Let's face it, Star Wars has a lot of really cool spaceships, but for every number of cool ships, there is also on occasion and ugly, or downright stupid one. For me, the spaceship that I hate the most are the Bombers from The Last Jedi. I'm going to list several reasons for why I just absolutely hate this thing.
Speed: Compared to the other starfighters escorting and attacking it, this thing is about as fast as an obese person in a sprint, like seriously! They are SO SLOW! I could probably run faster than those things.
Size: These things are ridiculously big for their role and are nothing but a giant target saying "come and shoot me." Any smaller fighter-bomber would probably perform the same role just as well, if not better. Also, on a more opiniated note, I think these things are just ugly looking, like of all the ways they could've done a heavy bomber in Star Wars, they come up with this?
Durability: These things are essentially flying tinder boxes that have limited to no armor given their large size and payload. Seriously, half a tie fighter takes out three of these damn things.
Defenses: I like the ball turret designs, I really do, but the number and placement of these things for a ship of its size is plain terrible. Seriously, they mount a total of two turrets, with no field of fire above, of in front of the bomber meaning you could attack from those angles unopposed. The only option for the crew in this case is to open whatever hatch or window they have and fire their little "pew pew" pistols at whatever flies at them. Seriously! put a gun on top! or at the front of the stupid thing!
Bomb Load: Do proton bombs and proton torpedoes no longer exist? like, who thought it would be a good idea to stack a bunch of fairly generic looking bombs on top of each other and float slowly over a target to "drop" them. So, the actual payload, and delivery system is stupid, coupled with the fact that they put way too many bombs in a single package and low durability, you essentially have a flying bomb, in which ramming into something as a sort of bomb vessel might be a better use of this monstrosity.
Conclusion: So yeah, I think anyone with the slightest sense of self-preservation, or common sense should absolutely avoid being a part of the crew for these things as it's nothing but a horrible death sentence. However, if you do have a death wish, be my guest, you're probably better off throwing a brick at whatever target you're hoping to reach.
Note: This is not me hating on the movie or the trilogy it's a part of in general, also this post is meant entirely as a joke from the perspective of an average fan who doesn't dive super deep into the lore and loadouts of each ship.
@SPairforce this is off topic but what is your favorite star wars space ship
@Dest20345
Oh, yeah, don't get me started on that.
The star killer base
They do have an upper remote-controlled turret, but yeah otherwise they’re just the bad version of the newer BTA-NR2 Y-Wings (which I love).
@Panzerwaifu69
Even then, they could’ve executed on the concept way better, or at least not make such a useless, ugly ship.
@SPairforce Yeah, while most WW2 styled thing with futuristic touch fit inside the SW Universe, heavy bomber is quite tricky to add, since it's role already taken by ships and medium sized bomber/ground attack aircraft
@Panzerwaifu69
Yeah, the concept of a heavy bomber is very tricky to handle in a setting like Star Wars, and this clearly was not the way to go about it.
Introduction of that bombers were also pointless
Who need bombers if you have orbital bombardments...
More accurate bombing raid that orbital bombardments? Y-Wing could the the same thing, better and more precise
Attacking ship? Nobody with healthy mind would attack a ship with huge bomber close range, it's like attacking Yamato battleship with B-17, close ranged, definitely a suicide, you'll get ripped by the AA guns.
ratsraw 👍👍
@FirstLandFish83828
I didn't know the name of it till now, and yeah, the Twin Pod Cloud Car isn't very good looking, but at least I won't be taking it into combat any time soon, though it might be more likely to survive a space battle than those stupid bombers.
They are called MG-100 StarFortress SF-17, but I 100% agree with you, but the Twin Pod Cloud Car is worse
@HuskyDynamics01
While I don't agree with your opinion on the aesthetics of the ship, I do agree with everything else you have said, and your idea for reimagining the scene makes it so much better.
The main thing to change with the opening bomber sequence of The Last Jedi is to increase - drastically - the amount of damage that the MG-100s are able to take. I'm talking engines shot out, parts and external bits being blown off, the works. But after the TIES make their initial passes (which in the movie leave only the somewhat-plot-armored bomber flying), the StarFortresses emerge from the fire and smoke, damaged but doggedly flying onwards. Not only would this look absolutely amazing on-screen, it would make the MG-100 make a lot more sense in-canon. In a book I haven't read, Poe Dameron describes the StarFortress as "the best bomber the Resistance ever had", but its performance on-screen not only makes this claim laughable, it brings into question the entire purpose of the ship. Redefining the StarFortress as a tough, durable heavy bomber, instead of the wet piece of paper it is unfortunately depicted to be, would be a huge improvement for both the opening sequence of The Last Jedi and the MG-100 itself as a design.
I actually like the StarFortress aesthetically, and heavy bombers are something that don't get much attention in Star Wars (plus I love ships with turrets), but the way it is shown in the movie is an insult to the ship's entire design and purpose.
(2/2)
It's pretty clear that the ship is based fairly directly on the B-17 bomber, both in design and performance. As shown in the initial bombing run on the dreadnought, the StarFortress' main characteristic is its ability to fly in formation, in a straight line, to deliver a prodigious quantity of ordinance over a relatively large area, again pretty similar to the WWII-era bomber it is based on. However, the main thing that differs from the B-17 (in fact the StarFortress' main weakness) is its incredibly poor survivability.
During the Second World War, one of the most notable properties of the B-17 bomber, other than its sheer quantity and effectiveness, was the aircraft's ability to take massive amounts of damage and keep flying. Fortresses returned to base with destroyed engines, gaping holes shot in the fuselage, occasionally entire stabilizers missing, and, on at least two occasions, after being nearly blown in half. The B-17 was originally dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its large quantity of defensive armament, but lived up to the name through sheer durability.
This is the main thing missing from the StarFortress. As depicted in the unfortunately quite poorly-thought-out opening sequence, the MG-100s are really not capable of taking any damage whatsoever. In fact, given how rapidly they fall victim to TIE fire (which even X-Wings are able to survive, and many other ships are able to shrug off with little to no damage), I wonder whether the deflector shielding on the StarFortress is even military-grade, as it does very little to protect the bomber from damage.
(1/2)
I completely agree, the bombers were a cool idea but the execution was terrible. I actually wrote a short bit on what they should have been like. Lemme find it real quick and I'll paste it here; it addresses several of your points (particularly the durability).