SM Rank

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There must have been other changes in the past 50 years. a USAF E-3 used to have one stripe, now has two.

My uncle was in the USAF not long after it became an independent service.

When he was in, all enlisted/NCO had the silver star in the centre.

One stripe - Airman 3rd Class (A3C)
Two stripes - Airman 2nd Class (A2C)
Three stripes - Airman 1st Class (A1C)

And so on...Staff, Technical, Master Sergeant, etc.  He also remembered serving Warrant Officers, and how he tended to actually respect them more than he did most second and first lieutenants.

To me one of the most baffling moves the Air Force made with rank was in the early '90s, when buck sergeant was eliminated...it seems odd going from SrA to SSgt without a basic "sergeant" rank, as with the Army and Marines.

If I could wave my magic wand...

E-1 Basic Airman (slicksleeve)
E-2 Airman (one stripe, blue star)
E-3 Airman First Class (two stripes, blue star)
E-4 Corporal (two stripes, silver star)
E-5 Sergeant (three stripes, silver star)
E-6 Staff Sergeant (three stripes, rocker below, silver star)
E-7 Flight Sergeant (three stripes, two rockers below, silver star)
E-8 Master Sergeant (three stripes, two rockers below, one chevron above, silver star)
E-9 Sergeant Major (three stripes, two rockers below, two chevrons above, silver star)
E-7 through E-9 are eligible for First Sergeant

WO1 - Warrant Officer
CW2 - Chief Warrant Officer Two
CW3 - Chief Warrant Officer Three
CW4 - Chief Warrant Officer Four
CW5 - Chief Warrant Officer Five
(all using original AF pattern warrant bars)

[Critical AOA]

At least in the Army, there is a CWO-5, so that adds one.

Also in the Army, we also had "Specialists" for certain MOS.  So as an E-4 depending on your job rather than being a Corporal you would be a Specialist or Spec 4.  Or if E-5 you'd be a Spec 5 rather than a Sergeant.  Of course the insignia is also different.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

[Critical AOA]

E1 through E9, WO-1through WO-4 and O-1 through O-10 for a total of 23 different grades. Does any organization really need that many?

To be fair, a lot of it is also "Pay" motivated.

E1-E9
O1-O10
WO1-WO4

They aren't interconnected, but all designate skill, time, and pay.

I just believe it would be better if the structure was less hierarchal and a little flatter.
 
As to pay, you also have time in grade as a determinant. You do not have to be promoted to make more money.  As to designating skills, that is why there are wings and other badges and insignia to pin on your uniform.  Frequently more pay goes along with those skills such as flight pay, jump pay, etc.

I believe that a large percentage of ranks exist just as a motivating factor to make some folks feel better about themselves or to give quick recognition at the lower ranks where promotions tend to come more quickly.   I do not believe there should be a need for this.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Also in the Army, we also had "Specialists" for certain MOS.  So as an E-4 depending on your job rather than being a Corporal you would be a Specialist or Spec 4.  Or if E-5 you'd be a Spec 5 rather than a Sergeant.  Of course the insignia is also different.  Totally unnecessary in my opinion.

That's the way it was when my dad was in the Army (1957-59).  He was among the earliest Specialists.  He told me that initially a Specialist (which in his day went up to Specialist 9) was to be an enlisted version of a Warrant Officer...and that a Specialist had NCO pay without NCO authority (an E-4 Corporal outranked an E-9 Spec-9).  I don't know what his MOS was but he fixed radios.



I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.

For a while my ex-brother-in-law had two uniforms (I saw them)...one with SP5 shields and one with SGT stripes.

The rank is now virtually a parody of what it was intended to be, since the promotions to it are now the rule, not the exception, and it is not based on a special MOS.  I have seen very, very few hard-stripe Corporals.

If the Army insists on having two grades of E-4, maybe having two levels of Corporal would be better...Canada does that with Corporal and Master Corporal.

I also think we in CAP and the AF (and the Army and Marines) have way too many levels of Sergeant.

[Camas]

I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.

The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.

[abdsp51]

I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines.  I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines.  I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system.

Agreed on buck sergeant.  Where the AF botched it when they had it was to make it a lateral promotion from SrA to Sgt and keep both in E-4 paygrade...I never cared for "Senior Airman" as a rank; it should have been "Corporal" to match the Army and Marines, and Sgt should have been bumped up to E-5 (again to keep in line with the other services).

I also think the other services have too many levels of sergeants; especially when you start getting into the higher levels...how many chevrons and rockers can fit on one sleeve?

With CAP NCO SM's, the ones who were buck sergeants get a raw deal.  They have to lose their NCO status by coming in as Senior Airman, which is not an NCO.  Yet CAP will not allow A1C or Amn to wear those stripes.

[PHall]

I dont think we have any more or less levels of sergeants than the Army or Marines.  I will say the AF did do a huge disservice by removing buck sergeant from the system.

Agreed on buck sergeant.  Where the AF botched it when they had it was to make it a lateral promotion from SrA to Sgt and keep both in E-4 paygrade...I never cared for "Senior Airman" as a rank; it should have been "Corporal" to match the Army and Marines, and Sgt should have been bumped up to E-5 (again to keep in line with the other services).

I also think the other services have too many levels of sergeants; especially when you start getting into the higher levels...how many chevrons and rockers can fit on one sleeve?

With CAP NCO SM's, the ones who were buck sergeants get a raw deal.  They have to lose their NCO status by coming in as Senior Airman, which is not an NCO.  Yet CAP will not allow A1C or Amn to wear those stripes.

One of the reasons given when E-4 Sergeant was eliminated was that with the E-4 NCO's, over 50% of the enlisted in the Air Force were NCO's.
A case of too many Chiefs and not enough indians...

[lordmonar]

Let's remember that most of the Army E-4's are not NCO either....they are specialists.....I don't know the numbers.....but it is very small.

[ColonelJack]

I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.

The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.

According to sources I've read, SP8 and SP9 grades only existed on paper.  No one was ever promoted to those grades. 

Not that I'd be in any position to question how the Army does things, but I don't understand why the Army has to have two E-4 grades.  What's wrong with being a corporal? 

Jack

[PHall]

I don't recall that he ever saw an actual SP9.

The SP8 and SP9 ranks existed for a time way back when but from what I understand no one ever wore these devices. When I was in Vietnam we had one guy who was a SP6; a translator who knew and spoke the Cambodian language. In time he was promoted to sergeant first class. Back to topic.

According to sources I've read, SP8 and SP9 grades only existed on paper.  No one was ever promoted to those grades. 

Not that I'd be in any position to question how the Army does things, but I don't understand why the Army has to have two E-4 grades.  What's wrong with being a corporal? 

Jack

A Corporal is an NCO and is in a leadership position. While a Specialist is not not in a leadership position. They're just a "worker bee".

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A Corporal is an NCO and is in a leadership position. While a Specialist is not not in a leadership position. They're just a "worker bee".

But what's the sense in having them?  After all, they are not "specialists" anymore and have not been for a long time.

The British, Australians and New Zealanders, as well as the USMC, have Lance Corporal and Corporal...and the Army had it from 1965-68.







Canada has Corporal and Master Corporal:



Two different paygrades, two different places in the hierarchy.

There could be a lot of simplification of the ranks across all the services, and, by extension, CAP.

[SarDragon]

I think the rational went/goes like this:

Joe Schmuckatelli joins the AF/Army and ends up in tech school. Finishes school and starts doing his tech job. As a newb, he has job skills, but maybe not so much in the way of leadership skills. He gets paid as an E-4 (SrA/SPC), but doesn't get any supervisory roles. After a while his leaderships skills have grown, and he's moved up to Sgt/CPL. This IDs him as a leader, instead of just a worker bee. After meeting the requisite quals, he moves up to E-5.

Not saying right or wrong, just one way to run the system.

[lordmonar]

I think the rational went/goes like this:

Joe Schmuckatelli joins the AF/Army and ends up in tech school. Finishes school and starts doing his tech job. As a newb, he has job skills, but maybe not so much in the way of leadership skills. He gets paid as an E-4 (SrA/SPC), but doesn't get any supervisory roles. After a while his leaderships skills have grown, and he's moved up to Sgt/CPL. This IDs him as a leader, instead of just a worker bee. After meeting the requisite quals, he moves up to E-5.

Not saying right or wrong, just one way to run the system.

The Army and USAF had two completely different rationals.

The Army said......these specialties and people doing them.....are not "leaders" they are "specialists"....they need to move up in the pay grades...but not in the "rank".  So they created the grades of Spec 4 through Spec 9 (at least on paper).

For a while it worked....but the Spec 5-7 grades got all jammed up so they decided to do away with them.

The USAF never had that mentality.  The mentality was that as an elisted guy moved up....they eased him into leadership.   Also there were specific hoops one had to jump through to move up to the NCO ranks.

So at, normally, 36 months time in service (having completed your 5 level) you were awarded your SrA rank.  Then you had to PME Phase I......after holding SrA for 12 months you put on your star and became a Sgt...and at that point picked up leadership roles.

What happened...is over the years.....going to PME became automatic and passing it became easier.......so it became just a simple waiting gain...stay in four years and you become an NCO.  Then you add the gray area between SrA and Sgt.  They were getting paid the same.  The Sgt is still jobing it on the floor/flight line/office just like his SrA counter parts....but he has the added responsibilty of supervising.  He was held to a higher standard of conduct.

On the other side of that coin was that some places did not have enough Sgt E-4s and so the SrAs were doing Sgt work....supervising, training, etc....and of course they did not have the recognition for their duties.

So the idea was to make being an NCO (and a SNCO) a "big deal".  They decided that the first NCO rank would be E-5...no more automatic NCOs.  You could not go to the new PME course until you had been a SrA for 1 year (this saved them training people who were getting out at 4 years).  It made a clear break between NCOs and Airman....and it made a clear distinction in their pay grades.

Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really?  You are about 50 years too late to that fight.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really?  You are about 50 years too late to that fight.

I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant.  That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt.  The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant

[PHall]

Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really?  You are about 50 years too late to that fight.

I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant.  That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt.  The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant

Uhhh, if it isn't broke, why fix it?  What "problem" are you trying to solve here? Because there isn't a "problem".

[lordmonar]

Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really?  You are about 50 years too late to that fight.

I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant.  That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt.  The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant

Yes...but you can't compare the RAF with the USAF...because they do their ranks and pay grades even more differently then the US does.

Becoming a Sgt in the RAF is a much bigger deal then becoming one in the USAF or even the Army.

[PHall]

Now...the idea that the USAF adopt the Army's rank names......really?  You are about 50 years too late to that fight.

I don't think it'd be the worst idea on a partial basis, along with one RAF-derived rank, Flight Sergeant, replacing Technical Sergeant.  That's another one trying to replicate the WWII days, and it doesn't fit the duties of a modern-day TSgt.  The Army replaced it with SFC and the Marines replaced it with GySgt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Sergeant

Yes...but you can't compare the RAF with the USAF...because they do their ranks and pay grades even more differently then the US does.

Becoming a Sgt in the RAF is a much bigger deal then becoming one in the USAF or even the Army.

Becoming a Sergeant in the RAF is pretty much equal with putting on Master Sergeant in the USAF.
Pretty much the same level of responsibilities is expected from each.

Also promotions in the RAF come at a much slower rate then you see in the USAF.