Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
That is a timeless question and one that is very hard to answer.
Once you have more than one person you then have CRM to worry about. Some brighter minds work better on their own and can find it hard to communicate their thought processes.
Also, modern jets can look after the flying side to the extent that the single mind can easily manage the systems.
Many years ago, before cockpit ergonomics were really considered, I would agree with you. Nowadays though I think the single person crew concept in a fast jet is far more preferable.
I am not the leading expert though and others may well disagree.
BV
I consider myself qualified to comment here! Some considerations:
1) The Typhoon autopilot can hold a level turn but will not adjust it to maintain position over a target (due to target motion or wind) and takes no account of the need to keep the targeting pod unmasked by the airframe or stores. Thus at least some of the pilot’s attention is required on these tasks in the classical ‘CAS wheel’.
2) Even with a more intelligent autopilot that could take care of the above tasks (anyone know if F35 has the capability?) then there is going to be a certain amount of lookout needed for other aircraft and threats such as SAMs and AAA. Threat warning systems have weaknesses and blind spots, while collision warning systems don’t work if other aircraft aren’t squawking Mode 3/S, which can often be the case on operations. And, where ground activity is focussed in a small area, the number of aircraft packed into the CAS stack can be eye-watering. All it takes is for another player (maybe not autopilot equipped) to drift a mile laterally or 500 feet vertically out of their block and you have trouble. Situational awareness datalinks aren’t currently robust enough to replace lookout and in any case don’t provide the audio cues necessary to allow complete focus elsewhere.
3) If only the ergonomics of Typhoon’s targeting pod controls or its weapon programming interface lived up to contemporary ideals!
4) For all the old AD vs Mud banter ‘the targets don’t move, how hard can it be?!’, air-to-surface targeting in real operational situations is beset by issues that demand extended periods of near-exclusive focus on the ground picture. Tracking moving targets through areas where buildings or vegetation restrict visibility is one example (incidentally, also requiring attention to be paid to aircraft positioning at the same time to keep the line of sight clear). Monitoring for traces of civilian activity is likely to be a requirement of rules of engagement... blink (or fly the aircraft for a second) and you might miss it. And there are no IFFs yet capable of mitigating blue-on-blue when things get hectic.
Put all the above together and I would still choose two seats for the type of air-to-surface ops that we’ve tied ourselves up in for the last 20 years. Of course Harrier, A-10 and F-16 show that it’s possible with one seat, but the question is which of the above areas do you compromise in? Each of the aforementioned 3 aircraft has the advantage of better ergonomics than Typhoon (and in the first 2 instances, no other substantial roles to train for), but taking that forward my worry about ‘sensor fusion’ is that it’s only as good as its programming and depends on on-board computers that by the very nature of military procurement are a long way behind the state of the art.* The advantage of a second human is to be found in the processing of incomplete, conflicting or unexpected information. Moreover that human can be reprogrammed by reading or briefing, in contrast to the computer which needs expensive and time-consuming work.
I find it very interesting that the Franco-German 6th-gen concept has 2 seats, undoubtedly under French influence (they operate a mixed fleet of single- and two-seat Rafales on operations, which tells its own story). I don’t know enough about F35 to comment, but I am confident enough to judge Typhoon well behind F15E in air-to-surface capability in the here and now. The fact that one of the Typhoon upgrades is a targeting pod with improved auto-tracking capabilities tells its own story about one of the issues found while taking over Tornado’s mantle. But then Typhoon was not intended to replace Tornado. (Nor was F35, but we are where we are; it’ll be interesting to see if its sensor fusion and ‘reprogrammability’ show the French and Germans to have made the right or wrong call with their Tornado replacement concept).
* A final thought: I think it more likely that future advances in computing will take away the ‘piloting’ task, leaving a single ‘WSO’ to monitor sensors, issue orders to unmanned wingmen, and apply human ethics to engagement decisions for his or her ‘formation’ of drones. It’ll have to be a 2-winged ‘WSO’ though, obviously ;-)