Space Force Rank.

(UPDATED)

Of course, I love Captain Kirk, both for how he inspired me to dream about space in my youth and for how an old episode of Star Trek can simultaneously still inspire me, make me laugh and make me feel young. So, naturally, when William Shatner weighed in on the Space Force debate, I was thrilled. More than that, I appreciated the humor he brought to the subject while still seriously articulating why he thought Space Force should use Naval Rank. This comes as Congressman Crenshaw has won some support for adding language to the next NDAA requiring Space Force to use a Naval rank structure.  This discussion is definitely in the zeitgeist.  It is worth noting that this would not even be a subject of conversation if anytime in the last 18 months, the Space Force planning team or Space Force leadership had simply announced their plan for a rank structure. 

I don’t actually feel strongly that the Space Force should use Naval Rank, myself. And I don’t think that just because Star Trek did it, that’s a good enough reason. But I do believe, strongly, that the Space Force needs many identity characteristics which will differentiate it from the Air Force. As the junior partner in the Department of the Air Force, and in the face of an at best neutral bureaucracy and at worst a hostile one, The Space Force must distinguish itself from the Air Force in the same way the similarly aligned Marine Corps Distinguishes itself from the Navy. A separate rank structure is one easy way to do that. I would argue that it is a critical step in defining the identity of the Space Force and its personnel.

It was gratifying to see this debate finally get some public attention, since so much of the Space Force organizational effort happens behind closed doors without public discussion or debate. However, I think it is important to recognize that Space Force can not simply carbon copy the Naval rank structure. Although many have made compelling cases for a space future more reminiscent of the maritime environment than an air or land equivelancy, it is clear that somethings simply wont translate. Take for instance the junior enlisted rank. Space force is not going to call someone a Seaman First Class.

During a discussion following another LinkedIn article, on this topic, author and editor Shaun Waterman stated “I get that the Navy rank structure, for reasons connected with the history and character of naval warfare, is arguably a better fit. I'm not sure I buy that a new, unique rank structure wouldn't be the best option. Especially if you incorporated the most resonant naval ranks, like captain, commodore and admiral.” Exactly right.  Noted military space thought leader, Peter Garretson, responded with what I think perfectly sums up the solution:

“Shaun, I think you provide a perfectly reasonable adaptation: Use the Naval ranks as the base structure. Keep the most resonant and iconic naval ranks for officers--truncate as required to fit the structure, adapt the enlisted ranks as required. Keep the insignia close enough that they are recognizable to minimize confusion. “

That is a Great plan! So here is my proposed rank structure, just to get the conversation started:

Enlisted Rank. Science Fiction is not as vociferous on enlisted rank as on officers, but enlisted identity is easily the most important as it will affect the greatest number of people and impact the culture of Space Force most profoundly. So it needs to begin with something uniquely Space Force. My recommendations are these:

E1  Sentinel or Sentry

E2  Sentinel Frist Class or Sentry First Class

E3  Senior Sentinel or Senior Sentry

E4  Specialist

E5  Petty Officer

E6  Petty Officer First Class

E7  Chief Petty Officer

E8  Senior Chief Petty Officer

E9  Master Chief Petty Officer

Space Force should definitely have Warrant Officers. The Air Force did away with this part of the rank structure (although the other services have retained it) because Warrant Officers are typically technical experts who aren’t supposed to be required to exercise a great deal of leadership and the Air Force believed that officers should be technical experts. I believe that was a mistake which emphasized technical expertise among officers over actual leadership. There can be no questions officers need to be technically competent, but decisiveness, making tough calls, seeing the big picture and understanding people, mission space and policy considerations are all at least as important. Having Warrant Officers in Space Force allows for a team focused on technical expertise, while officers, once they’ve demonstrated expected levels of technical understanding and competence, can focus on leading organizations, decision making, strategy and caring for subordinates. My proposed Warrant structure is:

W1  Warrant Officer

W2  Technical Warrant Officer

W3  Chief Warrant Officer

W4  Senior Chief Warrant Officer

W5  Master Chief Warrant Officer

In line with the quoted comments above, I propose officer rank which is very Naval in flavor, but not exactingly so. Rather than the cumbersomely title Lieutenant Junior Grade, I suggest Vice Lieutenant and in lieu of the confusingly awkward Rear Admiral (lower half), I suggest a return to the original term, Commodore. Here’s the list:

O1  Ensign

O2  Vice Lieutenant

O3  Lieutenant

O4  Lieutenant Commander

O5  Commander

O6  Captain

O7  Commodore

O8  Rear Admiral

O9  Vice Admiral

O10  Admiral

Let the debate continue.

Timothy Cox is a retired Air Force officer and defense professional with decades of military space experience. He works in the aerospace industry and lives in the National Capital Region. His opinions are entirely his own.