LAAT
Is it just me, or does the Skipray's cockpit lock a little like the LAAT's? -- SFH 23:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- It's just you. -LtNOWIS 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow this is old... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow this is old... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
how many exist
how many are in servise —Unsigned comment by Jaceb (talk • contribs)
- We have no clue. That's like asking how many stars are there. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- See i do —Unsigned comment by Jaceb (talk • contribs)
- Enough with your nonsense. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Enough with your nonsense. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- See i do —Unsigned comment by Jaceb (talk • contribs)
Move
I'm moving this to its correct designation, per T-65 X-wing starfighter, RZ-1 A-wing starfighter, etc. Jorrel
Fraajic 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hyperspace capability
What is the source of the Skipray Blastboat being the smallest hyperspace capable craft used by the Imperial Navy? Wasn't there pretty many smaller craft equipped with hyperdrive used by the Imperial Navy: TIE Advanced x1, TIE/ad starfighter, TIE/D Defender (even though they weren't mass used they were still in use by by the Imperial navy)... Teemto 17:06, 1 August 2007
- You might want to read the opening paragraph again. It says it was the smallest hyperspace-capable Imperial craft early in the Galactic Civil War. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake :/ Teemto
- Don't worry about it. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, the source that makes this claim is the Imperial Sourcebook, and it doesn't make the clarification about timeframe. However, since the budgeting report that its chapter on ships is based on was released shortly after Yavin, it's a reasonable assumption. It's also possible, however, that it's in-universe misinformation, since this chapter is also a source for the Super-class Star Destroyer information later learned to be a deliberate deception of the Senate regarding Imperial war machine capabilities. jSarek 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are also several early Imperial starfighters made that contradict it. Some V-wing variants, the Royal Guard TIE/In, the TIE Advanced x1 etc. VT-16 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Vader's TIE x1 I seem to recall being explicitly excepted from the calculation somewhere as experimental rather than standard Naval issue, though the ISB has nothing to say about it. As for the other two, are we sure that A) the V-wings were still in Imperial service at the time of Yavin, and B) that the Royal Guard TIE Interceptor had entered service by then? jSarek 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, it's talking about the early Empire. V-wings were still in use at that time, as were ARC-170s which are about the Skipray's size. Second of all, the TIE Advanced wasn't so much "experimental" as "limited edition" since more were used in stories than just Vader's and his spares. And the Royal Guard model appears to have been made before Yavin or around that time, as they appear a few months later in SW:Galaxies. VT-16 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not talking about early in the Empire, it's talking about early in the Galactic Civil War; crucial difference. Yes, the TIE x1 clearly has had its provenance grown from merely "experimental"; I wish I could find the original statement so I could see exactly how it was worded, but every source I've checked echoes the blanket statement of the ISB (I don't *think* I imagined it, but now I'm beginning to wonder . . .). As for the Royal Guard Interceptor, it seems the period immediately after Yavin was a popular time for both sides to introduce new starfighter designs; the Assault Gunboat was also introduced around then, IIRC, which is a general production fighter which clearly supplants the Skipray for the title. jSarek 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry then. But the inclusion of the ARC-170 and Belbullab-22 as playable to all parties (Imperial, Rebel etc.) in SW: Galaxies shows that there were Imperial fighters smaller than it pre-existing. Even if most were limited production runs. And the Databank says it was one of the smallest Imperial Navy vessels to be equipped with a hyperdrive, not the smallest. VT-16 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- A necessary retcon, after the existence of the Gunboat, TIE Defender, expanded use of the TIE x1, and so forth rendered the original comment inaccurate. In fact, that's sort of the whole point - sources say one thing, other sources show something completely different, so where do we find the grain of truth in the discrepancy? jSarek 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- LFL policy is clear on this, newer sources supercede older ones and sources closer to the films supercede sources further away. All of the above are more recent than the ISB, so the original statement is superceded. :) VT-16 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Lucasfilm's policy is nothing of the sort. Contradictions are to be handled on a case-by-case basis, as Leland Chee reiterates in this blog: "Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience? Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is 'correct.'" Preference is also given to retcons that allow both sources to be correct in some fashion, which is why it's important to explore the discrepancy and see if the contradictions are reconcilable. jSarek 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That must be a new invention by LFL, I've always seen the above in interviews throughout the years, especially the part about sources closer to the films being "less foggy" and therefore "more correct". I also doubt they'd have something from, say, Marvel SW supercede a newer source in a contradiction. I also doubt anything from the films can be superceded by a novel or comic. VT-16 10:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the blog quote originally comes from this December 2003 interview; whether that's new or not is a matter of opinion. As to the contradictions, both have in fact happened, albeit quite rarely. This post is the one that dropped the bomb that even G-canon is subject to case-by-case analysis, with Boba Fett's death vs. resurrection and Stormtroopers being all clones vs. being a recruit/clone mix as examples that Tasty gives here. jSarek 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That must be a new invention by LFL, I've always seen the above in interviews throughout the years, especially the part about sources closer to the films being "less foggy" and therefore "more correct". I also doubt they'd have something from, say, Marvel SW supercede a newer source in a contradiction. I also doubt anything from the films can be superceded by a novel or comic. VT-16 10:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Lucasfilm's policy is nothing of the sort. Contradictions are to be handled on a case-by-case basis, as Leland Chee reiterates in this blog: "Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience? Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is 'correct.'" Preference is also given to retcons that allow both sources to be correct in some fashion, which is why it's important to explore the discrepancy and see if the contradictions are reconcilable. jSarek 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- LFL policy is clear on this, newer sources supercede older ones and sources closer to the films supercede sources further away. All of the above are more recent than the ISB, so the original statement is superceded. :) VT-16 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- A necessary retcon, after the existence of the Gunboat, TIE Defender, expanded use of the TIE x1, and so forth rendered the original comment inaccurate. In fact, that's sort of the whole point - sources say one thing, other sources show something completely different, so where do we find the grain of truth in the discrepancy? jSarek 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry then. But the inclusion of the ARC-170 and Belbullab-22 as playable to all parties (Imperial, Rebel etc.) in SW: Galaxies shows that there were Imperial fighters smaller than it pre-existing. Even if most were limited production runs. And the Databank says it was one of the smallest Imperial Navy vessels to be equipped with a hyperdrive, not the smallest. VT-16 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not talking about early in the Empire, it's talking about early in the Galactic Civil War; crucial difference. Yes, the TIE x1 clearly has had its provenance grown from merely "experimental"; I wish I could find the original statement so I could see exactly how it was worded, but every source I've checked echoes the blanket statement of the ISB (I don't *think* I imagined it, but now I'm beginning to wonder . . .). As for the Royal Guard Interceptor, it seems the period immediately after Yavin was a popular time for both sides to introduce new starfighter designs; the Assault Gunboat was also introduced around then, IIRC, which is a general production fighter which clearly supplants the Skipray for the title. jSarek 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, it's talking about the early Empire. V-wings were still in use at that time, as were ARC-170s which are about the Skipray's size. Second of all, the TIE Advanced wasn't so much "experimental" as "limited edition" since more were used in stories than just Vader's and his spares. And the Royal Guard model appears to have been made before Yavin or around that time, as they appear a few months later in SW:Galaxies. VT-16 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Vader's TIE x1 I seem to recall being explicitly excepted from the calculation somewhere as experimental rather than standard Naval issue, though the ISB has nothing to say about it. As for the other two, are we sure that A) the V-wings were still in Imperial service at the time of Yavin, and B) that the Royal Guard TIE Interceptor had entered service by then? jSarek 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are also several early Imperial starfighters made that contradict it. Some V-wing variants, the Royal Guard TIE/In, the TIE Advanced x1 etc. VT-16 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, the source that makes this claim is the Imperial Sourcebook, and it doesn't make the clarification about timeframe. However, since the budgeting report that its chapter on ships is based on was released shortly after Yavin, it's a reasonable assumption. It's also possible, however, that it's in-universe misinformation, since this chapter is also a source for the Super-class Star Destroyer information later learned to be a deliberate deception of the Senate regarding Imperial war machine capabilities. jSarek 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- Sorry, my mistake :/ Teemto
- I don't even see a conflict here. The Imperial Sourcebook says the Skipray is "the smallest Imperial Naval vessel to be equipped with hyperdrive engines." The V-wing, ARC-170, Belbullab etc. were not originally Imperial Naval vessels, were they? And all sources seem to indicate that they were being phased out pretty much from the minute Palpatine declared the Empire, right? So it's likely that the IU author of the Imperial Sourcebook was speaking from a more "current," borderline-revisionist-history perspective. We know darn well that the Navy wanted the TIE series to be emblematic of the Empire, so they're obviously speaking from a TIE-loyal perspective. ("Oh, the old Republic fighters don't count," they might have been heard to say.) As for Vader's TIE and the Royal Guard Interceptors, those are obviously limited-deployment vessels. So I don't think it's unreasonable (or conjectural) for us to slightly amend the Sourcebook's statement and say the Skipray was the smallest Imperial Naval vessel in general deployment to be equipped with hyperdrive at that time. That more or less meets the spirit of the Databank entry anyway. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, Gonk, they weren't. They remained in the Empire and there were still other models developed in the Empire later. Mass-produced or limited production does not factor into it, the fact is the old WEG book is incorrect now. I also have some issues with Leland Chee's assertion about G-canon. As far as I've seen, there has never been any EU retcon or overwrite done to stormtroopers or Boba Fett's continued survival that went against Lucas's own ideas. Even Lucas himself said on the DVD that "fans know he's alive anyway", when he explained why his survival wasn't added to the SE of ROTJ. VT-16 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Age of design
What's the basis for the claim that the Skipray's design predates the Clone Wars? Is it only Shatterpoint? It seems highly unlikely that a starship design could languish on a shelf for two decades (including a major war) before being put into production and not only not be obsolescent (at best) but rather formidable compared to most of the newer generation of vessels. Ze'ev Skordeno 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
NJO appearances
It's been a while since I've read Star by Star, but is there any indication that Saba's Jedi squadron were flying these specific craft? I know they mentioned "blastboats" quite frequently but the way the authors wrote it, it sounded like it could've been any generic assault craft Lalala la 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Zann removes ion guns....News to me.
The ion guns are still there if you look into the swarm of lasers you can still see ion bolts. Allthough they seem miniscule for a "capital grade medium ion cannon." and fire awfully fast it appears he merely replaced the ion gun with a smaller one and replaced the conc missile with another torpedo tube. I wont attempt to edit myself I would not meet quality standards.SargeLIVES 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Next Generation Skipray
I have just finished Invincible and I have noticed there is a new version of the Skipray, the GAT-24 Skipray Blastboat. Its only shortly after the novels release do I didnt expect much in the ways of info in the article, but I was, "Surprized" to find that their isn't one? If someone wants to create it, go ahead, but If no one gets around to it in a few days, I will change it.
.00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, the GAT-24 Blastboat described is the "r" variant, I believe. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is but the 24 normal is mentioned, but both dont deserve articles with the limited information given.
|
00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand; I just wished to let people know if they were going to create an article. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand; I just wished to let people know if they were going to create an article. Grand Moff Tranner