My God, It's Full Of Stars!

TL;DR: Two ways to reduce Generals. 1) 2 at the top of each service and one at each Combatant Command, that's it. 2) Have a standard set across the services and one at each Combatant Command.

That's a reference to the sci-fi classics 2001 and 2010, for our younger folks for folks who might not be in any way into that.

Anyway, so over on the Air Force subreddit, I saw they're downgrading one of our 4-stars to a 3-star position, and there's probably more to come. Secretary Hegseth wants to cut down on the number of General and Flag officers in the military.

It got me thinking, reminded me of something I'd thought of some time ago about theoretically what positions need to be what rank.

Full disclosure: I'm just a retired E-7, I won't pretend I have the full picture of what GFO positions are based off of and what other kinds of moving parts are entailed, this is just what makes sense to me based on what I DO know about the military.

So I see two ways to do this. The first is the lowest possible number. Basically, in my mind, the lowest number of 4-stars we could go with is around 27. That's the CJCS, VCJCS, CSA, VCSA, CNO, VCNO, CMC, VCMC, CSAF, VCSAF, CCG, VCCG, CNGB, VCNVB, CSO, and VCSO, and then the Combatant Commanders. So that's a two 4-stars at the top of each service, and then one at the top of each Combatant Command. That's based on how the Marine Corps is doing it; their only 4-stars are the Commandant, the Vice, and any Combatant Commanders.

The other that came to mind to me was to allow up to 4 more per service for in-service commands. This is what the Navy is doing; they have the Chief, the Vice Chief, Reactors, and three geographical commanders, two of which are attached to Combatant Commands.

So if I look strictly at how we are in the Air Force right now, we have the following as 4-stars:
Chief of Staff
Vice Chief of Staff
Air Combat Command (generating fighters, reconnaissance, cyber)
Air Mobility Command (Logistics, Air Refueling)
Air Force Materiel Command (Acquisitions)
Air Force Global Strike Command (Bombers and nuclear mission)
US Air Forces in Europe (Air Force component assigned to USEUCOM)
Pacific Air Forces (Air Force component assigned to USINDOPACOM)

I would downgrade Air Combat Command and Materiel Command to three-stars. Air Combat Command doesn't have a warfighting mission, their job is to provide forces to Combatant Commanders. Air Force Materiel Command is our weapons systems acquisition construct. I can go either way on Air Mobility Command because it straddles the line of Organize, Train, and Equip, and warfighting. Our logistical capability is also the big lynchpin our ability to project power and AMC is a big part of that, so I could see AMC staying a 4-star. Global Strike Command is nukes, needs to be a 4-star in my opinion.

Looking at the Army, I could see them having and extra 4-star because they're the largest force so the sheer number of folks they have. Like the Air Force, I would make Army Materiel Command a 3-star. I don't know what Army Futures Command is about and how it differs from Army Training and Doctrine Command, maybe those could be merged.

I don't know if US Force Korea needs to be a 4-star or if it can be a 3-star under USINDOPACOM. Golden Dome doesn't need a 4-star, it can be a 3-star or a 2-star. I think the F-35 program was a 2-star. I'm not sure USAFRICOM needs to be its own Combatant Command or if it can fall under USCENTCOM.

This of course has the knock-on effect of all the positions that are no longer 4-stars are now 3-stars. Okay. Well how many 3-star positions can be 2-stars? Certain it's a lot more 3-stars than 4-stars. So on the warfighting side, each Combatant Command would have a 3-star deputy, and one or more 3-star component commanders for each branch, and maybe any additional theater commanders as necessary (like Korea for USINDOPACOM and Africa for USCENTCOM). The J3s would become 2-stars. Each service would have their 6 or 7 or so Deputy Chiefs of Staff as 3-stars at the service level, and then any large functional Organize Train and Equip commands at 3-stars with a 3-star deputy.

For the Air Force, we have the occasional 1-star Wing Commander (that's roughly Division equivalent for the Army I think, whatever is directly above the Brigade level); I would reduce those to only wings that have some kind of exceptional mission, either with a giant scope or a wide geographical scope. A Fighter Wing doesn't need a 1-star.

Does anyone have thoughts? Am I like way out of line, or is this just a cracked out idea?