Is the navy in Star Wars more "realistic" than Star Trek?

[SilentP]

I've always thought that space combat, if we ever get there, will be much more like submarine warfare than the surface ship/aircraft analogy used most commonly in science fiction.

It will not be wildly flying spacecraft dodging missiles and beam weapons, it will be stealthy slow moving(relatively speaking) weapon platforms looking to be the first to get a lock on the enemy and then get into kill range. Whoever gets the first shot will in all likelihood be the victor.

Aye, this is actually a very good metaphor, especially considering how life and death any kind of hull breach on a submarine is and presumably on a starship. I can see a focus perhaps too on sensor manipulation/ECM as well.

 

[FordSVT]

I've always thought that space combat, if we ever get there, will be much more like submarine warfare than the surface ship/aircraft analogy used most commonly in science fiction.

It will not be wildly flying spacecraft dodging missiles and beam weapons, it will be stealthy slow moving(relatively speaking) weapon platforms looking to be the first to get a lock on the enemy and then get into kill range. Whoever gets the first shot will in all likelihood be the victor.

Much like what aerial combat is becoming with 5th Generation aircraft.

Indeed. The focus would probably be, as in modern sub combat, on stealth and ambush. Technologies would be dedicated to masking and absorbing tell-tale heat signatures, the use of special coatings and meta-materials would render them invisible to the visible spectrum, and sensors would be dedicated to sniffing them out.

 

[Lindley]

Yeah, that was the *other* reason for going to Light Attack Craft in the Honorverse---the smaller vessels' ECM was much more effective at masking their approach than a superdreadnought's would be.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Realistic space Navy:

Hell yeah.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I prefer Stargate's take on spaceship and fleet organization.

Which navy, the fleets of the System Lords, the Asgard High Command or the Tau'i?

Not to mention the Aschen, Wraith or Asurans...

You do know that the Tau'i would exactly have a space navy seeing as their ships are crewed by USAF personel right?

Existing Earth space activity is populated by scientists and pilots. The navy analogy isn't realistic.

It should be, though.

Our existing space program, what little of it there is, is concentrated in small craft that are piloted by only a few crewmembers. So it doesn't really matter what service they're drawn from, organization-wise.

In a massive, spacegoing organization, like Starfleet for example, it makes sense to have a naval command structure. It's how our ships operate on the sea right now - and what are Starfleet vessels but just another kind of ship? True, they're ships that fly in SPACE, but still ships. And that's what we have navies for.

At the very least, it is easier this way for the viewer at home (and in the theater) to relate to. People expect ships - whether they be in space or on the sea - to have officers with naval ranks. If Trek, back in the 60's, had had 'Colonel' Kirk, 'Major' Spock, etc., but still on the Enterprise, viewers would have become confused and wondered what exactly the hell they were doing there.

Officers like Generals, Colonels, etc. are for leading ground troops. Admirals, etc. are for leading groups of *ships*. That's what those ranks were made for.

You do know that the US Air Force has Generals, Colonels, etc in it and is the branch of the military that looks like it will be handling the space stuff right?

 

[Manticore]

I've always thought that space combat, if we ever get there, will be much more like submarine warfare than the surface ship/aircraft analogy used most commonly in science fiction.

It will not be wildly flying spacecraft dodging missiles and beam weapons, it will be stealthy slow moving(relatively speaking) weapon platforms looking to be the first to get a lock on the enemy and then get into kill range. Whoever gets the first shot will in all likelihood be the victor.

Much like what aerial combat is becoming with 5th Generation aircraft.

The problem is that stealth is all but impossible in space. You're always going to be hotter than the surrounding environment, and worse, you have to constantly be dumping heat or else you fry.

 

[JuanBolio]

I've always thought that space combat, if we ever get there, will be much more like submarine warfare than the surface ship/aircraft analogy used most commonly in science fiction.

It will not be wildly flying spacecraft dodging missiles and beam weapons, it will be stealthy slow moving(relatively speaking) weapon platforms looking to be the first to get a lock on the enemy and then get into kill range. Whoever gets the first shot will in all likelihood be the victor.

Much like what aerial combat is becoming with 5th Generation aircraft.

Largely true, except there ain't no stealth in space. You'll be able to see your enemy and he'll be able to see you long in advance, unless you're playing hide and seek around a planet and its moons.

Edit - what Manticore said. You can't hide, unless you're hiding behind something.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Existing Earth space activity is populated by scientists and pilots. The navy analogy isn't realistic.

It should be, though.

Our existing space program, what little of it there is, is concentrated in small craft that are piloted by only a few crewmembers. So it doesn't really matter what service they're drawn from, organization-wise.

In a massive, spacegoing organization, like Starfleet for example, it makes sense to have a naval command structure. It's how our ships operate on the sea right now - and what are Starfleet vessels but just another kind of ship? True, they're ships that fly in SPACE, but still ships. And that's what we have navies for.

At the very least, it is easier this way for the viewer at home (and in the theater) to relate to. People expect ships - whether they be in space or on the sea - to have officers with naval ranks. If Trek, back in the 60's, had had 'Colonel' Kirk, 'Major' Spock, etc., but still on the Enterprise, viewers would have become confused and wondered what exactly the hell they were doing there.

Officers like Generals, Colonels, etc. are for leading ground troops. Admirals, etc. are for leading groups of *ships*. That's what those ranks were made for.

You do know that the US Air Force has Generals, Colonels, etc in it and is the branch of the military that looks like it will be handling the space stuff right?

As has been pointed out, our space program consists solely of small craft piloted by only a few crewmembers. And we don't have anywhere near the sheer numbers of people in space that Starfleet does, for example.

We have a few craft - *not a fleet*. Those craft have only a few crewmembers - they are *not starships*. That's the difference. That's why it doesn't really matter who runs our space program, organization-wise.

If we had a fleet, of ships with hundreds or thousands of crew, then a naval command structure would make sense, because that's why we bloody well HAVE navies - to run fleets of ships. It doesn't matter whether those ships run in space or on the sea. The principle is the same.

 

[JuanBolio]

It should be, though.

Our existing space program, what little of it there is, is concentrated in small craft that are piloted by only a few crewmembers. So it doesn't really matter what service they're drawn from, organization-wise.

In a massive, spacegoing organization, like Starfleet for example, it makes sense to have a naval command structure. It's how our ships operate on the sea right now - and what are Starfleet vessels but just another kind of ship? True, they're ships that fly in SPACE, but still ships. And that's what we have navies for.

At the very least, it is easier this way for the viewer at home (and in the theater) to relate to. People expect ships - whether they be in space or on the sea - to have officers with naval ranks. If Trek, back in the 60's, had had 'Colonel' Kirk, 'Major' Spock, etc., but still on the Enterprise, viewers would have become confused and wondered what exactly the hell they were doing there.

Officers like Generals, Colonels, etc. are for leading ground troops. Admirals, etc. are for leading groups of *ships*. That's what those ranks were made for.

You do know that the US Air Force has Generals, Colonels, etc in it and is the branch of the military that looks like it will be handling the space stuff right?

As has been pointed out, our space program consists solely of small craft piloted by only a few crewmembers. And we don't have anywhere near the sheer numbers of people in space that Starfleet does, for example.

We have a few craft - *not a fleet*. Those craft have only a few crewmembers - they are *not starships*. That's the difference. That's why it doesn't really matter who runs our space program, organization-wise.

If we had a fleet, of ships with hundreds or thousands of crew, then a naval command structure would make sense, because that's why we bloody well HAVE navies - to run fleets of ships. It doesn't matter whether those ships run in space or on the sea. The principle is the same.

Indeed, the Navy are the guys with all the experience running vessels massing thousands of tons with hundreds of crew members powered by nuclear reactors, and they're no slouches in aerospace design and engineering, either. Many, many astronauts got their start in the Navy.

Incidentally, I read a fannon take on World War 3 and the early formation of Earth's Starfleet that went thusly - the Air Force fell out of favor after World War 3 as it was dominated and humiliated by eastern air and anti-satellite power. The Navy, on the other hand, did and excellent job of shooting down ICBMs, which is what saved San Francisco and New Orleans from nuclear annihilation. Hence, when Starfleet began to form, its military influences were primarily naval in origin.

 

[Caliburn24]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

That link does kill a lot of ideas about stealth, but I still think technologies will be available to hide heat signatures and the various other emissions that spacecraft produce.

The MISTY satellites that the US possesses already has shown that stealth can work in space to some degree(how much is arguable, since we don't know the extent of the project).

Before the F-117 was unveiled, stealth aircraft were just a pipe dream of some fringe loonies, but we know how that turned out.

I'm confident that if we ever get to the point were spacecraft are militarized and running all over the Solar system(and beyond hopefully), stealth will be a key design and tactical factor.

 

[broberfett]

There is stealth in space. All of those spacecraft, at least large ones, would use a sensor system. The stealth system would just trick those sensors. Weapons would be fired before anyone would see the target with their eyes. Any beam weapon could be fired at 186,282 miles and hit in one second.

 

[Trubinator]

I think the model Babylon 5 used comes closer than either ST or SW.

 

[Trubinator]

Edit - what Manticore said. You can't hide, unless you're hiding behind something.

That's actually a pretty ridiculous statement if you think about it. It would be close to impossible to eyeball a ship in space unless you had an EXTREMELY good idea of where to look for it. Hence, all the jamming equipment that's popular in Sci-Fi...

 

[Star Wolf]

Edit - what Manticore said. You can't hide, unless you're hiding behind something.

That's actually a pretty ridiculous statement if you think about it. It would be close to impossible to eyeball a ship in space unless you had an EXTREMELY good idea of where to look for it. Hence, all the jamming equipment that's popular in Sci-Fi...

Everybody knew where to look for that red painted fighter plane. The sensor was still overwelmed by a star.

 

[Marc]

I've always thought that space combat, if we ever get there, will be much more like submarine warfare than the surface ship/aircraft analogy used most commonly in science fiction.

It will not be wildly flying spacecraft dodging missiles and beam weapons, it will be stealthy slow moving(relatively speaking) weapon platforms looking to be the first to get a lock on the enemy and then get into kill range. Whoever gets the first shot will in all likelihood be the victor.

So the Battle of the Mutara Nebula is probably the closest I can recall to matching what you describe. Then again it wasn't it inspired by the movie Enemy Below? (or am I think of The Balance of Terror).

 

[JuanBolio]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

That link does kill a lot of ideas about stealth, but I still think technologies will be available to hide heat signatures and the various other emissions that spacecraft produce.

The MISTY satellites that the US possesses already has shown that stealth can work in space to some degree(how much is arguable, since we don't know the extent of the project).

Before the F-117 was unveiled, stealth aircraft were just a pipe dream of some fringe loonies, but we know how that turned out.

I'm confident that if we ever get to the point were spacecraft are militarized and running all over the Solar system(and beyond hopefully), stealth will be a key design and tactical factor.

I'm not at all sure about this. Stealth in an atmosphere is vastly different from attempting to hide something like a big, hot starship in space.

That's actually a pretty ridiculous statement if you think about it. It would be close to impossible to eyeball a ship in space unless you had an EXTREMELY good idea of where to look for it. Hence, all the jamming equipment that's popular in Sci-Fi...

You have no idea what you're talking about, sir. Please read the link Caliburn24 posted above. You'll see just how wrong you are.

Stealth + space = NO.

 

[Trubinator]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

That link does kill a lot of ideas about stealth, but I still think technologies will be available to hide heat signatures and the various other emissions that spacecraft produce.

The MISTY satellites that the US possesses already has shown that stealth can work in space to some degree(how much is arguable, since we don't know the extent of the project).

Before the F-117 was unveiled, stealth aircraft were just a pipe dream of some fringe loonies, but we know how that turned out.

I'm confident that if we ever get to the point were spacecraft are militarized and running all over the Solar system(and beyond hopefully), stealth will be a key design and tactical factor.

I'm not at all sure about this. Stealth in an atmosphere is vastly different from attempting to hide something like a big, hot starship in space.

That's actually a pretty ridiculous statement if you think about it. It would be close to impossible to eyeball a ship in space unless you had an EXTREMELY good idea of where to look for it. Hence, all the jamming equipment that's popular in Sci-Fi...

You have no idea what you're talking about, sir. Please read the link Caliburn24 posted above. You'll see just how wrong you are.

Stealth + space = NO.

Interesting read. I'll admit that the author makes some compelling points. But not knowing all of the science behind the subject intimately, I'm reluctant to accept his absolute conclusion without reading other perspectives. So I'll amend my original point and say that it "seems" like there should be a way to achieve stealth in space...

 

[JuanBolio]

I understand. Reading that site made me re-think a lot of preconceptions I had about space travel and combat as well. A lot of it is counter-intuitive to what decades of science fiction have shoved at us.

There ARE ways to avoid being seen in space, of course... most of them involve being behind something.

 

[Trubinator]

EDIT

Yeah. It's definitely new stuff ... still browsing his Web site.

 

[Manticore]

I understand. Reading that site made me re-think a lot of preconceptions I had about space travel and combat as well. A lot of it is counter-intuitive to what decades of science fiction have shoved at us.

There ARE ways to avoid being seen in space, of course... most of them involve being behind something.

The only way that seems practical to have space stealth is loads of jammer drones in a nice cloud around you, and you're in a random position in that cloud. That way, the enemy knows that you're there, but can't get a good lock on you.