Instead of working I got distracted on Wikipedia. (I know, right?) I fell into a series of pages describing various terms for military aircraft and started thinking about the ships and roles in X-Wing (as one does).

The short summary (see how much time I'm saving you by not linking directly to Wikipedia?) of the terms follow.

• Fighter: designed to shoot down enemy aircraft (examples: Hawker Hurricane, MiG-15, Gloster Gladiator, A6M Zero)
• Heavy fighter: designed to carry heavy weapons or operate at long range, often to escort or destroy bombers (examples: P-61, Bf-110, Do-335, Bristol Beaufighter
• Bomber destroyer: intended to engage enemy bombers using powerful armament (examples: P-38, P-39, YFM-1)
• Air superiority: built to seize control of airspace by engaging enemy fighters and other aircraft (examples: F-22, F-14, F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon)
• Interceptor: intended to prevent successful missions by enemy aircraft like bombers and reconnaissance planes (examples: Su-15, F-106, MiG-25, Me-163)
• Escort fighter: designed to protect bombers to and from their targets (examples: P-51, Bf-109, Bf-110, P-38)
• Penetration fighter: intended to bypass enemy defenses and engage enemy interceptors (examples: XF-108, XF-93, XF-88/F-101, XF-90)
• Fighter-bomber: aircraft designed for fighter role and adapted to tactical bombing and surface attack roles (examples: P-47, Fw-190, F-4, F-100)
• Strike fighter: aircraft designed for surface attack but also including fighter characteristics (examples: F-15, F-35, J-16, Su-27)
• Attack: aircraft designed for precision strikes and close air support, similar to tactical bombers (examples: A-10, Su-25, Il-2, Hs-129)
• Interdictor: attack aircraft focused on behind-the-lines targets, primarily centered on disrupting logistics (examples: A-5, F-111, Panavia Tornado, Su-34)

So where do the various ships in X-Wing fit into this schema? Do any of them fit? And what can we learn about how to fly from these various roles?

• Fighter: Khiraxz, Z-95
• Heavy fighter: Aggressor, G-1A, Firespray-31, TIE Defender, K-Wing
• Bomber destroyer: TIE Bomber, G-1A, TIE Defender, Y-Wing
• Air/space superiority: TIE Interceptor, E-Wing, Protectorate Fang, T-70 X-Wing, TIE Advanced, TIE Phantom
• Interceptor: TIE Fighter, A-Wing, M3-A Scyk, StarViper, TIE Advanced, TIE/fo, TIE Defender
• Escort: A-Wing, TIE/fo, Z-95
• Penetration: TIE Advanced Prototype, TIE Interceptor, A-Wing, TIE Defender
• Fighter-bomber: B-Wing, SF TIE, X-Wing (T-65), Y-Wing
• Strike: K-Wing, ARC-170, TIE Bomber, Y-Wing
• Attack: B-Wing, TIE Punisher, Y-Wing
• Interdictor: K-Wing

That's my best shot. What do you think?

in game terms? they just don't. Everyone's a fighter

also, the Tie Punisher's actual designation is the Tie/IT, i.e Tie Interdictor

given its canon role is to stroll in where ISDs can't reach and blow **** up, it fits the description perfectly

It's odd that that TIE Interceptor does not get the Interceptor role.

• Heavy fighter: Aggressor, G-1A, Firespray-31, TIE Defender, K-Wing
• Interdictor: K-Wing

That's my best shot. What do you think?

K-wing as a heavy fighter??? WHAT!!!!!

I can almost give you "interdictor" on it since a bomber is totally good at disrupting logistics behind enemy lines by bombing them out of existance! But that ship is not a heavy fighter, or at least not in the fluff.

And not much in the game, the fact that its as good as it is in the game is due to having a turret and SLAM, the first of which was great in combat, but still not the be all end all of defense in actual fighter combat.

The K-wing IS a HEAVY BOMBER, really look at what plane it is literally designed after, the B-17 bomber...it even has the ball turret.

And was specifically a heavy bomber in the Black Fleet crisis books that it was in, the one where the K-wng was introduced. Miranda even has a quote in the books describing herself as a bomber pilot, "We're the heavy hitters. when you need a command bridge levelled, or a convoy of tanks wiped out the K-wings get the call." though she died shortly after giving said quote.

well, in game, the K could be a heavy fighter

rather, miranda could be. Everyone else is a complete light-weight and crumbles like so much used tissue. This is why you SLAM bombs on wardens and let Miranda do the actual fighting

Applying real earth-world-stuff to STAR WARS just don't work... but i appreciate what you are saying regardless.

My point about the Kwing is that we arent going to get a more of a real life bomber-themed ship in the game than the K-wing when compared to the B-17.

And the fact that it work in the game as a fighter is the same way many ships act similar to each other due to game mechanics (just as much as some dont at similar when they should).

The roles listed are pretty narrow especially when you start looking at multipurpose aircraft. The "examples" listed with the descriptions may just be one role the given ship fills.

The F-15 is a multipurpose airframe that can fill so many of those roles. The F-15E may be called the Strike Eagle for a reason but it's not the only variation used as it is also used for air intercept and to maintain air superiority.

There may have been a time, and could be again, where craft are designed with one very narrow purpose which leaves them unable to perform other roles but that generally does not describe how things work now.

I don't know who would want to classify a TIE Fighter as anything other than a Superiority fighter or perhaps Escort fighter. Its purpose is to use numbers to tie up and hopefully destroy the enemy. It's a poor Interceptor in that it really lacks the firepower to stop something else from completing its mission.

You forgot Dominance - the F-22 Raptor is so effective at its job that it exceeds Air Superiority and becomes an Air Dominance Fighter. The TIE/D and TIE/x7 Defenders should take on that role nicely.

Thanks for all the comments! There is a lot of overlap between these real-life roles. In the game, we talk about arc dodgers and minelayers and jousters, as well as the relative values of different ships in different roles. So is there a similar list to the real-life list that draws tighter lines around some of these X-Wing ships?

You forgot Dominance - the F-22 Raptor is so effective at its job that it exceeds Air Superiority and becomes an Air Dominance Fighter. The TIE/D and TIE/x7 Defenders should take on that role nicely.

My favorite Raptor...

I would say that in terms of modern aircraft, and this definitely applies to Star Wars craft as well, the different "classes" of craft are much, much smaller, and the things any one craft can do are pretty broad. I mean, America took the F-16, a craft originally designed entirely for Air Superiority, and used it as a Fighter-Bomber during the Gulf War, and excelled at the job. Ships in X-Wing are like that occasionally; The TIE Defender is a good example right now. Set it up with X/7 and by definition it is a clear Air Superiority/Dominance fighter. Set it up with TIE/D and it's now a whole host of different things. Strike Fighter, Air Superiority, Heavy Fighter, so on. But it's still just one ship. The term Multirole would be used in this situation.

In Star Wars canon, the X-Wing was bred and born to be a Multirole craft. Just as quickly as it can engage in Space Superiority operations, it can turn to engage capital ships with it's proton torpedoes in a Strike Fighter role. It's been shown in the movies as an Escort fighter.

The Y-Wing can be a whole different amount of things. Attack craft, Strike Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Heavy-Fighter, Interdictor. Granted, these roles are mostly centered around ground-based offensives, but we've seen Y-Wings engage fighters in RotJ.

We've seen the TIE/FO engage in Close Air Support to ground forces, as well as engaging in Air Superiority and Interceptor roles.

The craft in Star Wars may fly and fight similar to WWII fighters, but those craft are certainly not designed with a singular purpose in mind like the planes in WWII were.

It wouldn't work for the 100 point tournament death match but it would give the game so much flavor if ships actually had roles and performed better in their role that simply being measured against ship to ship combat. I'm still bummed about freighters being more maneuverable and better attack craft that fighters.

Instead of working I got distracted on Wikipedia. (I know, right?) I fell into a series of pages describing various terms for military aircraft and started thinking about the ships and roles in X-Wing (as one does).

The short summary (see how much time I'm saving you by not linking directly to Wikipedia?) of the terms follow.

• Fighter: designed to shoot down enemy aircraft (examples: Hawker Hurricane, MiG-15, Gloster Gladiator, A6M Zero)
• Heavy fighter: designed to carry heavy weapons or operate at long range, often to escort or destroy bombers (examples: P-61, Bf-110, Do-335, Bristol Beaufighter
• Bomber destroyer: intended to engage enemy bombers using powerful armament (examples: P-38, P-39, YFM-1)
• Air superiority: built to seize control of airspace by engaging enemy fighters and other aircraft (examples: F-22, F-14, F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon)
• Interceptor: intended to prevent successful missions by enemy aircraft like bombers and reconnaissance planes (examples: Su-15, F-106, MiG-25, Me-163)
• Escort fighter: designed to protect bombers to and from their targets (examples: P-51, Bf-109, Bf-110, P-38)
• Penetration fighter: intended to bypass enemy defenses and engage enemy interceptors (examples: XF-108, XF-93, XF-88/F-101, XF-90)
• Fighter-bomber: aircraft designed for fighter role and adapted to tactical bombing and surface attack roles (examples: P-47, Fw-190, F-4, F-100)
• Strike fighter: aircraft designed for surface attack but also including fighter characteristics (examples: F-15, F-35, J-16, Su-27)
• Attack: aircraft designed for precision strikes and close air support, similar to tactical bombers (examples: A-10, Su-25, Il-2, Hs-129)
• Interdictor: attack aircraft focused on behind-the-lines targets, primarily centered on disrupting logistics (examples: A-5, F-111, Panavia Tornado, Su-34)

So where do the various ships in X-Wing fit into this schema? Do any of them fit? And what can we learn about how to fly from these various roles?

• Fighter: Khiraxz, Z-95
• Heavy fighter: Aggressor, G-1A, Firespray-31, TIE Defender, K-Wing
• Bomber destroyer: TIE Bomber, G-1A, TIE Defender, Y-Wing
• Air/space superiority: TIE Interceptor, E-Wing, Protectorate Fang, T-70 X-Wing, TIE Advanced, TIE Phantom
• Interceptor: TIE Fighter, A-Wing, M3-A Scyk, StarViper, TIE Advanced, TIE/fo, TIE Defender
• Escort: A-Wing, TIE/fo, Z-95
• Penetration: TIE Advanced Prototype, TIE Interceptor, A-Wing, TIE Defender
• Fighter-bomber: B-Wing, SF TIE, X-Wing (T-65), Y-Wing
• Strike: K-Wing, ARC-170, TIE Bomber, Y-Wing
• Attack: B-Wing, TIE Punisher, Y-Wing
• Interdictor: K-Wing

That's my best shot. What do you think?

...

Modern jets do everything. It's cheaper that way and every ordinance carrier in x wing reflects that

Ultimately, that could be debatable. With the R&D costs that go into making a multi-role aircraft capable in many roles (F-35 we're looking at you!) it is entirely possible that a more focused craft could be made for less a perform a given role better. I'll admit that may have other costs in the long run but generally it should be a lot easier to make something that is GREAT at one role for a lot less than it is to make something that is Good at many roles.

Isn't the k wing a dedicated bomber? Arnt those bombs under the front wings a dead give away.

It's odd that that TIE Interceptor does not get the Interceptor role.

Because it was named to intercept fighters and hit them hard and fast.

Interceptor role doesnt really go after fighters capable of a dogfight. Usually they sacrifice armor for more agility/max speed so they can alpha strike a heavy and gtfo. Raw speed doesnt help when the target can do some fancy maneuvers and force you to do the same to follow, which slows you down else you suffer intense G-forces (which causes a host of issues).

Pretty much any fantasy setting only has two fighters: Fighters and Bombers. Fighters go after other fighters and bombers, bombers go after weak points in the larger ships or bombard hard to reach areas of stations. With every single kind of "fighter" lumped into the singular word yea things are going to get mixed up lol.

...

Modern jets do everything. It's cheaper that way and every ordinance carrier in x wing reflects that

Ultimately, that could be debatable. With the R&D costs that go into making a multi-role aircraft capable in many roles (F-35 we're looking at you!) it is entirely possible that a more focused craft could be made for less a perform a given role better. I'll admit that may have other costs in the long run but generally it should be a lot easier to make something that is GREAT at one role for a lot less than it is to make something that is Good at many roles.

I think the F-35 is a bit of an outlier. It would have been capable of multirole work, the problem was that 3 branches of the military, all with different requirements for what the F-35 needed to do for them, all had a say in the way it was designed. And some of those design implementations meant that the F-35 suffered in other areas. The Marine Corps design was the one that made the F-35 as disastrous as it is, as the characteristics of a STOVL Fighter-Bomber are radically different than an Air Superiority fighter. Namely, a STOVL plane needs a short, fat, aerodynamically stable body with stubby wings to be able to accommodate the lifting fan and to take off and land in short distances. This is the exact opposite of what a dogfighter needs. Dogfighters need small, light fuselages and a decently large amount of lifting space, with inherent instability in your airframe to turn faster. The F-35 failed at being a multirole craft because it tried to be two different things that simply cannot be the same, no matter how hard you try.

With planes like the F/A-18, whether it be the C/D or E/F model, a multirole capability works because it doesn't try to stretch itself too far. It has the capability to dogfight because it's design allows for it, and the ability to do light bombing and strike missions because it has the hardpoints to carry lots of ordnance and the speed and agility to get into and out of your bombing zone quickly.

What it boils down to is that yes, if you want an airplane to do high-agility dogfighting, you need to design that plane to be capable of that. In short, there needs to be some degree of specialization in any airplane. But, once you've designed that craft with the bottom line of what it's supposed to be capable of(which should be narrowed down to only a few similar mission outlines), you can then build onto that to give it further abilities that are capable within the scope of that airframe(example: You can't expect an F-16 to do the job of a B-52, but because it can carry some bombs without sacrificing any of it's capabilities in any area, it can do strike missions). With the weapons technology available today, such as JDAMs and such, you can slap a JDAM and the appropriate camera and laser equipment onto an F-16 and you'll have an effective precision Fighter-Bomber.

You forgot Dominance - the F-22 Raptor is so effective at its job that it exceeds Air Superiority and becomes an Air Dominance Fighter. The TIE/D and TIE/x7 Defenders should take on that role nicely.

No Kidding. The F-15 has an air to air record of something like 102 kills to NO defeats, but in war games training, the Raptor routinely beats superior numbers of Eagles without breaking a sweat.

...

I think the F-35 is a bit of an outlier. It would have been capable of multirole work, the problem was that 3 branches of the military, all with different requirements for what the F-35 needed to do for them, all had a say in the way it was designed. And some of those design implementations meant that the F-35 suffered in other areas. The Marine Corps design was the one that made the F-35 as disastrous as it is, as the characteristics of a STOVL Fighter-Bomber are radically different than an Air Superiority fighter. Namely, a STOVL plane needs a short, fat, aerodynamically stable body with stubby wings to be able to accommodate the lifting fan and to take off and land in short distances. This is the exact opposite of what a dogfighter needs. Dogfighters need small, light fuselages and a decently large amount of lifting space, with inherent instability in your airframe to turn faster. The F-35 failed at being a multirole craft because it tried to be two different things that simply cannot be the same, no matter how hard you try.

...

A great example of reaching too far. It is one thing to try and standardize parts even across different ship but when you try to put too much into any one thing then it may suffer as a whole.

The comparison sort of falls down as well because - that list of roles covers such a wide time frame, and includes roles that are now in effect obsolete, that It can;t be used. "Interceptor" in particular. in the 50's interceptor were different to fighters, because fighters were anti-escort (so prioritised mobility) and interceptors were anti-bomber, so prioritised speed and climb rate.

Modern military aircraft are so multi-role these days as well.

George always said that Star Wars Combat was based on WW2 combat so restricting ourselves to ww2 style roles and archetypes makes a bit more sense.

TIE Fighter / TIE Interceptor - Light fighter, fast, highly manuverable low survivablity - A6M Zero or Early Spitfire.

TIE Bomber - Small attack aircraft - Stuka / TBF Avenger / IL-2

TIE Advanced - Advanced light fighter - Late Spitfire.

Z-95 - Old tech, still useful, becoming obsolete- Hurricane / F4F Wildcat

T-65 X-wing - medium fighter, all-rounder - P-51 Mustang / Mid (Mark 9) Spitfire / F6F Hellcat / Fw190

Y-Wing (A4)- Heavy Attack Fighter - Hawker Typhoon / P-47 Thunderbolt / P-38 Lightning

Y-Wing (Turret) Super-heavy fighter / light tactical bomber ("Zerstorer") - BF-110

A-Wing - fast and fragile - Zero again.

B-Wing - Advanced Heavy Fighter with a lot of firepower- Hawker Tempest / Me-262

E-Wing - Like a Mustang, but faster, more maneuverable, and more fragile - Late (mark 15 and later) Spitfire.

K-Wing - Small medium Bomber - B-25 / Mosquito

T-70 X-wing - Same firepower as a mustang, faster - F-86 Sabre.

I wanted to make sure to cover my bases, which is why my list was so long to begin with. Some of those fighter types- the bomber destroyers in particular- were generally obsolete before a single aircraft was designed for the type (or before a single good aircraft was designed- see the Airacuda). With Star Wars' rich roots in WW2 aerial combat, most of our XW ships fit those 1940s-50s roles but today's multirole aircraft blur the lines (although we're pretty sure we know where the A-10 fits). Perhaps these roles are clearer in the Epic environment, where "strike" and "attack" craft have more focused roles, or even in Armada where there are clear opportunities for attack, strike, escort, interdiction, interception, and so on.