Ship of the Week: Galactica-type Battlestar

[Deepcrush]

The same is true of HMS Belfast or the USS Missouri. They've still got all their armour and guns.

But the Galatica doesn't have all her weapons at the outset. That was the point.

Even worse - the Pegasus is the best the Colonial fleet has to offer, and if even she can only hold off three basestars (which I agree she could) then outnumbering the entire fleet by more than three-to-one as you suggest would give the Cylons a decisive advantage. Certainly they'd need a larger fleet than the Colonies to go toe-to-toe with them, but only 250-300 odd, given the observed abilities of their respective ships.

Well the whole point of the cylons needing so many ships was to gain such an advantage.

Yeh, I was referring to your comment about armoured flight decks on WW2 carriers. Haven't you heard of the Illustrious class?

Yeah I caught myself after I had posted. I was just speaking on the idea of the inclosed flight deck. I like how the Battlestars have six different launch points rather then just one or maybe two as in most SciFi's. Plus we know that they can even move back and forth between the port and starboard flight decks. Add in they're covered in several meters of hull and armor plus they can retracted for futher protection.

[Captain Seafort]

But the Galatica doesn't have all her weapons at the outset.

Nope. She didn't have any ammo for them, but she had all her guns.

Well the whole point of the cylons needing so many ships was to gain such an advantage.

You said "the Cylons would need close to 400 Baseships if they want anything over a stalemate." The relative strengths of the ships show that that's gross overkill - 250-300 ships would be enough

I like how the Battlestars have six different launch points rather then just one or maybe two as in most SciFi's. Plus we know that they can even move back and forth between the port and starboard flight decks. Add in they're covered in several meters of hull and armor plus they can retracted for futher protection.

Looking at the typical launch sequence she seems to have far more than just half a dozen tubes - more like a dozen or more on each pod. The retracting pods are a vulnerability as much as they're useful - look at the time they take to retract in the miniseries, and what happened to Galactica when she was forced to jump without retracting the pods in Daybreak. I suspect one of the reasons her back broke was because of the huge cavities the pod arms would leave in the upper hull.

[Coalition]

For the Pegasus taking 3:1 odds and having to run, IIRC the Pegasus was lured to a specific point, then ambushed. Given the point to point FTL capability both sides have, First Strikes like that would be the norm in a war, meaning both sides would try to keep their military installations secret, and likely moving. (though why no one developed jump nukes is another question)

Exodus pt 2 observations:
Galactica was expected to be able to take on two Baseships, which is interesting. Galactica is an older Battlestar, against two new Baseships. Pegasus (with a skeleton crew) is able to engage 4 Baseships, though they do lose after abandoning ship. If Lee had been smart enough to have the FTL core prepped, they could have jumped out after Galactica and the other civilian ships had left, leaving one dead Baseship, three damaged Baseships, some severely embarassed Cylons on-planet, and two heavily armed Battlestars, instead of one. Strip whatever you can from Pegasus and transfer it over (include a comment about the spine taking a nasty hit), so Pegasus does get lost (so they can use the sound stage for the Cylon ship).

For the combat capabilities of the Battlestar series, I'd see them as using fighters as defensive and precision strike vessels, rather than direct combat. The heavy gun batteries are what Galactica uses when it wants to kill an enemy ship. For the pods extending/retracting, that could be FTL limitation, though the ability to shelter the flight pods behind the heavy nose would be nice to help prevent them taking fire (Exodus pt 2 had the Cylon missiles diverting around the nose before they hit the Galactica).


Overall, I'd see Galactica as more of a Battleship with defensive fighter (and Raptors for long range search) component, rather than a carrier with offensive weaponry.

[Sionnach Glic]

Nope. She didn't have any ammo for them, but she had all her guns.

Aye, her armament was fine. But her fighter compliment was both severely under-strength and made up mostly of obsolete fighters. That alone probably put a serious dent in her offensive capabilities.

Add in the fact that the ship's creators were said to have "cut corners" and left parts of the support structures hollow, and it says quite a lot that the Galactica was able to take on two or three to one odds and survive.

[Deepcrush]

Nope. She didn't have any ammo for them, but she had all her guns.

Aye, her armament was fine. But her fighter compliment was both severely under-strength and made up mostly of obsolete fighters. That alone probably put a serious dent in her offensive capabilities.

Right.... my bad.

You said "the Cylons would need close to 400 Baseships if they want anything over a stalemate." The relative strengths of the ships show that that's gross overkill - 250-300 ships would be enough

250 would only give the Cylons 2 to 1 odds. Those aren't good odds for the Cylons. Seeing how an old and outdated Battlestar was beating those odds.

300 would be better but still under scored for matching the Colonials.

Looking at the typical launch sequence she seems to have far more than just half a dozen tubes - more like a dozen or more on each pod. The retracting pods are a vulnerability as much as they're useful - look at the time they take to retract in the miniseries, and what happened to Galactica when she was forced to jump without retracting the pods in Daybreak. I suspect one of the reasons her back broke was because of the huge cavities the pod arms would leave in the upper hull.

Port side launch tubes, Port side aft flight deck, Port side bow flight deck.
Starboard side launch tubes, Starboard side aft flight deck, Starboard side bow flight deck.

How long did it take to retract the pods? About 30 seconds? That lost time, I think, is out weighed by the gains.

[Captain Seafort]

250 would only give the Cylons 2 to 1 odds. Those aren't good odds for the Cylons. Seeing how an old and outdated Battlestar was beating those odds.

300 would be better but still under scored for matching the Colonials.

Galactica may be old, but she's also big. Smaller ships like the Valkyrie would be more effective for their size, but only as strong as, or weaker than her in absolute terms. 250 would be an absolute lower limit, which would strain both sides, and 300 would give the Cylons a major advantage. Indeed, such numbers may well give the Cylons a decisive advantage, as their tactical inferiority isn't that great (note that the numbers we're talking about involve Colonial ships simply surviving and holding off the Cylons, not beating them) and would be compensated by the huge strategic advantage such numerical superiority would give them. A Mercury-class battlestar may be able to take on two or three basestars single-handed but it can only be in one place at a time. The Cylons could cause havoc by engaging each battlestar with one or two basestars and sending the rest of the fleet against shipyards and the Colonies themselves. Sure, the forces used to pin the Colonial forces would probably be destroyed or crippled, but they'd be able to take a few of their opponents with them, and the Colonials would be left in a precarious position with their supporting infrastructure destroyed.

Port side launch tubes, Port side aft flight deck, Port side bow flight deck.
Starboard side launch tubes, Starboard side aft flight deck, Starboard side bow flight deck.

Ah, right ho. I thought you were talking about individual launch tubes rather than batteries.

How long did it take to retract the pods? About 30 seconds? That lost time, I think, is out weighed by the gains.

What gains? They're only retracted for FTL, which suggests the rationale is based on limitations of FTL technology or the ship's design, and means that they're exposed most of the time, with no more protection than the armour - their retractability confers no advantage under combat conditions. They restrict the ship's ability to launch fighters immediately following a jump, and they limit the ship's ability to jump immediately after landing fighters (unless the pilots are all as unbalanced as Starbuck).

[Sionnach Glic]

I don't think the pods need to be extended for the Vipers to launch, only to land. Though Raptors would be stuck until they extend.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't think the pods need to be extended for the Vipers to launch, only to land.

My impression was that they needed to be extended to launch Vipers from the pod tubes, but they could launch from the bow tubes, as during the Adama Manoeuvre.

Though Raptors would be stuck until they extend.

Depends. They weren't stuck after the jump to Cavil's Colony. 8)

[Sionnach Glic]

My impression was that they needed to be extended to launch Vipers from the pod tubes, but they could launch from the bow tubes, as during the Adama Manoeuvre.

The Galactica doesn't have any bow launch tubes, only ones along the sides. Also, Exodus Part 2 showed fighters launching from Galactica's sides despite the pods being retracted as it was falling through the atmosphere. You can see it here.

Depends. They weren't stuck after the jump to Cavil's Colony. 8)

Yeah, but I think the idea is to have them exit the ship without tearing a hole in the side of the ship.

[Sonic Glitch]

My impression was that they needed to be extended to launch Vipers from the pod tubes, but they could launch from the bow tubes, as during the Adama Manoeuvre.

The Galactica doesn't have any bow launch tubes, only ones along the sides. Also, Exodus Part 2 showed fighters launching from Galactica's sides despite the pods being retracted as it was falling through the atmosphere. You can see it here.

"This video is not available in your country"

[Tsukiyumi]

Rochey's revenge!

[Deepcrush]

Rochey's revenge!

Those silly Irish were bound to strike back sooner or later.

[Captain Seafort]

The Galactica doesn't have any bow launch tubes, only ones along the sides. Also, Exodus Part 2 showed fighters launching from Galactica's sides despite the pods being retracted as it was falling through the atmosphere. You can see it here.

Weird. I always assumed they were launched from the bow rather than the pods - surely they'd be launching almost vertically from the pods, given they way they fold into the main hull?

And I can see the video fine.

[Deepcrush]

The pods launch the fighters directly to flank. Not up or down. Plus the pods don't fold. They slide inwards of the main hull.

[Sionnach Glic]

"This video is not available in your country"

Ha! How do you like it now, Yanks?

Weird. I always assumed they were launched from the bow rather than the pods - surely they'd be launching almost vertically from the pods, given they way they fold into the main hull?

I'm watching the Miniseries on DVD as I type this, and during the scene where they prep the ship for its first FTL jump, the pods don't seem to fold up at all - just in.

And I can see the video fine.