Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So by the sounds of Battlefront 2 the imperial raider supposedly has a fighter bay on it. Now I've searched high and low on the interwebz and I have not found one bit of information that says the raider actually has a fighter bay. The only tibbit of info I've found was in armada it has a squadron value of 1. He'll even the model doesn't show a hanger as well.

Thoughts?

 captain bloody fists wrote:
So by the sounds of Battlefront 2 the imperial raider supposedly has a fighter bay on it. Now I've searched high and low on the interwebz and I have not found one bit of information that says the raider actually has a fighter bay. The only tibbit of info I've found was in armada it has a squadron value of 1. He'll even the model doesn't show a hanger as well.

Thoughts?

Isn't the protagonist of the story some kind of Imperial special forces ? So maybe they are permitted to modify equipment to their needs

Maybe the hanger is under the Ventral Wing? Or maybe it's a case of new specs as the merch demands.

Never let cannon get in the way of story.

It would be foolish to think that in a Navy that spans a galaxy, not a single Raider-class corvette could be refitted with Hangar Bays, even if just for a few fighters.

Mostly in the Armada game, the "squadron' value is generally the number of squadrons a ship can issue commands to, not necessarily how many ships they can launch, even though in some situations that can get stupid, fluff-wise.

So it could reflect a ridiculously inadequate communication infrastructure, rather than hangar space, for instance.

Ok so i put my engineering hat on and did some calcs scaling up the xwing model

now if they replaced the cut in sensor (the side bits either side about half way long) the gap there isn't large enough for a hanger. by my scaling the recessed section is roughly 5m high by 9.5m long. A TIE/LN is roughly 9m cubed, much too big to fit into a hanger cut into the side. i would say you would need a hanger that's about 15m high to have room for a fighter to have ingress and egress out of the hanger.

tl:dr the ship is too small to have a proper working hanger bay.

tl:dr the ship is too small to have a proper working hanger bay.

In Rebels even the light cruisers had to just clamp the fighters to the exterior of the ship (in their case between the prongs on the front), so I wouldn't imagine a Raider having a full bay.

I haven't seen the trailer for the new Battlefront so could they have some sort of external docking set up?

 captain bloody fists wrote:
Ok so i put my engineering hat on and did some calcs scaling up the xwing model

now if they replaced the cut in sensor (the side bits either side about half way long) the gap there isn't large enough for a hanger. by my scaling the recessed section is roughly 5m high by 9.5m long. A TIE/LN is roughly 9m cubed, much too big to fit into a hanger cut into the side. i would say you would need a hanger that's about 15m high to have room for a fighter to have ingress and egress out of the hanger.

tl:dr the ship is too small to have a proper working hanger bay.

But isn't the scaling for Epic ships slightly off or at least not the same as the fighters, the CR-90 per various sources should be about 33% bigger, I recall FFG said was broadly a cost / production limit

@Scarlet, on star wars hq they were claiming that these two shots show rebel xwings falling out of the raiders hamger.

@turnip, yeah I believe the scaling between the two is off. But if you use the model which is 350mm and the cannon length of the raider is 150m it's pretty easy scaling after that. And we know that a tie fighter is roughly 8.9m cubed from wiki and every other source.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
But isn't the scaling for Epic ships slightly off or at least not the same as the fighters, the CR-90 per various sources should be about 33% bigger, I recall FFG said was broadly a cost / production limit

Correct. Epic models are deliberately not to scale with the rest of the ships (as confirmed by FFG) for practical model size reasons, both in cost and table footprint. They're big enough to look about right, but if you look closely they're a little smaller than they should be compared to normal ships.