Poll: better for a fighter -- one or two crew members?

[RedTiger]

I'm interested to hear what others say about this since I've always wondered this myself. Which do you think is better, a single pilot or a pilot and another crew member, an RIO or weapons officer? Why is either one better? I'm asking in terms of both air to air and air to ground.

 

There are some of things I don't quite understand about 2 seaters, mostly about how much you're sacrificing just for another pair of eyes and less pilot workload. Isn't it hard for TWO people to work in concert in a high-G stressful environment where the back seater may not have warning about the 9 G turn you're going to make? With modern software (think F-22 and F-35), is the guy in back even needed?

[Frostie]

Two crew members doubles the chance of human error.:)

[Allo]

Two crew members doubles the chance of human error.:)

Would you rather no crew members?:)

[tflash]

Would you rather no crew members?:)

 

In general, yes! But that's for another thread. There will be manned fighters for a long time to come, and for that I prefer single seat, just for the economy.

[X-man]

Two crew members doubles the chance of human error.:)

However, increased workload (1 pilot) might also increase human error :P

[RedTiger]

I'm thinking that in a stike aircraft, a crew of two might actually be better. I'm not so sure about this in air to air combat. I voted in my own poll as "I have no clue!" btw. :)

[Boberro]

For strike aircraft (or task) IMO better if there are 2 men. One flies, second opens fire. In A-A IMO better one pilot - minimalize mistakes, conflicts (decisions, too much talkings ect). Both options have own pluses and minuses which are much more than I wrote.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Both have advantages and disadvantages IMO and it's my vote.