Why Doesn't the Resistance have Tie Fighters in The Fore Awakens? — Page 3

DominicCobb said:

Do I love it? Yeah.

Is TFA a rehash crap? Yeah.

I guess it is true that love is blind.

The difference is that the PT is just plain bad and TFA, while definitely not the most amazing in terms of story, is still a good movie.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:
blind.

Ironic coming from someone who doesn’t understand that the Empire no longer exists by the time TFA occurs.

Well whatever. I would put more effort into such distinction but since everything is just a bad copy it does not really matter.

TV’s Frink said:

Hahahaha I love when the Truth-Humanity Interface blows a gasket.

“Blowing a gasket”? That was a calm dismissal.

It seems I have mistaken you for a shellfish. 😄

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Who said they were phased out by TIE interceptors?

ROTJ and common sense say so.

Why does the B-52H, last built in the 1960s, still make up nearly half of the US heavy bomber force? Why does USAF still fly versions of the F-16, initially developed in the 1970s, despite the development of more advanced airframes such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-22? Can’t seem to figure out what common sense you speak of.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Who said they were phased out by TIE interceptors?

ROTJ and common sense say so.

Why does the B-52H, last built in the 1960s, still make up nearly half of the US heavy bomber force? Why does USAF still fly versions of the F-16, initially developed in the 1970s, despite the development of more advanced airframes such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-22? Can’t seem to figure out what common sense you speak of.

Because Soviet Union collapsed (effectively in mid 80s). Besides, B-52 was militarily useless since the introduction of ICBM. It has been used for nothing but bombing farmers and 3rd world countries’ cities since Vietnam War.

If you want a good analogy, take WW2 (ANH-ROTJ) and post WW2 cold war (post ROTJ) as an example. New models had been developed and replaced the existing ones constantly.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Who said they were phased out by TIE interceptors?

ROTJ and common sense say so.

Why does the B-52H, last built in the 1960s, still make up nearly half of the US heavy bomber force? Why does USAF still fly versions of the F-16, initially developed in the 1970s, despite the development of more advanced airframes such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-22? Can’t seem to figure out what common sense you speak of.

Don’t forget that the F-15 (and A-10, which is still a workhorse) is older than Star Wars, the F/A-18 is older than Empire, and the F-22 is as old as the Special Editions. Plus, all of these planes serve different purposes for different branches of the military. The same is true for Star Wars:

The TIE Interceptor serves as a specialized air-to-air fighter while the the normal TIE Tighter is more of a multi-role craft from all the canon I’ve ever known. Same as the TIE Bomber is a specialized bomber, or the TIE Striker is a specialized atmospheric fighter/transport.

No major military just has “one” model of fighter that they replace continually. In World War II there was the P-51, the P-40, the F4, F6, and F8, P-47, the F4U… and that’s just some of the American planes I can think of off the top of my head, several of these went on to fight in Korea as well and some saw active service until the late 60s and early 70s.

Tyrphanax said:

Don’t forget that the F-15 (and A-10, which is still a workhorse) is older than Star Wars, the F/A-18 is older than Empire, and the F-22 is as old as the Special Editions. Plus, all of these planes serve different purposes for different branches of the military.

As I said, Soviet Union effectively collapsed in 80s.

The same is true for Star Wars: The TIE Interceptor serves as a specialized air-to-air fighter while the the normal TIE Tighter is more of a multi-role craft from all the canon I’ve ever known. Same as the TIE Bomber is a specialized bomber, or the TIE Striker is a specialized atmospheric fighter/transport.

Seeing how OT space combat is based on WW2, there are basically three main carrier-based roles: fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber (I guess the two are the same in OT). TIE fighter obviously filled the fighter role until it was obviously replaced by TIE interceptor. Of course, like in WW2 the replacement cannot happen immediately so we can still see some TIE fighters at that point. But the fact is that in ROTJ battle the two do exactly the same role.

No major military just has “one” model of fighter that they replace continually. In World War II there was the P-51, the P-40, the F4, F6, and F8, P-47, the F4U… and that’s just some of the American planes I can think of off the top of my head, several of these went on to fight in Korea as well and some saw active service until the late 60s and early 70s.

When it comes to WW2, there were specified roles that were continually replaced by newer models. Primary US land-based fighter: P-40 replaced P-36 and P-51 replaced P-40. Primary US carrier-borne fighter: F4F replaced F2A and F6F replaced F4F. And so on…

imperialscum said:

Tyrphanax said:

Don’t forget that the F-15 (and A-10, which is still a workhorse) is older than Star Wars, the F/A-18 is older than Empire, and the F-22 is as old as the Special Editions. Plus, all of these planes serve different purposes for different branches of the military.

As I said, Soviet Union effectively collapsed in 80s.

The same is true for Star Wars: The TIE Interceptor serves as a specialized air-to-air fighter while the the normal TIE Tighter is more of a multi-role craft from all the canon I’ve ever known. Same as the TIE Bomber is a specialized bomber, or the TIE Striker is a specialized atmospheric fighter/transport.

Seeing how OT space combat is based on WW2, there are basically three main carrier-based roles: fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber (I guess the two are the same in OT). TIE fighter obviously filled the fighter role until it was obviously replaced by TIE interceptor. Of course, like in WW2 the replacement cannot happen immediately so we can still see some TIE fighters at that point. But the fact is that in ROTJ battle the two do exactly the same role.

No major military just has “one” model of fighter that they replace continually. In World War II there was the P-51, the P-40, the F4, F6, and F8, P-47, the F4U… and that’s just some of the American planes I can think of off the top of my head, several of these went on to fight in Korea as well and some saw active service until the late 60s and early 70s.

When it comes to WW2, there were specified roles that were continually replaced by newer models. Primary US land-based fighter: P-40 replaced P-36 and P-51 replaced P-40. Primary US carrier-borne fighter: F4F replaced F2A and F6F replaced F4F. And so on…

Exactly.

So why do you see TIE Fighters alongside TIE Interceptors in Jedi?

dahmage said:

i don’t understand your argument. i mean, i understand the argument you are making, but i don’t understand why. Are you saying that these star wars movies are supposed to mirror reality? did ANH? (and the answer, like it is for any leading question, is always NO. it did not fully mirror reality. that is what makes it a fun movie)

My initial argument was that seeing the exact same ship models filling the primary fighter role on BOTH sides after 30+ years is beyond stupid.

Why? I am trying to make fanboys accept the fact that this is a shameless idiotic rip off (rehash is simply too soft term for this atrocity).

dahmage said:

imperialscum said:

dahmage said:

i don’t understand your argument. i mean, i understand the argument you are making, but i don’t understand why. Are you saying that these star wars movies are supposed to mirror reality? did ANH? (and the answer, like it is for any leading question, is always NO. it did not fully mirror reality. that is what makes it a fun movie)

My initial argument was that seeing the exact same ship models filling the primary fighter role on BOTH sides after 30+ years is beyond stupid.

Why? I am trying to make fanboys accept the fact that this is a shameless idiotic rip off (rehash is simply too soft term for this atrocity).

Well, I am no fanboy of TFA, although I do like it, and I disagree with you. So, I might suggest to you that you are on misguided mission if you goal is to convince everyone to hate TFA.

I did not say my mission was to make anyone hate TFA. I said my mission was simply to make people accept the fact that TIE-vs-Xwing 30 years after ROTJ is a lazy stupid rip off. Nevertheless, you may even love this fact. But it is a fact.