Talk:Alliance Navy

"Regardless, the devastation of the Citadel Fleet meant the Alliance Navy was left as the most powerful single military force among the Citadel races. This fact alone meant humanity's place in galactic society was assured."

I don't remember precisely what's said in Ascension, but this is not true. The Fifth Fleet was the largest concentration of military force near the Citadel. The combined fleets of the asari, turians, and salarians still outnumber the Alliance's forces by something like 11 to 1 (based solely on the dreadnought ratio established by the Treaty of Farixen). Stormwaltz 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ascension, p4: "The Citadel forces had been decimated by the geth, leaving the Alliance fleet unchallenged as the galaxy's single most dominant power."
 * But if that's inaccurate I guess the article needs changing. --Tullis 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think even though the Citadel fleet was destroyed, the Council races must have ships in order to defend their respected territories.

Battle for the Citadel

 * Did any Alliance dreadnoughts take part in the battle? The videos seem to portray a fleet of cruisers (since they're larger than the Normandy and more numerous than Dreadnoughts). There were far more than six ships in the videos and they all looked exactly the same. This leads me to believe that the dreadnoughts did not take part in the fight. Ninsegtari 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Codex: Space Combat General Tactics, dreadnoughts are hellishly effective but only at long range. Once you get closer they become more of a liability because they can't use their main gun and because of heat dispersion problems. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alliance didn't want to risk their dreadnoughts in a (technically) CQC environment like the area around the Citadel. --Tullis 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dirty Little Secrets time. The cruisers in the battle of the Citadel are using a model intended to be an Alliance dreadnought. The cinematics department didn't read the Codexes specifying that humanity only has six, and only uses them for long ranged combat. When we saw shots showing up to 15 "dreadnoughts" on screen at a time, we had to re-designate the model as a cruiser. Stormwaltz 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Known Vessels
I'm not sure I agree with arbitrarily throwing all the minor vessels on this page. It bulks the page out unnecessarily and means ships of interest get lost. Either we delete the ship's pages -- in cases like the Hyderabad that might be best -- or we return things the way they were. --Tullis 17:32, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * We can create Alliance Vessels page, and list all vessels on that page. I think that putting every ship on its own page don't give anything, and make unneeded separation. The Hastings and the Normandy should get their place on the top (although the Normandy should have its own page), other then those two, I don't see other vessels that need their own space. --silverstrike 17:44, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not creating a "catch-all" page for them. I've changed things up a bit, and will fix the redirects for this. Hopefully this will streamline the page slightly. --Tullis 17:48, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the SSV Hastings should have its own page, but does the SSV Iwo Jima needs its own page? It could easily be merged with the Mass Effect: Revelation article. The same way the SSV Hyderabad was merged with Alsages planet page. --silverstrike 17:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the manner of its destruction warrants its own page, for demonstrative purposes if nothing else. --Tullis 18:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's notable in the manner in which it was brought down. Also, speaking of notable, why no mention of the cruiser Hyderabad- the one that is mentioned to have destroyed a batarian pirate frigate? It's got at least as much to make it notable as, say, the Tokyo. SpartHawg948 19:31, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * That I removed because it was quoted three times, on the Tunerron, Hyderbad and Eluam articles, and the entire substance of it is already on Alsages' page. --Tullis 19:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's fine by me, I was just referring to the fact that it doesn't appear on this page. I think it should go under notable vessels, or at the very least other vessels. After all, the SSV Hastings and SSV Iwo Jima are still listed here even though they have their own pages. It's more a thoroughness thing for me, I guess. As it is an Alliance Navy vessel (and one of the more prominent ones in the in-game lit) it should be listed on the Alliance Navy page. SpartHawg948 08:19, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but what is the SSV Hyderabad. Reading this article has made me want to find out, but the Alsages page has barley anything on it.Tandy212 20:17, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * An Alliance cruiser which destroyed a batarian pirate frigate. All the info can be found either on this page or the Alsages page. There may seem to be barely anything about the Hyderabad there, but literally every known fact from the game about the ship can be found on those two pages. The only thing from the old SSV Hyderabad article not included is that the ship is named for the city of Hyderabad, either the one in India or the one in Pakistan (or both). SpartHawg948 21:00, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Names
Why are some in bold and others not?--Xaero Dumort 18:27, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be done only when additional information follows the name of the ship. I'd guess it's for formatting clarity only. -- Stormwaltz 19:42, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Carriers & Mass Accelerator Cannons
I would think carriers would not have main cannons, since then, being dreadnought-sized ships, they would be in violation of treaty. While the codex does not explicitly say that carriers do not have a main cannon, it does say that fighters are the main armament and that carriers are not meant to go into battle directly: "Humans...were the first to build ships wielding fighters as the main armament," "Fighters are the primary striking power of the ship; if a carrier enters mass accelerator range of the enemy, things have gone very wrong." If carriers had a main mass accelerator cannon, why would this be an issue? They could engage in combat just as well as other ships.

Although, part of this rides on the assumption that carriers are in fact dreadnought-sized. While it says this on the wiki's page for Starships, it doesn't say this for the entry of carriers in the codex.Tophvision 01:16, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem there is that you are assuming that, as dreadnought sized ships, carriers would have dreadnought sized mass accelerators, or none at all. Who is to say that they don't have smaller models, more along the lines of those mounted by cruisers or frigates, to be used as a last line of defense? Perfect example: real world aircraft carriers are physically as large or larger than battleships. Going by the logic you were using there, a carrier must have main guns as large as those of a battleship, or none at all. Not true. Many carriers mounted guns for defense against planes and ships, but guns that were substantially smaller than those carried by battleships. (the carriers Lexington and Saratoga mounted guns typically found on heavy cruisers, guns too big for AAA but much smaller than the 16-inchers of battleships, the more contemporary French carrier Clemenceau carried 100mm guns, and many others mounted guns in the 3 to 5 inch range) And just like the codex says, even though these carriers were armed with cannon as secondary weaponry (in some cases cannons typically found on heavy cruiser), it was very much a fact that if they found themselves within the range of enemy guns, something had gone very wrong. Just look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
 * A statement that fighters are the main armament of carriers also does not preclude the carrying of a gun. Ships generally have (and Alliance ships are shown to possess) secondary and tertiary armament. Again, look at a modern Nimitz class supercarrier. There is no doubt that the vessel's main armament is it's aircraft. Does that mean it has no guns? No. Far from it. The Nimitz class vessels also carry secondary and tertiary armament consisting of guns and missiles. Stating that carriers don't carry guns when there is no proof of this is speculation, plain and simple. SpartHawg948 05:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, each carrier would be equipped with GARDIAN for protection against enemy fighters and mass accelerator projectiles. The GARDIAN is analogous to the CIWS system used on the contemporary carrier classes, the Nimitz-class and Ford-class Super Carriers. I am thinking, and this is speculation, that there are carrier battle groups in the Mass Effect universe. In this situation, the carrier is protected by three lines of defense: its' fighters, its' escorts, and its' guns. Throwback 05:48, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are all factually accurate statements, but not really relevant to this discussion, no offense. The matter at hand was whether or not ME carriers possess Mass Accelerators, not GARDIAN systems. And while yes, the GARDIAN could be likened to the Phalanx systems aboard the Nimitz class, it could also be likened to the Sea Sparrow missiles. My point was that even the Nimitz class features multiple weapons systems, including guns, hence the fact that the main body of my argument consisted of pointing out the heavy gun armament of carriers even during the era of the battleship. SpartHawg948 05:53, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

These are the relevant quotes from Carriers: ‘’In fleet combat, carriers stay clear of battle, launching fighters bearing disruptor torpedoes. Fighters are the primary striking power of the ship; if a carrier enters mass accelerator range of the enemy, things have gone very wrong. It is possible to recover and rearm fighters during combat, though most carriers seal the flight deck and try to stay out of the way. The flight deck is essentially a corridor through the armor and into the heart of the vessel. A single well-placed torpedo is enough to gut a carrier. ‘’

While you were doing a St. Valentine’s Day massacre on my earlier quote, I feel you missed some points.
 * 1.) The guns on a carrier of WWII were designed to destroyed aircraft. Though powerful, they were as powerful as one needed for killing an airplane. Guns on battle cruisers were designed for sinking other battle cruisers, and for clearing a beachhead for amphibious landings. Though they were capable of destroying military assets, in every other respect, they weren't the same.
 * 2.) The modern carriers not only have to protect themselves from aircraft, they have also to contend with projectiles. Though carriers are well protected, a carrier can be taken out of action by a well-placed missile. This is why carriers are surrounded by a miles-wide perimeter of air, sea, and underwater assets.
 * 3) The description of combat and of carriers, especially, is more reflective of the modern age than that of a war fought 65 years ago.

Throwback 06:34, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the quotes, as Tophvision pointed them out in the original post. I'm not sure what is meant by me doing a "St Valentines Day Massacre" on your post. I merely pointed out that it didn't really address the intent of my post, nor did it have anything to do with the point the thread was discussing. I pointed out that, while somewhat correct, an analogy you made could be interpreted differently. Hardly analogous to lining six men up against a wall and mowing them down with automatic weapons. Maybe a little less melodrama next time?
 * As for your points 1) Half-true. As I pointed out, the Lexington and Saratoga mounted 8-inch guns that were purely intended for use against ships and had no use as anti-aircraft guns, and the smaller 3 and 5-inch guns mounted on other carriers were dual purpose, meaning they could (and were) used against both ships and planes (refer to Battle off Samar, where two USN escort carriers used their 5" dual-purpose guns against Japanese warships). If the carriers only had guns to shoot down planes, they wouldn't have been outfitted with dual-purpose large caliber guns, as the smaller, more rapid-fire 20mm and 40mm guns were much better at throwing up a wall of flak. The larger guns were mounted because they could also be used to ward off enemy vessels. They were guns, they were mounted on carriers, and they were there at least in part to defend the carriers from other ships. These are the points I was making, points which are all accurate.
 * 2) Not really relevant to the point I was making that SA carriers could have guns to provide a last line of defense against enemy ships.
 * 3) The quotes are reflective of both, as modern carrier warfare draws heavily from lessons learned in World War II (funny how operational practices and procedures draw so much from actual experience). Regardless, my point still remains the same. There is no sourcing for claims that SA carriers do not mount Mass Accelerators. SpartHawg948 06:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that carriers don't mount mass accelerator cannons at all. Only that they don't mount a main, ship-length cannon. Tophvision 14:00, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * But the concept of a "main" gun is pretty vague. Again, refer to the 8-inch guns, which is described as the "main battery of United States Navy heavy cruisers and two early aircraft carriers". Even though these were carriers, and their primary armament was their aircraft, they were considered to have main gun batteries, which were clearly intended as the secondary armament. Stating that "main" magnetic accelerator must refer to a ship-length gun is itself speculation. And at the end of the day, there is still no source for the claim that SA carriers don't have a main gun or battery. SpartHawg948 19:44, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine then, I'll just leave it as saying fighters are the main armament of carriers. Tophvision 20:04, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Contains no speculation, so we're good to go! SpartHawg948 20:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kilimanjaro class question
"The Kilimanjaro class is armed with 156 broadside mass accelerator cannons, 78 on each side. The broadside guns are each as long as 40% of the ship's width."Where can I find the reference material to suporting this statement? Ubernerd101 23:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent question! I'm not quite sure myself. Maybe from the guy giving the impromptu lecture about proper fire control in the Citadel customs section? Although I'm pretty sure I've listened to everything he had to say and don't recall that. I'll see if I can't find out. SpartHawg948 23:12, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The new "Mass Accelerators" secondary entry in the "Ships and Vehicles" section of ME2's codex. Tophvision 23:14, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And there it is! Thanks! I was just leaving you a message to ask about it, and here it is! Huzzah! SpartHawg948 23:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Ubernerd101 03:29, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Normandy's class
I don't recall a class name being defined for the Normandy SR-1. Is there a source for this in ME2? Tophvision 23:21, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure they got the class name from the fact that the Normandy is the lead (and as far as we know only) ship in it's class. SpartHawg948 23:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there was a report about a Normandy class vessel in the loudspeaker on Ilium. L3zl13 16:04, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote a news piece about a Normandy class vessel for the Citadel news, but I can't confirm it was still in at ship. The requirements to hear it are rather extreme -- you have to have killed the Council in ME1, and be at a certain point (I forget where) in the critical path chain of Horizon-Collector Ship-IFF. -- Stormwaltz 20:53, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb, the first ship of the class tends to share the its name with the class name. Weather the "Normandy Class" is an offcial designation or an unoffcial one it makes sence that this name would be used inside the Mass Effect universe, especially considering the fame surrounding the SSV Normandy. -- Looq 00:15, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

there are 2 ssv normandy classes the normandy and the ssv ain julatThe geth rule 02:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Source of Names for Cruisers at Battle of the Citadel
What is the source for these ships? I have collected what I believe to be all the codexes and I haven't seen one yet that lists all the ships.Throwback 22:02, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're listed in the Codex entry entitled "Rise of the Alliance" if you choose the Paragon ending at the end of ME. The character I have it on saved the Council and nominated Anderson, although I don't think who you nominate to the Council factors into this one. SpartHawg948 22:05, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Added note: if I remember correctly; sacrificing the human fleet at the Battle of the Citadel will result in unique dialogue when talking to al-Jilani (the journalist) in Mass Effect 2. Shepard lists the names of the ships destroyed if you choose the Charm option. Bronzey 11:43, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed correct! SpartHawg948 10:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Possible cruiser crew discrepancy
Not sure if this is really something to be included in the article or not but found it interesting. In Mass Effect: Ascension, while describing the Idenna, a decommissioned batarian Hensa-class cruiser serving in the Migrant Fleet, it's noted that the Idenna had, at the time, a crew of 693, whereas an Alliance cruiser of comparable size would have a crew of approximately 80. However, in the Codex entry on Human Diplomatic Relations (available if you import an ME character who saved the Council), 8 Alliance cruisers are listed lost at the Citadel along with "their 2400 crew". This averages out to 300 personnel per ship, which would seem to suggest one of two things- either there are multiple types of cruiser (which is also implied in the first game when Rear Admiral Mikhailovich states that for the price of the Normandy the Alliance could have got a heavy cruiser) with vastly disparate crew sizes (which would also suggest the Hensa-class are themselves light cruisers), or this could be some retcon on the part of BioWare. Either way, it's pretty interesting. SpartHawg948 07:43, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noted that myself, and come to similar conclusions. In my opinion the human cruiser during the battle of the citadel are heavy ones, because they are quiet big and seems slow and well armed. But it's only speculation of course. Cyphius 15:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The only thing that struck me as odd about that was the prospect that there would be such a vast disparity in crew sizes between ships, 300 on a heavy cruiser and 80 on a light, although I suppose that when they said a comparable Alliance ship in ME:A, they could have been referring not just to size, but to age, although you'd think older ships would have less automation, and therefor larger crews. Hmmm... It's not outside the realm of the possible though. The Brooklyn class of light cruisers from the late '30s had crews of 868, while the Des Moines class of heavy cruisers from the late '40s had crews of 1799. Not quite as disparate as 80-300, as if that were the case the Des Moines would have crews of 3255, but still something to think about. SpartHawg948 20:55, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The only thing that struck me as odd about that was the prospect that there would be such a vast disparity in crew sizes between ships, 300 on a heavy cruiser and 80 on a light, although I suppose that when they said a comparable Alliance ship in ME:A, they could have been referring not just to size, but to age, although you'd think older ships would have less automation, and therefor larger crews. Hmmm... It's not outside the realm of the possible though. The Brooklyn class of light cruisers from the late '30s had crews of 868, while the Des Moines class of heavy cruisers from the late '40s had crews of 1799. Not quite as disparate as 80-300, as if that were the case the Des Moines would have crews of 3255, but still something to think about. SpartHawg948 20:55, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Cruiser Armaments
This was a point that was disputed earlier and this hopefully provides the evidence one way or the other. At 4:47 in this video as cruiser can be seen firing two projectiles from its underside that clearly do not come from its two bow main guns. They also are seen, unlike a projectile fired from a mass accelerator, emitting smoke contrails and directly impacting the ship without the ships kinetic barriers attempting to deflect it. Now this may just be one of those “yeah it’s highly probable but it can’t be proven” kind of ideas, so just stop me there, but I would have to say, in light of those three facts, that they are Javelin torpedoes. One codex entry hints at the possibility of them being mounted on “heavier ships during short range engagements, such as trans-relay assaults”, which the Battle of the Citadel would qualify as, but no conclusion could be made. With this being in-game video I was hoping it would be a bit more concrete as to the fact do cruisers carry the Javelin Torpedo?NightsKnight 02:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what proof do you have. While it is unlikely they could also be Disruptor torpedoes. However they could even be just missiles that aren't mentioned in the Codex. There is no proof that that is or isn't Javelin Torpedoes, so its speculation. Lancer1289 02:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it was possible (I wouldn't say probable) but can't be proven. The weapons don't (to me at least) seem to be coming from external pods bolted to the ship, as Javelins would, and the Codex also clearly states that very few Alliance ships actually have Javelins, most of these being frigates.. They're more likely standard disruptor torpedoes or possibly projectiles from secondary guns. The Codex entry you mention also makes no note of cruisers, simply heavier vessels, "especially dreadnoughts". Cruisers appear not at all. The Codex also clearly states that Javelins are launched "in large numbers and at short range", and while the range is debatable, two is clearly not a large number. So no, not concrete proof of anything. SpartHawg948 02:13, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the part slowly you can see that they travel for some distance, clearing the ship before the smoke contrails appear; now this plainly appears to be the cold launch technique described for both the Javelin and disruptor torpedoes. That along with the fact that they didn’t use their main gun (as why would you use your secondary guns over your main guns when your perfectly lined up?) would seem to make it clear that they are some short of torpedo weapon. As for not being able to see the tubes, it would seem clear to me at least the best place to put them would be on the inner section of the “wings” as so they would be protected from enemy fire. Now I guess you could argue that there not the Javelin torpedo, but with them being put in the codex with no definitively agreed upon in game mention or use seems very odd to me. NightsKnight 02:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)