Admirals of Starfleet

Not necessarily. The term can also be used to refer to the commanding officer of a theatre of operations. For instance, the commanding officers of the U.S.'s Unified Combatant Commands used to hold the title of "Commander-in-Chief, [UCC name] Command."

So it's entirely plausible that the commanding officer of the entire Federation Starfleet could hold the title of Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet, while the Federation President would presumably be the Commander-in-Chief of the entire UFP armed forces.

 

Here's something that I recently remembered. In MU: Glass Empires - Age of the Empress, Hoshi Sato convinces Fleet Captain A.G. Robinson to swear fealty to her by offering him the position of "Starfleet chief of staff" and rank of fleet admiral. It's not explicitly stated, but I assume that it's the highest position in the Imperial Starfleet since Sato stated that Gardner and his senior staff, presumably loyalists to Emperor Cochrane, had been "relieved". But as mentioned by other people, "chief of staff" is not always a topmost position in real life.

Then the 23rd century mirror universe stories have Garth of Izar, then Matthew Decker, then Spock, then Zhao Sheng as "Grand Admiral", which is explicitly stated as "the commander-in-chief" in the waning days of the Imperial Starfleet.

 

Huh. In Myriad Universes - Echoes and Refractions - A Gutted World, William Ross is stated to have replaced Leyton who died during the Borg invasion as Commander, Starfleet. Now if only we had gotten that in the prime reality. And Charles Watley was the current liaison between the Palais and Starfleet Command.

 

This is assuming that the Federation does in fact have other armed forces that aren't Starfleet, which we don't know for sure...we've never seen them, anyway.

I'm sticking with my position though, that these different titles are all the same exact position: the top admiral in Starfleet. I don't see why it couldn't be like that. Different writers are going to come up with different phrases to use, but I see no reason to assume that they actually refer to different people. It seems obvious what they really mean. "C-in-C", "Commander, Starfleet", "Chief of Starfleet Operations", "Commanding Officer of Starfleet Command" - it's all the same.

 

Uh, hasn't it been established that "Chief of Starfleet Operations" cannot be like the others? That's the position Kirk held, and he certainly wasn't at the peak.

 

You're right. Nogura was the Commanding Admiral of Starfleet at the time (or the C-in-C), and Kirk was under him, running the Operations division.

 

^He was a rear admiral, like Riker, right?

 

Yes.

 

But those other positions are surely all the same. I mean, how different could "Commander, Starfleet", "Commander in chief of Starfleet", and "Commanding admiral of Starfleet" possibly be? IMHO, it's obvious those are identical. It's semantics. Nothing more.

 

That's what I've always assumed. It makes no sense for them to be three different positions.

 

I get that Trek's merchant-marine-like structure lends itself to this kind of storytelling often, but I think the whole "inspiring but completely crooked commanding officer" trope is rather overused.

 

I honestly hadn't really paid attention to these titles until this thread, but it would make sense for them to all be the same position. Are the stories far enough apart that the title could just be changing over time?

 

Possibly although Leonard James Akaar has been referred to as both "commander in chief of Starfleet" and "commanding officer of Starfleet Command".

I agree, though, that "commander-in-chief of (the Federation) Starfleet", "commander, Starfleet", and "commanding officer of Starfleet (Command)" must all be synonymous.

 

I'd assume that they're just variant terms for the same thing, like we can refer to the President of the United States as the chief executive or the commander-in-chief. Synonyms are part of language, and alternative terms are an aspect of communication. Also, other ways of saying things are included in talking.

 

At the very least, "Thirty Days" (VOY) established the existence of the Federation Naval Patrol.

Further, the novels have pretty thoroughly established that the local defense forces of Federation Member States remain in existence and in service to the Member government. While each local Member State's head of state likely serves as that defense force's commander-in-chief under normal circumstances, I wonder if perhaps the Federation President is considered to be the commander-in-chief of those defense forces when they are called into federal service (the way state governors are normally the commanders-in-chief of the state National Guard, but the U.S. President is commander-in-chief of the state National Guards when they're called into federal service).

 

An admiral question; After Destiny when Akaar took over as Fleet Commander from Jelico, did Jelico retire?..or just relinquish the position?

I only ask because I heard that PAD was writing a new entry in the New Frontier series, and Jelico (along with Nechayev) is seemingly a favourite of his. If he is retired, hopefully PAD knows this and doesn't use him as an active SF admiral, and thus create yet another continuity discrepancy between NF and the rest of the novel 'verse...

 

Jellico retired after the Borg invasion (the Destiny series) was over.

 

Too late. Blind Man's Bluff features Jellico still in Starfleet, but Seven (who is not in turmoil as she is in Unworthy) references the dissolution of the Borg Collective and thus her completely human appearance. And the Borg supercube crisis. Considering that After the Fall and Missing in Action are in 2379 (maybe stretching to January 2380) and then Turnaround and Treason have to be in 2380, and then Blind Man's Bluff references Treason's events as recent, then I can't fathom how Peter David dated his stuff.

 

^Well shit.