Yeah, Huggy said person, which excludes the need for a WSO..

Mover and Gonky discussed this with the F-15EX

My druthers is to provide a place for them to land that seems more logical and to retrain some for the right seat with pilot wings.

F-7 & F-15EX with GIBs to control CCAs, B-21 with attached UPT program…

The only reason the EX has a backseat is due to the relative ease/cost of using the already existent tooling, etc. It’s not because any non-WSOs thought there was a WSO necessity. That said, writing on the wall says the AF may go the way of the Navy/USMC - “single seat” and “dual seat” squadrons with the same basic aircraft type. It’ll be interesting to see how it all pans out while enjoying my tray table.

Back on the B-21 topic I think we should all keep in mind that we’re probably only getting 50 of these things (if we’re lucky) so the question here is how comfortable are you trusting a very limited strategic asset to a single pilot? Bomber pilots will all tell you these long duration sorties really wear you down and little mistakes creep in as the fatigue gets worse. The airlines have figured this out too and they operate with a far higher degree of automation than most military jets.

I know our fighter brethren are all high SA giga-chad superheroes who can do everything themselves but with all due respect if you haven’t flown a sortie over 24 hours un-augmented, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You need two pilots on this plane unless you’re comfortable putting them into the ground on a semi regular basis.

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

Back on the B-21 topic I think we should all keep in mind that we’re probably only getting 50 of these things (if we’re lucky) so the question here is how comfortable are you trusting a very limited strategic asset to a single pilot? Bomber pilots will all tell you these long duration sorties really wear you down and little mistakes creep in as the fatigue gets worse. The airlines have figured this out too and they operate with a far higher degree of automation than most military jets.

I know our fighter brethren are all high SA giga-chad superheroes who can do everything themselves but with all due respect if you haven’t flown a sortie over 24 hours un-augmented, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You need two pilots on this plane unless you’re comfortable putting them into the ground on a semi regular basis.

50? Most of the chatter I’ve seen is for 200 or more

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-the-u-s-needs-200-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-not-100/#:~:text=Mark%20Gunzinger%20and%20colleagues%20advocate%20for%20more,build%20a%20nearly%20400%2Dstrong%20strategic%20bomber%20force.

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/why-the-u-s-air-force-needs-300-or-more-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers/

Granted if there is a way to f up an acquisition process going mostly smoothly, the AF is the GOAT but it seems we will get more not less.

Concur on your point on long duration sorties

12 hours ago, brabus said:

The only reason the EX has a backseat is due to the relative ease/cost of using the already existent tooling, etc. It’s not because any non-WSOs thought there was a WSO necessity. That said, writing on the wall says the AF may go the way of the Navy/USMC - “single seat” and “dual seat” squadrons with the same basic aircraft type. It’ll be interesting to see how it all pans out while enjoying my tray table.

Maybe but I’d like to try before we buy, fly off and testing the cognitive load and tasking in representative scenarios should be done if it is not already being done

@Pooter Nobody is arguing two pilots shouldn’t be there given the sortie duration (unless we want to take the AI route as replacement for the 2nd guy…definitely could be viable one day, not that I love the idea). Any argument I made is that two pilots aren’t needed IF we took sortie duration out of the mix.

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe but I’d like to try before we buy, fly off and testing the cognitive load and tasking in representative scenarios should be done if it is not already being done

It’s been done multiple times given current day tech (fighter specific) - the continuous result is not in the WSO’s favor. Not speaking to large crew aircraft like B-1 or B-52. This whole thing comes down to emotion; they’re simply not needed on current and future tech. Just as airline pilots will not be needed at all some day (we just all hope it’s not in our careers, but it absolutely is coming).

Edited December 1, 2025Dec 1 by brabus

@Clark Griswold

I just say 50 by going off historical precedent. We were supposed to get 700+ raptors and 100 B-2s. There are already talks of cutting F-35 production in favor of NGAD paper promises. We’re dumping the wedge tail and can’t field a single engine jet trainer without a litany of issues. I’ve ranted about this in other threads before but I don’t think we have the attention span to stick with programs or build jets in numbers that are tactically relevant anymore.

I would bet on getting 25% of the airframes we originally planned for. 50 would be 50% of the original B-21 order number which given how f-ed our acquisitions are right now would literally be a moonshot best case scenario. Would love to be proven wrong

21 hours ago, Pooter said:

@Clark Griswold

I just say 50 by going off historical precedent. We were supposed to get 700+ raptors and 100 B-2s. There are already talks of cutting F-35 production in favor of NGAD paper promises. We’re dumping the wedge tail and can’t field a single engine jet trainer without a litany of issues. I’ve ranted about this in other threads before but I don’t think we have the attention span to stick with programs or build jets in numbers that are tactically relevant anymore.

I would bet on getting 25% of the airframes we originally planned for. 50 would be 50% of the original B-21 order number which given how f-ed our acquisitions are right now would literally be a moonshot best case scenario. Would love to be proven wrong

I can’t say your skepticism isn’t justified however given the essential nature of the mission & capabilities of this platform, I may be naive but methinks it will quell the parochial greedy shoe clerks of the MIC and get done with an acceptable amount of bull fertilizer

I blast pointlessly into the ether for more flying for training for an organization supposedly run by pilots, who seem hell bent on doing as little as possible so I feel your pain

B-21s will have 2 pilots and CSO/WSOs recruited will be retrained as pilots

https://www.twz.com/air/usaf-decides-against-flying-b-21-raiders-with-just-one-pilot

Could / should they be trained as pilots in a stand alone program? This program (in my mind) would also serve as the companion proficiency trainer for the crew force.

Probably not at all Raider bases but one or two (pilot training for the B-21)

Civ ratings (PPL, AMEL, INSTM) then a mil course, maybe 75 hours, or so. Throughput would be manageable methinks, IPs rotating from the B-21 line for two year stints.

4 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

B-21s will have 2 pilots and CSO/WSOs recruited will be retrained as pilots

https://www.twz.com/air/usaf-decides-against-flying-b-21-raiders-with-just-one-pilot

Could / should they be trained as pilots in a stand alone program? This program (in my mind) would also serve as the companion proficiency trainer for the crew force.

Probably not at all Raider bases but one or two (pilot training for the B-21)

Civ ratings (PPL, AMEL, INSTM) then a mil course, maybe 75 hours, or so. Throughput would be manageable methinks, IPs rotating from the B-21 line for two year stints.

Not sure why the B-21 needs it's own UPT program. Why not just continue to send (high speed) prior-rated people to UPT like normal and then drop airframes from?

57 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

Not sure why the B-21 needs its own UPT program. Why not just continue to send (high speed) prior-rated people to UPT like normal and then drop airframes from?

I see the justification for a stand alone program as these cso/wso’s are being recruited specifically for the -21, UPT is already very busy and this program would help justify a companion trainer program for that platform.

I imagine the recruitment for this will be as you said high speed low drag guys and an opportunity to go to an elite assignment with a unique training pipeline will only increase the pool of applicants, giving them the picks of the litter.

There’s a cohort of guys / gals that for whatever reason didn’t get a pilot slot at their commissioning source but went wherever, this second shot with a direct path to the -21 I think would motivate a lot of people to work hard, compete and bring a strong candidate to them.

On 11/29/2025 at 9:34 PM, brabus said:

What do you mean? Do you think a fighter is incapable of flying for a long time with a nuke on board? I’m genuinely confused at this statement.

40 hours?

Will these CSOs have a pilot training commitment? Won't they leave the USAF after their initial commitment like their pilot peers do? I know a Mudhen WSO who washed out of UPT. Would he be able to try to become a pilot again?

2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Will these CSOs have a pilot training commitment? Won't they leave the USAF after their initial commitment like their pilot peers do? I know a Mudhen WSO who washed out of UPT. Would he be able to try to become a pilot again?

I’m sure they would have an ADSC from UPT, as to UPT I believe it’s a one shot deal in the AF at least for performance problems if removed from training

Edited 58 minutes ago58 min by Clark Griswold