Cylons: We designed our new Basestars to use only missiles and rely heavily on its strike craft. What'd you guys make? Colonials: Another extremely well-armed brick.
I was always a lot more partial to the HW1 Kushan carrier. The HW2 ships always seemed more like sea going ships in space, and while they worked, I just liked the more "these were made for space" dynamic of the HW1 ships.
The Saratoga may fall into the hybrid carrier/battleship group. She had heavy cannon and missiles, from what I remember, and some kind of big gun they used for planetary assault.
I love these top 5 videos, and I have a suggestion - instead of focusing on exteriors, how about ship *interiors*? I’d love your take on bridge design, hangars, cargo bays, crew quarters, and other design elements - windows vs view screens, sliding vs irising doors, corridor shapes, lighting, and so on.
The Lucrehulk class battleship is a perfect example of a ship that excels at being not just a carrier and a battleship, but also a troop transport. In my opinion the best carrier in all of sci fi.
yeah, Homeworld designs are just nice in general, very interesting and utilitarian, like star wars but without the deletion of physics and addition of space magic
@@ElcomeSoft A carrier being able to manufacture replacement craft isn't a bad idea - particularly if you've got good ejection/survival & recovery systems for pilots, or even better automated fighter craft. A carrier with auto- or remote-piloted fighters that can manufacture replacements would be really effective.
I feel like the motherships could've been contenders as well, since they have hardly any personal defensive capabilities as well. Also the Somtaaw carrier and Kuun-lan, although the Kuun-lan was technically speaking an ore hauler, not a carrier. But even with the siege cannon it was still a support vessel, and not something else since the siege cannon was nigh-suicidal at close range. Honestly out of the whole Homeworld series I think the only "bad" carriers were the ones in Deserts of Kharak. Even without a supporting fleet a full powered carrier could more than fend for itself, enough so that I was using it like a battleship through the second half of the campaign.
I mean, I don't want to be the guy who shows up to defend call of duty of all things, but the retribution is capable of atmospheric flight, a situation where gravity would be a factor after all.
@@yobeefjerky42 I'm not super familiar with the IP, and I am not here to be argumentative, but wouldn't that just be moving the fuel expenditure from the fighter to the drone? If they use different fuel sources, that's an interesting concept, but if it's the same kind of engines and power source (to get enough thrust to actually slow the fighters fast enough) then it's a wash. I think enclosed bays makes more sense, even in atmosphere (with an exception that if it adds too much weight to be viable) because it provides protection from the elements, strong winds experienced at altitude and such. Again, not knocking the defense of the IP, I think there are valid discussion points about atmospheric capable vessels having different designs.
@@Nodjia probably, though the fighter's fuel has to be carried on it for the whole mission that the fighter is on, further increasing fuel use throughout.
I'd argue for the Guantanamo-class Carriers from Macross 7, Frontier, and Delta. Designed for both stealth and missile/fighter support, they are employed as unseen escort carriers and carry around 70 fighters.
@@Taiko206 I remember the series and how one of the carriers was destroyed by the aliens. The Saratoga and its sister ships were all great. I think the show ended too soon. Even then they had racism with what were called tanks - people who were grown in tanks. I believe there was a major who was a tank on the Saratoga along with an enlisted tank as well. Again great memories for a great show.
@@55Quirll Actually one was a colonel and one of their nest untill he was groumded necause of injuries, and the other one made it to lieutenant and was a good pilot even though he was a bit of a hotshot. But both were definetly respected their squadron members. And yes the destroyed carrier was named the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
@@Taiko206 That I didn't know, I only remember the Major - who I have seen in other movies and TV series and was a good officer to all those under his command - and the enlisted man. The enlisted man was always getting into trouble and I believe he was given a choice by a judge to either join or go to jail. I enjoyed the show, hated the people who caused the war with the aliens, I believe the man who started it all got what he deserved from the aliens and being shown up as the one who knew about the aliens and still sent the colony ship to a disputed planet.
Well clearly we both enjoyed the series but from different points of view. I was looking at it from a technological and military aspect . Would've loved to pilot one of those SA-43 Hammerheads
I would note two honorable mentions in terms of carriers: The carrier from Homeworld (Part 1 - both factions, though the carriers from Part 2 are also noteworthy, maybe even more so, see refit) and the Saratoga, from Space - Above and beyond.
I would love to see some other SciFi universes acknowledged on this channel. Eve Online, Gundam, Ace Combat, for example all have a wealth of fantastic world building and technology to explore.
@@Stingra87 there is room to explore with other aspects of SciFi, such as a perpetual war, superweapons, original aircraft, the idea of a flying behemoth
When I saw the Quasar Fire class in Rebels, along with ships such as the Interdictor class and the TIE Defender, something I've previously only known from novels, I really felt excited.
My favorite carrier is the Protoss Carrier from Starcraft. It's one of the few ships that is just straight-up a carrier, with no offensive weapons of its own other than its interceptors. They get melted by Terran Battlecruisers on their own thanks to the BC's Yamato Gun, necessitating that they operate alongside Void Rays and Tempests, but they are great at absolutely melting smaller craft and ground targets so long as the enemy doesn't focus them down.
It does actually have a weapon of its own in lore, but it's a pretty reasonable choice of weapon IMO, and its main armament is still clearly its fighter complement.
@@Owlfeathers0117 yep, if you pay attention to the opening cinematic of the original StarCraft, you'll see a Protoss carrier utilizing some sort of beam weapon that obliterates a Terran science vessel.
@@jaqenhghar2970 As far as I'm aware it's mainly intended as an orbital bombardment weapon (for glassing infested planets), but it does seem to be rather useful for killing capital ships as well.
Protoss carriers oddly have a realism bonus too, They launch drones. There is a good chance realisticly if we become space faring odds are we will be launching drones rather than manned fighters if small craft exist at all.
For a carrier class ship fraught with “issues,” many of them human error as attempts to reverse engineer advanced but aging alien technology led to one mishap after another, I submit for your list the SDF-1 from the Japanese anime Super Dimension Fortress Macross. This ship relied heavily on its fighter wings, consisting mainly of the famous VF-1 “Valkyrie” series of “Variable Fighters,” and most of its anti-aircraft and ship-to-ship firepower was provided by ground assault Mecha that shared hanger space with the fighters and deployed to emplacements along the massive ship’s exterior hull. The ship’s only real integrated firepower, a massively destructive main gun, required a 15-minute transformation sequence before firing that caused havoc for the civilian population on board and would sometimes fire on its own due to programming from its original alien operators (which lands humanity in a highly destructive war with the advanced alien race that was hunting the ship). The vessel had ACTUAL naval carriers (CVS-101 Prometheus and SLV-111 Daedalus) docked and retrofitted to its sides (giving the anthropomorphic depiction of giant robot arms when the ship transformed to fire its main weapon) after an attempt by the human crew to use the alien tech space fold engine to draw the enemy attention away from earth and into lunar orbit accidentally landed them outside the orbit of Pluto along with the island the shipped crash landed on, the city and civilian population on that island (the survivors of which became the civilian population on board) and the surrounding ocean water plus the two naval carriers which were patrolling nearby. Hey, at least they re-appeared in the same solar system. In any case, the vessel becomes their home, they learn to live with its quirks and they valiantly engage in one battle after another with the alien race on their sub-luminal (the space fold engine broke after one fold and who would trust it anyhow after it missed lunar orbit by many AU’s) voyage home. If you like vessels that are true carriers (in this case mostly because of how humans used the massive alien craft, though it did include the fore mentioned actual naval carriers that were never intended for use in space) with design flaws, operational quirks and human errors in spades, you have to consider the SDF-1. SPOILER ALERT: Luckily for all the humans on board, the warlike alien race is far more susceptible to being defeated by Japanese pop culture than it is to being defeated by superior firepower and military strategy, neither of which the error-prone humans and their hacked ancient alien tech possess.
I've only seen the American adaptation, Robotech, but I agree the SDF-1 was very cool. And so were the varitech fighters. I think the storylines are similar with a few modifications. It was a standout series for me as a kid in the 80's, as it had season-long story arc that depicted character development over time and real consequences facing the realities of war. It was a little more mature than a lot of kids shows at the time, but not too much so. At least the Robotech adaptation. I really should see the Macross series. It would be fun to see how it differed.
Take a Brick..... slap lauch tubes on it.... cover it entirely in laser weapons, because they don't need space (and seem to have an unlimited amount of power supply). Best ship, no drawbacks.
Could've swore this was supposed to be non-multi role carriers and yet the last two were described as Jack of trade and carrier/battleship hybrid. What's with that?
The Basestar from Battlestar Galactica is also multirole, it is a mixed carrier/missile platform like the Kiev class carrier used by Russia. Just because it does not have guns does not mean it is not multiple. Missiles are just as potentially potent of an offensive weapon, which is why you see Basestars slugging it out repeatedly with Battlestars in the series.
Would love to see some Honorverse ships on this channel. The RMN's Minotaur class is an interesting take on a space carrier, mainly because it carries LACs which are 70 meter long assault craft rather than traditional fighters.
Agreed. It is an interesting take on the concept. Essentally the SciFi version fo the 19th century torpedo boat tender. Also, the concept of the torpedo boat or gunboat is one not often explored in SciFi.
Those are some really good books but It's kind of hilarious how hard the author worked to have a good excuse for them to use Age of Sail naval warfare tactics in space.
I was just about to post the very same reply! The Saratoga is an absolute beauty. Shame S:AaB is so often overlooked, the series had immense potential.
Agreed, the JFK-class from that series was great, and it seems like it falls well within the range of what @Spacedock likes in a carrier design. I think we may have to send him a copy of the series.
I know it's from 40k, but the Chaos carrier class Styx has a very striking silhouette (discounting the inevitable greebles), long-range lance turrets for direct support of the fleet, and launch tubes that are angled away from the plane of engagement, meaning all of the strike craft servicing facilities are effectively just as well armoured as the hull without sacrificing access.
Just stumbled across this channel, and I love it. One of my favorite things to do in Space Engineers is design ships that correctly fit their designations.
Same here, the Taiidan and Kushan carriers were great designs too. Maybe Spacedock isn't all that familiar with Homeworld, or he ruled out 'factory carriers' completely.
I am so happy that you not only brought in the Wing Commander series, but specifically brought in the OG WC1 Bengal class. I was in middle school when that game came out, and...oh, boy, the nostalgia.
Agreed. Though it had options to build larger Corvette and frigate class craft (not normally a carrier function, however all craft listed do manufacture their figher/bomber/recon craft) The base function was that of a launch/recovery/maintenance point for strike craft.
Yeah I'm surprised Homeworld doesn't get more love on this channel. The whole philosophy of space combat in that series seems to fit in with a lot of what Daniel talks about on Spacedock (great channel btw, soul food for my inner nerd). As far as Sci Fi space combat goes, the HW games are still my favorite IP, and sure wouldn't mind seeing a new proper sequel get developed.
I always liked the Homeworld 2 Carriers, like all the ships they look fantastic and the modular elements can make them specialised fighter and gunship manufacturing platforms.
well yes, you could have one set up for fighters or frigates or other permutations, but you had to choose two, so there was still balance. with the the games heavy reliance on specialised Frigates (Flack, Torpedo, Troop, Ion and so on) I don't think it's necessarily too much to for one ship to do, especially since it wasn't a good idea to try to fight any other capital ships with a carrier. it still fits within the role of a dedicated manufacturing platform. you could loose your mothership/flagship but if you still had a carrier hidden away somewhere you could get the shipyard and rebuild your fleet. An in universe application for this would be instead of building a whole fleet and sending it to attack a planet or star system, you send a carrier with some Fighter squadrons and a few escorts into the system and use the materials there to build up your attack fleet. Decentralising manufacturing, rather than having one or more large shipyards that build every ship in your whole fleet.
I was a big fan of using a carrier with Fire Control tower and some Gunships, Pulsar Gunships, Interceptors as a rapid resource gathering group. It was pretty solid. Also looked damned good.
I always kinda liked the Yamamoto from Starlancer. I also like the Daedalus class from Stargate, even if later they wrote themselves into a corner and then made it OP.
Starlancer... I have fond memories of that game. I'm wondering if Stardock would ever do ships which were never in games, movies, nor T.V. shows. I believe HMS Minotaur from David Weber's Honor Harrington Series is one of the best Carriers (it was also the first in the series, lol).
I remember a pirate carrier in Babylon 5 that was really well thought out. It was basically just a frame with drop off fighters. Although not too sure about it’s hangar bay.
Hello, Daniel from Spacedock. I "recently" discovered your team's channel about 10 months ago or so, and I have "liked" (both the original AND social-media sense of the word) every single video that I have seen so far. All EXCEPT this one. And to be precise, NOT even the whole video, just the middle portion of it; the rest is perfectly fine. The Comments section on YT isn't exactly ideal for a discussion, so I'll TRY & make this brief, if at all possible. Now for context, I have been a student of military science & history for most, if not all, of my life. In real-life or otherwise. And by "otherwise", I DON'T just mean live-action Western sci-fi properties like you focus on, but also other major media like militaristic anime, such as Gundam, Macross and many others. With my own dad surviving the Second World War/Pacific War as a kid, I have always had a special place in my heart for the mighty carriers. So when it comes to their sci-fi incarnations, I am BOTH their greatest patron AND their worst critic. In the sense that, as much as I want it to be true, naval carriers--as they look & function now, is almost nonsensical in a real-life deep-space combat environment. Now, the very-specific issue I have with this video, is the part when you were talking about the Bengal-class carrier. You were praising it as almost a classic masterpiece of space carrier design, but then, almost under the same breath, you were calling the Retribution an "obsession" with real-life carriers. But, why?? "Realistic" starfighters/strikecraft, like the Vipers from Galactica & the Valkyries from Macross, can ALWAYS arrest their forward momentum in zero-gravity, almost instantly. That fact alone makes ALL space carriers with landing flightdecks/runways, like the Retribution AND the Bengal-class and countless others, unrealistic at best--and as you said, "pretentious" about gravity at worst. HOWEVER, they look cool as hell, because they look like the real-life carriers that we all know and love. And THAT is the reason (perhaps the ONLY one), why we sci-fi fans accept them anyway. Even you have said in a number of your own videos that the "Rule of Cool" have caused you to give many flawed designs the proverbial "pass". So getting back to my question, why? What makes the Retribution with a flightdeck, a design "lunacy" and the Bengal-class, ALSO with a flighteck, a masterpiece of design realism? Is it because the Bengal's launch bays are located on the port/starboard? So just because of that "relocation" of the launching system, that makes it greatly "more" realistic? Again, why?? I apologize in advance if I sound a bit testy here. As I've said before, I have ALWAYS agreed with your judgement on functional designs (we even have mostly the same taste in aesthetic designs), but I have always had this great Sense of Fairness, especially with underdogs. I'm NOT trying to side with either franchise here, but if you're going to be Fair, good sir, you can't have it both ways. So either they're both realistic (or at least acceptable), or they're both nonsensical. WHERE or how they launch their fighters, does not provide a SIGNIFICANT-enough "realism" score, to justify one design as being realistic and then condemn the other as being completely insane! That's just wrong and unfair, sir. Heck, even your own Rule of Cool can be applied well here. One could argue that, not only does the Retribution look "infinitely" cooler than the Bengal-class (it's like comparing the aesthetics of a janky badly-painted WWI carrier to USS Gerald R. Ford,and thus deserves a LITTLE pass from us), but the design's lack of large OVERHANGING launch pods/bays, greatly reduces & streamlines its profile (like in 5th-generation fighters). Which is not only better for general mobility/maneuverability, but also better for stealth and combat/evasion purposes. Anyway, aside from this specific segment/point, I still enjoyed the rest of the video. Will continue to watch & support the channel; keep up the good work.
@@Sneemaster Last one also wasn't a "pure" carrier. He only put it there because it was a "battleship-carrier hybrid done right". Why can't a "factory-carrier" qualify, especially since homeworld carriers have woefully inept weapons that are hardly capable of removing even a single scout squadron?
The Quasar-Fire class was used quite effectively in my opinion at least in the story mode of Star Wars: Squadrons. It was used quite effectively I think
Also disappointed in the absence of any Homeworld ships. The mothership and carrier class ships are very purpose driven in their design. Neither are ships you take to a navy slug fest. Instead, they hang in the background and you protect them while they churn out and resupply/repair assault craft. Homeworld also features plenty of destroyers, frigates, and battlecruisers that would make quick work of a carrier if they ever encountered one, further distancing them from Jack of all trades ships. You're also incentivized to recall/dock all of your fighters before jumping them (assuming you installed the hyperspace module) since you'd only pay the cost of jumping the single ship vs if you told all of the fighters to jump with the carrier on their own or fly separate and far away from the carrier, leaving it vulnerable. So much disappoint.
*JAW DROPS* I... was not expecting to see a Wing Commander ship in this video. MAJOR KUDOS. I was figuring it would be exclusively focused on movies and television
@@mho... Just look at all the missile pods and gun turrets on the top side then. Its strong enough that it could fight off a Chic bomber attack without launching any of its hammerheads.
Realy liked the Reliant. Old, small, minimal armament and can't take much off a beating. Just a hangar and some launch facilities bolted to a propulsion system. A simplicit design that followed the old "good enough for the job" philosophy that seems to be woefully underrepresented in SciFi.
Agreed. I was looking to see if it was mentioned. Though, I could easily state it was a light or escort carrier, so that (along with the relatively obscure game now) may be a reason not to include it, but the Quasar Fire class didn't do more in support, either. I spent quite some time flying out of the Reliant. Not as much as did out of the Tiger's Claw, Concordia, and Victory, but it was close.
Without playing Eve he wouldn't know all too much about them, and well, there's 4 factions for each that are too similar to add any to this format he's using. He could do a video talking about Eve ships aesthetically I suppose, as that wouldn't really require playing.
@@grennhald Thing with EvE ships is theyre horribly under gunned compared to most scifi ships for game balance reasons. For example a Titan one of the biggest ship classes (~17km) has 8 primary guns (16 if you account the extra for symmetrical firing angles) no point defenses, no fighter/drone bay. You could argue that its ship maintenance array which can accommodate multiple battleships could be counted like a fighter bay. Maybe if you count their doomsday weapons they might have a chance but things like the Eclipse from star wars do that while still bringing a lot of other guns/fighters. Cruiser or smaller might compare well to other universes.
Have you tried looking at StarLancer's Yamato or Reliant? 2 Torpedo Turrets, maybe 8 AA & 1 Heavy Gun, fighters are primary strike weapon. Simple but reliable designs.
The Bengal-class from Wing Commander was a Strike Carrier, it's purpose was to jump in, launch strike craft, jump out and rendezvous with it's strike craft at a pre-determined waypoint by jumping in again later to pick up the strike craft and jump back out. Unfortunately due to the shortage of carriers in Confed in the story (technical limitations in the game engine) the ship was instead used in a Fleet Carrier role. The Vesuvius-class was initially referred to as a Supercarrier and was designed with the help of Kilrathi scientists and technology. According to the narrative in Wing Commander IV, the ship was designed as a next-gen carrier, never any mention of it being meant to take a battleship role. The reason St-Helens and Vesuvius were duking it out was because the St-Helens didn't have much of a fighter wing yet since it hadn't even been finished construction when it was taken out of spacedock, and the Vesuvius' wing had been squandered fighting the player, and neither ship had an Escort at the time due to the situation in the story. Vesuvius, not thinking it would need an escort when traveling to Earth and St-Helens not having time to assemble an escort to intercept Vesuvius.
Thank you. I was starting to question if this guy had ever even been in the same room as WC when he was saying the Bengal was meant to operate with a full support fleet.
Space Battleship Yamato (and depicted again in 2199 and 2202) surprisingly had some interesting carrier designs that the antagonists. Yamato show even had awesome looking bad guy ships that actually looked like typical ships without looking freakish and ugly. One of their carriers had three decks to launch and recover fighters. Another carrier design was a combat carrier that would launch fighters. Once the fighters were launched the landing bay would rotate and guns were presented so the carrier could join the battle.
My favorite "pure" carrier at the moment is the "kraken" from star citizen. It's just so ...........simple. Just a thin "naval design" ship with some landing platforms welded on it.
@@nielsmichiels1939 I got ya but it's a really bad design. Much of the ship is rather exposed to enemy fire, No real hull plating, all your Fighters are exposed and I did not see how a pilot can get to their ship safely. If you are ambushed the enemy could shoot the pilots and ships off the deck. I'd imagine anti ship missiles would rip it apart quickly. Of course, we will have to wait to see how it works in game.
I get NIELS feeling as it is this ship has some style and can carry quite a good number of fighters for his size, but this come as over-exploitation of the ship for his specialised role. Everything is indeed too exposed, and the number of defensive turrets showed is useless for such a ship depending on escort/figther screen for reliable defence. I think the core probleme is the presentation of the Kraken as single-operative ship/mobile base, which doesn't fit with it's vulnerability. Less pads and more plating would have been a nice trade.
@@ChristopherSloane @Louis Mertens Guys, i get where you're comming from. I know it's pretty much a paper tiger, thats the reason why i like it. It's going to be cheaper than other carriers, and you get get what you pay for. It's going to be able to cary and repair ships, just don't fligh it too close to the battle. XD It may suck, but it has that underdog charm, like all drake ships have.
@@TheVeritas1 a lot of the videos about what people are doing wrong always just give the best examples on how to be better. I never thought about the flaw in the COD ship until this video and he only just touched it for a second
@@martinkulash4061 tbh he's still missing alot of those "surface ship" rules in this video. ATC towers are a prime example, carriers have them so they can see outside and monitor the flight deck, his carriers flight decks are internal, and as for seeing outside, it's space, you don't need to see it, what you need to do is remove the massive weak spot on your hull and put it inside. Also why is it on the top, why not the bottom, the sides, you'd need several to make use of them even slightly properly, better to have your command and control staff deep inside the ship with some from of I don't know, 3d display showing the outside. But then his hate for carrier battleship hybrids also falls back to normal navy logic. Only reason they don't exist now is carriers need a deck, you can't put big guns on it (That and battleships aren't a valid concept anymore). In space your exterior hull, were you mount your weapons, armour and sensors is the same regardless of ship role unless you plan to have strike craft land externally, which could be argued is the best carrier design, wireframe with a drive module mounted to it, and automated features, including drone fighters as organics would be useless in realistic space combat, reactions too slow and unable to survive manuvers at the speeds involved. Carrier launches drones, then leaves, or because it's so simple, is expendable. But back to my argument, because the expected carrier in space is basically a large tube with a drive system wrapped in some armour, what's to stop a smart designer increasing its size 20%, by adding more armour/sheilding a larger power system, drive system and guns. I know people will say the crew increases at this point, but that's BS. Sci-fi really has a thing against automation, only show that ever seemed to accept it was Andromeda, which for several series has the ship run and mostly repaired by drones. A proper sci-fi warship has exactly organic crew, and is either entirely AI controlled or remote. Removing the crew removes life support, crew quarters, supply issues, need for "Sci-fi magic inertial dampers", this not only decreases ship mass and construction times, but also increases combat survivability as no oxygen limits fire potential, shockwaves and decompression damage.
@@cgi2002 I would add a few arguments against that. While it might not necessarily be a full ATC, the idea of putting something at some distance from the main hull has some value to me. Especially when it comes to any form of antenna, array, sensor systems. This will be to ensure that any emissions from the ship are minimised and don't present false readings, confuse positive readings from a hostile source. I'd also consider putting some large, volatile weapon systems, missiles out on 'wings', so that if they are damaged, they don't cause any harm to the main vessel. I would argue against the entire absence of any personnel. The simple fact is to this day, we've highly automated some aspects of warfare, technically advanced systems and communication between those systems, we still have people who at the end of the day, push the button, pull the trigger and the like. They still have the clear chain of command, they still have a clear process to ensure that orders are valid, moral and appropriate. There's a reason there's a chain of command. I also want to argue with some of the choices here. If we're talking spaceships, I'm seeing a lot of straight lines and very little vertical movement, or perhaps the use of a RCS like system, allowing horizontal movement, while maintaining a particular facing. Especially important for carriers who will need to maintain a clear launch vector for their strike assets. Finally, I would point out the his definition of carrier is a bit vague and rather American in places. There's something to be said for how the Americans have built them and maintained them. They're one of the few people out there who have the effective, formed and practised carrier doctrine. It doesn't mean that there are not other carriers out there. In some cases, even American carriers were armed with anti-surface weapons, in some cases using these 'defensive' guns offensively. To the degree of an escort carrier and escorts, taking on a Japanese heavy cruiser in Leyte Gulf, from memory. Russian aircraft have been heavily armed for a while and present quite a threat, both in their own right and their air assets. I don't know any of their doctrine or how they're planned to be used, I don't read Russian. In saying that though, the act of arming a carrier is not unknown and not unusual. Not only is it not unusual, it's been the standard for a while. For a good long while. I won't argue on the idea of drones or the like. A little project of mine gives one faction a focus on drones and long range stand off engagements. Why? They don't have the numbers of meat bags, but they have the technology in drones, to make up those numbers. I also put the main command deck/CIC in the middle of the ship, behind the second layer of armour, lifeboat core section. All outer decks deck get their atmo sucked out. That's on every single ship. I'd also say that using modern, wet navy, floating navy rules really don't apply to space, interstellar engagements on a logical level. Nevermind talking about the technology these engagements are being fought with and how they're being fought. Doctrine and technology have a complex relationship.
@cgi2002 Agreed, another much overlooked design element is the fact that space is a true three dimensional environment for the most part; Unless you are orbiting a sufficiently massive object, there is no "Up" or "Down." At most you'll have eight quadrants to determine an objects relative position to the ship and MAYBE a "Fore" and "Aft" if you have a singular primary drive cluster/direction.
Not really. I've looked. Always wanted to run a pen and paper RPG campaign in that universe. I damn near fell in love with it all of those years ago. One of the first games to actually really draw me in like that. The ship designs are pretty good across the Hiigaran side. There's a few issues I have with them, but they're minor next to other universes, other games.
SDF-1 is not a carrier, it is a Macross class which act more as a Flag Battleship with big gun fight on front line rather than some Carrier that stay behind Macross vers Carrier would be the Uraga and Guantanamo class
@@giathuanleviet4138 , well every fortress class attack ship aka Macross class is considered also as Valk carriers. And also flagships can be any class of ships as long as the commanding admiral is in it. 😊
@@markgerardhandog1098 I know flag ship can be any type of ship, that why i put Battleship behind it, and Battleship IRL can bring Aircraft too, but that doesn't make it an Aircraft Carrier
The Macross is a tough one to categorise. I'd almost class it as a mobile battlestation rather than a ship, but thanks to its transforming capabilities and roughly humanoid form it could even be considered a super-mecha. It was definitely a carrier thanks to its Valkyrie payload, and even managed to use its Destroids in space battles thanks to the Daedalus Attack (when it literally punches an enemy battleship in the face), but its ultra-heavy Macross Cannon meant it doubled as a heavy weapons platform, and it was definitely capable of independant, unsupported deployment (the entire point of the series is that the Macross has to hold off the entire Zentraedi force all on its own).
Gonna shout out the ANS Reliant from Starlancer. A far smaller fighter and bomber complement but clearly a dedicated carrier with a specific fleet role. Sure it’s torpedos are a primary ship to ship weapon, but it’s far less effective without those strike craft and it was intended as part of a battle group. Also in Starlancer, Seeing the crazy mix of carriers and cruisers together in the later battle group missions in starlancer was awesome. Especially the increadible late mission where you ambush the flagship of a coalition battle group sat at the far end of its own fleet with captured enemy bomber squadron, then rush back to your own battle group, quickly land and redeploy to cover the fleet in your far more capable fighters. ‘Woah, something big got tagged!’
Your #1 choice is a great one, they often make carriers slow but you have to think its essentially a hollow rectangle so the overall ship mass would be dependant on how heavy its armor is, not a lot of internal decks or excess systems
I just don't get what most of the length is actually for. They have these weird flaps all along the top that seem to be part the FTL drive that don't appear on any of the other ships and the stuff dealing with aircraft is tucked away on one side of the stern, so what's going on in the entire forward section?
Would it be possible that majority of the volume is desicated towards reactor to power the hyperdrive or hust crew bunking since they seem to have an infijite number of housing on that thing?
Great list. love the thought you put into your choices despite completely abandoning all your established logic and allowing what I can assume is nostalgia to influence your choice for number 1.
One of my favorite carriers from sci-fi is the blue team’s carrier in Starshatter:TGS. They’re just three flight decks with a ship there just to hold them together, and under most circumstances, they don’t ever move in missions, they just sit there while they send out sorties and rely on the rest of the fleet to keep them safe
I love that Wing Commander was not only mentioned but did well in this list! SpaceDock really does know their space stuff. I'm excited to see Star Citizen: Squadron 42 not only deliver a carrier, but also featuring a fully modeled interior and exterior too. That fulfills a childhood dream I've had ever since the first Wing Commander game. The 'cheaper' Drake Kraken carrier looks amazing too. I was a little disappointed to see that Homeworld's carrier wasn't shown but I think that's more about style and looks than actual combat proficiency.
A modern system update (leave the story, missions, and general ship design in, but putting it into Star Citizen's or even Freespace 2's engine) would be absolutely amazing.
Jokes aside, the Atlas is my favourite ship in the game for sure, and a full fleet of seven Atlases is probably the easiest way to deal with the extreme 14k fleets on Fleet Admiral. Like seriously, you have a squad of tanky ass bricks, each has a utility squadron meaning that if I bring at least four sweepers (I usually bring five and cycle them) I am basically immune to missiles, and with the number of vipers I can bring I am also maintaining aerial superiority. When the board is mostly clean of raiders I'll just send my vipers and ARPs to orderly remove ships based on how many guns they have.
im so excited you went for wing commander in this vid. i never expected it but the concordia from wing commander 2 was immediately what popped into my head when i clicked on this video
@@Galdenberry_Lamphuck those body boxes? Light shields, light armor, a few lasers, vs heavy shields, larger hangar, better defenses, and great for troop transport if needed. I'd like to give my fleet durable craft.
@@Galen55 With more than twenty times the cost and build time. When you add versatility you lose capability in other roles. The Ton Faulk would be hiding behind the ISDs any way and as far as armor goes it is imperial, which means it's probably sturdier.
In the Macross universe they have a couple of designs of space carriers. A couple of them end as the "arms" of the SDF-1. The Daedalus is protagonist of one of the coolers attacks ever in sci-fi.
Love Wing Commander! Have been playing since 1990. Almost 30 years old if you can believe it. I love to whip it out, the game, once in a while to fly again.
When is the worst carriers video coming out? Also In Star Trek lore Starfleet has dedicated carriers. In the best description for them take the tos 1701's saucer put eight of those engineering/shuttle bay secondary hulls from the Kelvin and you have a Starfleet carrier.
The only ones I know are the Valkyrie class, the Thypoon class and the Obelisk class. All the others are hybrids and even those are not proper carriers but are instead mobile shipyards, with the Valkyrie not even carrying fighters but instead purely carrying Defiants class escorts.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 It was in an old TOS novel but I agree and FASA probably made true dedicated carriers in their games but a carrier hauling Defiant class starships NOW that is force projection!
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 Sounds like a world devastator from the star wars eu... Minus being completely automated and eating inhabited planets.
@Casanova Frankenstein The Typhoon class was a prototype for the Valkyrie class, so it was not intended to do anything interesting. The Valkyrie class is not simply a carrier, but instead the equivalent of a mobile space station and shipyard, used by the Federation to deploy semi-independent fleets far from the nearest Federation starbases. It also carriers Defiant classes, which are definitely not fighters. The Obelisk class is a weird thing built either in the future or by some precursor race, since it does not look anything like other Starfleet ships and builds and deploys weird semi-autonomous warp capable drones to attack the enemy far outside their weapons range.
I must note the Star Citizen's new Kraken is a nice example of a small escort carrier, mobile patrol base/HQ. What I like is no stupid runways, VTOL pads for ships in the open AND hangars too. Large cargo storage and being able to land on planets add up to that "living on the fringe" ship style. Its not released ofc, but concept is solid.
the Vesuvius and Saint Helens were actually "Island Class" Super-Carriers combining the capacity of 4 carriers and the fire power and armor of an entire battle group. The Midway was its evolution, a rapid firing set of launch tubes to stop hostiles from flying into the carriers bay or blowing up fighters on the flight line. The Midway also had a rear line retrieval bay which meant it was less likely for fighters to be left behind while retreating unlike the Bengal Class which loaded from the front.
Aww, no love for any of the [space-borne] Carriers seen in the _Homeworld_ games? Though all Carrier types in those games are both for storage, resupply and launching of strikecraft, they are also the _manufacturing facility_ for those same strikecraft and Frigate-size ships, as well as convenient resource drop-off points. The Carrier(s) in _Homeworld_ were capable of producing both defensive and offensive miniature fleets around them, with the only restriction being resource availability and number of crewmen in stasis available to take over new ships! While the Carrier(s) may not be capable of fighting by themselves against other ships of equal or larger size (each only had a few rapid-fire anti-air railguns but nothing for ship-to-ship), they acted instead as miniaturized Motherships that _could_ produce Frigates to take over those fleet-defense roles instead! The Kushan, Somtaaw and Vagyr carriers were quite unique (imo) in their layouts and location of launch/recovery bays.
It's great to see Wing Commander love.I'm old enough to remember when all those came out brand new. Winning Wing Commander 1 then playing secret missions 1 and 2. I was ready for Wing Commander 2. Then the horror of Horrors. The Tiger's claw was destroyed. I'd never play a game with such Vengeance and anger then Wing Commander 2 I wanted Vengeance I was out for blood.
I like long designs. Can be mounted with high power guns. Can provide a ship mounted system to accelerate the fighters. Can be covered easily by force fields at speed. Can tactically make themselves a smaller target, front front. Can become aerodynamic.
I play Homeworld a lot, and my favorite playstyle is to pick a Carrier, load it up with fighters and corvettes, throw it at the enemy, and have it vomit out all the strike craft to harass the enemies, all while the carrier provides some fire support, creating new strike craft, and launching some frigates to aid in the assault. And if things get bad, I can retract the strike craft and jump away.
If I may ask, from a realistic standpoint, if you could make a well armed carrier, wouldn't that be more practical? I too love to see structured fleets with specialised ships, but if you could make it better armed without compromising it's carrier role, wouldn't you?
Cost is a major factor. Engineers will have to route ammunition or power from stores or the reactor while also having to work around a hangar and launch bay. Further hangars are always the most vulnerable parts of a ship and so are a major disadvantage to frontline vessels. In most cases it's far better to have dedicated big gun ships alongside escorts and versatile combat cruisers.
Alackofcaring this make sense with naval battles but if we are talking "Realism" here. Space battles are more like sniper fights, as without gravity and air resistance, weapons fire distance dramatically increase. So the hanger being a target won't be as much as an issue here. Also cost is hard to argue for a scfif setting like star wars where they have millions of worlds that have been developed for thousands of years. Especially since they were able to pump out 25k star destroyers in under 20 years. Cost stop being an issue the more worlds a nation have under its thrall. I mean look at how much war machines and ships we pump out now with just earth? Times that by 100
The “all of the above” ships exist in real life, such as the Kuznetsov (technically a cruiser) but they tend to have so many trade offs that they’re really only suited to the classical cruiser role - single ship fleets.
@@sombodi200 Having (as in your example) 100 worlds also means you need to _protect_ 100 worlds. If your ships are really big and expensive, you won't be able to have all that many of them, so you're going to either have to leave some places without adequate defence, or spread your fleet thin and be vulnerable to a massive attack at one location.
I really like the Sins of a Solar Empire carriers, particularly the TEC Sova class. It keeps the sort of general shape of an ocean going carrier (albeit with the island in the aft), however the flight deck is made up of a series of launch bays for individual squadrons.
I knew it had to be the Vesuvius. That ship always stuck with me, for all these years. Beautiful, majestic ship. Flashpacking it always made me sad inside. It took the Lexington carrier look to the pinnacle of design and made it look intimidating and hard as nails. The Vesuvius/St Helens and, oddly, the Kilrathi corvette... those two designs are always in the back of my mind when it comes to carrier based scifi.
Knights of Sidonia seedship is the best carrier ship design I've seen yet. Taking in actual physics, it has an amazing practical design, as well as the best attack vessel launcher.
Always liked the Great Fox (Star Fox) for how one would make a mini carrier, a "tender" as I call them. Carries four strike craft and their maintenance facilities, as well as the lodging and mission planning facilities for the flight of four pilots aboard, and then puts them at the staging point where the four strike out.
Cylons: We designed our new Basestars to use only missiles and rely heavily on its strike craft. What'd you guys make?
Colonials: Another extremely well-armed brick.
Nokia-class brick
Homeworld 2's Hiigarin carrier was always beautiful to me.
i was abought to say the same thing Homeworld should win
@@humanguyalsoperson7987 Dude same. I thought of that as soon as I seen the title.
IMHO, Taiidan carrier from the first game, is much more beautiful! Those shapes...
If only Homeworld had a more dynamic gameplay style, it always felt too structured to me.
I was always a lot more partial to the HW1 Kushan carrier. The HW2 ships always seemed more like sea going ships in space, and while they worked, I just liked the more "these were made for space" dynamic of the HW1 ships.
Showing my age, but if you’re talking carriers, then I always liked the USS Saratoga in Space Above and Beyond.
Yeah that was a nice design.
Yes same here. I also love the hammer head.
i agree, was wondering how it didn't make it into video.
Yes I was hoping the Saratoga would have featured too...
The Saratoga may fall into the hybrid carrier/battleship group. She had heavy cannon and missiles, from what I remember, and some kind of big gun they used for planetary assault.
I love these top 5 videos, and I have a suggestion - instead of focusing on exteriors, how about ship *interiors*? I’d love your take on bridge design, hangars, cargo bays, crew quarters, and other design elements - windows vs view screens, sliding vs irising doors, corridor shapes, lighting, and so on.
The Lucrehulk class battleship is a perfect example of a ship that excels at being not just a carrier and a battleship, but also a troop transport. In my opinion the best carrier in all of sci fi.
how about top 10 worst starship designs, various categories
Just saying - Homeworld 1 & 2 carriers are proper specialized carriers quite according to your logic - would have been nice to see one here.
yeah, Homeworld designs are just nice in general, very interesting and utilitarian, like star wars but without the deletion of physics and addition of space magic
I love the Homeworld carriers but I am wondering whether the manufacturing capabilities of these Carriers invalidate them from the defined criteria
@@ElcomeSoft A carrier being able to manufacture replacement craft isn't a bad idea - particularly if you've got good ejection/survival & recovery systems for pilots, or even better automated fighter craft. A carrier with auto- or remote-piloted fighters that can manufacture replacements would be really effective.
I feel like the motherships could've been contenders as well, since they have hardly any personal defensive capabilities as well. Also the Somtaaw carrier and Kuun-lan, although the Kuun-lan was technically speaking an ore hauler, not a carrier. But even with the siege cannon it was still a support vessel, and not something else since the siege cannon was nigh-suicidal at close range.
Honestly out of the whole Homeworld series I think the only "bad" carriers were the ones in Deserts of Kharak. Even without a supporting fleet a full powered carrier could more than fend for itself, enough so that I was using it like a battleship through the second half of the campaign.
I mean, these bad boys can even build *frigates* ! :D
I mean, I don't want to be the guy who shows up to defend call of duty of all things, but the retribution is capable of atmospheric flight, a situation where gravity would be a factor after all.
You also have the fact that those drones would save fuel on the fighters, since the fighters don't have to burn fuel to slow down.
@@yobeefjerky42 I'm not super familiar with the IP, and I am not here to be argumentative, but wouldn't that just be moving the fuel expenditure from the fighter to the drone? If they use different fuel sources, that's an interesting concept, but if it's the same kind of engines and power source (to get enough thrust to actually slow the fighters fast enough) then it's a wash. I think enclosed bays makes more sense, even in atmosphere (with an exception that if it adds too much weight to be viable) because it provides protection from the elements, strong winds experienced at altitude and such. Again, not knocking the defense of the IP, I think there are valid discussion points about atmospheric capable vessels having different designs.
@@Nodjia probably, though the fighter's fuel has to be carried on it for the whole mission that the fighter is on, further increasing fuel use throughout.
They need to go like WAYYYYY more in depth on Mass Effect ships. Would’ve loved to see the Alliance Carrier.
You don't like the monorails? That's fine. I guess it's more of a Shelbyville idea..
lol
I'd argue for the Guantanamo-class Carriers from Macross 7, Frontier, and Delta. Designed for both stealth and missile/fighter support, they are employed as unseen escort carriers and carry around 70 fighters.
The retribution from infinite warfare was designed to be used in atmosphere as well so I do see the use of landing on a runway
I really liked the USS Saratoga from Space above and beyond. A brick in space and very utilitarian.
I agree , it should really have it's place in this top 5. Glad to see there are still some fans of the series around
@@Taiko206 I remember the series and how one of the carriers was destroyed by the aliens. The Saratoga and its sister ships were all great. I think the show ended too soon. Even then they had racism with what were called tanks - people who were grown in tanks. I believe there was a major who was a tank on the Saratoga along with an enlisted tank as well. Again great memories for a great show.
@@55Quirll Actually one was a colonel and one of their nest untill he was groumded necause of injuries, and the other one made it to lieutenant and was a good pilot even though he was a bit of a hotshot. But both were definetly respected their squadron members.
And yes the destroyed carrier was named the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
@@Taiko206 That I didn't know, I only remember the Major - who I have seen in other movies and TV series and was a good officer to all those under his command - and the enlisted man. The enlisted man was always getting into trouble and I believe he was given a choice by a judge to either join or go to jail. I enjoyed the show, hated the people who caused the war with the aliens, I believe the man who started it all got what he deserved from the aliens and being shown up as the one who knew about the aliens and still sent the colony ship to a disputed planet.
Well clearly we both enjoyed the series but from different points of view. I was looking at it from a technological and military aspect . Would've loved to pilot one of those SA-43 Hammerheads
I would note two honorable mentions in terms of carriers: The carrier from Homeworld (Part 1 - both factions, though the carriers from Part 2 are also noteworthy, maybe even more so, see refit) and the Saratoga, from Space - Above and beyond.
I would love to see some other SciFi universes acknowledged on this channel. Eve Online, Gundam, Ace Combat, for example all have a wealth of fantastic world building and technology to explore.
@The Mad Atheist was wondering if I should put that but didn't want to out meself as a weeb.
CHIMERA BEST CARRIER! :)
@@Stingra87 there is room to explore with other aspects of SciFi, such as a perpetual war, superweapons, original aircraft, the idea of a flying behemoth
Gundam has some great ship designs.
Would have liked to have seen the USS Saratoga from space above and beyond in this list.
This was exactly my thought after seeing this episode.
@@Deepingmind glad I'm not alone 🤣
My thought exactly.
Love the show
and the Saratoga, Shuffle the Deck.
Same!
"For a brick he flies pretty good"
*"For a brick, he flew pretty good"
master chief flies in and deploys spartan ivs and odsts.
brick carrier
It's sad that we never stopped to see the UNSC supercarrier Trafalgar it would have wrecked either of those carriers from wing Commander
on that where's my punic or other UNSC carrier Vessels
She ships are shes
When I saw the Quasar Fire class in Rebels, along with ships such as the Interdictor class and the TIE Defender, something I've previously only known from novels, I really felt excited.
My favorite carrier is the Protoss Carrier from Starcraft. It's one of the few ships that is just straight-up a carrier, with no offensive weapons of its own other than its interceptors. They get melted by Terran Battlecruisers on their own thanks to the BC's Yamato Gun, necessitating that they operate alongside Void Rays and Tempests, but they are great at absolutely melting smaller craft and ground targets so long as the enemy doesn't focus them down.
Carrier has arrived
It does actually have a weapon of its own in lore, but it's a pretty reasonable choice of weapon IMO, and its main armament is still clearly its fighter complement.
@@Owlfeathers0117 yep, if you pay attention to the opening cinematic of the original StarCraft, you'll see a Protoss carrier utilizing some sort of beam weapon that obliterates a Terran science vessel.
@@jaqenhghar2970 As far as I'm aware it's mainly intended as an orbital bombardment weapon (for glassing infested planets), but it does seem to be rather useful for killing capital ships as well.
Protoss carriers oddly have a realism bonus too, They launch drones. There is a good chance realisticly if we become space faring odds are we will be launching drones rather than manned fighters if small craft exist at all.
For a carrier class ship fraught with “issues,” many of them human error as attempts to reverse engineer advanced but aging alien technology led to one mishap after another, I submit for your list the SDF-1 from the Japanese anime Super Dimension Fortress Macross. This ship relied heavily on its fighter wings, consisting mainly of the famous VF-1 “Valkyrie” series of “Variable Fighters,” and most of its anti-aircraft and ship-to-ship firepower was provided by ground assault Mecha that shared hanger space with the fighters and deployed to emplacements along the massive ship’s exterior hull. The ship’s only real integrated firepower, a massively destructive main gun, required a 15-minute transformation sequence before firing that caused havoc for the civilian population on board and would sometimes fire on its own due to programming from its original alien operators (which lands humanity in a highly destructive war with the advanced alien race that was hunting the ship). The vessel had ACTUAL naval carriers (CVS-101 Prometheus and SLV-111 Daedalus) docked and retrofitted to its sides (giving the anthropomorphic depiction of giant robot arms when the ship transformed to fire its main weapon) after an attempt by the human crew to use the alien tech space fold engine to draw the enemy attention away from earth and into lunar orbit accidentally landed them outside the orbit of Pluto along with the island the shipped crash landed on, the city and civilian population on that island (the survivors of which became the civilian population on board) and the surrounding ocean water plus the two naval carriers which were patrolling nearby. Hey, at least they re-appeared in the same solar system. In any case, the vessel becomes their home, they learn to live with its quirks and they valiantly engage in one battle after another with the alien race on their sub-luminal (the space fold engine broke after one fold and who would trust it anyhow after it missed lunar orbit by many AU’s) voyage home. If you like vessels that are true carriers (in this case mostly because of how humans used the massive alien craft, though it did include the fore mentioned actual naval carriers that were never intended for use in space) with design flaws, operational quirks and human errors in spades, you have to consider the SDF-1. SPOILER ALERT: Luckily for all the humans on board, the warlike alien race is far more susceptible to being defeated by Japanese pop culture than it is to being defeated by superior firepower and military strategy, neither of which the error-prone humans and their hacked ancient alien tech possess.
I've only seen the American adaptation, Robotech, but I agree the SDF-1 was very cool. And so were the varitech fighters. I think the storylines are similar with a few modifications. It was a standout series for me as a kid in the 80's, as it had season-long story arc that depicted character development over time and real consequences facing the realities of war. It was a little more mature than a lot of kids shows at the time, but not too much so. At least the Robotech adaptation. I really should see the Macross series. It would be fun to see how it differed.
You cant just slap launch tubes on a brick and call it carrier
*finger guns* Thats where you are wrong kiddo
Paint it red to go fasta
Paint it purple to hide it
haha nice.
Take a Brick..... slap lauch tubes on it.... cover it entirely in laser weapons, because they don't need space (and seem to have an unlimited amount of power supply). Best ship, no drawbacks.
@@simis5294 Until you fire half of those laser at once, then the ship vaporize itself because they aren't enough space for heat radiator.
Loving the Wing Commander content! It was such a great game, one of my favorites growing up.
Wing commander? TCS Midway coming up! TCS Midway coming up! Someone is finally going to acknowledge it's excistence! wooo~!!!
Edit: Unsubscribed.
Don't have to be a kid joe to enjoy, I got into the wing commander universe at thirty+ Including privateer 1 and 2.
Flying bricks shall reign supreme!
Bugger off. Flying continent-sized cathedrals is where it's at
@@SonsOfLorgar Why stop at something so small?
Could've swore this was supposed to be non-multi role carriers and yet the last two were described as Jack of trade and carrier/battleship hybrid. What's with that?
The Basestar from Battlestar Galactica is also multirole, it is a mixed carrier/missile platform like the Kiev class carrier used by Russia. Just because it does not have guns does not mean it is not multiple. Missiles are just as potentially potent of an offensive weapon, which is why you see Basestars slugging it out repeatedly with Battlestars in the series.
Would love to see some Honorverse ships on this channel. The RMN's Minotaur class is an interesting take on a space carrier, mainly because it carries LACs which are 70 meter long assault craft rather than traditional fighters.
Agreed. It is an interesting take on the concept.
Essentally the SciFi version fo the 19th century torpedo boat tender.
Also, the concept of the torpedo boat or gunboat is one not often explored in SciFi.
I just wish he’d cover Honorverse at all 😜
@@jakekooistra I very much agree.
no movie, no game, hard to make there.
Those are some really good books but It's kind of hilarious how hard the author worked to have a good excuse for them to use Age of Sail naval warfare tactics in space.
LOL the Cylons seem to have "Binary Thinking" - Carrier and Fighter lol
Disappointed one that got totally missed was the Saratoga from SPACE: Above and Beyond.
Robert,
Agreed. The Saratoga is a proper space carrier that deserves more love.
I was thinking the same.
I was just about to post the very same reply! The Saratoga is an absolute beauty. Shame S:AaB is so often overlooked, the series had immense potential.
Agreed, the JFK-class from that series was great, and it seems like it falls well within the range of what @Spacedock likes in a carrier design. I think we may have to send him a copy of the series.
@@Armorlord04 heck the Hammerhead fighters are also cool
I know it's from 40k, but the Chaos carrier class Styx has a very striking silhouette (discounting the inevitable greebles), long-range lance turrets for direct support of the fleet, and launch tubes that are angled away from the plane of engagement, meaning all of the strike craft servicing facilities are effectively just as well armoured as the hull without sacrificing access.
Auuughhh I'm going to be in class when this premiers! Spacedock, you make good stuff.
Just stumbled across this channel, and I love it. One of my favorite things to do in Space Engineers is design ships that correctly fit their designations.
One of my favourite carriers is the Hiigaran Carrier from the Homeworld series.
Same here, the Taiidan and Kushan carriers were great designs too. Maybe Spacedock isn't all that familiar with Homeworld, or he ruled out 'factory carriers' completely.
I am so happy that you not only brought in the Wing Commander series, but specifically brought in the OG WC1 Bengal class. I was in middle school when that game came out, and...oh, boy, the nostalgia.
Would’ve put the higarian carrier from Home world 2 on the list.
I nominate a homeworld ship break down be the next few videos
@@Simplefng I concur homeworld had some great ship designs
Simplefng agreed!
Agreed. Though it had options to build larger Corvette and frigate class craft (not normally a carrier function, however all craft listed do manufacture their figher/bomber/recon craft) The base function was that of a launch/recovery/maintenance point for strike craft.
Yeah I'm surprised Homeworld doesn't get more love on this channel. The whole philosophy of space combat in that series seems to fit in with a lot of what Daniel talks about on Spacedock (great channel btw, soul food for my inner nerd). As far as Sci Fi space combat goes, the HW games are still my favorite IP, and sure wouldn't mind seeing a new proper sequel get developed.
5:45 Daniel's voice has a hilarious spot of panic as it tries to desperately redirect his dialogue onto the other ship.
I always liked the Homeworld 2 Carriers, like all the ships they look fantastic and the modular elements can make them specialised fighter and gunship manufacturing platforms.
Only if you play Vaygr from memory. The Hiigaran carrier could be both, frigates as well and had the two module slots.
well yes, you could have one set up for fighters or frigates or other permutations, but you had to choose two, so there was still balance. with the the games heavy reliance on specialised Frigates (Flack, Torpedo, Troop, Ion and so on) I don't think it's necessarily too much to for one ship to do, especially since it wasn't a good idea to try to fight any other capital ships with a carrier. it still fits within the role of a dedicated manufacturing platform. you could loose your mothership/flagship but if you still had a carrier hidden away somewhere you could get the shipyard and rebuild your fleet.
An in universe application for this would be instead of building a whole fleet and sending it to attack a planet or star system, you send a carrier with some Fighter squadrons and a few escorts into the system and use the materials there to build up your attack fleet. Decentralising manufacturing, rather than having one or more large shipyards that build every ship in your whole fleet.
I was a big fan of using a carrier with Fire Control tower and some Gunships, Pulsar Gunships, Interceptors as a rapid resource gathering group. It was pretty solid. Also looked damned good.
I always kinda liked the Yamamoto from Starlancer. I also like the Daedalus class from Stargate, even if later they wrote themselves into a corner and then made it OP.
Starlancer... I have fond memories of that game.
I'm wondering if Stardock would ever do ships which were never in games, movies, nor T.V. shows. I believe HMS Minotaur from David Weber's Honor Harrington Series is one of the best Carriers (it was also the first in the series, lol).
Tbh the reliant is a purer carrier in Starlancer
I remember a pirate carrier in Babylon 5 that was really well thought out. It was basically just a frame with drop off fighters. Although not too sure about it’s hangar bay.
Hell yea. After you showed the Basestar i was like aww nah hes not gonna mention the Atlas class but you did anyway. Love this channel man.
Awwww man I was hoping to see The Saratoga from Space Above and Beyond on the list. Damn I miss that show
Hello, Daniel from Spacedock. I "recently" discovered your team's channel about 10 months ago or so, and I have "liked" (both the original AND social-media sense of the word) every single video that I have seen so far. All EXCEPT this one. And to be precise, NOT even the whole video, just the middle portion of it; the rest is perfectly fine. The Comments section on YT isn't exactly ideal for a discussion, so I'll TRY & make this brief, if at all possible.
Now for context, I have been a student of military science & history for most, if not all, of my life. In real-life or otherwise. And by "otherwise", I DON'T just mean live-action Western sci-fi properties like you focus on, but also other major media like militaristic anime, such as Gundam, Macross and many others. With my own dad surviving the Second World War/Pacific War as a kid, I have always had a special place in my heart for the mighty carriers. So when it comes to their sci-fi incarnations, I am BOTH their greatest patron AND their worst critic. In the sense that, as much as I want it to be true, naval carriers--as they look & function now, is almost nonsensical in a real-life deep-space combat environment.
Now, the very-specific issue I have with this video, is the part when you were talking about the Bengal-class carrier. You were praising it as almost a classic masterpiece of space carrier design, but then, almost under the same breath, you were calling the Retribution an "obsession" with real-life carriers. But, why??
"Realistic" starfighters/strikecraft, like the Vipers from Galactica & the Valkyries from Macross, can ALWAYS arrest their forward momentum in zero-gravity, almost instantly. That fact alone makes ALL space carriers with landing flightdecks/runways, like the Retribution AND the Bengal-class and countless others, unrealistic at best--and as you said, "pretentious" about gravity at worst. HOWEVER, they look cool as hell, because they look like the real-life carriers that we all know and love. And THAT is the reason (perhaps the ONLY one), why we sci-fi fans accept them anyway. Even you have said in a number of your own videos that the "Rule of Cool" have caused you to give many flawed designs the proverbial "pass".
So getting back to my question, why? What makes the Retribution with a flightdeck, a design "lunacy" and the Bengal-class, ALSO with a flighteck, a masterpiece of design realism? Is it because the Bengal's launch bays are located on the port/starboard? So just because of that "relocation" of the launching system, that makes it greatly "more" realistic? Again, why??
I apologize in advance if I sound a bit testy here. As I've said before, I have ALWAYS agreed with your judgement on functional designs (we even have mostly the same taste in aesthetic designs), but I have always had this great Sense of Fairness, especially with underdogs. I'm NOT trying to side with either franchise here, but if you're going to be Fair, good sir, you can't have it both ways. So either they're both realistic (or at least acceptable), or they're both nonsensical. WHERE or how they launch their fighters, does not provide a SIGNIFICANT-enough "realism" score, to justify one design as being realistic and then condemn the other as being completely insane! That's just wrong and unfair, sir.
Heck, even your own Rule of Cool can be applied well here. One could argue that, not only does the Retribution look "infinitely" cooler than the Bengal-class (it's like comparing the aesthetics of a janky badly-painted WWI carrier to USS Gerald R. Ford,and thus deserves a LITTLE pass from us), but the design's lack of large OVERHANGING launch pods/bays, greatly reduces & streamlines its profile (like in 5th-generation fighters). Which is not only better for general mobility/maneuverability, but also better for stealth and combat/evasion purposes.
Anyway, aside from this specific segment/point, I still enjoyed the rest of the video. Will continue to watch & support the channel; keep up the good work.
Sadly the mothership carrier from the homeworld series wasn't included in your top 5
It wasn't a carrier in the sense used in this video.
The Homeworld carriers are good designs and deserved a mention, IMO.
The motherships are kind of another kettle of fish.
It's not a pure carrier. It's also a floating factory in space.
@@Sneemaster Last one also wasn't a "pure" carrier. He only put it there because it was a "battleship-carrier hybrid done right". Why can't a "factory-carrier" qualify, especially since homeworld carriers have woefully inept weapons that are hardly capable of removing even a single scout squadron?
The motherships are more gigantic flying cities with lots of factories and less carriers.
The Quasar-Fire class was used quite effectively in my opinion at least in the story mode of Star Wars: Squadrons. It was used quite effectively I think
Pre watch: I'll be very disappointed if the Higaaran carrier from homeworld 2 doesn't have a place on this list.
Edit: I am very disappointed.
Homeworld is underrepresented here in general which is suprising
Ya one whole video on this channel I would love for some more homeworld spotlights
Also disappointed in the absence of any Homeworld ships. The mothership and carrier class ships are very purpose driven in their design. Neither are ships you take to a navy slug fest. Instead, they hang in the background and you protect them while they churn out and resupply/repair assault craft. Homeworld also features plenty of destroyers, frigates, and battlecruisers that would make quick work of a carrier if they ever encountered one, further distancing them from Jack of all trades ships. You're also incentivized to recall/dock all of your fighters before jumping them (assuming you installed the hyperspace module) since you'd only pay the cost of jumping the single ship vs if you told all of the fighters to jump with the carrier on their own or fly separate and far away from the carrier, leaving it vulnerable. So much disappoint.
I thought some carrier/super carrier from eve online were there.
Disappointed too.
*JAW DROPS* I... was not expecting to see a Wing Commander ship in this video. MAJOR KUDOS. I was figuring it would be exclusively focused on movies and television
No JFK class from Space Above And Beyond?
Go the USS Saratoga
Carrier/Battleship hybrid, not pure carrier
@@mho... Just look at all the missile pods and gun turrets on the top side then. Its strong enough that it could fight off a Chic bomber attack without launching any of its hammerheads.
I would love to see this series continued. Helps me build my own scifi worlds.
There are some other carriers that I do like. ANS "Reliant" and CS "Varyag" from Starlancer. And I really like the look of SWSC-1 "Olympus Mons".
Agreed, this video needs a starlancer entry!
Realy liked the Reliant.
Old, small, minimal armament and can't take much off a beating. Just a hangar and some launch facilities bolted to a propulsion system. A simplicit design that followed the old "good enough for the job" philosophy that seems to be woefully underrepresented in SciFi.
@@Bird_Dog00 Well said!
Agreed. I was looking to see if it was mentioned. Though, I could easily state it was a light or escort carrier, so that (along with the relatively obscure game now) may be a reason not to include it, but the Quasar Fire class didn't do more in support, either. I spent quite some time flying out of the Reliant. Not as much as did out of the Tiger's Claw, Concordia, and Victory, but it was close.
Great video guys! Really enjoyed that one. Top five 'frigate'-style ships, maybe?
Hey Daniel, what is your opinion of the EVE Online Carriers/Super-Carriers? I'd love to hear your analysis of them at some point.
Yeah Id like an Eve Online Carrier only video.
Without playing Eve he wouldn't know all too much about them, and well, there's 4 factions for each that are too similar to add any to this format he's using. He could do a video talking about Eve ships aesthetically I suppose, as that wouldn't really require playing.
@@grennhald Thing with EvE ships is theyre horribly under gunned compared to most scifi ships for game balance reasons. For example a Titan one of the biggest ship classes (~17km) has 8 primary guns (16 if you account the extra for symmetrical firing angles) no point defenses, no fighter/drone bay. You could argue that its ship maintenance array which can accommodate multiple battleships could be counted like a fighter bay. Maybe if you count their doomsday weapons they might have a chance but things like the Eclipse from star wars do that while still bringing a lot of other guns/fighters. Cruiser or smaller might compare well to other universes.
Thanks for reminding me of the Wing Commander series! I played them all back in the day and loved them!
My favourite is the Endurance Class Fleet Carrier from Star Wars.
Have you tried looking at StarLancer's Yamato or Reliant? 2 Torpedo Turrets, maybe 8 AA & 1 Heavy Gun, fighters are primary strike weapon. Simple but reliable designs.
I loved these, I was thinking they might be a bit too much at the battleship side for his liking
The Bengal-class from Wing Commander was a Strike Carrier, it's purpose was to jump in, launch strike craft, jump out and rendezvous with it's strike craft at a pre-determined waypoint by jumping in again later to pick up the strike craft and jump back out. Unfortunately due to the shortage of carriers in Confed in the story (technical limitations in the game engine) the ship was instead used in a Fleet Carrier role.
The Vesuvius-class was initially referred to as a Supercarrier and was designed with the help of Kilrathi scientists and technology. According to the narrative in Wing Commander IV, the ship was designed as a next-gen carrier, never any mention of it being meant to take a battleship role. The reason St-Helens and Vesuvius were duking it out was because the St-Helens didn't have much of a fighter wing yet since it hadn't even been finished construction when it was taken out of spacedock, and the Vesuvius' wing had been squandered fighting the player, and neither ship had an Escort at the time due to the situation in the story. Vesuvius, not thinking it would need an escort when traveling to Earth and St-Helens not having time to assemble an escort to intercept Vesuvius.
Thank you. I was starting to question if this guy had ever even been in the same room as WC when he was saying the Bengal was meant to operate with a full support fleet.
Space Battleship Yamato (and depicted again in 2199 and 2202) surprisingly had some interesting carrier designs that the antagonists. Yamato show even had awesome looking bad guy ships that actually looked like typical ships without looking freakish and ugly. One of their carriers had three decks to launch and recover fighters. Another carrier design was a combat carrier that would launch fighters. Once the fighters were launched the landing bay would rotate and guns were presented so the carrier could join the battle.
My favorite "pure" carrier at the moment is the "kraken" from star citizen.
It's just so ...........simple.
Just a thin "naval design" ship with some landing platforms welded on it.
The Garbage Barge?
@@ChristopherSloane
One man's garbage is another man's treasure
@@nielsmichiels1939 I got ya but it's a really bad design. Much of the ship is rather exposed to enemy fire, No real hull plating, all your Fighters are exposed and I did not see how a pilot can get to their ship safely. If you are ambushed the enemy could shoot the pilots and ships off the deck. I'd imagine anti ship missiles would rip it apart quickly. Of course, we will have to wait to see how it works in game.
I get NIELS feeling as it is this ship has some style and can carry quite a good number of fighters for his size, but this come as over-exploitation of the ship for his specialised role. Everything is indeed too exposed, and the number of defensive turrets showed is useless for such a ship depending on escort/figther screen for reliable defence.
I think the core probleme is the presentation of the Kraken as single-operative ship/mobile base, which doesn't fit with it's vulnerability. Less pads and more plating would have been a nice trade.
@@ChristopherSloane
@Louis Mertens
Guys, i get where you're comming from.
I know it's pretty much a paper tiger, thats the reason why i like it.
It's going to be cheaper than other carriers, and you get get what you pay for.
It's going to be able to cary and repair ships, just don't fligh it too close to the battle. XD
It may suck, but it has that underdog charm, like all drake ships have.
Hearing you talk about wing commander so much makes me want to play it. I think I'll go get one of them.
Can you do a video on different ways properties screw up ships by trying to make them play to close to the rules of actual sea vessels
That would be a fun video.
@@TheVeritas1 a lot of the videos about what people are doing wrong always just give the best examples on how to be better. I never thought about the flaw in the COD ship until this video and he only just touched it for a second
@@martinkulash4061 tbh he's still missing alot of those "surface ship" rules in this video. ATC towers are a prime example, carriers have them so they can see outside and monitor the flight deck, his carriers flight decks are internal, and as for seeing outside, it's space, you don't need to see it, what you need to do is remove the massive weak spot on your hull and put it inside. Also why is it on the top, why not the bottom, the sides, you'd need several to make use of them even slightly properly, better to have your command and control staff deep inside the ship with some from of I don't know, 3d display showing the outside.
But then his hate for carrier battleship hybrids also falls back to normal navy logic. Only reason they don't exist now is carriers need a deck, you can't put big guns on it (That and battleships aren't a valid concept anymore). In space your exterior hull, were you mount your weapons, armour and sensors is the same regardless of ship role unless you plan to have strike craft land externally, which could be argued is the best carrier design, wireframe with a drive module mounted to it, and automated features, including drone fighters as organics would be useless in realistic space combat, reactions too slow and unable to survive manuvers at the speeds involved. Carrier launches drones, then leaves, or because it's so simple, is expendable.
But back to my argument, because the expected carrier in space is basically a large tube with a drive system wrapped in some armour, what's to stop a smart designer increasing its size 20%, by adding more armour/sheilding a larger power system, drive system and guns. I know people will say the crew increases at this point, but that's BS. Sci-fi really has a thing against automation, only show that ever seemed to accept it was Andromeda, which for several series has the ship run and mostly repaired by drones. A proper sci-fi warship has exactly organic crew, and is either entirely AI controlled or remote. Removing the crew removes life support, crew quarters, supply issues, need for "Sci-fi magic inertial dampers", this not only decreases ship mass and construction times, but also increases combat survivability as no oxygen limits fire potential, shockwaves and decompression damage.
@@cgi2002 I would add a few arguments against that.
While it might not necessarily be a full ATC, the idea of putting something at some distance from the main hull has some value to me. Especially when it comes to any form of antenna, array, sensor systems. This will be to ensure that any emissions from the ship are minimised and don't present false readings, confuse positive readings from a hostile source. I'd also consider putting some large, volatile weapon systems, missiles out on 'wings', so that if they are damaged, they don't cause any harm to the main vessel.
I would argue against the entire absence of any personnel. The simple fact is to this day, we've highly automated some aspects of warfare, technically advanced systems and communication between those systems, we still have people who at the end of the day, push the button, pull the trigger and the like. They still have the clear chain of command, they still have a clear process to ensure that orders are valid, moral and appropriate. There's a reason there's a chain of command.
I also want to argue with some of the choices here. If we're talking spaceships, I'm seeing a lot of straight lines and very little vertical movement, or perhaps the use of a RCS like system, allowing horizontal movement, while maintaining a particular facing. Especially important for carriers who will need to maintain a clear launch vector for their strike assets.
Finally, I would point out the his definition of carrier is a bit vague and rather American in places. There's something to be said for how the Americans have built them and maintained them. They're one of the few people out there who have the effective, formed and practised carrier doctrine. It doesn't mean that there are not other carriers out there. In some cases, even American carriers were armed with anti-surface weapons, in some cases using these 'defensive' guns offensively. To the degree of an escort carrier and escorts, taking on a Japanese heavy cruiser in Leyte Gulf, from memory.
Russian aircraft have been heavily armed for a while and present quite a threat, both in their own right and their air assets. I don't know any of their doctrine or how they're planned to be used, I don't read Russian. In saying that though, the act of arming a carrier is not unknown and not unusual. Not only is it not unusual, it's been the standard for a while. For a good long while.
I won't argue on the idea of drones or the like. A little project of mine gives one faction a focus on drones and long range stand off engagements. Why? They don't have the numbers of meat bags, but they have the technology in drones, to make up those numbers. I also put the main command deck/CIC in the middle of the ship, behind the second layer of armour, lifeboat core section. All outer decks deck get their atmo sucked out. That's on every single ship.
I'd also say that using modern, wet navy, floating navy rules really don't apply to space, interstellar engagements on a logical level. Nevermind talking about the technology these engagements are being fought with and how they're being fought. Doctrine and technology have a complex relationship.
@cgi2002 Agreed, another much overlooked design element is the fact that space is a true three dimensional environment for the most part; Unless you are orbiting a sufficiently massive object, there is no "Up" or "Down."
At most you'll have eight quadrants to determine an objects relative position to the ship and MAYBE a "Fore" and "Aft" if you have a singular primary drive cluster/direction.
NICE job on 2 WC carriers! I knew you'd have at least 1, (& it would be the TCS Tiger's Claw!) But the Vesuvius class too? GREAT!
Hiigaran Carriers
I mean, they're pretty good at what they do right? I don't know if there are more precise technical details somewhere.
Not really. I've looked. Always wanted to run a pen and paper RPG campaign in that universe. I damn near fell in love with it all of those years ago. One of the first games to actually really draw me in like that.
The ship designs are pretty good across the Hiigaran side. There's a few issues I have with them, but they're minor next to other universes, other games.
If by sci-fi carriers, how would the SDF-1 Macross fare to? Also the other Macross class ships in the Macross timeline?
Mark Gerard Handog thanks for mentioning Macross!
SDF-1 is not a carrier, it is a Macross class which act more as a Flag Battleship with big gun fight on front line rather than some Carrier that stay behind
Macross vers Carrier would be the Uraga and Guantanamo class
@@giathuanleviet4138 , well every fortress class attack ship aka Macross class is considered also as Valk carriers. And also flagships can be any class of ships as long as the commanding admiral is in it. 😊
@@markgerardhandog1098 I know flag ship can be any type of ship, that why i put Battleship behind it, and Battleship IRL can bring Aircraft too, but that doesn't make it an Aircraft Carrier
The Macross is a tough one to categorise. I'd almost class it as a mobile battlestation rather than a ship, but thanks to its transforming capabilities and roughly humanoid form it could even be considered a super-mecha. It was definitely a carrier thanks to its Valkyrie payload, and even managed to use its Destroids in space battles thanks to the Daedalus Attack (when it literally punches an enemy battleship in the face), but its ultra-heavy Macross Cannon meant it doubled as a heavy weapons platform, and it was definitely capable of independant, unsupported deployment (the entire point of the series is that the Macross has to hold off the entire Zentraedi force all on its own).
I like the Secutor-class star destroyer personally.
Gonna shout out the ANS Reliant from Starlancer. A far smaller fighter and bomber complement but clearly a dedicated carrier with a specific fleet role. Sure it’s torpedos are a primary ship to ship weapon, but it’s far less effective without those strike craft and it was intended as part of a battle group.
Also in Starlancer, Seeing the crazy mix of carriers and cruisers together in the later battle group missions in starlancer was awesome. Especially the increadible late mission where you ambush the flagship of a coalition battle group sat at the far end of its own fleet with captured enemy bomber squadron, then rush back to your own battle group, quickly land and redeploy to cover the fleet in your far more capable fighters.
‘Woah, something big got tagged!’
What do you think about the carriers from Space Above and Beyond
The Sarratoga was awesome. Except I went and rewatched SAAB about 20 years later and may did it not age well.
Your #1 choice is a great one, they often make carriers slow but you have to think its essentially a hollow rectangle so the overall ship mass would be dependant on how heavy its armor is, not a lot of internal decks or excess systems
Hey Spacedock, could you make a video about how to "fix" the Retribution from Cod IW?
Oooo, an hour long video!
I just don't get what most of the length is actually for. They have these weird flaps all along the top that seem to be part the FTL drive that don't appear on any of the other ships and the stuff dealing with aircraft is tucked away on one side of the stern, so what's going on in the entire forward section?
Would it be possible that majority of the volume is desicated towards reactor to power the hyperdrive or hust crew bunking since they seem to have an infijite number of housing on that thing?
Set it on fire and bin it. Like the rest of the narrative
There's a few things that can be done.. though it'd basically require a lot of other things to be changed. But it's not beyond salvage
Great list. love the thought you put into your choices despite completely abandoning all your established logic and allowing what I can assume is nostalgia to influence your choice for number 1.
How about a video about the viability of the Arwing from Star Fox? Should be a nice subject
The one from Assault of course.
@@Maddock_ that is the best version of it.
I love the quazar fire class it’s unique
Though technically classified as an “assault landing ship,” the SCVA-76 Nahel Argama is an awesome carrier from Gundam.
i would put the ra calium, the dogosse gias or even my favorite, the Squid from victory instead.
One of my favorite carriers from sci-fi is the blue team’s carrier in Starshatter:TGS. They’re just three flight decks with a ship there just to hold them together, and under most circumstances, they don’t ever move in missions, they just sit there while they send out sorties and rely on the rest of the fleet to keep them safe
I know my boy didn't just hate on the Retribution. Although granted, the fighter landing is absolutely idiotic
I love that Wing Commander was not only mentioned but did well in this list! SpaceDock really does know their space stuff.
I'm excited to see Star Citizen: Squadron 42 not only deliver a carrier, but also featuring a fully modeled interior and exterior too. That fulfills a childhood dream I've had ever since the first Wing Commander game. The 'cheaper' Drake Kraken carrier looks amazing too.
I was a little disappointed to see that Homeworld's carrier wasn't shown but I think that's more about style and looks than actual combat proficiency.
Now I just want to play wing commander
A modern system update (leave the story, missions, and general ship design in, but putting it into Star Citizen's or even Freespace 2's engine) would be absolutely amazing.
@@Charistoph check out Wingcommander Saga, it is just that.
SO glad to see the WC Bengal Class show up, but I noticed a certain lack of the StarCraft Protoss Carrier :(
"No battlestars!" My day has been ruined
"Basestars" My day has been unruined
"Atlas carriers" Did I just actually feel happiness for once?
Jokes aside, the Atlas is my favourite ship in the game for sure, and a full fleet of seven Atlases is probably the easiest way to deal with the extreme 14k fleets on Fleet Admiral. Like seriously, you have a squad of tanky ass bricks, each has a utility squadron meaning that if I bring at least four sweepers (I usually bring five and cycle them) I am basically immune to missiles, and with the number of vipers I can bring I am also maintaining aerial superiority. When the board is mostly clean of raiders I'll just send my vipers and ARPs to orderly remove ships based on how many guns they have.
im so excited you went for wing commander in this vid. i never expected it but the concordia from wing commander 2 was immediately what popped into my head when i clicked on this video
My favorite is by FAR the Venator SD. I would use it as a dedicated carrier behind Lancer frigates and escorted by Keldabe class battleships.
Why not just use the vastly cheaper and faster ton Faulk escort carriers?
@@Galdenberry_Lamphuck those body boxes? Light shields, light armor, a few lasers, vs heavy shields, larger hangar, better defenses, and great for troop transport if needed. I'd like to give my fleet durable craft.
@@Galen55
With more than twenty times the cost and build time.
When you add versatility you lose capability in other roles. The Ton Faulk would be hiding behind the ISDs any way and as far as armor goes it is imperial, which means it's probably sturdier.
In the Macross universe they have a couple of designs of space carriers. A couple of them end as the "arms" of the SDF-1. The Daedalus is protagonist of one of the coolers attacks ever in sci-fi.
Top 5 Dreadnoughts ?
The Lord Cobra Daniel doesn’t like that word...
@@Bean41 I'm sure it will be fine...
The Lord Cobra I really just commented so I could follow and see if he says anything about it...
@@Bean41 OK no worries though you meming anyway
Yes please. Who doesn't like seeing Giant flying F U bricks in space?
Love Wing Commander! Have been playing since 1990. Almost 30 years old if you can believe it. I love to whip it out, the game, once in a while to fly again.
I miss this series
When is the worst carriers video coming out?
Also In Star Trek lore Starfleet has dedicated carriers. In the best description for them take the tos 1701's saucer put eight of those engineering/shuttle bay secondary hulls from the Kelvin and you have a Starfleet carrier.
The only ones I know are the Valkyrie class, the Thypoon class and the Obelisk class. All the others are hybrids and even those are not proper carriers but are instead mobile shipyards, with the Valkyrie not even carrying fighters but instead purely carrying Defiants class escorts.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 It was in an old TOS novel but I agree and FASA probably made true dedicated carriers in their games but a carrier hauling Defiant class starships NOW that is force projection!
@@26th_Primarch Not only carrying Defiant classes, but also producing and repairing them.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 Sounds like a world devastator from the star wars eu...
Minus being completely automated and eating inhabited planets.
@Casanova Frankenstein The Typhoon class was a prototype for the Valkyrie class, so it was not intended to do anything interesting.
The Valkyrie class is not simply a carrier, but instead the equivalent of a mobile space station and shipyard, used by the Federation to deploy semi-independent fleets far from the nearest Federation starbases. It also carriers Defiant classes, which are definitely not fighters.
The Obelisk class is a weird thing built either in the future or by some precursor race, since it does not look anything like other Starfleet ships and builds and deploys weird semi-autonomous warp capable drones to attack the enemy far outside their weapons range.
I must note the Star Citizen's new Kraken is a nice example of a small escort carrier, mobile patrol base/HQ. What I like is no stupid runways, VTOL pads for ships in the open AND hangars too. Large cargo storage and being able to land on planets add up to that "living on the fringe" ship style. Its not released ofc, but concept is solid.
what about the space carrier saratoga from space above and beyond. that was a great ship
the Vesuvius and Saint Helens were actually "Island Class" Super-Carriers combining the capacity of 4 carriers and the fire power and armor of an entire battle group. The Midway was its evolution, a rapid firing set of launch tubes to stop hostiles from flying into the carriers bay or blowing up fighters on the flight line. The Midway also had a rear line retrieval bay which meant it was less likely for fighters to be left behind while retreating unlike the Bengal Class which loaded from the front.
Aww, no love for any of the [space-borne] Carriers seen in the _Homeworld_ games?
Though all Carrier types in those games are both for storage, resupply and launching of strikecraft, they are also the _manufacturing facility_ for those same strikecraft and Frigate-size ships, as well as convenient resource drop-off points. The Carrier(s) in _Homeworld_ were capable of producing both defensive and offensive miniature fleets around them, with the only restriction being resource availability and number of crewmen in stasis available to take over new ships! While the Carrier(s) may not be capable of fighting by themselves against other ships of equal or larger size (each only had a few rapid-fire anti-air railguns but nothing for ship-to-ship), they acted instead as miniaturized Motherships that _could_ produce Frigates to take over those fleet-defense roles instead!
The Kushan, Somtaaw and Vagyr carriers were quite unique (imo) in their layouts and location of launch/recovery bays.
I love the Carriers from Homeworld 2. Docking Bay, Repair Pod, Modular upgrades, ect ect.
It's great to see Wing Commander love.I'm old enough to remember when all those came out brand new. Winning Wing Commander 1 then playing secret missions 1 and 2. I was ready for Wing Commander 2. Then the horror of Horrors. The Tiger's claw was destroyed. I'd never play a game with such Vengeance and anger then Wing Commander 2
I wanted Vengeance I was out for blood.
I've always wish for an RTS based on the Sci-Fi universe
I like long designs.
Can be mounted with high power guns.
Can provide a ship mounted system to accelerate the fighters.
Can be covered easily by force fields at speed.
Can tactically make themselves a smaller target, front front.
Can become aerodynamic.
My Favorit Carrier is the ANS Bremen from Starlancer
Not the reliant?
I play Homeworld a lot, and my favorite playstyle is to pick a Carrier, load it up with fighters and corvettes, throw it at the enemy, and have it vomit out all the strike craft to harass the enemies, all while the carrier provides some fire support, creating new strike craft, and launching some frigates to aid in the assault.
And if things get bad, I can retract the strike craft and jump away.
If I may ask, from a realistic standpoint, if you could make a well armed carrier, wouldn't that be more practical?
I too love to see structured fleets with specialised ships, but if you could make it better armed without compromising it's carrier role, wouldn't you?
Cost is a major factor. Engineers will have to route ammunition or power from stores or the reactor while also having to work around a hangar and launch bay.
Further hangars are always the most vulnerable parts of a ship and so are a major disadvantage to frontline vessels.
In most cases it's far better to have dedicated big gun ships alongside escorts and versatile combat cruisers.
@@Galdenberry_Lamphuck That actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain, I appreciate it.
Alackofcaring this make sense with naval battles but if we are talking "Realism" here. Space battles are more like sniper fights, as without gravity and air resistance, weapons fire distance dramatically increase. So the hanger being a target won't be as much as an issue here.
Also cost is hard to argue for a scfif setting like star wars where they have millions of worlds that have been developed for thousands of years. Especially since they were able to pump out 25k star destroyers in under 20 years. Cost stop being an issue the more worlds a nation have under its thrall. I mean look at how much war machines and ships we pump out now with just earth? Times that by 100
The “all of the above” ships exist in real life, such as the Kuznetsov (technically a cruiser) but they tend to have so many trade offs that they’re really only suited to the classical cruiser role - single ship fleets.
@@sombodi200 Having (as in your example) 100 worlds also means you need to _protect_ 100 worlds. If your ships are really big and expensive, you won't be able to have all that many of them, so you're going to either have to leave some places without adequate defence, or spread your fleet thin and be vulnerable to a massive attack at one location.
I really like the Sins of a Solar Empire carriers, particularly the TEC Sova class. It keeps the sort of general shape of an ocean going carrier (albeit with the island in the aft), however the flight deck is made up of a series of launch bays for individual squadrons.
Let’s see if the reminder bell works
I knew it had to be the Vesuvius. That ship always stuck with me, for all these years. Beautiful, majestic ship. Flashpacking it always made me sad inside. It took the Lexington carrier look to the pinnacle of design and made it look intimidating and hard as nails. The Vesuvius/St Helens and, oddly, the Kilrathi corvette... those two designs are always in the back of my mind when it comes to carrier based scifi.
2 years too late... but the carrier from Space Above and Beyond should make this list. It is a true carrier.
SDF-1 Robotech/Macross still one of my favorites.
It really bugs me that Spacedock ignores Homeworld ships a lot.
Knights of Sidonia seedship is the best carrier ship design I've seen yet.
Taking in actual physics, it has an amazing practical design, as well as the best attack vessel launcher.
I really like the "Retribution" from CoD: Infinite Warfare.
yeah the Retribution makes sense when you consider that it operates in atmosphere too.
Always liked the Great Fox (Star Fox) for how one would make a mini carrier, a "tender" as I call them. Carries four strike craft and their maintenance facilities, as well as the lodging and mission planning facilities for the flight of four pilots aboard, and then puts them at the staging point where the four strike out.