Talk: Aggressive ReConnaissance-170 starfighter/Legends

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Aggressive ReConnaissance-170 starfighter/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

ARC

Should we use "Aggressive ReConnaissance" in the title, or just in the article top line? --SparqMan 03:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it should only be explained in the top line of the article. I don't know how you would write "Aggressive ReConnaissance" and then then "-170" without looking weird. JimRaynor55 05:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Like "Aggressive Reconnaissance-170 starfighter"? Might not be your style, but if that's what it was...--SparqMan 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vehicle type

would the ARC-170 be thought of as a bomber rather than a starfighter when compared to the other fighters the republic used?

It certainly fufills more of a patrol bomber/bomber role compared to the V-Wing and Eta-2. The ROTS ICS says that they're the heavy hitters when fighting as part of strike forces that include those other fighters. The ARC-170 is quite slow, even slower than a Y-Wing. Features like lots of supplies, heavy shielding, and tail guns show that it was not meant to outmaneuver other starfighters. Still, they are not pure bombers like the K-Wing or TIE bomber, and can still be used against other fighters. I think they fufill the same role as Y-Wings ("real" EU Y-Wings, not the slow-as-hell pure bombers that some of the video/pc games make them out to be), which is "heavy assault fighter." JimRaynor55 09:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ARC-170s are the X-Wings of Episode III. -- Eddyward Telerionus 00:09, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that is already obvious. Incom built both vehicles. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:50, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, here we have the same case as with the Y-wing. The Y-wing is a starfighter/bomber, so the ARC-170 can also be considered a starfighter/bomber. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:57, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

in my opinion a fighter/bomber type ship is necessary anywhere bcuz a small fast heavy hitting object is very dangerous to any ship bcuz most large ships do not have that many point defense weapons that hit at the close ranges the fighters can operate in. bcuz u should all now what "trench run disease" is and the other small ships dont have large the heavy weapons (heavy lasers and proton torps) that the ARC 170 has and yes a ywing and arc 170 are fast if compared to CAPITOL ships that are what they are ment to combat and yet be maneverable enough to take make fighters heed them and to have them keep there distance especially with the aft guns of the ARC 710 (Boommer3 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Imperial Era

"During the Galactic Civil War, ARC-170s could be found in both Imperial and Rebel fleets, although they were considered elite craft." Is there any source for this statement? I'm all for the use of prequel vehicles showing up later in the EU, but this sounds like fanon. JimRaynor55 12:45, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh, I´m basing this statement on the inclusion of ARCs, Eta-2s and Bebullabs in the OT-era Galaxies game. Now, I know this borders on Game Mechanics, but there are official statements which go outside the game, that refers to all three classes as 'elite' ships available to all (Imperial, Rebels and independents). In the game, they are Tier 4 ships, and thus available only to expert pilots. Basically, I´m going on the thought that these ships still exist in the OT-era, but are not as readily available as the other fighters, and thus reserved for only the best in various forces. Which is the intention of the makers of this game. VT-16 14:33, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • We might not see them being used by the Empire throughout the Original Trilogy, but at the end of Episode III, they don't have TIE fighters available yet. So, they had nothing else to use until the TIE production started. That's just really common-sense. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:39, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly, and furthermore it also makes sense that in this great, vast galaxy, there will be places where you can find craft and vehicles that might be looked at as obsolete in the more developed areas. There are already plenty of entries that describe this, and also Imperial forces that don´t get all the hi-tech, top-of-the-line materials. (And there´s the issue with some of these craft being superior to, say, TIE fighters. Even if that means they´re more expensive to produce/maintain.) VT-16 20:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Supplemental: I think the rule is, if something is in a game, it´s part of continuity (unless it contradicts the movies), but the limits/abilities of the craft is game mechanics and thus non-canon. Is this right? VT-16 20:56, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I doubt it was used by the Empire. Maybe freelancers working for the Empire (that's seems basically what Galaxies is but I wouldn't know for sure). Also, after the Empire was formed they started using V-Wings as the standard. If you notice it has the distinct TIE fighter noise and is all that you see later in Episode 3. And Incom seperated from it's parent company to avoid supporting the Empire so I don't see why they would continue producing fighters for it. Although, it looks like I am sorely outnumbered and I assume majority will rule.....--OompaLoompa of DOOM 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're probably right. But I have one final argument, the piece under discussion says they were used during the Galactic Civil War. For most starfighters that lifespan doesn't encompass 15-20 years (this is assuming that the actual war didn't start until a few years BBY). I read in one book (I'm sorry I don't remember which one at the moment) about some E-Wings now considered to be decrepit and barely functional after somewhere around 6 years. I don't think the Empire would spend so much money maintaining/restoring their ARC-170's when they could, for probably around the same price, buy a squadron of TIEs. And if I am proven wrong, (replace if with when) I think that it should mention the rarity of their use.

--OompaLoompa of DOOM 16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, to counter that, do we know when the TIE Fighter was first produced? If it was produced later on, they would probably still use V-wings and ARC-170s in the early, early stages of the Galactic Civil War. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Touche. Although that basically just leaves it in a gray area. So I guess until better information comes out about the last unknown gap between the trilogies (hopefully the TV series will give some insight) it will remain the same. Oh well, I don't mind losing an argument to another SW fan. --OompaLoompa of DOOM 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

One final word. When the TIE fighter was introduced, I'm guessing that the Empire dumped the ARC-170 design. Why would they continue to use out-of-date technology? If you think a military wouldn't just dump old tech your mistaken. It's actually cheaper to buy new equipment and things than it is to have the current teach refitted. The US Army does it all the time, after the first Gulf War there were thousands of tons of M-16s, thousands of vehicles and ammo just left behind. Furthermore, I think we're confusing the "Rise of the Empire" era with the "Galatic Civil War" era. Besides the basis for the TIEs where the Jedi Starfighter/Interceptors and the V-Wings featured in Episode III. Notice the solar panels and cockpit? The Empire brought many, many shipyards under their control as they gained power (and some were already there as a result of the Clone Wars). And as already said Incom split to avoid this. The ARC was upgraded to the X-Wing, and the rest is history. I think it's important to note that Lucas did not use something that looks exactly like the X-Wing, but used more of a general corelliation between the two. I think of it as the difference between say an F-14 and the F-16, both are used by US military, but as the F-16 came about, the F-14 was phased out and now we have the F-22. I feel that Lucas was trying to show the technology connections between the Rebellion and Empire to the Republic. Well that's all I've got. Hopefully I didn't make a complete dunder head of myself. O-ChampionOfTheForce-o 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • How come these starfighters are outdated in a couple years and suposidly the empire dumps them but then how come they continoue to use AT-PTs.AT-ATs,AT-STs, and Imperial Star destroyers when they were all built close to the same time????Sith-venator.3:36 8-30-08
    • They're not outdated, the fleet doctrine shifts to more vulnerable, slower-than-light models that can be deployed enmasse. The ARC-170 is probably more useful to the Empire than most, as it can function as a long-range scout. VT-16 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

History section

Is a history section detailing two appearances of the ARC-170 really helpful or encyclopedic?--SparqMan 19:17, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • What do you mean? What is written doesn't make much sense. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:32, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

odd info box

What is this?! why infobox in this ship is different than in other ships?!!??!!? FIX IT!!!! —Unsigned comment by SkywalkerPL (talk • contribs)

  • Don't panic. It's part of a brainstorming program for the standardization of a new and better ship/vehicle infobox format. Please see the Community Portal and Template_talk:Ship. —Darth Culator (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PTB-626 and NTB-630?

The Databank's ARC-170 article says "The narrow spaceframe flanked by large engines is common in Incom/Subpro designs, and can be seen in PTB-626, NTB-630 and Z-95 starfighter models." Does anybody know what the PTB-626 and NTB-630 are, when and by whom they were used, etc? 68.47.234.131 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric Speed

I wonder, what was Saxton smoking when he came up with these figures? The ARC-170 is supposed to be 42 times faster than the X-wing, which was designed almost 20 years later by the same people? 68.47.234.131 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That's very odd. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It does seem odd if it's an isolated thing, but there may be more to it. I suspect Saxton intended to increase the atmospheric speeds of the Original Trilogy fighters too, but someone or something prevented that. (Of course, this is just my own crazy conspiracy theory.) And the WotC RPG page on the ships from Revenge of the Sith cuts down these speeds by a huge amount, though I wouldn't consider that as authoritative as a printed reference. —Darth Culator (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if this isn't the actual atmospheric speed, we'll need to find the correct one. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • RPG numbers are game mechanics. The low numbers for OT fighters were made by people who thought a society tens of thousands of years beyond us in technology would have fighters operating as similar speeds to RL fighters. :P VT-16 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I wonder, what was Saxton smoking when he came up with these figures? The ARC-170 is supposed to be 42 times faster than the X-wing, which was designed almost 20 years later by the same people? I wonder, what was WEG smoking when it decided that the X-wing (and all other starfighters) couldn't even break Mach 1? If you believe that the X-wing can only fly at around 1,000 kph in an atmosphere, that would mean that real-life fighter planes from the 1960s could outrace it, and that it would take a hell of a long time to leave a planet's atmosphere. G-canon completely refutes this stupid idea, by showing ships leaving planets' atmospheres within seconds. The max airspeeds that Saxton came up with make sense and should stay. The airspeeds that WEG (and now the NEGTVV) use are ridiculously stupid, and I wonder whether we should even keep them since they contradict G-canon. JimRaynor55 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, then, do we have actual atmospheric speeds for those that are incorrect? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
            • You can easily tell the fighters are going faster than their WEG limits in ROTJ, during the celebrations. When the camera zooms up from Vader's funural pyre to show them dropping fireworks, several X-wings and at least one A-wing zip across the sky, crossing a stretch of sky many times equal to their own lengths, in less than one second. Not to mention the speeds they have during space combat. Just add that these speeds are vastly underestimated and most likely a product of game mechanics. VT-16 10:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Probably. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Saxton also had the LAAT at 650 kph, slower than the WEG starfighter numbers, and slower than some variants of the Supermarine Spitfire. Of course, it's not a fighter.-LtNOWIS 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say it's odder that the Eta-2 has twice the ARC-170's acceleration in space (makes sense, given that it's an interceptor and the ARC-170 is basically a bomber), yet the ARC-170 can get 3 times its speed in an atmosphere. The 170 doesn't look like the ultimate in aerodymanics to me, certainly not to the point that it'd be three times faster than a fighter that clearly has a far better thrust to mass ratio. Red XIV 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Could have something to do with the S-foils. Or the larger engines. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, now I finally found the text that explains it, from the ARC-170 page in ROTS:ICS, it says the deflector shields of the fighter disperse the heat from friction due to air resistance, thus enabling it to gain hyper sonic speed. That would explain the WEG numbers, if they're still valid, as being max speed for when the deflectors are not operational and the fighters can't risk it. Not bad. I assume the ARC's larger power generators give it more power for shields than the much smaller Eta-2, thus explaining how it increases atmospheric flight. In space, there wouldn't be friction to worry about, and the Eta-2 can zoom off. :) VT-16 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Not bad at all. And I assume the WEG numbers are still valid. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Then the WOTC numbers, which match those of WEG, can be put alongside the ones for when the deflector shields are on. Similar notes should be made for all other fighters as well. I know all the Rebel fighters have deflector shields, bit more tricky for the TIEs, unless noted. I do see shield interactions when the TIEs follow and engage the Falcon in ANH. This was before the EU wrote profiles on them, so there doesn't appear to be any rules against them having shields back then. VT-16 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since we now know deflector shields give fighters the ability to reach hypersonic speeds in an atmosphere, can we write (with deflector shields on, faster speeds were possible) next to fighters with WEG era stats only? Because I'm sick and tired of getting this "WTF is the prequel fighters so much faster??+?#050" in every fighter talk page. :P VT-16 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Seem I spoke too soon. The Eta-2, without its shields, can reach 15,000 km/h. Its much slower than the ARC-170, which is in turn slower than the V-wing fighter. Guess the onboard shield generators are enough to give the smaller V-wing more speed than the ARC. That still leaves the WEG-era stats for travel without generators on as much, much smaller than even a fighter with no shields. Still, my above idea should be enough for now. :) VT-16 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote we say that the atmospheric speeds are non-shield values. Rest assured I will be putting my Saxton training to the test to try and figure out more realistic values for fighter speeds from the RotJ celebration scene. My early WAG estimates put the X-wing at 50K kph at least, and im betting 65K for the A-wing.--Darksaber13 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the torpedo launcher?

I've looked over the ARC-170 in everything from pictures to the action figures and I still can't figure out where the torpedo launcher is supposed to be. Anybody know?

Nope - I checked, and even that book doesn't show it. User:Darth Saito

  • Odd, because I thought I saw it there. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It states the ship is armed with 6 torps, but doesn't identify them or the launcher - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That makes me wonder if the torps are dropped like bombs instead of being launched forward. Darth Saito 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Why not call them "bombs" instead? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, if they were dropped out a chute in the bottom of the fighter but then ignited their own thrusters (similar to the way real air-launched torpedoes work)... Red XIV 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is underneath the pilot's cockpit in the toy and as there seems to be no other canonical source,I suggest you put that in.

  • I suppose so... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Better late than never, but I thought ROTS: ICS showed the torpedo launcher mounted above the laser cannons.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the targeting rangefinder, if I'm looking where you're looking. And besides, since the ARC-170 only has one launcher, it makes sense that it would be in a central location. Jenosidanian 05:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Astro-Droid?

Is their a exact kind of Astro-Droid that was used for the ARC-170, or a standerd?

Paleontologist.piczo

  • I don't think there is a standard, though RotS: ICS shows an R2 unit - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Link

Could someone please put up a page for 'ARC-170' or somesuch and link it to this page? It took me ages to get here after searching for 'ARC-170' and 'ARC 170' and getting no results. Just frustrating. Darth Windu

  • I assume you don't know how to make redirects. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No sorry I don't, I've edited some lages but don't know how to do a redirect. Darth Windu
      • To redirect a page, simply type: REDIRECT# [["Article name"]] on the page to be redirected, with "article name" being the main article. For example, the ARC-170 redirect page reads: REDIRECT# [[Aggressive ReConnaissance-170 starfighter]] - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Toy canonity...

[[File:Arcarc.png|thumb|To be canon, or to not be canon? That is the question.]]

Is that Hasbro toy canon? I merely ask as thanks to it there is a tidbit in the article that states that pilots customised their ARCs. Just how canon is a toy? Unit 8311 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • C-canon, according to Chee - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's canon IMO, the customization looks like a lot to the customized LAAT that we can see in Clone Wars, which is canon. Why this ARC-170 could not be canon? -- Kaal 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about the ARC-170 alone. I'm talking about toys being considered as canon sources. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose the paintjob is canon enough, as nothing contradicts it, but we can't jump to too many conclusions from it. Unit 8311 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The fact remains that new continuity created through toys is canon. As Chee notes, the precedent goes back to even the early toys - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It's more like "continuity can be created through toys, which would become canon". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • There's an article in a Star Wars Insider issue (upcoming, I think) that deals with Kenner's proposed toy line that was an expansion of the Expanded Universe post-ROTJ, with all-new characters, ships, etc. It was all Lucasfilm-approved, but cancelled at the eleventh hour with only prototypes produced. It would be interesting to see if a comment on Lucasfilm's stance regarding toys and continuity/canonicity is mentioned.Tocneppil 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't there a die-cast version as well? I saw it in the line-up alongside the Imperial Venator and Vader's Eta-2. VT-16 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Here it is
Clone Troopers fly this bomber-type into battle for combat and reconnaissance. During the Clone Wars, it was common for elite Trooper[s] to customize their vessels with elaborate designs, such as this. With heavy armor and class 1/5 hyperdrive, the ARC-170 is equally suited for both long-range patrols and aggressive assault missions. VT-16 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So we have elite clone pilots. Possibly even ARC pilots in these ARC-170s. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope nobody minded that I removed the image from the article a while back. Canon or not, it looks plastic and fake, and with the SW Merchandise Wiki now up and running, I figured it could go there. - JMAS 13:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I have noticed that Hasbro printed a 1/5 hyperdrive rating in the description. This, most likely was meant to have been a 1.5 rating. Are we to accept the 1/5 or assume 1.5 and consider the Hasbro print a typo? The latter would make sense. Gethralkin 11:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ARC-170 Cross-section

For anyone out there who cares, pleas post or give ma a link where to find a cross-section tnx Or E-mail me at arcfordo_alpha17@yahoo.com

  • The Cross-section is in the Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections book. Remember to sign your posts.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Asromechs?

Not really important, but i was just wondering if anyone else out there noted the lack of astro-droids in most of the promo shots and some in-movie shots of the ARC-170? Once again, not really important but its a little strange, IMO at least. --LtCol. JuiceStain 16:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MGLT Speed

The ARC is labeled in the article as being a big slow heavy-hitter, but it's current speed in the tech section is 100 mglt: its faster than a Y-Wing, and as fast as a TIE/In or X-Wing (X-Wing is listed under the Megalight article as having top speed of 100 MGLT, but the X-wing article tech section says 80...)which are both a generation ahead in design.

The ARC is also 25MGLT faster than the V-Wing fighter from the same era. The V-wing article describes that fighter as lacking the firepower of the ARC but being faster (under it's history section). Anyone else find this...odd?--Round Robin 01:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The MGLT values from BF:RS seem wholly inconsistent with previous uses of the unit (I would go as far as to argue mechanic), but what else would you expect from that series? - Brynn Alastayr 21:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd personally be disinclined to include the Battlefront data at all, even at the cost of not listing an MGLT speed at all - since it has fighters in non-canon roles (the V-Wing and ARC-170 apparently having been switched, for instance), the figures are not just inaccurate but actively misleading. At least the X-Wing series has starfighters performing their canon roles if not always to canon specifications... Draxynnic 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi, sorry first time posting. My question is where does it say that the ARC was slow? I do not doubt a source somewhere says it, I was just curious where. Thanks. --Bgoalie1788 (talk) 19:43, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Likeness to Real-World aircraft

I have reverted the opinion of the comparison of the ARC-170 to the JU-87 Stuka. The Aggressive ReConnaissance-170 starfighter design looks to be derived from the P-61 Black Widow. If you look at the wikia photos of both aircraft and compare them to the ARC-170 you will notice that the cockpit arrangements and the fuselage are more closely resembling that of the P-61. Although the JU-87 cockpit is extended, it is not split-elevated as on both the P-61 and the ARC-170. Also notice the two engine nacelles on the wings of both the ARC-170 and the P-61 which are lacking on the JU-87, a one engine aircraft. The prominent features of the JU-87 are the large wheel skirts and the large cowling over the engine, features not present on the ARC-170. Gethralkin 11:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The Stuka's fuselage looks nothing like the fuselage of the ARC-170, and arguably the most distinctive feature of the Stuka is its wing configuration (shaped like a "w" when seen from the front or rear), which is nothing like the S-foil configuration of the ARC-170. The P-61's fuselage is much closer to the fuselage of the ARC-170. I don't suppose we have any official word on the inspiration for the ARC-170, though? DolukTalk 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Much more like the US Navy's Avenger-Class torpedo Bomber, in it's equipment and combat role. The Avenger had under mounted hard-point to carry a (water type) torpedo, forward & aft machine guns, including a rear-mounted position for a defensive gunner, a crew of three--Pilot, Gunner, and Radioman/Bombardier. It could carry externally-mounted light bombs or rockets. The aircraft had overall ruggedness and stability, and pilots say it flew like a truck, for better or worse. It was very long-ranged. Former US President George Bush (The Elder) was it's most famous pilot. Bosda Di'Chi (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Layout

Where exactly does the pilot and front-gunner sit? Does the Gunner sit on the top while the pilot gets the clearest view, or does the pilot get the top ? Liberater444 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The pilot sits in front, and the gunners sit on top and aft. This is indicated by the fact that Captain Jag was sitting in the front when Order 66 was issued. He is shown piloting the ARC-170 into position to eliminate Plo Koon's starfighter. Gethralkin 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Price

Why is the unit cost for a new ARC-170 only 155,000 Republic Credits when the smaller, lighter, less armed, less advanced Eta-2 Actis costs 320,000 Credits? Keep in mind that the ARC is an advanced bomber equipped with proton torpedo launchers and much more laser cannons than the Eta-2, and it is also equipped with a Class 1.5 hyperdrive vs the Eta-2's no onboard hyperdrive, and even the ARC's equipped shield generator vs the Eta-2's no equipped shield generator. It even says in the Eta-2 article that it is a "lower quality fighter" than the ARC-170. With all of these factors, either the listed price of the Eta-2 was bumped up, possibly due to fanon, or the price of the ARC-170 was bumped down. Could somebody confirm the price of both the Eta-2 and the ARC-170 and change the costs accordingly? Much Appreciated, SkypopperHoloNet Transmission 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that. Both prices are sourced, I just checked the sources and confirm that the prices are not fanon. Whatever you think these prices should be based on your own conclusions is Original Research and is irrelevant, since we have canonical info. MauserComlink 08:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I just checked the website Starships and Vehicles of Revenge of the Sith, and the Eta-2 is listed as Not available for sale (likely valued at 140,000 credits), which was copied and pasted directly from the site. I will be changing the price on the Eta-2 based on this information. SkypopperHoloNet Transmission 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And yet The Clone Wars Campaign Guide states another price, and as it was published later, we go for a newer source. I'm reverting your edit. MauserComlink 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • What price does the Clone Wars Campaign Guide give to the ARC-170? Skypopper(Talk) 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • It does not feature an entry on that fighter. MauserComlink 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
            • OK, then we are using the source that has entries on both ships. Skypopper(Talk) 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
              • As Mauser said, we go with the info from newer sources. And you have no authority to just dictate which source you'd rather use. That's not how it works at all. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Why should we use a source that conflicts with an other source? We will use the source that has the price of both ships in it, unless you can show me the policy that says otherwise. Skypopper(Talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We use the newer source. That's policy. Deal with it. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Secrets of the Jedi as sources ? even if it's a novel between 39BBY and 22BBY ? (Fantom menace and Attack of the Clones)

How a book about star wars 1 can be a source about the ARC 170 ?????? Cause the book is between 39BBY and 22 BBY and so ,can't say anything about the ARC Furthermore something illogical cause it say that the ARC have concussion missile luncher but we can't see them on the fighter

i haven't read any of thoose books but in can say by the experience of my star wars encyclopedia and my eyes that we can't place both of torpedo launcher and missiles on the ARC ,i think that the missiles luncher should be remove on account of a misunderstanding in a novel when it was speaking about torpedo and not missiles ... if an ARC is appearing in a book that end at the battle of Geonosis

So first we must delete the source 6 at the missile luncher and just let  the source 7 about star wars 3 then take à look at the missile launcher that can’t fit in the fighter

and yes i know that there is a second source .. but the probleme is the same ; we can't fit missile launcher on a ARC and it's must be a misunderstanding cause it's the continuation of the book evocated before

Flamoirs : 27 / 11 22h50 (France UTC+1)