SF Military Tropes

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't really see the problem with the "Navy" analogy for a Space Fleet. Your hypothetical space fleet (possibly including hard sci-fi, but likely anything less than that) is going to be doing a lot of the same type of things that an ocean-going fleet does (transport of troops and supplies, bombardment of bases and planets, inter-fleet combat), in a similar type of environment (long stretches of nothing dotted with "bases" and "targets", including planets, habitats, space stations, and the like).

That said, if someone wanted to use an "Air Force" type of command structure, or something unique to the Space Fleet itself, I'm not going to begrudge them.

[Simon_Jester]

They aren't necessarily that powerful. If you have giant Star Destroyers, sure, but if you stick to smaller Space Shuttles, yes it can do damage, but so can jets and missiles, and we put younger officers on their triggers.

If we're just talking about what is, in essence, a nonmilitary force? Yes, that's true to a point. Though for near future space flight, the hardware is so expensive you put it in responsible hands anyway- astronauts tend to be in their thirties for a reason.

Get farther out into a period where space travel is common enough that militarized spacecraft make sense, and the destructive power of the weapons (in terms of their ability to destroy expensive hardware) still makes trustworthy leaders a must.

Get far enough out that space warfare becomes a routine part of conflict between major powers, and you have spacecraft capable of throwing nukes around, and orbital weapon platforms that can do the same. Now we're talking about nuclear launch codes, and again those are not trusted to second lieutenants fresh from the academy.

You could equally well argue that one cannot have an "air force" without air.

Certainly!

But I don't think it makes sense to say that terms like "ship" and "fleet" are irreversibly married to the concept of sea warfare as sea warfare...

[Agent Sorchus]

Actually Deriving a Space force from artillery makes a lot of sense, in that once you start thrusting in space there is no return in a similar way to how once a shell is en route there is no return. The calculations are similar, if not similar complexity. While many artillery corps utilize suborbital craft already. Totally reasonable to refer to spacecraft as platforms (like certain NASA missions already do) and borrow rank from that organization. Neither Air Force or Navy have that much in similar a theoretical space force.

[Coyote]

Actually, the first steady, long-term uniformed patrolling force in space is more likely to be a Coast Guard type thing, which is a law enforcement and SAR type organization. They'd respond to emergencies, blow up errant asteroids, and arrest the occassional naughty person doing whatever it is naughty people will learn to do in space that is illegal. So actually the first "space force" will reflect a more "law enforcement" rather than "navy vs. air force" structure.

So vessels might be called "cruisers" or "cutters", and personnel might simply be referred to as "officer" or "patrolman".

[Shroom Man 777]

Are you sure? If the Soviets and the Amerikanskis ended up having their Dyna-Soars and Spirals and killer satellites and ASATs and lasers, and basically the space-planes the USAF is toying with now, it'll be less like a Coast Guard and more like, well, just another extension of the arms race in space. If two terrestrial powers rivaling one another expand into space at the same time, that's basically what you'll see, right? If they don't mutually agree to de-militarize space.

[Coyote]

Are you sure? If the Soviets and the Amerikanskis ended up having their Dyna-Soars and Spirals and killer satellites and ASATs and lasers, and basically the space-planes the USAF is toying with now, it'll be less like a Coast Guard and more like, well, just another extension of the arms race in space. If two terrestrial powers rivaling one another expand into space at the same time, that's basically what you'll see, right? If they don't mutually agree to de-militarize space.

Close-in, you're correct. Military forces deployed to space will be deployed against other targets on Earth-- but that's all LEO stuff. It'll be small and most likely short-duration (aside from satellites, which are already being deployed). Get much farther away, though, and it'll be hard to justify. Why build a battleship in space? To fight who? It would be hard to justify building a warship to patrol the asteroids or Martian or Jovian colonies just to show the flag. A ship or cutter that surved a purpose --reacting to emergencies and natural disasters, with law enforcement as one of many duties-- actually demonstrates some utility and return for investment.

Any space war between Earth powers would be a sideshow theater; like the previous example given about Canada striking American Samoa. The real fighting would take place on Earth itself, with the space front being analagous to the African colonial clashes, like in World War 1 where all of Lake Tanganyika was held by two gunboats, for example, and army clashes were between tiny, sparsely-equipped garrisons of men measured in brigades rather than the massed, multi-division fronts that took place in the "real" area of contest, Europe.

[Simon_Jester]

Why? A coke can tossed out the window* will kill an enemy spacecraft just as dead as a nuke, so why carry them?

Nuke-equivalent, I should have said. If my ship mounts weapons capable of destroying enemy militarized spacecraft, it mounts weapons capable of destroying civilian space infrastructure if used carelessly. And space hardware is bloody expensive. So even when we constrain ourselves to perfectly reasonable, realistic, not-overpowered weapons... nothing really changes. It's still more kinetic energy than you want to hand to a hotshot 22-year-old.

Again, astronauts tend to be in their thirties for a reason.

I'm ok with ship and fleet. It is "navy" itself that annoys me into a fit of murderous rage.

Because, to you, a "navy" is irreversibly associated with salt water, while a "ship" isn't?

[AniThyng]

Actually Deriving a Space force from artillery makes a lot of sense, in that once you start thrusting in space there is no return in a similar way to how once a shell is en route there is no return. The calculations are similar, if not similar complexity. While many artillery corps utilize suborbital craft already. Totally reasonable to refer to spacecraft as platforms (like certain NASA missions already do) and borrow rank from that organization. Neither Air Force or Navy have that much in similar a theoretical space force.

You know, the last time I checked, even the vaunted super high-tech missile cruisers have at least one 5-inch artillery piece on them. I mean if we're talking about artillery, traditionally warships have basically been platforms to carry the heaviest artillery pieces possible...

[adam_grif]

Holy shit, did I just witness a page of civil discussion? On SD.net?!

Anyway, another possible scenario is expansion into space due to asteroid mining and/or asteroid deflection (closely related technologies). Agencies are in place to enforce safety standards and ensure that nobody is steering asteroids into dangerous orbits, intentionally or no. Depending on the ease of intrasolar travel, there might be one for the solar system, or one for every large colonized body (i.e. the Earth Corps, Mars Corps...). This would be one scenario in which a law enforcement type agency is the dominant military presense.


Another trope that exists that I strongly approve of is calling our sun Sol and our moon Luna. As a child I always wondered what they were called, but nobody could ever tell me. Giving our star and natural satellite a name like any other star or moon is a reflection of a much less Earth centric view of things, where they aren't special, and don't get called "THE moon" or "THE sun".


And a trope I fucking hate is psychic spacemen. Psychic aliens, humans evolving into a psychic race... I hate it for the same reason I hate psychic powers as a whole. It's even worse when Telepathy = instantaneous information transfer across arbitrary distances, and I don't think I've ever seen a fictional treatment of Psychokinesis that had Newton's third handled in an interesting way, or handled at all.

[Samuel]

And a trope I fucking hate is psychic spacemen. Psychic aliens, humans evolving into a psychic race... I hate it for the same reason I hate psychic powers as a whole. It's even worse when Telepathy = instantaneous information transfer across arbitrary distances, and I don't think I've ever seen a fictional treatment of Psychokinesis that had Newton's third handled in an interesting way, or handled at all.

It was handled with customary tact here:
http://xkcd.com/660/

As for applying the laws of physics to super powers and magic... that would be interesting, but one of the problems is things get messy real fast. Lets use Avatar: the Last Airbender as an example because I am feeling cruel. Shooting fire is an obvious thing, but if the fire emerges a distance away from you body you can make it appear inside your target. That is leaving out the massive potential for burn wounds. Waterbending can be used to blood bend... and presumably freezing the blood in a persons veins or ripping it out. Needless to say you can get very gory deaths that can be extremely creepy.

Or do you mean action/reaction? If that held true, you wouldn't be able to move things of any weight- your brain can't take too much acceleration

[Formless]

Or do you mean action/reaction? If that held true, you wouldn't be able to move things of any weight- your brain can't take too much acceleration

What about the spine? Or the hands? The force does not have to be generated in the brain, you know, it really only has to be controlled by it to be TK. Of course this does open up the possibility that we would have to classify machine-mind interfaces that control a tractor beam (or something similar) as TK, but then if you like realism that's a good thing, right?

[PeZook]

-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.

Battlefield promotions happen all the time during war. There's nothing strange, unrealistic or stupid about it: Richard D. Winters, to use a well-known example, went from Lieutenant in charge of a platoon to Major commanding a batallion in circa eight months.

---------------------------------------

As for the discussion on naval ranks, I really have to ask a question of "Why does it matter one bit?"

Seriously, guys. It's not like using naval ranks will somehow magically change the procedures and mission characteristics of a space navy/spaceforce/Air Force Space Wing or whatever it's called, since those are determined by the environment. It will operate as a space military force, whatever it's called. The Soviet ICBMs were first operated by their artillery corps, while the US organizes their under the Air Force, yet they still operate in very much the same way.

And, seriously, complaining that "made up" ranks sound stupid? Newsflash: they're all made up. Only a few are outgrowths of actual combat positions, like "Commander". After a generation you'd get used up to them.

[adam_grif]

Or do you mean action/reaction? If that held true, you wouldn't be able to move things of any weight- your brain can't take too much acceleration

The first time I ever gave it thuoght, I got this awesome mental image of a guy discovering he has telekensis, shifting a small bit of paper around. Then he'd lift up his desk, only to have the small part of his brain responsible for the TK shooting out violently from the rear of his skull, killing him instantly.

Seriously, guys. It's not like using naval ranks will somehow magically change the procedures and mission characteristics of a space navy/spaceforce/Air Force Space Wing or whatever it's called, since those are determined by the environment. It will operate as a space military force, whatever it's called.

I don't think anybody ever claimed that it did, only that:

- It is not an ideal classification
- It is a stock standard SciFi trope
- It is representitive of the larger "space is an ocean" trope, which is a bad thing.

[Shroom Man 777]

Close-in, you're correct. Military forces deployed to space will be deployed against other targets on Earth-- but that's all LEO stuff. It'll be small and most likely short-duration (aside from satellites, which are already being deployed). Get much farther away, though, and it'll be hard to justify. Why build a battleship in space? To fight who? It would be hard to justify building a warship to patrol the asteroids or Martian or Jovian colonies just to show the flag. A ship or cutter that surved a purpose --reacting to emergencies and natural disasters, with law enforcement as one of many duties-- actually demonstrates some utility and return for investment.

Hmm... if it's the military that ends up shouldering the role of deep space utility/rescue guys (if, for example, due to the militarized space race NASA is kept under the purview of the USAF and the Russkies/Soviets' space programs are closely tied with the military) then the deep space rescue rangers will still end up evolving from the military forces in space - so your Space Spetznaz and Space Marines originally trained to storm MIR and Skylab end up also shouldering the roles of deep space coast guarding. I'd like to call them Space Nightstalkers or Space SOAR or something. Because that sounds cooler than Space "Coast Guard."

More hmm... what if the arms race DOES progress to deep space? LEO assets will be easily killable by space fighters and ASAT. The Russkies might want to build a deep space weapons platform that can avoid LEO weaponry and, after the nuclear war ends, the deep space platform might come closer and finish off the Americans who are left? (Like how the Typhoon SSBNs were meant to stay submerged for a whole year, and then launch its nukes AFTER the initial exchange ended, to kill off any surviving Amerikanskis!) Or maybe the Americans might have a system where the Vice President or the Joint Chiefs evacuate to, say, deep space - just like a bunker, but in space, and the Russkies might want to put deep space weapons to ensure that a decapitating first strike will ALSO eliminate the US government that's hiding in space.

Any space war between Earth powers would be a sideshow theater; like the previous example given about Canada striking American Samoa. The real fighting would take place on Earth itself, with the space front being analagous to the African colonial clashes, like in World War 1 where all of Lake Tanganyika was held by two gunboats, for example, and army clashes were between tiny, sparsely-equipped garrisons of men measured in brigades rather than the massed, multi-division fronts that took place in the "real" area of contest, Europe.

True. But what if the Russkies, or the Amerikanskis, treat deep space like the deep ocean and put the analogues of SSBNs in deep space, as platforms that can avoid LEO weapons while having the capability to attack targets on Earth when the shooting is done? Then to counter that, the Russkies or Amerikanskis might develop deep-space hunter killer space submarines!


Well, that's IF they do that. If they don't do that, then my argument is stupid. Shut up Shroomy!


PS, Coyots. It WOULD be a cool variation, wherein the military guys in space won't use naval terms but police terms instead! It won't be a spaceship! It'll be a space patroller! It won't be Captain Needa, but Space Constable Ackbar! Out of the way, Thrawn! Here's Space Detective MCCLANE! Space Inspector! Screw Grand Admirals, here we'll have Star Commissioner Gordon! Alright! They won't be invading planets, they'll be putting worlds under police custody! Arrest that space station! Resistance is futile, eh? Well you have the right to remain silent... in space! Come on, partner! I'm too old for this shit! Freeze! Aw shit it's the G-Man! Here comes the fuzz!

YES!

In Space, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU READ THE MIRANDA LAWS!

In Space, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT!

[Simon_Jester]

You can say the very same thing about any piece of military hardware, but they are given to guys of all age groups.

Not quite. There's a distinct pattern where heavier strategic weapons (like theater or longer-range missiles and nuclear weapons) are controlled at higher levels of authority. Release for extremely heavy weapons is often tightly controlled, and rightly so: a couple of gung-ho idiots with a Davy Crockett can cause far more damage than a couple of gung-ho idiots with a machine gun.

The professional requirements of a militarized astronaut corps (space fleet, whatever) would demand a force of long-service professionals, and if you're already committed to that, there's no conceivable reason to put command authority over the limited number of space-based weapons in the hands of fresh academy graduates.

And space hardware is bloody expensive.

Only because we are launching from Earth in small quantites. If you have enough stuff in space where you would go to war up there, this problem has been solved. Either launch costs are significantly reduced and/or you build the stuff in orbit to begin with.

Space hardware is also expensive because it's normally precision machined, and because it costs a lot of time and effort to ship in replacements in relative terms. Even if launch costs are cheap compared to today, if the factory that made the parts is a Hohmann transfer orbit away, you're going to be pissed at the guy who broke something and made you use one of your spares.

Again, astronauts tend to be in their thirties for a reason.

A reason that has nothing to do with the destructive power they command. It is more about the very specialized and extensive skills they require to do the job we are asking them to do, combined with competition for the positions.

Would the job requirements decline in space? You're requiring most of the same capabilities from them that you expect from astronauts (even if the competition isn't so steep), and you're giving them control over very dangerous weapons. Why would the average age or training level go down after you hand them missile launchers?

Because, to you, a "navy" is irreversibly associated with salt water, while a "ship" isn't?

No, it is because "navy" sounds fucking retarded in this context and everyone who uses it to refer to space forces deserve the most painful deaths imaginable for daring to question my divine will.

All right. As long as I understand your motives, so that I can give them the respect they deserve.

Is there anyone beside unimaginative sci-fi hacks who deserve to be tortured and killed who uses 'navy' to refer to anything but water ships and the stuff associated with them?

Except for large collections of spaceships, who would bother? People talk about "air fleets" or even fleets of trucks sometimes.

Another trope that exists that I strongly approve of is calling our sun Sol and our moon Luna. As a child I always wondered what they were called, but nobody could ever tell me. Giving our star and natural satellite a name like any other star or moon is a reflection of a much less Earth centric view of things, where they aren't special, and don't get called "THE moon" or "THE sun".

Why not flip that around? Have everyone call their own home star and their own planet's satellite(s) "the sun" and "the moon(s)." Because those are the ones that are an intimate part of your life.

Nobody's going to say "Hello, I come from Omricon Persei VII." Because Omricon Persei VII is your name for the place they live. For them, it's not Omricon Persei VII, it's home. Using abstract catalog terms for the celestial body you live on is like referring to your home address by GPS coordinates. It's informative, and in theory anyone could use it to figure out where you are... but no one thinks that way.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Or do you mean action/reaction? If that held true, you wouldn't be able to move things of any weight- your brain can't take too much acceleration

The first time I ever gave it thuoght, I got this awesome mental image of a guy discovering he has telekensis, shifting a small bit of paper around. Then he'd lift up his desk, only to have the small part of his brain responsible for the TK shooting out violently from the rear of his skull, killing him instantly.

That's rather how Terry Pratchett handles TK in his Discworld series. You can do it, but if you get the mental "leverage" wrong, it'll result in your brain getting catapulted out of your trousers.

[Darth Wong]

Or do you mean action/reaction? If that held true, you wouldn't be able to move things of any weight- your brain can't take too much acceleration

The first time I ever gave it thuoght, I got this awesome mental image of a guy discovering he has telekensis, shifting a small bit of paper around. Then he'd lift up his desk, only to have the small part of his brain responsible for the TK shooting out violently from the rear of his skull, killing him instantly.

I think most sci-fi creators tend to envision the TK being channeled through the hands, so that the reaction forces would act upon the hands.

Seriously, guys. It's not like using naval ranks will somehow magically change the procedures and mission characteristics of a space navy/spaceforce/Air Force Space Wing or whatever it's called, since those are determined by the environment. It will operate as a space military force, whatever it's called.

I don't think anybody ever claimed that it did, only that:

- It is not an ideal classification
- It is a stock standard SciFi trope
- It is representitive of the larger "space is an ocean" trope, which is a bad thing.

What about submarines, which are usually considered part of the navy, but which function in a 3D playing field and whose construction is actually quite similar to sci-fi spacecraft in many respects? The typical sci-fi spacecraft is far more heavily built than a real aircraft or spacecraft.

In any case, it's silly to get so upset over the use of the word "navy". It's not as if "air force" is any more accurate anyway, and in terms of behaviour a space fleet typically does act a lot more like a navy. For example, ships will loiter indefinitely around planets, like a ship at anchor, rather than being forced to land and then take off again.

[Shroom Man 777]

Spacy sure as hell sounds stupid.

[Eviscerator]

Presentado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Spacy

U.N Spacy.

All ranks are made up, aren't they? Example: Obergruppenfuhrer and senior (anything), Grand Admiral, Field Marshal, General Of The Army etc etc....
Howzabout this while we're on made up ranks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of ... ted_States

[AniThyng]

Frankly, UN Spacy is unrealistic not because of the "Spacy" label but because IRL it would be called United Nations Joint Multinational Aerospace Armed Force Command in Space or UNJOMAEAFOCIS

On another topic I think I agree with Simon that it's really silly that only Humans get to refer to their planet as "Earth" while everyone else uses the Human(!) name for their planet rather than whatever it is "Earth" or "Water" is in their language.

[PeZook]

All ranks are made up, aren't they? Example: Obergruppenfuhrer and senior (anything), Grand Admiral, Field Marshal, General Of The Army etc etc....

What is a "gruppen"? How many soldiers does it contain? What does a "senior group leader" do? What was he expected to do a hundred years ago? Does a US Marshal lead armies across continents?

These names are just labels: The roles and duties ascribed to various ranks throughout history changed all the time, since they're all just monickers for a certain role in an organization with a certain set of duties, which vary wildly from country to country and from service to service. For example, Poland has various ranks for officer-candidates. The name for them is literally translated as "standard bearer".

The only reason ranks are called what they are is tradition, and except for tradition and stupid prestige fights, it doesn't matter if spaceships are commanded by a commander or a colonel.

I don't think anybody ever claimed that it did, only that:

- It is not an ideal classification

Well, yeah. Which is why instead of translating all naval ranks and terms, a real space navy would draft up its own manuals and regulations about what rank does what, and all they'd share would be the name. Plus, the US Navy would get bragging rights.

Same as US Navy aviation, where a Commander is not expected to serve as part of a ship's command crew, so it's in effect a completely separate rank structure, improvised from existing naval nomenclature to fit the needs of aviation.

- It is a stock standard SciFi trope

Well, yeah, that's correct. Not all tropes are automatically bad, though.

[adam_grif]

Nobody's going to say "Hello, I come from Omricon Persei VII." Because Omricon Persei VII is your name for the place they live. For them, it's not Omricon Persei VII, it's home. Using abstract catalog terms for the celestial body you live on is like referring to your home address by GPS coordinates. It's informative, and in theory anyone could use it to figure out where you are... but no one thinks that way.

Calling our star Omricron Persei wasn't what I was proposing

I was simply saying it's nice to see people giving our own sun a name at all, and seeing SciFi Earth cultures doing away with a very earth centric title like that. I'm not expecting other cultures to call their own stars by names we give them.

Well, yeah. Which is why instead of translating all naval ranks and terms, a real space navy would draft up its own manuals and regulations about what rank does what, and all they'd share would be the name. Plus, the US Navy would get bragging rights.

Not disputed that things would be drafted up differently (and they usually are), we're just pointing out the inherent strangeness of a majority of all space forces in fiction being referred to as "navies", rather than "space forces / other name". There isn't really anything overtly naval about them, except for a few passing similarities. They have as much or more in common with air forces, but they never get called that except in a very few select circumstances. But calling them airforces isn't what is being requested here, because that's an equally silly classification.

I'm not really seeing where we're disagreeing on any points here.

The only reason ranks are called what they are is tradition, and except for tradition and stupid prestige fights, it doesn't matter if spaceships are commanded by a commander or a colonel.

Or captain.

Well, yeah, that's correct. Not all tropes are automatically bad, though.

No, but in this case that's why it's being discussed. If it was just something a few writers had done here and there it would be an interesting footnote, and we might be commending them for thinking outside the box (ala people discussing the Artillery corps derived origin of a hypothetical Russian space force). That it's so prevalent without any real reasoning for it (other than the extremely derivative nature of most SciFi) is why some of us disapprove of it.

Spacy sure as hell sounds stupid.

Not as stupid as "Nacy" would.

What about submarines, which are usually considered part of the navy, but which function in a 3D playing field and whose construction is actually quite similar to sci-fi spacecraft in many respects? The typical sci-fi spacecraft is far more heavily built than a real aircraft or spacecraft.

Well, this is a bit loaded to begin with since SciFi spacecraft are directly modelled after naval craft in many cases. That's where the inspiration for both their design and role has come from more often than not in the kinds of space opera we discuss here all the time.

You also missed the parts of the comparison where Submarines can't fly out to infinity in any direction, have to constantly apply force to counteract friction in the medium (far more than aircraft have to, water being far more dense than air and all) are worried about the exact opposite kind of pressure being on the outside, look nothing alike (real spacecraft anyway, before you decide to go trawling through to find pictures of submarines iiiin spaaaaace), can circumnavigate their medium in a reasonable timeframe, and so on. Similarties to naval craft have already been discussed and are not disputed, but as we've already pointed out, there are also many similarties to aircraft, as well as a huge number of things that are not similar to either naval forces nor air forces.

In any case, it's silly to get so upset over the use of the word "navy". It's not as if "air force" is any more accurate anyway, and in terms of behaviour a space fleet typically does act a lot more like a navy. For example, ships will loiter indefinitely around planets, like a ship at anchor, rather than being forced to land and then take off again.

Orbit is like being anchored in the same way parking your car is the like driving around the block constantly. Matching the relative velocity of the planet would be far more like anchoring, but there would be small issues, like gravity. Anchored boats only match orbiting spacecraft in the sense that they aren't expelling effort to keep doing what they're doing, but loitering aircraft resemble orbit in the sense that it's flying in a big circle (or ellipse, whatever). So neither are good comparisons.

But this isn't even the point, since we're not saying people should be calling military forces controlling spacecraft "airforces". We were pointing out similarities not for this reason, but to highlight that there is no compelling reason why it should be called Navy rather than anything else. And you already know that. I'm fairly sure the people here that are saying they don't like space military groups being called Navies would just prefer them being called something unique.

There was also some discussion of whether it should use Naval or Airforce ranks, but this is much more arbitrary. I'd prefer Airforce-based (which is itself based on army ones originally) ones because for Earth at least that seems like a more likely expansion, with Commander instead of Captain, and so on. For SciFi settings coming up with an amalgamation or just using whatever the fuck you want is fine. I don't care a great deal if you have Admirals and Captains, although I'd prefer it if you didn't.

[AniThyng]

Could you name any of these Sci-Fi forces that are called "navies" that aren't overwhelmingly "naval" in depiction and operation?

Imperial Navy/StarFleet (Star Wars) - No matter how you spin it, large star wars ships in the movies are far more in spirit similar to large naval warships than anything else. Is the movie really improved by having "General Piett" stride across the bridge of an SSD?

Starfleet (Star Trek) - Same as above.

BSG - A battlestar is basically an Aircraft Carrier, IN SPAAAACE complete with a CAG (a naval aviation term)

Imperial Navy (40k) - Again, these are obviously ships and not oversized airliners.

Honor Harrington - yadda yadda

I can understand anger at the "space is an ocean" trope, but the use of naval ranks and tradition follows naturally from having your spaceships being basically ships in space. If you can name me a science fiction franchise that uses "realisitic" ships of the air force like nature posited here that is called a navy, please help us out here.

The only non-naval soft scifi that comes to mind is the Royal Space Force from that "ministry of space" comic series, where indeed it did evolve from the British Royal Air Force - and thus uses RAF ranks, which are dissimilar to USAF ranks for what it is worth...

[Teleros]

If you can name me a science fiction franchise that uses "realisitic" ships of the air force like nature posited here that is called a navy, please help us out here.

Stargate SG1?

[AniThyng]

If you can name me a science fiction franchise that uses "realisitic" ships of the air force like nature posited here that is called a navy, please help us out here.

Stargate SG1?

Dude, SG1 is the perfect example of a science fiction franchise that has its Space Force spearheaded by the AIR FORCE

What I'm asking for is the opposite - i.e. a science fiction franchise that uses naval ranks for its "space force" where the space force is NOT naval based.

Though frankly the USAF Battlecruiser in SG1 is kinda more of a ship than a really really big aerospace craft...