Gatac 2004-01-13 10:01:16
Some is fashion, some is fad
Some is good, some is bad
And the joke is rather sad
It's all just a little bit of history repeating

Dieter 2004-01-13 14:27:27
Um, correct me if I'm wrong...but TIEs aren't built for atmospheric re-entry? If that's the case, they can only chase us so far.

Divert shields to aft with suppressive fire until the TIEs have to break off.
Gatac 2004-01-13 15:54:19
I recall reading somewhere (Incrdible Cross-Sections? Must be.) that TIEs can theoretically land on their wings, but are not equipped for it - Imperial pilots are trained to depend on their carriers.

Also, standard TIEs have no shields, and unless you subscribe to the whole "Neutronium hull" bullcrap, it's pretty much structurally impossible for them to withstand reentry. The wing attachments alone are structural weak points, and I highly doubt they're stressed to withstand the rigors of atmopsheric flight, not to forget reentry.

Have we ever seen TIEs operate in an atmosphere? I can't recall an occasion. On the other hand, as seen in TESB, X-Wings can reenter, land, and even carry survival equipment for the pilot. We also see them launching from the ground in ANH.

My point? While it's canon that there are SW fightercraft that can reenter and land, I don't think TIEs can do it. It would complicate their construction greatly and not really add any value to them. We have to recall that X-Wings are flown by a relatively small number of pilots, and the Alliance would surely want their skilled men to have the greatest possible chances of survival - whereas the Empire has a billion more where that FOOMED jockey came from.

Er, so I think TIEs can't do it.

Admiral Duck Sauce 2004-01-13 16:13:01
I recall either in video games or movies that TIES are carried by ceiling cranes, reinforcing the theory that landing on their solar panels is bad. Either way, the issue of re-entry is a good one - if they hit you and drop your deflector screens, you have to re-enter at a speed that they can match. If you kill them, of course, that's a moot point. If they miss you, you can outdistance them in the atmosphere simply because you can take the heat better.

If TIEs can fly in an atmosphere in an emergency, they can probably land on their solar panels in an emergency. But really, who wants to bet that these particular two will be landing anywhere in the forseeable future? :)
fanchergw 2004-01-13 17:36:03

I believe their are 3 turrets: 2 heavy blaster turrets (top and belly), and 'Za's little autocannon.


If the autocannon is capable of being turned to firing aft, Jileeza will happily join in the defensive fire. I suspect, however, that it has only a forward firing arc, from the description.
CrazyIvan 2004-01-13 20:40:33
TIEs are atmo capable. The problem is, with X-Wings having actual flight surfaces, they're really very very outclassed. They also have landing struts, but for some reason, Star Wars carriers tend to carry things on grappling cranes. The Rebellion does it too.
Dieter 2004-01-13 21:51:06
Excerpt from a file at theforce.net.

TIE fighters have enormous accelerative capabilities for their size. They can effortlessly make orbit from the surface of a habitable world, which implies that their onboard energy sources are much greater than 6x107 joules per kilogram of the ship's mass. This is the bare minimum needed to reach escape velocity from the surface of an Earth-like world. The same feat involving a planet of Bespin's size would require more than nine times as much energy. (Of course, even the most humble freighter craft in STAR WARS are capable of that. This is just an indicative energy scale for all STAR WARS sublight travel.) Considering the ease and rate at which TIEs travel to and from planetary atmospheres in various books and comics, and the tremendous acrobatics carried out at the same time, a better minimum estimate on the energy available for propulsion would be hundreds of times greater.

I suppose it's ADS call.
Admiral Duck Sauce 2004-01-13 22:58:52
I think we'll go with common sense on this one. Even though the TIE is cheap and "expendable", it's stupid to not make a fighter that can go from space to planet, and land on that planet, especially when every other fighter can.
Gatac 2004-01-14 00:58:44

Well, some people believe the Enterprise-E is 16 kilometers long...

I guess we'll just have to kick their asses.

CrazyIvan 2004-01-17 08:29:18
I guess I'll talk to Gulgo. Can I just call him, or do I have to slip a note to one of his lackeys? It's better if we talk to the slug directly. Wouldn't do to have his henchmen pick up the cash and not take it to their boss.
Gatac 2004-01-19 22:12:21
There was a bullet-shaped hole in my head where the answers should be.

Now I'll never get the mental image of a Hut with a Russian accent out of my head.

Though I don't think it's a bad thing.

Gatac 2004-01-20 15:11:42
As long as we don't receive a transmission advertising Interfectum painkillers, it's all good.

punkey 2004-01-23 07:35:07
I quote Shadows of the Empire for proof on the light bricks that Hutts use. They can see it but pretty much no one else can. Of course, having radiating sources that emit signals that penetrate walls isn't the smartest idea if you want to keep someone from scanning your facility. :)
fanchergw 2004-01-23 16:32:36
Gulgo said, "Bring me my money." I'm thinking we should do as he asked. If so, we should take everyone with us - just in case. Though it might be wise to leave one person behind to keep an eye on the Chance
Dieter 2004-01-23 16:45:04
We're taking the money with us. Whoever decides to stay behind can do so. Let's go.