>>The F-71 Starfury is an aging design by 2405, but still quite
>>potent. It's not very heavily armed for its class (only two blaster
>>cannons in the chin, much like the TIE/ln it was developed to fight),

>What I'm not sure about is the nomenclature 'TIE/ln'. In TIE Fighter,
>it was 'TIE/In', I thought, and referred to the TIE Interceptor. But
>the Interceptor definitely did NOT have chin-mounted lasers, it had
>four wingtip lasers, one of its big improvements over the original TIE
>Deathtrap, aside from solar panels you could actually -see- past and
>improved maneuverability and speed. Are you referring to the basic TIE
>with 'TIE/ln'? And if so, what does 'ln' stand for?

The TIE/In was the interim replacement for the original TIE Fighter. The truth is that what we see in the the Star Wars movies are technically TIE/Ins, not original TIEs. The TIE/In had a superior hull construction to the original TIE (from tin can to thicker tin can), superior power supply (allowing for longer flights), and heavier lasers. The TIE Interceptor used the data from the TIE/In to develop a Space Superiority Fighter commensurate with the Incom T-65, AKA the X-Wing.

This is all Star Wars information, and may or may not jibe with UF. (Personal theory: TIE/Ins were kept in use because, well, with the WDF gone, the ultimate in SSF was nonusable and the TIE Interceptors weren't as needed. When the WDF came back, Largo quietly informed them that yes, as a matter of fact, we DO need these now. As there's no real statement as to Interceptors being used in UF4 - just TIE fighters - we don't know what all was used in that battle.)

--
Geoff Depew - Mephron
Haberdasher to Androids, Malakite of Lightning and Angel of Tech Support Professionals
(They won't give me LARTs, they say that's restricted to Michael.)