Talk:UNSC Navy

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? PX1'7'3 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. PX1'7'3 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?--  Fore  run  ner '' 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.

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&#39;ari 13:59, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I agree, the number of known ships and stations is only going to increase. Col.  Snipes  4  50  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&#39;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&#39;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?


 * 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.
 * Yep, I guess they could provide air support-maybe even fire off a missile or two assuming we still have ballistic missile submarines.
 * 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.
 * 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&#39;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&#39;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)