Pet peeve: Wet Navy in Space

[Tikon]

Ok, what do I mean Wet Navy in space?
Well I've noticed something that annoyed me. It's especially noticeable in the Clement Sector campaign, but also even in Star Trek.
The habit of treating Starships and their implications, exactly how a wet navy operates on Earth: Frigates, carriers, hell even sloops & brigs.
Why does this annoy me? Well for one thing space is an entirely different medium. And while Star Wars fighters would be supa cool. They really don't make much sense. As on Earth they move through 2 different mediums. Large ships floating and supported by water. And small fast fighters flying through easier to move in air. Which bypasses the water's resistance.

But that's not the point I wanted to make. As I said in Star Trek they use the same appellations: Cruiser, Destroyer, etc. When I keep getting told that it's supposed to be more like NASA.
But since many sci-fi fans seem to be military or military enthusiasts. They seem to go with what they're familiar with. Life in modern military navies. How ships are utilized, rank structure, etc. I think the Scout Service in the OTU deviates from this only, so far as I've seen.
Now wouldn't different designations be better suited to the medium of space? Alternity had travelling space stations. Fortress ships which were the next step up from Dreadnaught, but also operated like movable cities.
Now the reason I ask this is I was thinking of making a model for Star Trek. One with a huge hangar. Now their usual idea is Carrier. Like we have now. But wouldn't they have different ideas for it's purpose?
Since it can carry anything from fighters yes, but also runabouts, scout vessels, ambulances, shuttles, etc.? And their roles could vary. Why only fighters for a wargame?
I was thinking of calling mine a Crisis Intervention Cruiser. Filled to the brim with craft that could handle a whole set of problems: Disaster relief, evacuating colonies (Vulcan *cough*), setting up a quarantine zone, or even police support.
Along with another role as say: Colonization Support Cruiser. Bringing in a whole slew of resources to help establish a colony. With a swarm of shuttles aiding in the effort.

My question for everyone is: What different designations would you set up for a space born navy? Or what kind of vessels would there be to differentiate itself from a planet based one?

 

[Timerover51]

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with the size of the crews of starships and spaceships compared to aircraft, along with the length of probable missions. The B-36 bomber had a standard crew of 15, which is about the largest crew that I can find for aircraft, with a maximum unrefueled mission time of 31.5 hours, again about the longest for aircraft that I know. Zeppelins are a different category with respect to endurance and crew size, but those did lean toward the use of naval terms. Starship crews, especially combat ships, tend to be large, and missions tend to be weeks and months in length. All of that more closely resembles the Navy rather than the Air Force.

 

[Barrel]

"Zeppelins are a different category with respect to endurance and crew size, but those did lean toward the use of naval terms"

I don't know how the Germans or other countries did it, but the U.S. airship program actually was in the Navy. Airships like the U.S.S. Shenandoah and the U.S.S. Macon were commissioned naval vessels.

 

[aramis]

NASA also used slightly modified naval terminology. Partly because of NOAA... Partly because of its origins in the CAA, where each aircraft has a "captain." And partly because the operational duration is far more like that of ships than aircraft.

NASA even looked at recruiting submariners for long duration space flight....

 

[Ulsyus]

At one time, frigates were powerful ships that were the next class below ships of the line. Now they're tough again, far more so than in WW2, and destroyers are significant vessels rather than being the filler in that conflict as well.

Are there large ship-killer main weapons (spinal mounts) or are many smaller weapon systems required to slowly kill their opponents? If the latter, then fighters definitely have a place in the line of battle. Otherwise, they may be relegated to local patrol and skirmish/screen tasks.

 

[kilemall]

I'd say there was a significant break between sailing ship type terminology and powered ships, with very few making it across.

The ones that did generally do not have the same role/connotations.

So probably there will be differences.

I think fighters/small craft do have a role, just not the decisive one of our age. Patrolling, minimizing ship risk in boardings, scouting, cheap space control/raiding, rapid construction/replacement, minimal planet basing, being able to run down targets of interest without committing precious large ship resources to that role, etc.

In most cases I would expect naval role and terminology to come across, with maybe some aerospace force sneaking in.

If I felt like doing this, guess I would use the old First Rate/Second Rate/Third Rate ranking coupled with role. Small craft would not get a Rating.

In CT/HG big ship terms I'd use First to mean anything 100K+ tons, Second 5-99K tons, and Third ACS tonnage.

Common roles would be

• Fleet Escort
• Convoy Escort
• Raider
• Space Control
• Battleline
• Tanker
• Support/Supply
• Scout/Patrol
• Courier
• Assault

Space Control would subsume both the carrier and cruiser roles when they are often detached or the centerpiece of a local-sized fleet.



A further distinction would be jump-capable- Ship has jump, Boat is not jump.


So.


The AHL would be a Second Rate Space Control Ship.


The Kininur would be a Third Rate Space Control Ship.


Most Battle Riders would be Second Rate Battleline Boats.


SDBs would be Third Rate Patrol Boats.




So that might give you a system with functional terms in a nautical flavor without reading like a crib from Jane's Ships.

 

[flykiller]

They seem to go with what they're familiar with.

in terms of story-telling, there's your answer. for example when I was writing recovery mission I portrayed adam as having been awarded a "purple heart". of course very likely in such a setting it would not be called that, but I didn't want to have to bog down the story's beginning with an explanation of something the audience already understood, so I just called it a "purple heart" and moved on, knowing that the audience would move on too (and probably without noticing the issue).

What different designations would you set up for a space born navy?

not much different. "line of battle" ships will be needed for knock-down-drag-out battles, and they'll be called battle ships. "cruisers" - ships that hit just as hard as battle ships but are lighter and faster and cheaper to cover more areas more widely - will be called cruisers. if small ships have the capability of causing significant damage to larger ships then they will be opposed by slightly larger ships dedicated to destroying them - "destroyers". and so on.

as an aside one may consider inter-service and incidental terminology. for example the first armored vehicles were called "tanks" because of espionage concerns - the army labeled the shipped vehicles "water tanks" in an attempt to conceal the action, and the name has stuck to this day. and these "tanks" were initially manned not by soldiers but by navy gunners who used naval terminology, thus to this day the bottom of an armored vehicle is called the deck.

 

[Tikon]

Here's a problem though, remember the line:
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2-dimensional thinking."?
Yeah, so why are people still using "Ships of the Line?" There is no more line. It's 3-dimensional space.

 

[Tikon]

As for Star Trek, I would say make the following roles:

Exploration/Science ships
Which could be large multi role leviathans. Which take a large crew to do as much science as possible. To small specialist vessels.

Carrier/Transports
Small vessel carriers that bring a whole bunch of smaller craft for certain missions.

Escort
Fighting vessels specifically made to protect regular vessels as they go about their business. Convoy/trade yes, but also for when hostilities heat up. That way you can still use regular ships, but now they have back up.

Patrol/Picket/Sensor
Large to smaller specialist ships designed to police an area. Neutral Zone to system edge.

Station/Trade/Embassy
Gargantuan ships designed to bring services to populations along a route. Either a set of worlds along a route, or colonies at the edge of explored space. Think like the Dortmunder on Firefly, Lighthouse from Alternity, a mobile DS9 or Babylon 5, etc.

Warships
Yes, battleship units. Galaxy class Star Destroyers etc. There use names like battleship or cruiser. But also maybe space role names?

 

[aramis]

Here's a problem though, remember the line:
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2-dimensional thinking."?
Yeah, so why are people still using "Ships of the Line?" There is no more line. It's 3-dimensional space.

Same way the USN and RN use it still, despite battle formations no longer being clean lines...
... as a euphamism for the core units of the battle formation
... as a unit of organization above single ship and below squadron/group.

 

[Tikon]

Ever read the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell?
He likens space combat to schools of fish flying past each other on attack runs, then maneuvering into another advantageous run.

 

[Tikon]

Also, I did like that in Star Trek, a fight was usually shown as between 2 vessels. (before DS9) It made it seem that a contest between vessels was a big deal.
Big, large, complicated ships using their various systems and attributes against each other. Rather than swarms of disposable craft.
Someone made a good point during a Trekyards episode. Concerning a Jem Hadar ship taking out a couple of Mirandas. Those ships have like 200 people each right? That's a significant loss. Not like losing an X-wing or such.

 

[mike wightman]

Ever read the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell?
He likens space combat to schools of fish flying past each other on attack runs, then maneuvering into another advantageous run.

Absolute literary cinematic tosh. :devil:

I would recommend Jack Campbell go and spend some time reading Atomic Rockets... :CoW:

 

[whartung]

Here's a problem though, remember the line:
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2-dimensional thinking."?
Yeah, so why are people still using "Ships of the Line?" There is no more line. It's 3-dimensional space.

Meh. With 2 ships, it's 1 dimensional space. There's few limits on bearing. Tanks have fronts, tops, and bottoms. But tanks also can not pivot and angle their fronts to the threat easily, resetting the plane of the engagement.

If you come to a ship from "above", there's little to stop if from making it "from the front". With the engagement ranges being what they are, it's even less of an issue.

To properly leverage the 3D space, you would need to spread out the fleet, which may not be a good idea.

Starships have fronts, middle, and back. It's straightforward for a ship to roll on its axis.

So, simply, yes, it's 3D space, but it's probably less 3D than you think.

 

[mike wightman]

Also, I did like that in Star Trek, a fight was usually shown as between 2 vessels. (before DS9) It made it seem that a contest between vessels was a big deal.
Big, large, complicated ships using their various systems and attributes against each other. Rather than swarms of disposable craft.
Someone made a good point during a Trekyards episode. Concerning a Jem Hadar ship taking out a couple of Mirandas. Those ships have like 200 people each right? That's a significant loss. Not like losing an X-wing or such.

And everything is within visual range...
absolute TV cinematic tosh. :devil:

Traveller ship combat is at ranges measured in tens of thousands of km, at the those ranges maneuver is not much of an issue other than for evasive purposes.

Play a couple of games of Mayday or LBB2 combat or Brilliant Lances or Battle Rider - you will soon realise that Traveller ship combat is very different to Star Wars and Star Trek.

 

[Tikon]

True, but it has been said that in reality all ships should be spherical. If you're at the point where you have gravity directing propulsion. Instead of having a rear facing exhaust.

 

[mike wightman]

The jury is still out on how Traveller gravitic propulsion works - in at least two versions of the game it was explicitly a reaction drive.

The point remain that at 6-9g (25g if using MgT) maneuver isn't worth tracking much beyond range band resolution since weapons can hit at up to light second ranges.

 

[flykiller]

Yeah, so why are people still using "Ships of the Line?" There is no more line. It's 3-dimensional space.

ok, "ships of the battle plane" -> battleships.

it has been said that in reality all ships should be spherical.

anyone who spends five minutes thinking about it starts thinking along those lines, yes. personally I think spheroid. but there's a lot to be said for cone or wedge or cylinder when you consider combat aspect.

 

[flykiller]

If you're at the point where you have gravity directing propulsion. Instead of having a rear facing exhaust.

if you want eyeball visuals by the pilots, they need to be in "front". if you want centralized crew berthing, they'll be in the middle. if the ship "lands" then the lower decks will be access and the upper decks will have boats and vehicles. generally this leaves engineering to the rear.

iss lu hao

 

[Tikon]

And of course, spheres are only if it stays in space. Having to fly or land on planets means the usual boat or tower orientation.