> Officers (the only people paid something comparable to engineers in the civilian world) are in management positions from the very beginning of their career, so they get almost zero experience doing technical things as individual contributors.

I don't know if the Army uses them for IT functions, but isn't that the exact issue with technical fields more broadly for which Warrant Officers exist?

Warrant officers in technical fields are able to remain more technically focused, but they are largely pushed into management too. At CW3 the Army says that they are field-grade officers who are basically interchangeable with an O-4.

The other issue is that many warrant officers still just have a high school diploma, or a check-the-block degree from an online diploma mill. They have deep institutional knowledge and vocational experience, but they aren't going to do technical innovation. This isn't like hiring a senior researcher or engineer.

I'm not as familiar with Army rank usage as Navy.

On the Army enlisted side, what does an E7-9 typically do if in an IT/technical role?

On the officer side, great observation. And pretty much mirrors the private industry: companies without individual contributor career paths are struggling to retain experienced technical talent and deliver complex projects.

At E-7, E-8, E-9 there is no technical role. They will still have a career field like IT, maintenance, artillery, etc. and work in those types of units, but they will do purely HR/administrative functions.