Would make sense that Grade 4 is the lowest level of training (as opposed to rank) held by Recruits, counting up Grades 3/2 and 1, for either (Able) Crewman/Crewman 1st Class, Petty Officer and Chief?
Rank in Starfleet
- Thread starter Nyotarules
- Start date
I suppose that makes sense. The point being training, experience, and skill goes hand-in-hand with promotion. The skill-level rating (or grade, if that's what you want to call it) is merely a way to document it. After all, the military is a government agency, and we all know that the government likes to document everything.
It's pretty rare, but if someone fails to attain / maintain the skill level, they can be denied promotion / demoted to a lower rank. That would be a last resort as they should be afforded the opportunity to receive remedial training to restore their skill level long before such actions would be taken.
In another topic about crew rosters, another author suggested a large training department to train the crew, especially new personnel right out of school, how to do their jobs. In my experience, that's not how things work. There would be a small training office, yes, but only to manage the paperwork. The training officer / petty officer would assist frontline supervisors and trainers how to document a trainee's progress, and schedule formal testing and off-site classes (e.g., leadership school). When a crewman completes all the requirements for a skill-level upgrade, it would be the training officer who files the forms to headquarters / manpower center.
All of this is great gee-wiz stuff, but it's also pretty mundane and would bore most readers to death. It might be mentioned in passing if it somehow affects the story line. The computer won't let Crewman Jones tack on Petty Officer Third Class because Ensign Smith dropped the ball on getting the training records updated with the proper job-skill rating. Smith is fired from his cushy job and later tries to pull a Ben Finney move.
It's pretty rare, but if someone fails to attain / maintain the skill level, they can be denied promotion / demoted to a lower rank. That would be a last resort as they should be afforded the opportunity to receive remedial training to restore their skill level long before such actions would be taken.
In another topic about crew rosters, another author suggested a large training department to train the crew, especially new personnel right out of school, how to do their jobs. In my experience, that's not how things work. There would be a small training office, yes, but only to manage the paperwork. The training officer / petty officer would assist frontline supervisors and trainers how to document a trainee's progress, and schedule formal testing and off-site classes (e.g., leadership school). When a crewman completes all the requirements for a skill-level upgrade, it would be the training officer who files the forms to headquarters / manpower center.
All of this is great gee-wiz stuff, but it's also pretty mundane and would bore most readers to death. It might be mentioned in passing if it somehow affects the story line. The computer won't let Crewman Jones tack on Petty Officer Third Class because Ensign Smith dropped the ball on getting the training records updated with the proper job-skill rating. Smith is fired from his cushy job and later tries to pull a Ben Finney move.
I could see writing something like that...
Although my personal canon doesn't have Petty Officer Third Class as (although YN3 Lawton from Charlie X suggests that such might exist) both of the Fletcher systems exclude that rank, though I favour the six rank system from the "Monster Maroons" (Able Crewman [Crewman 1st Class in TNG era? Similar to SrA or SPC?], PO 2nd Class, PO 1st Class, CPO, SCPO, MCPO)) as it also translates easiest into the TNG+ system as well.
On a related note, I've been playing with the idea that a "combined service" (which Starfleet canonically is) might use different titles for people in different roles, but would favour the same role (across specialisms) using the same insignia and having the same level of authority rather than confusing the issue with different insignia.
For example, the role of section leader in the US Army is, IFAIK, held by Staff Sergeant (E6) and a Platoon Sergeant is a Sergeant First Class (E7), compared to the Marine Corps where they are held by Sergeant (E5) and Staff Sergeant (E6), which is a mid-rank NCO, occupying a completely different role to the Air Force rank of Staff Sergeant which is a junior NCO rank perhaps more comparable to MC Corporal or Army Corporal/Sergeant.
Then you have the Navy and Coast Guard, which don't use the names of the other services' ranks, but do use insignia similar to LCPL, CPL, SGT and SSGT for PO3 to CPO, but that line-up with anything from Airman to LCPL at the low end and either SFC, GySGT or MSGT at the high end (depending on who you ask) instead in paygrade.
So I decided to try and line-up everything by role and minimise the ranks where possible, to that end I also looked at equivalencies in the Royal Marines & British Army which often assign leadership roles to personnel up to two grades lower than the US Army and often one lower than the naval forces.
As I suspected would be the case, there was no real conflict with OR8 and OR9 as these were introduced simultaneously in all US Forces, so tend to be used in similar ways. For easy equivalency between the naval and ground elements I favour the USAFs MSGT, SMSGT and CMSGT ranks for 'ground forces' as they line up well with the canonical CPO, SCPO and MCPO compared to equivalent Army or Marine ranks.
Things at the other end where a bit trickier as Fireteam Leader can be anything from LCPL (RM & Army NCO) to SGT (US Army), but as the equivalency is apparently recognised in the RW, I went for the lowest option of LCPL or Crewman First Class for Starfleet (Able Crewman on the 'Monster Maroons' system, which appears to use the title of Trainee in place of Private/Crewman).
Similarly, Section Leaders run from at least Corporal (OR-4, British) to SSGT (OR-6, US Army) and Platoon Sergeants can be anything from a regular Sergeant (OR-5) in Britain to a SFC (OR-7) in the US Army. British Corporals rank with American PO2s & PO3s so seemed like the best option for the second rank, especially as this would line Sergeants up with PO/PO1 (matching the naval insignia) and PO/SGT are regarded as equal in the UK.
Apologies for the long, run on thread, but I wanted to put in as much detail as possible.
Does the above make sense?
For example, the role of section leader in the US Army is, IFAIK, held by Staff Sergeant (E6) and a Platoon Sergeant is a Sergeant First Class (E7), compared to the Marine Corps where they are held by Sergeant (E5) and Staff Sergeant (E6), which is a mid-rank NCO, occupying a completely different role to the Air Force rank of Staff Sergeant which is a junior NCO rank perhaps more comparable to MC Corporal or Army Corporal/Sergeant.
Then you have the Navy and Coast Guard, which don't use the names of the other services' ranks, but do use insignia similar to LCPL, CPL, SGT and SSGT for PO3 to CPO, but that line-up with anything from Airman to LCPL at the low end and either SFC, GySGT or MSGT at the high end (depending on who you ask) instead in paygrade.
So I decided to try and line-up everything by role and minimise the ranks where possible, to that end I also looked at equivalencies in the Royal Marines & British Army which often assign leadership roles to personnel up to two grades lower than the US Army and often one lower than the naval forces.
As I suspected would be the case, there was no real conflict with OR8 and OR9 as these were introduced simultaneously in all US Forces, so tend to be used in similar ways. For easy equivalency between the naval and ground elements I favour the USAFs MSGT, SMSGT and CMSGT ranks for 'ground forces' as they line up well with the canonical CPO, SCPO and MCPO compared to equivalent Army or Marine ranks.
Things at the other end where a bit trickier as Fireteam Leader can be anything from LCPL (RM & Army NCO) to SGT (US Army), but as the equivalency is apparently recognised in the RW, I went for the lowest option of LCPL or Crewman First Class for Starfleet (Able Crewman on the 'Monster Maroons' system, which appears to use the title of Trainee in place of Private/Crewman).
Similarly, Section Leaders run from at least Corporal (OR-4, British) to SSGT (OR-6, US Army) and Platoon Sergeants can be anything from a regular Sergeant (OR-5) in Britain to a SFC (OR-7) in the US Army. British Corporals rank with American PO2s & PO3s so seemed like the best option for the second rank, especially as this would line Sergeants up with PO/PO1 (matching the naval insignia) and PO/SGT are regarded as equal in the UK.
Apologies for the long, run on thread, but I wanted to put in as much detail as possible.
Does the above make sense?
Last edited:
This chart may be of some interest to you: https://www.defense.gov/About-DoD/Insignias/Enlisted
Somewhat, in the sense that it's easier to read than the wiki page. However, it doesn't address my objective, which was to rationalise the ranks for a combined service based on role rather than paygrade (and bring the visual markers into line as well) as it seemed to me that the purely USN approach used in fan fiction circles doesn't make sense for such a combined service.
Also, possibly due to my biases (I am British) I prefer the UK approach (apart from the RAF) of awarding ranks sparingly and insignia only to ranks that confer authority. This is particularly obvious in the RN which has only four ranks and three insignia for OF-1 to OF-7 (Able Seaman - nominally OF-2 but is fully qualified in his rating - wears a blank sleeve ala US OF-1s other than USCG) compared to the US's 7 to 8 ranks/insignia.
The US military has a fairly strong "up or out" policy. Personnel must be promoted to E-5 by 10 years in service, E-6 by 15 years, and E-7 by 20 years (some variations between the different branches). It's even more restrictive on the officer side in that they only get two or three chances to be selected at each rank, and if not selected they must separate out of the service.
Here are some real numbers (from 2012, I believe) for how many troops hold each rank:
The Army and Marines have a higher percent of E-3 / E-4 because these branches have a lot of grunt infantry, aka cannon fodder. In the Navy and USAF, roughly one-fourth of enlisted personnel are E-5 = PO2 / SSgt.
For officers, the largest percent goes to O-3 (LT / Capt) because of the length of time they spend at that rank, typically 10 to 12 years, but only 4 to 6 years as an O-4 before making O-5 and then another 4 to 6 years to O-6.
Here are some real numbers (from 2012, I believe) for how many troops hold each rank:
Code:
AIR FORCE
Airman Basic (E-1) - 13,693 (4.7%)
Airman (E-2) - 12,712 (4.4%)
Airman First Class (E-3) - 53,094 (18.3%)
Senior Airman (E-4) - 53,223 (18.4%)
Staff Sergeant (E-5) - 72,388 (25.0%)
Technical Sergeant (E-6) - 43,992 (15.2%)
Master Sergeant (E-7) - 31,061 (10.8%)
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) - 5,681 (2.0%)
Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) - 2,876 (1.0%)
NAVY
Seaman Recruit (E-1) - 15,421 (5.1%)
Seaman Apprentice (E-2) - 16,549 (5.5%)
Seaman (E-3) - 51,001 (16.9%)
Petty Officer Third Class (E-4) - 58,644 (19.4%)
Petty Officer Second Class (E-5) - 2,552 (24.0%)
Petty Officer First Class (E-6) - 54,019 (17.9%)
Chief Petty Officer (E-7) - 23,359 (7.7%)
Senior Chief Petty Officer (E-8) - 7,339 (2.4%)
Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9) - 2,936 (0.9%)
MARINES
Private (E-1) - 9,671 (6.3%)
Private First Class (E-2) - 20,625 (13.4%)
Lance Corporal (E-3) - 43,141 (30.0%)
Corporal (E-4) - 29,578 (19.2%)
Sergeant (E-5) - 23,019 (15.0%
Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 14,794 (9.6%)
Gunnery Sergeant (E-7) - 8,801 (5.7%)
Master Sergeant/First Sergeant (E-8) - 3,306 (2.1%)
Master Gunnery Sergeant/Sergeant Major (E-9) - 1,413 (0.9%)
ARMY
Private (E-1) - 20,284 (5.1%)
Private (E-2) - 3,334 (9.1%)
Private First Class (E-3) - 56,757 (14.1%)
Specialist/Corporal (E-4) - 107,634 (26.8%)
Sergeant (E-5) - 73,034 (18.2%)
Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 56,664 (14.1%)
Sergeant First Class (E-7) - 36,725 (9.2%)
Master Sergeant/First Sergeant (E-8) - 10,541 (2.6%)
Sergeant Major (E-9) - 3,165 (0.8%)The Army and Marines have a higher percent of E-3 / E-4 because these branches have a lot of grunt infantry, aka cannon fodder. In the Navy and USAF, roughly one-fourth of enlisted personnel are E-5 = PO2 / SSgt.
For officers, the largest percent goes to O-3 (LT / Capt) because of the length of time they spend at that rank, typically 10 to 12 years, but only 4 to 6 years as an O-4 before making O-5 and then another 4 to 6 years to O-6.
Code:
USAF
O-1 9803 14.1%
O-2 8208 11.8%
O-3 21706 31.2%
O-4 15361 22.1%
O-5 10362 14.9%
O-6 3753 5.4%
FLAG 273 0.4%
NAVY
O-1 7824 15.0%
O-2 6873 13.2%
O-3 16431 31.4%
O-4 10483 20.1%
O-5 7028 13.5%
O-6 3390 6.5%
FLAG 220 0.4%
USMC
O-1 2650 16.2%
O-2 2805 17.1%
O-3 5258 32.1%
O-4 3202 19.5%
O-5 1770 10.8%
O-6 622 3.8%
FLAG 81 0.5%
ARMY
O-1 6206 9.6%
O-2 8782 13.6%
O-3 22768 35.3%
O-4 14248 22.1%
O-5 8633 13.4%
O-6 3564 5.5%
FLAG 301 0.5%
Last edited:
Do you think the existence of high-tech simulators and later holodecks would allow most of the "classroom" elements of Basic and Role-Specific Training would be conducted as part of the induction process (ala modern RN policy) and that true "privates" (basic training only) probably only exist in the non-technicial & non-scientific trades (security, services, admin, infantry (if it exists)) with engineers et al being more similar to the Army Specialist at deployment (minus the field experience?)
The Royal Navy "other rates" appear to work similarly to the USAF rather than the USN/CG:
E1 - New Entry - Not a rank, held during basic training and the 'school phase' of technical training. AFSC Skill level 1.
E2 - Able Seaman (AB2) - First Rank, shows the trade badge. Held during the 'sea phase' of technicial training (first deployment). AFSC Skill Level 3.
E3 - Able Seaman (AB1) - First Rank, shows trade badge with star. operationally trained to carry out basic tasks and expected to train for next level as Leading Hand. AFSC Level 5.
E4 - Leading Hand - Second Rank, shows trade badge with two stars. able to carry complex tasks and lead others and expected to train for next level as Petty Officer.
E5/6 - Petty Officer - Third Rank, shows trade badge and crown. able to command, instruct others and carry out more complex tasks. AFSC Level 7.
E7+ - Chief Petty Officer - Fourth Rank, same trade badge as Petty Officer. AFSC Level 9.
Additionally, E4 and above also have a separate rank insignia: E4 (single anchor), E5/6 (Crossed Anchors and Crown), E7 (Anchor, Wreath and Crown [cf UN or UFP Flag]). The RCN has a slightly more USN-seque system as they recognise Ordinary Seaman as a Rank (cf RN AB) and give E3 a LCPL/PFC's chevron, Leading Seaman a corporal's two (with or without maple leaf depending on billet), and Petty Officer 2nd Class a sergeant's three with maple leaf and rank them as OR-6/E6 (PO1, SSGT (USMC/USA), or TSGT (USAF)). Petty Officer 1 and above are Warrant Officers and wear a Crown (PO1), a Crown and Wreath (CPO, similar to UK OR-7 CPOs) and various Coat-of-Arms (CPO 1 and above, similar to UK WO1s at OR-9).
The Royal Navy "other rates" appear to work similarly to the USAF rather than the USN/CG:
E1 - New Entry - Not a rank, held during basic training and the 'school phase' of technical training. AFSC Skill level 1.
E2 - Able Seaman (AB2) - First Rank, shows the trade badge. Held during the 'sea phase' of technicial training (first deployment). AFSC Skill Level 3.
E3 - Able Seaman (AB1) - First Rank, shows trade badge with star. operationally trained to carry out basic tasks and expected to train for next level as Leading Hand. AFSC Level 5.
E4 - Leading Hand - Second Rank, shows trade badge with two stars. able to carry complex tasks and lead others and expected to train for next level as Petty Officer.
E5/6 - Petty Officer - Third Rank, shows trade badge and crown. able to command, instruct others and carry out more complex tasks. AFSC Level 7.
E7+ - Chief Petty Officer - Fourth Rank, same trade badge as Petty Officer. AFSC Level 9.
Additionally, E4 and above also have a separate rank insignia: E4 (single anchor), E5/6 (Crossed Anchors and Crown), E7 (Anchor, Wreath and Crown [cf UN or UFP Flag]). The RCN has a slightly more USN-seque system as they recognise Ordinary Seaman as a Rank (cf RN AB) and give E3 a LCPL/PFC's chevron, Leading Seaman a corporal's two (with or without maple leaf depending on billet), and Petty Officer 2nd Class a sergeant's three with maple leaf and rank them as OR-6/E6 (PO1, SSGT (USMC/USA), or TSGT (USAF)). Petty Officer 1 and above are Warrant Officers and wear a Crown (PO1), a Crown and Wreath (CPO, similar to UK OR-7 CPOs) and various Coat-of-Arms (CPO 1 and above, similar to UK WO1s at OR-9).
Last edited:
Similar threads
