Navigator/CSO future

[barney]

i tried to find some direct opinions on the matter. however, my question is what ya'll think the future of navigators/CSO is going to be. certainly technology can replace them. why are they in high demand now? are they going to be groomed into UAV pilots? has the curriculum changed at UNT drastically/often?

[Mark1]

certainly technology can replace them

Pretty harsh analysis coming from an ADD Lt. Sure technology can give you a heading to your next waypoint but it can't replace the extra crewmember. And as of now, it can't replace EWOs. Navs are obsolete on some aircraft but not on others. And lets not forget that the AF doesn't have the money to purchase the technology to replace all navs at the moment, even if it wanted to. Maybe with the next generation of aircraft, but not now.

[barney]

yea no offense meant by my comment. my POV is pretty limited and all of my oppinions are purely speculation. thats why i am asking the pros

[FireMission]

You may not be doing traditional "nav" duties nowadays. I think (except in the AFSOC world) that most navs can easily be replaced by computers as you mentioned earlier.

Hence the name change to CSO. Since the AFSC formerly known as Navigator is now more of a system operator - a la WSOs/EWOs and now your CSOs.

They name change will probably take a few generations to kick in and be accepted around the Air Force, but the aircrew position will still exist in some form.

[drewpey]

you got cso's on B52's and on the 130s...two planes that aren't going anywhere for a long time...

[Guest Saluki CSO]

As someone IN Nav training at Randolph, I can tell you Navs/CSO will be around for awhile. They are even adding them to aircraft that dont traditonally have them because of that need for another crewmember. Pilots/co-pilots can only do so much, and when they get overtasked, problems occur. But it is also true that CSOs are being tracked for UAVs as well in the upcoming years. Just because we arent plotting courses as much doesnt mean we are obsolete.

[Guest sickels101]

The CSOs in the B-52 are very important. Sure, the pilots can do the navigation but why the hell would we do that when we have two bubbas downstairs to do it for us. On a serious note, in the BUFF they are the main dudes in the offensive game and do most (if not damn near all) the weapons work. I can't see them fading away in the near or distant future (at least in the bomber airframes).

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

On a serious note, in the BUFF they are the main dudes in the offensive game and do most (if not damn near all) the weapons work. I can't see them fading away in the near or distant future (at least in the bomber airframes).

The pilots could handle the load if you were willing to take up their duties and you had access to their systems.

Are both pilots absolutely maxed out all the time? Do you even hand fly the thing when you're up at 30K in an orbit waiting for tasking? I'm not mouthing off here, I really don't know if there's a pilot hand flying the jet at all times and I have no idea how much autopilot time there is in a BUFF.

The counter to the "Navs are essential" argument would be to ground all B-2s immediately.

[Guest SpookyG8tr]

Navs are here to stay in AFSOC. Both Gunships have three nav rated guys (one is an EWO). Talon II has a nav and EWO. Talon I is gone soon. AFSOC is in the process of buying 10

MC-130Ws now. I'm not sure what the crew complement is on that yet.

Black boxes can get you from point to point, but they can't decide the friendlies from the enemy in the middle of a knife fight.

[Mitch Weaver]

you got cso's on B52's

No you don't. You have Navs & EWOs. Randolph may be graduating "CSOs" but they are currently not interchangeable.

[Toasty]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

The counter to the "Navs are essential" argument would be to ground all B-2s immediately.

However, that would be implying that the B-2 is running off the same technology as the B-52.

I can see them staying on the older aircraft, simply because they're necessary there. J-model herk doesn't have a nav, because it has newer systems. And like was said before, the nav does alot more than DR's and taking fixes...if you can take a saturated crew tasking and lower their workload with another competant crewmember, why wouldn't you want that?

[Guest uniballvisionmicro]

Nobody has mentioned the F-15E. That aircraft wouldnt function without both members of the crew. And we all know its the AF's premier fighter...

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by drewpey:

you got cso's on B52's and on the 130s

Nope. On the Herk we have NAVs.

I will pistol whip the next person who says "CSO".

HD

[ 25. July 2006, 18:20: Message edited by: HerkDerka ]

[Toasty]

Originally posted by MD:

Why is that? Why don't the Buffs have their navs qualed in any seat, ala the B-1....WSOs, if you will. Only reason I can think of is that the Buff EWO union wants to retain the ability to eject upwards at all times.

Nav and EWO are two different courses at Randolph. They're slowly moving towards the CSO being an interchangeable nav/EWO/crewmember when the whole shibang goes to Pensacola. I doubt the Buff schoolhouse is going to take the time to teach a nav how to be an EWO.

[Bergman]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:Are both pilots absolutely maxed out all the time? Do you even hand fly the thing when you're up at 30K in an orbit waiting for tasking? I'm not mouthing off here, I really don't know if there's a pilot hand flying the jet at all times and I have no idea how much autopilot time there is in a BUFF.

The counter to the "Navs are essential" argument would be to ground all B-2s immediately.

Rain...I think you underestimate the work it takes to employ larger aircraft. I have no idea what your big jet background is, so perhaps my perception is off. But to say that "I could do XYZ in my A-10 at 69' at night...so why can't 1 guy fly a BUFF?!" [which is what I took your statement as saying] is not realistic. The fact is that, for large aircraft, simply flying the aircraft takes up a much larger portion of your time.

As for the B-2...comparing that jet, built in the late 1990s, to a jet built in the early 1960s is not a fair comparison. I imagine even the simple things like the fuel panel are automated on the B-2...vs manual on the BUFF. The EWO suite on the B-2 is entirely automatic, I suspect. The radar is better and more user-friendly. And on and on.

For comparison...

B-2 Cockpit

Now for the BUFF...

[Guest Services-or-bust]

Originally posted by Saluki CSO:

As someone IN Nav training at Randolph, I can tell you Navs/CSO will be around for awhile. They are even adding them to aircraft that dont traditonally have them because of that need for another crewmember. Pilots/co-pilots can only do so much, and when they get overtasked, problems occur. But it is also true that CSOs are being tracked for UAVs as well in the upcoming years. Just because we arent plotting courses as much doesnt mean we are obsolete.

I would hardly call being in NIFT flight and at Randolph as being "IN" NAV training. Where did you come up with the CSO's being tracked to UAV's??? Its alright Id be fired up too for my new job but I had to call you out wait till you have actual facts.

[sirjrod00]

I don't know whether "CSOs" will be tracked to UAVs or not, but I do know that the new "CSO" simulators coming out in a few years look remarkably like a UAV "cockpit."

[Cooter]

Ahhhh...the traditional pilot vs nav fight. I love this one. I'm convinced that if the world ends and there's only a pilot and nav left on this earth...they will still argue the pros/cons of this. Step up to the plate fellas who's next?????

Cooter

[BONE WSO]

Where did you come up with the CSO's being tracked to UAV's???

I am at EWO right now as a B-1 guy and I know for a fact that one of our instructors (EWO type) is headed to UAV's for his next tour. He has a commercial license and paid for the hours himself. Don't know if this is gonna become common or a one time deal.

Also why can brand new guys drop bombs in the B-1 but it is an upgrade position in the B-52?

[ 25. July 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: AggieSteven02 ]

[MD]

Originally posted by Cooter:

Ahhhh...the traditional pilot vs nav fight. I love this one. I'm convinced that if the world ends and there's only a pilot and nav left on this earth...they will still argue the pros/cons of this. Step up to the plate fellas who's next?????

Cooter

No, nothing against Navs here. Least not on my end. I simply don't/haven't worked with them. I just had a question on why the two bomber communities differ on their nav treatment (since I'm not a nav and I'm not in the bomber community), and I get the atypical defensive qualifier prior to the actual answer to the question.

Sheeze!!

:D

[ 25. July 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: MD ]

[Guest boson69]

Sure technology can give you a heading to your next waypoint but it can't replace the extra crewmember. And as of now, it can't replace EWOs.

This is kind of like saying, "Who in the world would want to see moving pictures when you got radio?" Perhaps tomorrow NAVs won't be replaced, but the day after they might. Same goes for pilots. There is a lot of high-tech "stuff" out there and just because we can't fathom it - doesn't mean it won't happen...

[barney]

can one make a career as a nav, in todays AF, with new trends in technology and such, starting riiiiiiiiight now.

[C17Driver]

yes

[Guest proudpapa]

NAV, Door Gunner, or whoever. All crew members [are] necessary even if it's just to pull my out of the wreck!

[ 26. July 2006, 13:48: Message edited by: proudpapa ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I am not bashing anyone. I am much more sarcastic when I'm actually taking a cheap shot.

I will qualify everything right now by saying I am not an expert.

The only big airplane experience I have is sitting on the flight deck watching the DVD player on the glareshield with the rest of the cockpit crew on airlift and tanker airplanes (C-141, C-130, C-17, KC-10 and KC-135). I liked the movies. The crew did not seem that busy. I watched a friend froce extend refuel in a KC-10 once and that looked like a lot of work and they weren't watching movies during the refueling. The rest of the crew wasn't doing much except watching him jerk the yoke all over the place.

My bomber flying experience is limited to flying the B-1 a couple times during the ME phase at Weapons School. I have described that in the past but I will just say I was extremely frustrated that I couldn't even select my own point in the INS...I had to go with what the navs selected. It wasn't my call as the pilot to pick what nav point was selected on my HSI. It was, in short, unfukingbelievable.

Although not an expert, I am curious.

I am asking two serious questions that no one seems to want to answer.

Are the BUFF pilots both so maxed out hand flying the airplane at all times that they couldn't do other things?

Do they use the autopilot at all?

I'm not sure how you guys are interpreting this as a slam but it is not. I am not saying anything about what anyone does compared to what a single seat fighter pilot does. I just want to know.