Such as depicted in the Honorverse.
Is the navy in Star Wars more "realistic" than Star Trek?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
The Honorverse has both, actually----decoy-based ECM and stealth ECM.
However, Honorverse stealth isn't based on heat detection. That you can't really mask. But it can only be detected at the speed of light; and since Impeller wedges "echo" off of alpha-hyperspace, they can be detected faster. Thus, navy ships tend to be looking for impeller signatures rather than heat signatures.
From a practical point of view, they should be looking for both, especially as the arms race started to accelerate. But this is a culture which didn't even think that fission might be a more practical power source than fusion in some cases until a "less advanced" planet suggested it.
However, Honorverse stealth isn't based on heat detection. That you can't really mask. But it can only be detected at the speed of light; and since Impeller wedges "echo" off of alpha-hyperspace, they can be detected faster. Thus, navy ships tend to be looking for impeller signatures rather than heat signatures.
From a practical point of view, they should be looking for both, especially as the arms race started to accelerate. But this is a culture which didn't even think that fission might be a more practical power source than fusion in some cases until a "less advanced" planet suggested it.
Count me in the group that doesn't like the idea of navies in space. There is no way all the Generals and armies are the world are going to change their structure and go to the navy system for everyone. When you think about it, I don't know why they still have two separate rank systems anyway. Military is military.
And anyone that thinks the military would let scientists just run space is dreaming.
And anyone that thinks the military would let scientists just run space is dreaming.
Well, not for everyone, of course. Just the starship crews. The ground troops can and will have their own rank system. Nothing wrong with that.
All ranks are invented for a specific purpose. A General, for example, leads troops into battle. An Admiral is responsible for a group of *ships*. Trying to mix the two would not make sense.
Tradition, but traditions change should your nation loose a war in which you were aq sailor/aviator fighter pilot and your victors allow a land based self defense force with light liason aircraft many a commander would become a major. Should Stargate command gain control of all the hot hyper capable starships many sub skippers would not mind being called colonel instead of captain to command it. General, for general officer as opposed to specialist or admiral its just a name held on to because the prejudice of our language and perhaps because the SS and some communist militaries renamed their officers for function. Squad leader, instead of sergeant/chief. Platoon or unit leader instead of Ensign/Lieutenant. Etc.
Do Star Destroyers even have shields? Seems that'd be a big factor on battleship vs aircraft carrier sensibilities.
Why exactly would it not make sense? It makes perfectly good sense. What type of craft a person is on does not matter, they are all soldiers. So it makes no difference if it is on the ground, on the water, in the air, or in space.
To the extent that all three divisions may need infantry, that's true. However, at the command level it makes more sense to discriminate. After all, someone who's a genius at naval command may not have equivalent skills leading troops or commanding a fighter squadron.
One could argue that all three command types should be taught, but some officers will have a natural aptitude for one more than the others, and should be allowed to specialize.
The Navy has its own planes rather than relying on the Air Force for those precisely because the two bodies have different operational parameters and requirements. So even within a seemingly related type of combat, there's differentiation.
Plecostomus
Commodore
My take on this was this: The Galaxy Class was up and coming at this point, with two-three ships online and more building. They had the cutting edge everything, and there was a need to qualify officers in all aspects of the new ships.
This is why the Enterprise had several different chief engineers early on, qualified engineers were being rotated through the existing ships to get hardware experience and then shifted to new units as they came online. Geordi completed the qualification exams and when the position became a permanent posting he was given the job.
Well I hope they are more soldier than sailor because you can be a sailor without being a soldier. I would say that in fact most sailors are not soldiers.
Just because the command structures would be the same does not mean that people in the roles would not have to qualified to do them. I am sure everyone that has the same rank now is not qualified to do every job at that rank.
The only thing, and it is a powerful thing, that keeps the status quo is tradition. It would take something drastic to change that in the future or just a passage of time. Such as Commodore no longer being used it can happen, it would just be a very slow process.
Well I hope they are more soldier than sailor because you can be a sailor without being a soldier. I would say that in fact most sailors are not soldiers.
Just because the command structures would be the same does not mean that people in the roles would not have to qualified to do them. I am sure everyone that has the same rank now is not qualified to do every job at that rank.
The only thing, and it is a powerful thing, that keeps the status quo is tradition. It would take something drastic to change that in the future or just a passage of time. Such as Commodore no longer being used it can happen, it would just be a very slow process.
Soldiers sometime do run watercraft. Check out what combat engineer battalions did for MacArthur while the main fleet was busy with Nimitz sometimes. Many a landing craft was manned by soldiers as crew and not just cargo. Just as rotary wing aircraft made the US Army the world's largest airforce they once had one of the largest navy's.
I like the way that the Systems Alliance (the human government in Mass Effect) handles its military. It's all under a unified command, the Systems Alliance Military, consisting of a fleet and fighter pilots (using Navy ranks, i.e. Serviceman, Petty Officer, Commander, and Admiral), and Marines for infantry (using Marine ranks, i.e. Private, Sergeant, Major, and General).
It's a system used by several real life nations, afaik. Canada unified all their branches many years ago.
It definitely sounds like it would be more efficient. Cut out the diverging interests of each separate branch and make them all into one cohesive whole working towards the same goal.
You mean Canada has a military? Just kidding.
Seems like they almost got it right, except they kept the Navy ranks. Considering Navy is the one that is different I say it is the one that will go, not the one that will take over.
There are other inefficiencies - the military is bilingual when most people in reality aren't and fighting units are mostly segregated. Probably doesn't help the officers, who either have to speak in broken English or French depending on their proficiency.
But yeah, they have a single person in charge and a single budget, so there aren't competing interests on that front. (And Naval ranks are cool!)
But yeah, they have a single person in charge and a single budget, so there aren't competing interests on that front. (And Naval ranks are cool!)
It's all hypothetical, that's why
Some people like to have these things sorted out in advance 
Technically, one could say there could be rogue asteroids and the like to shoot at*, and I doubt some political higher ups (especially those with military background) would like the idea of lab coats being the one behind the trigger on those weapons.
*Though there are other techniques, but for the sake of argument, lets say that shooting is the easiest, most effecient etc.
Similar threads
