2
2
0
The rank of Chief Warrant Officer 6 was approved by the house but not by senate. Is there a case to be made for positional ranks similar to O9 and O10? No pay increase, just a higher position. Maybe 1 per functional branch?
[edit from original]
it looks like everyone missed the point of my question. I am asking for the devil's advocate argument in favor of a CW6. I don't there is one, but apparently there was enough of one in the past to suggest the billet. I just want to see if there is a reasonable argument for it for debate sake. I will try one:
Here goes,
The point of a CW6 is to bridge the gap of those personnel that want to – currently – be CW5 and then occupy the billet for more than a decade. Thereby blocking 1-2 cohorts from ever being allowed to attain the position.
Warrants are authorized up to 30 years as a Warrant. 10 U.S. Code § 571 limits active duty CW5s to 5% of the total on active duty.
WO1 – 2 years
CW2 – 5 years
CW3 – 5 years
CW4 – 5 years
That’s 17 years as a Warrant.
CW5 – now the CW5 could potentially sit in this position for 13 more years.
Creating a CW6 would significantly reduce this eventual issue to potentially sitting in a CW6 billet for 8 years and blocking far fewer.
Again, I'm just curious about the arguments in favor of authorizing a CW6.
[edit from original]
it looks like everyone missed the point of my question. I am asking for the devil's advocate argument in favor of a CW6. I don't there is one, but apparently there was enough of one in the past to suggest the billet. I just want to see if there is a reasonable argument for it for debate sake. I will try one:
Here goes,
The point of a CW6 is to bridge the gap of those personnel that want to – currently – be CW5 and then occupy the billet for more than a decade. Thereby blocking 1-2 cohorts from ever being allowed to attain the position.
Warrants are authorized up to 30 years as a Warrant. 10 U.S. Code § 571 limits active duty CW5s to 5% of the total on active duty.
WO1 – 2 years
CW2 – 5 years
CW3 – 5 years
CW4 – 5 years
That’s 17 years as a Warrant.
CW5 – now the CW5 could potentially sit in this position for 13 more years.
Creating a CW6 would significantly reduce this eventual issue to potentially sitting in a CW6 billet for 8 years and blocking far fewer.
Again, I'm just curious about the arguments in favor of authorizing a CW6.
CW5
Command Chief Warrant Officer
CW4
Edited 1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
8
8
0
IMO, without a pay increase it's a non-starter. I see no good reason for the CW6 rank. That said, I also think there are way to many General Officers in the Army.
(8)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - Pretty sure we also have more SNCOs athan we had at the height of WWII, but nobody asks for a justification for them.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
LCDR (Join to see) - No doubt sir, but they were not mentioned and I was avoiding the rabbit hole.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - Just noting that there does seem to be a view that we have an excessive number of General and Flag officers, but without really considering what that means.
What is the "right" number? While our WWII numbers are an interesting comparison, I don't think it follows that they are the "should be" measurement.
Do we have more than in WWII? Sure. However, we also aren't relying on allied forces to provide command and control along side us. Remember that we were just emerging as THE world power (taking over from the UK) at the time. We were also new to this whole "global superpower" thing. Who's to say we shouldn't have had MORE brass at the time? Yes, we won the war, but were there situations where closer oversight from more senior officers would have saved American lives?
We also need to consider that officer ranks don't exist in a vacuum. Our top officers expect to be compensated and regarded similarly to GS and SES employees of similar responsibility, as well as senior officers of other nations' militaries, with whom they work... and that's before even considering the private sector. Any O5 or above could easily double their pay the moment they retired.
Now compare that to the time and level of experience we demand for an increasingly-complex military force. It takes time to build a component commander. It takes longer to select your combatant commanders from those component commanders. If you're asking someone to sit around for 30 years before putting on stars... well, he probably has better options. Unless he's a mustang, in which case, we knew what we were getting into when we accepted a commission mid-career.
What is the "right" number? While our WWII numbers are an interesting comparison, I don't think it follows that they are the "should be" measurement.
Do we have more than in WWII? Sure. However, we also aren't relying on allied forces to provide command and control along side us. Remember that we were just emerging as THE world power (taking over from the UK) at the time. We were also new to this whole "global superpower" thing. Who's to say we shouldn't have had MORE brass at the time? Yes, we won the war, but were there situations where closer oversight from more senior officers would have saved American lives?
We also need to consider that officer ranks don't exist in a vacuum. Our top officers expect to be compensated and regarded similarly to GS and SES employees of similar responsibility, as well as senior officers of other nations' militaries, with whom they work... and that's before even considering the private sector. Any O5 or above could easily double their pay the moment they retired.
Now compare that to the time and level of experience we demand for an increasingly-complex military force. It takes time to build a component commander. It takes longer to select your combatant commanders from those component commanders. If you're asking someone to sit around for 30 years before putting on stars... well, he probably has better options. Unless he's a mustang, in which case, we knew what we were getting into when we accepted a commission mid-career.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG Roger Ayscue - FYI...as of Jan 2024 the Army has 270 active duty GOs, approx 39 exceeding what is authorized by law (15 x ****; 43 x ***; 101 **; 111 x *). Many of these are Joint billets (DoD J-staff / CCMDs) and are part of the Army's argument. Whatev...the Army is recognizably more top-heavy than it has ever been and it will continue to resist any congressional reduction in GO billets as long as the SECDEF doesn't wield a heavy hammer on this topic.
Suspended Profile
One of the primary arguments against creating a CW6 billet is the cost associated with adding another senior warrant officer rank. You could make a case for pay stop at CW5 and that would factor into a cost-benefit analysis. However, the CW6 billets across all the warfighting functions (WWFs) have to come from somewhere (no growth) and the Branches would have to identify the "bill-payers". There is nonetheless still a 'cost' associated with this endeavor if adding CW6 means adding growth to manpower; increasing the defense budget.
Would need to also demonstrate to the Senate that there is insufficiency in the existing ranks of warrant officers, from CW2 to CW5, demonstrating the gaps and that creating a new rank is not redundant. Secondly, the Senate's rank-bloat concerns would have to be addressed, that this would not cause administrative challenges and a complicated chain of command.
Would need to also demonstrate to the Senate that there is insufficiency in the existing ranks of warrant officers, from CW2 to CW5, demonstrating the gaps and that creating a new rank is not redundant. Secondly, the Senate's rank-bloat concerns would have to be addressed, that this would not cause administrative challenges and a complicated chain of command.
Suspended Profile
Should congress authorize the Army CW6? | RallyPoint
Congress created the Army CW6 rank in the 1970's but never authorize it. For years it has always been my opinion that O-Grade officers have their voice in the Pentagon (The Army Chief of Staff), the NCO's have their voice (The CSM of the Army), why can't the the Warrant Officers have their voice at the top of the chain?What say you, my fellow Cohorts?
Suspended Profile
Do we need a CW6 rank? | RallyPoint
What do you think. Do we need a CW6? I do not think so. Also I think the air force wants warrant officers back in their force structure
PO1 William Van Syckle
I don’t think we need a CW6 rank. The SMoA is an E9, so the Senior Chief Warrent (SCW) should be a CW5. That said, the Navy needs to go to a CW5 program like the Army’s. It’s only fair…..
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
As I understand it the reason for no O grade pay increase is based on a Federal limit, as for Congress, Senate etc.
Back to the question regarding WO, it makes sense with regard to level of responsibility, as there should be for CSM (E9), pay stopes at Battalion initial promotion until someone is selected for SMA, there is accommodation on the pay scale for that position.
Service members should be compensated for their level of responsibility. Good Luck.
Back to the question regarding WO, it makes sense with regard to level of responsibility, as there should be for CSM (E9), pay stopes at Battalion initial promotion until someone is selected for SMA, there is accommodation on the pay scale for that position.
Service members should be compensated for their level of responsibility. Good Luck.
(4)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Good point CSM Darieus ZaGara, now let me ask you to clarify one thing. When you say that "Service members should be compensated for their level of responsibility" do you feel that a Bde or Div CSM has a greater level of responsibility than a Bn CSM. Obviously there are more enlisted personnel in the overall unit, but do you see a real change in the "level of responsibility"? Does the larger unit mean doing something different or simply doing more of the same thing?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google