71 réponses à ce sujet

[Vengeful Nature]

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

The Alliance Navy responsible mostly for naval operations in space, though they still operate in the oceans with their terrestrial arm. Its roles include ship-to-ship combat; orbital bombardment; the deployment of atmospheric and space fighters,and the delivery of Alliance Marines into combat.


Specialized branch of the Alliance military, the Alliance Marines is responsible for ground operations, using the mobility provided by the Alliance Navy to rapidly deliver forces. It is also responsible for the protection of Alliance Naval vessels and installations from attack.


The Alliance Army is primarily responsible for land-based military operations. Much of the Army's operations are currently unknown. Unlike the Alliance Marines, which is frequently used in offensive operations and often in conjunction with the Navy, the Army is used largely as a defensive force. The Army shares many matériel assests with the Marines.


The Alliance Air Force is a division of the Alliance military along with the Alliance Army, Navy and Marines. It serves as an aerial defense and support force. Much of the Air Force's operations are currently unknown. It is likely that it is tasked with organizing aerial operations, conducting tactical strikes and bombing runs, providing close-air-support for infantry forces, and transportation of Alliance personnel.

What is your opinion?

Out of interest, where did you get this quote? Just curious.

Anyway, to address your points (keep in mind that I haven't read the rest of the thread in any detail, so someone might have brought these up already - apologies if this is the case):

1) You don't need an Alliance Army. The fact that the Marines are tightly knitted into the Navy is a result of the futility of fighting on the ground without control of space. In space, you can bomb the sod out of any ground defenders, then send in the Marines to mop up any bunkers you missed or couldn't get at.

2) Why would the Alliance have a "wet" navy? They can leave that to the nations of Earth, which is the only planet we know of under Alliance jurisdiction that has substantial ocean cover. Otherwise, they're not needed. Even if they did have one, it would still be unnecessary for the above reason (any spacecraft can just pound them with impunity).

3) You don't need a seperate air force. Your fighters can just be launched from space-borne carriers. And since your in space already, you don't need atmospheric fighters. Again, just shoot them down from space, it would be incredibly easy because they don't have the (potential) benefit of being able to hide (in the case of a wet navy, in the form of submarines, which is shaky because your sensors are advanced enough to detect them anyway).

Seriously, all you need is a space-borne Navy and it's Marine detatchments. Everything else is completely pointless.

[Nightdragon8]

Its called a "Navy" because of the term ship. only the Nay has "ships" Thats also why they use the term marines in most futuristic cause of the Navy.

IMO i don't see a problem with them being called a Navy because of the hostle envroment that is space and the ocean. Granted I don't see the branch of the "Navy" being the ones to go into space. It will be airforce if anything that does the space thing. But even then, the term "Spaceplane" just doesn't have the same rolling off the touge easily as "Spaceship" has. (i think its the "S's" that make it easy) Also if anything space ships and naval ships have alot more in common. I mean in most aircraft you just eject and float done to earth/water. While on ships/space you get into rafts or pods (effectly another craft of some sort to escape danger)

Then you have the submarine service in which they pretty much are Spaceships considereing how truely isolated they can be.

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 19 mai 2011 - 09:53 .

[Vengeful Nature]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Its called a "Navy" because of the term ship. only the Nay has "ships" Thats also why they use the term marines in most futuristic cause of the Navy.

IMO i don't see a problem with them being called a Navy because of the hostle envroment that is space and the ocean. Granted I don't see the branch of the "Navy" being the ones to go into space. It will be airforce if anything that does the space thing. But even then, the term "Spaceplane" just doesn't have the same rolling off the touge easily as "Spaceship" has. (i think its the "S's" that make it easy) Also if anything space ships and naval ships have alot more in common. I mean in most aircraft you just eject and float done to earth/water. While on ships/space you get into rafts or pods (effectly another craft of some sort to escape danger)

Then you have the submarine service in which they pretty much are Spaceships considereing how truely isolated they can be.

There's a couple of good words you can use instead of Navy, I think. Fleet works well, because it's not unique to ocean-borne forces. But my personal favourite is "Constellation". It works really well becuase it's pretty unique to space, and a Constellation of Alliance cruiser just sounds awesome. "Sir, we have elements of the 5th Alliance Constellation emerging from the relay." Plus, I think it's the term they apply to satellites, so it already works on the space level.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 19 mai 2011 - 10:10 .

[The Man on the Moon]

History seems to follow the law that another branch, as someone already stated, would be created. Someone stated that because of the Navy's likeness with submarines to space flight that the Navy should handle a space command but this is sadly mistaken, while a submarine does have certain similarities to space flight so does piloting and upper atmosphere bomber. Someone else stated that an Alliance Army would be irrelevant due to space bombardment, this is simply mislead as well. For this I will give an example look at the modern day engagement in Afghanistan, coalition forces possess all means to bombard insurgent positions does this mean that the engagement is already over... No not at all because the insurgent force has taken to caves and or places of interest were they know that the coalition will not bomb them due to inability or concern with damaging a point of interest. The simple fact is every military tactician will tell you that an Army is the backbone to all offensive and defensive operations.

Now this is how I see a space branch of the military being coordinated:
You would need an overseeing space command sort of like modern day socom for but on a much larger scale there would then be a sub-group that operated the logistics, building, and maneuvering of the "ships" or space vessels. There would then be a group within this sub-group train for specific ship to ship warfare and boarding sort of like the Marines except they would be trained in space combat and thus would not be called Marines as this would cause confusion with the already Marines but maybe Space Marines would suffice. Then there would be another sub-group that would handle the planet bound assault and defense of planets, this force would comprise of any forms of ground forces, for example foot soldiers, tanks, apcs and the what not and would be aligned heavy with the ship sub-group because this would be there means of transportation sort of like the Army Airborne divisions.

[Nightdragon8]

hmm does anyone deny the fact that the space wouldn't be its own branch of the military. I don't think anyone does. Each one will have there own pluses and minus. But after you get space ships do you really need a surface ship force for taking over planets... I don't really think so. At least nothing that can't be solved by water dection systems and depth charges.

I mean you will always have an standing Army because bombardment doesn't mean you control the area. The problem is that we havan't seen really anything of the allince mitary. I mean you can't tell me they have completely givin up Sams and what not.

[Vengeful Nature]

The Man on the Moon wrote...

History seems to follow the law that another branch, as someone already stated, would be created. Someone stated that because of the Navy's likeness with submarines to space flight that the Navy should handle a space command but this is sadly mistaken, while a submarine does have certain similarities to space flight so does piloting and upper atmosphere bomber.

I agree. Submarine combat is perhaps more similar to space, but still not a good analogy. Military branches in space would likely expand out of modern day air forces, but as humanity expands it may well split off as it becomes increasingly limited to space. I don't see a problem with term Marines, given the similarity of roles, but ther term Navy is problematic. I suggested before that "Fleet" or "Constellation" would be a better fit.

Someone else stated that an Alliance Army would be irrelevant due to space bombardment, this is simply mislead as well. For this I will give an example look at the modern day engagement in Afghanistan, coalition forces possess all means to bombard insurgent positions does this mean that the engagement is already over... No not at all because the insurgent force has taken to caves and or places of interest were they know that the coalition will not bomb them due to inability or concern with damaging a point of interest. The simple fact is every military tactician will tell you that an Army is the backbone to all offensive and defensive operations.

This is almost certainly wrong.

Modern air support is much easier that putting spacecraft in space to provide support, because of present technological and financial limits. Such support already heavily relies on satellite navigation and pinpointing. A space-based military, like the Alliance, is already in space. They can put a gun on a satellite and cancel out the need for a seperate wing for the part between the ground the space. And when your satellites move around between planets, you may as well put your troops on them, use your satellites to pound the frakk out of land-based targets, and go in with your marines to mop up, if that's even necessary. An Army branch is completely pointless.

Also, any army would need to already be on those planets to not require being ship-based. And it's completely unfeasable to have a large garrison on every planet you have assets on. You can't use modern military doctrine, because you are in command of a plethora of worlds with lots of space in between. To avoid being spread too thin in terms of manpower, you put your ground forces on your ships, which can respond quickly and deploy their marine detatchment if it needs to. You also may as well train them in ship-to-ship operations as well, in case you need to run down some smugglers or inspect a suspicious looking ship. In case I haven't made the point clear enough already, that is just like what the marines do now.

The best analogy in our history to how space combat will be is the war in the pacific during the Second World War. The US Marine Corps would be absolutely insane to rely on the Army, because much of that campaign was ship-reliant and Marines are already part of the Navy. Why bring in a whole other branch when you've already got your ship-based troops?

Afghanistan is not a good comparison. Satellite support is already heavily in place. A satellite relays the position of any enemy to your command and control, which then sends in the assets it deems necessary. Now, in the case of Afghanistan, you need to avoid civilian casualties, because of the focus on winning hearts and minds in that conflict. So you don't carpet bomb the place, you send in your troops to carefully pry them out of their positions. However, in space, there is very little civilian life relative to the amount of planets. So I don't have to worry about civilian casualties when I pound the juice out of those pirates or geth, and I can pound them with incredibly powerful weaponry that I can bring to bear in a matter of second rather than having to relay it through a satellite.

Now this is how I see a space branch of the military being coordinated:
You would need an overseeing space command sort of like modern day socom for but on a much larger scale there would then be a sub-group that operated the logistics, building, and maneuvering of the "ships" or space vessels. There would then be a group within this sub-group train for specific ship to ship warfare and boarding sort of like the Marines except they would be trained in space combat and thus would not be called Marines as this would cause confusion with the already Marines but maybe Space Marines would suffice. Then there would be another sub-group that would handle the planet bound assault and defense of planets, this force would comprise of any forms of ground forces, for example foot soldiers, tanks, apcs and the what not and would be aligned heavy with the ship sub-group because this would be there means of transportation sort of like the Army Airborne divisions.

But why waste money, time and effort training an overspecialised and vulnerable force when you can train more Marines in both ship-to-ship and ground engagements? Especially when your ground-based force is completely screwed if your ships have to move on somewhere else, when a Marine detatchment can just hop aboard and bug out with you? The system you're suggesting is hopelessly overspecialised. If it comes to full-scale war and I'm low on manpower becuase of high casualties in one branch, I have to take bodies from another branch and then go through the trouble to training them again.

The term Marine is inherently ocean-related. There's actually already a good term for space marines: Espatiers. It matches the development of the word Marine in relation of sea-based troops, but it also is loosely translated to "spacer", and the are space-based troops, after all. But anyway, this is just nitpicking. I defend the term "marine" because a space marine's roll is remarkably similar to a ship marines roll, only it's in space. I'd imagine the traditions would carry over quite well.

Edit: I'll concede the need for a concentrated ground-based effort when you've got a heavily populated colony like Eden Prime, but there's no reason they can't be Marines too, especially since they might need to be transferred to other places or ships as need be. The games even tell us this: you don't see an Army on Eden Prime, you see a semi-permanent and revolving Marine detatchment.

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 19 mai 2011 - 11:24 .

[jamesp81]

I tend to disagree. Too much of operating a spacecraft is similar to operating a naval vessel; that expertise will be tapped (indeed, it already has been in the NASA program) to design space vehicles.

A lot of people get the idea that space travel is just an advance form of 'flying', thus, in the purview of the air force. Consider, however, that the US Navy has a more powerful air force than many countries.

The Navy can bring both shiphandling AND piloting expertise to a newly formed space-based military branch. It is for this reason I suspect a military branch that chiefly operates warships will have a flavor very naval in nature.

And as for me, I'm a traditionalist. Personally, I thnk 'Fleet' or 'Constellation' sounds kind of dumb, and does not harken back to previous military traditions. When we drop in on the alien homeworld to facestomp them, it's much cooler to drop in with a "Navy", and continue the tradition of epic ass whooping that the Navy has maintained since the day it was founded.

[The Man on the Moon]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

The Man on the Moon wrote...

History seems to follow the law that another branch, as someone already stated, would be created. Someone stated that because of the Navy's likeness with submarines to space flight that the Navy should handle a space command but this is sadly mistaken, while a submarine does have certain similarities to space flight so does piloting and upper atmosphere bomber.

I agree. Submarine combat is perhaps more similar to space, but still not a good analogy. Military branches in space would likely expand out of modern day air forces, but as humanity expands it may well split off as it becomes increasingly limited to space. I don't see a problem with term Marines, given the similarity of roles, but ther term Navy is problematic. I suggested before that "Fleet" or "Constellation" would be a better fit.

Someone else stated that an Alliance Army would be irrelevant due to space bombardment, this is simply mislead as well. For this I will give an example look at the modern day engagement in Afghanistan, coalition forces possess all means to bombard insurgent positions does this mean that the engagement is already over... No not at all because the insurgent force has taken to caves and or places of interest were they know that the coalition will not bomb them due to inability or concern with damaging a point of interest. The simple fact is every military tactician will tell you that an Army is the backbone to all offensive and defensive operations.

This is almost certainly wrong.

Modern air support is much easier that putting spacecraft in space to provide support, because of present technological and financial limits. Such support already heavily relies on satellite navigation and pinpointing. A space-based military, like the Alliance, is already in space. They can put a gun on a satellite and cancel out the need for a seperate wing for the part between the ground the space. And when your satellites move around between planets, you may as well put your troops on them, use your satellites to pound the frakk out of land-based targets, and go in with your marines to mop up, if that's even necessary. An Army branch is completely pointless.

Also, any army would need to already be on those planets to not require being ship-based. And it's completely unfeasable to have a large garrison on every planet you have assets on. You can't use modern military doctrine, because you are in command of a plethora of worlds with lots of space in between. To avoid being spread too thin in terms of manpower, you put your ground forces on your ships, which can respond quickly and deploy their marine detatchment if it needs to. You also may as well train them in ship-to-ship operations as well, in case you need to run down some smugglers or inspect a suspicious looking ship. In case I haven't made the point clear enough already, that is just like what the marines do now.

The best analogy in our history to how space combat will be is the war in the pacific during the Second World War. The US Marine Corps would be absolutely insane to rely on the Army, because much of that campaign was ship-reliant and Marines are already part of the Navy. Why bring in a whole other branch when you've already got your ship-based troops?

Afghanistan is not a good comparison. Satellite support is already heavily in place. A satellite relays the position of any enemy to your command and control, which then sends in the assets it deems necessary. Now, in the case of Afghanistan, you need to avoid civilian casualties, because of the focus on winning hearts and minds in that conflict. So you don't carpet bomb the place, you send in your troops to carefully pry them out of their positions. However, in space, there is very little civilian life relative to the amount of planets. So I don't have to worry about civilian casualties when I pound the juice out of those pirates or geth, and I can pound them with incredibly powerful weaponry that I can bring to bear in a matter of second rather than having to relay it through a satellite.

Now this is how I see a space branch of the military being coordinated:
You would need an overseeing space command sort of like modern day socom for but on a much larger scale there would then be a sub-group that operated the logistics, building, and maneuvering of the "ships" or space vessels. There would then be a group within this sub-group train for specific ship to ship warfare and boarding sort of like the Marines except they would be trained in space combat and thus would not be called Marines as this would cause confusion with the already Marines but maybe Space Marines would suffice. Then there would be another sub-group that would handle the planet bound assault and defense of planets, this force would comprise of any forms of ground forces, for example foot soldiers, tanks, apcs and the what not and would be aligned heavy with the ship sub-group because this would be there means of transportation sort of like the Army Airborne divisions.

But why waste money, time and effort training an overspecialised and vulnerable force when you can train more Marines in both ship-to-ship and ground engagements? Especially when your ground-based force is completely screwed if your ships have to move on somewhere else, when a Marine detatchment can just hop aboard and bug out with you? The system you're suggesting is hopelessly overspecialised. If it comes to full-scale war and I'm low on manpower becuase of high casualties in one branch, I have to take bodies from another branch and then go through the trouble to training them again.

The term Marine is inherently ocean-related. There's actually already a good term for space marines: Esbatiers. But that's just nitpicking. I defend the term "marine" because a space marine's roll is remarkably similar to a ship marines roll, only it's in space. I'd imagine the traditions would carry over quite well.

Wait Im sorry but What?
I was stating that the Air Force has just as much claim to provide knowledge to a space program as a Naval Unit does and the anaylogy of submarines was not my own as I stated that other people had used that as an anaylagy. Afganistan I was using as a reference to bombardment, your argument relies on the fact that the military is attacking the planet with little to no actually asset in mind, yes the insurgents "hug" civilians knowing that we will not bombard them what I am stating is that the enemy force would "hug" what ever resource or reason we have for attacking the planet thus making it clearly problematic to bombard them.
Actually are military and all militaries are built upon specilization of military units thats why we have Army moutain divisions which you guessed it are trained in mountainous combat. If you were to train one military group to do everything such as ship to ship combat as well as ground assualt then that force would require long training times and lots of resources dictated to them. It is a lot more time viable to specialize your military units and train them in certain combat areas, thus the faster a military can train there units the better they are. I am guess you dont have much actual military training and or knowlege because the Army and the Marines in fact did work together during the pacific campaign in WW2 not to mention that the Army has actually preformed more amphibious  assualts then the Marines have. If you actually read my argument I was not saying to have large detachments on every planet I was simply saying that bombardment is not as effective as someone before me stated.

[Vengeful Nature]

jamesp81 wrote...

I tend to disagree. Too much of operating a spacecraft is similar to operating a naval vessel; that expertise will be tapped (indeed, it already has been in the NASA program) to design space vehicles.

A lot of people get the idea that space travel is just an advance form of 'flying', thus, in the purview of the air force. Consider, however, that the US Navy has a more powerful air force than many countries.

The Navy can bring both shiphandling AND piloting expertise to a newly formed space-based military branch. It is for this reason I suspect a military branch that chiefly operates warships will have a flavor very naval in nature.

And as for me, I'm a traditionalist. Personally, I thnk 'Fleet' or 'Constellation' sounds kind of dumb, and does not harken back to previous military traditions. When we drop in on the alien homeworld to facestomp them, it's much cooler to drop in with a "Navy", and continue the tradition of epic ass whooping that the Navy has maintained since the day it was founded.

Spacecraft are nothing like naval craft. They bear absolutely no resemblance. Please tell me the ways that naval vessels are like space vessels.

People know that space exploration will be a branch of the air force becuase it already is. It is Air Force pilots that man spacecraft, when indeed they are manned, which is fewer and fewer these days.

So it's logical to assume that this will continue. In time, as human operations in space expand, it will probably split off to form it's own service, but it's tradition will be taken largely from the air force that spawned it.

The Man on the Moon wrote...

Wait Im sorry but What?
I was
stating that the Air Force has just as much claim to provide knowledge
to a space program as a Naval Unit does and the anaylogy of submarines
was not my own as I stated that other people had used that as an
anaylagy.

I agree. In fact, as I said, there's very very little naval tradition in there, if any at all. So we are on the same page on that point.

Afganistan I was using as a reference to bombardment, your
argument relies on the fact that the military is attacking the planet
with little to no actually asset in mind, yes the insurgents "hug"
civilians knowing that we will not bombard them what I am stating is
that the enemy force would "hug" what ever resource or reason we have
for attacking the planet thus making it clearly problematic to bombard
them.

They probably would do that, yes. But that is no reason to have a dedicated Army branch. You've got your marines for that.

Actually are military and all militaries are built upon
specilization of military units thats why we have Army moutain divisions
which you guessed it are trained in mountainous combat. If you were to
train one military group to do everything such as ship to ship combat as
well as ground assualt then that force would require long training
times and lots of resources dictated to them. It is a lot more time
viable to specialize your military units and train them in certain
combat areas, thus the faster a military can train there units the
better they are. I am guess you dont have much actual military training
and or knowlege because the Army and the Marines in fact did work
together during the pacific campaign in WW2 not to mention that the Army
has actually preformed more amphibious  assualts then the Marines have.
If you actually read my argument I was not saying to have large
detachments on every planet I was simply saying that bombardment is not
as effective as someone before me stated.

You are right in assuming that I don't have any military training (unless you count my old school cadet force ). But you don't need it to speculate on the nature of military aspects of space exploration.

However, I am (or was, at any rate ) a student of history. I know very well that the Army was also present during the pacific campaign. My point was that they were just as bound to Navy ships as the Navy's own Marines were. So in a context where your entire territory relies on the use of ships to navigate the "islands" (planets) of the "sea" (space), you have absolutely no need for a specific Army branch. You may as well just make your Marine branch bigger and build more ships, which are the deciding factor anyway.

Yes, modern branches of the armed forces are highly specialised. This is because, for their entire history, they have been bound to the one planet and you have very little control of space. Earth is also very diverse in it's environments. Other planets have much less diversity. They are usually pretty uniform balls of ice or rock.

You mention mountain troops. Do you mean units like the 10th Mountain Division? They are trained for operations in harsh environments and terrain, and retain the "Mountain" part of their name for historical purposes. In the Alliance, all troops will have to be trained for harsh environments and terrain, because of the nature of the variety of planets under Alliance jurisdiction. If you were to train a special group of units for a particular type of terrain, they would then become far less effective if you were forced to deploy them somewhere else. Which is likely, given the sheer amount of territory the Alliance operates in.

I agree that you would have some degree of specialisation. Perhaps there's an Alliance 10th Urban Division, who specialise in operations in built-up areas of colonies. But, like the 10th Mountain, they would also have training for operations in other environments, in case they are required to deploy to planets like Pluto or Mercury because of a push that the brass have decided to make. Do you see what I'm trying to get at here. Just like modern military units, you can afford to specialise without overspecialising. I hope I'm being clear, I'm not the most eloquent person.

I guess we're not really disagreeing on any major point apart from the need for a seperate Army branch that is dedicated to ground war. When you entire military is dependant and based upon ships, you only really need a ship-based service. By all means, train them in ground operations as well. But they are still utterly reliant on their ships to support them and get them around the vast expanses of space that the Alliance is in charge of.

[jamesp81]

The Man on the Moon wrote...

Someone else stated that an Alliance Army would be irrelevant due to space bombardment, this is simply mislead as well. For this I will give an example look at the modern day engagement in Afghanistan, coalition forces possess all means to bombard insurgent positions does this mean that the engagement is already over...

The problem here is that we absolutely do have the capability of destroying the insurgents with bombardment.  The problem is, as you pointed out later, that such a bombardment would kill most of the country's population as well, something we are not willing to do.

But interplanetary warfare is a little bit different.  Once your fleet defeats the enemy fleet and controls space in an enemy star system, there's no need to land troops, not immediately anyway.  Orbital industry can be easily destroyed by your ships, as can important ground installations.  Once all that is done, you could literally leave a couple of frigates in the system to take out any attempt to rebuild any industry, send supplies out to the enemy fleet, etc.  It's not like dealing with a planet-bound war where enemy insurgents might use transportation systems that can't be shutdown to move around between friendly areas.  Locking down a planet is easy: you shoot down anything that lifts off.

Eventually you'd have to do something if the enemy didn't surrender or a treaty wasn't signed, but there'd be no rush to do it either.  You'd have plenty of time to find and kill the enemy from orbit.  Even if you did land troops, you've still got control of space.  Once enemy troops come out to fight, you call down fire from orbit or air support to decimate them.

[jamesp81]

Vengeful Nature wrote...


Spacecraft are nothing like naval craft. They bear absolutely no resemblance. Please tell me the ways that naval vessels are like space vessels.

I have already detailed the similarities between naval vessels (especially submarines) and space vessels in a previous post upthread.  I will quote it again:

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is
hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able
to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

I will add another point.  If your belief is that you must have pilots, instead of helmsman, to operate a large space-going warship (which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but let's just go with it) keep in mind that the US Navy has a larger air force than a lot of countries.  Some of the very best pilots in the world are naval aviators.

In any case, a naval service will already have some of the institutional and operational concepts needed, in place, to operate a spacefaring warship.  An air force will be coming at it mostly from scratch.

Edit:

If you'd like a perspective from a military veteran, I would recommend reading The Looking Glass series by John Ringo.  Ringo was in the Army before becoming a writer.  In the second book of the series, humanity comes into possession of a device that is part of an FTL drive, so the military constructs a warship to make use of the drive.  One of the things Ringo goes into is which service is best suited to operating that ship and the reasons why.  As an author he's pretty up front about his politics, so the series may not appeal to you, but it is a very entertaining read.

Modifié par jamesp81, 20 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[Vengeful Nature]

jamesp81 wrote...

Vengeful Nature wrote...


Spacecraft are nothing like naval craft. They bear absolutely no resemblance. Please tell me the ways that naval vessels are like space vessels.

I have already detailed the similarities between naval vessels (especially submarines) and space vessels in a previous post upthread.  I will quote it again:

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is
hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able
to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

I will add another point.  If your belief is that you must have pilots, instead of helmsman, to operate a large space-going warship (which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but let's just go with it) keep in mind that the US Navy has a larger air force than a lot of countries.  Some of the very best pilots in the world are naval aviators.

In any case, a naval service will already have some of the institutional and operational concepts needed, in place, to operate a spacefaring warship.  An air force will be coming at it mostly from scratch.

Apologies, I thought you meant ocean surface vessels and the way they themselves operated. You would then be the worst believer in the "space is like the ocean" trope I've ever found.

In terms of crew considerations, yes, they are quite similar (Submarines especially), although there are added factors to worry about (gravity, radiation).

My point is that a space-borne service isn't going to think like this. Since the exporation of space has arisen out of air forces, the tradition will be kept. The term "pilot" will just come to mean the same thing as "helmsman" today. The terms will change to match their new responsibilities, rather than change the terms in favour of another service's traditions entirely. Language changes to match current circumstances.

[Black Raptor]

It makes sense to think that the Navy gets the spaceships if we suddenly start flying around the galaxy.
Just imo I think we are so far from that reality atm that any Naval advantages will be easily adapted to by the airforce in the decades or centuries before we actually do start fighting in space. It won't be a quick transition and the Air force seem to have a head start with spaceflights atm.

[Vengeful Nature]

Black Raptor wrote...

It makes sense to think that the Navy gets the spaceships if we suddenly start flying around the galaxy.
Just imo I think we are so far from that reality atm that any Naval advantages will be easily adapted to by the airforce in the decades or centuries before we actually do start fighting in space. It won't be a quick transition and the Air force seem to have a head start with spaceflights atm.

Another thing to remember, people, is that the Air Force already has crews that man another analogy to spaceships: the crews of planes like the C-130 Hercules or the B-52 Stratofortress. The crews of spaceships will likely take their traditions from how those things work, given that space exporation is already tightly linked to the air forces.

Black Raptor, sorry I didn't directly respond to your point, but I'm kind of using your post as a bump.

[Halfdan The Menace]

Most of the Army/Air Force never leave the Local Cluster after the First Contact War,that sniper in the ME3 trailer is a British Army soldier,part of the Alliance Army and you can see two atmospheric fighters going past the Big Ben,the Royal Air Force.

[Halfdan The Menace]

KenKenpachi wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Another thing worth considering is that the US space shuttle doesn't face the problems of a long term naval deployment. Those guys are usually in space for a couple of weeks. A submarine, however, may be submerged and away from home port for months at a time.

But anyway, I could be wrong in all suppositions here. Besides, if space exploration ever gets to be a big thing, militaries will start fielding armed spacecraft, and I suspect that eventually a separate service would be formed for the operation of those spacecraft. The flavor that service takes on in its rituals and traditions will depend on whether it's an outgrowth of an air force or of a navy.

Actully some Militaries already do have dedicated Space forces. Not in terms of space ships or what not. Mainly tasked with keeping an eye out for FOBs an to conduct anti-satelite operations. And the US is doing its damnest atm to create a high alt troop transport system. But given international law, plus more importantly budget issues, thats a wet dream for the Joint Chiefs atm. But reguardless will happen.

http://en.wikipedia....an_Space_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3 Already have been military units in space, this baby had a 23 mm cannon.

And Orbital Bombardments are allowed under START II http://en.wikipedia....ki/Space_weapon as an add on for more weapons http://en.wikipedia....y:Space_weapons

Short of the Russians, the Chinese and the US are the only nations with any real credable way of weaponizing space at present, or have weapons that can be used in a number of roles right now.

I think the Russians already got a secret military Moon base with tons of ICBMs...

[Seraphithan]

It is called a navy because a military force in space faces the same or at least very similar logistic difficulties a "wet" navy faces, not because of the personel operating the vessels.
The only reason astronauts today are airforce and navy pilots is because no single nation and probably not even the whole world has a high enough demand for people able to operate spacecrafts that a unique astronaut training would make sense. They rather take people with a similar skillset that are needed and trained anyway and give them the skills they are missing.

Modifié par Seraphithan, 20 mai 2011 - 11:24 .

[jamesp81]

It doesn't make sense to me, personally, that an air force would be better equipped to transition to space warfare than a navy. Yeah, I know, the air force has pilots. So does the navy. An air force only brings flying expertise. The navy brings that flying expertise as well. The navy also brings logistical expertise needed to operate a vessel away from home base for months at a time in a hostile environment.

he air force only has to operate it's aircraft in a hostile environment for a few hours at a time. The navy can operate a submarine, submerged for months without surfacing, surrounded by an environment that's instantly lethal to the crew.

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 mai 2011 - 05:39 .

[Vengeful Nature]

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

Most of the Army/Air Force never leave the Local Cluster after the First Contact War,that sniper in the ME3 trailer is a British Army soldier,part of the Alliance Army and you can see two atmospheric fighters going past the Big Ben,the Royal Air Force.

This. In fact, I think, as far as we know, terrestrial governments don't even leave the Sol system. That's the Alliance's job. And I'm on the same page with the rest of that as well. Those were RAF planes flying over London, and Nigel is a soldier of the British Army, Royal Marines or the Paras.

*mumble mumble* although I would have hoped by 2186 that Britain would have weened itself of the stupid monarchy *mumble mumble*

Seraphithan wrote...

It is called a navy because a military force in space faces the same or at least very similar logistic difficulties a "wet" navy faces, not because of the personel operating the vessels.
The only reason astronauts today are airforce and navy pilots is because no single nation and probably not even the whole world has a high enough demand for people able to operate spacecrafts that a unique astronaut training would make sense. They rather take people with a similar skillset that are needed and trained anyway and give them the skills they are missing.

jamesp81 wrote...

It doesn't make sense to me, personally, that an air force would be better equipped to transition to space warfare than a navy. Yeah, I know, the air force has pilots. So does the navy. An air force only brings flying expertise. The navy brings that flying expertise as well. The navy also brings logistical expertise needed to operate a vessel away from home base for months at a time in a hostile environment.

he air force only has to operate it's aircraft in a hostile environment for a few hours at a time. The navy can operate a submarine, submerged for months without surfacing, surrounded by an environment that's instantly lethal to the crew.

Oh I have no problem with the term Navy, make no mistake. The term is just pretty specific to ocean-going forces. Although, by my own argument, that meaning of the term could have changed over the next 200 years. My argument for Constellation is that satellites are already grouped by those, so there's a modern precedent.

To be honest, I think we're all right about this point. The Alliance is said to take it's tradition from both air forces and navies. As you say, jamessp81, the Navy has it's pilots too. Hell, Alan Shepard, our good commander's namesake and the first American in space, was a navy aviator. NASA draws it's astronauts from across all branches of the armed forces. I'll concede you that point. But the are always pilots. Never crews of submarines or ships. This is because you need a working knowledge of piloting to navigate past the atmosphere, into space. Aerodynamics and gravity and all that.

The thing is, just because, logistically, a wet navy is similar, doesn't mean that it is equipped with the technical knowledge to man a spacecraft.

As a final nail in the coffin of the idea of an Alliance Army, this is from the codex:

the official codex wrote...

The divide between naval personnel and ground forces ("marines") is small. Ground units are a specialized branch of the fleet, just as fighter squadrons are. This unity of command is imposed by the futility of fighting without control of orbit; without the navy, any army is pointless. The marines, as a matter of pride, maintain some of their traditional rank titles; for example, marines have Privates and Corporals instead of Servicemen.

Edit: stupid format issues. <_<

Modifié par Vengeful Nature, 21 mai 2011 - 10:25 .

[x Cdr Shepard x]

jamesp81 wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

I have always wondered why the Navy get the spaceships. It would make more sense if they belonged to the Air force, what with all the flying.
You find that a lot of science-fiction just makes planets into countries/islands and space into sea and then goes along with a naval analogy towards everything.

Because the air force is not trained or equipped to operate a vehicle in a hostile environment for months at a time without returning to base.

Furthermore, safe operation of a spaceship shares a number of similarities to operating certain naval vessels, most especially submarines.  Submarines and space ships operate in a three dimensional environment that is hostile to the crew, both must be able to provide breathable air and drinkable water in a closed environment for months at a time, both are built on a pressure hull, and both require crew that are mentally able to live in close quarters with others for extended periods of time.

Air Forces lack the institutional mentality or basic operational concepts to effectively operate a spaceship as well as a Navy could.

Exactly. Air Forces not trained for space warfare and they operate aircrafts not spacecrafts...

To be fair, modern navies aren't trained to operate spacecraft either, but there are a number of very relevant similarities between some naval vessels (submarines in particular) and spacecraft.  Thus, a Navy already has a grounding in many of the needed concepts, where an Air Force would have to come at it from scratch.

To be fair if the navy launches a new vessel or ship and it
is stuck in dry dock does it mean belongs the army or the navy.

[Halfdan The Menace]

Vengeful Nature wrote...

ModestmeNTaLmogul wrote...

Most of the Army/Air Force never leave the Local Cluster after the First Contact War,that sniper in the ME3 trailer is a British Army soldier,part of the Alliance Army and you can see two atmospheric fighters going past the Big Ben,the Royal Air Force.

This. In fact, I think, as far as we know, terrestrial governments don't even leave the Sol system. That's the Alliance's job. And I'm on the same page with the rest of that as well. Those were RAF planes flying over London, and Nigel is a soldier of the British Army, Royal Marines or the Paras.

Remind me of the Terra Firma party and that Charles what-his-name guy.I forgot to mention the Royal Navy,you think they have some kind of giant aircraft carriers?

[Halfdan The Menace]

x Cdr Shepard x wrote...

To be fair if the navy launches a new vessel or ship and it
is stuck in dry dock does it mean belongs the army or the navy.

It still belongs to the Navy,Army dont use ships....

[The Man on the Moon]

@Vengeful Nature:
After reading your following comments I believe we are arguing the same position but in different formats, your approaching from an in-game stance while I'm trying to take a real world position. Also, I do believe that there is a planet that the nations of earth have laid claim to but I forgot the planets name but the planets information states that America, Europe, and China have all claimed the planet and it was out of the sol system but I will have to get back to you on that.

[Gabey5]

space is like an ocean

[Bebbe777]

Also, in most sci fi space ships you have a commanding officer and his/her crew, the CO mostly never controls the ship, just give orders. Similar to the Navy, not the Airforce. In the Airforce the commanding officer has control of the ship. In the navy, it is already established that the CO gives order and his crew controls the vessel.