Talk:CAS-class assault carrier

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Its an Assault Carrier but FlagShip?[edit]

We've established that is an Assault Carrier, click here for the full discussion, but below are the highlights:

  1. In this Image HBO does calls it an Assault Carrier -- Esemono
"Registering all hostile vessels inside the kill zone. Thirteen cruisers, two assault carriers. I'm going loud!"
Cortana in the First Battle of Earth
the above quote was provided by RelentlessRecusant

Now is it a flagship?

  1. The flagship is two kilometers long and from Stephen Loftus's work on HBO, the assault carrier is something like five kilometers long. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant
  • [cough]three kilometers, not two[/cough]--Rot 1535 9.12.06

A flagship can be anything I think,the best way to know the Assault Carrier's role is to know a Super Star Destroyer from Star Wars,both serve as flagships even though there both friggin huge and powerful.Sith Venator 00:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The name comes from when a ship carried its fleet's commanding officer, it would run up a flag signifying that. So technically, a flagship could be any ship that has its Fleet Master/Admiral aboard it. And given their rank and status, they'd favour carriers, cruisers, etc over smaller ships. So Ascendant Justice might not even be a Carrier, for that matter - perhaps a very large Cruiser? --CoH|Councillor]] Specops306 - Kora UserWiki:Specops306|'Morhek]] 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An Example of the above comment would be the Forward unto Dawn being used as a flagship, over the large and more powerful vessels, if any are left that is. "Die? Didn't you know?...Spartans don't die." 22:14, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ascendant Justice should be removed from this page![edit]

  • Well, I don't think the Ascendant Justice is an Assault Carrier for that matter anyway. The Ascendant Justice is 3000m long and is bulbous like a covenant destroyer, whereas the Assault Carrier we see in Halo 2 is supposed to be somewhere around 5000m long and isn't bulbous, more round and flat.--Rot 1853 7.12.06
  • I believe it was mentioned as such in the FS but I don't have the book with me. The Ascendant Justice was listed in this article when it was migrated and as such I am unable to tell who first stated that the Ascendant Justice was a Covenant Assault Carrier. Although Admin Dragonclaws seems to have written it. -- Esemono 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Halo: First Strike only refers to the Ascendant Justice as a flagship, and makes a reference that it is a carrier. However, Carrier and Assault Carrier may well be seperate ships, as Assault Carrier might be a larger version of Carrier, similar to the Supercarrier. However, all of that is also speculation, so for now I would say that we cannot say with 100% surity (is that a word? better than sureness I suppose) that the Ascendant Justice is of the Assault Carrier variety, so it should be removed from the article.--Rot 2147 7.12.06
  • I've grown tired of waiting for resistance, so I've changed the page to fit with what I believe to be fact. If you disagree, post here and if you so strongly disagree that you believe what I have done is heresy, put a FactOrFiction thingy up or restore the page or something.--Rot 1305 9.12.06
  • Wholly shoot first and ask questions later -- Esemono 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is that I am changing things that I have reveiwed the books for several times, double and triple checked, and then seen little proof here against it. I am not saying "Well, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, I'll go change the article". If anyone has proof that the Ascendant Justice is an Assault Carrier, and I mean proof, not assumption, then hell, I'm wrong in editing the page. However, I don't see anything surfacing until either Bungie tells us one way or the other, or another novel is released.--Rotaretilbo 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ascendant Justice[edit]

Ascendant Jusitce is not 2 kilometers ffor it is actualy 3. Second, like I said in my article assualt carriers/ flagships if you look at an assault carrier from lateral side view you will notice 3 flat bublous sections. The first is that weird hook shaped nose, the second contains the pinch fusion reactor, and the third conatins the engines. Plus, whoever wrote that the assault carrier was flat, I just wanted to tell you that in halo first strike it mentioned that the ascendant justice's bublous section were flaat on page 45 it says "relativiley flat from top to bottom. -- User:Halo3 00:35, 10 December 2006

Check this out: http://halopedian.com/Real_Sizes_in_the_Halo_Universe --Rot 2033 9.12.06

Ascendant Justice a carrier?[edit]

What page in Halo First Strike does it refer the flagship ,ascendant justice, to be a carrier. -- User:Halo3 21:22, 11 December 2006

I don't know if it blatently refers to the Ascendant Justice as a carrier, but it makes vague implications to it. I am far too lazy to reread Halo: First Strike in search of a page number.--Rotaretilbo 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well in the book it says it was the flag ship so ya never know SPARTAN-225 19:26, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Don't Trust HBO![edit]

I don't really think H.B.O is the best place to look for assault carrier information and also that article about the true sizes of objects are calculations and theorizing, not cold hard 100% facts. -- User:Halo3 21:24, 11 December 2006

Did you read the article? He used the models from the game, loaded them into a 3D modeller, tested for accuracy (on John-117), and then began using this method to gather info.--Rotaretilbo 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This Info Belongs in this Article![edit]

User:Halo3 believes the following info should be merged into this article:

  1. The assault carrier is one of the largest and possibly one of the most powerful ships in the covenant space armada.
  2. The assualt carrier has a huge size of 3 kilometers long.
  3. The assault carrier is the largest ship in the covenant space armada,next to the planatoids High Charity and Unyeilding Hierophant.
  4. There existed a "Gardian of The Luminous Key",who was the future arbiter and supreme commander of the Fleet of Particular Justice
  5. As a matter of fact, in Halo 2, it is mentioned that the assault carrier is prophet regrets flagship.
  6. The covenant assault carrier has three bublous sections. Starting from the back we can see that:
the first and largest center bulbous section with the slit of purple glow of the deep violet fusion reactor core is on top of the second bulbous section.
The second bulbous has the three engines giving off that electric blue thrust described in Halo First Strike.
The third and most forward bulbous secton gives the unique hook shape of the dreaded assault carrier.

With all due respect, you're talking about the FLAGSHIP!

Cheers,

-49 Proximal Secant [RelentlessRecusant] 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but as it says in many articles, a flagship can be any type of ship that heads the fleet, usually the larger, more powerful ones though. An assault carrier is closer to 5400 meters than 3000 meters. Also, as previously mentioned, the Ascendant Justice could have been a carrier. They may both be similar in appearance, but either way, it was powerful enough to be used as a flagship. user:Honor Guard Reborn

Energy Projector. MADE BY HALO3[edit]

I highly dought that the weapon that destroyed the temple was an energy projector. To tell you the truth it looked alot more that the covenant used the grav lift as a makeshift weapon. WE never have seen a gravity lift reverse itself. If we have then the temple incident would be a quick demonstration of what happens when you push a grav lift to it's limits while it is in reverse. Also, it's possible that the pulse laser fired by the assault carrier was an energy projector. First off being the fact that the beam was not that bright blue color described in Halo Fall of Reach when harvest was in contact with the covenant. Second, pulse lasers cannot penatrate through a human marathon class cruiser or halcyon class cruiser as it is also described in Halo Fall of Reach as they only melt away patches whilst the beam fired by that assault carrier punched straight through the cruiser with utermost ease exactly like an energy projecter does as described in Halo Fall of Reach as drilling straight through decks of UNSC ships. Only one problem, the projector in halo 2 was purple jeapordizing the possibility of it being a energy projector... -- User:Halo3 22:15, 12 December 2006

I agree with you that the weapon that destroyed the temple was not an energy projector, and was instead the gravity lift. But we HAVE seen it reverse itself. On the level Truth and Reconciliation, troops came DOWN the lift. All they did was make the TEMPLE go down the lift instead. Güéߣ¥-éҐøñ¥-ħîИg¥ 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


that's not reversing itself. that is just weakening the up pull so that it is less than gravity

They may have just sucked the temple into the ship? Also, they could have focused more aimed power into the gravity lift to cause a sort of weapon, say like a drilling beam. It also did look like it was being sucked up, it was pulling hte water up. --Honor Guard Reborn

I think the ship might have caused the gravity within the beam to increase causing the temple to crumble, but thats just my opinion.Doylej0131 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is other evidence to support the fact that it was a gravity lift being used as a weapon, instead of an actual weapon like an energy projector, or a pulse laser. For the obvious one, we do see it coming out of the center of the ship, where we had the gravlift in Halo 2. A second piece of evidence, you have to remember that this is a Halo installation. In Halo: The Flood, the minor prophet leading the fleet around Halo 05 was unwilling to even risk firing plasma torpedos or other weapons anywhere in the surrounding space of the ring. If they won't even fire on a human ship in orbit around the ring, why would they go down into the ring's atmosphere and destroy a temple with one?

Confusion[edit]

In the the characteristics section of the article it states that a Covenant destroyer is one third the length of a UNSC frigate, but shouldn't it be the other way around, since the UNSC frigate is around 500m and the Covenant destroyer is 1500m?

It is probably just a minor slip up. --Honor guard Reborn.

Sangheli Refit[edit]

Look at the HBO silhouette of the Assault Carrier of H2 and look at the side view of the Shadow Of Intent; notice how they have added a hangar right over the engine section of the carrier.--Councilor 'Rumilee 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Where the hell is it stated that there were 500 Assault Carriers at Delta Halo--Councilor 'Rumilee 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Ok Whoever keeps editing it back stop there is absolutely no evidence specifying that there were 500 Assault Carriers @ Delta Halo so plz stop its just annoying--Councilor 'Rumilee 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


As per the Board message I sent. SPARTAN-G156 COM Channel Past Battles My History 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a small bit out of the trivia on this page from this bullet point " *In Halo 2, Regret's carrier has visible structures on the surface above the engines. However, in Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST, these structures are not visible, but are rather obscured or replaced by what seems to be a second hangar bay. " due to the fact that regrets assault carrier is not seen in halo 3 but is seen in halo 3: odst SPARTAN-225 14:03 5th may 2011 (UTC)

Relation between types of Carrier[edit]

Dose anyone lese think that the hooked-head looks like it was bolted on to the top-bow of the rear section whithc could be a ship on its own?

What im saying is: could the assault carrier be a regular carrier wit the hooked-head attatched? both hangers are on the stern bit as are all the engines and the grav lift. perhaps the upgrade to assault carrier is just the adition of the head for more weaponry?Maiar 00:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely, the carrier model is seen in halo wars. The Ascendant Justice is said to have a hooked nose it would be implausible for the covenant to bolt new sections onto their ships. ProphetofTruth 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be implausible? anyone else care to input?

The head is where the bridge, the living quarters etc would be. Not weapons systems. Also, "Bolting it on" Would make the hull integrity amazingly weak around that area.

Honor guard reborn


I'm not exactly sure about the internal layout for an Assault Carrier, but I really doubt that the head was "bolted on". If it was, then it wouldn't have the consistency that it has - the Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Wars graphic novel, etc versions all look identical, indicating its an actual warship class. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek Honour Light Your Way! 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly possible, but it would be poor design as making a part separate always make it easier to break apart. Poor designs don't survive battles. And Assault Carriers certainly did. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 09:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More Images[edit]

Shouldn't there be more? For xample the engine chamber at the end of cairo station. Anyone willing to help?Greatleader 00:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be more, but I think the article is okay for now, unless others think otherwise, that the article does need more images. My chief concern for this right now is the introductory image, which I thought nowadays we usually go with the transparent renders normally present on other similar articles. I think the present intro image should removed from its present position and moved to the Gallery section of the article, and replace with this image, which is presently in the article's Gallery section, instead of where I think it should be put. I can do it, but I felt I should ask how others feel about this before I proceed. Does anyone agree or have any objections about this? --Xamikaze330 16:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Problem is, the proposed image is from Halo 2. Later games have introduced significant updates to the Assault Carrier design, such as a second pair of "wings" near the back. Note also that ODST, which takes place during Halo 2, also uses the updated Assault Carrier design. Personally, I like the current image. It gives a better sense of the ship's scale when it's placed against a background with other ships, and sometimes white background renders are a little hard on the eyes, since the image may not stand out against the white very well. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 17:12, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Isn't that introductory image also from Halo 2? And technically speaking, or should I say graphically speaking, the image I proposed looks no different from this image. And besides, I don't recall Halo 2 having Assault Carriers in any prominent scene, except maybe save for Solemn Penance, the Prophet of Regret's Assault Carrier flagship in New Mombasa. And then again there is Halo 3: ODST, which has better graphics than Halo 2. But in any case, if you think you can provide a better screenshot to be edited in Photoshop, then be my guest. I have no quarrel with you, or with anyone on Halopedia for that matter. Which of course goes without necessarily saying, or maybe it is. Regardless, my invitation stands. And if you and maybe a few others disagree, then the article shall stay the way it is. As I said, I was merely making a proposal, I wanted feedback, and I received feedback. Mission accomplished. At least people can still see the H2 Assault Carrier image. --Xamikaze330 19:10, 31 October 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Dimensions[edit]

This is just a point of curiosity. The page for the CCS-class battlecruiser has an image illustrating all dimensions of those vessels. The Assault Carrier length is known, but why are the width and height not known? Can the same modeling techniques applied to the CCS-class not be repeated here? Quakeomaniac 23:59, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Probably. It's more that noone has got around to it yet, than anything.--Zervziel 23:09, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I just measured its width by using top wiev image on this page. It is 1878 meters, and height (from side-wiev image) is 653 meters. Picard578 12:11, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

The Bridge?[edit]

thumb:

this isnt the bridge its a room in High charity! Alertfiend 12:21, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I've never seen this room on High Charity. And it looks very much like the room in which the Shipmaster, the Arbiter, MC, Miranda and Lord Hood were in when discussing whether or not to go through the Portal.--Zervziel 23:36, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


They werent even on the bridge when they were discussing whether or not to go through the Portal

plus the room has a big table thing in the middle plus theres no chair there so it cant be the bridge

and it is the skull room as it looks exactly the same but without all the flood biomass. Alertfiend 10:40, February 14, 2010

Got a pic of the Skull room you speak of? As for your reasoning, I must say it needs work. First you say they weren't even on the bridge in the cutscene and then you turn around and say the pic doesn't have the large table so it can't be the bridge. Which is it?--Zervziel 04:50, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


Both go play halo 3 on the Level cortana and look around the room second it doesn't have the large table in the middle so they werent on the bridge during the cutscene because look at the ending cutscene NO TABLE THING when Rtas is giving command to Thel unless they were in another room when they were giving commands and go look at the skull room it's on the wiki or just play halo 3 Alertfiend 02:19, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


OOOOOH come on Zerviel did you give up so easily come on i know you have more Alertfiend 04:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the place for this?--Zervziel 01:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


Sorry i get to much into this type of stuff (Punches self in face) Alertfiend 06:52, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is...weird. As it turns out, you're both kind of wrong. This room has already been discussed before. It is a room outside the standard level bsp of The Ark level. It is where the shipmaster and clan meetings occur in the cutscenes. Cutscenes are rendered in real time so it is neccessary to hide the architecture models in the level you're playing.
So yes, it's the bridge. The table and chair aren't there because they are rendered as scenery objects, things that only show up when they're called for in the programing (i.e. cutscenes only). Level bsp, on the other hand, is mostly constant. However, even though he worded it poorly and approached it with the absolutely wrong kind of attitude, Alertfiend is right when he says that the room is ALSO the skull room in High Charity. For whatever reasons, Bungie decided to save time and use the same room over again. Maybe they wouldn't think people would notice?--Nerfherder1428 10:34, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

i know that its in the ark level becuase i just watched a video showing it before i posted and i have checked it doesnt have the same background as cutscene Alertfiend 01:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


But what ever just a game Alertfiend 05:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Look Alertfiend, this discussion has been going on since H3 came out. I can assure you that it's the same room. I really don't want to go take comparison pictures and show you, but I think you should probably give some proof before you claim that established decisions are wrong. Also, going back to add "But what ever just a game" or "OOOOOH come on Zerviel did you give up so easily come on i know you have more" is not constructive to the discussion of this room. As you've been a member of this site for one year, it's disappointing to see you continue to make silly, irrational, and--more importantly--poorly worded edits.--Nerfherder1428 10:42, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


As i dont think i said I DONT CARE!!! I only play Halo or any other games when i have nothing to do. Most of the stuff are Trivia that i edit when people mispelt Master Chief or something like that. Plus i have been mad for the past two months and not thinking proberly plus please explain what about what you've read is irrational or Silly ? and dont take it like and angry Question Alertfiend 04:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)



OK OK I finally realize what you mean that its all the rooms so yeah we are wrong and right

so its these

  • Bridge
  • Skull Room
  • Cutscene Room


Sorry for the Really late thinking Alertfiend 04:16, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Cairo Station ending/The ark[edit]

There are a couple instances in these cutscenes that are completely retarded, and I'm curious if anyone can come up with a reason why they are as they are, because I don't understand it. The first part is where the Master Chief destroys an assault carrier. First, a couple of Longswords blew a big hole in the ship's hull in one attack, yet we know covenant ships can take MAC rounds without shields. On top of that, apparently the armor over the most critical part of the ship, the reactor compartment, is thinner than paper. Finally, the shipmaster of this vessel apparently was a complete moron, as the ship did not bother to fire a point defense laser at the Chief. Reasoning here: we know covenant vessels can blow archer missiles out of the sky in droves, and the chief and bomb are probably at least as large as one, I'm SURE the ship could detect him. Hood is just like "NOOO don't attack it with your ship keyes, let the chief do it, we all know the storyline means he can't die!" Similar situation at the ark. Apparently 4 pelicans can fly past a couple assault carriers (and 3 cruisers or so) and not a single one of them cared enough to pluck them out of the sky. If anyone can give a rational explanation to these situations, I would be very impressed, and grateful. I like Halo a lot, but things like this just bother me, a lot. My current theory is that there was a Bungie employee on each ship's bridge yelling at the shipmaster "NO!! HOLD FIRE! You will ruin the story!!!" I don't mean to sound like I'm hating on Halo, but I really want a way to make sense of this in a not retarded way. Quakeomaniac 20:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the Assault Carrier not taking the amount of damage that the novels say it should and it's not just in the Cairo Station cutscene. In Halo 3, a Floodpod/piece of High Charity crashes completely through the Shadow of Intent disabling it. That piece of rock/flood matter/whatever was moving nowhere near the speed of a MAC round and yet if what the novels say is true, it really should have stopped dead in the first layer of armor. Sadly since it's in the game, by Bungie's reasoning, it's more canon than the novels. True we could try to blow it off by saying Bungie are artists and not scientists and probably didn't realize they were contradicting the novels when they did that, but that just leads to more problems. As for the reason why MC wasn't targeted by the point-defense system, most likely he wasn't targeted due to being so small. Ever seen a missile? Not exactly tiny, and the Archer ship-to-ship missiles would probably have to be pretty big to hold enough fuel to cross the vast distances in space while tracking targets. In the battle above the Ark, the reason why the pelicans weren't shot down were most likely for two reasons: the first is pretty reasonable, if you were a Brute Shipmaster would you divert weapons or fighter to fight A) the small insignificant human ships you know you can kill at any time or B) the small fleet of capital ships piloted by the Sangheili, your most hated foe, who consider 3/1 odds against them a fair fight. The second reason is the ships were piloted by Brutes, a race not known for restraint or subtlety who didn't fully understand the nuances of ship-to-ship combat as seen in The Ghost of Onyx.--Zervziel 02:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
You seem to forget that the Assault Carrier seen at the end of Cairo Station level managed to survive the Orbital Defense line; the shields on the Assault Carrier might have been depleted and requires some time to be fully active again. This might explain why the Longswords were able to penetrate the Assault Carrier's hull easily.
Onwards to why the Assault Carrier did not target the Master Chief (assuming their Plasma-based weaponry locks on to heat signatures): the ship's targeting system requires to lock-on to the heat signature of a target. Because the battle occurs in space, the targeting system only locks on to a specific heat signature as not to confuse with other celestial bodies (i.e. comets). Also, Master Chief's heat signature in space is relatively small for a targeting system to lock on to; this explain why the Assault Carrier was able to destroy the Cruiser but unable to specifically target the incoming Longswords. This is similar to the present navy ships where the weapon systems aboard are locked to a specific element. It has nothing to do with the size. In space, heat is visible to all and everything emits a certain amount of heat.Sketchist 02:49, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Zervziel, I forgot to mention the part about the flood dispersal pod, I'm glad you did, because that made me really mad too. The ONLY reason its in the game at all is because otherwise the Intent would have just blown half the ark to hell and gone and game over, covenant and flood dead, lets go home. Exaggerated, but you get the idea. Master Chief is small yes, but consider this.... how far away do you think archer missiles are before they are targeted? Probably way way way farther than the Chief was. I believe it is more than reasonable to think the ship could detect him that close to it. As for the brute ships diverting weapons to blow up pelicans... the point defense system blowing up 4 dropships in the blink of an eye is hardly going to affect the ship's ability to fire plasma torpedoes or energy projectors at will. I also agree that Bungie is not in the least bit scientifically inclined, Halo has taught me this well. Mass Effect is the game to go to for that.

As for Ascension, your first sentence doesn't even make sense. The shield is down so the hull itself is weaker... how does that make sense? The ship's armor is not dependent on whether or not its shield is up. Also I don't mean to sound rude but I honestly have no idea what on earth you're talking about in the second paragraph. Quakeomaniac 07:50, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

He means that the shields were down, and didn't impede the lonswords on their way to detroying the ship. DarkbelowHGR CommbandD 07:57, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't make sense. My argument has nothing to do with shields at all, just forget that the ship has them. I'm saying its rediculous that two fighters have the firepower to blow a huge hole in the hull of one of the most powerful ships in the covenant navy. Not to mention, it was the armor around the reactor, the most critical part of the ship. If longswords can blow holes in covenant ships so easily, why on earth do UNSC cruisers have such a hard time? Quakeomaniac 23:09, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that reactor's armor is inside ship - for comparision, most WW2 battleships (save for Bismarcks) had armoured 'citadel' that was more armoured than any other part of ship. Citadel, however, protected only ship's vitals - ammunition magazines, engine rooms and similar areas which, if hit, could critically damage/destroy ship. (That's why Bismarck proved to be more difficult to sink than any other new battleship - it was protected all over.) Althought, it seems that PoW was sunk by lucky torpedo hit at propeller which made shaft 'jump out' and tear holes throught ship's hull and several bulkheads it passed throught. What I was trying to tell, it could be two reasons - 1) gameplay or 2) Covenant ships relied on shields for protecting hull and had vitals protected by inner armor, much like Iowa's inside armor belt. Picard345 16:29, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hanger bay doors??[edit]

The location confuses me, the pictures in the image section only confuse me more. I know where the hanger bay is (the lowerst section of the ship) but the actual entrance/exit eludes me. I think that there should be a better description, even a dedicated section to this. I'd do it myself, but like i said i dont know where it is (a conundrum) Maccabeuse 05:32, 31 January 2012 (EST)

I think you can only see it (the hangar bay doors) using only Pan Cam. Your character/avatar cannot "physically" go there himself, so it is only viewable using Pan Cam in Theater mode. Does that answer your question? --Xamikaze330 17:56, 31 January 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330

Unfortunately no. I've used pancam on heretic and i couldn't find any hanger doors. i assumed it was between the two prongs on the front.... it's not. the only problem is space. it needs to be big enough to launch loyalist scarabs or and 2 unsc frigates (Forward unto dawn and Aegis fate) and so far i've seen no space big enough. Maccabeuse 06:00, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Are you talking about finding the hangar bay in Halo 2 or Halo 3? I wouldn't know in Halo 2, but in Halo 3, you can almost see the hangar bay in Halo 3's cinematic cutscene, and you can see the second hangar bay here on what I assume is on top of the Assault Carrier or the Assault Carrier's engines as it says in the Trivia section, but it might be viewable using Pan Cam, the same way one might use it to find the Secret Room on the Ark. Unless you're referring to the Assault Carrier in Halo 3: ODST, then therein lies the problem. What else are you doing to try to view the supposed secondary hangar bay, and why do you want to know? Have you tried asking the uploader how he managed to get the screenshot? --Xamikaze330 18:21, 31 January 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330

i'm refering to the main hanger bay. i know exactly where the second one is (above the engines) it's the main one i can't find. and that link doenst tell me anything. i really have no idea where this thing is. and i wasnt using halo3 odst, i was using the halo 3 multiplayer disc that came with it ( if it makes a difference.) im having a hard time understanding, and im sure i'm not alone, the article doesnt exactly explain where this thing is (noones fault). i dont want to be a pain, but i want to understand where this thing is, and then adjust the article accordingly. --Maccabeuse 08:21, January 31 2012 (EST)

Seeing as no one could answer Maccabeus i'll ask again, I think that I get the jist of what he's saying, he's asking where the main hanger bay is, there are four doors on either side of it, but those don't look big enough for a scarab or a frigate. I have personally done the pan-cam glitch on heretic, and I can't find it either. I assumed that it was between the hook on the bow and the two prongs on the front of the main hull. I went there with pan cam and all there is there, are more prongs (I call them prongs because i don't know what else to call them.) at the end of the level, Tsavo Highway, the cutscene has a picture of an assault carrier, I will provide a link if this site has that picture. You can see the area between the two large prongs, in between the ship and the hook, and there is still no opening. There are multiple holes, or doors, or whatever you want to call them on the hull of the ship, but none of them look big enough for scarabs or frigates.

When was this in halo 4?[edit]

I do not recall seeing this ship in Halo 4 or Spartan Ops.—This unsigned comment was made by 67.204.247.138 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

One appears in the terminals being used as Jul 'Mdama's flagship.--Spartacus TalkContribs 00:45, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

CAS Assault Carrier being "ironically outmatched in arsenal" by the Infinity[edit]

Hi Everyone, you'll have to forgive me for as this is my first post on Halopedia, though I use this site quite a bit and post on quite a few forums.

I disagree with the statement specifying the CAS-class Assault Carrier is "is no match for the human vessel (Infinity) because it is ironically outmatched in arsenal" as in my opinion there's is absolutely no evidence that this is correct.

I'm aware that this statements comes straight from the Halo Visual guide however in both the games and books to date we have only seen the Infinity's guns fired in anger once, which in all honesty was lackluster to say the least. By comparison the Assault Carrier's primary armaments (energy projectors and plasma torpedo's) have been shown to consistently gut UNSC vessels in almost every engagement portrayed to date. This was even true during the recent issue of Escalation in which the Covenant energy projector or "glassing cannon" tore through Infinity's defenses and for all intents and purposes impaled the ship several times. Infinity's supposedly "superior" armaments proved completely useless unless I missed something.

As a additional note, the Infinity's MAC cannons are line of sight weapons while the Assault Carrier's energy projectors can fire in any direction. Put simply to hit its target the Infinity's prow needs to be lined up both horizontally and vertically with the Assault Carrier before it can fire. The Assault Carrier on the other hand can target the Infinity instantly no matter either ships angle of approach to the other. Even if the Infinity does "outmatch" the CAS in terms of arsenal, to say that the CAS is no match for the Infinity is wholly incorrect as the CAS-class Assault Carrier will always be able to strike the Infinity first, and from what we've seen in Escalation a single Covenant energy projector is enough to cripple the Infinity. Assault Carrier's are equipped with several of these along with both plasma torpedo's and pulse lasers.

I realize that I seem to be going against the official "cannon" however in my opinion the Essential Halo Visual guide is just that, a visual guide, not a technical specifications manual and as such it should not be treated as such.

As a final note, I'd like to make the point that despite their being both a CAS-class Assault Carrier and an Infinity-class warship present at the Second battle of Requiem, never once did either ship attempt to engage each other in a direct engagement. With hindsight we know that Jul' Mdama's intention was never to destroy the Infinity but to take prisoner certain members of its crew in order to gain access to the Librarian. A direct engagement which could lead to the death of the potential prisoners on board the Infinity would not therefore have been in his best interests. On the other hand if the Infinity's command crew were so confident that their ship was superior to the Jul's flagship Assault Carrier, why did they not seek to engage and destroy it in a direct engagement where it's supposedly superior armament would have provided it with a decisive advantage.

My opinion is that even the UNSC's command crew doubted the Infinity would be any match for a CAS-class Assault Carrier, which we know was superior to every class of warship the UNSC had in its arsenal only 6 years before.

What does everyone else think? —This unsigned comment was made by 86.168.150.80 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I think we'd be happy to have you as a member of the site. That was well reasoned and methodical, and I can only agree with all of your points. The Infinity may have more heavy weapons, but the Assault Carrier's sheer firepower and ability to adjust aim independently of the hull orientation and guide plasma give it distinct advantages that the Infinity does not. Catalog makes it clear that Assault Carriers are powerful enough that tracking even one, the Shadow of Intent, is a priority, with three Prowlers attached to stalk it - and probably quietly blown out of space in retaliation. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 20:38, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
If you're referring to Infinity's "lackluster to say the least" weapons against the Mantle's Approach, here's a to-scale comparison. Mantle's Approach is the big thing on the right. The Infinity is one of the small black splotches to the left of the tiny Forerunner Dreadnought in the red box.

http://halo.bungie.org/misc/sloftus_scalecomparison/1280h.html?display=HighCharity What would have made Infinity's weapons more impressive when a mosquito swats an aircraft carrier? I don't think we've really seen what Infinity can do against the Covenant, except maybe when it didn't so much as flinch when ramming and pulverizing the Covenant's most heavily armored cruisers. Just havin' some fun. No hard feelings :) I guess I feel the text in the visual guide still stands. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

- Thanks for your responses.

Regardless of the Mantle’s Approach’s size the fact remains that the Infinity’s primary ship to ship weapon succeeded in creating hole just large enough for a single UNSC broadsword to fit through which itself if only 20.2 metres in diameter, and to all intents and purposes it didn’t even seem to slow the Mantle’s approach down. The Master Chief detonating a nuke inside the Mantle’s Approach nerve centre destroyed this ship, not the Infinity’s MAC cannons.

You’ve raised a valid point regarding the scale of the Mantle’s Approach to the Infinity however in my opinion it’s irrelevant as even if the Mantle’s Approach was of equal scale to the Infinity, a 20 metre’s whole on a 5.4 kilometre long warship is still a scratch. (No offense intended)

In retrospect the Infinity vs Mantle’s Approach example isn’t a fair comparison until we’ve seen an Assault Carrier firing on the Mantle’s Approach with own energy projectors.

Even if we’re saying the Infinity does outgun an Assault Carrier, this doesn’t automatically mean the Assault Carrier is “no match” for the Infinity as battles aren’t decided by firepower alone. As Qura ‘Morhek has kindly pointed out the Infinity is still at a disadvantage in that it needs to manoeuvre itself into a position where its MAC cannons can target the Assault Carrier. The Assault Carrier is under no such limitations, its plasma torpedoes and energy projectors can strike at the Infinity from any direction.

This was proved during the battle of Ambush at Oth Lodon in “Escalation”. The Infinity never even had a chance to maneuver itself into a firing position before the station’s glassing cannon opened fire, and like it or not a single Covenant energy projector crippled the Infinity. It’s supposedly superior arsenal was of no use what so ever and I fail to see how the outcome would be any different if it was engaged by an Assault Carrier with fully functional energy projectors and plasma torpedoes. That’s as much cannon as a single statement in a visual guide.

As a final addition to this debate, I’d also like to point out that the Visual Guide was referencing Jul Mdama’s flagship when it said he was reluctant to it against the human vessel due to it being ironically outmatched in arsenal. We don’t know what state of repair the “Song of Retribution” was in, and considering Jul’s faction seems more akin to a militia then a state funded military it’s possible that his Assault Carrier’s energy projectors and plasma torpedo’s were offline, which would mean the Infinity’s outguns it.

My opinion is that we should remove the statement “This changed at the close of the first Human-Covenant War; although they are similar in size compared to the UNSC Infinity, the CAS is no match for the human vessel because it is ironically outmatched in arsenal” as this is still unsubstantiated theory in my opinion. As I said before the Visual Guide was making reference to one particular Assault Carrier, not the classification or warship in general. If the above statement should go anywhere it should go on the “Song of Retribution” page. (http://www.halopedia.org/Song_of_Retribution)

Again what’s everyone else’s thoughts?—This unsigned comment was made by 81.157.78.13 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

In the context of it referring to Jul's ship alone, I can see your reasoning. I'd be behind moving that reference from the assault carrier in general to the Song of Retribution's entry. The Visual Guide text certainly has wiggle room in that context. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

- Thanks for your responses everyone.

I've made the necessary adjustments to this page and relocated the Essential Visual Guide reference to the "Song of Retribution" page. Technically this page does not deny that the CAS is superior to the Infinity post 2553, though neither does it confirm it.

Qura 'Morhek, thanks for your response. I wasn't aware of the recent history regarding the "Shadow of Intent" though its very interesting that its weapons and armour have been improved especially as the Covenant are suppose to be imitative. (Thought I never believed they were incapable of innovation)

Number of energy projectors[edit]

Looking at the video from 1:36 to the other assault on camber there are at least 9 different energy projectors on the CAS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIWnxqf4O6Q

1. Center under the bow 2. Left of center of the bow 3. Right of center on the bow 4. On the right wing of the carrier closest to the hangar. 5. On the right wing of the carrier farthest from the hangar 6. On the left wing of the carrier closest to the hangar. 7. On the left wing of the carrier farthest from the hangar 8. On the dorsal fin that destroyed the marathon in Halo 2 9. Near the gravity lift. Councilor 'Rumilee (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Are you sure most of those aren't pulse lasers? Tuckerscreator(stalk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

I don't think so, they do one-shot that Marathon-class cruiser. +Pulse Lasers seem to always be in batteries as seen on the CCS, rather than as individual turrets.Councilor 'Rumilee (talk)

Only the top one-shots the Marathon, and it's confirmed a CAS has at least two projectors. But nine is overkill, considering they're basically the Covenant equivalent to the MAC gun.