Sub-Commander T'Pol.

[Timo]

If the Fleet was founded in anticipation of being built, then there'd be plenty of need for ranks - trained personnel would be piling up fifteen high before getting their first shipboard assignments, and you couldn't have a ship filled with Commander-ranked janitors, nor could you just retire all these people simply because the government isn't funding the new ships at quite the promised pace.

Of course, the Fleet was founded on something. Experienced people moving into UESF from, say, USAF would hate to give up their rank, so there'd be lots of senior officers from the get-go. And then later on significantly fewer!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedman67]

^^Actually the Memory Alpha article you linked says Subcommander is below a Starfleet Captain but above a Starfleet Commander. Seems a bit unnecessarily complex, given the Vulcan/Romulan rank of Commander is equivalent to a Starfleet Captain, Subcommander should be equal to a Starfleet Commander.

There's a callout to one of the tech manuals in the article which states that SubCom is equal to FedCap.
And you can also speculate that perhaps subcommander is equivalent to a Captain JG, a rank which starfleet omits, putting sub right in between commander and captain.

That's the easiest explanation. T'Pol outranked Trip simply because she was the XO and he wasn't. Didn't really matter what actual ranks they had.

It's the same reasoning which dictated that Malcolm - a Lieutenant - outranked Major Hayes. Normally a Major outranks any Lieutenant, but since Reed was the chief of security, that makes him senior to any MACO (regardless of actual rank).

A major would only outrank a lieutenant in the same chain of command, here the MACO's were not part of the Enterprises standard crew, they were attached as a separate military/marine unit.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But the MACOS were still subordinate to whoever was the ship's chief of security & tactical officer. And that's Reed. So ALL of the MACOS ultimately report to Reed and are subordinate to him - regardless of their rank.

 

[Timo]

It is far from said that the MACOs would be subordinate to the Chief of Security. A special arrangement would have to made for that, and Reed and Hayes made that early on. Without the arrangement, the MACOs might simply be passengers who just happen to belong to another hierarchical fighting force (comparable to the USN giving a ride to the SWAT team of NYPD, perhaps), and would follow their internal chain of command in the privacy of their accommodations and during their shore excursions; Archer's chain of command could only have a say on when these excursions would be allowed to take place. After all, the embarking of the MACO team appeared almost unprecedented, and did cause chafing at first.

What the Reed-Hayes Pact was based on, we don't know exactly. One would assume that both Military Command and Starfleet Command would fall under the supervision of the same UE government organ (some sort of JCS analogue), and there would be common rules for playing these sorts of games. Perhaps exact precedent would be lacking. But one would assume that both Reed and Hayes prepared for their little discussion well in advance - well in advance of the ship departing Earth, in fact - and consulted both their respective field manuals and their respective legal advisors before crossing any sabers. It just looks spontaneous and unprofessional on screen, because they act casual while knowing each one has the backing of a mighty Command in actuality.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

If the Fleet was founded in anticipation of being built, then there'd be plenty of need for ranks - trained personnel would be piling up fifteen high before getting their first shipboard assignments, and you couldn't have a ship filled with Commander-ranked janitors, nor could you just retire all these people simply because the government isn't funding the new ships at quite the promised pace.

Of course, the Fleet was founded on something. Experienced people moving into UESF from, say, USAF would hate to give up their rank, so there'd be lots of senior officers from the get-go. And then later on significantly fewer!

Timo Saloniemi

It depends on the number of berths one has in the fleet. The new explores of the NX-class have a small crew of around 80 with most of that being enlisted personal. You don't need nearly as many officers on ships that small. A Captain, a Commander or two, a half dozen lieutenants and maybe a dozen ensigns. You have the commanding officer, the first officer, the department heads, their junior officers, and that is about it before you get to the enlisted who run most of the ship day to day.

If you have few ships and the organization was basically founded in your lifetime, it is unlikely that their would be a need for the in between ranks until such time as the fleet expands and their is a new need to show seniority within the fleet. Or you get larger ships that require more officers to run the ship's departments effectively.

 

[Timo]

That the NX ships would run on 80 crew is somewhat suspect, as 80 is what Archer got for a hasty scramble where he had to beg for key officers to attend. The mission was supposed to be a ferry job, and soon enough we found out that while the ship was heavily armed (with spares aboard for installing even more armaments), the people available aboard were less than competent in handling the gear. Also, one would assume Starfleet's first proper deep space exploration vessel would have normally embarked some bona fide researchers, yet Archer had none.

Both the lacunae would probably need to be filled by officers rather than enlisted people - unless the idea was to embark civilian researchers. And military eggheads would need a hierarchy of their own to be effective, this in itself creating a specific onboard need for a spectrum of relatively high ranks.

On a general level, the need to show seniority would exist for the queue to the future assignments, too - it wouldn't do to let everybody become Captain and then crew an available ship with nothing but Captains in the order of seniority-in-rank. Rather than withhold promotions, UESF could dish them out in small steps, small enough that the two-three decades or so between "Young Nat Archer doesn't yet have a Fleet to enlist in" and the ENT adventures could be populated by people other than Captains and Commanders exclusively.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Smaller ships would be under the command of a Commander or even a lieutenant if their in no need for many officers. An American frigate from the 1980s with a compliment of over 200 people have only 14 officers. A ship with 80 people would likely have a few less than that assuming that that number isn't the minimum due to the number of departments the ship has and the number of shifts the ship operates on. As the Federation Starfleet comes around, there seem to be more officers than enlisted, but in Archer's time it seem to be mostly crewman and some officers.

 

[Timo]

But as said, had Archer embarked a full team, it might well have been officer-heavy for much the same reasons the later Trek crews are: there would be scientists of all sorts wearing Lieutenant or higher braid, not so much for being kings or queens of a big hill of enlisteds but for flaunting their academic credentials. And it's a cruel, cruel world, flaunting those.

Of course, if "Gene's vision" of an all-officer crew ever were close to being reality, it would be in the earliest days of starflight. And while UESF is a couple of decades old in ENT at least, there's novelty value to what Archer and the Enterprise are doing. Plus, if the ship can be flown with 80 people, it's all the easier to make all of them officers, and let them do those officer'y-astronaut'y academic things when they are bored with their apparently not particularly pressing maintenance jobs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

The argument is more about why we don't see the between ranks in the Earth Starfleet at any time (nor are their rank pins made for them) and how a Vulcan Sub-Commander might outrank and Starfleet Commander, rather hand how many officers and enlisted the NX-class could hold.

What we are presented with is a relatively small and new Starfleet, that seems to operate ships that don't need more than a hundred people to operate, with some probably operating with far less than that. If Starfleet is operation of an older model, that it is likely that the enlisted outnumber the officers by around ten to one or more. As the role of Starfleet changes, expands and not only becomes the Federation Starfleet, but also starts sending ships out as long range multi year explorers, than the number of specialists goes up, and number of officers increases. Could also be why Pike had a crew size around 200 while Kirk has over 400 for the same ship, and why "they really packed them in on those old ships" as Dax and Sisko put it. While by the 24th century, the crew sizes relative to the size of the ship seems to have reduced again, but retained more officers-specialist, than enlisted personal.

With the relatively small Earth Starfleet, and fewer officers per ship, you don't need anywhere near as many ranks as you have later in the Federation as it absorbs other forces into it, possibly forces in reorganization and a standard set of ranks that cover all the raced variances. A Earth Starfleet Captain might be equal to a Sub-commander on the Vulcan High Command chart due to that being the rank one would hold to be in command of a relatively small ship like the Enterprise, rather than a Commander, who would commander one of their larger starships. At which point the Earth's Commander is under the Vulcan Sub-Commander. When the Federation happens, the Earth ranks Captain and Commander get bumped up one as they add Lt Commander to the list, while their Lieutenant rank gets sub-divided, and they gain another rank or two of Admirals above their present limit.

 

[Jedman67]

But one would assume that both Reed and Hayes prepared for their little discussion well in advance - well in advance of the ship departing Earth, in fact - and consulted both their respective field manuals and their respective legal advisors before crossing any sabers. It just looks spontaneous and unprofessional on screen, because they act casual while knowing each one has the backing of a mighty Command in actuality.

Timo Saloniemi

I don't think the writers were so thorough. It was just easy drama, realistic or not.

the people available aboard were less than competent in handling the gear.

Par for the course in Starfleet, apparently

 

[Timo]

The argument is more about why we don't see the between ranks in the Earth Starfleet at any time (nor are their rank pins made for them) and how a Vulcan Sub-Commander might outrank and Starfleet Commander, rather hand how many officers and enlisted the NX-class could hold.

Sure, but it's basically the same thing: if Archer's team has fewer officers than it's "supposed" to, there already we have an excuse for missing out on the in-between ranks because the low numbers give poor statistics.

It's not as if we would have seen a promotion that glaringly skipped a rank...

...Heck, it's not as if UESF believed in promotions of any sort!

If Starfleet is operation of an older model, that it is likely that the enlisted outnumber the officers by around ten to one or more. As the role of Starfleet changes, expands and not only becomes the Federation Starfleet, but also starts sending ships out as long range multi year explorers, than the number of specialists goes up, and number of officers increases.

Alternately, Starfleet, this new and fantastic thing, starts out as all-specialist. It's only later on that any part of the job becomes "mundane" and warrants an enlisted goon rather than an academician...

It depends on whether we see UESF as the direct descendant of USN or NASA... The writers seem to try to argue it's neither, though.

Could also be why Pike had a crew size around 200 while Kirk has over 400 for the same ship, and why "they really packed them in on those old ships" as Dax and Sisko put it.

It's just a decade between Pike and Kirk; "evolution of Starfleet procedures and doctrines" does not sound like an attractive rationalization for the change. (Especially as "those old ships" would probably cover Pike's as well.)

A Earth Starfleet Captain might be equal to a Sub-commander on the Vulcan High Command chart due to that being the rank one would hold to be in command of a relatively small ship like the Enterprise, rather than a Commander, who would commander one of their larger starships. At which point the Earth's Commander is under the Vulcan Sub-Commander. When the Federation happens, the Earth ranks Captain and Commander get bumped up one as they add Lt Commander to the list, while their Lieutenant rank gets sub-divided, and they gain another rank or two of Admirals above their present limit.

Sounds good - although one wonders whether there would be any "bumping up" in a Federal fleet where the Vulcan ranks simply cease to exist, and whether there's any need for involving the in-between ranks in this particular argument at all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Sounds good - although one wonders whether there would be any "bumping up" in a Federal fleet where the Vulcan ranks simply cease to exist, and whether there's any need for involving the in-between ranks in this particular argument at all.

The Vulcans, Andorians, Humans, Tellarites, and whoever else might have a space force to integrate would need standardizing, much like NATO has a standard rank system even when some members don't use the same terms, they tended to have adjusted their numbers of ranks to be equivalent to each other. When one has too few ranks, their are gaps, or name inconsistencies that the standardization accounts for after the merger of forces. Earth's Starfleet being likely the youngest and smallest during the pre-Romulan War era, would need to conform with the older or larger nations in the post-war Federation. The Earthers will still use their own terms, but adapt them to fit the command structure of a larger organization than they alone had in 2151. This has been done in our own history.

 

[Timo]

If the numbers of ranks are equal, then the names no doubt would become not just equivalent but identical - they are translations in any case, after all. But the odd thing about the above setup would be the coincidence of the number of Earth ranks reverting exactly to the pre-starflight USN/RN classic because space aliens told us to! It's IMHO simpler to assume that the classic endured on its own, and was finally forced down the throats of the aliens when the aggressive Earth took the lead (or submitted to being the mercenary arm, take your pick) in the interstellar alliance.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[gblews]

From what I have seen, in the Vulcan hierarchy the ranking officer on a Vulcan ship is called "commander". I have never seen a Vu;can ship with a "subcommander" in charge. However, we HAVE seen that in Starfleet a "commander" can have his or her own command. This would seem to me to indicate that a Starfleet commander outranks a Vulcan subcommander.

BTW, Memory Alpha is no more canonical than is Wikipedia. Also, just because Trip backed down in the face of T'Pol's threat, does not then mean that subcommander outranks commander. However, I'm cool with T'Pol being made XO because of her vast deep space experience, even though she had no Starfleet experience or seniority.

What I didn't understand was in Twilight when T'Pol, an alien, was put in charge of earth's only hope for survival. It seems to me that at that time, with not much experience with aliens and no others in Starfleet, humans would have chosen a human as captain to replace Archer.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Vulcan space service also had a rank of Captain. Possibly equivalent to a Commodore in Starfleet of that era?

 

[Timo]

Or possibly the respective space navies didn't sweat equivalence at all, there being zero possiblity of the officers actually mingling - even in social occasions, let alone in chains of command?

It's not as if there would have been a need to match SS ranks against Wehrmacht ones, much less against US, British or Soviet ones in the 1940s... Command relationships did not happen with respect to those ranks, but regardless of them.

FWIW, T'Pol's "My Vulcan rank supersedes yours" can be taken in at least three ways:

1) Vulcan rank automatically trumps alien scum rank.
2) Trip has a Vulcan rank that we are not aware of, and it's lower than Subcommander.
3) T'Pol's rank of Subcommander and Trip's rank of Commander are equivalent, and T'Pol's supersedes Trip's because she has seniority in that rank, possibly by virtue of decades already.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Myk]

Or possibly the respective space navies didn't sweat equivalence at all, there being zero possiblity of the officers actually mingling - even in social occasions, let alone in chains of command?

It's not as if there would have been a need to match SS ranks against Wehrmacht ones, much less against US, British or Soviet ones in the 1940s... Command relationships did not happen with respect to those ranks, but regardless of them.

FWIW, T'Pol's "My Vulcan rank supersedes yours" can be taken in at least three ways:

1) Vulcan rank automatically trumps alien scum rank.
2) Trip has a Vulcan rank that we are not aware of, and it's lower than Subcommander.
3) T'Pol's rank of Subcommander and Trip's rank of Commander are equivalent, and T'Pol's supersedes Trip's because she has seniority in that rank, possibly by virtue of decades already.

Timo Saloniemi

I think number 3 is the best option.

 

[Tim Thomason]

It's the same reasoning which dictated that Malcolm - a Lieutenant - outranked Major Hayes. Normally a Major outranks any Lieutenant, but since Reed was the chief of security, that makes him senior to any MACO (regardless of actual rank).

While I agree with you here, there is one hiccup in this explanation: Earth Starfleet doesn't appear to have a direct equivalent to Major. Their ranks (as portrayed onscreen) go from Ensign (O-1) to Lieutenant (O-3) to Commander (O-5) to Captain (O-6). A Major, in today's parlance, is the equivalent of a USN Lieutenant Commander.

If they go by some sort of rank chart that gives Lieutenant the higher grade (O-4 instead of O-3, making it equal to major), then Reed might indeed outrank Hayes, by virtue of his position and/or seniority.

This explanation might also explain away T'Pol's statement, since while Commander is only one step below a Captain, it's still only two steps above the most junior rank.

Here's a completely hypothetical and made-up list of Vulcan ranks and Earth Starfleet equivalents (with our modern paygrades):
O-1 - Sublieutenant - Ensign
O-2 - Lieutenant - (no equivalent)
O-3 - Subaltern - Lieutenant
O-4 - Altern - (no equivalent)
O-5 - Major - Commander
O-5.33 - Subcommander - (no equivalent)
O-5.67 - Commander - (no equivalent)
O-6 - Captain - Captain

Also, of note: Vulcans have longer lives (T'Pol is in her 60s during Enterprise, retirement age for us youngsters), so it makes sense for them to have longer careers with longer steps to get to the top of the ladder.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Earth Starfleet doesn't appear to have a direct equivalent to Major. Their ranks (as portrayed onscreen) go from Ensign (O-1) to Lieutenant (O-3) to Commander (O-5) to Captain (O-6).

There's no evidence of that. We have no proof that the Earth Starfleet has no rank of LTJG or LCDR. Just because we never saw anyone with those ranks, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Tim Thomason]

There's no evidence of that. We have no proof that the Earth Starfleet has no rank of LTJG or LCDR. Just because we never saw anyone with those ranks, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Exactly. Hence the words "doesn't appear" and "portrayed onscreen" implying ambiguity and unclear information. As with most things from the TV show.