Ironclad vs Ironclad Assault: Which Drake Ship Should You Choose?
The Drake Ironclad and Ironclad Assault share the same heavy-duty hull family, but they serve different purposes. The standard Ironclad is a large armored freighter designed to transport valuable cargo. The Assault sacrifices freight capacity for additional weapons, vehicle-deployment equipment, and onboard support facilities.
The standard Ironclad carries 2,200 SCU in the Alpha 4.10.0 cargo-grid data, compared with the Assault's 1,440 SCU. Both have a reported ship-level shield value of 144,000 HP, but their weapon arrangements and internal facilities differ.
For players primarily interested in commercial freight, the standard Ironclad provides more cargo space. For organizations deploying ground vehicles and supporting extended operations, the Assault offers a more specialized configuration.
The decision becomes more complicated when crew requirements, vehicle access, repair services, and future functionality enter the picture.
Both ships are flight ready. Alpha 4.10.1 is the current LIVE version, while the numerical comparisons in this article use the explicitly identified Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle-data snapshot.
Ironclad vs Ironclad Assault: Specifications Compared
| Specification | Ironclad | Ironclad Assault |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Drake Interplanetary | Drake Interplanetary |
| Primary role | Heavy Freight | Heavy Dropship |
| Status | Flight Ready | Flight Ready |
| Cargo capacity | 2,200 SCU | 1,440 SCU |
| Published / data crew | CIG: 7; data field malformed | Data field: 7–8 |
| Crew stations | 6 | 8 |
| Beds | 7 | 7 |
| Dimensions | 117 × 50 × 25 m | 117 × 50 × 25 m |
| SCM speed | 110 m/s | 130 m/s |
| NAV speed | 900 m/s | 940 m/s |
| Ship-level shield HP | 144,000 | 144,000 |
| Manned turrets | 2 | 3 |
| Remote turret overview count | 6 | 5 |
| Missiles | 10 × S5 | 10 × S5 |
| Reference MSRP | $600 | $650 |
Sources: Ironclad Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle data and Ironclad Assault Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle data .
The remote-turret row uses the vehicle records' overview counts consistently. The standard Ironclad's detailed equipped-turret breakdown also contains three principal groups of remote-turret entries. Those groups should not be substituted for the overview count or treated as three independently verified turret positions.
CIG publishes a crew figure of seven for the standard Ironclad, while its vehicle-data crew field displays the malformed value 7-6. The snapshot separately enumerates six crew stations and seven beds. These measurements should not be interpreted as an official crew range.
The most significant differences are cargo capacity, weapon configuration, and support facilities. The Assault's higher SCM and NAV speeds are recorded characteristics of the 4.10.0 snapshot, not proof that it is easier to operate in every flight or landing situation.
Both variants have the same reported ship-level shield HP. This does not establish identical durability, armor performance, or survivability.
Cargo Capacity: Is the Assault's 760-SCU Sacrifice Worth It?
The standard Ironclad carries 760 SCU more cargo than the Assault when both are measured using the same Alpha 4.10.0 cargo-grid data.
That difference represents substantial potential freight capacity on every fully loaded run.
For a group repeatedly transporting bulk commodities, the standard Ironclad can move more cargo without requiring an additional journey. It also retains the enclosed hold, roof access, and tractor equipment that make the Ironclad family useful for large-scale logistics.
The Assault's reduced capacity is not simply a smaller version of the same cargo arrangement. Its internal configuration prioritizes vehicle operations and support equipment, allowing the ship to serve as more than a freight carrier.
When the standard Ironclad makes more sense
For a crew transporting several large shipments between trading locations, cargo remains the primary asset. Vehicles, if carried at all, are secondary to the freight operation.
In that situation, the standard Ironclad's additional capacity has a direct purpose: moving more goods per trip.
Choosing the Assault would sacrifice freight space for capabilities the crew might rarely use. The enclosed hold and loading workflow covered in the Star Citizen Ironclad Guide make that extra capacity particularly relevant to organized freight operations.
When the Assault's smaller hold is sufficient
An organization deploying ground vehicles to a remote operating area has different requirements. The ship needs to carry vehicles, mission supplies, and replacement equipment. Commercial freight is secondary.
The Assault's 1,440 SCU provides substantial capacity alongside its specialized vehicle-support configuration.
In this scenario, the lost freight capacity may be an acceptable trade-off because the ship contributes to the operation after reaching its destination.
The deciding question is whether those additional facilities will actually be used.
A group that only needs to move vehicles from one location to another may not gain enough value from the Assault's support systems to justify choosing it over the standard freighter.
Why cargo-grid figures are not vehicle-capacity guarantees
Cargo capacity does not establish exactly which vehicles fit or how many can be deployed efficiently.
The Assault's two principal cargo grids each account for 720 SCU. The standard Ironclad has a more extensive arrangement of nine grids, including larger and smaller sections.
Neither total tells you whether a particular vehicle can safely maneuver through the entrances, clear the roof, or be recovered after deployment.
For vehicle operations, physical clearance, deployment order, and access to the support area matter more than a simple SCU comparison.
Vehicle Support: The Assault's Defining Advantage
The Assault's strongest argument is its ability to support vehicles and small spacecraft after transporting them.
In the official DefenseCon 2956 Ship Q&A , CIG confirmed that the Assault received the initial implementation of Ship Hangar Services with Alpha 4.8. The launch implementation allowed vehicles and spacecraft within the ship to access repair and refueling services.
CIG also described a future restriction limiting those services to the rear third of the cargo bay.
The original announcement does not independently establish the exact service boundaries in Alpha 4.10.1, so those launch-era details should not be treated as fresh testing of the current patch.
A transport that remains useful after landing
For an organization deploying several ground vehicles, the standard Ironclad's principal job is delivering the vehicles and their accompanying equipment.
The Assault's intended operating cycle extends further. Vehicles can deploy, return for servicing, and prepare for another operation using the available repair and refueling facilities.
That gives the Assault a purpose beyond delivering its payload.
The support functionality is particularly relevant to groups conducting repeated operations away from stations. It does not eliminate the need to protect the ship or manage the wider logistics of the mission.
A vehicle returning for repairs is not useful if the transport itself has become an exposed target.
The fabricator should not decide the purchase
The Assault includes a fabricator, but CIG stated that blueprint crafting was not enabled at the ship's launch.
The planned functionality would allow fabrication directly to and from vehicle cargo grids. Its availability depends on the relevant gameplay implementation.
Without newer implementation evidence, the fabricator should not be counted as a confirmed Alpha 4.10.1 manufacturing capability.
The Assault's documented repair and refueling role, examined alongside its other limitations in the Ironclad Assault Guide , provides a more concrete basis for evaluating the specialized variant.
Weapons and Armor: What Does the Assault Add?
The two ships have different weapon configurations, but turret totals alone do not establish which has stronger coverage in a particular direction.
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle records provide the following overview counts:
| Turret overview metric | Ironclad | Ironclad Assault |
|---|---|---|
| Manned turrets | 2 | 3 |
| Remote turrets | 6 | 5 |
The standard Ironclad's detailed equipped-turret section also presents three principal groups of remote-turret entries. This is a different reporting level from its six-turret overview count. The Assault's five-turret overview should therefore be compared with the standard ship's six-turret overview, not with the number of groups in its detailed equipment list.
The standard Ironclad's weapons primarily support the defense of a heavy freighter. The Assault's additional manned station and underside weapon arrangement support a different task: approaching a landing area while providing fire for the vehicles and personnel being deployed.
The overview counts do not establish how many weapons can engage the same target simultaneously. Actual coverage depends on turret position, firing arcs, equipment, and the players operating the relevant stations.
The Assault supports a landing rather than replacing the ground force
During a contested deployment, the Assault's underside weapons can engage threats while the pilot positions the vessel.
That creates an opportunity for coordinated ground operations, but it also introduces a vulnerable period. The ship may need to approach slowly and expose its cargo while vehicles disembark.
A heavily armed transport does not automatically make an unsafe landing zone secure.
For a group moving valuable commercial freight rather than deploying a fighting force, the Assault's additional manned weapon station may provide less practical value than the standard Ironclad's additional cargo capacity.
Does the Assault actually have stronger armor?
CIG describes the Assault as having improved armor relative to the standard Ironclad. Its DefenseCon 2956 Q&A places the family between lighter civilian haulers and more specialized military transports in its intended protection hierarchy.
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle data presents a more complicated picture:
| Defensive metric | Ironclad | Ironclad Assault |
|---|---|---|
| Ship HP | 258,000 | 278,000 |
| Armor Health | 26,010 | 20,790 |
| Physical damage multiplier | -28% | -23% |
| Ship-level shield HP | 144,000 | 144,000 |
Sources: Standard Ironclad vehicle data and Ironclad Assault vehicle data .
The Assault has more reported ship HP, but its Armor Health and physical damage multiplier fields do not uniformly exceed those of the standard ship.
These are different defensive measurements. They cannot be reduced to a single reliable survivability verdict.
CIG's improved-armor description should be understood as the developer's stated design positioning, not proof that the Assault is superior in every defensive statistic or combat scenario.
Neither ship should be purchased on the assumption that it can safely absorb sustained attacks without an organized crew.
Crew Requirements: Which Is Easier to Operate?
Both ships require meaningful crew coordination to exploit their full capabilities, but they create different workloads.
CIG publishes a crew figure of seven for the standard Ironclad. The 4.10.0 vehicle snapshot separately lists six crew stations and seven beds.
The Assault's snapshot contains a 7–8 crew field, eight crew stations, and seven beds. These are different measurements and should not be interpreted as interchangeable minimum crew requirements.
Standard Ironclad crew
A freight-oriented crew can organize itself around the cargo operation.
The pilot handles navigation and positioning. Other players manage freight, tractor equipment, defensive stations, and engineering.
The most important operating constraint is usually how much cargo needs to be moved and how safely the crew can complete the journey.
A practical group of approximately four to six players is a reasonable editorial starting point for substantial hauling operations, although smaller crews can perform simpler journeys.
Assault crew
The Assault needs more than a transport crew when operating as a combined-arms platform.
It may require gunners, engineering personnel, a vehicle coordinator, and people responsible for the ground force itself.
A practical shipboard crew of approximately five to eight players is a reasonable planning estimate for organized operations, but this does not include every person who might deploy on the ground.
An eight-person crew operating the ship is not necessarily an eight-person assault team.
A group that wants to deploy several vehicles needs enough people to operate those vehicles while maintaining the transport.
This can determine whether the Assault is a practical fleet asset or a large ship that regularly sits unused.
Which is better for solo players?
Neither is an efficient choice for routine solo operations.
A single pilot can move either vessel but cannot simultaneously handle cargo, defend the ship, manage engineering, and operate multiple vehicles.
The standard Ironclad has a more straightforward solo use case because transporting cargo does not inherently require deploying a separate ground force. That does not make loading more than two thousand SCU alone convenient.
The Assault is particularly difficult to justify for solo ownership when its repair facilities, additional weapon stations, and vehicle-support functions remain unused.
A player without a reliable crew should consider how frequently the ship will actually be used rather than focusing only on its specifications.
What Do Both Ships Have in Common?
Choosing between the Ironclad and Assault does not require sacrificing every feature of the other variant.
Detachable Command Module
Both variants use the Ironclad family's detachable Command Module.
CIG confirmed that the Ironclad and Caterpillar share an identical module, retaining its personnel accommodation and emergency escape role in the DefenseCon 2956 Q&A.
The module can separate from the main hull and operate independently, allowing the crew to leave the parent vessel behind when the entire transport does not need to move.
It does not transform either ship into two independent cargo vessels.
The Command Module's Alpha 4.10.0 data lists zero SCU of cargo capacity, and the parent hull cannot independently fly away after separation.
The module is therefore a shared operational feature, not a compelling reason to select one Ironclad variant over the other.
Large enclosed cargo spaces
Both variants can carry substantial freight and suitable smaller vehicles.
The standard Ironclad offers more room for commercial cargo, while the Assault allocates more of its configuration to vehicle deployment and support.
Neither should be treated as a standardized spacecraft carrier simply because a particular craft can physically fit inside its hold.
Repeated landing, launch, recovery, clearance, and access still determine whether carrying that craft is practical.
Shared operating scale
Both ships are approximately 117 meters long in the 4.10.0 snapshot.
The Assault's additional weapon coverage and support equipment do not make it a small or easily managed transport.
Similarly, the standard Ironclad's freight focus does not remove the need to organize a large cargo operation.
The difference between the variants is what they accomplish with that scale, not whether either is a convenient small-crew daily driver.
Price: Is the Assault Worth the Extra $50?
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle records list reference MSRPs of $600 for the standard Ironclad and $650 for the Assault. These are reference pledge values, not confirmed real-time standalone sale prices.
The difference is relatively modest compared with the ships' operational differences.
However, the Assault should not be treated as an automatic upgrade simply because its reference MSRP is $50 higher.
It sacrifices 760 SCU in exchange for a configuration intended for vehicle deployment and support. A crew that rarely uses those facilities may receive less practical value from the more expensive variant.
Historical concept prices are not reliable substitutes for current pledge values. Warbond standalone prices, regular CCU prices, and discounted Warbond CCUs are also different acquisition types and must be evaluated separately.
Neither version-locked vehicle record establishes an available in-game purchase price for these ships.
Upgrading from Ironclad to Ironclad Assault
For an existing Ironclad owner, the decision should begin with the missions the ship actually performs.
If the ship is regularly filled with commercial freight, moving to the Assault would reduce available cargo capacity.
If the crew increasingly uses the ship to deploy vehicles and support ground operations, the Assault's specialized facilities become more relevant.
The MSRP difference alone does not establish an available $50 upgrade. Actual CCU eligibility, pricing, and availability depend on the offer shown by RSI or the relevant marketplace.
An upgrade decision should also account for the fact that the conversion changes the ship's role. It is not merely a purchase of additional weapons.
Which Ironclad Fits Your Fleet?
The most useful way to compare these ships is to start with the operation you intend to run.
| Your primary activity | More relevant configuration | Why |
|---|---|---|
| High-volume commercial freight | Standard Ironclad | 760 SCU more cargo capacity |
| Mixed cargo and occasional vehicle transport | Standard Ironclad | Greater freight capacity without prioritizing specialized support facilities |
| Coordinated ground deployments | Ironclad Assault | Additional manned weapon station and vehicle-focused configuration |
| Repeated vehicle recovery and servicing | Ironclad Assault | Documented Ship Hangar Services implementation |
| Routine solo cargo hauling | Neither is especially convenient | Both impose substantial cargo-handling and ship-management workloads |
| Mobile manufacturing | No confirmed advantage established | The Assault's fabricator was not enabled at launch, and its 4.10.1 status is not independently verified |
These recommendations concern the ships' documented roles and practical operating requirements, not assumed combat outcomes or guaranteed profitability.
A group that regularly moves large shipments has a different reason to own an Ironclad than an organization that deploys vehicles during coordinated operations.
The ships may look similar, but they solve different logistics problems.
Final Verdict: Ironclad or Ironclad Assault?
Choose the standard Ironclad if your main objective is moving large amounts of cargo. Choose the Ironclad Assault if vehicle deployment and support are central to your group's activities.
The standard Ironclad's additional 760 SCU creates a meaningful advantage for freight-focused operations. Its loading infrastructure and enclosed hold make it a substantial logistics platform without requiring the crew to justify specialized combat-support equipment.
The Assault provides a different kind of value. Its additional manned turret, underside weapon arrangement, and documented repair and refueling implementation support groups that want to deploy vehicles and keep them operational away from conventional facilities.
The strongest reason to choose the Assault is not that it costs more or carries additional weapons. It is that your group has a recurring need for the activities those systems enable.
Both vessels remain large multicrew commitments. Neither becomes an efficient solo ship simply because its pilot can fly it alone.
FAQ
How much cargo does the Ironclad Assault lose compared with the Ironclad?
The Assault carries 1,440 SCU compared with the standard Ironclad's 2,200 SCU in the Alpha 4.10.0 cargo-grid data, a difference of 760 SCU.
CIG separately advertises the standard Ironclad at 2,204 SCU. The precise reason for the four-SCU discrepancy has not been established.
Does the Ironclad Assault have stronger shields?
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle records report the same ship-level shield value of 144,000 HP for both variants. Their armor-related data and weapon arrangements differ, so identical shield values do not establish identical survivability.
Can the standard Ironclad repair vehicles?
CIG specifically documented the initial Ship Hangar Services implementation for the Ironclad Assault. The standard Ironclad's tractor equipment and cargo space should not be confused with those repair and refueling services.
Is the Ironclad Assault faster than the standard Ironclad?
The Alpha 4.10.0 data lists 130 m/s SCM and 940 m/s NAV for the Assault, compared with 110 m/s SCM and 900 m/s NAV for the standard Ironclad. These figures are version-specific and do not establish identical handling differences in every situation.
Do both Ironclad variants use the same Command Module?
Yes. The variants share the Ironclad family's detachable Command Module, which CIG also confirmed is identical to the Caterpillar's module. It is primarily a personnel and command craft, not a detachable cargo shuttle.
