I know I’m preaching to the choir here but even for a decent pilot it takes numerous hacks at landings and A/R in a heavy aircraft before they’re even remotely close to safe. And this talking about a winged pilot who has flown UPT fingertip/CT/fluid maneuvering and then done all that stuff again in the FTU as well.

The scope of the upgrade required here is to bring the WSOs up to speed is basically just.. pilot training.

This is an idiotic and borderline suicidal idea enshrined by a 4-star who was on their way out the door and in search of a silver bullet to fix their self-inflicted manning problems. Probably the suckiest part is that when it’s inevitably walked back the WSO union is going to feel even more betrayed and sidelined than they already do now. And then we’ll be back to square one where there’s still no plan of what to do with them.

I know, and am friends with, several great dudes who are WSOs. They’re also smart and very capable human beings. That said, get rid of their positions in totality as aircraft advancements allow. There’s good reason we don’t have FEs on airliners anymore or navs on almost all aircraft models. There was absolutely a time and place, but those days are long gone. Stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. They all need to accept this fact and move on…

• retire/get out early and transition to civ employment

• Shift to a different AFSC

• USAF reduce WSO production commensurate with current WSO-required aircraft retirements

• Stop trying to stupidly argue WSOs are required on new aircraft

Brabus for CSAF.

I guess I'm in the minority on this one. I rather have a WSO than second pilot in the B-21. Even in the long-range strike scenarios the bomber bros are pushing back against. Most are using the B-2 community as the blueprint for B-21 dynamics. That's a mistake (for a couple reasons).

I always felt I had more in common with strike WSOs as a B-2 dude. Hell, I even called the "Mission Commander" position the "Pilot-WSO". B-2 employment was weird - at times the MC was a WSO, and at times it was a co-pilot. Further complicated by either the Pilot or MC could be the AC.

I say make the B-21 community mirror the F-15E community as far as crew dynamic. I'm for the WSO in the B-21 - it'll make better pilots too. And WSOs don't need some special WSO course to AR and Land. A f-ing pilot can do that - with smart crew dynamics that "unofficially" teaches WSOs to land, AR, etc.

Otherwise - Biff was right - go all in with 2x WSOs!

For years, pilots have been saying they don’t need a WSO, that function can be automated. If the AF can automate an F-22s wingman, then AI can also fly the enroute leg, hold a steady platform for the boom operator, and yes, land the airplane if required. CCA program makes the case that the B-21 could operate just fine with a pilot and WSO.

Standing by for the hate.

39 minutes ago, SuperWSO said:

For years, pilots have been saying they don’t need a WSO, that function can be automated. If the AF can automate an F-22s wingman, then AI can also fly the enroute leg, hold a steady platform for the boom operator, and yes, land the airplane if required. CCA program makes the case that the B-21 could operate just fine with a pilot and WSO.

Standing by for the hate.

Had no problem getting rid of tail gunners, Flight engineers, and Navigators, soon it will be all humans eliminated

1 hour ago, SuperWSO said:

...hold a steady platform for the boom operator...

Standing by for the hate.

And then there was one.

"Hal stop turning into the sun!"

Edited yesterday at 01:38 AM1 day by AC&W
Edit

1 hour ago, AC&W said:

And then there was one.

"Hal stop turning into the sun!"

"Over victor, Two's blind."

@SuperWSO Whats the benefit of a WSO - lower production cost and they can’t run to the airlines every hiring boom? Serious question, because financial reasons are the only thing I can think of. And this is not a who’s a more capable human argument, just saying instead of sending Bob to UNT, you send him to UPT. Aircraft like the B-1 and F-15E were clearly designed with WSO in mind and thus require them, no argument there. New aircraft have no need to be designed to “require” a WSO.

With AI and other advancements, I’d actually say just make the 21 single seat. Why do you even need two pilots? Assumption being AI flies the transit, can refuel, etc. while pilot naps, takes a dump, etc.

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@SuperWSO Whats the benefit of a WSO - lower production cost and they can’t run to the airlines every hiring boom? Serious question, because financial reasons are the only thing I can think of. And this is not a who’s a more capable human argument, just saying instead of sending Bob to UNT, you send him to UPT. Aircraft like the B-1 and F-15E were clearly designed with WSO in mind and thus require them, no argument there. New aircraft have no need to be designed to “require” a WSO.

With AI and other advancements, I’d actually say just make the 21 single seat. Why do you even need two pilots? Assumption being AI flies the transit, can refuel, etc. while pilot naps, takes a dump, etc.

You're touching on a related issue. As time goes by more and more roles and platforms will be automated/uncrewed especially in the military given the advantages and reduced risks to our personnel. Fewer military pilots available for the airlines overall. Airlines will arguably be the last things to go single pilot but so many other lower-level jobs in aviation will be automated. The CFI pyramid scheme is just going to get worse on the civilian side with things like pipeline patrol eventually gets taken over by drones. A few on here are old enough to remember writing checks all the time and that pilots built time back in the day in beat up twins flying checks in bulk back to the bank. A lot of kids now are staring at 6 figure loans with no real way to pay them off and AI/automation is already on its way taking the entry level jobs across a whole range of industries. My biggest concern for the B-21 is will we build enough of them? For the B-21 and its overall contribution and value to national defense the expense of putting in two pilots is relatively small IMHO.

The perpetual military pilot shortage due to civilian market forces is the only reason this idea is even being considered. But I have a very very strong suspicion that the idea was conceived by HAF staffs that are 90% non-pilots in a bid to get their union to the tip of the spear.

There may have been a day where the radiator wings were leading the way, but now staff is all WSOs, EWOs, ABMs, and RPA guys. All great people, but we’re seeing widespread effects from what happens when you fail to retain what you originally stratified as your best guys. If you’re a pilot and know a pilot on staff, make sure they always drink for free because they’re carrying the water for all of us.

23 hours ago, fire4effect said:

You're touching on a related issue. As time goes by more and more roles and platforms will be automated/uncrewed especially in the military given the advantages and reduced risks to our personnel. Fewer military pilots available for the airlines overall. Airlines will arguably be the last things to go single pilot but so many other lower-level jobs in aviation will be automated. The CFI pyramid scheme is just going to get worse on the civilian side with things like pipeline patrol eventually gets taken over by drones. A few on here are old enough to remember writing checks all the time and that pilots built time back in the day in beat up twins flying checks in bulk back to the bank. A lot of kids now are staring at 6 figure loans with no real way to pay them off and AI/automation is already on its way taking the entry level jobs across a whole range of industries. My biggest concern for the B-21 is will we build enough of them? For the B-21 and its overall contribution and value to national defense the expense of putting in two pilots is relatively small IMHO.

Sorry to take us off topic, but if anyone here hasn't read Hauling Checks by Alex Stone they should.