No Captain James T Kirk....Or Admiral Woolsey

A better question might be, why is Space Force using a military rank structure of any sort?

Our current system dates back over 2,000 years. You've got officers making policy, non-commissioned officers implementing policy, and the grunts that do the majority of the fighting. Doesn't matter if it's Centurions, Decurions, and Legionaries, or Colonels, Sergeants, and Privates. The purpose is the same.

The military rank structure (and the rules establishing them, whether they be the Articles of War or the Uniformed Code of Military Justice) has one overwhelming purpose: The application of lethal force in the service of the country. Primarily this application is against the enemies of the country in question. But it also establishes the use of lethal force against one's own troops if they fail to follow orders. In combat, NCOs were "file closers"... men who would shove replacements into the front lines as soldiers were injured, and would prevent men from deserting their posts in combat. NCOs were expected to summarily execute men trying to desert. "Pour encourager les autres" is the pithy French term for this: "To encourage the others."

But the situation in Space Force *isn't* the same. No one fights. Just about everyone works in a quiet office or maintenance environment. And if Space Force ever has manned vehicles? The US has *never* sent a non-commissioned officer into space, nor even a lowly private or airman. Those that were military were all officers...occasionally accompanied by ordinary civilians. This is a complete inversion of the traditional purpose for military ranks.

So...why does Space Force need E-1s? E-6s? Why force technicians into enlistment contracts? Why not make them civil service, instead?

Kipling wrote, "The 'eathen in the darkness must end where he began, but the backbone of the Army is the non-commissioned man." But Space Force isn't an Army. If you've got an excellent technician who can run a maintenance team, give him appropriate Government Service rank. He or she doesn't need stripes on their sleeves, nor the mickey-mouse associated with the military command structure.

Ironically, this is something that Star Trek got: All member of Star Fleet were officers.

And, in fact, Space Force probably *does* need commissioned officers. An officer with a commission is a representative of the government, and thus if Space Force ever DOES perform any military action in space, the people in charge of it probably need commissions.

Ironically, most of the above applies to the Air Force as well. Maybe in 1947, 60% of the bomber crews were enlisted, and the Air Police protecting the bases were mostly sergeants and airmen. But even the BUFFs don't carry gunners anymore, and base security is mostly non-enlisted security cops.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
But the situation in Space Force *isn't* the same. No one fights. Just about everyone works in a quiet office or maintenance environment.

8< snip....

But Space Force isn't an Army.
Click to expand...
Today.
 
Aww come on. They should have gone Navy with the vessels. Hahaha.

The world needs more “Rear Admiral Lower Half”s instead of “Commodores” because someone didn’t like the Brits.

It’s so much clearer. LOL.
 
From the article
"The Space Force unofficially calls its people “Space Professionals” as it figures out whether to go with “sentinel,” “guardian,” or another moniker."

Another option would be the Interplanetary Patrol as described in Heinlein's "Space Cadet".

BTW - Vanguard is selling Space Force coins for $15.
 
DaleB said:
wanttaja said:
But Space Force isn't an Army.
Click to expand...
Today.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define "Army." :)

If Space Force ever needs a conventional infantry-type force, it's going to be robotic. Logistics for remote deployments on Earth is bad enough. Human troops deployed to orbit are going to need 100% of the supplies, plus air, plus facilities to enclose them between missions, plus weeks of orientation once they're on orbit to get them to stop barfing and learn how to handle themselves in zero-G.

Instead, robotic soldiers. All they need is power, which is relatively easy to come by in space.

If you define "Army" in the military-bureaucratic sense, it's likely well on its way. No doubt, at some point, a Space Force member is going to be threatened with an Article 15 for not wearing his hat outside the barracks on Earth.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Shepherd said:
I'm Air Force, and it's killing me to say this.
If the "Space Force" is going to have ships, it needs to have Navy style ranks.
Click to expand...
I think the split is whether the "Captain" is the person primarily involved in the physical control of the vehicle.

In the Air Force, the "captain" is the guy doing most of the flying. In the Navy, the "captain" tells enlisted sailors what do do with the controls. In the Air Force, the guy at the controls is God, while in the Navy, he or she can be quickly dismissed and replaced.

The Space Shuttle had a Pilot and a Commander, but the Commander had to be a fully-qualified pilot. Until space operations can depart from this paradigm, might as well keep the Army-style ranks.

Once again, though, the terms "Company grade" and "Field grade" are meaningless in Space Force.... just like in the Air Force.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Shepherd said:
I'm Air Force, and it's killing me to say this.
If the "Space Force" is going to have ships, it needs to have Navy style ranks.
How/who else is going to cart the Mobile Infantry off to different worlds to fight the Bugs?
Click to expand...

Kind of like when a midshipman at Annapolis asked a Marine DI at Quantico what Marine stood for. The DI was ready to eat him, but cracked up when the midshipman said....


My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment
 
Military experts initially laughed at the idea of an "air force," too, but it became obvious very fast that it was useful — the British founded the RAF in 1918, just 15 years after the first flight (the USAF took 29 more years, but that's another story). There's no comparable experience to back a "Space Force."

Are people really taking this thing seriously, or is it mainly a joke behind closed doors in military circles?
 
For what it's worth, the US Public Health Service has Navy rank, Navy pay grade, they wear Navy uniforms, and they go through Naval OCS. I'm actually not even sure if the USPHS has enlisted ranks. They are classified as a "uniformed service" but not an armed force. They are basically the fifth, unarmed branch of the military.

I don't exactly know what their purpose is. One of their functions is that they take primary responsibility over Indian tribal health and sanitation oversight. Why this isn't done by a branch of the EPA vs. a military unit is beyond me. Tribal water and sewer facilities are regulated by the federal EPA.
 
David Megginson said:
Military experts initially laughed at the idea of an "air force," too, but it became obvious very fast that it was useful — the British founded the RAF in 1918, just 15 years after the first flight (the USAF took 29 more years, but that's another story). There's no comparable experience to back a "Space Force."

Are people really taking this thing seriously, or is it mainly a joke behind closed doors in military circles?
Click to expand...


It's basically the same as how the USAF came about...splitting off from the US Army. Space Command has been a MajCom of the USAF since 1982. The "Space Force" is the splitting off from the USAF to it's own branch.


Edit to add:

https://www.afspc.af.mil/About-Us/

Being pilots, it should be interesting to note that GPS came about as a military means of satellite navigation that was released to the general public for free. Satellite communications have also been a large part of Space Comm’s responsibility. We have quite a few very useful satellites circling the globe, thanks to Space Command. And just as every airman in the USAF is not a pilot, every member of the new Space Force is not and will not be an astronaut. It takes a whole lot of ground support to put vehicles into space. Heck it takes a whole squadron of ground pounders just to put 12 fighters in the air.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
Chief O’Brian might object, too. But the original writers guidelines said all were officers....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
ST:ENT had some sort of space marines.
 
I want to know if or when the space force does manned missions (or even unmanned) of any sort do they plan to use the "USS" designation and call them ships or not bother and call them craft or vehicles?
 
Kansas Flyer said:
I want to know if or when the space force does manned missions (or even unmanned) of any sort do they plan to use the "USS" designation and call them ships or not bother and call them craft or vehicles?
Click to expand...
I suspect the Air Force heritage will cause them to continue to be called "spacecraft."

The USS, HMS, etc. names are used to designate "national" ships; those owned by the government rather than a private entity. "Commissioned" ships are assumed to be commanded by persons formally representing their government. I don't think this is going to be an issue in space for decades, if not a full century.

Ironically, the original USS Enterprise (launched in 1799) weighed about the same as a fully-loaded B-52....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I am content they are staying with Air Force rank structure.

The most important question: is a vehicle in space, a spacecraft or a spaceship?
On earth we have mostly aircraft and just a few airships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top