Delta Flyer vs X-Wing

[Slartibartfast]

Here you go:



Canon too.

Sorry about the size.

[Metrion Cascade]

When have we ever seen the DF in a situation that required such a maneuver and unable to carry it out? Never, since the DF would simply fire backwards. And the DF doesn't use touchpads for the helm. Tom Paris designed it with joysticks.

Why we are focusing on maneuverability rather than firepower and shielding?

I know next to nothing of X-Wing weapons.

Not that it matters...every fast maneuver you've ever seen a Fed ship do outside the DF and the battle in "Insurrection" was done with those touchpads. It shouldn't work, but somehow it does. These ships DO rotate in a split second to escape Dyson spheres

That was not a split-second maneuver, and someone could have easily punched in "-90" on some kind of pitch setting keypad in the time they executed it.

and the Defiant DID chase Birds of Prey between DS9's docking pylons, and dodge Borg tractor-cutters. The maneuvers were input, by one means or another.

Perhaps the keypad can be reconfigured for hard maneuvering to act like the controls of a FPS game on a computer. Or perhaps they brought up a joystick; ever since Insurrection, we've known that this is an option on Federation starships.

Right. My point being that whatever maneuverability Fed ships have (great, crappy, inbetween), the controls can (by one means or another) properly exploit that maneuverability.

[Metrion Cascade]

Here you go:

<snip picture>
Canon too.

Sorry about the size.

It's already been shown that X-Wing fire can converge, but I fail to see how this picture shows something that can't be perspective.

[Metrion Cascade]

Why we are focusing on maneuverability rather than firepower and shielding?

Probably because those are pretty well moot points.

When have we ever seen the DF in a situation that required such a maneuver and unable to carry it out? Never, since the DF would simply fire backwards.

Exactly: it needs those rearward phasers to cover it's ass because it is incapable of split-second maneuvers like the one described above.

Nobody has even attempted to prove this.

And the DF doesn't use touchpads for the helm. Tom Paris designed it with joysticks.

My mistake, I was under the impression that it was controlled like every other Fed ship.

Not that it matters...every fast maneuver you've ever seen a Fed ship do outside the DF and the battle in "Insurrection" was done with those touchpads. It shouldn't work, but somehow it does. These ships DO rotate in a split second to escape Dyson spheres and the Defiant DID chase Birds of Prey between DS9's docking pylons, and dodge Borg tractor-cutters. The maneuvers were input, by one means or another.

To my knowledge, we have never seen a Fed ship going full speed spin 180 degress on its axis and kill its momentum, at the same time targeting and firing at an enemy that was previously directly behind it.

Because we've never seen it in a situation that required such a maneuver. I've never seen the Delta Flyer do a barrel roll either. That doesn't mean it can't. Only that it's never been necessary. Why?

a) The DF can fire backwards.
b) The DF doesn't need to turn around to stop suddenly.

Name one battle where the Delta Flyer needed to move like this and didn't.

[Connor MacLeod]

X-wings have shields that can stand multi-kiloton energy yields, variable yield torpedoes, lasers that can fire anywhere from 4-10 bolts per cannon per second an yield anywhere from the mid-high GJ range to low TJ range (depending on output level.)

Unless the Delta Flyer is packing some serious firepower (doubtful), I dont think it can win even if it is more agile and can fire backwards.

[Metrion Cascade]

X-wings have shields that can stand multi-kiloton energy yields, variable yield torpedoes, lasers that can fire anywhere from 4-10 bolts per cannon per second an yield anywhere from the mid-high GJ range to low TJ range (depending on output level.)

Unless the Delta Flyer is packing some serious firepower (doubtful), I dont think it can win even if it is more agile and can fire backwards.

The DF can take multi-kiloton yields too, and all sorts of things in Trek are variable yield (which doesn't say anything about their upper limits, so it doesn't matter). Now the energy ranges you mentioned are what could end the discussion if anyone has hard numbers for the DF's weapons and shields. And where are these numbers from?

[Connor MacLeod]

X-wings have shields that can stand multi-kiloton energy yields, variable yield torpedoes, lasers that can fire anywhere from 4-10 bolts per cannon per second an yield anywhere from the mid-high GJ range to low TJ range (depending on output level.)

Unless the Delta Flyer is packing some serious firepower (doubtful), I dont think it can win even if it is more agile and can fire backwards.

The DF can take multi-kiloton yields too, and all sorts of things in Trek are variable yield (which doesn't say anything about their upper limits, so it doesn't matter). Now the energy ranges you mentioned are what could end the discussion if anyone has hard numbers for the DF's weapons and shields. And where are these numbers from?

Based on what is known for fighters from canon (both the movies and hte AOTC ICS) - which stand unless you're going to argue for some sort of ridiculous technical regression between the Republic and Empire eras.

[Vympel]

Regarding convergence, you can dial in the convergence you want in X-Wing Alliance, in case anyone was wondering ... (or has that already been mentioned?). Bah, don't care.

[Darth Fanboy]

What kind of chance would the Delta Flyer have if the X Wing just fired off a proton torpedo from maximum range with a lock (2.5 klicks?)

Targeting bracket goes red, torpedo goes off, and I dont think that the DF can outdo a Protorp if Yavin is any indicator.

[Lord of the Farce]

It's already been shown that X-Wing fire can converge, but I fail to see how this picture shows something that can't be perspective.

Look at it again. It is quite obvious that the Interceptor and the fighter we are looking out of are pulling up on an almost perfectly parallel course. Besides the fact that the X-Wing is firing off-center (just look at the supports inside the cockpit), the shot that hits the Interceptor is at pixel (215, 105) just before contact, and the closest that we see of the previous shot from the same side is at pixel (233, 110).

Also, the fact that the camera was turning towards the left means that the aim shift of the right side cannon is actually more than the 18 pixels worked out above.

[Metrion Cascade]

Oh, hell. I just saw that the picture of the X-wing battle is animated. I didn't see that the first time. Yes, it does show the X-wing firing off-center. Guess there's another example.

As for yields for the DF and X-wing, I'd be obliged if someone could post the numbers from the ICS. And good luck finding ANYTHING concrete about the DF. All I could find was the scene from (if I recall the episode correctly) VOY "Unimatrix Zero" where the Borg tactical cube needed three or four photonic missiles to destroy the first one, and only broke the hull into a dozen chunks instead of completely obliterating it. The DF's warp core didn't even explode. Supposedly the second one was upgraded, but I'm not clear on what the upgrades were.

[Ghost Rider]

In the ICS they gave near 1 KT rating for the Aethersprite(the Jedi Starfighter)...unless you're going to claim the Incom T-65 is weaker(and canon has shown it to be stronger in ANH), we have KT rating for guns alone.

The Proton Torpedo have been shown in official to being easily MT level.

So unless you're saying the DF is now stronger then the Ent-D...the DF loses in this contest horribly.

[Metrion Cascade]

In the ICS they gave near 1 KT rating for the Aethersprite(the Jedi Starfighter)...unless you're going to claim the Incom T-65 is weaker(and canon has shown it to be stronger in ANH), we have KT rating for guns alone.

The Proton Torpedo have been shown in official to being easily MT level.

So unless you're saying the DF is now stronger then the Ent-D...the DF loses in this contest horribly.

I will assume that the T-65 is stronger, obviously. But there's still no proof of pro-torp yield or that the E-D can't take megaton range weapons. And strangely, the DF's shields do make it stronger than some older Fed capships even with partial shields. The only thing that was ever able to destroy it was a Borg tactical cube, and even the cube couldn't destroy it with one hit (a regular cube was able to destroy Steamrunners and Akiras that still had partial shields). The difference between the DF's shields and the rest of the fleet seems to be one of quality, not just capacity. The Defiant has far less power output than the Odyssey, but survives where the Odyssey doesn't because its shields work better and block things the Odyssey's shields don't.

[Kuja]

Exactly: it needs those rearward phasers to cover it's ass because it is incapable of split-second maneuvers like the one described above.

Nobody has even attempted to prove this.

To my knowledge, we have never seen a Fed ship going full speed spin 180 degress on its axis and kill its momentum, at the same time targeting and firing at an enemy that was previously directly behind it.

Because we've never seen it in a situation that required such a maneuver. I've never seen the Delta Flyer do a barrel roll either. That doesn't mean it can't. Only that it's never been necessary. Why?

a) The DF can fire backwards.
b) The DF doesn't need to turn around to stop suddenly.

Name one battle where the Delta Flyer needed to move like this and didn't.

Oh for heaven's sake, do I need to hold your hand on EVERYTHING?

First, if you're going to make a claim, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP. That means OBSERVED EVIDENCE. If you want to claim that the DF can perform such a maneuver, go ahead. Go ahead and watch me not believe you, and I will be perfectly within my bounds to do so, because you have no evidence to back you up.

The DF has never duplicated the maneuver I described above. Therefore, the DF cannot duplicate the maneuver. Post evidence to the contrary or concede.


Second: I post evidence to support my side, you post evidence to support yours, got it? I'm not going to run around looking for clips or descriptions of the DF to support your argument because you're too lazy to do it yourself. I don't need to name any battles where the DF didn't do something. YOU need to name battles where it DID.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Honestly, Metrion, do your own damn homework...

[SirNitram]

Proton torpedos are generally described as superior to concussion missiles in EU. A conc missile in the ICS is given a yield of 198 MT(Slave I's seeker missile). I think that's a few times more than anything the DF ever took on.

[Connor MacLeod]

Proton torpedos are generally described as superior to concussion missiles in EU. A conc missile in the ICS is given a yield of 198 MT(Slave I's seeker missile). I think that's a few times more than anything the DF ever took on.

Almost. 191 megatons (8e17 joules per missile, I believe)

[Connor MacLeod]

Proton torpedos are generally described as superior to concussion missiles in EU. A conc missile in the ICS is given a yield of 198 MT(Slave I's seeker missile). I think that's a few times more than anything the DF ever took on.

Almost. 191 megatons (8e17 joules per missile, I believe)

Fighter-grade concussion missiles are maybe about 3x weaker (going by TIE fighter non-ingame "stats") than fighter protorps. But missiles as large as Slave-1's (IE the Falcon's) also tend to be equal to fighter proton torpedoes.

Protorps are variable-yield though. They can be very low kiloton to very high gigaton. Megaton range seems to be a happy medium.

[The Silence and I]

As near as I can tell the firepower should not be so heavily in favor of the X-Wing. Many of us know the ICS II claims Slave-1 has a 2kt per shot max yield, which would obviously suggest the Athersprite can survive similar firepower, as it took ~5/6 hits from those weapons. Furthur the fighter itself is listed as having 1kt per shot max laser cannons.
That's just dandy, but sadly unsupported by the movies:
Slave-I did us the favor of hitting an asteroid during the chase, and I did some work scaling it. I found the asteroid was no wider than 7.5 meters, and what's more, Fett only clipped it, a protrusion about 2 meters high and 3.5 meters wide. His shot fragmented this, and a little bit deeper as well, along with considerable heating effects. The volume destroyed is very similar to the volume of a sphere 2.5 meters in diameter, which would yield a cratering energy around 0.54 tons of TNT, for about 2.3 GJ in that shot. Mike Wong estimates 480 shots per minute at this yield, so figure ~1 TJ per minute, or 0.26 kt.
Seems too low? Maybie your right, I'll assume it was a fluke , and the entire asteroid should have been destroyed --> a 7.5 meter sphere requires... 0.0020 kt!!! ~1 kt per minute, or 8.4 GJ per shot, and about 4 TJ per minute.
While it may be argued this is the price for such a high rate of fire, I really don't care here and now, because the fighter was damaged by individual shots with a firepower in the low (single digits) GJ range. I find it highly unlikely the X-Wing has shields about 500 times as powerful, that using the 8.4 GJ and ONE kt shields. I think the Delta Flyer has a very lethal package indeed, as its weapons are almost certainly kt range, but I can't really make a claim there, so someone else calculate something for that

Note, I'm sorry if this flies in the face of the EU, I have not read it, I don't plan to, and I don't really care much about it. Capitol ships are powerful, but I have yet to see impressive star-fighter firepower, other than war heads.
Also, I have some nice pictures I used to scale this asteroid, but I don't have a web server...if someone really needs to see them before taking anything I said as anything but un-founded crap, I'll ask around for a host. Calculations were extrapolated from Mike's calculator, and of course, if I made a mistake, please correct me.

[Mad]

For further allusions to X-wing firepower, check out what the X-wing did here and scale it:

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Which explosion was caused by the X-wing?

[Alyeska]

Delta Flyer has 100% weapons coverage at every angle. Starfleet beam phasers and associated targeting systems also have a demonstrated 99% accuracy rating. Insurrection also proves how quickly and accurately these systems can fire and retarget with accuracy.

If the X-Wing has torpedoes it will have a chance of winning. If it doesn't have torpedoes, it will probably loose. Whereas the X-Wing must remain reasonably on target, the Delta Flyer can manuever at will and still return fire.

[The Dude]

Calculations were extrapolated from Mike's calculator, and of course, if I made a mistake, please correct me.

There is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning:
why are you declaring a lower-limit value (yours) to be in conflict with a higher value (from ICS)? This runs counter to the very definition of lower limits.

There is no reason why we would expect all of a thermal weapon's energy to manifest in fragmentation. That's fine if you are trying to determine the absolute minimum energy requirements - but not for determining the actual shield strength of Obi-Wan's fighter.

Some heating MUST occur for mechanical effects to be observed at all - and your analysis provides no accounting for either the heat required or the inherent inefficiencies. Indeed, we observe clouds of vapour at the center of the ~10-m asteroid (scaled from the bolts) destroyed at 1:08:26. Easily 10% of the asteroid disappears, indicating a vape energy of at least a terajoule. Even this figure is only a lower limit, but certainly shows that the ICS figures are quite reasonable.

Your analysis also neglects the many dozens of flak shots that hit within two meters; I counted over 100 from 1:08:33 to 1:08:44 alone - the Slave-I is firing more than 1 shot per frame at this point!!! At two meters, the blast will hit the fighter with about 10%-30% of its yield (depending on orientation), meaning the fighter absorbed the equivalent of about 20 direct hits.

In summary, your lower limit figure, which is based on cratering energy of a fraction of an asteroid, neglects heating/vapourization altoghether and vastly underestimates the shots absorbed by the fighter, is wholly inadequate to override the ICS figures for the Slave-I weapons, much less the Jedi Starfighter figures

[The Dude]

Does anyone have the shield figures for the Jedi Starfighter from ICS?

[Lord of the Farce]

As for yields for the DF and X-wing, I'd be obliged if someone could post the numbers from the ICS.

The ICS doesn't actually have stats for the X-Wing, but assuming that the Jedi Starfighter is comparable, then it's laser cannons (the Delta-7's appears to be smaller than the T-65's) are capable of at least 1kt per shot max and the fighter itself can accelerate at around 5000G max.

And good luck finding ANYTHING concrete about the DF. All I could find was the scene from (if I recall the episode correctly) VOY "Unimatrix Zero" where the Borg tactical cube needed three or four photonic missiles to destroy the first one, and only broke the hull into a dozen chunks instead of completely obliterating it. The DF's warp core didn't even explode. Supposedly the second one was upgraded, but I'm not clear on what the upgrades were.

Hmmm... If the photonic missiles are like photon torps, then that's pretty impressive. If it's more like whatever that was used by the Sphere in First Contact, then that's not impressive at all.