Air Nav name change?

[observor 69]

And some interesting Wiki reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Systems_Officer_%28US_Air_Force%29

Combat Systems Officer (US Air Force)

Combat Systems Officer is the new term for US Air Force navigators who attend Combat Systems Officer training at either Randolph AFB, TX or Naval Air Station, Pensacola. CSO training merges three training tracks formerly known as the Panel Navigator (NAV) track, the Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) track and the Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) track into one coherent training cycle in order to produce a rated officer who is more versatile. The only separation that currently exists between navigator candidates attending training at Randolph and those who attend at NAS Pensacola lies in the type of aircraft the candidates will later fly. Navigators graduating from Randolph AFB will fly transport, special operations, or B-52 bomber aircraft where navigators from NAS Pensacola fly either the B1-B bomber or the F-15E strike fighter.

At Randolph AFB, the 562d Flying Training Squadron of the 12th Flying Training Wing currently teaches the inflight navigation portion with the T-43A trainer while the 563d Flying Training Squadron teaches the electronic warfare portion.

 

[beenthere]

It just seems rather odd to change the name to reflect some very specific role when navs have been used in a number of roles since forever. What applies in ASW does not in transport or other functions. Lots of occupational "tags" don't have a whole lot to do with the specific role of the person doing the job. If every occupation in the military was identified by role there would be a never ending list of identities.

 

[Armageddon]

http://www.topaces.ca/Services.html

http://www.topaces.ca/TA%20Article21.06.pdf

Two references to Navs where they are referred to as  EWOs.

While it is true that they are called EWOs they are still navigators by trade.  Just like Seakings we are called TACCOs TACtical COordinators.  The Aurora has different positional names for their Navs too, it is just a matter of reference to their position.  Overall everyone is still qualified as a AirNav.  I know that the thought of us getting renamed has died off for the moment, although it will be back again, but if they want to rename us to something a little more descriptive of the jobs we actually do then we should. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Here's a good new name :  UAV Operators

Max

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Here's a good new name :  UAV Operators

Max

Oh no Max, my dear misguided "friend".  The Nav Occupation is not to be trusted with an Instrument Ticket- therefore, only pilots can be "UAV Operators".  Maybe  you can be one someday- if you pass Moose Jaw.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Oh no Max, my dear misguided "friend".  The Nav Occupation is not to be trusted with an Instrument Ticket- therefore, only pilots can be "UAV Operators".  Maybe  you can be one someday- if you pass Moose Jaw.

Already done my "friend".  And hopefully the jet community won't fly UAVs...

Max

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Already done my "friend".  And hopefully the jet community won't fly UAVs...

Max

My mistake Max.  Congratulations.  I'll bet the Jet Community can't wait for you and your obvious expertise.

BTW, what will you do if your first CO "volunteers" you for UAVs?  UAV line serials are going to have to be populated from across the Air Force, sooner than you think. Who do you think they will pick first- those ripe for Air Canada or those with 7 years of obligatory service?

Enjoy Hawk Training.  Could be the last aircraft you fly in...you never know.

 

[medaid]

I'd go for my UAV "wings" of white, red and gold...

Heck, I'll be happy to fly anything if I've got a p!ss poor attitude! This isn't top gun  ;D

 

[Zoomie]

  And hopefully the jet community won't fly UAVs...

No worries Max - the jet community hardly flies at all.

Back to the topic at hand....

 

[Loachman]

We'll have some left-over unemployed Sperwers in a little more than a year, Max. We can hollow one out for you when we're done with them.

 

[Good2Golf]

Here's a good new name :  UAV Operators

Max

...as are pilots (the good ones who understand the ground tactical plan, anyway), bombardiers, etc...

Max, not to be a prick or anything, but my view of this and a few other recent posts lend me to suggesting that you spend less time standing in front of the mirror admiring yourself and start familiarizing yourself with joint operations and tactics because, if you are successful in your future training, you will have to be more than just competent in the application of force in a complex battlespace.  UAV....MAV....[insert weapon system here]....whatever -- warfighters conducting actions within the Profession of Arms requires, stand by for big surprise here, professionalism.

Success in your future will not be measured by how fast you get the wheels up in the well rolling out of the QRA hangar at a Northern FOL...


Food for thought,
G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

Good2Golf, my comment was a joke (with some truth in it) and I didn't mean to disrespect Navs.  Heck, I know many navs that would actually rather fly UAVs than sit in the back of an Aurora.  I try to familiarize myself with operations and tactics and personnally, I just think that since the pilot MOC is so short in personnel and the Nav community is sometimes looking for new jobs, posting some of them at a UAV Unit would only make sense.

No, my ambitions are certainly not flying a UAV, but if it is required then so be it.  Just like you, I'm sure, I'd rather fly.  As for professionnalism, there are moments and places to be professionnal.  I personally don't think that pulling people's rope once in a while makes a person not professionnal. 

Having said that, I do appreciate your comments and as you said, I'll eat it up for thought

Max

 

[Good2Golf]

Good stuff!

G2G

 

[Armageddon]

Considering how far astray this conversation has gone from what it was intended to be I have to strongly recommend that now that we have sorted everything out, and corrected those who need correcting, that we close this topic and possibly delete the posts that do not pertain, such as all the mud slinging.

 

[Loachman]

Not sure why in Canada we think we need a pilot to fly these type of things - spare me the "pilot sense" or "airspace awareness" argument - the FSCC and ASCCs, manned primarily with Gunners and maybe some air types, succesfully keep "airspace awareness" up and keep small bullets from hitting medium size planes in the big sky.

My thoughts, as a Roto 6 mission commander, exactly.

It doesn't have to make sense, it's a** f**ce policy.

 

[Franko]

Locked with usual caveats applied.

The Army.ca Staff