Star Wars Tactics | Why Starfighters didn't use Guided Missiles

[@gbladewarrior6884]

The TIE fighters don't need windows because Vader and other high ranking force users tested the TIE and though it was great. They just forgot that "normal" pilots can't feel the enemy.

[@DJSbros]

GBlade Warrior how does one “forget” that most people are normal......

[@buzzardman2963]

@@DJSbros Have a massive ego and lack empathy.

[@ardentfire3956]

Their sensors probably just display everything on their HUD, so the TIE's viewport is probably just a formality.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

I'm pretty sure the dark area on the back of TIEs WAS intended to be a window. It's just been IGNORED in most sources, usually.

[@FedoReds88]

@@chrissonofpear1384 nope, is a part of the engines

[@GenerationTech]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Remember to fully cook your porgs and ewoks to avoid food poisioning!

[@pyeitme508]

Happy Thanksgiving! Also please make Earth Special Forces(any nation) VS Star Wars Speical Forces videos?!

[@really296]

Generation Tech i got palply lighting my bbq now ⚡️

[@unknownuser4692]

Fry em up

[@justineaker2516]

I'm watching this on my break :/ no porgs yet!

[@prestonbrower762]

And don't you even think about eating lettuce

[@WolfX1120]

I Think the shields are wot makes the big difference... If our airplanes had shields like in Star Wars or Star Trek... Long range combat would be less effective... You'd need to get in closer so you can more effectively whittle down the shields and destroy your target.

[@Technoanima]

WolfX1120 Yep. One to punch shields. One to punch hardware.

[@WolfX1120]

​@@Technoanima Your Comment made my fist hurt... I think i will stick to guns and the like to get through shields ;P"

[@FinnClark445]

Wow you watch these vids too

[@nodwick4231]

In the Star Wars universe, there are 2 types of shields, Ray Shields and Particle Shields. Star fighters only mount the former, presumably due to bulk, while missiles and torpedoes (and even bullets, for that matter) are only blocked by the latter. This means that star fighters are essentially unshielded against missiles. No need to whittle down anything.

[@eagleeyez1280]

WolfX1120 Negative but what you could do is to have the function and capability to use either Ion torpedos or Ion cannons on Rebel/Resistance Star fighters to knock out shields then use other support fighters follow up with a bombing run. The simple tactic was: use Y-Wing with X-Wing escorts, A-Wings were for fast hit and run targets and provide a defense against TIE Interceptors. Y-Wings would disable the hostile shields with Ion cannons and everyone else would destroy the target. Also the Star fighters the Rebels used only had Deflector shields not full projection shields unlike most frigates and capital ships.

[@JayinBuffalo]

The design of the original tie fighter canopy really is a perfect metaphor for the imperial military as a whole. The imperials WANTED their soldiers to have tunnel vision. Never straying from their forward path for the good of the empire. Like blinders on horses the tie fighter design itself kept the pilot in line with the empire.

[@TheRyujinLP]

One thing I think people tend to forget is the "closed eco-system" effect that most modern militaries have access to that make long range missile only combat more practical. Things like mil sats, AWACs, capitol ships, and in the US's case global sensor sights set up across the world outside it's own borders. In Starwars both the rebels and the Imperials aren't guarantee to be fighting on worlds with advanced sensor platforms and other critical assist to help one side or the other achieve space superiority. So with this in mind it's not really fair to compare combat in this setting to how we wage wars today. If anything you're lucky to have off platform tactical intelligence greater then what a US combat pilot would of had access to during the 50's or maybe 60's.

[@alekweihermuller6262]

TheRyujinLP Couldn’t have said it better

[@self-satisfiedsmirk5544]

TheRyujinLP You know, I used to think poorly on Star Wars fighter craft still relying on line-of-sight and engaging the enemy at such short ranges. But, as Alan was going over the vast satellite networks that the various militaries on Earth like the United States have at its disposal which make such long-range engagements possible, I immediately thought about how many of these dog-fights within Star Wars take place in foreign star systems, if not in space in the middle of nowhere where there would be no sort of sensor network to connect to. I didn’t think of it as well articulated as you did in your comment. But, I did realize how myopic it was to judge Star Wars tactics too harshly, given that they were born from different circumstances. I still think that the maximum effective engagement ranges should be greater, and I think that many tactics both within space and on land can be improved. But, that’s neither here nor there.

[@curseofgladstone4981]

@@self-satisfiedsmirk5544 True. Simple heat seeking or radar guided could still work and we have seen them used in films.

[@GAdmThrawn]

This needs more likes.

[@DonaldWWitt]

And to be fair to the Star Wars universe, one of the more basic signs of Force SENSITIVITY is PRECOGNITION! So not only does their FTL systems allow them to outrun tracking munitions, a pilot might just realize you are going to launch them before you even do so.

[@SiyraKitsune]

Well, 2 reasons, really. Reason 1: Starfighter combat in Star Wars is just meant to look visceral and on the edge. When a TIE Fighter drops in behind you, you're supposed to feel sympathetic towards the pilot about to get waxed, kind of like the classic Hollywood shots of WW2 plane movies at the time. Reason 2: This is actually based off of dialogue from ANH; it is more than likely that all starfighters and capital ships have electronic countermeasures. I point towards when the TIEs attacked in ANH; the base warned the X-wings that TIEs were on the way, but nobody could see them on sensors and Red Leader told them to 'pick up on their visual scanning', ie, go mark 1 eyeball. This would largely explain why combat is done at knife fighting ranges to begin with; with all the electronic jamming, a missile would have a hard time finding a target to lock onto. The other problem was one encountered by the americans during I think the korean war; namely, a) missiles are limited by the spacecraft that carries them. The Rebellion, for example, fights TIEs. Lots of TIEs. So, if an X-wing is armed with, say, 6 missiles, and fires all of them, well, it's killed 6 TIEs... and now has to face the rest without any kind of weaponry. b) Missiles are also standoff weapons and have a minimum range where they can track effectively. So in this case, if a fighter isn't detected until it penetrates that minimum range, ie, where you're using the mark 1 eyeball, then your missiles are going to be useless most of the time. This was the problem, in fact, faced by the F4 Phantom; it was initially designed as a pure missile fighter, but when facing other fighters, it was quickly realized that just carrying missiles alone was bad, and they had to glue back on a cannon. All in all, enjoyed the video and the points raised.

[@ambientlight3876]

In WWI & II often the only way a pilot could detect an enemy aircraft was through visual line of sight. I figure the TIEs are using cameras and sensors to detect enemy aircraft so the obstructing panels aren't as much of an issue.

[@shraka]

Star Wars just isn't realistic. You can make up whatever rules you like really. In reality, it'd be almost impossible to jam someone's sensors without cooking them with lasers. It's impossible to move and hide in space at the same time because you generate a heap of heat to move, and the background of space is pretty cold.

[@xxvaltielxx1789]

@@shraka If i remember right, ION engines don't produce heat, so TIE's would be almost invicible.

[@shraka]

ION drives produce heat. Way more than the background radiation of space. All drives do. Generally the more powerful they are, the more heat.

[@SiyraKitsune]

@@shraka They do, which is the reason something like an X-wing actually has S-foils, and I believe TIE Fighter wings have radiators on the inside. That said, this is also space we're talking about, with distances measured in many millions of km. Whilst there would be heat, we could also assume that, it being a sci-fantasy universe, there are also measures to bleed off that heat, to keep from damaging their spacecraft or to avoid detection. We actually see quite a bit of that today on modern jets; stealths, I believe, have something that reduces the heat signatures of their engines, which in turn make it difficult for sensors to detect. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that this is a common material in the construction of Star Wars fighters, although there are no sources that explicilty say so. Mostly, I point out examples from the film. If ships could be detected by their heat signature, why did red group and gold group not detect them when they were launching? Specifically, home base in ANH says they 'picked up a new group of signals', which implies that they were not tracking the TIEs on their heat signature nor profile (despite how big a TIE is), but rather their electronic chatter (ie, the pilots communicating with each other), which is one way modern RL systems can detect enemy craft as well. As for your thoughts on electronic jamming, I will still maintain that it is more powerful than you let on. There other examples in other shows where electronic jamming is pretty effective (BSG comes to mind), and there exists dialogue within Star Wars itself that suggests that electronic jamming is, in fact, a factor, and this contributes to a possible reason as to why fighters engage in such close ranges. Of course, I will agree that the main reason is that it just looks good, and it harkens back to the days of WW2 and knife edge gunfights. Seeing fighters plink at each other beyond visual sight range would be somewhat boring!

[@teekayfourtwoone4686]

Missiles were used fairly extensively in the "X-Wing" and "TIE Fighter" games. Concussion missiles were a better choice than Proton Torpedoes against starfighters though, due to being more maneuverable. Get a hit with a torpedo though, and the enemy fighter was done. I think "Rogue Squadron" used missiles/torpedoes as well.

[@bazza1carter]

They did extensively - against first wave Tie Interceptors, and capital ships. The Rogue Squadron books are littered with their use.

[@wangbot47]

Whoa what happened to your mic

[@mysticmarble94]

When I opened the vid I first thought that I accidentally clicked on one of his first ever videos .... Quality is fucked on this one 😅

[@VikingCuda]

Must have forgotten his lapel mic and used the integrated camera mic.

[@djsnaps12]

I thought the same thing thought this was a old video mic and video quality bad. Unless he is at some one else's house then I understand. He also looks like he just rolled out of bed.

[@thenbagreatteller1855]

I'm not the only one 😅

[@perttutorvinen9180]

I though either my ears or speakers were broken. Good to know it’s about video.

[@LegoWorldWar2StopMotion]

It’s Thanksgiving, can’t wait to eat that roasted Ewok

[@Daimon-X]

Bon Appétit

[@weldonwin]

We'll be having Gungan Gumbo in our household, the ear-fins crisp up nicely with some salt and fried with a little oil, making a great appetizer

[@billclark5055]

Grilled Wookiee ribs are the best along with grilled Calamari. Don't forget about fried Hutt. But beware, Trandoshans hunt down and eat humans during this time of year.

[@weldonwin]

@@billclark5055 The trouble with cooking Hutt is first finding enough garlic to fry a slug that big and secondly, escaping the bounty hunters that will inevitably be sent after you by the rest of their crime family in revenge. Really, Hutt meat is too much of a hassle and frankly its kinda too greasy for my tastes.

[@ratbat1072]

@@weldonwin You dont have to kill the full hutt for a meal. You can just cut a part of it off because itll re grow in about a year. Hutt farming is a great business.

[@ВладиславДараган-ш3ф]

2:09 If light is reflected - that's not cloaking, it is crucial thing for visibility ;)

[@Ratelheart]

So long as it isn't reflected back at the viewer, it's cloaking. Albeit not the best form of it, since you will appear as a dark void if you are too big for someone's brain to automatically fill in the gaps. Not terrible with space as your backdrop, so long as you don't fly in front of a planet or nearby star.

[@voidzwrathdankster4554]

Hey tech have a good thanksgiving and everyone else to!

[@mentalydankmeme2356]

ha ha i no thanksgiving

[@00yiggdrasill00]

I really wouldn't be surprised if it was a logistical thing that made them use lasers over long range missiles alongside your point on the enemy having more time to react. The Imperial ii has food supplies for 2 YEARS and who knows how long the rebellion sat around waiting for a target. With missiles they would need far more resupply runs adding huge logistical strain, using lasers as the primary weapons cuts that down significantly.

[@uni4rm]

yiggdrasill SD’s could carry supplies for that long, but it’s highly unlikely every ship was constantly topped off, and more likely if they were deployed to a patrol for 6 months, they wouldn’t take more than 8 months of food with them, as it would be used elsewhere. The Empire was big, but still had finite resources.

[@00yiggdrasill00]

@@uni4rm the legends info says 2 years, and while what you ars saying does make sense, they would likely carry the full load in case of emergency in my mind. We also need to question how long the supply lines are. Now i dont know of any information for that beyond the core worlds being built up but if we assume that a mining, wasteland (great deal of heat and sand or snow and cold) or industrial world doesnt produce much food or maybe any at all, then a 6 month duty rotation is still 6 months without food or ammunition resupply. Now lets assume a low level combat situation due to the pirates that have been a constant throughout star wars history, thats going to add up. Now if we look at how efficient laser weapons are in this setting we see that even a soldier can carry hundreds of shots on themselves so we can assume that they are plentiful and easy to store leading to why lasers are so widely used. It is known that the reason they are used on the ground is because most armour is useless against it, to the point that even stormtrooper armour is only ment for glancing shots. I actually think the armour is another logistical solution with its internal environment system letting them deploy wherever.

[@allnamesaretakenful]

Is the Sonata a joke? If it really cost $150K, it had better come with Strippers and a lot of cocaine.

[@GenerationTech]

I thought that was a given...

[@kozaamovies1779]

Now buzz droids making sense. Even when missile misses the target, you have a small "minefield" that will destroy every enemy who flies through it but it wont make any damage to friendly forces

[@battledroid224]

But having buzz droids are quite expensive per kill.

[@Robert_Douglass]

@@battledroid224 Is that based on fact, or is that just droid bias?

[@pyeitme508]

GREAT VIDEO! Next please tell everyone why you choose the Colt M1911 45ACP and an AK47 with an ACOG sight when inside the Star Wars universe?!

[@SGTcz90cz]

Because shooting twice is silly, duh. Good question on the AK, though.

[@presidentstanky8547]

The colt is an excellent weapon, but the AK? It's an ok gun but there are better guns out there. At least get an AK-74 (the modern variant of the rifle, which is currently used by Russia).

[@KillerOrca]

@@presidentstanky8547 Nah man, they're past the 74 now. I think they have something that replaced it? Same basic gas system tho

[@pyeitme508]

@@SGTcz90cz thanks

[@Evilmonkey7270]

Well, I'd say a firearm is something that absolutely positively needs to go bang, when you need it to go bang. On that note, how do star wars blasters react to droid-poppers?

[@stars9084]

Well, according to the X- Wing novels, Rebel fighters made common use of guided Proton Torpedoes in Dogfights

[@Pantsthief-gk8vu]

My opinion on Star Wars dog fighting: Really really stupid & impractical, but also really really fun to watch.

[@pyeitme508]

That is why smart, effective and practical modern atmospheric dog fighting is boring in movies but totally making common sense!

[@nobody4248]

Rule of awesome

[@osedebame3522]

Rool of cool

[@pietrooliani3251]

That's why star wars is brilliant

[@cancelanime1507]

My opinion: Looks very cool: And makes sense given all the technologies they have:

[@GAdmThrawn]

Were those proton torpedoes that the stealth ship used on Admiral Trench? I thought proton torpedoes have a distinct look and color attached to them. Besides Trench was using a specific type of shielding called "thermo-shields" that allowed the ship to withstand greater firepower when seen bearing down on the Republic fleet led by Anakin and how he's able to withstand the torpedoes used by the stealth ship. The tactics of using proton torpedoes in conjunction with laser cannons is to allow torpedoes greater damage. They still do impressive amounts of damage as seen with the Malevolence even with the shields. TIE fighters don't show up on fighter scanners as can be seen in the battle of the first Death Star. They are too small, thin, and don't have a whole lot of excess energy signatures like shielding. They are still able to be detected through other means though including targeting computers. The best way for ships to be undetected from scanners when coming out of hyperspace is to exit at the far side of the system or behind planetary bodies in the system that could shield the ship from scanners. The ships can then set themselves up for orbital bombardments on the planet if they have shield generators thereby catching them unawares with the shield down or prevent escape through interdictors. You also forgot that ships are equipped with flares like the stealth ship seen with Anakin. Like modern Earth fighters, starfighters can deploy flares when missiles target them as countermeasures and it's up to the skills of the pilot to avoid the missile and have it collide with the flare. Starships and space combat have used missiles in combat for a long time although not always in the same way that we do. Most if not all have some form of tracking capabilities from the homing missiles used by Slave I to the Discord missiles used by Droid Tri-Fighters. Capital ships are equipped with missile launchers from proton torpedoes to concussion missiles to homing missiles but unfortunately they are not always depicted.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

There are many models of protorps, to my knowledge.

[@psychoangel4848]

another reason would be the ammunition the missile would have a limit impact, while the laser allows a very large number of shot sorry for spelling I'm french

[@zebaklongfang9344]

In the games at least, fuel seems a limitation - while lasting quite a while, it does explode after some time (I guess to avoid the danger of an armed explosive drifting by blindly).. Another reason can be that except for dumb/blind space bombs, all other explosives emit light, thus being visible.. they all also can get locked on by sensors and are vulnerable to direct blaster hits.. That makes using them - besides expensive - a short range thing, when you realy need more oomph to your punches against your target - not valid to nimble fighters that can dodge the darn thing.

[@sgtmarcusharris4260]

Its ok spelling just surrender and eat some snaie

[@tonyisaknight3550]

dude thats almost perfect english but but its number of shots not shot

[@psychoangel4848]

​@@tonyisaknight3550 thank you

[@xyvortex]

My problem is, why don't most TIE fighter pilots spin on their axis as they fight rather than banking to take the shot. The only time I've seen it done was Darth Vader in SW Rebels. in BSG 2003, it was doctrine to do as such but everybody in the SW universe believe they must treat space flight like it was in atmosphere.

[@AlanGChenery]

Star Wars space isn't a true vacuum. There's some form of ether in space. Hence why ships constantly thrust, there is sound, ships bank, and people survive wearing normal clothing in space without significant health issues as long as they have a mask or helmet to allow them to breathe.

[@luigimrlgaming9484]

Because it’s really hard to make a model tie fighter do a barrel roll in stop motion

[@scottsanders4589]

8:30 we already tried this strategy in Vietnam with the F4 Phantom. It didn't work then and it won't work now especially when your leaders force you to comply to ridiculous rules of engagement. Like you couldn't engage a Target that you couldn't verify the identity of visually. They hampered the effectiveness of their Superior technology by limiting its usage.

[@maddogs1989]

I know right? People that make these videos dont have an actual grasp of combat or military history. Hell Top Gun is based off an actual engagement that happened and it solidified why the navy still trains pilots to dog fight

[@firstduckofwellington6889]

@@maddogs1989 Top gun was created so pilots were more adept with missile acm

[@maddogs1989]

@@firstduckofwellington6889 No dude Top Gun was created in 1969 because the Navy saw its losses as the result of inadequate training in Air Combat Manuevers ACM. Nothing about it dealt specifically with missles. Infact ACM also specifically deals with defeating a fighter on your six. Also to further solidify the point in 1973 the school put out a statement on training crews in "ALL" weapon systems.

[@firstduckofwellington6889]

@@maddogs1989 And missile kills were still the massive majority

[@maddogs1989]

@@firstduckofwellington6889 And yet the F4 Phantom II was fitted with a gun pod, and later variants had a gun. All Fighters after have had a gun. It's like you know there was an actual reason for that huh.

[@twdog8106]

One major factor in play is cost efficiency. Tibanna gas is the fuel used to power most ships in Star Wars, extremely energy dense with powerful ionic properties makes it a superfuel. But it’s also the primary source of ammunition for all blaster technology. As such it leads to interesting design choices for ships. Most fighters in an effort to remain as small, efficient, and compact as possible employ a shared source of fuel for both engines and weapons systems. And considering fighters don’t use unreasonably large quantities of fuel (an X-wing being capable of operating for up to a week under cruising thrust) it means that the blasters can be fired for an effectively indefinite period of time barring overheating. So refueling a star fighter may cost a few hundred to a few thousand credits at most, whereas reloading even a single proton torpedo may cost multiple tens of thousands of credits. Combine these factors with the fact that most dogfights happened between a half dozen to up to a few HUNDRED fighters the issue of cost of ammunition would have dramatic effects on total operational costs

[@ThatShyGuyMatt]

Finally someone mentions the F-35 is the better jet. My friends always bring up the SU-35 and I'm like, yes if it was close to the F-35, but since the F-35 would strike from a distance, the SU-35 probably wouldn't have a chance to get close. They also said even with the variant of F-35A a F-16, F-18, Typhoon and Eurofighter could defeat the F-35a. May be true but again, that's in close range combat. As for China I'm not sure what their newest jets are, the J-20? Its like saying a man with a M16 or a M4 could beat a man with a M110 (sniper rifle). Up close yes, not at range.

[@Crosshair84]

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. War doesn't happen in a 1 v 1 environment though. All weapons systems need to fit together as part of a system. The problems of the F-35 relate to their huge costs to both buy and maintain. You can buy four F-16 fighters for the cost of one F-35. You can afford to fly an F-16 for three hours for every one that you fly an F-35. You now free up resources for more aircraft, more flight time for pilots, more pilots. Is an F-35 four times better than an F-16? In a protracted conflict, do you have the logistical resources to keep your F-35s maintained? You have the added problem that stealth technology is a scam. It only works against high frequency radars and even then it only reduces their effective range. Against low frequency radars, that the Soviets/Russians never stopped building, a stealth aircraft shows up like any other airplane. Like your sniper analogy, a lone sniper is only effective when your enemy doesn't know they are there. Once someone knows the general position of a sniper, they're effectiveness drops through the floor and they become an area denial tool more than anything else. (Put your sniper in a crossfire position from friendly infantry and then the sniper can be extremely effective, even if the enemy does know where they are. Being part of a system makes all the difference.) Low frequency radars traditionally did not have the resolution to develop a firing solution, that is changing. Russia and China are developing various methods for increasing the resolution of low frequency radar; chaining multiple radars together, multiple receivers, etc. In the future, fire control solutions might be calculated completely from low frequency data. So any opponent of significance will know that the F-35 is there and will be able to give their own pilots the rough location. They might not be able to shoot the F-35 with their on-board radars, but the F-35 isn't going to be able to get in a surprise attack either. A protracted stalemate works against the F-35 due to its logistical requirements.

[@demanischaffer]

@@Crosshair84 The F-35 is not expensive to buy, an F-35A costs less than a Eurofighter Typhoon or an F-15k, you could buy 4 F-16's for the price of 1 F-35A *if they're older models and not the most advanced* because you most definitely can not buy 4 F-16 Block 70's for less than 81 million USD "Stealth is a scam" Not really, no one who knows what they're talking about says that stealth makes something completely invisible, less range against high frequency radars means it can operate in higher risk environments with *less chance of being shot down compared to non stealth aircraft* especially when using standoff weapons for SEAD or DEAD missions "Low Frequency radars" Low frequency radars can't guide or control weapons, end up detecting large amounts of clutter, they're also large and immobile which is an easy target for a HARM missile, It won't be as easy to detect a stealth aircraft when you have to deal with false positives created by electronic warfare missions or by radar decoys, enemy jamming missions, SEAD aircraft waiting for radars to activate Now imagine trying to find multiple snipers with the echo of gunshots coming from every direction with multiple false positives being relayed to you while also wearing headphones that are constantly making sounds to block your hearing It would be pure chaos trying to direct radars and pilots when your communications are being jammed, radars are being jammed and/or spoofed, radars are detecting false positives due to physical decoys and the physical decoys are electronically spoofing the radars at the same time, Against advanced enemy air defenses advanced tactics will be used to counter and mitigate the advantages

[@shraka]

I've heard a lot of arguments on this one. The one that seems compelling to me is that when they first put radar on jet fighters, they thought guns were a thing of the past. They were wrong. I think it was the F-4 Phantom they had to add a gun back onto because it was desperately needed. The Navy started Top Gun specifically because they'd lost dogfighting skills among pilots, and needed to quickly get those skills back. Also, if long range was the deciding factor it's curious that they retired the F14 / Pheonix missile combo. They're only just now getting the AIM-120 up to the same range as the old Pheonix. Being able to fire at stand off range relies on everything going according to plan. But things rarely go to plan in an actual fight. The F-35 looks like a mess to me, but what do I know? We'll see if it's ever really tested. As long as it's engaged in the kind of war America likes - extremely asymmetrical - then I'm sure it'll be fine.

[@demanischaffer]

@@shraka The USAF added a gun to the F-4 to try and deflect from poor training and improper maintenance and usage of missiles. The US Navy never put a gun onto their F-4 Phantoms but instead trained pilots how to counter smaller and more nimble aircraft and tought the proper way to maintain missiles, after this the US Navy gunless phantoms maintained a higher kill to loss ratio to USAF gun armed Phantoms The F-14 was designed as a Fleet Air Defence Fighter, the F-14 and Phoenix were meant to reach out and destroy swarms of Soviet naval bombers before they could target and launch their cruise missiles at the carrier, basically "Kill the archer before he gets a chance to pull the string back" Once the Soviet union fell the US navy didn't have to worry about swarms of soviet bombers attacking a carrier battlegroup, at the time of it's retirement the Super Hornet could do the role for cheaper and was less maintenance and labor intensive

[@Crosshair84]

@@demanischaffer The larger point stands. These aircraft are, from the evidence available, logistically unsustainable. There were enough problems in Vietnam providing CAS with relatively sustainable aircraft. The air force in Iraq and Afghanistan was able to provide CAS only by pouring money on the problem. There is simply never enough aircraft to go around. I never said that stealth makes aircraft completely invisible. My post is right above yours, so it is kinda pointless to misrepresent what I said. We saw how that worked in Kosovo. Using 1960/70s era air defense technology, the Serbs blew one F-117 out of the sky and damaged another so badly it had to be scrapped. NATO SEAD or DEAD missions in that campaign were dismal failures against anything other than fixed installations, the Serbs camouflaged their radars too well, used them sparingly, and moved them frequently. NATO dared not operate below, IIRC, ~15,000-18,000' due to Serbian mobile air defenses that could operate at those altitudes. The Serbs freely operated on the ground because NATO wasn't willing to take the casualties and aircraft shot down to be effective. Mobile low frequency radar sets are available to anyone with the cash to buy them. They are significantly larger than mobile high frequency radars, but they do exist and will have the same problems associated with suppressing them. Now you are contriving a situation with all sorts of artificial advantages to the "snipers". Not gonna take that bait. I'm talking about near equivalent modern militaries. You're talking about slapping around farmers with AKs. If you can't stay on topic then there's not much to be gained by continuing the conversation. Have a good day.

[@Revan-vk2ld]

Another reason is that in space speeds are hundreds of times faster then anything we have and the speeds we see in the wiki is IN ATMOSPHERE so it could be assumed that there speeds are near the max of what they could go and that tracking missiles go to around the same speed unlike the ones we have that are faster then are ones it also means that ships like fighters close the distance ridiculously fast and hyperspace lanes means there always within that few second flight speed as for why they dog fight slower it’s Becuase with those stupid fast speeds you run the risk of just flying into something So fighters slow down to not die

[@robertkalinic335]

Just because you slow down doesnt mean that every rock in that star system will slow down too.

[@Revan-vk2ld]

Robert Kalinič has I’m saying that for ships mate not space itself

[@robertkalinic335]

@@Revan-vk2ld sorry i think i misunderstood you. But anyway, would you rather attack other ship from few meters with point blank fixed cannons or have self guided missiles with longer range?

[@Revan-vk2ld]

Robert Kalinič it all depends the CIS liked to and there were many ships that just spewed mussels at each other but technology coexist with other technology and hyperspace and lanes are so specific that you really are never just fighting in the darkness of space sometimes you will but mostly the blockade is right in front of you and that you are not that far away from each other

[@self-satisfiedsmirk5544]

Dark Side Darth revan Alright, what was the point of your original comment? I want to say that you’re trying to provide what you believe is another justification for why guided munitions aren’t used more often in Star Wars. But, you trailed off after stating something about the speeds of fighters in-atmosphere and started rambling.

[@SmartassX1]

You forgot one very relevant scene in either episode 2 or 3. Guided missiles were launched at Anakins fighter, but those were very barely faster than the fighter (in our world, missiles are much faster than fighters) and they had really poor guidance (doing several barrel rolls made the missiles crash into each-other). With missiles this bad, it's no wonder they prefer to get close and shoot.

[@ShurikenSean]

its amazing how much these critical analysis of star wars tech and warfare have helped my party in our Star Wars D&D game they allow us to use details and weakness/strengths of what we're dealing with to come up with creative tactics you guys go into so much detail as if we were really in the star wars universe that it really helps with connecting things into actual use

[@jimtalbott9535]

I think you’re spot on as far as you went. But consider: prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union there was quite a healthy competition between missile detections methods and counter measures. While the Chinese do have some good missile tech, it’s not quite the same as it was. In Star Wars, what we may be seeing is the end-state of such a competition. All fighters are simply assumed to have, and likely do have these extensive counter measures, so as mentioned with the middle range issue you mentioned near the end, it’s simply unthinkable to expect a missile to be useful from any real distance.

[@Zarcondeegrissom]

I think that is a good analogy, especially at the end about avoiding something coming at you for a good few minutes, lol. the other angle is the ability of the sensor on your missile being able to see a miniscule target at such distances vs what your ships much larger systems can detect, and if you can even get the missile to even lock onto the target at all. Similar happened back in Vietnam, when the first wave of fighter jets arrived with missiles and no gun. Countless enemies got away simply because the missiles would not lock on, and there were no short-range weapons on the jet to throw slugs at them. Later versions of the jet, had a gun pod added to the plain that took up one of the missile mounts. Your missiles are only as good, as there ability to lock onto a target, lol.

[@somchatewasantwisut5959]

Awesome videos bro! As a big fan of both Star Wars and WWII-era military combat, this tactical analysis series has been amazing to watch! You are certainly an expert in all things Star Wars and military history. Happy Thanksgiving and May the force be with you and your family man.

[@blastpsycho5755]

liked your comments on aerial combat. well researched. I use to be Navy. We have helmet lock on target systems. yes we look now, then destroy.through a flight helmet. love the channel man.

[@MisterRorschach90]

i spent my entire childhood using guided missiles in rogue squadron... homing cluster missiles.

[@herichimoify]

You are at the cusp of truly understanding space combat, based on your assessment near the end. Well done.

[@auzrael]

Just a note about TIE fighters lack of visibility - you are right, the pilot can not see anywhere but ahead of them - however TIEs are designed to work in conjunction with their capital ship, which has loads of sensors and picture compilation capability, far more than any pilot on a fighter could manage, and the TIE will be taking the tactical picture from their home ship. So while a TIE pilot can not look out the window to see a threat, they have a display that shows all the threats, and they can point their tunnel vision at their next target and go from there. In many ways, a TIE pilot would have better situational awareness than any enemy fighter squadron operating independently of their carrier could hope to have.

[@HighDesertComics]

Ha! That pilot climbing down at about the 4:50 mark...his callsign is "Porkins!"

[@AlexSDU]

Great finding.

[@willlasdf123]

I always assumed on my headcanon that these ships 1) fight in a extreme electronic warfare environments, which is why guns are still largely manned, and even capital ships general engage within visual range as well, 2) the extreme speeds of space and the physics defying ability for most ships to easily change direction make it very difficult for a missile with limited energy to track and kill something at long range.

[@Tervicz]

As a veteran of the ood xwing alliance game I do remember a wide range of guided weapons, such as concussion missiles, ion torpedoes and heqvy rockets. They tended to be effective, but sometimes it paid to not get a lock but actually fire them before the lock. Like when you went head-to-head but you had to be very accurate and time the shooting so they would hit before the enemy got in firing range.

[@sirujin]

In 90-th there were two games: "X-Wing" and "Tie fighter". In both there were guided missiles purposed as an anti-fighter weapon. Their range, however was only 1.5km, or so

[@falizure]

Another factor is that the empire usually engaged fighters using overwhelming numbers of their own, if you add in guided munitions to the mix that means you are more likely to have friendly fire and factor in the fact that the tie fighters didn't usually have shields or any sort of protection that ment your odds of taking out 1 of your own fighters was probably greater then taking out any of the rebellion/resistance fighters, the federation got away with this because their droid forces ment their own units were completely expendable and easily replaced, further they had a emphasis on droids software meaning they had easy access to ready to go guidance software as well, combine that with the fact that federation missiles could contain buzz droids that ment you had even less of a chance of friendly damage while simultaneously ensuring your weapon causes maximum damage possible to the target, making it a ideal weapon for them to use.

[@richardched6085]

The Stealth Ship didn't have Proton Torpedoes but rather the same "generic" Guided Discord missiles used by Vulture Droids and seemed to be identical to the Tracking Torpedoes used by the Invincible (Just without the ability to track a Target's magnetic signature). Proton Torpedoes are tiny but extremely powerful Mini-Fusion warheads shaped like cones they typically emitted a red pulsating glow during flight (However those used by the Naboo and the Empire had a blue glow). The Stealth Ship's Torpedoes were relatively medium sized Projectiles vastly different from Proton Torpedoes. In the episode guide they do identify the weapons as Proton Torpedoes but this isn't confirmed in dialogue.

[@troo_6656]

Great video (as always) I love this kind of comparing (with context of the reality).

[@chaosgrunt9554]

By the way, the real problems with the F-35 aren't it's manoeuvrability. It's a nightmare to keep in the air due to technical issues. An example. in 2018, the UK held the RAF's 100 birthday fly-by. Of 16 F-35s bought by the UK, only 3 were still in working order, the others were all grounded due to technical faults due to "above average humididty issues" if I'm not mistaken. There is no point being briliant at stealth if you can't take off in the first place.

[@deathstrike]

Try telling people that. They want to get angry and quote this statistic or this article to make themselves believe the F-35 is a good investment. One question makes the "believers" shut down. Ask them, on if the F-35 is so good, why are F-15, F-18, F-16 and Tornadoes still flying? Shouldn't such an incredible airplane already replace all these? The F-35 CAN be a good airplane with a LOT more work to overcome it's technical problems.

[@endlesswaffles6504]

6:38 According to Star Wars Rebels, both factions started the war with advanced tech. It's a little strange that we didn't see it until after Episode 5 when Rebels said it was here all along.

[@sf-1_raptor]

I’ve been thinking of a sci-fi universe with part of the idea being that missiles and cannons (rail or coil guns) are not used by many to avoid leaving missed weaponry floating in space. Remember, in a vacuum a grain of sand can kill a spacecraft. So even with shield the risk of leaving ordinance could be too great a risk. I believe it’s touched on in either Dead Space or Mass Effect as well. I will say I never thought about FTL drives being an issue too though.

[@troyvernon6335]

Everything you just said was completely.....correct.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Even TIEs having no rear windows?

[@jackmino729]

8:00 I noticed this statement and here is my response. If you actually look at the F-35’s radar stealth it is pretty good, but like the F-22 it can only engage targets beyond visual range with an active radar. This means that every aircraft can instantly see exactly where you are, at twice he range you can see them. The Russian equivalent(Su-57) is better in more or less every way

[@WardenWolf]

One thing people fail to remember is the war between ECM and sensors. Star Wars is a universe where ECM has basically won, and sensors are not capable of effectively targeting beyond visual range. This is why most weapons in Star Wars are manually targeted; you can't so easily jam the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Remember: even the Millenium Falcon was able to jam the military-grade communications of a TIE Fighter in Episode IV.

[@kellysmith1144]

I understand the design issues with the X-Wing and TIE series regarding the cockpit visibility issues, however they were equipped with 360 degree scanners. The A-Wing shows the advancement of cockpit design during the OT, I guess mirroring the changes also made to their WWII equivalent. Always enjoy these vids, btw :)

[@sim.frischh9781]

A point you missed (or left out?) is the possibility of scrambling sensors. I think the US fighters using this are called "Wild Weasel". Though the US idea includes destroying radar positions with guided missiles from afar in this term. But that´s what came to my mind concerning guided weapons in Star Wars.

[@Robert_Douglass]

By that logic, the best-designed starfighters were probably the Dodonna-Blissex A-wing, the Incom ARC-170, and the Y-Wing fighter-bomber. 360° visibility relative to plane of reference on all three models to one extent or another, plus upgraded armour on the Y-Wing and upgraded propulsion and maneuverability on the A-Wing, and the rearward-facing turret on the 170 gave them far better odds for surviving a close-in dogfight than either the Slayn and Korpel B-Wing, the Incom X-wing models, or any of the Sienar TIE models (which were essentially flying eggshells with weapons.).

[@philiplarussa6104]

When you're talking about the F-35 and long-range combat, you sound like the 'visionaries' before the Vietnam War who thought that guided missiles would make dogfighting obsolete. The F-4 Phantom II wasn't even equipped with cannons because it was thought that they wouldn't be needed. When they were deployed to Vietnam, they were massacred by relatively cheap, lower-quality, and less technologically advanced MiG-19s and -21s because those fighters were more maneuverable and were equipped with cannons - because most aerial combat was, in fact, at close range. That's the whole reason the Top Gun program was created - to remedy that deficiency. And to this day, even though the emphasis is still on beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat, all modern fighter planes are still equipped with cannons and pilots are trained to dogfight. Also, you forget the importance of electronic countermeasures (ECM) as well as point-defense such as flares, both of which severely reduce the effectiveness (and realistic probability) of BVR combat and increase the chances of close-range combat occurring. The US hasn't faced an adversary with anywhere near technological parity in the air since Vietnam, and we have become complacent in our sense of what is necessary for aerial combat. Because at this point planners and designers take it for granted that we will not just have aerial superiority but aerial SUPREMACY - completely uncontested control of the air. This, naturally, stems from the focus in the last few decades on counterinsurgency operations at the expense of preparations for conventional warfare. Finally, and not to digress but I feel like this has to be said: The F-35 program is prohibitively expensive - the most expensive project EVER, in fact. Not to mention, the airplane itself is unnecessarily complicated, incorporating technologies and features that make it difficult to build and maintain, as well as making training on it unnecessarily complex. They also put it into production before they were even finished developing it, leading to cost overruns due to the fact that they have to go back and retrofit every single one that has already been built whenever they change the design, make an improvement, or work out a bug or flaw. All to fill orders that were placed when the craft was still in the untested prototype phase and not even flightworthy yet. It is the overall WORST military investment in postmodern history, and its actual effectiveness in combat is seriously doubtful.

[@scottsanders4589]

Well said good sir. You gave a more in-depth explanation of my thoughts exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only one that understood this.

[@scottsanders4589]

Do not fault Allen for his explanation of the F-35. He is just repeating what he has been told. He is a old military buff so he probably feels exactly the same way you do. I do feel like he should have mentioned it but that's probably an entirely different video altogether

[@blackfire3744]

couldn't agree with you more. The f-35 is a way over-priced plane with very little bang for the buck. And for a plane intended as a "multi-role" fighter, it sure doesn't carry enough ordinance for any of the intended roles. It's like an updated musket rifle. It looks real fancy and you can fire anything you want but you can only fire one bullet at a time and reloading takes forever. and by the time you do, the enemy is in your face. The f-35 is an embarrassment. By the time they realised they made a lemon they already threw so much money at it that they doubled down in some bizarre effort to save face. In all honesty, it kind of reminds me of the movie "The Pentagon Wars".

[@aiosquadron]

The slogan for proton torpedoes. Proton torpedoes: not to be confused with other similarly named the antimatter weapon from another franchise.

[@flyboymike111357]

Asking why a jump-capable craft doesn't use BVR weapons is like asking why musketeers didn't use longbows.

[@rng_lord1276]

I think another factor is laser cannons don't run out of ammo. A missile based ship is only effective until they run out of ammo but a laser based fighter can fight for as long as it remains operational. Also I have to point out the P-47 was the most powerful piston engine fighter of ww2, especially the P-47N.

[@cnlbenmc]

5:57 That's not a good comparison; during the Cold War the Old USCG Hamilton Class Cutters had 127mm Deck guns when first built. Then even when eventually replaced with a smaller modern 76mm gun it was also given Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles, a CIWIS point defense gun and anti-submarine torpedoes.

[@nhansen197]

One thing you've completely missed it that aircraft with similar countermeasures may very well get within visual range before combat begins. If the F35 were to go up against anther combat aircraft that is equally difficult to detect, they may very well be right on top of each other before they know the other is there. The F35 still has guns just in case they ever find themselves getting close and personal with another aircraft.

[@tracywaters3487]

The dog fights are exciting, but a really good reason for a pilot to know how to dog fight is to enhance their flying skills. What a pilot do if on a mission and there is a malfunction with your weapons? The best pilots are ready for just such a event

[@Shadx27]

Main reason why, they were hard to do in special effects back in the days. X-wing/Tie Fighter PC games had good warhead usage as well as some of the EU.

[@DIEGhostfish]

The shape on the back of the TIE is a rear viewport and TIE Fighter gave lots more viewports as well.

[@soggybreadst1cks812]

You are one of my most favorite youtubers of all time

[@meeperdudeify]

I think a very important factor is the range of sensors in star wars. Missile range is effectively limited by what sensors you can pack on a packet of explosives, and the sensor technology in star wars seems to lag far behind the propulsion and weapon capabilities, and you can assume that any given fight will be within visual range, because they don't have any sort of proper tracking capability. Whenever missiles are launched, it is still at visual range, so I think that sensors are to blame

[@SungJaeUng3]

@Generation Tech I love your channel and I love the tactics of star wars videos. Alan, we might be twins, because im also asian, love history, and love star wars and halo. Difference being i have way more time to research things from not being on a deadline. So, here in the US we use three types of air to air missiles; Fox 1, Fox 2, and Fox 3. Fox 1 is a missile is a fire and forget missile. All the targeting is taken over by the missile as soon as it launches so the pilot is then free to manuever. These are used mainly in times of war where there is a simple enemy that needs to be neutralized. Fox 2 is a missile that the pilot controls all the way to the target. The purpose of these missiles is so that if there is a last second abort the pilot can choose to detonate the warhead before it impacts whatever the pilot was shooting at. It requires a constant lock, but it can avoid an international incident. It also means that all the targeting is done by the fighter and the missile doesn't need independent targeting software; they just fly where they're told. Fox 3 is a hybrid of both. For a set range the missile is under the pilots's control, but after reaching that set destination it switches over to its own targeting data. The proton torpedoes and missiles in star wars use similar systems. Most of the targeting is handled by astromechs if they have them. That's how Rogue Squadron was able to coordinate targeting data from a shuttle targeting a lancer class frigate, and even though the xwings were out of range(not wanting to be torn apart by the lancer) they could still launch their proton torpedoes and kill the frigate. The pilot flies, the astromech handles the targeting, and so even if the torpedoes are launched in the complete wrong direction the astromech can aim them. Concussion missiles are purely fire and forget munitions that rely on their own targeting software to hit where they were initially aimed at. Due to their advanced sensors, pilots can actually aim at specific systems on enemy fighters and capital ships. Jamming tech in star wars allows ships to disrupt targeting information. The longer a ship has to crack the targeting system inside the warheads, the better chance the system has of disabling the missiles. Also the longer the missiles and torpedoes have to travel, the higher chance the point defense systems have of shooting down the missiles. The only way to fire warheads without worrying about jamming is to "dumb" fire them which means they will just fly straight. They still have to get through point defense and fighter screens though, and so the only practical use is to fire them right up close. Information sources are pulled from the X-Wing series of books and X-Wing Alliance the videogame, so sadly this is all legends, but until disney states otherwise this was how the mechanics worked out.

[@DeltaPhoenix180]

I like how TIE Fighter had it Most of the time Y/X/B Wing/TIE Bomber - Proton Torpedoes A Wing/Most other TIEs - Concussion Missiles TIE Fighter - Hope you like those Laser Cannons... Occasionally All ships - whatever the hell the mission designer wanted

[@briansmith5579]

Great video, that analysis actually improved the dogfighting scenes for me. I always hated how it seemed so outdated and foolish to not use guided munitions but you made some excellent points!

[@darksnakenerdmaster]

That makes a lot of sense. I do remember hearing that most small to mid range capital ships have secondary weapons systems consisting of guided munitions, such as the Cardorf VII interceptor (GCW) and Regiins Mol (CW). They aren't mentioned much, but seem to be present. Why are they rolled out so much if they have such limited use?

[@carlmolander8499]

Something I find funny is people tend to think of things here on Earth and combat and compare it to space. Space is big. Really big. In space the further out you are from enemy the more time you have to see their weapons coming at you. Therefore longer amount of time to be able to dodge. So any space faring species battles may need be close to even hit if technologies similar. Otherwise, if you can be sneaky fire from a distance and weapons are sneaky as well than first find first kill. So unless you can fight cloaked with cloaked weapons so to say. Battles will probably take place closer so enemy can not avoid shots. That is one reason I see battles taking place at close range. Star wars computers calculate jumps on navigation charts based on suns, planet, moons, and other celestial bodies existence. A star exploding changes those and changes routes. Hence time to calculate extracting current data based on stars. Longer jumps longer times needed to calculate. So sensors on ships are I feel better than people think. Well my two cents.

[@iwantcrawfish6110]

Your absolutely correct about the F-35! Funny you mention the F-35 on thanksgiving being that people (both expert and civie) say that its a flying turkey......

[@gringogreen4719]

Alan Great video! You hit the bail on the head with WWll tactics. I will say that in WWl calvary were actually still important in most theaters except for the Western Front. They did have calvary but it was to exploit breakthroughs but that rarely happened. The Star Wars universe is a bit odd. You have hyperspace but fighters are slower than modern 4th Generation Earth aircraft. The weapons seem to be slow to. Laser cannons are like tracers and blasters seem to be as slow as Civil War bullets. There seems to be contradictory technology all over the place. I guess an easy explanation/dialogue that could sum it up is that its "different hardware from different worlds where technology is ahead or behind current Earth time." I guess that sortof works. Anyways Star Wars is pretty funky on that stuff.

[@Arthion]

Proton Torpedoes were primarily an anti-capital armament. For space superiority you'd typically used Concussion Missiles, for context you wouldn't use cruise missiles against an enemy fighter instead you have air-to-air missiles

[@getfragged7051]

I think a big part of it also comes down to the numbers. How many guided munitions can you carry on a star fighter vs how many shots you might need to take. For instance if you removed all the laser cannons on an x wing and replaced them with guided rockets you may take down 5-10 TIE fighters but now you’re out of munitions... and for fighting a larger enemy ship how do you plan on taking down their shields and then destroying it with such a small number of payloads

[@Mr.Schnaps]

The simple reason missiles aren't a bigger part of star wars is simply they don't fit the aesthetic. The cost of them would also simply not be an issue for any faction with an actual military even the rebels.

[@Karagianis]

To be honest, the Death star trench attack rips of even more from 633 squadron than it does from the Dam busters movie.

[@datpolakmike]

Alternate theory: What if air and space combat used to resemble what it does today, but the militaries of the Galaxy over specialized in long range combat. Then one day, one faction realized they could hyper drive jump to within sneezing range of the enemy and bum rush them with close range dogfighting weapons and tactics, thus rendering long range guided munitions useless

[@AlphaKaiju]

Solid analysis, it makes a lot of sense. It makes you realize how terribly designed many of the ships actually are.

[@crytis2706]

This video is right on the mark with it's assessment. The only thing I would add would be to emphasize that dogfights are 100 times more epic to watch than exchanging shots at 100 miles away, which is what makes dogfights the hollywood preference for making movies. Just saying...

[@cherudium]

I think the only reason dogfights occur in star wars is because it looks awesome on screen. I love the old ww2 dogfight style they run with but with the tech they have, even with shields missiles would still be more effective. There are weapons in universe like the wookie bow caster that could fire solid projectiles enveloped with a blaster bolt and this idea plus capacitors to keep the bolt at full power plus some maneuvering thrusters would be a very cheap weapon especially for the rebellion. Remember tie fighters didn't have shields for the vast majority of their service life so a single bowcaster style missile would oneshot them. So in summary the reason they don't use missiles is the same reason they don't show pilots employing the whole ambush tactics of that ww2 ace, dogfights are really cool and visually stunning.

[@julesaliance]

the xm 3 novawing from tie fighter was the exeption to this rule at used concussion missiles as at primary weapon instead of laser cannons

[@TheCommaA]

Don't know if this is actually a thing but in my head cannon for Star Wars, the TIE fighters have sophisticated situational awareness technology, just like how modern fighter pilot helmets do today. It interfaces with the TIE's sensors to display targets and obsticales in any direction that the pilot is looking so that he can still see all around him. Again, I know that's not cannon but inside my head, it justifies the lack of viewing in the TIE fighters.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Yes. Plus, I'm pretty sure that dark area at the back of the TIE cockpit was INTENDED to be a window, at first...

[@winglessviper]

Well thought out, Alan.

[@sharko4093]

Another thing here is that energy based weapons will always be ready for use, missiles are limited in number, once you run out you're screwed if there are still enemies around. Energy based weaponry doesn't even run on ammunition, it just needs a power source and it will work pretty much forever. Seems more logical to favor them over guided missiles.

[@mikeserds2333]

now that I think about the only reason I can make sense of is that missiles are by far slower than any laser shot and in space the fighters are extremely maneuvarble making it very hard to hit long range BVR attacks like nowadays. So the only time it really makes sense is super short range or using them against bigger targets for more explosive power.

[@jiriseidl4376]

The fighters might just also have some passive countermeasures/protection that jams the missiles coming at them. It would explain why the missiles turn slower even thought they should be more precise than a human pilot.

[@arthurbrandonnielsen]

You actually touched on another reason without listing it as a reason: satellite/sensor data. Our modern day military conflicts are limited to a single theatre: the Earth. That allows us to deploy assets that allow for long range aerial combat to be effective. In an entire galaxy where ftl travel is as common as driving on the freeway, the logistical ability to reasonably deploy equivalent assets at a moments notice becomes effectively null.

[@dajona7860]

There appears to be another limiter not mentioned. Real life aircraft, and some Sci-Fi franchises like Wing Commander (1&2 in particular) have ordinance mounted on hard-points under the wings and fuselage. This gives the craft far greater ordinance capacity, since it is not limited by internal volume. In Star Wars, on the other hand, the ordinance we see is mounted in internal weapons bays, which greatly limits the number and size of weapons. We even see some of that dichotomy in real life, where stealth aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 have to choose between stealth and ordinance capacity, since they can carry detachable hard-points to increase weapon load, at the expense of becoming detectable. This limitation in capacity, increased cost per use, mixed with the virtually-unlimited low-cost ammunition for energy weapons, tends to relegate Star Wars missiles to specialty roles.

[@thirstysailor579]

So if I were to suddenly find myself in the Star Wars galaxy and had the opportunity to be a merc fighter pilot, I should invest in high speed and stealth capabilities in a star-fighter (then use the same tactics as Hartmann) and once I gain enough credits try and get my hands on surplus CIS missiles then modify them to air-to-Air combat.

[@boctopus9823]

I like to believe that the proton torpedos that made the 90-degree turn because Luke used the force to make the torpedo act in that way. that is why he didn't use his targeting equipment. 2:34

[@shadowchaser8786]

Playing through the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series of games, all available starfighters have sensors that allow them to keep tabs on their surroundings, although these can be damaged (if I remember correctly) and taken out of commission, forcing the pilot to rely on visual acquisition. I would imagine that starfighter combat in the entirety of the SW universe operates largely the same way, but I'm not entirely sure.

[@DJB3lfry]

Something of note: One of the reasons modern fighters still have cannons is due to the lessons learned from the failure of the RF-4 Phantoms, which had no guns at all until the E models. The US thought that guided missiles were entirely superior to guns, but pilots soon discovered that if they were pushed into a dogfight, their missiles couldn't hit or even lock-on to enemy aircraft at close ranges, which put them at a major disadvantage. That's why all jet fighters are now armed with cannons, to cover all situations. I could see Star Wars ships doing the same, considering how fast-paced their dogfights tend to be, in addition to the fact that a finite number of missiles would likely be useless against hundreds of hostile starfighters.

[@deathstrike]

I believe more it has to do with their shield technology. In SW, the shields tightly conform to the spacecraft (X/Y/A/E wing) hull. Therefore if missile protrusions were on the wings or underbelly, the shields would not conform to them leaving them vulnerable in those areas. A TIE Interceptor would easily pick this up and destroy the craft with only a few shots as the missiles blow up as well. Also the weight and aerodynamic considerations if the ship must fight in an atmosphere. The canisters and racks become useless weight dragging the craft and making it expend more energy to fight. Perhaps either very aerodynamic pods or only in space missions. They were used, but sparingly as the Empire controlled all production and distribution.

[@kotori87]

Well that's embarrassing. You completely overlooked the canon explanation for Star Wars combat: Electronic Warfare. By the time of the clone wars, electronic warfare and counter-warfare had become sufficiently advanced that long-range weapons were unreliable against small, fast-moving targets like fighters. The only way for fighters to reliably engage other fighters was within visual range, hence the WWII-style combat with heavy emphasis on direct-fire weapons. Missile weapons *can* work too, but only against large targets or at close range where sensors have an easier time burning through the jamming, countermeasures, decoys, etc.

[@uni4rm]

kotori87 that’s dumb, because with every advance in tech, there becomes a counter for it. This line of thought suggests it got good, so everyone gave up on countering it.

[@TankHunter678]

@@uni4rm Which is sorta the response that happened to HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) munitions when they first got figured out and got widespread use. Due to the fact that the munition generated a directed stream of molten metal it rendered every conventional armor model developed for tanks at the time pointless. Which lead to some tanks being designed with armor only rated against heavy machine guns such as the German Leopard 1. At its thickest it had 21.7mm of Steel and 70mm of rolled homogeneous armor. Meaning even light autocannons found on IFVs could punch holes through it. The Tank relied on its firepower to kill the enemy before it got itself killed. It took quite awhile before countermeasures were discovered that worked, in fact one scientist was testing HEAT munitions against old tanks and the ones that were found to have taken the least damage was because of old munitions being detonated and redirecting the stream of metal. Leading to the development of Explosive Reactive Armor that helped jumpstart the development of tank armoring. This would simply be the same in Star Wars. ECM simply got ahead of ECCM, and neither the Rebels nor the Resistance had the money to devote to research to improve ECCM. Meanwhile the Empire was diverting its R&D towards the Special projects that Palpatine wanted, the First Order is made up of Imperial remnants using what was mostly hidden projects that Palpatine stashed and falling into the same trap as the Empire in believing if they just make it bigger and throw more firepower and numbers at it then its better. Though as was shown in TFA the First Order did improve their systems enough that they can have full on missile turrets on their SDs capable of tracking small fighters.

[@the_big_krisp_8745]

Unless the pilot flies in 3rd person...

[@elrondmcbong467]

Finally someone say it. The Imperial Army is more a Policeforce than an Army. Tie Fighter Vs. X-Wing is like Police Car VS. a LAV25. But hey, i think the Tie Fighter is actually pretty effective despite the Fact that it is a Vehicle designed for Police duty that have to fight against fully dedicated Spacefighter designed for actual War. There are Ties that shot down X-Wings but i didn't even want to imagine like an Police cruiser would come out of a confrontation with an LAV.

[@themodernmusketeer877]

I’d eventually like to see a comparison between Star Trek and Star Wars weapons. I’m sure they both have advantages and disadvantages over the other

[@theswordguy5269]

Re: your comments regarding the F-35 and beyond visual range combat. That's all well and good until the rules of engagement require aircraft to close to visual range, as they did in Vietnam, or until an enemy plane actually sneaks in close and you have to turn with it. All of the stealth technology in the world won't help you when your flight turns into a close range knife fight, someplace where the F-35's slower speed and acceleration (depending upon which version we're talking about) will place it at a severe disadvantage; the Air Force version seems the best of the bunch in this regard. That's why the Raptor and the F-35 both still carry a gun. Missiles also don't always function properly, or are defeated through maneuvering and ECM. At that point, the planes will close and then must maneuver like they did when Richtofen and Immelman were still around. The bottom line is that everytime the powers that be claim that the days of the dogfight are over, they're proven wrong. In the end, the pilot's own skills will be what determines the winner, as they nearly always have been.

[@Team_BaM]

Solid arguments and I do have to agree, it does look pretty cool.

[@ErichnPlays]

Cool videos, what about ground vehicles, repulsor lift vehicles, mechanized walkers, wheels etc.

[@cyberdurc22]

Great analysis Allan, Happy Thanksgiving. Another awesome video, love how you guys make the Star Wars universe relatable...keep up the great work!

[@stephensmith7814]

For those that are not pilots the obstructed tail that he talks about is called a "razor back" design and it is done for speed. Eventually designers were told the "bubble canopy" was mandatory if their design is to be considered.

[@GenerationTech]

I feel like I would freak out knowing only a piece of glass is separating the back of my head from canon rounds. But I guess it was that important

[@stephensmith7814]

@@GenerationTech I think the idea was that the greater visibility would allow the allied pilot to see the enemy coming in enough time to avoid being hit. Who needs armor when no one can get the drop on you?

[@tennoshenaniganizer9234]

Did you cover the mic or something for this video?

[@lexington476]

you did not mention concussion missiles. The a-wing carry them standard, the tie bomber could also be outfitted with them.

[@LieutenantSilver]

@5:58 The TIE Fighter sound a lot like the Naboo N1 Starfighter all of a sudden.

[@salmanmahyuddin8384]

I really love the old Battlefront 2 Interceptor class starfighters. The missiles are fast and it got high firing rate too!

[@Lastlight89]

You should really read the old X Wing books. I know it's legends now but it has so many things that contradict everything you mention about how they don't use guided missiles. Heck, they KILL capital ships with torpedoes launched from fighters.