Ship's Crew Numbers

[Spinward Flow]

The thing about filling two positions is you fill the position at your skill -1, so I wasn't thinking you'd get credit for higher skill in your pay scale.

Crew salary is based on the skill of the person (on their "character sheet") ... NOT the skill level that is being delivered in service of their position.

Paying Cr3000/month for someone and asking them to do double roles, when they could command Cr3300/month just being a Steward seems unlikely to make for a popular job position. In fact, even though the rules say you can pay them Cr3300/month for doing that double role, I think you'd probably be wanting to pay them a bit more

Best example of this is the proverbial pilot/gunner!

Pilot/Gunner = Pilot-2/Gunnery-2 = ((6000*1.1)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr5775 per 4 weeks
Pilot/Gunner (chief) = Pilot-2/Gunnery-2 = ((6000*1.1)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr5850 per 4 weeks
Pilot = Pilot-1 = Cr6000 per 4 weeks

My favorite iteration of this is the "unarmed starship pilot/armed small craft fighter pilot" combination of Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 ...

Pilot/Gunner = Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 = ((6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr6225 per 4 weeks
Pilot/Gunner (chief) = Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 = ((6000*1.2)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr6300 per 4 weeks

When they're on the starship bridge, there is no gunnery duty ... so they get to apply Pilot-3 (no penalty) to flying the starship, which yields a +1 Agility for skill.
When they're on a small craft fighter, they're doing both pilot and gunnery (single seater) ... and Pilot skill gets a -1 to it in order to default to Ship's Boat skill. The skill levels that apply to both crew positions then work out to be Ship's Boat-1 and Gunnery-1 equivalency, making them qualified to fill both positions simultaneously.

Huge savings on crew salary and life support, swing role capability to pilot either a starship or a fighter (so get 2 of them and have a fighter escort for your starship and let the 2 of them trade off who is flying what, when!).

Compare:

• Pilot-1: Cr6000
• Ship's Boat-1: Cr6000
• Gunnery-1: Cr1000

= 3 crew, Cr13,000 salaries

• Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 (chief): Cr6300
• Pilot-3/Gunnery-2: Cr6225

= 2 crew, Cr12,525 salaries

The only problem?
Finding people with Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 skills who are willing to be recruited into your crew.
That combination of skills isn't exactly common ... so the pool of potential applicants with the required skill levels is going to be ... shallow ...

 

[Badenov]

And on further reflection, I think I would consider the Marines' base pay 2,000 Cr/month rather than 1,000. They'd really be relying on 2 skills (gun combat and melee combat), and unlike a Gunner, and they'd be in more immediate personal danger if bad things went down. Using the (3000 x 75% x 1.1) + (2000 x 75% x 1.1) I get 4125 Cr/month, which seems appropriate for a group whose motto is 'Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet'. Either way: Combat Stewards rock.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I think I would consider the Marines' base pay 2,000 Cr/month rather than 1,000.

My personal approach to this is to use LBB4, p19 (ranks, salaries and duties) and p27-28 (unit organization) to try and figure out what kind of "barracks complement" is appropriate aboard. I then take the salaries listed on p19 and simply multiply the (monthly) salary number by the shares number to get a "starship crew salary" value.

• Private: Cr300 salary, 1 share = Cr300 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• Lance Corporal: Cr400 salary, 2 shares = Cr800 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• Corporal: Cr450 salary, 3 shares = Cr1350 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• ... and so on and so forth ...

So if you've got a "fire team" (4) of security people, you've probably got:

• 1x Corporal
• 1x Lance Corporal
• 2x Privates

In a starship overhead expenses context, the crew salaries for the "security team" would be ... 1350+800+300+300 = Cr2750 for 4 people per 4 weeks (life support expenses not included).

 

[Badenov]

My personal approach to this is to use LBB4, p19 (ranks, salaries and duties) and p27-28 (unit organization) to try and figure out what kind of "barracks complement" is appropriate aboard. I then take the salaries listed on p19 and simply multiply the (monthly) salary number by the shares number to get a "starship crew salary" value.

• Private: Cr300 salary, 1 share = Cr300 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• Lance Corporal: Cr400 salary, 2 shares = Cr800 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• Corporal: Cr450 salary, 3 shares = Cr1350 per 4 weeks aboard ship
• ... and so on and so forth ...

So if you've got a "fire team" (4) of security people, you've probably got:

• 1x Corporal
• 1x Lance Corporal
• 2x Privates

In a starship overhead expenses context, the crew salaries for the "security team" would be ... 1350+800+300+300 = Cr2750 for 4 people per 4 weeks (life support expenses not included).

Ah, one more book I don't own. Also, is that an active duty type pay scale? Because you generally need to pay Civilians, even starship security people, a fair amount more than you pay active duty soldiers. Also, the sub-1000 Cr salaries will lose money if you put them in dual role billets. 3000 x .75 x 1.1 +300 x .75 x 1.1 = 2722.50, which is less than you'd pay a Steward who wasn't double-tasked. As was pointed out before, you're looking to hire somewhat advanced people, you need to offer them something that makes it wortth their while.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ah, one more book I don't own. Also, is that an active duty type pay scale?

It's literally a mercenary ticket pay scale (mainly for infantry, but also works for cavalry and artillery).

LBB4, p19 snippet:

Since crew salaries don't (normally) include shares of the profits that the starship operation earns, I just multiply the salary by the shares to get the 4 week starship crew equivalent in salary.



Fun Fact:
A few readers of this forum might recognize the mug of this mildly famous mercenary colonel ...

 

[Badenov]

It's literally a mercenary ticket pay scale (mainly for infantry, but also works for cavalry and artillery).

LBB4, p19 snippet:

Since crew salaries don't (normally) include shares of the profits that the starship operation earns, I just multiply the salary by the shares to get the 4 week starship crew equivalent in salary.



Fun Fact:
A few readers of this forum might recognize the mug of this mildly famous mercenary colonel ...

So yeah, a combat butler might only count as a Corporal or Private in terms of rank, but as a 2-3 term career graduate (minimum, if you can cherry pick skills, often 5+ careers rolled), they're going to rate more than E-1-3 pay. E1-3 are people with just enough training to know which end of the gun to point downrange and will do it right most of the time. A combat butler knows how to set up a 19 place dinner set, where the little fork goes, and how to put it someplace else if people are causing trouble which will make them stop causing trouble in a big hurry.


This fellow ^ is not going to take 300 credits a month. I am amused and pleased that the Merchant career picks up Vacc Suit on the same table as Gun Combat and Steward, because he can use the Tailored Vacc Suit (TL14, MgT1) as a shipboard uniform. I am imagining it styled as the formal suit/tux, above, which offers pretty good protection and of course can be used in vacuum if you have the skill.

I've tried a few times to generate combat butlers, and none of them get enough of the right skill picks early in their careers. The char above is probably mid-range of the and only got his last picks of Gun Combat in his final term before I mustered him out.

 

[Spinward Flow]

E1-3 are people with just enough training to know which end of the gun to point downrange and will do it right most of the time.

A combat butler knows how to set up a 19 place dinner set, where the little fork goes, and how to put it someplace else if people are causing trouble which will make them stop causing trouble in a big hurry.

There's a difference between "minimum qualifications" (Steward-1/Gun Combat-2) for the Steward/Security role combination ... and "unfairly competent" (higher skill levels).

Steward/Security = Steward-1/Gun Combat-2 = ((3000*1.1)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr3300 per 4 weeks
Steward (purser)/Security = Steward-1/Gun Combat-2 = ((3000*1.2)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr3525 per 4 weeks

Let's say you hire someone with Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 (just for shizzle) ... what would their crew salary be?

Well, if you're pricing their Gun Combat skill the same as a turret gunner (Cr1000 base), it computes like this:

• Steward/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.2)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr3600 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr3825 per 4 weeks

If you're pricing their Gun Combat skill using LBB4 ... and (for whatever reason) figure that Gun Combat skill "means E*2 per skill level" ... Gun Combat-3 means Gunnery Sergeant (E6) level payroll (for purposes of illustration of concept). If you take the Gunnery Sergeant base pay (Cr600) and multiply it by the shares (4) from the table, that yields a 4 week salary of Cr2400.

• Steward/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.2)+2400)*0.75 = Cr4500 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+2400)*0.75 = Cr4725 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security (chief) = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+(2400*1.1))*0.75 = Cr4905 per 4 weeks

Every +1 skill over minimum bumps up the payroll salary for that skill by +10% (hence the *1.X multipliers in the formula I've provided).
Being the chief of a department (engineering, steward, gunnery, etc.) grants an additional +10% increase on top of skill level (LBB2.81, p16).

 

[Badenov]

There's a difference between "minimum qualifications" (Steward-1/Gun Combat-2) for the Steward/Security role combination ... and "unfairly competent" (higher skill levels).

Let's say you hire someone with Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 (just for shizzle) ... what would their crew salary be?

Well, if you're pricing their Gun Combat skill the same as a turret gunner (Cr1000 base), it computes like this:

• Steward/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.2)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr3600 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+(1000*1.2))*0.75 = Cr3825 per 4 weeks

If you're pricing their Gun Combat skill using LBB4 ... and (for whatever reason) figure that Gun Combat skill "means E*2 per skill level" ... Gun Combat-3 means Gunnery Sergeant (E6) level payroll (for purposes of illustration of concept). If you take the Gunnery Sergeant base pay (Cr600) and multiply it by the shares (4) from the table, that yields a 4 week salary of Cr2400.

• Steward/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.2)+2400)*0.75 = Cr4500 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+2400)*0.75 = Cr4725 per 4 weeks
• Steward (purser)/Security (chief) = Steward-2/Gun Combat-3 = ((3000*1.3)+(2400*1.1))*0.75 = Cr4905 per 4 weeks

Every +1 skill over minimum bumps up the payroll salary for that skill by +10% (hence the *1.X multipliers in the formula I've provided).
Being the chief of a department (engineering, steward, gunnery, etc.) grants an additional +10% increase on top of skill level (LBB2.81, p16).

That seems to be in the same range as I was thinking the pay should be.

 

[RogerMC]

So, are starship crews wildly topheavy (more officers than needed)? I did a design of a 94,000T carrier, and wind up with 128 officers for 795 crew using the Book 5 formulas. What are they in charge of? The 5 per 10,000 tons is the main culprit, 10,000 tons of ship is capable of sitting there without needing an officer to supervise it but I have 48 Officers based on my tonnage. Seven are mentioned by job in the text: CO, XO, Comp O, Comm O, Doc (and eratta adds a small medical department, so does Command also need an additional Doc?), and two Nav O's, but that leaves 41 with no specific job. I have 14 Gunnery Officers for one spinal mount, 5 50-ton bays, and 2 turrets which are ganged into one higher-rating weapon. I have 29 Engineering Officers for a Rating 6 M-Drive and a Rating 3 Jump Drive. And the Service department has 23 officers. What do they all do?

Is the Navy just a place for nobles to put their kids to keep them out of the way? I can see it as a kind of jobs program for nobles.

For comparison, USS Iowa sailed with 151 Officers for 2637 enlisted crew in WW2.

Does it anywhere say COMMISSIONED officers?

Assume that petty officers (who with Traveller chargen are going to be as or more skilled than junior commissioned officers) are included in the officers total and you have no problem.

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

 

[Rupert]

Does it anywhere say COMMISSIONED officers?

Assume that petty officers (who with Traveller chargen are going to be as or more skilled than junior commissioned officers) are included in the officers total and you have no problem.

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

That depends on what you mean by 'warrant officer'. The extended chargen rules in High Guard and chargen in general in TNE include high-ranking NCOs that in a Commonwealth military today are considered warrant officers. The US-style warrant officer isn't particularly common these days outside the US and some US-derived militaries.

 

[TamsinP]

Does it anywhere say COMMISSIONED officers?

Assume that petty officers (who with Traveller chargen are going to be as or more skilled than junior commissioned officers) are included in the officers total and you have no problem.

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

In LBB5, each department of the ship's crew has a certain percentage of (commissioned) officers and petty officers; the figures given in the OP look about right for commissioned officers only. Given that the authors were USofAmerican, I imagine they based the proportions loosely on USN crewing.

 

[aramis]

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

The US Warrant model is near unique. US Warrants are , since WW II, officers with highly restricted commissions.
European Warrants are supergrades enlisted.
US E8-E9 are direct equivalents to WW II European Warrants Grades.

Which model should be used, given the use of E8-E9?

 

[Condottiere]

I'd go for role and responsibilities.

General purpose would be for non commissioned officers who are assigned greater responsibilities.

Specific would be for specialized roles, where you need to use pay to attract the correct calibre of soldier for a specific role.

 

[TamsinP]

Wikipedia has pages showing the ranks and insignia for NATO countries; here is the one for Navy enlisted:

Ranks and insignia of NATO navies enlisted - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Royal Navy does have warrant officers at the OR8 & OR9 grades.

 

[Badenov]

Does it anywhere say COMMISSIONED officers?

Assume that petty officers (who with Traveller chargen are going to be as or more skilled than junior commissioned officers) are included in the officers total and you have no problem.

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

Commisioned or Warrant officers are what it means, Petty Officers are specified separately.

So I did clear up a minor point earlier in the thread, I was overpopulating the 'command' group. But the officers, whether commisioned or warrant, still seem somewhat overrepresented. The fact that Traveller doesn't address Combat Systems, Navigation, or Operations departments, though, inclines me to split up my Command staff among those groups. Most of the Command group enlisted will be Navigation Department or helmsmen, who are part of Deck in RL. Combat Systems and Operations will pull from the Service group, which seems overrepresented as far as the need for cooks, barbers, laundry, and the like, but do services of a sort on the ship. Taken that way, I can work with the given numbers.

 

[RogerMC]

Does it anywhere say COMMISSIONED officers?

Assume that petty officers (who with Traveller chargen are going to be as or more skilled than junior commissioned officers) are included in the officers total and you have no problem.

Also consider that some RW wet navies have tended to have far fewer commissioned officers and given greater responsibilities to petty officers than others. In WW2 for instance the Imperial Japanese Navy most naval aviators were petty and warrant officers whereas in the USN they were usually ensigns and lieutenants.

(The lack of warrant officer ranks in Traveller given their ubiquity in RW armed services is also a minor bugbear of mine).

Incidentally the current USN ratio of commissioned officers to enlisted personnel is 1 to 5:

Total Officers 54,449
Total Enlisted 286,144

And three quarters of those enlisted personnel (214k) are ranks E4 to E9.

As for the Royal Navy the officer to enlisted ratio is about 6:27 so almost identical - although the ratio of E4-9s to E1-3s is 15:12 so a bit over half rather than three quarters.

Total military personnel Navy by rank U.S. 2024 | Statista

In the fiscal year of 2024, the United States Navy estimates there will be a total year-end strength of 347,000 personnel.

www.statista.com

British regular forces numbers broken down by rank

The UK Regular Forces comprise a total of 143,558 full-time service personnel across the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and the Royal Air Force. Here, those forces are distinctly divided into officers and other ranks.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Clearly the ratios of officers and NCOs to the lowest ranks were very different in the days of mass conscript militaries, but Traveller navies are not mass conscript forces like those of WW1, WW2 or even most of the Cold War but elite professionals (let's ignore the draft in chargen which makes no sense at all in the Third Imperium but is another legacy of a game written by Vietnam era vets...) and so would surely have rank structures more similar to now than the mid 20th century.

 

[Badenov]

Incidentally the current USN ratio of commissioned officers to enlisted personnel is 1 to 5:

Total Officers 54,449
Total Enlisted 286,144

And three quarters of those enlisted personnel (214k) are ranks E4 to E9.

As for the Royal Navy the officer to enlisted ratio is about 6:27 so almost identical - although the ratio of E4-9s to E1-3s is 15:12 so a bit over half rather than three quarters.

Total military personnel Navy by rank U.S. 2024 | Statista

In the fiscal year of 2024, the United States Navy estimates there will be a total year-end strength of 347,000 personnel.

www.statista.com

British regular forces numbers broken down by rank

The UK Regular Forces comprise a total of 143,558 full-time service personnel across the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and the Royal Air Force. Here, those forces are distinctly divided into officers and other ranks.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Clearly the ratios of officers and NCOs to the lowest ranks were very different in the days of mass conscript militaries, but Traveller navies are not mass conscript forces like those of WW1, WW2 or even most of the Cold War but elite professionals (let's ignore the draft in chargen which makes no sense at all in the Third Imperium but is another legacy of a game written by Vietnam era vets...) and so would surely have rank structures more similar to now than the mid 20th century.

I think the preponderence of Junior Enlisted to Petty Officers can be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. My gut tells me what LBB5 calls Petty Officers means fairly senior enlisted. Maybe let the 'petty officer' designation apply to work center supervisors and above. In different divisions, leadership happened at different levels, so in some, E-4 were leaders, on others, you didn't get into leadership until E-6. But Work Center Supervisor, whatever the paygrade, is I think what LBB5 is calling Petty Officers.

2. A more literal interpretation is that crew are barely trained draftees, and the ranks are crammed with noobs who've had 3 weeks training on how to repair a radar and know how to run follow the built-in test diagnostic. This explains the draft catching everyone, but people doing their time and getting out, so most people, technical or otherwise, are E-1-3 and advancement to E-4 is uncommon except in those planning a Naval career.

 

[whulorigan]

I treat E8 & E9 as W1 & W2 (or "Warrant Officer" & "Senior/Chief Warrant Officer").

If you want to set them apart slightly, you can say that when an E7 rolls for promotion, if he is "successful", instead of automatically beocming a W1 he must then roll a "Warrant" (= Commission) roll, and if successful on both rolls, he then becomes a W1. Otherwise he remains at E7, but has a DM+1 (cumulative) on his next "Warrant" Roll after a successful promotion roll.

If desired, you could add Commissioned Warrant Officers (W3-W5) between E9 and O1 (or do similar to the historical Royal Navy and overlap W4 and W5 with O1 and O2, each ranking with but behind the regular commissioned rank. In such a case, the W2 would need to roll for commission before promotion to W3, but would then progress to the Commissioned Warrant Track.

This is also a great way to get some characters with significant hands-on skill levels and leadership for long term CharGen without creating a plethora of retired Generals and Admirals as PCs.

 

[Badenov]

I treat E8 & E9 as W1 & W2 (or "Warrant Officer" & "Senior/Chief Warrant Officer").

If you want to set them apart slightly, you can say that when an E7 rolls for promotion, if he is "successful", instead of automatically beocming a W1 he must then roll a "Warrant" (= Commission) roll, and if successful on both rolls, he then becomes a W1. Otherwise he remains at E7, but has a DM+1 (cumulative) on his next "Warrant" Roll after a successful promotion roll.

If desired, you could add Commissioned Warrant Officers (W3-W5) between E9 and O1 (or do similar to the historical Royal Navy and overlap W4 and W5 with O1 and O2, each ranking with but behind the regular commissioned rank. In such a case, the W2 would need to roll for commission before promotion to W3, but would then progress to the Commissioned Warrant Track.

This is also a great way to get some characters with significant hands-on skill levels and leadership for long term CharGen without creating a plethora of retired Generals and Admirals as PCs.

I think that Traveller chargen already handles this by giving characters a Commissioning roll each term. I expect someone who makes a commision roll in term 1 starts off as an officer, someone who succeeds in term 2 or 3 is something like an LDO (Limited Duty Officer), where a term 4 or later commission is a Warrant Officer. The main difference between LDO and Warrant, in practice, is Warrants are only drawn from senior enlisted, LDOs are drawn from any enlisted rank. The point, though, is there's not really any significant difference in the LDO, Warrant, and Line officer communities until you get to who can command a capital ship (Line officers-only). It's also the case that you can convert into the Line community (the Seaman-to-Admiral program, in the US Navy).

So, ironically by ignoring the minor details of 'type' of commission, Traveller already generates the 3 cases possible in RL. IMTU, the type of commission is based on what term its received in, and what your final rank is, rather than being predetermined.

It sounds like Warrants in the RN are handled differently than Warrants in the USN, where they do pretty much the exact same jobs as O 1-3's. But that all said, American E 8-9 generally also occupy leadership positions, generally where an O 1-2 wouldn't be capable because of breadth of knowledge required, and an O 3 would be probably too high grade for the position.

 

[whulorigan]

I think that Traveller chargen already handles this by giving characters a Commissioning roll each term. I expect someone who makes a commision roll in term 1 starts off as an officer, someone who succeeds in term 2 or 3 is something like an LDO (Limited Duty Officer), where a term 4 or later commission is a Warrant Officer. The main difference between LDO and Warrant, in practice, is Warrants are only drawn from senior enlisted, LDOs are drawn from any enlisted rank. The point, though, is there's not really any significant difference in the LDO, Warrant, and Line officer communities until you get to who can command a capital ship (Line officers-only). It's also the case that you can convert into the Line community (the Seaman-to-Admiral program, in the US Navy).

So, ironically by ignoring the minor details of 'type' of commission, Traveller already generates the 3 cases possible in RL. IMTU, the type of commission is based on what term its received in, and what your final rank is, rather than being predetermined.

That is an interesting way to do it as well. Basically I wanted to "have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too" and have both the Commonwealth/Continental "Supervising Senior NCO System" Warrants, and the American Commissioned Warrant system as well.

BTW, in the American system, there is actually the provision for 6 grades of Warrant Officer (standing above the Enlisted/NCO Grades (E1-E9)), but each individual Service Arm determines internally what grades (if any) that it wishes to establish for its particular service):

• W1 /WO-1 - Warrant Officer-1 (NOT COMMISSIONED / Probationary)
• W2 /CWO-2 - Chief (Commissioned) Warrant Officer-2
• W3 /CWO-3 - Chief (Commissioned) Warrant Officer-3
• W4 /CWO-4 - Chief (Commissioned) Warrant Officer-4
• W5 /CWO-5 - Chief (Commissioned) Warrant Officer-5
• W6 /MWO-6 - Master (Commissioned) Warrant Officer-6 (Not Authorized / Still awaiting official establishment by Congress since proposal in the 1970's)

As noted, NOBODY is currently authorized to use W6 /MWO-6
The USN does not use W1 /WO-1
The USCG does not use W1 /WO-1 or W5 /WO-5
The USAF does not use any Warrant Ranks (though they have recently decided to change this policy)
The USSF does not use any Warrant Ranks