How the mighty have fallen. from planes that could be rammed by another plane midair and still return home(yeah, it actually happened to a b17. somehow even the tailgunner came home) to... well... this
@marsar1775 Blame McDonnal Douglas, who they bought and took ideas from aftrt McDD started to go under They went under because they were doing that Beoing is now. The pieces arrange themselves
Good analogy. Sometimes you just need something you can churn out to free up the big ships for the big jobs, and you really don't want to take up the big shipyards and best resources producing them.
Ah yes, the equivalent of the battlecruiser in this setting. Has the quite the array of teeth, but couldn't even survive a wet fart from Adama himself.
@@adamczechowski614 I used the Lexington BCs for a reason. They would have ben terrible at their role, had they been built as BCs. Too much gun, not enough armour. If 6 and 8 inch fire from cruisers can threaten you, at a lot of ranges. You messed up your design. As the cruisers can keep up with you, and there are a lot more of them about.
@@Yandarval Mmm, Yes no. The Lex BCs did have enough (if only just) to resist 8in. 8-11in armor. Gotta remember the times she was designed. Fire control / rangefinding was still and Art, not a science, so speed as armor does work. She was or was meant to be, the Cruiser killer of her age. You only F up, if you put her in the battle line, like the British did at Jutland. The problem with the comparison, is lack of parasite craft, like spotters and fighters. Do you fallow Dr Alex Clark? He's got a treasure trove of knowledge on this subject. www.youtube.com/@DrAlexClarke
@@adamczechowski614 FFS. YT just ate my long, reasoned answer. Anyway. The Lex (using the wiki stats), only had 5-7 inches of belt with 11 inch turret faces. The belt would be threatened by the higher ROF of the 8 inch's, at the closer ranges your point about fire control would create. A single ship fight would still need more hits from the cruiser to mission kill the Lex. With only a few mission or outright sinking the cruiser. But the lex could be mauled and have to head back to port after a single ship engagement. The lex's were never built. So we will never know how god or bad they were. They may have been razor bladed due to the treaties, had they been built. Anyway. The Valkyrie to me, is a similar prospect. Its defences cannot serve the cheques its armament writes.
Once Deadlock came out with the Artemis and made sure to mention how difficult it was to modernize that class, I figured that the Valkyrie class was intended as a wartime austerity design to replace the Artemis in the role of a light battlestar to complement the bigger Jupiter's. It would explain why they lack so much of the armor we see on almost all other battlestars aside from the very specialist Orion class. it's a quick, decently armed battlestar that can be cranked out in numbers to replace wartime losses, and since ensuring it could be refitted easily was part of the design parameters, it meant that any ships that survived the war could look forward to long service lives since updating them would be easier than on other classes like the Jupiter.
Exactly my thoughts. People comparing them to Jupiters are missing the point, and ditto people arguing about how they didn't appear in the first war, except as a retcon. This thing is _exactly_ the kind of ship resource strapped Colonial Fleet would try to design. It makes sense, and it served it's purpose well in both the later stages of the war and in peacetime
I was just about to say the same thing; the Artermis fills the same role as the Valkyrie, except the Valkyrie is the destroyer equivalent to the Mercury, while the Artermis is the destroyer equivalent to the Jupiter.
@@TheEDFLegacy It throws people off because the Colonials are all over the place with naval terminology. In fact, everything was classified as a battlestar until Deadlock (minus one line in B&C where a civilian mislabels a battlestar as a heavy cruiser). It's confusing for us in the real world, who don't call every warship a "battleship". Better to classify BSG vessels by tonnage and role In our world, we might call a battlestar like a Jupiter a battlecarrier, which never worked out in the real world. A Valkyrie would be either a destroyer or a frigate, depending how you want to classify _those_ by era
@@kenhagler7166 it seemed that the Valkyrie was the replacement for all the old warship classes baring the Jupiter ( which was replaced by the Mercury) used in the war remember that most of the colonial modern navel was stolen by the cylons in the first so most of their ships where rushed need downgraded designs or older ships from when the Colonial's where fighting each other so the Valkyrie could pull the job of any of the smaller class as good or better then the dedicated classes meaning that the fleet could support few classes and be less mismatched
Note for editing sci, I spent ten years on carriers, and that’s pretty much how it goes, the trade off being that the enemy doesn’t actually care about a destroyer and are perfectly happy to cripple or bypass it. On the other hand, if your on the Carrier, they want that bastard on the bottom, not limping home for repairs.
Belligerent, I have heard that in a carrier task force, standing philosophy is, 'protect the carrier at all costs'. Don't know if that is correct or not.
What some people seem to miss is that the Carrier is not just valuable because it's just a big ship, if you lose the Carrier you also lose a large chunk of trained pilots and carrier deck operations crew, you also lose eye watering amounts of aircraft and their fuel and weapons as well. a Loss like that could naval war losing cripple smaller nations like the UK, France who have only two or one carriers for example. And well you Already know Belligerent_Herald how vulnerable a fleet with no aircover can be.
@@Predator42ID They're still ships and are not armoured, enough water gets in, fire manages to make the Ships supply of weapons and fuel for the Aircraft to go off can sink them. Many Modern Torpedoes are made to break the back of ships.
That's not a terrible idea. I'm pretty sure magnetic clamps would do. No need for welding. Then you can split up again in case that's tactically advantageous. If you are getting swarmed belly to belly, if you're swimming the target, split up and catch them in the crossfire.
Want a BS answer for the spoiler? It's packed with comms/sensor gear that bring the flight 2 up to the standards of the ships at the time, with those sensor systems being too bulky to integrate right into the space frame. That's why it's right above the engines, to draw power right from the reactors. Also, it's fucking cool.
I was going for "it is a conversion from a standard commercial interplanetary vessel hull, the only way to give it interstellar capability was to strap the drives on the outside"
Sensors or EW is definitely the better explanation. Why else would there be large cables going from the reactor to the dish? And any usable amount of armour would need to be heavy, procluding it to be only attached by two thin strips to the hull.
Nope. What's more believable, is the head of the bureau of ships was told to update the ship and here's the investment to do so. He looked at the current model, looked at the time and saw it was nearly the end of day before retirement. Tore off a flap from his cigarette pack and pinned it to the model. Then he pocketed the finance chit and called it a day. The next day, his replacement (having never set foot anywhere that could get him dirty or hurt) saw the model, called it a brilliant final design of a legend, and rushed it into production as the God-class, and then proceeded to pat himself on the back for the brilliant opening move of his career.
No, no. No excuses. Canon fodder is exactly the purpose of screening elements. Yes, VERY expensive and highly capable of surviving on its own, but still expendable in the larger picture. Nobody is just throwing away ships and lives. However, stopping attacks, even if it means taking the hit for a more important vessel, is 100% the role they are meant to fill.
I disagree with the definition here. A Soviet conscript given ether ammo or a rifle and told to march or die is cannon fodder. A picket ship is an attritable asset. It is how lives are spent that is important.
I really like the design of the Valkyrie class as the "modern" approach to Battlestars. It's like in real life, where battleships were replaced by destroyers. But the thing is, that this change in real life was caused by developments in weapon technology. When missiles became more common, the big guns and heavy armor of the battleships became pretty much useless, because a missile has a higher range, better targeting and it strikes from above, where the unarmored parts are. A development like this sadly didn't happen in BSG, we are never told, why they changed the way they build Battlestars. The only reasonable assumption was that they had a change in doctrine because they thought that smaller crafts were preferable to literal bricks that don't even die when you land a direct hit with a nuke. Whatever their reason was, I'm sure it was stupid, but that's in line with some of the decissions made by real life politicians so I won't complain. Also, I won't forgive them that they messed up the timeline so badly when it comes to the Valkyrie class. So while the design is great, the lore is really lacking here.
I retired out of the Army and there's always someone that's more expendable than others. It sucks but someone has to take their promask off first. You're going to pick the lowest ranking rifleman over the radio-man or the SAW gunner for that "honor".
Actually I think it's not so much Armor, but a sensor boom. Think like the AWACS planes with the large radar dish on top. Similar principle, and even the name Odin. Norse mythology Odin gave up an eye for power and foresight.
In a different video about the Valkyrie, it was mentioned that we only see it (and the ship from the original series it was based on) operating in packs of five. Lo and behold, thats about what Deadlock players settled on, too. Seems like the Colonial navy planners may have thought it through after all!
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I have another comment elsewhere you can find for more thorough info, but imo the armor scheme actually is justified if you think about what the fictional designers would have been trying to accomplish. Particularly, the doctrine they *thought* it would use (they were wrong)
@@comicmoniker I was more about in game itself, but yeah I can see what they want it too and I understand it. But playing the game itself sometimes I found they get right where you don't want cylon ships to be, especially on the higher difficulties.
I love this class, so sad that they didn't show up more. I believe that they were a mid Cylon War ship to bulk up the numbers without breaking the bank building Jupiters
Well, if you're doing Battlestars that weren't seen in the show, but are in other media, the Minerva class is also a thing. Don't know if you excluded it in an earlier video or something else. Then there is the fan made Sobek class (I mean you had a Nova class episode). Also, since when is the Mercury 2800 meters long? It's length is 1790 meters.
I personally would love to see Sci do a video on the Sobek and/or the Diasporaverse because she is an amazing design and (in my own personal headcanon where the Valk is not a Fist Cylon War design because it still doesn't make any sense whatsoever) works as a first cylon war design for a pocket battlestar
The armor scheme of the Valkyrie seems perfectly justifiable to me. The Colonies wanted a workhorse that could handle the numerous tasks a fleet needs capital ships for, without requiring them to dedicate a full Pegasus to them, and they wanted that workhorse to be easy to produce in high numbers. Destroyer vs cruiser, yes, but also think the escort carrier, as opposed to the fleet carrier. Other people have discussed the logistical justification, so I'll focus on the tactical reasoning. Exactly like happened in our world, the fictional navy planners had to figure out what they truly couldn't do without, and get rid of everything else. If your resource or weight limitations mean you can't effectively armor the whole ship, what do practical designers do? They don't put ineffective armor over the whole thing, they put effective armor over the area that is most likely to be hit, and instruct the ship captains to always point that side towards the enemy. This is why the guns are placed where they are, too. SCI mentioned the difficulty of concentrating firepower forward or broadside, but you know where those guns *can* all point simultaneously? Above the ship. So your axis of best offense and axis of best defense is the same, assuming you can reliably stand off and send your vipers in to keep the enemy at a distance. Hell, the spoiler *only* makes sense as armor if this is your plan, protecting your engines from being targeted to reduce your maneuverability. The 3 dimensions of space are your weakness, yes, but they can help you, too. You can dive under the enemy, or pivot on your long axis and pitch "upwards" to orbit your target. Valkyries on independent duty are expecting to deal with *at most* a single enemy of equivalent size, and run from any larger force to get the rest of the fleet. That means they're only taking fire from one direction. Valkyries operating in a fleet are expecting to flank the enemy force while the Mercuries draw fire charging ul the center. Valkyries hunting in a pack can split up to encircle the enemy or position themselves to cover each other's weak sides. To a Colonial officer writing fleet doctrine in peacetime, it looks like you simply don't need total coverage, and can make up for the vulnerability with good tactics. And the senate only approved half the cost per ship he asked for, so... you get the Valkyrie
I am a simple man, I see a Science Insanity upload, and I hit play automatically and upvote once I finish the video. And, if it is a Battletech or Battlestar Galactica topic, I upvote before the generic greeting even starts.
I think it's cool to see more BSG Navy ships but I always thought it would be more interesting to see like the desperation modifications they made from civilian ships to stay alive in such dire circumstances. Like a BSG version of a Toyota technical
My view is that the valkyries were designed late in the first cylon war has a standardised design that would replace the medley of frigates, cruisers and aging imperial wars era vessals that the colonials had in service at that time, the odin was probably a subclass designed to have an advanced dradis suite for providing early warning and threat identification to it's assigned battlegroup
Destroyer analogy is really good. A Navy must have them, in WWII they were extremely valuable. No way could a Battleship perform their role in a fleet.
The funny thing is the basically all of the VALKYRIEs problems could have been solved. If the Colonials did the engineering equivalent of welding two of them together.
"Shouldn't we put a hall way between them? "Nah, they can use the radios. It's cool, don't worry about it." So say we all." "Ugh, so say we all. I guess."
Fun fact, the Destroyer is short for Torpedo boat Destroyer, and that's basically what it does, and then Torpedo boats started dipping down below the surface or fly in fast with a pair of flimsy fabric wings, so Destroyers started diverging into two types of AA Destroyers and ASW Destroyers, but then both of the enemy types evolved and so did the Destroyer and now although integrated again Destroyers actually just do that, ASW, Or occasionally a further out SAM site further down toward the horizon...
The Valkyrie could be explained by the high-low doctrine. Deploy large numbers of cheap/disposable ships in order to protect/obfuscate your more capable 'silver bullet' ships. Meat shield is accurate. Disposable ships with disposable crews.
20:15 When i see that spoiler, to me, that looks alot like a sensor pod. Could be an intelligence gathering attachment that can be added when doing the super secret ops
I was gonna say the same thing. Like some kind of AWACS DRADIS system to act as the centerpoint of patrol groups that don't get a Mercury... or like some kind of AEGIS sensor to coordinate the flak batteries of multiple ships so their webs interlock more cleanly.
Great job on a sweet looking but under used ship! BTW, I believe the total number of Battlestars at the beginning of the second Cylon war was 120 (10 per Colony). This is based on Commander Adama saying they had lost 30 Battlestars in the opening battle, and Starbuck replying "That's a quarter of the fleet."
"We need a model we have in stock to bulk out pre-or-mid-Cylon-War fleets/drydocks/other ship stuffz! LETS TAKE THE VALKYRE!" Berzerker: *Am I a fucking joke to you?*
I think. The purpose of the valkyrie class is to fill out the numbers , Like in the mini series it was stated that the fleet had a hundred and twenty battlestars It could be that Around 40 to 60 was valkyrie class , Which would put them more in line with the modern. United States, navy because we have 11 supercarriers or (for us just carriers). We also have what the world would call carriers. But they are amphibious Assault ships 9 of them , We even sometimes use them as carriers even though they are more multirol, Also I think you are underestimating The battle star Because the Colonials Consistently built ships punching above their weight, These ships can probably take on 2 to 2.5 Bass stars., Remember, it took 4 to take down the Bucket (with no CAP)in the battle of new caprica. And three plus with a surprise attack To almost take the beast, So based on my math to take the 3 ships we see over caprica the clyons would need 6 to 8 basestar without cnp backdoor , Now multiply that by 40 to 60, The valkyrie class is what made the war Unwinable Without cheating
Will say, packing a vessel so tightly with explosive munitions is a sure fire way to.... well... show how bright your ships heart is..... violently.... and quickly should something start to chain react. Good fire ship though if need be.
Easy fix here, maybe? Let's say sixteen new ships were to be built with four variations where they have four of each variant with each of the four types sharing 75% of the construction and 25% of each modell being unique to each particular model, now let's just say the shipyard building them couldn't build all 16 at once and so they would build two at a time but would construct four undersides as convertible hulls for the duration of say the first eight being built, this would mean that the first two ships in the line could easily swap undersides depending upon the requirements of each mission with Thunderbird 2 being a classic example. Once all sixteen ships were built all of them would have an underside designated to it and permanently welded into place, with one variant being a carrier like Galactica, one being a personel transporter, one being a cargo transporter for transporting land based craft and other such things needed to build bases on a planets surface and one variant being a combination of all of the above with each function reduced to 25%. Now let's just say one ship and two modular hulls were fully constructed and another ship and two modular hulls were half complete when the shipyard that was building them was attacked leaving the completed ship no time to mate up to either of the two undersides which have underside defence systems and it had to take off and leave orbit to preserve itself hoping for the best upon its return after the attack was over. Upon its return to the ship yard it discovered that the other half complete ship and both complete hulls and both incomplete hulls had been destroyed along with the shipyard and as a result the ship by the time of its appearance in canon has now found itself temporarily put into service whilst incomplete and lacking a hull leaving it with a vulnerable underbelly resulting in its need to be accompanied by an escort at least until another shipyard elsewhere within the Colonies can build a more permanent and fully armed underside making the ship a one of a kind within its class until at least new ships can be fully built.
Alternate ideas for the spoiler? Sensor pod! Ah-la ST federation Nebula class. To see those damn dirty cylons coming first. Or, you know, pirates and smuglers that are probably running dark. Heat sink/vent! Extra cooling for those big hot engins given heat is, you know, really hard to get rid of in avacume. Though that's probably a little too hard sci-fi for BSG.
Head cannon:- the Valcury 2 is capable of planitary landing's support, most of its Craft are Raptor's with a small escort of Vipers. The spoiler on the back is there to stop her going arse end down while in atmo'. Hiding somewhere on the underside of the pods are heavy duty landing legs alowing the ship to land on planet and use her guns as support weapons for ground troops.
Kinda like the USS Phoenix from Star Trek that had a AWACS looking Sensor Dish module. This Valkyrie variant probably was specialized, and patrolled along the Cylon neutral zone. It would use its better sensors to gaze deeeeeep into their territory and would act as early warning, and intel gathering. The Cylon threat was still there, and I would like to know everything I could about it.
Despite its flaws, by deadlock stats it performs on par or a little below other escort ships. About the same DRADIS range and speed as a Manticore, but more armor and teeth, better than an Adamant. Thats a corvette and Frigate made obsolete by this class. The fact that this class can be economically mass produced means that it’s shortcomings can be made up by sheer numbers. This ship could have been the backbone of the Colonial fleet. Especially paired with a Mercury. Imagine a Mercury floating above a Wolfpack, Vipers set to defensive and charging a Cylon formation. Raiders, gone. Missiles intercepted. And if a Valkyrie takes too much damage, easy repositioning.
i always assumed the fin was a supplemental sensor aray akin to an 'Airborne early warning and control' plane. it's not a new model, it's an AWACS variant.
To me it seems to look like a Escort Carrier cheap easy and less cost to be used all over the place, But also like you said used to cover the bigger ships.
It's 100% a cruiser by early 20th century classification standards (I would place the modern arleigh burke destroyers in the same category). It's role is to independently cruise distant planets, perform commerce raiding/escort, provide scouting and screening during fleet operations, do search and destroy missions, and just do the things that would be too expensive, tedious, or clunky for a full sized Battlestar to perform. As for the spoiler, it's clearly a sensor dome for an advanced DRADIS system (or another sci-fi sensor). Think of it like the AWACS domes or wedges on some electronic warfare planes. This system would come in handy during its scouting role while attached with a fleet, or independently while doing secret squirrel stuff. And calling them a Battlestar instead of a cruiser is probably just a traditional thing due to it having flight pods. Most of the intended roles that the vessel performs don't require fighters, but they are certainly a welcome addition. I would view this in our terms as more similar to something like the Italian Helicopter cruiser Vittorio Veneto and other similar ships.
About the adding of spoilers making a new class to people who don't understand things: that's not unusual. Look at the US Navy's standard-type battleships: The difference between the Nevada and Pennsylvania-class battleships was the addition of two more guns. Other than that, they were essentially the same design. That was a common thing for the standard-type battleships, as well as ship building in general. Something more modern: the Ticonderoga-class cruisers are just Spruance-class destroyers with Aegis. The single barrel guns are on the underside. They are very visible on the model, to be honest.
Just to say it does have some limited downward weaponry, couple of big guns under the bow facing forwards, and also a gun turret each under the hangars. On top of that it has a bunch of anti-fighter/CIWS guns down there as well. Again hard to say if that load is cannon but that's what it shows on physical merchandise models and in BSG Deadlock, who know the BSG ships better than the writers do at this point.
The Salamis is a perfect comparison! Just like how the Salamis serves to show off how the Zeon mobile suits completely disrupted the military thinking of their time, the Valkyrie shows off how helpless humanity was to the new Cylon tech. And they do that job well.
The main workhorse of Battlestar Galactica Deadlock was the Adamant frigate, which I think the Valkyrie Battlestar was made a replacement for. The Adamant in game has one munition slot, one squadron and 8 side mounted light turrets. The Valkyrie Battlestar in game has one munition slot, one squadron, 8 point defense left side, 8 point defense right side, 6 heavy turrets mounted on the top and 2 heavy turrets Mounted on the bottom. To me it looks like the made a Battlestar that had the functions of Adamant frigate, and the fire power of a Minotaur heavy Gunship.
I think something that gets overlooked in Battlestar breakdowns is the colonial government. I can surmise that when you have not seen or heard from an enemy for 50 years... democratically elected politicians tend to see it as a something long in the past, and complacency sets in. The biggest threats for the colonial fleet was patrolling a border with nothing seemingly on the other side, pirates and smugglers. The fleet wasn't stupid to the lack of cylon activity and they tried to gain intel and insight on them, but the civilians that funded them were blind and saw such missions as reckless and provocative (hence Adama's disgrace). Why maintain this giant fleet of Mercury class Battlestars and other behemoths when you could reduce the cost of the fleet. You keep a token number of ships like the Galactica and Pegasus so you can say to hardliners and the dwindling number of veterans that you can fight the Cylons. A Valkyrie class Battlestar was a political tool with the belief that they would be capable enough should war break out. We can see that was not the case. Even if the Cylon sneak attack failed, the Valkyrie's would prove themselves in blowing up well. They still would make excellent support Battlestars for the larger ones and could be built in large numbers. I see them as a good escort carrier mixed with a destroyer like full sized Battlestars are a mix of Battleship/Fleet Carrier. We even have snippets in Galactica on how prior to the fall, the Colonial Government had active disdain for guys like Adama and it was hinted/commented that they really wanted to downsize the military. But then again, this could just be my head canon, it has been a while since I've gone through the entire shows.
Ah, the pocket battlestar. I liked the ship design, that ship was showed like twice in the show, when the navy got crippled due to the cylon virus, blowed up. Than you see a valkyrie when Adama is sending that stealth viper over the red line.
So minor nitpick, but the Valkyrie class did NOT show up at the beginning of the series, ie the miniseries. They didn't have the model at the time. The shots of the Valkyrie from the fall of the colonies are from the TV movie, The Plan, which was a prequel movie released after the series was done. So the first time we see a Valkyrie class ship from IRL life was in the episode where Adama launches that one guy over the armistice line
First lets get the look out of the way. I always thought the ship looked really cool especially loved the shape of that flightpod. That scene at 8:24 looked so good when the ship looses power and it just dips over and starts drifting. Really cool scene. Then I played the game and I have realized what a downgrade that ship was compared to other Battlestar. As for the purpose I think the answer is easy. Cost. Their enemy literally disappeared for decades, without any contact not even a postcard for Christmas. Suddenyl their biggest problems became dealing with pirates, arms dealers, and just stupid people in space. They needed to cut the costs and reduce the navy because they were not needed. I guess they grew complacent, without any Cylon presence it was harder and harder to explain to the government the super expensive ship procurements and they started to apply pressure from the top to cut down on cost, decomission ships and replace them ( or not even ) with smaller, more efficient vessels that were way more than enough to deal with the issues they were facing at the time. Just take a look at what happened with the US after the Soviet Union collapsed. The enemy suddenly disappeared, the was nobody to challenge the NAVY or the Airforce, the country was engaged in an assymetric warfare against a vastly inferior force that didn't use airforce, navy or tanks. The Seawolf program got cancelled after just 3 hulls built and replaced by the Virginia class. Totally different vessel. Slower, smaller, half the torpedo tubes. Its still a great submarine and it constantly getting upgrades but it was a downgrade from the Seawolf class. Take a look at the Raptor ( F-22 ). The USAF planned to buy 750 but ended up with 187. Got replaced by an inferior plane ( when it comes to air superiority ). That being said the 35 is a great airplane but completely different mission set than the Raptor. Right about now the USAF would be very happy to have another 2-300 Raptors, hence the reason they have investigated the possibility to restart the manufacturing. The Navy downsized its fleet and slow to build new ones. Instead of building more DDGs and FFGs they went with those cursed littoral ships named after the Space Shuttles from Armageddon ( the movie ) that ended up being a failure and they would be wiped in a really shooting war. Instead of replacing the Abrams they keep upgrading it and the Army developed about 150 different AMRAPS. I think something similar happened with the Colonial Navy. Lack of foresight, lobbying and incompetent government weakened their military which made it even more difficult to put up a fight when the Cylons did show up. And please don't call the Orion a Battlestar, that thing is a joke. :) Solid vid btw, really liked it.
“Battlestar” in the reimagined series is as meaningless as “starship” in Star Trek as a ship type. Effectively the Valkyrie is a destroyer: lots of offensive punch, especially is used in groups and with a little preparation; otherwise a screening platform. So, they’re not big enough for heavy guns, ergo they’re provided with missiles. The remaining guns are dispersed for their secondary screening role…both for fleet screening and screening merchants. The Cylon fighter is called a “Raider” and that may be a literal description of how it was usually seen. Not every battle is a pitched, set piece engagement; most fighting is skirmishing between small forces. So, the ability to launch six fighters each on QRA would give an escort group of three to five Valkyries the ability to get about a squadron’s worth in action quickly to fend off a small raid and the ability to augment them if it’s a longer fight. The all around gun arcs are good for screening the merchies. And space is 3D so there is nothing preventing them from rolling ship to present the armored portion to the enemy. Look at how tanks are armored sometime. A small raiding force can’t exactly threaten from all bearings with diluting itself. In a fleet action a Valkyrie is admittedly more vulnerable…but it’s not the main target. The enemy is going after the capital ships and escort kills are incidental…and dilute the attack on the high value unit. So, again, the Valkyrie can roll ship to present its armor. Targeting the underside would have to be from the far side of the engagement and assumes a weapon makes it that far without getting casually fragged or deceived. Since there are going to be several to many Valkyrie divisions around a fleet, again, a half dozen fighters on QRA each add up quickly and can buy time for the capital ships to vomit their massive groups while whittling down and disrupting incoming formations of raiders. On offense, groups of Valkyries can have their full complement of fighters prepared, and launch them in relatively rapid order to form up and then strike. Yes, the capital ships are better and faster at this, but the Valkyries add mass, and then the Valkyries can move in to support the attack and mass their missiles against vulnerable high value units that the fighter strike exposes. Valkyries can also be deployed as pickets and scouts. Yes, they’re vulnerable and exposed. No, they’re not intended to stand and fight. A scout or picket that stands and fights is a fool. “Snoop and scoot” or “Shout and duck.” Launch a half dozen fighters to survive whatever element of a screen just discovered you while you spin up your FTL, combat land them and jump! Having less armor and being smaller, it’s easier to build and replace them in the short term. You don’t get a lot of replacement capital ships in a war; you do get a lot of new escorts. Odds are the “hundreds of ‘battlestars’ in the fleet” are hundreds of Valkyries, a few dozen Artemis/Jupiter types, and a dozen Mercuries. The design does, indeed, make sense. As for the “spoiler”…two good thoughts are fuel tanks (small ships are chronically fuel-hungry and range-limited) or a place to carry additional electronics the hull lacked growth room for. Better to have fuel detonate outside the hull if it can’t be protected. As for electronics, look at the “hump” the A-4E grew, and the F-16’s saddlebags (which also house fuel).
I don’t think you’ve done the Minerva. That was my favorite from deadlock. Bit of a glass cannon but they were fast and maneuverable. Built for fast strikes rather than attrition.
Maybe another way to look at it as the WW2 Fleet Carrier vs Escort Carrier. Cheap and fast to build and maintain. Provides force projection to smaller less important areas. Also losing one or two of them is much less costly than a larger ship.
The spoiler works as spaced armor and the Battlestar equvivilent of a cope cage. Cylon warheads work similar to armor penetrating weapons sp having the huge space on the sides means it hits something first that isnt the fragile as hell drive section
Concept of light "carriers" reminds me of helicopter destroyers. Btw, tactical ussage of the class - i can immagine a situation, where two Valkyries fly paralel to each other, spot an enemy, reposition themselves relative to each other by "bellies" - say dozen meters apart (wich helps to cover their softer areas from incoming fire, untill something sneaks inbetween). Than both ships launch their screening fighters and turn sideways towards the enemy, to support the fighter wing by their guns.
Seems to be what I've come to call "Assault Carriers" after being exposed to the term by the Sunrider: MoA visual novel. While not big, armored, or armed enough, and doesn't carry a big enough fighter compliment, to be a proper battle carrier like a battlestar or star destroyer, it is armored and armed enough to slug it out with things in its weight class or less, fast enough to run from most anything bigger than it, and carries enough of a fighter compliment to escort itself and deal with pirate forces. I also consider the Gladiator-class Star Destroyer to be an assault carrier. I'd also imagine they could be used like the Gladiator-class was said to have been used, a self contained patrol fleet that can take the place of destroyer or cruiser once in a fleet. Or, they could be used like how the namesake Sunrider from the Sunrider VN is used, as a flagship for a smaller force. Basically a pocket battleship combined with a light/escort carrier.
I've always hated the designation of "Battlestar" for the Valkyries. They were always somewhere between destroyers and battle cruisers (i.e. fast, nimble, lots of guns and some armor).
With a fleet conposed of around 120 battlestars at the onset of the second Cylon War I always assumed the Valkyrie's formed the bulk of that number, with the Mercury's in the role of flagships.
I think it's definitely intended to show that the colonial navy has followed the same trajectory as real life navies since WWII: the big heavy battleship has given way to hundreds of missile destroyers, lacking the armour of their older kin due to the prevelance of missile salvo warfare, hence all her guns being capable of missile defence, and the lack of HEAVY guns. I figured she'd have like a thousand missile batteries packed in there somewhere (which arguably she does if only half the guns are covering one side of the ship...) It's such a cool looking design and it's just fallen into that hole of conjecture and 'it's on screen so it's canonically there!!'
Its a light carrier/heavy destroyer and meant to act in a group. Probably in groups of three and the Viper compliment more for protection of the ships themselves. Each ship maneuvering to protect each others vulnerable undercarriage.
They have to have more hangar deck space than 24 Vipers. Each pod is the size of a contemporary Supercarrier. Six launch tubes vs. eight catapults is a decent compromise.
AWACS Dish... a bunch of high band radar (Dradus?) antenna, to give it a much larger sensor range and image fidelity. Going with the WW2 comparison, it would be the outer ring radar picket in a battle group. Fletcher class in WW2, or modern DDG or FFG. With enough onboard fire power and fighters to protect itself. It fits.
It's worth keeping in mind that, despite all the times the video talks about how small the Valkyrie is, it's still twice the size of the largest real-world aircraft carriers.
I kinda want to call the Valkyrie class a "Gunstar type". Given it's profile and fleet role matches that of known Gunstar types from old series lore: Fast, maneuverable warships intended to escort larger vessels, such as Battlestars, in a fleet, convoy or battle group. In fact traditional incarnations of Gunstars are bigger ranging from 900 to 1500 meters in length. If a traditional gunstar could be considered a destroyer, Valkyries could be considered frigates.
VALKYRIE CLASS was more meant to be used in clusters when taking on a Base Ship (6 to 12) and as patrol ships where if they are lost in an ambush it is not a big loss, The spoiler was meant to be a sensor pod and Armour combo
If it's designed to be a first point of contact. then the lack of AA is puzzling, as the first sign of an attack is normally a scout craft, followed by a fighter strike. You'd want a craft that can shoot down incoming missiles and fighters.
If they ditched the vipers all together, the Valkyrie could make a good search and rescue ship. Load her up with Raptors and they can pick up down pilots (or their remains) while still protecting themselves and the larger more important ships of the line.
I have another reason for the spoiler, I'd say that it was a sensor array, like the big brick on the roof of a Danube-class run-about from Star Trek. Also, the reason why these things were called Valkyries was because they'd end up dragging everyone on them to Vallhala when the ship would blow up.
I choose to believe that the creators of various media you see the Valkyrie in weren't concerned about continuity and just threw it in because it was an available asset and cool, In my mind the Valkyrie class was only designed and built a couple of decades after the first war as the colonies demobilised, the wartime fleet started showing it's age and the democratic process stated doing it's short term gain problem as the civilian government started forgetting the cylons and wanted to save cubits. It's highly likely that if the Fall never happened, eventually the fleet would have been pretty much composed of Mercury's, Valkyries and some modern escorts.
6:03 I don't wanna be that guy, but Mercury's don't have guns on the top or bottom either. With the exceptions of the ones found on the ends of the flight pods, none of the Mercury's guns can point directly up or down (that one that's shown on top of the flight pod during Exodus only existed for that one scene of it charging in then disappeared again later in the battle). It should also be noted that Valkyries have been known to have the highest firepower-to-mass ratio and the *do* have guns on the bottom.
I would expect that the hangar is not under the flight bays, but rather between them, giving more room by not trying to emulate the larger battlestars layout.
If you removed the flight pods, added guns and armor to its underside and focused mainly on AA and flak it would have been a good picket ship. Its job being to simply dump flak and rapid-fire munitions at incoming fighters and missiles freeing up the battlestars and screening them so they can launch fighters more effectively. Give it a small handful of the larger double barrels so it can hit back against bigger ships but main focus being AA.
I feel the need to point out we still do use Gun launch missiles. The US Army Excalibur Shell is basically a Missile shot from a gun. Even has a Rocket motor in it to help increase the range. And the Army did design a Guided Kinitic DART, the XM1111, which combine with a rocket motor and a gun charge allowed it to Move at Mach JESUS to seek out a tank out to 10 miles away. Die due to budget. How may that 6 letter word burn in hell. Through the Army is making noises on resurrecting it.
Shrug. In all honestly I always believed that the Valkyrie and its unnamed class are actually an after-war design that was basically due to the downsizing that happened right after the end of the war. No matter what later sources claiming it as a Cylon War era design. Years later, when the Colonial Fleet was starting to be built up again it would begin to serve in that escort role to the larger remaining Jupiter Class and the newer Mercury Class Battlestars that this video does explore in great detail. That is only my head own head canon though.
Correction: The Jupiter was designed by Old Boeing and the Valkyrie was designed by Modern Boeing.
How the mighty have fallen. from planes that could be rammed by another plane midair and still return home(yeah, it actually happened to a b17. somehow even the tailgunner came home)
to... well... this
Good point.
@marsar1775 Blame McDonnal Douglas, who they bought and took ideas from aftrt McDD started to go under
They went under because they were doing that Beoing is now. The pieces arrange themselves
So the Cylon base stars were modern and designed by,.... Airbus 😂👍
Well, there goes another Boeing whistleblower. I look forward to seeing your obituary in the papers.
In WW2 terms Galactica = Yorktown-class, Pegasus = Essex-class and the Valkyrie seems to be the Casablanca-class escort carrier.
Good analogy. Sometimes you just need something you can churn out to free up the big ships for the big jobs, and you really don't want to take up the big shipyards and best resources producing them.
Ah yes, the equivalent of the battlecruiser in this setting. Has the quite the array of teeth, but couldn't even survive a wet fart from Adama himself.
Lexington Class BC, certainly.
Disagree. Modern DDG / FFG, or classic light cruiser. Example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser
@@adamczechowski614 I used the Lexington BCs for a reason. They would have ben terrible at their role, had they been built as BCs. Too much gun, not enough armour. If 6 and 8 inch fire from cruisers can threaten you, at a lot of ranges. You messed up your design. As the cruisers can keep up with you, and there are a lot more of them about.
@@Yandarval Mmm, Yes no. The Lex BCs did have enough (if only just) to resist 8in. 8-11in armor. Gotta remember the times she was designed. Fire control / rangefinding was still and Art, not a science, so speed as armor does work. She was or was meant to be, the Cruiser killer of her age. You only F up, if you put her in the battle line, like the British did at Jutland.
The problem with the comparison, is lack of parasite craft, like spotters and fighters.
Do you fallow Dr Alex Clark?
He's got a treasure trove of knowledge on this subject.
www.youtube.com/@DrAlexClarke
@@adamczechowski614 FFS. YT just ate my long, reasoned answer.
Anyway. The Lex (using the wiki stats), only had 5-7 inches of belt with 11 inch turret faces. The belt would be threatened by the higher ROF of the 8 inch's, at the closer ranges your point about fire control would create. A single ship fight would still need more hits from the cruiser to mission kill the Lex. With only a few mission or outright sinking the cruiser. But the lex could be mauled and have to head back to port after a single ship engagement.
The lex's were never built. So we will never know how god or bad they were. They may have been razor bladed due to the treaties, had they been built.
Anyway. The Valkyrie to me, is a similar prospect. Its defences cannot serve the cheques its armament writes.
Once Deadlock came out with the Artemis and made sure to mention how difficult it was to modernize that class, I figured that the Valkyrie class was intended as a wartime austerity design to replace the Artemis in the role of a light battlestar to complement the bigger Jupiter's. It would explain why they lack so much of the armor we see on almost all other battlestars aside from the very specialist Orion class. it's a quick, decently armed battlestar that can be cranked out in numbers to replace wartime losses, and since ensuring it could be refitted easily was part of the design parameters, it meant that any ships that survived the war could look forward to long service lives since updating them would be easier than on other classes like the Jupiter.
Exactly my thoughts. People comparing them to Jupiters are missing the point, and ditto people arguing about how they didn't appear in the first war, except as a retcon. This thing is _exactly_ the kind of ship resource strapped Colonial Fleet would try to design. It makes sense, and it served it's purpose well in both the later stages of the war and in peacetime
I was just about to say the same thing; the Artermis fills the same role as the Valkyrie, except the Valkyrie is the destroyer equivalent to the Mercury, while the Artermis is the destroyer equivalent to the Jupiter.
@@TheEDFLegacy It throws people off because the Colonials are all over the place with naval terminology. In fact, everything was classified as a battlestar until Deadlock (minus one line in B&C where a civilian mislabels a battlestar as a heavy cruiser). It's confusing for us in the real world, who don't call every warship a "battleship". Better to classify BSG vessels by tonnage and role
In our world, we might call a battlestar like a Jupiter a battlecarrier, which never worked out in the real world. A Valkyrie would be either a destroyer or a frigate, depending how you want to classify _those_ by era
The Valkyrie actually makes a lot of sense as an improved, even more versatile replacement for the Adamant class frigates.
@@kenhagler7166 it seemed that the Valkyrie was the replacement for all the old warship classes baring the Jupiter ( which was replaced by the Mercury) used in the war remember that most of the colonial modern navel was stolen by the cylons in the first so most of their ships where rushed need downgraded designs or older ships from when the Colonial's where fighting each other so the Valkyrie could pull the job of any of the smaller class as good or better then the dedicated classes meaning that the fleet could support few classes and be less mismatched
Note for editing sci, I spent ten years on carriers, and that’s pretty much how it goes, the trade off being that the enemy doesn’t actually care about a destroyer and are perfectly happy to cripple or bypass it. On the other hand, if your on the Carrier, they want that bastard on the bottom, not limping home for repairs.
Belligerent, I have heard that in a carrier task force, standing philosophy is, 'protect the carrier at all costs'. Don't know if that is correct or not.
What some people seem to miss is that the Carrier is not just valuable because it's just a big ship, if you lose the Carrier you also lose a large chunk of trained pilots and carrier deck operations crew, you also lose eye watering amounts of aircraft and their fuel and weapons as well. a Loss like that could naval war losing cripple smaller nations like the UK, France who have only two or one carriers for example. And well you Already know Belligerent_Herald how vulnerable a fleet with no aircover can be.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Thankfully US carriers are built so tough that realistically sinking them with anything shy of a nuke is almost impossible.
@@Predator42ID They're still ships and are not armoured, enough water gets in, fire manages to make the Ships supply of weapons and fuel for the Aircraft to go off can sink them.
Many Modern Torpedoes are made to break the back of ships.
@@Predator42ID Certianly that's what all the people who operate them like to say.
So... if it has no real underside armour or guns and small flight pods, grab a second one and flip it over to weld it upside down to the first?
And paint it red..coz red unz go faster
And play Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner
That's not a terrible idea.
I'm pretty sure magnetic clamps would do. No need for welding.
Then you can split up again in case that's tactically advantageous.
If you are getting swarmed belly to belly, if you're swimming the target, split up and catch them in the crossfire.
@@jtjames79just maneuver so each ship is belly to belly with each other.
Outbound Flight from Star Wars but with Valkyries instead of Dreadnoughts? Makes sense to me!
Want a BS answer for the spoiler? It's packed with comms/sensor gear that bring the flight 2 up to the standards of the ships at the time, with those sensor systems being too bulky to integrate right into the space frame. That's why it's right above the engines, to draw power right from the reactors.
Also, it's fucking cool.
That was my first thought as well: a massive Dradis and/or Electronic Warfare array.
I was going for "it is a conversion from a standard commercial interplanetary vessel hull, the only way to give it interstellar capability was to strap the drives on the outside"
Sensors or EW is definitely the better explanation. Why else would there be large cables going from the reactor to the dish?
And any usable amount of armour would need to be heavy, procluding it to be only attached by two thin strips to the hull.
Nope. What's more believable, is the head of the bureau of ships was told to update the ship and here's the investment to do so. He looked at the current model, looked at the time and saw it was nearly the end of day before retirement. Tore off a flap from his cigarette pack and pinned it to the model. Then he pocketed the finance chit and called it a day. The next day, his replacement (having never set foot anywhere that could get him dirty or hurt) saw the model, called it a brilliant final design of a legend, and rushed it into production as the God-class, and then proceeded to pat himself on the back for the brilliant opening move of his career.
No, no. No excuses. Canon fodder is exactly the purpose of screening elements. Yes, VERY expensive and highly capable of surviving on its own, but still expendable in the larger picture. Nobody is just throwing away ships and lives. However, stopping attacks, even if it means taking the hit for a more important vessel, is 100% the role they are meant to fill.
Don't forget also affordable if you lose them.
I disagree with the definition here.
A Soviet conscript given ether ammo or a rifle and told to march or die is cannon fodder.
A picket ship is an attritable asset.
It is how lives are spent that is important.
@@gmradio2436 It's a myth about the rifle or ammo for soviet soldiers.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD It illustrates the point.
@@gmradio2436 A better example would be the the escort ships of the convoys in the Atlantic.
I really like the design of the Valkyrie class as the "modern" approach to Battlestars. It's like in real life, where battleships were replaced by destroyers. But the thing is, that this change in real life was caused by developments in weapon technology. When missiles became more common, the big guns and heavy armor of the battleships became pretty much useless, because a missile has a higher range, better targeting and it strikes from above, where the unarmored parts are. A development like this sadly didn't happen in BSG, we are never told, why they changed the way they build Battlestars. The only reasonable assumption was that they had a change in doctrine because they thought that smaller crafts were preferable to literal bricks that don't even die when you land a direct hit with a nuke. Whatever their reason was, I'm sure it was stupid, but that's in line with some of the decissions made by real life politicians so I won't complain.
Also, I won't forgive them that they messed up the timeline so badly when it comes to the Valkyrie class. So while the design is great, the lore is really lacking here.
The answer is really easy. Cost. Their enemy literally disappeared for decades. No sign, no probing attacks, literally no contact at all.
I retired out of the Army and there's always someone that's more expendable than others. It sucks but someone has to take their promask off first. You're going to pick the lowest ranking rifleman over the radio-man or the SAW gunner for that "honor".
Actually I think it's not so much Armor, but a sensor boom. Think like the AWACS planes with the large radar dish on top. Similar principle, and even the name Odin. Norse mythology Odin gave up an eye for power and foresight.
Hey, it's the Valkyrie! I love this little ship. Can't wait to see you tear into it.
Blessed be the Flak Wall, the Holy Dakka that keeps us all free
A fleet comprised of only Valkyries is devastating in Deadlock.
The corvette swarm is spreading to other games i see
In a different video about the Valkyrie, it was mentioned that we only see it (and the ship from the original series it was based on) operating in packs of five. Lo and behold, thats about what Deadlock players settled on, too. Seems like the Colonial navy planners may have thought it through after all!
Well as long as the enemy don't under or behind you.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I have another comment elsewhere you can find for more thorough info, but imo the armor scheme actually is justified if you think about what the fictional designers would have been trying to accomplish. Particularly, the doctrine they *thought* it would use (they were wrong)
@@comicmoniker I was more about in game itself, but yeah I can see what they want it too and I understand it.
But playing the game itself sometimes I found they get right where you don't want cylon ships to be, especially on the higher difficulties.
I love this class, so sad that they didn't show up more.
I believe that they were a mid Cylon War ship to bulk up the numbers without breaking the bank building Jupiters
Well, if you're doing Battlestars that weren't seen in the show, but are in other media, the Minerva class is also a thing. Don't know if you excluded it in an earlier video or something else.
Then there is the fan made Sobek class (I mean you had a Nova class episode).
Also, since when is the Mercury 2800 meters long? It's length is 1790 meters.
I personally would love to see Sci do a video on the Sobek and/or the Diasporaverse because she is an amazing design and (in my own personal headcanon where the Valk is not a Fist Cylon War design because it still doesn't make any sense whatsoever) works as a first cylon war design for a pocket battlestar
Minerva is my favorite baby. Combined with a DRADIS focused Manticore, they will eat anything on the battlefield.
I think is a Ad. Caine thing when she casually says "twice the size, needs only half the crew".
Twice the mass is what is should be imho.
All hail the holy wall of flak!
So say we all.
The armor scheme of the Valkyrie seems perfectly justifiable to me. The Colonies wanted a workhorse that could handle the numerous tasks a fleet needs capital ships for, without requiring them to dedicate a full Pegasus to them, and they wanted that workhorse to be easy to produce in high numbers. Destroyer vs cruiser, yes, but also think the escort carrier, as opposed to the fleet carrier. Other people have discussed the logistical justification, so I'll focus on the tactical reasoning.
Exactly like happened in our world, the fictional navy planners had to figure out what they truly couldn't do without, and get rid of everything else. If your resource or weight limitations mean you can't effectively armor the whole ship, what do practical designers do? They don't put ineffective armor over the whole thing, they put effective armor over the area that is most likely to be hit, and instruct the ship captains to always point that side towards the enemy.
This is why the guns are placed where they are, too. SCI mentioned the difficulty of concentrating firepower forward or broadside, but you know where those guns *can* all point simultaneously? Above the ship. So your axis of best offense and axis of best defense is the same, assuming you can reliably stand off and send your vipers in to keep the enemy at a distance. Hell, the spoiler *only* makes sense as armor if this is your plan, protecting your engines from being targeted to reduce your maneuverability.
The 3 dimensions of space are your weakness, yes, but they can help you, too. You can dive under the enemy, or pivot on your long axis and pitch "upwards" to orbit your target. Valkyries on independent duty are expecting to deal with *at most* a single enemy of equivalent size, and run from any larger force to get the rest of the fleet. That means they're only taking fire from one direction. Valkyries operating in a fleet are expecting to flank the enemy force while the Mercuries draw fire charging ul the center. Valkyries hunting in a pack can split up to encircle the enemy or position themselves to cover each other's weak sides.
To a Colonial officer writing fleet doctrine in peacetime, it looks like you simply don't need total coverage, and can make up for the vulnerability with good tactics. And the senate only approved half the cost per ship he asked for, so... you get the Valkyrie
I am a simple man, I see a Science Insanity upload, and I hit play automatically and upvote once I finish the video. And, if it is a Battletech or Battlestar Galactica topic, I upvote before the generic greeting even starts.
As a sailor, yes, the small boys are considered "missile magnets" everyone knows that
Good episode. Just needed more bagpipes...
Truly love your videos and narration.
Love the depth you go into it and you're own personal take.
Also.. it's bsg stuff! I'm still playing deadlock! 😂
I think it's cool to see more BSG Navy ships but I always thought it would be more interesting to see like the desperation modifications they made from civilian ships to stay alive in such dire circumstances. Like a BSG version of a Toyota technical
My view is that the valkyries were designed late in the first cylon war has a standardised design that would replace the medley of frigates, cruisers and aging imperial wars era vessals that the colonials had in service at that time, the odin was probably a subclass designed to have an advanced dradis suite for providing early warning and threat identification to it's assigned battlegroup
Destroyer analogy is really good. A Navy must have them, in WWII they were extremely valuable. No way could a Battleship perform their role in a fleet.
The funny thing is the basically all of the VALKYRIEs problems could have been solved.
If the Colonials did the engineering equivalent of welding two of them together.
"Shouldn't we put a hall way between them?
"Nah, they can use the radios. It's cool, don't worry about it." So say we all."
"Ugh, so say we all. I guess."
That's just a smaller Mercury. They want cheap and fast.
@@razorburn645 It's still a lot smaller than a Mercury, but with a lot more guns. Cheap and fast!
Fun fact, the Destroyer is short for Torpedo boat Destroyer, and that's basically what it does, and then Torpedo boats started dipping down below the surface or fly in fast with a pair of flimsy fabric wings, so Destroyers started diverging into two types of AA Destroyers and ASW Destroyers, but then both of the enemy types evolved and so did the Destroyer and now although integrated again Destroyers actually just do that, ASW, Or occasionally a further out SAM site further down toward the horizon...
The Valkyrie could be explained by the high-low doctrine. Deploy large numbers of cheap/disposable ships in order to protect/obfuscate your more capable 'silver bullet' ships. Meat shield is accurate. Disposable ships with disposable crews.
20:15 When i see that spoiler, to me, that looks alot like a sensor pod. Could be an intelligence gathering attachment that can be added when doing the super secret ops
I was gonna say the same thing.
Like some kind of AWACS DRADIS system to act as the centerpoint of patrol groups that don't get a Mercury... or like some kind of AEGIS sensor to coordinate the flak batteries of multiple ships so their webs interlock more cleanly.
Great job on a sweet looking but under used ship!
BTW, I believe the total number of Battlestars at the beginning of the second Cylon war was 120 (10 per Colony). This is based on Commander Adama saying they had lost 30 Battlestars in the opening battle, and Starbuck replying "That's a quarter of the fleet."
With the battlestars you have one more to do that being the Orion class light battlestars.
Yey Valk! Powerful little ship that’s told to punch way above its weight class on every occasion
"We need a model we have in stock to bulk out pre-or-mid-Cylon-War fleets/drydocks/other ship stuffz! LETS TAKE THE VALKYRE!"
Berzerker: *Am I a fucking joke to you?*
Well the Ole algorithm works at times, another channel to watch while I work.
I think.
The purpose of the valkyrie class is to fill out the numbers , Like in the mini series it was stated that the fleet had a hundred and twenty battlestars It could be that Around 40 to 60 was valkyrie class , Which would put them more in line with the modern. United States, navy because we have 11 supercarriers or (for us just carriers). We also have what the world would call carriers. But they are amphibious Assault ships 9 of them , We even sometimes use them as carriers even though they are more multirol, Also I think you are underestimating The battle star Because the Colonials Consistently built ships punching above their weight, These ships can probably take on 2 to 2.5 Bass stars., Remember, it took 4 to take down the Bucket (with no CAP)in the battle of new caprica. And three plus with a surprise attack To almost take the beast, So based on my math to take the 3 ships we see over caprica the clyons would need 6 to 8 basestar without cnp backdoor , Now multiply that by 40 to 60, The valkyrie class is what made the war Unwinable Without cheating
I always imagine the Valkyrie class as more akin to an Escort/Light Battlestar.
Will say, packing a vessel so tightly with explosive munitions is a sure fire way to.... well... show how bright your ships heart is..... violently.... and quickly should something start to chain react.
Good fire ship though if need be.
I'd love to see some of the other capital ships of the series.
Easy fix here, maybe? Let's say sixteen new ships were to be built with four variations where they have four of each variant with each of the four types sharing 75% of the construction and 25% of each modell being unique to each particular model, now let's just say the shipyard building them couldn't build all 16 at once and so they would build two at a time but would construct four undersides as convertible hulls for the duration of say the first eight being built, this would mean that the first two ships in the line could easily swap undersides depending upon the requirements of each mission with Thunderbird 2 being a classic example.
Once all sixteen ships were built all of them would have an underside designated to it and permanently welded into place, with one variant being a carrier like Galactica, one being a personel transporter, one being a cargo transporter for transporting land based craft and other such things needed to build bases on a planets surface and one variant being a combination of all of the above with each function reduced to 25%.
Now let's just say one ship and two modular hulls were fully constructed and another ship and two modular hulls were half complete when the shipyard that was building them was attacked leaving the completed ship no time to mate up to either of the two undersides which have underside defence systems and it had to take off and leave orbit to preserve itself hoping for the best upon its return after the attack was over.
Upon its return to the ship yard it discovered that the other half complete ship and both complete hulls and both incomplete hulls had been destroyed along with the shipyard and as a result the ship by the time of its appearance in canon has now found itself temporarily put into service whilst incomplete and lacking a hull leaving it with a vulnerable underbelly resulting in its need to be accompanied by an escort at least until another shipyard elsewhere within the Colonies can build a more permanent and fully armed underside making the ship a one of a kind within its class until at least new ships can be fully built.
I figured it would serve as a adamant replacement.
Alternate ideas for the spoiler?
Sensor pod! Ah-la ST federation Nebula class. To see those damn dirty cylons coming first. Or, you know, pirates and smuglers that are probably running dark.
Heat sink/vent! Extra cooling for those big hot engins given heat is, you know, really hard to get rid of in avacume. Though that's probably a little too hard sci-fi for BSG.
Head cannon:- the Valcury 2 is capable of planitary landing's support, most of its Craft are Raptor's with a small escort of Vipers.
The spoiler on the back is there to stop her going arse end down while in atmo'. Hiding somewhere on the underside of the pods are heavy duty landing legs alowing the ship to land on planet and use her guns as support weapons for ground troops.
i always loved this ship
My guess on a use for the spoiler would be an array of sensors or something
Kinda like the USS Phoenix from Star Trek that had a AWACS looking Sensor Dish module.
This Valkyrie variant probably was specialized, and patrolled along the Cylon neutral zone. It would use its better sensors to gaze deeeeeep into their territory and would act as early warning, and intel gathering. The Cylon threat was still there, and I would like to know everything I could about it.
The spoiler on the Valkyrie looks like a command and control type object. Or AWACS dish.
Despite its flaws, by deadlock stats it performs on par or a little below other escort ships. About the same DRADIS range and speed as a Manticore, but more armor and teeth, better than an Adamant. Thats a corvette and Frigate made obsolete by this class. The fact that this class can be economically mass produced means that it’s shortcomings can be made up by sheer numbers. This ship could have been the backbone of the Colonial fleet. Especially paired with a Mercury. Imagine a Mercury floating above a Wolfpack, Vipers set to defensive and charging a Cylon formation. Raiders, gone. Missiles intercepted. And if a Valkyrie takes too much damage, easy repositioning.
i always assumed the fin was a supplemental sensor aray akin to an 'Airborne early warning and control' plane. it's not a new model, it's an AWACS variant.
didn't see the minerva but that's a deadlock exclusive 'battlestar'.
To me it seems to look like a Escort Carrier cheap easy and less cost to be used all over the place, But also like you said used to cover the bigger ships.
I would love to see a story "FLETCHER CLASS DAMN THE TORPEDOES" type of battle where groups of Valkyries challenge and defeat heavy cylon basestar .
Clearly, the crew was moved into the spoiler section in order to make space for the big missiles. It makes perfect sense.
It's 100% a cruiser by early 20th century classification standards (I would place the modern arleigh burke destroyers in the same category). It's role is to independently cruise distant planets, perform commerce raiding/escort, provide scouting and screening during fleet operations, do search and destroy missions, and just do the things that would be too expensive, tedious, or clunky for a full sized Battlestar to perform.
As for the spoiler, it's clearly a sensor dome for an advanced DRADIS system (or another sci-fi sensor). Think of it like the AWACS domes or wedges on some electronic warfare planes. This system would come in handy during its scouting role while attached with a fleet, or independently while doing secret squirrel stuff.
And calling them a Battlestar instead of a cruiser is probably just a traditional thing due to it having flight pods. Most of the intended roles that the vessel performs don't require fighters, but they are certainly a welcome addition. I would view this in our terms as more similar to something like the Italian Helicopter cruiser Vittorio Veneto and other similar ships.
Spoiler on a spaceship = radiator spoiler on a Battlespaceship = radiator + missile attractor (ablative shield)
They're there to replace the smaller frigates in the support role. They're basically the next step of the adament line.
About the adding of spoilers making a new class to people who don't understand things: that's not unusual. Look at the US Navy's standard-type battleships: The difference between the Nevada and Pennsylvania-class battleships was the addition of two more guns. Other than that, they were essentially the same design. That was a common thing for the standard-type battleships, as well as ship building in general.
Something more modern: the Ticonderoga-class cruisers are just Spruance-class destroyers with Aegis.
The single barrel guns are on the underside. They are very visible on the model, to be honest.
Just to say it does have some limited downward weaponry, couple of big guns under the bow facing forwards, and also a gun turret each under the hangars. On top of that it has a bunch of anti-fighter/CIWS guns down there as well. Again hard to say if that load is cannon but that's what it shows on physical merchandise models and in BSG Deadlock, who know the BSG ships better than the writers do at this point.
The spoiler could be a heat sink for the ship systems.
It is basicly Bsg version of Salamis. It is here t die and show how above normal forces is your enemy .
The Salamis is a perfect comparison! Just like how the Salamis serves to show off how the Zeon mobile suits completely disrupted the military thinking of their time, the Valkyrie shows off how helpless humanity was to the new Cylon tech. And they do that job well.
The main workhorse of Battlestar Galactica Deadlock was the Adamant frigate, which I think the Valkyrie Battlestar was made a replacement for. The Adamant in game has one munition slot, one squadron and 8 side mounted light turrets. The Valkyrie Battlestar in game has one munition slot, one squadron, 8 point defense left side, 8 point defense right side, 6 heavy turrets mounted on the top and 2 heavy turrets Mounted on the bottom. To me it looks like the made a Battlestar that had the functions of Adamant frigate, and the fire power of a Minotaur heavy Gunship.
I think something that gets overlooked in Battlestar breakdowns is the colonial government. I can surmise that when you have not seen or heard from an enemy for 50 years... democratically elected politicians tend to see it as a something long in the past, and complacency sets in. The biggest threats for the colonial fleet was patrolling a border with nothing seemingly on the other side, pirates and smugglers. The fleet wasn't stupid to the lack of cylon activity and they tried to gain intel and insight on them, but the civilians that funded them were blind and saw such missions as reckless and provocative (hence Adama's disgrace). Why maintain this giant fleet of Mercury class Battlestars and other behemoths when you could reduce the cost of the fleet. You keep a token number of ships like the Galactica and Pegasus so you can say to hardliners and the dwindling number of veterans that you can fight the Cylons. A Valkyrie class Battlestar was a political tool with the belief that they would be capable enough should war break out. We can see that was not the case. Even if the Cylon sneak attack failed, the Valkyrie's would prove themselves in blowing up well. They still would make excellent support Battlestars for the larger ones and could be built in large numbers. I see them as a good escort carrier mixed with a destroyer like full sized Battlestars are a mix of Battleship/Fleet Carrier. We even have snippets in Galactica on how prior to the fall, the Colonial Government had active disdain for guys like Adama and it was hinted/commented that they really wanted to downsize the military. But then again, this could just be my head canon, it has been a while since I've gone through the entire shows.
Ah, the Oberth class of Battlestar.
Either in the background, exploding, or both.
Ah, the pocket battlestar. I liked the ship design, that ship was showed like twice in the show, when the navy got crippled due to the cylon virus, blowed up. Than you see a valkyrie when Adama is sending that stealth viper over the red line.
So minor nitpick, but the Valkyrie class did NOT show up at the beginning of the series, ie the miniseries. They didn't have the model at the time. The shots of the Valkyrie from the fall of the colonies are from the TV movie, The Plan, which was a prequel movie released after the series was done. So the first time we see a Valkyrie class ship from IRL life was in the episode where Adama launches that one guy over the armistice line
First lets get the look out of the way. I always thought the ship looked really cool especially loved the shape of that flightpod. That scene at 8:24 looked so good when the ship looses power and it just dips over and starts drifting. Really cool scene. Then I played the game and I have realized what a downgrade that ship was compared to other Battlestar.
As for the purpose I think the answer is easy. Cost. Their enemy literally disappeared for decades, without any contact not even a postcard for Christmas. Suddenyl their biggest problems became dealing with pirates, arms dealers, and just stupid people in space. They needed to cut the costs and reduce the navy because they were not needed. I guess they grew complacent, without any Cylon presence it was harder and harder to explain to the government the super expensive ship procurements and they started to apply pressure from the top to cut down on cost, decomission ships and replace them ( or not even ) with smaller, more efficient vessels that were way more than enough to deal with the issues they were facing at the time.
Just take a look at what happened with the US after the Soviet Union collapsed. The enemy suddenly disappeared, the was nobody to challenge the NAVY or the Airforce, the country was engaged in an assymetric warfare against a vastly inferior force that didn't use airforce, navy or tanks. The Seawolf program got cancelled after just 3 hulls built and replaced by the Virginia class. Totally different vessel. Slower, smaller, half the torpedo tubes. Its still a great submarine and it constantly getting upgrades but it was a downgrade from the Seawolf class.
Take a look at the Raptor ( F-22 ). The USAF planned to buy 750 but ended up with 187. Got replaced by an inferior plane ( when it comes to air superiority ). That being said the 35 is a great airplane but completely different mission set than the Raptor. Right about now the USAF would be very happy to have another 2-300 Raptors, hence the reason they have investigated the possibility to restart the manufacturing.
The Navy downsized its fleet and slow to build new ones. Instead of building more DDGs and FFGs they went with those cursed littoral ships named after the Space Shuttles from Armageddon ( the movie ) that ended up being a failure and they would be wiped in a really shooting war.
Instead of replacing the Abrams they keep upgrading it and the Army developed about 150 different AMRAPS.
I think something similar happened with the Colonial Navy. Lack of foresight, lobbying and incompetent government weakened their military which made it even more difficult to put up a fight when the Cylons did show up.
And please don't call the Orion a Battlestar, that thing is a joke. :)
Solid vid btw, really liked it.
“Battlestar” in the reimagined series is as meaningless as “starship” in Star Trek as a ship type. Effectively the Valkyrie is a destroyer: lots of offensive punch, especially is used in groups and with a little preparation; otherwise a screening platform.
So, they’re not big enough for heavy guns, ergo they’re provided with missiles. The remaining guns are dispersed for their secondary screening role…both for fleet screening and screening merchants. The Cylon fighter is called a “Raider” and that may be a literal description of how it was usually seen. Not every battle is a pitched, set piece engagement; most fighting is skirmishing between small forces.
So, the ability to launch six fighters each on QRA would give an escort group of three to five Valkyries the ability to get about a squadron’s worth in action quickly to fend off a small raid and the ability to augment them if it’s a longer fight. The all around gun arcs are good for screening the merchies. And space is 3D so there is nothing preventing them from rolling ship to present the armored portion to the enemy. Look at how tanks are armored sometime. A small raiding force can’t exactly threaten from all bearings with diluting itself.
In a fleet action a Valkyrie is admittedly more vulnerable…but it’s not the main target. The enemy is going after the capital ships and escort kills are incidental…and dilute the attack on the high value unit. So, again, the Valkyrie can roll ship to present its armor. Targeting the underside would have to be from the far side of the engagement and assumes a weapon makes it that far without getting casually fragged or deceived.
Since there are going to be several to many Valkyrie divisions around a fleet, again, a half dozen fighters on QRA each add up quickly and can buy time for the capital ships to vomit their massive groups while whittling down and disrupting incoming formations of raiders.
On offense, groups of Valkyries can have their full complement of fighters prepared, and launch them in relatively rapid order to form up and then strike. Yes, the capital ships are better and faster at this, but the Valkyries add mass, and then the Valkyries can move in to support the attack and mass their missiles against vulnerable high value units that the fighter strike exposes.
Valkyries can also be deployed as pickets and scouts. Yes, they’re vulnerable and exposed. No, they’re not intended to stand and fight. A scout or picket that stands and fights is a fool. “Snoop and scoot” or “Shout and duck.” Launch a half dozen fighters to survive whatever element of a screen just discovered you while you spin up your FTL, combat land them and jump!
Having less armor and being smaller, it’s easier to build and replace them in the short term. You don’t get a lot of replacement capital ships in a war; you do get a lot of new escorts. Odds are the “hundreds of ‘battlestars’ in the fleet” are hundreds of Valkyries, a few dozen Artemis/Jupiter types, and a dozen Mercuries. The design does, indeed, make sense.
As for the “spoiler”…two good thoughts are fuel tanks (small ships are chronically fuel-hungry and range-limited) or a place to carry additional electronics the hull lacked growth room for. Better to have fuel detonate outside the hull if it can’t be protected. As for electronics, look at the “hump” the A-4E grew, and the F-16’s saddlebags (which also house fuel).
one thing the “spoiler” could actually be useful for is heat dissipation.
i think the Spoiler is some sort of highpower dradis? the Space Radar. like we see on some planes todey like the Boing E-3 Sentry
I don’t think you’ve done the Minerva. That was my favorite from deadlock. Bit of a glass cannon but they were fast and maneuverable. Built for fast strikes rather than attrition.
So basically, the Val is the BSG equivalent of the old CVE from WW2.
Don't do my baby dirty like that
Maybe another way to look at it as the WW2 Fleet Carrier vs Escort Carrier. Cheap and fast to build and maintain. Provides force projection to smaller less important areas. Also losing one or two of them is much less costly than a larger ship.
The spoiler works as spaced armor and the Battlestar equvivilent of a cope cage. Cylon warheads work similar to armor penetrating weapons sp having the huge space on the sides means it hits something first that isnt the fragile as hell drive section
or it could be cover in Point defense guns if the engines where attack from behind
Concept of light "carriers" reminds me of helicopter destroyers.
Btw, tactical ussage of the class - i can immagine a situation, where two Valkyries fly paralel to each other, spot an enemy, reposition themselves relative to each other by "bellies" - say dozen meters apart (wich helps to cover their softer areas from incoming fire, untill something sneaks inbetween). Than both ships launch their screening fighters and turn sideways towards the enemy, to support the fighter wing by their guns.
Seems to be what I've come to call "Assault Carriers" after being exposed to the term by the Sunrider: MoA visual novel. While not big, armored, or armed enough, and doesn't carry a big enough fighter compliment, to be a proper battle carrier like a battlestar or star destroyer, it is armored and armed enough to slug it out with things in its weight class or less, fast enough to run from most anything bigger than it, and carries enough of a fighter compliment to escort itself and deal with pirate forces. I also consider the Gladiator-class Star Destroyer to be an assault carrier. I'd also imagine they could be used like the Gladiator-class was said to have been used, a self contained patrol fleet that can take the place of destroyer or cruiser once in a fleet. Or, they could be used like how the namesake Sunrider from the Sunrider VN is used, as a flagship for a smaller force. Basically a pocket battleship combined with a light/escort carrier.
Ablative armor to shield engines?
Physical barrier to block drive cone emissions?
Radio emission blocker?
Advanced radar array panel?
could also be their for them to shove a bunch of Point defense on it to cover the rear blind spot from figther attack
I've always hated the designation of "Battlestar" for the Valkyries. They were always somewhere between destroyers and battle cruisers (i.e. fast, nimble, lots of guns and some armor).
With a fleet conposed of around 120 battlestars at the onset of the second Cylon War I always assumed the Valkyrie's formed the bulk of that number, with the Mercury's in the role of flagships.
I think it's definitely intended to show that the colonial navy has followed the same trajectory as real life navies since WWII: the big heavy battleship has given way to hundreds of missile destroyers, lacking the armour of their older kin due to the prevelance of missile salvo warfare, hence all her guns being capable of missile defence, and the lack of HEAVY guns.
I figured she'd have like a thousand missile batteries packed in there somewhere (which arguably she does if only half the guns are covering one side of the ship...)
It's such a cool looking design and it's just fallen into that hole of conjecture and 'it's on screen so it's canonically there!!'
At best it could fill the WW2 role of a pocket carrier. Designed to be a small escort ship with organic air support.
The spoiler could be a radiator so it could burn its engine harder for longer
Its a light carrier/heavy destroyer and meant to act in a group. Probably in groups of three and the Viper compliment more for protection of the ships themselves. Each ship maneuvering to protect each others vulnerable undercarriage.
They have to have more hangar deck space than 24 Vipers. Each pod is the size of a contemporary Supercarrier. Six launch tubes vs. eight catapults is a decent compromise.
AWACS Dish... a bunch of high band radar (Dradus?) antenna, to give it a much larger sensor range and image fidelity. Going with the WW2 comparison, it would be the outer ring radar picket in a battle group. Fletcher class in WW2, or modern DDG or FFG. With enough onboard fire power and fighters to protect itself. It fits.
It's worth keeping in mind that, despite all the times the video talks about how small the Valkyrie is, it's still twice the size of the largest real-world aircraft carriers.
I kinda want to call the Valkyrie class a "Gunstar type". Given it's profile and fleet role matches that of known Gunstar types from old series lore: Fast, maneuverable warships intended to escort larger vessels, such as Battlestars, in a fleet, convoy or battle group. In fact traditional incarnations of Gunstars are bigger ranging from 900 to 1500 meters in length. If a traditional gunstar could be considered a destroyer, Valkyries could be considered frigates.
Pointless jog, in to poison ivy bushes off on the side of the road.
😂 oh my God this is the nightmare that dreams are made of
VALKYRIE CLASS was more meant to be used in clusters when taking on a Base Ship (6 to 12) and as patrol ships where if they are lost in an ambush it is not a big loss, The spoiler was meant to be a sensor pod and Armour combo
If it's designed to be a first point of contact. then the lack of AA is puzzling, as the first sign of an attack is normally a scout craft, followed by a fighter strike. You'd want a craft that can shoot down incoming missiles and fighters.
If they ditched the vipers all together, the Valkyrie could make a good search and rescue ship. Load her up with Raptors and they can pick up down pilots (or their remains) while still protecting themselves and the larger more important ships of the line.
When you want a size 12 sabaton, you go to General Dynamics.
When you want mass produced ugly meat shields, you go to Ford.
I have another reason for the spoiler, I'd say that it was a sensor array, like the big brick on the roof of a Danube-class run-about from Star Trek. Also, the reason why these things were called Valkyries was because they'd end up dragging everyone on them to Vallhala when the ship would blow up.
The Odin class required the "spoiler" as an additional antenna/sensor array. All Father must see all ;)
I choose to believe that the creators of various media you see the Valkyrie in weren't concerned about continuity and just threw it in because it was an available asset and cool, In my mind the Valkyrie class was only designed and built a couple of decades after the first war as the colonies demobilised, the wartime fleet started showing it's age and the democratic process stated doing it's short term gain problem as the civilian government started forgetting the cylons and wanted to save cubits.
It's highly likely that if the Fall never happened, eventually the fleet would have been pretty much composed of Mercury's, Valkyries and some modern escorts.
6:03
I don't wanna be that guy, but Mercury's don't have guns on the top or bottom either. With the exceptions of the ones found on the ends of the flight pods, none of the Mercury's guns can point directly up or down (that one that's shown on top of the flight pod during Exodus only existed for that one scene of it charging in then disappeared again later in the battle). It should also be noted that Valkyries have been known to have the highest firepower-to-mass ratio and the *do* have guns on the bottom.
I would expect that the hangar is not under the flight bays, but rather between them, giving more room by not trying to emulate the larger battlestars layout.
The spoiler could also be an expanded sensor array, since it traveled along the armistice line it would make sense to be able to see father.
If you removed the flight pods, added guns and armor to its underside and focused mainly on AA and flak it would have been a good picket ship. Its job being to simply dump flak and rapid-fire munitions at incoming fighters and missiles freeing up the battlestars and screening them so they can launch fighters more effectively. Give it a small handful of the larger double barrels so it can hit back against bigger ships but main focus being AA.
I feel the need to point out we still do use Gun launch missiles.
The US Army Excalibur Shell is basically a Missile shot from a gun. Even has a Rocket motor in it to help increase the range.
And the Army did design a Guided Kinitic DART, the XM1111, which combine with a rocket motor and a gun charge allowed it to Move at Mach JESUS to seek out a tank out to 10 miles away. Die due to budget.
How may that 6 letter word burn in hell.
Through the Army is making noises on resurrecting it.
Osiris from Blood & Chrome was a light cruiser at best, not a Battlestar. Good video, thank you!
Shrug. In all honestly I always believed that the Valkyrie and its unnamed class are actually an after-war design that was basically due to the downsizing that happened right after the end of the war. No matter what later sources claiming it as a Cylon War era design. Years later, when the Colonial Fleet was starting to be built up again it would begin to serve in that escort role to the larger remaining Jupiter Class and the newer Mercury Class Battlestars that this video does explore in great detail. That is only my head own head canon though.