Talk:Aggressive ReConnaissance-170 starfighter/Legends

ARC
Should we use "Aggressive ReConnaissance" in the title, or just in the article top line? --SparqMan 03:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should only be explained in the top line of the article. I don't know how you would write "Aggressive ReConnaissance" and then then "-170" without looking weird. JimRaynor55 05:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Like "Aggressive Reconnaissance-170 starfighter"? Might not be your style, but if that's what it was...--SparqMan 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Aggressive Reconnaissance-170 starfighter" should be the title, since abbreviations are only left in if it's unknown what they stand for or if they don't stand for an actual word (i.e., 'X-wing'). --Thetoastman 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that definitely should be the title. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should change the HAET gunboat title as well. :) VT-16 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that already taken care of? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The number still isn't on the title. VT-16 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that. I brought up that issue on the talk page. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * what about Aggressive ReConnaissance Starfighter Model 170 would be better if wanting to use a full name.Kardo Sett 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said "170" was a model? The starfighter model itself was "Aggressive ReConnaissance-170". This is the correct full name. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

vehicle type
would the ARC-170 be thought of as a bomber rather than a starfighter when compared to the other fighters the republic used?
 * It certainly fufills more of a patrol bomber/bomber role compared to the V-Wing and Eta-2. The ROTS ICS says that they're the heavy hitters when fighting as part of strike forces that include those other fighters.  The ARC-170 is quite slow, even slower than a Y-Wing.  Features like lots of supplies, heavy shielding, and tail guns show that it was not meant to outmaneuver other starfighters.  Still, they are not pure bombers like the K-Wing or TIE bomber, and can still be used against other fighters.  I think they fufill the same role as Y-Wings ("real" EU Y-Wings, not the slow-as-hell pure bombers that some of the video/pc games make them out to be), which is "heavy assault fighter." JimRaynor55 09:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ARC-170s are the X-Wings of Episode III. -- Eddyward Telerionus 00:09, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that is already obvious. Incom built both vehicles. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:50, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, here we have the same case as with the Y-wing. The Y-wing is a starfighter/bomber, so the ARC-170 can also be considered a starfighter/bomber. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:57, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

in my opinion a fighter/bomber type ship is necessary anywhere bcuz a small fast heavy hitting object is very dangerous to any ship bcuz most large ships do not have that many point defense weapons that hit at the close ranges the fighters can operate in. bcuz u should all now what "trench run disease" is and the other small ships dont have large the heavy weapons (heavy lasers and proton torps) that the ARC 170 has and yes a ywing and arc 170 are fast if compared to CAPITOL ships that are what they are ment to combat and yet be maneverable enough to take make fighters heed them and to have them keep there distance especially with the aft guns of the ARC 710 (Boommer3 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Please don't restart old topics. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Era
"During the Galactic Civil War, ARC-170s could be found in both Imperial and Rebel fleets, although they were considered elite craft." Is there any source for this statement? I'm all for the use of prequel vehicles showing up later in the EU, but this sounds like fanon. JimRaynor55 12:45, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) --OompaLoompa of DOOM 16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I´m basing this statement on the inclusion of ARCs, Eta-2s and Bebullabs in the OT-era Galaxies game. Now, I know this borders on Game Mechanics, but there are official statements which go outside the game, that refers to all three classes as 'elite' ships available to all (Imperial, Rebels and independents). In the game, they are Tier 4 ships, and thus available only to expert pilots. Basically, I´m going on the thought that these ships still exist in the OT-era, but are not as readily available as the other fighters, and thus reserved for only the best in various forces. Which is the intention of the makers of this game. VT-16 14:33, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * We might not see them being used by the Empire throughout the Original Trilogy, but at the end of Episode III, they don't have TIE fighters available yet. So, they had nothing else to use until the TIE production started. That's just really common-sense. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:39, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and furthermore it also makes sense that in this great, vast galaxy, there will be places where you can find craft and vehicles that might be looked at as obsolete in the more developed areas. There are already plenty of entries that describe this, and also Imperial forces that don´t get all the hi-tech, top-of-the-line materials. (And there´s the issue with some of these craft being superior to, say, TIE fighters. Even if that means they´re more expensive to produce/maintain.) VT-16 20:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Supplemental: I think the rule is, if something is in a game, it´s part of continuity (unless it contradicts the movies), but the limits/abilities of the craft is game mechanics and thus non-canon. Is this right? VT-16 20:56, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was used by the Empire. Maybe freelancers working for the Empire (that's seems basically what Galaxies is but I wouldn't know for sure). Also, after the Empire was formed they started using V-Wings as the standard. If you notice it has the distinct TIE fighter noise and is all that you see later in Episode 3. And Incom seperated from it's parent company to avoid supporting the Empire so I don't see why they would continue producing fighters for it. Although, it looks like I am sorely outnumbered and I assume majority will rule.....--OompaLoompa of DOOM 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Empire wouldn't just abandon the remaining ARC-170s they had. They would use them. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. But I have one final argument, the piece under discussion says they were used during the Galactic Civil War. For most starfighters that lifespan doesn't encompass 15-20 years (this is assuming that the actual war didn't start until a few years BBY). I read in one book (I'm sorry I don't remember which one at the moment) about some E-Wings now considered to be decrepit and barely functional after somewhere around 6 years. I don't think the Empire would spend so much money maintaining/restoring their ARC-170's when they could, for probably around the same price, buy a squadron of TIEs. And if I am proven wrong, (replace if with when) I think that it should mention the rarity of their use.
 * Well, to counter that, do we know when the TIE Fighter was first produced? If it was produced later on, they would probably still use V-wings and ARC-170s in the early, early stages of the Galactic Civil War. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Touche. Although that basically just leaves it in a gray area. So I guess until better information comes out about the last unknown gap between the trilogies (hopefully the TV series will give some insight) it will remain the same. Oh well, I don't mind losing an argument to another SW fan. --OompaLoompa of DOOM 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

History section
Is a history section detailing two appearances of the ARC-170 really helpful or encyclopedic?--SparqMan 19:17, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? What is written doesn't make much sense. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:32, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

odd info box
What is this?! why infobox in this ship is different than in other ships?!!??!!? FIX IT!!!!
 * Don't panic. It's part of a brainstorming program for the standardization of a new and better ship/vehicle infobox format. Please see the Community Portal and Template_talk:Ship. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PTB-626 and NTB-630?
The Databank's ARC-170 article says "The narrow spaceframe flanked by large engines is common in Incom/Subpro designs, and can be seen in PTB-626, NTB-630 and Z-95 starfighter models." Does anybody know what the PTB-626 and NTB-630 are, when and by whom they were used, etc? 68.47.234.131 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See NTB-630 naval bomber and PTB-625 planetary bomber. -LtNOWIS 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As for your other question: it was used by the Republic. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric Speed
I wonder, what was Saxton smoking when he came up with these figures? The ARC-170 is supposed to be 42 times faster than the X-wing, which was designed almost 20 years later by the same people? 68.47.234.131 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very odd. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It does seem odd if it's an isolated thing, but there may be more to it. I suspect Saxton intended to increase the atmospheric speeds of the Original Trilogy fighters too, but someone or something prevented that. (Of course, this is just my own crazy conspiracy theory.) And the WotC RPG page on the ships from Revenge of the Sith cuts down these speeds by a huge amount, though I wouldn't consider that as authoritative as a printed reference. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if this isn't the actual atmospheric speed, we'll need to find the correct one. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RPG numbers are game mechanics. The low numbers for OT fighters were made by people who thought a society tens of thousands of years beyond us in technology would have fighters operating as similar speeds to RL fighters. :P VT-16 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder, what was Saxton smoking when he came up with these figures? The ARC-170 is supposed to be 42 times faster than the X-wing, which was designed almost 20 years later by the same people? I wonder, what was WEG smoking when it decided that the X-wing (and all other starfighters) couldn't even break Mach 1? If you believe that the X-wing can only fly at around 1,000 kph in an atmosphere, that would mean that real-life fighter planes from the 1960s could outrace it, and that it would take a hell of a long time to leave a planet's atmosphere. G-canon completely refutes this stupid idea, by showing ships leaving planets' atmospheres within seconds. The max airspeeds that Saxton came up with make sense and should stay. The airspeeds that WEG (and now the NEGTVV) use are ridiculously stupid, and I wonder whether we should even keep them since they contradict G-canon. JimRaynor55 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, do we have actual atmospheric speeds for those that are incorrect? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can easily tell the fighters are going faster than their WEG limits in ROTJ, during the celebrations. When the camera zooms up from Vader's funural pyre to show them dropping fireworks, several X-wings and at least one A-wing zip across the sky, crossing a stretch of sky many times equal to their own lengths, in less than one second. Not to mention the speeds they have during space combat. Just add that these speeds are vastly underestimated and most likely a product of game mechanics. VT-16 10:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Saxton also had the LAAT at 650 kph, slower than the WEG starfighter numbers, and slower than some variants of the Supermarine Spitfire. Of course, it's not a fighter.-LtNOWIS 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the torpedo launcher?
I've looked over the ARC-170 in everything from pictures to the action figures and I still can't figure out where the torpedo launcher is supposed to be. Anybody know? Nope - I checked, and even that book doesn't show it. User:Darth Saito
 * RotS: ICS, I believe, shows it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd, because I thought I saw it there. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It states the ship is armed with 6 torps, but doesn't identify them or the launcher - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Astro-Droid?
Is their a exact kind of Astro-Droid that was used for the ARC-170, or a standerd?

Paleontologist.piczo
 * I don't think there is a standard, though RotS: ICS shows an R2 unit - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At least one R4 was present during the Second Battle of Coruscant, though it may have been one of those non-coneheaded ones. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Link
Could someone please put up a page for 'ARC-170' or somesuch and link it to this page? It took me ages to get here after searching for 'ARC-170' and 'ARC 170' and getting no results. Just frustrating. Darth Windu