Talk:Sh'wada-pattern supercarrier

This article was proposed to be merged with another Covenant Ship Classification


 * According to Rot at 23:15 6.12.06:


 * One page 236 of Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, you will note "The Unggoy Kwassass knew his pace aboard the Covenant supercarrier Sublime Transcendence." Above this, in the chapter data log, it says "ABOARD FLEET CARRIER SUBLIME TRANSCENDENCE, IN ORBIT ABOVE JOYOUS EXULTATION, SYSTEM SALIA". Thus, it can be concluded that not only is the supercarrier a Covenant warship, but it is also called the fleet carrier.
 * The Covenant Flagship may very well not be a Covenant ship classification, but rather an ambiguous term refering to a ship that commands a fleet.--Rotaretilbo 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I would like to question the length of the Supercarrier. Do we know if a Supercarrier is longer than an Assault Carrier (which is where I presume they get "longer than 5346 meters" as the length)? The Supercarrier may very well be shorter than the Assault Carrier.--Rotaretilbo 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Super carrier
It's possible that the ships with five bulbous sections that was 2 kilometers stem to stern was a super carrier. I'm not sure to whether write the article or not. I thought super carriers were the largest in the covenant fleet. It is still unconfirmed...

But it isn't confirmed, which is what matters.--Rot 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Rot. Unconfirmed. Cheers, -49 Proximal Secant  17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Already seen
Even though it is highly unlikely, I think it is possible we may have already seen the super carrier in halo 2. If you look carefully in the first cutscene of halo 2 a ship will pass under another ship. This ship appears to be much larger than the others. I'm not sure though.-- halo3
 * what? hmm...you mean the Assault Carrier passing underneath another ship? I'll see it again. Very possible, as High Charity was mentioned to be defendedby supercarriers. Cheers, 49 Proximal Secant[ oracle ][[Image:H3 Monitor.PNG|25px]] 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the assault carrier
I know it's hard to believe but look extremely carfully at the fleet surrounding high charity. If you look carefully enough you will notice a larger ship passing underneath a way smaller ship. This is very hard to believe but I think thats the super carrier. If you don't notice it and don't believe me thats fine ,but, if possible try and record the whole cutscene and please study it.--halo 3

As of Halo Reach, I'm pretty sure we can say the super carrier and the assault carrier are the same.--For the Swarm! 23:41, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Although if you look at them the section between the front and rear of the supercarrier is a different size to the assault carrier.

Better Pic
I think i've found an image that's better than the old one, but i didn't have the time to make it better fitting the area. --Shch &#39;Nodotee 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Change..
From Supercarrier to Fleet Carrier, who is with me? --Gzalzi 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Supercarrier is the ship's classification, Fleet Carrier is its designation. Example: Master Sergeant might be a person's rank while Platoon Sergeant is his designation. Master Sergeant says that the person is of the pay roll E-8 and that he has command over any under that, and Platoon Sergeant means that he is the highest ranking Sergeant in his platoon and thus has special duties. The ship is a Supercarrier, and it also preforms the duties of a Fleet Carrier for the fleet. Think of Fleet Carrier as a disambiguous term like Flagship.
 * --Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Flagship can go to any ship but it may be different for covenant though I doght it.Fleet carrier and super carrier is practically the same.Halo3 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

I think the title "super carrier" is fine just the way it is.After all "super carrier" is it's more common name.It may be possible that fleet carrier can refer to any covenant carrier leading a fleet but like I said "super carrier" should be the title as it is the ships more common name.Even the books Halo First Strike and Halo Ghost Of Onyx use the name "super carrier" more than "fleet carrier"Halo3 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

One question, what if assault carriers and super carriers are the same thing.I mean,we only see humans call a specific ship assault carrier.What if thats the human name and perspective of the ship.It could be possible that in the covenant perspective they call there own assault carriers super carriers.Halo3 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

Being dat a UNSC battle Cruiser is 8-19km this is prob the UNSC's answer 2 the Supercarrier which is most likely Over 10km and if the Battle cruiser is 19km then the Supercarrier is most likely closer 2 20 km but prob mor or less 12-15 km

The UNSC destroyed 1 and thats questionable at best.. The largest ship encountered by the covenant were Assault Characters. Reach was the first time they saw a ship over 3000m. The first they saw were prob at Unyielding Hierophant. I believe Supercarriers were likely used in the Covenants Defensive fleets. Like patrolling the outer sectors and defending High Charity.

Picture
It would be nice if someone could "dig up" a picture for this starship. I personally haven't found any so far. Is Fleet Carrier canon? It should remain supercarrier unless it is specifically called fleet carrier by someone in the books or games.

Super Carrier = Assault Carrier
The Assault Carriers are massive, and they seem to be the Prophet's ship of choice, could it be that they got the names mixed up, which is common between the novels and the games. I believe it was mentioned somewhere that the Assault Carriers were called Super Carriers in some of the game commentary. They are also often used as flagships and in Halo 3 we see the addition of another hangar bay in the back. So just a theory, but I think they could be the same thing since Bungie has not produced a full ship list themselves, and the only time the Super Carries have been mentioned in GoO, and Assault Carriers have never been mentioned in the novels. ProphetofTruth 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refer Here.- K A C 18:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

supercarrier in halo 2
could somone get me a pic of this alleged carrier I have a program that will let me zoom in on it


 * It was mentioned in the novels, not in the trilogy.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FINALLY a PICTURE
After receiving Halo Wars, I was amazed to see pictures of a few new warship classifications in the included graphic novel Genesis. Something that had been bothering me was the classification of the behemoth ship that attacked the Vostok, Arabia, and Hercules at the Third(?) Battle of Harvest. I hoped to be able to classify it and put the scan up as soon as possible but there was no name given to it. I figured that due to its immense size it would have to be one of the bigger ships, possibly a Reverence-class cruiser or supercarrier. FORTUNATELY, though the name is missing from the small story, what IS present is the ship's size. On a few frames were tactical screens of the battle taking place and on those screens were the absolute sizes of ships involved, one of which, was the ship in question. Using some nifty Loftus-esque calculations and with the size of nearby Marathon cruisers well known, I was able to determine that the ship's length was around 5703.4 meters. A length that could only classify it as one ship. A ship that matches the description anyways. Of course I'm talking about a Supercarrier. As such, I believe it is justifiable to add a picture and information to the article. Please contact me before deleting however, as I'd like to defend it if given the chance. Nerfherder1428 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PICTURE: .

I think it should be mentioned in the trivia section that there may be a supercarrier in Halo Wars: Genesis. I, for one, agree that it probably is such a vessel. Nonetheless, don't do this without getting a few more opinions and consulting an admin. --&quot;A government strong enough to give you everything you want...is strong enough to take everything you have.&quot; -Thomas Jefferson 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly how to approach it. As much as I hate to admit it, I'm still new to the process. Thanks for the advice at any rate. The other vessels on the tac screen that I used to make my calculations were all in scale with each other and I believe it was right to assume the Covenant vessel in question would be to scale as well. Therefore, the question probably isn't whether or not the length is correct, but more like whether there is any yet-to-be-mentioned Covenant ship bigger than the Assault Carrier. As only the Supercarrier is currently known to be longer than that size, I thought it was fitting to add the pics and info. Obviously, I understand that this is a gray area that needs to be visited by some admins before a decision is made, and by no means am I going to fight this thing to the ends of the earth. I just hoped to give life to a stub of an article. I'm wondering if maybe an article should be created for the unnamed ship instead? Likewise, what should be done with the 8 unknown ships (4 Covenant, 4 UNSC) also seen in the graphic novel? I have them on my computer and had hoped to use the same method to discover their sizes as well. I'd like to see how this article works out first though before I start getting a reputation for rampant speculation. :D --Nerfherder1428 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an actual pic of a SuperCarrier, but in the article it claims the Supercarrier is 5,354 m, and who would put such an exact number without a sufficient source? However, seeing as Supercarrier is the largest Covenant ship classification, I don't see what else the above picture could be. -Joseph-G111 01:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

different size
Halo Evolutions stated a different size. 3 km if I rember correct. (mentioned in Coles story) Check it and if it is true change it please.

Yep. Halo Evolutions: The Impossible Life and Possible Death of Preston J. Cole, page 463:

"Two kilometers long, one wide," Cole said. "Energy readings off scale."

http://halopedian.com/Covenant_Battleship Sounds more like its a Covenant Battleship (2 km), and the artist decided to take a little freedom with scale. Someone care to sort this out?

fits the battleship description, a dozen energy projectors means it could cut through 13 ships without having to fire plasma torpedos, also it has the 5 bulb sections, front, sides, behind the prow, then middle and then the back. ProphetofTruth 22:42, January 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is true; I believe we'll soon have to shift the pictures somewhere else. Can we agree on the Covenant Battleship designation then?--Nerfherder1428 13:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read the page and I agree.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 13:21, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Assault Carrier
In Halo: Reach, a ship that's clearly a Covenant Assault Carrier is consistenly called a Supercarrier.Mutoid Chief 21:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I second that, even if that ship was beastly huge compared to past incarnations.--For the Swarm! 23:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

It may look the same, but the size difference means it isn't an assault carrier. Some patrol boats look like destroyers these days, that doesn't make them the same. DarkbelowHGR  CommbandD  03:47, September 15, 2010 (UTC)'


 * Is there that big of a size difference? Looks the same size as the old Assault Carrier to me. Beyond that, the only difference between the Supercarrier and the Assault Carrier in the Halo Encyclopedia is about 6 meters. That seems insignificant enough for them be both classified as the same ship, with Assault Carrier or Super Carrier being used to describe their role. Ex: Shadow of Intent and Regret's ships were leading full assaults, and the Super Carrier in Reach was a preliminary attack ship that was carrying a large number of forces under the radar (or as under the radar as you can get using a Super-carrier)to attack Reach's surface to soften it up for the main force, but it wasn't leading an assault fleet.

If the only notable differences are that minor, then really, these should both fall under Assault Carrier. The Supercarrier apparently is merely built on a slightly larger chassis, but otherwise is visually the same and functionally the same. Really not enough to justify a separate article if this is in fact the case.Fire Eater 03:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest we put this to a vote. VARGR 21:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose such merge. Multiple sources agreed that supercarrier and the assault carrier are two different ships. Although they may look similar in appearances, their role is different.-  5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 21:16, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also the possibility that "supercarrier" is also used to refer to any large carrier, like how "carrier" is used to refer to any class in general.--  Fore  run  ner  21:22, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

One thing I should mention was while, I was playing was that the super carrier seems to have more of a reddish tint to it than the assault carriers. May have just been lighting, but I felt I should mention it.--For the Swarm! 21:30, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree this thing looks massive in size when the corvette passed under it
 * much bigger than the Forward unto Dawn looked when it passed by the shadow of intent.
 * Forgot to sign the above comment but i also should mention that we don't even know if a assault carrier can cloak like this supercarrier can
 * until we find out if they can i think this should be a separate page.Admiralmorris 21:30, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm opposing as well, mostly for the reasons Subtank and Forerunner brought up, while appearing similar, essentially they are different. Colonel Grade One.png Col.  Snipes  4  50 Colonel Grade One.png 22:31, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to this assessment.

Arguments for:
 * It looks just like an Assault Carrier.
 * Much of the literature made it sound like an Assault Carrier.
 * It serves much of the same kind of purpose in battle.

Arguments against:
 * The name's different.
 * It's 6 meters bigger.
 * Assault Carriers may or may not have cloaking.

This is sounding a whole lot like the previous argument about whether the Halo Wars Mark IV was really the canonical default armor, or just artistic license. Something like cloaking is easy to reconcile, we simply never saw them use it. The name is not a hard leap, that is after all a UNSC designation, which could have changed easily later, after they got more familiar with that particular ship's usage. One half of a compound word is hardly a barrier, and seeing as the two look exactly the same, the burden of proof rests on the extraodinary claim in these cases, which is proving that it's different when it looks, acts, and does exactly the same as the two. If there's sources arguing against this, then yes, they are different. Otherwise, the unfounded claim is in their differences, not their similarity. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 23:49, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think they might do two different things like an assault carrier as it would sound gets right into the action leading the charge in battle

while a supercarrier could drop of hundreds of seraphs and dropships to the surface and might be less of a non-combat ship save for a couple turrets and their escorts01:41, September 19, 2010 (UTC)Admiralmorris

I agree. They are technically the same.

Calipari 17:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the suggestion; if it were an assault carrier, they would refer to it as such. For instance, Buck referred to an assault carrier as an "assault carrier" in ODST, so it is clear that the UNSC understand that there is a difference. Therefore, although of similar appearance, the two are not the same. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  17:22, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Assault carriers are called assault carriers. Supercarriers are called supercarriers. If these merge we might as well merge Halcyon and Marathon class cruisers. Definite oppose. Z 17:24, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * With Buck it was a later time period, and like I said, the designation may have changed after humanity got more familiar with its use. And as for the Halcyon and Marathons, we KNOW those are two different ships, having different classfications, and one being an upgrade and all. The burden of proving that they are different and the name is almost a nickname anyway! Names are never definate, unless they are a classification, and here "Supercarrier" is consistently used in the manner of a nickname, as the official designation (e.i. Type-?? or whatever they use for it) had never been stated instead. What's needed is a passage, perhaps from one of the books or something, where the two are seen simultaneously, or at least both mentioned and referred to by different names. If that's so then they are seperate. If not, it could easily be a name change. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 17:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Emphasis on "could be a name change". I definitely oppose the proposal; It looks like an Assault carrier, sure, but its weapon systems, shielding, complement, etc. could be considerably different. Until we have direct proof saying they're the same, they should stay separate. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 17:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well since we have a ship that looks the exact same as an already known type of vessel, you need to do the proving. So far we know, the Assault Carrier and the "super carrier" are similar in size, at least one of their weapon systems shares a similar mounting. That's visual proof right there. If you want us to believe they are different and the merge should not be done you need to prove it.--For the Swarm! 23:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you put that way... Sure then, let's keep it, though I doubt people are going to stop asking for it in the coming future. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 17:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * A "later time period"? The supercarrier is seen and identified as such in Tip of the Spear and Long Night of Solace, which take place on August 12th and August 13th, respectively. Assault carriers are identified as assault carriers in the levels Cairo Station and Coastal Highway, which take place on October 20th and October 21st, respectively. I sincerely doubt that the UNSC would reclassify the supercarrier as the assault carrier over the course of three months. --&quot;Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.&quot; -Thomas Jefferson 17:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, yeah, because the UNSC reorganizing the names of the ship types of the enemy fleet so they aren't stuck with simple nicknames when naval officers look for information of a certain ship is so unreasonable. Seriously? It can easily be a retcon. Hell, Halsey knew of the Forerunner long before anyone else. the UNSC renaming a ship to a moniker that describes it's role in the enemy fleet better than simply slapping Super in front of carrier to describe an entire class of ships.--For the Swarm! 23:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since this apparently won't die. How about this, we know that in most cases the UNSC follows conventions set by the US military in the present day. And in current Naval terminology, Assault Carriers and Supercarriers are vastly different ships, one referring to a Marine carrier used to get right up to the front lines and the other referring to massive Navy carriers with a shitload of planes. Z 00:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, with the US Navy, but here the two don't seem to be "vastly different." They're practically the same size, the same shape, the same weapons, the same crew, the same role, etc. Like I said, the burden of proof lies in the extraordinary claim, and here it is the claim that they are different, when they act virtually exactly the same. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 02:25, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. All we have is a term that in today's naval terminology is an unofficial descriptor for those ships.--For the Swarm! 02:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the term "Assault Carrier" (seeing as it's more descriptive than "supercarrier") was only used later in the war, when the UNSC had more familiarity with the ship class and knew what the Covenant referred to it as. NOBLE team may have just called it a supercarrier because they just knew it was a carrier, and it was... well, super-sized. SPARTAN-347 00:24, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhh you do realize the difference between Reach and Halo 3 is a few months right? Very little time has passed between Noble saying Supercarrier and Assault Carriers appearing in Halo 2/3. Besides, look in the Halo Encyclopedia. Both are listed. Separately. Win. Z 01:17, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Halo Encyclopedia is questionable. It lists there to be 2 Battles of Earth, but ODST has since revealed to be one long battle, despite ODST being released earlier. Also, observe that 3 months was enough time for the Covenant to make a phase station for themselves to make the switch from Spirit dropships to Phantoms. Likewise, it's also plenty of time for the UNSC to change the nickname. The exxtra-ordinary claim without proof is proving that they are different, we have concrete proof of its appearance, prove how despite it they could be different. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 01:24, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * The name "Supercarrier" is used in the books as well, and in a context where it's clearly not a human nickname. That, and I think the supercarrier seems to be a lot larger than an assault carrier; just look at how small the corvette looks next to it. And the corvette itself is nearly twice the length of a UNSC frigate. To me, the Forward Unto Dawn in the opening cinematic of The Ark looks bigger than the Ardent Prayer when next to the carrier, which would mean the supercarrier is a lot larger. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus  (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 07:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a merger these are clearly different ships because of the large size discrepancy, The fact that the two have been referenced in the books of being different ships also as Jugus said there is a major size discrepancy far more than the 6 meters. Your Main argument for merging the two articles is a similarity of basic looks which isn't enough to support a merge. Should we merge all the Carrier class Covenant ships Because they have they totally are the same thing? The Covenant always have had numerous types of carriers other than the Assault Carrier. Have you considered that the similar appearance might be because they are the same class of ships? don't suggest merging until yo get your facts straight.(A Super Carrier can carry vastly more troops than an Assault Carrier based on size so there roles are not the same any way.Dragrath1 21:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Anybody proposing a merge on the basis of "they look similar" needs to stop and think about how stupid they sound. We have official sources saying they are two separate types and yet you insist they are the same because of appearance? So MJOLNIR Black is the same as MJOLNIR Mk VI because they look similar? Or a plasma pistol and a sentinel constructor are the same because they look similar? Sources > Appearance people. Cmon now. Edit: Also, Spirits and Phantoms are used concurrently, your point is invalid. Z 16:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * "We have official sources saying they are two separate types." Because the Halo Encyclopedia is sooo reliable. If it wasn't for the size, the difference between an Assault Carrier and a Super Carrier would be the same difference between Clark Kent and Superman, ie they look the exact same with one being more super than the other.....Bungie, make it to where the Ac's wear glasses. This entire argument could've been prevented if Bungie didn't decide to cut corners and use the exact same model for the Super Carrier. By the way, telling people that they look stupid because they think a merge between the SC and the AC is necessary because they look the exact same, citing the books which have been over-ridden in the past, needs to do a quick logic check. Quick reminder, game canon>book canon.--For the Swarm! 19:34, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. They would not have two different names for the same classification of Covenant ship, anyway, Supercarriers are roughly three times the size of an Assault Carrier. Oppose. --Kluutak 13:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is sound except that book canon > speculation. Z 15:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The Corvette in Reach is tiny compared to the Supercarrier,way smaller than the Forward unto Dawn (a Frigate) looks compared to the Assault Carrier Shadow of Intent in Halo 3. Corvette>Frigate. Despite the Halo Encyclopedia saying so, there's no way that the size difference is a matter of 6 meters. Unless someone provide a reasonable explanation for this, I oppose a merge. -Joseph-G111 01:52, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

It could just be that the Assault carrier got redesigned to be larger for Reach, like a bunch of other vehicles were. The banshee from Halo 1 is different in size and shape from the one in Reach, but it's accepted that they're the same vehicle. Likewise, maybe the Assault Carrier just got an update in terms of size. SPARTAN-347 02:07, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, Covenant Corvette might be of similar size or smaller than UNSC frigatte, althought I didn't research topic and I don't remember seeing Frigatte anywhere from where I could compare it to Reach corvette. But Assault Carrier and Supercarrier are definetly same ship type, of same size. Look at these pictures:

http://www.halopedian.com/images/3/31/Supercarrier_underside.jpg http://www.halopedian.com/images/9/9a/Assault-Carrier-Side_upload.jpg If you count windows in aft section of prow (just under neck-prow joint), you will notice there are 5 rows of windows in both SC nd AC. So unless Supercarrier is crewed entirely by giants (or Forerunner; or maybe very large Hunters) both Assault Carrier and Supercarrier are of same size. Picard578 09:59, 3 March 2011 (EST)

differences between supercarrier us and assault carrier use
Id suggest that differences in usages between this and the assault carrier be added. ie assault carriers being used in frontlines and getting very close to ground combat whilst still being a carrier, whereas the super carrier appears to stay away from direct combat and is used as a tanker for refueling smaller ships. Basing all my evidence on the games just here mind. VARGR 18:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, it was being used as an invasion platform, how is that not frontline work? Also blasting the Grafton wasn't direct combat? You're gonna need more solid evidence than that to justify them being separate machines.--For the Swarm! 22:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

it only attacked the grafton when it was decovered and later withdrew from the surface. I'm not trying to write 100%here. Thats why this is on the talk page. Just saying that if it going to be considered a separate ship to the assault carrier any spotted differences between them should be pointed out. VARGR 23:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

about cloak...
wasn't it cloaked by the spire? the article says othwerwise


 * Pretty sure it was according to the dialogue in the game. --For the Swarm! 19:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I belive they said in game that the spires were only a teliportation divice with shields to protect itself I don't think the spire cloaked the ship If I remember the AI said the Spire was teleporting troops from an unknown location(was the Super Carrier) The Carrier only uncloaked to destroy a UNSC shipDragrath1 20:45, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dragrath, it does both the Cloaking and the Teleportation. Missing Mandible 21:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what about the other Spires in the distance? After all I find it strange that that one spire's destrouction was the cause of the uncloaking becuse I was pretty sure the Super Carrier was cloaked untill the Energy projector fired but I might be wrong. where in the cutscene did it say that was the reason becuse if they said it then I missed itDragrath1 23:03, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was right before Jorge and Noble 6's Falcon passed through the shields. Auntie dot sated it, can't exacty remember word for word.

Besides, that ship is enormous. It would most likely require more than one Spire to keep it cloaked. Missing Mandible 03:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

That's wasn't only 5 Kilometers...
Is it just me, or does it appear far larger than a normal Assault Carrier in Reach? I mean, seriously, it's frontal area went as far as the eye could see, and we were only underneath the middle area! Missing Mandible 02:46, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Corvettes are like 800m long and it looked less than 1/6 of the Carrier.--Councilor &#39;Rumilee 01:46, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comparison
Yes I know my "copy and paste" jobs are really bad but here is a side by side comparison. To me it looks like the front of the "Super carrier" is more bulbous and the open gap of space twoards the front is wider. Also the body of the Assualt carrier is longer compared to the stub of a body that the super carier seems to have. Remember the Grafton!!! 03:53, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's hardly a difference. Assault Carriers in Halo 2 have a smaller hangar than Assault Carriers from Halo 3, as well as more uncovered sections, and yet they're both considered to be Assault Carriers. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 06:02, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Appearance
According to the image to the above (In another section), the Supercarrier in Halo: Reach looks nothing like the Supercarrier in this image and Halo Wars: Genesis. In fact, the one in Halo: Reach is an almost striking resemblence to the Assault Carrier. I do find it likely it may be an oversight by Bungie but its possibly that there are types. Have a good day.

<span style="background-color:White; color:Blue; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> SPARTAN-A110  <span style="background-color:silver; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">  talk    contribs  <span style="background-color:silver; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">  guestbook   05:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall there being a Supercarrier in Halo Wars Genesis. I remember there being a Battleship.--For the Swarm! 13:44, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I do think even if it were a supercarrier in genesis, Bungie Supercarrier trumps genesis supercarrier... DarkbelowHGR  CommbandD  14:17, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Size
Bry, over at HBO, measured the supercarrier's size in Halo: Reach using in-game assets and came up with a size drastically different from what we have on the page. If we assume the in-game model is the correct, canonical size, the ship is no less than about 27 kilometers long. The question is, should we rely on the Encyclopedia, which we know is full of errors and content that's obviously lifted from Halopedia, or the game? At the very least, this should prove that the supercarrier and assault carrier are two different classes even if the in-game size isn't 100% accurate. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 15:50, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no comparison between the two except in shape. Here is an image comparing the two. Bottom pic shows the size difference. I think the whole AC/SC debate can be laid to rest. Metalingus627 17:07, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say take those comparisons with a grain of salt. If we want a good solid confirmation someone just e-mail Frank Connor. Using in-game evidence only gets us so far. For example the size discrepancy with the Ark Portal on Earth.--For the Swarm! 17:53, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wtf Bungie, you used the same model as the assault carrier just 10 time bigger to make a supercarrier.... I'm disapointed :/ Cyphius 17:19, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whew. It is no longer debatable whether they're two different vessels. They are not the same class, regardless of their nearly identical superficial appearance, so I suppose we can remove the merge template. On another note, we now know that the gargantuan "assault carrier" from Origins Part II is actually a supercarrier. Since said ship is quite possibly the Seeker of Truth, is it safe to say the Seeker of Truth is a supercarrier? --&quot;Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.&quot; -Thomas Jefferson 18:30, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * We still can't know for sure if the Supercarrier in Halo: Reach wasn't just an Assault Carrier - it may have just been re-designed to be larger than previous versions, just like various other vehicles were redesigned for the game. SPARTAN-347 20:54, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * We still can't know for sure if the Supercarrier in Halo: Reach wasn't just an Assault Carrier - it may have just been re-designed to be larger than previous versions, just like various other vehicles were redesigned for the game. SPARTAN-347 20:54, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but would they make it like 4x bigger? No
 * Perhaps we can not be totally sure, but the same could be said for many things related to Halo. Given how the ship is apparently radically larger and that the game itself and Bungie have only referred to it as a Super Carrier and not as an Assault Carrier, there seems to be little basis for such a claim. Possible, but unlikely.
 * Additionally, when the Covenant fleet jumps in soon after the Super Carrier is destroyed, we see a number CCS-class Battle Cruisers and Assault Carriers, the scale of which seems to be consistent with their earlier appearances alongside each other such as in Halo 3.
 * Additionally, when the Covenant fleet jumps in soon after the Super Carrier is destroyed, we see a number CCS-class Battle Cruisers and Assault Carriers, the scale of which seems to be consistent with their earlier appearances alongside each other such as in Halo 3.


 * Actually, if anyone could get a good still of the AC's from the fleet that jumped in After LNoS's demise, that'd help. The reason I say that is I think I saw something on the bow's of those ships that the LNoS lacked entirely. And I do admit those ships were closer to the AC's original size. Also if Bry's estimation of the SC's size to be 27 kilometers holds true then I need to inform a friend of mine, who just from looking at the ship at the end of Tip of the Spear, estimated it's size to be 30 kilometers. Though I do have to ask, what is the point of having something like a Supercarrier and a station like Unyielding Hierophant.--For the Swarm! 00:33, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that using the in-game assets and my methods to measure the Super Carrier should be taken with a grain of salt, however, its worth keeping in mind that many of the sizes stated as fact in the Halo community were obtained by Stephen Loftus by measuring the game source files. For the most part, and with only a few exceptions, usually scenery related, the games have been our most accurate standard for such things. BrySkye 23:52, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that thing's beastly huge! If the two really are that far apart, then they HAVE to be two separate classes, no doubt about it. Though I'm still a little unsure. Is there any pic that shows the Supercarrier in comparison to the Covenant Corvette? We know that Corvettes are about 3 times the size of Frigates, and Frigates are tiny compared to Assault Carriers, so seeing the comparison would be good. *Prepares his eyes for the absolute horror of the Supercarrier's beastly size* Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 16:36, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Shadow of Intent seemed massive in Halo 3, as did Regret's ship (On the level Delta Halo the mere shadow of it seems to nearly eclipse the sun.) So that thing must be the size of a small island. --Kluutak 13:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we treat non-canon information as canon? Just because you can compare the sizes of ships in game and use that calculate their dimensions does in no way, shape, form, or quantum state make it canon. Isn't this built around a principle of treating only Bungie/343-approved information as if it were fact? C'mon, this is just a random nobody out of the six billion other nobodies on Earth! If you treat his wild speculations, which are based on an unsupported hypothesis that everything in video games is to perfect scale, then the entire idea of "canon" gets thrown out the window, hit by a semi truck, and lands in a bonfire!

On another note, I highly doubt that the Covenant have the ability to build not just one, but an entire group of these monsters. Do the words "colossal waste of resources" come to mind? As far as we (Halopedia) know, the Unyielding Hierophant was thirty kilometers long, but who would build something like that when you could just use a few existing warships to do that, with many times more firepower?.

 Quantum  Artificial    Intelligence  04:11, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * As strange as it may seem, Halo: The Essential Visual Guide confirms the size as canon. Furthermore, most previous in-game ship sizes (as calculated from in-game geometry by Stephen Loftus, who also assisted 343i with the canon issues in the Visual Guide) have been confirmed as canon. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 04:17, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Scale in Reach.
I was playing through campaign again and had just beaten PoA, when I noticed something pretty weird. The CCS cruiser on the ground was freaking enormous compared to the scrapped cruiser and frigates. The scale is way off. The SC maybe just be a regular Assault Carrier whose size maybe be distorted by Reach's new scaling system. Play through the last part if ya don't believe me.--For the Swarm! 20:21, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say I particularly agree with your assessment, but perhaps I'm going to be a tad bit biased having put quite so much time and effort into coming up with the approximate measurement in the first place, lol. The CCS Battlecruisers aren't exactly small. Instead try and remember them flying around New Alexandria, as well as when one overflies you in Halo 3. I find the one at the end of PoA fairly consistent with this and in relation to the Pillar of Autumn itself. And you wanted a pic showing the Assault Carriers and CCS Battlecruisers jumping in. I actually think the Super Carrier itself is a different colour compared to the Assault Carriers and its not just the distance and green haze effect, because the Assault Carriers that jump in have a somewhat different tone of colour, more like they are in Halo 3. They don't fill the screen, yet they are plainly much closer than the Super Carrier was, otherwise the visual effects would also apply to them and the CCS Battlecruisers giving them that green/maroon appearance. The final thing would be just to remember how large the Super Carrier was in Tip of the Spear. Bungie also made a point of talking about how large it was in the commentary, being one of the largest single models they've ever made.BrySkye 22:53, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pic. And thankfully you got a good view of what I was talking about. The SC doesn't have that big black section on it's bow.--For the Swarm! 20:09, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Check out this pic. CCS cruisers are indeed larger than Halcyon cruisers. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 01:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

When the Super carrier, aka Long Night of Solace, is crashed on reach, you can see the aft section resting up against a mountain. now if the ship really is 27km long, and completely different from the assault carrier, That would make the mountain it's leaning against at least 45,000 feet if not more, something I find unlikely. if the so called "super carrier" were just an assault carrier, that would make the mountain a much more reasonable size of around 15,000 feet.All_Under_Heaven


 * Olympus Mons, on Mars, is 21 kilometers at its peak, or 13 miles, about 70,000 feet. That's just the tallest mountain in our solar system - why is it not possible that Reach could have an entire mountain range that puts Olympus Mons and other solar system geographical features to shame? --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   22:29, 12 December 2010 (EST)

Still very doubtful of this ship's scale, but I did some very rough guestimations that would seem to lend credit to its size compared to a typical assault carrier. As seen in this image of the carrier from the ending cutscene of Long Night of Solace, we can see the slipspace flash from the corvette in the very center of the ship: A supercarrier, according to those specs given is 27,000 feet approximately; for comparisons, a corvette is at least twice the length of a UNSC Frigate, which is roughly 1600 ft in length, bringing a corvette to 3200 feet, give or take. A CSS-class battlecruiser in comparison is typically 5800 Ft, and is more easily comparable to a typical assault carrier which is 17,500 ft, approximately. If the image and scale are accurate, then Long Night of Solace dominates all three of these vessels, as a CCS-class vessel by most visual comparisons is roughly a third the size of an assault carrier:,. If the corvette is that small in comparison to a supercarrier in the first image posted, then a CCS and even the assault carrier are not even gonna come close to comparing with the size of this thing, so working with what we got, I suppose the supercarrier, despite basically being a clone of the assault carrier is in fact the behemoth vessel it is stated to be.

It is still baffling as to why the design couldn't have been more original. Could have saved us much debate and confusion if they simply hadn't used the chassis of a known ship class to fill the role of a vessel that ought to have been something totally different. While the specs seem I guess more or less accurate, there's no question the lack of visual variation in design created a lot of unnecessary confusion.262VigilantGuardian 15:33, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Classification
Considering the size disparities Reach has brought up, I thought some clarification would be in order. We now have three different sized Covenant supercarriers in different sources: 5,354 m in the Encyclopedia, ~27 km in Reach, and most recently, the reissue of The Flood reveals the 3 km-long Ascendant Justice to be a Supercarrier as well.

Now, one might assume they might've done some retconning there and there, and that might be true. I do, however, have a possible explanation. Specifically, we should pay attention to who is referring to the ship in question. In Halo: Reach, we only hear the UNSC refer to the ship as a "supercarrier", while in the new edition of The Flood, the Ascendant Justice is referred to as a supercarrier in a Covenant communique. Given how little the UNSC knew of the Covenant up until the last weeks of the war, it would only be logical if each side used their own classifications for each other's ships.

Still, if the size given in the Encyclopedia is still valid, we would have two different ship classes the Covenant call "supercarrier", and three, if they also use the name for the ship seen in Reach. That's always a possibility, but something we have no evidence of. While "supercarrier" seems to be quite specific as a warship class, it wouldn't be far-fetched if an interstellar hegemony as large as the Covenant had at least two, or even three sub-classes of supercarrier.

All of this is, of course, problematic for us. We're not sure if the supercarrier in Reach is called that by the Covenant, but because we have no other name, we should obviously keep it on this page. Even so, I think it should be mentioned on the page that "supercarrier" has been used to refer to three ships of different size. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (EDT)


 * It would most certainly be better. I would suggest not only adding the info in the article, but also in the infobox... for those who loves skimming through articles.152.71.185.174 13:35, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

The Article's Picture
How, exactly, was it taken? Missing Mandible 18:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)