Ironclad vs Hull C: Which Heavy Freighter Should You Choose?
The Ironclad carries 2,200 SCU inside an enclosed hull. It combines multiple internal cargo grids with a retractable roof, built-in tractor equipment, vehicle flexibility, defensive weapon stations, and a detachable Command Module.
The Hull C carries 4,608 SCU, more than twice the Ironclad's version-locked capacity. Instead of enclosing that freight inside a conventional cargo bay, it expands a telescopic spindle and carries containers externally across dedicated cargo blades.
CIG describes the Hull C as an enterprise-level hauler built around large-scale cargo movement, while the Ironclad is positioned as a heavy protected freight platform with substantially more internal flexibility.
That makes the comparison less straightforward than 4,608 SCU vs 2,200 SCU suggests.
The Hull C is the stronger pure bulk-capacity platform.
The Ironclad is the more flexible enclosed logistics ship.
Ironclad vs Hull C Specifications
| Specification | Drake Ironclad | MISC Hull C |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Heavy Freight | Heavy Freight |
| Status | Flight Ready | Flight Ready |
| Cargo capacity | 2,200 SCU* | 4,608 SCU |
| Cargo arrangement | Enclosed internal grids | External telescopic spindle |
| Dimensions | 117 × 50 × 25 m | 91.17 × 36.05 × 26.28 m — current base vehicle record** |
| Crew field | Malformed 7–6 in current data |
4–5 in current data |
| SCM speed | 110 m/s | 110 m/s |
| NAV / max speed | 900 m/s | 890 m/s |
| Ship-level shield HP | 144,000 | 144,000 |
| Ship HP | 258,000 | 323,500 |
| Built-in cargo handling | Multiple tractor positions | Cargo-spindle / tractor system |
| Vehicle transport | Suitable internal vehicles | Not intended for onboard vehicle transport |
| Reference MSRP | $600 | $500 |
*The current Ironclad vehicle record lists 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 dedicated Hull C material separately publishes 125 × 60 × 60 m when expanded, reflecting the deployed cargo-spindle configuration. The current vehicle-data dimensions describe the base vehicle record rather than replacing that expanded-state specification.
The raw capacity difference is substantial.
The Hull C carries 2,408 SCU more than the Ironclad, or a little over 2.09 times the Ironclad's version-locked cargo capacity.
That advantage matters most when bulk freight itself is the job.
Cargo Capacity: 4,608 SCU vs 2,200 SCU
For maximum freight volume, the Hull C has the clear advantage.
Its 4,608 SCU capacity is equivalent to 144 fully occupied 32-SCU container positions if the entire capacity is expressed in that container size.
The Ironclad's version-locked cargo layout totals 2,200 SCU across nine grids:
- 720 SCU;
- 720 SCU;
- 360 SCU;
- 360 SCU;
- five separate 8-SCU grids.
CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU for the Ironclad. This comparison does not attempt to explain or reconcile the four-SCU difference.
In raw capacity terms, one fully loaded Hull C can carry slightly more than two full Ironclad loads.
That is an enormous advantage when the route can actually supply and receive several thousand SCU at once.
Capacity is only useful when the route supports it
A 4,608-SCU maximum does not automatically make every cargo run better.
If a contract provides 800 SCU, the Hull C's extra capacity adds little.
If the trade route can reliably support several thousand SCU and the loading infrastructure works with the Hull C's specialized freight system, the ship begins doing exactly what it was built for.
The Ironclad sits between general-purpose large haulers and the Hull C's enterprise-scale bulk model.
For its nine-grid layout, retractable roof, tractor positions, and manual-loading workflow, see the Star Citizen Ironclad Cargo Guide.
Internal Cargo vs External Cargo Is the Real Difference
The most important distinction is not the SCU number.
It is where the freight lives.
Ironclad: enclosed freight
The Ironclad stores cargo inside the ship.
That gives crews an enclosed logistics space where freight can be combined with equipment and suitable vehicles while remaining within the hull.
The standard Ironclad also provides multiple ways to access that space, including its main cargo entrance and retractable roof.
Its current vehicle data continues to support dedicated tractor equipment, while CIG's DefenseCon 2956 Q&A describes the tractor positions as the same size but located differently and able to move to provide several loading and unloading angles.
Hull C: external spindle freight
The Hull C's identity is its telescopic spindle.
CIG publishes a maximum 4,608-SCU payload and describes the external cargo blades as the mechanism that allows the ship to achieve a much larger capacity than a conventional internal bay of similar ship scale.
The cargo is attached externally instead of being moved into a large enclosed hold.
CIG also describes the Hull C as using remote cargo management and multiple industrial tractor beams to support that system.
The result is a much more specialized freight architecture.
The Ironclad behaves like a huge enclosed cargo ship.
The Hull C behaves like a bulk freight platform built around its cargo rack.
The Hull C Carries More Than Twice as Much Cargo
The mathematical advantage is simple:
Hull C: 4,608 SCU
Ironclad: 2,200 SCU
Difference: 2,408 SCU
A Hull C therefore offers approximately 109% more cargo capacity than the Ironclad's version-locked total.
That can eliminate additional journeys on routes where both the commodity supply and destination can support a full load.
For an organization repeatedly moving 4,000-plus SCU between suitable logistics locations, the Hull C's specialization becomes a feature rather than a limitation.
For a player who rarely moves more than 1,500 or 2,000 SCU, the extra spindle capacity may remain unused.
Hull C Loading Is More Specialized
CIG designed the Hull C around large-scale cargo handling rather than conventional ramp loading.
Its current implementation uses the deployable spindle and dedicated cargo workflow instead of allowing the owner to treat 4,608 SCU like one enormous internal warehouse.
CIG's Hull C Q&A also states that the four tractor-beam turrets have enough coverage to reach cargo attached to the spindle.
The ship's cargo architecture therefore supports very large freight movement without requiring containers to be dragged through an interior bay.
That specialization comes with restrictions.
CIG's post-release Hull C Q&A states that the Hull C was designed around supported trade locations rather than ordinary outpost and landing-zone cargo access. At that time, CIG specifically identified the four low-orbit stations as its supported trading locations and discussed additional support as a future expansion.
Those location statements are implementation-era documentation and should not be silently converted into a complete Alpha 4.10.1 route list without newer official confirmation.
The underlying design distinction remains valid:
The Hull C requires freight infrastructure suited to its spindle workflow.
Ironclad Loading Is More Hands-On but More Flexible
The Ironclad uses a conventional internal-cargo philosophy at a very large scale.
Its Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data still lists 2,200 SCU, while the ship retains its retractable-roof cargo design and built-in tractor equipment.
That creates several possible loading approaches.
Freight can be moved through conventional access points or approached from above where the roof configuration and loading environment allow it.
Cargo can also be divided between several grids instead of occupying one giant external rack.
The trade-off is workload.
Manually organizing 2,200 SCU can involve a significant amount of container movement, and the ship becomes much easier to use when several people can work in parallel.
The Ironclad's loading system provides flexibility.
It does not make thousands of SCU effortless.
Which Ship Has the Better Cargo Workflow?
Neither design is universally better.
The Hull C has the stronger workflow when:
- freight volume is extremely large;
- cargo is moving between locations compatible with its bulk-hauling model;
- external spindle storage is acceptable;
- bulk shipping is the primary purpose of the trip.
The Ironclad has the stronger workflow when:
- the crew wants enclosed cargo;
- cargo must share space with vehicles or other equipment;
- more flexible loading access matters;
- the operation does not fit neatly into the Hull C's specialized logistics pattern.
The Hull C optimizes freight scale.
The Ironclad optimizes heavy-logistics flexibility.
Can the Hull C Carry Vehicles?
CIG's Hull C Q&A is unusually clear on this point.
The ship has personal storage and weapon racks, but CIG states that it is not intended to load vehicles inside it.
CIG also rejected attempts to treat the external cargo system as an improvised vehicle carrier, explaining that creative examples such as attaching small ships to cargo systems were not intended transport behavior.
That makes the Hull C fundamentally different from the Ironclad.
Ironclad vehicle flexibility
The Ironclad's enclosed cargo bay can accommodate suitable ground vehicles and equipment.
The exact number depends on physical dimensions, placement, cargo allocation, and deployment access, so this comparison does not assign universal vehicle-count limits.
The important distinction is role flexibility.
A crew can decide that part of its 2,200-SCU logistics operation should instead be physical vehicle space.
The Hull C is much more narrowly committed to cargo boxes on its spindle.
If transporting vehicles is part of the mission, the Ironclad has the more appropriate architecture.
The Hull C Is a Bulk Hauler, Not a Larger Ironclad
It is tempting to treat the Hull C as the obvious next step simply because 4,608 is larger than 2,200.
That misses how differently the ships work.
The Hull C trades flexibility for freight scale.
Its externally mounted cargo system is central to the ship's identity. The spindle expands when the ship is carrying cargo and retracts when the configuration allows it to return to a more compact state.
The Ironclad instead keeps its freight inside a conventional hull.
That makes it more useful for players who want a heavy cargo ship to participate in mixed logistics rather than operate almost entirely around bulk freight.
The relationship is therefore not:
Ironclad → bigger ship → Hull C
It is closer to:
Ironclad → enclosed heavy logistics
versus
Hull C → specialized bulk freight
Which Ship Is Easier to Solo?
Neither ship is a small solo hauler.
The difference is where the workload appears.
Ironclad solo workload
A single player can fly the Ironclad and perform cargo operations sequentially.
The main limitation is the amount of physical freight.
Loading, organizing, and unloading a large part of 2,200 SCU can become a substantial one-person task.
Built-in tractor equipment helps with access, but it does not turn the ship into an automated hauler.
Hull C solo workload
CIG's current Hull C vehicle record lists a 4–5 crew field, while CIG's dedicated Hull C material describes accommodation for a crew of four.
The ship's specialized cargo system reduces the need to treat 4,608 SCU like a conventional internal loading job, but the Hull C remains a large enterprise freighter with defensive, engineering, flight, and logistics responsibilities.
A solo pilot can move the ship, but that does not make one person equivalent to a full operating crew.
For both vessels:
can fly solo ≠ can efficiently exploit the complete ship solo.
Crew: Ironclad Data Still Needs Care
The current Alpha 4.10.1 Ironclad API displays the top-level crew field as 7–6.
That field is malformed and should not be interpreted as a valid 7-to-6 range.
CIG separately publishes Crew 7 for the Ironclad, while the detailed vehicle data has previously exposed distinct station and bed counts.
Those metrics should remain separate rather than being forced into a new clean crew range.
The Hull C's current vehicle record reports 4–5 at the top level, while CIG's dedicated ship presentation describes Crew of Four.
For this comparison, exact headcount matters less than the operating distinction:
both ships benefit from multicrew operation, but the Hull C is more narrowly specialized around bulk hauling while the Ironclad creates additional hands-on cargo and mixed-logistics jobs.
Speed Is Almost Identical in the Current Data
Current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data gives both ships an SCM speed of 110 m/s.
Their maximum recorded speeds are also close:
Those figures do not create a meaningful reason by themselves to choose one ship over the other.
The more important mobility difference comes from configuration and operating environment.
The Ironclad's cargo stays within an enclosed hull.
The Hull C changes physical configuration around its expandable spindle and is designed around large-scale freight infrastructure.
For practical route planning, cargo architecture matters more than the 10 m/s difference in listed maximum speed.
Shields Match, but Survivability Does Not Reduce to One Number
Both Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle records list 144,000 ship-level shield HP.
That is where the simple comparison should stop.
The Hull C currently lists 323,500 ship HP, while the Ironclad lists 258,000 ship HP.
Those numbers still do not establish a universal survivability winner.
The ships differ in:
- armor values and damage multipliers;
- physical scale and cargo configuration;
- defensive weapon coverage;
- exposed versus enclosed freight;
- component location;
- crew response;
- damage location and type.
The Ironclad is explicitly marketed around protected heavy freight and a harder-edged Drake logistics identity.
The Hull C is a civilian enterprise hauler whose primary advantage is cargo scale.
Neither ship should be evaluated by shield HP alone.
External Cargo Creates a Different Risk Profile
The Hull C exposes its cargo on the spindle.
That does not mean its freight should be described as automatically unprotected or trivially removable.
CIG has historically designed the Hull series around shielded and secured cargo containers, and its post-release Hull C Q&A describes restrictions on simply pulling cargo from a ship inside an armistice-zone unloading environment.
The relevant comparison is architectural.
Ironclad freight sits inside the hull.
Hull C freight is externally mounted.
That distinction can influence how owners think about route selection, piracy exposure, physical damage, cargo access, and recovery.
This article does not assign a universal loss probability to either design.
The Ironclad Has the More Flexible Vehicle-and-Cargo Role
The Ironclad can combine freight, equipment, and suitable vehicles within its enclosed cargo space.
That gives an organization more options when the mission is not pure commercial hauling.
A group might carry:
- commercial cargo;
- ground vehicles;
- mission equipment;
- supplies;
- mixed loads for several destinations.
Every vehicle consumes physical room that could otherwise carry freight, but the owner gets to make that trade.
The Hull C is much less flexible in that respect.
Its 4,608 SCU is exceptionally valuable when the job is cargo.
It is not a substitute for a large vehicle transport or enclosed logistics bay.
The Hull C Has Better Raw Freight Density
The Hull C achieves 4,608 SCU without enclosing all of that volume inside a conventional ship hull.
That is the point of the Hull series' telescopic architecture.
CIG's dedicated Hull C presentation describes its spindle as the reason a ship occupying the Hull C's general class can carry freight volumes associated with much larger haulers.
For owners interested almost entirely in cargo moved per trip, this is a major advantage.
The Ironclad spends more of its physical design on:
- enclosed cargo structure;
- vehicle-compatible internal space;
- crew areas;
- defensive systems;
- tractor infrastructure;
- the Command Module.
Those features reduce its maximum cargo number relative to a specialized external-spindle freighter.
They also explain why comparing only SCU misses much of the Ironclad's purpose.
What About Manual Loading?
Both ships include cargo-handling systems, but they approach manual freight differently.
The Ironclad's current data and official documentation support multiple built-in tractor positions designed to approach an internal cargo space from several angles.
The Hull C's dedicated presentation describes remote cargo management using multiple industrial tractor beams, while its Q&A says four tractor-beam turrets provide enough coverage to reach containers attached to the spindle.
That means the Hull C should not be described as lacking cargo-handling equipment.
The distinction is layout:
Ironclad: tractor-assisted manipulation of freight going into an enclosed hold.
Hull C: tractor-assisted management of cargo attached around an external spindle.
The first gives more flexible storage.
The second is optimized around enormous standardized freight volume.
Can the Hull C Land While Fully Loaded?
This is one of the biggest operational differences between the two ships.
CIG's Hull-series documentation says the Hull C, D, and E typically unload their cargo before conventional landing, unlike the smaller Hull A and B, which were designed to handle loaded planetary operations more directly.
The Hull C expands substantially when its spindle is deployed. CIG lists it at approximately:
- 125 m long
- 60 m wide
- 60 m high
in its expanded configuration.
This is why its logistics identity is closely tied to orbital and station-supported freight.
The Ironclad does not need to transform into an external cargo-frame configuration to carry its full standardized internal load.
That gives the Drake ship a much more conventional relationship with landing zones and ground-side logistics.
Ironclad vs Hull C for Planet-Side Cargo
For cargo operations involving planetary surfaces, the Ironclad has the more flexible architecture.
Its freight is internal, and it is designed as a conventional heavy ship that can land with its cargo aboard.
The Hull C's bulk-freight workflow is better suited to supported orbital logistics.
That does not mean the Hull C can never visit a planet.
It means the full 4,608-SCU operating model is not designed around landing a fully expanded external spindle at ordinary ground cargo locations.
For players who routinely combine orbital freight with surface deliveries, this difference may matter more than maximum SCU.
Ironclad vs Hull C for Station-to-Station Bulk Freight
This is where the Hull C's case is strongest.
If the route:
- supports the Hull C cargo workflow;
- provides enough freight to fill thousands of SCU;
- does not require vehicle transport;
- does not require conventional planet-side unloading;
- rewards minimizing the number of journeys;
then the Hull C's 4,608 SCU becomes extremely difficult to ignore.
The Ironclad can still perform large station-to-station freight runs.
It simply carries less than half as much cargo per full load.
If pure bulk tonnage is the limiting factor, the Hull C solves that problem more directly.
Cargo Capital and Risk
A larger cargo hold can require more capital to exploit.
Filling 4,608 SCU with purchased commodities may expose substantially more money in one shipment than filling 2,200 SCU.
That is not automatically bad.
One large load can also reduce the number of repeated journeys.
The useful question is whether the player's bankroll, route, supply volume, and risk tolerance can support the larger shipment.
Buying a Hull C because it has the larger number makes little sense if the owner rarely has enough cargo or capital to use the spindle.
The same principle applies to the Ironclad at a smaller scale.
Both ships are large enough that unused capacity is not free productivity.
Price: $600 Ironclad vs $500 Hull C Reference MSRP
Current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data lists:
These are reference pledge values.
They should not be confused with current standalone availability, Warbond pricing, CCU pricing, secondary-market pricing, or in-game aUEC values.
The unusual part of this comparison is that the higher-capacity ship has the lower reference MSRP.
That does not automatically make the Hull C better value.
The Ironclad's additional reference value is attached to a different operating package: enclosed cargo, vehicle flexibility, dedicated internal logistics, stronger mixed-role utility, and the detachable Command Module.
The Hull C spends more of its design budget on maximizing freight volume.
The price comparison therefore reinforces the role split rather than resolving it.
Does the Command Module Matter?
The Ironclad includes its detachable Command Module.
The current Alpha 4.10.1 Command Module vehicle record identifies it as an independent craft with 0 SCU cargo capacity and its own current vehicle specifications.
CIG's original Ironclad Q&A separately confirms that the detachable module has its own quantum drive, allowing it to perform independent quantum travel.
Its value is therefore crew mobility, emergency use, and operational flexibility rather than freight volume.
It does not allow the Ironclad owner to detach a portion of the 2,200-SCU shipment and deliver it separately.
DefenseCon 2956 provides the newer implementation context for the shared Caterpillar/Ironclad Command Module, its retained personnel and life-raft purpose, and the ability to leave the parent hull behind while using the smaller craft.
The Hull C uses a conventional integrated command arrangement and does not have an equivalent detachable craft.
For most pure cargo runs, this difference will matter less than cargo architecture.
For organization logistics, the module gives the Ironclad another option that the Hull C does not provide.
See the Star Citizen Ironclad Command Module Guide for the module's current implementation boundaries.
Which Is Better for Solo Players?
For a player specifically choosing between these two ships, neither is an ideal example of small-scale hauling.
The Ironclad asks the solo pilot to deal with an enormous internal physical cargo operation.
The Hull C asks the solo pilot to manage an enterprise bulk freighter designed around a crewed spindle-and-station logistics model.
The better solo choice depends on which limitation is less disruptive.
Choose the Ironclad if you value internal cargo flexibility and accept more hands-on handling.
Choose the Hull C if your priority is bulk freight and your routes fit its specialized infrastructure.
Neither should be purchased on the assumption that one player will use every system as efficiently as a coordinated crew.
Which Is Better for Small Groups?
For a small organized group, the Ironclad has the broader range of jobs.
Several players can divide:
- piloting;
- tractor work;
- cargo placement;
- engineering;
- defense;
- shipment organization.
The Hull C gives a small crew a more focused objective: operate the ship and move an enormous amount of bulk freight.
CIG's Hull C material explicitly describes it around a crew of four.
The Ironclad's current top-level crew data remains malformed, so this comparison does not invent a clean official crew range from that field.
For groups that enjoy logistics as an activity rather than merely maximizing SCU, the Ironclad offers more varied onboard work.
For groups primarily measuring freight moved per journey, the Hull C has the capacity advantage.
Which Is Better for Organizations?
The answer depends almost entirely on the organization's logistics model.
A large trading organization operating repeatable supported freight routes can make extremely good use of the Hull C's 4,608 SCU.
A more mixed organization may prefer Ironclads because they can combine cargo with vehicles, equipment, surface operations, and enclosed freight.
The ships can also complement each other.
The Hull C can handle the high-volume bulk leg.
The Ironclad can handle routes and destinations where internal cargo access and operational flexibility are more valuable.
They occupy overlapping cargo categories without being interchangeable.
Who Should Choose the Hull C?
The Hull C makes more sense when:
- 4,608 SCU can actually be used regularly;
- bulk station-supported freight is the primary activity;
- maximum cargo per trip matters more than vehicle flexibility;
- external spindle cargo suits the route;
- planet-side full-load operations are not a core requirement;
- a specialized enterprise hauler is preferable to a broader logistics ship.
It is the clearer choice when the owner's problem is simply:
“I need to move much more cargo per trip.”
Who Should Choose the Ironclad?
The standard Ironclad makes more sense when:
- 2,200 SCU is already enough for the intended freight scale;
- enclosed cargo is preferable to an external spindle;
- vehicles or mixed logistics matter;
- planet-side cargo operations are important;
- multiple loading approaches and internal grid organization are useful;
- a heavy logistics platform is more valuable than maximum raw SCU.
The broader Star Citizen Ironclad Guide covers crew, weapons, Command Module, price, solo use, and general ownership beyond this freight comparison.
Final Verdict
The Hull C is the stronger pure bulk hauler, while the Ironclad is the more flexible heavy logistics platform.
The Hull C carries 4,608 SCU, more than twice the Ironclad's current 2,200-SCU cargo-grid total. Its telescopic spindle and cargo-management systems are built specifically around moving huge amounts of standardized freight.
The Ironclad gives up raw capacity for an enclosed hold, vehicle flexibility, multiple internal cargo grids, roof access, dedicated tractor positions, defensive infrastructure, and the Command Module.
Neither design makes the other obsolete.
Choose the Hull C when the route supports its freight model and moving the largest possible shipment is the objective.
Choose the Ironclad when the cargo operation needs to remain flexible—especially when internal storage, surface operations, vehicles, mixed loads, or hands-on logistics matter as much as maximum SCU.
The most useful distinction is not 4,608 vs 2,200.
It is:
bulk freight specialization vs enclosed heavy-logistics flexibility.
FAQ
How much cargo does the Ironclad carry compared with the Hull C?
Current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data lists 2,200 SCU for the Ironclad and 4,608 SCU for the Hull C.
CIG separately publishes 2,204 SCU for the Ironclad. The reason for that four-SCU difference has not been established.
How much more cargo does the Hull C carry?
The Hull C carries 2,408 SCU more than the Ironclad's 2,200-SCU version-locked total.
That is approximately 109% more capacity.
Does the Hull C carry cargo inside the ship?
Its primary 4,608-SCU cargo capacity is carried externally on the telescopic spindle rather than inside a conventional enclosed cargo bay.
Can the Hull C carry vehicles?
CIG's post-release Hull C Q&A states that the ship is not intended to load vehicles aboard its interior, and the external cargo system is currently designed around cargo boxes rather than improvised vehicle carriage.
Can the Ironclad carry vehicles?
Yes. Suitable vehicles can use its internal cargo space, although they compete with freight for physical room and require usable deployment paths.
Can the Hull C land fully loaded?
The larger Hull-series ships are designed around unloading their external freight before conventional landing operations. The Hull C's expanded spindle configuration is fundamentally different from the Ironclad's enclosed full-load arrangement.
Which is better for planet-side cargo?
The Ironclad has the more flexible architecture for surface-oriented freight because its cargo remains inside the hull and does not depend on an expanded external spindle.
Which is better for station-to-station cargo?
When the logistics infrastructure and freight volume suit it, the Hull C has the stronger pure bulk-hauling case because of its 4,608-SCU capacity.
Which ship is faster?
Current Alpha 4.10.1 data lists both ships at 110 m/s SCM. The Ironclad lists 900 m/s maximum speed, while the Hull C lists 890 m/s.
Do they have the same shields?
Yes. Current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data lists 144,000 ship-level shield HP for both ships.
Equal shield HP does not mean equal overall survivability.
Which has more ship HP?
Current Alpha 4.10.1 vehicle data lists 323,500 ship HP for the Hull C and 258,000 for the Ironclad.
Those values should not be used alone to declare a universal durability winner because armor, cargo configuration, damage location, components, weapon coverage, and crew response also matter.
Which costs more?
The current vehicle records list a $600 reference MSRP for the Ironclad and $500 for the Hull C.
These are reference pledge values, not confirmation of current standalone availability or a specific Warbond, CCU, secondary-market, or in-game price.
Is the Hull C better than the Ironclad?
Not universally.
The Hull C is more specialized around maximum bulk freight capacity. The Ironclad sacrifices raw SCU for enclosed cargo, vehicle compatibility, surface flexibility, internal logistics, and broader operational utility.
