Navigator/CSO future

[Guest sickels101]

Okay I am a Buff pilot and here are your answers.

Hand Flying? Who the hell hand flies nowadays except in the pattern? Yes we have autopilot (old school altitude hold). What I tried to say about the Buff is that it is impossible for the pilots in the current set up to not rely on the navs. The plane isn't set up for that. Yes we are busy. But there are sometimes when we could probably set up a DVD player and watch too. You give me the computers that single seat guys get to work with so that we can do "what a single seat fighter pilot does" and then we'll talk. We are flying in the stone age in the BUFF, I'm talking Tweet instruments. Maybe we could do it but when you are using programs that can't email and you are forced to send text messages to the CAOC which can take upwards of 15 minutes for a paragraph, we have a problem. Our shit is old and it takes brain bites to work it.

[Guest Saluki CSO]

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.

--well that information comes from the last two graduating classes of EWOs/CSOs and some of their instructors. where do YOU get your information?

[cragspider]

The reason that they don't make the nav/ewo's go through both training programs is because the AF won't give the school enough TD's to get it done. In a prefect world and maybe one day down the road, true CSO's will be in the AF. But untill that day there will be navs, ewo's, and wso's. Speaking of wso's, I find it funny that they go through Pcola, get there wings and then come to Randolph to go through 4 months of more training. Just so they could go sit both seats in a bone or sit back seat in a strike eagle. Why can't all nav's go through the same training and then figure out which job and airframe they will go to.

But as for cso's being tracked to uav's not out of randolph. But there are IN's here who are going to uav's. However you have to have a commercial rating to go "fly" them. So for a nav to go "fly" them either the AF will have to pay for the pvt and commercial rating and possibly the instrument as well or the nav will have to pay for them all out of pocket to be able to go. Take your pick on what should be done?

[MD]

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

Okay I am a Buff pilot and here are your answers.

We are flying in the stone age in the BUFF, I'm talking Tweet instruments. Maybe we could do it but when you are using programs that can't email and you are forced to send text messages to the CAOC which can take upwards of 15 minutes for a paragraph, we have a problem. Our shit is old and it takes brain bites to work it.

The CRM-114 is a pretty advanced piece of equipment in the Buff.

[C17Driver]

Cragspider said:

Speaking of wso's, I find it funny that they go through Pcola, get there wings and then come to Randolph to go through 4 months of more training. Just so they could go sit both seats in a bone or sit back seat in a strike eagle.

This isn't true. Not all strike eagle WSO's go to Randolph prior to going to F-15E's.

[B52gator]

A BUFF Bombardier's (trying to bring back that term, "Radar Navigator" is lame) two cents.

The BUFF has SAC stink all over it, and with money going to other weapon systems, the BUFF will never fly without a bombardier, nav, pilots and an e-dub. I sit downstairs, so I don't fully appreciate what the pilots do. They are busy and do have an ass load of jet to fly. Could they handle the workload of flying and weapons employment if they had the means? As much as I hate to admit it, yes. But, they will never have the means and they must rely on the more than capable offenders to...ughh i hate saying this "put bombs on target on time." The BUFF, like the gunships, talons, etc is a unique weapon system because in order for it to function, it requires the work of more than one individual.

As for the future of Navs/CSOs/WSOs/EWOs/ I think you will see will still see some form of Nav 20 years from now. Beyond that, who knows? As much as I love my pilot bretheren, it is a pilot's Air Force and it sucks. There are lots of good Navs out there with excellent leadership skills that never had a chance to command because they don't have a radiator on their wings. As far as the BUFF community goes, if you're a nav and if you want to command, get to the O5 and above level, all that stuff...you have to have a patch.

this went longer than i thought...sensetive topic

[ 27. July 2006, 15:06: Message edited by: b52gator ]

[Guest J Barnes]

I was going to say that at least NAV's aren't force shaped yet, but after I read my email today, ..... Nevermind. FY03 Navs get to go to the Farce shaping Board.

[barney]

Really? are thought that they were in high demand?

[Cooter]

Where did you read that? I'd be interested to see that email. I'm an '02 guy but that's just amazing. I know for the EWO side of the house it seems like they can't have enough. A lot of us are needed for other jobs (EWCC/CAOC/Staffs/etc.) and there's not a lot of folks to pick from with experience. Be interesting to see what comes out of that.

Cooter

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

Hand Flying? Who the hell hand flies nowadays except in the pattern?

Thanks, that's kind of what I thought.

I've never used the autopilot in combat. Ever. In fact, the only time I used the autopilot was when I had to piss or when I had spatial D and needed a second to recage. I even hand flew pond crossings.

Part of that was because I liked to fly the airplane, part was because it was easy (compared to a big airplane) and part was because the we didn't even have an autopilot when I started flying the A-10 and we never had one in any of the different Hueys I flew.

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

What I tried to say about the Buff is that it is impossible for the pilots in the current set up to not rely on the navs. The plane isn't set up for that.

Noted. I don't know much about the BUFF but I do know it is set up as a crew airplane.

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

You give me the computers that single seat guys get to work with so that we can do "what a single seat fighter pilot does" and then we'll talk. We are flying in the stone age in the BUFF, I'm talking Tweet instruments.

Check out an A-10A. You're welcome to anything in the jet if you think it might be a technology upgrade.

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

Maybe we could do it but when you are using programs that can't email and you are forced to send text messages to the CAOC which can take upwards of 15 minutes for a paragraph, we have a problem.

There is a huge process issue. What you are doing is a very inefficient and time consuming process. I'm sure data link would be helpful. Nothing like listening to a bomber guy read back 69 sets of coordinates over the strike freq.

Thanks for answering my questions.

I know you need the additional crewmembers. I also believe you could probably do more of the work as a pilot if you had a couple simple improvements. I also know there are some missions I am unfamiliar with where you need all those guys.

However, I would guess for 99% of what the BUFF and Bone are doing in combat right now all you would need is access to the targeting pod (if you guys are allowed to carry that thing), data link to get JDAM coordinates from the CAOC and access to the 1760 bus to talk to the JDAM. Oh yeah, and a mindset change (and I don't mean anything disrespectful there guys).

[Rocker]

Although not a bomb-dropper, the HC-130P has good use for a nav, FE, and loads (scanners)(EDIT) and radio operators, too (sorry ROs). Regarding the front-end crew: when you're flying around in a 5% (or less) illumination inkwell in the mountains, 210-240 kias, 500A mod countour (or lower depending on stuff), and "clear right" means your right wing tip will not impact terrain, it's kind of nice having someone dedicated to the radar and FLIR to clear and often direct you around terrain you just can't see yet through the goggles or to point something out on the FLIR for you that you don't have time to focus on while you're maintaining your profile. Nav also has a JOG open at his station to keep up on the briefed route deviations and often to make new ones and compute new MSAs if that becomes a player. They remind you of your recommended altitudes for terrain clearance/masking in the event you don't have the controlling obstacle in sight. A good navigator can be worth their weight in gold on the low-level and during HAR rendezvous. I remember thinking when I started "there are two pilots, they should be able to do everything and more that a nav can do in addition to flying." Simple ignorance. From a basic task loading perspective, I bet that's possible about 85% of the time. But from a design perspective, I'd adjust that to about 30% of the time. There's stuff back at the nav station that the nav is responsible for operating, and when the pilots are outside 90% of the time, it makes sense to have a navigator.

Same goes for the engineer. The pilots know their systems and ops limits, but the C-130 is a rather systems-intensive aircraft, moreso, I would guess than any fighter, helo, and possibly some larger jets. We are fairly self-sustaining, and by that I mean there is a lot we can do without ground support. I don't know the capabilities of other aircraft in that regard, but we can get by pretty well in the middle of nowhere. Everything is speedersprings and flyweights, and little camshafts and gears that mechanically engage at certain RPMs to make things happen by pulley and cable - very little is electronic or automatic. 1940s technology (as they beat into you at FTU); mice running on little wheels. I know the A-10 for instance is pretty low tech as well...and honestly that is a great thing. But with the systems and controls that we have, the flight engineer, a.k.a. your "Systems Expert" is invaluable. The pilot physically cannot reach the things the eng has access to. It's again a task loading vs. design issue. And with him, it's even less in favor of design. He is the one who will call your airspeed if you lose more energy than planned popping up over a ridgeline while both pilots are clearing outside and will call your torques and/or temperatures when you're pouring the coals to it. An aggressive in/out scan as a pilot (even moreso at night) should be implied, but when you have a third pair of eyes dedicated to the inside (and if you've seen the cockpit of the Herk), it is often vital.

My personal experience is admittedly limited (to ten months of FTUs and just a little time at the squadron), but all of this being said: could the Herk fly single pilot? Of course. But the crew, in this particular airplane, is one of the things that makes or breaks the mission. We don't camp out at FL230 reading the paper, eating Hot Pockets (unless we're REALLY going somewhere). We hand-fly just about everything, down in the weeds, and we use our crew to do the job.

[ 28. July 2006, 14:05: Message edited by: Rocker ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Rocker:

when you're flying around in a 5% (or less) illumination inkwell in the mountains, 210-240 kias, 500A mod countour (or lower depending on stuff)...

Nav also has a JOG open

and often to make new ones and compute new MSAs

They remind you of your recommended altitudes for terrain clearance/masking in the event you don't have the controlling obstacle in sight.

A good navigator can be worth their weight in gold on the low-level and during HAR rendezvous.

He {FE} is the one who will call your airspeed if you lose more energy than planned popping up over a ridgeline while both pilots are clearing outside and will call your torques and/or temperatures when you're pouring the coals to it.

These aren't system related issues. You could do these things if you had to, right? I'm not talking single pilot. I'm talking no nav or FE, pilots only.

Originally posted by Rocker:

There's stuff back at the nav station that the nav is responsible for operating...

The pilot physically cannot reach the things the eng has access to.

Obvious LIMFAC. If you had the controls you could operate the equipment though, right?

Originally posted by Rocker:

We don't camp out at FL230 reading the paper, eating Hot Pockets (unless we're REALLY going somewhere). We hand-fly just about everything, down in the weeds, and we use our crew to do the job.

True dat.

I know you don't rage low level absolutely everywhere you go but I know you spend more time down there than most people.

Good comments, thanks for the words.

[Guest sickels101]

Rainman-

Your thoughts are good and I totally agree with you on the targeting pod and the 1760 bus for the JDAM. Stuff like that would revolutionize our plane and let it evolve into this century.

Maybe a mindset change is in order but all I am saying is I just don't see the government giving us money to make that mindset change a reality. But once again very good points and I would most likely agree with them if I was in your shoes.

[Rocker]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

These aren't system related issues. You could do these things if you had to, right? I'm not talking single pilot. I'm talking no nav or FE, pilots only.

I'm probably too inexperienced to speak intelligently about this, so I'll just stick with my original task-loading vs. design discussion. If the interfaces for all controls (mainly talking about the CM systems, FLIR and RADAR systems, other nav wizbangery, and everything on the overhead panel that the engineer controls (fuel, electrics, bleed air, pressurization, HAR stuff and more)) were designed so the pilots could access them, then you could increase the task loading on the pilots. Would we be as effective? To a point. There's a lot of crap in that plane - obviously a more experienced guy could do more. There are times when the other pilot is just sitting there "backing the other pilot up." Sometimes redundancy in that regard is not needed, and if he had the capability to manage something else, then yes I think pilots only could do it (ala C-130J/C-17). Other times (during SCAs, drops, parts of the low level, etc.) the pilots are pretty busy. But when terrain is significant enough, having eyeballs on the RADAR, FLIR and chart the entire time is a GOOD thing. Nav is heads down so the pilots don't have to be. But without a doubt, the pilots COULD do more most of the time but I don't want to spout off too much since I haven't really BT or DT.

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

Obvious LIMFAC. If you had the controls you could operate the equipment though, right?

Yes.

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

True dat.

I know you don't rage low level absolutely everywhere you go but I know you spend more time down there than most people.

Fair enough, but that's the fun part that we take pride in and where we make our money (obviously to include HAR)!

[Guest why]

So as far as the force shaping thing goes. Any word on if they will take volunteers from 12A 12B 12etc, to pull chocks and let a 12r take that spot?

I would think they would use some common sense and open it up to X number of Nav/Ewos and let the issue take care of itself.

Then again when has the DoD EVER done ANYTHING that would even let one question whether they had considered the common sense factor.

[Mitch Weaver]

To answer an earlier question on initial N/RN training...

Acording to an FTU instructor, The B-52 FTU is going to begin training initial pilots and navs to be qualified in both respective seats within a year or two. This wasn't feasible for navs with the OAS bomb/nav system, but apparently makes more sense with the AMI upgrade. I can see the utility after having flown AMI sorties (i.e. reduced Radar nav/nav workloads). As for the pilots, I assume the syllabus is going to be extended considerably to allow new pilots to become proficient in AR and landing.

[Guest croftfam]

Originally posted by SoNotToSpeak:

Okay I am a Buff pilot and here are your answers.

Hand Flying? Who the hell hand flies nowadays except in the pattern?

Rocker, SoNotToSpeak,

Um, we do. There isn't anything we don't hand fly. There's a lot to do in every mission. Nobody has a copyright on "busy". Tell yourself whatever you need to to sleep better at night. Physical location of controls aside, you should be able to fly your airframe without the need of a Nav or a R.O, or someone to look at your FLIR and JOG for you. What on earth do the pilots do while not changing radios, looking at the FLIR, giving route updates on hazards from the JOG, or updating the Nav system?

I'm sorry, but we don't have a Nav, or a RO, and somehow, we still seem to get the job done. That just blows my mind that the AFSC of RO even exists!

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Hacker:

That'll be right about the time that UCAVs make having a pilot in the airplane unnecessary, anyway.

SHACK!

I remember talking to a C-130 weapons officer friend at the OIF Operational Level Lessons Learned conference. He was working the Global Hawk. They were close to nailing the UCAV thing down pretty tight, and that was several years ago. The process is slowly and quietly marching on.

The first mission to be handed to the UCAV will be milling around the bozosphere with a gut full of JDAMs for TST and HVT missions. What does that sound like?

Take a look at the Army multi-billion dollar Future Combat System. It won't be long before you will be sitting next to your Army counterpart in the same booth, doing CAS with your UAV for his ARV. The young guys will be amazed as you tell stories in the squadron wine bar and they say things like "I can't believe you guys used to actually fly inside the airplanes...that's just insane!"

Helos will be the last aircraft to actually have pilots in them. Unfortunately, there won't be any pilots to do a CSAR for.

[Guest why]

As a Nav Ill PO the union and say there is No need for a nav. There is a slight need for a weapons guy.

Maybe if the USAF spent LESS $$$$ on the stuff they waste it on they could upgrade the systems so the pilot could do it all.

I mean either way he could anyway. Enough about what happens if the moving map goes Tango Uni. It would be the same effect of the Radar Going Tango Uni in the desert. You would have a chance of busting airspace....

All I have to say is that if the B-2 only needs 2 guys. Thats all that should be needed.

And a nav is fooling themselves if they honestly think they are needed at ANY POINT CONUS.

Its all a learning curve and some software upgrades. Of course there is still time to control, yeah a navless airframe may not control time very well but it will sufice. There are very few circumstances that the time a nav can shack or save, that couldnt be a few minutes late or early.

[ 31. July 2006, 16:11: Message edited by: whyme? ]

[jazzdude]

I've gotta agree with Rainman. If you take off your pilot hat for a sec and take some time to read up on what UAVs/UCAV/UCAS can do or where the R&D is heading, its some pretty amazing stuff. UCAV

[Guest petak316]

Does AFSOC ring a bell, I know I've heard it once or twice before in this debate...but apparently everybody else had their iPod turned up too loud. Can't do it without the Nav.

[Guest croftfam]

Originally posted by LonghornNav:

Does AFSOC ring a bell, I know I've heard it once or twice before in this debate...but apparently everybody else had their iPod turned up too loud. Can't do it without the Nav.

Okay.

[Guest Slilock]

Originally posted by barney:

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

Yeah. Look at the C-130 slick world. I don't know about other bases but at Little Rock most of the leadership from Sq/CC's to Group/CC's are Navs. When I was deployed to Salem last winter the OG/CC was Nav (now he's Pope's WG/CV).

As for my plane (KC-135) it has made my job harder since Pacer Crag replaced the Nav. A plane that was designed for four person ops is now down to three. So my job has absorbed alot of duties that the Nav once did, as well as keeping all the duties that my crew pos has always had. I also don't fly with an Engineer so if something happens in flight that's past the pilots seats, I'm dealing with it by myself usually.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by LonghornNav:

Does AFSOC ring a bell, I know I've heard it once or twice before in this debate...but apparently everybody else had their iPod turned up too loud. Can't do it without the Nav.

Really? Why not?

Is it that you can't do it the way the crew responsibilities are set up now or it is just plain impossible for the pilots to mission plan and execute without a navigator? What things are the pilots not capable of doing?

[Guest coykinsey]

I may get smacked down for this, but I personally like the extra folks on the flight deck helping to keep me from making a smoking hole, whether I can do the entire job myself or not. Call me crazy.

Regarding UAVs/UCAVs, etc., even when we are all sitting at PS2 consoles fighting the war, someone will have to fly us around at some point. I for one will not climb into the back of an airplane unless there is someone at the controls. I want whoever is flying me around to share the same fate I do.

[ 02. August 2006, 21:17: Message edited by: BobcatHerk ]