Talk:Admiral (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This doesn't specifically state what the job of a U.S. Admiral is. If a Vice Admiral commands a numbered fleet, then what does an Admiral do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.65.237 (talk) 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vice Admirals do not just command fleets. the U.S. Code of law, specifically 10 USC 601 of the code, states that the President can designate any position of importance and responsibility to carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral, as long as it still falls under the finite number of flag officers designated under 10 USC 526 and with the concent of the Senate. So vice admirals are also deputy commanders, deputy directors, chief fleet/command staffs, and even directors of specific programs. Admirals, under the U.S. Code, can be unified combatant commanders, overall commander of navy forces serving under a unified combantant commander, director of naval nuclear propulsion, vice chief of naval operations, or chief of naval operations. Neovu79 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

5-star generals/equivalent are only for "War-time use." Is that supposed to mean that the war includes the U.S or that the war is being fought in the U.S or something else? I understand that WW1 and 2 are examples, but what does the phrase mean exactly? Somebody please link the phrase to an appropriate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.18.100 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the rank technically still exist is because in 1946, Congress passed Pub.L. 79-333 which made the 5 star ranks permanent. Now bare in mind that this is a very old law and several paragraphs in it have been subsequently changed/amended. For example, the permanent rank of general for the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the permanent rank of admiral for the Commandant of the Coast Guard have been amended and made temporary ranks by 10 U.S.C. § 601, however the parts about the permanent 5-star ranks are still exist in law today. Neovu79 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maximum number

According to the article, the Navy is limited to 216 flag officers. Of these only 16.3% (35) may have three or four stars. The number of four-stars is further limited to 25% of the total three/four stars. 25% of 16.3% of 216 is 8.8; while standard rounding of this calculation does give 9 four-stars, using them as limits gives only 8 four-stars (since 9 four-stars would be 25.7% of 35). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true, however since the President may also add three- and four-star slots to one service if they are offset by removing an equivalent number from other services, the limit number is rounded to the nearest whole integer. Neovu79 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Out of curiosity, did a past president officially give the Navy the last fifth of the ninth four-star, or was rounding written into the statute itself? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rounding is not officially stated in the U.S. Code of law. I think it has to do with the Unified Combatant Commands. There are certain positions that are traditionally reserved for different service branches, for example the combatant commander for U.S. Pacific Command has currently always been a Navy admiral and while officers from other services has headed up U.S. European Command, 11 out of 14 of the previous commanders, including the current commander, have been Army generals. Neovu79 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant clause:

Of the 15.7 percent of flag officers on active duty who may be serving in grades above rear admiral, not more than 25 percent may be serving in the grade of admiral.

So it's a limit, and you round down. But there are lots of ways to break that limit[1]:

1) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't count.

2) Former JCS chairmen or service chiefs of staff don't count.

3) Other joint four-star appointments[2] don't count against the four-star limit, but do count against the three-or-four-star limit. So the Navy can buy a four-star combatant commander for the price of a three-star.

4) The President can trade existing Army, Air Force, or Marine three- and four-star slots for more Navy admirals.

5) The President can appoint as many four-stars as he wants if he declares a national emergency, but those emergency four-star slots expire a year after the emergency ends.[3]

I imagine the 8 four-star limit is a holdover from the 1980's, when the Navy was basically guaranteed 8 admirals for CNO, VCNO, CINCPAC, CINCPACFLT, CINCLANT, CINCLANTFLT, CINCUSNAVEUR, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion.

- Morinao (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Morinao, the National Defense Act of 2008 raised it to 16.3% instead of 15.7%. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, good catch! Although I think either way the arithmetic still works out to a rounded-down limit of 8 four-star admirals (216 x 15.7% x 25% = 8.5 versus 216 x 16.3% x 25% = 8.8).

Interesting change, though. From the surrounding text in the bill, it appears that percentage was increased mainly to allow the service judge advocate generals to be promoted to three stars, but the new percentage is higher than it needs to be to only add one more three-star to each service (3/4-stars: Army +2, Navy +2, Air Force +2; 4-stars: Army +1, Air Force +1). I wonder how it was computed? - Morinao (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. This is also same Act that promoted the Chief, National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star billet, which would explain the +1 increase in both the Army and Air Force four-star limit. Afterall, the Chief, National Guard Bureau is reserved for an Army or Air Force general. Neovu79 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. The Chief of the National Guard was already exempt from the 3/4-star limit, but apparently not the 4-star limit[4]. So that would account for 3 of the 6 additional 3/4-stars and 1 additional 4-star (3 x judge advocates general + 1 CNGB).

I wonder if 2 of the remaining 3 are for the AFRICOM four-star commander and three-star deputy for military operations? AFRICOM was stood up as a sub-unified command, not a unified combatant command, so it wouldn't have been exempted from the 4-star limit, which presumably is why the deputy EUCOM commander was downgraded to three stars. It will be interesting to see if the deputy EUCOM commander is restored to four stars when AFRICOM becomes a full-fledged combatant command in September.

(Although I guess that doesn't really make sense, because deputy EUCOM doesn't count against the 4-star limit but does count against the 3/4-star limit, so a three-star is as expensive as a four-star for that slot. So maybe it won't get restored. It seemed hard to justify four stars for that job anyway.)

Dunno what the last 3/4-star is for, but they can always find an reason. For example, JSOC was recently upgraded to three stars and maybe they're making that permanent [5][6].

-Morinao (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is this could be Congress's way of adding three-star and four-star slots to one or multiple service(s) without having to remove an equivalent number of three and four-star slots from other services under 10 U.S.C. § 525(c), and to avoid an uproar from other services loosing the three- or four-star slots. Neovu79 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admiral (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010042417/http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-5l.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-5l.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1