Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A close friend of mine and I were discussing some of our favorite sci-fi shows the other day when we got onto the topic of how ships from various franchises would stack up against eachother. In this case we were comparing the (2003) version Battlestar Galactica vs an Omega Class Destroyer from Babylon 5.

Between the two of us we have backgrounds in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, historical data, and a WIDE arrange of series DVD's, designers notes, cannon books, and even some non-cannon books (we used these with VERY heavy grains of salt).

The rules for this face-off. Both crews are to be of the same race, without any genetic drift. The ships are to be armed and equipped as they would have been around the height of their existence. In any case where any physics need to be used to determine something we would use REAL WORLD physics (we all know that sci-fi writers don't always double check their science). When it comes to the fighter support of these ships we are assuming: For the Omega, a 50-50 split between Starfuries and Thunderbolts. For Galactica: 50-50 Viper mkII and Viper mkVII, with additional Raptor support.

We will be breaking the ships' combat abilities down into different groups and subgroups determining who is the better combant in each area (Deadliest Warrior Style) In the end we will look at all the data as a whole.

Battle of Franchise

Yes. I ninja that from someone

Yay! Spehss Lahzers!!
Would a space battle like in the movies even be possible with real-world physics though?

Here is how we are thinking of breaking down the combat abilities:

1. Offensive Firepower (Directly from the ships. Fighter abilities are covered sperately)
2. Defensive Armor
3. Fighter protection
4. Fighter launch/recovery
5. Speed/ agility
6. Areas of operation
7 Fighters ability/ quantity.


As a Note here I would like to discuss the topic of Nuclear weapons in space. Despite how things are shown in Science fiction, nuclear weapons in space are not that good. In fact, unless you go for major overkill factor a medium sized nuke wouldn't do much to an interstellar space craft. Nuclear weapons rely on three factors (in an atmosphere) to do damage: Primarily concussive force, with good amounts of heat transfer, and Radiation.

As there is no atmosphere in space the ability to use concussive force is extremely limited. In fact it would only be useful in two situations: you either have the nuke INSIDE your target, or it must be substantially larger and have a direct impact where the pulse waves can push the target apart at the impact point. The vacuum of space also detracts from the ability to do heat transfer damage unless there is physical contact as well. The only thing that is relatively unaffected is radiological transfer. This however is interesting as any interstellar vehicle is all ready heavily shielded against radiation. Not saying that it can't be overdone, but the effective blast radius for radiation would be quite small.

I hope you aren't actually going to apply that "nukes in space are weak" rule to your analysis. It doesn't make any sense to single out this one particular thing to be realistic about and then ignore the countless other thing that are just as unrealistic. If the source material shows a nuke doing X amount of damage then it is clearly capable of doing X amount of damage, even if you think that the weapon as-shown isn't realistic enough.

 cuda1179 wrote:


As a Note here I would like to discuss the topic of Nuclear weapons in space. Despite how things are shown in Science fiction, nuclear weapons in space are not that good. In fact, unless you go for major overkill factor a medium sized nuke wouldn't do much to an interstellar space craft. Nuclear weapons rely on three factors (in an atmosphere) to do damage: Primarily concussive force, with good amounts of heat transfer, and Radiation.

Wait.... you mean to tell me that when that Earth Destroying Asteroid starts hurtling towards us, we won't be able to drill a nuke into it and save the earth??

A destroyer would win.
Destroyer:
Point defense/attack ion cannons
Thunderbolt II fighters
Heavy cannon
Also (not shown) all those hatches on the sides hold the same nuke missiles that the defense sattellites launched at the combined alliance fleet when it went to Earth.

Galactica
Gobs of point defense artillery
Cool fighters
6 nukes

Although the Galactica is built to withstand 20 meg nukes it can’t stand up to the Destroyer’s concentrated missile fire and those heavy cannon which can burn major portions of its hull.

Codicil: If Adama is commanding its Galactica autowin. Adama is the human equivalent of TBone the Magnificent, Lord of Dogs. If push comes to shove Adama just launches himself at the Destroyer and bites it to death. He’s that badass.

Adama once let himself get shot just so he could get some sleep...Adama's stare kept the Cylons from attacking for forty years, just..his..stare...

What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

General ship data:

Each ship is MASSIVE. Galactica is listed as 1440 meters long and an Omega (depending on which one exactly, depending are load-out) is approximately 1720 meters long. The Omega is slightly taller, but Galactica is wider, and has more "bulk" and overall internal volume. The Omega is more than likely more technologically advanced, but the Galactica is purposely kept "antiquated". Both have served similar rolls in the militaries of their perspective universes. Long range patrol and engagement vehicles.

Both ships seem to be a combination of a battleship and an aircraft carrier, however, the Omega seems to be tilted more towards being a battleship that can carry some fighters, while the Galactica seems to be an aircraft carrier that also has some big guns. As you will see later in our analysis this distinction comes into play.

Before going any further I would like to point one thing out. There are in-universe references to both these ships being fast/slow, ponderous/ maneuverable, etc. compared to other ships in their universe. These comparisons might not translate well between series. ( You might be the tallest person in your town, but stand next to some NBA players an you might seem short). We have tried to ignore this as much as possible and tried to compare their abilities using real world physics.


First topic: Offensive Firepower.
This is not just a topic about the total offensive abilities of these ships. It also covers WHERE they can shoot.
Omega Class ships for example have been shown to have their Primary weapons ONLY fire to the front or rear of the ship.

Here are the listed weapons of each ship:

Omega class:

Two front firing Fusion Missile Launchers (never used in the series)
Twelve heavy cannons firing to the front/back
24 medium cannon on turrets with almost 360 degree rotation
a good anti-fighter defense grid (covered in another section later)
36 port side, and 36 starboard side missile tubes (never used in the series)


Galactica:

600 duel barreled close support anti-fighter turrets. (covered later)
50 duel barreled turrets firing either flak, solid slug anti-ship munitions, or high explosive warheads
unknown number of antiship missile tubes
at least 10 VERY heavy planetary assault nuclear warhead missiles. (Never used, only shown).

We assume that since some of these weapons were never used in either series (despite a need to fire everything they had) that these weapons are more than likely beyond the scope of a ship vs Ship battle. This is more than likely due them being too unwieldy for hitting a moving ship at a range that also would not damage the firing vessel. More than likely these where designed for space stations or planetary bombardment. We will however be including the 72 missile tubes on the Omega destroyer as the creators of this ship (CGI designers that is) intended them for doing broadsides to other ships in a manner similar to 1700's pirate ship broadsides.


We have studied several reals of footage from both series. While several of the battles seem to be extremely short range slug-fests, others, from both series, have been shown to be in the several kilometers of engagement. With no solid proof one way or another one who has the longer range we have to use the real world physics. Galactica uses solid-slug throwing projectiles, while The Omega class uses high-speed beam propelled particle weapons. Regardless of maximum engagement areas, it seems that the Omega class would need less effort to aim at long distances with less need to "lead" a target. In the area of super-long range killing we give this decisively to the Omega.

However, this is only if the Omega is firing within its front or back arch of fire. If firing in the side archs the Omega would have to rely on half of it's secondary weapons, and half of it's missile tubes. The Galactica for on the other hand has been shown to willingly fight in almost any orientation at near full effect. This difference in fighting style like comparing a carpel-tunnel old man shooting a 500 Magnum revolver against a gangsta spraying and praying with a MAC-11 machine gun. In the area of fire archs we give a strong, but not decisive lead to the Galactica.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will be temporarily be skipping #2. Defensive armor for the time being. This is because this topic requires the most conjecture, real-world physical analysis, and cross-franchise examining. Therefore it is the least likely to be accurate and the most likely to erupt into fanboyism and eyerolling.


3. Fighter Protection.

The Omega class is equipped with a MkII defense grid that was noted as being substantially better than the MkI defense grid. However, this is after all relative. Almost anything was better than the MkI grid in the Babylon 5 universe as it was designed to fight against minimal fighter activity and proved near useless during the Earth-Minbari war. This system is said to be one of the best anti-fighter grids of the "younger" races in the series. While it seems to have an impressive automated tracking ability the largest number of fighters ever seen going after a single Omega in a Babylon 5 battle is 16, and some of those penetrated the defense grid long enough to at least get some shots in, if not come around for a second pass.

Galactica has 600! duel mounted anti-fighter turrets. Even if there were four rows of turrets (150 per row down the length of the hull) that only leaves about 30 feet center-point to center-point between turrets. If there were 8 rows, that's still only 60 feet. To say this ship is bristling with anti-fighter weaponry is an understatement. In addition to this the Galactica also has 50 anti-ship duel mounted anti-ship turrets that can fire flak rounds. While not computer-linked like in an Omega the sheer amount of firepower is amazing. The Galactica once went up against three basestars. One Basestar was said to have launched 72 fighters by itself. The other Basestars launched their fighters as well, likely a similar number. With anti-fighter cover alone, facing over 200 fighters (drones with no fear of death), not a single fighter initially penetrated Galatica's airspace.

We give this category as an undeniable decisive advantage to the Galactica.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
4. Fighter Launch/ Recovery.

Omega Class Ships actually have several launch ports. The obvious one is on the front, on the "nose" of the ship. This is a general purpose ship access point. Ships coming and going from this area must do so in a single file line. However, not known to most people is that the Omega also has 22 "fighter ejection ports" located along the outer edge of it's rotational section. These ships could either be launched all at once, or launched sequentially as the rotational section turned creating an "fighter cloud" around the ship. However, these fighter relied on the centrifugal forces of the rotating section to eject them from these hatches. If the rotation section was not spinning launching fighters would be significantly harder and more ponderous.

Although Fighters could be launched at the same time they needed to be recovered one-at-time though the frontal nose hatch. The fastest this has ever been seen on screen was with a 4.8 second interval between fighters. To recover all 36 fighters would therefore require almost three minutes under ideal circumstances. It also seems a little odd

Galactica was equipped with 80 launch tubes that could fire fighters simultaneously. In addition it could have several other fighters leave manually though the hanger doors. As for recovery, under COMBAT it was shown to land 16 fighters in 6 seconds using only one hanger. If it only used the 80 fighters in its launch tubes it could retrieve all 80 fighters in as little as 15 seconds, although that seems like almost perfect conditions. Galactica's largest downside is that is can't launch any fighters at all if it can't open it's hanger pods. Of course they only close those for faster-that-lite travel. However, it takes about 45 seconds to fully close/open those hangar pods under optimum conditions.

This section goes strongly to Galactica.

 cuda1179 wrote:
In the area of super-long range killing we give this decisively to the Omega.
In the area of fire archs we give a strong, but not decisive lead to the Galactica.

Ok, but which one does more damage? Can both sides hurt each other equally, or is this the equivalent of a 1700s sailing ship with flawless accuracy going up against a WWII battleship that might miss with a few shots before obliterating its target? You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that both sides have the same level of firepower per gun and it's actually a fair battle. And that makes it a pretty disappointing "analysis".

We give this category as an undeniable decisive advantage to the Galactica.

But why are you assuming that the Galactica's guns can even damage an enemy fighter from a different universe? For example, a Culture fighter (if a Mind created one for amusement value) would laugh off those 600 anti-fighter guns just as easily as it would laugh off 600 billion anti-fighter guns. Meanwhile a Culture warship's equivalent of anti-fighter weapons would be capable of destroying entire planets.

This section goes strongly to Galactica.

But does it even matter? Both ships can launch all of their fighters simultaneously, and are likely to do so at long range, before anything interesting happens that would make launch time relevant. Likewise for recovery time, how often does it really matter how fast a ship can recover fighters when it's likely to be doing so while out of combat? Plus, there's the much more important question of which ship has better fighters. If the Omega's 22 fighters are the equivalent of a thousand of the Galactica's fighters then the 80:20 advantage in launch rate is irrelevant, the Omega can deploy and recover an equivalent "worth" of fighters much faster.

Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.

And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.

I'm reminded of the "Halo Vs." threads.....

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.

Again, the main cannon on Destroyers are shown burning major portions of enemy ships with one hit. Its a different universe thing. In B5, ships with these "type of cannons" can typically destroy or heavily damage an equivalent enemy ship in one or two hits.

As noted the Galactica is more of a heavily armored carrier. In the series it appeared to use its fighters/bombers (if you consider a missile loaded raptor a bomber) on offensive operations. Now the more advanced battlestars appeared better designed for direct ship to ship action (Pegasus was a regular ship killer).

One note, the Galactica could theoretically, jump in, unload its fighters, and jump back out before the Destoryer could burn it with the main guns.

Did vipers have nukes like their cylon opponents? That might be a serious game changer.
Per Wiki they could carry nukes. That makes them a much bigger threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Viper

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

You are just the worst.


The worst.

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.

And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.

Omegas can only fire their MAIN weapons to the front or back. When it comes to shooting to the sides they rely on their mid-sized turret weapons and missile tubes. This has been stated by the designers themselves.

 cuda1179 wrote:
A close friend of mine and I were discussing some of our favorite sci-fi shows the other day when we got onto the topic of how ships from various franchises would stack up against eachother.

This sort of thing never ends well. Nerds won't let it end well.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.

And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.

Omegas can only fire their MAIN weapons to the front or back. When it comes to shooting to the sides they rely on their mid-sized turret weapons and missile tubes. This has been stated by the designers themselves.

Destroyers can turn though. They can shoot head on and then broadside you with missiles...kind of like Imperial ships in BFG...

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.

The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.

The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.

Who needs weapons when you have Kirk/Picard at the helm?

 Paradigm wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What about the Defiant from Star Trek?

Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.

The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.

Who needs weapons when you have Kirk/Picard at the helm?

Because you're facing John fething Sheridan.

Yep, and if we start talking Star Wars... well, how many other sci-fi franchises have "small one man fighters" at their disposal?

Yeah, enterprise would be Fethed if it discovered the Death Star... Although, Vader vs. Kirk/bones/spok would be rather hilarious.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yep, and if we start talking Star Wars... well, how many other sci-fi franchises have "small one man fighters" at their disposal?

Star Trek actually has them, too. You see them during DS9 and the Dominion War.

It's just that we don't know of any actual carriers in Star Trek, so they're dependent on their own warp drives.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Attack_fighter

5. Speed/ Agility

This one was rather hard to come to a conclusion to. Little reference was ever made to Galactica's ability to maneuver, while the Omega was listed as being one of the more ponderous capital ships of her universe. Of course, the most ponderous of one universe might look like a fighter in another universe. The only things we had to go on here were real-world physics, video of turning, possible fly-bys of stationary objects to determine speed. The fastest speed we could account for the Galactica was when flying though a nebula near the Ragnar Anchorage. We used frames per second and known ship length to determine a speed. We did the same for Omegas during "A Call to Arms". Honestly, there doesn't seem to be much difference. (My best guess is that the FX guys just went with what looked cool for a ship of this size). Overall speed I'd put at a draw, or inconclusive.

Hyperspace vs FTL jump drive. Both ways of travel have their advantages. The FTL jump drive is instantaneous, yet limited in range. The Hyperspace is literally crossing dimensions. For the long-haul missions it would be better as there is no "cool-off" period needed. (note: a Galactica FTL drive does note necessarily NEED a cool-off period, it's just easier on the engines). Both of these devices have been shown to cause damage to objects. Galactica would cause damage to anything in the surrounding area, while the Omega to anything directly in front of it (as shown in "A Call to Arms). An Omega could technically retreat into hyperspace if needed, and the Galactica would not be able to follow. However, in the Babylon 5 universe there is also some reliance on hyperspace becons.
In the end, I give this a draw as well.

Now is for maneuverability. I think I might upset some people with my conclusions here. This section is not just limited to what the ships themselves would actually pull off, but also what their crew can withstand. The fastest Galactica has ever rolled over (belly up) has been slightly faster than the Omega. Turning around 180 degrees also goes to Galactica , who can do that about 15% faster. As for lateral G's, this one gets tricky. The fastest turn able to be calculated by the Galactica was during the battle of the Resurrection ship. Using the rate at which the ship was circling the enemy base star, combined with an approximate radius of that circle, (using Glacticas known size as a scale reference), shows that the ship is capable of doing at least a .21 lateral G turn. It appears that Galactica's artificial gravity accounts for this for the crew.
If the Omega were to take the same turn the crew in the non-spinning section would be thrown up against the outside edge of the ship at 1/5 gravity. The Crew in the spinning section would randomly get tossed back and forth as gravity shifts between 1.21 g's and .79 g's while sometimes having a relative horizontal pull of .21 g's. More than likely a little disorienting.
In addition, the spinning section itself causes some issues. The ship should never have been designed symmetrically. As it stands, with the rotating section turning the ship would more easily be able to take right turns than left. In addition, how it turns depends on if the rotating section is turning or not. The rotating section acts like a boomerang. While spinning, in order to turn right the ship would need thrusters one the back to shoot thrust upwards in order to turn right. While not turning it would need to revert back to something easier to understand.

In this area, I get a slight edge to Galactica for initial maneuverability, and it would increase this lead as battle damage mounted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yep, and if we start talking Star Wars... well, how many other sci-fi franchises have "small one man fighters" at their disposal?

Star Trek actually has them, too. You see them during DS9 and the Dominion War.

It's just that we don't know of any actual carriers in Star Trek, so they're dependent on their own warp drives.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Attack_fighter

Actually, this might not be totally true. The Galaxy class was actually designed with a large amount of it's saucer section "empty" on purpose. Those empty areas where there so that they ships could quickly be modified to carry out specific duties as they arose. They could be cargo haulers, science vessels, extra weapons pods, or even hangars.

The Akira class from Star Trek is a carrier, or can be configured as one. I think the Nebula class can also do something similar.

As the premise of the thread is BSG versus Babylon 5 then please let us not keep bringing in other fictional SF universes?!?!?

I would actually like to see what the OP has come up with on the subject.

As has been noted, the factor not discussed in detail is the effectiveness of said weaponry and the armor of each ship.

B5 points. The main batteries on Destroyers are highly effective at bringing down ships. Concentrated cobra fire (and fire from B5) took out a primus level battlecruiser very quickly (Centauri heavy cruiser).

Galactica points: 1) If its fighters carry nukes, thats potentially a lot of nukes if they get in the screen. 2) Further Galactica of BSG has already been through a grinding ten year war, and then manages to survive multiple attacks FOR YEARS by heavily outclassed forces, even dropping through an atmosphere (just because Adama missed his roller coaster). Even without shields thats a tough ship. 3) The ships appears much more configured (when on the attack) for long range stand off operations with its fighters. I don't remember instances of Destroyers doing this, but I could be mistaken.




Also it was noted in other locations that the max cobras is not 36 in a Destroyer, thats just how many they saw fly out of the front at one time.

6: Areas of operation

This is possibly the easiest of the areas to agree on. Both of these ships were designed for pure space combat. Both were designed for extended operations deep into space. However, the Galactica was designed to go for YEARS of operation while the Omega was designed for 18 month trips. While it is unlikely that any battle would last long enough for this to come into play there is one point to mention: Gravity. Artificial gravity was the main reason for Omega class ships to have so much higher range than previous human ships, however it only has gravity in part of the ship. Although the gravity areas of the ship include crew quarters and most habitable areas the crew still have been shown to go to the non-gravity areas our of necessity (reaching fighter bays, engineering sections, ect). Over extended period this can actually have an accumulated effect on the human body. All things being equal, the humans on an Omega class might have reduced physical strength, endurance, and resilience.


Although not designed to enter an atmosphere the Galactica has actually done it, although more than likely sustained some damage from dropping into an atmosphere. This could mean that the Galactica could enter an area that neither ship could travel into with any hope to get out of under normal means. It also shows that Galactica still retains some semblance to aerodynamics, and can also still launch fighters in such areas. This is however highly unlikely that any such situation would appear outside of a black hole, gas giant, or a VERY thick nebula gas.

In this regard I give the slimmest of advantages to the Galactica.

Wait- 18 months vs years of deployment is the 'slimmest of advantages'?

That seems like it would have tremendous strategic value.

Only if the Destroyer couldn't fly home. The trip back to earth was only a few days / weeks.