An Admiral for every two ships

[em2nought]

We, "the USN", have around 290 Admirals and around 490 ships. Seems just a tad top heavy.


https://www.quora.com/How-many-US-Na...rently-serving


https://www.google.com/search?client...ips+in+the+usn

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by em2nought

We, "the USN", have around 290 Admirals and around 490 ships. Seems just a tad top heavy.


https://www.quora.com/How-many-US-Na...rently-serving


https://www.google.com/search?client...ips+in+the+usn

Maybe it's a reflection of modern ethos. I see this at work when everyone has to show some growth for every review because it's not good enough to just do your job well anymore, you have to demonstrate progress and goals. I blame this for most of the growing stupid busy work people invent because, damnit, something has to change regardless of whether it makes any sense.

[Platapus]

Back when I was at SAC HQ in Nebraska, we had 34 general officers just on that one base. Yikes!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Maybe it's a reflection of modern ethos. I see this at work when everyone has to show some growth for every review because it's not good enough to just do your job well anymore, you have to demonstrate progress and goals. I blame this for most of the growing stupid busy work people invent because, damnit, something has to change regardless of whether it makes any sense.

I think you are right. Before 1947, an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) could have a respected, full, and honorable career and never be promoted higher than mid grade.


It was in 1947 that the DoD implemented the concept of "up or out".



This policy of measuring success by promotion has its supporters and opponents. in 2005, the RAND corporation was contracted to study "Up and Out" and to suggest better solutions. Slowly some of the suggestions were adopted.



One of the most glaring issues with "up or out" is that the ranks become top heavy which violates the principle of pyrimidine structures of command (narrow at the top, wide in the middle, narrow at the bottom) and ends up costing a lot more money.



The corporate world has some of these same issues. To be considered successful, one is often promoted to a management position.


What if a person does not want to be a manager, but wants to remain a tech? In some companies, this can work, but in others it does not bode well for a person's career.

[Skybird]

Thats what happens when promotiosn are gioven not accotrding to servic emerits and shown competence, but time of service. Promotions are given according to timetable.

Compare the inflation of active and retired (=pensioneering) generals in the German army today with its 180,000 troops, with the number of active and retired/surviving generals at the height of the WWII when the Wehrmacht had at some time 6.5 million soldiers under weapons (over the full length of the war there have been some 18 million, but not all at the same time). The Bundeswehr has more!

Promotion according to serving years should be scrapped.Merits, shown competence and experience in the assigned task should be the criteria.


And no, not everybody can become a general/admiral. And even shouldn't.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by em2nought

We, "the USN", have around 290 Admirals and around 490 ships. Seems just a tad top heavy.


https://www.quora.com/How-many-US-Na...rently-serving


https://www.google.com/search?client...ips+in+the+usn

The number of admirals serving in the Royal Navy now outstrips the number of warships in the Fleet, new research has revealed. There are currently 41 admirals, vice-admirals and rear-admirals but with constant cuts the number of fighting ships in the Navy now stands at just 40.

[Platapus]

This reminds me of the last company I worked for


For a employee population of under 4,000 we had 19 vice presidents.


Some were senior vice presidents.


But considering that each Vice President had to have at least 3 General Managers, and each General Manager had to have at least 2 level four managers and each level 4 manager had to have at least two level three managers.


Each of these managers had their posse of worker bees.


I thought that having four VPs for the entire company would be more than enough.



I worked for that company for 15 years and I never understood what value these 19 (and growing!) number of VPs did..... other than collect their $3-400,000 salary and some other benefits.



I offered to the president an idea for a contest


1. Name the Vice Presidents of our company
2. Explain what each Vice President did


Oddly, my suggestion was ignored.

[em2nought]

I wonder if the total time spent saluting has increased proportionately over the years?



I was pretty happy at E-5, I skipped taking an advancement test while being an E-4, and they got all pissy about it.

[Platapus]

E-5 was a good rank as you were mostly invisible and just expected to shut up and do your job.

[mapuc]

What is this E4 and E5 ?

Markus

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by mapuc

What is this E4 and E5 ?

Markus

The formal ranks for a Petty Officer third class and Petty Officer second class (in the US Navy).

I could write more about this if you're interested, but it would be a long slog.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

The formal ranks for a Petty Officer third class and Petty Officer second class (in the US Navy).

I could write more about this if you're interested, but it would be a long slog.

No Your answer was enough to explain what E4 and E5 mean.

I guess E4 is Petty Officer third class
and E5 is is Petty Officer second class

Could also be the other way around.
If so then E3 must be Petty officer first class

Markus

[Arlo]

For U.S. naval flag officers (one star and above) ... or even Commander and above ... it becomes more about politics than competence. I'm not saying they are generally all incompetent but they reach a level where delegating authority and duties suffice as long as you can somewhat trust in the abilities of your command and you end up putting more effort in pleasing the upper chain of command with non-military related action.

In other words, if nobody in your command screws up and makes you look bad then just make sure Admiral so-n-so wins on the links or poker table, marry his daughter and keep her very happy and make sure all of your political, social and other opinions are completely aligned.

Of course, there are times when really bad personal decisions see the light of day and your career is suddenly over (caught with bad gambling debt, messing around with prostitutes or lower enlisted, not being able to keep your alcoholism or drug use under wraps).

That or someone on the bridge allows your ship to run aground while you're napping.

So, in a political world of .... world class kiss-ups (in that afore-mentioned 'up-or-out' system) ... many of whom are academy grads ... you get overloaded with star wearing types.

I suspect it's much the same in other branches.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by mapuc

No Your answer was enough to explain what E4 and E5 mean.

I guess E4 is Petty Officer third class
and E5 is is Petty Officer second class

Could also be the other way around.
If so then E3 must be Petty officer first class

Markus

E-1 - Seaman Recruit (no stripes)
E-2 - Seaman Apprentice (two stripes)
E-3 - Seaman (three stripes)

E-4 - Petty Officer third class (one chevron/crow)
E-5 - Petty Officer second class (two chevrons/crow)
E-6 - Petty Officer first class (three chevrons/crow)

E-7 - Chief (Petty Officer) (gold anchor)
E-8 - Senior Chief (gold anchor with star)
E-9 - Master Chief (gold anchor with two stars)

"E-9 Plus"- Command Master Chief, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy.

Remember, I warned you that this gets complicated..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...enlisted_rates

[Arlo]

For a little historical reference (WWII):

https://world-war-2.wikia.org/wiki/U..._Rank_Insignia

The 'E' designations remain the same only there were no senior chiefs and above. Cuff designations on dress uniforms existed instead of the 'chicken scratches' for E-2 and E-3. Dungarees sported no rank designators on sleeves.