And lest I forget, that top engine isn't a primary propulsion system, it's more of a SLAM type afterburner.

Seriously the kwing is like those starships you drew back in grade school. All kickass well wishing and no sense of reality or proportion.

Actually, the starships I drew in grade school were all about sleek aerodynamic lines and bubble canopies, but I was a special kind of hopeless nerd.

I give you, "The K-wing" The starfighter by Homer.

Sounds like a better kind than I was

And lest I forget, that top engine isn't a primary propulsion system, it's more of a SLAM type afterburner.

Seriously the kwing is like those starships you drew back in grade school. All kickass well wishing and no sense of reality or proportion.

Exactly, and that's what Star Wars is about. A science fiction saga that is all about imagination.

And as such the K-Wing reminds me of a WWII bomber or heavy fighter-bomber. B-25, B-17 and the like come to mind.

Let's not forget how much Lucas was inspired by WWII footage, he stated that multiple times!

The Scurrg is a great-looking ship, but i find it uninspiring, bland, boring in comparison to the K-Wing where you don't know where to look first with all these gizmos and details. It also looks like a real wartime design where engineers designed something for a special task at all cost, no matter how ugly it looks.

Also everyone here saying that the K-Wing would be bad in a dogfight... Yes probably because it is an ultra heavy bomber that carries turrets mainly for defense. It was also mainly designed for ground-attack duties and atmospheric flight iirc. That explains some of the weird design and the chin mounted turret!

Yes the Scurrg would fit nearly into X-Wing, but i would be really excited about the K-Wing, and especially how they would implement it, make it worthwile to take, and represent the Ball turrets properly!

The K-wing doesn't look like a WW2 bomber. I think it's meant to, but WW2 bombers were laid out in a logical fashion. The K-wing looks haphazard and poorly thought-out. And while wartime designs are sometimes built quickly (P-51 Mustang) most of the US bombers in WW2 were designed pre-war. The B-17 and B-24, as well as the B-25, B-26, and B-29 and all the other Bs we used in the war had turrets which were designed with combat efficiency in mind. They wouldn't accidentally shoot their own engines off. They had clear firing arcs to cover blind spots left by other turrets. They paid particular attention to the most likely avenues of attack, and so on and so forth. The K-wing does none of these things.

Moreover, the K-wing's cockpit design really bugs me. Why in the world would you make two identical side-by-side cockpits rather than one tandem cockpit? That would slim the fuselage down to a half or even a third of its present dimensions. That would be tremendously valuable for creating a ship that has good flight characteristics, which matters.

I just don't know how anyone can look at the K-wing and not see it as some ridiculous monstrosity of disparate parts thrown together by a small child. It looks like they reached into a lego-like bin of starfighter parts and just put them together until they used up all the parts in the box.

[The K-wing] looks like they reached into a lego-like bin of starfighter parts and just put them together until they used up all the parts in the box.

Unfortunately for all of us, that doesn't really seem to be a disqualification where Star Wars aesthetics are concerned.

Bear in mind that in this game hardened veterans are Pilot Skill 6, and ace pilots are Pilot Skill 7. Pilot Skill 8 is really something. Pilot Skill 9 hasn't been seen since Wave 2 for good reason.

Also, what's six laser cannons meant to mean? If you're saying number of guns = k(firepower) that's simply false. Utterly false. Count the guns on your ships (Lambda and Falcon in particular) and you'll see. Look up the number of guns on the Mouldy Crow on Wookieepedia.

A ship's attack value is indeed tied to its firepower, but the persistent delusion that that's somehow related to the number of barrels is something I see far too much on this forum and it's got to the point where it sets me off. Look at the guns on the X-wing compared to the TIE fighter, hell, look at the guns on the Outrider. To treat those as equivalent is outright insane.

To claim that FFG assigns attack values to ships based on counting the number of gun barrels on them and leaving it there is almost an insult to the designers.

I get you like Nym, but his ship is not the goddamn Sun Crusher.

not quite but its a good indicator as the only ship on small base with firepower 4 has 5 cannons most if not all 2 firpower have 2 cannons and 3 firepowers have 3/4 large ships if they are using cannon numbers as a guide would be based on individual turrets but i get what your saying but 6 heavy laser cannons is more than a phantom

I did an Excel plot of number of cannons against firepower once. The correlation is terrible. A rule broken as much as that one is not a rule.

The phantom's firepower is representative of its attack style as much as its armament, yes it's got five guns but two are tiny TIE fighter guns. You could fit every gun on the phantom inside a single one of the Outrider's guns. It's a silly, silly line of thinking that I'm overjoyed has mostly died out.

As for the Havoc, it'll be no more than Attack 3 on the Primary, might even be lower depending on secondary weapon slots. Four dice is a major, major thing.

Firepower is set by combining thematic information with mechanical practicalities.

[The K-wing] looks like they reached into a lego-like bin of starfighter parts and just put them together until they used up all the parts in the box.

Unfortunately for all of us, that doesn't really seem to be a disqualification where Star Wars aesthetics are concerned.

I disagree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a ship in the original series that looked that way, or the prequels for that matter. I think it's more of a comic book aesthetic.

[The K-wing] looks like they reached into a lego-like bin of starfighter parts and just put them together until they used up all the parts in the box.

Unfortunately for all of us, that doesn't really seem to be a disqualification where Star Wars aesthetics are concerned.

I disagree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a ship in the original series that looked that way, or the prequels for that matter. I think it's more of a comic book aesthetic.

You're right about the films. Let me qualify that statement: velcro-ing old parts together until you run out of parts doesn't seem to be a disqualifying aesthetic in the Star Wars EU.

[The K-wing] looks like they reached into a lego-like bin of starfighter parts and just put them together until they used up all the parts in the box.

Unfortunately for all of us, that doesn't really seem to be a disqualification where Star Wars aesthetics are concerned.

I disagree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a ship in the original series that looked that way, or the prequels for that matter. I think it's more of a comic book aesthetic.

You're right about the films. Let me qualify that statement: velcro-ing old parts together until you run out of parts doesn't seem to be a disqualifying aesthetic in the Star Wars EU.

I totally agree, but that was why I pointed out in my initial post that spawned all of this that I'm shocked comic book artists can be so very talented with their artistic abilities and yet have no sense of aesthetics when it comes to starfighters. It's like they don't know what makes sense and what doesn't, and so they design ships that don't have a unifying aesthetic quality about them (the way Naboo's ships do in the prequels, or the Empire's ships do in the movies and the games, or the way the Rebel ships do in the movies). The result is a bunch of really hideous designs which don't seem to be functional either.

I mean, I was initially called out for not having a university degree in starfighter design or for working for a prominent starfighter manufacturer, and I realize that not being employed directly by Nubian or Koensayr or Sienar maybe hurts my credentials, but I would argue that by not profiting directly from an association with them, my opinions are more likely to be free from bias.

Firepower is set by combining thematic information with mechanical practicalities.

Or you bring out the Cheetos because the OP ship cannot attack while cloaked... because you almost wanted the **** game ruining thing to seem like it has good design and balance.

Phantoms failed utterly... and needed to be fixed real bad.

Some people had to suffer to much over this ship.

I play all fun and such so it did not affect me at all.

The question which clearly must be begged at this point is, when do we get an AC-130 analogue?

I'm shocked comic book artists can be so very talented with their artistic abilities and yet have no sense of aesthetics when it comes to starfighters.

It's not just comic book artists and it's not just star fighters (or even space ships). I can't tell you how many 40k tank designs I have seen, some of them official models, that were just taking an existing tank and glueing mire and more guns onto it.

Oddly, in Star Trek, the phenomena doesn't apply to weapons but to the engines. Need a new ship design? Take an existing one and add more nacelles.

It's not just comic book artists and it's not just star fighters (or even space ships). I can't tell you how many 40k tank designs I have seen, some of them official models, that were just taking an existing tank and glueing mire and more guns onto it.

Or worse, the spez mahrine brick/box paradigm.

Oddly, in Star Trek, the phenomena doesn't apply to weapons but to the engines. Need a new ship design? Take an existing one and add more nacelles.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2013/08/23

I get that you're upset because you like the K-wing, but if you stop to consider for a moment the form of the K-wing, you'll find that it is really not beneficial for dogfighting in any circumstance, and particularly not in space (though space seems to behave differently in Star Wars than in the real world for reasons of fun and excitement in the action). To analyze why I hold the opinion I do, let's take a look at the picture of the K-wing and then discuss it. Here is the image I'm drawing my conclusions from

Nightshrike, I'm an engineering student, and I can say categorically you have no idea how to properly analyze a design. You start from an assumption (that it's a dogfighter) and work off of that. All of your conclusions about whether it's a good platform for its mission are based off that assumption, and the problem is that it's completely wrong.

The K-wing is an assault bomber. It's designed to lay waste to large numbers of highly armored immobile targets. Shielded targets are attacked with the turbolaser, and finished off with missiles and bombs. There's nothing about its mission profile that suggests it's supposed to deal with starfighters at all. In fact, in the only example I know of where the ship is "seen" in action, the Black Fleet Crisis books, it's ALWAYS escorted by E-wings and X-wings to keep TIE Fighters off its back.

This isn't to say that I like the K-wing. I've always found it to be an ugly design that while functional just doesn't look like it belongs in Star Wars. But it always offends me when I see people pretending they know how to analyze technology and then make obvious blunders like making assumptions about its role and then going off that, especially when they make such a long-winded post like that one. What you're doing would be like 14th century engineers looking at the sun, guessing that it runs on coal, then assuming that we only have a hundred years of sun left because obviously the only thing that can power something is a fossil fuel. Real engineers take a look at a design, look at its ostensible characteristics, then make judgements based off what it's likely to be. Like how they concluded that the sun must run off of a highly energetic reaction that isn't based on fossil fuels way back in the 19th century, before we even knew fusion was possible.

I'm serious... the kind of simple-minded "analysis" in that post almost makes my stomach turn...

Nightshrike, I'm an engineering student, and I can say categorically you have no idea how to properly analyze a design. You start from an assumption (that it's a dogfighter) and work off of that. All of your conclusions about whether it's a good platform for its mission are based off that assumption, and the problem is that it's completely wrong.

The K-wing is an assault bomber. It's designed to lay waste to large numbers of highly armored immobile targets. Shielded targets are attacked with the turbolaser, and finished off with missiles and bombs. There's nothing about its mission profile that suggests it's supposed to deal with starfighters at all. In fact, in the only example I know of where the ship is "seen" in action, the Black Fleet Crisis books, it's ALWAYS escorted by E-wings and X-wings to keep TIE Fighters off its back.

This isn't to say that I like the K-wing. I've always found it to be an ugly design that while functional just doesn't look like it belongs in Star Wars. But it always offends me when I see people pretending they know how to analyze technology and then make obvious blunders like making assumptions about its role and then going off that, especially when they make such a long-winded post like that one. What you're doing would be like 14th century engineers looking at the sun, guessing that it runs on coal, then assuming that we only have a hundred years of sun left because obviously the only thing that can power something is a fossil fuel. Real engineers take a look at a design, look at its ostensible characteristics, then make judgements based off what it's likely to be. Like how they concluded that the sun must run off of a highly energetic reaction that isn't based on fossil fuels way back in the 19th century, before we even knew fusion was possible.

I'm serious... the kind of simple-minded "analysis" in that post almost makes my stomach turn...

Let's be careful; the last time you brought up your scholastic qualifications here, somebody else brought up Noah's Ark and his deceased wife.

My post was polite and honest. Your post is super-rude. However, I'm not going to respond in kind. I will say that I completely disagree with you, and I disagree with you because of a fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have about how actual combat with spacecraft in Star Wars (based on aircraft in the real world) works. Combat spacecraft, like real combat aircraft, have to survive in the combat environment. In space, that environment includes capital ships and starfighters, as well as long-range missiles and turbo lasers. That environment requires a baseline level of agility that the K-wing simply does not possess. Moreover, my points regarding visibility from the cockpit pertain to all front-line aircraft of today, regardless of their mission role. No-one would claim the A-10 Warthog is a dogfighter, but it retains all-around visibility with a bubble canopy for very good reasons - it's a good idea to be able to see wherever you are.

On top of that, having side by side cockpits is stupid whatever the mission role for the K-wing is. It adds unnecessary mass by increasing the width 3 or 4 times what it needs to be in order to accomplish the job of holding a pilot and weapons officer, and it adds no tangible benefits like increased visibility for situational awareness. It is purely a stupid design choice on the part of someone who thought it looked cool. Likewise, the engine sitting on top of the spacecraft is a terrible design no matter what the mission role. It is exposed to attack, it limits visibility, and it prevents your turret from defending your most vulnerable area.

Your post rests on the assumption that X-wings and E-wings will keep all TIE fighters off the back of the K-wing all the time. But if that's the case, why have a turret that can defend the rear arc at all? And if that's not the case, then isn't that engine on top of the ship extremely poorly placed as it blocks you from shooting back at an enemy dead astern of you?

My analysis was rooted in actual combat capabilities of real fighter aircraft. I'm glad you're an engineering student, but that doesn't give you the right to be dismissive and rude while marshaling no evidence to support your argument.

I could continue this analysis if you like, but I think I'll leave it there for now. Suffice it to say, the K-wing is not well-designed for starfighter combat operations.

Please for the love of Akatosh don't. The K-Wing is an assault bomber meant to eliminate large, slow targets. The sodding thing does not even have a _hyperdrive._ Meaning it is always launched from a Carrier during Combat or Assault.

Which means it is only meant to do one thing. Engage a specific target. Almost always big ones that need tons of firepower to take down or IDK, basically carpet bombing and strafing. This thing is like an A-10 x5. Seriously that's how much crap it's carrying. You don't carry that kind of payload into a dogfight. You just don't.

The artist was obviously stretching for a reason to invent a ship that matches Rebel nomenclature, regardless of form or function. "Well, the letter K isn't taken yet" is a piss-poor reason to design a ship like that. I feel that's as much as needs to be said.

I could continue this analysis if you like, but I think I'll leave it there for now. Suffice it to say, the K-wing is not well-designed for starfighter combat operations.

Please for the love of Akatosh don't. The K-Wing is an assault bomber meant to eliminate large, slow targets. The sodding thing does not even have a _hyperdrive._ Meaning it is always launched from a Carrier during Combat or Assault.

Which means it is only meant to do one thing. Engage a specific target. Almost always big ones that need tons of firepower to take down or IDK, basically carpet bombing and strafing. This thing is like an A-10 x5. Seriously that's how much crap it's carrying. You don't carry that kind of payload into a dogfight. You just don't.

Right, and how do you not take something into a dogfight? Do you only use it when all space-borne opposition has been completely eliminated and you have total supremacy over the battle area? If so, that's a pretty limited-use ship, and thus poorly designed from the outset. Even so, all of my points hold whether it is engaging in a dogfight or not. Poor visibility is poor visibility. A blocked rear firing arc is a blocked rear firing arc. Unnecessary extra cockpits are unnecessary extra cockpits. There's no getting around it.

My post was polite and honest. Your post is super-rude. However, I'm not going to respond in kind. I will say that I completely disagree with you, and I disagree with you because of a fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have about how actual combat with spacecraft in Star Wars (based on aircraft in the real world) works. Combat spacecraft, like real combat aircraft, have to survive in the combat environment. In space, that environment includes capital ships and starfighters, as well as long-range missiles and turbo lasers. That environment requires a baseline level of agility that the K-wing simply does not possess. Moreover, my points regarding visibility from the cockpit pertain to all front-line aircraft of today, regardless of their mission role. No-one would claim the A-10 Warthog is a dogfighter, but it retains all-around visibility with a bubble canopy for very good reasons - it's a good idea to be able to see wherever you are.

On top of that, having side by side cockpits is stupid whatever the mission role for the K-wing is. It adds unnecessary mass by increasing the width 3 or 4 times what it needs to be in order to accomplish the job of holding a pilot and weapons officer, and it adds no tangible benefits like increased visibility for situational awareness. It is purely a stupid design choice on the part of someone who thought it looked cool. Likewise, the engine sitting on top of the spacecraft is a terrible design no matter what the mission role. It is exposed to attack, it limits visibility, and it prevents your turret from defending your most vulnerable area.

Your post rests on the assumption that X-wings and E-wings will keep all TIE fighters off the back of the K-wing all the time. But if that's the case, why have a turret that can defend the rear arc at all? And if that's not the case, then isn't that engine on top of the ship extremely poorly placed as it blocks you from shooting back at an enemy dead astern of you?

My analysis was rooted in actual combat capabilities of real fighter aircraft. I'm glad you're an engineering student, but that doesn't give you the right to be dismissive and rude while marshaling no evidence to support your argument.

Your post was ignorant and inflammatory. I'm usually pretty level-headed when I respond, but that really did make me physically ill to read what you wrote.

Also, this is not about fictional spacecraft, this is about analytical methods. Real engineers analyze technology by seeing what it does and then drawing conclusions from it. You analyze technology by applying an assumption to it then when it doesn't fit that assumption you call it a bad design. That's not sane analysis... it's completely bass-ackwards thinking.

Side-by-side cockpits is actually an extremely good idea for a spacecraft. If one of them is accidentally depressurized, the other one can take over, and the amount of volume it needs for atmosphere is greatly reduced as well by virtue of it being two teardrops as opposed to a single larger teardrop.

Putting the engine on top of the ship actually works in its favor because this means the thrust from all three is more balanced and in line with the center of mass.

You have the turret as insurance. If the engineers at Boeing thought the same way you did, they wouldn't have had waist guns and tail guns on the B-29. You're again assuming things about the design that simply don't apply: that it uses its turret offensively.

Your analysis was rooted in the actual combat capabilities of real aircraft?! What the actual f***?! None of your claims about the K-wings design had anything to do with real aircraft and had everything to do with your perceived notions about what its mission profile is! Not only that, you completely ignore virtually 90% of real aircraft designs when you assume that a design must have only one role: space superiority fighter. Nobody with any sort of qualifications for technological analysis would make the sort of grade school level mistakes you're making in analyzing the K-wing. This is why I'm dismissive and rude: not only are you being ignorant in the extreme about basic engineering principles, but you're claiming it to be analysis. Real analysts don't make assumptions and then try to make reality fit them, though. They wouldn't look at this design and conclude that it's a horrible design because it's a horrible dogfighter. They would look at it and conclude that it's a heavy assault ship designed to take on hard-to-kill targets and that it's probably good in its role.

I could continue this analysis if you like, but I think I'll leave it there for now. Suffice it to say, the K-wing is not well-designed for starfighter combat operations.

Please for the love of Akatosh don't. The K-Wing is an assault bomber meant to eliminate large, slow targets. The sodding thing does not even have a _hyperdrive._ Meaning it is always launched from a Carrier during Combat or Assault.

Which means it is only meant to do one thing. Engage a specific target. Almost always big ones that need tons of firepower to take down or IDK, basically carpet bombing and strafing. This thing is like an A-10 x5. Seriously that's how much crap it's carrying. You don't carry that kind of payload into a dogfight. You just don't.

Right, and how do you not take something into a dogfight? Do you only use it when all space-borne operation has been completely eliminated and you have total supremacy over the battle area? If so, that's a pretty limited-use ship, and thus poorly designed from the outset. Even so, all of my points hold whether it is engaging in a dogfight or not. Poor visibility is poor visibility. A blocked rear firing arc is a blocked rear firing arc. Unnecessary extra cockpits are unnecessary extra cockpits. There's no getting around it.

Yeah that is actually how the K-Wing is meant to be used. It's amazing as a planetary bomber. What baffles me is how you thought this thing was at all any type of dogfighter when it so obviously isn't. Sure the K-Wing is a completely naff design yeah there's no getting around that, I've always thought it was an ugly POS but I have to say that it... Sure DOES carry a lot of BOOM. Which is really all it needs to do.

What bugs me is this mindset however, that every single fighter must have similar design attributes. Bubble cockpits and conventional mindsets. Let me tell you what actual starfighters will end up like.

Actual starfighters will probably end up using primarily missile based weaponry and assigned to attacking hardpoints or acting as a defense screen against other fighters. These anti-FIGHTER fighters will be, like their missile boat counterparts, crewed by two, men. One who flies, and one who guns. This is because in space, there's a lot you have to take into account in terms of motion. It isn't as simple as WWII dogfighting where you had to get behind your foe and fire. Hell, most dogfights are fairly long ranged missile based engagements, though guns do see use.

And in this situation, you will have a pilot and a gunner. This gunner will likely have a pretty good field of fire, if not a full 360 degree one, while the pilot may concentrate on staying on their foe's tail. Space is a more complicated environment where much, much more must be taken into account.

Now, you tell me.

Do any of the ships from the Original Trilogy follow this mindset in the slightest? You could say the Y-Wing does, but we know it was crewed by one man originally and only the fluff really said the top gun was a turret, or even an Ion Turret at that. No, just about the only ships that actually followed said mindset were things in the EU. Even my beloved ARC-170 did not exactly do this. It did have guns fired separately from the pilot's control in two ways but a turret was not its main weapon.

So if you really want to delve into facts and theory about space combat, let's get to it.

It looks like a pair of ducks engaging in coitus, mid air. If you can excuse that kind of design because it's not designed for combat, you can excuse any design. Check out my take on an Imperial assault bomber:

Note the sleek, wingless design. Nothing to get in the way during those bombing runs!

On large craft you will see the pilots sitting side by side. This is because it allows them to more easily share the work load and facilitate quicker communication.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!