SupersonicMax said:For the backseaters, you’d need a different trade than ACSO. What 402 offers has nothing to do with what the Growlers do. If we were to get Growlers, we should send our backseaters to USN for ab-initio training and Growler conversion.
Dimsum said:I'm just saying what the USN and RAAF do with their WSOs and EWOs. I agree that 402 wouldn't really be relevant for those folks.
Maybe SKT can confirm/deny this, but I recall a Sea King TACCO telling me that very little of what 402 gives applies to MH as well.
SeaKingTacco said:Pretty much none of Nav Trg was applicable to the MH TACCO course. i could literally have gone straight there without the year long stay in Winnipeg to absolutely no detrement.
kev994 said:Rumour squashed. Interesting, we heard they didn%u2019t do VFR navigation there now.
Dolphin_Hunter said:I%u2019d be shocked if they did away with VFR navigation. It%u2019s a basic concept that we all need. However, stranger things have happened.
Dimsum said:While it is a basic concept, most ACSOs are in an aircraft with 2+ flight deck crew members. *Maybe* the H-Herc has the Nav do that but otherwise the Pilots do it. Same with fuel planning (FE or Pilot does that depending on fleet) and approach monitoring. I'd argue that approach monitoring is probably something the folks at the back should also be backing them up with, but given the ergonomics, it's not like we have all of the instruments to do so effectively in the back anyway.
Good2Golf said:Egos might not support it, but if there ever was a case made for Growlers, the most reasonable COA, particularly given Dimsum%u2019s note about pilots doing more/most flying duties, is an all-pilot manning model. Short straw gets the back seat.
h3tacco said:Though at the end of the day the discussion is purely hypothetical as stated there is no current intention/requirement to man or equip the RCAF with anything other than single seat tactical jets.
The (non-)issue of how to support such a niche capability as an EWO In a custom, dedicated-role airborne electronic attack platform such as the Growler is well beyond what sane minds should be thinking about. Dedicated SEAD-only assets in the RCAF? Sure, along with SSNs and SSBNs.
MilEME09 said:Given articles I've read about shortages of pilots and ground crew,I can only imagine the RCAF is struggling like the rest of us.
Colin P said:With the advent of more sensors and semi-autonomous aircraft as "wingman" I wonder if pilot overload will become an issue again?
For whatever it is worth, and it is only relevant as an example of senior commanders inserting their oars, the advent of the command and control helicopters carrying "9erTAC" in Vietnam was not necessarily a good thing. It led to senior officers, who could see how operations were unfolding, trying to control the ground battle by micromanaging platoons and companies on the ground. In some cases, a tier of C&C birds appeared with battalion, brigade, division, and so on commanders each trying to run the battle. I'm not making this up. It was widely reported in the media and any number of American officers would discuss the issue, usually in very profane terms.Dimsum said:Oh, I bet it will. Ironically, the networked environment will allow more people to be the peanut gallery and inject their opinion on how the mission should be going. If the CAOC and the General(s) can see near-real-time, it would take a *lot* of self-control for them (or more likely a staffer in between) to say "shift the camera over here - the Comd wants to see something."
The overload will partially be dealing with external things like that.
SupersonicMax said:We have seen this to some extent during Op IMPACT where everything was controlled (even during mission execution) by the CAOC. It was pretty disappointing to see and experience, especially coming out of Op MOBILE where mission command was effectively employed.
The Navigators on the CF-101 didn’t just navigate, they also operated the fire control system which controlled, and launched, the Voodoo’s nuclear weapons. If we were capable of training Air Navs to operate nuclear weapons from fast jets, we are certainly able to train ACSO to serve in EW fast jets.h3tacco said:Historically CFANS provided Air Intercept Navigators to RCAF Air Defence Command and Fighter Group for 35+ years, some of which went on to be CF188 pilots following the retirement of the CF101.