For U.S. Space Force Ranks, William Shatner Endorses 'Starfleet Amendment' (spacenews.com) 207
America's House of Representatives proposed a new structure for the U.S. Space Force in what's being called "the Starfleet amendment". Space News reports:
Before the House passed the so-called "Starfleet" amendment, Space Force officials had been internally debating a new rank structure to set the space branch apart from its parent service the U.S. Air Force. The amendment in the House version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Space Force to use the Navy's rank structure. The proposal will be debated later this year in a House and Senate conference. The Senate would have to support the amendment for it to become law.
The amendment was introduced by a former Navy SEAL (now a Republican congressman from Texas), the article reports. But more importantly, the amendment "got a prominent endorsement from the Starfleet captain himself, William Shatner." In a special editorial in Military Times, Shatner wrote: It's been captains throughout entertainment history that have gone into space and been the heroes that saved the day, the planet, the galaxy and the universe. Where in any of this rich history of inspired heroes travelling into space was there a...colonel...?
"Star Trek" has borrowed so much of its iconic rank symbols from the U.S. military and NASA. When you unveiled the Space Force logo, many immediately saw it as an homage to "Star Trek" (even though our Delta was an homage to the previous military space insignias). Why not borrow back from "Star Trek" and adopt our ranks as well? We took them from the Navy for good reason, even though Gene Roddenberry was a veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps. They made better sense when talking about a (space) ship.
So wrapping this up, I'm going to say that if you want the public to believe in heroes, that you should adopt the Navy ranks as they are the ones the public is most used to being heroes. So please reconsider and name the Space Force ranks after the U.S. Navy.
Space News reports that officials from Space Force "declined to comment on Shatner's article, or on whether his views might carry any weight with lawmakers." But the site's source said there's polarized feelings inside real-world Space Force about the Starfleet amendment.
"Some view the prospect of using naval ranks as an insult that would permanently turn the service into a Star Trek punchline."
The amendment was introduced by a former Navy SEAL (now a Republican congressman from Texas), the article reports. But more importantly, the amendment "got a prominent endorsement from the Starfleet captain himself, William Shatner." In a special editorial in Military Times, Shatner wrote: It's been captains throughout entertainment history that have gone into space and been the heroes that saved the day, the planet, the galaxy and the universe. Where in any of this rich history of inspired heroes travelling into space was there a...colonel...?
"Star Trek" has borrowed so much of its iconic rank symbols from the U.S. military and NASA. When you unveiled the Space Force logo, many immediately saw it as an homage to "Star Trek" (even though our Delta was an homage to the previous military space insignias). Why not borrow back from "Star Trek" and adopt our ranks as well? We took them from the Navy for good reason, even though Gene Roddenberry was a veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps. They made better sense when talking about a (space) ship.
So wrapping this up, I'm going to say that if you want the public to believe in heroes, that you should adopt the Navy ranks as they are the ones the public is most used to being heroes. So please reconsider and name the Space Force ranks after the U.S. Navy.
Space News reports that officials from Space Force "declined to comment on Shatner's article, or on whether his views might carry any weight with lawmakers." But the site's source said there's polarized feelings inside real-world Space Force about the Starfleet amendment.
"Some view the prospect of using naval ranks as an insult that would permanently turn the service into a Star Trek punchline."
Captain?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I got no problem with nothing as long as they can make a spaceship big enough to justify a captain and launch it. Less concern about empty words and more concern about actually building a starship. When you actually make one, then you can waffle on about space identity politics all you want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Captain?!? (Score:5, Informative)
in the navy, the skipper of a vessel is always referred to as captain despite his rank. On a submarine, there is only a crew of 150. That billing is often delegated to the rank of Lt Commander (O-4). Yet he is called captain by his crew.
Captain -
Captain is the senior-most commissioned officer rank below that of flag officer (Admiral). Reflecting its nautical heritage, it also sometimes used as a military "title" by more junior officers who are serving as the commanding officer (CO) of a commissioned vessel of the U.S. Navy of patrol boat size or greater.
Any naval officer who commands a ship is addressed by naval custom as "captain" while aboard in command, regardless of their actual rank.
Officers with the rank of Captain should be addressed by their rank and name (e.g., "Captain Smith"), but they should not be referred to as "the captain" to avoid confusion with the vessel's captain.
https://www.public.navy.mil/su... [navy.mil]
Honestly it makes more sense to use the Navy as a model for fleet structure. Out of all our branches of service, shipboard life and fleet movements at sea more closely relate to the isolation on a space faring vessel than other branches. This is most likely why authors throughout the ages also seem to agree, by way of use, of using Navy structure to describe space faring forces. Typically its Marines that represent the ground pounders that are stationed aboard, and Navy for the crew of the vessels.
Re: (Score:3)
All true, but a lot of what the Space Force will be doing at least at first here is likely to be ground based control of staelites (but not of love) and similar. To that end I am still wondering how and where the lines between Space Force and Air Force are ultimately to be drawn, and where those lines are drawn may have impact here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they just want to not have to re-invent the wheel later on. Might as well use navy structure now, if we know at some point we will have to do it. Its a very difficult thing to change down the line.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say no, most of what they will ever do is ground-based logistics and space stations. If they ever do get a fleet, then they can crew it from a separate wing of the military - so you'd have colonels in charge of the logistics, and captains in charge of the ships. Somewhat like how the Navy has a marine corp, the future star command can have a space naval corp.
Re: (Score:2)
the navy runs their own logistics, have you ever seen an UNREP? Id wager the marines will still be the marines.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they just want to not have to re-invent the wheel later on.
Not even shuttlecraft have wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
A fishing boat has a captain, too, you seem a little confused about the difference between rank and position. Most ship captains in the world have the rank of "mister."
You're one of those guys, if they told you to charge boldly into the breech without fear of death you'd stuff your head into the cannon and fire it at the enemy. No, that not breech, you idiot, there can be two things that have the same word. And on a ship there can be 12. "Shiver me timbers!" LOL
Re:Captain?!? (Score:4, Informative)
uhh no, you're talking to a 8yr navy vet who served in the 80s and 90s. They call the CO of the US Navy vessel "Captain" regardless of their rank. We did not refer to them as mister anything. Officers would refer to their fellow officers as Mister,but never in their chain of command. That would be Captain, XO, CHENG, Officer of the Deck, EOW (engineering officer of the watch). A lieutenant Junior Grade (JG) was commonly just called Lieutenant. At the rank of Captain, you generally command ships with a crew of over 500. The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, had a ships crew around 3200. In addition, we would set sail and bring on all the air wings from both navy and marine dispatch, raising the total population to around 5600. The CO of those ships were O-6 (captain) but often ones being considered for flag officer position (rear admiral lower half). We also brought on an admiral when we left for 6month deployments to command the battlegroup. On board the USS Texas (CGN-39), a virginia class nuclear powered destroyer, we had a crew of around 550. The CO of that ship typically was a younger O-6, though right before our refuelling/decommissioning the CO was a soon-to-retire Captain. Whereas the Aegis class destroyers are commanded by officers with the rank of Commander. The CO of the minesweepers we helped support in the persian gulf were typically commanded by a Lt Cmdr.
Aside from the size of the crew, responsibilities often determine the billeted rank to command. If your ship has the ability to carry nukes, you will most likely find the rank of Cmdr or higher in charge. Ballistic submarines, destroyers, and missile frigates among them.
Re: Captain?!? (Score:3)
Out of all our branches of service, shipboard life and fleet movements at sea more closely relate to the isolation on a space faring vessel than other branches. This is most likely why authors throughout the ages also seem to agree, by way of use, of using Navy structure to describe space faring forces.
You are dangerously confusing what the "Space Force" does with some space navy you read about in a sci-fi book.
You space marine desk generals living in mom's basement need to get together with the other armchair generals predicting the end of manned aerial warfare "because AI" and fight it out. Yup we'll have killer flying drones below and manned space gunboats up above, that makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Captain -
Captain is the senior-most commissioned officer rank below that of flag officer (Admiral). Reflecting its nautical heritage, it also sometimes used as a military "title" by more junior officers who are serving as the commanding officer (CO) of a commissioned vessel of the U.S. Navy of patrol boat size or greater.
Any naval officer who commands a ship is addressed by naval custom as "captain" while aboard in command, regardless of their actual rank.
This particular bit of idiocy needs to be fixed for the US Navy first, before the Space Force adopts it too. Robert Heinlein advocated for a fix more than half a century ago, and David Weber has reiterated the need this century.
The rank of Captain needs to be removed entirely from the hierarchy. It should be solely the title of a ship's commanding officer. Right now you have the special idiocy on aircraft carriers of having at least three Captains, and as many as four at once. The commander of the ship
Re: (Score:3)
good luck, traditions run deep... very deep. Do you know why we call bathrooms "the head" ? Because in the days of the USS Constellation, the only way to get flushing water was to put the bathroom at the head of the ship so that water can flow through as it cuts through the water.
why is scuttlebutt both a rumor and a drinking fountain? Because drinking water used to be located midship so as to not wake anyone asleep in their hammocks. People used to congregate and swap stories or rumors. It is also where th
Re: Captain?!? (Score:2)
The FDA and Dept of HHS uses naval rank structures and are not involved in warmaking. Lay off the coffee.
Fyi you point is overshadowed by your tone (Score:2)
You may or may not have something interesting to say about the FDA. Rather than making a factual statement which might inform readers, the post said:
"Lay off the MSM, idiot. You don't have a fucking clue about the killing that happens every day under your nose."
WatchMaster was reading YOUR post, not "the MSM".
You could have let them know about anything, countered whatever misinformation you see in in "the MSM"
Your post wasted that opportunity.
Re:Fyi you point is overshadowed by your tone (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, GP pointed out you had a chance to make citations and a real argument, but you chose emotional appeals and feelings over logic and reasoned argument.
Troll harder next time, kiddo.
Re: (Score:3)
"Space should be a zone of wonder, not of conflict and death." - Adrian Mallory (Space Force TV show on Netflix).
Re: (Score:2)
"This isn't about "identity" politics idiot. This is about war."
You poor blind fool. This is all about using things in space to kill each other on the planet. Did you not catch that the Iranian missile strike nonsense was all about gaining access to intel about our space based capabilities... particularly with regard to how effective they might be in response to hypersonic missiles?
Re: Captain?!? (Score:2)
So the victims died before it hurt then?
Re: Captain?!? (Score:2)
So long as they're not close to you then they're just little numbers in a book.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in this case, they're not numbers at all, and they're not written anywhere, because Space Force doesn't even have any ships with phasers yet.
I wonder if these fucksticks will ever in their pathetic lives discover the existence of the Merchant Marine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We ARE in a permanent war state with China and Russia mostly. The Iranian missile launches were tests on behalf of russia with their hypersonic missiles to see if they could safely shoot us with them. If they'd had more success we'd all be dead now.
As it is the battle front mostly political and digital. China and Russia are constantly spewing non-stop propaganda to get Americans into divisive politics and the world hating Americans. They've been very successful too. China is doing worse than the Nazi's ever
Re: (Score:3)
China is doing worse than the Nazi's every did right now and we are talking about how critical it is to toss out the evil dictator who won't give the order go out in force and arrest or shoot the protestors.
What is it that China is doing to us that is worse than invading other European countries, and putting 6 million Jews to death, and starting a global world war?
Re: (Score:2)
He was in Starfleet, not the U.S. Navy. Why the fuck should he know anything about U.S. Navy ranks?
Re:Captain?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
He means that US Space command is modelled after Air Force ranks, so if they did build a space ship and send it out, a colonel would be in command of it.
But we don't have spaceships, and Space Command will be guys sitting at desks commanding remote satellites and missiles. So a standard AF command structure seems quite acceptable. If one day we do get a fleet of real sci-fi style spaceships, then they can create a separate wing, with captain ranks, and man them from there. Somewhat like the marines are part of the navy but otherwise independant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no rank of Colonel in the U.S. Navy. WTF is he even talking about?"
Whhhhooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Colonel is an Air Force rank.
Re: (Score:3)
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Space Force to use the Navy's rank structure.
Where in any of this rich history of inspired heroes travelling into space was there a...colonel...?
There is no rank of Colonel in the U.S. Navy. WTF is he even talking about?
He's talking about, there is no rank of Colonel in the US Navy.
Your hearing aid seems fine, so it isn't the ears... try taking the cotton balls out of your ass, maybe you'll be able to hear better?
Colonels (Score:5, Informative)
Well, to pick one SF book which I read last week, in Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org]. (I should note, in fairness, that it uses naval ranks for the people who operate the spaceships and army ranks for the Mobile Infantry).
Re: Colonels (Score:5, Informative)
Also Stargate.
Re: Colonels (Score:4, Informative)
Stargate troops walk to other planets rather than use spaceships, thus the army ranks are appropriate.
Actually US Air Force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
per https://stargate.fandom.com/wi... [fandom.com]
Re: Colonels (Score:4, Informative)
Incidentally, if you look at the patches most of the people who work at Stargate Command and on the flight suits of people aboard the various Earth spaceships wore in Stargate SG-1 and spinoffs, they're wearing the actual USAF Space Command patch, which is the part of the Air Force that was spun off to create the Space Force.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was the Air Force -- and I think you are forgetting the X-302 and X-303. Yea, the movie, and the majority of the series centered around the gate, but there were many episodes at the end of the run of the series that deal with Prometheus and Daedalus. Also, SG Atlantis was almost all puddle jumpers.
Big SG fan ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Stargate troops walk to other planets rather than use spaceships, thus the army ranks are appropriate.
OK, you saw an episode.
Now find out they also used ships.
Re: Colonels (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty much any scifi besides star trek that has both ships and infantry uses naval ranks for the ships, army/marine ranks for the ground pounders
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much any scifi besides star trek that has both ships and infantry uses naval ranks for the ships, army/marine ranks for the ground pounders
I don't think Star Trek has infantry. The anti-militaristic United Federation of Planets really has no military at all, Starfleet is an exploration corps. Starfleet ships are armed because exploration is dangerous, but they're expected to use their weapons as little as possible. During the rare flareups of conflict with militarized spacegoing nations Starfleet sometimes has to militarize, but only briefly.
Starfleet ships do have security forces, but they're small and not really like shipboard Marines. US
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Star Trek has infantry.
Star Trek / Star Fleet has "marine infantry"
There is plenty of cannon to support that. Miles O'Brien fought in the Cardassian wars, in DS9 ground forces are fighting Dominion on plant surfaces.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, on Enterprise, there were a resident unit of Marines on board when they went back into the expanse to deal with the Xindi.
Re: (Score:2)
in DS9 ground forces are fighting Dominion on plant surfaces.
That sounds like a hell of a plant, I thought I saw them all but I must have missed an episode.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Star Trek uses Army/Marine ranks for ground troops. In Enterprise season 3, the MACO CO is "Major Hayes." In a couple of deleted scenes from Star Trek VI, there's a character, played by Rene Auberjonois, named "Colonel West." Apocrypha describes him as a "Starfleet Marine."
Re: (Score:3)
That was just Odo in disguise /s
Lots of Colonels (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of SF franchises utilize both air force (army) and naval ranks (both the Empire and Rebels in Star Wars [fandom.com] for example and even Star Trek [fandom.com] in the rare occasions that ground forces are shown). However, that just re-enforces the standard that naval ranks are used exclusively for the space-fairing portions of their armed forces.
It really depends on the roles. Some scifi delineates even further, with ground forces that are "army", and a space-based infantry that are considered marines and are used to board/protect from boarders the space ships, and spend just as much time in space as the ship crews themselves. So, if you are involved in operating, maintaining, or fighting the ships, your rank in naval: if your primary duty is infantry/small arms combat (even in space), you have army/marine ranks. It's really only in Star Trek wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd compare redshirts, (or yellow, depending on era,) to marines; although it's an apt comparison, (I think security on ship in the US Navy is generally provided by US Marines.)
If anything, I think they're supposed to be modeled after Navy Masters-at-arms [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
thats pretty much the consensus. The crew is always naval ranks, the ground pounders are often marines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like that would be a reference to the normal Navy/Marines structure.
A British Space Hero (Score:2)
Shatner is right (Score:3)
If we think about a future, where we actually do space travel as opposed to doing standard orbit around a planet without intelligent life for the rest of all eternity, naval ranks make more sense. Shatner is right, Roddenberry used naval ranks for a reason.
Re:Shatner is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Naval ranks make more sense because what? Why does the distance travelled affect whether it's more sensible to give a high-level commander a rank derived from the Arabic for "military commander" rather than the Italian for "commander of a column", or whether "captain" should mean OF-2 or OF-5? Why is it anything other than completely arbitrary?
Re: Shatner is right (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well another question is does it even still make sense for the Navy? Captains (COs) of a ship (regardless of actual rank) still at least from the perspective of someone outside the armed services appear to enjoy a lot of autonomy an army captain, with a small force somewhere in Afghanistan for example does not. I could be way off on that - and would be interested to hear from someone with first hand perspective.
We can however communicate except in the rarest of circumstances even in an active theater of war
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're way off, and in fact you had evidence of that in the first place when you made the shit up in your head and presumed it was relevant.
Etymology is still not meaning, and the etymology that has value to people who care about these terms are the recent etymology not some bullshit about the earliest form of the word. As in, the subject is military history not the history of language.
Re: (Score:3)
Star Trek already has a better reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to tell you guys, but the Space Force is already a punchline. Association with Star Trek can only help, at this point.
Explorers (Score:2, Interesting)
> I hate to tell you guys, but the Space Force is already a punchline.
The problem is with do-nothing wundermutts who mock the people that Get Things Done from the sidelines, not Star Trek or its fans.
It's damn near universally accepted that most of NASA's crew got interested in Space because of Star Trek or other SciFi (and definitely SpaceX). This has demonstrated real-world value.
It's always safe to ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism and Boldly Go while they bleat their derision at each other.
cf
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is with do-nothing wundermutts who mock the people that Get Things Done from the sidelines, not Star Trek or its fans.
Nothing is getting done.
After reading the article, it is quite apparent that the Space Force mission is based upon some bad episodes of Star Trek.
Just as on the high seas, America will need a force that can protect exo-economies in space, that can enforce norms and treaties, and keep friendly vessels from being preyed upon by space pirates.
Space pirates? Seriously?
If we ever get to the point of having exo-economies and colonies off Earth, the things we find out there are going to be things we could not even have imagined. Let alone basing the mission on a sort of science fictiony TV show where all the aliens are humans that are in desperate need of plastic surgery.
Starting such an organization n
Re: (Score:3)
Starting such an organization now is as useful as starting a Time Directorate to deal with the problems of time travel and protecting the President from people from the future who want to assassinate him - right after knocking out Hitler and Stalin.
Although really, to avoid any time paradoxes/ripples, if you were wanting to go back in time and assassinate specific world leaders, you would want to start with the most recent and work backwards. If you started at the beginning, by the time you got to your next few targets the timeline could be so messed up that your target isn't president but a janitor, bus driver, or doesn't even exist at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet there could be they would be pirates but pull back the curtains a bit and see that they are more accurately privateers that are running black ops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the technique to fit The Orange One into his golf cart.
Re: (Score:3)
Space Cadet (Score:2, Funny)
The US Space Force only needs one rank:
All members shall be referred to as Space Cadets.
Really? (Score:3)
Don't those taxpayers'-money-spending assholes have better things to do than argue about rank structures in a spurious organization whose name sounds like it was lifted from a kids' comic book? These fuckers need to get their heads out of their asses and take a good, honest look around at what's happening in the real world - there are FAR more important things to consider.
restrict Colonel (Score:3)
SG-1? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because they were Air Force. Colonels O'Neill (two L's), Maybourne, Carter, Shephard, Simmons, Ronson, Kirkland, even a Russian (Chekhov)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Rank Is Stink. (Score:2)
In space, everyone stinks.
So in reality, WE are the Alien.
Shatner? (Score:2)
Did he at least donate canned hams for the forces?
Space expert (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Patrick Stewart would be better suited to give his opinion, and I suspect he knows better than to get involved in that ridiculous waste of a taxpayer's money - unlike Shatner.
Re:Space expert (Score:5, Insightful)
Shatner is canadian. Why shouldn't he entertain himself by trolling the Great American Trainwreck ?
Space Force saves money (Score:3)
I can't take Space Force seriously (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it worked once with Air Force doesn't mean simply listing the medium you travel through and saying FORCE afterward doesn't sound childish.
How would you feel about renaming the Army Ground Force and the Navy Water Force, you see how silly that would make them sound?
We need a name that doesn't sound like a cheap childs cartoon.
I say play off the original name of the Air Force when it was an extension of the Army-Army Air Corps. Space Corps sounds much less cartoony and actually makes sense from a historical, evolutionary standpoint: each branch that began as an extension of an existing branch uses/used corps (Air Force(Air Corps)/Army as noted above, Marine Corps/Navy). And it really works because, like the Marine Corps with the Navy, it is still pretty reliant on the infrastructure of its parent branch, the Air Force.
Re:I can't take Space Force seriously (Score:4, Funny)
Colonels (Score:3)
Colonel Samantha Carter. She even saved two galaxies.
Re:Colonels (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but blow up a sun and that's all anybody remembers you for...
Re: (Score:2)
Starfleet has to meany officers! (Score:2)
Starfleet has to meany officers !
Endorsed by a Canadian? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sorry. But for an American Military Unit, I would rather have it endorsed by a US born Citizen of the United States I nominate George Takei who was actually born in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, Myyyyyyyyyyy. . . . ;)
Re:Endorsed by a Canadian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shatner is a naturalized US Citizen, which is good enough for holding military rank and necessary security clearances. His opinion matters just as much as someone born here. In the spirit of Trek, we shouldn't make such discrimination based on his unfortunate country of origin.
So far as I know, the only position exclusive to someone born here is POTUS.
Re:Endorsed by a Canadian? (Score:5, Funny)
further research indicates he's not actually a us citizen.
OK ARM THE TORPEDOES, THE CANUCK IS OUT.
Thanks (subset of) America (Score:2)
Thanks for the chuckles. In these difficult times it's great to be reminded of the important things in life, like whether being called Captain sounds more impressive than Colonel. That's the spirit!
Form Follows Function (Score:5, Insightful)
Reusing an existing rank structure where it is easy to map the jobs from one to the other will make things easier to integrate into the rest of the Armed Forces. So, the question then becomes: What do the spacecraft look like?
If the spacecraft look like the Space Shuttle, where the crew is essentially all in the cockpit and there is no engine room, then copying the Air Force ranks makes more sense.
If the spacecraft looks more like a submarine, where the crew can be all over the ship and there is an engine room and such, then copying the Navy ranks makes more sense.
As for the "foot soldiers", I could understand if they stuck with Army ranks since part of what they do is like the Airborne. However, I believe they would more closely resemble Marines as their VBSS training would be somewhat similar to tactics that a boarding party using a breaching pod or craft.
Over time, I'm positive that the Space Force will have to modify its rank structure in some way no matter which branch it uses as a model. However, that should not stop them from initially using the one that makes the most sense from a functionality perspective.
Honestly. . . the Space Force's biggest problem. . (Score:3)
. . .is going to be shedding the **very** corporate culture of the U.S. Air Force. Because, of the 4 major services, the USAF is far more of a 5-day-a-week/8-hour day duty cycle than the other services, There are reasons it is jokingly referred to as the Chair Force, and has, by far, the largest percentage of troops on weight and/or fitness management programs.
In an image: this is the problem:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Milit... [reddit.com]
Even in the 1980s, when I wore the Blue Suit, it was referred to as "IBM in uniform". . .
Trump admin thanks Shatner for his assistance (Score:2, Insightful)
Present day it make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the comments are talking about the future where there are spaceships, but I think even present day the naval paradigm makes more sense. The army organizes in groups of people: a platoon, company, brigade, etc. While the navy is organized by its assets or groups of those assets: ships, flotillas, fleets, task forces. Satellites and constellations of satellites are like ships: expensive machines manned by crews. Rather than the army's units of soldiers. The ground crews that manage the satellite constellations need to work in watches around the clock, like a ship. Satellites are also constantly in orbit like a ship on the seas, there's no deploying from a home base, going on patrol or sorting. And it makes sense for important/expensive satellites to have a single person with a small staff responsible for managing a satellite, like a ship's captain and officers. Admittedly the analogy breaks down beak each satellite doesn't need it's own ground crew. But I think the naval paradigm makes much more sense than the army one.
Cool. (Score:2)
I think they won't adapt seamen, but hey, Master Chief Petty Officer or Rear Admiral Lower Half, why not?
Why not ... (Score:2)
We could have all sorts of Chief Officers, Presidents, Vice Presidents, General Managers, Unit Chiefs, Program Managers, PHBs*, etc. And the people actually doing the work and taking the risks could be called Dilberts.
*Second Lieutenants [pandaberrytrail.com]
What the hell are we supposed to use? (Score:2)
Harsh language? - Frost, a Colonial Marine
Use the ranks for SHADO from UFO. (Score:2)
red shirt and top brass (Score:2)
They're not even similar (Score:2)