That's a logical assessment. given it's close to the solar arrays i'd add the possibility of capacitors.

To ensure long bursts with the main cannons and the turret cannon at the same time, without the need of draining shield energy whatsoever.

Sure.

But this would make it more a heavy fighter, rather then special operations.

That, and storing reserve energy for the other systems - including propulsion, shields etc.

They could even just be shield gens. or External cargo.

Thats a bit of a We-are-Disney-and-we-know-it-better-how-to-entertain-you factor?!

No, that is more We-are-Disney-and-know-how-to-appeal-to-a-mainstream-audience. Of course we know the array of TIE designs, but the average person who has maybe seen the OT once isn't all that likely to even know the Interceptor, although that was on screen. TIE Fighters however, being in all 3 movies, he will know and he wants to see those when he goes to the cinema for a new Star Wars movie. Thats what draws the masses, recognizability, not logical technological evolution in a fictional universe.

And the masses are amazed by completely illogical technical designs that feels like magic, like

Lightsabers

Laser-slings attached at armwrists

white solar panels ...

But yeah ... I guess you are right.

Most ppl know the standard TIE/ln design only. So it is mandatory for Disney to give the ppl what they already know to create the Star Wars feeling, just looking a bit more advanced.

Solar panels. Riiiiight.

The TIE still being around is most certainly plausible. F-16s have been flying since before I was born (the Viper nickname comes from the original Battlestar Galactica), pretty much so have F-18s. The B-52 came out in the 50s and still flies, with a life extension program to extend the range to the middle of the 21st century. It will have been in service FOR NINETY YEARS BEFORE IT IS RETIRED. As for the F-22, that has been in development since I was in short pants in the 80s and has only so far managed to drop a few bombs on some terrorists.

That, and storing reserve energy for the other systems - including propulsion, shields etc.

They could even just be shield gens. or External cargo.

Or a device that produces lollipops to feed the crew

Thats a bit of a We-are-Disney-and-we-know-it-better-how-to-entertain-you factor?!

No, that is more We-are-Disney-and-know-how-to-appeal-to-a-mainstream-audience. Of course we know the array of TIE designs, but the average person who has maybe seen the OT once isn't all that likely to even know the Interceptor, although that was on screen. TIE Fighters however, being in all 3 movies, he will know and he wants to see those when he goes to the cinema for a new Star Wars movie. Thats what draws the masses, recognizability, not logical technological evolution in a fictional universe.

And the masses are amazed by completely illogical technical designs that feels like magic, like

Lightsabers

Laser-slings attached at armwrists

white solar panels ...

But yeah ... I guess you are right.

Most ppl know the standard TIE/ln design only. So it is mandatory for Disney to give the ppl what they already know to create the Star Wars feeling, just looking a bit more advanced.

Solar panels. Riiiiight.

WHITE solar panels is the magic, mylady.

There are some arguments if they are solar or radiation panels, as sources have mentioned both. Logically i'd propose that they serve both functions.

The solar panel thing bothers me. Do they work with some kind of technically "solar" zero-point energy, or are they honest to goodness solar panels and SW tech is so advanced that you can run a fighter on starlight?

Wookieepedia does nothing, does anyone know?

(Edit. If they're vacuum energy collectors I'm calling it right now.)

'Solar panels'

SW ships have 'solar ionization reactors' and the Tantive IV has been described as having a 'solar fin' that was hit and led to the reactor needing to shut down in ANH. It doesn't sound like these structures are actually related to anything 'solar' as in relating to gathering light/power/charged particles but regulating the reactors on board the ship, possibly by radiating waste heat or some other waste radiation produced by the reactors. Damage to 'solar fins' (or panels) seems to lead to possible overload. TIEs seem to have the largest of these structures in relation to their size, but some ships also have moving 's-foils' which may be related, 's' possibly referring to 'solar'.

It's actually a great mystery and it is also very unlikely that 'solar panels' on a TIE operate in any way similar to conventional solar panels, just as Dooku's 'solar sail' ship probably didn't utilized photon pressure for propulsion.

Also there is no way to produce enough energy to power SW ships from the photons gathered from stars, it's a physics problem, not a tech problem. And I would assume zero point energy would have nothing to do with stars, but then laser swords and blasters don't seem to have anything to do with real lasers either.

To be fair they could be ion collectors/energy sails for the ionization reactor, but the positioning doesn't make sense for that.

As solar panels(secondary use) I can see it giving supplemental energy. Radiators make more sense.

'Solar panels'

SW ships have 'solar ionization reactors' and the Tantive IV has been described as having a 'solar fin' that was hit and led to the reactor needing to shut down in ANH. It doesn't sound like these structures are actually related to anything 'solar' as in relating to gathering light/power/charged particles but regulating the reactors on board the ship, possibly by radiating waste heat or some other waste radiation produced by the reactors. Damage to 'solar fins' (or panels) seems to lead to possible overload. TIEs seem to have the largest of these structures in relation to their size, but some ships also have moving 's-foils' which may be related, 's' possibly referring to 'solar'.

It's actually a great mystery and it is also very unlikely that 'solar panels' on a TIE operate in any way similar to conventional solar panels, just as Dooku's 'solar sail' ship probably didn't utilized photon pressure for propulsion.

Wait. Found it; sorry. It was hidden in the mid-bottom.

" ... offering the alternative explanation that mass-lightening technology (which should be possible with the mastery of artificial gravity, repulsorlift devices, inertial compensators and gravity-well generators in the GFFA) may make such low-powered drives practicable, and suggesting that if the wings of production-model TIEs retain a radiator function, this operates alongside their primary role as solar arrays."

So like how Mass-Effect does FTL; just slower. Would explain the solar sail too - turn your mass to 0, let the sunlight quietly push you away.

Please don't mention Mass Effect. I'm trying to resist the urge to play through the entire trilogy again...

Please don't mention Mass Effect. I'm trying to resist the urge to play through the entire trilogy again...

Heck, this might be the reason for laser cannons. Blaster cannons have recoil, lasers don't

Could be...

Dammit, Mass effect 2 so.. perfect... a ... game.

Mass Effect 3.. so.. perfect... untill.. last... 15... minutes...

Currently playing through inquisition, which just feels like skyrim meets DA:O Also feels almost too MMO like and fetchquesty.

No, that is more We-are-Disney-and-know-how-to-appeal-to-a-mainstream-audience. Of course we know the array of TIE designs, but the average person who has maybe seen the OT once isn't all that likely to even know the Interceptor, although that was on screen.

Again, I don't have a problem with them bringing back the TIE Fighter. I have a problem with the Special Forces TIE.

Because, yeah, people like to see the ships they recognize. But they also like to see new ships. Especially when it's a new type of one they already like.

If the Special Forces TIE had been ALL of the FOs TIEs, and that was just the stuff that came on a standard TIE 30 years in the future, it would have been cool.

But the fact that there's maybe only 2 types of badguy starfighters in the movie, and they're almost identical is just ****.

You would have thought that nostalgia would have caused them to AT LEAST give the Special Forces TIE Advanceds.

It's still possible that there may be unsoiled ships in the movie, but I doubt it. I'm actually surprised they used TIE fighters nearly identical to the OT models. It would have been logical to just go with something that had the TIE feel to it, like the Vulture droids in the PT, but they chose to not just faithfully recreate the classic fighters but also update them.

I'm in the very small minority (actually, it's probably just me with this opinion) that thinks the TIE Interceptor wasn't a very logical thing to include in the OT. I thought that, hey, all they did was make the wings pointy and slap more guns on it. How is this an improvement? There's no way it could be faster, tougher and have more firepower if the central part housing the reactor is the same, feeding identical engines to the standard TIE. And if there was an improved generator or improved engines, then why continue to build the old fighters? Is ROTJ taking place in the exact time of changing over the fleet to me fighters? (Turns out this is the way the EU portrayed it).

I was not a fan of the Interceptor when it debuted in 83 because to me it broke the conventions that had been established in the TIE series... Guns on the wings, foward swept wings, nearly identical to the standard Fighter save the wings. I would have much preferred an update of Vader's TIE or a more radical change than what I saw as just lazy design from ILM, just making a 'scarier' TIE fighter when the classic design was just fine. So I'm glad the FO doesn't appear to have any squints.

Ok, you dislike the design of The Interceptor, fair enough.

Providing more firepower to existing basic designes IS a logical approach for improvements.

Moving the cannons from the center to the outer frames of the ship may or may not be questionable. In the Star Wars universe, the X-Wing was known for superior firepower not only because it had 4 laser cannons, but also because of the larger hitting field, which is created through the relative large distance between its cannons. This in general increases the to-hit chance, and thus the X-Wing is considered to be deathly even in the hands of not so skilled pilots. Having the cannons in the center is more accurate, but this also requires more experienced and better trained pilots, or a better targeting system to hit.

In other words, use more barrels for more bullets or aim better. The development could go either way.

Hence how many cannons and MGs WWII fighters got and how many they got today.

And also: allied fighters tend to have their weapons spread over the length of the wings, German fighters initially and generally had their main guns in the center.

So, the development MAYBE was like, hey better get a shield generator and only 2 guns, and include a targeting computer for more possible hits.

Still not seeing how only a few years advancement could lead to such increase in power that a TIE fighter can field 5 times the weapons with no decrease in performance, and actually showing an increase in speed and maneuverability with no obvious increase in he size of the craft or difference in hardware other than the wings.

A big part of it may have been "alright, our manufacturing is crippled, but we got a load of TIE Fighter Hulls and wings..., and a load of spare bomber flight computers that we ordered from space-ebay".

Darius's argument works well for the looks. It has been thirty years, and like F-16s of today, the future TIEs may have just been upgraded with new tech over the years. Many of our current military designs have been relatively unchanged for thirty years because they are very durable, and are easily modified and upgraded with new tech. Looking at the myriad of TIE variants, we know that the basic TIE frame is easily modified, and the Defender and Avenger tell us that with money and effort the frame can become a superior fighting machine.

The reason the FO TIEs look like original TIEs is because they are original TIEs. Built in the millions for the old Empire, pulled out of mothballs and upgraded with shield generators and some of the newer tech to serve in a new war, just like F-16s and Abrams tanks. A scratch built NO fighter might be much, much slimmer than a TIE, but much more expensive to make than upgrading existing TIEs.

The reason we have no Interceptors or Defender is simply because their tech is old now too, and because they were limited in their production run we see fewer updates of them. Kind of like why you see plenty of fourth-generation F-16s alongside fifth-generation F-35s but no F-117s in the middle. F-117s (Interceptors, Defenders) look cool, and were advanced when they were built, but weren't as numerous or upgradable as F-16s (TIEs) due to the stealth hull shape. When the new generation fighters came along (Spec Ops TIEs) the F-117s just got retired.

Still not seeing how only a few years advancement could lead to such increase in power that a TIE fighter can field 5 times the weapons with no decrease in performance, and actually showing an increase in speed and maneuverability with no obvious increase in he size of the craft or difference in hardware other than the wings.

The U.S. B1 bomber was introduced in 1986 and the U.S. B2 bomber was introduced in 1997; in fact the B1 was barely deployed before the B2 debuted. That's 11 years difference and a radical difference in technology. Perhaps not in flight speed but in electronics, design/build tech, stealth, etc.

Just a few years can see huge advances in areas of technology. But with all this advanced technology the U.S. B52 bomber was still in combat service in 2003. An aircraft who's first flight was in 1952; 51 years service and still flying later in the decade.

A big part of it may have been "alright, our manufacturing is crippled, but we got a load of TIE Fighter Hulls and wings..., and a load of spare bomber flight computers that we ordered from space-ebay".

Darius's argument works well for the looks. It has been thirty years, and like F-16s of today, the future TIEs may have just been upgraded with new tech over the years. Many of our current military designs have been relatively unchanged for thirty years because they are very durable, and are easily modified and upgraded with new tech. Looking at the myriad of TIE variants, we know that the basic TIE frame is easily modified, and the Defender and Avenger tell us that with money and effort the frame can become a superior fighting machine.

The reason the FO TIEs look like original TIEs is because they are original TIEs. Built in the millions for the old Empire, pulled out of mothballs and upgraded with shield generators and some of the newer tech to serve in a new war, just like F-16s and Abrams tanks. A scratch built NO fighter might be much, much slimmer than a TIE, but much more expensive to make than upgrading existing TIEs.

The reason we have no Interceptors or Defender is simply because their tech is old now too, and because they were limited in their production run we see fewer updates of them. Kind of like why you see plenty of fourth-generation F-16s alongside fifth-generation F-35s but no F-117s in the middle. F-117s (Interceptors, Defenders) look cool, and were advanced when they were built, but weren't as numerous or upgradable as F-16s (TIEs) due to the stealth hull shape. When the new generation fighters came along (Spec Ops TIEs) the F-117s just got retired.

I've been making this argument for a host of different things in SW, from including prequel ships to explaining TIE/FO's to talking about the Z-95.

Something to ponder: First order troopers use updated E-11s. That heavy, bulky AK47 from 30 years ago has been replaced by a slightly lighter bulky AK74... (Disclaimer, it's an analogy, of course I know it's a Stirling L2A3).

The TIE interceptor kept the 'chin' guns as well as adding four wing tip guns and four additional guns on the 'hubs' in the gaps between the wing points. This would create a pretty good coverage of weapon fire. The x-wing's guns were indeed spread out from the center of the fuselage, but what made them so deadly was the exaggerated length and size of the guns.

In the EU, very few TIE Interceptors actually used that chin gun mount - most had the chin guns removed.

Complaining about white "solar" panels being magic? Read this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/08/150805-transparent-solar-could-turn-window-phones-into-power-generators/

I never thought of the solar panels being exactly like a photovoltaic cell that wr put on a calculator. If they do pick up anything, they would be like a fuel scoop, collecting a certain particle rather than a broad range absorption, meaning colour would likely not matter.

Here is a possibe reason for having a special forces TIE look remarkably similar to the line model fighter.

I don't really care about a lore reason that you just made up. I care about the fact that it's ******* boring. Two chances to put a new TIE in TFA and they decided to make them BOTH look just like the standard TIE Fighter. That's what I care about. I care that absolutely no creativity was put into it at all, and that no effort was made to do something interesting.

Of course it can. Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it is the same. Improved components can be entirely internal.

Budget.

The Interceptor is a superior fighter, but it costs more to make. And most Imperial pilots aren't good enough to waste a more expensive ship on.

The solar panels never made any sense anyways. Solar power is great, but it's not gonna power a freaking spaceship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

Just throwing that out there.

Of course you'll notice that the collector is to the fore of the ship, and more importantly facing fore, not the sides.

The solar panels never made any sense anyways. Solar power is great, but it's not gonna power a freaking spaceship.

Well, in theory neither would modern ion engines for anything fast. But Star Wars is running on technology we don't fully understand yet.

But seriously the "solar panels" really are just radiators.

The solar panels never made any sense anyways. Solar power is great, but it's not gonna power a freaking spaceship.

Well, in theory neither would modern ion engines for anything fast. But Star Wars is running on technology we don't fully understand yet.

But seriously the "solar panels" really are just radiators.

Or are they solar sails collecting atoms for the ionization reactor?