Brainstorm - Starfleet Marines (alittle different)

[fireproof78]

To be completely honesty as I read more about it, I really feel like the greatest use for NCO ranks are for pay purposes... something not relevant to Trek.

I'm even more in the camp now that the distinction between officer and NCO isn't particularly important in Trek, and by and large just denotes the type of education/training received. Sometimes, that matters. Sometimes, it does not. One isn't necessarily "better" than the other.

Um, I would say the denotation of the type of education/training received is extremely important in a service organization like Starfleet. It's why I don't like Medical colored like Sciences because you don't want to grab a blue shirt and demand medical attention only for them to be an astronomer.

It's not about better but most effective use of resources. Rank structure, and delineation of responsibilities that follows, is supremely important for organizing personnel in accordance with mission parameters.

 

[evilchumlee]

Um, I would say the denotation of the type of education/training received is extremely important in a service organization like Starfleet. It's why I don't like Medical colored like Sciences because you don't want to grab a blue shirt and demand medical attention only for them to be an astronomer.

I agree with that. Medical probably should have always been it's own section. At least in TOS, the Delta insignia's had a red cross.

Yeah the type of education/training received is important... but again it's NOT a situation of "Officer = Better, NCO = worse", which is why I think it's dumb even in the real world for every NCO to be below EVERY officer.

It's not about better but most effective use of resources. Rank structure, and delineation of responsibilities that follows, is supremely important for organizing personnel in accordance with mission parameters.

Right, but that structure should ensure the person best suited for the role is in the right position. If the best person for the role is an NCO, so be it. I'd put my bets on the 30-year veteran Master Sergeant over the fresh out of the Academy Ensign to deal with a trouble situation.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah the type of education/training received is important... but again it's NOT a situation of "Officer = Better, NCO = worse", which is why I think it's dumb even in the real world for every NCO to be below EVERY officer.

Thus far I have not argued otherwise. Only that a reasonable chain of command should be established and determined, including line officers vs. staff officers. So, not sure why we're in the "better/worse" debate but that's not my argument at all.

Right, but that structure should ensure the person best suited for the role is in the right position. If the best person for the role is an NCO, so be it. I'd put my bets on the 30-year veteran Master Sergeant over the fresh out of the Academy Ensign to deal with a trouble situation.

At the risk of being offensive, no shit. I never served but I have enough family and work with enough veterans in various capacities who have to know that you always rely on your NCOS. Always.

The structure is there to move people up when shit hits the fan as it will inevitably do in combat situations. To quote Heinlein, in a battle situation someone always moves up, unless too many rungs are knocked out at once. Yes, the best person should be in the right role and the right position, but people die. Plans go badly, as no plan survives first contact with the enemy. You need a plan to move people up.

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

Staying within the general realm of Star Trek, what kind of gear might a 2270's Starfleet Marine Corps have?

They would have access to the mainstream Starfleet weaponry we've seen. We know "Photon Grenades" exist.

Star Beagle Adventures demonstrates a lot of gear that only the marines use:

Tactical EVA Suit - These are a significant upgrade of the standard Extra Vehicular Activity suit that includes heads-up displays for infra-red/ultra-violet and other readouts beyond normal human senses, energy and ablative armor, servo-assisted movement, and one-way visors that can, at need, allow light in, but not out.

Bullpup - A gas powered machine gun particularly useful for operations within energy dampening fields and other environments where phasers are not as useful. Marines typically carry phaser rifles, but always have a store of bullpups nearby.

Can opener - A telescoping multipurpose tool that can serve as a hammer, hatchet or knife.

Spitfire - A flame thrower that fits in the palm of your hand and uses replicator technology to generate a stream of fuel.

By far the most important, a series of robots and drones that provide over-the-horizon reconnaissance and operations.

Thanks!! rbs

 

[evilchumlee]

Thus far I have not argued otherwise. Only that a reasonable chain of command should be established and determined, including line officers vs. staff officers. So, not sure why we're in the "better/worse" debate but that's not my argument at all.

I only say that because in that reasonable chain of command... every NCO is below every officer.

At the risk of being offensive, no shit. I never served but I have enough family and work with enough veterans in various capacities who have to know that you always rely on your NCOS. Always.

The structure is there to move people up when shit hits the fan as it will inevitably do in combat situations. To quote Heinlein, in a battle situation someone always moves up, unless too many rungs are knocked out at once. Yes, the best person should be in the right role and the right position, but people die. Plans go badly, as no plan survives first contact with the enemy. You need a plan to move people up.

That's obvious.

I'm just failing to understand how in the real military organizations, an NCO is always below an officer.

Tactical EVA Suit - These are a significant upgrade of the standard Extra Vehicular Activity suit that includes heads-up displays for infra-red/ultra-violet and other readouts beyond normal human senses, energy and ablative armor, servo-assisted movement, and one-way visors that can, at need, allow light in, but not out.

I would definitely see something like this. I actually don't like the term "ground combat" because I feel like there would be alot of boarding actions and the like which the term doesn't seem to really cover properly. But yeah, this should be a thing.

I've also considered that they could be equipped with some kind of powered armor. Starfleet has the technology to do it damn near effortlessly. It's more political reasons why they don't generally do it, but rolling it out in small numbers could be a thing. Rather than something like tanks, I could see these Marines having a few "Exo-Suits" or whatever you might call them, equipped with shields, integrated weapons, etc.

Bullpup - A gas powered machine gun particularly useful for operations within energy dampening fields and other environments where phasers are not as useful. Marines typically carry phaser rifles, but always have a store of bullpups nearby.

We're on the same page for the most part there. I do think they would have some ballistic weapons. Probably not as their main arms, but available.

While maybe not integrated directly into the weapon, part of the equipment would essentially be a "Replicator Ammo Box" that the Marines could feed basic materials into to replicate an essentially unlimited supply of ballistic ammo. Could also work well as backup weapons... if they're in a prolonged fight and their phaser power cells are depleted, they can just go old school and as long as they can keep some power going to their ammo replicator, they can hold out longer.

Can opener - A telescoping multipurpose tool that can serve as a hammer, hatchet or knife.

Also makes sense. Mainstream Starfleet tends to just a use phaser for all of that, but I think it's wise for these troops to have an analog backup.

Spitfire - A flame thrower that fits in the palm of your hand and uses replicator technology to generate a stream of fuel.

I don't think I would add something like this. I can't see Starfleet advocating the use of something like a flamethrower.

By far the most important, a series of robots and drones that provide over-the-horizon reconnaissance and operations.

For sure. Starfleet does to oddly not really use much in the way of robots, but I think this is a good application for them.

EDIT -

Going back to the idea of some kind of power armor, it would be kind of a special item. In general, they aren't super useful in Trek... weapons are so powerful they could be vaporized in a shot.

I think there is still some value in something that is more heavily armed and armored. Trek has pretty good miniaturization, so i'm thinking something that is basically a man-portable shuttlecraft-tier shields and something like a micro-photon launcher.

Oh, and often overlooked in Star Trek but... a helmet. They wouldn't be intended to actually take a shot from a weapon. It's pointless. They're more for shrapnel or environmental hazards. Just... a good old fashioned helmet.

 

[fireproof78]

only say that because in that reasonable chain of command... every NCO is below every officer.

Not if they're staff vs. line.

 

[Robert Bruce Scott]

NCOs report to officers. Officers are trained to work in partnership with their NCOs and listen to them. Typically, every green 2nd Lieutenant will be paired with an experienced Sergeant. The Sgt. is subordinate to the 2nd Lt., but is also the newly commissioned officer's most important trainer. That early experience will shape the entire officer corps as they all have that experience of NCOs pulling their fat out of the fire and keeping the wheels from falling off.

This series of relationships is also on display in Star Beagle Adventures, specifically the scenes of Episode 7 that I am publishing currently, specifically 7.11 - 7.14.

 

[fireproof78]

NCOs report to officers. Officers are trained to work in partnership with their NCOs and listen to them. Typically, every green 2nd Lieutenant will be paired with an experienced Sergeant. The Sgt. is subordinate to the 2nd Lt., but is also the newly commissioned officer's most important trainer. That early experience will shape the entire officer corps as they all have that experience of NCOs pulling their fat out of the fire and keeping the wheels from falling off.

I think the current challenge, and possible miscommunication is the idea that officers are better than NCOs, which is a simplistic way to look at it.

Better stated is that officers are managers, trained to handle multiple different types of situations, first at a department level (science, operations, engineering, etc.) usually as an officer of the watch (@Shamrock Holmes please correct my terminology) then department head then moving up. They see a larger picture of the whole situation compared to NCOs, who's responsibility (not knowledge) are focused on a specific segment, either a troop contingent and their training, or their specific mission, and managing those elements under the guidance of an officer.

No, that doesn't make officers smarter. It makes them trained to handle multiple different situations and communicate up the chain, and complete reports usually, to best allocate resources.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Better stated is that officers are managers, trained to handle multiple different types of situations, first at a department level (science, operations, engineering, etc.) usually as an officer of the watch (@Shamrock Holmes please correct my terminology) then department head then moving up.

That's the typical generic term, yes.

A similar term, Officer of the Deck, is typically used for the equivalent position on the bridge on US naval vessels, but AFAICT most other Anglophone navies continue to use OOW in that space as well.

Part of the reason that I prefer that is also it maps pretty well to various law enforcement settings*, which were somewhat influential to a lot of stylings of Starfleet.

*For example, LAPD station watch commanders (a cadre that Roddenberry would be at least vaguely familiar with) are either senior sergeants (known as Sergeant II and wearing insignia similar to a US Army Staff Sergeant) or junior lieutenants depending on the size and manpower of the station in question.

 

[evilchumlee]

No, that doesn't make officers smarter. It makes them trained to handle multiple different situations and communicate up the chain, and complete reports usually, to best allocate resources.

"Better" was poor terminology for me to use.

I think it might be better to state my argument in that I understand how and why the organization of modern militaries are the way they are. My challenge is more... is that the only way to do it? I don't think so. It can be done that way, but I don't think it needs to be done that way.

In this instance, in trying to make something feel more "Star Trek", I think it's best to go with at least a slightly different system. Within Star Trek and based on the limited examples of NCO's, it really does feel that NCO's are more of an "Alternate Route" situation but are functionally the same as officers at least to an extent.

I see the lower ranks of Starfleet NCO's having more grades, the higher ranks of Starfleet officers having more grades, and the mid-ranks being almost interchangeable. A Master Chief can do anything a Lt. Commander can do... not just knowledge-wise, but "officially" as well. But that's also where I cut it... NCO's top out before the Officer rank of Commander. A Master Chief could well get an officer commission and move into a Commander rank, with a few extra hurdles from an already commissioned Lt. Commander. I really think the biggest sticking point is Starfleet Academy. Officers went to Starfleet Academy and got intensive, generalist education or they came from a comparable institution/service (Someone who attended the Vulcan Science Academy and was serving in the Vulcan Expeditionary Fleet should generally be able to transfer to Starfleet as an officer). Enlisted came from... anywhere else. At the end of the day, to a point, Starfleet is a meritocracy and background doesn't matter as much as ability.

I prefer Starfleet to be... different, because it is. Not only due it's status as a "not really military but kind of military", but also a future organization within a multi-planet alliance. Dropping a straight US Navy rank system onto it that works exactly as the US Navy does is just kind of boring and unimaginative.

On an unrelated note and another shift in topic...

I had another thought and this one i'm not sure how to work out. I shift between two different things here... trying to work out how the Marines could work bolted onto straight canon Trek, and ALSO how Marines could work in a rebooted universe that's still... very close to canon but not a slave to it .

On the "Reboot-we can do whatever we want" side, I still think the Marines would better as a smaller organization, but not as small as they would be in canon. I think my thinking went way out of scale though and i'm not sure how to reconcile it.

I was thinking that Marines could have their ships to an extent. But now that really seems out of scope for Marines. Of course "Marines" also doesn't have to be used in the exact same way 2024 US Marines are used... I think it's probably fitting that "Marines" is really referring to "A sub-command or branch of Starfleet focused on combat operation."

In that case, I think them having a limited fleet isn't outlandish. I continue to like the idea that the Marines do still rely fairly heavily on Starfleet for some things, and I can see ship crews being something that are assigned from Starfleet under Marine command.

 

[fireproof78]

prefer Starfleet to be... different, because it is. Not only due it's status as a "not really military but kind of military", but also a future organization within a multi-planet alliance. Dropping a straight US Navy rank system onto it that works exactly as the US Navy does is just kind of boring and unimaginative.

Then maybe look at other systems, like law enforcement.

 

[evilchumlee]

Then maybe look at other systems, like law enforcement.

For sure.

There is a bit of reconciliation going on because we know that Starfleet does have enlisted ranks. But also through observation, I don't think those enlisted ranks work quite the same way as modern military enlisted ranks do.

So i'm trying to build a system to mirror those two observations and how that might work. The best I can come up with is that the distinction between Officer and NCO in Starfleet is not the same as in modern militaries. NCO ranks mostly exist to give an alternate route option but given that Starfleet just in general is much less rigid than a modern military, it stands to reason this aspect would be no different.

My general thinking here is that it Starfleet enlistment gives the opportunity for lower skilled... or more focused skilled... people to serve in Starfleet. This also allows Starfleet to harness those who come through the alternate route in the best way possible, up to and including the opportunity to get commissioned and pursue higher command roles.

Really I think the biggest difference in my proposed system here is that most roles aren't rank-dependent, and officers don't automatically outrank NCO's. NCO's just have expanded ranks on the lower end, Officers on the higher end, and the middle-ground works out to be similarly ranked NCO / Officers will both outrank the previous level, the officer will always outrank at their level, i.e. (making up ranks a bit) a Master Chief will be outranked by a Lt. Commander, but a Master Chief would outrank a Lt. Meanwhile, NCO's will top out at Master Chief, and can pursue commissioning into Commander if they so choose (or commission into Lt. Commander, I can see wisdom in that, in this system it's something of a "half-step".)

Despite it not entirely mattering "on paper", it still does... and damn near all senior ship/station positions will be officers. It's less institutional or due to regulations, much more a natural byproduct of how things go. Ship Captains will generally want a more adaptable, generalist crew. NCO's will likely tend towards being a specialist in a given field. That can be attractive for some roles, but generally not senior ship positions. There's nothing stopping a Captain from putting a Chief in charge of Tactical. It's happened. It's just less likely, at least on larger ships / stations. It may be more common on smaller assignments.

 

[fireproof78]

For sure.

There is a bit of reconciliation going on because we know that Starfleet does have enlisted ranks. But also through observation, I don't think those enlisted ranks work quite the same way as modern military enlisted ranks do.

So i'm trying to build a system to mirror those two observations and how that might work. The best I can come up with is that the distinction between Officer and NCO in Starfleet is not the same as in modern militaries. NCO ranks mostly exist to give an alternate route option but given that Starfleet just in general is much less rigid than a modern military, it stands to reason this aspect would be no different.

My general thinking here is that it Starfleet enlistment gives the opportunity for lower skilled... or more focused skilled... people to serve in Starfleet. This also allows Starfleet to harness those who come through the alternate route in the best way possible, up to and including the opportunity to get commissioned and pursue higher command roles.

Really I think the biggest difference in my proposed system here is that most roles aren't rank-dependent, and officers don't automatically outrank NCO's. NCO's just have expanded ranks on the lower end, Officers on the higher end, and the middle-ground works out to be similarly ranked NCO / Officers will both outrank the previous level, the officer will always outrank at their level, i.e. (making up ranks a bit) a Master Chief will be outranked by a Lt. Commander, but a Master Chief would outrank a Lt. Meanwhile, NCO's will top out at Master Chief, and can pursue commissioning into Commander if they so choose (or commission into Lt. Commander, I can see wisdom in that, in this system it's something of a "half-step".)

Despite it not entirely mattering "on paper", it still does... and damn near all senior ship/station positions will be officers. It's less institutional or due to regulations, much more a natural byproduct of how things go. Ship Captains will generally want a more adaptable, generalist crew. NCO's will likely tend towards being a specialist in a given field. That can be attractive for some roles, but generally not senior ship positions. There's nothing stopping a Captain from putting a Chief in charge of Tactical. It's happened. It's just less likely, at least on larger ships / stations. It may be more common on smaller assignments.

The biggest thing is to always remember that there is a chain of command for a reason, and that role definition within that chain is essential. Even in my own, non military organization, there is a reporting chain and you abide by that. Why? Because responsibilities are delegated based upon assignment.


There might not be a huge leap between NCO and officer in Starfleet, but that doesn't make the distinctions less important. Usually it means commanding more people, operating at a bigger picture, than your immediate sense as an NCO over your 40 or so personnel.


It might be helpful to not look at it as intelligence or capability but area of responsibility and as you move up the ranks the circle grows bigger. The other side is that you can have a reporting chain that is very much training dependent upon you moving up or down it. So, a staff medical officer might not be able to move in to a combat/line chain and give orders to line NCOs because that's not their training or responsibility. So, in a combat situation, or if the CO of a ship is the command master chief petty officer because they are next in the reporting chain after the lieutenant bought it, then they are in command. They are "it!" as Heinlein wrote.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

There is a bit of reconciliation going on because we know that Starfleet does have enlisted ranks. But also through observation, I don't think those enlisted ranks work quite the same way as modern military enlisted ranks do.

It's a little difficult to tell because they're rarely covered in any detail, but IMO -- with a singular exception -- they basically do.

So i'm trying to build a system to mirror those two observations and how that might work. The best I can come up with is that the distinction between Officer and NCO in Starfleet is not the same as in modern militaries.

There certainly isn't divide between officers and enlisted that exist in modern militaries and even more so classically, but for the most part they are distinct, with the exception of a degree of overlaps with Chiefs and junior officers.

NCO ranks mostly exist to give an alternate route option but given that Starfleet just in general is much less rigid than a modern military, it stands to reason this aspect would be no different.

Broadly agree.

My general thinking here is that it Starfleet enlistment gives the opportunity for lower skilled... or more focused skilled... people to serve in Starfleet.

Agreed. This is basically why I see the "only Academy officers in Starfleet" as fundamentally contrary to the elagitarian, equitable organisation that Starfleet is supposed to be.

This also allows Starfleet to harness those who come through the alternate route in the best way possible, up to and including the opportunity to get commissioned and pursue higher command roles.

Agreed.

Though I believe we disagree somewhat on the specifics.

Really I think the biggest difference in my proposed system here is that most roles aren't rank-dependent,

They aren't across the board, but they're also not without limitations as far as permanent roles go.

For instance, Chief O'Brien as the Chief of Operations leading a handful of Starfleet techs and acting as engineering instructor for the station's Bajoran engineering technicians is plausible, but him being appointed Chief Engineer of the Enterprise leading a team of hundreds isn't.

and officers don't automatically outrank NCO's.

IMO, they do in the vast majority of cases by default, with the possible expectation of emergency or critical situations where they have more relevant expertise (for example Simon Tarses would outrank LaForge on medical matters, but wouldn't outrank Worf because he has similar training per Disaster).

and the middle-ground works out to be similarly ranked NCO / Officers will both outrank the previous level, the officer will always outrank at their level, i.e. (making up ranks a bit) a Master Chief will be outranked by a Lt. Commander, but a Master Chief would outrank a Lt.

A Lieutenant who ignored the recommendations of a (Master) Chief better be 100% right, but IMO should not be under any NCOs direct authority across the board.

Meanwhile, NCO's will top out at Master Chief, and can pursue commissioning into Commander if they so choose (or commission into Lt. Commander, I can see wisdom in that, in this system it's something of a "half-step".)

IRL, qualifying senior enlisted transferring over to the restricted line (ie essentially remaining within their source rating) are treated differently for pay and priviledges up to Lieutenant, which seems reasonable as they could have been doing those duties on a smaller scale before their promotion.

Despite it not entirely mattering "on paper", it still does... and damn near all senior ship/station positions will be officers.

Depends on the ship and crew.

Smaller vessels like the Saber, Defiant and Protostar might have senior enlisted who are "senior staff" by virtue of being the only full-qualified person within their speciality on-board, but otherwise should adhere to similar restrictions to O'Brien above.

It's less institutional or due to regulations, much more a natural byproduct of how things go.

Somewhat.

Ship Captains will generally want a more adaptable, generalist crew.

Agreed.

NCO's will likely tend towards being a specialist in a given field.

That's literally the definition of the difference, particularly with line officers.

That can be attractive for some roles, but generally not senior ship positions. There's nothing stopping a Captain from putting a Chief in charge of Tactical.

Well, I would say that the most experienced and/or senior person within that department should be given the top spot better than 9/10 times, but if said NCO was already a TOOW then that might make sense.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

So, in a combat situation, or if the CO of a ship is the command master chief petty officer because they are next in the reporting chain after the lieutenant bought it, then they are in command.

I'd say that's unlikely except perhaps in the immediate emergency for any ship larger enough for a Command Master Chief, but there are certainly smaller vessels (more so in the CG than the Navy) that have enlisted Coxswains relatively high in the chain of command.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd say that's unlikely except perhaps in the immediate emergency for any ship larger enough for a Command Master Chief, but there are certainly smaller vessels (more so in the CG than the Navy) that have enlisted Coxswains relatively high in the chain of command.

Thanks for the correction. I probably could have used a better enlisted rank.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

An example of USN vessel commanded by a JG or LT that might have an XPO (most likely E6 or E7 BM, SB or similar "coxswain"):

Lieutenant assumes command of Mark VI patrol boat crew

Lt. Antionne Winston is the second officer to assume one of the Coastal Riverine Force’s new Mark VI patrol boat command-at-sea billets.

www.cpf.navy.mil

In Starfleet terms, this might be a runabout or support vessel given the 10-person crew.

 

[evilchumlee]

Agreed. This is basically why I see the "only Academy officers in Starfleet" as fundamentally contrary to the elagitarian, equitable organisation that Starfleet is supposed to be.

True but Starfleet is also supposed to represent "the best of the best". I also think that by and large, anyone CAN go to the Academy. There's not really a barrier beyond determination. I write off the fairly bizarre experience of Wesley Crusher as being not just a test to get into the Academy, but to get into a specific, fast-track command program at the Academy.

But if for whatever reason one did not go into the Academy, there's an option. Honestly probably more popular as someone not looking to make a career of it. Enlist in Starfleet for a few years, see the galaxy, go on fun adventures, and go onto other things. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I would assume this is largely true of the real world as well.

Though I believe we disagree somewhat on the specifics.

I feel that's the grand scale theme of this whole conversation. We aren't like, completely and totally on different ends. It's more details.

For instance, Chief O'Brien as the Chief of Operations leading a handful of Starfleet techs and acting as engineering instructor for the station's Bajoran engineering technicians is plausible, but him being appointed Chief Engineer of the Enterprise leading a team of hundreds isn't.

This where I question, but why? Why couldn't he?

I understand that in general terms, officers will receive more training on how to do that. This I think is kind of the divergent point for me where I think this system is too rigid. Despite being an NCO, if O'Brian had the skills to lead a team of hundreds, why not allow it due to the insignia he wears? Again i'm sure the a good majority of the time, this is true. The person who received training for it may be the better option. From my non-military point of view... that's not always the case. Hell from a non-military POV, I don't even know it's usually the case. I've seen many managers with their fancy degrees from fancy schools come in and have absolutely no idea what they hell they are doing, despite a piece of paper certifying that they did. Meanwhile, I see just as often someone plucked from the rank and file whose only credentials were "good at the job", who turned out to be spectacular leaders.

I do understand that why a strict, rigid military structure would do that. With Starfleet being... not rigidly military... i'm less convinced about the total implausibility of an NCO being able to command a team of hundreds.

In Starfleet terms, this might be a runabout or support vessel given the 10-person crew.

I think you be hard pressed to find a Runabout with a 10-person crew, but I see what you're saying and I would agree there. I wouldn't expect to see an NCO in command of a Galaxy-Class, nor even something like a Defiant... but at that point only really just due to its intended role rather than crew compliment.

Memory Alpha suggests a Miranda has a crew of 26 to 35. I can't see that being unreasonable at all, depending on the circumstances.

 

[fireproof78]

I understand that in general terms, officers will receive more training on how to do that. This I think is kind of the divergent point for me where I think this system is too rigid. Despite being an NCO, if O'Brian had the skills to lead a team of hundreds, why not allow it due to the insignia he wears? Again i'm sure the a good majority of the time, this is true. The person who received training for it may be the better option. From my non-military point of view... that's not always the case. Hell from a non-military POV, I don't even know it's usually the case. I've seen many managers with their fancy degrees from fancy schools come in and have absolutely no idea what they hell they are doing, despite a piece of paper certifying that they did. Meanwhile, I see just as often someone plucked from the rank and file whose only credentials were "good at the job", who turned out to be spectacular leaders.

Again, it depends on the job. I have a higher level degree, but there are people that I absolutely rely upon that are my subordinates. But my job always extends beyond just the mission at hand. Often times I am working as an interface between lower ranks and upper ranks, managing resources, and allocating personnel based upon need. The scope increases to a larger degree so just the skill of handling the mission specific aspects or the specific job.

Again, it's not just the job but the interfacing of resources for the job. And usually officer level training doesn't just involve that one job but those specific interactions of multiple departments.

So, the degree isn't the first part, but also the way they are trained to navigate within the whole organization. And I speak as a person who interacts up and down my reporting chain regularly, all the way to the top.

To @Shamrock Holmes part I would say that Starfleet would probably be far more egalitarian for plucking those lower rates and moving them up the chain, without all the time in grade requirements necessarily, just due to the nature of the organization.

And, this also goes to resource management. You might have an NCO who wants to just do their term and gain the experience and then you decide to saddle them with a bunch of leadership training prepping them to move up when they have no interest in it. NCOs offer a good middle ground of people who can grow in the organization, or serve shorter terms and not be gunning for full leadership resources.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

True but Starfleet is also supposed to represent "the best of the best". I also think that by and large, anyone CAN go to the Academy.

Any Federation citizen can certainly, and non-citizens via less strict criteria then citizens can IRL.

There's not really a barrier beyond determination.

That's a little overly simplistic, as a demonstrable skill and ideally a base level of knowledge in some of the applicable topics is also desirable.

I write off the fairly bizarre experience of Wesley Crusher as being not just a test to get into the Academy, but to get into a specific, fast-track command program at the Academy.

Honestly, the pre-testing is far less odd to me (objective tests for a cadet's "major" eligibility) than the fact that he was expected to spend three+ years at the Academy despite his prior experience, whereas he should logically have got a bye on navigation, engineering and probably a good chunk of the space sciences as well.

But if for whatever reason one did not go into the Academy, there's an option. Honestly probably more popular as someone not looking to make a career of it. Enlist in Starfleet for a few years, see the galaxy, go on fun adventures, and go onto other things. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I would assume this is largely true of the real world as well.

Agreed.

This where I question, but why? Why couldn't he?

I understand that in general terms, officers will receive more training on how to do that. This I think is kind of the divergent point for me where I think this system is too rigid. Despite being an NCO, if O'Brian had the skills to lead a team of hundreds, why not allow it due to the insignia he wears?

Because that's not how he's been trained and that's not the skills and competencies that he would have been required to demonstrate on a structured basis, so assigning him such a task as a regular assignment would be a disservice to him, his subordinates and other officers who have put years into academic and on-the-job training for that position.

Again i'm sure the a good majority of the time, this is true. The person who received training for it may be the better option.

IMO, they will always be the better option in a multi-faceted, complex situation in the medium to long term... The only exception might be an emergency one were "good enough for now" is the priority rather than clean, pretty, by-the-book and inspection ready.

NB: Deep Space Nine very much ran on the former IMO for the first two or three years, which is another reason why O'Brien was the appropriate person for that assignment.

I've seen many managers with their fancy degrees from fancy schools come in and have absolutely no idea what they hell they are doing, despite a piece of paper certifying that they did. Meanwhile, I see just as often someone plucked from the rank and file whose only credentials were "good at the job", who turned out to be spectacular leaders.

Obviously I can only go on my own experience, I would say that the latter typically works only for fairly small specialist teams or ones that have to do a lot of on-the-fly changes that are facilitated by their in-depth knowledge of that particular task.

Almost inversely, the degree-holding managers fail largely because they have only their academic credentials, so don't realise or accept that not every situation will fit a standard "box" and a standard solution (I've seen a growing awareness of this being a thing in the first aid sphere personally and a little bit on logistics).

I do understand that why a strict, rigid military structure would do that. With Starfleet being... not rigidly military... i'm less convinced about the total implausibility of an NCO being able to command a team of hundreds.

I'm no expert on the topic, but given that it doesn't happen in any comparable field like civilian shipping, aviation or law enforcement I have my doubts that they could do it without additional training but I'm entirely on-board with the idea that they should be able to access such training if they wish too, and indeed skip the assistant/deputy slots that manage similar numbers of people that they've managed before afterwards.

I think you be hard pressed to find a Runabout with a 10-person crew, but I see what you're saying and I would agree there.

Runabouts have a flight crew of 2-5 and can accommodate either 4 or 6 off-duty crew in the rear compartment by default, so if they were being used autonomously and correctly I could easily see them have a crew that large.

I wouldn't expect to see an NCO in command of a Galaxy-Class, nor even something like a Defiant... but at that point only really just due to its intended role rather than crew compliment.

I don't see the Defiant-class as having an NCO as the commanding officer, I could potentially see an NCO being left in command in a situation comparable to Valiant and it would have probably been better than what they did get.

Memory Alpha suggests a Miranda has a crew of 26 to 35. I can't see that being unreasonable at all, depending on the circumstances.

Potentially in the logistics role or basic scientific support roles, and as above an XPO is plausible and enlisted OOWs basically certain.

To @Shamrock Holmes part I would say that Starfleet would probably be far more egalitarian for plucking those lower rates and moving them up the chain, without all the time in grade requirements necessarily, just due to the nature of the organization.

I'd say that eligibility would be more in terms of their previous assignments, rather than time in service, so an NCO who wants to move up "through the ranks" should probably focus on small ships/bases that have enlisted OOWs and (Assistant) Department Heads, rather than the larger/more prestigious assignments that typically use junior or mid-grade officers in those roles instead.

And, this also goes to resource management. You might have an NCO who wants to just do their term and gain the experience and then you decide to saddle them with a bunch of leadership training prepping them to move up when they have no interest in it. NCOs offer a good middle ground of people who can grow in the organization, or serve shorter terms and not be gunning for full leadership resources.

Pretty much.

IMO, the two differences between Starfleet and modern military that are objectively true (rather than subjective pseudo-political rhetoric) is that they don't have an "up-and-out" policy and that they don't throw artifical, irrelevant barriers to their personnel advancing if they put the work in.