This is inspired by seeing Top Gun: Maverick, where one fighter has a second person in the cockpit as a weapons system officer, while the other doesn’t. Does the other aircraft only have a one-seat cockpit?
In: 203
Most of the weapons are highly automated so the world load is usually manageable for just one pilot.
The top gun cast weren’t allowed in the single occupant aircraft because of some pretty essential military protocols about not letting general civilians loose with classified military equipment.
Some of the next gen aircraft are all single occupant.
They could only film the actors in dual occupant aircraft and so they adapted the story.
A lot of really great responses in here about sharing the workload required certain mission types. The two-seater being used for air-to-ground or close-air-support (CAS) is really a generalization. The A-10 is hands down the best CAS platform the military operates and it uses a single pilot. It does fly slower and lower than other fighter/attack aircraft but Hog Drivers are also required to do considerably more deconfliction with a JTAC. That’s primarily because close air support includes danger close gun or bomb runs. Fratricide is a huge no no, so making sure you aren’t killing friendlies is a requirement.
As a navy weapons officer who’s worked on all versions of the F-18(A-G) starting with lot 12’s on the F-18C. Some of these comments are spot on. Having a WSO allows the pilot to focus on his specific role of flying. Furthermore, some two seaters also function as airborne refilling, depending on their external configuration. The two seater F-18’s can server in a variety of roles adding diversity to the fleet while making the commonality of platforms easier on parts availability. When you have a felt of aircraft utilizing the same parts (for the most part) it allows the maintenance department to provide more ready for flight aircraft and shorter down times for broken aircraft. This makes your fleet more lethal and available to serve in a multitude of roles when needed.
Alright, long post here. Full disclaimer: current Navy pilot, was present at some of the filming during Top Gun (the B-roll footage), and have been qualified in the E/F and G as well.
So the point of having one or two aircrew in a fighter has always been a balance of piloting versus operating systems. During World War II, you had dedicated bombardier/radio operators (like on the TBF Avenger) or radar operators (like on the P-61 Black Widow).
Depending on the complexity of operating an aircraft’s systems, some jets necessitated a second (or even third or fourth) crewmember.
For instance, the F-4 Phantom II had a pilot and a backseater – the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO). The F-14 Tomcat was the same way. The reason? They both had fairly complex radars for their day and before the advent of the glass cockpit, the RIO was the only one that could even operate the radar. The pilot had to fly and be in the right position for the RIO to operate the radar to make a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) intercept happen.
Other aircraft had similar setups. For instance, the A-6 Intruder had a Pilot and Bombardier/Navigator. The B/N would look through a scope that would provide an image of the terrain ahead of it so the pilot would receive commands like “5° nose up” from the B/N while they flew at night or bad weather at a few hundred feet off the ground – potentially in mountainous terrain.
The F-111 and EF-111 did similar things.
The EA-6B Prowler, for instance, had a pilot and up to three ECMOs (Electronics CounterMeasures Officers) to operate the jamming and electronic warfare systems on the aircraft. Its successor, the EA-18G Growler, has a pilot and a EWO (Electronic Warfare Officer).
So it was with the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F/A-18F Super Hornet – the backseater was now the Weapon Systems Officer (WSO). But rather than just handle a radar, the term WSO was used in part because they were expected to handle a lot more, from targeting pods to handling the various combat systems on the aircraft.
But, on the other hand, single piloted aircraft have also become far more common (and even multi-crew aircraft have gotten smaller, like the EA-6B to EA-18G transition). Why?
For one, technology and automation have made things easier. Instead of a human manually adjusting radar gains and identifying raw returns as targets, you now have computers that can build tracks of radar returns and fuse them into targets. Things like glass cockpits (screens instead of analog gauges) meant that a pilot could reconfigure their displays for whatever mission. The original F/A-18 Hornet was designated F/A (Fighter/Attack) in part because with the press of a button, you could switch from Navigation mode to Air to Air (A/A) or Air to Ground (A/G) and its computers would tell its sensors (like its radar or FLIR) to switch to a different mode.
In addition, advances in things like Hands on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) also enabled a pilot to both fly AND operate systems at the same time.
So why does the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have both a single seat and two seat option?
It was both a part of the times, some internal politicking, and some design choices.
For one, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ended up replacing the F-14, A-6, and S-3 in various missions. All three were Navy aircraft that had a pilot and a NFO (Naval Flight Officer, which is the actual officer designator of non-pilot officer aircrew in everything from fighters to the E-2 to P-8 to E-6, etc.), so there was some worry that you needed two seats to handle all that (since previous aircrew had it) and also to keep the NFO community gainfully employed. And in part because the Navy envisioned being able to use the two seat Super Hornets to do some missions the single seat guys wouldn’t/couldn’t do (for instance, the two seat crews can be FAC(A), or Forward Air Controller (Airborne) qualified).
I was born and raised a single seat guy, so I have my own thoughts on this topic, but as technology and capabilities have matured and advanced, the single seat E’s have overtaken the F’s in production totals and those operational by far. Most carrier air wings now have only a single F squadron with three single seat E squadrons.
Even the Tomcat squadrons that converted to the Super Hornet didn’t all stay two seat (like VFA-14, 31, 143, etc.).
There were other considerations too like the initial Super Hornet software and what came out later were night and day different, vastly reducing aircrew workload and making it more possible for a single pilot to do the mission of two.
Now, don’t get me wrong, there are times when two aircrew working really well together can be better than the sum of their parts. On the other hand, I’ve seen times where 1 + 1 is < 1. So, yeah.
—-
Now for some Frequently Asked Questions:
* Why did the movie Top Gun: Maverick use a two seat and single seat fighter in a pair? It’s a movie, and there were movie dynamics involved. The final mission itself is all Hollywood envisioned. There are a million other options for the situation involved. I was glad they showed an E-2 Hawkeye in there, but they also ignored things like the EA-18G Growler which is designed specifically for electronic attack against enemy air defenses.
* What was the reason they didn’t use the F-35 in the mission? When they filmed Top Gun: Maverick, the F-35C wasn’t operational with the Navy or Marines yet. In fact, the B-roll footage in the intro was shot on the USS Abraham Lincoln in August of 2018, during Operational Test 1 (OT-1), which was the first at-sea integration test of the F-35C with the air wing (CVW-7 was on board, minus one squadron). In addition, even today in 2022, there are only three operational F-35C squadrons (2 Navy, 1 Marine) while there are over 30 F/A-18E/F squadrons. So Hollywood plot excuse aside, odds are really really good you’d see F/A-18s involved one way or another in a Navy operation (again, with the fact that the tactics used in the movie are all Hollywood). And also because F-35 is single seat, and Tom Cruise wanted to be in actual jets, so he got shoved in the backseat of some of our Fs for the flying scenes.
* Do two seat aircraft have sticks in the back? So in the Air Force, the F-15E actually does have a stick in the back for their CSOs (Combat Systems Officer is the rated officer job, the airframe you are in makes you a WSO or ECMO or whatever), but CSOs aren’t rated pilots and aren’t allowed to land the aircraft or handle it in other critical phases of flight. In the Navy, the F/A-18F and EA-18G can both be reconfigured into trainer configurations with a stick and throttle in the back. But, operationally, they are going to be in a missionized configuration in the back, and do not have controls.
* But I thought backseaters were pilots? In some militaries, yes. But not in the US. In the Navy and Marines, they are NFOs – Naval Flight Officers. They are also the backseaters in the E-2 (think radar controllers) and the P-8 (think navigator and tactical commander). In the Air Force, they are CSOs – Combat Systems Officers. The flight school programs they go through are different. For instance, here is the Navy/Marine [pilot training pipeline](https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/training-sna.asp) while [here is the NFO one](https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/training-nfo.asp).
This can be a strange part of how crew positions in military aircraft are assigned.
As in the other answers, a lot of it is intended design based on specific system needs. Sometimes, though, it’s just tradition. Aircraft squadrons transition between different aircraft over the years and they often take the mentality they used in one aircraft into the next one.
A good example of this that I am familiar with is the MH-60R helicopter flown by the US and a few other countries. This aircraft is a Seahawk, which is a very similar airframe to a Blackhawk. There are two pilot stations in the cockpit, both of which have a full complement of flight and mission controls. Any aspect of flight can be conducted from either seat. There is also a seat in the back for an enlisted crewman, typically identified as the sensor operator.
In the US Navy, the two cockpit seats are filled by Naval Aviators, i.e., fully rated pilots. All pilots are trained in both flight-related and mission-related systems and tactics.
Contrast this with the Danish Air Force and Australian Navy, both of which operate the MH-60R with a pilot and the equivalent of a WSO. The Danes call them Tactical Coordination Officers and the Aussies call them Aviation Warfare Officers. Similar to NFOs, they receive some flight time in training, but are not fully rated pilots. They focus much more on the mission sets, employing the sensors of the aircraft in various mission roles. The pilots do receive some mission training, but are much more focused on flight operations. Unlike a lot of fighter jets, the AvWOs and TACCOs do fly the aircraft during many flights, but most of the time that is during non-mission-critical phases, and they rarely takeoff and land.
As for why the US and the other countries are different? Tradition. In the US, the aircraft community that flies the MH-60R had two pilots in the last aircraft, and the Aussies and Danes had the Pilot/NFO setup in their last aircraft.
WSO is another person in the cockpit, on top of added situational awareness, its also another brain for certain situation requiring problem solving.
The position’s job basically like it says: Weapon system Officer. All the pilot has to do is focus on staying in the air, alive and on target. Everything else weapon related is handled by the WSO.
But theres also a issue: Having another person isn’t just adding another seat, its enlarging the cockpit (pretty big), adding more equipment, and what the WSO want, might not be the best option for the pilot.
This might seem pretty small things, but when you are performing air superiority missions, that extra person offers marginal pros not to mention with modern radar technology and controller offering combat support, WSO just doesn’t make sense.
A basic rundown on what requires 2 seater and what doesnt:
single seater: CAP, air superiority mission, alert state fighters.
double seater: CAS, SEAD, Bombing mission, Training.
Follow up question; how do WSOs not get airsick? Sounds horrid to just be twisting and turning without any input on the controls and looking down at the controls for the weapons
I was an NFO when I was in the Navy. To answer your question the position exists to provide continual harassment of the monkey stick boys who are our voice operated auto pilots. The single seat aircraft are for the snowflakes that can’t handle being around superior beings.
There is advantages and disadvantages of having a crew of one or two in a fighter. The goal here is to divide the work load of combat with the plane. The more work load there is the more having a WSO is important. But having a WSO also come with drawbacks since the plane need to make room for him. This can mean less fuel, more weight, etc. It also cost you more in training, you double the number of people you need for combat, etc. So usually you want only one pilot unless it’s necessary.
In general, a fighter designed for air combat won’t need a WSO. Most of the weapons are highly automated so the world load is usually manageable for just one pilot.
That said there is some exceptions. For example, the F-14 Tomcat was mainly an interceptor/air superiority fighter, but it had two seats. The reason was that the Tomcat main weapon was the AIM-54 Phoenix which was a long range anti-air missile that used a semi-active radar guidance. The way it work was that the Phoenix missile needed the radar of the F-14 to guide itself to the target at Beyond-visual range. This mean that the WSO had to be concentrated on the weapon during the long flight while the pilot took care of the fighter. Needing the radar of the fighter to be on is like a big blinking arrow that show to everybody where the fighter is, so that’s not ideal in combat. Modern radar guided missile are usually active now, meaning they have their own radar. For that reason, the work load is lower on modern fighter and they are usually single seat.
A fighter designed more toward ground attack will tend to have a WSO. The reason is because targeting something on the ground is far harder to do than targeting something in the air. There is a lot more stuff to hide on the ground, there is a lot more possible target and it’s harder to identify if it’s a friend or a foe. For those reason, some weapons add enough work load that having a WSO make a big difference.
Not all ground attack weapon need the same amount of work and the latest technology simplified a lot of task too. For example the F/A-18E is the single seat variant that is mostly used for air combat, while the F/A-18F is the two seat variant that is better equipped for ground attack. But the F-35 only have one seat variants because it have a lot of technology to help the pilot. The sensors, avionics, helmet-mounted display, and the targeting equipment like the EOTS.
TLDR : It always depend on what weapons the aircraft will mainly carry. Some weapons give too much work load for a pilot alone. Rule of Thumb is Air combat need only a pilot, while ground attack need a WSO. But that’s just a generic rule, it depend on the specific design of the aircraft and the technology.
Latest Answers