• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Non-commissioned officers in ST world

Thanks for some very interesting opinions. Some good explanations of the CO/NCO system in ST but I still feel, and this is my opinion so please don't get upset, that it has no place in the ST world. As JTB points out the Federation is supposed to be "an egalitarian Utopian society" and as such a system like this has no place.

I am not saying there should not be any rank system but any such system should be based on a combination of experience and qualifications with more weighting on the former. In DS9, someone with O'Brien's experience and importance, should be second only in rank to the Captain.
 
Thanks for some very interesting opinions. Some good explanations of the CO/NCO system in ST but I still feel, and this is my opinion so please don't get upset, that it has no place in the ST world. As JTB points out the Federation is supposed to be "an egalitarian Utopian society" and as such a system like this has no place.

I am not saying there should not be any rank system but any such system should be based on a combination of experience and qualifications with more weighting on the former. In DS9, someone with O'Brien's experience and importance, should be second only in rank to the Captain.
There are similar systems in place in all manner of workplaces, even in the civilian world that realistically it just isn't practical to do away with. It's like saying "eliminate nurses, make everyone a doctor." Considering nurses are the ones who do the heavy lifting in the medical profession, they are just as much a necessity as the doctors who are in charge.

IMO, the officer/enlisted divide is so necessary that Roddenberry was truly talking out of his ass when he said everyone in Starfleet would be officers. Simply put, nothing would get done in Starfleet were that the case.
 
If memory serves, Roddenberry was a cop for a while. Almost everyone on the police force started as a patrol officer, and everyone has a chance to move up thru the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant, captain, commander, chief. And everyone has a chance to stay a patrol officer for their entire twenty-plus year career. Roddenberry wanted to pattern Starfleet after the police in that regard.

I for one do NOT subscribe to that plan when writing my own fiction stories.
 
Roddenberry explained it was because Starfleet officers would require as much education as astronauts do today. Thing is, you can get away with the "officers only" thing with 20th century space travel, where there is a maximum of a dozen, but with a crew of 400? Not going to work at all.
 
There are similar systems in place in all manner of workplaces, even in the civilian world that realistically it just isn't practical to do away with. It's like saying "eliminate nurses, make everyone a doctor." Considering nurses are the ones who do the heavy lifting in the medical profession, they are just as much a necessity as the doctors who are in charge.
And all those systems have one thing in common. They have their roots going back to a time when such prejudice was allowed. Upper class vs lower class as in the case of CO vs NCO. Men vs women as in the case of doctors and nurses.

IMO, the officer/enlisted divide is so necessary that Roddenberry was truly talking out of his ass when he said everyone in Starfleet would be officers. Simply put, nothing would get done in Starfleet were that the case.

I don't see it.
 
According to my source, E1-E3 in the USN is a minimum of 18 months, E-4 requires another 6 months and "rating", E-5 may be attained 12 months after that, and e-6 three years after that. By my calculations, that's 72 months or six years. However, even if my figures are off a bit, I still can't see how the narrative above is compatible with Crewman 1st Class being E-3. Can you?

I made Navy E-6 in 5 years, six months. Of course, I came in as an E-3 and received E-4 directly after "A" School. (I was in the Nuclear Power program).
 
And all those systems have one thing in common. They have their roots going back to a time when such prejudice was allowed. Upper class vs lower class as in the case of CO vs NCO. Men vs women as in the case of doctors and nurses.
That may have been where they originated, but even today those origins have no bearing on the classifications. For example, in the medical professions men and women now equally occupy the positions of doctor and nurse that it's almost easy to forget that at one time the two jobs were gender-segregated.

Indeed, these days there are people who though interested in the medical profession, don't want to go the whole way of becoming a doctor and are satisfied as being a nurse. This does not make them lazy, far from it as the daily responsibilities of a nurse are arguable greater than that of a doctor, nurses being more of a hands on specialized duty, doctors being more generalized supervisory role.

It's similar with the officers/enlisted divide. Sure, it started as a class segregation, but that does not mean the system itself doesn't have practical applications in the modern world, or even in a future world where equality reigns and there is supposedly economy. Like doctors and nurses, the enlisted/NCOs are the hands-on specialists responsible for doing the work, and the officers are generalists with a supervisory role. People who enlist rather than going the route of becoming an officer aren't lazy, they simply have no interest in the life of an officer.

You see this kind of divide in all manner of occupations in all walks of life. It may have started as class segregation, but the simple fact of the matter is you need this divide in order for work to get done. Eliminating the system isn't the solution, a more logical solution is getting rid of the notion of people are only suited to one particular role based on their status in society which is a result of nothing more than the families they were born to, or at least raised by. But even in today's world we have already put the class system behind us, and by Star Trek's time it shouldn't even exist. Meaning if someone from a privileged upbringing wanted to enter Starfleet in the enlisted ranks, they would, and likewise if someone from a less fortunate background could enter the Academy provided they met the qualifications, and provided they worked at it and graduated, they would be an officer.

Don't judge a system by its origins. Otherwise, one could point out that even exploration itself doesn't always have rosy results, historically speaking.
 
Last edited:
Not in today's Navy, no. And I can't see that really being the case in Starfleet, either.

I'm leaning towards the idea that Crewman First Class is broadly speaking equivalent of a USAF Senior Airman (originally Airman 1st Class), a US Army Specialist or Royal Navy Leading Hand, ie an experienced technician or specialist who may fill a leadership or training role, but is not an NCO. Does that make sense?
 
Given ST is about equality and all that type of stuff...

Every episode features a cast of characters who live in a rigid, authoritarian heirarchy where the lesser people have to obey their superiors, call them "sir", occasionally even die on their say so. How exactly are you getting "equality" out of this?
 
Every episode features a cast of characters who live in a rigid, authoritarian heirarchy where the lesser people have to obey their superiors, call them "sir", occasionally even die on their say so. How exactly are you getting "equality" out of this?
They're all paid the same wage?
 
Don't judge a system by its origins. Otherwise, one could point out that even exploration itself doesn't always have rosy results, historically speaking.

The system has its merits in this day and age. The point I am making is it should not exist in ST timelines.

All systems evolve. I am fairly sure police had a CO/NCO ranking system at one stage as well. But now you join as a cadet/recruit and climb the ranks all the way to Chief.
 
The system has its merits in this day and age. The point I am making is it should not exist in ST timelines.
Why? Even in the 23rd/24th centuries there are going to be people who prefer hands-on work of the enlisted ranks with no interest in being Captains or Admirals, and there will be those who will have ship/fleet command as a career goal and will enter the officer ranks. There is nothing wrong with the system. It may have originated as class segregation, with the social elite filling out the officer ranks and the commoners in the enlisted, but by Star Trek's time it would almost certainly be people's choice based on their interests and skills which career path they follow.

And indeed, there are cases in Star Trek where enlisted can even move onto the officer ranks. It's implied in DS9 Past Tense O'Brien had the option to become an officer but turned it down because he didn't want any part of the officers social scene.

Besides, if there's no enlisted, who are the officers going to get to do their work for them?
 
Why? Even in the 23rd/24th centuries there are going to be people who prefer hands-on work of the enlisted ranks with no interest in being Captains or Admirals, and there will be those who will have ship/fleet command as a career goal and will enter the officer ranks. There is nothing wrong with the system. It may have originated as class segregation, with the social elite filling out the officer ranks and the commoners in the enlisted, but by Star Trek's time it would almost certainly be people's choice based on their interests and skills which career path they follow.

You keep using Victorian standards to speculate on what life is like in ST times. Why are you doing that? This is not right.
I would like to believe the enlightened people of the 24th century would abhor having someone work for 30 years, become an expert in their field, and then have to salute a 20 year old and call them Sir. Just because that 20yo spent a few years in college or similar.

And indeed, there are cases in Star Trek where enlisted can even move onto the officer ranks. It's implied in DS9 Past Tense O'Brien had the option to become an officer but turned it down because he didn't want any part of the officers social scene.
Pointless as they shouldn't have the CO/NCO divide to start with.

Besides, if there's no enlisted, who are the officers going to get to do their work for them?
Spoken like a true Victorian!

You still have not answered as to why they can't have a system the same as the police do where everyone joins as cadet/recruit and can make their way up to Chief. If you don't have an ambition and want to stay in the lower ranks that's fine. You can be an Lt in the glamor departments like homicide and vice but you can also be an Lt in traffic. It's nice, it's clean and it's simple. No Victorian era baggage.
 
You keep using Victorian standards to speculate on what life is like in ST times. Why are you doing that? This is not right.
I would like to believe the enlightened people of the 24th century would abhor having someone work for 30 years, become an expert in their field, and then have to salute a 20 year old and call them Sir. Just because that 20yo spent a few years in college or similar.
It's not just "Victorian" as it is how things still go today. In my job, there are plenty of people in their 40s, 50s, even 60s who are working for managers in their 20s and 30s. This isn't because of laziness or class segregation, it's because some people are interested in responsibility the "bigger picture" type jobs, and others are interested in hands-on, getting through one day after the other type grind.
You still have not answered as to why they can't have a system the same as the police do where everyone joins as cadet/recruit and can make their way up to Chief. If you don't have an ambition and want to stay in the lower ranks that's fine. You can be an Lt in the glamor departments like homicide and vice but you can also be an Lt in traffic. It's nice, it's clean and it's simple. No Victorian era baggage.
Well, for starters, Starfleet isn't a police department, what works there won't necessarily work for Starfleet. And while the issue of whether or not Starfleet is or isn't a military may never be satisfactorily answered, and is not an issue that should be dragged into this thread, I think it is fair to say that Starfleet is an analogue of a maritime service, meaning an organization which operates at sea (in this case, space being an analogue for the sea). And in all maritime services, there is an officer/NCO divide, regardless if it's the Navy, Coast Guard, Cruise Line, or any civilian shipping organization. It's simply the way shit's done. It hasn't been done away with yet in the modern era, why should Star Trek's time be any different?

What is it you even have against this system? Even ignoring its origins as class segregation it is a system that has worked for hundreds of years already, so why is it so hard to accept it will still be used hundreds of years from now?
 
What is it you even have against this system? Even ignoring its origins as class segregation it is a system that has worked for hundreds of years already, so why is it so hard to accept it will still be used hundreds of years from now?

It doesn't sit in with the rest of ST philosophy. Any way, thanks for the discussion. I am moving on to other threads.
 
It doesn't sit in with the rest of ST philosophy. Any way, thanks for the discussion. I am moving on to other threads.
In my opinion there ARE enlisted ranks and a need for them, that's just not where the STORY is. Maybe Discovery will shed some light on it. For the most part you want to be on the bridge or on the away team, you don't really want to follow the janitorial staff or the transporter repair tech. I think it would be cool to throw some lower ranks in the supporting cast.
 
equivalent of a USAF Senior Airman (originally Airman 1st Class),
Dang, man, the rank titles changed in 1967. That's even before my time. Yes, from 1952 to 1967, A1C = E-4. From 1967 to 1976, E-4 = "Buck" Sergeant. The rank/title of Senior Airman was added to E-4 in 1976, with "promotion" from SrA to Sgt after one year (plus commander's signature). The rank/title of Sergeant was dropped in 1991, leaving only SrA = E-4 from then until now. It's a neat history lesson, but seriously: Airman First Class has not been E-4 for FIFTY years. Can you please stop mentioning that because it just confuses the issue??
 
Dang, man, the rank titles changed in 1967. That's even before my time. Yes, from 1952 to 1967, A1C = E-4. From 1967 to 1976, E-4 = "Buck" Sergeant. The rank/title of Senior Airman was added to E-4 in 1976, with "promotion" from SrA to Sgt after one year (plus commander's signature). The rank/title of Sergeant was dropped in 1991, leaving only SrA = E-4 from then until now. It's a neat history lesson, but seriously: Airman First Class has not been E-4 for FIFTY years. Can you please stop mentioning that because it just confuses the issue??

Sorry if the reference offends or confuses you, I just thought that as I was relating a theory on the equivalency of "Crewman First Class", I thought it might be relevant that the three-stripes USAF rank was historically A1C, especially as UESF based their CR1C insignia on it. I could also have mentioned the contrast with USN E-3 Seaman (likewise originally Seaman 1st Class) which the fandom consensus has as Tarses' rank equivalent but doesn't IMO match his service history.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top