• 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!

US Space Force Ranks? [Speculation]

The entire manpower of the Canadian Armed Forces is about 1/3 that of the US Marine Corps.

Don't care. :shrug:

Regardless of size, it's always simpler and more efficient to have FEWER branches, not more.

The more branches you create, the bigger the bureaucracy gets. Competition, rivalry, red tape. What's good about that? Much easier to have a single, unified military command.
 
Since they are apparently not using warrant grades, I wonder how they'll handle Army WOs who transfer in? A W-1 will become an O-1, a W-2 will become an O-2 etc. would be my guess.

That's likely to be complicated...

Nothing's been announced yet AFAIK, so this is speculation, but federalpay.org does offer a couple of possibilities where it compares military paygrades to civilian GS paygrades:

Based on the tables directly, it may shake out as:

All ranks deemed equivalent to GS-7, that is WO1, CWO2 and 2d LT will be billeted as 2d LTs;
All ranks deemed equivalent to GS-8, that is CWO3, CWO4 and CWO5 and 1st LT will be billeted as 1st LTs;

However, this "bunches" things up rather, and arguably doesn't reflect the experience, seniority or actual pay of military personnel, so theoritically it could go something like:

1. Warrant Officer ($38,556 - $66,625 per year, basic) billets with E7s ($37,372 - $67,169 per year, basic) or with 2d LTs ($39,445 - $49,637 per year), while experienced WOs could theoretically billet as 1st LTs ($45,450 - $62,896 per year, basic) under this proposal, as WO1s do not hold a commission this seems unlikely.
2. Chief Warrant Officer 2 ($43,927 - $73,318 per year, basic), does hold a commission, and their payband lines up reasonable well with 1st LTs and there's an outside chance that a few might get the bump to Capt ($52,600 - $85,576 per year, basic).
3. Chief Warrant Officer 3 ($49,644 - $87,080 per year, basic) could split the difference between Capt and Major ($59,825 - $99,889 per year, basic) depending on billet and experience.
4. Chief Warrant Officer 4 ($54,360 - $101,254 per year, basic) probably slot in as Majors, but there might be a few Lt Cols ($69,336 - $117,799 per year, basic) depending on how specific equivalences pan out.
5. Chief Warrant Officer 5 ($96,656 - $126,482 per year, basic) roughly equates to a Col ($83,174 - $147,244 per year).
 
We can dream. The USAF tried to quash the A-10 doco “Grunts in the Sky”

It's hugely complex and there's always room to improve. Ground support was never the USAF's favorite mission, and they tried to get rid of "A" aircraft every chance they got. Of course this backfired on them in Vietnam and they had to go see what the Navy had on offer. I don't think merging the USAF back into the Army is a realistic solution, though.

The more branches you create, the bigger the bureaucracy gets. Competition, rivalry, red tape. What's good about that? Much easier to have a single, unified military command.

I agree, increasing efficiency and reducing redundancy are very important. But there comes a point where the roles and requirements are so different that people who spent careers in a different service won't fully "get it." To achieve the goal of efficiency, there's a point where only those "born and bred" within an organization will really know how to employ their forces most efficiently.

The Canadian forces had to keep separate land, sea and air commands for the actual combat forces. The unified identity has eroded steadily over the years, even to the point of re-adopting the names RCN and RCAF and going back to pre-unification uniforms and rank insignia about a decade ago. Supporting services, like medical, supply/logistics and facility construction are independent and used by all the commands, which makes a lot of sense to me. Hopefully the USSF will use the USAF support structure as much as possible and avoid duplication.

The space environment is different enough from the air environment that, eventually, that role would have to spin off the same way the air force had to be spun off. Whether we are at that point now is debatable. In the USAAF/USAF model, the force that spun off was essentially functioning as a separate service in all but name. I'm not sure that we were at that point, yet, but others do and their position is certainly defensible.
 
In notes from a meeting posted on Reddit, the CMSSF expects new enlisted rank insignia approval in summer 2021. No mention of officer insignia, so I assume there will be no change there; I think that was mostly expected.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceForce/comments/lb9x7e/chief_t_zoom_call_notes/

Question: At what point should we expect new rank insignia?

Answer: Some time in March we’ll start surveys and focus groups, both internal and external, to look at enlisted rank insignia. We’ll bin those ideas into 4 categories: AF-esque, Marine/Army-esque, not like Army or AF but not unlike them, one will be the wild idea (but not as wild as some people want). That will go out for feedback. Maybe we can make an announcement in early summer, so that we can start wearing it by 1 October. Should be on our way to new service dress by then as well.​
 
In notes from a meeting posted on Reddit, the CMSSF expects new enlisted rank insignia approval in summer 2021. No mention of officer insignia, so I assume there will be no change there; I think that was mostly expected.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceForce/comments/lb9x7e/chief_t_zoom_call_notes/

Question: At what point should we expect new rank insignia?

Answer: Some time in March we’ll start surveys and focus groups, both internal and external, to look at enlisted rank insignia. We’ll bin those ideas into 4 categories: AF-esque, Marine/Army-esque, not like Army or AF but not unlike them, one will be the wild idea (but not as wild as some people want). That will go out for feedback. Maybe we can make an announcement in early summer, so that we can start wearing it by 1 October. Should be on our way to new service dress by then as well.​

Interesting that the one not mentioned at all in Navy/Coast Guard-esque.

Well, I suppose that would possibly go in the third or fourth bin, but odd that it didn't get a bin of its own.
 
Reading between the lines in this interview with the Chief of Space Operations, I get the feeling the navy ranks were a non-starter. "The ranks mean something to those in the service." "These are really important to folks inside the services." They even bring Star Trek into it.

Q: Do you think ‘Star Trek’ fans are disappointed there are no admirals in the Space Force?

A: These are really important to folks inside the services. I think it's really important that it means something to folks inside the service and not so much Star Trek fans, although we do have a lot of ‘Star Trek’ fans.​

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/...ef-of-space-operations-gen-jay-raymond-471646
 
Reading between the lines in this interview with the Chief of Space Operations, I get the feeling the navy ranks were a non-starter. "The ranks mean something to those in the service." "These are really important to folks inside the services." They even bring Star Trek into it.

Q: Do you think ‘Star Trek’ fans are disappointed there are no admirals in the Space Force?

A: These are really important to folks inside the services. I think it's really important that it means something to folks inside the service and not so much Star Trek fans, although we do have a lot of ‘Star Trek’ fans.​

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/...ef-of-space-operations-gen-jay-raymond-471646

Yep. Between this and what they said while the legislation was still pending, I got the impression that Naval ranks were never on the table, but if Congress forced them to do it they'd have grit their teeth and done it, because they'd have to. But now that they don't have to, it's not even on the radar.
 
I do appreciate that they are trying to allow USSF to be its own thing while respecting that there is a lot of meaning in these ranks. Not an easy thing to do.

Also, that Star Trek fan question was laughably odd.
 
Yep. Between this and what they said while the legislation was still pending, I got the impression that Naval ranks were never on the table, but if Congress forced them to do it they'd have grit their teeth and done it, because they'd have to.

Yeah, by inside the service he might as well be saying "inside the Air Force." No captain wants to go back to being a lieutenant or a colonel back to a captain.

There was one congressman who held out publicly for navy ranks, but the folks with four stars on their Pentagon parking passes are as good at playing the DC game as any politician, and better than most. When the Senate deleted specific USSF ranks from the last defense bill, you had to wonder if someone on the inside was working against the idea of becoming a space admiral.

Also, that Star Trek fan question was laughably odd.

Well, reporters live on Twitter and that was probably one of the high points of USSF trending on social media.
 
I think row one for me. Lets it stand apart a bit for the new branch. 2 would be alright to acknowledge Air Force lineage.
 
I would put my money on the hex-shaped set. I'd guess the warmed-over USAF stripes will come in last as too derivative, but it does put into perspective what an outstanding design they were. It's a tough job to come up with something like that which is original and distinctive but also readily understandable and useful, and whoever came up with that design (lost to history AFAIK) definitely achieved it.

It's interesting that they went with just "sergeant" for E-5 but none of the insignia schemes matches up that title with the classic three stripes of the army and marines.
 
I hope they don't go with #1, because it's too close to the Navy's insignia but in no way matches up paygrade per insignia.

I hope they don't go with #2 because they need to forge their own identity apart from the Air Force.

I'd like either #3 or #4 if the angle of the chevrons was a little larger. I prefer "broad" rank insignia over "skinny".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top