Talk:Valkyrie/Archive 1

Before anyone asks, here is the source: http://pics.livejournal.com/drewcypher/pic/000pbh0a/g261
See the seal in the background --Serenity 16:59, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Good Job Serenity!--Straycat0 18:38, 31 October 2006 (CST)

I didn't create the article though :p --Serenity 18:42, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Yeah, but you spotted the name on the seal. Well, whoever spotted it first, good job!--Straycat0 18:44, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Anyone else notice Tigh?--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:47, 31 October 2006 (CST)

You mean the eye? This is probably flashback scene. -- Spike 18:50, 31 October 2006 (CST)

With Admiral pips?Shane ^{(T - C - E)}18:52, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The description below says "Commander William Adama", as opposed to the next photo. -- Spike 18:56, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The rank differences clearly IDs the photo spot as a flashback. Look at the pips on the collar! What are the left collar pips verses the rank pips on the right? (Right-Left relative to the wearer) This is especially noticable on the Admiral Corman shot. --Straycat0 19:02, 31 October 2006 (CST)

It's most likely a flashback. Maybe Adama and Tigh served on the Valkyrie and that's where Bulldog was under Adama's command. I can't really make out the rank pins. They look a bigger than Commander's insignia, but the picture quality isn't that good --Serenity 19:09, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Another question, in 8 of 9 shot on that webpage, I am guessing its a flashback scene because Lee is wearing Captain's pips, but he also has a Battlestar Galactica badge on his shoulder. I thought he wasn't assigned to the Galactica prior to the miniseries? Is that the implication here or a clothing manfunction? hehe...--Straycat0 19:26, 31 October 2006 (CST)

I read something that he might be demoted back to Captain. Not sure about it, but it makes sense. I guess they could keep him as Major or even Colonel, but there isn't really a job opening for a Commander at the moment.

But looking at it more closely that might even be Major. Major and Captain look very similar, with Major having three chevron, the top one of which is directly on the diamond's edge --Serenity 19:28, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The original CAG of Galactica that we see was a Major. Also, in the Miniseries, Apollo didn't wear a unit patch at all on his shoulder when he got to Galactica, pehaps since he was in the Reserves. --Talos 14:21, 3 November 2006 (EST)

In "Torn", the name plate on Lee's viper reads "Maj. Lee Adama". So I don't think he will be demoted any time soon. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:54, 10 November 2006 (CST)

I've deleted this line "both William Adama and Saul Tigh served on the Valkyrie" this is not canon, also many rumors going around are that Adama was involved in a covert operations against the cylons so he might have simply gone to the Valkyrie to be issued orders or debriefed etc, point is, we don't know. --lordmutt 19:13, 10 November 2006 (EST)

There is a two-minute video out there, that pretty much confirms that Adama and Tigh were sent to Valkyrie for a special mission. Something about using a stealth ship to make a reconnaissance flight into Cylon space. The ship was flown by Novacek who was then captured by the Cylons. I also like that this shoots down the silly theories that the Blackbird was the Colonial's first stealth ship. --Serenity 10:52, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Concur. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:55, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Class / Type / Dimensions

Now, for the time being, does Valkyrie go down as a Valkyrie-type Battlestar (until someone at the "Head Office" finally tells us details like this)? I especially like how Galactica, Pegasus, and now Valkyrie are all different styles and sizes, but yet are still classified as battlestars. This shows a degree of realism, creativity, and dynamicism among our intrepid Powers That Be — they're not going to pull the weak, canned trick of reusing the same model over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Also, hopefully, it stomps on any musings amongst certain overzealous fans of such genres as Star Wars and Star Trek who have this bad habit of immediately speculating and squabbling over if a ship is a battleship, destroyer, frigate, etc. In this case, it would seem that, regardless of size and/or layout, a battlestar is a battlestar is a battlestar. End of line.

On that note, it would appear that Valkyrie is infact smaller than Galactica, perhaps with reduced capabilities (weapons and embarked Vipers and Raptors quantities, etc.), less crew. It would also appear that she has less engines in her differently shaped array, which would make sense for a smaller, less massive starship.

Lastly, and unrelated to Valkyrie directly, that stealth recon craft was badass, wasn't it? -- Hawke 23:49, 17 November 2006 (CST)

I'm not so sure that the Valkyrie is a less capable ship than the Galactica. From what Tigh said about Adama's "graceful retirement' it seems that the Valkyrie was actually a pretty prestigious command. I had always thought that commanding the Galactica was a great honor, but Tigh's words seem to indicate otherwise. Ships tend to get smaller as the technology progresses because of the reduced manpower requirement. Perhaps the smaller size of the Valkyrie is an indication of this. Theres no real numbers for the dimensions of the Valkyrie or anything to scale it to, but I also got the sense that it was smaller than the Pegasus or Galactica. --Antagonist 02:16, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I disagree with that. A smaller ship is going to have less physical space to carry fighter craft and supplies. If Valkyrie is smaller than Galactica and Pegasus, then its gun batteries are smaller, which means they're firing lighter shells, which translates into less penetration, smaller warheads, less damage. A smaller ship has less volume to absorb damage with, meaning less staying power in a battle.

That doesn't mean it can't still be a prestigious command, though. If it were a very new ship, even if it weren't the most powerful, it would still be a plum assignment.--Grin Reaper 07:08, 18 November 2006 (CST)

That's not always completely true. For example, the modern Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer is about 500 feet long. It's replaced the 560 foot long Spruance and Kidd class destroyers and is also much more powerful than the old Long Beach (721 fl) and other old cruisers. It's almost as powerful as the other current surface warship, the Ticonderoga class cruiser, built on a Spruance hull. The only reason our modern carriers are so much larger than the old WWII bird farms, is that the planes are much larger now than they were back then. For instance, the lightweight F/A-18E Super Hornet is about 30,000lbs empty and 60 feet long. The old F6F Hellcat is 42 feet long and weighs under 10,000lbs. In conclusion, Valkryie, even smaller, could be much more powerful than the older Galactica. --Talos 09:09, 18 November 2006 (CST)

But considering the timeframe, they aren't using radically different weapons and planes. Probably standard Mk VII Vipers or maybe MkVIs or whatever.

I think it's sort of like the escort carriers of WWII. Not usually meant to operate alone, but to give support to larger carriers, protect ships and support planetary operations. A support ship in Battlestar Groups that have a fullsized battlestar as main ship --Serenity 09:24, 18 November 2006 (CST)

That reminds me of a point I forgot, the Mk II and Mk VII are of similar sizes, they can be launched from the same tubes and stored in the same parking spots on the hanger deck. I'm thinking the Valkyrie is like the USS Wasp which was a miniture Yorktown, a small light carrier that can operate with the fleet carriers. The only difference is that the Valkryie would be more advanced than Galactica, instead of old and ineffective like the Wasp. --Talos 09:38, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I find myself nodding in gleeful agreement to Talos and Serenity's comments, but I must reply to Grin Reaper's first — you're using the "bigger is better" mentality, and this is one of the two issues that burns at the heart of the fight amongst Star Wars fans on the topic of warships (and classification thereof, but I'll mention that later). Bigger is not better. Better is better. Different is better. Just because Valkyrie is smaller (hypothetically speaking for the sake of example) doesn't mean she carries smaller weapons. From the recollection scenes alone, we can see that she has weaponry different, and in different locations, than Galactica. The elder battlestar lumps her primary "turrets" dorsalside and ventralside, and has her "flak-guns" lining the midline and flight pods. Valkyrie, by contrast, had turrets on the pods themselves, akin to Pegasus. I don't want to chase specifics, but focus on the point that differences are good — they're human; they're to be expected; they're in realistic keeping.

It could be said that, perhaps, Valkyrie was as Talos and Serenity say, a lighter, more purposeful version of a battlestar for an accompaniment or specialized role. Less mass would mean that she'd require less engines in her array, and perhaps have greater velocities/accelerations. She'd require less crew. While still operating the same craft as any other battlestar, she might have less of them. Who knows? The point is, she's different, but still a battlestar.

I bring in two examples from history: the case of the HMS Hood (ca. 1940) and the battleships of the US Navy during WWII. In Hood's story, she was, when WWII rolled around, the largest, longest warship in the British Navy, and was 262m long at 48,000 tonnes full load. By contrast, the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were 197m at 33,000 tonnes. Both ships carried the same 15-in gun. Then, we throw in another WWII-era battleship, the King George V-class, which was 227m at 42,000 tonnes — but sported 14-in guns because the Admiralty, at the time, felt that a more quantitive broadside (10 over 8 or 9) would be more effective than the larger 15-in guns. I'm not going to get into a running argument over details, but bring this up to point out that all three were battleships (Hood was termed a battlecruiser, but the point stands), built by the same country in roughly a short period of time (within approximately 30 years), and all were used under similar circumstances, to varying success and failure. Similarly, the United States had their "holdover" dreadnaught-style battleships at the opening of WWII, but then churned out the New Mexico-class, the South Dakota-class, North Carolina-class, and Iowa-class. Each was indeed a battleship, but definitely different in terms of size, traits, and capabilities.

Yes, I may be getting a bit long-winded for such a trivial subject, but I can't express enough how different this great series is from Star Trek and Star Wars. Until proven otherwise, there aren't any carriers, battleships, cruisers, frigates, destroyers, corvettes, torpedo boats, etc. — there are battlestars, and a battlestar is a battlestar is a battlestar, albeit in different shapes, forms, and sizes. -- Hawke 11:26, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I'm thinking that it's just a smaller battlestar, fulfilling a similar role as the Mercuries and such on smaller displacement. Many realword navies are always attempting to do this. For example, before the Burke was finalized, various lightweight versions, sacrificing engines or Aegis, or other equipment, were designed. All of them tried to mimize displacement.The Treaty-era ships from the 1920-30's aren't the best examples to use here because they had an artificial limit imposed on them by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Frequently, improved technology requires lesser manpower. The reason ships keep getting bigger historically is that they keep adding new technology, for instance, the cause of the massive destroyer size increase after WWII is mostly due to the inclusion of Weapon Alfa, guided missiles, and a huge increase in carried electronics. --Talos 12:27, 18 November 2006 (CST)

OK, let's not make too big a deal about the size. Here's a comparison of sizes of post-WWII aircraft carrier classess that I put together from wikipedia.org organized by when they were built:

CVL-48 Saipan class - 2 ships 14,500 tons

CVA-58 United States class - 1 ship 83,350 tons full, 68,000 tons standard

CV-59 Forrestal class - 4 ships 56,300 tons

CV-63 Kitty Hawk class - 3 ships 60,000 tons, 82,200 tons full load

CVN-65 Enterprise class - 1 ship approx. 93,500 tons full load

CV-67 John F. Kennedy class - 1 ship 60728 tons light, 82655 tons full

CVN-68 Nimitz class - 9 ships 101,000 to 104,000 tons full load

CVN-78 21st Century Aircraft Carrier Project 100,000 tons

If we equate Galactica, an older ship, to the USS United States and the Valkyrie to Forrestal Class and Pegasus to a Nimitz class, then Galactica would be clearly larger than the Valkyrie and Pegasus would clearly be much larger than both. In the US Navy today, all these carriers have the exact same function, but vary in size by design and time. However, they are all aircraft carriers. --Straycat0 17:29, 18 November 2006 (CST)

Number / Designation?

Am I seeing this right? From the capture, it looks like BSG 41 on the seal. -- Hawke 11:47, 18 November 2006 (CST)