I read in the latest Air Force Assoc. magazine that when the B-2 program gets a makeover next year (avionics, new skins, etc.)it quite possibly will include an addition of a 3rd pilot. They say the B-2 has plenty of room for a third crewman and that it would be beneficial to have a 3rd pilot on long combat missions. My question is do adjustments like this call for more pilot's to be trained and go straight to the B-2 program from UPT (if qualified)? Or is the B-2 program overloaded with pilots? Just curious.

It has a 3rd seat that was meant for another crew, at the time a Nav was planned. Whats interesting is the USAF is trimming ACP because it has enough pilots. Of course they arent all qualified or experienced in the MWS they are needed in.....go figure

I was at the assignment night a few months ago where a B2 was given out here at CBM. Lots of ooohs and aaahs from the crowd. Our OG explained the track to a group of us a week later. From what I understand, a UPT grad in that program goes to Randolph to go through PIT in the T-38, then does IP detail in the -38 at Whiteman for a couple of years. Actually gets in the jet sometime in their second year or so.

3rd Pilot? 3rd seat? Where? I've been in a B-2 a few times and there really isn't all that much room in there. Where would he go if the other two ejected? There's only 2 ejection seats in that plane. The 3rd seat in that plane is a Wal-Mart chair that they each take turns sleeping in on those nice 44 hour missions. I'm hoping that whenever my drop comes around to get a B-2.

So you're telling me there may B-3 pilots...

yeah, that sucked couldn't resist. Besides, what's wrong with 31 plus hour missions for guys who make history while fighter pilots make movies... Heavy guys make per diem I guess.

CMSU pilot, I live in the general vicinity of Whiteman and have been in a B-2 as well. From what I read in the AFA mag, there would definitely have to be modifications for a 3rd pilot. Don't know where they are going to get extra ejection space, but the mag did point out a B-2 fleet "skin" overhaul or upgrade next year.

"So you're telling me there may B-3 pilots..."

That's priceless:)

Originally posted by AirGuardian:

So you're telling me there may B-3 pilots...

Of course there is - John Travolta and Christian Slater....haven't you ever seen "Broken Arrow"?

* AF decision maker hat on* what do we need to upgrade any of the Bomber Fleet for? Hell, let slap some old norden bombsights on them and use that money saved for another fighter.

"* AF decision maker hat on* what do we need to upgrade any of the Bomber Fleet for? Hell, let slap some old norden bombsights on them and use that money saved for another fighter."

Well deweygcc, not to bruise anyone's ego, but the B-world does do a lot of work these days and have proven extremely valuable to the combatant commanders over in the sand box.

Now I'm certainly no fighter hater as most of my friends are fighter types...however, when loaded for the typical mission these days my Bone is like 12 Vipers rolling up on the scene with loiter time, well, not an issue.

It's really lame that we have to fly around with 1980s technology when I could go to Radio Shack and get better equipment.

But we have SO many old korean and WWII jets in teh boneyard we can upgrade the Bomber fleet with. We can use extra cash for a steathly show of force jet. Heck think about it we problably squeeze a specail fighter just for the Thunderbirds. Of course I know we need fighters I really do, please keep in mind that a lot of the above is tongue in cheek.

I guess 100 year old Bombers wont be unusual soon.

I am still trying to figure out why we need an f-35. Its replacing a tier II fighter. If we are down to level 2 fighters in a war its about time to go ahead and pack it in. Congress says we need at least 300 Bombers to be 100% combat effective.

Lets see. 21 B2's 80something flying B-52s, 60ish b-1's. I wonder whos doing the math, I guess this is the brutally obvious fact that fighter pilots run the AF. Whatever happened to the SAC Generals?

SAC is dead. That's a good thing.

Originally posted by AirGuardian:

Besides, what's wrong with 31 plus hour missions for guys who make history while fighter pilots make movies... Heavy guys make per diem I guess.

LOL! That's funny stuff.

Originally posted by Mack:

SAC is dead. That's a good thing.

i know but thats not my point. My point is that we are one dimensionally concerned. We are dragging BONEs from the Bone yard all the while replacing a tier 2 fighter. Lets not forget we have NO replacement for the a-10 either. Priorities seem a bit out of whack.

[ 05. December 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: deweygcc ]

Originally posted by deweygcc:

i know but thats not my point. My point is that we are one dimensionally concerned. We are dragging BONEs from the Bone yard all the while replacing a tier 2 fighter. Lets not forget we have NO replacement for the a-10 either. Priorities seem a bit out of whack.

Originally posted by Spiffy:

The JSF is supposed to be the next replacement for the A-10, but with Suite 3 (PE) and the proposed new engines, who needs a replacement?

Suite 3? Huh? More--do tell.

These gremlins have nothing to do with my post, but needed to be used (sts) nonetheless.

[ 05. December 2004, 17:13: Message edited by: flyinjunky ]

Originally posted by flyinjunky:

Suite 3? Huh? More--do tell.

These gremlins have nothing to do with my post, but needed to be used (sts) nonetheless.

Why modify anything these days... All we pilots will be good for in a few years is airshows. It'll all be tractor beams and lasers in a few years... right Luke?

Originally posted by flyinjunky:

Suite 3? Huh? More--do tell.