Battlestar? Where did this Battlestar designation come from? From the evidence it is clearly far too small and underpowered to be a battlestar. It also got its fighters from other ships and had to create a vacum in its hangar to let raptors in/out. It is also tiny compared to basestars and and completely outgunned. If anything this ship is similar to a frigate or destroyer, but a battlestar it is not. A much larger stronger ship the Loki is clearly identified as a heavy-cruiser and not a battlestar so this smaller ship is not either. VARGR 12:08, 23 November 2012 (EST)
- "Battlestar" is on the patch. I've found a decent screencap from the last two episodes, which I'll upload now.
- Also, there are "light" and "heavy" battlestars, as we've seen in the past between Galactica and Pegasus (heavy battlestar), and later Valkyrie (a light battlestar). -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:11, 23 November 2012 (EST)
- Patch screen cap is here. I'll endeavor to get a good scan of the actual prop when I'm able, since I have access to the screen-used uniforms. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:17, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Ah I see a battlestar it is. My bad. Still it is a very strangeship to label as a battlestar as its barely holds any vipers and is so tiny. VARGR 12:25, 23 November 2012 (EST)
- My theory is she's an older design, created before the outbreak of hostilities with the Cylons, and was pressed into service for the War. Serge Greystone's old Twitter account did say the Colonials used the designation before the onset of the War, however, I do not know if the BSG Wiki treats it has a canon source.
- I'm going to agreed that I don't think that the Osiris should be a Battlestar. Now for the arms patch, maybe the Battlestar Osiris and the Osiris-Orion Class are two different ships. Since the Colonial Fleet was creating a Ghost Fleet maybe some of the personal was save from the Battlestar Osiris and was taking to the Osiris-Orion Class. Also, since arm patches from the series have mistake i.e. Triton'a arm patch maybe it simple a mistake.
- Also, we know that Battlestar used 2 number, i.e. 75, 61, 41, etc to show Battlestar Group. However, Osiris have 4 number 0913 suggest it either not a Battlestar are don't followed the normal number system. It could be a pre-Revolt design but that would mean that Battlestar is simple the Colonial term for Capital ship. However, if that is correct, then that would be like someone calling a Frigate a capital ship, which in my opinion it is not. Also it the Loki is Heavy Cruiser, and the Berzerk an Escort, then why is the Osiris - smaller than both vessel a Battlestar? Because even if it was a Battlestar before the war broke out, would they not reclassify it to bring it into current standard? I.e. how the USN Navy reclassify several ships because of the 'cruiser gap' with the USSR.
- Plus, looking at the Osiris arm patch, it have BSG and then two number I can't make out, which suggest that Osiris is part of Battlestar Group but don't have the same number on it hull unlike other Battlestar i.e. Galactica.
- I suggest that we should referred to the Osiris as a warship, and a Orion Class Warship instead of a Battlestar. Plus we have already determined that what seen on screen is subject to changed i.e. Archeron being called a Heavy Cruiser but actual being a Battlestar and the Valkyrie being the same ship from Hero, despite no on screen evidence to support this. --Allenknott3
- Canon sources dictate the Battlestar designation. The patch says "BSG 54". Also, according to Doug Drexler, the Valkyrie is the same ship from " Hero". - Frylock86
Well I'm of the opinion having seen a battlestar patch that yes it is technically a battlestar, but that in my mind there is no doubt that it is a obsolete design of battlestar from before the outbreak of war. With the war vastly larger ships were created to meet the needs of war such as the Cylons building larger basestars. This lead to the Orion Class Battlestars being obsolete and completely outdated as they were weakly armored (which is shown in how easily its external engine is destroyed), and lack a large amount of Vipers. If it turns out the class is not a pre-war design then I would say its a mistake, but since there is no evidence to show this it should remain labelled as a Battlestar. VARGR 13:39, 23 November 2012 (EST)
- Right. There are various types of Vipers and Raptors, as well. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 13:41, 23 November 2012 (EST)
Called a Stealth Frigate on B&C Facebook[edit]
On a post on the 7th Dec A Battlestar Task Group is decribed. In it it gives information on Stealth Frigates which has this written next to it "(The Reliant is a stealth Frigate)". In the comments below it B&C FB page clearly states that the Reliant was the original name for the Orisis. Therefore this class of ship is not a battlestar, but a Stealth Frigate.
fb page http://www.facebook.com/bloodandchrome VARGR 15:24, 11 December 2012 (EST)
- Sorry, but not really. The information provided there was preliminary, and subject to change. Should we note this as its original point? Absolutely. But this was changed when it went through production. (A lot of things tend to change from script to screen.) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 15:39, 11 December 2012 (EST)
- Fair enough. It deffinately deserves a mention in the notes section of the page though on the subject of its original name being Reliant. VARGR 16:29, 11 December 2012 (EST)
- As I said, we should certainly do that, at least. :) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:36, 11 December 2012 (EST)
- B&C FB confirmed in the comments that it is deffinately a Battlestar and the Stealth Frigate designation was dropped VARGR 15:00, 12 December 2012 (EST)
- As I said, we should certainly do that, at least. :) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:36, 11 December 2012 (EST)