Does This Seem Like A Lot Of Admirals?

[Minimalist]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2393...-by-grade/

In 2017 the USN will have 221 admirals of various ranks and that will rise to 225 in 2018.

Meanwhile, 

The Navy currently sails 274 vessels as part of its battle force fleet, up from 271 the previous year but still well below both the Navy’s fleet goal

http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/.../u-s-navy/

that 274 ships contains a fair number of support ships and the navy also counts as "commissioned" the square-rigged tourist attraction in Boston Harbor, the USS Constitution.

Does every ship need its own admiral?  Or are we watching "grade-creep" in action?

[brewer]

Shit, thought this was going to be about SeaOrg.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, each ship doesn't need its own admiral. But if you want good men to stay on active duty you need to promote them when you can. I think you'll find that the pay difference between captain and rear admiral isn't that large, and the sum of the difference in pay for all those admirals is not even a significant line item in the Navy's budget.

And rank allows people to command groups of people. For instance, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel was a "four star" admiral, highest rank available in 1941. This gave him the authority to give orders to people like William "Bill" Halsey. There was no increase in pay, the pay scale topped out at rear admiral.

It was the same with "Commodore", a rank that had no benefits over the captain rank a commodore would be drawn from. But he was senior to every captain in his command, for the duration of his assignment as a commodore.

[Chad32]

I've heard that in the military, you need to be working on a promotion all the time. Otherwise they'll boot you out. So if people are staying in, they better be climbing the ranks.

[GUBU]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2393...-by-grade/

In 2017 the USN will have 221 admirals of various ranks and that will rise to 225 in 2018.

Meh, the British during the time of empire had so many admirals lying around that they didn't have ships to give them, and had to invent a flag rank "of the Yellow" to appoint those without command and stuck at home to.

Actually the number is the exact same that the UK had in Eighteen and Twelve, the year Nelson finally got his man.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've heard that in the military, you need to be working on a promotion all the time. Otherwise they'll boot you out. So if people are staying in, they better be climbing the ranks.

I retired in '89, so this is old news. Back then enlisted men didn't have to advance, they could soldier on at a lower rank, saved the Navy money. 

Officers had to retire if they were passed over for promotion three times.

[vorlon13]

AFAIK, even all the way back to the 60s, the Pentagon has been staffed with more (way more) officers than the entire war department needed during World War II.

If you want a reference for that, sorry, it's my recollection of a Time or Newsweek article I kinda recall reading during the Reagan military build up back in the 80s.

Lord knows the Pentagon has not suffered a reduction in head count of a single person since then.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, V.  That's what I was getting at. 

Top heavy with brass.

[vorlon13]

Un-fucking-believably top heavy with brass.


Can't help but feel they are all in a mutually symbiotic relationship dedicated to perpetuating their continued existence.

[Minimalist]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1...60771.html

Report: 70 Percent Of Retired Generals Took Jobs With Defense Contractors Or Consultants

Somehow I doubt this is going to improve under the WLB.