83 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

screwoffreg wrote...
so "shields" (for which there is no basis in current physics)

Don't know where you get that. It may not be deflector shields, but just look at recent experiments with electromagnetic armor.
Regarding close in fighters, they will indeed likely be all unmanned in the far future. But depending on the advancement of electronic warfare techniques, I suppose you could see manned flight leaders.

[Poison_Berrie]

screwoffreg wrote...
Pretty much.  Giant spheres moving around and shooting missiles from lightyears away.  

You probably mean lightminutes.
Which is also unlikely, since either team will see the missiles coming, picking them off and deploying countermeasures before they have a chance to become slightly threating.
Not to mention that there are mass vs energy consideration to be made. A mass accelerator or laser would probably require less mass. 
 The use of mass accelerators and/or laser would close the distance to less than one lightsecond out of practical considerations. That still means the ships won't ever get to see their assailant through the non-existent porthole.

[screwoffreg]

This probably has the best rundown of it:

http://forums.spaceb...referrerid=7726

Modifié par screwoffreg, 16 mai 2010 - 10:33 .

[Hussar]

It isn’t just combat that creates the analogy. Think of all the tasks and missions navies have performed in their long histories. This includes exploration & discovery, colonization, first contact with new cultures and closed cultures (e.g. Japan in 1871), opening and protecting trade routes, fighting piracy, and missions of ad hoc diplomacy. Large, multi-service expeditionary forces are usually commanded by the senior Naval officer. 
 
Countries with deep naval history have a long institutional memory, codes of conduct, processes, and precedence for all these situations. Historically, and still today in submarines, Naval officers must be able to handle situations and make decisions of great import independent of conferring with higher command. Think of the exploration of Captain Cook in the 18th century as he discovered new lands. He essentially acted not only as a military officer, keeping discipline and readiness of his crew, but as a diplomat and social scientist, discovering new cultures and kingdoms and negotiating trade treaties, along with mapping new discoveries and documenting the new cultures.
 
On the technical front, the maintenance, upkeep, and operation of a space cruiser is definitely more akin to what current navies do, as opposed to the air force. Think of all the functions to be maintained: water treatment, air treatment, nuclear and oil based power systems, large propulsion systems, hydraulics and pneumatics on a massive scale, large scale mechanical systems, ship damage control systems and processes, supply and feeding of large crews cut off for long periods of time from supply stations. The air force does none of these and has no history of doing any of these things.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Since I can't be bothered reading the whole thread, I'll note that the Air Force runs the starships in Stargate.



Anyway as others have said, it's because starships resemble, to a great degree, navy ships in size, command structure, mission profile etc. Other branches of the military simply aren't suited.

[Koross]

Its because the navy is tasked to fight in extreme environments.

Sea. Air. And space ...

[Kissamies]

As people have already pointed out here, the shipboard operations in a typical sci-fi universe are more analogous to the navy than the air force. The ships travel for days, weeks, even months before returning to base. It's ship-centric, not base-centric. Ship crews have to be more independent than air crews.

[Blackveldt]

This is the exact complaint I've heard from my recently retired Air Force Colonel of a father. Most of the reasons why writers use Naval designations have already been mentioned, but what's most amusing to me is something much more simple: the Air Force is precisely how it sounds (a military force of the earth's air). Since gases are held to stars/planets via gravitational pull, air obviously does not define space (and certainly not at the level that our aircraft requires to operate).