83 réponses à ce sujet

[Shazzammer2]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Ask the writers of Star Trek, they apparently started the trend.

This

[Drakron]

kraze07 wrote...
I can't speak for other nations, but the US Navy is nearly just as capable as the Air Force at air warfare.

No, its not (anymore) ... the USAF have a global reach and its fleet varies from long range interception to long range bombing.

The US Navy is down to the F/A-18 that is multirole fighter, it lost its interceptor (F-14) and before that its bomber (A-6), its not "nearly as capable" unless you think having a mid-range multirole fighter makes it as capable as having a stealth supersonic long range air superiority fighter.

Yes, the US Navy is getting the end of the stick for quite a whole in Washington.

[eternalnightmare13]

Writers like L Ron Hubbard (not a fan) were in the Navy and grew up in a military family.  Writers tend to reference what they know personally so this could be an explanation at the beginging.  Then it became canon for the most part and others followed suit.

[Fromyou]

i think it's because ships in space are really the same as the navy but without the water

[Si-Shen]

I always assumed that it was because they refered to the ships as just that, ships, not air craft or something similar. Also you hear them refer to groups of said ships as fleets, when you say fleet, I think navy, not airforce.



Besides, it sounds more impressive to salut an Admiral then a General.

Besides, as previously posted, if you concider space an ocean, it makes more sense to use naval references then if you try to refer to it as air space. Personally, space is more of an ocean IMHO rather then air space.

[leeboi2]

Hmmm...Spaceships...ships...Hmm...Maybe...Maybe it's because they're ships!

[Nivenus]

kraze07 wrote...

Nivenus wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

From a logical point of view, naval organisation seems more appropriate, as the commonly displayed layout of space-forces look more like naval flotillas than aircraft squadrons. There are lots of fighters throughout the SciFi realms, though those remind more to aircraft-carriers than standard airforce.
Thus, why change the airforce's chain of command when you can easily adept the navy one!?

It might appear to make sense but it actually doesn't. Space combat will be most likely very different from both naval combat and air combat, but air combat is slightly more similar simply on the basis that they have experience with three-dimensional thinking and other aspects of flight that would play into spaceflight (note that this doesn't mean starfighters are a likely focus of space combat - they're not). However, in the United States, the Air Force's stated mission is to fight in air and space (as well as cyberspace). In Russia, they actually have a separate division of their military for space operations.

I can't speak for other nations, but the US Navy is nearly just as capable as the Air Force at air warfare. You have to remember all those carriers were built for a reason and you better believe Uncle Sam is putting them to use. And the space combat would actually be similar to naval combat seeing as how subs operate in three dimensions and war in space would involve long distance battles, which is the backbone of modern Naval combat. You better believe something like a space cruiser would have defenses for a small starfighter.

Space is not an ocean.

You are correct that the US Navy is very adept at certain forms of air combat and indeed, probably plays a larger role in air combat these days than the USAF (particularly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan) but that does not negate the fact that the air force specializes in air combat and also has authority over military operations in space, even if today that's largely limited to satellite surveillance.

You also misread my argument. I agree with you that starfighters are unlikely to play a large part in space combat (I said as much in my original post). That being said, spaceships are not submarines either - in large part because submarine warfare relies largely on a submarine's ability to disappear or move undetected. This is impossible in space except with super thermal sheathing like what the Normandy has, because a ship's heat emissions will show up on even the most primitive EM sensors.

[Spartas Husky]

Space is considered the last great frontier. Usually regarded as the endless ocean.



SO its the navy's wetdream

[Thompson family]

Harbinger and the Collectors are Captain Ahab and the Pequod. Shepard is Moby Dick. Didn't you hear Harbinger when he said: "He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him"?

[SuperMedbh]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Writers like L Ron Hubbard (not a fan) were in the Navy and grew up in a military family.  Writers tend to reference what they know personally so this could be an explanation at the beginging.  Then it became canon for the most part and others followed suit.

Hmm..never thought of that!  Heinlein was an Annapolis boy, too.

I also know that Roddenberry supposedly pitched Star Trek as "Horatio Hornblower in Space".  Certainly, Trek has done a lot for the whole "Space Exploration as 17th Century Exploration" meme.  Heck, we've even got pirates!  Yarrr

[Drakron]

Nivenus wrote...
You are correct that the US Navy is very adept at certain forms of air combat and indeed, probably plays a larger role in air combat these days than the USAF (particularly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan)

Here is a sugestion, get a map and check WERE Afghanistan is located (it have NO sea exists, unless they are
using chronospheres to put US carriers in the middle of lakes and no, Pakistan is not really something you want to fly over in a regular basis ... pisses off the natives sort to speak) and also look at were are Iraq sea borders are (very small, in fact getting a sea exit was one of the main reasons of the Iraq-Iran war and also the
Kuwait invasion as they are pretty close to someone that really does not like the US very much, Iran).

There in a US Navy presence on the Persian Gulf  but that is a standart 1 Carrier Strike Group and 1 Expeditionary Strike Group ... USAF? 2 F-16 Squadorns, 1  Predator UAV squadron,  1 C-130 Squadron, 1 Combat Search and Rescue (HH-60's) squadron and 1 MC-12 squadron (besides the Control and Report Center).

Neither Iraq or Afganistan require that much of a air power since there is not much of a opposing airforce or even amor to deal with, its a Army job most and Army runs their helis that do just fine for the type of operations they run even.

Modifié par Drakron, 15 mai 2010 - 02:38 .

[HTTP 404]

to OP, does it matter?

[William e]

Read history, Glen was USMC, a branch of the Navy most of the orginal people in the era were Navy, the reson why was because the US airforce people back then couldn't land on a moving target, ie a carrier at sea, The airforce needed a fixed base that didn't move at 30 knots in a head wind. Futher more it is the navy that is always on the move and is the front line in any given war. Why do you think the Japansise took out Peral Harbor to begin with. I am Navy strong and there before the others. That is why it is Navy, and to me being ing the Navy they don't follow really what the Navy is. Enough said.

[kraze07]

You guys also have to remember that no one would be more adept at living on a space craft and being away from land for so long than someone who's served in a navy. Plus space warfare of the future would most likely have some form of space marines. Who do Marines work with closely in this day and age? Navies, so it only seems natural that they would use naval ranks.

[superimposed]

Cause they're called Space Ships.



Ships being the key word.

[DrunkIrishman117]

when new branches of the military are created it is done by taking parts of existing services and adapting them to the new branch, for example when the Royal Air Force was formed in 1918 it's rank structure was based of both Royal Army and Navy ranks- enlisted ranks where taken from the Army and slightly altered (Private became Aircraftman, Staff Sergent became Flight Sergeant) and officer ranks where taken from the Navy and again given a Air theme (Captain became Group Captain and Commodore became Air Commodore). Perhaps a similar process will be used when the space service is created depending on how it is viewed by its creators and as space has become linked with the ocean (i cant comment on that as i honestly have no idea) naval terms and ranks will probably be adopted.

Modifié par DrunkIrishman117, 15 mai 2010 - 06:44 .

[Darth Drago]

Its pretty obvious why it is used or called a navy. Just look at the words spaceSHIP, starSHIP or rocketSHIP they are ships so right off its going to be nautical terms already.

If the ship is part of a military force its most likely going to be a navy. Look at all the ship types in today’s navies. You have destroyers, cruisers, frigates, carriers and battleships. A countries air force or army doesn’t have those type vehicle classes right?

In all the sci-fi stuff I’ve seen or read a space military will consist of those exact ship types. Star Trek’s Enterprise is a cruiser for example. In an old pen and paper RPG called Traveler/MegaTraveler carriers are present they are also mentioned in ME1 I believe. They even call groups of ships fleets or battle groups. These military ships sometimes even have their own marine units on them.

Military and civilian ships (especially the large ones) use the same typical ranks like captain, first officer and so on. The only real logical choice to use navy ranks in spaceships regardless of military or civilian type is because its still a nautical vessel. Its just instead of moving through water its space.

[Chuvvy]

Because spaceships.

[SuperMedbh]

Heh, living in a military town (not myself, but I've friends), I always have to chuckle at the inter-service rivalry thing. You guys really don't take much to get going, do you? "Airforce guys are weenies 'cause they have....nice bases!" "Yeah, who sits around in air conditioning when we're in tents?" (of course, being a civilian, I'm not clear on why being miserable equates to bragging rights...)



I bet the Space Corps will be the same way "Stupid ground pounders, can't get out of a gravity well without a map!" "Yeah, you spacers are all alike-- more than 1.1 gees and 30 C and you go whimpering home to momma!"

[KitsuneRommel]

superimposed wrote...

Cause they're called Space Ships.

Ships being the key word.

Craft: a vehicle or vessel, which may include: Aircraft, hovercraft, watercraft and spacecraft.

The reason they are called space ships in sci-fi is the same reason they use navy ranks.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 15 mai 2010 - 07:41 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wow, ... and I thought this would turn a bit more into the logical-argument direction ... instead this thread ended up "because they are called spaceSHIPS".

So sad.

I'm going to write a sci-fi story with spaceARKS, archbishops, bishops, patriarchs, vicars, ministers, deacons, pastors and priests.

Or maybe one with spaceCASTLES, kings, barons, counts, marquess', earls, dukes and knights.

[nikki191]

why do they use navy ranks? easy to understand really.. look at the ships themselves, the classes of spaceships are almost always given navy type designations. the normady was a frigate, there are cruisers, carriers, dreadnoughts. even in space they are still classed and called "ships" hence you have navy ranks.



yes in a way it would make more sense to use airforce ranks, but frankly when you are told that the person is captain Jack of the normady for example you know the person is in charge where as who is in charge of a frigate with airforce ranks? a colonel? a brigidier general? a major general?. its just less hassle to be honest and people are used to it

[BellatrixLugosi]

im so confused by op..........