ASTOR

[Jackonicko]

You'll have all five jets by the end of the year, and there'll be one in the Static at Farnborough.

There's said to be an 'aspiration' to deploy at the end of the year, but why has it taken so long?

Why are there still only two LCR crews?

Surely to god this was all supposed to have happened months ago?

[Razor61]

Cause their comms are totally sh*te. No one can understand what they are saying on the ground.

[themightyimp]

Are they all Scottish then?? /me runs and hides

[Aeronut]

dont feed the journo

[chevvron]

Probably using American military radios.

[really not]

'cos they've realised you can do all that and a whole lot more in a Bag. All aircraft delivered, working and proven (but not a shiny RAF toy that Grown Ups can get promoted off)

[StopStart]

'cos they've realised you can do all that and a whole lot more in a Bag. All aircraft delivered, working and proven (but not a shiny RAF toy that Grown Ups can get promoted off)

.....and for those of us that aren't fluent in babble.....?

:confused:

[Oggin Aviator]

StopStart - really not is talking about a Fleet Air Arm asset (hence quote of no promotion for Crab airships) .

And he's not wrong, to a certain extent, however I would suggest the 2 capabilities are complimentary as opposed to being in competition.

Oggin

[StopStart]

Thought that was what he was referring to but don't really think one can claim that an ASAC sea king can do everything an Astor can..

Agree with your competitive no, complimentary yes statement.

[Magic Mushroom]

'cos they've realised you can do all that and a whole lot more in a Bag. All aircraft delivered, working and proven (but not a shiny RAF toy that Grown Ups can get promoted off)

The Bag is a capable asset, but let's be realistic and avoid purile inter service willy waving. A SKASaC is in no way able to offer the capability of Sentinel and the ASTOR system.

Regards,
MM

[caped crusader]

So how high can a Bag fly? It would be interesting to compare the operational radar horizon of a Bag with a Sentinel when on orbit. I reckon the Bag is only good for close in surveillance.
Also, I thought that Sentinel is only part of the ASTOR system, and the Tactical Ground Station is just as important. I didn't think the Bag can link up to a Tactical Ground Station.
Since ASTOR is quoted as a joint Army/RAF project perhaps it is not just the Senior RAF officers that would be on a promotion push. However, at the Waddington Air Show last week end they said there was now a handful of Navy personnel now on ASTOR. Might be from the Baggies.

[BEagle]

Stoppers, I would say that the fish heads' comments were somewhat less than complimentary. But their clattering old egg-beaters do indeed offer some complementary capabilities.

[Oggin Aviator]

A SKASaC is in no way able to offer the capability of Sentinel and the ASTOR system.


I was referring to the procurement arguements ie on time in budget etc not the capability - clearly Astor has a lot to offer hence 2 complimentary capabilities. Astor will be crap at maritime force protection whereas the bag is not - different capability.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Sea King ASaCs are a bit busy - according to this (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8395).

Today a headline in the Western Morning News caught my eye.

WARSHIPS SEIZE TALIBAN DRUGS (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=247699&command=displayContent&sourceNode=249470&home=yes&more_nodeId1=249131&contentPK=21070761)

Commodore Keith Winstanley, Commander of Royal Navy forces in the Gulf, said: "The scourge of illegal drugs is one of the gravest threats to the long-term security of Afghanistan, and a vital source of funding for the Taliban warlords who seek violence against Afghan, British and Nato forces.

"Our mission in Afghanistan is one of absolute importance and by seizing these drugs, we have dealt a significant blow to the illegal trade. News of these successes has been kept quiet for operational reasons, but I am delighted that the tremendous efforts can now be recognised."

He said coalition forces had seized more than 30 tonnes of illegal drugs over the past five months - with more than 70 per cent as a result of Royal Navy interceptions. HMS Chatham and HMS Montrose worked with the Portsmouth-based destroyer HMS Edinburgh in the operations.

They were supported by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary helicopter support ship Argus and her Sea King aircraft.

[Magic Mushroom]

Astor will be crap at maritime force protection whereas the bag is not - different capability.

I think 'crap' is a bit strong. Where range precludes use of ASTOR for extended periods, it may be limited because some idiot decided to remove AAR from the Sentinel. However, with an excellent endurance I think we can expect it to be able to make a very valuable contribution to many maritime roles, either off tether or - in due course - directly to an amphibious or maritime Component Commander.

As you say, they are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive capabilites in the same way as an E-3D and SKASaC are.

Regards,
MM

[BEagle]

Some years ago, I was informed by a knowledgeable TP that to beef up the Sentinel structure for AAR would have been the last straw on its weight limited camel's back.

So the decision was made not to provide the aircraft with an AAR capability.

[Dan Winterland]

Why on earth did they put it in such a tiny aircraft? Something bigger was surely going to be a better option.

[Magic Mushroom]

Beags,

I think weight has been used as a bit of an excuse for the AAR issue. More significant was the cost of integrating the AAR probe onto a composite fuselage. Even a former CAS, Peter Squire is on record as doubting the wisdom of the decision although anyone bearing such a resemblance to Norman Wisdom always suffers from credibility issues!;)

Dan,

The Sentinel is not that small. Placing it on an aircraft such as the GX ensures it has a much improved operating ceiling in comparison to an airliner sized asset. That in itself offers advantages in radar/comms horizon and potentially stand off range.

However, if the Nimrod MRA4 project had been better managed (and with a little more foresight) a very capable SAR/GMTI capability could have been incorporated. Then we could have a maintained a larger fleet of Nimrod MRA4s, and a manned SAR/GMTI asset with both a weapons capability and improved C2 capacity. Meanwhile, significant savings could have been made in avoiding purchase of the Sentinel airframe.

Interestingly, and according to open press, the decision by Boeing to move the P-8A weapons bay aft of the wing was taken to ensure the P-3C Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) antenna could migrate from the P-3C.

Regards,
MM

[nigegilb]

Good post MM, P8-A is defined as a multi mission aircraft. Surely in the cost conscious noughties this makes an awful lot of sense? Only 9 MRA4 airframes have been purchased, but I bet they will be pressed into overland operations as soon as they come into service.

The American Mil appear to have been far smarter with their procurement.

[Bow Inn]

Back in the mid nineties, I took the ASTOR project team flying on an E3D sortie. I seem to remember that they came from a variety of backgrounds but only included one pilot. He was from the AAC with a background in helicopters. He was quoting performance figures at the time, based on the business jet version. I suggested they needed to look at some of the following issues and get some firm answers from the manufacturers.

1. Proposed ZFW and its relationship to MTOW and useable fuel load.
2. Higher weights and the effects on undercarriage strength/fatigue.
3. External pods reducing cruise speed, altitude and maybe crosswind limits.
4. Useful load with respect to crew compliment and all their baggage.
5. Cooling issues with avionics and number of available radios (small airframe).
6. Need for AAR and if the extra plumbing could be fitted/carried.

He told me that he wasn't aware if anyone had been discussing these issues and he certainly hadn't done so. I got the impression that the MOD was believing the brochure figures from the manufacturers (FL 510, M.90 etc) and there wasn't the level of experience/knowledge within the team to ask the right questions. The RAAF team involved with the Wedgetail project appeared to have a better grip on the airframe issues at the time.

Not criticizing individuals directly, but more of an observation of how the MOD can often go into something with their eyes wide closed. I have lost contact with those who went on to be involved with ASTOR but I wonder if some of the above points are relevant to the chosen airframe. It does look a little over loaded. A dozen fat business men with their golf clubs is what the machine was originally designed for.

[BEagle]

Hmm... Promised FL 510 and M0.9?

Whereas it's now FL400 and M0.75 according to the RAF website. And no 'dozen fat businessmen and their golf clubs' - just 1 mission controller and 2 image analysts.

It is supposed to be capable of 9 hour mission times. I'll bet the poor sods in the back would really look forward to an AAR capability to extend that loiter time....:hmm:

[Biggus]

Two comments...

WEBF - reference the newspaper article. How do you know the SeaKings refered to were 'baggers', or are there no non SAR/Junglie SeaKings left in the FAA inventory?

Secondly, reference weight on ASTOR (and since this is a RUMOUR network) I heard from someone who flys out of Waddo (but not on ASTOR) that when it came to the 'privacy' element of the toilet, the curtain vs door discussion that ensued was all about the weight saving a curtain offered.......

[BEagle]

I'll bet that's nice and ripe after a 9 hr mission......

[Tourist]

Interesting that this thread is full of not only the usual people who spout uninformed ****e on many subjects, but also some who, whilst I usually disagree with their opinions on things, I would normally consider to be well informed but are equally spouting ****e.
FL400:=

[BEagle]

Another of your courteous and useful contributions to reasoned debate, tourist.

And this time it doesn't even make sense.

[taxydual]

FL400, that's what RAF - Sentinel R1 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentinelr1.cfm) says on the tin..

[taxydual]

Ooops, Tourist may have a point about FL400 being sh1te.

Read what the same site says about the max altitude of the Future Tanker

RAF - Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/futurestrategictankeraircraft.cfm)

[Tourist]

Beagle.
Not my finest effort as far as sentence construction I grant you.

Taxi.
You make my point perfectly. If your knowledge on the subject is garnererd from the MOD websites, you really have no knowledge to base your arguments on.
Incidentally, I'm no radar geek, but surely discussing some of this stuff is a bit beadwindow?

[Magic Mushroom]

Bow Inn,

We must have flown together! I too remember those visits, and many of the individuals involved with early ASTOR studies were indeed from the wrong background. Crusty old Royal Artillery majors and too many Canberra men and some of their decisions were subsequently proved to be poor.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that the RAF website is absolutely the last place you would want to quote performance figures from unless you're an Air Cadet!

In short, after a troubled gestation, ASTOR is looking very good!

Regards,
MM

[Bow Inn]

Hello MM,

Many hours in endless circles I'm sure with the odd glass of red at the end of the day. Straight lines for me these days I'm afraid and it just isn't the same. Waypoints to check and ATC to talk to. Don't get me started.

I'm sure the aircraft will come right in the end and I admit to having no knowledge of the ASTOR machine as it is today. Just remember those early days talking with the people entrusted with such a massive project. I felt they were very much out of their depth. Still a nice aeroplane though.

Has the RAF kept the Bombardier procedures or have they tried to turn it into a Nimrod or E3D? The bun fighting in the early years of AWACS was quite something. I remember a Boeing rep politely explaining how out of all the 707's they had ever sold (approx 1,010), we were the only customer who insisted on powering down the whole electrical system before a refuel. He was told that "that's how we did it on the Shack" and that's the way it was going to be. Or the man from CFM, confused by the way we would talk to the engines to get them started.

"Starting No.3....Valve open... positive rotation.... 25%...fuel...ignition.....50%....valve closed......good start......." Just get on with it!!

Mr. DG once told me that when he got into his car in the morning, he didn't need such a checklist. Just turned the key and drove off. And he doesn't remember accidentally driving through the garage door by mistake. "Garage Door...Check OPEN". Food for thought. Is it me, or am I starting to ramble?

Anyway........ Navigators saying that FE's shouldn't read checklists etc. What a great deal of willy waving and for what? Happy days though and looking back, did it really matter? Are they still recruiting?

Best wishes to you MM and I'm sure we'll meet again soon.

BI

[PFMG]

Magic Mushroom said,


Placing it on an aircraft such as the GX ensures it has a much improved operating ceiling in comparison to an airliner sized asset. That in itself offers advantages in radar/comms horizon and potentially stand off range.



Sorry...that's only partially correct. The useful range of a radar is limited by a number of things, RF horizon being only one. Indeed if you get your calculator out you will see the additional horizon between say FL350 and something quite a bit higher is not that much. What the extra altitude gives you is a more significant grazing angle. Now that is important! :oh:

[rustybh]

And the view is so much better :ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Biggus

Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm just lazy. The article talked about Sea Kings from RFA Argus. Argus is being used as a base for the ASACS guys.

The point I was making was that their contribution, like most of the naval contribution to current operations, seldom makes headlines.

[adminblunty]

I heard the boys on the ASTOR OES talking about it in the same terms as the Nimrod AEW. I heard it said that they cut the length of the cockpit escape rope to save weight and that they were considering imposing a crew upper weight limit, however that was a couple of years ago. Like the MRA4 it'll probably get canned in the spending review, if they ever finish the review.

[Data-Lynx]

My colleagues and I must advise MagicM that should he mention on the higher floors of the MoD that the SKASaC really could be seen as a complimentary capability to ASTOR: available now, excellent and un-sung track record, fighter controllers etc, his boss - or boss's boss - might be subject to the latest and devastating ISTAR weapon in the light blue armoury. It can be launched through a telephone and has a reaction time faster than any device the UK can afford.

So never mind ASTOR as a bird with a triple chin, a neanderthal forehead, its need for compact aircrew (are gurkhas light enough?) and a fascinating disregard for communicating with the ground, it is bound to succeed. It has the Torpy-do.

[Taco Bill]

God forbid if the real truth ever became known!! ASaC's would be sent the same way as poor old Heron Flt..

[StopStart]

My colleagues and I must advise MagicM that should he mention on the higher floors of the MoD that the SKASaC really could be seen as a complimentary capability to ASTOR: available now, excellent and un-sung track record, fighter controllers etc, his boss - or boss's boss - might be subject to the latest and devastating ISTAR weapon in the light blue armoury. It can be launched through a telephone and has a reaction time faster than any device the UK can afford.

So never mind ASTOR as a bird with a triple chin, a neanderthal forehead, its need for compact aircrew (are gurkhas light enough?) and a fascinating disregard for communicating with the ground, it is bound to succeed. It has the Torpy-do.


:suspect: Go on, someone translate this train-of-thought babble....

[Archimedes]

Ok....

I think it runs something like this:

"Should MM mention that the SK7 is a complementary capability to those soon(ish) to be offered by ASTOR, the Chief of the Air Staff will be terribly displeased with him.

This is because CAS has a bit of a 'sad' towards the RN, having single-handedly been responsible for the demise of Heron flight, and this suggests that he will defend ASTOR, a completely incapable airframe, over the much superior SK7"

Which doesn't quite accord with what CAS had to say about SK7 when I last heard him mention it, but that was some months ago.

[Wensleydale]

Just don't mention the word "Triad" in front of the ASTOR people. I hate to see so many missed oportunities....

:ugh:

[Oggin Aviator]

Which doesn't quite accord with what CAS had to say about SK7 when I last heard him mention it, but that was some months ago.
So what did he say?

[Data-Lynx]

Wensleydale. In Triad for ASTOR, do you mean the coupling that allows three parts of a machine not in line with each other limited freedom of movement in any direction while going around in circles?

For the MoD, I'd try Beck's triad: rising pressure on one side, falling pressure on the other and a small quiet heart; desperately needing cardiac compression.

[Tourist]

Data-Lynx.

If you are trying to suggest Astor is a waste of the RAF's money that they should spend on Reaper instead, just say it!

This enigmatic cr@p only works in your head.

[Data-Lynx]

Tourist. It isn't and I am not. I have absolutely no doubt that its crews and ground station operators will make ASTOR work to the best of its ability - when it is ready. REAPER has its part to play but better coverage across a wider picture could be used now, no matter who owns it or flies it. SKASaC seems a reasonable prospect for a closer look. Forcing the birth of this ASTOR baby could stunt its growth and seems unreasonable.

Meanwhile, you might tolerate some of the word games we can play about 'Joint' on Prune without the let or hinderance that flickers around the MoD.

Unless of course , Sir, you are CAS in disguise?

[Two's in]

Not criticizing individuals directly, but more of an observation of how the MOD can often go into something with their eyes wide closed

...well when it was first mooted as the Corps (1 BR Corps) STand Off Radar (CASTOR) it was a BN Islander, so I'm sure in the minds of some, moving up to Bombardier seemed like a huge leap forward. They seem to have forgotten the old adage of always being able to get more into a bigger one.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/6883.jpg

[Tourist]

"I have absolutely no doubt that its crews and ground station operators will make ASTOR work to the best of its ability"

Very diplomatic.

'tis a pity that ability is so inflexible and useless in the current conflicts.

[Prop-Ed]

Tourist, some friendly advice. Is It better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

You don't know what you are talking about so stop the negative propaganda ref' ASTOR. I'm not going to give anything away but trust me, you are wrong. Get the right sy clearances and get a brief from the boys at 5 sqn before re posting on this topic.

[Tourist]

Come Xmas we should all know just how usefull they are in the current conflicts.

I am not dissing it's capabilities in the cold war/tanks rolling across europe scenario, just its usefullness in todays wars. And if you know what you are talking about, then you know exactly what I mean by inflexible.

Never really had much time for the Baggers move into new overland games, never really provided me with anything particularly usefull, but if it was them or Astor, its them every time even with their limited altitude, range, endurance. etc.

On the subject of endurance incidentally, at least they have the ability to maintain permanent rolling cover over the area, something Astor will never manage until they buy some more.

[Prop-Ed]

Tourist, as briefed. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm happy if you want to comment on the aircrafts inflexibility, no arguments there. However, I think you are showing your ignorance on particular aspects of current operations.

Again, not wanting to prompt the black Omegas arriving at my front door so I’ll leave it at that.

[XV277]

When is the NATO AGS due to enter servive again?

[Data-Lynx]

Aviation Week reported in Jun 08 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/HAWK06028.xml&headline=NATO%20AGS%20Industry%20Awaits%20Green%20Light)that the industrial consortium behind the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance system hopes member states still will give the program the formal go-ahead this year. The next revised phase of the programme should lead to the fielding of four Global Hawks starting in 2012, based on the Block 40 Global Hawk.

To cut costs, NATO has repeatedly adjusted the program, reducing the number of UAVs to be bought while discarding a manned aircraft adjunct entirely (Airbus A321 after French double-dealing ). The latest change (Dec 07) switched from a multinational radar (Transatlantic Cooperative AGS Radar - TCAR) to buying off-the-shelf, the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program in development in the United States.

That move cut more than cost and attempted to keep the programme to a 2012 (more like 2103) Initial Operational Capability despite delays in moving the programme forward due to prolonged wrangling among members about the AGS structure. The NATO buy would come on top of the 15 Block 40s earmarked for the U.S. Air Force.
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/UAVs/GlobalHawkUAVNORTHROPGRUMMAN.jpg

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Home - NAGSMA (http://nagsma.nato.int/default.aspx)