Talk: TIE/sa tactical bomber/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:TIE | sa tactical bomber

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Acceleration

Where does the max acceleration of 2380 G come from? That sounds like something from Curtis Saxton's ICS books, but those were prequel era and did not cover the TIEs. The max atmospheric speed of 850 km/h is ridiculously slow (less than Mach 1, and more than an order of magnitude slower than the atmospheric speeds of other starfighters shown in the ICS books), but sounds like something WEG would have came up with. Can you name your sources? I really doubt the authenticity of this information. JimRaynor55 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The info should stay up because it's official, but I must say that I'm disappointed in whoever wrote the NEGVV. The acceleration is great, and compares well to the numbers Saxton came up with. However, the atmospheric speed is still stuck in the Dark Ages of WEG. It just doesn't make sense. JimRaynor55 04:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I suppose we'd have to rationalize that, lacking shields, and being a rather unaerodynamic shape, the TIE craft must restrict themselves to ungodly slow speeds.--Eion 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • A problem with that idea though, is that TIE fighters were able to keep up with the Millennium Falcon without any trouble in the atmosphere of Bespin. -Vermilion 07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the MF was at a standstill, picking up Luke. I was going to make an argument about the MF's slow acceleration or unknown top speed, but we already have those from ANH, sigh. Yeah, it's a crap number.--Eion 07:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You're all forgetting that the Falcon outflew a TIE Interceptor while the second Death Star was preparing to explode. That proves that both the Falcon as well as TIEs have decent, if not excellent speed capabilities.
          • They're talking about atmospheric flight, not space flight. They're totally different matters; there's no friction in space. – Aidje talk 22:05, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • I know this is almost one year old, but I just had to add: for the fire to spread throughout the tunnel and indeed follow those fighters out, there would have to be some kind of atmosphere being kept inside the superstructure (similar pockets are kept for the workers at KDY according to Slave Ship, so they don't have to wear spacesuits all the time.) We wouldn't be seeing those flames unless there was a rich source of air in there. VT-16 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dupes

I'm just gonna assume it's the shape for now, since that's teh case with the others, but does anyone know for sure why they're called "dupes"? If it is a shape thing, I don't get it. CooperTFN 05:56, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize?

Should we move this to "TIE Bomber"? Both the capitalized and uncapitalized versions are correct, but I think the TIE articles should be given titles with a consistent style. JimRaynor55 06:33, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It really isn't neccisary. It's the TIE bomber, with or without the "B" capitalized. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Although it's not critical, I think it should be moved for consistency's sake. Either way is okay, but we should use the same style for every TIE. JimRaynor55 22:58, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New picture, please

May someone find a picture of the model used in Empire Strikes Back as the official picture of the TIE Bomber on this page, (its common on the internet)? I think it is best to have an authentic picture of the model rather than a computer-generated picture. I have tried to upload the picture, but I am not sure how to get uploaded pictures into the page.

  • There is nothing wrong with this picture. It shows an accurate model of the craft. This image is completely fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks ok, but the other TIE files in Wookiepedia all have pictures from the movies in them, and the picture I an recommending is common, looks better, and represents the art of Lucasfilm model makers who deserve credit, look at the Star Wars: Databank "TIE Bomber" section to see for yourself.
      • So? This picture shows a very good image of a TIE Bomber. There is no need to replace it at all. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • An image from the movie can be added into the article, yes, but the main image is perfectly fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
          • And yet you screw up the article... Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
            • My apologies, I was only seeing if it looked o.k., I did not "screw up" the article. Trekkies screw up Star Wars articles with Kirk vs. Picard bull shit, I was comparing the revised article to the other ones and was wondering if anyone else could have the chance to voice their opinion on the new image on the discussion page. I have placed the new image lower down on the page. Peace Admiral Nebulax!
          • I commend you on your image choices on the other TIE sections. I do not wish to argue with you, your image is fine, and I accept your final decision but hope you leave a canon image on the page. You're right, I was being hasty, we should have a more democratic decision on this and other issues by consulting others on our decisions. In order to avoid other problems, I will post my potential images on the discussion page where you and others can review them before I post. Peace.
  • Peace, buddy! Most of my canon information comes from the films. I didn't know where that computer-generated image came from, if it is canon, then its fine. Off-topic, I was talking with SillyDan over putting some banner over the X-Wing game article to warn of its misrepresentation of the Battle of Yavin and end non-canon information which states there was a battle with a frigate near the Death Star. What do you think of stopping X-Wing's misrepresentation of Star Wars canon on this site?

TIE/sa? Here we go again...

"TIE/sa" seems to be yet another fanon name (maybe from the non-canon SWG wiki). Can somebody provide a quote from a canon source?

- NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition

  • Why do you think every name of a starfighter or ship is fanon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think people should provide *canon* sources for their claims, rather than blindly copying fan sites like SWG wiki, Galactic Voyages etc. Or worse, inventing their own class names and designations. Don't you agree? Anyway, I've never heard the name "TIE/sa" before, so I checked my books, comics, and games. Unless it is mentioned in small print in some CCG card, I would say "TIE/sa" is fanon. Can you prove me wrong? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
  • I see they reference the TIE fighter as being different from the TIE/ln. I never did understand why this was removed from the TIE fighter article, and replaced with mentions of TIE/ln only. From what I remember, the TIE/ln are only the greyish/blue fighters seen in ESB and ROTJ, with the white ones in ANH being TIEs without the "ln" designation. (They were said to be old and nearly outdated by 0 BBY.) Can't remember the source or sources for this, but it said something about Tarkin still having them because he was in the Outer Rim and therefore wasn't always given the best equipment. It's the same explanation used for why the TIE models were slightly different in the later two movies, same as with the ISD-I and II models. VT-16 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So the original TIE starfighter (not T.I.E.) was different from the TIE/ln starfighter? Interesting. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, so it was the T.I.E. starfighter prototype, then the older TIE starfighter (which seems to be an upgraded version of the T.I.E., from that little box above), and then the standard TIE/ln starfighter. I suppose we'll need a TIE starfighter article for the original upgraded T.I.E. prototype. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing as how everyone agreed several months ago that it would be okay to move this to "TIE/sa bomber," should we move this article already? Technically, in the most general use of the term, a "starfighter" is pretty much any small combat spacecraft. But the TIE/sa is as pure a bomber as they come in SW. JimRaynor55 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's still a TIE starfighter, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • On August 21 (just look above), didn't you agree that moving this to "TIE/sa bomber" would be OK? There's not a single source that actually calls it "TIE/sa starfighter." As I said, it's a "starfighter" only in the most general, un-technical use of the term. Calling it a starfighter gives the impression that it is capable at anti-starfighter combat, which it is not. I can't think of any source that actually writes out "Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor" (rather than just "Eta-2 Actis" or something simpler like that), yet we use that title because that's the most specific. JimRaynor55 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • My opinion can change, Jim, and it did. And Jaymach, care to explain why you reverted my edits without giving a reason? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Your reasoning was flawed...we've seen canon evidence of the TIE starfighter with a lower case "s", but the TIE Bomber is always spelled in uppercase...see also TIE Advanced, and TIE Defender for another two that are uppercase...if you can find more examples of it being lowercase than those of it being uppercase then I'd be fine with it being lowercase...until then, it should be uppercase. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I've seen it as "TIE bomber" in just about every source—unless you want me to find sources that say "TIE/sa bomber" instead. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Show me a source that says TIE bomber instead of TIE Bomber...it's already been agreed that /sa is part of the designation, now you're simply squabling over semantics in relation to the capitalization. When you find me more sources that say bomber instead of Bomber, I'll let it be at TIE/sa bomber. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Without even spending that much time finding more sources, I can tell you that The Imperial Sourcebook, the starwars.com Databank, The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, and the WOTC website write "TIE bomber" with a lower-case "b." JimRaynor55 02:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Starships of the Galaxy, The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, TIE Fighter: The Official Strategy Guide, The Official Star Wars Fact File, and the Star Wars Sourcebook are some that I can find quickly which all say TIE Bomber. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • This isn't a stupid game of counting sources. As I said before, I didn't even take that much time to find more. Anyway, either the upper and lower-cases have been used, but the point is that the lower-case usage is consistent with Wookieepedia's article naming conventions. JimRaynor55 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • So, Jim, you agree with my move of the article to "TIE/sa bomber"? Anyway, it's clear that sources say "TIE bomber" and "TIE Bomber"; now it comes down to policy. Policy says this article should be TIE/sa bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • Funny...I've never heard of such a policy. Kindly point me towards it, as it will mean we have to move TIE Defender, TIE Advanced, TIE Hunter, and several others. Unless you can point me towards the policy however, then it will come down to counting sources, just as the argument of capitalization of Human did; note that it turned out we would capitalize it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                          • Yes, I agree with you Nebulax, this should be "TIE/sa bomber." Jaymach, the "policy" that you're looking for isn't that hard to see. Just LOOK at other starfighter article names. Do you see "X-wing Starfighter" or "A-wing Interceptor?" No, because we don't capitalize the ship's type. As for those other TIEs, they're a bit different since those are proper names, not roles. Either way, I have seen "defender" with a lower-case "d." JimRaynor55 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                            • As have I, but "Defender" is a proper name, whereas "bomber" isn't for this TIE. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                              • So you're saying this "policy" is what you've noticed when looking at other articles then? So it's not a policy? Oh wait...I'm sorry...looking at other article bar the ones that don't fit it. We don't have a policy, and in cases like this it comes down to what's used more in canon. I'm more than happy to look through every single source I have to see how many say Bomber. If you're not willing to do the same, then kindly bring it to vote. Bomber is as much a proper name as Defender is, however. A Bomber bombs, a Defender defends...a Hunter hunts...we don't have any consistency even on this site. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                • Except "Defender" and "Hunter" were not meant to be roles like "bomber" is. And in case you haven't noticed, Jaymach, Jim already provided sources for "TIE bomber". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Defender and Hunter are very much roles...the Hunter is designed specifically for hunting other fighters...it's a fast, maneuverable ship...the Defender can quite easily defend assets, as it's heavily armed and armored. And yes, he provided some sources...I provided sources for TIE Bomber...like I said...it comes down to counting the sources, to see which is used more, unless we want to hold a vote. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                    • Jaymach, the TIE Defenders and TIE Hunters are starfighters. The TIE/sa is a bomber. Therefore, "Defender" and "Hunter" would be capitalized, while "bomber" wouldn't be. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                      • Unless I'm mistaken, we had this article at TIE/sa starfighter just a day ago...the TIE Bomber is a starfighter as well, which is used to bomb. The Bomber being capitalized is exactly the same as Hunter and Defender being capitalized. Like I said, either provide more sources one way than the other or hold a vote. It's also interesting to note that Jim was wanting this moved to TIE Bomber earlier on this page. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                        • No, "bomber" being capitalized is not the same as Defender and Hunter being capitalized because "defender" and "hunter" are not those starfighters' main roles. The TIE/sa's main role is a bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                          • So you're saying the TIE Hunter doesn't hunt down enemies? The TIE Defender doesn't defend the Empire? I think someone ought to look at their operational service. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                            • Of course not. What they do is not always what their role is. They are starfighters. Their classes aren't "defender" and "hunter". The TIE/sa is a bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                              • Like I said...hold a vote, or count sources...until then, it stays here. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                                • Then why don't you start counting sources for your side? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                                  • I already have...so far I'm up to 34...I'm simply waiting for someone else to start counting the other side. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                                    • Well, we might have to hold a vote anyway. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                                                      • Of the sources I have access to, all use "TIE bomber": EGVV, [[NEGVV}]], The Galactic Empire: Ships of the Fleet and the Databank: TIE bomber - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                                                        • Strange how my copy of the NEGtV&V says that it's TIE Bomber then...additionally, I've provided many other sources which say TIE Bomber...if someone wants to tally up the amount of sources that say TIE bomber, then I'm more than happy to continue my count of TIE Bomber's...else, put it to a vote. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this: Let's wait to see what Complete Cross-Sections says. For the time being, we can leave the article here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Laser Cannons

So . . .Where are the laser cannons located on TIE Bombers? They seem to be well hidden. Double D 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll say. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to a FMV scene in Dark Forces II, there's two guns below the cockpit, like on most other TIEs. They're small though. VT-16 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently very small. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a small model of a TIE/sa starfighter, given to me as a gift. After reading this article I examined the model closely and found that just under the pilot's cockpit there is a set of two laser cannons. SecondSight 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. But please don't edit what Double D posted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In the old X-wing game, along with an old "tech spec" Star Wars screensaver from back in the day, the laser cannons were marked as being in the middle of the two hulls; in the TIE Fighter game, the laser cannons were supposedly mounted on the wing pylons.--TIEDefenderPilot 08:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Gand Starfighters?

Appeared in X-Wing: The Bacta War. They were modified TIE bombers, with a hyperdrive motivator and navicomp, wings cut in Interceptor shape, six concussion missiles, shields, and presumably greater manueverability. I think they ought to be added-they participated along T'wilek Deathseeds in several battles. (Argh...still can't find the tilde button-damn laptop) (tilde tilde tilde tilde) User:82 Airborne

How does it unload it's bombs

How does it unload it's bombs?--Herbsewell 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do they go down instead of just staying inside the chute?--Herbsewell 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reactor systems

Where on Earth does the reference to the SFS 1-a2b Solar Ionisation Reactor come from? This is a battleship-scale powerplant producing stellar-level energy, not a starfighter reactor! Please don't tell me this is canon... CommanderJB 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't tell you, but I slapped a fact tag on it. - Brynn Alastayr 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's from The Stele Chronicles, but I don't have access to my copy at the moment.--Craven 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections, pg. 129; the caption pointing to a module on the bridge between the pods is labeled "Module connection block housing SFS I-a2b solar ionization reactor for engines." Though I've never heard the claim that this particular power plant is battleship-scale; I've always heard it in the context of Sienar Fleet Systems ("SFS") and their TIEs, which apparently use this to convert the power its solar panels gather into ionized particles for the Twin Ion Engines. jSarek 03:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But this tells us that Star Destroyers use the same reactor systems as TIE Fighters! In fact, on the reactor's page - here - it says the system occupies almost half the stern of an Imperial-class vessel. That makes no sense whatsoever - but I suppose if it's canon then we're ging to have to explain this somehow. CommanderJB 06:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh boy. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I-a2b solar ionization reactor. Made by SFS, but apparantly in ISDs. More importantly, it appears to be in a number of sources over there. The solution is probably to examine what is said in each of them; if there's only one source listing it as a fighter reactor and many listing it as a ship reactor, we can simply disregard the odd source out as an error in the Complete Cross Sections book. -LtNOWIS 07:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe someone can check the TIE Fighter game and The Stele Chronicles, I'm pretty sure the reactor was mentioned in at least one of those. --Craven 07:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Given the the Star Wars Cross Sections and Visual Dictionary books aren't always right about everything, and we know there were I-a2b in the Imperial-class Star Destroyers from more sources than those that tell us they're in TIE fighters, can we please do something about this reference? It just cannot be right. Maybe put a section under 'Behind the Scenes' or something.CommanderJB 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Nine-point-five times out of ten, both of the books are right. The only thing we can really do for now is find out if another reactor for this fighter can be found in any sources. Until then, the current one is all we have, and therefore should remain where it is. Besides, it may simply be that Sienar built the same type of reactor for all Imperial craft, but had different sizes for the different types of ships. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Can't we put [i]something[/i] about this in the article though? It's a clear case of canon contradicting itself, which has warranted mentions in other articles. I'll do it, I just want to make sure that it's OK.CommanderJB 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, a BTS note is certainly warranted in this case. jSarek 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This many propaganda pamphlets (approx.)

Seeing that the TIE/gt had 3/2 of the payload of the TIE/sa, I multiplied the 20,000 propaganda pamphlets it carries by 2/3, and reasoned, therefore, that the TIE/sa can hold about 13333.333333333333333333333333333 pamphlets. If there is an official number of pamphlets, put it in, if not, and this number can be reasonably placed in, it should be put in...

Warhead launchers

Does the TIE Bomber have BOTH missile and warhead launchers? X-Wing seems to think it does, whereas TIE Fighter and the later X-Wing series games say it doesn't. Dunno about book sources. How many warhead launchers does it have? Lenzar 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)