Why Is Earthforce Still Using Star Furies?

[Dayton3]

We know that Earthforce was using the Furies in the Earth/Minbari War.

But now, in the new DVD movie they are still using Furies. In fact, they seem to be considered top of the line. Otherwise the Centauri prince probably wouldn't be that impressed by them.

That is 25 years of use for one basic design.

Doesn't that seem kind of odd?

Sure, the U.S. uses 40 year old designs still in our Air Force.

But one reason for that is we haven't fought a war against a nation with a modern air force in that time.

Earth on the other hand has fought a whole series of conflicts with other races (and themselves) that had equal or superior fighters and technology.

Does it make sense that Earth would stick with Star Furies all that time?

 

[vacantlook]

I like starfuries if for nothing but the fact that they look cool. They look realistic like they were designed for space, not like they're aircraft in space as most space-fi fightercraft look.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Good designs can last. The motors, weapons and avionics could have been upgraded over the years.

 

[KoshFan]

Well, we did see the Thunderbolts in Season 3. I expect the main thing is, the StarFuries have gone through many iterations, but as they all look the same, due to the same basic design -- which NASA is on record as saying looks highly effective. So EarthForce hit on a good thing, and while upgrades have come along, why mess with success?

A bigger question is why, ten years after they failed miserably, EarthForce is still using the same sensor packages they had in the Earth-Minbari War.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

A bigger question is why, ten years after they failed miserably, EarthForce is still using the same sensor packages they had in the Earth-Minbari War.

Because they don't have good sense?

 

[maneth]

There have been upgrades, even during the five-year story arc. I think the zeta squadron had better Starfuries than the others, and certainly Bester's black starfury was a different beast compared to the standard issue.

NASA is on record for saying they might build something that looks like a Starfury if fighters in space ever become necessary. JMS said that's fine, if they call the machines of similar design Starfury.

 

[Galahad]

I suppose eventually, they may want to work in the kind of efficiencies a Minbari Nial fighter has... and that might become a possibility through the use of shared technology. However Earth may be limited on that due to things like reactor size and engine efficiency.

 

[darth_librarian]

You can see the upgrades in TLT. The Furies in that have new avionics, new cockpits and controls. This is quite common in the military now. There is also a big precedent for this in sci-fi, with the ships in Star Trek.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

If the basic design is sound and fulfills its function, there is less reason to completely re-design a space vehicle than a fighter aeroplane (many of which remain in service for 25 years +). One of the major ways in which aircraft design has changed and improved in the last 50 years is in aerodynamics ... clearly and irrelevant concern where space-only vehicles is concerned.

You also have the fact that B5 has presumably become a much less important military outpost during the 10 years since Objects At Rest, with the ISA being based on Minbar, so why would they have the most up to date, state of the art fighting machines when their fleet of starfuries is more than up to the task of defending it?

 

[A_M_Swallow]

A bigger question is why, ten years after they failed miserably, EarthForce is still using the same sensor packages they had in the Earth-Minbari War.

In "Endgame" (episode 420) the Agamemnon has just been fitted with new sensors. So the simple answer is it took 15 years to develop sensors that can lock onto Minbari ships.

Those time scales are not too different from the current development time scales for radar and other military equipment.

 

[RMcD]

Why are they still using Starfuries?

Well, the original Starfury cockpit happened to be among the few props that were still knocking around, and they were able to dust it off and transport it to Vancouver..

(Sorry, I know I'm not really getting into the spirit of this).

 

[Dayton3]

One might argue that Earthforce didn't upgrade their equipment much after the Earth Minbari War because lots of people on Earth actually think Earth WON that war.

IIRC, in "Eyes" the guy from Earthforce actually claimed that the Minbari were so stunned by Earths show of strength at the Battle of the Line that they chose not to invade Earth.

 

[babylonfan]

The armed forces tend to use basic designs very long once it has proven its worth. But obvioulsy the basic designs are upgraded. From the outside the differences may be hardly noticable, but step in the cockpit and you will immediately see the difference.

* B-52, first flight 1954, expected to last another till 2040. By then the B-52 will be 84 years old, give or take. Also, bare in mind the last one was build in 1962 making the youngest one now 45 years and at most 78 years old when retired.

* F-16, series production started in 1976 and until the F-22 and the JSF become fully operational the F-16 is still the benchmark on a number of fields in fighter design. While sales are slowing down, it is still being made and a very tough competitor to newer design like the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale and JSF (if only due to price).

* KC-135, first flight in 1957, last one build in 1981. A replacement program has started, but the last one is not expected to retire till 2040 making it at least 59 years old.

* Soyuz, first (unmanned) flight in 1966. First manned flight in 1967. Still in production and one of the safest ways to get into space. An upgraded version will fly in 2009, a more comprehensive upgrade is proposed for 2012. By then the younger Shuttle will have been retired.


OK, I'll admit. My source is wikipedia so take the information for what it's worth.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Why hasn't the US retired the M16? Could it be that inertia in the military procurement system will be as bad then as it is now?

 

[maneth]

Why change it if it's good enough to do the job with an acceptable number of casualties?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Why change it if it's good enough to do the job with an acceptable number of casualties?

On which side?

 

[maneth]

Both, I guess. No matter what you do, someone's always going to get killed in a firefight. If it's still effective, why change for change's sake? After all, pilot training is time-consuming and quite expensive, and would be necessary for a radically new design. Not to mention the manufacture of spare parts, logistics etc.

 

[Dayton3]

The armed forces tend to use basic designs very long once it has proven its worth. But obvioulsy the basic designs are upgraded. From the outside the differences may be hardly noticable, but step in the cockpit and you will immediately see the difference.

* B-52, first flight 1954, expected to last another till 2040. By then the B-52 will be 84 years old, give or take. Also, bare in mind the last one was build in 1962 making the youngest one now 45 years and at most 78 years old when retired.

* F-16, series production started in 1976 and until the F-22 and the JSF become fully operational the F-16 is still the benchmark on a number of fields in fighter design. While sales are slowing down, it is still being made and a very tough competitor to newer design like the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale and JSF (if only due to price).

* KC-135, first flight in 1957, last one build in 1981. A replacement program has started, but the last one is not expected to retire till 2040 making it at least 59 years old.

* Soyuz, first (unmanned) flight in 1966. First manned flight in 1967. Still in production and one of the safest ways to get into space. An upgraded version will fly in 2009, a more comprehensive upgrade is proposed for 2012. By then the younger Shuttle will have been retired.


OK, I'll admit. My source is wikipedia so take the information for what it's worth.

The point I made was that one reason for the continued usage by the U.S. of those older planes is that we haven't faced any opponent with an equal or superior air force during that time.

Earth on the other hand had. Repeatedly.

I would think that fighting superior opponents would encourage the development of vastly more advanced fighters and weapons.

 

[KoshFan]

Well, of course, we saw that Earth was trying to do exactly that: they wanted Shadow tech. Also, they built the Omega-class cruisers; maybe EarthForce was primarily concerned with building more advanced capital ships, and decided to let the fighters fend for themselves until the new tech for the capital ships could be adapted to them.

If Sheridan hadn't gone after Clark for another two years, I bet we would have seen Shadowtech adapted to StarFuries, too.

 

[puzzle]

B5 was designed to house and launch Starfuries.

Re-engineering launch bays might require shedding and reattaching chunks of station exterior... which is unlikely to be nice and smooth, if the station rotates and people live inside.