AX was Aviation Antisub Warfare Tech (defunct, now part of Aviation Electronics Tech (AT) with (defunct) Aviation Fire Control Technician (AQ), AT in turn merges with Aviation Electricians Mate (AE) at Master Chief Avionics Tech (AVMC)), AZ is Aviation Maintenance Administrationman (broadly speaking the Air Wing equivalent of a YN/LS/PS).
Yeomen in Star Trek, but not the US Navy
- Thread starter J.T.B.
- Start date
AZ is something along the lines of an Aviation Yeoman. The AZs are sent to the same "A" school as the PSs and YNs in MS, where LSs and SHs go. For some reason, they had to PT with the Marines.
If the AZs are with the PSs and YNs in MS with the LS and SH's, shouldn't they keep it on the QT? Or else somebody could end up MIA and we'd all be put on KP. 
Aaaaand now I'm just back to being relieved that I'm out and it's therefore not my problem.If the AZs are with the PSs and YNs in MS with the LS and SH's, shouldn't they keep it on the QT? Or else somebody could end up MIA and we'd all be put on KP.
Dunno. Literally any other word? It's not like the Navy was limited to "Commodore" or "Rear". Come up with something new.
Junior Admiral? Sub-Admiral? Lieutenant Admiral?
In the end, it's simply the name of the rank.
And that's never going to happen. It's the people whom it would most affect who have the most influence on the matter, and they are not going to start from scratch, because most people would not be clear on where the new title fits, and their status might not be recognized (god forbid). Nor are they about to tie themselves to inferior-sounding modifiers like "junior" or "sub." "Lieutenant admiral" sounds like it should be just below admiral, where vice admiral is. Of course the word "rear" would not make the cut if starting fresh today, either, but it has had several hundred years of history behind it and people are used to it. The words "lower half," at the end of the title and set off by parentheses, are easier to ignore and also have a bit of historical weight.
But, like I said, it is not much of an issue anymore. The navy largely ignores it in practice, but they do technically have a separate rank so the other services can't point a finger and say "unfair."
For example, on the U.S. Navy Leadership Biographies page, you can't tell a one-star from a two-star except by their photo:
Last edited:
Big Navy: "Oops, our bad, turns out Sailors haaaaate what feels to many like a totally arbitrary and headache-inducing jettisoning of centuries-old traditions."
Navy Times: Ratings restored: Effective immediately, sailors will get their job titles back
... So I guess the thread can now be secured.
Navy Times: Ratings restored: Effective immediately, sailors will get their job titles back
... So I guess the thread can now be secured.
Big Navy: "Oops, our bad, turns out Sailors haaaaate what feels to many like a totally arbitrary and headache-inducing jettisoning of centuries-old traditions."
Navy Times: Ratings restored: Effective immediately, sailors will get their job titles back
... So I guess the thread can now be secured.
I wouldn't count on it. The current MCPON was apparently involved at 'working group' level with the proposed changes so while the 'no ratings at all' part of the proposal is nixed, some other parts of the plan are still apparently in play (increased cross training for definate and I'd be surprised if the non-gendered thing doesn't get some more play later once the dust settles.) The ratings that I think are most likely to be targeted first are the ones that already combine at Master Chief currently, primarly the Seebees ratings (BU, EA & SW > CU, CE & UT > UC and CM & EO > EQ), and also any ratings that the Coast Guard previously merged like BM & QM (which are BM in the CG), and YN (which includes the PS and NC (?) roles in the CG).
I've got nothing against the sensible modernization and consolidation of certain ratings. As a former yeoman, I admit I'm not nuts about the idea of scrapping that historic title purely for PC purposes, but I concede that'd be a valid discussion to have. Given how many Sailors are petty officers, however, the notion of scrapping each and every rating title in large part "because the other services don't have ratings" is the absurd thing.
My wife is a retired YN2, USNR. I can't post her words from when she first heard this stupid idea. One thing she pointed out is that by having personnel wear their job on their sleeve, it gives the officer in charge the ability to look around and pick the right person needed to do/fix something in a critical moment without having to ask "Whose job is this?"
Unofficial Navy Facebook pages respond to the ratings restoration:
lol.
Which is why a lot of people probably find it odd that most current uniforms (particularly the NWU) doesn't have this indicator. AFAIK, currently the only Navy uniform that includes the rating symbol are the Dress Blues. Although the FR-resistant coveralls do include the anacronym for the rating as part of the name tag, which is better (and hopefully will carry over to the NWU replacement) but still not as good as having the full-size rate/rating badge.
Also the peacoat, dress whites for E-1 through E-6, and dinner/mess dress jackets if one opts to buy it. But who finds it odd? The specialty mark has been slowly disappearing from everyday use since dungarees became the everyday shipboard uniform in WW2. When the dungaree rating badge was introduced in the '50s, it was just the crow and stripes, no specialty mark. CPOs lost their stripes and hashmarks on dress whites and khakis in 1975. Even in the late '80s, the only other uniforms we had with a sleeve crow were the hated "ice cream man" whites and the little-worn "Johnny Cash." When the NSU came out with collar devices instead of a sleeve crow, I don't think anybody was surprised. Wearing the specialty mark on the uniform is not really necessary for normal work. It was mainly more of a psychological thing, for coffee mugs and liberty belt buckles and t-shirts, to show what tribe you're in.
Doesn't the limited use of 'speciality marks' on the uniforms argue against the principle that generic 'PO' as the form of address is unhelpful as the uniform often doesn't tell you any more than that anyway?
Personally, I think something similar in style to the Royal Australian Navy utilities would be a better option:
(though I think their 'camo' is about the worst colour scheme I've seen other than NWU Type-I). The symbol next to (or over for officers) the name on the nametape designates the community/general rating they are assigned to) and is easily visible in most circumstances.
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to moving the rank slide to the central position ala the US Army ACUs, the British Army No 8 Combat Dress or the updated Royal Navy No 4 Working Dress (both PCS-based designs).
Nope. They're not changing anything to Seaman. They retained it because they couldn't find a PC alternative that wasn't too awkward.
Mabus was very clear it was all about PC. I weep for the Navy.
The articles I read at the time suggested that Hospitalman, Fireman, Airman and Constructionman were being dropped in favour of all E-1 to E-3's becoming 'Seaman'. Is that not (still) the case?
Sailor, perhaps submariner as appropriate, seems like a good gender neutral option instead of Sailor to me.
The articles I read said that "Seaman"was being retained because there was no reasonable alternative. As a Deck rate, I focused on that, and didn't think about merging the non-Deck rates into Seaman.
Sailor might work, although it would tend to hurt the pledge of alle- uh "sailor's creed" bullshit. If Sailor replaced SN, petty officers, chiefs, and zeros would all be butthurt at having to recite the E-3 creed.
Personally, I hope Mattis and whomever Trump appoints as SecNav ditch the current MCPON and kill this whole project. As I recall from the efforts to merge BM/QM, then BM/QM/OS, and finally QM/OS, these things take forever to put down. And they still managed to sneak in the elimination of SM, dropping their jobs on QMs.
I might be biased (I'm British myself) but when I look at the Royal Navy or the Royal Australian Navy who have only about two dozen designations (though some of them do specialise beyond this) compared to the USN's 57 general ratings and 37 service ratings (sub-specialisms) I do think that some streaming is warranted. For instance, the USN has twelve ratings for Aircrew, whereas the RN has two - Naval Airman (split into Handler, Controller and Survival Equipment) and Aircrewman (ASW) in "Warfare" plus three in Engineering (Tech, Artificier and Mechanic) and the RAN has only three (Aircrewman in the Air Branch and AT Aircraft and AT Avionics in Eng Branch); similiarly the USN has nine engineer ratings, wheras the RN has only five (discounting the Air Engineers, but adding Comm Tech and Diver from Warfare as they are Engineers in the USN) and the RAN has maybe seven at a stretch (EM/ET merged (as ET), MK (as Marine Tech), IT/OS merge (four sub-ratings) and Clearance Diver, but only the first three main ones are found on the 'small boys').
Well, if you think that PC titles will undermine the world's best navy, I don't know what to tell you.