You forgot about the Star Fury Thunderbolt, which has “40mm omnidirectional cannons”, and yes, have a look at the Scorpious in Star Citizen… oh yes, in SC you can rotate n place, but there isn’t a death blossom.. yet.
I'd throw the fighters carriers and transports from Space above and beyond into the semi realistic Sci fi category. I'm pretty sure you've covered them before but I think they're worth a mention. Underrated 90's show recently watched it again on UA-cam it still holds up today.
In the starfighter novel it explains that the Stafighters were outcasts in their utopia. A universe at peace but these folk couldn’t abandon violence and cruelty. sociopaths and thugs in a federation built on enlightenment and peace. Even the Gunstar itself was an obsolete design from centuries ago. Then suddenly a hostile armada turns up and those violent outcasts are their people’s only hope for survival. When the President chants “Victory or Death” you can see how awkwardly he fumbles it, he’s trying to sound tough but doesn’t have a clue how.
@@SmallLab129 I'd recommend it. It expands and fleshes out a lot on the events shown in the movie and even adds some new stuff here and there. Also doesn't hurt the novel was written by sci-fi legend Alan Dean Foster.
@@nong333 So is there any explanation for that frontier shield? I mean did the Star League create it or is it some artifact left over from an extinct civilization/species?
I love the fact that NASA went to the writer of Babylon 5 to get permission to use the design for space tugs. He gave it with 1 caveat that it carry the name Starfury!
@@kyleaugustine6886 Virgin Galactic's Enterprise never made it to space either! (Destroyed in testing with loss of one crew 😢). People need to stop naming spacecraft "Enterprise" until at least the 2nd operational unit. Thankfully SpaceX hasn't made this mistake yet.
@@akgunkel Correction, Enterprise's honor is a militay namesake, so only when we commission a spacewarship will it take the name. . . Of course will have to wait until CVN-80 is retired. . . Which will be a LOOOOONG time.
The Last Starfighter really is an overlooked gem. Dated effects or no, it's a good story and it's told well, and has one of the best final lines from a villain ever.
I still love the dated effects. it shows just how far CGI has come in nearly 40 years, but I would love to see The Last Starfighter to get revamped. not a remake, use the original footage, just do what George Lucas did for Star Wars in 1997.
@@Strideo1 - yeah, it's one of those instances of early CGI being on the part of the uncanny valley where we look at it and go "Oh, nice CGI for the time" - as opposed to later on, where the animation is "better", but as a consequence our brains start picking out all the ways that it's not realistic. In other words, it's crude enough that we can instinctively appreciate it as animation, as opposed to our brains trying to parse it as real, and failing.
That movie needs a videogame and a genuine arcade machine, faithful to the film and maybe as an added bonus the capability to play with more players on a large 2-4 player cabinet.
I loved the small Easter egg in the Expanse when the Rocinante went up against the Zemya. When all those missiles were incoming the point defense screen had a little note indicating it was in "Death Blossom" mode
In the Homeworld series, the Starfury would be considered a "Fighter" or "Strike Craft," while the Gunstar would be a Corvette. So, if classic video games teach us anything, it's that the two would make a great combo!
The Gunstar kind of reminds me of the Taiidan Defender, actually. The defender is like the same concept, but scaled down to strike craft size. The 1:1 closet match would definitely still be the multigun corvette, though.
Regarding "Victory or death". If you read the Alan Dean Foster novel (which I did before I saw the film), he explains that the species that were recruited for the fighting were considered to be rather barbaric (which made them good starfighters). The leader of the Star League was advised to shout "Victory or Death" as a way to rile up and enthuse the pilots before the upcoming battle. The leader found this rather repugnant. You can see a look of distain on his face as the pilots take up the chant, just before the scene cuts away. Unfortunately, its one of those things that's not really shown well in the film version.
It still fits in the movie without further explanation. He just appears to be a politician out of his league. A bureaucrat trying to engage warriors which are beings he doesn't understand. Happens all the time on earth.
The Gunstar is practically a gunship, honestly. Make it like 10 times larger and you basically have a small destroyer. I like the Starfury better as a pure fighter, personally.
It just depend on how you define your classes lol. Even irl you have 2 pilot jets with a ranges of missiles and indirect armaments, that would still classify as fighter planes. Mondern fighters rarely use their gun if ever. It's all missiles now. And the only reason they can't have turrets is because they wouldn't be aerodynamic. Which isn't a problem in space.
My thought. A light corvette or gunship, as many sci-fi games have it. The Skipray Blastboats from Star Wars, or the mid-sized enemy ships usually covered in guns in most space shooters.
So happy to see someone talking about the Gunstar. The Last Starfighter is one of my favourite movies. It's story is simple but there are interesting ideas that sneak up on you. Like the idea of leaving what is basically your clone back on your home world so the bad guys don't know you're off world training to kill them. Dropping off the "Excalibur test" to see who can do what needs to be done and going to pick them up. The movie is pure wish fulfillment. Who among us hasn't thought about actually being up there while playing a game? Or that our gaming ability would get us into real space combat. It's Pixels but nothing like it and it's actually good. After watching some videos on how they made the VFX in the early days of CGI I think the reason we never got to see the Gunstar fly sideways is because it would've been too difficult to program. The sequel does seem to be gaining traction. I never thought we'd get a new Quantum Leap series but it shot a pilot and based on the pilot it's gotten a full season order and will air later this year unless something goes wrong. So Last Starfighter has to be next. If there's any justice we'll get both a series and a movie. Bring back Lance Guest as the leader of the new team he's built up over the years. Maybe make it an elite squadron kind of like either Rogue Squadron or Top Gun. It makes sense. Consider that they probably figured out that the Excalibur tests/video games were basically the training tool for all their pilots. The Kodan steals a bunch and trains their own people on their own version of the Gunstar. Now we have to get creative. They have to come up with a whole new style of space combat because the enemy knows their old moves as well as they do. Which means training their pilots to push themselves further than they ever thought and creating an even better type of Gunstar. Death Blossom (so cool) is something they've figured out how to avoid because they know that they have to be within a certain range so they stay outside that range. They need to come up with something nobody has ever seen before. Tell me that's not something you'd want to see.
CGI doesn't care what direction you translate the model in between frames, and those frames would have been set up by hand anyway. It's not like they had a complex physics model directing the flight of the spaceship (if they did, Netwonian would have been easier) they had a special effects director. And that director made the Gunstar swoop around with engines firing backward like it's an atmospheric craft that uses aerodynamic surfaces to turn because that would be more intuitive to the audience. Personally I'm happy to let this movie stand on its own but sure if we have to bring things back for "sequels" made decades later -- and apparently we do -- then this is a good choice. Don't worry, one way or another I'm sure they'll scrape The Last Starfighter out of the name recognition barrel. Maybe they'll make it a prestige drama ala Battlestar.
Hmm... How 'bout the Star League is dirty. Xur was planted into the Enemy's ranks for one reason only. To steal the Kodan's Hive Link technology. Why were the Kodan's hostile? You'd be too if your young queen was kidnapped. While Alex is busy visiting new worlds as the posterboy for the league, a new starfighter quickly climbs the ranks but can never shine underneath his older brother's shadow. Louis looks for another way using tech which ultimately leads him face to face with Xur... and his kodan neice?! 😳Hi, I'm Louis. Thas all I gotz.
Commander Louis:"Are ya ready, you slimes?" *red eyepiece closes "We're gunna be Famous." New Kodan Armada Chant:"Our Victory, League's Death!" Commander Louis:"Your turn babe- er, your majesty." Queen Hotness:"A.I. Swarm Link - Connected!" General Xur:"Let's go home."
Actually the particle beams were used in the film. When the Gunstar targeted the communications turret of the command ship, the beams were fired from the side-mounted units along the fuselage and not from the laser turrets. Look carefully and you will see the two top-mounted particle beams firing.
@@alyssinwilliams4570 For most of the younger generations, the Last Starfighter is seen as a clone or ripoff of Star Wars. Youth with amazing unknown ability, goes on a journey of self-discovery and adventure and must fight the evil empire. It's basically Luke Skywalker in a New Hope. Centauri is Han Solo. Grigg is Obi Wan. You see the similarities. Roger Ebert called the Last Starfighter as a Star Wars clone, but one of the better clones and his guilty pleasure as well. Yeah, the story is somewhat cheesy and the effects are outdated, but the film as a whole is enjoyable and the characters are believable. Despite the fact that movies nowadays are focused primarily on big name actors, high-tech special effects, and non-stop action with little-to-no plot, the Last Starfighter is one of those movies that I never tire of seeing repeatedly.
I generally agree with you. This is something I see on Elite Dangerous forums a lot, people think the ships are way too big but the smallest ships are smaller than a modern fighter while having much more capability. I like the Gunstar for feeling like an actual weapons platform and not a Cessna in space.
It's not an 80s scifi movie without a reference to Arcades! Personally I think the Starfury is way more versatile and can be used for a wider mission profile, although I have to say I really wish that more Science fiction fighters would have a gunner.
@@SCHIMANSKI-DIESBURG Or you might get into Interceptor versus space superiority roles. The Gunstar might be more of a heavy fighter or gun ship while the Star Fury is an interceptor. Not easy to compare since they are in different SciFi universes. I can imagine a larger Star Fury with a pilot/gunner, a nose turret along with missiles, more armor, etc.
Well, one of the considerations for a fighter is, how expensive it is to replace and produce. In this the Fury’s design would be superior. There’s also a matter of how easy it is to maintain. All of this would be dependent on the technological level of the culture using them, who knows.
@@zhoufang996 This is the one of the things many people don't account for when comparing quantity vs quality. When comparing two vehicles, you must include the people, the parts, ammunition, etc. One gunstar may cost more than one star fury, but factoring the pilots, ammo and maintenance, the gunstar could cost equally or cheaper to more star furys in upkeep. Edit: Also adding to this, it must be taken account the time of repairs and logistics needed to provide the resources for these starfighters.
But wouldn't cost depend on how a planets economy works. I know that Centauri was going on about how much money it cost to create the game test but perhaps their military works on a different system.
There is a heavy Starfury variant with co-pilot/tail gunner. It should also be noted that the guns are not fixed and a Starfury can be equipped with missiles. In addition, the (two-seat) Thunderbolds are considered more powerful than the Aurora Starfurys, even in space.
It was a beast of a design as well. Originally designed to compete with Minbari Nial class fighters, it has over twice the firepower of the Aurora class.
You implied some of the answer for why the Gunstar doesn't maneuver as much: It's primary weapons are turrets, so the pilot flies in such a way as to provide a stable firing platform and only maneuvers when actually needed. Fixed weapons allow for more fancy flying because they require the ship to roll and turn to bring them to bear. As an aside, Star Citizen actually provides a nice answer to fixed weapon convergence by having them have smart convergence and/or auto gimbal, depending on loadout, where the guns use your targeting data to adjust convergence distance or even aim within a cone for you so you're not fixed to a single range.
Yup, if your guns are in turrets anyway, then the convergence angle is a matter of where you aim the turret. This allows any ship like the Gunstar, such as those Star Citizen ships, to bring all its weapons to bear regardless of distance-to-target, unlike fixed-angle ships. The proton bolts (the missiles we see on-screen) are capable of homing in on targets, so them not being in turrets actually makes sense, as the reload sequence would have to rotate the turret to the reloading position to get a new missile into the launch tube. Having them as fixed-position weapons makes little difference to their utility and simplifies the reloading mechanism, allowing for more missiles to be carried in the same hull-volume. The particle beams seem to be heavy-damage beams, designed more like traditional fighter weapons, with convergence and minimal firing angle changes. As (presumably) charged particle streams, they -could- be deflected slightly after being emitted like how the Cathode Ray Tube screens used magnetic fields to change the angle of an electron beam to excite the pixels on the screen itself, so the Particle Beams could probably have limited flexibility, but not full-turret flexibility like the laser cannons, which just need power to be supplied to them. All in all, a very nice setup for an all-around fighter system. Full-turreted weapons for rapid-fire in any angle, limited-flexibility heavy guns for punching holes in larger, tougher targets that are presumably much less maneuverable than the gunstar, and missile weapons for long-range damage dealing at any angle. The fact that the gunstar was probably some of the inspiration for the Starfury helps, as it allows the ship to maneuver even for off-angle shots away from its line of travel with the big guns, so it isn't locked into a maneuvering line and can use Newtonian flight to fight in any direction.
The Starfury is like a P-51D Mustang, whereas the Gunstar is more like a B-25 Mitchell. They can do the same things, perform the same roles, but they are still an apples to oranges in comparison. The Gunstar is a heavy fighter or light bomber, if not an outright gunship. The multiple multi-angle turrets are kind of a dead giveaway, and the Death Blossom is akin to the B25's that had several forward facing cannons or 50 cals, it just didn't spin like that intentionally. The Starfury is not so much a bomber, but because it is highly maneuverable, fast, and small, which makes it the better strike craft. Their power comes from swarm tactics because one-on-one they are somewhat fragile. Gunstars are solitary hunters... because there was only one of them left. So comparing the two and saying one is superior is kind of pointless.
I would compare Star Furies and Gunstar One to a P-51 versus a P-38. Even that comparison is lacking. There is one huge ability other than Death Blossom (I think of Mayim Bialik dressed in all black carrying a shotgun) over the Star Fury. Self contained FTL drive. With Death Blossom one Gunstar can take on a few squadrons of Star Furies.
@@davidjames1068 Eh, I was initially thinking P-38, but that wasn't heavy enough in my mind to compare to the Gunstar. I thought B-25 because it seemed a bit more accurate. Now I'm thinking P-61 Black Widow, which seems even more accurate.
@@longshot7601 See, Initially, I was thinking P-38, but it didn't seem heavy enough to compare to the Gunstar. But then I thought of the P-61 Black Widow, which was a heavy fighter with turrets, and that seems more accurate, although I still lean towards the B-25 because with turrets, waist guns, rear and forward turrets it had more of a 360 degree gun arc. The B-17 and the Fortresses are a little too heavy to be analogous to the Gunstar, but the ball turret on the B17 is very much like the turret seat in the Gunstar.
@@SilverbladeDagger Actually the P-61 is a GREAT analogy. Heavy fighter that can fight in a different realm than the P-51. Also if the P-51 got too confident in chasing a P-61 he might feel the Widow's sting of 4-.50 cal MGs in the turret.
"The Last Starfighter" is still to this day, one of the greatest sci-fi films ever, as well as one of the best adventure stories ever told. The musical score (theme song), as well as the acting quality, were both superb! It was original in its day, and was developed around the same time as "Star Wars", so was NOT copied or inspired by "Star Wars". The only reason why "Star Wars" came out before "The Last Starfighter", is due to the fact that George Lucas had already made a name for himself in the movie industry, so got the green-light ahead of time, while "The Last Starfighter" was rejected many times, until studios saw the success of Lucas' film, and finally greenlit "The Last Starfighter". Also because (for its time) it used cutting-edge CGI, it was a bigger risk to be made in its day.
@@TazyBaby Oh, that’s awesome! I don’t remember any toys for it coming out when it was released, but I was a major Star Wars collector and so maybe just missed them. Was it an official LEGO kit, or did you just make your own?
Gunstars were always my favorite. It gave a feeling that it was like a sci-fi version of an Apache helicopter, and you can't deny the power of Death Blossom. Having 360 degree coverage over all three axis will always make it superior. Thanks for the video!
The gimbal makes the craft heavier and thus slower to accelerate. Considering how easy it is to point the nose in space both in reality and in the movie it seems like a bit of a waste of time.
The Hammerhead fighters from Space: Above and Beyond is another, more realistic design that gets overlooked. It can fight/fly in both atmosphere and vacuum, it is well armed, for its size, and it has an ejectable cockpit, in the event it is needed. I love the Gunstar. It is a classic design that reminds me of the pilot/gunner cockpit placement of helicopter gunships like the Cobra, Apache, and Cold War-era Soviet attack helos like the Mi-24 and Ka-50. Each crew member has a job to do, and they are not encumbered with other tasks, including their instrumentation.
Gun Ship vs Light fighter... Apples and oranges mate! The gunstar is freaking awesome!!! loved it from the first sight. At the movie theatre summer 1984.
Victory or Death is word for word from Travis' letter at the Alamo. That being said Gunstar is the Cadillac of starfighters. Elite crew, omnidirectional weapons, and can take a beating. The entire armada was stalling its invasion because they were terrified of 6 guys. They outnumbered Star League probably hundreds to 1 and were shaking in their boots.
@@AGTheOSHAViolationsCounter that's because the love interest was pining for a man who had a really strange Secret. And the only person to play that role in the eighties was Catherine Mary Stewart. Just like she did in Weekend at Bernie's
That little 80's gem was really ahead of its time in so many ways... As for separating the roles of gunner and pilot, look no further then real life gunships or some fighter planes. The key term here is crew coordination. A good pilot - weapon system officer team can do so much more then a single guy or girl in the cockpit. And 4 eyes if well pointed can always look better then 2.
6:28 We actually do see Starfuries being recovered during Babylon 5, in the central docking bay right on the station's axis where they don't have to deal with centrifugal "gravity". In at least one episode there was a shot of two Starfuries latched into a pair of docking arms on a special elevator. They're the same kind of arms that the Starfuries launch from, and we see the elevator with them descending into the station, presumably carrying them all the way back to the Starfury bays on the perimeter of the station while staying on the same launch arms the whole way.
Yep. you're right. The Starfuries fly into the central bay area, fire their maneuvering thrusters to match the internal rotation of the station's bay walls and platforms. The Starfury recovering platform then raises to allow the two fighters to latch onto the rails. Once secured, the platform descends to the "Cobra" launch bays. There, the fighters and their launch rails are ferried by a conveyor system to their launch points. It is heavily implied that most standard maintenance on the Starfuries are conducted there. Although there are sources that claim there are large adjacent maintenance bays for heavy work on the fighters. I read somewhere that the launch bays are called "Cobra bays" because the station arms they are housed in actually look like the backside of a cobra's hood when it is extended.
@@Vulpine407 It's a nice story, but there are a couple problems. 1. Omega Class Destroyers have Cobra Launch Bays as well. 2. The Cobra Bays on Babylon 5 are on the rotating cylinder: the Pylons are on the stationary superstructure of the O'Neill Cylinder. Launch Speeds are achieved by flinging the Starfuries out into space via centrifugal force (the inconsistency being that the Omega launches from the recovery bay due to a production error, even though Straczynski's original design called for them to launch from the rotating Hab Section and recover through the front bay and central superstructure...just like Babylon 5.) If I remember correctly, JMS once said in an interview that the "Cobra" was a nod to Battlestar Galactica, as a Cobra is a type of Viper.
@@digitalis2977 Didn't know about that interview. Makes sense though. And, yeah, using the station's spin to "fling" the Starfuries out of the launch station is one of the nicer "real-physics" touches of that series. I especially liked how they showed the fighter's engines firing up AFTER they were flung clear of the station.
@@Ellerion2 My guess (and the easiest solution) would be some form of arresting cradle for forward momentum in the main hangar to "catch" returning ships...after which the launch arm would insert into the fighter and carry it back to its berth in the Cobra Bay. Upon arrival, the pilot would disembark, and the maintenance crews would take over.
I’m so glad someone is talking about this movie! My dad saw this in theaters as a college student, and it was a big part of my childhood. I had to introduce it to my friend who loves sci-fi but had never heard of it.
My take on death blossom with the rotation is that it counters 3 issues that the Gunstar has. 1) There will be blind spots. No matter where you mount weapons, there will be blind spots. Some may be full, some may be limited in terms of weapons that can target. Rotation will move these around a lot more, exposing more weapons. 2) Tracking. Typically the most sensitive tracking sensors are in the gun pod or nose. By rotating, it sweeps an area with detailed targeting, rather than relying on less capable systems. 3) Gun yaw rate. The turreted weapons have a maximum speed of rotation to target multiple entries. We see Alex struggle with this initially. By rotating the fighter, you can artificially increate the actual gun yaw rate by up the the yaw rate of the craft. This means faster switching between targets. I argue it is not a gunboat for several reasons: 1) It does not have permanent crew quarters 2) It is not designed for prolonged deployments (days+) A gunboat is heavily armed, typically slow, and designed to stay on station for a longer time. It needs enough crew for a 24 hour rotation. It is definitely a heavy fighter. The starfury is more like a light fighter. You can pack more starfuries, with less endurance, less range. So your Gunstar can intercept, defend, and attack, but it is expensive to swarm, is overkill for many situations, and likely it has a slower acceleration curve than the starfury. With much less mass, the starfury can change direction and velocity easier than a gunstar. It might not be able to shoot at a target that easily, but it can keep on them.
5:20 - A great real-world example of the separated duties, complete with separately-aimable weapons is the Huey AH-1 Cobra and AH-64 Apache. (And the cancelled Comanche.) In those, the gunner sits in front, has a helmet-mount optical display (not quite as cool/comprehensive as the F-35's, but similar in idea,) and the gun is mounted under the chin of the helicopter, and rotates to follow the gunner's line of sight, separate from the aircraft's movement. (And as a helicopter, it can hover, slew sideways, and do other maneuvers more like a spacecraft following Newtonian physics than a fixed-wing aircraft.)
The pilot is also able to select a weapon that the gunner isn't currently using, often the pilot can use the gun to lay suppression fire while the gunner is guiding a missile onto target.
Oh boy have I got a helicopter for you, look up the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. I'm pretty sure they borrowed the rotating gunner's seat on the Gunstar from the AH-56.
I am genuinely surprised that the video failed to make that connection between the Gunstar's seating/duty arrangement and IRL attack helicopters that inspired it.
I like " The last Starfighter" and I love B5 and Galactica but what about the Hammerhead from Space Above and beyond? It obeys Newtonian physics, has an RCS system, a turret mounted main gun, the cockpit turns into an escape pod and it is able to fly in an atmosphere. Speaking of the cockpit, detaching it is the main way crew gets in and out.
Don't Hammerhead have two gun turrets? One under the chin and another one at the rear top between the engines? And Hammerhead is still one of my favourites scifi fighters. _"Hey Ho, let's go." - 1LT Cooper Hawkes, USMC_
Honestly, a pairing of Starfuries and Gunstars would make for a hell of a combination. The Starfuries would be lighter and more maneuverable, but the Gunstars would bring more firepower and omnidirectional targeting. It's more of a fighter and gunship combination really, but it would be awesome to see.
It seems like the Starfuries would rapidly run out of reaction mass if they tried to be very maneuverable for very long just because there's so little space for fuel and every change of velocity in space requires mass to be ejected. The Gunstar's big fat "wings" provide ample storage for propellant, so paradoxically the larger, heavier craft should also be more maneuverable. The Starfury design seems to work best as a high-speed interceptor. With limited mass, it can accelerate more in a short period of time and make contact sooner. But I'd expect disposable boosters to let it save the limited fuel for engagement and a return home. Actually, what would REALLY make a lot of sense on the Starfury is drop tanks. It could carry plenty of reaction mass, and shed the tanks as they emptied or once the pilot engaged an enemy and needed maximum short-term maneuverability more than extended operational time. Best of both worlds.
@@CptJistuce : I think the technical manual said that Starfuries can actually use drop tanks. As for a mixed force, "interceptor" is very much the sort of job a Starfury would do, using it's presumably higher short-term maneuverability to clear lots of incoming enemy fighters (especially early on), leaving the Gunstars to hit both the leftovers and the more durable targets.
There is lots of love here for the Gunstar. I still call powerful little spaceships in other media “gunstars”. I consider it a sign of affection to compare it to the famous ship.
Gunstars have lots of cool features. Gunstar One has deflector plating, basically ablative anti laser armor good for several direct hits. Gunstars have five laser turrets which can be used to attack OR can be used as point defense weaponry. Gunstars have four whole magazines of missiles. And I've already mentioned the four Particle Beam Cannons. Gunstars are covered on all vectors by at least two turrets if not three or more. Three in the front and two in the rear provide excellent placement for fire control. This is where it gets it's name Gunstar as it can fight in every direction. Which is why two seats are required. It's too much to demand a pilot fly and fight and defend themselves all at the same time with so many weapons while also managing tactics and operations.
I love the idea of a Gunstar: full 360° coverage, anti-fighter and anti-ship weaponry, and separate pilot and gunnery seats. Also the fact it's built like a tank with special emphasis placed on it's defenses, which is something you would want on a gunship designed to go toe to toe with enemy armadas.
Love The Last Starfighter. After all these years. The armor on the Gunstar is reflective, allowing it to withstand multiple hits from ray/energy weapons. The DB autotargets all enemies within its engagement radius (the green sphere on the display) and attacks them all at once with that crazy spinning technique.
I don't think having the gunner and pilot being separate people adds much complexity to their tasks. In my experience, in multiplayer fighter games, having to both fly the fighter and aim the guns often felt more complex than what I experienced as just a gunner in "on-rails shooters". Also, if you are both the pilot and gunner in a fighter, it's easy to get "tunnel vision" as you are trying to focus in and aim your guns on an enemy craft. In an "on-rails shooter", you gain a wider attention span and are able to remain more aware of your surroundings and be on the lookout for enemies trying to sneak up on you.
Sounds like what you ideally want is a gunner, a pilot, and a commander. The last one's job IS situational awareness so that the other two can be allowed to tunnel vision on their jobs. In which case your space fighter is more like a space tank in terms of how it operates.
Irl the pilot flies the craft and vontrols the guns/missiles while the wso/rio monitors communications, radar and aircraft systems as well as any guided weapons.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 I'm not sure fighter combat needs that third crew member quite the same way tanks do. Visibility in a tank is much more limited, and though the gunners and pilots/drivers of both can be compared, the way they actually go about those jobs is diffent.
@@justinthompson6364 Yeah, I think in a fighter you just need good communication between the pilot and gunner. The gunner can handle any other communications during lulls in the shooting. If they are directly in combat, then they don't need to be talking with command anyway.
This is spot on, the life support requirements, the amount of space required for whatever avionics and electronic warfare systems the craft carries, the combat loadout and the power plant would all force a larger design. I always find sci-fi gets it wrong realistically with small snub fighters.....all that being said, my favourite is still the X-Wing!
You do realize that the Starfury is 30 feet long and 30 feet tall, with a wingspan of 60 feet...right? By fighter standards, it's absolutely massive compared to anything in the air today...with only the F-14 ever flying with a larger wingspan (64 feet) in the "fighter" category. By comparison to other sci-fi fighters (I'm looking at you Colonial Viper, you SmartCar of Starfighters) the thing is a Gigantic Brick of Doom.
The Gunstar is the absolute LAST spacecraft I'd want to be in when the "Death Blossom" button is pushed. The advantage the Starfury has over the Gunstar is that the pilot is very near the craft's center of gravity, so that he/she is minimally affected in rotational maneuvers like that. The Gunstar on the other hand, sticks the crew out at the end of a fairly long lever arm far from the ship's center of gravity. This means, that when the Death Blossom button is pushed, and the ship starts rotating madly about that center of gravity, the flight crew are being thrown around in their seats like somebody put them on a mechanical bull cranked to "11". At the very least they come out of Death Blossom extremely disoriented. More likely, the high gees they'd experience during the maneuver would whip their heads around wildly between the shoulder straps until their necks snapped.
Pretty sure the Gunstar had inertial dampeners, because we never see the crew reacting to positive or negative gees. There is the problem of vertigo, however, so the best course when using Death Blossom is to hit the button, screw your eyes shut, and hope you survive till the ride is over.
Actually, given the gunners seat is shown to be able to rotate freely with 360° in the X and Y axis, they could basically be entirely stationary as the ship goes haywire around them. The pilot/engineer is further back, closer to the center of gravity so it likely was less an issue.
It really depends on what you are going to use the fighter for. The Gunstar is a tank and a monster best used for assault or, in the case of the movie, last line defense. Meanwhile, the Starfury and Viper are more multi-role combat fighters. I imagine the Gunstar being much more expensive to build, maintain, and man. As a result, you would use Gunstars to break defenses, screen for fighters and smaller craft, even missile defense, while the "lesser" fighters, like StarFury and Viper, would be for overall Space Tactical Combat. It is hard to say exact who would be Space Superiority but Gunstar would certainly establish Space Dominance. Overall, Gunstars TAKE the space. Starfuries and Vipers KEEP the space.
Absolutely agree with you, it absolutely depends on what the mission is. I see the StarFury and Viper as Interceptor-class ships (P51 Mustang, Supermarine Spitfire, F-16 Falcon/Viper, etc) while the Gunstar is an Attack-class ship (F15E Eagle, A-10 Warthog, and the P47 Thunderbolt ) just to name a few examples. That isn't to say they can't do the other ship's job as well, just that they excel in a specific application.
Vipers and Starfuries for multirole space combat missions while the Gunstar is for punching through enemy defenses, screening for smaller warships and even Anti-Air missions.
This is the parallel I was hoping to read. Apache, and before it, the Cobra for US attack helicopters used the same arrangement of a two-seat crew. Attack helicopters of some other nations do the two-seat game, but I don't know enough about those to talk about them in this discussion. Sure, the Apache doesn't have guns all over it to provide a sphere of gun coverage, but IIRC, the gunner's sight does let the front-seat fire at targets not visible through the body of the aircraft. Plus missiles and/or rockets, depending on the loadout. - I wonder if the Gunstars were (before most of them were destroyed) able to share targeting data from each other and from other sensor assets like recon helicopters, AWACS, and ground designators the way updated Apaches can?
@@MonkeyJedi99 the having the guns move to follow the gunner takes less off the gunner ugh. wrote that fast loses meaning. having the guns automatically follow the movements of the gunner means the gunner doesn't have to move the guns and gunsights, thereby being able to track targets more effectively since he isn't working to move the guns nor have to keep in mind where the guns are. after all the gunner isn't going to shoot where he isn't looking
Funnily enough, you're totally correct. Ron Cobb, the designer for it (and just simply outright a legend in his own right) deliberately modeled it after the Apache. Pre-production art for the Gunstar, some of which looks VASTLY different, actually end up looking even more like an Apache than the final version which made it to film.
@@MonkeyJedi99 they even had the reticle disappear from sight and hence not have the gunner able to fire if the turrets were aiming at part of the ship
The Gunstar is an amazing design and I'm thrilled to see this channel give it the love it deserves. The Last Starfighter was one of my favorite movies as a small child (though we were missing like the first 30 minutes of the movie on our pirate VHS tape).
I think of the Starfury as more of a utilitarian vehicle, especially with the grapple. Highly maneuverable, armed, versatile. A larger version of a Starfury similar to the Gunstar but maybe a little smaller would be a good backup to take on any serious threats.
One of my personal favorites are the human fighters in Enders game. We don’t really know how big they are but I think their design is beautiful, in a brutal minimalist kind of way.
a gunstar would be interesting in a setting with physic crew that can "sync" with each other or either pilot or gunner is an AI. I think comparing both would be to compare a fighter with a gunship. The starfury seems better for mobility, hit and run but the gunship would be a main assault force knocking on the front. SO they could complement each other
When you put it like that it makes sense. Standard fighter and the Gunstar would very much complament each other in a fighter sweep. Though the Gunstar would be more heavy hitting. The death blossom in a pinch would be devastating if there was many of these ships doing this at once to take down targets. Now that would be something to see. This would be very unbeatable.
So the Gunstar is the main attack force and the Starfury is the escort? Huh, it's actually good, since the former is heavily armer while the latter is nimble and supermaneuverable.
@@Hardbass2021 exactly. Much like that but more devastating when the whole force would comprised of just these ships. Gunstars would advance in formation when a fleet would be made out and use the death blossom to great effects. There wouldn't be a counter to this for some time. The fighter excorts would drop back to not get hit from the death blossom. Straight forward and effective. Once the death blossom is used the fighters come roaring in to cover gunstars and provide cover till force is up again. Once up and running again the force returns to base. The next wave of gunstars and fighters would be inbound. Any force would be obliterated. This trick is nasty to say the least. Though it's not without it's problems this can be adjusted in combat. Predictable and reliable. To use a phrase from Babylon 5 They were magnificent in the face of death itself. If I had half there courage as they did. Battle of the line would be very different.
A whole squadron of gunstars would be unstoppable. Maybe there could be a game, like space battle simulator and but the different ships against each other.
That seemed to be the implication in the movie. A single wing of Gunstars was enough to scare the entire Kodan Armada. Hence the Pearl Harbor attack on their main facility in the movie. And how panicked they seemed when they discovered a single Gunstar survived, it seems they had a right to be.
I mean, if you watch the movie, the starfleet equivalent navy has like... a dozen Gunstars at their disposal, whereas ONE is capable of ending the entire threat posed by the antagonist on its own, so yeah... you're not wrong.
Agreed. Star Furies as escorts/interceptors harassing enemy formations while the Gunstars come in to do the actual damage to enemy formations and larger ships.
If we know anything, the military doesn't solely rely on one single jet aircraft type when they can have a variety to take on the myriad of roles. I would take both too. :)
The thing is though that the Starfury is far less maneuverable in active space combat than the Gunstar. Yes the Gunstar can rotate while travelling at a specific velocity, however it is incapable of changing velocities whilst attacking a target inless it is firing in a fixed forward position. The Statfury is slightly more agile due to its smaller turning circle, however from a defensive perspective, it has to choose between doding and shooting, whereas the Gunstar can do both.
Nah, I love the Gunstar. The mechanical designer came up with something pretty awesome, the premise is great, and the Gunstars were totally made to not need a mother carrier as they were long-range, heavy fighters. I really hope we do get that forever on-again, off-again sequel to see what exactly a revamped version might look like.
You are right. You are so completely, wonderfully, perfectly right - not just in your analysis and conclusion, but in bringing the magnificent Gunstar into the conversation in the first place!
Space fighters in themselves aren't practical if physics were like the real world. Gunships like the Roccinante is really as small as you want to go in a realistic space war. This is simply because battles in space won't be fought within fighting range. And dogfighting in space (6 degrees of freedom without obstacles) is useless as it'll lead to certain death for both parties.
The best Space fighters in Scifi are from Macross, VF series fighters, particularly late models like the VF-25 messiah fully dressed in its Armored Fastpack, agile, deadly, moving and firing are independent, deadly against space fighters and in an anti-capital ship role, with Space fold capabilities. And its transforms and is super cool...
Personally I much preferred VFs from the late 2020's - 2040's era (Macross M3 - Macross 7), where most hero characters still using the standard issued VFs. My personal favourite would be VF-11 Thunderbolt II, especially the B version because it got bayonet-mounted gunpod. Most of the latest VFs have built-in one shot anti-ship capability energy weapon. Too OP for my taste & feel too Gundam-ish to me. At least the old VFs needed nuclear missiles to take out enemy's ships.
all that transformation tech would make it handle like a whale, you either have a heavy fighter hauling a lot of kit that's going to slow it down in a fighter versus fighter battle or you have a walking ground vehicle hauling a load of starfighter parts around, in either case a dedicated fighter or ground vehicles going to win
I feel like a slightly different division of duties might improve the gun star. Perhaps leaving the specifics of aiming to an onboard computer, with the second pilot acting as a sensors officer, focusing on identifying sensor contacts and directing which weapon to engage which contact. I'd also say the swiveling gunner seat is cool but strikes me as a particularly complex and potentially fragile component that could leave the gunner trapped in their seat if the worst happens. Very cool though. Idk if it's better than the starfury, but it is certainly very cool
I have to agree with you. As a middle aged man (now) I was enthralled with the Gunstar (then)! I was fortunate enough to have seen “The Last Starfighter” on the big screen. The fact that it was among the first to use near total CGI for the special effects and to expand set pieces, is all the more incredible. Someone should remake the movie, using today’s advanced CGI abilities. Then we could see more of the moves as described by the voiceover. Is anyone in the film industry listening? You could build a completely new franchise (if done well)!
I would also add that the Hammerheads in Space: Above and Beyond also made a point of demonstrating a ship in linear flight, flipping itself to fire in a different direction to it's direction of travel. Something that was nice to see acknowledged about physics. Another A+ concept was they didn't bring a whole starship into a huge docking bay where you would have to pump out a lot of atmosphere before the pilot could exit (if you didn't have a force field you could fly through). The pilots pod was extracted and brought in through a much smaller airlock. Nice touch.
I'm going to have to go with the Starfury here. While the Gunstar is definitely a "better" Hero Ship, and is clearly more capable in combat, it is also far too complicated for "normal" military use. The Starfury is just more rugged and easier to field. I have to wonder if the Star League wouldn't have gotten a lot more out of installing an automated targeting system instead of seeding the universe with video games. "Normal" is a pretty weird word to use here, though. On one side, we've got "Don't stand too close to the edge of the ship, or the rotational forces will kill you.", and on the other side we have "Spin to fire the lasers that vaporize the enemy!". I guess if you've got those good old Space Lasers, and the enemy doesn't like to spread out, you might as well send out your super ship. Personally, though, I prefer carrier operations for those big dramatic moments.
Gunstars biggest problem is the rotation gunner's chair. Its a extraneous thing that actually is totally bad design for any species whos inner ear is anything like ours. I say this cause if you take a gyroscope and try and move it you get resistance and since the pilot is moving the ship and your moving inside the ship even with the best dampeners your still going to pull way more than 3 g's for duration of operation. Now having a hut with proximity sensors and such to warn and maybe a foot pedal to switch between viewing points or easy selectable hud points that prioritize enemy craft by range of their weapons and proximity to the ship.
@@eonaon6914 The trick with the chair is that it allows the pilot to remain pointing at their target regardless of which way the ship is moving, and when they pull the trigger, whichever turret is able to fire at the target does so. Can also potentially minimize felts Gs by change where those Gs are felt. I guess technically with a full display screen rather than a HUD, the ideal would be have the seat move in such a way tht the pilot always experiences the gs in a fixed point, IE, at the back, while the display allows him to stay on their target, since their not specifically aiming down a specific turret but aiming at a target and the turrets all move to point at it if they can independent of what the ship is doing.
I could see both designs being used in the same fiction, if the tech was equalized. The Starfury as the lighter interceptor, and the Gunstar as the heavier assault ships.
@@templarw20 very good point. That makes me think of even smaller drone point defense "star flurries" or "Star-WIS." Think,, just a laser, thermal radiator, and maneuvering thruster "X", and power for spreading ship defenses out.
@@thumb-ugly7518 Maybe. It really does depend on the technology of the setting. Like how Trek doesn't really have fighters (the smallest is more an AC-130 than anything with the F prefix), because there's a lower limit to how certain tech scales for efficiency. More like capital ships would have unmanned Gunstar-sized drones that are tethered to the mother ship (tractor-beam types that also supply power, like the EW drones in Honor Harrington).
Really cool video I love the last start fighter. Also I was really nostalgia heavy when the video opened with battle zone music. Battle zone 2 was a hell of a game.
Totally agree on the Gunstar being the most capable and believable sci-fi fighter craft. It would be cool some day to see what a whole squadron of them would be capable of, and with rumours of a sequel movie in the works who knows what might come to be!
I think all three ships play a role; Viper: Excellent multi-environment starfighter, for both space and atmosphere. Starfury: Dedicated starfighter, space only. Gunstar: Excellent space gunship, poor environmental gunship. The Gunstar could easily take out a Starfury or a Viper in a traditional 1v1 fight, much like how the Multi-Gun Corvette in Homeworld absolutely dominates fighter squadrons. However, much like the Multi-Gun Corvette in Homeworld, it is far less agile, and you can either throw a bunch of missiles (or big guns from a fighter-bomber) at it, or you can have a larger ship take it out with its guns that would struggle to hit the Viper or Starfury.
There just should be multiple specialized spaceships in fleet. Sadly, models and CG assets cost frakton of money, that's why we don't see a lot of diversity of spacecraft. The Expanse does better than most (like in a lot things), but still failed to show much of UNN
Yes! Multigun Corvettes! And yeah, roles. But as mentioned, CG or model assets are expensive, and outside of some purpose-designed video games (see: Wing Commander, the X-Wing series, and similar), you don't see much specialization. Hence the common point that the Gunstar and Starfury are close enough to almost be two designs in the same fleet.
@@templarw20 Glad you are a similar fan. 😁 Homeworld and Eve Online are games with great and realistic fleet compositions in relation to what you can build.
Being biased in that I never watched Babylon 5 and having grown up in the 80's, I really liked 'The Last Starfighter' and it's hero ship: Gunstar! As a kid I even made one out of Legos decades ago. Still one of my favorite spaceship designs. 😊
The gunstar reminds me of the boulton paul defiant (a ww2 fighter that had a similar setup) which was let down by smaller arcs of fire. It also strikes me that the gunstar isnt really a fighter, filling more the role of a light screeening corvette or gunship. Where it doesnt as much dogfight as it flies around and smacks people with turret fire.
It's the stories, of course. That said, you have to keep intended mission profile in mind. Vipers are clearly designed to function in close proximity to a planet or battlestar. They're like TIE fighters in that regard. They also have a VERY energy-dense fuel at their disposal so they may have more room for bullets. Star furies are designed for medium-length trips. I've never seen more than an episode or two of B5, but that and its sruviveability suggests it's armored more than one might think. Gunstars are designed for long- range action. So they have to bring as much with them as possible and that makes it bulky. X-wings are like that too but have an even higher energy-dense fuel at their disposal and still need to be able to use a carrier even if they can also use planet-side facilities so they don't have to be QUITE that bulky. I did design a space fighter and it was small as it was designed for use in conjunction with a carrier but it borrowed from the gunstar and star furies for much of how it was put together. But it was also a frame that you could attach things to. I was young and naive. Now I'm just naive. I don't know enough about fighter combat to know about the difference between one or two people. It's a trade-off. But I would think the longer-range of the mission, the more complicated the vehicle the more you might need a number 2. On the other hand, the riderhips in the C.J. Cherryh novels have a grew of 4, a pilot, a gunner, a sensor tech and an engine tech. And that's interesting in this context. Anyway, good video as always.
even if you know about fighter combat, one then has to take into account space physics as compared to atmospheric physics... and while some aspects transfer over not all do... in fact that is the one major arguement with 90% of any space combat shown today, they tell you its 3 dimensional but then act like there is only 2 dimensions... even some traditional fighter based movies forget this aspect... but that is an arguement for a later time....
@@mikewhitaker2880 My point is how mission profile effects size and maybe crew compliment. I'm taking it as read that that's all taken care of in one way or another.
Most of the time in B5, we see Starfuries operating in conjunction with a larger craft or station. Acting as a defensive screen for B5 against other fighter craft, or escorting another ship. You deploy something liek a Starfurie as your defensive screening craft and maybe short duration patrols, you send out something like the Gunstar to go long range and assault the target.
The Starfury was built as a proper fighter craft whilst the Gunstar was essentially a destroyer. The Starfury makes sense as a fighter craft. The Gunstar is a bad fighter craft, but a great two-person destroyer.
I've praised the Gunstar for years now. The design is still far ahead of its time. I think it's the best gunship design in SciFi bar none. I too am bummed out we never got to see the particle beams. We don't even know where they were on the ship, maybe fixed forward on the main hull? Great to see you guys give it some more love though. Cheers
I think the Gunstar would destroy the StarFury mostly because: 1. It can take hits and even a swarm of them would be destroyed by the blossom attack. 2. It can attack any angle, so while the SF would normally be safe by flying out of the direct sight, the Gunstar would be like... eh, nice try! Boom!
Off bore firing is sort of the holy grail of air combat. If you come up with a way to shoot a target that is orthogonal or even behind you reliably the merge would be a whole lot more interesting.
First off, great vid, very enjoyable, and a great topic to bounce around in. The caveat to that being, all things fictional have plot armour and exist in different universes so direct comparisons down to power levels and what shields would stop what energy weapons are pure conjecture. That said, there's also the idea of the single-seat Starfury vs. the twin seat gunstar. And also the type of fighter itself; to me, the Starfury seems like a pure attrition unit that is (relatively) quick to build and cheap to replace, where as the Gunstar is a very complex ship designed with high survivability in mind. In a Cold War jet analogy, think of the Starfury as the American Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter, and the Gunstar as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, complete with RIO/WSO as a second crewmember. Except the gunstar is a turret fighter. If you consider the UK Tornado and US F/A-18 to be 'standard' fighters, The F-5 is a "light" fighter": very simple, functional, and fairly capable at low-cost. The F-14 is a "heavy" fighter: massively complex with much higher maintenance and crew training needs. Similarly, the Starfury and Gunstar are two wildly different fighter types bracketting the standard fighter type.
That's a tough one, you bring up some very good arguments for and against both ships, which is always appreciated! Personally I'd still take the Starfury or even Thunderbolt, because I love their sleek and sci-fi design. The Gunstar looks great with the bulk, turret and rotating gunner seat, but you can probably get a handful or more Starfuries for the cost of one Gunstar. BOth are great, but Starfury gets the slight ahead of me because I just love B5.
I love them both. Which one I go with (likely both to be honest) would depend on what I want the craft to do and where I'm using it. For example, escorting a freighter. I'd go with a squad of Starfuries by themselves, or paired with a pair of Gunstars depending on how dangerous the particular transport operation is expected to be. Playing basic space station defense, Starfuries all around. A Carrier, I would outfit with both along with a few other types of auxiliary craft and fighters.
Oh man, the Gunstar. Wow, been quite a while since I heard that name spoken! Epic legendary spaceship. What a great video, thanks. :) Which is better though? It's a "cake or pie" kind of choice - they're both great on their own merits, and special in their own different ways. None is really superior than the other I'd say. The Gunstar does have a lot of mass located outboards in those two massive side pods holding the engines though - much more than the spindly Starfury. And mass, as we all know, means inertia - especially when that mass is located on a big lever-type structure as is the case here. So the Gunstar would maneuver more slowly than the Starfury, and not just because it is an overall much more massive craft. Of course, it may not always need the agility the Starfury has, because it has those rotary gun turrets... Back in the real world outside TV shows and movies, maneuverability is probably overrated anyhow. Anything being shot at you in space in a theoretical dogfight situation would move so damn fast that it would essentially hit you no matter what (quite possibly tens of kilometers per second speed, or near-instant, like with maser/laser beams), OR, if your craft was capable of dodging incoming threats you'd basically be liquefied by the G-forces necessary to do so. :P But reality is boring, yeah?
Mass can be a good thing. The Gunstar has HUGE cavities it can fill with propellant for maneuvering. When any change in speed, direction, or orientation requires you to expell mass, big tanks rapidly become a powerful advantage.
I would argue that one big flaw of the Gunstar is that it's hauling around a lot of mass for a weapon system that should theoretically never be used, since it completely drains the ship, and is only really helpful if completely surrounded.
The weapon was an experimental prototype. But it proved highly effective when deployed. It might appear suboptimal because it imposes tactical or technical limitations on how it can be used ... but that didn't stop it from being used when those conditions presented themselves in the movie, it's never really stopped anyone who's intent on finding a way to use whatever weapons they can build to kill their enemies.
Gunstar One is apparently the only Gunstar remaining. Presumable this prototype Gunstar wouldn’t have been used in an actual battle if all the other mass-produced (non-prototype) Gunstars weren’t destroyed during the meteor-gun attack and base sabotage. It’s not really a flaw then (as it was likely never intended to be used in battle - instead for testing and experimentation). Grig and Alex are just incredibly desperate and have no other options but to use this one and only remaining Gunstar.
hands down, the greatest fighter in sci-fi... if the hanger wasn't blown up, we would see a small fleet of these firing in every direction without the need for death blossom... although death blossom kicks arse - could you imagine a full wing of the prototype?
I think they're both tailored to different roles: Starfuries could serve as a cheaper and more numerous fighter to screen for fewer numbers of larger Gunstars, which could use their heavy armor and weapon loads to cut apart hostile squadrons. I do love the idea of a gunstar though, heavier multi-seat fighters are an underutilized sci-fi concept. Side note, love the Ace Combat music in this video lol.
Could the Gun Star be a Gunship as opposed to a Starfighter? The Gunstar seems to be built as a heavy attack craft with area or asset denial/defense as its primary role. Sure, I could see it jumping into the middle of an enemy formation death blossoming and then getting out, but I don’t see it functioning optimally as a space superiority fighter. But you work with what you have. In the game Tie Fighter the Starwars Cygnus XG-1 Starwing Assault Gunboat was a heavy attack craft, it could dog fight but the Tie Interceptor/fighter/advanced were better in the starfighter/dogfight role. The Starfury of B5 seem to be just starfighters. Well even in the games X-wing and Tie Fighter the player was forced from time to time to use B-wings, Missile boats, Y-wings and Tie Bombers outside their primary roles. Again you work with what you have. Thoughts?
The title Starfighter in the film refers to the pilot not the craft, so the craft isn't necessarily a fighter as we think of one. Of course there's not much of a hint concerning the restoration of the fleet and a vessel is given a designation based on its role within a fleet of vehicles so its impossible to say if the gunstar is a fighter by local definition or not.
Yep, my favorite too. Going by the arcade game, The semi-fixed particle cannons are the main weapons. They seem to be able to hole more than one target. Each of the missiles are very powerful(think Photon(anti-matter?), not Spacial(nuke?)).
To be honest it would likely come down to mission profiles, doctrine and a variety of secondary or tertiary considerations. Personally I'd think the Starfury is a better option in most cases, but An elite squadron of Gunstar covered by Starfury would end up being an utter nightmare to face
I think Gunstars, being more expensive and valuable but with omni directional targeting abilities would work excellently as defensive fighters - used to escort larger vessels. Starfuries are designed to be cheap and their smaller frame would be advantageous when attacking targets larger than themselves, particularly when using their missiles
I think each shop has its place. I'm fond of the original (Lorne Greene) Battlestar Galactica (the only Galactica for me) but each ship you mention would work well in a fleet. Each doing slightly different functions. Nice video 👍
The Starfury is the practical single seater fighter, designed to be flown from a base, a short distance to a target then back - that target usually being other fighters The Gunstar is the two seater long range, heavily armed version designed to fight anything and everything .... They don't compare otherwise as they have different roles Both are fabulous and realistic
I have been a fan of Spacedock vids after exploring his videos on The Expanse... But as a fellow Ace Combat fan i am pleasantly surprised at the use of the "lighthouse" OST at the beginning from 0:15. Badass tune.
The biggest downside to the Gunstar that I see is that when 1 Gunstar is destroyed you lose personnel instead of one so it seems that the Gunstar takes twice as much training investment over a single-seater craft. On the other hand, the Gunstar is more of a Heavy Fighter with its sheer size and firepower.
I would think the two would be better partner craft than rivals. - The Gunstar can go after beefy targets due to its thicker armor yet still maintain some degree of fighter capability. - The Star Fury goes after everything else that does not have thick armor. I'd consider a Gunstar more of a big stick due to its mammoth weapons load, and thus would make the craft a deep range two-person raider craft. The smaller Star Fury would be your space superiority fighter conversely, sticking close to a fleet or asset you need protected.
If you have sufficiently large populations, human lives are expandable. Also they both train for specific tasks so they need less training per person overall. Eg the gunner doesn't also need to learn how to fly.. And flying is harder that shooting
On one hand, yes, but that is offset somewhat by having the 2 crew use completely different skill sets. Whilst it is a significant investment to train a pilot or to train a gunner, it is significantly less of an investment than training a pilot who also must line up shots on opposing fighters. So unless you are very limited on manpower it's not that big of a detriment.
@@DrTheRich If you have the automation technology advanced enough to build space vessels that can be operated by a single person, there is really no reason not to make single-seat capital ships. Still, there is always a benefit of having one mind focused on hitting the enemy and another focused on evasion... And another one actually making tactical decisions
Just imagine how great the Gunstar would have been if they could've afforded the time and processing power to fully render the movie's original CGI content.
No kidding...that deadline film release really hamstrung the digital production. They had to cut a lot of rendering corners, which explains the sub-par look of the rock textures and explosions. I'd like to see someone go back and finish the job as it had been intended.
@Spacedock. Lighthouse from Ace Combat 7 Skies Unknown as background music. Great choice. You should a video on whether or not the F-302 is a poorly designed space fighter. I for one think its missile loadout was too small for its intended role. Most earthly fighters can carry many more air-to-air missiles than it can.
I think Alex fired the particle beam at least once. There was a shot that instead of being the red beam of the laser, it was a dotted yellow kinda thing. Actually, this might have been when he was playing the video game in the beginning, right before taking out the command ship. It's been a bit since I last saw it :P
2:23 I'd like to point out that a fighter jets size also comes from the internal fuel tanks it carries. For example, the F/A-18 has a total of six internal fuel tanks (4 in the fuselage and 1 in each wing). Even today with newer more efficient engines, fighter jets consume huge quantities of fuel. With a space fighter, depending on the setting, power source, technology scale and fuel used, they can be a lot smaller.
They actually have to be significantly larger because a space ship has to carry reaction mass. An aircraft uses the air as reaction mass. Plus a star ship travels significantly faster and can't use air to turn - it has to use more remass. With a relatively advanced fusion drive a star fighter would be a fair bit bigger than something like a tomcat, and most of it would be reaction mass. It would likely carry expandable external remass pods, as well as detachable drop tanks, making it look significantly different in combat than on patrol.
Definitely the Gunstar. Just going by my experiences with Star Citizen fighters, the ability for a ship's guns to aim independently of the ship's direction makes it far deadlier than one that has to be facing its target. S'why a fully crewed Redeemer (4 independently operated turrets + pilot controlled weapons) is still currently the deadliest small craft in the game. There's no safe approach angle as at least one of its guns can be pointed at you no matter how you come at it.
nah, the deadliest ship in the game is the Argo Cargo... oh, wait, you meant to OTHER people, not the pilot. Gotcha. Yeah, Redeemer's in the top three, based on preference :-D
Assuming continued development of automation and AI, manned 'fighters' themselves; are unrealistic IRL. But putting that aside, a fighter would have to do something (a capability) that a larger ship couldn't: If a settings' large ships are too slow or lack maneuverability or something -then you could have fighters which are fast and very maneuverable. B5s SFs (and BSG Vipers) are contrasted with their large sluggish ships, never watched that movie but does the 'Gunstar' actually fit or serve a practical purpose in that universe or is it a 'mary sue'?
So AI piloted fighters would be a sort of Deal of the Century, one might say... As for the movie, the "Star League" sits behind a large energy barrier that precludes any need for combat. But a power-seeking traitor allies with an external force and allows them to penetrate the barrier so the Star League has to throw together a military on relatively short notice and the small fleet of gunstars seems to be the extent of their fighting craft.
GREAT VIDEO: BTW, the two weapons mounted away from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft that point inward is still a thing with ground attack aircraft like the A-29. The point at which they converge is called the "Harmonization" point. When aerodynamic drag is not the most essential characteristic, engineers use the more straight wing design for better stability as a gun platform. Modern jets have those integrated and nose mounted Vulcans mainly to keep the aerodynamics of the plane intact.
To me both the Starfury and Gunstar are having their heritage from the X-wing, even though the X-wing was more acting like it was an aircraft instead of a spacecraft. But in the end it's all about the storytelling.
I think it has to do more with, call it "tech levels." When you take the technological levels of the civilizations utilizing fighters into account, it becomes more akin to comparing apples and oranges. I would say that the Starfury is the best "near-tech" fighter. Babylon 5's tech is shown as being not really that far advanced from the present day. That's why the Mimbari walked all over Earthforce during the Earth/Mimbari war. It wasn't that the design of the Starfury was inferior, it was simply because the technology of the Mimbari was so much further advanced. The Gunstar, by comparison, is the result of a much higher tech level. A Starfury wouldn't fare any better than a Ko-Dan fighter against a gunstar. I'd peg the technology of the Colonial fleet as closer to Babylon 5's Earthforce than the Rylan Star League. However, it is implied throughout Battlestar Gallactica's (reboot) series that not only do the colonial ships have artificial gravity, but that they are equipped with inertial compensators to reduce G-forces during acceleration and maneuvering. The vipers are too small to have artificial gravity, but likely mount a compensator to reduce G-forces. A Starfuy is too low tech for that. Pilots have to be very careful with their maneuvering to avoid blacking out from G-stress. Oh, and as for the Viper "pulling ammo out of a Tardis", I would argue that while the feed mechanism for the guns must run through the wings, the actual ammo bay is likely in the area between the three engines. When you take into account how long that area is, it actually provides a decent amount of volume. So, the Starfury IS the best starfighter, for it's tech level and universe. The Mimbari figher is better because, super-tech. But it looks fugly. The Viper IS the best starfighter for the same reasons. The Gunstar IS the best starfigher, also for the same reasons. But comparing them against each other really doesn't make sense because of tech differences. On a strictly personal, aesthetic level, I like the Starfuy best with the Gunstar a close second.
The Gunstar is kinda of like a combination of Star Wars fighters and the omni-directional nature of phaser arrays in Star Trek. Plus, I don't think splitting the tasks would be a problem because ideally, a starfighter and a navigator would repeatedly train together. This would allow them to learn how the other thinks and they could eventually work as an almost-single entity. You see this sort of thing happen between people who work very closely together in real life (whether that be professionally or personally), where they can almost tell what the other person is thinking and how they'll react. Also, it's not like they can't speak to each other and coordinate that way as well. One thing that should exist, however, is an overlap in function if an emergency occurs that renders the starfighter or navigator unconscious. Maybe the Gunstar wouldn't fly or fight as well being controlled by one person, but in the event of an emergency, it's still preferable to the alternative where you can either fly but can't shot OR you can shoot but can't fly.
I love the idea of a space fighter and loved how there were used in battles but it sadly died when you figure out that it’s not viable way to fight in space, the closest thing to fighter in space would be like frigate or corvette class ship just because of the distance the battles would take place, but maybe I would proved wrong things change
They are in different classes. The gunstar is a gunship/heavy fighter with massive laodout and long, long range, while the starfury is a high agility fighter that is great for defense, or strike missions from a carrier or base. Also, you should take into account the different classes of starfury. The thunderbolt starfury has superior strike capabilities, and the Arora starfury is better suited to defense/intercept.
Gunstar 1's deflector plating allows it to withstand several direct hits. In theory, it could be damaged or destroyed if the enemy went full beam spam.
If you enjoy Spacedock, consider supporting us on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/officialspacedock?ty=h
Should check out the new Scorpius in Star Citizen, it's directly modeled off these 2 ships
should look at the fighters in star citizen the rsi scorpion is awesome
You forgot about the Star Fury Thunderbolt, which has “40mm omnidirectional cannons”, and yes, have a look at the Scorpious in Star Citizen… oh yes, in SC you can rotate n place, but there isn’t a death blossom.. yet.
I'm a confirmed fan of both.
However: No such craft can hold a candle to a VF-1 Valkyrie.
I'd throw the fighters carriers and transports from Space above and beyond into the semi realistic Sci fi category.
I'm pretty sure you've covered them before but I think they're worth a mention. Underrated 90's show recently watched it again on UA-cam it still holds up today.
In the starfighter novel it explains that the Stafighters were outcasts in their utopia. A universe at peace but these folk couldn’t abandon violence and cruelty. sociopaths and thugs in a federation built on enlightenment and peace. Even the Gunstar itself was an obsolete design from centuries ago. Then suddenly a hostile armada turns up and those violent outcasts are their people’s only hope for survival. When the President chants “Victory or Death” you can see how awkwardly he fumbles it, he’s trying to sound tough but doesn’t have a clue how.
There's a straighter Novel? Is it worth reading?
@@SmallLab129 I'd recommend it. It expands and fleshes out a lot on the events shown in the movie and even adds some new stuff here and there. Also doesn't hurt the novel was written by sci-fi legend Alan Dean Foster.
Where can we get this legnedary piece of 80s sci-fi history?
@@nong333 So is there any explanation for that frontier shield? I mean did the Star League create it or is it some artifact left over from an extinct civilization/species?
@@michaelkenny7314 A local library might be a good place to check or a used book store?
I love the fact that NASA went to the writer of Babylon 5 to get permission to use the design for space tugs. He gave it with 1 caveat that it carry the name Starfury!
Haha, that's amazing. :D
I can understand making that demand after they name the prototype spaceshuttle the _Enterprise_ only for her to never fly in space!
@@kyleaugustine6886 Oh, ENTERPRISE could fly in space. NASA was just keeping it in reserve in case the Kodan Armada showed up.
@@kyleaugustine6886 Virgin Galactic's Enterprise never made it to space either! (Destroyed in testing with loss of one crew 😢). People need to stop naming spacecraft "Enterprise" until at least the 2nd operational unit. Thankfully SpaceX hasn't made this mistake yet.
@@akgunkel Correction, Enterprise's honor is a militay namesake, so only when we commission a spacewarship will it take the name. . . Of course will have to wait until CVN-80 is retired. . . Which will be a LOOOOONG time.
The Last Starfighter really is an overlooked gem. Dated effects or no, it's a good story and it's told well, and has one of the best final lines from a villain ever.
I still love the dated effects. it shows just how far CGI has come in nearly 40 years, but I would love to see The Last Starfighter to get revamped. not a remake, use the original footage, just do what George Lucas did for Star Wars in 1997.
@@kingscorpion7346 I'd honestly love that as well...only without adding pointless changes like Lucas did.
@@ShinGallon There's something really cool looking about the early CGI in that film.
@@Strideo1 - yeah, it's one of those instances of early CGI being on the part of the uncanny valley where we look at it and go "Oh, nice CGI for the time" - as opposed to later on, where the animation is "better", but as a consequence our brains start picking out all the ways that it's not realistic.
In other words, it's crude enough that we can instinctively appreciate it as animation, as opposed to our brains trying to parse it as real, and failing.
That movie needs a videogame and a genuine arcade machine, faithful to the film and maybe as an added bonus the capability to play with more players on a large 2-4 player cabinet.
I loved the small Easter egg in the Expanse when the Rocinante went up against the Zemya. When all those missiles were incoming the point defense screen had a little note indicating it was in "Death Blossom" mode
My favorite Easter egg from the series was in s1 where their hitchhiker to eros' camera feed called him "canary" while they were exploring the anubis.
In the Homeworld series, the Starfury would be considered a "Fighter" or "Strike Craft," while the Gunstar would be a Corvette. So, if classic video games teach us anything, it's that the two would make a great combo!
In Homeworld: Cataclysm, you could link 2 Starfuries to make a Gunstar.
The Gunstar kind of reminds me of the Taiidan Defender, actually. The defender is like the same concept, but scaled down to strike craft size.
The 1:1 closet match would definitely still be the multigun corvette, though.
Homeworld FTW!
@@schwarzerritter5724 god damn that game has so many cool features never seen again anywhere else.
@@nonyabisness6306 Ever play "I've Found Her" the Homeworld B5 mod?
Regarding "Victory or death". If you read the Alan Dean Foster novel (which I did before I saw the film), he explains that the species that were recruited for the fighting were considered to be rather barbaric (which made them good starfighters). The leader of the Star League was advised to shout "Victory or Death" as a way to rile up and enthuse the pilots before the upcoming battle. The leader found this rather repugnant. You can see a look of distain on his face as the pilots take up the chant, just before the scene cuts away. Unfortunately, its one of those things that's not really shown well in the film version.
It still fits in the movie without further explanation. He just appears to be a politician out of his league. A bureaucrat trying to engage warriors which are beings he doesn't understand. Happens all the time on earth.
The Gunstar is practically a gunship, honestly. Make it like 10 times larger and you basically have a small destroyer. I like the Starfury better as a pure fighter, personally.
It just depend on how you define your classes lol.
Even irl you have 2 pilot jets with a ranges of missiles and indirect armaments, that would still classify as fighter planes. Mondern fighters rarely use their gun if ever. It's all missiles now. And the only reason they can't have turrets is because they wouldn't be aerodynamic. Which isn't a problem in space.
My thought. A light corvette or gunship, as many sci-fi games have it. The Skipray Blastboats from Star Wars, or the mid-sized enemy ships usually covered in guns in most space shooters.
I agree, the Star Fury (IIRC Aurora) is an interceptor, the Gunstar is a Superiority Fighter / Gunship, they have different roles.
The Death Blossom would basically kill the crew. No way they could survive those g forces. Star Fury is FAR more realistic.
@@Thethorschariot inertial dampening systems...its all sci-fi anyway
So happy to see someone talking about the Gunstar. The Last Starfighter is one of my favourite movies. It's story is simple but there are interesting ideas that sneak up on you. Like the idea of leaving what is basically your clone back on your home world so the bad guys don't know you're off world training to kill them. Dropping off the "Excalibur test" to see who can do what needs to be done and going to pick them up. The movie is pure wish fulfillment. Who among us hasn't thought about actually being up there while playing a game? Or that our gaming ability would get us into real space combat. It's Pixels but nothing like it and it's actually good.
After watching some videos on how they made the VFX in the early days of CGI I think the reason we never got to see the Gunstar fly sideways is because it would've been too difficult to program. The sequel does seem to be gaining traction. I never thought we'd get a new Quantum Leap series but it shot a pilot and based on the pilot it's gotten a full season order and will air later this year unless something goes wrong. So Last Starfighter has to be next. If there's any justice we'll get both a series and a movie. Bring back Lance Guest as the leader of the new team he's built up over the years. Maybe make it an elite squadron kind of like either Rogue Squadron or Top Gun. It makes sense. Consider that they probably figured out that the Excalibur tests/video games were basically the training tool for all their pilots. The Kodan steals a bunch and trains their own people on their own version of the Gunstar. Now we have to get creative. They have to come up with a whole new style of space combat because the enemy knows their old moves as well as they do. Which means training their pilots to push themselves further than they ever thought and creating an even better type of Gunstar. Death Blossom (so cool) is something they've figured out how to avoid because they know that they have to be within a certain range so they stay outside that range. They need to come up with something nobody has ever seen before. Tell me that's not something you'd want to see.
Ikr
I could tell you I don't want to see that but I'd be lieing.
CGI doesn't care what direction you translate the model in between frames, and those frames would have been set up by hand anyway. It's not like they had a complex physics model directing the flight of the spaceship (if they did, Netwonian would have been easier) they had a special effects director. And that director made the Gunstar swoop around with engines firing backward like it's an atmospheric craft that uses aerodynamic surfaces to turn because that would be more intuitive to the audience.
Personally I'm happy to let this movie stand on its own but sure if we have to bring things back for "sequels" made decades later -- and apparently we do -- then this is a good choice. Don't worry, one way or another I'm sure they'll scrape The Last Starfighter out of the name recognition barrel. Maybe they'll make it a prestige drama ala Battlestar.
Hmm... How 'bout the Star League is dirty. Xur was planted into the Enemy's ranks for one reason only. To steal the Kodan's Hive Link technology. Why were the Kodan's hostile? You'd be too if your young queen was kidnapped. While Alex is busy visiting new worlds as the posterboy for the league, a new starfighter quickly climbs the ranks but can never shine underneath his older brother's shadow. Louis looks for another way using tech which ultimately leads him face to face with Xur... and his kodan neice?! 😳Hi, I'm Louis. Thas all I gotz.
Commander Louis:"Are ya ready, you slimes?" *red eyepiece closes "We're gunna be Famous." New Kodan Armada Chant:"Our Victory, League's Death!" Commander Louis:"Your turn babe- er, your majesty." Queen Hotness:"A.I. Swarm Link - Connected!" General Xur:"Let's go home."
Actually the particle beams were used in the film. When the Gunstar targeted the communications turret of the command ship, the beams were fired from the side-mounted units along the fuselage and not from the laser turrets. Look carefully and you will see the two top-mounted particle beams firing.
Thanks for giving me a reason to watch the movie again!
@@VorpalDerringer The only reason I watch it is because it's my guilty pleasure.
Dutch - "you sonofabitch...!"
@@Animeaddiction Why be guilty about it??
@@alyssinwilliams4570 For most of the younger generations, the Last Starfighter is seen as a clone or ripoff of Star Wars. Youth with amazing unknown ability, goes on a journey of self-discovery and adventure and must fight the evil empire. It's basically Luke Skywalker in a New Hope. Centauri is Han Solo. Grigg is Obi Wan. You see the similarities. Roger Ebert called the Last Starfighter as a Star Wars clone, but one of the better clones and his guilty pleasure as well. Yeah, the story is somewhat cheesy and the effects are outdated, but the film as a whole is enjoyable and the characters are believable.
Despite the fact that movies nowadays are focused primarily on big name actors, high-tech special effects, and non-stop action with little-to-no plot, the Last Starfighter is one of those movies that I never tire of seeing repeatedly.
I salute anyone who can dig deep enough in space combat to reference Gunstars with confidence. Well done!
I generally agree with you. This is something I see on Elite Dangerous forums a lot, people think the ships are way too big but the smallest ships are smaller than a modern fighter while having much more capability. I like the Gunstar for feeling like an actual weapons platform and not a Cessna in space.
It's not an 80s scifi movie without a reference to Arcades!
Personally I think the Starfury is way more versatile and can be used for a wider mission profile, although I have to say I really wish that more Science fiction fighters would have a gunner.
I think starfighter is made for solo missions more than anything. Starfuries are line defences.
@@SCHIMANSKI-DIESBURG Or you might get into Interceptor versus space superiority roles. The Gunstar might be more of a heavy fighter or gun ship while the Star Fury is an interceptor. Not easy to compare since they are in different SciFi universes.
I can imagine a larger Star Fury with a pilot/gunner, a nose turret along with missiles, more armor, etc.
@@williampeebles3218Yes you're right. I think the enchanced atmospheric version Thunderbolt has co-pilot tho.
The Starfury Badger had a tailgunner. They were only seen once in the series but featured prominantly in the tabletop game.
Well, one of the considerations for a fighter is, how expensive it is to replace and produce. In this the Fury’s design would be superior. There’s also a matter of how easy it is to maintain. All of this would be dependent on the technological level of the culture using them, who knows.
That's a great point! One-for-one the Gunstar may be better, but there's always going to be more Starfuries.
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
@@hoojiwana But the bottleneck in the Last Starfighter universe is getting highly trained pilots.
It's a gunship, not a fighter. They are both good ships in theory, but only one of them is an actual fighter.
@@zhoufang996 This is the one of the things many people don't account for when comparing quantity vs quality.
When comparing two vehicles, you must include the people, the parts, ammunition, etc.
One gunstar may cost more than one star fury, but factoring the pilots, ammo and maintenance, the gunstar could cost equally or cheaper to more star furys in upkeep.
Edit: Also adding to this, it must be taken account the time of repairs and logistics needed to provide the resources for these starfighters.
But wouldn't cost depend on how a planets economy works. I know that Centauri was going on about how much money it cost to create the game test but perhaps their military works on a different system.
There is a heavy Starfury variant with co-pilot/tail gunner.
It should also be noted that the guns are not fixed and a Starfury can be equipped with missiles.
In addition, the (two-seat) Thunderbolds are considered more powerful than the Aurora Starfurys, even in space.
Oh yeah, the two-seater "Badger class" starfury.. was seen only once in the show.
The episode A Voice in the Wilderness I believe.
@@Adam_Boots yeah, the title card comes up when seeing the fighter.. ;)
@@scottlyttle5586 SA-23G with an appropriate COG.
It was a beast of a design as well. Originally designed to compete with Minbari Nial class fighters, it has over twice the firepower of the Aurora class.
You implied some of the answer for why the Gunstar doesn't maneuver as much: It's primary weapons are turrets, so the pilot flies in such a way as to provide a stable firing platform and only maneuvers when actually needed. Fixed weapons allow for more fancy flying because they require the ship to roll and turn to bring them to bear. As an aside, Star Citizen actually provides a nice answer to fixed weapon convergence by having them have smart convergence and/or auto gimbal, depending on loadout, where the guns use your targeting data to adjust convergence distance or even aim within a cone for you so you're not fixed to a single range.
Yup, if your guns are in turrets anyway, then the convergence angle is a matter of where you aim the turret. This allows any ship like the Gunstar, such as those Star Citizen ships, to bring all its weapons to bear regardless of distance-to-target, unlike fixed-angle ships.
The proton bolts (the missiles we see on-screen) are capable of homing in on targets, so them not being in turrets actually makes sense, as the reload sequence would have to rotate the turret to the reloading position to get a new missile into the launch tube. Having them as fixed-position weapons makes little difference to their utility and simplifies the reloading mechanism, allowing for more missiles to be carried in the same hull-volume.
The particle beams seem to be heavy-damage beams, designed more like traditional fighter weapons, with convergence and minimal firing angle changes. As (presumably) charged particle streams, they -could- be deflected slightly after being emitted like how the Cathode Ray Tube screens used magnetic fields to change the angle of an electron beam to excite the pixels on the screen itself, so the Particle Beams could probably have limited flexibility, but not full-turret flexibility like the laser cannons, which just need power to be supplied to them.
All in all, a very nice setup for an all-around fighter system. Full-turreted weapons for rapid-fire in any angle, limited-flexibility heavy guns for punching holes in larger, tougher targets that are presumably much less maneuverable than the gunstar, and missile weapons for long-range damage dealing at any angle.
The fact that the gunstar was probably some of the inspiration for the Starfury helps, as it allows the ship to maneuver even for off-angle shots away from its line of travel with the big guns, so it isn't locked into a maneuvering line and can use Newtonian flight to fight in any direction.
The Starfury is like a P-51D Mustang, whereas the Gunstar is more like a B-25 Mitchell. They can do the same things, perform the same roles, but they are still an apples to oranges in comparison. The Gunstar is a heavy fighter or light bomber, if not an outright gunship. The multiple multi-angle turrets are kind of a dead giveaway, and the Death Blossom is akin to the B25's that had several forward facing cannons or 50 cals, it just didn't spin like that intentionally. The Starfury is not so much a bomber, but because it is highly maneuverable, fast, and small, which makes it the better strike craft. Their power comes from swarm tactics because one-on-one they are somewhat fragile. Gunstars are solitary hunters... because there was only one of them left. So comparing the two and saying one is superior is kind of pointless.
The gunstar is much closer to the Boston Paul Defiant which actually was a turreted fighter.
I would compare Star Furies and Gunstar One to a P-51 versus a P-38. Even that comparison is lacking. There is one huge ability other than Death Blossom (I think of Mayim Bialik dressed in all black carrying a shotgun) over the Star Fury. Self contained FTL drive. With Death Blossom one Gunstar can take on a few squadrons of Star Furies.
@@davidjames1068 Eh, I was initially thinking P-38, but that wasn't heavy enough in my mind to compare to the Gunstar. I thought B-25 because it seemed a bit more accurate. Now I'm thinking P-61 Black Widow, which seems even more accurate.
@@longshot7601 See, Initially, I was thinking P-38, but it didn't seem heavy enough to compare to the Gunstar. But then I thought of the P-61 Black Widow, which was a heavy fighter with turrets, and that seems more accurate, although I still lean towards the B-25 because with turrets, waist guns, rear and forward turrets it had more of a 360 degree gun arc. The B-17 and the Fortresses are a little too heavy to be analogous to the Gunstar, but the ball turret on the B17 is very much like the turret seat in the Gunstar.
@@SilverbladeDagger Actually the P-61 is a GREAT analogy. Heavy fighter that can fight in a different realm than the P-51. Also if the P-51 got too confident in chasing a P-61 he might feel the Widow's sting of 4-.50 cal MGs in the turret.
"The Last Starfighter" is still to this day, one of the greatest sci-fi films ever, as well as one of the best adventure stories ever told. The musical score (theme song), as well as the acting quality, were both superb!
It was original in its day, and was developed around the same time as "Star Wars", so was NOT copied or inspired by "Star Wars".
The only reason why "Star Wars" came out before "The Last Starfighter", is due to the fact that George Lucas had already made a name for himself in the movie industry, so got the green-light ahead of time, while "The Last Starfighter" was rejected many times, until studios saw the success of Lucas' film, and finally greenlit "The Last Starfighter". Also because (for its time) it used cutting-edge CGI, it was a bigger risk to be made in its day.
Well, meeting Nick Castle and praising for this movie BEFORE praising him as Michael Myers was great.
I went to see it twice in the theater, and still love it to this day. Ahead of it’s time, a great story, and just a blast to watch. 👍🏻
I remember watching it as a kid in the early 2000s and being near obsessed, built a lego version of a gunstar and everything lol
@@TazyBaby Oh, that’s awesome! I don’t remember any toys for it coming out when it was released, but I was a major Star Wars collector and so maybe just missed them. Was it an official LEGO kit, or did you just make your own?
@@tunguskalumberjack9987 oh no I made it on my own, I was like 8 at the time so it probably wasn’t the best haha
Gunstars were always my favorite. It gave a feeling that it was like a sci-fi version of an Apache helicopter, and you can't deny the power of Death Blossom. Having 360 degree coverage over all three axis will always make it superior. Thanks for the video!
Totally impractical for the size of ship. Far more intended as a teenage wet dream. :P
The gimbal makes the craft heavier and thus slower to accelerate. Considering how easy it is to point the nose in space both in reality and in the movie it seems like a bit of a waste of time.
The Hammerhead fighters from Space: Above and Beyond is another, more realistic design that gets overlooked. It can fight/fly in both atmosphere and vacuum, it is well armed, for its size, and it has an ejectable cockpit, in the event it is needed.
I love the Gunstar. It is a classic design that reminds me of the pilot/gunner cockpit placement of helicopter gunships like the Cobra, Apache, and Cold War-era Soviet attack helos like the Mi-24 and Ka-50. Each crew member has a job to do, and they are not encumbered with other tasks, including their instrumentation.
Gun Ship vs Light fighter... Apples and oranges mate! The gunstar is freaking awesome!!! loved it from the first sight. At the movie theatre summer 1984.
More like Apples and Pineapples.
Victory or Death is word for word from Travis' letter at the Alamo.
That being said Gunstar is the Cadillac of starfighters. Elite crew, omnidirectional weapons, and can take a beating. The entire armada was stalling its invasion because they were terrified of 6 guys. They outnumbered Star League probably hundreds to 1 and were shaking in their boots.
Ahoy Mr. Welch fancy meeting you in the Spacedock comments section. I don't recall Wynonna being in the Last Starfighter lol just bugging.
@@AGTheOSHAViolationsCounter that's because the love interest was pining for a man who had a really strange Secret. And the only person to play that role in the eighties was Catherine Mary Stewart. Just like she did in Weekend at Bernie's
@Mr. Welch
Great points.
He got it from the American Revolution. General Washington's watch word for crossing the Delaware was Victory or Deatb.
Armada was also stalled as they need to penetrate the Alliance's shield to proceed. A little bit of sabotage took cared of that as well.
That little 80's gem was really ahead of its time in so many ways... As for separating the roles of gunner and pilot, look no further then real life gunships or some fighter planes. The key term here is crew coordination. A good pilot - weapon system officer team can do so much more then a single guy or girl in the cockpit. And 4 eyes if well pointed can always look better then 2.
The ultimate application of this principle is the old EA-6B Prowler - 1 pilot, three EWOs/RIOs/WSOs
@@jfangm good example
6:28 We actually do see Starfuries being recovered during Babylon 5, in the central docking bay right on the station's axis where they don't have to deal with centrifugal "gravity". In at least one episode there was a shot of two Starfuries latched into a pair of docking arms on a special elevator. They're the same kind of arms that the Starfuries launch from, and we see the elevator with them descending into the station, presumably carrying them all the way back to the Starfury bays on the perimeter of the station while staying on the same launch arms the whole way.
Yep. you're right. The Starfuries fly into the central bay area, fire their maneuvering thrusters to match the internal rotation of the station's bay walls and platforms. The Starfury recovering platform then raises to allow the two fighters to latch onto the rails. Once secured, the platform descends to the "Cobra" launch bays. There, the fighters and their launch rails are ferried by a conveyor system to their launch points. It is heavily implied that most standard maintenance on the Starfuries are conducted there. Although there are sources that claim there are large adjacent maintenance bays for heavy work on the fighters. I read somewhere that the launch bays are called "Cobra bays" because the station arms they are housed in actually look like the backside of a cobra's hood when it is extended.
@@Vulpine407 It's a nice story, but there are a couple problems.
1. Omega Class Destroyers have Cobra Launch Bays as well.
2. The Cobra Bays on Babylon 5 are on the rotating cylinder: the Pylons are on the stationary superstructure of the O'Neill Cylinder. Launch Speeds are achieved by flinging the Starfuries out into space via centrifugal force (the inconsistency being that the Omega launches from the recovery bay due to a production error, even though Straczynski's original design called for them to launch from the rotating Hab Section and recover through the front bay and central superstructure...just like Babylon 5.)
If I remember correctly, JMS once said in an interview that the "Cobra" was a nod to Battlestar Galactica, as a Cobra is a type of Viper.
@@digitalis2977 Didn't know about that interview. Makes sense though. And, yeah, using the station's spin to "fling" the Starfuries out of the launch station is one of the nicer "real-physics" touches of that series. I especially liked how they showed the fighter's engines firing up AFTER they were flung clear of the station.
Ok, so that blows my assumption of how starfuries dock out the airlock. Thanks for enlightening me
@@Ellerion2 My guess (and the easiest solution) would be some form of arresting cradle for forward momentum in the main hangar to "catch" returning ships...after which the launch arm would insert into the fighter and carry it back to its berth in the Cobra Bay.
Upon arrival, the pilot would disembark, and the maintenance crews would take over.
I’m so glad someone is talking about this movie! My dad saw this in theaters as a college student, and it was a big part of my childhood. I had to introduce it to my friend who loves sci-fi but had never heard of it.
My take on death blossom with the rotation is that it counters 3 issues that the Gunstar has.
1) There will be blind spots. No matter where you mount weapons, there will be blind spots. Some may be full, some may be limited in terms of weapons that can target. Rotation will move these around a lot more, exposing more weapons.
2) Tracking. Typically the most sensitive tracking sensors are in the gun pod or nose. By rotating, it sweeps an area with detailed targeting, rather than relying on less capable systems.
3) Gun yaw rate. The turreted weapons have a maximum speed of rotation to target multiple entries. We see Alex struggle with this initially. By rotating the fighter, you can artificially increate the actual gun yaw rate by up the the yaw rate of the craft. This means faster switching between targets.
I argue it is not a gunboat for several reasons:
1) It does not have permanent crew quarters
2) It is not designed for prolonged deployments (days+)
A gunboat is heavily armed, typically slow, and designed to stay on station for a longer time. It needs enough crew for a 24 hour rotation.
It is definitely a heavy fighter. The starfury is more like a light fighter. You can pack more starfuries, with less endurance, less range. So your Gunstar can intercept, defend, and attack, but it is expensive to swarm, is overkill for many situations, and likely it has a slower acceleration curve than the starfury. With much less mass, the starfury can change direction and velocity easier than a gunstar. It might not be able to shoot at a target that easily, but it can keep on them.
5:20 - A great real-world example of the separated duties, complete with separately-aimable weapons is the Huey AH-1 Cobra and AH-64 Apache. (And the cancelled Comanche.) In those, the gunner sits in front, has a helmet-mount optical display (not quite as cool/comprehensive as the F-35's, but similar in idea,) and the gun is mounted under the chin of the helicopter, and rotates to follow the gunner's line of sight, separate from the aircraft's movement. (And as a helicopter, it can hover, slew sideways, and do other maneuvers more like a spacecraft following Newtonian physics than a fixed-wing aircraft.)
The pilot is also able to select a weapon that the gunner isn't currently using, often the pilot can use the gun to lay suppression fire while the gunner is guiding a missile onto target.
Oh boy have I got a helicopter for you, look up the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. I'm pretty sure they borrowed the rotating gunner's seat on the Gunstar from the AH-56.
I am genuinely surprised that the video failed to make that connection between the Gunstar's seating/duty arrangement and IRL attack helicopters that inspired it.
I like " The last Starfighter" and I love B5 and Galactica but what about the Hammerhead from Space Above and beyond?
It obeys Newtonian physics, has an RCS system, a turret mounted main gun, the cockpit turns into an escape pod and it is able to fly in an atmosphere. Speaking of the cockpit, detaching it is the main way crew gets in and out.
The hammerhead is by far my favourite, the gunstar was my intro, the starfury amazing and the viper well I love Starbuck lol.
I agree. The Hammerhead is vastly underestimated. Much like the show it's from.
Don't Hammerhead have two gun turrets? One under the chin and another one at the rear top between the engines?
And Hammerhead is still one of my favourites scifi fighters.
_"Hey Ho, let's go." - 1LT Cooper Hawkes, USMC_
@@AlexSDU you are right, it has a rear turret, giving it another edge in fighting.
SAB&B deserved more love.
Honestly, a pairing of Starfuries and Gunstars would make for a hell of a combination. The Starfuries would be lighter and more maneuverable, but the Gunstars would bring more firepower and omnidirectional targeting. It's more of a fighter and gunship combination really, but it would be awesome to see.
Just look up the heavy Starfury.
It seems like the Starfuries would rapidly run out of reaction mass if they tried to be very maneuverable for very long just because there's so little space for fuel and every change of velocity in space requires mass to be ejected. The Gunstar's big fat "wings" provide ample storage for propellant, so paradoxically the larger, heavier craft should also be more maneuverable.
The Starfury design seems to work best as a high-speed interceptor. With limited mass, it can accelerate more in a short period of time and make contact sooner. But I'd expect disposable boosters to let it save the limited fuel for engagement and a return home.
Actually, what would REALLY make a lot of sense on the Starfury is drop tanks. It could carry plenty of reaction mass, and shed the tanks as they emptied or once the pilot engaged an enemy and needed maximum short-term maneuverability more than extended operational time. Best of both worlds.
@@CptJistuce : I think the technical manual said that Starfuries can actually use drop tanks. As for a mixed force, "interceptor" is very much the sort of job a Starfury would do, using it's presumably higher short-term maneuverability to clear lots of incoming enemy fighters (especially early on), leaving the Gunstars to hit both the leftovers and the more durable targets.
@@absalomdraconis I am very glad to know that drop tanks are in the spec. Sad that they weren't animated, though.
"More manuverable" he says about a ship that has to fly using aircraft flight in space vs a ship that has actual omnidirectional movment.
There is lots of love here for the Gunstar. I still call powerful little spaceships in other media “gunstars”. I consider it a sign of affection to compare it to the famous ship.
Gunstars have lots of cool features. Gunstar One has deflector plating, basically ablative anti laser armor good for several direct hits. Gunstars have five laser turrets which can be used to attack OR can be used as point defense weaponry. Gunstars have four whole magazines of missiles. And I've already mentioned the four Particle Beam Cannons. Gunstars are covered on all vectors by at least two turrets if not three or more. Three in the front and two in the rear provide excellent placement for fire control. This is where it gets it's name Gunstar as it can fight in every direction. Which is why two seats are required. It's too much to demand a pilot fly and fight and defend themselves all at the same time with so many weapons while also managing tactics and operations.
I love the idea of a Gunstar: full 360° coverage, anti-fighter and anti-ship weaponry, and separate pilot and gunnery seats. Also the fact it's built like a tank with special emphasis placed on it's defenses, which is something you would want on a gunship designed to go toe to toe with enemy armadas.
Love The Last Starfighter. After all these years.
The armor on the Gunstar is reflective, allowing it to withstand multiple hits from ray/energy weapons. The DB autotargets all enemies within its engagement radius (the green sphere on the display) and attacks them all at once with that crazy spinning technique.
I don't think having the gunner and pilot being separate people adds much complexity to their tasks.
In my experience, in multiplayer fighter games, having to both fly the fighter and aim the guns often felt more complex than what I experienced as just a gunner in "on-rails shooters".
Also, if you are both the pilot and gunner in a fighter, it's easy to get "tunnel vision" as you are trying to focus in and aim your guns on an enemy craft. In an "on-rails shooter", you gain a wider attention span and are able to remain more aware of your surroundings and be on the lookout for enemies trying to sneak up on you.
Sounds like what you ideally want is a gunner, a pilot, and a commander. The last one's job IS situational awareness so that the other two can be allowed to tunnel vision on their jobs. In which case your space fighter is more like a space tank in terms of how it operates.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 you would have a squadron leader in one of the fighters but the pilots would still have independent thinking
Irl the pilot flies the craft and vontrols the guns/missiles while the wso/rio monitors communications, radar and aircraft systems as well as any guided weapons.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 I'm not sure fighter combat needs that third crew member quite the same way tanks do. Visibility in a tank is much more limited, and though the gunners and pilots/drivers of both can be compared, the way they actually go about those jobs is diffent.
@@justinthompson6364 Yeah, I think in a fighter you just need good communication between the pilot and gunner. The gunner can handle any other communications during lulls in the shooting. If they are directly in combat, then they don't need to be talking with command anyway.
This is spot on, the life support requirements, the amount of space required for whatever avionics and electronic warfare systems the craft carries, the combat loadout and the power plant would all force a larger design. I always find sci-fi gets it wrong realistically with small snub fighters.....all that being said, my favourite is still the X-Wing!
the X-302 from SG-1 has potential though.. even if it can only make VERY short jumps thru hyperspace as compared to across the galaxy in an X-Wing...
The X wing is a sweet ride which was R2 D2 job was navigator and fire/systems control
You do realize that the Starfury is 30 feet long and 30 feet tall, with a wingspan of 60 feet...right?
By fighter standards, it's absolutely massive compared to anything in the air today...with only the F-14 ever flying with a larger wingspan (64 feet) in the "fighter" category.
By comparison to other sci-fi fighters (I'm looking at you Colonial Viper, you SmartCar of Starfighters) the thing is a Gigantic Brick of Doom.
The Gunstar is the absolute LAST spacecraft I'd want to be in when the "Death Blossom" button is pushed.
The advantage the Starfury has over the Gunstar is that the pilot is very near the craft's center of gravity, so that he/she is minimally affected in rotational maneuvers like that. The Gunstar on the other hand, sticks the crew out at the end of a fairly long lever arm far from the ship's center of gravity. This means, that when the Death Blossom button is pushed, and the ship starts rotating madly about that center of gravity, the flight crew are being thrown around in their seats like somebody put them on a mechanical bull cranked to "11". At the very least they come out of Death Blossom extremely disoriented. More likely, the high gees they'd experience during the maneuver would whip their heads around wildly between the shoulder straps until their necks snapped.
Pretty sure the Gunstar had inertial dampeners, because we never see the crew reacting to positive or negative gees. There is the problem of vertigo, however, so the best course when using Death Blossom is to hit the button, screw your eyes shut, and hope you survive till the ride is over.
Vomit Comet, anyone?
If they were in the center of the ship
It's plausible. Think a gyroscope
Actually, given the gunners seat is shown to be able to rotate freely with 360° in the X and Y axis, they could basically be entirely stationary as the ship goes haywire around them. The pilot/engineer is further back, closer to the center of gravity so it likely was less an issue.
It really depends on what you are going to use the fighter for. The Gunstar is a tank and a monster best used for assault or, in the case of the movie, last line defense. Meanwhile, the Starfury and Viper are more multi-role combat fighters. I imagine the Gunstar being much more expensive to build, maintain, and man. As a result, you would use Gunstars to break defenses, screen for fighters and smaller craft, even missile defense, while the "lesser" fighters, like StarFury and Viper, would be for overall Space Tactical Combat. It is hard to say exact who would be Space Superiority but Gunstar would certainly establish Space Dominance.
Overall, Gunstars TAKE the space. Starfuries and Vipers KEEP the space.
Absolutely agree with you, it absolutely depends on what the mission is. I see the StarFury and Viper as Interceptor-class ships (P51 Mustang, Supermarine Spitfire, F-16 Falcon/Viper, etc) while the Gunstar is an Attack-class ship (F15E Eagle, A-10 Warthog, and the P47 Thunderbolt ) just to name a few examples. That isn't to say they can't do the other ship's job as well, just that they excel in a specific application.
Vipers and Starfuries for multirole space combat missions while the Gunstar is for punching through enemy defenses, screening for smaller warships and even Anti-Air missions.
yah the gunstar is more like a gunboat in modern terms or a small corvette, and the vipers and starfuries are interceptors and fighters
IMO, being a long time fan of The Last Starfighter, the Gunstar is essentially, the starfighter version of an Apache helicopter.
This is the parallel I was hoping to read.
Apache, and before it, the Cobra for US attack helicopters used the same arrangement of a two-seat crew. Attack helicopters of some other nations do the two-seat game, but I don't know enough about those to talk about them in this discussion.
Sure, the Apache doesn't have guns all over it to provide a sphere of gun coverage, but IIRC, the gunner's sight does let the front-seat fire at targets not visible through the body of the aircraft. Plus missiles and/or rockets, depending on the loadout.
-
I wonder if the Gunstars were (before most of them were destroyed) able to share targeting data from each other and from other sensor assets like recon helicopters, AWACS, and ground designators the way updated Apaches can?
@@MonkeyJedi99 the having the guns move to follow the gunner takes less off the gunner ugh. wrote that fast loses meaning.
having the guns automatically follow the movements of the gunner means the gunner doesn't have to move the guns and gunsights, thereby being able to track targets more effectively since he isn't working to move the guns nor have to keep in mind where the guns are. after all the gunner isn't going to shoot where he isn't looking
Funnily enough, you're totally correct. Ron Cobb, the designer for it (and just simply outright a legend in his own right) deliberately modeled it after the Apache. Pre-production art for the Gunstar, some of which looks VASTLY different, actually end up looking even more like an Apache than the final version which made it to film.
@@toomanyaccounts Your clarification helped, and I agree. The tech is pretty danged amazing.
@@MonkeyJedi99 they even had the reticle disappear from sight and hence not have the gunner able to fire if the turrets were aiming at part of the ship
The Gunstar is an amazing design and I'm thrilled to see this channel give it the love it deserves. The Last Starfighter was one of my favorite movies as a small child (though we were missing like the first 30 minutes of the movie on our pirate VHS tape).
I got to see it finally in the theaters a few years ago, just met Nick Castle recently, and hopefully Lance Guest in 2 months.
Most of our old VHS's were recorded off HBO. Hated when movies were missing parts cause people taped over them.
I think of the Starfury as more of a utilitarian vehicle, especially with the grapple. Highly maneuverable, armed, versatile. A larger version of a Starfury similar to the Gunstar but maybe a little smaller would be a good backup to take on any serious threats.
so the heavy starfury or the dual seater variant also lets not forget the thunderbolt which is its replacement
One of my personal favorites are the human fighters in Enders game. We don’t really know how big they are but I think their design is beautiful, in a brutal minimalist kind of way.
a gunstar would be interesting in a setting with physic crew that can "sync" with each other or either pilot or gunner is an AI.
I think comparing both would be to compare a fighter with a gunship. The starfury seems better for mobility, hit and run but the gunship would be a main assault force knocking on the front. SO they could complement each other
When you put it like that it makes sense. Standard fighter and the Gunstar would very much complament each other in a fighter sweep. Though the Gunstar would be more heavy hitting. The death blossom in a pinch would be devastating if there was many of these ships doing this at once to take down targets. Now that would be something to see. This would be very unbeatable.
So the Gunstar is the main attack force and the Starfury is the escort?
Huh, it's actually good, since the former is heavily armer while the latter is nimble and supermaneuverable.
@@Hardbass2021 exactly. Much like that but more devastating when the whole force would comprised of just these ships. Gunstars would advance in formation when a fleet would be made out and use the death blossom to great effects. There wouldn't be a counter to this for some time. The fighter excorts would drop back to not get hit from the death blossom. Straight forward and effective. Once the death blossom is used the fighters come roaring in to cover gunstars and provide cover till force is up again. Once up and running again the force returns to base. The next wave of gunstars and fighters would be inbound. Any force would be obliterated. This trick is nasty to say the least. Though it's not without it's problems this can be adjusted in combat. Predictable and reliable. To use a phrase from Babylon 5 They were magnificent in the face of death itself. If I had half there courage as they did. Battle of the line would be very different.
A whole squadron of gunstars would be unstoppable. Maybe there could be a game, like space battle simulator and but the different ships against each other.
That seemed to be the implication in the movie. A single wing of Gunstars was enough to scare the entire Kodan Armada. Hence the Pearl Harbor attack on their main facility in the movie. And how panicked they seemed when they discovered a single Gunstar survived, it seems they had a right to be.
There's an on-rails arcade game called Starblade that's basically the Last Starfighter: the game. I've seen it with up to 8 players at Dave& Busters.
That is totally as plot point they used spies to destroy them so they wouldn't be used to stop the Codan Armada.
I mean, if you watch the movie, the starfleet equivalent navy has like... a dozen Gunstars at their disposal, whereas ONE is capable of ending the entire threat posed by the antagonist on its own, so yeah... you're not wrong.
@Intergalactic Dust Bunny It's played as many gunners on the same ship.
Why does it have to be either or? A smart cmdr. would have the Starfury as your regular fighter & the Gunstar as your heavy fighter!
And theres the real answer!
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
Agreed. Star Furies as escorts/interceptors harassing enemy formations while the Gunstars come in to do the actual damage to enemy formations and larger ships.
If we know anything, the military doesn't solely rely on one single jet aircraft type when they can have a variety to take on the myriad of roles. I would take both too. :)
@@VegetaLF7
I think vipers would make for good interceptors.
The thing is though that the Starfury is far less maneuverable in active space combat than the Gunstar. Yes the Gunstar can rotate while travelling at a specific velocity, however it is incapable of changing velocities whilst attacking a target inless it is firing in a fixed forward position. The Statfury is slightly more agile due to its smaller turning circle, however from a defensive perspective, it has to choose between doding and shooting, whereas the Gunstar can do both.
Nah, I love the Gunstar. The mechanical designer came up with something pretty awesome, the premise is great, and the Gunstars were totally made to not need a mother carrier as they were long-range, heavy fighters. I really hope we do get that forever on-again, off-again sequel to see what exactly a revamped version might look like.
You are right.
You are so completely, wonderfully, perfectly right - not just in your analysis and conclusion, but in bringing the magnificent Gunstar into the conversation in the first place!
I believe that the Gunstar is the beast, in the sense that it is the most realistic/practical space fighter design we have seen so far in Sci-Fi.
Space fighters in themselves aren't practical if physics were like the real world. Gunships like the Roccinante is really as small as you want to go in a realistic space war.
This is simply because battles in space won't be fought within fighting range. And dogfighting in space (6 degrees of freedom without obstacles) is useless as it'll lead to certain death for both parties.
The best Space fighters in Scifi are from Macross, VF series fighters, particularly late models like the VF-25 messiah fully dressed in its Armored Fastpack, agile, deadly, moving and firing are independent, deadly against space fighters and in an anti-capital ship role, with Space fold capabilities. And its transforms and is super cool...
Personally I much preferred VFs from the late 2020's - 2040's era (Macross M3 - Macross 7), where most hero characters still using the standard issued VFs.
My personal favourite would be VF-11 Thunderbolt II, especially the B version because it got bayonet-mounted gunpod.
Most of the latest VFs have built-in one shot anti-ship capability energy weapon. Too OP for my taste & feel too Gundam-ish to me.
At least the old VFs needed nuclear missiles to take out enemy's ships.
all that transformation tech would make it handle like a whale, you either have a heavy fighter hauling a lot of kit that's going to slow it down in a fighter versus fighter battle or you have a walking ground vehicle hauling a load of starfighter parts around, in either case a dedicated fighter or ground vehicles going to win
I feel like a slightly different division of duties might improve the gun star. Perhaps leaving the specifics of aiming to an onboard computer, with the second pilot acting as a sensors officer, focusing on identifying sensor contacts and directing which weapon to engage which contact. I'd also say the swiveling gunner seat is cool but strikes me as a particularly complex and potentially fragile component that could leave the gunner trapped in their seat if the worst happens. Very cool though. Idk if it's better than the starfury, but it is certainly very cool
I have to agree with you. As a middle aged man (now) I was enthralled with the Gunstar (then)! I was fortunate enough to have seen “The Last Starfighter” on the big screen. The fact that it was among the first to use near total CGI for the special effects and to expand set pieces, is all the more incredible. Someone should remake the movie, using today’s advanced CGI abilities. Then we could see more of the moves as described by the voiceover.
Is anyone in the film industry listening? You could build a completely new franchise (if done well)!
I would also add that the Hammerheads in Space: Above and Beyond also made a point of demonstrating a ship in linear flight, flipping itself to fire in a different direction to it's direction of travel. Something that was nice to see acknowledged about physics.
Another A+ concept was they didn't bring a whole starship into a huge docking bay where you would have to pump out a lot of atmosphere before the pilot could exit (if you didn't have a force field you could fly through). The pilots pod was extracted and brought in through a much smaller airlock. Nice touch.
I'm going to have to go with the Starfury here. While the Gunstar is definitely a "better" Hero Ship, and is clearly more capable in combat, it is also far too complicated for "normal" military use. The Starfury is just more rugged and easier to field. I have to wonder if the Star League wouldn't have gotten a lot more out of installing an automated targeting system instead of seeding the universe with video games.
"Normal" is a pretty weird word to use here, though. On one side, we've got "Don't stand too close to the edge of the ship, or the rotational forces will kill you.", and on the other side we have "Spin to fire the lasers that vaporize the enemy!". I guess if you've got those good old Space Lasers, and the enemy doesn't like to spread out, you might as well send out your super ship. Personally, though, I prefer carrier operations for those big dramatic moments.
Gunstars biggest problem is the rotation gunner's chair. Its a extraneous thing that actually is totally bad design for any species whos inner ear is anything like ours. I say this cause if you take a gyroscope and try and move it you get resistance and since the pilot is moving the ship and your moving inside the ship even with the best dampeners your still going to pull way more than 3 g's for duration of operation. Now having a hut with proximity sensors and such to warn and maybe a foot pedal to switch between viewing points or easy selectable hud points that prioritize enemy craft by range of their weapons and proximity to the ship.
@@eonaon6914 The trick with the chair is that it allows the pilot to remain pointing at their target regardless of which way the ship is moving, and when they pull the trigger, whichever turret is able to fire at the target does so. Can also potentially minimize felts Gs by change where those Gs are felt. I guess technically with a full display screen rather than a HUD, the ideal would be have the seat move in such a way tht the pilot always experiences the gs in a fixed point, IE, at the back, while the display allows him to stay on their target, since their not specifically aiming down a specific turret but aiming at a target and the turrets all move to point at it if they can independent of what the ship is doing.
the gunstar reminds me of the ww2 mosquito heavy fighter bomber while the star-fury is a spitfire/hurricane
I love both the gunstar & starfury. I agree with your assessment. I’d love to see another craft building upon both designs.
I could see both designs being used in the same fiction, if the tech was equalized. The Starfury as the lighter interceptor, and the Gunstar as the heavier assault ships.
@@templarw20 very good point. That makes me think of even smaller drone point defense "star flurries" or "Star-WIS." Think,, just a laser, thermal radiator, and maneuvering thruster "X", and power for spreading ship defenses out.
@@thumb-ugly7518 Maybe. It really does depend on the technology of the setting. Like how Trek doesn't really have fighters (the smallest is more an AC-130 than anything with the F prefix), because there's a lower limit to how certain tech scales for efficiency. More like capital ships would have unmanned Gunstar-sized drones that are tethered to the mother ship (tractor-beam types that also supply power, like the EW drones in Honor Harrington).
@@templarw20 very good point. This was fun. Thank you.
Really cool video I love the last start fighter. Also I was really nostalgia heavy when the video opened with battle zone music. Battle zone 2 was a hell of a game.
Totally agree on the Gunstar being the most capable and believable sci-fi fighter craft. It would be cool some day to see what a whole squadron of them would be capable of, and with rumours of a sequel movie in the works who knows what might come to be!
I think they take the fight right to Co-dan itself
I think all three ships play a role;
Viper: Excellent multi-environment starfighter, for both space and atmosphere.
Starfury: Dedicated starfighter, space only.
Gunstar: Excellent space gunship, poor environmental gunship.
The Gunstar could easily take out a Starfury or a Viper in a traditional 1v1 fight, much like how the Multi-Gun Corvette in Homeworld absolutely dominates fighter squadrons. However, much like the Multi-Gun Corvette in Homeworld, it is far less agile, and you can either throw a bunch of missiles (or big guns from a fighter-bomber) at it, or you can have a larger ship take it out with its guns that would struggle to hit the Viper or Starfury.
I agree on this assessment.
There just should be multiple specialized spaceships in fleet. Sadly, models and CG assets cost frakton of money, that's why we don't see a lot of diversity of spacecraft. The Expanse does better than most (like in a lot things), but still failed to show much of UNN
Yes! Multigun Corvettes! And yeah, roles. But as mentioned, CG or model assets are expensive, and outside of some purpose-designed video games (see: Wing Commander, the X-Wing series, and similar), you don't see much specialization. Hence the common point that the Gunstar and Starfury are close enough to almost be two designs in the same fleet.
@@templarw20 Glad you are a similar fan. 😁 Homeworld and Eve Online are games with great and realistic fleet compositions in relation to what you can build.
Being biased in that I never watched Babylon 5 and having grown up in the 80's, I really liked 'The Last Starfighter' and it's hero ship: Gunstar! As a kid I even made one out of Legos decades ago. Still one of my favorite spaceship designs. 😊
The gunstar reminds me of the boulton paul defiant (a ww2 fighter that had a similar setup) which was let down by smaller arcs of fire.
It also strikes me that the gunstar isnt really a fighter, filling more the role of a light screeening corvette or gunship. Where it doesnt as much dogfight as it flies around and smacks people with turret fire.
Its more akin to a small pt boat
I have always wondered who was going to cover the Gunstar! Good job!
Thanks for giving Last Starfighter some love!
It's the stories, of course.
That said, you have to keep intended mission profile in mind. Vipers are clearly designed to function in close proximity to a planet or battlestar. They're like TIE fighters in that regard. They also have a VERY energy-dense fuel at their disposal so they may have more room for bullets.
Star furies are designed for medium-length trips. I've never seen more than an episode or two of B5, but that and its sruviveability suggests it's armored more than one might think.
Gunstars are designed for long- range action. So they have to bring as much with them as possible and that makes it bulky. X-wings are like that too but have an even higher energy-dense fuel at their disposal and still need to be able to use a carrier even if they can also use planet-side facilities so they don't have to be QUITE that bulky.
I did design a space fighter and it was small as it was designed for use in conjunction with a carrier but it borrowed from the gunstar and star furies for much of how it was put together. But it was also a frame that you could attach things to. I was young and naive. Now I'm just naive.
I don't know enough about fighter combat to know about the difference between one or two people. It's a trade-off. But I would think the longer-range of the mission, the more complicated the vehicle the more you might need a number 2. On the other hand, the riderhips in the C.J. Cherryh novels have a grew of 4, a pilot, a gunner, a sensor tech and an engine tech. And that's interesting in this context.
Anyway, good video as always.
even if you know about fighter combat, one then has to take into account space physics as compared to atmospheric physics... and while some aspects transfer over not all do... in fact that is the one major arguement with 90% of any space combat shown today, they tell you its 3 dimensional but then act like there is only 2 dimensions... even some traditional fighter based movies forget this aspect... but that is an arguement for a later time....
@@mikewhitaker2880
My point is how mission profile effects size and maybe crew compliment. I'm taking it as read that that's all taken care of in one way or another.
Most of the time in B5, we see Starfuries operating in conjunction with a larger craft or station. Acting as a defensive screen for B5 against other fighter craft, or escorting another ship. You deploy something liek a Starfurie as your defensive screening craft and maybe short duration patrols, you send out something like the Gunstar to go long range and assault the target.
@@Krahazik
Interesting. Thank you.
The Starfury was built as a proper fighter craft whilst the Gunstar was essentially a destroyer. The Starfury makes sense as a fighter craft. The Gunstar is a bad fighter craft, but a great two-person destroyer.
I'd call it more of a Heavy Fighter/Bomber. Possibly a gunboat.
@@tatepultro I will admit that I forgot about Gunboats. I was trying to think of the correct term, but Destroyer was the closest my brain could find.
I've praised the Gunstar for years now. The design is still far ahead of its time. I think it's the best gunship design in SciFi bar none. I too am bummed out we never got to see the particle beams. We don't even know where they were on the ship, maybe fixed forward on the main hull? Great to see you guys give it some more love though. Cheers
I think the Gunstar would destroy the StarFury mostly because: 1. It can take hits and even a swarm of them would be destroyed by the blossom attack. 2. It can attack any angle, so while the SF would normally be safe by flying out of the direct sight, the Gunstar would be like... eh, nice try! Boom!
You don't know what "ahead of its time" means.
@@Zodroo_Tint Enlighten me.
Off bore firing is sort of the holy grail of air combat. If you come up with a way to shoot a target that is orthogonal or even behind you reliably the merge would be a whole lot more interesting.
First off, great vid, very enjoyable, and a great topic to bounce around in. The caveat to that being, all things fictional have plot armour and exist in different universes so direct comparisons down to power levels and what shields would stop what energy weapons are pure conjecture.
That said, there's also the idea of the single-seat Starfury vs. the twin seat gunstar. And also the type of fighter itself; to me, the Starfury seems like a pure attrition unit that is (relatively) quick to build and cheap to replace, where as the Gunstar is a very complex ship designed with high survivability in mind.
In a Cold War jet analogy, think of the Starfury as the American Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter, and the Gunstar as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, complete with RIO/WSO as a second crewmember. Except the gunstar is a turret fighter. If you consider the UK Tornado and US F/A-18 to be 'standard' fighters, The F-5 is a "light" fighter": very simple, functional, and fairly capable at low-cost. The F-14 is a "heavy" fighter: massively complex with much higher maintenance and crew training needs.
Similarly, the Starfury and Gunstar are two wildly different fighter types bracketting the standard fighter type.
That's a tough one, you bring up some very good arguments for and against both ships, which is always appreciated!
Personally I'd still take the Starfury or even Thunderbolt, because I love their sleek and sci-fi design. The Gunstar looks great with the bulk, turret and rotating gunner seat, but you can probably get a handful or more Starfuries for the cost of one Gunstar.
BOth are great, but Starfury gets the slight ahead of me because I just love B5.
I love them both. Which one I go with (likely both to be honest) would depend on what I want the craft to do and where I'm using it. For example, escorting a freighter. I'd go with a squad of Starfuries by themselves, or paired with a pair of Gunstars depending on how dangerous the particular transport operation is expected to be. Playing basic space station defense, Starfuries all around. A Carrier, I would outfit with both along with a few other types of auxiliary craft and fighters.
Oh man, the Gunstar. Wow, been quite a while since I heard that name spoken! Epic legendary spaceship. What a great video, thanks. :)
Which is better though? It's a "cake or pie" kind of choice - they're both great on their own merits, and special in their own different ways. None is really superior than the other I'd say.
The Gunstar does have a lot of mass located outboards in those two massive side pods holding the engines though - much more than the spindly Starfury. And mass, as we all know, means inertia - especially when that mass is located on a big lever-type structure as is the case here. So the Gunstar would maneuver more slowly than the Starfury, and not just because it is an overall much more massive craft.
Of course, it may not always need the agility the Starfury has, because it has those rotary gun turrets...
Back in the real world outside TV shows and movies, maneuverability is probably overrated anyhow. Anything being shot at you in space in a theoretical dogfight situation would move so damn fast that it would essentially hit you no matter what (quite possibly tens of kilometers per second speed, or near-instant, like with maser/laser beams), OR, if your craft was capable of dodging incoming threats you'd basically be liquefied by the G-forces necessary to do so. :P But reality is boring, yeah?
Mass can be a good thing. The Gunstar has HUGE cavities it can fill with propellant for maneuvering. When any change in speed, direction, or orientation requires you to expell mass, big tanks rapidly become a powerful advantage.
I would argue that one big flaw of the Gunstar is that it's hauling around a lot of mass for a weapon system that should theoretically never be used, since it completely drains the ship, and is only really helpful if completely surrounded.
Yes and NO. This weapon system was a Prototyp Alpha Version for Testing not for Real Use
The weapon was an experimental prototype. But it proved highly effective when deployed. It might appear suboptimal because it imposes tactical or technical limitations on how it can be used ... but that didn't stop it from being used when those conditions presented themselves in the movie, it's never really stopped anyone who's intent on finding a way to use whatever weapons they can build to kill their enemies.
That was just the prototype. Wait until Grig gets a chance to update the system.
Gunstar One is apparently the only Gunstar remaining. Presumable this prototype Gunstar wouldn’t have been used in an actual battle if all the other mass-produced (non-prototype) Gunstars weren’t destroyed during the meteor-gun attack and base sabotage. It’s not really a flaw then (as it was likely never intended to be used in battle - instead for testing and experimentation). Grig and Alex are just incredibly desperate and have no other options but to use this one and only remaining Gunstar.
OK not an issue if you have a bag of 9v batteries........ When Grig was restoring systems you can see a 9v battery clip
hands down, the greatest fighter in sci-fi... if the hanger wasn't blown up, we would see a small fleet of these firing in every direction without the need for death blossom... although death blossom kicks arse - could you imagine a full wing of the prototype?
Damn good conversation.
I thought that I was the only one who had this conversation.
Subbed for this video alone!
I think they're both tailored to different roles: Starfuries could serve as a cheaper and more numerous fighter to screen for fewer numbers of larger Gunstars, which could use their heavy armor and weapon loads to cut apart hostile squadrons. I do love the idea of a gunstar though, heavier multi-seat fighters are an underutilized sci-fi concept.
Side note, love the Ace Combat music in this video lol.
I was thinking something similar, but using starfuries for screening and cap, and the guns gunstars for capital ship attacks.
Music credit claims it's from Battlezone 2, but it sure would fit in an Ace Combat game wouldn't it?
@@Sorain1 ...Yeah, there may have been a mix-up there. That music is definitely Ace Combat 7 OST: Lighthouse.
Could the Gun Star be a Gunship as opposed to a Starfighter?
The Gunstar seems to be built as a heavy attack craft with area or asset denial/defense as its primary role. Sure, I could see it jumping into the middle of an enemy formation death blossoming and then getting out, but I don’t see it functioning optimally as a space superiority fighter. But you work with what you have.
In the game Tie Fighter the Starwars Cygnus XG-1 Starwing Assault Gunboat was a heavy attack craft, it could dog fight but the Tie Interceptor/fighter/advanced were better in the starfighter/dogfight role.
The Starfury of B5 seem to be just starfighters.
Well even in the games X-wing and Tie Fighter the player was forced from time to time to use B-wings, Missile boats, Y-wings and Tie Bombers outside their primary roles. Again you work with what you have.
Thoughts?
The title Starfighter in the film refers to the pilot not the craft, so the craft isn't necessarily a fighter as we think of one. Of course there's not much of a hint concerning the restoration of the fleet and a vessel is given a designation based on its role within a fleet of vehicles so its impossible to say if the gunstar is a fighter by local definition or not.
With its Newtonian physics model Star Citizen is a better comparison than Star Wars, and in Star Citizen the PVP meta is dominated by light fighters.
I feel the Starfury works well as a light and quick interceptor, the Gunstar as a mainline space superiority fighter.
F16 compared to the F14
FINALLY!!! spacedock is the first channel I follow to give some love to the last starfighter
Yep, my favorite too. Going by the arcade game, The semi-fixed particle cannons are the main weapons. They seem to be able to hole more than one target. Each of the missiles are very powerful(think Photon(anti-matter?), not Spacial(nuke?)).
To be honest it would likely come down to mission profiles, doctrine and a variety of secondary or tertiary considerations. Personally I'd think the Starfury is a better option in most cases, but An elite squadron of Gunstar covered by Starfury would end up being an utter nightmare to face
I think Gunstars, being more expensive and valuable but with omni directional targeting abilities would work excellently as defensive fighters - used to escort larger vessels.
Starfuries are designed to be cheap and their smaller frame would be advantageous when attacking targets larger than themselves, particularly when using their missiles
I think each shop has its place. I'm fond of the original (Lorne Greene) Battlestar Galactica (the only Galactica for me) but each ship you mention would work well in a fleet. Each doing slightly different functions.
Nice video 👍
The Starfury is the practical single seater fighter, designed to be flown from a base, a short distance to a target then back - that target usually being other fighters
The Gunstar is the two seater long range, heavily armed version designed to fight anything and everything ....
They don't compare otherwise as they have different roles
Both are fabulous and realistic
I have been a fan of Spacedock vids after exploring his videos on The Expanse... But as a fellow Ace Combat fan i am pleasantly surprised at the use of the "lighthouse" OST at the beginning from 0:15. Badass tune.
@Spacedock I love them all!!! I grew up watching the OG Battlestar Galactica and l really dig what was done with the reboot's Vipers.
The biggest downside to the Gunstar that I see is that when 1 Gunstar is destroyed you lose personnel instead of one so it seems that the Gunstar takes twice as much training investment over a single-seater craft. On the other hand, the Gunstar is more of a Heavy Fighter with its sheer size and firepower.
I would think the two would be better partner craft than rivals.
- The Gunstar can go after beefy targets due to its thicker armor yet still maintain some degree of fighter capability.
- The Star Fury goes after everything else that does not have thick armor.
I'd consider a Gunstar more of a big stick due to its mammoth weapons load, and thus would make the craft a deep range two-person raider craft. The smaller Star Fury would be your space superiority fighter conversely, sticking close to a fleet or asset you need protected.
That is why unmanned drones beat both.
If you have sufficiently large populations, human lives are expandable. Also they both train for specific tasks so they need less training per person overall. Eg the gunner doesn't also need to learn how to fly..
And flying is harder that shooting
On one hand, yes, but that is offset somewhat by having the 2 crew use completely different skill sets. Whilst it is a significant investment to train a pilot or to train a gunner, it is significantly less of an investment than training a pilot who also must line up shots on opposing fighters. So unless you are very limited on manpower it's not that big of a detriment.
@@DrTheRich If you have the automation technology advanced enough to build space vessels that can be operated by a single person, there is really no reason not to make single-seat capital ships. Still, there is always a benefit of having one mind focused on hitting the enemy and another focused on evasion... And another one actually making tactical decisions
Just imagine how great the Gunstar would have been if they could've afforded the time and processing power to fully render the movie's original CGI content.
No kidding...that deadline film release really hamstrung the digital production. They had to cut a lot of rendering corners, which explains the sub-par look of the rock textures and explosions. I'd like to see someone go back and finish the job as it had been intended.
@@les4767 I think I saw somewhere that somebody wanted to, but that the files had been lost or destroyed.
@@TheBetterManInBlack That is a tragedy.
@Spacedock. Lighthouse from Ace Combat 7 Skies Unknown as background music. Great choice.
You should a video on whether or not the F-302 is a poorly designed space fighter. I for one think its missile loadout was too small for its intended role. Most earthly fighters can carry many more air-to-air missiles than it can.
Was about to point that out until I found this comment.
I think Alex fired the particle beam at least once. There was a shot that instead of being the red beam of the laser, it was a dotted yellow kinda thing. Actually, this might have been when he was playing the video game in the beginning, right before taking out the command ship. It's been a bit since I last saw it :P
2:23 I'd like to point out that a fighter jets size also comes from the internal fuel tanks it carries. For example, the F/A-18 has a total of six internal fuel tanks (4 in the fuselage and 1 in each wing). Even today with newer more efficient engines, fighter jets consume huge quantities of fuel. With a space fighter, depending on the setting, power source, technology scale and fuel used, they can be a lot smaller.
They actually have to be significantly larger because a space ship has to carry reaction mass. An aircraft uses the air as reaction mass. Plus a star ship travels significantly faster and can't use air to turn - it has to use more remass. With a relatively advanced fusion drive a star fighter would be a fair bit bigger than something like a tomcat, and most of it would be reaction mass. It would likely carry expandable external remass pods, as well as detachable drop tanks, making it look significantly different in combat than on patrol.
Definitely the Gunstar. Just going by my experiences with Star Citizen fighters, the ability for a ship's guns to aim independently of the ship's direction makes it far deadlier than one that has to be facing its target. S'why a fully crewed Redeemer (4 independently operated turrets + pilot controlled weapons) is still currently the deadliest small craft in the game. There's no safe approach angle as at least one of its guns can be pointed at you no matter how you come at it.
nah, the deadliest ship in the game is the Argo Cargo... oh, wait, you meant to OTHER people, not the pilot. Gotcha. Yeah, Redeemer's in the top three, based on preference :-D
Assuming continued development of automation and AI, manned 'fighters' themselves; are unrealistic IRL.
But putting that aside, a fighter would have to do something (a capability) that a larger ship couldn't:
If a settings' large ships are too slow or lack maneuverability or something -then you could have fighters which are fast and very maneuverable.
B5s SFs (and BSG Vipers) are contrasted with their large sluggish ships, never watched that movie but does the 'Gunstar' actually fit or serve a practical purpose in that universe or is it a 'mary sue'?
So AI piloted fighters would be a sort of Deal of the Century, one might say...
As for the movie, the "Star League" sits behind a large energy barrier that precludes any need for combat. But a power-seeking traitor allies with an external force and allows them to penetrate the barrier so the Star League has to throw together a military on relatively short notice and the small fleet of gunstars seems to be the extent of their fighting craft.
I love this video and how you approached the comparison.
GREAT VIDEO: BTW, the two weapons mounted away from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft that point inward is still a thing with ground attack aircraft like the A-29. The point at which they converge is called the "Harmonization" point. When aerodynamic drag is not the most essential characteristic, engineers use the more straight wing design for better stability as a gun platform. Modern jets have those integrated and nose mounted Vulcans mainly to keep the aerodynamics of the plane intact.
To me both the Starfury and Gunstar are having their heritage from the X-wing, even though the X-wing was more acting like it was an aircraft instead of a spacecraft.
But in the end it's all about the storytelling.
I think it has to do more with, call it "tech levels." When you take the technological levels of the civilizations utilizing fighters into account, it becomes more akin to comparing apples and oranges. I would say that the Starfury is the best "near-tech" fighter. Babylon 5's tech is shown as being not really that far advanced from the present day. That's why the Mimbari walked all over Earthforce during the Earth/Mimbari war. It wasn't that the design of the Starfury was inferior, it was simply because the technology of the Mimbari was so much further advanced. The Gunstar, by comparison, is the result of a much higher tech level. A Starfury wouldn't fare any better than a Ko-Dan fighter against a gunstar. I'd peg the technology of the Colonial fleet as closer to Babylon 5's Earthforce than the Rylan Star League. However, it is implied throughout Battlestar Gallactica's (reboot) series that not only do the colonial ships have artificial gravity, but that they are equipped with inertial compensators to reduce G-forces during acceleration and maneuvering. The vipers are too small to have artificial gravity, but likely mount a compensator to reduce G-forces. A Starfuy is too low tech for that. Pilots have to be very careful with their maneuvering to avoid blacking out from G-stress. Oh, and as for the Viper "pulling ammo out of a Tardis", I would argue that while the feed mechanism for the guns must run through the wings, the actual ammo bay is likely in the area between the three engines. When you take into account how long that area is, it actually provides a decent amount of volume.
So, the Starfury IS the best starfighter, for it's tech level and universe. The Mimbari figher is better because, super-tech. But it looks fugly.
The Viper IS the best starfighter for the same reasons.
The Gunstar IS the best starfigher, also for the same reasons.
But comparing them against each other really doesn't make sense because of tech differences.
On a strictly personal, aesthetic level, I like the Starfuy best with the Gunstar a close second.
The Last Starfighter is such an underrated movie and the Gunstar is a legendary space fighter. Great vid!
Nice to see some love for The Last Starfighter. Love it 🥰
Had to do a double take that you used Lighthouse from Ace Combat 7 in the video. Love the setting and the theme of that song.
The Gunstar is kinda of like a combination of Star Wars fighters and the omni-directional nature of phaser arrays in Star Trek.
Plus, I don't think splitting the tasks would be a problem because ideally, a starfighter and a navigator would repeatedly train together. This would allow them to learn how the other thinks and they could eventually work as an almost-single entity. You see this sort of thing happen between people who work very closely together in real life (whether that be professionally or personally), where they can almost tell what the other person is thinking and how they'll react. Also, it's not like they can't speak to each other and coordinate that way as well.
One thing that should exist, however, is an overlap in function if an emergency occurs that renders the starfighter or navigator unconscious. Maybe the Gunstar wouldn't fly or fight as well being controlled by one person, but in the event of an emergency, it's still preferable to the alternative where you can either fly but can't shot OR you can shoot but can't fly.
I love the idea of a space fighter and loved how there were used in battles but it sadly died when you figure out that it’s not viable way to fight in space, the closest thing to fighter in space would be like frigate or corvette class ship just because of the distance the battles would take place, but maybe I would proved wrong things change
They are in different classes. The gunstar is a gunship/heavy fighter with massive laodout and long, long range, while the starfury is a high agility fighter that is great for defense, or strike missions from a carrier or base. Also, you should take into account the different classes of starfury. The thunderbolt starfury has superior strike capabilities, and the Arora starfury is better suited to defense/intercept.
If I Was Out There. I Would Want A Gunstar.
Gunstar 1's deflector plating allows it to withstand several direct hits. In theory, it could be damaged or destroyed if the enemy went full beam spam.