SF Military Tropes

[open_sketchbook]

Because 40k is a perpectual, enforced post-apocolypse. Old stuff isn't better because it is old, it's better because the last twenty thousand years have been one long unending chain of world-ending disasters that have chipped away at Humanity's technical prowess. It's a larger scale version of the "gun from before the bombs fell being better than the new stuff" in a post-apocolyptic setting, instead of the usual way the trope is handled where "we were more advanced" dispite there being no reason for them to degrade technologically.

Come to think about it, maybe the reason this trope comes up so much in western works is because of the Roman Empire leaving all their stuff behind for the cultures of Europe, where having a Roman bridge or a Roman road was a real advantage.

[Ryan Thunder]

So old stuff is leet and the new stuff is crap. Your not exactly defending your point here.

Well, actually, you're just an idiot. What part of "The 'new' technology is old technology" do you not understand?

[PainRack]

So old stuff is leet and the new stuff is crap. Your not exactly defending your point here.

Well, actually, you're just an idiot. What part of "The 'new' technology is old technology" do you not understand?

Actually, it will be just THAT much easier if you point out that Power Armour in Wh40k has advanced. Terminator armour may has stagnated, but that due to the cost of introducing radical new innovations more than anything else, proof of concept, the Gray Knights.

The real issues are the common items in use. Tanks has stagnated, hell, a simple KNIFE was re-engineered from a STC....... This suggests that the Imperium only places R&D on rare, high end items such as the infamous Warp power Generator the Squats developed.

[Pulp Hero]

Back to discussing tropes instead of moaning about 40k:

-Soldiers getting promoted ridiculously fast. Going from grunt to Company commander seems to be a staple of military sci-fi I haven't figured out. Maybe authors can't figure out enough story for just a lowly grunt, or they just want to wank the main character's strategic skills.

-Hordes of crappy aliens. (I know this has been discussed, but still bringing it up because it bugs me.)

[adam_grif]

Aliens that have been space faring with FTL drives for thousands of years whose technology falls into human hands can not only be reverse engineered in days, but actually improved by puny earthlings.

Spacecraft being called "ships", individuals in command being called "captain" and the senior officers in command of many ships being called "admiral". One thing that was refreshing about SGverse was that the Colonels were all running the ships.

In the same vein, "space marines".

The precursor race who was advanced enough to build -insert technological marvel- and seed the galaxy with life getting wiped out by -antagonists- who turn out to be total pussies, and subsequently get defeated by humanity. 90% of the time, said precursor race either evolved into (fuck your fossil record!) or created humans.

[andrewgpaul]

Spacecraft being called "ships", individuals in command being called "captain" and the senior officers in command of many ships being called "admiral". One thing that was refreshing about SGverse was that the Colonels were all running the ships.

The Ten Worlds setting for Ad Astra Games' Attack Vector boardgame has the Russian-derived faction's navy as originally being an offshoot of the Artillery (artillery -> orital weapons platforms -> spaceships). Hence, a ship is a "platform" and is crewed by a regiment.

[lance]

So old stuff is leet and the new stuff is crap. Your not exactly defending your point here.

Well, actually, you're just an idiot. What part of "The 'new' technology is old technology" do you not understand?

It doesn't actually matter now, does it?
It is still swaths of new stuff that is weaker in comparison to older stuff.
It doesn't matter if the new tech is really old tech, only that it is weaker compared to what they were using before.

Or is the old stuff junk that was in storage that got pulled out of storage? Because if thats the case you should have just fucking said so.

[lance]

So old stuff is leet and the new stuff is crap. Your not exactly defending your point here.

Well, actually, you're just an idiot. What part of "The 'new' technology is old technology" do you not understand?

Actually, it will be just THAT much easier if you point out that Power Armour in Wh40k has advanced. Terminator armour may has stagnated, but that due to the cost of introducing radical new innovations more than anything else, proof of concept, the Gray Knights.

Aren't there still several areas where there was a backslide and heavy stagnation still? The trope doesn't have to represent its entire industry.

Time ran out on previous post

Or is the old stuff junk that was in storage that got pulled out of storage? Because if that's the case you should have just fucking said so.

I'm interpreting as how a person could of made a musket, which is older tech in an apocalypse, as compared to the the relatively new tech new the AK.

[Samuel]

Spacecraft being called "ships", individuals in command being called "captain" and the senior officers in command of many ships being called "admiral". One thing that was refreshing about SGverse was that the Colonels were all running the ships.

Doesn't that make sense though? Only the Navy and Air Force deal with individual units and the Navy is the one that deals with the larger version. I'm sure this holds true for the equivalent for other countries as well.

[adam_grif]

Doesn't that make sense though? Only the Navy and Air Force deal with individual units and the Navy is the one that deals with the larger version. I'm sure this holds true for the equivalent for other countries as well.

There are arguments for and against. You could make an equally strong argument that it should inherit airforce ranks on the basis that NASA, which operates real spacecraft already makes use of them. Since Gemini every mission has had a "mission commander" designated for it, the equivelant of a naval captain. Spacecraft fly through space as opposed to sailing through aether. Spacecraft designs share the whole "mass savings are everything" with aircraft design.

I'm not saying that "spacecraft == aircraft" or anything, but they share much more in common than spacecraft do with watercraft. The only real similarities between oceanic navies and a hypothetical spaceforce are long mission durations (except spacecraft missions are waaaay longer when dealing with interplanetary expeditions) and being physically larger than aircraft.

If a real life spaceforce actually gets called a "Navy", it won't be for any rational reason, it will just be because most SciFi calls them that, and this meme has spread into culture far too much to be stamped out.

[Samuel]

Yeah, but so far spacecraft have been single to several individuals. Of course unlike ships, spacecraft have acceleration and other traits that make it airforcy... what is the current US plan?

If a real life spaceforce actually gets called a "Navy", it won't be for any rational reason, it will just be because most SciFi calls them that, and this meme has spread into culture far too much to be stamped out.

Any idea where this started?

[adam_grif]

Yeah, but so far spacecraft have been single to several individuals. Of course unlike ships, spacecraft have acceleration and other traits that make it airforcy...

Then again, aircraft have single to several individuals per mission as well. A majority of spacecraft are automated, and Airforces are making a rapid shift towards being largely unmanned too. For different reasons of course, but still

It's only in squishy soft SciFi that "space navies" have "space battleships" with crews of 400, keep in mind.

what is the current US plan?

I haven't the foggiest. But given the airforce dabbling with spaceplanes, it will probably just fall under the Airforce umbrella for the meantime. If it ever splits of into it's own branch, they'll take Airforce ranks and terminology with them, just like NASA did, for similar reasons - personell and command structure will have come from it.

Any idea where this started?

If you mean where it's coming from, it's just the same old same old "Space in an Ocean" train of thought that has permeated the genre since forever. If you mean where was the first instance of "space navies" in fiction being called as such, I have no idea.

[PainRack]

Aren't there still several areas where there was a backslide and heavy stagnation still? The trope doesn't have to represent its entire industry.

There are certain areas such as AI where it does remain stagnant, partially due to doctrinal conflicts and this roll overs to high tech units such as Titans.
The whole issue of tech slide rests entirely in the ideal of STC, which contain the summary of human knowledge, of which much has been lost. The canon is so revised however that even while this lostech ideal exists, general areas of high technology has advanced.
The newtech is inferior to Oldtech rests only in certain critical areas such as Titans, maybe superheavy tanks such as BaneBlades and stuff. They can't manufacture certain critical new items such as advanced sensory/communications array but the question rests on whether the inability to build such stuff is due to factional fighting rather than actual total technology loss.

[Sarevok]

a better question.

Vehicles have chassis. Ships use hulls. Aircraft are based on airframe. What would you call the common structure for spacecraft ?

[Bakustra]

If space organizations are ever called 'navies' in real life, I'll eat a fucking bullet. There's no way I could imagine living day by day in a world where such extreme fucking stupidity is taken seriously.

Calling them ships though, I can see that happening. The Air Force sometimes calls their airplanes 'ships' too. Captain might happen too - hell, it might even be air force captains in charge of the spacecraft. Do you really need a guy as high up on the chain as a colonel or navy captain to oversee a straightforward mission?

Why is it so stupid? Something like a trip to Mars has more in common with a submarine mission than a aircraft patrol, and to be honest, if/when we establish a space-based branch of an armed service, it would probably be once there's enough orbital infrastructure to make longer-range journeys important. Of course, the ranks will either be naval or air force ones, slightly modified (at least for Americans, other nations might actually invent nifty titles for their astronauts). Also, "captain" will be there regardless if we call a spacecraft "ship", since captain is the title you use for any commander of a vessel, even if we've got a pilot officer/flying officer in charge aboard.

a better question.

Vehicles have chassis. Ships use hulls. Aircraft are based on airframe. What would you call the common structure for spacecraft ?

Hull. A chassis for a vehicle is the frame attached to the undercarriage, so that doesn't work too well as an analogy for spacecraft, and there's no air in space for an airframe (If you use spaceframe unironically, I will write fanfic at you).

[Bakustra]

Why is it so stupid?

Navy = water. No water, no navy. Anyone who says otherwise requires reeducation and/or painful death.

It just sounds stupid. I also really hate what it implies: the same old trite shit everyone does in sci-fi, were planets are just islands and space is an ocean.

Besides, how would you tell the difference between the space navy and the water navy? "space navy", or God forbid "spacy" sound even stupider.

Well, I think that applying any staff rank to space (or making it space-related) sounds pretty stupid in general, so nyah. On the other hand, invented ranks generally sound stupid as well.

Something like a trip to Mars has more in common with a submarine mission than a aircraft patrol,

Does it? Submarines (like most naval ships) can stay on station or decide to change course pretty arbitrarily; they have choices and options. A spacecraft doesn't have as many options: it can continue, abort, or maybe change destination. Stopping or circling in one area aren't possible until it reaches a destination.

It is pretty different than anything on Earth really; my preference would be for it to be entirely separate from the other branches to reflect these differences. The tactics are different, the strategy is different, the maintenance is different, day to day life is different. I don't expect you could take anyone trained in earth war and drop him into a space war and expect him to do well.

In terms of duration, though, a space mission will be closer to a naval mission or submarine mission. Besides, airplanes can also "stay on station" by circling an area, too. Any space force will be radically different from conditions on Earth, I agree, but there isn't really much differentiation between air and naval forces in approximation of space; while spacecraft in the near future will almost certainly have a crew closer to a bomber than a destroyer, there aren't likely to be enough of them to warrant squadrons or other air force units, which brings us back to naval analogies.

and to be honest, if/when we establish a space-based branch of an armed service, it would probably be once there's enough orbital infrastructure to make longer-range journeys important.

Completely unjustified assumption. Moreover, this evolution would still favor a chair force route: even if you didn't separate it out until the long journeys become relevant, in the mean time, orbital operations are probably done by the af: starting as an extension of the air into space, and then following with the logic that space missions are fairly short.

Why is it so unjustified to assume that a space force wouldn't come into existence until there were enough people in orbit to warrant it? For that matter, the air force doesn't perform as many space missions as civilian agencies like NASA or the ESA. The Chinese space program is also run by the civilian CNSA, as is the current Russian program (and the Soviet design groups were also all civilian). The same for Japan, India, and the majority of space programs.

Frankly, military-operated space exploration seems a bit out of favor, and I doubt that there will be any major military presence until there is significant infrastructure (unless the NASA-haters get their way in the US and trigger a space arms race, but I consider that an outside possibility) in orbit, or possibly even later. After all, if all there is in orbit is a couple hundred scientists per nation, is there really a need for a United States Orbital Defense Force to protect them from nefarious space junk? A military presence probably wouldn't start to show up until there are thousands of people living in space, in which case I suspect that manned missions to Mars, the asteroid belt, or Jupiter would become far more likely/common. So I am not convinced that air forces will necessarily get priority in establishing a space presence.

Of course, the ranks will either be naval or air force ones, slightly modified (at least for Americans, other nations might actually invent nifty titles for their astronauts). Also, "captain" will be there regardless if we call a spacecraft "ship", since captain is the title you use for any commander of a vessel, even if we've got a pilot officer/flying officer in charge aboard.

That makes sense.

Well, this is just going from history; after all, the British use substantially different ranks for their air force, and so do other nations. But the USAF grew out of the Army, which is why they still use army ranks and why naval and marine aviation are still separated out (along with army aviation, but whatever).

[Sarevok]

The thing is military space programs are spearheaded by air forces in every nation. If various national militaries continue to grow their presence in space it will be their air forces leading the way. Thus it is air force traditions are far more likely to be carried into a future space force than naval ones.

[Bakustra]

The thing is military space programs are spearheaded by air forces in every nation. If various national militaries continue to grow their presence in space it will be their air forces leading the way. Thus it is air force traditions are far more likely to be carried into a future space force than naval ones.

The actual space agencies put far more into orbit than the air forces do. There's no particular reason why nations will grow their military presence in space unless there's a reason for it, and there aren't any major reasons currently or in the foreseeable future, assuming, of course, that the NASA-haters don't get the agency shut down in favor of the USAF and trigger an arms race.

[Sarevok]

The thing is military space programs are spearheaded by air forces in every nation. If various national militaries continue to grow their presence in space it will be their air forces leading the way. Thus it is air force traditions are far more likely to be carried into a future space force than naval ones.

The actual space agencies put far more into orbit than the air forces do. There's no particular reason why nations will grow their military presence in space unless there's a reason for it, and there aren't any major reasons currently or in the foreseeable future, assuming, of course, that the NASA-haters don't get the agency shut down in favor of the USAF and trigger an arms race.

Presently true. But when you do see beginnings of a space force it will be from air force efforts.

[Simon_Jester]

Any idea where this started?

If you mean where it's coming from, it's just the same old same old "Space in an Ocean" train of thought that has permeated the genre since forever. If you mean where was the first instance of "space navies" in fiction being called as such, I have no idea.

Unless I'm much mistaken, it dates back to the first FTL travel story, Doc Smith's Skylark of Space. He started writing that in 1919, when air travel was only about 15 years old, and when it still wasn't clear that heavier-than-air craft would win out over lighter-than-air. I'd have to dig out my copy to be sure, but I think Smith referred to Skylark as a ship... and by the usage of the time, it would not be unreasonable to call an aircraft a "ship," either.

It may go back even farther than that. I mean, there's an interplanetary sci-fi (arguably a cheesy War of the Worlds fanfic) that predates the Wright Brothers, for crying out loud.

Edison's Conquest of Mars. Read 'em and weep.

Calling them ships though, I can see that happening. The Air Force sometimes calls their airplanes 'ships' too. Captain might happen too - hell, it might even be air force captains in charge of the spacecraft. Do you really need a guy as high up on the chain as a colonel or navy captain to oversee a straightforward mission?

The main argument for doing it is responsibility. Spacecraft are powerful destructive weapons, and you don't want them under the command of officers who haven't been thoroughly vetted. Not in any setting without planetary shields, at any rate.

Why is it so stupid?

Navy = water. No water, no navy. Anyone who says otherwise requires reeducation and/or painful death.

You could equally well argue that one cannot have an "air force" without air. And mistaking vacuum for air will give you an even more painful death than mistaking it for water.

[Bakustra]

Well, I think that applying any staff rank to space (or making it space-related) sounds pretty stupid in general, so nyah. On the other hand, invented ranks generally sound stupid as well.

In my fanfiction (tm), I just use their jobs: "mission commander", etc. But my Starfleet isn't a military organization unless specially activated for it, so blargh.

Yeah.

In terms of duration, though, a space mission will be closer to a naval mission or submarine mission.

This depends on the setting. I find it pretty absurd to send Earth ships to Mars to do missions; why not use one based in Martian orbit? If you don't have the power there, you transfer some from Earth base to Mars base, then launch missions from there. The only problem is if you don't have a Mars base - maybe then the *holds nose* space navy would have a purpose, but this kind of thing is surely more rare than the local kind of job.

I was thinking more along the lines of our space force providing security or whatever for research, but I think your scenario is far more plausible. Except for being "rotated home" for non-native crewers, which probably would be done via civilian ships as well.

Besides, airplanes can also "stay on station" by circling an area, too.

Yea, neither analogy really fits very well.

I'm glad we agree.

Why is it so unjustified to assume that a space force wouldn't come into existence until there were enough people in orbit to warrant it?

Are you talking about people in orbit, or longer duration missions? These aren't the same thing - a mission from earth orbit base A to earth orbit base B would be hours to days, not the weeks or months you expect from the navy.

I'm talking about enough people to support regular orbital construction or other stuff that you'd need a military to defend. Longer missions would be for, say, guarding the research mission on its way to Titan.

For that matter, the air force doesn't perform as many space missions as civilian agencies like NASA or the ESA.

Yes, indeed.

A military presence probably wouldn't start to show up until there are thousands of people living in space, in which case I suspect that manned missions to Mars, the asteroid belt, or Jupiter would become far more likely/common. So I am not convinced that air forces will necessarily get priority in establishing a space presence.

But, what purpose would military missions out there serve? All the people and factories are living on Earth itself or close by. If the US and Canada go to war, it'd probably focus more on the big land border with the industry; the Canadian Forces wouldn't go shell the hell out of American Samoa and the USN probably wouldn't head up to arctic circle to slaughter some icy climate scientists.

Similarly, a war involving space is more likely to use it to knock out Earth based infrastructure than to go chasing belt miners or mars rovers.

I was thinking more along the lines of inter-service rivalry resulting in various branches each grabbing their own space presence, but that there wouldn't be anything to defend until you get factories and stuff up there; your point is well taken, though.

[Ryan Thunder]

Just call it a "space force", "star force" or whatever. That's what it is, after all.

[AniThyng]

Just call it a "space force", "star force" or whatever. That's what it is, after all.

Why, we may even call it a "Star Fleet"! Heck, we could even call the navy the "sea force!".

...not to be pedantic, but it is not unheard of for air forces to call a major command an "air fleet". The Luftwaffe comes to mind as the most obvious example. Neither is sea force unprecedented, as the "Japan maritime self defence force" shows us. And have we forgotten that the US Navy has more aircraft in its inventory than just about any national air force you can name...

That being said, let us not forget the gem of 80's animation and toys known as Starcom: The US Space Force. We all need foldable fighters with huge magnetic surfaces and red gun turrets

[Bakustra]

I was thinking more along the lines of our space force providing security or whatever for research, but I think your scenario is far more plausible. Except for being "rotated home" for non-native crewers, which probably would be done via civilian ships as well.

Aye.

Long-term, we might see a more Coast Guard-like customs patrol spring up, depending on whether interhabitat trade is privatized or not.

I'm talking about enough people to support regular orbital construction or other stuff that you'd need a military to defend.

Yes. This may or may not involve long durations; my default assumption is it would all stay close to home - cheaper to get to, easier to abort if things go bad, and closer to the market. But it might not work that way.

For stuff like O'neill Cylinders and other large habitats, you might want them out in the Lagrange points or Lunar orbit, since they'd then be able to draw upon solar power without conflicting with any Earth-based solar stations. For that matter, if you're building fusion-powered or antimatter torchships, then the factory ideally ought to be well away from densely-populated regions for safety's sake. Of course, you still wouldn't

Longer missions would be for, say, guarding the research mission on its way to Titan.

That could work, but I'd imagine it would be rare; how often will you send researchers into a place where they need military escort?

Depending on how militaristic our future societies are, we could very well have a space fleet sent with every mission to fend off murderous asteroids. Alternately, it could be to protect against potential sabotage by other nations, if we want to go with a more hostile future.

[Sarevok]

Just call it a "space force", "star force" or whatever. That's what it is, after all.

Starforce does not have a good track record against pirates.