Ironclad vs Liberator: Which Logistics Ship Should You Choose?

The Drake Ironclad and Anvil Liberator can both support large organization logistics, but they are designed around different payloads.

The Ironclad is a Flight Ready heavy freighter. Its current Alpha 4.10.1 extracted cargo grids total 2,200 SCU across nine grids, while CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU. It combines very large freight capacity with multiple tractor positions, retractable-roof access, suitable-vehicle transport, and a detachable Command Module.

The Liberator is an in-development light carrier. CIG's published design gives it 400 SCU of secured internal cargo, external landing pads for multiple small spacecraft, garage and pad space for ground vehicles, a tractor beam covering the external pads, and basic manually supplied repair, refuel, and rearm support.

That makes the comparison less about which ship is larger and more about what the logistics operation needs to move.

The Ironclad is built around freight volume.

The Liberator is built around transporting ships and vehicles as the primary payload.

Ironclad vs Liberator at a Glance

Specification	Drake Ironclad	Anvil Liberator
Primary role	Heavy Freight	Light Carrier / Vehicle Transport
Current status	Flight Ready	In Development
Cargo capacity	2,200 SCU current grid total*	400 SCU published secured cargo
Cargo design	Large heavy-freight cargo space with multiple grids	Dedicated secured internal cargo bays
Small-craft transport	Suitable craft may use cargo volume where physically and operationally viable	Dedicated external landing pads
Ground vehicles	Suitable vehicles within cargo space	Dedicated garages / vehicle-capable areas
Cargo handling	Multiple Size 2 tractor positions + retractable roof	Published deployable tractor beam covering external pads
Ship support	No standard-variant carrier-service system established here	Planned basic manual repair, refuel, and rearm
Command craft	Detachable Command Module	No equivalent detachable command craft established
Current / published pledge value	$600 reference pledge value	$575 published ship value
Evidence type	Current 4.10.1 vehicle data + current CIG material	In-development CIG design documentation

*Current Alpha 4.10.1 extracted Ironclad cargo grids total 2,200 SCU. CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU. The reason for the four-SCU discrepancy has not been established.

The most important distinction is status.

The Ironclad is available in current LIVE gameplay. The Liberator is not yet Flight Ready.

RSI's current Loaner Ship Matrix lists the Ironclad Assault and F7C-M Super Hornet as Liberator loaners, confirming that the Liberator itself remains unavailable for normal flight-ready use.

Cargo Capacity: 2,200 SCU vs 400 SCU

For standardized freight, the Ironclad has the overwhelming capacity advantage.

Its current Alpha 4.10.1 extracted cargo grids total:

• 720 SCU;
• 720 SCU;
• 360 SCU;
• 360 SCU;
• five separate 8-SCU grids.

That produces a current version-locked total of 2,200 SCU.

CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU for the Ironclad. This comparison does not attempt to explain the four-SCU difference.

The Liberator's published design specifies 400 SCU.

CIG's Liberator Q&A is unusually precise about what that number means: the 400 SCU refers specifically to the secured internal cargo bays next to the vehicle-storage areas.

That distinction is important because the Liberator also has garages and external landing pads.

Cargo may physically be placed elsewhere, but CIG warned that cargo outside the dedicated 400-SCU areas may not receive the full support of systems such as mag-locking.

For a normal freight comparison, the defensible numbers are therefore:

Ironclad: 2,200 SCU current extracted grid total

Liberator: 400 SCU published secured cargo

The Ironclad carries 1,800 SCU more on that basis, or 5.5 times the Liberator's published dedicated cargo capacity.

The Liberator's decks and garages should not be converted into an invented larger SCU figure. Their value lies primarily in carrying operational assets rather than acting as unofficial cargo grids.

The Cargo Numbers Hide the Liberator's Real Payload

A 400-SCU Liberator is not meant to compete with a 2,200-SCU Ironclad as a pure freighter.

Its real value is the space dedicated to vehicles and spacecraft.

CIG describes the Liberator as a carrier whose central job is transporting ships that could not otherwise make the same journey efficiently.

That makes its logistics value much less dependent on the SCU number than the Ironclad's.

The Ironclad moves far more standardized freight.

The Liberator moves an operational package of spacecraft, ground vehicles, personnel, and support supplies.

Liberator Small-Craft Transport

Dedicated external landing pads are the Liberator's clearest advantage over the standard Ironclad.

A spacecraft carried by an Ironclad uses logistics volume that is primarily designed around cargo.

A spacecraft carried on a Liberator uses a purpose-designed landing position.

CIG's Liberator Q&A identifies the upper landing pads as supporting XS ships, with design examples including:

• Anvil Arrow;
• Anvil Hornet;
• Aegis Sabre;
• MISC Prospector.

These examples come from CIG's 2021 design Q&A.

They are useful evidence of the intended carrier scale, but they should not be treated as final 2026 Flight Ready fit certification before the Liberator reaches implementation.

Extending the operational range of carried craft

CIG describes the Liberator as having extreme range for its size and positions it as a way to move smaller craft over distances they may not conveniently cover independently.

That is one of the main reasons to choose a carrier rather than a freighter.

A fighter or utility ship can be transported to the operating area rather than making the full journey under its own power.

The Ironclad can move compatible smaller assets where physical and operational fit allow, but its standard configuration is not built around a formal external-flight-deck workflow.

For fleet relocation or mobile deployment, the Liberator's role is much clearer.

Deployment and recovery

The external deck also gives the Liberator an operational advantage when carried craft need to launch or recover quickly.

A ship on an upper pad does not need to navigate through a cargo bay before departure.

The Liberator's published tractor-beam design supports that same carrier workflow.

CIG says the tractor beam is housed in a deployable compartment below the remote upper turret, with intended coverage across the external pads.

Its purpose includes assisting with ship landing or removal, including moving an immobile craft.

That is carrier-support equipment.

It should not be equated with the Ironclad's larger heavy-freight tractor network.

Larger ships across multiple pads

CIG also sets a clear boundary around the supported carrier layout.

Players may physically attempt to place larger ships across multiple pads, but the Q&A explicitly states that this is not an officially supported landing arrangement.

Physical placement alone does not redefine the Liberator's carrier specification.

The same principle applies to the Ironclad: fitting a craft through an opening is not automatically evidence of a supported operational carrier configuration.

Ground Vehicles and Mixed Logistics

The Liberator's published design also includes dedicated ground-vehicle capacity.

CIG's Q&A names the Tumbril Nova and Anvil Ballista as examples for the garage/front-pad arrangement.

It also references smaller assets such as the Argo MPUV and Origin 85x in the broader vehicle and small-craft transport context.

These are design-Q&A examples, not final Flight Ready fit certification.

The Ironclad can also transport suitable vehicles within its much larger logistics volume.

Its advantage here is payload flexibility.

A crew can divide the Ironclad's available cargo space between:

• commercial freight;
• supplies;
• equipment;
• suitable ground vehicles;
• compatible small craft where physical and operational access permits.

The Liberator is more specialized when vehicles and spacecraft are themselves the main payload.

The Ironclad is more useful when those assets are only one part of a much larger freight operation.

Physical fit should not be confused with operational fit on either ship.

A vehicle or small craft still needs enough clearance to load, deploy, recover, and coexist with other payloads.

Ironclad Loading Is Built Around Heavy Freight

The Ironclad's current cargo infrastructure is far more developed for conventional freight.

Its Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle record includes multiple Size 2 SureGrip tractor-beam entries.

CIG's DefenseCon 2956 Q&A separately explains that the ship's tractor beams are the same size but use different positions and movement to provide multiple loading and unloading angles.

The retractable roof adds another major access route to the large cargo space.

Those systems exist because moving more than 2,000 SCU creates a substantial physical-cargo problem.

For commodity hauling, contracts, organization resupply, and warehouse-style logistics, the Ironclad's cargo architecture is much more relevant than external landing pads.

For detailed loading workflow, see the Star Citizen Ironclad Cargo Guide.

Repair, Refuel, and Rearm

The Liberator's carrier role goes beyond simply parking vehicles.

CIG's published Q&A says the ship is intended to support basic repair, refuel, and rearm operations.

That wording needs an important qualification.

The published design does not describe dedicated automated service facilities or separate purpose-built repair and fuel stores.

Instead, CIG describes these functions as manual player activities using supplies carried aboard the ship.

The intended workflow is closer to:

• carrying replacement resources;
• carrying repair supplies;
• carrying fuel;
• carrying ammunition;
• manually supporting deployed craft.

Because the Liberator remains in development, this article does not present those systems as tested Alpha 4.10.1 gameplay.

Standard Ironclad Is Not the Assault

This comparison also needs a clear Ironclad-family boundary.

The standard Ironclad is the freight-focused ship being compared here.

The Ironclad Assault has the stronger direct vehicle-support package and current Ship Hangar Services functionality.

Those Assault features should not be attributed to the standard Ironclad.

The standard Ironclad is evaluated here primarily as:

• heavy freight;
• large logistics space;
• tractor-assisted cargo handling;
• mixed suitable-vehicle capability.

The Liberator is evaluated from its published in-development carrier design.

For the Assault's separate role, see the Star Citizen Ironclad Assault Guide.

External Pads Create Different Protection Trade-Offs

The ships expose payloads differently.

The Ironclad organizes its logistics volume around its large cargo space and retractable-roof structure.

The Liberator intentionally carries spacecraft on exposed upper landing pads.

CIG's Liberator Q&A says parked craft are not explicitly protected as if enclosed inside a hangar.

The ship's shields may extend far enough to partially cover craft parked on deck, but CIG did not promise complete shield protection for every carried vehicle.

That should remain a design caveat rather than being converted into a numerical current shield-protection mechanic.

The architectural trade-off is straightforward:

external pads improve launch and recovery access, but they do not provide the same physical enclosure as carrying an asset inside a hull.

Crew and Organization Use

The two ships create different types of workload.

Solo / lightly staffed

The Ironclad can be evaluated from current LIVE gameplay.

One pilot can operate its flight controls, but using a 2,200-SCU heavy-freight platform efficiently creates a large sequential cargo and ship-management workload.

The Liberator cannot be evaluated the same way because it remains in development.

Its published carrier role suggests that one person would need to manage a complex mix of carrier flight, embarked craft, vehicles, launch and recovery, and support supplies, but this article does not invent a tested solo workflow for a ship that is not Flight Ready.

The safest conclusion is:

Neither ship should be purchased on the assumption that one person will efficiently exploit its full intended role.

Small crews

A small crew primarily interested in moving commercial freight benefits more directly from the Ironclad's cargo volume—assuming that crew actually has enough freight to justify the ship.

A small group whose main problem is transporting several ships or vehicles may find the Liberator design better aligned with the mission despite its much lower standardized cargo capacity.

The payload type matters more than raw crew count.

Organization logistics

At organization scale, the ships become complementary.

An Ironclad can move:

• bulk freight;
• equipment;
• supplies;
• commodities;
• mixed logistics packages.

A Liberator can be designed around moving:

• fighters;
• utility craft;
• mining ships;
• ground vehicles;
• vehicle crews;
• deployment-support supplies.

That creates a natural division between freight transport and asset transport.

Current Status Is a Major Buying Difference

The Ironclad is currently Flight Ready.

Its performance, cargo grids, crew fields, ship HP, shields, and equipment can be examined in current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data.

The Liberator remains in development.

RSI's current Loaner Ship Matrix assigns a Drake Ironclad Assault and F7C-M Super Hornet to Liberator owners while the ship itself is unavailable.

CIG's October 2025 Monthly Report said Liberator pre-production had begun and described that stage as preparation before official production.

The development status has therefore progressed beyond the original 2021 reveal, but the ship's published carrier documentation still represents an in-development design and remains subject to change.

For ownership decisions, the evidence boundary is clear:

Ironclad capability can be judged from current gameplay and current vehicle data.

Liberator capability still depends substantially on published design intent.

Price: $600 vs $575 Reference Values

The current Alpha 4.10.1 Ironclad vehicle record lists a $600 reference pledge value.

CIG's Invictus Launch Week 2954 material listed the Liberator at a $575 Ship Value while identifying it as in concept.

These figures come from different evidence contexts, so they should not be treated as proof of current standalone store availability.

They are also separate from:

• Warbond pricing;
• CCU pricing;
• secondary-market pricing;
• in-game aUEC pricing.

The relatively small historical reference-value gap makes role selection more important than SCU-per-dollar comparisons.

The Liberator's value proposition is dedicated carrier architecture.

The Ironclad's is heavy-freight capacity and current Flight Ready logistics capability.

Ironclad vs Liberator for Cargo Hauling

For conventional commercial hauling, the Ironclad is the clear choice.

Its current 2,200-SCU grid total is 5.5 times the Liberator's published 400-SCU secured cargo capacity.

It also has current heavy-freight tractor infrastructure and a cargo layout built around large logistics operations.

The Liberator's 400 SCU is better understood as support cargo accompanying the carrier mission.

It can carry supplies, ammunition, replacement equipment, and commercial freight, but maximizing SCU is not the design's primary purpose.

Ironclad vs Liberator for Small-Craft Transport

For dedicated spacecraft movement, the Liberator has the clearer design role.

CIG specifically designed its upper deck around multiple XS ships and identifies spacecraft transport as a central part of the carrier concept.

The standard Ironclad can offer useful physical space for compatible craft, but it is not a substitute for purpose-designed external landing pads.

If the mission is to move several fighters or utility craft to another operating area, the Liberator concept fits the requirement better.

If the mission is to move thousands of SCU and perhaps bring a vehicle or small craft as part of the logistics package, the Ironclad fits better.

Ironclad vs Liberator for Ground Vehicles

This comparison is closer.

The Liberator has dedicated vehicle-carrier design evidence and official examples including the Nova and Ballista.

The Ironclad has vastly more cargo volume and can combine suitable vehicles with a much larger supply load.

The deciding question is whether vehicles are the primary payload.

If yes, the Liberator is the more specialized tool.

If vehicles are one part of a heavy logistics operation, the Ironclad's additional cargo capacity becomes more valuable.

Does the Ironclad Command Module Matter?

The standard Ironclad includes the detachable Drake Command Module.

Its current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle record lists 0 SCU, so it is not an extra cargo shuttle.

CIG's Ironclad material positions the module around personnel movement, command functionality, emergency use, and independent travel.

The Liberator does not have an equivalent detachable command craft in the cited design documentation.

That gives the Ironclad an additional personnel-mobility option, although it does not change the central carrier comparison.

For current detachment, claims, cargo limits, and implementation boundaries, see the Star Citizen Ironclad Command Module Guide.

Which Should You Choose?

Choose the Liberator if the published carrier role matches the mission:

• transporting spacecraft is a primary requirement;
• multiple dedicated landing pads matter more than maximum SCU;
• heavy ground vehicles are part of the main payload;
• the group wants a mobile deployment platform;
• basic manual repair, refuel, and rearm support fits the intended operation;
• 400 SCU of secured cargo is sufficient alongside carried assets;
• the buyer accepts that the ship remains in development and final implementation may change.

Choose the Ironclad if the logistics problem is primarily freight:

• cargo volume is the main constraint;
• more than 1,000 SCU is regularly available to move;
• current Flight Ready capability matters;
• dedicated heavy-cargo tractor equipment benefits the workflow;
• vehicles are part of a larger logistics load rather than the entire mission;
• a detachable Command Module adds operational value.

For whole-ship specifications, crew, weapons, price, Command Module, and ownership context, see the Star Citizen Ironclad Guide.

Final Verdict

The Ironclad is the stronger freight ship. The Liberator is the more specialized carrier.

The Ironclad's current Alpha 4.10.1 cargo grids total 2,200 SCU, compared with the Liberator's published 400 SCU of dedicated secured cargo. CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU for the Ironclad, and this comparison does not attempt to explain the four-SCU discrepancy.

For commercial cargo, organization resupply, and high-volume logistics, the Ironclad's capacity and current freight-handling infrastructure make it the more appropriate platform.

The Liberator gives up most of that freight capacity in exchange for something the standard Ironclad does not provide in the same way: purpose-designed external landing pads and a carrier architecture centered on transporting ships and vehicles.

Choose the Ironclad when freight is the mission.

Choose the Liberator when the fleet itself is the cargo.

The largest practical difference today is that the Ironclad can be evaluated in current LIVE gameplay, while the Liberator's final operating experience remains dependent on an in-development design.

FAQ

How much cargo does the Ironclad carry compared with the Liberator?

Current Alpha 4.10.1 extracted Ironclad cargo grids total 2,200 SCU.

CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU for the Ironclad. The reason for the four-SCU difference has not been established.

CIG's Liberator Q&A publishes 400 SCU of secured internal cargo.

Is the Liberator Flight Ready?

No. The Liberator remains in development.

RSI's current Loaner Ship Matrix provides Liberator owners with temporary loaner ships rather than access to a Flight Ready Liberator.

Which is better for carrying fighters?

The Liberator has the clearer purpose-built role.

CIG's published design includes upper landing pads intended for multiple XS spacecraft, including examples such as the Arrow, Hornet, Sabre, and Prospector.

The Ironclad can carry suitable craft where physical and operational fit allow, but its standard design is centered on heavy freight rather than a dedicated external flight deck.

Can the Liberator carry ground vehicles?

Yes. CIG's Liberator Q&A describes its garage and front-pad areas as supporting ground vehicles with examples including the Nova and Ballista.

Those examples come from the in-development design and remain subject to change before Flight Ready implementation.

Can the Liberator repair and refuel ships?

CIG's design Q&A says the Liberator is intended to provide basic manual repair, refuel, and rearm support using supplies carried aboard.

It does not describe dedicated automated service facilities or separate purpose-built repair and fuel stores.

Because the Liberator is not yet Flight Ready, this should not be presented as tested Alpha 4.10.1 gameplay.

Which is better for cargo?

The Ironclad.

Its current 2,200-SCU cargo-grid total is far larger than the Liberator's published 400-SCU secured cargo capacity, and the Ironclad is specifically built around heavy-freight handling.

Is the Liberator better than the Ironclad?

Not universally.

The Liberator is the more specialized choice for moving multiple spacecraft and vehicles.

The Ironclad is the stronger choice for high-volume freight and mixed logistics where vehicles are part of a much larger cargo operation.