Posted on Sep 11, 2023
CW4 Attache Technician
21.5K
93
39
52
52
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.
Edited 2 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 20
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
CW5 Fixed Wing Aviator (Aircraft Nonspecific)
12
12
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.
(12)
Comment
(0)
LCDR Aerospace Engineering Duty, Maintenance (AMDO and AMO)
LCDR (Join to see)
2 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
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.
MAJ Environmental Science and Engineering
MAJ (Join to see)
4 mo
I can't agree with you more in regards to how top heavy the Army has become. I'm predicting a lot of those billets will be cut in the very near future (GOs, CSMs, and CW5s). I'm sure they will start at the Pentagon and then work their way down from their. Their are approximately 809 active-duty general and flag Officers (GFOs)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44389

Below is the CRS 03/08/2024 report

Table 3. Number of Active-Duty General and Flag Officers

As of September 30, 2023

Grade Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Space Force TOTAL

General/Admiral 15 7 2 11 2 37

Lieutenant General
/Vice Admiral 44 28 16 39 5 132

Major General/
Rear Admiral 95 53 30 68 6 252

Brigadier General /
Rear Admiral
(Lower Half) 113 104 37 123 11 388

TOTAL 267 192 85 241 24 809

Source: Department of Defense Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade and Service, September 30, 2023, available at https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports. Includes GFOs in Service and Joint assignments.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Transportation Officer
CPT (Join to see)
4 mo
Spot on, too many generals. Many of whom shouldn’t even be generals.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Darieus ZaGara
5
5
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.
(5)
Comment
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
MSG Thomas Currie
9 mo
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
Edited 2 y ago
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.
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
2 y
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
2 y
PO1 William Van Syckle
PO1 William Van Syckle
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Patrol Deputy
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
That’s what an answer looks like from someone who went to War College.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar feed
What is the argument to create a CW6 billet?
1LT Chaplain Candidate
2
2
0
Edited 2 y ago
I'm pretty sure the argument is that it'd be really cool. CW5's are mythical unicorns. CW6's would be literally invisible.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Aerospace Engineering Duty, Maintenance (AMDO and AMO)
2
2
0
As rare as W5s are, I'm not sure W6s make sense - especially if they're one per branch. The MCPON is an E-9, just like any Command Master Chief, Engineering Department Master Chief, or Maintenance Master Chief. Likewise, the CNO has the same paygrade as a geographic combatant commander.

That said, I know the Army makes warrants with far less time-in-service than the Navy does, so there may be benefit in providing longer career granularity.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
I don’t think so. A higher Warrant Officer rank doesn’t suddenly increase our knowledge base or our credibility within our units, or the Army for that matter.

Reputation is built quickly for those who prove their expertise time and again. We become well known as an individual. I’m happy with what we have now.

At the O9-O10 level, with a complimentary E9, they should have enough time and experience to no longer require our assistance.

Our very best work is done at the brigade and below levels, developing those young future generals and command sergeants major.
CW5 Roger Jacobs
1
1
0
Your reasoning for CW6 doesn't take into account attrition of Warrant Officers at all levels. I am one of the CW5's that held the rank for over 10 years. I successfully recommended several NCO's to become Warrant Officers. On average they retired at the CW3-CW4 level. Even among CW5 Tech Warrants they usually retire after 3 years time in grade. In my field, we were always short of required and authorized CW5's. I joked with a lot of Raters and Senior Raters about making the statement, "Authorize CW6 and make him the first one." You aren't seeing a lot of support for your position because most don't see either the need or the value.
(1)
Comment
(0)
CW4 Mike O'Brien
CW4 Mike O'Brien
8 mo
Most of the CW5s I have met were junk. Some were bad WOs from the beginning. Some just lost their expertise in the field because they were politicians and no longer WOs. As a tech in the old days you would be at the E6 promotable level or above before you could go WO. If you stayed in you could retire with 30 years as a CW4 or CW5. I have seen CW5s that go from one easy billet to another and back to their old position. Now that the WO are picked up with 3-6 years in they do not help the process. Most are barley able to do there job much less be a leader for the NCOs that work for them. As far as Warrants retiring at 20 or so, it is because they are worth more in industry. Many of the CW5s got promoted because they were afraid to leave. And the selection process has put more great CW4s out and politician promoted to CW5, heck no reason to promote a politician to the CW4 and CW5 how to do their jobs when the only thing they (the CW6) knows how to do is kiss ass. The Army could keep 4 longer by paying them what they are worth. When I retired a SGM made more than I did as a CW4. I can promise most CW4s bring more to the table than 3/4 of then SGMs.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Byron Oyler
1
1
0
The entire purpose of warrants are experts in a field and they stay actively working in that field. Whatever the administrative role a CW6 would do, a regular officer could do for them.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW5 Aviation Materials Officer/Ch 47 Maintenance Examiner
1
1
0
A multitude of arguments for CW6. The key, is the questionable Personal or just inquisitive. Many answers revolve around the locking of positions due to long term service. That is a personal question. Yes, there are plenty who need to move on. But there are also the rare folks who bring massive amounts of experience and value to the table. Kicking these people out is just like saying, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”.

From an inquisitional manner, the intent of the W6 was for Corp and above upward mobility. Reason, with upward mobility comes greater responsibility. Pretty simple. Recognizing that responsibility was the intent. What is the difference between a CW5 at a Battalion and one working for a 4 Star? Same pay. Bunches more responsibility…or is it?
I worked at an Aviation Support Battalion on a 2011-12 deployment as the Aviation Materials Officer. Because I was a VERY senior Maintenance Officer, I was placed in charge of detailed aviation Maintenance for the largest Aviation Brigade in History with 289 Aircraft. Just under $8 Billion in hardware. A 3 star called me weekly. I was just a little CW5 at a Battalion. More or less responsibility then a W5 working at Core?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
GySgt Legal Services Specialist
0
0
0
I will preface this with, I personally hate these kind of questions. First off, we don’t need more Chiefs, no pun intended, we need more worker bees. If the problem is that people can sit at the top too long and bog down promotions, maybe require another year of time in grade for each promotion. Also, raise the minimum time in service before you can apply for WO. How are you really a SME in 6 years. Yep, I am sure there are the studs out there but in reality, I have seen a lot of non-studs who just have good records. Not hating, just a reality. Or we can do like the Marine Corps Gunners and if I am not mistaken, the Navy CWO that have to be E-7s to apply. Maybe, instead of adding another rank to not bog down promotions, they allow a CWO-4 or 5 to fully convert to the dark side and become a Captain. That way the officer rank has people with experience and that the enlisted respect because they have been there done that. Once again, not hating on commissioned officers, we lowly enlisted respect a guy who has worked his way from scrubbing crappers to shiny stuff on their collars…as long as they don’t forget where they came from. Aside from freeing up promotions, is there honestly a need?

We don’t need more ranks in the service, we need to stop promoting so fast. Make the rank mean something. No more automatic promotions because of time in grade or service and maybe start putting senior folks out who are retired on active duty and just collecting a pay check. That is just my opinion worth about 1.3 cents.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.