:goodpost:
That's what I like about this forum; not only do you learn new things but every once in a while you learn something new about something old.
The Brigadier issue seemed to also apply to the navy "Admiral" rank where the Brigadier equivalent was (and still is) termed "Commodore" and used to be more an appointment rather than rank (unlike the older air force "Air Commodore" which was a rank but did not bear the "Marshall" designator). With unification all insignia at the O8 level went to the crossed sword/baton/crown indicator.
I would argue it is not rank inflation when what you are doing is re-establishing a rank to what it historically was rather than an interim "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" system where the rank remained but was more politically correct for the time being. The good side of that was that we eventually replaced brigadier-generals with colonels at the brigade level which IMHO was more appropriate considering that all the subordinate units are commanded by lieutenant-colonels. That was proper rank deflation.
Our own problem (and perhaps that of the US) is not so much the ranks of officers in the combat chain of command but the structuring of directorates etc within the administrative headquarters where flag officers often command relatively small numbers of people but their ranks are based more on: the importance of the department (the need to have enough weight on your shoulder to credibly advocate on your department's behalf); the ranks of subordinates; or the rank of their immediate superiors.
Again, IMHO, the only way we (or the US) can properly get a handle on the situation is to either 1) do a full study to determine which positions are over-ranked for the job that the individual or department actually does; or 2) let politicians arbitrarily cut the establishments for the number of each rank allowed and then let the system reshuffle the remaining positions as to need.
In my view 1) will never work. Such studies, done internally are inherently self serving and the bureaucracy will do everything it can to retain the status quo.
While 2) is draconian it is in my view the only system that will result in correcting the problem over time. If politicians merely limit the budget, the bureaucracy will let the cuts fall on the most vulnerable elements (usually lower ranking support trades, equipment, training and when the cuts are really deep, bayonets). It will always find a rationale for maintaining the headquarters strengths and processes. If the political cuts target higher rank establishments and even specific headquarters based programs, the bureaucracy's options are limited and will be more likely to correct headquarter's strength and streamline processes. :2c: