Defiant Vs. Millennium Falcon

[Isolder74]

The Falcon is armed with Quad Laser Cannons. They are the same weapons that are onboard the Tantive-4(in addition to the Tantive's Light Turbo-Lasers). They are consider light capitol weapons. The fact the ship even has them is highly illegal. For The Courtship of Princess Leia Han had modified the dorsal turret so that it's blasters could fire as an Ion Cannon but afterwards he undid it. and he had apparentally had put Proton torpedoes into the auto-loader for his missile launcher. The Falcon could take Capitol scale weapon hit cause it has a pair of Nebulon-B Frigate shield generator units(now the N-B has many many of these). Once again these are highly illegal.

The Falcon is armed like a light corvette is as manueverable as an X-Wing Starfighter and has the sheilding of a light capitol ship(limited use at full power though). And anyone maligning the Falcon's performence in ANH remeber who was flying(Chewie acting as a Skeleton Crew) surely he couldn't perform as well as both Han and Chewie togather.

My assessment is that the Falcon(with Han and Chewie driving and assuming a full crew) will kick the Defiant's butt in one on one combat.

[Admiral Griffith]

Time for something a bit more fair, how would the Defiant do against the Millennium Falcon? They're both remarkably similar in shape, though I think the Defiant is a fair bit larger. The Falcon is a seriously juiced up freighter with military grade hardware on it, the Defiant is a seriously overpowered escort ship. Both are quite maneuverable and can pull fighter like moves. Which one gets blown out of space?

No offense, but that is NOT a fair comparision. The Defiant has bad accuracy, weak guns, low maneuverability, and weak torpedoes. The Falcon has Military grade equipment, which puts it's guns at something like 4-40 GT, I think? It actually maneuvers like a fighter, i.e. it bobs and weaves and rolls. The fanciest move i've seen a Defiant pull is a loop. Factor in the concussion missiles, and the Defiant gets its balls pulled through the fence.

[Howedar]

Datas statement in Q-Who isn't that an explosion WILL destroy the ship, just that there is a high probability that it will.

Okay, lets look at this. There is a high probability of something happening, thus the prerequisite conditions have been met for the occurance (namely, sufficient weapons yield in this case). Whether a fluke might save the Enterprise or not is immaterial, the fact of the matter is that if the Enterprise would be destroyed much more often than not by said torpedo launch if the situation were tested, then the torpedo blast could be said to destroy the ship.

[Isolder74]

Datas statement in Q-Who isn't that an explosion WILL destroy the ship, just that there is a high probability that it will.

Okay, lets look at this. There is a high probability of something happening, thus the prerequisite conditions have been met for the occurance (namely, sufficient weapons yield in this case). Whether a fluke might save the Enterprise or not is immaterial, the fact of the matter is that if the Enterprise would be destroyed much more often than not by said torpedo launch if the situation were tested, then the torpedo blast could be said to destroy the ship.

huh?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Data said IIRC there was an 80% chance the Enterprise would die. So 2 torpedoe would almost certainly kill it. <half of 2 torpedoes<Concussion missles.

[Alyeska]

Data said IIRC there was an 80% chance the Enterprise would die. So 2 torpedoe would almost certainly kill it. <half of 2 torpedoes<Concussion missles.

Yet we have seen the E-D survive against torpedoes against in bare hull in Generations. We have also seen it take Romulan disrupter shots which are more powerful then the E-Ds weapons. You have an unusual situation here and you are trying to make it standard when there are more situations proving the E-D can take more then just 2 shots against its bare hull.

[Cal Wright]

The biggest question is can they survive the blast. I've seen torps impact, and in Generations didn't they strike and pass through the hull? I've only seen Generations once, so I might be hazy on the details. However, if this is the case, the explosion would obviously be more devestating than the torp just blowing through and continuing on.

[aerius]

No offense, but that is NOT a fair comparision. The Defiant has bad accuracy, weak guns, low maneuverability, and weak torpedoes. The Falcon has Military grade equipment, which puts it's guns at something like 4-40 GT, I think? It actually maneuvers like a fighter, i.e. it bobs and weaves and rolls. The fanciest move i've seen a Defiant pull is a loop. Factor in the concussion missiles, and the Defiant gets its balls pulled through the fence.

I'm not too sure about the power ratings on the Falcon's guns, but I think the 4-40 GT figure may be a bit much. Note that when the it fires at TIE fighters which are unshielded it just blows them apart or cripples them. I'd think that a 4-40 GT laser blast would completely vaporize the TIEs, but I could be wrong. Also note that in ANH they also had to "walk" the lasers into the TIEs, so they're also not dead accurate either. Granted a TIE is way smaller than the Defiant and can also pull far more fancy moves so the above point is probably irrelevant.

As for the Defiant I think it did quite well against the huge Klingon cap ship in mirror-verse episode Shattered Mirror. They were able to close with the ship and fly strafing runs right under it, and knock out a bunch of weapons on the cap ship. The Defiant was flying right under the ship at a good speed while all of it's phaser banks to knock out the weapons points. It was firing forwards, and to the side and rear at targets that were probably the size of a TIE when it was flying past. Obviously those weren't moving or trying to evade like a TIE would, but it proves that the Defiant can hit a small target.

[seanrobertson]

No offense, but that is NOT a fair comparision. The Defiant has bad accuracy,

Compared to what? The Falcon's guns? As I recall, Calrissian
had to close to within several kilometers to fire concussion missiles
on the DS II's main reactor. ECM is certainly a factor here, but
it should NOT have been in the escape from DS1, in ANH. Yet,
I recall Han--and even Luke, with his Force-guided reflexes--missing
TIE Fighters repeatedly with their quad laser cannons.

weak guns,

? Defiant's phasers are far superior to the MF's quad-lasers.
Probably 1,000x more effective against shields.

low maneuverability, and weak torpedoes. The Falcon has Military grade equipment, which puts it's guns at something like 4-40 GT, I think?

No. She's not nearly big enough to mount such weapons, nor do
VFX support such a wild 6 orders of magnitude jump.

You should compare Falcon's guns to Slave-One's.
The S-1 had weapons in the hundreds of gigajoules to low
kiloton range; the _ICS_ even denotes S-1's maximum "gun"
firepower. S-1's guns were impressive for her size, but her real
power lay in those devastating missiles and mines.

It actually maneuvers like a fighter, i.e. it bobs and weaves and rolls. The fanciest move i've seen a Defiant pull is a loop. Factor in the concussion missiles, and the Defiant gets its balls pulled through the fence.

The only thing that allows Falcon TO win, IMO, are the concussion
missiles. The MF's guns are DEFINITELY not a threat to Defiant's
defenses--not unless Han managed to stay at range and repeatedly
hit Defiant with one maximum powered hit after another. That
would take time, time that the D wouldn't give them.

Concussion missiles have to come into play. They could potentially
be megaton-ranged weapons if not more. That's what wins the fight
for Falcon if she can fire 'em in time.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Yet we have seen the E-D survive against torpedoes against in bare hull in Generations.

From a 20 year old scout ship.

We have also seen it take Romulan disrupter shots which are more powerful then the E-Ds weapons.

Where?

You have an unusual situation here and you are trying to make it standard when there are more situations proving the E-D can take more then just 2 shots against its bare hull.

Unusual? How is almost destroying yourself unusual?

[Ender]

However if WEG is to be belived there are Giga-ton level Torps out there equal nearly to a HTL in its words that are carrable by Fighters...

Stronger evidence then that.

In Isards revenge, it says that a full volley of CMs from a Vicstar could take down the shields on an ISD. Now take the 160 TT shields, divide by 2 (for particle and energy), and divide by 4 (for each section), and divide by 80 and you get

250 GT Concussion Missiles on capital ships.

And aren't Torps suppossed to be something like 2x as strong as CMs?

[Alyeska]

It was pointed out that the Defiant would likely be firing at the Falcon's aft section if using PPCs. That is indeed true, and continued use of the PPCs would do a very good job and keeping the Falcon from comming in at direct angles. The Falcon can not afford to fly in predictable patterns and in order for it to get a lock with its concussion missiles it must do just that. The PPCs fired from the Defiant will keep it from doing that.

And as to the Falcon having a better spread of weapons. It has a missile launcher, fixed forward. It has a light laser, fixed forward. It has 2 quad lasers, one topside one bottom side. The defiant has 4 PPCs forward and 2 launchers. It has 3 omni directional phasers set up around to give protection from any angle. It has 2 rear launchers. The Defiant has a better spread of weapons and can keep the Falcon off at any angle. The Falcon on the other hand can only do relative damage with the quads, but must come in from a forward angle to fire the concussion missiles. The Defiant has a much easier time bringing weapons to bear on the Falcon with its mix of front and aft weaponry. A detonated series of torpedoes against the Falcon can force the Falcon away while PPC fire keeps the Falcon from flying in a course to allow for missile fire.

As I stated before, the Falcon must hit the Defiant from the begining. If it can not do that and the battle becomes a manuevering battle, the Defiant will win every time.

[Master of Ossus]

Wait, what? The Defiant wins a maneuvering battle against the Falcon? Where are you getting this?

Also, you are still disregarding the comparative weapons yields of the two ships, and the size disparity. The Defiant may have an ability to fire in several directions (emphasis on "may"), but the Falcon would easily be able to exploit areas from which the Defiant has very few weapons, or only light weapons.

[Alyeska]

Wait, what? The Defiant wins a maneuvering battle against the Falcon? Where are you getting this?

Also, you are still disregarding the comparative weapons yields of the two ships, and the size disparity. The Defiant may have an ability to fire in several directions (emphasis on "may"), but the Falcon would easily be able to exploit areas from which the Defiant has very few weapons, or only light weapons.

Except the Falcon will be using the very same such light weapons. With the Defiants larger bulk and armor it can take much more damage from the Falcons light weapons. And to get in at such angles the Falcon would have to be EXTREMELY close, which it would not be able to maintain because all the Defiant has to do is move in random directions and the Falcon can no longer stay within 20 meters. The Defiant's coverage with its beam phasers give it almost complete coverage even at close ranges. The beam phasers themselves were powerful enough that they are used in capship combat. If they were significantly weaker then either the QTs or PPCs, these beam phasers would not be used, but they have been used against a Jemhadar Attackship, an Excelsior, a Warbird, and the alternate universe Negh'Var monster. In all likelyhood the beam phaser is stronger then any one, or possibly 2-3 PPC pulses. The PPC gets its power in the fact that each PPC can fire 4 shots per second, and with 4 cannons thats 16 pulses in a single second. And these pulses are significant enough in firepower to do damage to other Trek ships. The beam phasers will score direct hits on the Falcon, and those hits will add up over time very quickly. Proximity detonation on the torpedoes will give significant long range attack capability and the sheer fire of the PPCs will allow the Defiant to saturate fire against the Falcon to act as supression.

[Master of Ossus]

Alyeska don't you get it? The fact that the Defiant can fight against ships in ST has almost no relevence during this debate. We are talking about the Defiant against a type of opponent it has never been up against--a fast, maneuverable ship that is fairly small by ST standards and has fairly powerful weapons. The Defiant has never demonstrated any ability to combat such a craft, but we can attempt to derive some of its figures based on a couple of facts and observations we can see during observed Defiant combat. Once you realize that SW starfighters are sometimes MORE powerful than some capital ships in ST, you will begin to understand the flaws in your reasoning.

1. The Defiant's ability to track a target, and engage it with multiple hard-points is highly questionable. Even against the comparatively VERY large and immobile Lakota, the Defiant missed several times and was never seen engaging the target with its aft-facing weapons. This indicates that there are probably problems with it attempting to do so. These difficulties would almost certainly be magnified against the Falcon, because the Falcon is both small and maneuverable and has very good acceleration. Also, the Falcon's sensor stealth abilities are known to be extremely good.

2. The Falcon's observed acceleration and turning radii are both superior to the Defiant's. This indicates that its ability to engage the Defiant in a "dogfight" would be very high.

3. The Falcon's quad turbolasers are fairly powerful, with firepower that likely totals into the low megaton range, and PERHAPS is slightly higher.

4. You assume that the Defiant would have the ability to target the Falcon with its forward weapons, in spite of BOTH the fact that it has never been seen targeting a ship analogous to the Falcon, and the fact that it is not as maneuverable as the Falcon.

5. Since you appear to claim that because the Defiant can fight against large ships in ST, I would point out to you that this is a serious logical fallacy. The Falcon has evaded capture against numerous Imperator-class Star Destroyers which are both significantly larger and VASTLY more powerful than anything foreseeable in ST. It has also destroyed a DS, which is quite obviously something that ST has no capability to produce.

6. When you claim that the Falcon would not be able to get very close to the Defiant, you ignore the Falcon's known maneuverability and ability to fire significantly off-axis. You also ignore the Falcon's sensors, which are known to be extremely good (even by military standards, ref. Edge of Victory). These would likely allow the Falcon to target the Defiant during combat situations, even if the ship was off-axis to the Falcon itself.

7. You talk about how proximity blasts from torpedoes would damage the Falcon quickly, while both ignoring possibilities that they could not be targeted against the Falcon for the reasons I listed above, and the fact that the Falcon withstood multiple proximity blasts from Imperator class Star Destroyers in ESB, as well as MULTIPLE Medium turbolaser strikes at the Battle of Endor, along with likely damage from TIE fighters and similar craft.

Essentially, you make a few general claims:

1. The Falcon is not as maneuverable or fast as the Defiant. This is not true. The Falcon's observed maneuverability and speed are both better than those of the Defiant.

2. The Defiant's weapons would be able to rapidly damage the Falcon, but the Falcon's weapons are very light by comparison. Also, the Defiant's ability to absorb damage is greater than that of the Falcon. This may or may not be true, but it seems highly dubious, based on the evidence that I see. Don't get me wrong, if you have compelling evidence of this I will, of course, concede the point, but I don't see how the firepower of the Defiant can possibly be far higher than that of the Falcon.

[Alyeska]

Alyeska don't you get it? The fact that the Defiant can fight against ships in ST has almost no relevence during this debate. We are talking about the Defiant against a type of opponent it has never been up against--a fast, maneuverable ship that is fairly small by ST standards and has fairly powerful weapons. The Defiant has never demonstrated any ability to combat such a craft, but we can attempt to derive some of its figures based on a couple of facts and observations we can see during observed Defiant combat. Once you realize that SW starfighters are sometimes MORE powerful than some capital ships in ST, you will begin to understand the flaws in your reasoning.

The Defiant has been observed engaging Peregrine and Tac-Fighters. Both are similar in size to the Falcon. When the Defiant engaged these craft, it was doing so under partial capability with downed systems.

1. The Defiant's ability to track a target, and engage it with multiple hard-points is highly questionable. Even against the comparatively VERY large and immobile Lakota, the Defiant missed several times and was never seen engaging the target with its aft-facing weapons. This indicates that there are probably problems with it attempting to do so. These difficulties would almost certainly be magnified against the Falcon, because the Falcon is both small and maneuverable and has very good acceleration. Also, the Falcon's sensor stealth abilities are known to be extremely good.

The Defiant used its aft facing weapons against the Lakota. The Defiant missed the Lakota only 25% of the time with its PPCs durring the entire battle, and that was because the Defiant rolled while firing.

2. The Falcon's observed acceleration and turning radii are both superior to the Defiant's. This indicates that its ability to engage the Defiant in a "dogfight" would be very high.

And the Defiant has shown the ability to make fast rolls when necessary, any such roll would present other sides of the Defiant to the Falcon and prevent the Falcon from sitting on any side.

3. The Falcon's quad turbolasers are fairly powerful, with firepower that likely totals into the low megaton range, and PERHAPS is slightly higher.

And the Defiant can sustain heavy fire from MT level weaponry. It displayed the ability to survive 14+ phaser strikes and 2 torpedo strikes from the Lakota while still retaining shields. The Falcon on the other hand can only sustained limited hits from enemy ships. It was nearly torn to pieces by just a small flight of Ties.

4. You assume that the Defiant would have the ability to target the Falcon with its forward weapons, in spite of BOTH the fact that it has never been seen targeting a ship analogous to the Falcon, and the fact that it is not as maneuverable as the Falcon.

On the contrary the Defiant has dealt with craft the size of the Falcon many times. The Defiant has also shown the ability to roll 90 degrees in under half a second. Human reaction time is much slower then that. Such rolls would allow the Defiant to present its top or bottom phasers to strike the Falcon.

5. Since you appear to claim that because the Defiant can fight against large ships in ST, I would point out to you that this is a serious logical fallacy. The Falcon has evaded capture against numerous Imperator-class Star Destroyers which are both significantly larger and VASTLY more powerful than anything foreseeable in ST. It has also destroyed a DS, which is quite obviously something that ST has no capability to produce.

I am pointing out that the Defiant has weapons, shields, and armor dispraportionate to its size.

6. When you claim that the Falcon would not be able to get very close to the Defiant, you ignore the Falcon's known maneuverability and ability to fire significantly off-axis. You also ignore the Falcon's sensors, which are known to be extremely good (even by military standards, ref. Edge of Victory). These would likely allow the Falcon to target the Defiant during combat situations, even if the ship was off-axis to the Falcon itself.

The tracking capability of the missiles and torpedoes in SW are designed to deal with capital ships which can not evade such missiles. Such systems would allow the Falcon to get its missiles aimed in the general direction of the Defiant, but any manuevering or change of direction by the Defiant would render such missiles useless. The Falcon would have to close range to fire them. You also seem to be ignoring the Defiant's manueverability and capability to fire off axis including its capability to fire significant power from its rear arc.

7. You talk about how proximity blasts from torpedoes would damage the Falcon quickly, while both ignoring possibilities that they could not be targeted against the Falcon for the reasons I listed above, and the fact that the Falcon withstood multiple proximity blasts from Imperator class Star Destroyers in ESB, as well as MULTIPLE Medium turbolaser strikes at the Battle of Endor, along with likely damage from TIE fighters and similar craft.

Unless Tie craft fire multi hundred MT level weaponry, I see no way the Falcon can survive an MTL and be threatened by KT level Tie weapons. I have adressed the issue that the Defiant can indeed deal with fighter level craft because Fed ships have shown the ability to detonate torpedoes among groups of fighter craft in the past.

Essentially, you make a few general claims:

1. The Falcon is not as maneuverable or fast as the Defiant. This is not true. The Falcon's observed maneuverability and speed are both better than those of the Defiant.

I made no such claim. I said that the Defiants weapon systems and its near capable speed and manueverability make the Falcons speed and manueverability a moot point. Manuevering is limited to reaction time. With the manuevering we have seen the Defiant make, the pilot of the Falcon does not have the reaction time to match such manuvers and that leaves the Falcon open to attack by the Defiants weapons.

2. The Defiant's weapons would be able to rapidly damage the Falcon, but the Falcon's weapons are very light by comparison. Also, the Defiant's ability to absorb damage is greater than that of the Falcon. This may or may not be true, but it seems highly dubious, based on the evidence that I see. Don't get me wrong, if you have compelling evidence of this I will, of course, concede the point, but I don't see how the firepower of the Defiant can possibly be far higher than that of the Falcon.

Unless you are claiming that Snubfighters carry cannons that are multi hundred MT in power (I have seen claims the LTL is 500 MT), this is absurd. The fact that Ties have died with colissions agaisnt asteroids at relatively low speeds indicate that Snub Fighters do not take so much firepower to kill. Either the snubfighter weaponry is being made to powerful to damage the Falcon, or the capital ship weaponry are underpowered/clipped shots.

[Master of Ossus]

1. Actually, DarkStar did once claim that the LTL's must have been 350 MT+ weapons. The fact that he was willing to make such a claim indicates that even hard-core Trekkies think it might be true. Further, Mike Wong's analysis of the X-Wing laser cannon firepower (consistent with other observed instances of firepower from X-Wings and other snubfighters at each other), indicates that even starfighter scale weapons are fairly powerful, by ST standards, and they are likely even more powerful than those lower-limit estimates.

2. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Peregrines are anywhere near as maneuverable as the Falcon, or that they have the kind of sensor stealth packages that the Falcon has?

3. The Defiant's missing of a 500 meter+ ship does not impress me, even with only 25% of its shots. The Falcon has repeatedly hit much smaller and FAR more nimble targets, albeit with a much lower accuracy than 75%.

4. The Defiant's roll rate is impressive, but its turning radius, pitch rate and (to my knowledge non-existant) yaw rate are not very impressive by SW starfighter standards. Coupled with the Defiant's enormous size and lack of stealth abilities during combat, that is not very impressive by SW standards.

5. The Falcon withstood more than two dozen LTL shots from the Conquest during ANH. It also withstood massive amounts of damage at Endor, and considerable weapons fire during ESB. The fact that the Defiant was able to withstand similar punishment, while being far larger and less maneuverable does not bode well for the Defiant.

6. The Defiant would also be presenting far larger profiles to the Falcon if it were ever to try and use its top or bottom phaser strikes to attack the Falcon repeatedly (at least I got Alyeska off of his claims that the Defiant would be able to target the Falcon with its forward weapons repeatedly).

7. And you do not think that the Falcon has engines, shields, weapons, and armor disproportionate to its size? Note how long it lasted at Endor without shields (the flashing sound was back). Clearly the Falcon has considerable armor capabilities, as well as shields and weapons.

8. You are incorrect in stating that the concussion missiles are designed to target capital ships. Concussion missiles are actually anti-starfighter weapons, while proton torpedoes are generally used against capital ships (though they can also be used against starfighters). That's okay, you can ignore known SW capabilities if it will help the Defiant win.

[Gandalf]

I've noticed that the cloaking device hasn't come up yet. (The reason it was rarely used was that the Dominion could see it still.)

[Master of Ossus]

I've noticed that the cloaking device hasn't come up yet. (The reason it was rarely used was that the Dominion could see it still.)

It's not in the least bit clear that it would operate effectively against SW sensors, but even if it did then it has never been used in combat, and this is a combat thread.

[Cal Wright]

No offense, but that is NOT a fair comparision. The Defiant has bad accuracy,

Compared to what?

Kids throwing rocks.

The Falcon's guns?

Seeing how that is what the Defiant will be engaging with during this debate.

As I recall, Calrissian
had to close to within several kilometers to fire concussion missiles
on the DS II's main reactor

.

Let's not forget that the chamber was only a few several kilometers anyways. Also, there was heavy jamming, Lando even told Wedge to lock onto the strongest powersource. It should be the main reactor. Not to mention that he has to be turned around to get back out.

ECM is certainly a factor here, but
it should NOT have been in the escape from DS1, in ANH

.

Obviously, because they were already outside the superstructure. They merely had to point up and fly fast.

Yet,
I recall Han--and even Luke, with his Force-guided reflexes--missing
TIE Fighters repeatedly with their quad laser cannons.

weak guns,

Luke was NOT Force aided. Any inclinations he had through the force would have been minor. Anakin pod racing has a lot of examples of one that is merely force aided, and not enhanced. Not to mention that when their computer gained a 'lock' so to speak they hit. Although any misses would be contributed much like the Defiant. Trying to hit a constantly moving target.

? Defiant's phasers are far superior to the MF's quad-lasers.

Says who? They work the same way. Immense power dispensed in bursts.

Probably 1,000x more effective against shields

?!? Where'd you get those figures from. Fine, if we're just pulling numbers out of the air I'll make this statement. It seems to me that the Defiant's phasers and the Falcon's quads are no different. They are powerful and come in quick bursts.

low maneuverability, and weak torpedoes. The Falcon has Military grade equipment, which puts it's guns at something like 4-40 GT, I think?

No. She's not nearly big enough to mount such weapons, nor do
VFX support such a wild 6 orders of magnitude jump.

She shouldn't be big enough to mount multiple capital grade shield generators. The Falcon shouldn't have smuggling compartments or a class .5 hyperdrive.

You should compare Falcon's guns to Slave-One's.
The S-1 had weapons in the hundreds of gigajoules to low
kiloton range; the _ICS_ even denotes S-1's maximum "gun"
firepower. S-1's guns were impressive for her size, but her real
power lay in those devastating missiles and mines.

Why? The Falcon has capital grade quad lasers. Two in fact. I think we should compare these to capital ships. Salve 1 did not have quad lasers either. side mounted laser canons.

It actually maneuvers like a fighter, i.e. it bobs and weaves and rolls. The fanciest move i've seen a Defiant pull is a loop. Factor in the concussion missiles, and the Defiant gets its balls pulled through the fence.

The only thing that allows Falcon TO win, IMO, are the concussion
missiles. The MF's guns are DEFINITELY not a threat to Defiant's
defenses--not unless Han managed to stay at range and repeatedly
hit Defiant with one maximum powered hit after another. That
would take time, time that the D wouldn't give them.

Not just the concussion missiles, but the manuveribility, the hidden laser canons and the dual quad laser canons. Everything the Falcon has IS DEFINITELY a threat to the Defiant. It wouldn't take much time either. The Defiant would be powerless to do anything.

Concussion missiles have to come into play. They could potentially
be megaton-ranged weapons if not more. That's what wins the fight
for Falcon if she can fire 'em in time.

IF. This is not a question of IF, it's WHEN.

[Gandalf]

If the cloak going into the battle they can just find a good angle of attack, decloak and fire.

[Master of Ossus]

If the cloak going into the battle they can just find a good angle of attack, decloak and fire.

If the cloak is effective. The problem is that Federation cloaks are detectable through a wide variety of methods, including a search for plasma exhaust or gravity. We know that SW sensors scan for a very wide variety of factors (ref. HttE), and we also know that even simple modifications to ST ships make them capable of detecting cloaking devices. Also, SW has its own cloaking devices and its own methods of detecting such cloaks, albeit the Falcon has none of these except a sensor-stealth system.

[Isolder74]

I agree, the Falcon has every avalible space including some of the cargo area dedicated to the improved Hyperdrive, the beefed Power core as well as solo's Military toys. the ship's outer hull looks like it would fall apart if hit but that is excatallly whAt Solo wants you to think. but it has majorly been reinforced to have military grade armor.

[Cal Wright]

It was pointed out that the Defiant would likely be firing at the Falcon's aft section if using PPCs. That is indeed true, and continued use of the PPCs would do a very good job and keeping the Falcon from comming in at direct angles.

The point is, the Falcon doesn't need to. The Quadlasers do not have a set arc. They swivel.

The Falcon can not afford to fly in predictable patterns and in order for it to get a lock with its concussion missiles it must do just that. The PPCs fired from the Defiant will keep it from doing that.

First off, I might be mistaken on this, but PPC is that refering to the pulse phasers. However, if so, the PPCs will be utterly useless in this match. Also, where do you get that the Falcon has to fly in a predictable pattern to get a missile lock. If the Falcon keeps itself ventral to the Defiant it will not have to contend with anything. That washtub of an attack craft has shown amply that it will be no contest for the Falcon to do just that.

And as to the Falcon having a better spread of weapons. It has a missile launcher, fixed forward.

Is this devestating to thier fighting ability. Possibly, however, since the Defiant won't be in thier 6 for more than a second, it's irrelivent.

It has a light laser, fixed forward.

ESB, Hoth bay. That thing can swivel, or did the snowtroopers just jump out in front of it?

It has 2 quad lasers, one topside one bottom side.

With big lazy boy recliners. Forgot that part.

The defiant has 4 PPCs forward and 2 launchers.

Sounds impressive. Unless you ask the Borg about that.

It has 3 omni directional phasers set up around to give protection from any angle.

Do they shoot down?

It has 2 rear launchers.

That could come in handy. Any other washtubs or sonas that come close are smoked.

The Defiant has a better spread of weapons and can keep the Falcon off at any angle.

Oh really. An Imperial Star Destroyer has 60 turbolasers. Didn't stop the Falcon from clamping on to her ass.

The Falcon on the other hand can only do relative damage with the quads,

Substantial damage. Those quads will pound the hell out of the Defiant.

but must come in from a forward angle to fire the concussion missiles.

Not a directly forward angle. The only time we have seen the Falcon fire missiles was in the heavily disrupted chamber. This in no way can be accounted to how it must fire them. No lock, missiles go straight. Therefore the Falcon had to fly straight. They may have even had a slight lock though. If I remember the missiles actually angled upward. I'll watch the movie again and post on that.

The Defiant has a much easier time bringing weapons to bear on the Falcon with its mix of front and aft weaponry

.

What about ventral weaponary? The Defiant has as much of a chance of getting the Falcon into a fireing arc, as the Falcon itself. They both have the abillity to fire in multiple arcs.

A detonated series of torpedoes against the Falcon can force the Falcon away while PPC fire keeps the Falcon from flying in a course to allow for missile fire.

This is assuming also that the Falcon fires none of HER weapons.

As I stated before, the Falcon must hit the Defiant from the begining.

The Defiant needs to do the same.

If it can not do that and the battle becomes a manuevering battle, the Defiant will win every time.

No it will not. The battle WILL become a manuvering battle, and the Falcon wins withough breaking a sweat. All of these posts against the Falcon are on unsupported evidence, or evidence clearly overriden by on screen displays. Everyone keeps ASSUMING that the quad lasers are not a factor. The only thing we have seen the quads fire on were TIE Fighters. There again everyone assumes that because the TIEs are unsheilded that they are weak. Weak compared to other craft and namely thier Rebel counterparts solely on the fact that they lack the sheilds other craft have. Where as we've seen unsheilded TIEs take asteroid collisions and even laser shots and still be wholey intact. Albeit spinning wildly but that's besides the point. These targets in no way present a maximum yeild on the power of the guns. It could be a lower limit due to the fact that they fire numerous amounts of times at the Battle of Endor where they cleearly had not idea how long it would be until the sheild was down. As long as everyone is making assumptions, let's put some facts out here. The Defiant's weapons have been shown being used on Star Trek ships and sheilds. It has been observed and calculated that it does not take an impressive amount of power (when compared to what Star Wars has) to accomplish this task. Therefore claiming that in this engagement that the Defiant is suddenly going to be this uber craft that is unstoppable unless the Falcon severly handicaps itself by standing still, flying straight and using the only weapon many people says 'is the only chance.'. This is ludicrous. Toe to Toe, the Defiant isn't even worth the her weight in shit when this one's over.

[Howedar]

To be honest, I find it somewhat laughable that some of you claim that the quadlasers are orders of magnitude more powerful than a TF Core Ships's point-defense light laser cannons (8KT per shot max). Certainly we've never seen turret weapons smaller than the Falcon's, so it seems quite reasonable to assume rough parity between said point-defense light laser cannons and the Falcon's quadlasers.