Technology, more details? The column on the page's right has a good list of what the ship has, but I think it requires a detail description on the page nonetheless. The column is OK if you're looking for a short list, but a more exhaustive listing needs to be done imho. So under technology (or else), we could need (at least) the various elements:

* Power generation

Description of the power sources (fuel, total energy capacity, power output) and how energy is channeled throughout the ship.

* Sublight engines

Thruster technology used by a 304 to move through space. We need a max acceleration, and eventually how long it can keep going on.

* Hyperdrive

Hyperdrive system, top speed. Eventually we would check out special parameters like travelling in the void between galaxies, cruise speed, maxed out but temporary hyperdrive speed, all in factors of c. Explain where the hyperdrives are, how many, etc.

Well if ti helps fell free to write it into something more comprehensive: Pegasus irrelgular galaxy is 3 million lightyears away from Milky way. 18 days for Deadalus without ZPM. that means: !!!!just under 2 lightyears per second!!! at max speed. With ZPM it´s about 8 lightyears per second. Still no match for actual Asgard ship which managed 4 million ly under two hours.

* Weapons

Type of weapons, where they are placed, what they use (projectiles, missiles, nukes, beams, etc.). We above all need to know when certain weapons have been added, updated or used.

* Defences

How shields work (globally), do they use their own precharged capacitor, can they be directly plugged to another power source (obviously es, like a ZPM), how much can they take in normal conditions. In a similar way, we have to keep an eye on those updates boosted McKay did on the shields in Tao.

* Superstructure

Here's the part about the structure of the ship, what it's made of. We know it's an alloy of naqahdah and trinium, trinium which itself is 100 times stronger than steel, yet not terribly heavy. Although this is already listed, I think more details could be needed. Is there anything like a structural integrity field of some kind (a sort of artificial field that reinforces the structure's strenght) for example? Have we seen weaker sections? Are parts of the ship with a different composition or structure?

* Sensors

Passive, active, position, number of arrays, how they are operated, their ranges and limits. All this could be there.

* Other special systems

The Asgard transporation node tech, used to beam stuff and people around. It is likely working with a network of nodes, as it was shown in the diagram of a Biliskner (each node had a blind cone, remember Teal'c had to drift away from the Biliskner's reactor), though each node can work on its own. I mean, sure, there's a link to Asgard transporters, but I think those of 304 should be detailed there, on the 304 page, and put a link to "Asgard transporters onboard a 304" on the general Asgart transporter page, right?

Mister Oragahn 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I understand what Intergalactic means (able to traverse from one galaxy to another), but what exactly does "Extragalactic" mean? -- Matthew R Dunn 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Extragalactic means outside the Milky Way system. Intergalactic means between or among galaxies. They're similar, but I would use intergalactic instead as it means inside the Milky Way, as well as outside.—Anubis 10545 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • well doesn't interstellar mean inside the galaxy and intergalactic means from galaxy to galaxy. so i'd say intergalactic and extragalactic r the same—SupremeCommander 02:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Interstellar means between Stars, intergalactic means between galaxies. Goa'uld hyperdrives and Wraith hyperdrives are interstellar, which is why they can't get to the Milky Way without ZPMs or the knowledge of how to upgrade them to intergalactic... as shown in Allies.—Anubis 10545 08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Intergalactic means to travel between galaxies, while Extragalactic refers to objects or people traveling towards this galaxy from another. N.A 12:11. 09 April 2009
This ship is capable of intergalactic travel. & The object is extragalactic in origin.

Reason each ship seems to be on show

I've noticed a trend with the appearence of a new ship on the show: it appears to be to deal with a specific threat and only the ship brought in for that threat appears in the episodes with a couple of exceptions: Prometheus: Goa'uld. Daedalus: Wraith, Odyssey: Ori, Korelev: appeasing the Russians, Apollo: Asurans, Phoenix: Michael. The Prometheus only appeared in a few Ori episodes before being destroyed, the Daedalus DID appear in Be All My Sins Remembered, but that was an exceptional circumstance, the Odyssey only appeared in Ori episodes although it DID destroy a Hive Ship, the Apollo has only appeared in Asuran episodes and hasn't appeared since they were destroyed, except to deal with that other Replicator and the Phoenix was brought in due to Michael in an alternate future. Any thoughts on this???

Well it's not like each ship was created solely to battle one specific thing. But they usually do, mostly because it would be strange for the Odyssey to start being stationed in the Pegasus galaxy and vise versa.—Anubis 10545 23:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I never said that, but there seems to be a trend with certain ships appearing mostly in episodes for certain enemies. The Apollo hasn't made an appearence except in Replicator episode and right afterwards it switched back to the Daedalus as the ship used on the show. I think the writers write the ships in as a foil to certain enemies and put them in episodes with other enemies when the occasion calls for it, but usually not in a really major role except when the Daedalus came in in Be All My Sins Remembered.
Look at my response on Talk:Apollo. I don't want to have to write anything that long again, or paste it here. Although I will say that it does kind of seem like a specific ship does deal with certain enemies, but it's probably just coincidence.—Anubis 10545 00:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know they seem to deal with their spesific enemies, but i think this is all down to timing and placement of the ships, e.g. The Prometheus had only the goa'uld at the time. The Daedalus was built to go and check on the Atlantis expedition and to ferry people and supplys to Atlantis so the Wraith would be all they fought. Odyssey is based in the Milkey way so the ori are the biggest enemeis of the time........(and on and on for the other ships).




According to the schematics of the X-304, the location of the bridge is the tower on the back structure. It would make much more sense to have a bridge there than at the beginning of the ship's neck, because it would allow for a wider perspective. An example is shown here in this picture. See the tower on the back?

Yes, but in the episode Allies when the Daedalus exits hyperspace and is immediately bombarded with fire from hive ships, Sheppard and Caldwell are on the bridge (the neck being right in front of them) and you can clearly see the neck taking heavy fire. If the bridge was in the tower, you would see the neck much farther away, and would see the part of the ship that's under the tower and before the neck. From what I've seen in the episodes, it is highly unlikely that the neck is in the tower. Keep in mind that even though the schematics from an official source say that the bridge is in the tower, another "official" source says Prometheus has larser beams (that being one of those DVD collection magazines).—Anubis 10545 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. That is a good point; I guess there really is no plausible explanation of where the bridge is located, but based on episodes in both SG-1 and Atlantis, the bridge seems to be closer to the neck of the ship. Still, I can't ignore the tower, and it's true I would see the portion of the back structure as well as the neck.


Wouldn't 304 Christmas tree ornaments be nice. In fact, a whole series of Stargate-related ornaments would be pretty cool. They did it with Startrek.. and some of those make no sense. There's one of Picard standing in a hallway... it's ridiculous. Although 304 ones would be the best.—Anubis 10545 06:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Have you noticed that in some episodes, the bridge is at the right side of the ship, while in most episodes, the bridge is at the left side!!!!!!!!!!!!!—Tau'ri 21300 03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New 304s

So, all of a sudden we have 2 new 304s... cool! Although personally not I'm crazy about the name Sun Tzu.—Anubis 10545 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the name Phoenix alot better. i mean "The General Hammond"

The Sun Tzu is a Chinese vessel, and when it gets confirmed you all are going to feel stupid.

If it is a Chinese vessel (which is more than likely), than the designation I think would either the PLAAF Sun Tzu or the PLAN Sun Tzu. Nohomers48 09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is crewed by chinese, so that would make it owned by chinese. I'm recommending it gets PLAAF (sounds better then PLAN). -- 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

it is called "The George Hammond" not The General Hammond

Yes... but Carter mistakenly called it the "General Hammond" in "Enemy at the Gate", which led us to believe that that was the name... until it was revealed to be the "George Hammond" in SGU. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 18:12, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Something i mentioned on annother post is why they don't use asgard beam tech to create new 304s using the matter converter or whatever its called they can beam a whole skyscraper into space so all they need is the blueprints that im sure they have!

Trust me, to create such a large thing from nothing you need super-mega large amount of power. It's cheaper to make whole ship of Californium then to conventional material from energy --Глючарина (talk) (Contribs) 18:08, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
you could make individual bits of it with the core and then assemble it...—ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 23:02, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the Asgard matter converter works similar to Federation replicators from star trek: it takes "raw mass" (i.e. anything with mass.) and converts a set amount into the object wanted. However, to go with the 'Food' and 'industrial' replacitor differences, the raw materials are basically close enough that less power is required to 'form' the new objects.
However, you'd be right in saying that the process could then on the digital level just be repeated, but there's the issue present, of where the energy to 'duplicate' the energy pattern comes from. Energy can't be created or destroyed, only converted, afterall. and energy is 'lost' in the process. i.e. more power requried to make something that has a high temperature, than that same something but cold. A glass of ice or that same mass of ice but as the two gasses...
Which comes back to what I've always thought about 'replicators' of star trek: There's the stargates' replicators thing about needing material to work with first. And since there are transporter buffers, well, how much mass can they store as energy patterns that are seperable and identifiable... And we do know the prometheus' buffers could store a whole frickin skyscraper of seattle... Although that then begs the question of why they materialised it rather than simply broke it into component parts... which I have a possible answer for: it needed to be a matter converter to do so, and not simply a matter translocator...

AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 23:51, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


The speed is for sublight right. hopefully.

I like the Sun Tzu... which is a Chinese vessel—Segaxgames 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

this is too fast!!

whats too fast??—Tau'ri 21300 13:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


just because the dvd collection magizine says that the 304 is 225 meters I think it is alot bigger maybe in the three hundred meter range. On gateworld forum a person created a thread that was called ship scaling sprites. It showed the deadalus to be 586 meters in length it looked right. What do you guys think.

As the DVD Collection magazines are officially published magazines which have to go through MGM for approval, we go with the official figures. If they're ever contradicted on the show itself then we'll go with that, but until we're given a different size we go with what we have now. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I have alot more confidence in the magizine now that I know it has to go through MGM for aproval.

Yeah, I agree; it looks like the Daedalus-class is closer to 586 meters in length; there's no way she's smaller than a real life, sea going aircraft carrier. Stargate Five-0 (talk) (Contribs) 20:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Stargate Five-0.

Naquadah generators

This has been lingering in the back of my head for a while, but I'm pretty sure that in an episode of SG-1, they stated that a 304 is powered by 4 naquadah generators. If this is true, does anyone know the episode?—Anubis 10545 04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


I believe a picture of someone being beammed somewhere by a 304 should added to article. Or if it's been shown the device itself that allows these ships to beam things. There are some good pictures on this page Asgard transporter. SuperN 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we do include one, it should be of someone being beamed to the bridge (as to include the ship in it in some way). Although if we add an image now, it could get a little crowded.—Anubis 10545 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding measurements

In an attempt to stop any further complaints or problem reports, in conjunction with what has been discussed here and here, we are aware that the measurements for the 304s, X-302, and F-302 are also incorrect. —Ka'lel 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


There's a section on this article about the officer's mess... you'd think someone would clean it up... (Sorry, couldn't resist :) Feel free to shrug in disgust upon reading this... "joke". But remember, you can't spell joke without "ok"... (or kejo for that matter...) —Anubis 10545 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bomb Bay

why does it say that only the Apollo has a bomb bay, its not a special variant of all the 304 frigates why don't we just put they all feature a bomb bay be because the episode with the R-75 outbreak The Scourge the Odyssey deploys a payload from space so... well nuff said. —DeadReanimation 17:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But what makes you sure? How do you know that they didn't use the transporters, or missiles? -- Matthew R Dunn 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I just dont think they would create a specific variant when their fleet is so scarce they need to do everything. you no? — 11:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Bridbe can't be in front of the ship! Who will put bridge close to missiles!—Vilnisr 07:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the bridge is on the little tower at the top of the ship

It's on the tower; how can it not be? It gives the commanding officer and bridge crew a wider view than if it were on the neck of the ship, as you'll see if you watch the SG-1 episode "Unending." It clearly shows, as the Odyssey is still encased in the time-dialation field, General Landry looking out the bridge's window and just staring at the frozen Ori beam weapon about to slam into the neck of the ship. The viewing angle clearly indicates that the bridge is located in the tower at the aft (back) end of the ship. As for whether the tower is located on the port or starboard side of the ship (sorry, left or right, to those who are unfamiliar with Naval lingo, or as I call it, Navalese), that could be chalked up to the editors using the negative side of the film.Stargate Five-0 (talk) (Contribs) 21:03, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Stargate Five-0.


The one question that has never been asked is probably the simplest, "Where do they park all of the 304's?" Are all 5 in orbit?, under Area 51?, on the far side of the moon?, or are they always traveling?

  • How long ago was this posted? It is a good question and I don't know why nobody has noticed it yet. I assumed that they somehow had docking facilities in orbit so that they dont have to cause anymore trouble on earth, but that would be kind of awkward If NASA is wasting billions of dollars to build a frail "primitive" space station in low orbit while farther out are high tech docking bays for galaxy crossing spaceships practically mocking them. If they do put them at docking facilities and NASA discovered them, they be more than a little p***** off to see how badly they've been duped :)-- 23:59, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • People high up in NASA will most likly know about the 304s as they have been asked to position hubbel so they Stargate Command can get a look at ships coming towards earth.A scotsman (talk) (Contribs) 17:30, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • i thought they just stayed in space since theyre self-reliant thanks to the asgard miracle device —ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 00:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
        • No ship, however advanced can operate forever without a berth to do upgrades, maintenance, refits etc. I Assume what you mean about the "asgard miracle device" is a joke-- 02:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
          • the asgard miracle device(s) is more imposingly known as the core. the other one is the blue beam weaponASDF1239 DISCUSSION 02:51, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
            • That doesn't really explain anything about where they undergo refits and repairs-- 22:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
          • The ISS manages to get repaired in orbit.
          • The ISS is reletivly low tech the engineers had to design it so that repair could take place in orbit
  • When they are undergoing repairs or upgrades they are in the dry docks at area 51-A scotsman (talk) (Contribs) 17:30, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Or they cold be doing the fixing in the moonbase, or an off-world base. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 23:01, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

How would they manage to get to dry docks at Area 51? Do you have any idea how much thrust they would need in order to get a ship that size off the planet?!

May be the is a space station in orbit of the Alpha Site?


Where are all of these built?

Area 51? Off-world bases? Who knows?Stargate Five-0 (talk) (Contribs) 21:04, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Stargate Five-0.

They are build at area 51 in docking baysA scotsman (talk) (Contribs) 17:25, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


where was it stated that 304's are powered by naquadah reactors?

I don't recall, and its been driving me crazy as well. I know, however, in Ethon that it was shown that Prometheus was powered with them.—Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:44, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

well no not really, we saw a naquadah reactor being hooked up and they were re-routing power to sublight engines, i do believe that is a 'fan-based assumption'

Fannon Ships of this class

Okay, to get talk going and away from the arguement-inducing parts... Names for future 304s! throw them out there, be they thought on-the-spot, of if you used them in fanfiction (Like I have.) the ones I've got as the 304 fleet in my fanfic:

Daedalus 01, Odyssey 02,
Korolev 03, Artemis 04,
Apollo 05, Sun Tzu 06,
Phoenix 07, Poseidon 08,
George Hammond 09, Elizabeth Weir 10,
Leto 11, Agamemnon 12.

That's two per year, btw, and alternating intended galaxy of use :D Pegasus: Odd-numbered ships (at first), and.. ahm. Milky Way: Even numbered. In my fanfic the daedalus was lost to its prototype dimensional drive, with its subspace capacitors that were 'tuned' by someone not named carter nor mckay, hehe. And so the pattern was broken. The Poseidon is assigned in its place, while the under-construction GH will take poseidons' emptied place. Both named after deceased Leaders there, then going back to Greek names.

Anyone Else?--AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 02:16, February 2, 2010 (UTC) And Don't forget to sign your post. It says at the top, every time you edit a page.

Seems kind of strange to name a ship after a person who's still alive (Elizabeth Weir)... just saying :)... although I suppose the Asgard did it. Although it would be worse if the ship you commanded was named after yourself... like you had some sort of "me" complex or something :) . Most names that I (or anyone else) would come up with would probably be cliches.... *cough*Poseidon*cough*. You'd think that at some point (after having several hundred ships) it'd be hard to come up with names. You might have to go with colors: (USS Chartreuse). Although that doesn't sound too bad... it's nothing like the USS Lime-Green or USS Prison jump-suit orange. Although I guess that you could also go with fruit: (USS Banana). Though there would be some crossover... you couldn't have the USS Orange as you'd probably use it as a color first. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:31, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
I know... the USS Lollipop. It could have an armament of 5. Anyone getting the reference :) —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
No need to be insulting about this. I offered a perfectly valid set of example ship names based on what naming conventions were already used in canon, and said why I came up with those. I did also say that you others can throw out names you lot have thought up anyway. As you chose not to respond in a respectful way, completely ignoring the implication that, as ship names in a fanfiction and the already given example of one difference for the fanfiction from canon story-wise, other certain events within/around the story may not have happened the same way or order, therefore characters dead in canon may be alive in the fanfic and vice-versa.
I would hazard a guess that a significant portion of those who frequent this wikia visit to check things before/during/after writing chapters of Stargate fanfiction. Your comment practically alienates the entire lot us who come here for the reason this wikia exists in the first place, which is as a repository of knowledge about the stargate franchise given from an in-universe perspective, so that we don't need to watch the entire show several times over to get the knowledge we seek.
--AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 03:20, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
One other thing. I see on your profile that you find Fanfiction irksome. If so, why the heck do you bother replying to that part of peoples posts?!? I can quite gladly see something that bothers me, and ignore it. As an Administrator here, people should be holding you to a higher standard of behavior, as that behavior not only speaks of yourself, but of the other staff on not just this wikia, but the entire network, and the fandom in general. Many others have turned away from communities for less. As this isn't the first time I've been here, and I am active on another wikia, I do know it isn't indicative of Wikia's staff, nor the Stargate fandom community, most of those I've met are quite genial and easy-going people.
However, it does give us an indication of your own behavior in general, when you only comment in reply to the part of my post that you find irksome.
I lost a job just for laughing at someone's spelling mistakes when I had no clue that she was dyslexic, and even after I explained that to my employers and apologized, they had to let me go because it 'reflected bad on them'. If you were a moderator and others the administrators, I'm sure a warning would be issued at the least. As an administrator, You should be holding yourself to those standards they would hold you.--AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 03:36, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
If you've read other comment of mine, you'd see that I mean no disrespect. Naturally I respect your right to write fanfiction, and the comment on my userpage regarding how I find fanfiction to be "irksome" was mainly in response to a user (To10, Sam10... he went by about 15 different names) who created probably 20 subpages that were all about fanfiction ships of his... pages that I (and many other users) found to be unnecessary for a site such as this (as there are fanfic sites out there and I don't want new users to get fanfic and actual pages mixed up... for the sake of providing the most accurate information on this site possible). However, that definitely does not mean that I don't respect those who do it and I definitely find it ok if someones creates maybe 1 to 3 subpages of fanfic... and I definitely find it ok if someone brings it up on a talk page such as this.
My comment above was just supposed to be humorous and I wasn't ridiculing your fanfic. I originally wasn't going to post, but I just started going of on a tangent that wasn't fanfic related just for the sake of humor. Lollipop was a reference to a Star Trek TNG episode and my comment of how people (meaning the writers of shows or those who physically build ships in real-life) who would run out of ship names would have to reach pretty far to find a suitable names for new ships... possibly going to names of colors after several hundreds of years and thousands+ ships. Every time I said "You" in my post that you're referring to, I meant the writers of shows or those who physically build ships in real-life... not you personally. Nothing at all I said was aimed at you... I was just being my usually weird self.
I definitely wish to perpetuate the editing of this site for the sake of increasing the world's knowledge of Stargate. Every time I think about "why am I doing this", I remind myself that it's not entirely without reason and that I might be making a difference (as corny as that may sound). Any regular editor here could tell you that I always have the best interests of this site and its users in mind... and that includes writing these massive paragraphs so people won't leave this site or hate its administration just because of a misunderstanding between two users. Hopefully this does clear up any ill-feeling and, if it doesn't, please feel free to address me about it again. Again, no disrespect. I see where you're coming from and that's just not the kind of person I am... and it's eating me up inside that you feel this way... as evident by the 6+ times I've added to my response :) —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:03, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • enigmatic voice* and In this light, what looks bad is good.
After I lost a job for a misunderstanding involving my own sense of humor... Irony seems to like us.
I guess a clarification on that section of what you find irksome might just be a little bit needed ;) I did wonder that in one way it was humorous, but it did seem more towards insulting with seeing only 'fanfiction' there.
And you're right. Which is why for other classes of ships in my fanfiction, I have or will establish certain naming conventions that allow them to not overlap names. For instance, one class called the 'normandy' is named after french towns. The french are also the main 'operators' of ships of that class. British have ships that are Carrier ships and so on. It's similar to the naming conventions that they tried to do on occasion with Star Trek (only the danube class stuck to it as far as I know with earth rivers) But that's beyond the original topic I started of 304 ship names.


building on your what-I-now-see-is-nice-sarcasm... Any ship names within the naming conventions of the 'Culture' series of books by Iain M Banks is good. things like 'I wasn't there when the gravitas was handed out.' Now that's one author who grasps the concept that sometimes theres more ships than possible and sensible shipnames. Seriously, here's the wikipedia article... um, [1] I like:
ROU Revisionist,Killer Class
GSV No More Mr Nice Guy
GSV Just Read The Instructions
ROU Killing Time
GSV means General Systems Vehicle. They're large ships that can have as many as billions of individuals. It's the sort of ship that the ancients might have if they hadn't gone through plagues and wars and still existed in human form 'today' in the stargate universe to number in the trillions of trillions. ROU is the combat ships, 'Rapid Offensive Unit'. There's also, 'I blame your mother' and 'I blame my mother'. the 'culture' in those books do seem to have a nice sense of humour.

--AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 04:46, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's pretty interesting (Just Read The Instructions :). If you've heard of the Halo series, they do a similar thing in that. The names of some ships include "Pillar of Autumn", "Forward Unto Dawn", "Shadow of Intent", "Truth and Reconciliation"... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Anubis 10545, I just want you to know, I get the reference; Commander William T. Riker, XO, USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D.Stargate Five-0 (talk) (Contribs) 21:08, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Stargate Five-0.

304 Ship name Suggestions (restart)

Now the misunderstanding between Anubis and I is sorted... Suggestions. Can be serious or humorous. My previous two sets stand as my suggestions. (Artemis, Poseidon, Leto, Agamemnon, and Elizabeth Weir. and the ones I liked from the Culture books.) --AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 04:49, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

How about the TAVKR Gagarin ?

Here's how I figure it:

Prometheus 01 (destroyed, MW)
Daedalus 02 (PG), Odyssey 03 (MW)
Korolev 04 (destroyed, MW), Apollo 05 (PG)
Phoenix / Hammond 06 (MW), Sun Tzu 07 (PG)
Tsiolkovsky 08 (MW), Icarus 09 (MW)

Um, excuse me, what about USS Nimitz 10? Named for the USS Nimitz and her battle group that Anubis destroyed shortly before the Battle Over Antarctica. And, to help commemorate the brave men and women lost aboard the ships of the Nimitz Battle Group, have the Nimitz (10) crewed by Navy personnel. I mean, the SGC gave the Russians and the Chinese their own 304; can't the SGC give the Navy their own battlecruiser?Stargate Five-0 (talk) (Contribs) 21:10, May 25, 2010 (UTC)Stargate Five-0.

- Bell'Orso (talk) (Contribs) 14:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
the George Washington ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 22:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Here are the names I'd go with: Daedalus, Odyssey, Intrepid, Apollo, Zodiac, Phoenix, Ranger, Essex, Hornet, George Hammond, Victoria, Windsor, Vanguard, Royal Sovereign, Ark Royal, Musashi, Zuikaku, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Alexey Leonov, Korolev, Mir, Sun Tzu Judge King (talk) (Contribs) 18:16, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

i think the british 304 could be the HMS Argus

Asgard core room

There is an Asgard core on board the Deadalus, and I make my case in the Asgard core article talk page, which I pointed out. Ofcoarse if there is doubt, I would need a reason, why my edits were removed. In the episode Search and Rescue we clearly see an Asgard core on board the Deadalus. And in the transcript for that episode, the room where Sam and McKay, and the core are located is called Asgard core room. And heres the transcript:

File:Deadalus Core.jpg

SHEPPARD: I have had a chance to rescue a team mate before, and it slipped through my hands. I am not letting that happen again.

DAEDALUS ASGARD CORE ROOM. Sam is sitting in semi-darkness working at the Asgard console. A moment later all the lights come on. She looks around admiringly.

CARTER: Nice one! --Uriel718 (talk) (Contribs) 20:08, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've added a snapshot from both the episode Search and rescue, and The Lost Tribe. Now as we can see that is, at the very least an Asgard computer core console. The only difference to the original Asgard computer core, is the lack of those crystal cylinders, which I believe means that this verion is a somewhat more basic model. --Uriel718 (talk) (Contribs) 09:27, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
It may or may not lack the full database and interactivity with all of the holographic versions of Asgard, and may have a much more simple database, not containing every facete of Asgard information. The newer ones may just operate all the deviced ans things on board the Odysey and analyze information, and have a basic database.

Bridge location...again

This has probably been discussed many times over, but I was watching "Unending" and noticed that 2 shots (appox. 24:11 and 31:28) from the inside of the bridge show that it is indeed located on the rear left superstructure of the 304. This backs up MGM's tech journal. AoT also seems to suggest (approx. 27:30) that the bridge is on the superstructure, as the cut to the wormhole sequence occurs after the superstructure has passed the event horizon. Perhaps the Odyessy is a sub-class and has a different bridge or more simply, different Visual Effects vendors were used. I think this instance should be mentioned in the article. However, in the face of opposing evidence from SGA and SGU episodes, I guess we really won't know definitively until we get an answer from a producer. 09:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

ive never understood why sci fi designers always place the bridge in an exposed location. having direct visual contact through windows is pointless if you have sensors, it would be far more practical for the bridge to be buried deep inside the hull —ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 00:04, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
True, but since this is a TV show, it was designed to be visually interesting as a priority, instead of being functional. 06:43, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Also, It's kind of hard to look outside the ship when the bridge is in the middle. Granted, there are sensors, but I'm sure having a window helps to some extent. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 18:24, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

This may seem offtopic, but it is relevant, i think...

  • In the PC/X360 RPG games 'Mass Effect', both 1 & 2, The main location of the games are the Normandy SR-1 and SR-2. Now, unlike pretty much most of the other spaceship designs outside of the BSG[RDM], The SR-1 and SR-2 have an almost hybrid system. A CIC essentially in the middle of the ship, no windows, and a bridge - with windows. It is the pilot who helms the ship from the bridge, he gets to see where he's going. The CIC is where the Commander/Captain/whatever/whoever gets all the info, gives command, that sort of thing. It's more like a Submarine, than a surface ship in that regard, if you will. Like in the film 'Hunt for Red October', where that russian Sean Connory was playing, was doing the Navigation and giving that info through commands to the helmsman. Not exactly, just 'like'.
  • I do think that this system is something that should be adopted in the show for newer ships. The Destiny doesn't seem to have a 'bridge', and the same room on the other ancient ships do seem to be. (And I remember with the Aurora, that big window was pretty much destroyed, exposing it to space.)

I have always suggested that the ships do indeed have two bridges - the tower, and the bunker. The tower is exposed, and the 'bunker' does look like it's got some armor benefits from being inset into the hull. Indeed, only ships above and to the front of a 304 can get a decent target lock on a 304's 'bunker' bridge. But As long as the ships' are **above** the horizontal plane of the 304, they can be infront, behind, left, right etc of the 304, and get a lock on the tower. The dual-bridge thing, I suggest both as a, in case one is destroyed, and a, whichever the commander of the ship prefers, thing. Cauldwell prefers the battleship thing, but whoever got to pick at the time, preferred the aircraft carrier thing, even though aircraft carriers' tower were always right-side, not left-side. AlexMcpherson (talk) (Contribs) 18:48, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

the tower should be an observation deck with more advanced sensors and such but the commanders bridge should be inside the hull imo so yes something like the double bridge system—ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 22:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it should say exactilly where the bridge is in the article as it has been shown in 3 different location.A scotsman (talk) (Contribs) 01:14, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but I have a faint recollection of a clip in which the camera zooms from outside the ship to the bridge, which is at the base of the neck. I don't remeber if this is true. Jauh0 (talk) (Contribs) 13:34, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Mark III warheads

On at least one occasion, the Deadalus, a 304, was armed with Mark III tactical warheads, and no Mark VII warheads, in No Man's Land, Caldwell ordered them to load Mark III tactical warheads, not Mark VIII warheads into the every missile tube and ordered them to be fired at once. please edit this page and the Deadaul page to reflect that change, those two pages are both locked with incorrect information that contradicts the direct on show evidence. 02:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one episode from which to draw reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, however, I'm just saying that in that episode, its only nuclear warheads were mk. III warheads. I simply watched the episode, noticed it, and then after some thought, mentioned it here. I know on other occasions it does have other nuclear weapons/naquadah enhanced nuclear weapons, but the page was locked in with incorrect information saying that in that episode, specifically, they used mk VIII warheads. 07:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Firstly, I apologize of the change of warship to battle cruiser, I remembered falsely that the class was referred as battle cruisers in the series. Secondly, we don't know if the Tzu's yet operational, since last we heard, it was crippled, though that was c. 6-9 months ago (from SGU S1 Finale). And the statement "One 304, the Korolev, was given to the Russian Federation, and subsequently lost in a battle with the Ori. While, the Sun Tzu, is operated by the Chinese Government..." sounds a bit silly in my opinion. I suggest changing a part into "lost in a battle with the Ori, while the Zun Tzu is operated by..." Just my pint of paint. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 22:54, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Landing Gear

i don't think it has landing gear in the traditional sense i believe it just uses its anti-gravity technology to hover above the ground

With the landing gear issue, the ship likely does have landing gear as it often lands on Atlantis. However, as we know nothing about landing gear other than the fact that it "probably" exists, let's not include anything about it. Also, it has never been shown that 304s dock in Area 51. Unless an official source can be cited that further explains the landing gear/docking issue, and for the sake of minimizing speculation, any info inserted in the article regarding it will be reverted. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 19:27, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

if you watch the siege part 3 you will see that it doesn't land on Atlantis it lands in the water

It does kind of look like that... I just assumed it was the angle... due to someone telling Weir "the Daedalus is requesting permission to land on the east pier." But i'm not sure... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 21:03, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


What's the source for Warship status? I think I remember 304s being called "Battlecruisers" in the series. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 01:35, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think Anateo called it a warship. Jauh0 (talk) (Contribs) 01:06, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

no he called it battleship, the name comes from one of the magazines and naturally it is assumed canon material. despite not actually being.Escyos (talk) (Contribs) 01:09, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really starting to lose my mental stability with these magazines and their upholders. 21:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.