US Navy enlisted rating system ends after 222 years

[J.T. Broderick]

The US Navy has scrapped its system of individual specialty-based ratings for enlisted personnel.

http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/r ... V16218.txt

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/navy ... r-shake-up

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-move-t ... s-1.431669

All personnel in pay grade E-4 will now be simply "petty officer 3rd class" and so on. E-1, E-2 and E-3 group rates titles of fireman, airman and constructionman will be eliminated in favor of seaman.

No changes in insignia have bee announced yet.

--Justin

[SFMRAS]

Not exactly sad to see it go. I'm surprised it was a complete axing, though.
I know when I design naval ranks/rates, i trim it down to branch titles, weaponsman - torpedoes, missiles, energy weapons, kinetic weapons, etc. - engineeringman, medic, etc. Kind of expected something similar.

[Helios88]

I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.

[Silverturtle]

I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.

True; but some folks when I was in the service resented that fact that an E-5 clerk made the same salary as an E-5 aircrewman.

[jrichardn2]

Purely as an observer, I liked the hint of ancient tradition in the system - "Boatswain's Mate" or "Machinist's Mate" hinted at long-ago existence of a warrant Boatswain or Machinist to whom the petty officer was a mate.

In the British-derived navies (please correct me if I'm wrong) I understand that the corresponding ranks have been "Petty Officer" and "Chief Petty Officer" for a very long time.

But I do wonder if Silverturtle is onto something. Maybe the USN would've been better off reducing the number of ratings to a dozen or fewer so that the technical and warfighting ratings were clearly differentiated from the support ratings.

[Helios88]

I think it is a sort of improvement: also in the army, if I don't get wrong, a corporal is a corporal regardless it is a rifleman, a tank driver or a missile operator.

True; but some folks when I was in the service resented that fact that an E-5 clerk made the same salary as an E-5 aircrewman.

I think that this could be overcome by giving the same salary to both sailors, AND giving a special surplus to difficult tasks or jobs.

[Silverturtle]

Helios88 wrote:

I think that this could be overcome by giving the same salary to both sailors, AND giving a special surplus to difficult tasks or jobs.

It's been that way since the early 1970's -- it doesn't matter if you're a Navy yeoman or a Navy torpedoman; if you're both an E-5, you get the same pay. But I think the torpedoman would get extra for hazardous duty pay.

[Luke2]

Doesn't aircrewmen get fligth pay in addition to basic pay? Doesn't ratings that serve at sea get sea pay? A yeoman on a ship is as likely to be killed as a torpedoman.

[Silverturtle]

Luke:
On the sea pay you might be right -- I do know that in the USAF you do receive extra flight pay if you were an aircrew member; no matter if you were a pilot, navigator, flight engineer, etc.

But I flew; but never got the flight pay . .

[marcpasquin]

But I flew; but never got the flight pay . .

in what role ?

[gghbisa]

This idea has been scrapped.

The NAVADMIN is available here:

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/21/cno-doc-navy-ratings

Apparently there was a huge backlash in the fleet and the navy listened.

It is also possible that with Secretary Mabus’ term ending, it may have been thought that the new administration would reverse the decision anyway. It is notable that the new order comes from Admiral Richardson and not Mabus.