Will spess navies in the future use Naval Terms or is this some

>>51467919
As of now, USA and Russian Military's space stuff are handled by their respective air forces. So air force ranks.

China is an oddball: their spess shit is handled by the Rocket Forces (read: Nukes), so Army ranks.

This may also help.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_ranks_and_positions

>>51467919
I don't know why it would be considered a weird fluke. People have considered sailing the heavens long before man first flew.

>Has any military have any sort of official statement as regards to this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
The US military considers it to be the jurisdiction of their airforce.

>>51467919
Funny thing is that sci-fi may inspire them to use naval terms. It could very well turn out to be a case of life imitating art.

>>51467919
aviation terms sound cooler anyway, at least in regard to locations on the craft.

>>51467919
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQifmxdnY4

"He is a Rescue Technician"

>>51467919
It'll be it's own thing based on Astronaut traditions.

>>51468224
This, by the time we have a space fleet the people who built it and the people who crew it will be irrevocably molded by pop sci-fi and its use of navel terms. Hell its happening already with how most of NASA's current eggheads grew up on Trek TOS

>>51467919
Considering navies use a mix of fresh terms with terms taken from what was originally land based things, but with the word sea in front of it, prett sure space can end up being called anything depending on a combination of why and what trends are prevailing.

>>51467919
Yeah, even millennia later they will still call it starboard and whatever that other thing is called instead of right and left like normal person would.
The only difference is they will also develop two new, even more obtuse, terms for up and down.

>>51467919
Air forces use terms from navies like "port" "bulkhead" n shiet. They call formations for unknown aircraft "(x number of) ship formations."

Ranks are a different thing though.

>>51468451
Starboard = right
Port = left
Bow = foward
Stern = back
Dorsal = up
Ventral = down

It's just tactical positions because facing is relative to observer and is easier to find than navigational command. It's also a good way to separate the two.

This shit is just practical, it has nothing to do with tradition. No reason to completely replace a system that works.

File: wn20131104f2a.jpg (80KB, 605x328px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 605x328px

>>51467919

It will spawn out of whatever arm controls nuclear weapons or the aerospace forces.

>>51467919

Certainly not navy types of ships. Terms such as Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship are increasingly obsolete in the modern era.

>>51467919
I believe it'll be air force derived ranks and terminology, with a healthy dose of astronaut specific stuff integrated as traditions develop.

I'm curious about how ship types will be designated in a space force that has an air force lineage...

A vessel capable of extended operations away from a supporting base may not be a cruiser, it may be a LRP/I, or "long range patrol/independent."

>>51468785
I don't see why those terms would change, they are already broad classifications.

We still have many of those, technology just has antiquated their roles. The roles still exist, they're just waiting for technology to resserect them.

Im sure even battle ships will find purpose again once rail guns become more efficient, even if it just means a bigger platform for bigger guns.
They only lost favor because their effective range was limited, when you can strike 800 nm in about 28 secs or intercept missiles on a minutes notice things change.

>>51468757
>stern=back
I THINK YOU MEAN 'AFT YE MANGY CUR

The Air Force currently has jurisdiction over space because our current space crafts align closely to their established doctrines.

But if we reach the point where we are sending out large ships with large crews on long voyages, the Navy will begin to take over. Because that follows more closely to Naval doctrine.

File: 440px-Alfred_von_Tirpitz.png (583KB, 440x598px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 440x598px

So, /tg/, Fleet Admiral, (Lord) High Admiral or Grand Admiral? What's the best title for the commander of a (space) navy?

>>51469747
First Space Lord

>>51468949
I always thought they would become Rail cruisers, since they would be designed as do-it-all medium ships rather than firepower-first heavy ships

>>51468771
>some of the tiles on the hatch are missing
>>so?
>shouldn't we be worried?
>>no, who would care about some tiles?
>so why did we put them there in the first place?
>>I don't know, comrade, so they would break loose, fall down and hit the rocket?

>>51469747
>implying by that time we won't be living in a fully automated luxury space communism
The most flamboyant spacegay

>>51468757
Directions internal to a ship will probably use these terms - but directions to ship motion will likely be more like a submarine than a surface ship

Instead of just a 360 degree "heading", you'll have a pair of 360 headings - set in orthogonal planes relative to some reference point (earth? The sun?) and so things like trim and bubble might enter in with variations based on WHICH of the degree circles you're referencing.

Disclaimer - I am not a professional sailor

>>51470009
Also, you have Prograde, and Retrograde - in the direction of the ships travel and the reverse of that.

Likely will refer to Bow/Fore or Aft/Stern as appropriate - because most ships will have an obvious orientation when accelerating

File: vadim-sadovski-2017-01-18-23-23-23(1).jpg (537KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1200x750px

>>51469213
>The navy begins to take over.

More likely a new branch with aspects of both the navy and air force will be created, combining the best traits of each branch, while cutting the worst. It's the only way to preserve a balance between the other branches and keep one from getting too powerful. Interservice rivalry for budgets is the ultimate way to prevent a coup.

>>51468877
I also see a space military running ships more like the air force runs a bomber crew. Every crew member would be a highly trained specialist. Egalitarianism is a trait the Navy could really use. They don't trust their enlisted with anything.

>>51468671
Yep.

>>51470174
>Egalitarianism is a trait the Navy could really use

Star Trek tried to do this with every Tom Paris and Harry an officer. Which makes O'Brien a real basketcase.

In any case, the IRL Air Force is unusual in that Officers (pilots etc) do the actual fighting while enlisted stay behind and support them. That's the only reason for the so called egalitarianism on board the aircraft itself. Once we get to the stage where any fuck up from Ireland can enlist into the Space Forces as Space Lift Operator 2nd Class, then you'll see separation of officers and enlisted on board a spacecraft.

>>51470903
>Star Trek tried to do this with every Tom Paris and Harry an officer.

Yeah, because Roddenberry was disgusted with how poorly the navy treated its enlisted.

>That's the only reason for the so called egalitarianism on board the aircraft itself.

Eh, it's in every facet of the air force. They can get away with it because it's the most preferred branch and can afford to be picky on who they take in. The Coast Guard is the same way.

Keep service in the space force prestigious and treat them almost human, and you'll never have to deal with the dregs of society.

>>51468671
To add to this, the very word "craft" referred to boats exlusively until 1850, when the term "aircraft" was invented, and it still sounded funny to people for the better part of a century before the generations that always imagined a flying boat when hearing the word died off.

That's why it's especially funny when some scifi spergsters insist that because space isn't an ocean, we must call spaceships spacecraft instead. They've never heard of semantic shift.

File: space officer 2.jpg (355KB, 650x1174px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 650x1174px

>>51470903
Is the same true for submarines?

That seems the most space-like of all naval environments

>>51467955
I'd like to see something where you've got multiple nations space forces interacting or are in fairly close contact with each other, and they all have different ideas on how to run a space force: some have it as its own branch, some have it as a subordinate branch, some have it as part of their air force, etc.

>>51471927
Happened with the air forces in WWI, nothing interesting really.

>>51472130
I'd say it was quite an interesting time - as well as the service oddities (the first british mechanised forces were RN Air Service armoured cars, for example) you've also got people trying all sorts of new things with weapons, trying both airships and aeroplanes.

And that's just one nation's forces.

>>51469777
First Space Lord-Admiral of the Fleets

>>51469747
Early Tier - Fleet Admiral
Early-Mid Tier - High Admiral
Mid Tier - Lord Admiral
Late-Mid Tier - High Lord Admiral
Late Tier - Grand Admiral
Even Later Tier - Grand Lord Admiral
End Tier - Supreme Admiral of The Fleet
Very Special End Tier - Supreme Lord Admiral of The Fleets

File: totally not cropped porn.png (215KB, 306x375px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 306x375px

>>51472493
>Very Special End Tier - Supreme Lord Admiral of The Fleets
Very special indeed

>>51472510
To be precise it not different from Supreme Admiral of The Fleet.

The only difference is that they elect one from the Supreme Admirals as one Supreme Lord Admiral of The Fleets in order to get the job done in severe situations.

After that, the Supreme Lord Admiral of The Fleets stop being Supreme Lord Admiral and is back to being just Supreme Admiral of The Fleet.

File: space officer.jpg (193KB, 740x1079px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 740x1079px

>>51469747
I'd say have a title (like >>51469777), and then have a rank - so if your navy is small, you have your Chief of the Navy or your First Space Lord, an they're the professional head of the navy even if you only have enough ships for them to be a Commodore - it avoids having over-inflated ranks, and also means that if you have a huge navy you can have multiple Fleet Admirals or Grand Admirals or whatever

>>51472629
Like a roman-style dictator, or the 5-star positions in the US forces (though those were also theatre commands)

>>51469899
It honestly depends how well the technology scales.

Multiple smaller platforms are great but if you are trying to inch out range they may need more power so bigger platforms are required.
The whole purpose of Battleships to begin with was to out-strike your enemy over distance, carriers just did that better. If battleships offer better anti-air or faster response, carriers will have to capitulate many of their old roles.

>>51469074
Stem is actually the front, and it's not a location you go to, it's a specific part of the bow that projects off of the keel. You hear it most often in the phrase "stem to stern", which is a naval simile and not actually part of common jargon. No captain will say "go stemward" or "go to the stem", they'll say "go fore" or maybe "go to the bow".
Fore and aft are directions; fore is towards the bow, and aft is towards the stern.

Bow and stern are locations; the bow is the front part of the ship, which the stem is connected to and just forward of, while the stern is the back of the ship.

File: space girl (3).jpg (189KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x1024px

>>51472493
>>51472629
>>51472645


Do it like the Americans. The smaller the title, the more important the person. The bigger the title, the less relevant they are.

The Secretary, the President, the General/Admiral= Big deal

The vice undersecretary of the assistant secretary= Some big-headed desk-jockey in a cubicle in the capital who doesn't matter.

>>51473121
>the General/Admiral= Big deal
The doesn't work, there's a shit-ton of Generals and Admirals - especially Generals, when you recall that the USAF, Army and USMC all use General as their senior ranks

When dealing informally, most senior ranks have the issue that the top 3-4 will be variants of "General" "Admiral", and saying the full titles get's clunky, so your "General" might be a one-star or four-star.

Like this, but with more brass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-6YxhTJzlA

File: Phil.jpg (120KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x1067px

>>51472493
>High Lord Admiral
It's the other way around, it's the Lord High Admiral

Though 40k occasionally has one of the High Lords that's an Admiral, but not very often (it's one of the rotating seats), and even then he's got "Lord High Admiral of the Imperial Navy" as his title.

>>51475506
OK, duly noted.

Have to fix this later on.

>>51472493
What about the Ultimate High Grand Supreme Lord Admiral of the Republic/Empire/Whatever

>>51473290
Just make it "The" Admiral, and require that all official documents write the "the" in bold underlined italics one size larger than the rest of the text. Maybe in a different color as well

File: us_space_force.jpg (273KB, 1024x1279px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1024x1279px

>>51467919
>Will spess navies in the future use Naval Terms or is this some weird fluke of Sci-Fi?
It's actually a fluke of many of the early science fiction authors having served in the Navy, which at the time was the 'advanced' part of the military. Space issues are now handled by either a specialized branch of the military or the air force (in Russia's case, it's both!).

I can confirm that USAF spacers use AF terminology rather than Navy terminology. It's hard to say whether this will stay true in the future, though, as almost all space development has been privatized.

>>51468757
Stern is the rearmost bulwark of a vessel, for the record. The rear of a ship is "aft."

>>51468771
Hah I know where that is.

>>51469984
No, it's a decommissioned SS-19 silo.

>>51469213
>the Navy will begin to take over
No they won't, lol. The Air Force got space because the Navy got to keep their planes. There's no way the Air Force would let the Navy go back on the deal.

>>51469747
Depends. If you're going for realism, it's General of the (Aero)Space Forces. Or (Aero)Space Chief Marshal, perhaps.

FWIW, airmen assigned to space missions in the USAF can technically be addressed as spacemen.

>>51478631
>If you're going for realism, it's General of the (Aero)Space Forces. Or (Aero)Space Chief Marshal
That's boring though.
Admiral >>>>>>>>>> General

>>51478474
imagine the committees it would take to decide the font, size and colour...

>>51478659
Tough titties, kiddo. The Navy made its play and they won in the short term (Top Gun) and lost in the end (literally everything else).

>>51470027
I think this is an interesting thing to bring up because people are thinking of space flight as if ships fly like in star wars. The reality is orbital navigation around a single gravitational body, atmospheric/local translation and interstellar flight will all use different forms of propulsion and likely different navigation procedures/parameters.

tl;dr

Parking
Combat
Interstellar
All probably handled differently may even have multiple crews that specialise in each on the same ship.

>>51468418
>Hell its happening already with how most of NASA's current eggheads grew up on Trek TOS
>Happening

Buddy, after what Enterprise do you think the shuttle was named after? It sure wasn't the aircraft carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise

This was in '77

>>51478631
Having the enlisted being called "astronaut" instead of the far superior Spaceman (which also fits airman and seaman)

File: space kennedy.jpg (455KB, 1600x1035px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1600x1035px

>>51478631
>It's actually a fluke of many of the early science fiction authors having served in the Navy

And world leaders. See Pic.

>>51478788
Don't forget SEALs and the cult of the Marines. The Navy has always had a better relationship with the media than all the other branches.

It helps them in multiple ways, Heard about the HUGE corruption case going on the Pacific? Notice the Chair Force is getting yelled at by congress over the F-35 when the problems are stemming from the Navy/Marine versions? The Zumwalt's? Their PR teams have the press eating out of their hands.

>>51479850
something about manning those big ships makes everybody weak in the knees

>>51469747
Star-Lord

>>51480003
Who?

File: Heh, these rebels.jpg (14KB, 223x168px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 223x168px

>>51480016

File: WE'LL BE FEDERATION.png (42KB, 1049x744px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1049x744px

>>51467955
For a while Russian military united Space (which was born from ICBM control, as in Chinese cause) and Anti-Air into Aerospace Defense. Make sense, since "army marches on its stomach", so it's built around infrastructure like radars, spysats or other long-range sensors.

I have serious doubts that interstellar wars will be fought by fleets, space ships or fighters. Rather it will be a war of pure planetary devastation. Likely to be fought with automated rockets and meteors.
Do you guys have any grasp of orbital mechanics and the shear velocities that space ships travel at? Space battles like in star wars and star trek are pure fantasy.

>>51478631
Wheres that pic from? Its retarded to call everyone sergeant or something-something-sergeant.

>>51487752
as much fun as lobbing tetraton rocks at your opponent like so much interstellar buckshot is, you probably dont want to reduce the planet to cinders, nor do you want to give your enemy the bright idea to do the same

and the rock might end up being a lot more expensive than you think, since you have to render it resistant to counter measures

>>51487752
Just like we nuke the civilian population every time we go to war, I assume.

>>51467919
I'd imagine such a unique operating environment will breed its own spacer speak real fucking fast. And given it'll be in space it's gonna have lots of organisational stuff and hi-tech equipment there'll be even more TLA than there normally are in the military. People will speak entirely in TLA basically.

>>51469777
This. First Sea Lord is such a rad title and I wish the tradition to continue.

>>51487903
The RL military calls everything 'seregent'. The chart just has special duty titles in addition to normal ranks.

>>51487928
He has a point. Space battles would have more in common with BVR missile engagements between fighters than ships of the line.

>>51488962

Well yeah, engagements would probably be jousting competitions where fleets took charges at each other so that they can get into and out of weapons range as quickly as possible.

Everything after that would just be who's got the most missiles Vs the better point defence.

First person to run out of missiles or ships before the opponent loses basically.

>>51487752
>shear velocities
I'd want low shear velocities in my spaceships.

Actually if shear has reached a level that it's got a velocity then something has gone very wrong.


Also, planets we can use are pretty rare, wars of planetary devastation would likely be as common as full-scale nuclear wars are today.

>>51471927
>Is the same true for submarines?

No.

>>51489407
Ah, what's the situation of enlisted like on subs?

How much egalitarianism is there in that cramped environment, and how highly trained are the enlisted?

At least, I assume not everyone on a sub is an officer

>>51488962
You can't really be BVR in space, though practical range is another matter entirely.
Probably even with lasers, though they'd have the best time of it.

I think they'll invent a bunch of new terms. Military branches compete for budget share, so making sure they're distinct from the other branches is a big deal. Look at US Marines vs US Army. They're both ground forces and neither has gone to war on US soil for what, centuries now? Both do things differently just to be different. Uniforms, language, all that stuff.

The space force is likely to fall into similar practices, given they'll emerge at a point when terrestrial military branches still exist and will have to fight for their share of defence spending as well as develop a pride and pomp that the military seem to go in for.

>>51467919
It'll probably be Air Force. Since we live on a water planet, in most regards, the "Air Force" has been mostly supplanted by Naval Air Force attaches in the US. These days the Air Force doesn't actually DO anything except long range high altitude bombings and dealing with space.

They desperately need a new field, frankly we should give it to them. If the space program had the same budget as the military we'd be on Mars already, and since the military can justify basically ANY expenditure (f35 lol) they'll just keep building shit and sending it out there to continue justifying their existence.

The best way to get things done is the free market, but it's slow. The second best way is by tricking a government bureaucracy into believing that it will lose funding if things don't happen. That gets shit done FAST.

>>51479030
The best part is that the Starship Enterprise was named after the space shuttle in Universe.

>>51468439
>navies use a mix of fresh terms with terms taken from what was originally land based things, but with the word sea in front of it
What the fuck are you even talking about

>>51467919
could be a mix
you have the fore and aft but the whole main body is called the fuselage, the kitchen is the galley but the command area is the cockpit, stuff like that

>>51469747
General.

It's the Air Force goddamnit.

>>51478631
those ranks are ridiculous

>>51469747
Admirable

>>51495449
>not Marshal

Gross.

>>51488794
Word of wisdom that nobody ever fucking heads, I'm combat and hazard situations all crew on a ship should have their fucking suits ready to seal up

File: 300px-H4_-_Forthencho[1].jpg (20KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x354px

>>51469747
Lord of Admirals

>>51479030
Though werent the show writers inspired to name it the Enterprise because of the carrier?

File: Gary_Chalmers[1].png (43KB, 225x421px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 225x421px

>>51469747
Super Nintendo

>>51467919
Doubt it, thing would remain nautical but they would come up with new terms as well.

Railer - Ship built around railgun.
Orbiter - Vessel which mainly orbits a planet.

ect, ect

>>51487903
>Wheres that pic from? Its retarded to call everyone sergeant or something-something-sergeant.
That's literally the USAF enlisted rank structure. But the Army's the same way. You become a sergeant and you're a sergeant until you're Sergeant Major. Master Sergeants whine about it, but "sergeant" is the correct form of address.

>>51488962
>He has a point. Space battles would have more in common with BVR missile engagements between fighters than ships of the line.
The Navy has some BVR expertise, but the Air Force is where it truly resides. F-on-F engagement is something the Air Force does unequivocally better than anyone else in the world, including the Navy.

File: laugh harder - Copy.gif (1MB, 288x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 288x198px

>>51492220
>You can't really be BVR in space

As opposed to what,eyeballs?

>>51492770
Thw USAF is running most of the ISR in the world. The Chair Force has stuff to do, its just not flashy and high-visibility like other branches are. Look up the -135 platforms besides tankers.

>>51495580
You want silly ranks, look at the Navy, they include their job titles. No other branch is as convoluted.

>>51495724
Heeds. (like heed my warning).

Heeeeeds

Unless you mean, "heads up".

Heed.

Sorry, but this triggered my autism.

>>51497315
BVR is beyond visible range, right?
In space you can see for days. Literally.

>>51495449
Should be Marshal - really, USAF ranks are no fun, in the commonwealth air forces you get shit like Wing Commander and Air Commodore

File: general olds.jpg (84KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 850x400px

>>51498661
You realize space is fucking huge, right? Like its a hit or miss if we would even detect a near-earth asteroid even if we were looking for it.

People BVR all the time in the air and the ground, there's zero reason to go back from an established order of battle that's works just fine. Going back to relying on only your eyes would be repeating Vietnam's air engagement rules.

>>51467919
All right OP. I'll give you this holy grail.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

>>51499631
Yeah, not at all saying you should be waiting for eyeball confirmation, that WOULD be stupid, but visual range in space is huge with practically nothing to block LOS or distort the light - there's no horizon in space, after all

File: Saturn eclipse.jpg (596KB, 2766x1364px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 2766x1364px

>>51499859
That's presuming there's even enough light to see anything. Most images beyond Mars you see of the solar system have been through extreme photo-editing.

>>51493378
Multi-planar interleaved causality loops? I bet Daniels did this.

File: Saturn V launch.jpg (58KB, 600x928px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x928px

>>51500418
Forgot to add:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

>>51500494
Both are named after the Carrier which is named after the Schooner, which is named after a fancy way to say "thing we did."

>>51467919
There will not be space navies. At the point where human civilization has the ability and inclination to make interstellar vessels, it will be a stateless post-scarcity civilization.

File: 1477677081348.png (1MB, 998x1073px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 998x1073px

Daily reminder that 'Espatier' is the best name for any form of space-borne infantry and 'space marines' or just 'marines' for space troops is retarded.

File: Riddick-Lord-Marshall.jpg (245KB, 1200x796px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1200x796px

>>51495684
Lord Marshal

>>51500736
what does "Espatier" mean?

>>51501023
Literally French for 'spacer'

>>51467919
In popular sci-fi, space ships are more akin to modern-day sailing ships than fighter jets. See: The Enterprise, the Millenium Falcon, the Serenity.

>>51471635
Hippie here, can you give me more details? I'm not familiar with the military

File: 5531255277_d59daf1e39_o.jpg (464KB, 2000x1599px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 2000x1599px

>>51501543
Roddenberry was a bomber pilot in WWII. The rift between enlisted and officers on aircraft are extremely small or non-existent while flying due to how dangerous the environment flying in a pressurized airplane in a war-zone. Crews are often on first-name basis. The Army also only took the best and the brightest of volunteers for aircrew-duty.

Compare this to the navy. Copying much of the traditions and customs of class-rigid Britain, the rift between enlisted/officer in the surface fleet is fuck huge. And it didn't help that the Navy was so desperate for bodies that they willingly took convicts in lieu of punishment. Ever heard the saying "no dogs, blacks, or Sailors allowed" or "only criminals, sailors, and whores got tattoos"? They also used what little space they had to maintain a separate dining facility for junior enlisted/Senior NCO/Officer. There are even hallways and offices that lower enlisted aren't allowed in.

Roddenberry envisioned a future where everyone had access to higher education, and degree=officer (granted, today many enlisted have degrees too, but most get out because there is no benefit to having one and staying enlisted). What few enlisted you see are there for narrative reasons, he was largely anti-military. When he died, the writers brought out a more 'traditional' rank structure. But even then there's a disproportional amount of officers compared to enlisted.

>>51502160
That's good to know. I actually have a bit more appreciation for Star Fleet now.

>>51500736
>just 'marines' for space troops is retarded.
A consequence of the way the american military works, and as an anon above mentioned, the Navy's excellent grasp of PR - "Marines" are seen by many as *the* US soldier (I recall one or two non-anglofags on here saying that before 4chan they thought Marine = US soldier), so that is a big influence. Also there's a long sci-fi tradition. And at least a couple of astronauts were marines (John Glenn being the most notable)

There's also the fact that, "marines" at their core, are land soldiers that operate out of ships - given all the advantages a spaceship can give in fighting, having a body of soldiers that fights and mainly deploys from ships makes sense, and naming conventions are slow to change.

Also, just because old military ranks are in french, doesn't mean new ones should be. Despite what I said just before that about tradition being slow to change.

Still, I do think that having "marines" where there's no ocean can come off a little silly

File: Space ship Treasure Planet.jpg (24KB, 485x311px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 485x311px

>>51501125
Sometimes they're similar to even older space ships, with things like broadsides and crossing the T.

>>51500736
>Espatier
That's a terrible name.

>>51509218
It really is. It looks cool, but sounds terrible. I prefer using german for my space forces, because it ALWAYS sounds cool.

>>51511561
German's pretty good, though don't all the ranks get really long?

>>51498661
>>51499859
You're confusing visual range and line of sight, they are two different things. Visual range is defined as what you can see using the Mk1 Eyeball. If you need radar or a telescope to see it, then it's not in visual range. Line of sight is simply whether you can draw an unblocked straight line between you and an object. So most modern air combat is BVR even on a clear day with uninterrupted sightlines, because they're so far away they can only see each other on radar. Thus pretty much all combat in space will be BVR. What space combat won't be for the most part is beyond the horizon or non-LOS combat, because space doesn't have a horizon, unless someone's hiding behind a planet or something.

>>51512818
In theory yes, but none of my players speak enough German to notice if I just fudge things that sound cool and are loosely accurate.

>>51512990
Ah, yeah I thought they were the same thing, my bad

>>51502160
Different organizational practices arising from different realities.

A large aircrew is 30ish men. A long sortie is 3 days. You sit at your claustrophobic workstation doing the job that only you or maybe one other guy can do for the whole flight. If anything goes wrong, the pilot turns around and lands the plane or all of you explode.

Naval vessels are a different kettle of fish. There are more more crew than the ~150 name/face combinations a human can remember, unless you are on the tiniest ships. You need a hierarchy to break up those numbers into more manageable lots in order to run the ship since it requires coordinated action from many people all at once. Whether everyone's an officer or not, You'll still have the pattern of Captain orders bridge staff -> bridge orders watch-cheif -> watch-chief orders wrench-turners.

Ships are fairly durable, but everyone is depending on it to live which potentially ends up with officers having to order crew to their deaths to save the ship and everyone on it. This sort of thing requires a certain amount of separation between the orderers and the orderees hence officer's country/wardrooms that provide the upper ranks with a place they don't have to have their game-faces on during long weeks on ship covered in enlisted.

Cruises are months in duration during which the crew must not only perform their mission but also care for the ship and themselves. There's great deal of upkeep to do on the combination bomb factory-dormitory called a ship that must be done while underway with only the facilities and supplies aboard.

IMHO the Navy model sounds more like a deep space mission than the AF. Stick to the AF plan if your space patrol flys short, minimally staffed hops from fixed bases. The Navy built their system to send lots of men out into a hostile environment for months/years where they'd frequently be beyond communications or aid and would have to do for themselves and the mission as best they could.

>>51518810
See, I understand why that would be used in space settings, but I kind of.prefer the Air Force way.

I'm figuring that everyone on the ship will be decently cross trained, not to 100% shared knowledge, but you aren't going to get just any random Joe fresh from enlisting aboard ANY space ship.

>>51518810
I feel like the realities of space travel would mean that smaller more closely knit crews with lots of automation make more sense than the dormitory model of seagoing vessels.

You have the technology to reduce the crew to a minimum, and doing so reduces the logistical footprint. This is true whether you are talking about a human crew or AI. You want a small number of egos who get along with each other.

>>51468451
spoken like a person who's never worked in a dangerous job where it's loud and one misheard instruction can mean disaster. Usually for fields like maritime, logging, stage production, etc. they have all these code words for a reason.

In this case, starboard and port has a very handy use as opposed to right and left.

For one, it's based off the ship, not the individual. Ever had a "no, not your left, My left" moment? Well with port or starboard, it doesn't matter what direction each crew member is standing, they're all on the same page immediately. The port side of the ship isn't subjective, it doesn't changed based on the person's perspective. Port will always mean port. Starboard will always mean starboard. This is extremely important. That half second of thinking "does he mean my left or his left" can be all it takes to smash into a rock. When I was on a trail crew we would use "upslope" and "downslope" for this reason, and in my time with music and stage production, you have the classic "upstage", "downstage", "stage right" so on and so forth. It puts everyone on the same page, kind of like a little inbuilt compass, and helps cut down on miscommunication, which cuts down on accidents.

Second, emergencies are rarely nice, quiet, organized affairs where communication is easy. Normally it's due to storms, a fire, people boarding, alarms wailing, etc. Right and left in the din of the chaos can sound frighteningly similar, as they're both a single syllable. Starboard and port however have different amounts of syllables. So if youre listening for your first mate 40 feet up the ship in the middle of a squall, and you hear one syllable being yelled out, it's a pretty good chance he's yelling "port". Whereas if you keep hearing some sort of two syllable word, odds are it's starboard. It sounds stupid but it works better than you think.

File: sea shadow.jpg (2MB, 2830x1850px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2830x1850px

>>51518810
>IMHO the Navy model sounds more like a deep space mission than the AF.

There's no reason why the Air Force can't do it those days honestly. They wrote the book with what we know now about space flight, have been in bed with NASA since its inception, and like >>51478631 said, the Navy gave up the space mission to keep its fighters during the War of the Admirals in the 50's. Tradition and Romanticism is not really a good excuse to yank redraw the lines of who controls what.

>>51519033
There's also no need for silly stuff like separate messes for rank. The Lockheed Sea Shadow had a paint locker built solely because the navy refused to work with a boat that didn't comply with tradition, even when there was no need for one on an experimental stealth ship. Kelly Johnson hated working with the navy, and only did so as a last resort.

>>51467919
it's a fluke of sci fi

spaceships wouldn't even handle like boats, everything's essentially falling towards everything with mass.

closest analog would probably be skydiving in a tin can.

>>51521516
There were still a lot of US astronauts that were Navy and came into the astronaut program that route - a quick browse on wikipedia gives:

United States Air Force astronauts (84 P)
United States Army astronauts (16 P)
United States Coast Guard astronauts (2 P)
United States Navy astronauts (77 P)
United States Marine Corps astronauts (21 P)

If you count Marines as Navy they've actually got the most, if not they're still No.2 after the guys whose entire operations focus on flight.

Either branch, sufficiently expanded, could do it, but there's plenty of arguements for Navy-style operation

>>51505084
The Marine Corps is a separate force from the Navy.
I mean, the Navy ships them around and shit, but they aren't Navy.

>>51521639
That's because they prefer test pilots. Pilot's with the thinking preference of an engineer are pretty rare.

>there's plenty of arguments for Navy-style operation

Besides that space travel is nothing like what we read in pulp sci-fi?

>>51469747
The Magician

>>51521721
The stuff >>51518810 mentions - for deep space the mission profile is far more like that of a naval ship than any plane - well, most like a boomer submarine, except that it can't "surface" and there's no gravity

Though there's certainly arguments to go with Roddenberry's bomber-style everyone's-an-officer deal because of how limited space on board would be and how pretty much all the jobs would be high tech.

Not really sure what you mean by "Besides that space travel is nothing like what we read in pulp sci-fi?"

>>51521715
You know the joke about what "Marine" stands for?
My Ass Really Is Navy Equipment (Rides In, if you're being polite)

And they're both the same department, though they're separate forces - when I said "the navy's grasp of PR" I meant the department as a whole, seeing as you rarely hear much bad about either of them

Whether soldiers that deploy from a spaceship should be their own thing or not adds yet another question on how to do things - are they like really high parachuters, or a force in their own right?

>>51522000
Well, they're clearly completely separate structures of personnel, below the political level. The department of the Navy doesn't handle PR for the USMC, and the Navy and the USMC have very different public images.

The Secretary of the Navy is a political post, at the military level, the USMC and the Navy are entirely separate entities, and the Chief of the Navy is not below the Commandant of the Marines in rank, nor vice versa.

>>51522080
>completely separate structures of personnel
Except where they train, are educated, and integrate together - things like marine fighter squadrons being embedded in carrier wings, the marine officers that come from the naval academy, all marine pilots going through the naval aviation training pipeline and are winged as naval aviators/flight officers, all marine medical personnel being navy, using the naval medal of honour and other awards and so on.
And they share a budget allotment, given that that's by Department

Yes, they fight separately and do a lot independently of each other, but they're much closer than any other two branches

>>51495843
Enterprise is the name of the leading class of most western naval/space shuttles

HMS Enterprise, USS Enterprise, The Shuttle Enterprise, and a theoretically possible FTL ship design was Trade Marked USS Enterprise.

>>51522862
>they share a budget allotment, given that that's by Department

That probably why the Marines would get absorbed into the army or severed completely from the navy into its own branch as a compromise to keep one branch from becoming too powerful. Truman almost killed the Marine corps after WWII.

Hell, the army is the elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. They are the biggest branch with the most influence by far, there's no way they would sit by and let a space navy supplemented by its own Marines and lay claim to a bigger slice of they pie. They would team up with the chair force and kill any attempt by the navy to wrest space command away from the air force.

>>51467919
I'd like to dock In her bay, if you know what I mean.

>>51519200
>they're both a single syllable. Starboard and port however have different amounts of syllables
Always wondered about that. Makes enough sense.

File: tomahawktotheface.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>51499631
Oh shit Mustache March is right around the corner.

And BVR should parse out to "beyond 1.5 miles" at which the human ability to react and gauge is mostly useless. At that juncture it's almost entirely in the metaphorical hands of whatever guidance package you've got on the airframe.

Without improvements to the good ol' Mk I Eyeball, we're not going to be manually doing much of anything in space. We'll be giving commands that will be interpreted by virtual intelligences designed to do complex calculations to make the desired outcomes occur.

Trust me, the Air Force is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the Navy on this front. About the only thing the Navy has that we'll want in space is railguns. And here's the funny part: when the Navy negotiated to wrangle control of the funding for railgun research, the caveat was they'd only control it for terrestrial use.

The Air Force has completely outmaneuvered the Navy.

>>51525911
>The Air Force has completely outmaneuvered the Navy.
I bet they thought that after the Revolt of the Admirals too, but here we are, more than half a century later, and the US Navy has the biggest budget by miles, the majority of the nuclear warheads, and a new set of carriers coming.

And there's currently a treaty banning weapons in space, so that'll have to go before anyone even thinks about putting railguns anywhere - plenty of time for there to be finagling about where exactly the navy gets to deploy them.


The guy was replying to me about BVR by the way, I've admitted I thought it meant line-of-sight (>>51512990 >>51515847)

>>51526579
>I bet they thought that after the Revolt of the Admirals too
No, that was a negotiation they came away from with something to show. Considering it was the 1950s and it was the Navy, that was a real victory.

>the US Navy has the biggest budget by miles
??

The Air Force has had the larger budget for two years now.

lol