I don’t really know how to structure this question, but yeah, why is always Naval and never Aviation?

  • Posadas [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Naval terminology is cooler.

    “I’m the Captain of the USS Enterprise.”

    Vs

    “I’m the Colonel of the Exploration/Reconnaissance/Fighter craft Enterprise.”

  • Digital Mark@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    The purpose of Air Force is to monitor the skies, project power at a distance, and provide air superiority.

    The purpose of Navy is to put a floating fortress off your shore and bombard your cities, carry around materiel, men, and aircraft, and patrol a vast volume of ocean.

    So Navy structures fit the mission better, and this has been true since early SF.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      More specifically because travel in space is nearer travel underwater like a sub than flying in a plane.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Because people don’t live in an airplane together for long periods of time. Pilots in sci fi are often aviation themed, but captains are naval because spaceships beyond our current level are closer to battleships, cruise ships, or aircraft carriers than fighter jets or passenger liners.

  • pudcollar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I wonder if it has much to do with the USAF being a relatively new service with a proportional cultural impact, coming into being as a service in 1947. Up until then, combat aviation was subordinate to the Army and Marines. This would point to a preponderance of Army/Navy WWII vets among the show’s consultants and audience.

  • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    You’ll sometimes see aviation terms for the little fighters that launch from the larger ships, like in macross. I think it’s a matter of scale, really. An airplane will usually have single digit crew, maybe double digit. A warship will have hundreds, and the bigger the ship the more the crew.

  • lanolinoil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because they’re way more like ships than they are planes – Planes don’t stay in the air indefinitely or take long voyages, have large crews, etc – They often treat the fighter pilot space ship people like AF though – Like if I have a ‘carrier’ with a bunch of smaller ships on it

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I believe you mean, “Even if you, ‘down-vote,’ my comment, I shall continue to correct people who have made that mistake.”

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I meant exactly what I said, and it is grammatically-correct casual English. Unlike ‘why in sci-fi they use Navy ranks?’ Or any of the hundred other ‘how to fix problem?’ examples I’ve seen, over the last decade.

          This is a growing error and I am doing the bare minimum to help people stop making it. I’d understand if you find it overly prescriptivist. I’d understand if my phrasing was somehow impolite or unhelpful. But I have nothing kind to say about people mocking the effort.

          • Default_Defect@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Don’t you know? Correcting someone’s grammar or spelling is ableist and you have to just try to understand the fountain of garbage that people spew or you’re literally Hitler.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I feel like especially in titles space is at a premium so omitting words that aren’t actually needed to avoid ambiguity in the given context is fine

  • Kaplya [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Space warfare is much closer to naval warfare on Earth, so naval tactics and strategies are more transferable when applied to space. For example: taking weeks to maneuver, and firing at your opponent 100,000 of kms away.

    Air sorties are typically completed within hours, because it is ultimately limited by the fuel they can carry.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I agree with what everyone else is saying, and…

    Time of deployment on the vessel naval crews can be deployed from months maybe even years. Air crews are deployed for hours maybe a day. If the flight crew has a disagreement, they just have to hold their tongues long enough to land, and then they can deal with it on the land maybe even get reassigned etc etc

    More analogies from naval service apply to spaceborn service where crews will be isolated for long periods of time.

  • blashork [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I gotta imagine that each planet in a sci fi setting would have its oen airforce, where as the compasion of space to a vast ocean makes sense for the organization tasked with patroling it.