Talk:UNSC Navy

FLEETCOM

Is this the same as FLEETCOM? -ED 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Navy Ranks

I made a small edit to Navy Ranks section, fixed some spelling.

Uniforms

I don't know about anyone else, but when Halo 2 first came out, one of the biggest changes that I noticed was the lack of the candy-coloured Navy Personnel. I was very excited when they made an appearance in Halo 3. Just thought, but why not include a section on personnel and uniforms to the Navy thread. I know that Stephen Loftus had 2 diagrams out about the uniform colours, and I have my own Ideas based on screens from Halo CE: Custom Edition, and Halo 3. --Rimnek 015 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Small Comment Changed

I changed this comment: "the only combat-capable warships seen were the three UNSC Frigates."

into: "the only combat-capable warships seen were the three UNSC Frigates and UNSC Longsword."

Because just before Floodgate in the cutscene you see Longswords and one Longsword is shot down at the Ark. Also, due to their space operations, they can't be a part of the UNSC Air Force.

Pársec Speed

I understand that the speed of human starships is 2.1 lightyears/day. I have a suggestion: You have to add 1.7 parsecs/day. Think about it. The technology of that time would be sufficient to reach that speed.--H A L O Legend 22:29, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Wet Navy

I believe that a portion of this page, or perhaps a new page, be devoted to the "Wet Navy" introduced in The Art of Halo 3 and proven canon with the release of Longshore. Metalingus627 09:26, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

I agree though it should be added to the page. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 23:27, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Nine months and not even a mention... I'll start working on it tomorrow if I have the chance.-- Forerunner 22:48, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sea combat

So I guess they don't take the battles to the sea? PX173 13:20, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Look at the post above you. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 14:42, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

I never really new what "wet navy" meant. PX173 10:04, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

A seaborn Navy much like the current day ones. --Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 23:26, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Reach Station Gamma

Reach Station Gamma- I dont see this station in the current list, its from The fall of Reach- a dry dock orbital facility containing a UNSC Corvette with intact navigational data.DARKSTORM99 23:33, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Add it to the "mobile stations" section Darb 013 00:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall there being a corvette. I do know, however, that it was holding a few ONI ships at the time of the attack (take note that they may not have been prowlers, as Cortana claims that ONI intended their vessels to appear more civilian-like; a yaught, perhaps.)

Rename?

In a recent Waypoint video, the navy is referred to as the "UNSC Naval Service". Is this an alternative name or should we consider renaming?-- Forerunner 22:08, 13 February 2011 (EST)

In America and Britain, "Naval Service" refers to the Navy, Marines, and smaller divisions such as the Fleet Air Arm and Coast Guard. It's obvious that this tradition has been retained for the UNSC. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

List of ships

I reckon we should move the list of ships and stations in this article to a new page; "List of UNSC ships". Thoughts?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 13:59, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I agree, the number of known ships and stations is only going to increase. Col. Snipes450 14:15, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I suggest redirect it to a category (titled "Category:UNSC ships") and simply add the category in every UNSC ship article. With that, we don't need to manually add ships to the hub article.— subtank 15:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I don't know. Categorising would take some time.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

It's better than manually adding to the List article. Also, a category will list the article alphabetically... assuming that editors have specified the pagename in the category field.— subtank 16:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Suppose we'd better start now, then...--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:10, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Existence of a "wet" Navy

Can't the Covenant just fire a plasma torpedo at the aircraft carriers and make them a on-fire waste of credits? —This unsigned comment was made by 65.71.124.226 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Likely they were from before the war for use against the Insurrection. Karl-591 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Okay, please for the sake of my perversion, call it a "maritime Navy." Mmmkay now! But yeah, seaborne warships are virtually useless against Covenant space forces. They would however be useful when operating in a limited engagement where the UNSC has air superiority, yet has minimal local resources. Offshore fire support platforms and aircraft carriers would be vital until distant and orbiting forces could muster and overwhelm enemy ground forces. </ineverwenttowarcollege> Grizzlei ♥ ツ

Yep, I guess they could provide air support-maybe even fire off a missile or two assuming we still have ballistic missile submarines. —This unsigned comment was made by 65.71.124.226 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

SSBN/SSGN's would be quite a waste of money in the setting of an interplanetary conflict. At least with surface warships, if the Covenant destroys them, there's plenty of redundancy with Army and Marine heavy artillery and in-atmosphere frigates and the material/manpower losses are minimal. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

Well from what I've deduced is that the UNSC Maritime Navy, serves as an indirect asset to engagements. Providing in-atmosphere fighters and bombers a re-arming and refueling station on the planet, rather than going through the effort of going back into orbit and re-entry. Which I think may expend a lot of unnecessary fuel. Or they may play a peacekeeping role, a Maritime carrier can provide the logistics and resources a frigate can with minimal risk of hijacking and attention. Finally (thanks for your patience) they were retired assets brought back into service to fight the Covenant on every front, its one extra mobile air field. ~ ZillaNova

Reload Times

Where does the "several minutes" recharge/reload time on ship mounted MACs come from? I'm not doubting its accuracy but it doesn't appear to be cited.--68.8.14.28 19:35, 8 January 2013 (EST)

The charging of MAC and firing is relative to the amount of power available in a ship (or how much power can be diverted from the engines to the MAC's charging capacitor). Halo: The Fall of Reach has tons of this "how long before we can fire the MAC-talk" whenever the book starts mentioning about MAC, especially in that one chapter with Hikowa informing Keyes of the charge rate for the POA's MAC. — subtank 19:50, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Do you have a quote or something from the book that states how long it takes for the POA's MAC to charge?--68.8.14.28 01:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

At page 176, “MAC guns charging,” Lieutenant Hikowa reported. “Sixty-five percent and climbing at two percent per minute.”— subtank 23:35, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Then why is it that the UNSC Majestic seemingly fires one MAC shot every five seconds in radio conversation in Halo Reach?

Because Majestic, a destroyer, is not a cruiser like the Pillar of Autumn? Again, refer to my previous comments.— subtank 03:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Where is it stated that the Majestic is a Destroyer? And if Destroyers apparently have quicker recharge times (or simply can have more rounds loaded at a time) than cruisers, should that be added to the article?--68.8.14.28 14:45, 21 January 2013 (EST)

It's hardly impossible to imagine that Majestic fired its rounds with a reduced charge, allowing a higher rate of fire but less destruction. But then, you would do that if you were firing a MAC at a planet.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Maybe, but that's speculation, right? The Majestic was of an unknown class, and it fired its MAC guns roughly once every five seconds. Meaning that it probably overrides the previous Fall Of Reach numbers. This does open up numerous plot holes (like why the UNSC ever had trouble if their MACs fire that fast and can snap a CCS-battlecruiser in half with three shots), but do we have any hard evidence that they didn't charge their MACs to full power? They one-shotted Covenant cruisers so I assume they were at full power.--68.8.14.28 17:20, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Firing your MAC on full power against a ground target is a good way to do the Covenant's job for them, especially since you're putting as many kilotons as 24 Little Boy bombs against one target.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Well yeah, but the fact that they one-shotted the cruisers makes me wonder. That and this is just speculation; doesn't the hard game evidence just say that they fired MACs really fast without anything saying that they weren't at full power? Did the areas they hit not get reduced to rubble? If either of those things are true, do you have anything to prove it?--68.8.14.28 19:30, 21 January 2013 (EST)

(reset indent) Going back to the question given to me, I'm simply going along with this note on the UNSC Majestic article, which makes sense (or some sense) from the actual conversation on Reflection's radio. As to why it is capable of firing MAC rounds at such rate, do note that the figures from FoR only applies to POA and Commonwealth-class (though one can make an argument that the figures are capable of being extended to all cruisers and frigates). Do note that there might be other factors contributing to the destruction of the three CSSs, such as their potential position (i.e. they were on top one another, thus making it easier), one CSS crashed into another as it took damage and thus lowered the shields of the other CSS and therefore making it easier for Majestic, etc. Whatever it is... firing six rounds in three shots is still an overkill compared to firing one round per shot. As for the recharge rate, it is possible that they rerouted the power from the engines into the MAC capacitor, thus allowing quick recharge rate (like how Keyes told Hikowa at the end of FoR). Then again, it could be that destroyers have faster recharge rate since... well... they're destroyers. — subtank 19:53, 22 January 2013 (EST)

If that is true, then if the recharge time difference between the destroyers and cruisers (and presuambly colony ships and frigates as well) is so vast, as in several minutes to maybe ten seconds vast... why doesn't the UNSC just produce nothing but destroyers? Is this a plothole, a case of them not charging them to full power (unlikely given that they one-shotted the cruisers), or a retcon?--68.8.14.28 20:12, 23 January 2013 (EST)

I'm just going to go with "Covenant ships aren't wank-tastic, and so MACs at a very low level can still one-shot them". Makes the most sense that way, especially given the sub-kiloton showings in Reach.--68.6.155.212 15:54, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

Updating Equipment

Might need to update where it talks about the UNSC's largest ships? Infinity is not mentioned anywhere in this section.—This unsigned comment was made by The Librarian (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Proposal: Move list of ships to its own article

Instead of maintaining a rather unorganized list here of Navy ships, I propose that we create an article entitled "List of ships of the UNSC Navy" similar to this article for the US Navy. In this new article, we can list ships of the UNSC Navy in an organize table, similar to the one from the Wikipedia article but with different columns. IMO, it would be a nicer way of organizing this. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Great idea Japeth555 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (EST)Japeth555

Agreed. --Jugus (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2017 (EST)

I worked on such a list a little while ago. You're welcome to use any of its content: Sandbox. Helianthus — All right. Shoot!

Thanks! I'll start working on this. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:52, 5 January 2017 (EST)

UNSC Port Stanley

Is there a reason that the Stanley is in the "Corvettes" category? Or, is that a mistake?

I'd move it to the "Prowlers" category myself, but I don't want to be ignorant to some lore that I haven't come across that might say it should be labeled as a corvette. TheArb1ter117 (talk) 15:09, January 26, 2020 (EST)

Most Prowlers (not all just most at the time of this posting) are classed technically as Stealth Corvettes. Port Stanley is a Heavy Stealth Corvette.-CIA391 (talk) 15:22, January 26, 2020 (EST)

Fair enough, but it is officially classed as a "Sahara-class heavy prowler" and that is the first thing you see when you visit its page.

To me, it would make more sense to categorize it based off its official ship class rather than the fact that it can also technically be considered a corvette (which is a fact that I do not dispute, however). TheArb1ter117 (talk) 15:38, January 26, 2020 (EST)