some authority.

[Rampage]

its cruise speed was 156 SBD, I believe.

SBD is a shield rating. Speed in the games is measured in MGLT.

[Golan III]

its cruise speed was 156 SBD, I believe.

SBD is a shield rating. Speed in the games is measured in MGLT.

that's right...shows how long its been since I've played it.

it definitely deserved the 'best PC game ever' from PC GAMER when it won that award. fantastic game.

Were I to 'tweak' the Defender myself, I'd add those extra missile pods and SLAMs from the Missile Boat...wooohooo it'd be fast! I think I once got a missile boat up to the 800s or so (redirected shields, lasers, beam, full throttle, and SLAMs doubling any speed you go)! I'd imagine the Defender could easily cross the 1000 mark.

and with the pods, it could be a verrrry capable ship-killer...much like the B-Wing was for the Rebellion.

also, I've always wondered about another thing - Vader's TIE fighter from A New Hope - I take it that it had a hyperdrive? The XWing PC game had several death-star prep missions, carried out before attacking the station itself, and during that time you tangle with several TIEs looking just like his, except that they lack the "tail" and curved struts linking the foil-support pylons and the "tail" sticking back. As those TIEs had shields and were quite fast, I always considered them prototype models of the TIE Advanced, which were then superseded by the much larger and faster models featured in the TIE fighter game. Anyway since Vader's had the tail and the other models you fight in the game didn't (resembling a single-podded TIE bomber), and he had a long flight to do going away from Yavin back to other Imperial Forces, I've always guessed it was a hyperdrive. thoughts?

[RThurmont]

I don't see why the Tie Defender needs to be redesigned at all. It is actually considerably larger than your base model Tie Fighter: it has a larger fuselage pod, and much larger surface areas on its exterior panels. My guess is a lot of the added equipment is distributed throughout the vessel, rather than consolidated into the fuselage.

The only change I would make would be to redistribute the laser and ion cannons so that the firing pattern of both would be more symmetrical. I find it annoying how the upper "C" fires lasers, and the lower cannons only fire ions. I would prefer a more balanced layout, so that laser and ion fire would be more evenly distributed onto the target. Having both ion cannons so close together also makes it harder to hit a target under certain conditions, and having a more distributed layout of both cannons would make targets considerably easier to obliterate.

By the way, for the record, I'm not much of a computer gamer-and the last game I purchased with the Tie Defender was Star Wars: Tie Fighter. So it's entirely possible that I could be hugely out of date in my observations of it. I will say this though, in that game, the Tie Defender was by far my favorite ship, and I much preferred it to the Missile Boat you often get stuck with in the advanced missions.

[Edward Yee]

I noticed two differences between Isard's Revenge and TIE Fighter: In TIE Fighter the Defender had four times the shielding of an X-wing; however the Isard's Revenge version has 8 missiles or torpedoes while the TIE Fighter version has 8 missiles or 6 torpedoes.

Fastest in the galaxy? Probably -- not even the nerfed X-Wing: Alliance disputes the TIE Advanced/"Avenger" and TIE Defender as the two fastest starfighters, while the only two exceptions are through special modes with drawbacks: the Missile Boat with the SLAM activated at the cost of laser energy, and Isolder's Storm (just barely) at the risk of a terminal overload.

P.S. Should I read "Rudder pedals contracted and expanded maneuvering planes that vectored engine thrust" as atmospheric flight physics or thrust-vectoring? (Or its SW flight physics equivalent.)