I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, I just think that we also can't necessarily say that earlier is necessarily worse. In our society, that's the case because of rapid technological change, but if we look back to our own planet, at various times in history, sometimes older was better in terms of quality of construction. Even relatively recently, I don't think we could say, for example, that mid-late 70s American cars were better than their 60s counterparts. Granted, fighter planes are a different story, but in a world with the slow technological change shown in Star Wars, maybe advancements in technology are not the driving force in different starfighter models.

Something I've given far too much thought to: entropy in the Star Wars universe. You've got a Republic which lasted either for "1000 generations" (~25,000 years), or 1000 years. Either way, that's a long time to have a star faring civilization consuming resources.

So what might make sense to me is that technological progress doesn't take place along "bigger, faster, better" lines like it does for us. Instead, a "better" starfighter might be one that does the same job, but consumes fewer resources.

Which would be one reason the Republic kept wars at the smallest scale possible: wars are inherently destructive, and they consume resources to lower quality of life, rather than to raise it.

Which adds a new dimension to the Empire. It incentivized warfare and destruction! The Death Star was literally created to turn planets (of which there a finite amount- into rubble.

For me, the interesting thing is wealth in the Star Wars Universe. The Empire is clearly incredibly wealthy by virtue of its domination of the various systems of the galaxy. However, that wealth is mostly, it would seem, funneled into maintaining control of the galaxy. I view the Empire as almost a not-for-profit military dictatorship. It is so expensive to maintain such a vast military presence, that the economic dominance the vast military presence produces is entirely used up in its maintenance.

If this is the case, a couple of things become clear. In the first place, the use of relatively cheap fighters in large numbers makes sense, because to dominate the systems, you don't necessarily need a top of the line fighter capable of too much. You need something that is fast, agile, and has guns, and you need a lot of them. A second thing then becomes clear, and that's the Empire's development of both the TIE interceptor, and the TIE advanced, as well as the TIE bomber. These are all more expensive than a simple TIE fighter, but they are necessary when battling against a relatively well-armed and numerous opponent - the Rebellion.

The Rebel Alliance, financially, seems to be getting its funding from disgruntled worlds, some of which are clearly important in the galaxy, like Alderaan. This funding enables them to purchase starfighters which are, on the whole, of higher quality than those of the Empire. They are certainly more survivable, and they have a greater variety of mission roles they can undertake. The X-wing is the perfect example of the jack-of-all-trades starfighter. This makes sense, because the Rebels have the luxury of being guerrilla fighters. For the most part, they choose where they fight the Empire, and on what terms. This doesn't require the hugely expensive multi-system presence the Empire must maintain, and therefore they can get away with relatively more expensive and capable starfighters on a one to one basis.

This then puts Naboo and the N-1 into perspective. The Trade Federation wanted to conquer Naboo because of its possession, within its core, of a kind of energetic plasma which powered both the Naboo civilization and the Gungan civilization, and which was a valued trade item. This sets the stage for Naboo's wealth and opulence, and also explains the N-1 starfighter. Unlike the Imperials, who must maintain a hugely expensive multi-system presence, or the Rebels, who are waging a guerrilla war with slush funds, Naboo has an extreme amount of wealth, and cheap, clean energy at her disposal. This enables Naboo to produce a starfighter which is much more expensive than other starfighters in the galaxy, because they have money to spare, and which has a performance envelope which is top of the line. They can get away with this, because they don't need many of them. As members of the Republic, they only need starfighters for dealing with pirates who would raid their trading lanes, up until the Trade Federation intervention. Given that pirates would be the likely enemies of Naboo starfighters prior to Episode 1, we can understand why they are hyper jump capable, and why they are very good individual dogfighters. These would be necessary qualities for patrolling against pirates hoping to ambush trade ships.

That's my take on the fluff anyway.

That last point reminds me of things I've read that the hardest thing the Rebels dealt with after 'winning' was figuring out how to govern such a vast area. When you're the thorn you can easily have to locally dominant force that moves one to strike somewhere else. The establishment (the Empire) doesn't know where that thorn will show up next so it has to be prepared in more areas. If the Empire could have ever had a 'fair' fight against the Alliance the war would have been over immediately.

That last point reminds me of things I've read that the hardest thing the Rebels dealt with after 'winning' was figuring out how to govern such a vast area. When you're the thorn you can easily have to locally dominant force that moves one to strike somewhere else. The establishment (the Empire) doesn't know where that thorn will show up next so it has to be prepared in more areas. If the Empire could have ever had a 'fair' fight against the Alliance the war would have been over immediately.

But, that doesn't mean the Empire is completely eradicated from the galaxy. The Rebels have cut the most dominant head off the hydra. Many planets may offer support to the Rebels who don't maintain peace through fear and military might, but the Empire, its resources, leaders and military might are still out there.

I really need to watch the prequels again. That shows a starfighter dogfighting something. Totally worth buying the prequel Blu-Rays, right?

Frak no, YouTube probably has the fight scenes for free.

I really need to watch the prequels again. That shows a starfighter dogfighting something. Totally worth buying the prequel Blu-Rays, right?

Thye also show Jar Jar running around with a numb tongue. I would say no

As I recall the prequels didn't portray Obi Wan as a bad pilot, just a reluctant one.

We see him pilot twice and both times he almost gets killed by a missile.

The F-22 is the Tie Defender, a next generation fighter that's expensive.

It's mate that wont be ready for years to come the F-35 is the E wing.

To keep this analogy going, the robust heavy cannon carrying A10 is the B wing. The tie advanced x-1 was an experiment, the f-111 to the successful F14 Tie Interceptor. F-16s are x wings, waiting on that e-wing before we can officially phase them out. Lambdas are E-2's, complete with jamming packages. Y wings are old, heavy hitters from one of the last war, the F-4.

Though the A-wing is hyper jump capable, as is the X-wing. So that's interesting. I think the main problem with hyperspace in a small ship is having enough to eat. It's not an instantaneous journey.

Try to plan missions around the end of your day so you can get some shuteye in Hyperspace. otherwise I imagine it gets really boring in that cockpit.

"R5, could you please queue up my Space Netflix?"

I'd call the TIE Avenger the F-22, the Interceptor the F-16, or FA-18 in a naval context, and the A-10 the Y-wing personally.

As I recall the prequels didn't portray Obi Wan as a bad pilot, just a reluctant one.

We see him pilot twice and both times he almost gets killed by a missile.

Two points I have:

1) "Almost"

2) Evidently George Lucas is better at representing ordnance than FFG

To keep this analogy going, the robust heavy cannon carrying A10 is the B wing..

(Bonus round! X-Wing - Spitfire, Y-Wing - Hurricane, B-Wing - Mosquito...)

Sorry. I know this isn't really on-topic. It's just irresistibly crossing my nerdery streams.

Something about the A wing just screams F-18 for me.

I did some stats for a Mid Cold War game using X wing. What I roughly came up with was

X Wing- F-4 Phantom

Y Wing- F-105 Thunderchief

A Wing- F-106 Delta Dart (some of the other century series would fit better but I just love the F-106)

B Wing- F-14 Tomcat

E Wing- F-15A Eagle

Z-95- F-100 Super Sabre

TIE Fighter- MIG 17

TIE Interceptor- MIG 21

TIE Bomber- Su-17

TIE Advanced- MIG 23

Some of the dials and attack dice would need to be modified, but that was the working prototype

Oh we want to stay on topic? N-1 is a f-86 (or mig 15, you communist). Sleek, chrome, and dated.

As for avenger/defender, nothing says "super cruise" like that white k and straight only greens. (I guess it's actually a better mig 35 (25? The foxbat) but that's not next gen.

I could definitely see the N-1 being the F-86.

It belongs in a museum.

I'm in the camp that the X-wing is best represented by the F-16. Jack of all trade fighters that perform decently in all roles and essentially make up the bulk of the fighting force. I'm split on the Y-wing vs the B-wing being represented by the A-10. I honestly think that the B-wing fits better as the A-10 while the Y-wing would definitely be a gulf war era F-4 that serves in the wild weasel role. I love the opinions (mine included) of what Star Wars ships can be represented by real fighters. It's always a fun debate.

"STAY ON TOPIC!" should be an free (optional) upgrade card for everyone!

Something about the A wing just screams F-18 for me.

I did some stats for a Mid Cold War game using X wing. What I roughly came up with was

X Wing- F-4 Phantom

Y Wing- F-105 Thunderchief

A Wing- F-106 Delta Dart (some of the other century series would fit better but I just love the F-106)

B Wing- F-14 Tomcat

E Wing- F-15A Eagle

Z-95- F-100 Super Sabre

TIE Fighter- MIG 17

TIE Interceptor- MIG 21

TIE Bomber- Su-17

TIE Advanced- MIG 23

Some of the dials and attack dice would need to be modified, but that was the working prototype

I don't think the US had an A-wing mid-Cold War. I think, actually, that the best US analogy would be with the 1970s and the "fighter mafia" within the pentagon. Briefly, what happened was that a group of relatively young air force officers led by Colonel John Boyd argued for the need for a light and agile dogfighter, and this argument culminated both in the F-16 as a purely light fighter design, and the elimination of the initial concept of the swing-wing for the F-15, which was a silly design in a fighter, as the F-14 Tomcat eventually proved. With that in mind, I would view the fighters as the following:

Y-Wing = F-4 Phantom - the old, two-seat workhorse that was, nonetheless, not agile enough for its role

X-Wing = F-15 Eagle - the large missile platform that does the job BVR, but has some maneuverability for the knife fight

A-Wing = F-16 Viper - this is the light fighter design that really was meant purely for the close-in knife-fight in the phone booth

B-Wing = A-10 Warthog - a dedicated, no nonsense attack plane, which also came out of the innovations of the Fighter Mafia

E-Wing = F-22 (though I hate to say this as I think the E-wing is so ugly, but there it is).

Z-95 = F-5 Tigershark - a highly agile plane that never really made it into frontline service, but was a testbed for the F-16 and F/A-18

On the side of the baddies, I would see it like this:

TIE Fighter = MiG-21 - a fast, agile, workhorse of a fighter that gets the job done, but which lacks in safety and avionics

TIE Interceptor = MiG-29 - a light dogfighter, meant for close-in fighting and with all the performance you'd expect of the F-16

TIE Bomber = Pick a Sukhoi, probably the Frogfoot

TIE Advanced = Something like the Sukhoi Su-30MKI or something along those lines.

I could definitely see the N-1 being the F-86.

It belongs in a museum.

I'm in the camp that the X-wing is best represented by the F-16. Jack of all trade fighters that perform decently in all roles and essentially make up the bulk of the fighting force. I'm split on the Y-wing vs the B-wing being represented by the A-10. I honestly think that the B-wing fits better as the A-10 while the Y-wing would definitely be a gulf war era F-4 that serves in the wild weasel role. I love the opinions (mine included) of what Star Wars ships can be represented by real fighters. It's always a fun debate.

I definitely see the N-1 more as the Dassault Rafale, or the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the Saab Gripen or maybe Viggen if we're going older. I actually think the Saab fighters make a lot of sense for the N-1, as they're technologically quite advanced, but they're built in small numbers by a smaller country.

I thought variable geometry was a success on the f-14 where it's computer controlled as opposed to the manual control f-111. Aren't you unable to land an f-14 on a carrier with the wings tucked?

I thought variable geometry was a success on the f-14 where it's computer controlled as opposed to the manual control f-111. Aren't you unable to land an f-14 on a carrier with the wings tucked?

Sure, but the variable geometry, while it accomplished the mission of giving you a fast missile platform that is carrier-capable, also produces a huge excess in weight. So, the F-14, in spite of featuring in Top Gun, was not a particularly good dogfighter. Granted, it was meant to intercept Soviet Bombers with long-range missiles, but anti-shipping missiles more or less made it obsolete, as even an A-4 Skyhawk could blow up a large ship (the Argentines proved that). So, the F-14 then became a plane that had to contend with more than just enemy bombers, which it was ill-suited to do. The F/A-18 replaced it as it was more capable in the air-to-air role against enemy fighters and light attack planes like A-4s, but also was capable of both ground attack (which the F-14 wasn't very good at), and still retained good BVR to attack incoming bomber threats. Granted, the F-14 BVR is probably still better than the F/A-18, or was until fairly recently, but it was just too much of a one-trick pony, largely due to the variable geometry adding way too much weight.

My ex-F-16 pilot friend called variable geometry the meanest prank we ever played on the Soviets, as it set them back a whole generation with their terrible MiG-23.

That's ok, we still owed them for the nuclear bomber.

If top gun taught us anything it's that one day the soviets will be pissed off we flipped off their f-5 pilots that they'll try to shoot him down leter.

That's ok, we still owed them for the nuclear bomber.

If top gun taught us anything it's that one day the soviets will be pissed off we flipped off their f-5 pilots that they'll try to shoot him down leter.

Hey man, those were MiG-28s!

Doesn't Jester fly a mirage in that movie?

Doesn't Jester fly a mirage in that movie?

A-4 Skyhawk. The footage actually did come from the Naval Fighter Weapons School. Aggressors at TOPGUN flew A-4 Skyhawks and F-5 Tigersharks repainted to look like MiGs. They also flew a small number of F-16s for a short time in the same roles. Nowadays, I don't know about the Navy, but the USAF uses F-16s and F-15s in aggressor roles.

Edit: Navy is using F-16s and F/A-18s, but the VF-111 Sundowners are still flying F-5s in the aggressor role, as are Marine aggressor squads.